Matthew 10:34-42

CRITICAL NOTES

Matthew 10:38. Taketh not his cross.—By the Roman custom criminals were compelled to bear the cross to the place of execution. The Galilæans would know too well what was meant by “taking the cross.” Many hundreds had paid that forfeiture for rebellion that had not prospered, under Judas the Gaulonite and others (Carr).

Matthew 10:39. He that findeth his life.—The word is the same as that translated “soul” (i.e. that by which man lives in the lower or the higher sense of life) in Matthew 10:28. The point of the maxim lies in the contrast between the two senses. To gain the lower now is to lose the higher hereafter, and conversely, to lose the lower for the sake of Christ (i.e. to die a martyr’s death in confessing Him) is to gain the higher.—Plumptre.

Matthew 10:41. In the name of a prophet … righteous man.—I.e. for the sake of that which the name connotes—the prophet’s work as a messenger of God, the righteousness of which the living righteous man is the concrete example (ibid).

Matthew 10:42. One of these little ones.—The reference may be to the disciples. But there appears to be a gradation, in the lowest step of which are “these little ones.” Possibly some children standing near were then addressed, or, perhaps, some converts less instructed than the Apostles had gathered round. “The little ones” then would mean the young disciples, who are babes in Christ. The lowest in the scale—Apostles, prophets, the saints, the young disciples.—Carr.

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.— Matthew 10:34

Final counsels.—The Saviour’s object in these final counsels seems to be that of enforcing decision. He would have His Apostles go forth on this their primary mission with their minds fully made up. With this object He brings before them, in closing, some fuller information. First, respecting the nature of the case, and, secondly, respecting the nature of the issue.

I. The nature of the case.—It was one requiring decision. It was so on account of the vital nature of that which had to be taught. The message they had to carry to men in His name, or as it were to “cast” down (Matthew 10:34, R. V.) in their sight, was not one which would leave the feelings of men as they had previously been. It would not lie there, like a dead thing, having no effect on their thoughts. Rather, it would excite those thoughts in no common degree, and arouse men wholly out of any such unthinking peace as they may have previously known. Also, the feelings which would be aroused by it would not be all on one side. Rather, again, they would be on exactly opposite sides from the very nature of the case. They would be on more than opposite—they would be on conflicting sides—and on such as bring about strife. Not peace, in a word, but a “sword” (Matthew 10:34). That would be the first result of promulgating His word. Moreover, this will be so even in those cases where we should otherwise have looked for it least. No natural tie, no tie of affinity (Matthew 10:35) can resist the separating force of this “sword.” Nor will even home itself—the very place of peace—be always undisturbed by its power (Matthew 10:36). That is the essence of the story to be told. It is such as will divide those who hear it amongst themselves, wherever they are. Also, it will do so in a manner which does not admit of either compromise or half measures. One of two things only can be done with the truth it declares. That truth, in effect, is nothing less than the truth about Christ. “What think ye of Christ?” that is the question which it presents to men’s minds. The answer, therefore, to such a question can be of only two sorts. It must put Christ first, or it puts Him nowhere, according to His view of the case. This is true, moreover, no matter to whom else the first place may be given. “He that loveth father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me” (Matthew 10:37)—is not considered by Me to be “loving” Me as he ought. No one, in short, is considered by Me as doing so who is not willing for My sake to bear any “cross” of this kind (Matthew 10:38). That is how I expect men to be on My side. Such a proclamation, as it were, at once sifts men into two opposite camps. In the one camp are all those who deal in any way falsely with such a requirement. In the other camp are only those who accept it in full. I expect My Apostles to “lead the way” to this last.

