Chapter 19

2 Christ healeth the sick: 3 answereth the Pharisees concerning divorcement: 10 sheweth 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.

1. Finished these sayings. [Final Departure From Galilee; Opening of the Samaritan-Peraean Ministry, Matt. 19:1, 2=Mark 10:1=Luke 9:51–56. Major comment: Matthew. See Early Peraean Ministry; The Duration of Christ’s Ministry, the Opening of the Galilean Ministry, The Ministry of Our Lord.] A formula frequently used by Matthew for marking the close of Jesus’ discourses (chs. 7:28; 11:1; 13:53; 26:1).

He departed from Galilee. Apparently a sequel to the statement that Jesus “departed into Galilee” (see on ch. 4:12). The Synoptic Gospels have passed over in silence Jesus’ visit to Jerusalem at the time of the Feast of Tabernacles in the year a.d. 30 (see on John 7:10). Concerning this feast see on Ex. 23:16; Lev. 23:2; Deut. 16:13. John provides a more or less extensive account of Jesus’ experiences at Jerusalem during and immediately after the Feast of Tabernacles (chs. 7:2 to 10:21). An attempt to arrest Him on the last day of the feast had failed (John 7:32, 37, 44–53; DA 459). The following morning the unfortunate woman taken in adultery was brought to Him as He was teaching in the Temple, “early in the morning” (John 8:2; DA 460.) It seems also that the discourse on “the light of the world” occurred immediately following this event (John 8:2, 12; cf. DA 463), as also the first attempt to stone Jesus (v. 59). There was a second attempt to stone Him “a few months later,” at the Feast of Dedication (DA 470; cf. John 10:22, 31, 33), and another attempt was made to arrest Him and terminate His ministry (John 10:39, 40).

After the close of the Feast of Tabernacles, probably the following Sabbath, though possibly a Sabbath shortly preceding the Feast of Dedication, Jesus healed the man born blind (John 9:1, 7, 14) and gave the discourse of John 10:1–18, on the Good Shepherd (DA 477). The fact that following the Feast of Tabernacles Jesus returned to Galilee for a time (DA 485), whereas following the Feast of Dedication He withdrew to Peraea (John 10:39, 40), together with the fact that the healing of the blind man seems to have followed closely the discourse on “the light of the world” (John 8:12–58), may imply that the healing of the blind man took place the following Sabbath (John 8:12, 59; 9:1, 5, 14).

A year and a half before this Jesus had healed the invalid at the Pool of Bethesda, was haled before the Sanhedrin, and had retired from Judea to Galilee (see on Matt. 4:12). Now He again left Jerusalem for Galilee, where He remained for a time because of the animosity of the priests and rabbis (see DA 485).

Late in the autumn Jesus again left Galilee, for the last time, and slowly made His way toward Jerusalem. His journey from Galilee to attend the Feast of Tabernacles had been made swiftly and secretly, but now He journeyed slowly and by a circuitous route (John 7:10). During this time He sent the Seventy forth (see on Luke 10:1–24), and after the close of their mission attended the Feast of Dedication. After this feast He again left the city, retired to Peraea, and entered upon His Peraean ministry (John 10:40; DA 485, 488). Depending upon whether the year a.d. 30/31 had 12 or 13 months (see pp. 255, 256), a period of approximately 16 or 20 weeks (4 or 5 months) elapsed between the Feast of Dedication and the Passover. This was the approximate duration of the Peraean ministry (cf. DA 488). For events of the Samaritan-Peraean ministry see on Luke 9:51 to 18:34.

The major chronological problem of the period of the Peraean ministry (see p. 190) lies in assigning events at the Feast of Dedication (John 10:22–42) and those connected with the raising of Lazarus (John 11:1–57) their proper places in relation to Luke’s account of this period of Jesus’ ministry (Luke 9:51 to 18:34). Reasons for placing the Feast of Dedication between the 10th and 11th chapters of Luke are set forth in comment on Luke 11:1. Reasons for placing the raising of Lazarus and related incidents between vs. 10 and 11 of Luke 17, are given in comment on Luke 17:1, 11 (see p. 199; cf. on John 10:40).

Coasts. See on ch. 15:22.

