Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 19:29

And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive a hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.

29. hath forsaken ] Bp Thirlwall remarks, “Strange as it may sound, there is a sense in which it is a most certain truth that a man may leave that which he keeps, and keep that which he leaves. And there can be no doubt that this is the sense in which our Lord meant to be understood. For it is clear that He is speaking not of a mere outward act, but of the disposition from which it proceeds.”

shall receive an hundredfold ] St Mark seems to take the words of Jesus in a more literal sense by naming the earthly goods expressly, and adding “ now in this time,” but he points to the true and spiritual interpretation by subjoining “ with persecutions.”

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

Verse 29. Shall receive a hundredfold] Viz. in this life, in value, though perhaps not in kind; and in the world to come everlasting life. A glorious portion for a persevering believer! The fulness of GRACE here, and the fulness of GLORY hereafter! See on Mr 10:30.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

Mark saith, Mar 10:29,30, for my sake, and the gospels, but he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life. Luke saith, Luk 18:29,30, for the kingdom of Gods sake, who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting. The words are a liberal promise, and we must consider,

1. To whom it is made.

2. Of what it is.

The former promise respected the apostles, and was special, as appears by the number of twelve thrones. This respecteth all those that should forsake any thing, houses, brethren, lands, sisters, fathers, mothers, wife, children, for Christ; which is expressed by three phrases (for my names sake, for the gospels sake, for the kingdom of Gods sake) all of the same import; rather than they will forsake me, and the profession of my gospel; rather than they will sin against God. The promise is,

1. Of an hundredfold in this time.

2. Of eternal life.

We must not understand of an hundredfold in specie, but in value. Therefore Mark saith, he shall receive what he hath in this life with persecutions. What is therefore this hundredfold in this life?

1. Joy in the Holy Ghost, peace of conscience, the sense of Gods love; so as, with the apostles, they shall rejoice that they are thought worthy to suffer any thing for the name of Christ, Act 5:41. They shall, with Paul and Silas, Act 16:25, sing in the prison; with those, Heb 10:34, take joyfully the spoiling of their goods, knowing they have in heaven a better and an enduring substance. This inward joy and peace shall be a hundredfold more than fathers and mothers, or brethren, or sisters.

2. Contentment. They shall have a contented frame of spirit with the little that is left; though they have not so much to drink as they had, yet they shall have less thirst, Phi 4:11,12.

3. God will stir up the hearts of others to supply their wants, and that supply shall be sweeter to them than their abundance was.

4. God sometimes repays them in this life, as he restored Job after his trial to greater riches. But they shall have a certain reward in another world, eternal happiness.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

And everyone that hath forsaken houses,…. Not only the then disciples of Christ, but any other believer in him, whether at that time, or in any age, that should be called to quit their habitations, or leave their dearest relations, friends, and substance: as

brethren or sisters, or father or mother, or wife or children, lands, for my name’s sake; or, as in Luke, “for the kingdom of God’s sake”; that is, for the sake of the Gospel, and a profession of it. Not that believing in Christ, and professing his name, do necessarily require a parting with all worldly substance, and natural relations, but when these things stand in competition with Christ, he is to be loved and preferred before them; and believers are always to be ready to part with them for his sake, when persecution arises, because of the word. All these things are to be relinquished, rather than Christ, and his Gospel; and such who shall be enabled, through divine grace, to do so,

shall receive an hundred fold: Mark adds, “now in this time”; and Luke likewise, “in this present time”, in this world; which may be understood either in spiritual things, the love of God, the presence of Christ, the comforts of the Holy Ghost, the communion of saints, and the joys and pleasures felt in the enjoyment of these things, being an hundred times more and better to them, than all they have left or lost for Christ’s sake; or in temporal things, so in Mark it seems to be explained, that such shall now receive an hundred fold,

even houses and brethren, and sisters and mothers, and children and lands; not that they should receive, for the leaving of one house, an hundred houses; or for forsaking one brother, an hundred brethren, c. which last indeed might be true, as to a spiritual relation but that the small pittance of this world’s goods, and the few friends they should have “with persecutions” along with them, and amidst them, should be so sweetened to them, with the love and presence of God, that these should be more and better to them than an hundred houses, fields, and friends, without them:

and shall inherit everlasting life. The other evangelists add, “in the world to come”, which is infinitely best of all; for this is an inheritance incorruptible, undefiled, which fades not away, reserved in the heavens, when all other inheritances are corruptible, defiled, fading and perishing; houses fall, relations die, friends fail, and lands and estates do not continue for ever: they then have the best of it, who being called, in providence, to quit all terrene enjoyments for Christ’s sake, are favoured with his presence here, and shall enjoy eternal glory and happiness with him in another world.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

A hundredfold (). But Westcott and Hort read , manifold. Eternal life is the real reward.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

Every one [] . Compare 2Ti 4:8, “to all them that love his appearing.” ” Not only apostles, nor ought Peter to have inquired only concerning them ” (Bengel). The promise hitherto restricted to the apostles now becomes general.

A hundred – fold [] . But many very high authorities read pollaplasiona, manifold. So Rev. in margin. Compare Mr 10:30, where there is added “houses and brethren,” etc. Also the Arabic proverb : “Purchase the next world with this; so shalt thou win both.”

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

Mat 19:29

. And whosoever shall forsake. After having raised the expectation of his followers to the hope of a future life, he supports them by immediate consolations, (641) and strengthens them for bearing the cross. For though God permit his people to be severely afflicted, he never abandons them, so as not to recompense their distresses by his assistance. And here he does not merely address the apostles, but takes occasion to direct his discourse generally to all the godly. The substance of it is this: Those who shall willingly lose all for the sake of Christ, will be more happy even in this life than if they had retained the full possession of them; but the chief reward is laid up for them in heaven.

But what he promises about recompensing them a hundredfold appears not at all to agree with experience; for in the greater number of cases, those who have been deprived of their parents, or children, and other relatives — who have been reduced to widowhood, and stripped of their wealth, for the testimony of Christ — are so far from recovering their property, that in exile, solitude and desertion, they have a hard struggle with severe poverty. I reply, if any man estimate aright the immediate grace of God, by which he relieves the sorrows of his people, he will acknowledge that it is justly preferred to all the riches of the world. For though unbelievers flourish, (Psa 92:7,) yet as they know not what awaits them on the morro w (Jas 4:14,) they must be always tossed about in perplexity and terror, and it is only by stupefying themselves in some sort that they can at all enjoy prosperity. (642) Yet God gladdens his people, so that the small portion of good which they enjoy is more highly valued by them, and far sweeter, than if out of Christ they had enjoyed an unlimited abundance of good things. In this sense I interpret the expression used by Mark, with persecutions; as if Christ had said, Though persecutions always await the godly in this world, and though the cross, as it were, is attached to their back, yet so sweet is the seasoning of the grace of God, which gladdens them, that their condition is more desirable than the luxuries of kings.

(641) “ De consolations de la vie presente;” — “by consolations of the present life.”

(642) “ Ils ne peuvent iouir a leur aise des biens qu’ils ont, sinon qu’ils en-trent comme en une stupidite, et effacent tout sentiment de leur conscience;” — “they cannot enjoy at their ease the good things which they possess, unless they become, as it were, stupid, and destroy every feeling of their conscience.”

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

(29) Every one that hath forsaken.While the loyalty and faith of the Apostles were rewarded with a promise which satisfied their hopes then, and would bring with it, as they entered more deeply into its meaning, an ever-increasing satisfaction, their claim to a special privilege and reward was at least indirectly rebuked. Not for them only, but for all who had done or should hereafter do as they did, should there be a manifold reward, even within the limits of their earthly life, culminating hereafter in the full fruition of the eternal life of which they had heard so recently in the question of the young ruler.

For my names sake.The variations in the other Gospels, for my sake and the gospels (Mar. 10:29), for the kingdom of Gods sake (Luk. 18:29), are significant, (1) as explanatory, (2) as showing that the substantial meaning of all three is the same. The act of forsaking home and wealth must not originate in a far-sighted calculation of reward; it must proceed from devotion to a Person and a cause, must tend to the furtherance of the gospel and the establishment of the divine Kingdom.

