1 And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these sayings, he departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judaea beyond Jordan; 2 And great multitudes followed him; and he healed them there.
This journey probably corresponds to one of His travels to Jerusalem, most likely the winter-time feast of dedication (John 10:22) He attended just a few months before the crucifixion. So this was probably his final departure from Galilee. Having passed through His adopted home city of Capernaum (Mat 17:24) He arrived at the place where about 3 years earlier John the Baptist had announced the beginning of His ministry (John 10:39-42; Mark 10:1).
3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? 4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
The Pharisees asked Jesus this question, tempting Him. They hoped to find an inconsistency in His answer. However, the law of Moses did not prohibit divorce, so what was their hidden trap? There are two possibilities. At the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus condemned divorce and rejected Moses’ writing of divorcement. Maybe the Jews were seeking occasion to accuse Him of blasphemy against the Law. On the other hand, they might not have plotted to open the subject of divorce in general, but dispute the question if divorce was lawful for any reason the man could invent: Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? At the time, Judaism hotly disputed this issue, disagreeing over the meaning of uncleanness in Deut 24:1. Shammai Jews said a man could divorce his wife only if she had committed adultery, but Hillel Jews allowed divorce for any reason.
Reading Matthew’s account, the second option is more probable. Mark and Luke though, frame the question upon the mere validity of divorce, omitting the phrase, for every cause (Mark 10:2; Luke 16:18). The likely reason for this difference is that Mark and Luke, writing to the Gentiles, state the general case of divorce – the husband may not divorce his wife, nor the wife put away her husband (Mark 10:11-12). Matthew’s Gospel is directed to the Jews of the Mosaic Law, which allowed the man to divorce his wife, but not vice versa. Likewise, the “exception clause” found in Matthew is omitted in Mark and Luke because the Gentiles didn’t know the Law, but Jews familiar with the Mosaic laws of incestuous marriage would understand (see note v9).
In answering the Pharisees’ entrapping question, Jesus evaded the whole Jewish conflict by appealing to a prior and higher rule based upon God’s purpose at the Creation. He condemned both the Jewish and Gentile practices of divorce, laying out God’s real law concerning marriage, all in accordance with His earlier teaching in the Sermon on the Mount (Mat 5:31-32).
Earlier, Jesus had criticized the Pharisees for adding man-made rules to the Law and then disregarding the God-given law (Mark 7:7-9; Mat 15:1-9). Is He guilty of the same by disregarding Moses’ divorce commandment? No, for two reasons. First, as the Giver of the Mosaic Law, Jesus is singularly authorized to make any change He deems best. Did the Pharisees catch the fact that His authoritative and new teaching on divorce meant that He was greater than Moses? (Mat 12:42). Second, Jesus actually did not change the law of God, but the Mosaic commandment for the Judaic kingdom (Mat 19:7). He returned Man to the original rule based on a greater One than Moses; namely, God’s words at the beginning which established the definition of marriage. Jesus did not change God’s law, but removed from the Mosaic Law a particular detail, the divorce concession, that had never been a part of God’s moral law.
Actually, Moses’ bill of divorcement was a judicial law (not a moral one) meant to regulate the terrible social problem of divorce and remarriage in the ancient world. That law did make separation an orderly, formal decision which protected (in measure) women from rash and cruel behavior by their husbands. The NT law forbids all divorce except for incestuous marriages.
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. 7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? 8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
These two verses form the basis for God’s law for marriage. Interpretations of peripheral Scriptures on the topic must conform to, and flow from, this simple principle. “A man and his wife, for life.” Jesus’ doctrine is a simple repetition of God’s words at the Creation (Genesis 1:27; 2:24), when He made one woman for one man and called the two of them, one flesh. To put away a wife is like tearing off a piece of one’s own flesh (Eph 5:29), and it destroys the typology of the husband/wife relationship to Christ and the Church (Eph 5:22-33).
