Interpretation of the Gospel of Matthew chapter 19. Bible online

19:3-6 is it permissible for a person to divorce...? The Pharisees' question apparently expresses the opinion of Rabbi Hillel, who allowed divorce even for unimportant reasons on the basis of Deut. 24.1-4. He was opposed by another rabbi, Shammai, who believed that only adultery could be a serious reason for divorce. Jesus' answer goes beyond casuistic interpretations of Deuteronomy and addresses the order of creation as established by God. Jesus believes that divorce fundamentally denies God's order and the very nature of marriage.

19:7-8 After hearing what Jesus thought about marriage, the Pharisees decided that they could catch Him contradicting Moses. But Jesus explains that Moses (Deut. 24:1-4) did not advocate divorce, but provided for what to do in case of divorce. Indeed, Deut. 24:1-4 consists of a long introductory "if" and ends with the fact that a man is forbidden to remarry a woman from whom he has divorced.

19:10 It’s better not to get married. The disciples react with skepticism to Jesus' teaching about the sanctity of marriage. In response, Jesus notes that it may indeed be better not to marry, but only on the condition that you do not marry for the sake of the Kingdom, and not because God has a strict view of marriage (1 Cor. 7:7-9).

19:16 have eternal life. The same as “entering the Kingdom of God” (v. 24) and “being saved” (v. 25).

19:21 Sell your possessions. This command shows that the young man lacked the determination to leave everything (16:24), relying only on the grace of God.

19:23-26 Since wealth was considered evidence of God's favor in Palestine, Jews generally thought that the rich were the most likely "candidates" for the Kingdom. Jesus changed this idea, which prompted the disciples to ask: “So who can be saved?” (v. 25).

19:28 judge.“Manage,” not “judge.”

19:29 will receive a hundredfold. The grace of salvation surpasses everything that exists in this world (1 Cor. 2:9).

19:30 will be first to last. The earthly position and the heavenly position do not correspond to one another; on the contrary, they are often diametrically opposed.

1 When Jesus finished saying these words, he left Galilee and came to the borders of Judea, on the side beyond the Jordan.

2 Many people followed Him, and He healed them there.

Healing hundreds. Artist Rembrandt Harmens van Rijn 1648

3 And the Pharisees came to Him and, tempting Him, said to Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason?”

4 He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who created in the beginning made them male and female?”

5 And he 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,

6 so that they are no longer two, but one flesh. So, what God has joined together, let no man separate.

7 They said to Him: How did Moses command to give a letter of divorce and to divorce her?

8 He says to them: Moses, because of your hardness of heart, allowed you to divorce your wives, but at first it was not so;

9 But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife for reasons other than adultery and marries another commits adultery; and he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

10 His disciples said to Him: If this is the duty of a man to his wife, then it is better not to marry.

11 He said to them, “Not everyone can receive this word, but to those who have been given it,

12 For there are eunuchs who were born like this from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who are castrated from people; and there are eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven. Whoever can contain it, let him contain it.

13 Then the children were brought to Him, so that He could lay His hands on them and pray; the disciples rebuked them.

14 But Jesus said, Let the little children come and do not hinder them from coming to Me, for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

15 And he laid his hands on them and went away from there.

16 And behold, someone came and said to Him: Good Teacher! What good thing can I do to have eternal life?

17 And he said to him, Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone. If you want to enter eternal life, keep the commandments.

18 He said to Him: Which ones? Jesus said: Do not kill; Thou shalt not commit adultery; don't steal; do not bear false witness;

19 Honor your father and mother; and: love your neighbor as yourself.

20 The young man said to Him: I have kept all this from my youth; what else am I missing?

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

22 When the young man heard this word, he went away sad, because he had great possessions.

23 Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I say to you, it is difficult for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven;

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

25 When His disciples heard this, they were greatly amazed and said, “Who then can be saved?”

26 And Jesus looked up and said to them, “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

27 Then Peter answered and said to Him, Behold, we have left everything and followed You; what will happen to us?

28 Jesus said to them, “Truly I say to you, that you who have followed Me, in the end of life, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you also will sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

29 And everyone who has left houses, or brothers, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for My name’s sake will receive a hundredfold and will inherit eternal life.

30 But many who are first will be last, and those who are last will be first.

And the Pharisees came to Him and, tempting Him, said to Him: Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason?

He answered and said to them, Have you not read that He who created in the beginning made them male and female?

And he 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 that they are no longer two, but one flesh. So, what God has joined together, let no man separate.

They say to Him: How did Moses command to give a letter of divorce and divorce her?

He says to them: Moses, because of your hardness of heart, allowed you to divorce your wives, but at first it was not so;

but I say to you: whoever divorces his wife for reasons other than adultery and marries another commits adultery; and he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

His disciples tell Him: if such is a man’s duty to his wife, then it is better not to marry.

He said to them: not everyone can receive this word, but to those who have been given it,

for there are eunuchs who were born like this from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who are castrated from people; and there are eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven. Whoever can contain it, let him contain it.

Interpretation of Theophlactus of Bulgaria

Oh, the madness of the Pharisees! With such questions they thought to block the mouth of Christ. Namely, if He had said: it is permissible to divorce a wife for any reason, they could object to Him: how did You say before that no one should divorce, except from an adulterous wife? And if He said: it is completely impermissible to divorce your wife, then they thought to accuse Him of contradicting Moses, for the latter allowed the removal of his hated wife without a plausible reason. What about Christ? It shows that monogamy was ordained by our Creator from the very beginning. “In the beginning,” says Christ, “God united one husband with one wife, therefore one husband should not be united with many wives, just as one wife should not be united with many husbands, but as they were united from the beginning, so they should remain, not dissolving cohabitation without reason.” In order not to amaze the Pharisees, Christ does not say: “I” created man and woman, but says vaguely: “He who created.” So, according to Him, God is so pleased with marriage that for its sake He even allowed parents to leave in order to cleave to their spouse. Why, now in the book of Genesis it is written that the words: “for this reason shall a man leave his father and mother,” said Adam, and here Christ says that God Himself said: “for this reason he will leave,” etc. We affirm: what Adam said , he said at the inspiration of God, so that the word of Adam is the word of God. But if Adam and Eve, as a result of natural love and copulation, became one flesh, then just as it is criminal to cut one’s own flesh, it is just as unlawful to separate spouses. The Lord did not say: “Let not Moses separate,” so as not to outrage the Pharisees, but said in general: “Let not man separate,” expressing the great distance between God who united and the man who separates.

Matthew 19:7. They say to Him: How did Moses command to give a letter of divorce and divorce her?

Matthew 19:8. He says to them: Moses, because of your hardness of heart, allowed you to divorce your wives, but at first it was not so;

Matthew 19:9. but I say to you: whoever divorces his wife for reasons other than adultery and marries another commits adultery; and he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

The Pharisees, seeing that the Lord had stopped their mouths, were forced to refer to Moses, who in his instructions seemed to contradict Christ. They say: how did Moses command to give a letter of divorce and get a divorce? But the Lord, turning every accusation on their head, defends Moses and says: Moses, giving such a law, does not contradict God; He made such a decree because of your hardness of heart, so that you, due to your moral licentiousness, intending to marry other wives, would not destroy your first wives. Indeed, being cruel, the Jews would go so far as to kill their wives if the law forced them to live with them. In view of this, Moses decreed: let wives hated by their spouses receive a divorce document. But I,” the Lord continues, “tell you: it is good to divorce only a criminal, adulterous wife; when someone drives away a wife who has not fallen into fornication, he will be guilty if she begins to commit adultery. It can also be understood this way: “he who is united with the Lord is one spirit with the Lord” (1 Cor. 6:17). In this regard, there is a certain combination of the believer with Christ, since we have all become one body with Him and constitute members of Christ. In fact, no one can dissolve this union, just as Paul says: “Who will separate us from the love of Christ?” (Rom.8:35). For what God has joined together, “neither man, nor any other creature, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers,” as Paul says, can separate (Rom. 8:38-39).

Matthew 19:10. His disciples tell Him: if such is a man’s duty to his wife, then it is better not to marry.

The disciples were confused and said: if a husband and wife are united in order to remain undissolved for the rest of their lives, so that the husband should not drive away his wife, even if she is evil, then it is better not to marry. It is easier not to marry and fight natural lusts than to endure an evil wife. Christ calls the “duty of man” the indissoluble marital union. Some interpreters, however, understand it this way: if such is a person’s fault, that is, if a husband, illegally driving away his wife, is subject to censure and condemnation, then it is better not to marry.

Matthew 19:11. He said to them: not everyone can receive this word, but to those who have been given it,

Since the disciples said that it is better not to marry, the Lord says that although virginity is a great thing, not everyone can preserve it, but only those whom God helps. The word “given” here stands for “to whom God helps.” It is given to those who ask, as it is said: “Ask, and it will be given to you.” Everyone who asks receives."

Matthew 19:12. for there are eunuchs who were born like this from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who are castrated from people; and there are eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven. Whoever can contain it, let him contain it.

The Lord says: the virtue of virginity is accessible to few. “There are eunuchs from their mother’s womb,” that is, there are people who, by the very structure of their nature, do not experience attraction to women: their chastity has no value. There are, further, those who are castrated by people. Those who castrate themselves for the Kingdom of Heaven are not those who cut off their ouds - no, this is cursed - but those who have abstinence. Understand this: there is an eunuch by nature - a person who, according to his natural structure, is not excited to lust. The one who, as a result of the instruction of other people, has removed, as if cut out, the kindling of carnal lust, is castrated by people; he who castrates himself is a person who has inclined towards chastity not by the instructions of others, but by his own disposition. This latter is the most perfect: he was not brought to the Kingdom of Heaven by anyone else, but he himself came to it. The Lord, wanting us to voluntarily practice the virtue of virginity, says: “Whoever can accommodate, let him accommodate.” He does not force virginity and does not despise marriage; He just prefers virginity.