Beyond Jordan. This expression is commonly used to refer to regions east of the Jordan, though it sometimes refers to regions on the west side (see on ch. 4:15). Here it refers to the district of Peraea, across the Jordan from Judea. At this time Peraea and Galilee were both under the jurisdiction of Herod Antipas (see on Luke 3:1).

2. Great multitudes. As at the height of the Galilean ministry (see Luke 12:1, 14; 14:25; etc.). Heretofore Jesus had not labored in Peraea. The region contained a fairly large proportion of Jews, and was at this time rather densely populated. It was proper that He should minister to the needs of the people there as well as in Judea and in Galilee.

3. The Pharisees. [Marriage and Divorce, Matt. 19:3–12=Mark 10:2–12. Major comment: Matthew. See on Matt. 5:27–32.] Luke 9:51 to 18:14, which is sometimes termed Luke’s “great insertion” (see on Luke 9:51), logically falls between vs. 2 and 3 of Matt. 19. Luke is the only gospel writer to cover the incidents and teachings that he records in chs. 9 to 18, which deal largely with the Peraean ministry. At the time the incident here recorded took place, apparently but a few weeks intervened until the Passover of a.d. 31. Concerning the beliefs and practices of the Pharisees see pp. 51, 52.

Tempting him. Or, “testing Him” (see on ch. 4:1), that is, with the purpose of entrapping Him. For nearly two years now spies commissioned by the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem had followed Jesus with the twofold objective of finding some accusation to bring against Him and of attempting to discredit Him in the eyes of the people (see DA 213). Upon two previous occasions since the Feast of Tabernacles (see on ch. 19:1) attempts had been made in Jerusalem to stone Jesus (see John 8:59; 10:31–33). It was commonly known that His life was in danger should He again venture into Judea (see John 11:8), for the Jewish leaders were seeking His arrest (John 11:57). Again and again since the healing of the man at the Pool of Bethesda (see John 5:1–9) the scribes and Pharisees had sought to entrap Jesus with questions calculated to elicit statements that might later be made the basis of charges against Him (see Mark 7:2,5; 8:11; John 8:6; etc.). See on Matt. 16:1.

Put away his wife. That is, “divorce” her. See on ch. 5:31.

For every cause. For comment see on ch. 5:31, 32.

4. Have ye not read? See on Mark 2:25. Again, as always, Jesus directs His hearers to the Scriptures, to the “law,” for an authoritative statement of doctrine (see on Mark 7:7–13).

He which made them. That is, man and wife, with particular reference to the first man and wife (see on Gen. 1:27). The Greek here is identical with that of a portion of the LXX of Gen. 1:27.

At the beginning. That is, at creation (see Mark 10:6). Jesus takes His inquisitors back beyond the law of Moses, which is in their minds at the moment, to the fundamental principles of marriage as instituted at creation.

5. For this cause. This quotation, from Gen. 2:24, is almost identical with the text of the LXX. In Genesis the words here quoted appear to be Adam’s statement at the time Eve became his wife, but Jesus specifically assigns to God the statement here cited.

Leave father and mother. During childhood and youth a person’s primary responsibility is to his father and mother. This responsibility continues throughout life (see on Mark 7:11). However, notwithstanding the importance of this obligation it is subordinate to the marriage law, and where the two may come into conflict—as the result of human weaknesses and mistakes—a man’s first responsibility is to his wife.

One flesh. The more a man and woman have in common even before marriage, the greater likelihood that they have will find the companionship marriage should bring and that the union will be a complete success. Conversely, where there are great differences in background, training, attitudes, principles, likes, and dislikes, it is far more difficult to be “one” in mind and spirit, and thus to find success in the marriage relationship.

6. Wherefore. Jesus here proceeds to state the conclusion to be drawn from the fundamental principle of the marriage relationship cited from Gen. 2:24.

No more twain. In the sight of God, husband and wife are one entity, and therefore should be no more divisible than one human body is.

What. That is, the new union formed at marriage (v. 5).

God hath joined. The marriage relationship was instituted by God, sanctified by God. It was an All-wise Creator who provided for the marriage relationship; it is He who made it possible and desirable. All who enter upon the marriage relationship are therefore “joined,” according to the original plan of God, for life.

