Mateus 19
Charles Spurgeon · Citado em PreceptAustin
Mateus 19
Spurgeon - Here are these vipers again! What perseverance in malice! Little cared they for instruction, yet they assumed the air of inquirers. In truth, they were upon the catch, and were ready to dispute with him whatever he might say. The question is cunningly worded “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? ” The looser the terms of a question, the more likely is it to entangle the person interrogated. Their own consciences might have told them that the marriage bond is not to be severed for any and every reason that a man likes to mention. Yet it was a question much disputed at the time, whether a man could send away his wife at pleasure, or whether there must be some serious reason alleged. Whatever Jesus might say, the Pharisees meant to use his verdict against him. (See Matthew 19 Commentary) Some Pharisees (pharisaios) came to (proserchomai) Jesus (Iesous) - Came to pictures them as coming forward from among the large crowd to face Jesus. There is a bit of a play on words here (IMO), because the verb (proserchomai) is used repeatedly in Hebrews for drawing near to God (Heb 4:16, 7:25, 10:22, 11:6) which in fact the Pharisees were doing! Of course the intent of their heart's hidden agenda totally changes the meaning of the drawing near in the present context! Stuart Weber makes an interesting point that "The Pharisees had been outwitted by the king at every turn, so they came at him again with another test. And it was a dangerous one. John the Baptist's dealing with the issue of divorce had cost him his head. (See Holman New Testament Commentary - Matthew) Testing (peirazo - present tense - continually attempting to ensnare) Him and asking (present tense) (here is the test question) - Testing (peirazo) is by itself a neutral testing, but this context clearly had a negative connotation for the Pharisees should to trip Jesus on a hot button topic. Peirazo was used by Satan in tempting Jesus in Mt 4:1,3+. Their evil intent was to ensnare Jesus into making a controversial or self-incriminating statement. Clearly they sought to expose Jesus as inconsistent with Mosaic Law and/or to alienate Him from His followers, particularly those Jews who supported more permissive views on divorce. Van Parunak: The Pharisees know that divorce is a sensitive subject in Perea. They also know that the Lord’s position on divorce, as presented in the Sermon on the Mount, is similar to John’s. When they find Christ in this region, they try to lure him into saying something about divorce that will enrage Herod’s wife, so that she will destroy him as she did John. Matthew and Mark record portions of the resulting conversation. D. A. Carson suggests that "Their “test,” here, was probably delivered in the hope that Jesus would say something to damage his reputation with the people or even seem to contradict Moses. Perhaps, too, they hoped that Jesus would say something that would entangle him in the Herod-Herodias affair so that he might meet the Baptist’s fate. (See The Expositor's Bible Commentary - Page 87) David Guzik on the nature of their testing - So in their question, the Pharisees tried to get Jesus to side with one teaching or the other. If He agreed with the lax school of Rabbi Hillel, it was clear that Jesus did not take the Law of Moses seriously. If He agreed with the strict school of Rabbi Shammai, then Jesus might become unpopular with the multitude, who generally liked access to an easy divorce. The religious leaders had reason to believe they had caught Jesus on the horns of a dilemma. The Hillel school (see another note) took a very loose view of the phrase "no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her," (Dt 24:1+) and felt it allowed divorce for virtually any reason, including trivial reasons (e.g., burning food, speaking too loudly, putting too much salt on food) and this was the dominant view in much of the Jewish society in Jesus' day. The Shammai school permitted a man to divorce only if she was found guilty of sexual immorality or unfaithfulness, which was closer to what Jesus would affirm, but less popular. The the result was that most Jewish men in Jesus’ day could — and did — divorce their wives easily, often just by giving her a certificate of divorce. Women could not easily initiate divorce (except in rare cases), making them extremely vulnerable socially and economically. In short, in this section of Matthew Jesus rejected the easy-divorce culture and brought them back to God’s original design. Jesus was now in the jurisdiction of Herod Antipas (Judea and beyond the Jordan) and it is conceivable that the Pharisees were hoping Jesus might give an answer like John the Baptist resulting in his imprisonment and execution (Mt 14:1-12,10+) for criticizing Herod Antipas' unlawful marriage to Herodias (his brother’s wife). In short motive of the Pharisees was to discredit, trap, stir up political trouble and or expose Jesus as contradicting the Law of Moses or Jewish traditions. “Is it lawful (exesti) for a man to divorce (apoluo) his wife for any reason (aitia) at all?” - As discussed above Hillel school allowed divorce basically for any reason at all! Burn the toast and you're toast! NET NOTE - The question of the Pharisees was anything but sincere; they were asking it to test him. Jesus answered the question not on the basis of rabbinic custom and the debate over Deut 24:1, but rather from the account of creation and God’s original design. NET NOTE - TECHNICAL NOTE - ‡ Most MSS have either ἀνθρώπῳ (anthrōpō, “for a man” [so א2 C D W Θ 087 f1, 13 33 𝔐 latt]) or ἀνδρί (andri, “for a husband” [1424c pc]) before the infinitive ἀπολῦσαι (apolusai, “to divorce”). The latter reading is an assimilation to the parallel in Mark; the former reading may have been motivated by the clarification needed (especially to give the following αὐτοῦ [autou, “his“] an antecedent). But a few significant MSS (א* B L Γ 579 [700] 1424* pc) have neither noun. As the harder reading, it seems to best explain the rise of the others. NA27, however, reads ἀνθρώπῳ here. David
Mateus 19
Spurgeon - The woman was taken out of man, and Adam truly said, “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh” (Genesis 2:23). By marriage this unity is set forth and embodied under divine sanction. This oneness is of the most real and vital kind: “They are no more twain, but one flesh .” All other ties are feeble compared with this: even father and mother must stand second to the wife: “For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and, shall cleave to his wife. ” Being divinely appointed, this union must not be broken by the caprice of men: “What God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. ” Our Lord thus decides for the life-long perpetuity of the marriage bond, in opposition to those who allowed divorce for “every cause”, which very frequently meant for no cause whatever (See Matthew 19 Commentary) S. Lewis
Mateus 19
Spurgeon - Every reader of the passage in the books of Moses which is here referred to will be struck with the Pharisees’ unfair rendering of it. In Deuteronomy 24:1,2, we read: “When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favor in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife.” Moses commanded nothing in this instance; but barely tolerated, and greatly limited a custom then in vogue. To set Moses against Moses is not a new device; but the Pharisees would hardly venture to set Moses against God, and make him command an alteration of a divine law ordained from the beginning; yet our Lord made them see that they would have to do this to maintain the theory of easy divorce. The fact is, that Moses found divorce in existence to an almost unlimited extent, and he wisely commenced its overthrow by curtailing the custom rather than by absolutely forbidding it at once. They were not allowed to send away a wife with a hasty word, but must make a deliberate, solemn ceremonial of it by preparing and giving a writing of divorcement; and this was only allowed in a special case: “because he hath found some uncleanness in her.” Although many of the Pharisees spirited away this last limitation, and considered that the enactment in Deuteronomy sanctioned almost unlimited divorce, they were not unanimous in the matter, and were perpetually disputing over it. Hence there were many ways in which our Lord’s decision could be turned against him, whatever it might be.(See Matthew 19 Commentary) Divorce (647) (apostasion from aphistemi, to depart or stand away from) A departure, a divorce or dismissal of a woman from her husband, the deed or instrument of such divorce Mt. 5:31; 19:7 In Mk10:4, biblion , a book or document, apostasíou, of dismissal reference to document spoken about in Dt. 24:1-4 APOSTASION 3V- Matt. 5:31; Matt. 19:7; Mk. 10:4 APOSTASION in the Septuagint - Deut. 24:1; Deut. 24:3; Isa. 50:1; Jer. 3:8; Matthew 19:8 He *said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. because: Ps 95:8 Zec 7:12 Mal 2:13,14 Mk 10:5 Moses permitted: Mt 3:15 8:31 1Co 7:6 but from the beginning: Ge 2:24 7:7 Jer 6:16 THE HEART OF THEIR PROBLEM WAS THE HARDNESS OF THEIR HEART Van Parunak: The Pharisees want the Lord to comment on Deuteronomy 24 and divorce. The Lord deflects their attention to Genesis 3 and marriage. Frustrated, they try to pull him back to Deuteronomy. They carelessly drop their guard, and show their real attitude toward the passage by calling it a command. Matthew records this part of the conversation (Mt 19:7-8) The Lord answers, not by opposing Moses, but by opposing their interpretation. They claim, "Moses commanded." He responds, "Moses allowed." Moses' legislation does not command divorce. It only makes allowance for it, by telling people what to do if they are divorced. The Pharisees see divorce as a right guaranteed by the Law, following the three law interpretation of Deuteronomy 24. The Lord says that it merely makes provision for man's sin. He supports the interpretation of the entire paragraph as a single command. He *said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart (sklerokardia) - Because is a term of explanation. In this case, what is being explained follows. Jesus is explaining why Moses permitted divorce and the explanation is their hard hearts! Thus Jesus directly attacks the heart of the problem explaining it is the problem of their hearts. Their hearts were hardened to God's truth (especially the truth about marriage in Genesis 1-2). Stephen addressing a group of antagonistic Jews in Acts 7:51+ declared “You (JEWISH) men who are stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears are always resisting the Holy Spirit; you are doing just as your fathers did." Their heart problem was that it was uncircumcised and thus was hardened to God's will and way. The basic cause of divorce is the hardness of the human heart. As noted below this same Greek word sklerokardia is used in Dt 10:16+ and Jer 4:4 where it is equated with an "uncircumcised heart," that is an unbelieving heart which has never wholly submitted to God's Word and thus was never genuinely "saved" (as we would call it today). (See Excursus on Circumcision) R T France has a helpful note on hardness of heart - “The thought is not so much of the cruelty of men to their wives, as of their unresponsiveness to the mind and will of God.” (See The Gospel According to Matthew: An Introduction and Commentary) David
Mateus 19
Spurgeon - Moses tolerated and circumscribed an evil custom which he knew that such a people would not relinquish after its having been established among them for so long a time. They could not bear a higher law, and so he treated them as persons diseased with hardness of heart , hoping to lead them back to an older and better state of things by possible stages. As impurity ceased, and as the spirit of true religion would influence the nation, the need for divorce, and even the least desire for it, would die out. There was no provision in paradise for Adam’s putting away Eve; there was no desire for divorce in the golden age. The enactment of the Mosaic law of divorce was modern and temporary; and in the form into which a loose interpretation of Scripture had distorted it, it was not defensible. (See Matthew 19 Commentary) TECHNICAL NET NOTE - A few important MSS (א Φ pc) have the name “Jesus” here, but it is probably not original. Nevertheless, this translation routinely specifies the referents of pronouns to improve clarity, so that has been done here. Hardness of heart (4641) sklerokardia from skleros = hard + kardia = heart) is a stubborn attitude toward changing one's behavior, a hardness of heart, stubbornness, insensitivity, an unyielding frame of mind, hardness of heart, obstinacy, perverseness, coldness, stubbornness Matt. 19:8; Mk. 10:5; Mk. 16:14. There are two very interesting uses in the Septuagint - it is notable that the book of Deuteronomy was written to the generation of Israel that entered the promised land and Jeremiah was written to Judah at the time of the destruction of the Temple and exile to Babylon. Here is the implied point - Israel (not every Jewish person of course - there was always a believing remnant) for the most part was characterized by sklerokardia or "hardness of heart" from the beginning of the nation until the exile and now Jesus says even to the first century! Deuteronomy 10:16+ “So circumcise your heart of your heart (Lxx = circumcise the hardness of your heart = sklerokardia), and stiffen your neck no longer. Jeremiah 4:4 “Circumcise yourselves to the LORD And remove the foreskins (Lxx = circumcise the hardness of your heart = sklerokardia), Men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem, Or else My wrath will go forth like fire And burn with none to quench it, Because of the evil of your deeds.” Ken Peterman: General observations about the use of hardness in Scripture: Hardness is associated with stubbornness (Acts 19:9). Stubbornness involves an unwillingness to accept truth and perhaps a turning from the truth itself. Hardness is associated with disobedience (Hebrews 3:8). Disobedience involves an unwillingness to receive the truth rather than an inability to understand it (John 6:60). Hardness is associated with selfishness (Matthew 25:24). Selfishness is a product of the flesh, not the Spirit. F B
