Matthew · Chapter 19

V. 1. He departed-and from that time walked no more in Galilee. Mark 10:1.

Verse 1. Beyond Jordan] Or, by the side of Jordan. Matthew begins here to give an account of Christ’s journey (the only one he mentions) to Jerusalem, a little before the passover, at which he was crucified. See Mark 10:1; Luke 9:51.

Jesus came from Galilee (which lay to the north of Judea) into the coasts of Judea; and from thence, in his way to Jerusalem, he went through Jericho, (Matthew 20:17, 29,) which lay at the distance of sixty furlongs, or seven miles and a half from Jordan, to the western side of it. See Joseph. WAR, book iv. chap. 8. sect. 3. It seems, therefore, most probable, that the course of Christ’s journey led him by the side of the river Jordan, not beyond it. That the Greek word peran, especially with a genitive case as here, has sometimes this signification, see on John 6:22; see also Bp. Pearce.

Verses 1, 2. When Jesus had finished these sayings — Had delivered the instructions contained in the preceding chapter, to his disciples at Capernaum; he departed from Galilee — Where he had long dwelt, and through which he had made repeated journeys, but in which, from henceforward, he walked no more; and came into the coasts of Judea beyond Jordan — “Properly speaking, no part of Judea was on the farther side of Jordan; for though, after the Jews returned from the captivity, the whole of their land was called Judea, especially by foreigners who happened to mention their affairs, it is certain that in the gospels Judea is always spoken of as a particular division of the country. We may therefore reasonably suppose, that Matthew’s expression is elliptical; and may supply it from Mark 10:1, thus, And came into the coasts of Judea, dia tou peran tou Iordanou, through the country beyond Jordan. See John 10:40. In this journey, our Lord passed through the country beyond Jordan, that the Jews living there might enjoy the benefit of his doctrine and miracles. And great multitudes followed him — Namely, from Galilee into Perea, for his fame having become exceeding great, he was everywhere resorted to, and followed by the sick who wished to be healed; by their friends who attended them; by those whose curiosity prompted them to see and examine things so wonderful; by well-disposed persons, who found themselves greatly profited and pleased with his sermons; by enemies who watched all his words and actions with a design to expose him as a deceiver; lastly, by those who expected that he would set up the kingdom immediately: besides, at this time the multitude may have been greater than ordinary, because, as the passover was at hand, many, going thither, may have chosen to travel in our Lord’s train, expecting to see new miracles.” — Macknight.

1. He departed from Galilee — He left Galilee for the last time before his crucifixion. It had been the main scene of his ministry. He was hence sometimes called “the prophet of Galilee.” Even for centuries after, the Christians were called, by Jews and Pagans, GALILEANS. When the celebrated Julian, the apostate, was providentially slain in the midst of his efforts to destroy Christianity, he exclaimed with his expiring breath: “Thou hast conquered, O Galilean!” The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke have been called, specially, the Galilean Gospels, because their scene is mostly in Galilee, and their subject the ministry of our Lord to that section. On the other hand, John’s has been called the Judean Gospel, because its scene is mostly in Judea, especially in Jerusalem. Came… Judea beyond Jordan — No part of Judea proper lay beyond, that is, east of the Jordan. But this phrase of Matthew is intended to cover the whole extent of our Lord’s following ministry in both Judea and Perea. So Mark 10:1, is strictly to be rendered: He cometh into the territories of Judea and beyond the Jordan. That is, after leaving Galilee, his ministry was in Judea and Perea. Before he went to Perea, beyond Jordan, he visited Jerusalem, where most of the transactions of his ministry in John’s Gospel took place. Nor does Matthew here probably give the earliest transactions even in Perea, as will appear by consulting the Historical Synopsis. Between our Lord’s leaving Galilee and the ensuing discussion with the Pharisees, the interval was near six months.

CHAPTER 19. Verse 1. 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. Peran tou Iordanou 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.

V. 2. Multitudes followed him, and he healed them there-That is, wheresoever they followed him.

Verse 2. Great multitudes followed him] Some to be instructed-some to be healed-some through curiosity-and some to ensnare him.

Verses 1, 2. When Jesus had finished these sayings — Had delivered the instructions contained in the preceding chapter, to his disciples at Capernaum; he departed from Galilee — Where he had long dwelt, and through which he had made repeated journeys, but in which, from henceforward, he walked no more; and came into the coasts of Judea beyond Jordan — “Properly speaking, no part of Judea was on the farther side of Jordan; for though, after the Jews returned from the captivity, the whole of their land was called Judea, especially by foreigners who happened to mention their affairs, it is certain that in the gospels Judea is always spoken of as a particular division of the country. We may therefore reasonably suppose, that Matthew’s expression is elliptical; and may supply it from Mark 10:1, thus, And came into the coasts of Judea, dia tou peran tou Iordanou, through the country beyond Jordan. See John 10:40. In this journey, our Lord passed through the country beyond Jordan, that the Jews living there might enjoy the benefit of his doctrine and miracles. And great multitudes followed him — Namely, from Galilee into Perea, for his fame having become exceeding great, he was everywhere resorted to, and followed by the sick who wished to be healed; by their friends who attended them; by those whose curiosity prompted them to see and examine things so wonderful; by well-disposed persons, who found themselves greatly profited and pleased with his sermons; by enemies who watched all his words and actions with a design to expose him as a deceiver; lastly, by those who expected that he would set up the kingdom immediately: besides, at this time the multitude may have been greater than ordinary, because, as the passover was at hand, many, going thither, may have chosen to travel in our Lord’s train, expecting to see new miracles.” — Macknight.

2. Great multitudes followed him — As he itinerated in Perea.

V. 3. The Pharisees came tempting him-Trying to make him contradict Moses.

For every cause-That is, for any thing which he dislikes in her. This the scribes allowed.

Verse 3. Tempting him] Trying what answer he would give to a question, which, however decided by him, would expose him to censure. Is it lawful-for every cause?] Instead of aitian, fault, cause, reason, three MSS. and the Coptic version read amartian, sin or transgression: this was probably the original reading-the first syllable being lost, artian alone would remain, which a subsequent transcriber would suppose to be a mistake for aitian, and so wrote it; hence this various reading. What made our Lord’s situation at present so critical in respect to this question was: At this time there were two famous divinity and philosophical schools among the Jews, that of SHAMMAI, and that of HILLEL. On the question of divorce, the school of Shammai maintained, that a man could not legally put away his wife, except for whoredom. The school of Hillel taught that a man might put away his wife for a multitude of other causes, and when she did not find grace in his sight; i.e. when he saw any other woman that pleased him better. See the case of Josephus, mentioned in Clarke’s note on “Matthew 5:31”, and Calmet’s Comment, vol. i. part ii. p. 379. By answering the question, not from Shammai or Hillel, but from Moses, our blessed Lord defeated their malice, and confounded their devices.

Verse 3. The Pharisees also — Who always had a watchful eye on his motions, and attended him with the most malignant designs, being now more especially irritated by the fame of his late miracles, which they had in vain endeavoured to suppress; came unto him, tempting him — With what they thought a very artful and insnaring question; and — That they might, if possible, find some reason to accuse him, or to discredit him, at least, among the people; they asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? — That is, for any thing which he dislikes in her. “The school of Hillel taught, that a man might put away his wife for any cause. The son of Sirach saith, ‘If she go not as thou wouldest have her, cut her off from thy flesh, give her a bill of divorce, and let her go.’ Ecclus. 25:26. Josephus saith, The law runs thus: ‘He that would be disjoined from his wife, for any cause whatsoever, let him give her a bill of divorce.’ And he confesseth, that he himself put away his wife, after she had borne him three children, ‘because he was not pleased with her behaviour.’ But the school of Shammah determined, on the contrary that the wife was only to be put away for adultery.” — Whitby. (Christ, it must be observed, “had delivered his sentiments on this subject twice; once in Galilee, Matthew 5:31; and again in Perea, Luke 16:18. It is probable, therefore, that they knew his opinion, and solicited him to declare it, hoping it would incense the people, who reckoned the liberty which the law gave them of divorcing their wives, one of their chief privileges. Or if, standing in awe of the people, he should deliver a doctrine different from what he had taught on former occasions, they thought it would be a fit ground for accusing him of dissimulation. But they missed their aim entirely; for Jesus, always consistent with himself, boldly declared the third time against arbitrary divorces, not fearing the popular resentment in the least.” — Macknight.

Verse 3. The pharisees also came — tempting him. These men professed perfection of morality, and of worship; and their object was to tempt our Lord to sin, by giving his sanction to a law of custom, revolting to all the feelings of humanity, and admitting that a man might divorce his wife for any corporeal infirmity, or defect in temper or conduct. Our Saviour confounded their ingenious malice by the non-admission of any just cause of divorce, except that of adultery, and adultery proved first at the bar of justice. See Deuteronomy 24:1. Malachi 2:11-14.

3. The Pharisees also came — The Pharisees as well as the multitudes. The former to cavil, and the latter to be healed. Tempting him — Trying him to see if they cannot get him into a difficulty. The point was one about which there was a hot partisan dispute, and the object was to involve our Lord in its quarrel. For every cause — The point is this: In Deuteronomy 24:1, Moses gives to a man permission to dismiss his wife by granting her a bill of divorce or discharge, certifying that she is no longer his wife, if she “find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found uncleanness in her.” The followers of Rabbi Hillel interpreted this to mean that a man might dismiss his wife whenever he pleased, for the very slightest offence, or for no offence at all, if he found some woman that pleased him more. But the followers of Rabbi Schammai held that the uncleanness meant unchasteness, and so forbid divorce for any other cause. If these Pharisees now can make our Lord commit himself upon this point, they hope to involve him in the feud with one party or the other.

Verse 3. 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 mh areskomenov authv toiv eqesi, 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.

V. 4. He said, Have ye not read-So instead of contradicting him, our Lord confutes them by the very words of Moses.

He who made them, made them male and female from the

beginning-At least from the beginning of the Mosaic creation. And where do we read of any other? Does it not follow, that God's making Eve was part of his original design, and not a consequence of Adam's beginning to fall? By making them one man and one woman, he condemned polygamy: by making them one flesh, he condemned divorce.

Verse 4. He which made them at the beginning] When Adam and Eve were the first of human kind.

Made them male and female] Merely through the design of matrimonial union, that the earth might be thus peopled. To answer a case of conscience, a man should act as Christ does here; pay no regard to that which the corruption of manners has introduced into Divine ordinances, but go back to the original will, purpose, and institution of God. Christ will never accommodate his morality to the times, nor to the inclinations of men. What was done at the beginning is what God judged most worthy of his glory, most profitable for man, and most suitable to nature.

Verses 4-6. He answered, Have ye not read, &c. — It is thought by some that the chief design of the Pharisees in putting the fore-mentioned question to our Lord, was to make him contradict Moses. If so, they were much disappointed, for, instead of contradicting him, he confutes them by the very words of Moses. He who made them at the beginning — When the human race began to exist; made them male and female — Greek, arsen kai qhlu, which Dr. Campbell renders, a male and a female. He finds fault with our version as inaccurate and irrelative to our Lord’s argument, and thinks our translators “could not have rendered the clause differently if the original expression had been arrenav kai qhleiav epoiesen autouv. Yet it is manifest, that the sense would have been different. All that this declaration would have implied is, that when God created mankind, he made people of both sexes. But what argument could have been drawn from this principle, to show that the tie of marriage was indissoluble? Or how could the conclusion annexed have been supported? For this cause shall a man leave father and mother. Besides, it was surely unnecessary to recur to the history of the creation to convince those Pharisees of what all the world knew, that the human race was composed of men and women, and consequently of two sexes. The weight of the argument, therefore,” he says, “must lie in this circumstance, that God created at first no more than a single pair, one of each sex, whom he united in the bond of marriage, and, in so doing, exhibited a standard of that union to all generations. The very words, and these two, show that it is implied in the historian’s declaration, that they were two, one male and one female, and no more. But this is by no means implied in the common version. It lets us know, indeed, that they were two sexes, but gives us no hint that these were but two persons.” And said — By the mouth of Adam, who uttered these words, For this cause — On account of his engaging in the married state; shall a man leave father and mother — When those dear relations of parental and filial tenderness shall take place, and shall cleave to his wife — With an affection more strong and steady than he feels even for those from whom, under God, he has derived his being: and they twain shall be one flesh — That is, “shall constitute only one person, in respect of the unity of their inclinations and interests, and of the mutual power which they have over each other’s bodies, 1 Corinthians 6:16; 7:4; and as long as they continue faithful to this law, they must remain undivided till death separates them.” Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh — “From the original institution of marriage, therefore, in paradise, and from the great law thereof, declared by God himself on that occasion, it evidently appears that it is the strongest and tenderest of all friendships, a friendship supported by the divine sanction and approbation, a friendship therefore which ought to be indissoluble till death.” What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder — By unreasonable divorces. Husbands and wives, being joined together by the ordinance of God, must not be put asunder by any ordinance of man: but the bond of marriage must be esteemed sacred, and incapable of being dissolved by any thing which does not make them cease to be one flesh, by making that of the one common to some third person, that is, by one of the parties committing adultery: for as, by forming at first only one man and one woman, God condemned polygamy, so, by making them one flesh, he condemned divorce.

4. He answered — Our Lord’s answer really coincides with neither party. Schammai is indeed in the right in maintaining the stricter view of marriage obligation. His views are founded in absolute right. But then he is wrong in maintaining that the letter of the Mosaic law does maintain the highest strictness of the divine right on this subject. From the hardness of their hearts Moses did permit to the Jews, though not enjoin, a practice which was not absolutely right. A truly pure man could not avail himself of the permission. Have ye not read — Our Lord here quotes the book of Genesis as a divine authority. We thus prove the Old Testament by the New. If Christ was the Son of God, Moses was the servant of God. If Christ’s words had a divine authority, then Moses was also inspired. Made them male and female — He made the race male and female, with the divine intention that marriage should exist. And by still maintaining the race as divided into two sexes, he shows that marriage is a permanent and natural institution. And as he made one for one, and no more, so the marriage of a single man with a single woman is a law of the race. And since, by some mysterious law, the two sexes are perpetually preserved in an approximate equality in point of number, it is plain that the permanent marriage of one man with one woman is the permanent and universal law of nature. Polygamy, as well as capricious divorce, is a violation of natural law.

V. 5. And said-By the mouth of Adam, who uttered the words. Genesis 2:24.

Verse 5. For this cause] Being created for this very purpose; that they might glorify their Maker in a matrimonial connection. A man shall leave (kataleiyai, wholly give up) both father and mother-the matrimonial union being more intimate and binding than even paternal or filial affection;-and shall be closely united, proskollhqhsetai, shall be firmly cemented to his wife. A beautiful metaphor, which most forcibly intimates that nothing but death can separate them: as a well-glued board will break sooner in the whole wood, than in the glued joint. So also the Hebrew word qbd debak implies.