Synodal translation. The chapter is voiced by role by the studio “Light in the East”.

1. When Jesus had finished saying these words, he left Galilee and came into the borders of Judea, beyond the Jordan. side.
2. Many people followed Him, and He healed them there.
3. And the Pharisees came to Him and, tempting Him, said to Him: Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason?
4. He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who created in the beginning made them male and female?”
5. And he 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,
6. so that they are no longer two, but one flesh. So, what God has joined together, let no man separate.
7. They say to Him: How did Moses command to give a letter of divorce and to divorce her?
8. He says to them: Moses, because of your hardness of heart, allowed you to divorce your wives, but at first it was not so;
9. But I say to you: whoever divorces his wife for reasons other than adultery and marries another commits adultery; and he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
10. His disciples said to Him: if such is the duty of a man to his wife, then it is better not to marry.
11. He said to them, “Not everyone can receive this word, but to those who have been given it,
12. For there are eunuchs who were born like this from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who are castrated from people; and there are eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven. Whoever can contain it, let him contain it.
13. Then the children were brought to Him, so that He could lay His hands on them and pray; the disciples rebuked them.
14. But Jesus said, Let the little children come and do not hinder them from coming to Me, for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
15 And he laid his hands on them and went away from there.
16. And behold, someone came up and said to Him: Good Teacher! What good thing can I do to have eternal life?
17. He said to him, “Why do you call Me good?” No one is good except God alone. If you want to enter eternal life, keep the commandments.
18. He said to Him: which ones? Jesus said: “Do not kill”; “thou shalt not commit adultery”; “thou shalt not steal”; “do not bear false witness”;
19. “honor your father and mother”; and: “love your neighbor as yourself.”
20. The young man said to Him: I have kept all this from my youth; what else am I missing?
21. Jesus said to him, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor; and you will have treasure in heaven; and come and follow Me.
22. When the young man heard this word, he went away sad, because he had great possessions.
23. Jesus said to His disciples: Truly I say to you, it is difficult for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven;
24. And again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.
25. When His disciples heard this, they were greatly amazed and said, “Who then can be saved?”
26. And Jesus looked up and said to them, “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
27. Then Peter answered and said to Him: Behold, we have left everything and followed You; what will happen to us?
28. Jesus said to them, “Truly I say to you, that you who have followed Me, in the end of life, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you also will sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
29. And whoever leaves houses, or brothers, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for My name’s sake, will receive a hundredfold and will inherit eternal life.
30. But many who are first will be last, and those who are last will be first.

Comments on Chapter 19

INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

The Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke are usually called Synoptic Gospels. Synoptic comes from two Greek words that mean see together. Therefore, the above-mentioned Gospels received this name because they describe the same events in the life of Jesus. In each of them, however, there are some additions, or something is omitted, but, in general, they are based on the same material, and this material is also arranged in the same way. Therefore, they can be written in parallel columns and compared with each other.

After this, it becomes very obvious that they are very close to each other. If, for example, we compare the story of the feeding of the five thousand (Matthew 14:12-21; Mark 6:30-44; Luke 5:17-26), then this is the same story, told in almost the same words.

Or take, for example, another story about the healing of a paralytic (Matthew 9:1-8; Mark 2:1-12; Luke 5:17-26). These three stories are so similar to each other that even introductory words, “said to the paralytic,” appear in all three stories in the same form in the same place. The correspondence between all three Gospels is so close that one must either conclude that all three took material from the same source, or two were based on a third.

THE FIRST GOSPEL

Examining the matter more carefully, one can imagine that the Gospel of Mark was written first, and the other two - the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke - are based on it.

The Gospel of Mark can be divided into 105 passages, of which 93 are found in the Gospel of Matthew and 81 in the Gospel of Luke. Only four of the 105 passages in the Gospel of Mark are not found in either the Gospel of Matthew or the Gospel of Luke. There are 661 verses in the Gospel of Mark, 1068 verses in the Gospel of Matthew, and 1149 in the Gospel of Luke. There are no less than 606 verses from Mark in the Gospel of Matthew, and 320 in the Gospel of Luke. Of the 55 verses in the Gospel of Mark, which not reproduced in Matthew, 31 yet reproduced in Luke; thus, only 24 verses from Mark are not reproduced in either Matthew or Luke.

But not only the meaning of the verses is conveyed: Matthew uses 51%, and Luke uses 53% of the words of the Gospel of Mark. Both Matthew and Luke follow, as a rule, the arrangement of material and events adopted in the Gospel of Mark. Sometimes Matthew or Luke have differences from the Gospel of Mark, but it is never the case that they both were different from him. One of them always follows the order that Mark follows.

REVISION OF THE GOSPEL OF MARK

Due to the fact that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke are much larger in volume than the Gospel of Mark, one might think that the Gospel of Mark is a brief transcription of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. But one fact indicates that the Gospel of Mark is the earliest of them all: so to speak, the authors of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke improve the Gospel of Mark. Let's take a few examples.

Here are three descriptions of the same event:

Map. 1.34:"And He healed many, suffering from various diseases; expelled many demons."

Mat. 8.16:"He cast out the spirits with a word and healed everyone sick."

Onion. 4.40:"He, laying on everyone of them hands, healed

Or let's take another example:

Map. 3:10: “For He healed many.”

Mat. 12:15: “He healed them all.”

Onion. 6:19: "... power came from Him and healed everyone."

Approximately the same change is noted in the description of Jesus' visit to Nazareth. Let's compare this description in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark:

Map. 6.5.6: “And he could not perform any miracle there... and he marveled at their unbelief.”

Mat. 13:58: “And he did not perform many miracles there because of their unbelief.”

The author of the Gospel of Matthew does not have the heart to say that Jesus couldn't perform miracles, and he changes the phrase. Sometimes the authors of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke leave out little hints from the Gospel of Mark that may somehow detract from the greatness of Jesus. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke omit three remarks found in the Gospel of Mark:

Map. 3.5:“And he looked upon them with anger, grieving because of the hardness of their hearts...”

Map. 3.21:“And when his neighbors heard, they went to take him, for they said that he had lost his temper.”

Map. 10.14:"Jesus was indignant..."

All this clearly shows that the Gospel of Mark was written earlier than the others. It gives a simple, lively and direct account, and the authors of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were already beginning to be influenced by dogmatic and theological considerations, and therefore they chose their words more carefully.

TEACHINGS OF JESUS

We have already seen that the Gospel of Matthew has 1068 verses and the Gospel of Luke 1149 verses, and that 582 of these are repetitions of verses from the Gospel of Mark. This means that there is much more material in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke than in the Gospel of Mark. A study of this material shows that more than 200 verses from it are almost identical among the authors of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke; for example, passages such as Onion. 6.41.42 And Mat. 7.3.5; Onion. 10.21.22 And Mat. 11.25-27; Onion. 3.7-9 And Mat. 3, 7-10 almost exactly the same. But here's where we see the difference: the material that the authors of Matthew and Luke took from the Gospel of Mark deals almost exclusively with events in the life of Jesus, and these additional 200 verses shared by the Gospels of Matthew and Luke deal with something other than that. that Jesus did, but what He spoke. It is quite obvious that in this part the authors of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke drew information from the same source - from the book of sayings of Jesus.

This book no longer exists, but theologians called it KB, what does Quelle mean in German - source. In those days this book must have been extremely great value, because it was the first anthology on the teachings of Jesus.

THE PLACE OF THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW IN THE GOSPEL TRADITION

Here we come to the problem of Matthew the Apostle. Theologians agree that the first Gospel is not the fruit of Matthew's hands. To the person former witness life of Christ, there would be no need to turn to the Gospel of Mark as a source of information about the life of Jesus, as the author of the Gospel of Matthew does. But one of the first church historians named Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, left us the following extremely important news: “Matthew collected the sayings of Jesus in the Hebrew language.”

Thus, we can consider that it was Matthew who wrote the book from which all people should draw as a source who want to know what Jesus taught. It was because so much of this source book was included in the first Gospel that it was given the name Matthew. We should be eternally grateful to Matthew when we remember that we owe to him the Sermon on the Mount and almost everything we know about the teaching of Jesus. In other words, it is to the author of the Gospel of Mark that we owe our knowledge of life events Jesus, and Matthew - knowledge of the essence teachings Jesus.

MATTHEW THE TANKER

We know very little about Matthew himself. IN Mat. 9.9 we read about his calling. We know that he was a publican - a tax collector - and therefore everyone should have hated him terribly, because the Jews hated their fellow tribesmen who served the victors. Matthew must have been a traitor in their eyes.

But Matthew had one gift. Most of Jesus' disciples were fishermen and did not have the talent to put words on paper, but Matthew was supposed to be an expert in this matter. When Jesus called Matthew, who was sitting at the toll booth, he stood up and, leaving everything but his pen, followed Him. Matthew nobly used his literary talent and became the first person to describe the teachings of Jesus.

GOSPEL OF THE JEWS

Let us now look at the main features of the Gospel of Matthew, so that when reading it we will pay attention to this.

First, and above all, the Gospel of Matthew - this is the gospel written for the Jews. It was written by a Jew to convert the Jews.

One of the main purposes of Matthew's Gospel was to show that in Jesus all the Old Testament prophecies were fulfilled and therefore He must be the Messiah. One phrase, a recurring theme, runs throughout the book: “It came to pass that God spoke by the prophet.” This phrase is repeated in the Gospel of Matthew no less than 16 times. The Birth of Jesus and His Name - Fulfillment of Prophecy (1, 21-23); as well as flight to Egypt (2,14.15); massacre of the innocents (2,16-18); Joseph's settlement in Nazareth and the raising of Jesus there (2,23); the very fact that Jesus spoke in parables (13,34.35); triumphal entry into Jerusalem (21,3-5); betrayal for thirty pieces of silver (27,9); and casting lots for Jesus' clothes as He hung on the Cross (27,35). The author of the Gospel of Matthew set his main goal to show that the Old Testament prophecies were fulfilled in Jesus, that every detail of Jesus' life was foretold by the prophets, and thereby convince the Jews and force them to recognize Jesus as the Messiah.

