Let the Children Come

Continuing a Bible study of the gospels:

(Matthew 19:1) And it came to pass when Jesus had finished these sayings, He departed from Galilee and came to the coasts of Judea beyond Jordan.

At the end of the last chapter, Jesus had just finished telling the parable of the unforgiving servant in answer to Peter's question about how many times one should forgive a brother his trespasses.  After this, He left Galilee and went to the border of Judea to the country that was called "beyond Jordan" that bordered Judea.  Most all the old commentaries I study made it a point to say that even though it was so lightly touched in scripture, this was considered Christ's farewell to Galilee.  Galilee was where He had chiefly preached and performed His miracles, but He now left Galilee, never to return until after His resurrection.  Albert Barnes pointed out in his Notes on the Bible that considerable time had lapsed from when Jesus taught the parable of the unforgiving servant to the time He left Galilee, for Luke and John recorded several important events that happened in the meantime.  

(2) And great multitudes followed Him, and He healed them there.

Great multitudes of people followed Jesus, and He healed them there in that region of the edge of Judea and beyond the Jordan River.

(3) The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause?"

The Pharisees also came to Jesus, but they only wanted to test Him, to see if He would contradict Moses.  They asked if it was lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason.

(4) And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female, (5) And said, 'For this reason shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be one flesh'?"

Jesus answered the Pharisees by asking them a question about whether they had read the scriptures about when God first made man and woman at the beginning.  He quoted Genesis 2:24 where Adam said what must be attributed to God according to Jesus here.  Adam was surely at the time speaking the words of God by divine revelation.  He had said that man was meant to leave his father and mother and be attached to his wife, and they were to become as one.

(6) "Wherefore they are no more two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man put asunder."

Therefore, Jesus said to them, what God had joined together as one flesh, no man ought to break that bond or separate them.

(7) They said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to give a writing of divorcement and put her away?"

The Pharisees answered Him by asking the question of why Moses "commanded" a certificate of divorce and the sending away of the wife.  Referring to Deuteronomy 24:1, they apparently saw this as in opposition to what Jesus taught, and sought to ensnare Him.

(8) He said to them, "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to put away your wives, but from the beginning it was not so."

Jesus answered the Pharisees by saying that Moses "permitted" divorce; it was certainly not commanded.  As a civil lawgiver, Moses allowed for a relaxation of the marriage bond because of the "hardness of their hearts," a recognition of their lowly moral state and inability to endure the strictness of the original law, and to prevent still greater evils, like adultery and physical abuse.  Jesus reiterated the fact that this was not so in the beginning.  Just because the law permitted something didn't mean that God approved of it.

(9) "And I say to you, whoever puts away his wife, except it be for fornication, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who was put away, commits adultery." 

Jesus declared that whoever divorced his wife for anything other than her fornication or adultery, that is, her defiling the marriage bed and destroying what had been one flesh, and then married another woman would be guilty of adultery.  Additionally, whoever married the woman who had been frivolously divorced, also committed adultery.

(10) His disciples said to Him, "If the case of the man is such with his wife, it is not good to marry."

I find this statement by the disciples rather sad.  They felt like the possibility of being bound to a disagreeable woman with no way out unless she was unfaithful, was a thing to be totally avoided by not marrying at all.

(11) But He said to them, "All cannot receive this saying, except those to whom it is given."

Jesus replied that not all men could accept and adhere to a single life, to a celibate life, as the disciples suggested.  It was natural for man to want to be joined with a wife; even God stated that in the beginning, in Genesis 2:18, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper just right for him."  The gift of celibacy was just that, a gift that not all men could receive and adhere to, unless given that spirit by the Holy Spirit of God.

(12) "For there are some eunuchs who were so born from their mother's womb, and there are some eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He who is able to receive it, let him receive it."

In addressing this scripture, first it is necessary to know the meaning of the word "eunuch."  The original Greek word "eunouchos" was formed by the words "eune" meaning "bed" and "echos" meaning "to have, to hold, to possess."  Therefore, "eunouchos" meant to have the care of the bed or bedchamber because that was the typical employment of eunuchs.  The dictionary definition of a eunuch is "a castrated man, especially one formerly employed by rulers in the Middle East and Asia as a harem guard;" thus being the caretaker of the women's bedchambers.  These eunuchs were most often made so by mutilation so that they would be "safe" in the women's bedchambers.  The primary definition of "eunouchos" in Strong's Greek Dictionary after distinguishing the root words is "a castrated person."  Thayer's Greek Definitions defines it as first a "bed keeper or bed guard" with the primary subtitle of "an emasculated man."  

Jesus discussed the different types of eunuchs.  The most common were probably those who had been made eunuchs by man, but He said that there were some eunuchs who were so born from their mother's womb.  The medical definition of "eunuch" is "a man or boy whose testes have been removed or have never developed."  Jesus acknowledged that some men were born that way.  The secondary definition of the word in Strong's is "an impotent man," and Thayer's, "one naturally incapacitated for marriage or for begetting children."  The eunuchs who were employed in the bedchambers of harems, queens, or princesses, surely had to be visually physically impaired in the sexual organ department.  However, Jesus was talking about eunuchs in the context of marriage, so he meant those men who might have been born with a sexual deformity, but also those with impotence or some other natural, but maybe not visible, incapacitation for marriage.

