Matthew 19

Matthew 19

“THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW”

Chapter Nineteen In response to another test by the Pharisees, Jesus spoke on the issues of marriage, divorce and celibacy (Matthew 19:1-12). Little children were brought to Him, whom He blessed (Matthew 19:13-15). When a rich young ruler questioned Him concerning eternal life (Matthew 19:16-22), Jesus used the occasion to teach His disciples about possessions in relation to the kingdom of God (Matthew 19:23-30).

POINTS TO PONDER

• Jesus’ teachings related to marriage, divorce, and celibacy

• Possessions and rewards in reference to the kingdom of God

REVIEW

1. What are the main points of this chapter?

• Marriage, divorce and celibacy - Matthew 19:1-12- Jesus blesses the little children - Matthew 19:13-15- The rich young ruler - Matthew 19:16-22- Possessions and the kingdom - Matthew 19:23-30

2. Who is it that joins a man and woman in marriage? Matthew 19:1-30 :(6)

• God, not the state (government)

3. What exception does Jesus allow for divorce? Otherwise, what occurs? (Matthew 19:9)

• Sexual immorality; adultery, cf. Matthew 5:32

4. What price might be necessary for some to enter the kingdom of heaven? (Matthew 19:12)

• To make themselves eunuchs (i.e., to remain in an unmarried state)

5. What did Jesus say about little children? (Matthew 19:14)

• “Let the little children come to Me . . .for of such is the kingdom of heaven.”

6. What did Jesus counsel the rich young ruler? (Matthew 19:17; Matthew 19:21)

• For eternal life, to keep the commandments (of Moses, still in force at that time)
• To be perfect, sell all and give to the poor, and follow Him

7. What did Jesus say about being rich and the kingdom of heaven? (Matthew 19:23-24)

• It is hard for the rich to enter the kingdom
• It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle

8. What did Jesus promise to His apostles who left all to follow Him? (Matthew 19:27-28)

• To sit on thrones and judge the twelve tribes of Israel in the regeneration

9. What did Jesus promise to all willing to leave much to follow Him (Matthew 19:29-30)

• A hundredfold blessings in this life; in the life to come eternal life, cf. Mark 10:29-30 Matthew 19:1-30 Verse 1Mat 19:1-30 ABOUT DIVORCE; JESUS LITTLE ; THE RICH YOUNG RULER; JESUS’ RICHESAnd it came to pass when Jesus had finished these words, he departed from Galilee, and came into the borders of Judaea beyond the Jordan; and great multitudes followed him; and he healed them there. (Matthew 19:1-2)This verse marks the end of the Galilean ministry and the beginning of the Perean ministry, according to Robertson, who placed the time interval between these two chapters at about six months,[1] placing these events in the later Perean ministry. Immense crowds continued to follow Christ, and countless healings took place. ENDNOTE:[1] A. T. Robertson, A Harmony of the Four Gospels (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1950), p. 141, footnote.

Verse 3 And there came unto him Pharisees, trying him, and saying, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?The Pharisees were not asking for information but in the hope of opening up a conflict between the teachings of Moses and those of Christ. This is actually an unconscious admission on their part of the weakness in Moses’ permission of divorce because, if Christ had agreed with Moses, they would have had no case. The proof of weakness in Moses’ position is that they instinctively knew Christ would not agree with it! Why? They knew in their hearts that Moses was wrong (or at least partially so); and, intuitively, those evil men recognized in Christ a higher purity and knowledge than existed in Moses and decided to take advantage of it if they could.

Verse 4 And he answered and said, Have ye not read, that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female.As always, Christ referred the issue to higher ground, not to what Moses said, but to what God had said. Bypassing Moses altogether, he rested his case upon the word of God, appealing to Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 5:2.

Verse 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh? So that they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.Jesus’ answer was plain, even blunt. God does not allow divorce. There’s really no problem at all about knowing God’s will. To be sure, problems and difficulties occur, but from what sinful men do, not from any ambiguity regarding what God commanded! “What God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” Divorce is man’s will, not God’s will.

How shocking this truth must have been to the Pharisees who not only allowed, but also practiced, divorce on a colossal scale. How shocking it is for many today! People have no trouble knowing the truth on this question, but they do have quite a problem trying to make what they do bear the light of this truth! See under Matthew 19:9.

Verse 7 They say unto him, Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorcement, and to put her away?Convicted as they were by Jesus’ words, nevertheless they strove to place Christ in conflict with Moses. They should have known from the Sermon on the Mount that Christ claimed greater authority than Moses, but what they were seeking in this instance was a cause celebre to aid their campaign against Jesus’ popularity with the people.

Verse 8 He saith unto them, Moses for your hardness of heart suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it hath not been so.There was, in the case before them, no conflict with Moses. Christ set the record straight, correcting their false statement that Moses had “commanded” divorce. On the contrary, he only permitted it, or “suffered it,” as an unwelcome choice between two evils. This is still the only possible justification of divorce, there being cases in which it must appear as the lesser of two evils but still wrong, permitted and yet not in harmony with the Father’s perfect will.

Verse 9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery.Christ’s exception does no violence to God’s word. Divorce is still an evil; but, in the case of adultery of one of the partners, it is a lesser evil than living with an unfaithful spouse. Permitted in such a case? Yes, but the dissolution of marriage is contrary to God’s law. Paul’s exception in 1 Corinthians 7:15 is not an addition to the one given by Christ in this place but should be viewed as presumptive evidence of the condition named in Jesus’ exception. Desertion by one of the marriage partners affords the strongest presumption of adultery also. The law of God is easy to understand. Problems arise only from the complications that set in when people sin, giving rise to all kinds of fantastic situations. For those who find themselves entangled in such frustrations and contradictions rising out of violations of God’s basic law, it is not recommended that they “solve” their problems in the dim light of human legislation, but rather by casting themselves upon the mercy of God. Vast numbers of situations exist today for which no proper or truly adequate solution is possible. Human laws, the opinions of ecclesiastics, the canon law of churches, the judgments of preachers, bishops, or popes, are all valueless in this area where only God has the right to legislate.

