He departed (). Literally, to lift up, change something to another place. Transitive in the LXX and in a Cilician rock inscription. Intransitive in 13:53 and here, the only N.T. instances. Absence of or after , one of the clear Hebraisms in the N.T. (Robertson, Grammar, pp. 1042f.). This verse is a sort of formula in Matthew at the close of important groups of as in Matt 7:28; Matt 11:1; Matt 13:53.

The borders of Judea beyond Jordan ( ). This is a curious expression. It apparently means that Jesus left Galilee to go to Judea by way of Perea as the Galileans often did to avoid Samaria. Luke (Lu 17:11) expressly says that he passed through Samaria and Galilee when he left Ephraim in Northern Judea (Joh 11:54). He was not afraid to pass through the edge of Galilee and down the Jordan Valley in Perea on this last journey to Jerusalem. McNeile is needlessly opposed to the trans-Jordanic or Perean aspect of this phase of Christ’s work.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

Coasts [] . Better Rev., borders; though it is easy to see how the translation coasts arose, coast being derived from the Latin costa, a side, and hence a border generally, though now applied to the sea – side only.

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

CHRISTS PHILOSOPHY IN FAMILY AFFAIRS

Mat 19:1-26

And it came to pass. This is particularly a biblical phrase, and, like every sentence found in Scripture, holds its own significance. When men talk, they say, It happened on a certain day, or, It fell out after a certain manner. Their language indicates that they look upon life as a lottery and esteem the chance element as large. Gods Book, on the contrary, treats every moment of history as a part of a plan. It is a prearranged panorama. It will pass as divinely appointed.

Jesus finished these sayings. He did not leave them incomplete and He did not add unnecessary speech. He departed from Galilee as He left Judea, and He came into the coasts of Judaea, beyond Jordan, as in infancy He had gone into Egypt, that the will of God might be done.

The life that is divinely ordered makes no mistakes, and it is little wonder that multitudes are interested. They know that in Him there is healinghealing for the body, healing for the mind, healing for the soul; and in addition to what they know, there is much they will learn.

This chapter is a chapter full of instruction for the multitude, but the subject of it is practically one. The theme seems to change, but the change is more seeming than substantial. Its thirty verses suffice to illustrate one theme:

Christs philosophy in family affairs. In Mat 19:3-12, the family is established; in Mat 19:13-15, the children are blessed; in Mat 19:16-26, the youth is instructed.

THE FAMILY IS ESTABLISHED.

The world will forever be under debt to the New Testament time Pharisees for both their pertinent and impertinent questions. Again and again they tapped the Christ, so to speak, by tempting Him with difficult questions, and in every instance, wisdom flowed from Him. Upon one subject, He seemed as adequate as upon another; and never since He discussed the various themes touched upon, has any teacher added the least light or made the least improvement upon what He said.

Here He related the family to a Divine origin. Evolution had long been taught when Christ was in the world. Greek philosophers had anticipated Darwin by more than 2000 years, and had imagined the human relations that we call domestic simply an exaltation of animal affection and of sexual selection. But Christ treated such ideas with disdain. Appealing to the Genesis record, He reminded them of how God, at the beginning, had made them male and female; that He refers to Gen 1:27 and also to Gen 2:21-22, cannot be questioned. The Divine origin of the human family determines its eternal dignity. Man is not only better than a sheep, but he is forever better, bigger, more glorious, more Divine, than any lower animal. He is the consummation of Divine thought, the acme of Divine endeavor; and the family relationship will forever provide the foundation of society and state.

He rested that relationship in a Divine arrangement.

Have ye not read that He which made them at the beginning, made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh (Mat 19:4-5).

Thats a liberal quotation and a strict interpretation of Gen 2:23-24.

And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man, Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

The people who believe in this Divine arrangement seldom appear in divorce courts. There may be differences of opinion between the husband and wife; their spirits may be as remote as the poles. Contention may often characterize the relationship that was intended to be sweet and undisturbed, but they bear and forbear, believing that God so meant marriage, and if only both parties to a contract entertain this biblical philosophy of domestic life, their spirits will increasingly harmonize; contention will seldom come; mutual love is sure.

People are constantly discussing the question of divorce and are repeatedly asking, What can be done to delay the horrible growth of this undesirable custom? What can be done to relieve the courts of the multiplied applications? What can be done to bring men and women alike to behave toward one another with mutual respect and to cultivate a mutual affection in the domestic realm? The answer is simple, if regarded. There is but one thing that will be effective, and that is to know God, the Author of marriage, and accept His Word as expressing the laws that should determine mutual lives. The sense of His love is the only thing adequate against jars and quarrels, incontinences, and a thousand other forms of family affliction.

His answer here represents Divine wisdom. The ages are proving it. The disastrous growth of divorce is the finest possible demonstration of the justice, equity and desirability of Christs deliverance on the subject. Society is now being disturbed because men are disregarding what Christ said. To be sure, men do not put it upon that ground, but it rests there just the same.

How amazing that this Mana plain Peasant, as some supposedan unmarried Mana Man who had no personal experience and who had not brought His learning from the schools of His day, should speak the last word on the subject of domesticity; should lay the foundations for family, resting them in a Divine arrangement, and voicing them with a Divine wisdom.

He never speaks a word or does a work but it attests His Deity. He never makes a movement but God is seen in the same. He permitted a wicked woman to bow at His feet, bathe them with her tears, dry them with her hair. Had He been a mere man, His standing would have been called into question, His reputation injured. But the Divine Man could do all of this, and instead of suffering Himself in the judgment of society, was exalted by the same. He sanctified what He touched. It did not stain Him. He solved every problem to which He addressed Himself. Since He spake, we have never needed another word upon the subject, and we affirm it our conviction that the last word upon the domestic relations that will ever be wisely spoken, was spoken, and Jesus of Nazareth was its Author, and this Scripture is its record.

How marvellous are the logical connections of Scripture! A superficial student would imagine that we change our subject now and skip, so to speak, to an altogether new proposition; but is it so? If marriage looks to one thing more than another, it is to the creation of the family. That also was the Divine intent from the first, for Genesis 1, which records the Divine origin, expresses also the Divine object, for when God created them male and female, He blessed them and said unto them, Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth and subdue it (Gen 1:28). The very injunction looks to childrenthe next subject of this chapter concerns

THE CHILDREN BLESSED.

Then were there brought unto Him little children, that He should put His hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them.

But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto Me: for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven.

And He laid His hands on them, and departed thence. They were brought for blessing. There is in this act the most natural and yet, at the same time, sublimely spiritual expression of parenthood. It is doubtful if there has ever been an ideal young father or a true-spirited young mother who did not desire the babe to be blessed. It is that sentiment, born with parentalism, that accounts for christening and sprinkling. It is the same sentiment entertained by immersionists that seeks a visit from the pastor, the laying of hands upon the babe, and prayer. Men long made a custom of christening with wine, and now with water, the new vessels that glide from the dry dock to sea service.

It is a well-established conviction that the babe is an immortal craft, starting for the untried seas of life, and even inexperienced parents are not insensible of the storms to be encountered, the adverse winds to be braved, and waves to be breasted; and they yearn for the favor of the Christ upon the child. It is a sentiment in which the human and the Divine unite, in which fear and faith work together, in which perturbation is calmed by prayer.

It has long been our conviction that every Baptist pastor in the world ought to appoint a day, to be oft repeated, when young mothers should bring their babes into the sanctuary, and the united sentiment of the congregation should ascend to God, while the believer lays on hands and sends an appeal to Heaven for these immortal little ones.

The disciples foolishly rebuked this presentation. It would seem from the text that they addressed their rebukes to the parents. Doubtless they imagined that Jesus was too busy to be bothered with babes. There are many people who suppose themselves to be too busy to be bothered with babes. Such people forget that, of all tasks, the supreme one is the task of teaching children, and of all accomplishments, the major one is to bring up children aright, and that of all conceivable returns, none equals that of finding ones toil repaid by noble sons and daughters.

There are evangelists who boast that they make an appeal to MEN, as if masculinity were a virtue in itself and represented the highest intellectuality. There are evangelists who boast that they reach THE RICH, as if it required a superior proclamation of the Gospel to produce that result. The simple Truth is that the wisest of all evangelists is the child-evangelist. The man who reaches humanity in its beginning, who gives direction to the life in the days when the twig can be twisted to the right or to the left, who takes destiny in hand by determining the character and accomplishments of comparative infancy. He is the wise man!

The wisdom of the words of Jesus was never greater than the wisdom of His work. He knew what class of society was worth-while, hence He said of little children, Forbid them not to come unto Me, for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven.

They were blessed beyond parental expectation. He laid His hands on them. That much was expected; for that they were brought. But the parents never dreamed they would hear Him say, Such are of the Kingdom of Heaven. Christ always goes beyond our expectations. He always accomplishes more than we dream. When did He ever fail to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think.

From childhood to youth is but a step. Christ turns about and it is taken. The rich young ruler confronts Him with an imperious question, and as a result

YOUTH IS INSTRUCTED.

And, behold, one came and said unto Him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?

And He said unto him, Why callest thou Me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

He saith unto Him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,

Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

The young man saith unto Him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?

Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in Heaven: and come and follow Me.

But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.

Then said Jesus unto His disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.

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

When His disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?

But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible (Mat 19:16-26).

This young man was interested. The enthusiasm of his coming, the questions with which he plied the Master, the ardor with which he entered the discussion, all evince an interest. The very language he employed makes some things perfectly evident.

He believed in the authority of Jesus.

Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?

His choice of terms revealed his estimate of Jesus word: Good Master! Evidently he saw in Christ the Vicar of God, believing Him to know beyond the wise men of His time, and to speak with greater authority than Moses himself, or any of the Prophets. Had this not been his estimate of Jesus of Nazareth, he could have gone with his question to the Old Testament Scriptures instead. But, even as others, he knew Moses had waited upon Jesus for any definitions of faith and life. So this rich young ruler came inquiring for the same, Lamartine, writing concerning Cromwell, tells how Henry VIII. of Britain, in a fit of anger against the Church of Rome, changed the religion of his kingdom. This was the greatest act of absolute authority by one man over an entire nation. The caprice of the king became the conscience of the people, and temporal authority subjugated every soul. But, after all, this was done by the violence of authority. The rich young ruler seems to have realized that he was in the presence of the mightiest Monarch, who, by His every word, could show the failure of the law, and illuminate the Gospel of Grace, wherein was everlasting life. The authority of Jesus had been more eloquently expressed, but seldom more sincerely confessed, than in the speech of this rich young ruler.

He seems to have also accepted the deity of Jesus. When Christ replied, Why callest thou Me good? there is none good but One, that is, God, he voices no dissent. He knew that Christ raised with him the question, Do you mean to confess that I am God? and by his silence he denied not. Ah, what majesty there must have been in the Man from Nazareth, born in a stable, bred in poverty, to so impress a man of both money and high political station! Others who have thought to assume this role have made sorry work of it. Bancroft, in his History of the United States relates how Ferdinand De Soto determined to profess supernatural power, and thus try to win tribute. You say you are the child of the sun? replied the chief, Then dry up the river and I will believe you. You desire to see me? Visit the place where I dwell. If you come in peace, I will receive you with special good will; if in war, I will not shrink one foot back.

But such was the majesty of Jesus that He need make no false claims. The sincere souls of the earth saw in Him the King of kings, and by their varied cries confessed conviction of His Divine character and power.

The wisdom of Jesus was also acknowledged. Why ask Him this question of all questions? Why seek from His lips a solution of the problem of the centuries? There is but one answer. The rich young ruler believed that wisdom was with Him. And truly, as Charles Spurgeon says, If you want to be a thoroughly learned man, the best place to begin is at Christ. Before I knew the Gospel, I gathered up a heterogeneous mass of all kinds of knowledge from here, there and everywhere; a bit of chemistry, a bit of botany, a bit of astronomy, and a bit of this, that, and the other. I put them all together in one great confused chaos. When I learned the Gospel, I got a shelf in my head upon which to put everything away, just where it should be. It seemed to me as if, when I had discovered Christ and Him crucified, I had the center of the system, so that I could see every other science revolving around in order. From the earth, you know, the planets appear to move in a very irregular manner. They are progressive, retrograde, stationary; but if you could get upon the sun, you would see them marching round in their constant, uniform, circular motion. So with knowledge! Begin with any other science you like, and truth will seem to be awry. Begin with the science of Christ crucified, and you will begin with the sun; you will see every other science moving round it in complete harmony. The old saying is, Go from nature up to natures God, but it is hard work going up hill. The best thing is to go from natures God down to nature; and if you once get to natures God, and believe Him and love Him, it is surprising how easy it is to hear music in the waves, and songs in the wild whisperings of the winds. Get Christ first; put Him in the right place and you will find Him to be the wisdom of God in your own experience. This is what the young man was attempting; it was an intelligent endeavor. Oh, to be taught of Christ! What an experience! What a privilege!

This young man was thoughtful. He was ill-content with his past. Not that he had been a moral renegade; on the contrary, he was a moralist. Concerning that part of the decalogue which related to his duties to men, he could say,

All these things have I kept from my youth up.

And yet he was not satisfied, else he would not have been at the feet of Jesus, putting to Him the question of the text. He felt that his morals were insufficient. The great truth which the Apostle Paul afterward phrased, By the deeds of the law there shall be no flesh justified in His sight, he had found also in the forms and the ceremonies of the Old Testament substitutes. Like John Bunyan, he could say, I am afflicted with the thoughts of the Day of Judgment; night and day, trembling at the thoughts of the fearful torments of hell-fire! With the Apostle he was compelled to say, I have no confidence in the flesh, and with the inspired penman, In me (that is, in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing. Even his riches did not quiet the fear of Divine displeasure. He learned what the Sheik of Samarcand told Timour, the Tartar. He wanted to make a conquest of the whole world, declaring that even it was too small to satisfy the ambition of a great soul, saying, The ambition of a great soul is not to be satisfied by the possession of the morsel of earth added to another, but by the possession of God, alone sufficiently great to fill up an infinite thought. And this young man is only a sample of the thousands and tens of thousands who till the farm, walk the streets, crowd the shops. They are ill-content. As Christ looked upon them, they seemed to Him as sheep without a shepherd, scattered abroad. If God had intended that men find permanent happiness in decent behavior, exalted station, there would not be such restlessness in the world. No, God never meant it so! A mans life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth. It is only the foolish and the doomed men who say, We are rich and increased with goods and have need of nothing. This young ruler was too thoughtful for that; he appreciated his moral bankruptcy, and yet he knew that somewhere there was an inexhaustible source upon which one could draw, and that is why he is at the feet of Jesus.

He realized that there was one thing lacking. What lack I yet? He dared to confess his shortcomings; he dared to sound the recesses of his own heart; he dared to think deeply enough to deal with eternity. People sometimes talk about Christianity as if it were a religion for people with emotions, stirred easily, as the seas surface answers to the wind. They have even reached the point where they speak as if profound learning resulted in indifference to the great future, and renders one callous to the whole question of eternity. Quite the contrary. A man who gives no consideration to life beyond the grave is so superficial in his thinking that one might well question whether he were sane; and the man who puts off dealing with the problem of his eternal life until he is in the awful struggle of death, illustrates the acme of folly. I noticed a while ago a statement in a leading Journal attributed to a certain society woman, who, at a late meeting of her club, had attempted to eat some salad made of gristle and bone, and becoming choked on it, lost consciousness, and it took two or three minutes to revive her. When she came to herself, she said, No more club life for me. In that awful time, I experienced that to which others have testified. My whole life rose before me. She saw her neglected children; the places of missing buttons on her husbands clothes glared at her; she remembered that his ties had never been touched by an iron in her hand; that when he came home at evening tired, she was rarely there to greet him, and it so terrified her to think of herself in a satin-lined coffin, with all the club women casting roses upon her, her household neglected, her husband maltreated, that when she revived, she resigned her membership and presidency and walked out declaring she would have no more to do with club life. I concede it is just possible that some man evolved this story, but I think it altogether likely that it points a moral and tells a story of personal experience. At any rate, I use it to suggest that we had better think of our shortcomings while we are in life, for when the death rattle is in our throats, it will be a poor time to wrestle with difficult problems, or correct past deficiencies.

In Irvings Goldsmith, Samuel Johnson, in speaking of a grand house, fine gardens, and splendid palaces, is made to say, Alas, sir, these are only struggles for happiness. When I first entered Ranelagh, it gave me expansion and gay sensation to my mind such as I never experienced anywhere else. But, as Xerxes, when he reviewed his immense army and considered that not one of that great multitude would be alive a hundred years afterward, it so went to my heart, to consider that there was not one in all that brilliant circle that was not afraid to go home and think. David said, I thought on my ways and turned my feet unto Thy testimonies, and I made haste and delayed not to keep Thy commandments. Oh, men and women, wont you think on this problem of eternity? It will bring you, as it did the rich young ruler, to the feet of Jesus, to say, What shall I do to inherit eternal life?

This question expressed a longing for spiritual victory. Most men have such a desire. I know full well from hundreds, yea, thousands of conversations with as many different people, how men and women long to be victorious over their sins, and long for a conscious peace with God. A Hindu man said, alluding to the pilgrimage which he had made, that he might find rest for his soul, Fifty years of my life have been thus spent. I sought all heathen books in heathen temples, in heathen ceremonies, to satisfy my spirit. The great Dr. Carroll of Texas used to tell how he pored over the pages of infidel writings in the same search, but none was found. I sometimes wonder whether a man ever becomes so debased as not to desire to be better; as not to tug any against the chains that bind him. And yet I doubt if I should wonder; I doubt if it be true, even in the lowest, that they have lost the longing to rise. In the zoological gardens, I have many a time seen that proud king of birds, the eagle, disheveled, dirty, and drooping, with spirit broken by long and bitter confinement; and yet, there is hardly a day but he plumes himself, and makes another effort, vain though it may be, an effort which is only beating against iron bars; but it does prove that the spirit yet soars within him. I am not of the company of those who believe that because men have gone wrong, and women have gone down, they have lost their better impulses; that all thought of eternal life, all hope of everlasting happiness, is extinct, so that even desire is dead within them. Campbell Morgan relates an experience which I have duplicated by a number of kindred conversations. He says, I remember one early morning as far back as the year 1887. I had been out all through the night sitting by the bedside of a dying man in the town of Hull in the north of England, and as I was taking my way home, having seen him pass away about four oclock in the morning, turning suddenly around a corner I came face to face with a young fellow, the son of godly people, a child of tender care and constant prayer, and yet who, having fallen, was just going all the pace in wickedness; and meeting him suddenly like that, just turning the corner so that there was no escape, he and I stood face to face. He was hurrying home, through the gray morning, after a night of carousal. I took his hand in mine, and I looked into his face, and I said, Charley, when are you going to stop this kind of thing? I wish I could tell what that man said and how he said it. I shall never forget it, I think, to my dying day. He looked into my face, a young man just about my own age at the time, and yet prematurely aged, with sunken cheek and blood-shot eye, and that grey ashen hue that tells of debauchery; and holding out a hand that he could not hold still, that trembled as he held it, he said, What do you mean by asking me when I am going to stop? He said, I would lose that hand here and now if I knew how to stop. I do not think that was a lonely case. I believe that if you could only get hold of half these men that are going wrong; if you could only get them into some corner in the early morning, catching them unawares, when they are not prepared to debate the thing with you or laugh at your entreaty, they would speak out a great truth, and it would be, We want to be pure; we hate impurity! That desire was in the breast of this rich young ruler. It was one of the things that added both to his unregenerate and self-centered character.

Yet even that desire did not redeem him. Why, what was wrong with this man? Wherein did he fail?

By passive resistance he perished. There is not a word of argument against Jesus here. There is not a breath in all this conversation that indicates that he intentionally resisted. Two or three things are fairly clear.

The first is, he did not intend to reject Jesus. He was drawn to Christ as he had never been drawn to another man. He humbled himself to His very feet and put to Him the most pent-up question of his soul, and he put it honestly. He put it with hope that the reply would be something that he could do; yea, and something that he would do. He did not think the condition would be so hard that he would turn from it, or he would never have come to Christ at all, for to have the way of life presented, and then to reject it, is only the more certainly to seal ones doom. And he is only one of the thousands upon thousands who are perishing by passive resistance. A man untaught to swim, suddenly flung into the deep, does not need to commit suicide by diving to the bottom, laying hold upon a root or stone and hanging there by sheer force of will until the lungs are clogged and the heart is still. He needs only to utter no cry for help, and the very element in which he is immersed will perfect his destruction. The man who is born in sin does not need to seek death; the conditions for it exist already. He lives in the atmosphere of death, and if he utter no cry for help to the Christ of Life, it will come. He may not have intended to perish; no matter, perish he must, and no Divine hand be put forth to his help.

This young ruler did not deliberately sell out his soul. He would not have done that. If somebody else had owned all the money which was now in his possession and had proffered it to him in exchange for his soul, he would have scorned the offer. But I know people who, if a certain stipulated price for their soul was offered them, would fling it into the face of the barterer, and who, nevertheless, by hanging to ill-gotten gain, increasing their exchequer by conscienceless methods, or seeking pleasures severely forbidden, are selling out their souls. They are selling out just as truly, just as definitely, just as eternally, as was this rich young ruler when he quit the Master and retained his money. They do not appreciate it and neither did he. They have not thought the whole process through to the end and said, as did Aaron Burr, I choose against God. But like the vacillating Israelites, to whom Moses made his appeal, they have simply failed to make any choices at all.

Indecision dooms one! Agrippa was destroyed by it; by indecision the ruin of Felix was wrought, and through indecision the rich young ruler wrecked his life. Hood, in his Cromwell, tells us that at the battle of Nasby, King Charles I. cheered his dismayed troopers with the command, One charge more, gentlemen! One charge more in the Name of God, and the day is ours. He placed himself at their head and thousands of them prepared to follow him, but a courtier snatched his bridle and turned him from the path of honor to that of despair. And so at the battle of Nasby, the crown fell from the kings head and the scepter from his hand, and he was from henceforth never more in any sense a king. And I want to say to you now in this sacred moment, when, through the preaching of the Gospel, we are called to decide the most important question of ones existence, What will you do with Jesus, if you permit the whisperings of the Adversary, the influence of mortal man or devils, to turn you from your better intention? That moment you forfeit the crown of life and the scepter of eternal power falls forever from your hand and you go down in defeat, doomed to everlasting dishonor and death.

Oh, men and women, you do not intend to be active rebels against God. Let me plead with you not to passively resist that Spirit who shall not always strive with men!

Fuente: The Bible of the Expositor and the Evangelist by Riley

CRITICAL NOTES

Mat. 19:1. He departed from Galilee.This marks a very solemn period in our Lords public ministry. It was His farewell to Galilee (Brown). Came into the coasts of Juda beyond Jordan.From the parallel passage in Mark (Mar. 10:1) we learn that this means: Came into Juda by the trans-Jordanic route through Pera. It does not mean that any portion of Juda lay beyond Jordan (Carr). St. Matthew here omits various particulars, of which some are to be supplied from Luk. 9:51 to Luk. 17:11; others from Johntwo visits to Jerusalem (Joh. 7:8-10; Joh. 10:22-39); the raising of Lazarus (Joh. 11:1-46); the retirement, to Ephraim (Joh. 11:54).

Mat. 19:3. The Pharisees.The article is omitted in R.V. Pera was removed from the great centres of Jewish hierarchism, but even there the sect of the Pharisees was represented. Tempting him.To know how entangling the question was it is necessary to remember that there was a dispute at the time between two rival schools of Jewish theologythe school of Hillel and that of Shammaiin regard to the interpretation of Deu. 24:1. The one school held that divorce could be had on the most trivial grounds; the other restricted it to cases of grievous sin (Gibson).

Mat. 19:4. Answered.The answer Jesus gives is remarkable, not only for the wisdom and courage with which He met their attack, but for the manner in which He availed Himself of the opportunity to set the institution of marriage on its true foundation (ibid.). Have ye not read? etc.It is noteworthy that the answer to the question is found not in the words of a code of laws, but in the original facts of creation. That represented the idea of man and woman as created for a permanent relationship to each other, not as left to unite and separate as appetite or caprice might prompt (Plumptre).

Mat. 19:5. And said.Through Adam (Gen. 2:24). The words embody, not Adams opinion, conjecture, or imagination, but Gods own marital law for universal man (Morison).

Mat. 19:7. Why did Moses then command, etc.?Our Lords answer exposes the double fallacy lurking in the question, Why did Moses command? He did not command, he only suffered it; it was not to further divorce but to check it, that he made the regulation about the writing of divorcement. And then, not only was it a mere matter of sufferanceit was a sufferance granted because of the hardness of your hearts. Since things were so bad among your fathers in the matter of marriage, it was better that there should be a legal process than that the poor wives should be dismissed without it (Gibson).

Mat. 19:10. It is not good to marry.Nothing could prove more clearly the revolution in thought brought to pass by Christ than this. Even the disciples feel that such a principle would make the yoke of marriage unbearable (Carr).

Mat. 19:11. All men cannot receive this saying.It is as if the Saviour had said: True, so far; it is expedient in some respects and indeed in many, not to marry. Not a few inconveniences, annoyances, difficulties, and trials would thus be avoided. But then, that would be only one side of the case. And it is by no means all men who could easily, or wisely, receive this saying as the rule of their life, and reduce it to practice (Morison). The saying was that of the disciples as virtually re-iterated, and partially accepted by our Lord (ibid.). They to whom it is given.Who are these? the disciples would naturally ask; and this our Lord proceeds to tell them in three particulars (Brown).

Mat. 19:12. Eunuchs.See Dr. Schaffs remarks (p. 448).

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.Mat. 19:1-12

The law of marriage.The Saviour has left Galilee, and is on the other side of the Jordan, preparatory to crossing to Jericho and going up to Jerusalem (Mat. 19:1; Mat. 20:17). Those who are in need of Him find Him out there in great multitudes; and find Him also to be all that He had ever been, both in word and in deed (Mat. 19:2, Mar. 10:1). Those who are opposed to Him find Him out too (Mat. 19:3). They come to Him with an insidious question on the subject of divorce. In what cases did He hold it lawful for a man to put away his wife? In their own teaching there were many causes which were held to justify a man in so doing. What did He say on the matter? In reply to this question the Saviour first lays down an absolute rule; tnen qualifies it by a certain necessary exception; and finally fortifies it by a further word of considerate caution.

I. An absolute rule.A rule which is absolute, first, in regard to its authority. It is so, on the one hand, on the question of time. It goes back at once to the beginning of all (Mat. 19:4). Let that be which has always been. This is what it first says. It is so, on the other hand, on the question of source. There can be no greater authority on this subject than the authority of the Creator (Mat. 19:4). Only He who made man can know fully what man is. Only He, therefore, can either rightly or wisely decide ultimately what man ought to do. Not less absolute is this rule, in the second place, in regard to its nature. Its nature, on the one hand, in recognising so clearly in the marriage relation the idea of duality, and of duality only, of nothing beyond. That original and first marriage to which the rule in question refers us, being one which was both brought about and expressly sanctioned by God Himself, is therefore a pattern instance to all. That same instance, however, as is so expressly taught us, was one of this kinda dual instancea case of male and femaleone of man and wifeone of nothing beyond. Its nature, on the other hand, in recognising just as clearly the idea of unity also. These two in one senseso it was also declared by that original and authoritative instancewere to be one in another. One so intimately that in this respect no other human relation was to be put in comparison with it (Mat. 19:5). One so intimately, also, that those two, in a certain sense, ceased to be two any more (Mat. 19:6). That, in short, is the primary ideathat is Gods conceptionof marriage. The rule to be observed is to keep strictly to that conception in practicea rule which, of course, precludes the idea of setting that bond on one side (end of Mat. 19:6).

II. A necessary exception.This exception is brought out, in part, by a further question on the part of the adversaries of the Saviour. Unable to dispute the answer He has given in a general way, they are yet not satisfied with it in full. It leaves untouched, they think, what Moses has said in another part of his writings; as, for example, where he implies, that there are cases in which men might be allowed to put away their wives, by stipulating, if they do so, that the dissolution of the marriage should take place in as formal and open and valid a manner as the original contract did at the first (Mat. 19:7). What did He say about this? Did He allow at alland, if so, in what cases did He allowof such exceptions? Our Saviours answer is twofold. First, He shows that their inference from Moses was not correct as it stood. The stipulation he insisted on did not prove that the exceptions it pointed to were lawful in His judgment. All it showed was that they could not be avoided in the circumstances of the case. Not even Moses could always do all that should be done with the materials at his disposal. With such blinded minds and perverse wills and hardened hearts as he had to deal with, he could sometimes only seek so to regulate an evil as to keep it within bounds. But this was no proof that he looked on it as being a good. To regulate that which for the time being could not be removed, was not to wish it to remain. To supply a man with crutches when he is lame is not to say that lameness is a good thing in itself. Neither was it difficult, in the next place, to see, even so, where the only exception should be. The essence of marriage was in being one flesh. There were casesonly too common caseswhere this essence had gone. The marriage contract, in all such cases, had been already broken de facto. In such cases to declare it also broken de jure, and to treat it as such by granting a divorce was not out of keeping with the original institution and purport of marriage; and, therefore, might be allowed (Mat. 19:9). That very statement, however, seems to shut out all other causes besides.

III. A faithful caution.On hearing this the disciples say to the Saviour as related in Mat. 19:10. The spirit of His answer to them may be given in very few words. In certain exceptional cases and times it might be as they said (see 1Co. 7:26). It might be better, in such circumstances, not to enter at all into the marriage relation; on that point, to a great extent, men must judge for themselves. If they felt they could do so, let them do so. It would not be displeasing to God. On the other hand, there was no doubt that this view of that relation might cause it, in some cases, to become a very considerable burden and trial to those who had entered upon it. In no case, however, but that mentioned, were they to regard this as a sufficient reason for attempting to dissolve it. For such a remedy would involve more evils than those it attempted to cure. If He has allowed such troubles to come upon us in that connection (Rom. 8:28). He will help us to bear them. He will even cause them, if we look to Him for it, to work for our good (Rom. 8:28). Anything is better than unlawfully seeking to set asunder what God hath once joined.

From all this we may see, in conclusion:

1. How holy a thing marriage is.Of few other human relations can we say as of this, that it was instituted of God. It is not be terminated, it is not to be entered into, apart from Gods will.

2. How naturally, therefore, it leads our thoughts on to what is holier still (Eph. 5:23, etc.).

3. How well we may rejoice, therefore, to find it spoken of here as that which must not be dissolved.How glorious to think that in this also it sets forth the union of Christ and His church! If the less sacred much more the more soif the earthly much more the heavenlyif the type much more the antitypeis something which, once entered in, is not to be lightly dissolved!

HOMILIES ON THE VERSES

Mat. 19:3-6. Divorce.Christ proves by divers arguments that for every cause a divorce is not lawful.

I. From the authority of the Institutor of marriage, viz. God.

II. From the antiquity of the institution of marriage.From the beginning.

III. From the manner of the conjunction and union (Mat. 19:5).

IV. From the excellency of the conjugal bond and tie.A man shall leave father and mother, etc.Richard Ward.

Mat. 19:6. A happy marriage.Rev. Robert Newton, the Wesleyan pulpit orator, and his bride, began their married life by retiring twice each day to pray with and for each other. This practice they kept up, when opportunity served, to the end of life. When an old man Mr. Newton remarked, In the course of a short time my wife and I shall celebrate the jubilee of our marriage; and I know not that, during the fifty years of our union, an unkind look or an unkind word has ever passed between us.

Mat. 19:3-9. Marriage and divorce among the Jews.Their highest standard [was] represented in this case by the school of Shammai, while that of Hillel, and still more Rabbi Akiba, presented the lowest opposite extreme. But in reply to the Pharisees our Lord placed the whole question on grounds which even the strictest Shammaite would have refused to adopt. For the farthest limit to which he would have gone would have been to restrict the cause of divorce to a matter of un-cleanness (Deu. 24:1), by which he would probably have understood not only a breach of the marriage vow, but of the laws and customs of the land. In fact, we know that it included every kind of impropriety, such as going about with loose hair, spinning in the street, familiarly talking with men, ill-treating her husbands parents in his presence, brawling, that is speaking to her husband so loudly that the neighbours could hear her in the adjoining house (Chetub., vii. 6), a general bad reputation, or the discovery of fraud before marriage. On the other hand the wife could insist on being divorced if her husband were a leper or affected with polypus or engaged in a disagreeable or dirty trade, such as that of a tanner or coppersmith. One of the cases in which divorce was obligatory was if either party had become heretical, or ceased to profess Judaism. But even so, there were at least checks to the danger of general lawlessness, such as the obligation of paying to a wife her portion, and a number of minute ordinances about formal letters of divorce, without which no divorce was legal, and which had to be couched in explicit terms, handed to the woman herself, and that in presence of two witnesses, etc.A. Edersheim, D.D.

Facilities of divorce among the Jews.The facility of divorce among the Jews had become so great a scandal, even among their heathen neighbours, that the Rabbis were fain to boast of it as a privilege granted to Israel, but not to other nations.C. Geikie, D.D.

Mat. 19:4-6. Christianity superior to other systems.It ought to increase our esteem for Christianity that it takes such a particular care, above all other religions in the world, of regulating that brutish passion of lust, and for the procreation of children in a way so sacred, by making the Christian marriage a covenant of perpetual chastity and friendship. It is plain to any wise, considering man how much the Christian religion, in this respect, is preferable both to Paganism, Mahometanism, and Judaism. As for Paganism, the generality of those of that religion were so far from contriving anything on this subject that was wise or useful to mankind, that their religion abounds with fables of the whoredoms and adulteries of their very gods; and by their example they encouraged themselves in all manner of lewdness, not excepting the most unnatural mixtures, such as the very brute creatures abhor. Some of the learned Greek philosophers were so brutal in their notions of these things that they recommended a promiscuous use of the female sex and gave loose reins to mens lusts; so that of a whole country they made a general house of debauchery, by this means not only corrupting the minds and manners of men, but hindering both the procreation and good education of children. Indeed, they had so little love to their children that it was a common thing most unnaturally to expose them to perish. The Jewish religion, it is true, rectified a great many of those abuses, yet gave great indulgences to the irregular appetites of mankind; for it allowed them, because of the hardness of their hearts, both a plurality of wives at one time, and the power of putting away their wives by a bill of divorce for every trivial cause, and so does Mahometanism at this day. But the Christian religion goes to the root of all these evils and digs them up. It forbids wandering lust in the very heart and thoughts, so far is it from approving the practice of it. It sets up a sacred, lasting friendship between man and wife, as much more becoming the higher degree of Christian holiness, and forbids the dissolution of marriage by anything else but infidelity to the marriage covenant.Jas. Blair, M.A.

Mat. 19:10. Is it good to marry?The disciples think this doctrine hard, for in case divorcement were not lawful, they say it were better not to marry than to be straitly bound in marriage. In whom we see:

1. How impatient our nature is of all restraint, and how much we love to be at liberty, even from the bands of God.
2. Sudden resolutions and sentences are readily full of folly; for here the disciples neither do look unto their own strength, or rather inability, to live in a single life, nor do they consider the incommodities of an unmarried life, nor the commodities of marriage, where God giveth a blessing.David Dickson.

Milton on divorce.It is instructive to remember that one of the greatest of English writers has taken the same line of thought in dealing with the question. Miltons Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce, and the treatises that followed it, are but an elaborate and eloquent expression of the words of the disciples, If the case of the man be so with his wife it is not good to marry.E. H. Plumptre, D.D.

Mat. 19:12. Eunuchism.As I understand the mysterious passage the Saviour distinguishes three kinds of eunuchism:

1. Congenital, which implies neither merit nor guilt.

2. Forced, which implies misfortune on the one hand and guilt on the other.

3. Voluntary, which has moral value and merit if it proceeds from faith and love to Christ, but no merit superior to chastity in the married state. The first and third are only improperly called eunuchism. To speak more fully, the first class of eunuchs embraces the comparatively small number of those who are constitutionally either incapable of, or averse to, marriage; the second class, the eunuchs proper, or mutilated persons, who at that time were quite numerous, especially at courts, and are still found in eastern countries, among heathens and Mohammedans (yea, even in the choir of the papal Sixtine chapel in Rome, the famous Miserere being sung by the clear, silver voices of these unfortunate victims of sacred art); the third class, those who deliberately abstain from marriage either altogether or from second marriage after the death of their first husband or wife, not, however, for the purpose of thereby gaining the kingdom of heaven, but for the purpose of working for the kingdom of heaven from pure and disinterested love to Christ, believing that they can serve Him more unreservedly and effectually in the single state, or remain more steadfast in times of peculiar trial and persecution (1Co. 7:26). To this class belong St. Paul (1Co. 7:7; 1Co. 7:26), Barnabas (1Co. 9:5-6), probably also St. John (who in the Greek Church bears the standing title, , with reference to his virgin purity), and thousands of missionaries, divines, ministers and pious laymen, sisters of charity, virgins and widows in all ages and among Protestants as well as Catholics. The great and serious error of the Romish Church consists in making a law for the whole clergy of what the Saviour left to free choice on the basis of a special calling and gift of God (Mat. 19:11), and in attaching a superior merit to celibacy at the expense of the holy and normal state of marriage. From a grossly literal misunderstanding of Mat. 19:12, Origen, in the youthful ardour of enthusiasm for Christ, and misguided by the ascetic notions of his age, committed the unnatural deed which forever disqualified him for marriage. But this was justly condemned in the ancient church, and was made subsequently a reason for his excommunication from the church of Alexandria.P. Schaff, D.D.

Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Section 47

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

TEXT: 19:112

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 mothers womb: and there are eunuchs, that were made eunuchs by men: and there are eunuchs for the kingdom of heavens sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

a.

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

b.

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?

c.

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?

d.

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 Gods original intentions for marriage?

e.

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

f.

In what sense does God join the two together?

g.

Jesus quotes from Gen. 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?

h.

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 chapters 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?

i.

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?

j.

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?

k.

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?

l.

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?

m.

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?

n.

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.

o.

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?

p.

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

q.

Explain Mat. 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 Gods 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 Gods 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 Gods Kingdom.

NOTES
I. THE LORDSHIP OF GOD IN MALE-FEMALE REALTIONSHIPS (19:112)
A. GENERAL SITUATION: GREAT POPULARITY OF JESUS IN HERODS TERRITORY, PEREA (19:1, 2)

Mat. 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 Peters confession. Note these connections:

1.

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 Gods plans. (Mat. 16:13-28)

2.

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

3.

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. (Mat. 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. (Mat. 17:22 f)

4.

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

a.

Peters presumptuous answer to the temple tax-collectors that Jesus pays the tax. (Mat. 17:24-27)

b.

The disciples private debate about relative status in the Kingdom. (Mat. 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 (Mat. 17:22), chapter Mat. 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. Mat. 26:32 and parallel; Mat. 28:7; Mat. 28:10; Mat. 28:16 ff and par.; Joh. 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?

1.

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, Marks language, region of Judea AND beyond the Jordan (Mar. 10:1) seems to separate the two areas.

a.

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, Marks 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.

b.

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.

2.

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 (Joh. 7:1 to Joh. 10:39). Perhaps the events that Luke collects together in his chapters Mat. 10:1 to Mat. 13:21 are to be thought of as occurring during this period. Then John (Joh. 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 Lukes chronology (Mat. 13:22 to Mat. 18:14) from that point forward, with the single insertion of Johns account of Jesus quick trip to Jerusalem-Bethany for the raising of Lazarus (Joh. 11:1-54), located perhaps between Luk. 17:10-11, then Matthew and Marks material begin to parallel that of Luke after Luk. 18:14. The net result of all this is the conclusion that Mat. 19:1 f merely summarizes the events from the Feast of Tabernacles (Joh. 7:2 ff) until just shortly before the last journey to Jerusalem for the last Passover. The specific events are recorded in Luk. 10:1 to Luk. 18:14 and Joh. 7:2 to Joh. 11:54.

3.

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 (Joh. 11:54; Luk. 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.

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

1.

If the Lord is thought of as just entering Perea from Galilee, then again means that, although Jesus popularity had collapsed in Galilee (Joh. 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.

2.

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, (Mar. 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 chapters 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)

Mat. 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:

1.

Since John the Baptist had been beheaded for open condemnation of the adulterous union between Herod Antipas and Herodias (see notes on Mat. 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 Herods jurisdiction, Jesus could more easily be arrested, if He made any self-incriminating declarations that might be employed to incite those authorities against Him.

2.

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. Mat. 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 Mat. 19:9, and there would have been no contest. The controversy turns, however, on their final words: for every cause.

1.

Because Hillels school interpreted Deu. 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 Hillels 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. Mat. 19:10) Compare also the brutal language of Sir. 25:26 which reflects this liberal thinking.

2.

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

So, if Jesus opposed Hillel, He would lose disciples who sympathized with that great rabbi on this issue. But if He took Hillels 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 womans 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 Mat. 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 Gods original intention for marriage. Later, when talking privately with the disciples (Mar. 10:10), He could give the kind of answer the Pharisees expected, but did not need. (Mat. 19:9) However, since the disciples had heard the former, they could also learn the latter.

According to Mark (Mar. 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. (Mar. 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. (Mar. 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 (Mar. 10:3), then they cite Him a concession (Mat. 10:4) and He now admits it to be a commandment (Mat. 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 Gods original design for marriage.

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

C. JESUS RESPONSE: START LOOKING FOR REASONS TO KEEP YOUR WIFE! (19:412)

1. Adopt Gods original intention which was marriage, not divorce. (19:46)
a. Gods ideal is one man for one woman. (19:4)

Mat. 19:4. Avoiding their superficial cavils and human interpreters, Jesus drove them directly to the highest possible Mosaic principle of marriage: Gods foundational principle behind marriage. God, not man, is the Lord of marriage. Have you not read? (ouk angnote) 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? (Mar. 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, Gen. 1:27; Gen. 2:24. THESE represent the genuinely prophetic, Mosaic thinking on the question of marriage, not Deu. 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 Mat. 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 ktsas, rather than ho poisas). 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 ktsas (which is supported by several excellent witnesses) to poisas, thus harmonizing it with the Septuagint text of Gen. 1:27 (which is quoted in the immediate context), than to suppose that poisas was altered to suit the Hebrew word used in Gen. 1:27 (bara which means created).

Arndt-Gingrich (456) render ho ktsas 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:

1.

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)

2.

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.

3.

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. (Gen. 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 Gods original project, a fundamental element in the ordering of all future society. How many times had every Hebrew male heard those lovely words from Gen. 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 (1Ti. 2:13; 1Co. 11:8 f), a fact made painfully clear after the fall (Gen. 3:16), mans position could never be thought of as one of absolute independence. (1Co. 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 Gods 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 Gods 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.

1.

God eliminated lesbianism, female and female.

2.

God condemned sodomy, male and male.

3.

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. (Gen. 1:31; Gen. 1:27 f; 1Ti. 4:4; 1Ti. 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)

Mat. 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 (Mat. 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 Gen. 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, (Mat. 19:6) However, if His proof-text is faulty, i.e. not really Gods 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 Gen. 2:24, refers to mans 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 ones 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 Mat. 19:5 and Mar. 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 Gen. 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. (Mar. 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 Adams 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

a.

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 (Mat. 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: Gods plans must not be destroyed by divorce. (19:6)

Mat. 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. (Mat. 19:9)

Lest modern disciples bent on divorce for the shallow selfishness of incompatibility discount the Lords 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. (Joh. 1:1-18) He does not need to be told by enlightened moderns what is in man, since He knows man inside and out. (Joh. 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 Pauls argument in 1Co. 6:12-20also based on Gen. 2:24is founded on the intimate relationship of the believer to the body of Christ. (Cf. Eph. 5:28-31) That is, in the same way that sexual union creates a real, physical-spiritual relationship, so also the Christians union with the Lord creates a spiritual union. (Cf. 1Co. 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.

2. Mosaic divorce legislation reflects inhumanity, not Gods original family design. (19:7,8)

Mat. 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? (Mar. 10:3) They answered by citing a concession (Mar. 10:4), Jesus waved it aside as a situational permission that did not really represent Gods purpose for marriage and was intended as but a regulation to eliminate the worst features of masculine inhumanity. (Mar. 10:5) Perhaps because He referred to this regulation as a commandment (entoln) 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 Deu. 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 Gen. 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 Lords correct exposition of Genesis cannot break their deeply ingrained habit of ignoring Gods 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 Deu. 24:1 ff as well as Gen. 2:24; Gen. 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.

Mat. 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. (Mar. 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 Deu. 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 (Mat. 19:7) is not a law at all. (To appreciate this it is necessary to notice carefully all the ifs and whens in Deu. 24:1-4. They all serve to describe the kind of situation in which the prohibition in Deu. 24:4 is valid. The only real precept in that entire text is found in Deu. 24:4.) Deu. 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 Gods original plan, where the Kingdom of God was absolute. Now, Jesus disciples have voluntarily surrendered to Gods 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 Gods 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. Gen. 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 (Mar. 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.

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

Mat. 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. (Mar. 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 Gods 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 Mat. 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. Mal. 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. (Rom. 7:2-3; 1Co. 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 Gods monogamic ideal in Gen. 1:27; Gen. 2:24. (Heb. 13:4) Under these circumstances even rabbinic law would have condemned such a union. (Edersheim, Life, II, 335) Marriage to anothers 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 Gonzlez-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)

Mat. 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:

1.

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:

a.

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. (Mat. 5:32 : how often had Jesus repeated this in popular preaching?)

b.

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 Matthews 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.

c.

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.

2.

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 (Mat. 19:9), since the disciples reaction is explicable only on the assumption that He forbade all divorce, even in the case of the wifes unfaithfulness. This distortion of the picture is corrected by the following considerations:

a.

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 Lords mentality on many subjects, and frankly told Him so, even though they had listened personally to His instruction:

(1)

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

(2)

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

(3)

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

(4)

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

b.

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 Gods 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 (Mat. 20:28) and must motivate every citizen of the Kingdom (Mat. 18:1-14), has ample ramifications that reach into every aspect of life. Marriage is affected by it too. (Cf. Eph. 5:22-33; 1Pe. 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 (1Co. 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 (1Co. 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 Gods gift of the single life. (Mat. 19:11 f; 1Co. 7:7-8) While attempting to avoid possible failure or spiritual undoing in marriage, this ignoring ones 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)

Mat. 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 (tn lgon [toton]): the deduction made by the disciples (Mat. 19:10) or the preceding exposition of Jesus (Mat. 19:4-9)?

1.

It refers to Jesus own doctrine.

a.

No significant weight can be placed on the demonstrative pro noun, THIS saying (tn lgon [toton]) 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 toton 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 . . .

b.

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. Mat. 11:25 f; Mat. 13:11) To my disciples it is given to understand, but to those uninterested in doing things Gods way, it is not given. Accordingly, Jesus concluding exhortation (Mat. 19:12 d) would mean, Let him who by his discipleship is able to comprehend my doctrine, do so!

2.

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

a.

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 Mat. 19:12.) To ignore this connection leaves one at sea to interpret it.

b.

Jesus is not necessarily scolding the disciples for their extreme position. Rather, He shows them those to whom their statement rightly applies. (Mat. 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.

c.

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

The key to the Lords 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. (1Co. 7:7; 1Ti. 4:3-5; Gen. 1:27-31; Gen. 2:24)

1.

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. (Gen. 2:18) The disciples expedient (Mat. 19:10) would only be valid for those exceptional individuals to whom God gives the grace to live well the single life. (1Co. 7:7 f) However, He, apparently does not give this grace to many. (Cf. 1Ti. 5:11-14; 1Co. 7:36-38)

2.

In the following verse (Mat. 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. (Gen. 1:27 f; 1Co. 7:2-5; 1Co. 7:9; Heb. 13:4)

3.

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 ones 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 1Co. 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 mn hotos, ho d hotos) leaves the door open for marriage as a possible charisma from God: Each has his own special gift (chrisma) 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 Lords standard, these would be in the majority. (Mat. 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 Gen. 1:27; Gen. 2:24 would rate marriage as the norm to which the single life forms the exception. (See also Gen. 2:18.)

Not all men can receive this saying, but they to whom it is given. If we think of Pauls handling of the celibacy question in 1 Corinthians 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. (1Co. 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. (1Co. 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 ones 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 1 Corinthians 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. (1Co. 7:2; 1Co. 7:5; 1Co. 7:8; 1Co. 7:36)

It is also imperative that Pauls 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. (1Co. 7:7 f, 1Co. 7:25; 1Co. 7:32; 1Co. 7:40)

1.

Sexual asceticism within marriage attempts to exalt a sexual contradiction, since it ignores ones own proper sexuality. (1Co. 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. (1Co. 7:32-35)

2.

Celibacy has the advantage over marriage in view of the impending distress (1Co. 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. (1Co. 7:29)

3.

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

4.

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

5.

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

6.

It should also be noticed in this connection that Paul claimed his right to be accompanied by a Christian wife(adelfn gunaka) as the other Apostles and brothers of the Lord and Cephas. (1Co. 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)

Mat. 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:

1.

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

2.

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

3.

and there are eunuchs, that made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heavens 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 1Co. 7:7 f, 1Co. 7:32-35; 1Co. 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. (1Co. 7:25-35; 1Co. 7:37 f)

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

1.

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. (Col. 2:20-23; see notes on Mat. 5:29-30) For the Christian, then, this is not a live option.

2.

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 ones 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 ones 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.

3.

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. (1Co. 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 Mat. 19:9 or Mar. 10:11 f), but a bowing to the choice of the unbelieving spouse, in order to follow Gods call to peace in the Kingdom. (1Co. 7:15 c; Rom. 14:17) It is the choice to remain unmarried for Christs sake, hence a eunuch for the Kingdoms 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;

1.

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. (Mat. 10:37-39; Mat. 16:24-27; Mat. 18:6-9; Mat. 19:29; Luk. 14:26-33) This may include ones wife. (Luk. 18:29)

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

So the call to great sacrifice of every relationship for Christs sake, even marriage if need be, may reduce one to the level of a virtual eunuch, even though already married. (See above at Mat. 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 sons 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 Zipporahs 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. Exo. 4:18-29; Exo. 18:1-6)

2.

There is another sense in which every Christian must consider himself a eunuch for the Kingdom of God. Every Christian must, for Christs 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 Mat. 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 Gods Kingdom and for His service.

He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. (ho dunmenos choren, choreto) 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 (choreto), 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 ones 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 Mat. 19:30.

FACT QUESTIONS

1.

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?

2.

Had Jesus ministered in this section before?

3.

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

4.

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

5.

List the points Jesus made in His reply.

6.

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.

7.

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

8.

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

9.

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?

10.

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?

11.

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

12.

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

13.

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

14.

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

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

XIX.

(1) He departed from Galilee.The verse covers a considerable interval of time which the materials supplied by St. Luke and St. John enable us to fill up. From the former we get the outlines of what has been called, as being beyond Jordan, our Lords Peran ministry, from Luk. 9:51 to Luk. 18:30; from the latter, according to the arrangement of the best harmonists, His visit to Jerusalem at the Feast of Tabernacles (Joh. 7:2), and again at that of the Dedication (Joh. 10:22). To keep these facts in mind will throw some light on the narrative that follows here. The journey from Galilee to Pera appears from Luk. 17:11 to have led our Lord through Samaria.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

Chapter 19

JEWISH MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE ( Mat 19:1-9 )

19:1-9 When Jesus had finished these words, he left Galilee, and came into the districts of Judaea which are on the far side of the Jordan. Many crowds followed him, and he healed them there.

Pharisees came to him, trying to test him. “It is lawful,” they said, “for a man to divorce his wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator made them male and female, and he said, ‘For this cause a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? They are therefore no longer two, but one flesh. What, then, God has joined together, let no man separate.” They said to him, “Why, then, did Moses lay it down to give her a big of divorcement, and to divorce her?” He said to them, “It was to meet the hardness of your heart that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives; but in the beginning that was not the state of things which was intended. I tell you that whoever divorces his wife, except on the ground of fornication, and marries another, commits adultery; and he who marries her who has been divorced commits adultery.”

Here Jesus is dealing with what was in his day, as it is in our own, a vexed and burning question. Divorce was something about which there was no unanimity among the Jews; and the Pharisees were deliberately trying to involve Jesus in controversy.

No nation has ever had a higher view of marriage than the Jews. Marriage was a sacred duty. To remain unmarried after the age of twenty, except in order to concentrate upon the study of the Law, was to break a positive commandment to “be fruitful and multiply.” He who had no children “slew his own posterity,” and “lessened the image of God upon earth.” “When husband and wife are worthy, the glory of God is with them.”

Marriage was not to be entered into carelessly or lightly. Josephus outlines the Jewish approach to marriage, based on the Mosaic teaching (Antiquities of the Jews 4. 8. 23). A man must marry a virgin of good parentage. He must never corrupt another man’s wife; and he must not marry a woman who had been a slave or a harlot. If a man accused his wife of not being a virgin when he married her, he must bring proofs of his accusation. Her father or brother must defend her. If the girl was vindicated he must take her in marriage, and could never again put her away, except for the most flagrant sin. If the accusation was proved to have been reckless and malicious, the man who made it must be beaten with forty stripes save one, and must pay fifty shekels to the girl’s father. But if the charge was proved and the girl found guilty, if she was one of the ordinary people, the law was that she must be stoned to death, and if she was the daughter of a priest, she must be burned alive.

If a man seduced a girl who was espoused to be married, and the seduction took place with her consent, both he and she must be put to death. If in a lonely place or where there was no help present, the man forced the girl into sin, the man alone was put to death. If a man seduced an unespoused girl, he must marry her, or, if her father was unwilling for him to marry her, he must pay the father fifty shekels.

The Jewish laws of marriage and of purity aimed very high. Ideally divorce was hated. God had said, “I hate divorce” ( Mal 2:16). It was said that the very altar wept tears when a man divorced the wife of his youth.

But ideal and actuality did not go hand in hand. In the situation there were two dangerous and damaging elements.

First, in the eyes of Jewish law a woman was a thing. She was the possession of her father, or of her husband as the case might be; and, therefore, she had, technically, no legal rights at all. Most Jewish marriages were arranged either by the parents or by professional match-makers. A girl might be engaged to be married in childhood, and was often engaged to be married to a man whom she had never seen. There was this safeguard–when she came to the age of twelve she could repudiate her father’s choice of husband. But in matters of divorce, the general law was that the initiative must lie with the husband. The law ran: “A woman may be divorced with or without her consent, but a man can be divorced only with his consent.” The woman could never initiate the process of divorce; she could not divorce, she had to be divorced.

There were certain safeguards. If a man divorced his wife on any other grounds than those of flagrant immorality, he must return her dowry; and this must have been a barrier to irresponsible divorce. The courts might put pressure on a man to divorce his wife, in the case, for instance, of refusal to consummate the marriage, of impotence, or of proved inability to support her properly. A wife could force her husband to divorce her, if he contracted a loathsome disease, such as leprosy, or if he was a tanner, which involved the gathering of dog’s dung, or if he proposed to make her leave the Holy Land. But, by and large, the law was that the woman had no legal rights, and the right to divorce lay entirely with the husband.

Second, the process of divorce was fatally easy. That process was founded on the passage in the Mosaic Law to which Jesus’ questioners referred: “When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favour in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a bill of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house…” ( Deu 24:1). The bill of divorcement was a simple, one-sentence statement that the husband dismissed his wife. Josephus writes, “He that desires to be divorced from his wife for any cause whatsoever (and many such causes happen among men) let him, in writing, give assurance that he will never use her as his wife any more; for by this means she may be at liberty to marry another husband.” The one safeguard against the dangerous ease of the divorce process was the fact that, unless the woman was a notorious sinner, her dowry must be returned.

JEWISH GROUNDS OF DIVORCE ( Mat 19:1-9 continued)

One of the great problems of Jewish divorce lies within the Mosaic enactment. That enactment states that a man may divorce his wife, “if she finds no favour in his eyes, because he has found some indecency in her.” The question is–how is the phrase some indecency to be interpreted?

On this point the Jewish Rabbis were violently divided, and it was here that Jesus’ questioners wished to involve him. The school of Shammai were quite clear that a matter of indecency meant fornication, and fornication alone, and that for no other cause could a wife by put away. Let a woman be as mischievous as Jezebel, so long as she did not commit adultery she could not be put away. On the other hand, the school of Hillel interpreted this matter of indecency in the widest possible way. They said that it meant that a man could divorce his wife if she spoiled his dinner, if she spun, or went with unbound hair, or spoke to men in the streets, if she spoke disrespectfully of his parents in his presence, if she was a brawling woman whose voice could be heard in the next house. Rabbi Akiba even went the length of saying that the phrase if she finds no favour in his eyes meant that a man could divorce his wife if he found a woman whom he liked better and considered more beautiful.

The tragedy was that, as was to be expected, it was the school of Hillel whose teachings prevailed; the marriage bond was often lightly held, and divorce on the most trivial ground was sadly common.

To complete the picture certain further facts must be added. It is relevant to note that under Rabbinic law divorce was compulsory for two reasons. It was compulsory for adultery. “A woman who has committed adultery must be divorced.” Second, divorce was compulsory for sterility. The object of marriage was the procreation of children; and if after ten years a couple were still childless divorce was compulsory. In this case the woman might remarry, but the same regulation governed the second marriage.

Two further interesting Jewish regulations in regard to divorce must be added. First, desertion was never a cause for divorce. If there was desertion, death must be proved. The only relaxation was that, whereas all other facts needed the corroboration of two witnesses in Jewish law, one witness was enough to prove the death of a partner in marriage who had vanished and not come back.

Secondly, strangely enough, insanity was not a ground of divorce. If the wife became insane, the husband could not divorce her, for, if she was divorced, she would have no protector in her helplessness. There is a certain poignant mercy in that regulation. If the husband became insane, divorce was impossible, for in that case he was incapable of writing a bill of divorcement, and without such a bill, initiated by him, there could be no divorce.

When Jesus was asked this question, at the back of it was a situation which was vexed and troubled. He was to answer it in a way which came as a staggering surprise to both parties in the dispute, and which suggested a radical change in the whole situation.

THE ANSWER OF JESUS ( Mat 19:1-9 continued)

In effect, the Pharisees were asking Jesus whether he favoured the strict view of Shammai or the laxer view of Hillel; and thereby seeking to involve him in controversy.

Jesus’ answer was to take things back to the very beginning, back to the ideal of creation. In the beginning, he said, God created Adam and Eve, man and woman. Inevitably, in the very circumstances of the creation story, Adam and Eve were created for each other and for no one else; their union was necessarily complete and unbreakable. Now, says Jesus, these two are the pattern and the symbol of all who were to come. As A. H. McNeile puts it, “Each married couple is a reproduction of Adam and Eve, and their union is therefore no less indissoluble.”

The argument is quite clear. In the case of Adam and Eve divorce was not only inadvisable; it was not only wrong; it was completely impossible, for the very simple reason that there was no one else whom either of them could possibly marry. Therefore Jesus was laying down the principle that an divorce is wrong. Thus early we must note that it is not a law; it is a principle, which is a very different thing.

Here, at once, the Pharisees saw a point of attack. Moses ( Deu 24:1 http://www.crossbooks.com/verse.asp?ref=Dt+24%3A1) had said that, if a man wished to divorce his wife because she had found no favour in his eyes, and because of some matter of indecency in her, he could give her a bill of divorce and the marriage was dissolved. Here was the very chance the Pharisees wanted. They could now say to Jesus, “Are you saying Moses was wrong? Are you seeking to abrogate the divine law which was given to Moses? Are you setting yourself above Moses as a law-giver?”

Jesus’ answer was that what Moses said was not in fact a law, but nothing more than a concession. Moses did not command divorce; at the best he only permitted it in order to regulate a situation which would have become chaotically promiscuous. The Mosaic regulation was only a concession to fallen human nature. In Gen 2:23-24 http://www.crossbooks.com/verse.asp?ref=+% Gen 23:1-20 A23-24 , we have the ideal which God intended, the ideal that two people who marry should become so indissolubly one that they are one flesh. Jesus’ answer was: “True, Moses permitted divorce; but that was a concession in view of a lost ideal. The ideal of marriage is to be found in the unbreakable, perfect union of Adam and Eve. That is what God meant marriage to be.”

It is now that we are face to face with one of the most real and most acute difficulties in the New Testament. What did Jesus mean? There is even a prior question–what did Jesus say? The difficulty is–and there is no escaping it–that Mark and Matthew report the words of Jesus differently.

Matthew has:

I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity,

and marries another commits adultery ( Mat 19:9).

Mark has:

Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery

against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another,

she commits adultery ( Mar 10:11-12).

Luke has still another version of this saying:

Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits

adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her

husband commits adultery. ( Luk 16:18).

There is the comparatively small difficulty that Mark implies that a woman can divorce her husband, a process which, as we have seen, was not possible under Jewish law. But the explanation is that Jesus must have well known that under Gentile law a woman could divorce her husband and in that particular clause he was looking beyond the Jewish world. The great difficulty is that both Mark and Luke make the prohibition of divorce absolute; with them there are no exceptions whatsoever. But Matthew has one saving clause–divorce is permitted on the ground of adultery. In this case there is no real escape from a decision. The only possible way out would be to say that in point of fact, under Jewish law, divorce for adultery was in any event compulsory, as we have seen, and that therefore Mark and Luke did not think that they need mention it; but then so was divorce for sterility.

In the last analysis we must choose between Matthew’s version of this saying and that of Mark and Luke. We think there is little doubt that the version of Mark and Luke is right. There are two reasons. Only the absolute prohibition of separation will satisfy the ideal of the Adam and Eve symbolic complete union. And the staggered words of the disciples imply this absolute prohibition, for, in effect, they say ( Mat 19:10) that if marriage is as binding as that, it is safer not to marry at all. There is little doubt that here we have Jesus laying down the principle–mark again, not, the law–that the ideal of marriage is a union which cannot be broken. There is much more to be said–but here the ideal, as God meant it, is laid down, and Matthew’s saving clause is a later interpretation inserted in the light of the practice of the Church when he wrote.

THE HIGH IDEAL ( Mat 19:1-9 continued)

Let us now go on to see the high ideal of the married state which Jesus sets before those who are willing to accept his commands. We will see that the Jewish ideal gives us the basis of the Christian ideal. The Jewish term for marriage was Kiddushin. Kiddushin meant sanctification or consecration. It was used to describe something which was dedicated to God as his exclusive and peculiar possession. Anything totally surrendered to God was kiddushin. This meant that in marriage the husband was consecrated to the wife, and the wife to the husband. The one became the exclusive possession of the other, as much as an offering became the exclusive possession of God. That is what Jesus meant when he said that for the sake of marriage a man would leave his father and his mother and cleave to his wife; and that is what he meant when he said that man and wife became so totally one that they could be called one flesh. That was God’s ideal of marriage as the old Genesis story saw it ( Gen 2:24), and that is the ideal which Jesus restated. Clearly that idea has certain consequences.

(i) This total unity means that marriage is not given for one act in life, however important that act may be, but for all. That is to say that, while sex is a supremely important part of marriage, it is not the whole of it. Any marriage entered into simply because an imperious physical desire can be satisfied in no other way is foredoomed to failure. Marriage is given, not that two people should do one thing together, but that they should do all things together.

(ii) Another way to put this is to say that marriage is the total union of two personalities. Two people can exist together in a variety of ways. One can be the dominant partner to such an extent that nothing matters but his wishes and his convenience and his aims in life, while the other is totally subservient and exists only to serve the desires and the needs of the other. Again, two people can exist in a kind of armed neutrality, where there is continuous tension and continuous opposition, and continuous collision between their wishes. Life can be one long argument, and the relationship is based at best on an uneasy compromise. Again, two people can base their relationship on a more or less resigned acceptance of each other. To all intents and purposes, while they live together, each goes his or her own way, and each has his or her own life. They share the same house but it would be an exaggeration to say that they share the same home.

Clearly none of these relationships is the ideal. The ideal is that in the marriage state two people find the completing of their personalities. Plato had a strange idea. He has a kind of legend that originally human beings were double what they are now. Because their size and strength made them arrogant, the gods cut them in halves; and real happiness comes when the two halves find each other again, and marry, and so complete each other.

Marriage should not narrow life; it should complete it. For both partners it must bring a new fulness, a new satisfaction, a new contentment into life. It is the union of two personalities in which the two complete each other. That does not mean that adjustments, and even sacrifices, have not to be made; but it does mean that the final relationship is fuller, more joyous, more satisfying than any life in singleness could be.

(iii) We may put this even more practically–marriage must be a sharing of all the circumstances of life. There is a certain danger in the delightful time of courtship. In such days it is almost inevitable that the two people will see each other at their best. These are days of glamour. They see each other in their best clothes; usually they are bent on some pleasure together; often money has not yet become a problem. But in marriage two people must see each other when they are not at their best; when they are tired and weary; when children bring the upset to a house and home that children must bring; when money is tight, and food and clothes and bills become a problem; when moonlight and roses become the kitchen sink and walking the floor at night with a crying baby. Unless two people are prepared to face the routine of life as well as the glamour of life together, marriage must be a failure.

(iv) From that there follows one thing, which is not universally true, but which is much more likely than not to be true. Marriage is most likely to be successful after a fairly long acquaintanceship, when the two people involved really know each other’s background. Marriage means constantly living together. It is perfectly possible for ingrained habits, unconscious mannerisms, ways of upbringing to collide. The fuller the knowledge people have of each other before they decide indissolubly to link their lives together the better. This is not to deny that there can be such a thing as love at first sight, and that love can conquer all things, but the fact is that the greater mutual knowledge people have of each other the more likely they are to succeed in making their marriage what it ought to be.

(v) All this leads us to a final practical conclusion–the basis of marriage is togetherness, and the basis of togetherness is nothing other than considerateness. If marriage is to succeed, the partners must always be thinking more of each other than of themselves. Selfishness is the murderer of any personal relationship; and that is truest of all when two people are bound together in marriage.

Somerset Maughan tells of his mother. She was lovely and charming and beloved by all. His father was not by any means handsome, and had few social and surface gifts and graces. Someone once said to his mother, “When everyone is in love with you, and when you could have anyone you liked, how can you remain faithful to that ugly little man you married?” She answered simply: “He never hurts my feelings.” There could be no finer tribute.

The true basis of marriage is not complicated and recondite–it is simply the love which thinks more of the happiness of others than it thinks of its own, the love which is proud to serve, which is able to understand, and therefore always able to forgive. That is to say, it is the Christlike love, which knows that in forgetting self it will find self, and that in losing itself it will complete itself.

THE REALIZATION OF THE IDEAL ( Mat 19:10-12 )

19:10-12 His disciples said to him, “If the only reason for divorce between a man and his wife stands thus, it is not expedient to marry.” He said to them, “Not all can receive this saying, but only those to whom it has been granted to do so. There are eunuchs who were born so from their mothers’ womb; and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men; and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven. Let him who is able to receive this saying, receive it.”

Here we come to the necessary amplification of what has gone before. When the disciples heard the ideal of marriage which Jesus set before them, they were daunted. Many a rabbinic saying would come into the mind of the disciples. The Rabbis had many sayings about unhappy marriages. “Among those who will never behold the face of Gehinnom is he who has had a bad wife.” Such a man is saved from hell because he has expiated his sins on earth! “Among those whose life is not life is the man who is ruled by his wife.” “A bad wife is like leprosy to her husband. What is the remedy? Let him divorce her and be cured of his leprosy.” It was even laid down: “If a man has a bad wife, it is a religious duty to divorce her.”

To men who had been brought up to listen to sayings like that the uncompromising demand of Jesus was an almost frightening thing. Their reaction was that, if marriage is so final and binding a relationship and if divorce is forbidden, it is better not to marry at all, for there is no escape route as they understood it–from an evil situation. Jesus gives two answers.

(i) He says quite clearly that not everyone can in fact accept this situation but only those to whom it has been granted to do so. In other words, 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 of marriage demands. Only by the help of Jesus Christ can he develop the sympathy, the understanding, the forgiving spirit, the considerate love, which true marriage requires. Without that help these things are impossible. The Christian ideal of marriage involves the prerequisite that the partners are Christian.

Here is a truth which goes far beyond this particular application of it. We continually hear people say, “We accept the ethics of the Sermon on the Mount; but why bother about the divinity of Jesus, and his Resurrection, and his risen presence, and his Holy Spirit, and all that kind of thing? We accept that he was a good man, and that his teaching is the highest teaching ever given. Why not leave it at that, and get on with the living out of that teaching and never mind the theology?” The answer is quite simple. No one can live out Jesus Christ’s teaching without Jesus Christ. And if Jesus was only a great and good man, even if he was the greatest and the best of men, then at most he is only a great example. His teaching becomes possible only in the conviction that he is not dead but present here to help us to carry it out. The teaching of Christ demands the presence of Christ; otherwise it is only an impossible–and a torturing–ideal. So, then, we have to face the fact that Christian marriage is possible only for Christians.

(ii) The passage finishes with a very puzzling verse about eunuchs. It is quite possible that Jesus said this on some other occasion, and that Matthew puts it here because he is collecting Jesus’ teaching on marriage, for it was always Matthew’s custom to gather together teaching on a particular subject.

A eunuch is a man who is unsexed. Jesus distinguishes three classes of people. There are those who, through some physical imperfection or deformity, can never be capable of sexual intercourse. There are those who have been made eunuchs by men. This represents customs which are strange to western civilization. Quite frequently in royal palaces servants, especially those who had to do with the royal harem, were deliberately castrated. Also, quite frequently priests who served in temples were castrated; this, for instance, is true of the priests who served in the Temple of Diana in Ephesus.

Then Jesus talks about those who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of God. We must be quite clear that this is not to be taken literally. One of the tragedies of the early Church was the case of Origen. When he was young he took this text quite literally and castrated himself, although he came to see that he was in error. Clement of Alexandria comes nearer it. He says, “The true eunuch is not he who cannot, but he who will not indulge in fleshly pleasures.” By this phrase Jesus meant those who for the sake of the Kingdom deliberately bade farewell to marriage and to parenthood and to human physical love.

How can that be? It can happen that a man has to choose between some call to which he is challenged and human love. It has been said, “He travels the fastest who travels alone.” A man may feel that he can do the work of some terrible slum parish only by living in circumstances in which marriage and a home are impossible. He may feel that he must accept some missionary call to a place where he cannot in conscience take a wife and beget children. He may even find that he is in love and then is offered an exacting task which the person he loves refuses to share. Then he must choose between human love and the task to which Christ calls him.

Thank God it is not often that such a choice comes to a man; but there are those who have taken upon themselves voluntarily vows of chastity, celibacy, purity, poverty, abstinence, continence. That will not be the way for the ordinary man, but the world would be a poorer place were it not for those who accept the challenge to travel alone for the sake of the work of Christ.

MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE ( Mat 19:10-12 continued)

It would be wrong to leave this matter without some attempt to see what it actually means for the question of divorce at the present time.

We may at the beginning note this. What Jesus laid down was a principle and not a law. To turn this saying of Jesus into a law is gravely to misunderstand it. The Bible does not give us laws; it gives principles which we must prayerfully and intelligently apply to any given situation.

Of the Sabbath the Bible says, “In it you shall not do any work” ( Exo 20:10). In point of fact we know that a complete cessation of work was never possible in any civilization. In an agricultural civilization cattle had still to be tended and cows had to be milked no matter what the day was. In a developed civilization certain public services must go on, or transport will stand still and water, light, and heat will not be available. In any home, especially where there are children, there has to be a certain amount of work.

A principle can never be quoted as a final law; a principle must always be applied to the individual situation. We cannot therefore settle the question of divorce simply by quoting the words of Jesus. That would be legalism; we must take the words of Jesus as a principle to apply to the individual cases as they meet us. That being so, certain truths emerge.

(i) Beyond all doubt the ideal is that marriage should be an indissoluble union between two people, and that marriage should be entered into as a total union of two personalities, not designed to make one act possible, but designed to make all life a satisfying and mutually completing fellowship. That is the essential basis on which we must proceed.

(ii) But life is not, and never can be, a completely tidy and orderly business. Into life there is bound to come sometimes the element of the unpredictable. Suppose, then, that two people enter into the marriage relationship; suppose they do so with the highest hopes and the highest ideals; and then suppose that something unaccountably goes wrong, and that the relationship which should be life’s greatest joy becomes hell upon earth. Suppose all available help is called in to mend this broken and terrible situation. Suppose the doctor is called in to deal with physical things; the psychiatrist to deal with psychological things; the priest or the minister to deal with spiritual things. Suppose the trouble still to be there; suppose one of the partners to the marriage to be so constituted physically, mentally or spiritually that marriage is an impossibility, and suppose that discovery could not have been made until the experiment itself had been made–are then these two people to be for ever fettered together in a situation which cannot do other than bring a lifetime of misery to both?

