Bible Commentaries
Matthew 19

Introduction

Watson - Exposition of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark

2 Christ healeth the sick:

3 answereth the Pharisees concerning divorcement:

10 showeth when marriage is necessary:

13 receiveth little children:

16 instructeth the young man how to attain eternal life,

20 and how to be perfect:

23 telleth his disciples how hard it is for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God,

27 and promiseth reward to those that forsake any thing to follow him.

Verse 1

Watson - Exposition of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark

Into the coasts of Judea, beyond Jordan. — No part of Judea was beyond Jordan, unless we suppose Perea to be sometimes designated Judea, which, indeed, was the case with foreigners; but, in the gospels, the distinction of the districts of Palestine is accurately maintained. Περαν του Ιορδανου may then be taken to signify, as in Mark, by the farther side of Jordan; that is, through the country which lay along the other side of Jordan.

Verse 3

Watson - Exposition of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark

Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? — That is, any cause whatever. This was a point in dispute among the learned Jews themselves. The school of Hillel allowed divorce for any cause of dissatisfaction whatever, interpreting the clause, Deuteronomy 24:1, “And she find no favour in his eyes,” in the freest possible manner, and separate from its connection with the following clause:” because he hath found some uncleanness in her.” On the contrary, the school of Schammah, by a strict interpretation of the whole passage, limited divorce to cases of adultery. The Jews in general followed the most licentious interpretation, and were notoriously guilty of putting away their wives on trivial occasions. Hence Josephus coolly states that he divorced his wife μη αρεσκομενος αυτης τοις εθεσι , not being pleased with her manners.” In putting their question on this subject to our Lord, the Pharisees are said to have tempted him; they not only designed to make trial of his far famed wisdom as an expounder of the law, but they probably expected that he would decide on the stricter side, and wished to find an occasion of cavilling at the rigidness of his doctrine. Our Lord did not disappoint them; he decided in favour of purity and morality, and, in a manner wholly unanswerable, showed how they had departed from the original institution of marriage. “In the beginning,” when man was in his purity and perfection, but one male and one female were created, a sufficient proof that polygamy is contrary to the original constitution of human nature and society; and has been confirmed in all ages and countries to this day, by the nearly equal proportion of male and female births. This circumstance alone, which necessarily supposes providential arrangement, strongly indicates polygamy to be contrary to the will of God; and if so, it determines the question of divorce; for divorces at the mere caprices of the parties, “for every cause,” by leading to the marrying of many women, though in succession, was but polygamy in another form. But there was not only the original fact, the creation of but one man and one woman; Moses has also recorded the original law, which was made prospectively for the descendants of the first pair, and this our Lord adduces in the next verse.

Verse 5

Watson - Exposition of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark

And said, For this cause shall a man leave father, &c. — In Genesis these words appear to have been spoken by Adam when Eve was brought to him; but as they were not applicable to himself, who had no father and mother, they are to be considered as spoken to his descendants, and therefore prophetically, and under Divine authority, as laying down the LAW OF MARRIAGE for future generations, and they are therefore here said to have been spoken by God, whose voice Adam was. “For this cause,” because she was “taken out of the man, shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave unto προσκοληθησεται , shall be firmly cemented to his wife;” marriage creating a closer and more indissoluble relation than even blood; “and they twain shall be one flesh,” or body, as the oldest versions properly render it, and not to be dissolved by your divorces. What therefore God hath joined together, by this primitive example and law, let not man put asunder. This law of marriage no man is at liberty to break, and no legislature or state has the power to modify or alter. The bond is absolutely indissoluble in every case but that by which the great Lawgiver himself has dissolved it, the single case of adultery; so that marriage is a sacred, and not a mere civil institution; and whatever laws are made respecting it must, to acquire any validity, be based upon the supreme law itself, and fully recognize it, in all its extent. The words, “what God hath joined,” or yoked “together,” contain a metaphor taken from the yoking of oxen, frequently found also in Greek and Latin writers, of which Wetstein adduces several examples. It was adopted probably from the important moral which it suggests: first, that in forming marriages, there should be mutual fitness between the parties; “be not unequally yoked:” second, as to their future conduct, that they should both pull one way, and take their common share in the cares of life, as “helps meet for each other.” In illustration of this, it was a part of the marriage ceremony, in some ancient nations to put a yoke upon the necks of the newly married couple.

Verse 8

Watson - Exposition of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement? &c. — The law of Moses did not command or encourage divorces; but it did not prohibit them strictly within the rule of the original law, because of the hardness of the hearts of the Jews, meaning probably, in compassion to the oppressed condition of the women themselves, put under the tyranny of a rigid race of men. What Moses commanded was, that in all such cases, a bill of divorce should be given, (see note on Matthew 1:19,) in order that there might be time for reflection, and that the separation should not be made on the momentary impulse of passion; which bill of divorcement required witnesses, so that no man or woman could pretend to be at liberty to marry again when they were not; but must produce the writing in evidence. Moses did this not of his own authority, but under Divine direction, as in all the other laws he delivered; so that here is no plea for any private person or government to infringe upon the original law of the marriage relation. He only who gave the law has the right to relax it. That relaxation was, however, but temporary; and our Lord here again takes the character of lawgiver, as well as teacher, by re-enacting the original law, and abrogating the relaxation, though that rested upon the same author as the other Mosaic institutions. “From the beginning it was not so,” nor shall it be henceforward; for I say unto you, “Whoever shall put away his wife,” &c. This then is the formally promulged law of the Christian dispensation. “The Lord hateth putting away;” and in no case is it permitted but that one in which the very essence of the relation is previously destroyed, and the twain have ceased to be “one flesh.”

