Matthew 19:1

Ch. Mat_19:1-2. Jesus goes to Judæa from Galilee

Mar_10:1

1. came into the coasts of Judea beyond Jordan] From the parallel passage in Mark we learn that this means: Came into Judæa by the trans-Jordanic route through Peræa, thus avoiding Samaria. It does not mean that any portion of Judæa lay beyond Jordan. St Matthew here omits various particulars, of which some are to be supplied from Luk_9:51 to Luk_17:11; others from John—two visits to Jerusalem (Joh_7:8-10 and Joh_10:22-39); the raising of Lazarus (Joh_11:1-30); the retirement to Ephraim (Joh_11:54).

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mat_19:1-12

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 Fathers 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.)

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 heavens 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 heavens 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 Saviours 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.

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).

Watsons 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 Henrys 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 Clarkes 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 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.)

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.)

Mat_13:4; Mat_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 eagles, 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, mans 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 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 Gods love. Every transgression deprives us, in some degree, of power to receive Gods 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. Satans chosen instruments are those light, swift-winged, apparently innocent flocks of flying thoughts, that come swooping across your souls, even whilst the message of Gods 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 Gods 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 mans spirit; in the childish days so soft, so susceptible to all impressions, so joyous to receive new ideas, treasuring them 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 mans 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 sowers 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 mans 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 infants hands, when it fell in the right place, grew as well and ripened as fully as that which had been 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 Christs 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.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mat 19:1-2. When Jesus had finished these sayings — Had delivered the instructions contained in the preceding chapter, to his disciples at Capernaum; he departed from Galilee — Where he had long dwelt, and through which he had made repeated journeys, but in which, from henceforward, he walked no more; and came into the coasts of Judea beyond Jordan — “Properly speaking, no part of Judea was on the farther 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 Matthew’s expression is elliptical; and may supply it from Mar 10:1, thus, And came into the coasts of Judea, δια του περαν του Ιορδανου, through the country beyond Jordan. See Joh 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, for his fame having become exceeding great, he was everywhere 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; lastly, by those who expected that he would set up the kingdom immediately: besides, at this time the multitude may have been greater than ordinary, because, as the passover was at hand, many, going thither, may have chosen to travel in our Lord’s train, expecting to see new miracles.” — Macknight.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

§ 103. — JESUS, HAVING LEFT GALILEE, IN PEREA, DISCUSSES THE LAW OF MARRIAGE, Mat_19:1-12.

1. He departed from Galilee — He left Galilee for the last time before his crucifixion. It had been the main scene of his ministry. He was hence sometimes called “the prophet of Galilee.” Even for centuries after, the Christians were called, by Jews and Pagans, GALILEANS. When the celebrated Julian, the apostate, was providentially slain in the midst of his efforts to destroy Christianity, he exclaimed with his expiring breath: “Thou hast conquered, O Galilean!” The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke have been called, specially, the Galilean Gospels, because their scene is mostly in Galilee, and their subject the ministry of our Lord to that section. On the other hand, John’s has been called the Judean Gospel, because its scene is mostly in Judea, especially in Jerusalem. Came… Judea beyond Jordan — No part of Judea proper lay beyond, that is, east of the Jordan. But this phrase of Matthew is intended to cover the whole extent of our Lord’s following ministry in both Judea and Perea. So Mar_10:1, is strictly to be rendered: He cometh into the territories of Judea and beyond the Jordan. That is, after leaving Galilee, his ministry was in Judea and Perea. Before he went to Perea, beyond Jordan, he visited Jerusalem, where most of the transactions of his ministry in John’s Gospel took place.

Nor does Matthew here probably give the earliest transactions even in Perea, as will appear by consulting the Historical Synopsis. Between our Lord’s leaving Galilee and the ensuing discussion with the Pharisees, the interval was near six months.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

CRITICAL NOTES

Mat_19:1. He departed from Galilee.—This marks a very solemn period in our Lord’s public ministry. It was His farewell to Galilee (Brown). Came into the coasts of Judæa beyond Jordan.—From the parallel passage in Mark (Mar_10:1) we learn that this means: Came into Judæa by the trans-Jordanic route through Peræa. It does not mean that any portion of Judæa lay beyond Jordan (Carr). St. Matthew here omits various particulars, of which some are to be supplied from Luk_9:51 to Luk_17:11; others from John—two visits to Jerusalem (Joh_7:8-10; Joh_10:22-39); the raising of Lazarus (Joh_11:1-46); the retirement, to Ephraim (Joh_11:54).

Mat_19:3. The Pharisees.—The article is omitted in R.V. Peræa was removed from the great centres of Jewish hierarchism, but even there the sect of the Pharisees was represented. Tempting him.—To know how entangling the question 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 (Gibson).

Mat_19:4. Answered.—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 (ibid.). Have ye not read? etc.—It is noteworthy that 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 (Plumptre).

Mat_19:5. And said.—Through Adam (Gen_2:24). The words “embody, not Adam’s opinion, conjecture, or imagination, but God’s own marital law for universal man” (Morison).

Mat_19:7. Why did Moses then command, etc.?—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 (Gibson).

Mat_19:10. It is not good to marry.—Nothing could prove more clearly the revolution in thought brought to pass by Christ than this. Even the disciples feel that such a principle would make the yoke of marriage unbearable (Carr).

Mat_19:11. All men cannot receive this saying.—It is as if the Saviour had said: True, so far; it is expedient in some respects and indeed in many, not to marry. Not a few inconveniences, annoyances, difficulties, and trials would thus be avoided. But then, that would be only one side of the case. And it is by no means all men who could easily, or wisely, receive this saying as the rule of their life, and reduce it to practice (Morison). The saying was that of the disciples as virtually re-iterated, and partially accepted by our Lord (ibid.). They to whom it is given.—Who are these? the disciples would naturally ask; and this our Lord proceeds to tell them in three particulars (Brown).

Mat_19:12. Eunuchs.—See Dr. Schaff’s remarks (p. 448).

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.—Mat_19:1-12

The law of marriage.—The Saviour has left Galilee, and is on the other side of the Jordan, preparatory to crossing to Jericho and going up to Jerusalem (Mat_19:1; Mat_20:17). Those who are in need of Him find Him out there in great multitudes; and find Him also to be all that He had ever been, both in word and in deed (Mat_19:2, Mar_10:1). Those who are opposed to Him find Him out too (Mat_19:3). They come to Him with an insidious question on the subject of divorce. In what cases did He hold it “lawful” for a man to “put away his wife?” In their own teaching there were many “causes” which were held to justify a man in so doing. What did He say on the matter? In reply to this question the Saviour first lays down an absolute rule; tnen qualifies it by a certain necessary exception; and finally fortifies it by a further word of considerate caution.

I. An absolute rule.—A rule which is absolute, first, in regard to its authority. It is so, on the one hand, on the question of time. It goes back at once to “the beginning” of all (Mat_19:4). Let that be which has always been. This is what it first says. It is so, on the other hand, on the question of source. There can be no greater authority on this subject than the authority of the Creator (Mat_19:4). Only He who made man can know fully what man is. Only He, therefore, can either rightly or wisely decide ultimately what man ought to do. Not less absolute is this rule, in the second place, in regard to its nature. Its nature, on the one hand, in recognising so clearly in the marriage relation the idea of “duality,” and of duality only, of nothing beyond. That original and first marriage to which the rule in question refers us, being one which was both brought about and expressly sanctioned by God Himself, is therefore a “pattern” instance to all. That same instance, however, as is so expressly taught us, was one of this kind—a dual instance—a case of “male and female”—one of “man and wife”—one of nothing beyond. Its nature, on the other hand, in recognising just as clearly the idea of “unity” also. These “two” in one sense—so it was also declared by that original and authoritative instance—were to be “one” in another. “One” so intimately that in this respect no other human relation was to be put in comparison with it (Mat_19:5). One so intimately, also, that those “two,” in a certain sense, ceased to be “two” any more (Mat_19:6). That, in short, is the primary idea—that is God’s conception—of marriage. The rule to be observed is to keep strictly to that conception in practice—a rule which, of course, precludes the idea of setting that bond on one side (end of Mat_19:6).

II. A necessary exception.—This exception is brought out, in part, by a further question on the part of the adversaries of the Saviour. Unable to dispute the answer He has given in a general way, they are yet not satisfied with it in full. It leaves untouched, they think, what Moses has said in another part of his writings; as, for example, where he implies, that there are cases in which men might be allowed to “put away” their wives, by stipulating, if they do so, that the dissolution of the marriage should take place in as formal and open and valid a manner as the original contract did at the first (Mat_19:7). What did He say about this? Did He allow at all—and, if so, in what cases did He allow—of such exceptions? Our Saviour’s answer is twofold. First, He shows that their inference from Moses was not correct as it stood. The stipulation he insisted on did not prove that the exceptions it pointed to were lawful in His judgment. All it showed was that they could not be avoided in the circumstances of the case. Not even Moses could always do all that should be done with the materials at his disposal. With such blinded minds and perverse wills and hardened hearts as he had to deal with, he could sometimes only seek so to regulate an evil as to keep it within bounds. But this was no proof that he looked on it as being a good. To regulate that which for the time being could not be removed, was not to wish it to remain. To supply a man with crutches when he is lame is not to say that lameness is a good thing in itself. Neither was it difficult, in the next place, to see, even so, where the only exception should be. The essence of marriage was in being “one flesh.” There were cases—only too common cases—where this essence had gone. The marriage contract, in all such cases, had been already broken de facto. In such cases to declare it also broken de jure, and to treat it as such by granting a divorce was not out of keeping with the original institution and purport of marriage; and, therefore, might be allowed (Mat_19:9). That very statement, however, seems to shut out all other “causes” besides.

III. A faithful caution.—On hearing this the disciples say to the Saviour as related in Mat_19:10. The spirit of His answer to them may be given in very few words. In certain exceptional cases and times it might be as they said (see 1Co_7:26). It might be better, in such circumstances, not to enter at all into the marriage relation; on that point, to a great extent, men must judge for themselves. If they felt they could do so, let them do so. It would not be displeasing to God. On the other hand, there was no doubt that this view of that relation might cause it, in some cases, to become a very considerable burden and trial to those who had entered upon it. In no case, however, but that mentioned, were they to regard this as a sufficient reason for attempting to dissolve it. For such a remedy would involve more evils than those it attempted to cure. If He has allowed such troubles to come upon us in that connection (Rom_8:28). He will help us to bear them. He will even cause them, if we look to Him for it, to work for our good (Rom_8:28). Anything is better than unlawfully seeking to set asunder what God hath once joined.

From all this we may see, in conclusion:—

1. How holy a thing marriage is.—Of few other human relations can we say as of this, that it was “instituted of God.” It is not be terminated, it is not to be entered into, apart from God’s will.

2. How naturally, therefore, it leads our thoughts on to what is holier still (Eph_5:23, etc.).

3. How well we may rejoice, therefore, to find it spoken of here as that which must not be dissolved.—How glorious to think that in this also it sets forth the union of Christ and His church! If the less sacred much more the more so—if the earthly much more the heavenly—if the type much more the antitype—is something which, once entered in, is not to be lightly dissolved!

HOMILIES ON THE VERSES

Mat_19:3-6. Divorce.—Christ proves by divers arguments that for every cause a divorce is not lawful.

I. From the authority of the Institutor of marriage, viz. God.

II. From the antiquity of the institution of marriage.—“From the beginning.”

III. From the manner of the conjunction and union (Mat_19:5).

IV. From the excellency of the conjugal bond and tie.—“A man shall leave father and mother,” etc.—Richard Ward.

Mat_19:6. A happy marriage.—Rev. Robert Newton, the Wesleyan pulpit orator, and his bride, began their married life by retiring twice each day to pray with and for each other. This practice they kept up, when opportunity served, to the end of life. When an old man Mr. Newton remarked, “In the course of a short time my wife and I shall celebrate the jubilee of our marriage; and I know not that, during the fifty years of our union, an unkind look or an unkind word has ever passed between us.”

Mat_19:3-9. Marriage and divorce among the Jews.—Their highest standard [was] represented in this case by the school of Shammai, while that of Hillel, and still more Rabbi Akiba, presented the lowest opposite extreme. But in reply to the Pharisees our Lord placed the whole question on grounds which even the strictest Shammaite would have refused to adopt. For the farthest limit to which he would have gone would have been to restrict the cause of divorce to “a matter of un-cleanness” (Deu_24:1), by which he would probably have understood not only a breach of the marriage vow, but of the laws and customs of the land. In fact, we know that it included every kind of impropriety, such as going about with loose hair, spinning in the street, familiarly talking with men, ill-treating her husband’s parents in his presence, brawling, that is “speaking to her husband so loudly that the neighbours could hear her in the adjoining house” (Chetub., vii. 6), a general bad reputation, or the discovery of fraud before marriage. On the other hand the wife could insist on being divorced if her husband were a leper or affected with polypus or engaged in a disagreeable or dirty trade, such as that of a tanner or coppersmith. One of the cases in which divorce was obligatory was if either party had become heretical, or ceased to profess Judaism. But even so, there were at least checks to the danger of general lawlessness, such as the obligation of paying to a wife her portion, and a number of minute ordinances about formal letters of divorce, without which no divorce was legal, and which had to be couched in explicit terms, handed to the woman herself, and that in presence of two witnesses, etc.—A. Edersheim, D.D.

Facilities of divorce among the Jews.—The facility of divorce among the Jews had become so great a scandal, even among their heathen neighbours, that the Rabbis were fain to boast of it as a privilege granted to Israel, but not to other nations.—C. Geikie, D.D.

Mat_19:4-6. Christianity superior to other systems.—It ought to increase our esteem for Christianity that it takes such a particular care, above all other religions in the world, of regulating that brutish passion of lust, and for the procreation of children in a way so sacred, by making the Christian marriage a covenant of perpetual chastity and friendship. It is plain to any wise, considering man how much the Christian religion, in this respect, is preferable both to Paganism, Mahometanism, and Judaism. As for Paganism, the generality of those of that religion were so far from contriving anything on this subject that was wise or useful to mankind, that their religion abounds with fables of the whoredoms and adulteries of their very gods; and by their example they encouraged themselves in all manner of lewdness, not excepting the most unnatural mixtures, such as the very brute creatures abhor. Some of the learned Greek philosophers were so brutal in their notions of these things that they recommended a promiscuous use of the female sex and gave loose reins to men’s lusts; so that of a whole country they made a general house of debauchery, by this means not only corrupting the minds and manners of men, but hindering both the procreation and good education of children. Indeed, they had so little love to their children that it was a common thing most unnaturally to expose them to perish. The Jewish religion, it is true, rectified a great many of those abuses, yet gave great indulgences to the irregular appetites of mankind; for it allowed them, because of the hardness of their hearts, both a plurality of wives at one time, and the power of putting away their wives by a bill of divorce for every trivial cause, and so does Mahometanism at this day. But the Christian religion goes to the root of all these evils and digs them up. It forbids wandering lust in the very heart and thoughts, so far is it from approving the practice of it. It sets up a sacred, lasting friendship between man and wife, as much more becoming the higher degree of Christian holiness, and forbids the dissolution of marriage by anything else but infidelity to the marriage covenant.—Jas. Blair, M.A.

Mat_19:10. Is it good to marry?—The disciples think this doctrine hard, for in case divorcement were not lawful, they say it were better not to marry than to be straitly bound in marriage. In whom we see:

1. How impatient our nature is of all restraint, and how much we love to be at liberty, even from the bands of God.

2. Sudden resolutions and sentences are readily full of folly; for here the disciples neither do look unto their own strength, or rather inability, to live in a single life, nor do they consider the incommodities of an unmarried life, nor the commodities of marriage, where God giveth a blessing.—David Dickson.

Milton on divorce.—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.”—E. H. Plumptre, D.D.

Mat_19:12. Eunuchism.—As I understand the mysterious passage the Saviour distinguishes three kinds of eunuchism:

1. Congenital, which implies neither merit nor guilt.

2. Forced, which implies misfortune on the one hand and guilt on the other.

3. Voluntary, which has moral value and merit if it proceeds from faith and love to Christ, but no merit superior to chastity in the married state. The first and third are only improperly called eunuchism. To speak more fully, the first class of eunuchs embraces the comparatively small number of those who are constitutionally either incapable of, or averse to, marriage; the second class, the eunuchs proper, or mutilated persons, who at that time were quite numerous, especially at courts, and are still found in eastern countries, among heathens and Mohammedans (yea, even in the choir of the papal Sixtine chapel in Rome, the famous Miserere being sung by the clear, silver voices of these unfortunate victims of sacred art); the third class, those who deliberately abstain from marriage either altogether or from second marriage after the death of their first husband or wife, not, however, for the purpose of thereby gaining the kingdom of heaven, but for the purpose of working for the kingdom of heaven from pure and disinterested love to Christ, believing that they can serve Him more unreservedly and effectually in the single state, or remain more steadfast in times of peculiar trial and persecution (1Co_7:26). To this class belong St. Paul (1Co_7:7; 1Co_7:26), Barnabas (1Co_9:5-6), probably also St. John (who in the Greek Church bears the standing title, ὁ παρθένος, with reference to his virgin purity), and thousands of missionaries, divines, ministers and pious laymen, sisters of charity, virgins and widows in all ages and among Protestants as well as Catholics. The great and serious error of the Romish Church consists in making a law for the whole clergy of what the Saviour left to free choice on the basis of a special calling and gift of God (Mat_19:11), and in attaching a superior merit to celibacy at the expense of the holy and normal state of marriage. From a grossly literal misunderstanding of Mat_19:12, Origen, in the youthful ardour of enthusiasm for Christ, and misguided by the ascetic notions of his age, committed the unnatural deed which forever disqualified him for marriage. But this was justly condemned in the ancient church, and was made subsequently a reason for his excommunication from the church of Alexandria.—P. Schaff, D.D.

The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.

THIRD SECTION

THE PRIESTLY FAMILY IN THE CHURCH

Mat_19:1-26

Contents:—This section sets before us, in their remarkable connection, the three principal features of the Christian household as it should exist in the Church of Christ: viz., the marriage-relationship in the Church, Mat_19:1-12; children In the Church, Mat_19:13-15; and property in the Church, Mat_19:16-26.

