[And He Walks With Me] Matthew 19
1 The Roman region of Judea generally encompassed the portion of the Promised Land that was south of about Jericho. Technically, the Roman province of Judea stopped at the Jordan, and the area across the Jordan was known as Perea. Matthew, however, apparently lumped the traditional inheritance of Reuben, which was across the river from Jericho and south to the Arnon River on the east side of the Dead Sea, together with the better known, more prestigious area. Today, this region is part of the nation of Jordan.
3 The trip from Jerusalem to Jericho typically took a day. Consequently, many priests and other religious officials lived in and around Jericho. Therefore, when it was discovered Jesus was just across the river, some Pharisees took it upon themselves to cross the river to test him. In a most generic sense, the word used here means “to attempt,” but it was often used to describe an action designed to “maliciously, craftily… put to the proof” or “to solicit to sin, to tempt.”[243] That is, this is exactly the sort of offense Jesus was talking about in Matthew 18:6-7.
No doubt, these Pharisees aimed to catch Jesus in a debate that had been raging between them and the Sadducees (i.e., professional clergy) for centuries. The Sadducees, who rejected all but the first five books of the Bible, observed that Moses allowed men to divorce their wives for virtually any reason simply by handing them a certificate of divorce. The Pharisees, who embraced the prophets, argued on the basis of Malachi 2:10-16 and elsewhere that divorce should not be so arbitrary. By inviting Jesus to weigh in on this debate, they were virtually guaranteeing that he would be attacked by one side or the other.
4-6 Instead of taking one side or the other, Jesus appeals to Scripture that both Sadducees and Pharisees recognized. In Genesis 1:27, God created them male and female, and in Genesis 2:24, the two will become one flesh. Jesus then used this notion of union between two people as a springboard to observe, they are no longer two, but one flesh. The idea was simple. Even in the first century, people were familiar with adhesives, and people understood that, once two things were glued together, they could no longer be separated neatly. While the two pieces could certainly be divided, bits and pieces of one would invariably break off and remain stuck to the other, and vice versa. So also, when two people are joined together in marriage, the two can certainly be divided, but neither will come out of that whole. Divorce is never as clean or easy as some people would like to believe, and just as he did several times in the Sermon on the Mount (see Matthew 5-7), Jesus used this reality as grounds to raise the bar for divorce.
7 Seeing Jesus’ response as an opportunity to vindicate themselves and rally half the Jews against him, the Pharisees sprung their trap. Most Jews considered Moses to be the greatest prophet, so the suggestion that Jesus would say something contrary to Moses was a clear effort to stir the pot.
8-9 Instead of submitting to Moses, Jesus appealed to Moses’ context to explain why he issued the law he did. The Mosaic Law conceded the inevitability of divorce because of the hardness of your hearts. That is, the provision for divorce was not God’s ideal, but a recognition that humans are both fallible and stubborn in their fallibility.
10-12 Hearing Jesus’ interaction with the Pharisees, Jesus’ disciples took his teaching to its natural end. Assuming that divorce was inevitable, they concluded, it’s better not to marry. Jesus responded by acknowledging that, for some people, this was true.
13-15 To understand why the disciples rebuked the little children, see note on Matthew 18:3-5. Children were recognized as gifts from God, but their value was mostly based on their theoretical potential. Consequently, they were expected to stay out of the grown-ups’ way. The culture expected them to be seen but not heard, and it was better for them to not be seen at all.
Instead of ignoring the children, Jesus bid his followers to leave the little children alone, and don’t try to keep them from coming to me. He then dropped something of a bombshell when he declared, The kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these. First-century Jews assumed the kingdom of heaven would be dominated by people who are blessed by earthly standards: the wealthy and prominent. However, Jesus taught that it was those who were humble and vulnerable who would really inherit God’s kingdom because they would have an unwavering dependence upon God, and children were the epitome of this!
The act of placing his hands on them reflects the Jewish custom of bringing infants to receive a rabbinical blessing. The disciples tried to keep them away, no doubt in the interest of protecting Jesus’ schedule and/or energy, but Jesus made time for this, and in the end, the parents received exactly what they hoped for: Jesus [placed] his hands on them. The Christ follower who earnestly seeks blessing will receive it!