Shall receive an hundredfold.The better MSS. have manifold more, as in St. Luke. The received reading agrees with St. Mark. Here it is manifestly impossible to take the words literally, and this may well make us hesitate in expecting a literal fulfilment of the promise that precedes. We cannot look for the hundredfold of houses, or wives, or children. What is meant is, that the spirit of insight and self-sacrifice for the sake of Gods kingdom multiplies and intensifies even the common joys of life. Relationships multiply on the ground of spiritual sympathies. New homes are opened to us. We find new friends. The common things of lifesky, and sea, and earthare clothed with a new beauty to the cleansed eyes of those who have conquered self. St. Mark (Mar. 10:30) adds words which, if one may so speak, are so strange that they must have been actually spoken,with persecutions. We seem to hear the words spoken as a parenthesis, and in a tone of tender sadness, not, perhaps, altogether unmingled with a touch of the method which teaches new truths, by first meeting mens expectations, and then suddenly presenting that which is at variance with them. The thoughts of the disciples were travelling on to that hundredfold, as though it meant that all things should be smooth and prosperous with them. They are reminded that persecution in some shape, the trials that test and strengthen, is inseparable from the higher life of the kingdom. (Comp. Act. 14:22.) Men need that discipline in order that they may feel that the new things are better than the old.

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

29. Every one Of you apostles. A hundredfold Not a hundredfold of the same article; for certainly no man would expect to receive a hundred fathers or mothers. It was a hundredfold better to have an apostolic throne like Peter, than to have a fortune like the rich young man, whose case prompted Peter’s question. And all this, by the parallel passage in Mar 10:30, is to be now in this time. It is also to be with persecution, and in spite of persecution. That the apostles of Christ during their holy ministration in the Church were the happiest of men, over and above all the privations they suffered, was doubtless true to the letter. Thousands of mankind would indeed think and choose otherwise. But a rich part of the blessedness of the apostolate was to have a divine assurance within, by which it could know and realize its own exceeding great reward. And shall inherit everlasting life In a world to come. Up to this clause Jesus had confined his statement of the apostolic reward to this world; showing, contrary to the sorrow of the rich young man, that godliness, is most profitable even for the life that now is. But to this earthly advantage everlasting life is to be superadded.

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

“And every one who has left houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, will receive a hundredfold, and will inherit eternal life.”

And it is not only they who will be blessed in this life. All who along with them have left houses and family and lands ‘for His sake’, they also will receive a hundred fold ‘in this time’ (Mar 9:30), and will finally inherit eternal life. Thus the way of following Jesus will be a way of great blessing on earth, when His people will receive far more than they have lost by leaving everything for His sake. The Apostles will receive ‘thrones’ and the remainder will receive ‘a hundred houses, a hundred brothers, a hundred sisters, a hundred fathers, a hundred mothers, a hundred children and a hundred pieces of land’, this flowing into eternal life. In other words they will enjoy the Kingly Rule of Heaven and its blessings now, and will enjoy it in its consummation later.

That we are not to take this too literally is also abundantly clear. Do we really want a hundred fathers, a hundred children, and vast lands? They are as symbolic as the thrones. It is rather a further pictorial representation of a greater truth, that God will give overflowing blessing in return for our sacrifices and our full dedication. To the Jew children and lands were their two most precious possessions.

‘For My name’s sake.’ Here is the central crux. Their eyes have been fixed on Him and they have followed Him. They have not done it for a church, or for themselves, or out of love for an ideal, they have done it out of love for Him. They have done it because of Who He is. And thus they will receive all the blessings that He has come to bring.

‘Will inherit eternal life.’ This specifically connects back to the previous story of the rich young man. That had begun with the question, ‘what must I do to have (inherit) eternal life?’ (Mat 19:16; Mar 10:17). Here is the reply. What a contrast all that Jesus has just described is with the rich young man. He had returned home with his riches intact but he had lost all the spiritual blessings which have just been described, including eternal life. And he has lost his treasure in Heaven, while these who have forsaken all and followed Him have both friends, and family, and riches beyond imagining, and in the end will enjoy and inherit eternal life, both now (Joh 5:24; Joh 10:10) and in the future.

EXCURSUS On ‘Is The Church The True Israel?’

It must immediately be stressed that we are not asking whether the church is a kind of ‘spiritual Israel’, or whether it is a kind of ‘parallel Israel’. The question being asked is whether the early church saw itself as the true literal Biblical Israel, His firstborn who came from Egypt? In this regard we should note that Jesus spoke to His disciples of His new community in terms that did actually indicate Israel for He spoke of ‘building His congregation/church (ekklesia)’ (Mat 16:18) and He did it as the One Who had truly come out of Egypt (Mat 2:15). In the Old Testament the ‘ekklesia’ was one of the words used to indicate ‘all Israel’. This suggests therefore that Jesus was here thinking of building the true congregation of Israel. And while this came after He had said that He had come only to ‘the lost sheep of the house of Israel’ (Mat 10:6; Mat 15:24), (that is those of Israel who were wandering and without a shepherd), it also followed the time when His thinking clearly took a new turn following His dealings with the Syro-phoenician woman, when He began a ministry in more specifically Gentile territory, offering the children’s bread to ‘the dogs’. His ‘congregation’ was thus to be composed of both Jews and Gentiles.

But did Jesus see His new community as the new Israel? That He does is in fact made clear in Joh 15:1-6 where He describes Himself as the true vine with believers as the branches. The old vine has been stripped away and rooted out (Isa 5:1-7), and replaced by Jesus and His followers. This is confirmed in Mat 2:15 where He is spoken of as God’s Son who is called out of Egypt, words originally referring to Israel (Hos 11:1). He is the true representative of Israel Who alone left Egypt behind (see on Mat 2:15), and all who would be the new Israel must be conjoined with Him.

Thus there is good reason to suggest that when Jesus in Mat 16:18 spoke of the ‘congregation/church’, it was with the purpose of equating it with the true ‘Israel’, the Israel within Israel (Rom 9:6), as indeed it did in the Greek translations of the Old Testament where ‘the congregation/assembly of Israel’, which was finally composed of all who responded to the covenant, was translated as ‘the church (ekklesia) of Israel’. We may see this expression then as indicating that He was now intending to found a new Israel, which it later turned out would include Gentiles. Indeed this was the basis on which the early believers called themselves ‘the church/congregation’, that is the congregation of the new Israel, and while they were at first made up mainly of Jews and proselytes, this gradually developed into including both Jews and Gentiles.

That the old Israel as a whole has ceased to be so in the Apostles’ eyes is in fact made clear in Act 4:27-28 where we read, “For in truth in this city against your holy Servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles  and the peoples of Israel, were gathered together, to do whatever your hand and your council foreordained to come about.”

This follows as an explanation of a quotation from Psa 2:1 in Act 4:25-26:

‘Why did the Gentiles rage,

And the peoples imagine vain things,

The kings of the earth set themselves,

And the rulers were gathered together,

Against the Lord and against His anointed –.’

The important point to note here is that ‘the peoples’ who imagined vain things, who in the Psalm were nations who were enemies of Israel, have become in Acts ‘the peoples of Israel’. Thus the ‘peoples of Israel’ who were opposing the Apostles and refusing to believe are here seen as the enemy of God and His Anointed, and of His people. It is a clear indication that old unbelieving Israel was now seen as numbered by God among the nations, and that those who have believed in Christ are seen as the true Israel. As Jesus had said to Israel, ‘the Kingly Rule of God will be taken way from you and given to a nation producing its fruits’ (Mat 21:43). Thus the King now has a new people of Israel to guard and watch over.

The same idea is found in Joh 15:1-6. The false vine (the old Israel – Isa 5:1-7) has been cut down and replaced by the true vine of ‘Christ at one with His people’ (Joh 15:1-6; Eph 2:11-22). Here Jesus, and those who abide in Him (the church/congregation), are the new Israel. The old unbelieving part of Israel has been cut off and replaced by all those who come to Jesus and abide in Jesus, that is both believing Jews and believing Gentiles (Rom 11:17-28), who together with Jesus form the true Vine.

Thus the new Israel, the ‘Israel of God’, sprang from Jesus. And it was He Who established its new leaders who would ‘rule over (‘judge’) the twelve tribes of Israel’ (Mat 19:28; Luk 22:30). Here ‘the twelve tribes of Israel’ refers to all who will come to believe in Jesus through His word, and the initial, if not the complete fulfilment, of this promise occurred in Acts. (See the arguments above and the arguments in our commentary on Luke 22 with regard to this interpretation). This appointment to ‘rule over (judge) the twelve tribes of Israel’ was not intended to divide the world into two parts, consisting of Jew and Gentile, with the two parts seen as separate, and with Israel under the Apostles, while the Gentiles were under other rulers, but as describing a united Christian ‘congregation’. Thus those over whom they ‘ruled’ would be ‘the true Israel’ which would include both believing Jews and believing Gentiles. These would become the true Israel.