It is extremely difficult to see how such reasoning can be called Christian; it is extremely hard to see Jesus legalistically condemning two people to any such situation. This is not to say that divorce should be made easy, but it is to say that when all the physical and mental and spiritual resources have been brought to bear on such a situation, and the situation remains incurable and even dangerous, then the situation should be ended; and the Church, so far from regarding people who have been involved in such a situation as being beyond the pale, should do everything it can in strength and tenderness to help them. There does not seem any other way than that in which to bring the real Spirit of Christ to bear.

(iii) But in this matter we are face to face with a most tragic situation. It often happens that the things which wreck marriage are in fact the things which the law cannot touch. A man in a moment of passion and failure of control commits adultery and spends the rest of his life in shame and in sorrow for what he did. That he should ever repeat his sin is the least likely thing in the world. Another man is a model of rectitude in public; to commit adultery is the last thing he would do; and yet by a day-to-day sadistic cruelty, a day-to-day selfishness, a day-to-day criticism and sarcasm and mental cruelty, he makes life a hell for those who live with him; and he does it with callous deliberation.

We may well remember that the sins which get into the newspapers and the sins whose consequences are most glaringly obvious need not be in the sight of God the greatest sins. Many a man and many a woman wreck the marriage relationship and yet present to the outer world a front of unimpeachable rectitude.

This whole matter is one to which we might well bring more sympathy and less condemnation, for of all things the failure of a marriage must least be approached in legalism and most in love. In such a case it is not a so-called law that must be conserved; it is human heart and soul. What is wanted is that there should be prayerful care and thought before the married state is entered upon; that if a marriage is in danger of failure every possible medical, psychological and spiritual resource should be mobilized to save it; but, that if there is something beyond the mending, the situation should be dealt with not with rigid legalism, but with understanding love.

JESUS’ WELCOME FOR THE CHILDREN ( Mat 19:13-15 )

19:13-15 Children were brought to him, that he might lay his hands on them, and pray for them. The disciples spoke sternly to them. Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to such as they are.” And after he had laid his hands on them, he went away from there.

It may well be said that here we have the loveliest incident in the gospel story. The characters all stand out clear and plain, although it only takes two verses to tell it.

(i) There are those who brought the children. No doubt these would be their mothers.

No wonder they wished Jesus to lay his hands on them. They had seen what these hands could do; had seen them touch disease and pain away; had seen them bring sight to the blind eyes, and peace to the distracted mind; and they wanted hands like that to touch their children. There are few stories which show so clearly the sheer loveliness of the life of Jesus. Those who brought the children would not know who Jesus was; they would be well aware that Jesus was anything but popular with the Scribes and the Pharisees, and the Priests and the Sadducees and the leaders of orthodox religion; but there was a loveliness on him.

Premanand tells of a thing his mother once said to him. When Premanand became a Christian his family cast him off, and the doors were shut against him; but sometimes he used to slip back to see his mother. She was broken-hearted that he had become a Christian, but she did not cease to love him. She told him that when she was carrying him in her womb a missionary gave her a copy of one of the gospels. She read it; she still had it. She told her son that she had no desire to become a Christian, but that sometimes, in those days before he was born, she used to long that he might grow up to be a man like this Jesus.

There is a loveliness on Jesus Christ that anyone can see. It is easy to think of these mothers in Palestine feeling that the touch of a man like that on their children’s heads would bring a blessing, even if they did not understand why.

(ii) There are the disciples. The disciples sound as if they were rough and stern; but, if they were, it was love that made them so. Their one desire was to protect Jesus.

They saw how tired he was; they saw what healing cost him. He was talking to them so often about a cross, and they must have seen on his face the tension of his heart and soul. All that they wanted was to see that Jesus was not bothered. They could only think that at such a time as this the children were a nuisance to the Master. We must not think of them as hard; we must not condemn them; they wished only to save Jesus from another of those insistent demands which were always laying their claims upon his strength.

(iii) There is Jesus himself. This story tells us much about him.

He was the kind of person children loved. George Macdonald used to say that no man could be a follower of Jesus if the children were afraid to play at his door. Jesus was certainly no grim ascetic, if the children loved him.

Further, to Jesus no one was unimportant. Some might say, “It’s only a child; don’t let him bother you.” Jesus would never say that. No one was ever a nuisance to Jesus. He was never too tired, never too busy to give all of himself to anyone who needed it. There is a strange difference between Jesus and many a famous preacher or evangelist. It is often next door to impossible to get into the presence of one of these famous ones. They have a kind of retinue and bodyguard which keep the public away lest the great man be wearied and bothered. Jesus was the opposite of that. The way to his presence was open to the humblest person and to the youngest child.

(iv) There are the children. Jesus said of them that they were nearer God than anyone else there. The child’s simplicity is, indeed, closer to God than anything else. It is life’s tragedy that, as we grow older, we so often grow further from God rather than nearer to him.

THE GREAT REFUSAL ( Mat 19:16-22 )

19:16-22 And, look you, a man came to him and said, “Teacher, what good thing am I to do to possess eternal life?” He said to him, “Why do you ask me about the good? There is One who is good. If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.” He said to him, “What kind of commandments?” Jesus said, “‘You must not kill; you must not commit adultery; you must not steal; honour your father and your mother.’ And, ‘You must love your neighbour as yourself.'” The young man said, “I have observed all these things. What am I still lacking?” Jesus said to him, “If you wish to be complete, go, sell your possessions, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me!” When the young man heard that saying, he went away in sorrow, for he had many possessions.

Here is one of the best-known and best-loved stories in the gospel history. One of the most interesting things about it is the way in which most of us, quite unconsciously, unite different details of it from the different gospels in order to get a complete picture. We usually call it the story of the Rich Young Ruler. All the gospels tell us that this man was rich, for therein is the point of the story. But only Matthew says that he was young ( Mat 19:20); and only Luke says that he was a ruler ( Luk 18:18). It is interesting to see how, quite unconsciously, we have created for ourselves a composite picture composed of elements taken from all three gospels ( Mat 19:16-22; Mar 10:17-22; Luk 18:18-23).

There is another interesting point about this story. Matthew alters the question put to Jesus by this man. Both Mark and Luke say that the question was: “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone” ( Mar 10:18; Luk 18:19). Matthew says that the question was: “Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is good” ( Mat 19:17). (The text of the King James Version is in error here, as reference to any of the newer and more correct translations will show.) Matthew’s is the latest of the first three gospels, and his reverence for Jesus is such that he cannot bear to show Jesus asking the question: “Why do you call me good?” That almost sounds to him as if Jesus was refusing to be called good, so he alters it into: “Why do you ask me about what is good?” in order to avoid the seeming irreverence.

This story teaches one of the deepest of all lessons for it has within it the whole basis of the difference between the right and the wrong idea of what religion is.

The man who came to Jesus was seeking for what he called eternal life. He was seeking for happiness, for satisfaction, for peace with God. But his very way of phrasing his question betrays him. He asks, “What must I do?” He is thinking in terms of actions. He is like the Pharisees; thinking in terms of keeping rules and regulations. He is thinking of piling up a credit balance-sheet with God by keeping the works of the law. He clearly knows nothing of a religion of grace. So Jesus tries to lead him on to a correct view.

Jesus answers him in his own terms. He tells him to keep the commandments. The young man asks what kind of commandments Jesus means. Thereupon Jesus cites five of the ten commandments. Now there are two important things about the commandments which Jesus chooses to cite.

First, they are all commandments from the second half of the decalogue, the half which deals, not with our duty to God, but with our duty to men. They are the commandments which govern our personal relationships, and our attitude to our fellow-men.

Second, Jesus cites one commandment, as it were, out of order. He cites the command to honour parents last, when in point of fact it ought to come first. It is clear that Jesus wishes to lay special stress on that commandment. Why? May it not be that this young man had grown rich and successful in his career, and had then forgotten his parents, who may have been very poor. He may well have risen in the world, and have been half-ashamed of the folks in the old home; and then he may have justified himself perfectly legally by the law of Korban, which Jesus had so unsparingly condemned ( Mat 15:1-6; Mar 7:9-13). These passages show that he could well have done that, and still have legally claimed to have obeyed the commandments. In the very commandments which he cites Jesus is asking this young man what his attitude to his fellow-men and to his parents was, asking what his personal relationships were like.

The young man’s answer was that he had kept the commandments; and yet there was still something which he knew he ought to have and which he had not got. So Jesus told him to sell all he had and give it to the poor and follow him.

It so happens that we have another account of this incident in the Gospel according to the Hebrews, which was one of the very early gospels which failed to be included in the New Testament. Its account gives us certain very valuable additional information. Here it is:

“The second of the rich men said to him, ‘Master, what good thing

can I do and live?’ He said unto him, ‘O man, fulfil the law and

the prophets.’ He answered him, ‘I have kept them.’ He said unto

him, ‘Go, sell all that thou ownest, and distribute it unto the

poor, and, come, follow me.’ But the rich man began to scratch

his head, and it pleased him not. And the Lord said unto him,

‘How sayest thou, I have kept the law and the prophets? For it is

written in the law: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself; and

lo, many of thy brethren, sons of Abraham, are clad in filth,

dying of hunger, and thine house is full of many good things, and

nought at an goeth out of it unto them.'”

Here is the key to the whole passage. The young man claimed to have kept the law. In the legal sense that might be true; but in the spiritual sense it was not true, because his attitude to his fellow-men was wrong. In the last analysis his attitude was utterly selfish. That is why Jesus confronted him with the challenge to sell all and to give to the poor. This man was so shackled to his possessions that nothing less than surgical excision of them would suffice. If a man looks on his possessions as given to him for nothing but his own comfort and convenience, they are a chain which must be broken; if he looks on his possessions as a means to helping others, they are his crown.

The great truth of this story lies in the way it illumines the meaning of eternal life. Eternal life is life such as God himself lives. The word for eternal is aionios ( G166) , which does not mean lasting for ever; it means such as befits God, or such as belongs to God, or such as is characteristic of God. The great characteristic of God is that he so loved and he gave. Therefore the essence of eternal life is not a carefully calculated keeping of the commandments and the rules and the regulations; eternal life is based on an attitude of loving and sacrificial generosity to our fellow-men. If we would find eternal life, if we would find happiness, joy, satisfaction, peace of mind and serenity of heart, it shall not be by piling up a credit balance with God through keeping commandments and observing rules and regulations; it shall be through reproducing God’s attitude of love and care to our fellow-men. To follow Christ and in grace and generosity to serve the men for whom Christ died are one and the same thing.

In the end the young man turned away in great distress. He refused the challenge, because he had great possessions. His tragedy was that he loved things more than he loved people; and he loved himself more than he loved others. Any man who puts things before people and self before others, must turn his back on Jesus Christ.

THE PERIL OF RICHES ( Mat 19:23-26 )

19:23-26 Jesus said to the disciples, “This is the truth I tell you–it is with difficulty that a rich man shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. Again I say unto you–it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.” When the disciples heard this, they were exceedingly astonished. “What rich man, then,” they said, “can be saved?” Jesus looked at them, “With men,” he said, “this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

The case of the Rich Young Ruler shed a vivid and a tragic light on the danger of riches; here was a man who had made the great refusal because he had great possessions. Jesus now goes on to underline that danger. “It is difficult,” he said, “for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.”

To illustrate how difficult that was he used a vivid simile. He said that it was as difficult for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven as it was for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle. Different interpretations have been given of the picture which Jesus was drawing.

The camel was the largest animal which the Jews knew. It is said that sometimes in walled cities there were two gates. There was the great main gate through which all trade and traffic moved. Beside it there was often a little low and narrow gate. When the great main gate was locked and guarded at night, the only way into the city was through the little gate, through which even a man could hardly pass erect. It is said that sometimes that little gate was called “The Needle’s Eye.” So it is suggested that Jesus was saying that it was just as difficult for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven as for a huge camel to get through the little gate through which a man can hardly pass.

There is another, and very attractive, suggestion. The Greek word for camel is kamelos ( G2574) ; the Greek word for a ship’s hawser is kamilos. It was characteristic of later Greek that the vowel sounds tended to lose their sharp distinctions and to approximate to each other. In such Greek there would be hardly any discernible difference between the sound of “i” and “e”; they would both be pronounced as ee is in English. So, then, what Jesus may have said is that it was just as difficult for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven as it would be to thread a darning-needle with a ship’s cable or hawser. That indeed is a vivid picture.

But the likelihood is that Jesus was using the picture quite literally, and that he was actually saying that it was as hard for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven as it was for a camel to go through the eye of a needle. Wherein then lies this difficulty? Riches have three main effects on a man’s outlook.

(i) Riches encourage a false independence. If a man is well-supplied with this world’s goods, he is very apt to think that he can well deal with any situation which may arise.

There is a vivid instance of this in the letter to the Church of Laodicaea in the Revelation. Laodicaea was the richest town in Asia Minor. She was laid waste by an earthquake in A.D. 60. The Roman government offered aid and a large grant of money to repair her shattered buildings. She refused it, saying that she was well able to handle the situation by herself. “Laodicaea,” said Tacitus, the Roman historian, “rose from the ruins entirely by her own resources and with no help from us.” The Risen Christ hears Laodicaea say, “I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing” ( Rev 3:17).

It was Walpole who coined the cynical epigram that every man has his price. If a man is wealthy he is apt to think that everything has its price, that if he wants a thing enough he can buy it, that if any difficult situation descends upon him he can buy his way out of it. He can come to think that he can buy his way into happiness and buy his way out of sorrow. So he comes to think that he can well do without God and is quite able to handle life by himself. There comes a time when a man discovers that that is an illusion, that there are things which money cannot buy, and things from which money cannot save him. But always there is the danger that great possessions encourage that false independence which thinks–until it learns better–that it has eliminated the need for God.

(ii) Riches shackle a man to this earth. “Where your treasure is,” said Jesus, “there will your heart be also” ( Mat 6:21). If everything a man desires is contained within this world, if all his interests are here, he never thinks of another world and of a hereafter. If a man has too big a stake on earth, he is very apt to forget that there is a heaven. After a tour of a certain wealthy and luxurious castle and estate, Dr. Johnson grimly remarked: “These are the things which make it difficult to die.” It is perfectly possible for a man to be so interested in earthly things that he forgets heavenly things, to be so involved in the things that are seen that he forgets the things that are unseen–and therein lies tragedy, for the things which are seen are temporal but the things which are unseen are eternal.

(iii) Riches tend to make a man selfish. However much a man has, it is human for him to want still more, for, as it has been epigrammatically said, “Enough is always a little more than a man has.” Further, once a man has possessed comfort and luxury, he always tends to fear the day when he may lose them. Life becomes a strenuous and worried struggle to retain the things he has. The result is that when a man becomes wealthy, instead of having the impulse to give things away, he very often has the impulse to cling on to them. His instinct is to amass more and more for the sake of the safety and the security which he thinks they will bring. The danger of riches is that they tend to make a man forget that he loses what he keeps, and gains what he gives away.

But Jesus did not say that it was impossible for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Zacchaeus was one of the richest men in Jericho, yet, all unexpectedly, he found the way in ( Luk 19:9). Joseph of Arimathaea was a rich man ( Mat 27:57); Nicodemus must have been very wealthy, for he brought spices to anoint the dead body of Jesus, which were worth a king’s ransom ( Joh 19:39). It is not that those who have riches are shut out. It is not that riches are a sin–but they are a danger. The basis of all Christianity is an imperious sense of need; when a man has many things on earth, he is in danger of thinking that he does not need God; when a man has few things on earth, he is often driven to God because he has nowhere else to go.

A WISE ANSWER TO A MISTAKEN QUESTION ( Mat 19:27-30 )

19:27-30 Then Peter said to him, “Look you, we have left everything and have followed you. What then will we get?” Jesus said to him, “When all things are reborn, and when the Son of Man shall sit on the throne of his glory, you too, who have followed me, will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Anyone who has left houses, or brothers, or sisters, or father, or mother, or children, or lands for my name, will receive them a hundred times over, and he will enter into possession of eternal life. But many who were first will be last, and many who were last will be first.”

It would have been very easy for Jesus to dismiss Peter’s question with an impatient rebuke. In a sense, it was entirely the wrong question to ask. To put it bluntly, Peter was asking, “What do we get out of following you?” Jesus could well have said that anyone who followed him in that kind of spirit had no idea what following him meant at all. And yet it was a natural question. True, it had its implicit rebuke in the parable which followed; but Jesus did not scold Peter. He took his question, and out of it laid down three great laws of the Christian life.

(i) It is always true that he who shares Christ’s campaign will share Christ’s victory. In human warfare it has been too often true that the common soldiers who fought the battles were forgotten once the warfare was ended, and the victory won, and their usefulness past. In human warfare it has been too often true that men who fought to make a country in which heroes might live found that that same country had become a place where heroes might starve. It is not so with Jesus Christ. He who shares Christ’s warfare will share Christ’s triumph; and he who bears the Cross will wear the crown.

(ii) It is always true that the Christian will receive far more than ever he has to give up; but what he receives is not new material possessions, but a new fellowship, human and divine.

When a man becomes a Christian he enters into a new human fellowship; so long as there is a Christian Church, a Christian should never be friendless. If his Christian decision has meant that he has had to give up friends, it ought also to mean that he has entered into a wider circle of friendship than ever he knew before. It ought to be true that there is hardly a town or village or city anywhere where the Christian can be lonely. For where there is a Church, there is a fellowship into which he has a right to enter. It may be that the Christian who is a stranger is too shy to make that entry as he ought; it may be that the Church in the place where he is a stranger has become too much of a private clique to open its arms and its doors to him. But if the Christian ideal is being realized there is no place in the world with a Christian Church where the individual Christian should be friendless or lonely. Simply to be a Christian means to have entered into a fellowship which goes out to the ends of the earth.

Further, when a man becomes a Christian, he enters into a new divine fellowship. He enters into possession of eternal life, the life which is the very life of God. From other things a Christian may be separated, but he can never be separated from the love of God in Christ Jesus his Lord.

(iii) Finally, Jesus lays it down that there will be surprises in the final assessment. God’s standards of judgment are not men’s, if for no other reason than that God sees into the hearts of men. There is a new world to redress the balance of the old; there is eternity to adjust the misjudgments of time. And it may be that those who were humble on earth will be great in heaven, and that those who were great in this world will be humbled in the world to come.

-Barclay’s Daily Study Bible (NT)

Fuente: Barclay Daily Study Bible

103. JESUS, HAVING LEFT GALILEE, IN PEREA, DISCUSSES THE LAW OF MARRIAGE, Mat 19:1-12 .

1. He departed from Galilee He left Galilee for the last time before his crucifixion. It had been the main scene of his ministry. He was hence sometimes called “the prophet of Galilee.” Even for centuries after, the Christians were called, by Jews and Pagans, GALILEANS. When the celebrated Julian, the apostate, was providentially slain in the midst of his efforts to destroy Christianity, he exclaimed with his expiring breath: “Thou hast conquered, O Galilean!” The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke have been called, specially, the Galilean Gospels, because their scene is mostly in Galilee, and their subject the ministry of our Lord to that section. On the other hand, John’s has been called the Judean Gospel, because its scene is mostly in Judea, especially in Jerusalem. Came Judea beyond Jordan No part of Judea proper lay beyond, that is, east of the Jordan. But this phrase of Matthew is intended to cover the whole extent of our Lord’s following ministry in both Judea and Perea. So Mar 10:1, is strictly to be rendered: He cometh into the territories of Judea and beyond the Jordan. That is, after leaving Galilee, his ministry was in Judea and Perea. Before he went to Perea, beyond Jordan, he visited Jerusalem, where most of the transactions of his ministry in John’s Gospel took place.

Nor does Matthew here probably give the earliest transactions even in Perea, as will appear by consulting the Historical Synopsis. Between our Lord’s leaving Galilee and the ensuing discussion with the Pharisees, the interval was near six months.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

‘And it came about that when Jesus had finished these words, he departed from Galilee, and came into the borders of Judaea in Beyond Jordan, and great crowds followed him, and he healed them there.’

Once Jesus had completed His ministry in Galilee He set off for Jerusalem for the last time, coming into the borders of Judaea. He had made a number of previous visits to Jerusalem, as we know from John’s Gospel, but this would be His last. During this visit He will present Himself to the Jews as the Coming King for those who have eyes to see. As usual great crowds followed Him. They also would be going up to the feast. And He continued His ministry towards them, healing them in both body and soul (compare Mat 8:17). For similar closures as this (‘when He had finished’) following selections of His teaching see Mat 7:28; Mat 11:1; Mat 13:53; Mat 26:1.

‘Beyond the Jordan.’ The areas around the Jordan on both sides of the river were called ‘Beyond the Jordan’ (compare our description Transjordan). If this entry was into Judaea proper it would necessarily be in Beyond Jordan on the west side of the Jordan. On the other hand Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem via Jericho indicates that at some time stage He went East of Jordan into Peraea, finally crossing the Jordan from east to west in order to take the Jericho road. But Matthew’s concern is to emphasise the entry into Judaea, leaving his native Galilee.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Guidance For The New Congregation (18:1-19:2).

This chapter has been compared with the Manual of Discipline found at Qumran which was intended to regulate a specific community, and has been seen as similarly giving instructions concerning the regulating of the new community of disciples. As a general comparison that may be seen as acceptable, but it is not strictly accurate. For it must be noted that this is not really a Manual of Discipline at all, nor is it set out as such, it is rather a warm and vibrant series of teachings which demonstrate the concern that all His disciples must have for those within their wider group (the ‘congregation’ or open community built on the truth of His Messiahship – Mat 16:18) because they have all been united within the forgiving love and compassion of the Father, and have entered under the Kingly Rule of God.

It commences when the disciples, some having their families with them, are gathered in Galilee, preparatory to going to Jerusalem for what is to be Jesus’ last Passover. At this point Jesus brings two things home to them:

1) That He is shortly to be betrayed and executed, after which He will rise again. This had had a deep impact on them and had filled them with sorrow (Mat 17:22-23).

2) That, as Peter has no doubt passed on to them, Jesus and His disciples (both male and female) are not really under Temple Law but are sons of the Father, even though in the meanwhile they pay the Temple Tax from God provided resources (Mat 17:24-27).

From what follows later we know that the disciples did not see these things as we see them. They had mainly grown up with the idea that although the Jews were at present in bondage to the Romans, one day a Messiah would arise who would sweep the Romans out of the land, and establish the Law and the Temple, finally bringing about the Jews’ worldwide rule and judgment on the wicked. In one way or another this was the common belief of the day in Palestine.

This was in general what John the Baptist had believed (Mat 3:11), which was why he had been puzzled at the fact that Jesus had not demonstrated a desire for a positive move forward, or shown any inclination towards political power (Mat 11:2-6). This was, with embellishments, what the Qumran community believed, although restricting many of its benefits to themselves as the holy seed, and refusing to have anything to do with the present Temple. This was in general what the Pharisees believed, although they anticipated that he would necessarily support their views, and some saw the forward movement as occurring through his powerful teaching of the Law. This was why after the miracle of the loaves some in the crowds had sought to crown Jesus as their king, convinced that if He could do that God was powerfully on His side, so that defeating the Romans should be no problem to Him (Joh 6:14-15).

So to His disciples what Jesus was saying would appear to them to be pointers to the fact that the moment when they must rise up against their enemies was approaching. They were confident that He had come to ‘restore the kingship to Israel’ (Act 1:6). So His talk about coming betrayal and death, followed by resurrection, probably suggested to them that there was shortly to be an uprising, during which Jesus would be betrayed to the enemy and put to death, followed by His vindication as God raised Him up from the dead, no doubt then to reveal His divine power and destroy the enemy. And, as they late revealed, they were ready to fight to this end, whenever called on, whatever the odds might be (Mat 26:51). For they knew from many examples in the Scriptures that God could save by many or by few. His words about their being God’s sons and therefore exempt from Temple tax (as the priests also were) appeared to be a clear indication that they would all then share unique privileges in the new set up as ‘sons’ and not servants.

That this was their view of things is further confirmed by Mat 20:20-21 where James and John sought to pre-empt their fellow disciples by booking the seats of prime authority in the coming period of Kingly Rule. Thus as their anticipation rose at these indicators that He was about to begin His decisive action, so did their expectancy of future privilege. And that as what had caused their recent discussions amongst themselves as to who would be the greatest among them (Mar 9:34). And that was why, when Jesus broached them with it, they came back with the question. ‘Who is the greatest within the Kingly Rule of Heaven?’ It is clear from this that they did not accept that Peter was their leader, or that with James and John he was specially privileged. They still clearly felt that the matter was undecided. But what is important in respect of what follows is that they all had their eyes set on being ‘great’. In spite of all that Jesus had taught them they saw ahead of them a rosy future of privilege and superior status. And that was what they were looking forward to.

Jesus replies by demonstrating that true greatness is found, not in being great or in having an ambition for greatness, but in disregarding the thought of greatness (Mat 18:1-4), in seeking to serve others, in strengthening the lowly so as to prevent them from falling (Mat 18:5-7), in avoiding sin (Mat 18:8-10), in seeking out the erring (Mat 18:12-14), in restoring the fallen (Mat 18:15-17), and in being totally forgiving, as they themselves had been forgiven (Mat 18:21-35). It is found in walking in accordance with the sermon on the mount, for the one who is great within the sphere of the Kingly Rule of Heaven is the one who observes every one of God’s requirements in His Law and teaches men so (Mat 5:19). This is also expressed in his concern to do the will of his Father (Mat 7:23; Mat 12:50). So Jesus is here seeking to alter the whole perspective that governs their thinking. That is why He elsewhere says, ‘The Kingly Rule of God does not come with outward observation, for the Kingly Rule of God is among (or within) you’ (Luk 17:20-21). The Kingly Rule of God was already being built up in those who responded to His teaching, and yet they still could not see it.

During the course of this teaching in Matthew 18 Jesus therefore brings up the question of regulation among themselves as the new congregation of God’s people, as those who are within God’s Kingly Rule. For this will be necessary once He has gone. Following on the need to be concerned for every individual within the ‘congregation’ including themselves (Mat 18:1-14), this includes mutual self-regulation out of concern for each other (Mat 18:15-17), and their responsibility to make clear, as revealed by God, what principles are to bind His people, and what principles can be relaxed (Mat 18:18-20). For His Father will be with them in order to illuminate them (Mat 18:19), and He Himself will be among them to guide them in His ways (Mat 18:20). It is to be a community of love. They are to see themselves as debtors to God for the amazing forgiveness that they have received, and to remember that they are therefore to have that same attitude towards others who ‘owe’ anything to them (Mat 18:21-35). The one who is most conscious of the huge amount of sin for which he has been forgiven, will be the one who is most compassionate and caring and forgiving of others, and who will therefore the better serve Him.

This is the fourth of the so-called sayings sections of Matthew. In the overall pattern of the Gospel it parallels Jesus’ words on sending out the disciples in chapter 10. Having evangelised men and brought them into His new congregation, they must now establish and build it up in a spirit of loving concern and compassion and unity.

Analysis of Mat 18:1 to Mat 19:1

a In that hour the disciples came to Jesus, saying, (Mat 18:1 a).

b Those who have a humility on the same level as that of children are the greatest in the Kingly Rule of Heaven (Mat 18:1-4).

c Those who receive these young believers receive Jesus, but those who cause believers, especially young believers, to stumble will face eternal destruction, for such believers are known in Heaven (Mat 18:5-9).

d The young believers are His Father’s sheep, and if they go astray He will seek them out and restore them, for it is not His will that any of them should perish (Mat 18:10-14).

e How to deal with sin arising in the congregation, individually, at the hands of two or three, or at the hands of the whole congregation (Mat 18:15-17).

f The authority given to the congregation through its leadership to bind and loose, to determine how the new congregation will be regulated and how the Law will be applied (Mat 18:18).

e Where any two agree on earth concerning what shall be asked of the Father it shall be done for them, for two or three meeting together are sure of having Jesus in their midst (Mat 18:19-20).

d Forgiveness to one who expresses repentance is to be offered seventy times sevenfold, because they are in the same position as the servant whose king forgave his servant a huge debt (Mat 18:21-27).

c They are not to be like the one offered full forgiveness who then refused to forgive his fellow servant his comparatively small debt, thus causing him to stumble (Mat 18:28-30).

b Those who are lacking in the humility to forgive will be brought to judgment, for His heavenly Father will severely chasten the unforgiving and require their debt of them (Mat 18:31-33).

a And it came about that when Jesus had finished these words, He departed from Galilee, and came into the borders of Judaea beyond the Jordan, and great crowds followed Him, and He healed them there (Mat 19:1-2).

Note how in ‘a’ the disciples came to Him with questions and in the parallel the crowds follow Him. In ‘b’ those who have the humility of little children are greatest in the Kingly Rule of Heaven, while in the parallel those who are lacking in that humility will be dealt with severely. In ‘c’ those who cause believers to stumble will themselves be destroyed, and in the parallel the servant who made life difficult for his fellow servant will be severely punished. In ‘d’ the straying young believer will be restored by the shepherd, and in the parallel the straying offender must be restored by forgiveness. In ‘e’ a sinning member can be dealt with by two or three, and in the parallel the needs of the congregation can be solved by the prayers of two or three. Centrally in ‘f’ the disciples are given the authority to regulate the worship of the people of God in the new congregation.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Introduction – Mat 19:1-2 serves as an introduction to the fifth narrative section (Mat 19:1 to Mat 23:39). This introduction serves as a brief testimony of God’s redemptive aspect of divine healing in the Atonement of Jesus Christ. Within the fifth narrative-discourse block of Matthew’s Gospel that emphasizes the Church’s eternal glorification, healing remains a vital aspect of God’s plan of redemption for mankind in this life.

Mat 19:1  And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these sayings, he departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judaea beyond Jordan;

Mat 19:1 “he departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judaea beyond Jordan” Comments The Greek phrase (beyond the Jordan) is used eight times in the Gospels (Mat 4:15; Mat 4:25; Mat 19:1, Mar 3:8; Mar 10:1, Joh 1:28; Joh 3:26; Joh 10:40), generally understood as a reference to the region of Perea, east of the Jordan valley.

Since the region of Judea lay west of the Jordan, many scholars believe that the phrase “and came into the coasts of Judaea beyond Jordan” means Jesus traveled from Galilee to Judea by way of Perea, the region east of the Jordan, which was a common travel route for the Jews in order to avoid Samaria. This view is supported by the fact that Jesus next travels through Jericho (Mat 20:29). However, some scholars suggest that Matthew is using the term Judea broadly to include the region of Perea.

Mat 19:1 Comments – Mat 19:1 is the fourth transitional sentence in the Gospel of Matthew that takes us into the fifth major division. Each of these five lengthy discourses ends with the similar phrase, “when Jesus had finished these sayings (or parables),” giving these five sections a common division.

Mat 7:28-29, “And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine: For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.”

Mat 11:1, “And it came to pass, when Jesus had made an end of commanding his twelve disciples, he departed thence to teach and to preach in their cities.”

Mat 13:53, “And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these parables, he departed thence.”

Mat 19:1, “And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these sayings, he departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judaea beyond Jordan;”

Mat 26:1, “And it came to pass, when Jesus had finished all these sayings, he said unto his disciples,”

Thus, each of these five discourses is separated with large sections of narrative material, with the discourses being interwoven between the narratives. Each section of narrative material relates to and prepares us for the next discourse.

Mat 19:2  And great multitudes followed him; and he healed them there.

Mat 19:2 Comments Testimonies of Jesus’ Extesive Public Healing Ministry – Jesus Christ ministered healing to the multitudes throughout His earthly ministry, as each narrative section of Matthew’s Gospel testifies. Jesus began His public by healing the sick in the first (Mat 4:23) and second (Mat 8:1 to Mat 9:38) narrative sections, and Matthew records similar accounts during His travels in the third (Mat 12:15), fourth (Mat 15:29-30), and fifth (Mat 19:2) narrative sections.

Mat 4:23, “And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people.”

Mat 12:15, “But when Jesus knew it, he withdrew himself from thence: and great multitudes followed him, and he healed them all;”

Mat 15:29-30, “And Jesus departed from thence, and came nigh unto the sea of Galilee; and went up into a mountain, and sat down there. And great multitudes came unto him, having with them those that were lame, blind, dumb, maimed, and many others, and cast them down at Jesus’ feet; and he healed them:”

Mat 19:2, “And great multitudes followed him; and he healed them there.”

The ten miracles recorded in Matthew 8-9 demonstrated the manner in which Jesus healed as a way of training His disciples to go forth in the next chapter to do the same. Each miracle that Jesus performed followed the pattern of healing recorded in Matthew 8-9. In other words, these healing were not strickly a divine work without the involvedment of man’s will to receive. The healing of the multitudes that Jesus performed followed the same distinct principles of healing time and again that Jesus demonstrated to His disciples in Matthew 8-9. Matthew simply chose ten distinct miracles in order to prepare the New Testament church to follow in the same footsteps and training as the Twelve.

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

Narrative: Jesus Prepares to Depart In Mat 19:1 to Mat 23:39 we have the narrative section that precedes the fifth and final discourse. This section of material emphasizes the future glorification of the Church. However, each subsequent narrative section becomes increasingly complex as it carries forward the previous themes while developing the next redemptive theme for the discourse that follows.

The central theme of Mat 19:1 to Mat 23:39 is that many are called into the Kingdom of Heaven, but few are chosen (Mat 22:14). While God extends His call to everyone, many try to enter the kingdom based upon good works; however, God chooses those who yield to Him in utter dependence upon His grace, realizing that there is nothing good in them deserving of His divine blessings and eternal life. For example, while the Pharisees had obtained vast knowledge of the Law, often gathering to dispute various interpretations, they failed to be recipients of God’s grace (Mat 19:3-12). In contrast, the children had very little knowledge of the Law, yet Jesus said that the Kingdom of Heaven was for such who come to Him in simple faith and trust (Mat 19:13-15). The rich, young ruler had every opportunity to fulfill the Law, with his youthful zeal and financial strength; yet, he fell short of God’s grace (Mat 19:16-22). In contrast, the disciples forsook everything in life to follow Jesus, becoming recipients of His divine grace and eternal life (Mat 19:23-30). James and John and their mother failed to understand the sacrifice that would be made by Jesus, demanding a similar sacrifice from themselves; thus, the mother’s request for grace was denied (Mat 20:17-28). In contrast, the two blind men were heard in that they utterly depended upon God’s mercy, following Jesus after their healing as an expression of their sacrifice (Mat 20:29-34). While the multitudes received Jesus as their Messiah and King, becoming recipients of God’s grace has He healed the blind and lame (Mat 21:1-14), the Pharisees fell short of divine grace because they denied the office and ministry of Jesus (Mat 21:15-17).

Outline: Here is a proposed outline:

1. Introduction Mat 19:1-2

2. The Testimony of Scripture Mat 19:3 to Mat 20:16

3. The Testimony of Jesus Mat 20:17 to Mat 21:17

4. The Testimonies of John the Baptist & God the Father Mat 21:23 to Mat 22:40

5. A Revelation of Divine Judgment against the Jews Mat 23:1-39

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

Preparing for the King’s Departure and Second Coming Mat 19:1 to Mat 25:46 records the fifth major division of the Gospel of Matthew. The narrative material in this division (Mat 19:1 to Mat 23:39) emphasizes the need to serve the Lord after His departure while awaiting His expected Second Coming. [507] For example, the Parables of the Wicked Vinedressers and the Wedding Feast, which are found in this passage, teach on working in the kingdom while waiting for the return of the Master. We must await His Second Coming by doing the Father’s will. Jesus also teaches on key issues that affect our lives most dramatically regarding our readiness for His Second Coming, such as marriage and riches. The cares of this world that most hinder our sanctification are marriage (Mat 19:1-12) and the pursuit of this world’s goods (Mat 19:16 to Mat 20:16). Those who do not heed His calling will perish if no fruit is shown. Jesus carries this theme of readiness and Christian service into His discourse with the Parables of the Virgins and the Parable of the Talents. Five virgins remained ready for the bridegroom. Two of the three servants were faithful with their master’s goods, but one foolish virgin and the man who kept his one talent were cast into outer darkness. A key verse for this narrative material is Mat 22:14, “For many are called, but few are chosen.” This narrative passage ends with Jesus giving a final woe to the scribes and Pharisees as well as to the city of Jerusalem.

[507] Benjamin Bacon identifies the theme of the fifth narrative-discourse section of Matthew’s Gospel (Matthew 19:1 to 25:46) as apocalyptic. He believes this theme follows a natural progression from the previous theme of Matthew’s fourth narrative-discourse, saying, “It was inevitable that Mt’s fourth Book should lead up to a great Discourse on the Consummation as the climax of his Gospel.” See Benjamin W. Bacon, Studies in Matthew (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1930), 412-413.

The discourse that follows (Mat 24:1 to Mat 25:46) teaches on the Second Coming of Jesus. Thus, He prepares His disciples for His departure and Second Coming. Much of this material can be found in the book of Revelation, which also deals with the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. Note that both narrative and discourse material contain warnings against being caught up with the cares of this world and exhortations to readiness for His Second Coming and to Christian service while waiting for His Return.

As with all of the narrative material, Matthew includes one Old Testament Scripture that is introduced with “that it might be fulfilled.” In Mat 21:4-5 we find a quote from Zec 9:9 which sets the underlying theme of this division of Matthew on eschatology, which is the coming of the King.

Mat 21:4-5, “All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass.”

Zec 9:9, “Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.”

Glorification: Deuteronomy Versus Fifth Discourse Which Establishes a Future Hope In the book of Deuteronomy, Moses gives the children the prophetic vision of their future hope for those who obey the Law and of future judgment for those who are disobedient. In like manner, the fifth discourse on Eschatology gives the prophecy of the future hope of the Church and judgment upon sinners.

The next narrative passage (Mat 19:1 to Mat 23:39) emphasizes the need to serve the Lord after His departure while awaiting His expected return. For example, the parables of the Wicked Vinedressers and the Wedding Feast teach on working in the kingdom while waiting for the return of the Master. This passage ends with Jesus giving a final woe to the scribes and Pharisees as well as to the city of Jerusalem. The discourse that follows (Mat 24:1 to Mat 25:46) teaches on His Second Coming. Thus, Jesus prepares His disciples for His departure. This reminds us of the purpose of the book of Deuteronomy, which was to prepare the children of Israel for the Promised Land. Both this passage in Matthew and the book of Deuteronomy give promises of blessings to those who obey the Lord and both give severe warnings of divine judgments to those who do not serve the Lord.

The one Old Testament prophecy found in this division in Matthew’s Gospel is Mat 21:4-5, which quotes Zec 9:9 and simply prophesies of the coming of the Messiah and supports the theme of this division of Matthew on eschatology.

Mat 21:4-5, “All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass.”

Zec 9:9, “Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.”

Outline Here is a proposed outline:

A. Narrative: Jesus Prepares to Depart Mat 19:1 to Mat 23:39

B. Fifth Discourse: The King’s Second Coming Mat 24:1 to Mat 25:46

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

On Marriage and Divorce.

The final departure from Galilee:

v. 1. And it came to pass that when Jesus had finished these sayings, He departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judea, beyond Jordan;

v. 2. and great multitudes followed Him, and He healed them there.

Galilee’s day of grace was at its end. Jesus had fulfilled all things that He had intended for the people of the northern country. Even the last lesson, with its impressive sayings, had been given to the disciples only. The time of Christ’s great Passion was near. He left Galilee to travel by easy stages into the country of Judea by way of Perea, along the eastern shore of the Jordan, opposite Samaria and Judea, including a large part of the former kingdom of the Edomites. He seems to have been in this country for some time, attending both to His teaching and healing ministry, Mar 10:1. As in Galilee, so here many people were attracted by His fame; great crowds followed Him, and many, no doubt, received the seed of the Gospel truths into their hearts.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

EXPOSITION

Mat 19:1-12

The beginning of the last journey to Jerusalem. The question concerning divorce. (Mar 10:1-12.)

Mat 19:1

When Jesus had finished these sayings. This is the beginning of a new section of the history, commencing, as usual, with the formulary, And it came to pass. “These sayings” must refer to what was recorded in Mat 18:1-35. But St. Matthew’s narrative omits many events that happened in the interval between the account of the Galilaean ministry and the history of these last days, that is, from the autumn of one year to the spring of the next. The transactions of this time, which are omitted also by St. Mark, are given by St. Luke (Lu 9:51-17:11) and St. John (Jn 7:2-11:54), comprising many things that occurred at Jerusalem during the Feast of Tabernacles and on other occlusions. He departed from Galilee. Not visiting it again till he appeared there after his resurrection. There was no part of the Holy Land in which he did not at some time sojourn, and now, as the final consummation drew nigh, he resolutely set his face towards Jerusalem. Came into the coasts of Judea beyond Jordan. Coasts should be borders. Judaea was bounded by the river, and there was no part of it beyond, that is, on the east of Jordan. The words, “beyond Jordan,” belong to the verb “came,” and the clause signifies that the object of Christ’s journey was the vicinity of Judaea, and that, instead of entering the province by the direct road through Samaria, he took the more lengthy but safer route through Peraea. This was the name of the region on the east of the Jordan (, beyond), extending at this time from the river Hieromax, or Jarmouk, on the north, to the Arnon on the south, i.e. to the middle of the eastern shore of the Dead Sea. The ruler of this district was Herod Antipas, and it was at this era in a most flourishing condition, notably fertile, and containing many fine towns ornamented with magnificent buildings. Here the simple, pastoral country people were less influenced by the narrow bigotry of the Pharisaic party, and in the towns the ban which excluded Jesus from the synagogues of Galilee and Judaea was either not recognized or not enforced. A quiet opportunity for preaching the gospel was thus offered. This may possibly be the sojourn in Peraea mentioned by St. John (Joh 10:40-42).

Mat 19:2

Great multitudes followed him. He was favourably received by the unprejudiced Peraeans. Healed them. Those of the multitude who had need of healing (Luk 9:11). There. In the “beyond Jordan” region. St. Mark observes that he taught them. Thus, “at one time teaching, at another working miracles, he varied his means of salvation, that from the miracles faith might be given him as a Teacher; and by his teaching he might urge to edification the miracles which he wrought” (St. Chrysostom, ap. I. Williams).

Mat 19:3

We have now to listen to our Lord’s teaching respecting divorce and marriage. The Pharisees. The article is better omitted. Our Lord was not long left in peace by these inveterate enemies, who, if they could not openly persecute him, might hope to extract something from his words and sentiments which might be used to his disadvantage. They were probably envoys sent from Jerusalem to entrap and annoy him. Tempting him. Trying to get him to give an answer which would in any case afford a handle for malicious misrepresentation. The question proposed concerned divorce. To put away his wife forevery cause; : quacumque ex causa; for any cause whatever. This was a delicate question to raise in the domains of Herod Antipas (see Mat 14:3, Mat 14:4), and one greatly debated in the rabbinical schools. Our Lord had already twice pronounced upon the subject, once in the sermon on the mount (Mat 5:32), and again when reasoning with the Pharisees on the due observance of the Law (Luk 16:18). Two opposite opinions were held by the followers of Hillel and Schammai, the heads of antagonistic schools. The school of Hillel contended that a man might divorce his wife for various causes quite unconnected with infringement of the marriage vow, e.g. because he had ceased to love her, or had seen some one whom he liked better, or even because she cooked his dinner badly. The school of Schammai was more strict, and permitted divorce only in case of fornication, adultery, or some offence against chastity. Between these contending parties the Pharisees desired to make our Lord give a decision, thinking that they had fixed him in a dilemma. If he took the popular lax view, they could deride his claims as a Teacher of superior morality; if he upheld the stricter side, he would rouse the enmity of the majority, and possibly, like John the Baptist, involve himself in trouble with the licentious tetrarch. There was a chance also that the high tone which he had already taken might prove to be at variance with Mosaic enactments. The easiness with which divorce was obtained may be seen in Josephus, Who thus writes: “He who for any reason whatsoever (and many such causes happen to men) wishes to be separated from a wife who lives with him, must give it to her in writing that he will cohabit with her no longer, and by this means she shall have liberty to marry another man; but before this is done it is not permitted her to do so” (‘Ant.,’ Mat 4:8, Mat 4:23). Josephus himself repudiated his own wife because he was not pleased with her behaviour (‘Vita,’ 76). And Ben-Sira gives the curt injunction, “If she go not as thou wouldest have her ( ), cut her off from thy flesh, and let her go” (Ecclesiasticus 25:26).

Mat 19:4

He answered and said. Our Lord does not directly reply in the negative, but refers to the original institution of marriage. All his auditors agreed in holding the legality of divorce, though they differed in their estimation of the causes that warranted separation. It was quite a new idea to find the propriety of divorce questioned, and to have their captious question met by an appeal to Scripture which they could not gainsay, and an enunciation of a high ideal of matrimony which their glosses and laxity had miserably perverted or obscured. He which made them. Manuscripts vary between and . The latter is approved by Westcott and Hort. It is best translated, the Creator. The Vulgate gives, qui fecit hominem. At the beginning ( ). These words should be joined to the following verb made (), and not with the preceding participle, as it is intended to show the primordial design in the creation of man and woman. God made the first members of the human family a male and a female, not a male and females. The lower animals were created separately, male and female; “mankind was created in one person in Adam, and when there was found no help meet for Adam, no companion in body, soul, or spirit, fit for him, then God, instead of creating a wholly new thing, made Eve out of Adam” (Sadler). Two individuals of opposite sexes were thus formed for each other; one was the complement of the other, and the union was perfect and lasted, as long as life. There was in this original institution no room for polygamy, no room for divorce. It was a concrete example of the way in which God unites man and wife.

Mat 19:5

And said. The words that follow are assigned to Adam in Gen 2:23, Gen 2:24, but he spake by inspiration of God, as he knew nothing of “father and mother” by personal experience, and therefore they can be rightly attributed to the Creator. It was, in fact, a prophetic utterance of which Adam was the mouthpiece; as St. Augustine says, “Deus utique per hominem dixit quod homo prophetando praedixit.” For this cause. Because of this Divine appointment, and especially of the peculiar creation of Eve. She was not formed separately of the dust of the earth, but directly from the substance of Adam; so she was one with her husband, nearer than all other human relations, superior to the tenderest ties of nature and birth. Shall cleave (, or ); literally, shall be glued to; adhaerebit. The word expresses the closest possible union, stronger and higher than that towards parents. They twain shall be one flesh; the two shall become one flesh ( ). The Septuagint and Samaritan Pentateuch insert “the two,” which is not in the present Hebrew text. Our Lord adopts the addition as conveying the correct sense. In marriage there is a moral and physical union, so that two persons become virtually one being. Originally, man contained woman in himself before she was separated from him; she was a corporeal unity with man; or, as others put it, man, as a race, was created male and female, the latter being implicitly contained in the former; the previous unity is thus asserted. In marriage this unity is acknowledged and continued. St. Paul quotes this text in Eph 5:31; and in 1Co 6:16 uses it as an argument against fornication,

Mat 19:6

Wherefore (); so that. This follows from the quotation just given. Our Lord explains and confirms the original dictum by an assertion of his own and a general law. What God hath joined together. The institution of marriage is God’s appointment. Christ says , what, neuter singular, not “those whom,” plural and concrete, that he may make it clear that he is here speaking in the abstract, not specially of Adam and Eve. What he enunciates is true of all wedlock, not simply of the case of our first parents. Let not man put asunder. Man does thus infringe the primitive rule when he divorces his with. Herein he opposes God and acts against nature. He and his wife are one; they can no more separate from one another than they can from themselves. If we regard our Lord’s language in this passage without prejudice, and not reading into it modem notions, we must consider that he here decrees the indissolubility of the marriage tie. His hearers plainly understood him so to speak, as we see from the objection which they urged.

Mat 19:7

Why did Moses then command? If, as you assert, God ordained that marriage should be indissoluble, how comes it that Moses commanded () us to practise divorce, and prescribed rules as to its conduct? They are referring to Deu 24:1, Deu 24:2. Jesus had escaped the trap which was laid for him, and foiled them by the very words of Scripture and the plain intention of the first institution. But they see their way to opposing the authority of the great lawgiver to the dictum and interpretation of this new Teacher. It cannot be supposed, they argue, that Moses would enjoin a practice condemned by the Word of God; therefore, if you abide by your exposition, you contradict Moses. A writing of divorcement. The man who desired to divorce his wife could not effect this separation by mere word of mouth or by violent ejectment; he must have a written document formally prepared and witnessed, necessitating certain delay and publicity. In regulating the method of divorce and giving rules which prevented it from being undertaken rashly and lightly, Moses could not justly be said to have commanded it. There were also two cases in which he absolutely forbade divorce (see Deu 22:13-19; Deu 22:28, Deu 22:29).

Mat 19:8

Moses because of (, with a view to, to meet) the hardness of your hearts; your obstinacy, perverseness. You were not honest and pure enough to obey the primitive law. There was danger that you would ill treat your wives in order to get rid of them, or even murder them. The lesser evil was regular divorce. But the enactment is really a shame and reproach to you, and was occasioned by grave defects in your character and conduct. And it is not true to say that Moses commanded; he only suffered you to put away your wives. This was a temporary permission to meet your then circumstances. Divorce had been practised commonly and long; it was traditional; it was seen among all other Oriental peoples. Moses could not hope at once to eradicate the inveterate evil; he could only modify, mitigate, and regulate its practice. The rules which he introduced were intended, not to facilitate divorce, but to lead men better to realize the proper idea of marriage. And Christ was introducing a better law, a higher morality, for which Mosaic legislation paved the way (comp. Rom 5:20; Rom 8:3; Heb 9:10). From the beginning. The original institution of marriage contained no idea of divorce; it was no mere civil contract, made by man and dissoluble by man, but a union of God’s own formation, with which no human power could interfere. However novel this view might seem, it was God’s own design from the first. The first instance of polygamy occurs in Gen 4:19, and is connected with murder and revenge.

Mat 19:9

And I say unto you. Our Lord here enunciates the law which was to obtain in his kingdom, which, indeed, was simply the reintroduction and enforcement of the primitive and natural ordinance. Except it be for fornication; : nisi ob fornicationem (Vulgate). This is the received reading. Tregelles, Tischendort; Westcott and Hort omit ). The parallel passage in St. Mark (where Christ is stated to have made the remark to his disciples “in the house”) omits the clause altogether. Lachmann, following some few manuscripts, has introduced , “saving for the cause of fornication,” from Mat 5:32. The interpretation of this verse has given occasion to acute controversy. There are some questions that have to be considered in expounding this matter.

(1) What is here meant by ? Does it bear its usual meaning, or is it equivalent to , “adultery”? These who affirm that the sin of married persons is never expressed by the word porneia, hold that it here signifies ante-nuptial unchastity, which would make the marriage void ab initio; post-nuptial transgression would be punished by death, not by divorce. In this view, our Lord would say that no divorce is allowable except where the wife is proved to have been unchaste before marriage. In such a ease, the union being void from the first, the man is free to marry again. But there are difficulties in this interpretation. Why, at the end of the verse, is it called adultery to marry the divorced woman, if she was never really and lawfully married? Again, it is not correct to say that porneia denotes solely the sin of unmarried people. All illicit connection is described by this term, and it cannot be limited to one particular kind of transgression. In Ecclesiasticus 23:23 it is used expressly of the sin of an adulteress. We may also remark that metaphorically idolatry is often called by this name, whereas, since Israel is supposed to be married to the Lord, the breaking of this bend by the worship of false gods might more strictly be named adultery. And yet again, there is no proof that the discovery of previous immorality in a wife did ipso facto vitiate the marriage (see Hos 1:2, etc.). The passages that are thought to bear on this matter are Deu 22:13-21 and Deu 24:1-4. In the former there is no question of divorce,the offender is to be stoned; in the second passage the ground of divorce is “some uncleanness,” or some unseemly thing, whether immorality or personal defect is meant cannot be decided, the rival schools taking different sides. But it is quite certain that adultery is not intended, and ante-nuptial unchastity is not even hinted. The interpretation, therefore, given above cannot be maintained.

(2) Omitting for the moment the limiting clause, may we say that the general teaching of Christ makes for the indissolubility of the marriage bond? The majority of the Fathers from Hermas and Justin Martyr downwards affirm this. Those who admit that divorce is permissible in the case of the wife’s adultery are unanimous in asserting that, by Christ’s ordinance, remarriage is prohibited to the husband during the culprit’s life; so that, practically, if divorce a mensa et toro is allowed, divorce a vinculo is refused. All Christ’s utterances on the subject, saving the apparently restrictive clause (Mat 5:32) and here, absolutely and plainly forbid divorce, on the ground of law and nature. The words in Mar 10:11 and Luk 16:18 are given without any limitation whatever. St. Paul draws from such his conclusion of the indissolubility of the marriage tie, as may be seen in 1Co 7:10, 1Co 7:11, 1Co 7:39; Rom 7:2, Rom 7:3. There could never have been a doubt about this subject had it not been for the difficulty in interpreting the parenthetical clause.

(3) Are we, then, to suppose that Christ, by those words, modifies his general statement, and allows absolute divorce in the case of a wife’s misconduct? Such is the view taken by many theologians, and practically endorsed by the civil law of many countries. Neither the Roman nor the Anglican Churches support this laxity. Ecclesiastical and civil laws are here antagonistic. It is said that Christ allows the wronged party to marry again. If so, if the oneness of the parties is wholly destroyed by the sin of the woman, why is it not permitted to a man to marry a divorced woman? This cannot be called adultery unless she is still one flesh with her husband, although separated. We must argue from this that divorce in such a ease does not destroy the vinculum matrimonii, the marriage bond. and if not under this circumstance, surely under no other; for any other ground must be always less serious than adultery. If the clause in question enunciated an exception to the absolute rule elsewhere given, Christ would seem to stultify himself, to give two opposite decisions, and to introduce uncertainty in a most important verdict. The principle on which he based his dictum would be overthrown, and his hearers might have accused him of inconsistency. The solution offered for this difficulty is thisthat Christ is contemplating merely what we call judicial separation; he considers that no trivial cause justifies this, in fact, nothing but fornication, and that this modified divorce does not free the man so that he may marry again; he is bound by the Law as long as his wife lives. Our Lord seems to have introduced the exceptional clause in order to answer what were virtually two questions of the Pharisees, viz. whether it was lawful to “put away a wife for every cause,” and whether, when a man had legally divorced his wife, he might marry again. To the former Christ replies that separation was allowable only in the case of fornication; in response to the second, he rules that even in that case remarriage was wholly barred. And whosoever marrieth her which is put away (, without the article); her, when she is put away (Revised Version); or, a divorced woman. The clause is wholly omitted by and some other manuscripts, and some modern editors, as Westcott and Hort. But it has very high authority in its favour. Alford renders, “her, when divorced,” and restricts the application to a woman unlawfully divorced, not extending it to one separated for porneia. But the language is too indefinite to admit of this interpretation as certain (see Luk 16:18, and the note on Mat 5:32, where the popular view is expressed). The clause, pondered without regard to foregone conclusions, surely contains an argument for the indissolubility of the marriage tie, as we have said above. Marriage with a divorced wife can be rightly termed adultery only in consideration of the continuance of the vinculum. Doth commit adultery. The binding nature of marriage does not depend on the will or the acts of the persons, but on its primal character and institution. By the repeal of the Mosaic relaxation and the restoration of marriage to its original principle, Christ not only enforces the high dignity of this ordinance, but obviates many opportunities of wickedness, such, for instance, as collusion between husband and wife with a view to obtain freedom for marriage with others.

Mat 19:10

His disciples say unto him. Our Lord appears to have repeated privately to the disciples what he had said publicly to the Pharisees. If the case () of the man be so with his wife. Some commentators take to signify guilt: “if such guilt appertains to the married state.” But the meaning is plain enough anyway, and the word, as here used, corresponds to the Latin causa, and the Hebrew dibrah, which may denote “case,” “condition,” etc. The disciples reflect the feeling of their day. Marriage without any possibility of essential release (for they see that this is Christ’s law) seems to them a severe and unbearable connection. It were better never to marry at all than to fetter one’s self with such an inexorable obligation. Such a doctrine was entirely novel in that age, and most unpalatable; and even the apostles receive it with wonder and hesitation. They have not yet leaned that in Messiah’s kingdom grace conquers natural inclination, and strengthens the weak will so that it rises superior to custom, prejudice, and the promptings of the flesh.

Mat 19:11

Our Lord makes a gentle reply to this observation of the disciples concerning the inexpediency of marriage under some circumstances. You say true, he seems to mean, but all men cannot receive this saying; i.e. their words, “It is not good to marry.” But he endorses these words in a different signification from theirs. Their objection to marry arose from the impossibility of putting away a wife for any cause. Christ passes over these ignoble scruples, and enunciates the only principle which should lead a man to abstain from marriage. They to whom it is given. They to whom are given the call and the grace to abstain from marriage. These persons’ practice forms an exception to the general view of the propriety and blessedness of the marriage state.

Mat 19:12

Our Lord proceeds to note three classes of men to whom it is given to abstain from marriage. There are some eunuchs, which were so born. The first class consists of those who are physically unable to contract matrimony, or, having the power, lack the inclination. They are compulsorily continent, and are not voluntary abstainers. Neither is the second class: those which were made eunuchs of men. Such were common enough in the harems and courts of Orientals. The cruel and infamous treatment which such persons underwent was practised against their will, and consequently their continence had no sort of merit. The third is the only class which of choice and for high reasons lived a celibate life: which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. This is not to be understood of excision; for this would be a contravention of the order of nature and the good work of creation. Origen, who took the passage literally, and with his own hands mutilated himself, was justly condemned by the verdict of the Church. The verb is to be understood in a metaphorical sense of the mortification of the natural desires and impulses at the cost of much pain and trouble, the spirit conquering the flesh by the special grace of God. The motive of such self-denial is high and pure. It is practised “for the kingdom of heaven’s sake,” that is, to be free from distraction and the cares and dangers involved in a married life. St. Paul carries forward the Lord’s teaching when he writes (1Co 7:32, 1Co 7:33), “He that is unmarried is careful for the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord; but he that is married is careful for the things of the world, how he may please his wife” (comp. Isa 56:3, Isa 56:4). The celibate life, deliberately embraced for religion’s sake, is here approved by Christ, not to the disparagement of matrimony, but as a counsel which some are enabled to follow to their soul’s great benefit. It may be added that the counsel applies also to married persons who sacrifice conjugal endearments for spiritual reasons”have wives as though they had none” (1Co 7:29). Let him receive it. This is not an injunction, but a permission; it is no universal rule, prescribed to all or to the many; it is a special grace allowed to the few, and by few attained. “Each man,” says St. Paul, “hath his own gift from God, one after this manner, and another after that” (1Co 7:7, 1Co 7:26). Some think the Essenes are here referred to; but it is not likely that our Lord would endorse the practices of a sect which in some of its tenets was by no means commendable. Rather he is laying down a limitation that, while self-sacrifice and self-dedication to God are acceptable and fraught with peculiar blessings, none should attempt to win heaven in this way, unless they are specially prepared for such a life by the grace of God mastering the human will and controlling every earthly desire. The pre-eminent value set on celibacy by the early Church was learned from this and similar passages; but Christ institutes no comparison between the single and married states; and it would have been wiser to imitate his reserve in estimating the spiritual merits of the two conditions.

Mat 19:13-15

Benediction of little children. (Mar 10:13-16; Luk 18:15-17.)

Mat 19:13

Christ, having laid his blessing on marriage, now blesses its fruit. Then. This happened directly after the preceding conversation. Mothers were won to his side by his elevation of woman to her true position, and his marked tenderness to children. Little children (). St. Luke calls them , “their infants.” These were babes whom the mothers carried in their arms, and who were too young to understand the meaning and importance of the act of Christ in blessing them. It was a custom to take infants to the synagogues, that they might receive the prayers and blessings of the rabbis, or holy men. For this reason they were brought to Christ as a holy and revered Teacher. That he should put his hands on them, and pray. The laying on of hands was symbolical of blessing (see Gen 48:14; Num 27:23). From the Jewish it passed into the Christian Church (Act 6:5), and continues unto this day to be used on various solemn occasions. The disciples rebuked them. More definitely in St. Mark, “rebuked those that brought them.” Why they did so is not quite obvious. Either they thought that it was beneath Christ’s dignity, and a waste of his precious time to attend to these babes; or, being still of imperfect faith, they did not realize that any spiritual good could proceed from the imposition of Christ’s hands upon unconscious and irresponsive infants. They had seen him cure bodily diseases with a touch, and they would have welcomed these little ones it’ they had been brought to be healed of some obvious maladies; what they could not understand was that these irrational creatures, not possessed of faith, could be the recipients of Divine blessing. Christ, by word and action, teaches another lesson. St. Mark adds that Jesus was “much displeased” at the disciples’ faithless interference. St. Luke tells us that he “called them [the babes] unto him,” making Iris followers desist from their officious remonstrance, and said the memorable words which are given almost without variation by the three synoptists.

Mat 19:14

Suffer [the] little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me. He speaks as though the infants were ready and eager to come to him, if they were not prevented. He thus intimates the truth that, though incompetent to undo, stand God’s blessing, children were not incompetent to receive it. There was no natural impediment to bar the way. Unconscious intents, under the Mosaic dispensation, were admitted to the privileges of the Jewish Church by the rite of circumcision; in Christ’s kingdom analogous mercies were to be extended to them. From this passage has been derived a cogent argument for infant baptism, because Christ herein showed, not only that tender age and immaturity of reason put no obstacle in the way of his blessing, but that children were the standard by which fitness for his kingdom was to be tested. For of such is the kingdom of heaven. They who would enter Christ’s kingdom must be pure, simple, obedient, as little children (comp. Mat 18:3). That is why he says, “of such,” not “of these,” intimating that it is not to the age, but to the disposition and character, that he refers. Some, not so suitably, confine the saying to such as are dedicated to God in baptism. It is well said that what children now are is God’s work; what they shall be hereafter is their own.

Mat 19:15

He laid his hands on them. He was not influenced by the captious objections of the disciples. St. Mark tells us that “he took them up in his arms, put his bands upon them, and blessed them.” Thus far he complied with the wishes of the parents who brought the babes to him. But we do not read that he prayed, as they had asked. Doubtless there was meaning in this omission. In conferring blessing he was acting in his Divine nature, and had no need of prayer. Sometimes, indeed, he prayed for the sake of bystanders (see Joh 11:42; Joh 12:30); here he prays not, that he may teach a lesson of his Divinity. Departed thence. Set out from Peraea, journeying towards Jerusalem.

Mat 19:16-22

Answer to the inquiry of the rich young ruler concerning eternal life. (Mar 10:17-22; Luk 18:18-23.)

Mat 19:16

And, behold. The exclamation, as usual, denotes the suddenness and unexpected nature of the occurrence. It took place probably on the next day after the blessing of the children. One came ( ). This is more emphatic than the enclitic , and we learn from St. Luke that he was “a ruler,” i.e. of the synagogue, and he must have been of noted piety and worth to have arrived at this dignity while still a youth (verse 22). St. Mark gives more detailshe “came running, and kneeled to him.” He was eager for an answer to his question, and recognized in Jesus a Rabbi worthy of all honour and veneration, though he saw in him nothing more. lie comes with no sinister intention, as the Pharisees did, but in all good faith, hoping to have a religious difficulty solved. Good Master. Thus the received text in the three synoptists. The epithet “good” is omitted by many excellent manuscripts, and has been expunged by most modern editors. It is required if the received text of the next verse is retained. It occurs in Mark and Luke without variation. The young man may have used the expression with the view of winning Christ’s favour, or, at any rate, with the idea of showing the light in which he regarded him. What good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? His notion was that eternal happiness was obtained by the performance of certain acts, and he is not sure that he has done enough for the reward, and wishes to know particularly what further good work will secure it. The other synoptists have merely, “What shall I do? but of course, good work is implied, if not expressed. This was a question much mooted in the rabbinical schools, and one to which the answers were as various as they were puerile. Some taught that the commandments were not equally important, and that what they deemed the lesser might be violated with impunity, if the others were observed. Some made the gift of perfection to depend on the daily recitation of certain prayers or psalms, others on giving due honour to the aged. Amid such perplexing rules, the youth desires an authoritative decision, which he may put in practice, and thus be sure of a happy place in Messiah’s kingdombe, as the Jews termed it, “a son of the age to come.”

Mat 19:17

Why callest thou me good? Such is the reading of the received text here, and without any variation in the parallel passages of Mark and Luke. Our Lord takes the ruler to task for applying this epithet to him. unless the youth believed in his Divinity. You think of me only as a learned Teacher: how, then, can you speak of me in a term which can really be predicated of no child of man? Christ answers the ruler’s address before he touches the subject of his interrogation, reproving him for using a form of words without realizing its full import. This is all plain enough; but many good manuscripts, including B, D, etc., Vulgate, and other versions, read, Why askest thou me concerning the good? Most modern editors and the Revised Version have adopted this reading, which they hold to be genuine, and to have been altered subsequently in order to conform it to the other synoptists. If this is so, it is difficult to see whence Mark and Luke obtained their wording, unlesswhich is improbableour Lord used both interrogations on the same occasion. The revised reading expresses Christ’s astonishment at having this question asked; and it may be taken, as Bengel suggests, “He who is good ought to be interrogated about the good;” or, “What is right to do, you ought to know; it can only be obedience to the Author of all goodness.” There is none good but one, that is, God. Here again the reading varies. The other synoptists agree with the received text of Matthew, except that Luke has instead of . Late editors, following , B, D, etc., have printed, : one there is who is good, or one is the good. God alone is the absolutely good; he alone can instruct you and put you certainly in the right way. Persons have been found to argue from this sentence that Christ renounces all claim to be God Almighty. But it is not so. He replies to what was in the young man’s mind. The ruler regarded Jesus as man only; Jesus intimates that, in comparison with God, no man is good. He does not deny the applicability of the epithet to himself, but turns the questioner’s thoughts to the Source of all good. He will not have himself regarded simply as a pre-eminently good man, but as Son of God, one with the Father. If thou wilt (, willest to) enter into life; i.e. enjoy eternal life. Christ uses a term equivalent to that of the ruler in verse 16. So Christ said on another occasion to a lawyer who tempted him. “This do, and thou shalt live” (Luk 10:28). There is no real life without obedience. Keep the commandments of him who is good. The Law was given to prepare men to receive Christianity, and in proportion as they carefully observed it, so were they made ready to inherit the life which Christ gives. No mere external compliance without faith is here approved, but it is laid down that, in order to win eternal life, there must be strict observance of God’s lawsnot some one extraordinary performance, but constant attention to known duties from the highest motive. Faith, indeed, is belief in action, and is dead and profitless if inoperative; so that true obedience is the outcome of true faith.

Mat 19:18

Which ()? Christ’s answer was disappointing to the inquirer; it was too vague and general to satisfy his thought. He expected to hear (as the rabbis taught) of some special precept or precepts, difficult of accomplishment, and not usually regarded, by observance of which he could obtain his great reward. So he asks with laudable persistence, “Of what sort are these commandments which I have to obey?” He is far from thinking of the common duties of the Decalogue, though doubtless he had been taught that these varied greatly in meritoriousness. Christ, in reply, notifies, as examples, the chief enactments of what we call the second table of the Decalogue, quoting the sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, and fifth. He enunciates nothing uncommon, nothing new; and, by prefixing the definite article to the enumeration, he makes the whole a substantial unity, comprising the moral law of duty to one’s neighbour. Perhaps Christ confines his list to the second table in order to make the man feel his imperfection in these ordinary matters, or to bring out his self-righteous spirit. There could be no doubt that infringement of the first table involved the loss of eternal life. Mat 19:17 virtually includes the spirit of this table. It was round these last six commandments chiefly that rabbinical traditions and interpretations had gathered, so that their plain meaning was obscured or depraved. Whoever observed the second table in spirit and truth, kept also the first (Rom 13:9, Rom 13:10); and it is easier to love one’s neighbour than to love God, as the apostle witnesses (see 1Jn 4:20); and without love of our neighbour there cannot be true love of God.

Mat 19:19

Honour, etc. Lange considers that in this verse we have a summary of the two tables, “Honour thy father and mother,” summing up the commandments of the first; and “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,” those of the second (Le Mat 19:18). Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. St. Mark and St. Luke omit this clause; the latter adds, “Defraud not.” According to our text, Christ gives four negative and two positive commands: the last being a summary taken from Le Luk 19:18 (comp. Rom 13:9, Rom 13:10; Gal 5:14). It has been questioned why our Lord omits the tenth commandment (as we call it) from the catalogue. Virtually he introduces it in Luk 19:21; but he may have refrained from formally mentioning it because covetousness was the ruler’s besetting sin, and the marked omission of this precept might force the man to reflect upon this failing, which would wreck his spiritual life. On the other hand, it may be that Christ is not intending to give an epitome of man’s duty; but affording merely an outline of the same, he naturally passes over some portion without special mention.

Mat 19:20

All these things have I kept [from my youth up]. The bracketed words are omitted in some good manuscripts, and by most modern editors; but they have high authority, and are found in most versions, and in the parallel passages of Mark and Luke. They accurately express the ruler’s view of his conduct. He could say without hesitation or mental reservation that he had scrupulously observed the duties of the Decalogue from the time that he knew right from wrong. Of course, we accuse one who could make such a statement of self-righteousness, of ignorance of the spirit of the Law which he claimed to have obeyed; and if one of us spoke thus presumptuously, we should rightly condemn him; we should say that outward service and legal notions of duty were of little worth, and could not secure eternal life. But our Lord treated the young man differently. He did not blame him as boastful and self-deceiving; he had no reproof for his seemingly presumptuous assertion; he recognized his simplicity, honesty, and sincerity, and St. Mark tells us that “Jesus beholding [looking upon, or into] him, loved him.” He read the youth’s heart, saw how pure and guileless it was, recognized in him the possibility of great things, and that he was worthy of the saintly life. The ruler felt that there was more to come; hence he asks, What lack I yet? ; In what respect am I still deficient? How do I come short of eternal life? He had still a sense of want. All that he had done had not given him peace of mind. Hence his inquiry. From a Christian the question would savour of ignorance and unspirituality; but this man asked it in all sincerity, desiring earnestly to know what more was required of him, and being ready, as he thought, to undergo any pain, make any, even the most painful effort, if by so doing he might win the prize on which his soul was set.

Mat 19:21

If thou wilt () be perfect. I believe what you tell me. You have led a religious life in the ordinary way; now yon aspire to higher things; you have a noble ambition to serve God more completely; yon have the power, if you have the will, to do so; I will tell you how. To be “perfect” is to be lacking in nothing that is required for life eternal. It is spoken of Noah and Job; it is required of Christ’s disciples (Mat 5:48). Christ is here giving a counsel of perfection, as it is called, not of obligation on all men, but suited to the idiosyncrasy of this particular inquirer, and of others who are capable of such absolute self-surrender and trustfulness. Go and sell that thou hast. Go back to thy home, and sell all thy substance, all thy possessions. This was the counsel which Jesus gave, denoting the stumbling block which lay in the way of the ruler’s endeavours after perfection. He was voluntarily to deprive himself of the earthly thing to which he fondly clung, his wealth, and to embrace a life of poverty and hardship. Give to the poor. The money obtained by the sale of his possessions he was to distribute, not to relations and friends, who might make some return, but to the poor, from whom he could expect no recompense. And thou shalt have treasure in heaven (Mat 5:12; Mat 6:20). Thou shalt obtain that which thou desirest, eternal life. Not that stripping one’s self of goods and giving to the poor does necessarily ensure the great reward, but, in this youth’s case, such a sacrifice, such a victory over the besetting sin, would be the turning point in his character, and enable him to conquer all lesser temptations, and win the prize of his high calling. Here was to be proved love of man. But there was one more element in the required perfection, viz. love of God. Come and follow me. St Mark adds, “take up the cross.” If he would have apostolic perfection, he must embrace the apostolic life. He must give up wealth, position, earthly ties, earthly occupations, must cast in his lot with the despised Jesus, suffer with him, and, if necessary, die with him. The twelve apostles had accepted Christ’s call on these terms; from him was demanded the same sacrifice the same test of sincerity. He had wished to be exceptionally good; exceptional conduct was required from him in order to reach this high standard. The condition imposed, severe as it undoubtedly was, exactly suited the case, showed the weak spot in the ruler’s character, and, if accepted fully and heartily, would have led him to perfection. Reading these words of our Lord, St. Anthony was so stricken in heart and conscience that he obeyed them literally, stripped himself of everything that he had, distributed to the needy, and went forth poor and naked, trusting to God to provide for him. Many in all ages, inspired by ardent love of life eternal, have done the same. We shall do well to recognize that there are two ways of serving God acceptablythere is the good life required from all religious Christians, and there is the life of perfection to which some, by God’s special grace, are called, and which they embrace and fulfil. It was the latter life that Christ put before this young man.