Mateus 19
Spurgeon - Fornication makes the guilty person a fit subject for just and lawful divorce; for it is a virtual disannulling of the marriage bond. In a case of fornication, upon clear proof, the tie can be loosed; but in no other case. Any other sort of divorce is by the law of God null and void, and it involves the persons who act upon it in the crime of adultery. Whoso marrieth her who is put away doth commit adultery ; since she is not really divorced, but remains the wife of her former husband. Our King tolerates none of those enactments which, in certain countries, trifle with the bonds of matrimony. Nations may make what laws they dare, but they cannot alter facts: persons once married are, in the sight of God, married for life, with the one exception of proven fornication. (See Matthew 19 Commentary) D A Carson on commits adultery - “He agrees with neither Shammai nor Hillel; for even though the school of Shammai was stricter than Hillel, it permitted remarriage when the divorce was not in accordance with its own Halakah (rules of conduct).” Marries (1060)(gameo) means to take another person as spouse, marry; enter matrimony of both men and women. Gameo - 28x in NT - get married(2), marriage(1), married(7), marries(7), marry(9), marrying(2) Matt. 5:32; Matt. 19:9; Matt. 19:10; Matt. 22:25; Matt. 22:30; Matt. 24:38; Mk. 6:17; Mk. 10:11; Mk. 10:12; Mk. 12:25; Lk. 14:20; Lk. 16:18; Lk. 17:27; Lk. 20:34; Lk. 20:35; 1 Co. 7:9; 1 Co. 7:10; 1 Co. 7:28; 1 Co. 7:33; 1 Co. 7:34; 1 Co. 7:36; 1 Co. 7:39; 1 Tim. 4:3; 1 Tim. 5:11; 1 Tim. 5:14. Only once in Septuagint - Esther 10:3 Commits adultery (3429)(moichao from moichos = an adulterer) to commit adultery, be an adulterer. BDAG - 1. be caused to commit adultery, be an adulterer/adulteress, commit adultery 2. be guilty of infidelity in a transcendent relationship, be unfaithful, 4x - adultery(1), commits adultery(3). Matt. 5:32; Matt. 19:9; Mk. 10:11; Mk. 10:12 Septuagint - Jer. 3:8; Jer. 5:7; Jer. 7:9; Jer. 9:2; Jer. 23:14; Jer. 29:23; Ezek. 16:32; Ezek. 23:37; Gilbrant - Sexual intercourse outside of marriage is sin for both the married and the unmarried. Not only is lust the moral equivalent of adultery (Matthew 5:27-30), but divorce can be the cause of adultery as well (Matthew 5:31,32). A man who divorces his wife (or a wife who divorces her husband, Mark 10:12) commits moichaomai, that is, “causes her to commit adultery.” Thus sexual fidelity in marriage is required by God (Genesis 2:23f.; Exodus 20:14) and vindicated by Christ (Matthew 19:9). Classic Greek - moicheuō and its Doric counterpart moichaō mean to commit adultery (with acc.). Sometimes they are used more generally, seduce a woman, violate; hence in mid. let oneself be seduced, in pass. be seduced to adultery. The derivatives include moicheia, adultery, harlotry (cf. porneia → Discipline); moichos, Adulterer; moichalis, first an adj. meaning adulterous, and, secondly, a noun meaning adulteress, harlot. Adultery was punishable already in the old law codes going back to the second millennium B.C., e.g. the Lipit-Ishtar Code, the Code of Hammurabi, the old Ass. laws (cf. ANET, 159 ff., 163–88). Every form of sexual relationship outside marriage was forbidden to the wife, for she was the real guarantor of the integrity of the family and clan, and by adultery she broke her own marriage and she destroyed the integrity of the whole clan. A man on the contrary committed adultery only by sexual relationships with a married woman, i.e. when breaking into another’s arrangement. At the same time traces of older concepts behind these legal views from different cultures may be detected: (a) adultery with a married woman involves an offense against property, i.e. the invasion of the area of another’s possessions, and (b) the woman committing adultery opens the clan to the influence of evil powers. The punishment of adultery by death, ill-treatment or the payment of an expiatory fine was normally left to the private initiative of the wronged husband or of his clan.(See NIDNTT) The place of marriage in society -- Object Lesson: Show the congregation a thermometer and a thermostat and note the significant difference between the two. A thermometer adjusts to the temperature of its environment in order to measure it, but a thermostat actually sets the temperature. Sadly, Christians are often more like thermometers than like thermostats. Rather than working to impact culture, many Christians simply adjust to the changing culture. This is evident in the state of marriage in the United States today. Despite the clear teachings of the Bible with regard to marriage and divorce, many studies show a negligible difference between the divorce rate among Christians and non-Christians. One way for Christians to make an impact on society is to recapture God’s view of marriage and to live it out. QUESTION - What is sexual immorality? WATCH VIDEO ANSWER - In the New Testament, the word most often translated “sexual immorality” is porneia. This word is also translated as “whoredom,” “fornication,” and “idolatry.” It means “a surrendering of sexual purity,” and it is primarily used of premarital sexual relations. From this Greek word we get the English word pornography, stemming from the concept of “selling off.” Sexual immorality is the “selling off” of sexual purity and involves any type of sexual expression outside the boundaries of a biblically defined marriage relationship (Matthew 19:4–5). The connection between sexual immorality and idolatry is best understood in the context of 1 Corinthians 6:18, which says, “Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body.” The bodies of believers are the “temple of the Holy Spirit” (1 Corinthians 6:19–20). Pagan idol worship often involved perverse and immoral sexual acts performed in the temple of a false god. When we use our physical bodies for immoral purposes, we are imitating pagan worship by profaning God’s holy temple with acts He calls detestable (1 Corinthians 6:9–11). Biblical prohibitions against sexual immorality are often coupled with warnings against “impurity” (Romans 1:24; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 4:19). This word in the Greek is akatharsia, which means “defiled, foul, ceremonially unfit.” It connotes actions that render a person unfit to enter God’s presence. Those who persist in unrepentant immorality and impurity cannot come into the presence of God. Jesus said, “Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God” (Matthew 5:8; cf. Psalm 24:3–4). It is impossible to maintain a healthy intimacy with God when our bodies and souls are given over to impurities of any kind. Sexuality is God’s design. He alone can define the parameters for its use. The Bible is clear that sex was created to be enjoyed between one man and one woman who are in a covenant marriage until one of them dies (Matthew 19:6). Sexuality is His sacred wedding gift to human beings. Any expression of it outside those parameters constitutes an abuse of God’s gift. Adultery, premarital sex, pornography, and homosexual relations are all contrary to God’s design. That makes those things sinful. The following are some common objections to God’s commands against sexual immorality: 1. It’s not wrong if we love each other. The Bible makes no distinction between “loving” and “unloving” sexual relations. The only biblical distinction is between married and unmarried people. Sex within marriage is blessed (Genesis 1:28); sex outside of marriage is “fornication” or “sexual immorality” (1 Corinthians 7:2–5). 2. Times have changed, and what was wrong in biblical times is no longer considered sin. Most of the passages condemning sexual immorality also include evils such as greed, lust, stealing, etc. (1 Corinthians 6:9–10; Galatians 5:19–21). We have no problem understanding that these other things are still sin. God’s character does not change with culture’s opinion (Malachi 3:6; Numbers 23:19; Hebrews 13:8). 3. We’re married in God’s eyes. The fallacy of this idea is that the God who created marriage in the first place would retract His own command to accommodate what He has called sin. God declared marriage to be one man and one woman united for life (Mark 10:6–9). The Bible often uses the imagery of a wedding and a covenant marriage as a metaphor to teach spiritual truth (Matthew 22:2; Revelation 19:9). God takes marriage seriously, and His “eyes” see immorality for what it is, regardless of how cleverly we have redefined it. 4. I can still have a good relationship with God because He understands. Proverbs 28:9 says, “If one turns away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer is an abomination.” We fool ourselves when we think that we can stubbornly choose sin and God does not care. 1 John 2:3–4 contains a serious challenge for those who persist in this line of thinking: “We know that we have come to know him if we keep his commands. Whoever says, ‘I know him,’ but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in that person.” Hebrews 13:4 makes God’s expectation for His children crystal clear: “Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous.” Sexual immorality is wrong. The blood of Jesus can cleanse us from every type of impurity when we repent and receive His forgiveness (1 John 1:7–9). But that cleansing means our old nature and all its practices, including sexual immorality, are put to death (Romans 6:12–14; 8:13). Ephesians 5:3 says, “But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people.” Related Resources: Why is sexual purity so important? What makes sexual sin such a big deal? What is the biblical fix for sexual brokenness? What does the Bible say about sexual compatibility / incompatibility? QUESTION - Is remarriage after divorce always adultery? WATCH VIDEO ANSWER - Before we even begin to answer this question, let us reiterate, "God hates divorce" (Malachi 2:16). The pain, confusion, and frustration most people experience after a divorce are surely part of the reason that God hates divorce. Even more difficult, biblically, than the question of divorce, is the question of remarriage. The vast majority of people who divorce either remarry or consider getting remarried. What does the Bible say about this? Matthew 19:9 says, "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." See also Matthew 5:32. These Scriptures clearly state that remarriage after a divorce is adultery, except in the instance of "marital unfaithfulness." In regards to this "exception clause" and its implications, please read the following articles: What does the Bible say about divorce and remarriage? I am divorced. Can I remarry? It is our view that, in certain instances, a person is allowed to divorce and remarry without being guilty of adultery: a person whose spouse commits adultery, for example, and a believer whose unbelieving spouse abandons the marriage. We are not saying that a person under such circumstances should remarry. The Bible’s instruction to divorced people is to remain single or be reconciled (1 Corinthians 7:11). At the same time, it is our view that God offers His mercy and grace to the innocent party in a divorce and allows that person to remarry. A person who gets a divorce for a reason other than the reasons listed above, and then gets remarried has committed adultery (Luke 16:18). The question then becomes, is this remarriage an "act" of adultery, or a "state" of adultery. The present tense of the Greek in Matthew 5:32; 19:9; and Luke 16:18 can indicate a continuous state of adultery. At the same time, the present tense in Greek does not always indicate continuous action. Sometimes it simply means that something occurred (Aoristic, Punctiliar, or Gnomic present). For example, the word "divorces" in Matthew 5:32 is present tense, but divorcing is not a continual action. It is our view that remarriage, no matter the circumstances, is not a continual state of adultery. Only the act of getting remarried itself is adultery. In the Old Testament Law, the punishment for adultery was death (Leviticus 20:10). At the same time, Deuteronomy 24:1-4 mentions remarriage after a divorce, does not call it adultery, and does not demand the death penalty for the remarried spouse. The Bible explicitly says that God hates divorce (Malachi 2:16), but nowhere explicitly states that God hates remarriage. The Bible nowhere commands a remarried couple to divorce. Deuteronomy 24:1-4 does not describe the remarriage as invalid. Ending a remarriage through divorce would be just as sinful as ending a first marriage through divorce. Both would include the breaking of vows before God, between the couple, and in front of witnesses. No matter the circumstances, once a couple is remarried, they should strive to live out their married lives in fidelity, in a God-honoring way, with Christ at the center of their marriage. A marriage is a marriage. God does not view the new marriage as invalid or adulterous. A remarried couple should devote themselves to God and to each other—and honor God by making their new marriage a lasting and Christ-centered one (Ephesians 5:22-33). QUESTION - What is the exception clause? ANSWER - The "exception clause" is Jesus’ statement in Matthew 5:32 and Mt 19:9 "except for marital unfaithfulness." It gives an "exception" for remarriage after a divorce being considered adultery. Matthew 5:32 reads, "But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery." Similarly, Matthew 19:9 reads, "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." So, what precisely is "marital unfaithfulness," and why is it an exception to Jesus’ statement that remarriage after a divorce is adultery? The meaning of Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9 is clear. If a person gets a divorce and then remarries, it is considered adultery unless the exception clause is in effect. The phrase "marital unfaithfulness" is a translation of the Greek word porneia, the word from which we get our modern word "pornography." The essential meaning of porneia is "sexual perversion." In Greek literature around the same time as the New Testament, porneia was used to refer to adultery, fornication, prostitution, incest, and idolatry. It is used 25 times in the New Testament, most often translated "fornication." The meaning of porneia in the New Testament