Verse 10 The disciples say unto him, If the case of the man is so with his wife, it is not expedient to marry.The Pharisees were not the only ones shaken up by the Lord’s teaching. The disciples too were surprised and even intimidated at the sanctity and inviolate nature of the marriage tie as expounded by Christ.

Verse 11 But he said unto them, Not all men can receive this saying, but they to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs, that were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are eunuchs, that were made eunuchs by men: and there are eunuchs that made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.Eunuchs in ancient times were considered unworthy of being received in the work of God, but Christ opened the kingdom to eunuchs also, and allowed in this place, but did not command, celibacy. This was in answer to the disciples’ suggestion that it was not expedient to marry. Christ sanctified and blessed the marriage covenant by being present and performing his first wonder at a wedding in Cana of Galilee. This passage shows that eunuchs were also to be admitted to the kingdom of heaven. The conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8:1-40 is significant in this context.

Verse 13 Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should lay his hands on them and pray: and the disciples rebuked them.We agree with J. W. McGarvey that “The fortuitous coincidence of these two conversations is a happy one.” As he said, The little children, the offspring of happy wedlock, and a source of constant happiness to faithful husbands and wives, were brought into notice at the close of a conversation about divorce and about the supposed inconvenience of an indissoluble marriage bond. The pleasant incident served as a comment on the discussion, and left a better impression in reference to married life.[2] Christ’s love of little children was spontaneously abundant and overflowing. Mark notes that he took them in his arms and blessed them (Mark 10:16). The conduct of the disciples in this instance of rebuking the people who wanted to bring their children to Christ may be explained by their desire to shield the Master from what they considered to be a waste of his time or unnecessary tax on his strength. Jesus had already made little children the models of faith, trust, humility, teachableness, and freedom from malice; and in this case he declared that to such as these belongs the kingdom of God. ENDNOTE:[2] J. W. McGarvey, The New Testament Commentary (Delight, Arkansas: The Gospel Light Publishing Company, reprint of 1875), p. 167.

Verse 14 But Jesus said, Suffer the little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for to such belongeth the kingdom of heaven. And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence.Does this verse teach infant baptism and membership in God’s church? Certainly, this is the allegation of those who hold those views; but it is significant here that Christ did not say that little children were “in the kingdom,” but that “to such belongs the kingdom”! There is a world of difference. The emphasis is upon child-like behavior and character. However, due to the widespread error in this area, we shall note more particularly the entire subject of infant church membership. There are no recorded cases of infant baptism in the New Testament. The “household” baptisms are nowhere said to have contained any infants among the number baptized; and any argument from “household” baptisms must be classified as an argument from the silence of the Scriptures. Furthermore, the basic outline of the new covenant in Jeremiah 31:31 which is emphatically identified with the current dispensation in Hebrews 10:16, makes infant membership in the kingdom impossible. Jeremiah taught that no untaught person shall be in God’s kingdom. It will not be necessary (in the days of the new covenant) for people to say “know the Lord,” for ALL know him already. Why? Because they must know him BEFORE they can enter that new relationship. Infants cannot and do not know the Lord in the manner required of all who truly accept Christ. The baptism of infants is neither commanded nor allowed in the New Testament, a truth which was remarkably emphasized by events in the Anglican church in 1964, and published in the New York Times (Dec. 16,1964, p. 16) where it was reported that many distinguished vicars of that faith would no longer baptize infants, affirming that to do so was contrary to Scripture. The report quoted the clergymen as saying, “We are denying adults the right of baptism” by baptizing infants. Of course, they were correct in that allegation. To baptize infants does “deny” baptism to adults. Peter commanded people to repent and “have yourselves baptized” (see Vine’s Greek Dictionary), and people cannot do this if the church recognizes a ceremony practiced upon them in infancy, contrary to their will, or at least without their consent, and makes that imposition the true baptism. Such is only another instance in which people have made the word of God of none effect by their tradition (see on Matthew 15:9 ff). If an infant is “saved” by baptism (so-called) in infancy, such a person is saved without repentance, without confession, without knowledge of the Lord, without consciousness of sin, and without any intention of living right. There cannot be anything “from within” in infant baptism. This is contrary to the Lord’s statement that a man “must be born again” before he can see the kingdom of heaven (John 3:3-5). The baptism and acceptance of infants into the church constitutes the open gate through which all manner of evil and unrepentant people are associated with the church as members. It is precisely this that has destroyed, in large degree, the very character of the church.

Verse 16 And behold one came to him and said, Teacher what good thing shall I do, that I may inherit eternal life? And he said unto him, Why askest thou me concerning that which is good? One there is who is good: but if thou wouldest enter into life, keep the commandments.THE RICH YOUNG RULERThe model character of this rich young man, his high social position, the love which he inspired in the Master, and the supremely important question upon his lips, all arouse special interest in this incident. Mark’s account of Jesus’ words sheds light upon their true meaning. He asked, “Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, even God” (Mark 10:18). This, to be sure, is one of the passages seized upon by Arians in an effort to show that Christ did not claim to be God in the flesh.

Their argument, however, is false. “The Good was one of the many Judaic titles of God. The point of our Lord’s remark is that a word with such hallowed association should not be used in a merely conventional manner."[3] (See Psalms 145:9). In fact, it is easy to detect in this conversation a definite leading on the part of Christ to elicit an acknowledgment from that young man that Christ is God. It is as though the Lord had said, “I see you recognize me as Good; since only God is Good, do you thus receive me?” This thought appears plausible in the light of what immediately ensued when Jesus would have enlisted him as a disciple, perhaps even as an apostle. Christ’s declaration, “If thou wouldest enter into life, keep the commandments,” shows that salvation is conditional upon respect and obedience of God’s word. ENDNOTE:[3] F. F. Bruce and William J. Martin, a tract published in England, from a portion reprinted in Christianity Today (Dec. 16,1964), p. 17.

Verse 18 He saith unto him, Which? And Jesus said, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness. Honor thy father and mother; and, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.The omission of certain commands of the decalogue in this summary by Christ may be significant. Certainly the words, Thou shalt not covet, touched an area where the young man might not have been so sure of himself. Thus, it appears that Christ may have mentioned his strong points with a view to encouraging him to make the full sacrifice the Lord was about to propose.