Historical Connection.—After the transaction at Capernaum, recorded in Matthew 18, the Lord commenced His festive journey to Jerusalem, in company with His disciples, Luk_13:22-30. On this occasion the Pharisees attempted—probably at the instigation of Herod—to frighten the Lord into a speedy removal from Galilee, Luk_19:31-35. They next invited Him to a feast, in the hope of thus ensnaring Him, Luk_14:1-24. The Lord now set before those of His followers who were not yet decided for Him, the dangers connected with discipleship, Luk_14:25-35. On the other hand, He declared His readiness to receive penitent publicans and sinners, Luk_15:1-17. The festive company now entered the territory of Samaria, but were not allowed to pass through it (Luk_9:51-62). This refusal to receive Him led to the sending forth of the seventy disciples (Luk_10:1-16). The Lord next took a sorrowing retrospect of Galilee (Mat_11:20-30); and then passed into Peræa through the boundary land of Samaria and Galilee (Luk_17:11-19). The return of the seventy disciples (Luk_10:17-37). Jesus arrived in Peræa previous to the transactions recorded in Matthew 19 (Mat_19:1-2). The Evangelists have not preserved many of the details connected with Christ’s twofold visit to Peræa, before and after the feast of the Dedication of the Temple, during the winter of the year 782. Thus much, however, clearly appears, that He was gladly received in that district We are told that, during His first stay there (Mat_19:2), “great multitudes followed Him there, and He healed them (their sick).” Of His second visit to Peræa we read, that “many resorted unto Him,” and “believed on Him there” (Joh_10:40-42). The events recorded in the section under consideration, most probably occurred while the Saviour visited Peræa the second time. According to the account in the Gospel of Mark, the rich young man came to the Lord when He was gone forth into the way; according to Matthew, He departed from Galilee after having laid His hands on children,—an act which the Evangelist seems to connect with His teaching on the subject of divorce (see the Leben Jesu, Mat_2:2, p. 1079).

During his journey to Peræa, where Jesus on the first occasion made only a very brief stay, He replied to the intrusive and curious question, whether few or many were to be saved (Luk_13:23). It was probably in Peræa that He uttered the parable concerning the Pharisee and the publican, and several others which are recorded in the Gospel by Luke. He next appeared at Jerusalem at the feast of the Dedication of the Temple (Joh_10:22-40), which, according to Wieseler, commenced that year on the 25th December. Once more the Jews now tempted Him with the question, whether He was the Messiah (in their sense of the designation—the inquiry being urged partly from motives of hostility, and partly in the hope of having their carnal expectations realized). In their peculiar state of mind, the reply of Jesus implied both more and less than they had anticipated or wished. Hence they wished to stone Him. But He passed majestically through the midst of them, and—protected by His followers—soon appeared a second time in Peræa, in the same locality, where afterward, at Pella, His Church found a refuge. But in Peræa also He was met by Pharisees, who had been stirred up and instructed by their colleagues at Jerusalem. Accordingly, questions similar to those set before Him in the capital of Judæa were now urged. With these the section under consideration opens.

It is quite in accordance with the plan adopted by Matthew in his Gospel, that only those portions are recorded in which the Christian family in the new Church is described in its various aspects and bearings.

A. Marriage in the Church. Mat_19:1-12

(Mar_10:1-12.)

1And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these sayings, he departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts [borders, τὰ ὅρια] of Judea beyond [the] Jordan; 2, And great multitudes followed him; and he healed them there. 3The Pharisees also came unto him [And there came to him Pharisees],1 tempting him, and saying unto him,2 Is it lawful for a man3 to put away his wife for every cause? 4And he answered and said unto them,4 Have ye not read, that he which [who] made them at the beginning [from the beginning, ἀπ̓ ἁρχῆς, i.e., in paradise] made them male and female, 5And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain [the two, οἱδν́ο] shall be one flesh? 6Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. 7They say unto him, Why [then] did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? 8He saith unto them, Moses because of the harshness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning9[ἀπ ̓ αρχῆς] it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication,5 and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which [who] is put away doth commit [committeth] adultery. 10His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife [i.e., if this is the legal relation between husband and wife], it is not good to marry. 11But he said unto them, All men cannot [Not all, ον̓ πἁντες, can] receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. 12For there are some6 eunuchs, which [who] were so born from their [the] mother’s wombs: and there are some eunuchs, which [who] were made eunuchs of [by, ν̔πό men: and there be [are] eunuchs, which [who] have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Mat_19:1. And it came to pass.—The passage from Galilee to Peræa formed part of the journey of the Lord to Jerusalem. The circumstance, that Matthew (as well as Mark and Luke) only records the last journey of Jesus to Jerusalem, is readily explained from the general plan on which his narrative is constructed.

Into the borders; or, boundary land.—It deserves notice, that Jesus entered not merely the territory of Peræa, but penetrated to its utmost boundaries. According to Josephus (Bell. Jdg_3:3; Jdg_3:3), Peræa proper (or “the other side,” i.e., of Jordan—ἡ περία, sc. χώρα) extended from Moabitis, or from the Arnon, to Pella on the north—“certainly to the Sheriat Mandhur, since Josephus designates Gadars (Omkeis), which lay on the Mandhur, as the capital of Peræa. Toward the east, it adjoined, according to that writer, the territory of Gerasa, Rabbath Ammon, and Arabia.” L. von Raumer. From the same authority we learn that Peræa, in the wider sense, embraced that part of Palestine which lay east of the Jordan, embracing the whole territory of Peræa from the sources of the Jordan to the Arnon, Lastly, a still wider meaning attached to that name which was also given to the whole eastern part of the Jordan-valley, or the Ghor (Arabah), stretching from the sources of Jordan to the southern extremity of the Dead Sea, and running beyond it to the Elanitic Gulf, between the mountains of Edom in the east and the high coast on the west When on former occasions traversing the lake (Cæsarea, Gadara), Jesus had visited Peræa in the second and last-mentioned acceptation of that term. Hence we conclude that He went at this time into Peræa proper, which formed part of the tetrarchy of Herod Antipas, who ruled over that province as well as over Galilee. From this circumstance we account for the fact that the Lord now betook Himself to the boundary districts, or coasts, of Peræa,—the latter term being scarcely applicable to the boundary district of Judæa itself.

A special interest and importance attaches to the province of Peræa, where Jesus retired on two occasions previous to His decease and found a refuge, and whither afterward His infant Church retired before the destruction of Jerusalem, seeking shelter among its mountains, and making Pella their capital. On the difficulties connected with the topography of Pella, comp. the author’s Apostol. Zeitalter, ii. 461. Great probability, however, attaches to the suggestion of Robinson, who, according to his latest researches, places it on the site of the modern Fahil, between the Jabbok and the Hieromax; in which case, the statement of Josephus would refer to Pella as being a boundary town of Peræa, in the narrowest or political sense of the term. On the blessed work of Jesus in that province, comp. the author’s Leben Jesu, ii. 2, p. 1094. The general conformation of the district is calcareous and cretaceous in the south, till beyond the Arnon, and basalt in the eastern portion. It is mountainous, with high plateaus, and traversed by many rivers. The northern part is woody, and suited for grazing (the oaks and bulls of Bashan); the southern, exceedingly fertile.

An attentive consideration of the narrative in the Gospels will easily enable us to answer the objection of Meyer and others, who deem the account of Matthew incompatible with that of Luke (Luk_9:51; Luk_17:11), according to which, Jesus had passed through Samaria. The Lord had evidently intended to journey by Samaria. But when the inhabitants of that country refused to receive Him, He passed into Peræa through the boundary land of Galilee and Samaria (see Leben Jesu, ii. 2, 1053). Similarly, in answer to the alleged contradiction between our Gospel and Joh_10:22; Joh_10:40—which records that Jesus went from Jerusalem to Peræa—we remind the reader, that the Lord visited that province on two different occasions.

Mat_19:3. Pharisees.—Peræa was removed from the great centres of Jewish hierarchism. Hence the Saviour found there a sphere of labor even after He had been banished from Galilee and Judæa. But even there the sect of the Pharisees was by and by roused to acts of hostility, partly at the instigation of their colleagues at Jerusalem, and partly from personal rancor. On this and other grounds, we conclude that the transactions here recorded had taken place during the second visit of Jesus to Peræa. The question has been raised, wherein the “temptation” of this inquiry lay. Meyer suggests that it consisted in the attempt of involving Him in the discussion between the schools of Hillel and Shammai (see the Exeget. Notes on Mat_5:31). “It was hoped that, by His reply, Jesus would virtually support the view of one of these antagonistic schools—more particularly that of Shammai, and that thus the opposite party might be more fully enlisted against Him.” But in that case He would also manifestly have gained the favor of the followers of Shammai Ewald thinks that it was intended to entangle Jesus, while in the dominions of Herod Antipas—whose conduct in his married relationship John had reproved—in a declaration and fate similar to that of the Baptist. To this it has been objected—as we think, without sufficient reason—that there is no indication of such a scheme in the text. Meyer bolds that the decision of Jesus was stricter than that of either of the schools. The statement is incorrect, as our Lord did not go beyond the principles laid down by Shammai; while, unlike that teacher, He did not convert the absolute principle of marriage in the Church into an outward and civil statute.

For every cause.—The question is manifestly put from the point of view taken by Hillel.

Mat_19:4. Made them, or created them.—The ideas of ἄνθρωπος (which accordingly we retain as the reading) and γυνή are presupposed. The Lord explains that they were not created arbitrarily, or independently of, but for each other, and as suitable and adapted to each other; which is expressed by ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλν, referring to the male and female nature. The two first individuals of the male and female sex were not merely a man and a woman, but male and female, in the sense of being destined and intended exclusively for each other. Hence they constituted the type of marriage in its full meaning and principle, as an indissoluble union.

Mat_19:5. And said.—In Gen_2:24, these words are recorded as having been spoken by Adam, while in this place they are uttered as quoted by God,—not simply because every statement of Scripture is the word of the Lord, but, as Augustine [De nupt. ii. 4] expresses it, “Deus utique per hominem dixit quod homo prophetando prœdixit.” Or rather, perhaps, because, before his fall, man uttered absolute spiritual truth, or what in point of fact was the word of God.

For this cause shall a man leave father and mother.—Added not merely by way of quotation, but to show that the relationship between a man and his wife was higher, stronger, and closer than even that toward his father and mother.

The two.—The expression does not occur in the original Hebrew, but is found in the Septuagint, as implied in the text, and bringing out more fully its idea and meaning. The two apparently different individualities are to become one flesh by marriage, i.e., to form the generic unity of human nature. This unity, while implying the mental and moral elements, is based on that of the , as indicating and completing the union.

Mat_19:6. No more, or, never more, ον̓κέτι.

Mat_19:9 forms no exception to this rule, as the relationship there referred to is incompatible with, and in direct antagonism to, the idea of marriage.7

Mat_19:7-8. Why did Moses then command? Deu_24:1.—A misapplication of the passage, which the Lord exposes and censures. The object of Hoses in laying down the rules about giving a writing of divorcement, was not to countenance or promote divorces, but to diminish their number by subjecting them to certain rules and limitations, with the view of again elevating the married relationship, and realizing its idea. Moses commanded, not that divorces should take place; he only enjoined that in much cases certain forms should be observed, and that the ground of the separation should be embodied in the “writing of divorcement.” But the Jewish Rabbins completely perverted the meaning and object of all this ( Mat_5:31). Hence we note the twofold antithesis: “Moses did command,” “Moses suffered;” and again: “Moses did command” in general, and, “Moses suffered you” in particular. So far from having commanded it in general, he only suffered you individually, because of the hardness of your hearts.

Mat_19:8. From the beginning it was not so.—In the original state of things in Paradise. The first instance of polygamy is recorded in Gen_4:19. It deserves special notice, that it appears in conjunction with murder, avenging of blood, and sinful poetry; and that it occurs in the line of Cain, not in that of Seth.

Mat_19:9. Except for fornication.—An explanation of the עֶיְוַת דָּבָר. Comp. the Exeg. Notes on Mat_5:31-32, p. 115. Roman Catholic writers are naturally anxious to have this clause omitted from the text (Hug, von Berlepsch), but there is no critical warrant for this.

Mat_19:10. It is not good to marry.—The meaning of the disciples is: if the ideal principle laid down by our Lord about marriage was to be immediately and unconditionally applied to existing relations, then, etc. In His reply, Christ admits the difficulty of such application.

Mat_19:11. Not all can receive this saying.—It requires divine illumination.

Mat_19:12. The explanation of His further statement—For there are eunuchs, etc.—is exceedingly difficult. Neander thinks that Matthew inserted in this place something which the Lord had taught on the same subject on another occasion, and in quite a different connection. Certainly, the common interpretation, that Jesus here referred to the various exceptional cases in which marriage should be avoided, is very unsatisfactory. The three classes of eunuchs here enumerated (the expression being used figuratively for those who are not to enter the married relationship), are evidently intended to embrace all the grounds on which marriage was inadmissible. First of all, then, there is a class of eunuchs who were so born from the mother’s womb, i.e. who are physically disqualified for marriage, such as those laboring under disease, or whose mental or bodily organization is defective. Next, there was another class “who were made eunuchs by men.” As, in the first and third class enumerated, the term eunuch is evidently used in a figurative manner, we take it in the same sense here—the more so, as in the literal sense it would apply to a comparatively small number of persons. Hence we regard it as referring in general to those who are prevented from entering into marriage, in the highest and only true import of the idea, by social and moral considerations, and who are hence in duty bound to renounce the married state. The last class to which the Saviour alludes, consists of those who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven, i.e., those who, being married, yet for the kingdom of heaven’s sake are as if they were not married, i.e., are ever ready to sacrifice their conjugal enjoyments for the sake of their spiritual calling; or—as the Apostle expresses it, 1Co_7:29—have wives as though they had none.—Thus this threefold renunciation, which, in accordance with the divine will and purpose, runs through the actual marriage-relationship,—viz., the renunciation of natural union, or of ideal union, or of the full enjoyment of the married estate,—was to form the basis on which this relationship was henceforth to rest. Such a union was to combine the elements of deep personal attachment and interchange of soul with subordination to the divine arrangements and requirements in the theocracy, where this as well as every other good gift should be regarded as secondary, and subservient to the grand purposes of the kingdom of God (Leben Jesu, ii. 2, p. 1103). The expression εν̓νουχιζειν is also used by the Cabbalists in a figurative sense. It is strange that Roman Catholic divines (as, for example, Sepp, Leben Jesu, iii. 117) should have quoted in support of celibacy a passage which, in reality, so far from representing marriage as something beneath the disciples, elevated that relationship far above the views and circumstances of the times, and placed it on a high and spiritual platform. Similarly absurd is the notion of Strauss, that this passage savors of Essenism, which degraded woman, while the Saviour here restored her right position. Comp. Ebrard, p. 453. It is well known that a misunderstanding of the import of this passage induced Origen literally to carry it into execution,—a historical fact, which has latterly been again established by Engelhart and Redepenning against Schnitzer and others.

[Note.—I beg leave to differ from Dr. Lange’s figurative exposition of the second and third class of eunuchs; which last would, in this case, embrace all Christians, since temperance and chastity is a fundamental virtue and duty for the married as well as the single state, and since all are required to subordinate their earthly relations to their spiritual calling. As I understand the mysterious passage, the Saviour distinguishes three kinds of eunuchism: (1) congenital, which implies neither merit nor guilt; (2) forced, which implies misfortune on the one hand and guilt on the other; (3) voluntary, which has moral value and merit if it proceeds from faith and love to Christ, but no merit superior to chastity in the married state. The first and third are only improperly called eunuchism. To speak more fully, the first class of eunuchs embraces the comparatively small number of those who are constitutionally either incapable of, or averse to, marriage; the second class, the eunuchs proper, or mutilated persons, who at that time were quite numerous, especially at courts, and are still found in Eastern countries, among heathens and Mohammedans (yea, even in the choir of the papal Sixtine chapel in Rome; the famous Miserere being sung by the clear silver voices of these unfortunate victims of sacred art); the third class, those who deliberately abstain from marriage either altogether, or from second marriage after the death of their first husband or wife, not, however, for the purpose of thereby gaining the kingdom of heaven (ad regnum cœlorum promerenndum, as Origen, Hilarius, Euthymius, Maldonatus, and the Roman Commentators generally misinterpret the words διὰ τὴν βασιλείαν τ.ον̓ρ.), but for the purpose of working for the kingdom of heaven from pure and disinterested love to Christ, believing that they can serve Him more unreservedly and effectually in the single state, or remain more steadfast in times of peculiar trial and persecution (διὰ τὴν ἐνεοτῶσνἀνάγκην1Co_7:26). To this class belong St. Paul (1Co_7:1; 1Co_7:26), Barnabas (1Co_9:5-6), probably also St. John (who in the Greek Church bears the standing title, ὁ παρθένος, with reference to his virgin purity), and thousands of missionaries, divines, ministers and pious laymen, sisters of charity, virgins and widows in all ages and among Protestants as well as Catholics. The great and serious error of the Roman Church consists in making a law for the whole clergy of what the Saviour left to free choice on the basis of a special calling and gift of God ( Mat_19:11), and in attaching a superior merit to celibacy at the expense of the holy and normal state of marriage. From a grossly literal misunderstanding of Mat_19:12, Origen, in the youthful ardor of enthusiasm for Christ, and misguided by the ascetic notions of his age, committed the unnatural deed which forever disqualified him for marriage. But this was justly condemned in the ancient church, and was made subsequently a reason for his excommunication from the church of Alexandria.—On the whole subject of marriage and celibacy in the N. T., comp. Schaff’s History of the Apostolic Church, § 112, pp. 448–454.—P. S.]

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. Compare our remarks on Matthew 5., p. 116 sq., and the foregoing Exegetical Notes.

2. The scribes seem always to have been entangled in the antagonistic views of Shammai and Hillel. But Christ here calls their attention to a very different kind of antagonism,—viz., that between the fundamental, eternal, and absolute principle of marriage, and the theocratic or political law on the subject. So far as the principle of marriage was concerned, every such union was necessarily indissoluble, being based on the fact, that man and woman were destined for each other. But in point of fact this principle had been lost sight of, equally because unions were improperly formed, and because they were improperly dissolved. Hence, the object of Moses was to keep this heathen degeneracy within bounds. By means of the “writing of divorcement,” he wished gradually again to train the Jews by the law, so as to elevate their views, and to introduce among them marriage in the true and spiritual sense. But this measure was frustrated and perverted for the opposite purpose, by the loose and lascivious interpretations put upon it by the Rabbins. In out opinion, it is the duty of legislators and magistrate! not to degenerate into literalism, or to go beyond the above principle, as Romanism has done, but to see to it that, so far as possible, practice should correspond with this ideal. Accordingly our Lord here lays down the following leading principles, viz:. (1) The law concerning adultery applies to man as well as to woman—indeed, more especially to the former. (2) Marriage is dissolved only by actual fornication; in which case the non-offending party is again free. (3) What constitutes a legal divorcement is not the separation of the two parties,—which, as in morally faulty marriages, may not only be excusable, but perhaps even duty,—but re-marriage after separation, and that whether it be a marriage by which the divorced woman is finally abandoned, or else a woman that had been divorced is espoused. Thus far the legal settlement of the question. In practical legislation, it is necessary to keep two points in view, viz.: what constitutes fornication; and the difference between mere separation and the right of entering into another union. With regard to fornication, we must—according to 1Co_7:15—here include religious, spiritual apostasy. But in reference to the re-marrying of those who have been divorced—except under the above circumstances—we believe that no human tribunal has, as a matter of right, the power of granting such a permission, although (in the opinion of the author) it may be conceded as an act of grace on the part of the reigning sovereign, especially in cases where mitigating circumstances justify such an act of dispensation. (See the author’s Leben Jesu, 2:2, 1101; 3:179; Fosit. Dogmatik, p. 1215.)