seems to be the general concept of sexual perversion. Other Greek words are used to refer to specific forms of sexual perversion, such as adultery. With this meaning in mind, according to the exception clause, any participation in sexual perversion/misconduct is an exception to Jesus’ statement that remarriage after a divorce is adultery. If one spouse commits adultery, or any act of sexual perversion, and a divorce results, the "innocent" spouse is free to remarry without it being considered adulterous. Please understand, though, that the exception clause is not a command for divorce and/or remarriage. Jesus is not saying that if marital unfaithfulness occurs a couple should divorce. Jesus is not saying that if a divorce occurs due to marital unfaithfulness, the innocent spouse should remarry. At most, Jesus is giving allowance for divorce and remarriage to occur. In no sense is Jesus declaring divorce and remarriage to be the best or only option. Repentance, forgiveness, counseling, and restoration are God’s desire for marriages damaged by unfaithfulness. God can and will heal any marriage in which both spouses are committed to Him and willing to follow His Word. QUESTION - What does the Bible say about divorce and remarriage? WATCH VIDEO ANSWER - First of all, no matter what view one takes on the issue of divorce, it is important to remember Malachi 2:16: “I hate divorce, says the Lord God of Israel.” According to the Bible, marriage is a lifetime commitment. “So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate” (Matthew 19:6). God realizes, though, that marriages involve two sinful human beings and that divorces are going to occur. In the Old Testament, He laid down some laws to protect the rights of divorcées (Deuteronomy 24:1–4). Jesus pointed out that these laws were given because of the hardness of people’s hearts, not because such laws were God’s desire (Matthew 19:8). The issue of remarriage after a divorce is addressed directly in 1 Corinthians 7:10–11: “To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.” So, the biblical rule is that there should be no divorce and, if a divorce does occur, no remarriage. We have two possible exceptions to this foundational principle, one of which Paul addresses in the same context: a believer abandoned by an unbelieving spouse “is not bound” (1 Corinthians 7:15). And Jesus says, “Except for sexual immorality” in Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9. So, depending on the exact meaning of bound and sexual immorality, there may be some cases in which remarriage is allowable after divorce. In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul’s argument for the “unbound” condition of the believing spouse is based on who leaves—it is the unbeliever who abandons the marriage, and the believer is an innocent party. Taking a closer look at Jesus’ words in Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9, the phrase except for sexual immorality possibly gives God’s permission for divorce and remarriage. Many interpreters understand this “exception clause” in Matthew as referring to marital unfaithfulness during the betrothal period. In Jewish custom, a man and a woman were considered married even while they were still engaged or “betrothed.” According to this view, immorality during this betrothal period would be the only valid reason for a divorce. However, the Greek word translated “sexual immorality” is a general word that can mean any form of sexual sin. It can refer to fornication, prostitution, adultery, etc. Jesus is possibly saying that divorce is permissible if sexual immorality is committed. Sexual relations are an integral part of the marital bond: “The two will become one flesh” (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:5; Ephesians 5:31). Therefore, any breaking of that bond by sexual relations outside of marriage might be a permissible reason for divorce. Jesus’ teaching seems to be that adultery unties the marriage knot, but the allowance of remarriage is not explicit. In Matthew 5:32, the assumption is that the woman who is divorced will remarry, and Jesus seems to say that, unless her first marriage was dissolved by adultery (on her husband’s part), her second marriage will make her an adulteress. Jesus also has remarriage in mind in Matthew 19:9. In both passages, divorce and remarriage seem to be allowed in the circumstance covered by the exception clause, whatever that is interpreted to be. It is important to note that only the innocent party is allowed to remarry. Although not stated in the text, it would seem the allowance for remarriage after divorce is God’s mercy for the one who was sinned against, not for the one who committed the sexual immorality. There may be instances where the guilty party is allowed to remarry, but they are not evident in this text. 1 Corinthians 7:15 may be another biblical “exception,” allowing remarriage if an unbelieving spouse divorces a believer. The verse says, “But if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so. The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace.” The text is clear that, if an unbelieving spouse leaves a believer, the believer is free to accept the separation and move on with life. He or she is “not bound,” indicating full liberty. The Amplified Bible translates the statement as “the [remaining] brother or sister is not [spiritually or morally] bound.” The believing spouse can work for reconciliation (1 Corinthians 7:11), but he or she is not obligated to remain in the marriage. If desertion dissolves a marriage, then is remarriage permitted? If desertion dissolves a marriage, then is remarriage permitted? The context of 1 Corinthians 7:15 does not mention remarriage, except in 1Co 7:11, which says a divorced person cannot remarry. But, if “the believing husband or wife is no longer bound to the other” (1Co 7:15NLT), then it is reasonable to assume that remarriage is allowed. It seems in 1Co 7:15 Paul is giving an exception to the rule of 1Co 7:11. Some also claim that abuse (spousal or child) is a valid reason for divorce even though it is not listed as such in the Bible. While this may very well be the case, it is never wise to presume upon the Word of God. In cases of abuse, a separation is definitely in order and should occur immediately. Sometimes lost in the debate over the exception clause is the fact that, whatever “sexual immorality” means in Matthew 5 and Matthew 19, it is an allowance for divorce, not a requirement for it. Even when adultery is committed, a couple can, through God’s grace, learn to forgive and begin rebuilding their marriage. God has forgiven us of so much more. Surely, we can follow His example and even forgive the sin of adultery (Ephesians 4:32). However, in many instances a spouse is unrepentant and continues the immoral behavior. That is when Matthew 19:9 applies. Looking to quickly remarry after an allowable divorce can also cause problems. It might be God’s desire for the divorced person to remain single, even if he or she can biblically remarry. God sometimes calls people to be single so their attention is not divided (1 Corinthians 7:32–35). Remarriage after a divorce may be an option in some circumstances, but that does not mean it is the only option. In summary, the Bible makes it clear that God hates divorce (Malachi 2:16) and that reconciliation and forgiveness should mark a believer’s life (Luke 11:4; Ephesians 4:32). However, God recognizes that divorce will occur, even among His children. A divorced and/or remarried believer should not feel any less loved by God, even if the divorce and/or remarriage is not covered under the possible exception clause of Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9. QUESTION - I am divorced. Can I remarry according to the Bible? ANSWER - We often receive questions like “I am divorced for such and such a reason. Can I get remarried?” Or “I have been divorced twice—the first for adultery by my spouse, the second for incompatibility. The man I’m dating has been divorced three times—the first for incompatibility, the second for adultery on his part, the third for adultery on his wife’s part. Can we get married to each other?” Questions like these are difficult to answer because the Bible does not go into great detail regarding the various scenarios for remarriage after a divorce. What we can know for sure is that it is God’s plan for a married couple to stay married as long as both spouses are alive (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:6). The basic principle concerning divorce and remarriage is laid out clearly in 1 Corinthians 7:10–11: “To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.” So, the foundational rule is that there should be no divorce and, if a divorce does happen, no remarriage. Once we understand the basic rule that there should be no remarriage after a divorce, we can look at the possible exceptions to that rule. One possible allowance for remarriage after a divorce is found in Matthew 19:9—if the marriage ended because of adultery, then the wronged spouse may be free to remarry. But this interpretation is debated among Christians. Another possible allowance for remarriage is desertion—when an unbelieving spouse leaves a believing spouse (1 Corinthians 7:12–15). In such a case, the believer is “not bound” (verse 15). This passage does not specifically address remarriage, however, and much depends on the meaning of the words not bound. Instances of physical, sexual, or emotional abuse would be sufficient cause for separation, but the Bible does not speak of these sins in the context of divorce or remarriage. While God hates divorce (Malachi 2:16), God is also merciful and forgiving. Every divorce is a result of sin, either on the part of one spouse or both. Does God forgive divorce? Absolutely! Divorce is no less forgivable than any other sin. Forgiveness of all sins is available through faith in Jesus Christ (Matthew 26:28; Ephesians 1:7). If God forgives the sin of divorce, does that mean you are free to remarry? In light of the command to “remain unmarried or else be reconciled” in 1 Corinthians 7:11, the answer would seem to be no, except in the specific circumstances mentioned in 1 Corinthians 7:12–15 and Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9. Being unmarried is not a curse. God sometimes calls people to remain single (1 Corinthians 7:7–8). Singleness can be an opportunity to serve God wholeheartedly (1 Corinthians 7:32–36). So, can you or should you get remarried? We cannot give a blanket answer to that question. Ultimately, that is between you, your potential spouse, and, most importantly, God. The only advice we can give is for you to search the Scripture and pray to God for wisdom regarding what He would have you do (James 1:5). Pray with an open mind and genuinely ask the Lord to place His desires on your heart (Psalm 37:4). Seek the Lord’s will (Proverbs 3:5–6) and follow His leading. Related Resources: Is physical abuse an acceptable reason for divorce? Does the Bible say anything about making a second marriage a success? What does the Bible say about adultery? What are biblical grounds for divorce? What is a certificate of divorce (Matthew 5:31)? Matthew 19:10 The disciples *said to Him, “If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry.” Ge 2:18 Pr 5:15-19 18:22 19:13,14 21:9,19 1Co 7:1,2,8,26-28 1Co 7:32-35,39,40 1Ti 4:3 5:11-15 COUNTING THE COST OF THE MARRIAGE COVENANT The disciples (mathetes) *said to Him, “If the relationship (aitia) of the man with his wife is like this, it is better (sumphero) not to marry (gameo) - Clearly the disciples "got it!" -- One man, one woman, one flesh, no divorce! They understood how serious it was for someone to divorce their mate. If the only ground for divorce was unfaithfulness, if none of the exceptions suggested by Hillel and Shammai were valid, it was better to stay single! As a result of their comprehension (and remember they were often slow to understand certain things, but apparently not this time!) and their shock (because they had been taught all their life about "easy divorce") they remarked it is better (sumphero) not to marry (gameo). As old John
Mateus 19