Mat 19:22

When the young man heard that saying. Such an injunction was wholly unexpected; it completely staggered him; it appealed to the one point in his character which was weak and imperfect. He would have endured any amount of legal requirements or of vexatious and painful observances; he would gladly have become a disciple of Christ; but the previous sacrifice was too great; he could not make it; not that he was specially covetous or avaricious, but his heart was set on his riches; he had a wealthy man’s tastes and position and self-confidence, and he could not bring himself to cast away these even at Christ’s word. Such supreme self-denial, such absolute devotion, he would not embrace. So he went away sorrowful. He saw the right road, but he turned away from it. Without any further word, casting aside all hope of the saintly life, yet grieved and dejected at the thought of what he was losing, he returned to his home. It was hard to disobey the wise and loving Teacher who had endeavoured to lead him to the noblest aims and the highest ambition; but it was harder to follow his severe counsels. The evangelist gives the reason of this unhappy decision. For he had great possessions; : erat enim habens multas possessiones; he was one that had many possessions, or had and continued to have, implying possession and retention (comp. Luk 5:18, “he continued in retirement”). This fact was the snare that trapped him, the stumbling block over which he fell. The possession of riches proved fatal to saintliness. It is this truth that our Lord emphasizes in the following discourse. They who tare unconscious of having been tried as this young man was tried may condemn him as worldly, covetous, and insincere. A true Christian, who knows his own heart, may well feel that he can throw no stone at this defaulter; that he, any more than the Jew, could not give up all that he held dear for Christ’s sake; that, bad the alternative been set before him in this blunt, palpable fashion, he too would have gone away sorrowful.

Mat 19:23-30

The dangers of riches and the blessings of self-denied. (Mar 10:23-31; Luk 18:24-30.)

Mat 19:23

Then said Jesus. He derives an important lesson from the sad result of the above incident. St Luke connects it with what had just preceded: “When Jesus saw that he [the ruler] was very sorrowful, he said.” It was a strange and most emphatic assertion, quite alien from general opinion and sentiment. A rich man shall hardly (, with difficulty) enter into the kingdom of heaven. Remembering that Christ had just invited the young ruler to range himself on his side and become his disciple, we see that the primary meaning of the term, “kingdom of heaven,” here is the Christian Church, the society which Jesus came to establish. It was indeed difficult for a man wealthy, honoured, dignified, to strip himself of his riches and rank, and openly cast in his lot with the despised Jesus and his followers, voluntarily surrendering all that hitherto had made life beautiful and worth living. It is difficult for a rich man in any case to serve God acceptably, as Christ shows with reiterated emphasis.

Mat 19:24

Again I say unto you. The disciples, St. Mark notes, “were astonished at his words,” so he proceeds to state the startling proposition more unreservedly and energetically. It is easier for a camel, etc. This is a proverbial expression for an impossibility. A similar proverb is found in many countries, only substituting another great animal instead of the camel, e.g. the elephant. From taking a too literal view of the passage, some commentators have invented a gate at Jerusalem, low and narrow, designed only for foot passengers, which was called “the needle’s eye.” Others have remedied the supposed absurdity by reading (if, indeed, there is such a word) “rope,” for , as if we were to say cable instead of camel. But there is no difficulty in the expression. Such hyperboles and paradoxes are common in all languages (comp. Mat 23:24). The impossibility, indeed, is relative, but the warning is none the less real and terrible. The Lord says that the possession of riches prevents the owner from following him, and endangers his eternal salvation; for that is what it comes to. In St. Mark (whether the words are genuine or not is uncertain) we find a limitation introduced: “How hard it is for them that trust in riches!” Now, this is the effect of riches; men learn to trust in them, to deem that their earthly state is secure, that change and chance will not affect them, that they are, so to speak, independent of Providence; they love the world which is so good to them and so pleasant in their eyes, and they have no earnest longing for a better home. Such is the natural consequence of the possession of wealth, and that which makes the impossibility of entrance into the kingdom.

Mat 19:25

Exceedingly amazed. The stern teaching of Mat 19:23 and Mat 19:24 thoroughly dismayed and perhaps offended them. Temporal prosperity had in their Law been held forth as the reward of righteousness and obedience, a foretaste of future happiness. They must unlearn this principle. Here, as they understood it, was a doctrine novel, unheard of, unnatural! Fancy the astonishment that would be displayed nowadays if such a sentiment were solemnly propounded in the Stock Exchange, the bank, the market! The apostles could not minimize its import, or say that it might suit other days and other states of society, but was inapplicable to their age and nation. We can do this in the case of many seemingly stringent requirements of the gospel; but they accepted the announcement in its full and simple meaning, and asked in sorrowful wonder, Who then can be saved? If the way to heaven is barred to the rich man, how shall the poor pass therein? The difficulty seemed to apply to everybody. All who are not rich are hoping and struggling to become rich, and therefore fall under the same category. If the apostles thought not of themselves in this question, they were grieved at the reflection that, under the circumstances, the majority of mankind were recklessly endangering their eternal salvation. With their views of a temporal kingdom, the apostles probably were thinking of their own prospects.

Mat 19:26

But Jesus beheld them (, looking upon them). He turned on his disciples a look full of earnestness, sympathy, and love, soothing their fears and claiming their full attention for a spiritual truth. With men ( ) this is impossible. Men in their own strength, relying on their own natural powers, cannot save their souls or rise superior to the snare of riches. From the entanglements occasioned by wealth, and the lowering effects of its pursuit and enjoyment, the natural man is wholly unable to extricate himself. With God all things are possible. Here is the only solution of the difficulty. With the grace of God, and embracing the calls of his providence, the rich man may be delivered from his dangers, may keep a heart unspotted, may use his wealth to God’s glory and his own eternal good. So the impossibility is a conditional one, to be overcome by due recourse to the help of God and the strong hope of the future life. How a rich man may be disciplined and elevated we see in the ease of Zacchaeus (Luk 19:8). Many such instances have occurred in our own days, as in all Christian times.

Mat 19:27

Then answered Peter. This was not so much a reply to any direct word of Jesus, as to the general purport of his late utterances. He had intimated that self-renunciation was the passport to eternal life; that a just reward awaited those who gave up all for Jesus’sake. This, Peter says, is exactly what the apostles had done. We have forsaken all, and followed thee. It was not much that they had left, but it was all they had, their whole means of subsistence, old habits, old associations, to which the poor cling as tenaciously as the wealthy. All this, at a simple word of Christ, they had relinquished unreservedly, without regret or complaint. They had reduced themselves to the condition which Christ had enjoined. What shall we have therefore? The question showed the usual ignorance of the nature of the kingdom of Messiah. Peter is thinking chiefly of temporal advancement and promotion, of success and dignity in an earthly realm. Even after their Master’s crucifixion and resurrection they had asked, “Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?” (Act 1:6). It was not till after the effusion of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost that their imperfect view was corrected, and they understood what Christ meant when he said, “My kingdom is not of this world.” But what a revulsion of feeling must have taken place in those who a few minutes before had despairingly thought that salvation was unattainable, and now asked what their reward would be for the sacrifices which they had made! The older commentators have regarded Peter’s inquiry as referring to eternal life after death, to which their acts had given them a claim. But it must be remembered that the Jews had very vague ideas about the beatified state in the other world, which, as many thought, was to be inaugurated at the close of the Messianic era, and which others put off indefinitely to the unknown day of judgment. It was never generally and popularly anything more than an uncertain hope, and was not regarded as a stimulant to life and action on earth. While, on the other hand, the terrestrial proceedings of the Messiah were a subject of the keenest expectation, and the ground of national aspirations. It is not probable that the apostles’ notions had at this time risen superior to the popular view. Peter’s question, therefore, was doubtless prompted by the national conception of Messiah’s reign.

Mat 19:28

Verily I say unto you. Christ does not reprove the apostle for his seemingly bold self-assertion, but, replying to Peter’s question, he gives a grand promise to him and his fellow disciples. Ye which have followed me, excluding all the half-hearted, the self-seeking, the Judaizers. In the regeneration ( ). The word means “new birth,” or “renovation, renewal.” It occurs in Tit 3:15 in reference to baptism,” through the washing [laver] of regeneration.” It has been variously interpreted in the present passage. Some have connected it with the participle preceding, “ye who have followed me in the regeneration,” and explained it to mean the reformation and spiritual renovation commencing with the preaching of John the Baptist, and carried on by the ministry of Christ. But more generally and correctly it is taken with what follows, Ye shall sit, etc. The meaning, however, is still disputed. Some say that the Christian dispensation is intended, and an intimation is given of the work of the apostles in the unseen world in directing and guarding the Church. But this seems hardly to satisfy the language of the promise. Others regard the term as signifying the resurrection, when the mortal shall put on immortality, and we shall be changed, remade, reconstituted. This is true; but it seems more suitable to refer the term to the new creation, the new heaven and the new earth spoken of by Isaiah (Isa 65:17) and by St. John (Rev 21:12; cf. 2Pe 3:10, 2Pe 3:13); This is the reparation of the whole creation described by St. Paul (Rom 8:19, etc.), which is to take place at the great consummation, and which, remedying all the evils which sin has impressed on the material and spiritual world, on man and his habitation, may well be called new birth. This is the mysterious period when Christ’s promise shall be accomplished. Shall sit. It is not “when he shall come,” but when he shall have taken his seat (, with genitive) as Judge upon his glorious throne. Ye also ( ). The pronoun is repeated to give greater emphasis to the amazing assertion. Shall sit upon ( , with accusative); shall be promoted to, taken and placed upon. Twelve thrones. Judas forfeited his position; Matthias and Paul and Barnabas were afterwards added to the apostolic band; so that the number twelve must not be pressed as defining and limiting. Rather it expresses the completeness of the judicial body, regarding not so much the persons as the position of its members. With reference to papal claims, it may be observed that Peter has no pre-eminence here, no throne to himself; he merely shares with his colleagues in the session. The apostles and those who have been proved to be of like mind with them (for the number is not limited) shall be assessors with Christ, as in an earthly court, where the judge or the prince sits in the centre, and on either side of him are posted his councillors and ministers. Judging. So in Daniel we hear of thrones being placed, and judgment given to the saints (Dan 7:9, Dan 7:22); “Know ye not,” says St. Paul (1Co 6:2, 1Co 6:3), “that the saints shall judge the world that we shall judge angels?” (comp. Rev 20:4). Of course, the great Judge is Christ himself. What part his assessors shall take is not revealed. The verb “judge” sometimes signifies “govern or direct,” and perhaps may be here used to denote that the saints shall, in the new Messianic kingdom, be Christ’s vicegerents and exercise his authority. The twelve tribes of Israel. There is considerable difficulty in interpreting this portion of the promise. If it means that the beatified apostles shall judge the actual descendants of Abraham, then we must believe that the distinction between Jew and Gentile will be maintained in this regenerationan opinion which seems to be opposed to other texts of Scripture (see 1Co 12:13; Gal 3:28, etc.). The judging in this case would be condemnation of them for not receiving the gospel. One does not see how this can be held forth as a great and happy reward, however high a position it may imply. More probably Israel means the spiritual Israel, or the whole body of the Church; and the number twelve (as above) imports the complete number of those who are to be judged. They who have followed Christ devotedly and sincerely, as his disciples, shall be placed next to him in his glory, shall have pre-eminence over all others, and be associated with him in assigning their due portion to all believers, or in governing the Church. Nothing is here said about the final judgment of unbelievers and heathen.

Mat 19:29

Every one that hath forsaken. The Lord extends the promise. Even those who have not risen to the utter self-sacrifice of apostles, who have not surrendered so much as they, shall have their reward, though nothing to be compared to the unspeakable recompense of the twelve. Houses lands. Some manuscripts, followed by some modern editors, omit or wife, the omission being probably first made by some critical scribe, who deemed that a wife should never be left. The Lord enumerates the persons and objects upon which men’s hearts are most commonly and firmly fixed. He begins and ends the list with material possessionshouses and lands, and between them introduces in gradation the most cherished members of the family circle. “Forsaking wife and children” may be understood as abstaining from marriage in order the better to serve God. For my Name’s sake. In consequence of belief in Christ, rather than do despite to his grace, or in order to confess and follow him more completely. In times of persecution, under many different cases of pressure, or where his friends were heathens or infidels, a Christian might feel himself constrained to relinquish the dearest ties, to east off all old associations, to put himself wholly in God’s hands, freed from all worldly things; such a one should receive ample reward in the present life. An hundredfold. Some read “manifold,” as in Luk 18:30. The spiritual relationship into which religion would introduce him largely compensates for the loss of earthly connections. He shall have brothers and sisters in the faithhundreds who will show him the affection of father and mother, hundreds who will love him as well a s wife and children. And if he suffer temporal loss, this shall be made up by the charity of the Christian society, all whose resources are at his command, and he shall enjoy that peace and comfort of heart which no worldly possessions can give, and which are superior to all changes of fortune. And it may well be that the relief from the cares and distractions caused by wealth brings a hundredfold more real happiness than its possession ever supplied. “Godliness is profitable for all things, having the promise of the life which now is, and of that which is to come” (1Ti 4:8). Everlasting life. The hope of future happiness is in itself sufficient to lighten and dissipate all earthly troubles, and to stimulate severest sacrifices.

Mat 19:30

Many that are first. This proverbial saying, which Christ uses more than once (see Mat 20:16; Luk 13:30), is illustrated by the parable in the next chapter, and would be better placed at its commencement Here it conveys a warning that man’s estimation is liable to error, and it must not be thought that those who are first in privilege are therefore highest in God’s favour. The Lord may have had in view the case of Judas, who was an early apostle, and had the care of the bag, and fell by reason of covetousness; and that of one like St. Paul, who was called late, and yet laboured more abundantly than all that were before him. The application may be made with perfect truth to many professors of religion.

HOMILETICS

Mat 19:1-12

The sanctity of marriage.

I. CONVERSATION WITH THE PHARISEES.

1. Work in Peraea. The Lord hath now finally left Galilee; the restless hostility of the Pharisees had driven him from the province in which at first he had met with such great success, and which was regarded as his own country. Judaea, too, was now unsafe for him. His hour was almost come; he would work while it was day; but he would not expose himself to unnecessary danger before the time appointed. Peraea was for a short season open to him; it was less overspread by Pharisaic influence than Galilee or Judaea. He would work there while he might. Multitudes followed him, and he healed them there. The Lord is an example of patience and perseverance; he would not throw up his work in weariness and disgust, as men too often do when they meet with failure and opposition. He neglected no opening for work, no opportunity of preaching the blessed gospel. Oh that we might imitate him in this as in all things’!

2. The question of the Pharisees. They found him, even in Peraea; they followed him everywhere during the latter part of his ministry with their ensnaring questions and malicious persecutions. And now they asked, “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife forevery, cause?” It was common to consult great teachers on points of controversy; but this question was not asked honestly; they were tempting him, seeking to entangle him in his talk, to bring him into collision with one or other of the two great schools, or with Herod Antipas himself, the ruler of the country in which they were. The famous Hillel had taught that divorce was allowable for any cause; Shammai, that it was lawful only in the case of adultery. Herod was guilty of shameful violations of the law of marriage, and had murdered the holy Baptist, who rebuked him for his sin. The Lord had taught the strict view of marriage in his sermon on the mount; would he dare to maintain the same doctrine in the dominions of Herod? The Pharisees seemed to ask for information; they had malice and envy in their hearts. Controversy is full of danger to the soul; those who are called to engage in it ought to look most carefully into their own consciences to see that their motives are pure and good.

3. The Lord‘s answer. He refers them to the Scriptures. “Have ye not read?” he says, as he had said before. He points to the study of the Scriptures as the source of religious knowledge. “Have ye not read?” We ought to be always reading, always learning lessons of Divine truth from the holy Word of God. He goes back to the original principle of marriage. “He which made them at the beginning made them male and female.” They were created for one another. “They twain shall be one flesh .. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” The wedded pair are one; the Lord does not say “those which,” but “that which God hath joined.” They are no longer two, but one flesh, one unity. Man may not dare to part that which God by matrimony hath made one. So true is the old saying that marriages are made in heaven. Marriage is an honourable estate, instituted by God in the time of man’s innocency; declared by God himself, speaking through Adam of things which Adam could know only through Divine inspiration, to be more sacred and binding even than the love of parent and child, the holiest surely and deepest of all other forms of human love; ennobled in the New Testament by a yet holier consecration, so that it becomes the symbol, the representation, of the mystical union that is between Christ and his Church. Marriage is a very holy thing, not to be taken in hand lightly and wantonly; not to be dissolved for any cause, according to the views of these Pharisees of Hillel’s school, but to be undertaken reverently and in the fear of God, as a bond which is to unite husband and wife in holy love unto their lives’ end.

4. The Mosaic rule. The Pharisees were not convinced; they quoted Deuteronomy against our Lord. Why did Moses, they said, command to give a bill of divorcement? The Lord first corrected their quotation. Moses did not command; he permitted. So eager controversialists misquote Scripture and bend it to their own purpose. Let us be careful to deal always truthfully and sincerely with the Word of God. It was true that Moses permitted divorce; but it had not been so from the beginning; it was permitted by the Law of Moses for temporary reasons, because of the hardness of the people’s hearts. The Law of Moses was not final; it was adapted in large measure to the circumstances of the timesto the manners, capacity, spiritual condition of the Israelites. It was added because of transgressions; it was a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. The high spiritual requirements of the gospel would not have been suited to the rude, uncultured natures of the ancient Israelites. There was need of a long preparation, a preliminary training. Such a training was furnished by the Law. The Law was very high above contemporary moral teaching; it was imperfect in comparison with the gospel which was to come, but very far in advance of the moral standard prevalent in Gentile countries. The permission of divorce was one of the points in which allowance had been made for the customs of the time, for the character of the Israelites. It had not been so from the beginning; it was not intended to remain so. The Lord distinctly forbids divorce, “except it be for fornication.” He does not sanction remarriage even in that case.

II. THE DISCIPLES.

1. Their inference. If it be so, if divorce is allowable only on that one ground, then, the disciples thought, it is not good to marrythe risk would be too great, the prospect of happiness too uncertain; better to remain unmarried than to enter upon a union which could not be dissolved. They spoke from the Jewish point of view, in accordance with their old associations and habits of thought. Their objection seems to us very strange. The fact of their making it shows the immense change which Christianity has produced in the estimate of marriage.

2. The Lord‘s answer. “Not all can receive this saying.” Some can serve God best in the married state; some in a single life. Some, like the holy apostle St. Paul, have chosen to live unmarried for the kingdom of heaven’s sake, that they may have fewer hindrances, more time, more opportunities for the blessed work of preaching the gospel of Christ. But the Lord leaves it open for the Christian conscience to determine in each man’s case whether the married or the single life will serve better to godliness.

LESSONS.

1. Marriage is indissoluble; enter upon it discreetly, with serious thought and earnest prayer.

2. Marriage is a holy thing; let the husband love his wife as Christ loved his spouse, the Church.

3. The Lord raised woman to her proper place; Christians must aim at a high standard of purity.

4. The Lord laid the foundation of the sanctity of Christian homes and Christian family relations; let us cherish his high and holy teaching.

Mat 19:13-15

The little children.

I. THEY WERE BROUGHT TO CHRIST.

1. The reason. It seems to have been customary to bring young children into the synagogues to be blessed by the elders. The Lord was regarded with reverence as a great Rabbi now in Peraea, as he once bad been in Galilee. Wives and mothers were naturally drawn to him by the high view of marriage which he taught. The frequency of divorce destroyed the sanctity of the marriage bond, degraded woman, interfered grievously with the true ideal of home and family life. It was Christianity, or rather it was the Lord himself, who raised woman to her proper dignity, who surrounded wedded life with an atmosphere of purity and mutual trustfulness, who gave unto men all the blessed charities, all the pure and holy joys, all that happy discipline of self-denial for the sake of wife, or husband, or children, which consecrate Christian family life, and make the family on earth a place of training and preparation for the family in heaven (Eph 3:15). The Lord’s teaching touched the hearts of these Hebrew matrons; they brought their little ones to him; they wished him to lay his hands upon them, in token that his blessing should rest upon their lives; they wished him to pray for them; they were sure that his prayer was holy and effectual. These children were infants, at least some of them (, Luk 18:15). The mothers doubted not, but earnestly believed that the prayer, the blessing of Christ, would be profitable to those unconscious infants. So we should bring our little ones to Christ in holy baptism, in Christian education. Christian mothers can do muchmuch that no one else can do so well, for the spiritual good of their children. The simple teaching of a believing mother, the simple prayers learned from a mother’s lips, often exert a hallowing influence over a whole life; even if forgotten for a time among the toils and temptations of the world, they often return to the memory in later years. Those holy memories are by God’s grace a powerful help in restoring that childlike spirit which is so precious in the sight of Christ.

2. The rebuke of the disciples. The conduct of the disciples seems strange. They had soon forgotten the incidents of their last visit to Capernaum (Mat 18:1-14). Then the Lord had himself taken a little child, and, bringing him into the midst, had made him the subject of his discourse, and had proposed the childlike character as the model for their imitation. One who so loved the little ones, who regarded them with such affectionate interest, who saw in childhood so many beauties, so much that was precious, would not be likely to repel the children now. But the disciples thought, perhaps, that they were mere infants, unconscious, incapable of learning anything from Christ. They did not suppose that his touch, his prayer, could benefit babes who could not pray for themselves. They thought that his time should be given to older people, who might gain more from his instructions. Their Master was very great and holy; his lessons were very sacred and precious. It was not right, they thought, to waste the time that was so valuable by claiming his attentions for these helpless infants. Such things seemed beneath his dignity, unworthy of his regard. And they rebuked those who had brought the children.

II. THE LORD‘S RECEPTION OF THE LITTLE ONES.

1. His reproof of the disciples. “He was much displeased,” St. Mark tells us; he blamed those who would have kept the little ones from him. The apostles were displeased with the mothers who brought the little ones to Christ; the Lord was displeased with the apostles themselves. It was a true spiritual instinct that prompted these Hebrew mothers; they were right, the apostles were wrong. The apostles had yet to learn those deep lessons of true Christian lowliness and true Christian sympathy with the young and simple and ignorant which only Christ can teach. Sometimes the ignorant feel instinctively what is right when the more instructed are led astray by prejudices or pride. Sometimes, it may be, the Lord is much displeased with us when we think that we are acting for his honour. Let us watch carefully over our motives, remembering always that his eye is ever on us, and that no secrets of the heart are hidden from him.

2. His words. “Suffer little children.” The Lord had used the same words when he came unto John to be baptized of him, “Suffer it to be so now.” As John then obeyed the voice of Christ, and “suffered him;” so Christ bids his disciples to “suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me.” Christians must not keep them back, they must not rebuke those who bring them; for the little ones are very dear to Christ; he cares for them all; the Father cares for them: “It is not the will of your Father which is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.” We must bring them to Christ in their infancy, dedicating them to him in holy baptism, asking him to embrace them with the arms of his mercy, to put his hands upon them and bless them. We must bring them to him in prayer, praying for them ourselves, as the poor father prayed for the lunatic boy, teaching them to lift up their own childlike hearts to God as soon as their lips can utter the words of prayer. We must bring them to Christ by the training of a Christian home, by holy example; carefully avoiding the danger of laying a stumbling block in the way of the little ones by any word or deed of ours. The responsibilities under which we lie towards the children of our families should be a strong additional motive for the cultivation of holiness. We must bring them to Christ by a Christian education, giving them that inestimable privilege which Timothy had received from his grandmother Lois and his mother Eunicethe knowledge of the Holy Scriptures from childhoodfrom infancy ( , 2Ti 3:15). The Lord is pleased with those who thus bring the little ones to him; he is displeased with those who would keep them from him; for, he saith, of such is the kingdom of heaven. The kingdom of heaven belongs to them, as it belongs to the poor in spirit, and to those who are persecuted for righteousness’sake. The kingdom of heaven is theirs; they are by the gift of God entitled to its privileges. Surely, then, they will be received into the kingdom of glory if they are taken hence in the comparative innocence of childhood. We cannot doubt but that he who said, “Suffer the little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me,” will gather the lambs into his bosom in the kingdom of his Father. The kingdom is theirs, but not theirs only. “Of such is the kingdom of heaven.” The childlike in heart are true children of the kingdom; they receive the kingdom of God as a little child; they believe with the simple earnestness of children; they are poor in spirit, like the little ones; they are truthful, unaffected, real. Let us seek for that childlike simplicity and transparency of heart; let us pray, let us strive after it. It is the character of Christ’s chosen, his beloved. “He laid his hands on them, and departed thence.” He gave the desired blessing: “He took them up in his arms, laid his hands upon them, and blessed them.” Happy children! Happy those who by the grace of Christ and the cleansing, quickening power of his Spirit, retain, or recover, the freshness, the simplicity, the comparative purity, of childhood!

LESSONS.

1. Imitate the Peraean parents; bring the little ones to Christ.

2. Let none dare to despise children; the Lord cares for them and loves them.

3. Teach them at home, in Sunday schools; the Lord is pleased with those who help to train them for him.

Mat 19:16-30

The young ruler.

I. HIS INTERVIEW WITH CHRIST.

1. His question. Christ was “gone forth into the way” (Mar 10:17); he was leaving Peraea; his ministry there was ended. But there was a young man, a ruler of the synagogue, a man of large possessions and of blameless life, who came running and kneeled to him. Perhaps he had already felt the supreme goodness of Christ, the holiness of his teaching; hut his position, his Jewish prejudices, had hitherto prevented him from becoming a disciple of the Lord. Now the Lord was departing; if he hesitated longer, he would be too late. He had lived an upright, honourable life, but he felt that there was something lacking yet; there was a void in his heart, a yearning which he could not satisfy. Perhaps this great Teacher might help him. There was no time to lose; he hastily made up his mind, and ran after Christ. Thus far he is an example to us. Earthly rank, earthly riches, will not fill the heart; we need something morewe need Christ. We may be late in seeking him; we have wasted much time and lost many opportunities. The Lord is long suffering; he is still near at hand; but it may soon he too late. “Seek ye the Lord while he may be found; call ye upon him while he is near.” Come running, kneeling to him in lowly supplication; he will tarry on his way; he will listen to the suppliant’s prayer. So the young ruler came now. “Good Master,” he said, “what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?” It sounds like the question of the jailor at Philippi, “What must I do to be saved?” But it was not so genuine, so natural, so heart-felt. There was an element of truth, some real desire; but there was something of ostentation, of self-confidence; little of that childlike spirit which the Lord had so highly commended. He thought too much of his past uprightness. He thought, apparently, that eternal life might be earned by some great and noble deed.

2. The Lord‘s answer. “Why askest thou me concerning that which is good? One there is who is good!” God only is good. Love him; do his holy will; take him for thy Portion. Eternal life is his gift; it is given to them who walk with God, who live in and for God, who keep his commandments. St. Mark and St. Luke have the words which some ancient authorities read in St. Matthew also, “Why callest thou me good? there is none good but One, that is, God.” The Lord had forbidden the apostles to tell men that he was the Christ, because the Jews looked for a human Messiah, an earthly king. In the same spirit he would not accept the title “Good” from this ruler, who regarded him simply as a wise Teacher, a great Rabbi. He bade him keep the commandments. The young ruler had been expecting to hear something lofty and extraordinary from so great a Prophet; he was surprised at a direction so simple and commonplace, as he doubtless thought it. He was disappointed again when, in answer to his inquiry, the Lord simply recited five commandments of the Decalogue, adding that general principle in which the whole second table is briefly comprehended, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” The Lord. had indicated the first and great commandment of the Law in his first answer. He now mentions those duties towards our neighbour which flow out of our duty towards our God. He would lead the young man to examine himself, to discover his deficiencies, to see for himself that he had not yet entered on the way that leadeth to eternal life.

3. The young ruler‘s rejoinder. He had done all this, he said; he knew it all; he wanted something more than elementary teaching. “All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?” He spoke the truth according to his light. He had been brought up in the narrow school of the rabbis, and, according to the mechanical interpretations of the scribes, was, like Saul the Pharisee, “touching the righteousness which is in the Law, blameless.” He had lived all his days a life of external obedience, and he did not understand the spiritual meaning of these commandments as taught by our Lord in his great sermon on the mount. He did not realize the wide range, the deep reach of that second commandment, which became, when illustrated by our Lord’s example, the new commandment, the mark and test of Christ’s disciples. He had kept the commandments as far as he understood them, as far as he had been taught; but he was conscious of a deficiency. He felt that something, he knew not what, but certainly something higher than this external obedience, was necessary for the attainment of that eternal life which he sought. “What lack I yet?” he said. It was a fine character as far as it went; unspotted moral rectitude joined with aspirations for something better and nobler. The Lord saw the promise of much good. “He beheld him,” St. Mark says. It was a deep searching look that read his heart; and he loved himhe regarded him with something of that esteem which any degree of real goodness produces in the good. “Goodness,” Bishop Butler says, “implies the love of itself, an affection for goodness. The really good recognize any spark of goodness in others, and cannot fail to love it.” This special drawing forth of the Lord’s love was a great honour to the young ruler; it showed the natural excellence of his character.

4. The Lord‘s commandment. “Go, sell that thou hast, and give to the poor.” It is not a counsel of perfection, not advice, but a commandment. This self-sacrifice was necessary for the young mannecessary for the attainment of that eternal life which he sought. “One thing thou lackest,” the Lord said, according to the report of the conversation given by St. Mark and St. Luke. It must mean that when the Lord read the young man’s soul, he saw much that was lovable; but he also saw that the love of money, which is the root of all evil, was poisoning what should have been a very fine and noble character. It was necessary for him to make this great venture of faith. He perilled his salvation by not doing so at the time; he may have done it afterwards. The Lord had a high reward for himtreasure in heaven hereafter, and in this life a place near to himself: “Come, follow me,” he said. It may be that the Lord saw in that young ruler the making of an apostle. He might have stood high in the roll of saints; perhaps afterwards he did. Can he have been lost whom the Lord Jesus distinguished with his love? But now he went away. He could not make the sacrifice required of him. He had thought that he might do some great thing, some noble deed, to gain eternal life, and the Lord had taken him at his word; but this was too great, too difficult; he could not bring himself to it. He went away sorrowful, not angry; he felt that the Lord was right. There was something good and noble in his character which responded to the Lord’s invitation. He felt the supreme holiness of Christ, the powerful attraction of his gracious love. He owned in his heart that to be near to Christ the Lord, to follow him, to live in close communion with him, was a privilege exceeding precious, a privilege not too dearly bought at the cost of all earthly riches, all earthly comforts. He knew that the Lord had not asked too much; his heart told him so; but he had not the strength, the courage. He could not part with his large possessions; he could not take up the cross (Mar 10:21). He was sad at that saying, “Take up the cross.” It was a strange and dreadful word; even the apostles could not reconcile themselves to it. And he went away sorrowful, vexed with himself; he had made the great refusal, and he felt that he done a weak and cowardly thing. He had judged himself unworthy of that eternal life which he had sought, and he despised himself. He knew that those riches for which he had turned away from Christ could not compensate him for the tremendous loss. He was not blinded. He felt the value of the love of Christ, and the unutterable preciousness of eternal life. He knew that these great possessions of his were as nothing in comparison with that priceless treasure which Christ had offered him. He sinned against light, and he was miserable. Perhaps his misery brought him afterwards to a better mind. We hope it was so. We cannot but feel a very deep and real interest in a character so touching, so engaging, in one whom the Lord Jesus Christ loved. We are not all called to make the sacrifice which was required of the young ruler. The Lord did not say the like to Nicodemus or to Joseph of Arimathaea. But all true Christian men must be willing to do so if need be. “Not my will, but thine be done” was the Lord’s own prayer in his agony. “Thy will be done” is the Christian’s daily, it should be his hourly, prayer. And that prayer pledges us to the spirit of ready self-sacrifice for Christ’s sake. We must be ready to give freely, liberally, in proportion to our means, for all holy works. We must be ready to take up our cross; for the Lord says that without the cross we cannot be his disciples. It is not enough to have the word often in our mouths, to have the picture of the cross upon our walls, or to wear the cross for an ornament. The mark of the Christian is the real cross, the inner spiritual cross; and that means self-denial for Christ’s sake, self-denial which is real, which is painful, which is hard to bear; even as the cross which the Lord bore for us was hard and heavy and painful exceedingly. But the cross leadeth to the crown. The conditions of eternal life are unvarying; they are the same now, in their real spiritual meaning, as they were when they were presented by the Lord himself to the young ruler in Peraea.

II. THE LORD‘S CONVERSATION WITH THE APOSTLES.

1. The warning. “A rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.” It is a hard thing, and his temptations are so great; there is so much to draw him to the world. Indeed, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven as a rich man; he must become poor, that he may be rich indeed. He must become poor in spirit, poor in the willingness to consecrate all his wealth to the service of Christ; he must give largely, denying himself in many things that he may give the more; learning to do God’s will, not his own; and regarding himself simply as the steward of what really belongs to God. For otherwise his danger is exceeding great. The gate of eternal life is always strait; it becomes like the eye of a needle to the rich man who stands before it, burdened with his riches, like a heavily loaded camel. “They that trust in riches” “cannot enter in;” and it is very hard for a rich man to cast off his trust in his riches. Yet the strait gate shall be thrown open wide to them that overcometo the poor who are rich in faith, and to the rich who are poor in spirit, true disciples of him who, though he was rich, yet for our sakes became poor.

2. The amazement of the apostles. They were startled, almost terror stricken; it seemed so hard a saying; it seemed to make salvation so very difficult to attain. Perhaps St. Peter was thinking of it when long afterwards he wrote, “If the righteous scarcely be saved” (1Pe 4:18). “Who then can be saved?” they said in their astonishment. All men, they knew, share the like peril; it is not only the rich who are in danger of trusting in riches. The poor often care for money quite as much as the rich. The fault lies, not in the fact of having great possessions, but in the trust reposed in them; and there are poor men who trust in their little store quite as much as some rich men trust in their great wealth. “The love of money is the root of all evil,” and that love is a common temptation to all, rich and poor alike. “Who then can be saved?” The Lord saw the perplexity of his apostles; he felt for them in his sacred heart. He looked at them; those holy eyes were fixed upon them with an earnest, loving, sympathizing looka look full of human tenderness and Divine compassion. “With men this is impossible,” he said; “but with God all things are possible.” The disciples were right; they might well say, “Who then can be saved?” Man cannot save himself; he is too weak, too sinful. “With men this is impossible”with all men alike, whether they are rich or poor, whatever may be their advantages or their temptations; they cannot save themselves; the thing is impossible. But it is not impossible with God. And Christ is God; “he is able to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him.” His incarnation, his blessed death upon the cross, has made that possible which was impossible. “With God all things are possible;” he can bring a clean thing out of an unclean; he can cleanse us from all unrighteousnessfrom the degrading love of money, from the defiling lusts of the flesh, from the subtle temptations of pride and self-righteousness. Only we must trust in him, not in riches, or what seem to be riches, not in our own fancied merits, not in works of righteousness which we have done, but only in the cross. “God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.”

III. THE REWARD OF THE TRUE DISCIPLE.

1. St. Peter‘s question. The apostles had done what the young ruler shrank from doingthey had forsaken all. Indeed, they had not so much to give up as he had; but such as it was, it was their all; they had left all, and had followed Christ. The Lord had promised treasure in heaven to his followers. “What shall we have therefore?” Peter said. He was still too eager; there was too much self-assertion; he laid too much stress on the reward that was to come. The highest desire of the soul is to serve Christ for himself.

“Not for the sake of gaining aught,

Not hoping a reward;

But as thyself hast loved me,

O ever-loving Lord.”

Peter knew afterwards that the love of Christ is its own reward (1Pe 1:8). Yet he was not wholly wrong; the Lord had promised treasure in heaven; and that blessed hope is an exceeding great help to fainting Christians; it is an anchor of the soul both sure and steadfast. Moses had respect unto the recompense of the reward. St. Paul looked forward to the crown of righteousness laid up in heaven for all who love the appearing of the Lord. Christ himself, our great Example, when he looked back on his perfect life, said, “Now, O Father, glorify thou me.” Peter, perhaps, regarded that heavenly blessedness too much in the light of a reward due to self-denial here; our Lord seems to imply this in the parable of Luk 20:1-47., though he now repeats his promise and acknowledges the self-sacrifice of his followers.

2. The Lord‘s answer.

(1) The promise to the apostles. He bade them look forward to the great regeneration, the time of restitution of all things (Act 3:21). The regeneration of individual Christians (of which the Lord speaks in Joh 3:3, Joh 3:5; and St. Paul in Tit 3:5) is the gradual beginning, the preparation for the regeneration of the world, when God will make all things new, when there shall be “new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.” Then shall the Son of man, whose throne on earth was the cross, sit in that new creation upon the throne of his glory. And they who followed him nearest upon earth, who first bore the cross for his Name’s sake, the twelve chosen apostles, they should sit, he said, upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. It may be that we shall not certainly understand the meaning of this promise (and other similar passages, such as Luk 22:30; 1Co 6:2, 1Co 6:3) till it is fulfilled in the kingdom of heaven. But perhaps it is safest to adopt the ideal interpretation. Twelve is the ideal number of the apostolic college. Judas went to his own place. By the twelve tribes of Israel we are probably to understand the Israel of God, the great Christian Church in all its branches. As the judges ruled Israel in the days of the theocracy, so shall the twelve apostles rule the Israel of God in the regeneration. They shall be nearest to the King, on his right hand and his left, in the highest places of honour.

(2) The promise to all believers. The circle of promise is widened. The apostles had forsaken all for Christ’s sake; but there were multitudes who would afterwards make the like sacrifice; multitudes more who would be willing to make it if it were required of them. To all such the Lord promises a hundredfold reward”a hundredfold,” “manifold more,” St. Mark and St. Luke say, in this present time, and in the world to come, eternal life. “Godliness hath the promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come.” That holy joy, that peace of God, which is granted unto those who have yielded up their wills to God’s holy will, passeth all understanding, and altogether outweighs the temporal losses which they may endure for Christ’s sake. Such men, like St. Paul, count all things loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus their Lord. To such to live is Christ, and to die is gain. A life of holiness and self-denial for Christ’s sake is very blessed, for it hath the presence of Christ. A holy death is by much far better; for such a death is the gate of everlasting life. They who would live that life and die that death must watch and pray, seeking earnestly the grace of perseverance; for many that are first shall be last, and the last shall be first. Judas was near to Christ when these words were said. “Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed, lest he fall.”

LESSONS.

1. We still ask the same question, “What shall I do, that I may have eternal life?” And still the answer is the same, “Keep the commandments.”

2. Let us not say, “All these have I kept from my youth up.” Let us imitate the publican rather than the young ruler: “God be merciful to me a sinner.”

3. “The love of money is the root of all evil;” “Love not the world;” “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God.”

4. “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” It is a difficult work, beyond the strength of man; but we can do all things through him that strengtheneth us.

5. Let us have respect unto the recompense of the reward; he who by faith discerns the crown may well endure the cross.

HOMILIES BY W.F. ADENEY

Mat 19:3-9

Divorce.

The readiness with which the marriage tie is dissolved in some countries, and the daring questions on the subject that have been raised in England, make it important for us to see clearly how divorce should be regarded in the light of the teachings of Christ. Plainly he sets his face against any divorce except in the most extreme case. Let us consider some of the pleas for a laxer rule, and then look at the duty of resisting them.

I. PLEAS FOR A GREATER FREEDOM OF DIVORCE.

1. The happiness of the home. It is urged that some husbands and wives are hopelessly at variance. Though married outwardly, in soul they are not wedded at all. They live together as enemies compelled to occupy the same prison, which a miserable conventionality falsely names home. Undoubtedly, this may be so. But then happiness is not the chief end of life. Moreover, the immediate relief of freedom would have to be purchased at the cost of an invasion of the settled social order.

2. The rights of liberty. A more daring position is taken up by those who claim liberty to dissolve the marriage bond. These people deny that we have any right to enter into a lifelong contract of marriage; or rather, they plead that such a contract should be subject to revision.

II. THE OBLIGATIONS OF IRREVOCABLE MARRIAGE TIES. Jesus Christ saw the terrible evils that resulted from great freedom of divorce in his day, and he distinctly opposed this dangerous licence. Let us consider some of the grave objections to it.

1. It is contrary to nature. On the surface of it, marriage may seem to be an artificial arrangement, and absolute freedom the state of nature. But our Lord pointed out that marriage was instituted at the Creation, and that it was associated with the very constitution of human life. There is a higher nature than that of the animal world. There is a certain best arrangement which only those who have intelligence to perceive it and conscience to follow it can enter into. This corresponds to Nature, not in her lowest instincts, but in her highest aspirations.

2. It is contrary to the law of God. The arrangement of nature was supplemented by the word of revelation. In marriage men and women carry out a law that God has revealed. In free divorce they break that law. This is of no consequence, perhaps, to people who are “emancipated;” but it should be all-authoritative for Christians.

3. It leads to numberless evils.

(1) It ruins the home. Discordant sentiments may also ruin it; but they indicate failure to reach an ideal. Freedom of divorce destroys the very ideal. The home which may be broken up at any moment is no home.

(2) It is unjust. It cannot always happen that both husband and wife desire to be separated when one is tired of the union; and if the wish is on one side only, injustice is done by divorce, and a wrong inflicted. Even if the divorce cannot be carried out without mutual consent, the one person who does not wish for it is placed in a cruelly distressful position.

(3) It lowers the idea of marriage. Instead of studying to make the best of the marriage union, people who have freedom of divorce are tempted to be looking abroad for new attractions. This is immoral; it tends directly to degrade the thoughts, and to throw open the flood gates of unrestrained desires.W.F.A.

Mat 19:13-15

Christ blessing little children.

This incident, familiar to us from our childhood, not only throws light on the character of our Lord and his interest in child life. It reveals something in all who took part in it.

I. THE MOTHERS. The word “then,” with which the paragraph opens, is deeply significant, because it closely connects this paragraph with that which precedes. Jesus had been vindicating the sanctity of marriage. The degenerate Jews bad come to regard the subject too much, if not exclusively, in regard to the relations of man and wife. Here we see its bearings on the great and wonderful fact of motherhood. Marriage should be protected for the sake of the children. True parents do not live chiefly for their own happiness. They live for their children. The unselfish love of motherhood is one of the most striking facts in nature. It softens the tigress when she is playing with her cubs; it gives ferocity to the hen when she is protecting her chickens. Now mothers, naturally yearning for the good of their children, can do nothing better for the little ones than to bring them to Christ, and train them for him. Yet some parents, who study the bodily health of their children with deepest solicitude, scarcely give a thought to their souls’ welfare.

II. THE CHILDREN. They showed certain traits of character.

1. Obedience. The children came at their mothers’ bidding. Obedience to parents is the root of obedience to God.

2. A perception of the attractiveness of Christ. Obedience would bring the children with their mothers. But more was wanted to induce them to go up to Christ and permit him to take them in his arms. There are some people who only terrify children, although they try to coax them into favour. Jesus, however, was evidently one who won children by his own gentleness, kindness, and childlikeness. Pharisees were uncomfortable in his presence, but children were quite at home.

III. THE DISCIPLES. They rebuked the mothers. Why?

1. For Christ‘s sake. They would not have him troubled. They wished to serve Christ, but they did not understand his mind; therefore they blundered. We must know his will and do it, if we would serve him acceptably.

2. For their own sakes. They would keep Christ to themselves. The advent of these mothers and children interrupted a discussion which was very interesting to them. But Christ preferred to turn from a subject which was distressing to him to the innocent simplicity of the little children. Further observe:

(1) Children will come to Christ if we will suffer them. It is our part to remove every hindrance from their approach to him.

(2) All children need Christ’s blessing.

(3) Very young children are old enough to receive it.

IV. CHRIST. He appears as the children’s Friend and the Champion of their mothers. This well known incident reveals him to us in his most winning grace.

1. Love of children. We should give the children a good place in our arrangements for Christian work, if we would please our Lord, who is their Friend.

2. Childlikeness. Jesus is drawn to the children by a natural affinity.

3. Gracious kindness. He blesses the children. This he does with personal touch, putting his hands upon them. Christ will take trouble to help and save children.W.F.A.

Mat 19:16-22

The great refusal.

The young man who won the love of Christ by his ardour and enthusiasm, and who grieved our Lord by his refusal to make an unexpected sacrifice, stands before us in vivid portraiturean example, and yet a warning. Let us consider the successive traits of his character revealed by his conduct.

I. HIS WISE QUESTION. It is much for a man to have a definite object before him; it is more for him to choose a worthy pursuit. Of all personal things the young ruler chose the very best. He had wealth, but that did not satisfy him. He had the means of acquiring pleasure; but he rose above the idea of making worldly amusement the end and aim of existence. He craved the life of God, which is eternal. Surely we may imitate him in this. Moreover, he did well in inquiring of Christ. Jesus is the Way to life, and we can find its source in him, as he told the woman of Samaria (Joh 4:14). It is right to come to Christ for this boon.

II. HIS MISTAKEN ADDRESS. He called our Lord “Good Master.” Jesus takes up the phrase at once, and asks what it means. This was no act of captious criticism. The young man did not really know the deep signification of the word “good.” He used language conventionally. There is a great danger for those who are brought up among religious associations that they will employ the greatest words without entering into their true meaning.

III. HIS MORAL CONDUCT. Christ began with the first elements of morality. We cannot go on to perfection until we have mastered these elements. It is impossible to be a thief in the world and a saint in the Church. Yet there is a subtle temptation that dogs the footsteps of those who aspire after superior spiritual attainmentsa temptation to fall away from common morality. The young man had avoided this temptation. He was no hollow sentimentalist. His virtue was solid. Yet it was not enough.

IV. HIS NEW DUTY. He is told to renounce his wealtha hard, a startling requirement. Jesus does not give this commandment to all rich men, though he never encourages the acquisition of wealth. But he saw that the young ruler’s snare was his riches. It was necessary, therefore, that the riches should be given up. Now, although it was not his duty before this thus to renounce all he possessed, the word of Christif he would become a disciplemade it his duty. Whenever Christ tells any man to sell all he has and give the proceeds to the poor, that man is under an obligation to obey if he would own the Lordship of Christ. The essential duty is not poverty, but obedience. The duty may take the same form with any of us if we are convinced on good grounds that Christ desires us to make the same sacrifice. But whether absolute poverty be required or not, whatever we own is only ours subject to the bidding of Christ to use it as he directsand he is not altogether an easy Master to serve.

V. HIS SAD FAILURE. The young ruler could not rise up to the sacrifice. His wealth was his undoing. It was not a golden key opening the kingdom of heaven, but a golden bar holding the gate shut. The young ruler might have become a great Christian leader, saint, or martyr. His refusal dropped him into obscurity. We cannot but pity him, for his was a hard test. Could we stand it? Have we shrunk back from even a milder test?W.F.A.

Mat 19:23, Mat 19:24

The rich man’s difficulty.

Jesus draws a lesson of sad warning from. the failure of the young ruler who could not bring himself to make the great sacrifice required as a condition of his obtaining eternal life. He points out the exceeding difficulty of a rich man’s entrance into the kingdom of heaven.

I. THE EXPLANATION OF THE DIFFICULTY. It is wholly on the side of the man who is hindered and hampered by his wealth. God has opened the gate and invited all who will to enter. He is no respecter of persons. He does not favour the rich to the neglect of the poor; and he does not favour the poor and deal harshly with the rich. He is just and fair with all. But the rich man has hindrances in himself.

1. The absorbing interest of riches. The danger is that the wealthy man should be satisfied with his possessions; or, as that is impossible unless he is partially stupefied by them, that they should so fill his life that he should not have time or thought for better things. He may be buried under the load of his own goods, lost in the mazes of his forest of possessions.

2. The deceitful promise of riches. Jesus spoke of the deceitfulness of riches as one of the weeds that spring up and choke the Word (Mat 13:22). if wealth does not yet satisfy, still it promises future satisfaction. The rich man comes to think he can buy all he wants, if only he can find the right market.

3. The foolish pride of riches. If ever a man has a right to be proud, it is on account of what he is, not because of what he has. The owner of millions may be a miserable coward, sensual sot, a senseless fool. Yet the disgraceful sycophancy of the world teaches him to regard himself as a superior person. Now, pride is the most effectual harrier to the entrance of the kingdom of heaven. Only the lowly and humble and childlike can creep through its humble doorway.

4. The hardening selfishness of riches. Wealth, though it gives the means of helping others, tends to seal up the fountains of generosity and destroy the springs of sympathy. The self-indulgent man cannot enter that kingdom, the citizens of which have to deny themselves and carry the cross.

II. THE LESSONS OF THE DIFFICULTY.

1. The folly of covetousness. Why should we make haste to be rich, if riches may become a curse to us? If in any case they are likely to bring fresh difficulties, should we be so anxious to acquire them? How is it that so many Christian people are to be found eagerly pursuing the race for wealth?

2. The duty of contentment. We may never get riches. What of that if we have the kingdom of heaven, which is far better? Perhaps we are spared a dangerous temptation.

3. The need of sympathy with the difficulties of rich men. Jesus did not denounce the young man who made the great refusal. He loved him and pitied him. If rich men fail, we should remember that they were beset with temptations that do not fall to the lot of most of us.

4. Faith in the power of God. The rich man is gravely warned. He is in serious danger. He may fail miserably, crushed by the load of his own wealth. His salvation would be a miracle. But God can work miracles. Though it be as hard for a rich man to save himself as for a camel to pass like a thread through a needle’s eye, God can save him. Therefore

(1) the rich should have the gospel preached to them;

(2) we should pray for the rich;

(3) we should rejoice greatly that there are rich men in the kingdom of God.W.F.A.

Mat 19:26

The impossible made possible.

This is the solution of the rich man’s difficulty; and it is the solution of many another difficulty. When we look away from man to God, the impossible becomes possible.

I. MEN CANNOT SAVE THEMSELVES. The disciples are made to see this truth in the case of the rich, whose difficulties are peculiarly great. But that is only the extreme instance of what really applies to people in all conditions of life.

1. In experience we see that men do not save themselves. We may preach the dignity and capacity of humanity. We may argue on the faculty and scope of free will. But when we leave the pulpit and the lecture room, what we see is a world of continuous bafflement and failure. The young man starts well, but if he is left to himself and trusts to himself, he soon discovers his weakness. Good resolutions seem only to be made in order to be broken.

2. The indwelling sin of men prevents them from saving themselves. The evil is within. The prisoner might cut his way out of a stone dungeon, and the exile might escape from the ocean island; but the man whose own nature is his dungeon and his place of exile cannot escape from himself. In himself man has no lever by which he can lift himself above himself.

3. The depth of ruin prevents men from saving themselves. The Fall is so awful, the offended Law is so majestic, that self-salvation is hopeless.

4. The circumstances of life prevent men from saving themselves. Riches keep back the wealthy. Poverty, with its cares and anxieties, oppresses the destitute. Various calls and distractions, fascinations and delusions, hinder other men.

II. GOD CAN SAVE WHERE MAN FAILS.

1. He does save. This is his work. He creates, and he renews. He gives life, and he regenerates. The Creator is the Saviour. We have not got a glimmer of the meaning of “the glorious gospel of the blessed God” until we have begun to perceive this great truth. All the doctrines and ethics of Christianity are of little use while we are blind to its fundamental principle. This principle is not to be lost in any figure of speech. We have to see that God puts forth real power to change and renew his children. Helpless and ruined in themselves, when they turn to his grace his strong arm saves them. This is as actual a fact as the fact that the summer sun makes the vegetation of the earth to grow and ripen. Every true Christian can testify to it from personal experience.

2. There is no limit to his saving power. There can be no limit if he is God, for God is Almighty. We see difficulties, but they all vanish as smoke when he puts forth his power. The Divine method of salvation is not as simple and easy as we might have expected. It involves the expenditure of God’s only begotten Son. Christ must come to earth, and Christ must die, if man is to be saved. But Christ has come and died; God has done all that is necessary. The salvation is perfect. Now it only rests with us to open our hearts to receive its renewing grace. There is one thing that God never doeshe never overrides a rebellious will. If we refuse, he cannot save us. It is for the willing that there is no limit to his saving power.W.F.A.

Mat 19:27-30

The great reward.

St. Peter’s question strikes us as a little low in tone. It often happens that this disciple, who has been exalted as the prince of the apostles, betrays some human weakness. And yet it is nowhere suggested to us in Scripture that all consideration of future rewards are to be suppressed, though certainly Paley’s feeble conception of Christianity as morality with the added sanctions of future rewards and punishments revealed in the teaching and confirmed by the miracles of Christ, is far below the New Testament standard. Christ claims our service, and unless enthusiasm for Christ draws us on, mere hopes of payment or fears of penalties will not succeed. But for those who are won to Christ by the purest influences, all innocent motives are needed to assist in the difficult task of maintaining their fidelity. Our Lord, therefore, condescends to encourage us by mentioning some of the rich rewards of self-denying service. It must be borne in mind that these rewards are gracious favours, like school prizes, not wages due and paid on demands of justice. The rewards are both heavenly and earthly.

I. THE HEAVENLY REWARD. This is presented to us in two forms.

1. A glorious throne. The minds of the disciples are full of vague but splendid Messianic dreams, and Jesus approaches them along the lines of their own imaginations. The splendour of the throne will not be enjoyed on earth. Here there is to be sacrifice, toil, poverty, martyrdom. But there will be a throne in the future world. Not only will Christ reign. His apostles will reign with him. Similarly, all Christians are to have a kingly statusto be both “kings and priests.” This means more than future joy, a mere elysium of delights; it involves power, honour, responsibilitylike the man who had gained ten pounds being appointed to rule over tea cities (Luk 19:17).

2. Eternal life. The first reward was external; it pointed to status, function, honour. The second is wholly internal and personal. It is more than bare existence in the future. It is a new order of lifeexalted being, enlarged capacity. To live in the vast ages of eternity, to live really and truly, not to dream forever in an indolent paradise,this is the exhilarating prospect of the faithful servant of Christ. We do not know what life is as yet. When we die we shall begin to live.

II. THE EARTHLY REWARD. Their reward is to be a great reward on earth. In St. Mark the words, “now in this time,” are added (Mar 10:30). He who gives to a generous king will certainly receive back far more than he sacrifices. The difficulty is to see how this can be on earth. Now, we cannot take the words of Christ literally, for no one would wish to have hundreds of fathers and mothers. But as Christ owned kinship with all who do God’s will (Mat 12:50), so may Christians. The Church should be the new family for those who have been cast out of their old home on account of their Christian confession. The pearl of great price, the inward life and joy of pardon and renewal and communion with God,this is a great possession, and it may be a present possession. It is better to have the peace of God in a life of sacrifice, than houses and acres with a heart in selfish unrest.W.F.A.

Mat 19:20

The rich young man.

“What lack I yet?” Plainly the young man who put this question was in earnest. He was not one of those who approached Jesus merely from curiosity, or for the sake of measuring themselves with this renowned Dialectician and Teacher. With him the search for life eternal was an important personal matter. He went away sorrowful, with no heart to prolong the conversation, as soon as his own case was pronounced upon. Probably he had an idea that our Lord would recommend him to build a synagogue, or ransom some of his countrymen who were slaves, or do some striking religious act. For when our Lord replies, “Keep the commandments,” he asks, “What commandments?”fancying he might refer to some rules for the attainment of extraordinary saintliness not divulged to the common people. And so, when Jesus merely repeated the time-worn Decalogue, the young man was disappointed, and impatiently exclaimed, “All these have I kept from my youth up,” not so much vaunting his blamelessness of life as indicating that he had had these commandments in view all his life, and that to refer him to them was to give him no satisfaction. All the help they could give he had already got. “What lack I yet?” He belonged to the “Tell-me-something-more-to-do-and-I-will do-it” class of Pharisees. He thought he was ready to make any sacrifice, or do any great thing which would advance his spiritual interests. Remark

I. HOW ENTIRELY EVEN AN INTELLIGENT MAN MAY MISAPPREHEND HIS OWN SPIRITUAL ATTAINMENT. It was natural this young man should over-estimate himself. He was not only well disposed, very much the model of what a rich young man should be, but was interested in religion, as too few wealthy young men are. He was generally esteemed, and had already become a ruler of the synagogue. He came to Jesus, not to be taught the rudiments, but to receive the finishing touches of a religious characterand he is told he is wrong to the foundation. He is in the position of a person who goes to his medical adviser complaining of a slight uneasiness which he supposes a tonic will remove, and is told that he has heart disease or cancer. Or he is in the position of a sanguine inventor, who has spent years on the elaboration of a machine, and at last puts it into the hands of the practical man, merely to get steam applied and the fittings adjusted, and is told by the practical man that the whole thing is wrong in conception, and can by no possibility ever be made to work. He sees himself as he never saw himself before. He never knew how much he loved his money till he found he would risk his soul rather than part with his money. He never knew how little he cared for the poor till he found he was not prepared to help them by becoming one of them. He never dreamt he was ungodly till he found he preferred his few acres of land to that Person whom he had confessed to be Incarnate Goodness.

II. A MAN MAY NOT ONLY MISAPPREHEND HIS ATTAINMENT, BUT HIS WILLINGNESS TO ATTAIN. This young man fancied he would welcome any light upon duty. He thought himself willing to do anything that would advance his spiritual condition. He finds he is by no means willing. Thousands are in this state. “Give us,” they would say, “something tangible to do, and we will do it; but religion seems always so much in the clouds, we do not know where to begin.” Put present duty to such persons in an attainable form, and it is not always so welcome as they expected. Tell them that to be holy is, in their case, to say ten words of apology to some one they have injured, to set apart some fixed time daily for thought and prayer, to abandon some indulgence, or spend money for a relative; and they turn sullenly away, like this young man.

III. BETWEEN OUR PRESENT ATTAINMENT AND PERFECTION THERE MAY BE A SACRIFICE EQUIVALENT TO CUTTING OFF A RIGHT HAND OR PLUCKING OUT A RIGHT EYE. This young man was plainly told that, in order to attain life eternal, he must abandon his pleasant home, his position in society, all his comforts and prospects, and become a poor wanderer. It seems a hard demand to make of a well-intentioned youth. But it was no doubt justified by his state. Riches are not the only hindrance to attainment, and we may ourselves be in need of treatment as sharp. To begin the world with a penny would be no great trial to some of us; it would, indeed, be precisely what some of us are already doing; and there are probably few who would not gladly sell all they have if the price would buy perfection of character and life everlasting. But it is no such bargain our Lord means. He merely means that to us, as to this young man, salvation is impossible if it be not the first thing. This young man’s possessions happened to be that which prevented him from following Christ; but some pursuit of ours, or some cherished intention, or some evil habit, or mere indifference, may be as effectually preventing us from holding true fellowship with him and becoming like him. And discipline as penetrating and sore may in our case be required.

IV. FOR THE ONE THING ESSENTIAL, IF WE ARE TO ATTAIN PERFECTION, IS THE FOLLOWING OF CHRIST. This young man respected Christ, and was no doubt willing to do much to please him. He would probably have given up half his possessions, but he could not give up all for Christ. He did not scoff or argue: he “went away sorrowful,” feeling that the demand of Christ was reasonable, and that by not responding to it he was condemned. But he had not love enough to obey. It is not our judgment, but our affections, our real tastes and likings, which make us what we are, and determine where we shall ultimately be. Love to Christ, which will compel us to cleave to him in preference to all else,that alone is security that we shall reach perfection. This is the answer to the question which we all ask, “What lack I yet? What is it that prevents me from becoming a purer, stronger, holier, more useful man than I am? I desire growth, and I pray for it; but still it is chiefly my natural propensities that appear in my life. I do not seem to get the help promised; I do not make the growth required. Why is this? What is it always keeps me at the same point? What is it that always thwarts and baffles me?” Radically, it is the lack of deep and genuine devotedness to Christ.

V. OTHER THINGS MAY ALSO BE LACKING, AS, FOR EXAMPLE, DETERMINATION TO BE HOLY. It is in religion, in growth of character, as in other things, we succeed when we are determined to succeed; we fail when this determination is awanting. In certain physical and mental attainments, indeed, determination carries no efficacy. No amount of determination will make you as tall as some other man, or as long sighted, or as imaginative, or as witty. But to determine to be holy is already to be holy in will, that is, in the spring of all amendment of character and conduct. Determination is everything, on the human side, in the matter of sanctification. It is needless, therefore, seeking for mysterious causes of failure, if this first and last requisite be awanting. Are you determined to be holy? Are you bent upon this? Because if you are not determined, common sense should forbid you to wonder why you do not grow in character. If you are not determined to be holy, the very root of the matter is still lacking in you.

VI. Remark, in conclusion, that THE LACK OF ONE THING MAY MAKE ALL OTHER, ATTAINMENTS USELESS. One mistake vitiates a whole calculation. One disease is enough to kill a man; his brain may be sound, his lungs untouched, all his organs but one may be healthy; but if one vital organ be attacked, all the other healthy organs will not save him. So it is in character. One vice destroys the whole, if a man is malicious, it does not avail that he is temperate. If his heart is set on the world, attention to religion or domestic virtue will not save him. Many do cultivate all points but one. How often do we say, “What a pity so good a man should give way in this or that one respect!” So may it be said by others of ourselves. To some this question, “What lack I yet?” may come with a tone of irony. “What lack I?” we are tempted to say, “What have I, rather, that is not stained with sin, spotted by the world, unsafe, unproductive? When shall the time come when I shall be able in sincerity to say, ‘What lack I yet?’ when so much good shall have been achieved by me that I shall be at a loss to see whether further attainment is possible? My youth was very different from this young man’s. Instead of the ingenuousness, the unbroken hope and ardent aspiration of youth, there was its passion, its untamed desires, its selfish love of pleasure, its impatience, its folly.” There is, at least, the same choice now laid before you that was laid before him. To you Jesus says, “Follow me.” He will infallibly lead you to perfection; he sees to it that every one who forsakes aught for his sake receives in this life a hundredfold, and in the world to come life everlasting.D.

HOMILIES BY J.A. MACDONALD

Mat 19:1-12

The ethics of marriage.

Note here a contrast: multitudes following Christ for healing, Pharisees pursuing him for mischief. Satan will be among the sons of God. Jesus turns the contradiction of sinners into instructions for his disciples. Let us consider

I. THE PHARISEE‘S QUESTION RELATING TO CAPRICIOUS DIVORCE.

1. The occasion.

(1) It was commonly practised. Josephus recites Deu 24:1, and relates that he divorced his own wife because he was not pleased with her manners and behaviour.

(2) The practice had the sanction of scribes. While the school of Schammah were strict in their interpretation of the Law, the school of Hillel were lax.

(3) The temptation was to embroil Jesus with one or other of these schools. The plot was similar to that in the question of the tribute (see Mat 22:15). “In evil things Satan separates the end from the means; in good things the means from the end” (Philip Henry).

2. The reply.

(1) Note: It takes no notice of the scribes. Human authority is nowhere when put into competition with the Word of God.

(2) It appeals immediately to the Word: “Have ye not read?” Matrimonial cases are made intricate by leaving the Law of God and following the leading of human passion and folly.

(3) “He that made them from the beginning made them male and female.” It is profitable to reflect upon our genesis. Man was created in the image of God, woman after the likeness of man. The true marriage is the union of wisdom and love. One man and one woman, leaving no room for divorce and remarriage, so intimating the perpetual obligation of the marriage tie. Note: This argument is equally conclusive against polygamy.

(4) “And said”God said”For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife.” But these words of God were spoken by the lips of Adam (see Gen 2:23, Gen 2:24). Adam, then, who had no “father and mother,” spake prophetically under Divine inspiration. Marriage, then, is a sacred, not a mere civil, institution; and no legislature has power to alter its law. The relation between husband and wife is nearer than that between parent and child. If, then, a parent may not abandon his child, or a child his parent, by so much less may a husband put away his wife.

(5) “And the twain shall become one flesh”as if one person. What can be less dissoluble? His children are of him, his wife is as himself. One flesh with his wife, “one spirit with the Lord.” “One flesh,” viz. while in the flesh. “No man ever yet hated his own flesh.” “They twain shall be one;” so there must be but one wife (cf. Mal 2:15).

(6) “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” But this the scribes had presumed to do. God is the Author of union; man, of division. Man would sunder soul and body, sin and punishment, holiness and happiness, precept and promise.

II. THEIR CITATION OF THE MOSAIC CONCESSION OF DIVORCEMENT.

1. The concession.

(1) “Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorcement?” It is usual for sinners to justify their conduct by the perversion of Scripture. The “command” of Moses applied solely to the manner of the divorce; the thing was permissive simply. A toleration is strangely converted into a command.

(2) The reason of the toleration was the reverse of creditable to the Jews. “Moses for your hardness of heart suffered you to put away your wives.” The permission was to prevent the cruelty of vicious husbands to their wives, which was murderous. The bill of divorcement had to be drawn and witnesses procured, and afforded time to obviate the effects of sudden impulses of passion. God’s permission of lesser evil is evermore to prevent greater.

2. Its repeal.

(1) This is prefaced by an appeal. “But from the beginning it hath not been so.” The appeal here is from Deuteronomy to Genesis; so from Moses still to Moses (cf. Luk 18:17, Luk 18:18). God who gave the law had a right to relax it.

(2) But the relaxation applied only to the Jews, and was conceded to them in judgment for the hardness of their hearts; for the original was the more excellent way.

(3) This relaxation is, however, now removed. “I say unto you.” Here is an authority superior to Moses, equal to God. By Divine authority the law of marriage is now explicitly stated (see verse 9). Note: The grace of the gospel is superior to that of the Law. The Law considered the hardness of the heart; the gospel cures it (cf. Gal 3:19).

III. THE QUESTION OF THE DISCIPLES ON CELIBACY.

1. They viewed it in the light of selfishness. “If the case of a man is so,” etc. (verse 10). God said, “It is not good for man to be alone,” i.e. unmarried; the disciples, blinded by the prejudices of their race, said, “It is not good to marry.”

2. Jesus put it in its true light.

(1) The principle of expediency is admissible. “All men cannot receive this saying;” for there are some who are disqualified for marriage, so that the question for them is settled without their option.

(2) Others have not the gift of continence. For such celibacy is not expedient. “It is better to marry than to burn.”

(3) For those who have this gift celibacy may be expedient in times of persecution and suffering (cf. 1Co 7:26).

(4) It is commendable in those who are celibates “for the kingdom of heaven’s sake,” viz. that they might walk more closely with God, and be mort serviceable to the salvation of men (cf. 1Co 7:32; 1Co 9:5, 1Co 9:12).J.A.M.

Mat 19:13-15

The children, of the kingdom.

Here we have the kingdom of heaven, its children, and its King.

I. THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN.

1. This is a name for the invisible Church of God.

(1) It is the Catholic Church. It exists throughout the universe, comprising the “whole family” of God at once in heaven and on earth (see Eph 3:15). The headquarters and enrolment are in heaven (see Heb 12:23).

(2) It is the one Church of all the ages. It comprises the aristocracy of virtue under every dispensation. Christians from all climes sit down in the kingdom of God with all the prophets of the Mosaic dispensation, and with the patriarchs of still more ancient times (cf. Mat 8:11; Luk 13:28, Luk 13:29).

2. This is also a name for the collective Christian Church.

(1) In this restricted sense it does not include the kingdom of Israel or the Mosaic Church. The Baptist spoke of it as future to him; so also did the seventy disciples speak of it as future to them (see Mat 3:2; Mat 4:17; Mat 10:7).

(2) The gospel dispensation is the kingdom of heaven as bringing heaven near to us. Christ is “the Lord from heaven.” The spirit of the gospel is the very spirit of heaven. It brings us also near to heaven. We are spiritually risen with Christ, and sit with him in heavenly places.

II. THE CHILDREN OF THE KINGDOM.

1. These are the disciples who are childlike.

(1) Those who are without this resemblance have no place in this kingdom (see Mat 18:1-4).

(2) In the innocence and simplicity of childhood we see in outline what a man will become when born again and created anew.

2. These are also little children proper.

(1) Such were the “little children” brought to Christ. They were “brought,” viz. by their parents. They were so “little” that Jesus “took them into his arms”. They are described as “babes” (see Luk 18:15).

(2) These he received as belonging to the kingdom of God. There would be no good reason in rebuking the disciples for forbidding such little children to come to him, because childlike grown persons had a right to admission into the kingdom.

(3) This blessedly disposes of the dreadful doctrine of non-elect infants’ damnation. The parents in this case were in some sense believers in Jesus, else they would not have brought their children to receive his blessing. Yet his grace comes to all infants through his relation to them as the second Adam (see Rom 5:14, Rom 5:15; 1Co 15:22). Christ loves little children, because he loves simplicity and innocence.

(4) The prominent place infants have in the gospel is in keeping with the incarnation of innocence itself in the infant Saviour.

III. THE KING OF SAINTS.

1. Jesus is present to welcome the little ones.

(1) Infants belonged to the Church of the covenant under its more exclusive dispensations of the past. By circumcision they were anciently admitted.

(2) Are they now to be excluded from the same Church of the covenant under the more liberal Christian dispensation? Baptism is the circumcision of Christianity (see Col 2:11, Col 2:12).

(3) If little children belonged to the kingdom of heaven in the invisible sense of which the visible Church is the type, why should they not also be welcomed into the typical kingdom? Why should water be forbidden to those who have received the Holy Ghost (cf. Isa 44:3; Act 10:47)?

2. Present to rebuke those who would keep them from him.

(1) He who had recently defended the rights of marriage (Mat 19:3-12) now defends those of children. In rebuking his disciples he commended the parents.

(2) There are still those who would keep the little ones from Christ, not only through their irreligion and neglect, but also under false zeal for the dignity of the Lord.

(3) Notably those disciples who refuse them baptism because they cannot voluntarily believe. May not those baptized in infancy believe when they grow up? “The strongest believer loves not so much by apprehending Christ, as by being apprehended of him” (cf. Gal 4:9; Php 3:12).

3. He is there to bless them.

(1) The little ones were brought to Jesus expressly for this purpose. The Jews to this day bring their young children to their rabbis for their blessing. The custom seems to have been very ancient (cf. Gen 48:14, Gen 48:20).

(2) Jesus is not said to have prayed, as he was asked to do (Mat 19:13); probably because those who asked him had no knowledge of his Oneness with the Father.

(3) But it is recorded that he “blessed them”. Little children, then, are capable of receiving blessing from Christ.

(4) Let us humble ourselves to the simplicity of the child that we also may receive the blessing of the Lord.J.A.M.

Mat 19:16-22

The perfection of goodness.

To attain to this should be the aim of every rational being. In quest of it we should be willing to do anything and to sacrifice anything. “Who will show us any good?”

I. CHRIST IS THE IMPERSONATION OF PERFECT GOODNESS.

1. The ruler, in a sense, discerned this.

(1) He addressed him as “good Master”. He also evinced his veneration by “kneeling,” as stated in Mark.

(2) He sought to Jesus for instruction as to how he might attain to “eternal life,” viz. by finding that perfect goodness of which eternal life is the reward. His question was, in effect, “How may I become like thee?” Note: What the young man calls “eternal life,” Christ calls “life,” for eternal life is the only true life. Without this, “in the midst of life we are in death.”

2. But he discerned it falsely.

(1) He did not recognize the Divinity of Christ. Hence the question, “Why askest thou me concerning that which is good?” Suppose an emphasis on the word thou. So he proceeds, “One there is who is good;” equivalent to “None is good save One, even God” (Mar 10:18; Luk 18:19).

(2) The rebuke here is for ascribing goodness to Christ without discerning his Divinity as its source. The title is not inapplicable, for our Lord calls himself the “good Shepherd” (Joh 10:11). The fault was that it was improperly applied.

(3) The teaching, then, is that it is vain to seek goodness apart from God. He alone is good. essentially, originally, everlastingly. “God” is “good.” Therefore we should transfer to God all praise which is given to us. All crowns must lie before his throne (see Jas 1:17).

II. THE LAW OF GOD IS THE RULE OF GOODNESS.

1. This is expressed in the instruction of Christ.

(1) “If thou wouldest enter into life, keep the commandments.” This is not irony, but sober truth. To keep the commandments from a principle of loving faith is undoubtedly the way to eternal life. Those who are justified by faith must keep the commandments before they can enter into life and be finally saved.

(2) Keeping the commandments must, however, include faith in Jesus Christ (see 1Jn 3:23). Moses gave it amongst his commandments that we should hear the great Prophet to be raised up like unto him.

2. The ruler observed the commandments in the letter.

(1) The inquiry “Which?” was probably occasioned by the confusion introduced by the scribes, who mixed up the traditions of the elders with the precepts of Moses; and who magnified the ritual observances so as to neglect the moral rulesthe “weightier matters of the Law,” justice, mercy, and charity.