And they twain shall be one flesh?] Not only meaning, that they should be considered as one body, but also as two souls in one body, with a complete union of interests, and an indissoluble partnership of life and fortune, comfort and support, desires and inclinations, joys and sorrows. Farther, it appears to me, that the words in Genesis 2:24, dja rcbl lebasar achad, for one flesh, which our Lord literally translates, mean also, that children, compounded as it were of both, should be the product of the matrimonial connection. Thus, they two (man and woman) shall be for the producing of one flesh, the very same kind of human creature with themselves. See the note on Genesis 2:24.

Verses 4-6. He answered, Have ye not read, &c. — It is thought by some that the chief design of the Pharisees in putting the fore-mentioned question to our Lord, was to make him contradict Moses. If so, they were much disappointed, for, instead of contradicting him, he confutes them by the very words of Moses. He who made them at the beginning — When the human race began to exist; made them male and female — Greek, arsen kai qhlu, which Dr. Campbell renders, a male and a female. He finds fault with our version as inaccurate and irrelative to our Lord’s argument, and thinks our translators “could not have rendered the clause differently if the original expression had been arrenav kai qhleiav epoiesen autouv. Yet it is manifest, that the sense would have been different. All that this declaration would have implied is, that when God created mankind, he made people of both sexes. But what argument could have been drawn from this principle, to show that the tie of marriage was indissoluble? Or how could the conclusion annexed have been supported? For this cause shall a man leave father and mother. Besides, it was surely unnecessary to recur to the history of the creation to convince those Pharisees of what all the world knew, that the human race was composed of men and women, and consequently of two sexes. The weight of the argument, therefore,” he says, “must lie in this circumstance, that God created at first no more than a single pair, one of each sex, whom he united in the bond of marriage, and, in so doing, exhibited a standard of that union to all generations. The very words, and these two, show that it is implied in the historian’s declaration, that they were two, one male and one female, and no more. But this is by no means implied in the common version. It lets us know, indeed, that they were two sexes, but gives us no hint that these were but two persons.” And said — By the mouth of Adam, who uttered these words, For this cause — On account of his engaging in the married state; shall a man leave father and mother — When those dear relations of parental and filial tenderness shall take place, and shall cleave to his wife — With an affection more strong and steady than he feels even for those from whom, under God, he has derived his being: and they twain shall be one flesh — That is, “shall constitute only one person, in respect of the unity of their inclinations and interests, and of the mutual power which they have over each other’s bodies, 1 Corinthians 6:16; 7:4; and as long as they continue faithful to this law, they must remain undivided till death separates them.” Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh — “From the original institution of marriage, therefore, in paradise, and from the great law thereof, declared by God himself on that occasion, it evidently appears that it is the strongest and tenderest of all friendships, a friendship supported by the divine sanction and approbation, a friendship therefore which ought to be indissoluble till death.” What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder — By unreasonable divorces. Husbands and wives, being joined together by the ordinance of God, must not be put asunder by any ordinance of man: but the bond of marriage must be esteemed sacred, and incapable of being dissolved by any thing which does not make them cease to be one flesh, by making that of the one common to some third person, that is, by one of the parties committing adultery: for as, by forming at first only one man and one woman, God condemned polygamy, so, by making them one flesh, he condemned divorce.

5. Leave father and mother — The tie of man and wife is stronger than that of parent and child. Hence, as the latter maintains its tie upon the heart during life, so the former should be indissoluble.

Verse 5. 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 proskolhqhsetai, 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 6. What therefore God hath joined together] sunezeuxen, yoked together, as oxen in the plough, where each must pull equally, in order to bring it on. Among the ancients, when persons were newly married, they put a yoke upon their necks, or chains upon their arms, to show that they were to be one, closely united, and pulling equally together in all the concerns of life. See KYPKE in loco.

The finest allegorical representation of the marriage union I have met with, is that antique gem representing the marriage of Cupid and Psyche, in the collection of the duke of Marlborough: it may be seen also among Baron Stoch’s gems, and casts or copies of it in various other collections. 1. Both are represented as winged, to show the alacrity with which the husband and wife should help, comfort and support each ether; preventing, as much as possible, the expressing of a wish or want on either side, by fulfilling it before it can be expressed. 2. Both are veiled, to show that modesty is an inseparable attendant on pure matrimonial connections. 3. Hymen or Marriage goes before them with a lighted torch, leading them by a chain, of which each has a hold, to show that they are united together, and are bound to each other, and that they are led to this by the pure flame of love, which at the same instant both enlightens and warms them. 4. This chain is not iron nor brass, (to intimate that the marriage union is a state of thraldom or slavery,) but it is a chain of pearls, to show that the union is precious, beautiful, and delightful. 5. They hold a dove, the emblem of conjugal fidelity, which they appear to embrace affectionately, to show that they are faithful to each other, not merely through duty, but by affection, and that this fidelity contributes to the happiness of their lives. 6. A winged Cupid, or Love, is represented as having gone before them, preparing the nuptial feast; to intimate that active affections, warm and cordial love, are to be to them a continual source of comfort and enjoyment; and that this is the entertainment they are to meet with at every step of their affectionate lives. 7. Another Cupid, or genius of love comes behind, and places on their heads a basket of ripe fruits; to intimate that a matrimonial union of this kind will generally be blessed with children, who shall be as pleasing to all their senses as ripe and delicious fruits to the smell and taste. 8. The genius of love that follows them has his wings shrivelled up, or the feathers all curled, so as to render them utterly unfit for flight; to intimate that love is to abide with them, that there is to be no separation in affection, but that they are to continue to love one another with pure hearts fervently. Thus love begins and continues this sacred union; as to end, there can be none, for God hath yoked them together.

A finer or more expressive set of emblems has never, I believe, been produced, even by modern refined taste and ingenuity. This group of emblematical figures is engraved upon an onyx by Tryphon, an ancient Grecian artist. A fine drawing was made of this by Cypriani, and was engraved both by Bartolozzi and Sherwin. See one of these plates in the second volume of Bryant’s Analysis of Ancient Mythology, page 392.

Verses 4-6. He answered, Have ye not read, &c. — It is thought by some that the chief design of the Pharisees in putting the fore-mentioned question to our Lord, was to make him contradict Moses. If so, they were much disappointed, for, instead of contradicting him, he confutes them by the very words of Moses. He who made them at the beginning — When the human race began to exist; made them male and female — Greek, arsen kai qhlu, which Dr. Campbell renders, a male and a female. He finds fault with our version as inaccurate and irrelative to our Lord’s argument, and thinks our translators “could not have rendered the clause differently if the original expression had been arrenav kai qhleiav epoiesen autouv. Yet it is manifest, that the sense would have been different. All that this declaration would have implied is, that when God created mankind, he made people of both sexes. But what argument could have been drawn from this principle, to show that the tie of marriage was indissoluble? Or how could the conclusion annexed have been supported? For this cause shall a man leave father and mother. Besides, it was surely unnecessary to recur to the history of the creation to convince those Pharisees of what all the world knew, that the human race was composed of men and women, and consequently of two sexes. The weight of the argument, therefore,” he says, “must lie in this circumstance, that God created at first no more than a single pair, one of each sex, whom he united in the bond of marriage, and, in so doing, exhibited a standard of that union to all generations. The very words, and these two, show that it is implied in the historian’s declaration, that they were two, one male and one female, and no more. But this is by no means implied in the common version. It lets us know, indeed, that they were two sexes, but gives us no hint that these were but two persons.” And said — By the mouth of Adam, who uttered these words, For this cause — On account of his engaging in the married state; shall a man leave father and mother — When those dear relations of parental and filial tenderness shall take place, and shall cleave to his wife — With an affection more strong and steady than he feels even for those from whom, under God, he has derived his being: and they twain shall be one flesh — That is, “shall constitute only one person, in respect of the unity of their inclinations and interests, and of the mutual power which they have over each other’s bodies, 1 Corinthians 6:16; 7:4; and as long as they continue faithful to this law, they must remain undivided till death separates them.” Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh — “From the original institution of marriage, therefore, in paradise, and from the great law thereof, declared by God himself on that occasion, it evidently appears that it is the strongest and tenderest of all friendships, a friendship supported by the divine sanction and approbation, a friendship therefore which ought to be indissoluble till death.” What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder — By unreasonable divorces. Husbands and wives, being joined together by the ordinance of God, must not be put asunder by any ordinance of man: but the bond of marriage must be esteemed sacred, and incapable of being dissolved by any thing which does not make them cease to be one flesh, by making that of the one common to some third person, that is, by one of the parties committing adultery: for as, by forming at first only one man and one woman, God condemned polygamy, so, by making them one flesh, he condemned divorce.

6. One flesh — As in Adam before the creation of Eve the twain were one, so now, by marriage, the oneness is restored. They are two halves of one whole, forming one person. Yet, however much we may talk of their oneness, they are not one soul. They have an eternal separateness of individuality, by which they may be eternally separated in future destiny. Hence they are indeed one flesh, but not one soul. Let not man put asunder — It cannot be done in any case without crime, except by death. Our Lord in this answer sides with neither party, but rises above them both. He does not say, with Schammai, that the letter of Moses’s law allowed no divorce but for adultery. Nor does he, with Hillel, affirm that divorce is allowable for every or any cause. He maintains that, upon the foundation of original creation, divorce for any other cause than adultery is wrong, and only permitted by Moses to prevent greater wrong.

V. 7. Why did Moses command-Christ replies, Moses permitted (not commanded) it, because of the hardness of your hearts-Because neither your fathers nor you could bear the more excellent way. Deuteronomy 24:1; Matthew 5:31; Mark 10:2; Luke 16:18.

Verse 7. Why did Moses then command to give a writing of

divorcement?] It is not an unusual case for the impure and unholy to seek for a justification of their conduct from the law of God itself, and to wrest Scripture to their own destruction. I knew a gentleman, so called, who professed deep reverence for the sacred writings, and, strange as it may appear, was outwardly irreproachable in every respect but one; that was, he kept more women than his wife. This man frequently read the Bible, and was particularly conversant with those places that spoke of or seemed to legalize the polygamy of the patriarchs!

A writing of divorcement] See the form of it in Clarke’s note on “Matthew 5:31”.

Verses 7-9. They say, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, &c. — “If divorce be contrary to the original institution of marriage, as you affirm, how came it that Moses has commanded us to give a bill of divorce? &c. The Pharisees, by calling the law concerning divorce a command, insinuated that Moses had been so tender of their happiness that he would not suffer them to live with bad wives, though they themselves had been willing; but peremptorily enjoined, that such should be put away.” He saith, Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts — Because neither your fathers nor you could bear the more excellent way; suffered, (or permitted,) not commanded, you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so — And the account which Moses himself gives of the original constitution of things, which has now been referred to, proves it to be an irregularity which must have no place under the gospel dispensation. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication — Which is a fundamental breach of the main article of the marriage covenant, by which they are one flesh; and shall marry another, committeth adultery — Against her that was his former wife, and who continues still to be so in the sight of God. As the law of Moses allowed divorce, for the hardness of men’s hearts, and the law of Christ forbids it, we learn from hence that Christians being under a dispensation of love and liberty, tenderness of heart may justly be expected among them, and that they should not be hard-hearted like the Jews. Indeed there will be no occasion for divorces if we bear with one another, and forgive one another in love, as those that are and hope to be forgiven of God, and have found him reluctant to put us away, Isaiah 50:1. Divorces are unnecessary if husbands love their wives, and wives be obedient to their husbands, and they dwell together as heirs of the grace of life. These are the laws of Christ, and such as we find not in all the law of Moses.

Verse 8. Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts] It is dangerous to tolerate the least evil, though prudence itself may require it: because toleration, in this case, raises itself insensibly into permission, and permission soon sets up for command. Moses perceived that if divorce were not permitted, in many cases, the women would be exposed to great hardships through the cruelty of their husbands: for so the word sklhrokardia, is understood in this place by some learned men. From the beginning it was not so] The Jews named the books of the law from the first word in each. Genesis they always term Bereshith, tyvarb, which is the first word in it, and signifies, In the beginning. It is probable that our Lord speaks in this way here, In Bereshith it was not so, intimating that the account given in Genesis is widely different. There was no divorce between Eve and Adam; nor did he or his family practise polygamy. But our Lord, by the beginning, may mean the original intention or design.

Verses 7-9. They say, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, &c. — “If divorce be contrary to the original institution of marriage, as you affirm, how came it that Moses has commanded us to give a bill of divorce? &c. The Pharisees, by calling the law concerning divorce a command, insinuated that Moses had been so tender of their happiness that he would not suffer them to live with bad wives, though they themselves had been willing; but peremptorily enjoined, that such should be put away.” He saith, Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts — Because neither your fathers nor you could bear the more excellent way; suffered, (or permitted,) not commanded, you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so — And the account which Moses himself gives of the original constitution of things, which has now been referred to, proves it to be an irregularity which must have no place under the gospel dispensation. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication — Which is a fundamental breach of the main article of the marriage covenant, by which they are one flesh; and shall marry another, committeth adultery — Against her that was his former wife, and who continues still to be so in the sight of God. As the law of Moses allowed divorce, for the hardness of men’s hearts, and the law of Christ forbids it, we learn from hence that Christians being under a dispensation of love and liberty, tenderness of heart may justly be expected among them, and that they should not be hard-hearted like the Jews. Indeed there will be no occasion for divorces if we bear with one another, and forgive one another in love, as those that are and hope to be forgiven of God, and have found him reluctant to put us away, Isaiah 50:1. Divorces are unnecessary if husbands love their wives, and wives be obedient to their husbands, and they dwell together as heirs of the grace of life. These are the laws of Christ, and such as we find not in all the law of Moses.

Ver. 8. Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts. This text is explained by some to refer to the peculiar hardness or wickedness of the jews, who were given up to their own heart’s lusts. Stephen also says that God turned, and gave them up to worship the hosts of heaven. So it was not from the original law, but from displeasure, that Moses permitted a separation. The rabbins did not apply the law of stoning an adulteress, except the proofs of guilt were absolute.

8. Because of the hardness of your hearts — Because the rigidness of the moral law, if enforced by civil law, would be by you made an occasion of still greater wrong. You would have murdered your wives to be rid of them. Suffered you — He did not command you. And he who availed himself of the permission was none the less guilty of sin. He was not indeed amenable to Moses, but he was still amenable to God.

Verse 8. 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.”

V. 9. And I say to you-I revoke that indulgence from this day, so that from henceforth, Whosoever, &c.

Verse 9. Except it be for fornication] See on Matthew 5:32. The decision of our Lord must be very unpleasant to these men: the reason why they wished to put away their wives was, that they might take others whom they liked better; but our Lord here declares that they could not be remarried while the divorced person was alive, and that those who did marry, during the life of the divorced, were adulterers; and heavy judgments were, denounced, in their law, against such: and as the question was not settled by the schools of Shammai and Hillel, so as to ground national practice on it therefore they were obliged to abide by the positive declaration of the law, as it was popularly understood, till these eminent schools had proved the word had another meaning. The grand subject of dispute between the two schools, mentioned above, was the word in Deuteronomy 24:1, When a man hath taken a wife-and she find no grace in his sight, because of some UNCLEANNESS, twr[ eruath:-this the school of Shammai held to mean whoredom or adultery; but the school of Hillel maintained that it signified any corporeal defect, which rendered the person deformed, or any bad temper which made the husband’s life uncomfortable. Any of the latter a good man might bear with; but it appears that Moses permitted the offended husband to put away the wife on these accounts, merely to save her from cruel usage. In this discourse, our Lord shows that marriage, (except in one case,) is indissoluble, and should be so:-

1st, By Divine institution, Matthew 19:4.

