We hope you will find these notes helpful. Do feel free to download the material on this website for your own personal use, and also to distribute if you so wish. Please be aware that all the writing is copyright, so no alterations should be made.
Please feel free to comment on any aspect of what you find on this website using the contact form at the end of this article. We would be pleased to hear from you.
MATTHEW 19
The words of verse 1 mark the end of the fifth section of Matthew’s gospel, and he uses this formula to indicate the division. It would perhaps be helpful if we noted all the divisions again:
(a) 1:1-4:25
The King and His preparation.
Critical events leading up to when Christ’s ministry began after the imprisonment of John the Baptist.
(b) 5:1-7:29
The King and His precepts.
“And it came to pass, when Jesus these sayings, the people were astonished at His doctrine”, 7:28.
(c) 8:1-10:42
The King and His power.
A series of ten miracles, the “powers of the age to come”.
“And it came to pass, when Jesus had made an end of commanding His twelve disciples, He departed thence to preach and to teach in their cities”, 11:1.
(d) 11:1-13:53
The King and His parables.
A series of seven parables about the kingdom.
“And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these parables, He departed thence”, 13:53.
(e) 13:53-18:35
The King and His previews.
The preview of kingdom-glories is followed by forecasts of the building of the church.
“And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these sayings, He departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judaea beyond Jordan”, 19:1.
(f) 19:1-25:46
The King and His prophecies
The King presents Himself formally to the nation as their King, and then foretells what will happen to them if they reject Him.
“And it came to pass, when Jesus had finished all these sayings”, 26:1.
(g) 26:1-28:20
The King and His parting.
Events which take place as the King leaves His nation, having been rejected by them, and crucified. He rises from the dead, however, ready to reign over them in a day to come.
Structure of the chapter
| (a) | Verses 1-12 | The evil of divorce |
| (b) | Verses 13-15 | The encouragement for children |
| (c) | Verses 16-22 | The enquiry after eternal life |
| (d) | Verses 23-30 | The exercise of self-denial |
(a) Verses 1-12
The evil of divorce
19:1
And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these sayings, he departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judaea beyond Jordan;
And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these sayings- the sign Matthew gives us to signal a change of emphasis. He has given Galilee the opportunity to receive Him, and now He is on the way to Jerusalem for the last time.
He departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judaea beyond Jordan- this area was known as Perea, and was ruled over by Herod Antipas, the man who had executed John the Baptist. The Lord would not return to Galilee again, for this journey is part of His movements towards Jerusalem to die. He has “claimed” Judea and Jerusalem, and Galilee, and Samaria, now He ventures into the territory of the two and a half tribes who refused to go into the land of promise. Will the people of Christ’s day refuse to enter the kingdom also? He had crossed the Lake Galilee to visit on occasion, but here He stays longer, to give opportunity to this district to react to Him.
The fact that the territory is beyond Jordan highlights the fact that He will need to cross Jordan to go to Jericho, and then on to Jerusalem. He will retrace the steps of Joshua as he crossed the Jordan, defeated Jericho, and went on to occupy the land. Christ, however, the True Joshua, will enter Jericho to save, and will go to Jerusalem to die; but this will secure Him the right to occupy the land in a day to come without opposition.
It is interesting to notice that the two and a half tribes that refused to settle in the land of promise did so because of their wives, their children, and their flocks and herds, Numbers 32:26; Joshua 1:14. Now, with the Lord Jesus in their territory centuries later, the questions in this chapter are about marriage, children, and riches. The test is, will these matters prevent men from entering into blessing?
19:2
And great multitudes followed him; and he healed them there.
And great multitudes followed him; and he healed them there- in his account, Mark emphasises that He taught them. Matthew shows that this teaching was accompanied by healing, for His ministry consisted of words and works, each complementing the other.
19:3
The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
The Pharisees also came unto him- as well as the people coming to Him to learn from Him, (as Mark records in his parallel passage, chapter 10:1-12), the Pharisees also come, but only to try to undermine His teaching. It was because John the Baptist had condemned Herod for taking Philip’s wife that he had lost his life. Perhaps the Pharisees are hoping that word will spread that Christ was of the same view as John, and in this way would put Himself in danger. It is interesting in that connection to notice that John had said, “It is not lawful for thee to have her”, Matthew 14:4, and here the Pharisees begin with “Is it lawful”.
We know from Luke 16:14-18 that on an earlier occasion the Lord had confronted the Pharisees on the matter of covetousness, and the fact that He condemned divorce immediately afterwards, showed that they were coveting other men’s wives, in transgression of the law. They are now seeking their revenge.
Near the beginning of His ministry, the Lord had said, “I say unto you, that except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven”, Matthew 5:20.
He had already contrasted His resolve to uphold the law and prophets, and had condemned those who teach men otherwise; now He is going to expose those who appeared to teach the law, but who in fact transgressed it in their hearts. He is setting forth the principles of His kingdom, and outward observance, (“the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees”), will not be enough to gain an entrance into that realm, for it is only open to those who are righteous by faith.
He then proceeded to examine certain statements that the scribes were making, and showed that they did not go far enough in their teaching. For instance, (and this is very relevant to our subject), the scribes taught, “Thou shalt not commit adultery”, and it was right that they should do so, for this was the seventh commandment. But they were content with the letter of the law. But as the Lord proceeds to show, to look upon a woman to lust after her is heart-adultery, even though at that point it is not body-adultery. He then speaks of the eye that lusts, and the hand, (which could be used to write a bill of divorcement), and teaches that if the eye and the hand are liable to sin in this way, drastic action must be taken to prevent that sin. In the language of the apostle Paul, there must be the mortifying of our members which are on the earth, Colossians 3:5.
If this teaching were followed, the next passage would not be needed, which reads, “It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery”, Matthew 5:31,32. By the expression “But I say unto you”. the Lord is clearly contrasting the teaching of the scribes and His teaching. He says nothing of their teaching being “of old time”, (as was the case with other statements He deals with in the passage), so it must have been a fairly recent innovation on their part, perhaps influenced by the Gentiles, amongst whom they had been dispersed. Evil communications had corrupted good manners, 1 Corinthians 15:33. Christ in righteousness, however, stressed that their action of putting away caused the woman to sin, and was therefore in itself sinful. That sin was not mitigated by giving a bill of divorcement to the women. The Lord is highlighting the havoc that is caused if divorce is carried out for reasons other than the fornication He mentions, (which we will deal with later). The woman is caused to commit adultery, for she is still the wife of the one who has divorced her, but in order to survive in a cruel world it is assumed that she will marry again, relying on the teaching of the scribes who said this was lawful. Moreover, the man who rescues her from destitution by marrying her also sins, again because he listens to the scribes. Instead of being scrupulous about the apparently trivial matter of giving a bill of divorcement to her, the first husband should have been concerned about the moral implications of his action. The problem was that he was listening to the wrong teachers, the scribes, believing they had authority in the matter. We revert to Matthew 19 with those background details in mind.
Tempting him- their sole object was to try to trip Him up, and make Him side with one or other of the schools of thought in Israel. They have not come with a genuine desire to find out the truth.
And saying unto Him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? Note the word lawful, for that is the word that John the Baptist had used in regard to Herod’s marriage to his brother Philip’s wife, his brother still being alive.
They are also claiming to base their question on what is legitimate as far as the law of Moses was concerned. They do this because they have a second question, which they think will undermine the answer they expect He will give to the first one. Note too, the word cause, for it also has a legal tone to it, having the idea of an accusation. What they are asking is whether a man may bring a cause before a court which will give him the right to put away his wife, whatever the circumstance. They will cite Deuteronomy 24 later on, which they thought gave them a general right to divorce a woman if “she find no favour in his eyes”, Deuteronomy 24:1. There were certain sections of the Pharisees that taught that this gave a man the right to divorce his wife just because he saw another woman he desired more.
