Down an Unfamiliar Road

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER NINETEEN

Part VIII

Verse 26: Jesus looked at them and said, “This is something that people cannot do. But God can do anything.”

Christ’s answer here clearly indicates the futility of those who would attempt to enter God’s kingdom by their own initiative. The reason being is that the eye of the needle through the kingdom’s gate is called “The Law”, and as of this date no one has made it yet because of the requirements to be morally perfect in all manner of ethics, virtue, and conduct. As Jesus so aptly states, “This is humanly impossible.” Had He stopped here, everyone who heard Him would have bowed their heads and begin crying in hopelessness. With entrance into the kingdom of heaven needed to obtain everlasting life, such a declaration would have doomed everyone. But praise the Lord, Jesus follows this with another declaration that caused everyone to raise their heads and began to rejoice in hope when they heard Him say: “But with God everything is possible!”

This certainly was the message to Abraham and Sarah about them having a baby in their old age. The visiting angel said, “Is anything too hard for the LORD?”¹ Another Jewish translator believes the original Hebrew would be better rendered: “Is anything beyond the LORD?”² And God told Moses, “Don’t diminish my power! You will see that I can do what I say I can do.”³ And Job was quick to confess after God asked him if he doubted what He could do, “I know you can do everything. You make plans, and nothing can change or stop them.”⁴ And when things did not look good because of the threat from the powerful Babylonians, the Lord spoke to a prophet and said, “Jeremiah, I am the LORD. I am the God of every person on the earth. You know that nothing is impossible for me.”⁵

Chrysostom in his sermon on this text says: “Why were the disciples upset since they were poor, in fact very poor? They were upset for others’ salvation and because they possessed great love toward them all. Already they were taking on the tenderness of teachers. At least they were in such trembling and fear for the whole world from Jesus’ declaration as to need much comfort. And so after Jesus had made eye contact with them, He said, ‘With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.’ So with a pleasant and gentle look, He soothed those whose hearts that were terrorized and relieved their anguish (for this is what the Evangelist meant by ‘looking at him’). Then He uplifted them with His words as He focused on the power of God, and thus He gave them faith.”⁶ While I agree with the great preacher that the disciples had concern for all those wanting to enter the kingdom of heaven, I believe their concern also came from a sudden revelation that if they, the followers of the Messiah, can’t make it then who can.

What Jesus is saying here is the key to understanding. We must let Jesus provide the necessary ingredient for what it takes to be righteous in God’s sight. Chrysostom then goes on to address his congregation: “If you also want to learn the way and how the impossible becomes possible, listen. He did not make this statement that what is impossible for man is possible for God merely so you could relax and do nothing and leave it all to God. No, He said this so you could understand the importance of calling upon God to give you help in this rigorous contest and that you might more readily approach His grace.”⁷ So it is not a case of seeking God’s help in doing our will, but seeking His guidance in doing His will.

So when the day comes for all of us to gather together up in heaven and an archangel stands next to the throne of the Almighty and calls out: How did you make it here? the myriad multitudes will respond in perfect unity, “By the grace and mercy of God through our Lord Jesus Christ His Son!” The angels will have to bow their heads in respect and honor because even they did not make it there on their own. They were given their station by the creative goodness of God, while we have been blessed with our station by the creative grace of God.

Verse 27: Peter said to Him, “We left everything we had and followed You. So what will we have?”

Here Peter was echoing the words of Moses when he blessed the priestly tribe of Levi, “They were more loyal to you LORD than to their own families. They ignored their fathers and mothers. They did not recognize their brothers. They did not pay attention to their children. But they obeyed your commands. They kept your agreement…LORD, bless everything Levi has. Accept what he does. Destroy those who attack him! Defeat his enemies so that they will never attack again.”⁸ So perhaps this outspoken disciple was expecting a similar blessing.

It is apparent that Peter had not yet grasped that he was not following Jesus because of what was in it for him – Peter, but what was in it for Him – Jesus. Today, it is not uncommon to go into many megachurches and hear the pastor tell people that if they will just turn their lives over to Jesus Christ things will go better for them. That they will be given better jobs, bigger houses, nicer cars, more successful careers, etc. Some, therefore, become followers of Jesus for the money, not for the ministry. This does not mean that our Lord intends for all of His followers to live on garbage dumps, but that for His sake whatever they can achieve on their own is like trash compared to what He has in store for those who are faithful and endure until the end.⁹

Chrysostom has to say: “What is ‘everything,’ blessed Peter? Is it your fishing rod? your net? your boat? your skill? Are you telling me these are the ‘everything?’ ‘Yes,’ he says, ‘I am not saying these things to show off but in order that by this question I may embrace the multitude of the poor.’ For when the Lord said, ‘If you wish to be perfect, sell what you have and give to the poor and you will have treasure in heaven,’ one of the poor may say, ‘What then? If I have no possessions, can I not be perfect?’ Peter asks the question so that you, the poor man, may learn that you are in no way inferior to the disciples. Peter asks the question, not so that you may have doubts if you learn it from Peter (for he was still imperfect and as yet unfilled by the Spirit) but so that you may hear the word from Peter’s Master and so believe. When we dispute on behalf of others, we often make their concerns our own. That is what the apostle did when he offered this question to the Master on behalf of the wider world of the poor.”¹⁰ Here again, we must be careful to make note of what our Lord said that should be taken as a metaphor or taken literally. The literal interpretation of selling everything and living in complete poverty as a way of serving Christ fostered thousands of monasteries in the middle ages that did little if anything to represent the kingdom of heaven as inclusive. Instead, it made it look even more exclusive.

Verse 28: Jesus said to them, “For sure, I tell you, when all the earth will be made new and the Son of man sits on His throne in His shining-greatness, you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, and judge the twelve tribes of the Jewish nation.

Again we are faced with whether or not Jesus is speaking literally here or using a metaphor. One quick way is to examine the logic of what is being said. For what reason would the twelve disciples of Jesus sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel? It is a precursor to the future which can be found in the revelation that John would later receive? Would they be included in the 24 elders?¹¹ We do not hear the disciples speak about this later as something they came to expect. But if we take this in its symbolic sense, then we can see where Jesus is indicating that because the Israelites did not accept Him when He came as the Messiah, the twelve disciples who did will be a witness against them that they missed the opportunity to follow the Anointed One.

Chrysostom had this to say: “But what does it mean that they will ‘judge the twelve tribes of Israel?’ It means they will judge them insufficient and convicted. For they are not going to sit as jurymen. But just as He said that the queen of the south is to judge that generation and the Ninevites will condemn them,¹² so will these too. For this reason, He did not say ‘the nations and the world’ but ‘the tribes of Israel.’ The Jews and the apostles had been brought up in the same laws and customs and political system. When the Jews said that they were not able to believe in Christ because the law forbade them to receive His commandments, He brings forward these people who had received the same law and had believed, and thus He condemns all those others. That is why He had already said, ‘Therefore they shall be your judges.’¹³”¹⁴

Verse 29: “Everyone who has left houses, brothers, sisters, father, mother, children, or farms to follow me will get much more than they left behind. And they will have eternal life.”

Now our Lord offers, even more, clarity. Whatever we have sacrificed here on earth to follow Christ; to do His will and fulfill His purpose for our lives, will be made up one hundred times over when we do get to heaven. Not in terms of material wealth, but with what riches alone can not provide and that is the blessed assurance of eternal life with the never ending joy of being in God’s presence. That should make any Christian want to give more to Christ than ever. God gave this promise to Isaiah, “For, see, I will make new heavens and a new earth. The past things will not be remembered or come to mind. But be glad and have joy forever in what I make.”¹⁵ Citing some sayings of well-known Jewish Rabbis, one compiler of these teachings noted: “Rabbi Levi said: ‘Six things the Holy One will renew in the time-to-come, namely, heaven and earth, heart and spirit, the name of the Messiah, and the name of Jerusalem.’”¹⁶ He then goes on to give Scriptural proof.¹⁷

Then citing some of the same sacrifices noted in Levi’s blessing, the Master says that it will all be worth it to inherit eternal life. It’s interesting to see what Jesus enumerated as those things people will be challenged to give up for His sake, in other words, to willingly respond to His commission to take the gospel into the whole world. Some have mistaken these sacrifices as things one denies themselves of in order to please God with their humility and impoverishment. But that does not comply with the list given to us by Christ: “houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or farms.” You cannot read this list without immediately thinking of missionaries and evangelists. All of this was in response to someone’s question of Jesus in verse 16 of what must they do to obtain eternal life.

When Jesus suggested that they fulfill the law, the young inquirer replied that he had. Then Jesus recommended that he sell everything he had and come follow Him. This was too hard for him and Jesus used it to illustrate to His disciples how hard it is for those who have so much to give it up for so little in order to follow Him, and we can be sure that Jesus was not talking only of money. That’s when Peter became defensive and wanted to know since they gave up everything to follow Him, would they also fail to acquire eternal life. In response, Jesus gave this qualifier of how everything one forsakes everything to carry out His mission here on earth will not only receive eternal life but be recompensed double in joy and contentment in what they gave up for His name’s sake. You’ll notice, our Lord did not include tithes, offerings, and gifts to His mission. To have done so would have raised the possibility of Him being accused of fostering the idea that eternal life can be bought.

I recall how shortly after finishing my graduate work in seminary, I was excited about the future of the church I pastored. I was talking with one member who was interested in financing some project, and I explored setting up our own local radio broadcast potential so that those who did not attend church in the area or those who were forced to stay home because of handicap or illness, could listen to the Sunday services live, as well as playing Christian music and having devotions each day.

At the same time, we needed a bigger auditorium and the local high school wanted to rent our facilities for classes and testing, and the rent they were willing to pay would have covered our mortgage on a new building. I checked out the construction of a new sanctuary and invited a professional fundraiser to evaluate our situation and he told me that we would be able to more than handle the cost and offered to help us. Besides, a local farm implement dealer was willing to swap a large piece of land he had out on the main highway for a plot the church owned in town, which would have put us where our church would be clearly visible and easily accessible for those coming from all directions into town.

Also, I secured a job at the local mental health service to pay half the salary for a young man and his wife who wanted to come and assist us. He would serve as associate pastor and youth director, and she would serve in the children’s ministry for the church. Everything was looking like the Promised Land. But right in the middle of this, God opened the door and called me to go back out on the mission field. But to do so we had to sell everything we owned, except for the clothes on our backs, move some 10,000 miles away to live in a foreign country I’d never been to before, and live on half the salary I was receiving at the church. I did not hesitate. I trusted God to take care of me and my family, and He did exactly that without fail.

