Matthew 19
BolesMatthew 19:1-12
SECTION FIVE
THE PEREAN
19:1 to 20:34
- FROM GALILEE TO PEREA:
DIVORCE
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.” (Matthew 4:15; Matthew 4:25; Matthew 19:1; Mark 3:8; John 1:28; John 3:26; John 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. (John 10:40.)
1, 2 And it came to pass when Jesus had finished these words.—Mark 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 Deuteronomy 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 (Deuteronomy 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. (Genesis 1:27; Genesis 2:21; Genesis 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. (Ephesians 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. (1 Corinthians 6:15-20; 1 Corinthians 7:4-5; Ephesians 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. (1 Corinthians 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.”
Matthew 19:13-30
- JESUS AND ; RICH YOUNG
RULER; PERILS OF RICHES; AND
REWARDS OF SELF-
13-15 Then were there brought unto him little children.— Parallel records of this are found in Mark 10:13-16 and Luke 18:15-17. These children were not brought to Jesus to be cured of any disease, but “that he should lay his hands on them, and pray”; that is, they were brought to him for a blessing; they were brought by their parents. It was an ancient custom to lay hands on one in pronouncing the blessing. (Genesis 48:14; 2 Kings 5:11; Matthew 9:18.) The parents believed that since children at the age of eight days were taken into the privileges of covenant with God they could receive a covenant blessing. “The disciples rebuked them”; that is, the disciples rebuked the parents for bringing the children to Jesus. Jesus had just been speaking to the disciples on an important practical topic—the propriety of divorce and the expediency of marriage; the disciples had renewed the subject after leaving the Pharisees (Mark 10:10) and Jesus had combined his teachings to them in private. These parents came with their children and interrupted the course of instruction; the disciples thought that these parents were interrupting an important subject with trivial affairs. It gave Jesus an opportunity to teach another lesson.
He said, “Suffer the little children and forbid them not, to come unto me.” This is emphatic and a rebuke to his disciples. Matthew, Mark, and Luke give an account of this with very slight differences. “To come unto me” is a general expression, not necessarily denoting either unaided locomotion or conscious spiritual approach. The disciples rebuked the parents and thus repelled the children they were bringing. Jesus means to say that there must be free access to him by all who would approach him.
For to such belongeth the kingdom of heaven.—“Kingdom of heaven” is a common expression of Matthew; Mark and Luke use “kingdom of God,” which means the same. “To such” or “of such” is difficult to interpret. Did Jesus mean to say that “to such,” babes physically, “belongeth the kingdom of heaven”? Of did he mean “of such,” childlike persons, “belongeth the kingdom of heaven”? He had previously taught the latter in Matthew 18:3. The only question is whether it also means babes in the flesh. Many who have so interpreted this claim refer to this as authority for “infant baptism” and “infant membership.” The connection in Mark’s and Luke’s records requires the sense of childlike persons as both add, “Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall in no wise enter therein.” This is exactly what Jesus had said on a former occasion (Matthew 18:3), when, as almost all commentators agree, he was using the little child only as an illustration.
Jesus placed his hands upon the children and blessed them they were the fruits of the union in marriage of which he had been teaching his disciples. No one can tell the effect of Jesus’ blessing an infant either remote or direct.
16-22 One came to him and said.—As Jesus had finished blessing the children this young man came to him. In both Mark and Luke this scene follows immediately after that of blessing little children. (Mark 10:17-22; Luke 18:18-23.) Mark adds that he came running “and kneeled to him.” This was the common custom of those who would do honor to a king. It is well to note that he was young and blessed with those things which pertained to youthful life; he was a “ruler,” and thus enjoyed honor among his people. He was anxious to know the answer that Jesus would give to the question, “What good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life.” This was an important question, and so far as we are able to determine he was sincere in asking it. He was also in some measure worthy of the blessing for which he asked, as Mark says, “And Jesus looking upon him loved him.” This Jesus could not have said had the young man been a hypocrite. This young ruler was self-deceived and self-righteous, but surely he was not a wicked character, a hypocrite.
The whole story teaches us that even the very best among us must give up self in order to be saved. It is further noted that this young man understood that there was something for him to do in order to “have eternal life.”
Jesus asked him, “Why askest thou me concerning that which is good?” He had asked “what good thing” he should do, and Jesus now tells him, “One there is who is good”; that is, that God was good, and that he should not call him good without either classing him with God or accepting what he taught. This was testing his faith in him. Jesus then told him if he would “enter into life” he should “keep the commandments.” Jesus’ further instruction showed what commandments he should keep. The young man asked, “Which?” He wanted to know which one of the commandments had greatest weight in inheriting eternal life. It will be noted that Jesus enumerated the ten commandments recorded on the second table of stone, beginning with the second, “Thou shalt not kill” (Exodus 20:13), and recited five of them. He then added, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” This was a summary of the rest and was of equal authority with them.
The young man replied that he had done “all these things” and asked, “What lack I yet?” He hoped to receive other instructions that would assure him of his safety and give him peace; or he hoped to receive instructions that he might supply his deficiency. This was also an important question. He has asked Jesus two questions which are of general and practical use today, namely, “What good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?” and “What lack I yet?” These two questions may be blended into one. Jesus answered him and said, “if thou wouldest be perfect, go, sell that which thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.” Jesus meant to say, “If thou wilt lack nothing, but have all things necessary to complete thy salvation, give up all for Christ.” “If thou wouldest be perfect” as Noah and Job (Genesis 6:9; Job 1:1), then you must obey God as did these. He is instructed to sell his possessions and follow him; Jesus did not want one of his disciples to be separated from the others by great wealth. Jesus was poor and his apostles were poor and to have one who was wealthy in the group would separate them.