Verse 10

Watson - Exposition of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark

If the case of a man be so, &c. — Αιτια signifies here a condition or relation; the disciples meaning that if for the innumerable vexations and trials which may probably arise in the marriage state, and for the vices into which a wife may fall short of adultery, there is no remedy by divorce; it is not good to marry. This might be true in a few cases, but certainly, not generally; and whatever trials may arise out of that state, the remedy lies not in giving facility to divorces. It is the very permanence of the relation which usually calls forth prudence in forming the connection, and the idea of indissolubility has a powerful effect in bringing the parties to make the best of their lot, even when they are not the most fitly married, and often effects a salutary accommodation. Besides, our Lord must be considered as having respect to the spirit and influence of his own religion, in bringing in again the original law of marriage in all its force. That “hardness of heart” which the early Jews appear to have been remarkable for could have no place where a religion of perfect benevolence was received, and where women were to have great honour and consideration, as they have had from its very commencement. For such a religion, which softens the character of man, and exalts that of woman; which places them in equal relations to God, as “heirs together of the grace of life;” which sanctifies marriage by mutual prayer, and tends more than any other to make them one soul as well as “one flesh,” the original law had an admirable adaptation. It was a law of purity, sentiment, and dignity, fitted to the elevated character of Christian matrimony.

Verse 11

Watson - Exposition of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark

All men cannot receive this saying. — Our Lord’s answer to the disciples is not direct; it is rather grounded upon a concession: “Granting that it is as you say, that it is not good to marry, that this is a state not so much of choice as of convenience, and brings with it many evils; yet, if this were true to the extent you suppose, ‘all men cannot receive this saying,’ this opinion;” or, as χωρεω here must signify, all are not capable of it, that is, of abstaining from marriage, or, according to the Syriac version, “are not sufficient for this thing;” but they only to whom it is given, they who are especially called to it, and have grace given them to remain in a single state with entire purity of thought and conduct.

Verse 12

Watson - Exposition of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark

There are some eunuchs, &c. — Ευνουχος is from ευνη , a bed, and εχω , one who has the charge of a bedchamber, persons principally employed in the harems of oriental kings to take charge of and guard their women. These were emasculated for that purpose; but as they often rose to posts of eminence in such courts, the word is sometimes used for a minister of state or officer of rank, without including the idea of such degradation. Eunuchs from their mother’s womb are those who are either continent from natural infirmity or constitution; eunuchs of men are the persons above referred to; and eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake are not those who practise celibacy under the idea of attaining higher purity and merit, but those who, for the advancement of the Gospel, voluntarily live single in order to give up themselves uninterruptedly to establish and extend it; and may also comprehend those who, in times of great persecution and danger, choose rather to remain unmarried than expose families to the sufferings which they expect to be called to endure, or to leave them friendless by their own martyrdom. Our Lord, however, adds, He that is able to receive it, let him receive it, that is, let no one receive it except he who is able or qualified to live in this state without sin. So far therefore was our Lord, as the papists pretend, from discouraging marriage, or representing celibacy as a state of greater honour than marriage, that he commands it only in such a case of necessity as should arise out of the promotion of “the kingdom of heaven” in the world. In only a few persons, and at particular times, could such a case arise in which public usefulness would be more promoted by celibacy. Ordinarily, men are more useful, both as ministers and other officers in the Church, when married; but when the Gospel was to be preached by itinerating apostles and their coadjutors, when they had “no certain dwelling place,” and when they were persecuted from one city to another, as to some public characters in the Church, family duties and those they owed to their office might be incompatible; and it was then their praise voluntarily to give up the honourable relations of husband and parent, in the way of sacrifice, for the glory of Christ and the interests of religion. Yet even these are admonished that they are not to receive the saying unless they are able to receive it, not without a sufficient call of duty, confirmed to them by the communication of special and sufficient grace.

Verse 13

Watson - Exposition of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark

Then were there brought unto him little children, &c. — That these children were very young, appears from the word βρεφος , used by St. Luke, which signifies a child from his birth to the age of four years; and also from the action of our Saviour, who “took them up in his arms.” That they were the children of believers, that is, of those who received our Lord as the Messiah, is not so clear; they, however, at least believed him to be a person of great sanctity and a prophet, for from such persons the Jews were accustomed to seek a benediction upon their children; that is, prayer to God for his blessing, accompanied by the imposition of hands, which was used by the Jews in invoking God in behalf of another. — Hence it is said, they brought them that he should put his hands on them and pray.

