In Matthew 19, Jesus completes his ministry in Galilee and departs for Judea, marking a significant transition in his journey towards Jerusalem. Accompanied by large crowds seeking healing, he addresses questions on divorce and teaches about the sanctity of marriage. This passage emphasizes the end of his Galilean ministry and the onset of his final journey to Jerusalem before the Passover and crucifixion.

1. MATTHEW 19 COMME TARY
EDITED BY GLE PEASE
1 When Jesus had finished saying these things, he
left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to
the other side of the Jordan.
BAR ES, "Coasts of Judea beyond Jordan - The narrative here refers to the last
journey of the Saviour from Galilee to Jerusalem, to attend the last Passover which he
celebrated.
A considerable lapse of time occurred between his last discourse in the preceding
chapter and what is recorded here, and several important events have been recorded by
Luke and John which occurred in the interval, as the sending out of the seventy disciples
Luke 10:1-16; the Saviour’s going up to the feast of Tabernacles, and his final departure
from Galilee, passing through Samaria Luk_9:51-56; Joh_7:2-10; the healing of the ten
lepers Luk_17:11-19; the public teaching of Jesus at the feast of Tabernacles John 7:11-
53; the account of the woman taken in adultery Joh_8:1; the reproof of the unbelieving
Jews, and the escape of the Saviour from their hands John 8:12-59; the instruction of
the lawyer, and the parable of the good Samaritan Luk_10:28-37; the incidents in the
house of Martha and Mary Luk_10:38-42; the return of the seventy Luk_10:17-24; the
healing of the blind man on the Sabbath John 9:1-41; the festival of the Dedication John
10:22-42; the raising of Lazarus John 11:1-46; and the counsel of Caiaphas against Jesus,
and the retiring of Jesus from Jerusalem Joh_11:47-54. See Robinson’s Harmony.
Matthew and Mark now resume the narrative by relating that after Jesus had left Galilee
he approached Jerusalem by passing through the country beyond Jordan. The country
was, in general, called Perea, and appertained to Judea, being the region formerly
occupied by the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and Manasseh. The word “coasts” means regions
or parts. See the notes at Mat_2:16.
CLARKE, "Beyond Jordan - Or, by the side of Jordan. Matthew begins here to
give an account of Christ’s journey (the only one he mentions) to Jerusalem, a little
before the passover, at which he was crucified. See Mar_10:1; Luk_9:51.
Jesus came from Galilee (which lay to the north of Judea) into the coasts of Judea;
and from thence, in his way to Jerusalem, he went through Jericho, (Mat_20:17, Mat_
20:29), which lay at the distance of sixty furlongs, or seven miles and a half from Jordan,
to the western side of it. See Joseph. War, book iv. chap. 8. sect. 3. It seems, therefore,
most probable, that the course of Christ’s journey led him by the side of the river Jordan,
not beyond it. That the Greek word περαν, especially with a genitive case as here, has

2. sometimes this signification, see on Joh_6:22 (note); see also Bp. Pearce.
GILL, "And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these sayings,....
Concerning humility, avoiding offences, the methods to be taken in reproving offenders,
and the forgiveness that is to be exercised towards them:
he departed from Galilee; where he had chiefly preached and wrought his miracles,
no more to return thither till after his resurrection:
and came into the coasts of Judea beyond Jordan; that is, to that country which
was called "beyond Jordan", and bordered on Judea; coming still nearer and nearer to
Jerusalem, where he had told his disciples, a little while ago, he must come, and suffer,
and die. Rather, it should be rendered, "on this side Jordan", as also in Joh_1:28 for the
coasts of Judea were on this side; so ‫הירדן‬ ‫,עבר‬ is rendered in Deu_4:49
HE RY, "We have here an account of Christ's removal. Observe,
1. He left Galilee. There he had been brought up, and had spent the greatest part of his
life in that remote despicable part of the country; it was only upon occasion of the feasts,
that he came up to Jerusalem, and manifested himself there; and, we may suppose,
that, having no constant residence there when he did come, his preaching and miracles
were the more observable and acceptable. But it was an instance of his humiliation, and
in this, as in other things, he appeared in a mean state, that he would go under the
character of a Galilean, a north-countryman, the least polite and refined part of the
nation. Most of Christ's sermons hitherto had been preached, and most of his miracles
wrought, in Galilee; but now, having finished these sayings, he departed from Galilee,
and it was his final farewell; for (unless his passing through the midst of Samaria and
Galilee, Luk_17:11, was after this, which yet was but a visit in transitu - as he passed
through the country) he never came to Galilee again till after his resurrection, which
makes this transition very remarkable. Christ did not take his leave of Galilee till he had
done his work there, and then he departed thence. Note, As Christ's faithful ministers
are not taken out of the world, so they are not removed from any place, till they have
finished their testimony in that place, Rev_11:7. This is very comfortable to those that
follow not their own humours, but God's providence, in their removals, that their
sayings shall be finished before they depart. And who would desire to continue any
where longer than he has work to do for God there?
2. He came into the coasts of Judea, beyond Jordan, that they might have their day of
visitation as well as Galilee, for they also belonged to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
But still Christ kept to those parts of Canaan that lay towards other nations: Galilee is
called Galilee of the Gentiles; and the Syrians dwelt beyond Jordan. Thus Christ
intimated, that, while he kept within the confines of the Jewish nation, he had his eye
upon the Gentiles, and his gospel was aiming and coming toward them.
3. Great multitudes followed him. Where Shiloh is, there will the gathering of the
people be. The redeemed of the Lord are such as follow the Lamb whithersoever he
goes, Rev_14:4. When Christ departs, it is best for us to follow him. It was a piece of
respect to Christ, and yet it was a continual trouble, to be thus crowded after, wherever
he went; but he sought not his own ease, nor, considering how mean and contemptible
this mob was (as some would call them), his own honour much, in the eye of the world;

3. he went about doing good; for so it follows, he healed them there. This shows what they
followed him for, to have their sick healed; and they found him as able and ready to help
here, as he had been in Galilee; for, wherever this Sun of righteousness arose, it was
with healing under his wings. He healed them there, because he would not have them
follow him to Jerusalem, lest it should give offence. He shall not strive, nor cry.
JAMISO , "Mat_19:1-12. Final departure from Galilee - Divorce. ( = Mar_10:1-12;
Luk_9:51).
Farewell to Galilee (Mat_19:1, Mat_19:2).
And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these sayings, he
departed from Galilee — This marks a very solemn period in our Lord’s public
ministry. So slightly is it touched here, and in the corresponding passage of Mark (Mar_
10:1), that few readers probably note it as the Redeemer’s Farewell to Galilee, which
however it was. See on the sublime statement of Luke (Luk_9:51), which relates to the
same transition stage in the progress of our Lord’s work.
and came into the coasts — or, boundaries
of Judea beyond Jordan — that is, to the further, or east side of the Jordan, into
Perea, the dominions of Herod Antipas. But though one might conclude from our
Evangelist that our Lord went straight from the one region to the other, we know from
the other Gospels that a considerable time elapsed between the departure from the one
and the arrival at the other, during which many of the most important events in our
Lord’s public life occurred - probably a large part of what is recorded in Luk_9:51,
onward to Luk_18:15, and part of John 7:2-11:54.
COFFMA , "This verse marks the end of the Galilean ministry and the beginning
of the Perean ministry, according to Robertson, who placed the time interval
between these two chapters at about six months,[1] placing these events in the later
Perean ministry. Immense crowds continued to follow Christ, and countless healings
took place.
LIGHTFOOT, "[He came unto the coasts of Judea beyond Jordan.] If it were
barely said, the coasts of Judea beyond Jordan, by the coasts of Judea one might
understand the bounds of the Jews beyond Jordan. or does such a construction
want its parallel in Josephus; for "Hyrcanus (saith he) built a fortification, the name
of which was Tyre, between Arabia and Judea, beyond Jordan, not far from
Essebonitis." But see Mark here, chapter 10:1, relating the same story with this our
evangelist: He came, saith he, into the coasts of Judea, (taking a journey from
Galilee,) along the country beyond Jordan.
PETT, "Once Jesus had completed His ministry in Galilee He set off for Jerusalem
for the last time, coming into the borders of Judaea. He had made a number of
previous visits to Jerusalem, as we know from John’s Gospel, but this would be His
last. During this visit He will present Himself to the Jews as the Coming King for
those who have eyes to see. As usual great crowds followed Him. They also would be
going up to the feast. And He continued His ministry towards them, healing them in
both body and soul (compare Matthew 8:17). For similar closures as this (‘when He

4. had finished’) following selections of His teaching see Matthew 7:28; Matthew 11:1;
Matthew 13:53; Matthew 26:1.
‘Beyond the Jordan.’ The areas around the Jordan on both sides of the river were
called ‘Beyond the Jordan’ (compare our description Transjordan). If this entry
was into Judaea proper it would necessarily be in Beyond Jordan on the west side of
the Jordan. On the other hand Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem via Jericho indicates that
at some time stage He went East of Jordan into Peraea, finally crossing the Jordan
from east to west in order to take the Jericho road. But Matthew’s concern is to
emphasise the entry into Judaea, leaving his native Galilee.
BURKITT, "The country of the Jews was divided into three provinces; namely,
Galilee, Samaria, and Judea.
In Galilee, were the cities of azareth, Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum; here
Christ dwelt and spent a considerable part of his time, preaching to them, and
working miracles among them. But now comes the time in which our holy Lord
takes his leave of this province of Galilee, and returned no more to it: woe to that
people, whose unthankfulness for Christ's presence and ministry amongst them,
causes him finally to forsake them. Having left Galilee, our holy Lord passes
through Samaria (the Samaritans being prejudiced against him, and refusing to
receive him) and comes into the coasts of Judea, where multitudes of people flocked
after him.
But observe the qualities of his followers, not the great ones of the world, not many
mighty, not many noble; but the poor and despised multitude, the sick and weak,
the deaf and blind, the diseased and distressed.
Thence observe, That none but such as find their need of Christ will seek after him,
and come unto him. one will apply to him for help, till they feel themselves
helpless. Great multitudes of the sick and diseased came unto him, and he healed
them all.
COKE, "Introduction
Jesus leaves Galilee, and comes into the coasts of Judea, and is followed by great
multitudes, whom he heals, Matthew 19:1, Matthew 19:2. The question of the
Pharisees concerning divorce answered, and the doctrine of marriage explained,
Matthew 19:3-9. The inquiry of the disciples on this subject, Matthew 19:10. Our
Lord's answer, explaining the case of eunuchs, Matthew 19:11, Matthew 19:12.
Little children brought to Christ for his blessing, Matthew 19:13-15. The case of the
young man who wished to obtain eternal life, Matthew 19:16-22. Our Lords
reflections on this case, in which he shows the difficulty of a rich man's salvation,
Matthew 19:23-26. What they shall possess who have left all for Christ's sake and
the Gospel. Matthew 19:27-29; How many of the first shall be last, and the last first,
Matthew 19:30.
Verse 1

5. Beyond Jordan - Or, by the side of Jordan. Matthew begins here to give an account
of Christ's journey (the only one he mentions) to Jerusalem, a little before the
passover, at which he was crucified. See Mark 10:1; Luke 9:51.
Jesus came from Galilee (which lay to the north of Judea) into the coasts of Judea;
and from thence, in his way to Jerusalem, he went through Jericho, ( Matthew
20:17, Matthew 20:29;), which lay at the distance of sixty furlongs, or seven miles
and a half from Jordan, to the western side of it. See Joseph. War, book iv. chap. 8.
sect. 3. It seems, therefore, most probable, that the course of Christ's journey led
him by the side of the river Jordan, not beyond it. That the Greek word περαν,
especially with a genitive case as here, has sometimes this signification, see on John
6:22; (note); see also Bp. Pearce.
HAWKER 1-9, ""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; (2) And great
multitudes followed him; and he healed them there. (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? (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, (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? (6) Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath
joined together, let not man put asunder. (7) They say unto him, Why did Moses then
command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? (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. (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."
There can be no question, but that the married state from the beginning of the creation
of the world, was intended as a beautiful representation of the mystical union between
Christ and his Church. Gen_2:18-21 to the end, explained by Eph_5:23 to the end. And
all the after stages, in the departure of our nature by adultery, could not destroy the first,
and legitimate connection. Jesus betrothed his Church to himself forever. Hos_2:19-20.
And though Moses as the Lord Jesus said, for the hardness of the hearts of the Israelites,
did permit a bill of divorcement, yet not so will Jesus. His language is: though thou hast
played the harlot with many lovers, yet return unto me saith the Lord. Jer_3:1; Deu_
24:1-4. Hence the Church recovered by sovereign grace, sings aloud, I will return unto
my first husband. Hos_2:6-7.
BROADUS, "Matthew 19:1-12.
Departure From Galilee. Instructions As To Divorce
The greater part of this section is found also in Mark 10:1-12. Our Lord now leaves
Galilee, and comes into Perea. Matthew and Mark make no mention of anything
intervening, and a little later both bring us to the triumphal entry and the final Passover.
But Luke, after completing his account, parallel to Matthew and Mark, of the ministry in
Galilee, describes Jesus as (Luke 9:51-56) going from Galilee not into Perea, but through
Samaria on the way to Jerusalem. With this agrees John's account (Matthew 19:2-10) of

6. his going in secret from Galilee to Jerusalem to attend the Feast of Tabernacles, six
months before the final Passover. Then Luke goes on in Luke 10:1 to Luke 18:14, with a
long account of the Saviour's sayings and actions, after which he again becomes parallel
(Luke 18:15) with Matthew (Matthew 19:13) and Mark, (Mark 10:13) and so continues to
the end. We have heretofore noticed that Luke greatly condensed his narrative of the
series of withdrawals from Galilee, giving to it only Luke 9:10-50, while Matt. gives
Matthew 14:13 to Matthew 18:35, and Mark gives Mark 6:30 to Mark 9:50. It seems
plain that Luke thus condensed in order to make room for the mass of matter in reserve,
which for the most part is peculiar to him. Some of the miracles and discourses he goes
on to narrate closely resemble several which Matthew and Mark gave during the
ministry in Galilee before the withdrawals, and which Luke did not there introduce; e. g.,
the blasphemous accusation in Luke 11:14-36 resembles Matthew 12:22-45, Mark 3:19-
30, and the discourse against temporal anxiety in Luke 12:22-31 resembles Matthew
6:25-34. In the present state of harmonistic inquiry, we must choose between two
theories. (1) Luke in Luke 10:1 to Luke 18:14, must be supposed, with Robinson's
Harmony and others, to give a loosely arranged mass of material, mainly falling between
the last Feast of Tabernacles and the last Passover, but partly belonging in fact to the
ministry in Galilee, where similar matters were given by Matthew and Mark. This loose
arrangement is unlikely in itself, particularly in the case of one who expressly undertook
to write an orderly account. (Luke 1:3)(1) (2) Wieseler has pointed out ("Chron. Syn.,"
followed by Tischendorf's "Syn. Evang.," Ellicott's "Lectures on Life of Christ," G. W.
Clark's "Harmony of the Gospels") that Luke in this large section three times speaks of
Jesus as going to or towards Jerusalem, (Luke 9:51-53, Luke 13:22, Luke 17:11) and has
proposed to take the first of these three as parallel to our Lord's going up for the Feast of
Tabernacles, (John 7:2 ff.) the second to the journey for raising Lazarus, (John 11:17 f)
the third as beginning the journey to the final Passover; and accordingly to arrange all
this section of Luke, as belonging to the last six months of our Lord's ministry, and as
located in Judea and Perea. It thus becomes a ministry distinct from that in Galilee
narrated by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and the similar events and discourses are to be
regarded as not identical but repetitions, such as it is unquestionable that Jesus often
made (see above, beginning of Matthew 5). This view, well wrought out in Clark's
Harmony, is followed in the present Com. as involving fewer difficulties than any other,
and indeed as quite probably correct. At any rate, it is clear, from the comparison with
Luke and John, that Matthew and Mark pass over nearly all the last six months of our
Lord's ministry, just as both they and Luke passed over that early ministry of probably
as great length in Judea which is recorded by John (see above on "Matthew 4:12").
Matthew and Mark have in fact confined themselves entirely to the ministry in Galilee
and vicinity, except the final Passover and a few incidents on the journey thereto.
Matthew 19:1 f. Jesus goes from Galilee into Perea, and exercises his ministry. Departed
is not simply 'went away,' but 'removed,' a rare word used in New Testament only here
and in Matthew 13:53. It must not be here pressed to prove a permanent removal, for in
Matthew 13:53 there was only a temporary removal across the lake. The statement that
he departed from Galilee when he had finished these sayings, would most naturally
mean that he left immediately upon completing the discourse of Matthew 18; compare
the same phrase in Matthew 7:28, Matthew 11:1, Matthew 13:53. We should then take
this departure as parallel to that of Luke 9:51 ff., viz., to attend the Feast of Tab., and the
gap of nearly six months would have to fall between the two adjacent words 'departed'
and 'came.' Wieseler holds that this departure was parallel to Luke 17:11, where Jesus
returns from Judea through Samaria and a portion of Galilee, and probably joins the

7. pilgrims on the way from Galilee through Perea to Jerusalem. In this way 'departed' is
followed naturally by 'came,' but 'when he had finished these sayings' has to be
understood loosely. Mark's expression (Mark 10:1) agrees best with Wieseler's view.
However much was to be omitted, we could not expect a break in the narrative; see
remarks introductory to Matthew 4:12, It is well to observe that nothing in the
interpretation of what follows will depend upon this nice question of chronology and
harmony.
Matthew's account of the ministry in Galilee has continued since Matthew 4:12. That
ministry appears to have lasted, if we take the feast of John 5:1 to be a passover, nearly
two years, the last six months, however, being nearly all spent in the series of
withdrawals to adjoining districts. (Matthew 14:13 to Matthew 17:20.) Matthew occupies
himself especially with teachings concerning the kingdom of heaven, while most of the
parables given in Luke 13-18 refer only to individual piety, and would thus not come into
Matthew's plan.
Into the coasts of Judea. Borders rather than 'coasts,' see on "Matthew 2:16"; Matthew
15:22. Beyond Jordan.
The Greek construction is peculiar, but makes 'beyond Jordan' state the route by which
he came into the borders of Judea. Mark (Mark 10:1, correct text) has 'into the borders
of Judea and beyond Jordan.' Copyists and early students saw that this differed
somewhat from Matt., and so some omitted Mark's 'and,' others changed 'and' into
'through' (Com. Ver.). Mark's expression thus gives a twofold designation of the region
into which he came, viz., the borders of Judea, and Perea. Matt. might seem to locate the
following matters in Judea, after Jesus had passed through Perea; Mark refers them
indefinitely to both districts; the Harmony (see Matthew 20:17, Matthew 20:29) pretty
clearly places the earlier Portion, certainly Matthew 19:1-15, in Perea. The region 'beyond
Jordan,' i. e., east of the Jordan (see on "Matthew 4:25"), from its mouth to near the
Lake of Galilee, was in the Roman period often called 'the beyond (district),' 'the Perea,'
the Greek word for beyond being peran. The Galilean Jews preferred to go to Jerusalem
by way of Perea, so as to avoid the unfriendly Samaritans; (Luke 9:52 f.) though the
direct route through Samaria was sometimes taken (compare Josephus,"Life," 52). Perea
included the dominions of Sihon and part of those of Og, or the districts later called
Gilead and part of Bashan. The Romans separated Decapolis (see on "Matthew 4:25")
from this district, and accordingly Josephus ("War," 8, 3, 3) says that Perea extended
from Machaerus to Pella (nearly opposite the plain of Esdraelon and Bethshean). It was
divided into a rougher and very beautiful northern portion, and a southern portion,
which latter comprised the plain immediately east of the lower Jordan, and the high
table-land beyond. So far as we can judge, our Lord here appears in Southern Perea, on
his way to Jericho and Jerusalem. (Matthew 20:29, Matthew 21:1) Many places of this
region are of great interest in Old Testament studies, but none appear distinctly in the
New Testament save Machaerus (see on "Matthew 14:3"), and 'Bethany beyond Jordan,'
'the place where John was at first baptizing', (John 1:28 f.; John 10:40) and this last spot
cannot be determined (compare on Matthew 3:13). We can therefore get no local
colouring for Matthew 19:3 to Matthew 20:28. Like Galilee, Perea had so few Jews in the
time of Judas Maccabaeus that he transferred them all to Judea for safe keeping; (1
Maccabees 5:23, 1 Maccabees 5:45) but during the reign of Herod the Great the Jewish

8. population of Perea evidently became considerable, which will account for the
expressions in Matthew 20:2 and John 10:40-42; and this district was an important part
of the tetrarchy of Herod Antipas. For accounts of Perea, see especially Schultz in
Herzog, Art. "Palestina," (4); Robinson's "Phys. Geog."; Tristram's "Laud of Moab ";
Merrill's "East of the Jordan" but all are quite incomplete.
Great multitudes, see on "Matthew 4:25". Here, as so often in Galilee, vast numbers of
the people throng and crowd around him. It is probable (see in Clark's "Harmony ") that
this was subsequent to the sojourn beyond Jordan mentioned in John 10:41-42, when
"many resorted unto him," and "many believed on him there." It is not necessary to
suppose a considerable stay in that region at this time, in order to account for the
collection of great crowds, for they probably consisted in part of persons journeying to
Jerusalem for the Passover. And he healed them there, as he had often done in Galilee.
'Them' of course means not all of the crowds, but such as needed healing. Mark says,
(Mark 10:1) 'and, as he was wont, he taught them again.' Thus the Galilean ministry is
reproduced in Perea—crowds, healing, teaching. And here is another instance of a
general statement, which must be pondered in order to realize the extent of our Lord's
work. (Compare Mark 4:23, Mark 9:35, Mark 14:14, Mark 16:20)
BARCLAY 1-9, "Here Jesus is dealing with what was in his day, as it is in our own, a
vexed and burning question. Divorce was something about which there was no
unanimity among the Jews; and the Pharisees were deliberately trying to involve Jesus
in controversy.
No nation has ever had a higher view of marriage than the Jews. Marriage was a sacred
duty. To remain unmarried after the age of twenty, except in order to concentrate upon
the study of the Law, was to break a positive commandment to "be fruitful and multiply."
He who had no children "slew his own posterity," and "lessened the image of God upon
earth." "When husband and wife are worthy, the glory of God is with them."
Marriage was not to be entered into carelessly or lightly. Josephus outlines the Jewish
approach to marriage, based on the Mosaic teaching (Antiquities of the Jews 4. 8. 23). A
man must marry a virgin of good parentage. He must never corrupt another man's wife;
and he must not marry a woman who had been a slave or a harlot. If a man accused his
wife of not being a virgin when he married her, he must bring proofs of his accusation.
Her father or brother must defend her. If the girl was vindicated he must take her in
marriage, and could never again put her away, except for the most flagrant sin. If the
accusation was proved to have been reckless and malicious, the man who made it must
be beaten with forty stripes save one, and must pay fifty shekels to the girl's father. But if
the charge was proved and the girl found guilty, if she was one of the ordinary people,
the law was that she must be stoned to death, and if she was the daughter of a priest, she
must be burned alive.
If a man seduced a girl who was espoused to be married, and the seduction took place
with her consent, both he and she must be put to death. If in a lonely place or where
there was no help present, the man forced the girl into sin, the man alone was put to

9. death. If a man seduced an unespoused girl, he must marry her, or, if her father was
unwilling for him to marry her, he must pay the father fifty shekels.
The Jewish laws of marriage and of purity aimed very high. Ideally divorce was hated.
God had said, "I hate divorce" (Malachi 2:16). It was said that the very altar wept tears
when a man divorced the wife of his youth.
But ideal and actuality did not go hand in hand. In the situation there were two
dangerous and damaging elements.
First, in the eyes of Jewish law a woman was a thing. She was the possession of her
father, or of her husband as the case might be; and, therefore, she had, technically, no
legal rights at all. Most Jewish marriages were arranged either by the parents or by
professional match-makers. A girl might be engaged to be married in childhood, and was
often engaged to be married to a man whom she had never seen. There was this
safeguard--when she came to the age of twelve she could repudiate her father's choice of
husband. But in matters of divorce, the general law was that the initiative must lie with
the husband. The law ran: "A woman may be divorced with or without her consent, but a
man can be divorced only with his consent." The woman could never initiate the process
of divorce; she could not divorce, she had to be divorced.
There were certain safeguards. If a man divorced his wife on any other grounds than
those of flagrant immorality, he must return her dowry; and this must have been a
barrier to irresponsible divorce. The courts might put pressure on a man to divorce his
wife, in the case, for instance, of refusal to consummate the marriage, of impotence, or of
proved inability to support her properly. A wife could force her husband to divorce her,
if he contracted a loathsome disease, such as leprosy, or if he was a tanner, which
involved the gathering of dog's dung, or if he proposed to make her leave the Holy Land.
But, by and large, the law was that the woman had no legal rights, and the right to
divorce lay entirely with the husband.
Second, the process of divorce was fatally easy. That process was founded on the passage
in the Mosaic Law to which Jesus' questioners referred: "When a man takes a wife and
marries her, if then she finds no favour in his eyes because he has found some indecency
in her, and he writes her a bill of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his
house..." (Deuteronomy 24:1). The bill of divorcement was a simple, one-sentence
statement that the husband dismissed his wife. Josephus writes, "He that desires to be
divorced from his wife for any cause whatsoever (and many such causes happen among
men) let him, in writing, give assurance that he will never use her as his wife any more;
for by this means she may be at liberty to marry another husband." The one safeguard
against the dangerous ease of the divorce process was the fact that, unless the woman
was a notorious sinner, her dowry must be returned.
JEWISH GROUNDS OF DIVORCE (Matthew 19:1-9 continued)
One of the great problems of Jewish divorce lies within the Mosaic enactment. That

10. enactment states that a man may divorce his wife, "if she finds no favour in his eyes,
because he has found some indecency in her." The question is--how is the phrase some
indecency to be interpreted?
On this point the Jewish Rabbis were violently divided, and it was here that Jesus'
questioners wished to involve him. The school of Shammai were quite clear that a matter
of indecency meant fornication, and fornication alone, and that for no other cause could
a wife by put away. Let a woman be as mischievous as Jezebel, so long as she did not
commit adultery she could not be put away. On the other hand, the school of Hillel
interpreted this matter of indecency in the widest possible way. They said that it meant
that a man could divorce his wife if she spoiled his dinner, if she spun, or went with
unbound hair, or spoke to men in the streets, if she spoke disrespectfully of his parents
in his presence, if she was a brawling woman whose voice could be heard in the next
house. Rabbi Akiba even went the length of saying that the phrase if she finds no favour
in his eyes meant that a man could divorce his wife if he found a woman whom he liked
better and considered more beautiful.
The tragedy was that, as was to be expected, it was the school of Hillel whose teachings
prevailed; the marriage bond was often lightly held, and divorce on the most trivial
ground was sadly common.
To complete the picture certain further facts must be added. It is relevant to note that
under Rabbinic law divorce was compulsory for two reasons. It was compulsory for
adultery. "A woman who has committed adultery must be divorced." Second, divorce
was compulsory for sterility. The object of marriage was the procreation of children; and
if after ten years a couple were still childless divorce was compulsory. In this case the
woman might remarry, but the same regulation governed the second marriage.
Two further interesting Jewish regulations in regard to divorce must be added. First,
desertion was never a cause for divorce. If there was desertion, death must be proved.
The only relaxation was that, whereas all other facts needed the corroboration of two
witnesses in Jewish law, one witness was enough to prove the death of a partner in
marriage who had vanished and not come back.
Secondly, strangely enough, insanity was not a ground of divorce. If the wife became
insane, the husband could not divorce her, for, if she was divorced, she would have no
protector in her helplessness. There is a certain poignant mercy in that regulation. If the
husband became insane, divorce was impossible, for in that case he was incapable of
writing a bill of divorcement, and without such a bill, initiated by him, there could be no
divorce.
When Jesus was asked this question, at the back of it was a situation which was vexed
and troubled. He was to answer it in a way which came as a staggering surprise to both
parties in the dispute, and which suggested a radical change in the whole situation.

11. THE ANSWER OF JESUS (Matthew 19:1-9 continued)
In effect, the Pharisees were asking Jesus whether he favoured the strict view of
Shammai or the laxer view of Hillel; and thereby seeking to involve him in controversy.
Jesus' answer was to take things back to the very beginning, back to the ideal of creation.
In the beginning, he said, God created Adam and Eve, man and woman. Inevitably, in
the very circumstances of the creation story, Adam and Eve were created for each other
and for no one else; their union was necessarily complete and unbreakable. Now, says
Jesus, these two are the pattern and the symbol of all who were to come. As A. H.
McNeile puts it, "Each married couple is a reproduction of Adam and Eve, and their
union is therefore no less indissoluble."
The argument is quite clear. In the case of Adam and Eve divorce was not only
inadvisable; it was not only wrong; it was completely impossible, for the very simple
reason that there was no one else whom either of them could possibly marry. Therefore
Jesus was laying down the principle that an divorce is wrong. Thus early we must note
that it is not a law; it is a principle, which is a very different thing.
Here, at once, the Pharisees saw a point of attack. Moses (Deuteronomy 24:1
http://www.crossbooks.com/verse.asp?ref=Dt+24%3A1) had said that, if a man wished
to divorce his wife because she had found no favour in his eyes, and because of some
matter of indecency in her, he could give her a bill of divorce and the marriage was
dissolved. Here was the very chance the Pharisees wanted. They could now say to Jesus,
"Are you saying Moses was wrong? Are you seeking to abrogate the divine law which was
given to Moses? Are you setting yourself above Moses as a law-giver?"
Jesus' answer was that what Moses said was not in fact a law, but nothing more than a
concession. Moses did not command divorce; at the best he only permitted it in order to
regulate a situation which would have become chaotically promiscuous. The Mosaic
regulation was only a concession to fallen human nature. In Genesis 2:23-24
http://www.crossbooks.com/verse.asp?ref=+%Genesis 23:1-20 A23-24, we have the
ideal which God intended, the ideal that two people who marry should become so
indissolubly one that they are one flesh. Jesus' answer was: "True, Moses permitted
divorce; but that was a concession in view of a lost ideal. The ideal of marriage is to be
found in the unbreakable, perfect union of Adam and Eve. That is what God meant
marriage to be."
It is now that we are face to face with one of the most real and most acute difficulties in
the New Testament. What did Jesus mean? There is even a prior question--what did
Jesus say? The difficulty is--and there is no escaping it--that Mark and Matthew report
the words of Jesus differently.
Matthew has:

12. I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity,
and marries another commits adultery (Matthew 19:9).
Mark has:
Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery
against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another,
she commits adultery (Mark 10:11-12).
Luke has still another version of this saying:
Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits
adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her
husband commits adultery. (Luke 16:18).
There is the comparatively small difficulty that Mark implies that a woman can divorce
her husband, a process which, as we have seen, was not possible under Jewish law. But
the explanation is that Jesus must have well known that under Gentile law a woman
could divorce her husband and in that particular clause he was looking beyond the
Jewish world. The great difficulty is that both Mark and Luke make the prohibition of
divorce absolute; with them there are no exceptions whatsoever. But Matthew has one
saving clause--divorce is permitted on the ground of adultery. In this case there is no
real escape from a decision. The only possible way out would be to say that in point of
fact, under Jewish law, divorce for adultery was in any event compulsory, as we have
seen, and that therefore Mark and Luke did not think that they need mention it; but then
so was divorce for sterility.
In the last analysis we must choose between Matthew's version of this saying and that of
Mark and Luke. We think there is little doubt that the version of Mark and Luke is right.
There are two reasons. Only the absolute prohibition of separation will satisfy the ideal
of the Adam and Eve symbolic complete union. And the staggered words of the disciples
imply this absolute prohibition, for, in effect, they say (Matthew 19:10) that if marriage
is as binding as that, it is safer not to marry at all. There is little doubt that here we have
Jesus laying down the principle--mark again, not, the law--that the ideal of marriage is a

13. union which cannot be broken. There is much more to be said--but here the ideal, as
God meant it, is laid down, and Matthew's saving clause is a later interpretation inserted
in the light of the practice of the Church when he wrote.
THE HIGH IDEAL (Matthew 19:1-9 continued)
Let us now go on to see the high ideal of the married state which Jesus sets before those
who are willing to accept his commands. We will see that the Jewish ideal gives us the
basis of the Christian ideal. The Jewish term for marriage was Kiddushin. Kiddushin
meant sanctification or consecration. It was used to describe something which was
dedicated to God as his exclusive and peculiar possession. Anything totally surrendered
to God was kiddushin. This meant that in marriage the husband was consecrated to the
wife, and the wife to the husband. The one became the exclusive possession of the other,
as much as an offering became the exclusive possession of God. That is what Jesus
meant when he said that for the sake of marriage a man would leave his father and his
mother and cleave to his wife; and that is what he meant when he said that man and wife
became so totally one that they could be called one flesh. That was God's ideal of
marriage as the old Genesis story saw it (Genesis 2:24), and that is the ideal which Jesus
restated. Clearly that idea has certain consequences.
(i) This total unity means that marriage is not given for one act in life, however
important that act may be, but for all. That is to say that, while sex is a supremely
important part of marriage, it is not the whole of it. Any marriage entered into simply
because an imperious physical desire can be satisfied in no other way is foredoomed to
failure. Marriage is given, not that two people should do one thing together, but that
they should do all things together.
(ii) Another way to put this is to say that marriage is the total union of two personalities.
Two people can exist together in a variety of ways. One can be the dominant partner to
such an extent that nothing matters but his wishes and his convenience and his aims in
life, while the other is totally subservient and exists only to serve the desires and the
needs of the other. Again, two people can exist in a kind of armed neutrality, where there
is continuous tension and continuous opposition, and continuous collision between their
wishes. Life can be one long argument, and the relationship is based at best on an uneasy
compromise. Again, two people can base their relationship on a more or less resigned
acceptance of each other. To all intents and purposes, while they live together, each goes
his or her own way, and each has his or her own life. They share the same house but it
would be an exaggeration to say that they share the same home.
Clearly none of these relationships is the ideal. The ideal is that in the marriage state two
people find the completing of their personalities. Plato had a strange idea. He has a kind
of legend that originally human beings were double what they are now. Because their
size and strength made them arrogant, the gods cut them in halves; and real happiness
comes when the two halves find each other again, and marry, and so complete each
other.
Marriage should not narrow life; it should complete it. For both partners it must bring a

14. new fulness, a new satisfaction, a new contentment into life. It is the union of two
personalities in which the two complete each other. That does not mean that
adjustments, and even sacrifices, have not to be made; but it does mean that the final
relationship is fuller, more joyous, more satisfying than any life in singleness could be.
(iii) We may put this even more practically--marriage must be a sharing of all the
circumstances of life. There is a certain danger in the delightful time of courtship. In
such days it is almost inevitable that the two people will see each other at their best.
These are days of glamour. They see each other in their best clothes; usually they are
bent on some pleasure together; often money has not yet become a problem. But in
marriage two people must see each other when they are not at their best; when they are
tired and weary; when children bring the upset to a house and home that children must
bring; when money is tight, and food and clothes and bills become a problem; when
moonlight and roses become the kitchen sink and walking the floor at night with a crying
baby. Unless two people are prepared to face the routine of life as well as the glamour of
life together, marriage must be a failure.
(iv) From that there follows one thing, which is not universally true, but which is much
more likely than not to be true. Marriage is most likely to be successful after a fairly long
acquaintanceship, when the two people involved really know each other's background.
Marriage means constantly living together. It is perfectly possible for ingrained habits,
unconscious mannerisms, ways of upbringing to collide. The fuller the knowledge people
have of each other before they decide indissolubly to link their lives together the better.
This is not to deny that there can be such a thing as love at first sight, and that love can
conquer all things, but the fact is that the greater mutual knowledge people have of each
other the more likely they are to succeed in making their marriage what it ought to be.
(v) All this leads us to a final practical conclusion--the basis of marriage is togetherness,
and the basis of togetherness is nothing other than considerateness. If marriage is to
succeed, the partners must always be thinking more of each other than of themselves.
Selfishness is the murderer of any personal relationship; and that is truest of all when
two people are bound together in marriage.
Somerset Maughan tells of his mother. She was lovely and charming and beloved by all.
His father was not by any means handsome, and had few social and surface gifts and
graces. Someone once said to his mother, "When everyone is in love with you, and when
you could have anyone you liked, how can you remain faithful to that ugly little man you
married?" She answered simply: "He never hurts my feelings." There could be no finer
tribute.
The true basis of marriage is not complicated and recondite--it is simply the love which
thinks more of the happiness of others than it thinks of its own, the love which is proud
to serve, which is able to understand, and therefore always able to forgive. That is to say,
it is the Christlike love, which knows that in forgetting self it will find self, and that in
losing itself it will complete itself.

15. BIBLICAL ILLUSTRATOR 1-12, "Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every
cause.
The marriage tie
I. Its prescribed limitation. Enforced by
(1) numerical proportion of the sexes;
(2) evils of polygamy;
(3) teaching of the Bible.
II. Its tender intimacy,
III. Its conditional dissolubility:
(1)toleration of Moses;
(2) justifiable grounds of divorce.
IV. Its optional formation. (Dr. Thomas.)
The doctrine of Christ concerning marriage
(1) Its binding character as instituted by God;
(2) its decay in the progress of history;
(3) its prepared restoration under the law;
(4) its transformation by the gospel. (J. P. Lange, D. D.)
Husband and wife should be not only one flesh, but also one heart and mind.
(Hedinger.)
Marriage and celibacy
Marriage is the mother of the world, and preserves kingdoms, and fills cities and
churches, and heaven itself. Celibate, like the fly in the heart of an apple, dwells in a
perpetual sweetness, but sits alone, and is confined and dies in singularity; but marriage,
like the useful bee, builds a house and gathers sweetness from every flower, and labours
and unites into societies and republics, and sends out colonies, and feeds the world with
delicacies, and obeys their king and keeps order, and exercises many virtues, and
promotes the interests of mankind, and is that state of good things to which God has
designed the present constitution of the world. Single life makes man, in one instance, to
be like angels; but marriage, in very many things, makes the chaste pair to be like Christ.
This is (as St. Paul says) a great mystery; but it is the symbolical and sacramental
representation of the greatest mysteries of our religion. Christ descended from His
Father’s bosom, and contracted His Divinity with flesh and blood, and married our
nature, and we became a church, the spouse of the Bridegroom, which He cleansed with
His blood, and gave her His Holy Spirit for a dowry, and heaven for a jointure; begetting
children unto God by the gospel. (Bp. Jeremy Taylor.)

16. Marriage
This union should not be entered into lightly, or rashly. It involves all the happiness of
this life, and much of that to come. The union demands congeniality of feeling and
disposition; of rank in life; of temper; similarity of acquirements; of age; of talent;
intimate acquaintance. It should also be a union on religious feelings and opinions:
because religion is more important than anything else; because it will give more
happiness in the married life than anything else; because where one only is pious, there
is danger that religion will be obscured and blighted; because no prospect is so painful as
that of eternal separation; because it is heathenish to partake the gifts of God in a family
and offer no thanksgiving, and inexpressibly wicked to live as if there were no God, etc.;
because death is near, and nothing will soothe the pangs of parting but the hope of
meeting in the resurrection of the just. (A. Barnes, D. D.)
Advantages of marriage
If you are for pleasure, marry; if you prize rosy health, marry. A good wife is heaven’s
best gift to man: his angel of mercy; minister of graces innumerable; his gem of many
virtues; his casket of jewels; her voice, his sweetest music; her smiles, his brightest day;
her kiss, the guardian of his innocence; her arms, the pale of his safety, the balm of his
health, the balsam of his life; her industry, his surest wealth; her economy, his safest
steward; her lips, his faithful counsellors; her bosom, the softest pillow of his cares; and
her prayers, the ablest advocates of heaven’s blessing on his head. (Bp. Taylor.)
The scriptural view of divorce
I hold that there is only one cause for which a man can lawfully be divorced from his
wife, according to the Scriptures; that is, adultery.
I. Let us turn to the scriptures in proof of this view. “What God hath joined together let
not man put asunder.” God thought it not good for man to be alone: so He made him an
helpmeet. Had it been better for a man to have more than one wife, God would doubtless
have made two. But in our Saviour’s time women had multiplied; but He did not change
the original law. The relation of man and wife is nearer than that of parent and offspring.
“For this cause shall a man leave father and mother,” etc. Where is the nation or man
who shall assume authority to put apart these thus joined together save for the one
cause? “And I say unto you, whoso shall put away his wife,” etc. St. Paul says, “The
woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth.”
II. The views of some of the leading writers in the Christian church. Dr. A. Clarke, in his
Commentary, has the following: “It does not appear that there is any other case in which
Jesus Christ admits of divorce” (Mat_5:32). On Mat_19:9, “The decision of our Lord
must be very unpleasant to these men; the reason why they wished to put away their
wives was, that they might take others whom they liked better; but our Lord here
declares that they could not be remarried while the divorced person was alive; and that
those who did marry during the life of the divorced person were adulterers.” “In this
discourse our Lord shows that marriage, except in one case, is indissoluble, and should
be so.

17. 1. By Divine institution (Mat_19:4).
2. By express commandment (Mat_19:5).
3. Because the married couple become one and the same person (Mat_19:6).
4. By the example of the first pair (Mat_19:8). And
5. Because of the evil consequent on separation (Mat_19:9).
Watson’s “Theo. Institutes,” vol. 2., p. 543, has the following: “The foundation of the
marriage union is the will of God that the human race should increase and multiply, but
only through a chaste and restricted conjunction of one man and one woman, united by
their free vows in a bond made by the Divine law indissoluble, except by death or by
adultery.” Dr. Wayland, in his “Elements of Moral Science,” says: “In the act of marriage,
two persons, under the most solemn circumstances, are thus united, and they enter into
a mutual contract thus to live in respect to each other. This relation, having been
established by God, the contract thus entered into has all the solemnity of an oath.
Hence, he who violates it, is guilty of a twofold crime: first, the violation of the law of
chastity, and second, of the law of veracity-veracity pledged under the most solemn
circumstances.
1. The contract is for life, and is dissoluble for one cause only: the cause of adultery.”
Referring to the text, he says: “We are here taught that marriage, being an institution
of God, is subject to His laws alone, and not to the laws of man. Hence, the civil law
is binding upon the conscience only, in so far as it corresponds to the law of God.”
Matthew Henry’s testimony is, “Christ allows of divorce in cases of adultery; he
disallows it in all others.” Olshausen says: “This union is to be considered
indissoluble, one which man cannot, and only God can dissolve, and in which the
Omniscient does really dissever only in cases of adultery.” Such are the opinions of
some of the most learned and pious Biblical scholars.
III. Now let us turn to the question already anticipated: what man or nation dare
assume authority to put asunder those whom God hath joined together? The answer I
call your attention to is this: 1st, the Jews, and 2nd, our own nation.
1. The Jews. I quote from Dr. Adam Clarke’s Commentary, Mat_19:3. “At this time
there were two famous divinity and philosophical schools among the Jews, that of
Shammai, and that of Hillel. On the question of divorce, the school of Shammai
maintained that a man could not legally put away his wife, except for adultery. The
school of Hillel taught that a man might put away his wife for a multitude of other
causes: and when she did not find grace in his sight, that is, when he saw any other
woman that pleased him better.” Rabbi Akiba said: “If any man saw a woman
handsomer than his own wife, he might put his wife away; because it is said in the
law, ‘If she find not favour in his eyes’” (Deu_24:1). “Josephus, the celebrated Jewish
historian, in his Life, tells us, with the utmost coolness and indifference, About this
time I put away my wife, who had borne me three children:, not being pleased with
her manners.” These eases are enough to show to what a scandalous and criminal
excess this matter was carried among the Jews.
2. Then we inquire, How is it with us in America? I find that divorces are wry
common, some for one cause and some for another. So that the question, “Is it lawful
for a man to put away his wife for every cause?” is far from being foreign, but really is
applicable to us, and a question of the greatest importance. For, for almost any little
thing that springs up between man and wife, a divorce is applied for, and is obtained.
From the Standard, a Baptist paper, I took the following: “Those whose attention is

18. not directed to the subject of divorce, will be surprised at the number of applications
in the courts of our large cities and centres of population to have the bonds of
marriage dissolved. In Indianapolis, in 1866, there were 822 marriages, and 210
applications for divorce, which is more than one to four of the whole number of
marriages. In Chicago, the same year, there were 4,182 marriages, and 330
applications for divorce, being nearly one to every thirteen marriages. In both these
cases the number seeking divorce is alarming. But the unenviable and disgraceful
distance in which Indianapolis leads Chicago in this warfare on marriage, is to be
attributed to the peculiarly lax legislation of Indiana, which, for years, has been
notorious on the subject of divorce.” “The various courts of Chicago granted bills of
divorce in 1865 to the number of 274; in 1566, the number was 209; in 1867, 311;
making the whole number of divorces granted in three years, 794. Is not this
appalling? But since 1868, Chicago has registered as high as 730 applications in a
single year, representing families containing about 3,500 souls, and the most of
which are poor women.” The Christian Statesman says that the number of divorces
in eight years, in four States, viz., Vermont, Massachusetts, Ohio, and Connecticut,
have been 5,831. And in the year 1877, in Maine, there were 500 divorces. Brethren
and fellow-citizens, I believe that our lawmakers are to blame for allowing such laws
to exist as they do, and not bringing the law of divorce in these United States to the
Scriptural standard. Look at our statutes of Minnesota, and see the looseness of this
matter. In the General Statutes of Minnesota, page 407, sec. 6, we find the following:
“A divorce from the bonds of matrimony may be adjudged and decreed by the
district court on suit brought in the county where parties, or either of them, reside,
for either of the following causes: 1st, adultery; 2nd, impotency; 3rd, cruel and
inhuman treatment; 4th, when either party, subsequent to the marriage, has been
sentenced to imprisonment in the State Prison; 5th, wilful desertion of one party by
the other for the term of three years next preceding the filing of the complaint; 6th,
habitual drunkenness for the space of one year, immediately preceding the filing of
the complaint.” Here, then, are six causes in our State statutes for which a man or
woman may put away wife or husband. The first is according to Scripture; the others
are unscriptural. What latitude is here given for divorces! I remark, further, that the
peace of the churches is endangered by this ungodly practice of divorce. All Christian
people and all true philanthropists must awake to their duty. Politicians have made
these laws, and by them public sentiment has been educated. (A Cressey, in
American Homiletic Review.)
Jewish divorce customs
Divorce is still very common among the Eastern Jews. In 1856 there were sixteen cases
among the small Jewish population of Jerusalem. In fact, a Jew may divorce his wife at
any time, or from any cause, he being himself the sole judge; the only hindrance is that,
to prevent divorces in a mere sudden fit of spleen, the hill of divorce must have the
concurrence of three rabbis, and be written on ruled vellum, containing neither more
nor less than twelve lines; and it must be given in the presence of ten witnesses. (Allen,
“Modern Judaism.”) The usual causes of divorce (in Asia Minor)are a bad temper or
extravagance in the wife, and the cruel treatment or neglect of the husband. (Van
Lennep.)

19. The Rulee of Reformation
“From the beginning it was not so.” Which rule, if we apply unto “the scope of this text,
as it stands in relation unto the context, we shall have more to say for it than for most
constitutions, Divine or human. For that of marriage is almost as old as Nature. There
was no sooner one man, but God divided him into two; and then no sooner were there
two, but he united them into one. This is that sacred institution which was made with
mankind in a state of innocence; the very ground and foundation of all, both sacred and
civil, government. It was by sending back the Pharisees to the most venerable antiquity,
that our Lord here asserted the law of wedlock against the old custom of their divorce.
Whilst they had made themselves drunk with their muddy streams, He directed them to
the fountain, to drink themselves into sobriety. They insisted altogether on the Mosaical
dispensation; but He endeavoured to reform them by the most primitive institution.
They alleged a custom; but He a law. They a permission, and that from Moses; but He a
precept, and that from God. They did reckon from afar off; but not, as He, from the
beginning. (Thomas Pierce.)
Matthew 19:1-30
Some seeds fell by the wayside, and the fowls came and devoured them up.
Way seed devoured by birds
The birds devour the truth we neglect to cover. Let us study these birds:-
1. The first belongs to the heron species, having long legs, a long bill, broad strong
wings, and an eye keen as an eagle’s, yet filmy at times, which causes serious
mistakes. This is the bird of intellectual scepticism. It delays your acceptance of the
truth with all kinds of questions.
2. There is another bird of dirty and ruffled feathers, a nondescript, but a hearty
eater of the seed dropped by the wayside. It is evil associations. They neutralize the
influences of the Spirit of God.
5. There is the muscular bird with curved beak that holds like a vice. It is a moth
eater of the falcon order, and ravenous, evil habits, and belongs to a large family.
4. There is a bird of bad odour. Carrion drops from feather and from bill. It i; of the
buzzard tribe. Let us call it the inconsistencies of Christian professors.
5. There is a dull and heavy bird, not easily seared away, of the booby order. It is
religious indecision. All these hinder our salvation. (T. E. Brown, D. D.)
The seed by the wayside
The truth described as a “seed.” There are manifold facilities about the emblem on which
we may dwell. The seed has a germinating power in itself that leads to endless
reproduction. So has every true word. Then man is but the soil. If you are to get Divine
desires in the human heart, they must be sown there: they are not products of the soil.
Again, man’s part is accurately described as a simple reception, not passive, but a co-
operation. Then these different kinds of soil are not unalterably different: it is an

20. acquired disposition, not a natural characteristic that is spoken of.
I. The beaten path.
II. The lost seed.
I. Let us think about that type of character which is here set forth under the image of
“the wayside.” It is a heart trodden down by the feet that have gone across it; and
because trodden down, incapable of receiving the seed sown. The seed falls upon, not in
it. Point out ways in which the heart is trodden down.
1. By custom and habit. The process of getting from childhood to manhood is a
process of getting less impressible.
2. The heart is trodden down by sin. It is an effect of sin that it uniformly works in
the direction of unfitting men to receive God’s love. Every transgression deprives us,
in some degree, of power to receive God’s truth, and make it our own.
3. The heart is trodden down, so far as receiving the gospel is concerned, by the very
feet of the sower. Every sermon an ungodly man hear, which leaves him ungodly,
leaves him harder by the passage of the Word once more across his heart.
II. The lost seed. Satan’s chosen instruments are those light, swift-winged, apparently
innocent flocks of flying thoughts, that come swooping across your souls, even whilst the
message of God’s love is sounding in your ears. (A. Maclaren D. D.)
Hardened by sin
Every transgression deprives us, in some degree, of power to receive the Divine word of
God’s truth, and making it our own. And these demons of worldliness, of selfishness, of
carelessness, of pride, of sensuality, that go careering through your soul, my brother, are
like the goblin horseman in the old legend; wherever that hoof-fall strikes, the ground is
blasted, and no grass will grow upon it any more for ever! (A. Maclaren D. D.)
Hardened by habit
The best way of presenting before you what I mean will be to take a plain illustration.
Suppose a little child, just beginning to open its eyes and unfold its faculties upon this
wonderful world of ours. There you get the extreme of capacity for receiving impressions
from without, the extreme of susceptibility to the influences that come upon it. Tell the
little thin; some trifle that passes out of your mind; you forget all about it; but it comes
out again m the child weeks and weeks afterwards, showing how deep a mark it has
made. It is the law of the human nature that, when it is beginning to grow it shall be soft
as wax to receive all kinds of impressions, and then that it shall gradually stiffen and
become hard as adamant to retain them. The rock was once all fluid, and plastic, and
gradually it cools down into hardness. If a finger-dint had been put upon it in the early
time, it would have left a mark that all the forces of the world could not make nor can
obliterate now. In our great museums you see stone slabs with the marks of rain that fell
hundreds of years before Adam lived; and the footprint of some wild bird that passed
across the beach in those old, old times. The passing shower and the light foot left their
prints on the soft sediment; then ages went on, and it has hardened into stone; and there
they remain and will remain for evermore. That is like a man’s spirit; in the childish days
so soft, so susceptible to all impressions, so joyous to receive new ideas, treasuring them

21. all up, gathering them all into itself, retaining them all for ever. And then, as years go on,
habit, the growth of the soul into steadiness and power, and many other reasons beside,
gradually make us less and less capable of being profoundly and permanently influenced
by anything outside us; so that the process from childhood to manhood is a process
getting less impressible. (A. Maclaren D. D. )
The seed sown on the wayside
I. What is the wayside?
1. The wayside hearers are such as are unploughed, unbroken up by the cutting
energy of the law.
2. It is trampled upon by every passer by. The want of “understanding” lies in this:
that they do not see their own connection with the Word.
II. What is the seed? No matter where the seed fell, in itself it was always good; that
which fell on the wayside was the same ,us that which fell on good ground. Thus the
blame of man’s condemnation is in himself. The seed is the Word of God.
III. What are the disadvantages; which prove fatal to its being received at all?
1. The hardness of the ground.
2. The active agents of evil which were near at hand snatched it away. You give no
advantage to the devil which is not immediately seized by him. (P. B. Power, M. A.)
The seed and the husk
Christ is the living seed, and the Bible is the husk that holds it. The husk that holds the
seed is the most precious thing in the world, next after the seed that it holds. (W. Arnot.)
The Word falling on the external senses
Falling only upon the external senses, they are swept off by the next current; as the solid
grain thrown from the sower’s hand rattles on the smooth hard roadside, and lies on the
surface till the fowls carry it away. (W. Arnot.)
Unskilful sowing fruitful
if the seed is good, and the ground well prepared, a very poor and awkward kind of
sowing will suffice. Seed flung in anyn fashion into the soft ground will grow: whereas, if
it fall on the wayside,it will bear no fruit, however artfully it may have been spread. My
latimer was a practical and skilful agriculturist. I was wont, when very young, to follow
his footsteps into the field, further and oftener than was convenient for him or
comfortable for myself. Knowing well how much a child is gratified by being permitted
to imitate a man’s work, he sometimes hung the seed-bag, with a few handfuls in it,
upon nay shoulder, and sent me into the field to sow. I contrived in some way to throw
the grain away, and it fell among the clods. But the seed that fell from an infant’s hands,
when it fell in the right place, grew as well and ripened as fully as that which had been

22. scattered by a strong and skilful man. In like manner, in the spiritual department, the
skill of the sower, although important in its own place, is, in view of the final result, a
subordinate thing. The cardinal points are the seed and the soil. In point of fact,
throughout the history of the Church, while the Lord has abundantly honoured His own
ordinance of a standing ministry, He has never ceased to show, by granting signal
success to feeble instruments, that results in His work are not necessarily proportionate
to the number of talents employed. (W. Arnot.)
The wayside hearer
The proposals made to the wayside hearer suggest nothing at all to him. His mind
throws off Christ’s offers as a slated roof throws off hail. You might as well expect seed to
grow on a tightly-braced drum-head as the Word to profit such a hearer; it dances on the
hard surface, and the slightest motion shakes it off. (Marcus Dods.)
What can we do with the trodden path?
May it not be possible to do as the farmer would do, if he had some piece of field across
which men and animals were constantly passing? May we not pray for ability to put
some sort of hurdles across, to prevent the mere animal portion of our life, whether of
pleasure or business, or of our own animal passions, from crushing the spiritual life, and
prevent us from giving earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time
we should let them slip. (Robert Barclay.)
No time for understanding
“How is it, my dear,” inquired a schoolmistress of a little girl, “that you do not
understand this simple thing? … I do not know, indeed,” she answered, with a perplexed
look; “ but I sometimes think I have so many things to learn that I have not the time to
understand.” Alas! there may be much hearing, much reading, much attendance at
public services, and very small result; and all because the Word was not the subject of
thought, and was never embraced by the understanding. What is not understood is like
meat undigested, more likely to be injurious than nourishing. (C. H. Spurgeon.)
2 Large crowds followed him, and he healed them
there.

23. CLARKE, "Great multitudes followed him - Some to be instructed - some to be
healed - some through curiosity - and some to ensnare him.
GILL, "And great multitudes followed him,.... The Persic version adds, "of the
sick and diseased"; but all that followed him were not such, though some were: these
came not only from Galilee, but from the adjacent parts, from the country beyond
Jordan, and the coasts of Judea, where he had been formerly; and who resort to him
again, as Mark observes; and whom, according to his usual manner, he taught and
instructed in the knowledge of divine things, and confirmed his doctrines by miracles:
and he healed them there; in the above mentioned places, even as many of them as
were sick and diseased.
JAMISO , "And great multitudes followed him; and he healed them there —
Mark says further (Mar_10:1), that “as He was wont, He taught them there.” What we
now have on the subject of divorce is some of that teaching.
COKE, "Matthew 19:1-2. The coasts of Judea, beyond Jordan— Properly speaking,
no part of Judea was on the further side of Jordan; for though, after the Jews
returned from the captivity, the whole of their land was called Judea, especially by
foreigners who happened to mention their affairs, it is certain, that in the Gospels,
Judea is always spoken of as a particular division of the country: we may therefore
reasonably suppose that St. Matthew's expression is elliptical, and may supply it
from St. Mark 10:1 thus: And came into the coasts of Judea, δια του περαν του
Ιορδανου,— through the country beyond Jordan. See John 10:40. In this journey
our Lord passed through the country beyond Jordan, that the Jews living there
might enjoy the benefit of his doctrine and miracles; and great multitudes followed
him, namely, from Galilee into Perea. Our Saviour's fame was become exceedingly
great, insomuch that every where he was resorted to and followed;—by the sick,
who wished to be healed; by their friends, who attended them; by those whose
curiosity prompted them to see and examine things so wonderful; by well-disposed
persons, who found themselves greatly profited and pleased with his sermons; by
enemies, who watched all his words and actions, with a design to expose him as a
deceiver; and, lastly, by those who expected that he would set up the kingdom
immediately. Besides, at this time the multitude might have been greater than
ordinary, because, as the passover was at hand, many going thither might have
chosen to travel in our Lord's train, expecting to see new miracles. See Macknight
and Lamy. The version of 1729 renders the latter part of the 1st verse, And came
into the confines of Judea on the other side Jordan.

24. 3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They
asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife
for any and every reason?”
BAR ES, "The Pharisees came - See the notes at Mat_3:7.
Tempting him - This means, to get him, if possible, to express an opinion that
should involve him in difficulty.
Is it lawful ... - There was the more art in the captious question which they
proposed, as at that time the people were very much divided on the subject. A part,
following the opinions of Hillel, said that a man might divorce his wife for any offence,
or any dislike he might have of her. See the notes at Mat_5:31. Others, of the school of
Shammai, maintained that divorce was unlawful except in case of adultery. Whatever
opinion, therefore, Christ expressed, they expected that he would involve himself in
difficulty with one of their parties.
CLARKE, "Tempting him - Trying what answer he would give to a question,
which, however decided by him, would expose him to censure.
Is it lawful - for every cause? - Instead of αιτιαν, fault, cause, reason, three MSS.
and the Coptic version read αµαρτιαν, sin or transgression: this was probably the original
reading - the first syllable being lost, αρτιαν alone would remain, which a subsequent
transcriber would suppose to be a mistake for αιτιαν, and so wrote it; hence this various
reading. What made our Lord’s situation at present so critical in respect to this question
was: At this time there were two famous divinity and philosophical schools among the
Jews, that of Shammai, and that of Hillel. On the question of divorce, the school of
Shammai maintained, that a man could not legally put away his wife, except for
whoredom. The school of Hillel taught that a man might put away his wife for a
multitude of other causes, and when she did not find grace in his sight; i.e. when he saw
any other woman that pleased him better. See the case of Josephus, mentioned in the
note on Mat_5:31 (note), and Calmet’s Comment, vol. i. part ii. p. 379. By answering the
question, not from Shammai or Hillel, but from Moses, our blessed Lord defeated their
malice, and confounded their devices.
GILL, "The Pharisees also came unto him,.... Either from the places round about,
or from Jerusalem: these came unto him, not for the sake of learning, or to be instructed

25. by him; but as spies upon him, to observe what he said and did, and watch every
opportunity to expose him to the contempt and hatred of the people;
tempting him with a question about divorces, in order to ensnare him:
and saying to him, is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
be it ever so trivial, as said the school of Hillell: for there was a difference between the
school of Shammai and the school of Hillell about this matter; the former insisted that a
man might not put away his wife but in case of uncleanness; but the latter allowed
putting away for very trifling things; as if she spoiled her husband's food by over
roasting, or over salting it; and, as one of the doctors say, if he found another woman
that was more beautiful than her; see Gill on Mat_5:32. This question being now
agitated in the schools, they artfully put to Christ; not for information, but with a view to
reproach him in some way or other; and that he might incur the resentment of one party
or another, as he should answer. They might argue thus with themselves, and hope to
succeed in this manner; should he be on the side of the school of Shammai, which was
the weakest side, and less popular, as they had reason to believe he would, he would then
expose himself to the resentment of the school of Hillell, and all on that side the
question; should he take the part of Hillell, he would make the school of Shammai his
enemies; should he forbid putting away of wives, which Moses allowed, they would then
traduce him as contrary to Moses, and his law, which could not fail of setting the people
against him; and should he consent to it, they would charge him with contradicting
himself, or with inconstancy in his doctrine, since he had before asserted the
unlawfulness of it, but in case of adultery; and should he abide by this, they might hope
to irritate the men against him, who would think their liberty granted by Moses was
entrenched on; as, on the other hand, should he, according to the question, admit of
putting away for every cause, the women would be provoked at him, who would be left to
the uncertain humour and caprice of their husbands; so that either way they hoped to
get an advantage of him.
HE RY, "We have here the law of Christ in the case of divorce, occasioned, as some
other declarations of his will, by a dispute with the Pharisees. So patiently did he endure
the contradiction of sinners, that he turned it into instructions to his own disciples!
Observe, here
I. The case proposed by the Pharisees (Mat_19:3); Is it lawful for a man to put away
his wife? This they asked, tempting him, not desiring to be taught by him. Some time
ago, he had, in Galilee, declared his mind in this matter, against that which was the
common practice (Mat_5:31, Mat_5:32); and if he would, in like manner, declare
himself now against divorce, they would make use of it for the prejudicing and incensing
of the people of this country against him, who would look with a jealous eye upon one
that attempted to cut them short in a liberty they were fond of. They hoped he would
lose himself in the affections of the people as much by this as by any of his precepts. Or,
the temptation might be designed this: If he should say that divorces were not lawful,
they would reflect upon him as an enemy to the law of Moses, which allowed them; if he
should say that they were, they would represent his doctrine as not having that
perfection in it which was expected in the doctrine of the Messiah; since, though
divorces were tolerated, they were looked upon by the stricter sort of people as not of
good report. Some think, that, though the law of Moses did permit divorce, yet, in
assigning the just causes for it, there was a controversy between the Pharisees among
themselves, and they desired to know what Christ said to it. Matrimonial cases have
been numerous, and sometimes intricate and perplexed; made so not by the law of God,

26. but by the lusts and follies of men; and often in these cases people resolve, before they
ask, what they will do.
Their question is, Whether a man may put away his wife for every cause. That it
might be done for some cause, even for that of fornication, was granted; but may it be
done, as now it commonly was done, by the looser sort of people, for every cause; for any
cause that a man shall think fit to assign, though ever so frivolous; upon every dislike or
displeasure? The toleration, in this case, permitted it, in case she found no favour in his
eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her, Deu_24:1. This they interpreted
so largely as to make any disgust, though causeless, the ground of a divorce.
II. Christ's answer to this question; though it was proposed to tempt him, yet, being a
case of conscience, and a weighty one, he gave a full answer to it, not a direct one, but an
effectual one; laying down such principles as undeniably prove that such arbitrary
divorces as were then in use, which made the matrimonial bond so very precarious, were
by no means lawful. Christ himself would not give the rule without a reason, nor lay
down his judgment without scripture proof to support it. Now his argument is this; “If
husband and wife are by the will and appointment of God joined together in the strictest
and closest union, then they are not to be lightly, and upon every occasion, separated; if
the know be sacred, it cannot be easily untied.” Now, to prove that there is such a union
between man and wife, he urges three things.
1. The creation of Adam and Eve, concerning which he appeals to their own knowledge
of the scriptures; Have ye not read? It is some advantage in arguing, to deal with those
that own, and have read, the scriptures; Ye have read (but have not considered) that he
which made them at the beginning, made them male and female, Gen_1:27; Gen_5:2.
Note, It will be of great use to us often to think of our creation, how and by whom, what
and for what, we were created. He made them male and female, one female for one
male; so that Adam could not divorce his wife, and take another, for there was no other
to take. It likewise intimated an inseparable union between them; Eve was a rib out of
Adam's side, so that he could not put her away, but he must put away a piece of himself,
and contradict the manifest indications of her creation. Christ hints briefly at this, but,
in appealing to what they had read, he refers them to the original record, where it is
observable, that, though the rest of the living creatures were made male and female, yet
it is not said so concerning any of them, but only concerning mankind; because between
man and woman the conjunction is rational, and intended for nobler purposes than
merely the pleasing of sense and the preserving of a seed; and it is therefore more close
and firm than that between male and female among the brutes, who were not capable of
being such help - meets for one another as Adam and Ever were. Hence the manner of
expression is somewhat singular (Gen_1:27), In the image of God created he him, male
and female created he them; him and them are used promiscuously; being one by
creation before they were two, when they became one again by marriage-covenant, that
oneness could not but be closer and indissoluble.
JAMISO , "Mat_19:3-12. Divorce.
Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? — Two rival
schools (as we saw on Mat_5:31) were divided on this question - a delicate one, as
Deuteronomy Wette pertinently remarks, in the dominions of Herod Antipas.
CALVI , ".And the Pharisees came to him, tempting him. Though the Pharisees lay
snares for Christ, and cunningly endeavor to impose upon him, yet their malice

27. proves to be highly useful to us; as the Lord knows how to turn, in a wonderful
manner, to the advantage of his people all the contrivances of wicked men to
overthrow sound doctrine. For, by means of this occurrence, a question arising out
of the liberty of divorce was settled, and a fixed law was laid down as to the sacred
and indissoluble bond of marriage. The occasion of this quibbling was, that the
reply, in whatever way it were given, could not, as they thought, fail to be offensive.
They ask, Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause whatever? If Christ
reply in the negative, they will exclaim that he wickedly abolishes the Law; and if in
the affirmative, they will give out that he is not a prophet of God, but rather a
pander, who lends such countenance to the lust of men. Such were the calculations
which they had made in their own minds; but the Son of God, who knew how to
take the wise in their own craftiness, (Job 5:13,) disappointed them, sternly
opposing unlawful divorces, and at the same time showing that he brings forward
nothing which is inconsistent with the Law. For he includes the whole question
under two heads: that the order of creation ought to serve for a law, that the
husband should maintain conjugal fidelity during the whole of life; and that
divorces were permitted, not because they were lawful, but because Moses had to
deal with a rebellious and intractable nation.
ELLICOTT, "(3) Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?—See
ote on Matthew 5:32. So far as the teaching of the Sermon on the Mount had
become known, it gave a sufficiently clear answer to the inquiry of the Pharisees. It
is, however, quite conceivable that it had not reached the ears of those who now put
the question, or, that if it had, they wished to test His consistency, and to see
whether on this point He still held with the stricter rule of Shammai, and not with
the laxer rule of Hillel. If the narrative of the woman taken in adultery in John 8:1-
11 be rightly placed (see ote on that passage). that might have given rise to doubts
and rumours. Would He who dealt so pitifully with the adulteress have sanctioned
divorce even in that case, or pronounced the marriage bond absolutely indissoluble?
Or was His apparent tolerance of that offender indicative of a lower standard as to
the obligations of marriage? In any case, they might hope to bring Him into conflict
either with the stricter or the more popular school of casuists. An illustration of
what has been stated in Matthew 5:32 may be found in the fact that the Jewish
historian Josephus records how he had divorced two wives on grounds
comparatively trivial (Life, c. 75, 76), and speaks incidentally in his history of
“many causes of all kinds” as justifying separation (Ant. iv. 8, § 23). We do not
know on what grounds Herod Antipas had divorced the daughter of Aretas, but it is
probable enough that here, as afterwards, the Herodian party were working with
the Pharisees. Here, in Peræa, they might count, either on the Teacher shrinking
from expressing His convictions, or so uttering them as to provoke the tetrarch’s
wrath, as the Baptist had done. In either case, a point would have been gained
against Him.
COFFMA , "The Pharisees were not asking for information but in the hope of
opening up a conflict between the teachings of Moses and those of Christ. This is
actually an unconscious admission on their part of the weakness in Moses'

28. permission of divorce because, if Christ had agreed with Moses, they would have
had no case. The proof of weakness in Moses' position is that they instinctively knew
Christ would not agree with it! Why? They knew in their hearts that Moses was
wrong (or at least partially so); and, intuitively, those evil men recognized in Christ
a higher purity and knowledge than existed in Moses and decided to take advantage
of it if they could.
LIGHTFOOT, "[Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?] Of the
causes, ridiculous (shall I call them?) or wicked, for which they put away their
wives, we have spoke at chapter 5:31. We will produce only one example here;
"When Rabh went to Darsis ('whither,' as the Gloss saith, 'he often went'), he made
a public proclamation, What woman will have me for a day? Rabh achman, when
he went to Sacnezib, made a public proclamation, What woman will have me for a
day?" The Gloss is, "Is there any woman who will be my wife while I tarry in this
place?"
The question here propounded by the Pharisees was disputed in the schools, and
they divided into parties concerning it, as we have noted before. For the school of
Shammai permitted not divorces, but only in the case of adultery; the school of
Hillel, otherwise.
COKE, "Matthew 19:3. The Pharisees also came, &c.—for every cause— Upon
every pretence. Campbell. At discretion. Version of 1729. Our Lord had delivered
his sentiments on the subject twice; once in Galilee, ch. Matthew 5:32 and again in
Perea, Luke 16:18. It is probable, therefore, that they knew his opinion, andsolicited
him to declare it, hoping that it would incense the people, who reckoned the liberty
which the law gave them of divorcing their wives, one of their chief privileges. Or, if,
standing in awe of the people, he should deliver a doctrine different from what he
had taught on former occasions, they thought it would be a fit ground for accusing
him of dissimulation. But they missed their aim entirely; for Jesus, always consistent
with himself, boldly declared the third time against arbitrary divorces, not in the
least fearing the popular resentment. See Macknight, and the note on ch. Matthew
5:31-32 and on Deuteronomy 24:1
PETT, "This particular group of Pharisees (no definite article) in Judaea clearly
saw this question as an acid test of a prophet. Let Jesus now adjudicate on this
fundamental disagreement that they had among themselves. Then they would see
what He was made of. (Up to now their knowledge of Him was mainly only by
hearsay from their northern brethren. We must not make the mistake of seeing the
Pharisees as one strong united body. While they shared similar beliefs they belonged
to their own separate groups). It was the beginning of a series of tests that would
end when He had been thoroughly grilled and when all His opponents had been
confounded (Matthew 22:46) with their favourite ideas disposed of. Their question
was as to whether it was lawful (within the Law of Moses) that a man put away his
wife ‘for every cause’. In other words on any grounds that suited them.
It may be asked why this would be seen as ‘a test’. And the answer is because the
question was one on which there was great division between different teachers, even

29. between those two great past exponents of Pharisaism, Shammai and Hillel. It thus
caused division among the Pharisees. It was a question on which the influence of
Hillel was seen as strong (for his view suited the menfolk), but which was strongly
contested. (The Qumran Community did not, in fact, believe in divorce at all, for
they saw themselves as a holy community). Thus by His reply Jesus would indicate
which party He was throwing His weight behind, or might even come up with some
compromise solution.
ote that in true Jewish fashion the assumption is that only the man can initiate
divorce. (Matthew leaves out the alternative possibility for the sake of his Jewish
readers). It was the teaching of the Scribes who followed Hillel that divorce was
allowable to a man for any ‘good cause’. But as that included burning the dinner it
will be observed that what he saw as a good cause was simply the man’s displeasure
at his wife. This was based on his interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1 ‘some
unseemly thing/something indecent in her (literally ‘the nakedness of a matter)’. He
argued that it meant anything by which a wife displeased her husband.
The opposing view was that of Shammai. Emphasising ‘the nakedness’ he argued
that its meaning was restricted to something grossly sexually indecent. He was
always much stricter in his interpretations than Hillel and in this case, probably to
everyone’s surprise, it brought him much nearer to Jesus’ position.
either, however, were interpreting the Scripture correctly. For primarily the
purpose of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 was not in order to permit divorce as such, but was
in order to safeguard a woman, on her being divorced according to general custom,
so as to ensure that she was given a bill of divorce. This was in order that she might
be able to prove that she was not officially committing adultery with any second
husband, thus becoming subject to the death penalty for both him and herself.
It was also in order to limit what was allowable once a divorce had taken place. It
was so as to prevent a remarriage of the same two persons once the wife had
subsequently married another man. For to then go back to her first husband would
have been seen as a kind of incest, and as committing adultery twice. It would have
been seen as making a mockery of marriage and as a way of mocking God’s
ordinance. It was indeed seen as so serious that it was described as ‘an abomination
before the Lord’. The original purpose of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 was therefore in
order to prevent a bad situation getting worse. That was why Jesus said ‘for your
hardness of heart Moses allowed you to put away your wife’ (Matthew 19:8). His
point was that divorce had not strictly been given God’s permission, even though it
might happen in cases of gross indecency on the part of the wife (which was also not
with His permission). For it was in fact a sin against the very roots of creation.
Verses 3-6
The Testing Of Jesus Begins. The Pharisees Challenge Jesus About Divorce (19:3-6).
Jesus is now approaching Jerusalem through Judaea, and whatever route we see
Him as taking Matthew’s emphasis is on the fact that He has left Galilee and has

30. entered Judaea (Matthew 19:1). Furthermore it is made clear that He is doing so
accompanied by Messianic signs (Matthew 11:5). The crowds follow Him and He
heals them (Matthew 19:2).
But the inevitable result of His public entry into Judaea, headed for Jerusalem,
where He will deliberately draw attention to Himself in the triumphal entry and
cleansing of the Temple, is that He will be challenged by all aspects of Judaism, and
this will enable Him to lay down the foundations of the new age which He is
introducing. His previous visits to Jerusalem had been on a quieter scale, but now
He was forcing Himself on the notice of the differing religious and civil authorities,
and pointing to the signs of the new age.
The first challenge made to Him is on the question of divorce. It was a burning issue
among many in Jerusalem and it was one that had caused the death of John the
Baptist, something which would not have been forgotten by the common people who
had flocked to John. Perhaps the Pharisees hoped by this question to stir Him into
speaking against Herod. However, at the very least it was intended to land Him in
the midst of religious controversy.
We should note that there was no question that brought out the way in which the
Scriptures had been distorted by the Pharisees more than this question about
divorce. The majority freely allowed divorce on the basis of a ruling of Moses, which
had sought to regulate the custom of divorce prevalent among the people at the time.
His purpose had been firstly in order to safeguard a woman rejected according to
custom, by ensuring that she had a ‘bill of divorce’, and secondly in order to prevent
divorced people (who were divorced on the basis of custom, not of the Law, which
made no provision for divorce) from again remarrying after the wife had first been
married another (Deuteronomy 24:1-4). But on the basis of it a large group of
Scribes and Pharisees (who followed the teaching of the great Hillel) allowed divorce
almost literally ‘for any cause’ (such as burning the dinner, or not being pretty
enough). It was the most flagrant misuse of Scripture. It had not necessarily resulted
in wholesale divorce in Jewish society because of the strength of family feeling and
of custom, and because on divorce the marriage settlement had to be handed back,
but there was probably a superfluity of divorce in Pharisaic circles (Josephus
blatantly tells us how he put away his own wife for displeasing him), and if it once
ever did become prevalent it would attack the very roots of their society.
Indeed the right to be able to divorce was something that Jewish men could be
depended on to feel strongly about, for it probably gave them a hold over their
womenfolk and made them feel superior. Thus to challenge these Pharisees on this
question of divorce would be for Him to challenge the very basis of their own
authority. Then once His views became known the crowds would have to decide who
was most right. But one thing they knew, and that was that whichever side Jesus
came down on He would offend a good number of people. What they probably did
not expect, for to them divorce was simply a relatively unimportant matter which all
accepted, and about which there was only disagreement concerning the grounds for
it, was that Jesus would introduce a whole new aspect to the matter that would cut

31. the ground from right under their feet. They may also have hoped that He would
say something unwise about Herod, like John had done before Him. That would
certainly have given them a lever for getting rid of Him. But instead Jesus reveals a
totally new view of marriage, which He points out has been true from the beginning,
thereby indicating the coming in under His teaching of a new world order.
Furthermore Jesus will in fact, in His dealings with His disciples, turn their
argument round in order to demonstrate that the Kingly Rule of Heaven is here,
and that marrying and having children is no longer to be the sole basis of society (a
view held by the main religious teachers of Judaism).
Analysis.
a There came to Him Pharisees, putting Him to the test, and saying, “Is it lawful for
a man to put away his wife for every cause?” (Matthew 19:3).
b And He answered and said, “Have you not read, that He who made them from the
beginning made them male and female” (Matthew 19:4).
c “And said, ‘For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall
cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh?’ ” (Matthew 19:5).
b “So that they are no more two, but one flesh” (Matthew 19:6 a).
a “What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder” (Matthew
19:6 b).
ote that in ‘a’ the question was the grounds on which a man could put away his
wife, and in the parallel the reply is that what God has joined no one can put
asunder. In ‘b’ the stress is on the fact that God made them male and female, and in
the parallel that once they are married they are therefore now one flesh. Centrally
in ‘c’ is God’s stated purpose for a man and a woman.
PETT, "A Period of Testing - Jesus Prepares For The ew World Order - Journey
to Jerusalem - Triumphal Entry - Jesus Is Lord (19:3-22).
Having entered Judaea on the way to Jerusalem for His final visit, Jesus enters into
a period of testing as to His status as a Prophet, a process which comes to
completion in Matthew 22:46. This commences with a visit by the Pharisees to test
Him on His views on divorce (Matthew 19:3 ff). In reply to this He reveals that
marriage is not something to be treated lightly, nor is it something to be
manipulated by men, but is permanent and unbreakable, and that a new day is
dawning when marrying and having children will not be the main focus of the
Kingly Rule of Heaven.
The testing will then continue on as He is approached by various combinations of
opponents concerning various contentious issues, as He Himself enters Jerusalem as
its King. These include:
The Pharisees (Matthew 21:3 ff).
The Chief Priests and the Scribes (Matthew 21:15 ff).
The Chief Priests and the Elders of the people (Matthew 21:23 ff; Mark includes

32. Scribes).
The Chief Priests and the Pharisees (Matthew 21:45-46; Luke has the Scribes and
the Chief Priests).
The Pharisees with the Herodians (Matthew 22:15-22; Mark the Pharisees with the
Herodians, Luke ‘spies’).
The Sadducees (Matthew 22:23-33).
The Pharisees, including a lawyer (Scribe) (Matthew 22:34 ff; Mark has Scribe;
Luke has Scribes).
These testings go on until they recognise the futility of testing Him any further
because He always has an unassailable answer (Matthew 22:46). Thus all the main
political and religious elements in Jewry were included in the opposition (the
Essenes and the Qumran Community would have no particular reason for attacking
Jesus. They were separatists and looked to God to deliver them from their enemies).
The combinations described by Matthew are deliberately intended:
To demonstrate how all the opposition were getting together one by one in order to
bring Him down (note that no combination is repeated).
To indicate the widescale nature of the opposition.
To bring out how even hereditary enemies were being brought together for the
purpose (Chief Priests and Scribes, Chief Priests and Pharisees, Pharisees and
Herodians).
As can be seen the Chief Priests are mentioned three times, and the Pharisees are
mentioned four times, the former around the time of His purifying of the Temple,
when He has drawn Himself specifically to their attention and has shown up their
dishonesty in their dealings in the Temple, and the latter all the way through, for the
Pharisees, who were to be found throughout Judaea and Galilee, had dogged His
footsteps from the beginning. It must be remembered in considering the parallels
that most, although not all, of the Scribes were Pharisees (there were Scribes of the
Sadducees and general Scribes as well).
Brief note on the Pharisees; Scribes; Chef Priests; Sadducees; Elders and
Herodians.
The Pharisees were a sect of Judaism. They were in all around seven thousand in
number but their influence far outweighed their numbers. They laid great weight on
what distinguished Judaism from the world around them such as the keeping of the
Sabbath, the payment of tithes and the various daily washings for the constant
removal of uncleanness. They saw themselves as responsible to preserve the purity
of Judaism. They did not run the synagogues but had great influence in them, and
their Scribes (Teachers) were influential in teaching the people. They believed in the
resurrection and in angels, strove for ‘eternal life’ by obedience to the Law of Moses
and the covenant, and sought rigidly to keep the covenant as they saw it, but often
with a great emphasis on externals as is man’s wont when enthusiasm has died
down. This involved them in a rigid intent to observe the Law in all its detail, in
which they were guided by the Traditions of the Elders and by their Scribes. In
general they looked forward to the coming of the Messiah, although with various