2dly, By express commandment, Matthew 19:5.

3dly, Because the married couple become one and the same person, Matthew 19:6.

4thly, By the example of the first pair, Matthew 19:8; and 5thly, Because of the evil consequent on separation, Matthew 19:9. The importance of this subject will, I hope, vindicate or excuse, the length of these notes.

Verses 7-9. They say, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, &c. — “If divorce be contrary to the original institution of marriage, as you affirm, how came it that Moses has commanded us to give a bill of divorce? &c. The Pharisees, by calling the law concerning divorce a command, insinuated that Moses had been so tender of their happiness that he would not suffer them to live with bad wives, though they themselves had been willing; but peremptorily enjoined, that such should be put away.” He saith, Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts — Because neither your fathers nor you could bear the more excellent way; suffered, (or permitted,) not commanded, you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so — And the account which Moses himself gives of the original constitution of things, which has now been referred to, proves it to be an irregularity which must have no place under the gospel dispensation. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication — Which is a fundamental breach of the main article of the marriage covenant, by which they are one flesh; and shall marry another, committeth adultery — Against her that was his former wife, and who continues still to be so in the sight of God. As the law of Moses allowed divorce, for the hardness of men’s hearts, and the law of Christ forbids it, we learn from hence that Christians being under a dispensation of love and liberty, tenderness of heart may justly be expected among them, and that they should not be hard-hearted like the Jews. Indeed there will be no occasion for divorces if we bear with one another, and forgive one another in love, as those that are and hope to be forgiven of God, and have found him reluctant to put us away, Isaiah 50:1. Divorces are unnecessary if husbands love their wives, and wives be obedient to their husbands, and they dwell together as heirs of the grace of life. These are the laws of Christ, and such as we find not in all the law of Moses.

9. Except it be for fornication — Our Lord here indicates no new law. He does not even restore the old one. He simply declares what has always been the law of God. Moses, in his civil code, declined to enforce the strictness of the moral law. Unlawful intercourse with any other person breaks the marriage tie. The criminal has deserted forever the marriage partner, and has become unfit for further association. Impure and outcast, the guilty being can never again enter a pure and lawful marriage covenant. The orderly family is the foundation of the orderly society. Wherever marriage is lightly esteemed there is great danger that every tie will become loose. Unless the law be strong and strict enough to silence and suppress the roving imagination and roving desire, and to settle completely all thoughts of breaking or overstepping the sacred limit, disorder, licentiousness, and moral anarchy commence. A sensual tone pervades the life. And it is a universal law that where sexual license prevails, lawlessness of every other kind prevails. Lust and cruelty ever go together.

Verse 10. If the case of the man] tou anqrwpou, of a husband, so I think the word should be translated here. The Codex Bezæ, Armenian, and most of the Itala, have tou androv, which, perhaps, more properly signifies a husband, though both words are used in this sense. Our word husband comes from the Anglo-Saxon, hus and band: the bond of the house, anciently spelt housebond,-so in my old MS. Bible. It is a lamentable case when the husband, instead of being the bond and union of the family, scatters and ruins it by dissipation, riot, and excess. It is not good to marry.] That is, if a man have not the liberty to put away his wife when she is displeasing to him. God had said, Genesis 2:18, It is not good for man to be alone, i.e. unmarried. The disciples seem to say, that if the husband have not the power to divorce his wife when she is displeasing to him, it is not good for him to marry. Here was a flat contradiction to the decision of the Creator. There are difficulties and trials in all states; but let marriage and celibacy be weighed fairly, and I am persuaded the former will be found to have fewer than the latter. However, before we enter into an engagement which nothing but death can dissolve, we had need to act cautiously, carefully consulting the will and word of God. Where an unbridled passion, or a base love of money, lead the way, marriage is sure to be miserable.

Verses 10, 11. His disciples say, If the case of a man be so with his wife — If the marriage-bond be thus indissoluble, and a man cannot dismiss his wife unless she break that bond by going astray, but must bear with her, whether she be quarrelsome, petulant, prodigal, foolish, barren, given to drinking, or, in a word, troublesome by numberless vices; it is not good to marry — A man had better not marry at all, since by marrying he may entangle himself in an inextricable snare, and involve himself in trials and troubles which may make him miserable all the rest of his days. But he said, All men cannot receive this saying — Namely, that it is not expedient to marry; save they to whom it is given — As a peculiar gift, to conquer those inclinations toward that state which are found in mankind in general, according to the common constitution of human nature.

10. Not good to marry — The apostles’ opinion seems to have been on the side of Hillel. It was probably accordant with the doctrine, or at least ordinary practice of that wicked age. The apostles therefore speak under the influence of their habitual impressions. So indissoluble a union with one woman they thought to be in any way intolerable. Better no marriage at all. And yet how fully experience shows that the age of strict marriage is the age of every quiet and healthful virtue. Such an institute stays at once a thousand irregularities of life. When the law of marriage banishes beforehand all thought of separation and transgression, the whole train of lower feelings become tranquilized and dismissed, and room is made for thoughts of other than sexual matters.

Verse 10. If the case of a man be so, &c. — Aitia 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.

V. 11. But he said to them-This is not universally true; it does not hold, with regard to all men, but with regard to those only to whom is given this excellent gift of God. Now this is given to three sorts of persons to some by natural constitution, without their choice: to others by violence, against their choice; and to others by grace with their choice: who steadily withstand their natural inclinations, that they may wait upon God without distraction.

Verse 11. All-cannot receive this saying] A very wise answer, and well suited to the present circumstances of the disciples. Neither of the states is condemned. If thou marry, thou dost well-this is according to the order, will, and commandment of God. But if thou do not marry, (because of the present necessity, persecution, worldly embarrassments, or bodily infirmity,) thou dost better. See 1 Corinthians 7:25.

Verses 10, 11. His disciples say, If the case of a man be so with his wife — If the marriage-bond be thus indissoluble, and a man cannot dismiss his wife unless she break that bond by going astray, but must bear with her, whether she be quarrelsome, petulant, prodigal, foolish, barren, given to drinking, or, in a word, troublesome by numberless vices; it is not good to marry — A man had better not marry at all, since by marrying he may entangle himself in an inextricable snare, and involve himself in trials and troubles which may make him miserable all the rest of his days. But he said, All men cannot receive this saying — Namely, that it is not expedient to marry; save they to whom it is given — As a peculiar gift, to conquer those inclinations toward that state which are found in mankind in general, according to the common constitution of human nature.

Ver. 11. All men cannot receive this saying. Ou pantev cwrousi ton logon touton; all men do not receive this saying. Cannot is not found in any version, except the English. Tous ne comprenent pas cette parole. CALVIN’S Testament. All men do not embrace a life of celibacy. Some are born eunuchs, some are made so by oriental tyrants, to attend as slaves in their harems. Some, like Origen, become so from motives of piety. Many ministers and missionaries embrace a life of celibacy to move in a sphere of entire devotedness to God. It is thus apparent, that eunuchism, with the exception of natural defects, is here taken for the chastity and purity of a single life.

11. Receive this saying — Namely, the saying that it is not good to marry under so strict a law. The marriage law is both a divine and a natural institute. It was founded by God at the creation, and it is secured by the very elements of man’s nature. If there be any exception to the universality of the matrimonial necessity and duty, it is with a rare few. Given — Given by natural constitution, by misfortune, or by specially divine duty and qualification.

Verse 11. 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 cwrew 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.

V. 12. There are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake-Happy they! who have abstained from marriage (though without condemning or despising it) that they might walk more closely with God!

He that is able to receive it, let him receive it-This gracious command (for such it is unquestionably, since to say, such a man may live single, is saying nothing. Who ever doubted this?) is not designed for all men: but only for those few who are able to receive it. O let these receive it joyfully!

Verse 12. Eunuchs] eunoucov, from eunhn ecein, to have the care of the bed or bedchamber; this being the principal employment of eunuchs in the eastern countries, particularly in the apartments of queens and princesses. These are they whom our Lord says are made eunuchs by men, merely for the above purpose.

So born from their mother’s womb] Such as are naturally incapable of marriage, and consequently should not contract any.

For the kingdom of heaven’s sake.] I believe our Lord here alludes to the case of the ESSENES, one of the most holy and pure sects among the Jews. These abstained from all commerce with women, hoping thereby to acquire a greater degree of purity, and be better fitted for the kingdom of God: children they had none of their own, but constantly adopted those of poor people, and brought them up in their own way. PHILO, JOSEPHUS, and PLINY have largely described this very singular sect; and Dean PRIDEAUX, with his usual fidelity and perspicuity, has given the substance of what each has said. CONNEX. vol. iii. p. 483, &c.; edit. 1725. The account is very interesting, and well worthy the attention of every Christian. Among the rabbins we find these different kinds of eunuchs, not only mentioned, but circumstantially described, hmj syrs saris chama, eunuchs of the sun, i.e. eunuchs by the hand of God; men born impotent. אדם syrs saris Adam, eunuchs of men, those who were castrated. And they add a third sort; those who make themselves eunuchs, abstain from marriage, &c., that they may give themselves UP to the study of the Divine law. See many examples in Schoettgen.

He that is able to receive] cwrein cwreitw. These words are variously translated: he who can take; let him take it; comprehend, let him comprehend it: admit, let him admit it. The meaning seems to be, Let the man who feels himself capable of embracing this way of life, embrace it; but none can do it but he to whom it is given, who has it as a gift from his mother’s womb.

The great ORIGEN, understanding the latter clause of this verse (which I have applied to the Essenes) literally-O human weakness!-went, and literally fulfilled it on himself!

Verse 12. For there are some eunuchs, &c. — Our Lord here shows that the fore-mentioned gift of continence is given to three sorts of persons: 1st, To some by natural constitution, without their choice. 2d, To some by the violence of men, against their choice: and, 3d, To others by grace, with their choice; who steadily withstand their natural inclinations, that they may wait upon God without distraction, and may glorify him in a single life, judging it to be a state more free from worldly cares, and more friendly to devotion, than that of marriage. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it — He that has this gift, in any of these ways, whether by natural constitution and disposition; or by the injury of human force used upon him, rendering him incapable of the matrimonial union; or by an ardent desire of promoting the interests of religion, animating him to subdue his natural appetite, and enabling him to live in voluntary chastity, unencumbered with secular concerns; such a person will not sin though, he leads a single life. The words, however, let him receive it, must not be referred to the clauses immediately preceding them, as if our Lord had meant to say, He that is able to become a eunuch by any of the ways I have mentioned, let him become one; for the second way, namely, through violence offered to men’s bodies, is absolutely unlawful: but they must be referred to verse 11, as is plain from the words themselves; and the meaning of them is, He that can receive the saying there mentioned, and live chastely without marriage, may receive it; and, as many commentators understand the words, ought to receive it. “They who have the gift of continency,” says Henry, “and are not under any necessity of marrying, do best if they continue single, 1 Corinthians 7:1; for they that are unmarried have opportunity, if they have but a heart, to care more for the things of the Lord, how they may please the Lord, 1 Corinthians 7:32, 34, being less encumbered with the cares of this life, and having greater vacancy of thoughts, and time to mind better things.” The word eunuchs, from the Greek eunoucoi, eunouchoi, means having the care of the bed, or bed-chamber, (from eunhn ecein,) this being the principal employment of eunuchs in the eastern countries, that is, of such as our Lord says were made eunuchs by men, merely for the purpose of attending in the apartments of queens and princesses.

12. For — Our Lord proceeds now to specify three classes to whom it is given not to marry. To the first it is given by a peculiarity of nature; to the second by the cruelty of man; to the third by a divine duty and qualification. Eunuchs — The word eunuch signifies a couch-guard; and it designates a class of men who, in the Oriental countries, are subjected to a cruel degradation, and kept by their masters to guard the females of their harems. It is used here by our Lord to designate all persons who live entirely pure from the other sex. So born — Born of a constitution by which marriage is not desired. Made eunuchs of men — By barbarous violence. Made themselves eunuchs — By perfect chastity of mind and body. There are some (like Bishop Asbury) who, giving themselves up wholly to the ministry, or to religious study or devotion, exempt themselves for all or a part of their lives from the entanglements of life, that they may serve God more intensely.

Worst of all is the method of the Church of Rome, which enforces upon a whole class the duty of celibacy, regardless of natural power or constitution; and which binds others, by forced and perpetual vows, to the restraint for which no gift has qualified them. The results are cruelly and shamefully demoralizing.

Verse 12. There are some eunuchs, &c. — Eunoucov is from eunh, a bed, and ecw, 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.

V. 13. That he should lay his hands on them-This was a rite which was very early used, in praying for a blessing on young persons. See Genesis 48:14, 20.

The disciples rebuked them-That is, them that brought them: probably thinking such an employ beneath the dignity of their Master. Mark 10:13; Luke 18:15.

Verse 13. Then were there brought unto him little children] These are termed by Luke, Luke 18:15, ta brefh, infants, very young children; and it was on this account, probably, that the disciples rebuked the parents, thinking them too young to receive good. See on Mark 10:16. That he should put his hands] It was a common custom among the Jews to lay their hands on the heads of those whom they blessed, or for whom they prayed. This seems to have been done by way of dedication or consecration to God-the person being considered as the sacred property of God ever after. Often God added a testimony of his approbation, by communicating some extraordinary influence of the Holy Spirit. This rite has been long practised among Christians, when persons are appointed to any sacred office. But this consecration of children to God seems to have grown out of use. It is no wonder that the great mass of children are so wicked, when so few, are put under the care of Christ by humble, praying, believing parents. Let every parent that fears God bring up his children in that fear; and, by baptism, let each be dedicated to the holy trinity. Whatever is solemnly consecrated to God abides under his protection and blessing.