19:4
And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
And He answered and said unto them, Have ye not read- this is a phrase that appears six times in the gospel of Matthew, either in this form or in a similar one. The Lord is answering their question directly, but He is not going to quote the law of Moses at first, but the book of Genesis. He does not say, “Verily, I say unto you”, as elsewhere in the gospel, for He does not need to do so, for He had spoken already in the words of Genesis 1:27 and 2:24.
That he which made them at the beginning made them male and female- so the Lord Jesus believed that the act of making Adam and his wife on the sixth day of the creation week happened at the beginning. The same beginning as is mentioned in Genesis 1:1. So there is no time-gap between verses 1 and 2 of Genesis 1.
In Mark’s account the phrase is “from the beginning”, and these are the words of Christ Himself. So Matthew 19, where there is a quotation from Genesis 1:27, tells us of the actual historic event of the creation of male and female. Mark’s account tells us that the act of making male and female is ongoing, for it is from the beginning as well as being at the beginning. So God is not making people who are not male or female today, and has never done so.
Let us notice the record of the making of man and woman:
|
Genesis 2:18 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone- these are words spoken on the sixth day, but we only learn of them here. No doubt God made all the other creatures with a mate, or else how could they multiply? It is true that the land animals are not expressly commanded to multiply, but they surely did, and Noah took male and female into the ark to replenish the earth after the flood. After many times saying “good”, now God says “not good”. But the “should be” indicates that He is thinking of a potential situation in the future, not describing a feeling that was currently known by Adam, for there was no sadness in Eden before the fall. He was a lone man for a brief time but he was not a lonely man, for he had God to commune with. It is God’s intention that the Last Adam should not be alone either, so He will have His bride by His side for all eternity. Nor is this because He is lonely, for He has His Father to commune with. I will make him an help meet for him- the woman is going to be Adam’s helper as he serves as God’s regent upon the earth, and she will be meet or suitable for him, corresponding to him in every way. She will be his counter-part. She is not a second-class or second-rate person. As the apostle Paul wrote, “the woman is the glory of the man”, 1 Corinthians 11:7. The believing woman makes a vital contribution to the glory that comes to God when the man exercises his headship role. He would not be complete in that respect without her help. Genesis 2:19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air- a reference to what happened on the sixth and fifth days respectively. This indicates that the birds of the air were in fact made out of the earth, showing that despite what we might think from 1:21 about the waters producing them, they were made of the earth. They could very well for some reason have been made out of the earth that made up the sea-bed, so they came from the earth and the waters. And brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them- God is impressing on Adam his distinctiveness, for there is no creature that can be described as “meet”. Many animals and birds are a help to man, but none have that collection of qualities which justify calling them meet or suitable. Adam is discovering the truth that the apostle Paul will point out centuries later, that “there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds”, 1 Corinthians 15:39. And whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof- Adam exercises his authority over creation, but at the same time finds none he can call woman. God was content to allow Adam to name these creatures, for he was the image of God, and as such represented Him. He is being entrusted with tasks as a responsible being, and given opportunities to be faithful to God. Genesis 2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field- cattle are specially mentioned here, for they are of most help to man. But for Adam there was not found an help meet for him- this seems to read as if others were looking, rather than Adam. Perhaps as he named these creatures he did not realise he was in fact ruling them out as helps meet for him. He does not know loneliness yet, so is not looking for a wife. If scripture said “he found no help meet for himself”, then we might think he was lonely, but it was not so. Genesis 2:21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept- the woman for Adam is going to be formed in a unique way, without parallel in the natural world. Adam was put to sleep, (“God caused a deep sleep to fall”), and was maintained in that state, (“and he slept”). At no time is he going to be half-awake. There is a comparison and a contrast in the spiritual realm, for Christ has obtained a bride. His Calvary-experience corresponds in one sense to Adam’s sleep. But there is a great contrast, for God saw to it that Adam was unaware of what was happening to him, but the Lord Jesus was fully aware of what was happening when He suffered on the cross. He was offered stupefying drink, but refused it, because He would not allow man to alleviate the sufferings into which His God took Him. Just as at no time was Adam not asleep, so at no time was Christ’s suffering relieved. And he took one of his ribs- so the woman is to be made of part of Adam. And the fact that only one rib is taken, shows that she is to be his only bride. But God does not take a bone from his foot, as if she could be trampled on, nor from his head to domineer her. She is taken from that part of Adam that protects his heart and his lungs. His life and his breath are temporarily exposed. While it is true that theoretically Adam’s heart was at risk during this operation, in reality it was not so, for the surgeon was God, and there were no enemies ready to attack Adam when he was vulnerable. How different was it with Christ at the cross, for His many and varied enemies gathered round Him, and did their utmost to deflect Him from His purpose. Is it not the case that the Lord Jesus was prepared to have His love put to the test at Calvary? And did He not yield up His spirit to God, and thus cease to breathe? He loved the church and gave Himself for it. He did not limit Himself to a rib, but gave His whole self, surrendering to the will of God so as to purchase His bride by His own precious blood. This was the price He was prepared to pay, and since it is in the past tense, we may say it is the price He did pay. And closed up the flesh instead thereof- it seems that this was done before the woman was formed, as recorded in the next verse. So Adam temporarily had one less rib than before, but the rib is the one bone in the body which grows again, so the flesh is closed up where the rib was taken out, to allow the new rib to grow undisturbed. Thus Adam lost nothing by this process, whereas the Lord Jesus gave Himself in loving surrender, in order to have His bride. The fact that Adam’s flesh was closed up confirmed that the operation was final and complete. Genesis 2:22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman- the rib is one of those bones in the body that contains bone marrow. This substance is of two types, red bone marrow, which produces red blood cells, and yellow bone marrow, which contains stem cells, which are immature cells able to turn into many different sorts of cell, and produce fat, cartilage and bone. In other words, in normal circumstances bone marrow produces blood, flesh and bone. It can do this because of the process put in place by our Creator. Is it any surprise that He used this technique to form the woman in the first instance? And brought her unto the man- Adam has obviously woken from his sleep, and now for the first time he looks upon his bride. God had brought the animals to Adam in verse 19, “to see what he would call them”. And now the same thing happens with the woman. What will he call her? It is important to note that Adam’s bride comes with the very highest recommendation, for God Himself formed her for him. It is important in our day that those who contemplate marriage should ensure that their prospective wife has the commendation of spiritual and mature believers, who can vouch for her genuineness and suitability. The same goes, of course, for the prospective husband. If this is done prayerfully and carefully, much of the tragedy and heartache that, sadly, affects even believers today, could be avoided. Choice on both sides should not be made on the basis of looks. As the Book of Proverbs says of the perfect wife, “Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that feareth the Lord, she shall be praised”, Proverbs 31:30. It was often said that the best place to find a wife is in the assembly prayer meeting, and that still stands true. If she is not present there, is lax about attending the other assembly gatherings, has no convictions about having her hair long and her head covered in the gatherings, and shows little interest in the scriptures, finds being with believers embarrassing, has no exercise about giving to the Lord and serving Him, then it would be best not to marry her. All these characteristics, and others of like sort, are the marks of “a woman that feareth the Lord”. This is what the apostle meant when he taught that marriage was to be “only in the Lord”, 1 Corinthians 7:39. It is not even enough for