Spurgeon - They had come to look upon the ease of slipping the marriage-knot as a sort of relief; and on marriage itself, without the power of escaping from it by divorce, as an evil thing, or at least as very likely to prove so. Better not marry if you marry for life: this seemed to be their notion. Even his disciples, looking at the risks of unhappy married life, concluded that it were better to remain single. They said, “It is good not to marry; ” and there was a measure of truth in their declaration. (See Matthew 19 Commentary) NET NOTE - ‡ Some significant witnesses, along with the majority of later MSS (𝔓25 C D L W Z 078 f1, 13 33 𝔐 lat sy samss bo), read αὐτοῦ (autou, “his”) after μαθηταί (mathētai, “disciples”), but this looks to be a clarifying reading. Other early and important witnesses lack the pronoun (𝔓71vid א B Θ e ff1 g1 sams mae), the reading adopted here. NA27 includes the pronoun in brackets, indicating doubts as to its authenticity. QUESTION - Why did the disciples conclude that it is better not to marry in Matthew 19:10? ANSWER - While Jesus was teaching and healing in Judea, some Pharisees tried to trap Jesus by asking Him a loaded question about marriage and the Law of Moses. Jesus’ response caused the disciples to conclude that “it is better not to marry” (Matthew 19:10). The Pharisees, trying to trap Jesus in a dilemma, asked Him whether it was lawful to divorce a wife for any reason (Matthew 19:3). They were trying to get Jesus to contradict Moses so they could brand Jesus as a false teacher. Of course, Jesus shrewdly responded by answering them with Scripture. Jesus reminded them that humanity was created male and female and that marriage was God’s joining of the man and woman into one flesh; thus, no person could actually separate what God had united (Matthew 19:4–6). Jesus appealed to the design of marriage, implying that divorce was a violation of that design. The Pharisees thought Jesus had taken the bait, and they questioned further why Moses allowed for divorce (Matthew 19:7). Jesus’ answer was perhaps not what they expected. Jesus explained that Moses’ allowance of divorce was a concession because of the people’s hardness of heart, but divorce was never what was designed (Matthew 19:8). Jesus further explained that, if one divorces for any reason other than immorality (or unfaithfulness) and marries someone else, then he or she is committing adultery (Matthew 19:9). Matthew did not record the Pharisees’ response, but the disciples concluded that it is better not to marry (Matthew 19:10). Jesus communicated that God’s standard is high. Those who are married become one flesh and are united by God in a unique way. Only unfaithfulness by one partner could warrant the other partner’s divorce and remarriage—and even that was a concession. Divorce was not the ideal and was not to be considered the guaranteed privilege of disgruntled men. The disciples, accustomed to the notion that divorce should be easy, shrank back from the idea of being stuck in an unpleasant marriage. According to Jesus’ teaching, a man who is displeased with his wife has no way out, and the disciples conclude it would be better not to marry than risk a life of unhappiness. In answering the Pharisees’ question, Jesus reiterated the seriousness of the marriage relationship as God has joined the husband and wife. That union was also affirmed by the married persons by their covenant with each other. To violate the covenant would be treachery (see Malachi 2:14–16). This is why the disciples conclude that it is better not to marry. They understood from Jesus’ words that the marital commitment is a serious responsibility. Divorce was legally permitted for almost any reason, but Jesus explained that the husband had a weighty obligation no matter how easy it might be to legally divorce his wife. Paul later explains in Ephesians 5:22–27 that the husband is to love his wife fully and unconditionally (illustrating Christ’s sacrificial love for the church), and the wife is to subject herself to her own husband (illustrating the church’s response to Christ). These unconditional responsibilities are incredibly serious and should not be undertaken lightly. Just as the disciples conclude that it is better not to marry, it would be wise for those pondering marriage to recognize how important marriage is to God and how He designed it to be a lifelong commitment. Perhaps some might also conclude that it is better not to marry. Matthew 19:11 But He said to them, “Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given. KJV Matthew 19:11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. BGT Matthew 19:11 ὁ δὲ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· οὐ πάντες χωροῦσιν τὸν λόγον [τοῦτον] ἀλλ᾽ οἷς δέδοται. NET Matthew 19:11 He said to them, "Not everyone can accept this statement, except those to whom it has been given. CSB Matthew 19:11 But He told them, "Not everyone can accept this saying, but only those it has been given to. ESV Matthew 19:11 But he said to them, "Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. NIV Matthew 19:11 Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. NLT Matthew 19:11 "Not everyone can accept this statement," Jesus said. "Only those whom God helps. 1Co 7:2,7,9,17,35 But He said to them, “Not all men can accept (choreo) this statement (logos) - What statement? That some are called to be married and remain married whereas others who cannot receive this statement are called to be single. Spurgeon - It may be better in some respects not to marry; but all men cannot receive this saying, and put it into practice: it would be the end of the race if they could. A single life is not for all, nor for many: nature forbids. To some, celibacy is better than marriage; but such are peculiar in constitution, or in circumstances. Abstinence from marriage is to a few a choice gift, answering high purposes; but to the many, marriage is as necessary as it is honorable. (See Matthew 19 Commentary) But only those to whom it has been given - Jesus says those who can accept that is better not to marry are those given the gift of celibacy or were made eunuchs and as such did not have normal sexual desires. John
Mateus 19
Spurgeon - Some have but feeble desires concerning marriage, and they were so born. They will find it good to remain as they are. Others subdue the desires of nature, for holy and laudable reasons, for the kingdom of heaven’s sake; but this is not for all, nor for many. It is optional with individuals to marry or not: if they marry, nature commends, but grace is silent; if they forbear for Christ’s sake, grace commends, and nature does not forbid. Enforced celibacy is the seed-bed of sins. “Marriage is honorable in all” Violations of purity are abominable in the sight of the Lord. In this matter we need guidance and grace if we follow the usual way; and if we elect the less frequented road, we shall need grace and guidance even more. As to a resolve to persevere in a single life: He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. (See Matthew 19 Commentary) Life Application Study Bible (borrow) note - Jesus was not teaching us to avoid marriage because it is inconvenient or takes away our freedom. That would be selfishness. He who is able (dunamai) to accept (choreo) this, let him accept (choreo) it - MIT "Let him who has the capacity to apply this principle, apply it." Believer's Study Bible - This verse does not value celibacy or asceticism over the normal relationships of family life. Some are excluded from marriage by natural causes (v. 12a) and others by the violent action of men, i.e., they "were made eunuchs by men" (v. 12b). Some who serve the kingdom may discover themselves in circumstances in which they refrain from marriage or a second marriage by their own choice (v. 12c). Hindson - Unfortunately the early church began to take this statement to mean that it was more spiritual to be single than to be married, and eventually celibacy became legislation within the Roman Catholic Church. The single life is not to be forced on anyone. Those who are called to it are able to receive it (i.e., accept) gladly. (See KJV Bible Commentary page 2054) Grant Osborne: The gift of celibacy is a valid option in the church. The disciples made an ironic statement that it would be better to be single (v. 10), but Jesus turns that on its head and says they are right. For many in ministry, it would be better to remain single and thereby have more time for kingdom business (cf. 1 Cor 7: 7, 26–35). This is as valid today as it was in the time of Jesus or Paul. We are all aware of those leaders who have chosen the path of celibacy (e.g., John Stott) and of the ministries they had as a result. Pioneer missionaries, evangelists, itinerant teachers, and many others should consider this gift as part of their calling. Most importantly, it is a calling and is not for everyone; Jesus does not elevate single status above marriage but rather says it is a valid calling for those in ministry. (See Matthew - Page 708) Stu Weber: No matter how one interprets Jesus' stance on divorce and remarriage, it was far stricter than the disciples (or anyone else) expected. They had lived all their lives in a society where divorces were granted liberally. The prevalence of arranged marriages and the tendency for women to be viewed as property may have contributed to the number of divorces. To learn that there was no easy way out of an unsatisfactory marriage caused the disciples to rethink the marriage commitment. They considered that it might be better to avoid the risk of getting into a bad marriage by staying single. The disciples' conclusion, given Jesus' high standards, was, it is better not to marry. Jesus had made his point. John
Mateus 19
Spurgeon - From questions of marriage to the subject of children was an easy and natural step, and providence so arranged events that our Lord was led to proceed from the one to the other. We see how gentle was our King in the fact that anyone thought of bringing boys and girls to him. Their friends brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and bestow a blessing; and also lift up his hands to God, and pray for them. This was a very natural desire on the part of devout parents, and it showed much faith in our Lord’s condescension. We feel sure that the mothers brought them, for still holy women are doing the same. (See Matthew 19 Commentary) J. Ligon Duncan: This event seems mundane enough but it was important enough to the gospel writers that not only Matthew but also Mark and Luke took the time to record it, with Mark adding some details that Matthew and Luke do not provide. So its brevity belies its significance. There is terse truth in this passage that warrants our attention. Lesson: We must aspire to child-like lowliness and humility if we want to be in the kingdom of Jesus Christ. William
Mateus 19
Spurgeon - The disciples, jealous for their Lord’s honor, bade the mothers and nurses forbear. They judged that it was too childish an act on the mothers’ part, and it was treating the great Teacher too familiarly. Were not the disciples the more childish of the two in imagining that their Lord would be unkind to babes? (See Matthew 19 Commentary) A T
Mateus 19
Spurgeon - The Lord is more lowly than his servants. He bids them cease to hinder the little children; he calls them to himself; he declares that they are the very kind of people of whom his heavenly kingdom is made up. “Of such is the kingdom of heaven ” — this is the banner of the Sunday school. Children, and those like them, may freely come into the kingdom of the Lord of heaven; yea, these are the characters who alone can enter into that kingdom. NET NOTE - The kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these. Children are a picture of those whose simple trust illustrates what faith is all about. The remark illustrates how everyone is important to God, even those whom others regard as insignificant. QUESTION - Why did Jesus say, “Let the little children come to me”? ANSWER - At one point during Jesus’ earthly ministry, some children were brought to Him so that He could lay hands on them and pray for them (Matthew 19:13). The disciples tried to turn the children away, but Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these” (verse 14). Mark 10:14 (KJV) adds that Jesus was “much displeased” with His disciples for their actions. He then blessed the children (Matthew 19:15). There are two potentially puzzling elements to this story. First, why did the disciples try to keep the children away from Jesus? Also, what did Jesus mean when he said, “Let the little children come to me . . . for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these”? It is important to remember that children in Jesus’ time were not necessarily regarded as special or particularly endearing, except to their own parents. Many cultures today look on children as especially sweet, innocent, and even wise. Jewish culture in that day probably did not see children in such optimistic terms. The disciples most likely rebuked those bringing the children to Jesus because they felt bringing children to Jesus was socially improper or because they thought the children would bother Jesus. It is likely that their move to hinder the parents from bringing their children to Jesus was motivated not by unkindness but by a desire to respect Jesus’ position as a teacher. But Jesus wanted the children to come to Him. He said, “Let the children come,” because He wanted to bless them. It is wonderful to think of Jesus interacting with a child. Children are needy and dependent, and they know almost nothing about life. They function mostly on emotion rather than reason. Yet Jesus said, “The kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these” (Matthew 19:14). Scripture often compares believers to children (e.g., Luke 10:21; Galatians 4:19; 1 John 4:4). In fact, Jesus told those following Him, “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 18:3–4; cf. Mark 10:15). Jesus’ command to “let the little children come to me” reveals several truths: 1) Children need to be blessed by the Lord. 2) The Lord wants to bless children. 3) Parents should be encouraged to bring their children to Jesus at an early age and teach them His ways. 4) Jesus has regard for the weakest and most vulnerable among us. 5) No matter how compassionate Jesus’ followers are, Jesus Himself is more compassionate still. 6) Those who come to Christ must do so in childlike humility, faith, and simplicity. 'Like children who implicitly trust their parents, believers trust God. Faith is not about knowing everything or doing everything right. It is about knowing that, no matter what happens, our Father will take care of us. That trust in Him, even when life is terrifying and sad and makes no sense, is what makes a believer like a child. “All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away” (John 6:37). God loves His children. Related Resources: How did Jesus interact with children? What does it mean that Jesus loves the little children? Matthew 19:15 After laying His hands on them, He departed from there. Isa 40:11 Mk 10:16 1Co 7:14 2Ti 3:15 Related Passages: Mark 10:16+ And He took them in His arms (enagkalizomai) and began blessing (kateulogeo) them, laying His hands on them. JESUS LAYS HANDS ON THE CHILDREN After laying (epitithemi) His hands on them, He departed (poreuo) from there Mark adds the detail that He took them in his arms and while the children were in His lap, He pronounced a blessing, probably in the form of a prayer, over them. This was most unusual for a rabbi to take time for the little ones. The mindset of the day would have been to not bother with the children. Teachers were too busy to waste time on them. The Lord took children in His arms To bless them and to show That if we come in childlike faith His presence we will know. —Sper G Campbell
Mateus 19