Verse 20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I observed, what lack I yet?No wonder Jesus loved him (Mark 10:21). He was a model of moral excellence and integrity. If human righteousness could have saved anyone, this young man was already saved. Like Cornelius (Acts 10:1-6), he manifested virtue in a dissolute age, faith in an age of infidelity, and deep spirituality in an age of materialism. Most important of all, he recognized the void in his soul, that he was yet unsaved, saying, “What lack I yet?” Many in all ages, having the possessions of this young man, would have felt that they needed nothing. It is, therefore, a credit to his perception that he recognized the deep and vital lack within his heart and brought the problem to the Master.

Verse 21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wouldest be perfect, go, sell that which thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.For all his youth and beauty, a cancer was eating away at his heart; and Christ made a move to eradicate it. “Sell all that thou hast!” How shocking is that command! What did it mean? What it meant for him we know; but what does it mean for us? Are Christians now commanded to sell all that they have and give it to the poor? For many, these are hard questions. Nevertheless, in the New Testament it is abundantly clear that selling all one’s possessions was never made a universal condition of discipleship.

Mary’s house in Jerusalem (Acts 12:12), Philip’s great house in Caesarea Palestina (Acts 21:8), and the statement of the apostle Peter that Ananias and Sapphira were not under compulsion either to sell their property or give the money when they did (Acts 5:4) make it very clear that ownership of property was not proscribed in the early church. Furthermore, the Lord’s teaching in the parable of the pounds, the parable of the talents, and many other passages suggest and even demand that ownership of property was not condemned by Jesus nor forbidden to members of his kingdom. Why, then, did Jesus thus command the subject of this interview? Two possible reasons appear: (1) Covetousness had reached such a degree in the young man’s heart that only by divesting himself of his wealth could he truly turn to Christ. (2) Christ, in all probability, was calling him to a place in the apostleship, an office that did require forsaking all that one had, just as Peter and the others among the Twelve had forsaken all that they had to follow Jesus. The fact that Jesus said, “Come, follow me!” shows that at least he was invited to accompany the Twelve, who themselves had forsaken all, and where his presence would have been an embarrassment to all concerned if he had been exempted from the requirement they had fulfilled.

Verse 22 But when the young man heard the saying, he went away sorrowful; for he was one that had great possessions.This is an unhappy ending of a very interesting and exciting story, especially if it is supposed that the young man continued in his rejection of the Christ. The sorrowful countenance indicated the struggle going on in his heart; his going away from the Lord shows what his final decision was. Projecting the life of this young man, as it probably developed, into the historical period following his interview with Jesus, reveals some intriguing possibilities. If he continued in covetous rejection of Jesus, and if he lived to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. by the soldiers of Titus and Vespasian, there is every possibility that his wealth and all his posterity perished in that awful siege, described in such horrible detail by Josephus (see on Matthew 24:21). Whether such was true or not, it would have been far better for that young man to have sold all, given it to the poor, and followed Jesus. Christ knew literally what was best for him.

It will be recalled that no Christian lost his life in the siege. It is also true that Christ knows what is best for every man, for you and for me, and that one stands against his own temporal and eternal interests when he departs from following Jesus.

Verse 23 And Jesus said unto his disciples, Verily, I say unto you, it is hard for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven.Why, then, do we all strive to be rich? Is it that we desire to impede our soul’s entry into the kingdom of God? Do people really wish to do it the hard way? Then let them get rich. That will provide an acid test that most people cannot pass. No wonder an apostle warned against ambition in that quarter (1 Timothy 6:9-10), and that Jesus taught people to seek his kingdom “first”! (Matthew 6:33). The rich are not hopeless. Christ did not say they cannot be saved, only that it is “hard” for them to enter.

Verse 24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through a needle’s eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.All attempts to make such a thing possible must appear ridiculous in the light of Christ’s statement, a moment later, that such is “impossible” for human beings. Only the power of God can bring a man of wealth to quit trusting in his riches and to place his hope in God through Christ, or to possess his possessions instead of being possessed by them. People of affluence should always remember that only the power of the Eternal can empower them to force their wealth to subserve the purposes of God and His kingdom.

Verse 25 And when the disciples heard it, they were astonished exceedingly, saying, Who then can be saved?McGarvey very properly pointed out that the amazement of the disciples was intensified, not so much by the statement about a rich man’s chances of being saved, as by the evident application of this principle to such an honorable and altogether lovable rich man as the one who had just appeared before the Lord. It is amazing even yet, that all personal excellence cannot avail anything unless there is a total surrender to the will of Jesus. The truth is clear. Christ will be ALL or NOTHING in the lives of people.

Verse 26 And Jesus looking upon them said to them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.The difficulty, not the impossibility, of salvation for the rich is what Jesus taught. Added to the teaching on the marriage bond which came a little earlier, these strict words of Christ must have appeared as “hard sayings,” even to the Twelve.

Verse 27 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Lo, we have left all, and followed thee; what then shall we have?Barker suggested that Peter was here suggesting preferential treatment for himself and others of the Twelve who had “left all” to follow Christ; and, in view of the parable with which Jesus followed this question, the view seems tenable. He said, “Peter self-righteously reminded Jesus of the sacrifices the disciples had made, then hinted for preferential treatment, asking, `What then shall we have?’"[4] Whatever element of self-righteousness may have been in Peter’s question, it was a valid one; and Jesus answered it in the most emphatic manner possible. ENDNOTE:[4] William P. Barker, As Matthew Saw the Master (Westwood, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1964), p. 96.

Verse 28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, that 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.This was not a reference to literal thrones but to spiritual thrones of eminence and authority in Christ’s kingdom, from which they should exercise influence, not over fleshly Israel but over the spiritual Israel which is the church (Romans 9:6; Galatians 3:29). Note that no preference was given Peter. There was not to be one throne, occupied by Peter and his successors, but twelve thrones, implying the equality of the Twelve. The word of the apostles, that is, the New Testament, is the instrument through which they exercise the authority that Jesus granted them in this promise. “Times of the regeneration” refers to the times of the new birth, namely, the time of the present dispensation when men are hearing the gospel, obeying it, and being born again. Efforts to apply this passage to some kind of literal return of Jesus to the earth and which envisions Christ and the apostles actually occupying literal earthly thrones must surely be rejected in the light of the truth that Christ and the Twelve are NOW reigning in his kingdom. The reign will continue until all enemies have been put under foot (1 Corinthians 15:24-28). When death, the last enemy, is destroyed, Christ will not initiate a reign but will end it, delivering up the kingdom to the Father.

