Questions for Section F-1: “Jesus Preaches in
Judea Beyond the Jordan”
Matthew 19
1. Consider v.3 carefully. Did the Pharisees ask Jesus a spiritual, moral or legal question?
Please explain your answer.
2. How did Jesus answer their question in vv.4-6? (Was His answer spiritual, moral, or legal in
nature?)
3. God’s original design for marriage contains five primary components as given by Jesus in
vv.4-6. Please list them all, and be prepared to discuss what each one means, as well as
why it is relevant to a successful marriage.
4. Why did God allow divorce in the Law of Moses?
5. By God’s law, when can someone divorce their spouse and marry another now without
committing adultery by so doing?
6. In v.11, does Jesus refer to His own statement of v.9, or the disciples’ statement of v.10?
7. What is Jesus’ point in v.12?
8. Why did the disciples rebuke those who brought children to Jesus to be blessed by Him?
9. Think about vv.16-19 and answer the following:
a. Did this young man believe in salvation by “faith only”?
b. Did Jesus’ answer teach salvation by “faith only”?
c. In fairness, is Jesus giving this man an O.T. (salvation under the Law of Moses) or N.T.
(salvation under the gospel) answer? Please explain your answer.
10. Does Jesus’ answer in v.21 mean that we must also sell our possessions and give to the
poor to go to heaven? Why, or why not?
11. When was/is “the regeneration” to which Jesus refers in v.28? Please explain what you think
this verse means.
Answers for Section F-1: “Jesus Preaches in
Judea Beyond the Jordan” Matthew 19
1. Consider v.3 carefully. Did the Pharisees ask Jesus a spiritual, moral or legal question?
Please explain your answer.
“Yes” seems to be the best answer. I don’t think it really mattered to them which area Jesus’
answer of their question allowed them to either: a) discredit and disgrace Him with the people
publically; or, b) get Him into trouble with higher authorities privately or publically. They
simply thought they had devised a question that would accomplish these purposes
regardless of how He answered it. Their purpose was to “test” (Gr. peirazo- to examine, or
try to trap) Him. Though this word can be used in a good sense of examining or proving the
worthiness of something/one, obviously here it is used in the negative sense.
But to answer the question more specifically, they did not seem to be asking the question
for either moral or spiritual purposes, though the pretense for such may have been
present. They are apparently primarily seeking a legal answer that will provide a
means of accusing Jesus. There seems to have been at least two prevailing thoughts on
this matter espoused by regarded Rabbis. If Jesus answered in the affirmative, He would
seem to contradict His earlier teaching on the matter (cf. 5:32), and stand in opposition to the
school of Shammai (The Gospel of Matthew; Chumbley, p.337). But if He said “No,” He
would risk antagonizing Antipas who had already beheaded John the Baptist for such things,
cf. 14:3-12, as well as contradicting the position of Hillel, which had been widely applied in
Israel for some time. It seemed like the perfect “trap” because Jesus, if He answered, either
contradicted Himself or commonly held beliefs- either of which could be used to discredit (if
not kill) Him. They asked what was “lawful,” v.3- not what was right spiritually or
morally.
2. How did Jesus answer their question in vv.4-6? (Was His answer spiritual, moral, or legal in
nature?)
He did not base His answer on the precedent of human interpretation (current moral
interpretations) or commonly accepted practice (current legal applications) as they surely
expected. Instead, He resorted to the divine creation of marriage (spiritual), vv.4-6.
However, it is certainly worth noting that Jesus specified:

The divine origin of marriage, v.4; therefore it is a spiritual union (as well as a
physical one of course);

The divine purpose of marriage- to become one flesh, v.5; therefore this purpose is
not accomplished by divorce for any cause, which is not moral; and,