Spurgeon - “Good Master.” —Matthew 19:16 Morning and Evening If the young man in the gospel used this title in speaking to our Lord, how much more fitly may I thus address him! He is indeed my Master in both senses, a ruling Master and a teaching Master. I delight to run upon his errands, and to sit at his feet. I am both his servant and his disciple, and count it my highest honour to own the double character. If he should ask me why I call him “good,” I should have a ready answer. It is true that “there is none good but one, that is, God,” but then he is God, and all the goodness of Deity shines forth in him. In my experience, I have found him good, so good, indeed, that all the good I have has come to me through him. He was good to me when I was dead in sin, for he raised me by his Spirit’s power; he has been good to me in all my needs, trials, struggles, and sorrows. Never could there be a better Master, for his service is freedom, his rule is love: I wish I were one thousandth part as good a servant. When he teaches me as my Rabbi, he is unspeakably good, his doctrine is divine, his manner is condescending, his spirit is gentleness itself. No error mingles with his instruction—pure is the golden truth which he brings forth, and all his teachings lead to goodness, sanctifying as well as edifying the disciple. Angels find him a good Master and delight to pay their homage at his footstool. The ancient saints proved him to be a good Master, and each of them rejoiced to sing, “I am thy servant, O Lord!” My own humble testimony must certainly be to the same effect. I will bear this witness before my friends and neighbours, for possibly they may be led by my testimony to seek my Lord Jesus as their Master. O that they would do so! They would never repent so wise a deed. If they would but take his easy yoke, they would find themselves in so royal a service that they would enlist in it for ever. Gleason Archer - How can we resolve the discrepancies in Synoptic accounts of the rich-young-ruler episode? - See New International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties page 333. The three reports of the encounter between Christ and the rich young ruler are found in Matthew 19:16–30, Mark 10:17–31, and Luke 18:18–30. These contain special details, some of which are found only in one of the three accounts, others in only two out of the three. But when we synthesize the information contributed by all three Synoptics, we obtain a fuller picture of all that transpired than would be the case with any single account. Therefore we may be grateful for their occasional diversity. Stonehouse (Borrow Synoptic Gospels, pp. 95–96) furnished the following statistics. The Marcan account is considerably longer than the others, employing 279 Greek words, as against Matthew with 270 (of which 38 occupy the unique 19:28) and Luke with only 202. This ratio is of unusual interest inasmuch as most New Testament scholars regard Mark as the earliest of the four Evangelists. If so, his longer and fuller account cannot be regarded as a “later” embellishment of a more primitive “tradition”- as liberal critics usually assume when one synoptic account is longer than the others. Stonehouse devotes much discussion to the interesting question of the principles followed by each of the Synoptists in selecting his material. Quite obviously Matthew’s special interest included demonstrating to Jews (1) that Jesus was the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy, i.e., the authentic Jewish Messiah; (2) that Jesus was the divine Prophet and finally authoritative Teacher of the holy life (brought together in five major blocks of connected instruction); and (3) that Jesus fulfilled the promises to Israel and yet was also the Light of the Gentiles—to whom the kingdom of God would be transferred. As for Mark, his focus is on Christ’s redemptive deeds even more than on His oral teaching; the emphasis is on action more than discussion. Hence the characteristic word is “straight-way.” His concern is to interpret Palestinian customs (with occasional quotations in Aramaic) to a Gentile public—probably Roman, in view of his many Latinisms. Luke, on the other hand, stressed the personal dynamic of the Lord Jesus and His tender concern for individual people, including women and children. But his guiding principle is to follow a consistently historical methodology and to cover the whole sweep of Jesus’ biography from the very beginning (even to the birth of the forerunner, John the Baptist; the annunciation to Mary and the shepherds; and the visit to the temple at age twelve) to the very end (the Ascension from the Mount of Olives). He includes an extraordinary number of episodes and heart-searching parables not included by the other two. The Perfect Man, incarnating the love and grace of God, opens up the way to a new life for all true believers, whether Jew or Gentile. It is a profitable exercise to correlate the insertions as well as the omissions that mark each synoptist in his treatment of the episodes in Christ’s career from the vantage point of these three areas of interest. All three are to be regarded as trustworthy, helpful witnesses, even though they emphasize slightly different facets of Christ’s life and personality. But it is when we have the benefit of all three reports that we can assemble the fullest understanding of each of Jesus’ encounters with people and His responses to their needs. As we compare the testimonies of Matthew, Mark and Luke, we will bring out the particular contributions from each as we combine them all into a full composite. The Query of the Rich Young Ruler As he makes his first approach to Jesus on the matter of his own standing before God as a justified believer, the ruler asks, “Good [Mark, Luke] Master, what good [Matt.] thing shall I do, that I may obtain [Matt.] or: inherit [Mark, Luke] eternal life?” Jesus answers him with a question, to probe his understanding of the divine nature of Christ’s goodness and of the nature of goodness itself. “Why do you call Me good [Mark, Luke], or: ask Me about what is good [Matt.]? There is just one who is good [Matt.]; in fact, there is no one good but God alone [Mark, Luke]. But if you wish to enter into life [Matt.], you know the commandments [Mark, Luke]; keep them [Matt.]!” Christ’s Challenge to the Ruler’s Sincerity The young man countered with a request for specifics: “Which of them [Matt.]?” he enquired. Jesus pointed him to the most basic of all—the Decalogue. “Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not bear false witness, honor your father and mother. And also [Matt.] you shall love your neighbor as yourself.” The young man [Matt.] said to Him, “All these I have kept, from [Mark, Luke] my youth up. What [Matt.] do I still lack? And Jesus looked [Luke] on him loved him, and said, “You do lack one thing [Mark, Luke]; if you wish to be perfect [Matt.], go [Matt., Mark] and sell all the possessions [Matt.] you have, and give them out to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. And come and follow Me.” The Young Man’s Refusal and Departure When he heard this statement, the young ruler became downcast [Luke] and very grieved [Matt., Luke] as he went away—for he had many possessions [Matt., Mark] and was very rich [Luke]. On observing this, Jesus looked around [Mark] on His disciples and said to them, “I tell you truly [Matt.] that it is with difficulty that a rich man will enter the kingdom of heaven [Matt.]. In fact, those who possess wealth will enter God’s kingdom only with difficulty [Mark, Luke].” But the disciples were amazed [Mark] at His words. Again He said, “Children, how hard it is to enter into the kingdom of God [Mark]! It is easier for a camel to go into [Matt., Luke] and pass through [Mark] the eye of a needle than to enter the kingdom of God [so, even Matt.!].” The Rewards of Dedicated Discipleship The disciples were astonished [Matt., Mark] at hearing this; and they said [Mark] to one another, “Who then can be saved?” And looking on them [Matt., Mark] Jesus said, “With men this is impossible, but all things [Matt., Mark] are possible with God.” Then answering [Matt.] Peter began [Mark] to say to Him, “Behold, we have left all [Matt., Mark] that is ours [Luke] and have followed You [Matt.]. What then shall there be for us?” Jesus said to them [Matt., Luke], “Truly I say to you, that you who have followed [Matt.] Me in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on His glorious throne, you yourselves also will sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel [Matt. only]” (Note that on another occasion, in Luke 22:30b, Christ repeats that same promise about sitting on the twelve thrones.) Then Jesus continued with a promise for this present world: “there is no one who has left [Mark, Luke—but Matt. phrases it: ‘And everyone who has left’] home [Matt.: ‘homes’] or wife [Luke] or brothers or sisters, or father or mother [Matt., Mark] [Luke: ‘or parents’], or children or lands, for the sake of My name [Matt.] and the gospel [Mark] and the kingdom of God [Luke], who will not receive many times as much [Matt., Luke; Mark: ‘a hundred times as much’] at this present time [Mark, Luke], homes and brothers and sisters and children and lands [Mark only], along with persecutions; and in the age to come [Mark, Luke] he will inherit [Matt.] eternal life. But many who are first [Matt., Mark; Luke: ‘And behold, there are last who shall be first’] shall be last, and those who are last shall be first [Matt., Mark; Luke: ‘and there are first who shall be last’]. As we conclude this synthesis of the three synoptic accounts, we note that there are three verbal variations that convey exactly the same thought but that are technically different in wording: (1) Matthew 19:29: “And everyone who has left,” as opposed to Mark 10:29 and Luke 18:29, which read “There is no one who has left”; (2) Mark 10:30 reads “a hundred times,” as opposed to Matthew 19:29 and Luke 18:30, which read “many times as much”; (3) Luke 18:29 reads “parents,” as opposed Matthew 19:29 and Mark 10:29, which read “father or mother.” Perhaps it should be mentioned also that Matthew 19:29 reads “homes”(oikias) while the other two read “home” (oikian). This pericope, then, gives us an instructive example of the range of verbal variation present in the Synoptics, displaying a genuine overlap or alternative rather than related items that may be fitted together as a composite. Apart from possible scribal error (the Peshitta Syriac version of Luke 18:29 does not read a special word for “parents” but employs ʾabohē, “fathers”; so it looks as if Luke had this word in mind he chose the Greek word goneis [“parents”] and preferred not to break it up into “father and mother,” as Matt. and Mark decided to do), items 1 and 2 leave us uncertain as to which exact Aramaic term our Lord used in His actual discourse as originally given. But we may be content with the observation that each case can be explained on the basis of the same original statement in Aramaic, which is susceptible of being handled in more than one way when it is cast into Greek (as in the case of “parents” vs. “father and mother” in item 3). In the latter case, perhaps it should be added that to this day is is still customary in literary Arabic to use the dual number (ʾabawāni) of the word for “father” (ʾabun) in order to express the idea of “parents.” Thus “his parents” would in Arabic be ʾabawāhu (lit., “his two fathers” Norman Geisler - see When Critics Ask - MATTHEW 19:16–30 (cf. Mark 10:17–31; Luke 18:18–30)—If Jesus was God, why did He seem to rebuke the rich young ruler for calling Him good? PROBLEM: The rich young ruler called Jesus “Good Teacher,” and Jesus rebuked him, saying, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God.” Yet on other occasions Jesus not only claimed to be God (Mark 2:8–10; John 8:58; 10:30), but He accepted the claim of others that He was God (John 20:28–29). Why did Jesus appear to deny that He was God to the young ruler? SOLUTION: Jesus did not deny He was God to the young ruler. He simply asked him to examine the implications of what he was saying. In effect, Jesus was saying to him, “Do you realize what you are saying when you call Me Good? Are you saying I am God?” The young man did not realize the implications of what he was saying. Thus Jesus was forcing him to a very uncomfortable dilemma. Either Jesus was good and God, or else He was bad and man. A good God or a bad man, but not merely a good man. Those are the real alternatives with regard to Christ. For no good man would claim to be God when he was not. The liberal Christ, who was only a good moral teacher but not God, is a figment of human imagination. Norman Geisler - See When Cultists Ask - MATTHEW 19:16–30 (cf. Mark 10:17–31; Luke 18:18–30)—If Jesus was God, why did he seem to rebuke the rich young ruler for calling him good? MISINTERPRETATION: The rich young ruler called Jesus “Good Teacher,” and Jesus rebuked him, saying, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God.” Was Jesus denying that he was God to the young ruler? Jehovah’s Witnesses think so. “Jesus was saying that no one is as good as God is, not even Jesus himself. God is good in a way that separates him from Jesus” (Should You Believe in the Trinity? 