Mateus 19
David Guzik · Citado em PreceptAustin
Mateus 19
Guzik - The man failed this challenge. Essentially, this man was an idolater: he loved money and material things more than God. This shows than both tables of the law will test men...the laws (Commandments 1-4 - Ex 20:3-11) having to do with our relationship with God (and with men - Commandments 5-10 = Ex 20:12-17). Jesus challenged him to put God first; to fulfill the law to love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength (Deuteronomy 6:5). (Luke 18 Commentary) Sean O'Connell sums up Jesus' "strategy" to pierce the young man's armor of self-righteousness - “Have you really kept all the commandments? All of them? Every single one of them? Ever since you were young? Well, how about, ‘You shall not covet’?” He puts it this way: “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me” (Mt 19:21). Jesus calls him to perfection, “perfect” in the sense of keeping both tables of the Law. He is to love others, especially the poor (i.e., widows, orphans, blind beggars, and perhaps Christ’s followers), and follow (i.e., love first) Jesus. The rich man knew he lacked something. That is why he asked Jesus what he asked. But he thought whatever it was he lacked could simply be added to his life. But the one thing he lacked was a childlike dependence on Christ (Mt 18:17). So our Lord, seeking to bring this man to the point of such dependence, challenged this rich man to cut off his riches (“sell all that you possess and give to the poor”) and challenged this rich ruler to cut off his self-rule (“come, follow me”). Here our Lord demands not almsgiving (giving something to someone) but everything (give everything to others and everything to me). He demands everything. Give everything to others-love your neighbor. Give everything to Christ-love the Lord your God. Well, such a challenge was too hard, too impossibly difficult. The arrow of Christ’s command struck the young man’s Achilles’ heel. The weight of just the Tenth Commandment crushed him. This man who only moments ago knelt before Jesus enthusiastic and expectant now stood up, turned his back on our Lord, and “went away sorrowful” (Mt 19:22). Why? There is only one reason given: “for he had great possessions” (Mt 19:22), or we might rightly say, because great possessions had him. (See Matthew: All Authority in Heaven and on Earth - Page 549) ILLUSTRATION - A missionary poetess and mystic, Amy Carmichael of Dohnavur, described in her famous book Things As They Are sitting with a Hindu queen in her palace as the queen revealed her spiritual hunger. As the conversation developed, she kept pushing Miss Carmichael regarding what was necessary for salvation, and Amy attempted to deflect her, saying she should wait. But she was determined to hear it then and, as she insisted, I read her a little of what He says about it Himself. She knew quite enough to understand and take in the force of the forceful words. She would not consent to be led gently on. “No, I must know it now,” she said; and as verse by verse we read to her, her face settled sorrowfully. “So far must I follow, so far?” she said, “I cannot follow so far.”...(THE FOLLOWING QUOTE IS AN ADDITION FROM AMY CARMICHAEL'S BOOK) Then she looked at me again, and I shall never forget the look. It seemed as if she were looking me through and through, and forcing the answer to come. She spoke in little short sentences, instinct with intensity. "I CANNOT live here and break my Caste. If I break it I must go. I CANNOT live here without keeping my customs. If I break them I must go. You know all this ("queen" addressing Amy). I ask you, then, tell me yes or no. Can I live here and keep my caste, and at the same time follow your God? Tell me yes or no!" I did not tell her--how could I? But she read the answer in my eyes, and she said, as she had said before "I cannot follow so far---so far, I CANNOT FOLLOW SO FAR!" "Reverence for opinions and practice held sacred by his ancestors is ingrained in every fiber of a Hindu's character, and is, so to speak, bred in the very bone of his physical and moral constitution." So writes Sir Monier Williams. It is absolutely true." (Amy Wilson-Carmichael, Things as They Are ) That is, in effect, what the rich man said. He was overcome with profound sadness because he had so much money. He could not possibly bring himself to give it up. Dante referred to this as “The Great Refusal.” It was, for from there he became a wandering star—lost, haunted by what might have been.