One flesh. What does it mean? While there is surely a spiritual dimension to this term, I believe there is a sober, physical aspect too. Paul says that to be joined to a harlot is to become one flesh with her (1Cor 6:16), and that fornication is a great sin against your own body (1Cor 6:18). So I see Jesus primarily referring to the sexual union. God has ordained that marriage is a man leaving his parents and sexually becoming one with his wife. Any sexual activity outside of this “cleaving of a man to his wife” is adultery. A man who takes another wife while his first is still living is committing adultery. A woman who has sexual relations with any man other than her one and only husband commits adultery. That is the logical, sincere conviction of Jesus’ teaching in this passage, although I acknowledge that many will say (with the disciples) that under those conditions marriage is not preferable (v10).
Though it is commonly reported that Jesus and the writers of the NT do not specifically prohibit polygamy, it is clear from this verse that marriage is a commitment between one man and one woman. They TWAIN shall be ONE flesh. There is no place for three or four. Moreover, both Genesis and Jesus decree that the man should leave his parents and cleave to his wife. The order is noteworthy, for if the woman were instructed to leave her parents, polygamy might be rationalized by some. The Apostle Paul also addresses polygamy, which was popular among the Jews in Jesus’ day even though Roman law forbade it. He says, Each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband (1Cor 7:2, NIV). And, An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife (Tit 1:6, NIV).
Why did God allow polygamy in the OT? Like divorce/remarriage, it was because of the hardness of your hearts (Mat 19:8). Unlike divorce, the Levitical law did not address the topic of polygamy. It was simply a custom that continued unregulated and unacknowledged under Moses. By returning to define marriage as “one man and one woman for life,” Jesus condemned homosexual marriage, polygamy and divorced relationships, etc. See note on Mat 19:9 for more on polygamy.
9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
Present-day Christendom has made a mockery of Christ’s doctrine concerning divorce. Most churches will divorce and remarry their very own members for any cause, although some attempt to justify themselves by invoking “the fornication clause,” which is not found in Mark and Luke. Except it be for fornication almost certainly refers to incest and hidden pre-marital sex, not adultery (unfaithfulness after marriage). The Greek word is porneia, which is not once translated “adultery” in the 20plus times it appears in the KJV and specifically means incest in the notable case of the undisciplined church member of 1Cor 5:1-5. Marriage to close relatives was prohibited by the OT law and remains a standard in most civil governments today. Yes, there is a divorce clause: when the couple is too closely related as outlined by the Law of Moses. In such cases, separation is required, for the marriage was not lawful in the first place. The two would be allowed to marry acceptable partners after their “divorce.” This very situation had recently transpired in the case of Herod, who had taken his niece to be his wife. Consistent with Jesus’ teaching here, John the Baptist had told Herod his marriage was unlawful (see note Mat 14:4).
For more on the meaning of porneia, see my note on Mat 5:32. The Greek word for adultery is moichao, which appears in this very verse. Note the distinction: Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for porneia, and shall marry another, committeth moichao. These two words appear together on several sin lists, indicating that they do not have identical meanings (Mat 15:19; Mark 7:21; Gal 5:19). This is even more surely proven by the disciples’ shocked expression that if marriage is this final, it would be better for a man never to marry. If they were understanding Jesus to be allowing adultery as grounds for divorce, their statement would be absurd. The Jews already taught that. Jesus’ command would have been neither new nor difficult.
Jesus made clear that it doesn’t matter if the husband divorces the wife, or the wife divorces the husband, any divorced person who marries another is committing adultery (Mark 10:12, NASB). Not just the divorced person, but also the one who marries him/her committeth adultery. Forgiveness for this sin is certainly available, but like all sins, repentance must follow. One cannot simply ask God for forgiveness and then continue to commit adultery with an unlawful marriage partner. Paul, in agreement, says that a remarried person must separate from his/her unlawful marriage and either remain single or be rejoined to his/her original partner (1Cor 7:11). This is exactly opposite Moses’ law, which prohibited any return of a divorced person to his/her previous partner (Deut 24:1-4). In spite of Jesus and Paul, many churches allow remarried persons to remain with their second spouses. Churches shouldn’t feel embarrassed for requiring such a strict rule. John the Baptist lost his head for commanding the same.