Let not man put asunder. With the single exception for which Jesus makes provision (see on v. 9), divorce cannot be honored or recognized in heaven. In the sight of God any alliance either of them may enter into with another woman or man, as the case may be, is branded by Christ as adultery.

7. Why did Moses? See Deut. 24:1–4.

Divorcement. See on Deut. 24:4; Matt. 5:31.

Put her away. See on ch. 5:31.

8. Hardness of your hearts. See on Deut. 14:26.

Suffered you. According to Christ’s statement the OT law that made provision for divorce was a concession designed to meet circumstances that were far from ideal (see on Deut. 24:4). However, Christ’s teaching here makes it clear that the provisions of Moses’ law with respect to divorce are quite invalid for Christians (see on Matt. 19:9).

From the beginning. The law of Gen. 1:27; 2:24 preceded the law of Deut. 24:1–4 and is superior to it, for in the Eden period of Genesis, God’s ideal for His human children is set forth. God has never repealed the law of marriage He enunciated in the beginning. It was not God’s plan that divorce should ever be necessary. Therefore Christians today who desire and purpose in their hearts to follow God’s plan will not, without scriptural grounds, resort to divorce as a solution to marital difficulties (see on Matt. 19:9).

9. I say unto you. See on ch. 5:22. The only change made to accommodate the original marriage law to a fallen world is that violation of the marriage contract by unchastity may constitute a lawful basis for dissolving the union. Otherwise, the union may not lawfully be broken.

Whosoever. The principle Christ is about to state is of universal application. No one who professes to be a Christian should think himself an exception to it.

Fornication. Gr. porneia (see on ch. 5:32). It should be noted that in the NT the term “fornication” covers all illicit relationships both before and after marriage. To the modern English reader the word “unchastity” conveys more exactly the meaning of porneia as it is used in the NT. Under the Mosaic law the penalty for marital unfaithfulness was death (see on Lev. 20:10), not divorce. Furthermore, under Moses’ law the death penalty was mandatory, whereas under the Christian law here set forth by Christ divorce is not mandatory, but permissible. From Jesus’ teachings here it may be inferred that the innocent party is free to choose whether the marriage relationship shall be continued. Reconciliation is ever the ideal, especially if children are involved.

Here and in Jesus’ parallel discussion in Matt. 5:32 it seems to be implied, even though not specifically stated, that the innocent party to a divorce is at liberty to marry again. This has been the understanding of the great majority of commentators through the years.

Marrieth her which is put away. Any alliance she contracts with another man violates her original marriage vow, which violation constitutes adultery. By a parity of reasoning the man marrying her becomes an adulterer also.

10. His disciples. Apparently it was after Jesus and His disciples had left the Pharisees and entered into a house that the disciples expressed themselves with regard to the matter under discussion (see Mark 10:10).

If the case. That is, if marriage binds a man so strictly as Jesus has just said. It would seem that the disciples had not clearly understood Jesus’ earlier statements with respect to marriage (see Matt. 5:31, 32; Luke 16:18), and that hence they were deeply perplexed by the interpretation Jesus had just given.

Not good to marry. Evidently the disciples reasoned that human nature being what it is, and there being so many circumstances under which husband and wife find themselves incompatible, would it not be better to forgo married life altogether? No doubt the standard Jesus proclaimed seemed at first too high even to the disciples, as it does sometimes to Christians today. What the disciples forgot, and what Christians today are prone to forget, is that Christ offers another solution to marital unhappiness. According to Christ’s formula, where dispositions and personalities are not congenial, the solution is to change dispositions and hearts and lives (see on Rom. 12:2), not partners in marriage. The principles upon which this transformation may be accomplished are clearly set forth in the Sermon on the Mount (see on Matt. 5:38–48; 6:14, 15). If these principles are applied to difficult marital situations, they will effect the same miracles as when applied to other social relationships. There is no marital problem that cannot be solved to the satisfaction of both husband and wife where both are willing to follow the principles Christ laid down in the Sermon on the Mount. And where one is willing to do so, even though the other may not be, it is often possible to attain a truly remarkable degree of marital peace; and many times the final result will be the winning of the unwilling one. Such a reward is more than worth the patience and self-sacrifice it takes.