33. viewpoints concerning him, and to God’s final deliverance of His people, when
Pharisaic teaching would triumph. They waited patiently, but restlessly, for God to
step in and remove the occupying forces as He had done in the time of their
ancestors. Meanwhile they accepted the need for passive obedience to their
conquerors.
The Scribes were the Teachers of Judaism. As well as Scribes of the Pharisees, who
were by far the greatest number, there were Scribes of the Sadducees and general
Scribes. The Scribes of the Pharisees laid great stress on the Traditions of the Elders
which included secret information which they claimed was passed down orally from
teacher to teacher from the past, and these especially included past dictates of
former well known Scribes such as Shammai and Hillel. This teaching in general
formed the basis of religious observation by the common people, although they did
not conform to all its particulars, and were in general seen as ‘sinners’ because of
this. The Scribes of the Pharisees were generally looked to by the people as the
authorities on religious matters. Their influence in Judaea outside Jerusalem was
paramount. While accepting the authority of the Chief Priests over the Temple and
compromising with them on various matters they generally conflicted with them at
every turn. They were bitter opponents.
The Chief Priests ran the Temple and its ordinances which provided them with a
source of revenue and great wealth. At their head was the High Priest. There was
strictly only one functional High Priest, but as far as the Jews were concerned the
appointment was for life, and when the Romans replaced one High Priest for
another, religiously the earlier High Priest remained High Priest (thus Annas, the
father of Caiaphas the High Priest, was still High Priest in Jewish eyes, as were any
others who had been High Priest and were still alive). The Chief Priests also
included the high officials of the Temple such as the Temple Treasurer, the leaders
of the courses of priests, and so on. It was their responsibility to supervise and
maintain the cult with its many offerings and sacrifices. They were pragmatists and
maintained a steady if uneasy relationship with the secular state, (they were
despised by them and despised them in return), favouring the status quo. Their
influence was mainly restricted to Jerusalem, except cultically, for the whole of
worldwide Jewry looked to the Temple as the centre of their religion and
contributed their Temple Tax to the Temple authorities.
The Sadducees were a small but important sect, mainly, but not exclusively,
restricted to Jerusalem and its environs. They were on the whole wealthy. They
included the chief priests and their wider families. We do not know much about
them for they died out with the fall of Jerusalem, and the information that we have
about them has mainly come from their opponents who survived. Seemingly they
did not believe in angels or in the resurrection. They accepted the teaching of the
Law and, to some extent at least, the Prophets. But they rejected the traditions of the
Elders. They were antagonistic towards the Pharisees, and were not favoured by the
people.
The Elders of the people were the lay rulers and wealthy aristocrats connected

34. mainly with princely families. Along with the Chief Priest and Pharisees their
leading members formed a part of the Sanhedrin, which was from the Jews’
viewpoint, the governing body of Judaism in Jerusalem. As the Romans tended to
leave local government to the locals, only intervening when it was considered
necessary, they were very influential at this period. The Roman prefect/procurator
lived away from Jerusalem in Caesarea, although coming to Jerusalem for the feasts
in case of trouble.
The Herodians were members of Herod’s court (Herod ruled Galilee and Peraea,
while the Roman prefect/procurator ruled Judaea and Samaria) or supporters of
Herod. They may have been mainly a secular group, in as far as a Jewish group
could ever be secular, favouring the status quo. Little else is known about them, but
they would have political influence at Herod’s court which was why they were
useful to the Pharisees in their opposition to Jesus.
All of these would gather in Jerusalem for the Passover.
End of note.
During this period in Judaea and Jerusalem Jesuswill be called on to deal with some
of the main questions of the day, which will mainly be used, either as a means of
seeking to entrap Him into exposing Himself as a false prophet, or in order to get
Him into trouble with the Roman authorities. These included questions on divorce
(Matthew 19:3-12); on prophetic authority (Matthew 21:23-27); on tribute paid to
Caesar (22-15-22); on the afterlife (Matthew 22:23-33); on what is central in the
Law (Matthew 22:34-40); and on how the Messiah relates to David (Matthew 22:41-
45).
We should not be surprised at the opposition that Jesus faced for He was now
publicly approaching the very centre of Judaism in order to make clear Who He
was and why He had come. While in Galilee and its surrounds He had been a
distant figure as far as the authorities of Jerusalem were concerned, apart from
previous visits to Jerusalem, only affecting them when the northern supporters of
the Scribes called on them for assistance (there were not many Scribes in Galilee).
But once He approached Jerusalem and began to assert His claims more forcefully
than before it was inevitable, either that Jerusalem would flock to Him, or that they
would bitterly oppose Him. And the latter in general proved to be the case. On the
whole Jerusalem did not welcome Him (His popularity was among the visitors to
Jerusalem for the Passover). It was a very religious city and very much bound up
with the cult. Few of them would accept Him. His views overthrew too many of their
treasured views, and threatened to upset the status quo.
Intermingled with this description of opposition is a clear emphasis in Matthew on
the fact that Jesus is coming to Jerusalem to claim His heavenly throne, and,
through His death and resurrection, is about to set up a new world order.
This process began at His birth when He was established as and proclaimed as King

35. of the Jews (Matthew 19:1-2), and continued on with His being introduced by His
forerunner (Matthew 19:3). That was followed by a period of consolidation and
establishment of His authority, until the moment of His ‘official’ recognition as the
Messiah, the Son of the Living God by His followers (Matthew 16:16). His heavenly
royal status was then verified by the Transfiguration (Matthew 17:5) and His
payment of the Temple Tax from heavenly resources (Matthew 17:25). At the same
time He prepared for the establishment of His new ‘congregation’ (of Israel)
(Matthew 16:18; Matthew 18)
ow, taking up the thought found in Matthew 16:16; Matthew 17:5; Matthew 17:25
that He is the Messiah and His Father’s Son, enjoying royal authority, we will find:
1) That He sets up a totally new standard for marriage based on the principles of
His Kingly Rule, which involves monogamous and unbreakable marriage, while at
the same time indicating that marriage and having children will no longer
necessarily be the prime function of man, an idea which was revolutionary to
normative Judaism, in view of the arrival of the Kingly Rule of Heaven (Matthew
19:4-6; Matthew 19:12).
2) That He turns the world order upside down by declaring that life under the
Kingly Rule of Heaven must be based on childlike trust and humility (compare
Matthew 18:1-4), and not on riches and wealth, because God is at work doing the
impossible (Matthew 19:13-26).
3) That He declares that in this soon coming new world order He will sit on the
throne of His glory in the presence of the Ancient of Days, while His Apostles will
reign on earth on His behalf, sitting on ‘the thrones of David’ in Jerusalem, and
establishing His new congregation of Israel, while all who serve under His Kingly
Rule will enjoy multiplied blessing (Matthew 19:28-29).
4) That all His disciples are called to work in His Father’s vineyard with the
promise of equal reward and blessing (Matthew 19:30 to Matthew 20:16).
5) That after His death and resurrection (Matthew 20:17-19) His disciples are not to
vie for earthly advancement or honour (Matthew 20:20-23), but are rather to be
zealous of being servants and slaves like He is (Matthew 20:24-27), following His
example of sacrificial zeal in that through His death He will have bought
redemption for many (Matthew 20:28). Thus the ministry of the Servant (Matthew
8:17; Matthew 12:17) will be cut short by death, but this will lead on to resurrection.
6) That while He is rejected by the seeing, the blind will acknowledge Him as the
Son of David (Matthew 20:29-34).
7) That He will enter in humble triumph into Jerusalem on an ass in fulfilment of
Zechariah’s prophecy of the king who is coming (Matthew 21:1-11) and will reveal
His authority over the Temple and His disagreement with the old order (Matthew
21:12-13).
8) That the blind and the lame (the lost sheep of the house of Israel) will then cry
‘Hosanna to the Son of David’ (Matthew 21:14-15).
9) That, as the withering of the fig tree reveals, the old order is dying, so that all
good men must face now up to His authority, and be like a repentant son who says,
‘Sir, I am ready to go’ (Matthew 21:16-32).
10) That as the beloved Son, having been killed by the previous workers in the

36. vineyard, He will be made the head of the corner with a new nation replacing the
old (Matthew 21:33-43).
11) That as the King’s Son His marriage feast is coming as a result of which those
who are in the highways and byways will be called to His feast, while those who
refuse to wear His insignia will be cast out and destroyed (Matthew 22:1-14).
12) That men must now recognise their duty to God as well as to the state, and must
begin in a new way to render to God the things that are God’s (Matthew 22:15-22).
13) That when the new age comes to its finalisation in the Resurrection, marriage
and reproduction will no longer be central matters of concern, for they will have no
application to their new resurrected state (Matthew 22:23-33).
14) That the basis of His coming rule is that men must love God with their whole
beings and their neighbour as themselves (Matthew 22:34-40).
15) That He is not just the son of David but is also declared by Scripture to be
David’s Lord (Matthew 22:41-45).
Thus having in Galilee mainly (although by no means solely) stressed His presence
as the Servant Messiah, in His approach to Jerusalem He is deliberately turning
their thoughts towards Himself as the Coming King, something which the disciples
appear to recognise, even if incorrectly, for their thoughts are still being shaped as
they are wooed from their own false ideas. They have yet to learn that the advance
of the Kingly Rule of Heaven will take place in a very different way than they
anticipate. See Matthew 20:20-22; Matthew 20:24-27; Mark 9:34; Luke 22:24.
So, far from this section depicting Jesus as offering Himself as the King and being
refused, it reveals how He is in fact in process of turning the world upside down,
and firming up the Kingly Rule of Heaven, preparatory to its massive expansion
when He has been enthroned and crowned (Matthew 28:18).
Verses 3-46
Analysis Of The Section Matthew 19:3 to Matthew 22:46.
This whole Section may be analysed as follows:
a Jesus’ testing commences with a question about divorce.
b Jesus questions the Pharisees about what the Scriptures say. Scripture has
demonstrated that God is the Creator and Lord over all, and that man cannot
change what God has in His sovereignty declared, that a man and woman are to
cleave together and become one flesh, which no man is to put asunder. Their
relationship is unique. Thus His coming and His Kingly Rule introduce a new
sanctity to marriage (Matthew 19:3-6).
c Jesus deals from Scripture with the question of the permanence of marriage on
earth, and insists on an unbreakable oneness in the family (Matthew 19:7-9).
d Jesus indicates the great change that has now taken place with regard to marriage
in the light of the presence Kingly Rule of Heaven. Marriage is no longer to be seen
as the central basis of the new Kingly Rule or as all important (Matthew 19:7-12).
e Jesus receives the little children and declares that of such is the Kingly Rule of
Heaven. This is what being in the Kingly Rule of Heaven is all about. It is those who
are like little children who reveal the image of God. And this in direct contrast with

37. a rich young man approaching maturity who rejects eternal life because of his
riches, raising the whole question of what must be given to God. The lesson is that
those who have childlike hearts will gather to Jesus under His Kingly Rule while the
worldly wise will go away sorrowful (Matthew 19:13-22).
f Men are now therefore faced with a choice about how they will view riches, and
should consider that shortly He will sit on the throne of His glory with His Father, at
which point His Apostles will take up their royal responsibilities on earth,
overseeing the new ‘congregation’ of the new Israel, when all who have followed
Him on His terms, forsaking all for the sake of the Kingly Rule of Heaven, will be
richly rewarded, firstly in this life and then by receiving eternal life (Matthew
19:23-29).
g He declares the parable of the householder who send out labourers into his
vineyard (compare Matthew 9:37-38), whose labours would gradually build up until
evening comes, and then those who have faithfully worked in His vineyard will be
rewarded equally (Matthew 19:30 to Matthew 20:16).
h Jesus declares that He will face death as a result of the machinations of the Chief
Priests and Scribes and this is contrasted with the perverse reaction of ‘two sons’
who are seeking glory (the sons of Zebedee), but who will learn instead of the
suffering and humble service that awaits them. They have misunderstood His
teaching about the thrones (Matthew 20:17-23).
i The twelve hear of the attempt of the two sons of Zebedee to obtain precedence,
and react with indignation. They are all advised that if they would have precedence
it will not be by seeking thrones but by seeking who can serve to the greatest extent,
something of which He is the prime example as He gives Himself for the redemption
of ‘many’ (Matthew 20:24-28).
j Jesus heals the blind men who call Him the Son of David (Matthew 20:29-34).
k Jesus enters Jerusalem in humility and triumph and purifies the Temple
(Matthew 21:1-13).
j The blind and the lame are calling Him the Son of David and He heals them
(Matthew 21:14-17).
i The twelve see what happened to the fig tree and react by marvelling. They are
advised that if they have faith nothing will be impossible to them. Here is how they
can truly have precedence, by the exercise of true faith. It is now up to them
(Matthew 21:18-22).
h Jesus’ authority is questioned by the Chief Priests and the Elders of the people
and in return He challenges them in terms of ‘two sons’ who reveal what the future
holds (Matthew 21:23-32).
g The second parable of the householder and in which those who had faithlessly
worked in His vineyard, slaying His servants and His Son, will be ‘rewarded’
accordingly. They too will be treated equally (Matthew 21:33-46).
f The parable of the wedding of the King’s son, when those who are His, coming
from the highways and byways will share His blessing, while those who refuse to
come on His terms and wear His insignia will be cast into outer darkness and will
weep and gnash their teeth, for ‘many are called but few are chosen’ (Matthew 22:1-
14).
e Jesus is faced with a question about whether to pay tribute to Caesar and declares
that it is now time that they remembered that they were made in the image of God,

38. and that they give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to
God. They marvel, and leave Him, and go their way (Matthew 22:15-22)
d Jesus deals from Scripture with the question of the lack of marriage in Heaven
and the certainty of the resurrection. In the final analysis marriage will be no more
(Matthew 22:23-33).
c Jesus testing finishes with a question about what is central in the Law and He cites
Scripture in order to declare that love of God, together with love of neighbour,
binding all together as one, is central to all Law, and basic to His new Kingly Rule,
and thus seeks to inculcate an unbreakable oneness (Matthew 22:34-41).
b Jesus questions the Pharisees about what the Scriptures say. Scripture has
declared the Messiah to be David’s Lord, and He cannot therefore merely be
David’s son. His relationship to God is unique. Thus man must not oppose what
God has sovereignly declared about the Messiah (Matthew 22:42-45).
a Jesus testing finishes with no one daring to ask Him any more questions (Matthew
22:46).
ote that in ‘a’ Jesus begins to be tested, and in the parallel He ceases to be tested.
In ‘b’ He questions the Pharisees about what the Scriptures say and declares that
mankind cannot oppose what God has sovereignly declared about the oneness of
man and woman in marriage, and their unique relationship, and in the parallel He
questions the Pharisees about what the Scriptures say and declares that mankind
cannot oppose what God has said about the Messiah, and His unique relationship
with God. In ‘c’ Jesus deals with the permanence of marriage on earth and its
importance in ensuring the unity of the family, and in the parallel He deals with the
question of loving God and neighbour, thus ensuring the unity of His people. In ‘d’
He reveals that marriage is no longer incumbent on all and that it is permissible to
refrain from it for the sake of the Kingly Rule of Heaven, and in the parallel He
deals with its non-existence in Heaven and its significance as regards the
resurrection. In ‘e’ the attitudes of young children and of a worldly wise young man
to the Kingly Rule of Heaven and to God are described, especially in relation to
wealth, and in the parallel the attitude of those who question about the tribute
money, who are also worldly wise, is challenged. Both raise questions as to what to
do with wealth, and status in the Kingly Rule of Heaven. In ‘f’ men are faced with a
choice about riches, but should consider that one day He will sit on the throne of His
glory when all who have followed Him on His terms will be rewarded and will
finally receive eternal life, for ‘those who are last will then be first, and those who
are first will be last’, while in the parallel we have described the parable of the
wedding of the King’s son when all those who are His will share His blessing, while
those who refuse to come on His terms will be cast into outer darkness and will weep
and gnash their teeth, for ‘many are called but few are chosen’ In ‘g’ we have the
parable of the householder and the faithful workers in his vineyard, ‘the last will be
first’, and in the parallel the parable of the householder and the faithless workers in
the vineyard, the first will very much be last. The latter are being replaced by the
former. In ‘h’ the attitude of the Jewish leaders towards Jesus is described and two
sons are used as examples in order to bring out what the future holds, and in the
parallel the attitude of the Jewish leaders towards Jesus’ authority is described, and
two sons are cited as examples of what the future holds. In ‘i’ we have the reaction
of the twelve to the rebuking of James and John, and what they should rather do in

39. order to gain precedence, seek to serve, and in the parallel we have their reaction to
the cursing of the fig tree, a parabolic rebuke of Israel, and what they are to do in
order to gain precedence, demonstrate their outstanding faith. In ‘j’ the blind men
call Him the Son of David and are healed (their eyes have been opened), and in the
parallel the blind and the lame have called Him the Son of David and are healed (it
is His enemies who are thus blind). Centrally in ‘k’ Jesus enters in humble triumph
into Jerusalem, which stresses the central feature of the section, the revealed
Kingship of Jesus which is about to burst on the world (compare Matthew 28:18-
20).
EBC 3-12, "MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE. (Mat_19:3-12)
There it was, and then, that the Pharisees came to Him with their entangling question
concerning divorce. To know how entangling it was it is necessary to remember that
there was a dispute at the time between two rival schools of Jewish theology-the school
of Hillel and that of Shammai-in regard to the interpretation of Deu_24:1. The one
school held that divorce could be had on the most trivial grounds; the other restricted it
to cases of grievous sin. Hence the question: "Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife
for every cause?" The answer Jesus gives is remarkable, not only for the wisdom and
courage with which He met their attack, but for the manner in which He availed Himself
of the opportunity to set the institution of marriage on its true foundation, and give
perpetual security to His followers for the sanctity of home, by laying down in the
clearest and strongest manner the position that marriage is indissoluble from its very
nature and from its divine appointment (Mat_19:4-6). As we read these clear and strong
utterances let us bear in mind, not only that the laxity which unhappily prevailed in
Rome had extended to Palestine, but that the monarch of the country through which our
Lord was passing was himself one of the most flagrant offenders. How inspiring it is to
think that then and there should have been erected that grand bulwark of a virtuous
home: "What God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."
The Pharisees must have felt that He spoke with authority; but they are anxious not to
lose their opportunity of getting Him into a difficulty, so they press Him with the
disputed passage in Deuteronomy: "Why did Moses, then, command to give a writing of
divorcement, and to put her away? "Our Lord’s answer exposes the double fallacy
lurking in the question. "Why did Moses command?" He did not command; he only
suffered it-it was not to further divorce, but to check it, that he made the regulation
about the "writing of divorcement." And then, not only was it a mere matter of
sufferance, -it was a sufferance granted "because of the hardness of your hearts." Since
things were so bad among your fathers in the matter of marriage, it was better that there
should be a legal process than that the poor wives should be dismissed without it; but
from the beginning it was not so-it was not intended that wives should be dismissed at
all. Marriage is in itself indissoluble, except by death or by that which in its very nature is
the rupture of marriage (Mat_19:9).
The wide prevalence of lax views on this subject is made evident by the perplexity of the
disciples. They were not at all prepared for such stringency, so they venture to suggest
that if that is to be the law, better not marry at all. The answer our Lord gives, while it
does admit that there are circumstances in which celibacy is preferable, plainly intimates
that it is only in quite exceptional cases. Only one of the three cases He mentions is
voluntary; and while it is certainly granted that circumstances might arise in which for
the kingdom of heaven’s sake celibacy might be chosen (cf. 1Co_7:26), even then it must
be only in cases where there is special grace, and such full preoccupation with the things

40. of the kingdom as to render it natural; for such seems to be the import of the cautionary
words with which the paragraph closes: "He that is able to receive it, let him receive it."
How completely at variance with this wise caution have been the Romish decrees in
regard to the celibacy of the clergy may go without saying.
BROADUS, "Matthew 19:3. An inquiry as to divorce. Distinguish the original question of
some Pharisees, John 10:3; the answer, John 10:4-6; an objection and his reply, John
10:7-9; a doubting remark by the disciples and his reply, John 10:10-12. Mark's report
(Mark 10:2-12) omits the last portion, and gives the rest with: slight differences of
expression and order, but to the same general effect. The Pharisees. 'The' in Com. Ver.,
also in Mark 10:1, was an addition by copyists, because 'the Pharisees are generally
spoken of as a class. In like manner, unto him after saying, and unto them in Mark 10:4
are wanting in the earliest and best documents, and were very easily added by copyists.
As to the Pharisees, see on "Matthew 3:7". Tempting him, as in Matthew 16:1, putting
him to the test, (Amer. Revisers preferred 'trying him'), and hoping he would say
something they could use among the people to his prejudice, by representing his
teaching either as intolerably severe, or as wanting in fidelity to the law of Moses.
Perhaps they also hoped he would speak of divorce in a way offensive to Herod and
Herodias. (See on "Matthew 14:3".) The place was not very far from Machaerus, and they
might have remembered the fate of the prophet John, the Baptizer. The opposition of
the Pharisees to Jesus appearing in Matthew 12:2, Matthew 12:14, Matthew 12:24,
Matthew 12:38, and continued in Matthew 15:1 and Matthew 16:1, is here renewed
towards the end of his ministry, and will be maintained until the end. See other cases of
testing him with hard questions in Matthew 22:17, Matthew 22:35. Is it lawful, or
permissible, as in Matthew 12:10, Matthew 14:4. For a man is naturally suggested, and
so was readily supplied by some early copyists, especially as it is genuine in the parallel
passage of Mark 10:4; while we could not account for its omission here in several of the
earliest and best documents, if originally present. To put away his wife was understood
as involving the right to take another—the Jews knew nothing of a mere legalized
separation, without right of re-marriage.—upon the general subject of our Lord's
teachings as to divorce, see on "Matthew 5:31"f. These Pharisees in Perea probably did
not know of that former teaching in Galilee. If the saying in Luke 16:18 was distinct from
this, it would appear to have been uttered in this same Perean district, and a little earlier
than the present occasion (Clark's "Harm.," Edersh.) The reference is to Deuteronomy
24:1, "When a man taketh a wife, and marrieth her, then it shall be, if she find no favour
in his eyes, because he hath found some unseemly thing in her, that he shall write her a
bill of divorcement,"etc. The euphemistic Hebrew phrase translated 'some unseemly
thing,' has always been obscure. It is literally (as in margin of Com. Ver.), 'some matter
of nakedness,' and appears to mean derivatively, something indecent, shameful,
disgraceful, hateful. The Rabbis disputed much as to its exact meaning and limitations.
The Mishna has a whole treatise on divorce, Gittin, but chiefly occupied with minute
directions as to the preparation of the document and conditions of its validity. The last
paragraph reads: "The school of Shammai says, no one shall put away a wife unless there
has been found in her something disgraceful (a phrase exactly corresponding to that of
Deuteronomy 24:1), as written, 'because he hath found something unseemly in her'; the
school of Hillelsays, even if she has burnt his food, as written, 'because he hath found
something unseemly in her'; Rabbi Akiba says, even if he find another more beautiful
than she is, as written, 'if she find no favour in his eyes.'" Maimonides explains (Note in

41. Surenh. Mishna) that the school of Shammai rests on the term "unseemly"; the school of
Hillelon the term "something." Rabbi Akiba took the phrase he quotes to mean in
respect to beauty. Alas! with what perverse ingenuity men quibble to make the Bible
mean what suits their wishes. We see the folly of this practice in others, but are all in
great danger of doing likewise. Observe that in the Mishna the school of Shammai use
simply the general phrase, something disgraceful or unseemly, as in the law. A late
Midrash on Numbers 5:30, quoted in Wet., and two passages in the Talmud mentioned
by Edersheim, state that the school of Shammai recognized no ground but unchastity. It
is worth inquiry whether this was anything more than an incorrect interpretation
afterwards put upon the language of the Mishna. Josephus, who was a Pharisee, gives
("Ant.," 4, 8, 23) a paraphrase of the law which uses essentially the same phrase as here:
"If one wishes to be divorced from his wife for any causes whatsoever (and many such
causes might happen among mankind), let him give assurance in writing that he will
never more live with her," etc. It is evident that in our Lord's eyes the expression
'something unseemly' might extend to other faults besides unchastity, for otherwise
there would have been no occasion for what he says in Numbers 5:8. The Pharisees, by
holding up before him the Hillelview in its most extreme form, probably hoped to drive
him to take the Shammai view, which was extremely unpopular. He did not side with
either party, but (as in Matthew 22:21) cut into the heart of the matter, reaching a
fundamental and decisive principle.
4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the
beginning the Creator ‘made them male and
female,’[a]
BAR ES 4-6, "And he answered and said ... - Instead of referring to the
opinions of either party, Jesus called their attention to the original design of marriage, to
the authority of Moses an authority acknowledged by them both.
Have ye not read? - Gen_1:27; Gen_2:21-22. “And said, For this cause,” etc., Gen_
2:24. That is, God, at the beginning, made but one man and one woman: their posterity
should learn that the original intention of marriage was that a man should have but one
wife.
Shall leave his father and mother - This means, shall bind himself more strongly
to his wife than he was to his father or mother. The marriage connection is the most
tender and endearing of all human relations more tender than even that bond which
unites us to a parent.
And shall cleave unto his wife - The word “cleave” denotes a union of the firmest

42. kind. It is in the original taken from gluing, and means so firmly to adhere together that
nothing can separate them.
They twain shall be one flesh - That is, they two, or they that were two, shall be
united as one - one in law, in feeling, in interest, in affection. They shall no longer have
separate interests, but shall act in all things as if they were one - animated by one soul
and one wish. The argument of Jesus here is, that since they are so intimately united as
to be one, and since in the beginning God made but one woman for one man, it follows
that they cannot be separated but by the authority of God. Man may not put away his
wife for every cause. What God has joined together man may not put asunder. In this
decision he really decided in favor of one of the parties; and it shows that when it was
proper, Jesus answered questions without regard to consequences, from whatever cause
they might have been proposed, and however much difficulty it might involve him in.
Our Lord, in this, also showed consummate wisdom. He answered the question, not
from Hillel or Shammai, their teachers, but from Moses, and thus defeated their malice.
CLARKE, "He which made them at the beginning - When Adam and Eve were
the first of human kind.
Made them male and female - Merely through the design of matrimonial union,
that the earth might be thus peopled. To answer a case of conscience, a man should act
as Christ does here; pay no regard to that which the corruption of manners has
introduced into Divine ordinances, but go back to the original will, purpose, and
institution of God. Christ will never accommodate his morality to the times, nor to the
inclinations of men. What was done at the beginning is what God judged most worthy of
his glory, most profitable for man, and most suitable to nature.
GILL, "And he answered and said unto them,.... Not by replying directly to the
question, but by referring them to the original creation of man, and to the first
institution of marriage, previous to the law of Moses;
have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning, made them
male and female? This may be read in Gen_1:27 and from thence this sense of things
collected; that God, who in the beginning of time, or of the creation, as Mark expresses
it, made all things, the heavens, and the earth, and all that is therein, and particularly
"man", as the Vulgate Latin, and Munster's Hebrew Gospel supply it here, made the first
parents of mankind, male and female; not male and females, but one male, and one
female; first, one male, and then, of him one female, who, upon her creation, was
brought and married to him; so that in this original constitution, no provision was made
for divorce, or polygamy. Adam could not marry more wives than one, nor could he put
away Eve for every cause, and marry another: now either the Pharisees had read this
account, or they had not; if they had not, they were guilty of great negligence and sloth;
if they had, they either understood it or not; if they did not understand it, it was greatly
to their reproach, who pretended to great knowledge of the Scriptures, and to be able to
explain them to others; and if they did understand it, there was no need for this
question, which therefore must be put with an evil design.
JAMISO , "And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that

43. he which made them at the beginning made them male and female — or
better, perhaps, “He that made them made them from the beginning a male and a
female.”
CALVI , "4.Have you not read? Christ does not indeed reply directly to what was
asked, but he fully meets the question which was proposed; just as if a person now
interrogated about the Mass were to explain faithfully the mystery of the Holy
Supper, and at length to conclude, that they are guilty of sacrilege and forgery who
venture either to add or to take away any thing from the pure institution of the
Lord, he would plainly overturn the pretended sacrifice of the Mass. ow Christ
assumes as an admitted principle, that at the beginning God joined the male to the
female, so that the two made an entire man; and therefore he who divorces his wife
tears from him, as it were, the half of himself. But nature does not allow any man to
tear in pieces his own body.
He adds another argument drawn from the less to the greater. The bond of
marriage is more sacred than that which binds children to their parents. But piety
binds children to their parents by a link which cannot be broken. Much less then
can the husband renounce his wife. Hence it follows, that a chain which God made is
burst asunder, if the husband divorce his wife. (594)
ow the meaning of the words is this: God, who created the human race, made them
male and female, so that every man might be satisfied with his own wife, and might
not desire more. For he insists on the number two, as the prophet Malachi, (Malachi
2:15,)when he remonstrates against polygamy, employs the same argument, that
God, whose Spirit was so abundant that He had it in His power to create more, yet
made but one man, that is, such a man as Christ here describes. And thus from the
order of creation is proved the inviolable union of one husband with one wife. If it
be objected, that in this way it will not be lawful, after the first wife is dead, to take
another, the reply is easy, that not only is the bond dissolved by death, but the
second wife is substituted by God in the room of the first, as if she had been one and
the same woman.
ELLICOTT, "(4) Have ye not read . . .?—The answer to the question is found not in
the words of a code of laws, but in the original facts of creation. That represented
the idea of man and woman as created for a permanent relationship to each other,
not as left to unite and separate as appetite or caprice might prompt.
COFFMA , "As always, Christ referred the issue to higher ground, not to what
Moses said, but to what God had said. Bypassing Moses altogether, he rested his
case upon the word of God, appealing to Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 5:2
PETT, "‘Have you not read?’ Jesus then turned their attention to what the
Scriptures did say, and that was that God had made man ‘male and female’. The
two were to be seen as one. Genesis 1:27 says, ‘God created man in His own image,
in the image of God He created him, male and female He created them.’ In other

44. words God’s image was reflected and revealed among other ways (e.g. their spiritual
nature) in the oneness of the male and female. A man was thus incomplete without
his female counterpart, and once they were joined together they were reunited as
one. This was the basis and purpose of the creation of mankind.
‘From the beginning.’ That is, from Genesis 1:1 and what followed. There was never
a time when it was not so, however primitive man was. Marriage was always
intended to be monogamous and permanently binding, and had been from the
beginning.
COKE, "Matthew 19:4-7. And he answered, &c.— The accounts which St. Matthew
and St. Mark have given of this matter, though they seem to clash upon the first
view, are in reality perfectly consistent. The two historians, indeed, take notice of
different particulars; but these, when joined together, mutually throw a light on
each other. According to both the evangelists, the Pharisees came with an insidious
intention, and asked our Lord's opinion concerning divorce. But the answer
returned to their question is differently represented by the historians. Matthew says,
that our Lord desired the Pharisees to consider the original institution of marriage
in Paradise, where God created the human kind of different sexes, and implanted in
their breasts such a mutual
inclinationtowardseachother,asinwarmthandstrengthsurpasses all other affections
wherewith he has endowed them towards any other of their fellow-creatures; and
because they have such a strong love to each other, he declared, that in all ages the
tie which unites them together in marriage should be stronger than any other tie,
and among the rest stronger even than that which binds them to their parents; and
that male and female, thus joined together in marriage, are by the strength of their
mutual affection no more twain but one flesh; that is to say, constitute only one
person in respect to the unity of their inclinations and interests, and of the mutual
power which they have over each other's body, (1 Corinthians 6:16; 1 Corinthians
7:4.) and that as long as they continued faithful to this law, they must remain
undivided till death separates them. From the original institution of marriage in
Paradise, and from the great law thereof declared by God himself upon that
occasion, it evidently appears, that it is the strongest and tenderest of all
friendships; a friendship supported by the authority of the divine sanction and
approbation; a friendship therefore which ought to be indissoluble till death: What
therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder, by unseasonable
divorces. Thus, according to St. Matthew, our Lord answered the Pharisees'
question concerning divorce, by referring to the original institution of marriage in
Paradise: but St. Mark says, Mark 10:3 that he answered them by referring them to
the Mosaical precepts; he answered, What did Moses command you? The
evangelists, however, may be easily freed from the imputation of inconsistency, by
supposing, that the answer in St. Mark was given after the Pharisees had, as St.
Matthew informs us, Matthew 19:7 objected the precept in the law to the argument
against divorce drawn from the original institution: Why did Moses then, &c.? "If
divorce be contrary to the original institution of marriage, as you affirm, how came
it that Moses has commanded us to give a bill of divorce, and to put her away?" The
Pharisees, by calling the law concerning divorce a command, insinuated, that Moses

45. had been so tender of their happiness, that he would not suffer them to live with bad
wives, though they themselves had been willing; but peremptorily enjoined them,
that such should be put away: to this our Lord answers, Mark 10:3. What did
Moses command you, &c.? and this question being placed in this order, implies, that
he wondered how they came to consider Moses's permission in the light of an
absolute command, since it was granted merely on account of the hardness of their
hearts. See Macknight, Doddridge, and other harmonists, and the following note.
Dr. Heylin, instead of He which made them, in the fourth verse, ο ποιησας, reads the
Creator; and instead of said, Matthew 19:5 he reads it was said; for I take the word
ειπεν here, says he, for an impersonal verb. It was Adam who said so, and not God.
The Prussian editors read, says the Scripture. But on this subject, see the note on
Genesis 2:24.
BROADUS, "Matthew 19:4-6. Reply to the Pharisees. Have ye not read, compare on
Matthew 12:3. The Scribes and Pharisees boasted of their acquaintance with the
law, and he reproaches them with ignorance of it. He makes first a reference to
Genesis 1:27, and then a quotation from Genesis 2:24. That he which made them,
'Created' (Rev. Ver. margin) is probably here the correct reading,(1) altered into
'made' to agree with Sept., with the word here immediately following, and with
Mark 10:6; but there is obviously no substantial difference. The words male and
female have in the Greek an emphatic position. From the beginning, the race
included the two sexes, and these were to be united in marriage. And said, viz., he
who created them said, the words of Adam in that exalted mood being taken as
expressing the will of the Creator. Leave father and mother. Even the important
filial relation will give way to one higher still. The twain is given by the Septuagint,
and several other versions of Old Testament, and only expresses emphatically what
the Hebrew implies. Shall be (or become) one flesh. The union of soul is expressed,
and therefore intensified, by a bodily union. Compare Ecclus. Sirach 25:26, "If she
go not as thou wouldst have her, cut her off from thy flesh," break the bodily union;
Ephesians 5:28 ff., "to love their wives as their own bodies." In Ephesians 5:6 the
closing statement is repeated for emphasis. And there our Lord draws the
conclusion that the two thus united into one ought not to be separated. Joined
together is literally yoked together (so also in Mark), an image frequently employed
among the Greeks for marriage. (Compare 1 Corinthians 6:14, Leviticus 19:19)
Tyn., Cram, Gen., here render 'coupled.' Let not man. Theophyl: "Showing what an
interval there is between God who joined together, and man who puts asunder."
Our Lord has thus laid down a broad general rule that the bond of marriage ought
never to be broken. A little after (Matthew 19:9) he mentions, as if incidentally, an
exception to this rule, about which there was no difference of opinion among his
hearers, and which is in fact only apparently an exception, because in that case the
essential bond has been broken.

46. 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his
father and mother and be united to his wife, and
the two will become one flesh’[b]?
CLARKE, "For this cause - Being created for this very purpose; that they might
glorify their Maker in a matrimonial connection. A man shall leave (καταλειψαι, wholly
give up) both father and mother - the matrimonial union being more intimate and
binding than even paternal or filial affection; - and shall be closely united,
προσκολληθησεται, shall be firmly cemented to his wife. A beautiful metaphor, which
most forcibly intimates that nothing but death can separate them: as a well-glued board
will break sooner in the whole wood, than in the glued joint. So also the Hebrew word
‫דבק‬ debak implies.
And they twain shall be one flesh? - Not only meaning, that they should be
considered as one body, but also as two souls in one body, with a complete union of
interests, and an indissoluble partnership of life and fortune, comfort and support,
desires and inclinations, joys and sorrows. Farther, it appears to me, that the words in
Gen_2:24, ‫אחד‬ ‫לבסר‬ lebasar achad, for one flesh, which our Lord literally translates, mean
also, that children, compounded as it were of both, should be the product of the
matrimonial connection. Thus, they two (man and woman) shall be for the producing of
one flesh, the very same kind of human creature with themselves. See the note on Gen_
2:24.
GILL, "And said,.... Gen_2:24 where they seem to be the words of Adam, though here
they are ascribed to God, who made Adam and Eve; and as if they were spoken by him,
when he brought them together; and which is easily reconciled by observing, that these
words were spoken by Adam, under the direction of a divine revelation; showing, that
there would be fathers, and mothers, and children; and that the latter, when grown up,
would enter into a marriage state, and leave their parents, and cleave to their proper
yoke fellows, which relations then were not in being: this therefore being the effect of a
pure revelation from God, may be truly affirmed to be said by him. Some think they are
the words of Moses the historian; and if they were, as they were delivered by divine
inspiration, they may be rightly called the word of God. A note by Jarchi on this text
exactly agrees herewith, which is ‫כן‬ ‫אומרת‬ ‫הקדש‬ ‫,רוח‬ "the holy Spirit says thus: for this
cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife"; and not wives:
and the phrase denotes that close union between a man and his wife, which is not to be
dissolved for every cause, it being stricter than that which is between parents and
children; for the wife must be cleaved unto, and father and mother forsaken: not that
upon this new relation between man and wife, the former relation between parents and
children ceases; nor does this phrase denote an entire separation from them, so as to
have the affection alienated from them, or to be disengaged from all duty and obedience

47. to them, and care and regard for them, for the future; but a relinquishing the "house of
his father and the bed of his mother", as all the three Targums on the place explain it:
that is, he shall quit the house of his father, and not bed and board there, and live with
him as before; but having taken a wife to himself, shall live and cohabit with her:
and they twain shall be one flesh; the word "twain" is: not in the Hebrew text in
Genesis, but in the Septuagint version compiled by Jews, in the Samaritan Pentateuch,
and version, and in the Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel, who renders, it as here, ‫תרוויהון‬
‫חד‬ ‫לבישרא‬ ‫,ויהון‬ "and they two shall be one flesh". This is the true sense, for neither more
nor less can possibly be meant; and denotes that near conjunction, and strict union,
between a man and his wife, the wife being a part of himself, and both as one flesh, and
one body, and therefore not to be parted on every slight occasion; and has a particular
respect to the act of carnal copulation, which only ought to be between one man and one
woman, lawfully married to each other; See Gill on 1Co_6:16.
HE RY, "2. The fundamental law of marriage, which is, that a man shall leave
father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, Mat_19:5. The relation between
husband and wife is nearer than that between parents and children; now, if the filial
relation may not easily be violated, much less may the marriage union be broken. May a
child desert his parents, or may a parent abandon his children, for any cause, for every
cause? No, by no means. Much less may a husband put away his wife, betwixt whom,
though not by nature, yet by divine appointment, the relation is nearer, and the bond of
union stronger, than between parents and children; for that is in a great measure
superseded by marriage, when a man must leave his parents, to cleave to his wife. See
here the power of a divine institution, that the result of it is a union stronger than that
which results from the highest obligations of nature.
JAMISO , "And said, For this cause — to follow out this divine appointment.
shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they
twain shall be one flesh? — Jesus here sends them back to the original constitution
of man as one pair, a male and a female; to their marriage, as such, by divine
appointment; and to the purpose of God, expressed by the sacred historian, that in all
time one man and one woman should by marriage become one flesh - so to continue as
long as both are in the flesh. This being God’s constitution, let not man break it up by
causeless divorces.
CALVI , "5.Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother. It is uncertain
whether Moses represents Adam or God as speaking these words; but it is of little
consequence to the present passage which of these meanings you choose, for it was
enough to quote the decision which God had pronounced, though it might have been
uttered by the mouth of Adam. ow he who marries a wife is not commanded
absolutely to leave his father; for God would contradict himself, if by marriage He
set aside those duties which He enjoins on children towards their parents; but when
a comparison is made between the claims, the wife is preferred to the father and
mother But if any man abandon his father, and shake off the yoke by which he is
bound, no man will own such a monster; (595) much less will he be at liberty to
dissolve a marriage.

48. And the two shall be one flesh. This expression condemns polygamy not less than it
condemns unrestrained liberty in divorcing wives; for, if the mutual union of two
persons was consecrated by the Lord, the mixture of three or four persons is
unauthorized. (596) But Christ, as I stated a little ago, applies it in a different
manner to his purpose; namely, to show that whoever divorces his wife tears himself
in pieces, because such is the force of holy marriage, that the husband and wife
become one man. For it was not the design of Christ to introduce the impure and
filthy speculation of Plato, but he spoke with reverence of the order which God has
established. Let the husband and wife, therefore, live together in such a manner,
that each shall cherish the other in the same manner as if they were the half of
themselves. Let the husband rule, so as to be the head, and not the tyrant, of his
wife; and let the woman, on the other hand, yield modestly to his commands.
ELLICOTT, "(5) And said, For this cause.—In Genesis 2:24 the words appear as
spoken by Adam; but words so uttered, prompted by the Holy Spirit, and stamped
with the divine sanction, might well be looked on as an oracle from God, the
expression of a law of His appointment.
COFFMA , "Jesus' answer was plain, even blunt. God does not allow divorce.
There's really no problem at all about knowing God's will. To be sure, problems
and difficulties occur, but from what sinful men do, not from any ambiguity
regarding what God commanded! "What God hath joined together, let not man put
asunder." Divorce is man's will, not God's will. How shocking this truth must have
been to the Pharisees who not only allowed, but also practiced, divorce on a colossal
scale. How shocking it is for many today! People have no trouble knowing the truth
on this question, but they do have quite a problem trying to make what they do bear
the light of this truth! See under Matthew 19:9.
PETT, "Indeed that was the only ground on which it was right for a man to leave
his father and mother. It was so that he might cleave to his wife with the result that
the two became one flesh, united and indivisible. Even filial obedience and family
unity, which were so important in Israel, were nevertheless subservient to the fact of
the uniting of a male and a female ‘as one flesh’. And by it they became one being in
God’s eyes (compare Paul’s argument in 1 Corinthians 6:16). A man’s wife was to
become to him more important than anything else apart from God, for she would be
a part of himself. (Of course this would not destroy filial obedience and family unity,
for it would almost always be done in full agreement with both).
We should note that the verbs are strong ones. ‘Forsake (desert) his father and
mother’ and ‘cleave closely to (be glued to) his wife’. It was a violent and
fundamental change, and resulted in a fundamental alteration in both their lives.
From that moment on they had a new focus of concentration, their oneness with one
another.

49. 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh.
Therefore what God has joined together, let no
one separate.”
CLARKE, "What therefore God hath joined together - Συνεζευξεν, yoked
together, as oxen in the plough, where each must pull equally, in order to bring it on.
Among the ancients, when persons were newly married, they put a yoke upon their
necks, or chains upon their arms, to show that they were to be one, closely united, and
pulling equally together in all the concerns of life. See Kypke in loco.
The finest allegorical representation of the marriage union I have met with, is that
antique gem representing the marriage of Cupid and Psyche, in the collection of the duke
of Marlborough: it may be seen also among Baron Stoch’s gems, and casts or copies of it
in various other collections.
1. Both are represented as winged, to show the alacrity with which the husband and
wife should help, comfort and support each ether; preventing, as much as possible,
the expressing of a wish or want on either side, by fulfilling it before it can be
expressed.
2. Both are veiled, to show that modesty is an inseparable attendant on pure
matrimonial connections.
3. Hymen or Marriage goes before them with a lighted torch, leading them by a
chain, of which each has a hold, to show that they are united together, and are
bound to each other, and that they are led to this by the pure flame of love, which
at the same instant both enlightens and warms them.
4. This chain is not iron nor brass, (to intimate that the marriage union is a state of
thraldom or slavery), but it is a chain of pearls, to show that the union is precious,
beautiful, and delightful.
5. They hold a dove, the emblem of conjugal fidelity, which they appear to embrace
affectionately, to show that they are faithful to each other, not merely through
duty, but by affection, and that this fidelity contributes to the happiness of their
lives.
6. A winged Cupid, or Love, is represented as having gone before them, preparing the
nuptial feast; to intimate that active affections, warm and cordial love, are to be to
them a continual source of comfort and enjoyment; and that this is the
entertainment they are to meet with at every step of their affectionate lives.
7. Another Cupid, or genius of love comes behind, and places on their heads a basket
of ripe fruits; to intimate that a matrimonial union of this kind will generally be
blessed with children, who shall be as pleasing to all their senses as ripe and
delicious fruits to the smell and taste.
8. The genius of love that follows them has his wings shrivelled up, or the feathers all
curled, so as to render them utterly unfit for flight; to intimate that love is to abide
with them, that there is to be no separation in affection, but that they are to

50. continue to love one another with pure hearts fervently. Thus love begins and
continues this sacred union; as to end, there can be none, for God hath yoked them
together.
A finer or more expressive set of emblems has never, I believe, been produced, even by
modern refined taste and ingenuity. This group of emblematical figures is engraved
upon an onyx by Tryphon, an ancient Grecian artist. A fine drawing was made of this by
Cypriani, and was engraved both by Bartolozzi and Sherwin. See one of these plates in
the second volume of Bryant’s Analysis of Ancient Mythology, page 392.
GILL, "Wherefore they are no more twain,.... They were two before marriage, but
now no more so; not but that they remain two distinct persons,
but one flesh; or, as the Syriac, Arabic, Persic, and Ethiopic versions read, "one body":
hence the wife is to beloved by the husband as his own body, as himself, as his own flesh,
Eph_5:28.
what therefore God hath joined together; or, by the first institution of marriage,
has declared to be so closely united together, as to be, as it were, one flesh, and one body,
as husband and wife are;
let no man put asunder; break the bond of union, dissolve the relation, and separate
them from each other, for every trivial thing, upon any slight occasion, or for anything;
but what is hereafter mentioned. The sense is, that the bond of marriage being made by
God himself, is so sacred and inviolable, as that it ought not to be dissolved by any man;
not by the husband himself, or any other for him; nor by any state or government, by any
prince or potentate, by any legislator whatever; no, not by Moses himself, who is, at
least, included, if not chiefly designed here, though not named, to avoid offence: and
God and man being opposed in this passage, shows, that marriage is an institution and
appointment of God, and therefore not to be changed and altered by man at his pleasure;
this not merely a civil, but a sacred affair, in which God is concerned.
HE RY, "3. The nature of the marriage contract; it is a union of persons; They twain
shall be one flesh, so that (Mat_19:6) they are no more twain, but one flesh. A man's
children are pieces of himself, but his wife is himself. As the conjugal union is closer
than that between parents and children, so it is in a manner equivalent to that between
one member and another in the natural body. As this is a reason why husbands should
love their wives, so it is a reason why they should not put away their wives, for no man
ever yet hated his own flesh, or cut it off, but nourishes and cherishes it, and does all he
can to preserve it. They two shall be one, therefore there must be but one wife, for God
made but one Eve for one Adam, Mal_2:15.
From hence he infers, What God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. Note,
(1.) Husband and wife are of God's joining together; sunezeuxen - he hath yoked them
together, so the word is, and it is very significant. God himself instituted the relation
between husband and wife in the state of innocence. Marriage and the sabbath are the
most ancient of divine ordinances. Though marriage be not peculiar to the church, but
common to the world, yet, being stamped with a divine institution, and here ratified by
our Lord Jesus, it ought to be managed after a godly sort, and sanctified by the word of
God, and prayer. A conscientious regard to God in this ordinance would have a good
influence upon the duty, and consequently upon the comfort, of the relation. (2.)

51. Husband and wife, being joined together by the ordinance of God, are not to be put
asunder by any ordinance of man. Let not man put them asunder; not the husband
himself, nor any one for him; not the magistrate, God never gave him authority to do it.
The God of Israel hath said, that he hateth putting away, Mal_2:16. It is a general rule
that man must not go about to put asunder what God hath joined together.
CALVI , "6.What God therefore hath joined. By this sentence Christ restrains the
caprice of husbands, that they may not, by divorcing their wives, burst asunder the
sacred knot. And as he declares that it is not in the power of the husband to dissolve
the marriage, so likewise he forbids all others to confirm by their authority unlawful
divorces; for the magistrate abuses his power when he grants permission to the
husband to divorce his wife. But the object which Christ had directly in view was,
that every man should sacredly observe the promise which he has given, and that
those who are tempted, by wantonness or wicked dispositions, to divorce, may
reflect thus with themselves: “Who, art thou that allowest thyself to burst asunder
what God hath joined? ” But this doctrine may be still farther extended. The
Papists, contriving for us a church separated from Christ the Head, leave us an
imperfect and mutilated body. In the Holy Supper, Christ joined the bread and the
wine; but they have dared to withhold from all the people the use of the cup. To
these diabolical corruptions we shall be at liberty to oppose these words, What God
hath joined let not man separate
ELLICOTT, "(6) What therefore God hath joined.—Strictly interpreted, the words
go further than those of Matthew 5:32, and appear to forbid divorce under all
circumstances. They are, however, rather the expression of the principle that should
underlie laws, than the formulated law itself, and, as such, they assert the true ideal
of marriage without making provision (such as was made before) for that which
violates and annuls the ideal. It is remarkable that the essence of the marriage is
made to depend, not on laws, or contracts, or religious ceremonies, but on the
natural fact of union. Strictly speaking, that constitutes, or should constitute,
marriage. The sin of all illicit intercourse, whether in adultery, or concubinage, or
prostitution, is that it separates that union from the relations and duties which the
divine order has attached to and makes. if Simply minister to the lusts of man’s
lower nature. The evil of every system that multiplies facilities for divorce is that it
treats as temporary what was designed to be permanent, and reduces marriage, so
far as it goes, to concubinage durante bene placito. This may, in some stages of
social progress, as the next verses indicate, be the least of two evils; but it does not
cease to be an evil, and the efforts of all teachers and legislators should be directed
to raise the standard of duty rather than to acquiesce in its debasement.
PETT, "And once the two have been joined in this way they are ‘one flesh’. They
thereby reflect the image of God, the image of God’s own unity. Thus what God has
joined together man must not try to separate. To break such a unity would thus be
to sin grievously against God. This is not ‘just another sin’. It is to offend God
drastically. It is to destroy His purpose in creation. It is to tear apart what He has
put together.

52. The idea of ‘one flesh’ comes from the fact that woman was seen as originally taken
out of man. She was ‘bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh’ (Genesis 2:23). Thus
by sexual union they were seen as again becoming ‘one flesh’. They formed ‘one
man’ made up of two necessary parts. To separate them once they were thus united
was therefore to be seen as the same thing as decapitating a man and destroying
God’s handywork.
We should note from this Jesus’ emphasis on the inviolability of the marriage bond.
For Jesus it was not something that was under the man’s control, and that could be
kept or broken to order. The union was sacred, and any breach of it a travesty. It
was sealed in the sight of God, and there was no breaking it without it involving a
deep sin against God. The man and woman who have had sexual relations before
God are thereby bound together by Him with a heavenly tie that cannot be broken.
That is why the act of adultery is such a great sin. It breaks God’s handywork and
attacks His very purpose in creation. Like the Israelites did, we look around for
some way in which we can break it ‘lawfully’. But there is no way. It can only be
done by an act of deep sin.
People talk as though if Jesus was alive today He would somehow be soft on sexual
sin. They argue that if He had lived now He would have seen the error of His ways
and would have agreed with them (is it not strange how people always think that He
would take their side of the argument?). They argue that He was simply a child of
His times. But here we learn differently. In a society where Hillel was seen as
proclaiming the norm in allowing easy divorce, and where Shammai was seen as the
tough one who tended to be a little hard, Jesus was in fact very much tougher than
either of them. He was far from being a child of His times. Rather He leaned on the
authority of Scripture. For while Shammai was certainly more strict than Hillel, he
nevertheless accepted the divorces of those who were divorced under Hillel’s
precepts and allowed them to remarry without it being seen as wrong. Jesus,
however, declares that such a marriage is adultery and therefore forbidden. Jesus
sees no place for broken marriages, or for the remarriage of the one who has broken
the original marriage, within the purposes of God.
Jesus was thus introducing a ‘new’ concept of marriage which was to be observed
under the Kingly Rule of Heaven. By it He was indicating that a new state of affairs
was beginning. This was a sign that the Kingly Rule of Heaven had now
commenced, making demands upon people the like of which had not been known
before.
The quotation reveals traces of the Septuagint. This confirms that at least some of
what Matthew was saying was taken from Mark, for when Matthew ‘goes LXX’ it is
usually due to the influence of Mark.
Brief ote on Divorce in the Old Testament.
There is nowhere in the Law of Moses any specific dealing with the with the
question of an ‘allowable’ divorce in a marriage between two of God’s people, that

53. is, of two people within God’s favour. The Pharisees had sought one and had made
use of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 for that purpose. But that was because they had failed to
see what Jesus had now brought to their attention, and that was that in God’s eyes
anything that caused a separation between a man and woman who had been united
in God’s eyes was not permissible under any circumstances. They were made one by
the sexual act and must remain one until death broke the bond. That was why
adultery had to result in death. It was to break that oneness. And the only remedy
for that was death so as to maintain the principle. Having destroyed what God had
put together they too must be destroyed.
Deuteronomy 24:1-4 was therefore describing a position which was unallowable in
God’s eyes and yet which had to be legislated for because it happened. In it God was
not giving approval for divorce, but was seeking to legislate for two things. Firstly
the protection of a woman who, as a result of the custom which was against His
purpose, had been thrown out by her husband, and secondly the prevention of
something that was abhorrent to Him. In the first case she was to be given a bill of
divorce so as to protect her from false accusations which might be made in the
future. In the second she must never remarry her first husband once she has been
married to another, even if her second husband has died. That would be to treat
lightly the unbreakable oneness of the initial marriage. It would be to make a
mockery of marriage as though it was something to be entered into haphazardly. It
would slight God, Who would not unite again what man had put asunder against
His will.
What can be said about this case in Deuteronomy is that the only grounds on which
divorce was even explicitly allowed to stand (without all guilty parties being put to
death) was in the case of a situation where the woman had been divorced because of
‘the nakedness of a matter’. It was this that Moses had allowed because of the
hardness of men’s hearts. But it was not giving explicit permission for it, it was
legislating for what should be done once it had happened ‘by custom’. And it was
the definition of that phrase ‘the nakedness of the matter’ that caused the
disagreement between Shammai and Hillel. However, in the Law of Moses
‘nakedness’ is usually associated with sexual sin, which was Shammai’s contention,
and was probably how Jesus saw it in view of His ‘except in the case of porneia
(sexual sin)’.
The point about sexual sin was that it, as it were, cancelled out the marriage bond
because it had interfered with the oneness sexually between a man and a woman.
What was meant by sexual sin is open to question, but it would seem that it was
something that was seen as grossly indecent. While adultery was supposed to result
in the death sentence for both parties there were probably many cases where that
course was not pursued, especially when they had not been caught in the act, and in
the cases of suspected adultery the woman may have chosen divorce rather than
trial before the sanctuary, and been allowed it by her husband (compare how
Joseph was willing to put away Mary privately for her then supposed sexual
misconduct). This may thus be what was mainly in mind here. Or it may have
included other sexual behaviour which was seen as exceptionally disgraceful and as

54. destroying the oneness between the man and the woman.
God’s true view of a divorced person was made clear in that a priest was not to
marry a divorced person, for a divorced woman was seen as ‘defiled’ and ‘unholy’.
They were displeasing to God and outside His sphere of holiness (Leviticus 21:7;
Leviticus 21:24; etc.). However, the fact that divorced women were allowed to live
and remain within the camp demonstrates that they could be tolerated at a distance
from the Sanctuary, something which could be seen as a concession on God’s part. It
did not, however, give them His permission to divorce.
There were, however, certain circumstances in which ‘divorce’ was permitted, and
these were to do with cases of marriages between someone under God’s covenant
and someone outside that covenant (see Deuteronomy 21:10-14; Ezra 10; Exodus
21:7-11, see our commentary). That was why Paul later had to ‘legislate’ to allow for
such marriages to continue in the case of a Christian (1 Corinthians 7:12-15). But
concerning marriages between two persons within God’s covenant God declared ‘I
hate divorce’ and forbade it (Malachi 2:15-17).
7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command
that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce
and send her away?”
BAR ES, "Why did Moses ... - To this they objected that Moses had allowed such
divorces Deu_24:1; and if he had allowed them, they inferred that they could not be
unlawful. See the notes at Mat_5:31.
CLARKE, "Why did Moses then command to give a writing of
divorcement? - It is not an unusual case for the impure and unholy to seek for a
justification of their conduct from the law of God itself, and to wrest Scripture to their
own destruction. I knew a gentleman, so called, who professed deep reverence for the
sacred writings, and, strange as it may appear, was outwardly irreproachable in every
respect but one; that was, he kept more women than his wife. This man frequently read
the Bible, and was particularly conversant with those places that spoke of or seemed to
legalize the polygamy of the patriarchs!
A writing of divorcement - See the form of it in the note on Mat_5:31 (note).

55. GILL, "They say unto him,.... That is the Pharisees, who object the law of Moses to
him, hoping hereby to ensnare him, and expose him to the resentment of the people,
should he reject that, as they supposed he would;
why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and put her
away? referring to Deu_24:1 which they thought to be a contradiction, and what they
knew not how to reconcile to the doctrine Christ had delivered, concerning the original
institution of marriage, and the close union there is between a man and his wife, by
virtue of it, and which is not to be dissolved by men. Concerning a writing of
divorcement and the form, and manner of it; see Gill on Mat_5:31
HE RY, "III. An objection started by the Pharisees against this; an objection not
destitute of colour and plausibility (Mat_19:7); “Why did Moses command to give a
writing of divorcement, in case a man did put away his wife?” He urged scripture reason
against divorce; they allege scripture authority for it. Note, The seeming contradictions
that are in the word of God are great stumbling-blocks to men of corrupt minds. It is
true, Moses was faithful to him that appointed him, and commanded nothing but what
he received from the Lord; but as to the thing itself, what they call a command was only
as allowance (Deu_24:1), and designed rather to restrain the exorbitances of it than to
give countenance to the thing itself. The Jewish doctors themselves observe such
limitations in that law, that it could not be done without great deliberation. A particular
reason must be assigned, the bill of divorce must be written, and, as a judicial act, must
have all the solemnities of a deed, executed and enrolled. It must be given into the hands
of the wife herself, and (which would oblige men, if they had any consideration in them,
to consider) they were expressly forbidden ever to come together again.
IV. Christ's answer to this objection, in which,
1. He rectifies their mistake concerning the law of Moses; they called it a command,
Christ calls it but a permission, a toleration. Carnal hearts will take an ell if but an inch
be given them. The law of Moses, in this case, was a political law, which God gave, as the
Governor of that people; and it was for reasons of state, that divorces were tolerated. The
strictness of the marriage union being the result, not of a natural, but of a positive law,
the wisdom of God dispensed with divorces in some cases, without any impeachment of
his holiness.
But Christ tells them there was a reason for this toleration, not at all for their credit; It
was because of the hardness of your hearts, that you were permitted to put away your
wives. Moses complained of the people of Israel in his time, that their hearts were
hardened (Deu_9:6; Deu_31:27), hardened against God; this is here meant of their
being hardened against their relations; they were generally violent and outrageous,
which way soever they took, both in their appetites and in their passions; and therefore
if they had not been allowed to put away their wives, when they had conceived a dislike
of them, they would have used them cruelly, would have beaten and abused them, and
perhaps have murdered them. Note, There is not a greater piece of hard-heartedness in
the world, than for a man to be harsh and severe with his own wife. The Jews, it seems,
were infamous for this, and therefore were allowed to put them away; better divorce
them than do worse, than that the altar of the Lord should be covered with tears, Mal_
2:13. A little compliance, to humour a madman, or a man in a frenzy, may prevent a
greater mischief. Positive laws may be dispensed with for the preservation of the law of
nature, for God will have mercy and not sacrifice; but then those are hard-hearted
wretches, who have made it necessary; and none can wish to have the liberty of divorce,

56. without virtually owning the hardness of their hearts. Observe, He saith, It is for the
hardness of your hearts, not only theirs who lived then, but all their seed. Note, God not
only sees, but foresees, the hardness of men's hearts; he suited both the ordinances and
providences of the Old Testament to the temper of that people, both in terror. Further
observe, The law of Moses considered the hardness of men's hearts, but the gospel of
Christ cures it; and his grace takes away the heart of stone, and gives a heart of flesh.
By the law was the knowledge of sin, but by the gospel was the conquest of it.
2. He reduces them to the original institution; But from the beginning it was not so.
Note, Corruptions that are crept into any ordinance of God must be purged out by
having recourse to the primitive institution. If the copy be vicious, it must be examined
and corrected by the original. Thus, when St. Paul would redress the grievances in the
church of Corinth about the Lord's supper, he appealed to the appointment (1Co_11:23),
So and so I received from the Lord. Truth was from the beginning; we must therefore
enquire for the good old way (Jer_6:16), and must reform, mot by later patterns, but by
ancient rules.
JAMISO , "They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a
writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
CALVI , "7.Why then did Moses order? They had thought of this calumny, (597)
if, which was more probable, Christ should demand a proper cause to be shown in
cases of divorce; for it appears that whatever God permits by his law, whose will
alone establishes the distinction between what is good or evil, is lawful. But Christ
disarms the falsehood and slander by the appropriate reply, that Moses permitted it
on account of their obstinacy, and not because he approved of it as lawful. And he
confirms his opinion by the best argument, because it was not so at the beginning.
He takes for granted that, when God at first instituted marriage, he established a
perpetual law, which ought to remain in force till the end of the world. And if the
institution of marriage is to be reckoned an inviolable law, it follows that whatever
swerves from it does not arise from its pure nature, but from the depravity of men.
But it is asked, Ought Moses to have permitted what was in itself bad and sinful? I
reply, That, in an unusual sense of the word, he is said to havepermitted what he did
not severely forbid; (598) for he did not lay down a law about divorces, so as to give
them the seal of his approbation, but as the wickedness of men could not be
restrained in any other way, he applied what was the most admissible remedy, that
the husband should, at least, attest the chastity of his wife. For the law was made
solely for the protection of the women, that they might not suffer any disgrace after
they had been unjustly rejected. Hence we infer, that it was rather a punishment
inflicted on the husbands, than an indulgence or permission fitted to inflame their
lust. Besides, political and outward order is widely different from spiritual
government. What is lawful and proper the Lord has comprehended under the ten
words. (599) ow as it is possible that many things, for which every man’s
conscience reproves and charges him, may not be called in question at a human
tribunal, it is not wonderful if those things are connived at by political laws.

57. Let us take a familiar instance. The laws grant to us a greater liberty of litigation
than the law of charity allows. Why is this? Because the right cannot be conferred
on individuals, unless there be an open door for demanding it; and yet the inward
law of God declares that we ought to follow what charity shall dictate. And yet there
is no reason why magistrates should make this an excuse for their indolence, if they
voluntarily abstain from correcting vices, or neglect what the nature of their office
demands. But let men in a private station beware of doubling the criminality of the
magistrates, by screening their own vices under the protection of the laws. For here
the Lord indirectly reproves the Jews for not, reckoning it enough that their
stubbornness was allowed to pass unpunished, if they did not implicate God as
defending their iniquity. And if the rule of a holy and pious life is not always, or in
all places, to be sought from political laws, much less ought we to seek it from
custom.
ELLICOTT, "(7) They say unto him.—The question comes apparently from the
advocates of the laxer school. They fell back from what would seem to them a vague
abstract principle upon the letter of the Law. Was Moses, the great lawgiver,
sanctioning what God had forbidden? Would the Prophet of azareth commit
Himself to anything so bold as that?
COFFMA , "Convicted as they were by Jesus' words, nevertheless they strove to
place Christ in conflict with Moses. They should have known from the Sermon on
the Mount that Christ claimed greater authority than Moses, but what they were
seeking in this instance was a cause celebre to aid their campaign against Jesus'
popularity with the people.
PETT, "Verse 7
‘They say to him, “Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce, and to
put her away?” ’
The Pharisees then triumphantly challenged Jesus on the basis of Deuteronomy
24:1-4. They could not deny what He had said about the creation ordinances in
Genesis, but if He was right why had Moses ‘commanded’ that in the case of divorce
a bill of divorce should be given and she be put away? They had Moses’ authority
on their side.
Verses 7-9
The Pharisees Try To Argue Him Down About Divorce (19:7-9).
The Pharisees were clearly taken aback by Jesus’ words. They had expected Him to
come down either on Shammai’s side or on Hillel’s. They had not expected Him to
bring out that divorce was forbidden from the very beginning of creation. They felt
that He must have overlooked Moses’ words on the matter. What of Deuteronomy
24:1-4? otice in Jesus’ reply the difference between the Pharisees use of
‘command’ and Jesus use of ‘allowed’. His specific point is that Moses had not given
permission for divorce, he had simply allowed it to happen without his approval.
Far from being commanded by him it was allowed under sufferance, and only then

58. because he had to cater for the hardness of men’s hearts.
Analysis.
a They say to him, “Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce, and to
put her away?” (Matthew 19:7).
b He says to them, “Moses for your hardness of heart allowed you to put away your
wives” (Matthew 19:8 a).
c “But from the beginning it has not been so” (Matthew 19:8 b).
b “And I say to you, Whoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and
shall marry another, commits adultery” (Matthew 19:9 a).
a “And he who marries her when she is put away commits adultery” (Matthew 19:9
b).
ot that in ‘a’ the question is concerning Moses’ command that a divorced woman
can be ‘put away’, and in the parallel Jesus points out that someone who marries a
wife who has been ‘put away’ commits adultery. In ‘b’ the putting away was
allowed due to the hardness of men’s hearts and in the parallel if the man remarried
he then committed adultery. Centrally in ‘c’ is that from the beginning divorce was
not allowed.
BROADUS, "Matthew 19:7-9. The Pharisees raise an objection, very naturally
suggested, and our Lord replies. Moses (in Deuteronomy 24:1) had certainly allowed
divorce, and they held that he had commanded it; how could the prophet of
azareth declare that divorce was contrary to the nature and divine design of
marriage? The Talmud of Jerusalem even represents it as a peculiar privilege of
Israel, not shared by the Gentiles. A writing of divorcement. The same phrase is
rendered bill of divorcement in Com. Ver. of Mark 10:4 and Deuteronomy 24:1, and
there ought to have been no difference in translation. The Greek is slightly different
above in Matthew 5:31. Moses.... suffered you. Jesus speaks of the law in
Deuteronomy as coming from Moses. It is very hard to reconcile this with the
fashionable theories as to a late date of Deuteronomy, and indeed of the whole
Pentateuch; it is necessary to maintain either that Jesus was mistaken, and this as to
the word of God, or else that he used the phraseology of his time in a highly
misleading fashion. Many similar expressions of his are given in the Gospels.
(Compare on Matthew 22:43.) The Pharisees had said that Moses commanded; our
Lord's reply puts it, 'suffered.' But in Mark 10:3 f. he says 'command,' and they
answer 'suffer.' We learn then that the law did not require the wronged husband to
put away his unfaithful wife; he might forgive her upon repentance, as the prophets
so often declared Jehovah willing to do with his unfaithful spouse, Israel. The law
suffered him to put away his wife, and commanded him in so doing to give the
formal writing. Because of the hardness of your hearts. The preposition (pros)
translated 'because,' signifies 'looking to,' 'considering,' 'having regard to.' It was
wise not to attempt too much in these civil regulations for such a people. Remember
that the Mosaic regulations as to marriage and divorce were civil enactments,
though resting on an ethical basis. The nation of emancipated slaves whom Moses
brought out of Egypt had no doubt fallen into great laxity concerning marriage, as
slaves always do, and he was wise enough to know that it would be a slow and

59. difficult task to lift them up to a high standard of morality in this important respect.
Yet he placed serious restrictions upon the existing facility of divorce (see on
"Matthew 5:31"f.), and even in this matter Jesus was only "completing "the law by
going further in the same direction (compare on Matthew 5:17). 'Hardness of heart'
(Romans 2:5; Ecclus. Sirach 16:10) denotes not merely lack of proper feeling, as we
use the phrase, but lack of proper perceptions and will (compare on Matthew 6:21).
The Israelites who received the law were not qualified for elevated ethical
perceptions, dispositions, or conduct, and would fiercely break over a severe
enactment; and their descendants were still too much of the same character. But the
Messiah proposes to lift them higher; and in this matter to return to the original
divine design of marriage. Our Lord thus recognizes that the practical direction of
the law of Moses in this particular respect fell short of perfection. But we must
observe that he does not declare the Old Testament as a whole to be imperfect even
in this respect, but simply goes back to its earliest teaching on the subject, its great
fundamental principles. Malachi 2:14-16 speaks of divorces as offensive to Jehovah;
but the Rabbis quibbled, some saying/that this only forbade a man's putting away
his first wife. And I say unto you, solemnly calling their attention (compare on
Matthew 5:18). Mark 10:10 shows that this was said 'in the house'—we know not
what house—where the disciples renewed the conversation. Matthew joins it
without break to the foregoing, and it was really a part of the discourse on divorce.
Our Lord gives his own authoritative statement on the subject, applying the
principle of Mark 10:6, and declares that divorce is not only not allowable 'for every
cause' (Matthew 19:3), but not allowable at all—except of course for unchastity.(1)
See the leading terms explained above on the similar statement of Matthew 5:32.
That was made in Galilee, and we are now in Southern Perea, a year or two later. It
seems strange to modern readers that the highly important exception our Lord
makes is so slightly mentioned, both here (Matthew 19:9) and in Matthew 5:32, and
that in Mark and Luke (on a somewhat earlier occasion, Matthew 16:18) it is not
recorded at all. The explanation is that among the Jews there was no question on
this point. The strictest school of Rabbis, that of Shammai, allowed divorce for
unchastity, if not for other disgraceful acts. So this matter did not need to be dwelt
on, hardly needed to be mentioned, as it would be taken for granted by all parties.
But the question is naturally asked, how could there be divorce for conjugal
unfaithfulness, when the law punished that offence with death? It is evident that the
law was not regarded as compelling the husband to bring forth his adulterous wife
for the death penalty. Joseph was minded to put Mary away privately, and was
prevented only by learning from the angel that her condition involved no guilt.
(Matthew 1:19 f) In the doubtless true story, though not belonging to Scripture, of
the adulterous woman brought before Jesus, (John 8:3-11) the Scribes and Pharisees
are represented as "tempting him " (just as here) with the question whether the law
is to be enforced in her case, and he does not say that it must he. And in the Talmud
it is perfectly plain that the Jews did divorce for adultery instead of stoning, and no
one thought of condemning it.
In Mark 10:12 the statement is expressly declared to hold of a woman also, who
divorces her husband. Everywhere in Old Testament, and everywhere else in ew
Testament, only the case of a man divorcing his wife is presented, the opposite case

60. being doubtless a very rare occurrence in Oriental life. We might take for granted
that the same principles would apply to a woman divorcing her husband, and this
saying expressly enjoins such an application. It had become quite common for
Roman women to divorce their husbands and marry again, and this custom had
begun to affect the official and fashionable circles in Palestine—as when Herodias
divorced her husband, Herod Philip, to marry Herod Antipas (see on "Matthew
14:3"). This makes it natural that our Lord should once refer to that side of the
question, and that Mark's Gospel should take pains to report the saying, as he wrote
especially for Gentile, and perhaps especially for Roman readers.
8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce
your wives because your hearts were hard. But it
was not this way from the beginning.
BAR ES, "He saith unto them ... - Jesus admits that this was allowed, but still he
contends that this was not the original design of marriage. It was only a temporary
expedient growing out of a special state of things, and not designed to be perpetual. It
was on account of the hardness of their hearts. Moses found the custom in use. He found
a hard-hearted and rebellious people. In this state of things he did not deem it prudent
to forbid a practice so universal; but it might be regulated; and, instead of suffering the
husband to divorce his wife in a passion, he required him, in order that he might take
time to consider the matter, and thus make it probable that divorces would be less
frequent, to give her a writing; to sit down deliberately to look at the matter, and
probably, also, to bring the case before some scribe or learned man, to write a divorce in
the legal form. Thus doing, there might be an opportunity for the matter to be
reconciled, and the man to be persuaded not to divorce his wife. This, says our Saviour,
was a permission growing out of a particular state of things, and designed to remedy a
prevailing evil; but at first it was not so. God intended that marriage should be between
one man and one woman, and that they were only to be separated, in the case specified,
by him who had formed the union.
Hardness of your hearts - He speaks here of his hearers as a part of the nation.
The hardness of you Jews; as when we say, we fought with England and gained our
independence; that is, we, the American people, though it was done by our fathers. He
does not mean to say, therefore, that this was done on account of the people whom he
addressed, but of the national hardness of heart - the stubbornness of the Jewish people
as a people.
CLARKE, "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts - It is dangerous to
tolerate the least evil, though prudence itself may require it: because toleration, in this
case, raises itself insensibly into permission, and permission soon sets up for command.
Moses perceived that if divorce were not permitted, in many cases, the women would be

61. exposed to great hardships through the cruelty of their husbands: for so the word
σκληροκαρδια, is understood in this place by some learned men.
From the beginning it was not so - The Jews named the books of the law from the
first word in each. Genesis they always term Bereshith, ‫,בראשית‬ which is the first word in
it, and signifies, In the beginning. It is probable that our Lord speaks in this way here, In
Bereshith it was not so, intimating that the account given in Genesis is widely different.
There was no divorce between Eve and Adam; nor did he or his family practice
polygamy. But our Lord, by the beginning, may mean the original intention or design.
GILL, "He saith unto them,.... In answer to their objection;
Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, suffered you to put away
your wives: in which may be observed, that, though it was by direction that Moses, in
his system of laws, allowed of divorces; yet not God, but he is said to do it, because it was
a branch of the political and judicial laws, by which the people of the Jews were
governed under Moses, and whilst the Mosaic economy continued, and did not concern
other people, and other times; and therefore it is said "you" and "your" wives, you Jews,
and you only, and not the Gentiles. And so the Jews say (m), that the Gentiles have no
divorces: for thus they represent God, saying;
"in Israel I have granted divorces, I have not granted divorces among the nations of the
world. R. Chananiah, in the name of R. Phineas, observed, that in every other section it
is written, the Lord of hosts, but here it is written, the God of Israel; to teach thee, that
the holy, blessed God does not join his name to divorces, but in Israel only. R. Chayah
Rabbah says, ‫גירושין‬ ‫להן‬ ‫אין‬ ‫,גוים‬ "the Gentiles have no divorces."''
Besides, this was a direct positive command to the Jews, as the Pharisees suggest in their
objection; it was only a sufferance, a permission in some cases, and not in everyone; and
that because of the hardness of their hearts; they being such a stubborn and inflexible
people, that when they were once displeased there was no reconciling them; and so
malicious and revengeful, that if this had not been granted, would have used their wives,
that displeased them, in a most cruel, and barbarous manner, if not have murdered
them: so that this grant was made, not to indulge their lusts, but to prevent greater evils;
and not so much as a privilege and liberty to the men, as in favour of the women; who,
when they could not live peaceably and comfortably with a man, might be dismissed and
marry another:
but from the beginning it was not so; from the beginning of time, or of the
creation, or of the world, or at the first institution of marriage, and in the first ages of the
world, there was no such permission, nor any such practice. This was not the declared
will of God at first, nor was it ever done by any good men before the times of Moses; we
never read that Adam, or Seth, or Noah, or Abraham, put away their wives, upon any
consideration; though in the latter there might have been some appearance of reason for
so doing, on account of sterility, but this he did not; nor Isaac, nor Jacob, nor any of the
"patriarchs".
HE RY, "IV. Christ's answer to this objection, in which,

62. 1. He rectifies their mistake concerning the law of Moses; they called it a command,
Christ calls it but a permission, a toleration. Carnal hearts will take an ell if but an inch
be given them. The law of Moses, in this case, was a political law, which God gave, as the
Governor of that people; and it was for reasons of state, that divorces were tolerated. The
strictness of the marriage union being the result, not of a natural, but of a positive law,
the wisdom of God dispensed with divorces in some cases, without any impeachment of
his holiness.
But Christ tells them there was a reason for this toleration, not at all for their credit; It
was because of the hardness of your hearts, that you were permitted to put away your
wives. Moses complained of the people of Israel in his time, that their hearts were
hardened (Deu_9:6; Deu_31:27), hardened against God; this is here meant of their
being hardened against their relations; they were generally violent and outrageous,
which way soever they took, both in their appetites and in their passions; and therefore
if they had not been allowed to put away their wives, when they had conceived a dislike
of them, they would have used them cruelly, would have beaten and abused them, and
perhaps have murdered them. Note, There is not a greater piece of hard-heartedness in
the world, than for a man to be harsh and severe with his own wife. The Jews, it seems,
were infamous for this, and therefore were allowed to put them away; better divorce
them than do worse, than that the altar of the Lord should be covered with tears, Mal_
2:13. A little compliance, to humour a madman, or a man in a frenzy, may prevent a
greater mischief. Positive laws may be dispensed with for the preservation of the law of
nature, for God will have mercy and not sacrifice; but then those are hard-hearted
wretches, who have made it necessary; and none can wish to have the liberty of divorce,
without virtually owning the hardness of their hearts. Observe, He saith, It is for the
hardness of your hearts, not only theirs who lived then, but all their seed. Note, God not
only sees, but foresees, the hardness of men's hearts; he suited both the ordinances and
providences of the Old Testament to the temper of that people, both in terror. Further
observe, The law of Moses considered the hardness of men's hearts, but the gospel of
Christ cures it; and his grace takes away the heart of stone, and gives a heart of flesh.
By the law was the knowledge of sin, but by the gospel was the conquest of it.
JAMISO , "He saith unto them, Moses — as a civil lawgiver.
because of — or “having respect to.”
the hardness of your hearts — looking to your low moral state, and your inability
to endure the strictness of the original law.
suffered you to put away your wives — tolerated a relaxation of the strictness of
the marriage bond - not as approving of it, but to prevent still greater evils.
But from the beginning it was not so — This is repeated, in order to impress
upon His audience the temporary and purely civil character of this Mosaic relaxation.
ELLICOTT, "(8) Moses because of the hardness of your hearts.—The force of the
answer lies (1) in emphasized substitution of “suffered” for “commanded.” The
scribes of the school of Hillel had almost turned divorce into a duty, even when
there was no ground for it but incompatibility of temper or other lesser fault, as if
Deuteronomy 24:1 had enjoined the writing of divorcement in such cases. (2) In the
grounds assigned for the permission. Our Lord’s position in the controversy
between the two schools was analogous to that in which those who are true at once

63. to principles and facts not seldom find themselves. He agreed, as we have seen, with
the ideal of marriage maintained by the followers of Shammai. He accepted as a
legitimate interpretation of the Law that of the followers of Hillel. But He
proclaimed, with an authority greater than that of Moses, that his legislation on this
point was a step backwards when compared with the primary law of nature, which
had been “from the beginning,” and only so far a step forward because the people
had fallen into a yet lower state, in which the observance of the higher law was
practically impossible. But for the possibility of divorce the wife would have been
the victim of the husband’s tyranny; and law, which has to deal with facts, was
compelled to choose the least of two evils. Two important consequences, it will be
obvious, flow from the reasoning thus enforced: (1) that the “hardness of heart”
which made this concession necessary may be admitted as at least a partial
explanation of whatever else in the Law of Moses strikes us as deviating from the
standard of eternal righteousness embodied in the law of Christ—as, e.g., the
tolerance of polygamy and slavery, and the severity of punishment for seeming
trivial faults; (2) that the principle is one of wider application than the particular
instance, and that where a nation calling itself Christian has sunk so low as to
exhibit the “hardness of heart” of Jews or heathens, there also a concessive
legislation may be forced upon the State even while the churches assert their witness
of the higher truth.
COFFMA , "There was, in the case before them, no conflict with Moses. Christ set
the record straight, correcting their false statement that Moses had "commanded"
divorce. On the contrary, he only permitted it, or "suffered it," as an unwelcome
choice between two evils. This is still the only possible justification of divorce, there
being cases in which it must appear as the lesser of two evils but still wrong,
permitted and yet not in harmony with the Father's perfect will.
LIGHTFOOT, "[Because Moses for the hardness of your hearts suffered, &c.]
Interpreters ordinarily understand this of the unkindness of men towards their
wives; and that not illy: but at first sight hardness of heart for the most part in
Scripture denotes rather obduration against God than against men. Examples occur
everywhere. or does this sense want its fitness in this place: not to exclude the
other, but to be joined with it here.
I. That God delivered that rebellious people for the hardness of their hearts to
spiritual fornication, that is, to idolatry, sufficiently appears out of sacred story, and
particularly from these words of the first martyr Stephen, Acts 7:42: God turned,
and gave them up to worship the host of heaven, &c. And they seem not less given
up to carnal fornication, if you observe the horrid records of their adulteries in the
Holy Scripture, and their not less horrid allowances of divorces and polygamies in
the books of the Talmudists: so that the particle...carries with it a very proper sense,
if you interpret it to, according to its most usual signification; "Moses to the
hardness of your hearts added this, that he permitted divorces; something that
savours of punishment in itself, however you esteem it for a privilege."
II. But you may interpret it more clearly and aptly of the inhumanity of husbands

64. towards their wives: but this is to be understood also under restriction: for Moses
permitted not divorces, because, simply and generally men were severe and unkind
towards their wives; for then, why should he restrain divorces to the cause of
adultery? but because, from their fierceness and cruelty towards their wives, they
might take hold of and seek occasions from that law which punished adultery with
death, to prosecute their wives with all manner of severity, to oppress them, to kill
them.
Let us search into the divine laws in case of adultery a little more largely.
1. There was a law made upon the suspicion of adultery, that the wife should
undergo a trial by the bitter waters, umbers 5: but it is disputed by the Jewish
schools, rightly and upon good ground, whether the husband was bound in this case
by duty to prosecute his wife to extremity, or whether it were lawful for him to
connive at and pardon her, if he would. And there are some who say he was bound
by duty; and there are others who say that it was left to his pleasure.
2. There was a law of death made in case of the discovery of adultery, Deuteronomy
22:21-23: "If a man shall be found lying with a married woman, both shall die," &c.
ot that this law was not in force unless they were taken in the very act; but the
word shall be found is opposed to suspicion, and means the same as if it were said,
"When it shall be found that a man hath lain," &c.
3. A law of divorce also was given in case of adultery discovered, Deuteronomy 24:1;
for in that case only, and when it is discovered, it plainly appears from our
Saviour's gloss, and from the concession of some Rabbins also, that divorces took
place: for, say they in the place last cited, "Does a man find something foul in his
wife? he cannot put her away, because he hath not found foul nakedness in her";
that is, adultery.
But now, how do the law of death and that of divorce consist together? It is
answered, They do not so consist together that both retain their force; but the
former was partly taken off by the latter, and partly not. The Divine Wisdom knew
that inhuman husbands would use that law of death unto all manner of cruelty
towards their wives: for how ready was it for a wicked and unkind husband to lay
snares even for his innocent wife, if he were weary of her, to oppress her under that
law of death! And if she were taken under guilt, how cruelly and insolently would he
triumph over her, poor woman, both to the disgrace of wedlock and to the scandal
of religion! Therefore the most prudent, and withal merciful lawgiver, made
provision that the woman, if she were guilty, might not go without her punishment;
and if she were not guilty, might go without danger; and that the wicked husband
that was impatient of wedlock might not satiate his cruelty. That which is said by
one does not please me, "That there was no place for divorce where matrimony was
broke off by capital punishment"; for there was place for divorce for that end, that
there might not be place for capital punishment. That law indeed of death held the
adulterer in a snare, and exacted capital punishment upon him, and so the law made
sufficient provision for terror: but it consulted more gently for the woman, the

65. weaker vessel, lest the cruelty of her husband might unmercifully triumph over her.
Therefore, in the suspicion of adultery, and the thing not discovered, the husband
might, if he would, try his wife by the bitter waters; or if he would he might connive
at her. In case of the discovery of adultery, the husband might put away his wife,
but he scarce might put her to death; because the law of divorce was given for that
very end, that provision might be made for the woman against the hardheartedness
of her husband.
Let this story serve for a conclusion; "Shemaiah and Abtalion compelled
Carchemith, a libertine woman-servant, to drink the bitter waters." The husband of
this woman could not put her away by the law of Moses, because she was not found
guilty of discovered adultery. He might put her away by the traditional law, which
permitted divorces without the case of adultery; he might not, if he had pleased,
have brought her to trial by the bitter waters; but it argued the hardness of his
heart towards his wife, or burning jealousy, that he brought her. I do not remember
that I have anywhere in the Jewish pandect read any example of a wife punished
with death for adultery. There is mention of the daughter of a certain priest
committing fornication in her father's house, that was burnt alive; but she was not
married.
PETT, "Jesus’ reply was that Moses had not ‘commanded’ the putting away of
wives, but had simply ‘allowed’ it. And that had only been because of the hardness
of men’s hearts. Men’s hearts had been so hardened against the will of God that
they had established customs to allow divorce under certain circumstances. Moses
had then simply sought to control the customs which they practised so as to prevent
worse sin arising. But ‘from the beginning’ it had not been so. Custom could not
replace God’s stated will and purpose, and that was that marriage was inviolate.
Man’s customs were in fact against the will of God. or did the Law permit them. It
simply legislated for what happened after men had disobediently followed their
customs.
COKE, "Matthew 19:8. Because of the hardness of your hearts— He meant their
passionate, stubborn, perverse temper, which was such, that had they not been
permitted to divorce their wives, some would not have scrupled to murder them;
others would have got rid of them by suborning witnesses to prove the crime of
adultery against them. Others would have reckoned it great mildness, if they had
contented themselves with separating from their wives, and living unmarried. Moses
therefore acted as a prudent lawgiver in allowing other causes of divorce besides
adultery; because, by admitting the less, he avoided the greater evil. At the same
time the Jews, whose hardness of heart rendered this expedient necessary, were
chargeable with all the evils that followed it; for which reason, as often as they
divorced their wives, unless in the case of adultery, they sinned against the original
law of marriage, and were criminal in the sight of God, notwithstanding that their
law allowed such divorces. Our Lord, as Grotius well observes, stronglyintimates,
that a more tender disposition than that whichcharacterizedthe Jews under the
Mosaic dispensation, might justly be expected from his disciples.

66. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife,
except for sexual immorality, and marries another
woman commits adultery.”
BAR ES, "And I say unto you - Emphasis should be laid here on the word “I.”
This was the opinion of Jesus - this he proclaimed to be the law of his kingdom this the
command of God ever afterward. Indulgence had been given by the laws of Moses; but
that indulgence was to cease, and the marriage relation to be brought back to its original
intention. Only one offence was to make divorce lawful. This is the law of God; and by
the same law, all marriages which take place after divorce, where adultery is not the
cause of divorce, are adulterous. Legislatures have no right to say that people may put
away their wives for any other cause; and where they do, and where there is marriage
afterward, by the law of God such marriages are adulterous!
CLARKE, "Except it be for fornication - See on Mat_5:32 (note). The decision of
our Lord must be very unpleasant to these men: the reason why they wished to put away
their wives was, that they might take others whom they liked better; but our Lord here
declares that they could not be remarried while the divorced person was alive, and that
those who did marry, during the life of the divorced, were adulterers; and heavy
judgments were, denounced, in their law, against such: and as the question was not
settled by the schools of Shammai and Hillel, so as to ground national practice on it
therefore they were obliged to abide by the positive declaration of the law, as it was
popularly understood, till these eminent schools had proved the word had another
meaning. The grand subject of dispute between the two schools, mentioned above, was
the word in Deu_24:1, When a man hath taken a wife - and she find no grace in his sight,
because of some Uncleanness, ‫ערות‬ eruath: - this the school of Shammai held to mean
whoredom or adultery; but the school of Hillel maintained that it signified any corporeal
defect, which rendered the person deformed, or any bad temper which made the
husband’s life uncomfortable. Any of the latter a good man might bear with; but it
appears that Moses permitted the offended husband to put away the wife on these
accounts, merely to save her from cruel usage.
In this discourse, our Lord shows that marriage, (except in one case), is indissoluble,
and should be so: -
1st, By Divine institution, Mat_19:4.
2dly, By express commandment, Mat_19:5.

67. 3dly, Because the married couple become one and the same person, Mat_19:6.
4thly, By the example of the first pair, Mat_19:8; and
5thly, Because of the evil consequent on separation, Mat_19:9. The importance of this
subject will, I hope, vindicate or excuse, the length of these notes.
GILL, "And I say unto you,.... To his disciples, when they were with him alone in the
house, and asked him more particularly about the subject, concerning which he had
been discoursing with the Pharisees, as Mark observes, Mar_10:10 when he said to them
much the same things, he had delivered before in Mat_5:32
whosoever shall put away in his wife; separate her from his person, house and bed,
and dismiss her as his wife, no more to be considered in that relation to him,
except it be for fornication; or whoredom, for defiling his bed: for this is not to be
understood of fornication committed before, but of uncleanness after marriage, which
destroys their being one flesh:
and shall marry another woman, committeth adultery; Marks adds, "against
her"; which may be understood either of the woman he marries, which not being
lawfully done, she lives in adultery with the husband of another woman; or of his former
wife, and who is still his wife, and to whose injury he has married another; and he not
only commits adultery himself, but, as in Mat_5:32 "causeth her to commit adultery
also", by being the occasion of marrying another man, when she is still his lawful wife:
and whoso marrieth her which is put away, for any other cause than adultery,
doth commit adultery also; since he cohabits with the wife of another man; see Gill
on Mat_5:32
HE RY, "3. He settles the point by an express law; I say unto you (Mat_19:9); and it
agrees with what he said before (Mat_5:32); there it was said in preaching, here in
dispute, but it is the same, for Christ is constant to himself. Now, in both these places,
(1.) He allows divorce, in case of adultery; the reason of the law against divorce being
this, They two shall be one flesh. If the wife play the harlot, and make herself one flesh
with an adulterer, the reason of the law ceases, and so does the law. By the law of Moses
adultery was punished with death, Deu_22:22. Now our Saviour mitigates the rigour of
that, and appoints divorce to be the penalty. Dr. Whitby understands this, not of
adultery, but (because our Saviour uses the word porneia - fornication) of uncleanness
committed before marriage, but discovered afterward; because, if it were committed
after, it was a capital crime, and there needed no divorce.
(2.) He disallows it in all other cases: Whosoever puts away his wife, except for
fornication, and marries another, commits adultery. This is a direct answer to their
query, that it is not lawful. In this, as in other things, gospel times are times of
reformation, Heb_9:10. The law of Christ tends to reinstate man in his primitive
integrity; the law of love, conjugal love, is no new commandment, but was from the
beginning. If we consider what mischiefs to families and states, what confusions and
disorders, would follow upon arbitrary divorces, we shall see how much this law of
Christ is for our own benefit, and what a friend Christianity is to our secular interests.

68. The law of Moses allowing divorce for the hardness of men's hearts, and the law of
Christ forbidding it, intimate, that Christians being under a dispensation of love and
liberty, tenderness of heart may justly be expected among them, that they will not be
hard-hearted, like Jews, for God has called us to peace. There will be no occasion for
divorces, if we forbear one another, and forgive one another, in love, as those that are,
and hope to be, forgiven, and have found God not forward to put us away, Isa_50:1. No
need of divorces, if husbands love their wives, and wives be obedient to their husbands,
and they live together as heirs of the grace of life: and these are the laws of Christ, such
as we find not in all the law of Moses.
JAMISO , "And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except,
etc. — See on Mat_5:32.
CALVI , "9.But I say to you. Mark relates that this was spoken to the disciples
apart, when they had come into the house; but Matthew, leaving out this
circumstance, gives it as a part of the discourse, as the Evangelists frequently leave
out some intermediate occurrence, because they reckon it enough to sum up the
leading points. There is therefore no difference, except that the one explains the
matter more distinctly than the other. The substance of it is: though the Law does
not punish divorces, which are at variance with God’s first institution, yet he is an
adulterer who rejects his wife and takes another. For it is not in the power of a man
to dissolve the engagement of marriage, which the Lord wishes to remain inviolate;
and so the woman who occupies the bed of a lawful wife is a concubine.
But an exception is added; for the woman, by fornication, cuts herself off, as a
rotten member, from her husband, and sets him at liberty. Those who search for
other reasons ought justly to be set at nought, because they choose to be wise above
the heavenly teacher. They say that leprosy is a proper ground for divorce, because
the contagion of the disease affects not only the husband, but likewise the children.
For my own part, while I advise a religious man not to touch a woman afflicted with
leprosy, I do not pronounce him to be at liberty to divorce her. If it be objected, that
they who cannot live unmarried need a remedy, that they may not be burned, I
answer, that what is sought in opposition to the word of God is not a remedy. I add
too, that if they give themselves up to be guided by the Lord, they will never want
continence, for they follow what he has prescribed. One man shall contract such a
dislike of his wife, that he cannot endure to keep company with her: will polygamy
cure this evil? Another man’s wife shall fall into palsy or apoplexy, or be afflicted
with some other incurable disease, shall the husband reject her under the pretense
of incontinency? We know, on the contrary, that none of those who walk in their
ways are ever left destitute of the assistance of the Spirit.
For the sake of avoiding fornication, says Paul, let every man marry a wife, (1
Corinthians 7:2.) He who has done so, though he may not succeed to his wish, has
done his duty; and, therefore, if any thing be wanting, he will be supported by
divine aid. To go beyond this is nothing else than to tempt God. When Paul
mentions another reason, namely, that when, through a dislike of godliness, wives

69. happen to be rejected by unbelievers, a godly brother or sister is not, in such a case,
liable to bondage, (1 Corinthians 7:12,) this is not inconsistent with Christ’s
meaning. For he does not there inquire into the proper grounds of divorce, but only
whether a woman continues to be bound to an unbelieving husband, after that,
through hatred of God, she has been wickedly rejected, and cannot be reconciled to
him in any other way than by forsaking God; and therefore we need not wonder if
Paul think it better that she should part with a mortal man than that she should be
at variance with God.
But the exception which Christ states appears to be superfluous. For, if the
adulteress deserve to be punished with death, what purpose does it serve to talk of
divorces? But as it was the duty of the husband to prosecute his wife for adultery, in
order to purge his house from infamy, whatever might be the result, the husband,
who convicts his wife of uncleanness, is here freed by Christ from the bond. It is
even possible that, among a corrupt and degenerate people, this crime remained to a
great extent unpunished; as, in our own day, the wicked forbearance of magistrates
makes it necessary for husbands to put away unchaste wives, because adulterers are
not punished. It must also be observed, that the right belongs equally and mutually
to both sides, as there is a mutual and equal obligation to fidelity. For, though in
other matters the husband holds the superiority, as to the marriage bed, the wife has
an equal right: for he is not the lord of his body; and therefore when, by committing
adultery, he has dissolved the marriage, the wife is set at liberty.
And whosoever shall marry her that is divorced. This clause has been very ill
explained by many commentators; for they have thought that generally, and without
exception, celibacy is enjoined in all cases when a divorce has taken place; and,
therefore, if a husband should put away an adulteress, both would be laid under the
necessity of remaining unmarried. As if this liberty of divorce meant only not to lie
with his wife; and as if Christ did not evidently grant permission in this case to do
what the Jews were wont indiscriminately to do at their pleasure. It was therefore a
gross error; for, though Christ condemns as an adulterer the man who shall marry a
wife that has been divorced, this is undoubtedly restricted to unlawful and frivolous
divorces. In like manner, Paul enjoins those who have been so dismissed
to remain unmarried, or to be reconciled to their husbands,
(1 Corinthians 7:11;)
that is, because quarrels and differences do not dissolve a marriage. This is clearly
made out from the passage in Mark, where express mention is made of the wife who
has left her husband: and if the wife shall divorce her husband ot that wives were
permitted to give their husbands a letter of divorcement, unless so far as the Jews
had been contaminated by foreign customs; but Mark intended to show that our
Lord condemned the corruption which was at that time universal, that, after
voluntary divorces, they entered on both sides into new marriages; and therefore he
makes no mention of adultery.
ELLICOTT, "(9) Whosoever shall put away his wife.—The questions to which the

70. law thus proclaimed gives rise have been discussed in the ote on Matthew 5:32.
One serious difference has, however, to be noticed. Where in the earlier form of the
precept we read, “cuseth her (the woman put away for any cause but adultery) to
commit adultery,” we have here, more emphatically as bearing on the position of the
husband in such a case, the statement that he by contracting another marriage
“commits adultery.” The utmost that the law of Christ allows in such a case is a
divorce, a mensâ et thoro, not a vinculo. The legislation which permits the complete
divorce on other grounds, such as cruelty or desertion on either side, is justified, so
far as it is justifiable at all, on the ground of the “hardness of heart” which makes
such a concession necessary. It is interesting to compare St. Paul’s treatment of
cases which the letter of this command did not cover, in 1 Corinthians 7:10-15.
COFFMA , "Christ's exception does no violence to God's word. Divorce is still an
evil; but, in the case of adultery of one of the partners, it is a lesser evil than living
with an unfaithful spouse. Permitted in such a case? Yes, but the dissolution of
marriage is contrary to God's law. Paul's exception in 1 Corinthians 7:15 is not an
addition to the one given by Christ in this place but should be viewed as
presumptive evidence of the condition named in Jesus' exception. Desertion by one
of the marriage partners affords the strongest presumption of adultery also.
The law of God is easy to understand. Problems arise only from the complications
that set in when people sin, giving rise to all kinds of fantastic situations. For those
who find themselves entangled in such frustrations and contradictions rising out of
violations of God's basic law, it is not recommended that they "solve" their
problems in the dim light of human legislation, but rather by casting themselves
upon the mercy of God. Vast numbers of situations exist today for which no proper
or truly adequate solution is possible. Human laws, the opinions of ecclesiastics, the
canon law of churches, the judgments of preachers, bishops, or popes, are all
valueless in this area where only God has the right to legislate.
PETT, "Thus in God’s eyes if a man puts away his wife and marries another he
commits adultery. And anyone who marries the wife who is divorced also commits
adultery. Both are sinning grievously against God. ote the, ‘I say to you’ (compare
its repetition in chapter 5). This dictum has the authority of Jesus behind it.
There is, however, one exception to the rule, and that is where porneia has been
committed. This word is wider than just fornication and adultery and is used to
cover different kinds of sexual misbehaviour (see 1 Corinthians 5:1; 1 Corinthians
5:13-13; Ephesians 5:3; Colossians 3:5). Thus if there has been fornication of one of
the parties to a marriage with an outside party before the marriage was finalised
that would justify divorce, for strictly from God’s viewpoint that person would be
seen as married to that other. It would include adultery, for such adultery would
break the marriage bond, thus releasing from it the ‘innocent’ party in the same
way as the death of the guilty party would (which was strictly required according to
the Law). It could include bestiality (lying with an animal) for that too would break
the marriage bond. It would probably include acts of lesbianism or homosexuality.

71. We should note that this ‘exception’ actually strengthens the significance of
marriage. The exception arises because one of the parties has sinfully broken the
marriage by an act which has made them in God’s eyes liable to die. Thus the idea is
that the ‘innocent’ party can treat them as being ‘dead’ in God’s eyes. They are ‘cut
off’. They are no longer within God’s covenant. Divorce from them therefore
maintains the sanctity of marriage.
This exception was especially important for Matthew because a Jew (and therefore
often a Christian Jew) saw adultery not only as a grounds for divorce but as
actually requiring divorce. Adultery was seen as an unredeemable blot on the
marriage. For Mark and Luke in writing to Gentiles it did not have quite the same
importance and they therefore do not refer to it. They wanted rather to stress the
permanence of marriage. But all would have agreed that adultery destroys a
marriage for it is the equivalent of an act of remarriage (1 Corinthians 6:16).
But in all our discussion about divorce we must not here lose sight of the fact that
Jesus is laying down a new ‘interpretation of the Law’ under the Kingly Rule of
Heaven (compare on Matthew 5:27-32). He is beginning to introduce His new world.
And this radical change with regard to marriage is a first step in the process.
COKE, "Matthew 19:9. Whoever shall put away his wife, &c.— From our Lord's
answer it appears, that the school of Sammai taught the best morality on the subject
of divorce, but that the opinion of the school of Hillel was more agreeable to the law
of Moses on that point. See on ch. Matthew 5:31. The present verse seems to be
parallel to Mark 10:11 having been spoken to the disciples in the house, as is
probable from the unusual change of persons observable in this part of the
discourse. The practice of unlimited divorces, which prevailed among the Jews, gave
great encouragement to family quarrels, was very destructive of charity, and
hindered the good education of their common offspring: besides, it tended not a
little to make their children lose that reverence for them which is due toparents, as it
was scarcely possible for the children to avoid engaging in the quarrel. Our Lord's
prohibition, therefore, of these divorces is founded on the strongest reason, and
tends highly to the peace and welfare of society. See Macknight, and Mintert on the
word πορνεια .
10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the
situation between a husband and wife, it is better
not to marry.”
BAR ES, "His disciples say ... - The disciples were full of Jewish notions. They

72. thought that the privilege of divorcing a wife when there was a quarrelsome disposition,
or anything else that rendered the marriage unhappy, was a great privilege; and that in
such cases to be always bound to live with a wife was a great calamity. They said,
therefore, that if such was the case - such the condition on which people married - it was
better not to marry.
CLARKE, "If the case of the man - Του ανθρωπου, of a husband, so I think the
word should be translated here. The Codex Bezae, Armenian, and most of the Itala, have
του ανδρος, which, perhaps, more properly signifies a husband, though both words are
used in this sense.
Our word husband comes from the Anglo-Saxon, hus and band: the bond of the house,
anciently spelt housebond, - so in my old MS. Bible. It is a lamentable case when the
husband, instead of being the bond and union of the family, scatters and ruins it by
dissipation, riot, and excess.
It is not good to marry - That is, if a man have not the liberty to put away his wife
when she is displeasing to him. God had said, Gen_2:18, It is not good for man to be
alone, i.e. unmarried. The disciples seem to say, that if the husband have not the power
to divorce his wife when she is displeasing to him, it is not good for him to marry. Here
was a flat contradiction to the decision of the Creator. There are difficulties and trials in
all states; but let marriage and celibacy be weighed fairly, and I am persuaded the former
will be found to have fewer than the latter. However, before we enter into an engagement
which nothing but death can dissolve, we had need to act cautiously, carefully consulting
the will and word of God. Where an unbridled passion, or a base love of money, lead the
way, marriage is sure to be miserable.
GILL, "His disciples say unto him,.... Being surprised at this account of things, it
being quite contrary to what they had been taught, and very different from the general
practice and usage of their nation:
if the case of a man be so with his wife; if they are so closely joined together in
marriage; if they are, as it were, one flesh, or one body, that a man's wife is himself: that
the bond between them is so inviolable, that it is not to be dissolved, but in case of
adultery; that if a separation be made by a bill of divorce, in any other case, and either
party marry again, they are guilty of adultery; if a man cannot part with his wife lawfully,
provided she be chaste, and is faithful to his bed, let her be what she will otherwise,
though ever so disagreeable in her person, and troublesome in her behaviour; though
she may be passionate, and a brawler; though she may be drunken, luxurious, and
extravagant, and mind not the affairs of her family, yet if she is not an adulteress, must
not be put away:
it is not good to marry; it would be more expedient and advisable for a man to live
always a single life, than to run the risk of marrying a woman, that may prove very
disagreeable and uncomfortable; to whom he must be bound all the days of his or her
life, and, in such a case, not to be able to relieve and extricate himself. This they said
under the prejudice of a national law and custom, which greatly prevailed, and under the
influence of a carnal heart.

73. HE RY, "V. Here is a suggestion of the disciples against this law of Christ (Mat_
19:10); If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is better not to marry. It seems, the
disciples themselves were loth to give up the liberty of divorce, thinking it a good
expedient for preserving comfort in the married state; and therefore, like sullen children,
if they have not what they would have, they will throw away what they have. If they may
not be allowed to put away their wives when they please, they will have no wives at all;
though, from the beginning, when no divorce was allowed, God said, It is not good for
man to be alone, and blessed them, pronounced them blessed who were thus strictly
joined together; yet, unless they may have a liberty of divorce, they think it is good for a
man not to marry. Note, 1. Corrupt nature is impatient of restraint, and would fain break
Christ's bonds in sunder, and have a liberty for its own lusts. 2. It is a foolish, peevish
thing for men to abandon the comforts of this life, because of the crosses that are
commonly woven in with them, as if we must needs go out of the world, because we have
not every thing to our mind in the world; or must enter into no useful calling or
condition, because it is made our duty to abide in it. No, whatever our condition is, we
must bring our minds to it, be thankful for its comforts, submissive to its crosses, and, as
God has done, set the one over against the other, and make the best of that which is,
Ecc_7:14. If the yoke of marriage may not be thrown off at pleasure, it does not follow
that therefore we must not come under it; but therefore, when we do come under it, we
must resolve to comport with it, by love, and meekness, and patience, which will make
divorce the most unnecessary undesirable thing that can be.
JAMISO , "His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with
his wife, it is not good to marry — that is, “In this view of marriage, surely it must
prove a snare rather than a blessing, and had better be avoided altogether.”
HAWKER 10-12, ""His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his
wife, it is not good to marry. (11) But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this
saying, save they to whom it is given. (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."
How little do these men form proper conceptions in what the kingdom of heaven in
grace is made, who have fancied the qualifications for the enjoyment of it consists in
things outward; instead of that regeneration of the heart, which the Lord himself
describes, as the best and only qualification, by the blood and righteoussness of Jesus
Christ. Men may make themselves what they may in nature, but it is the Lord who alone
makes a new heart in grace. Joh_3:8; Eze_36:24-32.
CALVI , "10.His disciples say to him. As if it were a hard condition for husbands
to be so bound to their wives, that, so long as they remain chaste, they are compelled
to endure every thing rather than leave them, the disciples, roused by this answer of
Christ, reply, that it is better to want wives than to submit to a knot of this kind.
(603) But why do they not, on the other hand, consider how hard is the bondage of
wives, (604) but because, devoted to themselves and their own convenience, they are
driven by the feeling of the flesh to disregard others, and to think only of what is

74. advantageous for themselves? Meanwhile, it is a display of base ingratitude that,
from the dread or dislike of a single inconvenience, they reject a wonderful gift of
God. It is better, according to them, to avoid marriage than to bind one’s self by the
bond of living always together. (605) But if God has ordained marriage for the
general advantage of mankind, though it may be attended by some things that are
disagreeable, it is not on that account to be despised. Let us therefore learn not to be
delicate and saucy, but to use with reverence the gifts of God, even if there be
something in them that does not please us. Above all, let us guard against this
wickedness in reference to holy marriage; for, in consequence of its being attended
by many annoyances, Satan has always endeavored to make it an object of hatred
and detestation, in order to withdraw men from it. And Jerome has given too
manifest a proof of a malicious and wicked disposition, in not only loading with
calumnies that sacred and divinely appointed condition of life, but in collecting as
many terms of reproach ( λοιδορίας) as he could from profane authors, in order to
take away its respectability. But let us recollect that whatever annoyances belong to
marriage are accidental, for they arise out of the depravity of man. Let us remember
that, since our nature was corrupted, marriage began to be a medicine, and
therefore we need not wonder if it have a bitter taste mixed with its sweetness. But
we must see how our Lord confutes this folly.
ELLICOTT, "(10) If the case of the man.—The words seem to indicate that the
laxer view of the school of Hillel was the more popular one even with those who, like
the disciples, had been roused to some efforts after a righteousness higher than that
of the scribes or Pharisees. They looked forward to the possible discomforts of
marriage under the conditions which their Master had set before them, and drew
the conclusion that they outweighed its advantages. Why entangle themselves in a
union which they were no longer able to dissolve, when they got tired of it, by the
short and easy method of a bill of divorcement? It is instructive to remember that
one of the greatest of English writers has taken the same line of thought in dealing
with the question. Milton’s Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce, and the treatises that
followed it, are but an elaborate and eloquent expression of the words of the
disciples, “If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.”
PETT, "This comment was probably made by the disciples after the Pharisees had
left the scene, the latter no doubt justifying their own position loudly as they went. It
may well actually have been based on what the Pharisees were arguing, although
out of earshot of Jesus, for they would not want to give Him another opportunity of
showing them up. Indeed the Pharisees may well have considered this a clinching
argument against what Jesus had said, that if people took Jesus seriously marriage
would cease. Thus Jesus must be wrong, for marriage was God’s ordinance and
there was no alternative.
They were, of course, not able to cite any alternative, for, to a respectable Jew, apart
from celibacy, there was none. ‘Living together’ without marriage would not have
been acceptable. And as most of them saw marriage and childbearing as a duty from
God (some Essenes were an exception, but that was precisely because they saw the
times as so threatening) that meant that in their eyes marriage must be encouraged,

75. while they saw what Jesus was teaching as discouraging marriage. The disciples also
clearly saw the logic in this and wanted to know what Jesus’ answer to this problem
was.
The importance that male Jews placed on their right to divorce their wives, even if
they did not often do so, comes out in this reaction of the disciples. It appeared to
the disciples also that this statement of Jesus would make it inexpedient to marry,
something that went against all that they had been brought up to believe. For the
idea of marriage being a binding and lifelong commitment clearly appalled them.
This was, of course, a reaction based on the ideas that they were used to (and
demonstrates how male Jews looked on marriage as something under their control.
They did in fact consider that the woman’s commitment should be lifelong unless
ended by the man). So the idea that divorce was not acceptable to God put a whole
new perspective on marriage, and gave it far greater substance and permanence.
And yet for that very reason it appeared to be going too far (they did not consider
the fact that for the woman it had always been so). Surely then what Jesus had said
would make marriage unattractive to men and something best avoided. It was only a
theoretical argument, for it was unlikely that many would abstain from it, but it
sounded logical.
Verses 10-12
Jesus Offers The Opportunity Of Remaining Unmarried Like Himself For the Sake
of the Kingly Rule of Heaven (19:10-12).
At this point there is a change of scenery. The Pharisees have probably departed
and the disciples are now probably walking along with Jesus and following up on
what He has said. It has shaken them as well as the Pharisees. They suggest that as
far as they can see, if a man can never divorce his wife in spite of any problems that
arise, perhaps it would be better for him not to marry in the first place. This hardly
intended this to be taken as a serious suggestion. It was rather a counter-argument
against what Jesus had said about the inviolability of marriage (a counter-argument
possibly suggested by the Pharisees). Their point was that to make marriage such a
hardship was to discourage the Jews, who looked on marriage and the production of
a family as a duty as well as a privilege, in accordance with God’s command to ‘be
fruitful and multiply’ (Genesis 1:28), from actually marrying. Thus it appeared to
them that Jesus’ teaching would result in the opposite of what was intended, the not
to be thought of alternative of no one marrying at all.
We can compare with this startled question a similar startled question in Matthew
19:25. They are slowly beginning to be made aware of what the presence among
them of the Kingly Rule of Heaven involves.
Jesus takes up this suggestion and replies that the alternative is in fact not quite so
out of the question as they might think. History in fact demonstrated that God had
decreed that many men were unable to marry. There were, for example, those whom
the later Rabbis described as ‘eunuchs of Heaven’. Due to genetic problems at birth,
or a later accident, their sexual organs did not function properly. Thus they were

76. unlikely to marry. It was clear from this therefore that God, Who had allowed this
situation to occur, did not require all men to marry. Furthermore there were men
who had been rendered impotent at the hands of other men, eunuchs (castrated
servants) who served in royal palaces and rich men’s houses. These were what the
later Rabbis described as the ‘eunuchs of men’. This treatment had been carried out
on them so that they would be more dedicated and less belligerent as servants,
sometimes even having the privilege of watching over a monarch’s wives in the
harem, and this too regularly meant that they did not marry.
Furthermore now, with His coming, there was a third alternative to be considered.
Those who became virtual eunuchs ‘for the sake of the Kingly Rule of Heaven’. One
partial example of this could be found in Jeremiah 16:2 where God had said to
Jeremiah, ‘You shall not take a wife, nor shall you have sons and daughters in this
place.’ Jeremiah had been forbidden to do what every Jewish man should do as a
testimony to the dreadful things that would soon be coming on other people’s wives,
sons and daughters. So this was one case where marriage was forbidden in order to
get over the message of God’s sovereignty and purpose in judgment.
But now an even more important situation had occurred in the arrival of the
Coming One and the establishing of the Kingly Rule of Heaven. Thus in this new
emergency situation there was a call for those who were able to do so without
sinning, to abstain from marriage for the sake of the Kingly Rule of Heaven so that
they might be servants unfettered by the ties of wife and family, who were thus the
better ready to face what the future held (compare 1 Corinthians 7:29-32). This was
the only other grounds which could justify remaining single, as both Jesus and John
the Baptist had. But such a change in men’s perspectives indicated the new situation
which had now arisen. The Kingly Rule of Heaven was here. And God was, as it
were, looking for ‘eunuchs’ to serve in the King’s house and do His bidding.
The case of Jeremiah may suggest that Jesus was indicating that by deliberately
remaining single in order to advance the Kingly Rule of Heaven they too, like
Jeremiah, were giving a warning to the nation of the times of judgment that were
coming, when Jerusalem itself would be destroyed. But certainly we may see in it an
indication of the urgency of the times in the light of the fact that the new world was
beginning.
Analysis.
a The disciples say to him, “If the case of the man is so with his wife, it is not
expedient to marry”, but he said to them, “ ot all men can receive this saying, but
they to whom it is given” (Matthew 19:10-11).
b “For there are eunuchs, who were so born from their mother’s womb, and there
are eunuchs, who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs, who made
themselves eunuchs for the kingly rule of heaven’s sake (Matthew 19:12 a).
a He who is able to receive it, let him receive it” (Matthew 19:12 b).
COKE, "Matthew 19:10. If the case of the man be so, &c.— The disciples observed

77. to their Lord, that since the law of marriage is so rigid, that, unless the woman
breaks the bond by going astray, her husband cannot dismiss her, but must bear
with her, whatever are her other vices, deformities, or defects,—a man had better
not marry at all. To this our Lord replies, that certainly it is not in every one's
power to live continently; yet if any man has the gift, whether by natural
constitution, or by the injury of human force used upon him, which has rendered
him incapable of the matrimonial union,—according to that infamous traffic which
the luxury and effeminacy of the Eastern world rendered so common; or by an
ardent desire of promoting the interests of religion, animating him to subdue his
natural appetite, and enabling him to live in voluntarychastity, unincumbered with
the cares of the world; such a person will not sin, though he lead a single life. That
the imputation of desire only is meant by the phrase, who have made themselves
eunuchs, may be gathered from the other clauses of the passage: for there is mention
made first of eunuchs, who were so born from their mother's womb; plainly
importing that some are continent by natural constitution. ext we are told of
eunuchs who have been made so by men; and last of all, there be, who have made
themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake; not by doing violence to
themselves, but by a strong resolution of living continently in a state of celibacy, for
the sake of promoting more effectually the interests of religion. See 1 Corinthians
7:7; 1 Corinthians 7:37. Our Lord adds, He that is able to receive it, let him receive
it; which words must not be referred to the clauses immediately preceding them, as
if our Lord meant to say, "He who is able to become an eunuch by any of the ways I
have mentioned, let him become one:" for the second way is without all question
unlawful: but they must refer to Matthew 19:11 as is plain from the words
themselves. In that verse Jesus had said, "All men cannot receive this saying, &c.
They cannot live without marriage chastely, unless they have the gift of continency."
In the 12th verse he shews how that gift is obtained, mentioning three ways of it;
and then adds, he that is able to receive it, let him receive it. "He who by any of the
methods that I have mentioned is in a capacity of living chastely, may continue
unmarried without sinning." We may just observe, that what is here said of a single
life, is entirely perverted by the Roman Catholics, when they produce it to discredit
matrimony, and exalt celibacy as a more perfect state; for on this very occasion
marriage is declared to be an institution of God: and, lest any one might have
replied, that it was a remedy contrived purely for the weakness of our fallen state, it
is particularlyobserved, that it was instituted in the time of man's innocence.
Wherefore, as the Apostle tells us, Marriage is honourable in all ranks and
conditions of persons, provided the duties thereof are inevitably maintained.
Besides, it is false to affirm that our Lord recommends celibacy; he only gives
permission for it, as a thing not unlawful; telling them, that if they were able to live
continently, they would not sin, though they did not marry; especially as the times
they lived in were times of persecution. In this light also the judgment of the apostle
St. Paul is to be considered, 1 Corinthians 7:26. See Macknight, Wetstein, and
Chemnitz
BROADUS, "Matthew 19:10-12. A remark by the disciples and the Master's reply.
The fact that this was 'in the house' (Mark), with only the disciples present, accords

78. well with the delicacy of the subject. This naive remark shows that even they shared
largely the popular views and feelings concerning marriage and divorce, and
thought that as an indissoluble union, marriage was to be avoided. Similar
(Plumptre) is the view of Milton's "Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce." If the case
be so, and the form of expression implies that they accept the supposition as true.
The word rendered 'case' is rendered 'cause' in Matthew 19:3. It seems here
necessarily to mean 'case' or 'matter,' and this sense is very generally accepted,
though it has not been established by other usage. The Latin versions have causa.
Meyer's attempt to make it here mean cause is not successful. It is not good (or
expedient) to marry, the term rendered 'it is profitable' in Matthew 18:6, Matthew
5:29 f.; see also in 1 Corinthians 6:12, 1 Corinthians 10:23. Our Lord's reply is that
marriage is some times not expedient. All men cannot receive this saying, viz., the
saying that it is not expedient to marry. What they have said is true in some cases,
and for a special reason, quite different from the one intimated by them. To
understand 'this saying' as his own saying, that marriage is indissoluble, would
make the Saviour contradict his own argument, for he had argued from the divine
purpose in the creation of man. 'Receive' does not here mean to accept as true, but
the peculiar Greek word signifies to have space in one's nature for something—like
a vessel holding so much, compare John 21:25—sometimes in the sense of capacity
to know (Lid. and Scott), here in the sense of capacity to act out. ' ot all men have
room (capacity) for this saying.' The capacity depends on physiological constitution
and general temperament, making it practicable to be happy and useful without
marriage. Some men are naturally disqualified for marriage, and others have been
disqualified by human action. Some voluntarily abstain from marriage for the
kingdom of heaven's sake, for the sake of greater usefulness in-proclaiming its
truths and promoting its establishment. Some Rabbinical writers also use the
phrase, "made themselves eunuchs," as a figure for voluntary and entire sexual
abstinence. The phrase was, and would still be, natural enough in Oriental speech,
however repulsive to us. It would probably never have been understood literally by
any one, but for well known practices among some heathen devotees in Asia Minor
and elsewhere. Origen took it literally in his youth and acted upon it, but interprets
it altogether spiritually in his commentary on this passage.—The Jewish feeling
regarded marriage as universally desirable; Jesus says that for some persons it is
best to abstain. He thus distinctly intimates that celibacy may give great advantages
in promoting Christianity, as the Apostle Paul afterwards urged in 1 Corinthians 7.
Where a man feels deeply moved to engage in some form of religious work, with the
prosecution of which marriage would greatly interfere, then it is well if he can be
willing to remain unmarried. So John the Baptist, and Paul. But Paul by no means
pressed celibacy upon all, recognizing natural differences in regard to it, and full
liberty of personal decision. And so the Saviour did, even repeating, He that is able,
etc. Observe that neither Jesus nor Paul nor Scripture anywhere favours the ascetic
notion that marriage is impure, or essentially less pure than celibacy; on the
contrary, "Let marriage be had in honour among all", (Hebrews 13:4, Rev. Ver.)
and it was false teachers of the worst type who were in later times "forbidding to
marry." (1 Timothy 4:1-3) The question is not of a more or less holy slate, but of
greater or less usefulness, in promoting the kingdom of heaven. Among the apostles
to whom Jesus said this, celibacy was not the rule, but the exception. Simon Peter

79. was married, (Matthew 8:14) and when Paul wrote (1 Corinthians 9:5 ff., R.V.),
"the rest of the apostles," and "the brethren of the Lord," carried their wives with
them in their missionary journeys. Paul himself remained unmarried for the sake of
giving himself without hindrance to his work.—The (1 Corinthians 7:32 f.) Romish
rule of universal celibacy in the priesthood occasioned a Protestant reaction to the
opposite extreme. Protestant public opinion almost demands that a minister shall
marry. Yet how much missionary work, in savage or sickly countries, or in home
fields that cannot support a family, could be far better done by unmarried men.
How many a young minister cuts short his preparatory studies, or prosecutes them
amid great interruption and hindrance, or is obliged to begin pastoral work in too
exacting a field, for the sake of an unnecessarily early marriage. Every one must
decide for himself; but he should decide in view of life as a whole, and of the life to
come.
11 Jesus replied, “ ot everyone can accept this
word, but only those to whom it has been given.
BAR ES, "All men cannot receive this saying - The minds of people are not
prepared for this. This saying evidently means what the disciples had just said that it was
good for a man not to marry. It might be good in certain circumstances - in times of
persecution and trial, or for the sake of laboring in the cause of religion without the care
and burden of a family. It might be good for many to live, as some of the apostles did,
without marriage, but it was not given to all people, 1Co_7:1, 1Co_7:7,1Co_7:9. To be
married, or unmarried, might be lawful, according to circumstances, 1Co_7:26.
CLARKE, "All - cannot receive this saying - A very wise answer, and well suited
to the present circumstances of the disciples. Neither of the states is condemned. If thou
marry, thou dost well - this is according to the order, will, and commandment of God.
But if thou do not marry, (because of the present necessity, persecution, worldly
embarrassments, or bodily infirmity), thou dost better. See 1Co_7:25.
GILL, "But he said unto them,.... With respect to the inference or conclusion, the
disciples formed from what he had asserted:
all men cannot receive this saying; of their's, that it is not good to marry, but it is
more proper and expedient to live a single life! every man, as the Syriac version renders
it, is not ‫לה‬ ‫,ספק‬ "sufficient", or "fit", for this thing; everyone has not the gift of

80. continency, and indeed very few; and therefore it is expedient for such to marry; for
what the disciples said, though it might be true in part, yet not in the whole; and though
the saying might be proper and pertinent enough to some persons, yet not to all, and
indeed to none,
save they to whom it is given; to receive such a saying, to live unmarried with
content, having the gift of chastity; for this is not of nature, but of grace: it is the gift of
God.
HE RY, "VI. Christ's answer to this suggestion (Mat_19:11, Mat_19:12), in which,
1. He allows it good for some not to marry; He that is able to receive it, let him receive
it. Christ allowed what the disciples said, It is good not to marry; not as an objection
against the prohibition of divorce, as they intended it, but as giving them a rule (perhaps
no less unpleasing to them), that they who have the gift of continence, and are not under
any necessity of marrying, do best if they continue single (1Co_7:1); for they that are
unmarried have opportunity, if they have but a heart, to care more for the things of the
Lord, how they may please the Lord (1Co_7:32-34). being less encumbered with the
cares of this life, and having a greater vacancy of thought and time to mind better things.
The increase of grace is better than the increase of the family, and fellowship with the
Father and with his Son Jesus Christ is to be preferred before any other fellowship.
2. He disallows it, as utterly mischievous, to forbid marriage, because all men cannot
receive this saying; indeed few can, and therefore the crosses of the married state must
be borne, rather than that men should run themselves into temptation, to avoid them;
better marry than burn.
Christ speaks here of a twofold unaptness to marriage.
(1.) That which is a calamity by the providence of God; such as those labour under who
are born eunuchs, or made so by men, who, being incapable of answering one great end
of marriage, ought not to marry. But to that calamity let them oppose the opportunity
that there is in the single state of serving God better, to balance it.
(2.) That which is a virtue by the grace of God; such is theirs who have made
themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. This is meant of an unaptness for
marriage, not in body (which some, through mistake of this scripture, have foolishly and
wickedly brought upon themselves), but in mind. Those have thus made themselves
eunuchs who have attained a holy indifference to all the delights of the married state,
have a fixed resolution, in the strength of God's grace, wholly to abstain from them; and
by fasting, and other instances of mortification, have subdued all desires toward them.
These are they that can receive this saying; and yet these are not to bind themselves by a
vow that they will never marry, only that, in the mind they are now in, they purpose not
to marry.
Now, [1.] This affection to the single state must be given of God; for none can receive
it, save they to whom it is given. Note, Continence is a special gift of God to some, and
not to others; and when a man, in the single state, finds by experience that he has this
gift, he may determine with himself, and (as the apostle speaks, 1Co_7:37), stand
steadfast in his heart, having no necessity, but having power over his own will, that he
will keep himself so. But men, in this case, must take heed lest they boast of a false gift,
Pro_25:14.
[2.] The single state must be chosen for the kingdom of heaven's sake; in those who
resolve never to marry, only that they may save charges, or may gratify a morose selfish
humour, or have a greater liberty to serve other lusts and pleasures, it is so far from

81. being a virtue, that it is an ill-natured vice; but when it is for religion's sake, not as in
itself a meritorious act (which papists make it), but only as a means to keep our minds
more entire for, and more intent upon, the services of religion, and that, having no
families to provide for, we may do the more works of charity, then it is approved and
accepted of God. Note, That condition is best for us, and to be chosen and stuck to
accordingly, which is best for our souls, and tends most to the preparing of us for, and
the preserving of us to, the kingdom of heaven.
JAMISO , "But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying,
save they to whom it is given — that is, “That the unmarried state is better, is a
saying not for everyone, and indeed only for such as it is divinely intended for.” But who
are these? they would naturally ask; and this our Lord proceeds to tell them in three
particulars.
CALVI , "11.All are not capable of receiving this saying. By this he means, that the
choice is not placed in our hands, as if we were to deliberate on a matter submitted
to us. If any man thinks it advantageous for him to want a wife, and, without
making any inquiry, lays upon himself an obligation to celibacy, (606) he is widely
mistaken. God, who has declared it to be good that a man should have a woman to
be his helper, will punish the contempt of his own appointment; for mortals take too
much on themselves, when they endeavor to exempt themselves from the heavenly
calling. But Christ proves that it is not free to all to make what choice they please,
because the gift of continence is a special gift; for when he says that all are not
capable of receiving it, but those to whom it is given, he plainly shows that it was not
given to all. And this reproves the pride of those who do not hesitate to claim for
themselves what Christ so manifestly refuses to them.
ELLICOTT, "(11) All men cannot receive this saying.—As the words stand, “this
saying” might refer either to the rule which our Lord had laid down on the subject
of divorce, or to the comment of the disciples on that rule. What follows, however,
determines the reference to the latter. Looking at marriage from a simply selfish
point of view, and therefore with an entirely inadequate estimate of its duties on the
one hand, and on the other of the temptations incident to the unmarried life when
chosen on such grounds, they had come rashly to the conclusion that, if our Lord’s
rule held good, it was not good, not expedient, to “marry.” He declares that
judgment to be false. There were but few who were capable of acting safely on that
conclusion. For those who were not so capable, and the next verse tells us who they
were, marriage, with all its risks, was the truer, healthier, safer state. Alike in its
brighter or sadder sides, in seeming success or seeming failure, it brought to men
the discipline they needed.
COFFMA , "Eunuchs in ancient times were considered unworthy of being received
in the work of God, but Christ opened the kingdom to eunuchs also, and allowed in
this place, but did not command, celibacy. This was in answer to the disciples'
suggestion that it was not expedient to marry. Christ sanctified and blessed the

82. marriage covenant by being present and performing his first wonder at a wedding
in Cana of Galilee. This passage shows that eunuchs were also to be admitted to the
kingdom of heaven. The conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8 is significant
in this context.
COKE, "All - cannot receive this saying - A very wise answer, and well suited to the
present circumstances of the disciples. either of the states is condemned. If thou
marry, thou dost well - this is according to the order, will, and commandment of
God. But if thou do not marry, (because of the present necessity, persecution,
worldly embarrassments, or bodily infirmity), thou dost better. See 1 Corinthians
7:25.
PETT, "Jesus replied, “Not all men can receive this saying, but they to whom it is given.” There
has been much dispute as to whether ‘this saying’ refers to the disciples’ saying in Matthew 19:10,
“if the case of the man is so with his wife, it is not expedient to marry,” or whether it refers to
Jesus’ earlier sayings about the permanence of marriage on the basis of the creation ordinance.
It would not, however be in accordance with Jesus normal method to compromise on straight
teaching and He never elsewhere suggests that the clear teaching of Scripture need not be
followed. Indeed He stresses that it must be followed, and in Matthew 5:18 He speaks with
disapproval of those who compromise on the teaching of the Law. Had He said not all ‘will receive
it’ that might have been possible in line with Matthew 5:18. But He would not have agreed that
they were ‘unable to receive it’. So there can really be no doubt that He would have seen all who
heard Him as able to receive His teaching, especially as it was taken directly from Scripture.
Furthermore on the basis of His reason for teaching in parables He would not have taught it
openly if He had thought that they were unable to receive it.
On the other hand, as Matthew’s intention in citing these words is in order to lead in to what
follows that would seem to solve the problem, for the application of these words must surely be
determined on the basis of the ensuing argument, simply because it was these words that led into
that argument. Thus on that basis ‘this saying’ must be referring to the expediency or otherwise of
not marrying. The idea is that Jesus will now point out that rather than what the disciples have
said being a clinching argument against what He has stated, (His silence as to the matter
indicating that it was nothing of the kind as subsequent generations of disciples would
demonstrate), it does rather certainly hold within it a certain degree of truth, and that is that
marriage is not always expedient, and that it is no longer to be seen as the be all and end all of life
(indeed one day it will disappear - Matthew 22:30). This is the new truth that has been ‘given to
them’ (compare Matthew 13:11), as demonstrated by what they have said. For the idea that a
man did not need to marry, and that not doing so might be expedient for him, was almost as
revolutionary an idea as the previous one.
For to most Jews marriage was seen as a God-given duty as well as a privilege. Thus Jesus was
taking the one case introduced by the Pharisees, the permanence or otherwise of marriage, and
possibly their argument against it, which they considered clinching because marriage was the duty
of all men, and demonstrating that it did indeed justify some men in not marrying, and that the
disciples had therefore rightly gathered from it a truth given to them by God. He is saying that they
are right in suggesting that sometimes, contrary to popular thought, it is not expedient to marry,
and that that is therefore a truth that has been ‘given’ to them (it is as important as that!). And He
then give three examples where it would not be expedient, one brought about by nature (or by
‘Heaven’), one brought about by men, and one brought about by the requirements of the Kingly
Rule of Heaven.
Note Jesus’ stress on the fact that all men cannot receive this saying, but only those to whom it is
‘given’, that is, those under the Kingly Rule of Heaven. The Pharisees and the Jews in general
thought that such a statement was self-evidently wrong. Thus the fact that His disciples now see it

83. as a possibility indicates that God has ‘given’ them understanding as to its truth. He is pointing out
to His disciples that while for many celibacy is not an option (Paul put it this way, ‘it is better to
marry than to burn with unrelieved desires’ - 1 Corinthians 7:9), for others it is actually a
requirement for the sake of the Kingly Rule of Heaven. It had been true for John the Baptist. It was
true for Him. In the future it would be true for many. A man who marries does not fall short of the
glory of God (1 Corinthians 7:28; 1 Corinthians 7:36 with Romans 3:23), but neither does a man
who does not marry (this was the new idea). It is simply that the former will have extra cares
loaded on him which may hinder his service for God. On the other hand men must remember that
not to marry might result in thoughts and behaviour that rendered their service to God void. Many
who have embraced celibacy have sinned grievously against God and men, and have brought
disgrace on the name of Christ. And even worse sometimes there are those who cover up their
sins and allow them to continue for the sake of appearances, which makes them guilty of all their
sins and more. Thus while each must choose to marry or not to marry according to what God
reveals to him as his duty, and either is an open option, everything needs to be taken into
consideration. Better the ‘burdens’ brought about through marriage, than sinful failure caused by
not being married. Each must therefore decide before God what he can cope with.
BARCLAY 11-12, "THE REALIZATION OF THE IDEAL (Matthew 19:10-12)
19:10-12 His disciples said to him, "If the only reason for divorce between a man and his wife
stands thus, it is not expedient to marry." He said to them, "Not all can receive this saying, but only
those to whom it has been granted to do so. There are eunuchs who were born so from their
mothers' womb; and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men; and there are
eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven. Let him
who is able to receive this saying, receive it."
Here we come to the necessary amplification of what has gone before. When the disciples heard
the ideal of marriage which Jesus set before them, they were daunted. Many a rabbinic saying
would come into the mind of the disciples. The Rabbis had many sayings about unhappy
marriages. "Among those who will never behold the face of Gehinnom is he who has had a bad
wife." Such a man is saved from hell because he has expiated his sins on earth! "Among those
whose life is not life is the man who is ruled by his wife." "A bad wife is like leprosy to her
husband. What is the remedy? Let him divorce her and be cured of his leprosy." It was even laid
down: "If a man has a bad wife, it is a religious duty to divorce her."
To men who had been brought up to listen to sayings like that the uncompromising demand of
Jesus was an almost frightening thing. Their reaction was that, if marriage is so final and binding a
relationship and if divorce is forbidden, it is better not to marry at all, for there is no escape route
as they understood it--from an evil situation. Jesus gives two answers.
(i) He says quite clearly that not everyone can in fact accept this situation but only those to whom
it has been granted to do so. In other words, only the Christian can accept the Christian ethic.
Only the man who has the continual help of Jesus Christ and the continual guidance of the Holy
Spirit can build up the personal relationship which the ideal of marriage demands. Only by the
help of Jesus Christ can he develop the sympathy, the understanding, the forgiving spirit, the
considerate love, which true marriage requires. Without that help these things are impossible. The
Christian ideal of marriage involves the prerequisite that the partners are Christian.
Here is a truth which goes far beyond this particular application of it. We continually hear people
say, "We accept the ethics of the Sermon on the Mount; but why bother about the divinity of
Jesus, and his Resurrection, and his risen presence, and his Holy Spirit, and all that kind of thing?
We accept that he was a good man, and that his teaching is the highest teaching ever given. Why
not leave it at that, and get on with the living out of that teaching and never mind the theology?"
The answer is quite simple. No one can live out Jesus Christ's teaching without Jesus Christ. And
if Jesus was only a great and good man, even if he was the greatest and the best of men, then at
most he is only a great example. His teaching becomes possible only in the conviction that he is
not dead but present here to help us to carry it out. The teaching of Christ demands the presence
of Christ; otherwise it is only an impossible--and a torturing--ideal. So, then, we have to face the
fact that Christian marriage is possible only for Christians.

84. (ii) The passage finishes with a very puzzling verse about eunuchs. It is quite possible that Jesus
said this on some other occasion, and that Matthew puts it here because he is collecting Jesus'
teaching on marriage, for it was always Matthew's custom to gather together teaching on a
particular subject.
A eunuch is a man who is unsexed. Jesus distinguishes three classes of people. There are those
who, through some physical imperfection or deformity, can never be capable of sexual
intercourse. There are those who have been made eunuchs by men. This represents customs
which are strange to western civilization. Quite frequently in royal palaces servants, especially
those who had to do with the royal harem, were deliberately castrated. Also, quite frequently
priests who served in temples were castrated; this, for instance, is true of the priests who served
in the Temple of Diana in Ephesus.
Then Jesus talks about those who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom
of God. We must be quite clear that this is not to be taken literally. One of the tragedies of the
early Church was the case of Origen. When he was young he took this text quite literally and
castrated himself, although he came to see that he was in error. Clement of Alexandria comes
nearer it. He says, "The true eunuch is not he who cannot, but he who will not indulge in fleshly
pleasures." By this phrase Jesus meant those who for the sake of the Kingdom deliberately bade
farewell to marriage and to parenthood and to human physical love.
How can that be? It can happen that a man has to choose between some call to which he is
challenged and human love. It has been said, "He travels the fastest who travels alone." A man
may feel that he can do the work of some terrible slum parish only by living in circumstances in
which marriage and a home are impossible. He may feel that he must accept some missionary
call to a place where he cannot in conscience take a wife and beget children. He may even find
that he is in love and then is offered an exacting task which the person he loves refuses to share.
Then he must choose between human love and the task to which Christ calls him.
Thank God it is not often that such a choice comes to a man; but there are those who have taken
upon themselves voluntarily vows of chastity, celibacy, purity, poverty, abstinence, continence.
That will not be the way for the ordinary man, but the world would be a poorer place were it not for
those who accept the challenge to travel alone for the sake of the work of Christ.
MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE (Matthew 19:10-12 continued)
It would be wrong to leave this matter without some attempt to see what it actually means for the
question of divorce at the present time.
We may at the beginning note this. What Jesus laid down was a principle and not a law. To turn
this saying of Jesus into a law is gravely to misunderstand it. The Bible does not give us laws; it
gives principles which we must prayerfully and intelligently apply to any given situation.
Of the Sabbath the Bible says, "In it you shall not do any work" (Exodus 20:10). In point of fact we
know that a complete cessation of work was never possible in any civilization. In an agricultural
civilization cattle had still to be tended and cows had to be milked no matter what the day was. In
a developed civilization certain public services must go on, or transport will stand still and water,
light, and heat will not be available. In any home, especially where there are children, there has to
be a certain amount of work.
A principle can never be quoted as a final law; a principle must always be applied to the individual
situation. We cannot therefore settle the question of divorce simply by quoting the words of Jesus.
That would be legalism; we must take the words of Jesus as a principle to apply to the individual
cases as they meet us. That being so, certain truths emerge.
(i) Beyond all doubt the ideal is that marriage should be an indissoluble union between two people,
and that marriage should be entered into as a total union of two personalities, not designed to
make one act possible, but designed to make all life a satisfying and mutually completing

85. fellowship. That is the essential basis on which we must proceed.
(ii) But life is not, and never can be, a completely tidy and orderly business. Into life there is bound
to come sometimes the element of the unpredictable. Suppose, then, that two people enter into
the marriage relationship; suppose they do so with the highest hopes and the highest ideals; and
then suppose that something unaccountably goes wrong, and that the relationship which should
be life's greatest joy becomes hell upon earth. Suppose all available help is called in to mend this
broken and terrible situation. Suppose the doctor is called in to deal with physical things; the
psychiatrist to deal with psychological things; the priest or the minister to deal with spiritual things.
Suppose the trouble still to be there; suppose one of the partners to the marriage to be so
constituted physically, mentally or spiritually that marriage is an impossibility, and suppose that
discovery could not have been made until the experiment itself had been made--are then these
two people to be for ever fettered together in a situation which cannot do other than bring a
lifetime of misery to both?
It is extremely difficult to see how such reasoning can be called Christian; it is extremely hard to
see Jesus legalistically condemning two people to any such situation. This is not to say that
divorce should be made easy, but it is to say that when all the physical and mental and spiritual
resources have been brought to bear on such a situation, and the situation remains incurable and
even dangerous, then the situation should be ended; and the Church, so far from regarding
people who have been involved in such a situation as being beyond the pale, should do everything
it can in strength and tenderness to help them. There does not seem any other way than that in
which to bring the real Spirit of Christ to bear.
(iii) But in this matter we are face to face with a most tragic situation. It often happens that the
things which wreck marriage are in fact the things which the law cannot touch. A man in a
moment of passion and failure of control commits adultery and spends the rest of his life in shame
and in sorrow for what he did. That he should ever repeat his sin is the least likely thing in the
world. Another man is a model of rectitude in public; to commit adultery is the last thing he would
do; and yet by a day-to-day sadistic cruelty, a day-to-day selfishness, a day-to-day criticism and
sarcasm and mental cruelty, he makes life a hell for those who live with him; and he does it with
callous deliberation.
We may well remember that the sins which get into the newspapers and the sins whose
consequences are most glaringly obvious need not be in the sight of God the greatest sins. Many
a man and many a woman wreck the marriage relationship and yet present to the outer world a
front of unimpeachable rectitude.
This whole matter is one to which we might well bring more sympathy and less condemnation, for
of all things the failure of a marriage must least be approached in legalism and most in love. In
such a case it is not a so-called law that must be conserved; it is human heart and soul. What is
wanted is that there should be prayerful care and thought before the married state is entered
upon; that if a marriage is in danger of failure every possible medical, psychological and spiritual
resource should be mobilized to save it; but, that if there is something beyond the mending, the
situation should be dealt with not with rigid legalism, but with understanding love.
12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way,
and there are eunuchs who have been made

86. eunuchs by others—and there are those who
choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the
kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this
should accept it.”
BAR ES, "For there are some eunuchs ... - Jesus proceeds to state that there
were some who were able to receive that saying and to remain in an unmarried state.
Some were so born; some were made such by the cruelty of men; and there were some
who voluntarily abstained from marriage for the kingdom of heaven’s sake - that is, that
they might devote themselves entirely to the proper business of religion. Perhaps he
refers here to the Essenes, a sect of the Jews (see the notes at Mat_3:7), who held that
marriage was unsuitable to their condition; who had no children of their own, but
perpetuated their sect by adopting the poor children of others. Eunuchs were employed
chiefly in attending on the females or in the harem. They rose often to distinction, and
held important offices in the state. Hence, the word is sometimes used with reference to
such an officer of state, Act_8:27.
CLARKE, "Eunuchs - Ευνουχος, from ευνην εχειν, to have the care of the bed or
bedchamber; this being the principal employment of eunuchs in the eastern countries,
particularly in the apartments of queens and princesses. These are they whom our Lord
says are made eunuchs by men, merely for the above purpose.
So born from their mother’s womb - Such as are naturally incapable of marriage,
and consequently should not contract any.
For the kingdom of heaven’s sake - I believe our Lord here alludes to the case of
the Essenes, one of the most holy and pure sects among the Jews. These abstained from
all commerce with women, hoping thereby to acquire a greater degree of purity, and be
better fitted for the kingdom of God: children they had none of their own, but constantly
adopted those of poor people, and brought them up in their own way. Philo, Josephus,
and Pliny have largely described this very singular sect; and Dean Prideaux, with his
usual fidelity and perspicuity, has given the substance of what each has said. Connex.
vol. iii. p. 483, etc.; edit. 1725. The account is very interesting, and well worthy the
attention of every Christian. Among the rabbins we find these different kinds of eunuchs,
not only mentioned, but circumstantially described, ‫חמה‬ ‫סריס‬ saris chama, eunuchs of the
sun, i.e. eunuchs by the hand of God; men born impotent. ‫אדם‬ ‫סריס‬ saris Adam, eunuchs
of men, those who were castrated. And they add a third sort; those who make themselves
eunuchs, abstain from marriage, etc., that they may give themselves Up to the study of
the Divine law. See many examples in Schoettgen.
He that is able to receive - Χωρειν χωρειτω. These words are variously translated:
he who can take; let him take it; comprehend, let him comprehend it: admit, let him
admit it. The meaning seems to be, Let the man who feels himself capable of embracing
this way of life, embrace it; but none can do it but he to whom it is given, who has it as a

87. gift from his mother’s womb.
The great Origen, understanding the latter clause of this verse (which I have applied to
the Essenes) literally - O human weakness! - went, and literally fulfilled it on himself!
GILL, "For there are some eunuchs,.... Our Lord here distinguishes the various
sorts of persons, that can and do live in a single state with content: some by nature, and
others by violence offered to them, are rendered incapable of entering into a marriage
state; and others, through the gift of God, and under the influence of his grace, abstain
from marriage cheerfully and contentedly, in order to be more useful in the interest of
religion; but the number of either of these is but few, in comparison of such who choose
a conjugal state, and with whom it is right to enter into it, notwithstanding all the
difficulties that may attend it. Some men are eunuchs, and of these there are different
sorts; there are some,
which were so born from their mother's womb; meaning, not such who, through
a natural temper and inclination of mind, could easily abstain from marriage, and chose
to live single; but such who had such defects in nature that they were impotent, unfit for,
and unable to perform the duties of a marriage state; who, as some are born without
hands or feet, these were born without proper and perfect organs of generation; and
such an one was, by the Jews, frequently called, ‫המה‬ ‫,סריס‬ "an eunuch of the sun (n)": that
is, as their doctors (o) explain it, one that from his mother's womb never saw the sun but
as an eunuch; that is, one that is born so; and that such an one is here intended, ought
not to be doubted. The signs of such an eunuch, are given by the Jewish (p) writers,
which may be consulted by those, that have ability and leisure. This sort is sometimes
(q) called ‫שמים‬ ‫בידי‬ ‫סריס‬ "an eunuch by the hands of heaven", or God, in distinction from
those who are so by the hands, or means of men, and are next mentioned:
and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: as among the
Romans formerly, and which Domitian the emperor forbid by a law (r); and more
especially in the eastern countries, and to this day among the Turks, that they may the
more safely be entrusted with the custody of their women; and this sort the Jews call
‫אדם‬ ‫,סריס‬ "an eunuch of men", or ‫אדם‬ ‫,בידי‬ "by the hands of men". The distinction between
an "eunuch of the sun", and an "eunuch of men", is so frequent with the Jews (s), and so
well known to them, that a question need not be made of our Lord's referring to it:
and there be eunuchs which have made themselves eunuchs; not in a literal
sense, in which the words are not to be taken, as they were by Origen; who though
otherwise too much pursued the allegorical way of interpreting Scripture, here took it
literally, and castrated himself (t); as did also a sort of heretics, called Valesians (u),
from one Valens an Arabian; and which practice is recommended by Philo the Jew (w),
and by Heathen philosophers (x), for the sake of chastity. But here it means such, who
having the gift of continency without mutilating their bodies, or indulging any unnatural
lusts, can live chastely without the use of women, and choose celibacy:
for the kingdom of heaven's sake; not in order, by their chaste and single life, to
merit and obtain the kingdom of glory; but that they might be more at leisure, being free
from the incumbrances of a marriage state, to attend the worship and service of God, the
ordinances of the Gospel church state, to minister in, and preach the Gospel of Christ,

88. and be a means of spreading it in the world, and of enlarging his kingdom and interest.
He that is able to receive it, let him receive it: whoever is able to receive cordially,
and embrace heartily, the above saying concerning the expediency and goodness of a
single life, and having the gift of continency, can live according to it; let him take it, and
hold it fast, and act up to it; he may have less of worldly trouble, and be more useful for
God in the Gospel of Christ, and to the interest of religion; but this should be a voluntary
thing: no man should be forced into it; and he that goes into it, ought to consider well
whether he is able to contain, or not.
HE RY, "(2.) That which is a virtue by the grace of God; such is theirs who have
made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. This is meant of an
unaptness for marriage, not in body (which some, through mistake of this scripture,
have foolishly and wickedly brought upon themselves), but in mind. Those have thus
made themselves eunuchs who have attained a holy indifference to all the delights of the
married state, have a fixed resolution, in the strength of God's grace, wholly to abstain
from them; and by fasting, and other instances of mortification, have subdued all desires
toward them. These are they that can receive this saying; and yet these are not to bind
themselves by a vow that they will never marry, only that, in the mind they are now in,
they purpose not to marry.
Now, [1.] This affection to the single state must be given of God; for none can receive
it, save they to whom it is given. Note, Continence is a special gift of God to some, and
not to others; and when a man, in the single state, finds by experience that he has this
gift, he may determine with himself, and (as the apostle speaks, 1Co_7:37), stand
steadfast in his heart, having no necessity, but having power over his own will, that he
will keep himself so. But men, in this case, must take heed lest they boast of a false gift,
Pro_25:14.
[2.] The single state must be chosen for the kingdom of heaven's sake; in those who
resolve never to marry, only that they may save charges, or may gratify a morose selfish
humour, or have a greater liberty to serve other lusts and pleasures, it is so far from
being a virtue, that it is an ill-natured vice; but when it is for religion's sake, not as in
itself a meritorious act (which papists make it), but only as a means to keep our minds
more entire for, and more intent upon, the services of religion, and that, having no
families to provide for, we may do the more works of charity, then it is approved and
accepted of God. Note, That condition is best for us, and to be chosen and stuck to
accordingly, which is best for our souls, and tends most to the preparing of us for, and
the preserving of us to, the kingdom of heaven.
JAMISO , "For there are some eunuchs which were so born from their
mother’s womb — persons constitutionally either incapable of or indisposed to
marriage.
and there are some eunuchs which were made eunuchs of men — persons
rendered incapable by others.
and there be eunuchs which have made themselves eunuchs for the
kingdom of heaven’s sake — persons who, to do God’s work better, deliberately
choose this state. Such was Paul (1Co_7:7).
He that is able to receive it, let him receive it — “He who feels this to be his

89. proper vocation, let him embrace it”; which, of course, is as much as to say - “he only.”
Thus, all are left free in this matter.
CALVI , "12.For there are eunuchs Christ distinguishes three kinds of eunuchs
Those who are so by nature, or who have been castrated by men, are debarred from
marriage by this defect, for they are not men. He says that there are other eunuchs,
who have castrated themselves, that they may be more at liberty to serve God; and
these he exempts from the obligation to marry. Hence it follows, that all others who
avoid marriage fight against God with sacrilegious hardihood, after the manner of
the giants. When Papists urge the word castrate, ( εὐνοῦχισαν) as if at their own
pleasure men might lay themselves under obligation to continence, it is too frivolous.
For Christ has already declared, that God gives it to whom he chooses; and, a little
afterwards, we shall find him maintaining, that it is folly in any man to choose to
live unmarried, when he has not received this special gift. This castration, therefore,
is not left to free will; but the plain meaning is, while some men are by nature fit to
marry, though they abstain, they do not tempt God, because God grants them
exemption. (607)
For the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Many foolishly explain this as meaning, in
order to deserve eternal life; as if celibacy contained within itself some meritorious
service, as the Papists imagine that it is an angelical state. But Christ meant nothing
more than that persons unmarried ought to have this for their object, that, being
freed from all cares, they may apply themselves more readily to the duties of piety.
It is, therefore, a foolish imagination, that celibacy is a virtue; for it is not in itself
more pleasing to God than fasting, and is not entitled to be reckoned among the
duties which he requires from us, but ought to have a reference to another object.
ay more, Christ expressly intended to declare that, though a man be pure from
fornication, yet his celibacy is not approved by God, if he only consults his own ease
and comfort, but that he is excused on this single ground, that he aims at a free and
unrestrained meditation on the heavenly life. In short, Christ teaches us, that it is
not enough, if unmarried men live chastely, unless they abstain from having wives,
for the express purpose of devoting themselves to better employments. (608)
He that can receive it, let him receive it. By this conclusion Christ warns them, that
the use of marriage is not to be despised, unless we intend, with blind rashness, to
rush headlong to destruction: for it became necessary to restrain the disciples,
whom he saw acting inconsiderately and without judgment. But the warning is
useful to all; for, in selecting a manner of life, few consider what has been given to
them, but men rush forward, without discrimination, in whatever direction
inconsiderate zeal prompts them. And I wish that the warning had been attended to
in past times; but men’s ears are stopped by I know not what enchantments of
Satan, so that, contrary to nature, and, at it were, in spite of God, those whom God
called to marriage have bound themselves by the cord of perpetual virginity (609)
ext came the deadly cord of a vow, by which wretched souls were bound, (610) so
that they never rose out of the ditch.

90. ELLICOTT, "(12) There are some eunuchs.—The words are singularly startling in
their form, and bear upon them an unmistakable stamp of being a true report of
teaching which, in its depth and originality, went beyond the grasp of those who
heard and reported it. What they teach is, that only those who are in some sense
“eunuchs,” who are, i.e., without the impulses that lead men to marriage, either
naturally, or by the mutilation which then, as now, was common in the East, or who
have conquered those impulses by the power of self-consecration to a higher life, can
safely abstain from marriage. The celibacy of self-indulgence, or even of selfish
prudence, tends but too fatally to impurity of heart or life. The man who thus makes
himself as the eunuch, must do it “for the kingdom of heaven’s sake,” not, as too
many have understood the words to mean, in order to win heaven for himself (that
aim is not excluded, but it must not be the only or chief motive), but for the sake of
all that the kingdom of heaven implies, in order to enlarge its range, and more
effectually to bring the souls of men to receive it. Those who heard the words could
hardly fail, as they thought over them, to look on their Master’s life as having been
the great perfect example of what He thus taught as to the higher form of holiness.
The motives which St. Paul states as determining his own choice of the celibate life
(1 Corinthians 7:7), or the counsel which he gave to others (1 Corinthians 7:32-34),
are identical with this teaching in their principle. They have influenced men in all
ages of the Church, leading them to sacrifice the life of home, with all its blessings,
for their work as pastors or evangelists. The Church of Rome and the founders of
monastic orders were not wrong in their ideal of the highest form of life. Their
mistake lay in enforcing that ideal as a rule on those who had not the power to
realise it. The boldness (as it seems to us) of our Lord’s language seems intended to
teach men that the work must be done as effectively as if, like Origen, they had
obeyed the implied commandment in its letter. If the impulses still remain; if life is
made miserable by the struggle with them; if they taint the soul by not being
allowed to flow in their legitimate channel, the man is, ipso facto, disqualified for
the loftier ideal. He has not made himself a eunuch for the kingdom of heaven’s
sake, and he is therefore among those who “cannot receive the saying” that it “is not
good to marry.” On such grounds the conduct of those who have married after
pledging themselves, as priests of the Church of Rome, to vows of celibacy is amply
justified. The vows were such as ought never to have been imposed, and men ought
never to have taken, and therefore, like the tetrarch’s oath (Matthew 14:7-9), when
they were distinctly found to clash with the higher law of ature, and to narrow
what God had left free, their obligatory power ceased. The case of the monk who
enters deliberately into an order of which celibacy is a condition, may seem at first
to stand on a different footing; but here, also, though celibacy may legitimately be
made a condition of continuing to belong to an order, the vow of a lifelong celibacy
must be held to have been such as men had no right either to impose or take, and
therefore as binding only so long as a man chooses to continue a member of the
society which requires it.
COKE, "Eunuchs - Ευνουχος, from ευνην εχειν, to have the care of the bed or
bedchamber; this being the principal employment of eunuchs in the eastern
countries, particularly in the apartments of queens and princesses. These are they
whom our Lord says are made eunuchs by men, merely for the above purpose.

91. So born from their mother's womb - Such as are naturally incapable of marriage,
and consequently should not contract any.
For the kingdom of heaven's sake - I believe our Lord here alludes to the case of the
Essenes, one of the most holy and pure sects among the Jews. These abstained from
all commerce with women, hoping thereby to acquire a greater degree of purity, and
be better fitted for the kingdom of God: children they had none of their own, but
constantly adopted those of poor people, and brought them up in their own way.
Philo, Josephus, and Pliny have largely described this very singular sect; and Dean
Prideaux, with his usual fidelity and perspicuity, has given the substance of what
each has said. Connex. vol. iii. p. 483, etc.; edit. 1725. The account is very
interesting, and well worthy the attention of every Christian. Among the rabbins we
find these different kinds of eunuchs, not only mentioned, but circumstantially
described, ‫סריס‬ ‫חמה‬ saris chama, eunuchs of the sun, i.e. eunuchs by the hand of
God; men born impotent. ‫סריס‬ ‫אדם‬ saris Adam, eunuchs of men, those who were
castrated. And they add a third sort; those who make themselves eunuchs, abstain
from marriage, etc., that they may give themselves Up to the study of the Divine law.
See many examples in Schoettgen.
He that is able to receive - Χωρειν χωρειτω . These words are variously translated:
he who can take; let him take it; comprehend, let him comprehend it: admit, let him
admit it. The meaning seems to be, Let the man who feels himself capable of
embracing this way of life, embrace it; but none can do it but he to whom it is given,
who has it as a gift from his mother's womb.
The great Origen, understanding the latter clause of this verse (which I have applied
to the Essenes) literally - O human weakness! - went, and literally fulfilled it on
himself!
PETT, "“For there are eunuchs, who were so born from their mother’s womb, and there are
eunuchs, who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs, who made themselves
eunuchs for the kingly rule of heaven’s sake. He who is able to receive it, let him receive it.”.
This view of Matthew 19:11 is confirmed now by what He says in Matthew 19:12. For here Jesus
is demonstrating that the practise of non-marriage has in fact been true for some throughout the
ages, and is now even more true in the light of the coming of the Kingly Rule of Heaven. He is
pointing out that there have always been some who could not marry, (even if they wanted to), and
that that situation has now widened, and has become desirable for some, by the coming of the
Kingly Rule of Heaven.
The basic idea of a eunuch was that he was someone who totally abstained from sexual activity.
In the official sense only the middle type was a eunuch, for a eunuch was someone who had been
castrated so that his whole attention would be concentrated on serving his master, often, although
not necessarily, involving him in having responsibilities in the harems of great kings (as a eunuch
he would not be a sexual threat to the women). Eunuchs were often looked on as men of unique
devotion to their masters and as such deserving of high office, even though they could also be
looked on with ridicule.
However, a considerable number of men were also ‘natural eunuchs’ (or to utilise a Rabbinic
phrase ‘eunuchs of Heaven’). This arose either because of genetic defects at birth, or because of

92. some accident or act of violence that rendered them so (consider the seriousness attached to the
possibility of a woman interfering with a man’s genitals during a fight, the only crime in Israel
which warranted the amputation of the hand - Deuteronomy 25:11-12). The description may have
also been intended to include slaves forbidden by their masters to marry. For all such people
marriage was usually not an option. Heaven had thus decreed otherwise. To all intents and
purposes they were eunuchs, and no doubt sometimes insultingly called such. For no woman
could be expected to marry a man who could not produce children. It is an open question as to
whether such people were originally intended to be excluded from the assembly of the Lord by
Deuteronomy 23:1, or whether that simply referred to the deliberate castration practised in
Canaanite religion. But they could certainly not be priests active in the sanctuary (Leviticus 21:20-
21). On the other hand, if born to priestly families, they could eat ‘the bread of their God (Matthew
19:22). What they could not do included approaching the altar and going within the inner
sanctuary behind the first veil (Matthew 19:23). The corollary of this, in view of their views on
marriage, would be that no man should minister to God who was not married and did not pass on
the seed of life. This treatment of maimed priests suggests, however, that such people were not
wholly excluded from the assembly of the Lord, and that it was only those whose defect arose
from idolatrous religion that were originally to be so excluded.
So Jesus’ argument is that there have always been at least two types of men for whom it was
inexpedient to marry, natural ‘eunuchs’ and man-made eunuchs (It was known for some of the
latter to ‘marry’. Strictly, however, it would not in Jewish eyes be a true marriage for it could not be
consummated. Consider possibly Genesis 39 where Potiphar was ‘a eunuch of Pharaoh’ but
married. Although the question then is whether the word translated ‘eunuch’ had come to mean
‘high official’). The Rabbis later in fact clearly distinguished between the two, they spoke of
‘eunuchs of Heaven’ and ‘eunuchs of man’, and the idea was therefore almost certainly prevalent
in Jesus’ day. This clearly demonstrated that God had made allowances for some who could not
marry due to natural reasons (due to Heaven) or violence done to the person (due to man). It had
not therefore, even in ancient days, always been the duty of a man to marry under all
circumstances, for God had made the world otherwise.
That being so He then adds a third type who need not marry, a type resulting from the fact that the
Kingly Rule of Heaven has come, and that is of those who deliberately refrain from marriage and
from sexual activity ‘for the sake of the Kingly Rule of Heaven’. That indeed is in mind as a
possibility in Matthew 19:29, and we should always allow the context to speak for itself. But such
abstinence could only at that stage have had the purpose of enabling that person to serve the
Kingly Rule of Heaven with full devotion, in the way that eunuchs did in the case of their masters,
and in the way that both John the Baptist and Jesus Himself had (although both died while
comparatively young, certainly young enough still to marry, which had possibly, although not
necessarily, saved them both from the charge of failing in their duty to God, and this was
especially so with Jesus as He had had younger brothers to bring up and provide for). For in fact
all priests, including the High Priest, along with all Jewish males, considered it their duty to marry
and bear children, demonstrating that none saw marriage as hindering a man from being holy.
Thus this exception that Jesus proposed would appear to Jews to be an unusual exception. We
can compare with this Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 7:8; 1 Corinthians 7:27; 1 Corinthians 7:32.
His point was that from now on devotion to God and the production of spiritual children could
replace the normal duty to marry and bear children.
There is no question of this indicating a higher form of service or something to be reserved for a
certain class of ministry. Peter was married, as were others of the Apostles. It is rather a matter of
their being able to serve the Kingly Rule of Heaven in the best possible way. For some that would
be by bearing children and bringing them up to serve Him (it is largely this ministry that has often
perpetuated the church at times when love for Him has grown lukewarm), for others it would
involve being free from cares and responsibilities so that they could minister better in an itinerant
ministry or in difficult situations (1 Corinthians 7:29). Each should determine what was God’s
purpose for him or her, and serve Him accordingly.
This is further evidence that Jesus saw the Kingly Rule of Heaven as now a present reality. It was
precisely because that was so that He could introduce the idea of ‘eunuchs’. For all knew that that

93. the term ‘eunuch’ regularly signified someone with particular loyalty to a monarch. Here then it
signified someone with a particular loyalty to the cause of the Kingly Rule of Heaven and its King
(an idea prominent in this section). It was one of Jesus’ vivid illustrations. He did not intend that
they would physically become eunuchs, only that they would behave like eunuchs.
‘He who is able to receive it, let him receive it.” Jesus recognises that not all men will be able to
recognise this truth, for it went against all that most of the Scribes and Pharisees taught and
practised concerning marriage. Nevertheless, Jesus says, it is a truth open to those who will
receive it, to those to whom it has been ‘given’, and that includes His disciples. Let them therefore
now receive it. These words emphasise what a revolutionary idea this was seen to be, and that it
should therefore have awoken His disciples to recognise the new situation that was coming. So
the whole passage stresses that the Kingly Rule of Heaven is now entering a stage of extreme
urgency. The world is about to be turned upside down with the result that marriage is no longer to
be seen as a man’s first priority. It was very much a practical wake up call. The new age was
here.
The Little Children and Jesus
13 Then people brought little children to Jesus for
him to place his hands on them and pray for
them. But the disciples rebuked them.
BAR ES, "Then were brought little children - See also Mar_10:13-16; Luk_
18:15-17. Probably these were brought by some of his followers, who desired not only to
devote themselves to Jesus, but all that they had - their children as well as themselves.
All the Jews were accustomed to devote their children to God by circumcision. It was
natural, therefore, under the new dispensation, that it should be done. Luke says they
were infants. They were undoubtedly those who were not old enough to come by choice,
but their coming was an act of the parents.
Put his hands on them and pray - It was customary among the Jews, when
blessings were sought for others in prayer, to lay the hands on the head of the person
prayed for, implying a kind of consecration to God. See Gen_48:14; Mat_9:18. They had
also much confidence in the prayers of pious men, believing that those blessed by a saint
or a prophet would be happy. See Num_22:6; Luk_2:28.
The disciples rebuked them - That is, reproved them, or told them it was
improper. This they did, probably, either:
1. Because they thought that they were too young; or,
2. Because they thought that they would be troublesome to their Master.