Verse 29 And every one that hath left houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or children, or lands for my name’s sake, shall receive a hundredfold, and shall inherit eternal life.What a promise of blessing for God’s children is this! Two things, yea three, are promised here: (1) First, there is the multiplication, on a vast scale, of the wealth that people may forsake to follow Christ. (2) Second, there is the multiplication, on the same vast scale, of loved ones, however near and dear, who may be forsaken for his name’s sake. (3) Third, there is the promise of eternal life. But, looking beyond this magnificent triple promise, WHO is he that made it, and how shall he fulfill it? The answer is GOD, and God is able to do all things. Here then is another passage that must be placed in the category of teaching that Christ is God. Words like these must be counted sheer nonsense if spoken by a mere man; but, when spoken by Christ, they warm the hearts of men in all generations.

Spoken by any other, such words would only evoke scorn and laughter; but, spoken by Christ, they strengthen the faithful in all ages. And the testimony is this: NO MAN EVER TRIED THE PROMISE BUT FOUND IT TRUE!

Verse 30 But many shall be last that are first; and first that are last.The application of these words to Peter’s question is thus: God does not allow any system of seniority to determine ultimate rewards in his kingdom. The seeming implication of Peter’s words to the effect that some preferential treatment might be in order for the earliest disciples who had given up so much to follow Christ finds its emphatic answer in this, that it is not how long, but how faithfully, men have served that determines destiny. Again, to quote Barker: How often do we think that because we are “old timers” in a congregation we have proprietary rights over the program and property! Everyone has met the superchurchman who lets it be known that “I’ve been coming to this church for years,” meaning that he has been promoted to Senior Vice President to God, Inc.![5] Judas, of course, was one of the first; and, as regards the lives of the apostles, Paul was one of the last. Every generation finds its own fulfillment of the Saviour’s words. Shortly afterwards, in fact immediately, Jesus gave a parable illustrating this principle even more clearly. ENDNOTE:[5] Ibid., p. 96.

J.W. McGarvey Commentary For Matthew Chapter NineteenConversation about Divorce, Matthew 19:1-12. (Mark 10:1-12)1. departed from Galilee.—This is the final departure of Jesus from Galilee. He returned thither no more until after his resurrection from the dead, when he suddenly appeared to his disciples there on two occasions. (See Matthew 28:16-17; John 21:1.) He had made one visit to Jerusalem during his ministry in Galilee, which is not recorded by Matthew, nor by Mark, or Luke. (See John 5:1.) He had labored in Galilee about twenty-two months. coasts of Judea beyond Jordan.—The Jewish territory beyond the Jordan was called Perea, from ἥπεραια, the region beyond. It is here called the coasts (ρια, borders) of Judea because, though not strictly a part of Judea, it belonged to it somewhat as the Territories of the United States belong to the States. 2. he healed them there.—The healing continues, but in the remainder of the narrative Matthew speaks of it in more general terms, and devotes less space than formerly to describing individual cases. 3. The Pharisees…. tempting him.—Testing him as to his fealty to the law of Moses and as to his own consistency. They thought that they could compel him to contradict either his own former teaching on the subject of divorce (5:32), or the law of Moses; hence their question, “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?” By every cause they meant every cause which was satisfactory to the husband. 4-6. he answered.—The argument contained in his answer presents the following premises and conclusions: First, in the beginning God made a male and a female, and said, “For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife.” (4, 5. Comp. Genesis 2:24.) Now the relation to father and mother can be dissolved only by death, yet the marriage relation is more intimate than that, and its obligations are more binding. Second, in the same sentence (Genesis 2:24) God said, “They two shall be one flesh.” If they are one flesh the relation can be dissolved only by death, which dissolves the body itself. Third, from these premises the conclusion follows (verse 6) that what God has thus joined together man shall not put asunder. Of course, God who joined them together may put them asunder by prescribing the conditions of lawful divorce, but man has nothing to do in the case except to obey God’s law. Any act of divorce, therefore, or any legislation by State or Church on the subject, inconsistent with the divine law, is open rebellion against the authority of Christ. 7. Why did Moses then.—On hearing his answer the Pharisees thought they had gained the advantage which they were seeking, and they demand of him, with an air of triumph, why did Moses command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away. 8. Moses… suffered you.—Jesus states more accurately their citation of Moses. He did not “command to give a writing of divorcement and put her away,” he only “suffered” them to do so, and he suffered it on account of the hardness of their hearts, though it had not been so from the beginning. Previous to the law of Moses God had not permitted divorce, but when the law was given, such was the prevalent hardness of heart in relation to women and marriage, that a positive prohibition of divorce would have led to promiscuous intercourse, or to secret assassination of wives who were displeasing to their husbands (see on 10 below); and as there was no immutable principle of the divine government involved in tolerating divorce for a time, the privilege was granted as a choice between evils. It was a concession to the hardness of men’s hearts, but it was part of a system of adaptations by which at last this hardness would be more effectually overcome. When the gospel was introduced God’s chosen time had arrived for bringing this concession to an end, and since then it has been the most daring interference with the divine prerogative, for men to venture on a continuance of the same concession, as though they were possessed of divine authority. (See Olshausen on verse 9.) 9. I say unto you.—Having answered their objection, he now, by his own authority, reaffirms the law which had existed in the beginning, and which he had already reenacted in his sermon on the mount. (Matthew 5:32.) her that is put away.—That is, put away for some other cause than fornication. Whether it would be adultery to marry a woman who had been put away, on account of fornication, is neither affirmed nor denied. No doubt such a woman is at liberty to marry again if she can, seeing that the bond which bound her to her husband is broken. 10. His disciples say.—The conclusion of the disciples, that if divorce at will is prohibited, it is not good to marry, proves the wisdom of allowing divorce under the law of Moses; for if these men would so conclude, how much more those Jews who were less disposed to obey God? And if marriage were avoided, licentiousness would necessarily prevail. Even in the Savior’s day, then, the hardness of heart among the Jews was still an obstacle in the way of the original law; but motives to obedience greater than any that had been known under the Jewish law were about to be presented in the completed gospel, and this made it wise to withdraw the temporary concession. 11, 12. he said to them.—The answer of Jesus to the objection of the disciples is confessedly obscure. In searching for its meaning, the first thing to be determined is the reference of the expression, “this saying.” It must refer either to the saying of the disciples (verse 10), “If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry; “or to the saying of Jesus in his answer to the Pharisees. It can not refer to the former, because that saying was objectionable, and the saying in question is one that should be received; for Jesus says (verse 12), “He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.” It must, then, refer to his own saying in answer to the Pharisees. His entire speech to the Pharisees is a unit, and its point of unity is the remark that the married couple are one flesh. It is this which makes the marital relation more intimate than that of parent and child, and that makes it wrong to put asunder those whom God has thus joined together. (Verses 5, 6.) Now Jesus says of this saying, “Not all men receive this saying (οπντεςχωρυσι), but they to whom it is given;” that is, they to whom it is given to receive it. This implies that the greater part of men do, and that those who do not are the exceptions.