The matrimonial law of the Roman Catholic Church, and the common statute law of Prussia and other Protestant countries of Germany, are instances of the two opposite extremes and aberrations to which a misinterpretation of this passage has given rise. The former starts from the supposition, that actual union, or the solemnizing of matrimony, constitutes of itself and alone an indissoluble marriage. The history of the Middle Ages, the state of society in Italy and in other Roman Catholic countries, especially in South America, furnish a sad illustration of this principle. While the bed in which the stream was to flow has been converted into a hard, stone-built channel, the river has broken through all bounds, and cutting out a channel for itself, winds its way irregularly and wildly through forests and swamps. The false assumption in this case seems to be, that the law of Moses had occupied the lowest stage—that it was the minimum of right; not that it embodied a principle, and was intended to prepare the way for realizing the full idea of marriage. In many Protestant countries, on the other hand, the opposite error has been committed; the legality of marriage has been thoroughly undermined, and free love substituted in its place as the controlling principle of true marriage. In that case, the writing of divorcement is not, like that of Moses, intended to render separation more difficult, but, like that of Hillel, to make it more easy.

It deserves special notice, that the great reformation here inaugurated by the Lord is introduced by an explanation of the circumstances under which marriage should be avoided. All such cases may be arranged under three classes: those who by their physical constitution are disqualified for such a union; those in which moral and social relations prevent the carrying out of marriage in its full import; and, lastly, those who, being married, were to subordinate their married relationship to their calling as Christians, and in this respect to renounce it. Thus marriage was to be regenerated on the basis of ideal renunciation.8

[3. David Brown on Mat_19:12 : “When our Lord holds forth the single life as designed for and suited to certain specific classes, let Christians understand that, while their own plan and condition of life should be regulated by higher considerations than mere inclination or personal advantage, they are not to lay down rules for others, but let each decide for himself, as to his own Master he standeth or falleth. For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God and approved of men.” Alford (after Neander) on Mat_19:12 : “It is to be observed that our Lord does not here utter a word from which any superiority can be attributed to the state of celibacy: the imperative in the last clause being not a command but a permission, as in Rev_22:17. His estimate for us of the expediency of celibacy, as a general question, is to be gathered from the parable of the talents, where He visits with severe blame the burying of the talent for its safer custody. The remark is Neander’s (Leben Jesu, p. 584, 4th ed.), and the more valuable, as he himself [and his sister who took care of him] lived and died unmarried.”—Christ certainly nowhere commands, or even recommends, voluntary celibacy to any one; the most which can be gathered from the last clause of Mat_19:12 : ὁ δυνὰμενος χωρεῖν χωρεὶτω, in connection with Mat_19:21, is that He expected such a sacrifice from some of His disciples. Comp. de Wette in loc.—P. S.]

4. The great object of the Lord in this section is to reinstate woman in her original rights. In the ancient world, as still in heathen countries, woman was treated as a slave. Even among the Jews the right of divorcement was refused to woman, although it was accorded to her by the Roman law. This, however, does not imply that the legislation of Rome occupied higher ground than that of Israel. In the former case, the rights of the free citizen were chiefly guarded; while in Jewish law the idea of the family prevailed. Still, the law of Rome may be said to have prepared the way for Christian legislation on the subject of matrimony.

5 . “The creation of one couple may be regarded, (1) As proof that monogamy alone is agreeable to the will of God; which also appears from the fact of the continuance of the same proportion between the male and female sex, even with a numerical advantage on the part of the male sex, which would have been reversed if polygamy had been intended by the Creator. (2) As evidence that this union was to continue unseparated; otherwise, God would have created more than one couple or more wives. In this respect also the order of nature is the order of God.” Heubner.

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

Wherever Christ goes, friends and foes follow Him: 1. As His friends, those who need help; 2. as His enemies, the representatives of slavish legalism and licentious antinomianism.—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.—Marriage an institution of God.—Marriage as completing and consecrating creation—as the basis of the family—as the complete communion of life—a figure of the communion between the Lord and His Church, Ephesians 5.—How sin has obscured this best and most blessed relationship of life, and frequently perverted it into the most fruitful source of misery.—The writing of divorcement in its different aspects.—How Christianity has elevated woman, and restored her rights.—Genuine and Christian love the great preservative against disturbing influences.—Unchastity always a renunciation of self-respect and of personal dignity,—a dissolution of the holiest of bonds.—Solemnity and earnestness of the marriage relationship.—The threefold renunciation of marriage under the gospel, preparing the way for Christian marriage.—Christ the founder of the Christian family: 1. Of the law regulating marriage; 2. of the law regulating children; 3. of the law regulating property.

Starke:—Quesnel: The union of man and wife more close even than that of parents and children, Gen_2:24.—Hedinger: Husband and wife should be not only one flesh, but also one heart and mind, Eph_5:31.—The order of marriage is instituted by God Himself; but, alas! many persons enter this state not only without God, but against His mind and will.—Osiander: Satan attempts to interpret Scripture through his servants; but he perverts it, and misrepresents its meaning.—Zeisius: Under the new dispensation, everything is not sanctioned that was tolerated under the law.—Piscator: Celibacy is not a more holy state than marriage.

Gerlach:—In this relationship, man is to show that he has conquered the flesh and nature by the power of the Spirit.

Heubner:—Christ is not determined by the opinions of the scribes; but points back to the original institution as founded by God, which is the source and ground of all further enactments.

Footnotes:

[1] Mat_19:3.—[Καἰ προσῆλθον αὐτῷ Φαρισαῖοι; the article οἱ of the text. rec.. is wanting in the best MSS. and thrown out by the modern critical editors (except Tischendorf), also by Dr. Lange in his version.—P. S.]

[2] Mat_19:3.—[Αὺτῷ, to him, is likewise missing in the oldest authorities, also Cod. Sinait., and omitted by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Alford.—P. S ]

[3] Mat_19:3.—Ἀνθρώπῳ, for a man, is omitted by B., L., [Cod. Sinait], and thrown out by Lachmann and Tischendorf; but seems to be required by ἐποιησεν αὐτούς.

[4] Mat_19:4.—[AΑὐτοῖς, to them, is omitted in the critical editions, but retained by Lange.—P. S.]

[5] Mat_19:9.—Lachmann, with B., D., reads: παρετὸς λόγου πορνείας. Meyer regards it as a gloss from Mat_5:32. [The text. rec, reads: εἰ μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ; Tischendorf and Alford: μὴ ἐπὶπ., which reading is sustained also by Cod. Sinaiticus. Εἰ may easily be an explanatory addition. The sense is not affected in the least by this difference of reading. P. S.]

[6] Mat_19:12.—[Some before eunuchs is an interpolation of the E. V., and should be underscored or omitted.—P. S.]

[7][ Mat_19:3-6.—The Pharisees wished to entangle our Saviour in their scholastic party disputes on the marriage and divorce-question and in the adultery-case of Herod Antipas, which caused the Imprisonment and death of John the Baptist, and may have excited as much feeling and debate in its day as the divorce-case of Henry viii. in the 16th century during the Reformation period. The Saviour answered the treacherous question of His enemies by referring them first (in ver: 4) to what God did, who in the original creation of man instituted the sexual relation and marriage as an indissoluble union between one man and one woman; secondly, to what God said through Adam as the representative of the race (in Mat_19:5), viz., that husband and wife are inseparably united, i.e., within the limits of their life in the flesh, or their earthly life; and then He states His own irresistible conclusion (in Mat_19:6) in a sentence which is since repeated in every marriage ceremony in Christian lands, and will be repeated to the end of time to inaugurate and protect with its divine authority and power this holy and fundamental relation.—We add the remarks of Dr. Alford on Mat_19:4-6 : (1) Our Lord refers to the Mosaic account of the Creation as a historical fact, and grounds His argument on the literal expressions of that narrative. (2) He cites both from the first and second chapters of Genesis, showing them to be consecutive parts of a continuous narrative. (3) He quotes words of Adam (Gen_2:21) as spoken by the Creator; they must, therefore, be understood as said In prophecy, divino afflatus, the more so since the relations alluded to by those terms did not yet exist. (4) The force of the argument consists in the previous unity of male and female, not indeed organically, but by implication, in Adam. He made them, i.e., man as a race, male (not a male), and female (not a female).—P. S.]

[8][The next section of about half a column is omitted in the translation, since it relates exclusively to the intricate marriage difficulties in the Prussian state-church-establishment, taking a middle ground between the rigorous reform party and the conformist majority of pastors. The Prussian laws on marriage, dating from the intidel reign of Frederic II., are scandalously lax and demoralizing, by increasing the causes, and facilitating the accomplishment of divorce. With the revival of true Christianity in Prussia a reform movement commenced, which aims at a return to the law of Christ. The subject has been extensively agitated for the last twenty years by the religious press, on Synods, Pastoral Conferences, and also on the German Church Diet. Comp. a number of articles in Hengstenberg’s Evang. kirchenscitung, for 1840–60; Liebetrut: Ueber geordnete Entwicklung der Ehe, Berlin, 1856; and Goeschen, article Ehe in Herzog’s Real-Encyclopædie, vol. iii., pp. 666–707.—P. S.]

Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mat 19:1-12.

Departure From Galilee. Instructions As To Divorce

The greater part of this section is found also in Mar 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 (Luk 9:51-56) going from Galilee not into Perea, but through Samaria on the way to Jerusalem. With this agrees John’s account (Mat 19:2-10) of 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 Luk 10:1 to Luk 18:14, with a long account of the Saviour’s sayings and actions, after which he again becomes parallel (Luk 18:15) with Matthew (Mat 19:13) and Mark, (Mar 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 Luk 9:10-50, while Matt. gives Mat 14:13 to Mat 18:35, and Mark gives Mar 6:30 to Mar 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 Luk 11:14-36 resembles Mat 12:22-45 Mar 3:19-30, and the discourse against temporal anxiety in Luk 12:22-31 resembles Mat 6:25-34. In the present state of harmonistic inquiry, we must choose between two theories. (1) Luke in Luk 10:1 to Luk 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. (Luk 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, (Luk 9:51-53, Luk 13:22, Luk 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, (Joh 7:2 ff.) the second to the journey for raising Lazarus, (Joh 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 "Mat 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.

[1] Andrews has a copious discussion and a different scheme, on the same general principles as that of Robinson. Farrar also (ch. 42) gives an independent scheme, which will reward examination. A full discussion, or even statement, of the various theories would here be out of place.

Mat 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 Mat 13:53. It must not be here pressed to prove a permanent removal, for in Mat 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 Mat 7:28, Mat 11:1, Mat 13:53. We should then take this departure as parallel to that of Luk 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 Luk 17:11, where Jesus returns from Judea through Samaria and a portion of Galilee, and probably joins the 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 (Mar 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 Mat 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 Mat 4:12. That ministry appears to have lasted, if we take the feast of Joh 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. (Mat 14:13 to Mat 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 "Mat 2:16"; Mat 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 (Mar 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 Mat 20:17, Mat 20:29) pretty clearly places the earlier Portion, certainly Mat 19:1-15, in Perea. The region ’beyond Jordan,’ i. e., east of the Jordan (see on "Mat 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; (Luk 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 "Mat 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. (Mat 20:29, Mat 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 "Mat 14:3"), and ’Bethany beyond Jordan,’ ’the place where John was at first baptizing’, (Joh 1:28 f.; Joh 10:40) and this last spot cannot be determined (compare on Mat 3:13). We can therefore get no local colouring for Mat 19:3 to Mat 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; (1Ma 5:23, 1Ma 5:45) but during the reign of Herod the Great the Jewish population of Perea evidently became considerable, which will account for the expressions in Mat 20:2 and Joh 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 "Mat 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 Joh 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, (Mar 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 Mar 4:23, Mar 9:35, Mar 14:14, Mar 16:20)

Mat 19:3. An inquiry as to divorce. Distinguish the original question of some Pharisees, Joh 10:3; the answer, Joh 10:4-6; an objection and his reply, Joh 10:7-9; a doubting remark by the disciples and his reply, Joh 10:10-12. Mark’s report

(Mar 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 Mar 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 Mar 10:4 are wanting in the earliest and best documents, and were very easily added by copyists. As to the Pharisees, see on "Mat 3:7". Tempting him, as in Mat 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 "Mat 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 Mat 12:2, Mat 12:14, Mat 12:24, Mat 12:38, and continued in Mat 15:1 and Mat 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 Mat 22:17, Mat 22:35. Is it lawful, or permissible, as in Mat 12:10, Mat 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 Mar 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 "Mat 5:31"f. These Pharisees in Perea probably did not know of that former teaching in Galilee. If the saying in Luk 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 Deu 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 Deu 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 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 Num 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 Num 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 Mat 22:21) cut into the heart of the matter, reaching a fundamental and decisive principle.

Mat 19:4-6. Reply to the Pharisees. Have ye not read, compare on Mat 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 Gen 1:27, and then a quotation from Gen 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 Mar 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. Sir 25:26, "If she go not as thou wouldst have her, cut her off from thy flesh," break the bodily union; Eph 5:28 ff., "to love their wives as their own bodies." In Eph 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 1Co 6:14 Lev 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 (Mat 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.

[1] It is found in B, several cursives of singular excellence, Armenian, Origen (three times), and several other Fathers. It is much easier to suppose a change to suit the Sept. the following word here and Mark, than an opposite change to suit the Hebrew, which mean ’created,’ for copyists and students of the text-forming period seldom knew Hebrew.

Mat 19:7-9. The Pharisees raise an objection, very naturally suggested, and our Lord replies. Moses (in Deu 24:1) had certainly allowed divorce, and they held that he had commanded it; how could the prophet of Nazareth 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 Mar 10:4 and Deu 24:1, and there ought to have been no difference in translation. The Greek is slightly different above in Mat 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 Mat 22:43.) The Pharisees had said that Moses commanded; our Lord’s reply puts it, ’suffered.’ But in Mar 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 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 "Mat 5:31"f.), and even in this matter Jesus was only "completing "the law by going further in the same direction (compare on Mat 5:17). ’Hardness of heart’ (Rom 2:5; Ecclus. Sir 16:10) denotes not merely lack of proper feeling, as we use the phrase, but lack of proper perceptions and will (compare on Mat 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. Mal 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 Mat 5:18). Mar 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 Mar 10:6, and declares that divorce is not only not allowable ’for every cause’ (Mat 19:3), but not allowable at all—except of course for unchastity.[1] See the leading terms explained above on the similar statement of Mat 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 (Mat 19:9) and in Mat 5:32, and that in Mark and Luke (on a somewhat earlier occasion, Mat 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. (Mat 1:19 f) In the doubtless true story, though not belonging to Scripture, of the adulterous woman brought before Jesus, (Joh 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.

[1] The reading of margin Rev. Ver. is evidently drawn from Mat 5:32. The first part ’saving... fornication’ is pretty clearly a "Western" correction, being found in the characteristic Western documents D, Old Latin, Old Syriac, but found also in B, the two Egyptian versions, Origen, Basil. W. H. hate placed it in their margin, and so it is in margin of Rev. Ver. But is not this an instance of a "Western" alteration found in B, etc., like Mat 27:28? The next clause, ’maketh her an adulteress,’ is also plainly taken from Mat 5:32. It is not given by D, etc., but is given by B, with C (first hand), N, two cursives, and one or two mixed Latin copies, Memphitic, Origen, Aug. Here again B and Memphitic are clearly wrong, though not in this case "Western." The last clause ’and he that marrieth,’ etc., is doubtful. It would be easily inserted from Mat 5:32, but it is here omitted only by the "Western" group with L and some other MSS., the Egyptian versions and Origen, most of which are clearly wrong just above; and its omission might have originally been accidental, through the similar ending of this clause to the foregoing. The confusion arising in the text of two such notable parallel passages, is natural. It is not likely that the reading here has been affected by Mar 10:1 or the latter would have been itself likewise altered from Matt. in some copies.

In Mar 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 New Testament, only the case of a man divorcing his wife is presented, the opposite case 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 "Mat 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.

Mat 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 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 Mat 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 Mat 18:6, Mat 5:29 f.; see also in 1Co 6:12, 1Co 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 Joh 21:25—sometimes in the sense of capacity to know (Lid. and Scott), here in the sense of capacity to act out. ’Not 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", (Heb 13:4, Rev. Ver.) and it was false teachers of the worst type who were in later times "forbidding to marry." (1Ti 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 was married, (Mat 8:14) and when Paul wrote (1Co 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 (1Co 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.

Homiletical And Practical

Mat 19:3. Tempting Jesus. (1) With hard questions, Luk 11:16 Mat 16:1, Mat 19:3, Mat 22:18, Mat 22:35. (2) By efforts to restrain him from going forward to death, Mat 16:22 f. compare Joh 12:27 and Mat 26:36 ff. (3) By suggesting positive sin, Mat 4:1-11.

Mat 4:6. God and man as to marriage. (1) All the fundamental relations of society are based on human nature as originally created. (2) Marriage was designed by the Creator to be a complete union of two into one, and indissoluble; the one sin that justifies divorce does so because it has essentially broken the union. (3) Wherever man has violated God’s design, by separating the married for reasons which do not break the essential bond, there follow great and ever growing evils. In such cases re-marriage may seem to prevent adultery, but it is itself adultery (Mat 19:9). (4) It is man’s highest wisdom, interest, and duty-best for the parties concerned and best for society—to follow God’s law of marriage, strictly and faithfully.

John A. Broadus, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (American Baptist Publication Society, 1886) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

7. Departure from Galilee.

Concerning Divorce. Little Children Blessed and the Rich Young Man.

CHAPTER 19

1. The Departure from Galilee. (Mat 19:1-2.)

2. Concerning Divorce. (Mat 19:3-12.)

3. The Blessing of Little Children. (Mat 19:13-15.)

4. The Rich Young Man. (Mat 19:16-26.)

5. The Rewards in the Kingdom. (Mat 19:27-30.)

In the first part of the nineteenth chapter we find a continuation of teachings concerning the kingdom. This, we repeat, is not the same kingdom promised to Israel, as it was preached by the Lord and His disciples, in the first part of this Gospel, but it is the kingdom in its condition during the absence of the King, that condition which we saw revealed in the thirteenth chapter. The teachings given now by the Lord concern the institution, which the Creator in His infinite wisdom had established in the beginning. Are the relationships of nature to be given up in the kingdom? Is there to be a change from that which God originally instituted? We shall learn that the Lord teaches that these natural relationships are not to be dissolved or set aside in the kingdom. We shall find, however, that we have here not the fullest teaching concerning these earthly relations. In the Epistles are given the exhortations to husbands, wives and children; and always after the Christian believer’s position and standing has been clearly defined. To be in the kingdom does, therefore, not free from natural relationship. Indeed, it is just in these that the life of Christ in love, patience, meekness and forbearance is to be manifested. The exhortations in Ephesians, Romans, Colossians, Titus and other Epistles teach this most positively.