The interest of the author of the Gospel of Matthew is directed primarily to the Jews. Their appeal is closest and dearest to his heart. To the Canaanite woman who turned to Him for help, Jesus first answered: “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (15,24). Sending the twelve apostles to proclaim the good news, Jesus told them: “Do not go into the way of the Gentiles and do not enter the city of the Samaritans, but go especially to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (10, 5.6). But don’t think that this is the Gospel for everyone possible ways excludes pagans. Many will come from the east and west and lie down with Abraham in the Kingdom of Heaven (8,11). "And the gospel of the kingdom will be preached throughout the whole world" (24,14). And it is in the Gospel of Matthew that the order was given to the Church to set out on a campaign: “Go therefore and teach all nations.” (28,19). It is, of course, obvious that the author of Matthew's Gospel is primarily interested in the Jews, but he foresees the day when all nations will be gathered together.

The Jewish origin and Jewish orientation of the Gospel of Matthew is also evident in its attitude towards the law. Jesus did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. Not even the smallest part of the law will pass. There is no need to teach people to break the law. The righteousness of a Christian must exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees (5, 17-20). The Gospel of Matthew was written by a man who knew and loved the law, and saw that in Christian teaching he has a place. In addition, we should note the obvious paradox in the attitude of the author of the Gospel of Matthew to the scribes and Pharisees. He recognizes their special powers: “The scribes and Pharisees sat in the seat of Moses; therefore whatever they tell you to observe, observe and do.” (23,2.3). But in no other Gospel are they condemned as strictly and consistently as in Matthew.

Already at the very beginning we see the merciless exposure of the Sadducees and Pharisees by John the Baptist, who called them "born of vipers" (3, 7-12). They complain that Jesus eats and drinks with publicans and sinners (9,11); they claimed that Jesus does not cast out demons by God's power, and by the power of the prince of demons (12,24). They are plotting to destroy Him (12,14); Jesus warns the disciples to beware not of the leaven of bread, but of the teachings of the Pharisees and Sadducees (16,12); they are like plants that will be uprooted (15,13); they cannot discern the signs of the times (16,3); they are killers of prophets (21,41). There is no other chapter in the entire New Testament like Mat. 23, in which it is not what the scribes and Pharisees teach that is condemned, but their behavior and way of life. The author condemns them for the fact that they do not at all correspond to the doctrine they preach, and do not at all achieve the ideal established by them and for them.

The author of Matthew's Gospel is also very interested in the Church. From all the Synoptic Gospels the word Church found only in the Gospel of Matthew. Only the Gospel of Matthew includes a passage about the Church after Peter's confession at Caesarea Philippi (Matthew 16:13-23; cf. Mark 8:27-33; Luke 9:18-22). Only Matthew says that disputes should be resolved by the Church (18,17). By the time the Gospel of Matthew was written, the Church had become a large organization and truly a major factor in the lives of Christians.

The Gospel of Matthew especially reflects an interest in the apocalyptic; in other words, to what Jesus spoke about His Second Coming, the end of the world and the Day of Judgment. IN Mat. 24 provides a much more complete account of Jesus' apocalyptic reasoning than any other Gospel. Only in the Gospel of Matthew is there a parable of the talents. (25,14-30); about wise and foolish virgins (25, 1-13); about sheep and goats (25,31-46). Matthew had a special interest in the end times and the Day of Judgment.

But this is not the most important feature Gospel of Matthew. This is an eminently meaningful gospel.

We have already seen that it was the Apostle Matthew who gathered the first meeting and compiled an anthology of Jesus’ teaching. Matthew was a great systematizer. He collected in one place everything he knew about the teaching of Jesus on this or that issue, and therefore we find in the Gospel of Matthew five large complexes in which the teaching of Christ is collected and systematized. All these five complexes are associated with the Kingdom of God. Here they are:

a) Sermon on the Mount or Law of the Kingdom (5-7)

b) Duty of Kingdom Leaders (10)

c) Parables about the Kingdom (13)

d) Greatness and forgiveness in the Kingdom (18)

e) The Coming of the King (24,25)

But Matthew not only collected and systematized. We must remember that he wrote in an era before printing, when books were few and far between because they had to be copied by hand. At such a time, comparatively few people had books, and so if they wanted to know and use the story of Jesus, they had to memorize it.

Therefore, Matthew always arranges the material in such a way that it is easy for the reader to remember it. He arranges the material in threes and sevens: three messages of Joseph, three denials of Peter, three questions of Pontius Pilate, seven parables about the Kingdom in chapter 13, sevenfold "woe to you" to the Pharisees and scribes in Chapter 23.

A good example of this is the genealogy of Jesus, with which the Gospel opens. The purpose of a genealogy is to prove that Jesus is the son of David. There are no numbers in Hebrew, they are symbolized by letters; In addition, Hebrew does not have signs (letters) for vowel sounds. David in Hebrew it will be accordingly DVD; if these are taken as numbers rather than letters, their sum would be 14, and the genealogy of Jesus consists of three groups of names, each containing fourteen names. Matthew does his best to arrange Jesus' teachings in a way that people can understand and remember.

Every teacher should be grateful to Matthew, because what he wrote is, first of all, the Gospel for teaching people.

The Gospel of Matthew has one more feature: the dominant thought in it is the thought of Jesus the King. The author writes this Gospel to show the kingship and royal origin of Jesus.

The genealogy must prove from the very beginning that Jesus is the son of King David (1,1-17). This title Son of David is used more often in the Gospel of Matthew than in any other Gospel. (15,22; 21,9.15). The Magi came to see the King of the Jews (2,2); Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem is a deliberately dramatized declaration by Jesus of His rights as King (21,1-11). Before Pontius Pilate, Jesus consciously accepts the title of king (27,11). Even on the Cross above His head stands, albeit mockingly, the royal title (27,37). In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus quotes the law and then refutes it with the royal words: “But I say to you...” (5,22. 28.34.39.44). Jesus declares: "All authority has been given to me" (28,18).

In the Gospel of Matthew we see Jesus the Man born to be King. Jesus walks through its pages as if dressed in royal purple and gold.

MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE OF THE JEWS (Matthew 19:1-9)

Here Jesus addresses a question that was as burning in His time as it is in ours. There was no unity among the Jews on the issue of divorce, and the Pharisees deliberately wanted to involve Jesus in the discussion.

The Jews had the highest marriage standards in the world. Marriage was a sacred duty. To remain single after reaching the age of twenty, unless he devoted himself entirely to the study of the law, was to violate the commandment "be fruitful and multiply." In the minds of the Jews, a person who did not have children “killed his offspring” and “degraded the image of God on earth.” “If husband and wife are worthy, the glory of God abides with them.”

Marriage was not to be entered into frivolously or carelessly. Josephus describes Jewish views on marriage based on the Mosaic Law (Antiquities of the Jews 4.8.23). A man should marry a girl from an exemplary family. He should never corrupt the wife of another, and should not marry a woman who was a slave or a harlot. If a man accused his wife of not being a maiden when he took her as his wife, he had to provide evidence to support his accusations. Her father or brother should have protected her. If the girl proved her innocence, the husband had to accept her into legal marriage and could never send her away again, except for adultery. If such an accusation was proven to be false and malicious, the man who made it received forty lashes of the whip minus one and paid 50 shekels to the girl's father. But, if the girl's guilt was proven and she was found guilty, she should have been stoned if she was from ordinary people, or burn alive if she was the daughter of a priest.

If a man seduced an engaged girl, and with her consent, both were to be put to death. If a man forcibly seduced a girl in a deserted place, or where no one could help her, only the man was put to death. If a man seduced an unengaged girl, he had to marry her, and if the father did not want to marry his daughter to him, he had to pay the father 50 shekels.

The Jews had very high standards and laws regarding marriage and purity. Ideally, divorce was considered a despicable matter. The Jews said that even the altar sheds tears when a man divorces the wife of his youth.

But ideal and reality did not go hand in hand among the Jews. The whole situation was aggravated by two dangerous elements.

First, according to Jewish law, a woman was a thing. She was the property of her father or husband and therefore she practically had no rights at all. Most Jewish marriages were arranged by parents or professional pimps. A girl could be engaged as a child, and often to a man she had never seen. But she had one guarantee - when she turned 12 years old, she could refuse to recognize her chosen husband as the father. But in matters of divorce, the general rule and law gave all the initiative to the husband. The law read: “The wife can be divorced with or without her consent, but the husband can only be divorced with his consent.” A woman could never begin divorce proceedings; she could not divorce; her husband had to divorce her.

Of course, there were certain guarantees. If her husband did not divorce her because of her immorality, he had to return her dowry: this was supposed to reduce the number of irresponsible divorces. The courts could put pressure on a man to divorce his wife, in the case of, for example, refusal to consummate the marriage, sexual impotence, or if it was proven that the man could not provide decent maintenance. A wife could force her husband to divorce her if he had some disgusting disease, such as leprosy, or if he was a leather tanner, which was associated with collecting dog droppings, or if he suggested that she leave the Holy Land. But, in general, the law stated that a woman had no legal rights, and that the right to demand a divorce rested entirely with the husband.

Secondly, the divorce process itself was overly simple. The whole process was based on the very same passage of the Law of Moses to which Jesus' question relates. “If someone takes a wife and becomes her husband, and she does not find favor in his eyes because he finds something nasty in her, and writes her a letter of divorce, and gives her in her arms, and sends her away from his house... " (Deut. 24:1). The divorce letter was a simple one-sentence statement stating that the husband was releasing his wife. Josephus writes: “Whoever wants to divorce his wife for any reason (and such cases occur among men), let him give an assurance in writing that he will never again use her as his wife; because such In this way she will be free to marry another husband." The only guarantee against such a simple divorce procedure was that the woman had to return her dowry.