II. The nature of the issue.—This is not such as may be supposed. This is not so doubtful as may sometimes appear. On the contrary, looking on things as a whole, and taking “life,” as it comes to us, as a thing in which good and evil are greatly mingled together, this fulness of decision on Christ’s side is far the best side in this “war.” So much so, indeed, that in no other way, can “life” really be to us what it should. All other seeming gains amount to deadliest loss in the end. All apparent losses in this way are but the price paid for “finding” all in the end. “He that findeth his life shall lose it, and he that loseth his life for My sake shall find it” (Matthew 10:39). Let nothing, therefore, be allowed to shake you as to the truth of that paradox. That alone should satisfy you as to the wisdom of being heartily on My side. At the same time, that statement, with all its preciousness, does not stand by itself. It is not only true, as it were, that, on a general balance, things will come out as I say, and that the good to be hoped for will be found in the end to more than compensate for the evil to be borne; it is true also, meanwhile, and in every particular, when things are judged as they should be, that it will be best to do as I say. For there is a blessing, in fact, about your very mission which is found in practice to make a blessing of every action that is in accordance therewith. A blessing on yourselves and those who receive you (Matthew 10:41), a blessing on the least as well as on the greatest (Matthew 10:41); a blessing, in short, on everything that, in any way is a ministration of blessing in turn. Even a cup of cold water given to one of whom nothing more can be said than that he is one of the “little ones” but one of the true ones in the kingdom of God, is far more than it seems. It is something done with a worthy object in view. It is something done unto Christ (Matthew 25:40), and, therefore, not without note (Hebrews 6:10). It is something which it is Godlike and Christlike to do; something, therefore, which in itself and in its very essence, it is a signal blessing to do. Happy is the man so devoted to Christ that His life is a life of such deeds. Every step in his life is in itself a justification of his choice.

In speaking thus to His chosen Apostles Christ is also speaking to us. This is true whether we consider:—

1. The points of resemblance between us and them.—In their measure all true disciples are in a similar position with these. They have the same Master above them, the same deposit entrusted to them, the same duty in regard to it, the same choice and the same difficulties before them, the same assurances to support them. As did these first, therefore, so must we in our turn. All the arguments then drawn from the nature of the case may be drawn from it still. There is but one choice, and one way of choosing, in the great strife betwixt Christ and the world. All for Him who does all for us—is still the badge of His church.

2. The points of difference.—When the Apostles thus went forth to their work with their lives in their hands, they went forth to a forlorn hope in the eyes of the world. We, in our day, and in this respect, are not called to the same. We have the benefit of both their example and experience, and that of generations like them till now. All the greater, therefore, would be our disgrace if we were to hang back. Every disciple is not expected to lead like these first; but no disciple can expect to be called a disciple if he does not follow when led.

HOMILIES ON THE VERSES

Matthew 10:34. Christianity producing social divisions.—

I. Christ’s doctrines create divisions amongst men even where there is the closest physical relationship.—Christianity is simply the occasion of their development.

II. The feelings which these divisions create are generally, on the part of the rejecter, most malignant.—Matthew Henry justly says, “The most violent feuds have ever been those that have arisen from difference in religion. No enmity like that of the persecutors; no resolution like that of the persecuted.”

III. As the result of all this, the promoters of Christianity are to expect opposition, and even persecution.—D. Thomas, D.D.

Matthew 10:34. Not peace but a sword.—The influence of Jesus was not of a peaceful order. It was a reforming, a dividing, a disturbing, a dissolving, a revolutionary influence. It was a pungent, painful, sacrificial influence. The history of Christianity is not a peaceful history. This fact is brought forward sometimes as a proof that Christianity has been a failure.

I. But now, before we admit the validity of this objection, let us just consider this prior question. Is the assumption upon which it is based a valid one? Is peace the first aim of Christianity? Is it the main object of the Christian religion to give you an undisturbed and placid life? It is an ignoble view of life which regards its highest good as a placid and undisturbed existence. To live is to endure and overcome, to aspire and to attain. And the man who settles down upon his lees and thinks that religion has done its work with him, because, forsooth, he is at peace, is very far from knowing the true intent either of religion or of life.

II. But lest I should seem to overstate the truth, or perhaps to indulge in wanton paradox, let me discriminate between two kinds of peace, or, rather, let me define more closely the nature of that “peace” which alone is worthy of the name. What is peace? Is it mere quiescence? Is it a perfectly inactive existence? Do you call a stone which lies upon the path or the mere puddle by the roadside “peaceful”? We feel at once that the term is ludicrously inapplicable to such cases, and that there is something lying hidden in it which may, perhaps, after all, reconcile this hard saying of our Lord’s with a just conception of religious peace.