“And it came to pass, when Jesus had finished these words, He withdrew from Galilee, and came to the coasts of Judea beyond the Jordan ; and a great multitude followed Him, and He healed them there. And the Pharisees came to Him, and saying, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for any cause?” (Mat 19:1-3). Galilee is left now behind and He nears Judea and Jerusalem ; and again He is followed by a multitude and many are healed by His loving hands and His divine power.

The subject of the earthly relationship instituted by God before the fall, called marriage, is brought into the foreground by tempting Pharisees. We have heard nothing of these enemies of the Lord since the beginning of the fifteenth chapter. These traditionalists and strong ritualists are now coming upon the scene again. Once more it is a question about their oral law, their man-made rules. He had silenced them about the Sabbath day and declared that He, the Son of Man, is Lord even of the Sabbath. When they came with the ridiculous tradition of the elders about the washing of hands, He had boldly declared, “Ye hypocrites!” and that they teach as doctrines the commandment of men. And now they are going to tempt Him once more. How awful this attempt appears when we consider the dignity of the person whom they try to tempt! He is the Wisdom, the Lord, who created all things; the one who instituted marriage and whose fingers wrote upon the tables of stone. Instead of worshipping Him and taking their place at His feet, to be taught by Him, they try in their blindness to ensnare Him. But why do they bring this special question about putting away a wife for any cause? Most likely the utterance of the Lord in the fifth chapter was reported to these men. There the Lawgiver Himself had declared: “It has been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a letter of divorce. But I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife except for cause of fornication makes her commit adultery, and whosoever marries one that is put away commits adultery” (Mat 5:31-32). This word must have been a very hard saying for those men, for it flatly contradicted the rabbinical sayings. And now they think they have a fine case against Him. If He but commits Himself on some of these fine rabbinical distinctions about the cause for divorce (later collected in the talmudical tract Gittin) they would have an accusation against Him.

Two great opinions divided then the Pharisees about divorce. Some held to the views of Hillel and others to the views of Shammai. Hillel had taught that indeed for almost every cause a wife may be put away. We care not to fill our space with a record of all the different causes for divorce and the rules, which the elders had laid down and which, at least among the extremely orthodox Jews, are still conscientiously followed. (It has often been our experience to talk with some poor Jewish woman, left by her husband, who got a divorce from the rabbi. We remember one case where a man got a “Gett” -- a bill of divorcement from his wife for an insignificant cause and came to this country to marry again. His divorced wife followed him here. These conditions have been quite a problem in New York courts.) The school of Hillel declared openly, and practised this, that if the wife cooks her husband’s food badly, by over salting or over roasting it, she is to be put away. The school of Shammai, to which other Pharisees held, permitted not divorces except in the case of adultery. This will shed more light on the temptation of these Pharisees.

And now the Lord speaks in answer to their question: “But He, answering, said unto them, Have ye not read that He who made them from the beginning, made them male and female, and said, On account of this a man shall leave father and mother, and shall be united to his wife, and the two shall be one flesh, so that they are no longer two, but one flesh? What, therefore, God hath joined together, let not man separate” (Mat 19:4-7). The Lord passes over all their scholastic reasonings; He ignores all their different opinions and has not a word to say about the law as given through Moses. He goes to the very beginning and shows marriage to be a divinely instituted relationship. And marriage, as instituted by the Creator, is an argument against both polygamy and divorce. Blessed institution indeed, and blessed fact, two shall be one flesh. In the new creation the relationship of marriage has a still deeper significance. The second half of Eph 5:1-33 acquaints us with what the believing husband and wife represent. Christ and the church and the love of Christ, the obedience of the church, the oneness which exists between Christ and the church, all practically to be seen in the relationship of husband and wife. “For no one has ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, even as also the Christ, the church; for we are members of His body; of His flesh and of His bones. Because of this a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall be united to his wife, and the two shall be one flesh. This mystery is great, but I speak as to Christ and as to the church” (Eph 5:29-32). But the Pharisees have an answer ready. “They say to Him, Why then did Moses command to give a letter of divorce and to send her away?” But even in this they were erring. It was not a “command,” but something which Moses allowed. The law had much to say about the suspicion of adultery, in which case the wife had to undergo a trial by the bitter waters (Num 5:1-31). Actual adultery was punishable by death. And so the Lord has His answer for their objection. “He says, Moses, in view of your hardheartedness, allowed you to put away your wives; but from the beginning it was not thus. But I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, not for fornication, and shall marry another, commits adultery; and he who marries one put away commits adultery” (Mat 19:8-9).

Moses but allowed them divorce (Deu 24:1). Adultery, however, such was the divine law, meant death. The Lord, now in His divine authority as the great “I am,” gives a law about divorce, which is binding. Divorce, putting away a wife is wrong, except in case of unfaithfulness, adultery. All divorce for other causes is sin, and whosoever marries such a wrongly divorced person commits adultery. Many questions which arise here, difficulties in individual cases, complications of different nature, we must pass by. And yet we cannot conclude our meditation on these verses, without calling to mind the condition, which prevails about us, in professing Christendom, on these very things. The sacred institution of marriage has never been so misused as in these days. Society, so called, is corrupt in morals. Divorces and scandals are becoming almost fashionable. The frightful increase of unlawful divorces and prostitution is alarming to the moralist and reformer. We know, however, that it will be so in the last days, for He said, “As it was in the days of Lot, so shall it be when the Son of Man cometh.”

“His disciples say to Him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. And He said to them, All cannot receive this word, but those to whom it has been given; for there are eunuchs, which have been born thus from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs of men; and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs of themselves for the sake of the kingdom of the heavens.” He that is able to receive it, let him receive it (Mat 19:10-12).

The disciples, with their question, lay bare their own hearts. If such was the case, they think, that the best thing is not to marry at all. He speaks then of what incapacitates for marriage. Some are unfitted for this divinely instituted relation by nature, others have been made so by wicked men, a custom still largely prevailing in the Orient. There is a third class who are exempt, and these are those who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of the heavens. This does not mean mutilation. It means, no doubt, living in an unmarried state for the sake of the kingdom. It is not a law, not an obligation, nor a “sacrament.” Celibacy is a man-made and wicked doctrine, contrary to Scripture. “He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.” It is then something to be received, a gift from above. The grace and power of God is able to lift some to whom it is given, above the natural things of life. Paul undoubtedly was such a one to whom it was given. “For I would that all men were even as myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.... But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh; but I spare you. But this I say, brethren, the time is short, it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none.... But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord” (1Co 7:7; 1Co 7:28-32).

And now the scene changes once more. The Pharisees with their temptation had been silenced by the Lord and their question resulted in definite teachings from the lips of the great Teacher concerning the institution of marriage in the kingdom. Another question is now to be answered by Him, the question of the relation of children to the kingdom. In the eighteenth chapter the Lord had put a little child in their midst and had said “Unless ye are converted and become as little children, ye will not at all enter into the kingdom of heaven;” but here little children are brought to Him.

“Then there were brought to Him little children, that He might lay His hands on them and pray; but the disciples rebuked them” (Mat 19:13). It was an old custom among the Jews to bring children to an acknowledged teacher and pious man, that he might pronounce a blessing upon them. The laying on of hands was done to symbolize the fulfilment of the blessing upon the head of the little one. These little ones were, therefore, not brought to Him for healing of any bodily disease, but they were brought to be blest by Him. Whose children they were is not stated. However, it is very improbable that they were the children of unbelieving Jews; these were rejecting the Lord and would hardly bring their little ones to Him. They must have been children of such, who believed in the Lord, and bringing these little ones to Him they manifested their faith that He would be willing to bless them and occupy Himself with them. Most likely the act of the Lord in putting the child in the midst of the disciples, and his previous teaching about the little ones, was an incentive to bring boldly the children to the Lord for a blessing. How strange once more the behavior of the disciples! The disciples rebuked them. They had listened to His gracious declarations about the little ones and how He told them, that he who humbles himself as a little child is the greatest in the kingdom, and yet they understood Him not. Did they want to keep an annoyance from the Lord? Was it a selfish motive which prompted them to act in this spirit? Perhaps they thought these little ones too insignificant, too unworthy for Him to bless. What could He do with these little ones?

This event brings out a very important and alas! too often forgotten declaration from our Lord. The declaration is that the little ones are recognized as the subjects of His kingdom, the kingdom of the heavens. There is a place for little children in the kingdom; they are a part of it is the emphatic teaching of the passage before us.

“But Jesus said, Suffer little children and do not hinder them from coming to me, for the kingdom of the heavens is of such; and having laid His hands upon them, He departed thence.” With such a definite word it seems next to impossible that anyone could doubt the love of God for the little ones. Still it has been done; there is an interpretation of the gracious words of our Lord, which makes the little children types of believers, and that only such who have believed are meant. In Mark and in Luke (Mar 10:13; Luk 18:15) the Lord adds, “Verily, I say unto you, whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall in no wise enter therein,” but here no such addition is given by the Holy Spirit, because it concerns the relation of actual little ones to the kingdom. The Lord takes up these little ones and approves of the faith, which had presented them to Him for a blessing. He puts His hands upon them and declares that these little ones are a part of the kingdom. How much like Him who loves to take up that which is weak and lowly! The passage is sufficient to teach believers that the Lord Jesus Christ has a loving interest in the little ones, looks upon them as belonging to His kingdom and is ready to bless them. But where is the faith from the side of believing parents, fully entering into His thoughts and looking upon the little ones as in the kingdom presenting these to Himself? Alas! how great the failure! He tells us of His willingness to receive them, that they are subjects of His kingdom and faith should act upon this and put them into His loving hands. “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved and thy house” (Act 16:31). Faith should take hold of this gracious family promise and claim it. Of course, this does not say that personal faith is unnecessary from the side of children.

In the epistles we find children mentioned. In the epistle, which contains God’s highest revelation, Ephesians, children are treated as belonging to the Lord in the believing family. “Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is just. Honor thy father and thy mother, which is the first commandment which has a promise, that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest be long-lived on the earth. And ye fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and admonition of the Lord” (Eph 6:1-4). The last means to instruct them in the things of the Lord. We have come occasionally in touch with good Christian people, who declared it wrong to teach a child to pray and who refused to tell little ones to pray to God. As far as certain forms of prayers are concerned we are, of course, fully agreed that a parrotlike repetition of prayers is to be avoided and harmful. But to teach the child prayer, the expression of weakness and dependence on God, as well as confidence in Him, is the first lesson to be taught. We think it a wrong, where this is not done. No day should pass in the home of believers, where the Word is not read and the knees of all bow before Him, who is the Head over all, the Lord Jesus Christ. And if through the grace of God the sweet instructions of Eph 5:22-32 are carried out in the Christian family, the home will become a place of fragrance, influence and blessing.

But now we behold another one appearing, one who had been a little one, a young man, and he is asking the way to eternal life. “And lo, one coming up said to Him, Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have life eternal? And He said to him, What askest thou me concerning goodness? One is good. But if thou wouldst enter into life, keep the commandments. He says to Him, Which? And Jesus said, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honor thy father and thy mother and Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. The young man says to Him, All these have I kept; what lack I yet? Jesus said to him, If thou wouldst be perfect, go, sell what thou hast and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven, and come, follow me. But the young man, having heard the word, went away grieved, for he had large possessions” (Mat 19:16-23).

This is a most instructive incident. It is a striking portrayal of many who are in the professing sphere, in Christendom, their natural and moral condition; and the teaching of the incident is, that salvation is not of man, not depending on the deeds of man, but salvation is of God.

The young man is a typical religious, moral and natural man. In the Gospel of Mark we read, that he came running and kneeled down and that the Lord loved him; and in Luke we find that he was a young ruler, holding an ecclesiastical position. The question is the all important one for the religious man, the question of how to obtain eternal life. He is in ignorance about eternal life. In spite of all his religious observations, his position, his good moral qualities, he had no certainty, no assurance of life eternal; though a member of the professing people of God, he gropes in the dark. And is this not the case of the so-called Christian masses of our day? He furthermore expects eternal life from God as the reward of having done some good thing. He wants to earn eternal life, “do and live,” as the law demands. He is ignorant of the great fundamental fact, that he is with all his religiousness and good moral qualities a guilty and lost sinner. He does not know (the blindness of the natural man) that he never did a good thing, which pleased God and that he can never do any good thing from himself. And this is equally true of a large number of subjects in the kingdom of heaven, who are mere professors of Christianity and who are unsaved and strangers to the grace of God. And now the Lord’s dealing with him. He gives him, first of all, to understand that only One is good and that One is, of course, God. “Good master,” said he, according to the other record. He looked upon the Lord as a good man merely, and this He at once repudiates. God alone is good, and the One the young man addressed is “God manifested in the flesh.” He was ignorant of His person. The Lord then meets him on his own ground. The ground upon which he stands is the law, and with the law the Lord answers his question. How else could He treat him? The first need for him was to know himself a lost and helpless sinner. If the Lord had spoken of His grace, of eternal life as a free gift, he would not have understood Him at all. The law was needed to make known to him his desperate condition and to lay bare his heart. And the Lord who searches the hearts does this for him. With a few sentences he uncovers the true state of the young man, who leaves Him grieved, full of sorrow; he had many possessions and he would not part with them. He had declared that he loved his neighbor as himself; had he done so he would have readily sold his possessions, given them to the poor and followed the Lord. As a natural man, he could not and would not do it.

In type this young, religious man “touching the righteousness which is in the law blameless,” stands for the self-righteous Jewish people, turned away from the Lord with sorrow and yet loved by Him.

“And Jesus said to His disciples, Verily, I say unto you, a rich man shall with difficulty enter into the kingdom of the heavens, and again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to enter a needle’s eye than a rich man into the kingdom of God” (Mat 19:23-24). The verse tells us that the natural man, like the rich ruler, burdened by his possessions and under the control of the world and the god of this age, cannot enter into the kingdom of God. The illustration of the camel and the needle’s eye was a well-known Jewish phrase in the days of our Lord. It is an impossible thing that a camel laden down with goods could pass through the eye of a needle; just as impossible is it for the natural rich man to enter the kingdom of God. In astonishment the disciples now turn to the Lord with the question, a question perfectly in order after such a solemn declaration. “And when the disciples heard it they were exceedingly astonished, saying, Who, then, can be saved? But Jesus, looking on them, said, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible” (Mat 19:25-26). Here is a bright and glorious flashing forth of the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. His words are a blessed indication of what His loving heart knew so well, that salvation is of God. With men salvation is impossible, to get into the kingdom of God an impossibility, but God, in His marvelous grace in Christ Jesus has made it possible. The gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

And now the last paragraph of this most interesting chapter.

It is Peter once more who steps into the foreground as mouthpiece of the disciples. Again he acts and speaks in the flesh. Indeed, all through this Gospel Peter shows himself self-centered and self-seeking and intruding in that spirit into the things of the Lord. Only once was this not the case, and that was when the Father in heaven had given to him the revelation concerning His Son (Mat 16:1-28). With what self consciousness and feeling of superiority Peter must have looked upon the young ruler as he sneaked away with hanging head. And then, instead of bowing in silence and wonder after the Lord had flashed forth His grace and truth, he thinks of himself. “Then, Peter answering said to Him, Behold we have left all things and have followed Thee; what then shall happen to us?” Self is here prominently before us. But the Lord in His graciousness is far from rebuking Peter; He makes the self-gratifying question the basis of still further teaching by speaking of the future rewards of His own who follow Him and share His rejection.

“And Jesus said to them, Verily, I say unto you, That ye who have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man shall sit down upon His throne of glory, ye also shall sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And every one who has left houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive a hundredfold, and shall inherit eternal life. But many first shall be last, and last first” (Mat 19:28-30). Here is the declaration of an important principle, the principle of rewards in glory. Whatever a disciple, a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ has done or suffered for His sake will not be forgotten. This, however, does not mean that we can earn a position in glory; it is grace and grace alone, which has brought us there. Service and self-denial of a believer are the results of grace, and so the rewards are mercies, nothing else. But it is glorious to think, He remembers all, yea even the cup of cold water given in His name and for all we shall find in His presence a recompense.

Besides the principle of rewards we have here dispensational teachings. The Lord speaks of the time of regeneration. There is a time of regeneration coming, when all things will be made over, when groaning creation is delivered and the reign of Satan and of sin ends. It is the millennial age. Throughout the Old Testament the prophets declare this great regeneration, in the promises, which are so universally spiritualized in our day. This regeneration is not yet; and it cannot come as long as the Son of Man does not occupy the throne of His glory. He will not occupy that throne as long as His fellow heirs are not with Him. Everything then in its order. The completion of the church, as to numbers, the removal of the church to meet Him in the air, His coming with His saints in glory, His own throne, which He will occupy and then, and not before, the regeneration.

The promise here to the disciples is a specific one for them, and does not mean other believers. In the kingdom, the reign of Christ over the earth, the disciples will hold a glorious position in connection with the government of the earth through Israel and occupy twelve thrones. The saints will judge the world. As He received of His Father, so shall the overcomer receive from His hands. (Rev 2:26-28.)

We have gone through a most blessed chapter in which all is connected by the Holy Spirit. The teaching is continued in the next, and the last sentence of the nineteenth chapter belongs to the twentieth chapter. “But many first shall be last, and last first,” its meaning is explained by the Lord in a parable.

Arno C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible (1913–1922) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

CHAPTER 10

JESUS IN PEREA

Mat 19:1-2, and Mar 10:1. “Rising up from thence, He comes into the boundaries of Judea, through the country which is beyond the Jordan and again multitudes come to Him, and, as was His custom, He again taught them.” Matthew says, “Many multitudes followed Him, and He healed them there.” As above specified, when, in consequence of the tremendous popular sensation arising from the resurrection of Lazarus, the Sanhedrin had passed the condemnatory verdict against Him, unanimously assigning His death-warrant, in order to prolong His life and finish His work, He goes away to the city of Ephraim, about forty miles north of Jerusalem; thence: after a short interval, journeying on toward the northeast, crossing the Jordan over into Perea, the land which had been given to Reuben, Gad, and the half tribe of Manasseh for their inheritance, at their own request, when Joshua divided the land of Canaan among the twelve tribes. Now He spends perhaps a dozen days in that country east of the Jordan, in the days of Joshua ruled by Og, the king of Bashan, and Sihon, the king of Heshbon; but in the days of our Savior known as Perea. It is superfluous to say that Jesus utilized all of His opportunities while in that country, as everywhere else, teaching the people the wonderful truths of the kingdom and healing the sick.

