Matt
19:1-30
1. Jesus leaves Galilee
for Judea: Matt 19:1,2
In this final
week of Jesus ministry in which he continues to prepare his disciples for
his death, we see his conflict with the Jewish leaders sharpened, leading
up to his exasperation and judgment on the Scribes and Pharisees and
Jerusalem and the Temple.
Reentering Judea he crosses the Jordan to the eastern side of Judea.
Large crowds follow him and he continues his messianic ministry of
teaching and healing.
2.
Jesus Answers the Pharisees on Marriage and Divorce: Matt 19:3-12
As in Jesus
previous discussion of the divorce and remarriage issue, we need to see
that this discussion is set in the context of the Pharisees attempting
again to test and trap Jesus.
This discourse on
divorce and remarriage is not therefore the final testament on the issue,
but a serious answer to a trap by the Pharisees.
Certainly, Jesus touches on several major issues in the debate on divorce
and remarriage, but only within the context of the Pharisees question.
The test question posed by the Pharisees was one that had troubled the
Rabbis for generations, in fact ever since Moses had spoken to the issue
in Deut 24:1.
It may be good to look at what Moses wrote in Deut 24:
| 1 "When a man
takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favor in his
eyes because he has found some indecency in
her, and he writes her a bill of divorce and puts it in her
hand and sends her out of his house, and she departs out of his
house, 2 and if she goes and becomes another man’s
wife, 3 and the latter husband dislikes her and writes
her a bill of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of
his house, or if the latter husband dies, who took her to be his
wife, 4 then her former husband, who sent her away, may
not take her again to be his wife, after she has been defiled; for
that is an abomination before the Lord, and you shall not bring
guilt upon the land which the Lord your God gives you for an
inheritance. |
The question that arose from
this Mosaic declaration was how to interpret "he has found some indecency in
her"?
We should note that the issue placed before Jesus was not simply one on
divorce, but related to the justifiable grounds for divorce, or how to
correctly interpret "he has found some indecency in
her"
Two Rabbinic schools of thought prevailed at the time the Pharisees posed
this question. The one of Rabbi Shammai, the other of Rabbi
Hillel. Shammai interpreted
"he has found some indecency in
her"
or "for any cause" in the Pharisees question narrowly as unchastity
or sexual immorality. Hillel interpreted this loosely as any
form of uncleanness on trivial grounds.
Jesus' response moved the argument back beyond or prior to Moses'
permission to God's ideal for marriage,
marriage was to be for life, and what God had joined man was not to put
asunder, or break apart (Gen 2:24).
In that Moses permitted divorce under the limited condition of unchastity
(Deut 24:1, Shammai) we are introduced to an significant point that must impact our
understanding of this perplexing dilemma:
|
We have in God's original
instruction His ideal for marriage,
that is what he intended for marriage |
|
We have in Moses' permission
the limited practical application of
God's ideal. |
The Pharisees return argument was that what Jesus said was in contrast or
opposition to what Moses
commanded
in granting a certificate of
divorce. Jesus corrected them by showing that what Moses had done
was not a command but permission. The Pharisees had attempted to
place Jesus in opposition to Moses and the Law. Jesus again as in
the Sermon on the Mount demonstrated that the Pharisaic interpretation of
the law did not take into consideration the real spirit of purpose of the
law. Moses permission was purely because of Jewish hardness of
heart, or sinful nature.
By adding the next except
for unchastity
clause, Jesus was reminding the Pharisees of the narrowness of God's
permission.
The narrowness of Jesus' response disturbed the disciples, indicating how
lax Jewish attitudes had become in regard to marriage and divorce.
Their observation was that it might be better for one not to marry if
Jesus' interpretation was correct.
Jesus response spoke of three groups of eunuchs, two literal, one
metaphorical; 1) those born impotent and therefore eunuchs, 2) those made
eunuchs by others such as in the case of the Ethiopian Eunuch of Acts 8,
sometimes occurring in slavery, and 3) those who chose to live celibate
lives for the kingdom as in the case of the Apostle Paul.
Jesus' response to the disciples concern again illustrated the radical
nature of discipleship in the kingdom. Disciples live by God's
ideals rather than permissiveness resulting from sinful weakness!
Although this is not the place for a full discussion of the marriage and
divorce issue, we should note that Paul takes the argument beyond the
narrow confines of Judaism and Israel as the covenant people of God into a
discussion of marriages involving those not in a covenant relationship as
in the case of a marriage to a pagan. Perhaps Paul's discussion is
more relevant for contemporary issues and may be parallel to Moses'
permission.
| Disciples
in the kingdom should be shaped, however, more by kingdom issues
and God's ideals than by permissiveness. |
 |
3. Jesus Blesses Little Children:
Matt 19:13-15
This little
pericope in which the disciples seek to drive children away provide Jesus
with another occasion to remind the disciples that the kingdom belongs to
those who have learned to be humble like children. It is not
uncommon for disciples to bring with them into the kingdom worldly
standards of greatness. Disciples throughout the centuries have
struggled with the principle of humble servant leadership with many
seeking positions in the church for the wrong reasons, personal importance
rather than humble service.