94. CLARKE, "Then were there brought unto him little children - These are
termed by Luke, Luk_18:15, τα βρεφη, infants, very young children; and it was on this
account, probably, that the disciples rebuked the parents, thinking them too young to
receive good. See on Mar_10:16 (note).
That he should put his hands - It was a common custom among the Jews to lay
their hands on the heads of those whom they blessed, or for whom they prayed. This
seems to have been done by way of dedication or consecration to God - the person being
considered as the sacred property of God ever after. Often God added a testimony of his
approbation, by communicating some extraordinary influence of the Holy Spirit. This
rite has been long practised among Christians, when persons are appointed to any
sacred office. But this consecration of children to God seems to have grown out of use. It
is no wonder that the great mass of children are so wicked, when so few, are put under
the care of Christ by humble, praying, believing parents. Let every parent that fears God
bring up his children in that fear; and, by baptism, let each be dedicated to the holy
trinity. Whatever is solemnly consecrated to God abides under his protection and
blessing.
GILL, "Then were there brought unto him little children,.... It does not appear
that they were new born babes; the words used by either of the evangelists do not always
signify such, but are sometimes used of such as are capable of going alone; yea, of
receiving instructions, of understanding the Scriptures, and even of one of twelve years
of age, Mat_18:2 nor is it probable that infants just born, or within a month, should be
had abroad. Moreover, these were such as Christ called unto him, Luk_18:16 and were
capable of coming to him of themselves, as his words following suppose; nor does their
being brought to him, or his taking them in his arms, contradict this; since the same
things are said of such as could walk of themselves, Mat_12:22 Mar_9:36. Nor is it
known whose children they were, whether their parents were believers or unbelievers,
nor by whom they were brought: but the end for which they were brought is expressed,
that he should put his hands on them, and pray; not that he should baptize them,
nor did he; which may be concluded from the entire silence of all the evangelists; and
from an express declaration that Christ baptized none; and from the mention of other
ends for which they were brought, as that Christ should "touch" them, Mar_10:13 as he
sometimes used to do persons, when he healed them of diseases; and probably some of
those infants, if not all of them, were diseased, and brought to be cured; otherwise, it is
not easy to conceive what they should be touched by him for: or as here, that he might
put his hands on them, and pray over them, and bless them, as was usual with the Jews
to do; see Gen_48:14 and it was common with them to bring their children to venerable
persons, men of note for religion and piety, to have their blessing and prayers (y):
and the disciples rebuked them; not the children, as the Persic version reads, but
those that brought them, Mark observes; either because they came in a rude and
disorderly manner, and were very noisy and clamorous; or they might think it would be
too troublesome to Christ, to go through such a ceremony with so many of them; or that
it was too mean for him, and below him to take notice of them; or for fear he should take
fresh occasion, on the sight of these children, to rebuke them again for their pride and
ambition. However, from this rebuke and prohibition of the disciples, it looks plainly as

95. if it had never been the practice of the Jews, nor of John the Baptist, nor of Christ and
his disciples, to baptize infants; for had this been then in use, they would scarcely have
forbid and rebuked those that brought them, since they might have thought they
brought them to be baptized; but knowing of no such usage that ever obtained in that
nation, neither among those that did, or did not believe in Christ, they forbad them.
HE RY, "We have here the welcome which Christ gave to some little children that
were brought to him. Observe,
I. The faith of those that brought them. How many they were, that were brought, we
are not told; but they were so little as to be taken up in arms, a year old, it may be, or two
at most. The account here given of it, is, that there were brought unto him little children,
that he should put his hands on them, and pray, Mat_19:13. Probably they were their
parents, guardians, or nurses, that brought them; and herein, 1. They testified their
respect to Christ, and the value they had for his favour and blessing. Note, Those who
glorify Christ by coming to him themselves, should further glorify him by bringing all
they have, or have influence upon, to him likewise. Thus give him the honour of his
unsearchable riches of grace, his overflowing, never-failing, fulness. We cannot better
honour Christ than by making use of him. 2. They did a kindness to their children, not
doubting but they would fare the better, in this world and the other, for the blessing and
prayers of the Lord Jesus, whom they looked upon at least as an extraordinary person, as
a prophet, if not as a priest and king; and the blessings of such were valued and desired.
Others brought their children to Christ, to be healed when they were sick; but these
children were under no present malady, only they desired a blessing for them. Note, It is
a good thing when we come to Christ ourselves, and bring our children to him, before we
are driven to him (as we say) by woe - need; not only to visit him when we are in trouble,
but to address ourselves to him in a sense of our general dependence on him, and of the
benefit we expect by him, this is pleasing to him.
They desired that he would put his hands on them, and pray. Imposition of hands was
a ceremony used especially in paternal blessings; Jacob used it when he blessed and
adopted the sons of Joseph, Gen_48:14. It intimates something of love and familiarity
mixed with power and authority, and bespeaks an efficacy in the blessing. Whom Christ
prays for in heaven, he puts his hand upon by his Spirit. Note, (1.) Little children may be
brought to Christ as needing, and being capable of receiving, blessings from him, and
having an interest in his intercession. (2.) Therefore they should be brought to him. We
cannot do better for our children than to commit them to the Lord Jesus, to be wrought
upon, and prayed for, by him. We can but beg a blessing for them, it is Christ only that
can command the blessing.
II. The fault of the disciples in rebuking them. They discountenanced the address as
vain and frivolous, and reproved them that made it as impertinent and troublesome.
Either they thought it below their Master to take notice of little children, except any
thing in particular ailed them; or, they thought he had toil enough with his other work,
and would not have him diverted from it; or, they thought if such an address as this were
encouraged, all the country would bring their children to him, and they should never see
an end of it. Note, It is well for us, that Christ has more love and tenderness in him than
the best of his disciples have. And let us learn of him not to discountenance any willing
well-meaning souls in their enquiries after Christ, though they are but weak. If he do not
break the bruised reed, we should not. Those that seek unto Christ, must not think it
strange if they meet with opposition and rebuke, even from good men, who think they
know the mind of Christ better than they do.

96. JAMISO , "Mat_19:13-15. Little children brought to Christ. ( = Mar_10:13-16; Luk_
18:15-17).
For the exposition, see on Luk_18:15-17.
HAWKER 13-15, ""Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should
put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them. (14) But Jesus said,
Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom
of heaven. (15) And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence."
Strange it is that any should forbid godly parents from presenting their little ones to
Jesus, when we see how positive the command of God was to bring children to the Lord
the eighth day from their birth. Gen_17:9-14. Was the Lord so tenacious under the old
dispensation to have little ones brought to him: and is He regardless under the new?
CALVI , "This narrative is highly useful; for it shows that Christ receives not only
those who, moved by holy desire and faith, freely approach to him, but those who
are not yet of age to know how much they need his grace. Those little children have
not yet any understanding to desire his blessing; but when they are presented to
him, he gently and kindly receives them, and dedicates them to the Father (611) by a
solemn act of blessing. We must observe the intention of those who present the
children; for if there had not been a deep-rooted conviction in their minds, that the
power of the Spirit was at his disposal, that he might pour it out on the people of
God, it would have been unreasonable to present their children. There is no room,
therefore, to doubt, that they ask for them a participation of his grace; and so, by
way of amplification, Luke adds the particle also; as if he had said that, after they
had experienced the various ways in which he assisted adults, they formed an
expectation likewise in regard to children, that, if he laid hands on them, they would
not leave him without having received some of the gifts of the Spirit. The laying on
of hands (as we have said on a former occasion) was an ancient and well known sign
of blessing; and so there is no reason to wonder, if they desire that Christ, while
employing that solemn ceremony, should pray for the children At the same time, as
the inferior are blessed by the better, (Hebrews 7:7,) they ascribe to him the power
and honor of the highest Prophet.
Matthew 19:13.But the disciples rebuked them. If a crown (612) had been put on his
head, they would have admitted it willingly, and with approbation; for they did not
yet comprehend his actual office. But they reckon it unworthy of his character to
receive children; and their error wanted not plausibility; for what has the highest
Prophet and the Son of God to do with infants? But hence we learn, that they who
judge of Christ according to the feeling of their flesh are unfair judges; for they
constantly deprive him of his peculiar excellencies, and, on the other hand, ascribe,
under the appearance of honor, what does not at all belong to him. Hence arose an
immense mass of superstitions, which presented to the world a fancied Christ. (613)
And therefore let us learn not to think of him otherwise than what himself teaches,
and not to assign to him a character different from what he has received from the
Father. We see what happened with Popery. They thought that they were conferring

97. a great honor on Christ, if they bowed down before a small piece of bread; but in
the sight of God it was an offensive abomination. Again, because they did not think
it sufficiently honorable to him to perform the office of an Advocate for us, they
made for themselves innumerable intercessors; but in this way they deprived him of
the honor of Mediator.
ELLICOTT, "(13) Then were there brought unto him little children.—St. Luke
(Luke 18:15) uses a word which implies infancy. The fact that they were brought
(we may assume by their mothers) indicates that there was something in our Lord’s
look and manner that attracted children, and impressed their parents with the
feeling that He loved them. That feeling, we may well believe, was deepened by His
acts and words when He had taken in His arms the child whom He set before His
disciples as a pattern of the true greatness of humility, and taught them that the
angels of those little ones beheld the face of His Father (Matthew 18:10). The
motives of the disciples in rebuking those that brought them, may, in like manner,
be connected with what they had just heard from their Master’s lips. What interest,
they might have thought, could He have in these infants, when He had in those
words appeared to claim for the “eunuch” life a special dignity and honour? What
could the pressing claims of mothers and their children be to Him but a trouble and
vexation, interfering with the higher life of meditation and of prayer?
COFFMA , "We agree with J. W. McGarvey that "The fortuitous coincidence of
these two conversations is a happy one." As he said,
The little children, the offspring of happy wedlock, and a source of constant
happiness to faithful husbands and wives, were brought into notice at the close of a
conversation about divorce and about the supposed inconvenience of an indissoluble
marriage bond. The pleasant incident served as a comment on the discussion, and
left a better impression in reference to married life.[2]
Christ's love of little children was spontaneously abundant and overflowing. Mark
notes that he took them in his arms and blessed them (Mark 10:16). The conduct of
the disciples in this instance of rebuking the people who wanted to bring their
children to Christ may be explained by their desire to shield the Master from what
they considered to be a waste of his time or unnecessary tax on his strength. Jesus
had already made little children the models of faith, trust, humility, teachableness,
and freedom from malice; and in this case he declared that to such as these belongs
the kingdom of God.
E D OTE:
[2] J. W. McGarvey, The ew Testament Commentary (Delight, Arkansas: The
Gospel Light Publishing Company, reprint of 1875), p. 167.
LIGHTFOOT, "[Then were little children brought unto him.] ot for the healing of
some disease; for if this had been the end propounded, why did the disciples keep
them back above all others, or chide any for their access? or can we believe that
they were the children of unbelieving Jews, when it is scarcely probable that they,

98. despising the doctrine and person of Christ, would desire his blessing. Some
therefore of those that believe brought their infants to Christ, that he might take
particular notice of them, and admit them into his discipleship, and mark them for
his by his blessing. Perhaps the disciples thought this an excess of officious religion;
or that they would be too troublesome to their Master; and hence they opposed
them: but Christ countenanceth the same thing, and favours again that doctrine
which he had laid down, chapter 18:3; namely, that the infants of believers were as
much disciples and partakers of the kingdom of heaven as their parents.
COKE, "Matthew 19:13. Then were there brought unto him little children—
Grotius observes, that it was a custom with the Jews to bring their children to
persons of remarkable sanctity, to receive their blessing, and to enjoy the benefit of
their prayers; a custom which is preserved among them to this day. The imposition
of hands was a ceremony with which the ancient prophets always accompanied their
prayers in behalf of others. This action of our Saviour might be performed only in
compliance with the above-mentioned custom; yet there are others who imagine that
these children were brought by certain persons, who, seeing the many wonders
performed by Christ, thought perhaps that his power would be effectual in
preventing, as in removing distempers; and therefore proposed to get their little
ones secured by his prayers from all harms. Whatever was their design the disciples
rebuked them; apprehending them too troublesome, and thinking it beneath the
dignity of so great a prophet, to concern himself about such little creatures, who
were incapable of receiving any instruction from him. Wetstein thinks that, being
deeply engaged in the discourse
concerningmatrimony,andhavingmanycuriousquestionstoproposeto their Master,
they were displeased to be thus unseasonably interrupted.
PETT, "The practise of mothers taking their children from one to twelve years old to the Scribes
for God’s blessing at certain feasts such as the Day of Atonement was well known in Israel. There
the Scribes would lay their hands on them and pray for them. Thus these women are treating
Jesus as a Prophet and on a par with the Scribes.
The words used for ‘little children’ can in fact signify children of various ages up to twelve. We
should not therefore see these as babes in arms. It was not babes in arms that the Scribes
blessed. These were thus simply children of various ages.
But the practical disciples, knowing that Jesus is tired, and not counting the blessing of little
children as very important, rebuke them (their mothers) for seeking to break in on their Master for
such a petty reason. Perhaps they were aware that He was on the point of departing (Matthew
19:15) or perhaps they had their minds set on larger matters, the things that awaited them in
Jerusalem about which Jesus was speaking so mysteriously. Or perhaps they were repudiating
the idea that ‘blessing’ could just be passed on by the laying on of hands. Whichever way it was
they saw the children as an intrusion. For to them more important matters were at hand. Indeed
matters so important that all their ideas about marriage had just been turned upside down. And
yet all these women could think of was having their children blessed and prayed for! It was just not
acceptable. So they sought to turn them away.
Verses 13-15

99. The Basis Of The New Kingly Rule Is To Be Humility - Jesus Calls Young Children To Him To Be
Blessed, For They Are An Example Of Those To Whom The Kingly Rule of Heaven Belongs
(19:13-15).
A change of view about marriage has indicated that the Kingly Rule of Heaven was now present
among them, and Jesus now further emphasises this latter fact by welcoming young children to
Him to be blessed. This balances out the message of the last passage. There some were called
on to abstain from marriage for the sake of the Kingly Rule of Heaven, because important matters
are now in hand, but now He reminds them that they must never forget that it is the products of
such marriages who form an important part of that Kingly Rule of Heaven that they are to serve.
Let those who abstain from marriage not get above themselves, and see themselves as the
important ones. For, as He has previously done, He now again points out that the Kingly Rule of
Heaven is for those, and only those, who will come to it with the humility and openness of children
(compare Matthew 18:1-4), and that applies to them as well.
However, as well as balancing off the previous passage, this incident is also preparatory to the
one that follows. For in that incident a ‘not so small’ and rather worldly-wise child will be found to
be so taken up with his riches that he has no time for the Kingly Rule of Heaven. In his case he is
not prepared to come to Jesus as a little child and thus receive the blessing he seeks, and so he
goes away without it. Because his attitude is not that of a little child he is not open to receive
Jesus’ blessing.
Analysis.
a Then were there brought to Him little children, that He should lay His hands on them, and pray
(Matthew 19:13 a).
b And the disciples rebuked them (Matthew 19:13 b).
b But Jesus said, “Allow the little children, and forbid them not to come to Me, for of such is the
Kingly Rule of Heaven” (Matthew 19:14).
a And he laid his hands on them, and departed from there (Matthew 19:15).
Note that in ‘a’ young children are brought so that He may lay His hands on them, and in the
parallel he does so. In ‘b’ the disciples rebuke them, but in the parallel Jesus welcomes them.
EBC 13-15, ""Then were there brought unto Him little children"-a happy interruption!
The Master has just been laying the solid foundations of the Christian home; and now
the group of men by whom He is surrounded is joined by a troop of mothers, some
carrying infants in their arms (for the passage in St. Luke expressly mentions infants),
and some leading their little ones by the hand, to receive His blessing. The timeousness
of this arrival does not seem to have struck the disciples. Their hearts had not yet been
opened to the lambs of the fold, notwithstanding the great lesson at Capernaum. With as
little regard for the feelings of the mothers as for the rights of the children, they
"rebuked those that brought them," (Mar_10:13) and motioned them away. That this
wounded the heart of the Saviour appears in His answer, which is stronger, as indicating
displeasure, than is shown in our translation; while in the second Gospel it is expressly
mentioned that Jesus "was much displeased." How can we thank the Lord enough for
that sore displeasure? A distinguished opponent of Christianity has lately been asking
whether he is expected to accept the kind and peaceful Jesus, Who smiles in one place,
or the stern Judge Who frowns in another-with the evident implication that it is
impossible to accept both. How any person of intelligence can find difficulty in
supposing that Christ could without inconsistency be either gentle or stern, as the
occasion required, is very marvellous; but here is a case in which the sternness and
gentleness are blended together in one act; and who will say that there is the least
incompatibility between them? He was much displeased with the disciples; His heart
was overflowing with tenderness to the children: and in that moment of conflicting
feeling He utters that immortal sentence, these noblest and now most familiar of

100. household words, "Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto Me: for of
such is the kingdom of heaven."
The rights of woman had been implicitly taught in the law of marriage carried back to
the original creation of male and female; the treatment of woman had been vindicated
from the rudeness of the disciples which would have driven the mothers away; and this
reception of the children, and these words of welcome into the kingdom for all such little
ones, are the charter of the children’s rights and privileges. It is very plain that Christ
has opened the kingdom of heaven, not only to all believers, but to their children as well.
That "the kingdom of heaven" is here used in its ordinary sense throughout this Gospel,
as referring to the heavenly kingdom which Christ had come to establish upon earth,
cannot be denied; but it is a very fair inference from the Saviour’s words that, seeing the
children are acknowledged as having their place in the kingdom on earth, those of them
who pass away from earth in childhood certainly find as sure and cordial a welcome in
the kingdom above.
"The holy to the holiest leads, The kingdoms are but one."
The porch is on earth, the palace is in heaven; and we may be very sure that all whom the
King acknowledges in the porch shall be welcome in the palace.
What a rebuke in these words of our Lord to those who deal with children
indiscriminately as if they were all dead in trespasses and sins. How it must grieve the
Saviour’s heart when lambs of his own fold who may have been His from their earliest
infancy are taught that they are utterly lost, and must be lost for ever, unless they pass
through some extraordinary change, which is to them only a nameless mystery. It is a
mistake to think that children as a rule need to be dragged to the Saviour, or frightened
into trusting Him: what they need is to be suffered to come. It is so natural for them to
come that all they need is very gentle leading, and above all nothing done to hinder or
discourage them: "Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto Me: for of
such is the kingdom of heaven."
BARCLAY 13-15, "JESUS' WELCOME FOR THE CHILDREN (Matthew 19:13-15)
19:13-15 Children were brought to him, that he might lay his hands on them, and pray
for them. The disciples spoke sternly to them. Jesus said, "Let the little children come to
me, and do not hinder them, for the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to such as they are."
And after he had laid his hands on them, he went away from there.
It may well be said that here we have the loveliest incident in the gospel story. The
characters all stand out clear and plain, although it only takes two verses to tell it.
(i) There are those who brought the children. No doubt these would be their mothers.
No wonder they wished Jesus to lay his hands on them. They had seen what these hands
could do; had seen them touch disease and pain away; had seen them bring sight to the
blind eyes, and peace to the distracted mind; and they wanted hands like that to touch
their children. There are few stories which show so clearly the sheer loveliness of the life
of Jesus. Those who brought the children would not know who Jesus was; they would be
well aware that Jesus was anything but popular with the Scribes and the Pharisees, and

101. the Priests and the Sadducees and the leaders of orthodox religion; but there was a
loveliness on him.
Premanand tells of a thing his mother once said to him. When Premanand became a
Christian his family cast him off, and the doors were shut against him; but sometimes he
used to slip back to see his mother. She was broken-hearted that he had become a
Christian, but she did not cease to love him. She told him that when she was carrying
him in her womb a missionary gave her a copy of one of the gospels. She read it; she still
had it. She told her son that she had no desire to become a Christian, but that
sometimes, in those days before he was born, she used to long that he might grow up to
be a man like this Jesus.
There is a loveliness on Jesus Christ that anyone can see. It is easy to think of these
mothers in Palestine feeling that the touch of a man like that on their children's heads
would bring a blessing, even if they did not understand why.
(ii) There are the disciples. The disciples sound as if they were rough and stern; but, if
they were, it was love that made them so. Their one desire was to protect Jesus.
They saw how tired he was; they saw what healing cost him. He was talking to them so
often about a cross, and they must have seen on his face the tension of his heart and
soul. All that they wanted was to see that Jesus was not bothered. They could only think
that at such a time as this the children were a nuisance to the Master. We must not think
of them as hard; we must not condemn them; they wished only to save Jesus from
another of those insistent demands which were always laying their claims upon his
strength.
(iii) There is Jesus himself. This story tells us much about him.
He was the kind of person children loved. George Macdonald used to say that no man
could be a follower of Jesus if the children were afraid to play at his door. Jesus was
certainly no grim ascetic, if the children loved him.
Further, to Jesus no one was unimportant. Some might say, "It's only a child; don't let
him bother you." Jesus would never say that. No one was ever a nuisance to Jesus. He
was never too tired, never too busy to give all of himself to anyone who needed it. There
is a strange difference between Jesus and many a famous preacher or evangelist. It is
often next door to impossible to get into the presence of one of these famous ones. They
have a kind of retinue and bodyguard which keep the public away lest the great man be
wearied and bothered. Jesus was the opposite of that. The way to his presence was open
to the humblest person and to the youngest child.
(iv) There are the children. Jesus said of them that they were nearer God than anyone

102. else there. The child's simplicity is, indeed, closer to God than anything else. It is life's
tragedy that, as we grow older, we so often grow further from God rather than nearer to
him.
BROADUS, "Matthew 19:13-15.
Little Children Are Brought To Jesus For His Blessing
Found also in Mark 10:13-16, Luke 18:15-17. Luke here again becomes parallel to
Matthew and Mark, and continues so to the end, see above on "Matthew 19:1". The place
of this occurrence appears to have been Southern Perea, in some house, (Mark 10:10)
and the time a few days before the triumphal entry, see on "Matthew 19:1". Then is
naturally, though not of necessity (see on "Matthew 3:13"), understood strictly, as
denoting the time of the foregoing conversation upon divorce. Mark has simply 'and.'
Were there brought. Mark has 'they brought,' impersonal, like "they say"; Luke, 'they
brought unto him their babes also,' which shows that the parents brought them. They
were so moved by his teaching and healing as not only to seek a personal blessing, but a
blessing upon their babes also. Mark and Luke have the Greek imperfect tense,
describing them as engaged in bringing. And they have 'rebuked' in the same tense;
while the parents were bringing and the disciples were rebuking, Jesus spoke. Little
children, called 'babes' in Luke, and small enough to be naturally taken in one's arms
(Mark). These terms forbid our understanding children old enough to exercise faith. Put
his hands on them, and pray. The Jews had always valued the "blessing" of a father, a
prophet, a great rabbi, or other venerable person. The Talmud says they brought their
young children to the synagogue for this purpose. "After the father of the child had laid
his hands on his child's head, he led him to the elders, one by one, and they also blessed
him, and prayed that 'he might grow up famous in the law, faithful in marriage, and
abundant in good works." (Buxtorf, in Geikie.) To lay hands on them, or (Mark and
Luke) 'touch them,' was the symbol of invoking a blessing upon them, and seemed to
establish a personal relation between the good man and the person blessed. See Genesis
48:14, Numbers 27:18, Acts 6:6, Acts 13:3; compare Matthew 9:18, Matthew 9:20. They
came to Jesus as a rabbi or a prophet; and he did what they de, sired, took the children
in his arms and blessed them. (compare Mark 10:16) And the disciples rebuked them.
This in Matt. might mean rebuked the children or rebuked those who brought them; in
Mark and Luke it is clearly the latter, which is obviously appropriate. Jesus had just been
speaking of a highly important practical topic, viz., the propriety of divorce, and the
expediency of marriage. The disciples had renewed the subject after leaving the
Pharisees, (Mark 10:10) and the Master was pursuing it in private. Perhaps (Wet.) they
were just thinking of other questions to ask on the subject. They did not want the privacy
of Messiah the King to be interrupted, and these deeply interesting instructions stopped,
by what they regarded as the mere trivial matter of bringing babes for the teacher's
blessing. Compare Matthew 20:31, 2 Kings 4:27. Our Lord not only spoke in opposition
to their rebuke, but (Mark) 'was moved with indignation,' a strong word, the same as in
Matthew 20:24, Matthew 26:8. Why was he so indignant? He warmly loved infant
children. All good men ought to feel a tender affection for them, and it seemed that the
disciples were in this respect deficient. This very scene has so taught the Christian world
to love infant children that it is difficult for us to realize the apparent feelings of the
disciples. They thought the infants and their parents unworthy of the Messiah's notice;
and he was indignant at such a conception of childhood and of him. Moreover, while
they were annoyed at the interruption of valued instruction, they were forgetting that

103. some months before he (Matthew 18:1 ff.) had expressly used a little child as an object-
lesson to give them a deserved rebuke for their selfish ambition and jealous strife. This
was one of the lessons they most needed, and from that time forth they ought never to
have looked at a little child without recalling the lesson and laying it to heart afresh. But
no. They have forgotten the lesson, and behold little children without being reminded. In
a day or two they will again manifest (Matthew 20:20 ff.) the ambition and jealousy he
had used that illustration to correct. There may have been other grounds for the Master's
indignation, and some of these may not have been correctly conceived. But we seem to
perceive (a) a misapprehension of him, for he tenderly loved little children; (b) a defect
in their own character, in that they did not love them as he did; (c) a grievous
forgetfulness, and persistence in wrong dispositions he had taken such pains to correct;
and it may also be that (d) he was displeased at their assuming the right to decide who
should approach him, without waiting to know his wishes. More than once before he has
sharply reproved them for not understanding or not remembering his instructions.
(Matthew 16:8-11, Matthew 16:23, Mark 6:52, Matthew 11:25, Matthew 7:21-23 ;
compare hereafter Matthew 20:22; John 14:9.)
BIBLICAL ILLUSTRATOR 13-15, "Matthew 19:13-15
Then were there brought unto Him little children.
The children for Christ
I. They need the Saviour.
1. AS children, they are within the covenant and provisions of grace.
2. They are naturally blind and dark.
3. Nor let us forget that they are guilty.
4. They need, therefore, to be led to Jesus as penitent sinners for forgiveness and
peace. They need a guide, a shield, a true friend, etc.
II. They may be brought to him when very young.
1. On this point, opinion among godly people has been very much modified since the
general establishment of Sunday-schools.
2. It is a great mistake, and involves a great wrong to the child, not to insist upon his
deciding and choosing Christ now, for unbelief and carnality are gaining strength.
3. There is no kind of knowledge which will find readier access to the juvenile mind,
and be more easily retained there, than the knowledge of Christ.
4. How many and how marked are the examples of early piety which the Bible
records.
5. The religion of children-if genuine and healthy-will differ in some respects from
the religion of elderly people. Ignorant prejudice has done a world of mischief.
III. One of the first duties we, as a church, owe the Lord Jesus is to assist in bringing
these children to him.
1. They are our own flesh and blood. They are our own immediate successors in the
Church and the world. They are immortal. They are the object of Jesus’ redeeming
love; they are brought within our influence that we may be Christ’s ministers to

104. them, and their guides to Him, etc.
2. The present is the golden Opportunity. The promise is true to your children, that
they also shall receive:’ remission of sins,” and “the gift of the Holy Ghost.” Bring
them to Jesus! Alas! some of you parents, masters, heads of households are not
yourselves following Christ, and how can you bring your children or young people to
Him? Teachers, suffer the children to come to Jesus, and hinder them not, etc. (J.
Findlay.)
A sermon on Sunday-school work
I. The principle on which the sunday-school should be founded. It must be founded and
carried on in Faith, in its usefulness, its worth, its importance. Faith in your schools;
faith in God; in the child whom you teach; and in the Scriptures which are to be taught.
II. The end, the great object, which should be proposed and kept steadily in view by its
friends. The great end is, to awaken the soul of the pupil, to bring his understanding,
conscience, and heart into earnest, vigorous action on religious and moral truth, to
excite and cherish in him spiritual life. The great end in religious instruction, whether in
the Sunday-school or family, is, not to stamp our minds irresistibly on the young, but to
stir up their own; not to make them see with our eyes, but to look inquiringly and
steadily with their own; not to give them a definite amount of knowledge, but to inspire a
fervent love of truth; not to form an outward regularity, but to touch inward springs; not
to burden the memory, but to quicken and strengthen the power of thought;… not to tell
them that God is good, but to help them to see and feel His love in all that He does
within and around them. In a word, to awaken intellectual and moral life in the child.
III. What is to be taught in sunday schools? The Gospels, the Gospels, these should be
the text-book of Sunday Schools. There are three great views of Christianity, which
pervade it throughout, and to which the mind of the learner must be continually turned.
1. The spirituality of the religion.
2. Its disinterestedness.
3. The vastness, the infinity, of its progress.
IV. How shall it be taught? Attention must be secured by moral influence. You must love
the children. You must be interested yourselves in that you teach them. Be intelligible.
Teach by questions. Teach graphically where you can. Lay stress on the most important
things. Carry a cheerful spirit into religious teaching. (Dr. Channing.)
Little children brought to Christ
I. Who were now brought to Christ? Probably infants. None of them were arrived at the
full exercise of reason; and some of them might be carried in the arms of their friends.
II. For what end were they brought to Christ? Probably not to be healed of sickness or
weakness. It was, that He might lay His hands upon them and bless them. They had a
high opinion of the piety of Jesus, and of His interest in the Divine favour.
III. The reception Jesus gave the children. Kind and gracious.
IV. The declaration he made concerning them. “Of such is the kingdom of heaven.”

105. Christ commends in children three or four things, wherein they who are adult ought to
resemble them.
1. Freedom from prejudice or openness to conviction; freedom from pride, or
humility; freedom from worldly affections, or indifference to earthly things: and
finally, freedom from custom of sinning, or innocence. (Nath. Lardner.)
Reflections on the incident
1. The doctrine of this text may afford comfortable thoughts concerning such as die
in infancy, or in very early age, before they have done good or evil.
2. It teaches us to be cautious, how we disparage the human nature, and say, that it
is, in its original conception, corrupt, depraved, and defiled.
3. This history teaches us the right of young persons to be present at the worship of
God, and seems to hold forth the duty of those under whose care they are, to bring
them early to it.
4. We may infer that it is not below persons of the greatest eminence for wisdom and
piety to show affection and tenderness for little children.
5. We hence learn, that all of us arrived to years of knowledge and understanding
should see to it, that we bear a resemblance to little children. And 6, this history
affords encouragement to young persons arrived to the use of reason and
understanding to come to Christ, and offer up themselves to God in and through
Him. (Nath. Lardner.)
Our likeness to little children.
1. As respects faith. Children are trustful: its trust has little to do with the intellect.
Faith is not a thing of the understanding, but of the heart. When you read the Bible,
do it as a little child, “My Father says thus.” A child’s joy is always truer than a child’s
sorrow.
2. A child’s mind has a wonderful power of realization. They soon picture what is
said to them. We should realize the invisible.
3. Little children may be angry, but their anger never lasts.
4. They are innocent and do not hurt.
5. They are, as a rule, generous with their possessions.
6. The sympathy of a child is perfect, to a tear or a smile he will respond in a
moment.
7. A little child is a thing new born. We must be born again. (J. Vaughan, M. A.)
“Suffer” little children to come
I. What mothers want for their children.
II. What disciples sometimes want for the children. To run away and not be

106. troublesome. Sometimes they would keep them away from Christ until they grow big.
Whence can such a mistake arise? From such ideas as-
1. Christ is too busy with saving men to care about the children.
2. Children have not the needs which Jesus came to supply.
3. If the children get the blessing now they will lose it ere they become men.
III. What Jesus wants for the children. To come to Him. They can trust, love, etc. (R.
Tuck, B. A.)
Jesus and children
The most beautiful scene in the Bible.
I. Jesus is attractive to children. Some men and women for whom they do not care.
Jesus not like these. There are others for whom children are never shy, or afraid. Jesus
like these.
II. Jesus is deeply interested in children.
III. Jesus prays for children. “He put His hands on them,” etc. Ancient custom. He ever
liveth to make intercession for us.
IV. Jesus wishes children to be happy. He blessed the children who came to Him, and
He blesses you.
V. Many children are with Jesus in heaven. (Alex. McAuslane, D. D.)
I. Who spake these words, and why were they spoken, “Jesus said.” Because He loved
children and came to do them good.
II. How should little children come to Christ.
1. By thought.
2. Prayer.
3. Obedience.
III. What keeps little children back from Christ, and who forbids them to come to him.
The disciples. I will point out what in yourselves keeps you back.
1. Idleness.
2. The mockeries of your playfellows.
3. Satan.
IV. What is to be gained by coming to Christ. (T. J. Judkin M. A.)
Blessing by imposition of hands
From Christ has been derived the custom among Christians, that lax; people, and
especially children, should ask a blessing from their elders and from priests. This is the
case in Belgium, where boys will run up to the priests and religious men, and ask them to

107. sign them with the sign of the cross. They are taught to do this, both by the catechists
and by their parents. Remigius says this was a custom among the Jews before the time of
Christ. The great Sir Thomas More, the glory of England and a martyr, when he was
Lord High Chancellor, publicly asked his aged father to give him his blessing. Moreover,
the Church uses this ceremony of imposition of hands in baptism, confirmation, and
orders. It is to pray for and obtain the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Lapide.)
Christianity cares for children
The gospel alone opens its warm bosom to the young. Christianity alone is the nurse of
children. Atheism looks on them as on a level with the brutes. Deism or scepticism
leaves them to every random influence, lest they catch a bias. The Romans exposed their
infants. Barbarians and ancient tribes offered them as burnt-sacrifices to Moloch.
Mahometanism holds mothers and infants as equally of an inferior cast. Hindooism
forgets the infant she bears, and leaves it to perish on the banks of the Ganges. The
Chinese are notorious as infanticides. Christianity alone contemplates them as immortal
creatures, and prescribes for their tuition for heaven. And the nearer the time that the
rising of the Sun of Righteonsness approached, the warmer and the more intense did the
interest of the Church show itself in regard to the young. Moses gave directions on the
subject. Joshua and Abraham commanded their households after them; David declared
how the young were to purify their way; and Solomon distinctly enjoined them to
remember their Creator in the days of their youth; but it was reserved for Him who
spake as never man spake, to press that sentence, “Suffer the little children,” etc. The
temple of Juggernaut presents a grave; the mosque, contempt; infidelity, neglect for
children. The bosom of the Son of God alone Ends them a nursery and a home. (Salter.)
Children specially susceptible of spiritual induences.
In their case there is still-
1. Confidence, instead of scepticism.
2. Self-surrender, instead of distrust.
3. Truth, instead of hypocrisy.
4. Want of pretension, instead of pride. (Lisko.)
Ideas of women and children in the East
Women were not honoured nor children loved in antiquity as now they are; no halo of
romance and tenderness encircled them; too often, indeed, they were subject to
shameful cruelties and hard neglect. (Farrar.)
How children are forbidden
They may be “forbidden,” both by neglect and injudicious teaching.
I. By not being taught of Christ through word and example.

108. II. By being taught legalism; that is, “Be good, or God will not love you,” instead of this:
Christ (God) loves you, therefore go to Him in order to be good. (Schaff.)
Christ’s example of dealing with children
1. His sympathy for and with children.
2. Our right to bring children to Him for blessing, and this before they can
understand anything concerning Him or His truth.
3. That they are members of Christ’s kingdom, and are so regarded by Him, and are
to be so regarded by us, and this irrespective of any parental faith.
4. That such as die before they have wandered out of God’s kingdom into the
kingdom of Satan are certainly saved, since they are of the kingdom of heaven.
5. The incident condemns all conduct on the part of the church, the teacher, or the
parent, which tends to repress, chill, or check the enthusiasm of childhood for
Christ, and darken its simple faith in Him. (Abbott.)
A sermon to mothers
I. A mother’s love.
II. A mother’s responsibility.
III. A mother’s consolation. (P. Robertson.)
Maternal influence on children
It has been truly said that although women may have produced no work of surpassing
power, have written no Iliad, no “Hamlet,” no “Paradise Lost; “ have designed no Church
of St. Peter’s, composed no “Messiah,” carved no “Apollo Belvidere,” painted no Last
Judgment; although they have invented neither algebra nor telescopes nor steam
engines, they have done something greater and better than all this: it is at their knees
that virtuous and upright men and women have been trained-the most excellent
productions in the world. If we would find the secret of the greatness and goodness of
most famous men we must look to their mothers. It was the patient gentle schooling of
Monica which turned Augustine from a profligate to a saint. It was the memory of a
mother’s lessons which changed John Newton, of Olney, from blasphemous sailor to an
earnest minister of God. It was a mother’s influence which made George Washington a
man of such truth, such nobleness, and such power, that he swayed the people of
America as one man. (Wilmot Buxton.)
Early conversion
Conversions after forty years are very rare: like the scattered grapes on the remotest
branches after the vintage is over, there is on]y one here and there. I have sometimes
seen an old withered oak standing with its stiff and leafless branches on the slopes of a
woody hill; though the same refreshing rains and genial sunshine fell on it as on its

109. thriving neighbours, Which were green with renewed youth and rich in flowing foliage, it
grew not, it gave no signs of life, it was too far gone for genial nature to assist. The old
blanched, sapless oak is an emblem of the aged sinner. (Dr. Thomas.)
14 Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me,
and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of
heaven belongs to such as these.”
BAR ES, "Jesus said, Suffer little children, ... - Mark adds, he was much
displeased at what the disciples said. It was a thing highly gratifying to him, and which
he earnestly sought, that children should be brought to him, and a case where it was very
improper that they should interfere.
Of such is the kingdom of heaven - The kingdom of heaven evidently means here
the church. See the notes at Mat_3:2. In Mark and Luke it is said he immediately added,
“Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall not enter therein.”
Whosoever shall not be humble, unambitious, and docile, shall not be a true follower of
Christ or a member of his kingdom. Of such as these - that is, of persons with such
tempers as these - is the church to be composed. He does not say of those infants, but of
such persons as resemble them, or are like them in temper, is the kingdom of heaven
made up. As emblematic, therefore, of what his own followers were to be, and as having
traits of character so strongly resembling what he required in his followers, it was proper
that they should be brought to him. At the same time, it was proper on their own
account that they should be brought to him, and that his blessing should be sought on
them.
All are fallen; all have, a tendency to sin, and none but Jesus can save them. Little
children, too, are in a world of sickness and death, and in the beginning of life it is
proper to invoke on them the blessing of the Saviour. They are to live forever beyond the
grave; and as they have just entered on a career of existence which can never terminate,
it is an appropriate act to seek the blessing of that Saviour who only can make them
happy forever, as they enter on their career of existence. No act, therefore, can be more
proper than that by which parents, in a solemn ordinance of religion, give them up to
God in baptism, consecrating them to his service, and seeking for them the blessing of
the Saviour. It is probable - it is greatly to be hoped - that all infants will be saved. No
contrary doctrine is taught in the sacred Scriptures. But it does not appear to be the
design of this passage to teach that all infants will be saved. It means simply that they
should be suffered to be brought to Christ as amiable, lovely, and uncorrupted by the
world; as having traits of mind resembling those among real Christians; and as
themselves needing his blessing.

110. CLARKE, "Of such is the kingdom of heaven - Or, the kingdom of heaven is
composed of such. This appears to be the best sense of the passage, and utterly ruins the
whole inhuman diabolic system of what is called non-elect infants’ damnation; a
doctrine which must have sprung from Moloch, and can only be defended by a heart in
which he dwells. A great part of God’s kingdom is composed of such literally; and those
only who resemble little children shall be received into it: see on Mat_18:3 (note). Christ
loves little children because he loves simplicity and innocence; he has sanctified their
very age by passing through it himself - the holy Jesus was once a little child.
GILL, "But Jesus said, suffer little children.... This he said to show his humility,
that he was not above taking notice of any; and to teach his disciples to regard the
weakest believers, and such as were but children in knowledge; and to inform them what
all ought to be, who expect the kingdom of heaven; for it follows;
and forbid them not to come unto me, now, or at any other time;
for of such is the kingdom of heaven; that is, as the Syriac renders it, "who are as
these" or as the Persic version, rather paraphrasing than translating, renders it, "who
have been humble as these little children": and it is as if our Lord should say, do not
drive away these children from my person and presence; they are lively emblems of the
proper subjects of a Gospel church state, and of such that shall enter into the kingdom of
heaven: by these I may instruct and point out to you, what converted persons should be,
who have a place in my church below, and expect to enter into my kingdom and glory
above; that they are, or ought to be, like such children, harmless and inoffensive; free
from rancour and malice, meek, modest, and humble; without pride, self-conceit, and
ambitious views, and desires of grandeur and superiority. Christ's entire silence about
the baptism of infants at this time, when he had such an opportunity of speaking of it to
his disciples, had it been his will, has no favourable aspect on such a practice. It is not
denied that little children, whether born of believers or unbelievers, which matters not,
may be chosen of God, redeemed by the blood of Christ, and have the passive work of the
Spirit on their souls, and so enter into heaven; but this is not the sense of this text. It was
indeed a controversy among the Jews, whether the little children of the wicked of Israel,
‫הבא‬ ‫לעולם‬ ‫,באין‬ "go into the world to come": some affirmed, and others denied; but all
agreed, that the little children of the wicked of the nations of the world, do not. They
dispute about the time of entrance of a child into the world to come; some say, as soon as
it is born, according to Psa_22:31 others, as soon as it can speak, or count, according to
Psa_22:30 others as soon as it is sown, as the gloss says, as soon as the seed is received
in its mother's womb, though it becomes an abortion; according to the same words, "a
seed shall serve thee": others, as soon as he is circumcised, according to Psa_88:15
others, as soon as he can say "Amen", according (z) to Isa_26:2 All weak, frivolous, and
impertinent.
SBC, "A Christian must be like a little child. There is very great cause why we should
press this thought upon ourselves now. For we are fallen on most unchildlike days. The
very children are not childlike. An age partially, but not entirely educated—rather, but
not very, learned, an age of transition, an age proud of its science and its talent, a fast

111. age, can never be a childlike age. Look at some of the features of the little child which we
have to copy.
I. As respects faith. No one can have had much to do with a very young child without
being struck with the particular character of its trust. The chief reason why a child’s trust
is so great is that it has nothing to do with the intellect: it is simply affection; it believes
because it loves, and leans because it is fond. There is a great deal of true philosophy
here. Faith is a feeling of the heart, and the more you love the more you will believe.
Hence the large faith of a little child. You cannot know infinitely, but you can love
infinitely. If the faith be in proportion to the knowledge, it can never be very great. If the
faith be in proportion to the love, it will be exceedingly great.
II. Little children live in the present moment. They have few memories, and what future
there is, is all sunny. A child’s joy is always longer than a child’s sorrow. I wish we could
all do the same—have very few retrospects, and no dark anticipations, and no anxieties.
Then what energy it would give, what ecstasy to today’s duty, today’s cross, today’s
pleasure, and how free the soul would be for the real tomorrow of eternity.
III. A child’s mind has a wonderful power of realization. Whatever is said to it, it does
more than picture it; it makes substance of it, and immediately it becomes a living thing
to the child. And this is just what we ought to do about the invisible world. The unseen is
really more than the seen. And yet, who treats what he cannot touch and see as he does
the material world around him? To whom is heaven like an estate of which he has just
got possession a little way off, who holds the protection of angels as if he saw an army
about him? Who looks for the Advent as he expects the return of a friend?
IV. A little child is a thing new-born. So it must be with you. Ye must be born again.
J. Vaughan, Fifty Sermons, 7th series, p. 136.
HE RY, "III. The favour of our Lord Jesus. See how he carried it here.
1. He rebuked the disciples (Mat_19:14); Suffer little children, and forbid them not;
and he rectifies the mistake they went upon, Of such is the kingdom of heaven. Note, (1.)
The children of believing parents belong to the kingdom of heaven, and are members of
the visible church. Of such, not only of such in disposition and affection (that might
have served for a reason why doves or lambs should be brought to him), but of such, in
age, is the kingdom of heaven; to them pertain the privileges of visible church-
membership, as among the Jews of old. The promise is to you, and to your children. I
will be a God to thee and thy seed. (2.) That for this reason they are welcome to Christ,
who is ready to entertain those who, when they cannot come themselves, are brought to
him. And this, [1.] In respect to the little children themselves, whom he has upon all
occasions expressed a concern for; and who, having participated in the malignant
influences of the first Adam's sin, must needs share in the riches of the second Adam's
grace, else what would become of the apostle's parallel? 1Co_15:22; Rom_5:14, Rom_
5:15, etc. Those who are given to Christ, as part of his purchase, he will in no wise cast
out. [2.] With an eye to the faith of the parents who brought them, and presented them
as living sacrifices. Parents are trustees of their children's wills, are empowered by
nature to transact for their benefit; and therefore Christ accepts their dedication of them
as their act and deed, and will own these dedicated things in the day he makes up his
jewels. [3.] Therefore he takes it ill of those who forbid them, and exclude those whom
he has received: who cast them out from the inheritance of the Lord, and say, Ye have no
part in the Lord (see Jos_22:27); and who forbid water, that they should be baptized,
who, if that promise be fulfilled (Isa_44:3), have received the Holy Ghost as well as we,

112. for aught we know.
2. He received the little children, and did as he was desired; he laid his hands on them,
that is, he blessed them. The strongest believer lives not so much by apprehending Christ
as by being apprehended of him (Phi_3:12), not so much by knowing God as by being
known of him (Gal_4:9); and this the least child is capable of. If they cannot stretch out
their hands to Christ, yet he can lay his hands on them, and so make them his own, and
own them for his own.
CALVI , "14.Suffer children. He declares that he wishes to receive children; and at
length, taking them in his arms, he not only embraces, but blesses them by the
laying on of hand; from which we infer that his grace is extended even to those who
are of that age. And no wonder; for since the whole race of Adam is shut up under
the sentence of death, all from the least even to the greatest must perish, except
those who are rescued by the only Redeemer. To exclude from the grace of
redemption those who are of that age would be too cruel; and therefore it is not
without reason that we employ this passage as a shield against the Anabaptists.
They refuse baptism to infants, because infants are incapable of understanding that
mystery which is denoted by it. We, on the other hand, maintain that, since baptism
is the pledge and figure of the forgiveness of sins, and likewise of adoption by God,
it ought not to be denied to infants, whom God adopts and washes with the blood of
his Son. Their objection, that repentance and newness of life are also denoted by it,
is easily answered. Infants are renewed by the Spirit of God, according to the
capacity of their age, till that power which was concealed within them grows by
degrees, and becomes fully manifest at the proper time. Again, when they argue that
there is no other way in which we are reconciled to God, and become heirs of
adoption, than by faith, we admit this as to adults, but, with respect to infants, this
passage demonstrates it to be false. Certainly, the laying on of hands was not a
trifling or empty sign, and the prayers of Christ were not idly wasted in air. But he
could not present the infants solemnly to God without giving them purity. And for
what did he pray for them, but that they might be received into the number of the
children of God? Hence it follows, that they were renewed by the Spirit to the hope
of salvation. In short, by embracing them, he testified that they were reckoned by
Christ among his flock. And if they were partakers of the spiritual gifts, which are
represented by Baptism, it is unreasonable that they should be deprived of the
outward sign. But it is presumption and sacrilege to drive far from the fold of Christ
those whom he cherishes in his bosom, and to shut the door, and exclude as
strangers those whom he does not wish to be forbidden to come to him
For of such is the kingdom of heaven. Under this term he includes both little
children and those who resemble them; for the Anabaptists foolishly exclude
children, with whom the subject must have commenced; but at the same time,
taking occasion from the present occurrence, he intended to exhort his disciples to
lay aside malice and pride, and put on the nature of children Accordingly, it is
added by Mark and Luke, that no man can enter into the kingdom of heaven unless
he be made to resemble a child. But we must attend to Paul’s admonition,
not to be children in understanding, but in malice,

113. (1 Corinthians 14:20.)
ELLICOTT, "(14) Suffer little children, and forbid them not . . .—St. Mark adds
that Jesus “was much displeased,” and represents Him as reproducing almost
verbally the teaching of Matthew 18:3. The tenderness of His sympathy was kindled
into indignation at the rough indifference of the disciples. As in thousands of those
whose lives have been modelled after His pattern, the love of children was not
weaker, but stronger, precisely because it depended on no human relationship, but
sprang from His seeing in them the children of His Father.
Of such is the kingdom of heaven.—That is, the kingdom of heaven belongs to such
as these, is theirs as by inheritance.
COFFMA , "Does this verse teach infant baptism and membership in God's
church? Certainly, this is the allegation of those who hold those views; but it is
significant here that Christ did not say that little children were "in the kingdom,"
but that "to such belongs the kingdom"! There is a world of difference. The
emphasis is upon child-like behavior and character. However, due to the widespread
error in this area, we shall note more particularly the entire subject of infant church
membership.
There are no recorded cases of infant baptism in the ew Testament. The
"household" baptisms are nowhere said to have contained any infants among the
number baptized; and any argument from "household" baptisms must be classified
as an argument from the silence of the Scriptures.
Furthermore, the basic outline of the new covenant in Jeremiah 31:31 which is
emphatically identified with the current dispensation in Hebrews 10:16, makes
infant membership in the kingdom impossible. Jeremiah taught that no untaught
person shall be in God's kingdom. It will not be necessary (in the days of the new
covenant) for people to say "know the Lord," for ALL know him already. Why?
Because they must know him BEFORE they can enter that new relationship. Infants
cannot and do not know the Lord in the manner required of all who truly accept
Christ.
The baptism of infants is neither commanded nor allowed in the ew Testament, a
truth which was remarkably emphasized by events in the Anglican church in 1964,
and published in the ew York Times (Dec. 16,1964, p. 16) where it was reported
that many distinguished vicars of that faith would no longer baptize infants,
affirming that to do so was contrary to Scripture. The report quoted the clergymen
as saying, "We are denying adults the right of baptism" by baptizing infants. Of
course, they were correct in that allegation. To baptize infants does "deny" baptism
to adults. Peter commanded people to repent and "have yourselves baptized" (see
Vine's Greek Dictionary), and people cannot do this if the church recognizes a
ceremony practiced upon them in infancy, contrary to their will, or at least without
their consent, and makes that imposition the true baptism. Such is only another

114. instance in which people have made the word of God of none effect by their
tradition (see on Matthew 15:9ff).
If an infant is "saved" by baptism (so-called) in infancy, such a person is saved
without repentance, without confession, without knowledge of the Lord, without
consciousness of sin, and without any intention of living right. There cannot be
anything "from within" in infant baptism. This is contrary to the Lord's statement
that a man "must be born again" before he can see the kingdom of heaven (John
3:3-5). The baptism and acceptance of infants into the church constitutes the open
gate through which all manner of evil and unrepentant people are associated with
the church as members. It is precisely this that has destroyed, in large degree, the
very character of the church.
PETT, "Jesus’ however, immediately disabuses them and tells them to allow the children to
come to Him, and not to forbid them. The indication is that they are to be always ready to receive
those who come humbly and with an open mind. Indeed He points out, it is to those who come to
Him with the humility and openness of little children that the Kingly Rule of Heaven belongs. ‘Of
such is the Kingly Rule of Heaven’. That is what the Kingly Rule of Heaven is all about. For all who
would enter the Kingly Rule of Heaven must come in humble submission like a little child.
There was in this a gentle rebuke to the disciples themselves. Even yet they had not learned to
have the humility and openness of a little child. If they had they would have welcomed these
children as He did, and would not have sought to turn them away. Their problem was that they
were still involved in great plans, indeed too involved in them to consider what was really
important. Thus they were not in themselves fulfilling the potential of the Kingly Rule of Heaven.
Had they had eyes to see it at the time they would have recognised that they were not thinking
correctly about what was coming. Their eyes were on the coming struggle that they considered to
be ahead, but Jesus’ eyes were on all who in humility and openheartedness were open to
receiving and following Him and His ways. These children whom He welcomed were already a
sign of the blossoming of the Kingly Rule of Heaven (as depicted in chapter 13).
COKE, "Matthew 19:14. Suffer little children, &c.— Let the little children alone, and do not hinder
them from coming to me. See Dr. Scott, Doddridge, &c. Christ's shewing his regard in such a
manner for these children, must not only have been exceedingly pleasing to the parents, but the
memory of this condescension might make tender and lasting impressions on the children
themselves; and the sight must have been very edifyingand encouraging to other young persons
who might happen to be present; not to say how instructive this gentleness to children may be to
ministers, and how much their usefulness may be promoted by a regard to it. Our Lord might
reasonably be the more displeased with his disciples for endeavouring to prevent their being
brought, as he had so lately set a child among them, and insisted on the necessity of their being
made conformable to it. See ch. Matthew 18:2-3. And perhaps, as the disciples expressed some
dissatisfaction at his doctrine concerning divorce, Matthew 19:10. Jesus took this opportunity to
inform them again, that unless they possessed the humility, meekness, and docility of children,
they should not enter into the kingdom of God; for of such is the kingdom of heaven; that is to say,
as Dr. Doddridge paraphrases it, "Persons of such a character are the true subjects of my
kingdom, and heirs of eternal glory, to which my little children are received; and, in token of it, the
children of believing parents are to be admitted into my church by baptism." See Mark 10:15.
BROADUS, "Matthew 19:14. The repetition, suffer and forbid not, is highly emphatic. It was vividly
remembered, for Matthew, Mark, and Luke gave the same words, with a slight difference of order.
'Suffer' is aorist tense, expressing the simple action without the notion of continuance; 'forbid' is
present tense, 'do not be forbidding', or 'do not make a practice of forbidding.' The distinction
obtains in Matthew, Mark, and Luke; and the difference was felt, for the manuscript D has in
Matthew and Luke altered 'forbid' to aorist. To come unto me is a general expression, not
necessarily denoting either unaided locomotion or conscious spiritual approach, both of which are

115. here forbidden by the terms 'babes' and 'were brought.' The disciples rebuked the parents and
thus repelled the children they were bringing; but there must be free access to him. What follows
may grammatically be a reason for their coming, or a reason why the disciples must let them
come, and not forbid them. The latter seems to be the thought. For of such is the kingdom of
heaven. Here, as commonly, Matthew has the Jewish phrase 'kingdom of heaven,' Mark and
Luke, 'kingdom of God' (compare on Matthew 3:2); otherwise the phrase is identical in all three.
For 'of such is,' the Amer. Revisers give 'to such belongeth,' compare Matthew 5:3, Matthew 5:10;
Luke 6:20; James 2:5. (So Meyer, Grimm, Jelf.) But the difference is not important. 'Such'
evidently means childlike persons, as he had previously taught in Matthew 18:3. The only question
is whether it also means children. To understand it in both senses at the same time is very
difficult. Morison argues that it means simply and exclusively children such as these, and not
childlike adults at all. There is plenty of warrant in usage for so understanding the word 'such'; but
does not the connection here in Mark and Luke absolutely require the sense of childlike persons?
They both add, 'whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall in no
wise enter therein.' This is exactly what Jesus said on a former occasion, (Matthew 18:3) when,
as almost all commentators agree, he was using the little child only as an illustration. Morison's
position is therefore untenable in this case. 'Such' certainly means childlike persons, and
apparently does not mean children at all. So the Memphitic, "for persons of this sort, theirs is the
kingdom of heaven." And the Peshito takes great pains, "for those who are like them, theirs is the
kingdom of heaven." All the Greek commentators explain it as meaning the childlike, none of
them mentioning children as included, and several expressly stating the contrary. Nor does any
Greek commentator, so far as we can find, mention infant baptism in connection with the
passage, though they all practised that rite. Origen speaks only of the childlike; and so Cyril : "The
new-born child is a symbol of innocence; for the babe is as it were a new creature..... Christ does
not wish us to be without intelligence when he says, 'For to such belongs (or, of such is) the
kingdom of heaven,' but to be infants in evil, and in intelligence perfect (full-grown)." Chrys.:
"Teaching them (the disciples) to be lowly, and to trample under foot worldly pride, he receives
them, and takes them in his arms, and to such as them promises the kingdom; which kind of thing
he said before also," i. e., in Matthew 18:3 f. Theophyl.: "He did not say 'these,' but 'such,' i. e., the
simple the guileless, the innocent." Euthym.: "He did not say 'to these belongs the kingdom of
heaven,' but 'to such,' those who imitate the simplicity of these." Anon. takes the occasion to
exhort parents to bring their children incessantly to the priests, that they may put their hands on
them and pray for them. Even the great Latin commentator, Jerome (followed by Bode), tells us:
"He significantly said 'such,' not 'these,' in order to show that not age reigns, but character, and
that the reward is promised to those who should have similar innocence and simplicity." But
Tertullian and Augustine do mention, not this clause but that which precedes, in connection with
infant baptism. Tertullian (on Baptism, 18) advises delay of baptism till there has been proper
instruction, "delay according to each one's condition and disposition and even age; and especially
as to the little ones.... The Lord does indeed say, 'Forbid them not to come unto me.' Let them
come, then, while they are growing up; let them come while they are learning, while they are being
taught whither to come; let them be made Christians when they have become able to know Christ.
Why does the innocent age hasten to remission of sins?" He here shows, as throughout the
treatise, that baptism is regarded by him and those he addresses, as securing remission and
making persons Christians. So Cyprian ("Ep. to Fidus ") and Origen (on Romans 5 and Homily 14
on Luke 2.) give as the reason for infant baptism that the infants may receive remission of original
sin, that the defilement of sin may be washed away through water and the Spirit, etc., but neither
of them mentions this passage, nor does Origen mention infant baptism in his interpretation of this
passage. He says (on Rom.), "The church received it as a tradition from the apostles, to give
baptism to little ones also." Augustine ("Serm. 174") says: "No one passes from the first man
(Adam) to the second (Christ) save through the sacrament of baptism. In little children born and
not yet baptized, behold Adam; in little children born and baptized and therefore born again,
behold Christ ".... What is it that thou sayest, little children have no sin at all, not even original sin?
What is it that thou sayest, but that they should not approach to Jesus? But Jesus cries out to
thee, 'Suffer the little ones to come to me.' Aug. very frequently gives the same reason for infant
baptism, constantly and vehemently assailing the Pelagians with the argument that there is no
propriety in infant baptism unless infants are under the guilt of original sin, but we have found no
other instance in which he associates with it this passage. Calvin says "both children and those
who are like them." Alexander (on Mark): "More satisfactory is Calvin's explanation of the

116. sentence as referring both to children (i. e., to believing children) and to those who arc like them in
their childlike qualities."But believing children are in the same position as believing adults; so this
is virtually admitting that there is here no reference to infants who are incapable of belief.
Alexander adds, "The application of this passage to infant baptism, although scornfully rejected as
absurd by its opponents, is entirely legitimate, not as an argument, but as an illustration of the
spirit of the Christian system with respect to children." Bengel says: "Grant that such as are like
infants are meant, then much more infants themselves, who are such, have the kingdom of God,
and should and can receive it by coming to Christ."And he actually thinks it helps the matter to
add: "Many of those who were then infants, afterwards when grown up believed on Christ Jesus."
Meyer : "Not little children, but men of a childlike disposition, Matthew 18:3 f."; and to the same
effect Fritz., Block, Luketter., Keim, Godet. Olsh.: "Of that reference to infant baptism which it is
so common to seek in this narrative, there is clearly not the slightest trace to be found. The
Saviour sets the children before the apostles as symbols of spiritual regeneration, and of the
simple childlike feeling therein imparted." Geikie: "Let the little children come to me, and do not
forbid them, for the kingdom of heaven is given only to such as have a childlike spirit and nature
like theirs."(1) To sum up. (a) There is no good ground for understanding 'such' as meaning
children themselves, but only childlike believers (as in Matthew 18:3.) No question is here made
that those dying in infancy are saved. They are saved through the atonement of Christ and the
work of the Spirit, but this must hold true of all alike, without reference to any ceremony, and no
matter whether their parents were believers, unbelievers, or heathen. The Messianic kingdom is
always spoken of in connection with, and seems naturally to imply, persons capable of conscious
submission to Christ's reign. It is here said to belong to, or consist of, the childlike, and (according
to Mark and Luke) no others. If 'such' includes infants, it includes all infants, not only those dying
in infancy, and those that live and become believers, but those that live a life of sin and are finally
lost; in what sort of sense does the Messianic kingdom belong to (or consist of) these? (b) If it
were supposed that 'such' does include literal children, it would not follow that infants ought to be
baptized. There is here no allusion to baptism, and no one imagines that Jesus caused these little
ones to be baptized. We know that at one period Jesus was baptizing (through his disciples) very
many persons, (John 3:22, John 4:1 f.) but no one questions that they were baptized as penitent
believers in the Messianic reign. Infant baptism seems to have arisen afterwards from the belief
that baptism was necessary to salvation, being, in all the early references to it, associated with
that belief, and only as an afterthoght was ground for it sought in an inference from this passage.
In like manner Zwingli, in his controversies with the Anabaptists, introduced theargument from the
Abrahamic covenant.(2)
15 When he had placed his hands on them, he
went on from there.
BAR ES, "He laid his hands on them - Mark says he blessed them. That is, he
pronounced or sought a blessing on them.
CLARKE, "He - departed thence - That is, from that part of Judea which was

117. beyond Jordan, Mat_19:1; and then went to Jericho. See Mat_20:29.
GILL, "And he laid his hands on them,.... "And blessed them", as Mark says; he
put his hands upon them, according to the custom of the country, and wished all kind of
prosperity to them:
and departed thence, out of the house where he had been, and his disciples with him:
the Ethiopic version renders it, "and they went from thence", from those parts, towards
Jerusalem.
HE RY, "Methinks it has something observable in it, that, when he had done this, he
departed thence, Mat_19:15. As if he reckoned he had done enough there, when he had
thus asserted the rights of the lambs of his flock, and made this provision for a
succession of subjects in his kingdom.
ELLICOTT, "(15) He laid his hands on them.—St. Mark records, as before, the act
of caressing tenderness: “He folded them in His arms, and laid His hands upon
them.” The words and the act have rightly been regarded, as in the Baptismal Office
of the Church of England, as the true warrant for infant baptism. More than
doubtful passages in the Acts and Epistles; more than the authority, real or
supposed, of primitive antiquity; more than the legal fiction that they fulfil the
condition of baptism by their sponsors—they justify the Church of Christ at large in
commending infants, as such, to the blessing of their Father. The blessing and the
prayer of Christ cannot be regarded as a mere sympathising compliance with the
fond wishes of the parents, and if infants were capable of spiritual blessings then,
why, it may well be asked, should they be thought incapable now?
PETT, "Having given His disciples this further lesson Jesus then laid His hands on the children,
and no doubt prayed for them (as they had asked), before ‘departing’ and going on His way
towards Jerusalem. The children are thus made an important part of His journey to Jerusalem.
How different His reception will be there, from those who should have known better, as compared
with His reception here. The lost sheep of the house of Israel are flocking to Him. The false
shepherds are waiting to destroy Him.
The purpose of the laying on of hands was always for identification and to indicate mutual
participation. We can compare Genesis 48:14; Numbers 27:18; and the regular practise of laying
hands on offerings and sacrifices. When the Scribes performed this act on the Day of Atonement
their purpose was that God might bless each child whom they had identified before Him. Here
therefore Jesus was identifying Himself with these children before His Father and seeking God’s
blessing on them as those identified by Him.
BROADUS, "Matthew 19:15. Laid his hands on them, of course with the accompanying prayer
(Matthew 19:13) that they might be blessed. Mark adds that he 'took them in his arms,' apparently
from the arms of those who brought them,' and blessed them, laying his hands upon them'; he
must then have been seated—we have seen that he was probably in a house. His blessing them
means that he prayed (Matthew 19:13) that they might be blessed. We cannot possibly know what
results followed to the infants from this benediction. He prayed that his crucifiers might be
forgiven, and they were—if they repented and believed. And departed thence. Mark 10:17 may
perhaps indicate that he left sooner than was expected. Was it because of his indignation at the

118. disciples?
The Rich and the Kingdom of God
16 Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked,
“Teacher, what good thing must I do to get
eternal life?”
BAR ES, "One came - This was a young man, Mat_19:20. He was a ruler (Luke);
probably a ruler in a synagogue, or of the great council of the nation; a place to which he
was chosen on account of his unblemished character and promising talents. He came
running (Mark); evincing great earnestness and anxiety, He fell upon his knees (Mark);
not to worship him, but to pay the customary respectful salutation; exhibiting the
highest regard for Jesus as an extraordinary religious teacher.
Good Master - The word “good” here means, doubtless, most excellent; referring not
so much to the moral character of Jesus as to his character as a religious teacher. It was
probably a title which the Jews were in the habit of applying to their religious teachers.
The word “Master” here means teacher.
What good thing shall I do? - He had attempted to keep all the commandments.
He had been taught by his Jewish teachers that people were to be saved by doing
something - that is, by their works; and he supposed that this was to be the way under
every system of religion. He had lived externally a blameless life, but yet he was not at
peace: he was anxious, and he came to ascertain what, in the view of Jesus, was to be
done, that his righteousness might be complete. To “have eternal life” means to be saved.
The happiness of heaven is called “life,” in opposition to the pains of hell, called “death,”
or an eternal dying, Rev_2:2; Rev_20:14. The one is real life, answering the purposes of
living - living to the honor of God and in eternal happiness; the other is a failure of the
great ends of existence - prolonged, eternal suffering, of which temporal death is but the
feeble image.
CLARKE, "One came - Instead of εις one, several MSS., the Slavonic version, and
Hilary, read νεανισκος τις, a certain young man.
Good, etc. - Much instruction may be had from seriously attending to the conduct,
spirit, and question of this person.
1. He came running, (Mar_10:17), for he was deeply convinced of the importance of
his business, and seriously determined to seek so as to find.
2. He kneeled, or caught him by the knees, thus evidencing his humility, and

119. addressing himself only to mercy. See Mat_17:14.
3. He came in the spirit of a disciple, or scholar, desiring to be taught a matter of the
utmost importance to him - Good teacher.
4. He came in the spirit of obedience; he had worked hard to no purpose, and he is
still willing to work, provided he can have a prospect of succeeding - What good
thing shall I do?
5. His question was the most interesting and important that any soul can ask of God -
How shall I be saved?
GILL, "And behold, one came,.... The Persic version reads, "a rich man"; and so he
was, as appears from what follows: Luke calls him, "a certain ruler"; not of a synagogue,
an ecclesiastical ruler, but a civil magistrate: perhaps he might be one of the sanhedrim,
which consisted of "twenty one" persons; or of that which consisted only of "three", as in
some small towns and villages Mark represents him as "running"; for Christ was
departed out of the house, and was gone into the way, the high road, and was on his
journey to some other place, when this man ran after him with great eagerness; and, as
the same evangelist adds, "kneeled to him"; thereby paying him civil respect, and
honour; believing him to be a worthy good man, and deserving of esteem and
veneration:
and said unto him, good master: some say, that this was a title which the Jewish
doctors were fond of, and gave to each other, but I have not observed it; he seems by this
to intimate, that he thought him not only to be a good man, but a good teacher; that he
was one that came from God, and taught good doctrine, which induced him to run after
him, and put the following question to him:
what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? Or, as in the other
evangelists, "inherit eternal life"; a phrase much in use with the Jewish Rabbins (a):
"Judah confessed, and was not ashamed, and what is his end? ‫הבא‬ ‫העולם‬ ‫חיי‬ ‫,נחל‬ "he
inherits the life of the world to come" (i.e. eternal life); Reuben confessed, and was not
ashamed, and what is his end? "he inherits the life of the world to come".''
This man was no Sadducee, he believed a future state; was a serious man, thoughtful
about another world, and concerned how he should enjoy everlasting life; but was
entirely upon a legal bottom, and under a covenant of works; and speaks in the language
and strain of the nation of Israel, who were seeking for righteousness and life by the
works of the law: he expected eternal life by doing some good thing, or things; and
hoped, as the sequel shows, that he had done every good thing necessary to the
obtaining it.
HE RY, "Here is an account of what passed between Christ and a hopeful young
gentleman that addressed himself to him upon a serious errand; he said to be a young
man (Mat_19:20); and I called him a gentleman, not only because he had great
possessions, but because he was a ruler (Luk_18:18), a magistrate, a justice of peace in
his country; it is probable that he had abilities beyond his years, else his youth would
have debarred him from the magistracy.
Now concerning this young gentleman, we are told how fair he bid for heaven and

120. came short.
I. How fair he bid for heaven, and how kindly and tenderly Christ treated him, in
favour to good beginnings. Here is,
1. The gentleman's serious address to Jesus Christ (Mat_19:16); Good Master, what
good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? Not a better question could be asked,
not more gravely.
(1.) He gives Christ an honourable title, Good Master - didaskale agathe. It signifies not
a ruling, but a teaching Master. His calling him Master, bespeaks his submissiveness,
and willingness to be taught; and good Master, his affection and peculiar respect to the
Teacher, like that of Nicodemus, Thou art a Teacher come from God. We read not of any
that addressed themselves to Christ more respectfully than that Master in Israel and this
ruler. It is a good thing when men's quality and dignity increase their civility and
courtesy. It was gentleman-like to give this title of respect to Christ, notwithstanding the
present meanness of his appearance. It was not usual among the Jews to accost their
teachers with the title of good; and therefore this bespeaks the uncommon respect he
had for Christ. Note, Jesus Christ is a good Master, the best of teachers; none teaches
like him; he is distinguished for his goodness, for he can have compassion on the
ignorant; he is meek and lowly in heart.
(2.) He comes to him upon an errand of importance (none could be more so), and he
came not to tempt him, but sincerely desiring to be taught by him. His question is, What
good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? By this it appears, [1.] That he had a
firm belief of eternal life; he was no Sadducee. He was convinced that there is a
happiness prepared for those in the other world, who are prepared for it in this world.
[2.] That he was concerned to make it sure to himself that he should live eternally, and
was desirous of that life more than any of the delights of this life. It was a rare thing for
one of his age and quality to appear so much in care about another world. The rich are
apt to think it below them to make such an enquiry as this; and young people think it
time enough yet; but here was a young man, and a rich man, solicitous about his soul
and eternity. [3.] That he was sensible something must be done, some good thing, for the
attainment of this happiness. It is by patient continuance in well-doing that we seek for
immortality, Rom_2:7. We must be doing, and doing that which is good. The blood of
Christ is the only purchase of eternal life (he merited it for us), but obedience to Christ is
the appointed way to it, Heb_5:9. [4.] That he was, or at least thought himself, willing to
do what was to be done for the obtaining of this eternal life. Those that know what it is to
have eternal life, and what it is to come short of it, will be glad to accept of it upon any
terms. Such a holy violence does the kingdom of heaven suffer. Note, While there are
many that say, Who will show us any good? our great enquiry should be, What shall we
do, that we may have eternal life? What shall we do, to be for ever happy, happy in
another world? For this world has not that in it that will make us happy.
JAMISO , "Mat_19:16-30. The rich young ruler. ( = Mar_10:17-31; Luk_18:18-30).
For the exposition, see on Luk_18:18-30.
HAWKER 16-26, ""And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good
thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? (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. (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

121. witness, (19) Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as
thyself. (20) The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth
up: what lack I yet? (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. (22) But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had
great possessions. (23) Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a
rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. (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. (25) When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed,
saying, Who then can be saved? (26) But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With
men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible."
I beg the Reader particularly to notice our Lord’s answer to the question of this man, in
calling Christ good. Why callest thou me good? As if Jesus had said, Thou knowest that
there is, there can be none good but one, that is God. Hast thou then from the miracles I
have wrought, received conviction that I am (and which is indeed the case) God. This
seems to have been the sense of our Lord’s question. And then, as if to deal with him as
God, Jesus sends him to discover his ruined state, in the conviction of his own heart,
from the breach of the commandments; and enumerates a few, as a decision for all. And
so wholly untaught of the Spirit was this youth, that he knew nothing of the plague of his
own heart, and therefore with the confidence of a poor, dark, blind, and ignorant mind,
he declared, that he had kept the whole of God’s law; when it was notorious from
scripture, that he had broken the whole. Jas_2:10. The Lord therefore only touched him
a little more closely concerning one point, and which served to detect him in all. Oh!
what a deceitful heart, the human heart is, and how incapable of doing any one thing
towards its own salvation? Jer_17:9-10; Rev_3:17.
SBC, "Consider this story as giving us a lesson concerning the connection between the
hope of eternal life, or everlasting happiness, and the performance of good works.
I. I suppose that the young man in the story thoroughly believed that the eternal life of
which he spoke was the greatest blessing which he could obtain. Moreover, he did not
think eternal life an easy thing to be obtained; he had realized to a considerable extent
the truth that the way of life is narrow and the way of destruction broad, and he did not
think that the question of his everlasting peace was one which might be safely left to take
care of itself, and that if he did not grievously trample on the commandments he would
at least fare as well as his neighbours. The Lord tells him of a path by following which he
might ensure the end he had in view; it was a proposal to allow of a barter (so to speak)
in this particular case, of present wealth and ease for the promised treasure of heaven.
And the great moral of the story is this, that the young man would not make the
exchange.
II. Let us take the story as a proof that it is possible for a man to have treasure in heaven
promised to him on the condition of his making the sacrifice of all his earthly wealth,
and of the offer being refused. And this fact may serve as an answer to those who have
objected to the Christian religion, as letting down the character of virtue by assigning
rewards for the practice of it. The fear of those being bribed into holiness by the same
hope of gain in heaven who would otherwise have been content to lead unholy lives, is a
fear which philosophers may talk about, but for which common life will not give any
colour or ground.
III. We do need something more than the mere hope of reward to enable us to do any

122. great Christian act, and the religion of Christ does supply such a motive, and the New
Testament represents the Apostles as acting upon that motive. If you inquire what the
principle was which made the Apostles what they were, you can have no doubt in giving
as an answer that it was the "constraining love of Christ."
Bishop Harvey Goodwin, Parish Sermons, 3rd series, p. 198.
References: Mat_19:16.—Spurgeon, Evening by Evening, p. 154. Mat_19:16. to Mat_
20:16.—H. Wace, Expositor, 2nd series, vol. i., p. 401.
Matthew 19:16-22
I. Consider that a single mote may hinder a man from becoming a true Christian. It is the
things which are apparently the smallest that prevent the greatest results. A slight defect
in the finest bell and it ceases to sound, a lost key and the richest money-chest is useless.
The day of battle has arrived, the troops are admirably disposed, the despatches of the
general fly here and there; suddenly the horse of the adjutant stumbles on a stone; he
arrives a quarter of an hour too late, and the battle is lost. So it is in spiritual matters.
Many a man who has got safely over the Rhine has been drowned in a little brook. Sin
has no more dangerous delusion than to convince a man that he is safe if only he avoids
the so-called flagrant transgressions. We see this in the case of the young man in the
Gospel. He thinks he has kept all the commandments which the Lord names to him. He
is evidently a youth of earnest and noble disposition. The question, "What good thing
must I do, that I may have eternal life?" was no mere idle phrase, but a question of
conscience. Otherwise, how differently our Lord would have regarded him! The very
command, "Go and sell that which thou hast," rests on the assumption that he was no
mere common miser. Our Lord points out to him that his heart is not yet fixed
exclusively on God, that it is still divided between God and the good things of this world.
And because of this mote, the door of eternal life, the latch of which is already in his
hand, refuses to open.
II. Consider next why this is so. I answer, because if the mote is an unconscious sin,
then, as in the case of this youth, repentance is lacking; if a conscious sin, the confidence
of faith. Repentance and faith, these are the two parts of conversion, without which no
man enters the kingdom of heaven. The young man was grieved. It was merely a mote
which the Lord pointed out to him, but to a disposition like his it was enough. In that
one evil speck he understands how it is with his heart as a whole.
III. How can this state of things be remedied? First, we must recognize that, if prayer
and faith will not open the door, the reason cannot be in the door itself, for over it the
words are written, "Come, ye weary and heavy-laden." Some sin must have thrust itself
in and hindered our entrance. "Cut it off and cast it from thee." The motes conceal the
secret of salvation from your eyes, and you shall find no rest of soul while you seek to
serve two masters. Our Lord said, "Sell all that thou hast." And He allows the youth
whom He so loved to depart, and we do not learn that he ever returned. We see then how
earnest the Lord’s meaning was when He said, "Cut it off and cast it from thee."
A. Tholuck, from the Gewissems-Glaubens und Gelegenheits Predigten, p. 193.