Make no mistake this true Israel was founded on believing Jews. It  was  Israel. The Apostles were Jews, and were to be the foundation of the new Israel which incorporated Gentiles within it (Eph 2:20; Rev 21:14). And initially all its first foundation members were Jews. Then as it spread it first did so among Jews until there were ‘about five thousand’ Jewish males who were believers to say nothing of women and children (Act 4:4). Then it spread throughout all Judaea, and then through the synagogues of ‘the world’, so that soon there were a multitude of Jews who were Christians. Here then was the initial true Israel over whom the Apostles presided.

But then proselytes (Gentile converts) and God-fearers (Gentile adherents to the synagogues) began to join and they also became branches of the true vine (Joh 15:1-6) and were grafted into the olive tree (Rom 11:17-28). They became ‘fellow-citizens’ with the Jewish believers (‘the saints’, a regular Old Testament name for true Israelites who were seen as true believers). They became members of the ‘household of God’ (Eph 2:11-22). And so the new Israel has sprung up following the same pattern as the old, and as finally incorporating believing Jews and believing Gentiles. That is why Paul could describe the new church as ‘the Israel of God’ (Gal 6:16), because both Jews and Gentiles were now genuinely ‘the seed of Abraham’ (Gal 3:29).

Those who deny that the church is Israel and equate Israel with the ‘old unbelieving Jews’ must in fact see all these ‘believing Jews’ as cut off from Israel (as the Jews in fact in time did). For by the late 1st century AD, the Israel for which those who deny that the church is Israel contend, was an Israel made up only of Jews who did not see Christian Jews as belonging to Israel. As far as they were concerned Christian Jews were cut off from Israel. And in the same way believing Jews who followed Paul’s teaching saw fellow Jews who did not believe as no longer being true Israel. They in turn saw unbelieving Jews as cut off from Israel. As Paul puts it, ‘they are not all Israel who are Israel’ (Rom 9:6).

For the new Israel now saw themselves as the true Israel. They saw themselves as the ‘Israel of God’. And that is why Paul stresses to the Gentile Christians in Eph 2:11-22; Rom 11:17-28 that they are now a part of the new Israel having been made one with the true people of God in Jesus Christ. In order to consider all this in more detail let us look back in history where we discover that there was never a time when ‘Israel’ was composed solely of Jacob’s descendants.

When Abraham entered the land of Canaan having been called there by God he was promised that in him all the world would be blessed, and this was later also promised to his seed (Gen 12:3; Gen 18:18; Gen 22:18; Gen 26:4; Gen 28:14). But Abraham did not enter the land alone. In Genesis 14 he had three hundred and eighteen fighting men ‘born in his house’, in other words born to servants, camp followers and slaves. One of his own slave wives was an Egyptian (Genesis 16) and his steward was probably Syrian, a Damascene (Gen 15:2). Thus Abraham was patriarch over a family tribe, all of whom with him inherited the promises,  and they came from of a number of different nationalities.

From Abraham came Isaac through whom the most basic promises were to be fulfilled, for God said, ‘in Isaac shall your seed be called’ (Gen 21:12; Rom 9:7; see also Gen 26:3-5). Thus the seed of Ishmael, while enjoying promises from God, were excluded from the major line of promises. While prospering, they would not be the people through whom the whole world would be blessed. Jacob, who was renamed Israel, was born of Isaac, and it was to him that the future lordship of people and nations was seen as passed on (Gen 27:29) and from his twelve sons came the twelve tribes of the ‘children of Israel’. But as with Abraham these twelve tribes would include retainers, servants and slaves. The ‘households’ that moved to Egypt would include such servants and slaves. So the ‘children of Israel’ even at this stage would include people from many peoples and nations. They included Jacob/Israel’s own descendants and their wives, together with their servants and retainers, and their wives and children, ‘many ‘born in their house’ but not directly their seed (Gen 15:3) and many descended from different races. Israel was already a conglomerate people. Even at the beginning they were not literally descended from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Many of them were rather ‘adopted’.

When they left Egypt this mixed nation were joined by a ‘mixed multitude’ from many nations, who with them had been enslaved in Egypt, and these joined with them in their flight (Exo 12:38). At Sinai these were all joined within the covenant and became ‘children of Israel’. These included an Ethiopian (Cushite) woman who became Moses’ wife (Num 12:1). Thus we discover that ‘Israel’ from its commencement was an international community. Indeed it was made clear from the beginning that any who wanted to do so could join Israel and become an Israelite by submission to the covenant and by being circumcised (Exo 12:48-49). Membership of the people of God was thus from the beginning to be open to all nations by submission to God through the covenant. It was a religious community not strictly a racial one. And these all then connected themselves with one of the tribes of Israel, were absorbed into them, and began to trace their ancestry back to Abraham and Jacob even though they were not true born, and still retained an identifying appellation such as, for example, ‘Uriah the Hittite’. (Whether Uriah was one such we do not know, although we think it extremely probably. But there must certainly have been some). And there were indeed regulations as to who could enter the assembly or congregation of the Lord, and at what stage people of different nations could enter it (Deu 23:1-8) so that they then became ‘Israelites’.

That this was carried out in practise is evidenced by the numerous Israelites who bear a foreign name, consider for example ‘Uriah the Hittite’ (2 Samuel 11) and the mighty men of David (2Sa 23:8-28). These latter were so close to David that it is inconceivable that some at least did not become true members of the covenant by submitting to the covenant and being circumcised. Later again it became the practise in Israel, in accordance with Exo 12:48-49, for anyone who ‘converted’ to Israel and began to believe in the God of Israel, to be received into ‘Israel’ on equal terms with the true born by circumcision and submission to the covenant. These were called ‘proselytes’. In contrast people also left Israel by desertion, and by not bringing their children within the covenant, when for example they went abroad or were exiled. These were then ‘cut off from Israel’, as were deep sinners. ‘Israel’ was therefore always a fluid concept, and was, at least purportedly, composed of all who submitted to the covenant.

This was the situation on which the prophets commented. They made quite clear that there was a distinction between the true Israel (those who were truly obedient to and responsive to God) and the Israel who were ‘Not My People’ (Hos 1:10). Only those who were purified and refined would be the true Israel (Zec 13:9; Mal 3:3).

When Jesus came His initial purpose was to call back to God ‘the lost sheep of the house of Israel’ (Mat 10:6), and in the main, (in the first part of His ministry and with exceptions e.g. John 4), He limited His ministry to Jews. But after His dealings with the Syro-phoenician woman, He appears to have expanded His thinking, or His approach, and to have moved into more Gentile territory. And later He declared that there were other sheep that He would also call and they would be one flock with Israel (Joh 10:16).

Thus when the Gospel began to reach out to the Gentiles those converted were welcomed as part of that one flock. But the question that arose then was, ‘did they need to be circumcised in order to become members of the new Israel?’ Was a special proseletysation necessary, as with proselytes to old Israel, evidenced by circumcision, in accordance with Exo 12:48?  That was what the circumcision controversy was all about. If those who entered into that controversy had not seen Gentiles as becoming a part of Israel there would have been no controversy. That is why Paul’ argument was never that circumcision was not necessary because they were not becoming Israel. He indeed accepted that they would become members of Israel. But rather he argues that circumcision was no longer necessary because all who were in Christ were circumcised with the circumcision of Christ. They were already circumcised by faith. They had the circumcision of the heart, and were circumcised with the circumcision of Christ (Col 2:11), and therefore did not need to be circumcised again. Thus they were truly circumcised in Christ into Israel.

In Rom 11:17-24, therefore, Paul speaks clearly of converted Gentiles being ‘grafted into the olive tree’ through faith, and of Israelites being broken off through unbelief, to be welcomed again if they repent and come to Christ. Whatever we therefore actually see the olive tree as representing, it is quite clear that it does speak of those who are cut off because they do not believe, and of those who are ingrafted because they do believe, and this in the context of Israel being saved or not. But the breaking off or casting off of Israelites in the Old Testament was always an indication of being cut off from Israel. Thus we must see the olive tree as, like the true vine, signifying all who are now included within the promises, that is the true Israel, with spurious elements which cling to them being cut off because they are not really a part of them, while new members are grafted in. Any difficulty lies in the simplicity of the illustration which like all illustrations cannot cover every point. This idea also comes out regularly in the Old Testament where God made it quite clear that only a proportion of Israel would avoid His judgments (e.g. Isa 6:13). The remainder (and large majority) would be ‘cut off’, for although outwardly professing to be His people they were not His people. And thus it was with the people of Israel in Jesus’ day. They were revealed by their fruits, which included how they responded to Jesus.