The third type of eunuch that Jesus discussed was one who made himself a eunuch.  I cannot believe that this meant he mutilated his body to become a eunuch, but that he chose to live as a eunuch, that is celibate.  I've seen this verse used as the Bible's approval of transsexuality, asexuality, pansexuality, and all those other letters added to the LGB community.  A person who may not experience sexual attraction and be considered asexual may be one who is considered born that way and incapacitated for marriage.  However, in no way was Jesus discussing homosexuals, bisexuals, or pansexuals, and the like.  There was a definite prohibition against such activity in the Bible.  A transsexual is one who changes his sex, so that cannot be what is meant, either.  A eunuch was more of an asexual, without sex.  Also note that the reason for making oneself a eunuch was for "the kingdom of heaven's sake," so obviously it was not for exploring different kinds of sexual activity, but for celibacy, to devote oneself entirely to the service of God, and not for family.  

When Jesus said that he who was able to receive it, let him receive it, I believe He meant that those people who were able to live celibate lives, let them do it and live happy fulfilled lives as they were given.  I believe He was saying that there was no shame in not being married or not having children, and that it was a gift to be celebrated, as the apostle Paul obviously did.  If a person was born that way, then accept that as a gift as well.  But if a man was unable to live a celibate life, then of course, there was no shame in marrying and having children, as that is a very necessary part for the kingdom of heaven, as well.

(13) Then there were brought to Him little children that He should put hands on them and pray, and the disciples rebuked them.

Then little children were brought to Jesus in hopes He would lay His hands on them and pray and bless them.  The disciples evidently thought their Master should not be bothered by such things.  He did more lofty and important things like healing and saving lives, and shouldn't be bothered with blessing babies.

(14) But Jesus said, "Allow little children, and do not forbid them to come to Me, for of such is the kingdom of heaven."

However, Jesus showed His humility that He was not above taking notice of anyone who came to Him, and reminded His disciples they should regard the weakest believers as they were like little children in the kingdom of heaven.  Be they natural babies or baby Christians, all were to be regarded worthy of Jesus and of entering the kingdom of heaven.

(15) And He laid His hands on them, and departed from there.

Jesus indeed laid His hands on them as He had been asked to do, and then departed from that area beyond Jordan.

(16) And behold, one came and said to Him, "Good Master, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?"

Matthew called him "one" of many, but Luke called him a "certain ruler," so we may assume he was a man of some means.  Mark said he came running to Jesus which implies some earnestness.  He wanted to know from Jesus what good thing he must do to have eternal life.

(17) And He said to him, "Why do you call Me good? There is none good but One, God; but if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments."

Of course, Jesus was good, all good; but He knew this man only thought of Him as a man.  His point was that people threw around such titles that only applied to God.  His intention was to make this man realize no one was good, and no one good act was going to give him eternal life.  However, He did answer him that if he wanted eternal life, he should keep the commandments.  At first, I wondered why Jesus would answer this way when just the act of keeping the commandments was not enough to be saved.  However, isn't that the reason that Jesus came, because no one could keep the whole law?  Once again, Jesus was making the point that no one can really be good enough to achieve eternal life.  

(18) He said to Him, "Which?" Jesus said, "You shall do no murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not bear false witness, (19) Honor your father and mother, and you shall love your neighbor as yourself."

I find it interesting that the man asked which ones.  It reminds me of people who are always looking for the magic formula, if you will, to salvation.  There are those who are wise in their own eyes, thinking they have learned the real secret.  This man wants to know the secret.  Jesus went on to list all the commandments having to do with love of one's fellow man; and if one loves his neighbor as himself, he will not covet any of his neighbor's things; therefore, He has listed all six having to do with one's fellow man.

(20) The young man said to Him, "All these things I have kept from my youth; what do I yet lack?"

The young man told Jesus he had kept all the commandments since he was a child, which is so typical of one who thinks he has always done good and is good enough to go to heaven.  As John would say later in 1 John 1:8, "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us."  Paul in Romans 3:23 said, "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God;" and therefore it follows what John continued to say in 1 John 1:10, "If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us."  The man asked Jesus what it was that he still lacked.

(21) Jesus said to him, "If you want to be perfect, go and sell what you have and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come and follow Me." 

Jesus knew exactly what the man lacked.  He told him to sell all that he had, give it to the poor, and follow Him.  This act would encompass the first four commandments, including having nothing in life above God.  

(22) But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.

The man could not give up his wealth and possessions for God.  He had made an idol of wealth and things, and could not bring himself to give them up even for eternal life.  I find it hard to believe that someone would give up eternal life for temporary things on earth, but that would be because he doesn't really believe or have faith enough to let go of everything and give all to God, relying solely on Him.

(23) Then Jesus said to His disciples, "Verily, I say to you, that a rich man can hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven."

Jesus went on to make this a teaching moment for His disciples.  He told them it was almost impossible for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.

(24) "And again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."

