Verse by Verse

27 Then Peter answered and said to Him, “See, we have left all and followed You. Therefore what shall we have?”

28 So Jesus said to them, “Assuredly I say to you, that in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

29 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.

30 But many who are first will be last, and the last first.

regeneration (v.28) — the Millennial kingdom, when Israel is brought back into God’s favor

left … brothers … or mother (v.29) — See Matthew 12:46-50

The young man had just been told to sell all and follow Jesus. Peter then said, “We’ve done just that. What about us? What good did it do us?” The Lord’s response shows that the question was not out of line. He tells the apostles what their future will be. He then makes a promise to all who follow Him. But He also adds a warning (continued in the parable in Matthew 20:1-16) to those who think they will be rewarded for their own efforts or merit.

16 Now behold, one came and said to Him, “Good Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?”

17 So He said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.”

18 He said to Him, “Which ones?” Jesus said, “‘You shall not murder,’ ‘You shall not commit adultery,’ ‘You shall not steal,’ ‘You shall not bear false witness,’

19 ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ ”

20 The young man said to Him, “All these things I have kept from my youth. What do I still lack?”

21 Jesus said to him, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.”

22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.

23 Then Jesus said to His disciples, “Assuredly, I say to you that it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.

24 And again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”

25 When His disciples heard it, they were greatly astonished, saying, “Who then can be saved?”

26 But Jesus looked at them and said to them, “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

This account also appears in Mark 10:17-27 (where it says that Jesus loved the young man) and in Luke 18:18-27 (where we learn that the young man was a ruler, perhaps a Pharisee)

good thing (v.16) — trying to enter the kingdom by his own merit

Why do you call Me good? (v.17) — As if to ask, “Have you really thought this through?” Jesus was making the point that only God is good. If the young man thought Him good, that mean he was referring to Jesus as God. Was he ready for that?

In addressing Jesus Christ as “Good Master,” the young man evidently meant to do Him honor, but Jesus points out the fact that only God is good. All men are sinners (Romans 3:12). Therefore, if Jesus were only a man, He would not be good, in this absolute sense. If truly good, then He is God. After this solemn declaration, the Lord Jesus took the inquirer up on his own ground. The law promised life to those who kept it (Leviticus 18:5; Galatians 3:12). So the Lord answered, “If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.” This declaration was designed to show the man his inability to obtain life on that ground, for if conscience were active, he would realize he had already violated the law.

“He saith unto Him, Which?” This was clearly an attempt to evade the full force of the Lord’s words. In reply, Jesus quoted five of the principal commandments and concluded by summing up all of those that refer to our duties to our fellow-men by quoting from Leviticus 19:18, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” It would indicate an unawakened condition of soul if one could face all these and not plead guilty. — Ironside, page 245.

Jesus listed the commandments (vs.18-19) that were displayed outwardly. The young man claimed to have kept those.

sell what you have and give to the poor (v.21) — Jesus showed that the young man hadn’t kept the commandments to love God with all his heart or to love his neighbor as himself.

The man’s response demonstrated that he was not righteous, for he was unwilling to fulfill the second table of the law and love his neighbor as himself. His response also revealed that he did not fulfill the first table of the law that forbade one to have gods above the true God. One’s god is what he serves, and this man loved and served his wealth. — Pentecost, pages 360-361.

rich man (v.23) — not necessarily one who has riches, but one who trusts in riches

Christ’s use of the word for a surgeon’s suturing needle indicated that His references to a camel and a needle were to be taken literally. The popular explanation that the eye of a needle referred to a small gate within the large city gate has no historical basis. Christ was not teaching that it is difficult for one who trusts in riches to enter the kingdom. He was showing that it was utterly impossible for one who trusts in riches to enter the kingdom. Such a teaching seemed inconceivable to the disciples who had been brought up on the philosophy that riches were a sure sign of divine pleasure and an evidence of God’s blessing. If the rich whom God loved and blessed and with whom He was pleased could not enter the kingdom, what chance was there for the multitudes? Christ responded, “With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God” (Mark 10:27). — Pentecost, page 361.

The Lord’s point was that no man can gain eternity by his own merit or effort (v.26). It is impossible. But he can gain it through God.

13 Then little children were brought to Him that He might put His hands on them and pray, but the disciples rebuked them.

14 But Jesus said, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven.”

15 And He laid His hands on them and departed from there.

This account also is recorded in Mark 10:13-16 and Luke 18:15-17.

The disciples tried to stop the children from seeing Jesus (v.13). They must not have learned much from the Lord’s teaching in Matthew 18:2-10.