(2) The answer put the moral law in the foremost place. The particular commandments which our Lord selects are but adduced as instances of moral, in opposition to ritual, obedience. Nor does he cite the commandments in their order, probably to show, as the Jews themselves express it, “that there is neither first nor last in the Law”that every precept is so perfect that it matters not whether it be taken first or last. He mentions only the duties of the second table, summing them up, however, with the precept from Le 19:18, for the love of God can only be made manifest by love to our neighbour (cf. 1Jn 4:20, 1Jn 4:21). “Our light burns in love to God, but it shines in love to our neighbour” (Henry).

(3) “All these things have I observed” (cf. Php 3:6).

3. He failed to keep them in the spirit.

(1) “What lack I yet?” He was convinced that he yet needed something. He had too much of that boasting which is excluded by the law of faith, and which excludes from justification (Luk 18:11, Luk 18:14; Rom 3:27).

(2) The Lord soon discovered to him the covetousness and earthliness of his heart. He found how he over-estimated his obedience when he was unwilling to part with his possessions for the benefit of the poor, and preferred earthly to heavenly treasure. Note: Worldly men prefer heaven to hell; Christians prefer heaven to earth.

(3) We cannot become perfect without becoming spiritual So a man may be free from gross sin, yet come short of the life of grace and glory.

III. THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST IS THE WAY OF GOODNESS.

1. It promises eternal life in Christ. “Thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.”

(1) In the school of Christ we learn the doctrine of justification by faith in his sufficient atonement.

(2) The connection with that atonement of the work of the Holy Spirit in the heart.

(3) His teaching, moreover, shows us the connection between faith and obedience unto the fulfilling of the Law.

2. But it exacts an absolute submission.

(1) “Sell all.” This was literally required in the case of the ruler. Christ did not lighten his cross, because “he loved him.” Note: This reason should sustain us under our crosses.

(2) Virtually we have to sell all. We must be willing to part with everything that may hinder our salvation.

3. Those who refuse submission accept sorrow.

(1) “He went away sorrowful.” What an opportunity he missed! The offer to him was to become one of Christ’s more intimate disciples; to be specially trained by him in the knowledge of spiritual things, and to preach his gospel.

(2) Many are ruined by the sin they commit with reluctance. What would be the ruler’s sorrow in the sequel to find his wealth gone and eternal life along with it! Mariners act prudently when, to save their lives, they throw overboard rich bales of silk and precious things.J.A.M.

Mat 19:23-30

Possessions and life.

“Behold, one came” to Jesus (see Mat 19:16). Multitudes of poor persons had followed him from the beginning; at length “one” rich man came, and, sad to say, this one retired sorrowful and unsaved. So, turning to his disciples, the Lord said, “Verily I say unto you,” etc. Learn

I. THAT THE SALVATION OF A RICH MAN IS A SPECIAL MIRACLE OF MERCY.

5. That it is outside the ravage of ordinary probability is evinced in the case of the ruler.

(1) His circumstances were exceptionably favourable. Observe:

(a) The seriousness of his inquiry after eternal life.

(b) The respectfulness of his approach to Christ.

(c) The excellence of his moral character.

(d) The affection with which our Lord regarded him.

(e) The sorrowful struggle of spirit with which he departed.

(2) Yet for all this he was overcome by the influence of his “great possessions.”

(3) The silence respecting him afterwards renders it probable that, in gaining the world, he lost his soul.

2. That it is outside the ravage of ordinary probability is declared by Christ.

(1) “It is hard,” etc. (Mat 19:23). And this is emphasized by a “verily.”

(2) The assertion is strengthened by what follows (Mat 19:24). “I incline to the opinion that at the time the Redeemer spake this parable, he was with his disciples in one of the public khans, there being no other resting place for them; and there, seeing the people mending their camel saddles, for which purpose they use a long needle like a straight packing needle, he pointed to them and said as it were, ‘These camels can as soon pass through the eye of those needles as a rich man can enter into the kingdom of God'” (Gadsby). Note: The way to heaven is fitly compared to a needle’s eye, which it is hard to hit; and a rich man to a camela beast of burden. For he has his riches from others, spends them for others, leaves them to others, and is himself the carrier.

(3) What our Lord adds does not soften his earlier words (see Mat 19:26); for it makes the salvation of the rich an utmost effort of omnipotence.

3. The salvation of the rich is imperilled by the deceitfulness of riches.

(1) It is not riches themselves, but the sordid love of them, that our Lord condemns. So, in the bad sense, a man is rich in proportion to his attachment to worldly possessions. A rich man, according to this definition, cannot be saved.

(2) But those who have riches naturally love them and trust them (cf. Mat 6:21; Col 3:5). They tend to increase pride, covetousness, and self-indulgence. They purchase flattery and exclude faithful reprovers. They prejudice the mind against the humbling truths and self-denying precepts of Christ. They increase the number and force of the obstacles which must be broken through (cf. Psa 49:6, Psa 49:7; Psa 52:7; 1Ti 6:17).

(3) Yet how few see that to be rich is a misfortune! Even when Christ intimated this, his own disciples were “astonished exceedingly” (Mat 19:25); and he had to “look upon them,” penetrating their feeling of astonishment and perplexity, to convince them that such feelings as theirs were the peril of the rich; for they were deceived into the notion that riches gave singular advantages towards salvation.

4. Still with God the salvation of the rich is possible.

(1) It needs more than human power to wean the heart of man from worldly things. No perfection of science can enable him to discern spiritual things; these are above the natural man. God alone can destroy the love of the world in us.

(2) Omnipotence is displayed in grace as well as in nature. God can effectually plead the cause of the rich in the presence of the poor, by pleading the cause of the poor in the presence of the rich (see Mat 19:21).

(3) The possibility is evinced in the examples of Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathaea, Joanna the wife of Chuza, Herod’s steward, and many more. Man fails when he begins with himself; succeeds, when he begins with God.

II. THAT FOR WHATEVER WE SACRIFICE IN THE SERVICE OF CHRIST WE SHALL BE WONDERFULLY REWARDED.

1. In this present life.

(1) Peter said, “Lo, we have left all, and followed thee.” The disciples had but little; yet it was their all.

(2) Peter speaks of their giving up all (Mat 19:27); Jesus speaks of their following him (Mat 19:28). “To obey is better than to sacrifice.” Obedience includes sacrifice. “The philosopher forsakes all without following Christ; most Christians follow Christ without forsaking all; to do both is apostolic perfection” (Bengel).

(3) Christ did not estimate the attachment of his disciples to him by the quantity of things they relinquished, but from the mind and intention with which they relinquished them. “And every one that hath left houses,” etc., viz. either by giving them up when they could not retain them with a clear conscience, or by refraining from acquiring them, “for my Name‘s sake“ (Mat 19:29; see 2Co 8:12).

(4) The compensation then is “a hundredfold,” viz. not in kind, but in spiritual blessings. Here is cent percent multiplied a hundred times. Such, even in this life, is the advantage of the spiritual value gained in this blessed exchange!

2. In the life to come.

(2) “The regeneration” commences in the millennium. That will be the great day of judgment, or reigning. It will be a theocracy, as in the times of the ancient judges (cf. Isa 1:26). Irenaeus says that the reward of the hundredfold is to happen in the millennium (cf. Isa 32:1; Dan 7:18, Dan 7:27; Mat 26:29; Act 3:20, Act 3:21; Revelation, 20.).

(2) The Lord’s glorification is the pattern of human regeneration here; for those who follow him are morally risen with him and resemble him. Hereafter also, for we shall in our regeneration from the power of the grave be in the likeness of his resurrection. So the “redemption of the body” will be the “manifestation of the sons of God” (cf. Luk 20:36; Rom 8:23; 1Jn 3:2).

(3) The “regeneration” which commences in the millennium will culminate in the “new heaven and earth” in which the “new creation,” under the headship of the second Adam, will be finished. The reward of that glorious state is “life everlasting.”J.A.M.

HOMILIES BY R. TUCK

Mat 19:6, Mat 19:7

Natural laws and human infirmities.

The law of marriage must be thought of as fixed for human beings before the Fall. Natural laws are not fixed in view of man’s wilfulness and sin. They remain natural laws after man has sinned; but their application and practical working are modified by the new conditions and relations which sin has introduced. God made man male and female. God designed single pairs. God proposed lifelong faithfulness of the wedded pairs. There is no natural provision made for divorce, because such a thing has no place in the natural order. In the Divine idea human society is based on the mutually helpful relation in which one man and one woman may stand. Instability of human society comes when the family bond can be easily broken. The human infirmities which have necessitated modifications of the natural marriage laws are

I. CRUELTIES. It became necessary for woman to have some defence against man’s violence. Natural law makes man and woman equals. They are different; but their faculties and sympathies are relative, and each is head in a way. But sin took first shape as masterfulness; and man, the stronger, took advantage of woman, the weaker, and made her his slave. There had to be adjustment of law to meet this condition and give due protection to the weaker one. “But for the possibility of divorce, the wife would have been the victim of the husband’s tyranny; and lawsocial lawwhich has to deal with factsnot with what ought to be, but with what iswas compelled to choose between two evils.” Woman’s lot, even in civilized times, would often be intolerable but for the possibility and the fear of divorce.

II. INFIDELITIES. This subject needs to be touched very wisely in a general audience; and yet there is no subject on which wise words are more pressingly demanded. It is one of the most serious of the mischiefs wrought by sin, that it has loosened men’s control of bodily passion. And the mischief is wrought, not in man only, but also in woman. Infidelities make the continuance of natural relations impossible, though the modification of law, which permits divorce, makes no attempt to deliver man or woman from the power of their infirmity.R.T.

Mat 19:11

Varieties in receptiveness.

“All men cannot receive this saying.” It is not quite clear to what the term “this saying” refers. It may be the rule laid down by our Lord in Mat 19:9. It may be the exclamation of the disciples in Mat 19:10. It may be that our Lord refers generally to marriage, and intends to say that the question of entering into the marriage state is one which each man must settle for himself, according to natural capacity, material circumstances, and cultured disposition. It is one thing to give good and wise counsels; it is quite another thing to receive them and. act upon them. It is easy to say, “It is good to marry;” but it is not everybody who can receive the saying.

I. RECEPTIVENESS DEPENDS ON NATURAL DISPOSITION. There is, in this, a marked distinction between men and women. As a rule, by nature, women are receptive, and not critical; men are critical, and not receptive. Sometimes we find the womanly receptiveness in man; but it is a sign of a weak disposition. Strong men only receive on compulsion. Receptiveness may hinder rather than help education; and it prevents activity. He who is satisfied to receive makes little effort to attain. True education deals with natural receptivity, and is anxious about its effective limitation. It makes teaching easy, but too easy. He who can only receive becomes only a crammed storehouse.

II. RECEPTIVENESS DEPENDS ON MORAL DISCIPLINE. While the receptiveness which we have as an element of our natural disposition may prove a perilous weakness, the receptiveness which we gain by self-discipline becomes an effective power in our life. It is a qualifying receptiveness. It is related to the will. It is held in control. The man who is not subject to influence, who cannot be persuaded, who is as a hard field path into which no seed can sink, is a manifestly undisciplined man, self-centred, self-satisfieda man who can learn nothing, and grow no better.R.T.

Mat 19:13

The folk who are interested in the children.

It is difficult for us to conceive of the good man who does not love flowers, song, spring time, and children. We might be quite sure that the “best of men who e’er wore earth about him” loved the children. But in the East all children are kept in the background; female children are despised by their fathers, and even male children are in the women’s hands until quite big. So our Lord’s interest in children seemed new and strange to his disciples. At this time, his mind was filled with the thought of coming sorrows, and it was relief and comfort to be made to think of simple, guileless childhood. If Jesus honoured the children, it is also true that the children comforted Jesus. Beware of exaggeration in representing Christ’s dealings with children. Very few instances are recorded. On one occasion he “set a child in the midst” of the disciples; then there is the incident of the text; and also the “hosannah” of the children at the triumphal entry. Fixing attention on the persons prominent in the incident of the text, see

I. WHAT THE MOTHERS WANT FOR THEIR CHILDREN.

1. Their physical health. Subtle connection between health and character. Relation of health to success in life. Importance of laying foundations of health in early years.

2. Their mental culture. Age of education; danger of overstrain; and of thinking learning more important than character.

3. Their social position. So they try to secure for them right companions, good society, advantageous connections.

4. Their moral character. This ought to come first. Beginnings of character and piety are reverence, truthfulness, obedience, trustfulness.

II. WHAT DISCIPLES MAY WANT FOR THE CHILDREN. These disciples, in their conduct on this occasion, may represent all who have narrow and limited views of the sphere of God and religion. They wanted these children to run away and play, and not trouble or hinder the Master. Deal with the once prevailing idea that religion is only the concern of grown up folk. There has been over pressure of the idea of “conversion.” There is an unfolding into the service of Christ.

III. WHAT THE LORD JESUS WANTS FOR THE CHILDREN.

1. To come to him for their own sakes. And “coming to Christ” is simply thissetting our love upon him.

2. To come to him for their mothers’sakes; because, through them, he can get a gracious influence on the mothers.

3. To come to him for the sake of what he can teach with their help. Bring out the reproofs and lessons, for the disciples, involved in our Lord’s act.R.T.

Mat 19:16

The ruler’s mistakes.

The assumption that this ruler was a youth has no, foundation. The man could not have been a ruler if he had been a youth. He must have been in what we should call the prime of life; but he evidently retained something of the impetuousness of youth. His mistakes suggest the impulsive temperament, that readily yields to emotion, and is wont to act before it thinks. Our Lord skilfully dealt with individuals. “He needed not that any should testify of man; for he knew what was in man.” He was “a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” In the ruler’s abrupt and impulsive question we may trace three forms of mistake.

I. A MISTAKE ABOUT CHRIST. He applied the word “good” to him, and yet he had no adequate ideas concerning goodness. If he had really meant anything worth meaning, he would have recognized in Christ the infinitely Good One, the Son of God; for none is good save God. This mistake Jesus corrected in two ways.

1. By reference to God. “None is good save one, that is, God.” You do not call God good because he does good, but because he is good.

2. By a severe and searching test, which reveals to the man the imperfectness of his own goodness. He would never be able to get right ideas of God or Christ from himself.

II. A MISTAKE CONCERNING HIMSELF. This took a twofold form. He thought he was good; and he thought he could do good, if only he was told what to do. Jesus showed him a good thing that he could not do; and so set his conscience suggesting, that perhaps he was not as good as he had thought. We may think ourselves good while we arrange the forms that our goodness shall take; but we may learn our mistake when God arranges the forms for us. The question betrays the man’s self-righteous spirit. He is indirectly paying a compliment to himselfto his own goodness; or, at any rate, to human goodness, that idol which he worshipped with his whole soul.

III. A MISTAKE CONCERNING THE FUTURE. Feeling himself well provided for in all that concerned this life, he wanted to be as safely and as well off in the next life. He would inherit eternal life; he would have it as something coming to him; he wanted as much right to it as he had to his worldly possessions. How much he had to learn! A man’s life here “consisteth not in the abundance of the things he possesses.” A man’s wealth is his character; that is true of this life, but much more true of the life to come.R.T.

Mat 19:19

Right attitude towards parents.

“Honour thy father and thy mother.” It is significant that the old Law did not say, “Obey thy father and mother,” or even “Love thy father and mother.” Perhaps we are intended to see that obeying and loving have no will necessarily in them. We obey in simple yielding to the force that commands; we love our parents in the animal sort of way that characterizes all young creatures. “Honour thy father” suggests active intelligence, careful estimates, operative will, personal decision. Reverence, and show reverence for, thy father, both because he is thy father, and because of what he is in his fatherliness.

I. RIGHT ATTITUDE TOWARDS PARENTS IS THE BEGINNING OF MORALS AND RELIGION. Our father and mother represent the power above us that we first know. We know parents before we know God. And we know God through our parents. He begins life with an almost overwhelming disability who has parents whom he cannot “honour.” Honouring includes:

1. Cherishing high thoughts concerning. To a child, father and mother ought to be embodiments of all excellence.

2. Loving dependence on. The confidence that the goodness will be adequate to all emergencies.

3. Perfect response to. Involving the patting of the parents’ will before the child’s own.

4. Tender care of. Expressed in all thoughtful and self-denying attentions. It may be shown how this attitude prepares the child to gain right thoughts of God, who should be to us our glorified, idealized father and mother; not father only, not mother only, but a Being realizing in himself the perfections of both.

II. RIGHT ATTITUDE TOWARDS PARENTS ENSURES OBEDIENCE INSPIRED BY FEELING. Obedience is not just one thing. It is various, according to the motive inspiring it. We should obey our Master from a sense of duty, whether he be gentle or froward, and whether we like to obey or not. But obedience to parents belongs to a higher type of obedience. It is prompted by feeling: it is inspired by love. And it is through the obedience of our parents that we learn true obedience to God.R.T.

Mat 19:23

The hindering power of worldly possessions.

“He went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.” “A rich man shall hardly [or, ‘with difficulty’] enter into the kingdom of heaven.” The figure of the “camel and needle’s eye” is a proverbial one, and no precise facts answering to it need be sought for. There are other proverbs very similar. It strikingly expresses that which is almost impossible, but not quite impossible. This sentence is taken from the Koran: “The impious shall find the gates of heaven shut; nor shall he enter there till a camel shall pass through the eye of a needle.” Our Lord teaches that the rich man may enter the kingdom, but he will surely find that his riches will stand in his way, and make it very hard work for him, as they made it hard work for this rich ruler. What is it in worldly possessions that makes them such hindering things?

I. RICHES HAVE A SEPARATING INFLUENCE ON MEN. They tend to put men in classes; those having the riches claiming to be a superior class, and demanding special consideration and treatment. This tends to induce the idea that the way of salvation for rich people ought to be a special provision. The rich man does not care to be saved just as the poor man is. He finds the gospel too levelling. If he cannot have a way of his own, he will have no way. It is difficult for him to realize that God takes no count of riches; and whoever would come to him must come in at the one strait gate, which is big enough to take the man, but not big enough to take anything that he would carry in with him.

II. RICHES HAVE A SATISFYING INFLUENCE ON MEN. They bring with them a sense of security. The rich man can have all he wants, and there will be no future, he thinks, in which he will have any needs that cannot be met. The poor have a basis for religion in their daily need and daily dependence, The rich have no basis for religion. It is their misery, that body, mind, and soul never have any wants. They have got the riches: what more can they want? This kind of feeling provides the gravest of hindrances to entrance into the kingdom.

III. RICHES HAVE A HARDENING INFLUENCE ON MEN. This is most true, most strange, and most sad. It can be illustrated in eases we all know, of self-sacrificing generosity while persons were poor, which changed at once into selfish meanness when wealth came to them. It is that hardening which makes it so difficult for a rich man to enter the kingdom.R.T.

Mat 19:26

Salvation possible because it is God’s work.

As the disciples understood their Lord, he seemed to them to make it impossible for a rich man to become a Christian; and if a rich man could not be a Christian, who could be? They mistook their Master, who, as an effective Teacher, sometimes stated things very strongly, and withheld the qualifications in order to excite thought. The “immensely difficult” is not the “impossible.” The impossible, if you can only reckon upon human forces, is not impossible, if you can bring in Divine forces. And, in relation to moral salvations, you have to take account of what God can do. “With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.” This very large and unqualified statement concerning the absolute ability of God has often been misrepresented and misused, because it has been applied to things of which our Lord was not thinking. It is saidGod cannot make two things fill one space, or make two and two count five. But these are not “impossibilities;” they are “absurdities,” proved such by the conditions of human language. God cannot do what is manifestly absurd in the very statement. Our Lord was speaking strictly of moral possibilities and impossibilities.

I. GOD CAN SAVE RICH MEN, BECAUSE HE CAN TAKE AWAY THEIR RICHES. And so remove their hindrance. Man cannot do this; but all wealth is absolutely in the Divine control. This is forcibly illustrated in the story of Job; all whose worldly possessions take wings and fly away in a single overwhelming day. The rich ruler would not put his possessions away in order to enter the kingdom; but, if it had pleased Christ so to do, he could have taken them away, and so have given him his opportunity. Many a man has been brought to God by losing the riches in which he had trusted.

II. GOD CAN SAVE RICH MEN BY TAKING THEM AWAY FROM THEIR RICHES. Drawing them away from their confidences. God has power over the minds and souls of men. By his Spirit he can awaken such soul anxieties that a man may become indifferent to death, put his fingers in his ears, and cry, “What must I do to be saved?” God, by his Spirit, can “convince of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment;” and under that convincement a man will surely be liberated from the enslaving of worldly possessions.R.T.

Mat 19:28

“The regeneration.”

This may be but another name for the setting up of the kingdom of heaven. As the apostles were to be directly connected with it, the final “restitution of all things” can hardly be meant. It is usual to refer such expressions to the “second coming of Christ;” but he appears to have had in mind the starting of the Messianic kingdom at Pentecost. Understanding Christ to be using Eastern figures of speech, we may see his meaning to be simply thisThose who truly and self-sacrificingly follow him shall occupy the chief places of influence in the new kingdom which he proposed soon to establish.

I. THE REGENERATION TREATED AS THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE KINGDOM. Christ sat upon the throne of his glory when he ascended into “heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.” Then was “all power given to him in heaven and in earth;” and then the glorious work of regenerating the world was initiated. The new creation, to be completed finally in “the restitution of all things,” was commenced. The outpouring of the Spirit on the Day of Pentecost, the miracles performed by his apostles, the destruction of Jerusalem and of “those his enemies who would not that he should reign over them,” and the abolition of the Mosaic economy, were the palpable proofs of his exaltation.

II. THE REGENERATION TREATED AS INDICATING THE MISSION OF THE KINGDOM. The “kingdom” was to be the supreme renovating, renewing, regenerating force in the world. The “regeneration” may be taken as the time following on our Lord’s resurrection.

1. It was primarily centred in our Lord’s own renovated Person; for he then put off the servant form, and put on his immortality.

2. That renovation overspread and included his followers, especially his twelve apostles. By the Pentecostal Spirit they were endowed with power from on high; they entered on possession of the kingdom appointed.

3. The Church was renewed and regenerated from the old to the new dispensation. The types and shadows had departed, the reign of the kingdom of God with power was begun.” There is to be a new birth for mankind. Christ exalted and living, Christ working through his Church and in the might of his Spirit, is now established as the regenerating force of humanity; and these are the times of the “regeneration.”R.T.

Mat 19:29

The Christian possession and Christian heritage.

“Shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.” St. Peter (1Pe 1:4, 1Pe 1:9) speaks of “receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls;” and of our lively hope of the “inheritance incorruptible and undefiled, and that fadeth not away.” We may unduly fix our thoughts on that which we gain now by becoming Christians. But many fail of due appreciation of present blessings, because they are absorbed in anticipation of the good things that are to come. Our Lord had to deal with disciples who were very easily led to think about what they should get by being disciples. In this passage he seeks to deliver them from material notions of getting, and to help them in forming worthy estimates of the spiritual blessings of discipleship.

I. THE SPIRITUAL THINGS A DISCIPLE NOW HAS. Things answering to “houses and lands,” and to “wife and children.” Man here on earth has two supreme satisfactionsthey are found in “things possessed,” and in “objects of affection.” Discipleship to Christ provides no sort of guarantee for a hundredfold more in number of possessions or objects of affection. It does guarantee a hundredfold better in quality. There are answering soul possessions; there are answering soul affections. How firmly St. Paul declares of the Christian, “All things are yours, whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours, and ye are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s”! Riches and objects of affection depend on the faculties wakened in us. Discipleship wakens new and nobler faculties; and these Christ provides for.

II. THE SPIRITUAL THINGS A DISCIPLE EXPECTS. Lest there should be any mistake, our Lord distinctly speaks of the future as higher, nobler, sublimer life“everlasting life.” We are in danger of materializing the heavenly, because we can only get apprehensions of it with the aid of sensible figures”many mansions,” “crowns,” “harps,” “palms.” But the apostles help to liberate and raise our thoughts, for they speak of a “crown of righteousness,“ a “crown of life,” a “crown of glory.” “Godliness has the promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come.” The Christian makes “the best of both worlds.”R.T.

Mat 19:30

Reversion of present estimates.

“Many that are first shall be last.” There is a story of a poor man who, in distant ages, had stood aloof from the sacrifices to Varuna, the goddess of the waters, but had been eventually signalized by her as her most devoted worshipperhis omission to join in a certain rite having only arisen from the intensity of his heartfelt adoration. So the last proved to be first. There may be a designed allusion to the rich ruler who, in his own estimate stood first, but soon was put last, when he came under the searchings of the Divine Teacher. And there is a more immediate reference to those disciples who bragged about how much they had given up, and assumed their claims to first places in the kingdom. Maybe that, at last, “publicans and harlots would enter the kingdom in front of them.”

I. PRESENT ESTIMATES ARE SPOILED BY SELF–CENTREDNESS. Men make themselves their standards; and then easily make themselves better than their neighbours; and put their neighbours low down. Certain phases of religious doctrine encourage self-centredness, and make a man think that he is a special favourite of Heaven; and of all disagreeable people, favouritescourt favourites and othersare the worst. A man never estimates either himself or others aright until he makes God his standard.

II. PRESENT ESTIMATES ARE SPOILED BY JEALOUSIES. Who of us is fully and honourably free from jealousy in forming our estimate of our fellows? How many are, we think, where we ought to be, if only we had our rights? All jealousy-tinged estimates will have to be reversed. Our last may be put first.

III. PRESENT ESTIMATES ARE DEPENDENT ON APPEARANCES. Men are always taken with showy gifts. The fluent man is always overpraised. A cynical writer says, but with some truth in his saying, “So, in current literature, we find ourselves in an inverted world, where the halt, and the maimed, and the blind are the magnates of our kingdom; where heroes are made of the sick, and pets of the stupid, and merit of the weak man’s nothingness.” A wise man avoids fixing men in order and place, as first or last; refuses to have a place for himself, and is content to wait for the Divine appraising.R.T.

Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary

Mat 19:1-2. The coasts of Judea, beyond Jordan Properly speaking, no part of Judea was on the further side of Jordan; for though, after the Jews returned from the captivity, the whole of their land was called Judea, especially by foreigners who happened to mention their affairs, it is certain, that in the Gospels, Judea is always spoken of as a particular division of the country: we may therefore reasonably suppose that St. Matthew’s expression is elliptical, and may supply it from St. Mar 10:1 thus: And came into the coasts of Judea, , through the country beyond Jordan. See Joh 10:40. In this journey our Lord passed through the country beyond Jordan, that the Jews living there might enjoy the benefit of his doctrine and miracles; and great multitudes followed him, namely, from Galilee into Perea. Our Saviour’s fame was become exceedingly great, insomuch that every where he was resorted to and followed;by the sick, who wished to be healed; by their friends, who attended them; by those whose curiosity prompted them to see and examine things so wonderful; by well-disposed persons, who found themselves greatly profited and pleased with his sermons; by enemies, who watched all his words and actions, with a design to expose him as a deceiver; and, lastly, by those who expected that he would set up the kingdom immediately. Besides, at this time the multitude might have been greater than ordinary, because, as the passover was at hand, many going thither might have chosen to travel in our Lord’s train, expecting to see new miracles. See Macknight and Lamy. The version of 1729 renders the latter part of the 1st verse, And came into the confines of Judea on the other side Jordan.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Mat 19:1 f. With his usual formula, . . ., . . . (Mat 7:28 , Mat 11:1 , Mat 13:53 ), Matthew here introduces the account of the closing stage in Christ’s ministry by mentioning His departure from Galilee to Judaea . It does not follow (comp. note on Mat 16:21 ) that there may not have been previous visits to Judaea (in answer to Baur), but, in order to give to this journey, above all, the prominence due to its high significance, it was necessary that the Synoptists should confine their view to the Galilaean ministry until the time came for this final visit to the capital.

The conversation concerning divorce and marriage is likewise given in Mar 10:1 ff., and, on the whole, in a more original shape.

.] Comp. Mat 17:22 ; Mat 17:24 .

] This expression cannot be intended to define the locale of , for the reader knew, as matter of course, that Peraea and Judaea (Mat 4:15 ; Mat 4:25 ) meant different districts, although, according to Ptolem. v. 16. 9, several towns east of the Jordan might be reckoned as included in Judaea; neither can it belong to . . (Fritzsche: “Movens a Galilaea transiit fluvium”), for . . . . . is not of the nature of a parenthesis; rather is it to be regarded as indicating the route (Mar 10:1 ) which Jesus took, thus defining (Mar 7:31 ) somewhat more precisely , lest it should be supposed that He was on this side Jordan, and therefore approached Judaea by going through Samaria, whereas, being on the farther side of the river, He went by Peraea , and reached the borders of Judaea by crossing over to the west side of the Jordan (somewhere in the neighbourhood of Jericho, Mat 20:29 ). The expression is not awkward (Volkmar); nor, again, is it to be erroneously understood as showing that the Gospel was written in some district east of the Jordan.

Further, the narrative of Matthew and Mark cannot be reconciled with that of Luke, who represents Jesus as keeping to this side of the Jordan (Luk 9:51 , and see note on Luk 17:11 ); nor with the account of John, who, Joh 10:22 , says nothing about the journey to Jerusalem, but represents Jesus as already there, and in Joh 19:40 as setting out from that city to make a short sojourn in Peraea.

] that is, in Peraea, just mentioned, and through which He was travelling on His way to the borders of Judaea, Mat 19:1 . On ( their sick ), see Winer, p. 139 [E. T. 183]. Instead of the healing, Mark speaks of the teaching that took place on this occasion.

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

THIRD SECTION
THE PRIESTLY FAMILY IN THE CHURCH

Mat 19:1-26

Contents:This section sets before us, in their remarkable connection, the three principal features of the Christian household as it should exist in the Church of Christ: viz., the marriage-relationship in the Church, Mat 19:1-12; children In the Church, Mat 19:13-15; and property in the Church, Mat 19:16-26.

Historical Connection.After the transaction at Capernaum, recorded in Matthew 18, the Lord commenced His festive journey to Jerusalem, in company with His disciples, Luk 13:22-30. On this occasion the Pharisees attemptedprobably at the instigation of Herodto frighten the Lord into a speedy removal from Galilee, Luk 19:31-35. They next invited Him to a feast, in the hope of thus ensnaring Him, Luk 14:1-24. The Lord now set before those of His followers who were not yet decided for Him, the dangers connected with discipleship, Luk 14:25-35. On the other hand, He declared His readiness to receive penitent publicans and sinners, Luk 15:1-17. The festive company now entered the territory of Samaria, but were not allowed to pass through it (Luk 9:51-62). This refusal to receive Him led to the sending forth of the seventy disciples (Luk 10:1-16). The Lord next took a sorrowing retrospect of Galilee (Mat 11:20-30); and then passed into Pera through the boundary land of Samaria and Galilee (Luk 17:11-19). The return of the seventy disciples (Luk 10:17-37). Jesus arrived in Pera previous to the transactions recorded in Matthew 19 (Mat 19:1-2). The Evangelists have not preserved many of the details connected with Christs twofold visit to Pera, before and after the feast of the Dedication of the Temple, during the winter of the year 782. Thus much, however, clearly appears, that He was gladly received in that district We are told that, during His first stay there (Mat 19:2), great multitudes followed Him there, and He healed them (their sick). Of His second visit to Pera we read, that many resorted unto Him, and believed on Him there (Joh 10:40-42). The events recorded in the section under consideration, most probably occurred while the Saviour visited Pera the second time. According to the account in the Gospel of Mark, the rich young man came to the Lord when He was gone forth into the way; according to Matthew, He departed from Galilee after having laid His hands on children,an act which the Evangelist seems to connect with His teaching on the subject of divorce (see the Leben Jesu, Mat 2:2, p. 1079).

During his journey to Pera, where Jesus on the first occasion made only a very brief stay, He replied to the intrusive and curious question, whether few or many were to be saved (Luk 13:23). It was probably in Pera that He uttered the parable concerning the Pharisee and the publican, and several others which are recorded in the Gospel by Luke. He next appeared at Jerusalem at the feast of the Dedication of the Temple (Joh 10:22-40), which, according to Wieseler, commenced that year on the 25th December. Once more the Jews now tempted Him with the question, whether He was the Messiah (in their sense of the designationthe inquiry being urged partly from motives of hostility, and partly in the hope of having their carnal expectations realized). In their peculiar state of mind, the reply of Jesus implied both more and less than they had anticipated or wished. Hence they wished to stone Him. But He passed majestically through the midst of them, andprotected by His followerssoon appeared a second time in Pera, in the same locality, where afterward, at Pella, His Church found a refuge. But in Pera also He was met by Pharisees, who had been stirred up and instructed by their colleagues at Jerusalem. Accordingly, questions similar to those set before Him in the capital of Juda were now urged. With these the section under consideration opens.

It is quite in accordance with the plan adopted by Matthew in his Gospel, that only those portions are recorded in which the Christian family in the new Church is described in its various aspects and bearings.

A. Marriage in the Church. Mat 19:1-12

(Mar 10:1-12.)

1And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these sayings, he departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts [borders, ] of Judea beyond [the] Jordan; 2, And great multitudes followed him; and he healed them there. 3The Pharisees also came unto him [And there came to him Pharisees],1 tempting him, and saying unto him,2 Is it lawful for a man3 to put away his wife for every cause? 4And he answered and said unto them,4 Have ye not read, that he which [who] made them at the beginning [from the beginning, , i.e., in paradise] made them male and female, 5And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain [the two, ] shall be one flesh? 6Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. 7They say unto him, Why [then] did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? 8He saith unto them, Moses because of the harshness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning9[ ] it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication,5 and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which [who] is put away doth commit [committeth] adultery. 10His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife [i.e., if this is the legal relation between husband and wife], it is not good to marry. 11But he said unto them, All men cannot [Not all, , can] receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. 12For there are some6 eunuchs, which [who] were so born from their [the] mothers wombs: and there are some eunuchs, which [who] were made eunuchs of [by, men: and there be [are] eunuchs, which [who] have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heavens sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Mat 19:1. And it came to pass.The passage from Galilee to Pera formed part of the journey of the Lord to Jerusalem. The circumstance, that Matthew (as well as Mark and Luke) only records the last journey of Jesus to Jerusalem, is readily explained from the general plan on which his narrative is constructed.

Into the borders; or, boundary land.It deserves notice, that Jesus entered not merely the territory of Pera, but penetrated to its utmost boundaries. According to Josephus (Bell. Jdg 3:3; Jdg 3:3), Pera proper (or the other side, i.e., of Jordan , sc. ) extended from Moabitis, or from the Arnon, to Pella on the northcertainly to the Sheriat Mandhur, since Josephus designates Gadars (Omkeis), which lay on the Mandhur, as the capital of Pera. Toward the east, it adjoined, according to that writer, the territory of Gerasa, Rabbath Ammon, and Arabia. L. von Raumer. From the same authority we learn that Pera, in the wider sense, embraced that part of Palestine which lay east of the Jordan, embracing the whole territory of Pera from the sources of the Jordan to the Arnon, Lastly, a still wider meaning attached to that name which was also given to the whole eastern part of the Jordan-valley, or the Ghor (Arabah), stretching from the sources of Jordan to the southern extremity of the Dead Sea, and running beyond it to the Elanitic Gulf, between the mountains of Edom in the east and the high coast on the west When on former occasions traversing the lake (Csarea, Gadara), Jesus had visited Pera in the second and last-mentioned acceptation of that term. Hence we conclude that He went at this time into Pera proper, which formed part of the tetrarchy of Herod Antipas, who ruled over that province as well as over Galilee. From this circumstance we account for the fact that the Lord now betook Himself to the boundary districts, or coasts, of Pera,the latter term being scarcely applicable to the boundary district of Juda itself.

A special interest and importance attaches to the province of Pera, where Jesus retired on two occasions previous to His decease and found a refuge, and whither afterward His infant Church retired before the destruction of Jerusalem, seeking shelter among its mountains, and making Pella their capital. On the difficulties connected with the topography of Pella, comp. the authors Apostol. Zeitalter, ii. 461. Great probability, however, attaches to the suggestion of Robinson, who, according to his latest researches, places it on the site of the modern Fahil, between the Jabbok and the Hieromax; in which case, the statement of Josephus would refer to Pella as being a boundary town of Pera, in the narrowest or political sense of the term. On the blessed work of Jesus in that province, comp. the authors Leben Jesu, ii. 2, p. 1094. The general conformation of the district is calcareous and cretaceous in the south, till beyond the Arnon, and basalt in the eastern portion. It is mountainous, with high plateaus, and traversed by many rivers. The northern part is woody, and suited for grazing (the oaks and bulls of Bashan); the southern, exceedingly fertile.

An attentive consideration of the narrative in the Gospels will easily enable us to answer the objection of Meyer and others, who deem the account of Matthew incompatible with that of Luke (Luk 9:51; Luk 17:11), according to which, Jesus had passed through Samaria. The Lord had evidently intended to journey by Samaria. But when the inhabitants of that country refused to receive Him, He passed into Pera through the boundary land of Galilee and Samaria (see Leben Jesu, ii. 2, 1053). Similarly, in answer to the alleged contradiction between our Gospel and Joh 10:22; Joh 10:40which records that Jesus went from Jerusalem to Perawe remind the reader, that the Lord visited that province on two different occasions.

Mat 19:3. Pharisees.Pera was removed from the great centres of Jewish hierarchism. Hence the Saviour found there a sphere of labor even after He had been banished from Galilee and Juda. But even there the sect of the Pharisees was by and by roused to acts of hostility, partly at the instigation of their colleagues at Jerusalem, and partly from personal rancor. On this and other grounds, we conclude that the transactions here recorded had taken place during the second visit of Jesus to Pera. The question has been raised, wherein the temptation of this inquiry lay. Meyer suggests that it consisted in the attempt of involving Him in the discussion between the schools of Hillel and Shammai (see the Exeget. Notes on Mat 5:31). It was hoped that, by His reply, Jesus would virtually support the view of one of these antagonistic schoolsmore particularly that of Shammai, and that thus the opposite party might be more fully enlisted against Him. But in that case He would also manifestly have gained the favor of the followers of Shammai Ewald thinks that it was intended to entangle Jesus, while in the dominions of Herod Antipaswhose conduct in his married relationship John had reprovedin a declaration and fate similar to that of the Baptist. To this it has been objectedas we think, without sufficient reasonthat there is no indication of such a scheme in the text. Meyer bolds that the decision of Jesus was stricter than that of either of the schools. The statement is incorrect, as our Lord did not go beyond the principles laid down by Shammai; while, unlike that teacher, He did not convert the absolute principle of marriage in the Church into an outward and civil statute.

For every cause.The question is manifestly put from the point of view taken by Hillel.

Mat 19:4. Made them, or created them.The ideas of (which accordingly we retain as the reading) and are presupposed. The Lord explains that they were not created arbitrarily, or independently of, but for each other, and as suitable and adapted to each other; which is expressed by , referring to the male and female nature. The two first individuals of the male and female sex were not merely a man and a woman, but male and female, in the sense of being destined and intended exclusively for each other. Hence they constituted the type of marriage in its full meaning and principle, as an indissoluble union.

Mat 19:5. And said.In Gen 2:24, these words are recorded as having been spoken by Adam, while in this place they are uttered as quoted by God,not simply because every statement of Scripture is the word of the Lord, but, as Augustine [De nupt. ii. 4] expresses it, Deus utique per hominem dixit quod homo prophetando prdixit. Or rather, perhaps, because, before his fall, man uttered absolute spiritual truth, or what in point of fact was the word of God.

For this cause shall a man leave father and mother.Added not merely by way of quotation, but to show that the relationship between a man and his wife was higher, stronger, and closer than even that toward his father and mother.

The two.The expression does not occur in the original Hebrew, but is found in the Septuagint, as implied in the text, and bringing out more fully its idea and meaning. The two apparently different individualities are to become one flesh by marriage, i.e., to form the generic unity of human nature. This unity, while implying the mental and moral elements, is based on that of the , as indicating and completing the union.

Mat 19:6. No more, or, never more, .

Mat 19:9 forms no exception to this rule, as the relationship there referred to is incompatible with, and in direct antagonism to, the idea of marriage.7

Mat 19:7-8. Why did Moses then command? Deu 24:1.A misapplication of the passage, which the Lord exposes and censures. The object of Hoses in laying down the rules about giving a writing of divorcement, was not to countenance or promote divorces, but to diminish their number by subjecting them to certain rules and limitations, with the view of again elevating the married relationship, and realizing its idea. Moses commanded, not that divorces should take place; he only enjoined that in much cases certain forms should be observed, and that the ground of the separation should be embodied in the writing of divorcement. But the Jewish Rabbins completely perverted the meaning and object of all this ( Mat 5:31). Hence we note the twofold antithesis: Moses did command, Moses suffered; and again: Moses did command in general, and, Moses suffered you in particular. So far from having commanded it in general, he only suffered you individually, because of the hardness of your hearts.

Mat 19:8. From the beginning it was not so.In the original state of things in Paradise. The first instance of polygamy is recorded in Gen 4:19. It deserves special notice, that it appears in conjunction with murder, avenging of blood, and sinful poetry; and that it occurs in the line of Cain, not in that of Seth.

Mat 19:9. Except for fornication.An explanation of the . Comp. the Exeg. Notes on Mat 5:31-32, p. 115. Roman Catholic writers are naturally anxious to have this clause omitted from the text (Hug, von Berlepsch), but there is no critical warrant for this.

Mat 19:10. It is not good to marry.The meaning of the disciples is: if the ideal principle laid down by our Lord about marriage was to be immediately and unconditionally applied to existing relations, then, etc. In His reply, Christ admits the difficulty of such application.

Mat 19:11. Not all can receive this saying.It requires divine illumination.

Mat 19:12. The explanation of His further statementFor there are eunuchs, etc.is exceedingly difficult. Neander thinks that Matthew inserted in this place something which the Lord had taught on the same subject on another occasion, and in quite a different connection. Certainly, the common interpretation, that Jesus here referred to the various exceptional cases in which marriage should be avoided, is very unsatisfactory. The three classes of eunuchs here enumerated (the expression being used figuratively for those who are not to enter the married relationship), are evidently intended to embrace all the grounds on which marriage was inadmissible. First of all, then, there is a class of eunuchs who were so born from the mothers womb, i.e. who are physically disqualified for marriage, such as those laboring under disease, or whose mental or bodily organization is defective. Next, there was another class who were made eunuchs by men. As, in the first and third class enumerated, the term eunuch is evidently used in a figurative manner, we take it in the same sense herethe more so, as in the literal sense it would apply to a comparatively small number of persons. Hence we regard it as referring in general to those who are prevented from entering into marriage, in the highest and only true import of the idea, by social and moral considerations, and who are hence in duty bound to renounce the married state. The last class to which the Saviour alludes, consists of those who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven, i.e., those who, being married, yet for the kingdom of heavens sake are as if they were not married, i.e., are ever ready to sacrifice their conjugal enjoyments for the sake of their spiritual calling; oras the Apostle expresses it, 1Co 7:29have wives as though they had none.Thus this threefold renunciation, which, in accordance with the divine will and purpose, runs through the actual marriage-relationship,viz., the renunciation of natural union, or of ideal union, or of the full enjoyment of the married estate,was to form the basis on which this relationship was henceforth to rest. Such a union was to combine the elements of deep personal attachment and interchange of soul with subordination to the divine arrangements and requirements in the theocracy, where this as well as every other good gift should be regarded as secondary, and subservient to the grand purposes of the kingdom of God (Leben Jesu, ii. 2, p. 1103). The expression is also used by the Cabbalists in a figurative sense. It is strange that Roman Catholic divines (as, for example, Sepp, Leben Jesu, iii. 117) should have quoted in support of celibacy a passage which, in reality, so far from representing marriage as something beneath the disciples, elevated that relationship far above the views and circumstances of the times, and placed it on a high and spiritual platform. Similarly absurd is the notion of Strauss, that this passage savors of Essenism, which degraded woman, while the Saviour here restored her right position. Comp. Ebrard, p. 453. It is well known that a misunderstanding of the import of this passage induced Origen literally to carry it into execution,a historical fact, which has latterly been again established by Engelhart and Redepenning against Schnitzer and others.

[Note.I beg leave to differ from Dr. Langes figurative exposition of the second and third class of eunuchs; which last would, in this case, embrace all Christians, since temperance and chastity is a fundamental virtue and duty for the married as well as the single state, and since all are required to subordinate their earthly relations to their spiritual calling. As I understand the mysterious passage, the Saviour distinguishes three kinds of eunuchism: (1) congenital, which implies neither merit nor guilt; (2) forced, which implies misfortune on the one hand and guilt on the other; (3) voluntary, which has moral value and merit if it proceeds from faith and love to Christ, but no merit superior to chastity in the married state. The first and third are only improperly called eunuchism. To speak more fully, the first class of eunuchs embraces the comparatively small number of those who are constitutionally either incapable of, or averse to, marriage; the second class, the eunuchs proper, or mutilated persons, who at that time were quite numerous, especially at courts, and are still found in Eastern countries, among heathens and Mohammedans (yea, even in the choir of the papal Sixtine chapel in Rome; the famous Miserere being sung by the clear silver voices of these unfortunate victims of sacred art); the third class, those who deliberately abstain from marriage either altogether, or from second marriage after the death of their first husband or wife, not, however, for the purpose of thereby gaining the kingdom of heaven (ad regnum clorum promerenndum, as Origen, Hilarius, Euthymius, Maldonatus, and the Roman Commentators generally misinterpret the words ..), but for the purpose of working for the kingdom of heaven from pure and disinterested love to Christ, believing that they can serve Him more unreservedly and effectually in the single state, or remain more steadfast in times of peculiar trial and persecution ( 1Co 7:26). To this class belong St. Paul (1Co 7:1; 1Co 7:26), Barnabas (1Co 9:5-6), probably also St. John (who in the Greek Church bears the standing title, , with reference to his virgin purity), and thousands of missionaries, divines, ministers and pious laymen, sisters of charity, virgins and widows in all ages and among Protestants as well as Catholics. The great and serious error of the Roman Church consists in making a law for the whole clergy of what the Saviour left to free choice on the basis of a special calling and gift of God ( Mat 19:11), and in attaching a superior merit to celibacy at the expense of the holy and normal state of marriage. From a grossly literal misunderstanding of Mat 19:12, Origen, in the youthful ardor of enthusiasm for Christ, and misguided by the ascetic notions of his age, committed the unnatural deed which forever disqualified him for marriage. But this was justly condemned in the ancient church, and was made subsequently a reason for his excommunication from the church of Alexandria.On the whole subject of marriage and celibacy in the N. T., comp. Schaffs History of the Apostolic Church, 112, pp. 448454.P. S.]

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. Compare our remarks on Matthew 5., p. 116 sq., and the foregoing Exegetical Notes.

2. The scribes seem always to have been entangled in the antagonistic views of Shammai and Hillel. But Christ here calls their attention to a very different kind of antagonism,viz., that between the fundamental, eternal, and absolute principle of marriage, and the theocratic or political law on the subject. So far as the principle of marriage was concerned, every such union was necessarily indissoluble, being based on the fact, that man and woman were destined for each other. But in point of fact this principle had been lost sight of, equally because unions were improperly formed, and because they were improperly dissolved. Hence, the object of Moses was to keep this heathen degeneracy within bounds. By means of the writing of divorcement, he wished gradually again to train the Jews by the law, so as to elevate their views, and to introduce among them marriage in the true and spiritual sense. But this measure was frustrated and perverted for the opposite purpose, by the loose and lascivious interpretations put upon it by the Rabbins. In out opinion, it is the duty of legislators and magistrate! not to degenerate into literalism, or to go beyond the above principle, as Romanism has done, but to see to it that, so far as possible, practice should correspond with this ideal. Accordingly our Lord here lays down the following leading principles, viz:. (1) The law concerning adultery applies to man as well as to womanindeed, more especially to the former. (2) Marriage is dissolved only by actual fornication; in which case the non-offending party is again free. (3) What constitutes a legal divorcement is not the separation of the two parties,which, as in morally faulty marriages, may not only be excusable, but perhaps even duty,but re-marriage after separation, and that whether it be a marriage by which the divorced woman is finally abandoned, or else a woman that had been divorced is espoused. Thus far the legal settlement of the question. In practical legislation, it is necessary to keep two points in view, viz.: what constitutes fornication; and the difference between mere separation and the right of entering into another union. With regard to fornication, we mustaccording to 1Co 7:15here include religious, spiritual apostasy. But in reference to the re-marrying of those who have been divorcedexcept under the above circumstanceswe believe that no human tribunal has, as a matter of right, the power of granting such a permission, although (in the opinion of the author) it may be conceded as an act of grace on the part of the reigning sovereign, especially in cases where mitigating circumstances justify such an act of dispensation. (See the authors Leben Jesu, 2:2, 1101; 3:179; Fosit. Dogmatik, p. 1215.)

The matrimonial law of the Roman Catholic Church, and the common statute law of Prussia and other Protestant countries of Germany, are instances of the two opposite extremes and aberrations to which a misinterpretation of this passage has given rise. The former starts from the supposition, that actual union, or the solemnizing of matrimony, constitutes of itself and alone an indissoluble marriage. The history of the Middle Ages, the state of society in Italy and in other Roman Catholic countries, especially in South America, furnish a sad illustration of this principle. While the bed in which the stream was to flow has been converted into a hard, stone-built channel, the river has broken through all bounds, and cutting out a channel for itself, winds its way irregularly and wildly through forests and swamps. The false assumption in this case seems to be, that the law of Moses had occupied the lowest stagethat it was the minimum of right; not that it embodied a principle, and was intended to prepare the way for realizing the full idea of marriage. In many Protestant countries, on the other hand, the opposite error has been committed; the legality of marriage has been thoroughly undermined, and free love substituted in its place as the controlling principle of true marriage. In that case, the writing of divorcement is not, like that of Moses, intended to render separation more difficult, but, like that of Hillel, to make it more easy.

It deserves special notice, that the great reformation here inaugurated by the Lord is introduced by an explanation of the circumstances under which marriage should be avoided. All such cases may be arranged under three classes: those who by their physical constitution are disqualified for such a union; those in which moral and social relations prevent the carrying out of marriage in its full import; and, lastly, those who, being married, were to subordinate their married relationship to their calling as Christians, and in this respect to renounce it. Thus marriage was to be regenerated on the basis of ideal renunciation.8

[3. David Brown on Mat 19:12 : When our Lord holds forth the single life as designed for and suited to certain specific classes, let Christians understand that, while their own plan and condition of life should be regulated by higher considerations than mere inclination or personal advantage, they are not to lay down rules for others, but let each decide for himself, as to his own Master he standeth or falleth. For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God and approved of men. Alford (after Neander) on Mat 19:12 : It is to be observed that our Lord does not here utter a word from which any superiority can be attributed to the state of celibacy: the imperative in the last clause being not a command but a permission, as in Rev 22:17. His estimate for us of the expediency of celibacy, as a general question, is to be gathered from the parable of the talents, where He visits with severe blame the burying of the talent for its safer custody. The remark is Neanders (Leben Jesu, p. 584, 4th ed.), and the more valuable, as he himself [and his sister who took care of him] lived and died unmarried.Christ certainly nowhere commands, or even recommends, voluntary celibacy to any one; the most which can be gathered from the last clause of Mat 19:12 : , in connection with Mat 19:21, is that He expected such a sacrifice from some of His disciples. Comp. de Wette in loc.P. S.]

4. The great object of the Lord in this section is to reinstate woman in her original rights. In the ancient world, as still in heathen countries, woman was treated as a slave. Even among the Jews the right of divorcement was refused to woman, although it was accorded to her by the Roman law. This, however, does not imply that the legislation of Rome occupied higher ground than that of Israel. In the former case, the rights of the free citizen were chiefly guarded; while in Jewish law the idea of the family prevailed. Still, the law of Rome may be said to have prepared the way for Christian legislation on the subject of matrimony.
5 . The creation of one couple may be regarded, (1) As proof that monogamy alone is agreeable to the will of God; which also appears from the fact of the continuance of the same proportion between the male and female sex, even with a numerical advantage on the part of the male sex, which would have been reversed if polygamy had been intended by the Creator. (2) As evidence that this union was to continue unseparated; otherwise, God would have created more than one couple or more wives. In this respect also the order of nature is the order of God. Heubner.

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

Wherever Christ goes, friends and foes follow Him: 1. As His friends, those who need help; 2. as His enemies, the representatives of slavish legalism and licentious antinomianism.The doctrine of Christ concerning marriage: 1. Its binding character as instituted by God; 2. its decay in the progress of history; 3. its prepared restoration under the law; 4. its transformation by the gospel.Marriage an institution of God.Marriage as completing and consecrating creationas the basis of the familyas the complete communion of lifea figure of the communion between the Lord and His Church, Ephesians 5.How sin has obscured this best and most blessed relationship of life, and frequently perverted it into the most fruitful source of misery.The writing of divorcement in its different aspects.How Christianity has elevated woman, and restored her rights.Genuine and Christian love the great preservative against disturbing influences.Unchastity always a renunciation of self-respect and of personal dignity,a dissolution of the holiest of bonds.Solemnity and earnestness of the marriage relationship.The threefold renunciation of marriage under the gospel, preparing the way for Christian marriage.Christ the founder of the Christian family: 1. Of the law regulating marriage; 2. of the law regulating children; 3. of the law regulating property.

Starke:Quesnel: The union of man and wife more close even than that of parents and children, Gen 2:24.Hedinger: Husband and wife should be not only one flesh, but also one heart and mind, Eph 5:31.The order of marriage is instituted by God Himself; but, alas! many persons enter this state not only without God, but against His mind and will.Osiander: Satan attempts to interpret Scripture through his servants; but he perverts it, and misrepresents its meaning.Zeisius: Under the new dispensation, everything is not sanctioned that was tolerated under the law.Piscator: Celibacy is not a more holy state than marriage.

Gerlach:In this relationship, man is to show that he has conquered the flesh and nature by the power of the Spirit.

Heubner:Christ is not determined by the opinions of the scribes; but points back to the original institution as founded by God, which is the source and ground of all further enactments.

Footnotes:

[1] Mat 19:3.[ ; the article of the text. rec.. is wanting in the best MSS. and thrown out by the modern critical editors (except Tischendorf), also by Dr. Lange in his version.P. S.]

[2] Mat 19:3.[, to him, is likewise missing in the oldest authorities, also Cod. Sinait., and omitted by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Alford.P. S ]

[3] Mat 19:3., for a man, is omitted by B., L., [Cod. Sinait], and thrown out by Lachmann and Tischendorf; but seems to be required by .

[4] Mat 19:4.[A, to them, is omitted in the critical editions, but retained by Lange.P. S.]

[5] Mat 19:9.Lachmann, with B., D., reads: . Meyer regards it as a gloss from Mat 5:32. [The text. rec, reads: ; Tischendorf and Alford: ., which reading is sustained also by Cod. Sinaiticus. may easily be an explanatory addition. The sense is not affected in the least by this difference of reading. P. S.]

[6] Mat 19:12.[Some before eunuchs is an interpolation of the E. V., and should be underscored or omitted.P. S.]

[7][ Mat 19:3-6.The Pharisees wished to entangle our Saviour in their scholastic party disputes on the marriage and divorce-question and in the adultery-case of Herod Antipas, which caused the Imprisonment and death of John the Baptist, and may have excited as much feeling and debate in its day as the divorce-case of Henry viii. in the 16th century during the Reformation period. The Saviour answered the treacherous question of His enemies by referring them first (in ver: 4) to what God did, who in the original creation of man instituted the sexual relation and marriage as an indissoluble union between one man and one woman; secondly, to what God said through Adam as the representative of the race (in Mat 19:5), viz., that husband and wife are inseparably united, i.e., within the limits of their life in the flesh, or their earthly life; and then He states His own irresistible conclusion (in Mat 19:6) in a sentence which is since repeated in every marriage ceremony in Christian lands, and will be repeated to the end of time to inaugurate and protect with its divine authority and power this holy and fundamental relation.We add the remarks of Dr. Alford on Mat 19:4-6 : (1) Our Lord refers to the Mosaic account of the Creation as a historical fact, and grounds His argument on the literal expressions of that narrative. (2) He cites both from the first and second chapters of Genesis, showing them to be consecutive parts of a continuous narrative. (3) He quotes words of Adam (Gen 2:21) as spoken by the Creator; they must, therefore, be understood as said In prophecy, divino afflatus, the more so since the relations alluded to by those terms did not yet exist. (4) The force of the argument consists in the previous unity of male and female, not indeed organically, but by implication, in Adam. He made them, i.e., man as a race, male (not a male), and female (not a female).P. S.]

[8][The next section of about half a column is omitted in the translation, since it relates exclusively to the intricate marriage difficulties in the Prussian state-church-establishment, taking a middle ground between the rigorous reform party and the conformist majority of pastors. The Prussian laws on marriage, dating from the intidel reign of Frederic II., are scandalously lax and demoralizing, by increasing the causes, and facilitating the accomplishment of divorce. With the revival of true Christianity in Prussia a reform movement commenced, which aims at a return to the law of Christ. The subject has been extensively agitated for the last twenty years by the religious press, on Synods, Pastoral Conferences, and also on the German Church Diet. Comp. a number of articles in Hengstenbergs Evang. kirchenscitung, for 184060; Liebetrut: Ueber geordnete Entwicklung der Ehe, Berlin, 1856; and Goeschen, article Ehe in Herzogs Real-Encyclopdie, vol. iii., pp. 666707.P. S.]

Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange

CONTENTS

The Lord Jesus is here prosecuting his ministry; healing the sick; conversing with the Pharisees; receiving little children; discoursing with his disciples.

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

“And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these sayings, he departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judaea beyond Jordan; (2) And great multitudes followed him; and he healed them there. (3) The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? (4) And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, (5) And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? (6) Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. (7) They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? (8) He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. (9) And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.”

There can be no question, but that the married state from the beginning of the creation of the world, was intended as a beautiful representation of the mystical union between Christ and his Church. Gen 2:18-21 to the end, explained by Eph 5:23 to the end. And all the after stages, in the departure of our nature by adultery, could not destroy the first, and legitimate connection. Jesus betrothed his Church to himself forever. Hos 2:19-20 . And though Moses as the Lord Jesus said, for the hardness of the hearts of the Israelites, did permit a bill of divorcement, yet not so will Jesus. His language is: though thou hast played the harlot with many lovers, yet return unto me saith the Lord. Jer 3:1 ; Deu 24:1-4 . Hence the Church recovered by sovereign grace, sings aloud, I will return unto my first husband. Hos 2:6-7 .

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

Mat 19:2

Goethe describes, in his autobiography, how Marie Antoinette passed through Strasburg on her way to Paris: ‘Before the Queen’s arrival, the very rational regulation was made that no deformed persons, cripples, or disgusting invalids, should show themselves on her route. People jested about this precaution, and I made a little poem in French upon the subject, in which I contrasted the advent of Christ, who seemed to wander through the world for the special sake of the sick and lame, with the arrival of the Queen, who scared such unfortunates away.’

References. XIX. 5, 6. Lyman Abbott, ibid. vol. xlix. 1896, p. 204. W. J. Knox-Little, The Perfect Life, p. 319. XIX. 6. D. C. MacNicol, Christian World Pulpit, vol. lii. 1897, p. 150. XIX. 9. W. Allan Whitworth, Church Times, vol. xxxiii. 1895, p. 538.

Mat 19:10

No temper in the world is so little open to reason as the ascetic temper. How many a lover and husband, how many a parent and friend, have realized to their pain, since history began, the overwhelming attraction which all the processes of self-annihilation have for a certain order of minds!

Mrs. Ward.

References. XIX. 12. Paul Bull, Christian World Pulpit, vol. lxv. 1904, p. 342. XIX. 13. F. Pickett, ibid. vol. lxxx. 1905, p. 138. T. Sadler, Sermons for Children, p. 1. XIX. 13-30. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xliii. No. 2517.

When the Child-spirit Dies

Mat 19:14

It is a beautiful conception, daring and fresh as it is beautiful, that the one attribute of all the citizens of God must be the possession of the childlike heart.

I. Now of course to be childlike is one thing; and it is quite another to be childish. To be childlike is to have the spirit of the child, to have the touch of the Divine about us still. It is to live freshly in a glad fresh world, with a thousand avenues into the everywhere out of this dull spot that we call now. But to be childish is to be immature; to have no grip of things, never to face facts squarely; and he is a poor Christian who lives so. It is one distinguishing glory of our Lord that He looked the worst in the face, and called it bad.

There can be little doubt, too, that in claiming the childlike spirit Jesus was reaching up to the very highest in man. Jesus, stooping to the little children, was really rising to the crown of life. Show me the greatest men in human history the men who were morally and nobly great and I shall show you in every one of them tokens and traces of the childlike heart. Great souls, with the ten talents flaming into genius, live in a world that is so full of God, that men say they are imprudent, careless; and Jesus sees that they are little children.

And you cannot read the story of Jesus Christ without feeling that to the very close of it the child-spirit was alive in Him. No scoffing hardened Him. No disappointment soured Him. No pain dulled the keen edge of His love. He still believed, spite of Iscariot. He had still a Father, spite of Calvary. And that sweet spirit, as of a little child, has been the dew of heaven to the world.

II. There is no loss more tragic for a soul than the loss of that spirit of the child.

There are three penalties that follow when the child-spirit dies:

1. That we cease to be receptive. The joy of childhood is its receptivity. The child knows nothing of a haunting past yet, and it is not yet anxious about the future. Its time is now, with its magnificent content, and now is God’s time too.

2. No doubt it is that very receptivity that makes the little children dwell apart. I have long thought that the aloofness of the Christian, his isolation in the busiest life, was closely akin to the aloofness of the child. For the Christian also dwells apart, but not in the solitude of emptiness. He has his world, just as the children have; old things have passed away from him in Christ.

3. When the child-spirit dies, then the simplicity of faith is gone. There is an exquisite purity about the faith of children; sometimes they make us blush they trust us so. But better than to be trusted, is to trust; to walk by faith and not by sight; and when the spirit of the child dies out, it is not possible to walk that way again. For when we cease to be childlike we grow worldly, and to be worldly is always to be faithless.

4. When the child-spirit dies, then the feeling of wonder disappears. For the child is above all else a wonderer, and is set in the centre of a wonderful world.

‘I had rather,’ said Ruskin, ‘live in a cottage and wonder at everything, than live in Warwick Castle and wonder at nothing.’ You have all felt the trials of existence, I want you to feel the wonder of it now; and the great wonder that the Lord should be your Shepherd, and should have died upon Calvary for you.

G. H. Morrison, Sun-Rise, p. 187.

References. XIX. 14. J. Page Hopps, Sermons of Sympathy, p. 63. A. Murray, The Children for Christ, p. 241. W. H. Murray, The Fruits of the Spirit, p. 494. J. H. Thom, Laws of Life, p. 253. XIX. 16. Marcus Dods, Christian World Pulpit, 1890, vol. xxxviii. p. 152. J. A. Bain, Questions Answered by Christ, p. 52. W. Howell Evans, Sermons for the Church’s Year, p. 53. XIX. 16-26. A. Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture St. Matthew XVIII.-XXVIII. p. 46.

Faith and Obedience

Mat 19:17

What is meant by faith? it is to feel in good earnest that we are creatures of God; it is a practical perception of the unseen world; it is to understand that this world is not enough for our happiness, to look beyond it on towards God, to realize His presence, to wait upon Him, to endeavour to learn and to do His will, and to seek our good from Him. It is not a mere temporary strong act or impetuous feeling of the mind, an impression or a view coming upon it, but it is a habit, a state of mind, lasting and consistent. To have faith in God is to surrender one’s self to God, humbly to put one’s interests, or to wish to be allowed to put them into His hands Who is the Sovereign Giver of all good…. To believe is to look beyond this world to God, and to obey is to look beyond this world to God; to believe is of the heart, and to obey is of the heart; to believe is not a solitary act, but a consistent habit of trust; and to obey is not a solitary act, but a consistent habit of doing our duty in all things…. Works of obedience witness to God’s just claims upon us, not to His mercy; but faith comes empty-handed, hides even its own worth, and does but point at that precious scheme of redemption which God’s love has devised for sinners.

J. H. Newman.

References. XIX. 17. F. W. Farrar, Christian World Pulpit, vol. lv. 1899, p. 257; see also, The Anglican Pulpit of Today, p. 220. George Tyrrell, Oil and Wine, p. 243. J. J. Tayler, Christian Aspects of Faith and Duty, p. 184. XIX. 19. A. Pinchard, Christian World Pulpit, vol. lxxiii. 1908, p. 236. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. iii. No. 145. XIX. 20. F. E. Paget, Sermons on Duties of Daily Life, p. 43. James Denney, Gospel Questions and Answers, p. 1.

Mat 19:21

They who are living religiously, have from time to time truths they did not know before, or had no need to consider, brought before them forcibly; truths which involve duties, which are in fact precepts, and claim obedience. In this and such-like ways Christ calls us now…. Nothing is more certain in matter of fact than that some men do feel themselves called to high duties and works, to which others are not called. Why this is we do not know. But so it is; this man sees sights which that man does not see, has a larger faith, a more ardent love, and a more spiritual understanding. No one has any leave to take another’s lower standard of holiness for his own. It is nothing to us what others are. If God calls us to greater renunciation of the world, and exacts a sacrifice of our hopes and fears, this is our gain, this is a mark of His love for us, this is a thing to be rejoiced in.

Newman.

References. XIX. 21. W. J. Knox-Little, Christian World Pulpit, vol. lxv. 1894, pp. 184, 211. H. Price Hughes, ibid. vol. liv. 1898, p. 72.

Mat 19:22

Every light of moral beauty, permitted to enter but not allowed to guide us, becomes, like the afterimage of the sun when idly stared at, a dark speck upon the soul which follows us at all our work, adheres to every object, approaches and recedes in dreams, and is neither evaded by movement, nor washed out by tears. If the fairest gifts are not to be turned into haunting griefs, it can only be by following in the ways of duty and denial, along which they manifestly lead.

Martineau.

Mat 19:23

Temptations connected with money are indeed among the most insidious and among the most powerful to which we are exposed. They have probably a wider empire than drink, and, unlike the temptations that spring from animal passions, they strengthen rather than diminish with age.

W. E. H. Lecky.

References. XIX. 23-26. D. Fraser, Metaphors in the Gospels, p. 169. XIX. 27. Henry Gee, Sermons for the People, vol. ii. p. 65. J. A. Bain, Questions answered by Christ, p. 57. G. W. Herbert, Notes of Sermons, p. 210. J. T. Bramston, Sermons to Boys, p. 59. XIX. 28, 29. J. Wright, The Guarded Gate, p. 117.

Mat 19:29

In his volume on French and English (p. 162), after describing the arduous labours of the French nuns among the poor and sick, Mr. Hamerton adds: ‘The active sisterhoods are repaid to some extent in this world by a beneficent law of human nature. They have one remarkably uniform characteristic: they seem to be invariably cheerful, with bright moments of innocent gaiety. This serenity of mind… is gained by the ever-present sense of duties accomplished in the past and the determination to face them in the future. It is the spirit which inspired Wordsworth’s ‘Ode to Duty’ with a health surpassing all songs of love and wine.

Be Vigilant

Mat 19:30

The question of St. Peter is wrong in spirit. So while Christ recognized rewards, He rebukes the spirit which seeks them, in these words of warning.

The first case dealt with in the text is one of priority in time. A man may have had a start in the race of life and be overtaken and passed. Advantages of any kind, such as talents, opportunities, etc., may be neutralized and disadvantages conquered. So at the end the order in which men stand is widely different from what it was at the start, as in a race.

I. Look at the Working of it in the Christian Life. No man however advanced can relax vigilance, care, effort. There is no height beyond the reach of gravitation. The spring must never be uncoiled. The higher we go, the steeper the slope down and the worse the fall. The ‘First’ have temptations which yielded to will make them ‘Last’. There is no such conquest of sin for us here that without perpetual vigilance it will never recur again. We may have long overcome it, and holier habits may have supervened, but still the thing is there, and we can feel the temptations stirring now and then.

Then there are temptations which belong to each stage, and the more advanced are not without their special ones. Temptations to rely in some degree on past attainments; to get into a mechanical mode of life; to lose early fervour and freshness without gaining fixed principle; to become weary even in welldoing.

And there are temptations which belong to the older stages of any career the Christian as well as any other irrespective of the degree of advancement which we have made. Just because we have been doing something for a long time, we are apt to think that we can do it well. To become slaves of habit, to become conceited, to get deep into the ruts, to lose fresh interest, to take it easy, as a spring works more feebly near the end.

II. There are no Disadvantages which need be Permanent.

1. Take the case of the Penitent Thief and of St. Paul. Many a man coming late to Christ’s service, and crowding a life of work into a few years.

2. Take the case of inferiority in attainments.

3. Take the case of inferiority in Christian character. That need not be permanent. It is the grand confidence of Christianity that any man may reach the highest levels.

III. The Practical Discipline.

1. The constant realization of the two facts the stern possibility of falling to make us vigilant; the grand hope of ability to rise to make us full of effort.

2. The constant cherishing of the same graces and emotions with which we began.

So let us labour, as knowing that there are infinite resources in His hands. There is no reason why you and I should not rise far above our former selves, ‘Forgetting the things which are behind’.

A. Maclaren.

Reversal of Judgment

Mat 19:30

I. This is a saying to make us pause, full of deep suggestiveness, applicable to many spheres of life and religion. It should lead to self scrutiny to be thus told authoritatively that in the spiritual world there will be a complete reversal of human judgment, such moral surprises as that the first and the last should change places. How true it is we sometimes see even here, true of men, and nations, and Churches. Innumerable are the illustrations of how God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things that are mighty. It is a commonplace of history and experience. The fable of the hare and the tortoise is only a parable of life. Again and again has first in time been last in reaching the goal; first in privilege been last in achievement; first in position been last in permanent power.

II. And if this is so even in such palpable instances, how much truer is it in the things of the spirit, in the kingdom of Heaven which cometh not with observation. The spiritual world is a secret world. There an act is judged not by its size, not even by its good result, but by its motive alone; and a man is judged not by the place he fills in men’s minds, not by the splash he makes in the world, but by his spirit alone. Character will be stripped bare, and only moral worth will remain. The things we thought goodness, the things which deceived us, which we looked on as of first importance, will be seen as they are. So that many that are first are last, and many that are last are first.

Even now, though often late, justice is done, and contemporary judgment is reversed, and we can see the truth of our text. The Jews were first in privilege, but the Gentiles laid hold of eternal life, and the favoured people were left a broken branch on the tree. And in the Christian Church again and again it has been not the mighty, the noble, the wise, those patently first to the eye, who have been called to high service, but the poor and the weak, and the foolish; and the last has been first. There is another judgment, according to intrinsic spiritual worth, and that will be the final judgment of all.

III. Above all, let us ask the question of ourselves as individuals. Our virtues and graces, the things that people admire in us, or that we admire in ourselves, may be only tending to our deterioration, if we have lost sight of the essential thing, if our hearts are not pure from the taint of self.

IV. But there is more than warning in these deep words. There is also a message of hope to all who feel themselves last, the despondent, all who think themselves overmatched in the warfare of life, and outrun in the race of life. What God asks from all, the high and the low, the first and the last, is a sincere heart in which burns the pure flame of love. Whatever be our scale of earthly precedence, though it be reckoned last in our purblind judgment, that is first so far first that it has no second.

H. Black, Edinburgh Sermons, p. 123.

The Weapons of Saints

Mat 19:30

Let us understand our place, as the redeemed children of God. Some must be great in this world, but woe to those who make themselves great; woe to any who take one step out of their way with this object before them. If we are true to ourselves, nothing can really thwart us. Our warfare is not with carnal weapons, but with heavenly. The world does not understand what our real power is, and where it lies. And until we put ourselves into its hands of our own act, it can do nothing against us. Till we leave off patience, meekness, purity, resignation, and peace, it can do nothing against that Truth which is our birthright, that Cause which is ours, as it has been the cause of all saints before us. But let all who would labour for God in a dark time beware of anything which ruffles, excites, and in any way withdraws them from the love of God and Christ, and simple obedience to Him. This be our duty in the dark night, while we wait for the day, while we wait for Him Who is our Day, while we wait for His coming, Who is gone, Who will return, and before Whom all the tribes of the earth will mourn, but the sons of God will rejoice…. It is our blessedness to be made like the all-holy, all gracious, long-suffering, and merciful God; Who made and Who redeemed us; in whose presence is perfect rest, and perfect peace; Whom the Seraphim are harmoniously praising, and the Cherubim tranquilly contemplating, and angels silently serving, and the Church thankfully worshipping. All is order, repose, love, and holiness in heaven.

J. H. Newman.

Mat 19:30

Not a day passes over the earth, but men and women of no note do great deeds, speak great words, and suffer noble sorrows. Of these obscure heroes, philosophers, and martyrs, the greater part will never be known till that hour when many that are great shall be small, and the small great.