William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Section 5. (Mat 19:1-15.)

Nature and the Kingdom of God.

In the fifth section the Lord shows to His disciples the relation of the Kingdom to what God as the Creator had established for the blessing of man: an important matter, as to which, it is evident, there would be need of instruction; as also the history of the professing Church has made manifest how easily the mind can get astray. Here was One who had declared Himself Lord of the sabbath, and revoked with His emphatic, "But I say unto you" the sayings of ancient days. It might naturally be questioned, how the new relationships which He had proclaimed would affect those of nature. He had bidden one whom He had called to "leave the dead to bury their dead," as called into a new sphere and power of life. It was necessary to show whether and how far nature was to have a place in the Kingdom of God; and the two questions of marriage and of children are such as would throw light upon this.

In the epistles, and with the advance of knowledge as to Christian place and privilege, such things had to be expanded and given practical application also; and it is significant that it is in those two of Paul’s epistles in which the position of the believer is shown at its highest (Ephesians and Colossians) in which the duties arising from natural relationships are insisted on in the fullest way.

1. (1) Here it is the Pharisees who bring up the question of marriage, or of its obligation, in order, as it has been reasonably conjectured, to seek to involve Him in the disputes between the rabbinical schools of Hillel and Shammai, who were at issue as to divorce. The question; "Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?" seems indeed to refer to the opinions of the former, who went as far as to decide that a wife spoiling her husband’s dinner was cause enough. But in answer the Lord goes further than Shammai himself, and removing all that man had in the meantime obscured it with, finds His argument in the institution of marriage at the beginning, - an argument which strikes at polygamy, as well as the loose holding of the marriage tie, and brings us beyond all that has come in with sin; to the first design of the Creator for His creatures.

He had made them male and female, each adapted for the other, each completed by the other; and had said as to what the union implied, "they two shall be one flesh." Two, and only two, are spoken of, as with Adam and his wife at first, where neither polygamy nor divorce could be thought of; and "one flesh" would make either polygamy or divorce abomination. Man’s own voice, before sin had beclouded the mind, thus had given utterance to what the Lord speaks of as a divine utterance: for God and man were then at one. He who with true insight had before named the beasts and found among them all no helpmeet, spoke now in the joyful discernment of that helpmeet found.

(2) They have their objection from the law ready: "Why then did Moses command to give her a writing of divorcement and to put her away?" But they did not apprehend aright either Moses or themselves; and their argument is turned against them in the simplest manner: "Moses, for the hardness of your hearts, suffered you to put away your wives; but from the beginning it was not so." It was Moses himself who was furnishing the evidence, and what an evidence, of their own condition! The law, which was "weak through the flesh," could not perfect anything because of the resistance to it of a carnal people. That which they objected proved but at the same time their own evil and the hopelessness of it under law. And He turns upon them with one of those imperial sayings which put aside all power of resistance as with the lightning-flash of truth: "And I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife except for fornication, and shall marry another committeth adultery; and whoso marrieth her that is put away committeth adultery."

One cause alone is permitted for divorce; and that where the bond of marriage has already been broken through. Where not so justified, another marriage on the side of husband or of wife is but adultery. Courts of law may legalize adultery of this sort, if they will, but they cannot sanctify it, or take away the brand which the Lord here puts upon it. How evident that the grace of Christianity is as far as possible from laxity! - that law is more tolerant here than grace can be. But the palliatives of law were only the proof that it could not heal; grace will not palliate, because it heals.

This, let us remember however, is the abstract right of the matter - binding of course, as such, with all the authority that the Lord’s words can give it upon every one of His own. He does not pursue it further, nor consider the complications that may arise in a world such as this which knows Him not, and where His people may be entangled with alliances with the unbelieving, or followed by the consequences of their conduct before conversion. This manifestly belongs rather to what concerns the discipline of the Church, and we shall find the principles applying to it in their place in the epistles. It will be the proper place, therefore, to consider them there, though for the help of souls a few words here may be in place.

We are all born in sin, and go astray naturally from the womb, except as the grace of God may prevent this. When converted to God we may have spent a large part of our lives in disobedience; the effects of which are not necessarily removed by our conversion. With the truest desire to do so, it may be absolutely impossible to return to the position in which we were before the sin was committed. Thus the Lord has Himself decided in the case of a divorced wife, after marriage to another, even though death has dissolved the newer relationship. For the former husband then to take her back again is declared to be an "abomination" to Him (Deu 24:4); and no change of dispensation can affect what is clearly grounded in nature itself, as an ordinance of the God of nature. Hence restoration to a past state may be, and will commonly be, where divorce has taken place, a thing impracticable. We have but to accept things as they are, and rejoice in the mercy that has blotted out the past, and enables us to start afresh, with Him.

Again, there are cases in which separation may be a necessity or allowable, where divorce could not be according to God; separation leaving yet room for the mercy of God to come in and restore; and this door the apostle opens in Corinthians (1Co 7:15), not too widely. Divorce he does not touch: for the Lord has decided there.

(3) To return now to our text: the disciples show out now the state of their own hearts. "If the case of the man with his wife be so," they say, "it is not good to marry." And the Lord replies: "Not all have capacity for this,* but those to whom it has been given." The word of God having pronounced from the beginning, to which our Lord has been referring us, that it is not good for man to be alone," we cannot expect that the gift to abide alone will be other than exceptional. Christianity leaves the general truth unaffected, while it may and does give power over nature where special circumstances call for this. Nature itself has imposed this necessity upon some: the cruelty of men has imposed it upon others. But the Kingdom of heaven, as a motive in the heart, may lift men above all necessity, and enable them to take this place freely. How different a thought, however, from the selfishness which had just spoken out in the disciples, and of which their Master takes no further notice. The shining of the light sufficiently reveals the darkness which it displaces.

{*"This of which ye speak," -logos being here used for the "matter of speech." The common translation here and in ver. 12 does not seem to me to give the sense: for what saying is it that all men are "not able to receive"? Certainly the Lord does not mean to agree with what they have said, that "it is not good to marry," and as certainly does not mean to apologize for the non-reception of what He has just so emphatically stated. The single state is, of course, what all have not the gift for. Choreo means both to "have room," and to "make room for;" and to "make room for oneself," so "to advance, go forward."}

2. We pass on to a different scene, and a far happier one, though still to find the painful contrast between the Master and the disciples. It is in this case so much the more so, as He has already declared the spirit of His Kingdom by the example of one of these little children who are now brought to Him, that He may put His hands on them and pray." But they seem full of nothing but of His dignity as a Rabbi, in which they found also, without doubt, their own. Of what use to bring such mere babes to Him? But the Lord answers their rebuke Himself by bidding them place Him higher in their thoughts, and recognize what the parents here more truly apprehended in Him, - the - the power which had all within its absolute control, the love which wielded this power. To put His hands on them and pray: would this be barren? In the Kingdom of God in Israel had there been no place for babes? And now that heaven was manifesting itself, and the Father’s name being declared, in the Kingdom of heaven was there to be no place for babes? Yes; emphatically yes: for "of such" it was, and of no others. If men had to become like babes to enter it, the spirit of the babe was the very spirit of the Kingdom; and who should shut them out? "Suffer the little children," He says, "to come unto Me, and forbid them not; for of such is the Kingdom of heaven. And He laid His hands on them, and departed thence."

It is to be observed, however, that Matthew excludes, what Mark and Luke both record, the Lord’s words as to moral resemblance. The latter is not here the point, but the place with Him of little children themselves, the answer to the heart’s affections, given of God Himself, to those who are manifestly put in their weakness and need, to be nurtured, trained, reared amid the contrary influences of the world, to be for the glory of Him whose they are, while in it. How gracious and comforting is the assurance then, that we may come in the confession of our weakness to Him who is Lord of all, though yet the world does not own Him, and in faith still put our little ones into His hand, assured of His reception of them, and that He recognizes them, not as part of the outside world, but as subjects of His Kingdom and disciples in His school. Here is our warrant and encouragement to "bring them up in the discipline and admonition of the Lord" (Eph 6:4), expecting from Him the grace of the Spirit, which alone can make it effectual. For the word abides for us, if we do not through our unbelief make it barren, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house" (Act 16:31).

The Kingdom of heaven was not yet come: it is only at the end of this Gospel and after His resurrection that we find the Lord announcing all authority as given to Him in heaven and on earth (Mat 18:18). The words are, therefore, anticipative of that time, and perpetuate the value for us of His action here.

F. W. Grant, The Numerical Bible (4th ed., 1903) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Chapter 15

Last Days in Peraea - Mat_19:1-30 - Mat_20:1-16

THERE were two main roads from Galilee to Jerusalem. One passed through Samaria, on the west of the Jordan, the other through Peraea, east of it. It was by the former that our Lord went northward from Judea to begin His work in Galilee; it is by the other that He now goes southward to complete His sacrifice in Jerusalem. As "He must needs go through Samaria" then, so He must needs go through Peraea now. The main thought in His mind is the journey; but He cannot pass through the large and important district beyond the Jordan without bringing the kingdom of heaven near to the people, and accordingly we read that "great multitudes followed Him, and He healed them there." We learn from St. Lukes Gospel that "He went through the cities and villages teaching, and journeying towards Jerusalem"; and from the details there recorded, especially the mission of the seventy which belongs to that period, it is evident that these circuits in Peraea must have occupied several months. Concerning the work of these months our Evangelist is silent, just as he was silent concerning the earlier work in Judea and Samaria, as recorded by St. John. We are reminded by this of the fragmentariness of these memorials of our Lord; and when we consider how much is omitted in all the narratives {see Joh_21:25} we can understand how difficult it is to form a closely connected history without any gaps between, and with accurately fitted joinings at the intersections of the different accounts.

There is, however, no difficulty here; for by comparison with the third Gospel we find that our Evangelist omits all the circuits in Peraea, and takes up the story again when our Lord is just about to leave that region for Jerusalem. When we take his point of view we can see how natural this was. It was his special calling to give a full account of the work in Galilee. Hence the haste with which he passes from what it was necessary for him to tell of the early years in the south till the work in Galilee began; and in the same way, now that the work in Galilee is done, he hastens to the great crisis in Jerusalem. In following the journey southward, he lingers only in two places, each of them associated with special memories. The one is Capernaum, where Jesus, as we have seen, tarried for a few days before taking final leave of Galilee; the other is the place beyond Jordan, in the region where in baptism He had solemnly entered on His work, {cf. Joh_10:40} where again He remains for a brief period before going up to Jerusalem for the last time.

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 Lords 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 suffrance, -it was a suffrance 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 heavens 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 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.

THE CHILDREN. {Mat_19:13-15}

"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 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 childrens 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 Saviours 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 Saviours 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."

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 Lords 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 mans 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 bring him the extra credit he hopes to gain.

The Lords 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 mans 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 Saviours 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 Masters faithful and loving words, repented of his covetousness, and so found an open door and a forgiving welcome.

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 worlds 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 needles 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 Masters 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 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 Lords 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 Lords 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 Lords words is manifestly wrong, the other extreme of reducing them to nothing is far worse, which is the danger now.

REWARDS. {Mat_19:27-30 - Mat_20:1-16}

The thought of sacrifice very naturally suggests as its correlative that of compensation; so it is not at all to be wondered at that, before this conversation ended, the impulsive disciple, so much given to think aloud, should blurt out the honest question: "Behold, we have forsaken all and followed Thee; what shall we have therefore?" He could not but remember that while the Master had insisted on His disciples denying self to follow Him, He had spoken no less clearly of their finding life through losing it, and of their being rewarded according to their deeds. {see Mat_16:24-27} A more cautious man would have hesitated before he spoke; but it was no worse to speak it than to think it: and then, it was an honest and fair question; accordingly our Lord gives it a frank and generous answer, taking care, however, before leaving the subject, to add a supplementary caution, fitted to correct what was doubtful or wrong in the spirit it showed.

Here, again, we see how thoroughly natural is our Saviours teaching. "Not to destroy, but to fulfil," was His motto. This is as true of His relation to mans nature as of His relation to the law and the prophets. "What shall we have?" is a question not to be set aside as wholly unworthy. The desire for property is an original element in human nature. It was of God at the first; and though it has swelled out into most unseemly proportions, and has usurped a place which does by no means belong to it, that is no reason why it should be dealt with as if it had no right to exist. It is vain to attempt to root it out; what it needs is moderating, regulating, subordinating. The tendency of perverted human nature is to make "What shall we have?" the first question. The way to meet that is not to abolish the question altogether, but to put it last, where it ought to be. To be, to do, to suffer, to enjoy-that is the order our Lord marks out for His disciples. If only they have it as their first anxiety to be what they ought to be, and to do what they are called to do, and are willing, in order to this, to take up the cross, to suffer whatever may be theirs to suffer, then they may allow as large scope as they please to the desire for possession and enjoyment.

Observe the difference between the young man and the disciples. He was coming to Christ for the first time; and if our Lord had set before him what he would gain by following Him, He would have directly encouraged a mercenary spirit. He therefore says not a word to him about prospects of reward either here or hereafter. Those who choose Christ must choose Him for His own sake. Our Saviour dealt in no other way with Peter, James, and John. When first He called them to follow Him, He said not a word about thrones or rewards; He spoke of work: "Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men"; and it was not till they had fully committed themselves to Him that He went so far as to suggest even in the most general way the thought of compensation. It would have spoiled them to have put such motives prominently before them at an earlier stage. But it is different now. They have followed Him for months, even years. They have been tested in innumerable ways. They are not certainly out of danger from the old selfishness; but with the exception of one of them, who is fast developing into a hypocrite, all they need is a solemn word of caution now and then. The time had come when their Master might safely give them some idea of the prospects which lay before them, when their cross-bearing days should be over.

The promise looks forward to an entirely altered state of things spoken of as "the regeneration"-a remarkable term, reminding us of the vast scope of our Saviours mission as ever present to His consciousness even in these days of smallest things. The word recalls what is said in the book of Genesis as to "the generation of the heaven and of the earth," and suggests by anticipation the words of the Apocalypse concerning the regeneration, "Behold, I make all things new," and "I saw a new heaven and a new earth." That the reference is to that final restitution of all things, and not merely to the new dispensation, seems evident from the words which immediately follow: "When the Son of man shall sit on the throne of His glory." Why, then, was the promise given in words so suggestive of those crude notions of an earthly kingdom, above which it was so difficult and so important for the disciples to rise? The answer is to be found in the limitation of human language: "Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love Him"; accordingly, if the promise was to be of any use to them in the way of comfort and encouragement, it must be expressed in terms which were familiar to them then. To their minds the kingdom was as yet bound up with Israel; "the twelve tribes of Israel" was as large a conception of it as their thoughts could then grasp; and it would certainly be no disappointment to them when they afterwards discovered that their relation as apostles of the Lord was to a much larger "Israel," embracing every kindred and nation and people and tribe; and though their idea of the thrones on which they would sit was then and for some time afterwards quite inadequate, it was only by starting with what ideas of regal power they had, that they could rise to those spiritual conceptions which, as they matured in spiritual understanding, took full possession of their minds.

The Lord is speaking, however, not for the apostles alone, but for all His disciples to the end of time: so He must give a word of cheer, in which even the weakest and most obscure shall have a part (Mat_19:29). Observe that here also the promise is only for those who have left what they had for the sake of Christ. We are not authorised to go with a message after this form: "If you leave, you will get." The reward is of such a nature that it cannot be seen until the sacrifice is made. "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God"; until a man loses his life for Christs sake, he cannot find it. But when the sacrifice has been made, then appears the compensation, and it is seen that even these strong words are not too strong: "Every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for My names sake, shall receive a hundred-fold, and shall inherit everlasting life." The full consideration of this promise belongs rather to St. Marks Gospel, in which it is presented without abridgment.

The supplementary caution-"But many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first"-is administered in apparent reference to the spirit of the apostles question, which exhibits still some trace of mercenary motive, with something also of a disposition to self-congratulation. This general statement is illustrated by the parable immediately following it, a connection which the unfortunate division into chapters here obscures; and not only is an important saying of our Lord deprived in this way of its illustration, but the parable is deprived of its key, the result of which has been that many have been led astray in its interpretation. We cannot attempt to enter fully into the parable, but shall only make such reference to it as is necessary to bring out its appropriateness for the purpose our Lord had in view. Its main purport may be stated thus: many that are first in amount of work shall be last in point of reward; and many that are last in amount of work shall be first in point of reward. The principle on which this is based is plain enough: that in estimating the reward it is not the quantity of work done or the amount of sacrifice made that is the measure of value, but the spirit in which the work is done or the sacrifice made. The labourers who made no bargain at all, but went to work on the faith of their Masters honour and liberality, were the best off in the end.

Those who made a bargain received, indeed, all they bargained for; but the others were rewarded on a far more liberal scale, they obtaining much more than they had any reason to expect. Thus we are taught that those will be first who think least of wages as wages, and are the least disposed to put such a question as, "What shall we then have?" This was the main lesson for the apostles, as it is for all who occupy places of prominence in the kingdom. It is thus put in later years by one of those who now for the first time learned it: "Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward". {2Jn_1:8} "Look to yourselves," see that your spirit be right, that there be nothing selfish, nothing mercenary, nothing vainglorious; else much good labour and real self-denial may miss its compensation.

Besides the lesson of caution to the great ones, there is a lesson of encouragement to the little ones in the kingdom-those who can do little and seem to themselves to sacrifice little for Christ. Let such remember that their labour and self-denial are measured not by quantity but by quality, by the spirit in which the service, however small it be, is rendered, and the sacrifice, trifling as it seems, is made. Not only is it true that many that are first shall be last; but also that many of the last shall be first. "If there be first a willing mind, it is accepted according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not."

Neither in the general statement of our Lord, nor in the parable which illustrates it, is there the slightest encouragement to idlers in the vine-yard-to those who do nothing and sacrifice nothing for Christ, but who thinkthat, when the eleventh hour comes, they will turn in with the rest, and perhaps come off best after all. When the Master of the vineyard asks of those who are standing-in the market-place at the eleventh hour, "Why stand ye here all the day idle?" their answer is ready, "Because no man hath hired us." The invitation came to them, then, for the first time, and they accepted it as soon as it was given them. Suppose the Master of the vineyard had asked them in the morning, and at the first hour and the second and the third, and so on all the day, and only at the eleventh hour did they deign to notice His invitation, how would they have fared?

William Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1887–1910) — public domain. 65 of 66 books (1 Corinthians is not separately keyed, as that volume carries no machine-parseable verse references); section-level commentary keyed to the opening verse. Introductory and overview sections not keyed to a specific passage are excluded.