123. CALVI , "Matthew 19:16.And, lo, one. Luke says that he was a ruler, ( ἄρχων,)
that is, a man of very high authority, not one of the common people. (616) And
though riches procure respect, (617) yet he appears to be here represented to have
been held in high estimation as a good man. For my own part, after weighing all the
circumstances, I have no doubt that, though he is called a young man, he belonged
to the class of those who upheld the integrity of the Elders, by a sober and regular
life. (618) He did not come treacherously, as the scribes were wont to do, but from a
desire of instruction; and, accordingly, both by words and by kneeling, he testifies
his reverence for Christ as a faithful teacher. But, on the other hand, a blind
confidence in his works hindered him from profiting under Christ, to whom, in
other respects, he wished to be submissive. Thus, in our own day, we find some who
are not ill-disposed, but who, under the influence of I know not what shadowy
holiness, (619) hardly relish the doctrine of the Gospel.
But, in order to form a more correct judgment of the meaning of the answer, we
must attend to the form of the question. He does not simply ask how and by what
means he shall reach life, but what good thing he shall do, in order to obtain it. He
therefore dreams of merits, on account of which he may receive eternal life as a
reward due; and therefore Christ appropriately sends him to the keeping of the law,
which unquestionably is the way of life, as I shall explain more fully afterwards.
ELLICOTT, "(16) Behold, one came and said . . .—The vagueness with which a
man who must have been conspicuous is thus introduced, without a name, is every
way significant. He was, like icodemus, “a ruler of the Jews” (Luke 18:18), i.e.,
probably, a member of the Sanhedrin or great Council, like Joseph of Arimathæa.
He was, beside this, conspicuously rich, and of high and ardent character. There is
one other case in the first two Gospels which presents similar phenomena. In the
narrative of the supper at Bethany, St. Matthew and St. Mark record the passionate
affection which expressed itself in pouring the precious ointment of spikenard upon
our Lord’s head as the act of “a woman” (Matthew 26:7; Mark 14:3), leaving her
unnamed. In St. John 12:3 we find that the woman was Mary, the sister of Lazarus.
The train of thought thus suggested points to the supposition that here also there
may have been reasons for suppressing in the records a name which was familiar to
the narrator. What if the young ruler were Lazarus himself? The points of
agreement are sufficiently numerous to warrant the conjecture. The household of
Lazarus, as the spikenard ointment shows, were of the wealthier class. The friends
who came to comfort the bereaved sisters, were themselves, in St. John’s language,
“of the Jews”—i.e., of the chief rulers (John 11:19). The young ruler was obviously a
Pharisee, and the language of Martha (John 11:24) shows that she too believed in
eternal life and the resurrection of the dead. The answer to the young ruler, as “One
thing thou lackest” (as given by St. Mark and St. Luke), is almost identical with that
to Martha, “One thing is needful” (Luke 10:42). In such a case, of course, nothing
can be attained beyond conjectural inference, but the present writer must avow his
belief that the coincidences in this case are such as to carry the evidence to a very
high point of probability. It is obvious that the hypothesis, if true, adds immensely
to the interest both of the narrative now before us, and to that of the death and
resurrection of Lazarus in John 11

124. Good Master.—The better MSS. omit the adjective, and it has probably been added
here by later copyists to bring the passage into a verbal agreement with the
narrative of St. Mark and St. Luke. From the prominence given to it in the form of
our Lord’s answer, as reported by them, we may reasonably believe that it was
actually uttered by the questioner. The words show reverence and, at least, half-
belief. They are such as might well come from the brother of one who had sat at
Jesus’ feet, drinking in His words (Luke 10:39)—from one who, like icodemus,
looked on Him as a Rabbi, “a Teacher” sent from God.
That I may have eternal life.—In St. Mark (Mark 10:17) and St. Luke (Luke 18:18),
and in some of the oldest MSS. of St. Matthew, “that I may inherit eternal life.” The
question exhibits the highest and noblest phase of Pharisaism. The seeker has a firm
belief in something that he knows as “eternal life.” He thirsts for it eagerly. He
believes that it is to be won, as a perpetual inheritance, by some one good deed of
exceptional and heroic goodness. The Teacher has left on him the impression of a
goodness such as he had seldom, if ever, seen before, and as being therefore able to
guide him to the Supreme Good.
COFFMA , "The model character of this rich young man, his high social position,
the love which he inspired in the Master, and the supremely important question
upon his lips, all arouse special interest in this incident. Mark's account of Jesus'
words sheds light upon their true meaning. He asked, "Why callest thou me good?
none is good, save one, even God" (Mark 10:18). This, to be sure, is one of the
passages seized upon by Arians in an effort to show that Christ did not claim to be
God in the flesh. Their argument, however, is false. "The Good was one of the many
Judaic titles of God. The point of our Lord's remark is that a word with such
hallowed association should not be used in a merely conventional manner."[3] (See
Psalms 145:9). In fact, it is easy to detect in this conversation a definite leading on
the part of Christ to elicit an acknowledgment from that young man that Christ is
God. It is as though the Lord had said, "I see you recognize me as Good; since only
God is Good, do you thus receive me?" This thought appears plausible in the light
of what immediately ensued when Jesus would have enlisted him as a disciple,
perhaps even as an apostle.
Christ's declaration, "If thou wouldest enter into life, keep the commandments,"
shows that salvation is conditional upon respect and obedience of God's word.
E D OTE:
[3] F. F. Bruce and William J. Martin, a tract published in England, from a portion
reprinted in Christianity Today (Dec. 16,1964), p. 17.
PETT, "In Mark 10:17 this is rendered, ‘Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?’
But that is simply a difference in emphasis in translation from the Aramaic. The young man had
the idea of true goodness, the goodness which is God’s, in his mind. And he wanted this prophet,
Whom he saw as having something of that goodness, to explain it to him. (He may well have said,
‘Good teacher, what good thing must I do --’, but trying to decide what Jesus said in the Aramaic

125. is always a little dangerous, for we quite frankly never know. We should note that the dropping of
‘good’ before Teacher would be in accordance with Matthew’s abbreviating tendency. It may well
therefore have originally been there. But once he dropped it he clearly had to slightly rephrase
what followed in terms of what Jesus had said).
One reason for the different way in which Matthew presents it may well have been his awareness
of the Jewish reluctance to apply the word ‘good’ to men when speaking in terms of God
(compare how he mainly speaks of the Kingly Rule of ‘Heaven’ rather than God, even where the
other Gospels use ‘God’). But in view of Matthew 28:19 he is clearly not avoiding the term for his
own theological reasons. For that verse demonstrates that he is quite clear about his own view of
the full divinity of Jesus. Nor is he toning down Mark for the next verse makes quite clear that the
word ‘good’ is still to be seen as connecting Jesus with God. Thus, assuming that he has Mark’s
words before him, and probably the original Aramaic that Jesus spoke, which some would
certainly have remembered even if he did not himself, he must have had some other motive. And
that can surely only have been in order to emphasise that what the young man is really
concentrating on is the question as to how he himself can become ‘good’. Matthew is not arguing
about wording, he is conveying an idea.
The young man is clearly well aware that only the good can have eternal life (compare Daniel
12:2-3, especially LXX). But he is also aware that he himself is not good. He knows that somehow
there is something that keeps him from being able to be described as ‘good’. What supremely
good thing then can he do so as cap off all his efforts and so ensure that he will have eternal life?
In the way he phrases it Matthew has the ending in mind. He knows what ‘good thing’ the young
man must do, trust himself wholly to Jesus. And he knows that he will refuse to do it.
For the idea of eternal life in Matthew compare Matthew 7:14, Matthew 18:8-9; Matthew 19:17 b,
29; Matthew 25:46.
Verses 16-22
The Rich Young Man Who Did Not Have The Humility And Openness Of A Little Child Because
He Was Too Caught Up In His Riches And Thus Could Not Enter Under His Kingly Rule (19:16-
22).
In total contrast to these receptive children who have nothing to offer but themselves was a rich
young man whose heart was seeking truth, and who coveted the gift of eternal life. And it is this
young man who now approaches Jesus. But sadly in his case there are other things that take up
his heart. He does not come in humility and total openness. He is hindered by other things that
possess his heart. And so when the final choice is laid before him, instead of coming openly and
gladly to Jesus as the little children had done previously, he goes away sorrowfully, unable to
relinquish the things that gripped his soul. He was thus unable to come with the simplicity of a little
child. He had discovered that he could not serve God and Mammon (compare Matthew 6:24).
Analysis.
a Behold, one came to Him (Matthew 19:16 a).
b And said, “Teacher, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?” (Matthew 19:16 b).
c And He said to him, “Why do you ask Me concerning what is good? One there is who is good”
(Matthew 19:17 a).
d “But if you would enter into life, keep the commandments” (Matthew 19:17 b).
e He says too Him, “Which?” And Jesus said, “You shall not kill, You shall not commit adultery,
You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness. Honour your father and mother, and, You
shall love your neighbour as yourself” (Matthew 19:18-19).
d The young man says to Him, “All these things have I observed. What do I still lack?” (Matthew
19:20).
c Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you have, and give to the poor”
(Matthew 19:21 a).
b “And you will have treasure in heaven, and come, follow Me” (Matthew 19:21 b).
a But when the young man heard the saying, he went away sorrowful, for he was one who had

126. great possessions (Matthew 19:22).
Note that in ‘a’ he comes eagerly seeking eternal life, and in the parallel he sorrowfully
relinquishes eternal life because of his great possessions. In ‘b’ he is eager for eternal life, and in
the parallel he is offered treasure in Heaven, which assumes eternal life. In ‘c’ he speaks of true
goodness and in the parallel Jesus calls him to true goodness. In ‘d’ he is told that if he would
enter into life he must keep the commandments, and in the parallel he claims to have done so but
says that he knows that he is still lacking something. Centrally in ‘e’ Jesus summarises the
sermon on the mount in terms of the commandments and Leviticus 19:18.
EBC 16-22, "THE RICH YOUNG MAN. (Mat_19:16-22)
Another inference from these precious words of Christ is the importance of seeking to
win the children for Christ while yet they are children, ere the evil days come, or the
years draw nigh, when they will be apt to say they have no pleasure in Him. It is a sad
thing to think how soon the susceptibility of the child-nature may harden into the
impenetrability which is sometimes found even in youth. Is there not a suggestion of this
in the story of the young man which immediately follows?
There was everything that seemed hopeful about him. He was young, so his heart could
not be very hard; of good moral character, amiable in disposition, and stirred with noble
aspirations; moreover, he did the very best thing in coming to Christ for guidance. Yet
nothing came of it, because of one obstacle, which would have been no hindrance in his
childhood, but which proved insurmountable now. Young as he was, his affections had
had time to get so intertwined with his worldly possessions that he could not disengage
them, so that instead of following Christ "he went away sorrowful."
The manner of our Lord’s dealing with this young man is exceedingly instructive. Some
have found a difficulty in what seems to them the strange answer to the apparently
straightforward and admirable question, "What good thing shall I do, that I may have
eternal life?" Why did He not give the same answer which St. Paul afterwards gave to the
Philippian jailer? Why did He not only fail to bring himself forward as the way, the truth,
and the life, but even disclaim the goodness which the young man had imputed to Him?
And why did He point him to the law instead of showing him the Gospel? Everything
becomes quite clear when we remember that Christ dealt with people not according to
the words they spoke, but according to what He saw to be in their hearts. Had this young
man been in a state of mind at all like that of the Philippian jailer when he came
trembling and fell down before Paul and Silas, he would no doubt have had a similar
answer. But he was in the very opposite condition. He was quite satisfied with his own
goodness; it was not salvation he was seeking, but some new merit to add to the large
stock he already had: "what good thing shall I do" in addition to all the well-known
goodness of my character and daily life? what extra claim can I establish upon the favour
of God? Manifestly his idea of goodness was only conventional; it was the goodness
which passes muster among men, not that which justifies itself before the all-searching
eye of God; and having no higher idea of goodness than that, he of course used it in no
higher sense when he addressed Christ as "good Master." There could, then, be no more
appropriate or more heart-searching question than this, -"Why callest thou Me good?"
(it is only in the conventional sense you use the term, and conventional goodness is no
goodness at all); "there is none good but One, that is God." Having thus stimulated his
easy conscience, He sends him to the law that he may have knowledge of his sin, and so
may take the first step towards eternal life. The young man’s reply to this reveals the
secret of his heart, and shows that Christ had made no mistake in dealing with him as He
did. "Which?" he asks, evidently expecting that, the Ten Commandments being taken for
granted, there will be something higher and more exacting, the keeping of which will

127. bring him the extra credit he hopes to gain.
The Lord’s answer to his question was well fitted to take down his spiritual pride,
pointing him as it did to the commonplace Decalogue, and to that part of it which
seemed the easiest; for the first table of the law is passed over, and only those
commandments mentioned which bear upon duty to man. And is there not special skill
shown in the way in which they are marshalled, so as to lead up to the one which covered
his weak point? The sixth, the seventh, the eighth, the ninth, the fifth are rapidly passed
in review; then the mind is allowed to rest on the tenth, not, however in its mere
negative form, "Thou shalt not covet," but as involved in that positive requirement which
sums up the whole of the second table of the Law, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as
thyself." We can imagine how the Saviour would mark the young man’s countenance, as
one after another the commandments were pressed upon his conscience, ending with
that one which should have pierced him as with a two-edged sword. But he is too
strongly encased in his mail of self-righteousness; and he only replies, "All these things
have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?" Clearly it is a surgical case; the medicine
of the Commandments will not do; there must be the insertion of the knife: "Go, and sell
that thou hast, and give to the poor."
Let us not, however, mistake the tone. "Jesus beholding him loved him"; (Mar_10:21)
and the love was never warmer than at the moment when He made this stern demand.
There was sorrow on His face and in His tone when He told him of the hard necessity;
and there was a heart full of love in the gracious invitation which rounded off the sharp
saying at the end: "Come, and follow Me." Let us hope that the Saviour’s compassionate
love was not finally lost on him; that, though he no doubt did lose the great opportunity
of taking a high place in the kingdom, he nevertheless, before all was done, bethought
him of the Master’s faithful and loving words, repented of his covetousness, and so
found an open door and a forgiving welcome.
BARCLAY 16-22, "THE GREAT REFUSAL (Matthew 19:16-22)
19:16-22 And, look you, a man came to him and said, "Teacher, what good thing am I to
do to possess eternal life?" He said to him, "Why do you ask me about the good? There is
One who is good. If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments." He said to
him, "What kind of commandments?" Jesus said, "'You must not kill; you must not
commit adultery; you must not steal; honour your father and your mother.' And, 'You
must love your neighbour as yourself.'" The young man said, "I have observed all these
things. What am I still lacking?" Jesus said to him, "If you wish to be complete, go, sell
your possessions, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come,
follow me!" When the young man heard that saying, he went away in sorrow, for he had
many possessions.
Here is one of the best-known and best-loved stories in the gospel history. One of the
most interesting things about it is the way in which most of us, quite unconsciously,
unite different details of it from the different gospels in order to get a complete picture.
We usually call it the story of the Rich Young Ruler. All the gospels tell us that this man
was rich, for therein is the point of the story. But only Matthew says that he was young
(Matthew 19:20); and only Luke says that he was a ruler (Luke 18:18). It is interesting to
see how, quite unconsciously, we have created for ourselves a composite picture
composed of elements taken from all three gospels (Matthew 19:16-22; Mark 10:17-22;

128. Luke 18:18-23).
There is another interesting point about this story. Matthew alters the question put to
Jesus by this man. Both Mark and Luke say that the question was: "Why do you call me
good? No one is good but God alone" (Mark 10:18; Luke 18:19). Matthew says that the
question was: "Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is good"
(Matthew 19:17). (The text of the King James Version is in error here, as reference to any
of the newer and more correct translations will show.) Matthew's is the latest of the first
three gospels, and his reverence for Jesus is such that he cannot bear to show Jesus
asking the question: "Why do you call me good?" That almost sounds to him as if Jesus
was refusing to be called good, so he alters it into: "Why do you ask me about what is
good?" in order to avoid the seeming irreverence.
This story teaches one of the deepest of all lessons for it has within it the whole basis of
the difference between the right and the wrong idea of what religion is.
The man who came to Jesus was seeking for what he called eternal life. He was seeking
for happiness, for satisfaction, for peace with God. But his very way of phrasing his
question betrays him. He asks, "What must I do?" He is thinking in terms of actions. He
is like the Pharisees; thinking in terms of keeping rules and regulations. He is thinking of
piling up a credit balance-sheet with God by keeping the works of the law. He clearly
knows nothing of a religion of grace. So Jesus tries to lead him on to a correct view.
Jesus answers him in his own terms. He tells him to keep the commandments. The
young man asks what kind of commandments Jesus means. Thereupon Jesus cites five
of the ten commandments. Now there are two important things about the
commandments which Jesus chooses to cite.
First, they are all commandments from the second half of the decalogue, the half which
deals, not with our duty to God, but with our duty to men. They are the commandments
which govern our personal relationships, and our attitude to our fellow-men.
Second, Jesus cites one commandment, as it were, out of order. He cites the command
to honour parents last, when in point of fact it ought to come first. It is clear that Jesus
wishes to lay special stress on that commandment. Why? May it not be that this young
man had grown rich and successful in his career, and had then forgotten his parents,
who may have been very poor. He may well have risen in the world, and have been half-
ashamed of the folks in the old home; and then he may have justified himself perfectly
legally by the law of Korban, which Jesus had so unsparingly condemned (Matthew 15:1-
6; Mark 7:9-13). These passages show that he could well have done that, and still have
legally claimed to have obeyed the commandments. In the very commandments which
he cites Jesus is asking this young man what his attitude to his fellow-men and to his
parents was, asking what his personal relationships were like.

129. The young man's answer was that he had kept the commandments; and yet there was
still something which he knew he ought to have and which he had not got. So Jesus told
him to sell all he had and give it to the poor and follow him.
It so happens that we have another account of this incident in the Gospel according to
the Hebrews, which was one of the very early gospels which failed to be included in the
New Testament. Its account gives us certain very valuable additional information. Here
it is:
"The second of the rich men said to him, 'Master, what good thing
can I do and live?' He said unto him, 'O man, fulfil the law and
the prophets.' He answered him, 'I have kept them.' He said unto
him, 'Go, sell all that thou ownest, and distribute it unto the
poor, and, come, follow me.' But the rich man began to scratch
his head, and it pleased him not. And the Lord said unto him,
'How sayest thou, I have kept the law and the prophets? For it is
written in the law: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself; and
lo, many of thy brethren, sons of Abraham, are clad in filth,
dying of hunger, and thine house is full of many good things, and
nought at an goeth out of it unto them.'"
Here is the key to the whole passage. The young man claimed to have kept the law. In the
legal sense that might be true; but in the spiritual sense it was not true, because his
attitude to his fellow-men was wrong. In the last analysis his attitude was utterly selfish.
That is why Jesus confronted him with the challenge to sell all and to give to the poor.
This man was so shackled to his possessions that nothing less than surgical excision of
them would suffice. If a man looks on his possessions as given to him for nothing but his
own comfort and convenience, they are a chain which must be broken; if he looks on his

130. possessions as a means to helping others, they are his crown.
The great truth of this story lies in the way it illumines the meaning of eternal life.
Eternal life is life such as God himself lives. The word for eternal is aionios (Greek #166),
which does not mean lasting for ever; it means such as befits God, or such as belongs to
God, or such as is characteristic of God. The great characteristic of God is that he so
loved and he gave. Therefore the essence of eternal life is not a carefully calculated
keeping of the commandments and the rules and the regulations; eternal life is based on
an attitude of loving and sacrificial generosity to our fellow-men. If we would find
eternal life, if we would find happiness, joy, satisfaction, peace of mind and serenity of
heart, it shall not be by piling up a credit balance with God through keeping
commandments and observing rules and regulations; it shall be through reproducing
God's attitude of love and care to our fellow-men. To follow Christ and in grace and
generosity to serve the men for whom Christ died are one and the same thing.
In the end the young man turned away in great distress. He refused the challenge,
because he had great possessions. His tragedy was that he loved things more than he
loved people; and he loved himself more than he loved others. Any man who puts things
before people and self before others, must turn his back on Jesus Christ.
BROADUS, "Verses 16-22
Matthew 19:16-22.
The Rich Young Ruler
Found also in Mark 10:17-22, Luke 18:18-23.
Jesus has left the house in which he blessed the babes (Matthew 19:15; Mark 10:10), and
is going forth into the road, (Mark 10:17) doubtless on the way towards Jerusalem
(Matthew 20:17) for the last Passover. The place is still pretty certainly in Southern
Perea. (Matthew 19:1, Matthew 20:29)
Matthew 19:16. One came. 'One' may be taken loosely (see on "Matthew 8:19"), as we in
English often use it, to mean some one, a certain one; but is perhaps better taken
strictly—not now a crowd, (Matthew 19:2) only a single person, but a very interesting
and important case. Matthew tells us that he was a young man (Matthew 19:20-22),
Luke that he was a 'ruler', (Matthew 18:18) not probably meaning one of the Sanhedrin,
(John 3:1) but a ruler of the local synagogue; (Matthew 9:18) all three state that he was
very wealthy. The theory of Plumptre that this was Lazarus of Bethany, rests entirely
upon certain resemblances, as wealth, high standing, and the fact that Jesus is said to
have loved him, and it must be regarded as a pleasant, homiletical fancy, rather than
even a probable historical fact. The resurrection of Lazarus was almost certainly before
this time. For 'came to him,' Mark says vividly, Rev. Ver., 'ran to him, and kneeled to
him.' Finding that Jesus had left the house, and eager not to miss the desired
instruction, he runs to overtake him, and then kneels in profound reverence. Good

131. Master, i. e., teacher (didaskalos), see on "Matthew 8:19". 'Good' is wanting in the
earliest and best documents, and was manifestly brought in by copyists from Mark and
Luke. The same early documents, with many others of great importance, read Matthew
8:17 as in Rev. Ver., which, especially as the meaning is not obvious, would be readily
changed to agree with Mark and Luke.(1) What good thing shall I do? He has done many
good things, what else? (Matthew 19:20.) That I may have eternal life, compare on
Matthew 25:46. He is sincerely and deeply desirous of gaining it, as he has shown by his
conduct heretofore, and shows now by his eagerness to learn from the Galilean teacher
who is passing by. Contrast the lawyer of Luke 10:25, who quibbled. (Matthew 19:29.)
17 “Why do you ask me about what is good?”
Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If
you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”
BAR ES, "Why callest thou me good? - Why do you give to me a title that
belongs only to God? You suppose me to be only a man, yet you give me an appellation
that belongs only to God.
It is improper to use titles in this manner. As you Jews use them they are unmeaning;
and though the title may apply to me, yet, you did not intend to use it in the sense in
which it is proper, as denoting infinite perfection or divinity; but you intended to use it
as a complimentary or a flattering title, applied to me as if I were a mere man - a title
which belongs only to God. The intentions, the habit of using mere titles, and applying as
a compliment terms belonging only to God, is wrong. Christ did not intend here to
disclaim divinity, or to say anything about his own character, but simply to reprove the
intention and habit of the young man - a most severe reproof of a foolish habit of
compliment and flattery, and seeking pompous titles.
Keep the commandments - That is, do what God has commanded. He in the next
verses informs him what he meant by the commandments. Jesus said this, doubtless, to
try him, and to convince him that he had by no means kept the commandments, and that
in supposing he had he was altogether deceived. The young man thought he had kept
them, and was relying on them for salvation. It was of great importance, therefore, to
convince him that he was, after all, a sinner. Christ did not mean to say that any man
would be saved by the works of the law, for the Bible teaches plainly that such will not be
the case, Rom_3:20, Rom_3:28; Rom_4:6; Gal_2:16; Eph_2:9; 2Ti_1:9. At the same
time, however, it is true that if a man perfectly complied with the requirements of the
law he would be saved, for there would be no reason why he should be condemned.
Jesus, therefore, since he saw he was depending on his works, told him that if he would
enter into life that is, into heaven - he must keep the commandments; if he was

132. depending on them he must keep them perfectly, and if this was done he would be saved.
The reasons why Christ gave him this direction were, probably:
1. Because it was his duty to keep them.
2. Because the young man depended on them, and he ought to understand what was
required if he did - that they should be kept perfectly, or that they were not kept at
all.
3. Because he wanted to test him, to show him that he did not keep them, and thus to
show him his need of a Saviour.
CLARKE, "Why callest thou me good? - Or, Why dost thou question me
concerning that good thing? τι µε ερωτας περι του αγαθου. This important reading is
found in BDL, three others, the Coptic, Sahidic, Armenian, Ethiopic, latter Syriac,
Vulgate, Saxon, all the Itala but one, Origen, Eusebius, Cyril, Dionysius Areop.,
Antiochus, Novatian, Jerome, Augustin, and Juvencus. Erasmus, Grotius, Mill, and
Bengel approve of this reading. This authority appears so decisive to Griesbach that he
has received this reading into the text of his second edition, which in the first he had
interlined. And instead of, None is good but the one God, he goes on to read, on nearly
the same respectable authorities, εις ε̣ιν ο αγαθος. There is one who is good. Let it be
observed also that, in the 16th verse, instead of διδασκαλε αγαθε, good teacher, διδασκαλε
only is read by BDL, one other, one Evangelistarium, the Ethiopic, three of the Itala,
Origen, and Hilary. The whole passage therefore may be read thus: O teacher! what good
thing shall I do that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why dost thou
question me concerning that good thing? There is one that is good. (Or he who is good is
one). But If thou art willing to enter into that life, keep the commandments. This
passage, as it stood in the common editions, has been considered by some writers as an
incontrovertible proof against the Divinity or Godhead of Christ. A very learned person,
in his note on this place, thus concludes concerning it: “Therefore our Savior cannot be
God: and the notion of, I know not what, a trinity in unity, Three Gods in One, is here
proved beyond all controversy, by the unequivocal declaration of Jesus Christ Himself,
to be Erroneous and Impossible.” Not so. One of the greatest critics in Europe, not at all
partial to the Godhead of Christ, has admitted the above readings into his text, on
evidence which he judged to be unexceptionable. If they be the true readings, they
destroy the whole doctrine built on this text; and indeed the utmost that the enemies of
the trinitarian doctrine can now expect from their formidable opponents, concerning
this text, is to leave it neuter.
Keep the commandments - From this we may learn that God’s great design, in
giving his law to the Jews, was to lead them to the expectation and enjoyment of eternal
life. But as all the law referred to Christ, and he became the end of the law for
righteousness (justification) to all that believe, so he is to be received, in order to have
the end accomplished which the law proposed.
GILL, "And he said unto him,.... By way of reply, first taking notice of, and
questioning him about, the epithet he gave him:
why callest thou me good? not that he denied that he was so; for he was good, both
as God and man, in his divine and human natures; in all his offices, and the execution of

133. them; he was goodness itself, and did good, and nothing else but good. But the reason of
the question is, because this young man considered him only as a mere man, and gave
him this character as such; and which, in comparison of God, the fountain of all
goodness, agrees with no mere man: wherefore our Lord's view is, by his own language;
and from his own words, to instruct him in the knowledge of his proper deity. Some
copies read, "why dost thou ask me concerning good". And so the Vulgate Latin, and the
Ethiopic versions, and Munster's Hebrew Gospel read; but the Syriac, Arabic, and Persic
versions, read as we do, and this the answer of Christ requires.
There is none good but one, that is God; who is originally, essentially,
independently, infinitely, and immutably good, and the author and source of all
goodness; which cannot be said of any mere creature. This is to be understood of God
considered essentially, and not personally; or it is to be understood, not of the person of
the Father, to the exclusion of the Son, or Spirit: who are one God with the Father, and
equally good in nature as he. Nor does this contradict and deny that there are good
angels, who have continued in that goodness in which they were created; or that there
are good men, made so by the grace of God; but that none are absolutely and perfectly
good, but God. What Christ here says of God, the (b) Jews say of the law of Moses,
whose praise they can never enough extol; ‫תורה‬ ‫אלא‬ ‫טוב‬ ‫אין‬ "there is nothing good but the
law". The law is good indeed; but the author of it must be allowed to be infinitely more
so. Christ next directly answers to the question,
but if thou wilt enter into life: eternal life, which is in the question, and which being
sometimes expressed by a house, a city, and kingdom, by mansions, and everlasting
habitations, enjoyment of it is fitly signified by entering into it; which, if our Lord
suggests, he had a desire of having a right to by doing any good thing himself, he must
keep the commandments; that is, perfectly: he must do not only one good thing, but
all the good things the law requires; he must not be deficient in any single action, in
anyone work of the law, either as to matter, or manner of performance; everything must
be done, and that just as the Lord in his law has commanded it. Our Lord answers
according to the tenor of the covenant of works, under which this man was; and
according to the law of God, which requires perfect obedience to it, as a righteousness,
and a title to life; and in case of the least failure, curses and condemns to everlasting
death; see Deu_6:25. This Christ said, in order to show, that it is impossible to enter
into, or obtain eternal life by the works of the law, since no man can perfectly keep it;
and to unhinge this man from off the legal foundation on which he was, that he might
drop all his dependencies on doing good things, and come to him for righteousness and
life.
HE RY, "2. The encouragement that Jesus Christ gave to this address. It is not his
manner to send any away without an answer, that come to him on such an errand, for
nothing pleases him more, Mat_19:17. In his answer,
(1.) He tenderly assists his faith; for, doubtless, he did not mean it for a reproof, when
he said, Why callest thou me good? But he would seem to find that faith in what he said,
when he called him good Master, which the gentleman perhaps was not conscious to
himself of; he intended no more than to own and honour him as a good man, but Christ
would lead him to own and honour him as a good God; for there is none good but one,
that is God. Note, As Christ is graciously ready to make the best that he can of what is
said or done amiss; so he is ready to make the most that can be of what is well said and

134. well done. His constructions are often better than our intentions; as in that, “I was
hungry, and you gave me meat, though you little thought it was to me.” Christ will have
this young man either know him to be God, or not call him good; to teach us to transfer
to God all the praise that is at any time given to us. Do any call us good? Let us tell them
all goodness is from God, and therefore not to us, but to him give glory. All crowns must
lie before his throne. Note, God only is good, and there is none essentially, originally,
and unchangeably, good, but God only. His goodness is of and from himself, and all the
goodness in the creature is from him; he is the Fountain of goodness, and whatever the
streams are, all the springs are in him, Jam_1:17. He is the great Pattern and Sample of
goodness; by him all goodness is to be measured; that is good which is like him, and
agreeable to his mind. We in our language call him God, because he is good. In this, as in
other things, our Lord Jesus was the Brightness of his glory (and his goodness is his
glory), and the express image of his person, and therefore fitly called good Master.
(2.) He plainly directs his practice, in answer to his question. He started that thought
of his being good, and therefore God, but did not stay upon it, lest he should seem to
divert fRom. and so to drop, the main question, as many do in needless disputes and
strifes of words. Now Christ's answer is, in short, this, If thou wilt enter into life, keep
the commandments.
[1.] The end proposed is, entering into life. The young man, in his question, spoke of
eternal life. Christ, in his answer, speaks of life; to teach us, that eternal life is the only
true life. The words concerning that are the words of this life, Act_5:20. The present life
scarcely deserves the name of life, for in the midst of life we are in death. Or into life,
that spiritual life which is the beginning and earnest of eternal life. He desired to know
how he might have eternal life; Christ tells him how he might enter into it; we have it by
the merit of Christ, a mystery which was not as yet fully revealed, and therefore Christ
waives that; but the way of entering into it, is, by obedience, and Christ directs us in
that. By the former we make our title, by this, as by our evidence, we prove it; it is by
adding to faith virtue, that an entrance (the word here used) is ministered to us into the
everlasting kingdom, 2Pe_1:5, 2Pe_1:11. Christ, who is our Life, is the Way to the
Father, and to the vision and fruition of him; he is the only Way, but duty, and the
obedience of faith, are the way to Christ. There is an entrance into life hereafter, at
death, at the great day, a complete entrance, and those only shall then enter into life,
that do their duty; it is the diligent faithful servant that shall then enter into the joy of
his Lord, and that joy will be his eternal life. There is an entrance into life now; we who
have believed, do enter into rest, Heb_4:3. We have peace, and comfort, and joy, in the
believing prospect of the glory to be revealed, and to this also sincere obedience is
indispensably necessary.
[2.] The way prescribed is, keeping the commandments. Note, Keeping the
commandments of God, according as they are revealed and made known to us, is the
only way to life and salvation; and sincerity herein is accepted through Christ as our
gospel perfection, provision being made of pardon, upon repentance, wherein we come
short. Through Christ we are delivered from the condemning power of the law, but the
commanding power of it is lodged in the hand of the Mediator, and under that, in that
hand, we still are under the law to Christ (1Co_9:21), under it as a rule, though not as a
covenant. Keeping the commandments includes faith in Jesus Christ, for that is the
great commandment (1Jo_3:23), and it was one of the laws of Moses, that, when the
great Prophet should be raised up, they should hear him. Observe, In order to our
happiness here and for ever, it is not enough for us to know the commandments of God,
but we must keep them, keep in them as our way, keep to them as our rule, keep them as
our treasure, and with care, as the apple of our eye.

135. SBC, "How are we sinners to be accepted by Almighty God? Doubtless the sacrifice of
Christ on the cross is the meritorious cause of our justification, and His Church is the
ordained instrument of conveying it to us. But our present question relates to another
subject, to our own part in appropriating it, and here I say Scripture makes two answers,
saying sometimes, "Believe, and you shall be saved," and sometimes, "Keep the
commandments, and you shall be saved." Let us consider whether these two modes of
speech are not reconcilable with each other.
I. What is meant by faith? It is to feel in good earnest that we are creatures of God; it is a
practical perception of the unseen world; it is to understand that this world is not
enough for our happiness, to look beyond it on towards God, to realize His presence, to
wait upon Him, to endeavour to learn and do His will, and to seek our good from Him. It
is not a mere temporary strong act or impetuous feeling of the mind, an impression or a
view coming upon it, but it is a habit, a state of mind lasting and consistent.
II. What is obedience? It is the obvious mode suggested by nature of a creature’s
conducting himself in God’s sight, who fears him as his Maker, and knows that, as a
sinner, he has a special cause for fearing Him. Under such circumstances he will do what
he can to please Him, as the woman whom our Lord commended. And he will find
nothing better as an offering, or as an evidence, than obedience to that holy law which
conscience tells him has been given us by God Himself; that is, he will be delighted in
doing his duty as far as he knows and can do it. Thus, as is evident, the two states of
mind are altogether one and the same; it is quite indifferent whether we say a man seeks
God in faith, or say he seeks Him by obedience; and whereas Almighty God has
graciously declared that He will receive and bless all that seek Him, it is quite indifferent
whether we say He accepts those who believe, or those who obey. To believe is to look
beyond this world to God, and to obey is to look beyond this world to God; to believe is
of the heart, and to obey is of the heart; to believe is not a solitary act, but a consistent
habit of trust; and to obey is not a solitary act, but a consistent habit of doing our duty in
all things.
J. H. Newman, Parochial and Plain Sermons, vol. iii., p. 77.
CALVI , "17.Why callest thou me good? I do not understand this correction in so
refined a sense as is given by a good part of interpreters, as if Christ intended to
suggest his Divinity; for they imagine that these words mean, “If thou perceivest in
me nothing more exalted than human nature, thou falsely appliest to me the epithet
good, which belongs to God alone. ” I do acknowledge that, strictly speaking, men
and even angels do not deserve so honorable a title; because they have not a drop of
goodness in themselves, but borrowed from God; and because in the former,
goodness is only begun, and is not perfect. But Christ had no other intention than to
maintain the truth of his doctrine; as if he had said, “Thou falsely callest me a good
Master, unless thou acknowledgest that I have come from God.” The essence of his
Godhead, therefore, is not here maintained, but the young man is directed to admit
the truth of the doctrine. He had already felt some disposition to obey; but Christ
wishes him to rise higher, that he may hear God speaking. For — as it is customary
with men to make angels of those who are devils — they indiscriminately give the
appellation of good teachers to those in whom they perceive nothing divine; but
those modes of speaking are only profanations of the gifts of God. We need not

136. wonder, therefore, if Christ, in order to maintain the authority of his doctrine,
directs the young man to God.
Keep the commandments. This passage was erroneously interpreted by some of the
ancients, whom the Papists have followed, as if Christ taught that, by beeping the
law, we may merit eternal life On the contrary, Christ did not take into
consideration what men can do, but replied to the question, What is the
righteousness of works? or, What does the Law require? And certainly we ought to
believe that God comprehended in his law the way of living holily and righteously,
in which righteousness is included; for not without reason did Moses make this
statement,
He that does these things shall live in them, (Leviticus 18:5;)
and again,
I call heaven and earth to witness that l have
this day showed you life, (Deuteronomy 30:19.)
We have no right, therefore, to deny that the keeping of the law is righteousness, by
which any man who kept the law perfectly — if there were such a man — would
obtain life for himself. But as we are all destitute of the glory of God, (Romans 3:23,)
nothing but cursing will be found in the law; and nothing remains for us but to
betake ourselves to the undeserved gift of righteousness. And therefore Paul lays
down a twofold righteousness, the righteousness of the law, (Romans 10:5,) and the
righteousness of faith, (Romans 10:6.) He makes the first to consist in works, and
the second, in the free grace of Christ.
Hence we infer, that this reply of Christ is legal, because it was proper that the
young man who inquired about the righteousness of works should first be taught
that no man is accounted righteous before God unless he has fulfilled the law, (620)
(which is impossible,) that, convinced of his weakness, he might betake himself to
the assistance of faith. I acknowledge, therefore, that, as God has promised the
reward of eternal life to those who keep his law, we ought to hold by this way, if the
weakness of our flesh did not prevent; but Scripture teaches us, that it is through
our own fault that it becomes necessary for us to receive as a gift what we cannot
obtain by works. If it be objected, that it is in vain to hold out to us the
righteousness which is in the law, (Romans 10:5,) which no man will ever be able to
reach, I reply, since it is the first part of instruction, by which we are led to the
righteousness which is obtained by prayer, it is far from being superfluous; and,
therefore, when Paul says, that the doers of the law are justified, (Romans 2:13,) he
excludes all from the righteousness of the law.
This passage sets aside all the inventions which the Papists have contrived in order
to obtain salvation. For not only are they mistaken in wishing to lay God under
obligation to them by their good works, to bestow salvation as a debt; but when they
apply themselves to do what is right, they leave out of view the doctrine of the law,

137. and attend chiefly to their pretended devotions, as they call them, not that they
openly reject the law of God, but that they greatly prefer human traditions. (621)
But what does Christ say? That the only worship of which God approves is that
which he has prescribed; because obedience is better to him than all sacrifices, (622)
(1 Samuel 15:22.) So then, while the Papists are employed in frivolous traditions, let
every man who endeavors to regulate his life by obedience to Christ direct his whole
attention to keep the commandments of the law.
ELLICOTT, "(17) Why callest thou me good?—Here again the older MSS. give a
different form to our Lord’s answer: “Why askest thou Me concerning that which is
good? There is One that is the Good.” The alteration was probably made, as before,
for the sake of agreement with the other Gospels. In either case the answer has the
same force. The questioner had lightly applied the word “good” to One whom he as
yet regarded only as a human teacher, to an act which, it seemed to him, was in his
own power to perform. What he needed, therefore, was to be taught to deepen and
widen his thoughts of goodness until they rose to Him in whom alone it was absolute
and infinite, through fellowship with whom only could any teacher rightly be called
good, and from whom alone could come the power to do any good thing. The
method by which our Lord leads him to that conclusion may, without irreverence,
be permitted to call up the thought of the method in which Socrates is related to
have dealt with like questioners, both in the grave, sad irony of the process, and in
the self-knowledge in which it was designed to issue.
Keep the commandments.—The questioner is answered as from his own point of
view. If eternal life was to be won by doing, there was no need to come to a new
Teacher for a new precept. It was enough to keep the commandments, the great
moral laws of God, as distinct from ordinances and traditions (Matthew 15:3), with
which every Israelite was familiar.
PETT, 'Jesus then points out to him in what true goodness consists. It is found by wholly
keeping, from the heart, all the commandments of God without exception (contrast James 2:10).
Let a man but do that and he will enter into life (eternal), for it will indicate a full relationship with
God. It will be to be God-like. The idea may specifically have in mind Amos 5:4; Amos 5:6; Amos
5:14 where life is to be found both by seeking God and by seeking His goodness. The two are
thus seen as equated. The idea is that no man can seek true goodness without seeking God, and
vice versa. And it is through truly seeking God that men find goodness. We can compare with this
Jesus’ indication that those whom God blesses will seek righteousness (Matthew 5:6), and as a
result will be ‘filled’ with righteousness as He Who is the Righteousness of God, and His salvation,
come in delivering power. Jesus is not, of course, telling him that he can earn eternal life by doing
good works. He is saying that anyone who would enter into life must be truly good, a goodness
which they cannot achieve in themselves, a goodness which they must find through Him. Paul
says the same, ‘Do you not know that the unrighteous will not enter the Kingly Rule of God?’ (1
Corinthians 6:9). And then Paul lists the kind of people who cannot hope to do so, and goes on to
explain that it is only be being washed, sanctified and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus
Christ and by the Spirit of God that it becomes possible (1 Corinthians 6:11). Jesus has in mind
that if the young man would enter into life he must be willing to come with the humility and
openness of a little child and receive from God through Him what pertains to goodness.
But He is very much aware that the young man’s mind must be disabused of all its wrong ideas.
This young man before Him wants, as it were, to climb into Heaven on the stairs of some
wonderful ‘goodness’. He wants to enter it proudly as the trumpets blare about his great

138. achievements (Matthew 6:2). He wants the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees (Matthew
5:20). The last thing that he is thinking of is humbling himself as a little child. So Jesus knows that
He must first bring his high opinion of himself crashing down. He knows His man. And He knows
that unless he learns that his righteousness must exceed that of the Scribes and Pharisees, he
cannot enter under the Kingly Rule of God (Matthew 5:20).
COKE, "Matthew 19:17. There is none good but one, that is God— This passage has been
produced and strongly argued by the Arians in favour of their system. They found their argument
upon the Greek, which runs thus, Ουδεις εστιν αγαθος, ει µη εις, ο Θεος . There is none good, but
εις one; and that (one) is ο Θεος, God. Whence it is argued, that the adjective εις being in the
masculine gender, cannot be interpreted to signify one being, or nature (for then it should have
been εν in the neuter), but one person; so that by confining the attribute of goodness to the single
person of the Father, it must of course exclude the persons of the Son and Holy Ghost from the
unity of the Godhead. This, it must be owned, is a plausible objection: for, supposing the word εις
to signify one person (and in that lies the whole force of the argument) then, if one person only is
good, and that person is God, it must also follow, that there is but one person who is God; the
name of God being as much confined hereby to a single person, as the attribute of goodness. But
this is utterly false; the names of God, Lord, Lord of hosts, the Almighty, Most High, Eternal, God
of Israel, &c. being also ascribed to the second and third persons of the blessed Trinity. Take it in
this way, therefore, and the objection, by provingtoomuch,confutesitself,andprovesnothing. The
truth is, this criticism, upon the strength of which some have dared to undeify the Saviour, has no
foundation in the original. The word εις is so far from requiring the substantive person to be
understood with it, that it is put in the masculine gender to agree with its substantive Θεος, and is
best construed by an adverb. If you follow the Greek by a literal translation, it will be thus, There is
none good, — ει µη εις ο Θεος, —but the one God; that is, in common English, but God only. And
it happens, that the same Greek, word for word, occurs in Mark 2:7. Who can forgive sins, — ει
µη εις ο Θεος, but God only? So it is rendered by our translators; and we have a plain matter of
fact, that the word εις in this place cannot possibly admit the sense of one person, because Christ,
who is another person, took upon him to forgive sins. In the parallel place of St. Luke's Gospel
(Luke 5:21.) the expression is varied, so as to make it still clearer, — ει µη µονος ο Θεος,— not
εις, but µονος, another adjective, of the masculine gender, which,though it agree with its
substantive Θεος, is rightly construed with an adverb,—either the alone God, or God only: and the
Greek itself uses one for the other indifferently, as επ αρτω µονω, by bread only, Matthew 4:4. εν
λογω µονον , in word only, 1 Thessalonians 1:5. The utmost that can be gathered therefore from
these words, is no more than this, that there is one God, (in which we are all agreed) and that
there is none good besides him, which nobody will dispute. Whether in this God there be one
person or three, remains yet to be considered; and the Scripture is so express in other places as
to settle it beyond all dispute. If it should here be asked, for what reason Christ put the question
before us, Why callest thou me good? I answer, for the same reason that he asked the Pharisees,
Why David in spirit called him LORD? Matthew 22:43 and that was, to try if they were able to
account for it. This young man, by addressing our Saviour under the name of good master, when
the Psalmist had affirmed long before, that there is none that doeth GOOD, no NOT ONE,
(Psalms 14:3.) did in effect allow him to be God; no mere man since the fall of Adam having any
claim to that character; and, when he was called upon to explain his meaning, forthat God only
was good, he should have replied in the words of St. Thomas, My Lord, and my God! which would
have been a noble instance of faith, and have cleared up the whole difficulty. See Jones's
"Catholic Doctrine of a Trinity," p. 13.
BROADUS, "Matthew 19:17. It is possible (Aug.) that Jesus used first the
expression in Mark and Luke, and afterwards that in Matt. (Rev. Ver.) But the
Evangelists often report a saying in different terms. (See on "Matthew 3:17".) Both
forms here express truth, and they substantially agree. To call him 'good' (Mark
and Luke), was a sort of flattery to one approached only as a Rabbi, perfectly goodâ
€”keep that word for him. o religious teacher would really like to be accosted as "a
good man." So here, to ask a teacher concerning that which is good, what good
thing shall be done, must not be with the notion that any mere human teacher is of

139. himself qualified to give the desired instruction. Only God is perfectly good; and
lessons of goodness are not lessons of mere human ethical wisdom, but of divine
instruction. This is a surpassingly important truth. Men in every age and country
are prone to think of mere human instruction in morals and religion, and to forget
that the highest religious wisdom must come from him who alone is perfect wisdom
and perfect goodness. But if thou wilt, or wishest to (compare on Matthew 15:32,
Matthew 16:24), enter into life (comp on Matthew 5:20), keep the commandments.
Bengel: "Those who feel secure Jesus refers to the law; the contrite he consoles with
the gospel."
18 “Which ones?” he inquired.
Jesus replied, “‘You shall not murder, you shall
not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall
not give false testimony,
BAR ES 18-19, "He saith unto him, Which? - In reply to the inquiry of the
young man, Jesus directed him to the sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, and fifth Exo_20:12-
16, as containing the substance of the whole - as containing particularly what he
intended to show him that he had not kept. See notes at Mat_5:21, Mat_5:27.
Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder - See the notes at Mat_5:21-26.
Thou shalt not commit adultery - See the notes at Mat_5:27-32.
Thou shalt not steal - To steal is to take the property of another without his
knowledge or consent.
Thou shalt not bear false witness - Give testimony contrary to truth. This may be
done in a court of justice, or by private or public slander. It means to say things of
another which are not true.
Honour thy father ... - That is,
1. Obey them, keep their commands, Col_3:20; Eph_6:1-3.
2. Respect them, show them reverence.
3. Treat their opinions with respect - do not despise them or ridicule them.
4. Treat their habits with respect. Those habits may be different from ours; they may
be antiquated, and to us strange, odd, or whimsical; but they are the habits of a
parent, and they are not to be ridiculed.
5. Provide for them when sick, weary, old, and infirm. Bear with their weakness,
comply with their wishes, speak to them kindly, and deny yourselves of rest, and
sleep, and ease, to promote their welfare.
To this he added another - the duty of loving our neighbor, Lev_19:18. This Christ

140. declared to be the second great commandment of the law, Mat_22:39. A neighbor
means:
1. Any person who lives near to us.
2. Any person with whom we have dealings.
3. A friend or relative, Mat_5:43.
4. Any person - friend, relative, countryman, or foe, Mar_12:31.
5. Any person who does us good or confers a favor on us, Luk_10:27-37,
This commandment means, evidently:
1. That we should not injure our neighbor in his person, property, or character.
2. That we should not be selfish, but should seek to do him good.
3. That in a case of debt, difference, or debate, we should do what is right, regarding
his interest as much as our own.
4. That we should treat his character, property, etc., as we do our own, according to
what is right.
5. That, in order to benefit him, we should practice self-denial, or do as we would
wish him to do to us, Mat_7:12.
It does not mean:
1. That the love of ourselves, according to what we are, or according to truth, is
improper. The happiness of myself is of as much importance as that of any other
man, and it is as proper that it should be sought.
2. It does not mean that I am to neglect my own business to take care of my
neighbor’s. My happiness, salvation, health, and family are committed especially
to myself; and, provided I do not interfere with my neighbor’s rights or violate my
obligations to him, it is my duty to seek the welfare of my own as my first duty,
1Ti_5:8, 1Ti_5:13; Tit_2:5. Mark adds to these commandments, “Defraud not;” by
which he meant, doubtless, to express the substance of this to love our neighbor as
ourselves. It means, literally, to take away the property of another by violence or
by deceiving him, thus showing that he is not loved as we love ourselves.
CLARKE, "Thou shalt do no murder, etc. - But some say these commandments
are not binding on us. Vain, deceived men! Can a murderer, an adulterer, a thief, and a
liar enter into eternal life? No. The God of purity and justice has forbidden it. But we are
not to keep these commandments in order to purchase eternal life. Right. Neither Jesus
Christ, nor his genuine messengers, say you are. To save your souls, Christ must save
you from your sins, and enable you to walk before him in newness of life.
GILL, "He saith unto him, which?.... Whether those commandments of a moral, or
of a ceremonial kind; whether the commands of the written, or of the oral law; of God, or
of the elders, or both; or whether he did not mean some new commandments of his own,
which he delivered as a teacher sent from God:
Jesus said; according to the other evangelists, "thou knowest the commandments"; not
the true nature, spirituality, and use of them, but the letter and number of them; being
trained up from a child by his parents, in the reading them, committing them to
memory, and the outward observance of them, particularly those of the second table:
thou shalt do no murder, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not

141. steal, thou shalt not bear false witness. Christ takes no notice of the ceremonial
law, nor of the traditions of the elders, only moral precepts; and these only such as refer
to the second, and not the first table of the law, which respect duty to the neighbour, and
not to God: and this he does, because these commandments were more known, and were
in common use; and he chose to instance in these, partly to show, that if men are under
obligation to regard these, much more such as concern God more immediately; and
partly, to observe, that if men are deficient in their duty to one another, they are much
more so in their worship of God; and consequently, eternal life is never to be got and
enjoyed by the performance of these things.
HE RY, "[3.] At his further instance and request, he mentions some particular
commandments which he must keep (Mat_19:18, Mat_19:19); The young man saith
unto him, Which? Note, Those that would do the commandments of God, must seek
them diligently, and enquire after them, what they are. Ezra set himself to seek the law,
and to do it, Ezr_7:10. “There were many commandments in the law of Moses; good
Master, let me know which those are, the keeping o which is necessary to salvation.”
In answer to this, Christ specifies several, especially the commandments of the second
table. First, That which concerns our own and our neighbour's life; Thou shalt do no
murder. Secondly, Our own and our neighbour's chastity, which should be as dear to us
as life itself; Thou shalt not commit adultery. Thirdly, Our own and our neighbour's
wealth and outward estate, as hedged about by the law of property; Thou shalt not steal.
Fourthly, That which concerns truth, and our own and our neighbour's good name;
Thou shalt not bear false witness, neither for thyself, nor against thy neighbour; for so
it is here left at large. Fifthly, That which concerns the duties of particular relations;
Honour thy father and mother. Sixthly, That comprehensive law of love, which is the
spring and summary of all these duties, whence they all flow, on which they are all
founded, and in which they are all fulfilled; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself
(Gal_5:14; Rom_13:9), that royal law, Jam_2:8. Some think this comes in here, not as
the sum of the second table, but as the particular import of the tenth commandment;
Thou shalt not covet, which Mark is, Defraud not; intimating that it is not lawful for me
to design advantage or gain to myself by the diminution or loss of another; for that is to
covet, and to love myself better than my neighbour, whom I ought to love a myself, and
to treat as I would myself be treated.
Our Saviour here specifies second-table duties only; not as if the first were of less
account, but, 1. Because they that now sat in Moses's seat, either wholly neglected, or
greatly corrupted, these precepts in their preaching. While they pressed the tithing of
mint, anise, and cummin, - judgment, and mercy, and faith, the summary of second-
table duties, were overlooked, Mat_23:23. Their preaching ran out all in rituals and
nothing in morals; and therefore Christ pressed that most, which they least insisted on.
As one truth, so one duty, must not jostle out another, but each must know its place, and
be kept in it; but equity requires that that be helped up, which is most in danger of being
thrust out. That is the present truth which we are called to bear our testimony to, not
only which is opposed, but which is neglected. 2. Because he would teach him, and us all,
that moral honesty is a necessary branch of true Christianity, and to be minded
accordingly. Though a mere moral man comes short of being a complete Christian, yet
an immoral man is certainly no true Christian; for the grace of God teaches us to live
soberly and righteously, as well as godly. Nay, though first-table duties have in them
more of the essence of religion, yet second-table duties have in them more of the
evidence of it. Our light burns in love to God, but it shines in love to our neighbour.

142. CALVI , "18.Thou shalt not murder It is surprising that, though Christ intended
to show that we are bound to obey the whole law, he should mention the second
table only; but he did so, because from the duties of charity the disposition of every
man is better ascertained. Piety towards God holds, no doubt, a higher rank; (623)
but as the observation of the first table is often feigned by hypocrites, the second
table is better adapted for making a scrutiny. (624) Let us know, therefore, that
Christ selected those commandments in which is contained a proof of true
righteousness; but by a synecdoche he takes a part for the whole. As to the
circumstance of his placing that commandment last which speaks of honoring
parents, it is of no consequence, for he paid no attention to the regular order. Yet it
is worthy of notice, that this commandment is declared to belong to the second table,
that no one may be led astray by the error of Josephus, who thought that it belonged
to the first table. (625) What is added at the end, Thou shalt love thy neighbor,
contains nothing different from the former commandments, but is, general
explanation of them all.
The young man saith to him. The law must have been dead to him, when he vainly
imagined that he was so righteous; for if he had not flattered himself through
hypocrisy, it was an excellent advice to him to learn humility, to contemplate his
spots and blemishes in the mirror of the law. But, intoxicated with foolish
confidence, he fearlessly boasts that he has discharged his duty properly from his
childhood. Paul acknowledges that the same thing happened to himself, that, so long
as the power of the law was unknown to him, he believed that he was alive; but that,
after he knew what the law could do, a deadly wound was inflicted on him, (Romans
7:9.) So the reply of Christ, which follows, was suited to the man’s disposition. And
yet Christ does not demand any thing beyond the commandments of the law, but, as
the bare recital had not affected him, Christ employed other words for detecting the
hidden disease of avarice.
I confess that we are nowhere commanded in the law to sell all; but as the design of
the law is, to bring men to self-denial, and as it expressly condemns covetousness, we
see that Christ had no other object in view than to correct the false conviction of the
young man. (626) for if he had known himself thoroughly, as soon as he heard the
mention of the law, he would have acknowledged that he was liable to the judgment
of God; but now, when the bare words of the law do not sufficiently convince him of
his guilt, the inward meaning is expressed by other words. If Christ now demanded
any thing beyond the commandments of the law, he would be at variance with
himself. He just now taught that perfect righteousness is comprehended in the
commandments of the law: how then will it agree with this to charge the law with
deficiency? Besides, the protestation of Moses, (Deuteronomy 30:15,) which I
formerly quoted, would be false.
ELLICOTT, "(18) He saith unto him, Which?—Literally, of what kind? The
questioner has been trained in the language of the schools, has heard debates as to
which was the great commandment of the Law (). Which class of commandments is
he to keep that he may win eternal life?

143. Thou shalt do no murder.—Our Lord’s answer was clearly determined by the
method of which we have ventured to speak as calling up the thought of that of
Socrates. To a questioner of another type of character He would have pointed (as in
Matthew 22:37) to the two great commandments, the love of God, and the love of
man, on which hung all the Law and the Prophets. Here it was more in harmony
with His loving purpose to leave out of sight altogether the commandments of the
first table, that tell men of their duty towards God, and to direct attention only to
those which, as speaking of our duty to our neighbour, were thought common and
familiar things. The change in the order of the commandments, so that the Fifth
follows those which in the Decalogue it precedes, seems to imply a design to lead the
seeker through the negative to the positive forms of law, through definite
prohibitions of single acts to the commandments which were “exceeding broad,” as
fulfilled only in the undefined region of the affections.
COFFMA , "The omission of certain commands of the decalogue in this summary
by Christ may be significant. Certainly the words, Thou shalt not covet, touched an
area where the young man might not have been so sure of himself. Thus, it appears
that Christ may have mentioned his strong points with a view to encouraging him to
make the full sacrifice the Lord was about to propose.
LIGHTFOOT, "[Thou shalt do no murder, &c.] It is worthy marking, how again
and again in the ew Testament, when mention is made of the whole law, only the
second table is exemplified, as in this place; so also Romans 13:8,9, and James
2:8,11, &c. Charity towards our neighbour is the top of religion, and a most
undoubted sign of love towards God.
BROADUS, "Matthew 19:18 f. Which, if strictly translated, would be what sort of,
what kind of commandments, not inquiring as to particular precepts, but classes.
Yet this Greek pronoun is used somewhat loosely in ew Testament, and may here
mean simply which. In Modern Greek it has that meaning always. The ruler may
have expected new commandments, or a special selection from those existing. The
Rabbis would have prescribed stricter attention to traditional observances. Jesus
did not propose new commandments, but a new spirit and motive. The sixth,
seventh, eighth, and ninth commandments are given, then the fifth, and then Matt.
alone adds the general precept (Leviticus 19:18) which sums up all the second table
of the law; compare on Matthew 22:39. Luke quotes the same five commandments
as Matt.; Mark, likewise, but inserting 'do not defraud,' equivalent to the tenth
commandment. Thou shalt do no murder (Rev. Ver., shalt not kill). So also Com.
Ver. in Matthew 5:21, Mark 10:19, Luke 18:20; and Romans 13:9. The Old
Testament Revisers, on the contrary, have changed 'thou shalt not kill' into 'thou
shalt do no murder,' Exodus 20:13, Deuteronomy 5:17. The Hebrew and Greek
verbs are frequently used for unlawful killing, murder, but not uniformly.
PETT, "The young man is delighted with the answer that he must keep the commandments.
This is what he is looking for. So the question now is as to which commandment will enable him to
do the one good thing that will surmount all the other good things that he has done. How can he

144. achieve the pinnacle that he is seeking?
Jesus replies, with what can only be seen as a brief summary of Matthew 5:21-48, by citing the
commandments which relate to behaviour towards men, and includes within them Leviticus 19:18,
that he must love his neighbour as himself. This was especially pertinent when considering the
action and attitude of heart of a wealthy young man. It summarised all the other commandments.
In a sense it was the pinnacle of all manward commandments (Matthew 22:39).
Note that Jesus is doing here the same thing that He has commanded His disciples to do. He is
teaching men to obey all God’s commandments to their fullest extent (compare Matthew 5:17-20).
That is what, in the end, salvation is all about. It is to bring us holy, unblameable and
unreproveable into His sight (Colossians 1:22) through the imparting of His own mighty
righteousness (Matthew 5:6). It is that we be made like Him (1 John 3:2). Nothing less than this
will do. Never listen to anyone who says that you can be saved without wanting to be righteous, for
the one will result in the other.
The order in which He pronounces the commandments is logical. First He pronounces four of the
last five commandments in order, and then He personalises the whole in terms of parents and
‘neighbours’, thus covering all aspects of social life. No sphere remains untouched.
(Matthew is probably here summarising a wider description of what was required. Comparison
with Mark and Luke reminds us that each writer gives us the pith of what was said without
pretending to record the whole. It is giving us the truth of what was said. They could not record
whole conversations, any more than newspaper reports do, otherwise the writers would soon have
run out of space).
19 honor your father and mother,’[c] and ‘love
your neighbor as yourself.’[d]”
CLARKE, "Honour thy father and thy mother - σου thy, is omitted by almost
every MS. of respectability.
Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself - Self-love, as it is generally called, has
been grievously declaimed against, even by religious people, as a most pernicious and
dreadful evil. But they have not understood the subject on which they spoke. They have
denominated that intense propensity which unregenerate men feel to gratify their carnal
appetites and vicious passions, self-love; whereas it might be more properly termed self-
hatred or self-murder. If I am to love my neighbor as myself and this “love worketh no ill
to its neighbor,” then self-love, in the sense in which our Lord uses it, is something
excellent. It is properly a disposition essential to our nature, and inseparable from our
being, by which we desire to be happy, by which we seek the happiness we have not, and
rejoice in it when we possess it. In a word, it is a uniform wish of the soul to avoid all

145. evil, and to enjoy all good. Therefore, he who is wholly governed by self-love, properly
and Scripturally speaking, will devote his whole soul to God, and earnestly and
constantly seek all his peace, happiness, and salvation in the enjoyment of God. But self-
love cannot make me happy. I am only the subject which receives the happiness, but am
not the object that constitutes this happiness; for it is that object, properly speaking, that
I love, and love not only for its own sake, but also for the sake of the happiness which I
enjoy through it. “No man,” saith the apostle, “ever hated his own flesh.” But he that
sinneth against God wrongeth his own soul, both of present and eternal salvation, and is
so far from being governed by self-love that he is the implacable enemy of his best and
dearest interests in both worlds.
GILL, "Honour thy father and thy mother:.... This, as it is the first commandment
with promise, so the first of the second table, and yet is here mentioned last; which
inversion of order is of no consequence: so the "seventh" command is put before the
"sixth", and the "fifth" omitted, in Rom_13:9 and with the Jews it is a common (c)
saying, ‫בתורה‬ ‫ומאוחר‬ ‫מוקדם‬ ‫,אין‬ "there is neither first nor last in the law": that is, it is of no
consequence which commandment is recited first, or which last. Moreover, it looks as if
it was usual to recite these commands in this order, since they are placed exactly in the
same method, by a very noted Jewish (d) writer.
And thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself; which is not a particular distinct
command from the rest, or an explication of the tenth and last, not mentioned; but a
recapitulation, or compendium, and abridgment of the whole, and is said to be a
complement and fulfilling of the law; see Rom_13:9.
20 “All these I have kept,” the young man said.
“What do I still lack?”
BAR ES, "All these things have I kept from my youth up - I have made them
the rule of my life.
I have endeavored to obey them. Is there anything that I lack - are there any new
commandments to be kept? Do you, the Messiah, teach any command besides those
which I have learned from the law and from the Jewish teachers, which it is necessary
for me to obey in order to be saved?
CLARKE, "All these have I kept - I have made these precepts the rule of my life.
There is a difference worthy of notice between this and our Lord’s word. He says, Mat_
19:17, τηρησον, keep, earnestly, diligently, as with watch and ward; probably referring

146. not only to the letter but to the spirit. The young man modestly says, all these (εφυλαξα)
have I observed; I have paid attention to, and endeavored to regulate my conduct by
them. I have kept them in custody.
From my youth - Several MSS., versions, and fathers, leave out these words. Grotius
and Mill approve of the omission, and Griesbach leaves them in the text with a note of
suspicion. Perhaps the young man meant no more than that he had in general observed
them, and considered them of continual obligation.
What lack I yet? - He felt a troubled conscience, and a mind unassured of the
approbation of God; and he clearly perceived that something was wanting to make him
truly happy.
GILL, "The young man saith unto him,.... For though he was so very rich and in
such an exalted station in life, as to be a ruler, it seems he was but a young man; and to
be so early serious and religious, amidst so much riches and grandeur, though it was but
externally, was both remarkable and commendable: upon hearing the answer of Christ,
with which he was highly pleased and greatly elated, he very pertly replies,
all these things have I kept from my youth up: as soon as he was capable of
learning, his parents taught him these precepts; and ever since he had the use of his
reason, and understood the letter, and outward meaning of them, he had been careful to
observe them; nor could he charge himself with any open and flagrant transgression of
them; not understanding the internal sense, extensive compass, and spirituality of them;
and therefore asks,
what lack I yet? In what am I deficient hitherto? in what have I come short of doing
these things? what remains at last to be performed? what other precepts are to be
obeyed? if there are any other commands, I am ready to observe them, which may be
thought necessary to obtain eternal life.
HE RY, "II. See here how he came short, though he bid thus fair, and wherein he
failed; he failed by two things.
1. By pride, and a vain conceit of his own merit and strength; this is the ruin of
thousands, who keep themselves miserable by fancying themselves happy. When Christ
told him what commandments he must keep, he answered very scornfully, All these
things have I kept from my youth up, Mat_19:20.
Now, (1.) According as he understood the law, as prohibiting only the outward acts of
sin, I am apt to think that he said true, and Christ knew it, for he did not contradict him;
nay, it is said in Mark, He loved him; so far was very good and pleasing to Christ. St.
Paul reckons it a privilege, not contemptible in itself, though it was dross in comparison
with Christ, that he was, as toughing righteousness that is in the law, blameless, Phi_
3:6. His observance of these commands was universal; All these have I kept: it was early
and constant; from my youth up. Note, A man may be free from gross sin, and yet come
short of grace and glory. His hands may be clean from external pollutions, and yet he
may perish eternally in his heart-wickedness. What shall we think then of those who do
not attain to this; whose fraud and injustice, drunkenness and uncleanness, witness
against them, that all these they have broken from their youth up, though they have
named the name of Christ? Well, it is sad to come short of those that come short of

147. heaven.
It was commendable also, that he desired to know further what his duty was; What
lack I yet? He was convinced that he wanted something to fill up his works before God,
and was therefore desirous to know it, because, if he was not mistaken in himself, he was
willing to do it. Having not yet attained, he thus seemed to press forward. And he
applied himself to Christ, whose doctrine was supposed to improve and perfect the
Mosaic institution. He desired to know what were the peculiar precepts of his religion,
that he might have all that was in them to polish and accomplish him. Who could bid
fairer?
But, (2.) Even in this that he said, he discovered his ignorance and folly. [1.] Taking
the law in its spiritual sense, as Christ expounded it, no doubt, in many things he had
offended against all these commands. Had he been acquainted with the extent and
spiritual meaning of the law, instead of saying, All these have I kept; what lack I yet? he
would have said, with shame and sorrow, “All these have I broken, what shall I do to get
my sins pardoned?” [2.] Take it how you will, what he said savoured of pride and vain-
glory, and had in it too much of that boasting which is excluded by the law of faith
(Rom_3:27), and which excludes from justification, Luk_18:11, Luk_18:14. He valued
himself too much, as the Pharisees did, upon the plausibleness of his profession before
men, and was proud of that, which spoiled the acceptableness of it. That word, What
lack I yet? perhaps was not so much a desire of further instruction as a demand of the
praise of his present fancied perfection, and a challenge to Christ himself to show him
any one instance wherein he was deficient.
SBC, ""What lack I yet?" This question is asked by various distinct classes of men.
I. The first class ask the question, but they understand it wrongly. Do we not all ask,
What lack I yet? Who does not feel that something is lacking to him? All that makes our
earthly life lovely and pleasant, the joys and possessions of life—these are what we lack.
But is this an answer worthy of a human soul? No, the question must be taken in a moral
sense. What lack I yet in my moral character? What is wanting to make my life truly
worthy of a man? Thus the question gains a serious meaning which at first was absent
from it.
II. There are others who know well where to look for the true standard for humanity;
they seek in God, in whose image we are created, in Him alone, the holy, pure, and just.
What was it that was lacking to this youth and to all who ask his question? The answer is
not hard to find; a Redeemer is what humanity needs, such a Redeemer as has come into
the world. Well for him who bends the knee before Him, and surrenders himself into the
gracious hands of the Redeemer; for him the question is answered, he has what man
requires, even eternal life.
III. Yet even this is not a full and perfect answer. Even those who believe Christ have a
great and decisive step to take. "Sell that thou hast,... and come, follow Me." Deny thyself
and thy worldly lusts, and believe in Jesus. Despise and cast away from thee all that is
not Jesus, and that strives against Him. "Come, follow Me." What is this but a following
to thorns and to the cross? What but a self-surrender in self-sacrificing, self-denying
love? This is the goal to which Christ would have us attain; to be free altogether from
self, to forget self altogether in love.
R. Rothe, Nachgelassene Predigten, p. 24.

148. ELLICOTT, "(20) All these things have I kept.—There is obviously a tone of
impatient surprise in the questioner’s reply. He had come seeking some great thing
to satisfy his lofty aspirations after eternal life. He finds himself re-taught the
lessons of childhood, sent back, as it were, to a lower form in the school of holiness.
He had not learnt that to keep any one of those commandments in its completeness
is the task of a life, that to keep one perfectly implies keeping all. In marked contrast
with this half-contemptuous treatment of the simpler elements of religion we may
recall our Lord’s use, in the Temptation, of the three passages connected, directly or
indirectly, with those which were written on the phylacteries that men wore, and
which would naturally be taught to children as their first lesson in the Law. (See
otes on Matthew 4:1-11.)
What lack I yet?—Ignorant as the young ruler was of his own spiritual state, his
condition was not that of the self-satisfied Pharisee. The question implied a
dissatisfaction with himself, a sense of incompleteness, as hungering and thirsting
after a higher righteousness. And this accounts for the way in which our Lord dealt
with him.
COFFMA , " o wonder Jesus loved him (Mark 10:21). He was a model of moral
excellence and integrity. If human righteousness could have saved anyone, this
young man was already saved. Like Cornelius (Acts 10:1-6), he manifested virtue in
a dissolute age, faith in an age of infidelity, and deep spirituality in an age of
materialism. Most important of all, he recognized the void in his soul, that he was
yet unsaved, saying, "What lack I yet?" Many in all ages, having the possessions of
this young man, would have felt that they needed nothing. It is, therefore, a credit to
his perception that he recognized the deep and vital lack within his heart and
brought the problem to the Master.
BROADUS, "Matthew 19:20. All these things has the emphasis here (according to
the probable text) on 'all'; in Mark and Luke it is on 'these things.' Have I kept.
Rev. Ver. gives observed. So Tyn. and Gen. here, and all early English versions in
Mark 10:20, while all give 'kept' for the same word in Luke 18:21. In Luke 18:17
above, 'kept' represents a different word. From my youth up is spurious in Matt.,
but genuine in Mark and Luke, and so was really said.(1) The speaker was still a
'young man,' but it is quite common for young men to look back to their youth, viz.,
boyhood, and as a very remote period. He must have been sincere in his profession,
and really blameless in outward conformity to law, for 'Jesus looking upon him
loved him.' (Mark.) What lack I yet? Mark and Luke give as the beginning of the
Saviour's reply, 'One thing thou lackest.' So the question here must not be regarded
as a mere self-righteous expression. The only observance he had ever thought of was
external and superficial; in regard to this, he had been very careful and correct. The
Talmud repeatedly mentions persons as having kept the whole law, in one case "my
holy ones, who have kept the whole law, from Aleph to Tau," like Alpha to Omega.
The Great Teacher does not stop for distinctions between the external and the
spiritual which the young ruler would have found it difficult to appreciate, but cuts
through all his self-delusion and self-complacency by an extraordinary demand.

149. PETT, "However, the young man is now disappointed. He had had such high hopes. But all that
Jesus had told him was what he had heard before from others. And yet it had not been enough.
He did not stop to consider whether he had genuinely kept all these commandments (and
Matthew intends us to read them in terms of the sermon on the mount). With the presumption and
limited experience of a young man he was convinced that he had. And yet he knew that what he
had done was not enough. He was still aware of a great lack. There was still hope for him, for at
least he recognised that he was not good enough. (Once a man begins to think that he is nearly
good enough, and has but a little further to go, he has lost hope. For the first principle of salvation
is that a man recognise his own total inability to be good enough. That indeed was why Jesus had
begun by emphasising that true goodness was of God).
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.”
BAR ES, "If thou wilt be perfect - The word “perfect” means complete in all its
parts, finished, having no part wanting.
Thus a watch is perfect or complete when it has all its proper wheels, and hands, and
casements in order. Job was said to be perfect (see the notes at Job_1:1), not that he was
sinless, for he is afterward reproved by God himself Job 38; 39; Job_40:4; but because
his piety was properly proportioned, or had a completeness of parts. He was a pious
father, a pious magistrate, a pious neighbor, a pious citizen. His religion was not
confined to one thing, but it extended to all. Perfect means, sometimes, the filling up, or
the carrying out, or the expression of a principle of action. Thus, 1Jo_2:5; “Whoso
keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected.” That is, the keeping of the
commandments of God is the proper expression, carrying out, or completion of the love
of God. This is its meaning here. If thou wilt be perfect, complete, finished - if thou writ
show the proper expression of this keeping of the commandments, go, etc. Make the
obedience complete. Mark says Mar_10:21, Jesus, beholding him, loved him. He was
pleased with his amiableness, his correct character, his frankness, his ingenuousness.
Jesus, as a man, was capable of all the emotions of most tender friendship. As a man, we
may suppose that his disposition was tender and affectionate, mild and calm. Hence, he
loved with special affection the disciple John, eminently endowed with these qualities;
and hence he was pleased with the same traits in this young man. Still, with all this
amiableness, there is reason to think he was not a Christian, and that the love of mere
amiable qualities was all the affection that was ever bestowed on him by the Saviour.

150. “One thing,” adds Mark, “thou lackest.” There is one thing missing. You are not
complete. This done, you would show that your obedience lacked no essential part, but
was complete, finished, proportionate, perfect.
Go and sell that thou hast ... - The young man declared that he had kept the law.
That law required, among other things, that he should love his neighbor as himself. It
required, also, that he should love the Lord his God supremely; that is, more than all
other objects. If he had that true love to God and man - if he loved his Maker and fellow-
creatures more than he did his property, he would be willing to give up his wealth to the
service of God and of man. Jesus commanded him to do this, therefore, to test his
character, and to show him that he had not kept the law as he pretended, and thus to
show him that he needed a better righteousness than his own.
Treasure in heaven - See the notes at Mat_6:20.
Follow me - To follow Jesus then meant to be a personal attendant on his ministry;
to go about with him from place to place, as well as to imitate and obey him. Now it
means:
1. To obey his commandments.
2. To imitate his example, and to live like him.
CLARKE, "If thou wilt be perfect - Τελειος ειναι, To be complete, to have the
business finished, and all hinderances to thy salvation removed, go and sell that thou
hast - go and dispose of thy possessions, to which it is evident his heart was too much
attached, and give to the poor - for thy goods will be a continual snare to thee if thou
keep them; and thou shalt have treasure in heaven - the loss, if it can be called such,
shall be made amply up to thee in that eternal life about which thou inquirest; and come
and follow me - be my disciple, and I will appoint thee to preach the kingdom of God to
others. This was the usual call which Christ gave to his disciples. See Mat_4:19; Mat_
8:22; Mat_9:9; Mar_2:14; and it is pretty evident, from this, that he intended to make
him a preacher of his salvation. How many, by their attachment to filthy lucre, have lost
the honor of becoming or continuing ambassadors for the Most High! See on Mar_10:21
(note).
GILL, "Jesus said unto him, if thou wilt be perfect,.... Wanting nothing,
completely righteous, according to the tenor of the covenant of works, having no evil,
concupiscence, or worldly lusts: our Lord signifies it was not enough to be possessed of
negative holiness, and do no hurt to his neighbour, to his person, property, and estate,
but he must love him, and do him good; and therefore, though so far as he had complied
with the law, it was right and commendable; wherefore it is said by Mark, "that Jesus
beholding him loved him"; had an affectionate regard to him as man, and approved of
his intentions, seriousness, and actions, so far as agreeable; yet tells him,
one thing thou lackest: not but that he lacked many more, but he was only willing to
observe one thing to him, as a trial of his love to his neighbour, which is the fulfilling of
the law:
go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure
in heaven: not that either the law of God, or Gospel of Christ, require this to be done of
all men, and at all times; for though it is a duty binding upon all, and always, to relieve
the poor and the needy, yet a man is not obliged to give all that he has to them; see 2Co_
8:11 nor does either legal or Christian perfection lie in doing this: a man may give all his

151. goods to the poor and yet be destitute of the grace of God, 1Co_13:3 much less can such
an action merit the heavenly treasure of eternal life. Nevertheless of some persons, and
in some cases, it has been required, that they part with all their worldly substance, for
the sake of Christ and his Gospel; as the apostles were called to leave all and follow
Christ, as this man was also; for it is added,
and come and follow me: between these two, Mark puts, "take up the cross"; all
which to do, was much more than to sell what he had, and give to the poor; and indeed,
in this branch lies Gospel perfection, or to be really and truly a Christian: for to "come"
to Christ, is to believe in him, lay hold on him, receive and embrace him as a Saviour and
Redeemer; and to "follow" him, is to be obedient to his will, to be observant of his
commands, to submit to his ordinances, and to imitate him in the exercise of grace, and
discharge of duty; neither of which can be done, without "taking up the cross"; bearing
reproach and persecution with patience; undergoing hardships and difficulties, of one
sort or another, which attend faith in Christ, a profession of his name, and following him
the Lamb, whithersoever he goes. The consequence of this now, not by way of merit, but
by way of grace, is the enjoyment of the rich treasures of eternal glory: but this man was
so far from complying with the latter, with coming to Christ, taking up the cross, and
following him, that he could by no means agree to the former, parting with his worldly
substance; and which is mentioned, as a test of his love to God and his neighbour, and to
discover his sinful love of the world, and the things of it; and consequently, that he was
far from being in a state of perfection. Moreover, it should be observed, that Christ is
here speaking, not the pure language of the law, or according to the principles of the
Gospel, when he seems to place perfection in alms deeds, and as if they were meritorious
of eternal life; but according to the doctrine of the Pharisees, and which was of this man;
and so upon the plan of his own notions, moves him to seek for perfection, and convicts
him of the want of it, in a way he knew would be disagreeable to him; and yet he would
not be able to disprove the method, on the foot of his own tenets: for this is their
doctrine (e);
"It is a tradition, he that says this "sela", or shekel, is for alms, that my son may live, or I
may be a son of the world to come, lo! ‫גמור‬ ‫צדיק‬ ‫,זה‬ "this man is a perfect righteous man".''
The gloss adds,
"In this thing; and he does not say that he does not do it for the sake of it, but he fulfils
the command of his Creator, who has commanded him to do alms; and he also intends
profit to himself, that thereby he may be worthy of the world to come, or that his
children may live.''
And so in answer to a question much like this, the young man put to Christ (f);
"How shall we come at the life of the world to come?''
It is replied,
"take thy riches, and give to the fatherless and the poor, and I will give thee a better
portion in the law.''
HE RY, "2. He came short by an inordinate love of the world, and his enjoyments in

152. it. This was the fatal rock on which he split. Observe,
(1.) How he was tried in this matter (Mat_19:21); Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be
perfect, go and sell that thou hast. Christ waived the matter of his boasted obedience to
the law, and let that drop, because this would be a more effectual way of discovering him
than a dispute of the extent of the law. “Come,” saith Christ, “if thou wilt be perfect, if
thou wilt approve thyself sincere in thine obedience” (for sincerity is our gospel
perfection), “if thou wilt come up to that which Christ has added to the law of Moses, if
thou wilt be perfect, if thou wilt enter into life, and so be perfectly happy;” for that which
Christ here prescribes, is not a thing of supererogation, or a perfection we may be saved
without; but, in the main scope and intendment of it, it is our necessary and
indispensable duty. What Christ said to him, he thus far said to us all, that, if we would
approve ourselves Christians indeed, and would be found at last the heirs of eternal life,
we must do these two things:
[1.] We must practically prefer the heavenly treasures before all the wealth and riches
in this world. That glory must have the pre-eminence in our judgment and esteem before
this glory. No thanks to us to prefer heaven before hell, the worst man in the world
would be glad of that Jerusalem for a refuge when he can stay no longer here, and to
have it in reserve; but to make it our choice, and to prefer it before this earth - that is to
be a Christian indeed. Now, as an evidence of this, First, We must dispose of what we
have in this world, for the honour of God, and in his service: “Sell that thou hast, and
give to the poor. If the occasions of charity be very pressing, sell thy possessions that
thou mayest have to give to them that need; as the first Christians did, with an eye to this
precept, Act_4:34. Sell what thou canst spare for pious uses, all thy superfluities; if thou
canst not otherwise do good with it, sell it. Sit loose to it, be willing to part with it for the
honour of God, and the relief of the poor.” A gracious contempt of the world, and
compassion of the poor and afflicted ones in it, are in all a necessary condition of
salvation; and in those that have wherewithal, giving of alms is as necessary an evidence
of that contempt of the world, and compassion to our brethren; by this the trial will be at
the great day, Mat_25:35. Though many that call themselves Christians, do not act as if
they believed it; it is certain, that, when we embrace Christ, we must let go the world, for
we cannot serve God and mammon. Christ knew that covetousness was the sin that did
most easily beset this young man, that, though what he had he had got honestly, yet he
could not cheerfully part with it, and by this he discovered his insincerity. This
command was like the call to Abraham, Get thee out of thy country, to a land that I will
show thee. As God tries believers by their strongest graces, so hypocrites by their
strongest corruptions. Secondly, We must depend upon what we hope for in the other
world as an abundant recompence for all we have left, or lost, or laid out, for God in this
world; Thou shalt have treasure in heaven. We must, in the way of chargeable duty,
trust God for a happiness out of sight, which will make us rich amends for all our
expenses in God's service. The precept sounded hard and harsh; “Sell that thou hast, and
give it away;” and the objection against it would soon arise, that “Charity begins at
home;” therefore Christ immediately annexes this assurance of a treasure in heaven.
Note, Christ's promises make his precepts easy, and his yoke not only tolerable, but
pleasant, and sweet, and very comfortable; yet this promise was as much a trial of this
young man's faith as the precept was of his charity, and contempt of the world.
[2.] We must devote ourselves entirely to the conduct and government of our Lord
Jesus; Come, and follow me. It seems here to be meant of a close and constant
attendance upon his person, such as the selling of what he had in the world was as
necessary to as it was to the other disciples to quit their callings; but of us it is required
that we follow Christ, that we duly attend upon his ordinances, strictly conform to his

153. pattern, and cheerfully submit to his disposals, and by upright and universal obedience
observe his statutes, and keep his laws, and all this from a principle of love to him, and
dependence on him, and with a holy contempt of every thing else in comparison of him,
and much more in competition with him. This is to follow Christ fully. To sell all, and
give to the poor, will not serve, unless we come, and follow Christ. If I give all my goods
to feed the poor, and have not love, it profits me nothing. Well, on these terms, and on
no lower, is salvation to be had; and they are very easy and reasonable terms, and will
appear so to those who are brought to be glad of it upon any terms.
JAMISO , "
ELLICOTT, "(21) Jesus said unto him . . .—St. Mark (Mark 10:21) adds the
striking and interesting words, “Jesus beholding him” (better, perhaps, gazing on
him), “loved him.” There was something in the young seeker after holiness which
drew to him, in a measure altogether exceptional, the affection of the Great Teacher.
The same word is used in regard to him which is used in relation to the “disciple
whom Jesus loved,” and (here the coincidence takes its place in the chain of evidence
for the view above suggested) to Lazarus, and Martha, and Mary (John 11:5). There
was the fervour, the longing after a higher life, the personal trust, which made him a
not unworthy object of the love of Jesus, and therefore He would not spare the
discipline which the questioner needed, the test which, being such as he was, was
required for the completeness of his life.
If thou wilt be perfect.—Better, if thou wishest. St. Mark and St. Luke report the
words, “One thing thou lackest,” reminding us forcibly of the “One thing is
needful” of Luke 10:42. (See ote on Matthew 19:16.)
Go and sell that thou hast.—It would be altogether a mistake to see in this either an
obligation binding on all seekers after eternal life, or even what has been called a
“counsel of perfection,” a precept laying down an indispensable condition for all
who aim at its higher forms and powers. It was strictly a remedy for the special evil
which hindered the young ruler’s progress to perfection, applicable to others so far
only as their cases are analogous. It would be idle to deny that there have been and
are many such analogous types of character, and so far as any one is conscious of
being under the power of wealth and its temptations, so far there is a call to some
act asserting his victory over those temptations, in the spirit, if not in the letter, of
the command thus given. But it is, we must remember, the spirit, and not the letter,
which is binding. Distribution to the poor was then almost the only form of charity.
A wider range of action is presented by the organisation of modern Christian
societies, and the same sacrifice may be made in ways more productive of true and
permanent good; in the foundation, e.g., of schools or hospitals, in the erection of
churches, in the maintenance of home or foreign missions.
Treasure in heaven.—The parallelism with the Sermon on the Mount should not be
forgotten (). The “treasure” is the “eternal life” which the young ruler was seeking,
the memory of good deeds, the character formed and perfected, the vision of the
presence of God.