Charles Reade.

There is so much inevitable ignorance in our judgments now, so much mistake, so much exaggeration in what we praise and in what we condemn; so much good of which we know and imagine nothing, so much evil of which we know nothing; such strength of virtue which we never suspect, never give men credit for, such depths of sin which perhaps here are never found out. Who can doubt what awful discrepancies will, in many cases, appear between God’s judgment and ours, beyond the veil?

R. W. Church.

In Hawthorne’s American Notebooks, one suggestion for a tale is, ‘A person to consider himself as the prime mover of certain remarkable events, but to discover that his actions have not contributed in the least thereto. Another person to be the cause, without suspecting it.’

That solemn sentence which Scripture has inscribed on the curtain which hangs down before the Judgment Seat.

Mozley.

References. XIX. 30. H. J. Wilmot-Buxton, Holy-Tide Teaching, p. 100. J. B. Mozley, Sermons Preached before the University of Oxford, p. 72. G. Salmon, Non-Miraculous Christianity, p. 307. T. Teignmouth Shore, The Life of the World to Come, p. 137. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxxvii. No. 2221. XX. 1. F. B. Woodward, Sermons (1st Series), p. 226. H. Harris, Short Sermons, p. 256. R. E. Hutton, The Crown of Christ, vol. i. p. 265. W. Howell Evans, Sermons for the Church’s Year, p. 61. XX. 1, 3, 5, 6. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xi. No. 664. XX. 1, 6, 7- H. Scott Holland, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xliii. 1893, p. 156. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xliv. No. 2602. XX. 1-8. Sanday, Expositor (1st Series), vol. iii. p. 81. Hill, ibid. (1st Series), vol. iii. p. 427. Brute, Parabolic Teaching, etc., and in Homiletic Quarterly, vol. iii. p. 447. Cox, Expository Essays, pp. 239, 251. Calderwood, Parables, p. 291. Trench, ibid. p. 166. Dod, Parables of Our Lord (1st Series), p. 151. Pusey, Sermons for Church’s Seasons, p. 133, and Selections from Pusey, p. 102. Parker, Inner Life of Christ, vol. iii. p. 73. Parsons, Sermons, p. 413. Cumming, Foreshadows, p. 137. A. Roberts, Plain Sermons, vol. i. p. 161. Simeon, Works, vol. xi. p. 484. C. J. Vaughan, Sermons, 1853, p. 309. XX. 1-16. E. A. Lawrence, Christian World Pulpit, vol. li. 1897, p. 262. J. Laidlaw, Studies in the Parables, p. 147. Rayner Winterbotham, The Kingdom of Heaven, p. 121. T. Guthrie, Parables of Our Lord, p. 269. W. Gray Elmslie, Expository Lectures and Sermons, p. 217. B. W. Maturin, Practical Studies on the Parables of Our Lord, p. 93. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol xliii. No. 2517. Ibid. vol. xliii. No. 2517. XX. 6. S. Baring-Gould, Village Preaching for a Year, vol. i. p. 157. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xliv. No. 2602.

Fuente: Expositor’s Dictionary of Text by Robertson

Chapter 74

Prayer

Almighty God, how wonderful is thy word, and how dull is our understanding! We come that we may be inspired to read thy word, which is itself inspired, that so we may know its meaning and feel its gentle power. Thy word is truth; but what is truth? Behold, it is higher than the firmament, and brighter than all the stars. Help us to yearn after it in its own spirit, to cry mightily for it in earnest and believing desire; and satisfy us with daily revelation as thou dost feed us with daily bread.

We have come into thine house to find here what we cannot find other where. This is the house of our Father, the place of the shining of his countenance, and in this holy sanctuary is there rest for those that are ill at ease. Here thou dost cause the weary to sit down awhile that they may recover their breath, and here thou dost bind that which was broken down and heal it with heaven’s own health. Here thou dost speak to the heart in tenderest music, and here thou withholdest nothing of the gospel that can redeem and liberate from its burden and its torment, and turn every affliction of life into a new and hopeful sacrament. This thou dost in Jesus Christ, in whom, indeed, thou doest all things. Centre of all, Sum and Total of all, Alpha, Omega, Beginning, Ending, Root and Branch, behold it is in him alone that we may find every answer to every question. On his shoulder is the key of the house of David, and in him is all authority and light. We have reconciliation by him, he speaks of forgiveness, from his lips we hear most tenderly and fully of all thy love, and to him we come for every answer to our sorrow, and for deliverance, complete and final, from the pressure of our sin.

How wonderful is thy way! Behold thy Son is God and Man Emmanuel, God with us. We cannot understand thee nor follow thee, and the poor line of our reason cannot sound the infinite fathoms of thy great wisdom. Thou hast made the dust into man; the crumbled bread into a sacrificial body; the wine left in the cup thou hast reddened into atoning blood; of the Virgin thou hast made the Mother; of Three thou hast made One, and of One Three. So dost thou contradict our reason and abase it with painful humiliation; and yet above all dost thou reign in indivisible unity, Sovereign of the universe and Father of all. Lift up our thought to thyself; give it enlargement and ennoblement; save us from all mean conceptions and unworthy views of thyself and thy universe; give us that bold and quiet and noble view and hold of all things which thou alone canst give, for thou only hast the keys of all power.

We have come to bless thee: one, sweetly, with subdued voice and pensive tone, and others with trumpets and instruments of brass, loud and ringing, because thou hast done great things for them; but for one purpose we have all come: the bruised reed to bless thee for healing, the smoking flax to thank thee that thou hast not extinguished its dying spark; and all of us who have received much at thine hand have a song with which we would fain equal the gift if we could. Hear, then, we humbly ask thee, the. utterance of every heart, the sighing of every spirit, the cry of the weak and the desire of the strong; and according to our varied necessity let thy blessing come from the sanctuary and rest upon every one of us. Give the feeblest strength, give the meanest a standing before thee which we could have no other where, and let the wanderer feel that the great house door is still open, and the great Fatherly heart still yearning, and that even now the prodigal may return and sit down in his Father’s house.

Hear all special praises for household mercies, for business prosperity, for deliverance from entanglements and embarrassments, and for such hopes as make the heart young and strong amid life’s burden and storms. Sanctify our afflictions, bring us the nearer together for our momentary separations, and may there be in all our hearts glowing love to him who for us bore the Cross.

Thou knowest what we are, how thou hast made us; for we are the work of thine hands, and we are not of our own fashioning. Thou knowest our characteristics; thou knowest our special temptations, peculiar difficulties; and thou wilt deal gently with the creatures of thine hand, for it is not in all thine heart to judge us with destruction. Lord, have mercy upon us; Christ, have mercy upon us; Spirit of the living God, dwell with us; Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, come to our hearts and make them dwellings for the Holy One.

And send sweet messages of love and hope to all for whom we ought to pray. Remember the little sick chamber, curtained and screened because even the light is a pain, and speak to those whose strength is going. When their feet touch the last cold river, may the waters part and stand on heaps, that thy redeemed ones may go through as on dry ground. Pity those who have no pity on themselves who break their father’s and their mother’s hearts, who break every commandment and insult every courtesy, and despoil the most sacred associations of life. Only thy gospel, full of redeeming blood and redeeming love, can reach extremities so violent. Go with those who are upon the sea, and give them good voyaging and safe landing. Be with our dear ones who have become our correspondents, who once were our daily companions. The Lord give them favour in the sight of the people by whom they are surrounded, and may their letters to us be letters written with love and filled with light. As for the prisoner and the doomed man and the outcast and the blasphemer, what can we say? Thou knowest what we ought to say: take it, we pray thee, as said in many words and with many tears, and out of the infinite fulness of thy grace do thou send us answers that shall make us glad. Amen.

Mat 19

Fundamental Answers

Jesus Christ shows himself perfectly familiar with subjects which apparently lay at an infinite distance from the purpose which he came to accomplish. The question of divorce and the salvation of the world would seem to have no connection. Does the Master appear to disadvantage in conversing upon this unfamiliar theme? Surely he will decline to enter upon it; he will silently leave it to the scribes, the men of letters, the lawyers, whose business it is to read all the stipulations and arrangements connected with such a subject. He will say, “I do not touch those themes. I have come for quite another purpose, and cannot attend to such questionings as yours.” Surely he might have taken that course with some fitness. What does he do? He answers these men as if he had made the question of divorce the study of a lifetime. Is there no argument in that fact? Did he require time to consider the knotty question? Did he say, “I would rather evade the subject; but if you press me to its consideration, I must take time to consult the old black-letter law”? They touched the cloud and they evoked lightning; they asked a tempting question and drew upon themselves, happily for the intelligence and direction of the world, a grand revelation. Let us see how Jesus deports himself under such tempting interrogations regarding subjects which appear to lie at an infinite distance from the cross which he came to lift up into a life-tree and a throne.

Jesus Christ goes back to original facts and laws. You cannot settle anything by mere detail. No man can come wisely into a great controversy or a great study at some intermediate point. Herein it is that we lose so much, and so often stultify and disappoint ourselves, by imagining that we can come into a case in the middle of it that we can understand a controversy or a dispute by looking at any one solitary point in it. Jesus Christ here shows what we have had occasion to point out, that he is fundamental in his teaching, original in his conceptions that he stands back at the right point for taking in the whole field; and unless a man shall stand at a proper distance from a picture he cannot rightly view it, and unless he shall stand at the right point in history and in divine purpose, he cannot take in all the firmament of God’s light and dignity.

See, then, how Jesus Christ does not ask questions about particular persons and particular circumstances, but how he goes right back to the origin and start of things, and says everything must be judged by the divine purpose and by the divine intent and revelation. How grand he is, therefore, in moral tone! How he shakes off all vexing and petty details, and stands squarely and firmly on an eternal rock! How comes it that we have so much shillyshallying in the Church and various views and little disputes, and narrow and vexing controversies? Simply because we undertake to deal with details instead of going back to the beginning and ascertaining, so far as we may, the clear purpose and intent of God.

Having told them, “Have ye not read that he which made them at the beginning, made them male and female?” they said unto him, “Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?” That would puzzle him: he was but a peasant. He had not gone into such knotty questions or pursued such intricate inquiries as these. Now he will be nonplussed, and stand in humiliating attitude. Look at him: have they smitten him dumb? Is there no more lightning in that cloud? Swiftly he answers, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, suffered you to put away your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.” He knew all about the domestic law; he was as familiar with it as if he had been a lawyer for half a century or more; he knew what Moses had written. He answered on the spot. This was not written after three months’ consideration: the whole word was in him. Moses drew the word from him, and he who was the Original could best account for the transcript.

Wonderful, too, in point of philosophic grasp and moral sympathy! “Because of the hardness of your hearts, Moses suffered you to put away your wives.” We have to do some things expediently; we have to make arrangements to meet peculiar circumstances. The divine law sometimes takes a singular bend, so to say, in order to gather up certain peculiar human circumstances, and otherwise unmanageable eccentricities. Sometimes the divine law stoops to pick us up and give us another chance, for there is mercy always in supreme and complete righteousness.

“But do not mistake,” said Christ, “a temporary arrangement for an original purpose. Do not turn the exception into the rule. Do not make the subordinate into the supreme. From the beginning it was not so.” How did he know? He was the Beginning! “I am Alpha and Omega!” From the first it was not so. When God made them male and female, no thought of a divorce was in his mind; this was forced upon the universe by the blasphemy of the heart, by the impiety, the recklessness, the violence of that which was almost divine at the beginning. This is the sour wine, this the spoiled milk, this the blackness of unimaginable sin.

No interpretation can be complete or profound which does not go back to the beginning. No man can understand the Apocalypse who has not read the book of Genesis, You cannot come into the Bible about the middle of it, and begin to form an opinion of the divine revelation by reading some of the minor prophets. Revelation is a whole; It has a first word a beginning; and you must begin with the beginning and go steadily and calmly through the whole unfurlment of the divine thought, if you would have any grasp of it that will stand you in good stead amid the temptations of the Pharisees, and amid the insinuations and malign assaults of the enemy.

Would we know what man is? We must go back to the beginning. I cannot consult the anatomist as to what man is. Human nature is not a modern discovery; the human heart is not a yesterday’s trick in mechanism. Man is old, and I must go back to his birthday, and study him from the germ, if I can, that I may know his true meaning in the universe of God. Would I know what the Sabbath is? I must not read some modern tract about it, or some recent attack upon it, nor must I consult the convenience of today about it. If I want to know what the Sabbath is, I must go back to the beginning: and in the beginning it was God’s day, God’s rest, God’s festival, God’s rounding off and sphering out of labour and creation and service and sacrifice. So it must ever be, or it ceases to be a sabbath day at all, and becomes a mere ecclesiastical expedient to be twisted thus and so and otherwise, according to the suggestion of the moment. We become confused amidst details and cross-workings, and the only true philosophical way of dealing with Man, with Marriage, with Life, with Law, is to go as far back as we can towards the beginning, that we may take in field enough and set every object of contemplation in its proper perspective, and bring to bear upon it the only light which can reveal its proportions.

So with the idea of Sacrifice. Is it not possible for men to discuss sacrifice by beginning with the epistle to the Hebrews? Do not many persons attempt to settle the question of sacrifice by quoting individual and isolated texts? How then shall I understand this subject of sacrifice? By going back to the beginning. What was there in the beginning? This! A Lamb slain before the foundation of the world. Not an after thought, not an incident in history, not something measurable by our terms representative of time; but the original thought, the heavenly purpose, the atonement before the sin! If the Cross had only come up as an incident in history, then Christ’s death might have been a murder; but with the shadow of the Cross flung across the firmament from the beginning, we have the mystery and the sanctity of sacrifice. Do not let us suppose, therefore, as Christian students, that we can settle any question, say even of divorce, or of domestic life or business relationships or church appointments, by coming into it about the middle or the end. We can only get the right grip of it and the right look of it by going back to the beginning, and setting ourselves as far as possible in opposition to the revealed appointments of God. We will return to this after considering the next two incidents.

In the next incident there is a very tender scene. Such a lily is not to be painted. They brought unto “him little children that he should put his hands on them and pray:” that is, their mothers brought the little children. Observe, they were brought; they did not come of themselves. Some of us are carried to God, some of us are brought in loving arms to Christ. We want to bring all men to Jesus. You have been sinning all these years, and your wife says, “I will take him to Christ today in some great big prayer bolder than I have ever yet ventured to hurl at the very gate and throne of Heaven. I will carry him today.” O woman, grand heart! she is going to do it by persuasive violence, by gentle force. You, again, are a black sheep in the family. Your mother says she will carry you to Christ; she says she will believe for you if he will let her: she has so much faith she thinks that she could even include you in the sweep of her trustful belief. O man, young man, man of the black, thankless heart, think of that! She wants to believe for you to stretch her faith so that it will include both herself and you! That ought to melt you into tears and bring you broken-heartedly, with infinite contrition, to your mother and to your Saviour. Bring your little children to church, but do not make a burden or a punishment of it. Make them happy in the church make the church the very sunniest place they can go to: bring them, don’t force them draw them by love and by many a promise, and let the mother and the father and the preacher combine as often as possible to make the church its own attraction.

Why was Jesus so fond of these little ones? Did he pick out all the beautiful children, and say, “I would like to touch that one,” and “Do let me speak to that sweet child”? No: that is our selfishness. If you were going to make a home for little children, you would take nobody into it, if you could help it, but the pretty ones. That is not philanthropy; that is selfishness with a religious visor on. You gave the child a shilling, a toy, a kiss, because it was comely. Ah, you gave yourself the toy; you kissed yourself in that mean act. What did Jesus do? Sought out the lost, and if he gave one child a sweeter kiss and a tenderer embrace than another, I know, by what else I have seen of him, that it was the ugly child, the shapeless, deformed one, the child that had fewest friends, the little creature that was cared least for. That was love: such love was Christ’s.

But why did he gather all these little flowers to him and bind them to his breast? Does he give any reason for this? He does: “For of such is the kingdom of heaven.” Oh, how he warmed to that kingdom in every aspect of it! When you are in a foreign land, and you hear any one speaking English, you say, “How sweet! how home-like! I know that mother tongue; I like the tone all the better for hearing it in this dreary country, of the language of which I do not know one word.” And if he, the Christ of God, saw down here in this rough climate any flower such as he had seen grow upon the heavenly slopes, what wonder if he bent over it and bestowed upon it tenderest and fondest interest. This was Jesus Christ’s reason: whatever represented the kingdom of heaven was precious to him; wherever he saw any trace or hint of it there he was in the fulness of his sympathy and in all the tenderness of his music.

What was it that Jesus Christ loved in these little ones? He loved the life. When shall we come to the proper conception of that boundless term? The little ones lived; that was enough. Society will not allow you to destroy even a child one hour old. The magistrate and the judge will lay severe hands upon you if you take away the life of a child that has just breathed. Why? It knows nothing, it can answer no question, it can make no appeal in words; and yet society rises up in indignation, with flushed face, with clenched hands, if some poor woman should stop the life she feels can only be a tragedy, and may possibly end in hell. If the magistrate is so anxious about life, if society is so protective of its little ones, shall the church take any lower view?

The next case is not out of keeping with the former. Then came one “and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?” What does Jesus Christ do? Goes back to the beginning as in the two former cases God’s purpose in the case of divorce, the kingdom of heaven in the case of the little children, and God in the case of this young man. Jesus Christ goes back to the beginning of character, law; Jesus Christ goes back to the beginning of law, the commandments. He treats nothing in mere detail. He will not be vexed and distracted by momentary questions; he stands at the fount and origin of things and reads all life in the light of the divine purpose. Understand that all the great questions of human life have been answered from the beginning. The young man proposed the question as if some new answer were about to be given. God has no new answer to give to any man. All great questions of the heart were answered before the heart began to speak. As sacrifice antedated sin, so the law antedated all character. Do not imagine that God has left all the great questions of the heart to be answered until now. All questions have been replied to, all light has been given that is necessary for the beginning of our superior and supreme education.

The young man had kept all the commandments, and yet he had not kept one of them! Is it possible to be so contradictory? It is not only possible, it is actual in every life. We keep things in the letter and we break them in the spirit. A man may possibly be right in letters and syllables beyond all just impeachment, and yet in the spirit he may be breaking every law which he apparently embodies. A man is not necessarily in church when he is merely bodily present there. It is possible to be in church in the body and at the same moment to be a thousand miles away from the altar, transacting business that has but a very questionable relation to the sanctuary.

In all these cases the disciples have something to say; and, as usual, they belittle every occasion. You do not, I repeat, know how grand Christ is as a talker till you hear the piping, whining voice of the disciples. You may listen to Christ so much that you think every other voice is as his own in fulness and music, suggestiveness and colour and sympathy. Not until you hear some other man speak do you know how grand was the voice of God’s Christ. Now, let us hear the disciples: their remarks will be instructive by their feebleness.

Having heard the Master speak about divorce, the disciples say unto him, “If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.” “Fools,” said Christ, “you do not know what you are talking about.” You cannot set aside the great pressures of nature you cannot set aside the original law and force of things. It is not for man to say, “If that be so, then I think I will do something else.” Man is caught within the sweep of a mighty law, and he cannot rid himself of the gravitation which God has brought to bear upon him to keep him in his right place. “It is good for a man not to marry.” It is no such little humanity that Jesus Christ came to pamper and build up. Jesus came to make men. God said, “Let us make man;” and, in the doing of that, he must pass through a thousand trials, and fight his way to conquest and tranquillity.

Then the disciples intervene in the case of the little children. The disciples rebuked them, the disciples forbade them, the disciples severally and jointly shook their heads at them. Oh, how these disciples do belittle whatever they touch! How they throw discord into the music that was sweeping like a heaven-filling wind from the mouth of Christ, the great Revealer and Teacher! We do too much forbidding work. There we commit many grave errors, and set up many hindrances in the way of honest and noble men. We think that if we put our veto upon something we have exercised a very noble function. The church should not love to forbid so much as to encourage. If the disciples could have said, “Behold, little children are being brought to our King; make way, stand back for the army of the little and the beautiful,” they would have risen to something like the grandeur of the occasion. But they were afraid of noise; they did not like children to cry in church. As if Jesus Christ had committed to memory some very beautiful literary piece as a recitation which he was about to pronounce to the people, and he might be hampered, and forget where he was, and the whole thing would be lost! But he was the Life. He would have turned the cry into a prayer; he would have founded upon the child’s unconscious laughter some grand hope. When shall we speak the Master’s language with the Master’s accent?

The disciples intervene in the third instance. And Peter said, “Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?” How this man drags the stars out of heaven and tramples upon them! How he debases the ideality of life, the prophecy and the apocalypse of human being and education! “We have forsaken all;” and an all it was to forsake a few nets that required mending, an old boat that was not seaworthy: they had forsaken ALL!

Have you left all, and done it with the right motive and with a right, strong, healthy heart? Then I promise you, in Christ’s name, kingdom and honour enough, in so far as the cause was just and the motive good.

How Jesus answered the man! Read the twenty-eighth and the twenty-ninth verses, and you will find a cataract of promise and pledge and gift in reply to a man who had left his broken nets and his poor ship. Yet the thirtieth verse says, “Remember, there are many that are first that may be last, and the last may be first.” Do not count upon all this property you are going to have until you have lived worthy of your great vocation. At the last you may fall, and he who left all at the first with a wrong motive may get nothing at the last, and so may be a pauper at both ends.

Christ is equally great, whether in answering his enemies or his friends. Bold, complete, dignified, he answers, not as if struggling with a problem, but as if granting a revelation!

Selected Notes

Mat 19:7 . The sphere of Law is not the same with that of Duty. Many things are right, which are not to be sought by force; and many things are wrong, which are not to be thus prevented. Law may permit a wrong, lest by prohibiting it a greater wrong should be produced. The text of the law was interpreted differently by the Jewish lawyers. To the question proposed, the school of Hillel said, Yes! and the school of Schammai, No! Deu 24:1 .

Mat 19:10 . This section is peculiar to St. Matthew. The same term is used both literally and figuratively. There were some who might serve men and God better in the unmarried state; but only some.

Mat 19:13 . Christ did not baptize the children, and he never baptized grown persons. He declared that children shared with adults the holy instruction and influence, the safety and blessedness, of the kingdom of Heaven. He taught that they were to be received and recognised by his disciples, as those to whom the kingdom of Heaven belonged. And he showed that symbolical services and prayers were proper and profitable for them.

From the arrangement of the three Evangelists it appears that this conversation took place in the last journey to Jerusalem.

Mat 19:16 . The contents of this division are closely connected, and the first three sections are common to the three Evangelists, the last being peculiar to St. Matthew. In reply to the question proposed, our Lord first exposes a fundamental error: all good is to be received from God, who only is independently good. He then refers to the rule, which rightly applied would lead to the right cause. And finally he points to his own example, which all disciples were to follow in principle, and some in voluntary poverty.

Mat 19:23 . The disciples supposed that riches would be aids to, and rewards in, the kingdom of Christ, as in earthly kingdoms; and they were surprised to learn that they were hindrances, to be surrendered, not sought for.

Mat 19:28 . There would be great rewards; but not of the kind expected, nor according to the supposed rule. The new creation is in the future. Act 3:21 ; Rom 8:19 ; 2Pe 3:13 ; Rev 21:1 . A similar promise to the Apostles is found, Luk 22:30 .

Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker

XIII

PARABLE OF THE PHARISEE AND THE PUBLICAN; THE LAW OF MARRIAGE, AND DIVORCE; THE CASE OF THE LITTLE CHILDREN

Harmony, pages 129-131 and Luk 18:9-17 ; Mat 19:1-15 ; Mar 10:1-16 .

Our last section closed with the prayer for vengeance or justice, called the prayer of the importunate widow. Over against that we have a prayer for mercy, not for justice. Nothing in any language, in so short a space, conveys such clear ideas of prayer as this parable, both negatively and positively negatively, in that the prayer offered by the Pharisee is not prayer at all. Let us see if we can find any petition in it: “The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as the rest of men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.” No petition there. “I fast twice in the week.” No prayer there. Neither in form nor in spirit is that a petition. Truly does the text say, “And prayed thus with himself.” He is simply congratulating himself upon his superiority over other people and his absolute need of nothing.

The other prayer, how different! “Standing afar off”; he does not feel that he can come close to God. “Would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven.” There is utter absence of presumption, “but smote his breast,” as if there in his heart was the seat of his trouble, “saying [now we come to the prayer], God, be merciful to me the sinner.” How few the words, how expressive each word and how more expressive the conjunction of the words! “Ho theos, hilastheti mm toi hamartolm,” “God, be propitious to me the sinner.” Mark the elements of this great prayer:

First, there is an evidence of contrition for sin. The Holy Spirit had convicted him of sin, and now he exercises contrition. In receiving members into the church I often put this question to them, “Did you ever realize that you were a sinner?” I had one man to answer me by saying he never did feel like he was a sinner. Then I asked him what need he had for a Saviour.

The second element is humility. The parable has this application: “Every one that exalteth himself [as that Pharisee did], shall be humbled, but he that humbleth himself [as that publican], shall be exalted.” So that the second element of power in this prayer is the deep humility. He did not trust in himself that he was righteous. He did not despise others.

The third element is the sense of helplessness. He comes for something that he can’t secure by tithing or fasting. He stands there contrite, humble, helpless.

The fourth element of his prayer is the earnestness manifested in going right to the heart of the matter in the fewest words. There is not only the absence of anything perfunctory in this petition, but there is directness and earnestness. When I was studying Latin my teacher called my attention to this distinction between the Latin language and the English, viz., that the Latin language always puts the main word first, and the illustration used was this: We say in English, “Give me fruit,” and the Latin says, “Fructum do mihi,” “Fruit give to me.” So this prayer gets at the very heart of the matter with a directness and simplicity that has never been surpassed and seldom, if ever, equalled.

The fifth element that we note is that it is a prayer of faith, evidenced by the word employed, hilastheti in the Greek. The hilasterion is the mercy seat where the atonement is made and hence asking God to be propitious is exactly the same as saying, “God be merciful to me through a sacrifice; be propitious to me through the atonement.” That shows it to be a clear case of faith, which is further evidenced by the result: This man went down to his house justified and not the other. We are justified by faith. We do not get to justification except through faith. God’s mercy has appointed a propitiation for sin and with that propitiatory sacrifice atonement was made on the mercy seat. So the one word hilastheti expresses every thought in the “be propitious to me through the atonement,” and hence it is the prayer of faith, and justification follows it.

THE LAW OF DIVORCE AND CELIBACY The next section of this discussion gives us Christ’s teaching concerning divorce, and also concerning the expediency of not marrying. There are two elements in the discussion: The lesson on divorce, if one be married, and the lesson on the expediency of not getting married if one be single.

The heart of the lesson is presented in the following language: “Have ye not read, that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the twain shall become one flesh?” (Mat 19:4 f). Now, that is the great law of marriage as instituted by the Father himself when he created the world, when he first made man, when he himself performed the first marriage ceremony. That constitutes the law of marriage. “They twain, saith he, shall become one flesh” (1Co 6:16 ). It contemplates such a complete unity that there is in it no idea even of separation. That being the law in the beginning, the question comes up, Why did Moses, an inspired man, allow in his legislation divorce for a number of causes? Jesus says that on account of their hardness of heart Moses did that. In other words, they had been slaves for a long time, just as the Negroes have been here in the South. What low ideas of marriage those slaves had and have yet! These Israelites were but little prepared for the enforcement of a high moral standard. The original law was not changed nor its high ideal standard withdrawn. Whatever evil custom his people had adopted from heathen nations, such as divorce, polygamy and slavery, which were rooted too deep for immediate and complete eradication, these he modifies in his practical legislation, softening their asperities, restricting their evil, while always upholding in theory a pure, ideal standard, whose principles ever tend to eliminate the evil altogether. Moses prescribed no law on divorce, slavery, or polygamy that did not ameliorate the evils of these deep-rooted customs. And we must distinquish between the moral law inculcated by Moses and his civic regulations. The moral law standard was never lowered. It was absolutely perfect. But he was also the head of a nation, a political entity, and must needs legislate on civil, criminal, sanitary, and other matters.

This legislation was as high in its moral tone as they were able to bear. He did not proscribe divorce, but mitigated its existing evils. Men already were putting away their wives. He regulated the evil by requiring a bill of divorcement, which was some protection to the divorced and their children. On account of their hardness of heart and unpreparedness for better things he suffered them to retain the custom of divorce for the time being, while all the time teaching moral principles that tended to the utter eradication of the evil. A critical examination of the Mosaic civil and criminal law makes evident to an unprejudiced mind that all his statutes on existing social evils elevated the standard far above the prevalent custom, and never lowered it. If he suffered divorce while hedging against its evils, he did not approve it. But when the question was put to our Lord, “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause” he promptly set forth the primal law of marriage for all men; for man, as man, in the creation, long anterior to Moses and the civil law of the Jews. Instead of its being lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause, be acknowledged only one justifiable cause, viz., infidelity to the marriage vow. The husband alone had title to the body of the wife and the wife alone to the body of the husband. An offense against this authority justified absolute divorce, for thereby was the unity of “one flesh” broken. But even this did not operate ipso facto . The one wronged might forgive and not legally plead the offense. It is always lawful to forgive, as God, married to his people, oftentimes does forgive spiritual adultery.

These two spheres of law, civil and moral, together with the prevalence of social customs, cause, for Christian people, many vexations and hard problems. Our missionaries today in heathen lands confront these problems, in dealing with new converts. Paul confronted them in the heathen city of Corinth in his day. Many slaves, many from the dregs of society, many polygamists, many liars, thieves, and murderers were converted, many with loose ideas of purity and of family sanctity. He could not regulate the state, but what should the church do? What must be the stand of preachers and churches in relation to members of the church in matters of discipline? On these problems the letters to the Corinthians constitute a mine of instruction. It was there that a new question came to the front, a question not of absolute divorce, but of legal separation. Suppose a heathen man becomes a Christian and his wife on that account leaves him? Or, because the wife becomes a Christian her husband abandons her? Paul’s reply is: “If the unbelieving departeth, let him depart: the brother or sister is not in bondage [rather, enslaved] in such cases” (1Co 7:15 ).

Here arises a question of interpretation upon which Christian theologians differ, and even the discipline of churches differ. The question is, Do Paul’s words fairly teach that abandonment of the other, by husband or wife, justifies absolute divorce or merely separation a mensa et toro? And if it justifies absolute divorce, then since abandonment may be “for every cause,” does not this interpretation put Paul in direct conflict with our Lord,, who justifies divorce for only one cause? Even if one insists on limiting Paul’s words to the one course of abandonment on religious grounds, it yet makes two justifiable grounds of absolute divorce, whereas our Lord taught but one.

The author believes that Paul’s words, “is not in bondage in such case,” mean only, “is not in bondage” to so much of the marriage bond as the abandonment necessarily renders impracticable. That is, is not in bondage to live with, to provide for, and like things. But in 1Co 7:11 Paul settles the question by quoting our Lord to the effect that cases of abandonment do not permit remarriage. This seems further evident from Paul’s later statement in the same connection: “A wife is bound for so long a time as her husband liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is free to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord” (1Co 7:39 ). This reaffirms the primal law limited only by our Lord’s one exception (see Mat 19 ). We must also note the difference in Paul’s words. In 1Co 7:15 the word is “enslaved,” but in 1Co 7:30 the word is “bound.” To sum up:

1. Death breaks the marriage bond and leaves the survivor free to marry.

2. Divorce on the ground of adultery leaves the innocent party free to marry.

3. Abandonment frees the abandoned one from so many of the marital duties as it necessarily renders impracticable, but confers no privileges. Therefore, there may be separation a mensa et thora on other grounds than adultery, but no privilege of remarriage.

I urge, with insistent emphasis, on the reader, particularly the preacher, to immediately supply himself with Dr. Alvah Hovey’s little book, The Law of Divorce , because the divorce question is much to the front. When I conducted the “Query Column” of the Baptist Standard, more queries on divorce came to me than on all other matters put together. It is so now in letters asking for advice.

The civil divorce mill is grinding day and night. Divorces are granted by the courts for almost every cause. The sanctity of the family is continually violated and children put to open shame by their parents and by the law. The public conscience on marriage and purity in this country is debauched to the ancient heathen level, and in some respects below it, and even below the mating of the brutes which perish.

The churches all over the land are staggered with the perplexing problems of discipline and in fear of libel laws. Three imperative duties devolve upon us:

1. We must as citizens seek to reform the civil divorce laws.

2. We must as churches maintain a Christ standard on the reception of members and on discipline. No matter what the complications or hardships in a given case, the church suffers more in receiving or retaining them than it gains by their membership. Their membership gags the pulpit, and commends the example of sin to the young.

3. We must as preachers refuse to officiate at marriages which violate divine law.

In addition to the more vital matters just considered it may not be amiss before we leave the subject of marriage to call your attention to the import of these words of our Lord: “For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife.” We generally construe it the other way: The bride must leave her father and mother and cleave unto her husband. If we put emphasis upon the “his” it would mean that it is better for the groom to live with his father-in-law than to take his bride to his father’s home. The reasons would be obvious. The wife’s life being indoors and the husband’s outdoors, it would entail greater hardship on her to live with his mother than for him to live with her mother. He would not be, in his outdoor field, subordinate to her mother; but her sphere, being indoors, would make her subordinate to his mother.

But doubtless the meaning is that both bridegroom and bride, having now become a family unit, should each leave the old home and strike out together for themselves. Neither marries the family of the other. Both want a home of their own in which no outsider is boss. They must be free to live their own life, unhampered by each other’s relatives. Living with her father reflects on his manhood. Living with his mother breaks her heart. If marriage means to her only subordination to somebody’s mother, naturally she would prefer her own. Let them visit occasionally each other’s family, but not dwell; and let not the parents of either side interfere.

Let the reader particularly note that while nearly all the scriptures on this subject speak of the man’s putting away his wife, yet Mar 10:12 expressly applies the law to a woman’s putting away her husband. So Paul, in 1Co 7 , applies it to both parties. Because of the importance of the subject, we must take time to expound one other word, “fornication.” Some expositors contend that this term can refer only to unchastity before marriage, therefore no offense after marriage justifies divorce. The position is wholly untenable on three grounds:

1. The Greek word porneia is a general term, not limited to unchastity before marriage. This is the verdict of most scholars. This abundantly appears from classical, biblical, and later usage by great scholars. The term is applied to married people in the noted case in-1Co 5:1 ff. The corresponding Hebrew word is always employed figuratively to denote Israel’s unfaithfulness to Jehovah, her husband. Dr. John A. Broadus, one of the greatest Greek scholars in American history, cites Amo 7:17 ; Eze 23:5 ; Num 5:19 f; Hos 3:3 , and many passages from great Greek scholars and theologians, including Dion, Cassius, Chrysostom, Origen, and notes that the Peshito Syriac translates this very passage by “adultery.” The reason for the general term is to include un chastity during betrothal, as well as adultery after marriage is consummated. (See supposed case in Mat 1:18-19 .)

2. The limitation of the meaning to unchastity before marriage would give most married women and multitudes of married men a scriptural ground for divorce. Divorces would be disastrously multiplied.

3. The limitation is absurd, opposed to sound principles of common sense and law. Nations hold each other responsible for violations of treaties after they are made, not before. Married people cannot reasonably dissolve the bonds of marriage for offenses before the marriage or the engagement to marry. Contracts do not bind before made or the pledge to make.

Here it is important to note what the disciples said: “If the case of a man is so with his wife, it is not expedient to marry.” What does this mean? It means, if marriage is so binding as our Lord had just stated, if only one extreme offense justifies divorce, then it is not expedient to marry at all. The “so” refers directly back to Christ’s statement of the binding power of marriage on both man and wife. Many commentators attach a delicate meaning to the word “so” and interpret it as if it read: “If the case be so with a single man, it is not expedient for him to marry.” But there is nothing in their statement touching single men. They say, rather: “If the case of the man is so with his wife [i.e., as Christ has just declared], then marriage at all is inexpedient.” To them this was one of Christ’s “hard sayings.” In other words, they thought his teaching here, as at other times, put a man in too tight a place. This shows that the disciples shared the general Jewish view that a man might put away his wife for every cause, otherwise marriage was not desirable; concubinage would be preferable. That this is the meaning of their statement further appears from the “but” with which Jesus commences to refute their statements. “But” indicates opposition to the preceding clause. Instead of citing instances of inexpediency to confirm and illustrate their general statement, he cites certain exceptional cases to which alone their inexpediency would apply. In effect affirming that in all ordinary cases men and women ought to marry, notwithstanding the stringency of the marriage bond. We come then to these exceptional cases where marriage is inexpedient:

1. Natural disqualifications, whether congenital or from violence or from accident. This would include physical and mental cases, or those subject to grave hereditary diseases.

2. Voluntary, but temporary, abstinence from marriage in view of “a present distress” of any great character, as that of which Paul speaks.

3. Certain widows and widowers might find it inexpedient to remarry (others had better remarry).

4. Voluntary and permanent abstinence from marriage on the part of certain people in order to special concentration in the service in the kingdom of God. But, as our Lord declares, this saying is only for those who are able to receive it. The cases are rare, special, exceptional. The rule is the other way. Man’s original commission required marriage. “Marriage is honorable in all” and “Forbidding to marry” a mark of the great apostasy.

Any church law forbidding the marriage of its preachers outrages both the precept and example of the New Testament. All of the apostles, except Paul, were married men, and it is quite probable from a passage in 1Co 7 that he was a widower, not choosing to remarry. The law concerning church officers contemplates the bishop or pastor as a married man and father of a family. An unmarried pastor is greatly handicapped, and, indeed, only very prudent bachelors or widowers can safely be pastors.

We now pass from celibacy to consider one of the most touching and instructive incidents in the life of our Lord, the case of his praying for

LITTLE CHILDREN What a pity that this impressive, heart-moving story was ever wrested from its truly great lessons and marred by being irreverently dragged into the baptismal controversy. It has nothing whatever to say or suggest about baptism.

These children were certainly not brought to our Lord that he might baptize them, for our Lord himself personally baptized nobody. Nor, that being the purpose of their being brought, would the disciples have forbidden their coming if they had been accustomed to baptize children. The purpose of being brought is expressly stated: That he should touch them, lay his hands on them, and pray. What he did is expressly stated: He called them unto him, took them in his arms, blessed them, laying his hands upon them.

But the defenders of infant baptism who employ this passage in defense of their view, say our Lord said, “Of such is the kingdom of heaven,” and quote his words on another occasion: “Except ye be converted and become as little children, ye cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.” They interpret these passages to mean that little children, in their natural state, are free from sin, equal to converted adults and therefore possess the spiritual qualifications for baptism. But this denies their own doctrine of depravity, as set forth in their confessions, and denies their avowed purpose for baptizing infants, namely, to cleanse them from sin, regenerate them, and make them children of God and members of the kingdom. Their prescribed rituals for baptizing infants makes this very clear. Indeed, church history abundantly shows that it was the doctrine of baptismal regeneration that led to infant baptism. If until today there had been no infant baptism, and tomorrow for the first time baptismal regeneration should be widely received, then inevitably would follow infant baptism.

“Such” in the passage, “Of such,” expresses likeness rather than identity. Here it cannot mean identity. It would be absurd to say, “Of little children is the kingdom of heaven.” The true lesson of the touching passage is that the imperfectly developed disciples considered those children too young and too unimportant to be thrust upon the attention of the Saviour engaged in great matters about grown people. Our Saviour promptly rebuked their error. Children, because more docile, more trustful, less bound by evil habits, less absorbed in business or other cares are more susceptible to religious impressions than adults. Prayer takes hold on them more powerfully. We should pray for them before born and when in their cradles, as well as later. We should welcome, not distrust, their interest in the Lord. The mothers did well to bring them in touch with Christ and seek his prayers in their behalf. No one of the little ones could ever forget, “The Lord noticed me. He called me to him. He took me in his arms. He prayed for me. He laid his hands on me and blessed me.”

QUESTIONS

1. What contrast in the parable of the Pharisee and publican and the parable of the importunate widow?

2. To whom was the parable of the Pharisee and publican addressed?

3. What do the Pharisee and the publican each illustrate respectively concerning prayer?

4. What was the petition of the Pharisee?

5. What was the petition of the publican?

6. What was the contrast between it and the prayer of the Pharisee?

7. What are the elements of this prayer?

8. What is the literal translation of this prayer?

9. What is the bearing on justification?

10. What are the two elements in the discussion on marriage and divorce?

11. What is the primal law of marriage?

12. Then why did Moses allow divorce for a number of causes?

13. How did Moses adapt his law to the social evils of his time, and which of the elements of the Sinaitic covenant was thus adapted to their conditions?

14. What one cause alone for divorce did Christ recognize?

15. Did this law operate ipso factor Why?

16. What are the perplexing problems relative to this question?

17. What letters furnish much light on these questions?

18. What new question arises in these letters?

19. What was Paul’s reply to this question?

20. What question of interpretation arises here?

21. What is the author’s interpretation of Paul’s language on this point and what is his proof?

22. Give a summary of this teaching.

23. What book is commended on this subject?

24. What is the present status of things relating to marriage and divorce?

25. What three imperative duties devolve upon us?

26. What is the import of Christ’s words in Mat 19:4-5 ?

27. What one scripture applies to the law of the woman’s putting away her husband?

28. What is the meaning of “fornication”?

29. What false theory is mentioned and what are the three arguments against it?

30. What is the meaning of the language of the disciples in Mat 19:10 ?

31. What was Christ’s reply and what did he mean?

32. What are the exceptional cases where marriage is inexpedient?

33. What was the original commission of man and under what limitation was he placed with respect to it?

34. What do you think of the doctrine of celibacy for the ministry?

35. Did Jesus baptize the children and why your answer?

36. What is the argument of the defenders of infant baptism and what is the reply?

37. What is the relation of infant baptism to baptismal regeneration?

38. What is the meaning of the phrase, “Of such”?

39. What is the true lesson of this touching passage?

40. Why are children more susceptible to religious impressions than adults?

Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible

1 And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these sayings, he departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judaea beyond Jordan;

Ver. 1. And came into the coasts of Judea ] Upon the news of Lazarus his friend’s sickness, Joh 11:8 , with the hazard of his life, he came far on foot to the help of his friend. Much water cannot quench love. And this was our Saviour’s last journey toward Jerusalem, to the which he steeled his face with fortitude, and was even straitened, or pained, till it were accomplished. a So was that martyr, who (because he seemed at his lodging to be somewhat troubled, and was therefore asked by one how he did?) answered, In very deed I am in prison till I be in prison.

a , Luk 9:51 ; Luk 12:50 , .

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

1 12. ] REPLY TO THE PHARISEES’ QUESTION CONCERNING DIVORCE. Mar 10:1-12 . This appears to be the journey of our Lord into the region beyond Jordan, mentioned Joh 10:40 . If so, a considerable interval has elapsed since the discourse in ch. 15.

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

1. ] . . . form one continuous description. Bethany, where He went, was beyond Jordan, but on the confines of Juda. See notes on Mar 10:1 , and Luk 9:51 .

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Mat 19:1-2 . Introductory , cf. Mar 10:1 .

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

Mat 19:1 . : similar formulae after important groups of logia in Mat 7:28 , Mat 11:1 , Mat 13:53 . : also in Mat 13:53 , vide notes there; points to a change of scene worthy of note, as to Nazareth, which Jesus rarely visited, or to Judaea, as here. . . The visit to Nazareth was a movement within Galilee. This is a journey out of it not necessarily final, but so thought of to all appearance by the evangelist. . . . . .: indicates either the destination = to the coasts of Judaea beyond the Jordan; or the end and the way = to the Judaea territory by the way of Peraea, i.e. , along the eastern shore of Jordan. It is not likely that the writer would describe Southern Peraea as a part of Judaea, therefore the second alternative is to be preferred. Mk.’s statement is that Jesus went to the coasts of Judaea and ( , approved reading, instead of in T. R.) beyond Jordan. Weiss thinks that Mt.’s version arose from misunderstanding of Mk. But his understanding may have been a true one, for Mk.’s statement may mean that Peraea was the first reached station (Holtz., H. C.), implying a journey on the eastern side. The suggestion that the writer of the first Gospel lived on the eastern side, and means by the western side (Delitsch and others), has met with little favour.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

Matthew Chapter 19

We have had the announcement of the kingdom of heaven and then of the Church. We have seen them as distinct, though connected, in Mat 16 ; then in Mat 18 , the practical ways which suit them. It was necessary also to bring out the relation of the kingdom to God’s order in nature. The relationships which God has established in nature are entirely apart from the new creation, and are carried on when a soul enters the new creation. The believer is still a man here be low, although as a Christian he is called not to act on human principles, but to do the will of God. It was therefore of much importance to know if the new things affect the recognition of that which had been already set up in nature. Accordingly, this chapter largely reveals the mutual relations of what is of grace and what is in nature. I am, of course, using the word “nature,” not in the sense of “the flesh,” which expresses the principle and exercise of self-will, but of that which God ordained in this world before sin came in, and survives the ruin. It is only the man that understands grace that can enter into and thoroughly recognize the outward natural order in the world. Grace never leads a person to slight anything God has introduced, it matters not what it might be. Take for example the law; what a profound error to suppose that the gospel weakens or annuls God’s law! On the contrary, as the apostle Paul teaches in Rom 3 , by faith “we establish the law.” If I am on legal ground, there is terror, anxiety, darkness; the dread of meeting God as a judge: the law keeps up all these thoughts as long as I am here, and very properly. Hence, it is only the man who knows that he is saved by grace, lifted above the region to which the law applies its death-stroke, who can gravely, yet in peace, look at it and own its power, because he is in Christ, above all condemnation. A believer can do it, just because he is not under law; for, “As many as are of the works of the law are under the curse.” If he were under the law even as to his own walk and communion, and not his standing before God, he must be miserable; the more so, in proportion as he is honest in regard to the law. The attempt to be happy under the law is a most painful struggle, with the danger too of deceiving ourselves and others. From all this grace delivers the soul, setting it on a new ground. But the believer can look with delight and see the wisdom and holiness of God that shine in His every arrangement and all His moral government. The law indeed is a testimony to what God forbids or wishes, but not the revelation of what He is. This you cannot find outside Christ. However, the law holds up the standard of that which God demands of man. It shows His intolerance of evil, and the necessary judgment of those who practise it. But we should be helplessly and hopelessly miserable if this were all; and it is only when the soul has laid hold of the grace of God that it can take pleasure in His ways.

This chapter, then, surveys the relationships of nature in the light of the kingdom. The first and most fundamental is that of marriage. “The Pharisees also came unto Him, tempting Him, and saying unto Him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?” (ver. 3). There you have the conduct of such as are on legal ground. There is really no respect for God, no genuine regard for His law. The Lord at once vindicates from Scripture the institution and the sanctity of marriage: “Have ye not read that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female?” (ver. 4). That is, He shows it is not a mere question of what came in by the law, but He goes to the sources. God had first established it; and, far from dissolving the tie as men list, He made a single pair, and therefore only to be the one for the other. All other relationships were light in comparison of this closest tie – even union. “For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and cleave unto his wife; and the twain shall be one flesh.” Next to the relationship of marriage is the tie of a child to its parents. It is impossible to exaggerate the importance of marriage as a natural institution. Who would talk of a child leaving his father and mother for any cause? The Pharisees even would not think of such a thing. ,What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” They were ready with an answer: “Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?” (ver. 7). There was really no such command: a divorce was simply allowed.

Our Lord draws the distinction perfectly. Moses suffered certain things not according to the original archetypal intention of God. Nor should this be matter of wonder, for the law made nothing perfect. It was good in itself, but it could not impart goodness. The law might be perfect for its own object, but it perfected nothing, nor was it ever the intention of God that it should. But more than this: there were certain concessions contained in the law which did not at all express the divine mind; for God therein was dealing with a people after the flesh. The law does not contemplate a man as born of God; Christianity does. Men of faith during the law were of course born of God. But the law itself drew no line between regenerate and unregenerate; it addressed all Israel, and not believers only; hence suffered certain things in view of the hardness of their hearts. So that our Lord, while intimating a certain consideration of Israel’s condition in the flesh, at the same time vindicated God’s law from the corrupt deductions of these selfish Pharisees. “From the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery. And whosoever marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery” (vers. 8, g). Our Lord adds here what was not in the law, and brings out the full mind of God touching this relationship. There is but one just cause for which it may be dissolved; or rather, marriage must be dissolved morally in order to terminate as a matter of fact. In case of fornication, the tie is all gone before God; and the putting away merely proclaims before man what has already taken place in God’s sight. All is made perfectly clear. The righteousness of the law is established as far as it went, but it stops short of perfection by admitting in certain cases a less evil to avoid a greater. Our Lord supplies the needed truth – going up to the very beginning, and on to the end also.

Thus it is that Christ, the true light, alone and always introduces the perfect mind of God, supplying all deficiencies and making all perfect. This is the aim, work and effect of grace. Nevertheless, “His disciples say unto Him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry” (ver. 10). Alas! the selfishness of the heart even in disciples. It was so much the custom then to dismiss the wife because of petty dislike, etc., that it shocked them to hear the Lord insisting on the indissolubility of the marriage. tie.

But, says the Lord, “All men receive not this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs which were so born from their mother’s womb; and there are some eunuchs which were made eunuchs of men; and there be eunuchs which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it” (vers. 11, 12). There, I apprehend that, while maintaining the institution of marriage naturally, the Lord shows there is a power of God that can raise people above it. The apostle Paul was acting in the spirit of this verse, when he gives us his own judgment as one that had “obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful” (1Co 7:25 ). Doubtless he was called to a remarkable work, which would have made due attention to family relationship very difficult. His business lay and took him everywhere. Wherever there were churches to care for, wherever souls cried, Come over and help us – and far beyond the calls of saints or men, the Holy Ghost laid it on his devoted heart. With wife or family to care for, the work of the Lord could not have been so thoroughly done. Hence the wise and gracious judgment of the apostle, not given as a command, but left to weigh on the spiritual mind. The last of the three classes in the verse is figuratively expressed: it means, plainly, living unmarried for God’s glory. But mark, it is a gift, not a law, much less a caste. Only such receive it to whom it is given.” It is put as a privilege. As the apostle presses the honourableness of marriage, he was the last to lay the smallest slur on such a tie; but he also knew of a higher and all-absorbing love, an entrance, in measure, into the affections of Christ for the Church. Still this is not an imposed obligation, but a special call and gift of grace in which he rejoiced to glorify his Master. The appreciation of the love of Christ to the Church had formed him in its own pattern. Observe here, it is “made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake” – that order of things which depends on Christ now in heaven. And hence, strong in the grace that shines in Him at the right hand of God, they to whom it is given walk above the natural ties of life – not despising them; but honouring them, while individually surrendering themselves to that goodly portion which shall not be taken from them.

And now children are brought unto Him – little ones, apt to be despised. What in this world so helpless and dependent as a babe? “Then were brought unto Him little children, that He should put His hands on them, and pray” (ver. 13). The disciples thought it an annoyance or a liberty, and “rebuked them. But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto Me; for of such is the kingdom of heaven. And He laid His hands on them, and departed thence” (vers. 13-15). So completely were all the demands of love met even where the desire seemed ever so unseasonable. For why should the Lord of heaven and earth occupy Himself with putting His hands upon little ones? But love is not restrained by human reason, and the unworthy thoughts of the disciples were set aside, who thought babes unworthy of His notice. Ah! how little they knew Him, long as they had been with Him. Was it not worthy of Him so to bless the very least in man’s eyes? How important a lesson for our souls is this? It need not be one connected with ourselves; it might be another’s child. Do we claim the Lord for it? What is His feeling? He is great, He is mighty; but He despiseth not any.

Before His glory there is not so much difference between a world and a worm. The world is a mere cipher, if God measures by Himself. But then, the feeblest may be the object of His deepest love and care. Our Lord looked at these babes, oh, with what interest! They are the objects of the Father’s love, for whom He gave His Son, and whom the Son came to save. Each had a soul: and what was its value? What to be a vessel of grace in this world, and of glory in the bright eternal day? The disciples did not enter in these thoughts; and how little our own souls enter into them. Jesus not only blessed the babes, but rebuked the disciples, who had misrepresented Him; and He says, “Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto Me; for of such is the kingdom of heaven.” A withering word for pride. Were the disciples “of such” at that moment, or at least in that act?

And now a young man “came and said unto Him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?” He was evidently a lovely natural character; one who combined in his person every quality that was estimable; one who had not only all that men think productive of happiness in this world, but apparently sincere in desiring to know and do the will of God. And, further, he was attracted by and came to Jesus. In another Gospel we read that “Jesus loved him;” not because he believed in and followed Jesus; for, alas, we know he did not. But there are various forms of divine love, besides that which embraces us as returned prodigals. While we have a special love for the children of God, and in the things of God ought to value only that which is of the Holy Ghost, it does not follow that we are not to admire a fine mind or a naturally beautiful character. If we do not, it only proves that we do not understand the mind of God as here manifested in Jesus. Even as to creation, am I to look coldly, or not at all, at rivers or mountains, the sea, the sky, valleys, forests, trees, flowers, that God has made? It is a total mistake that spirituality renders dull to His outward works. But am I to set my mind upon these sights? Are we to travel far and wide for the purpose of visiting what all the world counts worthy to be seen? If in my path of serving Christ a grand or beautiful prospect passes before me, I do not think that He whose handiwork it is calls me to close my eyes or mind. The Lord Himself draws attention to the lilies of the field brighter than Solomon in all his glory. Man admires that which enables him to indulge his self-love and ambition in this world. That is merely the flesh. But as to the beautiful, morally or in nature, grace, instead of despising, values all that is good in its own sphere, and does homage to the God who thus displayed His wisdom and power. Grace despises neither what is in creation nor what is in man. This young man the Lord “loved,” when certainly as yet there was no faith at all. He went away from Jesus in sorrow. But what believer ever did, since the world began? His sorrow was because he was not prepared for the path of faith. Jesus desired him to follow Him, but not as a rich man. He would have been delighted to do “some great thing;” but the Lord laid bare self in his heart. He knew that (spite all that naturally, and even according to the law, was beautiful in him), there was self-importance at bottom – the flesh turning these very advantages into a reason for not following Jesus. But as nothing at all, he must follow Jesus. “Good Master,” said he,” what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?” He had not learned the first lesson a Christian knows, what a convicted sinner is learning – that he is lost. The youth showed that he had never felt his own ruin. He assumed that he was capable of doing good; but the sinner is like the leper in Lev 13 , who could not bring an offering to God, but only remain outside crying, “Unclean, unclean.” The young man had no sense of sin. He regarded eternal life as the result of a man’s doing good. He had been doing the law; and, as far as he knew, he never broke it.

Our Lord says to him, “Why callest thou Me good? There is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.” He may take him up on that ground. This man had no idea that the one to whom he was speaking was God Himself. He merely went to Him as a good man. On this footing the Lord would not allow Himself to be called good. God alone is. The Lord at first simply deals with him on his own ground. “If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. He saith unto Him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” (vers. 17-19). The Lord quotes the commands that relate to human duties – the second table of the law, as it is called. “All these,” says the young man, have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? But says the Lord, “If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow Me,.” And what then? “When the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.” He loved his possessions better than he loved Jesus. This gave our Lord an opportunity for unfolding another truth, and one most startling to a Jew, who regarded wealth as a sign of the blessing of God. It was in a similar spirit that the friends of job also acted, though they were Gentiles; for in truth it is the judgment of fleshly righteousness. They thought that God must be against job because he had got into unheard-of trial. The Lord brings out, in view of the kingdom of heaven, the solemn truth that the advantages of the flesh are positive hindrances to the Spirit.

“Then said Jesus unto His disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly” (that is, with difficulty; not, he cannot, but “shall hardly”) “enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Emphatically He repeats it, “Again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle” (beyond nature, of course) “than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. When His disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?” The Lord faces their objection: “Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible (vers. 24-26).” If it was a question of man’s doing anything to get into the kingdom, riches are only so much hindrance. And so it is with all else counted desirable. Whatever I may have, and trust in, whether it be moral ways, position, or what not – these are but impediments as far as concerns the kingdom, and make it impossible to man. But with God (and we may bless Him for it) all things are possible, no matter what the difficulty. Therefore God chooses in His grace to call all sorts and conditions of people. We read of a person called out of Herod’s court; we read of saints in Caesar’s household. A great company of the priests believed; so did Barnabas the Levite, with his houses and lands; nay, above all, Saul of Tarsus, brought up at the feet of Gamaliel. All these difficulties only gave God the opportunity to overcome all obstacles by His own power and grace.

When Peter heard how hard it was for the rich to be saved, he thought it time for him to speak of what they had given up for the Lord’s sake, and to learn what they should get for it. ,Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed Thee; what shall we have therefore?” How painfully natural was this! “Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man shall sit upon the throne of His glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for My name’s sake, shall receive a hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life” (vers. 28, 29). There is nothing the believer does or suffers but what will be remembered in the kingdom. While this is most blessed, it is also a very solemn thought. Our ways now, though they have nothing to do with the remission of our sins, are yet of all consequence as a testimony to Christ, and will bear very decidedly on our future place in the kingdom. We must not use the doctrine of grace to deny that of rewards; but even so, Christ is the sole motive for the saint. We shall receive for the thing’s done in the body according to that we have done, whether it be good or bad, as the Lord shows plainly here. The twelve had followed the rejected Lord, albeit His own grace had given them the power. It was not they who had chosen Him, but He had chosen them. They are now cheered by the assurance that in the blessed time of the regeneration, when the Lord will work a grand change in this world (for as He regenerates a sinner, so will He, as it were, regenerate the world), their work and suffering for His name will not be forgotten of Him.

Remember that what is spoken of here does not refer to heaven: there is still better work in heaven than judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Yet it is a glorious destiny reserved for the twelve apostles during the reign of Christ over the earth. A similar glory is designed for other saints of God, as we read in 1Co 6:2 : “Know ye not that the saints shall judge the world?” There it is used to show the incongruity of a saint seeking the world’s judgment in a matter between himself and another; for the Christian’s portion and blessing are entirely apart from the world, and he should be true to the objects for which Christ has called him.

As to all the natural relationships and advantages of this life, if lost for His name’s sake, the losers shall receive a hundredfold and inherit everlasting life. The Gospel of John speaks of everlasting life as a thing that we possess now: the others speak of it as future. We have it indeed now dwelling in us; we shall then enter its own dwelling-place, and shall have its fulness in glory by and by. “But many that are first shall be last, and the last shall be first.” What a hint to Peter – and to us all! A self-righteous claim is a ready snare, and soon finds its level. The leaving of all, if valued, has lost all its value. Thus many who began to run well turned aside from grace to law; and Peter himself was blamed by the last (but first) of the apostles, as we know from the Galatians.

The Lord make His grace the strength of our hearts; and if we have suffered the loss of any or of all things, may we still count them dung that we may win Him!

Fuente: William Kelly Major Works (New Testament)

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Mat 19:1-2

1When Jesus had finished these words, He departed from Galilee and came into the region of Judea beyond the Jordan; 2and large crowds followed Him, and He healed them there.

Mat 19:1 “When Jesus had finished these words” This phrase is apparently a textual marker for Matthew’s structuring of Jesus’ teachings (cf. Mat 7:28; Mat 11:1; Mat 13:53; Mat 26:1).

“He departed from Galilee and came into the region of Judea” This period of Jesus’ ministry is often called His Perean ministry. It covered Matthew 19-20. Many Jews would not pass through Samaria but would cross over into the trans-Jordan area of Perea, then south toward Jerusalem and cross back over the Jordan at Jericho into Judea. This was because of their hatred of Samaritans. They believed them to be half Jews, half pagans. This was the result of the Assyrian exile under Sargon II of the Northern Ten Tribes in 722 B.C. and the resettlement of pagans into the region.

Mat 19:2 “and large crowds followed Him” These were possibly pilgrims going to Jerusalem, but they could also be persons looking for healing or curiosity seekers.

“and He healed them there” Jesus’ healings were intended to confirm His message, to help show the future bliss of heaven, and the heart of God. He did not come primarily to heal, but to teach; however, whenever He saw people hurting from the ravages of sin, He acted; and He still does!

SPECIAL TOPIC: IS HEALING GOD’S PLAN FOR EVERY AGE?

Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley

And it came to pass. A Hebraism.

sayings = words. Greek. logos. See note on “saying”, Mar 9:32.

departed = withdrew (by sea).

from. Greek. apo.

into. Greek. eis.

coasts = borders.

beyond Jordan. Perea, east side of Jordan, from the Sea of Galilee to the Dead Sea.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

1-12.] REPLY TO THE PHARISEES QUESTION CONCERNING DIVORCE. Mar 10:1-12. This appears to be the journey of our Lord into the region beyond Jordan, mentioned Joh 10:40. If so, a considerable interval has elapsed since the discourse in ch. 15.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Chapter 19

Now it came to pass, when Jesus had finished these sayings, he departed from Galilee, and he came to the coast of Judea ( Mat 19:1 );

Now that is the border of Judea, so He is moving south towards Jerusalem, for Jerusalem lies in the area of Judea, which is in the southern kingdom. So He has left the area of Naphtali and Psycar in the north, and has come down now to the area of Judea, there beyond Jordan.

And great multitudes followed him; and he healed them there. Then the Pharisees came unto him, [and notice this] they were tempting him ( Mat 19:2-3 ),

This is a test question; it is a leading question. It is a question of entrapment. They are trying to trap Jesus in His words. And it is important that you realize that this is a trap question by the Pharisees. So they came unto Him, tempting Him, or trapping Him,

and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? ( Mat 19:3 )

Now under the Mosaic law it says, if a man finds an uncleanness in his wife, and he is not content to remain with her, let him give her a writing of a bill of divorcement.

Now what is meant by finding an “uncleanness” in her? According to the liberal theologians of those days, an uncleanness could be her not fixing the kind of breakfast you enjoy. So if she boiled the egg too long, and the yoke was to hard, you could say, “That’s it, I’ve had it. I divorce you”. And you could hand her the paper and she had to leave. I mean she had no recourse. She was just out. And so they had applied a very liberal interpretation to this finding an uncleanness in her.

Other of the rabbis said that the uncleanness was a moral uncleanness. You discovered she was not a virgin when you married her, or if she would break the marriage vow, it was a moral uncleanness. And so there was the division among the Scribes and Pharisees, to which of the two schools they subscribed, whether Hallel, who took the very, narrow, moral uncleanness, or the other school that took a very much broader view.

So they were questioning Jesus, “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?”

And he answered and said unto them, Have you not read, that he which made them in the beginning [now notice, Jesus is going back not to the law, but He is going back to the beginning] he who made them in the beginning made them male and female ( Mat 19:4 ),

Now there is quite a move on foot today to change what God has done. They’ll never be successful. God help poor, sick humanity. I don’t know if there is any transvestites here, but I cannot for the life of me understand that kind of a sickness, really.

God made them male and female,

And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they two shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more two, but they are one ( Mat 19:5-6 ).

There is a unity that is brought about by marriage where the two become one flesh. Of course, that is literally true in your offspring. The two of you have become one flesh in your offspring. There is twenty-three of the chromosomes that come from each of you to begin that new life. How beautiful! You dads can’t say, “That ‘s your kid, take care of him,” because he is half yours too, twenty-three chromosomes from you. And so it is a perfect combination, the two shall become one flesh.

Wherefore they are no more two, but they are one. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man [by writing of divorcement or whatever] put asunder ( Mat 19:6 ).

Now in those days women didn’t have the power of divorce. And that’s why God said, don’t let man put it asunder, don’t let man break it. God has made the two of you one, now don’t let a man break that by writing out a divorcement for his wife.

Now,

They said unto Him ( Mat 19:7 ),

Now picture the trap closing, ha, ha. He’s fallen into it, because it was a trap question and He fell right into it. All right we’ve got Him now. And they said unto Him,

Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? ( Mat 19:7 )

Now all of them recognized that the law that Moses gave came from God. If anything was inspired in the Bible, it was the law of Moses. And there were many of them that only believed that that part, and today still many only believe that the first five books of the Bible are inspired, but they all hold that that is the inspired Word. God gave us the law by Moses.

Now you are contradicting God. You see, this is the whole idea to put Him in contradicting what God said, and God said, “let him put her away.” And you’re saying, “you can’t, you shouldn’t if God has joined you together, you shouldn’t break it by writing out an divorcement”. So you’re against God is the whole idea.

And Jesus said unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts allowed you to put away your wives: [but again he is going back before Moses ever came on the scene] from the beginning it was not so ( Mat 19:8 ).

You noticed in the first part He said, “in the beginning God made male and female.” Now He is saying, “in the beginning it wasn’t so. Moses, because of the hardness of your heart, gave the law for divorcing, but in the beginning this was not God’s intention”. In the beginning this is not what God desired or planned.

And I say unto you, [not Moses said, but I say] Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, [and notice He does make the exception] and shall marry another, commits adultery: and whoso marries her which is put away does commit adultery. His disciples said, Lord if that’s the case, better that a guy not marry ( Mat 19:9-10 ).

Now Jesus is being very straight. He is telling you what is God’s original plan for man, one marriage of life. In the beginning this is what God intended when He made them male and female, that the two become one; so that the children will always have both parents and the security of a home, and a home environment in which to grow up. And wherever that breaks down, we find its effects throughout our entire social structure. And we see it today, the tremendous breakdown in our society, and the social order, because of the divided families and the children are always hurt, as a byproduct of this division.

Now Jesus did give the one cause, and that one cause is fornication. And in that case, the innocent party would be free to remarry, very plainly declares that if they put away their wife, except for fornication, and marry another, but the exception is there.

Now Jesus said unto His disciples when they were shocked at the straightness of His declaration.

All men cannot receive this saying, except to those to whom it is given ( Mat 19:11 ).

Now this is the next saying that He is talking about.

For there are some who are eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: there are others who are eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be some eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. If you’re able to receive it, let him receive it ( Mat 19:12 ).

Am not able, so I just let it go. I am not an eunuch, nor do I desire to be.

Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray for them: and his disciples rebuked them. [That is the parents that were bringing them.] But Jesus said, Allow the little children, don’t forbid them to come to me: for as such is the kingdom of heaven. And he laid his hands on them, and he departed from there ( Mat 19:13-15 ).

Oh, I can get just such a beautiful picture of Jesus and the little children thronging around Him, and the love and the interest that He had in these little ones. And here the disciples thinking they were protecting Him, said, “Oh, don’t bother the Lord with your little kids.” Jesus said, “Wait a minute. Get out of the way, Peter, let that little one come to me. Don’t forbid him, of such is the kingdom of heaven.” He laid His hands on them and blessed them. Oh, I love it.

And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? ( Mat 19:16 )

Well, here is the moralist; we see them today, people who are looking for some work whereby they might obtain the gift of eternal life. There are always those who are wanting to work their way into God’s favor, work their way into God’s blessings. If you’ll just pray, then God will bless you. If you’ll just fast, then God will bless you. If you’ll just give, then God will bless you.

How many want a blessing? Then dig deep and give tonight, you know. And there are always those who want to do some work to obtain God’s blessing upon their lives. What good work must I do that I may inherit eternal life? There is not a single work that you can do. Jesus later said, “With man it’s impossible, there is no way that you can do any kind of a work that will save you. Salvation, eternal life is the gift of God, and it’s not of works, lest any man should boast. We are His workmanship”( Eph 2:8-10 ).

And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, and that is God ( Mat 19:17 ):

Now here he said, “good master,” Jesus said, “Why did you call me good? There is only one that is good, and that is God”. Now obviously Jesus is saying one of two things. He is saying, “I am no good, or He is saying, I am God.” Which do you think He is saying? What He is doing is trying to awaken the consciousness of this man to the fact that he has received a divine revelation. He is getting close. “Why did you call me good?” The reason why you called me good, is because you, though you don’t realize it, have recognized something about me. “Why did you call me good?”

You remember when Peter said, “Thou art the Christ the son of the living God”. Jesus said, “Blessed art you Simon Barjona. Flesh and blood did not reveal this to you”( Mat 16:16-17 ). Jesus is saying much the same, “Hey, why did you call me good? Flesh and blood did not reveal this”. There is a divine revelation here. “You called me good, but there is only one that is good, and that is God. You called me good, because I am God. You have recognized something here”. “What must I do to have this eternal life, this age-abiding life, this quality of life that you have, this quality that I am observing and I am drawn to?” And Jesus is beginning to point out the way. First of all, the recognition of “who I am. Why did you call me good? There is none good but God”.

And Jesus said,

But if you will enter into life, keep the commandments. And he said unto him, Which? and Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, honor thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself ( Mat 19:17-19 ).

Notice now, nothing is said of the first table of the law. Nothing is said of man’s relationship to God. He did not give him the first four commandments: Thou shalt have no other God’s before me. Thou shalt not make any graven images, to bow down to them, to worship them. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. And remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. He didn’t bring out any of the first four, man’s relationship with God. He only dealt with man’s relationship with man because this man was a moralist. He was that typical man, who was looking for a good work that he might do in order to inherit eternal life. He was used to doing good works. His life was spent in doing good works. And so Jesus gave to him those commandments that dealt with his relationship with fellow man.

And as Jesus flashed these before his eyes,

He answered and said unto him, All of these have I kept from my youth: but what lack I yet? ( Mat 19:20 )

Now here is a man who is rich, he is a moralist. He’s kept his relationship with his fellow men all that it should be. Throughout his life he’s tried to do the good thing, the right thing to his fellow man. And yet he is conscious that there is a lack in his life. “I don’t yet have what you have. What lack I yet?” He was conscious that there was still a lack in his own life, that there must be something more than just living a good life and being wealthy.

“What lack I yet?”

And Jesus said unto him, If you will be complete [totally complete, perfect], then go and sell what you have, and give it to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me ( Mat 19:21 ).

Now I’d like to read to you what Jesus is essentially saying to him.” If you will be perfect, or complete, come follow me. The rest is only incidental.” With the rest there is no universal application. That was the individual commandment to that man. It is not a universal application. This was not a requirement to any person who is going to be complete, or to have eternal life. It doesn’t mean that you’ve got to sell everything you have and distribute it to the poor.

Now in the early church there was a movement of this sort. It ended in financial disaster; it also ended in some personal calamities. When the church first started, people were very excited about what was happening. And they were anticipating the Lord to return immediately, and a lot of them began to sell their properties and bring the price and lay it at the apostles’ feet.

And there was one couple Ananias and Sapphira, who sold their property and they brought in part of the money and put it at Peter’s feet. And Peter said, “Hey, wait a minute. Why have you conspired in your heart to lie against the Holy Spirit? You’ve not lied against men, you’ve lied against God. As long as the property was yours, did anyone require you to sell it? And even after you sold it, no one required that you bring everything in. But yet, you are making this pretense of bringing everything. You’re trying to deceive God”( Act 5:1-4 )

And there was swift judgment upon Ananias and his wife Sapphira, not because they didn’t bring everything, but Peter makes it very clear, that they weren’t required to sell their possessions. They weren’t required to bring the money in. It was something that people did out of their own volition and free will.

And so Jesus when He says, “Go and sell what you have and distribute to the poor”, is not a making a universal demand for those who would have eternal life. What the universal demand is, “come and follow me”. You cannot have eternal life apart from following Jesus Christ, but He will always put the finger on whatever it is in your life that’s keeping you from following Him. And with the case of this rich young ruler, the thing that was keeping him from following Jesus Christ was his riches. That was his god.

Jesus said, “You cannot serve God and mammon, you can’t have two masters”( Mat 6:24 ). If you have a false god that is controlling your life, then you’ve got to go and get rid of it, whatever it be. And you’ve got to have the true God on the throne of your life. Jesus said, “Come follow me. Why did you call me good? There is only one good, that’s God. You called me good because you recognized that I am God. Now follow me; get rid of the false gods. Get rid of the empty gods; follow me, the true and living God.”

And it’s important that you observe this, because a lot of people make a big deal over, well, you got to go and sell everything you have and distribute it to the poor and all; not so. That is not a universal application. The universal application is, “Come follow me”. He is the way to completeness. He is the way to eternal life; there is not any real life apart from Him.

Now when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions. [Sorry, because he was so rich.] Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say, It is easier for a camel to go through an eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. And when his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved? And Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men it’s impossible; but with God all things are possible ( Mat 19:22-26 ).

Now when you go over to Israel today, the guides when you get to the Church of the Nativity, they will show you a little sub-gate under the gate into the church. And they tell you that that little sub-gate was called the eye of the needle, and that in the gates of the cities they always had this little sub-gate, which was called the eye of the needle. And in order to get the camel through it, they had to take all of the burden of the camel’s back, and it had to get down on the ground. And a couple guys behind him pushing, and one guy in front of it pulling, to get it to squeeze through this eye of the needle in the gate. And they say that’s what Jesus was talking about.

