The Narrow Path Ministries

And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or lands, for My name’s sake, shall receive a hundredfold, and inherit eternal life. - Matt. 19:29

This puzzling. I think one of the texts omits wife, but nonetheless the only acceptable scenario I could come up with is if a man's wife tells him she is going to leave him unless he gives up Jesus and he lets her go. But in that case he wouldn't be leaving his wife - she would be leaving him.

In Steve's lecture at this point he says, "now I don't want to let you go before commenting on verse 29.." End of tape.

That would seem to be the logical scenario wrt to leaving a wife, but what about children? Under what circumstances could a parent leave his/her children "for [Christ's] name's sake"? No real clue here, unless we're talking about adult children.

Back to the wife thing, you'd have to take the whole counsel of Scripture, which is *against* divorce, into account. The only "for Christ" exception seems to be Paul's teaching on the departure of the unbelieving spouse.

And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or lands, for My name’s sake, shall receive a hundredfold, and inherit eternal life. - Matt. 19:29


Does it necessarily mean to physically up and leave your family or could Jesus really mean to spiritually set yourself apart for the kingdom of God?

Seth wrote:The only "for Christ" exception seems to be Paul's teaching on the departure of the unbelieving spouse.

But like I say, you wouldn't be leaving your spouse (as the verse reads). Your spouse would be leaving you.

Unfortunately, none of the Greek manuscripts of this verse written prior to the year 300, have survived. Nevertheless, I understand that the earliest manuscripts in existence do not include the word "wife". So I don't think it necessary to ponder the hypothetical question as to whether a disciple should leave his wife for the kingdom's sake.

Jesus was answering Peter's question in verse 27:

"Lo, we have left everything and followed you. What then shall we have?"

Is there any doubt that the twelve chosen ones had left everything to follow Him? Or could it be that Peter and Andrew did not really leave their occupation of fishing but "spiritually separated themselves from it for the Kingdom of God"?

I would venture that Peter did not leave his wife. Jesus healed Peter's mother-in-law of fever[Mark 1:30]. My guess is that he was acquainted with both Peter's wife and his mother-in-law.

I am inclined to believe that it is seldom God's will to leave one's spouse. I became acquainted with the main leader of a church in Texas, who, when he became a Christian divorced his non-Christian wife and married a Christian woman. He seemed to think he was doing God's will in this decision. I strongly believe he was mistaken.

Nevertheless, Jesus said some pretty serious words about the necessity of his disciples separating oneself from relatives who are His enemies:

Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword [of division]. For I have come to set a person against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a person’s foes will be those of his own household. He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and he who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. [Matthew 10:34-38]

Greetings,

Brad wrote:Quote:
And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or lands, for My name’s sake, shall receive a hundredfold, and inherit eternal life. - Matt. 19:29

This puzzling. I think one of the texts omits wife, but nonetheless the only acceptable scenario I could come up with is if a man's wife tells him she is going to leave him unless he gives up Jesus and he lets her go. But in that case he wouldn't be leaving his wife - she would be leaving him.

Paul taught about a possible-divorce situation in 1 Corinthians 7 (cf, 7:12-16).


Matt 19 (NIV)
27Peter answered him, "We have left everything to follow you! What then will there be for us?"

28Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life. 30But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first.

Peter's question was basically, "What's in it for us?" In this context, the followers of Jesus were literally (physically) following the Lord. Try to imagine that Jesus has not come yet. And that He came -- right up to you -- and said, "Follow me."

Peter and the others had accepted this invitation (would I?) but seemingly didn't know just how apocalyptic it all really was!

I do not feel the Lord ever called anybody to join His band of Kingdom travelers if it would be injurious to anyone. Peter was probably a fairly well to do businessman who could afford to leave (his family would have been provided for). We don't know much about how Jesus and the disciples were financed but they had money to "survive." In one instance funds were provided by the manager of Herod's household "and some other women" who probably had considerable amounts of money to contribute (Lu 8:3).

We should be willing to "go where the Lord leads" but our situation isn't exactly the same as those who were physically with Jesus when He was on earth. Jesus said (to those who were actually with him), "The poor you always have with you, but you will not always have me" (Mtt 26:11). There was just something about His being here! And those who were really living with him were in THE special scenario of human history!

I also think the Lord knew He wouldn't be on earth for long. And that his disciples would return to their own towns to preach the Gospel later. Of course, some were called to travel and preach.

The same Peter who had "forsaken all" to follow Christ didn't forsake his wife; at least not permanently: 4Don't we have the right to food and drink? 5Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas [Peter] 6Or is it only I and Barnabas who must work for a living? (Paul, 1 Cor 9, NIV). I like Paul: he was a WORKIN' CLASS MAN!

Apparently, most of the Apostles had the funding to bring their wives (and familes?) on some 'missionary journeys.'

Peter was still a fisherman...but had a new career: a fisher of men (a much better paying career too, (see Mtt 19:29)!

Traveling itinerary preachers were very popular in the first century and were accepted into homes so people could hear them for a while. Jesus talked about this when he sent the disciples out (Lu 10:1-12). So, in a sense, the disciples were in a kind of "the gospel biznis" (pay scale: room & board).

I'm sure there were cases where disciples were forced into divorce (when their spouses insisted). However, imo, this passage (Brad's) isn't about "getting a divorce in order to follow Jesus," imo.
How I'm seeing it anyway, gtg
Thanks,
Rick

P.S. Paidion: Good Post!