Did I ever get back all that was sold at auction? No! But I was blessed with something more? I went from ministering to a congregation of a few hundred in a small farming community out on the great plains of the United States, to ministering to thousands in some of the largest cities in the world. God also was so gracious allowing me to be involved helping to advance and develop a higher Christian education facility were hundreds of new ministers, musicians, youth workers, social workers, could be trained for the glory of God. The joy of serving the Lord in this capacity was greater by a thousand fold than what I had invested in those things that were sold at a loss from their original value.

Did that make me something special? No! It made my God and my Savior special in that they led me and stay with me all the way. There were thousands before me that did the same and thousands since. Did that facilitate my entry into the kingdom of heaven with guaranteed eternal life? No! One does not do these things to get in, but they are done once a person is in as a sign of gratitude and love for the One who paid the greatest price of all to open the door to the kingdom so that whosoever believes in Him may not perish but enjoy everlasting life.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER NINETEEN

Part VIII

So again, Jesus reiterates a principle that spoke of fulfilling the law to its fullest degree. But this young man should have realized that in order to be perfect under the Law you had to keep each and every commandment, precept, statute, etc., each time and every time without fail. If you were able to do so for a full day or a whole week or a complete year, just one slip, one mishap, one error would cancel out all you had done up to that point and you’d have to start all over again. Oddly enough, after Jesus enumerated the Ten Commandments and then added the eleventh of loving your neighbor as yourself, this person, now identified as a young man, brashly stated, “I’ve done all that! What else is there for me to do?”

Here’s where it gets tough for the young fellow. We shouldn’t criticize him because most of us would not have gotten as far as he did. But neither he nor we are thereby left helpless or hopeless because this salvation is not by works, but by faith. It is a gift from God. If Jesus had advocated that eternal life could be bought, He would have told the young man to sell everything and give it to Him. But this was not the case, he was to give it to the poor. The focus here should not have been on what it cost this young man to follow Christ, but what he would gain by doing so. The same is true for anyone today who wants to follow Him wherever He may lead them. It doesn’t mean you will have to give up your job or home or family, but you must be willing to.

Another thing, do not read into Jesus’ last statement about the difficulty of rich people complying with what is required to enter the kingdom of heaven as black-listing everyone who has become wealthy or amassed a fortune so they can never enter. What our Lord is emphasizing is how challenging it is for those who’ve put all their hopes and dreams into material things to give them up simply for a promise, and then live by faith that they will be rewarded as promised. And obviously, the more they have the harder it is to part with it.

This request by Jesus should not have come as a shock to this young man. After all, even his own Jewish teachers told the following story that illustrates this principle. They said: “The members of the Academy of Heaven appeared before the Holy One and declared: ‘Master of the world! You are called Compassionate and Gracious. May Your Compassion be stirred up for Your children!’ He answers them: ‘Does not everyone know that I founded the world solely on love? I have said, “The world is built by love.'”¹ It is love that sustains the world! The angels on high then declare: ‘Master of the world! Look at so-and-so who is eating and drinking his fill. He could share something with the poor but he gives them nothing at all!’ Then the Accuser steps forward, claims authority and sets out in pursuit of that human being.”²

Verse 22: But when the young man heard Jesus tell him to give away his wealth, he was sad. He didn’t want to do this because he was very rich. So he walked away.

The reason for this young man’s sadness and disappointment was because he came to Jesus to go higher in society, not lower; he came so he could be known as being good, not being generous. He wanted more from Jesus but didn’t anticipate what Jesus might want more from him. The righteous in Jewish society were those who lived comfortable lives but were charitable according to the law. It was hard for him to imagine changing his status from being a big shot to becoming a nobody on the street.

Early church bishop Hilary gives his impression of what happened here. He writes: “When the young man heard this, ‘he went away sorrowful.’ For he put great trust in wealth. And in him, we observe the rational working out of a metaphor. This was a young man. He himself said that since his youth he had obeyed the commandments that are contained in the law. Yet an arrested adolescence remains within his youth, whatever age he may be.”³ In other words, he was proud of having grown up as a law- abiding young man, but he failed to see the opportunity to grow up in Christ as an adult believer. Therefore, says bishop Hilary, he remained a child in his understanding.

What bishop Hilary says can be applied to many Christians today. After they come to Jesus they are told that God is like a doting Father and Jesus is like a compassionate big Brother, and they both will do anything for them to make their lives happy and satisfied here on earth. But forgotten is the fact that God loved this world so much He sacrificed His own Son. And His Son loved those He came to save so much He freely gave His life on the cross. So doesn’t it follow, that with God it’s a matter of what we are willing to give and sacrifice for Him that counts?

The Father got His Son back after He raised Him from the dead. And Jesus got His position back with the Father after He ascended into heaven. Likewise, whatever we may surrender for the cause of Christ and the Gospel will be returned to us, packed down, and running over.⁴ Not just for a season, but for all eternity.

Verse 23: Then Jesus said to His followers, “The truth is, it will be very hard for a rich person to enter God’s kingdom.”

After the young man walks away disappointed that he could not earn his way into the kingdom of God with good works, Jesus turns to His followers and comments on why it was so difficult for this gentleman to accept the invitation to become His disciple. This rich young community leader seems to have read all about Levitical law, but apparently he missed perusing the Book of Job where we hear Job say to God, “I have never trusted in riches. I never said even to pure gold, ‘You are my hope.’ I have been wealthy, but that didn’t make me proud. I earned a lot of money, but that is not what made me happy.”⁵

One of the members of the Korah family, wrote this in his Psalm, “You will never get enough money to pay for your own life. You will never have enough to buy the right to live forever and keep your body out of the grave.”⁶ And Solomon, one of the richest kings in Israel made this observation, “Those who trust in their riches will fall like dead leaves, but good people will blossom.”⁷ A reporter once asked Henry Ford, the founder of the Ford Motor Company, what he thought the average person wanted most in this life to be comfortable? The genius inventor said stoically, “Just a little bit more.”

In other words, if you find a homeless person sleeping in a plastic bag under a bridge and ask him what he’d like to have, he may reply, “A nice sleeping bag.” So he gets the sleeping bag and you come back a month later and ask the same question. This time, you get: “A little shack to put my sleeping bag in so I’m warmer at night.” So you build him a little shack and come back a few months later and ask again. This time, he informs you that it would be nice to have electricity in the shack. You can see where this is going. Once he ends up living in a four-bedroom home with a two-car garage and fine furniture throughout, he will only want another new car to go along with his new house to give him a little more mobility.

Verse 24: “Yes, I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter God’s kingdom.”

Here our Lord uses a maxim that sounds strange at first. There is no source in the Old Testament where this impossibility of putting a camel through the eye of a needle is used. However, we find an incident in Jewish literature where some Jews were arguing over the law on who may take possession of an estate when someone is taken captive or dies. Says one Rabbi: “Perhaps you are from Pumbeditha⁸ where they pull an elephant through the eye of a needle.”⁹ And curiously enough, in the Islamic Qu’ran, we find this reference, “Indeed, those who deny our verses and are arrogant toward them – the gates of Heaven will not be opened for them, nor will they enter Paradise until a camel gets through the eye of a needle.”¹⁰

Therefore, with the “gates of Heaven” not being open, as used here, and entering the “kingdom of God” as mentioned by Jesus, it becomes apparent that the “needle” had something to do with getting through the gate when it was closed. A highly respected British theologian commented: “…the eye of the needle is a small door fixed in a large gate and opened after dark. To pass through, the camel must be unloaded. Hence the difficulty of the rich man. He must be unloaded, and thus the proverb, common in the East. In Palestine, it is the ‘camel’, and in the Babylonian Talmud, it is the ‘elephant’.”¹¹

But the idea of a large animal going through such a small opening was also part of the teaching of one Rabbi who was talking about the interpretation dreams. He says: “A man is shown in a dream only what is suggested by his own thoughts.” And to prove that these thoughts are not beyond a person’s comprehension, he notes: “This is proved by the fact that a man is never shown in a dream a date palm of gold, or an elephant going through the eye of a needle.”¹²

British scholar John Gill tells us that this is repeated in another Jewish writing where it talks about how the authors of this writing had to overcome great difficulty to produce it. And they say: “In the name of our God, we have seen fit, ‘to bring an elephant through the eye of a needle’.”¹³ Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that Jesus was speaking of the small gate in a large gate of any walled city.

Early church writer Cyril of Alexandria points out the understanding he had in his day (c. 400 AD). He writes: “By ‘camel’ here He means not the living thing, the beast of burden, but the thick rope¹⁴ to which sailors tie their anchors. He shows this comparison to be not entirely pointless (as a camel would be), but he makes it an exceedingly difficult matter; in fact, next to impossible.¹⁵”¹⁶ This explanation is also offered to explain Jesus’ saying, because the Aramaic word for “rope” sounds very much like the word for “camel.”

Verse 25: The followers were amazed to hear this. They asked, “Then who can be saved?”

Notice, the disciples did not ask about the meaning of the camel going through the eye of a needle, so apparently they understood its significance. Their concern was on any limitations as to who could be saved. After all, if anybody had a chance at being righteous through good works, it was those with the most wealth. How then could a poor man or beggar be able to fulfill the law of righteous works?

Chrysostom had this commentary: “Jesus was not criticizing money itself but the wills of those who are taken captive by it. If it will be difficult for the rich, how much more so for the greedy! For if stinginess with one’s own wealth is an impediment to gaining the kingdom, think how much fire is amassed for taking someone else’s’. But why does He say that it is hard for the rich man to enter the kingdom, to the disciples, who were poor and had nothing? He teaches them not to be ashamed of their poverty and, as it were, gives the reason why He did not allow them to possess anything. After saying it is hard, He also shows them that it is impossible, and not simply impossible but even in an exaggerated way impossible. He shows this by the comparison of the camel and the needle. Hence, Christ demonstrates that there is a significant reward for the wealthy who can practice self-denial. He also said that this had to be the work of God, that He might show that great grace is needed for anyone who is going to achieve it.”¹⁷

During the roaring 1920’s when bar-hopping and dancing were all the rage, an American fiction writer, and descendant of an affluent family that settled in Virginia in 1664 named James Branch Cabell, wrote in one of his books: “There is not any memory with less satisfaction than the memory of some temptation we resisted.”¹ This thinking was apropos for that era when long-held morals and ethical behavior in society were being challenged. Many Americans were uncomfortable with this new, urban, sometimes racy “mass culture.” In fact, the most familiar symbol of the “Roaring Twenties” was the advent of the flapper: a young woman with bobbed hair and short skirts who drank, smoked and said what might be termed “unladylike” things, in addition to being more sexually “free” than previous generations.