Verses 13-15. Then were brought unto him little children — Luke says, brefh, infants. It is not said by whom they were brought, but probably it was by their parents or guardians: and herein, 1st, they testified their respect for Christ, and the value they set upon his favour and blessing: and, 2d, manifested their love to their children, not doubting but it would be for their benefit in this world and the next to have the blessing and prayers of the Lord Jesus, whom they looked upon at least as an extraordinary person, a holy man, and as a prophet, if not also as the Messiah, and the blessings of such were valued and desired. Observe, reader, they who glorify Christ by coming to him themselves, ought further to glorify him by bringing their children to him likewise, and all upon whom they have influence. That he should put his hands on them and pray — It appears to have been customary among the Jews, when one person prayed for another who was present, to lay his hand upon the person’s head; and this imposition of hands was a ceremony used in ancient times, especially in paternal blessing: thus Jacob, when he blessed and adopted the sons of Joseph, laid his hands upon their heads, Genesis 48:14-20. And the disciples rebuked them — That is, them that brought the children; probably thinking such an employ beneath the dignity of their Master. But Jesus said, Suffer little children to come unto me — Mark says, that when Jesus saw it, that is, observing his disciples rebuking those that brought the children, he was much displeased, namely, to find his disciples so defective in benevolence toward objects whose innocence and helplessness entitled them to great affection from persons of riper years. He ordered them therefore to let the children be brought to him; saying, For of such is the kingdom of heaven — The Church of God on earth, and his kingdom in heaven, is composed of persons who resemble little children in their dispositions; and children, even in a natural sense, have a right to be admitted into his kingdom, the gospel authorizing the ministers of Christ to admit the children of believing parents into his church by baptism, and those that die in infancy being undoubtedly heirs of eternal glory. And he laid his hands on them, as he was desired to do, and blessed them, Mark 10:16; recommended them in a solemn manner to the divine blessing and favour.

Ver. 13. Then were there brought to him little children, by the parents who believed in Christ, that he might put his hands on them and bless them, as Jacob in his last days blessed Ephraim and Manasseh, the two sons of Joseph. Ministers may learn from their Master, in visiting schools and families, to take notice of children, for they are as much the heirs of the kingdom as their parents. Mark 10:13.

§ 104. — CHILDREN BLESSED BY CHRIST, 13-15.

It is with great propriety that immediately after our Saviour has settled the law of marriage under the Christian dispensation, he should also assign the place of children in the Christian Church. This passage surely is not given for the purpose of showing that Christ was personally fond of children, but of showing that the child is no more to be excluded from the Church of the New Testament than from that of the Old.

13. Were there brought unto him little children — They were so young, not only as to be brought, but to be taken by the Saviour in his arms. The disciples rebuked them — The children were doubtless brought by the affection of the parents, who thus showed their faith in him, not only for themselves but for their offspring. So the faith of the Syrophenician woman brought a miracle of mercy upon her daughter.

Verse 13. Then were there brought unto him little children, &c. — That these children were very young, appears from the word brefov, 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.

V. 14. Of such is the kingdom of heaven-Little children, either in a natural or spiritual sense, have a right to enter into my kingdom. Matthew 18:3.

Verse 14. Of such is the kingdom of heaven.] Or, the kingdom of heaven is composed of such. This appears to be the best sense of the passage, and utterly ruins the whole inhuman diabolic system of what is called non-elect infants’ damnation; a doctrine which must have sprung from Moloch, and can only be defended by a heart in which he dwells. A great part of God’s kingdom is composed of such literally; and those only who resemble little children shall be received into it: see on Matthew 18:3. Christ loves little children because he loves simplicity and innocence; he has sanctified their very age by passing through it himself-the holy Jesus was once a little child.

Verses 13-15. Then were brought unto him little children — Luke says, brefh, infants. It is not said by whom they were brought, but probably it was by their parents or guardians: and herein, 1st, they testified their respect for Christ, and the value they set upon his favour and blessing: and, 2d, manifested their love to their children, not doubting but it would be for their benefit in this world and the next to have the blessing and prayers of the Lord Jesus, whom they looked upon at least as an extraordinary person, a holy man, and as a prophet, if not also as the Messiah, and the blessings of such were valued and desired. Observe, reader, they who glorify Christ by coming to him themselves, ought further to glorify him by bringing their children to him likewise, and all upon whom they have influence. That he should put his hands on them and pray — It appears to have been customary among the Jews, when one person prayed for another who was present, to lay his hand upon the person’s head; and this imposition of hands was a ceremony used in ancient times, especially in paternal blessing: thus Jacob, when he blessed and adopted the sons of Joseph, laid his hands upon their heads, Genesis 48:14-20. And the disciples rebuked them — That is, them that brought the children; probably thinking such an employ beneath the dignity of their Master. But Jesus said, Suffer little children to come unto me — Mark says, that when Jesus saw it, that is, observing his disciples rebuking those that brought the children, he was much displeased, namely, to find his disciples so defective in benevolence toward objects whose innocence and helplessness entitled them to great affection from persons of riper years. He ordered them therefore to let the children be brought to him; saying, For of such is the kingdom of heaven — The Church of God on earth, and his kingdom in heaven, is composed of persons who resemble little children in their dispositions; and children, even in a natural sense, have a right to be admitted into his kingdom, the gospel authorizing the ministers of Christ to admit the children of believing parents into his church by baptism, and those that die in infancy being undoubtedly heirs of eternal glory. And he laid his hands on them, as he was desired to do, and blessed them, Mark 10:16; recommended them in a solemn manner to the divine blessing and favour.

14. Suffer little children — Our Lord does not merely say, suffer these children, but suffer all little children to come unto me. Of such — Of children and of childlike souls. For the adult man must become childlike to be fit for the kingdom of heaven.

Our Lord did not here baptize these children; for Christian baptism was not freely used until after his resurrection. But he does declare why they are proper subjects of baptism, namely, because they are subjects of the kingdom of heaven. And we are expressly told that “except a man be born of water” as well as “of spirit” he is not fully and formally recognized as in that kingdom. In other words, he who is an internal subject of that kingdom needs baptism to constitute him an external member. If he be an internal member of that kingdom he is a proper subject of baptism. Our Lord here declares that infants are internal members of this kingdom; therefore, we infer, they are proper subjects of baptism. In relation to the moral condition of infants, Mr. Watson says: “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.”

Verse 14. 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 toioutwn, 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 15. He-departed thence.] That is, from that part of Judea which was beyond Jordan, Matthew 19:1; and then went to Jericho. See Matthew 20:29.

Verses 13-15. Then were brought unto him little children — Luke says, brefh, infants. It is not said by whom they were brought, but probably it was by their parents or guardians: and herein, 1st, they testified their respect for Christ, and the value they set upon his favour and blessing: and, 2d, manifested their love to their children, not doubting but it would be for their benefit in this world and the next to have the blessing and prayers of the Lord Jesus, whom they looked upon at least as an extraordinary person, a holy man, and as a prophet, if not also as the Messiah, and the blessings of such were valued and desired. Observe, reader, they who glorify Christ by coming to him themselves, ought further to glorify him by bringing their children to him likewise, and all upon whom they have influence. That he should put his hands on them and pray — It appears to have been customary among the Jews, when one person prayed for another who was present, to lay his hand upon the person’s head; and this imposition of hands was a ceremony used in ancient times, especially in paternal blessing: thus Jacob, when he blessed and adopted the sons of Joseph, laid his hands upon their heads, Genesis 48:14-20. And the disciples rebuked them — That is, them that brought the children; probably thinking such an employ beneath the dignity of their Master. But Jesus said, Suffer little children to come unto me — Mark says, that when Jesus saw it, that is, observing his disciples rebuking those that brought the children, he was much displeased, namely, to find his disciples so defective in benevolence toward objects whose innocence and helplessness entitled them to great affection from persons of riper years. He ordered them therefore to let the children be brought to him; saying, For of such is the kingdom of heaven — The Church of God on earth, and his kingdom in heaven, is composed of persons who resemble little children in their dispositions; and children, even in a natural sense, have a right to be admitted into his kingdom, the gospel authorizing the ministers of Christ to admit the children of believing parents into his church by baptism, and those that die in infancy being undoubtedly heirs of eternal glory. And he laid his hands on them, as he was desired to do, and blessed them, Mark 10:16; recommended them in a solemn manner to the divine blessing and favour.

§ 104. — CHILDREN BLESSED BY CHRIST, 13-15.

It is with great propriety that immediately after our Saviour has settled the law of marriage under the Christian dispensation, he should also assign the place of children in the Christian Church. This passage surely is not given for the purpose of showing that Christ was personally fond of children, but of showing that the child is no more to be excluded from the Church of the New Testament than from that of the Old.

13. Were there brought unto him little children — They were so young, not only as to be brought, but to be taken by the Saviour in his arms. The disciples rebuked them — The children were doubtless brought by the affection of the parents, who thus showed their faith in him, not only for themselves but for their offspring. So the faith of the Syrophenician woman brought a miracle of mercy upon her daughter.

V. 16. And behold one came-Many of the poor had followed him from the beginning. One rich man came at last. Mark 10:17; Luke 18:18.

Verse 16. One came] Instead of eiv one, several MSS., the Slavonic version, and Hilary, read neaniskov tiv, a certain young man. Good, &c.] Much instruction may be had from seriously attending to the conduct, spirit, and question of this person.

1. He came running, (Mark 10:17,) for he was deeply convinced of the importance of his business, and seriously determined to seek so as to find.

2. He kneeled, or caught him by the knees, thus evidencing his humility, and addressing himself only to mercy. See Matthew 17:14.

3. He came in the spirit of a disciple, or scholar, desiring to be taught a matter of the utmost importance to him-Good teacher.

4. He came in the spirit of obedience; he had worked hard to no purpose, and he is still willing to work, provided he can have a prospect of succeeding-What good thing shall I do?

5. His question was the most interesting and important that any soul can ask of God-How shall I be saved?

Verse 16. And behold, one came, &c. — Many of the poor had followed him from the beginning. One rich man came at last, and came running, with great earnestness, and kneeled to him with great humility and reverence, Mark 10:17, and said, Good Master — Manifesting by the appellation both a submissive and teachable disposition; his persuasion that Christ was a divinely-commissioned teacher, and his affection and peculiar respect to him as such. What good thing shall I do? — Or, as Mark and Luke express it, What shall I do to inherit eternal life? — By this question he manifested, 1st, That he believed in a future state; that there was an eternal life that might be inherited; he was therefore no Sadducee: 2d, that he was concerned to ensure that life to himself, and was more desirous of it than of any of the enjoyments of this life: thus he differed from many of his age and quality; for the rich are apt to think it below them to make such an inquiry as this, and young people in general are inclined to defer making it to some future period of their lives: 3d, that something must be done; some evils omitted, some duties performed, or divine injunctions complied with, in order to it: 4th, that he was, or at least thought he was, willing to do what was to be done, or to take the steps necessary to be taken for the obtaining of this eternal life. And surely those that know what it will be to enjoy eternal life, and what to come short of it, will be glad to accept it on any terms.

Ver. 16. One came and said — what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life. This interesting piece of history is related also by Mark and Luke, who call the applicant a ruler. It is highly interesting to young people, and claims improvement here. The young man seems to have entered on the enjoyment of his fortune, and was laudably desirous to consecrate it by an offering to God, for the benefit of religion and the poor. This had the appearance both of piety and prudence, for few estates are realized without many hard bargains, not to say extortions; and alms would exonerate his wealth of any doubtful curse attached to unlawful gains, where the proper restitution could not be traced.

This young man in character and conduct was highly moral. He could say of the second table, all these precepts have I observed, and no blot has stained my reputation. What a model for the youth of our age. What myriads, younger than he, who must drop their countenance in his presence.

He was respectful to the ministers of religion; he knew not the godhead of Christ, but ranking him with the first of prophets, he kneeled before him, and called him good Master. Young Obadiah prostrated before Elijah, and called him lord. This youth wished for religious and paternal instruction, that he might live to the glory of God, and secure the blessings of the covenant on his house. Let men therefore learn from their earliest youth to revere religion, to converse with its ministers, and to shun the breath of those who slander sacred things.

Our Lord treated him with compassion, prudence, and fidelity. He loved him because he saw in him some fine dispositions, which wanted to be set right by truth and conversion. He mildly admonished him for excess of complaisance, in applying the title of good to any one but God, original sin having tainted the human mass. There is indeed twice in our version the good man of the house used: but in the Greek, it is not agaqov agathos, as here, but father of the family. We should never give either to prince or priest a title which we cannot use with a good conscience. Our Lord however did not abruptly cross this young man in his religious views, for education had filled his mind with ideas of human or legal righteousness. Too much light overpowers tender minds. He met him on his own ground, and led him to obedience as the surest test of love to God. Keep the commandments. Here the young man had joy, as to the letter, and thought that righteousness covered him as a garment. But Jesus never left his work unfinished. To mark the defect in his love, he laid his finger on the tender spot, and touched his only sin. If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell all that thou hast, and give to the poor; and come thou, be an apostle, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven. Here the sharp sword touched the quick; this young man loved his land more than God, and went away sorrowful.

Here we see that no man can be converted till his sin is touched; and likewise, that one single predominant sin will exclude a man from heaven. We learn also the great difficulty of rich men being saved. It is difficult among so many viands and wines to preserve temperance; it is difficult among so many honours paid to the world properly to honour God. It is difficult when surrounded by so much earthly wealth, and by an enchanting residence, properly to place the affections on the paradise above, and to be a faithful steward of the mammon of unrighteousness.

We learn lastly, that men may attain on earth a growing perfection of virtue. If thou wilt be perfect, said the Lord. A martyr may love God more than life; an injured man may pray for his enemies, and wish them every good; and a man may account all his worldly honours as loss, and as dung, for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ. May the Lord perfect us in that love which casteth out all fear. But I seem to see in our congregations, numbers of young men, lovely as this youth, children of the righteous, and heirs of the promises, whose conversion through some one sin is retarded. What an awful thing, if through that one sin, they have to go away sorrowful from the left hand of Christ.

§ 105. — THE RICH YOUNG MAN, 16-22.

16. And behold, one came — The case of the young man is here brought in to show that he who would be saved must be ready to give up all for Christ in the fullest sense of the words; and that he who cannot do this is deceived in supposing that he has so kept God’s law as to be thereby saved. The conversation that follows shows that he who gives up all for Christ, will be no loser, but an infinite gainer, 27-30. The parable that follows (xx, 1-16,) shows that even he who does give up all for Christ will be saved, not by his works, but by grace. Let this connection be observed and traced, and the meaning of the whole will become more clear and striking. Our Lord, as appears by Mark, had just come forth from the house where he had blessed the children, into the way, where this rich young ruler, as Luke calls him, (that is, ruler of the synagogue,) who had perhaps been waiting, came running and kneeling. His rapid movement indicated his earnest feeling; his kneeling indicated his reverence. Good Master — This was a new and a very studied title by which to address our Lord. Others had called him Lord and Son of David; but he is a noble Jew, who must give a polite address without quite admitting that he is addressing the Messiah. What good thing — He calculates to do something which will earn heaven. He will accomplish it by some bold stroke of righteousness, some grand supererogation, if he can find out what it is to be. He has kept the decalogue until he is tired of so tame a righteousness. If this good Master can inform him by what method he can pay for and justly deserve salvation, he is ready to bid for it. Try him with any task, and see if he will fail!

Verse 16. 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, didaskale agaqe, 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, Ti me erwtav peri tou agaqou: “‘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, Oudeiv agaqov, ei mh eiv, o Qeov, “There is none good but one, that is God,” or Eiv estin o agaqov, “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.

V. 17. Why callest thou me good-Whom thou supposest to be only a man.

There is none good-Supremely, originally, essentially, but God. If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments-From a principle of loving faith. Believe, and thence love and obey. And this undoubtedly is the way to eternal life. Our Lord therefore does not answer ironically, which had been utterly beneath his character, but gives a plain, direct, serious answer to a serious question.