1. The true idea of “peace” involves the idea of “life.” There is no peace where there is no life. In order to be peaceful there must be a possibility of the opposite.
2. Let me illustrate this in some of the main divisions of our nature.
(1) The quickening of thought. Is peace (i.e. quiescence) the best thing for a man’s intellectual life? Certainly not. It is not the best thing in the world for a man to have no doubts, to ask no questions, to be free from all speculation and all wonder. It is not the best thing for a man to receive his opinions ready-made and to reiterate them unthinkingly till he comes to look upon them as infallible.

(2) We may illustrate the truth by an appeal to the emotions. Is the happier man he who has no sympathy or he who has much? Is it better to be hardhearted or tender-hearted?
(3) As it is in our intellectual life, and as it is in our emotional life so is it in our moral life. Let your memory go back to some one moral decision of your life, some one occasion when you sacrificed advantage to principle. The pain of renunciation may have been sharp; it may have been, in very truth, a “sword” to which you bared your breast. But would you have it unmade now? Would you recall the act even if you could? Was not the glow of moral success worth all the self-denial? The truest peace is compatible with life, and peace of this order is the gift of religion. There are two ways in which you may set to work in order to produce harmony in the individual or social life—you may work from without inwards or from within outwards. The politician works from without inwards—he has to deal with the outward conditions of life. This, of course, is very good and necessary, but the object and method of the politician are quite distinct from those of religion. Religion, too, seeks to produce peace—not necessarily, however, in the visible sphere of human life. Religion, in dealing with our disordered life, regards the causes rather than the symptoms of disease, and in dealing with the causes may sometimes even aggravate the symptoms, bringing strange trouble and conflict where it enters.—H. Rix, B.A.

Elements of Christ’s unpopularity.—We are to consider what were some of the causes of the hostility which was aroused against Jesus Christ:—

I. Christ set Himself against the established order.—He was, in the true sense of the term, a revolutionary preacher. The established order was one of hierarchy in church and aristocracy in state. There were few rich, and many poor. There were few learned, and many ignorant. He set Himself to reverse this condition. He set Himself to make the many rich, to make the many wise. And the few who were at the top of society did not like it—they never have liked it, and it is doubtful whether they ever will like it to the end of time. It is true His teaching was not inconoclastic. It is true that He clothed it in forms as little likely to excite prejudice as possible—at least, in His earlier ministry. He announced principles out of which were to grow revolutionary results. Christ was a reformer. He was a leveller; not a leveller down, but He was a leveller. Christ led the great democratic movement that has gone through history from the time of the birth of Christ up to this day, levelling all institutions and organisms that have stood in the way of the uprise of humanity. Man—not the Jew-man, not the learned man, not the rich, not the blooded, not the aristocratic—but man is to be transformed, educated, ransomed, enfranchised, enriched, until the whole human race shall stand bound together in one great brotherhood. And the established order of things armed itself against Him.

II. This established order was entrenched behind, and allied with, a superstitious conception of religion, with a reverence for material things.—The temple was the centre of all worship, and men could hardly conceive that religion could live if the temple were destroyed. Christ told them that the temple would be destroyed. Christ told them that obedience was better than an elaborate system of sacrifices that had come down to them from their fathers. And all the conventional religious reverence of Palestine gathered up to arm itself against a Man who really seemed to the religious teachers of that day to be teaching irreligion, if not atheism, to be sweeping the land of its religious institutions.

III. Along with this entrenched established order, supported by this religion of reverence for forms and ceremonies went a traditional theology.—It was laid down as a rule and law in theological schools, that each man must repeat what the father before him had taught, and each pupil must learn and commit to rote what the instructor had taught to him. Religion consisted, not in believing truth, but in committing catechisms to memory. Christ came into the world, and fermented men; He incited men; He flung out aphorisms at them that set them thinking; He stirred them up with thought; He did just that which the church in that age, and which sectarianism in all ages, endeavours to prevent; He excited independent thought. If a heretic is what the dictionary tells us he is—a man who gives forth his own opinions when they are in conflict with the received opinions of his age—there never was such a heretic as Jesus Christ.

IV. This established order, this superstitious reverence, this traditional theology was further entrenched and supported by a race prejudice.—The Jews believed that they were the chosen people of God and all other people were of no account. Now Christ assailed this race prejudice.—L. Abbott, D.D.

