Mateus 19
Leon Morris · Citado em PreceptAustin
Mateus 19
Morris - No matter how outwardly righteous a person may be, he can only be saved if he comes to Christ with nothing of his own. The Lord may not ask a follower to give up his possessions or anything else, but maybe He will. That person must at least be willing to do so. We cannot bargain with God. We are dead in sins until He saves us; only Christ can give us life. NET NOTE - Grk “he had many possessions.” This term (κτῆμα, ktēma) is often used for land as a possession. Ryrie - The man was being asked to prove his claim to have kept the commandments, especially the one that says "You shall love your neighbor as yourself" (Mt 19:19, Lev 19:18). His unwillingness to do so belied his claim (Mt 19:20, Lk 18:21) and showed him as a sinner in need of salvation. So Ryrie interprets Jesus as saying to the young man "Okay, you have made the claim to keep the commandments dealing with your behavior toward people. Now, be willing to prove your claim by selling everything and giving it to the poor." Jesus of course was not saying being charitable saves anyone (the reverse is true - that is, being saved results in a new heart, one that is charitable). What he was doing was "testing" the young man's declaration of "goodness" toward other people. He exposes the young man's pride (middle letter of pride = the big "I") and idolatry. 🙏 THOUGHT - BEWARE OF RICHES! It is fascinating that none of the Synoptic Gospels record any verbal reply from the young ruler upon hearing Jesus' hard teaching. Luke does not record that he went away but just that he became very sad. Matthew and Mark both tell us "he went away grieving." (Mt 19:22, Mk 10:22) The fact that this young man made the tragic volitional choice to turn away from the "offer of a lifetime" reflects the fact that he had a greater love for his riches rather than for the Righteous One! Mark 4:19 (Mt 13:22) explains that "the worries of the world, and the deceitfulness of riches (READ THAT AGAIN! RICHES ARE LIKE SIN - THEY DECEIVE WITH PROMISES OF GRATIFICATION, BUT FAIL DISCLOSE THE ULTIMATE COST! cf Heb 3:13+, see Deceitfulness of Sin), and the desires for other things enter in and choke (sumpnigo) the Word, and it becomes unfruitful." Luke 8:14+ is similar stating that "The seed which fell among the thorns, these are the ones who have heard, and as they go on their way they are choked (sumpnigo) with worries and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to maturity." Recall this story actually happened and this man came with a sense of urgency and earnestness seeking eternal life, but one moral of the story is that if one becomes attached to wealth or a desire for wealth (which is easy to do), this attachment will erode one's sense of urgency and earnestness, so that over time even an earnest person forgets what is truly priceless - eternal life! God grant us by Your Spirit and Word to always Beware of riches! Amen Ray Pritchard has some pithy points - When it comes to going to heaven, it’s not what you’ve got that counts, it’s what you lack (Lk 18:22)....It’s true, isn’t it, that money can choke out the things of God? There are a great many Christians who love Jesus when they make $15,000 a year. There are fewer who love him when they make $30,000. Fewer still who love him when they make $50,000. Fewer still who love him when they make $150,000. Fewer yet who love him when they make half a million dollars a year. There are a great many Christians who would become deeply committed to Jesus Christ again, if only they would go broke. Go home and think about that. I’m not saying we have to do literally what Jesus said here. But the principle is entirely true. You cannot love money and be his disciple. You cannot. He set the rules down 2000 years ago. That’s just the way it is. (When Having It All Is Not Enough)
Mateus 19
Morris - Modern critics often allege that the first two chapters of Genesis are two different and contradictory accounts of creation. Jesus, however, quoted Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:24+ as being perfectly complementary and of absolute authority. Furthermore, He was there at the beginning! Leave (2641)(kataleipo from kata = intensifies or strengthens the meaning of leipo + leipo = to leave behind, forsake, to be wanting or deficient) literally means to leave behind or leave remaining (of a person or place - Mt 4:13, 16:4, 21:17, Heb 11:27). Kataleipo is often used to indicate abandoning a heritage, giving up riches, and leaving one's native land. Figuratively kataleipo was used to mean "neglect" (Acts 6:2+). Kataleipo conveys a strong sense of to abandon or forsake (as forsaking true Christianity 2Pe 2:15). To cause something to be left over and so to remain in existence (Ro 11:4+, Heb 4:1+ = a promise remains). To leave without help (Lk 10:40). In the passive to remain behind (1Th 3:1+, John 8:9). To leave alone in the sense of disregard as describing those who sail past a place without stopping (Acts 21:3) Kataleipo can mean to cease an activity (eg, give up a vice) but there are no uses with this sense in Scripture. Matthew 19:6 “So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” God: Pr 2:16-17 Mal 2:14 Mk 10:9 Ro 7:2 1Co 7:10-14 Eph 5:28 Heb 13:4 Related Passages: Proverbs 2:16-17+ To deliver you from the strange woman, From the adulteress who flatters with her words; 17That leaves the companion of her youth And forgets the covenant of her God; Malachi 2:14+ “Yet you say, ‘For what reason?’ Because the LORD has been a witness between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have dealt treacherously, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. Mark 10:9+ “What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” SUPERNATURAL ADDITION: TWO BECOME ONE So (therefore, term of conclusion) they are (absolutely) no longer (ouketi) two, but one (heis) flesh (sarx) - God's math supernaturally (and mysteriously) unites two individuals into one (heis) flesh (sarx). In God's eyes marriage is not a legality, a formality or a tradition (it is all of those in men's eyes) but is a supernatural arrangement initiated and carried out by the Holy Spirit in the hearts of two sinners, joining their hearts together. What therefore God (theos) has joined together (suzeugnumi), let no man separate (chorizo present imperative with a negative) - Therefore introduces another term of conclusion which concludes with a commandment. Jesus appeals to the creation account as the foundation for the institution of marriage which was validated by the Creator Himself and originally intended to be a lifelong union between one man and one woman who were to be fruitful and multiply (Ge 1:28+). Notice the command let no man separate is a present imperative with a negative calling for this (separation, divorce) to not to occur. In Ge 2:24+ the call was for the man to "cleave to his wife," the Hebrew verb dabaq meaning essentially to "stick like glue!" 🙏 THOUGHT - Try this little test. Take a picture of a man and a picture of his fiance and glue them together. Now allow sufficient time to dry and the two pictures to firmly adhere. Then grab the edges of each person's picture and pull them apart. What's the result? I'll leave that for you to ponder, including the implications in real life! As an aside, when a professing Christian claims that the Lord led them out of a marriage this is a lie and makes God a liar. Bruce on one flesh - The reference is primarily to the physical fleshly unity. But flesh in Hebrew thought represents the entire man, and the ideal unity of marriage covers the whole nature. It is a unity of soul as well as of body: of sympathy, interest, purpose.” (See The Expositor's Greek Testament) Only God can make marriage only God can break marriage. -- David Platt Hiebert on what God has joined together - an abiding prohibition against man’s disruption of the union which God has established. The statement marks the contrast between God’s action and man’s. Jesus asserted the indissoluble nature of marriage as the divine intention. Under certain circumstances, human sinfulness may make relief through divorce necessary as a lesser evil, but it is still an evil, because it is contrary to the divine intention. The phrase “saving for the cause of fornication” (Matt. 5:32; 19:9) shows that Jesus recognized one ground for divorce. But even then Jesus did not command divorce. Forgiveness and restoration are open and desirable for those who have thus failed in the marriage relationship. Yet Jesus recognized that the fornication of the wife had in reality already broken the marriage tie; the husband in sending away his wife only accepted the disruption that she had caused. Jesus was concerned with the sin that caused the disruption of the marriage relationship, whatever its nature. (The Gospel of Mark: An Expositional Commentary) Joined together (4801)(suzeugnumi from sun/syn = together + zeúgos = yoke, pair, (zugos ) couple, team (oxen yoked). Yoke together as animals (Eze 1:11). Figuratively pictures to JOIN TOGETHER, UNITE as HUSBAND AND WIFE (Mt. 19:6; Mk 10:9). The picture is a common farming metaphor of two oxen yoked together--- As oxen in the plough, where each must pull equally in order to bring it on. Among the ancients, they put a yoke upon the necks of a new married couple, or chains on their arms, to shew that they were to be one, closely united, and pulling equally together in all the concerns of life. Zeugos "hath yoked together," as oxen in the plough, where each must pull equally in order to bring it on. ILLUSTRATION - Among the ancients, they put a yoke upon the necks of a new married couple, or chains on their arms, to shew that they were to