11. All men cannot. The comment of the disciples (v. 10) reveals their bewilderment and leads Christ to make a further statement (v. 12).

This saying. Literally, “this word,” that is, what the disciples have just said (v. 10) with respect to the previous statement of Jesus concerning fornication and divorce (v. 9).

Save they. Each man must be at liberty to determine whether the saying applies in his case. God Himself had proclaimed, “It is not good that the man should be alone” (Gen. 2:18), yet under the reign of sin, Jesus here seemingly admits that occasionally there may be certain circumstances where it is better for a man to “be alone.”

12. Some eunuchs. Evidently Christ is here describing certain persons who suffered from a congenital defect, and thus one for which they were not to be considered responsible.

Made eunuchs. In the ancient Orient, chamberlains were invariably literal eunuchs. Some eunuchs apparently married (see on Gen. 37:36). Those who were eunuchs were objects of pity by the Jews (see Isa. 56:3–5). Priests thus physically mutilated could not serve in the priestly office (see Lev. 21:20). In the later history of Judah eunuchs are mentioned in connection with the court (Jer. 29:2), but whether these were Jews or foreigners is not known (see on Esther 1:10; 2:3). At least one of them, Ebed-melech, was an Ethiopian (see Jer. 38:7).

Made themselves eunuchs. Marriage is desirable. The formation of character may be far more effective and complete in close association with another human being than when a man is “alone.” In the intimate, day by day relationships of home life more can be accomplished by way of softening and subduing the unlovely traits of character and strengthening the better qualities than could be possible otherwise. Those who, for one reason or another, are without the privilege of a home of their own thereby miss one of life’s best training schools for character, and cannot know the depths of life’s joys, sorrows, and opportunities.

Celibacy is not the ordinary, normal state, and it is a deception of the devil that, of itself, it can lead to a superior state of holiness than would otherwise be possible. Among the Jews celibacy was frowned upon or pitied, and it was practiced only by extreme ascetic groups such as the Essenes (see p. 53). The Scripture record states specifically that Peter was married, and probably the other disciples were as well (see on Mark 1:30). Jesus never recommended celibacy, either for Christians as a whole or for Christian leaders. It is not natural, and does not contribute to the development of a symmetrical character in the way that normal married life can.

The words of our Lord, if understood literally, would run counter to the whole tenor of Scripture. The idea of bodily mutilation is abhorrent. It seems proper to see this statement as analogous to Christ’s declaration in Matt. 5:30. Some commentators find a parallel in Paul’s words in 1 Cor. 7:29. See also vs. 1, 2. Unquestionably Christ’s statement is to be understood figuratively.

Able to receive it. See on v. 11.

13. Then. [Blessing the Children, Matt. 19:13–15=Mark 10:13–16=Luke 18:15–17. Major comment: Mark.] The thought sequence is here stressed rather than the immediate time sequence.

Were there brought. Jews customarily took their children, particularly at the age of one year, to be blessed by a rabbi (see DA 511):

Rebuked them. The disciples completely misunderstood Jesus. They considered this request a waste of their Master’s time and an unnecessary interruption in what was, to them, the more important task of preaching the gospel to adults. They thought they were protecting Jesus from annoyance. According to Mark, Jesus was “much displeased” with the peremptory action of the disciples (see ch. 10:14).

14. Suffer little children. That is, permit or allow the little children to come. This usage of the word “suffer,” though proper, is now rather infrequent. It is apparent that Jesus loved children and that they loved Him. He appreciated their unaffected love and devotion. He was interested in them and fond of them. Upon more than one occasion He referred to the characteristics and interests of childhood to illustrate spiritual truth (see chs. 11:16, 17; 18:2–4; etc.).

Forbid them not. Literally, “do not continue hindering them.” Any who make it difficult for children to find the Master today are sure to encounter His utmost displeasure and to earn His severest rebuke. There is room for little children in the kingdom of divine grace. In the home, in the church, in the school, the needs and interests of children are ever to be accorded a place of major importance. All who have any contact with children, or who may have a voice in decisions that affect their interests, must beware of doing anything that might make it difficult for them to find Jesus.