Verse 17. Why callest thou me good?] Or, Why dost thou question me concerning that good thing? ti me erwtav peri tou agaqou. This important reading is found in BDL, three others, the Coptic, Sahidic, Armenian, Ethiopic, latter Syriac, Vulgate, Saxon, all the Itala but one, Origen, Eusebius, Cyril, Dionysius Areop., Antiochus, Novatian, Jerome, Augustin, and Juvencus. Erasmus, Grotius, Mill, and Bengel approve of this reading. This authority appears so decisive to Griesbach that he has received this reading into the text of his second edition, which in the first he had interlined. And instead of, None is good but the one God, he goes on to read, on nearly the same respectable authorities, eiv estin o agaqov. There is one who is good. Let it be observed also that, in the 16th verse, instead of didaskale agaqe, good teacher, didaskale only is read by BDL, one other, one Evangelistarium, the Ethiopic, three of the Itala, Origen, and Hilary. The whole passage therefore may be read thus: O teacher! what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why dost thou question me concerning that good thing? There is one that is good. (Or he who is good is one.) But If thou art willing to enter into that life, keep the commandments. This passage, as it stood in the common editions, has been considered by some writers as an incontrovertible proof against the Divinity or Godhead of Christ. A very learned person, in his note on this place, thus concludes concerning it: “Therefore our Saviour cannot be GOD: and the notion of, I know not what, a trinity in unity, THREE Gods in ONE, is here proved beyond all controversy, by the unequivocal declaration of JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF, to be ERRONEOUS and IMPOSSIBLE.” Not so. One of the greatest critics in Europe, not at all partial to the Godhead of Christ, has admitted the above readings into his text, on evidence which he judged to be unexceptionable. If they be the true readings, they destroy the whole doctrine built on this text; and indeed the utmost that the enemies of the trinitarian doctrine can now expect from their formidable opponents, concerning this text, is to leave it neuter.

Keep the commandments.] From this we may learn that God’s great design, in giving his law to the Jews, was to lead them to the expectation and enjoyment of eternal life. But as all the law referred to Christ, and he became the end of the law for righteousness (justification) to all that believe, so he is to be received, in order to have the end accomplished which the law proposed.

Verses 17-22. He said, Why callest thou me good? — Whom thou regardest merely as a prophet sent from God, and therefore supposest to be only a man; there is none good — Supremely, originally, essentially, but God. If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments — From a principle of loving faith. Believe, and thence love and obey. And this undoubtedly is the way to eternal life. Our Lord therefore does not answer ironically, which had been utterly beneath his character, but gives a plain, direct, serious answer to a serious question. The young man saith, All these have I kept from my childhood — So he imagined, and perhaps he had, as to the letter, but not as to the spirit, which our Lord immediately shows. What lack I yet? — Wherein am I deficient? What is further needful in order to my securing the glorious prize which I am pursuing? In answer to this inquiry, made by one evidently puffed up with a high opinion of his own righteousness, our Lord replies, If thou wilt be perfect — That is, a real, thorough Christian, yet lackest thou one thing, (Luke,) namely, to be saved from the love of the world; from all undue esteem for, and inordinate affection to, earthly things. Therefore, go and sell that thou hast, (Luke, all that thou hast,) and give — Distribute the money which arises from the sale thereof; to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven — Infinitely more excellent and durable than that which thou renouncest on earth. And come, (take up the cross, Mark,) and follow me — Unite thyself to me as my constant attendant, though it should be even at the expense of thy life. He who reads the heart, saw that this young man’s bosom sin was the love of his worldly possessions; and that he could not be saved from it but by literally parting with them. To him, therefore, he gave this particular direction, which he never designed for a general rule to all his followers. For him this was necessary, not only, as some suppose, in order to his giving proof of exalted piety, but in order to his salvation. For him literally to sell all, was an absolute duty; for many to do this would be an absolute sin. And yet, though God does not in fact require every man to distribute all his goods to others, and so in effect to become one of the number of the poor relieved out of his own possessions, yet sincere piety and virtue require in all an habitual readiness not only to sacrifice their possessions, but their lives, at the command of God; and Providence has in fact, in all ages, called some out to trials as severe as this. And certainly an entire renunciation of the world, so far at least as to be willing to part with it whenever God should call them to it, was peculiarly necessary for all Christians in the first ages, when the profession of Christianity so generally exposed men to persecution and death. And when he heard this he went away sorrowful — Not being willing to have salvation at so high a price; for he had great possessions — Which he now plainly showed he valued more than eternal life: and it was with great wisdom that our Lord took this direct and convincing method of manifesting both to himself and others that secret insincerity and carnality of temper which prevailed under all these specious pretences and promising appearances.

17. Why callest thou me good? — The young man had used the word good twice in his question; once to designate Jesus, and once to designate his own performance. Our Lord first proceeds to raise his own contemplations to a higher standard of goodness than he has in his mind. Perhaps he will then see that to talk of compensating God, by his good doings, for the infinite bliss of heaven, is folly.

Why callest thou me good? — Had the young rich ruler really believed Jesus to be Lord of all, our Lord would not have said this; for never did he refuse any homage offered him, however high. This passage can then be by no means considered as in any degree denying the supreme divinity of the Saviour. On the contrary, it is saying to the young man, If you call me good you should admit me to be God.

Verse 18. Thou shalt do no murder, &c.] But some say these commandments are not binding on us. Vain, deceived men! Can a murderer, an adulterer, a thief, and a liar enter into eternal life? No. The God of purity and justice has forbidden it. But we are not to keep these commandments in order to purchase eternal life. Right. Neither Jesus Christ, nor his genuine messengers, say you are. To save your souls, Christ must save you from your sins, and enable you to walk before him in newness of life.

Verses 17-22. He said, Why callest thou me good? — Whom thou regardest merely as a prophet sent from God, and therefore supposest to be only a man; there is none good — Supremely, originally, essentially, but God. If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments — From a principle of loving faith. Believe, and thence love and obey. And this undoubtedly is the way to eternal life. Our Lord therefore does not answer ironically, which had been utterly beneath his character, but gives a plain, direct, serious answer to a serious question. The young man saith, All these have I kept from my childhood — So he imagined, and perhaps he had, as to the letter, but not as to the spirit, which our Lord immediately shows. What lack I yet? — Wherein am I deficient? What is further needful in order to my securing the glorious prize which I am pursuing? In answer to this inquiry, made by one evidently puffed up with a high opinion of his own righteousness, our Lord replies, If thou wilt be perfect — That is, a real, thorough Christian, yet lackest thou one thing, (Luke,) namely, to be saved from the love of the world; from all undue esteem for, and inordinate affection to, earthly things. Therefore, go and sell that thou hast, (Luke, all that thou hast,) and give — Distribute the money which arises from the sale thereof; to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven — Infinitely more excellent and durable than that which thou renouncest on earth. And come, (take up the cross, Mark,) and follow me — Unite thyself to me as my constant attendant, though it should be even at the expense of thy life. He who reads the heart, saw that this young man’s bosom sin was the love of his worldly possessions; and that he could not be saved from it but by literally parting with them. To him, therefore, he gave this particular direction, which he never designed for a general rule to all his followers. For him this was necessary, not only, as some suppose, in order to his giving proof of exalted piety, but in order to his salvation. For him literally to sell all, was an absolute duty; for many to do this would be an absolute sin. And yet, though God does not in fact require every man to distribute all his goods to others, and so in effect to become one of the number of the poor relieved out of his own possessions, yet sincere piety and virtue require in all an habitual readiness not only to sacrifice their possessions, but their lives, at the command of God; and Providence has in fact, in all ages, called some out to trials as severe as this. And certainly an entire renunciation of the world, so far at least as to be willing to part with it whenever God should call them to it, was peculiarly necessary for all Christians in the first ages, when the profession of Christianity so generally exposed men to persecution and death. And when he heard this he went away sorrowful — Not being willing to have salvation at so high a price; for he had great possessions — Which he now plainly showed he valued more than eternal life: and it was with great wisdom that our Lord took this direct and convincing method of manifesting both to himself and others that secret insincerity and carnality of temper which prevailed under all these specious pretences and promising appearances.

18. He saith unto him, Which? — The young man can hardly believe that this new teacher would refer him back to the old ten commandments. He has kept them, as he imagines, until they have grown commonplace. At the same time a sense of the insufficiency of his own righteousness does not allow him ease. He has no full sense of peace with God. He wishes some new prescription, by which he may feel that he is a sure heir of eternal life. Jesus said — Our Lord gives a few specimens, to intimate that it is just no more than the original decalogue, to which he is referred.

Verse 18. 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.

V. 19. Exodus 20:12. &c.

Verse 19. Honour thy father and thy mother] sou thy, is omitted by almost every MS. of respectability.

Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself] Self-love, as it is generally called, has been grievously declaimed against, even by religious people, as a most pernicious and dreadful evil. But they have not understood the subject on which they spoke. They have denominated that intense propensity which unregenerate men feel to gratify their carnal appetites and vicious passions, self-love; whereas it might be more properly termed self-hatred or self-murder. If I am to love my neighbour as myself and this “love worketh no ill to its neighbour,” then self-love, in the sense in which our Lord uses it, is something excellent. It is properly a disposition essential to our nature, and inseparable from our being, by which we desire to be happy, by which we seek the happiness we have not, and rejoice in it when we possess it. In a word, it is a uniform wish of the soul to avoid all evil, and to enjoy all good. Therefore, he who is wholly governed by self-love, properly and Scripturally speaking, will devote his whole soul to God, and earnestly and constantly seek all his peace, happiness, and salvation in the enjoyment of God. But self-love cannot make me happy. I am only the subject which receives the happiness, but am not the object that constitutes this happiness; for it is that object, properly speaking, that I love, and love not only for its own sake, but also for the sake of the happiness which I enjoy through it. “No man,” saith the apostle, “ever hated his own flesh.” But he that sinneth against God wrongeth his own soul, both of present and eternal salvation, and is so far from being governed by self-love that he is the implacable enemy of his best and dearest interests in both worlds.

Verses 17-22. He said, Why callest thou me good? — Whom thou regardest merely as a prophet sent from God, and therefore supposest to be only a man; there is none good — Supremely, originally, essentially, but God. If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments — From a principle of loving faith. Believe, and thence love and obey. And this undoubtedly is the way to eternal life. Our Lord therefore does not answer ironically, which had been utterly beneath his character, but gives a plain, direct, serious answer to a serious question. The young man saith, All these have I kept from my childhood — So he imagined, and perhaps he had, as to the letter, but not as to the spirit, which our Lord immediately shows. What lack I yet? — Wherein am I deficient? What is further needful in order to my securing the glorious prize which I am pursuing? In answer to this inquiry, made by one evidently puffed up with a high opinion of his own righteousness, our Lord replies, If thou wilt be perfect — That is, a real, thorough Christian, yet lackest thou one thing, (Luke,) namely, to be saved from the love of the world; from all undue esteem for, and inordinate affection to, earthly things. Therefore, go and sell that thou hast, (Luke, all that thou hast,) and give — Distribute the money which arises from the sale thereof; to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven — Infinitely more excellent and durable than that which thou renouncest on earth. And come, (take up the cross, Mark,) and follow me — Unite thyself to me as my constant attendant, though it should be even at the expense of thy life. He who reads the heart, saw that this young man’s bosom sin was the love of his worldly possessions; and that he could not be saved from it but by literally parting with them. To him, therefore, he gave this particular direction, which he never designed for a general rule to all his followers. For him this was necessary, not only, as some suppose, in order to his giving proof of exalted piety, but in order to his salvation. For him literally to sell all, was an absolute duty; for many to do this would be an absolute sin. And yet, though God does not in fact require every man to distribute all his goods to others, and so in effect to become one of the number of the poor relieved out of his own possessions, yet sincere piety and virtue require in all an habitual readiness not only to sacrifice their possessions, but their lives, at the command of God; and Providence has in fact, in all ages, called some out to trials as severe as this. And certainly an entire renunciation of the world, so far at least as to be willing to part with it whenever God should call them to it, was peculiarly necessary for all Christians in the first ages, when the profession of Christianity so generally exposed men to persecution and death. And when he heard this he went away sorrowful — Not being willing to have salvation at so high a price; for he had great possessions — Which he now plainly showed he valued more than eternal life: and it was with great wisdom that our Lord took this direct and convincing method of manifesting both to himself and others that secret insincerity and carnality of temper which prevailed under all these specious pretences and promising appearances.

§ 105. — THE RICH YOUNG MAN, 16-22.

16. And behold, one came — The case of the young man is here brought in to show that he who would be saved must be ready to give up all for Christ in the fullest sense of the words; and that he who cannot do this is deceived in supposing that he has so kept God’s law as to be thereby saved. The conversation that follows shows that he who gives up all for Christ, will be no loser, but an infinite gainer, 27-30. The parable that follows (xx, 1-16,) shows that even he who does give up all for Christ will be saved, not by his works, but by grace. Let this connection be observed and traced, and the meaning of the whole will become more clear and striking. Our Lord, as appears by Mark, had just come forth from the house where he had blessed the children, into the way, where this rich young ruler, as Luke calls him, (that is, ruler of the synagogue,) who had perhaps been waiting, came running and kneeling. His rapid movement indicated his earnest feeling; his kneeling indicated his reverence. Good Master — This was a new and a very studied title by which to address our Lord. Others had called him Lord and Son of David; but he is a noble Jew, who must give a polite address without quite admitting that he is addressing the Messiah. What good thing — He calculates to do something which will earn heaven. He will accomplish it by some bold stroke of righteousness, some grand supererogation, if he can find out what it is to be. He has kept the decalogue until he is tired of so tame a righteousness. If this good Master can inform him by what method he can pay for and justly deserve salvation, he is ready to bid for it. Try him with any task, and see if he will fail!

V. 20. The young man saith, All these have I kept from my childhood-So he imagined; and perhaps he had, as to the letter; but not as to the spirit, which our Lord immediately shows.

Verse 20. All these have I kept] I have made these precepts the rule of my life. There is a difference worthy of notice between this and our Lord’s word. He says, Matthew 19:17, thrhson, keep, earnestly, diligently, as with watch and ward; probably referring not only to the letter but to the spirit. The young man modestly says, all these (efulaxa) have I observed; I have paid attention to, and endeavoured to regulate my conduct by them. I have kept them in custody.

From my youth] Several MSS., versions, and fathers, leave out these words. Grotius and Mill approve of the omission, and Griesbach leaves them in the text with a note of suspicion. Perhaps the young man meant no more than that he had in general observed them, and considered them of continual obligation.

What lack I yet?] He felt a troubled conscience, and a mind unassured of the approbation of God; and he clearly perceived that something was wanting to make him truly happy.