Matthew 10:37. The exclusiveness of Christ’s claims.—How easily we may misunderstand Christ here! It is as if He underestimated family ties, responsibilities, and duties; and treated lightly the “first commandment with promise.” Yet we know well that, both by precept and example, He ever upheld parental rights. His point here is a twofold one:—

I. His claim must be wholly absorbing, because it is Divine.—The disciples only gradually apprehended that He wanted them altogether. They were to be, in an outward sense, given over entirely to His service. But that was only the illustration of their entire spiritual separation unto Him. We ask, Cannot we be Christ’s, and yet have a reserve for self; and yet have others in our love, taking their place with Christ.

II. Christ being first, we must keep Him in His place by putting everything else second.—Life offers so many things to us all that may easily absorb our interest, and push Christ into the background. Loves, pleasures, pursuits. But here is the great Christian law for us.—Weekly Pulpit.

Matthew 10:38. The necessity of self-denial.—

I. The nature of self-denial.—

1. Self-denial is opposed to our feelings, propensities, and our selfishness.—Self-denial must be submitted to, in order to the well-being of society—the child to the parent—the scholar to the teacher—the servant to the master—the subject to the sovereign; but the self-denial referred to is altogether of a spiritual character.

2. Mortification.—Take up the cross. This language is highly figurative, and is borrowed from a custom of putting criminals to death by the Romans, and other nations. The criminal was compelled to bear his own cross to the place of execution. It was doing something extremely humiliating and painful.

3. Imitation of Christ.

II. The necessity of self-denial.—There are two kinds of necessity, natural and moral; what is absolute in itself, and what is rendered so by circumstances. In order to become a disciple of Christ you must comply with His conditions. It is necessary:—

1. To the maintaining of the spirit of religion.—The religion of Jesus includes a belief of the doctrines He taught—but it includes more—it includes the conquering of self.

2. To the practice of religion.—The Christian is a racer—soldier—pilgrim. These designations all show the necessity of self-denial.

3 To the enjoyment of religion.—Why are so many professors crying, My leanness, my leanness? Self is not denied—Christ is not followed fully.

4. To the final reward of religion.—Jesus said, “To him that overcometh will I grant to sit upon My throne,” etc. Then, overcoming is necessary to the final reward.

III. The reasonableness of self-denial.—

1. From the character of God.—How reasonable that the will of such a Being should rule.

2. From our mutual dependence upon one another.

3. From the final destination of man.—God is training the Christian for a station of infinite dignity.—Anon.

Matthew 10:41. The prophet’s reward.—Two questions suggest themselves to the thoughtful reader of these words:

1. What is a prophet’s, what is a righteous man’s reward?
2. No matter what that reward is, is it quite fair and equitable that a man who merely receives a prophet or a righteous man; who, that is, gives shelter and hospitality to them because they are what they are, should get the same reward which those men themselves get? If a man may get a prophet’s reward by merely being hospitable to either of them, what is the good of being a prophet or a righteous man? We look in vain for any light on this difficulty from the context. The Master is speaking to His disciples here before sending them forth on what might be called a missionary enterprise, and He tells them what kind of treatment they are to expect. He identifies Himself here with them in the work they are to do and the treatment they shall receive. Nay, He identifies God with them, and regards every kindness shown to them in their service or ministry as a kindness paid to Him.

I. The Master does not here tell us what is the prophet’s reward, nor what is the reward of the righteous man.—Yet here must lie the key that will open for us the mystery. The Master here does not tell us—did not tell His disciples. Why? Did they know already? Or did the Master tell them before this what it was? Or were they left to learn the nature and extent of it gradually by the teaching of experience, which, through the help of the Holy Spirit—the Spirit of light and grace—was to develop in them the power of spiritual apprehension and understanding—was to bring all things again to their remembrance, and help them to interpret His teaching aright? I think we must accept this latter as the correct assumption. Our Lord had taught the nature of the righteous man’s and prophet’s reward before this, as after it, but I fear we cannot credit the disciples at this period with having fully grasped it. They partook too largely of the spirit of their race and of their times to rise so early as this to the loftier conception of Christ’s kingdom and of the rewards it conferred on those who were of it which we find in the Master’s general teaching and in the pages of St. Paul and others in the New Testament.