So what Cabell expressed was the sentiment of that period. How ironic, that people would actually regret that they passed up an opportunity to do something lawless, immoral, or degenerate. The US Congress tried to stem the tide by passing an amendment to the US Constitution forbidding the sale of alcoholic beverages and ushered in what became known as the Prohibition Era. But what contribution did this form of wild living add to the fabric of conservative American culture? According to a documentary viewed on the History Channel: “These conflicts – what one historian has called a ‘cultural Civil War’ between city-dwellers and small-town residents, Protestants and Catholics, blacks and whites, “New Women” and advocates of old-fashioned family values – are perhaps the most remembered part of the story of the Roaring Twenties.”

It will soon be 100 years since his debacle among America’s young people. So what has changed? Back then it took an old fashion revival among Baptists, Methodists, and Pentecostals to bring people back to God at the altar of repentance. During that same time frame, inventions designed to bring healing and order out of chaos were introduced to the public. The first Band-Aid to cover small wounds; the Lie Detector to catch cheaters; the Traffic Signal to prevent accidents at intersections; the Instant Camera to capture moments what might otherwise be explained away; the Garbage Disposal to insure a person’s waste was kept out of sight; and Frozen food so that the time and hard work it took to prepare a meal could be reduced.

Also the discovery of Vitamin E with its anti-sterility properties; Vitamin D from cod liver and its ability to prevent rickets that caused soft bones and bowed legs; plus Vitamins A, B, C, and K. In addition, Insulin was invented against diabetes and Penicillin as an agent against the growth of bacteria. At the same time, a renewed outpouring of the Holy Spirit brought revival that swept across the nations. It was spurred on by the fundamentalist reaction to Darwin’s theory of Evolution, especially by evangelist Billy Sunday.

As we all know, soon the 2020’s will be here. So we may ask ourselves, will we go through another era when doing wrong is considered right; when being bad is looked on as good; and when, as Cabell said, people will regret losing any opportunity to do something immoral? I’m afraid, that mentality is already present in this world. But what about the spiritual revival that came as part of God’s reaction to such debauchery back then? Will there be another world-wide awakening?

The apostle Peter indicated that was the case on the Day of Pentecost when he quoted the prophesy in Joel:² “I will pour out my Spirit on all kinds of people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will have dreams, and your young men will see visions. In those days, I will pour out my Spirit even on servants, both men, and women. I will work wonders in the sky and on the earth.”³ If it took such an outpouring of the Holy Spirit for that to happen a century ago, then perhaps that is what will be needed for it to happen a second time. – Dr. Robert R Seyda

ALWAYS BE READY FOR A MIRACLE!

Some years ago while serving as a missionary to Europe, I lived in a small town just outside of Zurich, Switzerland. The bank we used was in the next town, and to get there I had to drive down to the road that ran along the lake to navigate the few kilometers it took. On one particular day, it was after a heavy snow fall, and the roads were covered with snow packed down by the cars and trucks. In the mornings, and especially along the lake, moister would make the road very slick.

I was in a line of cars leaving the town and noticed that several cars just ahead of me were slowing down to make a right-hand turn onto a street going to a factory. Just as we reached the street where the cars were turning, the car ahead of me pulled out into the left lane as if to pass the last car turning in. I instinctively assumed that he would go straight ahead so I steered left to follow him. All of a sudden, he threw on his brakes and swung back to the right in order to turn down the street with the other cars going to the factory. When I hit my brakes to avoid hitting the rear end of his car, I immediately saw that my car would not stop in time so I steered further left to avoid a collision. I breathed a sigh of relief as I barely missed his bumper.

That was until I looked up to pull back over into the right lane. That’s when I saw this huge orange machine with a front-end scoop staring me in the face. Again I hit my brakes because the angle of my car would not allow me to steer right without going into a slide. The operator of the scoop-loader also put on his brakes, but we both met head-on. The big scoop was turned upward and about two feet off the ground, so when the front end of my car hit it, it was pushed down and sandwiched under the scoop with the rear end of my car off the ground. Thank the Lord I was not going at a speed where the crash would have been severe and resulted in injury.

I looked up through my windshield to see the driver of the machine staring down at me with an alarmed look on his face. I opened my car door, got out, and looked up at the machine operator, who had also exited his cab, and said to him, “I didn’t expect for us to meet like this!” He smiled when he saw that I was okay, and responded with a laugh at my lame wit. It wasn’t long before the police arrived and I told them my side of the story, which the machine operator confirmed. The patrolman wanted to call a wrecker because my front tires were flat on the ground and it looked like my axle and steering were damaged for me to drive the car.

At that moment I felt the Holy Spirit urge me to tell him it wouldn’t be necessary because the car would be okay once the front-loader pulled back. The policeman looked at me as if I were joking. He asked me how I expected my tires to fill with air and my steering to be okay. Without hesitation I said, “Because God will fill my tires with air and fix my steering.” The policeman rolled his eyes and said sarcastically, “I’d love to see that!” So I looked up at the machine operator and asked him to back away. He looked at the patrolman and the cop signaled for him to go ahead. As God is my witness, when the scoop-loader pulled backwards off the front end of my car, the tires filled back with air, and looked just as they did before the collision. The policeman blinked his eyes in disbelief. Then he told me that it would be unsafe for me to drive since he was sure the steering was damaged. So I opened the car door, got in and moved the steering wheel back and forth. To his surprise, the wheels responded. By now he was shaking his head even more, and told me to follow him back to the police station so he could observe my car in his rear-view mirror to see if the wheels were wobbling.

When we reached the police station, he got out of his car still shaking his head. We went upstairs and he made out a report which I signed. As I was leaving, the patrolman said to me, “Reverend, I’m not a very religious man, but after seeing this it has totally changed my mind about God.” I shook his hand and told him that sometimes God will do anything to show people who doubt Him, that He is for real. I walked out of that police station with two strong feelings in my heart and mind. In my heart I was thanking God for who He was and what He could do. In my mind I was saying, “Lord, I hope you don’t put me on the spot like this too many more times and then tell me what to say that requires a miracle.” But when I got in my car and headed back toward the bank and passed the very spot where the accident occurred, I changed my mind and told the Lord I was ready to be part of any miracle He wanted to perform to demonstrate His reality and power. After that incident, I witnessed God doing many more miracles and it gave me a thrill each time to be a part of them. – Dr. Robert R Seyda

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER NINETEEN

Part VI

Verses 18-19: The man asked, “Which ones?” Jesus answered, “You must not murder anyone, you must not commit adultery, you must not steal, you must not tell lies about others, you must respect your father and mother, and love your neighbor the same as you love yourself.”¹

Apparently, this gentleman had heard Jesus teach about receiving eternal life, but he had not heard enough to understand how it was achieved under this new agreement. But what is obvious, is that he believed in salvation by works because his first question was, “What can I do that’s good enough to warrant eternal life?” I’m sure that the answer Jesus gave him was totally unexpected. It would be like someone asking how they could get rid of their hunger and were told to eat. Then they asked, “What type of food?” They were then given a list of foods that was already part of their diet.

In response to the man’s question, Jesus goes on and elucidates all the laws this man must obey if he wants to earn his way into heaven. It is obvious that this man felt pretty good about his record, so he asks Jesus what specific laws He had in mind. So our Lord refers to the Ten Commandments. But the gentleman was not impressed. It is interesting to see the order in which our Lord quotes the commandments. He cites numbers five, six, seven, and eight then goes back to number four before finishing with one that is not included in the Ten Commandments in Exodus, but was included by Moses later on.²

Early church Bishop Cyril gives us his impression of what happened here. He writes: “Christ did not answer him as he expected but simply pointed him to the law. This is not because the law is perfection, for ‘no one is justified by the law,’³ as it is written, but because the life lived according to law is a kind of introduction to the eternal life, briefly acquainting trainees to the things above. ‘For the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ.’⁴ The law is the starting point for social justice. Christ is the perfection. For the beginning of good is to act justly, he says. Proper action then is shown by the law, but goodness is shown by Christ. The law taught us to repay those who wish to harm us, as in ‘eye for eye, tooth for tooth.’⁵ But Christ taught us to let go such balanced vengeance with a view to the greater good, teaching that ‘if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; and if anyone would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well.’⁶”⁷

As far as the Jews were concerned, these commandments had no order of priority. Since they were all equal, they never referred to them as the first, third, or seventh commandment. It is quite interesting that a Jewish Rabbi from Spain when talking about these commandments, started in the same order as Jesus gives us here.⁸ This tells us that the Jews considered this section of the Torah Jesus used as pertaining to one’s attitude and interaction with others, whereas the first portion relates to one’s attitude and interaction with God. In response, the young man gave Jesus the following answer:

Verses 20-21: I have obeyed all these commands. What else do I need? Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, then go and sell all that you own. Give the money to the poor, and you will have riches in heaven. Then come and follow me!”

Now this young erstwhile disciple acts somewhat incredulous that he should be reminded to keep all the commandments. How could Jesus expect him to believe that he had failed in some way to measure up to the law’s demands? He had worked so hard all his life to get to where he was, and now was being told to go back and start all over just in case he may have missed one or two. This young man’s quest was to go further, to go above and beyond anything he had accomplished. He wanted to climb higher and higher in his dedication to doing righteous deeds.

Too many who come to Christ for salvation come thinking that it will cost them nothing; that grace is free and salvation is a gift from God, so it is like winning the spiritual lottery. But Jesus had made it clear that if anyone was not willing to forsake all to follow Him, they were not worthy to be His disciple.⁹ Of course, we must understand what it is that He was asking them to give up. And that became clear when He said that if you decide to live your life the way you want to, you’ll lose all that you accomplish. But if you decided to live for His sake and God’s glory, you will save all that He accomplishes through you for eternity.¹⁰

As we look back, we can see that this person was already on his way to a disappointing answer because of the way he phrased the question. He may have been looking for an avenue to work his way into the kingdom of God. You will notice he asked, “What good ‘thing’ can I do.” In other words, “Tell me what I need to produce, construct, obtain, form, acquire, or accomplish to earn eternal life on my own, without anybody’s help. Just name it and I’m sure I can do it.” Within the Law, the route that Jesus showed him was very simple – be perfect!