(From Kent Hughes with amplification of the original quote from Amy Carmichael's book) FALSE PRETENDERS When the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions. Matthew 19:22 All persons who are alienated from God and outside of Christ are part and parcel of a mighty deception! They are called upon to pretend that they can have peace of mind within and that they can be relatively happy and make a big success of their human lives if they have youth and wealth and morality and high position. In that sense of what is going on all around us, David never had to apologize for writing that “every man is a liar!” (see Psalm 116:11). The whole human concept of success and happiness and inner peace, based upon who we are and what we have, is completely false. The rich young ruler who came to question Jesus had wealth, morality, position and youth. But his very first question gave the clue to his own inner emptiness of life: “What good thing should I do, that I may have eternal life?” (see Luke 18:18). He knew very well that there is not a person alive who has eternal youth or eternal position or eternal righteousness. So, like every other man, he had to make a choice! ILLUSTRATION - Of the danger of riches - In Teaching a Stone to Talk (Borrow Teaching a stone to talk : expeditions and encounters), Annie Dillard recalls the tragic story of the Franklin expedition to the North Pole. In 1845 a group of English explorers died because they were ill prepared for the challenges they would face. Instead of providing room on board their two ships for storing additional coal for the steam engines, these careless adventurers used the space for a large library, a barrel organ, china place settings, and cut-glass wine goblets. Needless to say, when they ran out of coal, as they did, their books and tea cups and ornate musical instruments were not enough to warm their freezing bodies. Every member of that expedition died. Sadly, 128 men lost their lives. Years later when the search party found the remains of the men who had set off to walk for help, they discovered one skeleton dressed in a fine blue cloth uniform edged with silk braid, sadly grasping in his hand a place setting of sterling silver flatware. What a picture of their deadly foolishness. This rich young ruler acted as foolishly as that dead British explorer. But instead of trying to carry sterling silver through the frozen Arctic, this man was trying to carry all his possessions through the tiny entrance into the kingdom of God (cf Mt 7:13+). And just as all those explorers had to do was make sure their ships had more coal and fewer luxuries, so too all this rich man needed to do was unhinge this huge weight from his back and walk as a small man, a poor man, a humble man, a childlike man ... walk in faith uprightly through the small and narrow way. (What a picture of the deceitfulness of riches!)(O'Connell) Matthew 19:23 And Jesus said to His disciples, “Truly I say to you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. That: Mt 13:22 De 6:10-12 8:10-18 Job 31:24,25 Ps 49:6,7,16-19 Pr 11:28 Pr 30:8,9 Mk 10:23 Lu 12:15-21 16:13,14,19-28 Lk 18:24 1Co 1:26 1Ti 6:9,10 Jas 1:9-11 2:6 5:1-4 enter: Mt 5:20 Mt 18:3 Mt 21:31 Jn 3:3,5 Ac 14:22 Related Passages: Mark 10:23 And Jesus, looking around (periblepo), *said to His disciples, “How hard it will be for those who are wealthy to enter the kingdom of God!” Luke 18:24 And Jesus looked at him and said, “How hard it is for those who are wealthy to enter the kingdom of God! And Jesus (Iesous) said to His disciples (mathetes) - Notice in Luke's version Jesus addressed this to the young man. Truly (amen) I say (lego) to you, it is hard (duskolos) for a rich (plousios) man to enter (eiserchomai) the kingdom (basileia) of heaven (ouranos) - Truly I say is frequently used by Jesus to introduce a solemn teaching. The emphasis is on the word hard or "with difficulty." Enter the kingdom of God in this context is equivalent to being saved or being born again. Worldly wealth blinds one to their heavenly need. Wealth is deceptive. Earlier Jesus explained in the parable of the soils that "And others are the ones on whom seed was sown among the thorns; these are the ones who have heard the word, but the worries of the world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the desires for other things enter in and choke the word, and it becomes unfruitful." (Mk 4:18-19+). No fruit, no root. No fruit, no evidence of salvation. Wealth is a human value with a voracious appetite which binds a person to earth. -- David McKenna Remember "to enter the Kingdom of Heaven" (or Kingdom of God) in many contexts (such as the present) is the "code word" for being saved or receiving the gift of eternal life. It is hard for the wealthy to enter because they tend to trust in their own resources instead of God's free gift of salvation. D Edmond Hiebert - How hardly, “with what difficulty,” indicates that wealth does not automatically exclude one from the kingdom, but it does constitute a handicap....In him wealth revealed its power beyond most other things in life to work a deadly effect upon the will when a seeker is confronted with the demand to choose between it and the kingdom. He had made many noble choices, but when he was confronted with this crucial decision, his wealth showed its strong power to weaken his will to choose the highest good. ...Jesus did not envy the rich but rather pitied them. It put them under a terrible handicap in their relationship to the kingdom of God, making it hard for them to submit to His rule in simple trust. (The Gospel of Mark: An Expositional Commentary) Kenneth
Mateus 19