Verses 17-22. He said, Why callest thou me good? — Whom thou regardest merely as a prophet sent from God, and therefore supposest to be only a man; there is none good — Supremely, originally, essentially, but God. If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments — From a principle of loving faith. Believe, and thence love and obey. And this undoubtedly is the way to eternal life. Our Lord therefore does not answer ironically, which had been utterly beneath his character, but gives a plain, direct, serious answer to a serious question. The young man saith, All these have I kept from my childhood — So he imagined, and perhaps he had, as to the letter, but not as to the spirit, which our Lord immediately shows. What lack I yet? — Wherein am I deficient? What is further needful in order to my securing the glorious prize which I am pursuing? In answer to this inquiry, made by one evidently puffed up with a high opinion of his own righteousness, our Lord replies, If thou wilt be perfect — That is, a real, thorough Christian, yet lackest thou one thing, (Luke,) namely, to be saved from the love of the world; from all undue esteem for, and inordinate affection to, earthly things. Therefore, go and sell that thou hast, (Luke, all that thou hast,) and give — Distribute the money which arises from the sale thereof; to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven — Infinitely more excellent and durable than that which thou renouncest on earth. And come, (take up the cross, Mark,) and follow me — Unite thyself to me as my constant attendant, though it should be even at the expense of thy life. He who reads the heart, saw that this young man’s bosom sin was the love of his worldly possessions; and that he could not be saved from it but by literally parting with them. To him, therefore, he gave this particular direction, which he never designed for a general rule to all his followers. For him this was necessary, not only, as some suppose, in order to his giving proof of exalted piety, but in order to his salvation. For him literally to sell all, was an absolute duty; for many to do this would be an absolute sin. And yet, though God does not in fact require every man to distribute all his goods to others, and so in effect to become one of the number of the poor relieved out of his own possessions, yet sincere piety and virtue require in all an habitual readiness not only to sacrifice their possessions, but their lives, at the command of God; and Providence has in fact, in all ages, called some out to trials as severe as this. And certainly an entire renunciation of the world, so far at least as to be willing to part with it whenever God should call them to it, was peculiarly necessary for all Christians in the first ages, when the profession of Christianity so generally exposed men to persecution and death. And when he heard this he went away sorrowful — Not being willing to have salvation at so high a price; for he had great possessions — Which he now plainly showed he valued more than eternal life: and it was with great wisdom that our Lord took this direct and convincing method of manifesting both to himself and others that secret insincerity and carnality of temper which prevailed under all these specious pretences and promising appearances.

20. What lack I yet? — From this teacher the young man hopes to receive other instructions that will assure him of his safety, and so give him peace; or some instruction how he may supply his deficiency.

Verse 20. 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.

V. 21. If thou desirest to be perfect-That is, to be a real Christian: Sell what thou hast-He who reads the heart saw his bosom sin was love of the world; and knew he could not be saved from this, but by literally renouncing it. To him therefore he gave this particular direction, which he never designed for a general rule. For him that was necessary to salvation: to us it is not. To sell all was an absolute duty to him; to many of us it would be an absolute sin.

The young man went away-Not being willing to have salvation at so high a price.

Verse 21. If thou wilt be perfect] teleiov einai, To be complete, to have the business finished, and all hinderances to thy salvation removed, go and sell that thou hast-go and dispose of thy possessions, to which it is evident his heart was too much attached, and give to the poor-for thy goods will be a continual snare to thee if thou keep them; and thou shalt have treasure in heaven-the loss, if it can be called such, shall be made amply up to thee in that eternal life about which thou inquirest; and come and follow me-be my disciple, and I will appoint thee to preach the kingdom of God to others. This was the usual call which Christ gave to his disciples. See Matthew 4:19; 8:22; 9:9; Mark 2:14; and it is pretty evident, from this, that he intended to make him a preacher of his salvation. How many, by their attachment to filthy lucre, have lost the honour of becoming or continuing ambassadors for the Most High! See on Mark 10:21.

Verses 17-22. He said, Why callest thou me good? — Whom thou regardest merely as a prophet sent from God, and therefore supposest to be only a man; there is none good — Supremely, originally, essentially, but God. If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments — From a principle of loving faith. Believe, and thence love and obey. And this undoubtedly is the way to eternal life. Our Lord therefore does not answer ironically, which had been utterly beneath his character, but gives a plain, direct, serious answer to a serious question. The young man saith, All these have I kept from my childhood — So he imagined, and perhaps he had, as to the letter, but not as to the spirit, which our Lord immediately shows. What lack I yet? — Wherein am I deficient? What is further needful in order to my securing the glorious prize which I am pursuing? In answer to this inquiry, made by one evidently puffed up with a high opinion of his own righteousness, our Lord replies, If thou wilt be perfect — That is, a real, thorough Christian, yet lackest thou one thing, (Luke,) namely, to be saved from the love of the world; from all undue esteem for, and inordinate affection to, earthly things. Therefore, go and sell that thou hast, (Luke, all that thou hast,) and give — Distribute the money which arises from the sale thereof; to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven — Infinitely more excellent and durable than that which thou renouncest on earth. And come, (take up the cross, Mark,) and follow me — Unite thyself to me as my constant attendant, though it should be even at the expense of thy life. He who reads the heart, saw that this young man’s bosom sin was the love of his worldly possessions; and that he could not be saved from it but by literally parting with them. To him, therefore, he gave this particular direction, which he never designed for a general rule to all his followers. For him this was necessary, not only, as some suppose, in order to his giving proof of exalted piety, but in order to his salvation. For him literally to sell all, was an absolute duty; for many to do this would be an absolute sin. And yet, though God does not in fact require every man to distribute all his goods to others, and so in effect to become one of the number of the poor relieved out of his own possessions, yet sincere piety and virtue require in all an habitual readiness not only to sacrifice their possessions, but their lives, at the command of God; and Providence has in fact, in all ages, called some out to trials as severe as this. And certainly an entire renunciation of the world, so far at least as to be willing to part with it whenever God should call them to it, was peculiarly necessary for all Christians in the first ages, when the profession of Christianity so generally exposed men to persecution and death. And when he heard this he went away sorrowful — Not being willing to have salvation at so high a price; for he had great possessions — Which he now plainly showed he valued more than eternal life: and it was with great wisdom that our Lord took this direct and convincing method of manifesting both to himself and others that secret insincerity and carnality of temper which prevailed under all these specious pretences and promising appearances.

21. Be perfect — If thou wilt lack nothing, but have all things necessary to complete thy salvation, give up all for Christ. Our Lord has now brought him to just the right test. The young man wished a high standard of righteousness; our Saviour has presented it. He wished to be saved by works; our Saviour has shown him the way of faith. He truly thought he was ready for any task; our Saviour has undeceived him. He expected that he should be able to earn heaven by the nobleness of his performance; our Lord shows him that there is a price infinitely below the value of heaven which he is not willing to pay. Henceforth let no one dream that he can offer any price of righteousness that shall merit eternal life. Let him not go about asking what good thing he shall do to become an heir of heaven. Let him simply throw himself by faith upon God for salvation, and trust in the Saviour he hath sent.

Sell that thou hast — Was not this a peculiar and hard requirement? Is it made, at the present day, of any one? If it were nowadays made would any of our Christian men comply with it and be saved? To these questions we reply:

1. There was something hard to nature in this answer, yet nothing peculiar. For God requires of every rich or poor man to surrender all he has to God, and to hold nothing but as God’s steward. The Gospel does not indeed require of owners of property a general resignation, so as to unsettle the foundations of the social system. But it does require such a consecration of all to God, that when the duty is made known to give some, or much, or all to God, the offering can be made. Hence there was nothing required, so far as the condition of the heart was concerned, which is not required of every man.

2. This young man, in professing to have kept the commandments, professed to prefer God and his commandments to everything else. He loved God with all his heart, and above all things else. He had done this so abundantly that he was on the alert for some higher mode of righteousness. And yet, when put to the test, when taught that it was his duty and his chance to become an apostle, by giving up his fortune, he found that he loved mammon more than God.

3. This same young man would doubtless have preferred his money to his duty and his integrity in any case. To have preserved his fortune he would very likely have sacrificed any command in the table of the law. Hence he deceived himself in supposing that he had truly in heart kept the law. He had broken it from his youth up. The law condemned him. His heart was not right before it. Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things. Now he had no way but to give up all and be saved by grace, and this he refused. Treasure in heaven — In place of thy treasure on earth.

Verse 21. 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 22. Went away sorrowful] Men undergo great agony of mind while they are in suspense between the love of the world and the love of their souls. When the first absolutely predominates, then they enjoy a factitious rest through a false peace: when the latter has the upper hand, then they possess true tranquillity of mind, through that peace of God that passeth knowledge.

He had great possessions.] And what were these in comparison of peace of conscience, and mental rest? Besides, he had unequivocal proof that these contributed nothing to his comfort, for he is now miserable even while he possesses them! And so will every soul be, who puts worldly goods in the place of the supreme God. See on Mark 10:22.

Verses 17-22. He said, Why callest thou me good? — Whom thou regardest merely as a prophet sent from God, and therefore supposest to be only a man; there is none good — Supremely, originally, essentially, but God. If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments — From a principle of loving faith. Believe, and thence love and obey. And this undoubtedly is the way to eternal life. Our Lord therefore does not answer ironically, which had been utterly beneath his character, but gives a plain, direct, serious answer to a serious question. The young man saith, All these have I kept from my childhood — So he imagined, and perhaps he had, as to the letter, but not as to the spirit, which our Lord immediately shows. What lack I yet? — Wherein am I deficient? What is further needful in order to my securing the glorious prize which I am pursuing? In answer to this inquiry, made by one evidently puffed up with a high opinion of his own righteousness, our Lord replies, If thou wilt be perfect — That is, a real, thorough Christian, yet lackest thou one thing, (Luke,) namely, to be saved from the love of the world; from all undue esteem for, and inordinate affection to, earthly things. Therefore, go and sell that thou hast, (Luke, all that thou hast,) and give — Distribute the money which arises from the sale thereof; to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven — Infinitely more excellent and durable than that which thou renouncest on earth. And come, (take up the cross, Mark,) and follow me — Unite thyself to me as my constant attendant, though it should be even at the expense of thy life. He who reads the heart, saw that this young man’s bosom sin was the love of his worldly possessions; and that he could not be saved from it but by literally parting with them. To him, therefore, he gave this particular direction, which he never designed for a general rule to all his followers. For him this was necessary, not only, as some suppose, in order to his giving proof of exalted piety, but in order to his salvation. For him literally to sell all, was an absolute duty; for many to do this would be an absolute sin. And yet, though God does not in fact require every man to distribute all his goods to others, and so in effect to become one of the number of the poor relieved out of his own possessions, yet sincere piety and virtue require in all an habitual readiness not only to sacrifice their possessions, but their lives, at the command of God; and Providence has in fact, in all ages, called some out to trials as severe as this. And certainly an entire renunciation of the world, so far at least as to be willing to part with it whenever God should call them to it, was peculiarly necessary for all Christians in the first ages, when the profession of Christianity so generally exposed men to persecution and death. And when he heard this he went away sorrowful — Not being willing to have salvation at so high a price; for he had great possessions — Which he now plainly showed he valued more than eternal life: and it was with great wisdom that our Lord took this direct and convincing method of manifesting both to himself and others that secret insincerity and carnality of temper which prevailed under all these specious pretences and promising appearances.

22. Sorrowful… great possessions — Alas! what were these possessions worth that they should be put in competition witch eternal life? And what had become of his proud readiness to do some good thing for so great a price? He fails sadly both in point of faith and works.

How much did he not lose even as regards this world! Almost anybody can be a rich man. There are millions of rich men meaner than the meanest poverty can make them. But how few have the offer of being an apostle! God does not require that all rich men should surrender their wealth and become poor for his sake. And as he restored to Abraham the son he was ready to offer at God’s command, so to this young man he might have said after all: “Keep thy wealth; thou hast offered it to God and thou shalt have it back, given from God’s free gift, with eternal life in addition. The apostleships are all filled; but thou mayest stay a rich man, and yet be an heir of eternal life.” How soon did he lose his wealth, for which he lost eternal life!

Verse 23. A rich man shall hardly enter] That is, into the spirit and privileges of the Gospel in this world, and through them into the kingdom of glory. Earthly riches are a great obstacle to salvation; because it is almost impossible to possess them, and not to set the heart upon them; and they who love the world have not the love of the Father in them. 1 John 2:15. To be rich, therefore, is in general a great misfortune: but what rich man can be convinced of this? It is only God himself who, by a miracle of mercy, can do this. Christ himself affirms the difficulty of the salvation of a rich man, with an oath, verily; but who of the rich either hears or believes him!

Verses 23, 24. Then said Jesus unto his disciples — While they had this example before their eyes, and were witnesses of the melancholy fact of a well-educated and well-disposed man voluntarily foregoing all hope of eternal life rather than part with his temporal possessions; that is, relinquishing all prospect of the infinite and everlasting riches and glories of heaven, for the unsatisfying, uncertain, and transitory enjoyments of earth! Verily I say unto you — And enjoin you firmly to believe and seriously to consider what I say; that a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven — Either into the kingdom of grace or the kingdom of glory; or be brought to have such an esteem and love for the gospel, with its present and future blessings, as to embrace it at the hazard of losing their worldly property, together with their good name, thereby, or so as to use that property in such a manner as the laws of the gospel require. Our Lord therefore adds, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, &c. — A common proverb among the Jews to express the extreme difficulty of a thing. Theophylact observes, that some explain the word, kamhlon, as signifying here a cable. “A good authority, however, for this signification, though adopted by Castalio, who says, rudentem, I,” says Dr. Campbell, “have never seen. The frequency of the term among all sorts of writers, for denoting the beast so denominated, is undeniable. Besides, the camel being the largest animal they were acquainted with in Judea, its name was become proverbial for denoting any thing remarkably large, and a camel’s passing through a needle’s eye came, by consequence, as appears from some rabbinical writings, to express a thing absolutely impossible.” Our Lord, therefore, here represents the salvation of a rich man as being next to an impossibility. It was especially so in those early days, when the profession of the gospel exposed men to so much persecution. And perhaps, as Dr. Macknight observes, these strong expressions, in their strictest sense, must be understood of the state of things at that time subsisting; yet they are also applicable to rich men in all ages. The reason is, “Riches have a woful influence upon piety in two respects. 1st, In the acquisition; for, not to mention the many frauds and other sins that men commit to obtain riches, they occasion an endless variety of cares and anxieties, which draw the affections away from God. 2d, They are offensive to piety in the possession; because, if they are hoarded, they never fail to beget covetousness, which is the root of all evil; and if they are enjoyed they become strong temptations to luxury, drunkenness, lust, pride, and idleness.” But, besides these, riches are a dangerous snare in several other respects. 1st, It is difficult to possess them and not inordinately love them, and put that trust in them which ought to be put only in the living God. For rich men “obtaining all the necessaries and superfluities of life by means of their riches, are apt to consider them as the sources of their happiness, and to depend upon them as such, forgetting altogether their dependance on God. It is otherwise with the poor. They are exposed to manifold afflictions, and labour under the pressure of continual wants. These serve to convince them of the vanity of the world, and to put them in mind of their dependance upon God; at the same time, the unexpected deliverances and supplies which they meet with, rivet the idea more firmly. Wherefore, in the very nature of things, the poor are nearer to the kingdom of God than the rich; and if the latter, yielding to the temptations of their state, trust in their riches, words can scarce be invented strong enough to paint the difficulty of bringing them to that holy temper of mind which would qualify them for the kingdom of God.” 2d, It is not easy to possess riches and not think highly of ourselves on account of them, as they certainly give their possessors a consequence which they otherwise could not have, and cause them to be looked up to with respect by all that are round about them. But, 3d, The most difficult thing of all is, to possess them and make a right use of them, even that use which God wills all to make in whose hands he hath lodged them. In other words, To use them as those who are persuaded that, properly speaking, they are not proprietors, but merely stewards of them, and will certainly be called by the great Lord of all to give an account how they have employed every part of them, and what use they have made of the advantages and opportunities for doing and receiving good above others, which riches put in their power.