Early church teacher Augustine had this to say: “The rich young man claimed to have kept the commandments. Then he heard the greater commandment: ‘If you wish to be perfect, you still lack one thing: sell all that you have and give it to the poor;’ you will not lose it, but ‘you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.’ What good does it do you if you follow the law and do not follow me? He went away sad and sorrowful, as you have heard, for he had great wealth.”¹¹

What the Master has offered to the young man was a real challenge. Noah was willing to do nothing but build the ark so that he and his family could be saved from the flood. Abraham was asked by God to leave everything in Ur and go where He would direct Him and then was asked later to sacrificed his only son, which he set out to do without complaint. And Moses left his privileged position in Egypt to lead the children of Israel to the promised land. Now this young man was shown how high up the bar was in order for him to give everything away that he had down here, in order to climb up there to where he could have everything God had ready to offer him. It immediately became clear where the young man’s heart really was focused.

Then Augustine applies this principle to all believers. He continues: “What he heard, we too have heard. The Word of Christ is the gospel. He sits in heaven, but He does not cease to speak on earth. Let us not be deaf, for He shouts. Let us not be dead, for He thunders. If you are not willing to do the greater commandments, do the lesser ones. If the burden of the greater is too much for you, take up the lesser. Why are you slow to do either? Why do you oppose both? The greater commandments are ‘Sell everything that you have and give to the poor and follow me.’ The lesser are ‘You shall not commit murder; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not bear false witness; you shall not steal; honor your father and mother; love your neighbor as yourself.’¹² So do these things.”¹³

Now Augustine the teacher, becomes Augustine the preacher: “Why do I shout to you that you must sell your possessions when I cannot get you to admit that you should not take someone else’s? You have heard, ‘You shall not steal.’ You rob. Before the eyes of so great a judge, I now define you not as a thief but a robber. Spare yourself; pity yourself. This life still gives you time. Don’t reject reproof. Yesterday you were a thief; do not also be one today. Perhaps you have also been one today? Do not be one tomorrow. Sometimes end your sin and expect a good reward. You want to have your goods, but you are unwilling to be good. Your life is contrary to your hopes. If it is a great good to have a good house, how great an evil is it to have an evil soul?”¹⁴

This was not contrary to Jewish verbal law to give to the poor. As one Rabbi said: “Surely it was taught: If one declares, ‘This selah¹⁵ be for charity in order that my son may live,’ or, ‘that I may merit the future world,’ he is completely righteous.’”¹⁶ If this was what this man was looking for, then Jesus was telling him how to find it. All the Master did was ask him to abide by the teaching of his own Rabbis who encouraged acts of: “lovingkindness” and “tender mercies.” In this case, such acts referred to giving in charity”¹⁷

In a small Jewish tract we find an exposition on acts of kindness and tender mercies to charity. It reads: “A good thought is turned by God into an action (i.e. God makes sure to turn it into an action). A bad thought is not turned by God into an action (i.e. God makes sure that it does not become an action), as it is said, ‘If I had considered doing wrong in my heart, the Lord would not have listened.’¹⁸ If so how is it true when it says the following: ‘Hear Earth, I bring evil to this nation, the fruit of their thoughts …’?¹⁹ But rather, it should be stated as follows: A good thought is combined by God with an action (i.e. God counts it as if it was done, even though it was not) and when a good [thought] is not combined by God with an action (i.e. God does not count it as if it was done).”²⁰

This is also reflected in a Jewish book that tells the story of a righteous Israelite named Tobit of the Tribe of Naphtali living in Nineveh. This manuscript was also adopted by the early church as part of its Old Testament Canon. It reads: “Revere the Lord all your days, my son, and refuse to sin or to transgress His commandments. Live uprightly all the days of your life, and do not walk in the ways of wrongdoing; for those who act in accordance with truth will prosper in all their activities. To all those who practice righteousness give alms from your possessions, and do not let your eye begrudge the gift when you make it. Do not turn your face away from anyone who is poor, and the face of God will not be turned away from you. If you have many possessions, make your gift from them in proportion; if few, do not be afraid to give according to the little you have. So you will be laying up a good treasure for yourself against the day of necessity. For almsgiving delivers from death and keeps you from going into the Darkness. Indeed, almsgiving, for all who practice it, is an excellent offering in the presence of the Most High.”²¹

Early church teacher Origen rightly points out that we must take this answer by Jesus to sell everything in order to follow Him as being to this young man alone, not as a general commandment. Nowhere else do we find our Lord giving the same instructions to His other disciples. In the case of Peter, James, and John, He only asked them to leave their fishing business and join Him in becoming fishers of men. And Matthew was asked to leave his tax assessing business and follow the Lord in assessing souls.

In my case, it was not a matter of giving up riches for I had none at the time. But I was willing to give up returning to live in my own country and forfeiting a free trip back to the USA for my family and me, as well as taking a large reduction salary that barely paid for our daily necessities. But I can say with unequivocal certainty, that it was one of the best decision I ever made. Like the apostle Paul, I now look back on all that I supposedly missed out on and count it as trash in comparison to what I received from my God, and my Lord and Savior Jesus the Christ.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER NINETEEN

Part V

Verse 13: Then the people brought their little children to Jesus so that He could lay His hands on them to bless them and pray for them. When the followers saw this, they told the people to stop bringing their children to Him.

With the confrontation by the Pharisees now over with, the crowds were free to approach Jesus. This is the first occasion where children were brought to Him so He could lay His hands on them and bless them. We are told that in the domestic life of the ancient Hebrews the mutual respect existing between parents and children was very obvious. While prominent among other Semitic peoples, it was of first importance with the Hebrews, as is evident from the frequent mention of the duties children have toward parents.¹

Traditionally the Sabbath includes special blessings said over the children at the beginning on Friday after sunset. How these blessings are said varies from home to home. Customarily it is the father who blesses the children by laying his hands on their heads and reciting the blessings. Taking time to bless the children on the Sabbath is a great way to reinforce the fact that they are loved, accepted, and supported by their families. The traditional blessing said for a son asks God to make him like Ephraim or Manasseh, two sons of Joseph in the Bible.² Based on this, we may rightly assume that this blessing of the children by Jesus took place on a Friday because the Pharisees had left earlier in order to get back to Jerusalem before the Sabbath began.

But one early church writer saw another factor here that might seem confusing to anyone who just heard Jesus talk about those who are most likely to enter the kingdom of heaven and those who try to get in their own way. He writes: “Only a little before, when receiving a child, Christ had said, ‘Unless you become like this child here, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.’ But now look at how the disciples had immediately forgotten the innocence of children and had kept them back as though they were not worthy to come to Christ, even though the disciples themselves had been invited to be like children. Who would merit to approach Christ if innocent children are kept back from Him? The disciples thought they were doing honor to Christ, while actually they were diminishing His glory. For just as it is a loss to a physician if the sick are kept away from him, so it is a loss to Christ not to have those He may save.”³

Verse 14: But Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me. Don’t stop them, because God’s kingdom belongs to people who are like these children.”

We might assume that the disciples wanted to save their Lord the stress of dealing with so many children, so that’s why they were turning them back so they wouldn’t interrupt their Master’s ministry. But Jesus interrupts their misplaced protection for Him and invites the parents and their children to approach Him for a blessing. Again, Jesus uses the openness and innocence of the children as an example of the attitude that all should have who come into the kingdom of God. Even the Jews believed that innocent children were bound for the future world.⁴ What Jesus was doing here, struck a chord with what we find in Isaiah: “Like a good shepherd, He takes care of His people. He gathers them like lambs in His arms. He holds them close, while their mothers walk beside Him.”⁵ The moral of the story here is that we should never assume that Jesus is bothered when anyone comes to Him at any hour of any day for any reason.

As Epiphanius looked at this text he had some questions: “Why did the disciples keep the children back? Not because of the children’s sinfulness but because it was not the right time. They did not want the Lord to be tired by the great crowd. But had He not said to them, ‘Let the children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.’ For children are ignorant of wickedness. They do not know how to return evil for evil or how to do someone an injury. They do not know how to be lustful or to fornicate or to rob. What they hear, they believe. They love their parents with complete affection. Therefore, beloved, the Lord instructs us that what they are by the gift of nature, we should become by the fear of God, a holy way of life and love of the heavenly kingdom; for unless we are alien to all sin just like children, we cannot come to the Savior.”⁶

Verse 15:   After Jesus blessed the children, He departed from there.

We don’t know how far away Jesus and His disciples moved, but it must not have been too far because the next location given is Jericho,⁷ which was just across the river. We know that when John the Baptizer was ministering there in this area, Jesus had a place to stay.⁸ So this is where they may have gone for the evening. Then after the Sabbath was over, Jesus had another visitor, perhaps on the first day of the week.

Apollinaris had some interesting things to say about this. First of all, when an elder or prophet blessed someone, they laid their hand upon their head. So here when Jesus blessed the children, we can envision Him having each one of them pass by as He put His precious hand on their little heads. And another thing Apollinaris notes it this: “Only the wickedness and corruption of the creature stands in the way of our approaching the Creator. Lack of wisdom should not prevent it. He seeks completeness, and your approach is welcome to Him for this completeness. Therefore, the words ‘For to such belongs the kingdom of heaven’ are accurate. He did not say ‘of these’ but ‘to such,’ since lack of wisdom is a property of children. For the same reason the apostle said, ‘Do not be children in your thinking; be babes in evil.’⁹ And Mark also examines the cause, speaking and interpreting as follows: To such belongs the kingdom of heaven’ and ‘Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.’¹⁰ Luke also said the same as Matthew above: ‘Whoever humbles himself like this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.’¹¹ For those qualities which the child has by nature, God wishes us to have by choice: simplicity, forgetfulness of wrongs done to us, love of our parents, even if disciplined by them. He laid His hands on the children because the laying on of hands signifies the arming of God’s power.”¹²

It is obvious that Apollinaris is speaking of believers wanting to approach their Savior for any reason, whether it be to pray to Him, worship Him, or enjoy His company. But he says it should only be done in the greatest of piety and caution. I believe that this too is being very protective of our Master. Any child of God should not feel threatened when approaching their Lord and Master even after being disciplined, but do so with humility and respect.

Verse 16: A man came up to Jesus and asked, “Good Teacher, what good thing must I do to have eternal life?”

It would be safe to say that this man may have witnessed Jesus’ encounter with the Jewish religious leaders and saw how He invited the little children to come to Him without reservation. This could have been what motivated him to approach the Messiah with his request. The Jews had a verbal teaching that applauded anyone who acknowledges that they need to confess so they could guarantee their eternal reward.¹³ They point to Judah who confessed his wrong with Tamar,¹⁴ and Reuben who acknowledged his wrong doing with Joseph.¹⁵ So Jesus took this man’s request to heart but wanted to teach him nuances of being good. Apparently this man used an Aramaic word for “good” that Jesus understood as being a reference to perfection.