This idea also comes out regularly in the Old Testament where God made it quite clear that only a proportion of Israel would avoid His judgments (e.g. Isa 6:13). The remainder (and large majority) would be ‘cut off’, for although outwardly professing to be His people they were not His people. And thus it was with the people of Israel in Jesus’ day. They were revealed by their fruits, which included how they responded to Jesus.

But in Ephesians 2 Paul makes clear that Gentiles can become a part of the true Israel. He tells the Gentiles that they had in the past been ‘alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of the promise’ (Eph 2:12). They had not been a part of it. Thus in the past they had not belonged to the twelve tribes. But then he tells them that they are now ‘made nigh by the blood of Christ’ (Eph 2:13), Who has ‘made both one and broken down the wall of partition — creating in Himself of two one new man’ (Eph 2:14-15). Now therefore, through Christ, they have been made members of the commonwealth of Israel, and inherit the promises. So they are ‘no longer strangers and sojourners, but fellow-citizens with the saints and of the household of God, being built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets’ (Eph 2:19-20). ‘Strangers and sojourners’ was the Old Testament description of those who were not true Israelites. It is therefore made as clear as can be that these have now entered the ‘new’ Israel. They are no longer strangers and sojourners but are now ‘fellow-citizens’ with God’s people. They have entered into the covenant of promise ( Eph 3:29 ), and thus inherit all the promises of the Old Testament, including the prophecies.

So as with people in the Old Testament who were regularly adopted into the twelve tribes of Israel (e.g. the mixed multitude – Exo 12:38), Gentile Christians too are now seen as so incorporated. That is why Paul can call the church ‘the Israel of God’, made up of Jews and ex-Gentiles, having declared circumcision and uncircumcision as unimportant because there is a new creation (Gal 6:15-16), a circumcision of the heart. It is those who are in that new creation who are the Israel of God.

In context ‘The Israel of God’ can here only mean that new creation, the church of Christ, otherwise he is being inconsistent. For as he points out, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision matters any more. What matters is the new creation. It must therefore be that which identifies the Israel of God. For if circumcision is irrelevant then the Israel of God cannot be made up of the circumcised, even the believing circumcised, for circumcision has lost its meaning. The point therefore behind both of these passages is that all Christians become, by adoption, members of the twelve tribes.

There would in fact be no point in mentioning circumcision if he was not thinking of incorporation of believing Gentiles into the twelve tribes. The importance of circumcision was that to the Jews it made the difference between those who became genuine proselytes, and thus members of the twelve tribes, and those who remained as ‘God-fearers’, loosely attached but not accepted as full Jews. That then was why the Judaisers wanted all Gentiles to be circumcised. It was because they did not believe that they could otherwise become genuine Israelites. There could be no other reason for wanting Gentiles to be circumcised. (Jesus had never in any way commanded circumcision). But Paul says that that is not so. He argues that they can become true Israelites without being physically circumcised because they are circumcised in heart. They are circumcised in Christ. So when Paul argues that Christians have been circumcised in heart (Rom 2:26; Rom 2:29; Rom 4:12; Php 3:3; Col 2:11) he is saying that that is all that is necessary in order for them to be members of the true Israel.

A great deal of discussion often takes place about the use of ‘kai’ in Gal 6:16 where we read, ‘as many as shall walk by this rule, peace be on them and mercy, and (kai) on the Israel of God’. It is asked, ‘does it signify that the Israel of God is additional to and distinct from those who ‘walk by this rule’, or simply define them?’ (If the Israel of God differs from those who ‘walk by this rule’ then that leaves only the Judaisers as the Israel of God, and as those who do not walk by this rule. Can anyone really contend that that was what Paul meant?) The answer to this question is really decided by the preceding argument. We cannot really base our case on arguments about ‘kai’. But for the sake of clarity we will consider the question.

It cannot be denied that ‘kai’ can mean ‘and’, and as thus indicate adding something additional. But nor can it be denied that it can alternatively mean, in contexts like this, ‘even’, and as thus equating what follows with what has gone before. ‘Kai’ in fact is often used in Greek as a kind of ‘connection’ word where in English it is redundant altogether. It is not therefore a strongly definitive word. Thus its meaning must always be decided by the context, and a wise rule has been made that we make the decision on the basis of which choice will add least to the meaning of the word in the context (saying in other words that because of its ambiguity ‘kai’ should never be stressed). That would mean here the translating of it as ‘even’, giving it its mildest influence. That that is the correct translation comes out if we give the matter a little thought. The whole letter has been emphasising that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek (Gal 3:28), and that this arises because all are Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise. All are therefore Israel. So even had we not had the reasons that we have already considered, how strange it would then be for Paul to close the letter by distinguishing Jew from Greek, and Gentiles from the believing Jews. He would be going against all that he has just said. And yet that is exactly what he would be doing if by ‘the Israel of God’ he was exclusively indicating believing Jews. So on all counts, interpretation, grammar and common sense, ‘the Israel of God’ must include both Jews and Gentiles.

In Gal 4:26 it is made clear that the true Jerusalem is the heavenly Jerusalem, the earthly having been rejected. This new heavenly Jerusalem is ‘the mother of us all’ just as Sarah had been the mother of Israel. All Christians are thus the children of the freewoman, that is, of Sarah (Gal 4:31). This reveals that they are therefore the true sons of Abraham, signifying ‘Israel’. To argue that being a son of Abraham is not the same thing as being a son of Jacob/Israel would in fact be to argue contrary to all that Israel believed. Their boast was precisely that they were ‘sons of Abraham’, indeed the true sons of Abraham.

Again in Romans he points out to the Gentiles that there is a remnant of Israel which is faithful to God and they are the true Israel (Rom 11:5). The remainder have been cast off (Rom 11:15; Rom 11:17; Rom 11:20). Then he describes the Christian Gentiles as ‘grafted in among them’ becoming ‘partakers with them of the root of the fatness of the olive tree’ (Rom 11:17). They are now part of the same tree so it is clear that he regards them as now being part of the faithful remnant of Israel (see argument on this point earlier). This is again declared quite clearly in Galatians, for ‘those who are of faith, the same are the sons of Abraham’ (Gal 3:7).

Note that in Romans 9 Paul declares that not all earthly Israel are really Israel, only those who are chosen by God. It is only the chosen who are the ‘foreknown’ Israel, the true Israel. See Rom 9:8; Rom 9:24-26; Rom 11:2. This is a reminder that to Paul ‘Israel’ is a fluid concept. It does not have just one fixed meaning.

The privilege of being a ‘son of Abraham’ is that one is adopted into the twelve tribes of Israel. It is the twelve tribes who proudly called themselves ‘the sons of Abraham’ (Joh 8:39; Joh 8:53). That is why in the one man in Christ Jesus there can be neither Jew nor Gentile (Gal 3:28). For they all become one as ‘Israel’ by being one with the One Who in Himself sums up all that Israel was meant to be (Mat 2:15; Isa 49:3), the true vine (Joh 15:1-6). For ‘if you are Abraham’s seed, you are heirs according to the promise’ (Gal 3:29). To be Abraham’s ‘seed’ within the promise is to be a member of the twelve tribes. There can really be no question about it. The reference to ‘seed’ is decisive. You cannot be ‘Abraham’s seed’  through Sara  and yet not a part of Israel. (Indeed if we want to be pedantic we can point out that Edom in fact ceased and became, by compulsion, a part of Israel, thus adding to ‘Israel’s’ diversity. So even the Jews themselves clearly recognised that being a part of Israel was a religious matter not a racial matter).

That is why Paul can say, ‘he is not a Jew who is one outwardly — he is a Jew who is one inwardly, and the circumcision is that of the heart’ (Rom 2:28-29 compare Rom 2:26). The true Jew, he says, is the one who is the inward Jew. So he distinguishes physical Israel from true Israel and physical Jew from true Jew.

In the light of these passages it cannot really be doubted that the early church saw the converted Gentile as becoming a member of the twelve tribes of Israel. They are ‘the seed of Abraham’, ‘sons of Abraham’, spiritually circumcised, grafted into the true Israel, fellow-citizens with the saints in the commonwealth of Israel, the Israel of God. What further evidence do we need?

In Romans 4 he further makes clear that Abraham is the father of all who believe, including both circumcised and uncircumcised (Rom 4:9-13). Indeed he says we have been ‘circumcised with the circumcision of Christ’ (Col 2:11). All who believe are therefore circumcised children of Abraham.