Eunuchs are then introduced as an exceptional class. They can not receive the saying because a eunuch can not become “one flesh” with a woman; and, seeing that his marriage would be a nullity, separation after such a marriage would not be the divorce which Jesus forbids, nor would subsequent marriage on the woman’s part be adultery. Jesus admits, then, that, so far as eunuchs are concerned, it is good not to marry, because his doctrine can not be received or be made practical in their cases; but he insists that all shall receive it and abide by it who can and do enter really into marriage. some eunuchs.—Of the three classes of eunuchs mentioned in this verse, the first and second— that is, those born so, and those made so by men— are certainly eunuchs in the literal sense of the word. The third class, those who make themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake, are those who, by a life of celibacy undertaken for the sake of better serving the kingdom of heaven, make them eunuchs practically but not really. We think so, because we know of none in the apostolic age who for this purpose made themselves real eunuchs. The “saying” which the other two classes could not receive was equally inapplicable to these, for the marriage of a man who would maintain practical celibacy would be a nullity, and separation from him would not be the divorce prohibited. Paul and Barnabas belonged to this class and there may have been many others of whom we have no account. (See 1 Corinthians 9:5-6; and comp. 7:25-27, 32-34.) About Little Children, Matthew 19:13-15. (Mark 10:13-16; Luke 18:15-17)13. put his hands on them and pray.—These words express the object for which the children were brought. The prayers of a good man in our behalf have always been regarded as a blessing: no wonder that the mothers of these children desired the prayers of Jesus in behalf of their little ones. the disciples rebuked them.—Not the children, but those who brought them. (Mark 10:13.) The disciples thought it an unnecessary annoyance to the Master. 14. to come to me.—That is, to come for the purpose declared, “that he might put his hands on them and pray.” Those who have imagined that there is an allusion here to infant baptism, or to infant church membership, are indebted for the idea, not to their Bibles, but to their creeds. of such is the kingdom of heaven.—Not of little children, but of such as little children. Neither the kingdom as it now is, nor the kingdom as it will be, is composed of little children, but in both states of its existence it is composed of persons with characters like theirs. (Comp. 18:1-6.) As, however, children are here made the models of those in the kingdom, it is quite certain that on account of their freedom from personal transgression they will be admitted unconditionally into the eternal kingdom. The fortuitous coincidence of these two conversations has been noticed by the commentators generally. The little children, the offspring of happy wedlock, and a source of constant happiness to faithful husbands and wives, were brought into notice at the close of a conversation about divorce and about the supposed inconvenience of an indissoluble marriage bond. The pleasant incident served as a comment on the discussion, and left a better impression in reference to married life. Conversation with a Rich Man, Matthew 19:16-22. (Mark 10:17-22; Luke 18:18-23)16. what good thing.—The man evidently thought that there was some one thing of merit so exalted that by doing it he would secure eternal life. 17. Why dost thou ask.—The words, “Why callest thou me good.” were interpolated from Mark 10:18, where see the note on the other words of this verse which are placed in brackets. keep the commandments.—The reply, “If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments,” was given from the standpoint of the law of Moses, under which the man was living. In the broadest sense of the word commandments, including the statutes concerning sacrifices for sin, this answer covered the entire ground of salvation under the law. From the point of view which obtained after the death and resurrection of Jesus, the answer would have been different, but still, obedience would have been required as a condition. (Comp. Acts 2:37-38; 2 Thessalonians 1:8, et al.) 18, 19. Which?—The man still thought that some one commandment was preeminent, and he was greatly surprised, no doubt, when Jesus repeated the last six in the decalogue, substituting for “Thou shalt not covet,” the equivalent, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” We suppose that he named the last six rather than the first four, because the six were then more frequently violated than the four, and obedience to them was on this account a better test of character. 20. The young man saith.—Here it first appears that the questioner was a young man. Farther on he appears also as a rich man. That both of these facts are introduced incidentally shows the want of formality which characterizes Matthew’s descriptions. The young man’s claim that he had kept all these commandments, was doubtless true so far as he knew his own heart and understood the import of the commandments. He thought that there must be something more in order to be certain of eternal life; hence his next question, “What lack I yet?” The bracketed words, “from my youth up,” were interpolated from Mark 10:20. 21. If thou wilt be perfect.—That is, perfect in keeping the commandments and in securing eternal life. The commandment, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,” does, in some instances, require the selling of one’s possessions and distribution of all to the poor; and a perfect character is one which goes to the utmost limit of every requirement, leaving nothing undone which benevolence can suggest and our ability execute. This benevolent sacrifice would have made the young man perfect in reference to the commandments recited, and obedience to the additional command, “Come and follow me,” would have brought him to the complete and final atonement for his sins, rendering him perfect in his preparation for eternal life. 22. he went away sorrowful.—That he went away sorrowful rather than angry, speaks well for the young man. A man of extreme avarice, or of little concern for eternal life, or of little faith in Jesus, would have been offended at the extravagance of the demand. His sorrow shows that he had respect for the authority of Jesus, that he really desired to seek eternal life under his guidance, and that it required a struggle to give up his purpose even for the sake of his great possessions. This is an example not of the worst class of rich men, but of that class whose love of their possessions barely preponderates over their desire to serve God with unswerving devotion. About the Salvation of Rich Men, Matthew 19:23-26. (Mark 10:23-27; Luke 18:24-27)23. shall hardly enter.—Shall with difficulty (δυσκλως) enter; that is, it will be difficult for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven. 24. It is easier.—Here is indicated the extent of the difficulty declared in the previous verse. It is illustrated by the physical impossibility of a camel passing through the eye of a needle. The conceit, which originated I know not where that “the eye of a needle” here means a low and narrow gate through which the camel could not go except on his knees and after is burden had been removed, is not only without historical foundation, but is inconsistent with the context, which contemplates something impossible with men. (Verse 26.) 25. exceedingly amazed.—The amazement of the disciples must be considered in connection with the incident which gave rise to the astonishing remark. If they had been thinking of rich men who grind the poor and live licentiously, they would not have been surprised. But the case before their minds was that of a rich man who lacked only the one thing of being perfect. It was the statement that it was easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for such a rich man to be saved, that amazed them and suggested the question, “Who then can be saved?” 26. With men… with God.—The remark, “With men this is impossible,” refers primarily to the passage of a camel through a needle’s eye; but it hints secondarily at the asserted difficulty of saving a rich man. Likewise, the declaration that “with God all things are possible,” looks first to the case of the camel, and secondly to that of the rich man, but has chief reference to the latter. As it is possible for God, though impossible with men, to cause a camel to go through the eye of a needle; so it is possible with God, though a work in itself difficult, to save a rich man. The point of difficulty was seen in the case of the man who had just gone away— his disposition to esteem riches more highly than eternal life. This part of the lesson is more clearly developed in Mark, where see the note on 10:24. About Sacrifice for Jesus, Matthew 19:27-30 (Mark 10:28-31; Luke 18:28-30)27. we have forsaken all.—The refusal of the rich young man to sell all and follow Jesus (21, 22), reminded Peter that a similar demand had been made of him and his companions, and that although they had but little to forsake, they had forsaken all they had. He now wishes to know what shall be their reward for this. 28. in the regeneration.—Regeneration means, either the process of regenerating, or the result attained by that process, according to the context in which it is found. Here it evidently means the former, for it designates a period during which the apostles would sit on thrones. We can not connect the words “in the regeneration” with the preceding clause, “ye who have followed me,” for the obvious reason that Jesus had gone through no regeneration, and they could have followed him through none. The words, “ye who have followed me,” simply describe the parties addressed as having done what the rich man refused to do. The period designated by the term regeneration is further limited by the words, “when the Son of man shall sit on the throne of his glory.” He sat down on that throne when he ascended up to heaven, and he will still be seated on it in the day of judgment. (Acts 2:33-35; Hebrews 1:13; Matthew 25:31; 1 Corinthians 15:24-28.) “The regeneration,” then, is cotemporaneous with this period, and therefore it must be that process of regenerating men which commenced on the Pentecost after the ascension, and will continue until the saints are raised with regenerated bodies, and the heaven and earth shall themselves be regenerated as the home of the redeemed. upon twelve thrones judging.—The statement of Paul that “the saints shall judge the world” (1 Corinthians 6:2), has led many to suppose that the judging here mentioned is to take place at the final judgment. But clearly the judging and the sitting on thrones are declared to be cotemporaneous with the regeneration and with Christ’s sitting on his throne; and therefore they must be regarded as now in progress. If we are correct in this, of which we entertain no doubt, the judging consists in pronouncing decisions on questions of faith and practice in the earthly kingdom, and the twelve are figuratively represented as sitting on thrones, because they are acting as judges. During their personal ministry they judged in person; since then they judge through their writings. True, we have written communications from only a part of them, but judgments pronounced by one of a bench of judges with the known approval of all, are the judgments of the entire bench. The twelve thrones had reference, of course, to the twelve original apostles, and the place of Judas was filled by Matthias. (Acts 1:26.) The apostle to the Gentiles is left out of view. the twelve tribes.—The apostles have sustained no such relation to the twelve tribes of Israel, literally so called, as the text indicates, nor is there any intimation in the Scriptures that they ever will. Their work is with the true Israel, and not with Israel according to the flesh; consequently, we are to construe the terms metaphorically, the twelve tribes representing the Church of God of which they were a type. 29. shall receive manifold.—Not manifold in the same exact form, but manifold in value as affecting real happiness. This is the reward in time, while in eternity the party shall inherit everlasting life. This last is an inheritance as well as a reward, because it results from having become a child of God. Doubtless Peter felt satisfied when he heard that these honors and blessings were to be his reward. 30. first shall be last.—This proverbial expression, in its present connection, means that many who are first in prospect of everlasting life shall be last, and many who are last in this respect shall be first. For example, the rich young man whose inquiries had given rise to this conversation (16-20), had been among the first, but now it appeared that he was among the last. Judas, also, who was then among the first, was destined to be last, and Matthias, who was among the last, being then only an obscure disciple (Acts 2:21-23), was to take his place.