Guzik adds that "Their low view of women meant that their high ideal of marriage was constantly compromised, and those compromises were made into law, as with the thinking of Rabbi Hillel. Under the thinking of Hillel, “a man could divorce his wife if she spoiled his dinner, if she spun, or went with unbound hair, or spoke to men in the streets, if she spoke disrespectfully of his parents in his presence, or if she was a brawling woman whose voice could be heard in the next house. Rabbi Akiba even went the length of saying…that a man could divorce his wife if he found a woman whom he liked better and considered more beautiful.” (Barclay) Matthew Henry Concise - Mt 19:3-12. The Pharisees were desirous of drawing something from Jesus which they might represent as contrary to the law of Moses. Cases about marriage have been numerous, and sometimes perplexed; made so, not by the law of God, but by the lusts and follies of men; and often people fix what they will do, before they ask for advice. Jesus replied by asking whether they had not read the account of the creation, and the first example of marriage; thus pointing out that every departure therefrom was wrong. That condition is best for us, and to be chosen and kept to accordingly, which is best for our souls, and tends most to prepare us for, and preserve us to, the kingdom of heaven. When the gospel is really embraced, it makes men kind relatives and faithful friends; it teaches them to bear the burdens, and to bear with the infirmities of those with whom they are connected, to consider their peace and happiness more than their own. As to ungodly persons, it is proper that they should be restrained by laws, from breaking the peace of society. And we learn that the married state should be entered upon with great seriousness and earnest prayer. William Barclay has some interesting background on marriage among the Jews writing that "No nation has ever had a higher view of marriage than the Jews. Marriage was a sacred duty. To remain unmarried after the age of twenty, except in order to concentrate upon the study of the law, was to break a positive commandment to 'be fruitful and multiply'. The man who had no children 'slew his own posterity' and 'lessened the image of God upon earth'. 'When husband and wife are worthy, the glory of God is with them.'" Marriage was not to be entered into carelessly or lightly. Josephus outlines the Jewish approach to marriage, based on the Mosaic teaching (Antiquities of the Jews, 4:8:23). A man must marry a virgin of good parentage. He must never seduce another man's wife; and he must not marry a woman who had been a slave or a prostitute. If a man accused his wife of not being a virgin when he married her, he must bring proof of his accusation. Her father or brother must defend her. If the girl was vindicated, he must take her in marriage, and could never again put her away, except for the most flagrant sin. If the accusation was proved to have been reckless and malicious, the man who made it must be beaten with forty stripes save one, and must pay fifty shekels to the girl's father. But if the charge was proved and the girl found guilty, if she was one of the ordinary people, the law was that she must be stoned to death, and if she was the daughter of a priest, she must be burned alive. If a man seduced a girl who was engaged to be married, and the seduction took place with her consent, both he and she must be put to death. If, in a lonely place or where there was no help present, the man forced the girl into sin, the man alone was put to death. If a man seduced an unattached girl, he must marry her, or, if her father was unwilling for him to marry her, he must pay the father fifty shekels. The Jewish laws of marriage and of purity aimed very high. Ideally, divorce was hated. God had said: 'I hate divorce' (Malachi 2:16). It was said that the very altar wept tears when a man divorced the wife of his youth. But ideal and actuality did not go hand in hand. In the situation, there were two dangerous and damaging elements. First, in the eyes of Jewish law, a woman was a thing. She was the possession of her father, or of her husband as the case might be; and therefore she had, technically, no legal rights at all. Most Jewish marriages were arranged either by the parents or by professional matchmakers. A girl might be engaged to be married in childhood, and was often engaged to be married to a man whom she had never seen. There was this safeguard: when she came to the age of twelve, she could reject her father's choice of husband. But in matters of divorce, the general law was that the initiative must lie with the husband. The law ran: 'A woman may be divorced with or without her consent, but a man can be divorced only with his consent.' The woman could never initiate the process of divorce; she could not divorce, she had to be divorced. There were certain safeguards. If a man divorced his wife on any other grounds than those of flagrant immorality, he must return her dowry; and this must have been a barrier to irresponsible divorce. The courts might put pressure on a man to divorce his wife, in the case, for instance, of refusal to consummate the marriage, of impotence, or of proved inability to support her properly. A wife could force her husband to divorce her, if he contracted a loathsome disease, such as leprosy, or if he was a tanner, which involved the gathering of dogs' excrement, or if he proposed to make her leave the Holy Land. But, by and large, the law was that the woman had no legal rights, and the right to divorce lay entirely with the husband. Second, the process of divorce was fatally easy. That process was founded on the passage in the Mosaic law to which Jesus' questioners referred: 'Suppose a man enters into marriage with a woman, but she does not please him because he finds something objectionable about her, so he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house...' (Deuteronomy 24:I). The bill of divorcement was a simple, one-sentence statement that the husband dismissed his wife. Josephus writes: 'He that desires to be divorced from his wife for any cause whatsoever (and many such causes happen among men) let him, in writing, give assurance that he will never use her as his wife any more; for by this means she may be at liberty to marry another husband.' The one safeguard against the dangerous ease of the divorce process was the fact that unless the woman was a notorious sinner, her dowry must be returned. Related Resource: BORROW Divorce and remarriage : four Christian views by Wayne House Pharisees (5330) pharisaios is transliterated from the Hebrew parash (06567 - to separate) from Aramaic word peras (06537) ("Peres" in Da 5:28-note), signifying to separate, owing to a different manner of life from that of the general public. After the resettling of the Jewish people in Judea on their return from the Babylonian captivity, there were two religious groups among them. One party contented themselves with following only what was written in the Law of Moses. These were called Zadikim, the righteous. The other group added the constitutions and traditions of the elders, as well as other rigorous observances, to the Law and voluntarily complied with them. They were called Chasidim or the pious. From the Zadikim the sects of the Sadducees and Karaites were derived. From the Chasidim were derived the Pharisees and the Essenes. In I Mac2:42, among the persons who joined Mattathias against Antiochus IV (Epiphanes), about 167 b.c., are named the Asideans (Asidaíoi), who are described as voluntarily devoted to the law. The Asideans are mentioned also in I Mac 7:13; II Mac14:6. In the time of our Lord, the Pharisees were the separatists of their day, as well as the principal sect among the Jews. The Pharisees considered themselves much holier than the common people (Lu 18:11, 12). They wore special garments to distinguish themselves from others. PRINCIPLE TENETS OF PHARISEES: In opposition to those of the Sadducees, and the former group maintained the existence of angels and spirits and the doctrine of the resurrection (Acts 23:8), which the latter party denied (Mt 22:23; Mk 12:18; Lu 20:27). The Pharisees made everything dependent upon God and fate (Josephus, The Jewish Wars, ii.8.14). However, they did not deny the role of the human will in affecting events (Josephus, Antiquities, xviii.1.3). ZEAL FOR TRADITION: The Pharisees distinguished themselves with their zeal for the traditions of the elders, which they taught was derived from the same fountain as the written Word itself, claiming both to have been delivered to Moses on Mount Sinai (Mt 15:1-6; Mk 7:3-5). See also parádosis (3862), tradition, and éntalma (1778), a religious precept versus entole (1785), commandment. (See more detailed notes from William Barclay) Testing (3985)(peirazo from the noun peira = test from peíro = perforate, pierce through to test durability of things; cf dokimazo & peirasmos) is a morally neutral word simply meaning “to test”. Whether the test is for a good (as it proved to be in Heb 11:17) or evil (Mt 4:1 "Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil") depends on the intent of the one giving the test and also on the response of the one tested. To endeavor to discover the nature or character of something by testing. (2Co 13:5, 1Cor 10:13+) This use can refer to a trial of God by humans, the intent being to put God to the test, to discover whether God really can do a certain thing. Test is peirazo, meaning “to test, tempt.” It is the same verb Matthew used of Satan tempting Jesus in Mt 4:1, 3; the Pharisees and Sadducees demanding the second sign in Mt 16:1; the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Herodians together trying to trap Jesus concerning taxation (Mt 22:18) and the greatest commandment (Mt 22:35). Their “test” was an action of malicious intent. Lawful (1832)(exesti from from ek = out + eimí = to be) is an impersonal verb, signifying "it is permitted, it is lawful" (or interrogatively, "is it lawful?"). Exesti occurs most frequently in the synoptic Gospels and the Acts, especially in Jesus' conflicts with the Pharisees over His actions (and those of His disciples) on the Sabbath (Matt. 12:2; 12:4; 12:10; 12:12, etc). BDAG - 1. to be authorized for the doing of something - it is right, is authorized, is permitted, is proper. 