Matthew 19:1-12

It is not very often that I feel so compelled to shout a message from the housetops. I wrote this study many years ago and it changed my life and my thinking on marriage.  It has been proven statistically that the divorce rate in the Christian church is higher than the divorce rate in society! When we look at this passage, I am certain that some will be intrigued, others will be interested and many will be offended on the highest scale. I pray that God will soften your hearts and allow for thinking from a different view. Yeshua was not teaching a social Gospel. He was teaching pure Torah, or the original instructions of God from when He first gave them to man after He created man. In sports we often call this “getting back to the basics”. In biblical terms, this is returning to the ancient paths that God originally created (Jer 6:16; 18:15). Yeshua returned marriage standards back to the beginning and explained why these are important in this passage.

First though, let’s talk about the epidemic of divorce that has rattled our society today. I cannot address the immensity of the problem because of the broad impact that it has on each person. So I am going to address it from a current position. If you have been previously divorced, you will probably understand from first hand experience what we discuss in this passage. Also, divorce and remarriage cannot be undone. What is in the past is in the past. If you were divorced prior to becoming a believer, rest assured that God forgives us of all of our sin (1 John 1:9). This also applies to the believers who have had divorce. Let’s look at this study from today going forward. We cannot change the past, it is indelibly written in stone. We can change the future. We can change the way that we look at divorce and teach others to walk according to the instructions of our Lord Jesus (Yeshua) the Messiah. This passage has been mis-quoted and mis-represented that it has caused immense pain and suffering within the Christian Church. We can undo this situation. I am not certain that we can quell the epidemic, but we can certainly try.  Now, let’s get to the study that I have been discussing at a distance:

Matthew 19:1–6 (NET)

¹ Now when Jesus finished these sayings, he left Galilee and went to the region of Judea beyond the Jordan River.² Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there. ³ Then some Pharisees came to him in order to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful to divorce a wife for any cause?”⁴ He answered, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator made them male and female,⁵ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and will be united with his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?⁶ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

Yeshua repositioned to a new area for this teaching. He started the ministry in this area with a huge healing service. He healed everyone who was following Him. This drew the attention of the Pharisees and they sought to test Yeshua. Testing is not bad if it is done for a good purpose. Yeshua took their question as sincere and answered it according to the teachings of the scripture.

The Pharisees question hinged on a social problem that permeated the society of the day. Divorce was very easy to get. The question was an effort to trap Yeshua between two prominent schools of thought at the time. Rather than rewrite the idea, look at it from Baker’s Commentary:

“This temptation (cf. 16:1; 22:35) was, as often, a kind of trap. Answered either way, so the Pharisees thought, Jesus would be in difficulty. The situation was as follows: Among the Jews there was a difference of opinion as to what Moses had taught with respect to the problem of divorce. He had written, “When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found ‘erwath dābhār in her, and he writes her a bill of divorce …” (Deut. 24:1). But what is meant by ‘erwath dābhār?⁶⁸⁰ Does it mean “a scandalous thing”? Other guesses are “some indecency,” “something improper,” “improper behavior,” “something offensive,” “a shameful thing” (LXX), etc. According to Shammai and his followers the reference was to unchastity or adultery. According to Hillel and his disciples the meaning was far broader. They emphasized the words, “If then she finds no favor in his eyes,” and accordingly would allow divorce for the flimsiest reasons, so that the husband could reject his wife if she accidentally served him food that had been slightly burned, or if at home she talked so loud that the neighbors could hear her. If Jesus endorsed the more strict interpretation, favored by Shammai, he would be displeasing the followers of Hillel. Moreover, there seem to have been very many who agreed with Hillel’s “liberal” opinion. Even the disciples may have shared this view; see verse 10.⁶⁸¹ Besides, if the Lord sided with Shammai the Pharisees might have accused him, though not justly, of being inconsistent when he nevertheless consorted with sinners and ate with them.

On the other hand, if Jesus endorsed the lax—“anything will do as ground for divorce”—interpretation, what would the disciples of Shammai think of him? Would not the more serious and conscientious people charge him with tolerating moral looseness? And what would the female part of the population think of him?”^[i]

Look also at the IVP Bible Background Commentary:

“The Pharisees themselves debated the grounds for divorce implied in Deuteronomy 24:1–4: the school of Shammai, predominant in Jesus’ day, argued that the passage allowed divorce only if one’s spouse was unfaithful; the school of Hillel, which eventually won out, said that a man could divorce his wife if she burned the toast (a later rabbi of this school added, “Or if you find someone more attractive”!). The success of a protagonist’s wisdom under “testing” with difficult questions was an ancient theme (cf. 1 Kings 10:1).”^[ii]

Now that we have looked at the Pharisee’s question and see the motivation behind the question it is obvious that the question was loaded with a second agenda. The purpose behind the question was to throw Yeshua into the disagreement between the two positions. Either side that He took would land Him in hot water with the other side. The Pharisees may have thought that they found a way to discredit Him. On the other hand, is it possible that they were sincere in their question and wanted a fresh answer on the debate that was raging through their society?