Questions by E.M Zerr For Matthew 191. Where has Jesus been teaching? 2. He then came to what community? 3. With what usual following? 4. What did he do for the people? 5. State what class came to him. 6. What did they ask him? 7. Tell their object in asking this. 8. In answer, to what history did he refer? 9. What did this action form? 10. Could this union be severed by man? 11. To what law of Moses did they then refer? 12. State Jesus* explanation. 13. What one ground will permit remarriage? 14. Otherwise what guilt is contracted? 15. To avoid this, what did the disciples suggest? 16. Did Jesus endorse their saying entirely? 17. What three classes could safely accept it? 18. Of what sin would they not be in danger? 19. Why could others not safely avoid marriage? 20. Who were brought to Jesus? 21. For what purpose ? 22. Who objected? 23. Why was Jesus favorable to their coming? 24. Tell what he then did for them. 25. What question was asked of Jesus? 26. By what title was he addressed? 27. State argument he made from use of this title. 28. What order did he then give the man ? 29. To which order, what claim did the man then make ? 30. What question did he further ask? 31. State the answer. 32. Why was it rejected in sorrow? 33. On what subject did Jesus then discourse? 34. What object was used for illustration? 35. Was such a feat possible with man? 36. Is a difficulty same as an impossibility ? 37. State Peter’ s profession at this time. 38. What was promised as reward? 39. At what time was it to be? 40. Why is it called the regeneration? 41. Why mention twelve thrones? 42. What must they have done to obtain this? 43. And what must they forsake ? 44. Would this require desertion? 45. For this what will they receive? 46. What will they inherit? 47. Is this favor restricted to the apostles? 48. In what sense must one “ forsake” possessions now? 49. Also his relations? 50. What reversal is predicted?