2. to be within the range of possibility, it is possible (Acts 2:29) Divorce (send away, release) (630)(apoluo from apó = marker of dissociation, implying a rupture from a former association, separation + luo = loose) is used often of sending a person or a group away from someone (Mt 14:15, 22, 23, 32, etc). Apoluo frequently has the sense of to let loose from or to release (as from under arrest or from another's custody), as it is used here in Acts 17:9. To let go free or set at liberty. Apoluo is used in all four Gospels describing the release of Barabbas instead of Jesus (Jn 18:39, Mt 27:15, 17, 21, etc, cf Acts 16:35) Apoluo frequently is means to divorce (let go free or release a wife Mt 5:31, 32; 19:3; and a husband in Mk 10:12). Apoluo is never used in the marriage context with the meaning of just to separate (as the term is commonly used today) or to break an engagement, but always means full fledged divorce. Paul Apple has some helpful remarks on the controversial topic of divorce... Orthodox Evangelical commentators have long been divided on their positions on this passage as it relates to the teaching of Jesus regarding the permanency of marriage and potential for divorce and remarriage. You have John MacArthur and D. A. Carson and the vast majority of Christendom today on the side of allowable exception clauses that would validate divorce and remarriage for believers in specific cases. While John Piper, James Boice, Voddie Baucham and others would hold to no allowance for divorce and remarriage under any circumstances as long as the departing spouse has not yet died. So I enter humbly into this discussion without claiming that I have the last word or the simple truth. It is interesting that both sides have criticized the other side for taking a position based on utilitarian grounds, when in fact all the players named above certainly have accurate biblical exegesis and the pursuit of truth as their sincere goal. It has been claimed that those holding the permanency view are simply trying to stem the tide of rampant increases in the rates of divorce and remarriage in society. While the reverse charge is that pastoral pressure from the prevalence of complicated life situations has rendered the permissive interpretation less than inductively-based and objective in approach. I choose to stay clear of all such charges and admit the complexity of the issues since so many different passages are involved. I have to add that no expositor can claim complete objectivity, but at least I don’t have some of the more common pressures of denominational positions or immediate pastoral pressures of a large church to impact my thinking. There is no question that a pastoral heart is required for sensitivity towards those who have either experienced or been impacted by such situations. We must always embrace the compassion of God in extending love and forgiveness and grace as we seek to maintain the unity of the body and to encourage all believers to grow in Christ in their present situation. But still truth is truth and we must endeavor to discern the mind of Christ on this important issue and apply truth without compromising. My personal view aligns with the Permanency of Marriage without any provision for divorce or remarriage. Obviously, the “exception clauses” such as we find in Matt. 19 will be the major sticking point for me. The following observations have informed my conclusions: The starting point should be God’s design for marriage and His stated hatred of divorce rather than investigating how far one can push the envelope before crossing the line into obvious transgression. How can anything but death of one of the partners break the one-flesh union that God creates in marriage? The simple statements of Jesus show that He is comfortable with unambiguous support of the permanency of marriage. It is only in the Jewish context in Matthew, when pressed by the entrapment-minded Pharisees that He addresses any type of possible exception. There are a variety of approaches to interpreting His response. The Pharisees expected Jesus to support the more conservative of the two schools of thought of the day – that which would only allow divorce in the case of adultery or sexual sin. Yet Jesus so shocked His disciples by taking a more extreme position that they almost despaired of the option of marriage. Jesus encouraged them with additional teaching about God’s grace and provision for celibacy where appropriate. Thus Jesus remained consistent to His requirement that kingdom ethics required righteousness that exceeds that of the Pharisees. Some of the topics in the surrounding context in the Gospel of Matthew include the unlimited nature of forgiveness and the importance of faithfulness to vows – both of which would be compromised by the Permissive View. The Permanency view better maintains the essential symbolic picture of the relationship between Christ and His bride the