8/3/18 So far, we can see that the Pharisees had concluded that from Deuteronomy 24:1, the law had given them a license to divorce for any reason.  When it came to the New Testament times, it had come to mean that a person could divorce over almost anything, it could almost be considered that if a wife burnt the toast, she was toast.  Women were considered to be lower than dogs, and the attitude extended to marriage.

Matthew 19:4–6 (NET)

⁴ He answered, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator made them male and female,⁵ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and will be united with his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?⁶ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

Yeshua quoted from Genesis 2:24 and made his case. God’s original intention was not for divorce to exist at all.  What God has joined together, is impossible for man to separate. The command at the end of verse 6 is very specific. No man, person, court of law or human institution has the power to separate a marriage. Think about it. If you don’t believe this, ask any divorced couple, there is a separation that has caused intense pain and suffering in their lives. It is impossible to list all the negative side effects of divorce. The reason for these is because when a man and woman are married they become one. This is a mystery that is beyond human comprehension.

Matthew 19:7–9 (NET)

⁷ They said to him, “Why then did Moses command us to give a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her?”⁸ Jesus said to them, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because of your hard hearts, but from the beginning it was not this way. ⁹ Now I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another commits adultery.”

Matthew 5:32 (NET)

³² But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

The English translation of the concept from verse 9 is very misleading. The target of the statement is quite different than we think. The idea is that a woman has committed adultery (pornea) and the man divorces her. He does not cause her to commit adultery because she has already done it. The idea is the same as Yeshua gave earlier in Matthew 5:32. When a man divorces his wife, he causes her to commit adultery because the man is responsible to keep the marriage together as the spiritual head of the family. When she has already committed adultery, he is not responsible for her sin. Yeshua did not say that divorce was excused when adultery takes place. He only said that the burden of sin does not lay on the man when this takes place. The statement in Mark is much more specific (Mark 10:9-12).

Perhaps you disagree with my take, look at the reaction of the disciples. They were stunned at the statement and stated that if this was the case, it is better not to marry (Matthew 19:9). Yeshua followed up the statement with another equally astounding statement that verified their reaction:

Matthew 19:11–12 (NET)

¹¹ He said to them, “Not everyone can accept this statement, except those to whom it has been given. ¹² For there are some eunuchs who were that way from birth, and some who were made eunuchs by others, and some who became eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who is able to accept this should accept it.”

He starts off with his response to the disciples that ties these verses with His earlier statement. “Not all men can accept this”. Then He starts talking about eunuchs. The idea is that once a man has become divorced, he is permanently single from that day forward. He becomes a eunuch for the kingdom of God. Yes, if a man gets divorced, he must stay single for the rest of his life in order to maintain righteousness before God (1 Co 7:10-12).  The disciples did not miss the truth that we miss today, they understood that marriage is a lifetime sentence, without the possibility of parole.  They stated it quite well, it would be better not to marry since there is no way out of it.  Jesus said it clearly: if a person becomes divorced, he or she must stay single the rest of their life.

I realize that this message is not popular by today’s standards. Our society would laugh at me and then stone me for being too radical.  However, considering the Word of God, perhaps part of the trouble in our homes and in our nation is because we have abandoned God’s standard for the standard of man.

8/4/18 Matthew 19:13–15 (NET)

¹³ Then little children were brought to him for him to lay his hands on them and pray. But the disciples scolded those who brought them.¹⁴ But Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me and do not try to stop them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”¹⁵ And he placed his hands on them and went on his way.

Some feel that this passage is the basis for the assurance of salvation for little children.  The assurance comes from David’s belief that his son who died as a result of his sin would see him in heaven (1 Sam 12:15-23). David believed that the Lord may change his mind on taking the child’s life, so he repented, fasted and wept. Immediately after the child died, David cleaned up and went to the house of the Lord to worship. Why? Because he knew that the child would be with him in heaven (1 Sam 12:23). The only other reference to this that I can find is where Rachael is weeping for her children and God promises that they will be brought home (Jer 31:15-17). In my opinion though, this is a stretch since it really doesn’t follow the context of Jeremiah’s passage. He is addressing the returning of the Jewish people to their homeland. On the flip side of the coin, Matthew applied this passage to the slaughter of all children two years old and under when Herod attempted to kill the Messiah (Matt 2:16-18). Therefore, the teaching of the children returning home has validity! By referring to the Jeremiah passage, Matthew gives credit to the context.

No one really knows what age that children reach the ability to make the decision to accept God for themselves.  I hold that it can be very early in life, possibly as early as seven years old.  Others think that it is much later, even as late as puberty.  It is the point in time where children are able to decide to make a rational decision on their own and take responsibility for following their own will. This is the point that children can accept Yeshua as Personal Savior and know what they are doing.  I have used the passage about David to comfort those who have lost small children. Other than these few passages, we have nothing to establish the validity of this teaching. Most of the idea comes from tradition both on the Jewish and Christian sides of the fence. My attitude toward tradition is that it is good if it is biblically based, otherwise, be very careful.

However, the gist of these verses is not regarding children; it is regarding a childlike faith in Jesus.  When a person believes God, as a little child will, then he will experience the power of the kingdom of heaven. Context always rules. When you look back over the context of the passage, we step back into Matthew 18 and see that Yeshua was referring to childlike belief for any who follow Him. This passage confirms that teaching since He said “the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these”.

8/5/18

Matthew 19:16–22 (NET)

¹⁶ Now someone came up to him and said, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to gain eternal life?” ¹⁷ He said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.” ¹⁸ “Which ones?” he asked. Jesus replied, “Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, ¹⁹ honor your father and mother, and love your neighbor as yourself.”²⁰ The young man said to him, “I have wholeheartedly obeyed all these laws. What do I still lack?” ²¹ Jesus said to him, “If you wish to be perfect, go sell your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” ²² But when the young man heard this he went away sorrowful, for he was very rich.

The rich young ruler is a revealing story. Why? Yeshua quotes six of the Ten Commandments and adds one from Leviticus. I have heard many teach that Yeshua was teaching the impossibility of keeping the “law”. Context teaches a different story. First, let’s look at the elements of the story.

We know that the man was a rich young ruler by deduction. First, Luke calls him a ruler (Luke 18:17). We know that he was young (Matt 19:20). Secondly, we know he is rich because of his possessions (Mark 18:22). So his title was not arbitrary, it referred to his character and position.

The man referred to Yeshua in two ways, first, in Matthew he referred to “what good thing”. Secondly, in the other synoptic Gospels he referred to Yeshua as “Good Teacher” (Mark 10:17-18; Lk 18:18-19).  Why is this important? It sets the stage for Yeshua’s answer to the ruler. Hellenism and Judaism at the time taught that “good” specifically “agathos” referred to a religious good or high moral standard. Hebrew thinking carried it one step further since it was based upon Torah. The Greek mindset was very close to this by basing goodness only upon the gods.

We inherited this idea from Greek philosophy. Many teach that it is impossible to follow the Ten Commandments since they are ultimately “good”. The idea is that no person can possibly be that good. The standard is so high that it is beyond our reach. Good only takes place when the gods place their power in mortal men. We unwittingly take this view instead of taking the Hebrew view. Why? Many Christians have divorced theology from the Old Testament. They are left with New Testament Greek to draw theology from. The natural extension from this is to buy the philosophy of the Greeks and read this into the New Testament. The slight bend in error becomes huge when we look at the focal point of “goodness”. Goodness from the Greek mindset is only possible when God moves upon man. Goodness from the Jewish mindset is an expectation that the one who is following God will follow His instruction (Torah). The mode of power does not originate with the gods, it originates with the follower. God provided the path by giving the instructions of how to follow Him through Torah (Old Testament instruction).  Therefore goodness is not something that is put upon man, but rather an expectation of man.

Yeshua gave a bold statement in this passage. If you want eternal life, keep the commandments. The relationship with God is the prerequisite for following Him. Yeshua is not teaching that righteousness is poured upon the believer by an act of God. He is teaching that a person lives life according to God’s commandments in order to practice righteousness. Remember, the commandments were given to believers.

I cannot count the number of times that I have heard people share the Gospel by starting with the Ten Commandments. They try to demonstrate that no one can keep them and the natural man stands in judgment before God because of this. Few of these believers realize that the Ten Commandments were not written to the natural man, they were given to the followers of God.

The selection of commandments is extremely interesting. There are two sections of commandments in the Ten Commandments. The first section deals with the relationship between God and man, commands 1-4. The Second section deals with relationship between man and man, Commands 5-10. The bulk of the commandments control relationships between people (Ex 20:1-18; Deut 5:6-21).

1. I am the Lord your God
2. You are to have no other gods before me
3. You shall not take the Lord’s name in vain
4. Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy.
5. Honor your father and mother
6. You shall not murder
7. You shall not commit adultery
8. You shall not steal
9. You shall not bear false witness
10. You shall not covet
11. Added by Yeshua: Love your neighbor as yourself (Lev 19:18).

Read through the list and think about it. Almost all of the relational ones are taught from kindergarten. None of these are difficult. I will wager that the reason the first four are not mentioned in the passage was because of the crowd. Yeshua knew that the ruler honored God as His only God. This was a lesson hard learned by the errors of Israel (Deut 6:4-7). Most of Israel had learned the hard way to keep the Sabbath holy. The first four commandments were common practice in that day.

The ones that Yeshua quoted was in this order, 6, 7, 8, 9, 5, 11, 10. He focused on ones that involved relationships man to man. This fellow was proud of the fact that he had kept all the commandments. Except for one…

The tenth commandment caused him problems. He was very rich and had a significant amount of wealth. Yeshua was telling him that he must take care of the poor. By hanging on to his wealth, he was coveting the goods that God gave him to distribute to the poor. Torah teaches that one of the main functions of believers is to take care of the poor, the widows and the orphans. When we fail to take care of the underprivileged, we are not following the commands of God. This is not how we love our neighbor as ourselves.

Jesus had told the man that he had to love his neighbor as himself.  The very fact that he was unwilling to share his wealth with the poor proved that he was not willing to love his neighbor as himself.   If he truly loved his neighbor as himself, then he must demonstrate the fact by putting his faith in action. The man walked away grieving since he was unwilling to part with his wealth.

Matthew 19:23–26 (NET)

²³ Then Jesus said to his disciples, “I tell you the truth, it will be hard for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven! ²⁴ Again I say, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter into the kingdom of God.” ²⁵ The disciples were greatly astonished when they heard this and said, “Then who can be saved?”²⁶ Jesus looked at them and replied, “This is impossible for mere humans, but for God all things are possible.”

The example of the eye of the needle, can refer to two things. There was a small gate into a walled city called a “needle’s eye” where a man must squeeze through. It was a small gate where a camel would have to get on its knees to pass through.  The Greek is talking about a sewing needle.  The camel was the largest beast around the Jews would have to pass through the smallest opening. Either interpretation carries the same effect.  The disciples understood from the illustration that the requirements for the rich man also applied to them. Yeshua stated that God must intervene for the redemption of man. Although man is required to follow the instructions of God, it is not enough. In order for man to be a part of the Kingdom of Heaven, God must intervene for him.

Matthew 19:27–30 (NET)

²⁷ Then Peter said to him, “Look, we have left everything to follow you! What then will there be for us?” ²⁸ Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth: In the age when all things are renewed, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. ²⁹ And whoever has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life. ³⁰ But many who are first will be last, and the last first.

The key word in this passage is “regeneration”. It is the Greek word “palingenesia” which means restoration, rebirth, renewal, or to begin again. The root word is “genesis” or beginning. With that said, Yeshua was making a promise that looked forward into His earthly reign. Stern compiled an excellent list of scriptures on this that prophesy the new kingdom that will be started over:

The Tanakh speaks of a regenerated world at Isaiah 1:25–2:5, 11:1–16, 65:17; Jeremiah 23:3–8, 30:1–31:40; Micah 4:1–5:3; Zechariah 12:1–14:21; Psalms 2, 22, 89; Daniel 7–12. Note also Ro 8:19–23, Rv 21:1–22:5. Rabbinic literature speaks of the ˓olam haba (“world” or “age to come”) and describes its time and character in such places in the Talmud as Sanhedrin 96–99.^[iii]

When Yeshua promised position in the kingdom, it is validated further by Revelation:

Revelation 21:12–14 (NET)

¹² It has a massive, high wall with twelve gates, with twelve angels at the gates, and the names of the twelve tribes of the nation of Israel are written on the gates.¹³ There are three gates on the east side, three gates on the north side, three gates on the south side and three gates on the west side.¹⁴ The wall of the city has twelve foundations, and on them are the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

Compare this scripture with the references to the 24 elders that will rule over the Kingdom (Rev 3:21; 4:4; 11:16; 20:4).  There will be two sets of thrones in the reign of the Messiah, twelve seats for the tribes of Israel and the twelve apostles.

Yeshua spoke of the time when the “Son of Man will sit on His throne of Glory”. The term “Son of Man” has deep roots that extends back to the Book of Enoch. The Enoch passage is interesting since is almost verbatum when referring to Yeshua judging the sheep and goats. Daniel also wrote about the Son of Man, other references in the Old Testament allude to the prophecy of the “Son of Man” but Daniel nails the concept:

Daniel 7:13–14 (NET)

¹³ I was watching in the night visions, “And with the clouds of the sky one like a son of man was approaching. He went up to the Ancient of Days and was escorted before him. ¹⁴ To him was given ruling authority, honor, and sovereignty. All peoples, nations, and language groups were serving him. His authority is eternal and will not pass away. His kingdom will not be destroyed.

Just for entertainment purposes, look at this prophecy contained in the Book of Enoch. I am not quoting from Enoch as scripture. I am quoting because it was compiled/written between 300 and 100 B. C. The book and the thoughts were in circulation at the time of the Messiah. When He referred to the Messianic Title of “Son of Man”, this stretched into the extra biblical books and thought that was being entertained by the teachers of the time.

⁷ For from the beginning the Son of Man was hidden,

And the Most High preserved him in the presence of His might,

And revealed him to the elect.

⁸ And the Congregation of the elect and holy shall be sown.

And all the elect shall stand before him on that day.

⁹ And all the kings and the mighty and the exalted and those who rule the earth

Shall fall down before him on their faces,

And worship and set their hope upon that Son of Man,

And petition him and supplicate for mercy at his hands.^[iv]

²⁹ And from henceforth there shall be nothing corruptible;

For that Son of Man has appeared,

And has seated himself on the throne of his glory,

And all evil shall pass away before his face,

And the word of that Son of Man shall go forth

And be strong before the Lord of Spirits.

This is the third Parable of Enoch.^[v]

Matthew 19:29-30: Yeshua promised that anyone who follows Him and has suffered loss in doing so will be compensated many times over by Him. They will also inherit eternal life! The idea that we have about eternal life is life forever after death with God. The Jewish idea is much different. The Jewish thought is that if you make Torah the center of your life, you will have full life. Without Torah, you are basically the walking dead. Torah from the Jewish perspective is the instructions of Moses that was given for how to follow God.

Let’s swing this to the Christian for a moment. Eternal life is not something that takes place after death. Eternal life takes place from the moment of salvation. It is life to its fullest here on earth as we fellowship with other believers (the Kingdom of God) and are empowered by the Holy Spirit. Eternal life is not an after death experience. It is the fuel that drives the Christian to walk the straight and narrow path of everyday life.

Yeshua’s last comment was “But many who are first shall be last and the last, first”. The implication of this is many who have served the Lord their entire life shall experience eternal life and enter heaven with that status. Some will only know the Lord for a short time before meeting death. Their walk will be short but they may arrive before the ones who have had a long walk. This is explained further by the parable in the next chapter.

Thanks for reading, all comments are welcomed. Fill out the comment form and your comments will be emailed to me. I will then add them to the bottom of the teaching.

Thanks,

Joe Turner

⁶⁸⁰ The word is derived from a verb meaning basically to be naked, bare. According to Brown, Driver, Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon of The Old Testament, Boston and New York, 1906, p. 789, the meaning of ‘erwath dābhār is probably indecency, improper behavior.

LXX Seputagint

⁶⁸¹ See also Josephus Antiquities IV.253.

^[i] William Hendriksen and Simon J. Kistemaker, Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew, vol. 9, New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1953–2001), 713–714.

^[ii] Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), Mt 19:1–3.

^[iii] David H. Stern, Jewish New Testament Commentary : A Companion Volume to the Jewish New Testament, electronic ed. (Clarksville: Jewish New Testament Publications, 1996), Mt 19:28.

^[iv] Robert Henry Charles, ed., Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, vol. 2 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913), 228.

^[v] Robert Henry Charles, ed., Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, vol. 2 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913), 235.

Comment: why do u think that the rich young ruler pressed the issue with YESHUA he was told what to do to inherit eternal life . it seems to me he shoulda left it at that or am i missing something ?? By Frank

Reply: Hey Frank, It could have been because he already knew that he was not following Torah. He knew and needed to receive confirmation that his life was lacking. I am almost certain that later he changed his life. But we have no way of knowing if he walked away forever or just to contemplate the message. Some things are unknowns to us, If I were guessing though, I would certainly think that he was trying to justify his position and the trappings of his position.