He demanded that the children be permitted to come to Him. They were not to be refused. His reason was that “the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these” (Matthew 19:14). The faith that had brought the children to Jesus was a sign of the faith that would admit one into the kingdom. Christ said, “Anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it” (Mark 10:15). If Christ turned away these who believed in Him, there would be no assurance that He would accept others who tried to enter His kingdom by faith. Jesus tenderly took the children in His arms, put His hands on them, and blessed them. The fact that the children were small enough to be taken into His arms indicates that they were too small to exercise faith in His person. Therefore the faith referred to must have been that of the parents. Thus Jesus gave the disciples an illustration of the necessity of faith for entrance into the kingdom and the validity of faith as a basis for such an entrance. — Pentecost, page 359.

I agree with Pentecost that the chief point the Lord was making here was that those who came to Him with faith for salvation, the way the children came to Him with faith here, would enter the kingdom. The emphasis is on the faith, not on the children. It may be that He was also teaching that children too young to exercise saving faith would get into the kingdom because of their simple faith. But that’s just surmise.

1 Now it came to pass, when Jesus had finished these sayings, that He departed from Galilee and came to the region of Judea beyond the Jordan.

2 And great multitudes followed Him, and He healed them there.

3 The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?”

4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’

5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?

6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

7 They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?”

8 He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.

9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”

10 His disciples said to Him, “If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry.”

11 But He said to them, “All cannot accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been given:

12 For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it.”

This account is also found in Mark 10:1-12.

Judea beyond the Jordan (v.1) — Peraea, east of the river. The events of this chapter took place during the Lord’s final journey to Jerusalem for His death.

The Lord responds (vs. 4-6) to the Pharisees’ question (v.3) by going back to Genesis 2:24 and showing God’s intent for marriage.

Have you not read (v.4) — They should have known the answer (and probably did, but didn’t want it).

The Mosaic Law permitted divorce when a wife proved faithless; but the Rabbinical interpreters after their wont disputed over this enactment. The school of Shammai, adhering to the letter of the Law, held that a wife should not be divorced except for unfaithfulness; whereas the school of Hillel, with a laxity very agreeable to the general inclination, allowed a husband to put away his wife “for every cause” — if he disliked her, if he fancied another woman more, if her cookery were not to his taste.

The Pharisees would force Jesus to line up with one side or the other of the theological factions and so alienate a part of the crowd. Or perhaps, knowing already what Jesus thought about such questions, they wished to bring Him again into direct conflict with Herod Antipas. That wicked ruler was living with Herodias in open adultery. John had denounced their sin and lost his own head. If they could get Jesus to denounce openly this Herod and the wicked Herodias, they might succeed in doing away with Him soon.

The Mosaic law really permitted divorce only for the cause of unfaithfulness, but the popular conception among the Jews at the time of Jesus was that of the Rabbinical interpreters of the school of Hillel. Woman had become a mere chattel of man, subject to his inhuman and cruel treatment. The Pharisees understood well that if Jesus took the side of Shammai or the stricter view of divorce, He would alienate a greater part of the multitude. — Pentecost, pages 354-355.

command (v.7) — Moses didn’t “command” divorce, he permitted (v.8) it.

hardness of your hearts (v.8) — Because the Israelites had disobeyed God’s law of marriage and had married Gentile wives, the line would have been corrupted. If the line were corrupted, Messiah could not come in Abraham’s line. It became necessary then to purify the nation to prevent the corruption of the line. Therefore divorce was permitted. This principle is well illustrated in Ezra 10:2-3, 11-14. Christ thus showed that divorce was not a part of God’s original law of marriage but was introduced because of Israel’s disobedience to the law. Thus the uncleanness of Deuteronomy 24:1 had to do with a corrupted bloodline. — Pentecost, page 357.

sexual immorality (v.9) — Pentecost has an interesting take on this which I think is worth considering. It’s hard to say whether the passage leads to this conclusion because it’s hard to say whether this is what the Lord’s audience would have naturally understood, but in light of other teaching the Bible about divorce, it makes sense to me.