Isn’t that interesting? They make it a possibility if you struggle hard enough, and if you grunt and groan enough you can actually save yourself. A lot of people would like to have you think that. But Jesus points out that that is entirely false. He is talking not about some little gate that you can, by a lot of effort, and grunts and groans squeeze and get through. He is talking about an eye of a needle, that a woman is sewing with, and you trying to get a camel through that? And that’s why the disciples said, “Lord, who then can be saved?” and note, Jesus said what, “With man it is impossible.” Remember that.

He didn’t say, “You got to strain. You got to struggle. You got to grunt and groan, give it your best.” He is saying, “It’s impossible.” Man cannot save himself. The moralist cannot save himself. No man by good works can save himself. No man by a good work can inherit age-abiding, eternal life. It is a gift of God, and it is only wrought by a miracle of God in our hearts and lives. For though it is impossible with men, with God all things are possible. It’s even possible to save you.

And God has done the impossible in saving us tonight. And remember that. With man it is impossible. That eliminates the moralist completely. You cannot by your good works obtain for yourself a place in the kingdom of God. You’ve got to come as a little child and be converted and just simply trust in Jesus.

Then answered Peter and said unto him, Lord, we’ve forsaken all, and followed you; what are we going to have therefore? ( Mat 19:27 )

Always looking for that, what do I got coming Lord? Am I going to be the greatest?

And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That you which have followed me, in the regeneration [the re-creation, in making this new order] when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon the twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel ( Mat 19:28 ).

Now in heaven John saw the throne of God, and there were twenty-four thrones around the throne of God, upon which were seated twenty-four elders. There are many who believe that those twenty-four elders are actually representative of the church. And of course if so, then twelve of them would be the apostles. There are some problems with that interpretation, but it is one of the interpretations that has been suggested for those twenty-four thrones, lesser thrones, about the throne of God. But nonetheless, Jesus said, “that they will be sitting upon twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel”.

And everyone that hath forsaken, [now you’ve said you’ve forsaken all to follow me, but everyone who has forsaken,] his house, or his brothers, or sisters, or his father, or his mother, or his wife, or his children, or lands, for my name’s sake ( Mat 19:29 ),

If you have done it for His name’s sake, that is, your wife will not follow you in your total commitment to Jesus Christ. And as Paul said, “if the unbelieving husband is not content to remain, let him depart”( 1Co 7:14 ). No one has left these things, forsaken these things for my sake,

but what he shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life ( Mat 19:29 ).

So not only does He give you a hundredfold now, but then eternal life.

But many that are first, shall be last ( Mat 19:30 );

I think that He is here referring actually to the Jewish nation to whom the gospel was to be preached first. Paul said, “I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, upon our God of Salvation, to all that believe, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek”( Rom 1:16 ). But it was to go to the Jew first, and then to the Gentiles. Now they are going to be judging the twelve tribes. Why? Because the twelve tribes basically rejected the Messiah. “So those that were first shall be last.”

and they that are last [that is the Gentiles] shall be first ( Mat 19:30 ).

So in that kingdom that Jesus establishes, we shall be one with Him, joint heirs with the Son of the glorious kingdom of God throughout eternity. The gospel came to us last, but we have the first privileges in His glorious kingdom, who have believed on Jesus Christ. Were we who believe in Jesus Christ, are neither Jews nor Greeks, Barbarian, Scythian, bond or free, but Christ is everything.

We are a whole new nationality. We are new creatures in Christ Jesus. We are a new creation, a new race of people. So you really can’t say, “Well, I am an Irishman, or an Englishman, or a Scotchman.” You must say, “I am a Christian.” You are a new race, you see, we’re not related anymore to the whatever ethnic group we came from. We are all one in Jesus Christ. We now relate to a new source. “Well, that’s my old Irish temper.” Oh, no, no, that old Irish temper died when the old man died and you became a Christian. You can’t pass it off now on the old Irish temper anymore. You’re a new creature in Christ. You are a new creation. You are a new race of people in our Lord Jesus Christ. And so the last, “Many that are first shall be last, and the last shall be first”.

Next week we’ll continue in the next three chapters of Matthew’s gospel. Shall we pray?

Father, again we thank you for your Word. Truly it is a lamp unto our feet and a light unto our path. May we walk in its light, be obedient unto its truth that we, Lord, would not seek to mold and shape your Word to our concepts but that we would have our concepts molded and shaped by Your Word. Help us, Father, that we might bend out necks to the authority of your truth rather than trying to bend the truth to fit our lose lifestyles. Jesus, let thy Word penetrate our hearts and give us O God a spirit of obedience and a spirit of forgiveness. In Jesus’ name we pray. Amen. “

Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary

Mat 19:1. , …, finished, etc.) All the discourses addressed to the people in Galilee have a great connection with each other, and form a perfect course.[851]-, he departed[852]) having concluded His perambulation through Galilee.[853]

[851] He was wont to break off nothing abruptly, but to bring all things to a complete conclusion; ch. Mat 26:1.-V. g.

[852] Migravit. Cf. Gnomon and footnotes on ch. Mat 13:53, where the same word occurs.-(I. B.)

[853] We may reasonably infer, from this departure, that the events which are recorded, Luk 13:31 to Luk 18:14 (for Jesus was not wont to stay long in Samaria), occurred in the space of those three days, of which mention occurs in Luk 13:32.-Harm., p. 421.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

Mat 19:1-12

SECTION FIVE

THE PEREAN MINISTRY

19:1 to 20:34

1. FROM GALILEE TO PEREA:

TEACHINGS CONCERNING DIVORCE

Mat 19:1-12

The country lying east of the Sea of Galilee and river Jordan was called by Josephus “the Peraea,” but it is referred to in the New Testament as “beyond the Jordan.” (Mat 4:15; Mat 4:25; Mat 19:1; Mar 3:8; Joh 1:28; Joh 3:26; Joh 10:40.) It is never called Perea in the New Testament. This country seems to have been called in the Old Testament “land of Gilead.” It is perhaps the most picturesque and beautiful part of Palestine. In the time of Jesus’ personal ministry Perea with Galilee was under the dominion of Herod Antipas. The Jews recognized Perea, the land beyond the Jordan, as a province of the land of Israel, ranking with Judea and Galilee on the west. On the borders of Perea, some think that Jesus was baptized in the Jordan. It was the scene of happy and profitable intercourse with Jesus and his disciples; it furnished the retreat from Jewish enmity, and from whence Jesus was summoned at the death of Lazarus at Bethany. (Joh 10:40.)

1, 2 And it came to pass when Jesus had finished these words.-Mar 10:1-12 gives a parallel record. The interval of time between the last chapter and this is supposed to have been about five months; the events and conversations of the last chapter are thought to have occurred in May, while those recorded here occurred in October and November, only five months before the crucifixion. Jesus left Galilee and crossed the Sea of Galilee and went down on the east side of the river Jordan opposite the country of Judea. So far as we know, Jesus never returned to Galilee till after his resurrection. Matthew passes over many events that occurred on this journey and at Jerusalem. The records of Matthew, Mark, and Luke have been called the “Galilean gospels” because their scene is mostly in Galilee, and their subject the ministry of Jesus in that section; John’s record has been called “the Judean gospel” because its scene is mostly in Judea and in Jerusalem. Great multitudes followed Jesus in Perea and he “healed them there.” Apparently a kinder reception was given him here than in Judea and about Jerusalem during the last stage of his public ministry.

3-9 There came unto him Pharisees, trying him.-The Pharisees were the bitter enemies of Jesus because much of his teachings contradicted their traditions and practices; also they were the self-appointed leaders of the Jewish religion at this time and they looked upon Jesus as their rival. They sought to injure him in the eyes of the people; hence they came to him with a well-worked-out plan. The Jews were very much divided in opinion as to the law on the marriage and the divorce question. It was impossible to satisfy both parties; he would gain the ill will of those whose opinion he condemned. There were two current opinions among the leaders at this time. The school of Hillel taught that a man might divorce his wife for any reason, for any slight offense, or merely for his dislike of her person or manners; they based their opinions on Deu 24:1, which says, “If she find no favor in his eyes,” then he may “write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.” The opposite school of Shammai allowed divorce only for adultery; this school based its decision on the same scripture (Deu 24:1) which says, “Because he bath found some unseemly thing in her,” which they interpreted as the sin of adultery.

These Pharisees asked Jesus, “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?” They meant for “any cause”; if Jesus answered this question in the negative, he opposed the school of Hillel, and would incur their enmity; but if he answered it in the affirmative, he would incur the enmity of the school of Shammai. They wanted Jesus to answer this question, knowing that it would injure him with one side or the other. They probably knew his teaching on this question, and were not seeking to know the truth, but desired to arouse against him the worst feelings of men as against one who wished to deprive them of a proper liberty.

And he answered and said, Have ye not read, that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female? -Jesus in his reply avoids the difficulty or occasion of taking sides with either party; he sighted a scripture which went behind the interpretation of both schools of that day, and settled the question by the original design of marriage, as shown by an undisputed text. (Gen 1:27; Gen 2:21; Gen 2:24.) This would remove the question from the opinions of both Hillel and Shammai and put it on the basis of God’s plain word. Neither school could oppose him for basing the question upon an undisputed scripture. In the beginning God “made them male and female”; they were made as one pair, therefore they should be united in pairs; these pairs should remain as God ordained as the basis of the family. Any violation of the union of this pair is fundamentally wrong and contrary to God’s original purpose. This act of divine creation has become the symbol of the union between Christ and his church. (Eph 5:32-33.) “For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife.” The original word here implies a union which nothing can dissolve. The tie of husband and wife is stronger than that of parent and child, as the tie which binds husband and wife maintains its union during life, hence “shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife.” “And the two shall become one flesh.”

As in Adam before the creation of Eve the two were one, so now, by marriage, the oneness is restored; they are two halves of one whole, forming one person, “one flesh.” As the original woman was by the power of God taken out of the flesh of Adam, so is the wife reminded that she has something of the same relation to her husband; she is wedded to him, the bond between them being altogether of another kind from any human compact or covenant. The only parallels to this relation are the union of the soul and body and Christ and the church. (1Co 6:15-20; 1Co 7:4-5; Eph 5:28-33.) It matters not what license or privilege may be granted by the laws of the state. “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” God’s laws by virtue of his creating them male and female take precedence over all human laws. The courts of the land dissolve many unions which God still holds as fundamental and abiding; the laws of the land grant divorces for causes which God does not permit. Man’s laws cannot change the mind of God or the fundamental laws of God; hence man’s laws cannot annul the marriage bonds which God has sanctioned. Marriage is a solemn oath of union, in which each party vows fidelity till death parts them.

They say unto him, Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorcement, and put her away?-These shrewd Pharisees saw that they had not entrapped Jesus, but that he had answered their question. Hoping yet to ensnare him, they asked him this question about Moses. A clear and honest desire for truth would have caused them to take another course; it is profitable to note the different ways in which Jesus refutes the cavilling of his enemies, and answers the questions of the simple, earnest seeker of the truth. Moses granted the privilege of giving “a bill of divorcement” when the husband put away his wife. This was a written certificate of her being divorced and the cause of the divorce; this was done so that the woman could be married again, if she so minded. Jesus answered this question by saying, “Moses for your hardness of heart suffered you to put away your wives but from the beginning it bath not been so.” If they thought that they would array Jesus against Moses by their question, they were again mistaken. Jesus came to fulfill the law, and in no instance did he violate the law of Moses. The question of these Pharisees simply meant if God did not intend that divorces be granted as they were practiced then, and even now, “why did Moses command a bill of divorcement to be given?” Jesus reminded them that it was not a “command,” but a sufferance. God saw fit to grant this latitude through Moses to the Jews, but only to allow it. The right and strict law, such as had been in the beginning while Adam and Eve were in the state of innocence, would now be restored in the kingdom which Christ came to establish. The privilege of the law of Moses shows the degeneracy of mankind and that the severest penalities, which human laws can inflict, are necessary to prevent the evils which the wicked passions of men would otherwise produce.

In further teaching this question Jesus said, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery.” Marriage is brought back to its original state and intention, and the sin of adultery is now made evident beyond mistake. Whosoever, then, if married contrary to God’s word, that is, in the forbidden degrees, or has put away one wife, not an adulteress, and married another, or vice versa; or whoever has married the woman proved to have been adulterous, such an one is under the curse of God and is in sin so long as he or she remains in this connection. (1Co 5:5.) All the legislatures, teachings of men, and infidel presses in the world cannot remove the curse; they only number themselves among those who deny the word of God and call evil good and good evil. Jesus here teaches no new laws; he simply declares what has always been the law of God. Unlawful intercourse with any other person permits the innocent party to break the marriage tie; the guilty party has deserted forever the marriage partner; and has become unfit for further association; the guilty party can never again enter a pure and lawful marriage covenant.

10-12 The disciples say unto him, If the case of the man is so with his wife.-It seems that this was made by his disciples after these Pharisees had departed. His disciples thought the bond too strict which was indissoluble. They saw many cases of weak, quarrelsome, barren women, marriage with whom they thought would be too great an evil to endure, and unless such could be put away, then “it is not expedient to marry.” The apostles spoke under the influence of their earlier teachings; they thought it would be better not to marry than to be married and not be able to put away his wife for more causes than that of adultery. Jesus replied to them, “Not all men can receive this saying, but they to whom it is given.” “This saying” is not clear; some say that it refers to what his disciples had just said; others to what Jesus had said in reply to the Pharisees. Jesus must refer to his own saying in answer to the questions which the Pharisees had asked; his answer to the Pharisees constitutes one discourse or “saying.” Not all can receive this teaching; that is, it is not applicable to those exceptions which Jesus mentions. “For there are eunuchs.” “Eunuchs” are those persons who are unable or unwilling to marry. There are three ways in which eunuchs may be made as mentioned by Jesus here. First, those who “were so born from their mother’s womb”; those who were born with some physical defect. Second, those eunuchs “made eunuchs by men.” That is, by a violent and wicked maiming of the body. And third, eunuchs who “made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake”; that is, those who voluntarily subdue the natural inclinations and practice self-denial for the sake of “the kingdom of heaven.” To these classes the teaching of Jesus on the subject of marriage and divorce does not apply; it is applicable to those who are “able to receive it, let him receive it.”

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

The Pharisees approached Him with a question concerning divorce. The force of His reply is in the words “from the beginning.” He had no opinions apart from the will and intention of God. As God willed, so let it be! “Why did Moses then command?” His answer is a contradiction of their main position. “Moses . . . suffered.” He did not command, but because of the people’s hardness of heart he suffered. Marriage, not celibacy, is the law of life, yet the Master recognizes that celibacy will be the condition of some, and does not condemn it when it arises from one of three causes, the necessity of birth, the action of men, the voluntary act for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven. This is a dark saying not intended for all, as the words of Jesus indicate.

It is beautifully fitting that having reiterated the irrevocable divine law relating to marriage, thus emphasizing the value of family life, He should now show His direct and wonderful interest in and tenderness toward children. In this place the word “such” does not primarily refer to the child character, but to children; and so the Master that day claimed all child life as belonging to His Kingdom.

The picture of this young man would be perfect to any but the dear vision of Christ. Yet the words of the Master prove that He saw the imperfections, and, moreover, they suggest that the young man was also conscious of them, “If thou wouldst be perfect.” “Follow Me” is the Master’s supreme word to him. Submit, obey, follow! And then with rare skill the Lord sets His mark on the supremest thing hitherto in the young man’s life, and that which is his greatest hindrance- his wealth. “He went away sorrowful.” Yet “Jesus . . . loved him.”

Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible

E.-19:1-20:34. JOURNEY TO JERUSALEM

19:1-12. From Mar 10:1-16

(E) 1. And it came to pass, when Jesus finished these words.] For the formula, cf. 7:28, 11:1, 13:53, 26:1.

(M) He departed from Galilee, and came into the boundaries of Juda beyond Jordan.] Mar 10:1 has: And He arose thence, and cometh into the boundaries of Juda, and beyond Jordan.-] for Mk.s hist. present, as often. The addition of marks the editors perception of a new stage in Mk.s Gospel.

(M) 2. And there followed Him many multitudes; and He healed them there.] Mk. has: And there journey with Him (?) again multitudes; and as He was wont, He was teaching them.-] Mt., as often, avoids the hist. pres. . He omits Mks Semitic as in 15:21 = Mar 7:24 and 26:60 = Mar 14:57, and omits also, as often, Mk.s .-] The editor substitutes healing for teaching in 14:14 = Mar 6:34, and in 21:14 = Mar 11:18.- .] For the addition of , cf. 4:25, 8:1, 18, 13:2, 15:30.

In Mk. most MSS. have . This is the only occurrence in Mk. of the plural . But D S1 a b c ff 1 i k q have the singular. occurs only here in Mk. D has , cf. Mar 3:20. is awkward, and the reading of D al may be original.

(M) 3. And there came to Him Pharisees, tempting Him, and saying, Is it lawful to put away a wife for every cause?] Mk. has: And Pharisees came and were questioning Him, if it is lawful for a man to put away a wife, tempting Him. At first sight Mt. seems more likely to be original than Mk. The Jews did not question the legality of divorce. That was legalised by Deu 24:1, Deu 24:2. But they debated about the scope and limits of reasons for divorce. Cf. Gittin 90a, where the views of the schools of Hillel and of Shammai are given. The former allowed divorce for trivial offences, the latter only for some unchaste act. But it is clear that Mt. is editing Mk., and that in and () , v. 9, he has inserted into Mk.s narrative matter which is really inconsistent with it. In Mk. the Pharisees first put their leading question, Is it lawful to divorce a wife? They themselves would have no doubt of the legality of this, but they test Christ (, Mar_2), knowing probably from previous utterances of His that He would reply in words which would seem directly to challenge the Mosaic law. Cf. His criticism of the distinction between clean and unclean meats, Mar 7:14-23. Christ answers with the expected reference to the law, What did Moses command? They state the Old Testament law. Moses sanctioned divorce. Christ at once makes His position clear. The law upon this poin was an accommodation to a rude state of society. But a prior and higher law is to be found in the Creation narrative, Male and female He created them, Gen 1:27 LXX., i.e. God created the two sexes that they might be united in the marriage bond, which is, therefore, ideally indissoluble. In answer to a further question of His disciples, the Lord enforces the lesson. A man who puts away his wife and marries another commits adultery. A woman who puts away her husband and marries another commits adultery. Upon this point Christs teaching passes beyond the ordinary conditions of Jewish society. No woman could divorce her husband by Jewish law. But that is no reason why the Lord should not have expressed himself as Mk. records. There were exceptional cases of divorce by women in Palestine. Cf. Salome, Jos. Ant. xv. 259: She sent him (Costobar) a bill of divorce, though this was against the Jewish law (and dissolved her marriage with him). And there is no reason why He may not have been acquainted with the possibility of divorce by women in the West, or why, even if He had not this in view, He may not have emphasised His point by stating the wrongfulness of divorce on either side of the marriage tie. All this is logical and consistent. Compare with it Mt.s account. The Pharisees are represented as inquiring, Is it lawful to put away a wife on any pretext? Christ answers as in Mk., that marriage from an ideal standpoint is indissoluble. The Pharisees appeal to the law against this judgement. In reply we should expect the Lord, as in Mk., to state the accommodating and secondary character of the legal sanction of divorce, and to reaffirm the sanctity of marriage. But instead, He is represented as affirming that constitutes an exception. Thus He tacitly takes sides with the severer school of Jewish interpretation of Deu_24, and acknowledges the permanent validity of that law thus interpreted in a strict sense, which immediately before He had criticised as an accommodation to a rude state of social life. This inconsistency shows that Mk. is here original, and that and () are insertions by the editor of Mt. into Mk.s narrative. The motive of these insertions can only be conjectured. But in view of other features of the Gospel, it is probable that the editor was a Jewish Christian who has here judaised, or rather rabbinised Christs sayings.1 Just as he has so arranged 15:16-20 as to represent Christs attitude to the law to be that of the Rabbinical Jews, who regarded every letter of the law as permanently valid, so here he has so shaped Christs teaching about divorce as to make it consonant with the permanent validity of the Pentateuchal law, and harmonious with the stricter school of Jewish theologians. It is probably to the same strain in the editors character, the same Jewish Christian jealousy for the honour of the law and for the privileges of the Jewish people, that the prominence given to Peter (see on 16:19, p. 180), and the preservation of such sayings as 10:5-6, 23 is due. And to the same source may probably be attributed the judaising of Christs language, in such expressions as the kingdom of the heavens, The Father who is in the heavens.

3. ] See note on 12:10.- ] cf. Jos. Ant. iv. 253: .

(M) 4. And He answered and said, Have ye not read, that the Creator from the beginning made them male and female?] Mk. has: But from the beginning of the creation male and female He made them. is an adaptation to suit the altered order of Mk.s , for which cf. Pesikta R. K. 21 (Wnsche, p. 205): .2 is a quotation from the LXX. of Gen 1:27, Gen 5:2.

(M) 5. And said, For this cause shall a man leave the father and the mother, and shall be joined to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh.] Mk. has no and said, and omits the second clause of the quotation. The editor has inserted to separate the two quotations, and inserts the clause omitted by Mk. The passage comes from the LXX. (the Hebrew has no two) of Gen 2:24, which has after and after . Luc omits the second . So Mk. Mt. omits both.

The idea involved in the verses seems to be that God created a single pair, who were therefore destined for one another. It was also written that a man should forsake his parents and cleave to his wife, and that he and his wife should be one flesh. In other words, married couples were in respect of unity, as the first pair created by God, destined for one another. Divorce, therefore, should be out of the question. This conclusion is expressed in the next verse.

(M) 6. So that they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God joined together, let not man separate.] So Mk. Divorce, therefore, is from an ideal standpoint not to be thought of.

(M) 7. They say to Him, Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce, and put away (a wife)?] In Mk. this clause occurs earlier in the narrative in the form, And he answered and said, What did Moses command you? And they said, Moses allowed us to write a bill of divorce, and to put away (a wife). Mt., as usual, avoids the question in the mouth of the Lord. No Jew would regard Deu 24:1ff. as anything else than a Mosaic command to adopt certain forms in cases of divorce. And yet, as grammatically construed, the passage does not command the giving of a bill of divorce, but assumes that as a matter of practice it will under certain circumstances be given. See Driver, in loc.

8. He saith to them, that Moses for the hardness of your heart allowed you to put away your wives, but from the beginning it hath not been1 so.] That is to say, the toleration of divorce by the law is a departure from the high standard of morality presupposed in the creation of a single pair. Divorce is a bad custom which has grown up amongst a degenerate people, and the Mosaic law tolerated it as an accommodation to a low level of moral custom. Mk. has: And Jesus said, For the hardness of your heart he wrote for you this commandment.

9. Mk. has here: And in the house again, the disciples were asking Him about this. Mt., as elsewhere, omits Mk.s vague references to a house. See on 9:1, 15:15, 21, 17:19.

(M) 9. But I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, save for fornication, and shall marry another, commits adultery.] Mk. has: And He saith to them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and shall marry another, commits adultery against her. And if she who has put away her husband shall marry another, she commits adultery.- ] for Mk.s , to make an antithesis with v. 8, cf. Introduction, p. xxxi. The editor omits the last clause as inconsistent with Jewish custom. See on v. 3. Some of the copyists of Mk. have also found it inconvenient, and modified it so as to get rid of the conception of divorce by a woman. See critical note in Swete. A parallel to this saying has already been recorded in 5:32. See note there.

And he who marries her that is put away, commits adultery.] This clause is not in Mk. If genuine (see below), it may be meant to compensate for the omission of Mar_12.

(E) 10. The disciples say to him, If the reason (of divorce) between a man and his wife be so, it is not convenient to marry.] The editor adds three verses which are not in Mk. Vv. 10, 11 are probably an editorial link to connect 12 with the preceding. refers back to of v. 3. If the cause or reason of divorce between man and wife be so, i.e. if it is to be limited to unchaste acts, it is better not to marry, because marriage with a woman of bad temper or malicious tongue, e.g., is in that case an intolerable burden which cannot be thrown off.

(E) 11. And He said to them, All do not receive this saying, but those to whom it has been given.] That is, what you say about the expediency of abstaining from marriage has some truth in it. But it is not practicable for all men, but only for some for whom providence has so destined it, e.g. physical eunuchs, and those who abstain from marriage in order to obey a religious call. If a man feels himself called to do so, let him. It is clear that if the passage be so interpreted, the disciples instead of receiving an explanation and solution of their difficulty that marriage without facility for divorce would be a burden, receive what amounts to a commendation of abstention from marriage for the kingdoms sake. In other words, whilst vv. 1-9 are calculated to heighten the conception of marriage, vv. 10-12 are clearly intended to increase respect for those who renounce marriage. This can hardly be an original connection. V. 12 is probably added here by the editor simply because it is concerned in a negative way with the subject of marriage, which has been the subject of vv. 1-9.

If v. 11 be a historical saying of Christ, it looks very much as though it were originally connected with the exposition of Christs about divorce as given in Mk., and not with this teaching as modified by Mt. For the saying of the disciples, that if Christs exposition of the question of divorce were to hold good, marriage would be a burden better left alone, seems to arise naturally enough from the strict teaching that divorce is not permissible, whilst it is very unexpected in the mouths of Christs disciples as a protest against the doctrine that divorce should be limited to cases of adultery. Could not Christs disciples endure what the disciples of Shammai submitted to?

It might be possible to interpret the passage in a different direction by referring not to the question of the disciples, but to the statement by the Lord of the indissoluble character of the marriage bond, vv. 1-9. Not all can receive this estimation in their understanding and carry it into practice in their life, but those to whom it has been given by the divine grace. But these can receive it; for just as there are physical eunuchs, so there are spiritual eunuchs, who, knowing marriage to be a sacred and indissoluble bond, abstain from it for the purpose of dedicating their lives to the kingdom. But the logical consequence of not all receive this saying (vv. 1-9) but those to whom it has been given, is not for there are some who abstain from marriage, but for there are some who recognise the sacred nature of the bond, and live married lives without recourse to divorce. The whole section in Mt. suffers from inconsistency of thought due to literary revision and compilation. () is inconsistent with v. 6, and whilst this verse, and the whole paragraph, 1-9, exalts marriage as an institution of the Creator; v. 12, without depreciating it, emphasises the duty of renouncing it under certain circumstances.-] to contain, then of the mind to contain, receive, hold: the saying is too sweeping to be universally received and practised.- ] (see above) either the dictum that it is better not to marry, or less probably the exposition of Christ that marriage is a permanent bond, and should be unbroken by divorce, vv. 4-8.- ] See on 13:11. are those who have received spiritual insight, which enables them to receive and practise the high standard involved in this saying.

(L) 12. For there are eunuchs who were born so from their mothers womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of the heavens. He who can receive it, let him receive it.] The verse explains what is meant by . Some there are to whom the spiritual capacity to recognise the truth of this saying and to practise it has been given. For just as there are physical eunuchs, i.e. men for whom natural infirmity or the cruelty of men has made marriage impossible, so that for them the saying better not to marry is a necessary truism; so there are some who have made themselves spiritual eunuchs, i.e. have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom, i.e. because the calls of religious duty have made marriage inexpedient. To such as these spiritual insight has been given which enables them to realise that it is better not to marry. For renunciation of earthly blessings for the sake of the kingdom, cf. vv. 28, 29. The Lord may have had in mind such instances of the renunciation of marriage as the Essenes, or John the Baptist, or some among His disciples.

3. ] The words are omitted from Mk. by D S1 a b k. If they are not genuine there, Mt. has inserted them. For his partiality for , see on 4:3; and for the insertion of the Pharisees, cf. 22:34, 41, and Introduction, p. lxxviii.

4. ] So B 1 22 33 124. is probably a reminiscence of Mar 10:6, and is probably genuine.- ] of C D Z al S1 S2 latt., though strongly attested, is probably an assimilation to the following , and to the LXX. of Gen 1:27. S1 S2 have: Have ye not read that He that made the male from the beginning, the female also made? This is not the original text (Merx), but a clumsy translation which necessitates the omission of at the end of the clause.- ] is taken by the editor from Mk. If he had wished to suggest the complete equality of the sexes by omitting , he would also have changed the order of the words to make this clear. is added by Mt. to separate the two quotations. It is omitted by S1, but after the change of Mk.s into it suitably introduces the following quotation as a direct command of the Creator expressed in the words of Scripture. S1 ff omit .

7. ] S1 S2 introduce a subject that he that would dismiss his wife should give, etc.

9. The passage in Mk. runs: . This has given trouble to the Syriac and Latin translators, who substitute desertion for divorce in the second clause. So S1, who also transposes the clauses: That woman which leaveth her husband and becometh the wife of another doth indeed commit adultery, and that man which leaveth his wife and taketh another doth indeed commit adultery (Burkitt). D has , and so in substance d a b c ff2 Wellh. Mt. inserts () after , and omits the harsh . He also omits the whole of the second clause.

B D S2 133 latt. assimilate to 5:32 by substituting for () . B C* N further assimilate to 5:32 by substituting for .1 B N also omit for the same reason. S2 adds against against her, to assimilate to Mk.

] is omitted by C3 D L S S1 S2 a b e ff1 g1 h. It seems to be a further assimilation to 5:32.

13-22. From Mar 10:13-22.

(M) 13. Then were there brought children to Him, in order that He night place His hands upon them, and pray; and the disciples rebuked them.] Mk. has: And they were bringing children to Him, in order that He might touch them; and the disciples were rebuking them.-] see on 2:7.-] Mk. has . Mt. substitutes aor. for imperf., as often. For Mt.s preference for passive verbs, see on 4:1; and cf. , 14:11, for Mar 6:28.- ] Mk. has simply . Mt.s words are an editorial explanation.-] aor. for Mk.s imperf. (A D al latt. (so also Lk. B al), but B ), as often.

(M) 14. And Jesus said, Allow the children, and forbid them not, to come to Me: for of such is the kingdom of the heavens.] Mk. has: And Jesus saw and was vexed, and said to them, Allow the children to come to Me; do not forbid them: for of such is the kingdom of God. It is usual with Mt. to omit verbs like as applied to Christ; see on 8:3 and 15:29, and Introduction, p. xxxi.- ] Mk. rather frequently in the latter part of his Gospel has no connecting link between sayings. Mt. generally supplies a particle. Lk. also has here.- ] i.e. many qualities characteristic of childhood are necessary to admit people into the kingdom. See on 18:3-5.

(M) 15. Mt. here omits Mk v. 15. He has anticipated it in 18:3-4: And having laid His hands upon them, He departed thence.] Mk. has: And having taken them in His arms, He was blessing them, having laid His hands upon them. And as He was going forth to travel ( ). Mt. omits Mk.s , as in 18:2.

16. The connection of sections in Mar_10 is probably purely topical. The relation of Christianity to the marriage question (1-12) suggested the incident of the children (13-16) and the relation of Christianity to wealth (17-27) followed naturally enough. Mt. simply follows Mk.s guidance.

(M) And, behold, one came to Him, and said, Teacher, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?] Mk. has: And as He was going forth into the way, there ran one, and, kneeling down before Him, was asking Him, Good Teacher, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?- ] for Mk.s . For , see on 1:20.- ] abbreviates Mk.s . For , see on 4:3.-] Mt., in view of his modification of the next verse of Mk., transposes good from Teacher to what..- ] For eternal life, see Dalm. Words, p. 156; Volz, Jd. Eschat. p. 368. Mk. has . Inheritance is a common Jewish metaphor, to express participation in the blessings of the future; cf. Dalm. Words, 125 ff.; Volz, Jd. Eschat. p. 306.

(M) 17. And He said to him, Why askest thou Me about the good? One is the good. But if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.] Mk. has: And Jesus said to him, Why callest thou Me good? No one is good save one, God. Thou knowest the commandments. Mt.s changes are probably intentional, to avoid the rejection by Christ of the title good, and the apparent distinction made between Himself and God. In Mk. the meaning seems to be, Why go out of your way to call one whom you regard as a human Teacher good? Goodness is a quality of character, and belongs in any full sense to God alone. But Gods goodness is revealed in His commandments, and inheritance of eternal life depends upon keeping them. Thus the words begin as a rebuke for the thoughtless use of the epithet good, and end as an answer to the question, What shall I do, etc. Mt., by placing good in the main question, is obliged to treat all that follows as a direct answer to the question. The sequence of thought seems to be, Why askest thou Me about the good? One is good, i.e. the good is not an independent and limited quantity in life which can be ascertained and done. It is an attribute of character, and that the divine character. But the goodness of the divine nature is revealed in His commandments. In order to make clear this last thought, which is already implied in Mk., the editor substitutes But if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments, for Mk.s thou knowest the commandments.

For , cf. 23:3 keep, i.e. a continual process, not a single act which can be begun and ended ( ), as a necessary preliminary to entry into life.

(M) 18. He saith to Him, Of what sort? And Jesus said, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour father and mother; and, Thou shall love thy neighbour as thyself.] Mk. has: Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud. Mt. takes a severer view of the character of the questioner than Mk. By representing him as asking, What good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life? he makes the question more unintelligent than it is in Mk. Here, by inserting -, he emphasises the mans obtuseness. In v. 20, by putting into his mouth, What lack I yet? he attributes to him selfsufficiency. And he omits altogether Mk v. 21a. Compare the treatment in Mat 22:34-40 of the questioner described in Mar 12:28-34. may mean, What sort of commandment? cf. 22:36. Or may be hardly distinguishable from . Which commandments? cf. Blass, p. 176; Win.-Schm. p. 241. See on 24:42.- , …] Mk. has , … After , Mk. has (so A B2 C D latt.). This may be a reminiscence of Exo 21:10, or Deu 24:14 (LXX. A F), or Ecclus 4:1. Mt. omits it (if it was in his text of Mk., but B S1 omit there), and substitutes after honour father and mother, thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. This comes from Lev 19:18, and occurs again in 22:39 = Mar 12:31 = Luk 10:27, whence it is here taken. The first four clauses come from Exo 20:13-16 or Deu 5:17-20. In Mk. the order . . is attested by A N X al latt., but . . in a B C al S1. Mt. has this latter order, which is that of the Massoretic Text of Ex. and Dt., and of the LXX. A F. In. Ex. B has . . ., and in Dt. . . . Thus Mk. (a B C al S1) and Mt. agree in order with the Heb. (M.T.) and the LXX. (A F Luc.). The other order, . . ., represented by Mk. (A N X al latt.), Luk 18:20, LXX. (B in Dt.), Philo, is now supported by the Hebrew Papyrus published in the Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archlogy, xxv. Pt. 1. pp. 34-56. Mk. has the conjunctive for the indicative of the LXX. Mt. assimilates to the LXX.

(M) 19. ] Mk. has after , and in Ex. LXX. B omits the second . Mt. ( B C* D al) omits the pronoun altogether as in 15:4. It is twice inserted by S1 S2 and some old latt., but can hardly be genuine. This is surprising, since the tendency in Mt. is to assimilate Mk.s quotations to LXX. not to deviate from it.

(M) 20. The young man saith to Him, All these things I observed: what lack I yet?] Mk. has: And he said, Teacher, all these things I observed from my youth.- ] Mt. has formed a nominative for the verb out of Mk.s , which he omits. He also omits Mk.s , and has for .1 The former is the New Testament form elsewhere; cf. Luk 11:28, Luk 18:21, Joh 12:47, Act 7:53, Act 16:4, Act 21:24, Rom 2:26, Gal 6:13, 1Ti 5:21, 1Ti 5:6:20, 2Ti 1:12, 2Ti 1:14.- ] is formed out of Mk.s in the next verse. See on v. 16.

(M) 21. Jesus said to him, If thou wishest to be perfect, go sell thy possessions, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come follow Me.] Mk. has: And Jesus looking on him loved him, and said to him, One thing is lacking to thee: go sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come follow Me. Mt. omits the first clause, in accordance with his tendency to drop out clauses which attribute emotion to the Lord; cf. on 8:3, and Introduction, p. xxxi. Moreover, the questioner, as described by Mt., with his obtuse self-complacency, was not lovable. Mt. substitutes: But if thou wilt be perfect. What could be said to a man of this sort, one who conceived of eternal life as something to be acquired by merit, as a day labourer earns a wage; one who regarded goodness as a definite and ascertainable quantity which could be worked off; one who so misunderstood the commandments, and so deceived himself as to suppose that he had kept them; one who could ask the question, What do I yet lack? If thou wilt be perfect, says the Lord. The words are, of course, a descent to the level of the questioner. He thought of perfection as attainable by works, and the Lord took him at his own estimation, and proposed to him a task which would not lead him to perfection, but which would do one of two things. If he obeyed, he might learn in the service of Christ something of the spirit of the gospel, which sets before men the ideal of the divine perfection, 5:48, and which can never conceive of perfection as a goal reached; cf. Luk 17:10. If he found the task too hard for him, he would have learned to be less confident of his own capacity to do the one thing needful for inheritance of eternal life.

For cf. 5:48.- ] for Mk.s . occurs in 24:47, 25:14, never 1n Mk., but often in Lk.

(M) 22. And the young man when he heard this saying went away grieved: for he had great possessions.] Mk. has: But his countenance fell at the saying, and he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions. Mt. omits Mk.s strong word , with its implication of unwillingness to obey Christs command, just as he omits Mar 1:45 with its direct disobedience of Christs word.

16-22. The section with its striking deviations from Mk. is most easily explained as being derived from the second Gospel. The alteration in v. 17 seems clearly secondary as compared with Mk. On the other hand, the insertions in vv. 17, 19, 21, and the double historic present vv. 18, 20, might seem to point to another source, but are insufficient as a proof of such a source.

Lk. has some points of agreement with Mt. against Mk Both have (Lk. A B L) for , both have for , both omit and substitute , both omit , and both omit . These agreements are not sufficient to make a second source necessary.

16. ] C E al S1 S2 latt. add , assimilating to Mar 10:17.- ] is omitted by S1 S2 ff2 238 248 for the same reason.

17. ] So B D L S1 S2 latt. C E al assimilate to Mk.

] B D L 1 22 S1 a; and with b c ff1 2 S2. C E al assimilate to Mk.

In these verses Mt.s omission of after , his insertion of after , his change of Mk.s into , and his change of into , seem clearly due to a desire to warn readers of Mk. that the Lord did not refuse, as applied to Himself, a title which He admitted as applicable to God, and did not draw a sharp distinction between Himself and God. That these changes are due to Mt. himself rather than to the copyists of his Gospel, is suggested by the changes made by Mt. in the text of Mk., which are collected on pp. xxxi, xxxii of the Introduction.

The later copyists of the Gospel have assimilated the passage to the text of Mk.

20. ] c b C D al S1 S2 a b c e ff2 h q add from Mk.- ] Om. S1.

21. ] B C D. But E F have as in 6:20. S2 adds, and take thy Cross. The words are added in Mk. by A N X al a q S1.

23-30. = Mar 10:23-31.

(M) 23. And Jesus said to His disciples, Verily I say to you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of the heavens. And again I say to you.] Mk. has: And Jesus looking round saith to His disciples, How hardly shall they who have riches enter into the kingdom of God. And the disciples were amazed at His words. And Jesus again answering saith to them, Children, how hard it is to enter into the kingdom of God. Mt. by abbreviating avoids the redundancy of Mk., cf. Introduction, p. xxiv; and also the amazement of the disciples, cf. Introduction, p. xxxiv. is a reminiscence of the clauses omitted from Mk.

] is an uncommon word. occurs in Job 34:30; , Jer 49:8, Eze 2:6 (Th.); Ditt. Syll. 213. 33, , and in Galen, Arist., Plato, Xenophon, and other writers.

(M) 24. It is easier for a camel to enter through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man into the kingdom of the heavens.] Mk. has: It is easier for a camel to pass through the hole of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.-] see on 9:5.-] for Mk.s late and rare .-] Mt. avoids the duplication of the verb , ] in Mk.-] add to the examples in Lexicons, Ox. Pap. iv. 736, 75, (a.d. 1).

(M) 25. And the disciples when they heard it, were very astonished, saying, Who then can be saved?] Mk. has: And they were exceedingly astonished, saying to Him, And who can be saved? Mt. inserts and , substitutes his favourite for Mk.s stronger , omits , and substitutes for . For , cf. 18:1, 19:25, 24:45, Mar 4:41. For Mk.s see Abbott, Johannine Grammar, 2366e.

(M) 26. And Jesus looking upon (them) said to them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.] Mk. has: Jesus looked upon them and saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God. For all things are possible with God. Mt. inserts a conjunction, and substitutes a past tense for , as often. He omits the redundant : cf. Introduction, p. xxiv.

(M) 27. Then Peter answered and said to Him, Behold, we have left all things, and followed Thee; what then shall we have?] Mk. has Peter began to say to Him, Behold, we have left all things, and followed Thee.-] Mt. avoids Mk.s abruptness and his . His insertion of seems intended to relieve the ambiguity of S. Peters statement as recorded in Mk., where Behold we, etc., is a half-interrogative statement evidently intended to provoke comment. We have done what the young man could not bring himself to do (v. 22). What reward in heaven shall we have?

(M) 28. And Jesus said to them, Verily I say to you, That.] Mk. has: Jesus said, Verily I say to you. Mt. avoids Mk.s abruptness. Mt. here inserts the following:

(L) Ye who have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man shall sit on the throne of His glory, ye also shall sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.] Lk. has somewhat similar words in 22:28-30.-] After the advent of the Messiah the Jews expected the creation of a new heaven and new earth. Cf. Isa 65:17, Isa 66:22, Deu 32:12 (Onq.), Apoc. Bar 32:6 the mighty One will renew His creation; 44:12 the new world, cf. Charles note on 32:6. is used by Philo, Vita Mos. ii. 12, of the renewal of the world after the Flood, and de Mund. xv. of the restoration of the world after being burned. There seems to be no exact Aramaic equivalent. According to Dalman, Words, p. 177, new world would be the nearest.- , …] cf. Enoch 62:5 Pain will seize them when they see that Son of Man sit on the throne of His glory; and see on 16:27.- ] i.e. those to whom they had preached the gospel; cf. 10:6, 23.

(M) 29. And every one who hath left houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or children, or lands, for My names sake, shall receive a hundredfold, and shall inherit eternal life.] Mk. has There is no one who hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or children, or lands, for My sake, and for the gospels sake, but he shall receive an hundredfold now in this present time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the coming age eternal life. Mt. avoids Mk.s harsh construction, – . In Mk v. 30 the thought is of the many advantages of incorporation into the Christian society. In it the convert should find fresh ties and new interests more satisfying than those from which he had cut himself adrift; cf. 1Co 3:21. But in Mt.s connection, after the insertion of v. 28, the whole emphasis is on the future reward in the . This is why Mt. omits Mk.s -, for which his is a sort of substitute. The Apostles should sit on thrones; but even the humblest disciple should receive a manifold compensation, and inherit an estate greater than any which he had abandoned, namely, life everlasting.

(M) 30. But many first shall be last; and last first.] The connection of this clause with the preceding is obscure both in Mt. and in Mk. It would seem that the must refer to Christian disciples. All will inherit life everlasting, but many who are now first shall then be last. It seems best (with Swete) to understand the words as a rebuke to the self-complacent spirit implied in S. Peters words: It may be difficult for the rich to enter into the Kingdom, but we who have left all are in no danger of exclusion. Christs words are a warrant for this confidence, and at the same time a rebuke and a warning. The ambiguity lies in the first and last. Does He mean Many who first became My disciples will find greater difficulty of entry than many who followed Me at a later period? Or is the used of rank rather than of time: Many who now seem to hold a position of privilege will then find themselves in the lowest place? Lk. (13:30) has similar words in a different connection, and the saying occurs in the New Sayings of Jesus from Oxyrhynchus, ll. 25-27 in a doubtful context.

23-30. Mt. and Lk. in this section have a number of small points of agreement against Mk.

E.g.: Mat_23 = Luk 18:24 -. Both omit Mk v. 24; but Mt. has a trace of it in . Mat_24 = Lk 25 . Mat_25 = Lk 26 . Mat_26 = Lk 27 , and the omission of . Mat_27 = Lk 28 , . Mat_28= Lk 29 -. Mt 29, Lk 30 (Mt. B L).

24. ] Z curss a b c e S1 S2 have . We should certainly expect the latter, but, in editing Mk., Mt. does not seem to have carried out his modifications with absolute uniformity, and he may have left here. If so, it was inevitable that it should be altered into . But in view of the facts given in Introduction, p. lxvii, it must remain probable that is original here, and that it has been changed into to assimilate to Mk.

] * B, but c D L X al, .

29. ] C K al S2 add , which occurs in Luk 18:29. It is omitted here by B D 1 S1 a b e ff 12. It is unnatural here after the express prohibition of divorce in vv. 1-9.

] So C D X S1 S2. as in Lk. is read by B L.

E editorial passages.

M the Second Gospel.

S Syriac version: Sinaitic MS.

al i.e. with other uncial MSS.

LXX. The Septuagint Version.

1 See also p. 167, note 1

Jos. Josephus.

2 Cf. also Ass. Mos. 1:17, 12:4 ab initio creatur orbis terrarum.

1 . For the perfect cf. 21:21, Dan 12:1 Th. It seems to mean Moses indeed tolerated divorce; but from the creation onwards it was not and never has been the Divine intention. Behind the Mosaic toleration lay always the ideal implied in Gen 1:27, Gen 5:2.

L the Matthan Logia.

S Syriac version: Curetonian.

latt. Manuscripts of the Old Latin Version.

Wellh. Wellhausen.

1 It would be natural to suppose that is original here, if it were not that we should then have to explain why () has been substituted here only, and not in 5:32. The two phrases ma be alternative renderings by the editor of the of the school of Shammai. See on 5:32.

Dalm. Dalman.

Win.-Schm. Winer-Schmiedel.

X passages in which Mt. and Lk. agree closely, borrowed from an unknown source or sources.

Luc. Lucian.

1 Weiss renders this in Mk. From all these I guarded myself. See Meyers Comm. 6th ed. in loc., and cf. Act 21:25, 2Ti 4:15.

Th. Theodotion.

Ditt. Dittenberger Sylloge.

Arist. Aristotle.

Ox. Pap. Oxyrhynchus Papyri.

Onq. The Targum of Onkelos.

Fuente: International Critical Commentary New Testament

Jesus View of Marriage

Mat 19:1-12

Divorce was common among the Jews of that decadent age, being justified by Deu 24:1. Concerning this it should be remembered that this legislation, though in advance of the standards of its age, was a distinct concession to the state of morality which had then been reached. You can legislate only slightly ahead of the general maxims and practices of the people, else you discourage them and bring your laws into disuse.

The Lord takes us back to the original constitution of the family, where the one man was for the one woman. The only act that justifies divorce is the act which violates the marriage vow. Some are debarred from marriage by circumstances, but for such there is provided special grace, if they will seek it. Some refuse marriage in order to be more free for their life-work. Christ does not set these above others. He does not put special honor on celibacy: but in Mat 19:13-14 places special emphasis on the beauty of family life.

Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary

Having broken with Israel after the flesh for the time being, during which period the kingdom predicted by the prophets is in abeyance, Jesus proceeded to speak with authority concerning matters which would require definite information for the guidance of His followers during the intervening years while the mysteries of the kingdom were being unfolded.

Leaving Galilee, He proceeded toward Jerusalem, going down through Perea on the east of the Jordan.

And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these sayings, he departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judea beyond Jordan; and great multitudes followed him; and he healed them there, (vv. 1-2)

By the expression the coasts of Judea we are to understand the land bordering on Judea. As He moved majestically on toward His death, He continued to exercise His grace and power toward all who came to Him for physical healing, thus demonstrating the fact that He was in very truth the Anointed of Jehovah (Act 10:38), although unrecognized by the religious leaders and the rulers of the nation.

Some of these proud, haughty Pharisees came to Him and raised a question in regard to divorce, which gave Him opportunity to make clear the new order that was to prevail among those who should be subject to His authority in the days to come.

The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. (vv. 3-12)

The question asked by the Pharisees was designed, evidently, to put Jesus in opposition to the law of Moses; but in answering them He went back of the Sinaitic or Levitical enactments to the original institution of marriage, which was to be the rule for His disciples in the future.

The Pharisees asked, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? So lax were the teachings of some of the more liberal rabbis that a man could disown and divorce his wife upon the slightest pretext. Jesus referred them to what was written in Gen 2:24: He made them at the beginning male and female. This is the divine ideal: one man for one woman in the sacred relationship of marriage. The entire human race sprang from the first pair thus created by God, typifying, as the marriage ceremony so aptly puts it, the mystical union that exists between Christ and His church (Eph 5:31-32).

They twain shall be one flesh. Observe, it is not they three, or five, or any other number, but simply they twain. Anything other than this is a perversion opposed to the original intent of the Creator.

What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. Thus, at the very dawn of human (and family) history, we have the inviolability of the marriage contract revealed, as according to the will of God. He who breaks this union disobeys the Word of the Lord.

Naturally, His opponents asked, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? Jesus explained that this was a temporary provision which Moses was authorized to allow because of the callousness of mens hearts. It was to protect the woman from the hardship of endeavoring to carry on in a home where she was unloved and unwanted and might be subjected to cruel treatment. Far better to send her back to the home of her parents than to make of her a slave to the capriciousness of an unkind husband.

But now that Israels destined King and Redeemer had come, He declared that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication (or unchastity), and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. In these words Jesus affirmed the sacredness of the marriage relationship. It is intended by God to be a union for life. The subject believer will never break it. If one violates the tie by unchaste behavior-that is, by illicit relations with a third party-the innocent one is free to divorce the unfaithful one and to marry someone else.

Many have questioned this interpretation of our Lords words, but they admit of no other meaning. To say, as some have done, that the Lord was referring to fornication committed before wedlock (as in Deu 22:13-14; Deu 22:20-21), and that it has no reference to such sin committed after marriage, would be to put a premium on marital unfaithfulness, as though it were less evil than the same kind of iniquity committed by those not yet married. To support this theory it has been affirmed that the word fornication refers only to sexual impurity on the part of single people. But 1 Corinthians 5 negatives this. The incestuous man there was living with his stepmother, and he is charged with fornication.

While therefore affirming the high and holy character of marriage according to Gods Word, Jesus does not put on the innocent divorced party the burden of going through life alone because of the unfaithfulness of a wicked partner.

Another explanation has been put forth in order to nullify the very clear teaching given by Jesus as to this: namely, that He spoke as under the Law, and that therefore the exception here mentioned does not apply in this dispensation of grace. Those who hold to this view forget that while Jesus came under the Law, the law and the prophets were until John. The preliminary teaching of the new dispensation was given by Jesus, for grace and truth came by [Him] (Joh 1:17).

He was laying down the principles in regard to marriage and divorce which were to prevail from that day on. This perplexed and troubled the disciples, who said that if these things were so it would perhaps be best not to marry at all, as it seemed to put such heavy restrictions on the natural propensities of human nature.

The Lord acknowledged that all men cannot receive this saying, but it is for them to whom it is given-that is, to those who are ready to be submissive to the will of God, recognizing the sacredness of the marriage relationship, or for others who, as Paul said in a later day, had such self-control that they could keep themselves pure though unmarried. Such were as eunuchs for the kingdom of heavens sake. But Jesus would put no one under bondage as to this. It was for him who was able to receive it.

It is well to remember that the real object of marriage is to bring forth children, and so to establish a godly home which is a marvelous testimony for Christ in the midst of a corrupt world. Home to millions is one of the sweetest words in the English language. What memories it evokes! What stirring of the hearts and what thanksgiving to God are aroused as we recall the joyous home circle and dwell upon the impressions made there upon our young minds. For, though we may have wandered far since, home is still the most sacred place we have known on earth. Yet vast numbers of people have never known its mystic spell. And in many languages of earth there is no word that is the exact equivalent of our word home. Few pagan tribes have any synonym for it. They speak of a house, a dwelling-place, or a shelter; but to them home, as we understand it, is something of which they know nothing. Yet God setteth the solitary in families (Psa 68:6), and established homes for mankind long before the rise of governments and before the church was brought into existence.

It takes more than four walls and comfortable furniture to make a home. Home, in the truest sense, is where love rules. The ideal home of Scripture is an abode, whether it be a pilgrims tent or a grand mansion, where the family dwell together in love and harmony, each delighting in the company of the others, and all seeking the good of the whole. Such homes were found in Israel when all the rest of the world was steeped in idolatry and where fear ruled instead of love. Christ lifted home life onto an even higher plane, making it a place of deepest spiritual fellowship as well as tender love. The Christian home is a scene where father, mother, and children enjoy together a sense of the divine favor and protection, and where the whole family honors Christ as Savior and Lord. From such a home the voice of prayer and praise will rise up as a continual sacrifice day by day.

The loosening of the marriage tie and the lowering of the home ideals are perhaps the two greatest evils of our times. Divorces are increasing at an alarming rate as people come more and more to disregard the teaching of Scripture as to the sacred character of marriage, and to give free rein to inordinate affections and selfish desires. The children are the worst sufferers in the breaking up of the home. We are sowing the wind as a nation, and we are destined to reap the whirlwind unless we turn to God in repentance and seek to walk in humble obedience to His Word.

At the rate in which divorces are increasing in this and other lands, family life will soon be a thing of the past in the majority of cases, as far as the unsaved are concerned. The children of God should avoid any complicity in this evil thing by implicit obedience to the teaching of our Lord in regard to the intended permanence of the marriage relationship.

After this somewhat lengthy digression, we must pass on to consider the next incident, which follows in beautiful moral order-the bringing of the children to Jesus for His blessing.

Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven. And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence, (vv. 13-15)

It betokened real faith in the grace and power of the Lord when the parents brought their little ones to Him, beseeching Him to lay His holy hands upon them and to bestow a blessing upon them. To the disciples this seemed an unnecessary intrusion upon the time and consideration of their Master, and they attempted to restrain those who thus came desiring Him to take such kindly notice of their offspring.

Jesus interfered immediately, however, and encouraged the parents by saying, Suffer [or permit] little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven. He had shown and declared earlier that, because of their simple faith, children are the ideal subjects of the kingdom. Here He reaffirms this, and by these words gives encouragement to all parents everywhere who believe in Him to bring their little ones to Him, confident that His blessing will be upon them as parents endeavor to bring the children up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.

After laying His hands upon them, Jesus left that place to go on toward Jerusalem where He was to lay down His life as a sacrifice for sin.

In order to understand the next incident aright, we need to distinguish carefully between salvation and discipleship. Gods salvation is absolutely free. It is offered to men on the principle of pure, unmerited grace. But discipleship is on quite another basis. It literally costs all that one has-the loss of all things (Php 3:7-8; Luk 14:33). No one can be a true follower of Christ who does not take up his cross-that which speaks of death to the flesh-and follow the Lord Jesus in His path of rejection by the world and devotion to the Fathers will.

It is a poor thing when Christ has merely the first place in ones life. He is intensely exclusive, and asks that we give Him full control of our entire being. No one, however closely related, is to be permitted to come between us and allegiance to Him (Luk 14:26-27). So fervent should be our love for Christ that our affection for our dearest friends or relatives will seem as hatred in comparison, if they would seek to turn us aside from the path of devotion to Him.

To the flesh, this may seem to be a hard and almost unkind demand, but the truly surrendered soul finds a deeper joy in thus yielding all to Him who has bought us with His blood, than in living to please ones self. Many have resisted for years the call to such a life of wholehearted allegiance, only to learn at last that they have lost out immeasurably by refusing to own the claims of the Lord Jesus to the exclusion of all else.

To take up the cross and follow Him in His path of rejection by the world may appear to involve sacrifices too great for flesh and blood to endure, but when the surrender is made and the cross accepted, we find, as the saintly Rutherford expressed it, that that cross is a burden such as fins are to a fish, or wings to a bird.

And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shall do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shall have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful; for he had great possessions. Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved? But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible, (vv. 16-26)

Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? The question involves ones ability to earn eternal life by doing. This young man had not yet learned his own utter sinfulness and absolute helplessness.

There is none good but one, that is, God. In addressing Jesus Christ as Good Master, the young man evidently meant to do Him honor, but Jesus points out the fact that only God is good. All men are sinners (Rom 3:12). Therefore, if Jesus were only a man, He would not be good, in this absolute sense. If truly good, then He is God. After this solemn declaration, the Lord Jesus took the inquirer up on his own ground. The Law promised life to those who kept it (Lev 18:5; Gal 3:12). So the Lord answered, If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. This declaration was designed to show the man his inability to obtain life on that ground, for if conscience were active, he would realize he had violated already the law.

He saith unto him, Which? This was clearly an attempt to evade the full force of the Lords words. In reply, Jesus quoted five of the principal commandments and concluded by summing up all of those that refer to our duties to our fellow men by quoting from Lev 19:18, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. It would indicate an unawakened condition of soul if one could face all these and plead not guilty.

If men would seek to gain eternal life by doing good, the Law challenges them to perfect obedience. Because all have sinned, it is not possible for anyone to be justified by the deeds of the Law. The Law speaks with awful force to an awakened conscience, giving one to realize the hopelessness of ever obtaining eternal life by human merit.

All these have I kept from my youth up. No doubt these words came from a sincere heart, but they give evidence of lack of real exercise of conscience. Who, knowing himself, could so speak? Outwardly, the life may have been blameless, but if conscience had been active there would have been confession of sin. It was the smug self-righteousness of one who prided himself on his own morality and did not realize the corruption of his heart. The question What lack I yet? in itself indicates how complacent he was-how self-satisfied.

If thou wilt be perfect, sell and give and follow me. Jesus so spoke in order to jar him from his ill-founded confidence. How could anyone, who was content to be wealthy, profess to love his neighbor as himself while needy, poverty-stricken people were suffering on every hand. To become a disciple of Christ-to live for others-and thus to lay up treasure in heaven had no attraction for this one who talked so glibly of complete obedience to Gods commandments from his youth up.

In calling upon the rich inquirer to sell all he had and give to the poor in order that he might have treasure in heaven, our Lord was seeking to make manifest both the deceitfulness and selfishness of the human heart. The challenge to forsake all and follow Christ was a call to yield wholly to His authority, thus to become a disciple in deed and in truth.

He went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions. It has been well called The Great Refusal. Whatever admiration this man had for the Lord Jesus Christ, whatever inward yearning there was after the spiritual life, all were weaker than his love for his wealth and the place it gave him in the social circles of his day. His great possessions stood between him and the salvation of his soul. They meant more to him than the knowledge of life eternal.

A rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. As we have seen already, the kingdom of heaven is not heaven itself. It rather implies the recognition of and subjection to heavens authority while here on earth. It is hard for those to whom God has entrusted great wealth to hold everything they possess as a stewardship, which they are responsible to use for His glory. It was not merely the salvation of this young mans soul that was at stake; Christ was pointing the way to true discipleship.

His disciples were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved? They naturally thought it would be easier for those in comfortable circumstances to follow Jesus than for the poor and needy, but throughout the history of Christianity k has often been the poor of this world who have been richest in faith.

With God all things are possible. It is only the omnipotent power of God that leads any man, be he rich or poor, to trust in Christ as Savior and yield obedience to Him as Lord. Every conversion and every consecrated life is a miracle of grace. Whether men be wealthy, poverty-stricken, or among the fairly comfortable middle classes, as it were, it is only when they have been convicted of their lost condition by the Holy Spirit that they ever turn to Christ for deliverance. In Him all class distinctions vanish and all stand on one common ground before God.

Just what it was that led the rich young man to talk with the Lord Jesus we are not told. He may have felt within his soul that here was One who spoke with all authority and had therefore the title to claim submission to His words. But he evidently had no sense of his own need as a sinner. He thought of Jesus as a teacher, not as a Savior. So he was not ready to put Christ first in his life, and, like many thousands since who were somewhat attracted to the Lord Jesus, he went pensively away when he learned the conditions of discipleship.

The right use of wealth. It is not sinful to be rich. It is sinful to make riches the ground of overconfidence, and to enjoy the comforts that wealth can give while forgetting the sufferings of the poor and needy. When God commits wealth to any man it is as a stewardship entrusted to him to be administered for the glory of Him who gave it. It is the love of money, not money itself, that is evil (1Ti 6:10). Money may become the means of untold blessing if used in subjection to Christ (1Ti 6:17-19).

The disciples had been silent onlookers and listeners during this colloquy between their Lord and the rich young ruler. But now that the young man had turned away to go on in his selfish course, Peter spoke up on behalf of them all and expressed the concern upon their hearts as to what the final result would be of their own renunciations for Christs names sake.

Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore? And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my names sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life. But many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first, (vv. 27-30)

We have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore? It seemed to be a natural question, and in one sense it was. In the eyes of the world, they had forfeited all hope of riches or advancement. They had risked everything on the belief that Jesus was the promised Messiah. Yet He had spoken darkly of rejection, suffering, and death. For what were they to look in the days to come?

In reply, Jesus assured them that when the kingdom was fully displayed, in the days of earths regeneration, or new birth, they who had been identified with Him in His rejection would be honored and recognized in a very signal manner: it was to be given to them to sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. In saying this, He did not overlook the predicted apostasy of Judas, but it had been arranged in the counsels of God that Matthias was to take his place. Pauls apostleship later was of an altogether different order. He was not numbered with the Twelve, but was the chosen instrument to make known the mystery of the body of Christ in which no distinction is made between Jew and Gentile, as he tells us in Ephesians 3.

But not only were the Twelve sure of reward, but also Jesus declared that, every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or lands, for my names sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life. No one ever lost out by excessive devotion to Christ. Whatever has to be renounced for his names sake will be repaid abundantly, both in this life and in the next. Many there will be who profess such renunciation of worldly profit for His sake who will, like Demas, fail of reward because of unfaithfulness. Others who might not seem to have endured much for Him but were true at heart in the time of His rejection will be recognized in that day. Thus, the first should be last and the last first.

When Christ fills the souls vision, it is easy to forsake all else for His sake. But until He is known, first as Savior, then as Lord, things of earth still seem to be of far greater worth and importance than the things of eternity. Not until one has learned the lesson of his own sinfulness and good-for-nothingness, will he turn to the Lord Jesus alone for deliverance and be prepared to own His authority in every sphere of this earthly life. Love for Christ makes self-surrender easy. Love of self makes it impossible.

The contrast comes out clearly as we consider the great refusal of the rich young ruler and the devoted allegiance on the part of the apostolic band, who had left all to follow their Lord in spite of much misunderstanding and failure.

Fuente: Commentaries on the New Testament and Prophets

Mat 19:14

A Christian must be like a little child. There is very great cause why we should press this thought upon ourselves now. For we are fallen on most unchildlike days. The very children are not childlike. An age partially, but not entirely educated-rather, but not very, learned, an age of transition, an age proud of its science and its talent, a fast age, can never be a childlike age. Look at some of the features of the little child which we have to copy.

I. As respects faith. No one can have had much to do with a very young child without being struck with the particular character of its trust. The chief reason why a child’s trust is so great is that it has nothing to do with the intellect: it is simply affection; it believes because it loves, and leans because it is fond. There is a great deal of true philosophy here. Faith is a feeling of the heart, and the more you love the more you will believe. Hence the large faith of a little child. You cannot know infinitely, but you can love infinitely. If the faith be in proportion to the knowledge, it can never be very great. If the faith be in proportion to the love, it will be exceedingly great.

II. Little children live in the present moment. They have few memories, and what future there is, is all sunny. A child’s joy is always longer than a child’s sorrow. I wish we could all do the same-have very few retrospects, and no dark anticipations, and no anxieties. Then what energy it would give, what ecstasy to today’s duty, today’s cross, today’s pleasure, and how free the soul would be for the real tomorrow of eternity.

III. A child’s mind has a wonderful power of realization. Whatever is said to it, it does more than picture it; it makes substance of it, and immediately it becomes a living thing to the child. And this is just what we ought to do about the invisible world. The unseen is really more than the seen. And yet, who treats what he cannot touch and see as he does the material world around him? To whom is heaven like an estate of which he has just got possession a little way off, who holds the protection of angels as if he saw an army about him? Who looks for the Advent as he expects the return of a friend?

IV. A little child is a thing new-born. So it must be with you. Ye must be born again.

J. Vaughan, Fifty Sermons, 7th series, p. 136.

References: Mat 19:14.-L. D. Bevan, Christian World Pulpit, vol. vi., p. 280; R. W. Evans, Parochial Sermons, vol. iii., p. 154; W. H. Murray, The Fruits of the Spirit, p. 494.

Mat 19:16

Consider this story as giving us a lesson concerning the connection between the hope of eternal life, or everlasting happiness, and the performance of good works.

I. I suppose that the young man in the story thoroughly believed that the eternal life of which he spoke was the greatest blessing which he could obtain. Moreover, he did not think eternal life an easy thing to be obtained; he had realized to a considerable extent the truth that the way of life is narrow and the way of destruction broad, and he did not think that the question of his everlasting peace was one which might be safely left to take care of itself, and that if he did not grievously trample on the commandments he would at least fare as well as his neighbours. The Lord tells him of a path by following which he might ensure the end he had in view; it was a proposal to allow of a barter (so to speak) in this particular case, of present wealth and ease for the promised treasure of heaven. And the great moral of the story is this, that the young man would not make the exchange.

II. Let us take the story as a proof that it is possible for a man to have treasure in heaven promised to him on the condition of his making the sacrifice of all his earthly wealth, and of the offer being refused. And this fact may serve as an answer to those who have objected to the Christian religion, as letting down the character of virtue by assigning rewards for the practice of it. The fear of those being bribed into holiness by the same hope of gain in heaven who would otherwise have been content to lead unholy lives, is a fear which philosophers may talk about, but for which common life will not give any colour or ground.

III. We do need something more than the mere hope of reward to enable us to do any great Christian act, and the religion of Christ does supply such a motive, and the New Testament represents the Apostles as acting upon that motive. If you inquire what the principle was which made the Apostles what they were, you can have no doubt in giving as an answer that it was the “constraining love of Christ.”

Bishop Harvey Goodwin, Parish Sermons, 3rd series, p. 198.

References: Mat 19:16.-Spurgeon, Evening by Evening, p. 154. Mat 19:16. to Mat 20:16.-H. Wace, Expositor, 2nd series, vol. i., p. 401.

Mat 19:16-22

I. Consider that a single mote may hinder a man from becoming a true Christian. It is the things which are apparently the smallest that prevent the greatest results. A slight defect in the finest bell and it ceases to sound, a lost key and the richest money-chest is useless. The day of battle has arrived, the troops are admirably disposed, the despatches of the general fly here and there; suddenly the horse of the adjutant stumbles on a stone; he arrives a quarter of an hour too late, and the battle is lost. So it is in spiritual matters. Many a man who has got safely over the Rhine has been drowned in a little brook. Sin has no more dangerous delusion than to convince a man that he is safe if only he avoids the so-called flagrant transgressions. We see this in the case of the young man in the Gospel. He thinks he has kept all the commandments which the Lord names to him. He is evidently a youth of earnest and noble disposition. The question, “What good thing must I do, that I may have eternal life?” was no mere idle phrase, but a question of conscience. Otherwise, how differently our Lord would have regarded him! The very command, “Go and sell that which thou hast,” rests on the assumption that he was no mere common miser. Our Lord points out to him that his heart is not yet fixed exclusively on God, that it is still divided between God and the good things of this world. And because of this mote, the door of eternal life, the latch of which is already in his hand, refuses to open.

II. Consider next why this is so. I answer, because if the mote is an unconscious sin, then, as in the case of this youth, repentance is lacking; if a conscious sin, the confidence of faith. Repentance and faith, these are the two parts of conversion, without which no man enters the kingdom of heaven. The young man was grieved. It was merely a mote which the Lord pointed out to him, but to a disposition like his it was enough. In that one evil speck he understands how it is with his heart as a whole.

III. How can this state of things be remedied? First, we must recognize that, if prayer and faith will not open the door, the reason cannot be in the door itself, for over it the words are written, “Come, ye weary and heavy-laden.” Some sin must have thrust itself in and hindered our entrance. “Cut it off and cast it from thee.” The motes conceal the secret of salvation from your eyes, and you shall find no rest of soul while you seek to serve two masters. Our Lord said, “Sell all that thou hast.” And He allows the youth whom He so loved to depart, and we do not learn that he ever returned. We see then how earnest the Lord’s meaning was when He said, “Cut it off and cast it from thee.”

A. Tholuck, from the Gewissems-Glaubens und Gelegenheits Predigten, p. 193.

Mat 19:17

How are we sinners to be accepted by Almighty God? Doubtless the sacrifice of Christ on the cross is the meritorious cause of our justification, and His Church is the ordained instrument of conveying it to us. But our present question relates to another subject, to our own part in appropriating it, and here I say Scripture makes two answers, saying sometimes, “Believe, and you shall be saved,” and sometimes, “Keep the commandments, and you shall be saved.” Let us consider whether these two modes of speech are not reconcilable with each other.

I. What is meant by faith? It is to feel in good earnest that we are creatures of God; it is a practical perception of the unseen world; it is to understand that this world is not enough for our happiness, to look beyond it on towards God, to realize His presence, to wait upon Him, to endeavour to learn and do His will, and to seek our good from Him. It is not a mere temporary strong act or impetuous feeling of the mind, an impression or a view coming upon it, but it is a habit, a state of mind lasting and consistent.

II. What is obedience? It is the obvious mode suggested by nature of a creature’s conducting himself in God’s sight, who fears him as his Maker, and knows that, as a sinner, he has a special cause for fearing Him. Under such circumstances he will do what he can to please Him, as the woman whom our Lord commended. And he will find nothing better as an offering, or as an evidence, than obedience to that holy law which conscience tells him has been given us by God Himself; that is, he will be delighted in doing his duty as far as he knows and can do it. Thus, as is evident, the two states of mind are altogether one and the same; it is quite indifferent whether we say a man seeks God in faith, or say he seeks Him by obedience; and whereas Almighty God has graciously declared that He will receive and bless all that seek Him, it is quite indifferent whether we say He accepts those who believe, or those who obey. To believe is to look beyond this world to God, and to obey is to look beyond this world to God; to believe is of the heart, and to obey is of the heart; to believe is not a solitary act, but a consistent habit of trust; and to obey is not a solitary act, but a consistent habit of doing our duty in all things.

J. H. Newman, Parochial and Plain Sermons, vol. iii., p. 77.

References: Mat 19:17.-F. W. Farrar, Anglican Pulpit of Today, p. 220; Homiletic Magazine, vol. ix., p. 12; H. Wace, Expositor, 2nd series, vol. ii., p. 195. Mat 19:18.-E. B. Pusey, Parochial and Cathedral Sermons, p. 363. Mat 19:19.-H. W. Beecher, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xiv., p. 61; Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. iii., No. 145; J. Jackson, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxiv., p. 157.

Mat 19:20

“What lack I yet?” This question is asked by various distinct classes of men.

I. The first class ask the question, but they understand it wrongly. Do we not all ask, What lack I yet? Who does not feel that something is lacking to him? All that makes our earthly life lovely and pleasant, the joys and possessions of life-these are what we lack. But is this an answer worthy of a human soul? No, the question must be taken in a moral sense. What lack I yet in my moral character? What is wanting to make my life truly worthy of a man? Thus the question gains a serious meaning which at first was absent from it.

II. There are others who know well where to look for the true standard for humanity; they seek in God, in whose image we are created, in Him alone, the holy, pure, and just. What was it that was lacking to this youth and to all who ask his question? The answer is not hard to find; a Redeemer is what humanity needs, such a Redeemer as has come into the world. Well for him who bends the knee before Him, and surrenders himself into the gracious hands of the Redeemer; for him the question is answered, he has what man requires, even eternal life.

III. Yet even this is not a full and perfect answer. Even those who believe Christ have a great and decisive step to take. “Sell that thou hast,… and come, follow Me.” Deny thyself and thy worldly lusts, and believe in Jesus. Despise and cast away from thee all that is not Jesus, and that strives against Him. “Come, follow Me.” What is this but a following to thorns and to the cross? What but a self-surrender in self-sacrificing, self-denying love? This is the goal to which Christ would have us attain; to be free altogether from self, to forget self altogether in love.

R. Rothe, Nachgelassene Predigten, p. 24.

References: Mat 19:20.-H. W. Beecher, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xi., p. 291; G. Brooks, Outlines of Sermons, p. 102; Homiletic Quarterly, vol. v., p. 184. Mat 19:21.-Expositor, 1st series, vol. vi., p. 229; G. Macdonald, Unspoken Sermons, 2nd series, p, 1; W. T. Keay, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xiii., p. 269; J. W. Thew, Ibid., vol. xvii., p. 257.