Jesus went on to give an expression illustrating the sheer impossibility of it, saying it was easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.  I can remember a pastor explaining that the eye of a needle was not meant as we think of it, but that there was a narrow passage through a particular small gate called the "eye of the needle," and that is what Jesus was referring to.  I don't believe that is true, as will become clearer as Jesus said more.  Besides, a rich man indicates one who still has all his wealth.  If he has given all to the poor and retains nothing, but to follow Jesus, is he still rich in the worldly sense?

(25) When His disciples heard that, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, "Who then can be saved?"

The disciples' question seems to indicate that most people in their time were considered rich in some measure.  I don't think that is what they meant.  I think they were imagining a rich man with all his advantages who could absolutely not ride his camel through the eye of a needle, so just how was it that anyone could do it?

(26) But Jesus looked at them and said to them, "With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

Jesus admitted to them that with man alone trying to save himself, it was impossible.  However, with God, all things were possible.  Only God can draw man to Himself and give him the desire of only God in his life, so that he desires to give up all worldly treasures.  Just as God could make that camel go through the eye of a needle with just a word if He so willed it, He could work miracles with a rich man's heart in order to save him.  When you think about it, isn't it a blessing not to be rich?  If worldly riches are so hard to give up, an impossibility on our own, then we can consider it a blessing not to have that impediment.  However, money can be an idol just as easily to a poor person, because that is what he thinks about and strives for constantly, believing that is what he needs most.  But once again, with God it is possible to forget about money and trust Him for all needs.

(27) Then Peter answered and said to Him, "Behold, we have forsaken all and followed You; what shall we have therefore?"

Having listened to the conversation between Jesus and the rich young ruler, and hearing Jesus tell the man that if he sold all and gave it to the poor, he would have treasure in heaven, Peter then asked Jesus that question.  Peter and the other disciples had not sold all they had and given it to the poor.  Many had wives and families to support.  At most, we were told that they left a few boats and fishing nets.  Peter's inquiry sounds selfish and a bit grandiose on his part, "We have forsaken all."  Perhaps his intention was to find out if what they had given to devote their lives to Jesus and follow Him daily, was enough.

(28) And Jesus said to them, "Verily, I say to you, that you who have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of His glory, you also shall sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel."

Jesus's answer to Peter is a bit difficult for us to understand.  Even Biblical scholars understand it in different ways.  What seems the most plausible to me is that those who have followed Him, once they are in the time of regeneration when the elect will begin to live a new life in their new heavenly bodies enjoying their heavenly inheritance, when Jesus sits on His throne of glory in heaven, they will also sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.  Whether or not the thrones are literal, they denote power and honor; the disciples will be distinguished above others.  As far as judging the twelve tribes of Israel, Jesus is the One and only judge on Judgment Day.  I believe the way "judging" is used here, the way that it is often used in the Bible, means that by their example and comparison, they brought judgment to the twelve tribes before them, to the Jews who rejected and crucified Christ.  Some scholars believe that what is meant by the regeneration, is immediately after Jesus rose from the dead and was seated at His throne, when the disciples were actively growing the early church, a time of reformation; teaching true Christianity was judging the old ways of the twelve tribes.  I tend to think that the honor in heaven is what is meant.  That is what Peter was asking.

(29) "And everyone who has forsaken houses, or brothers or sisters, or father or mother, or wife or children, or lands, for My name's sake, shall receive a hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life."

Jesus went on to say that everyone, not just the twelve disciples, but surely including them, who forsook family and/or property for Jesus's sake would receive a hundred times in value what they had given up, and would inherit everlasting life.

(30) "But many who are first shall be last, and the last shall be first."

Jesus said that many who were first would be last, and the last would be first.  This might mean that those who were first in the world would be last in the kingdom of heaven, and the last, poor and lowly, might be first.  However, many who would be first in the world will not even be in the kingdom of heaven, so I don't believe that is what is meant.  The heavenly inheritance is not given as earthly inheritances often are, by priority of birth; nor will God give preference to those who were first saved in time, but according to God's pleasure and grace.  

In summarizing this chapter, the most important part that impresses upon me is Jesus and the little children.  I watched a beautiful movie last night, Lucy Shimmers and the Prince of Peace.  Lucy Shimmers was a perfect illustration of how one should come to Christ as an innocent child, filled with wonder and having full faith in all the Bible says, seeing people as Jesus sees them, loving them as Jesus loves them, simply because He said we should.  Oh, if only we could see God and the world the way a child can, before all the hurts, guilt, and selfishness start building that wall of separation.  A child is not so easily turned away, not so easily feeling rejected.  A child can be very persistent, and when that innocence and persistence is combined with the knowledge of Christ, a child can do wonders melting jaded hearts.  No wonder Jesus said we must come to Him as children, and why He said to let the children come to Him.  Christ and a sweet child--what a beautiful combination!  Children see things in black and white, not in all shades of gray as we have complicated the simplest things to be.  Jesus said His yoke was easy and His burden was light.  It's really true if we only accept His simple truths at face value, and seek to do His commandments, if only because He said so.  If one thought as simply as this, he would always love and never divorce his wife.  One could easily trust God with all and give up all riches if he had the trusting nature of a child.