be one, closely united, and pulling equally together in all the concerns of life Only 2x - Matt. 19:6; Mk. 10:9 Separate (5563) chorizo from choris = separately, apart from, from) in the active sense means to cause to separate or divide, to put apart putting a space between. The emphasis of chorizo (especially in its literal uses) is on distance. In the passive sense, chorizo means to separate oneself (put some space between), to be separated. Chorizo is used in 1Co 7:10 as the equivalent of divorce Although in modern terms we speak of separation as distinct from divorce, the NT use of chorizo in the context of marriage always carried the idea of divorce. A pagan husband and wife who divorce break God's law just as surely as believers who divorce. QUESTION - What does “what God has joined together, let no one separate” mean? WATCH VIDEO ANSWER - The command “what God has joined together, let no one separate” refers to marriage and divorce. It is from Jesus’ teaching on marriage and divorce found in Mark 10:1–12 and Matthew 19:1–12. On one occasion, the Pharisees asked Jesus if it is legitimate for a man to divorce his wife. Jesus in essence answers, “No”: “Haven’t you read . . . that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate” (Matthew 19:4–6; cf. Genesis 1:27; 2:24). Jesus’ point is that a married couple is something that “God has joined together.” Marriage is not of human origin—it originated with God and is part of the way that God designed the human race to live. In saying “let no one separate” a marriage, Jesus taught that divorce is not God’s plan. Once a couple is married, they have been joined together by God Himself, and the union is meant to be for life. This principle holds true despite the faith (or lack thereof) of the couple. When two atheists marry, they have been joined together by God, whether they recognize it or not. If God has joined them together, then no human being has the right to break that union. Later, after Jesus says, “What God has joined together, let no one separate,” the Pharisees point out that Moses allowed divorce. Jesus agrees, but also points out that the allowance was made due to “hardness of heart” (Matthew 19:8, NASB), reiterating that divorce was never God’s original plan. Jesus’ command against separating what God has joined implies that it is possible for a marriage union to be broken and for the one flesh to be separated by divorce. There is debate among Christians about whether divorce is ever justified. Many (perhaps most) would allow for divorce in the case of unrepentant unfaithfulness on the part of one spouse (based on Matthew 19:9) or desertion of a believing spouse by an unbelieving spouse who no longer wants to be married to a believer (see 1 Corinthians 7:15). In these cases the marriage bond has been broken by unfaithfulness or desertion—a severing of something that God has joined together—and it is a tragic occurrence. Even if the above exceptions are allowed, our culture and, too often, even the church seem to regard divorce as something far less serious than it is. If marriage were simply a human convention similar to a business partnership or club membership, then people would be free to enter and exit at will. Divorce is not simply two people deciding to part company; it is one or perhaps both of the marriage partners deciding that they will act decisively to end something that God intended to be permanent. That is a serious thing! Related Resources: BORROW Divorce and remarriage : four Christian views by Wayne House See Walter Kaiser's discussion of Mark 10:11–12 No Divorce and Remarriage? from Hard Sayings of the Bible BORROW Divorce and remarriage : biblical principles and pastoral practice - Andrew Cornes - page 208 discusses Matthew 19 (CAVEAT EMPTOR! See review by Craig Blomberg in Themelios - Blomberg concludes "If Cornes’ views help salvage or reconcile marriages which otherwise would be legally ended, we can be grateful for his hardline though pastorally sensitive approach. But even in maritally conservative British Christian circles (at least vis-à-vis the US!), influential evangelical pastors have declared his views to be pastorally unworkable. To the extent that Cornes scares people away from Christianity by his excessive conservatism, God’s reign is unnecessarily hindered. We can only hope the latter scenario will prove less common than the former.") What does the Bible say about divorce and remarriage? What does it mean that “the two shall become one flesh” (Genesis 2:24)? Is physical abuse an acceptable reason for divorce? What are biblical grounds for divorce? Why does God hate divorce? Is the divorce rate among Christians truly the same as among non-Christians? Matthew 19:7 They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY?” Why: Mt 5:31 De 24:1-4 Isa 50:1 Jer 3:8 Mk 10:4 And send her away: Mt 1:19 Mal 