Life Project Blog

Matthew 19:18-22

Social conventions and customs are a funny thing; they influence most of us in a way that enables us to make sweeping assumptions concerning great truths, even eternal ones, and yet those very conventions change often through history. We should take this reality as a warning to question the social conventions of our time, and this tale is a case in point. In Jesus’ day, as in many other historical periods, it was assumed that most wealthy people were the ones favored by God; why else would they be so blessed? Yes, some were not so ethical in their conduct, yet many others were good, hard working people, the bedrocks of the community; surely God’s favor was upon them!

What a contrast to those little children in the last scene, those little ones who represented vulnerability and humility. Right after Jesus commented about the little ones, a rich young man walks up to Him and asks a question:

Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?” (19:18)

Here’s a guy who appears to have it all, but he apparently believes that he is lacking in the way he has led his life; there is an element of humility here that we often overlook. In the dialogue that follows, we learn more about this young man:

Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”

“Which ones?” he inquired.

Jesus replied, “‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother,’ and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’”

“All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?” (19:17-20)

This young man was righteous, and appears to have good intentions, and as you will see, Jesus doesn’t dispute his claim that he has kept all of those commandments. It would also appear that the man was beginning to realize, perhaps more quickly than the disciples, that merely keeping commandments as was the Jewish prevailing thought, wasn’t quite enough, after all why else would he have asked Jesus in the first place? Yet, he still seems to have believed that eternal life was contingent upon his ability to do something. Maybe he was right:

Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth. (19:21-22)

Jesus told the man to sell what he owned, give money to the poor and follow Him. I cannot over-emphasize how radical this was, for the prevailing thought of those times said that the rich were blessed, worthy and most favored of all, yet Jesus told the man to liquidate and give to the poor. Notice, He didn’t say to give everything to the poor (as some older translations say) but the implication is clear enough. The story ends with the man going away sad, because he had great wealth.

Traditional teaching assumes the man did not do as Jesus told him, but I want to point out that the text doesn’t say that; maybe he did, maybe he didn’t… but he was sad.

This is where we like to bash people who have more than we do; I can’t tell you how many times I have heard this in class discussions and sermons and how many times I have read it, but I would suggest that we should not go rushing into this too quickly. I have known quite a few people who are quite wealthy, rich people, and they usually discover that their wealth, while handy for sure, is also a millstone around their necks; a burden more than a pleasure. Yet once they have it, it is hard to let go of. Even so, let’s not concentrate on those who have more than we do, let’s look in the mirror instead, for there is where Jesus’ message, and the young man’s predicament resonate:

Suppose Jesus came to you and told you to liquidate everything you have, that’s right dear reader, sell all your possessions, give to the poor and follow Him.

Would that make you happy?

If you answer “yes” to that question, then let’s take a closer look: Your home, your car(s), your accounts, retirement plans, investments, kids’ college funds, the contents of your house… everything. You show up to follow Jesus with only the shirt on your back. Hold on, the shirt on your back is also a possession, so you show up without even a shirt on your back or anything else, to follow Jesus: Are you happy?

More importantly, would you do it?

Maybe we should think carefully before we make this all about pointing fingers at others!

The good news is that we are still in that section where the instruction is for the disciples, and in the next part, we will see what Jesus has to say to them; will it get easier? Well, you’ll have to come back next time to find out!

Then people brought little children to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples rebuked them.

Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” When he had placed his hands on them, he went on from there.

Matthew 19:13-15

There are times when the disciples are quite insightful, when they really “get it”, and then there are times when they really seem to miss the point entirely, and this is one of those latter cases. I suppose that we should be hesitant to be too critical of them, since I’m sure that each of us is probably guilty of missing the point often enough.

In this brief scene, Jesus is out among the people, and they bring some little children to Him for Him to pray over, and the disciples rebuked them. Maybe they thought that Jesus was too busy at the time to deal with a bunch of little ones, Matthew doesn’t say, but whatever their reason, it would appear that they have missed what Jesus was telling them in 18:5…

And whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me.