In contradiction to all the above, many churches allow for divorce in the case of adultery, and even when no physical adultery has taken place room is found for “spiritual adultery.” Consider the absurd result if this were true: have extra-marital sex and you are free to divorce your wife and marry your new woman. God will forgive! These churches are no better than the Pharisees, who undermined the moral law (honor thy father and mother) by invoking their own man-made rules (Mat 15:1-9). Jesus called such men hypocrites and blind leaders of the blind (Mat 15:14). Contemporary self-serving church leaders are no different. In fact, the Jews were so astute at twisting the Law for their own designs that they reportedly would say, “Who will be my ‘wife’ for a day?” Since polygamy and divorce was acceptable, that would be a lawful way to commit adultery. Note: by allowing divorce and remarriage (now to the same woman!) the Christian finds himself in the same scandalous company.
This verse also speaks directly against polygamy, for if that be lawful, how can the sin of adultery be imputed to a man who takes another wife? Obviously, the adultery comes because the man is living with a woman that is not his wife before God. He may be married by the laws of the land, but it is adultery to God. Jesus’ answer is unworkable if polygamy is a valid marriage arrangement – of course a man may remarry, and as many times as he wishes. Now, if polygamy is not acceptable, His answer is both sensible and just what we would expect. Many polygamists use OT laws to justify their adulterous practices, but they neither live by nor obey the other OT laws. They stand doubly exposed in error; first by standard, logical interpretation of the NT, and second by inconsistently following one OT judicial law while ignoring many others.
10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.
In changing the Mosaic law of divorce and remarriage, Jesus used Scripture to show that His teaching was contained therein all along, but the new (actually ancient) commandment was such a radical change from the law of Moses that the disciples thought it would be better for a man not to even get married. Divorce/remarriage was so prevalent in Roman-Jewish society that they could not imagine a man getting married for life!
Churches that allow divorce and remarriage today by invoking the fornication clause ignore the implication of the disciples’ concern. Clearly they understood Jesus to be imposing a stricter standard than that of the Pharisees. “If that’s the way marriage is, its better to not marry!” they said. Yet that would be a nonsensical statement if they understood Him to say that divorce was permitted in the case of adultery, because the Jews already allowed that. In other words, Jesus must be saying that divorce was not allowable even in the case of adultery.
See Bruce Terry’s excellent essay, which I quote in the note on 1Cor 1:1, for more about the prevalence of divorce and remarriage in Jewish, Roman and Greek cultures of that day. Certainly those lowly moral examples reveal the basic reasons for the disciples’ statement.
11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. 12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
Singleness is a special calling and not all are gifted for it (1Cor 7:7-9, 17). The apostle Paul is one example of a man who chose a celibate life for the Kingdom of heaven’s sake, but most of the Apostles were married men. Fornication and adultery are two sins that have been the downfall of many strong men (Pro 7:26).
In the context of Jesus’ doctrine concerning divorce and remarriage, being made eunuchs for the Kingdom of heaven’s sake has a significant place, whether by physical surgery or voluntary abstinence. Jesus does not permit a divorced person to remarry; he/she must be made a eunuch by abstinence or be reconciled to his/her original partner. More difficult is the situation of a remarried couple with children. According to Jesus, whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery (v9). However, if he make himself a eunuch (truly), he could continue to live with the family and be the father of their children. The sin is adultery, not simply living in the same house. That is the significance of being one flesh.
13 Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them. 14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven. 15 And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence.
The parallel passages are in Mark 10:9-16 and Luke 18:15-17. See also Mat 18:2-3.
16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? 17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. 18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, 19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? 21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. 22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.
This remarkable incident is also found in Mark 10:17-31 and Luke 18:18-30 with a few added details. In a manner similar to His interaction with the Canaanite woman in Mat 15:22-28, Jesus, by masterful conversation, maneuvered this young man to the critical point where saving faith must either begin to develop or begin to die. The woman had responded positively and received the blessing she sought, but the rich young ruler responded negatively and went away sorrowful.