But some scholars believe that Jesus was using a bit of satire here because up until now none of the leading Pharisees, Sadducees, scribes, or other religious leaders in Galilee had said anything good about Him. At the same time, it may have been that Jesus was still cautioning those He healed about referring to Him as the Messiah because His time to suffer for that had not yet come. Then again, it may be that Jesus wanted the young man to concentrate on God as the source of salvation, not Himself, because He only came to speak for His heavenly Father, not to replace Him.

Chrysostom gives us this to consider: “Some criticize this young man as insincere and purposely, approaching Jesus to put Him to the test. I would not hesitate to say that he is covetous and greedy since Christ also showed him to be such. Yet I would by no means call him a pretender because it is not safe to venture on things uncertain and especially in a case of blame. Such is also true because Mark has taken away the suspicion of disguise. For Mark says, ‘A man ran up and kneeling before Him he asked Him’ and ‘Jesus looking upon him loved him.’¹⁶ The tyranny of money is a powerful thing, as is clear here. Though we are practiced in the other virtues, greed brings the others to ruin.”¹⁷

I also agree that his young man was not pretending to be interested in the Kingdom of God, but it is clear that he was not seeking what he could add to the mission of the kingdom, but what the kingdom could do for him. As soon as he found out the price of admission, he quickly lost interest because the dividends did not seem worthy of his time and investment.

Verse 17: Jesus answered, “Why do you ask me about what is good? Only God is good. But if you want to have eternal life, obey the law’s commands.”

Now our Lord explains that the level of goodness this man referred to can only be reached with God’s help. A respected Jewish Rabbi stated, “When we are worthy and have good actions to our credit, then God gives us our reward, but when we have nothing of our own, then God blesses us for the sake of His love for He is good.”¹⁸ As a matter of fact, David wrote the entire 145^th Psalm in praise of God’s goodness. So our Lord’s message to this man was: don’t try to be a good as God, that’s impossible.

Here our Lord echoes the teaching of the Rabbis, for we find that one Rabbi said: “Israel has thrown away that which is good, and the enemy will pursue him.’¹⁹ And ‘good’ means only Torah. As it is written, ‘For a good doctrine I have given unto you, my Torah, do not forsake it.’²⁰”²¹ It is obvious that Jesus was aware of this teaching because He directs the young man’s attention to the Torah.

One venerated Jewish commentator has an extensive treatment on the good in the Torah and how it will grant you access to the world to come. In one place he writes: “He will grant us all the good which will reinforce our performance of the Torah, such as plenty, peace, an abundance of silver and gold in order that we not be involved throughout all our days in matters required by the body, but rather, will sit unburdened and thus, have the opportunity to study wisdom and perform the laws in order that we will merit the life of the world to come.”²²

Another well thought of Rabbi says: “If Moses had not commanded us the Torah it would never have become the collective inheritance of the community of Jacob. Ultimately, only God decides who will be rich and who will be poor. Possession of the Torah, observing its commandments, is the best way to encourage God to bless us with the blessings needed to lead a satisfying life on earth.”²³ So it shouldn’t have surprised this young inquirer that Jesus directed him to the Torah.

But there is another subtle indication here in Jesus’ answer. Let’s put it this way: this young man comes up to One who is going about everywhere doing good things. He shows his respect to Jesus by bowing down before Him, and then asks, “Lord I want to be good, what do I have to do to be good?” I don’t think it would be a stretch to add, “What do I have to do to be good like You?”

Our Lord’s quick and to the point answer indicates that He too saw this young man’s intentions. Did this fellow think that Jesus went around healing the sick on His own? Didn’t he understand that all that He was doing was by the authority of God in heaven? In other words, according to Jewish thinking, people who did the things Jesus did were always thought of being righteous, which is another word for being good. And all who did such good things were destined for everlasting life with the Father in heaven. It was the classic way of asking: How can I work my way into heaven? Since Jesus had not yet died on the cross to establish the new agreement with God, He directed the young man to the old agreement way of attaining eternal life through good deeds.

That is what then led to the Master telling this young man that if he too wanted to be righteous and go around doing good so he could inherit eternal life, then just follow what the commandments given by Moses said to do. But no doubt this young man had been very devout in keeping the commandments, but it never led to anyone being healed and miracles being performed. So it appears he immediately thought that he had missed those commandments that would give him the power to do such things and led to everlasting joy in the world to come.

So it is with many believers today. They think that by following the teachings of the Bible and the church it will earn them the right to be called “good.” As Jesus said, only God is good. By showing the world what God is and what God is able to do for them makes God good. That in turn, makes the believer good for God’s sake. We’ve all heard the phrase, “Good for nothing.” What every believer should strive for is to be, “Good for God.” Jesus said it best: “You should be a light for other people. Live so that they will see the good things you do and praise your Father in heaven.”²⁴

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER NINETEEN

Part IV

Years ago I spoke to a minister who married a divorcée before he was converted and called to the ministry. When he applied for ordination in a Pentecostal denomination he was told he had to divorce his wife because her husband was still living, and she had not divorced him on grounds of adultery. So he made the agonizing choice to annul the marriage of the woman he loved so much and had remained single ever since. To me, this was a complete travesty of his right to marry her and made a farce of Jesus teaching. However, some say once the person is regenerated and such a divorce takes place for the very same reasons, then the individual is held to a different set of rules as a child of God. But this dialogue by Jesus with the Pharisees took place before our Lord was slain as the Lamb of God. Therefore, we must look at its application both to the Jewish faith and the Christian faith, as well as before and after being born again.

Would such an examination of Scripture encourage divorce among believers? No! As Jesus said, Moses instituted it and God acquiesced to it because of man’s hardheadedness and hardheartedness. Should we condemn a believer who gets divorced because of physical cruelty, abandonment, incompatibility, or irreconcilable differences? No! Having married the wrong person in haste or out of ignorance may eventually lead to such a necessity. I believe our Lord was trying to emphasize that divorce hurts both parties, and is especially tragic for any children involved. Therefore, it should be entered into only as a last resort. But most certainly, should never be misused for personal gain or convenience.

In this part of Jesus’ dialogue, He is not as stringent about what role a person finds themselves in as a result of their birth, or as a consequence of their own choosing. The Hebrew word cariyc for “eunuch”is first used when Joseph was sold by the Midianites to a eunuch named Potiphar in Egypt who worked for Pharaoh and was captain of the guard.¹ One Jewish translator named Potiphar: “Pharaoh’s courtier, the high chamberlain.”² He says that the Hebrew word here is translated as “Eunuch,” based on context. Therefore, this context points to Potiphar being a court official. Also, the term “chamberlain,” can have alternate meanings in the Hebrew, either involving slaughtering or cooking, that’s why in some English translations he is called “chief executioner” and in others “chief steward.”³ However, since Potiphar was married, it appears that this use of the Hebrew word indicated his being an upper official in Pharaoh’s court.

It’s only in the story of Esther were we find it used to designate an official of the court who was purposely castrated because they were in charge of the king’s harem.⁴ It would have been nice if James Strong in his Bible concordance could have distinguished between the two uses. However, Joseph Henry Thayer in his Lexicon does a good job of pointing out the different usages of the Hebrew.⁵ But in this context of our Lord’s teaching, it is clear that He means a male who is born sterile, or chooses to be sterile through castration.

We find that the Rabbis, in discussing this subject, called such an individual as someone who was emasculated.⁶ They also mention that it could be caused by being so from birth, or the accidental crushing of one’s testicles, or castration.⁷ Even an esteemed Jewish philosopher made this statement: “It is better to be made an eunuch than to be hurried into wickedness by the fury of the illicit passions: for all these things, as they overwhelm the soul in harmful calamities, are deservedly followed by extreme punishments.”⁸ Perhaps for this reason, Philo admired the sect call the “Therapeutae.” They had a commune near Alexandria in Egypt, and were much like the Essenes in Israel. But keeping oneself chaste through such surgery was not only expected of men, but women as well.

Jewish philosopher Philo points to some differences: “The women…the greater part of whom, though old, are virgins in respect of their purity (not indeed through necessity, as some of the priestesses among the Greeks are, who have been compelled to preserve their chastity more than they would have done of their own accord), but out of an admiration for and love of wisdom, with which they are desirous to pass their lives, on account of which they are indifferent to the pleasures of the body, desiring not a mortal but an immortal offspring, which the soul that is attached to God is alone able to produce by itself and from itself, the Father having sown in it rays of light appreciable only by the intellect, by means of which it will be able to perceive the doctrines of wisdom.”⁹

So, Jesus was not introducing some forbidden subject but was simply applying the possibility of marriage to different circumstances in response to His disciples’ question of whether or not marriage should even be considered if one wanted to remain pure for the Kingdom of Heaven, thereby not having to face the possibility of divorce. In reference to men choosing to remaining celebrate, Jesus does not imply that they must undergo castration. However, some early saints were so committed to remaining pure in order to serve the Lord, that they chose physical surgery rather than simply taking an oath of celibacy. We read the story of one of them as follows:

At this time, while Origen was conducting catechism instruction at Alexandria, a deed was done by him which evidenced an immature and youthful mind, but at the same time gave the highest proof of faith and continence. For he took the words, “There are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake,”¹⁰ in a too literal and extreme a sense. And in order to fulfill the Savior’s word, and at the same time to take away from the unbelievers all opportunity for scandal – for, although young, he met for the study of divine things with women as well as men – he carried out in action the words of the Savior. He thought that this would not be known by many of his acquaintances. But it was impossible for him, though desiring to do so, to keep such an action secret. When Demetrius, who presided over that parish, at last learned of this, he admired greatly the daring nature of the act, and as he perceived his zeal and the genuineness of his faith, he immediately exhorted him to courage, and urged him the more to continue his work of catechism instruction. Such was he at that time. But soon afterward, seeing that he was prospering, and becoming great and distinguished among all men, the same Demetrius, overcome by human weakness, wrote of his deed as most foolish to the bishops throughout the world. But the bishops of Cesarea and Jerusalem, who were especially notable and distinguished among the bishops of Palestine, considering Origen worthy in the highest degree of the honor, ordained him a presbyter. There upon his fame increased greatly, and his name became renowned everywhere, and he obtained no small reputation for virtue and wisdom. But Demetrius, having nothing else that he could say against him, save this deed of his boyhood, accused him bitterly, and dared to include with him in these accusations those who had raised him to the presbytery. These things, however, took place a little later. But at this time Origen continued fearlessly the instruction in divine things at Alexandria by day and night to all who came to him; devoting his entire leisure without cessation to divine studies and to his pupils.”¹¹