154. Come and follow me.—Here again St. Mark adds words that are pregnant with
meaning, “Take up thy cross, and follow Me.” The seeker could not then
understand all their significance. To the Teacher that cross was now coming, day by
day, nearer, and He saw that each true disciple must be prepared to follow Him in
that path of suffering, which was also the path of glory. “Via cruris, via lucis.”
COFFMA , "For all his youth and beauty, a cancer was eating away at his heart;
and Christ made a move to eradicate it. "Sell all that thou hast!" How shocking is
that command! What did it mean? What it meant for him we know; but what does it
mean for us? Are Christians now commanded to sell all that they have and give it to
the poor? For many, these are hard questions. evertheless, in the ew Testament it
is abundantly clear that selling all one's possessions was never made a universal
condition of discipleship. Mary's house in Jerusalem (Acts 12:12), Philip's great
house in Caesarea Palestina (Acts 21:8), and the statement of the apostle Peter that
Ananias and Sapphira were not under compulsion either to sell their property or
give the money when they did (Acts 5:4) make it very clear that ownership of
property was not proscribed in the early church. Furthermore, the Lord's teaching
in the parable of the pounds, the parable of the talents, and many other passages
suggest and even demand that ownership of property was not condemned by Jesus
nor forbidden to members of his kingdom. Why, then, did Jesus thus command the
subject of this interview? Two possible reasons appear: (1) Covetousness had
reached such a degree in the young man's heart that only by divesting himself of his
wealth could he truly turn to Christ. (2) Christ, in all probability, was calling him to
a place in the apostleship, an office that did require forsaking all that one had, just
as Peter and the others among the Twelve had forsaken all that they had to follow
Jesus. The fact that Jesus said, "Come, follow me!" shows that at least he was
invited to accompany the Twelve, who themselves had forsaken all, and where his
presence would have been an embarrassment to all concerned if he had been
exempted from the requirement they had fulfilled.
LIGHTFOOT, "[Sell that thou hast, and give to the poor.] When Christ calls it
perfection to sell all and give to the poor, he speaks according to the idiom of the
nation, which thought so: and he tries this rich man, boasting of his exact
performance of the law, whether, when he pretended to aspire to eternal life, he
would aspire to that perfection which his countrymen so praised. ot that hence he
either devoted Christians to voluntary poverty, or that he exhorted this man to rest
ultimately in a Pharisaical perfection; but lifting up his mind to the renouncing of
worldly things, he provokes him to it by the very doctrine of the Pharisees which he
professed.
"For these things the measure is not stated; for the corner of the field" to be left for
the poor; "for the firstfruits for the appearance in the Temple" (according to the
law, Exodus 23:15,17, where, what, or how great an oblation is to be brought, is not
appointed), "for the shewing mercy, and for the study of the law." The casuists,
discussing that point of 'shewing mercy,' do thus determine concerning it: "A stated
measure is not indeed prescribed to the shewing of mercy, as to the affording poor
men help with thy body," that is, with thy bodily labour; "but as to money there is a

155. stated measure, namely, the fifth part of thy wealth; nor is any bound to give the
poor above the fifth part of his estate, unless he does it out of extraordinary
devotion." See Rambam upon the place, and the Jerusalem Gemara: where the
example of R. Ishbab is produced, distributing all his goods to the poor.
BROADUS, "Matthew 19:21. If thou wilt be, wishest to be, as in Matthew 19:17.
Perfect, so as to lack nothing, see on "Matthew 5:48". Go, go along, go promptly, as
in Matthew 4:10, Matthew 5:24, Matthew 13:44, Matthew 18:15. Sell that thou hast,
(compare Matthew 13:46) a comprehensive expression, strengthened in Mark by
'whatsoever,' in Luke by 'all.' To the poor. Here again (see on "Matthew 5:3";
Matthew 11:5) the notion of 'beggars' is quite out of place; the wisest giving is not
always to beggars. The Talmud (Wet.) speaks of a rabbi as saying to some Gentiles
who sought instruction, "Sell all that you have, and moreover you ought to become
proselytes."—This was a special test, exactly suited to the young ruler, as appears
from his sorrowful failure to meet it. The principle involved is supreme devotion to
Christ. The test of this is different for different people. Some find it harder to
renounce hopes of worldly honour and fame for Christ's sake, than to renounce
wealth; and for others the hard trial is to abandon certain gratifications of the
various appetites or of taste. Abraham left his native country at God's command,
but became rich and famous. Moses gave up the distinction and refined pleasures of
court life, and tried patiently to rule a debased and intractable people. Elisha left his
property at the call of God through Elijah. Paul abandoned his ambitious hope of
being a great rabbi. All should be willing even to die for Christ, (Matthew 16:24, ff.)
though not many are actually required to do so. The Romanists build on this
passage their theory that for all persons and times voluntary and absolute poverty is
a chief means of securing the highest spiritual attainments. But there is no
intimation that Jesus requires this of all his followers. He said nothing of the kind to
any but the Twelve, and a few who, like them, were called to leave home and travel
about the country with him. Treasure in heaven, see on "Matthew 6:20". And come,
follow me, see on "Matthew 4:19". Many documents in Mark, and one or two in
Matthew add 'taking up thy cross,' borrowed from Mark 8:34, Matthew 16:24.
PETT, "So Jesus now gives him his answer, the answer to which He has been aiming. He has
claimed to love his neighbour as himself, so let him become like a little child in his response to
Jesus. Let him show his love for his neighbour. Let him sell all that he has, and give it to his poor
neighbours (in the same way as, if he had been poor, he would have wanted others to do to him).
And then let him come and follow Jesus. Here was the ‘good thing’ that he could do. And if he did
it he would inherit eternal life, for no one could ever come wholly to Jesus like this and be
disappointed. Jesus would do the rest. We should perhaps note that implicit in the idea of
‘following Jesus’ is listening to Him and responding fully to His words. Jesus is not just saying
‘sign on and join the ranks’. He is saying ‘respond to Me and to all I am and to all I say like a little
child would, and leave the consequences to Me’ (compare John 10:27-28). He is saying ‘believe in
Me and follow Me’.
For if he does this he will be being ‘perfect’ (complete) like his Father in Heaven is perfect
(Matthew 5:48) because he will be distributing all that he has on the undeserving (Matthew 5:45)
and then following the great Life-giver Himself, the One sent from God, the source of all truth. He
will be ‘letting go, and letting God’. Furthermore by doing this he will lay up his treasure in Heaven
(Matthew 6:19), (a confirmation that the contents of the sermon on the mount really are in mind in
this passage). Thus if he is genuine in seeking goodness he now knows how it can be brought

156. about, by wholly following Jesus, with all his temptations and burdens laid aside, and thus being
open to all that Jesus can give him. Then the way to eternal life will have opened before him.
The later Rabbis taught that no one should immediately give away more than one fifth of their
wealth. And there was wisdom in what they said. For men should give time for thought concerning
such things. But Jesus’ very point is that the case was different at this point in time. For this was
another indication (like the idea of possibly not marrying because the Kingly Rule of Heaven was
here) that the Messianic age was here. The Kingly Rule of Heaven is among them, and is about to
burst on the world. Now is the time to press forcefully into it. Now is the time for a man to put all
else aside and throw in his lot with Jesus. It was neck or nothing time.
COKE, "Matthew 19:21. If thou wilt be perfect, &c.— That is, "If thou wilt prove thyself a true
disciple of mine; if thou wilt enter perfectly and unfeignedly under my banner, and enlist in my
cause." It may not be improper to observe, that the terms ofsalvation here settled are not different
from those mentioned elsewhere in Scripture: for though faith is declared by our Lord himself to
be the condition of salvation, it is such a faith, as influences to the universal righteousness here
described; If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. Moreover, the Christian religion,
being from God, is established upon such solid evidences, that every humble person to whom it is
offered will receive it with pleasure; and, if any man refuse it, his infidelity can be owing to no other
cause than this, that his deeds are evil. So our Lord himself says expressly, John 3:19 and
therefore, in returning a general answer concerning the terms of salvation, Jesus fitly directed this
young man to a sincere, constant, and universal obedience; and, when he replied that he had
arrived at that already, and desired to know if he lacked any thing more,—namely, to render him
perfectly good, our Lord, who knew how destitute he was of the true evangelical principles of
holiness, required him to become his disciple; which, as he had acknowledged our Lord's divine
mission, he could not refuse to do, if he was the man that he pretended to be. At the same time
Jesus let him know, that he could not be perfect, or his disciple, and much less a preacher of the
Gospel, without renouncing worldly possessions; because, as matters then stood, the very
profession of his religion, and much more the preaching of it, would infallibly expose him to the
loss of his estate. Here, therefore, our Lord has declared, that all men to whom the Gospel is
offered must believe it, and make profession of it, and produce all the fruits of it internally and
externally, or they cannot be saved; but he by no means says, that it is absolutely necessary for all
Christians to sell their goods, and give them to the poor. An intire actual renunciation of worldly
possessions might, in innumerable instances, be necessary in the first ages, when the profession
of Christianity, but especially the preaching of it, exposed men to persecution and death; which
was the reason that Jesus mentioned it to the young man as his indispensable duty, especially as
he aimed at the highest degree of goodness: but all that our Master requires of us at present is,
that we be in constant and habitual readiness to part with all things in the world; and that we
actually do so with perfect acquiescence in God's good pleasure, when he in his providence calls
thereto. See on Luke 14:33. Macknight, and Law's Christian Perfection, ch. 3.
22 When the young man heard this, he went away
sad, because he had great wealth.

157. BAR ES, "He had great possessions - He was very rich.
He made an idol of his wealth. He loved it more than God. He had not kept the
commandments from his youth up, nor had he kept them at all; and rather than do good
with his treasures, and seek his salvation by obeying God, he chose to turn away from
the Saviour and give over his inquiry about eternal life. He probably returned no more.
Alas, how many lovely and amiable young persons follow his example!
CLARKE, "Went away sorrowful - Men undergo great agony of mind while they
are in suspense between the love of the world and the love of their souls. When the first
absolutely predominates, then they enjoy a factitious rest through a false peace: when
the latter has the upper hand, then they possess true tranquillity of mind, through that
peace of God that passeth knowledge.
He had great possessions - And what were these in comparison of peace of
conscience, and mental rest? Besides, he had unequivocal proof that these contributed
nothing to his comfort, for he is now miserable even while he possesses them! And so
will every soul be, who puts worldly goods in the place of the supreme God. See on Mar_
10:22 (note).
GILL, "But when the young man heard that saying..... That he must sell his
estates, and all his worldly substance, and the money made of them, give away to the
poor; and become a follower of Christ, deny himself, and submit to hardships very
disagreeable to the flesh:
he went away sorrowful; not with a godly sorrow for his sin and imperfections, but
with the sorrow of the world, which worketh death: he was ashamed and confounded,
that he could not perform what he had just now so briskly promised, at least tacitly, that
whatever else was proper he would do; as also grieved, that he had not arrived to
perfection, which he had hoped he had, but now began to despair of, and of obtaining
eternal life; and most of all troubled, that he must part with his worldly substance, his
heart was so much set upon, or not enjoy it:
for he had great possessions; which were very dear to him; and he chose rather to
turn his back on Christ, and drop his pursuits of the happiness of the other world, than
part with the present enjoyments of this.
SBC, "I. Consider the young man’s sorrow. It was not quite so simple as at first sight
appears. No doubt partly he was sorry (1) at the thought of giving up those large
possessions of which he was naturally fond. But sorrow is seldom a single principle. It
scarcely admits of a question that the young ruler was also grieved (2) at the idea of
losing heaven. There had opened upon his mind some of the difficulty which there
always is in the attainment of everything which is really worth having. The eternal life,
which his ardent feelings had pictured to him as something easy and near at hand,
seemed to retire back from him behind the mountains of self-sacrifice which Christ laid
across his path. (3) Part of his sorrow was the discovery which he was making at that
moment of his own heart. He went away most sorrowful of all in the wretched sense he
had of his own guilty hesitation and his own inexcusable weakness.
II. The heaviness, then, of that man’s heart was, we believe, yet in the main a right
heaviness. At least, there was some grace in it. Can we believe that ever any one on

158. whom Jesus once looked lovingly finally perished? No; rather we confidently trust and
hope that ere long that discipline to which Christ subjected his soul wrought its own
purifying work, and that, weighing in truer balances, he learnt what is the real secret of
power—to count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus
his Lord.
III. In every state of life the characteristic of a Christian is self-renunciation. Always lean
towards the position that your Master took, and which your Master taught in this world.
Always, in everything, cultivate simplicity; always combat selfishness; be always
increasing your charities; be always loosening yourself from the things of sense and
time; and be always sitting, free to follow Christ whenever He shall lead you up to a
higher walk.
J. Vaughan, Fifty Sermons, 7th series, p. 20.
HE RY, "(2.) See how he was discovered. This touched him in a tender part (Mat_
19:22); When he heard that saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great
possessions.
[1.] He was a rich man, and loved his riches, and therefore went away. He did not like
eternal life upon these terms. Note, First, Those who have much in the world are in the
greatest temptation to love it, and to set their hearts upon it. Such is the bewitching
nature of worldly wealth, that those who want it least desire most; when riches increase,
then is the danger of setting the heart upon them, Psa_62:10. If he had had but two
mites in all the world, and had been commanded to give them to the poor, or but one
handful of meal in the barrel, and a little oil in the cruse, and had been bidden to make a
cake of that for a poor prophet, the trial, one would think, had been much greater, yet
those trials have been overcome (Luk_21:4, and 1Ki_17:14); which shows that the love of
the world draws stronger than the most pressing necessities. Secondly, The reigning love
of this world keeps many from Christ, who seem to have some good desires toward him.
A great estate, as to those who are got above it, is a great furtherance, so to those who
are entangled in the love of it, it is a great hindrance, in the way to heaven.
Yet something of honesty there was in it, that, when he did not like the terms, he went
away, and would not pretend to that, which he could not find in his heart to come up to
the strictness of; better so than do as Demas did, who, having known the way of
righteousness, afterward turned aside, out of love to this present world, to the greater
scandal of his profession; since he could not be a complete Christian, he would not be a
hypocrite.
[2.] Yet he was a thinking man, and well-inclined, and therefore went away
sorrowful. He had a leaning toward Christ, and was loth to part with him. Note, Many a
one is ruined by the sin he commits with reluctance; leaves Christ sorrowfully, and yet is
never truly sorry for leaving him, for, if he were, he would return to him. Thus this man's
wealth was vexation of spirit to him, then when it was his temptation. What then would
the sorrow be afterward, when his possessions would be gone, and all hopes of eternal
life gone too?
JAMISO , "
CALVI , "Matthew 19:22.He went away sorrowful. The result at length showed
how widely distant the young man was from that perfection to which Christ had
called him; for how comes it that he withdraws from the school of Christ, but

159. because he finds it uneasy to be stripped of his riches? But if we are not prepared to
endure poverty, it is manifest that covetousness reigns in us. And this is what I said
at the outset, that the order which Christ gave, to sell all that he had, was not an
addition to the law, but the scrutiny of a concealed vice. (629) For the more deeply a
man is tainted by this or the other vice, the more strikingly will it be dragged forth
to light by being reproved. We are reminded also by this example that, if we would
persevere steadily in the school of Christ, we must renounce the flesh. This young
man, who had brought both a desire to learn and modesty, withdrew from Christ,
because it was hard to part with a darling vice. The same thing will happen to us,
unless the sweetness of the grace of Christ render all the allurements of the flesh
distasteful to us. Whether or not this temptation was temporary, so that the young
man afterwards repented, we know not; but it may be conjectured with probability,
that his covetousness kept him back from making any proficiency.
ELLICOTT, "(22) He went away sorrowful.—St. Mark adds “sad,” i.e., frowning,
or as with a look that lowered. The word is the same as that used of the sky in Mark
16:3. The discipline so far did its work. It made the man conscious of his weakness.
He shrank from the one test which would really have led him to the heights of
holiness at which he aimed. Yet the sorrow, though it was a sign of the weakness of
one whose heart was not yet whole with God, was not without an element of hope. A
mere worldling would have smiled with cynical contempt, as the Pharisees did when
they heard words of a like tendency (Luke 16:14). Here there was at least a conflict.
On the common view, that we can know nothing more of the questioner, it might
seem as if the failure was final. On that which has been suggested here, we may
believe that the Lord, who “loved” the seeker after eternal life in spite of this inward
weakness, did not leave him to himself. The sickness, the death, the resurrection of
Lazarus, may have been the discipline which proved that the things that are
impossible with men are possible with God. We are at least not hindered by any
chronological difficulty from placing those events after the dialogue with the young
ruler.
COFFMA , "This is an unhappy ending of a very interesting and exciting story,
especially if it is supposed that the young man continued in his rejection of the
Christ. The sorrowful countenance indicated the struggle going on in his heart; his
going away from the Lord shows what his final decision was. Projecting the life of
this young man, as it probably developed, into the historical period following his
interview with Jesus, reveals some intriguing possibilities. If he continued in
covetous rejection of Jesus, and if he lived to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
by the soldiers of Titus and Vespasian, there is every possibility that his wealth and
all his posterity perished in that awful siege, described in such horrible detail by
Josephus (see on Matthew 24:21). Whether such was true or not, it would have been
far better for that young man to have sold all, given it to the poor, and followed
Jesus. Christ knew literally what was best for him. It will be recalled that no
Christian lost his life in the siege. It is also true that Christ knows what is best for
every man, for you and for me, and that one stands against his own temporal and
eternal interests when he departs from following Jesus.

160. BROADUS, "Matthew 19:22. He went away sorrowful Mark prefixes 'his
countenance fell,' he looked gloomy,' dark-faced; compare a similar expression in
Luke 24:17 (correct text). It was a painful disappointment; his eager longing and
hope gave way to gloom—he could not give up his great possessions. Among all
nations, but especially among the Jewish higher classes, the idea of falling from
great wealth to utter poverty would be extremely painful. He went away, and
appears no more in the history. One would incline to the hopeful persuasion that he
afterwards became a true Christian, since Jesus loved him. But the story ends very
sadly. And its lesson applies very closely to many whose, possessions' are by no
means 'great.'
PETT, "At these words the young man was stopped short in his tracks. Up to this point he had
been convinced that he would do anything that Jesus suggested. But he had not expected this. It
was unfair. Jesus wanted him to take the commandments literally! He actually wanted him to do
what they said (compare Matthew 7:21-27). But he knew that he could not forego his riches. And
he now also knew that he could not follow Jesus while being unwilling to yield up his riches. (And
he also knew that he had not after all kept all the commandments). So he was now at an impasse.
And he went away sorrowfully. And Jesus let him go. For He knew that until the hold that the
riches had on his heart had been broken that young man could never receive eternal life. He could
never come responsively like a little child to Jesus. We may perhaps note that this young man
was the first person we know of who actually openly rejected Jesus call to ‘follow Me’ (but
compare Matthew 8:18-22). Soon almost the whole of Jerusalem (in contrast with the pilgrims)
would do the same.
The growth in the idea of ‘following’ Jesus in Matthew is interesting, and in fact Matthew has two
concepts of following. The first is the following that demands everything. The four brothers left
their nets and their boats and followed Him (Matthew 4:18-22). The unknown Scribe was
reminded that following Him would involve having nowhere to lay his head (Matthew 8:19-20).
Another disciple was warned that he must immediately leave all the affairs of home behind to
follow Him (Matthew 8:21-22). Matthew was called on to instantly leave all his business interests
behind (Matthew 9:9). See also the ex-blind men in Matthew 20:34; and the women in Matthew
27:55. Indeed all who would be His disciples must take up their cross and follow Him (Matthew
10:38; Matthew 16:24). In each case this was to leave all and follow Him (Matthew 19:27). So this
young man was being called on to follow in a goodly line. In contrast are those who follow
because they want to learn and want to be healed, some of whom would continue to follow while
others turned back (Matthew 4:25; Matthew 8:1; Matthew 8:10; Matthew 9:27; Matthew 12:15;
Matthew 14:13; Matthew 19:2; Matthew 20:29, compare John 2:23-25; John 6:66). So in a sense
the young man was not the first to turn back, simply the first who did it so blatantly, not
recognising the crisis point at which the call had come to him.
It is often customary at this point to explain why this only applied to the rich young man. And in a
sense it does, for each of us have our own idols that have to be dealt with. But we make a
mistake if we think that Jesus’ demands are any less on us. For in the end it is only as, like a little
child, we relinquish all that we have and come humbly to Him that we too can find life. That we too
can be ‘saved’. We may do it in different ways. We may not understand all that is involved. But if
there is some particular thing that has a hold over our lives then we can be sure that we cannot
come like a little child to receive salvation until we are willing for that thing to be dealt with. We
cannot bargain with Jesus. We cannot make a trade with Him. We must come just as we are
leaving everything else behind. What He offers us is free, but it costs everything, even though we
may not consciously be called on to relinquish it all at once. In this young man’s case we must
remember that a crisis decision was necessary, for Jesus was on His way to Jerusalem, and He
knew what lay ahead. Thus for the young man it was in a sense ‘now or never’. Never again could
he be given this unique opportunity. When we are moved to seek God we should beware. It could
be our last special opportunity too.

161. 23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell
you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the
kingdom of heaven.
BAR ES, "A rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven - Shall
with difficulty be saved.
He has much to struggle with, and it will require the greatest of human efforts to break
away from his temptations and idols. and to secure his salvation. Compare the notes at
1Ti_6:9-10.
CLARKE, "A rich man shall hardly enter - That is, into the spirit and privileges
of the Gospel in this world, and through them into the kingdom of glory. Earthly riches
are a great obstacle to salvation; because it is almost impossible to possess them, and not
to set the heart upon them; and they who love the world have not the love of the Father
in them. 1Jo_2:15. To be rich, therefore, is in general a great misfortune: but what rich
man can be convinced of this? It is only God himself who, by a miracle of mercy, can do
this. Christ himself affirms the difficulty of the salvation of a rich man, with an oath,
verily; but who of the rich either hears or believes him!
GILL, "Then said Jesus unto his disciples..... When the young man was gone;
taking this opportunity to make some proper observations for the use and instruction of
his disciples, after, as Mark observes, he had "looked round about"; with concern, and in
order to affect their minds with this incident, and to raise their attention to what he was
about to say:
verily I say unto you, that a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of
heaven: either into the Gospel dispensation, and receive the truths, and submit to the
ordinances of it, or into the kingdom of glory hereafter; not but that there have been,
are, and will be, some that are rich, called by grace, brought into a Gospel church state,
and are heirs of the kingdom of heaven; though these are but comparatively few: nor is it
riches themselves that make the entrance so difficult, and clog the way, either into grace
or glory, but putting trust and confidence in them; and therefore in Mark, they "that
have riches", are by Christ explained of such, that "trust in riches"; and which rich men
in common are very apt to do, as this young man did, against which the apostle cautions,
1Ti_6:17

162. HE RY, "We have here Christ's discourse with his disciples upon occasion of the
rich man's breaking with Christ.
I. Christ took occasion from thence to show the difficulty of the salvation of the rich
people, Mat_19:23-26.
1. That it is a very hard thing for a rich man to get to heaven, such a rich man as this
here. Note, From the harms and falls of others it is good for us to infer that which will be
of caution to us.
Now, (1.) This is vehemently asserted by our Saviour, Mat_19:23, Mat_19:24. He said
this to his disciples, who were poor, and had but little in the world, to reconcile them to
their condition with this, that the less they had of worldly wealth, the less hindrance they
had in the way to heaven. Note, It should be a satisfaction to them who are in a low
condition, that they are not exposed to the temptations of a high and prosperous
condition: If they live more hardy in this world than the rich, yet, if withal they get more
easily to a better world, they have no reason to complain. This saying is ratified, Mat_
19:23. Verily I say unto you. He that has reason to know what the way to heaven is, for
he has laid it open, he tells us that this is one of the greatest difficulties in that way. It is
repeated, Mat_19:24. Again I say unto you. Thus he speaks once, yea, twice that which
man is loth to perceive and more loth to believe.
[1.] He saith that it is a hard thing for a rich man to be a good Christian, and to be saved;
to enter into the kingdom of heaven, either here or hereafter. The way to heaven is to all
a narrow way, and the gate that leads into it, a strait gate; but it is particularly so to rich
people. More duties are expected from them than from others, which they can hardly do;
and more sins do easily beset them, which they can hardly avoid. Rich people have great
temptations to resist, and such as are very insinuating; it is hard not to be charmed with
a smiling world; very hard, when we are filled with these hid treasures, not to take up
with them for a portion. Rich people have a great account to make up for their estates,
their interest, their time, and their opportunities of doing and getting good, above
others. It must be a great measure of divine grace that will enable a man to break
through these difficulties.
JAMISO , "
CALVI , "Matthew 19:23.A rich man will with difficulty enter. Christ warns them,
not only how dangerous and how deadly a plague avarice is, but also how great an
obstacle is presented by riches. In Mark, indeed, he mitigates the harshness of his
expression, by restricting it to those only who place confidence in riches But these
words are, I think, intended to confirm, rather than correct, the former statement,
as if he had affirmed that they ought not to think it strange, that he made the
entrance into the kingdom of heaven so difficult for the rich, because it is an evil
almost common to all to trust in their riches Yet this doctrine is highly useful to all;
to the rich, that, being warned of their danger, they may be on their guard; to the
poor, that, satisfied with their lot, they may not so eagerly desire what would bring
more damage than gain. It is true indeed, that riches do not, in their own nature,
hinder us from following God; but, in consequence of the depravity of the human
mind, it is scarcely possible for those who have a great abundance to avoid being
intoxicated by them. So they who are exceedingly rich are held by Satan bound, as it
were, in chains, that they may not raise their thoughts to heaven; nay more, they
bury and entangle themselves, and became utter slaves to the earth. The comparison
of the camel. , which is soon after added, is intended to amplify the difficulty; for it
means that the rich are so swelled with pride and presumption, that they cannot

163. endure to be reduced to the straits through which God makes his people to pass. The
word camel denotes, I think, a rope used by sailors, rather than the animal so
named. (633)
ELLICOTT, "(23) Shall hardly enter.—The Greek adverb is somewhat stronger
than the colloquial meaning of the English. Literally, shall not easily enter. The
words imply not so much the mere difficulty as the painfulness of the process. Here,
as elsewhere, the “kingdom of heaven” is not the state of happiness after death, but
the spiritual life and the society of those in whom it is realised even upon earth. Into
that kingdom those only can enter who become as little children, as in other things,
so in their unconsciousness of the cares of wealth.
COFFMA , "Why, then, do we all strive to be rich? Is it that we desire to impede
our soul's entry into the kingdom of God? Do people really wish to do it the hard
way? Then let them get rich. That will provide an acid test that most people cannot
pass. o wonder an apostle warned against ambition in that quarter (1 Timothy
6:9,10), and that Jesus taught people to seek his kingdom "first"! (Matthew 6:33).
The rich are not hopeless. Christ did not say they cannot be saved, only that it is
"hard" for them to enter.
BROADUS, "Verse 23
Matthew 19:23 to Matthew 20:16.
Hard For The Rich To Be Saved. Reward Of Sacrifices For Christ's Sake
This section, except the parable, is found also in Mark 10:23-31, Luke 18:24-30. In
both it is immediately connected as here with the story of the young ruler. Luke tells
us, 'And Jesus seeing him said'; Mark, 'Jesus looked round about, and said' While
the young man walked gloomily away, Jesus looked at him and at his disciples, and
spoke to them the great lessons which follow. The section divides itself into Luke
18:23-26, Luke 18:27-30, and Matthew 20:1-16.
I. Matthew 19:23-26. Hard For The Rich To Be Saved
Mark 10:23-27, Luke 18:24-27. Verily I say unto you, calling special attention, see
on "Matthew 5:18". A rich man shall hardly enter. It is hard for a rich man (Rev.
Ver.), was the rendering of Tyndale and followers. The Com. Ver. though more
literal, would now suggest improbability rather than difficulty. The Jews inclined to
think it much easier for a rich man than for a poor man. The former had in his very
prosperity a proof of the divine favour; he was prima facie a good man, and might
feel very hopeful about entering the kingdom. Our Lord had not long before this
spoken a parable, (Luke 16:19) in which, contrary to what all Jews would have
expected the beggar Lazarus went to Abraham's bosom, and the rich man to
torment. Much earlier (comp on Matthew 5:3) he had shown that the kingdom of
heaven belongs to the poor, if they have the corresponding poverty in spirit.
Kingdom of heaven, see on "Matthew 3:2". He was far from meaning, that all poor
men will be saved, and all rich men lost; for Lazarus was carried to the bosom of
Abraham, who in life was very rich, as were also Isaac and Jacob and Joseph, David

164. and Solomon, icodemus and Joseph of Arimathea, and apparently the family of
Bethany. On the perils of riches, compare Matthew 13:22, 1 Timothy 6:9 f. The
expression in Com. text of Mark 10:24, 'for them that trust in riches,' must be
omitted.(1) This strong statement our Lord now repeats (v. 34), in a hyperbolical
form such as he so often employed to awaken attention and compel remembrance.
(See on "Matthew 5:39".) It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle.
So also Mark and Luke. The camel was the largest beast familiar to the Jews, and
the needle's eye was the smallest opening in any familiar object. So the expression
denotes an impossibility, and it was so understood by the disciples and so treated by
Jesus just after. (Matthew 19:26) A little later, (Matthew 23:24) our Lord will again
use the camel as the largest beast in another hyperbolical expression, "who strain
out the gnat and swallow the cabin the Talmud, for an elephant to go through a
needle's eye is several times employed as an expression of impossibility, the Jews in
foreign countries having now become familiar with an animal even larger than the
camel. Our Lord may have been using a proverb (compare on Matthew 7:3), but
there is no proof that such a saying was current in his time. The (Sura VII, 88)
borrows, as it often does, the saying of Jesus: "Those who say our signs are lies and
are too big with pride for them, for these the doors of heaven shall not be open, and
they shall not enter into Paradise until a camel shall pass into a needle's eye." The
notion that the word means a cable, found in Cyril on Luke, and in a scholium
ascribed to Origen (Tisch.), and mentioned by Theophyl. and Euthym. as held by
"some," was merely an attempt to soften the incongruity of the image; and the
statement of the late lexicographer Suidas and a scholium on Aristophanes that
kamelos is the animal, kamilos a thick cable, probably arose from that attempt.
(Liddell and Scott.) The Memph., Latin, and Pesh. versions give camel. Origen
understands the camel, and takes the phrase as a figure for the impossible; so
Chrys. and followers. Jerome explains likewise, but adds that as Isaiah declares
(Isaiah 60:6) that the camels of Midian and Ephah come to Jerusalem with gifts, and
though curved and distorted they enter the gates of Jerusalem, so the rich can enter
the narrow gate by laying aside their burden of sins and all their bodily deformityâ
€”which is only his loose allegorizing upon a point not brought into view by the
Saviour. A gloss to Anselm (A. D. 1033-1109), given in Aquinas, says that "at
Jerusalem there was a certain gate called the eedle's Eye, through which a camel
could not pass, save on its bended knees and after its burden had been taken off;
and so the rich," etc. This is to all appearance a conjecture suggested by Jerome's
allegorizing remark. Lord ugent many years ago (quoted in Morison, from Kitto)
heard at Hebron a narrow entrance for foot-passengers, by the side of the larger
gate, called "the eye of a needle." Fish (p. 165), speaking of the Jaffa gate at
Jerusalem, says: "There is here a small gate in the large one, bearing the name
eedle's Eye. My dragoman informed me of this, and said it had always been so
called. I afterwards inquired of a Christian Jew, for thirty years a resident in
Jerusalem, who verified the statement, and farther said that any little gate like that,
in a large one, in both Palestine and Egypt, was called a needle's eye (a fact which I
have since ascertained from other sources)." So far as this usage really exists, it
probably arose from the saying in the ew Testament, the Talmud and the Koran,
together with Jerome's allegorizing remark. It is perfectly evident that Jesus was
understood, and meant to be understood, as stating an impossibility; and as to the

165. incongruity of the image, it is no greater than that of Matthew 23:24, and employed
an animal as familiar to his hearers as the horse is to us.
PETT, "As the young man walks away Jesus recognises the conflict that is taking place in his
mind, and then turns to His disciples and says sadly, “It is hard for a rich man to enter into the
Kingly Rule of Heaven.” The reason behind His statement is quite clear from the young man’s
dilemma. Riches prevent a man from being willing to follow fully in His ways. And the implication
of it is that if a man would enter the Kingly Rule of Heaven he must first deal with the question of
his riches. For to be under the Kingly Rule of Heaven means that all his riches must be at God’s
disposal. And for a rich man that is very hard.
Here was one who could have become ‘a son of the Kingly Rule of Heaven’ (Matthew 13:38) but
he had turned away from it. Some see ‘the Kingly Rule of Heaven’ here in Matthew 19:23 as
signifying the eternal kingly rule beyond the grave. (It cannot mean a millennial kingdom, for rich
men will not find it hard to enter that). But Jesus has made abundantly clear that the Kingly Rule of
Heaven has in fact ‘drawn near’ (Matthew 4:17), and that it is among them (Luke 17:21) and has
‘come upon them’ (Matthew 12:28), and is therefore there for all who will respond to it. And the
impression given here is surely that the young man has been faced with that choice and has failed
to take his opportunity. For the Kingly Rule of Heaven is not a place, it is a sphere of Kingly Rule,
and a sphere of submission which is past, present and future.
That the Kingly Rule of Heaven, which initially was intended to result from the Exodus (Exodus
19:6; Exodus 20:1-18; Numbers 23:21; Deuteronomy 33:5; 1 Samuel 8:7), has in one sense
always been open to man’s response comes out in the Psalms and is especially emphasised in
Isaiah 6 (see Psalms 22:28; Psalms 103:19; Psalms 93:1; Psalms 97:1; Psalms 99:1; Isaiah 6:1-
11). That it is now present among men in a unique way is made clear in Matthew 11:12; Matthew
12:28; Matthew 13:38; Luke 17:21. That it will be taken out and offered to the world is made clear
in Acts 8:12, where it parallels taking out the name of Jesus; Acts 19:8, where it parallels the
proclamation of ‘The Way’; Acts 20:25; Acts 28:23; Acts 28:28 where it refers to ‘the things
concerning the Lord Jesus’. Paul would have had no reason for trying to persuade and teach the
Jews about something that they believed in wholeheartedly, the future Kingly Rule of God. What
he was seeking to bring home to them was that the Kingly Rule of God was now open to them in
Jesus. Compare also how he will say in his letters that ‘the Kingly Rule of God is not eating and
drinking, but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit’ (Romans 14:17) and that we
(believers) have been ‘transported into the Kingly Rule of His beloved Son’ (Colossians 1:13). To
Paul as to Jesus the Kingly Rule of Heaven (God) was both present and future, present in
experience and future in full manifestation. It can thus be entered now,
PETT, "Verses 23-26
The Basis Of The New Kingly Rule - The Impossibility Of Salvation Without God Being At Work
(19:23-26).
In Matthew 5:3-6 it was those who had been ‘blessed’ by God who were poor in spirit, repentant,
meek, and hungry after righteousness. In Matthew 11:6 it was those who had been ‘blessed’ by
God who would not be caused to stumble at the way in which Jesus was carrying out His work as
the Messiah. In Matthew 11:25-26 it was the Father, Lord of Heaven and earth, who had hidden
things from the wise and prudent and had revealed them to ‘babes’. In Matthew 13:16 it was
because the disciples had been ‘blessed’ by God that they saw and heard. In Matthew 16:17 it
was because he had been ‘blessed’ by God that Peter had recognised Jesus’ Messiahship. Now
we learn that it is only those who have been so blessed by God who can be saved. In the end,
therefore, the reason that the young man had gone away was because he was not one of those
‘blessed by God’. For without that it is impossible for a man to be saved. This is a constant theme
of Jesus, and of Matthew. No man can come to Him except it be given him by the Father, that is,
unless the Father draws him (John 6:37; John 6:39; John 6:44). For it is those who have been
blessed by God who believe and who consequently have eternal life (John 6:40).
Analysis.

166. a Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I say to you, It is hard for a rich man to enter into the Kingly
Rule of Heaven” (Matthew 19:23).
b “And again I say to you, “It is easier for a camel to go through a needle’s eye, than for a rich
man to enter into the Kingly Rule of God” (Matthew 19:24).
c And when the disciples heard it, they were greatly astonished, saying, “Who then can be
saved?” (Matthew 19:25).
b And Jesus looking on them said to them, “With men this is impossible” (Matthew 19:26 a).
a “But with God all things are possible” (Matthew 19:26 b).
Note that in ‘a’ we have described for us how hard it is for a rich man to enter the Kingly Rule of
Heaven and in the parallel we are informed that all things are possible with God. In ‘b’ the
impossibility of a rich man entering the Kingly Rule of God is described, and in the parallel Jesus
confirms that it is indeed impossible for men. Centrally in ‘c’ comes the question ‘who then can be
saved’. And the answer is clearly ‘all whom God chooses to save’.
EBC 23-26, "DANGER OF RICHES. (Mat_19:23-26)
So striking an incident must not be allowed to pass without seizing and pressing the
great lesson it teaches. No lesson was more needful at the time. Covetousness was in the
air; it was already setting its mark on the Hebrew people, who, as they ceased to serve
God in spirit and in truth, were giving themselves over more and more to the worship of
mammon; and, as the Master well knew, there was one of the twelve in whom the fatal
poison was even then at work. We can understand, therefore, the deep feeling which
Christ throws into His warning against this danger, and His special anxiety to guard all
His disciples against an over-estimate of this world’s riches.
We shall not, however, fully enter into the mind of our Lord, if we fail to notice the tone
of compassion and charity which marks His first utterance. He is still thinking kindly of
the poor rich young man, and is anxious to make all allowance for him. It is as if He said,
"See that you do not judge him too harshly; think how hard it is for such as he to enter
the kingdom." This will explain how it is that in repeating the statement He found it
desirable, as recorded by St. Mark, to introduce a qualification in order to render it
applicable to all cases: "How hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the
kingdom!" But while softening it in one direction, He puts it still more strongly in
another: "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." We shall not enter into the trivial
discussion as to the needle’s eye; it is enough to know that it was a proverbial phrase,
probably in common use, expressing in the strongest way the insurmountable obstacle
which the possession of riches, when these are trusted in and so put in place of God,
must prove to their unfortunate owner.
The disciples’ alarm expressed in the question "Who, then, can be saved?" does them
much credit. It shows that they had penetration enough to see that the danger against
which their Master was guarding them did not beset the rich alone; that they had
sufficient knowledge of themselves to perceive that even such as they, who had always
been poor, and who had given up what little they had for their Master’s sake, might
nevertheless not be free enough from the well-nigh universal sin to be themselves quite
safe. One cannot help thinking that the searching look, which St. Mark tells us their Lord
bent on them as He spoke, had something to do with this unusual quickness of
conscience. It reminds us of that later scene, when each one asked, "Lord, is it I?" Is
there any one of us, who, when that all-seeing Eye is fixed upon us, with its pure and
holy gaze into the depths of our being, can fail to ask, with the conscience-stricken
disciples, "Who, then, can be saved?"
The answer He gives does not at all lighten the pressure on the conscience. There is no

167. recalling of the strong words which suggest the idea of utter impossibility. He does not
say, "You are judging yourselves too strictly"; on the contrary, He confirms their
judgment, and tells them that there they are right: "With men this is impossible"; but is
there not another alternative? "Who art thou, O great mountain? before Zerubbabel thou
shalt become a plain; With God all things are possible." A most significant utterance this
for those to ponder who, instead of following our Lord’s dealing with this case to its
close, treat it as if the final word had been "If thou will enter into life, keep the
commandments." This favourite passage of the legalists is the one of all others which
most completely overthrows his hopes, and shows that so deep are the roots of sin in the
heart of man, even of the most amiable and most exemplary, that none can be saved
except by the power of divine grace overcoming that which is to men an impossibility.
"Behold, GOD is my salvation."
It is worthy of note that it is as a hindrance to entering the kingdom that riches are here
stigmatized, which suggests the thought that the danger is not nearly so great when
riches increase to those who have already entered. Not that there is even for them no
serious danger, nor need of watching and of prayer that as they increase, the heart be not
set upon them; but where there is true consecration of heart the consecration of wealth
follows as a natural and easy consequence. Riches are a responsibility to those that are in
the kingdom; they are a misfortune only to those who have not entered it.
As on the question of marriage or celibacy, so on that of property or poverty, the
Romanist has pushed our Lord’s words to an extreme which is evidently not intended. It
was plain even to the disciples that it was not the mere possession of riches, but the
setting the heart on them, which He condemned. If our Lord had intended to set forth
the absolute renunciation of property as a counsel of perfection to His disciples, this
would have been the time to do it; but we look in vain for any such counsel. He saw it to
be necessary for that young man; but when He applies the case to disciples in general,
He does not say "If any man will come after Me, let him sell all that he has, and give to
the poor," but contents Himself with giving a very strong warning against the danger of
riches coming between man and the kingdom of God. But while the ascetic
interpretation of our Lord’s words is manifestly wrong, the other extreme of reducing
them to nothing is far worse, which is the danger now.
BARCLAY 23-26, "THE PERIL OF RICHES (Matthew 19:23-26)
19:23-26 Jesus said to the disciples, "This is the truth I tell you--it is with difficulty that a
rich man shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. Again I say unto you--it is easier for a
camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom
of Heaven." When the disciples heard this, they were exceedingly astonished. "What rich
man, then," they said, "can be saved?" Jesus looked at them, "With men," he said, "this is
impossible, but with God all things are possible."
The case of the Rich Young Ruler shed a vivid and a tragic light on the danger of riches;
here was a man who had made the great refusal because he had great possessions. Jesus
now goes on to underline that danger. "It is difficult," he said, "for a rich man to enter
into the Kingdom of Heaven."
To illustrate how difficult that was he used a vivid simile. He said that it was as difficult
for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven as it was for a camel to pass through the

168. eye of a needle. Different interpretations have been given of the picture which Jesus was
drawing.
The camel was the largest animal which the Jews knew. It is said that sometimes in
walled cities there were two gates. There was the great main gate through which all trade
and traffic moved. Beside it there was often a little low and narrow gate. When the great
main gate was locked and guarded at night, the only way into the city was through the
little gate, through which even a man could hardly pass erect. It is said that sometimes
that little gate was called "The Needle's Eye." So it is suggested that Jesus was saying
that it was just as difficult for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven as for a huge
camel to get through the little gate through which a man can hardly pass.
There is another, and very attractive, suggestion. The Greek word for camel is kamelos
(Greek #2574); the Greek word for a ship's hawser is kamilos. It was characteristic of
later Greek that the vowel sounds tended to lose their sharp distinctions and to
approximate to each other. In such Greek there would be hardly any discernible
difference between the sound of "i" and "e"; they would both be pronounced as ee is in
English. So, then, what Jesus may have said is that it was just as difficult for a rich man
to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven as it would be to thread a darning-needle with a
ship's cable or hawser. That indeed is a vivid picture.
But the likelihood is that Jesus was using the picture quite literally, and that he was
actually saying that it was as hard for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven as it
was for a camel to go through the eye of a needle. Wherein then lies this difficulty?
Riches have three main effects on a man's outlook.
(i) Riches encourage a false independence. If a man is well-supplied with this world's
goods, he is very apt to think that he can well deal with any situation which may arise.
There is a vivid instance of this in the letter to the Church of Laodicaea in the Revelation.
Laodicaea was the richest town in Asia Minor. She was laid waste by an earthquake in
A.D. 60. The Roman government offered aid and a large grant of money to repair her
shattered buildings. She refused it, saying that she was well able to handle the situation
by herself. "Laodicaea," said Tacitus, the Roman historian, "rose from the ruins entirely
by her own resources and with no help from us." The Risen Christ hears Laodicaea say,
"I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing" (Revelation 3:17).
It was Walpole who coined the cynical epigram that every man has his price. If a man is
wealthy he is apt to think that everything has its price, that if he wants a thing enough he
can buy it, that if any difficult situation descends upon him he can buy his way out of it.
He can come to think that he can buy his way into happiness and buy his way out of
sorrow. So he comes to think that he can well do without God and is quite able to handle
life by himself. There comes a time when a man discovers that that is an illusion, that
there are things which money cannot buy, and things from which money cannot save
him. But always there is the danger that great possessions encourage that false

169. independence which thinks--until it learns better--that it has eliminated the need for
God.
(ii) Riches shackle a man to this earth. "Where your treasure is," said Jesus, "there will
your heart be also" (Matthew 6:21). If everything a man desires is contained within this
world, if all his interests are here, he never thinks of another world and of a hereafter. If
a man has too big a stake on earth, he is very apt to forget that there is a heaven. After a
tour of a certain wealthy and luxurious castle and estate, Dr. Johnson grimly remarked:
"These are the things which make it difficult to die." It is perfectly possible for a man to
be so interested in earthly things that he forgets heavenly things, to be so involved in the
things that are seen that he forgets the things that are unseen--and therein lies tragedy,
for the things which are seen are temporal but the things which are unseen are eternal.
(iii) Riches tend to make a man selfish. However much a man has, it is human for him to
want still more, for, as it has been epigrammatically said, "Enough is always a little more
than a man has." Further, once a man has possessed comfort and luxury, he always tends
to fear the day when he may lose them. Life becomes a strenuous and worried struggle to
retain the things he has. The result is that when a man becomes wealthy, instead of
having the impulse to give things away, he very often has the impulse to cling on to
them. His instinct is to amass more and more for the sake of the safety and the security
which he thinks they will bring. The danger of riches is that they tend to make a man
forget that he loses what he keeps, and gains what he gives away.
But Jesus did not say that it was impossible for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of
Heaven. Zacchaeus was one of the richest men in Jericho, yet, all unexpectedly, he found
the way in (Luke 19:9). Joseph of Arimathaea was a rich man (Matthew 27:57);
Nicodemus must have been very wealthy, for he brought spices to anoint the dead body
of Jesus, which were worth a king's ransom (John 19:39). It is not that those who have
riches are shut out. It is not that riches are a sin--but they are a danger. The basis of all
Christianity is an imperious sense of need; when a man has many things on earth, he is
in danger of thinking that he does not need God; when a man has few things on earth, he
is often driven to God because he has nowhere else to go.
24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go
through the eye of a needle than for someone who
is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

170. BAR ES, "It is easier for a camel ... - This was a proverb in common use among
the Jews, and is still common among the Arabians.
To denote that a thing was impossible or exceedingly difficult, they said that a camel
or an elephant might as soon walk through a needle’s eye. In the use of such proverbs it
is not necessary to understand them literally. They merely denote the extreme difficulty
of the case.
A camel - A beast of burden much used in Eastern countries. It is about the size of
the largest ox, with one or two bunches on his back, with long neck and legs, no horns,
and with feet adapted to the hot and dry sand. They are capable of carrying heavy
burdens, will travel sometimes faster than the fleetest horse, and are provided with a
stomach which they fill with water, by means of which I they can live four or five days
without drink. They are very mild and tame, and kneel down to receive and unload their
burden. They are chiefly used in deserts and hot climates, where other beasts of burden
are with difficulty kept alive.
A rich man - This rather means one who loves his riches and makes an idol of them,
or one who supremely desires to be rich. Mark says Mar_10:24 “How hard is it for them
that trust in riches.” While a man has this feeling - relying on his wealth alone - it is
literally impossible that he should be a Christian; for religion is a love of God rather than
the world - the love of Jesus and his cause more than gold. Still a man may have much
property, and not have this feeling. He may have great wealth, and love God more; as a
poor man may have little, and love that little more than God. The difficulties in the way
of the salvation of a rich man are:
1. That riches engross the affections.
2. That people consider wealth as the chief good, and when this is obtained they
think they have gained all.
3. That they are proud of their wealth, and unwilling to be numbered with the poor
and despised followers of Jesus.
4. That riches engross the time, and fill the mind with cares and anxieties, and leave
little for God.
5. That they often produce luxury, dissipation, and vice. that it is difficult to obtain
wealth without sin, without avarice, without covetousness, fraud, and oppression,
1Ti_6:9-10, 1Ti_6:17; Jam_5:1-5; Luk_12:16-21; Luk_16:19-31.
Still, Jesus says Mat_19:26, all these may be overcome. God can give grace to do it.
Though to people it may appear impossible, yet it is easy for God.
CLARKE, "A camel - Instead of καµηλον, camel, six MSS. read καµιλον, cable, a
mere gloss inserted by some who did not know that the other was a proverb common
enough among the people of the east.
There is an expression similar to this in the Koran. “The impious, who in his arrogance
shall accuse our doctrine of falsity, shall find the gates of heaven shut: nor shall he enter
there till a camel shall pass through the eye of a needle. It is thus that we shall
recompense the wicked.” Al Koran. Surat vii. ver. 37.

171. It was also a mode of expression common among the Jews, and signified a thing
impossible. Hence this proverb: A camel in Media dances in a cabe; a measure which
held about three pints. Again, No man sees a palm tree of gold, nor an elephant passing
through the eye of a needle. Because these are impossible things. “Rabbi Shesheth
answered Rabbi Amram, who had advanced an absurdity, Perhaps thou art one of the
Pembidithians who can make an elephant pass through the eye of a needle; that is, says
the Aruch, ‘who speak things impossible.’” See Lightfoot and Schoettgen on this place.
Go through - But instead of διελθειν, about eighty MSS. with several versions and
fathers, have εισελθειν, to enter in; but the difference is of little importance in an English
translation, though of some consequence to the elegance of the Greek text.
GILL, "And again I say unto you,.... After the apostles had discovered their
astonishment at the above expression, about the difficulty of a rich man entering into the
kingdom of heaven; when they expected that, in a short time, all the rich and great men
of the nation would espouse the interest of the Messiah, and acknowledge him as a
temporal king, and add to the grandeur of his state and kingdom; and after he had in a
mild and gentle manner, calling them "children", explained himself of such, that trusted
in uncertain riches, served mammon, made these their gods, and placed their hope and
happiness in them; in order to strengthen and confirm what he had before asserted, and
to assure, in the strongest manner, the very great difficulty, and seeming impossibility,
of rich men becoming followers of Christ here, or companions with him hereafter, he
expresses himself in this proverbial way:
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: thus, when the Jews would express anything that
was rare and unusual, difficult and impossible, they used a like saying with this. So
speaking of showing persons the interpretation of their dreams (g);
"Says Rabba, you know they do not show to a man a golden palm tree i.e. the
interpretation of a dream about one, which, as the gloss says, is a thing he is not used to
see, and of which he never thought, ‫דמחטא‬ ‫בקופא‬ ‫דעייל‬ ‫פילא‬ ‫,ולא‬ "nor an elephant going
through the eye of a needle".''
Again, to one that had delivered something as was thought very absurd, it is said (h);
"perhaps thou art one of Pombeditha (a school of the Jews in Babylon) ‫בקופא‬ ‫פילא‬ ‫דמעיילין‬
‫,דמחטא‬ "who make an elephant pass through the eye of a needle".''
That is, who teach such things as are equally as monstrous and absurd, and difficult of
belief. So the authors of an edition of the book of Zohar, to set forth the difficulty of the
work they engaged in, express themselves in this manner (i):
"In the name of our God, we have seen fit, ‫דמחטא‬ ‫בקופא‬ ‫פילא‬ ‫,להכניס‬ "to bring an elephant
through the eye of a needle".''
And not only among the Jews, but in other eastern nations, this proverbial way of

172. speaking was used, to signify difficulties or impossibilities. Mahomet has it in his
Alcoran (k);
"Verily, says he, they who shall charge our signs with falsehood, and shall proudly reject
them, the gates of heaven shall not be opened to them, neither shall they enter into
paradise, "until a camel pass through the eye of a needle".''
All which show, that there is no need to suppose, that by a camel is meant, not the
creature so called, but a cable rope, as some have thought; since these common proverbs
manifestly make it appear, that a creature is intended, and which aggravates the
difficulty: the reason why instead of an elephant, as used in most of the above sayings,
Christ makes mention of a camel, may be, because that might be more known in Judea,
than the other; and because the hump on its back would serve to make the thing still
more impracticable.
HE RY, "[2.] He saith that the conversion and salvation of a rich man is so
extremely difficult, that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, Mat_
19:24. This is a proverbial expression, denoting a difficulty altogether unconquerable by
the art and power of man; nothing less than the almighty grace of God will enable a rich
man to get over this difficulty. The difficulty of the salvation of apostates (Heb_6:4), and
of old sinners (Jer_13:23), is thus represented as an impossibility. The salvation of any
is so very difficult (even the righteous scarcely are saved), that, where there is a peculiar
difficulty, it is fitly set forth thus. It is very rare for a man to be rich, and not to set his
heart upon his riches; and it is utterly impossible for a man that sets his heart upon his
riches, to get to heaven; for if any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in
him, 1Jo_2:15; Jam_4:4. First, The way to heaven is very fitly compared to a needle's
eye, which is hard to hit and hard to get through. Secondly, A rich man is fitly compared
to a camel, a beast of burthen, for he has riches, as a camel has his load, he carries it, but
it is another's, he has it from others, spends it for others, and must shortly leave it to
others; it is a burthen, for men load themselves with thick clay, Hab_2:6. A camel is a
large creature, but unwieldy.
ELLICOTT, "(24) It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle.—Two
explanations have been given of the apparent hyperbole of the words. (1.) It has
been conjectured that the Evangelists wrote not κάµηλος (a camel), but κάµιλος (a
cable). ot a single MS., however, gives that reading, and the latter word, which is
not found in any classical Greek author, is supposed by the best scholars (e.g.,
Liddell and Scott) to have been invented for the sake of explaining this passage. (2.)
The fact that in some modern Syrian cities the narrow gate for foot-passengers, at
the side of the larger gate, by which wagons, camels, and other beasts of burden
enter the city, is known as the “needle’s eye,” has been assumed to have come down
from a remote antiquity, and our Lord’s words are explained as alluding to it. The
fact—to which attention was first called in Lord ugent’s Lands, Classical and
Sacred—is certainly interesting, and could the earlier use of the term in this sense be
proved, would give a certain vividness to our Lord’s imagery. It is not, however,
necessary. The Talmud gives the parallel phrase of an elephant passing through a
needle’s eye. The Koran reproduces the very words of the Gospel. There is no
reason to think that the comparison, even if it was not already proverbial, would

173. present the slightest difficulty to the minds of the disciples. Like all such
comparisons, it states a general fact, the hindrance which wealth presents to the
higher growths of holiness, in the boldest possible form, in order to emphasise its
force, and leaves out of sight the limits and modifications with which it has to be
received, and which in this instance (according to the text on which the English
version is based) were supplied immediately by our Lord Himself (Mark 10:24).
COFFMA , "All attempts to make such a thing possible must appear ridiculous in
the light of Christ's statement, a moment later, that such is "impossible" for human
beings. Only the power of God can bring a man of wealth to quit trusting in his
riches and to place his hope in God through Christ, or to possess his possessions
instead of being possessed by them. People of affluence should always remember
that only the power of the Eternal can empower them to force their wealth to
subserve the purposes of God and His kingdom.
LIGHTFOOT, "[A camel to go through the eye of a needle, &c.] A phrase used in
the schools, intimating a thing very unusual and very difficult. There, where the
discourse is concerning dreams and their interpretation, these words are added.
They do not shew a man a palm tree of gold, nor an elephant going through the eye
of a needle. The Gloss is, "A thing which he was not wont to see, nor concerning
which he ever thought."
In like manner R. Sheshith answered R. Amram, disputing with him and asserting
something that was incongruous, in these words; "Perhaps thou art one of those of
Pombeditha, who can make an elephant pass through the eye of a needle": that is, as
the Aruch interprets it, "who speak things that are impossible."
PETT, "Jesus then seeks to make the position even clearer by the use of a well known saying.
“It is easier for a camel to go through a needle’s eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingly
rule of God.” By this He is saying that it is not only hard, but will require a miracle (which is what
He then goes on to point out). There is absolutely no reason for not taking the camel and the
needle’s eye literally. The camel was the largest animal known in Palestine, the needle’s eye the
smallest hole. The whole point of the illustration lies in the impossibility of it, and the vivid and
amusing picture it presents is typical of the teaching of Jesus. Jesus no doubt had in mind the
teaching of the Scribes and Pharisees, who considered that rich men were rich because they
were pleasing to God (compare Psalms 112:3; Proverbs 10:22; Proverbs 22:4), and that through
their riches they had even more opportunity to be pleasing to God (and mocked at any other
suggestion - Luke 16:14). They taught that riches were a reward for righteousness. But Jesus
sees this as so contradictory to reality that He pictures them as by this struggling to force a camel
through the eye of a needle. In other words they are trying to bring together two things that are
incompatible. So in His eyes their teaching was claiming to do the impossible, as the example of
the rich young man demonstrated, it was seeking to make the rich godly. And the folly of this is
revealed in the fact that it is ‘the deceitfulness of riches’ which is one of the main things that
chokes the word (Matthew 13:22). In this regard the Psalmists regularly spoke of those who put
their trust in riches, and thereby did not need to rely on God (Psalms 49:6; Psalms 52:7; Psalms
62:10; Psalms 73:12; Proverbs 11:28; Proverbs 13:7). This was not to say that rich men could not
be godly. It was simply to indicate that it was unusual.
‘The Kingly Rule of God.’ It is difficult to see in context how this expression can be seen as
differing in significance from ‘the Kingly Rule of Heaven’ in Matthew 19:23, for both are indicating
a similar situation. It may simply therefore have been changed for the sake of variety. But we must
consider the fact that Matthew’s purpose here might well be in order to emphasise the contrast

174. between ‘man’ and ‘God’ in terms of the impossibility of entry. The camel cannot go through the
eye of a needle, for the two exist in different spheres sizewise, how much less then can a RICH
MAN enter into the sphere of GOD’s Kingly Rule. The idea is to be seen as almost ludicrous.
COKE, "Matthew 19:24. It is easier for a camel, &c.— Or, a cable. See Boch. tom. 1: p. 92. Vorst.
Adag. p. 14. The rendering of the original word by cable, undoubtedly coalesces more perfectly
with the other metaphor of the needle; but, as there is nothing in the proverbial expression, as it
stands in the common versions, but what is very agreeable to the Eastern taste, and may be
paralleled in other Jewish writings, there seems no great reason to depart from it. The Jews
generally made use of the phrase, An elephant cannot pass through the eye of a needle; which
our Saviour changes for a camel, an animal very common in Syria, and whose bunch on its neck
is apt to hinder its passage through any low entrance. In our Saviour's time, too, the word camel
was proverbially used to express any vast object, that being the largest animal in Palestine. Thus
we read, ch. Matthew 23:24. Strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. We may just observe, that
these strong expressions must be understood in their strictest sense, of the state of things at that
time subsisting; yet in some degree are applicable to rich men in all ages: the reason is, riches
have a woeful effect upon piety in two respects: first, in the acquisition; for, not to mention the
many frauds and other sins which men too often commit to obtain riches,—they occasion an
endless variety of cares and anxieties, which draw the affections away from God. Secondly, They
are generallyoffensive to piety in the possession; because if they be hoarded, they never fail to
beget covetousness, which is the root of all evil; and if they be enjoyed, they become strong
temptations to luxury and drunkenness, to lust, pride, and idleness. See Heylin, and Mintert on the
word Καµηλος
25 When the disciples heard this, they were
greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be
saved?”
CLARKE, "Who can be saved? - The question of the disciples seemed to intimate
that most people were rich, and that therefore scarcely any could be saved. They
certainly must have attached a different meaning to what constitutes a rich man, to what
we in general do. Who is a rich man in our Lord’s sense of the word? This is a very
important question, and has not, that I know of, been explicitly answered. A rich man, in
my opinion, is not one who has so many hundreds or thousands more than some of his
neighbors; but is one who gets more than is necessary to supply all his own wants, and
those of his household, and keeps the residue still to himself, though the poor are
starving through lack of the necessaries of life. In a word, he is a man who gets all he can,
saves all he can, and keeps all he has gotten. Speak, reason! Speak, conscience! (for God
has already spoken) Can such a person enter into the kingdom of God? All, No!!!
GILL, "When his disciples heard it..... That is, the difficulty of a rich man's
entering into the kingdom of heaven, aggravated by the above proverbial expression,

175. they were exceedingly amazed. They were surprised at his first words; but when he
confirmed them by the proverb of a camel's passing through the eye of a needle, they
were, as Mark says, "astonished out of measure": they did not imagine there was any
difficulty of rich men coming into the kingdom of the Messiah, which they took to be a
worldly one, and would be filled with rich men; for so they understood Christ; though he
meant by the kingdom of heaven a spiritual kingdom, a Gospel church state here, or the
heavenly glory, or both; but when he expressed, by the proverb, the impracticableness of
such men becoming the subjects thereof, their amazement increased;
saying, as in Mark, "among themselves", privately to one another,
who then can be saved? meaning, not with a spiritual and everlasting salvation, but a
temporal one: for upon Christ's so saying, they might reason with themselves, that if rich
men did not come into the kingdom of the Messiah, they would oppose him and his
kingdom, with all their force and strength; and then what would become of such poor
men as themselves, who would not be able to stand against them? nor could they hope to
be safe long, or enjoy any continued happiness in the expected kingdom, should this be
the case.
HE RY, "(2.) This truth is very much wondered at, and scarcely credited by the
disciples (Mat_19:25); They were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?
Many surprising truths Christ told them, which they ere astonished at, and knew not
what to make of; this was one, but their weakness was the cause of their wonder. It was
not in contradiction to Christ, but for awakening to themselves, that they said, Who then
can be saved? Note, Considering the many difficulties that are in the way of salvation, it
is really strange that any are saved. When we think how good God is, it may seem a
wonder that so few are his; but when we think how bad man is, it is more a wonder that
so many are, and Christ will be eternally admired in them. Who then can be saved?
Since so many are rich, and have great possessions, and so many more would be rich,
and are well affected to great possessions; who can be saved? If riches are a hindrance to
rich people, are not price and luxury incident to those that are not rich, and as
dangerous to them? and who then can get to heaven? This is a good reason why rich
people should strive against the stream.
JAMISO , "
CALVI , "25.And his disciples, when they heard these things, were greatly amazed.
The disciples are astonished, because it ought to awaken in us no little anxiety, that
riches obstruct the entrance into the kingdom of God; for, wherever we turn our
eyes, a thousand obstacles will present themselves. But let us observe that, while
they were struck with astonishment, they did not shrink from the doctrines of
Christ. The case was different with him who was lately mentioned; for he was so
much alarmed by the severity of the commandment, that he separated from Christ;
while they, though trembling, and inquiring, who can be saved? do not break off in
an opposite direction, but are desirous to conquer despair. Thus it will be of service
to us to tremble at the threatenings of God: whenever he denounces any thing that is
gloomy or dreadful, provided that our minds are not discouraged, but rather
aroused.

176. ELLICOTT, "(25) Who then can be saved?—There is an almost child-like naïveté
in the question thus asked by the disciples. They, whether among their own people
or among strangers, had found the desire of wealth to be the universal passion. Even
they themselves, when they had forsaken their earthly goods, had done so (as Peter’s
question showed but too plainly, Matthew 19:27) as with a far-sighted calculation.
They were counting on outward riches in that kingdom as well as outward glory.
And now they heard what seemed to them a sweeping condemnation, excluding all
who possessed, and, by implication, all who sought after, riches from the kingdom.
The feeling which thus showed itself in the disciples has, curiously enough, affected
the text of the narrative in St. Mark. What seems an explanatory and softened
statement, “How hardly shall they that trust in riches enter into the kingdom of
God!” (Mark 10:24), is not found in the best MSS. The omission may have been an
accidental error of the copyists, but it is scarcely probable; and its absence from St.
Matthew and St. Luke, not less than that it is not our Lord’s usual method to soften
or explain His teaching, leads to the conclusion that a marginal note, added by some
one who felt as the disciples felt, has here found its way into the text.
COFFMA , "McGarvey very properly pointed out that the amazement of the
disciples was intensified, not so much by the statement about a rich man's chances
of being saved, as by the evident application of this principle to such an honorable
and altogether lovable rich man as the one who had just appeared before the Lord.
It is amazing even yet, that all personal excellence cannot avail anything unless there
is a total surrender to the will of Jesus. The truth is clear. Christ will be ALL or
OTHI G in the lives of people.
PETT, "The disciples, who had been brought up to believe that the rich were prosperous
because of their piety, were also ‘greatly astonished’. After all the rich could also give generous
alms to the poor, could make abundant gifts to the Temple, could afford to offer many offerings
and sacrifices, and had the opportunity of doing so much good. And by such they made a name
for themselves (compare Matthew 6:1-2) Surely none were in a better position to please God than
the rich. So if they could not ‘be saved’ what hope was there for others?
They had similarly been greatly astonished at Jesus’ ‘new’ teaching about marriage (Matthew
19:10). They were awaking to the fact that Jesus was introducing a new world.
In context ‘being saved’ indicates ‘having eternal life’ (Matthew 19:16) and ‘entering into the Kingly
Rule of Heaven’ (Matthew 19:23). Those who ‘are saved’ enter into a sphere which will result in
eternal blessing, both in this world and the next.
BROADUS, "Matthew 19:25 f. The disciples were exceedingly amazed, for this was contrary to all
the notions in which they were reared. Since everybody believed that a rich man was shown by his
wealth to have God's favour, and could secure further favour by his beneficence, and since Jesus
has declared that it is practically impossible for a rich man to enter the Messianic kingdom, they
very naturally asked, Who then can be saved? with emphasis on 'who' and 'can.' Their idea is that
things being as the Master has stated (which is the meaning of the particle translated 'then'),
nobody can be saved. And to this he assents. As a matter of human power, no one can be saved;
but with God all things are possible, (compare Luke 1:37, Job 42:2, Genesis 18:14) and the divine
omnipotence may save even a rich man.

177. 26 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this
is impossible, but with God all things are
possible.”
CLARKE, "With men this is impossible - God alone can take the love of the
world out of the human heart. Therefore the salvation of the rich is represented as
possible only to him: and indeed the words seem to intimate, that it requires more than
common exertions of Omnipotence to save a rich man.
GILL, "But Jesus beheld them,.... Looking wishfully and earnestly at them;
signifying thereby, that he knew their reasonings among themselves, though they did not
speak out so as to be heard by him; and that there was no reason why they should be in
so much concern, as their countenances showed, or possess themselves with such fears:
and said unto them, with men this is impossible. Mark adds, "but not with God;
for with God all things are possible"; to be done by him, if he will, which are consistent
with the glory and perfections of his nature: for as he could, by his almighty power, if he
would, reduce a camel to so small a size, as to be able to go through the eye of a needle,
which, with men, is an impossible thing; so by the mighty power of his grace he can work
upon a rich man's heart, in such a manner, as to take off his affections from his worldly
substance, and cause him to drop his trust and confidence in it: he can so influence and
dispose his mind, as to distribute his riches cheerfully among the poor, and largely, and
liberally supply their wants, and even part with all, when necessity requires it: he can
change his heart, and cause the desires of his soul to be after true riches of grace and
glory; and bring him to see his own spiritual poverty, his need of Christ, and salvation by
him; and to deny himself, take up the cross, and follow him, by submitting to his most
despised ordinances, and by suffering the loss of all things for his sake; and he can carry
him through a thousand snares safe to his kingdom and glory, which is Christ's sense;
though the thing is impossible upon the foot of human nature, and strength, which can
never effect anything of this kind: and as to what the apostles suggested concerning the
safety of persons in the Messiah's kingdom, if no rich man could enter there, but should
be in opposition to it; our Lord's answer implies, that though, humanly speaking, it was
not possible and practicable that they, a company of poor, mean, and despicable men,
should be able to stand against the united force of the great and mighty men of the earth;
yet God was able to support, and uphold them, succeed, and keep them, and make them
both useful and comfortable, amidst all the opposition and persecution they should meet
with, until he had finished his whole will and work by them.
HE RY, "2. That, though it be hard, yet it is not impossible, for the rich to be saved

178. (Mat_19:26); Jesus beheld them, turned and looked wistfully upon his disciples, to
shame them out of their fond conceit of the advantages rich people had in spiritual
things. He beheld them as men that had got over this difficulty, and were in a fair way
for heaven, and the more so because poor in this world; and he said unto them, with
men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible. This is a great truth in
general, that God is able to do that which quite exceeds all created power; that nothing is
too hard for God, Gen_18:14; Num_11:23. When men are at a loss, God is not, for his
power is infinite and irresistible; but this truth is here applied, (1.) To the salvation of
any. Who can be saved? say the disciples. None, saith Christ, by any created power. With
men this is impossible: the wisdom of man would soon be nonplussed in contriving, and
the power of man baffled in effecting, the salvation of a soul. No creature can work the
change that is necessary to the salvation of a soul, either in itself or in any one else. With
men it is impossible that so strong a stream should be turned, so hard a heart softened,
so stubborn a will bowed. It is a creation, it is a resurrection, and with men this is
impossible; it can never be done by philosophy, medicine, or politics; but with God all
things are possible. Note, The beginning, progress, and perfection, of the work of
salvation, depend entirely upon the almighty power of God, to which all things are
possible. Faith is wrought by that power (Eph_1:19), and is kept by it, 1Pe_1:5. Job's
experience of God's convincing, humbling grace, made him acknowledge more than any
thing else, I know that thou canst do every thing, Job_42:2. (2.) To the salvation of rich
people especially; it is impossible with men that such should be saved, but with God
even this is possible; not that rich people should be saved in their worldliness, but that
they should be saved from it. Note, The sanctification and salvation of such as are
surrounded with the temptations of this world are not to be despaired of; it is possible; it
may be brought about by the all-sufficiency of the divine grace; and when such are
brought to heaven, they will be there everlasting monuments of the power of God. I am
willing to think that in this word of Christ there is an intimation o mercy Christ had yet
in store for this young gentleman, who was now gone away sorrowful; it was not
impossible to God yet to recover him, and bring him to a better mind.
CALVI , "26.With men this is impossible. Christ does not entirely free the minds of
his disciples from all anxiety; for it is proper that they should perceive how difficult
it is to ascend to heaven; first, that they may direct all their efforts to this object;
and next, that, distrusting themselves, they may implore strength from heaven. We
see how great is our indolence and carelessness; and what the consequence would be
if believers thought that they had to walk at ease, for pastime, along a smooth and
cheerful plain. Such is the reason why Christ does not extenuate the danger —
though he perceives the terror which it excited in his disciples — but rather
increases it; for though formerly he said only that it was difficult, he now affirms it
to be impossible Hence it is evident, that those teachers are guilty of gross
impropriety, who are so much afraid to speak harshly, that they give indulgence to
the slothfulness of the flesh. They ought to follow, on the contrary, the rule of
Christ, who so regulates his style that, after men have been bowed down within
themselves, he teaches them to rely on the grace of God alone, and, at the same time,
excites them to prayer. In this manner, the weakness of men is seasonably relieved,
not by ascribing anything to them, but by arousing their minds to expect the grace
of God. By this reply of Christ is also refuted that widely embraced principle —
which the Papists have borrowed from Jerome — “Whoever shall say that it is
impossible to keep the law, let him be accursed. “For Christ plainly declares, that it

179. is not possible for men to keep the way of salvation, except so far as the grace of God
assists them.
ELLICOTT, "(26) Jesus beheld them.—We can surely conceive something of the
expression of that look. He had gazed thus on the young ruler, and read his inner
weakness. ow, in like manner, he reads that of the disciples; and the look, we may
believe, tells of wonder, sorrow, tenderness, anxiety. Those feelings utter themselves
in the words that follow, partly in direct teaching, partly in symbolic promises,
partly in a parable.
With men this is impossible.—General as the words are in their form, we cannot
help feeling that they must have seemed to the disciples to have rebuked their hasty
judgment, not only as to the conditions of salvation generally, but as to the
individual case before them. He, the Teacher, would still hope, as against hope, for
one in whom He had seen so much to love and to admire. Their wider teaching is, of
course, that wealth, though bringing with it many temptations, may be so used,
through God’s grace, as to be a help, not a hindrance, in that deliverance from evil
which is implied in the word “salvation.”
PETT, "Jesus now points out that the age of impossibilities has arrived. He simply points out to
them that God can in fact save both rich and poor. For while doing this is impossible with men,
with God all things are possible. By this He first makes clear that salvation is a miracle that only
God can accomplish, and secondly He draws special attention to its source. It is those whom God
has chosen to ‘bless’ who will be saved. The idea that God can do the impossible is firmly
imbedded in the Old Testament. See Genesis 18:14; Job 42:2; Zechariah 8:6. And now it has
begun to manifest itself.
27 Peter answered him, “We have left everything
to follow you! What then will there be for us?”
BAR ES, "We have forsaken all - Probably nothing but their fishing-nets, small
boats, and cottages.
But they were their all - their living, their home; and, forsaking them, they had as
really shown their sincerity as though they had possessed the gold of Ophir and lived in
the palaces of kings.
What shall we have, therefore? - We have done as thou didst command this
young man to do. What reward may we expect for it?

180. CLARKE, "We have forsaken all - “A poor all,” says one, “a parcel of rotten nets.”
No matter - they were their All, whether rotten or sound; besides, they were the all they
got their bread by; and such an all as was quite sufficient for that purpose: and let it be
observed, that that man forsakes much who reserves nothing to himself, and renounces
all expectations from this world, taking God alone for his portion. See Mat_4:20.
To forsake all, without following Christ, is the virtue of a philosopher. To follow Christ
in profession, without forsaking all, is the state of the generality of Christians. But to
follow Christ and forsake all, is the perfection of a Christian.
What shall we have therefore? - Τι αρα ε̣αι ηµιν, What Reward shall we get? This
Kypke proves to be the meaning of the words from some of the best Greek writers.
GILL, "Then answered Peter and said unto him,.... Peter observing what Christ
said to the young man, bidding him sell all that he had, and give to the poor, and he
should have treasure in heaven, and come and follow him, lays hold on it, and addresses
him in the following manner,
behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee. Though their worldly substance
was not so large as the young man's, they had not such estates to sell, nor that to give to
the poor, he had; yet all that they had they left for Christ's sake, their parents, wives,
children, houses, and worldly employments, by which they supported themselves and
families; and became the disciples and followers of Christ, embraced his doctrines,
submitted to his commands, imitated him in the exercise of grace, and discharge of duty,
denying themselves, and suffering many hardships on his account: wherefore it is asked,
what shall we have therefore? what reward for all this? what part in the Messiah's
kingdom? or what treasure in heaven?
HE RY, "II. Peter took occasion from hence to enquire what they should get by it,
who had come up to these terms, upon which this young man broke with Christ, and had
left all to follow him, Mat_19:27, etc. We have here the disciples' expectations from
Christ, and his promises to them.
1. We have their expectations from Christ; Peter, in the name of the rest, signifies that
they depended upon him for something considerable in lieu of what they had left for
him; Behold, we have forsaken all, and have followed thee; what shall we have
therefore? Christ had promised the young man, that, if he would sell all, and come and
follow him, he should have treasure in heaven; now Peter desires to know,
(1.) Whether they had sufficiently come up to those terms: they had not sold all (for
they had many of them wives and families to provide for), but they had forsaken all;
they had not given it to the poor, but they had renounced it as far as it might be any way
a hindrance to them in serving Christ. Note, When we hear what are the characters of
those that shall be saved, it concerns us to enquire whether we, through grace, answer
those characters. Now Peter hopes that, as to the main scope and intendment of the
condition, they had come up to it, for God had wrought in them a holy contempt of the
world and the things that are seen, in comparison with Christ and the things that are not
seen; and how this must be evidenced, no certain rule can be given, but according as we
are called.
Lord, saith Peter, we have forsaken all. Alas! it was but a poor all that they had

181. forsaken; one of them had indeed quitted a place in the custom-house, but Peter and the
most of them had only left a few boats and nets, and the appurtenances of a poor fishing-
trade; and yet observe how Peter there speaks of it, as it had been some mighty thing;
Behold, we have forsaken all. Note, We are too apt to make the most of our services and
sufferings, our expenses and losses, for Christ, and to think we have made him much our
debtor. However, Christ does not upbraid them with this; though it was but little that
they had forsaken, yet it was their all, like the widow's two mites, and was as dear to
them as if it had been more, and therefore Christ took it kindly that they left it to follow
him; for he accepts according to what a man hath.
(2.) Whether therefore they might expect that treasure which the young man shall
have if he will sell all. “Lord,” saith Peter, “shall we have it, who have left all?” All people
are for what they can get; and Christ's followers are allowed to consult their own true
interest, and to ask, What shall we have? Christ looked at the joy set before him, and
Moses at the recompence of reward. For this end it is set before us, that by a patient
continuance in well-doing we may seek for it. Christ encourages us to ask what we shall
gain by leaving all to follow him; that we may see he doth not call us to our prejudice, but
unspeakably to our advantage. As it is the language of an obediential faith to ask, “What
shall we do?” with an eye to the precepts; so it is of a hoping, trusting faith, to ask, “What
shall we have?” with an eye to the promises. But observe, The disciples had long since
left all to engage themselves in the service of Christ, and yet never till now asked, What
shall we have? Though there was no visible prospect of advantage by it, they were so
well assured of his goodness, that they knew they should not lose by him at last, and
therefore referred themselves to him, in what way he would make up their losses to
them; minded their work, and asked not what should be their wages. Note, It honours
Christ, to trust him and serve him, and not to bargain with him. Now that this young
man was gone from Christ to his possessions, it was time for them to think which they
should take to, what they should trust to. When we see what others keep by their
hypocrisy and apostasy, it is proper for us to consider what we hope, through grace, to
gain, not for, but by, our sincerity and constancy, and then we shall see more reason to
pity them than to envy them.
2. We have here Christ's promises to them, and to all others that tread in the steps of
their faith and obedience. What there was either of vain-glory or of vain hopes in that
which Peter said, Christ overlooks, and is not extreme to mark it, but takes this occasion
to give the bond of a promise,
HAWKER 27-30. ""Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken
all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore? (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. (29) And everyone 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. (30) But many that are first
shall be last; and the last shall be first."
Reader! do not fail to observe the blessedness of those who follow Christ in the
regeneration? But in doing this, yet more particularly note the cause. It is for Jesus’ sake,
and by the Lord Jesus’ righteousness. All for him and all by him. And in this redemption,
the last and least, in the view of others, are first and greatest in the esteem of Christ. So
essential it is to know him, whom to know is life eternal. Precious Lord! how reverse to
the custom and manners of the world, is thy kingdom!