Jesus insisted that the little ones be allowed to come to Him, and once again mentions that we must be as little children, the powerless, vulnerable and often exploited by this world, to enter the Kingdom of heaven. Yes, it would be accurate to say that little children are a metaphor for the “citizens” of His Kingdom. I have already commented on this in my remarks on 18:1-5, “The Greatest in the Kingdom” so I won’t repeat the whole thing again now, instead, let’s once again take a step backward to look at the whole picture.

We are still in that section of Matthew in which Jesus is educating the disciples, where they are the ones in the scene that He is primarily concerned with. Also, in this part of that section, He is teaching them the stark difference between His teaching of the Kingdom, and the traditional teachings of the Jewish leadership, so isn’t it interesting that this should happen, and isn’t it significant that Matthew has included it here?

I can’t prove this, and I can’t pass it on to you as an established fact, but I can tell you that my guess is that Matthew passed this little episode on to us because this is when they began to understand His teaching about little children; certainly, it was for the disciples’ education that these events took place when they did.

In the next scene, Jesus has a chat with a rich young man; see you then!

The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”

Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

Matthew 19:10-12

After Jesus’ remarks concerning marriage and divorce in 19:3-9, the disciples have questions obviously, as do so many others, yet they didn’t ask any of them, instead making the offhand remark in verse10, “…it’s better not to marry.”

Quite a bit has been written about this remark; theories abound, yet what we can be certain about is that the disciples assumed that easy divorce was a given, that it was part of the deal so to speak. The apparent “taking away” of easy divorce by Jesus in His reply to the Pharisees who were attempting to trip Him up would certainly appear to reflect a different teaching for Israel, but we must remember that in this section, everything is arranged to instruct the disciples, not necessarily the Pharisees or to make new laws for the people. Caution dear reader, please don’t read anything into that statement of mine that I didn’t actually say; Jesus’ comments are of importance to us as well.

In His reply to their remark, Jesus expounds further on his intent, using a eunuch as an illustration, as He makes His point clearer. There were eunuchs who were “born eunuchs” as well as others who were “made” that way, which is to say that there are some who are by physical disability, unable to “become one flesh” in marriage, as well as many in those times who were incapacitated so they could serve in a noble’s household; neither would ever marry. Then there would be those who would choose to never marry so that they could serve more completely the Kingdom of heaven, and Paul comes to mind, as well as Jesus Himself. Some can accept this, i.e. “live that way” and some cannot. If a person can live that way, so much the better, if not, then they should marry wisely. Again, the teaching of Paul on the subject comes to mind.

This is not to suggest that living a celibate life is somehow more holy than not, but it is to say that the priorities of the Kingdom should be preeminent in our lives, and for those who have the gift of celibacy, this will be an easier task (cf. 1 Cor. 7:1-7).

I wonder what the disciples talked about later that day amongst themselves…

Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’  and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

“Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

Matthew 19:3-9

Jesus has entered into Judea, and the Pharisees come out to “test” Him… and away we go. Their test concerns the issue of marriage and divorce. They begin with an interesting question, one that can possibly be taken more than one way. Jesus in His reply takes it in a way they hadn’t expected, for instead of quoting the Law of Moses, He goes to Genesis instead quoting Genesis 1:27 in verse 4, and to Genesis 2:24 in verse 5; it would seem that Jesus placed a higher priority on the way marriage was originally intended to be than He did on the compromise God made with the fallen state of the people in Deuteronomy 24.

The Pharisees are all about keeping the Law, and as ironic as it may sound, this was their downfall in the end, so they ask Jesus about this in verse 7. (For them, Moses = Law).

Jesus replies in 19:8-9, with an explanation similar to His teaching on the subject in chapter 5, and for more on that, see my comments in that section. Rather than rehashing that here, I hope you will concentrate on Jesus and His orientation on the whole issue: He goes right back the point in time where God ordained marriage, and not on what came later; even the Law of Moses. While the scholars argue about the details and modern day politics, we can gain an amazing insight into Jesus’ mission and ultimate purpose in these verses, for in going back to the beginning, mentioning only in answer to their specific question any “exceptions” or concessions God may have granted, Jesus tells us about His mission: can you see it?