The subject being written about here is Origen’s self-castration as a young man to show his complete concentration to God and His Word. Some scholars believe it was a bogus story invented by Demetrius out of jealousy because of Origen’s growing popularity and ascension as an admired scholar. In any case, Origen himself makes a comment on this subject of physical eunuchization, which gives strong evidence that Origen would never have committed such an act of self-mutilation for purity’s sake:

Before we present the interpretation that seems true to us, we would like to present two possible false interpretations of this verse and to refute them as far as we are able; insofar as we have grasped the true intent of this passage, while guarding against any mistakes in what we have to say, we ought to arrive in this way at an improvement of life; this is how we intend to approach the present text. For many have believed that, as a result of the two physical eunuchizations, the third eunuchization must also be physical, and have dared to eunuchize themselves, in analogy to the first eunuchizations, out of a fear of God, to be sure, but nonetheless mistakenly, and have drawn reproach, and perhaps even scandal, upon themselves, not only among them who stand apart from the faith, but also among them who can understand any human action better than those [actions] that produce suffering and physical mutilation (out of an imagined fear of God or excessive love of abstinence) or better than that person who, no matter what else he may undergo, submits himself to such an action. The others, however, and there are not many of them, have understood the text as follows, because they have not examined the sequence of the words: They assumed that the Savior also self-evidently meant the first two eunuchizations in a physical sense, as if He were not hinting at something beyond the sensual; but, they said, the third was no longer meant literally, but rather they felt that the third phrase described eunuchization by the Word, namely, when in view of the kingdom of heaven one has cut out this type of lustfulness by means of the sharp-cutting Word and thus has scorned the haughtiness of the body so that it can no longer defeat a soul that has cut out lust by the Word.

Verse 12b: “And others have given up marriage because of God’s kingdom. Celibacy is only for those who are willing to accept it.”

This is perhaps the hardest choice to maintain. But it is wise that our Lord put a qualifier at the end to show that if it is a person’s decision, then they are responsible for holding out against all temptations. This became a sensitive subject in the early church that led to many interpretations and resulted in the teaching of celibacy for the priesthood.

Jerome, for instance, has this to say: “There are three kinds of eunuchs, two carnal and the third spiritual. One group are those who are born this way. Another are those who are made into eunuchs by captivity or for pleasuring older women. The third are those who ‘have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’ and who become eunuchs for Christ though they could be whole men. The last group are promised the reward. The other two, for whom chastity is not a matter of willing but necessity, are due nothing at all. We can put it another way. There are eunuchs from birth who are of a rather frigid nature and not inclined to lust. There are others who are made eunuchs by men, those who are made so by philosophers, others who are made weak toward sex from their worship of idols, and still others who by heretical persuasion pretend chastity so as to falsely claim the truth of religion. None of the above is receptive to the kingdom of heaven. Only the person who for Christ seeks chastity wholeheartedly and cuts off sexual impurity altogether [is the genuine eunuch]…Chastity in itself is agreeable and alluring; but one must look to one’s strength so that ‘he who is able to receive this may receive it.’ It is as if the Lord with His words were urging on His soldiers to the reward of chastity with these words: He who is able to receive this let him receive it; he who is able to fight, let him fight and conquer.”¹²

Another early church writer offers this: “As if someone should say, ‘What are you saying, Lord? If for whatever reason a man happened not to have a wife, will he receive the reward of chastity?’ Not always. For just as without will an action cannot cause sin, so justice is not achieved merely by the action unless there is the will. For many try to be chaste in body but commit adultery in their will. If fornication were not committed through the will alone, the Lord never would have said, ‘Everyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.’ Therefore the will frequently sins without action. The continence that brings glory is not the continence that a weakness in our bodies compels us to keep; rather it is the one which we embrace with the will of our holy intention. Therefore He says, ‘There are eunuchs who have been so from birth; there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men.’ These are kept chaste by necessity, but the third group, those ‘who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven,’ are crowned by their willing it.”¹³

So it is that the debate on divorce and remarriage has continued down through the ages. It is now more of the norm in our society than it was just 100 years ago. One major reason for this is because the whole concept and definition of marriage has changed. Many couples are living together today and even raising a family because they do not want to deal with the legal ramifications of divorce, but also because of the bias against married couples in taxation. But since all marriages come to an end in death, and there will be no marriage or giving in marriage in heaven after the resurrection, then it becomes strictly an earthly matter to be dealt with through the grace, mercy, and forgiveness of God through Christ. For God looks at the intent of the heart. Therefore, He cannot be fooled by a person’s verbal expressions of cause or reason.

1 Genesis 37:36

2 Robert Alter, op. cit., p. 216

3 Ibid., Footnote (36), p. 216

4 Esther 1:12

5 Cf. Isaiah 56:3,4; Esther 1:10, 15; 2:3, 14, 15; 4:5; Daniel 1:3

6 Babylonian Talmud, op. cit. Seder Nashim, Masekhet Yebamoth, folio 75a

7 Ibid., folio 75b

8 Philo of Alexandria, Volume 2, A Treatise on the Principle that the Worse is Accustomed to Always Plotting Against the Better, Chapter 48 (176)

9 Ibid., On the Contemplative Life, Volume 9, Chapter 8 (68), pp. 104-108

10 Matthew 19:12

11 Eusebius, History of the Church, Bk. VI, Ch. VIII

12 Jerome: Commentary on Matthew, Vol. 3, 19:12

13 Incomplete Work on Matthew, Homily 32

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER NINETEEN

Part III

Verses 8-9: Jesus answered, “Moses allowed you to divorce your wives because you refused to accept God’s teaching. But divorce was not allowed in the beginning. I tell you that whoever divorces his wife, except for infidelity, and marries another woman is guilty of adultery.”

We read in one of the earliest collections of Rabbinical teaching, that while the subject of divorce was being discussed by several Rabbis, one Rabbi said: “We have learned that the Gentiles are not subject to the laws of consecrating a woman as betrothed through a dowry. What about their being subject to the laws of divorce? The law is this: either they are not subject to the law of divorce at all, or unlike Israelite practice each issues a write of divorce to the other.” One Rabbi goes on to say: “I hate divorce, says the Lord, the God of Israel.’¹ Among Israelites I have framed the law of divorce, and I have not given the law of divorce to the non-Jewish people of the world.’”²

In other words, the Jews felt that their form of marriage and divorce was unique to them, and God did not institute the same commandments on the rest of the world’s population. We know from history, that in ancient Rome couples could marry based simply upon mutual consent. If they decided to separate, then the husband had to return the entire dowry to the wife’s family. It was not until Caesar Augustus came to power (27 BC to 14 AD) that formal divorce was instituted. Among the ancient Greeks, divorce was by mutual consent and either divorcee could remarry with little consequences.

Chrysostom adds this thought to the subject: “With unspeakable wisdom Jesus makes a defense even for these things, saying that ‘Moses for the hardness of your hearts’ had therefore made that law. And he does not let Moses remain accused, since it was He Himself who had given Moses the law, but He frees him from blame and turns the whole matter onto their heads, as He does everywhere. Just as when they accused the disciples while they were gleaning grain, He showed the accusers themselves to be at fault. When they charged them with eating with unwashed hands, Jesus proved that they themselves were the transgressors; and the same happened over the Sabbath. So it happened here too.”³

So the bottom line is that divorce is not to be sought first, but reconciliation. If that cannot be attained because of serious differences, then separation can be tried until reconciliation is accomplished. When that proves unachievable, then live apart but try to keep from ending the marriage since this will only appear to be a license to get married again. However, if the cause for the divorce is unfaithfulness on the part of one partner, then the divorce will permanently end the relationship as though the other person had died, and then remarriage is permissible. But no where did our Lord declare that divorce is an unpardonable sin, for if He could forgive the woman brought to Him after having been caught in the very act of adultery, then divorce can be forgiven as well. But it should be avoided if at all possible.

Since Christianity’s roots are clearly tied to Judaism, it is clear that this is where the teachings of divorce emanated, and why Jesus addressed them here. It is also important to note that Jesus was not talking to non-Jews but to the Jews who came with the question. So He answered it within the context of Jewish teaching and the Law. And after hearing what our Lord had to say, it appeared to the disciples that divorce was such a constant threat to any marriage, and that it could also serve as a reason for those who divorced to be charged with adultery if the reason for the divorce is not infidelity in the first place. So they drew a logical conclusion, that marriage wasn’t worth all the trouble.

Verse 10: The followers then said to Jesus, “If that is the only reason a man can divorce his wife, it is better not to marry.”

Now the disciples are overreacting. If there were two competing thoughts on divorce and remarriage, why get married at all. Adultery was punishable by stoning to death, so why risk it. But our Lord lets them know that staying single is a choice, and it is one that should only be taken if one is committed to living a single life. Otherwise, marriage is ordained of God and should be entered into joyfully. After all, didn’t God say: “I see that it is not good for the man to be alone. I will make the companion he needs, one just right for him”.⁴ One Jewish translator suggests that this read: “It is not good for the human to be alone. I shall make him a sustainer beside him.”⁵ And doesn’t Solomon say, “If you find a wife, you have found something good. Having her shows that the Lord is happy with you.”⁶

This has proven to be one of the most controversial and misapplied teachings of our Lord found anywhere in scripture. Christ’s stand on marriage and divorce were not that controversial even in His day for those who followed God’s covenant; what caused the uproar was for those who abused and misused marriage and divorce laws. Just the same, man’s relationship with God and with their fellow man took on a new meaning with the institution of the New Covenant. Just compare some of His other teachings on hating your brother; hating your enemy; going the second mile, etc. God’s involvement in who becomes our brother or our enemy or the one we go the second mile with, can cover a multitude of people, but when it came to marriage and divorce, the specifics are laid out very plain and simple.

Yet the interpretation by man of these particulars over the centuries have led to much confusion and disagreement, which Jesus clearly anticipated.⁷ What is not so clear to many who read this section is the underlying message that all of these things are dependent on man’s choices, not God’s choices. Jesus is trying to make it clear that we all have choices and not all of them will be good, so we bear the responsibility of coping with our choice or making restitution when the best choices are not made. Over time, the church’s involvement in marriage has added another layer of dos and do nots, and these have been accepted under the premise of whatever is permitted or forbidden on earth will be the same in heaven.