182. CALVI , "Matthew 19:27.Then Peter answering said to him. Peter tacitly
compares himself and the other disciples to the rich man, whom the world had
turned aside from Christ. As they had led a poor and wandering (639) life, which
was not unaccompanied by disgrace and by annoyances, and as no better condition
for the future presented itself, he properly inquires if it be to no purpose that they
have left all their property, and devoted themselves to Christ; for it would be
unreasonable if, after having been stripped of their property by the Lord, they
should not be restored to a better condition.
Lo, we have left all. But what were those all things? for, being mean and very poor
men, they scarcely had a home to leave, and therefore this boasting might appear to
be ridiculous. And certainly experience shows how large an estimate men commonly
form of their duties towards God, as at this day, among the Papists, those who were
little else than beggars make it a subject of haughty reproach that they have
sustained great damage for the sake of the Gospel. But the disciples may be excused
on this ground, that, though their wealth was not magnificent, they subsisted at
home, by their manual labors, not less cheerfully than the richest man. And we
know that men of humble condition, who have been accustomed to a quiet and
modest life, reckon it a greater hardship to be torn from their wives and children
than those who are led by ambition, or who are carried in various directions by the
gale of prosperity. Certainly, if some reward had not been reserved for the disciples,
it would have been foolish in them to have changed their course of life. (640) But
though on that ground they might be excused, they err in this respect, that they
demand a triumph to be given them, before they have finished their warfare. If we
ever experience such uneasiness at delay, and if we are tempted by impatience, let us
learn first to reflect on the comforts by which the Lord soothes the bitterness of the
cup in this world, and next elevate our minds to the hope of the heavenly life; for
these two points embrace the answer of Christ.
ELLICOTT, "(27) Behold, we have forsaken.—The question betrayed the thoughts
that had been working in the minds of the disciples, and of which, as was his wont,
St. Peter made himself the spokesman. They had complied with their Master’s
commands. What were they to have as the special reward to which they were thus
entitled? It is obvious that in asking for that reward they showed that they had
complied with the letter only, not with the spirit, of the command. They had not in
the true sense of the word, denied themselves, though they had forsaken the earthly
calling and the comforts of their home; and they were dwelling on what they had
done, as in itself giving them a right to compensation.
COFFMA , "Barker suggested that Peter was here suggesting preferential
treatment for himself and others of the Twelve who had "left all" to follow Christ;
and, in view of the parable with which Jesus followed this question, the view seems
tenable. He said, "Peter self-righteously reminded Jesus of the sacrifices the
disciples had made, then hinted for preferential treatment, asking, `What then shall
we have?'"[4] Whatever element of self-righteousness may have been in Peter's

183. question, it was a valid one; and Jesus answered it in the most emphatic manner
possible.
BROADUS, "II. Matthew 19:27-30. Jesus Promises Reward To Those That Have
Left All For His Sake
Mark 10:28-31, Luke 18:28-30. Peter speaks for his companions as well as himself
(see on "Matthew 16:16"), and the answer is addressed to them all, 'you' (Matthew
19:28). Behold, we, the word 'we' being expressed in the Greek, and thus emphatic;
so also in Mark and Luke. Have forsaken all, as the rich young ruler had just
refused to do. (Matthew 19:22) And followed thee, compare on Matthew 4:19 f.
Luke 18:28 has (correct text) 'have left our own,' i. e., property, while the young
ruler would not leave his. Some had left their calling as fishermen, Matthew a public
office, James and John their parents, Peter his home and family. What shall we have
therefore? without any special emphasis on 'we.' This clause is not given by Mark or
Luke, being obviously implied in Peter's foregoing statement. The apostle's inquiry
may be easily stigmatized as self-complacent or mercenary. But Jesus evidently did
not so regard it. They had made real sacrifices, and were following him in worldly
destitution with dismal worldly prospects, for they were now near Jerusalem, where
he would be rejected and put to death. (Matthew 16:21) The situation was very
serious. Jesus solemnly promises great reward to the Twelve (Matthew 19:28), and
extends it to all who have left anything for his sake (Matthew 19:29); and then
guards against all selfish and jealous claims of superior reward in Luke 18:30,
illustrated by the parable which follows.
PETT, "Peter’s question reflects the growing desire and expectation among the disciples of a
future that is unfolding which will shortly result in their receiving their ‘reward’ for following Jesus.
At this stage it is constantly reflected. See for example Matthew 20:20-24; Mark 9:33-35; Luke
9:46; Luke 22:24-27; and even after the resurrection in Acts 1:6. They were looking, in
accordance with the beliefs of the times, for a triumphant Messianic campaign which, once God
had reversed the tragedy of His betrayal and death, would result in glorious victory, freedom for
the Jews, and eventual worldwide domination. And they saw themselves as being an important
part of it. Thus we can understand Peter’s eager question. The glittering prize was in front of their
eyes, and accordingly they were looking forward to ruling Israel, exercising authority over the
nations, enjoying great riches, and taking part in the Triumph of Christ. And that is why Jesus then
has to point out to them that the way in which they must do this is by vying among themselves to
be the servants of all (Matthew 20:25-28; Luke 22:26-27). The greatest in the Kingly Rule of
Heaven will be as a little child (Matthew 18:4). Whoever is great among them must be their
servant (Matthew 20:27; Matthew 23:11). And do we think that such attitudes will change in
Heaven? In Heaven men will not be seeking thrones. They will spurn thrones (Revelation 4:10).
They will be eagerly asking, ‘how can I be of service’? Just as Jesus Himself will be doing (Luke
12:37; Luke 22:27). In the light of the perspective of Heaven a literal significance to Matthew
19:28 would have no meaning. It would be a totally foreign concept. In Heaven and the new earth
we are not all to be behaving like kings, but are all to be seeking to be the servants of all. And the
rewards will not be physical, but spiritual.
Verses 27-29
The Basis Of The New Kingly Rule - Jesus Now Explains The Future For All Who Fully Follow
Him (19:27-29).
In order to fully appreciate what Jesus now says here we need to consider the similar words
spoken at the Last Supper as described in Luke 22:24-30. There the context is specifically that of

184. the disciples having false ideas about their future role, and Jesus is warning them that such ideas
are to be quashed because they are dealing with something totally different than they know. There
it is in the context of Him stressing that it is those who want to lord it over others (by sitting on their
thrones) who are the ones who are least like what the disciples are intended to be. He stresses
that in the case of the disciples it is the ones who seek to serve all, like servants serving at table,
who are really the greatest, and He then points out that that is precisely what He Himself has
come among them to be (compare Matthew 18:4; Matthew 20:25-28). And it is in that context that
He cites the picture of the apostles as destined to sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel
and expects them to understand itin terms of what He has just said(Luke 22:30).
Now taken at face value the ideas are so mutually contradictory that it is incredible. At one
moment He appears to be warning them most severely against seeking lordly glory, and at the
next moment He seems to be promising them precisely that and encouraging them to look
forward to it, knowing that they are expecting His Kingly Rule soon to be manifested. In other
words in this view He is depicted as promising them the very thing that He is at the same time
trying to root out of them, and making both promises within seconds of each other. He is
seemingly inculcating the very attitude that He is trying to destroy. We find this quite frankly
impossible to believe. It suggests therefore that in fact Jesus meant something very different than
He appears to be saying at face value, and that He expected His disciples to understand it, so that
we thus need to look a little deeper at its parabolic significance in order to appreciate its
significance (in the case of Luke see for this our commentary on Luke 22).
The second thing that we need to take into account in this regard is Jesus’ love for parabolic
representation. Regularly in His parables His servants are pictured as men of great importance
who are called on to serve faithfully. They are pictured as people placed in great authority, and
that on earth for the purpose of a ministry on earth (Matthew 18:23-24; Matthew 25:14; Luke
12:42; Luke 16:1; Luke 19:12-13). They are seen as given positions of great splendour. But in
contrast we have already been warned about how they must carry out that service. They are to
carry it out by serving humbly (Luke 12:36-37; Luke 22:26-27; see also Matthew 18:4; Matthew
20:26-27). Thus He pictures His servants as on the one hand having great authority and power,
and yet on the other as needing to be meek and lowly and menial in serving others. And He
pictures the latter as the greatest service that there is, so great that it is what He Himself is doing
while on earth (Matthew 20:26-28; Luke 22:26-27), and is also what He will do for them in the
future Kingly Rule (Luke 12:37). For He is one Who Himself delights to serve, and is among them
as One Who serves, and will go on serving into eternity for God is a God Who delights to serve
and to give. He is the very opposite of what we naturally are. That is what He has done through
history (note Exodus 20:1-2). So although His authority is total and His power omnipotent he
continually serves His own.
Can we really think that the One Who sets such a picture before them of service is going to
encourage them by presenting them with a goal that contradicts all that He has said at a time
when they are vulnerable to such ideas? If there was one problem that the disciples had at this
time above all others it was wrong ideas about their future importance, ideas which were making
them almost unbearable (Matthew 20:20-24). Would Jesus really have been foolish enough to
feed those wrong ideas by saying, ‘Don’t worry, you are going to lord it over everyone in the end’?
Quite frankly it is inconceivable.
The third thing that is to be taken into account is that the promises then made to other than the
twelve relate mainly to this life (Matthew 19:29). What they are promised is that whatever they
lose for His sake they will gain the more abundantlyhere on earth(this is even clearer in Mark
10:30), as well as eternal life. If He wanted to encourage His disciples by pointing to their future
glorified state, why did He not do the same openly with the others? Thus the obvious conclusion is
that what He promises to the disciples is parallel with what He promises to the others, and that
both thereforerelate mainly to this life.
The fourth point to be considered is that these words are followed immediately by a parable that
warns against presumption, in which it is emphasised that God promises to deal with all men
equally when it comes to ‘reward’. But this sits very uneasily with the idea that twelve of those to

185. whom He has spoken have already been promised thrones as a reward! (Even given that the
context is Matthew’s arrangement).
And the final point that has to be considered is that when James and John did take Jesus’ words
here too literally and made their bid for the two most important of the twelve thrones (Matthew
20:20-22) Jesus immediately pointed out what their real destiny was, that they were not to seek
thrones, but were to share His baptism of Suffering and to be servants of all as He was (Matthew
20:23-28), and this immediately following the parable where all were to receive equal. If He was
really offering them literal thrones He should have been praising their ambition.
Let us now summarise the arguments:
1) The superficially obvious meaning is unlikely in view of Luke 22:24-30 where it contradicts the
whole passage (see our commentary on Luke).
2) Jesus regularly speaks metaphorically of His disciples pictured in terms of high status (Matthew
18:23-24; Matthew 25:14; Luke 12:42; Luke 16:1; Luke 19:12-13), although serving in lowliness
(Luke 12:36-37; Luke 22:26-27; see also Matthew 18:4; Matthew 20:26-27).
3) What is offered to the ‘others’ in Matthew 19:29 relates to a metaphorical picture of blessing on
earth prior to their going on to eternal life, depicted in an exaggerated fashion. We would therefore
expect that the parallel offered to the Apostles would also refer to a metaphorical picture of
blessing on earth depicted in a similar exaggerated fashion.
4) The parable that immediately follows in chapter 20 refers to all receiving equal reward which
sits ill with the Apostles having just been promised thrones in a future life.
5) When James and John then take what Jesus has said too literally and seek to get the best
thrones they are informed that they are rather being called on to suffer and to serve, and are not
to think in terms of enjoying literal thrones (Matthew 20:20-28), and this in similar terms to Luke
22:24-30.
But what then can Jesus mean by the words ‘You who have followed me, in the regeneration
when the Son of man shall sit on the throne of his glory, you also will sit on twelve thrones, judging
the twelve tribes of Israel’ without it giving the disciples too great a sense of their own importance?
What could He be trying to signify to His disciples? In the light of our criticisms above we would
expect the obvious solution to be that He was indicating to them their prominent positions of
service in regard to their future task on earth. Having that in mind as a possibility let us continue
the phrases used and see if they at all fit in with that idea.
This first raises the question as to what Jesus means by ‘the regeneration’ (palingenesia). Now in
dealing with this question the tendency is to go to apocalyptic passages in the Old Testament as
interpreted in the light of Jewish apocalyptic (neither of which used palingenesia) and then to
translate them in that light. But if there is one thing that is clear about Jesus it is that He is not tied
in to such ideas. Rather He takes them and reinterprets them in His own way in the light of God’s
programme as He sees it to be. For that is what He has come to bring, regeneration, a new
creation (Romans 6:4; 2 Corinthians 5:17; Galatians 6:15).
What then is the ‘regeneration’ (palingenesia)? The word can simply means ‘a becoming again’ or
a ‘being born again’. But how is it used elsewhere? It is used by the Egyptian Jewish philosopher
Philo of the renewal of the earth after the flood. It is also used by Paul of the ‘renewal’ of the Holy
Spirit in men’s lives when they come to Christ (Titus 3:5). Now if, as seems probable, the dove in
Matthew 3:16 was symbolic of the dove returning after the flood, indicating the issuing in of a new
age (Genesis 8:11), and thereby indicated the coming of a new age in the coming of the Messiah
along with the deluge of the Holy Spirit, this ties in with both Philo’s use and Paul’s use. Here
therefore it will indicate the new age that Jesus is introducing as begun in His ministry and
consummated in the coming of the Holy Spirit. A new nation is being brought to birth. Thus it is the
time when the Holy Spirit comes to renew men and women (Isaiah 44:1-5; Joel 2:28-29; Ezekiel
36:25-29; Acts 2:18). It is the time when God breathes new life into His people (Ezekiel 37:9-14).
It is the time when men and women stream out from Jerusalem taking His Law (Isaiah 2:2-4). It is
the time when the waters stream out from God’s Dwellingplace bringing new life to all (Ezekiel
47:1-12 as explained in John 7:37-38). In other words it has in mind the ministry of Jesus followed
by Pentecost and after. Compare the description of the work of John, which was ‘to turn the hearts

186. of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to walk in the wisdom of the righteous’ (Luke
1:17) and that but as an introductory renewal. And that is to be followed by ‘out of your innermost
beings will flow rivers of living water’ (John 7:38). This is a regeneration indeed.
But when will the Son of man be seated on the throne of His glory? Matthew makes that quite
clear in Matthew 26:64, it is ‘from now on’ when He comes on clouds into the presence of the
Father to receive the Kingship and the glory (Daniel 7:13-14); it is when He receives all authority in
Heaven and earth (Matthew 28:18); it is when He is glorified (see John 7:39 where it is directly
connected with the coming of the Spirit); see also John 12:23; it is when He receives the glory that
He had with His Father before the world was (John 17:5); compare also Acts 2:34-36; Acts 7:55-
56. He will thus sit on the throne of His glory after the resurrection when He is ‘glorified’ and
returns to the glory that was His before the world was. That is, He receives the throne of His glory
after His resurrection when He comes to His Father on the clouds of Heaven to be enthroned
(Psalms 110:1 with Acts 2:34; Daniel 7:13-14). See also Revelation 4-5 where the idea of glory is
prominent (Revelation 4:9; Revelation 4:11; Revelation 5:12-13). Then He will bring His throne
with Him when He comes again to sit on the throne of His glory (Matthew 25:31); compare Ezekiel
1 where it is on such a throne that God carries out His judgments on the earth.
How then will the Apostles sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel? The idea is taken
from Psalms 122:5. ‘Jerusalem -- there the tribes go up, even the tribes of the Lord, -- for there
are set thrones for righteous judgment, the thrones of the house of David’. The picture can be
compared and contrasted with Isaiah 2:2-4. The picture here is of all the tribes of Israel streaming
up to Jerusalem in order to obtain truth and righteous justice from those appointed by the Davidic
King, who will sit on ‘the thrones of the house of David’ (thus representing the Davidic kingship)
overseeing ‘the tribes of Israel’.
In fulfilment of this Jesus is now promising to the disciples that the days when those ‘thrones of
David’ will be set up under His Messiahship are shortly to come about, when here on earth they
will be able to serve Him in readiness for His coming, taking responsibility for the new Israel,
sharing in His authority, manifesting His glory, receiving a hundredfold in this life, and all this in
terms of acting as servants just as the King Himself has (as expanded on in Matthew 20:20-28).
And this, at least initially, will be over ‘the twelve tribes of Israel’, that is the new Jewish Christian
‘congregation’ formed in Jerusalem and spreading out into the world. What better picture could
there be of this than what happened in Acts 1-6? Here were twelve men anointed and empowered
to serve the Lord’s anointed (Acts 4:27; Acts 4:29-30; Acts 5:31 compare Acts 2:1-4; Acts 2:33).
Here was the new Israel, flowering out of the old (Romans 9:6). Thus Jesus is saying that the
greater David will receive His glorious throne, and His representatives will then be established in
Jerusalem as of old, bringing truth and righteous justice to the people. It is noteworthy that it was
specifically in the days of David and of the Exodus (Matthew 2:15) that Israel was represented by
‘the twelve tribes’. Thus what better description of Jesus’ new congregation, seen as the product
of the new Exodus (Matthew 2:15) and of Jesus’ position as the son of David (Matthew 1:1;
Matthew 1:17), than ‘the twelve tribes of Israel’ who were destined for redemption and over whom
David held sway.
And from Jerusalem they will continue to exercise their power (Acts 1-11, 15). And from there His
word and His Law will go out to the world (Isaiah 2:2-4; Acts 1:8). And in accordance with the
teaching of Jesus they will do it in humility and meekness, as servants of the people (Matthew
18:1-4; Matthew 20:25-28). There indeed they will (parabolically) ‘sit on thrones judging the twelve
tribes of Israel’, as thousands flock to His new congregation.
And for the first few years of the Christian era this is precisely what happened, and it would
continue ‘literally’ for some years. And then it would expand into something even greater as many
Gentiles became united with the twelve tribes of Israel (James 1:1). And then the Apostles will
continue to ‘sit on their thrones’ and adjudicate (Acts 11:1-18; Acts 15:6-29) while the twelve tribes
of Israel expand beyond all imagining. That is how John understood it in Revelation 5:10.
For in the end the ‘twelve tribes of Israel’ becomes a description of the ‘congregation’ of Jesus

187. Christ (Matthew 16:18; Matthew 18:17; James 1:1; Romans 9-11; Galatians 3:29; Galatians 6:16;
Ephesians 2:11-22; 1 Peter 2:9 (compare Exodus 19:5-6); Revelation 7:1-8; Revelation 21:12-14).
For the true church of ‘believers’ is the true Israel (John 15:1-6; Romans 11:17-26) made one in
the One Who is Israel (see Matthew 2:15). For a more detailed argument see excursus below.
Jesus is thus promising His Apostles that the ‘regeneration’ will shortly come, and that as a result
of their faithfulness in following Him they will then be established as His representatives of truth in
Jerusalem, establishing the new Israel by His power and authority. And so it would prove to be.
(They had no carefully worked out schemes like we have. They saw it all as on the verge of
fulfilment and would see it in that light).
Analysis.
a Then answered Peter and said to him, “Lo, we have left all” (Matthew 19:27 a).
b “And followed you. What then shall we have?” (Matthew 19:27 b).
b And Jesus said to them, Truly I say to you, that you who have followed me, in the regeneration
when the Son of man shall sit on the throne of his glory, you also will sit on twelve thrones, judging
the twelve tribes of Israel” (Matthew 19:28).
a “And every one who has left houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or children, or
lands, for my name’s sake, will receive a hundredfold, and will inherit eternal life” (Matthew 19:29).
Note that in ‘a’ they have ‘left all’ and in the parallel those who have left all will receive a
hundredfold. In ‘b’ they have followed Jesus and in the parallel those who have followed Him will
enjoy the exercise of His authority in the new age among the new people of God.
Verse 28
‘And Jesus said to them, Truly I say to you, that you who have followed me, in the regeneration
when the Son of man shall sit on the throne of his glory, you also will sit on twelve thrones, judging
the twelve tribes of Israel.” ’
And Jesus confirms the promise. But He is signifying a very different thing from what they are
expecting. The renewal is coming, the time of blessing promised by the prophets, the time of the
‘becoming again’. For the King will shortly take the throne of His glory through resurrection
(Matthew 28:18; Acts 2:34-36; Psalms 110:1 with Acts 2:34; Daniel 7:13-14; Ephesians 1:19-22;
Ephesians 2:6), and then He will advance with them throughout the world making disciples of all
nations and teaching them to observe all that He has commanded them (Matthew 28:18-20). And
they will have a definite part to play, for they will have authority over the new congregation, and will
be responsible for its maintenance and discipline (Matthew 18:15-20). Like the judges of the
house of David before them they will ‘sit on thrones’, at first in Jerusalem, and then as they
advance into the wider world, judging the twelve tribes of Israel, the living church of Jesus Christ
(Psalms 122:5).
A moment’s thought will confirm that these words cannot be taken too literally. Jesus was
speaking to the twelve. Was He then promising them twelve thrones? One of them at least would
receive no throne. Thus it cannot be intended literally. Of course we try to solve the problem by
debating who will be the substitute. But that is to reveal how pedantic our minds are. For there
were in fact not even twelve tribes of Israel in a literal sense, nor can be for they have become too
intermingled with the nations. Most of the tribes had almost completely disappeared into oblivion
by the time of Jesus. Thus this is a pictorial representation of the truth, and not to be taken
literally. It is indicating the authority that the Apostles will enjoy over the new congregation.
‘The throne of His glory.’ The idea that the Son of Man will sit on the throne of His glory when He
comes out of suffering into the presence of the Ancient of Days is found in Daniel 7:13-14, and
Jesus takes up that picture in Matthew 26:64, and declares that it will be ‘from now on’. Then He
will come on clouds into the presence of the Father to receive the Kingship and the glory, and His
enthronement and its consequences will be made apparent to the whole Sanhedrin. Then He will
receive all authority in Heaven and earth (Matthew 28:18); then He will be glorified (see John 7:39
where it is directly connected with the coming of the Spirit); see also John 12:23; then He will
receive the glory that He had with His Father before the world was (John 17:5); compare also Acts

188. 2:34-36; Acts 7:55-56. Thus He will ‘sit on the throne of His glory’ after the resurrection when He
is ‘glorified’ and returns to the glory that was His before the world was. He will receive the throne
of His glory after His resurrection when He comes to His Father on the clouds of Heaven to be
enthroned (Psalms 110:1 with Acts 2:34; Daniel 7:13-14 with Matthew 26:64). See also Revelation
4-5 where the idea of glory is prominent with regard to His present enthronement (Revelation 4:9;
Revelation 4:11; Revelation 5:12-13). And it is then that the Apostles will exercise the authority
and power that He has given them (Acts 2-11).
Later He will return on His throne when He comes again to sit on the throne of His glory (Matthew
25:31), but it is noteworthy that there is no thought there of the participation of the Apostles. We
can compare with this throne Ezekiel 1; Ezekiel 3:12-13; Ezekiel 3:23; Ezekiel 10 where it is on
such a transportable throne that God carries out His judgments on the earth. When He comes in
glory as Judge it will be as accompanied by His holy angels (Matthew 25:31; compare Matthew
16:27; Matthew 24:30-31), not by His Apostles. This is, of course, apocalyptic language describing
the indescribable in vivid human terms. The reality will be far above anything that we can imagine.
(That is why from another viewpoint, the viewpoint of salvation, Jesus will bring with Him all His
resurrected people, and those who are alive at His coming will be transfigured, and will rise to
meet Him in the air, and so ever be with the Lord - 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18).
BARCLAY 27-30, "A WISE ANSWER TO A MISTAKEN QUESTION (Matthew 19:27-30)
19:27-30 Then Peter said to him, "Look you, we have left everything and have followed you. What
then will we get?" Jesus said to him, "When all things are reborn, and when the Son of Man shall
sit on the throne of his glory, you too, who have followed me, will also sit on twelve thrones,
judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Anyone who has left houses, or brothers, or sisters, or father, or
mother, or children, or lands for my name, will receive them a hundred times over, and he will
enter into possession of eternal life. But many who were first will be last, and many who were last
will be first."
It would have been very easy for Jesus to dismiss Peter's question with an impatient rebuke. In a
sense, it was entirely the wrong question to ask. To put it bluntly, Peter was asking, "What do we
get out of following you?" Jesus could well have said that anyone who followed him in that kind of
spirit had no idea what following him meant at all. And yet it was a natural question. True, it had its
implicit rebuke in the parable which followed; but Jesus did not scold Peter. He took his question,
and out of it laid down three great laws of the Christian life.
(i) It is always true that he who shares Christ's campaign will share Christ's victory. In human
warfare it has been too often true that the common soldiers who fought the battles were forgotten
once the warfare was ended, and the victory won, and their usefulness past. In human warfare it
has been too often true that men who fought to make a country in which heroes might live found
that that same country had become a place where heroes might starve. It is not so with Jesus
Christ. He who shares Christ's warfare will share Christ's triumph; and he who bears the Cross will
wear the crown.
(ii) It is always true that the Christian will receive far more than ever he has to give up; but what he
receives is not new material possessions, but a new fellowship, human and divine.
When a man becomes a Christian he enters into a new human fellowship; so long as there is a
Christian Church, a Christian should never be friendless. If his Christian decision has meant that
he has had to give up friends, it ought also to mean that he has entered into a wider circle of
friendship than ever he knew before. It ought to be true that there is hardly a town or village or city
anywhere where the Christian can be lonely. For where there is a Church, there is a fellowship
into which he has a right to enter. It may be that the Christian who is a stranger is too shy to make
that entry as he ought; it may be that the Church in the place where he is a stranger has become
too much of a private clique to open its arms and its doors to him. But if the Christian ideal is
being realized there is no place in the world with a Christian Church where the individual Christian
should be friendless or lonely. Simply to be a Christian means to have entered into a fellowship
which goes out to the ends of the earth.

189. Further, when a man becomes a Christian, he enters into a new divine fellowship. He enters into
possession of eternal life, the life which is the very life of God. From other things a Christian may
be separated, but he can never be separated from the love of God in Christ Jesus his Lord.
(iii) Finally, Jesus lays it down that there will be surprises in the final assessment. God's standards
of judgment are not men's, if for no other reason than that God sees into the hearts of men. There
is a new world to redress the balance of the old; there is eternity to adjust the misjudgments of
time. And it may be that those who were humble on earth will be great in heaven, and that those
who were great in this world will be humbled in the world to come.
BIBLICAL ILLUSTRATOR 27-30, "Matthew 19:27-30
Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed Thee; what shall we have therefore?
The advantages of following Christ
I. That a follower of Christ possesses a character of high and essential importance. To be
a follower of Christ we must-
1. Believe the testimony which the Word of God has given as to His character and
office.
2. From this principle of faith emanates all the other elements which compose the
Christian character.
3. A public profession of His name, and exertion in His cause. Do you believe, etc.?
II. That in sustaining this character painful sacrifices must frequently be made. The
disciples, primitive Christians, etc.
1. Remember for whom these sacrifices are to be made.
2. Remember for what these sacrifices are to be made. Are you determined at all
costs to follow Christ?
III. That our present sacrifices in the Saviour’s cause shall issue in a glorious reward.
1. Here is an advantage promised as to the present life.
2. As to the life to come. The time and nature of the recompense. What
encouragement does this subject hold out to the followers of Christ? (A. Weston.)
The reward of Christ’s followers
I. The evils they renounce. We must forsake all our sinful practices, ungodly associates,
unholy attachments.
II. The example they follow. Christ, as our Teacher, Sovereign, Pattern.
III. The reward they anticipate. Following Christ will secure our personal salvation, our
temporal interests and our eternal happiness. (Sketches.)
Christian fidelity and its rewards
I. The Christian disciple abandoning the world the better to serve Christ. What was left?
(1) A home that was dear;

190. (2) friends of the old time;
(3) a familiar occupation;
(4) the religion of forefathers.
II. The Christian disciple engaged in duties of Christian profession. It involved
(1) being thrust out of synagogue;
(2) ceaseless combat with the world-opinions, fashions;
(3) arduous labours.
III. The Christian disciple’s recompense. What shall we have?-
(1) Present peace;
(2) joy of discipleship;
(3) anticipation of sharing in future results of all Christian work;
(4) the final rest and reward. (J. C. Gray.)
The gain greater than the loss
We must understand the requirements of religion; and not over-value the things which
we are obliged to give up. Some say “that a Christian must renounce all the world, all its
gains, and pleasure.” This has been true in the world’s history; as in case of Xavier,
Wesley, and missionaries. These exceptional cases. Then some people think that if they
love Jesus Christ, they must be careful not to love wife and children too much. This is a
mistake. God has made the family and cemented it with love. It is not necessary for a
man to love God more that he love family less. There is a difference between that
sacrifice which brings everything to God, to be regarded as His, and that slavery which
dispossesses of all worldly goods and earthly affections in order to appease the heart of
the infinite Creator. Love of God intensifies our home affections. So with regard to
worldly possessions. A man is not called upon to endanger his working capital, but to
consecrate it. The rules of the gospel bend to wealth; and a Christian has a larger
expectancy of possessing the good things of this life. But he views himself as the steward
of God, and does not allow it to imperil his soul’s salvation. Then comes another
question: If I am a follower of Christ, what is to be my attitude towards the world’s
amusements and pleasures. Give up the follies of the world, not its true pleasures. There
is a high sense in which a man is to live soberly in Christ Jesus. If any man has a right to
the pleasures of the earth, it is His disciple; he has a right to inherit its fruits, blessings.
He has the joys of sense, and others much higher and richer in the green pastures. I
would like to ask the Christian if he really thinks that he gives up much in following
Christ? Our sacrifices have been joys to achieve in faith and love. But there will come a
time when the text will have a certain literalness about it, when “there will be no
question as to what we leave, but what we are going to find? The man will have to turn
his back upon his possessions. All will have forsaken us. He will then fulfil the promise
of eternal life. This the final consummation. We shall not then in the eternal sunshine be
disposed to think much of what we have given up to follow Christ. (J. R. Day, D. D.)
The hundred-fold recompense

191. This reply of our Lord as furnishing guidance for us in our endeavours to act upon men
and persuade them to give heed to religion. It will not do, constituted as men are, to
enlarge to them abstractedly on the beauty of holiness and on the satisfaction derivable
from a conscience at rest. They will not regard virtue as its own reward. We must admit
that religion requires great sacrifices; but we contend that even in this life they are more
than counterbalanced by its comforts, and that in the next they will be a thousand-fold
recompensed.
I. Take the case of the young. You are reluctant to lose the pleasures of earth. We do not
wish to deprecate these; all your senses are against our arguments. Christ did not tell
Peter that his boat and net were worth but little at the most. We admit the extent of the
sacrifice. We take the ground of recompense more than equivalent for all renounced. A
nobler pursuit; reward more enduring.
II. It is the apparent conflict between duty and interest which causes us in a variety of
cases to disobey God and withstand the pleadings of conscience. The conflict is only
apparent, as our true interest is always on the side of duty. Here, again, we must magnify
the remunerative power of Him in whose cause the sacrifice is made, rather than
depreciate the sacrifice itself. But the duty is clear, and the difficulty of discharging it will
not excuse its neglect. A man says he must sell his goods on the Sabbath in order to
support his family, his interest demands it. But if he follows duty as against apparent
interest, we assert that he engages on his side all the aids of Providence, if you cannot be
religious but through bankruptcy, let not your name in the Gazette scare you from
inscribing it in the Lamb’s book of life. We remind you of the inexhaustibleness of God;
He is the Proprietor of both worlds. To men who are in danger of being engrossed in
business, as well as those who are tempted to swerve from rectitude, we say, dwell on the
word “ hundred-fold” in our text as suggestive of the Divine fulness and power. (H.
Melvill, B. D.)
Forsaking all to follow Christ
I. Christ is the pre-eminent object and the boundless source of all moral attraction and
influence.
1. He is the pre-eminent object of moral attraction. He is the centre of all moral
power. It is the overpowering force of the sun’s attraction that regulates the motion
of the planets; it is the overwhelming attraction of the earth that neutralizes the
mutual attraction of things upon its surface, and prevents them from inconveniently
clinging together. So is Christ the centre of the moral world. As God, He claims our
adoration: as Man, our lively affection. He is the realization of every Divine idea. In a
gallery of paintings, comprising portraits, allegories, historic scenes, and ideal
creations, one grand masterpiece, long concealed, is at length uncovered and
disclosed to view. Immediately all others are forsaken; the admiring gaze is directed
to this. It is “ the attraction,” not because of its mere novelty, but because it
comprises all the subjects and all the excellences of every other work, and displays
them with unrivalled power. He is the way to the Father, and to the soul’s everlasting
home. “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by
Me.” A wild country is spread before us, with numerous paths, by-ways, and
intersecting roads. Many of these tracks are toilsome, but supposed to lead to the
possession of some profit and gain; many are pleasant, but of doubtful issue; many
are perilous; many are evidently ways of perdition. But at length a bright “way”
appears, and it is seen to lead upwards, and to terminate in a glorious “city of

192. habitation.” Shall we not forsake every other way to follow this? He is the fulness of
all good. He is all and in all. Is it not great gain to forsake all and to follow Him? He
is the friend beloved. When a beloved friend arrives, business and pleasure are alike
abandoned, for the joy of his society. Jesus comes, He calls to us; He announces the
joyful news of reconciliation with God. Should we not forsake all to follow Him, and
to be received into His everlasting friendship? He is the heavenly Bridegroom. The
bride forsakes her father’s house, her country, her early associates for the
bridegroom.
2. He is the boundless source of moral influence. He changes the earthly into the
heavenly. No teacher nor doctrine can produce a transformation like this; the all-
powerful influence is with Christ alone. If we desire our own true glory, should we
not forsake all to follow Him? He changes the corrupt into the spiritual. He raises the
spiritually dead into a Divine life. This reminds us that the attraction and influence
of the Lord Jesus Christ can only be savingly experienced through the
instrumentality of faith.
II. To forsake all and to follow Christ is alike our indispensable duty and our true
happiness.
1. It is our indispensable duty to forsake all and to follow Christ. It is not by abstract
considerations we usually judge of duty, but by contemplating actual and living
relations. Now, if we contemplate the actual relations Christ sustains to us, and of
the reality of which we are assured by Divine testimony, the entireness of His claims
will become immediately evident. As the Son of God, He claims supreme homage and
entire obedience: as Mediator, He has a peculiar claim, because we are the subjects
of His all-prevailing intercession. This imperative duty is sustained by every
conceivable motive; it is also indispensable. It is the divinely appointed condition of
salvation. We must look at the awful alternative. We are all under the most sacred
obligation to hold the possession of earthly things in subservience to the service of
Christ.
2. It is our true happiness to forsake all to follow Christ. “What shall we have
therefore?” Is it not true happiness to derive present and everlasting joy in the
contemplation of so pre-eminent an object of love; to experience the transforming
influence of His Spirit and truth changing us into His likeness; and to enter into
living and effectual relation with Him, all whose names are significant of unlimited
blessing? “What shall we have therefore?” Exemption from eternal death, and the
inheritance of everlasting life. The truth of Christ. The fellowship of the saints. An
infinite compensation; a blissful result of self-denial. “And the last shall be first.” As
the first in their own and in the world’s esteem should be really the last, so the last
shall be first. The last in worldly esteem. The last in social conditions-Christians are
required to avoid all vain display and ostentation. The last in their own esteem.
“What things were gain to them, these they counted loss for Christ.” (J. T. Barker.)
What called forth this question? An event had just taken place which had made a deep
impression on the minds of the disciples.
I. Let us consider the spirit in which those words were uttered by St. Peter. There are
some who always seem to delight in putting a bad construction upon the actions and
words of God’s saints. We have no sympathy with such men. They judge others by their
own standard and motives. But in the words of the text we find no instance of human

193. infirmity. Whatever St. Peter’s faults may have been, certainly he was the last man to
think of payment for service, or of reward. He was impetuous, affectionate, generous.
Nor, again, can we admit that there was something vain-glorious in the words. What,
then, led St. Peter to say, “What shall we have therefore?” It was thankfulness. He was
thrilled with gratitude at the thought of the grace which had enabled him to do what
others had not done. But further, instead of pride there was, we believe, humility in this
utterance. It was as much as to say, “What condescension that thou hast chosen us, such
as we are, for so great a vocation!” They felt the greatness of the love which had called
them, and their own unworthiness of the dignity. Let us look at the statements which are
made. They are two. Christ had bidden the rich youth to give up all, and St. Peter now
says, “‘We have done this-we have forsaken all. Yes, it was not much, but it was all, and
the sacrifice is to be measured not by the amount which is surrendered, but by the love
which prompted it. Again, St. Peter adds, “We have followed Thee.” This was the second
thing which our Lord demanded of the rich youth. Perfect does not consist in the mere
abandonment of external goods. St. Peter was careful to add that they had forsaken all
with a definite motive-that of following Christ, and of being like Him in the external
conditions of his life. It is not merely world-surrender, but self-surrender which Christ
demands. The forsaking is the preliminary of the following. Detachment from the
creature is useless unless it leads to attachment to the Creator. Sin consists in two
things-the turning away from God, and the turning to the creature. “My people have
committed two evils; they have forsaken Me, saith the Lord, the Fountain of living
waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns that can hold no waters” (Jer_
2:13). Holiness, on the other hand, requires a spirit of detachment from visible things,
and love for God. They loved Him. It was a progressive love.
II. Our lord’s reply to St. Peter’s question was an encouraging one. He did not find fault
with the question, knowing the purity of motive which prompted it. But He was careful
to elevate their thoughts. They should have some great honour, some mysterious union
with Christ in His exaltation, as they now had fellowship with Him on earth. Christ is
Judge alone. They can have no share in His judiciary authority. In what sense, then, will
the Apostles sit with Christ and judge the world? By the judgment of comparison. They
will be examples of faithfulness to grace, condemning those thereby who have clung to
earthly things and forsaken Christ. And besides this, by the judgment of approbation.
They will be Christ’s court, His princes, marked out from others by special glory and
blessedness as the recompense of their allegiance to Him. Is this honour to be confined
to the original disciples? We are not called, as Apostles were, actually to forsake all, and
to follow Christ. But all Christians must share their spirit. We must “use this world, as
not abusing it” (1Co_7:31). The outward acts of religion, necessary as they are, will not
compensate for a worldly spirit. But the Christian life is no mere negative thing-the
quenching of the love of the temporal; it is the following of Christ. Try by meditation to
gain a clearer view of our Lord’s example. Nor is it a sordid movement of soul to desire
to look over the hills of time into the glories of the eternal world. Love, not selfishness,
prompts all sacrifice made for Christ. But He who “for the joy which was set before Him
endured the cross, despising the shame” (Heb_12:2), permits the inquiry of the text
when made in the spirit of hope and thankfulness. “What shall we have therefore?” It is
not merely happiness, it is blessedness. (W. H. Hatchings, M. A.)
Hundredfold reward
We must not understand this of an hundredfold in specie, but in value. It is-

194. 1. Joy in the Holy Ghost, peace of conscience, the sense of God’s love; so as, with the
Apostles, they shall rejoice that the)” are thought worthy to suffer for Christ.
2. Contentment. They shall have a contented frame of spirit with the little that is left
to them; though they have not so much to drink as they had, yet they shall have less
thirst (Php_4:11-12).
3. God will stir up the hearts of others to supply their wants, and that supply shall be
sweeter to them than their abundance was.
4. God sometimes repays them in this life, as He restored Job after his trial to
greater riches. (M. Pool.)
The Christian’s recompense
The man who forsakes his possessions and friends for Christ’s sake, shall find that Christ
will take care that he has “a hundred,” i.e., very many others, who will give him the love
and help of brothers, wives, and mothers, with far more exceeding sweetness and
charity; so that it shall not seem that he has lost his own possessions, but has only laid
them down, and in Christ’s providence has multiplied them with great usury. For
spiritual affections are sweeter than natural ones. (Lapide.)
The reward of self-sacrifice
This implies-
1. The security of those who are poor for the gospel’s sake.
2. The privilege of judging.
3. Dignity and eminence above others.
4. The nearest place to Christ and most perfect union with Him.
5. A principality of grace, happiness, and glory, that inasmuch as they are princes of
the kingdom of heaven, they should have the right of judging, and of admitting into it
those who are worthy, and excluding the unworthy. (Lapide.)
The Christian’s possession
He who has left all things begins to possess God; and he who has God for his portion is
the possessor of all nature. Instead of lands, he is sufficient to himself, having good fruit
which cannot perish. Instead of houses, it is enough for him that there is the habitation
of God, and the temple of God, than which nothing can be more precious. For what is
more precious than God? That is the portion which no earthly inheritance can equal.
What is more magnificent than the celestial host? What more blessed than Divine
possession? (Ambrose.)
The joy of the virtuous
If, instead of the perturbation of anger and fury, you weigh the perpetual calmness of the

195. mind; for the torment of anxiety and distraction, the quiet of security; for the fruitless
and penal sadness of the world, the fruit of sorrow unto salvation; for the vanity of
worldly joy, the richness of spiritual delight:-you will perceive that the recompense of
such an exchange is a hundredfold. (Cassian.)
The first last
This is an awakening sentence to the best of men. It was as much as to say to the
Apostles, “You have forsaken all and followed Me; but you had need look and consider,
from what principle, with what love, and to what end you have done it; you had need
keep a watch upon yourselves, and see that you hold on, and that you have no confidence
in yourselves. For many that are first in profession, first in the opinion of others, first in
their own opinion and confidence, at the Day of Judgment will be found to be last in
Mine and My Father’s esteem and reckoning; and many who make not so great a noise,
nor have so great a name and repute in the world, and who have the lowest and meanest
opinion of themselves will be found first and highest in My favour. The Day of Judgment
will frustrate many expectations. (M. Pool.)
28 Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, at the
renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on
his glorious throne, you who have followed me will
also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve
tribes of Israel.
BAR ES, "Verily I say unto you - Jesus in this verse declares the reward which
they would have.
They were not to look for it now, but in a future period.
That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration - This word occurs but
once elsewhere in the New Testament, Tit_3:5. It literally means a new birth, or being
born again. Applied to man, it denotes the great change when the heart is renewed, or
when the sinner begins to be a Christian. This is its meaning, clearly, in the passage
referred to in Titus; but this meaning cannot be applied here. Christ was not born again,
and in no proper sense could it be said that they had followed him in the new birth; but
the word also means any great change, or a restoration of things to a former state or to a
better state. In this sense it is probably used here. It refers to that great revolution - that

196. restoration of order in the universe - that universal new birth which will occur when the
dead shall rise, and all human things shall be changed, and a new order of things shall
start up out of the ruins of the old, when the Son of man shall come to judgment. The
passage, then, should be read, “Ye which have followed me shall, as a reward in the great
day of the resurrection of the dead, and of forming the new and eternal order of things -
the day of judgment, the regeneration - be signally honored and blessed.
When the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory - That is, to judge the
world. “Throne of glory” means glorious throne or a splendid throne. It is not to be taken
literally, but is used to denote his character as a king and judge, and to signify the great
dignity and majesty which will be displayed by him. See Mat_24:30; Mat_26:64; Act_
1:11; Act_17:31.
Sit upon twelve thrones - This is figurative. To sit on a throne denotes power and
honor, and means here that they would be distinguished above others, and be more
highly honored and rewarded.
Judging the twelve tribes of Israel - Jesus will be the Judge of quick and dead.
He only is qualified for it, and the Father hath given all judgment to the Son, Joh_5:22.
To be a judge denotes rank, authority, power. The ancient judges of Israel were people of
distinguished courage, patriotism, honor, and valor. Hence, the word comes to denote
not so much an actual exercise of the power of passing judgment, as the honor attached
to the office; and as earthly kings have those around them dignified with honors and
office - counselors and judges, so Christ says that his apostles will occupy the same
relative station in the great day. They will be honored by him, and by all, as apostles, as
having, in the face of persecution, left all; as having laid the foundations of his church,
and endured all the persecutions of the world.
The twelve tribes of Israel - This was the number of the ancient tribes. By this
name the people of God were denoted. By this name Jesus here denotes his redeemed
people. See also Jam_1:1, where Christians are called the twelve tribes. Here it means
also, not the Jews, not the world, not the wicked, not that the apostles are to pronounce
sentence on the enemies of God, but the people of God, the redeemed. Among them
Jesus says his apostles will be honored in the day of judgment, as earthly kings place in
posts of office and honor those who have signally served them. Compare the notes at
1Co_6:2.
CLARKE, "Ye which have followed me, in the regeneration, when the Son
of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, etc. - The punctuation which I have
observed here, is that which is followed by the most eminent critics: the regeneration is
thus referred to the time when Jesus shall sit on the throne of his glory, and not to the
time of following him, which is utterly improper.
The regeneration, παλιγγενεσια. Some refer this to the time in which the new heavens
and the new earth shall be created, and the soul and body united. The Pythagoreans
termed that παλιγγενεσια, when, according to their doctrine of the transmigration or
metempsychosis, the soul entered into a new body, and got into a new state of being.
Clement, in his Epistle to the Corinthians, calls the restoration of the world, after the
deluge, by the same name.
Judging the twelve tribes - From the parallel place, Luk_22:28-30, it is evident
that sitting on thrones, and judging the twelve tribes, means simply obtaining eternal
salvation, and the distinguishing privileges of the kingdom of glory, by those who
continued faithful to Christ in his sufferings and death.

197. Judging, κρινοντες. Kypke has shown that κρινεσθαι is to be understood in the sense of
governing, presiding, holding the first or most distinguished place. Thus, Gen_49:16,
Dan shall Judge his people, i.e. shall preside in, or rule over them; shall occupy a chief
place among the tribes. It is well known that the Judges among the Jews were
moderators, captains, chief, or head men. The sense therefore of our Lord’s words
appears to be, that these disciples should have those distinguished seats in glory which
seem to belong peculiarly to the first confessors and martyrs. See 1Th_4:14, 1Th_4:16,
and particularly Rev_20:4-6.
The last-quoted passage brings into view the doctrine of the Millennium, when Jesus,
after having formed the new heavens and the new earth, shall reign here gloriously
among his ancients 365,000 years; for the thousand years referred to above are certainly
prophetical years, in which, it is well known, each day stands for a year.
Others, of no mean note, are of opinion that the regeneration means the conversion of
men by the preaching of the Gospel - that sitting on twelve thrones signifies the state of
eminent dignity to which the apostles should be raised - and that judging the twelve
tribes of Israel, means no more than exercising authority in the Church, and dispensing
laws to the people of God. But I confess I do not see the propriety of this application of
the terms, as the following verse seems to fix the meaning mentioned above.
GILL, "And Jesus said unto them,.... To all the disciples whom Peter represented;
verily I say unto you: the thing being something very considerable, and of great
moment, Christ uses the asseveration he sometimes does in such cases:
that ye which have followed me. Christ does not deny that they had forsaken all for
his sake, nor does he despise it, because it was but little they left, though he does not
repeat it; but only takes notice of their following him, which, including their faith in him,
their profession of him, and subjection to him, was a much greater action, and of more
importance that the other, and therefore is only mentioned, and which our Lord
confirms:
in the regeneration. This clause is so placed, that it may be read in connection with
the preceding words, and be understood of the disciples following Christ in the
regeneration; meaning, not the grace of regeneration, in which they could not be said,
with propriety, to follow Christ; and one of them was never a partaker of it: but the new
state of things, in the church of God, which was foretold, and is called the time of
reformation, or setting all things right, which began upon the sealing up the law, and the
prophets, and the ministry of John the Baptist, and of Christ; who both, when they
began to preach, declared, that this time, which they call the kingdom of heaven, was at
hand, just ushering in. Now the twelve apostles followed Christ herein: they believed,
and professed him to be the Messiah; they received, what the Jews called, his new
doctrine, and preached it to others; they submitted to the new ordinance of baptism, and
followed Christ, and attended him wherever he went, working miracles, preaching the
Gospel, and reforming the minds and manners of men. Now this new dispensation is
called the regeneration, and which more manifestly took place after our Lord's
resurrection, and ascension, and the pouring down of the Spirit; wherefore the phrase
may be connected with the following words,
when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory in the regeneration;
not in the resurrection of the dead, or at the last judgment, but in this new state of

198. things, which now began to appear with another face: for the apostles having a new
commission to preach the Gospel to all the world; and being endued with power from on
high for such service, in a short time went every where preaching the word, with great
success. Gentiles were converted, as well as Jews, and both brought into a Gospel church
state; the ceremonies of the old law being abolished, were disused; and the ordinances of
baptism, and the Lord's supper, every where practised; old things passed away, and all
things became new: agreeably to this the Syriac version renders the phrase, ‫חדתא‬ ‫,בעלמא‬
"in the new world"; and so the Persic. The Arabic reads it, "in the generation", or "age to
come"; which the Jews so often call the world, or age to come, the kingdom of the
Messiah, the Gospel dispensation.
When the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, or glorious throne; as
he did when he ascended into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God; and was
then exalted as a prince, and made, or declared to be Lord and Christ; and was crowned
in human nature, with honour, and glory, and angels, principalities, and powers, made
subject to him:
ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones: for though Judas fell from his apostleship,
yet Matthias was chosen in his room, and took his place, and made up the number
twelve; a metaphorical phrase, setting forth the honour, dignity, and authority of their
office and ministry, by which they should be
judging the twelve tribes of Israel; doctrinally and practically; by charging them
with the sin of crucifying Christ, condemning them for their unbelief, and rejection of
him, denouncing the wrath of God, and the heaviest judgments that should fall upon
them, as a nation, for their sin; and by turning from them to the Gentiles, under which
judgment they continue to this day. So the doctors among the Jews are represented as
sitting and judging others: of "the potters", in 1Ch_4:23 they say (l),
"these are the disciples of the law, or the lawyers, for whose sake the world is created,
‫דינא‬ ‫על‬ ‫דיתבין‬ "who sit in judgment", and establish the world; and build, and perfect the
ruins of the house of Israel.''
HE RY, "(1.) To his immediate followers, Mat_19:28. They had signalized their
respect to him, as the first that followed him, and to them he promises not only treasure,
but honour, in heaven; and here they have a grant or patent for it from him who is the
fountain of honour in that kingdom; Ye which have followed me in the regeneration
shall sit upon twelve thrones. Observe,
[1.] The preamble to the patent, or the consideration of the grant, which, as usual, is a
recital of their services; “You have followed me in the regeneration, and therefore this
will I do for you.” The time of Christ's appearing in this world was a time of
regeneration, of reformation (Heb_9:10), when old things began to pass away, and all
things to look new. The disciples had followed Christ when the church was yet in the
embryo state, when the gospel temple was but in the framing, when they had more of the
work and service of the apostles than of the dignity and power that belonged to their
office. Now they followed Christ with constant fatigue, when few did; and therefore on
them he will put particular marks of honour. Note, Christ hath special favour for those
who begin early with him, who trust him further than they can see him, as they did who
followed him in the regeneration. Observe, Peter spoke of their forsaking all, to follow

199. him, Christ only speaks of their following him, which was the main matter.
[2.] The date of their honour, which fixes the time when it should commence; not
immediately from the day of the date of these presents, no, they must continue a while in
obscurity, as they were. But when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory; and
to this some refer that, in the regeneration; “You who now have followed me, shall, in
the regeneration, be thus dignified.” Christ's second coming will be a regeneration, when
there shall be new heavens, and a new earth, and the restitution of all things. All that
partake of the regeneration in grace (Joh_3:3) shall partake of the regeneration in glory;
for as grace is the first resurrection (Rev_20:6), so glory is the second regeneration.
Now their honour being adjourned till the Son of man's sitting in the throne of his
glory, intimates, First, That they must stay for their advancement till then. Note, As long
as our Master's glory is delayed, it is fit that ours should be so too, and that we should
wait for it with an earnest expectation, as of a hope not seen. Rom_8:19. We must live,
and work, and suffer, in faith, and hope, and patience, which therefore must be tried by
these delays. Secondly, That they must share with Christ in his advancement; their
honour must be a communion with him in his honour. They, having suffered with a
suffering Jesus, must reign with a reigning Jesus, for both here and hereafter Christ will
be all in all; we must be where he is (Joh_12:26), must appear with him (Col_3:4); and
this will be an abundant recompence not only for our loss, but for the delay; and when
our Lord comes, we shall receive not only our own, but our own with usury. The longest
voyages make the richest returns.
[3.] The honour itself hereby granted; Ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging
the twelve tribes of Israel. It is hard to determine the particular sense of this promise,
and whether it was not to have many accomplishments, which I see no harm in
admitting. First, When Christ is ascended to the right hand of the Father, and sits on the
throne of his glory, then the apostles shall receive power by the Holy Ghost (Act_1:8);
shall be so much advanced above themselves as they are now, that they shall think
themselves upon thrones, in promoting the gospel; they shall deliver it with authority, as
a judge from the bench; they shall then have their commission enlarged, and shall
publish the laws of Christ, by which the church, God's spiritual Israel (Gal_6:16), shall
be governed, and Israel according to the flesh, that continues in infidelity, with all
others that do likewise, shall be condemned. The honour and power given them, may be
explained by Jer_1:19, See, I have set thee over the nations; and Eze_20:4, Wilt thou
judge them? and Dan_7:18, The saints shall take the kingdom; and Rev_12:1, where the
doctrine of Christ is called a crown of twelve stars. Secondly, When Christ appears for
the destruction of Jerusalem (Mat_24:31), then shall he send the apostles to judge the
Jewish nation, because in that destruction their predictions, according to the word of
Christ, would be accomplished. Thirdly, Some think it has reference to the conversion of
the Jews, which is yet to come, at the latter end of the world, after the fall of antichrist;
so Dr. Whitby; and that “it respects the apostles' government or the twelve tribes of
Israel, not by a resurrection of their persons, but by a reviviscence of that Spirit which
resided in them, and of that purity and knowledge which they delivered to the world,
and, chiefly, by admission of their gospel to be the standard of their faith and the
direction of their lives.” Fourthly, It is certainly to have its full accomplishment at the
second coming of Jesus Christ, when the saints in general shall judge the world, and the
twelve apostles especially, as assessors with Christ, in the judgment of the great day,
when all the world shall receive their final doom, and they shall ratify and applaud the
sentence. But the tribe of Israel are named, partly because the number of the apostles
was designedly the same with the number of the tribes; partly because the apostles were
Jews, befriended them most, but were most spitefully persecuted by them; and it

200. intimates that the saints will judge their acquaintance and kindred according to the
flesh, and will, in the great day, judge those they had a kindness for; will judge their
persecutors, who in this world judged them.
But the general intendment of this promise is, to show the glory and dignity reserved
for the saints in heaven, which will be an abundant recompence for the disgrace they
suffered here in Christ's cause. There are higher degrees of glory for those that have
done and suffered most. The apostles in this world were hurried and tossed, there they
shall sit down at rest and ease; here bonds, and afflictions, and deaths, did abide them,
but there they shall sit on thrones of glory; here they were dragged to the bar, there they
shall be advanced to the bench; here the twelve tribes of Israel trampled upon them,
there they shall tremble before them. And will not this be recompence enough to make
up all their losses and expenses for Christ? Luk_22:29.
[4.] The ratification of this grant; it is firm, it is inviolably immutably sure; for Christ
hath said, “Verily I say unto you, I the Amen, the faithful Witness, who am empowered
to make this grant, I have said it, and it cannot be disannulled.”
CALVI , "28.Verily I say to you. That the disciples may not think that they have
lost their pains, and repent of having begun the course, Christ warns them that the
glory of his kingdom, which at that time was still hidden, was about to be revealed.
As if he had said, “There is no reason why that mean condition should discourage
you; for I, who am scarcely equal to the lowest, will at length ascend to my throne of
majesty. Endure then for a little, till the time arrive for revealing nay glory.” And
what does he then promise to them? That they shall be partakers of the same glory.
You also shall sit on twelve thrones By assigning to them thrones, from which they
may judge the twelve tribes of Israel, he compares them to assessors, or first
councilors and judges, who occupy the highest seats in the royal council. We know
that the number of those who were chosen to be apostles was twelve, in order to
testify that, by the agency of Christ, God purposed to collect the remnant of his
people which was scattered. This was a very high rank, but hitherto was concealed;
and therefore Christ holds their wishes in suspense till the latest revelation of his
kingdom, when they will fully receive the fruit of their election. And though the
kingdom of Christ is, in some respects, manifested by the preaching of the Gospel,
there is no doubt that Christ here speaks of the last day.
In the regeneration. Some connect this term with the following clause. In this sense,
regeneration would be nothing else than the renovation which shall follow our
restoration, when life shall swallow up what is mortal, and when our mean body
shall be transformed into the heavenly glory of Christ. But I rather explain
regeneration as referring to the first coming of Christ; for then the world began to
be renewed, and arose out of the darkness of death into the light of life. And this
way of speaking occurs frequently in the Prophets, and is exceedingly adapted to the
connection of this passage. For the renovation of the Church, which had been so
frequently promised, had raised an expectation of wonderful happiness, as soon as
the Messiah should appear; and therefore, in order to guard against that error,
Christ distinguishes between the beginning and the completion of his reign.

201. ELLICOTT, "(28) In the regeneration.—In the only other passage in the ew
Testament in which the word occurs, it is applied to baptism (Titus 3:5), as the
instrument of the regeneration or new birth of the individual believer. Here,
however, it clearly has a wider range. There is to be a “new birth” for mankind as
well as for the individual. The sorrows through which the world was to pass were to
be as the travail-pangs of that passage into a higher life. (See ote on Matthew
24:8.) Beyond them there lay, in the thoughts of the disciples, and, though after
another pattern, in the mind of Christ, the times of the “restitution of all things”
(Acts 3:21), the coming of the victorious Christ in the glory of His kingdom. In that
triumph the Twelve were to be sharers. Interpreted as they in their then stage of
progress would necessarily interpret them, the words suggested the idea of a
kingdom restored to Israel, in which they should be assessors of the divine King, not
only or chiefly in the great work of judging every man according to his works, but
as “judging,” in the old sense of the word, the “twelve tribes of Israel,” redressing
wrongs, guiding, governing. As the words that the Son of Man should “sit on the
throne of His glory” recalled the vision of Daniel 7:14, so these assured them that
they should be foremost among those of “the saints of the Most High,” to whom, as
in the same vision, had been given glory and dominion (Daniel 7:27). The
apocalyptic imagery in which the promise was clothed reappears in the vision of the
four-and-twenty elders seated on their thrones in Revelation 4:4, in the sealing of
the hundred and forty-four thousand of all the tribes of Israel in Revelation 7:4, and
the interpretation of the words here is subject to the same conditions as that of those
later visions. What approximations to a literal fulfilment there may be in the far-off
future lies behind the veil. They receive at least an adequate fulfilment if we see in
them the promise that, in the last triumphant stage of the redeeming work, the
Apostles should still be recognised and had in honour, as guiding the faith and
conduct of their countrymen; their names should be on the twelve foundations of the
heavenly Jerusalem (Revelation 21:14); they should be sharers in the throne and
glory of its King. The thought on which St. Paul dwells, that the “saints shall judge
the world” (1 Corinthians 6:2), in like manner refers not only or chiefly to any share
which the disciples of Christ shall have in the actual work of the final judgment, but
to the assured triumph of the faith, the laws, the principles of action of which they
were then the persecuted witnesses. We must not ignore the fact that, in at least one
instance, the words, absolute as they were in their form, failed of their fulfilment.
The guilt of Judas left one of the thrones vacant. The promise was given subject to
the implied conditions of faithfulness and endurance lasting even to the end.
COFFMA , "This was not a reference to literal thrones but to spiritual thrones of
eminence and authority in Christ's kingdom, from which they should exercise
influence, not over fleshly Israel but over the spiritual Israel which is the church
(Romans 9:6; Galatians 3:29). ote that no preference was given Peter. There was
not to be one throne, occupied by Peter and his successors, but twelve thrones,
implying the equality of the Twelve. The word of the apostles, that is, the ew
Testament, is the instrument through which they exercise the authority that Jesus
granted them in this promise. "Times of the regeneration" refers to the times of the
new birth, namely, the time of the present dispensation when men are hearing the

202. gospel, obeying it, and being born again. Efforts to apply this passage to some kind
of literal return of Jesus to the earth and which envisions Christ and the apostles
actually occupying literal earthly thrones must surely be rejected in the light of the
truth that Christ and the Twelve are OW reigning in his kingdom. The reign will
continue until all enemies have been put under foot (1 Corinthians 15:24-28). When
death, the last enemy, is destroyed, Christ will not initiate a reign but will end it,
delivering up the kingdom to the Father.
LIGHTFOOT, "[Ye that have followed me, in the regeneration.] That the world is
to be renewed at the coming of the Messias, and the preaching of the gospel, the
Scriptures assert, and the Jews believe; but in a grosser sense, which we observe at
chapter 24. Our Saviour, therefore, by the word regeneration, calls back the mind of
the disciples to a right apprehension of the thing; implying that renovation,
concerning which the Scripture speaks, is not of the body or substance of the world;
but that it consists in the renewing of the manners, doctrine, and a dispensation
conducing thereunto: men are to be renewed, regenerated,--not the fabric of the
world. This very thing he teaches icodemus, treating concerning the nature of the
kingdom of heaven, John 3:3.
[When the Son of man shall sit upon the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit.] These
words are fetched out of Daniel, chapter 7:9,10; which words I wonder should be
translated by the interpreters, Aben Ezra, R. Saadia, and others, as well Jews as
Christians, thrones were cast down. R. Solomon the Vulgar, and others, read it
righter, thrones were set up: where Lyranus thus, "He saith thrones in the plural
number, because not only Christ shall judge, but the apostles, and perfect men, shall
assist him in judgment, sitting upon thrones." The same way very many interpreters
bend the words under our hands, namely, that the saints shall at the day of
judgment sit with Christ, and approve and applaud his judgment. But, 1. besides,
that the scene of the last judgment, painted out in the Scripture, does always
represent as well the saints as the wicked standing before the tribunal of Christ,
Matthew 25:32, 2 Corinthians 5:10, &c.; we have mention here only of "twelve
thrones." And, 2, we have mention only of judging the "twelve tribes of Israel." The
sense, therefore, of the place may very well be found out by weighing these things
following:
I. That those thrones set up in Daniel are not to be understood of the last judgment
of Christ, but of his judgment in his entrance upon his evangelical government,
when he was made by his Father chief ruler, king, and judge of all things: Psalm
2:6, Matthew 28:18, John 5:27. For observe the scope and series of the prophet, that,
after the four monarchies, namely, the Babylonian, the Medo-Persian, the Grecian,
and the Syro-Grecian, which monarchies had vexed the world and the church by
their tyranny, were destroyed, the kingdom of Christ should rise, &c. Those words,
"The kingdom of heaven is at hand," that judiciary scene set up Revelation 4 and 5,
and those thrones Revelation 20:1, &c. do interpret Daniel to this sense.
II. The throne of glory, concerning which the words before us are, is to be
understood of the judgment of Christ to be brought upon the treacherous,

203. rebellious, wicked people. We meet with very frequent mention of the coming of
Christ in his glory in this sense; which we shall discourse more largely of at chapter
24.
III. That the sitting of the apostles upon thrones with Christ is not to be understood
of their persons, it is sufficiently proved; because Judas was now one of the number:
but it is meant of their doctrine: as if he had said, "When I shall bring judgment
upon this most unjust nation, then our doctrine, which you have preached in my
name, shall judge and condemn them." See Romans 2:16.
Hence it appears that the gospel was preached to all the twelve tribes of Israel
before the destruction of Jerusalem.
BROADUS, "Matthew 19:28. He begins with a solemn assurance, as in Matthew
19:23, Verily I say unto you, see on "Matthew 5:18". This special promise to the
Twelve is found only in Matthew, to whose Jewish readers it would be of special
interest. In the regeneration. The Greek word here used (palingenesia) is found
nowhere else in ew Testament save Titus 3:5, where it denotes the spiritual new
birth. Here it has a very different sense. Plutarch uses it for the appearance of souls
in new bodies (Pythagorean doctrine of transmigration); M. Antoninus speaks,
according to a Stoic conception, of "the periodical new-birth of the universe," viz.,
in spring; Philo, according to another Stoic conception, foretells a new-birth of the
world out of fire; Cicero speaks of his "restoration to dignities and honours " as
"this new birth of ours"; and a late Piatonist says, "Recollection is a new birth of
knowledge." These uses will illustrate our passage, which has a kindred but
profounder sense. When the Messianic reign is fully established, there will be a new-
birth of all things, called also a "restoration of all things", (Acts 3:21, Revelation
Ver.) "new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness" (2 Peter 3:13;
compare Revelation 21:1, Revelation 21:5), and the deliverance of the whole
creation from the bondage of corruption at the revealing of the sons of God in
redeemed bodies. (Romans 8:18-23) The Peshitta here translates 'in the new world,'
or new age, period. (Compare on Matthew 12:32.) Understood thus, 'in the
regeneration'(1) is manifestly not connected with 'ye that have followed me,' for it
denotes not the beginning, but the consummation of the Messianic reign, when the
Son of man (see on "Matthew 8:20") shall sit in the throne of his glory , compare,
Matthew 25:31; also Matthew 7:22, Matthew 16:27. All this high-wrought imagery
of a universal restoration, a new birth, a new universe, must of course be
interpreted as imagery, and must not be so understood as to exclude other facts of
the future which are plainly revealed, as in Matthew 25:46. Ye also shall sit upon
twelve thrones, is of course an image. It is idle to insist upon the exact number
twelve, (compare Revelation 21:12-14) and so to be troubled about the fact that
while Matthias took the place of Judas, Paul made thirteen apostles. Judging the
twelve tribes of Israel certainly does not mean that only Jews will be judged, or that
one apostle will judge one tribe. The Oriental king, and the Roman emperor, was
also a judge, and when he sat on his throne in public, it was usually for the purpose
of hearing petitions or complaints and giving judgment, Such a monarch often had
persons seated near him (called by the Romans "assessors"), to aid him in judging;

204. compare Revelation 4:4; "round about the throne were four and twenty thrones."
To this position of dignity and honour will the Twelve be exalted at the
consummation of the Messianic kingdom; compare 1 Corinthians 6:2, "the saints
shall judge the world." Our Lord will use the same image again on the night before
the crucifixion, Luke 22:30.
29 And everyone who has left houses or brothers
or sisters or father or mother or wife[e] or
children or fields for my sake will receive a
hundred times as much and will inherit eternal
life.
BAR ES, "And every one that hath forsaken houses ... - In the days of Jesus,
those who followed him were obliged, generally, to forsake houses and home, and to
attend him.
In our time it is not often required that we should literally leave them, except when the
life is devoted to him among the pagan; but it is always required that we love them less
than we do him, that we give up all that is inconsistent with religion, and that we be
ready to give up all when he demands it.
For my name’s sake - From attachment to me. Mark adds, “and for the gospel’s;”
that is, from obedience to the requirements of the gospel, and love for the service of the
gospel.
Shall receive a hundred-fold - Mark says “a hundred-fold now in this time,
houses, and brethren, and sisters,” etc. A hundred-fold means a hundred times as much.
This is not to be understood literally, but that he will give what will be worth 100 times
as much in the peace, and joy, and rewards of religion. It is also literally true that no
man’s temporal interest is injured by the love of God. Mark adds, “with persecutions.”
These are not promised as a part of the reward; but amid their trials and persecutions
they should find reward and peace.
CLARKE, "Shall receive a hundredfold - Viz. in this life, in value, though
perhaps not in kind; and in the world to come everlasting life. A glorious portion for a
persevering believer! The fullness of Grace here, and the fullness of Glory hereafter! See
on Mar_10:30 (note).
GILL, "And everyone that hath forsaken houses,.... Not only the then disciples of
Christ, but any other believer in him, whether at that time, or in any age, that should be

205. called to quit their habitations, or leave their dearest relations, friends, and substance: as
brethren or sisters, or father or mother, or wife or children, lands, for my
name's sake; or, as in Luke, "for the kingdom of God's sake"; that is, for the sake of the
Gospel, and a profession of it. Not that believing in Christ, and professing his name, do
necessarily require a parting with all worldly substance, and natural relations, but when
these things stand in competition with Christ, he is to be loved and preferred before
them; and believers are always to be ready to part with them for his sake, when
persecution arises, because of the word. All these things are to be relinquished, rather
than Christ, and his Gospel; and such who shall be enabled, through divine grace, to do
so,
shall receive an hundred fold: Mark adds, "now in this time"; and Luke likewise, "in
this present time", in this world; which may be understood either in spiritual things, the
love of God, the presence of Christ, the comforts of the Holy Ghost, the communion of
saints, and the joys and pleasures felt in the enjoyment of these things, being an hundred
times more and better to them, than all they have left or lost for Christ's sake; or in
temporal things, so in Mark it seems to be explained, that such shall now receive an
hundred fold,
even houses and brethren, and sisters and mothers, and children and lands;
not that they should receive, for the leaving of one house, an hundred houses; or for
forsaking one brother, an hundred brethren, &c. which last indeed might be true, as to a
spiritual relation; but that the small pittance of this world's goods, and the few friends
they should have "with persecutions" along with them, and amidst them, should be so
sweetened to them, with the love and presence of God, that these should be more and
better to them than an hundred houses, fields, and friends, without them:
and shall inherit everlasting life. The other evangelists add, "in the world to come",
which is infinitely best of all; for this is an inheritance incorruptible, undefiled, which
fades not away, reserved in the heavens, when all other inheritances are corruptible,
defiled, fading and perishing; houses fall, relations die, friends fail, and lands and estates
do not continue for ever: they then have the best of it, who being called, in providence, to
quit all terrene enjoyments for Christ's sake, are favoured with his presence here, and
shall enjoy eternal glory and happiness with him in another world.
HE RY, "(2.) Here is a promise to all others that should in like manner leave all to
follow Christ. It was not peculiar to the apostles, to be thus preferred, but this honour
have all his saints. Christ will take care they shall none of them lose by him (Mat_
19:29); Every one that has forsaken any thing for Christ, shall receive.
[1.] Losses for Christ are here supposed. Christ had told them that his disciples must
deny themselves in all that is done to them in this world; now here he specifies
particulars; for it is good to count upon the worst. If they have not forsaken all, as the
apostles did, yet they have forsaken a great deal, houses suppose, and have turned
themselves out, to wander in deserts; or dear relations, that would not go with them, to
follow Christ; these are particularly mentioned, as hardest for a tender gracious spirit to
part with; brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children; and lands are
added in the close; the profits of which were the support of the family.
Now, First, the loss of these things is supposed to be for Christ's name's sake; else he
doth not oblige himself to make it up. Many forsake brethren, and wife, and children, in

206. humour and passion, as the bird that wanders from her nest; that is a sinful desertion.
But if we forsake them for Christ's sake, because we cannot keep them and keep a good
conscience, we must either quit them, or quit our interest in Christ; if we do not quit our
concern for them, or our duty to them, but our comfort in them, and will do it rather
than deny Christ, and this with an eye to him, and to his will and glory, this is that which
shall be thus recompensed. It is not the suffering, but the cause, that makes both the
martyr and the confessor.
Secondly, It is supposed to be a great loss; and yet Christ undertakes to make up, for
he is able to do it, be it ever so great. See the barbarity of the persecutors, that they
stripped innocent people of all they had, for no other crime than their adherence to
Christ! See the patience of the persecuted; and the strength of their love to Christ, which
was such as all these waters could not quench!
[2.] A recompence of these losses is here secured. Thousands have dealt with Christ,
and have trusted him far; but never any one lost by him, never any one but was an
unspeakable gainer by him, when the account came to be balanced. Christ here gives his
word for it, that he will not only indemnify his suffering servants, and save them
harmless, but will abundantly reward them. Let them make a schedule of their losses for
Christ, and they shall be sure to receive,
First, A hundred-fold in this life; sometimes in kind, in the things themselves which
they have parted with. God will raise up for his suffering servants more friends, that will
be so to them for Christ's sake, than they have left that were so for their own sakes. The
apostles, wherever they came, met with those that were kind to them, and entertained
them, and opened their hearts and doors to them. However, they shall receive a
hundred-fold, in kindness, in those things that are abundantly better and more valuable.
Their graces shall increase, their comforts abound, they shall have tokens of God's love,
more free communion with him, more full communications from him, clearer foresights,
and sweeter foretastes, of the glory to be revealed; and then they may truly say, they
have received a hundred times more comfort in God and Christ than they could have had
in wife, or children.
Secondly, Eternal life at last. The former is reward enough, if there were no more;
cent. per cent. is great profit; what then is a hundred to one? But this comes in over and
above, as it were, into the bargain. The life here promised includes in it all the comforts
of life in the highest degree, and all eternal. Now if we could but mix faith with the
promise, and trust Christ for the performance of it, surely we should think nothing too
much to do, nothing too hard to suffer, nothing too dear to part with, for him.
CALVI , "Matthew 19:29.And whosoever shall forsake. After having raised the
expectation of his followers to the hope of a future life, he supports them by
immediate consolations, (641) and strengthens them for bearing the cross. For
though God permit his people to be severely afflicted, he never abandons them, so as
not to recompense their distresses by his assistance. And here he does not merely
address the apostles, but takes occasion to direct his discourse generally to all the
godly. The substance of it is this: Those who shall willingly lose all for the sake of
Christ, will be more happy even in this life than if they had retained the full
possession of them; but the chief reward is laid up for them in heaven.
But what he promises about recompensing them a hundredfold appears not at all to
agree with experience; for in the greater number of cases, those who have been

207. deprived of their parents, or children, and other relatives — who have been reduced
to widowhood, and stripped of their wealth, for the testimony of Christ — are so far
from recovering their property, that in exile, solitude and desertion, they have a
hard struggle with severe poverty. I reply, if any man estimate aright the immediate
grace of God, by which he relieves the sorrows of his people, he will acknowledge
that it is justly preferred to all the riches of the world. For though unbelievers
flourish, (Psalms 92:7,) yet as they know not what awaits them on the morro w
(James 4:14,) they must be always tossed about in perplexity and terror, and it is
only by stupefying themselves in some sort that they can at all enjoy prosperity.
(642) Yet God gladdens his people, so that the small portion of good which they
enjoy is more highly valued by them, and far sweeter, than if out of Christ they had
enjoyed an unlimited abundance of good things. In this sense I interpret the
expression used by Mark, with persecutions; as if Christ had said, Though
persecutions always await the godly in this world, and though the cross, as it were, is
attached to their back, yet so sweet is the seasoning of the grace of God, which
gladdens them, that their condition is more desirable than the luxuries of kings.
ELLICOTT, "(29) Every one that hath forsaken.—While the loyalty and faith of the
Apostles were rewarded with a promise which satisfied their hopes then, and would
bring with it, as they entered more deeply into its meaning, an ever-increasing
satisfaction, their claim to a special privilege and reward was at least indirectly
rebuked. ot for them only, but for all who had done or should hereafter do as they
did, should there be a manifold reward, even within the limits of their earthly life,
culminating hereafter in the full fruition of the “eternal life” of which they had
heard so recently in the question of the young ruler.
For my name’s sake.—The variations in the other Gospels, “for my sake and the
gospel’s” (Mark 10:29), “for the kingdom of God’s sake” (Luke 18:29), are
significant, (1) as explanatory, (2) as showing that the substantial meaning of all
three is the same. The act of forsaking home and wealth must not originate in a far-
sighted calculation of reward; it must proceed from devotion to a Person and a
cause, must tend to the furtherance of the gospel and the establishment of the divine
Kingdom.
Shall receive an hundredfold.—The better MSS. have “manifold more,” as in St.
Luke. The received reading agrees with St. Mark. Here it is manifestly impossible to
take the words literally, and this may well make us hesitate in expecting a literal
fulfilment of the promise that precedes. We cannot look for the hundredfold of
houses, or wives, or children. What is meant is, that the spirit of insight and self-
sacrifice for the sake of God’s kingdom multiplies and intensifies even the common
joys of life. Relationships multiply on the ground of spiritual sympathies. ew
homes are opened to us. We find new friends. The common things of life—sky, and
sea, and earth—are clothed with a new beauty to the cleansed eyes of those who
have conquered self. St. Mark (Mark 10:30) adds words which, if one may so speak,
are so strange that they must have been actually spoken,—“with persecutions.” We
seem to hear the words spoken as a parenthesis, and in a tone of tender sadness, not,
perhaps, altogether unmingled with a touch of the method which teaches new

208. truths, by first meeting men’s expectations, and then suddenly presenting that
which is at variance with them. The thoughts of the disciples were travelling on to
that “hundredfold,” as though it meant that all things should be smooth and
prosperous with them. They are reminded that persecution in some shape, the trials
that test and strengthen, is inseparable from the higher life of the kingdom. (Comp.
Acts 14:22.) Men need that discipline in order that they may feel that the new things
are better than the old.
COFFMA , "What a promise of blessing for God's children is this! Two things, yea
three, are promised here: (1) First, there is the multiplication, on a vast scale, of the
wealth that people may forsake to follow Christ. (2) Second, there is the
multiplication, on the same vast scale, of loved ones, however near and dear, who
may be forsaken for his name's sake. (3) Third, there is the promise of eternal life.
But, looking beyond this magnificent triple promise, WHO is he that made it, and
how shall he fulfill it? The answer is GOD, and God is able to do all things. Here
then is another passage that must be placed in the category of teaching that Christ is
God. Words like these must be counted sheer nonsense if spoken by a mere man;
but, when spoken by Christ, they warm the hearts of men in all generations. Spoken
by any other, such words would only evoke scorn and laughter; but, spoken by
Christ, they strengthen the faithful in all ages. And the testimony is this: O MA
EVER TRIED THE PROMISE BUT FOU D IT TRUE!
PETT, "Verse 29
“And every one who has left houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or
children, or lands, for my name’s sake, will receive a hundredfold, and will inherit
eternal life.”
And it is not only they who will be blessed in this life. All who along with them have
left houses and family and lands ‘for His sake’, they also will receive a hundred fold
‘in this time’ (Mark 9:30), and will finally inherit eternal life. Thus the way of
following Jesus will be a way of great blessing on earth, when His people will receive
far more than they have lost by leaving everything for His sake. The Apostles will
receive ‘thrones’ and the remainder will receive ‘a hundred houses, a hundred
brothers, a hundred sisters, a hundred fathers, a hundred mothers, a hundred
children and a hundred pieces of land’, this flowing into eternal life. In other words
they will enjoy the Kingly Rule of Heaven and its blessings now, and will enjoy it in
its consummation later.
That we are not to take this too literally is also abundantly clear. Do we really want
a hundred fathers, a hundred children, and vast lands? They are as symbolic as the
thrones. It is rather a further pictorial representation of a greater truth, that God
will give overflowing blessing in return for our sacrifices and our full dedication. To
the Jew children and lands were their two most precious possessions.
‘For My name’s sake.’ Here is the central crux. Their eyes have been fixed on Him
and they have followed Him. They have not done it for a church, or for themselves,
or out of love for an ideal, they have done it out of love for Him. They have done it

209. because of Who He is. And thus they will receive all the blessings that He has come
to bring.
‘Will inherit eternal life.’ This specifically connects back to the previous story of the
rich young man. That had begun with the question, ‘what must I do to have (inherit)
eternal life?’ (Matthew 19:16; Mark 10:17). Here is the reply. What a contrast all
that Jesus has just described is with the rich young man. He had returned home
with his riches intact but he had lost all the spiritual blessings which have just been
described, including eternal life. And he has lost his treasure in Heaven, while these
who have forsaken all and followed Him have both friends, and family, and riches
beyond imagining, and in the end will enjoy and inherit eternal life, both now (John
5:24; John 10:10) and in the future.
EXCURSUS On ‘Is The Church The True Israel?’
It must immediately be stressed that we are not asking whether the church is a kind
of ‘spiritual Israel’, or whether it is a kind of ‘parallel Israel’. The question being
asked is whether the early church saw itself as the true literal Biblical Israel, His
firstborn who came from Egypt? In this regard we should note that Jesus spoke to
His disciples of His new community in terms that did actually indicate Israel for He
spoke of ‘building His congregation/church (ekklesia)’ (Matthew 16:18) and He did
it as the One Who had truly come out of Egypt (Matthew 2:15). In the Old
Testament the ‘ekklesia’ was one of the words used to indicate ‘all Israel’. This
suggests therefore that Jesus was here thinking of building the true congregation of
Israel. And while this came after He had said that He had come only to ‘the lost
sheep of the house of Israel’ (Matthew 10:6; Matthew 15:24), (that is those of Israel
who were wandering and without a shepherd), it also followed the time when His
thinking clearly took a new turn following His dealings with the Syro-phoenician
woman, when He began a ministry in more specifically Gentile territory, offering
the children’s bread to ‘the dogs’. His ‘congregation’ was thus to be composed of
both Jews and Gentiles.
But did Jesus see His new community as the new Israel? That He does is in fact
made clear in John 15:1-6 where He describes Himself as the true vine with
believers as the branches. The old vine has been stripped away and rooted out
(Isaiah 5:1-7), and replaced by Jesus and His followers. This is confirmed in
Matthew 2:15 where He is spoken of as God’s Son who is called out of Egypt, words
originally referring to Israel (Hosea 11:1). He is the true representative of Israel
Who alone left Egypt behind (see on Matthew 2:15), and all who would be the new
Israel must be conjoined with Him.
Thus there is good reason to suggest that when Jesus in Matthew 16:18 spoke of the
‘congregation/church’, it was with the purpose of equating it with the true ‘Israel’,
the Israel within Israel (Romans 9:6), as indeed it did in the Greek translations of
the Old Testament where ‘the congregation/assembly of Israel’, which was finally
composed of all who responded to the covenant, was translated as ‘the church
(ekklesia) of Israel’. We may see this expression then as indicating that He was now

210. intending to found a new Israel, which it later turned out would include Gentiles.
Indeed this was the basis on which the early believers called themselves ‘the
church/congregation’, that is the congregation of the new Israel, and while they
were at first made up mainly of Jews and proselytes, this gradually developed into
including both Jews and Gentiles.
That the old Israel as a whole has ceased to be so in the Apostles’ eyes is in fact
made clear in Acts 4:27-28 where we read, “For in truth in this city against your
holy Servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the
Gentilesand the peoples of Israel, were gathered together, to do whatever your hand
and your council foreordained to come about.”
This follows as an explanation of a quotation from Psalms 2:1 in Acts 4:25-26 :
‘Why did the Gentiles rage,
And the peoples imagine vain things,
The kings of the earth set themselves,
And the rulers were gathered together,
Against the Lord and against His anointed --.’
The important point to note here is that ‘the peoples’ who imagined vain things,
who in the Psalm were nations who were enemies of Israel, have become in Acts ‘the
peoples of Israel’. Thus the ‘peoples of Israel’ who were opposing the Apostles and
refusing to believe are here seen as the enemy of God and His Anointed, and of His
people. It is a clear indication that old unbelieving Israel was now seen as numbered
by God among the nations, and that those who have believed in Christ are seen as
the true Israel. As Jesus had said to Israel, ‘the Kingly Rule of God will be taken
way from you and given to a nation producing its fruits’ (Matthew 21:43). Thus the
King now has a new people of Israel to guard and watch over.
The same idea is found in John 15:1-6. The false vine (the old Israel - Isaiah 5:1-7)
has been cut down and replaced by the true vine of ‘Christ at one with His people’
(John 15:1-6; Ephesians 2:11-22). Here Jesus, and those who abide in Him (the
church/congregation), are the new Israel. The old unbelieving part of Israel has
been cut off and replaced by all those who come to Jesus and abide in Jesus, that is
both believing Jews and believing Gentiles (Romans 11:17-28), who together with
Jesus form the true Vine.
Thus the new Israel, the ‘Israel of God’, sprang from Jesus. And it was He Who
established its new leaders who would ‘rule over (‘judge’) the twelve tribes of Israel’
(Matthew 19:28; Luke 22:30). Here ‘the twelve tribes of Israel’ refers to all who will
come to believe in Jesus through His word, and the initial, if not the complete
fulfilment, of this promise occurred in Acts. (See the arguments above and the
arguments in our commentary on Luke 22 with regard to this interpretation). This
appointment to ‘rule over (judge) the twelve tribes of Israel’ was not intended to
divide the world into two parts, consisting of Jew and Gentile, with the two parts
seen as separate, and with Israel under the Apostles, while the Gentiles were under
other rulers, but as describing a united Christian ‘congregation’. Thus those over

211. whom they ‘ruled’ would be ‘the true Israel’ which would include both believing
Jews and believing Gentiles. These would become the true Israel.
Make no mistake this true Israel was founded on believing Jews. ItwasIsrael. The
Apostles were Jews, and were to be the foundation of the new Israel which
incorporated Gentiles within it (Ephesians 2:20; Revelation 21:14). And initially all
its first foundation members were Jews. Then as it spread it first did so among Jews
until there were ‘about five thousand’ Jewish males who were believers to say
nothing of women and children (Acts 4:4). Then it spread throughout all Judaea,
and then through the synagogues of ‘the world’, so that soon there were a multitude
of Jews who were Christians. Here then was the initial true Israel over whom the
Apostles presided.
But then proselytes (Gentile converts) and God-fearers (Gentile adherents to the
synagogues) began to join and they also became branches of the true vine (John
15:1-6) and were grafted into the olive tree (Romans 11:17-28). They became
‘fellow-citizens’ with the Jewish believers (‘the saints’, a regular Old Testament
name for true Israelites who were seen as true believers). They became members of
the ‘household of God’ (Ephesians 2:11-22). And so the new Israel has sprung up
following the same pattern as the old, and as finally incorporating believing Jews
and believing Gentiles. That is why Paul could describe the new church as ‘the
Israel of God’ (Galatians 6:16), because both Jews and Gentiles were now genuinely
‘the seed of Abraham’ (Galatians 3:29).
Those who deny that the church is Israel and equate Israel with the ‘old unbelieving
Jews’ must in fact see all these ‘believing Jews’ as cut off from Israel (as the Jews in
fact in time did). For by the late 1st century AD, the Israel for which those who deny
that the church is Israel contend, was an Israel made up only of Jews who did not
see Christian Jews as belonging to Israel. As far as they were concerned Christian
Jews were cut off from Israel. And in the same way believing Jews who followed
Paul’s teaching saw fellow Jews who did not believe as no longer being true Israel.
They in turn saw unbelieving Jews as cut off from Israel. As Paul puts it, ‘they are
not all Israel who are Israel’ (Romans 9:6).
For the new Israel now saw themselves as the true Israel. They saw themselves as
the ‘Israel of God’. And that is why Paul stresses to the Gentile Christians in
Ephesians 2:11-22; Romans 11:17-28 that they are now a part of the new Israel
having been made one with the true people of God in Jesus Christ. In order to
consider all this in more detail let us look back in history where we discover that
there was never a time when ‘Israel’ was composed solely of Jacob’s descendants.
When Abraham entered the land of Canaan having been called there by God he was
promised that in him all the world would be blessed, and this was later also
promised to his seed (Genesis 12:3; Genesis 18:18; Genesis 22:18; Genesis 26:4;
Genesis 28:14). But Abraham did not enter the land alone. In Genesis 14 he had
three hundred and eighteen fighting men ‘born in his house’, in other words born to
servants, camp followers and slaves. One of his own slave wives was an Egyptian