When James writes to ‘the twelve tribes which are of the dispersion’ (Jas 1:1) he is taking the same view. (Jews living away from Palestine were seen as dispersed around the world and were therefore thought of as ‘the dispersion’). There is not a single hint in his letter that he is writing to other than all in the churches. He therefore sees the whole church as having become members of the twelve tribes, as the true dispersion, and indeed refers to their ‘assembly’ with the same word used for synagogue (Jas 2:2). But he can also call them ‘the church’ (Jas 5:14).

Yet there is not even the slightest suggestion anywhere in the remainder of his letter that he has just one section of the church in mind. In view of the importance of the subject, had he not been speaking of the whole church he must surely have commented on the attitude of Jewish Christians to Christian Gentiles, especially in the light of the ethical content of his letter. It was a crucial problem of the day. But there is not even a whisper of it in his letter. He speaks as though to the whole church. He sees the church as one. Unless he was a total separatist (which we know he was not) it would have been impossible for him to write as he did unless he saw all as now making up ‘the twelve tribes of Israel’.

Peter also writes to ‘the elect’ and calls them ‘sojourners of the dispersion’, and includes in that description believing Gentiles. For when he speaks of ‘Gentiles’ he always means unconverted Gentiles. He clearly assumes that all that come under that heading are not Christians (1Pe 2:12; 1Pe 4:3). The fact that believing Gentiles are among those to whom he is writing is confirmed by the fact that he speaks to the recipients of his letter warning them not to fashion themselves ‘according to their former desires in the time of their ignorance’ (1Pe 1:14), and as having been ‘not a people, but are now the people of God’ (1Pe 2:10), and speaks of them as previously having ‘wrought the desire of the Gentiles’ (1Pe 4:3). So the ‘dispersion’ that he writes to include converted Gentiles and it is apparent that he too sees all Christians as members of the twelve tribes (for as in the example above, ‘the dispersion’ means the twelve tribes scattered around the world).

In unbelieving Jewish eyes good numbers of Gentiles were in fact becoming members of the Jewish faith at that time, and on being circumcised were being accepted by the Jews as members of the twelve tribes (as proselytes). In the same way the apostles, who were all Jews and also saw the pure in Israel, believing Jews, as God’s chosen people, saw the converted Gentiles who entered the ekklesia (congregation, church) as being incorporated into the new Israel, into the true twelve tribes. But they did not see circumcision as necessary, and the reason for that was that they considered that all who believed had been circumcised with the circumcision of Christ.

Peter in his letter confirms all this. He writes to the church calling them ‘a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession’ (1Pe 2:5; 1Pe 2:9), all terms which in Exo 19:5-6 indicate Israel.

Today we may not think in these terms but it is apparent that to the early church to become a Christian was to become a member of the true twelve tribes of Israel. That is why there was such a furore over whether circumcision, the covenant sign of the Jew, was necessary for Christians. It was precisely because they were seen as entering the twelve tribes that many saw it as required. Paul’s argument against it is never that Christians do not become members of the twelve tribes (as we have seen he actually argues that they do) but that what matters is spiritual circumcision, not physical circumcision. Thus early on Christians unquestionably saw themselves as the true twelve tribes of Israel.

This receives confirmation from the fact that the seven churches (the universal church) is seen in terms of the seven lampstands in chapter 1. The sevenfold lampstand in the Tabernacle and Temple represented Israel. In the seven lampstands the churches are seen as the true Israel.

Given that fact it is clear that reference to the hundred and forty four thousand from all the tribes of Israel in Revelation 7 is to Christians. But it is equally clear that the numbers are not to be taken literally. The ‘twelve by twelve’ is stressing who and what they are, not how many there are. There is no example anywhere else in Scripture where God actually selects people on such an exact basis. Even the seven thousand who had not bowed the knee to Baal (1Ki 19:18) were a round number based on seven as the number of divine perfection and completeness. The reason for the seemingly exact figures is to demonstrate that God has His people numbered and that not one is missing (compare Num 31:48-49). The message of these verses is that in the face of persecution to come, and of God’s judgments against men, God knows and has sealed His own. But they are then described as a multitude who cannot be numbered (only God can number them).

It is noticeable that this description of the twelve tribes is in fact artificial in another respect. While Judah is placed first as the tribe from which Christ came, Dan is omitted, and Manasseh is included as well as Joseph, although Manasseh was the son of Joseph. Thus the omission of Dan is deliberate, and Ephraim, Joseph’s other son, is excluded by name, but included under Joseph’s name. (This artificiality confirms that the idea of the tribes is not to be taken literally). The exclusion of Dan is because he is a tool of the Serpent (Gen 49:17), and the exclusion of the two names is because of their specific connection with idolatry in the Old Testament.

So here in Revelation, in the face of the future activity of God against the world, He provides His people with protection, and marks them off as distinctive from those who bear the mark of the Beast. God protects His true people. And there is no good reason for seeing these people as representing other than the church of the current age. The fact is that we are continually liable to persecution, and while not all God’s judgments have yet been visited on the world, we have experienced sufficient to know that we are not excluded. In John’s day this reference to ‘the twelve tribes’ was telling the church as a whole that God had sealed them, and had numbered them, so that while they must be ready for the persecution to come, they need not fear the coming judgments of God that he, John, will now reveal, for they are under God’s protection. (In fact, of course, both in Jesus’ day and our own day twelve genetically pure tribes of Israel did not and do not exist. They are lost in the mist of time).

In fact the New Testament elsewhere confirms to us that all God’s true people are sealed by God. Abraham received circumcision as a seal of ‘the righteousness of (springing from) faith’ (Rom 4:11), but circumcision is replaced in the New Testament by the ‘seal of the Spirit’ (2Co 1:22; Eph 1:13; Eph 4:30). It is clear that Paul therefore sees all God’s people as being ‘sealed’ by God in their enjoyment of the indwelling Holy Spirit and this would suggest that John’s description in Revelation 7 is a dramatic representation of that fact. His people have been open to spiritual attack from earliest New Testament days (and before) and it is not conceivable that they have not enjoyed God’s seal of protection on them. Thus the seal here in Revelation refers to the sealing (or if someone considers it future, a re-sealing) with the Holy Spirit of promise. The whole idea behind the scene is in order to stress that all God’s people have been specially sealed.

In Revelation 21 the ‘new Jerusalem’ is founded on twelve foundations which are the twelve Apostles of the Lamb (Rev 21:14), and its gates are the twelve tribes of the children of Israel (Rev 21:12). The new Jerusalem thus combines both. Indeed in Matthew Jesus has said that he would found his ‘church’ on the Apostles and their statement of faith (Rev 16:18) and the idea behind the word ‘church’ (ekklesia) here was as being the ‘congregation’ of Israel. (The word ekklesia is used of the latter in the Greek Old Testament). Jesus had come to establish the new Israel. Thus from the commencement the church were seen as being the true Israel, composed of both Jew and Gentile who entered within God’s covenant, the ‘new covenant’, as it had been right from the beginning, and they were called ‘the church’ for that very reason.

In countering these arguments it has been said that  ‘Every reference to Israel in the New Testament refers to the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.’  And another expositor has added the comment, ‘This is true in the Old Testament also.’

Let us then consider these statements. And the truth is that such statements are not only a gross oversimplification, but are in fact totally untrue. They are an indication of mindset, not of considering the facts. For as we have seen above if there is one thing that is absolutely sure it is that many who saw themselves as Israelites were not  physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob  (regardless of how we think about the term ‘Israel’). Many were descended from the servants of the Patriarchs who went down into Egypt in their ‘households’, and were from a number of nationalities. Others were part of the mixed multitude which left Egypt with Israel (Exo 12:38). They were adopted into Israel, and became Israelites, a situation which was sealed by the covenant.

Indeed it is made quite clear that anyone who was willing to worship God and become a member of the covenant through circumcision could do so and became accepted on equal terms as ‘Israelites’ (Exo 12:47-49). They would then become united with the tribe among whom they dwelt or with which they had connections. That is why there were regulations as to who could enter the assembly or congregation of the Lord, and when (Deu 23:1-8). Later on proselytes would also be absorbed into Israel. Thus ‘Israel’ was from the start very much a conglomerate, and continued to be so. There was no way in which it could be seen as being composed only of physical descendants of Abraham unless we ignore the testimony of the Old Testament. They may have tried to convince themselves that they were, but there was absolutely no way in which it was true.

Nor is it true that in Paul ‘Israel’ always means ‘physical Israel’. When we come to the New Testament Paul can speak of ‘Israel after the flesh’ (1Co 10:18). That can only suggest that he also conceives of an Israel not ‘after the flesh’. That conclusion really cannot be avoided.