JEWISH GROUNDS FOR DIVORCE (Matthew 19:1-9 (continued))

One of important issues Jewish divorce is associated with the Mosaic Law. This law states that a husband can divorce his wife if "she does not find favor in his eyes because he finds in her" something nasty." The question is how to understand the phrase something disgusting.

And so there was bitter disagreement among the Jewish rabbis on the issue, and it was here that they wanted to drag Jesus into the discussion by asking Him a question. The Shammai school definitely believed that the expression something nasty This means fornication, extramarital affairs, and only for this reason can you divorce your wife and send her away. Even if a woman is disobedient and harmful, like Jezebel herself, she cannot be sent away unless she has committed adultery. Hillel's school, on the contrary, interpreted the expression something nasty in the broadest possible way: she believed that a husband could divorce his wife if she spoiled his dinner, if she went unkempt, if she talked to men on the street, if she spoke disrespectfully in front of her husband about his parents, if she was a grumpy woman , whose voice was heard in the neighboring house. Rabbi Akiba even went so far as to say, if she does not find favor in his eyes means that a husband can divorce his wife if he finds a woman whom he likes better and whom he considers more beautiful.

The whole tragedy was that, as one might expect, preference was given to the school of Hillel; marriage bonds were not strong, and divorces for the most trivial reasons became, unfortunately, commonplace.

To complete the picture, it must be said that according to rabbinic law, in two cases divorce was mandatory. Firstly, in case of adultery. “A woman who has committed adultery must be given a divorce.” And secondly, divorce was mandatory in the case sterility. The meaning of marriage was children, the production of offspring, and if after ten years of marriage a married couple remained childless, divorce was mandatory. In this case, the woman could remarry, but these norms remained in force in the second marriage.

There are two more interesting Jewish legal norms to explore in connection with divorce. Firstly, leaving family was not considered a reason for divorce at all. If there was abandonment of the family, it was necessary to provide evidence that the spouse had died. In this case, there was only one relaxation in the law: if, according to Jewish law, in all other cases the certification of two witnesses was necessary, in the case where one spouse disappeared from home and did not return back, one witness was sufficient.

Secondly, oddly enough, insanity could not be a reason for divorce. If the wife went mad, the husband could not divorce her, because, being divorced, she would have no defender in her helplessness. This position reflects compassion for the woman. If the husband went crazy, divorce was impossible because he was unable to write a letter of divorce, and without such a letter, drawn up on his initiative, there could be no divorce.

Behind the question that was asked of Jesus there was a very pressing and heatedly discussed problem. His answer baffled both sides and this answer suggested that the whole situation needed to be radically changed.

JESUS' RESPONSE (Matthew 19:1-9 (continued))

In fact, the Pharisees were asking Jesus whether He preferred Shammai's strict approach to the divorce issue, or Hillel's broader interpretation, in order to engage Him in the discussion.

In His answer, Jesus returned to the very beginning, to the ideal of creation. In the beginning, Jesus said, God created Adam and Eve, male and female. In the very circumstances of the history of creation, Adam and Eve were created one for the other and for no one else; their union was perfect and indissoluble. Well, Jesus says, these two are a symbol and an example for all future generations. As one theologian puts it: "Every married couple is a copy of the couple of Adam and Eve, and therefore their union is equally indestructible."

Jesus' point is quite clear: following the example of Adam and Eve, divorce was not only undesirable and wrong, but it was completely impossible, for the simple reason that they had no one else to marry. And so Jesus sets forth the principle that all divorce is wrong. It should be noted right away, however, that this is not law, A principle, but this is a completely different matter.

Here the Pharisees immediately suspected a vulnerable spot. Moses (Deut. 24.1) said that if a man wanted to divorce his wife because she did not find favor in his eyes and because he found something nasty in her, then he could give her a letter of divorce and the marriage would be dissolved. This is what the Pharisees needed. They could now say to Jesus: “Perhaps You want to say that Moses was wrong? Perhaps You want to annul the heavenly law that was given to Moses? Perhaps You place Yourself above Moses as a lawgiver?”

Jesus replied that what Moses had given was not by law but just concession. Moses didn't ordered divorce, at best he is only allowed this is to bring order to a situation that threatened to lead to complete disorder and promiscuity in the relationship. The Mosaic rules were only a concession to fallen human nature. IN Life 2.23.24 given the ideal intended for us by God: two people entering into marriage should become such an indissoluble unity that they are like one flesh. Jesus answered them: “Indeed, Moses allowed divorce, but it was concession, due to the complete loss of the ideal. The ideal of marriage is found in the unbreakable, perfect union of Adam and Eve. This is what marriage should be; This is how God wanted him to be."

Now we come close to one of the most real and burning difficulties in the New Testament. What did Jesus mean? The difficulty is that Matthew and Mark report Jesus' words differently. Matthew says:

"I say to you, whoever divorces his wife for reasons other than adultery and marries another commits adultery" ( Mat. 19,9).

Mark says:

“Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if a wife divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.” (Map. 10,11.12).

And Luke says:

“Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery; and whoever marries one who is divorced from her husband commits adultery.” (Luke 16:18).

The relatively minor difficulty here is that Mark implies that a woman can divorce her husband, which, as we have seen, was impossible under Jewish law. But everything may be explained by the fact that according to the laws of the pagans, a woman could divorce her husband. The big difficulty is that Mark and Luke make a ban on divorce absolute. They show no exceptions to this rule. But Matthew has one sentence that contains a clause: divorce is permitted if the reason for it is adultery. In this case, we find the only way out is that according to Jewish law, divorce in case of adultery was mandatory and therefore Mark and Luke did not mean that this needed to be reminded, but then divorce was still mandatory in case of infertility.

Ultimately we will have to make a comparison with what is said in the Gospel of Matthew and what is said in the Gospels of Mark and Luke. In our opinion, there is no doubt that what is said in Mark and Luke is correct. There are two reasons for this. Only the absolute prohibition of divorce corresponds to the ideal of the symbolic complete unity of Adam and Eve. And the surprised voices of the students were heard when it was about a complete, absolute ban on divorce, because they say (19,10), that if marriage is such an irrevocable matter, then it is better not to get married at all. There can be no doubt that Jesus is laying out here principle, Not law. The ideal of marriage is unity that cannot be broken. Laid here ideal Creator.

HIGH IDEAL (Matthew 19:1-9 (continued))

Now consider the high ideal of marriage that Jesus sets for those who agree to accept His covenants. We will see that the Jewish ideal of marriage was the basis of Christian marriage. The Jews called marriage kiddushin. Kiddushin Means consecration or dedication. This word was used to denote that which was consecrated to God for His exclusive and special possession. Everything that was completely and completely given over to God was kiddushin. This means that in marriage the husband was dedicated to the wife, and the wife to the husband. One became the exclusive property of the other, just as sacrifice became the exclusive property of God. This is what Jesus meant when he said that for the sake of marriage a man will leave his father and his mother and cleave to his wife; and this is what He meant when He said that husband and wife would be so one that they could be called one flesh. This was God's ideal of marriage as conveyed in ancient history (Gen. 2.24) and this ideal was restored by Jesus. This idea, of course, has certain consequences.

1. This absolute unity means that marriage is given not only for a stay in life, no matter how important this stay may be, but forever. This means that although physical intimacy is extremely important factor in marriage, marriage does not end with it. A marriage entered into with the sole purpose of satisfying a necessary physical desire is doomed to failure. Marriage does not exist for people to do one thing together, but for them to do everything together.

2. In other words, marriage is the complete unity of two individuals. Two people can live together in different ways. It may be that one of them is so dominant that only his desires, conveniences and goals in life matter, while the other is completely subordinate and exists only to serve the desires and needs of the other. Additionally, two can live together in a kind of gun neutrality, with constant voltage and with constant confrontation, with a constant clash of interests. Living together can be one continuous argument, and relationships can be based on compromises that are uncomfortable for both. People can also arrange their relationships on more or less resigned acceptance of each other. Although they live together, each essentially lives his own life, goes his own way. They live in the same house, but it would be an exaggeration to say that they have a common house.

It is clear that all these relationships are far from ideal. The ideal is that in marriage two people find their completion, their completeness.

Marriage should not make life more limited, it should make it full. It should bring new fullness, new contentment, and new contentment into each spouse’s life. In the marriage union of two individuals, one complements the other, each finds its completion. This does not mean at all that there is no need to somehow adapt to each other, or even sacrifice something, but it does mean that, ultimately, such relationships are fuller, more joyful, and bring more satisfaction than living alone.

3. This can be expressed more simply. In marriage, everything needs to be divided in half. There is some danger in the wonderful period of courtship: during this time, two lovers almost inevitably see each other at their best. This is the time of charm and charm. They see each other dressed in the best clothes, usually their thoughts are directed towards joint entertainment and pleasure, money often does not play an important role. And in marriage, these two should see each other even when they are not in the best shape, when they are tired and exhausted; children inevitably create a mess in the house; money is tight, and buying food, food, clothing and everything else becomes a problem; moonlight and roses turn into the kitchen sink and you have to walk along the corridor with a crying child. If these two are not ready for the routine of life, as well as its charm, their marriage is doomed to failure.

4. This leads to a conclusion that, however, cannot be considered universally valid, but in which there is a large share of truth. A marriage, most often, is good if these two have known each other for quite a long time and know each other’s surroundings and past well. Marriage is a permanent and uninterrupted life together. After all, ingrained habits, unconscious mannerisms and methods of education can very easily come into conflict. The better people get to know each other before they decide to form an unbreakable alliance, the better for them. But this does not deny the fact that there is love at first sight, and that such love can indeed conquer all, but experience shows that the better people know each other, the more likely they are to be able to make their marriage what it is. he must be.

5. All this leads to the final practical conclusion- the basis of marriage is togetherness, and the basis of togetherness is attentive attitude towards each other. For a marriage to be happy, each spouse must care about their partner more than themselves. Selfishness kills all personal relationships, and especially when two people are married to each other.