1989, 17). CORRECTING THE MISINTERPRETATION: Jesus did not deny he was God to the young ruler. He simply asked him to examine the implications of what he was saying. In effect, Jesus was saying to him, “Do you realize what you are saying when you call me good? Do you realize that this is something you should attribute only to God? Are you saying I am God?” The young man did not realize the implications of what he was saying. Thus Jesus was forcing him to a very uncomfortable dilemma. Either Jesus was good and God, or else he was bad and man. A good God or a bad man, but not merely a good man. Those are the real alternatives with regard to Christ. For no good man would claim to be God when he was not. Matthew 19:17 And He said to him, “Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.” There is only On: 1Sa 2:2 Ps 52:1 Ps 145:7-9 Jas 1:17 1Jn 4:8-10,16 but if you wish: Lev 18:5 Eze 20:11,12 Lu 10:26-28 Ro 10:5 Ga 3:11-13 Related Passages: Psalms 145:9 The LORD is good to all, And His mercies are over all His works. ONLY ONE WHO IS TRULY GOOD And He said to him, “Why are you asking (erotao) Me about what is good (agathos)? - The question what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life sounds good...BUT jesus doesn’t answer him right away — He questions the question! Jesus challenges the young man's understanding of goodness. The man wants a checklist. Jesus wants his heart. Jesus is saying: “If you're calling Me good, are you recognizing who I truly am?” It is a gentle invitation to ask if this man was treating Jesus as a good moral teacher, or did he see Him as the divine Son of God? Jesus isn't denying that He is good — He’s confronting the superficial flattery and pressing the man to consider God as the true standard of goodness. There is only One who is good (agathos) This states a foundational theological truth only God is truly and perfectly good in nature. Jesus is making the point that human efforts alone cannot meet God's standard of goodness. The young ruler assumes he can do something good enough to earn life, but Jesus points to a higher standard — only God is truly good. but if you wish (thelo) to enter into life (zoe), keep (tereo aorist imperative ) the commandments (entole) - Jesus begins His reply with what the man thinks he understands, which is keeping the Law. Jesus does not say this because He believes keeping commandments earns salvation, but because He seeks to reveal the man’s heart. As the conversation unfolds we see that Jesus is leading him to realize that entering life requires more than outward obedience — it demands surrender. David Jeremiah - ARE YOU GOOD? MATTHEW 19:17 Sanctuary: Finding Moments of Refuge in the Presence of God A person who is a good person is an individual of lofty ideals, noble purposes, strong character, reliable conduct and trustworthy integrity. The only one who truly embodies all of those characteristics is Jesus Christ. We come to understand the word goodness as we see it alongside the word righteousness. Someone has said that justice is what God gives to us that we deserve. Goodness goes beyond that and is that which God gives us beyond what we deserve. The great characteristic of goodness as it is found in relationship with righteousness is generosity. It is what a person gets that isn’t deserved. It is what God gives to a person that could never be earned. Goodness in its relationship to righteousness teaches us about generosity. You don’t have to be rich to be generous. But what do you do with what you have? We need to take a good long look at our lives and ask God how our attitudes have been to the needs around us. If we’ve been protective and closefisted, we need to say, “God, by the grace You will give me, I will change.” Begin to bear fruit in your life, the fruit of a generous spirit. QUESTION Why did Jesus tell the rich young ruler he could be saved by obeying the commandments? ANSWER - To understand Jesus’ response to the rich young ruler’s question—“What must I do to be saved?”—we must consider three things: the background of the rich young ruler, the purpose of his question, and the essence of the gospel of Jesus Christ. The young man had asked Jesus, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?” (Matthew 19:16). Jesus responded, “If you want to enter life, keep the commandments” (verse 17). At first glance, it appears that Jesus is saying that the young man and, by extension, all people must obey the commandments in order to be saved. But is that really what He was saying? Since the essence of the salvation message is that we are saved by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8–9), why would Jesus offer the rich young ruler an “alternative plan”? The story of the rich young ruler is found in all three of the Synoptic Gospels, Matthew 19:16–23, Mark 10:17–22, and Luke 18:18–23. The man is described as a “ruler,” which means he was a prince or magistrate of some sort. Since no Roman ruler would address Jesus as “teacher” or “master,” it is assumed that this man was a Jewish ruler in the local synagogue. This man also had “great wealth” (Matthew 19:22), and Jesus later used His conversation with this man to teach the detrimental effect money can have on one’s desire for eternal life (verses 23–24). The lesson Jesus draws from this incident concerns money, not salvation by works. The first thing Jesus says to the man’s greeting, “Good teacher,” is to remind him that no one is good except God (Matthew 19:17). Jesus was not denying His own divinity. Rather, Jesus was immediately getting the man to think about what “good” really means—since only God is good, then what we normally call human goodness might be something else entirely This truth comes into play later in the conversation. When the man asked Jesus to specify which commandments he should keep, Jesus recited six of the commandments, including “love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 19:19). The man replies, “All these I have kept. . . . What do I still lack?” (verse 20), and that is a key statement. The young man was obviously religious and sincere in his pursuit of righteousness. His problem was that he considered himself to be faultless concerning the Law. And this is the point that Jesus challenges. Jesus tells the man, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me” (Matthew 19:21). The young man decided that Jesus was asking too much. “He went away sad, because he had great wealth” (verse 22). Rather than obey Jesus’ instructions, he turned his back on the Lord and walked away. The man’s choice undoubtedly saddened Jesus as well, because Jesus loved him (Mark 10:21). In telling the young man to keep the commandments, Jesus was not saying that he could be saved by obeying the commandments; rather, Jesus was emphasizing the Law as God’s perfect standard. If you can keep the Law perfectly, then you can escape sin’s penalty—but that’s a big if. When the man responded that he met the Law’s standard, Jesus simply touched on one issue that proved the man did not measure up to God’s holiness. The man was not willing to follow the Lord, if that meant he must give up his wealth. Thus, the man was breaking the two greatest commands; he did not love the Lord with all his heart, and he did not love his neighbor as himself. He loved himself (and his money) more. Far from keeping “all” the commandments, as he had claimed, the man was a sinner like everyone else. The Law proved it. If the man had loved God and other people more than he did his property, he would have been willing to give up his wealth to the service of God and man. But that was not the case. He had made an idol of his wealth, and he loved it more than God. With surgical precision, Jesus exposes the greed in the man’s heart—greed the man did not even suspect he had. Jesus’ statement that only God is good (Matthew 19:17) is proved in the young man’s response to Jesus’ command. In His conversation with the rich young ruler, Christ did not teach that we are saved by the works of the Law. The Bible’s message is that salvation is by grace through faith (Romans 3:20, 28; 4:6; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:9; 2 Timothy 1:9). Rather, Jesus used the man’s love of money to show how the man fell short of God’s holy standard—as do we all. The rich young ruler needed the Savior, and so do we. Matthew 19:18 Then he *said to Him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, “YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER; YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY; YOU SHALL NOT STEAL; YOU SHALL NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS; Which: Ga 3:10 Jas 2:10,11 YOU SHALL NOT : Mt 5:21-28 Ex 20:12-17 De 5:16-21 Mk 10:19 Lu 18:20 Ro 13:8-10 Related Passages: Luke 18:20+ “You know the commandments, ‘DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, DO NOT MURDER, DO NOT STEAL, DO NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS, HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER.’” Exodus 20:12-16+ “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be prolonged in the land which the LORD your God gives you. 13“You shall not murder. 14 “You shall not commit adultery. 15 “You shall not steal. 16“You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. Deuteronomy 5:16-20+ ‘Honor your father and your mother, as the LORD your God has commanded you, that your days may be prolonged and that it may go well with you on the land which the LORD your God gives you. 17‘You shall not murder. 18‘You shall not commit adultery. 19‘You shall not steal. 20‘You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. Deuteronomy 24:14+ “You shall not oppress (Hebrew - ashaq - defraud, extort) a hired servant who is poor and needy, whether he is one of your countrymen or one of your aliens who is in your land in your towns. GIVE ME A LIST JESUS Then he *said to Him, “Which ones?” (or "What kind?) - The young man's question at first glance seems innocent, even eager! After all, there were hundreds of commandments in the Torah (613, traditionally), so his question might be a way of narrowing down which ones Jesus considered most important. It's as if he is asking "What’s the minimum required of me to get into heaven? Give me the checklist so I can be good enough.” As do all the non-Christian religions, this young man is emphasizing rule-keeping over relationship, duty over devotion, doing over being. When he asks “Which ones?”, he unknowingly reveals that he’s looking for boundaries, not transformation. He wants to do enough — but not give all. In other words, he might be hoping Jesus will give him a short, doable list — something he can check off, which reveals his performance-based mindset: “Tell me the rules I need to follow, and I’ll follow them.” Recall that his original question was “What must I do?” Now, he asks “Which ones?”, staying in that same task-oriented frame — as if eternal life can be earned by ticking off commandments. His question also clearly implies that he does not grasp the deeper issue, that the heart of his problem is his heart! In other words by asking “Which ones?” he is showing that he is thinking externally (actions, works), while Jesus will now take aim at the real issue, which is internal, the allegiance of his heart. 🙏 THOUGHT - Let's all take a look in the mirror now. Aren't we all (at least at times) a little like this young man? We come to Jesus and ask "Lord, what do I have to do?" But Jesus says "It's not about doing but being." Jesus is always probing deeper asking "Will you let Me BE your treasure, your All in All?" Can you/I sincerely, with a whole heart, sing the song You are My All in All, the Treasure that I Seek? Jesus does not want part of our heart. He wants our whole heart (Mk 12:30-31+, Dt 6:5+, Pr 3:5+, Jer 29:13, Ps 86:11-12+, Mt 6:24+)! Following Jesus is not about which commandments we keep, but about who commands our life, who is on the throne of our heart? Are you as convicted as I am?! Oh great Father, when we are honest, we confess that our sinful soul so often cleaves to the dust, and so we plead with You to revive us by Your Spirit according to Your Word, for Your Lamb, Who Alone is Worthy of wholehearted devotion. Amen. (cf Ps 119:25+) And Jesus (Iesous) said, “YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER (phroneuo); YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY (moicheuo); YOU SHALL NOT STEAL (klepto); YOU SHALL NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS (pseudomartureo) Jesus bypasses the first four commandments and essentially quotes from the last section (Ex 20:12–16+; Dt 5:16–20+, except do not defraud, an allusion to Dt 24:14+) which have more to do with man to man relationships. He does not list them in order for honor your father is #5 is actually listed last, preceded by murder #6, adultery #7, stealing #8, false witness #9. Matthew 19:19 HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER; and YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.” Honour: Mt 15:4-6 Lev 19:3 Pr 30:17 Eph 6:1,2 Thou: Mt 22:39 Lev 19:18 Lu 10:27 Ro 13:9 Ga 5:14 Jas 2:8 Related Passages: Exodus 20:12-16+ “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be prolonged in the land which the LORD your God gives you. 13 “You shall not murder. 14 “You shall not commit adultery. 15 “You shall not steal. 16 “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. Deuteronomy 5:16-20+ ‘Honor your father and your mother, as the LORD your God has commanded you, that your days may be prolonged and that it may go well with you on the land which the LORD your God gives you. 17 ‘You shall not murder. 18 ‘You shall not commit adultery. 19 ‘You shall not steal. 20 ‘You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. HONOR (timao in present imperative see our need to depend on the Holy Spirit to obey) YOUR FATHER (pater) AND MOTHER; and YOU SHALL LOVE (agapao) YOUR NEIGHBOR (plesion) AS YOURSELF - This verse teaches we do not have any problem with "self-esteem!" We love ourselves! Ugh! C H Spurgeon - Love thy neighbour Matthew 19:19 (See full sermon Love Thy Neighbour) Remember that man’s good requires that you should be kind to your fellow creatures. The best way for you to make the world better is to be kind yourself. Are you a preacher? Preach in a surly way, and in a surly tone to your church; a pretty church you will make of it before long! Are you a Sunday-school teacher? Teach your children with a frown on your face; a fine lot they will learn! Are you a master? Do you hold family prayer? Get in a passion with your servants, and say, “Let us pray.” A vast amount of devotion you will develop in such a manner as that. Are you a warder of a gaol, and have prisoners under you? Abuse them and ill-treat them, and then send the chaplain to them. A fine preparation for the reception of the word of God! You have poor around you; you wish to see them elevated, you say. You are always grumbling about the poverty of their dwellings, and the meanness of their tastes. Go and make a great stir at them all—a fine way that would be to improve them! Now, just wash your face of that black frown, and buy a little of the essence of summer somewhere, and put it on your face; and have a smile on your lip, and say, “I love you. I am no cant, but I love you, and as far as I can I will prove my love to you. What can I do for you? Can I help you over a stile? Can I give you any assistance, or speak a kind word to you? Perhaps I could look after your little daughter. Can I fetch the doctor to your wife now she is ill?” All these kind things would be making the world a little better. Matthew 19:20 The young man *said to Him, “All these things I have kept; what am I still lacking?” KJV Matthew 19:20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? BGT Matthew 19:20 λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ νεανίσκος· πάντα ταῦτα ἐφύλαξα· τί ἔτι ὑστερῶ; NET Matthew 19:20 The young man said to him, "I have wholeheartedly obeyed all these laws. What do I still lack?" CSB Matthew 19:20 "I have kept all these," the young man told Him. "What do I still lack?" ESV Matthew 19:20 The young man said to him, "All these I have kept. What do I still lack?" NIV Matthew 19:20 "All these I have kept," the young man said. "What do I still lack?" NLT Matthew 19:20 "I've obeyed all these commandments," the young man replied. "What else must I do?" All: Mk 10:20-21 Lu 15:7,29 18:11,12,21 Jn 8:7 Ro 3:19-23 7:9 Ga 3:24 Php 3:6 what: Mk 10:20-21 Lu 18:21-22 Related Passages: Mark 10:20-21 And he said to Him, “Teacher, I have kept all these things from my youth up.” 21 Looking at him, Jesus felt a love for him and said to him, “One thing you lack: go and sell all you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” Luke 18:21-22 And he said, “All these things I have kept from my youth.” 