Matthew 19:1

19:1 Jesus had been in Galilee for some time and then moved Into the region on the east side of Jordan. Just across the river was the territory of Judea which is the meaning of the words coasts of Judea beyond Jordan.

Matthew 19:2

19:2 As usual, great crowds followed him and he healed them there. That was different from the way it is done or professed to be done by the false workers of miracles today, who require that the patient have faith and come back for more help.

Matthew 19:3

19:3 Jesus answered all questions that were put to him that were of importance, and that of divorce was certainly in that class. The Pharisees were not sincerely seeking information when they asked this question, for the writer says they asked it tempting him. But for the benefit of others who could hear him and for those who would read it in the record, the Lord gave his explanation of the delicate subject.

Matthew 19:4

19:4 Jesus went back to the beginning of man, and all discussions of this subject should go there for the proper basis of whatever is said. It should be observed that both words male and female are singular, showing that the Lord intended that one partner only should be engaged with another in this union.

Matthew 19:5

19:5 For this cause means because God made one man for one woman to reproduce the race. That being true, they must be free from all other human beings in this relationship. That will make it necessary for the man (he being the aggressor and head in all of the social affairs of life as is evident all through the Bible) to leave his parental home in order to form a union with a female and thus establish another family. Leave is from which Thayer defines, “To leave behind; to depart from, leave; to forsake, leave to one’s self,” etc. Certainly it does not mean that he must desert his parents in other respects, but in the matter of forming a union for the perpetuation of the race, a man must act independently with regard to this physical relationship. Most human laws regarding the “age of consent” have ignored this Biblical law of God: When a male is old enough to perform the marriage act he is instructed that he may leave his parents and contract marriage with a female. Cleave is from KOLLAO which Thayer defines, “To glue, glue to, glue together, cement, fasten together; join one’s self to, cleave to.” This “joining” is accomplished by the act that makes them one flesh according to the closing statement that they twain shall be one flesh.

Matthew 19:6

19:6 Are no more twain is a positive proof that the fleshly union that is formed by the first intimate relationship is permanent, and not that the fact of being one flesh applies only at the time the act is being performed as some people teach. It is stated that God has joined this man and woman into one flesh, and the only “ceremony” that was used was the fleshly act. Were there no human laws on the subject, the fleshly act would be the only thing that would constitute marriage in heaven’s sight. But as man began to multiply on the earth and social conditions became more complex, the need for laws of regulation to keep the relation between the sexes pure was recognized by human leaders and such laws were enacted. The only thing God has to do in such laws is to recognize them and to require His creatures to obey them. What God joined . . . ’no man put asunder.

The Lord would not make a ruling against a sin that could not be committed. The fact that He did forbid man to sever this union which He alone had formed by the intimate relation proves that such a putting asunder can be committed. The only conclusion that is possible, then, is that the union will be put asunder when either party to it has relation with another; that act will form another union which will sever the preceding one.

Matthew 19:7

19:7 It was natural for them to ask this question, for they knew that the law which Moses gave did not hold strictly to the foregoing requirements.

Matthew 19:8

19:8 Jesus did not say that the original law of marriage had been repealed. Neither did he say that Moses ignored it and “permitted” them to divorce their wives as it is so frequently stated. There is a vast difference between permitting a thing and suffering it. The first is equivalent to an endorsement but the second means only to tolerate something under protest. The people had become so hardened in worldliness that the original law was held off for the time being. But that period of indulgence was over when Jesus spoke and man was to be held to the law of marriage as it existed from the beginning and as Jesus stated it in verses 4 and 5.

Matthew 19:9

19:9 This verse names the only ground on which a married man or woman may be divorced and remarry lawfully in the sight of God. Fornication forms another fleshly union and automatically breaks the previous one. By that same token the innocent one is free and may remarry without committing adultery. To say that there is no exception to the law of marriage and divorce is to contradict Jesus, for he plainly says that fornication is an exception. Let it be noted that it is the remarriage where no guilt of fornication exists that constitutes the sin of adultery. There are cases where a person may need a divorce other than because of fornication on the part of the companion. In such instances the legal separation may be obtained but the said person would not have the scriptural right to remarry as long as the other one remained clear morally.

Matthew 19:10

9:10 The disciples had heard the conversation between Jesus and the Pharisees and doubtless were given information that was very new to them. See the comments at verse 3 about answering questions for the benefit of the hearers besides those who asked them. This explanation about the strictness of the marriage relation gave the disciples a feeling of hesitancy about contracting marriage. They expressed that feeling with the saying it is not good to marry. They meant that the best thing for a man to do is to abstain from marriage altogether.

Matthew 19:11

9:11 That was too strong a saying for more than one reason, and Jesus replied that not all men could receive or adopt this saying, meaning the words in italics in the preceding verse. Jesus meant that it would not be a good thing for men generally to adopt that rule of life, and that only certain men could safely refrain from entering the marriage relation and he proceeded to describe them.

Matthew 19:12

9:12 The only means God created for the perpetuation of the human race was the fleshly union of the sexes. As an inducement for man to cooperate with Him in this he established the mutual attraction of the male and female for each other. Like most blessings from God, this one was subject to misuse and unlawful enjoyment. For this reason the institution of family relationship was given so that human beings could have a lawful means of gratification and at the same time accomplish the divine edict to “multiply and replenish the earth.” From the foregoing truths we may understand that it is a moral risk for a man to decide against entering marriage, for he will be tempted to yield to his sexual inclinations unlawfully. But a eunuch may safely refrain from it and thus adopt the saying of the disciples “not to marry,” because such a person is free from this fleshly tendency.