Of such. See on ch. 18:3.

15. Laid his hands. See on Mark 10:16. The touch of Jesus that had so often brought healing to the sick now imparted blessing to the children. It is worthy of note that Jesus did not baptize them, but simply committed them to the love and care of the Father.

16. Behold. [The Rich Young Ruler, Matt. 19:16–30=Mark 10:17–31=Luke 18:18–30. Major comment: Matthew.] This incident seems to have followed closely the blessing of the children (see vs. 13–15). The “ruler” had witnessed the blessing of the children, and this heart-warming expression of love prompted his question (see DA 518).

One came. He is usually called “the rich young ruler,” a composite name based on the three synoptic accounts of the incident. According to Matthew he is said to have been “young” (ch. 19:20), and in Luke he is spoken of as a “ruler” who was “very rich” (ch. 18:18, 23). According to his viewpoint he was conscientious and had lived an exemplary life (see on Matt. 19:19). As a “ruler” he occupied a position of responsibility and was a member of the “honored council of the Jews” (see DA 518, 520). Whether this was the local sanhedrin or council of the town in which he lived or the Great Sanhedrin in Jerusalem is not certain (see p. 67).

The rich young ruler seems to have accosted Jesus as He was leaving the town (see Mark 10:17). That the young man came “running” reflects youthful eagerness, and that he “kneeled” indicates sincerity (Mark 10:17). His attitude was markedly in contrast with that of the Pharisees, who had recently come “tempting” Jesus (see Matt. 19:3).

This incident and the instruction afterward given the disciples (vs. 23–30) teach first, the importance of self-renunciation as a requirement for entrance into the kingdom of heaven (see on Luke 9:61, 62; 14:26–28, 33), and second, the danger of a love for money (see on Matt. 6:19–12; Luke 12:13–21; 16:1–15).

Good Master. Literally, “good Teacher” (see on v. 17).

What good thing? This question reflects the typical Pharisaical concept of righteousness by works as a passport to “eternal life” (see on v. 17). The rich young ruler had conscientiously performed all the requirements of the law (COL 391), in a formal way at least, and no doubt all those imposed by the rabbis as well, yet was conscious of a lack in his life. He greatly admired Jesus, and seriously considered becoming one of His disciples (DA 518). For the same question propounded by “a certain lawyer” on a previous occasion see on Luke 10:25.

17. Why callest thou me good? Evidently the manner in which the young man addressed Jesus was quite unusual (cf. John 3:2). There seems to be no record in rabbinical literature that rabbis were ever addressed as “good.” On the contrary, in the Mishnah, God Himself is spoken of as “he that is good and bestows good” (Berakoth 9. 2, Soncino ed. of the Talmud, p. 327). The young man’s station in life and his office of public trust (see on Matt. 19:16) indicate that he did not call Jesus “good Master” out of ignorance or carelessness. It was obvious that he had a reason for doing so, and Jesus sought to draw out of him a public statement of that reason. Jesus’ explanation, “there is none good but one” was to help the young man to realize clearly the import of his salutation. Jesus recognized the sincerity and discernment of the young man, and thought to strengthen his faith by drawing out of him an even clearer statement of it.

None good but one. Supreme goodness is a characteristic of God alone (Ex. 34:6; Ps. 23:6; 27:13; 31:19; 52:1; Rom. 2:4; etc.). Jesus does not disavow His deity, as might at first appear, but rather clarifies and emphasizes the full significance of the young man’s statement.

Enter into life. Equivalent to the expression, “enter into the kingdom of heaven” (see ch. 5:20). In view of the fact that Jesus includes both this life and the life to come in His remarks on the rewards of discipleship (see Matt. 19:29; Mark 10:30; Luke 18:30), it may be appropriate to conclude that both the kingdom of grace and the kingdom of glory are included here.