Jesus didn’t come with the idea of maintaining the status quo of their day, not even of the Law itself, for in His fulfillment of the Law, and establishment of an entirely New Covenant between God and His people, Jesus was taking the view that the Kingdom of heaven was not only near at hand, but already a reality, with no concession to the sin that He would take away for good. Thus, the message in this passage is not about what loopholes there might be in marriage, but on how we are to live in the Kingdom. There might be a loophole or escape clause, there might be problems in the present evil age, but in its ultimate fulfillment, we will be taken all the way back to way things were before sin had entered into the picture, for sin will be entirely done away with, along with all evil, and even death itself.

For us to say that His was an apocalyptic view would be an understatement for certain; certainly it is a view filled with hope and good news in that the day will come when all of these problems are gone. Yet, here we are, still living in a sinful and wicked world; filled with heartache and pain, what do we do in the here and now? Do we take the Pharisees’ viewpoint and debate the loopholes, or do we take the view of Christ and do our best to live according to the way God intended for us from the beginning?

Clearly that is a choice each of us should carefully consider. For the disciples, it was also a complex and bewildering prospect, and they had questions for Jesus about this. We’ll see the questions and answers when we get back together next time!

Matthew 19-20

When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan. Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.(19:1-2)

With these two verses, we have a shift of scenes as well as the beginning of the transition from Galilee to Jerusalem where Matthew’s narrative will reach its climax. As you will recall, we are in a larger section in which Jesus is teaching His disciples about His mission as the Messiah, and His mission is much different than they had expected of their Messiah. I thought that we would be best served at this point, to look at a summary of the events of chapters 19 and 20 before we are caught up in the details, for often we miss the larger picture (not to mention the context) because of our expectation and traditional understanding of the details. Of course this is not to say that our understanding is wrong, but it may sometimes be slightly incomplete.

The first thing we must understand is that Jesus is going on the offensive at this point. I’m not suggesting that He lacked the initiative in Galilee, but now He is the spiritual equivalent of an invading army as He moves into Judea, challenging the very core of the Jewish tradition and ethic as it existed at the time. Make no mistake; the Jewish religious authorities will not take this assault on their position and authority lying down… and you know what happens after that.

Jesus’ first move in this match is to radically challenge the conventional values and personal rights of all people as He calls for the stabilization and preeminence of marriage, challenging a legal system that perpetuated divorce (19:3-9). This challenge seemed very difficult to the disciples (19:10), but Jesus insists that for the sake of the Kingdom, some may even be called upon to renounce their right to marry (19:11-13).

Those deemed by society to be weak and helpless, like little children, were not to be marginalized or exploited, and He even used them as models for Kingdom living (19:13-15). In a society where a person was highly regarded for their wealth and position, Jesus calls for the renunciation of possessions in favor of the higher calling of following Him (19:16-30). He tells the parable of the landowner to illustrate this graphically, reversing their values in favor of outright generosity (20:1-16). In contrast to the Gentile habit of lording it over others Jesus calls upon His disciples to be servants of all, modeling His own sacrificial mission (20:20-38). The section closes with Jesus modeling compassion for all of those who cry out in the city (20:29-34). In this way, we transition into the next section of conflict in Jerusalem, but not before Jesus has completed the task of discipling the disciples and making them aware of what sort of lifestyle will be required of them when their turn comes to proclaim the Kingdom, and of course by extension, He has provided instruction for all future generations of the values that must be predominant in the Kingdom in ages to come.

Matthew 18:21-35

In our discussion of 18:15-20, we have seen that Jesus taught the disciples about handling sin in the church, as we have gone through this, I was struck, as I always am, that there is one word that is notable for its absence: Forgiveness. Jesus didn’t use it, but Peter picked up on the fact that forgiveness is at the very heart of the discussion, and that prompted a question (as well it should have):

Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother or sister who sins against me? Up to seven times?” (18:21)

This is such a familiar passage; we love to quote it, and teach it, but what is the context?

Jesus was teaching about sin in the church; “church discipline” as many like to call it, and in answer to Peter’s question, He tells Peter that he should forgive then 490 times, essentially, as many times as it takes to restore that person.