a prospective wife to be a believer. She must be one who owns the Lordship of Christ in belief and practice. Genesis 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh- this is the basis upon which Adam names the woman. When he named the animals and birds he no doubt did so in reference to their natural characteristics. But he names the woman in accordance with her origin. That this is a different way of classifying is seen in Adam’s statement, “This is now”, for before when he had named the animals it was different. None of them could be said to be meet for him, even though in a limited way some of them could be a help. By saying “this is now” Adam was indicating that he was, there and then, married to the woman, and he said this before he had physical relations with her. That point should be noted, and we will return to it later. The woman is made from his bone, so she has bones because of his bone. She is made like him as to his flesh, for God has made her as his counterpart, so she has the same nature as Adam. It is in order for them to live together as man and wife. This establishes who it is that may be married. It is not man and man, or woman and woman, but one man and one woman. Homosexuality is not normal, for God did not make a man for Adam. Nor is it in-built into some people’s genes, (as some would try to tell us), for conversion cures homosexuality but does not alter the genes. Some of the believers in the assembly in Corinth had been homosexuals before they were saved, but Paul can write, “And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified, in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God”, 1 Corinthians 6:11. The pollution, unholiness and unrighteousness of their pre-conversion state had been dealt with, and they were new creatures in Christ. She shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man- so it is that Adam establishes his headship over the woman by naming her. The word woman is simply the feminine version, “ishah”, of the word for man, “ish”. Adam does not need to invent a name, for she is part of him, and even her name reflects this. There are several words used for man in the Old Testament, and this particular one means “a man of high degree”. So Adam regards his wife as a woman of high degree, as indeed she was. From the outset he showed her respect, and this is a good example to husbands. Genesis 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother- it is God’s will that mankind be perpetuated by new spheres of headship being set up. When a man marries he leaves the headship of his father, and establishes his own headship situation. He leaves the care of his mother to enjoy the care of his suitable helper, his wife. This is not to say that father and mother can now be dispensed with, for the law of Moses required that a man’s father and mother be honoured, and there was even a promise attached to this, Exodus 20:12. Christian children are to requite their parents, and consider their welfare in recognition of all they have done for them and the sacrifices they have made whilst bringing them up, 1 Timothy 5:4. And shall cleave unto his wife- it is only the leaving of the father’s headship in an official way, and the cleaving to a wife, that constitutes marriage before God. Simply living together is not marriage, but immorality, and will meet with God’s judgment if not repented of, for “marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge”, Hebrews 13:4. And they shall be one flesh- the Lord Jesus used these words when He was asked about divorce, as we shall see when we consider 1 Corinthians 6. Those who are merely, (and sinfully) only joined in one body, are not married. They can go their separate ways afterwards if they choose. Those who are married have not that option, however, for they have pledged themselves to be joined as one flesh, and their lives are inextricably entwined. So it is “what” God hath joined, not “who” God has joined. The lives are joined the moment the marriage ceremony has taken place, for it does not depend on physical union. Joseph and Mary were legally married before the birth of Christ, or else He would have been illegitimate. It was only after His birth that they knew one another in a physical sense, Matthew 1:24,25. So non-consummation of a marriage in the physical sense does not invalidate the marriage, whatever men’s law-courts say. It is worth stating that if there are physical or mental matters that would cause complications after the marriage ceremony, they should be made known to the other prospective partner, to avoid heartache, misery and disappointment. It is significant that when the idea of being one flesh is mentioned in connection with marriage, whether in the Old Testament Hebrew or New Testament Greek, the preposition is used which speaks of progress towards a goal. The idea is that “they two are one flesh, and are also set on a course towards being one flesh”. To be one flesh is much more than being one body, for flesh is used of the whole person, as in John 17:2, where “all flesh” means all people. Marriage is a sharing of everything, whether it be goals, ambitions, desires, hopes, experiences, joys, or griefs. It is an ongoing process of the lives of two persons merging ever more closely. It is a relationship that is on a vastly higher plane, (even in the case of unbelievers), than an immoral and passing affair. So the moment that this process begins is when the man and woman are pronounced man and wife at the marriage ceremony. They are as truly married then as they will ever be, but they are not as closely married then as they will be at the end of their life together, for marriage is a process. . It is very sad when couples drift apart when they get older; they should be bonding ever more closely. |
We return now to the narrative in Matthew 19.
Matthew 19:5
And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother- the God who made male and female is also the one who spoke the words of Genesis 2:24 quoted here. But in Mark’s account the Lord does not quote, but speaks the words again that were spoken by God in Genesis. This is testimony to His Deity, and therefore His authority.
Because God made male and female, there is an attraction between the two, and this attraction is stronger than between a son and his father and mother. The son leaves the sphere of his father’s headship, and begins a new sphere of headship, thus maintaining social order on the earth, and in the case of a believer, establishes another centre for the maintenance of godly order. He also leaves the care of his mother to care for his wife, and to be cared for by her. His mother cannot help him in his new role of head of the house, but his wife can.
And shall cleave to his wife- this is no casual relationship, but a gluing together, (such is the idea behind the word), of two persons in a life-long relationship, whatever the future may bring.
And they twain shall be one flesh? They twain, (the word simply means “two”), are, on the one hand, the man who has left father and mother, and on the other hand the woman he is now going to cleave to in marriage. It is only these, who leave and cleave, that are one flesh. A man who consorts with a harlot does not leave and cleave in this way. He does not formally leave the family unit he was brought up in and establish another. Nor does he become one flesh; he only becomes joined in body.
19:6
Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh- the words of the quotation are given again to emphasise this main point of two people being one. How can the question of putting away come up in that situation?
What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder- notice again it is “what” and not “who” that is put asunder. It is two lives that are joined together, and they are not to be ruptured. Notice also that it is God that joins together, not the one who conducts the wedding ceremony, and He does this the moment the couple say their vows. We have already seen this in the case of Joseph and Mary, for they were married before that marriage was consummated, yet the scripture tells us that “Joseph took unto him his wife: and knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called His name Jesus”. So there were four stages in their experience. First the betrothal, then the “taking”, meaning the legal claiming of Mary to be his lawful wife, then the birth of Christ, and then the “knowing” of Mary in the physical sense.
To put asunder is to insert a space between two persons that God has joined, thus acting directly in defiance of God. A fearful thing to do, indeed. Notice that the Lord does not say it cannot be attempted, for the law-courts of men are full of those who make a living out of divorce procedures. But no device of man can divide between one flesh, for that is what married persons are. Of course divorce does disrupt the life-long process of becoming one flesh, so in that sense the relationship is ruptured. In the final analysis, however, no act of men can overthrow the act of God. That this is so is seen in the fact that a man who divorces his wife and then marries another, commits adultery against her, Mark 10:11. He sins against God by divorcing, for he is defiantly trying to divide what God has joined. He sins also by remarrying, for the Lord calls that adultery. But if the divorce cancels the marriage, why should this be so? Of course, some will respond that the exception clause, “except it be for fornication”, in some way allows divorce to happen. But if unfaithfulness destroys a marriage, and a divorce is obtained, it is as if the man is single. Why then is his subsequent marriage adulterous?