Furthermore, when we remember that outside Romans 9-11 Israel is only mentioned by Paul seven times, and that 1Co 10:18 clearly points to another Israel, one not after the flesh (which has been defined in Mat 19:1-18), and that that is one of the seven verses, and that Gal 6:16 is most satisfactorily seen as signifying the church of Jesus Christ and not old Israel at all (or even converted Israel), the statement must be seen as having little force. In Eph 2:11-22 where he speaks of the ‘commonwealth of Israel’ he immediately goes on to say that in Christ Jesus all who are His are ‘made nigh’, and then stresses that we are no more strangers and sojourners but are genuine fellow-citizens, and are of the household of God. If that does not mean becoming a part of the true Israel and entering the commonwealth of Israel it is difficult to see what could.

Furthermore in the other four references (so now only four out of seven) it is not the present status of Israel that is in mind. The term is simply being used as an identifier in a historical sense in reference to connections with the Old Testament situation. It is simply referring to the Israel of the Old Testament days (of whom some were ‘Not My people’). So Paul does not refer to the Jews of his own time as ‘Israel’. Thus the argument that ‘Israel always means Israel’ is not very strong. Again in Hebrews all mentions of ‘Israel’ are historical, referring back to the Old Testament. They refer to Israel in the past. Again the present Jews are not called Israel. In Revelation two mentions out of three are again simply historical, while many would consider that the other actually does refer to the church (Rev 7:4).

However, in Romans 9-11 it is made very clear that the term ‘Israel’ can mean more than one thing. When Paul says, ‘they are not all Israel, who are of Israel’ (Rom 9:6) and points out that it is the children of the promise who are counted as the seed (Mat 9:8), we are justified in seeing that there are already two Israels in Paul’s mind, one which is the Israel after the flesh, and includes old unconverted Israel, and one which is the Israel of the promise.

And when he says that ‘Israel’ have not attained ‘to the law of righteousness’ while the Gentiles ‘have attained to the righteousness which is of faith’ (Rom 9:30-31) he cannot be speaking of all Israel because it is simply not true that none in Israel have attained to righteousness. Jewish believers have also attained to the righteousness which is of faith, and have therefore attained the law of righteousness. For many had become Christians as we have seen in Acts 1-5. Thus here ‘Israel’ must mean old, unconverted Israel, not all the (so-called) descendants of the Patriarchs, and must actually exclude believing Israel, however we interpret the latter, for ‘Israel did not seek it by faith’ while believing Israel certainly did.

Thus here we see  three uses of the term Israel, each referring to a different entity. One is all the old Israel, which includes both elect and non-elect (Rom 11:11) and is therefore a partly blind Israel (Rom 11:25), one is the Israel of promise (called in Rom 11:11 ‘the election’), and one is the old Israel which does not include the Israel of promise, the part of the old Israel which is the blind Israel. The term is clearly fluid and can sometimes refer to one group and sometimes to another.

Furthermore here ‘the Gentiles’ must mean those who have truly come to faith, and not all Gentiles. It cannot mean all Gentiles, for it speaks of those who have ‘attained to the righteousness of faith’ (which was what old Israel failed to obtain when it strove after it). Thus that term is also fluid. (In contrast, in 1 Peter ‘Gentiles’ represents only those who are unconverted. Thus all words like these must be interpreted in their contexts).

When we are also told that such Gentiles who have come to faith have become ‘Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise’ (Gal 3:29) we are justified in seeing these converted Gentiles as having become part of the new Israel, along with the converted Jews. They are now actually stated to be ‘the seed of Abraham’. This clarifies the picture of the olive tree. Old unconverted Israel are cut out of it, the converted Gentiles are grafted into it. Thus old Israel are no longer God’s people while the converted Gentiles are.

It may then be asked, ‘What then does Paul mean when he says that ‘all Israel will be saved’?’ (Rom 11:26). It clearly cannot mean literally ‘all’ of old Israel, both past and present, for Scripture has made quite clear that not all of them will be saved. Does it then mean all Israel at the time that the fullness of the Gentiles has come in? That is unlikely as there is no stage in world history where all the people of a nation have been saved at one point in time. It would not be in accordance with God’s revealed way of working. But, and this is the important proof that all the old Israel will not be saved, it would also make nonsense of those passages where God’s final judgment is poured out on Israel, and it is therefore clear that all Israel will not be saved. Does he then mean ‘all the true Israel’, those elected in God’s purposes, ‘the remnant according to the election of grace’ (Rom 11:5), who will be saved along with the fullness of the Gentiles? That is certainly a possibility. And if that is to happen in the end times it will require a final revival among the Jews in the end days bringing them to Christ. For there is no other name under Heaven given among men by which men can be saved. We would certainly not want to deny the possibility of God doing that. That may be why He has gathered the old nation back to the country of Israel.

But the most likely meaning is that it refers to the ‘all Israel’ who are part of the olive tree, including both Jews and the fullness of the Gentiles. That in context seems to be its most probable significance, and most in accordance with what we have seen above. After all, ‘all Israel’, if it includes the Gentiles, could not be saved until the fullness of the Gentiles had come in.

But what in fact Paul is finally seeking to say is that in the whole salvation history God’s purposes will not be frustrated, and that in the final analysis all whom He has chosen and foreknown (Rom 11:2) will have come to Him, whether Jew or Gentile, and will have become one people.

In the light of all this it is difficult to see how we can deny that in the New Testament all who truly believed were seen as becoming a part of the new Israel, the ‘Israel of God’.

But some ask, ‘if the church is Israel why does Paul only tell us that it is so rarely?’. The answer is twofold. Firstly the danger of the use of the term and as a result causing people to be confused. And secondly because he actually does so most of the time. For another way of referring to Israel in the Old Testament was as ‘the congregation’ (LXX church). Thus a reference to the ‘church’ (congregation) does indicate the new Israel to all who know the Old Testament.

But does this mean that old Israel can no longer be seen as having part on the purposes of God? If we mean  as  old Israel then the answer is yes. As old Israel they are no longer relevant for the true Israel are the ones who are due to receive the promises of God. But if we mean as ‘converted and becoming part of believing Israel’ then the answer is that the God will have a purpose for them. Any member of old Israel can become a part of the olive tree by being grafted in again. And there is a welcome to the whole of Israel if they will believe in Christ. Nor can there be any future for them as being used in the purposes of God until they believe in Christ. And then if they do they will become a part of the whole, not superior to others, or inferior to others, but brought in on equal terms as Christians and members of ‘the congregation’. It may well be that God has brought Israel back into the land because he intends a second outpouring of the Spirit like Pentecost (and Joe 2:28-29). But if so it is in order that they might become Christians. It is in order that they might become a part of the new Israel, the ‘congregation (church) of Jesus Christ’. For God may be working on old Israel doing His separating work as He constantly works on old Gentiles, moving them from one place to another in order to bring many of them to Christ. It is not for us to tell Him how He should do it. But nor must we give old Israel privileges that God has not given them.

But what then is the consequence of what we have discussed? Why is it so important? The answer is that it is important because it is this very fact (that true Christians today are the only true people of God) that means that all the Old Testament promises relate to them, not by being ‘spiritualised’, but by them being interpreted in terms of a new situation. It is doubtful if today anyone really thinks that swords and spears will be turned into ploughshares and pruninghooks. However we see it that idea has to be modernised. In the same way therefore we have to ‘modernise’ in terms of the New Testament many of the Old Testament promises. Jerusalem must become the Jerusalem that is above. ‘The land’ promised to Abraham becomes a land enjoyed above, the ‘better country’ (Heb 11:10; Heb 11:16). Sacrifices and offerings must become spiritual sacrifices and offerings (are Christians to be the only ones in the new age who kill and ‘hurt in His holy mountain’? – Isa 11:6-9). And so on. But the central principles of the prophecies remain true once the parabolic elements are reinterpreted. And they apply to the whole Israel of God.

End of Excursus.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

The application to all Christians:

v. 29. And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for My name’s sake shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.

v. 30. But many that are first shall be last, and the last shall be first.