Famous English writer Somerset Maugham talks about his mother that she was beautiful, charming and loved by everyone. His father was not at all handsome, and he had few other visible attractive qualities. Someone once said to his mother: “When everyone loves you, and when you could marry anyone you want, how can you then remain faithful to this ugly man you married?” She responded to this: “He never hurts me.” A greater compliment could not have been given.

The real basis of marriage is simple and easy to understand - it is a love that cares about the happiness of another more than its own, a love that is proud to serve, that is able to understand, and therefore is always able to forgive. In other words, it is a love like that of Christ, which knows that it will find itself in self-forgetfulness, and that, having lost itself, it will find completeness.

EMBODIMENT OF THE IDEAL (Matthew 19:10-12)

Here we return to the necessary clarification of what was discussed earlier. The disciples, when they heard about the ideal of marriage that Jesus laid out for them, were afraid. Many of the rabbis' sayings should have come to mind for the students. They had many sayings about an unhappy marriage. “Among those who will never see the face of Gehenna is the one who had a harmful wife.” Such a person is saved from hell because he atoned for his sins on earth! “Those whose life is not life is a man who is commanded by his wife.” "A harmful wife is like leprosy on her husband. What is the cure? Let him divorce her and be cured of leprosy." It was even established: “If a man has a bad wife, his religious duty is to divorce her.”

To men brought up on such proverbs, Jesus' uncompromising demand must have seemed incredible. And so they reacted simply: if marriage is such a final and binding relationship, and if divorce is prohibited, then it is better not to get married at all, because there is no escape route, no way back from a disastrous situation. Jesus gives two answers to this.

1. He directly says that not all people can accept this state of affairs, but only those to whom it is given. In other words, only Christians can accept Christian ethics. Only a person who always has the help of Jesus Christ and always has the guidance of the Holy Spirit can create the kind of personal relationship that the ideal of marriage requires. Only with the help of Jesus Christ can a person show the compassion, understanding, spirit of forgiveness, and attentive love that a true marriage requires. Without His help, all this cannot be achieved. The Christian ideal of marriage requires that both spouses be Christians.

And therein lies a truth that goes far beyond the scope of this case. We constantly hear people say, "We accept the ethic of the Sermon on the Mount, but why bother asking about the Divinity of Jesus, His Resurrection, and His continued presence here after the Resurrection, His Holy Spirit, and so on? We accept that He was a noble man, and that His teaching is worthy of the highest praise. Why not leave it as it is, and continue to live according to this teaching and not pay attention to theology? The answer to this question is very simple: no one can live according to the teachings of Jesus Christ without the help of Jesus Christ. And if Jesus were just great and good person Even if He were the greatest and best of people, then even then He is a great example for us. His teaching becomes possible only if a person is convinced that Christ did not die, but is present here and helps us to bring it to life. The teaching of Christ requires the presence of Christ, otherwise it is only an impossible and painful ideal. Therefore, we must accept that only Christians can live in a Christian marriage.

2. The passage ends with a very strange verse about eunuchs, about eunuchs.

Eunuch, eunuch - a person without gender. Jesus distinguishes three classes of people. Some are incapable of sexual activity due to a physical disability or deformity; others were turned into eunuchs by people. Such customs seem strange to people of Western civilization. In the east, servants of the royal palaces, especially the servants of the royal harem, were often castrated. Quite often, temple priests were also castrated, for example, the priests of the Temple of Diana in Ephesus.

And then Jesus speaks about those who themselves became eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven. Here Jesus was referring to those who, for the sake of the Kingdom of God, renounce marriage and family and physical love.

How can this happen? It happens that a person must choose between the call he heard and human love. There is a saying: “The fastest way to travel is alone.” A person may feel that he can only work in a parish somewhere in the slums, because in those circumstances he can have neither a home nor a family. Perhaps he will feel called to go as a missionary to a place where he could not reasonably take his wife with him, and even have children there. It may even be that he loves a person, and then a task is presented that the person he loves does not want to share. Then he must choose between human love and the task to which Christ calls him.

Thank God that such a choice is not often faced by a person; but there are people who voluntarily took a vow of chastity, celibacy, purity, poverty, abstinence and moderation. The common man will not go this way, but the world would be a poorer place if there were not those who obey the call and go out alone to do the work of Christ.

MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE (Matthew 19:10-12 (continued))

It would be wrong to leave this subject without making an attempt to consider how it relates to the present situation in the matter of divorce.

From the very beginning we can note that Jesus laid down a principle here, not a law. To make this statement of Jesus a law is to misunderstand it. In the Bible we are not given laws, A principles, which we must prayerfully and intelligently apply to each specific situation.

Regarding the Sabbath, the Bible says: “You shall not do any work on it (the day).” (Ex. 20:10). We know that a complete cessation of work was not possible in any civilization. On a farm, livestock still need to be looked after and fed, and cows still need to be milked, no matter the day of the week. In an advanced industrial society, some public spheres services must work, because otherwise transport will stop, there will be no water, no light, no heat. In every home, especially where there are children, something always needs to be done.

A principle can never be cited as a final law; principles must always be applied to a specific situation. Therefore, the problem of divorce cannot be solved by simply quoting the words of Jesus. We must apply this principle to every single case that comes our way. And therefore we can highlight some points.

1. Without a doubt, ideal marriage must be an indestructible union of two people and such a marriage must be entered into as an absolute unity of two individuals, intended not only to perform one act, but aimed at making life a brotherhood in which everyone is satisfied, and one complements the other. This is the necessary basis from which we must proceed.

2. But life is not and can never be completely smooth and good organized process. Something unexpected comes into life. Let us assume that two people enter into a marital relationship; let's say they did it with the highest hopes and the highest ideals, and then let's say something unexpected and unpleasant happens and the relationship that should give people the greatest joy becomes an unbearable hell on earth. Let's say they called for all possible help to correct the broken situation. Let's say that they called a doctor to heal physical ailments, a psychiatrist to heal mental ailments, a priest to eliminate all mental ailments, but the problem still remains unresolved. Let us assume that the physical, mental or spiritual state of one of the spouses makes marriage completely impossible, and let us assume that this could only be found out after the marriage - should these two people then remain shackled together in a situation that can give both nothing but unhappy life?

It is extremely difficult to imagine that such reasoning could be called Christian; It is extremely painful to see Jesus, as a lawyer, condemn two people in such a situation. This does not mean that divorce should be simplified, but it does mean that if all physical, mental and spiritual possibilities have been exhausted in an attempt to endure such a situation, which, however, remains intolerable and even dangerous, then this situation must be put an end to, and the church, not considering them completely hopeless, must do everything possible in her power to help them. It seems that only in this way can the Spirit of Christ truly be manifested.

3. But in this matter we are faced with completely tragic situation. After all, often the law has absolutely nothing to do with those things that destroy a marriage. Overcome by passion and having lost control over himself, a person violates his marriage, and then spends his entire life ashamed of what he has done and regrets it. It is impossible that he would ever do this again in his life. The other is a model of high morality in society, who cannot even think about adultery, but with his everyday sadistic cruelty, his everyday selfishness and spiritual heartlessness makes life hell for those who live with him and he does this with heartless calculation.

We must remember that sins that make it into the newspapers and sins whose consequences are glaring are not necessarily the worst sins in the eyes of God. Many men and women destroy their families and at the same time maintain impeccable, high morality in the eyes of society.

So, in this matter we should show more sympathy than condemnation, because an unsuccessful marriage must be approached not so much with the standards of the law, but with love. In this case, it is necessary to protect not the so-called right, but human hearts and soul. But, before entering into a marriage relationship, you need to prayerfully consider everything and show extreme care and caution; if a marriage is in danger of collapse, it is necessary to mobilize all medical, psychological and spiritual resources in order to save it, but if there is something irreparable in it, then it is necessary to approach everything not from the point of view of the law, but with understanding and love.

JESUS ​​BLESSES THE CHILDREN (Matthew 19:13-15)

We can say that this is the most beautiful moment in all gospel history. All the characters are visible clearly and distinctly, although the entire story takes up only two verses.

1. Mothers brought their children.

No wonder they wanted Jesus to lay hands on them and pray, for they had seen what those hands could do; they saw how their touch relieved pain and healed diseases; they saw that these hands restored sight to blind eyes, and they wanted such hands to touch their children. Few episodes show with such clarity the wondrous beauty of Jesus' life. Those who brought the children could not know who Jesus really was; They were well aware that Jesus was not respected by the scribes and Pharisees, the priests and Sadducees, and the leaders orthodox religion; but there was wonderful beauty in Him.

The Hindu Premanand, who converted to Christianity, who was already discussed above, quotes the words of his mother. When Premanand converted to Christianity, his family drove him away and the doors of the house were closed to him. But sometimes he still came to see his mother on the sly. His conversion to Christianity broke her heart, but she never stopped loving him. She told Premanand that while she was carrying him in her womb, a missionary gave her a book of the Gospels. She read them; She even still had that book. She told her son that she had no desire to become a Christian, but in the days leading up to his birth, she sometimes dreamed that he would grow up to become a man like Jesus.

There is beauty in Jesus Christ that everyone can see. It is not difficult to imagine that these mothers in Palestine felt, although they did not understand why, that the touch of the hands of such a person on the heads of their children would bring them a blessing.

2. The disciples are presented as strict and rude, but if this really was the case, then it was love that made them that way. They had one desire - to protect Jesus.

They saw how tired He was; they saw what it cost Him to heal people. He spoke to them so often about the Cross, and they probably saw the tension of His heart and soul on his face. They wanted only one thing - that no one should disturb Jesus; they could only think that at such a time children could be a hindrance to Jesus. There is no need to assume that they were harsh, there is no need to condemn them; they only wanted to protect Jesus from another such insistent demand, which required so much strength from Him.