Special note on “one flesh”
There are those who teach that “one body” is the same as “one flesh”, and draw wrong conclusions from that deduction, such as that if a marriage is not physically consummated it is not complete marriage. We need to consult the words of the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 6 on this matter.
|
1 Corinthians 6:15 Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? It might be thought that the believer’s spiritual link with Christ has nothing to do with the physical body. This scripture assures us it is not so. This raises an interesting question, which is this. Our body is still indwelt by the sin-principle, and is capable, therefore, of sinning. It is a soulish body and not a spiritual body as it will be at the resurrection, 1 Corinthians 15:44,45. It is composed of atoms that are part of the creation that was cursed by God and made subject to vanity. In a word, our body is in the bondage of corruption, so how can it be linked to Christ? The answer is found in the fact that dwelling within us is the Spirit of God, and one of His titles is “the Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus from the dead”, Romans 8:11. His presence is the pledge that we shall share in the resurrection of the just, with its consequent changed and sin-free body, and God takes account of that in His dealings with us now. So we are linked to Christ even as to the body. Meanwhile the indwelling Spirit safeguards the honour of Christ, for He is the pledge that a spiritual body will certainly be ours, and God takes account of that, and not the fact that we have a physical body with its accompanying sin-principle. Shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid- this situation has serious consequences for us. If the members of our body are united to Christ, then we must be very careful what else we unite them to. Being a physical entity, our body can be united in sin with a prostitute. Is that acceptable behaviour for a believer? The apostle answers that question with a thunderous “God forbid!” or “Let it not be!” 6:16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? The apostle is outraged to think that they are not aware of the intimate physical relationship that is formed when a person is joined in an illicit relationship with a street-girl. As far as the physical act is concerned, they are joined physically as if they were formally married. This is as far as it goes, however, for they are simply joined in body. They are not joined in any other way. A man, even a believer, who consorts thus with a prostitute, has not entered into a life-long relationship until it is dissolved by death. It is an act no different to that which animals engage in, who have no moral sense. For two, saith he, shall be one flesh- it might seem at first sight as if the apostle, by quoting this statement which has to do with marriage, is suggesting that to be joined to a harlot is to be in a marriage relationship. This cannot be the case, or else harlotry would not be condemned in Scripture. It is important to notice exactly what the apostle writes in this verse. The word “for” is not part of his quotation about marriage. No reference to marriage either in Genesis 2, Matthew 19, Mark 10, or Ephesians 5, uses the word “for”, so this is the apostle’s word, and indicates the answer to an unspoken query by his readers. The apostle often answered unspoken queries and objections in this way. They might say to him, “Why is it so sinful to be joined to a harlot?” The apostle answers by saying, in effect, “for (because) God has ordained that marriage should be a one-flesh arrangement, not a one-body one”. The next word is “two”, which is the first word of the quotation. Then comes “saith he”, so some person is being referred to here. Then comes the remainder of the quotation, “shall be one flesh”. So the quotation is “two shall be one flesh”. The “for” is the apostle’s word. But who is the person who says “two shall be one flesh? Since the apostle is referring to the Divine institution of marriage, we could assume the reference is to God when He instituted marriage in Genesis 2. But the words there are, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh”. The only place where these exact words are found is Mark 10:8, where we hear the Lord Jesus Himself speaking, “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; and they twain shall be one flesh: so then, they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined, let not man put asunder”. So it is He that the apostle refers to in the statement, “Two, saith he, shall be one flesh”. So not only does the Lord say God is still making men as male and female, (for He does it “from the beginning”, and not just “at the beginning”), but that the marriage-institution words of Genesis 2:24 were, and are, still valid. This also tells us the interesting fact that Paul, writing about AD 59, had read Mark’s gospel, so it was in circulation within twenty-five years of the events it records, and well within the lifetime of many of those who witnessed the events it details. (This is confirmed by the fact that a fragment of Mark’s gospel has been found at Qumran, written in the style of handwriting current in the 50’s). It also tells us that the apostle uses the teaching of Mark’s gospel, (with its absence of an exception clause), rather than Matthew’s gospel, with its provision for divorce in the case of a betrothed couple. So the Gentile Corinthians cannot appeal to a Jewish custom as an excuse for divorce. |
We return again to the narrative in Matthew 19:
19:7
They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? Instead of discussing divorce, the Lord had enforced the truth of marriage. This should always be the emphasis, for if we were more versed in the truth regarding the marriage relationship, we would be less taken up with divorce. There needs to be regular teaching concerning marriage so that it is constantly the norm in the minds of believers.
Those whose marriage is experiencing difficulties need to start to remedy the situation before God, by acting on the premise that they are joined for life. This will focus the mind on the reality, and not the fantasy of release by divorce.
This second question is really the one the Pharisees wanted to ask from the beginning, but the Lord had frustrated their plan, for if they obeyed the word of God regarding being one flesh, the matter of divorce would not come up.
The reference is to Deuteronomy 24:1-4, where a man who had found some “matter of uncleanness” in his wife was allowed to put her away.
Special note on penalties under the law of Moses
The penalties for immoral behaviour in Israel were severe, but for a just reason. It was vitally important in Old Testament times to preserve the line of the Messiah. If any child was conceived in circumstances where the name and the tribe of the father were not known, it would put at risk the genealogy of Christ. Hence the severity of the punishments. These severe penalties also acted as a deterrent, to maintain a high moral standard in the nation, so that God could bless it. They were to be a holy nation, Exodus 19:6.
The list of scenarios is as follows:
1. The unfaithful married woman was to be put to death, as was the man she had sinned with, Leviticus 20:10, Deuteronomy 22:22.
2. The unfaithful betrothed free woman, whose sin was only discovered after the wedding, was to be put to death, as was the man, if known, Deuteronomy 22:21.
3. The betrothed maiden who was assaulted in the city but did not cry for help, (showing she was to some extent complicit), was to be put to death, as well as the man, Deuteronomy 22:23,24.
4. The betrothed maiden who was assaulted in the field, and cried for help but no one heard, (showing she was not complicit), is allowed to live, but the man is to be put to death, Deuteronomy 22:25-27. No doubt note would be taken of the name of the man, so that if the attack resulted in a child being born, the genealogy would be known.
5. The virgin maiden who was assaulted anywhere, city or field, and they both “were found”, (indicating someone happened to come across them sinning, rather than responding to a cry for help from the girl), was not put to death, and was to marry the man involved, and never be put away. This was for her protection, for it prevented her from marrying another, and thereby risk coming under the penalty of verses 20,21, when it was discovered she was not a virgin.
Note the distinction that is made here between the betrothed maiden of Point 3 above, and this non-betrothed maiden. The former has violated the pledge she made when she was betrothed, showing it did alter the legal situation to a degree. The latter has not apparently cried out, so is to an extent complicit, hence the penalty, but tempered by mercy. We should remember the underlying principle, however, that the father of the girl had the absolute right to forbid the marriage, Exodus 22:1.
6. The daughter of a man of the tribe of Levi who committed fornication was to be burned with fire, Leviticus 21:9. The dramatic punishment was no doubt because she had “profaned her father”, and the worship of God was affected.
7. A betrothed bond woman who acted immorally was to be scourged, but not put to death, and the man was to offer a trespass offering, Leviticus 19:20.
8. A married woman who was found to have some “matter of uncleanness”, and who had a hard-hearted husband, could be sent away with a bill of divorcement, and she could marry another, but not return to the first husband if the second man died or put her away.
It is this last case that is the subject of discussion with the Pharisees. The woman concerned was clearly not cases 3-7, because she was married. Nor was she cases 1 or 2, or else she would have been put to death. Nor has her husband suspicions about her faithfulness, for then there was the provision of the trial of jealousy, in Numbers 5. She was a special case, therefore, and is the only case of a married woman who was not put to death. No doubt this was because she posed no threat to the line of the Messiah, for she had not consorted with a man other than her husband. All the other categories listed above had done so.
19:8
He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives- the Lord pinpoints the attitude of heart of some in Israel who were prepared to reject their wives because of something the wives could not help. It is not known precisely what is meant by “uncleanness”. The expression in the Hebrew is “dabar ervah”. “Ervah” is indeed used 51 times in the Old Testament in connection with illicit sexual behaviour, (“uncover the nakedness” is a phrase used for sexual relations), but not with the addition of “dabar”, which means “matter”, or “thing”. Some indication as to its meaning is given by the fact that it is only elsewhere used with dabar with regard to the toiletting arrangements in the camp of Israel, Deuteronomy 23:14.
If it had been unfaithfulness on the part of the woman there was provision in other parts of the law for this. This is the only situation in which divorce was allowed in Israel, so was an exception rather than the rule. The Pharisees possibly wanted to make it the general rule. They wished to make what they thought of as the vagueness of the phrase an excuse for divorce “for every cause”, which is the expression they used in their question. Certainly they wanted the Lord to take sides, and thus be open to criticism. He sides only with God’s word. We should ever follow His example.