Most impressively Jesus details the persons and goods which usually claim the affection of people in this world. The recital serves to bring out all the more emphatically the denial of self, which is a demand of Christ. For the sake of Christ and in the confession of His name everything else must cheerfully be given up and sacrificed without a single regret, even if it means the breaking of all earthly ties. All the greater will be His reward of mercy. Manifoldly, in great fullness, shall they receive from Him in return. Not only shall the value of all be restored in richest abundance, but as the climax of all the reward of mercy will include eternal life. All this for those that suffered and denied for the sake of Christ, to bear His shame and to further His kingdom. But the Lord adds a warning for the sake of such as are inclined to be self-satisfied and proud of their own works. The earlier or later calling has no influence upon a person’s standing in the Judgment. But he that wants to depend upon his works and intends to urge those on the last day as meriting the bliss of heaven, he has denied the grace and atoning work of His Savior and will find no place in the kingdom of heaven. All poor sinners, however, that want to be saved by grace only, will find their place prepared in the heavenly mansions.

Summary. Christ gives a lesson on marriage and divorce, blesses little children, shows the danger of placing trust in riches, and assures the apostles and all Christians of their reward of grace in heaven.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

Mat 19:29. And every one that hath forsaken, &c. Our Saviour speaks next of the rewards which his other disciples should receive, both in this life, and that which is to come. See Mar 10:30 where the promise is more fully expressed. Wetstein observes, that the event confirmed the prediction. For one house, the first preachers of the Gospel found a hospitable reception in almost every part of the earth;for a few brethren and sisters, an innumerable multitude of true believers; for children, all those whom they had truly converted to the Christian faith; for lands, all the goods of the Christians, which were in common; and in fine, for this life, life eternal. They shall receive an hundredfold, . That is, says one, “They shall have abundantly more and greater blessings than they part with;a full content of mind, and the comforts of an upright conscience, the joys of the Holy Ghost, increase of grace, hopes of glory; they shall have God for their father, Christ for their spouse, and all good Christians for their brethren.”

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Mat 19:29 . The promise that has hitherto been restricted to the apostles now becomes general in its application: and (in general) every one who , etc.

] has left , completely abandoned. Comp. Mat 19:27 .

. . .] i.e . because my name represents the contents of his belief and confession. Comp. Luk 21:12 . This leaving of all for the sake of Jesus may take place without persecution, simply by one’s choosing to follow Him as a disciple; but it may also be forced upon one through persecution, as for instance by such a state of matters as we find in Mat 10:35 ff.

(see critical notes) , according to the context (see , Mat 19:28 ; , Mat 19:29 ; , Mat 19:30 ), can certainly have no other reference but to the recompense in the future kingdom of the Messiah , in which a manifold compensation will be given for all that may have been forsaken. Here the view of Matthew diverges from that of Mar 10:38 , Luk 18:30 , both of whom represent this manifold compensation as being given during the period preceding the second advent. This divergence is founded upon a difference of conception, existing from the very first, regarding the promise of Jesus, so that the distinction between the and the in Mark and Luke may be regarded as the result of exegetical reflection on the meaning of the expressions in the original Hebrew. The words are likewise correctly referred to the reward of the future world by de Wette, Bleek, Keim, Hilgenfeld, while Fritzsche is at a loss to decide. In opposition to the context, the usual interpretation in the case of Matthew as well, is to refer the promise of a manifold compensation to the , some supposing it to point to the happiness arising from Christian ties and relationships, as Jerome, Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, Erasmus, Grotius, Wetstein; others, to the receiving of all things in return for the few (1Co 3:21 ; Olshausen); others, again, to inward peace, hope, the fellowship of love (Kuinoel, Calvin), or generally, the spiritual blessings of believers (Bengel); and others still, to Christ Himself , as being (Mat 12:49 f.) infinitely more to us than father, mother, brother, etc. (Maldonatus, Calovius). Julian mocked at the promise.

. . .] the crown of the whole, which perfects all by rendering it an eternal possession. Observe, further, how what is promised is represented as a recompense, no doubt, yet not for meritorious works, but for self-denying, trustful obedience to Christ, and to His invitation and will. Comp. Apol. Conf. A ., p. 285 f.

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

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

Ver. 29. Shall receive an hundred fold ] In reference to Isaac’s hundred fold increase of his seed, Gen 26:12 , or that best of grounds,Mat 13:8Mat 13:8 . Those that do pillage us, they do but husband us, sow for us, when they make long furrows on our backs, Psa 126:6 , and ride ever our heads, Psa 66:12 . Gordius the martyr said, it is to my loss, if you bate me anything in my sufferings. Crudelitas vestra, nostra gloria, said they in Tertullian, your cruelty is our glory; and the harder we are put to it, the greater shall be our reward in heaven. Nay, on earth too: the saints shall have their losses for Christ recompensed, either in money or money’s worth, either in the same or a better thing, Maiora certamina maiora sequuntur praemia (Tertullian). Job had all doubled to him; Valentinian, for his tribuneship, the empire cast upon him, after Julian the apostate, who had put him out of office for his religion. a Queen Elizabeth (whose life for a long while had been like a ship in the midst of an Irish sea) after long restraint was exalted from misery to majesty, from a prisoner to a princess. Optanda nimirum est iactura quae lucro maiore pensatur, saith Agricola. It is doubtless a lovely loss that is made up with so great gain. Had Queen Elizabeth foreknown, while she was in prison, what a glorious reign she should have had for 44 years, she would never have wished herself a milk maid. So, did but the saints understand what great things abide them both here and hereafter, they would bear anything cheerfully. A hundred fold here, and eternal life hereafter: oh, who would not then turn spiritual purchaser? Well might St Paul say, “Godliness is profitable to all things.” Well might the Psalmist say, “In doing (in suffering) thy will there is a great reward.” Not for doing it only, but in doing it; for righteousness is its own reward. St Mark hath it thus: He that leaveth house, brethren, sisters, father, &c., shall receive the same in kind, house, brethren, sisters, father, &c. ThatIsa 1:1-31Isa 1:1-31 . He shall have communion with God and his consolations, which are better than them all; as Caleacius, that Italian marquis that left all for Christ, avowed them; and as Paulinus Nolanus, when his city was taken by the barbarians, prayed thus to God, Lord, let me not be troubled at the loss of my gold and silver, for thou art all in all unto me. Ne excrucier ob aurum et argentum; tu entre es mihi omnia. (Aug. C. D. i. 1.) Communion with Jesus Christ is praemium ante praemium, heaven beforehand, the anticipation of glory. 2. He many times gives his suffering servants here such supplies of their outward losses, in raising them up other friends and means, as do abundantly countervail what they have parted with. Thus, though David was driven from his wife, and she was given to another, God gave him a friend, Jonathan, whose love was beyond the love of women, 2Sa 1:26 . So though Naomi lost her husband and children, Boaz, Ruth, and Obed became to her instead of all. The apostles left their houses and household stuff to follow Christ, but then they had the houses of all godly people open to them, and free for them, and happy was that Lydia that could entertain them; so that having nothing, they yet possessed all things, 2Co 6:10 . They left a few friends, but they found far more wherever they came. Wherefore it was a senseless sarcasm of Julian the apostate, when reading this text, he jeeringly demanded, whether they should have a hundred wives also, for that one they had parted with? 3. God commonly exalts his people to the contrary good to that evil they suffer for him; as Joseph, of a slave, became a ruler; as Christ, that was judged by men, is Judge of all men. The first thing that Gaius did, after he came to the empire, was to prefer Agrippa, who had been imprisoned for wishing him emperor. Constantine embraced Paphnutius, and kissed his lost eye. The King of Poland sent Zelislaus, his general, who had lost his hand in his wars, a golden hand instead thereof. God is far more liberal to those that serve him, suffer for him. Can any son of Jesse do for us as he can?

a Qui pro Christi nomine amiserat tribunatum, retribuente Christo accepit imperium Oros.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

Mat 19:29 . eneral promise for all faithful ones. , etc.: detailed specification of the things renounced for Christ. : shall receive manifoldly the things renounced, i.e. , in the final order of things, in the new-born world, as nothing is said to the contrary. Mk. and Lk. make the compensation present . : this higher boon, the summum bonum , over and above the compensation in kind. Here the latter comes first; in chap. Mat 6:33 the order is reversed.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

or. Note the Figure of speech Paradiastole. App-6.

everlasting. Greek. aionios. See App-151.