3. And this is Jesus Himself. This story says so much about Him. He was the kind of person that children love. Someone has said that the man cannot be a follower of Christ at whose door children are afraid to play. Jesus, of course, was not a gloomy ascetic if children loved him.

4. Further, for Jesus there were no insignificant people. Others might say: “Yes, it’s a child, don’t let it bother you.” Jesus could never say such a thing. No one was ever a hindrance or unimportant to Him. He was never too tired, too busy, to refuse to give His all to anyone who needed Him. Jesus is strangely different from many famous preachers and evangelists. It is often almost impossible to get an appointment with such famous person. They have a kind of retinue or life guard that keeps the public away so that they do not annoy or bother the great man. Jesus was not like that at all. The road to His presence was open to oneself modest person and the smallest child.

5. And these are children. Jesus told them that they were closer to God than anyone else present. Childhood simplicity is truly closer to God than anything else. The tragedy of life is precisely that as we grow, we so often move away from God instead of getting closer to Him.

REFUSAL (Matthew 19:16-22)

This is one of the most famous and beloved gospel stories. What's interesting about this is how most of us, quite unconsciously, combine various details from different Gospels to get the full picture. It is usually called the story of the rich young man. All the Gospels say that the young man was rich, because that's the point of the story. Only Matthew says that he was young (Matthew 19:20), and Luke also says that he was of the rulers (Luke 18:18). It’s interesting how we, completely unconsciously, created for ourselves a complex image made up of elements of all three Gospels (Matthew 19:16-22; Mark 10:17-22; Luke 18:18-23).

This story teaches one of the deepest lessons, because in it we see the basis on which the difference will arise between the correct and false idea of ​​\u200b\u200bwhat faith is.

The man who turned to Jesus was looking, in his words, eternal life. He was looking for happiness, satisfaction, peace with God. But the very formulation of the question gives it away. He asks: "What do me?" He talks in terms actions, deeds. He is like the Pharisees, thinking about following rules and regulations. He thinks about achieving a positive balance in his relationship with God by keeping the works of the law. It is clear that he has no idea of ​​the faith of mercy and grace. And so Jesus tries to bring him to the right view.

Jesus answers him in his own terms. He tells him to keep the commandments. The young man asks what commandments Jesus means, after which Jesus gives him five of the ten commandments. There are two important points to note in connection with the commandments given by Jesus.

Firstly, these are the commandments from the second half of the ten, which speak not about our duties towards God, but about our responsibilities towards people. These are the commandments that regulate personal human relationships and ours attitude towards our fellow men.

Second, Jesus gives the commandments out of order. He gives the commandment to honor parents last, while she should come first. It is clear that Jesus wants to emphasize this commandment. Why? Maybe this young man got rich and made a career, and then forgot about his parents because they were poor. He, perhaps, went out into public and was ashamed of his relatives in the old house, and then could easily justify himself legally, citing the principle korban, which Jesus so mercilessly condemned (Matthew 15:1-6; Mark 7:9-13). These passages show that the young man, even having done this, can well claim by law that he has kept all the commandments. In the commandments He gives, Jesus asks the young man how he treated his brothers and his parents, asks what his personal relationships are. The young man replied that he kept the commandments and, nevertheless, he knew that he had failed to fulfill something. And so Jesus told him to sell his possessions, give them to the poor, and follow Him.

There is also a description of this event in the “Gospel of the Hebrews” - one of the Gospels not included in New Testament. In it we find very valuable additional information:

“One rich man said to Him: “Master, what good must I do in order to live?” He said to him: “Fulfill the law and the prophets!” He answered Him: “I have fulfilled them.” He said to him: “Go, sell everything "What do you have, give it to the poor and follow Me." But the rich man began to scratch his head and he didn’t like it. And the Lord said to him: “How can you say that you fulfilled the law and the prophets, when the law says: “You shall love your neighbor?” , as yourself"; and look, many of your brothers, the sons of Abraham, are dressed in rags, dying of hunger, and your house has a lot of good things and not a single bit of it goes to them.”

Here is the key to the entire passage. The young man claimed that he complied with the law. In the view of the lawyers it may have been so, but in the spiritual sense it was not true, because he treated his fellow men wrongly; ultimately his behavior was completely selfish. That's why Jesus called him to sell everything and give it to the poor and needy. This man was so attached to his property that only, so to speak, surgical cutting off could help. If a person believes that his possessions are given to him only for his comfort and convenience, then these possessions represent chains that need to be broken; if a person sees his property as a means to help others, then it is his crown.

The great truth of this passage is that it illuminates the meaning of eternal life. Eternal life is the life lived by God Himself. In the original Greek eternal - This aionios, which does not mean only lasting forever; it means becoming God, becoming God, belonging to God or distinguishing, characterizing God. The great thing about God is that He loves so much and gives love so generously. And therefore, eternal life is not a diligent and calculated fulfillment of commandments, rules and norms; eternal life is based on kindness and sacrificial generosity to our fellow men. If we are destined to gain eternal life, if we are destined to find happiness, joy, peace of mind and heart, then it will not be by accumulating a positive balance in our relationship with God, not by fulfilling the law and observing norms and rules, but by demonstrating God's love and care for our fellow men. Following Christ and serving mercifully and generously the people for whom Christ died are the same thing.

In the end, the young man walked away saddened. He did not accept the offer given to him because he had a large estate. His tragedy was that he loved things more than people, and he loved himself more than others. Every person who puts things before people and himself above others turns his back to Jesus Christ.

DANGERS IN WEALTH (Matthew 19:23-26)

The story of the rich young man sheds a powerful and tragic light on the dangers of wealth. Before us is a man who abandoned the great path because he had a large estate. And Jesus further emphasizes this danger. “It is difficult,” he said, “for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.”

To demonstrate the degree of difficulty, He used a vivid comparison. For a rich man, said Jesus, it is as difficult for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven as for a camel to go through the eye of a needle. Were offered different interpretations a picture painted by Jesus.

The camel was the largest animal known to the Jews. It is reported that sometimes there were two gates in the city walls: one large, main gate, through which all traffic and all trade passed, and next to it there were small, low and narrow gates. When the large main gates were closed and guarded at night, the only way into the city was through a small gate that a grown man could barely pass through without bending over. It is said that sometimes this small gate was called the "Eye of the Needle." And so it is suggested that Jesus said that it is as difficult for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God as it is for a camel to enter a city through a small gate through which a man could barely squeeze through.

But it is most likely that Jesus used this picture in the most literal sense, and that He really wanted to say that it is as difficult for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God as it is for a camel to go through the eye of a needle. What then is this difficulty? Wealth has a threefold influence on a person's point of view.

1. Wealth gives a person a false sense of independence. When a person has all the blessings of this world, he easily convinces himself that he can cope with any situation.

We see a clear example of this attitude in the letter to the Laodicean church in Revelation. Laodicea was the richest city in Asia Minor. It was destroyed and devastated by the earthquake. In 60, the Roman government offered assistance and a large cash loan to repair the destroyed buildings. Laodicea refused the offered help, declaring that it was quite capable of handling the situation on its own. “Laodicea,” wrote the Roman historian Tacitus, “rose from the ruins solely on its own and without any help from us.” The risen Christ hears Laodicea say: “I am rich, I have become rich, and I have need of nothing.” (Rev. 3:17).

They say that every person has his own price. A rich man may think that everything has a price and that if he really wants something, he can buy it for himself; If he finds himself in a difficult situation, he can buy his way out of it with money. He may even think that he can buy his happiness and buy his way out of his sorrows. And therefore such a person may believe that he can do without God and can arrange his life himself. But a time comes when a person realizes that this was an illusion, that there are things that money cannot buy, and that there are things from which money cannot save him.

2. Wealth chains a person to this world.“Where your treasure is,” said Jesus, “there your heart will be also.” (Matthew 6:21). If a person's desires are limited to this world, if all his interests are here, he never thinks about the other world and the future. If a person has a very large share on earth, he may well forget that there is heaven somewhere. After touring the sumptuous palace and surrounding estate, Samuel Johnson (1709-1784) said, “These things make it hard for a man to die.” A person may well be so interested in worldly things that he forgets about heavenly things, so busy with visible things that he forgets about invisible things. This is the tragedy, because the visible is transitory, but the invisible is eternal.

3. Wealth usually makes a person selfish. No matter how much a person has, such is his human nature that he wants even more, because, as someone said: “Enough is always a little more than a person has.” Moreover, if a person has comfort and luxury, he is always afraid that the day will come when he will lose it all, and life becomes a tense and painful struggle to hold on to it all. And therefore, when a person becomes rich, instead of feeling the need to give, he begins to grab and cling to his goods. He instinctively tries to accumulate more and more for the sake of his safety and reliability.

But Jesus did not say that the rich man impossible enter the Kingdom of God. Zacchaeus was one of richest people in Jericho, and yet, quite unexpectedly, he found the way to the Kingdom of God (Luke 19:9). Joseph of Arimathea was a rich man (Matthew 27:57). Nicodemus must also have been very rich because he brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes to embalm the body of Jesus (John 19:39). This does not mean that everyone who has wealth and property will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven. This does not mean that wealth is a sin; but it is fraught with danger. At the heart of Christianity is an urgent sense of need; and when a person has many things on earth, he is in danger of forgetting God; when a person has a need, it will often lead him to God, because he has no one else to go to.

A WISE ANSWER TO AN INAPPROPRIATE QUESTION (Matthew 19:27-30)

Jesus could easily have responded to Peter's question with impatient rebuke. In a sense, this question was inappropriate. To put it bluntly, Peter was asking, “What will we get for following You?” Jesus could answer that anyone who follows Him with such thoughts does not understand what it means to follow Him at all. But still it was a completely natural question. True, in the next parable there is a reproach for this, but Jesus did not scold Peter. He accepted his question and, from it, set forth the three great truths of the Christian life.

