Day #304

Sermon - Audio
Matt 19, Mark 10 - Reading
Matt 19, Mark 10 - Audio

Daily Insights - Please Comment

Daily Reading Matthew 19 & Mark 10

Notes today fromNew Bible Commentary : 21st Century Edition (D. A. Carson)

Matthew 19

vs 1–12 Teaching on marriage and divorce: Jewish law a man had the right to divorce his wife (but not the wife her husband) by a simple declaration; there was no trial and no appeal. This was assumed to be the intention of Dt. 24:1–4, but the ‘something indecent’ which that passage gave as the grounds for divorce left room for debate. Some teachers restricted this to adultery or other gross sexual misbehaviour, but in common practice, supported by some rabbis, it was virtually a matter of the husband’s whim, for any and every reason.

Rather than enter this debate, Jesus again (as in 5:32) declared that divorce, for whatever reason, was incompatible with God’s purpose for marriage. In so doing, he set the original intention of the Creator, expressed in Gn. 1:27; 2:24, above the provision of Dt. 24, which was given only because your hearts were hard. The divorce regulations were a concession to deal with the result of sin, not an expression of the way God intended things to be. Divorce might be necessary, but it could never be good. The principle that the two become one flesh can be fulfilled only by unbroken marriage.

This uncompromising position is, however, modified by Matthew, here and in 5:32, by the clause except for marital unfaithfulness. Neither Mark nor Luke includes this much debated clause, and it is sometimes thought to be an attempt by Matthew to soften a total prohibition of divorce which soon proved unworkable in real life. It is more likely, however, that Matthew is simply spelling out what any Jewish reader would have taken for granted, that marital unfaithfulness (which would include not only adultery but also premarital promiscuity) automatically annulled a marriage by creating another ‘one-flesh’ union. In the OT the penalty for adultery was death, but by NT times a formal annulment of the marriage was the accepted response. This was not a voluntary ‘divorce’ but the necessary recognition that the marriage was already finished.

Jesus’ demand for marital faithfulness without an ‘escape route’ dismayed the disciples. Who could live up to such a demand? Not everyone, Jesus agreed. Some do not have the ‘gift’ of marriage and are called to celibacy, or by their own choice in the light of the role to which they are called in the kingdom of heaven.

19:13–15 Little children. The disciples had not yet absorbed his revolutionary scale of values, in which the ‘little ones’ were the greatest. To say that the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these was not to declare the automatic salvation of all children, but rather (as in 18:1–5) to set up their lowly status as a model for discipleship.

19:16–26 A rich young man Here was another shock for the disciples’ scale of values. The man was rich, moral and eager for eternal life, the ideal recruit to the disciple band. To see him sent away by Jesus astonished them. If such a man could not be saved, who could be (25)?

The man’s question assumed that eternal life could be achieved by doing some good thing (a conspicuous act of charity?). By emphasizing the goodness of God (17) Jesus questioned the man’s idea of goodness; it is found in relation to God, not by ‘good deeds’ of our own devising. To keep God’s commandments is to reflect his goodness, and this the young man had tried to do. But he was himself still conscious that something was missing, and he was looking for some additional thing to do. Jesus’ response in v 21 was indeed something to do, but something so radical that it would undermine his whole way of life and leave everything at God’s disposal.

Yet Jesus did not require all his followers to be destitute. His demands varied for different individuals and situations. But we should beware of using this truth as a convenient escape route. ‘That Jesus did not command all his followers to sell all their possessions gives comfort only to the kind of people to whom he would issue that command’ (R. H. Gundry).

Vs 23–26 make matters worse. The humorous picture of a camel trying to get through the eye of a needle means, as the disciples rightly discerned, that it is not simply hard but impossible for a rich person to be saved. The answer lies in recognizing that the humanly impossible is possible for God. Salvation is not earned, either by wealth or by poverty; the kingdom of God overturns all human valuations and possibilities.

19:27–30 The rewards of discipleship These verses spell out the ‘treasure in heaven’ which Jesus promised in v 21 to those whose discipleship involves them in economic loss. They will share his kingly glory and authority, when he fulfils the vision of Dn. 7:13–14 (28). They will also be compensated a hundred times both in this life (as they share the family and material resources of the disciple community) and in eternal life (29). Yet even so, they should beware of assuming that their ‘sacrifice’ has earned them a place of special honour (30); the kingdom of heaven is full of surprises, as the following parable shows.

Mark 10

10:35–45 A selfish request (see Mt. 20:20–28). If it had not been recorded we could have hardly believed that, after all this, James and John could have come with their ambitious and selfish request. We know only too well, however, what we are like ourselves, and so we can understand. If they had realized the true cost of high place in the kingdom of God, they would not have dared to ask, in spite of their brave words. Cup and baptism (or ‘flood’) are OT pictures of judgment and suffering. Jesus warned them that suffering would indeed come, but it would not necessarily lead to high place in the kingdom of God, for all must endure it. High place was for God alone to give.

The ten other disciples showed up just as badly as James and John when they were angry with them because of their request. No doubt they had wanted these places for themselves. So Jesus patiently explained to them once more the totally different pattern of God’s kingdom, where true greatness is humble service. He himself is the great example of this. He came to be the suffering servant of God prophesied in Is. 53 and to give his life as a ransom for many (45). The use of the word ‘many’ does not mean that Jesus died only for some people, not for all; it stresses rather the great number of those ransomed by his death. This is one of the very few places in Mark where the way in which Jesus’ death saves us is explained. Mark is far more interested in the plain fact that it does save us rather than the way in which it does. Ransom is one of the many pictures by which salvation is explained in the NT. It means the buying-back of people from slavery or prison or death by paying a price. We are all too familiar with it today from the demands of kidnappers and hi-jackers. In this case the price was to be the death of Jesus.

10:46–52 The healing of Bartimaeus This last recorded healing took place on the very road to suffering and death at Jerusalem. It is a picture of one in need with persistent faith being healed and, as a result, following Jesus. No doubt this was the story of many who followed Jesus, even during the terrible last week. Mark’s eyewitness remembered the man’s name, and Mark, as usual, translates it. Like many in the Third World, the man was simply known by his father’s name, but he may have been well known to the early church later.