Mat 19:22

I. Consider the young man’s sorrow. It was not quite so simple as at first sight appears. No doubt partly he was sorry (1) at the thought of giving up those large possessions of which he was naturally fond. But sorrow is seldom a single principle. It scarcely admits of a question that the young ruler was also grieved (2) at the idea of losing heaven. There had opened upon his mind some of the difficulty which there always is in the attainment of everything which is really worth having. The eternal life, which his ardent feelings had pictured to him as something easy and near at hand, seemed to retire back from him behind the mountains of self-sacrifice which Christ laid across his path. (3) Part of his sorrow was the discovery which he was making at that moment of his own heart. He went away most sorrowful of all in the wretched sense he had of his own guilty hesitation and his own inexcusable weakness.

II. The heaviness, then, of that man’s heart was, we believe, yet in the main a right heaviness. At least, there was some grace in it. Can we believe that ever any one on whom Jesus once looked lovingly finally perished? No; rather we confidently trust and hope that ere long that discipline to which Christ subjected his soul wrought its own purifying work, and that, weighing in truer balances, he learnt what is the real secret of power-to count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus his Lord.

III. In every state of life the characteristic of a Christian is self-renunciation. Always lean towards the position that your Master took, and which your Master taught in this world. Always, in everything, cultivate simplicity; always combat selfishness; be always increasing your charities; be always loosening yourself from the things of sense and time; and be always sitting, free to follow Christ whenever He shall lead you up to a higher walk.

J. Vaughan, Fifty Sermons, 7th series, p. 20.

References: Mat 19:22.-H. W. Beecher, Christian World Pulpit, vol. i., p. 35. Mat 19:24.-F. W. Farrar, Expositor, 1st series, vol. iii., p. 369; R. W. Evans, Parochial Sermons, vol. iii., p. 164. Mat 19:27-29-S. Cox, Expository Essays and Discourses, pp. 203, 228; A. B. Bruce, The Training of the Twelve, p. 262; Expositor, 1st series, vol. iv., p. 256. Mat 19:27-30.-Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. ii., p. 23. Mat 19:29.-H. Melvill, Penny Pulpit, No. 1,661.

Mat 19:30

The Weapons of Saints.

I. These words are fulfilled under the Gospel in many ways. In the context they embody a great principle, which we all, indeed, acknowledge, but are deficient in mastering. Under the dispensation of the Spirit all things were to become new, and to be reversed. Strength, numbers, wealth, philosophy, eloquence, craft, experience of life, knowledge of human nature, these are the means by which worldly men have ever gained the world. But in that kingdom which Christ has set up, all is contrariwise. “The weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds.” What before was in honour has been dishonoured: what before was in dishonour has come to honour. Weakness has conquered strength, for the hidden strength of God “is made perfect in weakness.” Spirit has conquered flesh, for that spirit is an inspiration from above.

II. Since Christ sent down gifts from on high, the saints are ever taking possession of the kingdom, and with the weapons of saints. The visible powers of the heavens-truth, meekness, and righteousness-are ever coming in upon the earth, ever pouring in, gathering, thronging, warring, triumphing, under the guidance of Him who is “alive and was dead, and is alive for evermore.”

III. We have most of us by nature longings more or less and aspirations after something greater than this world can give. In early youth we stand by the side of the still waters, with our hearts beating high, with longings after our unknown good, and with a sort of contempt for the fashions of the world-with a contempt for the world, even though we engage in it. While our hearts are thus unsettled Christ comes to us, if we will receive Him, and promises to satisfy our great need-this hunger and thirst which wearies us. He says, You are seeking what you see not, I give it you; you desire to be great, I will make you so. But observe how-just in the reverse way to what you expect. The way to real glory is to become unknown and despised.

J. H. Newman, Parochial and Plain Sermons, vol. vi., p. 313.

Perhaps there is hardly any person of reflection to whom the thought has not occurred at times of the final judgment turning out to be a great subversion of human estimates of men. Such an idea would not be without support from some of those characteristic prophetic sayings of our Lord, which, like the slanting strokes of the sun’s rays across the clouds, throw forward a track of mysterious light athwart the darkness of the future. Such is that saying in which a shadow of the Eternal Judgment seems to come over us: “Many that are first shall be last, and the last shall be first.”

I. One source of mistake in human judgment is, that while the Gospel keeps to one point in its classification of men, namely, the motive by which alone it decides their character, the mass of men in fact find it difficult to do so. They have not that firm hold of the moral idea which prevents them from wandering from it; and being diverted by irrelevant considerations, they think of the spirituality of a man as belonging to the department to which he is attached, the profession he makes, the subject matter he works upon, the habitual language he has to use.

II. Nothing is easier, when we take gifts of the intellect and imagination in the abstract, than to see that these do not constitute moral goodness. This is indeed a mere truism; and yet, in the concrete, it is impossible not to see how nearly they border upon counting as such; to what advantage they set off any moral good there may be in a man; sometimes even supplying the absence of real good with what looks extremely like it. There enters thus unavoidably often into a great religious reputation a good deal which is not religion, but power.

III. On the other hand-while the open theatre of spiritual power and energy is so accessible to corrupt motives, which, though undermining its truthfulness, leave standing all the brilliance of its outer manifestation-let it be considered what a strength and power of goodness may be accumulating in unseen quarters. The way in which man bears temptation is what decides his character; yet how secret is the system of temptation! Some one who did not promise much comes out at a moment of trial strikingly and favourably. The act of the thief on the cross is a surprise. Up to the time when he was judged he was a thief, and from a thief he became a saint. For even in the dark labyrinth of evil there are unexpected outlets. Sin is established by habit in the man, but the good principle which is in him also, but kept down and suppressed, may be secretly growing too; it may be undermining it, and extracting the life and force from it. In this man, then, sin becomes more and more, though holding its place by custom, an outside and coating, just as virtue does in the deteriorating man, till at last, by a sudden effort, and the inspiration of an opportunity, the strong good casts off the weak crust of evil, and comes out free. We witness a conversion.

J. B. Mozley, University Sermons, p. 72.

I. The parable of the labourers in the vineyard is a simple and natural one, and teaches that God regards only our availing ourselves of our opportunities, and using those opportunities aright which He has given us.

II. The contrast which presents itself at the end of the day is not between the sum paid the different classes, but between the spirit which has been gradually developed and cherished in them. Those who have had a whole day full of labour, and full of the hopeful confidence which full and honest labour should give-a day free from anxiety and despair-they are infinitely the worst characters in the end. So it often is-the first in opportunity are last in results; the last in opportunity are first in fitness for the kingdom.

T. T. Shore, The Life of the World to Come, p. 139.

References: Mat 19:30.-G. Salmon, Non-Miraculous Christianity, p. 223; E. M. Goulburn, The Acts of the Deacons, p. 21; A. B. Bruce, The Training of the Twelve, p. 272; Three Hundred Outlines on the New Testament, p. 26; S. Cox, Expository Essays and Discourses, p. 239. Matt 19-Parker, Inner Life of Christ, vol. iii., p. 60. Mat 20:1.-W. Gresley, Parochial Sermons, p. 363; E. Blencowe, Plain Sermons to a Country Congregation, vol. ii., p. 90; H. Melvill, Fenny Pulpit, No. 2,355. Mat 20:1, Mat 20:2.-S. Baring-Gould, One Hundred Sermon Sketches, p. 129. Mat 20:1-3, Mat 20:6.-Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xi., No. 664. Mat 20:1-8-T. Rowsell, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxi., p. 81.

Fuente: The Sermon Bible

7. Departure from Galilee.

Concerning Divorce. Little Children Blessed and the Rich Young Man.

CHAPTER 19

1. The Departure from Galilee. (Mat 19:1-2.)

2. Concerning Divorce. (Mat 19:3-12.)

3. The Blessing of Little Children. (Mat 19:13-15.)

4. The Rich Young Man. (Mat 19:16-26.)

5. The Rewards in the Kingdom. (Mat 19:27-30.)

In the first part of the nineteenth chapter we find a continuation of teachings concerning the kingdom. This, we repeat, is not the same kingdom promised to Israel, as it was preached by the Lord and His disciples, in the first part of this Gospel, but it is the kingdom in its condition during the absence of the King, that condition which we saw revealed in the thirteenth chapter. The teachings given now by the Lord concern the institution, which the Creator in His infinite wisdom had established in the beginning. Are the relationships of nature to be given up in the kingdom? Is there to be a change from that which God originally instituted? We shall learn that the Lord teaches that these natural relationships are not to be dissolved or set aside in the kingdom. We shall find, however, that we have here not the fullest teaching concerning these earthly relations. In the Epistles are given the exhortations to husbands, wives and children; and always after the Christian believers position and standing has been clearly defined. To be in the kingdom does, therefore, not free from natural relationship. Indeed, it is just in these that the life of Christ in love, patience, meekness and forbearance is to be manifested. The exhortations in Ephesians, Romans, Colossians, Titus and other Epistles teach this most positively.

And it came to pass, when Jesus had finished these words, He withdrew from Galilee, and came to the coasts of Judea beyond the Jordan ; and a great multitude followed Him, and He healed them there. And the Pharisees came to Him, and saying, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for any cause? (Mat 19:1-3). Galilee is left now behind and He nears Judea and Jerusalem ; and again He is followed by a multitude and many are healed by His loving hands and His divine power.

The subject of the earthly relationship instituted by God before the fall, called marriage, is brought into the foreground by tempting Pharisees. We have heard nothing of these enemies of the Lord since the beginning of the fifteenth chapter. These traditionalists and strong ritualists are now coming upon the scene again. Once more it is a question about their oral law, their man-made rules. He had silenced them about the Sabbath day and declared that He, the Son of Man, is Lord even of the Sabbath. When they came with the ridiculous tradition of the elders about the washing of hands, He had boldly declared, Ye hypocrites! and that they teach as doctrines the commandment of men. And now they are going to tempt Him once more. How awful this attempt appears when we consider the dignity of the person whom they try to tempt! He is the Wisdom, the Lord, who created all things; the one who instituted marriage and whose fingers wrote upon the tables of stone. Instead of worshipping Him and taking their place at His feet, to be taught by Him, they try in their blindness to ensnare Him. But why do they bring this special question about putting away a wife for any cause? Most likely the utterance of the Lord in the fifth chapter was reported to these men. There the Lawgiver Himself had declared: It has been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a letter of divorce. But I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife except for cause of fornication makes her commit adultery, and whosoever marries one that is put away commits adultery (Mat 5:31-32). This word must have been a very hard saying for those men, for it flatly contradicted the rabbinical sayings. And now they think they have a fine case against Him. If He but commits Himself on some of these fine rabbinical distinctions about the cause for divorce (later collected in the talmudical tract Gittin) they would have an accusation against Him.

Two great opinions divided then the Pharisees about divorce. Some held to the views of Hillel and others to the views of Shammai. Hillel had taught that indeed for almost every cause a wife may be put away. We care not to fill our space with a record of all the different causes for divorce and the rules, which the elders had laid down and which, at least among the extremely orthodox Jews, are still conscientiously followed. (It has often been our experience to talk with some poor Jewish woman, left by her husband, who got a divorce from the rabbi. We remember one case where a man got a Gett — a bill of divorcement from his wife for an insignificant cause and came to this country to marry again. His divorced wife followed him here. These conditions have been quite a problem in New York courts.) The school of Hillel declared openly, and practised this, that if the wife cooks her husbands food badly, by over salting or over roasting it, she is to be put away. The school of Shammai, to which other Pharisees held, permitted not divorces except in the case of adultery. This will shed more light on the temptation of these Pharisees.

And now the Lord speaks in answer to their question: But He, answering, said unto them, Have ye not read that He who made them from the beginning, made them male and female, and said, On account of this a man shall leave father and mother, and shall be united to his wife, and the two shall be one flesh, so that they are no longer two, but one flesh? What, therefore, God hath joined together, let not man separate (Mat 19:4-7). The Lord passes over all their scholastic reasonings; He ignores all their different opinions and has not a word to say about the law as given through Moses. He goes to the very beginning and shows marriage to be a divinely instituted relationship. And marriage, as instituted by the Creator, is an argument against both polygamy and divorce. Blessed institution indeed, and blessed fact, two shall be one flesh. In the new creation the relationship of marriage has a still deeper significance. The second half of Eph 5:1-33 acquaints us with what the believing husband and wife represent. Christ and the church and the love of Christ, the obedience of the church, the oneness which exists between Christ and the church, all practically to be seen in the relationship of husband and wife. For no one has ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, even as also the Christ, the church; for we are members of His body; of His flesh and of His bones. Because of this a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall be united to his wife, and the two shall be one flesh. This mystery is great, but I speak as to Christ and as to the church (Eph 5:29-32). But the Pharisees have an answer ready. They say to Him, Why then did Moses command to give a letter of divorce and to send her away? But even in this they were erring. It was not a command, but something which Moses allowed. The law had much to say about the suspicion of adultery, in which case the wife had to undergo a trial by the bitter waters (Num 5:1-31). Actual adultery was punishable by death. And so the Lord has His answer for their objection. He says, Moses, in view of your hardheartedness, allowed you to put away your wives; but from the beginning it was not thus. But I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, not for fornication, and shall marry another, commits adultery; and he who marries one put away commits adultery (Mat 19:8-9).

Moses but allowed them divorce (Deu 24:1). Adultery, however, such was the divine law, meant death. The Lord, now in His divine authority as the great I am, gives a law about divorce, which is binding. Divorce, putting away a wife is wrong, except in case of unfaithfulness, adultery. All divorce for other causes is sin, and whosoever marries such a wrongly divorced person commits adultery. Many questions which arise here, difficulties in individual cases, complications of different nature, we must pass by. And yet we cannot conclude our meditation on these verses, without calling to mind the condition, which prevails about us, in professing Christendom, on these very things. The sacred institution of marriage has never been so misused as in these days. Society, so called, is corrupt in morals. Divorces and scandals are becoming almost fashionable. The frightful increase of unlawful divorces and prostitution is alarming to the moralist and reformer. We know, however, that it will be so in the last days, for He said, As it was in the days of Lot, so shall it be when the Son of Man cometh.

His disciples say to Him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. And He said to them, All cannot receive this word, but those to whom it has been given; for there are eunuchs, which have been born thus from their mothers womb; and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs of men; and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs of themselves for the sake of the kingdom of the heavens. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it (Mat 19:10-12).

The disciples, with their question, lay bare their own hearts. If such was the case, they think, that the best thing is not to marry at all. He speaks then of what incapacitates for marriage. Some are unfitted for this divinely instituted relation by nature, others have been made so by wicked men, a custom still largely prevailing in the Orient. There is a third class who are exempt, and these are those who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of the heavens. This does not mean mutilation. It means, no doubt, living in an unmarried state for the sake of the kingdom. It is not a law, not an obligation, nor a sacrament. Celibacy is a man-made and wicked doctrine, contrary to Scripture. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. It is then something to be received, a gift from above. The grace and power of God is able to lift some to whom it is given, above the natural things of life. Paul undoubtedly was such a one to whom it was given. For I would that all men were even as myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that…. But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh; but I spare you. But this I say, brethren, the time is short, it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none…. But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord (1Co 7:7; 1Co 7:28-32).

And now the scene changes once more. The Pharisees with their temptation had been silenced by the Lord and their question resulted in definite teachings from the lips of the great Teacher concerning the institution of marriage in the kingdom. Another question is now to be answered by Him, the question of the relation of children to the kingdom. In the eighteenth chapter the Lord had put a little child in their midst and had said Unless ye are converted and become as little children, ye will not at all enter into the kingdom of heaven; but here little children are brought to Him.

Then there were brought to Him little children, that He might lay His hands on them and pray; but the disciples rebuked them (Mat 19:13). It was an old custom among the Jews to bring children to an acknowledged teacher and pious man, that he might pronounce a blessing upon them. The laying on of hands was done to symbolize the fulfilment of the blessing upon the head of the little one. These little ones were, therefore, not brought to Him for healing of any bodily disease, but they were brought to be blest by Him. Whose children they were is not stated. However, it is very improbable that they were the children of unbelieving Jews; these were rejecting the Lord and would hardly bring their little ones to Him. They must have been children of such, who believed in the Lord, and bringing these little ones to Him they manifested their faith that He would be willing to bless them and occupy Himself with them. Most likely the act of the Lord in putting the child in the midst of the disciples, and his previous teaching about the little ones, was an incentive to bring boldly the children to the Lord for a blessing. How strange once more the behavior of the disciples! The disciples rebuked them. They had listened to His gracious declarations about the little ones and how He told them, that he who humbles himself as a little child is the greatest in the kingdom, and yet they understood Him not. Did they want to keep an annoyance from the Lord? Was it a selfish motive which prompted them to act in this spirit? Perhaps they thought these little ones too insignificant, too unworthy for Him to bless. What could He do with these little ones?

This event brings out a very important and alas! too often forgotten declaration from our Lord. The declaration is that the little ones are recognized as the subjects of His kingdom, the kingdom of the heavens. There is a place for little children in the kingdom; they are a part of it is the emphatic teaching of the passage before us.

But Jesus said, Suffer little children and do not hinder them from coming to me, for the kingdom of the heavens is of such; and having laid His hands upon them, He departed thence. With such a definite word it seems next to impossible that anyone could doubt the love of God for the little ones. Still it has been done; there is an interpretation of the gracious words of our Lord, which makes the little children types of believers, and that only such who have believed are meant. In Mark and in Luke (Mar 10:13; Luk 18:15) the Lord adds, Verily, I say unto you, whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall in no wise enter therein, but here no such addition is given by the Holy Spirit, because it concerns the relation of actual little ones to the kingdom. The Lord takes up these little ones and approves of the faith, which had presented them to Him for a blessing. He puts His hands upon them and declares that these little ones are a part of the kingdom. How much like Him who loves to take up that which is weak and lowly! The passage is sufficient to teach believers that the Lord Jesus Christ has a loving interest in the little ones, looks upon them as belonging to His kingdom and is ready to bless them. But where is the faith from the side of believing parents, fully entering into His thoughts and looking upon the little ones as in the kingdom presenting these to Himself? Alas! how great the failure! He tells us of His willingness to receive them, that they are subjects of His kingdom and faith should act upon this and put them into His loving hands. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved and thy house (Act 16:31). Faith should take hold of this gracious family promise and claim it. Of course, this does not say that personal faith is unnecessary from the side of children.

In the epistles we find children mentioned. In the epistle, which contains Gods highest revelation, Ephesians, children are treated as belonging to the Lord in the believing family. Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is just. Honor thy father and thy mother, which is the first commandment which has a promise, that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest be long-lived on the earth. And ye fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and admonition of the Lord (Eph 6:1-4). The last means to instruct them in the things of the Lord. We have come occasionally in touch with good Christian people, who declared it wrong to teach a child to pray and who refused to tell little ones to pray to God. As far as certain forms of prayers are concerned we are, of course, fully agreed that a parrotlike repetition of prayers is to be avoided and harmful. But to teach the child prayer, the expression of weakness and dependence on God, as well as confidence in Him, is the first lesson to be taught. We think it a wrong, where this is not done. No day should pass in the home of believers, where the Word is not read and the knees of all bow before Him, who is the Head over all, the Lord Jesus Christ. And if through the grace of God the sweet instructions of Eph 5:22-32 are carried out in the Christian family, the home will become a place of fragrance, influence and blessing.

But now we behold another one appearing, one who had been a little one, a young man, and he is asking the way to eternal life. And lo, one coming up said to Him, Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have life eternal? And He said to him, What askest thou me concerning goodness? One is good. But if thou wouldst enter into life, keep the commandments. He says to Him, Which? And Jesus said, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honor thy father and thy mother and Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. The young man says to Him, All these have I kept; what lack I yet? Jesus said to him, If thou wouldst be perfect, go, sell what thou hast and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven, and come, follow me. But the young man, having heard the word, went away grieved, for he had large possessions (Mat 19:16-23).

This is a most instructive incident. It is a striking portrayal of many who are in the professing sphere, in Christendom, their natural and moral condition; and the teaching of the incident is, that salvation is not of man, not depending on the deeds of man, but salvation is of God.

The young man is a typical religious, moral and natural man. In the Gospel of Mark we read, that he came running and kneeled down and that the Lord loved him; and in Luke we find that he was a young ruler, holding an ecclesiastical position. The question is the all important one for the religious man, the question of how to obtain eternal life. He is in ignorance about eternal life. In spite of all his religious observations, his position, his good moral qualities, he had no certainty, no assurance of life eternal; though a member of the professing people of God, he gropes in the dark. And is this not the case of the so-called Christian masses of our day? He furthermore expects eternal life from God as the reward of having done some good thing. He wants to earn eternal life, do and live, as the law demands. He is ignorant of the great fundamental fact, that he is with all his religiousness and good moral qualities a guilty and lost sinner. He does not know (the blindness of the natural man) that he never did a good thing, which pleased God and that he can never do any good thing from himself. And this is equally true of a large number of subjects in the kingdom of heaven, who are mere professors of Christianity and who are unsaved and strangers to the grace of God. And now the Lords dealing with him. He gives him, first of all, to understand that only One is good and that One is, of course, God. Good master, said he, according to the other record. He looked upon the Lord as a good man merely, and this He at once repudiates. God alone is good, and the One the young man addressed is God manifested in the flesh. He was ignorant of His person. The Lord then meets him on his own ground. The ground upon which he stands is the law, and with the law the Lord answers his question. How else could He treat him? The first need for him was to know himself a lost and helpless sinner. If the Lord had spoken of His grace, of eternal life as a free gift, he would not have understood Him at all. The law was needed to make known to him his desperate condition and to lay bare his heart. And the Lord who searches the hearts does this for him. With a few sentences he uncovers the true state of the young man, who leaves Him grieved, full of sorrow; he had many possessions and he would not part with them. He had declared that he loved his neighbor as himself; had he done so he would have readily sold his possessions, given them to the poor and followed the Lord. As a natural man, he could not and would not do it.

In type this young, religious man touching the righteousness which is in the law blameless, stands for the self-righteous Jewish people, turned away from the Lord with sorrow and yet loved by Him.

And Jesus said to His disciples, Verily, I say unto you, a rich man shall with difficulty enter into the kingdom of the heavens, and again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to enter a needles eye than a rich man into the kingdom of God (Mat 19:23-24). The verse tells us that the natural man, like the rich ruler, burdened by his possessions and under the control of the world and the god of this age, cannot enter into the kingdom of God. The illustration of the camel and the needles eye was a well-known Jewish phrase in the days of our Lord. It is an impossible thing that a camel laden down with goods could pass through the eye of a needle; just as impossible is it for the natural rich man to enter the kingdom of God. In astonishment the disciples now turn to the Lord with the question, a question perfectly in order after such a solemn declaration. And when the disciples heard it they were exceedingly astonished, saying, Who, then, can be saved? But Jesus, looking on them, said, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible (Mat 19:25-26). Here is a bright and glorious flashing forth of the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. His words are a blessed indication of what His loving heart knew so well, that salvation is of God. With men salvation is impossible, to get into the kingdom of God an impossibility, but God, in His marvelous grace in Christ Jesus has made it possible. The gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

And now the last paragraph of this most interesting chapter.

It is Peter once more who steps into the foreground as mouthpiece of the disciples. Again he acts and speaks in the flesh. Indeed, all through this Gospel Peter shows himself self-centered and self-seeking and intruding in that spirit into the things of the Lord. Only once was this not the case, and that was when the Father in heaven had given to him the revelation concerning His Son (Mat 16:1-28). With what self consciousness and feeling of superiority Peter must have looked upon the young ruler as he sneaked away with hanging head. And then, instead of bowing in silence and wonder after the Lord had flashed forth His grace and truth, he thinks of himself. Then, Peter answering said to Him, Behold we have left all things and have followed Thee; what then shall happen to us? Self is here prominently before us. But the Lord in His graciousness is far from rebuking Peter; He makes the self-gratifying question the basis of still further teaching by speaking of the future rewards of His own who follow Him and share His rejection.

And Jesus said to them, Verily, I say unto you, That ye who have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man shall sit down upon His throne of glory, ye also shall sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And every one who has left houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my names sake, shall receive a hundredfold, and shall inherit eternal life. But many first shall be last, and last first (Mat 19:28-30). Here is the declaration of an important principle, the principle of rewards in glory. Whatever a disciple, a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ has done or suffered for His sake will not be forgotten. This, however, does not mean that we can earn a position in glory; it is grace and grace alone, which has brought us there. Service and self-denial of a believer are the results of grace, and so the rewards are mercies, nothing else. But it is glorious to think, He remembers all, yea even the cup of cold water given in His name and for all we shall find in His presence a recompense.

Besides the principle of rewards we have here dispensational teachings. The Lord speaks of the time of regeneration. There is a time of regeneration coming, when all things will be made over, when groaning creation is delivered and the reign of Satan and of sin ends. It is the millennial age. Throughout the Old Testament the prophets declare this great regeneration, in the promises, which are so universally spiritualized in our day. This regeneration is not yet; and it cannot come as long as the Son of Man does not occupy the throne of His glory. He will not occupy that throne as long as His fellow heirs are not with Him. Everything then in its order. The completion of the church, as to numbers, the removal of the church to meet Him in the air, His coming with His saints in glory, His own throne, which He will occupy and then, and not before, the regeneration.

The promise here to the disciples is a specific one for them, and does not mean other believers. In the kingdom, the reign of Christ over the earth, the disciples will hold a glorious position in connection with the government of the earth through Israel and occupy twelve thrones. The saints will judge the world. As He received of His Father, so shall the overcomer receive from His hands. (Rev 2:26-28.)

We have gone through a most blessed chapter in which all is connected by the Holy Spirit. The teaching is continued in the next, and the last sentence of the nineteenth chapter belongs to the twentieth chapter. But many first shall be last, and last first, its meaning is explained by the Lord in a parable.

Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)

The King and the Marriage Laws

AND it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these sayings, he departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Juda beyond Jordan; and great multitudes followed him; and he healed them there.

He had finished these sayings upon forgiveness, and so he hastened to other work which was not finished. He was ever on the move, and he departed from Galilee, which had received so much of his care, that other regions might enjoy his ministry. He now turned more to the south, into the coasts of Juda beyond Jordan, and he did good at every turn. When he had finished speaking to the disciples, he began working deeds of grace in a new district, and great multitudes followed him. Ever the crowd was at his heels, held both by his word and by his work. He was drawing near to Jerusalem, and his foes were on the watch; but he did not restrain his works of mercy because of their jealous scrutiny: he healed them there. The place of our Lord’s gracious work is worthy to be remembered. Where the need was, there the help was given.

Mat 19:3. The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

Here are these vipers again! What perseverance in malice! Little cared they for instruction, yet they assumed the air of enquirers. In truth, they were upon the catch, and were ready to dispute with him whatever he might say. The question is cunningly worded: “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? “The looser the terms of a question, the more likely is it to entangle the person interrogated. Their own consciences might have told them that the marriage bond is not to be severed for any and every reason that a man likes to mention. Yet it was a question much disputed at the time, whether a man could send away his wife at pleasure, or whether there must be some serious reason alleged. Whatever Jesus might say, the Pharisees meant to use his verdict against him.

Mat 19:4-6. And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

In his reply, Jesus challenges their knowledge of the law: “Have ye not read?” It was a forcible mode of appealing to their own boasted acquaintance with the books of Moses. Our Lord honours Holy Scripture by drawing his argument therefrom. He chose specially to set his seal upon a part of the story of creation-that story which modern critics speak of as if it were fable or myth. He took his hearers back to the beginning when God made them male and female, and made them on. “In the image of God created he him; male and female created he them “(Gen 1:27). The woman was taken out of man, and Adam truly said, “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh” (Gen 2:23). By marriage this unity is set forth and embodied under divine sanction. This oneness is of the most real and vital kind: “They are no more twain, but one flesh” All other ties are feeble compared with this: even father and mother must stand second to the wife: “For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife.” Being divinely appointed, this union must not be broken by the caprice of men: “What God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” Our Lord thus decides for the lifelong perpetuity of the marriage bond, in opposition to those who allowed divorce for “every cause”, which very frequently meant for no cause whatever.

Mat 19:7. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

Every reader of the passage in the books of Moses which is here referred to will be struck with the Pharisees’ unfair rendering of it. In Deu 24:1-2, we read: “When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife.” Moses commanded nothing in this instance; but barely tolerated, and greatly limited a custom then in vogue. To set Moses against Moses is not a new device; but the Pharisees would hardly venture to set Moses against God, and make him command an alteration of a divine law ordained from the beginning; yet our Lord made them see that they would have to do this to maintain the theory of easy divorce. The fact is, that Moses found divorce in existence to an almost unlimited extent, and he wisely commenced its overthrow by curtailing the custom rather than by absolutely forbidding it at once. They were not allowed to send away a wife with a hasty word, but must make a deliberate, solemn ceremonial of it by preparing and giving a writing of divorcement; and this was only allowed in a special case:

“because he hath found some uncleanness in her.” Although many of the Pharisees spirited away this last limitation, and considered that the enactment in Deuteronomy sanctioned almost unlimited divorce, they were not unanimous in the matter, and were perpetually disputing over it. Hence there were many ways in which our Lord’s decision could be turned against him, whatever it might be.

Mat 19:8. He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

Moses tolerated and circumscribed an evil custom which he knew that such a people would not relinquish after its having been established among them for so long a time. They could not bear a higher law, and so he treated them as persons diseased with hardness of heart, hoping to lead them back to an older and better state of things by possible stages. As impurity ceased, and as the spirit of true religion would influence the nation, the need for divorce, and even the least desire for it, would die out There was no provision in paradise for Adam’s putting away Eve; there was no desire for divorce in the golden age. The enactment of the Mosaic law of divorce was modern and temporary; and in the form into which a loose interpretation of Scripture had distorted it, it was not defensible.

Mat 19:9. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Fornication makes the guilty person a fit subject for just and lawful divorce; for it is a virtual disannulling of the marriage bond. In a case of fornication, upon clear proof, the tie can be loosed; but in no other case. Any other sort of divorce is by the law of God null and void, and it involves the persons who act upon it in the crime of adultery. Whoso marrieth her who is put away doth commit adultery; since she is not really divorced, but remains the wife of her former husband. Our King tolerates none of those enactments which, in certain countries, trifle with the bonds of matrimony. Nations may make what laws they dare, but they cannot alter facts: persons once married are, in the sight of God, married for life, with the one exception of proven fornication.

Mat 19:10. His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.

They had come to look upon the ease of slipping the marriage-knot as a sort of relief; and on marriage itself, without the power of escaping from it by divorce, as an evil thing, or at least as very likely to prove so. Better not marry if you marry for life: this seemed to be their notion. Even his disciples, looking at the risks of unhappy married life, concluded that it were better to remain single. They said, “It is good not to marry;” and there was a measure of truth in their declaration.

Mat 19:11. But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.

It may be better in some respects not to marry; but all men cannot receive this saying, and put it into practice: it would be the end of the race if they could. A single life is not for all, nor for many: nature forbids. To some, celibacy is better than marriage; but such are peculiar in constitution, or in circumstances. Abstinence from marriage is to a few a choice gift, answering high purposes; but to the many, marriage is as necessary as it is honourable.

Mat 19:12. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

Some have but feeble desires concerning marriage, and they were so born. They will find it good to remain as they are. Others subdue the desires of nature, for holy and laudable reasons, for the kingdom of heaven’s sake; but this is not for all, nor for many. It is optional with individuals to marry or not: if they marry, nature commends, but grace is silent; if they forbear for Christ’s sake, grace commends, and nature does not forbid. Enforced celibacy is the seed-bed of sins. “Marriage is honourable in all.” Violations of purity are abominable in the sight of the Lord. In this matter we need guidance and grace if we follow the usual way; and if we elect the less frequented road, we shall need grace and guidance even more. As to a resolve to persevere in a single life: He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

Fuente: Spurgeon’s The Gospel of the Kingdom

that when: Mar 10:1, Joh 10:40

he departed: This was our Lord’s final departure from Galilee, previous to his crucifixion; but he appears to have taken in a large compass in his journey, and passed through the districts east of Jordan. Some learned men, however, are of opinion, that instead of “beyond Jordan,” we should render, “by the side of Jordan,” as [Strong’s G4008], especially with a genitive, sometimes signifies.

Reciprocal: Mat 26:1 – when

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

JESUS NOW APPROACHED Judaea again and the Pharisees returned to the attack. They raised a question regarding marriage and divorce, hoping to entrap Him. This they utterly failed to do for they were pitting themselves against Divine wisdom. A complete answer lay in referring them to what God had ordained at the beginning. Man was not to undo what God had done. This raised in their minds a question as to why divorce had been permitted in the law given through Moses. The answer was that it had been permitted because of the hardness of mens hearts. God knew that well, and hence He did not set the standard too high. The law set forth Gods minimum requirement for life in this world. Hence to fail only once at any time was to incur the sentence of death. Only one thing can dissolve the tie according to God, and that is the virtual breaking of the bond by either of the parties.

It is only when we come to Christ that we get the full thoughts of God- Gods maximum in every respect.

The Lords teaching as to divorce was new and surprising even to His disciples, and prompted their remark recorded in verse Mat 19:10. This in its turn led Him to declare that marriage is the normal thing for man, and the unmarried state the exceptional, as is also inferred by Pauls words in 1Co 7:7. If it is given to a man, then it is good not to marry, but normally, Marriage is honourable in all (Heb 13:4).

Following this, the Lord gave to children their true place. The disciples manifested the spirit of the world when they treated them as of no importance, so much so that the bringing of them was an intrusion. Thus they showed that they had not as yet learned the lesson that He taught in the verses that open Mat 18:1-35. The Lord on the contrary laid His hands on them in blessing and uttered the memorable words, Forbid them not, to come unto Me; for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

Next comes the case of the rich young man who claimed to have kept the law, as regards the commandments relating to ones duty towards ones neighbour. The Lord did not deny his claim, so apparently he had been blameless as far as outward observance was concerned. He was much mistaken however in thinking that by doing some good thing he could have eternal life. Coming on that ground, Jesus at once tested him, and under the test he utterly failed. What lack I yet? was his question, and the answer was designed to show him that he lacked the faith which discerned the glory of Jesus, and which consequently would have moved him to give up everything in order to follow Him. He approached Jesus as Good Master, and the Lord would not accept the epithet good, unless it were given Him as the fruit of acknowledging His Deity. There is none good but one-God, so that if Jesus was not God He was not good. If the young man had recognized the Deity of the One who said to him, Follow Me, his great possessions would have been as nothing to him, and he would gladly have followed Jesus. Have we each so recognized the glory of Jesus as to be lifted clean out of the love of mere earthly things?

The Lord now pointed out to His disciples how tenacious a hold earthly riches have on the human heart. The rich enter the kingdom of God with great difficulty. Among the Jews wealth was regarded as a sign of Gods favour; hence this saying also overturned the thoughts of the disciples and greatly astonished them. They felt that nobody could be saved if the rich had such difficulty. This led to an even stronger statement. Salvation is a thing not merely difficult or improbable to man, but impossible. Only if the power of God be brought in, is it possible.

We may summarize verses Mat 19:10-26 by saying that the Lord shed His light upon marriage, children and possessions: three things that occupy so much of our lives in this world, and in each case the light He shed overturned the thoughts which previously the disciples had entertained-see, verses Mat 19:10, Mat 19:13, Mat 19:25.

Peter seized upon the Lords words, desiring a definite pronouncement as to what reward was offered to those who like himself had followed the Lord. The reply made it plain that there is to come the regeneration; that is, a wholly new order of things, when the Son of Man should be no longer rejected but be seated on the throne of His glory, and that then the disciples should also be enthroned and vested with powers of administration over the twelve tribes of Israel. In that age the saints are going to judge the world, and here is indicated the place of special prominence reserved for the Apostles. It is also indicated that all who have given up earthly relationships and joys for His Name will receive a hundredfold together with everlasting life. The life which the rich young man desired, and missed by not following Christ, shall be theirs.

The last verse of the chapter adds a word of warning. Many who are first in this world will be last there, and vice versa; for Gods thoughts are not as ours.

Fuente: F. B. Hole’s Old and New Testaments Commentary

19:1

Jesus had been in Galilee for some time and then moved Into the region on the east side of Jordan. Just across the river was the territory of Judea which is the meaning of the words coasts of Judea beyond Jordan.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these sayings, he departed from Galilee, and come into the coasts of Judaea beyond Jordan;

[He came unto the coasts of Judea beyond Jordan.] If it were barely said, the coasts of Judea beyond Jordan; by the coasts of Judea one might understand the bounds of the Jews beyond Jordan. Nor does such a construction want its parallel in Josephus; for “Hyrcanus (saith he) built a fortification, the name of which was Tyre, between Arabia and Judea, beyond Jordan, not far from Essebonitis.” But see Mark here, Mar 10:1, relating the same story with this our evangelist: He came; saith he, into the coasts of Judea; (taking a journey from Galilee,) along the country beyond Jordan.

Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels

Mat 19:1. The borders of Judea, beyond the Jordan, i.e., on the east side. Perea proper is probably meant. This was part of the territory of Herod Antipas, and extended from the Arnon on the south to Pella on the north; or from the head of the Dead Sea to a point nearly opposite the boundary between Samaria and Galilee. The name was also given to the territory between the Arnon and the sources of Jordan, and sometimes included the whole eastern part of the Jordan valley down to the Elamitic Gulf. The breadth of the district in all three senses was not very great. The Christians of Jerusalem sought refuge in Perea (in Pella) just before the destruction of that city. Some identify this visit with the retirement to Bethabara, or Bethany, beyond Jordan (Joh 10:40) immediately before the raising of Lazarus; we place it after that event and the retirement to Ephraim (Joh 11:54).

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

Section 5. (Mat 19:1-15.)

Nature and the Kingdom of God.

In the fifth section the Lord shows to His disciples the relation of the Kingdom to what God as the Creator had established for the blessing of man: an important matter, as to which, it is evident, there would be need of instruction; as also the history of the professing Church has made manifest how easily the mind can get astray. Here was One who had declared Himself Lord of the sabbath, and revoked with His emphatic, “But I say unto you” the sayings of ancient days. It might naturally be questioned, how the new relationships which He had proclaimed would affect those of nature. He had bidden one whom He had called to “leave the dead to bury their dead,” as called into a new sphere and power of life. It was necessary to show whether and how far nature was to have a place in the Kingdom of God; and the two questions of marriage and of children are such as would throw light upon this.

In the epistles, and with the advance of knowledge as to Christian place and privilege, such things had to be expanded and given practical application also; and it is significant that it is in those two of Paul’s epistles in which the position of the believer is shown at its highest (Ephesians and Colossians) in which the duties arising from natural relationships are insisted on in the fullest way.

1. (1) Here it is the Pharisees who bring up the question of marriage, or of its obligation, in order, as it has been reasonably conjectured, to seek to involve Him in the disputes between the rabbinical schools of Hillel and Shammai, who were at issue as to divorce. The question; “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?” seems indeed to refer to the opinions of the former, who went as far as to decide that a wife spoiling her husband’s dinner was cause enough. But in answer the Lord goes further than Shammai himself, and removing all that man had in the meantime obscured it with, finds His argument in the institution of marriage at the beginning, – an argument which strikes at polygamy, as well as the loose holding of the marriage tie, and brings us beyond all that has come in with sin; to the first design of the Creator for His creatures.

He had made them male and female, each adapted for the other, each completed by the other; and had said as to what the union implied, “they two shall be one flesh.” Two, and only two, are spoken of, as with Adam and his wife at first, where neither polygamy nor divorce could be thought of; and “one flesh” would make either polygamy or divorce abomination. Man’s own voice, before sin had beclouded the mind, thus had given utterance to what the Lord speaks of as a divine utterance: for God and man were then at one. He who with true insight had before named the beasts and found among them all no helpmeet, spoke now in the joyful discernment of that helpmeet found.

(2) They have their objection from the law ready: “Why then did Moses command to give her a writing of divorcement and to put her away?” But they did not apprehend aright either Moses or themselves; and their argument is turned against them in the simplest manner: “Moses, for the hardness of your hearts, suffered you to put away your wives; but from the beginning it was not so.” It was Moses himself who was furnishing the evidence, and what an evidence, of their own condition! The law, which was “weak through the flesh,” could not perfect anything because of the resistance to it of a carnal people. That which they objected proved but at the same time their own evil and the hopelessness of it under law. And He turns upon them with one of those imperial sayings which put aside all power of resistance as with the lightning-flash of truth: “And I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife except for fornication, and shall marry another committeth adultery; and whoso marrieth her that is put away committeth adultery.”

One cause alone is permitted for divorce; and that where the bond of marriage has already been broken through. Where not so justified, another marriage on the side of husband or of wife is but adultery. Courts of law may legalize adultery of this sort, if they will, but they cannot sanctify it, or take away the brand which the Lord here puts upon it. How evident that the grace of Christianity is as far as possible from laxity! – that law is more tolerant here than grace can be. But the palliatives of law were only the proof that it could not heal; grace will not palliate, because it heals.

This, let us remember however, is the abstract right of the matter – binding of course, as such, with all the authority that the Lord’s words can give it upon every one of His own. He does not pursue it further, nor consider the complications that may arise in a world such as this which knows Him not, and where His people may be entangled with alliances with the unbelieving, or followed by the consequences of their conduct before conversion. This manifestly belongs rather to what concerns the discipline of the Church, and we shall find the principles applying to it in their place in the epistles. It will be the proper place, therefore, to consider them there, though for the help of souls a few words here may be in place.

We are all born in sin, and go astray naturally from the womb, except as the grace of God may prevent this. When converted to God we may have spent a large part of our lives in disobedience; the effects of which are not necessarily removed by our conversion. With the truest desire to do so, it may be absolutely impossible to return to the position in which we were before the sin was committed. Thus the Lord has Himself decided in the case of a divorced wife, after marriage to another, even though death has dissolved the newer relationship. For the former husband then to take her back again is declared to be an “abomination” to Him (Deu 24:4); and no change of dispensation can affect what is clearly grounded in nature itself, as an ordinance of the God of nature. Hence restoration to a past state may be, and will commonly be, where divorce has taken place, a thing impracticable. We have but to accept things as they are, and rejoice in the mercy that has blotted out the past, and enables us to start afresh, with Him.

Again, there are cases in which separation may be a necessity or allowable, where divorce could not be according to God; separation leaving yet room for the mercy of God to come in and restore; and this door the apostle opens in Corinthians (1Co 7:15), not too widely. Divorce he does not touch: for the Lord has decided there.

(3) To return now to our text: the disciples show out now the state of their own hearts. “If the case of the man with his wife be so,” they say, “it is not good to marry.” And the Lord replies: “Not all have capacity for this,* but those to whom it has been given.” The word of God having pronounced from the beginning, to which our Lord has been referring us, that it is not good for man to be alone,” we cannot expect that the gift to abide alone will be other than exceptional. Christianity leaves the general truth unaffected, while it may and does give power over nature where special circumstances call for this. Nature itself has imposed this necessity upon some: the cruelty of men has imposed it upon others. But the Kingdom of heaven, as a motive in the heart, may lift men above all necessity, and enable them to take this place freely. How different a thought, however, from the selfishness which had just spoken out in the disciples, and of which their Master takes no further notice. The shining of the light sufficiently reveals the darkness which it displaces.

{*”This of which ye speak,” -logos being here used for the “matter of speech.” The common translation here and in ver. 12 does not seem to me to give the sense: for what saying is it that all men are “not able to receive”? Certainly the Lord does not mean to agree with what they have said, that “it is not good to marry,” and as certainly does not mean to apologize for the non-reception of what He has just so emphatically stated. The single state is, of course, what all have not the gift for. Choreo means both to “have room,” and to “make room for;” and to “make room for oneself,” so “to advance, go forward.”}

2. We pass on to a different scene, and a far happier one, though still to find the painful contrast between the Master and the disciples. It is in this case so much the more so, as He has already declared the spirit of His Kingdom by the example of one of these little children who are now brought to Him, that He may put His hands on them and pray.” But they seem full of nothing but of His dignity as a Rabbi, in which they found also, without doubt, their own. Of what use to bring such mere babes to Him? But the Lord answers their rebuke Himself by bidding them place Him higher in their thoughts, and recognize what the parents here more truly apprehended in Him, – the – the power which had all within its absolute control, the love which wielded this power. To put His hands on them and pray: would this be barren? In the Kingdom of God in Israel had there been no place for babes? And now that heaven was manifesting itself, and the Father’s name being declared, in the Kingdom of heaven was there to be no place for babes? Yes; emphatically yes: for “of such” it was, and of no others. If men had to become like babes to enter it, the spirit of the babe was the very spirit of the Kingdom; and who should shut them out? “Suffer the little children,” He says, “to come unto Me, and forbid them not; for of such is the Kingdom of heaven. And He laid His hands on them, and departed thence.”

It is to be observed, however, that Matthew excludes, what Mark and Luke both record, the Lord’s words as to moral resemblance. The latter is not here the point, but the place with Him of little children themselves, the answer to the heart’s affections, given of God Himself, to those who are manifestly put in their weakness and need, to be nurtured, trained, reared amid the contrary influences of the world, to be for the glory of Him whose they are, while in it. How gracious and comforting is the assurance then, that we may come in the confession of our weakness to Him who is Lord of all, though yet the world does not own Him, and in faith still put our little ones into His hand, assured of His reception of them, and that He recognizes them, not as part of the outside world, but as subjects of His Kingdom and disciples in His school. Here is our warrant and encouragement to “bring them up in the discipline and admonition of the Lord” (Eph 6:4), expecting from Him the grace of the Spirit, which alone can make it effectual. For the word abides for us, if we do not through our unbelief make it barren, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house” (Act 16:31).

The Kingdom of heaven was not yet come: it is only at the end of this Gospel and after His resurrection that we find the Lord announcing all authority as given to Him in heaven and on earth (Mat 18:18). The words are, therefore, anticipative of that time, and perpetuate the value for us of His action here.

Fuente: Grant’s Numerical Bible Notes and Commentary

The country of the Jews was divided into three provinces; namely, Galilee, Samaria, and Judea.

In Galilee, were the cities of Nazareth, Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum; here Christ dwelt and spent a considerable part of his time, preaching to them, and working miracles among them. But now comes the time in which our holy Lord takes his leave of this province of Galilee, and returned no more to it: woe to that people, whose unthankfulness for Christ’s presence and ministry amongst them, causes him finally to forsake them. Having left Galilee, our holy Lord passes through Samaria (the Samaritans being prejudiced against him, and refusing to receive him) and comes into the coasts of Judea, where multitudes of people flocked after him.

But observe the qualities of his followers, not the great ones of the world, not many mighty, not many noble; but the poor and despised multitude, the sick and weak, the deaf and blind, the diseased and distressed.

Thence observe, That none but such as find their need of Christ will seek after him, and come unto him. None will apply to him for help, till they feel themselves helpless. Great multitudes of the sick and diseased came unto him, and he healed them all.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

Mat 19:1-2. When Jesus had finished these sayings Had delivered the instructions contained in the preceding chapter, to his disciples at Capernaum; he departed from Galilee Where he had long dwelt, and through which he had made repeated journeys, but in which, from henceforward, he walked no more; and came into the coasts of Judea beyond Jordan Properly speaking, no part of Judea was on the farther side of Jordan; for though, after the Jews returned from the captivity, the whole of their land was called Judea, especially by foreigners who happened to mention their affairs, it is certain that in the gospels Judea is always spoken of as a particular division of the country. We may therefore reasonably suppose, that Matthews expression is elliptical; and may supply it from Mar 10:1, thus, And came into the coasts of Judea, , through the country beyond Jordan. See Joh 10:40. In this journey, our Lord passed through the country beyond Jordan, that the Jews living there might enjoy the benefit of his doctrine and miracles. And great multitudes followed him Namely, from Galilee into Perea, for his fame having become exceeding great, he was everywhere resorted to, and followed by the sick who wished to be healed; by their friends who attended them; by those whose curiosity prompted them to see and examine things so wonderful; by well-disposed persons, who found themselves greatly profited and pleased with his sermons; by enemies who watched all his words and actions with a design to expose him as a deceiver; lastly, by those who expected that he would set up the kingdom immediately: besides, at this time the multitude may have been greater than ordinary, because, as the passover was at hand, many, going thither, may have chosen to travel in our Lords train, expecting to see new miracles. Macknight.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

XCVIII.

JOURNEY TO JERUSALEM. CONCERNING DIVORCE.

aMATT. XIX. 1-12; bMARK X. 1-12.

a1 And it came to pass when Jesus had finished these words [the words contained in Mat 18:15-35., which are the last teachings in Galilee recorded by any of the Evangelists, Mat 28:16, Mat 28:17, Joh 21:1], b1 And he arose from thence, and cometh {acame} binto the borders of Juda and beyond the Jordan [The land beyond the Jordan was called Pera. See Mat 5:32), they hoped to make it appear that he despised the authority of Moses. But if he ratified the law of Moses, then they would show that he was contradicting his former teaching, and hence too inconsistent to be worthy of credit. For the Lord’s teaching concerning divorce see Act 13:2, 1Co 9:4, 1Co 9:5), they are permitted to abstain from marriage; and when seasons of persecution seriously interfere with the regular order and course of life among Christians, they may find it expedient to live as eunuchs ( 1Co 7:25-34). But in no case must celibacy be practiced unless it can be done so without the sin of incontinency ( 1Co 7:1-9). The Bible nowhere countenances any celibate vow, for it teaches that celibacy is to be continued only so long as it is expedient. Much less does it give countenance to the doctrine that a church can pass laws enforcing celibacy on the whole class of clergy, without any regard for their natural constitution, their spiritual powers, or their faithful continuance.–P. Y. P. [542]

[FFG 537-542]

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)

Matthew Chapter 19

Chapter 19 carries on the subject of the spirit that is suited to the kingdom of heaven, and goes deep into the principles which govern human nature, and of what was now divinely introduced. A question asked by the Pharisees-for the Lord had drawn nigh to Judea-gives rise to the exposition of His doctrine on marriage; and turning away from the law, given on account of the hardness of their hearts, He goes back [58] to Gods institution, according to which one man and one woman were to unite together, and to be one in the sight of God. He establishes, or rather re-establishes, the true character of the indissoluble bond of marriage. I call it indissoluble, for the exception of the case of unfaithfulness, is not one; the guilty person had already broken the bond. It was no longer man and woman one flesh. At the same time, if God gave spiritual power for it, it was still better to remain unmarried.

He then renews His instruction with respect to children, while testifying His affection for them: here it appears to me rather in connection with the absence of all that binds to the world, to its distractions and its lusts, and owning what is lovely, confiding, and externally undefiled in nature; whereas, in chapter 18, it was the intrinsic character of the kingdom. After this, He shews (with reference to the introduction of the kingdom in His Person) the nature of entire devotedness and sacrifice of all things, in order to follow Him, if truly they only sought to please God. The spirit of the world was opposed at all points,-both carnal passions and riches. No doubt the law of Moses restrained these passions; but it supposes them, and, in some respects, bears with them. According to the glory of the world, a child had no value. What power can it have there? It is of value in the Lords eyes.

The law promised life to the man that kept it. The Lord makes it simple and practical in its requirements, or, rather, recalls them in their true simplicity. Riches were not forbidden by the law; that is to say, although moral obligation between man and man was maintained by the law, that which bound the heart to the world was not judged by it. Rather was prosperity, according to the government of God, connected with obedience to it. For it supposed this world, and man alive in it, and tested him there. Christ recognises this; but the motives of the heart are tested. The law was spiritual, and, the Son of God there; we find again what we found before-man tested and detected, and God revealed. All is intrinsic and eternal in its nature, for God is revealed already. Christ judges everything that has a bad effect on the heart, and acts upon its selfishness, and thus separates it from God. Sell that thou hast, says He, and follow me. Alas! the young man could not renounce his possessions, his ease, himself. Hardly, says Jesus, shall a rich man enter into the kingdom. This was manifest: it was the kingdom of God, of heaven; self and the world had no place in it. The disciples, who did not understand that there is no good in man, were astonished that one so favoured and well disposed should be still far from salvation. Who then could succeed? The whole truth then comes out. It is impossible to men. They cannot overcome the desires of the flesh. Morally, and as to his will and his affections, these desires are the man. One cannot make a negro white, or take his spots from the leopard: that which they exhibit is in their nature. But to God, blessed be His name! all things are possible.

These instructions with regard to riches give rise to Peters question, What shall be the portion of those who have renounced everything? This brings us back to the glory in chapter 17. There would be a regeneration; the state of things should be entirely renewed under the dominion of the Son of man. At that time they should sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. They should have the first place in the administration of the earthly kingdom. Every one, however, should have his own place; for whatever any one renounced for Jesus sake, he should receive a hundredfold and everlasting life. Nevertheless these things would not be decided by appearance here; nor by the place men held in the old system, and before men: some that were first should be last, and the last first. In fact, it was to be feared that the carnal heart of man would take this encouragement, given in the shape of reward for all his labour and all his sacrifices, in a mercenary spirit, and seek to make God his debtor; and, therefore, in the parable by which the Lord continues His discourse (chap. 20), He establishes the principle of grace and of Gods sovereignty in that which He gives, and towards those whom He calls, in a very distinct manner, and makes His gifts to those whom He brings into His vineyard depend on His grace and on His call.

Footnotes for Matthew Chapter 19

58: The connection is here traced between the new thing and nature, as God had originally formed it, passing over the law as something merely come between. It was a new power, because evil had come in, but it recognised Gods creation, while proving the state of the heart, not yielding to its weakness. Sin has corrupted what God created good. The power of the Spirit of God, given to us through redemption, raises man and his path wholly out of the whole condition of flesh, introduces a new divine power by which he walks in this world, after the example of Christ. But with this there is the fullest sanction of what God Himself originally established. It is good, though there may be what is better. The way the law is passed over to go back to Gods original institution, where spiritual power did not take the heart wholly out of the whole scene, though walking in it, is very striking. In marriage, the child, the character of the young man, what is of God and lovely in nature is recognised of the Lord. But the state of mans heart is searched out. This does not depend on character but motive, and is fully tested by Christ (there is an entire dispensational change, for riches were promised to a faithful Jew), and a rejected Christ-the path to heaven-everything, and the test of everything, that is of the heart of man. God made man upright with certain family relationships. Sin has wholly corrupted this old or first creation of man. The coming of the Holy Ghost has brought in a power which lifts, in the second Man, out of the old creation into the new, and gives us heavenly things-only not yet as to the vessel, the body; but it cannot disown or condemn what God created in the beginning. That is impossible. In the beginning God made them. When we come to heavenly condition, all this, though not the fruits of its exercises in grace, disappears. If a man in the power of the Holy Ghost has the gift to do it, and be entirely heavenly, so much the better; but it is entirely evil to condemn or speak against the relationships which God originally created, or diminish or detract from the authority which God has connected with them. If a man can live wholly above and out of them all, to serve Christ, it is all well; but it is rare and exceptional.

Fuente: John Darby’s Synopsis of the New Testament

CHAPTER 10

JESUS IN PEREA

Mat 19:1-2, and Mar 10:1. Rising up from thence, He comes into the boundaries of Judea, through the country which is beyond the Jordan and again multitudes come to Him, and, as was His custom, He again taught them. Matthew says, Many multitudes followed Him, and He healed them there. As above specified, when, in consequence of the tremendous popular sensation arising from the resurrection of Lazarus, the Sanhedrin had passed the condemnatory verdict against Him, unanimously assigning His death-warrant, in order to prolong His life and finish His work, He goes away to the city of Ephraim, about forty miles north of Jerusalem; thence: after a short interval, journeying on toward the northeast, crossing the Jordan over into Perea, the land which had been given to Reuben, Gad, and the half tribe of Manasseh for their inheritance, at their own request, when Joshua divided the land of Canaan among the twelve tribes. Now He spends perhaps a dozen days in that country east of the Jordan, in the days of Joshua ruled by Og, the king of Bashan, and Sihon, the king of Heshbon; but in the days of our Savior known as Perea. It is superfluous to say that Jesus utilized all of His opportunities while in that country, as everywhere else, teaching the people the wonderful truths of the kingdom and healing the sick.

Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament

Mat 19:3. The pharisees also came tempting him. These men professed perfection of morality, and of worship; and their object was to tempt our Lord to sin, by giving his sanction to a law of custom, revolting to all the feelings of humanity, and admitting that a man might divorce his wife for any corporeal infirmity, or defect in temper or conduct. Our Saviour confounded their ingenious malice by the non-admission of any just cause of divorce, except that of adultery, and adultery proved first at the bar of justice. See Deu 24:1. Mal 2:11-14.

Mat 19:8. Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts. This text is explained by some to refer to the peculiar hardness or wickedness of the jews, who were given up to their own hearts lusts. Stephen also says that God turned, and gave them up to worship the hosts of heaven. So it was not from the original law, but from displeasure, that Moses permitted a separation. The rabbins did not apply the law of stoning an adulteress, except the proofs of guilt were absolute.

Mat 19:11. All men cannot receive this saying. ; all men do not receive this saying. Cannot is not found in any version, except the English. Tous ne comprenent pas cette parole. CALVINS Testament. All men do not embrace a life of celibacy. Some are born eunuchs, some are made so by oriental tyrants, to attend as slaves in their harems. Some, like Origen, become so from motives of piety. Many ministers and missionaries embrace a life of celibacy to move in a sphere of entire devotedness to God. It is thus apparent, that eunuchism, with the exception of natural defects, is here taken for the chastity and purity of a single life.

Mat 19:13. Then were there brought to him little children, by the parents who believed in Christ, that he might put his hands on them and bless them, as Jacob in his last days blessed Ephraim and Manasseh, the two sons of Joseph. Ministers may learn from their Master, in visiting schools and families, to take notice of children, for they are as much the heirs of the kingdom as their parents. Mar 10:13.

Mat 19:16. One came and said what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life. This interesting piece of history is related also by Mark and Luke, who call the applicant a ruler. It is highly interesting to young people, and claims improvement here. The young man seems to have entered on the enjoyment of his fortune, and was laudably desirous to consecrate it by an offering to God, for the benefit of religion and the poor. This had the appearance both of piety and prudence, for few estates are realized without many hard bargains, not to say extortions; and alms would exonerate his wealth of any doubtful curse attached to unlawful gains, where the proper restitution could not be traced.

This young man in character and conduct was highly moral. He could say of the second table, all these precepts have I observed, and no blot has stained my reputation. What a model for the youth of our age. What myriads, younger than he, who must drop their countenance in his presence.

He was respectful to the ministers of religion; he knew not the godhead of Christ, but ranking him with the first of prophets, he kneeled before him, and called him good Master. Young Obadiah prostrated before Elijah, and called him lord. This youth wished for religious and paternal instruction, that he might live to the glory of God, and secure the blessings of the covenant on his house. Let men therefore learn from their earliest youth to revere religion, to converse with its ministers, and to shun the breath of those who slander sacred things.

Our Lord treated him with compassion, prudence, and fidelity. He loved him because he saw in him some fine dispositions, which wanted to be set right by truth and conversion. He mildly admonished him for excess of complaisance, in applying the title of good to any one but God, original sin having tainted the human mass. There is indeed twice in our version the good man of the house used: but in the Greek, it is not agathos, as here, but father of the family. We should never give either to prince or priest a title which we cannot use with a good conscience.

Our Lord however did not abruptly cross this young man in his religious views, for education had filled his mind with ideas of human or legal righteousness. Too much light overpowers tender minds. He met him on his own ground, and led him to obedience as the surest test of love to God. Keep the commandments. Here the young man had joy, as to the letter, and thought that righteousness covered him as a garment. But Jesus never left his work unfinished. To mark the defect in his love, he laid his finger on the tender spot, and touched his only sin. If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell all that thou hast, and give to the poor; and come thou, be an apostle, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven. Here the sharp sword touched the quick; this young man loved his land more than God, and went away sorrowful.

Here we see that no man can be converted till his sin is touched; and likewise, that one single predominant sin will exclude a man from heaven. We learn also the great difficulty of rich men being saved. It is difficult among so many viands and wines to preserve temperance; it is difficult among so many honours paid to the world properly to honour God. It is difficult when surrounded by so much earthly wealth, and by an enchanting residence, properly to place the affections on the paradise above, and to be a faithful steward of the mammon of unrighteousness.

We learn lastly, that men may attain on earth a growing perfection of virtue. If thou wilt be perfect, said the Lord. A martyr may love God more than life; an injured man may pray for his enemies, and wish them every good; and a man may account all his worldly honours as loss, and as dung, for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ. May the Lord perfect us in that love which casteth out all fear. But I seem to see in our congregations, numbers of young men, lovely as this youth, children of the righteous, and heirs of the promises, whose conversion through some one sin is retarded. What an awful thing, if through that one sin, they have to go away sorrowful from the left hand of Christ.

Mat 19:24. It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. This is a Hebrew proverb, denoting a thing impossible. In fortified towns the gates were strong, and closed at an early hour. The wide gate was for carriages; on each side was a narrow gate for foot passengers, called the needles eye, because its figure resembled the eye of a needle. To read cable, is unfounded, and trifling with the text. Rich men in order to be saved are called to make sacrifices, as indicated by other scriptures. 1Ti 6:10. Jas 2:5-6. The miser who so loves his money as to neglect the duties of charity, can never dwell with the God of love.

Mat 19:28. Ye which have followed me in the regeneration, or new birth, and persevered in efforts to regenerate the world, shall sit on thrones, as Daniel foretold; and then those who have believed in Christ shall judge the Hebrew world, and all their ungodly neighbours. The scribes and the pharisees who now are first, shall then be last; while the regenerate publicans and sinners shall sit as assessors with Christ in heavenly places. Yea, many preachers and professors whose love has decayed, shall then be thrown into the dark shades, while those who are most holy and useful shall shine as the brightness of the firmament for ever and ever.

Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Mat 19:1-12. The Question of Divorce (Mar 10:1-12*).In Mat 19:2 healed replaces Mk.s taught. Mt. makes Jesus give His own opinion, based on Gen., at once, and it is the Pharisees who bring the Deuteronomic modification into the debate.

Mat 19:3. for every cause: peculiar to Mt. Mk. makes the questions as to divorce absolute; Mt. gives it a Jewish and more likely form, having in mind the difference between the view of Shammai that a man could put his wife away for serious misconduct only, and that of Hillel that he could do so for any reason, e.g. a spoiled dinner or a physical defect. Jesus lifts the subject out of these quibbles to an ideal plane. Note how (Mat 19:8) He changes the Pharisees word Moses commanded into Moses suffered, i.e. allowed.

Mat 19:9. except for fornication: i.e. unchastitypeculiar to Mt. Perhaps (Allen, p. 203) the addition is due to a Jewish-Christian editor bringing Christs teaching into line with that of the Rabbis (cf. Mat 5:17-20), yet he may have been rightly interpreting it. The last clause of this verse takes the place of Mar 10:12 (cf. also Luk 16:18, Mat 5:31 f.*).

Mat 19:10 ff. Peculiar to Mt. The disciples suggest that if the marriage tie is so strict as Jesus suggests, it had better not be formed. Jesus agrees, but says (Moffatts tr.): This truth is not practicable (or everyone, it is only for those who have the gift (? of spiritual insight). He shifts the ground of the objection. This comparative depreciation of marriage, continued and unfolded in Mat 19:12, stands in contrast with Mat 19:1-9, which sanctifies it. We must probably interpret the praise of celibacy (there is no need to take the words made themselves eunuchs literally, as Origen did) in Mat 19:12 as having an eschatological background. If the Kingdom was imminent, the best thing was to forego ordinary relationships and be ready for it. The saying and the fact that Jesus Himself was celibate have led to the unhappy view in some quarters that celibacy is always and everywhere the superior condition. Cf. 1 Corinthians 7, Rev 14:4. Montefiore refers to Baron von Hgels Mystic Element of Religion, ii. 126129. Jesus, like Paul, recognises the case of weaker brethren: Let anyone practise it for whom it is practicable. Perhaps Mat 19:12 is really a detached saying which Mt. here connects with the discussion on divorce by Mat 19:10 f., which may well have belonged originally to the more rigorous Marcan account.This saying (Mat 19:11) may be the disciples remark in Mat 19:10, or Christs teaching of the permanency of the marriage tie (Mat 19:4-8), or possibly His words in Mat 19:12.

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

The setting now is changed from Galilee to Judea, with great crowds following Him, finding healing from their illnesses. But since the Lord Jesus has been announcing a kingdom of a different character than anything preceding it, then matters of fundamental character arise. He has frequently said, “But I say unto you,” thereby setting aside what others have said or inferred. What of the question of marriage? The Pharisees raise this with ulterior motives, for they think they can trap Him. They ask, “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?” Evidently this was a matter of controversy between Israel’s religious leaders, some even considering it permissible to divorce a wife if she spoiled a meal.

But the Lord makes it transparently clear that the basic, original order in creation is not to be changed, but affirmed by the truth of the kingdom of heaven. God, in creating both male and female, made a marked distinction between them, but in marriage indicated a unity of vital character. Because of God’s manifest order in creation it was right that a man should leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife. This verse settles many questions. First, when marriage takes place, the man (or woman) is no longer in the place of subjection to parents. Secondly, he cleaves to his wife:–only one wife, so that bigamy and polygamy are absolutely unscriptural. Cleaving to his wife involves genuine love for her, and faithfulness and devotedness.

The two are then recognized before God as being “one flesh.” It is God Himself who has joined the two together. Therefore man has no authority to divorce them. Governments today of course ignore God’s decree in this matter, but the word of God will not change to accommodate men’s preferences. Marriage was from the beginning intended to be a binding agreement so long as both individuals remain alive.

Yet we know that throughout the Old Testament these things were ignored. Many (even believers) had more then one wife. The Pharisees too thought they could prove the Lord wrong by referring to Deu 24:1, which speaks of Moses, the lawgiver, instructing that if a man had found some uncleanness in his wife, he could give her a bill of divorcement and send her away. This bill of divorce was to guard against a man’s cruel treatment of a wife by discarding her while not leaving her free to be married to any other.

However, the Lord’s answer to this is most penetrating. Moses had allowed this because of the hardness of their hearts, but from the beginning it was not so. How clearly this shows that the law itself was not at all the manifestation of God’s heart! In this case law was more permissive than is the grace of God! For grace enables one to surmount difficulties in a way that law could never do.

Therefore, confirming what was implicit in creation, the Lord adds, “And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, commits adultery: and who so marries her which is put away doth commit adultery.” The one exception allowed here is because the marriage bond has been so violated as to be virtually broken already. If the one party is guilty of fornication, then it would not be adultery for the other party to divorce the first and marry another. But the one who married the party put away for fornication would be guilty of adultery.

Today many other complications have arisen because of careless ignoring of the word of God, but the Lord leaves the matter with only this basic declaration. 1Co 7:1-40 adds somewhat more that is intended for the serious consideration of believers, and since it is written to the church of God, also gives helpful principles as to maintaining assembly order in regard to such questions.

Verse 10 seems to indicate that Jewish custom had so obscured the sanctity of marriage that the disciples felt the Lord’s instructions to be so exacting that to remain single would be preferable. But they had not stopped to consider the most important matter of the guidance of God in marriage. If this were sought and submitted to by both parties, how much ensuing difficulty would be avoided!

The Lord’s answer is perhaps more accurately translated in the Numerical Bible, “Not all have capacity for this, but those to whom it hath been given,” that is, not all have capacity to remain unmarried, though some do. Some were by nature eunuchs, being born as such. Others had been made eunuchs through the cruelty of men, as slaves deprived of their sexual powers. Other still, however, had voluntarily made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. Then He adds that this is only for those able to receive it. Therefore, as to the third class, there is a spiritual explanation. Rather than one being a literal eunuch in this case, he willingly denies himself the privileges connected with marriage in order to devote himself entirely to the service of the Lord.

The kingdom of heaven then calls for faithfulness and honour in the marriage bond. No less does it call for proper respect for the family relationship, the becoming consideration of children, as is seen now in verses 13 to 15. When young children were brought to the Lord, the disciples evidently thought that the kingdom was too advanced a matter for their tender age, and they rebuked those who brought them. Many believers still have virtually the same attitude.

But the Lord corrects them with firm, decided words. They must not hinder, but willingly permit little children to come to Him, “for of such is the kingdom of heaven.” For, if the church of God includes only those who are born again, the kingdom includes families of those who own the Lordship of Christ. In fact we have before seen (Mat 18:3) that anyone who enters the kingdom must do so in the spirit of a little child. Now it is made clear that little children are fully welcome there. He laid His hands on them.

Verse 16 speaks of one who comes to the Lord, but not as a little child. He is in earnest, no doubt, but his words show confidence in his own ability to do something to earn eternal life. In this case the translation should read, “Teacher, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?” This is not the simplicity of a little child, and the Lord asks why the man inquires concerning good, for only one is good, that is, God. Since the man is not good in himself , how can he expect to do a good thing ?

The Lord does not give him the Gospel , for he is not ready for it, but rather refers him to the standard God had given by Moses as regards doing good. To enter into life (life on earth, not eternal life) let him keep the commandments. The man asks, “Which?” Did he think any of them could be ignored? But the Lord lists only those that have to do with men’s responsibility toward others, not including those God ward. Why? Because the men was not thinking of God, but of goodness in himself. Was he really satisfied with his measure of keeping these commandments ? He said he had observed all these things from his youth but he was not satisfied. How could he be? For he had actually ignored the vital question of his relationship toward God. He knew he lacked something, and it was a matter far more serious than he realized: he lacked the knowledge of God. What a shock must have been the Lord’s answer to him! If he desires perfection, let him sell what he has, give to the poor, exchanging his riches for treasure in heaven, and follow the Lord. If he had by faith only known the Lord, and really loved his neighbour as himself, should this have been so unthinkable? He went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.

Such works as those of verse 21 require implicit faith in the Lord Jesus. This was what the rich man lacked. We do not know whether these words of the Lord might have had such effect on him that he would later realize his need of the pure grace of God. No doubt the Lord’s words were designed to this end. But at the time the Lord speaks of the extreme difficulty of a rich man’s entering the kingdom of heaven. In fact, He goes farther in verse 24, for it is impossible for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, as the Lord indicates in verse 26. The tendency of rich men is to trust in their riches, so that the Lord has proposed a rigid test: would he choose to trust his riches or trust the Lord? The amazement of the disciples was due to the fact that under law God had promised great increase to those who obeyed it, and too often riches were considered a sign that the possessor of them must be keeping the law. This was not by any means always the case, for in fact all were guilty of breaking the law. But if his riches only strengthened him in his claim to be keeping the law, then the riches were a hindrance to his realizing any need of the grace of God. On the other hand, the Lord adds that with God all things are possible. He alone is able to break down the pride of the rich, to no longer trust in themselves, but in the living God. Some rich have indeed been brought to God, though as Paul says of the wise and mighty and noble, “not many” (1Co 1:26).

Peter’s answer to the Lord however (v.27) shows even in a true disciple some lack of that implicit faith that fully trusts the Lord. It was true that the disciples had left their own means of livelihood to follow Him, though Peter himself had not been rich. But he asks, “What shall we have therefore? Was it not enough to him to have the Lord’s own presence and approval?

Yet the Lord assures them of reward far greater than they would have imagined, that in the regeneration, which is the total change of things in the millennial age, the twelve would sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Of course this did not include Judas, for twelve is simply a represent active number. Judas had not in heart followed the Lord, so another would take his place.

Not only would the apostles be rewarded, but everyone who had forsaken houses or brethren or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or lands for His name’s sake would receive an hundredfold, and also inherit everlasting life. This forsaking does not mean giving up any sense of responsibility in regard to these relationships; but it does mean giving Christ supreme place, so that none of these things hinder our prime responsibility to Him.

Receiving one hundredfold does not only speak of reward in heaven, but even in this life the spiritual reward will be great. Compare Mar 10:30, which speaks of receiving, “now in this time, houses and brethren and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions.” This of course is spiritual recompense; then it speaks of eternal life as connected with “the world to come.” Certainly the believer has eternal life now, and eternal life goes beyond the world to come; but that life will be enjoyed more fully then than it can be in present circumstances.

“But many that are first shall be last; and the last first.” If we desire a first place, we shall likely find ourselves last: if we are now content with a last place, we may find the Lord giving us the first. Paul found no difficulty whatever in these matters. For the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus his Lord he willingly suffered the loss of all things, counting them only refuse, not something to be regretted, but gladly given up for something infinitely better (Php 3:7-8).

Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible

1-30

CHAPTER 19

And it came to pass, &c. This is the same history as that related by S. Mark (Mar 10:1), by S. Luke (Luk 9:51), and, as it would seem, by S. John (vii. 1). So Jansen, Francis Lucas, and others. Maldonatus, however, denies this with respect to S. John: but his arguments will be refuted by the exposition of the context. It is plain from John that these events took place about the Feast of Tabernacles, which was celebrated in September. Christ went up to that feast, that He might gradually prepare Himself for death. He was crucified in the following March. Luke adds, that Christ journeyed through Samaria. Hence it follows, that Christ-leaving the direct route from Samaria to Jerusalem-proceeded to the Jordan; and having crossed it, passed through Pera and entered the borders of Judea from the east, and arrived at Jerusalem about the middle of the Feast of Tabernacles, as John has (Joh 7:14). This explains the expression, beyond Jordan, in the text. Beyond, or across Jordan, must be connected with the verb came, not with the words coasts of Judea, as is plain from Mark. For Christ, about the borders of Judea, crossed over the Jordan, that He might be farther away from the observation of the Pharisees, when He was teaching and healing the multitudes.