Clearly the man in the situation spoken of in Deuteronomy 24 is not prepared to accommodate the unfortunate plight of his wife, and is hard of heart towards her, no doubt angry that he has been deprived of conjugal rights by her condition. In that situation Moses allowed a man to divorce his wife for her own protection, and marry another man if he would be prepared to marry her knowing her condition. If the second man put her away for the same reason, or if he died, she was not to return to her former husband again. She might be tempted to think that without her second husband maintaining her, (either because he had died or had put her away), it was better to return to the first man than to be destitute. Again, the law of God provided for her protection, for it overrides her faulty reasoning in her own interests, as there is no reason to think the first husband had changed. The woman is protected from her possible lack of realism in the matter. She would also now come under the special protection of “the God of the fatherless and the widow”.
This is an instance of God’s grace superceding the general rule for the sake of the welfare of His people. It is a mistake to think that there was no grace during the law-age. A reading of the passage where God described Himself to Moses will assure us there was, Exodus 34:6,7. In fact the word grace is found seven times in Exodus 33 and 34. The Pharisees wanted to talk of what was lawful, but the Lord highlighted the attitude of the man in the scenario, and Moses, representing God. The man was hard of heart, but Moses, acting for God, was merciful.
But from the beginning it was not so- again they are taken back to the beginning where the laws of marriage were instituted by God. Nothing that was instituted at the beginning was set aside by the law at Sinai. Those who wish to make this special case the general rule should be aware that the Lord does not sanction it, but points us back to the original institution of marriage. The reason He does not sanction it is not because He disagrees with what Moses did, but because in a few weeks time a new age of grace will have begun, and the law as a rule of life will be obsolete, (although its underlying principles will remain). After Pentecost there was not “Jew and Gentile”, and the special case lapsed, for it is not envisaged that a believer will be hard of heart.
In any case, the believer is not under law but under grace, and should not put himself or others under its bondage. Are the advocates of divorce willing to enforce all the stipulations of the law, such as stoning those who commit adultery? What of Deuteronomy 22:20,21, where a damsel is found to have acted immorally, and must be stoned to death after due process? Just as we are not under the law of Deuteronomy 22, so we are not under the law of Deuteronomy 24. So even if it was a general rule under the law, (and it was not, being a special case), the fact remains that we cannot appeal to it today.
The regulations in Deuteronomy 24 were so that Israelites did not “cause the land to sin”. The land in question being the land of promise, which they would soon occupy. But believers have no land in that sense, and so the stipulation does not apply. Our inheritance is in heaven, and is “incorruptible, and undefiled”, 1 Peter 1:4.
19:9
And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication- the last phrase is the well-known “exception clause”, as many call it, which some feel gives them grounds for advocating divorce.
This clause is only found in Matthew’s gospel. Now the truth of God is the same for every believer, yet in the early days of the church some believers might only have Mark’s gospel, some only Luke’s, some only Matthew’s. It cannot be that only the latter are allowed to divorce, whilst believers who only have Mark or Luke are not, for there is no exception clause in these two gospels.
We are surely forced to the conclusion, therefore, that Matthew’s account has something distinctive about it. It must relate to a situation particular to Matthew’s gospel, or else those who had the other gospels would be governed by different principles. When He commissioned the disciples to go into the world, the Lord required them to teach “all things whatsoever I have commanded you”. They were to teach all things, not just some things. They were to teach Matthew 19 truth as well as Mark 10 truth, so they cannot be at variance.
Those who have read as far as chapter 19 of Matthew’s gospel will have already come across the situation described in the first chapter, where Joseph was faced with the prospect of putting Mary away.
Such readers have already been prepared, therefore, for the teaching of the Lord Jesus regarding divorce, and will be aware of what “except for fornication” must mean, if it is not to conflict with the teaching that marriage is life-long. It relates to the Jewish practice of betrothal being classed as a legal relationship, with the parties concerned being called man and wife, as we have seen in the case of Joseph and Mary. But because Joseph and Mary were not formally married, Mary’s supposed sin is fornication, not adultery, for that latter sin is on the part of a person who is married to another formally. Such a situation did not pertain for those for whom Mark and Luke wrote. They wrote especially with Gentiles in mind, as is seen by the fact that Mark mentions the Gentile practice of a woman divorcing her husband, 10:12, something that was not allowed in Israel, and Luke is writing to a Gentile to confirm his faith, 1:3. For this reason they do not mention the exception clause, thus showing it to be a matter distinctive for Jewish readers at that time.
The following is Matthew’s account of the visit of the angel to Joseph:
|
Matthew 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise- having spoken of the birth of the kings of Israel, who were begotten naturally, Matthew is now going to record the birth of one who was begotten supernaturally. This is the beginning of the three ways in which Matthew records the fact of the birth of Christ. In 1:1-16, in relation to history. In 1:17-21 in relation to humanity. In 1:22-25, in relation to Deity. He does not record the actual event of Christ’s birth, but leaves that to Dr. Luke. Matthew adopts more the stance of the Registrar of Birth, after the event. When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together- the expression “when as” means that the previous phrase is being explained. Matthew is summarising the position at the point where Luke left off, with Mary returning from her three month’s stay in Elizabeth’s house in Judea. She is espoused to Joseph, but they have not “come together” as a result of a formal marriage ceremony. She was found with child of the Holy Ghost- Matthew is careful to add how it is that Mary is with child, even though at this point in the account Joseph does not know that this is how it came about. As far as Joseph is concerned, she is with child, and discovered to be so, for the fact has become obvious. “Come together” should not be confused with “knew her”. Matthew 1:19 Then Joseph her husband- in Jewish law, as one espoused to Mary, he is her husband, and she is his wife as far as intention is concerned, but not in the same way as when they are formally married. Being a just man- we are told three things about the character of Joseph, and this is the first. As a just man, he would be careful to obey the commands of the law of God. This would involve him in questioning Mary as to the circumstances by which she was with child. His subsequent course of action will depend on her answer. If she was waylaid in the city, (that is, where others were nearby to hear her call for help), and did not cry for help, then she and the man involved are to be stoned to death, Deuteronomy 22:23,24. If she was waylaid in the field, with no-one at hand to hear her cry out, then nothing is to be done to her, for the law mercifully supposes that she was not willing, but the man is to be stoned to death, Deuteronomy 22:25-27. Mary, however, would have assured Joseph that neither of these situations was the case. But there is a third consideration. How is Joseph to know that the child is of the royal line of David? Even if he accepts Mary’s account of things, she will only be able to tell him that the angel said the child would be given the throne of His father David, Luke 1:32. At no point did the angel use the words “son of David”. In fact, he had said “Son of God”. He may have been mindful of the words the Lord spoke to Abraham about the birth of Isaac, “at this time will I come, and Sarah will have a child”. Is this all the angel meant when he said to Mary that the Holy Spirit would come upon her and overshadow her? And not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily- now as a just man, Joseph was jealous for the honour of the House of David, but he knew that in Jewish law, if he married Mary, her child would become his child legally. Is it safe to do this, and so, as a son of David himself, incorporate into the royal line a child whose identity is not known? This is the dilemma that faces him. And this is why he contemplates divorcing Mary, even though he does not believe she is with child by fornication. |
We return to Matthew 19.
That adultery and fornication, when they are mentioned together, are not interchangeable terms, can be seen from 1 Corinthians 6:9,10. The list of sins found there is sordid, but the Spirit of God would have us be aware of them. “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God”. Notice that the apostle is careful to distinguish between fornication and adultery, mentioning them separately, as the Lord Jesus had done, but he also carefully distinguished between the effeminate and the abusers of themselves with mankind. These two persons were the passive and active participants in the sin of sodomy. If he was precise in his wording in connection with two men who are engaging in the same sin, does this not tell us that he was being precise when he mentions fornication and adultery separately, showing they are not interchangeable?