What does this account teach us today? Voluntary poverty advocates, in varying degrees of application, make this to be a doctrine condemning the accumulation of material possessions. To them, Sell that thou hast and give to the poor, is a literal commandment for Christ’s followers. Others point out that Jesus was not so strict with other seekers (Zacchaeus for example), nor do the Scriptures teach elsewhere that having wealth is unlawful (see 1Tim 6:17-19).
Let us correctly and carefully divide the Word of Truth. We do not literally eat the flesh of the Son of man (John 6:53), neither do we take a knife and hack off a hand that offends (Mat 18:8). We do not always receive exactly what we ask in Jesus’ name, though that is the strict and literal interpretation of what He said (John 14:13-14). Instead of making Jesus’ words here into a literal commandment to never have possessions, I think Jesus is saying to every would-be follower: “With singleness of heart and mind and at the cost of all else, follow Me” (Mark 10:21). There are many hindrances and stumblingblocks to that exercise, but the deceitfulness of riches is certainly one of the greatest (Mark 4:19). They take up time and mental efforts that should be given to following Christ and His Kingdom, and they always bring many opportunities for temptation and sin. To this the epistles assent (1Tim 6:9-10).
Why did Jesus lay such a difficult burden upon this particular young man? “Sell all your possessions and give to the poor.” The answer is that for this promising fellow, earthly riches were more important than heavenly treasure. He pretended to be willing to do anything to gain salvation, but he really wasn’t. When Jesus told him what good thing would gain him eternal life, he walked away sadly. Actually, Jesus wasn’t requiring any more of this man than He asks every other seeker: forsake all and everything and follow Me (v19, Mat 10:37; Luke 14:33). He looks at our most precious possession and says, “give Me that.” He asked Abraham to sacrifice up his beloved son of the promise, the one he had waited for all his life! He asked Moses to give up the riches and pleasures of Egypt. He asked Paul to give up his learning and future. He is asking you to sacrifice your highest-prized possession to show yourself worthy of eternal life. The rich young ruler would not do that.
We might be tempted to think that God is over-jealous, that He is being too selfish by asking us to give up our dearest treasure. Then we remember that He gave up far more, sparing not His only begotten Son so that we might be saved (Rom 8:32). Our meager, temporal sacrifices are nowhere near those that Jesus made in coming to this earth as a poor human of unremarkable family. He lived in poverty and weakness, even though He was the Almighty Creator of the Universe. And then, He bowed His head and died for us when we were dirty sinners (Rom 5:8). What an amazing example He left us!
There is another truth that Jesus teaches here, which is the futility of gaining salvation by doing good works. Mark describes the young man as running up to Jesus and kneeling before Him, an action that hints at his character and intentions. Evidently he was not a follower of Jesus, and one busy day as he went about his important duties as a ruler (Luke 18:18) he happened to see Jesus passing by. Wishing to be blessed by Christ for faithfully following the Law of God, he runs up to Jesus, Good Master, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life? (Mat 19:16). The rich young ruler expected Christ to commend his good works and acknowledge that he was on the road to eternal life. That’s because every good Jew thought to earn salvation by keeping the Law. But that is not possible, and with this interaction Jesus demonstrates the futility of gaining salvation by doing good deeds.
First Jesus said, There is none good, but one, that is God (Mark 10:18). But if none is good, then no man can earn salvation by being good. One sin makes you a sinner and therefore disqualified to save yourself. A person that is guilty of some offense can never become un-guilty by some personal action. Thus, every man is utterly dependent upon God’s mercy in order to receive pardon and salvation. Yes, God chooses to shed His loving mercy on those who are worthy to receive it, but no amount of good deeds can ever obligate God to save.