16-22 Superficially, the young man’s question was simple enough, but behind it were two significant misconceptions. First, it was typical of a legalistic mindset. See note on Matthew 5:17-20. Second, it hinted at the debate that had raged for hundreds of years among Jewish teachers. Namely, the Pharisees were constantly debating which of God’s commandments were most important – and therefore must be obeyed without exception – and which could be fudged or even forgotten. These things were reinforced when Jesus advised him to keep the commandments and he asked, Which ones? Yet, the Holy Spirit was apparently whispering in the man’s conscience that there is something more to faith than simply checking off the minimum requirements. Though he had kept the basic commandments, he still knew he lacked something, and he wanted to be complete. Many people go through life troubled by the Holy Spirit’s voice whispering in their conscience that, though they have done everything they know to be good and right, they are yet missing something. That something is always an unswerving desire to be like Jesus in every way possible and a resolve to jettison from their lives all that distracts them from that pursuit.
Jesus instructed the man to sell [his] belongings and give to the poor in order to have treasure in heaven. However, this should not be interpreted as a blanket prohibition of wealth for the Christian. The man, we are told in vs 22, had many possessions, and they were clearly important to him. This suggests that Jesus would have adjusted his instruction based on what competed for the man’s primary affections and kept him from following Jesus first and foremost. Jesus could have just as easily said, “Quit your job,” “Stop playing video games,” or any number of other things. Believers will decide to make following Jesus more important than anything else.
The man went away grieving at the thought of giving away all his possessions, but it is important to notice that the text does not say he did not comply. The truth is, the reader does not know whether this man ever returned to follow Jesus, but two observations may nevertheless be made. First, the young man clearly wanted eternal life. This suggests that he may have been willing to follow Jesus’ instruction. Second, he went away grieving. It is easy to overlook the fact that repentance always means sacrificing something, and that sacrifice often prompts a grief reaction. It is normal to grieve portions of the former self and life. Indeed, the believer is faced daily with the choice of whether he/she will return to the former way of life to reclaim what they have sacrificed. To do so will eventually choke the word, as Jesus described in the Parable of the Soils (see Matthew 13:1-9, 18-23). The alternative is to deny himself [and] take up his cross daily (see Luke 9:23-27).
23-30 Jesus used the exchange with the young man as a springboard to discuss the challenges of ministering to the wealthy. Wilkins explains, “Wealth is a heady intoxicant, because it provides most of the counterfeits that fool a person into thinking he or she does not need God.”[244] However, one can easily replace rich with virtually any other adjective because wealth is simply a matter of value. When people have what they value as most important, whether that be money, safety, drugs, relationship, or any other thing, they mistakenly believe they have life by the tail and no need for God. Therefore, they have no inclination to follow Jesus until something disrupts their lives and reveals their true need.
Those who are willing to surrender even that which is important to them to follow Jesus will find that their sacrifice was not in vain. Indeed, they will find that the eternal rewards they receive will far exceed any earthly costs they incur in deciding to follow Jesus.
26 This crucial verse has two implications. First, because salvation involves recognizing one’s own inadequacy and trusting in God’s adequacy, it is impossible for anyone to be saved except for God. Second, there is no one who is beyond God’s capability to save. There is no sin too great and no sinner too lost.
27 Peter seized upon what Jesus told the young man in vs 21. He and the other disciples had left everything including families, homes, and careers and followed Jesus. No doubt, Jesus’ promise of Matthew 4:19 rang in the apostle’s ears, and he now wondered what treasure awaited him and his friends in heaven.
28-30 Jesus did not provide a specific answer to Peter’s question. Rather, he answered more generally that, whatever anyone has given up to follow him will be repaid a hundred times more and will inherit eternal life. In other words, Christ will eventually reveal that sacrifices are not in vain, and the eternal rewards of following him are far greater than anything sacrificed on earth. It was this promise which allowed St. Paul in 2 Corinthians 4:17 to describe even the most severe challenges and hardships as momentary light affliction.
[243] “G3985 – peirazō – Strong’s Greek Lexicon (kjv)”, n.d.
[244] Wilkins 2004, Matthew 19:23-30