22 When Jesus heard this, He said to him, “One thing you still lack; sell all that you possess and distribute it to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me. THE FALSE CONFIDENCE OF THE YOUNG MAN The young man *said to Him, “All these things I have kept (phulasso); what am I still lacking (hustereo) - He's been a religious rule keeper since he was young. Kept (phulasso) means to watch or guard much like a military guard or sentry keeps watch over his post (Acts 23:35, 28:16) which gives us a good sense of this young man's mindset regarding the commandments. From his youth (detail from Mk 10:20) he had been like a sentry at his post watching to make sure he did not let one of the commandments escape his attention! He was undoubtedly being sincere when he stated he had obeyed all the laws. He had fallen into the deceptive, deadly trap of works based salvation (which is NOT salvation) and had confined his righteousness to external obedience. Jesus always goes for the heart of the matter which is the problem of men's heart and in this case He will disclose the rich man's heart in the following passages by his response to Jesus' command to give away all he had. His failure to capitulate to these requirements (not to save him, but to show him that he was not ready to truly be saved) revealed that he loved money more than God. In short his possessions were his "functional" idol and possessed his heart! And as Jesus said in Matthew 6:24+ “No one can serve two masters (HERE - MONEY OR GOD); for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth (IF WEALTH IS NOT YOUR IDOL THEN FILL IN THE __________)." What am I still lacking (hustereo)? - NLT - "What else must I do?" His question tells us that he knew something was missing. He knew that despite his good behavior, his heart was restless. Deep down, he was asking “I’ve kept the rules — but why do I still feel empty? Is there more to eternal life than obedience?” And he was right. NET NOTE - Greek “kept.” The implication of this verb is that the man has obeyed the commandments without fail, so the adverb “wholeheartedly” has been added to the translation to bring out this nuance. While the rich man was probably being sincere when he insisted I have wholeheartedly obeyed all these laws, he had confined his righteousness to external obedience (ED: IN OTHER WORDS "HE WAS SINCERELY WRONG!"). The rich man’s response to Jesus’ command—to give away all he had—revealed that internally he loved money more than God. Matthew 19:21 Jesus said to him, “If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” KJV Matthew 19:21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. BGT Matthew 19:21 ἔφη αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς· εἰ θέλεις τέλειος εἶναι, ὕπαγε πώλησόν σου τὰ ὑπάρχοντα καὶ δὸς [τοῖς] πτωχοῖς, καὶ ἕξεις θησαυρὸν ἐν οὐρανοῖς, καὶ δεῦρο ἀκολούθει μοι. NET Matthew 19:21 Jesus said to him, "If you wish to be perfect, go sell your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." CSB Matthew 19:21 "If you want to be perfect," Jesus said to him, "go, sell your belongings and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow Me." ESV Matthew 19:21 Jesus said to him, "If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me." NIV Matthew 19:21 Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." NLT Matthew 19:21 Jesus told him, "If you want to be perfect, go and sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." NRS Matthew 19:21 Jesus said to him, "If you wish to be perfect, go, sell your possessions, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me." If: Mt 5:19,20,48 Ge 6:9 17:1 Job 1:1 Ps 37:37 Lu 6:40 Php 3:12-15 go and sell: Mt 6:19,20 Mk 10:21 Lu 12:33 14:33 16:9 18:22 Ac 2:45 4:32-35 1Ti 6:17-19 Heb 10:34 Come follow Me: Mt 19:28 4:19 8:22 9:9 16:24 Mk 2:14 8:34 10:21 Lu 5:27 9:23 18:22 Jn 10:27 12:26 SELL ALL, FOLLOW ME AND HAVE ETERNAL TREASURE! Jesus replies to the young man's question by giving not one commandment to keep, but essentially FIVE commandments to obey! Jesus (Iesous) said to him, “If (conditional clause) you wish (thelo) to be complete (teleios - perfect), (conditions that must be kept), go (hupago present imperative see our need to depend on the Holy Spirit to obey) and sell (poleo aorist imperative see our need to depend on the Holy Spirit to obey) your possessions (huparcho) and give (aorist imperative see our need to depend on the Holy Spirit to obey) to the poor (ptochos), and you will have treasure (thesauros) in heaven (ouranos); and come (deuro), follow (akoloutheo) Me The young man had everything — status, wealth, morality, and spiritual curiosity. He asked Jesus a serious question: “What must I do to inherit eternal life?” He even claimed he had kept all the commandments. But Jesus saw what the man couldn’t: There was still one thing he lacked — a surrendered heart. Jesus doesn’t give him a new rule. He gives him an invitation "Come follow Me." Of course the only way the young man could obey Jesus' call was by yielding to the Holy Spirit to enable him to wholly surrender to Jesus. 🙏 THOUGHT - Dear reader do you wish to be rich? Do you want riches that will endure throughout eternity? Then the prize is yours for the taking. Simply believe and receive Jesus as Lord and Savior and follow Him all the rest of your days on earth. Throughout eternity you will never second guess or question your decision to follow Him! And remember that Jesus is not saying you and I cannot have possessions. He is simply saying never let your possessions possess you and take His place on the throne of your heart! So while it looks like Jesus is talking about losing everything, what He is really talking about is finding everything, everything that really counts. He is talking about having treasure in Heaven. He is talking about possessing this treasure FOREVER! Luke used this same phrase earlier recording Jesus' promise Sell your possessions and give to charity; make yourselves money belts which do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven, where no thief comes near nor moth destroys. 34 “For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. (Lk 12:33-34+) And again Jesus spoke on acquiring treasures in heaven in His Sermon on the Mount... Do not store up (present imperative with negative = stop doing this!) for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. 20 “But store up (present imperative = Not a suggestion but a command to make this your life's goal, daily pursuing treasuring treasure in Heaven, a goal only possible as you rely on and are enabled by the power of the Holy Spirit - Php 2:13NLT+) for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in or steal; 21 for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. (Mt 6:19-21+) 🙏 THOUGHT - Jesus' negative and positive commandments beg a searching question that only you can answer - Where is your treasure? Where is your heart? Here or there! Corollary - Show me your treasure and I will tell you who you truly worship! Believer's Study Bible - Jesus does not teach that salvation is ever achieved by divesting oneself of all possessions, even for charitable purposes. However, this youthful inquirer had one concern that was far greater than his desire to have life eternal. His possessions occupied the position of primary devotion in his life. Until he could persuade himself to be willing to seek God regardless of the cost (cf. Mt 6:33), he could never discover eternal life. Therefore, Jesus suggested the selling of his possessions.
Mateus 19
Spurgeon - When our Lord shall sit in the throne of his glory, all things will have been made new. That dispensation will be called the regeneration: then shall the highest honors among their fellows of the twelve tribes of Israel await the twelve who followed Jesus, even to the loss of all things. NET NOTE - The Greek term translated the age when all things are renewed (παλιγγενεσία, palingenesia) is understood as a reference to the Messianic age, the time when all things are renewed and restored (cf. Rev 21:5). The statement you … will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel looks at the future authority the Twelve will have when Jesus returns. They will share in Israel’s judgment. David Turner on the twelve tribes of Israel - The description of the future kingdom in terms of the twelve tribes of Israel appears to justify belief in the eschatological conversion of the nation of Israel to faith in Jesus as the Messiah. This would be in keeping with Matthew’s overall emphasis on the fulfillment of Scripture preeminently through the words and deeds of Jesus the Messiah. The followers of Jesus, the ultimate teacher of the Torah, constitute Israel within Israel, the eschatological remnant (cf. Rom. 9:6). In the end they, not the faithless shepherds who presently lead God’s flock (Matt. 9:36; 10:6; 15:24), who will judge or govern the nation as a whole (21:43; Gundry 1994: 393–94; Overman 1996: 285). A different approach views this language as indicating that the Gentile church, which is understood to supersede Israel, will rule over the nations as a whole (Blomberg 1992a: 301; France 1982: 65–67; Hendriksen 1973:730). This understanding anachronistically renders Matthew’s Jewish language as symbolic and dissolves Jesus’s distinction between the disciples’ rule over Israel (Mt 19:28) and the reward of all who sacrifice to follow Jesus (Mt 19:29). If the church supersedes Israel, this distinction would be meaningless. (See Matthew Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament) (See also discussion of Replacement Theology/Supersessionism/Fulfillment Theology - a belief with which I strongly disagree) John
Mateus 19
Spurgeon - No man shall be a loser by the Lord Jesus in the long run. Every one that hath bravely forsaken the comforts of this life for Christ shall receive an hundredfold recompense. Our Lord makes up to the persecuted all that which they part with for his sake. Exiles for the truth have found a father and a brother in every Christian; a mother and a sister in every holy woman. Our Lord, by giving us his own love, and the love of our fellow-Christians, supplies a hundredfold compensation to those who have to leave wife or children for his sake In being entertained hospitably by loving brethren, saints in banishment have had their houses and lands in a sense restored to them. To be at home everywhere, is a great gain, even though for Christ’s name’s sake we should be exiled from our native shores. Above all, in God we have a hundredfold recompense for all that we can possibly lose for his cause; and then there is the eternal life given to us, which no mansions and estates could have procured for us. In faith of this we look forward to the reign of the saints, when even here they shall inherit the earth, and rejoice themselves in the abundance of peace. Beyond this, when time ceases, there remains endless bliss; for we shall inherit everlasting life. Oh, that we may never hesitate to be glad losers for Jesus! They who lose all for Christ will find all in Christ, and receive all with Christ. David Guzik quotes Matthew Poole's description of some of the ways we get our hundredfold: Joy in the Holy Ghost, peace of conscience, the sense of God’s love. Contentment. They shall have a contented frame of mind. God will stir up the hearts of others to supply their wants, and that supply shall be sweeter to them than their abundance was. God sometimes repays them in this life, as He restored Job after his trial to greater riches. Matthew 19:30 “But many who are first will be last; and the last, first. Mt 8:11,12 20:16 21:31,32 Mk 10:31 Lu 7:29,30 13:30 Lk 18:13-14 Ro 5:20,21 9:30-33 Ga 5:7 Heb 4:1 Related Passages: Luke 14:11+ “For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.” Luke 18:13-14+ “But the tax collector, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, the sinner!’ 14“I tell you, this man went to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.” Mark 10:31+ “But many who are first will be last, and the last, first.” Matthew 20:16+ “So the last shall be first, and the first last.” THE GREAT REVERSAL But many who are first will be last and the last, first - Note the adjective "many" (some surprises are coming for many!) This paradoxical statement reflects how God will judge men which will be different than how men judge men. God’s estimation of worthiness for reward may be entirely different than man’s estimation -- John Walvoord R.V.G. Tasker: The last verse of the section indicates that late-comers into the kingdom of God will be treated on an equality with those who have come in first, a truth which Jesus proceeds to illustrate in the parable which follows (Mt 20:1-16). (Borrow The Gospel According to St Matthew page 188) Got questions - What Jesus is teaching in Matthew 19:30 is this: there will be many surprises in heaven. Heaven’s value system is far different from earth’s value system. Those who are esteemed and respected in this world (like the rich young ruler) may be frowned upon by God. The opposite is also true: those who are despised and rejected in this world (like the disciples) may, in fact, be rewarded by God. Don’t get caught up in the world’s way of ranking things; it’s too prone to error. Those who are first in the opinion of others (or first in their own opinion!) may be surprised to learn, on Judgment Day, they are last in God’s opinion. in the next world, in God’s kingdom, those who have been on top will be on the bottom, and those who have been scrounging in the dirt will be crowned with glory Charles Swindoll on first...last...last...first - How encouraging Jesus’ words must have been to those men who had literally walked away from their livelihoods to be close followers of Him! Jesus reassured them that they had not made a foolish decision in giving up everything for a life of discipleship. They may have given up fishing nets, but they would be rewarded with thrones. They may have abandoned houses, farms, family, and friends for the sake of total allegiance to the King, but they would receive “many times as much” when they entered eternal life (Matt. 19:29). But not in this world. In this world, people like the rich young ruler are on top. They’re “first,” having everything money can buy. Others, like the disciples, are “last,” on the bottom of the social and economic ladder. But in the next world, in God’s kingdom, those who have been on top will be on the bottom, and those who have been scrounging in the dirt will be crowned with glory (Mt 19:30). (See Insights on Matthew 16--28 - Page 118) John