Funny thing, I can’t recall ever hearing that in sermons on “church discipline”, have you?

Of course you know that this is followed by the parable of the “unmerciful servant” who was forgiven a very great debt by his master, and then sent his fellow servant to prison over a very small debt. When the master found out, he had the unmerciful servant tortured until he paid his big debt in full, for the master had forgiven his servant, and expected the servant to do likewise.

Do I really need to say any more? Here are Jesus’ final words on the subject:

“This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother or sister from your heart.” (18:35)

Yes, this is still in the “church discipline” context.

See you next time!

“Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.”

Matthew 18:19-20

Context is a tricky thing; come to think of it, it can also be inconvenient.

I wouldn’t mind too much if I were able to report to you that if 2 or 3 of us come together and agree that God should provide each of us with 10 million dollars tax-free, that Jesus has promised to do so, but sorry, Jesus has done nothing of the kind!

Of course, that hasn’t stopped people from teaching it that way…

If you read the previous part you know that the context is entirely different; Jesus is re-enforcing His remark in 18:18 about loosing and binding. His context is the discussion of how to handle issues relating to sin in the church so as to restore people to their healthy relationship both with God and the community of believers. We need also recall that He is speaking to the disciples, who He is in the process of training to lead the early church; He is not making a blanket statement for everyone, in my view.

As I mentioned earlier, dealing with sin in the church is not an easy business, and it requires wisdom, spiritual maturity, and prayerful reflection, for without these things, we tend to give a knee jerk reaction that doesn’t seek to restore the offending party, but instead seeks merely to punish them. Punishing is clearly not what Jesus is teaching.

With all that I have said in these two posts, I should add something here: Having been in church leadership for more years than I like to count, I realize quite fully that there are situations in which the sin that a person is engaged in brings danger to the congregation; an obvious example would be someone working with children who has sinned in a way that violates a child, or a man in church leadership who has been known to become involved with women who are not his wife… I’m sure you can think of other examples. A leader would tend to disqualify himself from a leadership role in such a case, a person with such a history shouldn’t work anywhere around children, any more than a recovering alcoholic should take a job as a bartender. In such cases, and I sincerely hope that you never have to deal with this sort of thing; we must concern ourselves with the safety of the flock, and the redemption of the offender; we cannot do so without wisdom, spiritual maturity, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and in these verses, Jesus is promising to do His part.

In the next passage, Jesus continues to re-enforce this theme with a parable; you won’t want to miss it!

“If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’  If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

Matthew 18:15-17

In the last couple of sections, Jesus has been making the case that we must not cause our brother or sister to stumble, using the metaphors of “little ones” and “sheep” to make His point, now He moves into the next, rather obvious area for discussion: What happens when one of God’s sacred children conducts him or herself in a way that isn’t all that sacred?

Touchy business.

If you noticed the NIV footnote, “sins” in verse 15 is “sins against you” in some old manuscripts, and I might add that it is “sins against you” in some translations as well. Looking at the overall context, it seems to me that it could easily go either way, depending on what we are talking about. For instance, if the person in question is a malicious gossip, but they are gossiping about you and not me, it would seem that someone needs to take the person aside, before they cause great harm in the church community and thus, to the Kingdom itself. Obviously there could be many examples of “sin” that is harmful to both individuals and the Kingdom.

How ever you may view this, the guidance Jesus gives for these delicate and awkward situations is a guidance of love, not condemnation. Notice that He says we should take the person aside (privately) and speak to them; He didn’t say that we share our observations with the world, for wouldn’t that be gossip? OK fine, if you want to be technical, it wouldn’t be gossip if we told about something we personally observed, but if it’s good stuff, the person we told is going to repeat it, and that is gossip. Gee whiz, we would be the cause of our brother’s stumble, wouldn’t we? That is why I called this a “delicate” situation.