life. Greek. zoe. App-170.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

Mat 19:29. , and every one) Not only apostles, to whom Peters question ought not to have referred exclusively. See 2Ti 4:8.-, hath relinquished) If the Lord so command (as in Mat 4:19), or thus guide by various means.-, houses[877]) This is placed first; cf. concerning it, Mat 19:21; Mat 19:27.-St Matthew, in the present instance, and St Mark, in Mat 10:29, maintain the order of affection in the enumeration of relations, mentioning them by pairs in an ascending scale, lands being placed last; whereas St Luke, in Mat 18:29, follows the order of time.- , or wife) i.e. without breaking the law of Moses; see Mat 19:9. The singular number of this word (i.e. wife) should be remarked, as an argument against polygamy; for those things of which there can be more than one, brothers, etc., are put in the plural number in this passage. In like manner in Mar 10:29, , a house, is also put in the singular number. A man may, indeed, have more than one house, though such is the case of few; but no one dwells in two at the same time, so as to be able to leave them both at once.- , on account of My name) sc. on account of confessing and preaching the name of Christ.-, an hundredfold) i.e. of the same things which are enumerated in this verse; cf. Mar 10:30.-, shall receive) sc. in this life: for the future life is an hundredfold, nay, a thousandfold more productive in its returns; see Luk 19:16-17. He shall receive them, however, not as civil or personal possessions; yet he truly shall receive them, as far as the believer needs to do so, and he does so in the person of others, to whom, as a believer, he would especially wish them to belong; cf. Mat 5:5 : Act 4:35; 1Co 3:22.-The ungodly are usurpers; the right of possession belongs to God and His heirs; they receive as much as is expedient for them. The word (shall receive) agrees rather with the notion of hire or wages: but (shall inherit) implies something far more abundant. Scripture speaks more expressly and copiously of temporal punishments than of temporal rewards, and of eternal rewards than of eternal punishments.-, life) see Mat 19:16-17.

[877] Beng., in his Appar. Crit. on this passage, p. 482, had considered the singular, , had been derived from the parallel passages in the other Gospels. Hence also in the Gnomon (Ed. ii., p. 128) he preferred the plural number. But in the smaller Ed. of N. T. Gr., A.D. 1753, he changed his opinion, and gave the superiority to the singular, , by appending the sign , and with this the Germ. vers. of the passage subsequently corresponds. In this view, the observation in the Gnomon which immediately follows, has the more force.-E. B.

Tischend, reads after , with CL Memph., MSS. of Vulg. Origen 1,283c; 3,689a. Lachm., as Rec. Text, reads before with BD. The oldest MS. of Vulg. (Amiatinus) reads the sing. domum, and puts it before vel fratres aut sorores. abcd Hil. also read domum. Irenaeus, agros aut domos aut parentes ( ) aut fratres aut filios. The first in the enumeration is probably drawn from Mar 8:29 and Luk 18:29.-ED.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

every: Mat 16:25, Mar 10:29, Mar 10:30, Luk 18:29, Luk 18:30, 1Co 2:9

or brethren: Mat 8:21, Mat 8:22, Mat 10:37, Mat 10:38, Luk 14:26, 2Co 5:16, Phi 3:8

my: Mat 5:11, Mat 10:22, Luk 6:22, Joh 15:19, Act 9:16, 1Pe 4:14, 3Jo 1:7

an: Mat 13:8, Mat 13:23

inherit: Mat 19:16, Mat 25:34, Mat 25:46

Reciprocal: Gen 22:12 – now Psa 45:10 – forget Psa 45:16 – Instead Pro 2:4 – thou Ecc 3:6 – time to get Jer 15:15 – know Mat 6:33 – and all Mat 13:44 – for joy Mar 8:35 – for Luk 22:28 – General Joh 12:25 – that loveth Act 4:37 – sold Rom 6:22 – and the end 1Co 6:9 – inherit Gal 6:8 – of the Spirit 1Ti 4:8 – having 2Ti 2:12 – we suffer Heb 9:15 – eternal Jam 1:12 – which 1Pe 3:9 – that 1Pe 3:14 – if Rev 20:2 – he laid Rev 21:7 – inherit

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

9:29

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

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Mat 19:29. And every one. The promise is of general application.

Houses. Homes, household ties, rather than possessions, which are mentioned afterwards.

Brethren, etc. The family relations are mentioned in the order in which they would be left.. Wife is to be omitted both here and in Mar 10:29, but is found in Luk 18:29.

For my names sake. Mark adds: and the gospels. Out of love to Christ and to advance His cause. The motive is everything; self-denial to buy Gods favor is no self-denial.

Hundred-fold. Mark adds: Now in this time. Abundant compensation will be given even in this life. Lange: Believers are to find a new and eternal home and country, new and eternal relationships, and new and eternal possessions, of which the blessings enjoyed by them on earth are to be the earnest and foretaste. All these promises are summed up in that of being made heirs of eternal life (Romans 8). Comp. Mar 10:29-30.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

The foregoing promises, Mat 19:28, respected the apostles; this, all Christians, who forsake their dearest enjoyment for Christ: he assures them, they shall be recompenced in this life an hundred-fold: how? Non formaliter, sed endnenter: Not in specie, but in valour; not in kind, but in equivalence; not an hundred brethren or sisters, or lands, but first, He shall have that in God, which all creatures would not be to him, if they were multiplied an hundred times.

Secondly, The gifts and graces, the comforts and consolations, of the Holy Spriit, shall be an hundred-fold better portion than anything we can part with for the sake of Christ and his gospel here. Though we may be losers for Christ, yet shall we never be losers by him. Christ gives present recompences, as well as future rewards; insomuch that they who have suffered and lost most for Christ, have never complained of their sufferings or losses.

Therefore never be afraid to lose anything for Christ, he will not only see you indemnified, but plentifully rewarded; in this world an hundred-fold; in that to come, life eternal.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

Mat 19:29-30. And every one In every age and country, and not you my apostles only; that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or wife, or children Either by giving any of them up, when they could not be retained with a clear conscience; or by willingly refraining from acquiring them: shall receive a hundred-fold In value, though not in kind, even in the present world, in the inward satisfaction and divine consolation attending real religion; and inherit everlasting life Shall enjoy to all eternity that unspeakable felicity and glory which God has prepared for all his children, and especially for those who have cheerfully made such sacrifices as those, and have given such proofs of their faith in, and love to, their God and Saviour. But many first In the advantages and privileges which they enjoy; shall notwithstanding this, fall short of others, and be last in the great day of accounts; and those who are the last, shall prove in this respect the first: for some, from whom it might be least expected, shall embrace the gospel, and courageously endure the greatest hardships for it; while others, with far greater advantages, shall reject it, and under much stronger engagements shall desert it. The words thus interpreted may be considered as a prediction that the Gentiles would receive and obey the gospel, while the Jews should reject it. As if he had said, Though you may imagine that you and your brethren have a peculiar title to the great and substantial blessings of my kingdom, which I have been describing, the Gentiles shall have equal opportunities and advantages for obtaining them; because they shall be admitted to all the privileges of the gospel on the same footing with you Jews; nay, in point of time, they shall be before you; for they shall generally embrace the gospel before your nation is converted, Rom 11:25-26. Macknight. The words may also be thus interpreted: Many that are first in profession, and in the opinion of their fellow-creatures, and their own opinion, for piety and virtue, shall be last in my esteem, and in that of my Father, or shall be found wanting, and therefore shall be condemned at the day of judgment: and the last in the opinion of men, and in their own opinion, and who are despised and rejected by those that judge according to appearance, shall be first Shall be preferred to others, and be found highest in my favour in that day. The passage has evidently yet another sense, namely, Many of those who were first called shall be last, shall have the lowest reward, those who came after them being preferred before them: and yet possibly both the first and the last may be saved, though with different degrees of glory. The doctrine contained in this sentence is illustrated by the parable of the householder, contained in the beginning of the following chapter.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Not only the 12 Apostles but every self-sacrificing disciple will receive a reward for his or her sacrifice. Jesus meant that everyone who makes a sacrifice to follow Him will receive much more than he or she sacrificed as a reward. He did not mean that if one sacrifices one house he or she will receive 100 houses, much less 100 mothers or 100 fathers, etc. If a disciple leaves a parent to follow Jesus, he or she will find many more people who will be as a parent to him or her in the kingdom. God is no man’s debtor. Additionally that person will inherit eternal life. That is, he or she will enter into the enjoyment of his or her eternal life in the kingdom as heirs for whom their heavenly Father has prepared many blessings.

"We must remember that eternal life in the Bible is not a static entity, a mere gift of regeneration that does not continue to grow and blossom. No, it is a dynamic relationship with Christ Himself [cf. Joh 10:10; Joh 17:3]." [Note: Dillow, p. 136.]

Other passages that present eternal life as something the believer must work to obtain are Mat 19:16; Mar 10:17; Mar 10:30; Luk 10:25; Luk 18:18; Luk 18:30; Joh 12:25-26; Rom 2:7; Rom 6:22; and Gal 6:8. Eternal life is quantitative as well as qualitative.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)