So those who advocate divorce must explain how a man who is divorced can be said to commit adultery when he marries again, if his divorce is valid before God and the marriage is over. He is like an unmarried person marrying for the first time.
No doubt some may respond by saying that the man is not committing adultery if his wife has engaged in fornication, because his divorce has simply confirmed that the marriage was at an end because of his wife’s unfaithfulness. But we have already seen from 1 Corinthians 6:16(a) that physical joining in fornication does not form a marriage. Nor does it break a marriage, because of the teaching of Romans 7, which says a man and a woman are joined in marriage until one of them dies. The apostle Paul claimed that the things he wrote to the Corinthians were “the commandments of the Lord”, 1 Corinthians 14:37. So the teaching of 1 Corinthians 6 is as much a commandment from the Lord as His words in Matthew 19.
And whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery- if, for the sake of argument, we allowed that the fornication of the first part of the verse is the same as adultery, and is grounds for Divinely-recognised divorce, and the marriage is over as far as God is concerned, why does another marrying her count as the sin of adultery?
19:10
His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.
His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry- when confronted with the teaching the Lord gave about marriage, the disciples felt that the standard was so high that it would be best not to marry. They realise that are far as married men and women are concerned, (they are not talking about betrothed persons), it is better to not get married rather than risk a life-time of heart-ache. But why should they think that the standard was too high, if there were easy exceptions to the marriage law, and it was not difficult to divorce? They had only to be unfaithful to their spouse, or arrange situations where she would be tempted to be unfaithful, and they could legitimately divorce. The truth is that they saw clearly that the standard was the same as it had ever been from the beginning, and man was not to put asunder what God had joined.
Some would argue that the Lord is not talking about betrothal in these verses, since the response of the disciples was about marriage. But for them, as Jews, betrothal was part and parcel of the marriage process, and to make a mistake in connection with betrothal inevitably meant a mistake about the marriage that followed. Hence their remark about marrying.
Marriage should be embarked upon with the thought by both parties that “This is for life, and we will strive to make our relationship work”, rather than thinking, “It may not work, and there are ways in which we can get out of it”
19:11
But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given- the “but” signals that the Lord does not agree that marriage is not a good thing. God had said at the beginning “It is not good for the man to be alone”, and now the disciples are saying the reverse. Clearly, if there are those who remain alone, it must be for good reason, allowed by God. He gives some the ability to not be lonely when they are alone, because they are taken up with the things of God.
19:12
For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men- there are those who are not able to marry, for they have either been born unable, or have been mistreated by men and so are unable to fulfil all the functions involved in marriage. The point of telling us this is to show that it is possible to live in an unmarried state. The Lord is not saying that if the proposed marriage cannot for some reason be physically consummated, then marriage is out of the question.
And there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake- some believers are enabled to be so taken up with the things of God and the work of God, that the fact that they are not married is genuinely not a concern to them. Their unmarried state can be used of God to further the interests of His kingdom in some way not otherwise open to them if they were married.
He that is able to receive it, let him receive it- if a person is enabled by God to not be concerned that they are not married, (as long as it is because they are fully occupied with the things of God, and not because they are self-centred), then they should receive that situation and attitude as being from God. But those who have not been thus gifted should not force themselves to be celibate, for they have not really been enabled by God, but have imposed the situation upon themselves. The enabling to live a celibate life is from God, for the scripture says, in connection with being either married or unmarried, “But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that”, 1 Corinthians 7:7.
So those who are saved after they are divorced and remarried will be enabled, if they desire to act “for the kingdom of heaven’s sake”, to live as single people. For we must not think that conversion alters relationships. If a man has unsaved parents, and then himself gets saved, they are still his parents. If he was born out of wedlock to those parents, nothing has changed as to his status. Why should we think then that if a divorced and remarried person gets saved the situation is any different? Nothing has altered as to the relationship. It is true that the sin of divorcing and remarrying is forgiven, but it is a condition of salvation that repentance is in evidence, not just at conversion, but afterwards as well. John the Baptist challenged men to “bring forth fruits meet for repentance”, Matthew 3:8, so the believer should show these fruits.
Not only does the account of the institution of marriage have personal implications, but it is used in Ephesians 5 by the apostle Paul to illustrate the relationship between Christ and the church. This illustration would have no value if there is a possibility of believers divorcing.
(b) Verses 13-15
The encouragement for children
19:13
Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them.
Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray- how significant that immediately after the teaching on divorce there should come a passage about children. Is it not the case that those who suffer most when husband and wife divorce are the children? What should have been a safe and loving environment has become a war zone. And it is often the children who are made bargaining counters in the cruel business of the divorce settlement.
No wonder God says “I hate putting away”, Malachi 2:16. He hates it because it is a manifestation of rebellion against His word; because of the damage that is done to the couple involved; because of the harm that is done to any children in the marriage.
So the children are brought to Him as one who will show them love, and pray for them and with them. If Christian parents had this attitude to their children, it would go a long way towards preventing a break-up between them.
And the disciples rebuked them- sadly the disciples fail to capture the spirit in which Christ dealt with people. Do they think they He has too many things on His mind to be concerned about blessing some children? How badly they misjudged Him! Did they really mean to try to stop Him praying and blessing?
19:14
But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me- it seems from this that not only were the children brought to Him, but they came willingly. Would they have been so willing to approach the apostles, given their attitude? So the little children are to be allowed to come, and not turned away when they have come.
For of such is the kingdom of heaven- that is, the kingdom of heaven is composed of those who, in child-like simplicity, have come to Christ. If little children genuinely come to Him in this way, who is to forbid them? Of course, this coming must not be forced in any way. To try to obtain professions of faith from little ones is dangerous, for it may give them a false sense of security. Timothy was taught the holy scriptures as a child, but when he believed he did so with the same sort of attitude of heart as his mother and grandmother, 2 Timothy 3:15; 1:3. They all had the same kind of faith; they did not make allowances for Timothy because he was a child. And they certainly did not pressurise him, for we read that he was made wise unto salvation by the holy scriptures, not his relatives.
19:15
And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence.
And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence- is it significant that Matthew does not mention He prayed, even though that was what the ones who brought them desired? Did the attitude of the disciples make it impossible for Him to pray in that atmosphere? We may be sure He prayed for them as He departed. There were occasions where the Lord could not do miracles because of the unbelief of the people, and perhaps the same principle is operating here.
(c) Verses 16-22
The enquiry after eternal life
19:16
And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
And, behold, one came and said unto him- we know from Mark 10:17 that he came running, showing he was in earnest. Luke adds that he was a ruler.
Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? We know from Luke 18:18 that he believed that eternal life was to be had by inheriting it. This is why the Lord pointed him to the law, for the keeping of the law perfectly was the only way of having eternal life as of right, by inheritance. Because man cannot keep the law, if he is to have eternal life it must be by grace as a gift. This is what the lawyer discovered when he asked a similar question, Luke 10:25. The parable of the Good Samaritan follows, to give a powerful illustration of grace to those who cannot earn eternal life.
Eternal life to a Jew was the life enjoyed by those in Messiah’s kingdom, as is seen from the only two references to it in the Old Testament, as follows:
“As the dew of Hermon, and as the dew that descended on the mountains of Zion: for there the Lord commanded the blessing, even life for evermore”, Psalm 133:3.
“And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt”, Daniel 12:2. So as to place, life eternal centres in Zion, the capital of the Millenilial kingdom of Christ, and as to time, it is when the King comes to reign.
19:17
And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? The Lord knows from the form of the question that the man is not thinking in terms of absolute goodness when he speaks of a “good thing” which he must do. So if that is his attitude to goodness, then when he uses the same word of Christ and says “Good Master”, he must be saying that He also is only relatively good.