1. The truth is that everyone who shares with Jesus in His struggle will also share in His victory. When conducting hostilities, after the end of the battles, people often forgot the ordinary soldiers who participated in the battles and achieved victory. Very often, people who fought to create a country in which its heroes should live saw that in this country their heroes were dying of hunger. But this is not what awaits those who fight alongside Jesus Christ. One hundred shares the battle with Christ, shares His victory with Him; and he who bears the cross will wear the crown.

2. It is also always true that a Christian will receive much more than he gave up or sacrificed; but he will receive not new material benefits, but a new community, human and heavenly.

When a person becomes a Christian, he enters into a new human community; if in certain place There is christian church, a Christian should always have friends. If his decision to become a Christian caused him to lose his former friends, it also meant that he entered into a wider circle of friends than he had ever had before. True, it must also be that there is hardly a city or village where a Christian would be alone, for where there is a church, there is a brotherhood into which he has the right to join. It may be that in a strange city the Christian will be too shy to enter into it as he should; it may also be that the church in the place where this stranger lives has become too closed to open its arms and doors to him. But when the Christian ideal is put into practice, there is no place in the world where there is a Christian church where the individual Christian is alone and friendless. Becoming a Christian means joining a brotherhood that extends to the whole world.

Further, when a person becomes a Christian, he enters into a new heavenly community. He takes possession of eternal life. A Christian may be separated from everyone else, but he can never be separated from the love of God in Jesus Christ his Lord.

3. Finally, Jesus states that there will be surprises in the final assessment. God does not judge people by human standards, because God sees and reads what is in the human heart. In the new world the assessment of the old world will be revised; in eternity the wrong judgments of time will be corrected. And it may turn out that modest and unnoticed people on earth will be great in heaven, and the great of this world will be modest and last in the world to come.

Commentary (introduction) to the entire book of Matthew

Comments on Chapter 19

In the grandeur of the concept and the force with which the mass of material is subordinated to great ideas, not a single Scripture is New or Old Testament, related to historical topics, cannot be compared with the Gospel of Matthew.

Theodore Zahn

Introduction

I. SPECIAL POSITION IN THE CANON

The Gospel of Matthew is an excellent bridge between the Old and New Testaments. From the very first words we return to the forefather of the Old Testament people of God Abraham and to the first great King David of Israel. Due to its emotionality, strong Jewish flavor, many quotations from the Jewish Scriptures and position at the head of all books of the New Testament. Matthew represents the logical place from which the Christian message to the world begins its journey.

That Matthew the Publican, also called Levi, wrote the first Gospel, is ancient and universal opinion.

Since he was not a regular member of the apostolic group, it would seem strange if the first Gospel was attributed to him when he had nothing to do with it.

Except for the ancient document known as the Didache ("Teaching of the Twelve Apostles"), Justin Martyr, Dionysius of Corinth, Theophilus of Antioch and Athenagoras the Athenian regard the Gospel as reliable. Eusebius, the church historian, quotes Papias, who stated that "Matthew wrote "Logic" in the Hebrew language, and each one interprets it as he can." Irenaeus, Pantaine and Origen generally agree on this. It is widely believed that "Hebrew" is a dialect of Aramaic used by the Jews in the time of our Lord, as this word occurs in the NT. But what is “logic”? Usually this Greek word means “revelations”, because in the OT there are. revelations God's. In Papias's statement it cannot have such a meaning. There are three main points of view on his statement: (1) it refers to Gospel from Matthew as such. That is, Matthew wrote the Aramaic version of his Gospel specifically in order to win Jews to Christ and instruct Jewish Christians, and only later did the Greek version appear; (2) it only applies to statements Jesus, which were later transferred to his Gospel; (3) it refers to "testimony", i.e. quotes from Old Testament Scriptures to show that Jesus is the Messiah. The first and second opinions are more likely.

Matthew's Greek does not read as an explicit translation; but such a widespread tradition (in the absence of early disagreements) must have a factual basis. Tradition says that Matthew preached in Palestine for fifteen years, and then went to evangelize foreign countries. It is possible that around 45 AD. he left to the Jews who accepted Jesus as their Messiah the first draft of his Gospel (or simply lectures about Christ) in Aramaic, and later did Greek final version for universal use. Joseph, a contemporary of Matthew, did the same. This Jewish historian made the first draft of his "Jewish War" in Aramaic , and then finalized the book in Greek.

Internal evidence The first Gospels are very suitable for a pious Jew who loved the OT and was a gifted writer and editor. As a civil servant of Rome, Matthew had to be fluent in both languages: his people (Aramaic) and those in power. (The Romans used Greek, not Latin, in the East.) The details of numbers, parables involving money, financial terms, and an expressive, regular style were all perfectly suited to his profession as a tax collector. The highly educated, non-conservative scholar accepts Matthew as the author of this Gospel in part and under the influence of his compelling internal evidence.

Despite such universal external and corresponding internal evidence, most scientists reject The traditional opinion is that this book was written by the publican Matthew. They justify this for two reasons.

First: if count, that Ev. Mark was the first written Gospel (referred to in many circles today as "gospel truth"), why would the apostle and eyewitness use so much of Mark's material? (93% of Mark's Gospels are also in other Gospels.) In answer to this question, first of all, we will say: not proven that Ev. Mark was written first. Ancient evidence says that the first was Ev. from Matthew, and since the first Christians were almost all Jews, this makes a lot of sense. But even if we agree with the so-called “Markian Majority” (and many conservatives do), Matthew might concede that much of Mark’s work was influenced by the energetic Simon Peter, Matthew’s co-apostle, as early church traditions claim (see “Introduction”) "to Ev. from Mark).

The second argument against the book being written by Matthew (or another eyewitness) is the lack of vivid details. Mark, whom no one considers to be a witness to the ministry of Christ, has colorful details from which it can be assumed that he himself was present at this. How could an eyewitness write so dryly? Probably, the very characteristics of the publican’s character explain this very well. To give more space Levi should have given less space to unnecessary details to the speeches of our Lord. The same would have happened with Mark if he had written first, and Matthew had seen the traits inherent directly in Peter.

III. WRITING TIME

If the widespread belief that Matthew first wrote the Aramaic version of the Gospel (or at least the sayings of Jesus) is correct, then the date of writing is 45 AD. e., fifteen years after the ascension, completely coincides with ancient legends. He probably completed his more complete, canonical Gospel in Greek in 50-55, and perhaps later.

The view that the Gospel there must be written after the destruction of Jerusalem (70 AD), is based, rather, on disbelief in the ability of Christ to predict future events in detail and other rationalistic theories that ignore or reject inspiration.

IV. PURPOSE OF WRITING AND TOPIC

Matthew was a young man when Jesus called him. A Jew by birth and a publican by profession, he left everything in order to follow Christ. One of his many rewards was that he was one of the twelve apostles. Another is his election to be the author of the work that we know as the first Gospel. It is usually believed that Matthew and Levi are one person (Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27).

In his Gospel, Matthew sets out to show that Jesus is the long-awaited Messiah of Israel, the only legitimate contender for the throne of David.

The book does not purport to be a complete account of the life of Christ. It begins with His genealogy and childhood, then moves on to the beginning of His public ministry, when He was about thirty years of age. Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, Matthew selects those aspects of the Savior's life and ministry that testify to Him as Anointed God (which is what the word “Messiah” or “Christ” means). The book takes us to the culmination of events: the suffering, death, resurrection and ascension of the Lord Jesus.

And in this culmination, of course, lies the basis for human salvation.

That is why the book is called "The Gospel" - not so much because it paves the way for sinners to receive salvation, but because it describes the sacrificial ministry of Christ that made this salvation possible.

Bible Commentaries for Christians does not aim to be exhaustive or technical, but rather to inspire personal reflection and study of the Word. And most of all, they are aimed at creating in the reader’s heart a strong desire for the return of the King.

"And even I, with my heart burning more and more,
And even I, nourishing sweet hope,
I sigh heavily, my Christ,
About the hour when you return,
Losing courage at the sight
The burning steps of Your coming."

F. W. G. Mayer ("St. Paul")

Plan

GENEALOGY AND BIRTH OF THE MESSIAH-KING (CHAPTER 1)

THE EARLY YEARS OF THE MESSIAH KING (CHAPTER 2)

PREPARATION FOR THE MESSIANIC MINISTRY AND ITS BEGINNING (CHAP. 3-4)

ORDER OF THE KINGDOM (CHAP. 5-7)

MIRACLES OF GRACE AND POWERS CREATED BY THE MESSIAH AND DIFFERENT REACTIONS TO THEM (8.1 - 9.34)

GROWING OPPOSITION AND REJECTION OF THE MESSIAH (CHAP. 11-12)

THE KING REJECTED BY ISRAEL DECLARES A NEW, INTERMEDIATE FORM OF THE KINGDOM (CHAPTER 13)

THE MESSIAH'S TIRESLESS GRACE MEETS INCREASING HOSTILITY (14:1 - 16:12)

THE KING PREPARES HIS DISCIPLES (16.13 - 17.27)

THE KING GIVES INSTRUCTION TO HIS DISCIPLES (CHAP. 18-20)

INTRODUCTION AND REJECTION OF THE KING (CHAP. 21-23)

THE KING'S SPEECH ON THE MOUNT OF OLIVES (CHAP. 24-25)

SUFFERING AND DEATH OF THE KING (CHAP. 26-27)

TRIUMPH OF THE KING (CHAPTER 28)

D. About marriage, divorce and celibacy (19.1-12)

19,1-2 Having completed His ministry in Galilee, The Lord went south to Jerusalem. Although His exact route is not known, it is clear that He passed through Perea on the eastern bank of the Jordan. Matthew speaks of this region vaguely, as the borders of Judea beyond the Jordanian side. The service in Perea covers the period between 19.1 and 20.16 or 20.28; when He crossed the Jordan into Judea is not precisely stated.

19,3 Perhaps the crowds of people who followed Jesus to receive healing caused Pharisees on the trail of the whereabouts of the Lord. Like a pack of wild dogs, they began to approach Him in order to catch Him in words. They asked if it was permissible divorce for any reason or reason. No matter how He answered, some part of the Jews would still be furious. One school was very liberal about divorce, the other was very strict on this issue.