And the disciples rebuked them. — They did this either because of the number who crowded around their Master, and so they thought it might be too troublesome for him to go through this ceremony with them all, or because they thought it below his dignity to be thus employed, as though he were an ordinary prophet. Whatever might be the motive, their rebuking of the parents only gave occasion for a more illustrious display of his condescension and humility, and for teaching them and his ministers, throughout all ages, to encourage and not forbid children to be brought to him in acts of piety.

Verse 14

Watson - Exposition of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark

Of such are the kingdom of heaven. — The reason which our Lord here gives for bringing children to him, could by no means apply to the case, if they were brought to be healed of diseases, as some have asserted, grounding their notion upon St. Mark’s words, “that he would touch them.” There is an obvious connection between their being solemnly blessed by Christ, which was a spiritual act, and being members of his kingdom, which is a spiritual relation; but between such membership, and the healing of their bodily diseases, there is none; since “multitudes” were healed by Christ in different places, who were not at the time, and probably never became, the subjects of his spiritual and heavenly kingdom. Nor can the words in St. Matthew, that he should “put his hands upon them and pray,” be interpreted by those of St. Mark, if the latter are to be understood of touching in the sense of healing; while St. Mark’s expression is easily interpreted by that of St. Matthew. — Neither are we to understand with some, that the word τοιουτων , rendered by us, of such, means merely of such like, of such as resemble little children in disposition. There is, we allow, an ambiguity in the word, and in all others of the same class; but the sense must be determined by an honest construction of the connection and scope of the passage in which they are used. This is plainly against the interpretation; for what kind of reason was it for our Lord to give to the disciples in order to prevent them from interfering to prevent little children from being brought to him, that other persons, not children, but of a disposition in some respects resembling them, were the subjects of the kingdom of God?

The absurdity refutes itself, and the reason for suffering the children to be brought to Christ must necessarily be found in themselves, and not in others; so that we are bound to conclude that, in some sense, “the kingdom of heaven” is composed of them, they are its subjects, and partakers of its blessings. That this kingdom signifies the spiritual kingdom of Christ upon earth, and also that glorious reign of God over redeemed and glorified men in a future world, are points not to be disputed; and the words of our Lord, if they relate to one, must relate to both. If little children are the subjects of his spiritual kingdom on earth, then, until the moment that by actual sin they bring personal condemnation upon themselves, they remain heirs of the kingdom of eternal glory; and if they become the subjects of the latter by dying, then a previous vital relation must have existed on earth between them and Christ as their Redeemer and Sanctifier; or else we must assign the sanctification of the nature of man, which even in infants is fallen and corrupt, to a future state, which is contrary to the Scriptures. Our Lord’s words, therefore, respect that mediatorial kingdom which he was then employed in establishing; and they have a farther prospective reference to a future state of felicity. As to both, however, it is to be observed that children under the years of accountability are the subjects spoken of, and these alone. That all such stand in a spiritual relation to him, as the sovereign of “the kingdom of heaven,” the head of this Church, is proved from his own words, and that this relation is not a merely nominal, but a vital and beneficial one, appears as clearly from his praying for them, putting his hands upon them and blessing them; all which, being acts of favour and acceptance, indicated their most certain heirship, through his merits and intercession, should they die before forfeiture of this grace by personal actual offence, to the felicities of immortal life in his perfected kingdom above. Thus this important passage satisfactorily proves the share which infants have in the mercies of the Redeemer, both in this and in a future life: how far it establishes a right to administer to them the ordinance of Christian baptism, is a distinct question.

Taken alone, it can only be made use of for that purpose as supporting a general presumption; but in connection with the more direct arguments usually employed on this subject, it presents a very favourable aspect toward this practice, and was so regarded in the primitive Church. That these children, were not baptized by Christ, is allowed; and for this it is a sufficient reason to give, that proper Christian baptism was not then instituted; but as the words plainly indicate that infants are the subjects of the mediatorial kingdom of Christ in the way of grace and acceptance, it appears fitting that they should receive some sign of that relation, and that there should be some visible declaration of their being comprehended in the new covenant, as there was of the comprehension of the children of the descendants of Abraham, in the ancient edition of the same covenant of grace, of which the rite of circumcision was the sign and seal. Previous to the children, here brought to Christ, receiving the blessing of Christ, they stood in a relation of grace to him, of which his manner of receiving them was both a visible sign and seal; and the value of that consisted in its being both. It was thus a public declaration of the love of Christ to infants, of the certainty of their salvation, and of these being the objects of his prayers, which could not be offered without beneficial effect; while it encouraged a pious act upon the part of the parents, and placed them under responsibility to train them up in religion and piety. To this, although the weight of the argument rests upon other grounds, it must be acknowledged that infant baptism bears an interesting correspondence. It recognizes the previous grace and good will of Christ to children; it is an act of piety in which they are brought to Christ for his blessing; it is a standing public declaration of the interest which the infant part of the human race have in the atonement; it places parents under proper vows and responsibilities as to the religious education of their children; and if by other arguments from holy Writ it is satisfactorily proved to have taken the place of circumcision, and to be properly a sacrament, it is not only a sign, but a seal, of the covenant of grace granted for the comfort and encouragement of parents, and by which the full grace of that covenant is confirmed to their children as they are fitted to receive it; beside the advantage of a visible connection with the Christian Church, answering to that invisible connection which, independent of any outward rite, they, in fact, enjoy by virtue of their federal union with its Head.