Some scholars feel that Christ’s emphasis on the male-female joining together in wedlock and becoming a unity of one is clearly a reference to what constitutes marriage, and that model should never be changed by man. It should not be understood, however, as indicating that once you chose a spouse; no matter how you made that choice or under what conditions; whether it was done out of necessity, out of lust, out of greed, or out of pure stupidity, that once you are pronounced husband and wife God puts an iron band around you and your spouse like the bands you put on each others’ fingers, and the restriction God places there to join you together should never be broken by man. Jesus makes it clear that the bands of marriage had been broken as far back as Moses day to which he authorized papers of divorce.

What our Lord did emphasize, however, is that God will not be fooled when unacceptable excuses are offered as to why you decided to break the bond of marriage. We could say that the emphasis here is not so much on the sanctity of the ceremony, but God’s way of offering legal protection and provision for the one left stranded and in need. Back in Bible days, it was most often the divorced wife and her children that were in need. So why should one’s promise to repay the loan on a car or house be enforced any more stringent than one’s promise to love, cherish, and protect the one who left everything to become their spouse? Some would attempt to link this explanation with unfaithfulness,⁸ thereby rendering the possibility that the option is open to those who cannot fully accept His ruling on divorce and marriage. But Christ’s words here are in answer to the question of whether anyone should even get married.⁹

Verses 11-12a: He answered, “What you say may apply to some, but everyone—it only applies to those to whom celibacy had been given as a gift. There are different reasons why some men don’t marry. Some were born sterile without the ability to produce children. Others were made that way later in life.”

We must understand the disciple’s inquiry better than what the English version gives us. Let’s reiterate: Jesus had just said that if a man divorces his wife for any other reason than that she was unfaithful and committed adultery, and goes and marries another woman to replace her, he then will be guilty of adultery. So the disciples were extrapolating on that by inquiring if it made any sense to get married in the first place, if their relationship ends up souring and the only way out is for her to commit adultery so the man can be free to remarry. In response Jesus now focuses on the possibility of a man remaining unmarried because he does not want to risk divorce when the marriage breaks down and both are miserable in their relationship. In other words, Jesus concentrates on the question of a man remaining single instead of taking the chance and seeking a wife, hoping she’ll be the right one.

The English gives us an interesting word here to describe such men by identifying them as “eunuchs.” In those days, and many days to follow, when a king wanted to appoint men to take care of their harem they would have them castrated to keep them from being tempted or enticed into intimacy with the king’s wives and concubines; and if they did, no children would result. But the word “eunuch” was also used to identify a man who decided to remain celibate, or one who chooses not to marry for whatever reasons. In Christ’s explanation, He clearly includes both groups: those who chose to remain single, and those who were surgically forced to stay single because in Jewish tradition having children as a married man was a must. Even though our Lord remained single, He did not say that this was the right choice for everyone. It was up to the individual to decide.

As far as we know the apostle Paul remained single; either because he never was married, or he lost his wife to death or separation, and that may have been his thorn in the flesh; that he wanted to get married but knew it would curtail his missionary efforts. Besides, it was also clear that Paul had little income and therefore could not afford to get married. In any case, the commandments of Christ are not to be flaunted. Remaining holy and pure as a vessel of the Spirit is worth the price. Some would plead that those who divorce for reasons of incompatibility, spousal abuse, or being left unattended with the spouse going off never to be heard from again, and remarry before they find Christ as their Savior are exempt from any charges of adultery since the blood of Jesus covers all pasts sins. Their plea is very reasonable and should not be dismissed out of hand; it does have validity.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER NINETEEN

Part II

Verses 5-6: And God said, “That is why a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife. And the two people will become one. So they are no longer two, but one. God has joined them together, so no one should separate them.”

Our Master uses an interesting play on words in verse 6 to describe what it means for a man and his wife to be joined together. The Greek word syzeugnymi used here by Matthew means to be “yoked together.” In other words, they work together as a team to raise and support each other and their children. We make the same comparison today when we call married people “a couple.” In those day, this usually meant that the wife took care of the home and the man took care of the crops and animals. But both were instrumental in accomplishing a mutual goal. It is in this context that we should examine all ensuing teachings on the subject of divorce.

The apostle Paul does not say much about divorce. But he claims that his view is the same as that of our Lord when he says: “I have a command for those who are married. Actually, it is not from me; it is what the Lord commanded. A wife should not leave her husband. But if a wife does leave, she should remain single or get back together with her husband. And a husband should not divorce his wife.”¹ Then Paul continues by giving his own personal opinion on divorce: “The advice I have for the others is from me. The Lord did not give us any teaching about this. If you have a wife who is not a believer, you should not divorce her if she is willing to continue living with you. And if you have a husband who is not a believer, you should not divorce him if he is willing to continue living with you.”² However, Paul goes on to say that if the unbelieving partner is unwilling to stay with the believer, let them go. The believing spouse is not obligated to remain married under those circumstances and continue to live in disharmony.³

Some of the writings by early church scholars suggest that their concern was with the actions of the husband’s actions, not the wife’s. But by 177 AD, early church scholar Athenagoras had this to say: “A person should either remain as he was born, or be content with one marriage; for a second marriage is only to cover up adultery. ‘For whoever puts away his wife,’ says He, ‘and marries another, commits adultery;’ not permitting a man to send her away whose virginity he has brought to an end, nor to marry again. For he who deprives himself of his first wife, even though she be dead, is a cloaked adulterer, resisting the hand of God, because in the beginning God made one man and one woman, and dissolving the strictest union of flesh with flesh, formed for the intercourse of the race.”⁴

Then around 180 AD, Theophilus of Antioch mentions divorce in his treatment of Christian chastity, but quotes our Lord’s words verbatim and gives no further explanation as to his or the Church’s stand on the subject.⁵ A few years later in his writings against heresies, Irenaeus speaks about how divorce can sometimes be a disciplinary matter, in which he sides with the apostle Paul, allowing for divorce under certain circumstances involving faith.⁶ And by the beginning of 200 AD, Clement of Alexandria gives his view on divorce and remarriage. In one place he quotes our Lord’s words on divorce and then adds what Moses had to say about divorce being a pretext to adultery unless it is based on immorality. For if a divorce is given for any other cause and then the divorced individual remarries, they thereby commit adultery.⁷

Later on in the same work, Clement addresses what our Lord said about those who choose not to marry in order to devote more time to the Kingdom of God. But he acknowledges, that this question was related to another question involving the possibility of a man remarrying if he has put away his wife because of her adultery.⁸ Finally, Clement touches on those who decide not to marry, but become attracted to another person and how they should deal with it. But again he quotes the Scripture where Jesus says that those who are married should not seek a divorce.⁹

We also find by examining the writings or church scholars Origen, Chrysostom, Jerome, and others, that by the 6^th century AD the church had more or less come to the conclusion that divorce can only be on the grounds of adultery, and remarriage is frowned upon just in case the adulterer repents and the two can become one again. One exemption to remarriage involves the dissolution of the first marriage through annulment when no intimacy is achieved to consummate the marriage. So more or less, early church teachers felt no urgency or permission to go against what was recorded in the Gospels on Jesus’ teaching concerning divorce. So this then brings us back to looking at what Jesus really said on this subject. This seems to be the aim of the Pharisees.

Verse 7: The Pharisees then asked Him, “Then why did Moses give a command allowing a man to divorce his wife by writing a certificate of divorce?”

Having failed to trap Jesus with their loaded question, the Pharisees now decide to pit the words of Jesus against the words of Moses. That way, they could use His disrespect for the great prophet and law giver as a reason to turn His followers against Him and thereby put an end to His influence and ministry. The Pharisees were referring to what Moses said about the dissolution of a marriage: “A man might marry a woman, and then find some secret thing about her that he does not like. If that man is not pleased with her, he must write the divorce papers and give them to her. Then he must send her from his house. When she has left his house, she may go and become another man’s wife.”¹⁰

In Jeremiah, God describes for the prophet His relationship with Israel who forsook Him for other gods. God said: “Israel was unfaithful, and she knew why I sent her away. Israel knew that I divorced her because she committed the sin of adultery.”¹¹ But by the time we get to the end of the prophet era, God expresses Himself this way on the subject of divorce, “God wants husbands and wives to become one body and one spirit. Why? So that they would have legitimate children and protect that spiritual unity. Don’t cheat on your wife. She has been your wife from the time you were young. The Lord, the God of Israel, says, “I hate divorce, and I hate the cruel things that men do. So protect your spiritual unity. Don’t cheat on your wife.”¹²

This was some 400 years before God sent His Son to earth to explain things more clearly. So Jesus tells the Pharisees that divorce was not something God instituted on His own, but it was something God allowed because men’s hearts had become so calloused that forcing people to stay together under such circumstances brought on more suffering than it was worth. Jesus says, this was not what God had planned, but it is what was brought on by man’s fallen condition once he left the Garden of Eden. But now the Word had become flesh, and He was about to put His stamp on the subject. Under the New Covenant there would be new rules to follow.

The was brought on by the fact that by Jesus’ day, divorce had become a convenient way for any man to get rid of his wife based solely on his word. According to Jewish sources, the dissolution of marriage had its origin in the Jewish laws on divorce, as found in the constitution of the patriarchal family. The fundamental principle of its government was the absolute authority of the oldest male ascendant; hence the husband, as the head of the family, divorced the wife at his pleasure. The manner in which Hagar was dismissed by Abraham illustrates the exercise of this authority.¹³

This ancient right of the husband to divorce his wife at his pleasure is the central thought in the entire system of Jewish divorce law. It was not set aside by the Rabbis, though its severity was tempered by numerous restrictive measures. It was not until the eleventh century AD that the absolute right of the husband to divorce his wife at will was formally abolished. During the days when commentary on Scripture was being collected in the Jewish Mishnah, the theory of the law that the husband could divorce his wife at will was challenged by the school of Shammai, a Jewish scholar who was a contemporary of Jesus. He interpreted the text of Deuteronomy 24:1 in such a manner as to reach the conclusion that the husband could not divorce his wife except for cause, and that cause must be sexual misconduct.

Here is what it says: “The School of Shammai teaches: A man may not divorce his wife unless he found her guilty of an unseemly moral matter, for it is written: ‘And it will be that she does not find favor in his eyes because he discovers an unseemly, moral matter in her – then he should write her a bill of divorce and place it in her hand, thereby sending her away from his household.”¹⁴ And the earlier Jerusalem Talmud adds, “The School of Shammai says, ‘A man should divorce his wife only if he discovered in her in the act of adultery.‘”¹⁵

Nevertheless, it goes on to say, “For lo it has been taught on the authority of the house of Shammai, ‘I know as the grounds for divorce only the case of the woman who goes forth [from marriage] by reason of having committed adultery’,”¹⁶ but continues, “A further point is made by Rabbi Mana: “The husband has the right to divorce the wife on account of ugly matters, short of proof of adultery, only when the matter is confirmed through witnesses.”¹⁷ The school of Hillel, however, maintains that: “even if she spoiled his soup, he may divorce her,” or “Even is she spoiled his dish, since it is said, ‘Because he found in her indecency in anything’.¹⁸”¹⁹ The opinion of the school of Hillel prevailed during the time of Jesus.