There is none good but one, that is, God- the Lord defends His character indirectly, by pointing out that absolute goodness is found alone in God. So if a man would have eternal life, which is the life of God, then he must be in harmony with God, who is absolutely good. That being the case, the doing of relatively good things would never be enough to gain acceptance with Him.
But if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments- the law of God, kept not just in its letter but in its spirit, would give the right to enter the kingdom. As the Lord had said on the mountain, (itself a symbol of the kingdom), that “except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven”, Matthew 5:20. This young man is thinking on the same lines as the Pharisees, that legal and outward observance was the key. He was wrong, however.
19:18
He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
He saith unto him, Which? This is not so much a question such as “Which one of the many commandments?” but “What sort of commandment?” Would it be a civil commandment or a ceremonial one, or one of the traditions of the elders, or even one of his own devising?
Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness- far from some new commandment, the Lord simply repeats what God had originally given. The man might well have thought that he was well on the way to eternal life if obedience to these four commandments was all that was required. After all, it is not too difficult for a civilised person to abide by these negative commands. They are prohibitions, and simply command that man refrain from these things. Of course, as the Lord has pointed out in His earlier address, it is possible to not kill, but still hate, which can lead to killing. Or lust, which can lead to adultery, Matthew 5:21-32.
19:19
Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Honour thy father and thy mother- having worked His way through commandments six, seven, eight, and nine, the Lord reverts back to commandment number five. This time there is a positive commandment, and the man will claim in the next verse that he has kept it all through his childhood.
Did the Lord bring in this commandment in this out-of-order way to bring the man up with a start? Is the honouring of father and mother, (which will often involve financial support in their old age), a weak point with this man?
And, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself- this is the command that really reaches his conscience. We shall learn that he has great possessions, a sign that he may not have distributed to others as he should have done.
This command embraces all the other manward commands, as the apostle Paul taught, for “he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law”, and then he repeated the commandments that are found here, Romans 13:8,9. A man who loves his neighbour will not kill him, or corrupt his wife, or steal from him, or testify falsely against him, or covet his goods.
The apostle used the circumstances of the giving of the manna to bring home truth about Christian giving. He refers to the fact that a man who had a large family, and therefore a large need, was to gather according to his eating; that is, according to the amount his family would need. The man with a small family, or perhaps no family at all, would gather a small amount. In this way it could be said that they gathered, “some more, some less”, Exodus 16:17. This is not a reference to some being greedy, and others being afraid to gather as much as they needed. So it was that “when they did mete it with an omer”, (that is, when they regulated their portion of manna with the proper measure, which was the same for each person), then it could be said, “he that gathered much had nothing over, and he that gathered little had no lack”, verse 18. As long as they measured the amount they gathered, and did not indulge in greed, then those with a large need had just enough, but nothing over, and those with a small need also had just enough, with no shortfall.
Applying this, the apostle sees that some saints have a large need, and some a small one. In his giving, the believer should ensure that he takes that into account. In this way there is an equality established, and those with a great need are helped by those who, in the goodness of God, have “gathered much”, or, in other words, have been blessed with resources from God. Their riches are not for themselves, but to pass on as faithful stewards.
So when a man loves his neighbour as himself, he sees to it that he does not keep more than is necessary, but passes on the surplus to those who have need. It is perfectly legitimate to love oneself, for as the apostle Paul wrote, “For no man ever yet hated his own flesh”, Ephesians 5:29. However, once that love for self crosses the boundary into self-gratification, that is the time to take stock, and adjust one’s thinking, and consider the needs of others.
19:20
The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?
The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? He was like Saul of Tarsus, who, as touching the righteousness which is in the law, was found by his fellow Israelites to be blameless, Philippians 3:6. They could not point the finger at any defect, and he might have echoed the words of the man we are considering, “What lack I yet?
There seems a certain element of self-satisfaction here, as if to say he has reached the goal. If that is the case, why did he ask what he should do to obtain eternal life? Was there a feeling in the back of his mind that his keeping of the law might not be enough?
Whilst he might not lack anything in his own eyes and the eyes of his fellowmen, the one before whom he stood could read his heart, and is able to show that He knows this man through and through by commanding him to do something which touched his conscience.
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.
Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect- he had asked what he lacked, and now he is told what he needs to do to fill that lack if he would be perfect, which in this context means to have reached the goal that the law set, even complete and whole-hearted obedience to God.
Go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven- it is clear that the Lord knew this man was wealthy. He also knew that his wealth had a hold over him. Until he leaves his earthly treasure behind he will not have true treasure, that which is reserved in heaven for those who act in faith.
Treasure in heaven cannot be bought. If a man were simply to sell his possessions and distribute the proceeds, he would not thereby gain eternal life, for that would mean he had earned it. This cannot be done. This command, therefore, is special to this particular person; it is the test relevant to him.
And come and follow me- in Mark’s gospel we find the words “take up the cross, and follow me”. This is the secret, for a man bearing a cross was finished. So those who truly follow Christ must have come to an end of themselves. In the case of this man, it involves giving up his prized possessions.
19:22
But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.
But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful- does this explain why, instead of going on to quote the tenth commandment, “Thou shalt not covet”, the Lord reverted to the fifth about honouring parents? No doubt he was relieved that the tenth commanment was not mentioned, but no doubt also the very omission was a prick to his conscience, preparing him for what was next said.
For he had great possessions- this showed that he valued his possessions more than he valued eternal life. He claimed to want to do something to gain life, but in the event was not prepared to do it. He was not sorrowful because he had great possessions, but sorrowful that he was being told to give them up. The fact that he was not willing to do so showed he did in fact break the tenth commandment.
(d) Verses 23-30
The exercise of self-denial
19:23
Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Then said Jesus unto his disciples- the young man went away, but the disciples need to learn lessons from the incident.
Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven- the kingdom of heaven is the sphere of profession, the place where men are who claim to be true to the King. Whether they are or not depends on their attitudes and actions, for as the Lord has already said, “by their fruits ye shall know them”, Matthew 7:20. Given the demands that the King makes on His subjects, those who are rich are likely to have difficulty coming to terms with the conditions of entry even into the sphere of profession. It is possible for those who are not genuine to pretend that they have overcome the dangers that riches bring.
Special note on riches
Riches cause difficulty because of three things:
-
They absorb attention. The making of riches and the keeping of them both take up a man’s time and effort, with the result that spiritual things are ignored, and the man becomes self-centred.
-
They affect attitudes. The idea of the need to rely on God is lost, and there is less sympathy towards those who are poor. The man becomes self-satisfied.
-
They alter actions. Riches make a man self-indulgent, and he begins to think that he is entitled to spend them only on himself.
19:24
And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
And again I say unto you- Matthew repeats his use of the word “again” which we have come across in 18:19, where we saw there was a slight change of subject. The change of subject here is from the kingdom of heaven, the sphere of profession, to the kingdom of God, the sphere where there are only those who are born again, and are therefore true children of God.
It might seem from Mark’s parallel account that the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God are the same, since the same things are said of each. But if we think of Matthew 19:23 as being unique to Matthew, then the meaning is clear. The word about the kingdom of heaven is spoken before the account in Mark begins.
It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God- this is a form of speech where an impossible thing is said to be easier than another impossible thing. In this instance, it is a dramatic and colourful way of saying that a rich man cannot possibly enter the kingdom of God.
This statement must be taken in context. We learn from Mark’s account that the Lord is speaking of those who trust in riches. His words were these, “‘How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God’. And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, ‘Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God'”, Mark 10:23,24. Comparing the Lord’s two statements, (noting that both have to do with the kingdom of God), the expression “they that have riches” is interpreted as meaning “them that trust in riches”. Those who enter the kingdom of God do so because they trust in God. They cannot trust in riches at the same time. But riches have a great hold on the hearts of men, and they find it very difficult to trust in God who cannot be seen, rather than riches that can. It is the characteristic of the believer that he looks “not at the things that are seen, but at the things which are not seen”, 2 Corinthians 4:18.