church. The Permanency view better fits the hermeneutical principle of interpreting unclear passages in light of clear passages rather than vice versa. I also find that the Permissive View allows for fallen humans to attempt to “game” the system and create a situation where they can take advantage of the “exception” loophole to escape an undesirable marriage. For example, take a mixed marriage situation where the believing spouse could antagonize the unbeliever to the point where the unbeliever would seek a divorce and supposedly release the believer from bondage to remarry. Or even in a marriage between believers, a spouse could manipulate the situation to make it more like that the partner commit adultery and make divorce and remarriage a viable option. That seems like a dangerous can of worms to me. Of course the relevant passages still need to be exegeted in a manner that would allow for this Permanency View. Stu Weber: Lifelong marital faithfulness is God’s intention, requiring our dependence on his supernatural strength. William
Mateus 19
Guzik - The Pharisees thought that Moses was creating or promoting divorce. In fact, he was controlling it. Charles Swindoll: In their response, they essentially argued, “If what You say is true, that divorce was not part of God’s intention for marriage, then why would Moses —the great revealer of the Law —command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?” Here, they tried to pit Jesus against Moses —His words against the Law. Ignoring Jesus’ argument from Genesis 1 and 2, they went back to Deuteronomy 24:1-4. The argument, in their minds, was compelling: If it were unlawful to divorce a wife, based on the words of Genesis, then Moses was breaking God’s law by providing for divorce in Deuteronomy.
Mateus 19
Guzik adds on hardness of heart - "Sometimes the heart of the offending party is hard, and they will not do what must be done to reconcile the relationship. Sometimes the heart of the offended party is hard, and they refuse to reconcile and get past the offence even when there is contrition and repentance. Often the hardness of heart is on both sides. Moses permitted (epitrepo) you to divorce (apoluo) your wives; but from the beginning (arche) it has not been this way - Jesus does not argue with Deut 24:1-4 and indirectly confirms the Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy. Moses' concession was because of their sinfulness and he only indirectly and reluctantly permitted divorce. What did Jesus mean by the time phrase from the beginning? In context Jesus has just quoted from Genesis, so that this would refer to the beginning of creation where God emphasized the sacred, lifelong nature of marriage.
Mateus 19
Guzik - The laying on of hands is used Biblically as a way to bestow blessing on another (Acts 6:6, Acts 8:17, Acts 9:17, 1 Timothy 5:22, 2 Timothy 1:6). 🙏 THOUGHT - As a child of God you can know that this same Jesus is praying for you even as I write this note (Ro 8:34+, Heb 7:25+) Do we appreciate and value the intercessory prayer that Jesus is offering right now on our behalf at the right hand of the Father? A good way to show we value it is by occasionally thanking Him for His intercession for our souls! R T France - “It was a Jewish custom to bring a child to the elders on the evening of the Day of Atonement ‘to bless him and pray for him’ (Mishnah Sopherim 18:5).” (See The Gospel According to Matthew: An Introduction and Commentary) Play this wonderful old tune (also includes 2 other children's tunes you may know) Jesus loves the little children All the children of the world Red and yellow, black and white, They are precious in His sight Jesus loves the little children of the world. Grant Osborne: This is the normal form for a blessing in the ancient world. Laying on of hands was used for parental blessing (Gen 48:14, 17–18), ordaining leaders (Num 27:18; Deut 34:9; Acts 6:6; 13:3), presenting sacrifices (Exod 29:10, 15; Lev 1:4), healing (Matt 9:18; Mark 6:5; 7:32), and giving the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:17; 19:6). In Matthew the bringing of the children to Jesus recognizes his “authority as the one who determines human destiny” as well as his “mercy and compassion” for those who need his help. (See Matthew - Page 711) C H
Mateus 19
Guzik has an interesting comment - We may make two mistakes here. The one is to believe this applies to everyone, when Jesus never made this a general command to all who would follow Him, but especially to this one rich man whose riches were clearly an obstacle to his discipleship. Instead, many rich people can do more good in the world by continuing to make money and using those resources for the glory of God and the good of others. The second mistake is to believe this applies to no one, when there are clearly those today for whom the best thing they could do for themselves spiritually is to radically forsake the materialism that is ruining them. Francis of Assisi was a notable one who heard Jesus speak these words to him, and gave away all he had to follow Jesus. (Luke 18 Commentary) Leon