Commandments. Gr. entolai, “precepts,” “orders,” “charges,” or “commands” (cf. on Ps. 19:8). The entolai are the specific, individual requirements, or commands, enjoined upon men by the “law,” Gr. nomos (cf. on Ps. 19:7; Prov. 3:1). It is the will of God that man shall reflect His character, and His character may be summed up in the one word “love” (1 John 4:7–12). To reflect the character, or “love,” of God, we will love Him supremely and our neighbor as ourselves (see on Matt. 22:37, 39). If we inquire as to how we are to express our love to God and our fellow men, God gives us the answer in the Ten Commandments (see Ex. 20:3–17), which Christ explained and exalted (see on Isa. 42:21) in the Sermon on the Mount (see Matt. 5:17–48). All the civil laws of Moses in the OT and the instructions of Christ and the apostles in the NT clarify the divine requirements set forth in the Ten Commandments and apply them to the practical problems of daily living. The young man professed to love God, but the real test of that love, Jesus says, is to be found in the way he treats his fellow men (see 1 John 4:20). “If ye love me,” Jesus says, “keep my commandments” (John 14:15).

18. Which? In reply to this question Jesus quotes specifically several of the Ten Commandments dealing with a person’s relationships to his fellow men. No doubt in the sight of men the rich young ruler was honest, but in the sight of God, who reads the heart, he did not truly have the interests of his fellow men at heart (see on vs. 19, 20).

19. Love thy neighbour. This sums up all the “commandments” Jesus here refers to (see on ch. 22:39, 40). Though the young man did not as yet realize it, these precepts of conduct went to the very heart of his problem. He did not love other men as much as he loved himself. Yet he felt he had “kept” “all these things.” He had observed the letter of the law but not its spirit, yet he considered himself to be living in harmony with its principles. Jesus seeks to open the young man’s eyes to the fact that the principles of the law must be conscientiously applied to all the practical relationships of life.

20. From my youth. Important textual evidence may be cited (cf. p. 146) for the omission of this phrase. The young man sincerely felt that he had “kept” the commandments, all of them, and was not conscious of any imperfection (see DA 519).

What lack I yet? Apparently the young man was confident that there was but a step between him and perfection. But though he had diligently obeyed the letter of the law, he still felt that that was not enough. He felt that he lacked something, but what it was he honestly did not know. His life had been one of purity, honesty, and truthfulness. But his attitude toward his fellow men had been essentially a negative one—he had not stolen their goods, he had not borne false witness against them, he had not taken their wives or their lives. True, the letter of the law is negative in form, but its spirit calls for positive action. It is not enough to avoid hating or hurting our fellow men; the gospel calls upon us to love and help them as we love ourselves. This young man lacked the love of God in his heart (see DA 519), without which his observance of “all these things” was of no real value in the sight of Heaven.

21. Perfect. See on ch. 5:48. Jesus assumes that the young man really means what he says, or rather, what he implies in the question, “What lack I yet?” Perfection had been his ideal. But, as Paul points out, perfection cannot be achieved by works (see Gal. 2:21; Heb. 7:11). If, therefore, the young man would achieve perfection he must not expect to do so by performing works of merit. He must experience a complete change of heart and life. His mind must be transformed, his objectives changed.

Go and sell. In a character otherwise lovable (see Mark 10:21), one serious defect remained—selfishness. Unless the blighting influence of selfishness were removed, the rich young ruler could make no further progress toward perfection. The malady may vary from person to person, and the remedy may therefore vary also. When Peter, Andrew, James, and John were called to follow the Master, He did not ask them to sell their boats and fishing tackle, for the reason that these things did not stand in the way of their following Him. Nevertheless, when called, “they forsook all” in order that they might follow the Master (see on Luke 5:11).

Whatever a man loves more than he loves Christ, makes him unworthy of Christ (see on Matt. 10:37, 38). Even the most important earthly responsibilities take second place to following Christ in the pathway of discipleship (see on Luke 9:61, 62). Paul “suffered the loss of all things” in order to “win Christ” (see Phil. 3:7–10). To secure possession of the heavenly treasure or to purchase the pearl of great price (see on Matt. 13:44–46), a man must be ready to sell “all that he hath.” But this, the rich young ruler could not bring himself to do. Here was his cross, but he refused to bear it.

That thou hast. Literally, “your belongings.”

Treasure in heaven. For comment see on ch. 6:19–21. Jesus confronted the young man with the choice between earthly and heavenly treasure. But the young man wanted both, and upon making the discovery that he could not have both, “went away sorrowful” (ch. 19:22). The painful discovery that he could not serve both God and mammon (see on ch. 6:24) was too much for him.