It appears that Flavius Josephus held this same opinion, “He that desires to be divorced from his wife for any cause whatsoever, (and many such causes happen among men,) let him in writing give assurance that he will never use her as his wife anymore; for by this means she may be at liberty to marry another husband, although before this bill of divorce be given, she is not to be permitted so to do: but if she be misused by him also, or if, when he is dead, her first husband would marry her again, it shall not be lawful for her to return to him.”²⁰ Jesus seems to have held the view of the school of Shammai.²¹

One factor that did not seem to be contested is what Jeremiah taught, “If a man divorces his wife and she goes and marries someone else, the first husband cannot take her back. If he did, it would make the land unclean.”²² Jesus’ disciples were standing around listening to this dialogue between their Master and the Pharisees. It sounded so complicated, that they had to find out what Jesus was trying to say.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER NINETEEN

Part I

Verse 1: After Jesus said all these things, He left Galilee. He went into the area of Judea on the other side of the Jordan River.

This is the last time Galilee is mentioned in the travels of Jesus. The next time we will find Him there is after His resurrection. The mention of His going to the other side of the Jordan River seems to indicate that our Lord went back to the same place He had visited many times before, and that being the compound where John the Baptizer conducted his ministry, and where Jesus met the first of His future disciples.¹

There seemed to be nothing now that would draw our Lord back to the area of His birth. He was born in Bethlehem just outside Jerusalem and lived there until He was about two years old. But then Joseph took him and Mary and fled to Egypt to avoid being caught in Herod’s massacre. Upon their return, they went directly to Nazareth, and that’s where Jesus lived for the next 28 years. The only time they were back in Jerusalem was for Jesus’ bar mitzvah at the age of 12. But even His discourse with the Elders there in the Temple did not whet His appetite to return any sooner.

So there must have been something that suddenly caused Him to pick up and leave Capernaum, never to return, and head for Judea. He had been hinting all along what lay in store for Him there, so as much as these things did not fit into the Messianic ideology His disciples were hoping to see fulfilled, He knew that there was another hill that beckoned Him, and it was called Calvary, also Golgotha – the place of the skull.

Verse 2: Many people followed Him. Jesus healed the sick people there.

Not only did His twelve disciples follow Him, but so did many other followers. So He now was back where it all started; where John the Baptizer had hailed Him as the Lamb of God and fulfilled the Scriptures by baptizing Him to initiate His ministry. Word got around quickly and soon people were flocking to that area, just as they did when John the Baptizer was ministering there. It also brought a change in His ministry style. Back in Galilee He mostly preached and ministered in healing as a part of the outreach. But now, there is a new urgency that elevates His healing ministry. Whatever it was that He did or said, it got the attention of the religious crowd in Jerusalem and they soon showed up to test Him.

Chrysostom gives us this in one of his sermons: “Thus Jesus worked for the salvation of those remaining close by Him and following Him, so as through the miracles to appear, in what He said, a teacher worthy of belief, and to add the gain coming from the miracles to the teaching of His words. In this way, He was leading them by the hand to the knowledge of God. But look at this with me. See how the disciples treat briefly whole multitudes in one word, not recording by name all the individuals who were healed. For they did not say ‘so and so, and so and so’ but ‘many,’ teaching us not to be boastful. Christ healed them, benefiting them and through them many others. For the healing of their sickness becomes for others the moment of recognition of God.”²

Verse 3: Some Pharisees came to Jesus. They tried to make Him say something wrong. They asked Him directly, “Is it right for a man to divorce his wife for any reason he chooses?”

Even though the Master was a long way from Jerusalem, still the word spread of His being in this area. By this time, His reputation and number of followers had reached great proportions. So the religious leaders were now under more pressure than ever before to find some way to stop Him before all Judea was converted to accept His gospel of salvation through faith instead of works. They tried every other subject, so this time, they decided to ask Him what we call today, a “loaded question,” which is technically known as “a complex question fallacy,” in that it contains an unjustified assumption that is exposed whether or not one answers ‘yes’ or ‘no.’

An effective way of dealing with such a question is not to answer with a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’, but to challenge the assumption behind the question. The reason for that is because an assumption is defined as A thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof. Therefore, it is unfair to allow the inquirer to ask for proof from you in an answer when they have no proof themselves in their question. These Pharisees were certainly aware of their own teachings in their verbal traditions, and they also knew that there were two schools of thought on the subject in which no conclusion had been reached.

One such school was called the School of Hillel, and the other the School of Shammai. These were two competing Rabbis. Hillel was president of the Sanhedrin and Shammai was vice-president. Hillel would say one thing and Shammai would try and correct it. They disagreed on how much flour to use in making certain types of bread or how much water was to be poured into a bath for the purification process.

On the subject of divorce, in Jewish literature we find this: “A man may not divorce his wife unless he found her guilty of an unseemly moral matter, for it is written: ‘And it will be that she does not find favor in his eyes because he discovers an unseemly, moral matter in her — then he should write her a bill of divorce and place it in her hand, thereby sending her away from his household.”³ But the school of Hillel says: Even if she burned his food, for it is written: ‘Because he discovers an unseemly, moral matter in her.’ [School Hillel reads the verse as if had been written: ‘Because he discovers an unseemly or moral matter in her.’] Rabbi Akiva says: Even if he found another more beautiful than her, as it is written: ‘And it will be that she does not find favor in his eyes.’ [Rabbi Akiva reads the verse as if it had been written: ‘And it will be that she does not find favor in his eyes or because he discovers an unseemly, moral matter in her.’]”⁴

Therefore, we may conclude that these Pharisees were not only wanting to find out which school of thought our Lord agreed with, but also to pit Him one against the other so that they could see whose side He was on. But our Lord knew He was up against a mangled mess of interpretations. For instance, it was also taught that a man may divorce his wife without any prenuptial agreement if she was: “Feeding her husband with untithed food, having relations with him during the period of her menstruation, not setting apart her dough-offering, or making vows and not fulfilling them. What is deemed to be a wife’s transgression against Jewish practice? Going out with her hair uncovered, spinning around in the street thereby exposing her arms or flirting with every man. Abba Shaul says; Also, a wife who curses her husband’s parents in his presence. Rabbi Tarfon says; Also one who screams demanding intimate relations. And how loud is considered a screamer? A woman whose voice can be heard by her neighbors when she speaks inside her house.“⁵

Yet, there were those who saw divorce from a different perspective. Rabbi Eliezer said: “For him who divorces the first wife, the very altar sheds tears, as it is written: And this you also do, you cover the altar of the Lord with tears, with weeping and with sighing, in so much that he regards not the offering any more, neither receives it with good will from your hand.⁶ Further, it is written: Yet you say, Why is that? Because the Lord has been a witness between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have dealt treacherously, though she is your companion and the wife of your marriage contract.⁷”⁸ But very astutely, Jesus points them back to the Written Word.

Verse 4: Jesus answered, “Surely you have read this in the Scriptures: When God made the world, He made people male and female.”

Our Lord either did not finish quoting this verse in the Old Testament, or Matthew felt that this quote was enough for anyone to find the text, because after creating them male and female, it goes on to say: “He blessed them.”⁹ In other words, God performed the wedding ceremony. Jesus wanted them to remember what God said, not what they interpreted Him to have said. One Jewish writer had an interesting comment on this text in Genesis. He says: “The world was maintained by this blessing until the generation of the flood came and brought upon themselves the annulment of the blessing.”¹⁰ So it should not surprise us that after the flood, the sanctity of marriage began to evaporate, which then led to the practice of polygamy, and eventually divorce.

One lay scholar in the early church period wrote the following in his commentary on this verse: “Male and female. Not male and many females, so that a man is allowed to possess many wives, nor males and a female so that one woman is allowed to have many husbands. No, he said male and female, so that a woman should think that no man has been made in the world except one, and a man should think that no woman has been made in the world except one. For it was not two or three ribs that he took from the side of man, and he did not make two or three women. When, therefore, a second or a third wife stands before your face, as then Eve stood before Adam, how could you say to them, ‘This is bone of my bones?’ For even if that woman is truly a rib, it is still not yours. If you have not said this to her, you do not affirm that she is your wife; but if you have said it, you lie.”¹¹

But the great preacher Chrysostom takes another route in his comments. He says: “Look carefully at the wisdom of the teacher. For being asked, ‘Is it allowed?’ He does not immediately say, ‘It is not allowed,’ lest they should be disturbed and break out in an uproar. Before Jesus made His own statement He made it clear through His opening remarks that what He had to say came from His Father’s commandment. In commanding this He was not in opposition to Moses but fully in agreement with him. Notice how He validates covenant sexuality not from the creation alone but from God’s commandment. For he did not say that God had made only one man and one woman but that God had also commanded that the one man should be joined to the one woman.”¹² In other words, because God did not create several women out of Adam’s rib, it was His way of promoting monogamy.

Then Chrysostom goes on: “If God had wanted Adam to dismiss this wife and marry another when he made one man, he would have made many women. But as it is, He shows both by the manner of her creation and the form of the commandment that one man must dwell with one woman continually and never break off from her. And see how he says, ‘He who made them at the beginning made them male and female,’ that is, they sprang from one root and came together as one body, ‘or the two shall be one flesh.’”¹³

However, not all scholars are on the same page with this layman scholar and Chrysostom. God chose to give Adam one companion in the Garden of Eden so he was not always alone, waiting for God to show up so they could converse. Since there were no other choices, there was no reason for divorce. It was only after sin entered the garden through the serpent that sin fostered polygamy and eventually divorce. It was God’s intent for all couples to be like Adam and Eve, but sin corrupted that ideal couple model, and only when all believers are transformed to live in eternity like the angels will that scourge of divorce be finally eradicated.

Another thing to remember is that God chose Eve for Adam. There was no such promise after the flood that God would continue to choose who married who. It became the individuals choice. Sometimes they sought God’s help, such as when Abraham sent his servant to find a wife for Isaac. But for the most part, partners are chosen based on attraction or compatibility. In the meantime, bad choices are allowed by law to be dissolved. Divorce is as forgivable as any other sin that goes against God’s will. But such forgiveness does not mean that it should be done again and again. As Jesus told the woman caught in adultery, “Go and sin no more.”¹⁴