Jesus saw the ruler’s claim to merit vanish and the ruler himself saw all of his merits vanish. His heart was enslaved to the riches of this world and he could not follow Jesus with such attitude of soul. There was something hard in this answer, yet nothing peculiar, for God requires every rich or poor one to surrender all to him. Jesus does not require the owners of property today to sell all that they have, but he does require that they use all that they have for his honor and glory. The young man was not willing to make the sacrifice, for when he heard what Jesus said “he went away sorrowful.” He was not willing to give up his “great possessions” for “eternal life.” He saw what he lacked, but was not willing to sacrifice his “great possessions” to supply that which he did lack.
23-26 Verily I say unto you, It is hard for a rich man.—The young man had made no reply; indeed he could not, but he went away sorrowful. This gave Jesus the occasion to teach that “it is hard for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Mark explains who this “rich man” is by saying that it is one who trusts in riches. (Mark 10:24.) This is Jesus’ sad application of the lesson taught the rich young ruler. The rich are “hardly” or with difficulty saved because their possessions tempt them to ease and worldly pride. How few rich who do not trust in riches! How few poor who do not trust in riches which they are not able to acquire! Jesus used a proverb to express his thought here, “It is easier for a camel to go through a needle’s eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.” This proverb is used to express the greatest improbability.
If taken literally, it is utterly impossible for a camel to go through a needle’s eye. We are to understand proverbs according to the spirit and custom of the language and age in which they are used. This proverb implies that it would be very difficult for the rich to humble themselves to the lowliness of humility in Christ. It was particularly true of those times. (James 2:6-7.)
“A camel” was the largest animal known and used by the Jews. The figure used here is very vivid and emphatic; it represents the largest animal trying to go through the smallest eye of the needle; it expresses that which is most difficult or impossible. Some have interpreted this literally by the camels having to kneel down and with great difficulty squeeze through an opening in a ledge of rock, which was called “the needle’s eye.” Jesus simply means to say that it is exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, for one who trusts in riches to enter the kingdom of God. The situation of the rich is at best a situation of difficulty and danger their riches furnish them with so many temptations to intemperance, pride, forgetfulness of God, and contempt of everything serious and sacred.
When Jesus had taught this his disciples were “astonished exceedingly” and asked, “Who then can be saved?” They meant what rich man can receive the gospel and be saved as some think. Others think that they meant to ask, “Who at all can be saved?” If the rich cannot be saved (thought they), who can be? They still had the idea of a temporal kingdom, and if Jesus declined the aid and influence of the rich, then how could his kingdom be established? Man’s standards and God’s have ever differed. The disciples thought that power and wealth gave one a favorable standing with God; they thought that the poor were in some way cursed of God; but now since it is next to impossible for the rich to be saved, then what will become of the poor? With men it was impossible, “but with God all things are possible.” They thought that Jesus would call upon all rich men to give up their riches as he had done the rich young ruler; they are now to understand that God has his own standard of righteousness and of admitting people into his kingdom.
27-30 Then answered Peter and said unto him.—Peter asked, “We have left all, and followed thee; what then shall we have?” There seems to be something in the expression of this question like that of the rich young ruler. If the young ruler had to give up all and follow Jesus in order to inherit eternal life, the apostles had forsaken all for some time and had been following him about two years or longer, and now what shall they receive in addition to others? Jesus answered by saying, “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 upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” The word “regeneration” has given commentators much trouble. It is used only one other time in the New Testament. (Titus 3:5.) Here it is “the washing of regeneration,” which refers to baptism in conversion. Two interpretations have been given with respect to the meaning of “regeneration.” One is that it refers to the times of the future resurrection of all men, or the “new generation,” or “regeneration.” According to this view the day of judgment and recompense will come at that time. All who have suffered here with Christ will reign with him and receive an exceeding and eternal weight of glory.
They refer the time of “regeneration” to a period after Christ comes the second time. The other view is that the “regeneration” belongs to the period of time between Pentecost and the second coming of Christ. It is the time of the church, when the law of the new birth is a law of its increase, when all men shall be in Christ “new creatures,” or a new creation, that is, a “re” or “new generation,” when old things are passed away, and all things have become new. During this period the Son of man sits on the throne of his glory at the right hand of God. (Mark 16:19; Hebrews 1:3; Hebrews 8:1; Revelation 3:21.) The apostles are not promised “thrones of glory,” but simply “thrones.” The idea is that the apostles are the judges, as during their lives they arranged the laws and practices while they were on earth and now, by their inspired writings, they govern the members of the church. This view makes the use of “regeneration” here the same as that used in “the washing of regeneration” in Titus 3:5.
And every one that hath left houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or children . . . shall receive a hundredfold, and shall inherit eternal life.—The rich reward promised to those who forsake all and follow Jesus is “eternal life.” To inherit is to receive by right from an ancestor, and usually applies to one who has a claim by expectation of something future to inherit eternal life is to have, not the actual possession, but the expectation of receiving eternal life, as a result of the life which one lives now; it is to be “heirs of God” and “joint-heirs with Christ” by faith and obedience. The term “inherit” and its forms are inheritance, inherit, heirs, etc. These terms are frequently found in the New Testament. “Eternal life” belongs to the “eternal kingdom,” to the kingdom above. Jesus, after instructing his disciples about the reward of self-sacrifice and humble service to him, makes this statement, “But many shall be last that are first; and first that are last.” Those who are first in the estimation of the world and probably themselves will be the last (if they enter at all) into the kingdom of God; those who are last and lowest in the estimation of the world shall stand the highest in the kingdom of God—they shall be first.