Mateus 19
Spurgeon - You remember the old Romish legend, which contains a great truth. There was a brother who preached very mightily, and who had won many souls to Christ, and it was revealed to him one night, in a dream, that in heaven he would have no reward for all that he had done. He asked to whom the reward would go; and an angel told him that it would go to an old man who used to sit on the pulpit stairs, and pray for him. Well, it may be so, though it is more likely that both would share their Master’s praise. We shall not be rewarded, however, simply according to our apparent success." William
Mateus 19
Spurgeon - excerpt from his sermon The First Last, and the Last First WE must be saved if we would serve the Lord. We cannot serve God in an unsaved condition. “They that are in the flesh cannot please God.” It is vain for them to attempt service while they are still at enmity against God. The Lord wants not enemies to wait upon him, nor slaves to grace his throne. We must be saved first; and salvation is all of grace. “By grace are ye saved through faith.” After we are saved, and as the result of salvation, we serve. Saved—we serve. He that is saved becomes a child of God, and then he renders a child-like service in his Father’s house. That service is also all of grace. He serves not under the law of the old commandment, “This do, and thou shalt live;” for he is not under the law, but under grace. Therefore, sin shall not have dominion over him, but grace shall have dominion over him; and he shall seek to serve the Lord and please him all the days of his life. When we are saved, we must never forget that we are saved that we may serve; made free from sin, that we may become servants to God. David says, “O Lord, truly I am thy servant; I am thy servant, and the son of thine handmaid: thou hast loosed my bonds.” Because our bonds are loosed, we are under new bonds, bonds of love, which bind us to the service of the Most High. Now, when we come thus to be servants, we must not forget that we are saved men and women; for if we begin to fancy that, while we serve, we are working to win life by our merits, we shall get upon legal ground; and a child of God on legal ground is going back, he is departing from his true standing before God. Still remember, “Ye are not under the law, but under grace.” But if you begin to forget your indebtedness to your Saviour, not only for eternal life, but for everything you are, and have, and do, you will be like the Galatians, who began in the Spirit, but sought to be made perfect by the flesh. You will be like the young man, whose question we have just read: “What lack I yet?” You will be like Peter, who puts in a sort of claim for reward: “Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?” You will be like the men who had worked in the vineyard from early morning, and who murmured because the penny was given to those who had only worked for a single hour. Christ will not have his servants under bondage to a legal spirit. Wherever he spies it out, he strikes it on the head; for both the service and the reward are all of grace. The service itself is given us of God, and God rewards the service which he himself has given. We might almost speak of this as an eccentricity of grace. God gives us good works, and then rewards us for the works which he himself has given. So all is of grace from first to last, and must never be viewed with a legal eye Walter Kaiser - The First Will Be Last? - Hard Sayings of the Bible The saying about the first being last and the last first is not peculiar to the teaching of Jesus; it is a piece of general folk wisdom, which finds memorable expression in Aesop’s fable of the hare and the tortoise. But in the Gospels it is applied to the living situation during Jesus’ ministry. The saying occurs in two contexts in the Gospels. The first context (in Mk 10:31 and the parallel in Mt 19:30) is the sequel to the incident of the rich man who could not bring himself to sell his property and give the proceeds to the poor. Jesus commented on the difficulty experienced by any rich man who tried to get into the kingdom of God, and Peter spoke up: “Well, we at least are not rich; we have given up everything to be your followers.” To this Jesus replied that, even in this age, those who had given up anything for him would receive more than ample compensation, over and above the persecutions which would inevitably fall to the lot of his followers, while in the age to come they would receive eternal life. Then he added, “But many who are first will be last, and the last first.” What is the point of the saying in this context? It seems to be directed to the disciples, and perhaps the point is that those who have given up most to follow Jesus must not suppose that the chief place in the kingdom of God is thereby guaranteed to them. It is possible to take pride in one’s self-denial and suppose that by it one has established a special claim on God. “No amount of exertion, not even self-denial or asceticism, can make one a disciple. Discipleship is purely a gift of God.”16 Even those who have made great sacrifices for God are not justified in his sight for that reason; and even Peter and his companions, who gave up all to follow Jesus, may get a surprise on the day of review and reward by seeing others receiving preference over them. In Luke 13:30 the words (but in the reverse order) “there are those who are last who will be first, and first who will be last”) are added to Jesus’ affirmation that “people will come from east and west and north and south, and will take their places at the feast in the kingdom of God” (in Mt 8:11 this affirmation is attached to the incident of the centurion’s servant). Those who come from the four points of the compass are plainly Gentiles, whereas some of Jesus’ Jewish hearers, who looked forward confidently to a place in the kingdom along with “Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets,” would find themselves shut out. The free offer of the gospel might be extended “to the Jew first” (Rom 1:16 RSV), but if those to whom it was first extended paid no heed to it, then the Gentiles, late starters though they were, would receive its blessings first. In Matthew 20:16 the parable of the laborers in the vineyard is rounded off with these words: “So the last will be first, and the first will be last.” In the parable the last-hired workmen received the same wage at the end of the day as those who were hired at dawn. It might be said indeed that in that situation there was neither first nor last: all were treated equally. But the words had a wider fulfillment in Jesus’ ministry. Those who were far ahead in understanding and practice of the law found themselves falling behind those whom they despised in receiving the good things of the kingdom of God. The son who said “I will” to his father’s command but did nothing about it naturally yielded precedence to the son who, having first said “I will not,” later repented and did it. “Truly, I say to you,” said Jesus to the chief priests and elders in Jerusalem, “the tax collectors and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you” (Mt 21:28–32 RSV). This was a hard saying to those who heard it, who must indeed have regarded it as an insult—as many of their present-day counterparts equally would. But the work of Jesus brings about many reversals, and the day of judgment will be full of surprises. QUESTION - What did Jesus mean when He said the first will be last and the last will be first? WATCH VIDEO ANSWER - Jesus made the statement “many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first” (Matthew 19:30) in the context of His encounter with the rich young ruler (Matthew 19:16–30). After the young man turned away from Jesus, unable to give up his great wealth (verse 22), Jesus’ disciples asked the Lord what reward they would have in heaven, since they had given up everything to follow Him (verses 27–30). Jesus promised them “a hundred times as much,” plus eternal life (verse 29). Then He said, “But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first” (verse 30). Jesus reiterated this truth in Matthew 20:16 at the end of the parable of the laborers in the vineyard, a story designed to illustrate the last being first and the first being last. What exactly did Jesus mean when He said, “Many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first”? First, we should eliminate what He did not mean. Jesus was not teaching that the way to get to heaven is to live a life of poverty in this world. Scripture is clear that salvation is by grace through faith, not of works (Ephesians 2:8–9)—and independent of one’s financial status. Also, Jesus was not teaching an automatic reversal of roles in heaven. There is no heavenly law wherein the poor and oppressed must rule over the rich and powerful. The rich aren’t always last in heaven, and the poor aren’t always first. Nor will believers who enjoy wealth and prestige on earth be required to somehow be abased in heaven. Earthly rank will not automatically translate into an inverse heavenly rank. When Jesus told the disciples they would be greatly rewarded in heaven for what they had given up on earth, He was contrasting their sacrifice with the rich young ruler’s lack thereof—the young man had been unwilling to give up much of anything for Christ’s sake (Matthew 19:16–22). God, who sees the heart, will reward accordingly. The disciples are an example of those who may be first, and they happened to be poor (but their poverty was not what makes them first in heaven). The rich young ruler is an example of those who may be last, and he happened to be rich (but his wealth was not what makes him last). The Lord’s statement that the last would be first and the first last might also have held special meaning for Peter, who had just spoken of having “left all” (Matthew 19:27). Perhaps Jesus detected in Peter’s statement a bit of boasting—Peter was on the verge of becoming spiritually complacent—as the rich young ruler was, but for a different reason. Jesus’ response in verse 30 may have been an indirect warning to Peter to always find his sufficiency in Christ, not in his own sacrifice. After all, without love, even the greatest sacrifice is worthless (1 Corinthians 13:3). In the chapter following Jesus’ statement that the first will be last and the last will be first, Jesus tells a parable (Matthew 20). The story concerns some laborers who complain that others, who did not work as long as they, were paid an equal amount. In other words, they saw their own labor as worthy of compensation but considered their companions’ labor to be inferior and less worthy of reward. Jesus ends the parable with the statement, “The last will be first, and the first last” (Matthew 20:16). The most direct interpretation, based on the content of the parable, is that all believers, no matter how long or how hard they work during this lifetime, will receive the same basic reward: eternal life. The thief on the cross (Luke 23:39–43), whose life of service was limited to a moment of repentance and confession of faith in Christ, received the same reward of eternal life as did Timothy, who served God for years. Of course, Scripture also teaches that there are different rewards in heaven for different services, but the ultimate reward of eternal life will be given to all equally, on the basis of God’s grace in Christ Jesus. There are several ways in which “the first will be last and the last first” holds true. There are some who were first to follow Christ in time yet are not the first in the kingdom. Judas Iscariot was one of the first disciples and was honored to be the treasurer of the group, yet his greed led to his undoing; Paul was the last of the apostles (1 Corinthians 15:8–9) yet the one who worked the hardest (2 Corinthians 11:23). There are some who were first in privilege yet are not first in the kingdom. Based on the terms of the New Covenant, the Gentiles had equal access to the kingdom of heaven, although they had not served God under the Old Covenant. The Jews, who had labored long under the Old Covenant, were jealous of the grace extended to the Gentile “newcomers” (see Romans 11:11). There are some who are first in prestige and rank yet might never enter the kingdom. Jesus told the Pharisees that the sinners they despised were being saved ahead of them: “Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you” (Matthew 21:31–32). What Jesus is teaching in Matthew 19:30 is this: there will be many surprises in heaven. Heaven’s value system is far different from earth’s value system. Those who are esteemed and respected in this world (like the rich young ruler) may be frowned upon by God. The opposite is also true: those who are despised and rejected in this world (like the disciples) may, in fact, be rewarded by God. Don’t get caught up in the world’s way of ranking things; it’s too prone to error. Those who are first in the opinion of others (or first in their own opinion!) may be surprised to learn, on Judgment Day, they are last in God’s opinion.