Come and follow me. See on Luke 5:11.

22. Sorrowful. Literally, “sorrowing,” or “grieving.” Great was his disappointment when he realized the sacrifice it involved. The eager joy with which he had run up to Jesus (see on v. 16) turned to gloom and sadness. The price of “eternal life” (v. 16), for which the young man came seeking, was higher than he was willing to pay.

Great possessions. His possessions constituted the most important thing in his life. They were his idol, and at this shrine he chose to pour out the adoration and devotion of his heart. It was to free him from the clutches of the god of riches that Jesus proposed that he sell all that he had. This was his only hope of heaven (see DA 520). He had great possessions, but without heavenly wisdom to administer them aright, he would find them to be a curse to him rather than a blessing. Eventually, he would lose even what he had (see on ch. 25:28–30).

23. Unto his disciples. The young man turns away, and Jesus and the disciples proceed on their way.

A rich man. See on ch. 13:7. It is hard for a rich man to get into the kingdom of heaven not because he is rich, but because of his attitude toward riches (see on Luke 12:15, 21). Abraham was “very rich” (Gen. 13:2) and at the same time “the Friend of God” (James 2:23). For the rich young ruler the “gate” Jesus pointed out by which he might “enter into life” (Matt. 19:17) was too “strait” and the “way” by which he must henceforth walk, too “narrow” (see on ch. 7:13, 14). The disciples here had an opportunity to witness an example of how hard it is for a man whose heart is set on riches to “enter into the kingdom of heaven.” How many otherwise upright men Satan successfully binds to this earth by the web of riches!

Kingdom of heaven. See on Matt. 3:2; 4:17; 5:2; Luke 4:19.

24. Camel. Jesus deals with a human impossibility, as He clearly states (see v. 26). The truth stated is precisely the opposite of what men, even the disciples, believed (see on v. 25). The Pharisees thought and taught that riches constitute an evidence of divine favor (see on Luke 16:14). When Jesus discussed riches upon this occasion, He may have had Judas particularly in mind—Judas, whom love of money was soon to conquer (see John 12:6; 13:29). The problem of Judas was fundamentally the same as that of the rich young ruler (see on Mark 3:19).

Eye of a needle. The explanation that the “eye of a needle” refers to a smaller gate cut in the panel of a large city gate, through which men might pass when the large gate was closed to major traffic, originated in the centuries after Christ’s day. There is, therefore, no valid basis for such an explanation, plausible though it may appear. Jesus is dealing with impossibilities (v. 26), and there is no point in contriving an explanation by which to render possible what Jesus specifically points out as impossible.

Than for a rich man. See on Luke 12:15, 21. In happy contrast with the usual possessor of riches, Matthew forsook riches in order that he might follow the Master (see on Mark 2:13, 14), and Zacchaeus, another wealthy tax collector, transferred his affections from riches to Jesus (see on Luke 19:2, 8).

25. Exceedingly amazed. The false concepts of the disciples concerning the nature of the kingdom of heaven (see on Luke 4:19) and concerning riches as a sign of divine favor (see on Luke 16:14) left them greatly puzzled at this categorical declaration.

Who then? If prestige, influence, and wealth are not evidences of divine favor, the disciples reasoned, those who lack these have even less chance.

26. Beheld them. That is, Jesus probably observed the expression of astonishment on the faces of the disciples.

This is impossible. Impossible, “with men”—but not “with God.” It is impossible for a rich man to get into heaven on the basis of human effort, because he has no means of freeing himself from the clutch of the love of riches upon his heart. For that matter, salvation is impossible for anyone on the basis of his own efforts. Only a miracle of divine grace will avail to save a rich man from a supreme love of riches, or any other man from his particular besetting sin (cf. Heb. 12:1).

All things are possible. That is, for the man who is willing to permit God to control his life (see Phil. 4:13). Only the power of God operating in a man’s life can bring about that transformation of character requisite for entrance into the kingdom of heaven.

27. Then answered Peter. As so frequently the case, Peter comes forward as spokesman for the disciples (see on chs. 16:16; 17:4; etc.).

We have forsaken all. Peter did not overstate the case (see on Luke 5:11). The disciples had fulfilled basically the requirement just set before the rich young ruler (see on Matt. 19:21). They had done what he was unwilling to do. Were they, then, well on the road toward that perfection of which Jesus spoke? Were they eligible to “enter into life” (v. 17)?

What shall we have? Peter’s thoughts were on the rewards of discipleship. Self-denial practiced with one eye diverted in the direction of the expected reward will never merit the “well done” that Heaven waits to bestow for faithful service (see ch. 25:21, 23).

28. Verily. See on ch. 5:18.

Regeneration. Or, “renewal.” Here Jesus refers to the “regeneration,” or “renewal,” of this world, that is, to the earth in its re-created state (see Isa. 65:17; 2 Peter 3:13; Rev. 21:1).

Son of man. See on Matt. 1:1; Mark 2:10.

Throne of his glory. Or, “His glorious throne” (see on chs. 16:27; 25:31).

Twelve thrones. They would reign with Jesus (see 2 Tim. 2:12; Rev. 3:21; 20:6).

29. Forsaken houses. The disciples had forsaken house and family that they might follow Jesus (see on Luke 5:11), not in the sense of leaving their families destitute, but rather in the sense of making the service of Christ their primary objective. Shortly before Jesus had stated this requirement of discipleship in even stronger terms (see on Luke 14:26).

For my name’s sake. See on ch. 5:11.

An hundredfold. Compare Job 42:10; Luke 18:30. Jesus is obviously speaking in figurative language. Approximately a year and a half before this, Jesus had observed that those who do the will of His Father in heaven are His “mother” and “sister” and “brother” (see Matt. 12:46–50). The “hundredfold” that Christians receive in this life consists in the joy of Christian fellowship and in the more real and intense satisfaction that comes with service for God. Paul speaks of “having nothing, and yet possessing all things” (2 Cor. 6:10).

Everlasting life. See on John 3:16; 6:27. When a man gives up all to follow Christ, he receives in return “a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory” (2 Cor. 4:17). Similarly, this was what Jesus had done in order to make the plan of salvation possible (Phil. 2:6–8).

30. First shall be last. See on Luke 13:30. Many who, like the rich young ruler, had every appearance of being first to enter heaven, would actually be last. Matt. 19:30 forms a connecting link between the incident and subsequent discussion recorded in vs. 23–29, and the parable of the Laborers in the Vineyard, recorded in ch. 20. Note that the same summary declaration is repeated at the close of that parable (see v. 16), a parable that was told specifically to illustrate this great paradox of the Christian faith.

A few weeks after this—during the course of His last day of teaching in the Temple—Jesus declared to the chief priests and elders that publicans and harlots would enter the kingdom of heaven ahead of them (ch. 21:31, 32). In fact, from all over the earth would come a host of humble, faithful ones worthy to “sit down in the kingdom of God” (Luke 13:29), while the religious leaders of Israel would themselves be “thrust out” (v. 28). For a further discussion of the reversal of conditions in the future life compare the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus (see on Luke 16:19–31). Earthly success and popularity are based on altogether different standards from those by which God estimates a man’s worth.

Ellen G. White comments

3    MB 63

5     AH 106

8     AH 340; MB 63

13   DA 511; ML 230

13, 14  AH 273

13–15DA 511–517

14   CSW 55; CT 180; DA 512, 517; FE 69; ML 228; 9T 175

16   CS 210; MYP 391; PK 221; 1T 350; 4T 49

16, 17  COL 390

16–22CS 151, 152; DA 518–523; EW 49; 1T 207

16–261T 170

16–30COL 390–396

17   2T 43; 4T 219; 6T 225

17–22COL 391

18, 19  DA 518

19   2T 43; 5T 606

19, 20  DA 519

20   CS 210

20, 21  4T 49

20–221T 351, 483; 4T 220

21   COL 395

21, 22  CS 211; DA 520; PK 221; 4T 50

23, 24  CS 150; 2T 680

24   MH 215; 1T 151, 537; 6T 82

27   COL 396

27, 28  COL 395

28   CS 340

29   CS 158; 1T 88, 226, 510; 5T 428

29, 30  1T 173

30        CS 339