The divine duration of marriage, v.6; that God does the joining, and thus that it is not
within man’s legal right to legislate otherwise- though obviously such had been done,
was currently then being done, and continues to be done.
3. God’s original design for marriage contains five primary components as given by Jesus in
vv.4-6. Please list them all, and be prepared to discuss what each one means, as well as
why it is relevant to a successful marriage.
a. Participants are to be “male and female,” v.4- not male and male, female and female,
or even male and females; anything other than God’s arrangement fails to meet the
divine purpose;
b. Leaving father and mother, v.5a- this union is not to be an adjunct of an existing
relationship or family; it is to be a new and separate one; (this point does not remove
existing responsibilities of a child to his/her parents, 15:4-6; Eph.6:2, but does relinquish
the previous allegiance);
c. Cleave to his wife, v.5b- literally, to be glued, fastened, or cemented together; the
former binding to parents is shifted with the allegiance to which he is now fastened to his
wife;
d. Two shall become one flesh, vv.5c,6a- while this includes the sexual aspect of
marriage, it is not all that is included; “one flesh” also means that two individuals become
one couple, cf. Eph.5:28-29; that they become more together than either could have been
separately; it is not only the sharing of a name, home, and bed- it is the sharing of a life;
e. What God has joined, let no man separate, v.6b- this is the “bottom-line” answer to the
question posed by the Pharisees; while man does separate this union on whatever
supposed moral or legal grounds he may propose, God’s spiritual binding remains; note
that Jesus used the term “what” rather than “whom” (“God has joined”)- which indicates
that He is not referencing specific couples, but husbands and wives in the divinelyappointed institution of marriage; God has joined husbands and wives in marriage, and
individuals do not have the right to alter this arrangement.
These things comprise the individual components of God’s original intent for the design,
purpose, and duration of marriage.
4. Why did God allow divorce in the Law of Moses?
Jesus said, “Because of your hardness of heart, Moses permitted you to divorce your
wives…” v.8. Note first that Jesus essentially reframed the question. They had asked, “Why
then did Moses command….” v.7; but Jesus responded with “Moses permitted…” Such is
not a distinction without a difference!
Secondly, we need to understand what is meant by the phrase “hardness of heart”. While it
can refer to intellectual ignorance of facts or principles that should have already been
grasped, as in Mark 16:14, Jesus here seems to be referring more to deliberate rebellion or
stubborn wickedness, as in Eph.4:18. Thus, the allowance was not due to mere ignorance
that could have been easily resolved through further education on God’s desires and
intentions, without making the allowance. It was, instead, made because of stubborn
rebellion to God’s desires and intents. “Why?” is the question begged by this interpretation.
If the people were going to rebelliously reject God’s will by putting away their wives anyway
(and marrying additional wives), Moses’ allowance at least gave the put away woman a legal
means of protection. That is, the husband would at least have to go through legal channels
to obtain the divorce instead of just kicking her out to fin for herself. This way, at least she
could marry again, Deut.24:1-2. This way, there was at least some sanctity that was
preserved in the institution of marriage as opposed to wanton adultery and fornication,
Jer.3:1.
However, two things should be clearly noted regarding these things: 1) this allowance was
made because of rebellion against God’s will to those Jews living under the Law of Moses;
and, 2) though allowed for specific people in a specific time for specific reasons, this kind of
divorce was never God’s purpose or intention for marriage.
5. By God’s law, when can someone divorce their spouse and marry another now without
committing adultery by so doing?
The answer is, “When they have put their spouse away (divorced) for adultery (sexual
immorality),” period. This is the only way the exceptive clause of v.9 can be legitimately
interpreted. There is just no other way to reasonably understand and apply this passage
except with an “if and only if” meaning. Therefore, only one whose spouse has committed
adultery has a spiritual right to a divorce. Obviously, legal divorces can be attainted for any
cause, but such does not break the spiritual and lawful marriage that God had enjoined upon
the couple, v.6 and cf. 14:3-4.
6. In v.11, does Jesus refer to His own statement of v.9, or the disciples’ statement of v.10?
The grammatical rule of determining antecedents of pronouns is that they generally refer to
the previous noun used as a subject unless there is a compelling reason to associate them
with a different noun. Thus, the antecedent of “this” (statement) seems to be the disciples’
statement of v.10 rather than Jesus’ statement of v.9. Otherwise, you would have Jesus
saying that not everyone could accept God’s law and intent for marriage that He has just
enjoined upon them.
But as it is, Jesus is instead agreeing with the disciples that it might be better for some not to
marry- for reasons He specifies in v.12, but that some cannot accept remaining unmarried,
and thus are bound by vv.4-6,9.
7. What is Jesus’ point in v.12?
In keeping with His agreement (for some at least) on the disciples’ assessment of the
constraints of marriage, Jesus is now elaborating on those for whom it is “better not to marry”
with three different classes:

Those congenitally unable to procreate (or fulfill the sexual obligations of marriage, cf.
1Cor.7:1-5);

Those made eunuchs by others- which can refer to either castration, or just to
celibacy; and,

Those who make themselves eunuchs- which probably refers to celibacy rather than
actual castration.
It seems that Jesus is, especially with the third group of those voluntarily celibate, explaining
to the disciples by providing a specific class of people for whom their assessment, that it is
“better not to marry,” can be entirely accurate. Nonetheless, Jesus is also, by this specific
elaboration, showing that “not everyone can accept” their assessment.
8. Why did the disciples rebuke those who brought children to Jesus to be blessed by Him?
The disciples likely rebuked the people who were bringing their children to be blessed by
Jesus because they hadn’t yet fully grasped the lesson of 18:1-6! Instead, they apparently
viewed the children (and their parents) as a nuisance that was preventing Jesus from being
about His kingly duties, cf. 15:23. They probably thought they were doing Him a favor.
9. Think about vv.16-19 and answer the following:
a. Did this young man believe in salvation by “faith only”?
Obviously not, given his original question, “what good thing shall I do that I may obtain
eternal life?” Additionally, his life to this point does not suggest that he believed in
“salvation by faith only” as he had been doing all that he knew, vv.18-20a; and thought he
was willing to do more, v.20b.
b. Did Jesus’ answer teach salvation by “faith only”?
Obviously not, since Jesus gave the young man something else to do, v.21.
c. In fairness, is Jesus giving this man an O.T. (salvation under the Law of Moses) or N.T.
(salvation under the gospel) answer? Please explain your answer.
Jesus obviously lived under and taught O.T. Law since it was not removed until His death,
cf. 5:17-18; Heb.9:17-18; Col.2:13-14. However, it is also true that He taught His
covenant (the gospel) while He was earth, cf. 4:23; 9:35; Luke 16:16- even though it was
done in preparation for the time it would become effective by His death.
In reality, it really doesn’t matter much as the man was evidently unwilling to do what
Jesus required of him. But apparently, it was an “O.T.” answer that was given since it was
the Law at the time.
10. Does Jesus’ answer in v.21 mean that we must also sell our possessions and give to the
poor to go to heaven? Why, or why not?
“Yes,” if we, like this man, love our possessions more than we love God. But, this passage
must also be taken in light of Jesus’ words in Mark 14:7 wherein He doesn’t require complete
liquidation and benevolence; and Peter’s words in Acts 5:3-4 which also indicate that
benevolence is a matter of choice and heart rather than an absolute requirement.
11. When was/is “the regeneration” to which Jesus refers in v.28? Please explain what you think
this verse means.
Those who believe in a 1,000 year period of an earthly reign of Christ on a literal throne in
Jerusalem obviously look at “the regeneration” to be referring to that period. However, this is
just not scripturally supported.
Others understand “the regeneration” to refer to heaven itself after the end of the world and
time itself. Perhaps this is the meaning, but it is difficult to understand how the apostles
would function as “judges” in that sense. However, this interpretation does help to explain
the spiritual “rewards” the Twelve would receive to compensate for their then present
material losses.
Instead of these views, it seems to me that “the regeneration” might refers to the period of
the Christian dispensation wherein: the resurrected and ascended Jesus sits as King upon
the throne in heaven, cf. 28:18; Rev.1:4-6; the apostles function as “judges” dispensing the
law of the kingdom, cf. 16:19; 10:20; Acts 2. This view seems to be further supported by
v.29 in that the rewards of “the regeneration” seem to be separate from, and precede,
“eternal life.”