Verse 16

Watson - Exposition of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark

One came. — He was a young man, as appears from a subsequent verse; and rich; and, as stated by St. Luke, a ruler, a civil magistrate, or, it may be, one of the sanhedrim. His inquiry was most important; but youth, riches, and rank were to put his compliance with the counsel he sought to a severe test, and at length they carried it against his convictions.

Good Master. — That this young man had great veneration for Christ appears from his manner of approaching him, “kneeling,” as stated by St. Mark; but that he only regarded him as a prophet, not as the Divine Messiah, is as manifest. It is on this ground, therefore, that our Lord reproves him for using the title of respect to him, “GOOD Master,” which he ought to have reserved for God alone; for the rabbins were wont to exact high titles from their disciples; and under the view of conciliating our Lord, this young man approached him in the language of indecorous compliment. This title, however, was not rejected by our Lord because improperly applicable to him, but because it was improperly applied by one who regarded him only as a mere man, or at best but as a human being, not as the Divine Messiah. The argument which has therefore been sometimes built upon this text, to prove that Christ himself disclaimed Divinity, is wholly unsound; for our Lord did not in this case restrain one from calling him “good,” who came professing his persuasion that he was a Divine person; or one who entreated him to do an act which supposed Divine power, and so might be considered as implying such a persuasion; but one who addressed him only as a teacher, good TEACHER, διδασκαλε αγαθε , and proposed a question which all eminent teachers among the Jews professed to answer: “What good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life!”

For want of attending to this, the orthodox, fearing the perverted use which Arians and Socinians have ever been ready to make of this passage, have too eagerly caught at a various reading, which appears in some MSS. and versions, and which is supported by several of the fathers. It is, Τι με ερωτας περι του αγαθου : “‘Why askest thou me concerning good?” But the internal evidence alone is destructive of this emendation, because it deprives what follows of all meaning; for whether we read the sequel as in the received text, Ουδεις αγαθος , ει μη εις , ο Θεος , “There is none good but one, that is God,” or Εις εστιν ο αγαθος , “There is one that is good,” &c.: the words have no perceivable connection with the previous part of the reply, “Why askest thou me concerning good?” which, according to this reading, means not the good being, but the good thing which was to be done in order to attain life. A most preponderating weight of authority ought to be produced from MSS. and versions before the text can be resigned to so disjointing and destructive a criticism: but the truth is, that the evidence from versions is nearly balanced, while that of the MSS. is beyond comparison superior in favour of the common reading; which alone furnishes a consistent or indeed a conceivable meaning. For, as Campbell well observes, “Nothing can be more pertinent than to say, ‘If you believe that God alone is good, why do you call me so?’ whereas nothing can appear less pertinent than, ‘If you believe that God alone is good, why do you consult me concerning the good that you must do?”

But if thou wilt enter into life, &c. — If thou art sincerely and seriously bent upon the great work of salvation, keep the commandments. Thus while he reproves him for using flattering titles, and through him still more forcibly reproved the pride of the Pharisaic rabbins, he condescends to answer an inquiry which appears to have been proposed with an honest intention. The answer of our Lord is not to be understood as given with reference to the covenant of works, the ground on which some commentators place it, under the idea that if it was a serious and not a hypothetic direction, it would be inconsistent with the doctrine of justification by faith. The answer is to be considered with reference to the young man’s question, which was, not, “How shall I be justified?” but “How shall I enter into eternal life,” or be finally saved? It is in no respect therefore an answer inconsistent with Christian doctrine, which, while it teaches that we are justified by faith only, as strongly enjoins that, if we would enter into life, and be finally saved, we must keep the commandments. The connection of this obedience with the atonement, and the work of the Holy Spirit in the heart, it is true, is not fully brought forward; but nothing is said contrary to either, and the case did not as yet require farther doctrinal explanation.

Verse 18

Watson - Exposition of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark

He saith to him, Which, &c. — He alludes to the vain distinctions made by the Pharisees between greater and smaller commandments, and the greatest and the least; or, it is perhaps still more probable, from the answer of our Lord, that he wished to know whether he referred to moral rules or to ritual observances, the importance of which had been so magnified by the Pharisees as to lead to the neglect of “the weightier matters of the law,” justice, mercy, and charity. Those commandments which our Lord selects as necessary to be observed, do not exclude the others contained in the two tables, but are adduced as INSTANCES of moral, in opposition to ritual, obedience; and he leaves the decalogue to bring in the general command, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, which is in Leviticus 19:18, in order to show that he comprehended all the moral precepts of the law, as well as those of the decalogue. This manner of quoting a part for the whole was familiar with the Jews. It is also observable that our Lord does not follow the order of the commands of the second table; probably to show, as the Jews themselves express it, that “there is neither, first nor last in the law;” and that, such is the perfection and fulness of every precept, it is of no consequence which is first or last quoted. Various reasons have been given, why Christ mentions only the duties of the second table, not the first; our duty to our neighbour, and not to God; but the true one lie’s upon the surface. The love of God, in which all the precepts of the first table are summed up, can only be made manifest and proved by our obedience to his moral commands; and where that is, in the true extent, and as arising from right principles, the other cannot be wanting. Nor is this a proof to others only; it is the best proof to ourselves, since we thus know, and perhaps only thus fully know, whether we truly love God, or are under the influence of a mere inoperative sentiment and emotion.