Second, Jesus demonstrated that, while the young man thought he was keeping the commandments, he really wasn’t. The first commandment is to worship no other gods, but to love and serve only the God of heaven and earth. Yet this man loved and served his possessions. They were his idols. He should have been following Jesus, but he was captivated by his wealth. In many ways this ruler was a model Jew, and Jesus beholding him loved him (Mark 10:21). The Greek word is agape, which is generally used to describe a high, moral decision to love, even if that love is not reciprocated; phileo, on the other hand is a brotherly love of natural affection. I envision Jesus smiling upon the rich young ruler, gently pressuring him to see just how poorly he was keeping the Law, even while he kept to the minutest detail of the Pharisaical Law. The young man’s thought should have been, “If I cannot obey the One I called “good” (which makes Jesus to be God) by giving up my possessions, than I am not following the first commandment to love God with all my heart, soul, and mind. Neither am I keeping the second commandment to love my poor neighbor as myself. The Law itself has shown me to be a sinner.”
Compare the rich young ruler’s experience to that of the Jewish lawyer who asked Him: Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? (Luke 10:25). Again their conversation centered upon keeping the commandments to love God and neighbor until Jesus said, You have answered right: this do, and thou shalt live (Luke 10:28). In that occasion, Jesus said nothing about selling possessions, because the lawyer had a different besetting sin which he quickly revealed: But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour? (Luke 10:29).
There are multiple lessons in this account of the rich young ruler. First, Jesus asks us to sacrifice our dearest earthly treasure to gain the Pearl of eternal life (Mat 13:45-46). Second, no man can earn his salvation by doing “good things.” Third, they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition (1Tim 6:9). Materialism, or the loving and gathering of possessions for selfish use, will certainly keep us from God. One simply cannot so live and uphold the Great Commandments. The rich young ruler was in love with his wealth, which Jesus used to illustrate just how difficult it is for them that trust in riches to enter the Kingdom of God (Mark 10:24; Mat 13:22). Elisha gave an impressive example of forsaking all when he was called by God to be a prophet (1Kings 19:21).
Materialism and easy money are quite possibly the greatest threat to a Christian’s salvation in America. It has become an idol that many worship 6 days a week, but hide in the closet when they go to church on Sunday. Riches bring many temptations, like selfish and unnecessary buying, debt that keeps one from Kingdom work, cheating on taxes, unethical business practices, hoarding wealth, and the list goes on. Christian beware. If you have riches, view them as a responsibility instead of a privilege, as Jesus taught in the parable of the talents. Use money and possessions for the advancement of the Kingdom of Heaven, according to His teaching in the parable of the unjust steward (Luke 16:1-13). It is not wealth itself that keep men from the Kingdom, but having that wealth in one’s heart most certainly will. The love of money is the root of all evil (1Tim 6:10).
The rich young ruler had approached Jesus running, but he walked away sad. He is a standing example to all of the impossibility of serving both God and mammon. A choice must be made. Many are following the path of this young man. The sober warning in this passage, like the warning of hell at the end of the previous chapter, is repeated throughout: material possessions jeopardize salvation. The broader statement is no less important. It is impossible for any man to earn his salvation by doing good works. The disciples had indeed forsaken all to follow Christ (Mat 19:27), and Jesus invited this glowing specimen of the Law to join His select group. The Law demurred.
23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. 24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. 25 When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved? 26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
There are many New Testament warnings against seeking wealth (Mark 4:19; Luke 12:21; 1Tim 6:9-10; James 5:1; Rev 3:17). The Pharisees thought that being wealthy was a sure sign of God’s blessing and that the poor man was poor because he was not living rightly. Under the Old Covenant, it does seem that God’s hand dealt physical blessings to His people, but in the New Covenant we receive spiritual blessings (Mal 3:10; Eph 3:20). In fact, when we look at the New Testament heroes of faith, they stand out for their poverty and dearth of worldly fame. The Apostles were poor fisherman, Paul an itinerant tentmaker. Blessed be ye poor, Jesus told His disciples, for yours is the Kingdom of Heaven (Luke 6:20).
This change of principle is consistent with the great difference between the physical Old Testament and the spiritual New Testament, and yet the nature of God’s relationship with man remains constant. The two Great Commandments of the Old continue in the New, but now they are firstly directed to develop every man’s soul (see note for Mat 5:2).