19:1–20:34 Jesus was now on the move toward Jerusalem (19:1; 20:29; 21:1), with a further opportunity for instructing the disciples on various aspects of discipleship.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Mat 19:1. Ἐτέλεσεν, κ.τ.λ., finished, etc.) All the discourses addressed to the people in Galilee have a great connection with each other, and form a perfect course.[851]—ΜΕΤῆΡΕΝ, he departed[852]) having concluded His perambulation through Galilee.[853]

[851] He was wont to break off nothing abruptly, but to bring all things to a complete conclusion; ch. Mat 26:1.—V. g.

[852] “Migravit.” Cf. Gnomon and footnotes on ch. Mat 13:53, where the same word occurs.—(I. B.)

[853] We may reasonably infer, from this departure, that the events which are recorded, Luk 13:31 to Luk 18:14 (for Jesus was not wont to stay long in Samaria), occurred in the space of those three days, of which mention occurs in Luk 13:32.—Harm., p. 421.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mat_19:1 f. With his usual formula, κ. ἐγέν. ὅτε ἐτέλ., κ.τ.λ. (Mat_7:28, Mat_11:1, Mat_13:53), Matthew here introduces the account of the closing stage in Christs ministry by mentioning His departure from Galilee to Judaea. It does not follow (comp. note on Mat_16:21) that there may not have been previous visits to Judaea (in answer to Baur), but, in order to give to this journey, above all, the prominence due to its high significance, it was necessary that the Synoptists should confine their view to the Galilaean ministry until the time came for this final visit to the capital.

The conversation concerning divorce and marriage is likewise given in Mar_10:1 ff., and, on the whole, in a more original shape.

μετῆρεν ἀπὸ τῆς Γαλιλ.] Comp. Mat_17:22; Mat_17:24.

πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου] This expression cannot be intended to define the locale of εἰς τὰ ὄρια τῆς Ἰουδαίος, for the reader knew, as matter of course, that Peraea and Judaea (Mat_4:15; Mat_4:25) meant different districts, although, according to Ptolem. v. 16. 9, several towns east of the Jordan might be reckoned as included in Judaea; neither can it belong to μετῆρεν ἀπὸ τ. Γαλ. (Fritzsche: Movens a Galilaea transiit fluvium), for κ. ἦλθεν εἰς τ. ὄρ. τ. Ἰουδ. is not of the nature of a parenthesis; rather is it to be regarded as indicating the route (Mar_10:1) which Jesus took, thus defining ἦλθεν (Mar_7:31) somewhat more precisely, lest it should be supposed that He was on this side Jordan, and therefore approached Judaea by going through Samaria, whereas, being on the farther side of the river, He went by Peraea, and reached the borders of Judaea by crossing over to the west side of the Jordan (somewhere in the neighbourhood of Jericho, Mat_20:29). The expression is not awkward (Volkmar); nor, again, is it to be erroneously understood as showing that the Gospel was written in some district east of the Jordan.

Further, the narrative of Matthew and Mark cannot be reconciled with that of Luke, who represents Jesus as keeping to this side of the Jordan (Luk_9:51, and see note on Luk_17:11); nor with the account of John, who, Joh_10:22, says nothing about the journey to Jerusalem, but represents Jesus as already there, and in Joh_19:40 as setting out from that city to make a short sojourn in Peraea.

ἐκεῖ] that is, in Peraea, just mentioned, and through which He was travelling on His way to the borders of Judaea, Mat_19:1. On αὐτούς (their sick), see Winer, p. 139 [E. T. 183]. Instead of the healing, Mark speaks of the teaching that took place on this occasion.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mat 19:1-2 . Introductory , cf. Mar 10:1 .

Mat 19:1 . καὶ ἐγένετο … λόγους τούτους : similar formulae after important groups of logia in Mat 7:28 , Mat 11:1 , Mat 13:53 . μετῆρεν : also in Mat 13:53 , vide notes there; points to a change of scene worthy of note, as to Nazareth, which Jesus rarely visited, or to Judaea, as here. ἀπὸ τ . Γαλιλαίας . The visit to Nazareth was a movement within Galilee. This is a journey out of it not necessarily final, but so thought of to all appearance by the evangelist. εἰς τὰ ὅρια τ . Ἰ . π . τ . Ἰ .: indicates either the destination = to the coasts of Judaea beyond the Jordan; or the end and the way = to the Judaea territory by the way of Peraea, i.e. , along the eastern shore of Jordan. It is not likely that the writer would describe Southern Peraea as a part of Judaea, therefore the second alternative is to be preferred. Mk.’s statement is that Jesus went to the coasts of Judaea and ( καὶ , approved reading, instead of διὰ τοῦ in T. R.) beyond Jordan. Weiss thinks that Mt.’s version arose from misunderstanding of Mk. But his understanding may have been a true one, for Mk.’s statement may mean that Peraea was the first reached station (Holtz., H. C.), implying a journey on the eastern side. The suggestion that the writer of the first Gospel lived on the eastern side, and means by πέραν the western side (Delitsch and others), has met with little favour.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Chap.

19:1-12.] Reply to the Pharisees’ question concerning divorce. Mar 10:1-12. This appears to be the journey of our Lord into the region beyond Jordan, mentioned Joh 10:40. If so, a considerable interval has elapsed since the discourse in ch. 15.

1.] τὰ ὅρια τῆς Ἰουδ. πέρ. τοῦ Ἰορδ. form one continuous description. Bethany, where He went, was beyond Jordan, but on the confines of Judæa. See notes on Mar 10:1, and Luk 9:51.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

E.—19:1-20:34. JOURNEY TO JERUSALEM

19:1-12. From Mar 10:1-16

(E) 1. And it came to pass, when Jesus finished these words.] For the formula, cf. 7:28, 11:1, 13:53, 26:1.

(M) He departed from Galilee, and came into the boundaries of Judæa beyond Jordan.] Mar 10:1 has: “And He arose thence, and cometh into the boundaries of Judæa, and beyond Jordan.”—ἦλθεν] for Mk.’s hist. present, as often. The addition of ἀπὸ τῆς Γαλιλαίς marks the editor’s perception of a new stage in Mk.’s Gospel.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Passed over the water out of Galilee into the borders of Judea.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

CHAPTER XIX.

Jesus leaves Galilee, and comes into the coasts of Judea, and

is followed by great multitudes, whom he heals, 1, 2.

The question of the Pharisees concerning divorce answered, and

the doctrine of marriage explained, 3-9.

The inquiry of the disciples on this subject, 10.

Our Lord's answer, explaining the case of eunuchs, 11, 12.

Little children brought to Christ for his blessing, 13-15.

The case of the young man who wished to obtain eternal life,

16-22.

Our Lords reflections on this case, in which he shows the

difficulty of a rich man's salvation, 23-26.

What they shall possess who have left all for Christ's sake and

the Gospel. 27-29

How many of the first shall be last, and the last first, 30.

NOTES ON CHAP. XIX.

Verse 1. 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 Mr 10:1; Lu 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, (Mt 20:17; Mt 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 Joh 6:22; see also Bp. Pearce.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

XIX.

(1) He departed from Galilee.—The verse covers a considerable interval of time which the materials supplied by St. Luke and St. John enable us to fill up. From the former we get the outlines of what has been called, as being “beyond Jordan,” our Lord’s Peræan ministry, from Luk_9:51 to Luk_18:30; from the latter, according to the arrangement of the best harmonists, His visit to Jerusalem at the Feast of Tabernacles (Joh_7:2), and again at that of the Dedication (Joh_10:22). To keep these facts in mind will throw some light on the narrative that follows here. The journey from Galilee to Peræa appears from Luk_17:11 to have led our Lord through Samaria.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1 And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these sayings, he departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judaea beyond Jordan;

Ver. 1. And came into the coasts of Judea] Upon the news of Lazarus his friend’s sickness, Joh 11:8, with the hazard of his life, he came far on foot to the help of his friend. Much water cannot quench love. And this was our Saviour’s last journey toward Jerusalem, to the which he steeled his face with fortitude, and was even straitened, or pained, till it were accomplished. {a} So was that martyr, who (because he seemed at his lodging to be somewhat troubled, and was therefore asked by one how he did?) answered, In very deed I am in prison till I be in prison.

{a} το προσωπον αυτου εστηριξε, Luk 9:51; Luk 12:50, συνεχομαι.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Most interpreters agree that both Mark, Mar 10:1, and Luk 9:51, make mention of the same motion of our Saviour out of Galilee into the province of Judea which is here expressed, though Luke and John mention, something largely, some things done in the way, of which Matthew speaketh not. He departed from Galilee. Our Saviour had hitherto spent his time mostly in Galilee. The country of the Jews was divided into three provinces, Galilee, Samaria, and Judea. Galilee was the more northerly part of the country, and was divided into the Upper Galilee, which is also called Galilee of the Gentiles, Mat 4:15, and the Lower Galilee, which was contiguous to it, but lay more southerly, and adjoined to Samaria. Our Saviour dwelt at Nazareth a long time. Chorazin, Bethsaida, Capernaum, were all cities of Galilee. He is now taking his leave of this province, into which he never returned more. His next way into Judea lay through Samaria, (for Samaria lay in the middle between Galilee and Judea), and through part of it he did go, for, Luk 9:52,53, some inhabitants of a village belonging to the Samaritans refused to receive him.

And came into the coasts of Judea beyond Jordan. This phrase hath caused some difficulty to interpreters, because Judea was bounded by Jordan, and had no coasts beyond it. Some say that the term beyond Jordan must be applied to he came, he came beyond Jordan to the coasts of Judea. Others say, that as men came out of Egypt, the coasts of Judea were beyond Jordan, Mat 4:15. But some think it should be there translated, by Jordan: the word περαν signifies any border, or side of a border.

Beyond Jordan, therefore, is on the border of Jordan, and possibly were better translated so, seeing the word will bear it, and there were no coasts of Judea beyond Jordan. It is probable that our Saviour, coming out of Galilee into Samaria, kept on the left hand near to Jordan, till he came into Judea, which also bordered on that river. Wherever he went

great multitudes followed him, but more for healing their bodies, or for the loaves, than for the feeding or healing of their souls; so different is most people’s sense of their bodily and spiritual wants.

He healed them, the text saith; but it saith not, they believed in him.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

The Question of Divorce. The Rich Young Man

1, 2. End of the Galilean ministry. The Peræn ministry begins (Mar_10:1; Luk_9:51 cp. Luk_17:11). The time was now late summer of 28 a.d. The Passion was less than six months distant. Jesus finally left Galilee, and entered upon what is generally called the 'Peræan ministry,' the scene of which was partly Peræa beyond Jordan, a district extending, roughly, from the Sea of Galilee to the Dead Sea, and partly Jerusalem and Judæa. To this period must be assigned a visit to Jerusalem at the Feast of Tabernacles (September), Joh_7:2 another at the Feast of Dedication (December), Joh_10:23 also the mission of the Seventy, and many of the incidents in the great section peculiar to St. Luke's Gospel (Luk_9:51 to Luk_19:28).

1. Into the coasts (RV 'borders') of Judæa beyond Jordan] i.e. into the southern part of Peræa, opposite to Judæa.

3-9. The question of divorce (Mar_10:2 see on Mat_5:32). The Pharisees probably intended to entrap Jesus into some contradiction of the Law of Moses, which might form the basis of a charge before the Sanhedrin. Some, however, think that, as Peræa was in the territory of Herod Antipas, they wished to inveigle Him into speaking against that monarch's divorce of the daughter of Aretas: see on Mat_14:3. St. Matthew's narrative is fuller and perhaps more original than St. Mark's.

3. For every cause] In St. Mark the question simply is, 'Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife?' Jesus was asked to decide the point debated between the school of Hillel, who allowed divorce for every cause, and that of Shammai, who allowed it only for adultery. Rabbi Akiba (a Hillelite) said, 'If a man sees a woman handsomer than his own wife, he may put her away, because it is said, “If she find not favour in his eyes.” The school of Hillel said, 'If the wife cook her husband's food ill, by over-salting or overroasting it, she is to be put away.' On the other hand, Rabbi Jochanan (a Shammaite) said, 'The putting away of a wife is odious.' Both schools agreed that a divorced wife could not be taken back.

Both schools objected to (though perhaps they did not forbid) the divorce of a first wife, with regard to which the dictum of Rabbi Eliezer, 'For the divorcing of a first wife, even the altar itself sheds tears,' was generally approved.

4. Male and female] i.e. one for one.

5. And said] Our Lord regards the words alluded to (see Gen_2:24) as spoken by divine inspiration. His wife] Ancient and modern interpreters find in the singular a prohibition of polygamy. The rabbis allowed three or four wives. 'It is lawful' (they said) 'to have many wives together, even as many as you will, but our wise men have decreed that no man have above four wives.'

6. What therefore God hath joined together] Our Lord takes up higher ground than either school. He goes behind the Law of Moses, which was in many cases a concession to Jewish infirmities and prejudices, to God's original intention at the creation of the human race, and declares this to be more venerable than the written Law, which the Jewish schools idolised. See further on Mat_5:31, Mat_5:32.

7. A writing of divorcement] see Deu_24:1. Jewish divorces were always from the bond of marriage, so that both parties could marry again, unless the husband specially restrained the wife's liberty in that respect. Divorces were thus worded: 'I N. have put away, dismissed, and expelled thee N., who heretofore wast my wife. But now I have dismissed thee, so that thou art free, and in thy own power, to marry whosoever shall please thee; and let no man hinder thee. And let this be to thee a bill of rejection from me according to the Law of Moses and Israel.

'Reuben, the son of Jacob, witness.

'Eliezer, the son of Gilead, witness' (from J. Lightfoot).

8. Because of the hardness of your hearts] The rabbis regarded the liberty of divorce as a special privilege conferred by God upon the chosen people. Rabbi Chananiah said, 'God has not subscribed His name to divorces, except among Israelites, as if He said, I have conceded to the Israelites the right of dismissing their wives; but to the Gentiles I have not conceded it.' Jesus retorts that it is not the privilege, but the infamy and reproach of Israel, that Moses found it necessary to tolerate divorce. Moses allowed it only for the 'hardness of your hearts,' i.e. your unwillingness to accept God's will in the matter of marriage, or, as others explain it, for yolir brutality towards your wives, which would lead you to maltreat them, unless you had the privilege of divorcing them.

9. See on Mat_5:32. The exact text of this v. is very uncertain. Whosoever] Some ancient authorities read, 'Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, maketh her an adulteress,' omitting the rest of the verse.

10-12. Conversation ('in the house,' Mk) on marriage and celibacy (Mar_10:10-12;). The words of Jesus with regard to celibacy must be neither exaggerated nor minimised. They recognise and honour, along with marriage, the vocation of celibacy, when it is embraced for the Kingdom of Heaven's sake. The qualification is important. The Essenes of our Lord's time were celibates because they regarded marriage as unholy. The Christian hermits of later times adopted celibacy simply as a means towards attaining their own individual perfection. Many adopt it now because they will not face the responsibilities and anxieties of married life. The celibacy which Christ approves is that which is adopted for the sake of doing good to others in active works of religion and mercy, as in the case of the great sisterhoods and missionary brotherhoods. Any attempt to enforce celibacy upon whole classes of persons, as, for instance, upon the clergy in general, is forbidden by Christ ('He that is able to receive it, let him receive it'), and is also inexpedient.

10. If the case of the man] 'They mean that, if the tie of marriage is so strict that there is no separation except for adultery, it is inexpedient to marry. For how can a husband bear all the other faults of an abandoned woman?' (Euthymius).

11. This saying] viz. 'that it is not expedient to marry.' The disciples had spoken of a worldly and prudential celibacy. This, Jesus warns them, is unnatural and perilous. The only celibacy which is safe and acceptable to God is that which is embraced for religious reasons in consequence of a divine call ('to whom it is given,' viz. 'by God').

12. For the kingdom of heaven's sake] i.e. who have embraced celibacy not merely for their own personal sanctification, but in order to undertake work for the advancement of Christs kingdom on earth.

13-15. Christ and little children (Mar_10:13; Luk_18:15). A touching incident teaching the same lesson as the birth and infancy of Jesus Himself, viz. the sanctity of childhood. The disciples thought that children were not important enough to claim the Master's attention, and this aroused His just anger (St. Mark). We may learn from this that catechising and other ministrations to children are not to be despised, even by the most intellectual.

Most Christians find in this passage the leading principles upon which infant baptism is based. These are, (1) that children, however young, are capable of receiving divine grace. This is made clear by the fact that Christ blessed them (Mar_10:16). (2) Christ commands infants to be brought to Him, and we know of no way of bringing them except by baptism. (3) He declares infants to be specially fitted—more fitted even than adults—for admission into His kingdom (Luk_18:16-17; Mar_10:14-15), but the only covenanted admission into that kingdom is by baptism (Joh_3:5).

The chief objection to infant baptism is that it is not expressly commanded in the NT. But if the principle upon which it is based is found, that suffices. The NT. was not intended to be a code of law, like the Pentateuch. Moreover, the idea that infants could be brought into covenant with God during unconscious infancy was already familiar. Every male Israelite was circumcised on the eighth day after birth (Gen_17:12; Lev_12:3), and the apostles certainly regarded baptism as, equally with circumcision, a federal or covenanting rite (Col_2:11-12). It is also worthy of note that baptism as an initiatory rite is older than the time of Christ. When a Gentile was converted to Judaism, he was admitted into covenant with God by three rites—baptism, circumcision, and sacrifice, and his infant children were baptised with him. This is expressly testified by the oldest rabbinical code, the Mishna. When, therefore, the apostles baptised the 'households' of their converts (Act_16:15, Act_16:33; 1Co_1:16), they were only conforming to the usual Jewish practice in the case of converts. It is no valid objection to infant baptism that infants cannot have repentance and faith, because they are taught to exhibit these as soon as they reach the age of reason.

16-22. The rich young man (Mar_10:17; Luk_18:18). St. Luke calls him a 'ruler,' i.e. either a member of the Sanhedrin, or a ruler of a synagogue. The incident is a striking example of the seductive power of wealth. The young man was so good, and so near to the Kingdom of God, that Jesus 'looked upon him and loved him' (Mk); and yet he failed, because though he loved the Kingdom much, he loved money more.

16. Good Master] RV omits 'good.'

17. Why callest thou me good? etc.] RV 'Why askest thou me concerning that which is good? One there is who is good'(see on Mar_10:18).

18. All the commandments selected are those which test a man's love to his neighbour. Love of one's neighbour is a better test of inward religion than ceremonial piety.

20. All these things, etc.] The answer showed how little the young man knew his own heart, but he was only repeating the vainglorious boasting of his teachers. The Talmud represents God as speaking of 'My sanctified ones, who have kept the whole law from Aleph to Taw.' Moses, Aaron, and Samuel were said to have kept the whole Law. It is said that when Rabbi Chanina lay upon his deathbed, he said to the angel of death, 'Bring hither the book of the Law, and see whether there is anything in it which I have not observed.'