Verse 20

Watson - Exposition of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark

All these things have I kept from my youth up. — From this it appears that, though a young man, he was not very young; for his answer supposes a considerable space between his coming to the knowledge of good and evil, and the present time. Indeed, his being a ruler sufficiently indicates that he was not in the common acceptation a youth. That, as to the letter and his outward conduct, he had observed these commands, is probable; and that he had been from his childhood serious and moral. But that he knew not “the length and breadth” of the law in its spirituality, is abundantly manifest; and that he formed much too high an estimate of his virtue, the sequel speedily proved.

Verse 21

Watson - Exposition of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark

If thou wilt be perfect. — The question of the young man, What lack I yet? that is, In what am I deficient? explains the meaning of the term perfect, as it is here used. If thou wilt be complete, so that nothing shall be wanting in thee in order to attain eternal life, fully renounce the world, and become a spiritual man. Sell all that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven; and come and follow me. — Thus was he brought to the test. Christ approved of his seriousness and general character; and beholding in him what was amiable and hopeful, as it is said by Mark, “he loved him,” he manifested a strong emotion of affection toward him; and now throws open to him that gate of life which he desired to enter. In a word, he invites him to become one of his select and more intimate disciples, to be trained up by him to a more perfect knowledge of spiritual things, and to be thereby qualified to teach them to others. But this privilege he could only obtain by making sacrifices; and, much as Christ loved him, he did not lighten the cross which he was to take up; and for a reason which ought to sustain us under the crosses which may be appointed to us to bear; he did not lighten it, because he loved him. This was his only way to life: a smaller demand might be made upon others consistent with their safety; but his secret attachment to wealth, rank, and external influence could only thus be detected and exposed to himself, and be cured by one mighty act of self-renunciation.

But here his feeble virtue failed; for he went away sorrowful; not cavilling at the answer, not angry, but grieving; inwardly convinced that Christ had opened to him the only sure way of life, yet so entangled by earthly affections, that he could not make an effort toward it. For he had great possessions. This is a touching relation, heightened at every step by the seriousness of the young man’s inquiry after eternal life; the respectful manner of his approach to Christ; the excellence of his moral character from his earliest youth; the affection with which our Lord regarded him; the sorrowful struggle of spirit with which he departed; and, to close the whole, the perfect silence respecting him afterward, which renders it probable that he gained the world, which he could not sacrifice, and lost his soul. It is left on record as a solemn warning against preferring the things of earth to the interests of our salvation; and especially to guard the young against closing their hearts against the calls of Christ, under the influence of worldly hopes and pleasures. On this young ruler being required to sell his property and renounce his civil offices and rank, and to follow Christ, it may be remarked that not only did He who knew the heart of man see that this way was necessary for his salvation, but that it was no more than he had required of all the apostles, who left all and followed him, in order to be his immediate and peculiar disciples; and farther, that for a short time, and for reasons arising out of the peculiar state of the Jewish Church after the day of pentecost, all the rich were required to sell their possessions, and form a common fund, out of which the wants of all were to be supplied, while they all gave themselves up to spiritual exercises, in order to lay the foundations of the new religion broad and deep among the wondering people. That this was a temporary arrangement, will be shown in the proper place. In this instance, however, the young man was not required to bring his wealth into the common stock, from which Christ and his disciples were supported.

It was too great a property to be so applied. The whole wealth our Lord admitted appears to have been carried by Judas in a bag, which was replenished as occasion required by the small contributions of a few pious persons, chiefly women; and even this was regarded with so little attention, that Judas occasionally robbed it without being called to account, although the omniscient eye of our Lord could not be deceived. The injunction, therefore, was,” Sell all thou hast, and give to the poor;” and our Lord thereby showed his disinterestedness in the advice he gave, while all suspicion would have been precluded, had the young man had the courage to follow the advice.