Great multitudes followed Him, &c. Not so much from Galilee-where He wished His journey to escape observation, as Mark and John say-as from the other districts through which He passed. He healed them there. There-i.e., on the confines of Judea; and then sent them back to their homes. For He did not wish to enter Jerusalem with so great a crowd of people, that He might not give the Pharisees an opportunity of accusing Him of sedition, and stirring up the people.

The Pharisees also, &c. They had no doubt (from Deu 24:1) that this was allowable for any grave cause. So Origen, SS. Jerome and Bede. Came, not when Jesus proceeded from the confines of Judea to Jerusalem to keep the Feast of Tabernacles (see Joh 7:1), but after the feast was over, and He was returning to the borders of Judea and had again crossed the Jordan. This is plain from Joh 10:40; for Matthew passes over in silence both the going to Jerusalem and the return from thence. John’s words are as follow. And He went away again beyond Jordan into the place where John was first baptizing. This was non, near to Salim (Joh 3:23). This question, concerning the putting away a wife, seems to have been very hotly debated in the time of Christ, just as it is now. Therefore the Pharisees proposed it to Him, that they might tempt Him, and find an occasion for carping at Him. For if Christ should say, It is not lawful to put away a wife, He would incur the hatred of many rich and carnal men who made a practice of divorce. But if, on the other hand, He should assert that divorce is lawful, then they were ready to insinuate that His doctrine was imperfect and carnal-His doctrine, I say, Who professed to be the teacher of spiritual perfection, the Doctor sent from Heaven. The Abyssinians at the present day, like the Jews, frequently put away their wives, and marry others. Indeed, they sometimes take them only for a month, or a year.

He answered, &c. Some think from this passage that Adam was created a hermaphrodite, and had in himself both sexes. But away with such puerilities. The meaning is as follows: Since Holy Scripture did not say in the case of other animals (Gen 1:27), that God made them male and female, but only as regards man, by this it is signified that it is only the marriage of the human race, and that of one male with one female, which was instituted by God. This union or marriage between Adam and Eve was so ordained that he could not put her away and marry another. So SS. Chrysostom, Jerome, Theophylact, Euthymius. Again, from the fact that of one Adam two persons were made, namely Adam and Eve, and because Eve was formed from Adam, it is shown that monogamy is right, viz., that a wife ought not to be separated from her husband, forasmuch as she is a part and a member of him. For as Plato says (Dial. de amore), “As it were of two imperfect parts one perfect man is formed.” As therefore a member, such as the head, cannot be separated from a man, as to its origin and formation, so ought the marriage of one man and one woman to be perpetual and indissoluble, so that it can only be dissolved by death, even as the head can only be separated from the body by death. Wherefore Our Lord adds by way of explanation, For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife. Plato, and from him S. Basil (lib. de Virginit.), adds that this is the cause why a man seeks a wife, as it were a part cut off from himself; and as a magnet attracts iron, so does a woman a man.

And said, viz., God, by the mouth of Adam, as a prophet, instituting marriage with Adam and Eve. For this cause: Because the woman being formed out of the man becomes flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone. Shall be joined, Greek, , i.e., shall be agglutinated, shall adhere closely and undividedly to his wife, by the most close and intimate bond of matrimony, and that leaving the society and often the home of his father and mother, he may dwell with his wife.

And there shall be two in one flesh. (Vulg.) Greek, , i.e., into one flesh. This is commonly expounded of corporeal union. But it is better to take it more simply and purely as a Hebraism, signifying one human being, one civil person. For, by synecdoche flesh denotes the whole man. As therefore such a part of the body as the heart ought not to be separated from the body, so ought not a man to be separated from his wife. From hence it follows, moraliter, that a man and his wife ought so to love one another as the heart and the soul love the body to which they belong, and the body loves them. (See Eph. v. 28.) Again, from hence it follows that there is a common power over either body, that a man should have the same power over his wife’s body that he has over his own, and, vice versa, as the Apostle teaches (1 Cor. vii. 4). I have said more on this subject in Gen 2:24.

No more twain . . . joined, Greek , i.e., has yoked together, as in one yoke, whence married people are called , because as two horses are coupled together by one yoke in a chariot, that they may draw it, so are two spouses coupled together by the one yoke of matrimony, that they may sustain it, and by it procreate, and bring up offspring. There is a twofold reason by which Christ proves that a man ought not to put away his wife. 1. A man’s putting away his wife is contrary to nature, just as it is contrary to nature that one flesh and one man should be divided into two. 2. This divorce is contrary to the ordinance of God. If therefore it be done, it is done impiously, because what God hath joined together is torn asunder. Who dares to annul what God has sanctioned? Who dares to divide what God has united? Who dares to mutilate the work of God the Creator, to tear asunder one man? Falsely therefore saith Erasmus on 1Co 7:10-11 “What is rightly joined together is what God hath united. God separateth what is rightly separated.” As though marriages improperly and inconsiderately entered into without God’s instigation might be set aside. For Christ speaks of nature, and the natural and primary institution of marriage, according to which marriage being once contracted in any way whatsoever, and by whomsoever as instigator, it is indissoluble. For nature requires this, that offspring may continuously be propagated by matrimony, and be advantageously brought up by both parents. This bringing up is, in the human race, a work of difficulty, and of long continuance, lasting up to the twentieth year of a child’s age, and sometimes longer. It is otherwise with beasts, which in a few months, or weeks come to adolescence, so that they do not longer require a father or mother’s care. Wherefore their marriage is then dissolved. There is then an priori reason why the indissolubility of marriage belongs to the jus nature, and why fornication, pollution, divorce, and polygamy are contrary to that law. It is because God, who is the Lord of nature and of marriage, and of our bodies, so ordained at the very beginning of the world, and gave the right and use of our bodies only in the union of wedlock. And if we use them in any other way, we abuse our bodies contrary to the will of God, who is the Supreme Lord; and contrary to the law which He has ordained. That this is so appears from this, that in the Mosaic law God allowed a dispensation by which a new law was introduced which gave permission for polygamy, and a bill of divorce. Thus Hosea, by God’s command married a wife who had been a fornicatrix. Moreover the end and the cause why God ordained this absolute indissolubility of marriage, is, 1. That there may be closer union and greater mutual love between those who are married. 2. For the sake of the better bringing up of children. The 3rd reason is an allegorical one: because marriage is a type and figure of the indissoluble Union of the Divine WORD with our flesh, and through it with the Church. As the Apostle teaches us (Eph 5:32), “This is a great sacrament. I speak concerning Christ and the Church.” (Vulg.).

Verse 7. They say, &c. The Pharisees object to Christ, Why hath Moses commanded? In order to make their objection the stronger, they use the word command, whereas Moses, as Christ observes in the following verse, only permitted the bill of divorce. It was only that sort of command which is conditional, not absolute. Moses had commanded that if the Jews would put away their wives, they could only do so by giving a writing of divorcement. I have fully entered into every thing connected with this bill of divorce on Deu 4:1. We must here supply from S. Mar 10:3-4, that when the Pharisees asked Christ whether it were lawful to put away a wife, He first answered and said unto them, “what did Moses command you? And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.” Thus Christ as Matthew here has it in the fourth verse unfolds the original institution of marriage by God, and its indissolubility. Then the Pharisees rejoined, Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce, and to put her away? Jesus answered, Moses permitted this because of the hardness of your hearts. But it was not so from the beginning. Thus by prefixing the words in Mark, and affixing those in Matthew, we show the agreement of the two Evangelists.

Verse 8. Moses suffered. He alters commanded into suffered, or permitted. Moses suffered you to put away your wives, when you hated them, lest if you could not divorce them, you should kill them. For so great was the hardness and carnality of your hearts that ye would rather put them to death than be without the pleasure of a new and desired marriage.

From the beginning. When man’s nature had become corrupted by sin, man changed and corrupted this institution of God, and gave occasion for divorce and polygamy.

Verse 9. But I say, &c. Christ used those words upon two occasions. 1. Publicly in this place to the Jews and the Pharisees. When He here promulgated His new law, by which He revoked the power of giving a bill of divorce, and brought back marriage to its primeval institution and indissolubility. 2. Shortly afterwards He repeated the words in private to his disciples. (Mar 10:10-12.)

I say, i.e., I enact, and as the Lawgiver of the New Law, I ordain, and bring back marriage to its original rectitude and steadfastness. And I declare that whosoever shall put away his wife and shall marry another shall be accounted, and shall be in fact an adulterer.

Except for fornication. That is, except on account of adultery. For what in those who are free is fornication, in the married is adultery. And this dissolves marriage quoad thorum, though not quoad vinculum. For the adulterer does not keep the faith which he gave to his spouse. Whence he may be put away by his spouse, according to the saying, “With him who has broken troth, let troth be broken.”

From this exception, the Greeks, according to the testimony of Guido the Carmelite (Tract. de Hresibus), and modern heretics gather and conclude that if whoso putteth away his wife except for fornication, and marry another, committelh adultery; then, on the contrary, whosoever shall put away his wife on account of fornication, and shall marry another, does not commit adultery. Whence they are of opinion that marriage is dissolved by adultery, not only quoad thorum, but quoad vinculum, that under such circumstances a man may contract another marriage. Thus Luther, Calvin, Erasmus, and speaking generally, the Lutherans, Calvinists, Anabaptists, and among Catholics, Catharinus, and Cajetan. And so in practice the Greeks and heretics act. But this is an error condemned by the perpetual tradition of the Church, and by S. Paul (Rom 7:1, and 1Co 7:10-11), and expressly by the Council of Trent (Sess. 24. Con. 6, 7). To the argument deduced contrario, Paul of Burgos, on this passage, (additione 2. ad Lyran.) replies by admitting the consequence, but adds that Christ was speaking only of the Old Law, in which on account of fornication a bill of divorce was allowed to be given. But there is this difficulty in such a reply, that Christ both here and in the fifth of Matthew expressly opposes His own words, that is the evangelical Law, to Moses and the Old Law; in fact He repeals that bill of divorce which Moses had allowed. Verses 8 and 9. “He saith unto them, Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.” Observe how plainly Christ opposes His own word to the sanction which Moses had given to the bill of divorce, and how He condemns whosoever makes use of it, as guilty of adultery.

I say therefore that it is better with S. Augustine (lib. 1. de adult. conjug. c. 9.) to take the word except negatively, so that the expression, save for the cause of fornication, means the same thing as apart from the cause of fornication. This is supported by the Greek and Syriac which have, not an adulteress. As though Christ only intended to affirm that a chaste and faithful wife might not be put away, but intended to say nothing about an adulterous wife, in order to escape the hatred of the Pharisees and the people, who were at that time used to divorce.

2. The word except, can be taken in its proper, exceptive sense, but it should be referred not to the words which immediately follow, and marry another, but only to those which preceded, whosoever shall put away his wife, so as to make an exception in the case of fornication. Then the words would be taken as follows, Whosoever shall put away his wife, which is not lawful, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery. The Ethiopic favours this view, translating as follows, Whosoever, on account of any other cause than on account of fornication, shall put away his wife, and marry another, is an adulterer. Similarly the Persian, Every man who puts away his wife, and not on account of adultery, and marries another, is an adulterer.

3. Most clearly and aptly from Theophylact and Augustine (lib. cont. Adamant, c. 3), you may refer this exception to both what precedes and what follows. Thus, Whoso shall put away his wife, unless for fornication, and marries another, commits adultery. He commits adultery, I say, both by putting away his wife, as well as by marrying another. That is, he is twice an adulterer. Christ gives an answer to both the questions put to Him, for the Pharisees had asked two. And both answers are true. For even though a man should only divorce a chaste wife, without marrying another, he commits adultery, both because he breaks the law of marriage, by violating one of its conditions by putting away an innocent wife, as well as by causing her to commit adultery, as Christ explains in Mat 5:32. For verbs of the Hebrew conjugation Kal, often in Hiphil, signify the double action as above. This is well known to Hebrew scholars. Whence from the contrary you can only infer as follows, Whoso shall put away his wife unless for fornication, and shall marry another, commits adultery. Therefore he who puts away his wife on account of fornication, and marries another, does not indeed commit adultery by divorcing the adulteress, but by marrying another. It is the same form of expression as if you should say, “He who breaks his fast without a dispensation, and gets drunk, commits sin. Therefore he who does not fast, having a dispensation, does not sin by eating, but sins by getting drunk.”

I say, 2. Christ here concedes divorce to a man on account of the fornication of his wife, quoad thorum, but not the dissolution of marriage, so that he may marry another. This appears, 1. because Mark and Luke lay down a general proposition, and omit this exception. This is what Luke says, Luk 16:18: “Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.” For he does her a great wrong, breaking the troth which he had given her.

You will say, why then does Matthew add this exception? I answer, because the Pharisees had virtually proposed two questions to Christ. The first was, whether it was lawful for any cause to divorce a wife? The second, whether when a wife was put away by a bill of divorce, the marriage was dissolved, and another might be entered upon? For they put away their wives that they may marry again. Christ then replies to both questions; and as it seems by means of two propositions. 1. Whoso shall put away his wife except for fornication, commits adultery. 2. Whoso shall marry another, commits adultery. For together with the bill of divorce he abolishes polygamy, which had hitherto been allowed. The pronoun whosoever must be repeated. Matthew, here as elsewhere studying conciseness, throws two sentences of Christ, each with its whosoever, into one. Hence that saying is true, “I labour to be brief, I become obscure.” The same thing is proved, 2. by what precedes, when Christ by the original institution of marriage, which fornication does not annul, proves that matrimony is altogether indissoluble. 3. Because in what follows, this exception is not to be understood, as if it were said, And he who shall marry her that is put away, except for fornication, commits adultery. For so she that is put away on account of fornication would be in a better position, with respect to another contract of marriage, than an innocent woman who has been divorced. 4. Because S. Paul so teaches (1Co 7:10-11), and the Fathers passim. SS. Jerome, Chrysostom, Bede, in this passage, S. Augustine in his two Books on Adultery, Innocent I. (Epist. ad Exuper.) Concil. Milev. (Can. 17). Forojuliense (Canon 10), Nannetense (Can. 10), Florentin. (in instruct. Armeniens.) Trident. (Sess. 14, Can. 6). Origen, in this passage (Tract. 7), animadverts severely upon certain bishops of his time, for conceding with Tertullian (lib. 4, cont. Marc.) and Ambrosiaster (in Cor. vii.), second nuptials to wives on account of the adultery of their husbands, saying that it is lawful for.the innocent spouse to put away an adulterous partner, and to marry another. The same license is given by the Council of Illiberis. (31 qust. 1 cap. Si qua mulier.) Also in Concil. Aurelian 1, cap. 10. But the decrees of those Councils are either apocryphal, or else are cited imperfectly by Gratian.

Ver. 10. His disciples say, &c. Case, i.e., matter, business. So the Syriac translates, If the case of those who are married be thus, if the indissolubility of marriage be so great, if a man be so strictly bound to his wife, that he cannot put her away for anything except fornication, but must live with her, though she be odious, quarrelsome, deformed, nasty, and so on, and must have close connection with her until death, it is better not to marry a wife, as the Syriac has it. For the Greek applies both to men and women. It may be that the Vulgate in translating by nubere, alludes to the servitude and subjection, by which a man is bound to a woman, and not seldom, if he wishes to have quietness, must give in to her, and bear patiently her complaints, quarrels, and reproaches. S. Chrysostom gives the reason. “It is easier to fight against concupiscence and ourselves than against a bad woman.” Whence Cato said, “A wife is a necessary evil.” Hence too the illustrious Sir Thomas More, who suffered martyrdom under Henry VIII. of England, being asked why he had married a little wife, replied sportively, “Of evils I chose the least.” So Stapleton in his life.

Ver. 11. To whom it is given: Arabic, those who are given, viz., to God and continence. So in Religious Orders those who are converted are called given, i.e., to religion.

Do not receive: Origen and Nazianzen (Orat. 31.) translate are not capable. And by capacity they mean a natural inclination to celibacy, which all have not. But it is better to translate with the Vulgate do not receive, or contain. As it were, narrow vessels do not receive into them, do not embrace so arduous a counsel as that of celibacy, but only those to whom is given by God this great gift of continency. Where observe, although all the faithful may not have the gift of continency, so that they have continence in act, as all the just have not the gift of perseverance, by which they actually persevere in justice, yet all the just have the gift of perseverance in such sense, that they may, if they will, persevere in God’s grace. Thus in like manner all the faithful have the gift of continence in the first instance. And by it they may contain if they will; viz., if they assiduously beg of God the grace of continence, and if they co-operate with that grace by guarding their eyes, by fleeing from sloth, and so on. Thus SS. Chrysostom, Origen, Theophylact, Euthymius, Jerome in this place, S. Augustine (in Psalm 138), S. Ambrose (lib. 3, de Viduis), Tertullian (lib. de Monog.), and others. Christ in this place, as well as S. Paul (1Cor 7:7), gives the counsel of continence to every believer. For nothing is counselled except what is in man’s power and good pleasure with God’s grace, which truly He offers and provides for all who ask it. It is otherwise with the gifts of prophecy, tongues, healing, miracles. For the grace of these God does not offer to every one, but only to a few of His elect for the common good of the faithful. Listen to S. Jerome, “It is given to those who have wished, who have laboured that they may receive.” So, too, Euthymius says, “It is given to those who ask, but not for mere asking, but to those who ask fervently and perseveringly. What is meant is that virginity is a gift of God, given to those who ask for it as they ought to ask.” So also Auctor Imperfecti, “When He says, to whom it is given, it is not meant that it is given to some and not to others, but He shows that unless we receive the help of grace, we have no power at all of ourselves. But grace is not refused to those who desire, for the Lord says, Ask and ye shall have.” And S. Chrysostom, “If it is a work of election, wherefore is it that He immediately said, All do not receive it, &c.? It is that you may learn thoroughly the peculiar nature of this warfare, that it is not like a kind of necessity bestowed as it were at random. It is given to those who freely choose it. He spoke as He did in order that He might show the necessity of grace from above-which grace is provided for all who seek it, if we would come forth victors in this warfare.” S. Chrysostom adds that we ought not to be slothful in our resolution of continence, because some may fall from continence. Since soldiers falling in battle do not discourage their comrades, but rather stir them up to fight more valiantly. Lastly, the same S. Chrysostom suggests a consideration, by means of which celibacy is shown to be not only possible but easy to every one. “Consider with thyself,” he says, “that if thou wert a eunuch, either by nature, or by the wrong-doing of man, thou wouldst be deprived of these pleasures, and wouldst obtain no reward by being deprived of them. Give thanks therefore to God, because thou wilt obtain great rewards and bright crowns, if thou livest thus as they do without any rewards at all. Yea, indeed thou mayest do it much more easily, safely and pleasantly than they can, both because thou art strengthened by the hope of recompense, and because thou rejoicest in the consciousness of thy virtue, and art not tossed by such vast billows of desire. For the cutting off a member is not like the bridle of reason. yea verily, it is reason alone which restrains such waves as these we are speaking of. For I should not say that this sting of desire proceeds from the brain, or from the loins but from a lascivious mind, and from neglecting to watch over the thoughts.”

Ver. 12. There are eunuchs, &c. Who when they might be husbands, become eunuchs for Christ’s sake, says S. Jerome. Christ here speaks of three sorts of eunuchs. 1. Those who are such by nature. 2. Those who have been made eunuchs artificially, that they may guard queens and noble matrons. 3. Those who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of Heaven’s sake. Christ here alludes to Isaiah lvi. 3, 4, 5, where the prophet foretells that there should be such eunuchs in Christ’s church, and promises them a name better than of sons and daughters, yea an everlasting name.

Made themselves eunuchs: This expression has two meanings. 1. That it is in our power with God’s grace to make ourselves eunuchs, i.e., chaste and celibate, and to keep so by a perpetual vow. This is the force of the verb, have made themselves, signifying a moral inability to beget children. If it were not so, He would have said, There are who make themselves eunuchs, or who endeavour to do so. But he says, have made themselves, i.e., have taken from themselves the power of generating, that is to say by a vow of continence. So S. Epiphan. (Hres. 53), S. Fulgentius (lib. de fide ad Pet.).

Origen took these words literally. He mutilated himself out of his love of chastity. But he was wrong in doing so, both because such self-mutilation is unlawful, as well as because lust is not thereby quenched but inflamed. Hear S. Chrysostom: “When He says, Have made themselves eunuchs, He does not speak of the cutting off of members, but of the suppression of evil thoughts. For he who mutilates himself renders himself liable to a curse. Neither is concupiscence thereby assuaged, but is made more troublesome.” For eunuchs sin in thought, through the desire of lust, grieving that they cannot fulfil it. See what I have said on Ecc 20:2, and Ecc 39:21.

For the kingdom of Heaven’s sake, that by continence they may merit it. So Origen, Hilary, Chrysostom, Euthymius, and S. Augustine (de Virgin. cap. 23). Falsely, therefore, do the heretics expound for the kingdom of Heaven’s sake to mean for the sake of preaching. As though it meant, There are some who abstain from marriage that they may be more free to preach the Gospel, or that they may be free from the anxieties which matrimony brings with it. For continence is not only to be praised and desired for such reasons as those, but for its own sake; because it is a great virtue, and because the victory over himself, by which a man overcomes lust, raises his mind to meditate upon and follow after heavenly things. Wherefore chastity makes men angels.

He that is able, &c. Arabic, He that is able to carry it, let him carry it. Note here the evangelical counsel of celibacy, proposed, yea counselled, by Christ to all men, though not commanded. For these words, he that is able, &c., are those of one exhorting and animating to celibacy, say SS. Jerome and Chrysostom. Moreover, it is signified that as Christ gives this counsel, it is in our power to fulfil it, if we will invoke the grace of God, and co-operate with grace. Nor does the expression he that is able do away with the force of this; for all that this means is, that continence is a difficult thing. And he who is willing to put constraint upon himself, generously to withstand lust, to mount up to the lofty pinnacle of continence; let such an one embrace the same, let him receive it. All the faithful, then, have the power of continence, not proximate, but remote. So the Fathers already cited on verse 11. Hear S. Chrysostom, speaking in the name of all: “All, therefore, cannot receive it, because all do not wish. The palm is set before them: he who desires glory does not think of the labour. No one would conquer if all were afraid of danger.” Hear, too, S. Jerome (lib. 1, cont. Jovinian). “The master of the games proposes the reward. He invites to the course. He holds in His hand the prize of virginity. He points to the most pure fountain, and chants, Whoso thirsteth, let him come unto Me and drink. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.” From these things it appears how foolish and carnal is Calvin’s exposition, which is as follows: “You, 0 ye Apostles, think that it is a good thing to live without a wife; but I forbid any one to attempt so to do unless he is certain that he can live without a wife.” For Christ does not forbid celibacy, but exhorts to it. Neither can any one be certain that he has the gift, except either he have a revelation from God-which is given to very few-or else by experience has had proof of his own continence. And how can a man be certain about his continence before he has made the trial? Still worse is what Luther taught-that it is as impossible for a man to be without a wife as to be without food or drink. No doubt it is impossible for the heretics, but not for the orthodox, who are strengthened by faith and the grace of Christ.

Their were brought (Vulg., were offered) to Him. Rebuked-because they thought Christ was occupied with more important matters, such as instructing men; and that He must not be called off to attend to little children, as not having the use of reason; and that it was unworthy so great a prophet to busy Himself about children. For little children Luke has (xviii. 15) , infants. But infancy lasts until the seventh year.

Moraliter: let princes here learn from Christ, Who is the King of kings and Lord of lords, to make themselves accessible to the poor, to women and children, and graciously to hear and grant their supplications and requests. This was done by several of the Roman emperors, even of those who were heathens. Such was Titus, who, as Suetonius testifies, was wont to say, “No one ought to go away sorrowful after talking with a prince.” And on the day when he had not done a kindness to any one, he groaned and said, “Alas! I have lost a day.” Next there was Trajan, of whom Pliny says in his Panegyric, “Thou dost not suffer citizens to embrace thy feet, nor return a kiss with thine hand. All who approach thee come close to thy side; and it is their own sense of modesty, not thy haughtiness, which puts an end to the conference.” And, a little afterwards: “There is no difficulty in obtaining an audience, there is no delay in giving an answer: forthwith they are heard, forthwith they receive a reply.” Then there was Alexander Severus, of whom Lampridius says: “So great was his moderation, that no one was ever removed from his side; he made himself so bland and affable to all men, that he used to visit not only his friends of the first and second ranks, but the sick of even a lower degree.” Lastly, of the Christian emperors, Pacatus says to Theodosius in his Panegyric, “When the people are waiting for you, you make it plain not only that you are willing to be seen, but easy of approach. You receive from him who is nearest to you the petitions of all your people.”

That He would put His hands; that by this imposition of hands He might bless them, and so implore Divine grace for them, that they might grow up to be wise and holy men. That this was an ancient practice of the Hebrews is gathered from Gen. xlviii. 14, where Jacob-extending his arms in such away as to form the figure of a cross-blessed the two young sons of Joseph. See also Ecclus. iii. 11: “The blessing of a father strengthens the house of sons; but the curse of a mother roots out their foundations.” From Christ has been derived the custom among Christians, that lay people, and especially children, should ask a blessing from their elders and from priests. This is the case in Belgium, where boys will run up to the priests and religious men, and ask them to sign them with the sign of the cross. They are taught to do this both by the catechists and by their parents. Remigius says this was a custom among the Jews before the time of Christ. The great Sir Thomas More, the glory of England and a martyr, when he was Lord High Chancellor, publicly asked his aged father to give him his blessing, as Stapleton testifies. Moreover, the Church uses this ceremony of imposition of hands in Baptism, Orders, Penance, and whenever heretics are received into the Church. It is to pray for and obtain the gift of the Holy Ghost.

But Jesus said, &c. Victor of Antioch mentions five natural endowments why Christ has so great a love for the little ones. “The mind of a child is pure, and free from all vicious passions. It does not remember injuries, nor meditate upon revenge. In like manner, although a child may be severely chastised by its mother, yet will it run to her before any one else, and is attached to her more than to any other woman. And if you should show it a queen with a diadem upon her head, in no wise would it prefer her to its mother clothed in rags. It would rather see its mother clothed in rags than a queen in her royal apparel. Then a child requires nothing more than nature demands. Thus as soon as it is satisfied, it leaves it mother’s breasts. Moreover it is never grieved at the loss of those things, of which we make so great account, such as money and jewels. Lastly, it is not carried away by corporeal beauty, as other human beings are. Wherefore the Lord said, Of such is the kingdom of Heaven. Assuredly by them does He admonish us, that we should do such things by the firm choice of our own will, which little children do by natural endowment.” (On Mark 10:13.) Thus Christ chose out and blessed when they were children, S. Edmund, afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury, S. Nicholas, S. Catharine of Siena, and other eminent saints. When Gelasius was a boy he found his little brother, S. Ophilus, praying in his chamber, and a company of angels talking with him. He saw them with his own eyes, and heard a voice saying, Suffer the little children to come unto Me, for of such is the kingdom of Heaven. As he became older he grew in holiness, and like a fruitful olive tree in the house of the Lord, he brought forth abundant fruit, and thus in his early youth, he passed to Christ. S. Babylas, Patriarch of Antioch, and an illustrious martyr under the Emperor Numerianus, being by him condemned to death, desired that three boys, whom he had brought up in faith and piety might be beheaded before him, lest they should be led astray. He offered them to Christ as innocent victims, and said, “Behold I and the children, whom the Lord hath given me for a sign.” Thus it is in his Life in Surius.

Learn from hence with what care children ought to be brought up, and instructed, that they may remain pure, for “the newly made jar long preserves the savour of what it first contains.”

S. Basil proves the advantages of early religious training from these words of Christ. He asks (in Reg. Disputat. interrog. 292), “Is it fitting that a master of boys living in the world should be a Brother? He answers in the affirmative. Let the Lord’s command be kept, Suffer the little children to come unto Me.” For young children go forth amongst the adult members of society, and what they have learnt in youth, they retain in old age. Children are the nursery of the Church and of the commonwealth

Of such, &c. Syriac, Of those who are like them. Whence Luke adds, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall in no wise enter therein. Christ’s meaning here is as though He said, “It is not beneath My dignity to bless young children, because through My blessing they are made fit for the Kingdom of Heaven, whilst you, 0 ye adult Jews, who have often heard Me teaching are unfitted for it on account of your pride, and your other vices by which you have become callous. Wherefore in order that ye may become fit, ye must become like unto these little ones.” Hear S. Ambrose (lib. 8, in cap. 18 Luc.): “This age is weak in physical strength, and immature in mind and judgment. It is not therefore childhood which is meant, so much as the goodness which emulates childhood’s simplicity.” And a little afterwards, speaking symbolically, “Who is the child which is to be imitated by the Apostles of Christ? It is He of whom Isaiah speaks, Unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given. For it is that Child who saith to thee, Take up thy Cross, and follow Me. And that thou mayest recognise who He is-when He was reviled, He reviled not again, when He was smitten, He smote not back. Here is perfect virtue. Therefore there is in childhood a kind of venerable character of old age, and in old age an innocent childhood.” From hence it is plain that the Anabaptists are wrong in keeping children away from Baptism, and so from Christ and the kingdom of heaven, on the ground that infants have not the use of reason, and therefore cannot believe. For although they may not have the act of faith, they may have the habit of faith. Because a habit (habitus) of faith, and grace and charity is infused into them by Baptism. They believe moreover in act by the faith of the Church, i.e., of their parents, and the faithful of the Church, who often exercise acts of faith on behalf of themselves and all who belong to them.

And when He had laid, &c. The hands of Christ conferred life and salvation. The reason is because the hand is the organ of organs. Wherefore the Godhead of Christ exercised His Divine power and grace towards those whom He touched through His hands, giving them health both of body and soul, or increasing the grace given them in their circumcision, and in other ways, sanctifying them, and offering them to God, and as it were consecrating them. Whence we need not doubt that these young children who were blessed by Christ grew up to be wise and holy men, who afterwards became rulers of Churches, and propagated the faith of Christ. So Francis Lucas.

And behold one, &c. S. Jerome thinks that this one was the lawyer of whom Luke speaks (Luk 10:25), and so that he came with the intention of tempting Christ. S. Chrysostom’s opinion is preferable, that it was a different person, and that he came with a sincere intention of asking how he could become like a little child, according to Christ’s precept, and so become a partaker of everlasting life. Wherefore he is the same person who is spoken of in Luk 18:18. This becomes plain by a comparison of the two passages, especially ver. 22, Luk 18:22 and Mat 19:21-22, where it is said that when he had heard Christ’s doctrine concerning perfection, If thou wilt be perfect go and sell what thou hast, and give to the poor, he went away sorrowful because he was rich. But this is evidence that he had asked these things of Christ from a sincere desire of salvation.

Good Master: This is a common Hebrew form of salutation by which persons sought the good will of a doctor or prophet. As though they said, “Rabbi, I know that thou art good, both as a man, and as a doctor and a prophet, who teachest us those things which are indeed good, and which lead to happiness. Tell me therefore what special good thing shall I do, that I may obtain the chief good in Heaven?” He plays upon the word good.

Ver. 17. He said unto Him, &c. The Vulgate translator read in the Greek, ; This was S. Augustine’s reading, and that which S. Jerome followed in his commentary. Why askest thou me concerning good? The present reading is that given in the text. Origen gives both readings. He subjoins the reason, saying-

One is good, God: viz., in His nature and essence. Humbly does Christ refer this praise of His goodness to God, that He may teach us to do the same. For this man had not perfect faith concerning Christ, nor did he believe Him to be God. To this faith Christ desired to raise him by chiding him as it were. As though He had said, “If thou callest Me good, believe that I am God: for no one is good of himself save God.” So S. Jerome, Theophylact, Euthymius.

Moreover good means the same as perfect, and the perfection of a thing is its goodness. That God is perfect, S. Denis proves in many ways (de.Divin. Nomin. c. 10.) In God there is infinite perfection both of nature and wisdom, of power, holiness and virtue. There is therefore in Him the highest goodness, natural, moral and supernatural. Wherefore He is the Fountain of all good, in whom all the excellencies of all creatures are gathered together, and infinitely more than there are in the creatures. Wherefore in God there is in an eminent degree the beauty of gold, the splendour of jewels, the savour of delicacies, the harmony of music, the pleasantness of gardens, and whatsoever there is lovely, pleasant and delicious in the creatures. Hence it is from God that honey derives its sweetness, the sun its radiance, the stars their light, the heavens their glory, angels their wisdom, men their virtue, animals their sensations, plants their life, and all other things whatsoever they have of good: yea it is to the bounty of God that they as mendicants owe their very existence, as a drop out of the ocean. In God therefore is all good, and that in a perfect and infinite degree. In God is the allurement of all love, the consummation of all desire, the satisfying of all appetite. Why then, 0 wretched man, dost thou wander about among these poor created goods, and with all art not satisfied? Seek good in Him in whom is all good. Love and desire God. He alone can fully satisfy thy appetite and thy thirst: in this life through grace, but how much more in the life to come through glory: yea by Himself. For in heaven God manifests Himself that He may be beheld by the blessed as the chief good, that they may taste Him and enjoy Him.

If thou will enter, &c. Calvin foolishly, if not impiously, imagines that Christ is here addressing the young man ironically, because he trusted in the works of the Law; inasmuch as there is no road to Heaven through the keeping of the commandments, since it is impossible for men; but by faith. There are here as many errors and heresies, yea blasphemies, as there are words. It is diametrically opposed to what Christ declares, and is subversive of it. Hence it is plain that Calvin was not led by the Spirit of Christ but of Antichrist. See among Catholics, Maldonatus, who writes with the express object of refuting Calvin and the Protestants. Let us go on to speak of what will be of more use to the orthodox. Christ here teaches that not faith alone justifies and saves, but that good works are also required, by which in fulfilling the law, we may obtain the prize of eternal life, which has been promised by God to those who fulfil the law. Calvin urges-At least Christ by the commandments of God here excludes the precepts and traditions of the Church, of Pontiffs and Prelates. I reply they are included in the fifth commandment, “Honour thy father and thy mother.” For Prelates are spiritual fathers.

Verse 18. He said unto Him, &c. As thyself; Syriac, as thy soul. I have expounded these commandments in Deu 5:6. Christ in this place only propounded the precepts of the second table having reference to our neighbour, because in them are included the precepts of the first table concerning God. For the love of God produces love of our neighbour. For we love him for the sake of God. Wherefore the love of our neighbour flows from love of God. Again it is more difficult to love our neighbour than to love God. For who is there who does not love God, especially among religious people, such as this youth was?

The young man saith, &c. From my youth; Syriac and Arabic, from my childhood-meaning, from a child I have been brought up in God’s law, and been prevented by His grace. I have carefully kept all God’s commandments. What lack I yet? i.e., of goodness: that I may become perfected therein, and have eternal life? Not in any fashion, as all have it who keep the commandments, but surely and securely, and in large measure; in the chief and perfect degree of happiness and glory. For Thou, 0 Christ, as the Master of Heavenly virtue seemest to deliver a higher doctrine concerning it than our Scribes. Tell me therefore what it is? For I covet salvation and perfection. S. Jerome thinks that this young man told a falsehood, for if he had loved his neighbour as himself, he would have sold all his goods, and given to the poor. But this argument is not absolutely convincing. For to love one’s neighbour as oneself is of precept: but to give all one’s goods to the poor is of counsel. And Christ, as Mark says, beholding him, loved him, and gave him this advice concerning bestowing all his goods upon the poor, that he might go on to perfection.

Jesus saith unto him, &c. This is not an evangelical precept, but a counsel. Whence He saith, if thou wilt. This is to say, I do not command, but I advise. Mark adds (Mar 10:21), Then Jesus beholding him, loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor. S. Anthony, hearing these words of Christ read at Mass, left all things, and so followed Christ, says S. Athanasius in his life. S. Prosper of Regium, who was afterwards a bishop, did the same, in the time of S. Leo, as is recorded in his Life in Surius. June. 25.

Deservedly therefore S. Bernard says (in Declaman. sub initium.), “These are the words which in all the world have persuaded men to a contempt of the world, and to voluntary poverty. They are the words which fill the cloisters with monks, the deserts with anchorites. These, I say, are the words which spoil Egypt, and strip it of the best of its goods. This is the living and effectual word, converting souls, by the happy emulations of sanctity, and the faithful promise of truth. For Simon Peter saith unto Jesus-Lo we have left all things.” Wherefore S. Jerome, by this saying of Christ, as by the sound of a trumpet constantly stirs up his own people, as well as all of us to a zeal for poverty. Whence (Epist. 150, ad Hedib.), he says, “Dost thou wish to be perfect, and to stand in the first rank of dignity? Then do what the Apostles did. Sell what thou hast, and give to the poor, and follow the Saviour; and follow the bare and only cross with virtue for thine only cloke.” Still more clearly does the same S. Jerome speak (Epist. 24, ad Julian.), “And this I exhort, if thou wilt be perfect, if thou desirest the summit of Apostolic dignity, if to raise up the cross and follow Christ, if to take hold of the plough, and not to look back, if placed on the top of the house, thou despisest thine old garments, and wouldest escape the Egyptian woman, thy mistress, leaving the world’s pallium. Whence also Elias, when he was hastening to the kingdom of Heaven is not able to go with his mantle, but leaves his unclean garments to the world (mundo immunda vestimenta dimittit.). But this, thou sayest is a question of Apostolic dignity, and of the man who wishes to be perfect. But why art thou unwilling to be perfect too? Why shouldest not thou who art first in the world, be first also in the family of Christ?” After a little he adds, “But if thou shalt give thyself to the Lord, and being perfect in Apostolic virtue, shalt begin to follow the Saviour, thou shalt then understand where thou art, and how in Christ’s army thou boldest the last place.”

Observe: Christian perfection chiefly and primarily consists in charity; nevertheless it is placed by Christ in evangelical counsels, as it were means and instruments suitable for acquiring charity. (See S. Thomas, ii. 2 q. 184, art. 3.) This perfection all the religious aim at who renounce all their possessions, that naked they may follow a naked Christ. Yet do not all immediately at the beginning obtain this perfection, but they tend towards it by degrees; and by making continual progress, they at length arrive at it. Hence, wisely does Climacus (Gradus 26) make three grades of such persons-namely, beginners, those who are making progress, and the perfect. To beginners he delivers this alphabet, not of twenty-four letters, but of virtues. “The best elementary alphabet of all,” he says, “is obedience, fasting, a hair shirt, ashes, tears, confession, silence, humility, vigils, fortitude, cold, fatigue, affliction, contempt, contrition, forgetfulness of injuries, brotherly love, gentleness, a simple and incurious faith, the neglect of the world, the affections kept free from all things, simplicity united with innocence, voluntary vileness.” To such as are making progress he assigns these greater precepts of virtues. “The lot and the method of those who are progressing is victory over vain glory and anger, a good hope of salvation, quietness of mind, discretion, a firm and constant remembrance of the Last Judgment, mercy, hospitality, modest reproof, speech free from all vicious affections.” Lastly, to the perfect he delivers these maxims of complete sanctity: “A heart free from all captivity, perfect love, a fount of humility, the mind’s departure from the vanities of the world, and going to Christ, a treasure of light and Divine prayer secure from robbers, abundance of divine illumination, desire of death, hatred of life, and flight from the body.” And then he adds that “a perfect man is so holy, and so pleasing to God, that he may be the ambassador, or the patron and advocate of the world, who is able (in a certain sense) to compel God; the colleague of angels, and is with them initiated into mysteries; a most profound depth of knowledge, a habitation of celestial mysteries, a keeper of the Divine arcana, the health of men, a god over devils, a master of vices, an emperor of the body.”

Go, sell, &c. You will ask, Why is poverty the appropriate way and instrument of evangelical perfection? Bonaventura answers (in Apol. Pauperum), because cupidity is the root of all evils. Cupidity, therefore, is the foundation of the city of Babylon. For of it are born ambition, gluttony, and the rest of the vices. This cupidity Christ cuts down by poverty, and takes away riches, honours, delights, which are the food and fuel of all vices. For delicacies make the mind effeminate, and to become women rather than men. A manly strength abhors delicacies. 2. Poverty begets humility, which is the foundation of sanctity. Whence S. Francis, says Bonaventura, being asked by his disciples what virtue would most commend us to Christ the Lord, and make us pleasing to Him, replied (according to his wont): Poverty; for it is the way of salvation, the fount of humility, the root of perfection, and from it there spring many fruits, although they be hidden and known to but few. 3. One who is poor in spirit, since he has no other cares, gives himself wholly up to gathering virtues, as a bee to gathering honey. Thus S. Anthony, being free from the desire of riches, had an insatiable desire of virtues; and so from one man he learned patience, from another abstinence, from another constancy, prayer, and so on. Hence the first poor religious were called Ascetics, that is, exercisers; because they were wholly occupied in taming anger, gluttony and other passions, and in the practice of arduous and heroic virtues. Whence some of them were accustomed to take food only once in two days, others only once in three. Others scarcely slept at all, like those who lived in the monastery of the Acemet-i.e., of those who keep vigil without sleeping. 4. Because perfection consists in the love of God and our neighbour; and to this poverty directs us. For it puts an end to meum and tuum, from whence all the strifes and wars arise among neighbours, says S. Chrysostom. The same removes the mind away from all care and love of earthly things, and fixes it wholly upon God. For what the Apostle says concerning a married man (1Co 7:33), applies also to a rich man: “He that is married cares for the things of the world, how he may please his wife,” and is divided. For the rich man is divided. He divides his cares and his thoughts between God and Mammon. Poverty, therefore, makes a man superior to the world and the flesh, like an angel conversing with angels, breathing after Heaven. And such a one fulfils the words of the Apostle, “Seek those things which are above, not the things that are upon the earth,” that he may place his whole mind and love upon God, and may be made with Him, as it were, one spirit. Perfection, therefore, consisteth in this-that the mind be altogether abstracted from transitory things, and fixed on what is good and eternal; that is, on God, for which poverty affords an opportunity.

You will say, for this it is sufficient to leave all things in affection, which was what Abraham did, not in act. I answer with S. Jerome against Vigilantius. That is one grade of poverty, and a lower one. For the highest is to relinquish all things in reality, both because such a one gives all, that is to say both intention and its effect, as also because it is not possible wholly to relinquish a thing in intention, without carrying the intention into effect. For like a person lying in a bed, or sitting in a chair, if any one should secretly bind him to the chair he does not know that he is bound, until he gets up: so those who possess riches have their affection hidden, by which they are bound to them, and do not perceive it until they lose them or leave them. Thus S. Gregory records (Epist. ante lib. Moral.) how he was deceived by the world. “There was opened to me even then that I should seek for the eternal love, but persistent habit had prevailed so that I should not change my outward life.”

Go, sell what thou hast. From hence the Pelagians taught that no rich man can be saved, unless he sell his property, and give to the poor, and become poor himself. S. Augustine writes against this view (Epist. 89. ad Hilar.), teaching that this is a counsel not a precept. Whence Pelagius was compelled to retract this error of his, as S. Augustine testifies (Epist. ad Paulin.).

There are three tracts which have been recently printed, bearing the name of Pope S. Sixtus. The first is concerning riches, in which the writer would prove from this passage that a believer cannot be saved unless he relinquish them, and become poor. The second is concerning works of faith, in which he teaches that they are necessary to salvation, but that they are works of free will, not of the grace of God. The third concerning chastity, that it is a work of free will, not the gift of God. From all this it is plain that the author of this work is not S. Sixtus, but some Pelagian, as the Louvain doctors and others have rightly perceived.

Sell that thou last, and give to the poor: Mark and Luke add, all things whatsoever thou hast. By these words is refuted the error of Vigilantius and Calvin, who teach that it is better and more perfect to keep one’s riches, and use them in moderation, and give to the poor according as opportunity serves, than to relinquish them all at once. S. Jerome confutes this error, (lib. cont. Vigilant.). For as S. Ambrose says, “It is better to give the tree with its fruit than to give the fruit only.” Again, the ascetic, who gives part of his wealth to the poor, and keeps part for himself, is neither fish nor flesh: he neither renounces the world, nor is he a secular. He is a sort of amphibious animal. Whence S. Basil said to one who took up the religious life, but reserved certain things for himself, “Thou hast spoilt a senator, and not made a monk.” Such a person does not wholly trust in God, but partly in God, and partly in the riches which he keeps for himself. Whence he is not really and entirely poor in spirit, nor does he free himself from the care, distraction and temptation, which are wont to accompany riches. Wherefore S. Anthony commanded a certain person who wished to renounce the world after this sort, that he might reserve something for himself against a time of necessity, to place upon his naked body some pieces of flesh which he had bought. When he had done this, the dogs and birds, which came to snatch at the flesh, lacerated his body all over. Then S. Anthony said, “Thus shall they who do not renounce all things be torn by the devils.” (See Rufinus, in The Lives of the Fathers, lib. 3, n. 68.) Wherefore S. Hilarion, as S. Jerome testifies in his Life, rejected money offered him to distribute among the poor by Orion, out of whom he had cast a legion of devils, and said, “To many the name of poverty is an occasion of covetousness: but mercy has no art. No one spends better than he who reserves nothing for himself.” For as S. Leo wisely says about a like matter (Serm. 12, de Quadrages.), “Through lawful use we pass on to immoderate excess, when from care of the health there creeps in the delectation of pleasure; and the desire of what is sufficient for nature does not satisfy.” S. Gregory gives the reason priori (Hom. 20, in Ezech.), “When any one vows something that is his to God, and something does not vow, that is called sacrifice. But when a man vows all that he has, all that he lives, all that he knows, to Almighty God, then it is a holocaust. For there are some who as yet are retained in mind in this world, and who afford help to the poor from their possessions, and hasten to succour the oppressed. These in the good which they do, offer sacrifices, because of their actions they offer something to God, and keep something for themselves. And there are some who reserve nothing, for themselves, but immolate senses, life, tongue, and the substance which they have received to Almighty God. What do these do but offer a holocaust, yea rather are made a holocaust?”

To the poor: Christ does not say, Give to your relations, or rich friends, as Remigius observes. For this is an act of natural love, by which you do not cast away your riches, but deliver them to those who belong to you, to be kept. Wherefore in this way you do not leave the world, but rather immerse yourself further in it. You must make an exception, when your relations according to their position are in need of your riches; for then, they are reckoned poor in their own station. But give to the poor, from whom you expect nothing in return, but from God only. Therefore this is a pure act of charity and poverty, and renunciation of wealth. Origen adds, he who gives his goods to the poor is assisted by their prayers.

And thou shall have treasure, &c. By the word treasure, says Chrysostom, “the abundance and the permanence of the recompense are shown.” And S. Hilary says, “By the casting away of earthly riches heavenly wealth is purchased.” Beautifully does S. Augustine observe (Serm, 28, de Verb. Apost.), “Great is the happiness of Christians, to whom it is given, to make poverty the price of the kingdom of Heaven. Let not thy poverty displease thee. Nothing richer can be found than it is. Would you know how wealthy it is? It purchases Heaven. By what treasures could be conferred what we see granted to poverty? That a rich man should come to the kingdom of Heaven with his possessions may not be: but he may get there by despising them.” Sell clay therefore, and buy Heaven: give a penny and procure a treasure.

And come follow Me: journeying in poverty, and preaching the kingdom of God. “For many,” says S. Jerome, “even when they leave their riches do not follow the Lord. Neither does this suffice for perfection, unless after despising riches, they follow the Saviour; that is, leave evil and do good. For the world is more easily set at nought than the will. Therefore do the words follow, Come and follow Me. Again, Follow Me implies the union of an active with a contemplative life. There is a threefold sort of holy life. The first and lowest is the active life. The second is the contemplative. The third and most perfect is the union of action with contemplation, that what we derive from God by contemplation, we s

Fuente: Cornelius Lapide Commentary

19:1 And it came to pass, [that] when Jesus had finished these sayings, he {a} departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judaea beyond Jordan;

(a) Passed over the water out of Galilee into the borders of Judea.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

5. The transition from Galilee to Judea 19:1-2 (cf. Mar 10:1)

Matthew marked the end of Jesus’ discourse on humility (ch. 18) and reported Jesus’ departure from Galilee for Judea. This is the first time in Matthew’s Gospel that Jesus moved into Judea for ministry. Until now all of Jesus’ public ministry following His baptism and temptation was in Galilee and its surrounding Gentile areas. Now Jesus began to move toward Judea, Jerusalem, and the Cross.

Evidently Jesus departed from Capernaum and journeyed through Samaria, or perhaps around Samaria, [Note: France, The Gospel . . ., p. 709.] and into Judea to Jerusalem. Then He proceeded east across the Jordan River into Perea northeast of the Dead Sea. From there He went to Jerusalem again. Leaving Jerusalem Jesus visited Ephraim, traveled farther north into Samaria, headed east into Perea, and returned to Jerusalem. The following ministry took place during this last loop in Perea and Judea. [Note: Hoehner, Chronological Aspects . . ., pp. 62-63.] Great multitudes continued to follow Him, and He continued to heal many people. Jesus did not abandon His ministry to the masses even though the nation had rejected Him as her Messiah (cf. Mat 22:39).

"Even as He journeys to Jerusalem to suffer and die, He manifests His royal benevolence in healing those who come to Him." [Note: Toussaint, Behold the . . ., p. 220.]

These verses conclude a major section of Matthew’s Gospel (Mat 13:54 to Mat 19:2). This section has highlighted Jesus’ reaction to Israel’s rejection of Him. Jesus continued to experience opposition from the ordinary Israelites, from the Roman leadership of the area, and from the religious leaders within Israel. His reaction was to withdraw and to concentrate on preparing His disciples for what lay ahead of them in view of His rejection. However, He also continued to minister to the needs of the masses, primarily the Jews, because He had compassion on them.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

Chapter 15

Last Days in Peraea – Mat 19:1-30 – Mat 20:1-16

THERE were two main roads from Galilee to Jerusalem. One passed through Samaria, on the west of the Jordan, the other through Peraea, east of it. It was by the former that our Lord went northward from Judea to begin His work in Galilee; it is by the other that He now goes southward to complete His sacrifice in Jerusalem. As “He must needs go through Samaria” then, so He must needs go through Peraea now. The main thought in His mind is the journey; but He cannot pass through the large and important district beyond the Jordan without bringing the kingdom of heaven near to the people, and accordingly we read that “great multitudes followed Him, and He healed them there.” We learn from St. Lukes Gospel that “He went through the cities and villages teaching, and journeying towards Jerusalem”; and from the details there recorded, especially the mission of the seventy which belongs to that period, it is evident that these circuits in Peraea must have occupied several months. Concerning the work of these months our Evangelist is silent, just as he was silent concerning the earlier work in Judea and Samaria, as recorded by St. John. We are reminded by this of the fragmentariness of these memorials of our Lord; and when we consider how much is omitted in all the narratives {see Joh 21:25} we can understand how difficult it is to form a closely connected history without any gaps between, and with accurately fitted joinings at the intersections of the different accounts.

There is, however, no difficulty here; for by comparison with the third Gospel we find that our Evangelist omits all the circuits in Peraea, and takes up the story again when our Lord is just about to leave that region for Jerusalem. When we take his point of view we can see how natural this was. It was his special calling to give a full account of the work in Galilee. Hence the haste with which he passes from what it was necessary for him to tell of the early years in the south till the work in Galilee began; and in the same way, now that the work in Galilee is done, he hastens to the great crisis in Jerusalem. In following the journey southward, he lingers only in two places, each of them associated with special memories. The one is Capernaum, where Jesus, as we have seen, tarried for a few days before taking final leave of Galilee; the other is the place beyond Jordan, in the region where in baptism He had solemnly entered on His work, {cf. Joh 10:40} where again He remains for a brief period before going up to Jerusalem for the last time.

MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE. {Mat 19:3-12}

There it was, and then, that the Pharisees came to Him with their entangling question concerning divorce. To know how entangling it was it is necessary to remember that there was a dispute at the time between two rival schools of Jewish theology-the school of Hillel and that of Shammai-in regard to the interpretation of Deu 24:1. The one school held that divorce could be had on the most trivial grounds; the other restricted it to cases of grievous sin. Hence the question: “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?” The answer Jesus gives is remarkable, not only for the wisdom and courage with which He met their attack, but for the manner in which He availed Himself of the opportunity to set the institution of marriage on its true foundation, and give perpetual security to His followers for the sanctity of home, by laying down in the clearest and strongest manner the position that marriage is indissoluble from its very nature and from its divine appointment (Mat 19:4-6). As we read these clear and strong utterances let us bear in mind, not only that the laxity which unhappily prevailed in Rome had extended to Palestine, but that the monarch of the country through which our Lord was passing was himself one of the most flagrant offenders. How inspiring it is to think that then and there should have been erected that grand bulwark of a virtuous home: “What God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”

The Pharisees must have felt that He spoke with authority; but they are anxious not to lose their opportunity of getting Him into a difficulty, so they press Him with the disputed passage in Deuteronomy: “Why did Moses, then, command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? “Our Lords answer exposes the double fallacy lurking in the question. “Why did Moses command?” He did not command; he only suffered it-it was not to further divorce, but to check it, that he made the regulation about the “writing of divorcement.” And then, not only was it a mere matter of sufferance, -it was a sufferance granted “because of the hardness of your hearts.” Since things were so bad among your fathers in the matter of marriage, it was better that there should be a legal process than that the poor wives should be dismissed without it; but from the beginning it was not so-it was not intended that wives should be dismissed at all. Marriage is in itself indissoluble, except by death or by that which in its very nature is the rupture of marriage (Mat 19:9).

The wide prevalence of lax views on this subject is made evident by the perplexity of the disciples. They were not at all prepared for such stringency, so they venture to suggest that if that is to be the law, better not marry at all. The answer our Lord gives, while it does admit that there are circumstances in which celibacy is preferable, plainly intimates that it is only in quite exceptional cases. Only one of the three cases He mentions is voluntary; and while it is certainly granted that circumstances might arise in which for the kingdom of heavens sake celibacy might be chosen (cf. 1Co 7:26), even then it must be only in cases where there is special grace, and such full preoccupation with the things of the kingdom as to render it natural; for such seems to be the import of the cautionary words with which the paragraph closes: “He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.” How completely at variance with this wise caution have been the Romish decrees in regard to the celibacy of the clergy may go without saying.

THE CHILDREN. {Mat 19:13-15}

“Then were there brought unto Him little children”-a happy interruption! The Master has just been laying the solid foundations of the Christian home; and now the group of men by whom He is surrounded is joined by a troop of mothers, some carrying infants in their arms (for the passage in St. Luke expressly mentions infants), and some leading their little ones by the hand, to receive His blessing. The timeousness of this arrival does not seem to have struck the disciples. Their hearts had not yet been opened to the lambs of the fold, notwithstanding the great lesson at Capernaum. With as little regard for the feelings of the mothers as for the rights of the children, they “rebuked those that brought them,” {Mar 10:13} and motioned them away. That this wounded the heart of the Saviour appears in His answer, which is stronger, as indicating displeasure, than is shown in our translation; while in the second Gospel it is expressly mentioned that Jesus “was much displeased.” How can we thank the Lord enough for that sore displeasure? A distinguished opponent of Christianity has lately been asking whether he is expected to accept the kind and peaceful Jesus, Who smiles in one place, or the stern Judge Who frowns in another-with the evident implication that it is impossible to accept both. How any person of intelligence can find difficulty in supposing that Christ could without inconsistency be either gentle or stern, as the occasion required, is very marvellous; but here is a case in which the sternness and gentleness are blended together in one act; and who will say that there is the least incompatibility between them? He was much displeased with the disciples; His heart was overflowing with tenderness to the children: and in that moment of conflicting feeling He utters that immortal sentence, these noblest and now most familiar of household words, “Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto Me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.”

The rights of woman had been implicitly taught in the law of marriage carried back to the original creation of male and female; the treatment of woman had been vindicated from the rudeness of the disciples which would have driven the mothers away; and this reception of the children, and these words of welcome into the kingdom for all such little ones, are the charter of the childrens rights and privileges. It is very plain that Christ has opened the kingdom of heaven, not only to all believers, but to their children as well. That “the kingdom of heaven” is here used in its ordinary sense throughout this Gospel, as referring to the heavenly kingdom which Christ had come to establish upon earth, cannot be denied; but it is a very fair inference from the Saviours words that, seeing the children are acknowledged as having their place in the kingdom on earth, those of them who pass away from earth in childhood certainly find as sure and cordial a welcome in the kingdom above.

“The holy to the holiest leads, The kingdoms are but one.”

The porch is on earth, the palace is in heaven; and we may be very sure that all whom the King acknowledges in the porch shall be welcome in the palace.

What a rebuke in these words of our Lord to those who deal with children indiscriminately as if they were all dead in trespasses and sins. How it must grieve the Saviours heart when lambs of his own fold who may have been His from their earliest infancy are taught that they are utterly lost, and must be lost for ever, unless they pass through some extraordinary change, which is to them only a nameless mystery. It is a mistake to think that children as a rule need to be dragged to the Saviour, or frightened into trusting Him: what they need is to be suffered to come. It is so natural for them to come that all they need is very gentle leading, and above all nothing done to hinder or discourage them: “Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto Me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.”

THE RICH YOUNG MAN. {Mat 19:16-22}

Another inference from these precious words of Christ is the importance of seeking to win the children for Christ while yet they are children, ere the evil days come, or the years draw nigh, when they will be apt to say they have no pleasure in Him. It is a sad thing to think how soon the susceptibility of the child-nature may harden into the impenetrability which is sometimes found even in youth. Is there not a suggestion of this in the story of the young man which immediately follows?

There was everything that seemed hopeful about him. He was young, so his heart could not be very hard; of good moral character, amiable in disposition, and stirred with noble aspirations; moreover, he did the very best thing in coming to Christ for guidance. Yet nothing came of it, because of one obstacle, which would have been no hindrance in his childhood, but which proved insurmountable now. Young as he was, his affections had had time to get so intertwined with his worldly possessions that he could not disengage them, so that instead of following Christ “he went away sorrowful.”

The manner of our Lords dealing with this young man is exceedingly instructive. Some have found a difficulty in what seems to them the strange answer to the apparently straightforward and admirable question, “What good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?” Why did He not give the same answer which St. Paul afterwards gave to the Philippian jailer? Why did He not only fail to bring himself forward as the way, the truth, and the life, but even disclaim the goodness which the young man had imputed to Him? And why did He point him to the law instead of showing him the Gospel? Everything becomes quite clear when we remember that Christ dealt with people not according to the words they spoke, but according to what He saw to be in their hearts. Had this young man been in a state of mind at all like that of the Philippian jailer when he came trembling and fell down before Paul and Silas, he would no doubt have had a similar answer. But he was in the very opposite condition. He was quite satisfied with his own goodness; it was not salvation he was seeking, but some new merit to add to the large stock he already had: “what good thing shall I do” in addition to all the well-known goodness of my character and daily life? what extra claim can I establish upon the favour of God? Manifestly his idea of goodness was only conventional; it was the goodness which passes muster among men, not that which justifies itself before the all-searching eye of God; and having no higher idea of goodness than that, he of course used it in no higher sense when he addressed Christ as “good Master.” There could, then, be no more appropriate or more heart-searching question than this, -“Why callest thou Me good?” (it is only in the conventional sense you use the term, and conventional goodness is no goodness at all); “there is none good but One, that is God.” Having thus stimulated his easy conscience, He sends him to the law that he may have knowledge of his sin, and so may take the first step towards eternal life. The young mans reply to this reveals the secret of his heart, and shows that Christ had made no mistake in dealing with him as He did. “Which?” he asks, evidently expecting that, the Ten Commandments being taken for granted, there will be something higher and more exacting, the keeping of which will bring him the extra credit he hopes to gain.

The Lords answer to his question was well fitted to take down his spiritual pride, pointing him as it did to the commonplace Decalogue, and to that part of it which seemed the easiest; for the first table of the law is passed over, and only those commandments mentioned which bear upon duty to man. And is there not special skill shown in the way in which they are marshalled, so as to lead up to the one which covered his weak point? The sixth, the seventh, the eighth, the ninth, the fifth are rapidly passed in review; then the mind is allowed to rest on the tenth, not, however in its mere negative form, “Thou shalt not covet,” but as involved in that positive requirement which sums up the whole of the second table of the Law, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” We can imagine how the Saviour would mark the young mans countenance, as one after another the commandments were pressed upon his conscience, ending with that one which should have pierced him as with a two-edged sword. But he is too strongly encased in his mail of self-righteousness; and he only replies, “All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?” Clearly it is a surgical case; the medicine of the Commandments will not do; there must be the insertion of the knife: “Go, and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor.”

Let us not, however, mistake the tone. “Jesus beholding him loved him”; {Mar 10:21} and the love was never warmer than at the moment when He made this stern demand. There was sorrow on His face and in His tone when He told him of the hard necessity; and there was a heart full of love in the gracious invitation which rounded off the sharp saying at the end: “Come, and follow Me.” Let us hope that the Saviours compassionate love was not finally lost on him; that, though he no doubt did lose the great opportunity of taking a high place in the kingdom, he nevertheless, before all was done, bethought him of the Masters faithful and loving words, repented of his covetousness, and so found an open door and a forgiving welcome.

DANGER OF RICHES. {Mat 19:23-26}

So striking an incident must not be allowed to pass without seizing and pressing the great lesson it teaches. No lesson was more needful at the time. Covetousness was in the air; it was already setting its mark on the Hebrew people, who, as they ceased to serve God in spirit and in truth, were giving themselves over more and more to the worship of mammon; and, as the Master well knew, there was one of the twelve in whom the fatal poison was even then at work. We can understand, therefore, the deep feeling which Christ throws into His warning against this danger, and His special anxiety to guard all His disciples against an over-estimate of this worlds riches.

We shall not, however, fully enter into the mind of our Lord, if we fail to notice the tone of compassion and charity which marks His first utterance. He is still thinking kindly of the poor rich young man, and is anxious to make all allowance for him. It is as if He said, “See that you do not judge him too harshly; think how hard it is for such as he to enter the kingdom.” This will explain how it is that in repeating the statement He found it desirable, as recorded by St. Mark, to introduce a qualification in order to render it applicable to all cases: “How hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom!” But while softening it in one direction, He puts it still more strongly in another: “Again I say unto you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.” We shall not enter into the trivial discussion as to the needles eye; it is enough to know that it was a proverbial phrase, probably in common use, expressing in the strongest way the insurmountable obstacle which the possession of riches, when these are trusted in and so put in place of God, must prove to their unfortunate owner.

The disciples alarm expressed in the question “Who, then, can be saved?” does them much credit. It shows that they had penetration enough to see that the danger against which their Master was guarding them did not beset the rich alone; that they had sufficient knowledge of themselves to perceive that even such as they, who had always been poor, and who had given up what little they had for their Masters sake, might nevertheless not be free enough from the well-nigh universal sin to be themselves quite safe. One cannot help thinking that the searching look, which St. Mark tells us their Lord bent on them as He spoke, had something to do with this unusual quickness of conscience. It reminds us of that later scene, when each one asked, “Lord, is it I?” Is there any one of us, who, when that all-seeing Eye is fixed upon us, with its pure and holy gaze into the depths of our being, can fail to ask, with the conscience-stricken disciples, “Who, then, can be saved?”

The answer He gives does not at all lighten the pressure on the conscience. There is no recalling of the strong words which suggest the idea of utter impossibility. He does not say, “You are judging yourselves too strictly”; on the contrary, He confirms their judgment, and tells them that there they are right: “With men this is impossible”; but is there not another alternative? “Who art thou, O great mountain? before Zerubbabel thou shalt become a plain; With God all things are possible.” A most significant utterance this for those to ponder who, instead of following our Lords dealing with this case to its close, treat it as if the final word had been “If thou will enter into life, keep the commandments.” This favourite passage of the legalists is the one of all others which most completely overthrows his hopes, and shows that so deep are the roots of sin in the heart of man, even of the most amiable and most exemplary, that none can be saved except by the power of divine grace overcoming that which is to men an impossibility. “Behold, GOD is my salvation.”

It is worthy of note that it is as a hindrance to entering the kingdom that riches are here stigmatized, which suggests the thought that the danger is not nearly so great when riches increase to those who have already entered. Not that there is even for them no serious danger, nor need of watching and of prayer that as they increase, the heart be not set upon them; but where there is true consecration of heart the consecration of wealth follows as a natural and easy consequence. Riches are a responsibility to those that are in the kingdom; they are a misfortune only to those who have not entered it.

As on the question of marriage or celibacy, so on that of property or poverty, the Romanist has pushed our Lords words to an extreme which is evidently not intended. It was plain even to the disciples that it was not the mere possession of riches, but the setting the heart on them, which He condemned. If our Lord had intended to set forth the absolute renunciation of property as a counsel of perfection to His disciples, this would have been the time to do it; but we look in vain for any such counsel. He saw it to be necessary for that young man; but when He applies the case to disciples in general, He does not say “If any man will come after Me, let him sell all that he has, and give to the poor,” but contents Himself with giving a very strong warning against the danger of riches coming between man and the kingdom of God. But while the ascetic interpretation of our Lords words is manifestly wrong, the other extreme of reducing them to nothing is far worse, which is the danger now.

REWARDS. {Mat 19:27-30 – Mat 20:1-16}

The thought of sacrifice very naturally suggests as its correlative that of compensation; so it is not at all to be wondered at that, before this conversation ended, the impulsive disciple, so much given to think aloud, should blurt out the honest question: “Behold, we have forsaken all and followed Thee; what shall we have therefore?” He could not but remember that while the Master had insisted on His disciples denying self to follow Him, He had spoken no less clearly of their finding life through losing it, and of their being rewarded according to their deeds. {see Mat 16:24-27} A more cautious man would have hesitated before he spoke; but it was no worse to speak it than to think it: and then, it was an honest and fair question; accordingly our Lord gives it a frank and generous answer, taking care, however, before leaving the subject, to add a supplementary caution, fitted to correct what was doubtful or wrong in the spirit it showed.

Here, again, we see how thoroughly natural is our Saviours teaching. “Not to destroy, but to fulfil,” was His motto. This is as true of His relation to mans nature as of His relation to the law and the prophets. “What shall we have?” is a question not to be set aside as wholly unworthy. The desire for property is an original element in human nature. It was of God at the first; and though it has swelled out into most unseemly proportions, and has usurped a place which does by no means belong to it, that is no reason why it should be dealt with as if it had no right to exist. It is vain to attempt to root it out; what it needs is moderating, regulating, subordinating. The tendency of perverted human nature is to make “What shall we have?” the first question. The way to meet that is not to abolish the question altogether, but to put it last, where it ought to be. To be, to do, to suffer, to enjoy-that is the order our Lord marks out for His disciples. If only they have it as their first anxiety to be what they ought to be, and to do what they are called to do, and are willing, in order to this, to take up the cross, to suffer whatever may be theirs to suffer, then they may allow as large scope as they please to the desire for possession and enjoyment.

Observe the difference between the young man and the disciples. He was coming to Christ for the first time; and if our Lord had set before him what he would gain by following Him, He would have directly encouraged a mercenary spirit. He therefore says not a word to him about prospects of reward either here or hereafter. Those who choose Christ must choose Him for His own sake. Our Saviour dealt in no other way with Peter, James, and John. When first He called them to follow Him, He said not a word about thrones or rewards; He spoke of work: “Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men”; and it was not till they had fully committed themselves to Him that He went so far as to suggest even in the most general way the thought of compensation. It would have spoiled them to have put such motives prominently before them at an earlier stage. But it is different now. They have followed Him for months, even years. They have been tested in innumerable ways. They are not certainly out of danger from the old selfishness; but with the exception of one of them, who is fast developing into a hypocrite, all they need is a solemn word of caution now and then. The time had come when their Master might safely give them some idea of the prospects which lay before them, when their cross-bearing days should be over.

The promise looks forward to an entirely altered state of things spoken of as “the regeneration”-a remarkable term, reminding us of the vast scope of our Saviours mission as ever present to His consciousness even in these days of smallest things. The word recalls what is said in the book of Genesis as to “the generation of the heaven and of the earth,” and suggests by anticipation the words of the Apocalypse concerning the regeneration, “Behold, I make all things new,” and “I saw a new heaven and a new earth.” That the reference is to that final restitution of all things, and not merely to the new dispensation, seems evident from the words which immediately follow: “When the Son of man shall sit on the throne of His glory.” Why, then, was the promise given in words so suggestive of those crude notions of an earthly kingdom, above which it was so difficult and so important for the disciples to rise? The answer is to be found in the limitation of human language: “Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love Him”; accordingly, if the promise was to be of any use to them in the way of comfort and encouragement, it must be expressed in terms which were familiar to them then. To their minds the kingdom was as yet bound up with Israel; “the twelve tribes of Israel” was as large a conception of it as their thoughts could then grasp; and it would certainly be no disappointment to them when they afterwards discovered that their relation as apostles of the Lord was to a much larger “Israel,” embracing every kindred and nation and people and tribe; and though their idea of the thrones on which they would sit was then and for some time afterwards quite inadequate, it was only by starting with what ideas of regal power they had, that they could rise to those spiritual conceptions which, as they matured in spiritual understanding, took full possession of their minds.

The Lord is speaking, however, not for the apostles alone, but for all His disciples to the end of time: so He must give a word of cheer, in which even the weakest and most obscure shall have a part (Mat 19:29). Observe that here also the promise is only for those who have left what they had for the sake of Christ. We are not authorised to go with a message after this form: “If you leave, you will get.” The reward is of such a nature that it cannot be seen until the sacrifice is made. “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God”; until a man loses his life for Christs sake, he cannot find it. But when the sacrifice has been made, then appears the compensation, and it is seen that even these strong words are not too strong: “Every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for My names sake, shall receive a hundred-fold, and shall inherit everlasting life.” The full consideration of this promise belongs rather to St. Marks Gospel, in which it is presented without abridgment.

The supplementary caution-“But many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first”-is administered in apparent reference to the spirit of the apostles question, which exhibits still some trace of mercenary motive, with something also of a disposition to self-congratulation. This general statement is illustrated by the parable immediately following it, a connection which the unfortunate division into chapters here obscures; and not only is an important saying of our Lord deprived in this way of its illustration, but the parable is deprived of its key, the result of which has been that many have been led astray in its interpretation. We cannot attempt to enter fully into the parable, but shall only make such reference to it as is necessary to bring out its appropriateness for the purpose our Lord had in view. Its main purport may be stated thus: many that are first in amount of work shall be last in point of reward; and many that are last in amount of work shall be first in point of reward. The principle on which this is based is plain enough: that in estimating the reward it is not the quantity of work done or the amount of sacrifice made that is the measure of value, but the spirit in which the work is done or the sacrifice made. The labourers who made no bargain at all, but went to work on the faith of their Masters honour and liberality, were the best off in the end.

Those who made a bargain received, indeed, all they bargained for; but the others were rewarded on a far more liberal scale, they obtaining much more than they had any reason to expect. Thus we are taught that those will be first who think least of wages as wages, and are the least disposed to put such a question as, “What shall we then have?” This was the main lesson for the apostles, as it is for all who occupy places of prominence in the kingdom. It is thus put in later years by one of those who now for the first time learned it: “Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward”. {2Jn 1:8} “Look to yourselves,” see that your spirit be right, that there be nothing selfish, nothing mercenary, nothing vainglorious; else much good labour and real self-denial may miss its compensation.

Besides the lesson of caution to the great ones, there is a lesson of encouragement to the little ones in the kingdom-those who can do little and seem to themselves to sacrifice little for Christ. Let such remember that their labour and self-denial are measured not by quantity but by quality, by the spirit in which the service, however small it be, is rendered, and the sacrifice, trifling as it seems, is made. Not only is it true that many that are first shall be last; but also that many of the last shall be first. “If there be first a willing mind, it is accepted according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not.”

Neither in the general statement of our Lord, nor in the parable which illustrates it, is there the slightest encouragement to idlers in the vine-yard-to those who do nothing and sacrifice nothing for Christ, but who think that, when the eleventh hour comes, they will turn in with the rest, and perhaps come off best after all. When the Master of the vineyard asks of those who are standing-in the market-place at the eleventh hour, “Why stand ye here all the day idle?” their answer is ready, “Because no man hath hired us.” The invitation came to them, then, for the first time, and they accepted it as soon as it was given them. Suppose the Master of the vineyard had asked them in the morning, and at the first hour and the second and the third, and so on all the day, and only at the eleventh hour did they deign to notice His invitation, how would they have fared?

Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary