The King Approaches the Final Battle
A verse-by-verse explanation of these chapters.
An overview of the principles and applications from these chapters.
Melding these chapters to life.
Tying these chapters to life with God.
Historical, geographical, and grammatical enrichment of the commentary.
Suggested step-by-step group study of these chapters
Zeroing these chapters in on daily life.
“If you bow at all, bow low.”
Chinese Proverb
The Jewish leaders' opposition to Jesus is moving toward a climax. This chapter returns to the theme of divorce and remarriage introduced in the Sermon on the Mount. To test Jesus, the Pharisees ask him a question about divorce. In his reply, Jesus emphasizes the permanence of marriage as God's original design. God's Old Testament provision for divorce was temporary and based on the rebellion of fallen man. Jesus follows this confrontation with teachings about the demands and rewards of being a disciple of his, of kingdom grace, and coming death and resurrection. God designed marriage to be a lifelong commitment. It is the most permanent relationship in the home, as the two spouses become one flesh. Marriage partners should continually depend on God's strength to maintain this union.
The following letter was received by a pastor I know following a busy Easter weekend at a church with multiple worship services. One of the parishioners noticed and honored his servant-leadership as illustrated by his behavior in the church parking lot. The witness wrote these words:
It happened this way: it was the end of a very busy weekend for the senior pastor of a growing church. He had just completed sharing the gospel message for the seventh time in a span of less than forty-eight hours. It was obvious to me that he had poured himself into the preparation, the presentation, and the proclamation of the Easter story. As much as I was blessed by the music and the message, I witnessed something that spoke to me in a way that words could never communicate. And it was this act that caught my attention.
As I was putting my family into the car to go home, I saw this same man—the leader of the church, the man who stood in front of four thousand people over the weekend, the most visible representative of the church to visitors, the one who had every right to demand special treatment—I saw him walk out by himself to the farthest point of the parking lot to his car! As I looked around I did not see very many who witnessed this act of servanthood, but I was glad that the Lord allowed me to see it. It was a simple thing and yet it was something that spoke volumes to me—perhaps even more than his teaching. If anyone had earned a right to park next door to the church, it was the senior pastor. And yet he humbled himself to the point of giving one more close parking place to somebody else on what would be a very busy Sunday and a very full lot.
When I read that letter, it motivated me to want to be more like that. In a day of reserved parking spaces, corporate parking spaces, executive parking spaces, “employee of the month” parking spaces, and “reserved for pastor” parking spaces, this behavior reflected a different priority. In a day when people clamor for credit, it is important that Christians not forget how to be servants. Jesus loved to highlight the reverse of earthly values in his kingdom. Earthly “greatness” is turned on its head—“the first shall be last.” True kingdom greatness is reflected in the humility of “the least of these.”
The King Approaches the Final Battle
MAIN IDEA: The humblest servant, most dependent on the grace of God, is the greatest in God's eyes.
We have seen Jesus' preparation for the cross since 16:21, but now he began his physical journey toward Jerusalem. Humility continues to be the key theme throughout these two chapters—a theme already established in Matthew 18 (esp. v. 4), and culminating in the king's humble means of transportation into Jerusalem (21:5).
The journey to Jerusalem has a somber tone to it. This mood is interrupted and balanced with notes of hope and grace. Jesus took time for the little children (19:13-15). Once again, he promised that all the disciples' sacrifices would be abundantly repaid in eternity (19:28-29). He displayed the grace of God in the parable of the workers (19:30-20:16). He ended his passion prediction with the ultimate triumph of the Resurrection (20:19). And he demonstrated his love and acceptance of the two blind men (20:29-34).
Matthew 19:1 marked the end of Jesus' Galilean ministry. In Matthew, this northern campaign had comprised virtually all of his ministry to this point. In 4:12-17, Matthew emphasized the significance of Jesus' ministry in and around Galilee. In Matthew 19-20, the time is right for Jesus to come out of the back country. He had been avoiding the spotlight, guarding time primarily to develop his disciples. They had passed some tests (16:15-17), but they had failed many (e.g., 8:23-26; 14:28-30; 16:5-11,22-23; 17:14-21). Through every experience, they had come away with new understanding (8:27; 14:33; 16:12; 17:13). The training of the Twelve was progressing.
Geographically, the journey of Matthew 19-20 began with Jesus' departure from Galilee (19:1) and ended with his setting out on the last fifteen-mile leg from Jericho uphill, southwest to Jerusalem (20:29).
The King Affirms the Marriage Commitment (19:1-12)SUPPORTING IDEA: Lifelong marital faithfulness is God's intention, requiring our dependence on his supernatural strength.
The last major conflict of Jesus with the religious establishment grew out of their second demand for a sign in 16:1-4. And we will not see another such conflict until 21:15-16, after the purging of the temple. It is almost as though Matthew wanted to remind us that Jesus' enemies were still as active and obstinate as ever. They had not gone away. This timing in the narrative is especially appropriate; Jesus had been addressing Christian relationships in Matthew 18 (marriage is the central such relationship), and had now turned toward Jerusalem. This isolated challenge foreshadowed the final week-long battle Jesus would endure in Jerusalem (Matt. 21-27).
This passage returns to the theme of divorce and remarriage, introduced in the Sermon on the Mount (5:31-32). While the message is much the same, the purpose and emphasis is different. In 5:31-32, Jesus used this issue as one example among many to clarify what he meant by “surpassing righteousness” in 5:20. In 19:1-12, he drew attention to the divorce issue itself. The Pharisees began with a tough question on divorce, but Jesus turned the focus to marriage, dealing with divorce and remarriage as side issues. Sin causes us to fall short of the intended permanent marriage bond.
19:1-2. The first part of 19:1 is actually the closing of the Matthew 18 discourse (cf. 7:28; 11:1; 13:53; 26:1). Judea was the province that included Jerusalem. The wording of 19:1b is confusing, but it means that Jesus crossed to the east side of the Jordan River from Galilee, then proceeded south through Perea (east of Judea, across the Jordan), later crossing back to the west side of the Jordan near Jericho (see 20:29). This was the route most Jews followed between Judea and Galilee.
19:3. The Pharisees had been outwitted by the king at every turn, so they came at him again with another test. And it was a dangerous one. John the Baptist's dealing with the issue of divorce had cost him his head. The verb test is from peirazo, meaning “to test, tempt.” It is the same verb Matthew used of Satan tempting Jesus in 4:1,3; the Pharisees and Sadducees demanding the second sign in 16:1; the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Herodians together trying to trap Jesus concerning taxation (22:18) and the greatest commandment (22:35). Their “test” was an action of malicious intent.
19:4-6. Jesus avoided the Jewish leaders' controversy and elevated the discussion. Because they had asked Jesus for a legal interpretation, he referred to the law, laying the basic foundation on which all answers to the divorce question must rest. Marriage is an institution created by God. When a man and woman pledge their lives to each other, it is God who makes them one. Therefore, people have no business destroying that union.
Haven't you read implies that the answer should have been obvious. Jesus was unveiling the Pharisees' true motives, which was to trap him. In effect, he was saying, “You know better than to ask this question.”
Jesus quoted from Genesis 1:27 and 2:24. His point in the first quote was to emphasize the Creator's involvement in the marriage process. This was God's plan, not man's. It had to do with God's image (Gen. 1:26-27), not man's. Christians would do well to understand that their marriage is not so much about them as it is about God. Such revolutionary thinking is not very American, but it is very biblical. Marriage should reflect God's image, not guarantee our personal “happiness.” The permanent marriage bond is in keeping with God's original design for men and women.
The second quote from Genesis 2:24 emphasized the one-flesh union of marriage (cf. Eph. 5:22-33), in contrast with the former state of the man and woman, who were members of separate families. The three verbs in this quote are significant. Leave (also in 4:13; 16:4; 21:17) is stronger than other synonyms translated “leave.” It implies a deliberate abandonment, sometimes permanent (as in this case). When a man or woman leaves behind his or her parents for a spouse, there is no going back. That season of life is over for good.
Because of the cultural expectations, Jesus referred to the man's “leaving” without mentioning the same responsibility for the woman. The woman's leaving was assumed. As in the beginning (Gen. 2:23), she takes her husband's name and draws her identity from him. Clearly, she gives up her previous family and identity. It is important to their relationship that the man do the same.
Next, be united means “to cleave, join closely, glue, cling, unite.” These words point to the oneness of the married couple. It is not the man and woman who do the uniting, but this is something done to them. The clear implication in this context is that God is the one who unites them. Marriage is not their doing; it is his. Jesus was indicating that the marriage relationship is the most permanent relationship in the home, different and deeper than that of parent and child.
Finally, become is from the verb “to be.” There is no way to express the union of two people more vividly than to say that they become one flesh. This is true in a figurative sense, for the two still have individual bodies. But there is also a literal sense here: (1) the sexual union unites the bodies of a man and woman, and any children who result from that union are a “single-flesh” incarnation of the married couple's commitment; (2) the bodies of the husband and wife belong to each other (1 Cor. 7:4); and (3) there is a sharing of spirit and soul in marriage—a union that is mysteriously real.
In our day, Satan makes his most strategic attack on the image and glory of God by his influence in the destruction of the marriage vow. Christians need to raise their eyes from themselves, forget any justification for divorce, and learn to live together like God requires. We should sacrifice self-gratification for the will and glory of the Father.
In 19:6, Jesus drew his evidence together into a conclusion. Man must not separate the union created by God. Your marriage does not belong to you. It is his. Divorce is always the human destruction of a divine creation.
19:7. This unqualified answer did not satisfy the Pharisees. They did not understand how Jesus' concept of absolute wrongness of divorce could be compatible with their understanding of Moses' instructions regarding divorce. However, the inconsistency lay not in Jesus' answer but in the Pharisees' interpretation of Mosaic Law. Their “quotation” was actually a misquote from Deuteronomy 24:1-4. In the Old Testament context, the statements about a man giving his wife a certificate of divorce and sending her away were conditional statements, not commands as the Pharisees had quoted them. The Pharisees said that Moses “commanded” these things, and Matthew put in their mouths the verbs give and send … away, both carrying the strength of commands.
19:8. Jesus corrected the Pharisees' misinterpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1-4, clarifying that Moses permitted divorce but he did not command it. But he went one step further, turning their own question into an indictment against them. Placing the first-century Pharisees in the same category with rebellious Israel of Moses' day, Jesus said that Moses permitted divorce because your hearts were hard. Moses knew that hardhearted people would continue to divorce their spouses, so he passed on God's guidelines to protect those who were victims of divorce.
The second half of 19:8 states God's original intention, preparing for 19:9. But contrasts God's will concerning divorce (that there be none) with his permission of divorce through Moses. From the beginning refers to God's original plan. God's clear intention was that there be no divorce at all. He actually hates the concept (Mal. 2:16).
Jesus' point was that anyone who saw divorce and remarriage in terms of what may or may not be permissible was already out of line. Divorce is not some morally neutral option open to God's people. It is fundamentally sinful, and it grows out of the hardness of the selfish human heart.
19:9. Jesus' wording in this verse was similar to that in 5:32. In fact, phrase for phrase, the meanings of the two statements are equivalent until we get to the outcome of wrongful divorce. Jesus said the man who divorced his wife was the person who committed adultery, whereas, in 5:32, it was the divorced wife and any future man she might marry who committed adultery.
There are several controversial issues related to this verse, all of which have some bearing on its exact interpretation. See the further discussion in “Deeper Discoveries.”
19:10. No matter how one interprets Jesus' stance on divorce and remarriage, it was far stricter than the disciples (or anyone else) expected. They had lived all their lives in a society where divorces were granted liberally. The prevalence of arranged marriages and the tendency for women to be viewed as property may have contributed to the number of divorces. To learn that there was no easy way out of an unsatisfactory marriage caused the disciples to rethink the marriage commitment. They considered that it might be better to avoid the risk of getting into a bad marriage by staying single. The disciples' conclusion, given Jesus' high standards, was, it is better not to marry. Jesus had made his point.
19:11-12. Jesus affirmed the sobriety with which the disciples had begun to see the permanence of the marriage commitment. He agreed that marriage was not something to be entered into quickly, without forethought, or with the expectation of an “easy out.”
He also acknowledged that not everyone would accept this word. The people who can accept the idea of celibacy over the risk of a marriage ending in divorce are those to whom it has been given. This refers to those who are enabled by God to remain single without giving in to sexual temptation. Such a disciplined calling is hard enough today, let alone in that culture in which marriage was considered a person's obligation to family and society.
Jesus then acknowledged the various reasons that a person might be celibate. He said some people were eunuchs. A eunuch means literally “an emasculated man.” By implication, it also applied to anyone who refrained from marriage and sexual relations. First, such a person might be impotent from birth. Second, a eunuch might be a person who was castrated. This was commonly done to slaves or servants who served in a royal court where the women of the household might be in danger of the servants' sexual interest. Those two categories of celibate men were commonly known to the disciples. But Jesus introduced a third category—those who chose to refrain from marriage to give more attention to advancing the kingdom of heaven. Jesus and Paul (1 Cor. 7:32-38), and probably John the Baptizer, are examples of such men. Those Jesus referred to in 19:12c should, of course, be understood to be figurative in the sense that they chose not to engage in sexual activity.
Jesus finished with a challenge to his listeners, some of whom may not have been willing to accept his teaching. Such a teaching about the value of celibacy ran contrary to Jewish cultural norms and expectations. It was thought that everyone should marry for the sake of the ongoing community. Jesus' teaching here would have required the rearrangement of a believer's core values.
Jesus was not saying that celibacy was holier than matrimony or that it was a requirement for kingdom ministry. He did note it was a limited calling. The apostle Paul affirmed as much (1 Cor. 7:9; 9:5).
The King Makes Time for Children (19:13-15)SUPPORTING IDEA: The kingdom of heaven belongs to those with the humble faith of a child.
This brief passage advances the theme of humility introduced in Matthew 18. These humble little children stood in contrast to the arrogant Pharisees of the preceding passage (19:1-9), and the prideful rich young man in the following passage (19:16-30) who expected to earn his way into eternal life.
19:13. The laying on of hands and the prayer mentioned here refer to the practice of holy men placing their blessing on individuals. It was natural that parents who were impressed by Jesus would want their children blessed by him. However, the disciples, still not alert to Jesus' values even after the Matthew 18 discourse, acted according to worldly assumptions. It was assumed in that day that children were not as valuable as adults, so they were not important enough to take up Jesus' time. The disciples rebuked those who brought them.
19:14-15. But Jesus contrasted the disciples' worldly values with his own. To Jesus, each individual was of great value regardless of age (e.g., 9:18-26; 15:21-28; 17:14-18), gender (e.g., 9:18-26; 15:21-28), social status (e.g., 8:1-4; 9:27-34; 20:29-34), or nationality (e.g., 8:5-13, 28-34; 15:21-28).
In keeping with this conviction, Jesus rebuked the rebukers. His orders were redundant for emphasis: Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them. Jesus was equally accessible to everyone.
Then Jesus gave a reason for his desire to welcome the children. Such as these means “people of all ages who share the humility of a child” (see 18:2-4). Jesus expressed a special welcome to those who come to him in simplicity, without prideful self-consciousness, whether they were children or adults (cf. 11:25-26). Those who admit their dependence on Christ and his forgiveness will possess the kingdom of heaven (cf. these qualities with those in the Beatitudes, 5:3-12).
The Messiah-King stooped to impart his blessing on the children by laying his hands on them (19:13). Then he moved on, nearer to Jerusalem and the cross. This final comment by Matthew, he went on from there, brings into focus the contrast between Jesus, the meek lover of children, and the looming shadow of the cross. How could such a gentle man be found guilty of death? Perhaps Matthew wanted us to see the gentle, sacrificial lamb of Isaiah 53:7-9 (cf. 1 Pet. 2:21-25), being led toward the slaughter.
The King Clarifies the Demands and Rewards of True Discipleship (19:16-30)SUPPORTING IDEA: Eternal life cannot be earned; it must be received as a gift from God.
The closer Jesus got to the cross, the higher he raised the stakes for those who would follow him. Much as the disciples' question of 18:1 revealed their misunderstanding of “greatness” in the kingdom, so also this man's question (19:16) revealed his misunderstanding of the “goodness” required for entrance into the kingdom.
19:16. The man respectfully addressed Jesus as Teacher. It is apparent from the conversation and his response that the man was sincere in his question about the way to get eternal life, but he was mistaken about how this might come about. He expected to earn eternal life by his own righteous acts (what good things must I do?) rather than through God's gracious endowment of righteousness (Rom. 3:9-31).
19:17. Jesus responded by driving the discussion toward the nature of true “goodness.” His initial response seemed to bring his own goodness into question. However, by the time he finished the discussion, it was evident that this was one more claim to deity. It was not the goodness of Jesus that was in question here, but the man's assumptions regarding the goodness required for eternal life. Eternal life requires absolute goodness, and there is only One who is good enough to earn it on his own (see Pss. 106:1; 118:1,29; 1 Chron. 16:34; 2 Chron. 5:13).
Jesus final statement of 19:17 might be parpahrased like this: “If you insist on pursuing this impossible, self-dependent avenue toward eternal life, I will tell you just how good you must be. To begin, perfect righteousness requires absolute obedience to the Old Testament commandments.” Of course, that is impossible. That was Jesus' point in the Sermon on the Mount (5:20). Even the best of Pharisees did not come close. Jesus contrasted the reality that only God is absolutely good with the man's foolish expectation that he could be good enough for eternal life.
19:18—19. The man's next question revealed his misunderstanding still further. He did not understand that God required absolute perfection. He seemed to presume that God graded on a curve and that his “goodness” was better than many. Jesus let this man know that anything less than perfection is no “good” at all. A righteous man would have to keep all of the commandments perfectly. The man, grasping for possibilities, assumed that there must be some special set of commandments that made a person particularly righteous.
Jesus listed some of the commandments. His listing of the fifth through the ninth of the Ten Commandments, together with love your neighbor as yourself from Leviticus 19:18 (cf. Matt. 22:34-40) was intended not as an exhaustive list of all commandments necessary for eternal life but as a representative sample. The man would need to keep all of the Old Testament commandments. Even this “short list” would be understood as impossible for anyone.
19:20-21. The young man still did not grasp Jesus' true meaning. He claimed to have kept all the commandments. Yet he knew that such observance was not enough. He asked, What do I still lack? No matter how good a person's life may be, if he examines his conscience honestly, he will know that there is still something lacking about his own righteousness (Rom. 2:12-15).
Jesus' answer went straight to this man's self-righteous god—money. He read him perfectly. He knew where his heart and treasure lay (Matt. 6:21). To make such a sacrifice would be to exchange earthly wealth for treasure in heaven (cf. 6:19-20). But Jesus also knew that this outward action would require first an inward transformation that was humanly impossible. Jesus attempted to drive the man to the point of seeing his real need.
19:22. But the man did not grasp Jesus' point. He had no sense of sin. And he certainly was not willing to give up his false god. Therefore, because the rich young man was not willing to have his heart transformed, he went away sad. He wanted wealth in both worlds, but Jesus' statement demanded that he choose between the two. As much as he wanted the wealth of eternal life, he could not give up his great wealth to obtain eternal treasure.
This should not be taken to mean that wealth automatically disqualifies a person from eternal life. Rather, the worship of wealth over God is the problem. There are rare individuals who are able to possess much wealth while keeping God on the throne of their lives, ready at any time to give it all up for him (e.g., Job). Paul made this same distinction in 1 Timothy 6:10, clarifying that it is the “love of money,” not money itself, that is “a root of all kinds of evil.”
19:23-24. After the young man left, Jesus saw a teachable moment for his disciples. He turned to them and made a statement about the lesson they needed to take from this episode.
I tell you the truth grabbed the disciples' attention and alerted them that Jesus was about to say something of great importance: It is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Note that Jesus did not say such a thing is impossible; merely unlikely, because of the lure of earthly wealth. The rich young ruler had bought into a form of what is today called prosperity theology, which teaches that God blesses those who follow him with material riches.
But Jesus pressed home his argument as his restatement heightened to the point of impossibility. Such a thing is even harder than putting a camel (the largest animal of that region) through the eye of a needle.
19:25-26. The disciples were conditioned by their culture to believe that wealth was a sign of God's blessing on a person's life (Deut. 28:1-14). Therefore, they were astonished. Matthew used the specialized, superlative Greek adverb sphodra, amplifying the disciples' astonishment to an extreme. If the wealthy—so blessed by God—can never enter the kingdom, Who then can be saved?
The phrase Jesus looked at them added further emphasis to what he was about to say. The key to the whole dilemma was the One who is the source of righteousness. People in themselves do not have what it takes to enter the kingdom! But with God all things are possible. What a person cannot do to save himself, God does by providing a gracious entrance. Salvation is a supernatural gift.
19:27. Then Peter, once again speaking the minds of the Twelve, said, We have left everything to follow you! Peter was searching for Jesus' seal of approval for the disciples' sacrifice. He was also looking for some reassurance that the sacrifices of the Twelve would be recompensed. And Jesus gave him that reassurance. Indeed, the Twelve had left everything—family, home, possessions—to follow Jesus. Jesus acknowledged as much in his response (19:28-29).
What then will there be for us? Some might consider Peter's question to be selfish, but it revealed the reality of human nature that we are driven by incentive. And Jesus acknowledged that. Jesus did not rebuke Peter for his question. On the contrary, he offered an encouraging answer. He granted Peter a glimpse of the reward that awaits all who sacrifice for the sake of the king and his kingdom. His answer must have astonished them: you … will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes. Christ's rewards for his faithful followers are incredible, multiplying many times any sacrifices they make. This was a magnificent statement of magnificent reward.
Believers should not feel guilty about anticipating eternal reward. If it were a shameful thing, God would not have promised it so prominently throughout Scripture. The truth is that we need motivation, something to press on toward (Phil. 3:12-14). The eternal perspective, seeking God's prize, is the only mature perspective (Phil. 3:14).
19:28-29. Jesus underscored the faithfulness of the promise he was about to make with his words, I tell you the truth. His additional words, you who have followed me, included all the diligent hardship and sacrifice Jesus had predicted would be the lot of his true followers. We hear in Jesus' words warmth and affirmation for his followers. And that includes everyone who sacrifices for my sake. There is not only eternal life, but enormous rewards (a hundred times as much).
The word renewal is from palingenesia (also Titus 3:5), meaning “rebirth” (palin, “again,” plus genao, “to give birth”). Jesus was referring to the future day when he would, after eliminating Satan and his influence, take over this earth and restore it to its original purpose (cf. Dan. 7:13-14; Rev. 3:21; 20:1-6).
Using his title Son of Man in all its messianic fullness, Jesus gave his disciples a glimpse of his future glory as the king on his glorious throne. Aside from his transfiguration before Peter, James, and John, this was the fullest revelation of his future glory that Jesus had given his disciples.
Jesus promised that the Twelve would share with him in ruling (this is the present meaning of judging) the twelve tribes of Israel. (This is the clearest statement in Matthew of at least one of Jesus' reasons for choosing twelve disciples.) Part of the faithful disciple's reward is authority in his kingdom (cf. believers' future authority in Luke 22:30; 1 Cor. 6:2).
Jesus had already assured his followers that discipleship implies sacrifice. Now he promised that any sacrifice made for my sake would be more than repaid. In between houses and fields Jesus listed even greater sacrifices— members of one's family, even children (cf. 10:21-22,34-37).
But the reward for such sacrifice will be the repayment of a hundred times as much in some form or another. In the church, the Lord gives us a foretaste of this payment. If a person is rejected by his family for being a Christian, he finds many more “fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters” in the family of God.
The true follower (in contrast to the rich young ruler) will inherit eternal life. The use of the term inherit here provides the sense of the new family (after one has been rejected by his old family). An heir is a son of the family from whom he inherits.
19:30. Jesus began to caution the disciples not to use a human yardstick when measuring eternal rewards. God's estimation of worthiness is quite different from ours.
The chapter break here is unfortunate, for the flow of thought is continuous. Many people who seem to be deserving of reward will receive less than is expected (though no less than they deserve). And many whom we might judge as undeserving will prove, in God's economy, to be first, receiving great reward.
The King Explains Kingdom Grace (20:1-16)SUPPORTING IDEA: Human measures of worthiness are far from God's gracious attitude toward people.
While Jesus shifted to a different point in this parable, it was related to his point in his conversation with the rich young ruler and the disciples. Our entrance into heaven depends on God's grace, not on our righteous works. In the same way, our reward in heaven will be based on God's reckoning, not our human calculations. Rewards are indeed meritorious, but they are calculated from God's perspective.
Jesus' statements of who would be first and who would be last open and close this parable (19:30; 20:16). It has already been illustrated in Jesus' acceptance of the children (19:13-15) and in his rejection of the wealthy young man (19:16-26). It will again be illustrated immediately following the parable (20:17-19) as Jesus predicted the “lastness” of his imminent suffering and death. Then he also predicted the reversal from the “lastness” of his apparent defeat in death back to the “firstness” of his triumphant resurrection. The theme will find further illustration in the request of the mother of James and John, and in Jesus' acceptance of the two blind beggars in 20:29-34.
20:1. The word for tells us that this parable is an illustration and explanation of the key statement in 19:30. As in most of his parables, Jesus was teaching something about the kingdom of heaven—the way things work under the rule of the Messiah-King. Here he introduced the main characters: the landowner (representing God) and the hired laborers (representing believers). The landowner needed men to plant, tend, and harvest his crops.
Early in the morning is important, because time is an important feature of this parable. A typical workday for field workers in the ancient Near East began at approximately 6 A.M. (sunrise) and ended at around 6 P.M. (sunset). The average workday was likely ten-plus hours. So the landowner of the parable was scouting for workers before 6 A.M.
20:2-5. The men whom he hired to begin twelve hours of work at 6 A.M. formed the first and most prominent of five groups he would hire throughout the day. They agreed to work for the customary rate of one denarius for a full day's work, and then they started work in the vineyard.
We should be careful in our attempts to discern who these full-day workers (or any of the other four groups) represent. We may be tempted to think this first group represents those who have been Christians for most of their lives, whereas the later groups are those who come to Christ later in life. Or we might think the full-day workers are those who are especially faithful in their lifetime as a Christian, while the later groups are not so faithful. Such interpretations distract us from Jesus' main point—that God's way of compensating for righteous working may differ from what we expect. God's sense of “fairness” is not the typical self-serving human perspective. He does not compare us to one another but to our fulfillment of our own stewardship (see 1 Cor. 3:3-5).
The landowner needed still more workers, so three hours later (the third hour was 9 A.M.) he went again to the marketplace (where most commercial transactions took place, and where men hoping for work would gather) and found more laborers available. He hired them, promising, I will pay you whatever is right. Because these men would be working only nine hours (three-fourths of a workday), they would have expected three-fourths of a denarius as their wages at the end of the workday.
He did the same thing at noon (the sixth hour) and 3 P.M. (the ninth hour). These groups of workers would be working six hours (a half-day) and three hours (a quarter-day), respectively, and so would have naturally expected proportionately less pay than those who started at 6 A.M.
20:6-7. At 5 P.M. (the eleventh hour), with only one hour of the workday remaining, the landowner hired yet a fifth group of workers—the second most prominent group in Jesus' parable, because they stood in the greatest contrast with those hired at 6 A.M. These laborers he also sent into the field to work. The point is clear. These “last” workers, for whatever reason, were “last” by normal human performance standards. Jesus was about to challenge normal human reasoning and standards when it comes to kingdom rewards.
20:8-10. The word evening means sunset at 6 P.M., when the workers could no longer see to work. The owner of the vineyard is the landowner of 20:1. The foreman is mentioned only to give a sense of reality to the story, since the landowner himself would not have gone out into the field to call in the workers at the end of the day.
The landowner specifically instructed the foreman to pay the workers in reverse order (beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first). It is assumed that the pay the foreman gave out was also according to the landowner's instructions.
The last group hired—those who worked only one hour—were paid first, before the eyes of all the workers hired earlier in the day. To everyone's astonishment, these one-hour workers were paid a full denarius—twelve times what they would have considered justly earned! The three-hour, six-hour, and nine-hour workers are not mentioned here, but we are to assume that they also received a denarius. Jesus jumped immediately from the one-hour workers to the twelve-hour workers to make obvious the contrast between the two.
The twelve-hour workers were encouraged by what they had observed, assuming the landowner had decided to be disproportionately generous to all the workers. They certainly expected more than one denarius, which, to their disappointment, was exactly what they were paid.
20:11-12. We can identify with their disappointment. They fell victim to the problem of expectations that were higher than reality. They, like so many of us today, had developed a sense of comparison and entitlement. So they grumbled to the landowner: You have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day. The full-day workers perhaps looked down on the one-hour workers because they had been passed over as unworthy in the early hiring (20:7).
Jesus revealed here the way we as humans think about what is fair and just. When we see rewards handed out in heaven, we are sure to be in for some surprises. Some of the people and ministries that we have deemed insignificant will be celebrated, while many of the more prominent people and their ministries will receive little recognition. It is not Jesus' purpose here to explain the criteria he uses for such decisions, but only to warn us against false assumptions and expectations.
Jesus made the point that heaven's rewards are based upon: God's standards and our faithfulness to our calling in both attitude and action (1Cor. 4:5). There will be no negotiating or technicalities to consider.
Christians must avoid using other people as a yardstick for comparison. Only Christ himself is an accurate yardstick, and we all fall short of his “stature.” This underscores our need for God's grace toward all. We must hold our human thinking in check.
20:13-15. The landowner focused on one of the twelve-hour workers, emphasizing the responsibility of each individual believer to keep his thinking in check. Friend, he addressed the worker, setting a calm, reasonable tone. The landowner then explained that he had been fair to the twelve-hour worker, paying exactly what was right and what they had agreed upon at the beginning of the day.
If not for the people who had worked fewer hours, the twelve-hour workers would have gone home satisfied with exactly the same amount. The landowner urged them to focus on their original agreement, not on the other workers. One denarius was their pay—exactly what they were entitled to— no more, no less.
Jesus drew a contrast between the landowner's fairness with the twelve-hour workers and his desire for generosity to the one-hour workers. This contrast was drawn not to indicate the landowner was being inconsistent but to emphasize that differing responses were the prerogatives of the landowner. If the landowner had underpaid any of his workers, they would have had reason to accuse him of injustice. But there was no law against overpaying workers. The employer was free to do with his money as he wished. This points out that the Lord is both sovereign and gracious.
Finally, the landowner addressed the root of the problem—their eye was envious (cf. Deut. 15:9; 1 Sam. 18:9; Matt. 6:22-23) because the landowner was generous. Their perspective was wrong.
This parable highlights both the justice and the grace of God. Neither is to be taken for granted. When God chooses to reward or punish according to what is justly due a person, no one has a right to complain. On the one hand, his rewards are “recompense” or “pay back” (Matt. 16:27; 2 Cor. 5:10; Col. 3:24-25). On the other hand, the God of Scripture is a God who delights to lavish blessing on his children (e.g., Eph. 1:3-14). But we must be careful not to presume upon his generosity. His gifts are not something we deserve; they are given freely at his discretion. If anyone receives the “raw end of the deal” (by our reasoning), it would be God, who gives much more than he “owes.”
20:16. Jesus wrapped up the parable with the principle with which he started (19:30). So implies that this principle is the point of the parable. If we do not fully understand the justice behind the “last being first” and the “first being last,” we must reserve judgment and thank God for being consistently just and abundantly gracious. We must never consider God unjust.
Applying this to the issues raised in Matthew 19, Jesus was saying that we can be assured that the sacrifices of his followers will always be recompensed fairly and abundantly. Final determination is up to the Father (cf. 20:23).
The King Again Foretells His Death and Resurrection (20:17-19)SUPPORTING IDEA: The king is the best example of humble servanthood.
20:17-19. It is no accident that Jesus' third formal prediction of his suffering, death, and resurrection followed immediately after the extended explanation of the principle that “the last will be first, and the first will be last” (see 19:30-20:16; cf. 16:21; 17:22-23). He told of the humiliation of his betrayal, the mockings and beatings he would endure, and his death. He who was supremely first over all creation would submit to being treated as the lowest of criminals. (This is the first specific mention of crucifixion, which was a punishment of ultimate humiliation, reserved only for the most despised criminals.) But out of the “lastness” of apparent defeat, the king would rise triumphant over death. Philippians 2:5-11 describes this dual paradox in greater detail: The One obedient to “death on a cross” would be the One who has a “name that is above every name.”
At this point in the journey, Jesus and his companions were about to go up to Jerusalem. The tension between Jesus and the religious establishment, headquartered at Jerusalem, had been building throughout Matthew's Gospel. Before long the conflict would come to its tragic but triumphant end.
The word up alludes to the fact that Jerusalem was situated on a ridge at 2,550 feet above sea level. From any direction, Jerusalem was “up.” But especially from the crossing of the Jordan River, near its entrance into the Dead Sea, at about 1,200 feet below sea level, the climb was substantial. This would have made for at least a 3,700-foot elevation gain. Perhaps Jesus and his disciples had just crossed the Jordan, or perhaps they were at Jericho, on the way to Jerusalem (see 20:29).
Jesus was preparing his disciples for what would happen during the next week in Jerusalem. As was his custom when discussing such frank matters, Jesus spoke privately with the Twelve. As in 16:21, Jesus connected his suffering with Jerusalem, but this time their arrival in that city was imminent. As in 17:22, Jesus used his title the Son of Man, again associating the Messiah with suffering.
In 16:21, Jesus listed “the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law,” but here he mentioned only the chief priests and the teachers of the law, still representing the Sanhedrin. Whereas in 16:21, he said that he “must be killed,” and in 17:23, that “they will kill him,” Jesus expanded on his death in this passage. First, they [the Sanhedrin] will condemn [give judgment against] him to death. This was Jesus' first mention of his trial, although his mention of the Sanhedrin in 16:21 might have led the disciples to assume a trial. Second, Jesus mentioned for the first time that the Jewish leaders would turn him over to the Gentiles. Because the Jews, under Roman law, had no right to carry out a death sentence (26:66), they would have to rely on the Romans to perform their dirty work.
For the first time, Jesus gave the details of his passion. Jesus' remarks were painful for the disciples, but they pointed out Jesus' sovereignty in all these things. He was going into a difficult time, but he went as a king and never as a victim. He would be mocked and flogged (using a whip of leather thongs, with jagged bits of metal or bone that would rip the flesh of the victim's back) and crucified. The disciples would have cringed at all three of these words, but especially at crucifixion. This was a slow, torturous death which usually lasted for days—the most humiliating punishment used by the Roman Empire. It was reserved only for the lowest criminals. And crucifixion was also a sign of God's curse (Deut. 21:23; Gal. 3:13). Jesus finished his comments with the triumph of the Resurrection—a note of hope during their sobering climb toward Jerusalem.
The sovereign king was carrying out his mission to perfect fulfillment. The reality of Jesus' suffering and the disciples' share in his suffering would play a prominent part in the next segment of Matthew's Gospel (20:22-23,28). The disciples' words and attitudes revealed that they had failed to comprehend the gravity of Jesus' prediction.
The King Corrects Lingering Misconceptions about Kingdom Greatness (20:20-28)SUPPORTING IDEA: Our human efforts at earthly greatness display our ignorance and misunderstanding of kingdom greatness.
Matthew's inclusion of this event serves at least two purposes. First, it makes a connection between Jesus' suffering (20:17-19) and that of his followers (20:22-23). Second, it shows that the disciples still had not learned Jesus' lessons regarding greatness and humility in the kingdom. The event provided more opportunity for Jesus to expound on the need for humility and sacrificial servanthood in the kingdom (20:25-28). Jesus would then proceed to demonstrate the same kind of humble servanthood in the healing of the two blind men (20:29-34).
20:20-21. James and John were the sons of Zebedee (4:21). Their mother was not likely to be acting on her own here; there may have been some complicity with her sons. Perhaps James and John were guilty of maneuvering for status and rank within the kingdom of heaven. The mother respectfully bowed down to Jesus, preparing to make a formal request. When he invited her to make the request, she asked, Grant that one of these two sons of mine may sit at your right and the other at your left in your kingdom. Her reference to Jesus' kingdom was to its ultimate, triumphant fulfillment. This was a different picture than Jesus had in mind. The person on a king's right hand was his second in command, and the one to his left was third.
It is possible that James and John had told their mother about Jesus' promise that the Twelve would rule Israel on twelve thrones (19:28). Only two thrones could sit beside the king's. The woman and the two disciples were assuming that greatness in God's kingdom was based on status, rank, power, and authority. They also made the mistake Jesus warned against in 19:30-20:16: they were seeking to influence God's bestowal of reward.
20:22. Jesus confronted their misunderstanding by alluding to the fact that the path to such authority lay through the same kind of suffering he would undergo. By asking for the positions of greatest authority, they were asking for the most bitter cup of suffering. Of this implication they were ignorant: You don't know what you are asking.
Jesus alerted them to the connection between great authority and great suffering by asking, Can you drink the cup I am going to drink? The two answered, We can. These two disciples were prepared to follow Jesus. But it is unlikely that they understood Jesus was speaking of his death on the cross (20:19). A cup was often associated with judgment (Ps 75:8; Isa. 51:17-18).
20:23. Jesus acknowledged their earnest intention, noting that they would indeed suffer: You will indeed drink from my cup. James was eventually martyred (Acts 12:2), and John was exiled (Rev. 1:9). But Jesus corrected yet another misunderstanding. Not only was the bestowal of reward not in the hands of the believers; the distribution of those two thrones was at the discretion of the Father. Jesus implied his own obedient submission to the will of the Father (cf. 26:39,42).
Jesus apparently did not choose this private conversation as the opportunity to correct the Zebedee family about eternal rewards and greatness. Rather, he informed them of the implications of their request and that such decisions belonged to the Father.
20:24. Somehow the other ten disciples heard of the Zebedees' request. They were indignant. There was more than pure anger here; there was wounded pride. If the disciples had learned Jesus' lessons on humility, there would have been no pride to wound. The ten were apparently sorry only that they had not requested the same privilege first. Jesus chose this opportunity to teach further on the true values of the kingdom of heaven, especially since all twelve disciples had exposed their prideful hearts.
20:25. Jesus called his students for another session in his classroom. He first showed them that their attitudes were like the Gentiles. You know drew on their own experience or common knowledge. In the unbelieving world, it is assumed that power and authority define greatness. The rulers and high officials were examples of worldly greatness. The way they demonstrated their “greatness” was to lord it over others and to exercise authority. Jesus was not criticizing authoritative or hierarchical structure but the “strutting.”
Such behavior is born out of insecurity and pride. The person who “bosses” others around is trying to prove to himself that he is as great as he hopes. It is only an illusion, for such a person is actually fearful and weak.
20:26-28. Jesus transitioned into the contrasting truth of kingdom greatness with his words, Not so with you, implying, “You are sons of the Almighty. What are you doing dabbling in these puny efforts at worldly ‘greatness' when you could be experiencing true greatness.”
In 20:26-27, Jesus phrased his words in a parallel structure, a kind of poetry. The pronoun whoever leaves the door to true greatness open to anyone willing to follow the path Jesus prescribes. Among you brings to mind the family of God. Just as in Matthew 18, Jesus was speaking of relationships within the believing community.
The great and the first bring to mind Jesus' previous teachings in 18:2-4; 19:30-20:16. Jesus had compared the humility of a true follower to that of a child; here he compared such humility to that of a servant (diakonos) or a slave (doulos). The possessive pronoun your in both cases is plural, implying that the great believer is servant or slave of all fellow believers. This is equivalent to saying, “The first will be last” (19:30; 20:16), but Jesus' words here were more graphic. The person who is truly great, by heaven's definition, is the one who chooses an attitude of submission to others in the family of believers.
Not everything another believer might ask of us is for the good of all. We are to serve the genuine good of other believers, not simply do what they want us to do. This means that the truly great believer will sometimes encounter misunderstandings from others and disappoint and even anger others by right choices. Some believers might even begin to take pride in their “humility.” Our hearts are so self-deceptive that we must always remain open to examination by the loving scrutiny of the Lord. We are accountable to brothers and sisters whose discernment we trust.
All of Jesus' teaching assumes that true humility is based on a healthy self-image. Only the person who is at peace with his true worth in God's eyes is able to act toward others without trying to prove his or her worth. Convinced of one's self-worth, the believer is able to move on in an attempt to demonstrate the worth of others (cf. John 13:1-17).
Jesus could provide no better model than himself. Here he used the title the Son of Man to avoid the use of the pronoun “I,” which might have been construed by the disciples as boastful. Although the Messiah-King came with every right to be served, his purpose was to serve them. He gave up his rights and took on a responsibility he was not obligated to take. This responsibility would extend ultimately to our eternal souls, purchased by the sacrifice of his life as a ransom [a substitute] for many (see “many” in Isa. 52:13-53:12).
The King Stoops to Serve Two Blind Beggars (20:29-34)SUPPORTING IDEA: The greatest in the kingdom will stoop to serve the least.
20:29-31. How long Jesus and his disciples had been in Jericho, on the way from the Jordan crossing to Jerusalem, is unknown. They may have passed through quickly, or they may have stayed there for some days.
Jesus once again gathered a large crowd. His reputation was greater and more widespread than ever. The crowd was convinced that the king would give them liberty from Rome, possibly during this visit to Jerusalem. Among the crowd were pilgrims traveling to Jerusalem for the approaching Passover celebration.
Beggars were considered outcasts in Jewish society. Matthew, writing to Jews who desired two witnesses, mentioned both men. Mark and Luke referred only to one beggar, probably the speaker of the two. He was identified in Mark 10:46 with the nickname “Bartimaeus,” or “Son of Excrement.” Even though Old Testament law provided for the needy in Israel, few holy men would have anything to do with beggars. They feared they might be made unclean if they associated with beggars. Jesus had already performed one healing similar to this in 9:27-31. But this episode was unique in its purpose for Matthew's story. These two “low-lives” were among those whom the Son of Man had come to serve (20:28).
The blind men called out, Lord, Son of David, have mercy on us! The messianic title anticipated its use by the crowds in 21:9,15 as well as Jesus' teaching about it in 22:42-45.
The crowd rebuked the men, telling them to be quiet, lest they disturb the important holy man. But these were desperate men. No social taboos would rob them of this opportunity for healing.
20:32-33. Jesus stopped and called the beggars. The crowd looked on in astonishment. His question, What do you want me to do for you? was not because Jesus was unaware of the obvious. He wanted the men to verbalize their faith in him. They stated their deepest desire: we want our sight.
20:34. The phrase had compassion is from splanchnizomai, also found in 9:36 (see comment there); 14:14; 15:32; 18:27. The king's heart compelled him to action on behalf of others. Jesus ministered through touch, demonstrating his lack of fear of the uncleanness or lowly status of these men.
Immediately the two men regained their sight and joined his followers, undoubtedly praising God all the way to Jerusalem. This healing and the enthusiasm it must have caused in the crowd provided the momentum for Jesus' triumphant entry into Jerusalem.
The Messiah-King was on the verge of entering “the city of the Great King” (Matt. 5:35; Ps. 48:2). He was about to ascend to the sanctuary of Yahweh, which only the blameless may do (Ps. 15). He was about to purify his own house, the temple (21:13), and was preparing to perform the central messianic act of salvation (Isa. 53). The crowd and the disciples were to know beyond any doubt who was entering Jerusalem and the source and extent of his authority.
MAIN IDEA REVIEW: The humblest servant, most dependent on the grace of God, is the greatest in God's eyes.
God views all people—regardless of age, gender, social status, or nationality as of equal value. The greatest person in God's kingdom is the humblest servant toward fellow believers. We must follow Jesus' example by stooping to serve those considered least worthy by worldly standards.
PRINCIPLES
APPLICATIONS
D. L. Moody founded several schools for the training of underprivileged children at Northfield, Massachusetts. Often, when students arrived at the train station, Moody would take his horse and buggy and meet them. One rainy day a man and two women arrived at the station and looked around for someone to take them to the hotel. Seeing a man in a buggy, the man insisted that the driver take him and his party to the hotel. Moody explained that he was waiting to take a party of girls to the seminary.
The visitor was offended and insisted that “these girls are not the only people to be served! Now, you just take us right up to the hotel!”
Meekly the driver obeyed, left them at the hotel, and drove off before he could be paid.
“Who was that driver?” the visitor asked the bellboy
“Mr. D. L. Moody,” the boy replied.
The visitor was shocked because he had come to Northfield to ask Moody to take his daughter into the school. The next day the man apologized, and Moody had a great deal of fun over it.
Dwight L. Moody understood the servanthood attitude Jesus wants us to show toward others. True greatness comes from serving others in God's kingdom, not from advancing our own agendas or interests.
The greatest example of humble servanthood is the Lord Jesus Christ. His sacrifice on the cross to pay for our salvation was the greatest single act of servanthood in history. Let us follow the example of his humble service in our lives, helping others. Any and all sacrifices of servanthood we make in the kingdom will be rewarded by the king.
Gracious Father, teach me the meaning of true greatness and make me a servant of others (especially my spouse) in your kingdom. Amen.
A. Divorce and Remarriage in Israel (v. 3)
In first-century Israel, divorce and remarriage was as controversial as it is today. The Rabbi Hillel school of thought held liberal views on the topic, allowing divorce for any reason. Hillel allowed divorce for a poorly cooked meal, or even if the husband saw a woman whom he considered more attractive. But the Rabbi Shammai school of thought was much stricter, allowing divorce only for serious reasons, particularly adultery.
Even in Israel, where Mosaic Law gave women more dignity and protection than the surrounding cultures, it was the man who took the action of divorce. Today, however, when cultural expectations of men and women are different, this question applies to women as much as men.
B. Sexual Immortality (v. 9)
There is debate over the meaning of the Greek word porneia (“sexual immorality”), here and in 5:32. Many recent commentators believe the word to refer to the cluster of incestuous or illicit sexual relationships listed in the Mosaic Law (see Lev. 18:6-18). If this interpretation is accurate, there is no allowance for divorce in any legitimate marriage (heterosexual, nonincestuous). The fact that neither Mark nor Luke include any such “exception” clause in their Gospels is a telling argument. Matthew's writing to a Jewish audience is sufficient explanation for its presence here.
However one may interpret porneia, a careful student of Scripture should not see a single act of marital infidelity as sufficient to justify divorce. Most biblically sound church leaders, who must apply these passages to specific instances of sexual immorality and divorce, will not jump to the assumption that a one-time indiscretion of one spouse against another qualifies as Jesus' porneia. To the contrary, it is clear that God, while he does not condone sexual immorality in any form, also hates divorce (Mal. 2:16). And he encourages forgiveness, redemption, and restoration. That is precisely what Matthew 18 is about. A thoughtful reading of Scripture will bring the reader to the conclusion that God is always in favor of reconciliation.
A wise church leader will define porneia, in practical terms, as an ongoing unrepentant practice of sexual immorality. This is evidence that the offending spouse has willfully and repeatedly abandoned the marriage vow of exclusive devotion to his or her spouse. In this case, the offended spouse may be justified in divorcing the other. In the Old Testament, such sin would have terminated the marriage through the stoning of the adulterer.
Jesus made it clear in this passage that the allowance for divorce, even if justified, is only an allowance, never a mandate.
A related issue was whether remarriage to a different spouse was permissible after divorce. It is clear from both Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 that no person who had wrongly divorced his or her spouse had the biblical right to marry another. Some argue that this was because, in God's eyes, the original marriage bond was still intact since wrongful remarriage was defined as adultery. As long as one's ex-husband or ex-wife was alive (Rom. 7:2-3) and had not married another person (Deut. 24:1-4), the only remarriage choice for such a divorced person was to reconcile with his or her previous spouse (although 1 Cor. 7:10-17 may also allow abandonment as an exception). It was assumed in the first century that a divorced person would remarry. Therefore, the only way to avoid the adulterous sin of a wrongful remarriage was not to go through a wrongful divorce.
However, in the case of a biblically justified divorce, we are to assume that the offending spouse is not justified in remarriage, but that the offended spouse is allowed to remarry.
Some who have wrongfully remarried may wonder if they are continually living in an adulterous relationship. This dilemma is contrary to 1 Corinthians 10:13, which says that God will never put a believer in a situation where he or she has to sin. He will always make a “way out” from sin. So the sin of adultery in a wrongful remarriage is a one-time sin, at the beginning of the new marriage. From that point on, the new husband and wife are committed before God to preserve their relationship for life. Neither spouse in the new marriage has the option of going back to a previous spouse. Such would be “detestable” (Deut. 24:1-4). This understanding supports Moses' original reason for including the Deuteronomy 24 principle. People must understand the divine nature of marriage as an institution and never treat it lightly.
C. Summary
In this chapter, Jesus expanded on his theme of humility in the kingdom, introduced in 18:3-4, by means of further teaching and live illustration. Contrary to the expectations of the disciples and the crowds, the reader is being prepared for the king's greatest act of humble servanthood—his sacrificial death “as a ransom for many” (20:28). The theme of humility also brings balance to the king's role as judge, which he will display in the purging of the temple (21:12-13) and in his condemnation of the hypocritical leaders (esp. Matt. 23).
The geographical movement of Matthew 19-20 from Galilee to judea was also symbolic of Jesus' movement toward the cross. The time of preparation was over, and it was time to do battle in earnest. The disciples, while far from perfect, were ready. The final countdown to the victorious tragedy had begun.
A. INTRODUCTION
Jesus' twice-repeated “first will be last” and “last will be first” statements (19:30; 20:16; similarly in 20:26-28) serve as the central message of Matthew 19-20. The student of these chapters will see Matthew's intent and the impact of Jesus' life and teaching by searching for examples of “lastness” and “firstness.”
B. COMMENTARY
C. CONCLUSION