19:25
When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?
When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved? Note that the disciples think of salvation in terms of being in the kingdom of God. When writing of the manifest kingdom of God in the age to come, (when Christ shall sit on His own throne), the writer to the Hebrews said of the angels, “Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?”. He then went on to warn of the danger of neglecting “so great salvation”, Hebrews 1:14; 2:3. In that context, (and in Matthew 19), salvation meant the safety of the kingdom on earth, with Christ reigning.
The concept of salvation as being association with Christ as a risen and ascended man was not yet revealed to them. Later on they will learn that “God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he hath loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace are ye saved), and hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus…for by grace are ye saved through faith”, Ephesians 2:4-6,8.
19:26
But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
But Jesus beheld them- He ensures they are listening by looking directly at them, so they would pay attention to an important principle.
And said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible- only by Divine intervention can men overcome their love of money. As with all sins, its hold is too strong for man to break free. The Spirit must do His convicting work so that true repentance is produced. Unless this happens there is mere profession, and the man is in the kingdom of heaven but not the kingdom of God. The Spirit of God is able to do what with men is impossible.
19:27
Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?
Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee- there is an element of self-satisfaction in this statement, (“we have forsaken all”), as well as of a certain amount of selfishness, (“what shall we have therefore”)?
19:28
And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration- this is a very balanced reply, for it gives due regard to the place the apostles have, but also, in the next verse, makes known that others too will have rewards.
The regeneration is the period of time when Christ reigns, and creation has a new beginning. It is the translation of the Greek word paliggenesia, which comes from “palin”, meaning again, and genesia, meaning a genesis, or creation. This explains why Isaiah 65:17 calls the millenial earth a new earth, for it is the forerunner of the eternal earth that God will bring in. That Isaiah is not speaking of eternity is seen in the fact that he refers to sinners as being on the earth at that time, and also children dying, verse 20.
Creation shall one day be delivered from the bondage of corruption to which it was subjected by God because of the sin of Adam its head, Romans 8:21. Such is the value of the work of Christ at the cross that all things shall be reconciled to God, for He had to distance Himself from His creation because it was tainted by sin, Colossians 1:20.
Such will be the change that creation shall know that it can rightly be called “a creating again”, or regeneration.
Special note on the incarnation of Christ
This may explain something of the mystery of the incarnation of Christ. All true believers acknowledge that Joseph had no part to play physically in the conception of Christ. But He was the true and biological son of Mary, whose body was in the bondage of corruption, like everyone else’s body is. To have a child Mary must make her contribution to the process. Could it be that the Spirit of God anticipated the “creation again”, and released that initial physical contribution from the bondage of corruption? Since the process of producing a child from then on is the division and multiplication of the initial cell, (and since the conception was by the Holy Spirit, not Joseph), we are not surprised when the angel says to Mary, “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God”, Luke 1:36. He is Son of God because of His eternal equality with the Father, but He is also Son of God because the Spirit of God has created a new thing that is perfectly sinless and holy, even the body of Christ.
The apostle Peter called this “regeneration”, “the time of restitution of all things”, Acts 3:21. The word restitution was used in various ways in secular documents of the time. It was used to describe the repair of the public roads, reminding us that John the Baptist came in accordance with the prophecy of Isaiah to “prepare…the way of the Lord”, and to “make his paths straight”, Matthew 3:3. The prophet Isaiah also said, “make straight in the desert a highway for our God”, Isaiah 40:3, but neither John the Baptist or the gospel writers quote that phrase, as if to say that Christ came walking a humble path, but when He comes again He will come as the King of kings, and as such must have a royal highway.
The word restitution was also used of the restoring of an estate to its rightful owner. When the Lord came the first time, “He came unto his own, but his own received him not”, John 1:11. When He comes again, however, He will be fully recompensed by His Father for the way He was treated. He will say to Him, “Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession”, Psalm 2:8.
The word was also used of the balancing of accounts. Christ’s coming to reign will be a day of reckoning for this world, when the deficit built up over the centuries, when men failed to take God into account, will be rectified. They will find that He has been taking account, and will confront men with their moral bankrupcy.
When the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory- as He Himself said to the church of the Laodiceans, “To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne”, Revelation 3:21. The first chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews speaks of these two thrones. In verse 4, we read of Him that “when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high”, the throne of God in heaven. Then in verse 8, after God has brought His firstbegotten into the world, (verse 6), He will say “Thy throne, O God is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom”. At last the throne of David will have reached its full potential. When Solomon became king, it is said, “Then Solomon sat on the throne of the Lord as king instead of David his father”, 1 Chronicles 29:23. But Solomon was a mere man, and had failings, but when Christ sits on David’s throne it will indeed be the throne of the Lord, for God Himself will address Him as God as He sits upon it, as we have seen from Hebrews 1:8.
Ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel- the position of the twelve is assured, so Peter need not have worried about what he would have. What more could anyone ask than to be associated with Christ in His glorious reign? Notice that Judas is included in the twelve, for it was not inevitable that he would be the traitor. The Lord repeatedly sought to bring him back from doing that awful deed.
19:29
And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.
And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake- so Peter must not think he is superior, just because he is an apostle, and just because he had given certain things up. When he was old he described believers as “them that have obtained like precious faith with us”, (“us” meaning the apostles), and then went on to speak of an entrance being ministered to them abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, 2 Peter 1:1,11. So all believers have equal opportunity to gain an abundant entrance into the kingdom.
To forsake the things listed here does not mean to abandon them completely, and never associate with them again. For instance, Peter had “forsaken” his wife, but the apostle Paul spoke of him years later as leading about a sister, a wife, 1 Corinthians 9:5.
Peter did not forsake his house in the sense that he never lived there any more, but he did make it available to the Lord when He moved to Capernaum, as seems evident from Luke 4:38 and Matthew 13:1,36.
It would be very wrong for a believer to abandon his responsibilities. The governing factor is “for my sake”. The things of Christ should take precedence over natural things, and this will be amply recompensed in the kingdom. We should be exercised over the use of the natural things we have, and use them for spiritual purposes as much as possible, and not indulge self. The Corinthians were at fault in this regard. The apostle has to write to them, “Now ye are full, now ye are rich, ye have reigned as kings without us”, 1 Corinthians 4:8. Whilst the apostles were hungry, thirsty, naked, buffeted, and had no certain dwelling place, verse 11, the Corinthians were living at ease. They had not forsaken things for Christ, but held on to them for themselves. Significantly, the apostle links this with reigning with Christ, verse 8.
Shall receive an hundredfold- what seem to be little things, if done for His name’s sake, will be magnified into a reward far exceeding the loss sustained.
And shall inherit everlasting life- eternal life, the life of God, is a gift when we believe. But there is also a sense that we may build up a spiritual inheritance through self-denial down here, so that when Christ comes we have a rich inheritance in the kingdom. People inherit what they have a right to. As sinners we had no right to eternal life, but God gives it as a gift to those who believe. But as saints we lay up treasure in heaven for ourselves, and inherit what we store up.
19:30
But many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first.
But many that are first shall be last- this is a mild rebuke to Peter, for whilst, when the apostles are listed we read, “Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon”, Matthew 10:2, he learns here that when it comes to reward others may surpass him. The Lord is not saying it will be like that, for it is “many that are first”, not “ye who art first”. The parable in the next chapter is devoted to enforcing this truth, and ends with similar words to these, 20:16.
And the last shall be first- whilst it is many that are first in privilege who shall be last in reward, it appears that all that are last shall be first. In the parable that follows those who were last in time received a penny an hour, while those who were first in time received a penny a day.