19,4-6 Our Lord explained that God's original design was for a man to have only one living wife. God who created man and woman decided that marital relations would replace parental relations. He also said that marriage is a union of individuals. It was God's design that this divinely established union should never be broken by human decree or law.

19,7 The Pharisees thought they had caught the Lord in a blatant refutation of the OT. Didn't he command Moses resolution on divorce? A man could simply give his wife a written confirmation, and then throw her out of his house (Deut. 24:1-4).

19,8 Jesus agreed that Moses allowed divorce, but not because divorce was something better provided by God for humanity, but because of Israel's apostasy: "Moses, because of your hardness of heart, allowed you to divorce your wives; but at first it was not so." In God's ideal plan, there should have been no divorce. But God often allows circumstances that are not His immediate will.

19,9 Then the Lord sovereignly declared that from now on the leniency towards divorce in the form in which it was in the past will cease. In the future there will be only one legal ground for divorce - adultery. If a man divorces his wife for any other reason and remarries, he is guilty of adultery.

Although it is not expressly stated, it can be understood from the words of our Lord that where divorce is granted on account of adultery, the innocent party is free to remarry. Otherwise, divorce will not achieve its goal, only separation will occur.

Adultery usually means sexual promiscuity, or fornication. However, many able Bible students believe that adultery refers only to premarital immorality, which occurs after marriage (see Deut. 22:13-21). Others believe that this applies only to Jewish marriage traditions and that this "exceptional condition" is only found here in the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.

For a more complete discussion of divorce, see the commentary on Matthew 5:31-32.

19,10 When students heard the teaching of Jesus on divorce, they showed themselves to be people who go to extremes, taking the ridiculous position: if divorce is possible only on one single basis, then in order to avoid sin in family life, It's better not to get married. But the fact that they remain single will not protect them from sin.

19,11 Therefore, the Savior reminded them that the ability to remain single is not general rule; only one who has been given special grace can abstain from marriage. Saying “Not everyone can receive this word, but to whom it is given” doesn't mean everyone can't understand what's behind it; What is meant here is that those who are not called to celibacy will not be able to live their lives chastely.

19,12 The Lord Jesus explains that there are three types Skoptsov. Some are eunuchs, because were born without the ability to reproduce. Others became so because they were castrated by humans; rulers in the East often subjected harem servants to such an operation in order to make them eunuchs. But Jesus is talking here about those who They themselves made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven. These people could get married; they have no physical handicap. But, having dedicated themselves to the King and His Kingdom, they do not voluntarily marry in order to devote themselves to serving Christ without entertainment. As Paul later wrote: “The unmarried man is concerned about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord” (1 Cor. 7:32). Their celibacy does not depend on physiological reasons, but is a voluntary abstinence. Not all people can live like this, but only those who have been given the power of God for this: “... but everyone has his own gift from God, one this way, another another” (1 Cor. 7:7).

E. About children (19.13-15)

It is interesting that after discussing divorce, we are talking about children (see also Mark 10:1-16); they often suffer the most broken families. Parents brought their children children to Jesus so that the Teacher and Shepherd may bless them. Students saw this as a hindrance and importunity and banned parents. But Jesus intervened, saying words that have since endeared children of all ages to Him: “Let the little children come and do not hinder them from coming to Me, for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven.”

Several important lessons emerge from these words. First, they should impress upon the servant of the Lord the importance of bringing to Christ those children whose minds are most receptive to the Word of God.

Secondly, those children who want to confess their sins to the Lord should be encouraged, not discouraged. No one knows what age the youngest in hell is. If a child sincerely longs for salvation, there is no need to tell him that he is still too young. At the same time, children should not be pressured into making insincere confessions. Because they are very sensitive to emotional appeals, they need to be protected from high pressure evangelistic methods. Children do not have to wait until they are adults to be saved; on the contrary, adults need to become like children (18:3-4; Mark 10:15).

Thirdly, these words of our Lord answer the question: “What will happen to children who have not reached the age of responsibility?” Jesus answered: "...of such is the kingdom of heaven." This should be sufficient reassurance for parents who suffer the loss of their young children.

This passage is sometimes used to justify the baptism of young children to make them members of the Body of Christ and heirs of the Kingdom. As we read this passage more closely, we will realize that those parents did not bring their children to Jesus for baptism. There is not a word about water in these verses.

G. About wealth: a rich young man (19.16-26)

19,16 This incident gives us the opportunity to learn from contrasts. We have just seen that the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to children, but now we are shown how difficult it is for adults to enter it.

The rich man interrupts the Lord with an apparently sincere question. Turning to Jesus "Good Teacher", he asked, What to him do to have eternal life. This question revealed his ignorance of who Jesus was and how to find the way of salvation. He calls Jesus "Teacher", placing Him on the same level as all great men. And he talks about achieving eternal life as a duty rather than a gift.

19,17 Our Lord tested him with two questions. He asked: “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone.” Here Jesus did not deny His Divinity, but provided this man with the opportunity to say: “That is why I call You Good, because You are God.”

In order to test his ideas about the way of salvation, Jesus said: “If you want to enter eternal life, keep the commandments.” The Savior did not mean to say that a person can be saved by keeping the commandments. Rather, He used the law to bring into this man's heart a consciousness of sinfulness. This man was mistaken in thinking that he could inherit the Kingdom based on his works. Therefore let him obey the law that tells him what to do.

19,18-20 Our Lord Jesus quoted the five commandments, applying them chiefly to our young man, and summed them up in the climactic expression: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Blind to see his selfishness, this man boastfully declared that he had always kept these commandments.

19,21 The Lord then demonstrated this man's inability to love his neighbor as himself by suggesting that he sold all your property, and money distributed to the poor. Then let him comes to Jesus and follows Nim. The Lord did not mean to say that this man could have been saved if he had sold his property and given the proceeds to charity. There is only one path to salvation - faith in the Lord.

19,22 Instead he walked away sadly.

19,23-24 The rich man's reaction suggested Jesus note, that it is difficult for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Wealth tends to become an idol. It is difficult to have wealth and not hope for it. Then our Lord cried: “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” He applied literary device, which is called hyperbolization - a statement made in an amplified form, an exaggeration in order to produce a vivid, unforgettable effect.

It is clear that it is impossible for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle! It is often explained that the "eye of the needle" is the smallest door in a city gate. A camel could walk through it on its knees, and even then with great effort. In a parallel passage in Luke the same words are used to denote a needle used by surgeons. From the context it becomes clear that the Lord was not talking about difficulty, but about impossibility. To put it simply, a rich man simply cannot escape.

19,25 The students were amazed hearing such words. As Jews living under the Law of Moses, according to which God promised prosperity to those who obeyed Him, they were confident that wealth was a testimony God's blessing. If one who thus enjoyed the blessings of God could not be saved, who could?

19,26 The Lord answered: “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” Strictly speaking, no one can save himself; only God can save the soul. But it is more difficult for a rich man than for a poor man to submit his will to Christ, and this is evident from the fact that few rich people are converted. It seems almost impossible to them to replace trust in visible means of support with faith in an invisible Savior. Only God can make such a change in them. Commentators and preachers constantly add here that it is quite fair if Christians are rich. It is strange that, wishing to justify the accumulation of earthly treasures, they use a passage in which the Lord condemns wealth as a hindrance to man's eternal welfare! It is difficult to watch how a Christian clings to wealth, seeing terrible need everywhere and knowing that the Lord has clearly forbidden to lay up treasures on earth and that the time of His coming is near. Wealth collected in reserve accuses us of not loving our neighbors as ourselves.

H. About rewards for a sacrificial life (19.27-30)

19,27 Peter grasped the meaning of the Savior’s teaching. Realizing that Jesus was saying, “Leave everything and follow Me,” Peter inwardly rejoiced that he and the other disciples had done just that, but he clarified: "What will happen to us?" Here his pride showed itself, the old nature showed itself again. It was a spirit that we should all be on guard against. He bargained with the Lord.

19,28-29 The Lord convinced Peter that everything he did for Him would be richly rewarded. As for the twelve disciples themselves, they will occupy an influential position in the Millennial Kingdom. Packiness refers to the future reign of Christ on earth; this is explained by the following expression: "...when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory." We have previously spoken of this phase of the Kingdom as the manifest presence of the Kingdom. At that time the twelve will sit on twelve thrones and they will judge the twelve tribes of Israel. Rewards in the NT are interconnected with positions occupied in the management system of the Millennial Kingdom (Luke 19:17-19).

They are awarded at the Judgment Seat of Christ, but they will come into force when the Lord returns to earth to rule on it.

Regarding all other believers, Jesus said that anyone who who has left houses, or brothers, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for His name's sake, will receive a hundredfold and will inherit eternal life.

In this life they enjoy fellowship with believers around the world, which more than compensates for simple earthly connections. Instead of the one home they left behind, they receive a hundred Christian homes where they are welcomed. For the lands or other wealth they left behind, they receive spiritual wealth without counting.

The future reward for all believers is life eternal. This does not mean that we earn eternal life by giving up everything and making sacrifices. Eternal life is a gift and cannot be earned or earned. It also says that those who have left everything will be rewarded with a greater opportunity to enjoy eternal life in the sky. All believers will have eternal life, but not all will enjoy it equally.

19,30 The Lord ended His speech with a warning against the spirit of the transaction. He actually said to Peter, “Everything you do for My sake will be rewarded, but be careful that you are not driven by selfish considerations, because if you do, Many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first." This statement is illustrated by a parable in the next chapter. It could also be a warning that a good start on the path of discipleship is not enough. It all depends on what the finish will be. Before we close this chapter, it should be noted that the expressions "Kingdom of Heaven" and "Kingdom of God" are used in the same sense in verses 23 and 24, and therefore the terms are synonymous.