212. (Genesis 16) and his steward was probably Syrian, a Damascene (Genesis 15:2).
Thus Abraham was patriarch over a family tribe, all of whom with him inherited
the promises,and they came from of a number of different nationalities.
From Abraham came Isaac through whom the most basic promises were to be
fulfilled, for God said, ‘in Isaac shall your seed be called’ (Genesis 21:12; Romans
9:7; see also Genesis 26:3-5). Thus the seed of Ishmael, while enjoying promises
from God, were excluded from the major line of promises. While prospering, they
would not be the people through whom the whole world would be blessed. Jacob,
who was renamed Israel, was born of Isaac, and it was to him that the future
lordship of people and nations was seen as passed on (Genesis 27:29) and from his
twelve sons came the twelve tribes of the ‘children of Israel’. But as with Abraham
these twelve tribes would include retainers, servants and slaves. The ‘households’
that moved to Egypt would include such servants and slaves. So the ‘children of
Israel’ even at this stage would include people from many peoples and nations. They
included Jacob/Israel’s own descendants and their wives, together with their
servants and retainers, and their wives and children, ‘many ‘born in their house’
but not directly their seed (Genesis 15:3) and many descended from different races.
Israel was already a conglomerate people. Even at the beginning they were not
literally descended from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Many of them were rather
‘adopted’.
When they left Egypt this mixed nation were joined by a ‘mixed multitude’ from
many nations, who with them had been enslaved in Egypt, and these joined with
them in their flight (Exodus 12:38). At Sinai these were all joined within the
covenant and became ‘children of Israel’. These included an Ethiopian (Cushite)
woman who became Moses’ wife ( umbers 12:1). Thus we discover that ‘Israel’
from its commencement was an international community. Indeed it was made clear
from the beginning that any who wanted to do so could join Israel and become an
Israelite by submission to the covenant and by being circumcised (Exodus 12:48-49).
Membership of the people of God was thus from the beginning to be open to all
nations by submission to God through the covenant. It was a religious community
not strictly a racial one. And these all then connected themselves with one of the
tribes of Israel, were absorbed into them, and began to trace their ancestry back to
Abraham and Jacob even though they were not true born, and still retained an
identifying appellation such as, for example, ‘Uriah the Hittite’. (Whether Uriah
was one such we do not know, although we think it extremely probably. But there
must certainly have been some). And there were indeed regulations as to who could
enter the assembly or congregation of the Lord, and at what stage people of
different nations could enter it (Deuteronomy 23:1-8) so that they then became
‘Israelites’.
That this was carried out in practise is evidenced by the numerous Israelites who
bear a foreign name, consider for example ‘Uriah the Hittite’ (2 Samuel 11) and the
mighty men of David (2 Samuel 23:8-28). These latter were so close to David that it
is inconceivable that some at least did not become true members of the covenant by
submitting to the covenant and being circumcised. Later again it became the

213. practise in Israel, in accordance with Exodus 12:48-49, for anyone who ‘converted’
to Israel and began to believe in the God of Israel, to be received into ‘Israel’ on
equal terms with the true born by circumcision and submission to the covenant.
These were called ‘proselytes’. In contrast people also left Israel by desertion, and
by not bringing their children within the covenant, when for example they went
abroad or were exiled. These were then ‘cut off from Israel’, as were deep sinners.
‘Israel’ was therefore always a fluid concept, and was, at least purportedly,
composed of all who submitted to the covenant.
This was the situation on which the prophets commented. They made quite clear
that there was a distinction between the true Israel (those who were truly obedient
to and responsive to God) and the Israel who were ‘ ot My People’ (Hosea 1:10).
Only those who were purified and refined would be the true Israel (Zechariah 13:9;
Malachi 3:3).
When Jesus came His initial purpose was to call back to God ‘the lost sheep of the
house of Israel’ (Matthew 10:6), and in the main, (in the first part of His ministry
and with exceptions e.g. John 4), He limited His ministry to Jews. But after His
dealings with the Syro-phoenician woman, He appears to have expanded His
thinking, or His approach, and to have moved into more Gentile territory. And later
He declared that there were other sheep that He would also call and they would be
one flock with Israel (John 10:16).
Thus when the Gospel began to reach out to the Gentiles those converted were
welcomed as part of that one flock. But the question that arose then was, ‘did they
need to be circumcised in order to become members of the new Israel?’ Was a
special proseletysation necessary, as with proselytes to old Israel, evidenced by
circumcision, in accordance with Exodus 12:48?That was what the circumcision
controversy was all about. If those who entered into that controversy had not seen
Gentiles as becoming a part of Israel there would have been no controversy. That is
why Paul’ argument was never that circumcision was not necessary because they
were not becoming Israel. He indeed accepted that they would become members of
Israel. But rather he argues that circumcision was no longer necessary because all
who were in Christ were circumcised with the circumcision of Christ. They were
already circumcised by faith. They had the circumcision of the heart, and were
circumcised with the circumcision of Christ (Colossians 2:11), and therefore did not
need to be circumcised again. Thus they were truly circumcised in Christ into Israel.
In Romans 11:17-24, therefore, Paul speaks clearly of converted Gentiles being
‘grafted into the olive tree’ through faith, and of Israelites being broken off through
unbelief, to be welcomed again if they repent and come to Christ. Whatever we
therefore actually see the olive tree as representing, it is quite clear that it does
speak of those who are cut off because they do not believe, and of those who are
ingrafted because they do believe, and this in the context of Israel being saved or
not. But the breaking off or casting off of Israelites in the Old Testament was always
an indication of being cut off from Israel. Thus we must see the olive tree as, like the
true vine, signifying all who are now included within the promises, that is the true

214. Israel, with spurious elements which cling to them being cut off because they are not
really a part of them, while new members are grafted in. Any difficulty lies in the
simplicity of the illustration which like all illustrations cannot cover every
point.This idea also comes out regularly in the Old Testament where God made it
quite clear that only a proportion of Israel would avoid His judgments (e.g. Isaiah
6:13). The remainder (and large majority) would be ‘cut off’, for although
outwardly professing to be His people they were not His people. And thus it was
with the people of Israel in Jesus' day. They were revealed by their fruits, which
included how they responded to Jesus.
This idea also comes out regularly in the Old Testament where God made it quite
clear that only a proportion of Israel would avoid His judgments (e.g. Isaiah 6:13).
The remainder (and large majority) would be ‘cut off’, for although outwardly
professing to be His people they were not His people. And thus it was with the
people of Israel in Jesus’ day. They were revealed by their fruits, which included
how they responded to Jesus.
But in Ephesians 2 Paul makes clear that Gentiles can become a part of the true
Israel. He tells the Gentiles that they had in the past been ‘alienated from the
commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of the promise’
(Ephesians 2:12). They had not been a part of it. Thus in the past they had not
belonged to the twelve tribes. But then he tells them that they are now ‘made nigh
by the blood of Christ’ (Ephesians 2:13), Who has ‘made both one and broken down
the wall of partition --- creating in Himself of two one new man’ (Ephesians 2:14-
15). ow therefore, through Christ, they have been made members of the
commonwealth of Israel, and inherit the promises. So they are ‘no longer strangers
and sojourners, but fellow-citizens with the saints and of the household of God,
being built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets’ (Ephesians 2:19-20).
‘Strangers and sojourners’ was the Old Testament description of those who were
not true Israelites. It is therefore made as clear as can be that these have now
entered the ‘new’ Israel. They are no longer strangers and sojourners but are now
‘fellow-citizens’ with God’s people. They have entered into the covenant of promise
(Ephesians 3:29), and thus inherit all the promises of the Old Testament, including
the prophecies.
So as with people in the Old Testament who were regularly adopted into the twelve
tribes of Israel (e.g. the mixed multitude - Exodus 12:38), Gentile Christians too are
now seen as so incorporated. That is why Paul can call the church ‘the Israel of
God’, made up of Jews and ex-Gentiles, having declared circumcision and
uncircumcision as unimportant because there is a new creation (Galatians 6:15-16),
a circumcision of the heart. It is those who are in that new creation who are the
Israel of God.
In context ‘The Israel of God’ can here only mean that new creation, the church of
Christ, otherwise he is being inconsistent. For as he points out, neither circumcision
nor uncircumcision matters any more. What matters is the new creation. It must
therefore be that which identifies the Israel of God. For if circumcision is irrelevant

215. then the Israel of God cannot be made up of the circumcised, even the believing
circumcised, for circumcision has lost its meaning. The point therefore behind both
of these passages is that all Christians become, by adoption, members of the twelve
tribes.
There would in fact be no point in mentioning circumcision if he was not thinking of
incorporation of believing Gentiles into the twelve tribes. The importance of
circumcision was that to the Jews it made the difference between those who became
genuine proselytes, and thus members of the twelve tribes, and those who remained
as ‘God-fearers’, loosely attached but not accepted as full Jews. That then was why
the Judaisers wanted all Gentiles to be circumcised. It was because they did not
believe that they could otherwise become genuine Israelites. There could be no other
reason for wanting Gentiles to be circumcised. (Jesus had never in any way
commanded circumcision). But Paul says that that is not so. He argues that they can
become true Israelites without being physically circumcised because they are
circumcised in heart. They are circumcised in Christ. So when Paul argues that
Christians have been circumcised in heart (Romans 2:26; Romans 2:29; Romans
4:12; Philippians 3:3; Colossians 2:11) he is saying that that is all that is necessary in
order for them to be members of the true Israel.
A great deal of discussion often takes place about the use of ‘kai’ in Galatians 6:16
where we read, ‘as many as shall walk by this rule, peace be on them and mercy,
and (kai) on the Israel of God’. It is asked, ‘does it signify that the Israel of God is
additional to and distinct from those who ‘walk by this rule’, or simply define
them?’ (If the Israel of God differs from those who ‘walk by this rule’ then that
leaves only the Judaisers as the Israel of God, and as those who do not walk by this
rule. Can anyone really contend that that was what Paul meant?) The answer to this
question is really decided by the preceding argument. We cannot really base our
case on arguments about ‘kai’. But for the sake of clarity we will consider the
question.
It cannot be denied that ‘kai’ can mean ‘and’, and as thus indicate adding
something additional. But nor can it be denied that it can alternatively mean, in
contexts like this, ‘even’, and as thus equating what follows with what has gone
before. ‘Kai’ in fact is often used in Greek as a kind of ‘connection’ word where in
English it is redundant altogether. It is not therefore a strongly definitive word.
Thus its meaning must always be decided by the context, and a wise rule has been
made that we make the decision on the basis of which choice will add least to the
meaning of the word in the context (saying in other words that because of its
ambiguity ‘kai’ should never be stressed). That would mean here the translating of
it as ‘even’, giving it its mildest influence. That that is the correct translation comes
out if we give the matter a little thought. The whole letter has been emphasising that
in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek (Galatians 3:28), and that this arises
because all are Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise. All are
therefore Israel. So even had we not had the reasons that we have already
considered, how strange it would then be for Paul to close the letter by
distinguishing Jew from Greek, and Gentiles from the believing Jews. He would be

216. going against all that he has just said. And yet that is exactly what he would be
doing if by ‘the Israel of God’ he was exclusively indicating believing Jews. So on all
counts, interpretation, grammar and common sense, ‘the Israel of God’ must
include both Jews and Gentiles.
In Galatians 4:26 it is made clear that the true Jerusalem is the heavenly Jerusalem,
the earthly having been rejected. This new heavenly Jerusalem is ‘the mother of us
all’ just as Sarah had been the mother of Israel. All Christians are thus the children
of the freewoman, that is, of Sarah (Galatians 4:31). This reveals that they are
therefore the true sons of Abraham, signifying ‘Israel’. To argue that being a son of
Abraham is not the same thing as being a son of Jacob/Israel would in fact be to
argue contrary to all that Israel believed. Their boast was precisely that they were
‘sons of Abraham’, indeed the true sons of Abraham.
Again in Romans he points out to the Gentiles that there is a remnant of Israel
which is faithful to God and they are the true Israel (Romans 11:5). The remainder
have been cast off (Romans 11:15; Romans 11:17; Romans 11:20). Then he
describes the Christian Gentiles as ‘grafted in among them’ becoming ‘partakers
with them of the root of the fatness of the olive tree’ (Romans 11:17). They are now
part of the same tree so it is clear that he regards them as now being part of the
faithful remnant of Israel (see argument on this point earlier). This is again declared
quite clearly in Galatians, for ‘those who are of faith, the same are the sons of
Abraham’ (Galatians 3:7).
ote that in Romans 9 Paul declares that not all earthly Israel are really Israel, only
those who are chosen by God. It is only the chosen who are the ‘foreknown’ Israel,
the true Israel. See Romans 9:8; Romans 9:24-26; Romans 11:2. This is a reminder
that to Paul ‘Israel’ is a fluid concept. It does not have just one fixed meaning.
The privilege of being a ‘son of Abraham’ is that one is adopted into the twelve
tribes of Israel. It is the twelve tribes who proudly called themselves ‘the sons of
Abraham’ (John 8:39; John 8:53). That is why in the one man in Christ Jesus there
can be neither Jew nor Gentile (Galatians 3:28). For they all become one as ‘Israel’
by being one with the One Who in Himself sums up all that Israel was meant to be
(Matthew 2:15; Isaiah 49:3), the true vine (John 15:1-6). For ‘if you are Abraham’s
seed, you are heirs according to the promise’ (Galatians 3:29). To be Abraham’s
‘seed’ within the promise is to be a member of the twelve tribes. There can really be
no question about it. The reference to ‘seed’ is decisive. You cannot be ‘Abraham’s
seed’through Saraand yet not a part of Israel. (Indeed if we want to be pedantic we
can point out that Edom in fact ceased and became, by compulsion, a part of Israel,
thus adding to ‘Israel’s’ diversity. So even the Jews themselves clearly recognised
that being a part of Israel was a religious matter not a racial matter).
That is why Paul can say, ‘he is not a Jew who is one outwardly --- he is a Jew who
is one inwardly, and the circumcision is that of the heart’ (Romans 2:28-29 compare
Romans 2:26). The true Jew, he says, is the one who is the inward Jew. So he
distinguishes physical Israel from true Israel and physical Jew from true Jew.

217. In the light of these passages it cannot really be doubted that the early church saw
the converted Gentile as becoming a member of the twelve tribes of Israel. They are
‘the seed of Abraham’, ‘sons of Abraham’, spiritually circumcised, grafted into the
true Israel, fellow-citizens with the saints in the commonwealth of Israel, the Israel
of God. What further evidence do we need?
In Romans 4 he further makes clear that Abraham is the father of all who believe,
including both circumcised and uncircumcised (Romans 4:9-13). Indeed he says we
have been ‘circumcised with the circumcision of Christ’ (Colossians 2:11). All who
believe are therefore circumcised children of Abraham.
When James writes to ‘the twelve tribes which are of the dispersion’ (James 1:1) he
is taking the same view. (Jews living away from Palestine were seen as dispersed
around the world and were therefore thought of as ‘the dispersion’). There is not a
single hint in his letter that he is writing to other than all in the churches. He
therefore sees the whole church as having become members of the twelve tribes, as
the true dispersion, and indeed refers to their ‘assembly’ with the same word used
for synagogue (James 2:2). But he can also call them ‘the church’ (James 5:14).
Yet there is not even the slightest suggestion anywhere in the remainder of his letter
that he has just one section of the church in mind. In view of the importance of the
subject, had he not been speaking of the whole church he must surely have
commented on the attitude of Jewish Christians to Christian Gentiles, especially in
the light of the ethical content of his letter. It was a crucial problem of the day. But
there is not even a whisper of it in his letter. He speaks as though to the whole
church. He sees the church as one. Unless he was a total separatist (which we know
he was not) it would have been impossible for him to write as he did unless he saw
all as now making up ‘the twelve tribes of Israel’.
Peter also writes to ‘the elect’ and calls them ‘sojourners of the dispersion’, and
includes in that description believing Gentiles. For when he speaks of ‘Gentiles’ he
always means unconverted Gentiles. He clearly assumes that all that come under
that heading are not Christians (1 Peter 2:12; 1 Peter 4:3). The fact that believing
Gentiles are among those to whom he is writing is confirmed by the fact that he
speaks to the recipients of his letter warning them not to fashion themselves
‘according to their former desires in the time of their ignorance’ (1 Peter 1:14), and
as having been ‘not a people, but are now the people of God’ (1 Peter 2:10), and
speaks of them as previously having ‘wrought the desire of the Gentiles’ (1 Peter
4:3). So the ‘dispersion’ that he writes to include converted Gentiles and it is
apparent that he too sees all Christians as members of the twelve tribes (for as in the
example above, ‘the dispersion’ means the twelve tribes scattered around the
world).
In unbelieving Jewish eyes good numbers of Gentiles were in fact becoming
members of the Jewish faith at that time, and on being circumcised were being
accepted by the Jews as members of the twelve tribes (as proselytes). In the same

218. way the apostles, who were all Jews and also saw the pure in Israel, believing Jews,
as God’s chosen people, saw the converted Gentiles who entered the ekklesia
(congregation, church) as being incorporated into the new Israel, into the true
twelve tribes. But they did not see circumcision as necessary, and the reason for that
was that they considered that all who believed had been circumcised with the
circumcision of Christ.
Peter in his letter confirms all this. He writes to the church calling them ‘a spiritual
house, a holy priesthood, a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people
for God’s own possession’ (1 Peter 2:5; 1 Peter 2:9), all terms which in Exodus 19:5-
6 indicate Israel.
Today we may not think in these terms but it is apparent that to the early church to
become a Christian was to become a member of the true twelve tribes of Israel. That
is why there was such a furore over whether circumcision, the covenant sign of the
Jew, was necessary for Christians. It was precisely because they were seen as
entering the twelve tribes that many saw it as required. Paul’s argument against it is
never that Christians do not become members of the twelve tribes (as we have seen
he actually argues that they do) but that what matters is spiritual circumcision, not
physical circumcision. Thus early on Christians unquestionably saw themselves as
the true twelve tribes of Israel.
This receives confirmation from the fact that the seven churches (the universal
church) is seen in terms of the seven lampstands in chapter 1. The sevenfold
lampstand in the Tabernacle and Temple represented Israel. In the seven
lampstands the churches are seen as the true Israel.
Given that fact it is clear that reference to the hundred and forty four thousand
from all the tribes of Israel in Revelation 7 is to Christians. But it is equally clear
that the numbers are not to be taken literally. The ‘twelve by twelve’ is stressing
who and what they are, not how many there are. There is no example anywhere else
in Scripture where God actually selects people on such an exact basis. Even the
seven thousand who had not bowed the knee to Baal (1 Kings 19:18) were a round
number based on seven as the number of divine perfection and completeness. The
reason for the seemingly exact figures is to demonstrate that God has His people
numbered and that not one is missing (compare umbers 31:48-49). The message of
these verses is that in the face of persecution to come, and of God’s judgments
against men, God knows and has sealed His own. But they are then described as a
multitude who cannot be numbered (only God can number them).
It is noticeable that this description of the twelve tribes is in fact artificial in another
respect. While Judah is placed first as the tribe from which Christ came, Dan is
omitted, and Manasseh is included as well as Joseph, although Manasseh was the
son of Joseph. Thus the omission of Dan is deliberate, and Ephraim, Joseph’s other
son, is excluded by name, but included under Joseph’s name. (This artificiality
confirms that the idea of the tribes is not to be taken literally). The exclusion of Dan
is because he is a tool of the Serpent (Genesis 49:17), and the exclusion of the two

219. names is because of their specific connection with idolatry in the Old Testament.
So here in Revelation, in the face of the future activity of God against the world, He
provides His people with protection, and marks them off as distinctive from those
who bear the mark of the Beast. God protects His true people. And there is no good
reason for seeing these people as representing other than the church of the current
age. The fact is that we are continually liable to persecution, and while not all God’s
judgments have yet been visited on the world, we have experienced sufficient to
know that we are not excluded. In John’s day this reference to ‘the twelve tribes’
was telling the church as a whole that God had sealed them, and had numbered
them, so that while they must be ready for the persecution to come, they need not
fear the coming judgments of God that he, John, will now reveal, for they are under
God’s protection. (In fact, of course, both in Jesus’ day and our own day twelve
genetically pure tribes of Israel did not and do not exist. They are lost in the mist of
time).
In fact the ew Testament elsewhere confirms to us that all God’s true people are
sealed by God. Abraham received circumcision as a seal of ‘the righteousness of
(springing from) faith’ (Romans 4:11), but circumcision is replaced in the ew
Testament by the ‘seal of the Spirit’ (2 Corinthians 1:22; Ephesians 1:13; Ephesians
4:30). It is clear that Paul therefore sees all God’s people as being ‘sealed’ by God in
their enjoyment of the indwelling Holy Spirit and this would suggest that John’s
description in Revelation 7 is a dramatic representation of that fact. His people have
been open to spiritual attack from earliest ew Testament days (and before) and it
is not conceivable that they have not enjoyed God’s seal of protection on them. Thus
the seal here in Revelation refers to the sealing (or if someone considers it future, a
re-sealing) with the Holy Spirit of promise. The whole idea behind the scene is in
order to stress that all God’s people have been specially sealed.
In Revelation 21 the ‘new Jerusalem’ is founded on twelve foundations which are
the twelve Apostles of the Lamb (Revelation 21:14), and its gates are the twelve
tribes of the children of Israel (Revelation 21:12). The new Jerusalem thus combines
both. Indeed in Matthew Jesus has said that he would found his ‘church’ on the
Apostles and their statement of faith (Revelation 16:18) and the idea behind the
word ‘church’ (ekklesia) here was as being the ‘congregation’ of Israel. (The word
ekklesia is used of the latter in the Greek Old Testament). Jesus had come to
establish the new Israel. Thus from the commencement the church were seen as
being the true Israel, composed of both Jew and Gentile who entered within God’s
covenant, the ‘new covenant’, as it had been right from the beginning, and they
were called ‘the church’ for that very reason.
In countering these arguments it has been said that‘Every reference to Israel in the
ew Testament refers to the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob.’And another expositor has added the comment, ‘This is true in the Old
Testament also.’
Let us then consider these statements. And the truth is that such statements are not

220. only a gross oversimplification, but are in fact totally untrue. They are an indication
of mindset, not of considering the facts. For as we have seen above if there is one
thing that is absolutely sure it is that many who saw themselves as Israelites were
notphysical descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob(regardless of how we think
about the term ‘Israel’). Many were descended from the servants of the Patriarchs
who went down into Egypt in their ‘households’, and were from a number of
nationalities. Others were part of the mixed multitude which left Egypt with Israel
(Exodus 12:38). They were adopted into Israel, and became Israelites, a situation
which was sealed by the covenant.
Indeed it is made quite clear that anyone who was willing to worship God and
become a member of the covenant through circumcision could do so and became
accepted on equal terms as ‘Israelites’ (Exodus 12:47-49). They would then become
united with the tribe among whom they dwelt or with which they had connections.
That is why there were regulations as to who could enter the assembly or
congregation of the Lord, and when (Deuteronomy 23:1-8). Later on proselytes
would also be absorbed into Israel. Thus ‘Israel’ was from the start very much a
conglomerate, and continued to be so. There was no way in which it could be seen as
being composed only of physical descendants of Abraham unless we ignore the
testimony of the Old Testament. They may have tried to convince themselves that
they were, but there was absolutely no way in which it was true.
or is it true that in Paul ‘Israel’ always means ‘physical Israel’. When we come to
the ew Testament Paul can speak of ‘Israel after the flesh’ (1 Corinthians 10:18).
That can only suggest that he also conceives of an Israel not ‘after the flesh’. That
conclusion really cannot be avoided.
Furthermore, when we remember that outside Romans 9-11 Israel is only mentioned
by Paul seven times, and that 1 Corinthians 10:18 clearly points to another Israel,
one not after the flesh (which has been defined in Matthew 19:1-18), and that that is
one of the seven verses, and that Galatians 6:16 is most satisfactorily seen as
signifying the church of Jesus Christ and not old Israel at all (or even converted
Israel), the statement must be seen as having little force. In Ephesians 2:11-22 where
he speaks of the ‘commonwealth of Israel’ he immediately goes on to say that in
Christ Jesus all who are His are ‘made nigh’, and then stresses that we are no more
strangers and sojourners but are genuine fellow-citizens, and are of the household of
God. If that does not mean becoming a part of the true Israel and entering the
commonwealth of Israel it is difficult to see what could.
Furthermore in the other four references (so now only four out of seven) it is not the
present status of Israel that is in mind. The term is simply being used as an
identifier in a historical sense in reference to connections with the Old Testament
situation. It is simply referring to the Israel of the Old Testament days (of whom
some were ‘ ot My people’). So Paul does not refer to the Jews of his own time as
‘Israel’. Thus the argument that ‘Israel always means Israel’ is not very strong.
Again in Hebrews all mentions of ‘Israel’ are historical, referring back to the Old
Testament. They refer to Israel in the past. Again the present Jews are not called

221. Israel. In Revelation two mentions out of three are again simply historical, while
many would consider that the other actually does refer to the church (Revelation
7:4).
However, in Romans 9-11 it is made very clear that the term ‘Israel’ can mean more
than one thing. When Paul says, ‘they are not all Israel, who are of Israel’ (Romans
9:6) and points out that it is the children of the promise who are counted as the seed
(Matthew 9:8), we are justified in seeing that there are already two Israels in Paul’s
mind, one which is the Israel after the flesh, and includes old unconverted Israel,
and one which is the Israel of the promise.
And when he says that ‘Israel’ have not attained ‘to the law of righteousness’ while
the Gentiles ‘have attained to the righteousness which is of faith’ (Romans 9:30-31)
he cannot be speaking of all Israel because it is simply not true that none in Israel
have attained to righteousness. Jewish believers have also attained to the
righteousness which is of faith, and have therefore attained the law of righteousness.
For many had become Christians as we have seen in Acts 1-5. Thus here ‘Israel’
must mean old, unconverted Israel, not all the (so-called) descendants of the
Patriarchs, and must actually exclude believing Israel, however we interpret the
latter, for ‘Israel did not seek it by faith’ while believing Israel certainly did.
Thus here we seethree uses of the term Israel, each referring to a different entity.
One is all the old Israel, which includes both elect and non-elect (Romans 11:11) and
is therefore a partly blind Israel (Romans 11:25), one is the Israel of promise (called
in Romans 11:11 ‘the election’), and one is the old Israel which does not include the
Israel of promise, the part of the old Israel which is the blind Israel. The term is
clearly fluid and can sometimes refer to one group and sometimes to another.
Furthermore here ‘the Gentiles’ must mean those who have truly come to faith, and
not all Gentiles. It cannot mean all Gentiles, for it speaks of those who have
‘attained to the righteousness of faith’ (which was what old Israel failed to obtain
when it strove after it). Thus that term is also fluid. (In contrast, in 1 Peter
‘Gentiles’ represents only those who are unconverted. Thus all words like these
must be interpreted in their contexts).
When we are also told that such Gentiles who have come to faith have become
‘Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise’ (Galatians 3:29) we are
justified in seeing these converted Gentiles as having become part of the new Israel,
along with the converted Jews. They are now actually stated to be ‘the seed of
Abraham’. This clarifies the picture of the olive tree. Old unconverted Israel are cut
out of it, the converted Gentiles are grafted into it. Thus old Israel are no longer
God’s people while the converted Gentiles are.
It may then be asked, ‘What then does Paul mean when he says that ‘all Israel will
be saved’?’ (Romans 11:26). It clearly cannot mean literally ‘all’ of old Israel, both
past and present, for Scripture has made quite clear that not all of them will be
saved. Does it then mean all Israel at the time that the fullness of the Gentiles has

222. come in? That is unlikely as there is no stage in world history where all the people of
a nation have been saved at one point in time. It would not be in accordance with
God’s revealed way of working. But, and this is the important proof that all the old
Israel will not be saved, it would also make nonsense of those passages where God’s
final judgment is poured out on Israel, and it is therefore clear that all Israel will
not be saved. Does he then mean ‘all the true Israel’, those elected in God’s
purposes, ‘the remnant according to the election of grace’ (Romans 11:5), who will
be saved along with the fullness of the Gentiles? That is certainly a possibility. And
if that is to happen in the end times it will require a final revival among the Jews in
the end days bringing them to Christ. For there is no other name under Heaven
given among men by which men can be saved. We would certainly not want to deny
the possibility of God doing that. That may be why He has gathered the old nation
back to the country of Israel.
But the most likely meaning is that it refers to the ‘all Israel’ who are part of the
olive tree, including both Jews and the fullness of the Gentiles. That in context
seems to be its most probable significance, and most in accordance with what we
have seen above. After all, ‘all Israel’, if it includes the Gentiles, could not be saved
until the fullness of the Gentiles had come in.
But what in fact Paul is finally seeking to say is that in the whole salvation history
God’s purposes will not be frustrated, and that in the final analysis all whom He has
chosen and foreknown (Romans 11:2) will have come to Him, whether Jew or
Gentile, and will have become one people.
In the light of all this it is difficult to see how we can deny that in the ew
Testament all who truly believed were seen as becoming a part of the new Israel, the
‘Israel of God’.
But some ask, ‘if the church is Israel why does Paul only tell us that it is so rarely?’.
The answer is twofold. Firstly the danger of the use of the term and as a result
causing people to be confused. And secondly because he actually does so most of the
time. For another way of referring to Israel in the Old Testament was as ‘the
congregation’ (LXX church). Thus a reference to the ‘church’ (congregation) does
indicate the new Israel to all who know the Old Testament.
But does this mean that old Israel can no longer be seen as having part on the
purposes of God? If we meanasold Israel then the answer is yes. As old Israel they
are no longer relevant for the true Israel are the ones who are due to receive the
promises of God. But if we mean as ‘converted and becoming part of believing
Israel’ then the answer is that the God will have a purpose for them. Any member of
old Israel can become a part of the olive tree by being grafted in again. And there is
a welcome to the whole of Israel if they will believe in Christ. or can there be any
future for them as being used in the purposes of God until they believe in Christ.
And then if they do they will become a part of the whole, not superior to others, or
inferior to others, but brought in on equal terms as Christians and members of ‘the
congregation’. It may well be that God has brought Israel back into the land

223. because he intends a second outpouring of the Spirit like Pentecost (and Joel 2:28-
29). But if so it is in order that they might become Christians. It is in order that they
might become a part of the new Israel, the ‘congregation (church) of Jesus Christ’.
For God may be working on old Israel doing His separating work as He constantly
works on old Gentiles, moving them from one place to another in order to bring
many of them to Christ. It is not for us to tell Him how He should do it. But nor
must we give old Israel privileges that God has not given them.
But what then is the consequence of what we have discussed? Why is it so
important? The answer is that it is important because it is this very fact (that true
Christians today are the only true people of God) that means that all the Old
Testament promises relate to them, not by being ‘spiritualised’, but by them being
interpreted in terms of a new situation. It is doubtful if today anyone really thinks
that swords and spears will be turned into ploughshares and pruninghooks.
However we see it that idea has to be modernised. In the same way therefore we
have to ‘modernise’ in terms of the ew Testament many of the Old Testament
promises. Jerusalem must become the Jerusalem that is above. ‘The land’ promised
to Abraham becomes a land enjoyed above, the ‘better country’ (Hebrews 11:10;
Hebrews 11:16). Sacrifices and offerings must become spiritual sacrifices and
offerings (are Christians to be the only ones in the new age who kill and ‘hurt in His
holy mountain’? - Isaiah 11:6-9). And so on. But the central principles of the
prophecies remain true once the parabolic elements are reinterpreted. And they
apply to the whole Israel of God.
End of Excursus.
BROADUS, "Matthew 19:29. ot only the Twelve are to be rewarded, but every one
that hath forsaken (left) anything for his sake; 'every one' is in the Greek a very
strong expression; every one whosoever. The enumeration is substantially the same
in Mark and Luke. But Luke, while condensing some of the other expressions, has
also 'or wife,' and this, as so often happened in parallel passages, crept early into
many copies of Matthew and Mark. Being omitted by fewer earlier copies of Matt.
than of Mark, the Rev. Ver. here places it in the margin. Though not belonging to
either Matthew or Mark, we know from Luke that the word was spoken.
The list of objects is not intended in any case to be complete; it mentions several
principal things, and we understand that the same is true of anything else. Houses
may have been mentioned first because some of the Twelve, as Simon Peter, had left
homes; lands last, because real estate among the Jews was specially valuable
property, not to be alienated, compare Acts 4:34, Acts 4:37. The most exactly similar
case at the present time is seen in the foreign missionary, or in a converted heathen,
who is cast out by his kindred, and finds compensation in the Christian affection
and kind offices of the other converts, and in the joy of serving Christ, and hoping
for eternal life. More remotely similar is the case of a worldly young person in a
Christian land, who becomes converted, and forsakes worldly pleasures and
companionships. Shall receive a hundredfold. It is doubtful whether we should read
this as in Mark, or 'manifold' (Rev. Ver., margin), as in Luke. The question is of no

224. practical importance.(1) We might in reading Matt. think only of rewards after
death. Mark 10:30 says, 'a hundredfold now in this time.... and in the world to come
eternal life'; and such a distinction seems to be intended in Matt. also. Jesus speaks
of earthly rewards first, but does not mean literally similar things to those left, but
equivalent things—blessings temporal or spiritual, that will compensate many
times over for all that was abandoned. The expressions cannot possibly be
understood literally, because that would be promising in Mark a hundred mothers,
and compare Luke.
COKE, "Matthew 19:29. And every one that hath forsaken, &c.— Our Saviour
speaks next of the rewards which his other disciples should receive, both in this life,
and that which is to come. See Mark 10:30 where the promise is more fully
expressed. Wetstein observes, that the event confirmed the prediction. For one
house, the first preachers of the Gospel found a hospitable reception in almost every
part of the earth;—for a few brethren and sisters, an innumerable multitude of true
believers; for children, all those whom they had truly converted to the Christian
faith; for lands, all the goods of the Christians, which were in common; and in fine,
for this life, life eternal. They shall receive an hundredfold, εκατονταπλασιονα .
That is, says one, "They shall have abundantly more and greater blessings than they
part with;—a full content of mind, and the comforts of an upright conscience, the
joys of the Holy Ghost, increase of grace, hopes of glory; they shall have God for
their father, Christ for their spouse, and all good Christians for their brethren."
30 But many who are first will be last, and many
who are last will be first.
BAR ES, "This verse should have been connected with the following chapter
The parable there spoken is expressly to illustrate this sentiment. See it explained in
the notes at Mat_20:16.
Remarks On Matthew 19
1. We should not throw ourselves unnecessarily in the way of the enemies of religion,
Mat_19:1. Jesus, to avoid the dangers to which he was exposed, left Jerusalem, and
passed over to the other side of the Jordan. If duty calls us to remain in the presence of
our enemies and the enemies of religion, we should do it. If we can do them good, we
should do it. If our presence will only provoke them to anger and bitterness, then we
should turn aside. Compare the notes at Mat_10:23.

225. 2. People will seek every occasion to ensnare Christians, Mat_19:3. Questions will be
proposed with great art, and with an appearance of sincerity, only for the purpose of
leading them into difficulty. Cunning men know well how to propose such questions, and
triumph much when they have perplexed believers. This is often the boast of people of
some standing, who think they accomplish the great purposes of their existence if they
can confound other people, and think it signal triumph if they can make others as
miserable as themselves.
3. We should not refuse to answer such persons with mildness, when the Bible has
settled the question, Mat_19:4-6. Jesus answered a captious question, proposed on
purpose to ensnare him. We may often do much to confound the enemies of religion,
and to recommend it, when without passion we hear their inquiries, and deliberately
inform them that the question has been settled by God. We had better, however, far
better, say nothing in reply, than to answer in anger or to show that we are irritated. All
the object of the enemy is gained if he can make us angry.
4. People will search and pervert the Bible for authority to indulge their sins and to
perplex Christians, Mat_19:7. No device is more common than to produce a passage of
Scripture known to be misquoted or perverted, yet plausible, for the purpose of
perplexing Christians. In such cases, the best way, often, is to say nothing. If
unanswered, people will be ashamed of it; if answered, they gain their point, and are
ready for debate and abuse.
5. We learn from this chapter that there is no union so intimate as the marriage
connection, Mat_19:6. Nothing is so tender and endearing as this union appointed by
God for the welfare of man.
6. This union should not be entered into slightly or rashly. It involves all the happiness
of this life and much of that to come. The union demands:
(1) Congeniality of feeling and disposition;
(2) Of rank or standing in life;
(3) Of temper;
(4) Similarity of acquirements;
(5) Of age;
(6) Of talent;
(7) Intimate acquaintance.
It should also be a union on religious feelings and opinions:
(1) Because religion is more important than anything else;
(2) Because it will give more happiness in the married life than anything else;
(3) Because where one only is pious, there is danger that the religion of the other will
be obscured and blighted;
(4) Because no prospect is so painful as that of eternal separation;
(5) Because it is paganish, brutal, and mad, to partake the gifts of God in a family and
offer no thanksgiving; inexpressibly wicked to live from day to day as if there were
no God, no heaven, no hell;
(6) Because death is near, and nothing will soothe the pangs of parting but the hope of
meeting in the resurrection of the just.
7. No human legislature has a right to declare divorces except in one single case, Mat_
19:9. If they do, they are accessories to the crime that may follow, and presume to
legislate where God has legislated before them.

226. 8. Those thus divorced, or pretended to be divorced, and marrying again, are, by the
declaration of Jesus Christ, living in adultery, Mat_19:9. It is no excuse to say that the
law of the land divorced them. The law had no such right. If all the legislatures of the
world were to say that it was lawful for a man to steal or to commit murder, it would not
make it so, and, in spite of human permission, God would hold a man answerable for
theft and murder. So, also, of adultery.
9. The marriage union demands kindness and love, Mat_19:6. The husband and the
wife are one. Love to each other is love to a second self. Hatred, and anger, and quarrels
are against ourselves. The evils and quarrels in married life will descend on ourselves,
and be gall and wormwood in our own cup.
10. Infants may be brought to Jesus to receive his blessing, Mat_19:12-15. While on
earth, he admitted them to his presence and blessed them with his prayers. If they might
be brought then, they may be brought now. Their souls are as precious; their dangers are
as great; their salvation is as important. A parent should require the most indubitable
evidence that Jesus will not receive his offspring, and will be displeased if the offering is
made, to deter him from this inestimable privilege.
11. If children may be brought, they should be brought. It is the solemn duty of a
parent to seize upon all possible means of benefiting his children, and of presenting
them to God to implore his blessing. In family prayer, in the sanctuary, and in the
ordinance of baptism, the blessing of the Redeemer should be sought early and
constantly on their precious and immortal souls.
12. Earnestness and deep anxiety are proper in seeking salvation, Mat_19:16. The
young man came running; he kneeled. It was not form and ceremony; it was life and
reality. Religion is a great subject. Salvation is important beyond the power of language
to express. Eternity is near, and damnation thunders along the path of the guilty. The
sinner must be saved soon, or die forever. He cannot be too earnest. He cannot press
with too great haste to Jesus. He should come running, and kneeling, and humbled, and
lifting the agonizing cry, “What must I do to be saved?”
13. We should come young, Mat_19:20. No one can come too young. God has the first
claim on our affections. He made us, he keeps us, he provides for us, and it is right that
we should give our first affections to him. No one who has become a Christian ever yet
felt that he had become one too young. No young person that has given his heart to the
Redeemer ever yet regretted it. They may give up the frivolous world to do it; they may
leave the circles of the dance and the song; they may be exposed to contempt and
persecution, but no matter. He who becomes a true Christian, no matter of what age or
rank, blesses God that he was inclined to do it, and the time never can come when for
one moment he will regret it. Why, then, will not the young give their hearts to the
Saviour, and do that which they know they never can for one moment regret?
14. It is no dishonor for those who hold offices, and who are people of rank, to inquire
on the subject of religion, Luk_18:18. Men of rank often suppose that it is only the weak,
the credulous, and the ignorant that ever feel any anxiety about religion. Never was a
greater mistake. It has been only profligate, and weak, and ignorant people that have
been thoughtless. Two-thirds of all the profound investigations of the world have been
on this very subject. The wisest and best of the pagans have devoted their lives to inquire
about God and their own destiny. So in Christian lands. Were Bacon, Newton, Locke,
Milton, Hale, and Boerhaave men of weak minds? Yet their deepest thoughts and most
anxious inquiries were on this very subject. So in our own land. Were Washington,
Ames, Henry, Jay, and Rush men of weak minds? Yet they were professed believers in
revelation. And yet young men of rank, and wealth, and learning often think that they
show great independence in refusing to think of what occupied the profound attention of

227. these men, and fancy they are great only by refusing to tread in their steps. Never was a
greater or more foolish mistake. If anything demands attention, it is, surely, the inquiry
whether we are to be happy forever, or wretched; whether there is a God and Saviour; or
whether we are “in a forsaken and fatherless world.”
15. It is as important for the rich to seek religion as the poor, Mat_19:22. They will as
certainly die; they as much need religion. Without it they cannot be happy. Riches will
drive away no pain on a death-bed - will not go with us when we die - will not save us.
16. It is of special importance that wealthy young persons should be Christians. They
are exposed to many dangers. The world - the “happy” and flattering world - will lead
them astray. Fond of fashion, dress, and amusement, as many of them are, they are
exposed to a thousand follies and dangers, from which nothing but religion can secrete
them. Besides, they may do much good; and God will hold them answerable for all the
good they might have done with their wealth.
17. The amiable, the lovely, the moral, need also an interest in Christ, Mar_10:21. If
amiable, we should suppose they would be ready to embrace the Saviour. None was ever
so moral, so lovely, so pure as he. If we really loved amiableness, then we should come to
him - we should love him. But, alas! how many amiable young persons turn away from
him, and refuse to follow him! Can they be really lovers of that which is pure and lovely?
If so, then why turn away from the Lamb of God?
18. The amiable and the lovely need a better righteousness than their own. With all
this, they may make an idol of the world; they may be proud, sensual, selfish, prayerless,
and thoughtless about dying. Externally they appear lovely; but oh, how far is the heart
from God!
19. Inquirers about religion usually depend on their own works, Mat_19:16. They are
not willing to trust to Jesus for salvation, and they ask what they shall do; and it is only
when they find that they can do nothing - that they are poor, and helpless, and wretched
that they east themselves on the mercy of God and find peace.
20. Compliments and flattering titles are evil, Mat_19:17. They ascribe something to
others which we know they do not possess. Often beauty is praised where we know there
is no beauty - accomplishment where there is no accomplishment - talent where there is
no talent. Such praises are falsehood. We know them to be such. We intend to deceive by
them, and we know that they will produce pride and vanity. Often they are used for the
purpose of destruction. If a man praises us too much, we should look to our purse or our
virtue. We should feel that we are in danger, and the next thing will be a dreadful blow -
the heavier for all this flattery. They that use compliments much, expect them from
others; are galled and vexed when they are not obtained; and are in danger when they
are.
21. If we are to be saved, we must do just what God commands us. Mat_19:17-18. This
is all we have to do. We are not to invent anything of our own. God has marked out the
course, and we must follow it.
22. We are easily deceived about keeping the law, Mat_19:17. We often think we
observe it, when it is only the outward form that we have kept. The law is spiritual, and
God requires the heart.
23. Riches are a blessing if used aright; if not, they are deceitful, dangerous, ruinous,
Mat_19:23-24. Thousands have lost their souls by the love of riches. None have ever
been saved by it.
24. It is our duty to forsake all for Christ, Mat_19:27-29. Be it little or much, it is all
the same to him. It is the heart that he looks at; and we may as really show our love by
giving up a fishing-boat and net, as by giving up a palace or a crown. If done in either

228. case, it will be accepted.
25. Religion has its own rewards, Mat_19:28-29. It gives more than it takes. It more
than compensates for all that we surrender. It gives peace, joy, comfort in trial and in
death, and heaven beyond. This is the testimony of all Christians of all denominations of
all that have lived, and of all that do live that they never knew true peace until they found
it in the gospel. The testimony of so many must be true. They have tried the world in all
its forms of gaiety, folly, and vice, and they come and say with one voice, Here only is
true peace. On any other subject they would be believed. Their testimony here must be
true.
26. Those eminent for usefulness here will be received to distinguished honors and
rewards in heaven, Mat_19:28. They that turn many to righteousness shall shine as stars
in the firmament forever. See the notes at Dan_12:3.
CLARKE, "But many that are first, etc. - The Jews, who have been the first and
most distinguished people of God, will in general reject the Gospel of my grace, and be
consequently rejected by me. The Gentiles, who have had no name among the living,
shall be brought to the knowledge of the truth, and become the first, the chief, and most
exalted people of God. That this prediction of our Lord has been literally fulfilled, the
present state of the Christian and Jewish Churches sufficiently proves. To illustrate this
fully, and to demonstrate that the Jews and Gentiles were now put on an equal footing
by the Gospel, our Lord speaks the following parable, which has been unhappily divided
from its connection by making it the beginning of a new chapter.
GILL, "But many that are first shall be last,.... This may refer unto, or be
occasioned by, either the young ruler; signifying that he, and others like him, who were
superior in riches and honour, were first in this world, of the first rank and figure,
should be the last in the world to come:
and the last shall be first; the apostles, who were last in this world, being poor,
mean, and abject, should be the first in the other: or to the Scribes and Pharisees, who
were in the chief place, and highest esteem, in the Jewish church, and yet least in the
kingdom of heaven; when, on the other hand, the publicans and sinners, who were in the
lowest class, and in least esteem, went first into it: or to the case of persecution, when
some, who seem most forward to endure it at a distance, when it comes nearer, are most
backward to it; whilst others, who were most fearful of it, and ready to shrink at the
thoughts of it, most cheerfully bear it: or to the apostles themselves, one of which, who
was now first, Judas, should be last; and the apostle Paul, who was last of all, as one
born out of due time, should be first: or to Jews and Gentiles, intimating, that the Jews,
who were first in outward privileges, would be rejected of God for their unbelief, and
contempt of the Messiah; and the Gentiles, who were last called, should be first, or chief,
in embracing the Messiah, professing his Gospel, and supporting his interest. This
sentence is confirmed, and illustrated, by a parable, in the following chapter.
HE RY, "Our Saviour, in the last verse, obviates a mistake of some, as if pre-
eminence in glory went by precedence in time, rather than the measure and degree of
grace. No; Many that are first, shall be last, and the last, first, Mat_19:30. God will
cross his hands; will reveal that to babes, which he hid from the wise and prudent; will

229. reject unbelieving Jews and receive believing Gentiles. The heavenly inheritance is not
given as earthly inheritances commonly are, by seniority of age, and priority of birth, but
according to God's pleasure. This is the text of another sermon, which we shall meet with
in the next chapter.
HAWKER, "REFLECTIONS
Oh! thou glorious and gracious bridegroom of thy Church! Everlasting praises to thy
name, it is not lawful for Jesus to put away his wife, whatever the world may do, for
every cause. The Lord God of Israel hath said, that he hateth putting away. And while
Jesus himself hath said by his Apostle, Husbands love your wives, and be not bitter
against them; will Jesus be bitter against his? What! though she hath, since from
everlasting he betrothed himself to her, fallen away, and sunk into misery and sin; will
not Jesus recover her from this state? Yea, will it not be to his glory so to do? Yes! thou
dear Lord! it will be to thy greater glory to recover her, than though she had never fallen.
And the whole inhabitants of heaven will praise thee, and love thee the more also when
thou shalt bring her home, cleansed from all her sins, in thy blood, and shalt present her
to thyself a glorious Church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but shall be
without blame before thee in love!
Blessed Master I would humbly enquire of thee concerning eternal life, as this youth; but
not what good thing that I must do to attain it. For alas! if the possession of heaven
could be obtained with only a single act of goodness; never to all eternity should I find it.
Where I should do good, evil is present with me. Oh! then for grace to know thee, to love
thee, to follow thee, as my only good; my hope, my righteousness, my portion forever!
Amen.
SBC, "The Weapons of Saints.
I. These words are fulfilled under the Gospel in many ways. In the context they embody a
great principle, which we all, indeed, acknowledge, but are deficient in mastering. Under
the dispensation of the Spirit all things were to become new, and to be reversed.
Strength, numbers, wealth, philosophy, eloquence, craft, experience of life, knowledge of
human nature, these are the means by which worldly men have ever gained the world.
But in that kingdom which Christ has set up, all is contrariwise. "The weapons of our
warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds."
What before was in honour has been dishonoured: what before was in dishonour has
come to honour. Weakness has conquered strength, for the hidden strength of God "is
made perfect in weakness." Spirit has conquered flesh, for that spirit is an inspiration
from above.
II. Since Christ sent down gifts from on high, the saints are ever taking possession of the
kingdom, and with the weapons of saints. The visible powers of the heavens—truth,
meekness, and righteousness—are ever coming in upon the earth, ever pouring in,
gathering, thronging, warring, triumphing, under the guidance of Him who is "alive and
was dead, and is alive for evermore."
III. We have most of us by nature longings more or less and aspirations after something
greater than this world can give. In early youth we stand by the side of the still waters,
with our hearts beating high, with longings after our unknown good, and with a sort of
contempt for the fashions of the world—with a contempt for the world, even though we
engage in it. While our hearts are thus unsettled Christ comes to us, if we will receive

230. Him, and promises to satisfy our great need—this hunger and thirst which wearies us.
He says, You are seeking what you see not, I give it you; you desire to be great, I will
make you so. But observe how—just in the reverse way to what you expect. The way to
real glory is to become unknown and despised.
J. H. Newman, Parochial and Plain Sermons, vol. vi., p. 313.
Perhaps there is hardly any person of reflection to whom the thought has not occurred at
times of the final judgment turning out to be a great subversion of human estimates of
men. Such an idea would not be without support from some of those characteristic
prophetic sayings of our Lord, which, like the slanting strokes of the sun’s rays across
the clouds, throw forward a track of mysterious light athwart the darkness of the future.
Such is that saying in which a shadow of the Eternal Judgment seems to come over us:
"Many that are first shall be last, and the last shall be first."
I. One source of mistake in human judgment is, that while the Gospel keeps to one point
in its classification of men, namely, the motive by which alone it decides their character,
the mass of men in fact find it difficult to do so. They have not that firm hold of the
moral idea which prevents them from wandering from it; and being diverted by
irrelevant considerations, they think of the spirituality of a man as belonging to the
department to which he is attached, the profession he makes, the subject matter he
works upon, the habitual language he has to use.
II. Nothing is easier, when we take gifts of the intellect and imagination in the abstract,
than to see that these do not constitute moral goodness. This is indeed a mere truism;
and yet, in the concrete, it is impossible not to see how nearly they border upon counting
as such; to what advantage they set off any moral good there may be in a man;
sometimes even supplying the absence of real good with what looks extremely like it.
There enters thus unavoidably often into a great religious reputation a good deal which
is not religion, but power.
III. On the other hand—while the open theatre of spiritual power and energy is so
accessible to corrupt motives, which, though undermining its truthfulness, leave
standing all the brilliance of its outer manifestation—let it be considered what a strength
and power of goodness may be accumulating in unseen quarters. The way in which man
bears temptation is what decides his character; yet how secret is the system of
temptation! Some one who did not promise much comes out at a moment of trial
strikingly and favourably. The act of the thief on the cross is a surprise. Up to the time
when he was judged he was a thief, and from a thief he became a saint. For even in the
dark labyrinth of evil there are unexpected outlets. Sin is established by habit in the
man, but the good principle which is in him also, but kept down and suppressed, may be
secretly growing too; it may be undermining it, and extracting the life and force from it.
In this man, then, sin becomes more and more, though holding its place by custom, an
outside and coating, just as virtue does in the deteriorating man, till at last, by a sudden
effort, and the inspiration of an opportunity, the strong good casts off the weak crust of
evil, and comes out free. We witness a conversion.
J. B. Mozley, University Sermons, p. 72.

231. I. The parable of the labourers in the vineyard is a simple and natural one, and teaches
that God regards only our availing ourselves of our opportunities, and using those
opportunities aright which He has given us.
II. The contrast which presents itself at the end of the day is not between the sum paid
the different classes, but between the spirit which has been gradually developed and
cherished in them. Those who have had a whole day full of labour, and full of the hopeful
confidence which full and honest labour should give—a day free from anxiety and
despair—they are infinitely the worst characters in the end. So it often is—the first in
opportunity are last in results; the last in opportunity are first in fitness for the kingdom.
T. T. Shore, The Life of the World to Come, p. 139.
CALVI , "30.And many that are first shall be last. This sentence was added in
order to shake off the indolence of the flesh. The apostles, though they had scarcely
begun the course, were hastening to demand the prize. And such is the disposition of
almost all of us, that, when a month has elapsed, we ask, like soldiers who have
served their time, to receive a discharge. But Christ exhorts those who have begun
well (Galatians 3:3) to vigorous perseverance, and at the same time gives warning,
that it will be of no avail to runners to have begun with alacrity, if they lose courage
in the midst of the course. In like manner Paul also warns us, that not all who run
obtain t/re prize, (1 Corinthians 9:24;) and in another passage he exhorts believers,
by referring to his own example, to:
forget those things which are behind, and press forward to the remaining portion of
their course,
(Philippians 3:13.)
As often, therefore, as we call to mind the heavenly crown, we ought, as it were, to
feel the application of fresh spurs, that we may not be more indolent for the future.
ELLICOTT, "(30) Many that are first shall be last.—The words point obviously not
only to the general fact of the ultimate reversal of human judgments, but to the
individual case of which the disciples had made themselves the judges. They had
seen one who stood high in his own estimate brought low by the test of the divine
Teacher. They were flattering themselves that they, who had left all, and so could
stand that test, were among the first in the hierarchy of the kingdom. For them too,
unless their spirit should become other than it was in its self-seeking and its self-
complacence, there might be an unexpected change of position, and the first might
become the last. The parable that follows was designed to bring that truth more
vividly before them.
BROADUS, "Matthew 19:30. But many that are first shall be last, etc. This
enigmatical saying is given also by Mark 10:31. In Matthew our Lord proceeds to
illustrate it by a parable, at the close of which (Matthew 20:16) he repeats the
saying. In the parable an employer pays, and asserts his right to pay, the same
wages to labourers who began later in the day, as to those who began early. Then

232. Jesus is here speaking of the rewards that will be given his followers, and declares
that these will be given as a matter of sovereignty, without recognizing any claim to
precedence. So the immediate application of the saying to the Twelve is probably to
the order in which they became disciples. In their disputes as to which should have
the highest place in the kingdom (compare on Matthew 18:1), now shortly to be
renewed, (Matthew 20:20) some of the disciples might naturally urge that the
highest places should be given to those who first followed the Master. So far as we
know, these were John and Andrew, next Andrew's brother Simon, and presently
Philip and athanael. (John 1:35-51) ow Simon and Andrew, John and his brother
James, were afterwards together called to leave other employments and follow
Jesus, (Matthew 4:18-22) are repeatedly mentioned together as being in his
company, (Mark 1:39; Mark 13:3) and constitute the first four in every list of the
Twelve (see on "Matthew 10:2"). Peter, James, and John were alone with Jesus
during that night upon the mountain, (Matthew 17:1) of which they would give the
others no account, (Matthew 17:9) as they had been on a former interesting
occasion. (Mark 5:37) And presently James and John will ask through their mother
(Matthew 20:20) for the two highest places. These facts make it not at all unnatural
to suppose that the order of time entered into their disputes. Our Lord then means
that he, or the Father, (Matthew 20:23) will act as he shall think proper (Matthew
20:15) in respect to precedence, and many who entered his service late will receive
greater reward than others who entered earlier; he will recognize no claim on any
such ground. A notable instance would be the Apostle Paul. But while immediately
designed to check disputes as to this question of time, the principle is stated
generally and may have other applications. It is presupposed throughout, as already
involved in Matthew 19:28 f., that Christ's servants will be differently rewarded; we
learn here that this reward will not be regulated by the mere outward conditions of
the time spent in his service, or the results actually attained, but will be conferred
according to his own judgment and sovereign pleasure. David, who meant to build,
will be rewarded as truly, and it may be as richly, as Solomon who built; James who
was early slain, as truly as his brother who lived so long. The often repeated view of
some Fathers that the reference was to Jews and Gentiles, is quite untenable. The
equal reward of some who die early is set forth by a somewhat similar illustration in
Talmud Jerus., Berach., ch. II, 8 (Schwab), designed to give comfort in regard to the
early death of a rabbi. A king hired many labourers, and seeing one who worked
remarkably well, took him apart after two hours to walk with him to and fro. At
even he paid this man as much as the others, and when they complained, he said,
'This man has done more in two hours than you in a whole day.' In like manner the
young rabbi knew the law better when he died at the age of twenty-eight than any
other would have known it if he had lived to be a hundred. Thus the resemblance to
our Lord's illustration is only partial, and the point of application quite different,
while in itself very pleasing.
COFFMA , "The application of these words to Peter's question is thus: God does
not allow any system of seniority to determine ultimate rewards in his kingdom. The
seeming implication of Peter's words to the effect that some preferential treatment
might be in order for the earliest disciples who had given up so much to follow
Christ finds its emphatic answer in this, that it is not how long, but how faithfully,

233. men have served that determines destiny. Again, to quote Barker:
How often do we think that because we are "old timers" in a congregation we have
proprietary rights over the program and property! Everyone has met the
superchurchman who lets it be known that "I've been coming to this church for
years," meaning that he has been promoted to Senior Vice President to God, Inc.![5]
Judas, of course, was one of the first; and, as regards the lives of the apostles, Paul
was one of the last. Every generation finds its own fulfillment of the Saviour's
words. Shortly afterwards, in fact immediately, Jesus gave a parable illustrating this
principle even more clearly.
PETT, "After referring to the blessings that His disciples will enjoy as they labour
for Him Jesus adds a warning to make all beware of presumption. Presumption is to
be avoided because all will be rewarded equally, and God will deal with each one as
He wills. This statement would sit very strangely if He had already just promised
thrones to the Apostles as a guaranteed future blessing after they had performed
their labours, and especially so as one of whom would certainly not receive one. But
it does sit very well if those thrones signified their time of working in the vineyard.
Jesus’ point is that their walk in the Spirit (Matthew 12:28; Matthew 3:11) must be
maintained. For many who get in early, and develop quickly, but find the going
hard, will finish up last, because their attitude is poor. While many who start slowly
and develop more gradually will end up first. For each of us progress must thus be
continuous if we are to receive the fullest blessing, whether we commence at the first
hour or the eleventh hour. This is what the ensuing parable is now all about as
Matthew 19:16 makes clear.
But it is also about something else, and that is the pure goodness of the owner of the
vineyard. It make quite clear that he represents God. Only God would show such
goodness in such a fashion. For His concern was not only to get the harvest in, or the
work done, but also to give full satisfaction even to those who did not deserve it.
COKE, "Matthew 19:30. But many that are first, &c.— "Many, who in the eyes of
their fellow-creatures are least in this life, by reason of their affliction, mortification,
and self-denial, are really first, not only in point of future reward, but even in
respect of present satisfaction." These words were spoken also with a view to keep
the disciples humble, after their imaginations had been warmed with the prospect of
their reward; for, in all probability, they interpreted the promise of the thrones so,
as to make it refer to the highest offices in the temporal kingdom,—the offices of
greatest power, honour, and profit in Judea; and supposed that the other posts,
which were, to be occupied at a distance from the Messiah's person, such as the
government of provinces, the command of armies, &c. would all be filled by their
brethren the Jews, to whom, of right, they judged them to belong, rather than to the
Gentiles. ay, it was a prevailing opinion at this time, that every particular Jew
whatever, the poorest not excepted, would enjoy some office or other in the vast
empire which the Messiah was to erect over all nations. In this light Christ's
meaning was, "Though you may imagine that you and your brethren have a

234. peculiar title to the great and substantial blessings of my kingdom which I have
been describing, yet the Gentiles shall have equal opportunities and advantages of
obtaining them; because they shall be admitted to all the privileges of the Gospel,
before your nation is converted." See Romans 11:25-26. Jesus illustrated this
doctrine by the parable of the householder, who hired labourers into his vineyard at
different hours, and in the evening gave them all the same wages, beginning from
the last to the first. See the first verse of the next chapter, which the subject, as well
as the connective particle for, shews to be very improperly divided from the present
verse and chapter.
Inferences.—What our Saviour says at the beginning of this chapter, with respect to
the divorces in use among the Jews, teaches us in general, that many things which
had been tolerated till that time, on account of the hardness of this people's hearts,
would not be allowed among Christians: blessed with greater light, they are
certainly called to a higher degree of holiness.
The union which is formed between man and woman by marriage is more intimate
and inseparable than that between parents and children, Matthew 19:5. It is
honoured by being made the figure and representation of the union which subsists
between Christ and his church; it is a partnership of soul and body, of life and
fortune, comfort and support, and designs and inclinations. What a wickedness it is
to sow divisions in a society so holy and so dear to God! But how much greater is it
still, to violate it by a criminal and adulterous commerce!
That which is established by the wisdom of the Creator is one thing; that which is
extorted from his condescension by the hardness of men's hearts is another;
Matthew 19:8. The former has nothing but what is worthy of the Creator; the latter
is only a remedy for the imperfection of the creature: considering the indissoluble
bond by which God has joined them together, how much should those who are
married, make it their constant care to promote each other's comfort and happiness!
How cautiously should they guard against every degree of contention, or even of
distaste, which might at length occasion an alienation in their affections, and render
so close a bond proportionably grievous!
Before we enter into an engagement which nothing but death can intirely dissolve,
prudence certainly obliges us to consider it on all sides; nor should we ever
determine our choice by considerations of a low and transitory nature. There are
inconveniencies in every state; but those of marriage are not sufficient to keep such
persons from it as God thinks fit to call thereto. They must consult his will, and rely
upon his grace. The state of voluntary and perpetual continence, undertaken for
God's sake, is a gift of God himself, and the only kind of virginity which he has
engaged to reward. Let those who prefer the freedom of a single life to a state,
which, with its peculiar comforts, must necessarily have its peculiar cares and trials
too, diligently improve that disengagement as an obligation to seek the kingdom of
God with greater ardour, and to pursue its interests with more active zeal and
application; Matthew 19:10-12.

235. How delightful and instructive it is to see the compassionate Shepherd of Israel thus
gathering the lambs in his arms, and carrying them in his bosom, with all the tokens
of tender regard; rebuking his disciples who forbad their coming, and laying his
gracious hands upon them to bless them! How condescending and engaging a
behaviour! How encouraging and amiable an image!
Let his ministers behold it, to teach them a becoming regard to the lambs of their
flock, who should early be taken notice of and instructed, and for and with whom
they should frequently pray; remembering how often divine grace takes possession
of the heart in the years of infancy, and sanctifies the children of God almost from
the womb. Every first impression made upon their tender minds should be carefully
cherished; nor should those whom Christ himself is ready to receive be disregarded
by his servants, who, upon all occasions, are bound to be gentle unto all, and apt to
teach.
Behold this sight, ye parents, with pleasure and thankfulness; and let it encourage
you to bring your children to Christ by faith, and to commit them to him in baptism
and by prayer. Should he, who has the keys of death and the unseen world, see fit to
remove those objects of your tenderest care in their early days, let the recollection of
this history comfort you, and teach you to hope and trust that he who so graciously
received these children, has not forgotten yours; but that they are fallen asleep in
him, and will be everlasting objects of his care and love: For of such is the kingdom
of God.
Ye children too, observe this sight with gratitude and joy: the great and glorious
Redeemer did not despise these little ones, nay, he was displeased with those who
would have prevented their being brought to him. As kindly would he, no doubt,
have received you; as kindly will he still receive you, if you go to him in the sincerity
of your hearts, and ask his blessing in humble and earnest prayer. Though you see
not Christ, he sees and hears you; he is ever present with you, to receive, to bless,
and to save you. Happy the weakest of you, when lodged in the arms of Christ!
nothing can ever harm you there.
Under this joyful persuasion let us all commit ourselves to him; studious to become
as little children, if we desire to enter into his kingdom. Governed no more by the
vain maxims of a corrupt and degenerate world, our minds no longer possessed,
tormented, enslaved by pride, ambition, avarice, or lust—be it our care to put
ourselves with the amiable simplicity of children, into the wise and kind hands of
Jesus as our guardian, cheerfully referring ourselves to his pastoral and parental
care, to be clothed and fed, to be guided and disposed of, as he shall see fit: for this
purpose lay on us, O Lord, the invisible hand of thy Divinity, that it may take
possession of our hearts and senses; that it may repress in us whatever is contrary to
thy will, and so make us the children of God now, that we may at length be the
happy children of the resurrection.
Respecting the unhappy youth falling short of the kingdom of heaven through the
love of this world, we will speak on a future occasion. But who can fail to receive

236. instruction from this example, and to be upon their guard against that specious
harlot, the world, that most delusive and dangerous enemy of man, who hath cast
down many wounded; yea, many strong men have been slain by her? Dangerous as
they are to our eternal salvation, (Matthew 19:23.) yet how universally are riches
desired! how eagerly are they pursued by persons in all stations, and of all
professions in life! But what do they generally prove?—Shining mischief, and gilded
ruin. God, who well knows this, therefore, in fatherly mercy keeps or makes so
many of his children poor. In this view they should be more than contented with
their safer state; while those who are rich cannot too importunately intreat of God
those influences of his grace, which can effect such things as are impossible with
men, Matthew 19:26.
Happy they who, truly following Christ, think not much of any thing that he
demands; knowing that whatever they may lose, or whatever they may resign, they
shall gain far more by his favour. How little faith have we, to be unwilling to forsake
for a moment, that which shall be restored with so much interest in heaven! He who
possesses God regains every thing in him. This is that hundred-fold, which surpasses
all expectation, all idea.
REFLECTIO S.—1st, Having finished his ministry in Galilee, Christ departed to
return no more, till after his resurrection, unless for one passing visit, (Luke 17:11.).
When God's ministers have done their work in a place, Providence directs their
removal; and till they have, none of their enemies in earth or hell, if they be faithful,
can displace them. Christ was now advancing towards Jerusalem, the scene of his
sufferings; and, in his way, took that part of Judea where John had chiefly exercised
his ministry. As was usual in every place through which he passed, great multitudes
resorted to him, and, according to his wonted compassions, he healed them of all
their diseases, in confirmation of the doctrines which he taught.
His ever-inveterate enemies the Pharisees failed not to attend him here also, using all
their wiles to draw him into a snare, that they might prejudice the people against
him. For which end we have,
1. The insidious question which they proposed to him concerning divorces: Whether
it was lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? a question much
debated in their schools; and, through the abuse of the permission granted in the
law of Moses, they had done it on the most frivolous pretences. The Pharisees hoped,
therefore, either to have matter of accusation against him, if he condemned divorces,
as an opposer of the law of Moses; or, if he allowed them thus generally, they would
have treated him as licentious, the more serious Jews condemning those divorces
which were made on trifling provocations.
2. In answer, Christ refers them to the original institution of marriage, as the best
solution of the difficulty which they proposed. Let them consider that, and they
might resolve their own question. It would thence appear that such arbitrary
divorces were directly repugnant to the nature of the matrimonial bond. In the very
creation of the first man and woman, the indissoluble union between them might be

237. collected: Adam had none but Eve, nor could divorce her for another. This being of
all relations the nearest, God ordained, that even a father or mother must be left for
the sake of a wife: not that marriage vacates the obligation lying upon us to help and
relieve them; no: but if all admit, that the reciprocal relation between parent and
child may not be broken, much less can the nearer connection of husband and wife
be dissolved. They are one flesh, near to each other as the members of the same
body, which no one ever thought of parting with, but cherishes with tenderest care.
Those therefore whom God has thus joined, it would be highly criminal and
presumptuous in man to separate.
3. The Pharisees start an objection to this interpretation of Scripture, and flatter
themselves that they have Moses on their side; Why did Moses then, &c.: very ready
to seize the shadow of a plea, and, by representing Christ as an enemy to the
institutions of Moses, to render him suspected, and prejudice the people against
him. Thus do wicked men endeavour to pervert the blessed Scriptures, and make
them militate against themselves.
4. Christ answers their objection, and in a way which did not a little reflect on their
ill tempers and conduct. What they suppose a command, our Lord says was merely
a toleration, and permitted as a judicial and political law, to prevent the greater
evils which must ensue: such being their hardness of heart, that, rather than their
helpless wives should be cruelly treated, perhaps murdered, to be rid of them, such
being their malignity and obduracy, God was pleased for their sakes to dispense
with his positive law, though from the beginning it was not so. or in the Gospel
state should this be any longer suffered, Christ being come to restore this ordinance
to its primitive institution, and to take away the hardness of men's hearts; therefore
hence-forward no divorces would be allowed, except in the case of unfaithfulness to
the marriage-bed: and whosoever on any other cause should divorce his wife, and
marry another, would be guilty of adultery, as he would be also who married her
thus divorced.
5. The disciples, on hearing this determination of their Master, could not help, when
they were alone, suggesting their apprehensions of the unhappiness of the married
state, if divorces were so strictly prohibited; and that the experiment would be so
dangerous, that it amounted to an injunction of celibacy: so apt are men to seek
liberty for the indulgence of appetite, and to argue against the best institutions,
because of some inconveniencies which may arise from them. If we possess the spirit
of Christianity, of meekness, patience, and love, we shall learn to bear each other's
burdens, compassionate each other's infirmities, and be thankful for the comforts
that we enjoy, which far exceed the inconveniencies that divorce can be supposed to
remedy.
6. Christ replies to their suggestion, that their reasoning in one view was right, and
that a single state is preferable for those who have the gift of continence; especially
in days of persecution and distress, and where the cares of a family, and the
incumbrances thereto annexed, would make it more difficult for the first preachers
of the Gospel to be travelling from place to place, or take up too much of their time

238. and thoughts, instead of better things. But there are few, very few comparatively,
who are possessed of this gift; and therefore marriage, with all its crosses, is far the
most preferable, and to be chosen as a matter of duty; and, when entered upon in
the fear and love of God, the comforts of that relation will be found to overpay us
for all the crosses. But some there are from the birth by natural constitution formed
for celibacy, strangers to the desire of women; some by the wickedness of men are
incapacitated for the marriage state; and some, seeing powerful reasons to
determine their choice, for the sake of greater usefulness in the service of Jesus
Christ, have such particular supplies of divine grace given them, as to be able to
forego the delights of wedlock, and may laudably purpose to live a single life, though
not under any vows, if afterwards they should see cause to change their sentiments:
not as any thing meritorious, as the Papists suggest; but purely, that, being
disengaged from the cares of life, they may be enabled to employ themselves more
intirely in the work of God, than otherwise they could. He that is able to receive it,
let him receive it.
2nd, We have seen multitudes of others making their application to Christ: we
behold, in the next place, some pious parents bringing their children to ask his
divine benediction.
1. They brought their infants, that Jesus might lay his hands upon them, and pray
for them, expecting in faith that he could impart to them spiritual blessings, and
that his prayers would be attended with gracious effects. ote; They who have
tasted the grace of Jesus themselves, cannot but earnestly desire, that all theirs may
share with them the inestimable mercy, and therefore fail not to present their little
ones to him for his blessing.
2. The disciples, apprehensive lest such a precedent should induce others to bring
their children, and thereby occasion their Master much trouble; or supposing it
beneath him to take notice of infants, or useless to bring them to him; rebuked those
who brought the children, and wanted to prevent their application. But,
3. Christ expressed his displeasure against his disciples for obstructing so charitable
a work, and bids them suffer these babes to be brought, seeing that of such is the
kingdom of heaven: not only because the members of his church should be like these
in spirit and temper; but also because the infants themselves, as well as grown
persons, are capable of becoming subjects of the Gospel kingdom, and of having an
interest in its spiritual blessings and privileges; and if so, then there can be no
sufficient reason why they may not by baptism be admitted into the visible
communion of the faithful. And he laid his hands on them, and blessed them: (Mark
10:16.) though they cannot stretch out their infant hands to him in faith and prayer,
he can confer on them his gifts of grace, and prepare them for his eternal kingdom.
Thus, having confirmed the privileges of the lambs of his flock, he departed thence.
3rdly, We have a conference between a promising young man who came with a
question of the last importance, and our blessed Lord, whose answer is designed for
his conviction and humiliation.

239. 1. His address was most respectful, and his inquiry of the last consequence. Though
Christ appeared outwardly mean and despicable, and he himself was a person of
distinction, ye he humbly knelt before him, and with a title of uncommon veneration
addressed him, desiring to be informed by him, as a prophet sent from God, by what
works of righteousness he might assuredly attain that eternal life which he seemed
above all things solicitous to secure. ote; (1.) Eternal life is the grand object, and
most deserving our first concern. (2.) Youth and riches are dangerous snares, which
too frequently divert the mind from the consideration of another world; but the
more rare, the more commendable it is, when we see any person possessed of both,
seeking in the first place the kingdom of God. (3.) They who would learn the way to
eternal life, must be daily coming to Christ on their knees.
2. Our Lord replies both to his address and question. As the young ruler regarded
him as a mere man, the title of Good, in that emphatic sense was misapplied, since
none is absolutely and perfectly good but God alone. As to the question—according
to the views wherewith he came, expecting to obtain life by obedience to the law as a
covenant of works, there was but one way: If thou wilt enter into life keep the
commandments, perfectly, universally, perpetually. othing short of this can secure
a title to eternal life under the law, where every defect, failure, or omission,
immediately incurs the penalty of the curse denounced, Deuteronomy 27:26. In
which answer Christ appears designing to lead him to a view of the impossibility of
obtaining righteousness and life eternal by any doings and duties of his own, and, by
unhinging him from an opinion of his own goodness and abilities, to shew him the
necessity of the atonement and prevalent intercession of the great Deliverer and
Saviour. ote; There was once a way to life by personal perfect obedience; but, since
the first man's sin, none ever went that way, he only excepted who was more than
man.
3. Willing to know what these commandments were, and conceiving his abilities and
inclinations equal to the talk, the young ruler begs a distinct enumeration of them;
and Jesus, to convince him how mistaken an idea he had formed of himself,
instances only in the duties of the second table, which, if rightly understood, would
minister to him abundant matter for humiliation, and shew him the impossibility of
obtaining eternal life by his own obedience.
4. Ignorant of the spirituality of the law, and judging according to the wretched
literal comments of the scribes, he thought that he might safely vouch for his
obedience. From his youth up he had escaped from the grosser pollutions which are
in the world, and made conscience of his ways. He was no adulterer, thief,
murderer, or perjured person; and, having kept all these commandments, as he
supposed, desired, with some shew of self-complacence, to know what farther was
required, as if he only wanted to be informed, and was ready to obey. ote; (1.)
Pride on our duties is as damnable as the indulgence of our sins. (2.) It may appear a
strange, but it is a true assertion, that the fairest characters in the eyes of the world,
are usually the farthest from the kingdom of God. (3.) We may be fully assured that
we know neither God's law nor our own hearts, when we presume to say of the least

240. of his commandments, All these have I kept from my youth. (4.) A humbling sight of
our sins, not a vain conceit of ourselves, is the first step to the kingdom of God.
5. To convince him how mistaken his apprehensions were of his own goodness,
Christ puts him on giving a proof of obedience to that leading precept of the law,
Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself; and he would presently see how much he
wanted of the attainments which he boasted. He wished to be perfect: if he would
be, as one step towards it, let him sell all his possessions, distribute them to the poor,
have his affections taken off from earthly things, commence a constant attendant on
Jesus, take up his cross, and follow his footsteps; and then he would secure the
treasures of eternity, and be in the way to that eternal life which he sought. ote;
(1.) A holy deadness to the world is at all times the duty of Christ's disciples; and
there may be occasions still, where literally we are called on to part with all for his
sake. (2.) Covetousness and inordinate love of the world are often seen in the fairest
professors, and are among the worst symptoms of the insincerity and hypocrisy of
their hearts. (3.) They who leave all for Christ, will be no losers in the end; the
treasures of eternity will prove an ample recompense.
6. Unable to bear these hard sayings, and not at all inclined to part from his great
possessions, though eternal life was at stake, the young man thought the way too
narrow; yet, grieved to find that he had not reached the perfection which he fancied
in himself, and loth to quit Christ and eternal life, he went away sorrowful,
unwilling to lose the hopes of heaven, and yet resolved not to part with his great
possessions on earth. ote; (1.) Riches are the rock on which innumerable souls are
shipwrecked, and drowned thereby in perdition and destruction. (2.) The more we
have of this world, in general the closer our affections cleave to it; and increasing
wealth brings usually an increase of snares. (3.) Many are sorry to part with Christ,
and submit with reluctance to the yoke of sin and the world, who yet perish under
the bondage of corruption.
4thly, On occasion of so promising a youth's departure from him, through
inordinate attachment to worldly wealth, our Lord, directing his discourse to his
disciples,
1. Observes the vast obstructions which riches lay in the way of men's salvation. A
rich man, whose heart is engaged with the care and love of his substance, can hardly
ever become a subject of Christ's kingdom upon earth, or an inheritor of his
kingdom in heaven. Things in their nature the most impracticable may be expected
to happen, even, according to the proverbial expression, for a camel to go through a
needle's eye sooner than for a man, whose heart is attached to his wealth, and seeks
his happiness therein, to become a real disciple of Jesus, and an inheritor of glory.
ote; (1.) The immense difficulties which riches put in our way to heaven, should
make us thankful in a low condition, that God has not exposed us to this temptation;
should suppress every rising of envy against our wealthy neighbours, and quench
every inordinate desire of abundance. (2.) They who are rich have more duties to
discharge; more temptations to struggle with; more self-denial to exercise; and a
larger account of talents to settle than others; and therefore great grace is needful to

241. sanctify great possessions.
2. The disciples express their astonishment at their Master's assertion: and if the
case stood thus, they do not conceive it possible that the Messiah's kingdom could be
supported, according to their mistaken ideas concerning it, if all the rich and great
are excluded, who usually sway the world: or, if they understood him of the
heavenly kingdom, they are ready to conclude, that few or none would ever attain
thereunto, as many are possessed of wealth, and almost all desire it. ote; The more
the hindrances in the way of salvation are, the greater diligence we need use to
surmount them.
3. Christ, with concern observing their surprise and consternation, replied, that
indeed with men, in their state of nature, considering their native corruption and
worldly-mindedness, salvation was utterly out of their reach; they being unable of
themselves to effect the needful change in their own hearts, or in each other's: more
than human sufficiency was requisite. This is the work of God; impossibilities with
us are possible with him: almighty grace can subdue the most inveterate
corruptions, spiritualize the affections of the most worldly-minded, and enable the
rich as well as the poor to overcome the temptations of their perilous state, and shew
themselves rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom. one therefore are to be
despaired of: if they fly to God for pardon and salvation, they shall find it through
the Beloved. Some refer this to the Messiah's kingdom upon earth, as if the answer
implied, that though it appeared so impracticable to them to set up this kingdom, in
opposition to all the wealth and greatness of the world; yet such supports should be
ministered to them, poor and inconsiderable as they were, as should enable them to
withstand all their enemies, and make their labours successful.
4. Peter, in the name of his brethren, thought this no unfavourable season to inquire
what they should get, since they had left all and followed him. It is true, their all was
not much; but such as it was, it was equally dear to them as if they had possessed
greater wealth. ote; (1.) If our spirit be right, though our loss for Christ exceed not
the widow's mite, he will accept it as if we had left greater possessions. (2.) Though it
is not the mere motive of advantage which influences the faithful, we may
notwithstanding with comfort look to the great recompense of reward.
5. Christ engages, that they who forsake all for him, shall be no losers in the issue.
They who have followed him in the regeneration, shall be honoured with the most
eminent seats in his kingdom, and sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes
of Israel.
In the regeneration, either refers to the present state of the disciples who had
followed Christ, and may spiritually describe the change which had passed on their
souls by the renewing power of divine grace: or, it may signify their attendance
upon him, and devoting themselves to his service in setting up that kingdom which
was designed to effect a glorious reformation in the world. This phrase may likewise
be connected with the latter part of the clause, when the Son of man shall sit in the
throne of his glory, in the regeneration, and then it has respect to the future state of

242. the Redeemer's exaltation, when, after his ascension from the dead, they should be
endued with power from on high, the former Mosaical dispensation should be
abolished, and they commissioned to preach the Gospel, and erect the Christian
church; in which old things, the Jewish ceremonials would pass away, and all things
become new; new ordinances be administered, and new hearts and minds be given
to the converts.
Their sitting on thrones, &c. may either imply the dignity of their apostleship, to
which they should be advanced, to charge the Jews with their crimes, especially
their rejection of the Messiah, and to denounce the vengeance ready to be executed
upon them, which, in consequence of their predictions they should see
accomplished: or, it refers to their distinguished place of honour, when, in the great
day of the Redeemer's appearing and glory, they should be admitted to sit down as
assessors with him, on thrones around his own, approving and applauding his
judgement, dispensed according to the word which they had preached; and
afterwards shall, in the eternal world, reign with Christ in glory everlasting.
And, while he thus promised the twelve this distinguished honour, he added also, for
the encouragement of all who should tread in their steps to the end of time, that the
like rewards should be the portion of the faithful. It is supposed, that, for Christ's
sake, all his true disciples would be called upon to make very painful sacrifices, and
often be forced to lose the affection of nearer and dearest relations, be separated
from the greatest comforts of life, and deprived of all they possessed: but he engages
to indemnify them for their losses; sometimes in kind, by his providence so ordering
events, as that they shall in present advantages receive a hundred fold; or at least
always in comfort shall have an abundant recompense, enjoying clearer and
brighter manifestations of God's love and favour; and, for temporal losses, finding
their souls enriched by spiritual graces—besides the glorious hope of eternal life in
the world to come, which will infinitely overpay us for all the crosses and losses of
this transitory life. We may learn from the whole of this discourse, (1.) To expect, if
we are Christ's disciples, many a cross, and to be ready to part with whatever stands
in competition with his honour and interest. (2.) To be thankful if we be not called to
those severer exercises of discipleship which others before us have endured. (3.) To
keep the promises in our eye when the day of trial comes, and then we shall think
nothing too hard to suffer, or too dear to lose. A sense of the Redeemer's present
love, and a prospect of the glory which shall be revealed, will make every present
affliction light, and cause us to rejoice in the midst of our sorrows. (4.) The time in
which the faithful suffer for Christ is momentary; but their reign with him shall be
eternal.
6. He adds, by way of obviating any mistake which might arise, as if eternal life was
the reward of merit, not of grace; or as if priority of calling gave precedence in his
kingdom; that many who were first shall be last, and the last first. Many of the Jews
who were first called, refused the invitation; and many Gentiles through grace,
though last invited, eagerly embraced the Gospel; and also many of those, both of
the Jews and Gentiles, who were first converted and endured to the end, would be
outstripped in attainments, and excelled in spirituality, zeal, and fidelity, by those

243. who in order of time would afterwards come in, and be exalted to higher honours in
his kingdom; which he elucidates by a parable in the succeeding chapter. ote; If we
be called late we must work the faster, and give the greater diligence to redeem the
time.