21. If thou wilt (RV 'wouldest') be perfect] Jesus, who knew what is in man, knew that love of wealth was this man's besetting sin. He therefore urged him to abandon it, according to the precept, 'If thine eye offend thee, pluck it out.' Jesus was dealing with a case of covetousness, and, therefore, prescribed a proper remedy for covetousness, without recommending its general and indiscriminate adoption. Treasure in heaven] see on Mat_6:1-20.

23-26. Conversation with the disciples on the perils of riches (Mar_10:23; Luk_18:24).

24. It is easier for a camel] Jesus rhetorically calls that impossible which is very difficult, or impossible without special grace. Such proverbs occur in most Eastern languages. We are told that Rabbi Sheshith said to Rabbi Amram, 'Perhaps thou art one of those of Pombeditha, who can make an elephant pass through a needle's eye' The Greeks said, 'It is easier to hide five elephants under one's arm'; the Latins, 'More easily would a locust bring forth an elephant.' Some have thought (but it seems without sufficient authority) that 'the eye of a needle' is a term applied to a small gate for foot-passengers, situated at the side of the large city gate through which a camel would naturally pass.

The Gk. word kamçlos (or, with one letter altered, kamîlos) also means 'rope,' and some interpreters give it this meaning here.

27-30. The reward of those who forsake all to follow Christ (Mar_10:28; Luk_18:28).

28. These words may refer to the position to be accorded the Apostles in the Church, after the resurrection, personally during their lives, afterwards through their writings and teaching: or they may have a real Eschatological sense, that is, they may refer to the new conditions after the final consummation.

In the regeneration] cp. Luk_22:28-30. The word occurs only once again in the NT., viz. Tit_3:5, where it is used of the grace of baptism. Here it is an open question whether by the Regeneration Jesus means His own resurrection, or the general resurrection at the last day, accompanied by the renewal of all created things.

Dalman says, 'The unusual expression “regeneration” is distinctly Greek, and cannot be translated literally into Hebrew or Aramaic' The idea, however, is Hebrew, for it was believed that the Messiah would restore the world to its primitive perfection. There are also many analogies for the use of Regeneration in the sense of a personal resurrection. Josephus speaks of the resurrection as 'being born a second time.' St. Paul speaks of Christ's resurrection as His birth or begetting into a new and glorious life (Act_13:33). Among the Greeks, too, Regeneration was the usual term for the transmigration of a man's soul into another body to begin a new life, which would be a kind of resurrection.

Judging] may also mean 'ruling.'

The twelve tribes of Israel] i.e. not the unbelieving Jews who would reject the apostles' preaching, but the Universal Church, the tribes of the New Israel of God. See Revelation 7, where the twelve tribes of Israel (Mat_19:4-8) are identical with 'the great multitude which no man could number, of all nations and kindred and people and tongues' (Mat_19:9). The apostles at the time (perhaps even the evangelist when he wrote) understood it of Israel after the flesh, but in this case, as in so many others, enlightenment was to come later (see Intro.).

29. An hundredfold] referring to spiritual compensations in this life: see on Mk.

30. See the following parable, especially Mat_20:16.

J. R. Dummelow, A Commentary on the Holy Bible (Macmillan, 1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Vers. 1-12. The beginning of the last journey to Jerusalem. The question concerning divorce. (Mar_10:1-12)

When Jesus had finished these sayings. This is the beginning of a new section of the history, commencing, as usual, with the formulary, And it came to pass. "These sayings" must refer to what was recorded in Mt 18. But St. Matthew"s narrative omits many events that happened in the interval between the account of the Galilaean ministry and the history of these last days, that is, from the autumn of one year to the spring of the next. The transactions of this time, which are omitted also by St. Mark, are given by St. Luke (Luk 9:51-17:11) and St. John, (Joh 7:2-11:54) comprising many things that occurred at Jerusalem during the Feast of Tabernacles and on other occlusions. He departed from Galilee. Not visiting it again till he appeared there after his resurrection. There was no part of the Holy Land in which he did not at some time sojourn, and now, as the final consummation drew nigh, he resolutely set his face towards Jerusalem. Came into the coasts of Judea beyond Jordan. Coasts should be borders. Judaea was bounded by the river, and there was no part of it beyond, that is, on the east of Jordan. The words, "beyond Jordan," belong to the verb "came," and the clause signifies that the object of Christ"s journey was the vicinity of Judaea, and that, instead of entering the province by the direct road through Samaria, he took the more lengthy but safer route through Peraea. This was the name of the region on the east of the Jordan (peran , beyond), extending at this time from the river Hieromax, or Jarmouk, on the north, to the Arnon on the south, i.e. to the middle of the eastern shore of the Dead Sea. The ruler of this district was Herod Antipas, and it was at this era in a most flourishing condition, notably fertile, and containing many fine towns ornamented with magnificent buildings. Here the simple, pastoral country people were less influenced by the narrow bigotry of the Pharisaic party, and in the towns the ban which excluded Jesus from the synagogues of Galilee and Judaea was either not recognized or not enforced. A quiet opportunity for preaching the gospel was thus offered. This may possibly be the sojourn in Peraea mentioned by St. John. (Joh_10:40-42)

Vers. 1-12. The sanctity of marriage.

I CONVERSATION WITH THE PHARISEES.

1. Work in Peraea. The Lord hath now finally left Galilee; the restless hostility of the Pharisees had driven him from the province in which at first he had met with such great success, and which was regarded as his own country. Judaea, too, was now unsafe for him. His hour was almost come; he would work while it was day; but he would not expose himself to unnecessary danger before the time appointed. Peraea was for a short season open to him; it was less overspread by Pharisaic influence than Galilee or Judaea. He would work there while he might. Multitudes followed him, and he healed them there. The Lord is an example of patience and perseverance; he would not throw up his work in weariness and disgust, as men too often do when they meet with failure and opposition. He neglected no opening for work, no opportunity of preaching the blessed gospel. Oh that we might imitate him in this as in all things"!

2. The question of the Pharisees. They found him, even in Peraea; they followed him everywhere during the latter part of his ministry with their ensnaring questions and malicious persecutions. And now they asked, "Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife forevery, cause?" It was common to consult great teachers on points of controversy; but this question was not asked honestly; they were tempting him, seeking to entangle him in his talk, to bring him into collision with one or other of the two great schools, or with Herod Antipas himself, the ruler of the country in which they were. The famous Hillel had taught that divorce was allowable for any cause; Shammai, that it was lawful only in the case of adultery. Herod was guilty of shameful violations of the law of marriage, and had murdered the holy Baptist, who rebuked him for his sin. The Lord had taught the strict view of marriage in his sermon on the mount; would he dare to maintain the same doctrine in the dominions of Herod? The Pharisees seemed to ask for information; they had malice and envy in their hearts. Controversy is full of danger to the soul; those who are called to engage in it ought to look most carefully into their own consciences to see that their motives are pure and good.

3. The Lord"s answer. He refers them to the Scriptures. "Have ye not read?" he says, as he had said before. He points to the study of the Scriptures as the source of religious knowledge. "Have ye not read?" We ought to be always reading, always learning lessons of Divine truth from the holy Word of God. He goes back to the original principle of marriage. "He which made them at the beginning made them male and female." They were created for one another. "They twain shall be one flesh .... What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." The wedded pair are one; the Lord does not say "those which," but "that which God hath joined." They are no longer two, but one flesh, one unity. Man may not dare to part that which God by matrimony hath made one. So true is the old saying that marriages are made in heaven. Marriage is an honourable estate, instituted by God in the time of man"s innocency; declared by God himself, speaking through Adam of things which Adam could know only through Divine inspiration, to be more sacred and binding even than the love of parent and child, the holiest surely and deepest of all other forms of human love; ennobled in the New Testament by a yet holier consecration, so that it becomes the symbol, the representation, of the mystical union that is between Christ and his Church. Marriage is a very holy thing, not to be taken in hand lightly and wantonly; not to be dissolved for any cause, according to the views of these Pharisees of Hillel"s school, but to be undertaken reverently and in the fear of God, as a bond which is to unite husband and wife in holy love unto their lives" end.

4. The Mosaic rule. The Pharisees were not convinced; they quoted Deuteronomy against our Lord. Why did Moses, they said, command to give a bill of divorcement? The Lord first corrected their quotation. Moses did not command; he permitted. So eager controversialists misquote Scripture and bend it to their own purpose. Let us be careful to deal always truthfully and sincerely with the Word of God. It was true that Moses permitted divorce; but it had not been so from the beginning; it was permitted by the Law of Moses for temporary reasons, because of the hardness of the people"s hearts. The Law of Moses was not final; it was adapted in large measure to the circumstances of the times to the manners, capacity, spiritual condition of the Israelites. It was added because of transgressions; it was a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. The high spiritual requirements of the gospel would not have been suited to the rude, uncultured natures of the ancient Israelites. There was need of a long preparation, a preliminary training. Such a training was furnished by the Law. The Law was very high above contemporary moral teaching; it was imperfect in comparison with the gospel which was to come, but very far in advance of the moral standard prevalent in Gentile countries. The permission of divorce was one of the points in which allowance had been made for the customs of the time, for the character of the Israelites. It had not been so from the beginning; it was not intended to remain so. The Lord distinctly forbids divorce, "except it be for fornication." He does not sanction remarriage even in that case.

II THE DISCIPLES.

1. Their inference. If it be so, if divorce is allowable only on that one ground, then, the disciples thought, it is not good to marry the risk would be too great, the prospect of happiness too uncertain; better to remain unmarried than to enter upon a union which could not be dissolved. They spoke from the Jewish point of view, in accordance with their old associations and habits of thought. Their objection seems to us very strange. The fact of their making it shows the immense change which Christianity has produced in the estimate of marriage.

2. The Lord"s answer. "Not all can receive this saying." Some can serve God best in the married state; some in a single life. Some, like the holy apostle St. Paul, have chosen to live unmarried for the kingdom of heaven"s sake, that they may have fewer hindrances, more time, more opportunities for the blessed work of preaching the gospel of Christ. But the Lord leaves it open for the Christian conscience to determine in each man"s case whether the married or the single life will serve better to godliness.

LESSONS.

1. Marriage is indissoluble; enter upon it discreetly, with serious thought and earnest prayer.

2. Marriage is a holy thing; let the husband love his wife as Christ loved his spouse, the Church.

3. The Lord raised woman to her proper place; Christians must aim at a high standard of purity.

4. The Lord laid the foundation of the sanctity of Christian homes and Christian family relations; let us cherish his high and holy teaching.

HOMILIES BY J.A. MACDONALD Vers. 1-12. The ethics of marriage.

Note here a contrast: multitudes following Christ for healing, Pharisees pursuing him for mischief. Satan will be among the sons of God. Jesus turns the contradiction of sinners into instructions for his disciples. Let us consider

I THE PHARISEE"S QUESTION RELATING TO CAPRICIOUS DIVORCE.

1. The occasion.

(1) It was commonly practised. Josephus recites Deu_24:1, and relates that he divorced his own wife because he was not pleased with her manners and behaviour ("Ant.," bk. 4, 100, 8).

(2) The practice had the sanction of scribes. While the school of Schammah were strict in their interpretation of the Law, the school of Hillel were lax.

(3) The temptation was to embroil Jesus with one or other of these schools. The plot was similar to that in the question of the tribute. (see Mat_22:15) "In evil things Satan separates the end from the means; in good things the means from the end" (Philip Henry).

2. The reply.

(1) Note: It takes no notice of the scribes. Human authority is nowhere when put into competition with the Word of God.

(2) It appeals immediately to the Word: "Have ye not read?" Matrimonial cases are made intricate by leaving the Law of God and following the leading of human passion and folly.

(3) "He that made them from the beginning made them male and female." It is profitable to reflect upon our genesis. Man was created in the image of God, woman after the likeness of man. The true marriage is the union of wisdom and love. One man and one woman, leaving no room for divorce and remarriage, so intimating the perpetual obligation of the marriage tie. Note: This argument is equally conclusive against polygamy.

(4) "And said God said this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife." But these words of God were spoken by the lips of Adam. (see Gen_2:23, Gen_2:24) Adam, then, who had no "father and mother," spake prophetically under Divine inspiration. Marriage, then, is a sacred, not a mere civil, institution; and no legislature has power to alter its law. The relation between husband and wife is nearer than that between parent and child. If, then, a parent may not abandon his child, or a child his parent, by so much less may a husband put away his wife.

(5) "And the twain shall become one flesh as if one person. What can be less dissoluble? His children are of him, his wife is as himself. One flesh with his wife, "one spirit with the Lord." "One flesh," viz. while in the flesh. "No man ever yet hated his own flesh." "They twain shall be one;" so there must be but one wife. (cf. Mal_2:15)

(6) "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." But this the scribes had presumed to do. God is the Author of union; man, of division. Man would sunder soul and body, sin and punishment, holiness and happiness, precept and promise.

II THEIR CITATION OF THE MOSAIC CONCESSION OF DIVORCEMENT.

1. The concession.

(1) "Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorcement?" It is usual for sinners to justify their conduct by the perversion of Scripture. The "command" of Moses applied solely to the manner of the divorce; the thing was permissive simply. A toleration is strangely converted into a command.

(2) The reason of the toleration was the reverse of creditable to the Jews. "Moses for your hardness of heart suffered you to put away your wives." The permission was to prevent the cruelty of vicious husbands to their wives, which was murderous. The bill of divorcement had to be drawn and witnesses procured, and afforded time to obviate the effects of sudden impulses of passion. God"s permission of lesser evil is evermore to prevent greater.

2. Its repeal.

(1) This is prefaced by an appeal. "But from the beginning it hath not been so." The appeal here is from Deuteronomy to Genesis; so from Moses still to Moses. (cf. Luk_18:17, Luk_18:18) God who gave the law had a right to relax it.

(2) But the relaxation applied only to the Jews, and was conceded to them in judgment for the hardness of their hearts; for the original was the more excellent way.

(3) This relaxation is, however, now removed. "I say unto you." Here is an authority superior to Moses, equal to God. By Divine authority the law of marriage is now explicitly stated (see ver. 9). Note: The grace of the gospel is superior to that of the Law. The Law considered the hardness of the heart; the gospel cures it. (cf. Gal_3:19)

III THE QUESTION OF THE DISCIPLES ON CELIBACY.

1. They viewed it in the light of selfishness. "If the case of a man is so," etc. (ver. 10). God said, "It is not good for man to be alone," i.e. unmarried; the disciples, blinded by the prejudices of their race, said, "It is not good to marry.

2. Jesus put it in its true light.

(1) The principle of expediency is admissible. "All men cannot receive this saying;" for there are some who are disqualified for marriage, so that the question for them is settled without their option.

(2) Others have not the gift of continence. For such celibacy is not expedient. "It is better to marry than to burn.

(3) For those who have this gift celibacy may be expedient in times of persecution and suffering. (cf. 1Co_7:26)

(4) It is commendable in those who are celibates "for the kingdom of heaven"s sake," viz. that they might walk more closely with God, and be mort serviceable to the salvation of men. J.A.M. (cf. 1Co_7:32 1Co_9:5, 1Co_9:12)

Vers. 1-12. The sanctity of marriage.

I CONVERSATION WITH THE PHARISEES.

1. Work in Peraea. The Lord hath now finally left Galilee; the restless hostility of the Pharisees had driven him from the province in which at first he had met with such great success, and which was regarded as his own country. Judaea, too, was now unsafe for him. His hour was almost come; he would work while it was day; but he would not expose himself to unnecessary danger before the time appointed. Peraea was for a short season open to him; it was less overspread by Pharisaic influence than Galilee or Judaea. He would work there while he might. Multitudes followed him, and he healed them there. The Lord is an example of patience and perseverance; he would not throw up his work in weariness and disgust, as men too often do when they meet with failure and opposition. He neglected no opening for work, no opportunity of preaching the blessed gospel. Oh that we might imitate him in this as in all things"!

2. The question of the Pharisees. They found him, even in Peraea; they followed him everywhere during the latter part of his ministry with their ensnaring questions and malicious persecutions. And now they asked, "Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife forevery, cause?" It was common to consult great teachers on points of controversy; but this question was not asked honestly; they were tempting him, seeking to entangle him in his talk, to bring him into collision with one or other of the two great schools, or with Herod Antipas himself, the ruler of the country in which they were. The famous Hillel had taught that divorce was allowable for any cause; Shammai, that it was lawful only in the case of adultery. Herod was guilty of shameful violations of the law of marriage, and had murdered the holy Baptist, who rebuked him for his sin. The Lord had taught the strict view of marriage in his sermon on the mount; would he dare to maintain the same doctrine in the dominions of Herod? The Pharisees seemed to ask for information; they had malice and envy in their hearts. Controversy is full of danger to the soul; those who are called to engage in it ought to look most carefully into their own consciences to see that their motives are pure and good.

3. The Lord"s answer. He refers them to the Scriptures. "Have ye not read?" he says, as he had said before. He points to the study of the Scriptures as the source of religious knowledge. "Have ye not read?" We ought to be always reading, always learning lessons of Divine truth from the holy Word of God. He goes back to the original principle of marriage. "He which made them at the beginning made them male and female." They were created for one another. "They twain shall be one flesh .... What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." The wedded pair are one; the Lord does not say "those which," but "that which God hath joined." They are no longer two, but one flesh, one unity. Man may not dare to part that which God by matrimony hath made one. So true is the old saying that marriages are made in heaven. Marriage is an honourable estate, instituted by God in the time of man"s innocency; declared by God himself, speaking through Adam of things which Adam could know only through Divine inspiration, to be more sacred and binding even than the love of parent and child, the holiest surely and deepest of all other forms of human love; ennobled in the New Testament by a yet holier consecration, so that it becomes the symbol, the representation, of the mystical union that is between Christ and his Church. Marriage is a very holy thing, not to be taken in hand lightly and wantonly; not to be dissolved for any cause, according to the views of these Pharisees of Hillel"s school, but to be undertaken reverently and in the fear of God, as a bond which is to unite husband and wife in holy love unto their lives" end.

4. The Mosaic rule. The Pharisees were not convinced; they quoted Deuteronomy against our Lord. Why did Moses, they said, command to give a bill of divorcement? The Lord first corrected their quotation. Moses did not command; he permitted. So eager controversialists misquote Scripture and bend it to their own purpose. Let us be careful to deal always truthfully and sincerely with the Word of God. It was true that Moses permitted divorce; but it had not been so from the beginning; it was permitted by the Law of Moses for temporary reasons, because of the hardness of the people"s hearts. The Law of Moses was not final; it was adapted in large measure to the circumstances of the times to the manners, capacity, spiritual condition of the Israelites. It was added because of transgressions; it was a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. The high spiritual requirements of the gospel would not have been suited to the rude, uncultured natures of the ancient Israelites. There was need of a long preparation, a preliminary training. Such a training was furnished by the Law. The Law was very high above contemporary moral teaching; it was imperfect in comparison with the gospel which was to come, but very far in advance of the moral standard prevalent in Gentile countries. The permission of divorce was one of the points in which allowance had been made for the customs of the time, for the character of the Israelites. It had not been so from the beginning; it was not intended to remain so. The Lord distinctly forbids divorce, "except it be for fornication." He does not sanction remarriage even in that case.