The Lord then named three classes of these eunuchs. The one is a person who was born without this normal function and hence would not have any inclination toward the opposite sex. Another is a man who has been mutilated by others for whatever reason, and by such action has been robbed of his manly powers. The third one is a man who has been able so to subdue this fleshly tendency that the opposite sex makes no appeal to him. The apostle Paul was one of such characters (1 Corinthians 7:7). Outside of these three classes of eunuchs the only divine safeguard against un-chastity is the institution of marriage, and the proper exercise of the function in that relationship of husband and wife. (See 1 Corinthians 7:5.)

Matthew 19:13

9:13 Little children is not figurative but means literally a small child. The parents recognized Jesus as an individual who could bestow a blessing according to his own wisdom on these helpless creatures. The disciples were still somewhat confused as to the nature of the work that Jesus intended to accomplish. With this erroneous view of it, they considered this act on the part of the people as an interruption and rebuked them in the hearing of Jesus.

Matthew 19:14

9:14 The key word in this passage is such, and if the disciples had recalled the lessons of chapter 18:1-5 they would not have uttered their rebuke. Jesus did not say that the kingdom of heaven would contain little children, but it was to have men and women who had become such persons by repentance and humility.

Matthew 19:15

9:15 The Son of God would not have to make a physical contact with a person in order to bestow a blessing. The act of putting his hands on the little children was a form of caress or endearment.

Matthew 19:16

9:16 The man who came to Jesus was evidently a Jew in good standing and understood what the law required of its followers. But he also must have learned something about Jesus and his teaching (Master is from a word that also means teacher), and had the idea that something very different would have to be done to obtain what he was offering to the world, hence the question stated in this verse.

Matthew 19:17

9:17 None good but God. Jesus did not deny being a good person, for in John 10:11 he even affirmed that he was the good shepherd. Since he was a member of the Godhead, he wished this man to know that in calling him good it was equivalent to calling him God, since all goodness comes from Him. He then gave the young man an answer to his question which was doubtless different from what he expected. When he told him to keep the commandments he did not understand to what he could have reference since the regular commandments of the law had already been his rule of life.

Matthew 19:18-19

8-19 He asked Jesus to specify the commands that were meant and he repeated the six of the deca-logue that pertained to dealings between man and man.

Matthew 19:20

9:20 Jesus did not question the statement of the young man that he had kept all of those laws, hence we may conclude that this claim was true. But Jesus was here to set up another kingdom with other laws, and perhaps something would need to be added to the life of this young man who had lived up to the letter of the law. He doubtless asked confidently what lack yet?

Matthew 19:21

9:21 We need not think this man was merely pretending to be interested, for there is nothing in the conversation of Jesus that indicated that he had an unfavorable feeling toward him; instead; as Mark’s account gives it (Matthew 10:21) he loved the young man. But he could read the minds of men and he knew this man was a rich Jew and that he was devoted to his wealth. It is not necessarily wrong to be wealthy, but it is so when one is attached to his riches as this man was. That would constitute an “emergency” that required special legislation, hence Jesus told him the thing he lacked was the separation of his wealth from personal use and devotion of it to others.

Matthew 19:22

9:22 This shaft “hit its mark” for the young man went away sorrowing because of his great possessions. What he ever did about it we are not told.

Matthew 19:23

9:23 Hardly is from which Thayer defines, “with difficulty.” The sacrifices that a rich man is called upon to make enter so deeply into his devotion to the business of getting more money, that it is difficult for him to bring about that change in his manner of life. Verse 24. Needle is from RHAPHIS which Thayer defines, “a needle,” and he shows that the word comes from BHAPTO which means, “to sew.” Donne-gan defines rhaphis, “a needle, awl, or other instrument for sewing.” The Authorized version renders this verse correctly, for the words are so defined in the lexicon of the Greek language.

Matthew 19:25

9:25 The disciples knew that a camel could not naturally go through the eye of a needle, and they took the comparison to mean that few if any persons could be saved.

Matthew 19:26

9:26 Jesus supplied the point the disciples overlooked, namely, that a thing impossible with men does not have to be so with God. He could actually take a camel through the eye of a needle, but in doing so there would be some kind of change made in the camel’s body that its earthly master could not cause it to make. A rich man can be saved, but it cannot be if he continues in his devotion and trust in his riches.

Matthew 19:27

9:27 The apostles then saw the point and understood that the illustration of the camel and needle meant that one must go to the utmost in sacrificing his personal interests in order to secure the favors that the kingdom of heaven offers to the world. Peter spoke to Jesus on behalf of the other apostles as he was generally the spokesman for them. He stated that they had forsaken all to follow Jesus and asked what it would bring to them. We should bear in mind that following Jesus as he meant it was to leave their homes bodily so as to travel over the country with him. (See Mark 3:14 on being “with him.”)

Matthew 19:28

9:28. Regeneration is from PALIG-GENESIA which has a very extensive meaning in Greek literature, but its proper definition is, “new birth, reproduction, r e n e w a 1, recreation.”–Thayer. It occurs only twice in the New Testament and the other place is Titus 3:5 where it is used in connection with “washing.” Hebrews 10:22 says that it is our bodies that are washed and the connection there also shows that it applies to persons who have been regenerated by obedience to the Gospel. Hence it is clear that Jesus was speaking of the Christian Dispensation, after the kingdom of heaven was set up and he would be its king, sitting in glory at his Father’s right hand. But he arranged his rule of government by delegating the writing of the law to his twelve apostles. That law was to be in force unto the end of the world (chapter 28:20), and in that figurative way they would be occupying the twelve thrones. Twelve tribes of Israel is a figure of speech based on the fact that under the Jewish system God’s people were grouped into that many tribes. Under the Gospel system there is only one tribe but the law is administered by the twelve apostles, hence Christians are referred to as twelve tribes. (See Acts 26:7; James 1:1.)

Matthew 19:29

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 (Mark 10:30 adds “now in this time”), and after the judgment it was to bring eternal life.

Matthew 19:30

9:30 This verse is a statement of general principles. The words first and last do not always mean chronologically but sometimes are used with reference to importance. If any specific sense is to be attached to them in any case, the connection will have to be considered in determining the meaning. But the words usually mean that persons who are expected to be foremost in accepting the truth are often the least concerned, and vice versa.