Verse 23

Watson - Exposition of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark

A rich man shall hardly enter, &c. — He may enter, but he must do so δυσκολως , with difficulty; and whether the kingdom of heaven be understood of the Church on earth, or the state of the glorified in heaven, the words are equally applicable. To enter the visible Church when in a state of prosperity and honour, when in fact, as in nations nominally Christian, that Church embraces the world, is not difficult, being only a matter of education and example; but to be admitted among the truly humble and spiritual, whose names are written in heaven, and who only are considered in truth as composing “the kingdom of heaven,” the rich man must make the same renunciations of worldly affections and pride now as in the time of Christ; and whatever difficulties riches then presented, exist now. The hinderances offered by riches to wisdom and virtue were perceived by heathen sages, and remarks to this effect appear in their writings; but their views of virtue were superficial and defective, and the case was but very partially known to them. Riches naturally entangle the heart; but earthly and heavenly affections are incompatible: wealth insensibly nurtures up a feeling of superiority to others; but in the Christian Church each is to prefer another before himself: they tempt to ease and indulgence; whereas the disciple of Christ is to deny himself, and keep his body under subjection; they are a trust given for the public good; but great is the danger lest the stewards of them should be found unfaithful, and spend upon their own vanities what God designed for others, and for their sakes made the rich the almoners of his bounty: they naturally give their possessors influence and power; but these are among the strongest temptations to arrogance, and self-will, and self-seeking, all of which are forbidden by the meekness and simplicity of our religion. How difficult then is it for a rich man to sink into that spirit of self-renunciation in which alone he can enter Christ’s spiritual kingdom, remain a lively member of it, and acquire a full meetness for the future state of felicity!

Verse 24

Watson - Exposition of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark

It as easier for a camel, &c. — It has been disputed among critics whether καμηλον , a camel, or καμιλον , a cable rope, should be here read; and Euthymius and Theophylact contend that both words have the latter meaning. But καμιλον has no support from MSS.; and that καμηλον signifies a camel cannot be doubted, however otherwise it may be figuratively used. Thus in the proverb, “To strain at a gnat and to swallow a camel,” we must understand the animal so called, and not surely a cable rope. Some MSS. of authority, for διελθειν have εισελθειν ; but the sense is not thereby affected. The expression is proverbial and hyperbolical; and as in the Jewish writings we find impossible or absurd endeavours compared to an attempt to make “an elephant pass through the eye of a needle,” of which Buxtorf and Lightfoot have given examples, there is no reason for departing from the usual sense. Our Lord here intends to express an impossibility, not a mere difficulty; but whether an attempt be made to pass a camel or a cable rope through the eye of a needle, ραφις , from ραπτω , to sew, the impossibility is expressed with equal strength. The conjecture of Harmer in his Observations, that there is here an allusion to the Arabs training their camels to kneel so as to enter low doorways, though with difficulty, is wholly absurd.

Verse 25

Watson - Exposition of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark

Exceedingly amazed. — St. Mark says, “astonished out of measure,” as still clinging to their notions of an earthly monarchy. That such a kingdom of heaven should exclude the rich and great, might naturally exceedingly surprise them; and indeed might equally surprise us but for what follows. For though we are instructed in the spiritual nature of the dominion of Christ, yet we expect that it shall became universal in extent, and impress its influence upon all ranks, according to the prophecies. But if it be impossible for the rich to enter, we might ask, whether as such they are to be excluded; or whether they must all part with their wealth as a necessary qualification for admission. Even then we should be surrounded with difficulties; because if one parted with his riches, others would gather them; and if property, by an equal distribution, were to be diffused among all, how the affairs of life could be carried on would be a perplexing inquiry. But the whole is relieved by what follows: with men this is impossible. Αδυνατον is not to be here taken in the sense of hard or difficult.

And an example which has been quoted from Plato in favour of this softer sense is not satisfactory: πλουσιους δ’ ου σφοδρα και αγαθους αδυνατον , “But it is impossible that they who are very rich should be good also.” For the sense of the term is as absolute in these words of Plato as those of our Lord: and what is more conclusive is, that to take αδυνατον to signify difficult, destroys the point of the text; for we must suppose that, though difficult, it might be done without God, which is contrary to the whole doctrine of our salvation. With men, left to themselves, and without the special succours of an omnipotent grace, it is utterly impossible for a rich man to become so humble, so heavenly minded, so simple in intention, so self-denying, as is necessary for his being a member of the true, spiritual Church of Christ; but with God all things are possible, which is not to be taken as an abstract truth merely, but is applicable to the occasion. God, by his powerful and renewing influence upon the hearts of the rich, can bring them into this required state of mind, and allow them to retain their rank and riches, yet so that dignity, leisure, wealth, and influence shall all be consecrated to his service, employed for the benefit of mankind, and, by a reflected influence, for the spiritual benefit of the rich themselves. This is one of the noblest triumphs of the grace of God in man; but how few of the rich seek it, and thus become “rich toward God!” Such, however, even in our Lord’s days, were Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathea, Joanna, the wife of Chusa, Herod’s steward, and many illustrious examples afterward.

Verse 27

Watson - Exposition of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark

We have forsaken all, and followed thee; what, &c. — This question appears to have been dictated by Peter’s reflections upon the case of the young man. He felt that, had he followed the advice of Christ, and forsaken all his riches, he must in some way have been greatly the gainer; and, knowing that he and his fellow apostles, if they had not sacrificed as much, yet had given up all, asks what they should have, τι αρα εσται ημιν , what should be their reward. This appears to have been an inquiry dictated by the predominance of a spiritual mind; for he must have perceived, from what had been just said, that no hope of earthly advantages was held out by their Master. The answer shows that Christ had approved of their conduct. By giving up all, though little, they had given full proof of their sincerity, and, as Grotius well observes, Christ did not estimate their attachment to him “from the quantity and measure of the things relinquished, but from the mind and intention with which they had relinquished them.”

Verse 28

Watson - Exposition of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark

In the regeneration, &c. — Παλιγγενεσια signifies the reproduction; restoration; renovation. It is used by Cicero to express the restoration of his fortune and dignity; by Josephus, for the reoccupation of Judea, after the captivity; and by Philo, both for the renovation of the earth after the deluge, and to express the new condition of the soul in a future state. It is only once more used in the New Testament, Titus 3:5; and there is explained by the clause which follows, “the renewing of the Holy Ghost;” which gives it an entirely moral sense, and refers it to the spiritual change which Divine influence produces in the whole character of individual believers. The sense of this passage is greatly determined by the punctuation. If we connect the words, εν τη παλιγγενεσια , with following Christ, these then mean that the course of discipline in which our Lord trained his disciples during his personal abode with them as their teacher was the regeneration spoken of, a sense which it will not well bear; but if we connect this clause with the time when the rewards promised should be conferred upon the apostles, then we must either refer it to the perfected Gospel dispensation, or to what is called the millennial state; or to the resurrection from the dead and the day of judgment.

Each of these has been advocated by eminent men; but the two last with little reason. At the day of judgment, not only the twelve tribes of Israel are to be judged, but all mankind; nor do we find that the apostles upon “twelve thrones” are to take that prominent part in the proceedings of that last day which is here assigned them. — The whole doctrine of a millennium, as it is supposed to imply a personal appearance and visible reign of Christ upon earth, will be shown to be contradictory to certain passages which will come under notice in their proper place; and if there be no scriptural ground to expect such an appearance of Christ on earth in glory, then what is here said of the apostles must be referred to some other time. It remains therefore only that “the regeneration” must be understood to signify the perfected dispensation of Christ’s Gospel, under which the great and Divine work of human restoration from a state of guilt and sin, to the favour and image of God, and that “renewing of the Holy Ghost,” by which St. Paul explains the word παλιγγενεσια , was commenced in its power and efficacy, and shall continue as long as the dispensation itself! The Syriac version renders it “the new world,” which seems to answer to the Jewish “age to come,” which commenced with Messiah’s manifestation, and continued to the end of all things. In this view, therefore, the promise thus made to the apostles is, that in this new age, to commence at our Lord’s return to his glory, when his renewing and restoring religion should be fully introduced, they should receive the reward of their following him as his disciples at the expense of their entire renunciation of the world.

When the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory. — This farther marks the time of the reward. From this expression being used in Matthew 25:31, when Christ’s second coming to judge the world is certainly spoken of, it has been concluded that the same event is here also intended; and it is this which appears to have misled many with respect to the sense of the passage. — But in Matthew 25:31, this coming of Christ is connected with circumstances which oblige us to understand it of Christ’s coming to judge the world; and this sense follows from them, not from the mode of expression. In fact, when he ascended into heaven, he sat upon the throne of his glory, or his glorious throne; he “entered into his glory;” all power was given to him in heaven and earth, and “angels, principalities, and powers were made subject unto him.” The expression, therefore, is not less literally true of his glorification and entrance upon his mediatorial kingdom, than of his coming from heaven to judge the world.

Ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones. — The allusion is here to the φολαρξαι , or ancient heads of the tribes, who sat near the throne, and assisted the king of Israel in his judgments; or, still more probably, to the Jewish sanhedrim, in which the high priest sat surrounded by the principal rulers and doctors of the law. The pre-eminence and authority of the apostles in the Church are thus finally and strongly expressed. They are next to Christ, and he instructs and governs the Church through them.

Judging the twelve tribes of Israel. — The figure is still continued. To judge is here, not to condemn, but to have authority; to preside over, or rule. Thus, “Jephthah judged Israel six years,” Judges 12:7; for κρινω answers to the Hebrew שׁ?פשׂ? , which often signifies to govern; and hence the judges who succeeded Joshua are called שׁ?פשׂ?ים . The twelve tribes of Israel are mentioned here and in other places of the New Testament, because, though the ten tribes which were carried away by Shalmanezer never returned in a body, yet many of each tribe remained in the land, and many more returned at different times; so that, at and before the time of Christ, the twelve tribes were commonly, spoken of. Thus Josephus says that six persons out of each of the twelve tribes were sent to Ptolemy, king of Egypt, to translate the Scriptures into Greek: so also in Acts 26:7, St. Paul speaks in the familiar language of the day, when he says, “Unto which promise our twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and night, hope to come;” and St. James’ epistle is addressed “to the twelve tribes scattered abroad.” There is no need, therefore, to look for a future restoration of the twelve tribes, in order to fix the time of which our Lord is speaking because they were then existing in Judea, and the neighbouring countries, though mingled with each other, and without distinct governments or tribes. But these words, like the former, are figurative.