§ 105. — POSSIBILITY OF RICH MEN’S SALVATION, 23-30.

23. A rich man — Mark says, “that trusteth in his riches.” But this hardly alters it. How few rich that do not trust in riches! And how few poor who do not trust in riches they are not able to acquire!

Verse 23. A rich man shall hardly enter, &c. — He may enter, but he must do so duskolwv, 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!

V. 24. It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, (a proverbial expression,) than for a rich man to go through the strait gate: that is, humanly speaking, it is an absolute impossibility. Rich man! tremble! feel this impossibility; else thou art lost for ever!

Verse 24. A camel] Instead of kamhlon, camel, six MSS. read kamilon, cable, a mere gloss inserted by some who did not know that the other was a proverb common enough among the people of the east.

There is an expression similar to this in the Koran. “The impious, who in his arrogance shall accuse our doctrine of falsity, shall find the gates of heaven shut: nor shall he enter there till a camel shall pass through the eye of a needle. It is thus that we shall recompense the wicked.” Al KORAN. Surat vii. ver. 37.

It was also a mode of expression common among the Jews, and signified a thing impossible. Hence this proverb: A camel in Media dances in a cabe; a measure which held about three pints. Again, No man sees a palm tree of gold, nor an elephant passing through the eye of a needle. Because these are impossible things. “Rabbi Shesheth answered Rabbi Amram, who had advanced an absurdity, Perhaps thou art one of the Pembidithians who can make an elephant pass through the eye of a needle; that is, says the Aruch, ‘who speak things impossible.’“ See Lightfoot and Schoettgen on this place.

Go through] But instead of dielqein, about eighty MSS. with several versions and fathers, have eiselqein, to enter in; but the difference is of little importance in an English translation, though of some consequence to the elegance of the Greek text.

Verses 23, 24. Then said Jesus unto his disciples — While they had this example before their eyes, and were witnesses of the melancholy fact of a well-educated and well-disposed man voluntarily foregoing all hope of eternal life rather than part with his temporal possessions; that is, relinquishing all prospect of the infinite and everlasting riches and glories of heaven, for the unsatisfying, uncertain, and transitory enjoyments of earth! Verily I say unto you — And enjoin you firmly to believe and seriously to consider what I say; that a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven — Either into the kingdom of grace or the kingdom of glory; or be brought to have such an esteem and love for the gospel, with its present and future blessings, as to embrace it at the hazard of losing their worldly property, together with their good name, thereby, or so as to use that property in such a manner as the laws of the gospel require. Our Lord therefore adds, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, &c. — A common proverb among the Jews to express the extreme difficulty of a thing. Theophylact observes, that some explain the word, kamhlon, as signifying here a cable. “A good authority, however, for this signification, though adopted by Castalio, who says, rudentem, I,” says Dr. Campbell, “have never seen. The frequency of the term among all sorts of writers, for denoting the beast so denominated, is undeniable. Besides, the camel being the largest animal they were acquainted with in Judea, its name was become proverbial for denoting any thing remarkably large, and a camel’s passing through a needle’s eye came, by consequence, as appears from some rabbinical writings, to express a thing absolutely impossible.” Our Lord, therefore, here represents the salvation of a rich man as being next to an impossibility. It was especially so in those early days, when the profession of the gospel exposed men to so much persecution. And perhaps, as Dr. Macknight observes, these strong expressions, in their strictest sense, must be understood of the state of things at that time subsisting; yet they are also applicable to rich men in all ages. The reason is, “Riches have a woful influence upon piety in two respects. 1st, In the acquisition; for, not to mention the many frauds and other sins that men commit to obtain riches, they occasion an endless variety of cares and anxieties, which draw the affections away from God. 2d, They are offensive to piety in the possession; because, if they are hoarded, they never fail to beget covetousness, which is the root of all evil; and if they are enjoyed they become strong temptations to luxury, drunkenness, lust, pride, and idleness.” But, besides these, riches are a dangerous snare in several other respects. 1st, It is difficult to possess them and not inordinately love them, and put that trust in them which ought to be put only in the living God. For rich men “obtaining all the necessaries and superfluities of life by means of their riches, are apt to consider them as the sources of their happiness, and to depend upon them as such, forgetting altogether their dependance on God. It is otherwise with the poor. They are exposed to manifold afflictions, and labour under the pressure of continual wants. These serve to convince them of the vanity of the world, and to put them in mind of their dependance upon God; at the same time, the unexpected deliverances and supplies which they meet with, rivet the idea more firmly. Wherefore, in the very nature of things, the poor are nearer to the kingdom of God than the rich; and if the latter, yielding to the temptations of their state, trust in their riches, words can scarce be invented strong enough to paint the difficulty of bringing them to that holy temper of mind which would qualify them for the kingdom of God.” 2d, It is not easy to possess riches and not think highly of ourselves on account of them, as they certainly give their possessors a consequence which they otherwise could not have, and cause them to be looked up to with respect by all that are round about them. But, 3d, The most difficult thing of all is, to possess them and make a right use of them, even that use which God wills all to make in whose hands he hath lodged them. In other words, To use them as those who are persuaded that, properly speaking, they are not proprietors, but merely stewards of them, and will certainly be called by the great Lord of all to give an account how they have employed every part of them, and what use they have made of the advantages and opportunities for doing and receiving good above others, which riches put in their power.

Ver. 24. 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. This is a Hebrew proverb, denoting a thing impossible. In fortified towns the gates were strong, and closed at an early hour. The wide gate was for carriages; on each side was a narrow gate for foot passengers, called the needle’s eye, because its figure resembled the eye of a needle. To read “cable,” is unfounded, and trifling with the text. Rich men in order to be saved are called to make sacrifices, as indicated by other scriptures. 1 Timothy 6:10. James 2:5, 6. The miser who so loves his money as to neglect the duties of charity, can never dwell with the God of love.

24. Camel… eye of a needle — That is, it is absolutely a human impossibility. The emendation made by changing camel to cable is unauthorized. The phrase is a proverbial expression for an absolutely impracticable thing.

Verse 24. It as easier for a camel, &c. — It has been disputed among critics whether kamhlon, a camel, or kamilon, a cable rope, should be here read; and Euthymius and Theophylact contend that both words have the latter meaning. But kamilon has no support from MSS.; and that kamhlon 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 dielqein have eiselqein; 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, rafiv, from raptw, 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.

V. 25. His disciples were amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?-If rich men, with all their advantages, cannot? Who? A poor man; a peasant; a beggar: ten thousand of them, sooner than one that is rich.

Verse 25. Who can be saved?] The question of the disciples seemed to intimate that most people were rich, and that therefore scarcely any could be saved. They certainly must have attached a different meaning to what constitutes a rich man, to what we in general do. Who is a rich man in our Lord’s sense of the word? This is a very important question, and has not, that I know of, been explicitly answered. A rich man, in my opinion, is not one who has so many hundreds or thousands more than some of his neighbours; but is one who gets more than is necessary to supply all his own wants, and those of his household, and keeps the residue still to himself, though the poor are starving through lack of the necessaries of life. In a word, he is a man who gets all he can, saves all he can, and keeps all he has gotten. Speak, reason! Speak, conscience! (for God has already spoken) Can such a person enter into the kingdom of God? ALL, NO!!!

Verses 25, 26. When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed — The disciples, who had followed their Master in expectation of becoming rich and great, were exceedingly astonished when they heard him declare that it was next to impossible for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. They thought if the rich and the great could not enter his kingdom, he never could have any kingdom at all; and, therefore, they asked one another with great surprise, Who then can be saved — If rich men with all their advantages cannot? “Who? A poor man: a peasant: a beggar: — ten thousand of them,” says Mr. Wesley, “sooner than one that is rich.” But Jesus beheld them — Mark says, looking upon them — To compose their hurried spirits. O what a speaking look was there! Said to them — With the utmost sweetness; With men this is impossible — It is observable, he does not retract what he had said; no, nor soften it in the least degree, but rather strengthens it, by representing the salvation of a rich man as the utmost effort of Omnipotence. The energy of divine grace is able to make a man despise the world, with all that it contains, when no efforts of man, no arguments, eloquence, or persuasions are able to do it.

25. Who then can be saved? — All have the spirit of this rich man. And when we look around and survey the world, and count how many rich men in the Church are as covetous as they are rich, we seem to doubt the possibility of any man’s salvation by the standard which our Lord here presents. Mr. Webb, the military preacher of the first John-street Church, New York, well said: “I doubt the conversion of the man whose purse is not converted.” The religion that costs the owner nothing is probably worth about its cost. The great mass of rich professors of religion, who live to make their children rich, are in immense danger of ruining their own souls, and destroying their own children.

Verse 25. 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. Adunaton 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: plousiouv d’ ou sfodra kai agaqouv adunaton, “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 adunaton 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.

V. 26. Jesus looking upon them-To compose their hurried spirits. O what a speaking look was there!

Said to them-With the utmost sweetness:

With men this is impossible-It is observable, he does not retract what he had said: no, nor soften it in the least degree, but rather strengthens it, by representing the salvation of a rich man as the utmost effort of Omnipotence.

Verse 26. With men this is impossible] God alone can take the love of the world out of the human heart. Therefore the salvation of the rich is represented as possible only to him: and indeed the words seem to intimate, that it requires more than common exertions of Omnipotence to save a rich man.

Verses 25, 26. When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed — The disciples, who had followed their Master in expectation of becoming rich and great, were exceedingly astonished when they heard him declare that it was next to impossible for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. They thought if the rich and the great could not enter his kingdom, he never could have any kingdom at all; and, therefore, they asked one another with great surprise, Who then can be saved — If rich men with all their advantages cannot? “Who? A poor man: a peasant: a beggar: — ten thousand of them,” says Mr. Wesley, “sooner than one that is rich.” But Jesus beheld them — Mark says, looking upon them — To compose their hurried spirits. O what a speaking look was there! Said to them — With the utmost sweetness; With men this is impossible — It is observable, he does not retract what he had said; no, nor soften it in the least degree, but rather strengthens it, by representing the salvation of a rich man as the utmost effort of Omnipotence. The energy of divine grace is able to make a man despise the world, with all that it contains, when no efforts of man, no arguments, eloquence, or persuasions are able to do it.

26. With God all things are possible — The salvation of a rich man is as miraculous as the putting a camel through a needle’s eye. It is a human impossibility. But God can do it. But does not this reduce the rich man to just the same level as any other man, and so destroy all the force of our Lord’s first reflections on the impossibility of bringing a rich man into the kingdom of heaven? We reply, that our Lord means to represent that the salvation of a rich man bears to the ordinary salvation of common men the same relation that a miracle does to an ordinary transaction. If the saving of an ordinary man be a miracle of grace, the saving of a rich man is a miracle upon a miracle. It is an event above the ordinary train of grace, just as a miracle is above the ordinary course of nature.

Verse 27. We have forsaken all] “A poor all,” says one, “a parcel of rotten nets.” No matter-they were their ALL, whether rotten or sound; besides, they were the all they got their bread by; and such an all as was quite sufficient for that purpose: and let it be observed, that that man forsakes much who reserves nothing to himself, and renounces all expectations from this world, taking God alone for his portion. See Matthew 4:20.

To forsake all, without following Christ, is the virtue of a philosopher. To follow Christ in profession, without forsaking all, is the state of the generality of Christians. But to follow Christ and forsake all, is the perfection of a Christian.

What shall we have therefore?] ti ara estai hmin, What REWARD shall we get? This Kypke proves to be the meaning of the words from some of the best Greek writers.

Verses 27, 28. Then answered Peter — With some warmth and confidence; Behold, we have forsaken all — We have done what this youth, hopeful as he seemed, had not the resolution to do; for though indeed we had not much, we have left all the little that we had, and have at all adventures followed thee with the sincerest zeal and affection. What shall we have therefore? — It seems Peter was ready to think that their labour was lost, because they were to have no recompense on earth, and that his stewardship, the office which he supposed his Master had promised him under the metaphor of the keys of the kingdom, was likely to be of little service to him. Jesus said, Ye which have followed me in the regeneration — During this time and state of things, in which men are to be regenerated and created anew by the gospel, and the earth is to be renewed in righteousness. Mr. Fleming paraphrases the verse thus: “You, my apostles, who have followed me in this new state of the church, which is to be brought to the birth when I am to ascend to heaven, shall be to the whole Christian Church what the twelve heads of the tribes were of old to the whole Jewish nation: my followers shall appeal to your decisions, as the rule of their faith and practice.” But, it seems, the expression, en th paliggenesia, ought rather to be connected with what follows; the sense then will be, In the renovation, namely, the final renovation, or restitution of all things, Acts 3:21, when the Son of man shall sit on the throne of his glory — Exalted above the highest angels of God, and presiding over and judging the assembled world; ye also shall sit — In the beginning of the judgment they shall stand; (2 Corinthians 5:10.) Then, being absolved, they shall sit with the Judge: (1 Corinthians 6:2:) on twelve thrones — So our Lord promised, without expressing any condition: yet, as absolute as the words are, it is certain there is a condition implied, as in many scriptures where none is expressed. In consequence of this, these twelve did not sit on those twelve thrones: for the throne of Judas another took, so that he never sat thereon. Judging the twelve tribes of Israel — Concurring joyfully with me in the sentence which will then be passed on the Jewish nation, and on all the professed members of my church, as they have been sincere or faithless in their profession, and in the observance of those laws which you, by authority from me, shall have given them.

27. We have forsaken all — Peter’s boast is not much better than the young man’s profession. There is in both a large sensibility to what they have sacrificed, and a small sense of the impossibility of their highest services being worth anything to God, or being in any commensurate degree an equivalent for eternal life. God does not need us. We can do God no favour, nor make ourselves necessary to him. After all our best services, he might, without any injustice, drop us into nothingness. What shall we have therefore? — Something in the expression here seems to betray a spirit like that of the rich young man. Jesus had exposed this spirit in the young man, by requiring him to become his follower. Jesus, in the case of Peter, first shows him what, by grace, he will obtain, and then, in the following parable, warns him of the danger of the hireling spirit which seeks a reward of works and not of grace.

Verse 27. 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, ti ara estai hmin, 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.”