II THE DISCIPLES.

1. Their inference. If it be so, if divorce is allowable only on that one ground, then, the disciples thought, it is not good to marry the risk would be too great, the prospect of happiness too uncertain; better to remain unmarried than to enter upon a union which could not be dissolved. They spoke from the Jewish point of view, in accordance with their old associations and habits of thought. Their objection seems to us very strange. The fact of their making it shows the immense change which Christianity has produced in the estimate of marriage.

2. The Lord"s answer. "Not all can receive this saying." Some can serve God best in the married state; some in a single life. Some, like the holy apostle St. Paul, have chosen to live unmarried for the kingdom of heaven"s sake, that they may have fewer hindrances, more time, more opportunities for the blessed work of preaching the gospel of Christ. But the Lord leaves it open for the Christian conscience to determine in each man"s case whether the married or the single life will serve better to godliness.

LESSONS.

1. Marriage is indissoluble; enter upon it discreetly, with serious thought and earnest prayer.

2. Marriage is a holy thing; let the husband love his wife as Christ loved his spouse, the Church.

3. The Lord raised woman to her proper place; Christians must aim at a high standard of purity.

4. The Lord laid the foundation of the sanctity of Christian homes and Christian family relations; let us cherish his high and holy teaching.

HOMILIES BY J.A. MACDONALD Vers. 1-12. The ethics of marriage.

Note here a contrast: multitudes following Christ for healing, Pharisees pursuing him for mischief. Satan will be among the sons of God. Jesus turns the contradiction of sinners into instructions for his disciples. Let us consider

I THE PHARISEE"S QUESTION RELATING TO CAPRICIOUS DIVORCE.

1. The occasion.

(1) It was commonly practised. Josephus recites Deu_24:1, and relates that he divorced his own wife because he was not pleased with her manners and behaviour ("Ant.," bk. 4, 100, 8).

(2) The practice had the sanction of scribes. While the school of Schammah were strict in their interpretation of the Law, the school of Hillel were lax.

(3) The temptation was to embroil Jesus with one or other of these schools. The plot was similar to that in the question of the tribute. (see Mat_22:15) "In evil things Satan separates the end from the means; in good things the means from the end" (Philip Henry).

2. The reply.

(1) Note: It takes no notice of the scribes. Human authority is nowhere when put into competition with the Word of God.

(2) It appeals immediately to the Word: "Have ye not read?" Matrimonial cases are made intricate by leaving the Law of God and following the leading of human passion and folly.

(3) "He that made them from the beginning made them male and female." It is profitable to reflect upon our genesis. Man was created in the image of God, woman after the likeness of man. The true marriage is the union of wisdom and love. One man and one woman, leaving no room for divorce and remarriage, so intimating the perpetual obligation of the marriage tie. Note: This argument is equally conclusive against polygamy.

(4) "And said God said this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife." But these words of God were spoken by the lips of Adam. (see Gen_2:23, Gen_2:24) Adam, then, who had no "father and mother," spake prophetically under Divine inspiration. Marriage, then, is a sacred, not a mere civil, institution; and no legislature has power to alter its law. The relation between husband and wife is nearer than that between parent and child. If, then, a parent may not abandon his child, or a child his parent, by so much less may a husband put away his wife.

(5) "And the twain shall become one flesh as if one person. What can be less dissoluble? His children are of him, his wife is as himself. One flesh with his wife, "one spirit with the Lord." "One flesh," viz. while in the flesh. "No man ever yet hated his own flesh." "They twain shall be one;" so there must be but one wife. (cf. Mal_2:15)

(6) "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." But this the scribes had presumed to do. God is the Author of union; man, of division. Man would sunder soul and body, sin and punishment, holiness and happiness, precept and promise.

II THEIR CITATION OF THE MOSAIC CONCESSION OF DIVORCEMENT.

1. The concession.

(1) "Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorcement?" It is usual for sinners to justify their conduct by the perversion of Scripture. The "command" of Moses applied solely to the manner of the divorce; the thing was permissive simply. A toleration is strangely converted into a command.

(2) The reason of the toleration was the reverse of creditable to the Jews. "Moses for your hardness of heart suffered you to put away your wives." The permission was to prevent the cruelty of vicious husbands to their wives, which was murderous. The bill of divorcement had to be drawn and witnesses procured, and afforded time to obviate the effects of sudden impulses of passion. God"s permission of lesser evil is evermore to prevent greater.

2. Its repeal.

(1) This is prefaced by an appeal. "But from the beginning it hath not been so." The appeal here is from Deuteronomy to Genesis; so from Moses still to Moses. (cf. Luk_18:17, Luk_18:18) God who gave the law had a right to relax it.

(2) But the relaxation applied only to the Jews, and was conceded to them in judgment for the hardness of their hearts; for the original was the more excellent way.

(3) This relaxation is, however, now removed. "I say unto you." Here is an authority superior to Moses, equal to God. By Divine authority the law of marriage is now explicitly stated (see ver. 9). Note: The grace of the gospel is superior to that of the Law. The Law considered the hardness of the heart; the gospel cures it. (cf. Gal_3:19)

III THE QUESTION OF THE DISCIPLES ON CELIBACY.

1. They viewed it in the light of selfishness. "If the case of a man is so," etc. (ver. 10). God said, "It is not good for man to be alone," i.e. unmarried; the disciples, blinded by the prejudices of their race, said, "It is not good to marry.

2. Jesus put it in its true light.

(1) The principle of expediency is admissible. "All men cannot receive this saying;" for there are some who are disqualified for marriage, so that the question for them is settled without their option.

(2) Others have not the gift of continence. For such celibacy is not expedient. "It is better to marry than to burn.

(3) For those who have this gift celibacy may be expedient in times of persecution and suffering. (cf. 1Co_7:26)

(4) It is commendable in those who are celibates "for the kingdom of heaven"s sake," viz. that they might walk more closely with God, and be mort serviceable to the salvation of men. J.A.M. (cf. 1Co_7:32 1Co_9:5, 1Co_9:12)

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

He departed - and from that time walked no more in Galilee. Mark x, 1.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

On Marriage and Divorce.

The final departure from Galilee:

v. 1. And it came to pass that when Jesus had finished these sayings, He departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judea, beyond Jordan;

v. 2. and great multitudes followed Him, and He healed them there.

Galilee’s day of grace was at its end. Jesus had fulfilled all things that He had intended for the people of the northern country. Even the last lesson, with its impressive sayings, had been given to the disciples only. The time of Christ’s great Passion was near. He left Galilee to travel by easy stages into the country of Judea by way of Perea, along the eastern shore of the Jordan, opposite Samaria and Judea, including a large part of the former kingdom of the Edomites. He seems to have been in this country for some time, attending both to His teaching and healing ministry, Mar 10:1. As in Galilee, so here many people were attracted by His fame; great crowds followed Him, and many, no doubt, received the seed of the Gospel truths into their hearts.

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mat 19:14

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 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.

References: Mat 19:14.—L. D. Bevan, Christian World Pulpit, vol. vi., p. 280; R. W. Evans, Parochial Sermons, vol. iii., p. 154; W. H. Murray, The Fruits of the Spirit, p. 494.

Mat 19:16

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 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.

Mat 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.

Mat 19:17

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.

References: Mat 19:17.—F. W. Farrar, Anglican Pulpit of Today, p. 220; Homiletic Magazine, vol. ix., p. 12; H. Wace, Expositor, 2nd series, vol. ii., p. 195. Mat 19:18.—E. B. Pusey, Parochial and Cathedral Sermons, p. 363. Mat 19:19.—H. W. Beecher, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xiv., p. 61; Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. iii., No. 145; J. Jackson, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxiv., p. 157.

Mat 19:20

"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.

References: Mat 19:20.—H. W. Beecher, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xi., p. 291; G. Brooks, Outlines of Sermons, p. 102; Homiletic Quarterly, vol. v., p. 184. Mat 19:21.—Expositor, 1st series, vol. vi., p. 229; G. Macdonald, Unspoken Sermons, 2nd series, p, 1; W. T. Keay, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xiii., p. 269; J. W. Thew, Ibid., vol. xvii., p. 257.

Mat 19:22

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 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.

References: Mat 19:22.—H. W. Beecher, Christian World Pulpit, vol. i., p. 35. Mat 19:24.—F. W. Farrar, Expositor, 1st series, vol. iii., p. 369; R. W. Evans, Parochial Sermons, vol. iii., p. 164. Mat 19:27-29—S. Cox, Expository Essays and Discourses, pp. 203, 228; A. B. Bruce, The Training of the Twelve, p. 262; Expositor, 1st series, vol. iv., p. 256. Mat 19:27-30.—Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. ii., p. 23. Mat 19:29.—H. Melvill, Penny Pulpit, No. 1,661.

Mat 19:30

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 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.

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.

References: Mat 19:30.—G. Salmon, Non-Miraculous Christianity, p. 223; E. M. Goulburn, The Acts of the Deacons, p. 21; A. B. Bruce, The Training of the Twelve, p. 272; Three Hundred Outlines on the New Testament, p. 26; S. Cox, Expository Essays and Discourses, p. 239. Matt 19—Parker, Inner Life of Christ, vol. iii., p. 60. Mat 20:1.—W. Gresley, Parochial Sermons, p. 363; E. Blencowe, Plain Sermons to a Country Congregation, vol. ii., p. 90; H. Melvill, Fenny Pulpit, No. 2,355. Mat 20:1, Mat 20:2.—S. Baring-Gould, One Hundred Sermon Sketches, p. 129. Mat 20:1-3, Mat 20:6.—Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xi., No. 664. Mat 20:1-8—T. Rowsell, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxi., p. 81.

The Sermon Bible, ed. William Robertson Nicoll (1888–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The country of the Jews was divided into three provinces; namely, Galilee, Samaria, and Judea.

In Galilee, were the cities of Nazareth, 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. None 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.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

J. W. McGarvey's The Fourfold Gospel [XCVIII. Journey to Jerusalem].

XCVIII. JOURNEY TO JERUSALEM. CONCERNING DIVORCE. aMATT. XIX. 1-12; bMARK X. 1-12.

a1 And it came to pass when Jesus had finished these words [the words contained in Mat_18:15-35., which are the last teachings in Galilee recorded by any of the Evangelists, Mat_28:16, Mat_28:17, Joh_21:1], b1 And he arose from thence, and cometh acame binto the borders of Judæa and beyond the Jordan [The land beyond the Jordan was called Peræa. See Mat_5:32), they hoped to make it appear that he despised the authority of Moses. But if he ratified the law of Moses, then they would show that he was contradicting his former teaching, and hence too inconsistent to be worthy of credit. For the Lord's teaching concerning divorce see Act_13:2, 1Co_9:4, 1Co_9:5), they are permitted to abstain from marriage; and when seasons of persecution seriously interfere with the regular order and course of life among Christians, they may find it expedient to live as eunuchs ( 1Co_7:25-34). But in no case must celibacy be practiced unless it can be done so without the sin of incontinency ( 1Co_7:1-9). The Bible nowhere countenances any celibate vow, for it teaches that celibacy is to be continued only so long as it is expedient. Much less does it give countenance to the doctrine that a church can pass laws enforcing celibacy on the whole class of clergy, without any regard for their natural constitution, their spiritual powers, or their faithful continuance.--P. Y. P. [542]

[FFG 537-542]

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Matthew Chapter 19

Chapter 19 carries on the subject of the spirit that is suited to the kingdom of heaven, and goes deep into the principles which govern human nature, and of what was now divinely introduced. A question asked by the Pharisees-for the Lord had drawn nigh to Judea-gives rise to the exposition of His doctrine on marriage; and turning away from the law, given on account of the hardness of their hearts, He goes back [58] to God’s institution, according to which one man and one woman were to unite together, and to be one in the sight of God. He establishes, or rather re-establishes, the true character of the indissoluble bond of marriage. I call it indissoluble, for the exception of the case of unfaithfulness, is not one; the guilty person had already broken the bond. It was no longer man and woman one flesh. At the same time, if God gave spiritual power for it, it was still better to remain unmarried.

He then renews His instruction with respect to children, while testifying His affection for them: here it appears to me rather in connection with the absence of all that binds to the world, to its distractions and its lusts, and owning what is lovely, confiding, and externally undefiled in nature; whereas, in chapter 18, it was the intrinsic character of the kingdom. After this, He shews (with reference to the introduction of the kingdom in His Person) the nature of entire devotedness and sacrifice of all things, in order to follow Him, if truly they only sought to please God. The spirit of the world was opposed at all points,-both carnal passions and riches. No doubt the law of Moses restrained these passions; but it supposes them, and, in some respects, bears with them. According to the glory of the world, a child had no value. What power can it have there? It is of value in the Lord’s eyes.

The law promised life to the man that kept it. The Lord makes it simple and practical in its requirements, or, rather, recalls them in their true simplicity. Riches were not forbidden by the law; that is to say, although moral obligation between man and man was maintained by the law, that which bound the heart to the world was not judged by it. Rather was prosperity, according to the government of God, connected with obedience to it. For it supposed this world, and man alive in it, and tested him there. Christ recognises this; but the motives of the heart are tested. The law was spiritual, and, the Son of God there; we find again what we found before-man tested and detected, and God revealed. All is intrinsic and eternal in its nature, for God is revealed already. Christ judges everything that has a bad effect on the heart, and acts upon its selfishness, and thus separates it from God. “Sell that thou hast,” says He, “and follow me.” Alas! the young man could not renounce his possessions, his ease, himself. “Hardly,” says Jesus, “shall a rich man enter into the kingdom.” This was manifest: it was the kingdom of God, of heaven; self and the world had no place in it. The disciples, who did not understand that there is no good in man, were astonished that one so favoured and well disposed should be still far from salvation. Who then could succeed? The whole truth then comes out. It is impossible to men. They cannot overcome the desires of the flesh. Morally, and as to his will and his affections, these desires are the man. One cannot make a negro white, or take his spots from the leopard: that which they exhibit is in their nature. But to God, blessed be His name! all things are possible.

These instructions with regard to riches give rise to Peter’s question, What shall be the portion of those who have renounced everything? This brings us back to the glory in chapter 17. There would be a regeneration; the state of things should be entirely renewed under the dominion of the Son of man. At that time they should sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. They should have the first place in the administration of the earthly kingdom. Every one, however, should have his own place; for whatever any one renounced for Jesus’ sake, he should receive a hundredfold and everlasting life. Nevertheless these things would not be decided by appearance here; nor by the place men held in the old system, and before men: some that were first should be last, and the last first. In fact, it was to be feared that the carnal heart of man would take this encouragement, given in the shape of reward for all his labour and all his sacrifices, in a mercenary spirit, and seek to make God his debtor; and, therefore, in the parable by which the Lord continues His discourse (chap. 20), He establishes the principle of grace and of God’s sovereignty in that which He gives, and towards those whom He calls, in a very distinct manner, and makes His gifts to those whom He brings into His vineyard depend on His grace and on His call.

Footnotes for Matthew Chapter 19

58: The connection is here traced between the new thing and nature, as God had originally formed it, passing over the law as something merely come between. It was a new power, because evil had come in, but it recognised God’s creation, while proving the state of the heart, not yielding to its weakness. Sin has corrupted what God created good. The power of the Spirit of God, given to us through redemption, raises man and his path wholly out of the whole condition of flesh, introduces a new divine power by which he walks in this world, after the example of Christ. But with this there is the fullest sanction of what God Himself originally established. It is good, though there may be what is better. The way the law is passed over to go back to God’s original institution, where spiritual power did not take the heart wholly out of the whole scene, though walking in it, is very striking. In marriage, the child, the character of the young man, what is of God and lovely in nature is recognised of the Lord. But the state of man’s heart is searched out. This does not depend on character but motive, and is fully tested by Christ (there is an entire dispensational change, for riches were promised to a faithful Jew), and a rejected Christ-the path to heaven-everything, and the test of everything, that is of the heart of man. God made man upright with certain family relationships. Sin has wholly corrupted this old or first creation of man. The coming of the Holy Ghost has brought in a power which lifts, in the second Man, out of the old creation into the new, and gives us heavenly things-only not yet as to the vessel, the body; but it cannot disown or condemn what God created in the beginning. That is impossible. In the beginning God made them. When we come to heavenly condition, all this, though not the fruits of its exercises in grace, disappears. If a man in the power of the Holy Ghost has the gift to do it, and be entirely heavenly, so much the better; but it is entirely evil to condemn or speak against the relationships which God originally created, or diminish or detract from the authority which God has connected with them. If a man can live wholly above and out of them all, to serve Christ, it is all well; but it is rare and exceptional.

John Nelson Darby — Synopsis of the Books of the Bible: the New Testament (c. 1857–1862) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1, 2. He departed from Galilee. Compare Mark 10:1–12, and Luke 16:18. This is the final departure from Galilee before the Savior's death. The borders of Judea beyond Jordan. From Galilee he followed the route on the east of the Jordan to Jerusalem. The region where the conversation on divorce occurred is called Perea, which means “the land beyond,” or east of the Jordan.

Great multitudes. Because his fame was now well known over all Palestine.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

General Information:

This is the beginning of a new part of the story that runs through Matthew 22:46, which tells of Jesus ministering in Judea.

General Information:

These verses provide background information of how Jesus came to be in Judea. (See: Background Information)

It came about that when

This phrase shifts the story from Jesus' teachings to what happened next. AT: "When" or "After"

had finished these words

Here "words" refers to what Jesus taught starting in Matthew 18:1. AT: "had finished teaching these things" (See: Metonymy)

departed from

"walked away from" or "left"

translationWords

Jesus

Galilee

Judea

Jordan River

cure

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

1, 2. JESUS GOES TO JUDÆA FROM GALILEE

Mar 10:1

1. μετῆρεν ἀπὸ τῆς Γαλιλαίας κ.τ.λ. From the parallel passage in Mark we learn that this means: Came into Judæa by the trans-Jordanic route through Peræa, thus avoiding Samaria. It does not mean that any portion of Judæa lay beyond Jordan. St Matthew here omits various particulars, of which some are to be supplied from Luk 9:51 to Luk 17:11; others from John—two visits to Jerusalem (Joh 7:8-10 and Joh 10:22-39); the raising of Lazarus (Joh 11:1-30); the retirement to Ephraim (Joh 11:54).

μετῆρεν. In this sense late, in N.T. only here and ch. Mat 13:51.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Coasts [ορια] . Better Rev., borders; though it is easy to see how the translation coasts arose, coast being derived from the Latin costa, a side, and hence a border generally, though now applied to the sea - side only.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.