The Christian Church is “the Israel of God,” and every believer is a son of Abraham. From the first, the natural descendants of Abraham by Isaac and Jacob were invested with a typical character, and the grand antitype was the whole body of true believers, the spiritual seed of the spiritual Isaac. To have authority under Christ in this spiritual Church, to convey immediately from him its doctrines and laws, to regulate its discipline and its services to encourage the humble spirits by promises, to direct the perplexed by counsel, to excite the languid by exhortation, to restrain the vicious by rebukes, to exhibit, as the motive to submission and obedience to Christ, all the hopes of heaven and all the terrors of future punishment, with an authority which they only possessed, and continue to possess to this day: these were to be the rewards of the fishermen and publicans of Galilee who had left all to follow Christ. And who of mankind have been raised to equal honour and influence? Where are the men whose names are so venerable, and so often pronounced? Where the authority which is so often applied to on all moral questions? Where the writings which lay such hold upon the consciences of men? And where the teachers who have trained up such a host of immortal beings to holiness here, and to a blissful immortality? And these their rewards will ever increase until all the world shall acknowledge them, under Christ, to be their infallible guides, and the rulers of a universal Church.

It is no objection to this view of the subject, that but a few of the apostles continue to exert their influence in the Church as writers: the doctrine was that of all, though in particular modes taught by individuals: it was specially taught and inspired and the illuminations of all compared together perfectly agreed; and so at first was collectively taught in the metropolis of Judea. All wrought miracles at Jerusalem, when they united together for its first propagation; for “many wonders and signs were done BY THE APOSTLES:” the large Church there, of between three and four thousand souls, the mother, and patron of the rest, “continued in the APOSTLES DOCTRINE;” regarding them, collectively as infallible authority; and “the twelve” remained for a considerable time at Jerusalem, to settle any essential point of discipline and rule, and to be appealed to in matters of difficulty; and thus, as rulers of the spiritual Israel, they “sat upon their thrones” glorious in moral majesty, and mighty in influence, ordering that kingdom of their Lord which was to endure for ever. With respect to Judas, this reward might have been his but for his own fault. But he was known by our Lord, and excluded in his intention from this promise. He was not one who had left all to follow Christ; for he was “covetous,” and fell by that sin.

But our Lord speaks of the twelve collectively, to which number the eleven was raised by the election of Matthias, a disciple who, as well as the apostles, had “followed” Christ, and was one of those who, as St. Peter says, Acts 1:21, had “companied with them, all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us.” The above is the primary meaning of this promise of Christ to his apostles. But that it has an ultimate reference to their reward in another life, is probable from the lofty terms made use of. — When the discourses of our Lord rise into this magnificence of diction, we shall almost uniformly discover that a latent meaning lies under the more immediate and obvious one. And every part of this promise has an easy application to the heavenly state. There the παλιγγενεσια , the restoration, of man is complete, both in his glorified body and soul; there the Son of man sits upon his glorious heavenly throne; there the Israel of God, represented by the twelve tribes, are glorified with him; and there the twelve apostles will have their pre-eminence of glory, and, as in heaven all is order, and rank rises above rank, probably, also, their pre-eminence of mild and directive authority.

Verse 29

Watson - Exposition of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark

And every one that hath forsaken. — This is a general promise, not confined to the apostles; and refers to those times of persecution and distress which our Lord foresaw would invade his Church and put many of his followers to the severe test of forsaking or giving up, not only fishing boats and fishing nets, not only such possessions as the young ruler refused to part with, but, what would prove an infinitely severer trial to flesh and blood, their tenderest relations, through banishment, imprisonment, or death.

A hundredfold. — St. Mark adds; “now in this time with persecutions, which shows that our Lord meant the hundredfold reward of the present life to be taken spiritually. This consists in the Divine favour, in peace of mind, in those consolations and that intimate “communion of the Holy Ghost,” with which Christ’s suffering servants are so uniformly favoured; and, says an ancient writer, “that inward savour and relish, which every man is sensible of that relinquishes any thing for the glory of God, is a hundredfold more valuable and excellent than any enjoyment which could have risen from the possession of the thing itself.” But the future reward is more than “a hundredfold,” and is emphatically expressed by EVERLASTING LIFE.

Verse 30

Watson - Exposition of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark

But many that are first shall be last. — This verse, it is generally thought, belongs, to the next chapter, in the first verse of which the particle γαρ shows the connection. It is a γνωμη , or adagial sentence, which the parable that follows was designed to illustrate; but still growing out of what preceded, as appears from its being connected with it by St. Mark, and then rising to what was of still more general application, as the rejection of the Jews and the calling of the Gentiles. Persons the most hopeful to human eye, like the young ruler, and who may be called first, are often last; and those who, like the publicans and sinners of Judea, appear farthest from embracing a religion of truth and purity, often most readily accept it; and this naturally brings in the calling of the Gentile world, who were always associated by the Jews with publicans and other detested characters. Still in St. Mark, we find it connected with the preceding verses, intimating that, as to faithful endurance of suffering for the cause of Christ, many would be last who appeared first from their boldness and decision.