2:16 Related Passages: Matthew 5:31-32+ “It was said, ‘WHOEVER SENDS HIS WIFE AWAY, LET HIM GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE’; 32) but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. Mark 10:4+ They said, “Moses permitted a man TO WRITE A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY. Deuteronomy 24:1-4+ “When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house, 2 and she leaves his house and goes and becomes another man’s wife, 3 and if the latter husband turns against her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her to be his wife, 4 then her former husband who sent her away is not allowed to take her again to be his wife, since she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the LORD, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance. Comment on some indecency from NET Note - Literally the Hebrew is "nakedness of a thing." The Hebrew phrase 'ervat davar refers here to some gross sexual impropriety (see also related note below on "indecent" in Deut 23:14). Though the term usually has to do only with indecent exposure of the genitals, it can also include such behavior as adultery (cf. Lev 18:6–18; 20:11, 17, 20–21; Ezek 22:10; 23:29; Hos 2:10). NOTE ON "INDECENT" in Deut 23:14 - Heb "nakedness of a thing"; NLT "any shameful thing." The expression 'ervat davar refers specifically to sexual organs and, by extension, to any function associated with them. There are some aspects of human life that are so personal and private that they ought not be publicly paraded. Cultically speaking, even God is offended by such impropriety (cf. Gen 9:22–23; Lev 18:6–12, 16–19; 20:11, 17–21). (See B. Seevers, NIDOTTE 3:528–30.) QUESTIONING THE MOSAIC LAW ON DIVORCE They said to Him - Remember the Pharisees are still testing Jesus and are not interested in seeking information from Jesus but condemnation of Jesus! And they were looking for loopholes to justify their sin and terminate Him! John
Mateus 19
Morris - The relatively easy divorce allowed in the Mosaic law was not intended in God's original economy (Matthew 19:8). The only allowable grounds for divorce according to Christ is adultery. On the other hand, Jesus did not even allow this exception in Luke 16:18. The conclusion would be that even though adultery or fornication are permissible grounds for divorce and remarriage, it is still better to salvage the marriage if possible (Romans 7:2-3; 1 Corinthians 7:10-15). R Kent Hughes goes on to state that "If you divorce for any other reason and remarry, it is you who commits adultery. This is likewise the meaning of Jesus’ similar statement in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5:32....Jesus’ teaching is plain to see. I have read everything I could get my hands on regarding these passages, and some of the views have been unbelievably convoluted. But this is where I return to the plain, unadorned sense of the text. Jesus means what He says! Some object that these exception clauses do not fit with Jesus’ teaching in two other Gospel passages, Mark 10:11, 12 and Luke 16:18, which contain no exception clauses. Because of this, some have argued that Mark represents the earlier and the most pure teaching of Jesus, but Matthew contains a scribal addition (the exception clause) and is unauthentic. However, we must hold that it is authentic because none of the ancient manuscripts for Matthew omit it—all of them have it. Why the difference between the Gospels then? John Stott gives the answer: "It seems far more likely that its absence from Mark and Luke is due not to their ignorance of it but to their acceptance of it as something taken for granted. After all, under the Mosaic law adultery was punishable by death … so nobody would have questioned that marital unfaithfulness was a just ground for divorce." The Lord Jesus Christ permitted divorce and remarriage on one ground, and one ground only: marital unfaithfulness. Notice that he permitted it—he did not command it. Divorce is never mandatory. Too often men and women eagerly pounce on the infidelity of their mate as the opportunity to get out of a relationship they haven’t liked anyway. It’s so easy to look for a way out instead of working through the problems. Jesus’ exception clause should be viewed like this: No matter how rough things are, regardless of the stress and strain or whatever is said about compatibility and temperament, nothing allows for divorce except one thing, unfaithfulness. And then it is not to be used as an excuse to get out of the marriage. (See Mark: Jesus, Servant and Savior)
Mateus 19