With men this is impossible... Perhaps with this statement Jesus was emphasizing one of the truths revealed by the rich young ruler, who said he had followed the Law from his youth and yet still had fallen short of eternal life. The salvation of even one man is entirely impossible for any man to achieve, whether he is a rich man or poor. Try as he might, no man can pass a camel through the eye of a needle!
27 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?
Peter, upon hearing what Jesus had told the rich young ruler, Sell that thou hast and give to the poor and thou shalt have treasure in heaven (Mat 19:21), wondered what treasure he would receive for leaving all his earthly aspirations to follow Christ. And yet, what had Peter really forsaken in order to gain Christ? A lowly fisherman’s job in an obscure Galilean village. Nevertheless. Jesus promised him tremendous blessing and reward in the next life.
28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
In answering Peter’s question, Jesus makes it clear that the Apostles should not expect to receive their reward in this life, but in the regeneration (paliggenesia). Outside of this passage, the term is found only in Titus 3:5, where it refers to the new birth, but here it refers to the celestial aspect of the Kingdom of Heaven (Luke 22:30). On earth, a man is saved (regenerated) by the power of Christ and given the earnest of the Spirit (2Cor 5:5), but the full act of salvation is not completed until after the death of the body. All who have overcome Sin, Satan and the World will immediately receive heavenly crowns to live with Christ in Paradise (see Rev 4:4). There they will reign with Him over the earth until the great consummation, upon which they will receive glorified, eternal, celestial bodies with even greater blessings and unspeakable wonders. So in truth, the twelve Apostles are now sitting with Christ in the heavenly reign of saints during the Age of Grace (1Cor 6:2-3; Rev 20:4-6).
Millenarians place the fulfillment of this verse in an earthly era after the earthly aspect of the Kingdom of Christ has ended, while A-millennialists believe it is being fulfilled in the present Kingdom reign of Christ. When a Christian’s earthly body dies, his spirit and soul continue alive, and they will reign with Christ over the earth in the heavens (Rev 5:10).
Salvation as a two-part action can also be seen in the usage of the word redemption, which is partially experienced on earth and completed in heaven (compare Eph 1:7 with Luke 21:28). Likewise, the Apostle writes that if any man be in Christ he is a new creature…behold all things are new (2Cor 5:17), yet at the close of the Revelation, He that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new (Rev 21:5).
The figure of the Apostles sitting upon thrones and judging the twelve tribes describes a heavenly scene with a spiritual fulfillment rather than a literal and physical one. The thrones symbolize honor and authority, and the twelve tribes represent the people of God from both sides of the Cross (Rev 7:1-4; James 1:1). By all appearances, Jesus here promised a heavenly reward beyond the normal for the Twelve Apostles (Rev 21:14), yet every overcomer is granted to sit with Christ upon His celestial throne someday (Rev 3:21).
29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.
Everyone who has made the difficult decision to leave behind friends and possessions in order to follow Christ will gain much more in the Kingdom of Heaven, for it is not temporal, but everlasting wealth. Even in this life, the Christian who has laid his earthly possessions and loved ones upon the altar of sacrifice will experience spiritual blessings of wonderful worth! And in the world to come, he will inherit everlasting life with Christ and the saints of God in light. The reward far exceeds the cost, but how hard it is to keep one’s eyes focused on the long-term gain! A similar passage is found in Mat 10:34-38, and the parallel passages are in Luke 18:28-30 and Mark 10:28-30. Yes, the Christian will suffer persecution, trouble and temptation; but take heart, eternal life awaits, and the blessing there is a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory (2Cor 4:17).
30 But many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first.
Many who seem to be “first” on earth, within and without the churches of Christ, will be found to be “last” when the books are opened and each man must appear before the judgment seat of God (Rev 20:12). Some who are of low account on earth will be found to be “first” in the lists of heaven. The criteria for heavenly rewards is based upon the quality of our work. Lay up treasures in heaven (Mat 6:20).