Now, we’ve taken the person aside and spoken to them in loving concern, but they won’t listen; maybe they simply tell us that they didn’t do it, then we find another witness, and this is where things become really delicate, for how do we do that without gossip or the temptation to gossip? In my experience, most people don’t… but some manage, and here’s how they do it. They say nothing, but they remain in proximity to the situation, and sooner or later, a witness is found by patient observation. Remember, Jesus is not giving counsel on how to get even with someone; He is giving counsel on how to put love into action to restore a person to their relationship with God and the community.

If the person still refuses to repent, then He says we should “take it to the church”. In my mind, that means that we take the situation to the leadership of the church, not to make a public accusation; at least we take it to someone who is mature enough in the faith so as not to cause more damage to anyone. I realize that many people and church traditions may view this differently than I do, and that’s fine, I’ll not argue with them, this is my opinion only, but here is why I think this way; it’s in the next verse:

Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. (18:18)

This is where Jesus repeats these words that He had previously directed only to Peter; now He addresses them to all of the disciples, the ones who would be the leadership of the church after Pentecost. As I see it, this principle gives a great responsibility to the leaders of the church, not necessarily to the flock itself. Instead, the leadership of the church (and when I say that, I am referring to the leadership of the local congregation) has the responsibility to lead in a way that is in the best interests of everyone as they build the Body. It is not for them to justify “lining their own pockets”.

Finally, if we can’t get any results from these steps then we treat the person as a pagan or tax collector. The question is, how are we supposed to treat them? If Jesus is our example, He treated them as those who needed to hear the Gospel, the ones for whom He died; I’ve not actually seen an instance in Scripture of Jesus throwing them out into the street; have you?

In my view, this passage is one that requires maturity and wisdom, for Jesus has given us a principle without specifics as to the nature of the “sins” in question. Some things are obvious, others are subtle, and it takes maturity and wisdom to recognize the way forward. Even if you have both wisdom and spiritual maturity, it is a very good idea to run this kind of situation past another person you respect and trust, without mentioning names, before you jump to any conclusions.

“See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven.

“What do you think? If a man owns a hundred sheep, and one of them wanders away, will he not leave the ninety-nine on the hills and go to look for the one that wandered off? And if he finds it, truly I tell you, he is happier about that one sheep than about the ninety-nine that did not wander off. In the same way your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should perish.

Matthew 18:10-14

When we left off last time, Jesus was using a little child as an illustration of the greatest citizen of the Kingdom of heaven; in this passage, the “little one” transitions into the metaphor of sheep which represents someone in the Kingdom. Verse 10 is the transitional verse; we must not disdain or “despise” one of these “little ones”.

What this means is that we must never have an attitude that would devalue anyone, for they are precious, sacred really, in God’s sight. The reason given is that they have an angel in heaven with direct access to the Father. Unfortunately, this concept isn’t developed here into a “doctrine” and we are left to figure out exactly what Jesus was referring to, and the result is that there are many ideas on this subject. The old Jewish tradition has a complex doctrine on angels; angels are directly associated with the nation of Israel. In the New Testament, angels are associated with individual churches in Revelation 2-3, and are referred to as “ministering spirits” by the author of Hebrews. This particular verse (18:10) is the one cited by those who believe in the concept of “guardian angels”. However you might view this, one thing is certainly clear; if we devalue our brother or sister, our action will come to the attention of the Father in heaven.

Jesus goes on in the remaining verses to underscore this using the metaphor of a shepherd and a wandering sheep. In the parable, a sheep wanders off from the flock, and the shepherd leaves the flock to find the lost sheep. When he finds the sheep he is filled with joy for the lost sheep, having more joy over finding the lost sheep than he does for the remainder that didn’t wander off.  The message is clear enough; God does not want a single one of His children to perish, and He is concerned with even the least of His children. If we are the cause of another to fall away or wander from the “flock” God will not be amused.

On a practical level, there is quite a lot for us to think about here, in fact, there is some sober reflection that we should engage in on this subject. Do we treat our brother or sister as sacred? Are we attentive when they are hurting? Do we demand that others agree with us on every issue? Do we pass judgment on the circumstances of others as a means to avoid reaching out to them?

I suppose that we can add quite a few questions to this list of things we should ask ourselves, but the bottom line is: Do we treat others as God’s sacred “little ones”?