Morris - There is an implied call to faith, for the man could not do what Jesus asked without trusting him wholeheartedly. The call to give everything away was more than simply a dramatic challenge: it showed that the man had not understood the commandments he professed to have kept. The first of them enjoins the worship of one God. But when he was faced with the choice he found that he could not serve God if it meant parting with his money. It was not really God that had first place in his heart. (The Gospel According to St. Luke: An Introduction and Commentary - borrow) NET NOTE - The call for sacrifice comes with a promise of eternal reward: You will have treasure in heaven. Jesus’ call is a test to see how responsive the man is to God’s direction through him. Will he walk the path God’s agent calls him to walk? For a rich person who got it right, see Zacchaeus in Luke 19:1–10. Oswald Chambers on sell all you possess - There is a general principle here and a particular reference. We are always in danger of taking the particular reference for the general principle and evading the general principle. The particular reference here is to selling material goods. The rich young ruler had deliberately to be destitute, deliberately to distribute, deliberately to discern where his treasure was, and devote himself to Jesus Christ. The principle underlying it is that I must detach myself from everything I possess. Many of us suppress our sense of property, we don’t starve it, we suppress it. Undress yourself morally before God of everything that might be a possession until you are a mere conscious human being, and then give God that. That is where the battle is fought—in the domain of the will before God, it is not fought in external things at all. Is He sovereign Lord or is He not? Am I more devoted to my notion of what Jesus Christ wants than to Himself? If so, I am likely to hear one of His hard sayings that will produce sorrow in me. What Jesus says is hard, it is only easy when it comes to those who really are His disciples. Beware of allowing anything to soften a hard word of Jesus. (God's Workmanship) Norman Geisler - see When Critics Ask - MATTHEW 19:21—Should Christians sell all they have and give it away? (See comments on 1 Tim. 6:17–18.) 1 TIMOTHY 6:17–18—Should wealth be avoided or retained? PROBLEM: Jesus urged the rich young ruler to “sell what you have and give to the poor” (Matt. 19:21). The early disciples sold their possessions and laid the money at the apostles’ feet (Acts 4:34–35). And Paul warned that “the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil” (1 Tim. 6:10). However, God blessed Abraham and Job with riches, and Paul does not instruct the rich to give away all they have, but to use and “richly enjoy” (1 Tim. 6:17–18). SOLUTION: It should be observed, first of all, that Jesus’ instruction to “sell what you have and give to the poor” (Matt. 19:21) was to a rich young man who had made money his god, not to those who have not. There is nothing wrong with possessing riches—there is something wrong with being possessed by riches. Further, there is no indication that the early disciples in Acts were either urged to sell all, or that they actually did. The land sold (Acts 4:34–35) may have been extra property. It is noteworthy that it does not say they sold their homes (see discussion on Acts 2:44–45). Finally, Paul does not say that money is evil, but only that the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil. Seeking riches for their own sake is wrong, but seeking to have something to share with others in need is not. Thus, while God “gives us richly all things to enjoy” (1 Tim. 6:17), in the same breath He warns, “not … to trust in uncertain riches.” Matthew 19:22 But when the young man heard this statement, he went away grieving; for he was one who owned much property. he went: Mt 13:22 14:9 Jdg 18:23,24 Da 6:14-17 Mk 6:26 10:22 Lu 18:23 Jn 19:12-16 for: Mt 6:24 16:26 Ps 17:14 Eze 33:31 Eph 5:5 Col 3:5 Related Passages: Luke 18:23+ But when he had heard these things, he became very sad, for he was extremely rich. Mark 10:22+ But at these words he was saddened, and he went away grieving, for he was one who owned much property. Mark 4:7, 19+ “Other seed fell among the thorns, and the thorns came up and choked it, and it yielded no crop. (4:19) 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. Walking Away from Jesus! (James Tissot) HE WALKED AWAY FROM TRUTH AND WAS GRIEVED But when the young man (neaniskos) heard (akouo) this statement (logos), he went away grieving (lupeo); for he was one who owned much property ( ktema) - Instead of coming to follow Jesus, sadly he went away from Jesus. Assuming he never repented and believed, he walked into eternity as a poor rich man. Mark 10:22 says he was saddened (stugnazo), which pictures a deep gloom coming over his countenance. In other words his countenance fell at the true words of Jesus (cf Cain in Ge 4:6-7+)
Mateus 19
Morris - The "regeneration" is the "re-creation," or "restoration," of the primeval perfections of the earth before the Genesis Flood. This will happen after Christ's return.