II. The whole tenor of our Lord’s teaching was to bring out in regard to this matter that a man’s true wealth lay in himself, not in his belongings, not in his surroundings.—This was what our Lord was constantly teaching, and it was to seek after these treasures that He was ever exhorting the crowds that followed Him. This being so, we know very well what is the reward of the prophet, and what is the reward of the righteous man. It is not money. It is not place. It is not power. These things may come, or they may not; more likely by far that they do not. But if they come, they come as additions to their true reward, bringing with them other and grave responsibilities which further try the prophet’s gifts and the righteous man’s character. The true reward of the prophet, the only one that really enriches him, is the growing power of seeing more deeply into the deep things of God, and the growing power of revealing these more and more clearly to men. The true reward of the righteous man is his becoming more righteous still, his finding the virtuous principles within him growing stronger, the vicious in their presence becoming weaker, his finding the path of duty before him growing clearer and clearer, and himself more able to walk in it without stumbling. The reward of the one is the growing strength of his character, that of the other the increasing fitness for his office.

III. This, then, being the reward of the prophet and of the righteous man, that they grow in power and goodness, in the capacity for work, and in the practice of virtue, it is not hard to see why the man who receives the prophet in the name of a prophet, and the righteous man in the name of a righteous man should receive their reward—the same reward as they do. Observe that in the one case the man receives the prophet in the name of a prophet. He receives him because he knows him to be a prophet. This indicates that the man esteems the prophet for the sake of his office, that his sympathy is with him, and that he is interested in his work. He rejoices to hail this stranger, and gladly offers him hospitality, because he is of a kindred spirit to himself. And what follows? Their intercourse brings to the host the prophet’s reward. The host is enriched in his prophetic gifts by his guest’s conversation, and truly receives the prophet’s reward, shares with him and through him that enlargement of mind and that penetrating spiritual vision which are the richest fruits of his prophetic labours, as well as the power of clothing his thoughts in more accurate and impressive speech. The other case is similar to this. The righteous man is received in the name of a righteous man; that is, because he is a righteous man. The man who thus receives him has himself the cause of righteousness at heart, and his ready hospitality brings to his table, to his hearth, one whose words and example stimulate all his own virtuous aspirations; evoke and strengthen everything that is noble and good in him; bring him, in fact, the reward of the righteous man.

IV. There is no question in either case of the equality of the reward so far as amount is concerned. Such reward is proportioned to our capacity, very often to our length of service, always to our devotion to God and the right.—It is a thing of growth, and the prophet cannot but stimulate the prophetic gifts in all hearts that come under his influence, nor the righteous man fail to strengthen, confirm, and ripen the character of those who are already in sympathy with him, and, because of that sympathy, receive him and give him hearty welcome.—W. Ewen, B.D.

Matthew 10:42. God’s notice of little things.—I. God’s intimate acquaintance with every member of His spiritual kingdom.—“One of these little ones.” This reflection should:—

1. Inspire a feeling of profound trust in God.

2. Inspire a feeling of profound reverence for God.—His eye is upon me, etc.

II. God appreciates a gift according to the motive which actuates the giver.—“In the name of a disciple.” See also Mark 9:41; Hebrews 6:10 It is of vital importance to understand this principle, because:—

1. It casts light on the subject of good works.—If the gift of “a cup of cold water” is to be rewarded, then all the world might be rewarded, because there is hardly a man but would give such a gift to a fellow-creature. Mark, however, the regard which is paid to the subject of motive. A distinction is inferentially drawn between mere animal kindness and Christian generosity.

2. It tends to prevent self-deception.—Why was that gift given—that deed done—or that word uttered? How prone we are to deceive ourselves on the subject of motive!

III. In the vast economy of the universe there is nothing lost.—That “cup of cold water” is not lost. This thought applies:—

1. To the sublime processes of physical creation.—In the flight of boundless ages we are taught that not one particle of matter is lost!

2. To the moral effects of the gospel.—“My word shall not return unto Me void.” It will be “a savour of life unto life,” etc.

3. To all efforts in the cause of moral regeneration.—The humblest effort in the cause of Christ cannot be lost.

Let us treasure up the holy lessons of the subject:—

1. To belong to Christ is the highest of all honours. 2 He who belongs to Christ will be a giver as well as a receiver.—J. Parker, D.D.