V. 28. In the renovation-In the final renovation of all things: Ye shall sit-In the beginning of the judgment they shall stand, 2 Corinthians 5:10. Then being absolved, they shall sit with the Judge, 1 Corinthians 6:2:

On twelve thrones-So our Lord promised, without expressing any condition: yet as absolute as the words are, it is certain there is a condition implied, as in many scriptures, where none is expressed. In consequence of this, those twelve did not sit on those twelve thrones: for the throne of Judas another took, so that he never sat thereon.

Verse 28. Ye which have followed me, in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, &c.] The punctuation which I have observed here, is that which is followed by the most eminent critics: the regeneration is thus referred to the time when Jesus shall sit on the throne of his glory, and not to the time of following him, which is utterly improper.

The regeneration, paliggenesia. Some refer this to the time in which the new heavens and the new earth shall be created, and the soul and body united. The Pythagoreans termed that paliggenesia, when, according to their doctrine of the transmigration or metempsychosis, the soul entered into a new body, and got into a new state of being. Clement, in his Epistle to the Corinthians, calls the restoration of the world, after the deluge, by the same name.

Judging the twelve tribes] From the parallel place, Luke 22:28-30, it is evident that sitting on thrones, and judging the twelve tribes, means simply obtaining eternal salvation, and the distinguishing privileges of the kingdom of glory, by those who continued faithful to Christ in his sufferings and death.

Judging, krinontev. Kypke has shown that krinesqai is to be understood in the sense of governing, presiding, holding the first or most distinguished place. Thus, Genesis 49:16, Dan shall JUDGE his people, i.e. shall preside in, or rule over them; shall occupy a chief place among the tribes. It is well known that the Judges among the Jews were moderators, captains, chief, or head men. The sense therefore of our Lord’s words appears to be, that these disciples should have those distinguished seats in glory which seem to belong peculiarly to the first confessors and martyrs. See 1 Thessalonians 4:14, 16, and particularly Revelation 20:4-6.

The last-quoted passage brings into view the doctrine of the Millennium, when Jesus, after having formed the new heavens and the new earth, shall reign here gloriously among his ancients 365,000 years; for the thousand years referred to above are certainly prophetical years, in which, it is well known, each day stands for a year.

Others, of no mean note, are of opinion that the regeneration means the conversion of men by the preaching of the Gospel-that sitting on twelve thrones signifies the state of eminent dignity to which the apostles should be raised-and that judging the twelve tribes of Israel, means no more than exercising authority in the Church, and dispensing laws to the people of God. But I confess I do not see the propriety of this application of the terms, as the following verse seems to fix the meaning mentioned above.

Verses 27, 28. Then answered Peter — With some warmth and confidence; Behold, we have forsaken all — We have done what this youth, hopeful as he seemed, had not the resolution to do; for though indeed we had not much, we have left all the little that we had, and have at all adventures followed thee with the sincerest zeal and affection. What shall we have therefore? — It seems Peter was ready to think that their labour was lost, because they were to have no recompense on earth, and that his stewardship, the office which he supposed his Master had promised him under the metaphor of the keys of the kingdom, was likely to be of little service to him. Jesus said, Ye which have followed me in the regeneration — During this time and state of things, in which men are to be regenerated and created anew by the gospel, and the earth is to be renewed in righteousness. Mr. Fleming paraphrases the verse thus: “You, my apostles, who have followed me in this new state of the church, which is to be brought to the birth when I am to ascend to heaven, shall be to the whole Christian Church what the twelve heads of the tribes were of old to the whole Jewish nation: my followers shall appeal to your decisions, as the rule of their faith and practice.” But, it seems, the expression, en th paliggenesia, ought rather to be connected with what follows; the sense then will be, In the renovation, namely, the final renovation, or restitution of all things, Acts 3:21, when the Son of man shall sit on the throne of his glory — Exalted above the highest angels of God, and presiding over and judging the assembled world; ye also shall sit — In the beginning of the judgment they shall stand; (2 Corinthians 5:10.) Then, being absolved, they shall sit with the Judge: (1 Corinthians 6:2:) on twelve thrones — So our Lord promised, without expressing any condition: yet, as absolute as the words are, it is certain there is a condition implied, as in many scriptures where none is expressed. In consequence of this, these twelve did not sit on those twelve thrones: for the throne of Judas another took, so that he never sat thereon. Judging the twelve tribes of Israel — Concurring joyfully with me in the sentence which will then be passed on the Jewish nation, and on all the professed members of my church, as they have been sincere or faithless in their profession, and in the observance of those laws which you, by authority from me, shall have given them.

Ver. 28. Ye which have followed me in the regeneration, or new birth, and persevered in efforts to regenerate the world, shall sit on thrones, as Daniel foretold; and then those who have believed in Christ shall judge the Hebrew world, and all their ungodly neighbours. The scribes and the pharisees who now are first, shall then be last; while the regenerate publicans and sinners shall sit as assessors with Christ in heavenly places. Yea, many preachers and professors whose love has decayed, shall then be thrown into the dark shades, while those who are most holy and useful shall shine as the brightness of the firmament for ever and ever.

28. Ye which have followed — In the inauguration of the apostles, in chapter 16:19, the Lord appointed them rulers of the Church after his ascension, under the symbols of the keys and binding and loosing. Here he affirms the same appointment under the image of thrones and judging. The parallel passage in Luke 22:28-30, is explanatory of this, and should be diligently compared. Ye which have followed me, in the regeneration is explained by Ye which have continued with me in my temptations. In my temptations is antithetical with in the regeneration; the temptations denote the scenes of our Lord’s earthly ministry; the regeneration the state of things after his ascension. In the regeneration — As this regeneration is a plain antithesis to the temptations, the latter term needs a brief analysis. These temptations, first, were primarily our Lord’s own trials in his humiliation state. Their centre was his own person. But, second, they extended to those who followed him, namely, his disciples and believers. And, third, they characterized that period and state of things as a scene of humiliation and subjection. Antithetically to all this, the regeneration was at and after our Lord’s resurrection. It was primarily centered in our Lord’s own renovated person; for he then put off his servant form and put on his immortality. He ascended on high upon his throne of glory; yet to rule over his Church in heaven and earth. Second, that renovation over-spread and included his followers, especially his twelve apostles. By the Pentecostal Spirit they were endowed with power from on high; they entered on the possession of the kingdom appointed, (Luke 22:29;) they received and exercised the power of the keys of that kingdom; they ascended their twelve apostolic thrones as the viceroys of the Lord in his glorification. Thirdly, the Church was renewed and regenerated from the old to the new dispensation. The types and shadows had departed, the reign of the kingdom of God with power was begun. Sit in the throne of his glory — On the right hand of the Majesty on high. Hebrews 1:3. In that same throne of glory he shall judge the world. Matthew 16:27; 25:31. Sit upon twelve thrones — We have already remarked (Matthew 10:1) that the number of the apostles was chosen in reference to the twelve tribes of Israel, as a symbolical intimation that Christ was king of Israel, and his apostles were his viceroys over the tribes. After the ascension the sacred number was still preserved, to indicate that the new kingdom was a virtual continuation as well as succession of the twelve tribes. The Son of man then sat upon his throne of glory; that is, his glorified throne; the apostles sat simply upon thrones. That these twelve thrones were their twelve apostolates in the Church on earth is confirmed by the next verse.

Verse 28. In the regeneration, &c. — Paliggenesia 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, en th paliggenesia, 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 paliggenesia, 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 folarxai, 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 krinw answers to the Hebrew cpv, which often signifies to govern; and hence the judges who succeeded Joshua are called µycpv. 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 paliggenesia, 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.

V. 29. And every one-In every age and country; not you my apostles only; That hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or wife, or children-Either by giving any of them up, when they could not be retained with a clear conscience or by willingly refraining from acquiring them: Shall receive a hundred-fold-In value, though not in kind, even in the present world.

Verse 29. Shall receive a hundredfold] Viz. in this life, in value, though perhaps not in kind; and in the world to come everlasting life. A glorious portion for a persevering believer! The fulness of GRACE here, and the fulness of GLORY hereafter! See on Mark 10:30.

Verses 29, 30. And every one — In every age and country, and not you my apostles only; that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or wife, or children — Either by giving any of them up, when they could not be retained with a clear conscience; or by willingly refraining from acquiring them: shall receive a hundred-fold — In value, though not in kind, even in the present world, in the inward satisfaction and divine consolation attending real religion; and inherit everlasting life — Shall enjoy to all eternity that unspeakable felicity and glory which God has prepared for all his children, and especially for those who have cheerfully made such sacrifices as those, and have given such proofs of their faith in, and love to, their God and Saviour. But many first — In the advantages and privileges which they enjoy; shall — notwithstanding this, fall short of others, and be last — in the great day of accounts; and those who are the last, shall prove in this respect the first: for some, from whom it might be least expected, shall embrace the gospel, and courageously endure the greatest hardships for it; while others, with far greater advantages, shall reject it, and under much stronger engagements shall desert it. The words thus interpreted may be considered as a prediction that the Gentiles would receive and obey the gospel, while the Jews should reject it. As if he had said, “Though you may imagine that you and your brethren have a peculiar title to the great and substantial blessings of my kingdom, which I have been describing, the Gentiles shall have equal opportunities and advantages for obtaining them; because they shall be admitted to all the privileges of the gospel on the same footing with you Jews; nay, in point of time, they shall be before you; for they shall generally embrace the gospel before your nation is converted, Romans 11:25, 26.” — Macknight. The words may also be thus interpreted: Many that are first in profession, and in the opinion of their fellow-creatures, and their own opinion, for piety and virtue, shall be last in my esteem, and in that of my Father, or shall be found wanting, and therefore shall be condemned at the day of judgment: and the last in the opinion of men, and in their own opinion, and who are despised and rejected by those that judge according to appearance, shall be first — Shall be preferred to others, and be found highest in my favour in that day. The passage has evidently yet another sense, namely, Many of those who were first called shall be last, shall have the lowest reward, those who came after them being preferred before them: and yet possibly both the first and the last may be saved, though with different degrees of glory. The doctrine contained in this sentence is illustrated by the parable of the householder, contained in the beginning of the following chapter.

29. Every one — Of you apostles. A hundredfold — Not a hundredfold of the same article; for certainly no man would expect to receive a hundred fathers or mothers. It was a hundredfold better to have an apostolic throne like Peter, than to have a fortune like the rich young man, whose case prompted Peter’s question. And all this, by the parallel passage in Mark 10:30, is to be now in this time. It is also to be with persecution, and in spite of persecution. That the apostles of Christ during their holy ministration in the Church were the happiest of men, over and above all the privations they suffered, was doubtless true to the letter. Thousands of mankind would indeed think and choose otherwise. But a rich part of the blessedness of the apostolate was to have a divine assurance within, by which it could know and realize its own exceeding great reward. And shall inherit everlasting life — In a world to come. Up to this clause Jesus had confined his statement of the apostolic reward to this world; showing, contrary to the sorrow of the rich young man, that godliness, is most profitable even for the life that now is. But to this earthly advantage everlasting life is to be superadded.

Verse 29. 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.

V. 30. But many first-Many of those who were first called, shall be last-Shall have the lowest reward: those who came after them being preferred before them: and yet possibly both the first and the last may be saved, though with different degrees of glory. Matthew 20:16; Mark 10:31; Luke 13:30.

Verse 30. But many that are first, &c.] The Jews, who have been the first and most distinguished people of God, will in general reject the Gospel of my grace, and be consequently rejected by me. The Gentiles, who have had no name among the living, shall be brought to the knowledge of the truth, and become the first, the chief, and most exalted people of God. That this prediction of our Lord has been literally fulfilled, the present state of the Christian and Jewish Churches sufficiently proves. To illustrate this fully, and to demonstrate that the Jews and Gentiles were now put on an equal footing by the Gospel, our Lord speaks the following parable, which has been unhappily divided from its connection by making it the beginning of a new chapter.

ST. MATTHEW

Verses 29, 30. And every one — In every age and country, and not you my apostles only; that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or wife, or children — Either by giving any of them up, when they could not be retained with a clear conscience; or by willingly refraining from acquiring them: shall receive a hundred-fold — In value, though not in kind, even in the present world, in the inward satisfaction and divine consolation attending real religion; and inherit everlasting life — Shall enjoy to all eternity that unspeakable felicity and glory which God has prepared for all his children, and especially for those who have cheerfully made such sacrifices as those, and have given such proofs of their faith in, and love to, their God and Saviour. But many first — In the advantages and privileges which they enjoy; shall — notwithstanding this, fall short of others, and be last — in the great day of accounts; and those who are the last, shall prove in this respect the first: for some, from whom it might be least expected, shall embrace the gospel, and courageously endure the greatest hardships for it; while others, with far greater advantages, shall reject it, and under much stronger engagements shall desert it. The words thus interpreted may be considered as a prediction that the Gentiles would receive and obey the gospel, while the Jews should reject it. As if he had said, “Though you may imagine that you and your brethren have a peculiar title to the great and substantial blessings of my kingdom, which I have been describing, the Gentiles shall have equal opportunities and advantages for obtaining them; because they shall be admitted to all the privileges of the gospel on the same footing with you Jews; nay, in point of time, they shall be before you; for they shall generally embrace the gospel before your nation is converted, Romans 11:25, 26.” — Macknight. The words may also be thus interpreted: Many that are first in profession, and in the opinion of their fellow-creatures, and their own opinion, for piety and virtue, shall be last in my esteem, and in that of my Father, or shall be found wanting, and therefore shall be condemned at the day of judgment: and the last in the opinion of men, and in their own opinion, and who are despised and rejected by those that judge according to appearance, shall be first — Shall be preferred to others, and be found highest in my favour in that day. The passage has evidently yet another sense, namely, Many of those who were first called shall be last, shall have the lowest reward, those who came after them being preferred before them: and yet possibly both the first and the last may be saved, though with different degrees of glory. The doctrine contained in this sentence is illustrated by the parable of the householder, contained in the beginning of the following chapter.

30. But many — This verse belongs properly to the next chapter. The maxim it contains introduces and closes the parable of the labourers, Matthew 20:16. Our Lord has answered Peter’s question. Verse 27. He now turns to warn Peter, in the parable of the next chapter, how the hireling spirit of that question is disapproved by God. It shows great want of a sense of the wickedness of our own heart, and the imperfectness of our own services, when a man expects his doings to entitle him to God’s gratitude.

Bishop Butler, of England, lived unmarried, and spent his immense revenues in charity and alms. He wrote a great work, The Analogy, which has, perhaps, converted many an infidel. Yet in his latter days awful thoughts of his sinfulness overwhelmed his soul. He felt how little his charities weighed against the impurities of the heart. And through the glory of God had prompted his book, visions of his own fame therefrom had also entered his mind. He trembled before God. But that text, “Whosoever cometh unto me I will in no wise cast out,” which many would suppose calculated only for viler sinners, was brought to his relief. He flung himself by faith upon it, and was richly consoled with the hope not of being saved by works of righteousness but by grace alone.

Verse 30. 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 gar shows the connection. It is a gnwmh, 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.