Mateus 19
Morris - All this points to a reversal of the generally accepted order of things (cf. Mt 20:16). Those who are highly esteemed and held to be first in this world’s order of things will end up last, in the worst possible position. The point is that they have put their whole effort into earthly success without reference to the more worthwhile life of service to which Christ is calling them. Inevitably when the time comes that earthly success is seen for the tawdry and temporal thing it is, they will rank with the last. That is what they have qualified for, and that is where they will be. The corollary of that is that those who are last here and now will often be found to be among the first in the life to come. They have not accepted the false values of the world but have set their sights on the service of God and of their fellows no matter what the cost to themselves, and they reap the consequences accordingly. The words are a strong warning against being deluded by earthly ideas and standards and shutting one’s ears to the call of God. (See The Gospel According to Matthew - Page 497) Stu Weber: 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. (See Holman New Testament Commentary - Matthew) David Turner has an interesting analysis - The disciples can be encouraged that their sacrifice will be rewarded, but they also are warned against presuming on the grace of God. The promise is that although they are presently “last,” they will be “first” in the eschaton. The warning is that although their prospect is to be “first,” they could yet be “last” if they forget the way of the cross and God’s sovereignty in dispensing reward. The unfortunate chapter division at Mt 20:1 obscures the fact that the parable of the landowner in Mt 20:1–16 continues the answer to Peter’s question, as did the parable of the unforgiving servant in Mt 18:21–35. (See Matthew - Page 476) John Phillips on first...last...last...first - The Lord concluded His discussion of motives in the kingdom with a warning (Mt 19:30) and a parable (Mt 20:1-16). He warned, "Many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first." In other words, we cannot trust human estimates about who is first or last, greatest or least. At the judgment seat of Christ there will be many surprises. It is likely that the Lord had Judas in mind when He gave this warning. Judas was counted as one of the foremost of the disciples. He was in charge of the finances of the apostolic company-and he fell through covetousness. The Lord also intimated that Peter should beware of a spirit of pride as he smugly compared himself with the rich young ruler. (See Exploring the Gospel of Matthew: An Expository Commentary - Page 387) Moody Bible Commentary - The first will be last; and the last, first provides both reassurance and a warning. The statement in context states that God's grace extends to those who approach God in childlike trust (vv. 13-15). God will incorporate and advance them in the kingdom instead of those who enjoy power and prominence like the rich young ruler, which provides the warning in these verses. The same phrase is found in Mt 20:16, giving a slightly different look at God's grace there, namely that He is remarkably gracious and does the unexpected for His people. (See The Moody Bible Commentary - Page 593) Hiebert says "is a wise warning against the self-seeking spirit which lurked behind Peter’s comment. The Twelve were warned that their priority in being called did not guarantee their preeminence in the future if they lacked the necessary spirit. The explanatory parable preserved in Matthew 20:1–16 reveals the spirit warned against. The rewards of the kingdom are given not on the grounds of priority in time or self-seeking service or human ideas of merit, but simply on the grounds of confidence in God and love for His kingdom. “It is a warning that the ultimate judgments belong to God who alone knows the motives of men’s hearts. It is a warning that the judgments of heaven may well upset the reputations of earth.” (The Gospel of Mark: An Expositional Commentary) Reformation Study Bible - Positions of honor or prestige in this life by no means assure heavenly approval; indeed, often the reverse will be true. Similarly, as the following parable illustrates (Mt 20:1-16), length of earthly labor may not correspond to one's heavenly reward.