4. The Rich Young Ruler:
Matt 19:16-30
The narrative
regarding the rich young ruler returns again to the lesson of radical
discipleship and the true nature of the kingdom. Matthew does not
identify the young man as a ruler but Luke does so in a parallel narrative
in Lk 18:18. Obviously the young man was not only rich but a person
of position, possibly a ruler in the synagogue. On this occasion the
rich young man addresses Jesus regarding eternal life, asking what good
thing (the Greek has
agaqon
- agathon - good ) he must do to inherit eternal life
(eternal life being a reference to the eschatological future
afterlife). Jesus' question as to why the young man asked regarding
good since only one is good is an interesting question. What does
Jesus mean by "one is good"? Hagner observes that it is
God, who is the ultimate good, who has already defined what is good;
observing the Torah is the good thing required by God. Rabbinic
tradition defined the Torah as the good. Jesus explains that
it is by keeping the commandments that one experiences eternal life.
when the young man explains that he has done this, Jesus accepts his
claim. One could be righteous through keeping the law for Paul
claimed such in Phil 3:6. Maintaining righteousness should not be
equated with being sinless but merely a claim to having maintained a right
relationship with God through observing the Torah.
Jesus' instruction to the young man got to the heart of his problem,
riches! When he learned that discipleship in the kingdom involved
placing kingdom matters and discipleship above personal possessions, the
young man "went away sorrowful" for the cost of discipleship was
too high! We are reminded of Jesus' teaching in the Sermon on the
Mount, "where your treasure is, there will your heart be also"
(Matt 6:21).
Jesus continues the discussion began by the young man, "Truly,...it
will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven..."
Jesus does not say it is impossible, but only that it is hard.
the expression is that it is with difficulty. (The Greek
duskolws
- duskolos
means with
difficulty. Duskolos is found in the NT only on this
occasion in all three Synoptic Gospels.) Illustrating how difficult
it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom, Jesus uses the analogy of a
camel going through the eye of a needle. Attempts to soften this by
interpreting camel and eye of a needle fail to grasp the irony of Jesus'
statement, and as Hagner points out, loose the ludicrousness of the
hyperbole Jesus is using. Jesus is saying that it is not impossible,
only very difficult for a rich man to enter the kingdom. The reason
some attempt to soften this saying is that the hyperbole seems to make it
impossible for a rich man to be saved. The disciples catch this and
are amazed and ask, "Who then can be saved?" Jesus gets to
the point, salvation is not the work of men, but of God. Even though
it is difficult for a rich man to be saved, it is not impossible for God,
but it will necessitate the rich man turning away from this world and to
God for his saving grace. The point is that no man can be saved by
human effort. It is only through the grace and working of God that
all men can be saved.
When Peter, troubled by Jesus' seemingly harsh statement, asks what will
happen to them for they had given up all for the kingdom, Jesus responded
that in the new world they would sit on thrones with Jesus and with him
would judge the world. All who give up homes and all for Jesus' and
the kingdom's sake will inherit eternal life.
We comment her briefly that salvation and eternal life in this context
have eschatological implications which include present and future
salvation.
Jesus' expression "in the new world" opens the flood gates to an
extensive study of the Greek word used here, namely,
paliggenesia
- paliggenesia - meaning rebirth or regeneration.
The word is found in the NT only here and in Titus 3:5, but has a rich
heritage in Josephus, Philo, and the Jewish rabbinic tradition. In
most cases it has reference to a future age or occasion of renewal,
rebirth, or restoration. Here Jesus links it to the time when the
Son of Man will sit on his throne, which we take in reference to his
resurrection and ascension. In the Messianic age when Jesus sits on
his throne and reigns over the kingdom, the apostles who have given up all
will sit with him and judge Israel with him. This way of thinking is
supported in Revelation when John writes that those who have died as
martyred, who have conquered, sit with Jesus on thrones (Rev 2:26-28, and
20:4-6). For those interested in following this line of thought, cf.
Hagner, Matthew 14-28, pp. 564-566.
Jesus concludes this discussion with the proverbial statement that
"Many that are first will be last, and the last first."
Given the context of the rich young man one must assume that the first
must be in reference to the rich who believe that because of their
position in life they should be privileged. In the kingdom this is
not the case, for as we have already learned it is the humble who benefit
from the kingdom, not the proud (Matt 5:1-12), and it is the humble
servants that are greatest in the kingdom (Matt 18:1ff.).
|