The Greek word translated “marital unfaithfulness” [sexual immorality in the NKJV] is not the word for adultery but is the general word for immorality. Christ was referring to the Jewish marriage customs of His day. Marriage was begun by drawing a legal contract between the father of a man and the father of a woman, pledging them to each other. This marriage contract was called a betrothal. The couple were called husband and wife by virtue of that marriage contract. The marriage itself was not completed until at least twelve months after the betrothal contract was drawn up. But they were still referred to as husband and wife. Such was the relationship between Joseph and Mary when the angel announced that Mary would conceive a child. The twelve-month waiting period was deemed necessary because of the low state of morals of that day. That period gave sufficient time to reveal whether the woman was pregnant when the contract was drawn up. The interval also allowed time to see if she would become pregnant by an unfaithful act after being joined by contract to her husband. If the wife proved to be immoral, the marriage need not be completed; the contract could be broken by a divorce. However, so binding was the betrothal contract that it could  be broken only by the husband appearing before the judges to accuse the woman of immorality. Thus the contract could be broken. Such was Joseph’s decision when he discovered Mary’s pregnancy (Matthew 1:19). It was in light of this context that Christ granted the exception (Matthew 19:9). If one who was betrothed to a wife found in the betrothal period that she was guilty of fornication, that is, that she was an immoral woman, the marriage need not be consummated; but it had to be dissolved by a divorce. Since the marriage had not been completed, the man was free to marry without becoming an adulterer. Thus Christ utterly repudiated the Pharisaic interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1-4, and He denied the right of divorce. He appealed to God’s original law of marriage by which a man and woman were inseparably united until that marriage was dissolved by death. Thus the only possibility of divorce allowed by Christ was a cancellation of a marriage contract during the Jewish betrothal period before the marriage had been completed. This evidently was the way the disciples understood our Lord’s instruction. They replied, “If this is the situation,” that is, if it is not possible for a man to put away his wife after marriage even though she proved to be an immoral and faithless wife, then “it is better not to marry” (Matthew 19:10).  Clearly the disciples saw no possibility of obtaining a divorce with divine approval after marriage had been completed. Because the disciples recognized the low state of society and since it was utterly repugnant to them to be inseparably united to a faithless wife, they concluded it was best not to marry at all. Such a conclusion would not have been drawn if they had understood Christ to permit divorce after marriage.— Pentecost, pages 357-358.

__________

adultery (v.9)  — The Greek word translated “adultery” refers to the sin of a married individual against his partner. If divorce could dissolve a marriage, a remarriage could not be considered adultery. But since Christ proclaimed it to be adultery, the first marriage must be viewed as still standing in the sight of God. — Pentecost, page 357.

eunuch (v.12) — broadly, a man who doesn’t have sex. This can be because of a birth defect (first clause); because of surgery (second clause); or, by choice (third clause).

The Lord also spoke on divorce in Matthew 5:31-32. I have included a long quote by Stam in that post which is worth reading on this subject.

I believe a divorced person can find grace and forgiveness in Christ. I also believe, however, that divorce is wrong because it is a violation of God’s plan, and that no justification for it can be found in Scripture.

21 Then Peter came to Him and said, “Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Up to seven times?”

22 Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven.

23 Therefore the kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants.

24 And when he had begun to settle accounts, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents.

25 But as he was not able to pay, his master commanded that he be sold, with his wife and children and all that he had, and that payment be made.

26 The servant therefore fell down before him, saying, ‘Master, have patience with me, and I will pay you all.’

27 Then the master of that servant was moved with compassion, released him, and forgave him the debt.

28 “But that servant went out and found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii; and he laid hands on him and took him by the throat, saying, ‘Pay me what you owe!’

29 So his fellow servant fell down at his feet and begged him, saying, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you all.’

30 And he would not, but went and threw him into prison till he should pay the debt.

31 So when his fellow servants saw what had been done, they were very grieved, and came and told their master all that had been done.

32 Then his master, after he had called him, said to him, ‘You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you begged me.

33 Should you not also have had compassion on your fellow servant, just as I had pity on you?’

34 And his master was angry, and delivered him to the torturers until he should pay all that was due to him.

35 “So My heavenly Father also will do to you if each of you, from his heart, does not forgive his brother his trespasses.”

Peter returned to the question of forgiveness and asked the Lord in Matthew 18:21, “Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?” The old Jewish teaching was that three times was enough, based on Amos 1:3 and 2:6. Pete was attempting to be generous in doubling the usual limit of forgiveness. — Walvoord, page 238.

ten thousand talents (v.24) — a huge amount, equal to millions of dollars in today’s money

forgave (v.27) = cancelled

a hundred denarii (v.28) — a small amount, equal to $10-$20 in today’s money

Peter had to recognize that he was totally incapable of paying the debt that he owed to God. Peter, then, was represented by the man with the insurmountable indebtedness. But God had freely forgiven Peter all of his indebtedness. Peter, then, was obligated to forgive others who may have wronged him but whose wrong was a mere pittance in comparison with the wrong he had done to God and for which he had received forgiveness. — Pentecost, page 270

The commentaries either say that this parable is referring to Christians who, if they don’t forgive, will not lose their salvation but will be punished; or, that the servant who didn’t forgive was never really saved in the first place. Both these explanations show the problems that crop up when we try to apply portions of Scripture to ourselves that aren’t intended to be applied to us. The Lord was talking about the kingdom. He says so clearly in verse 23. During the kingdom, a person who doesn’t forgive will not be forgiven. Period. This is a carryover from the law, as the Lord explained in His Sermon on the Mount: “For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.” 

If this seems impossible to live up to, that is the whole point. The law was given to show that all men are sinners. So how can anybody live up to this, even in the kingdom? But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people (Jeremiah 31:33).

The parable was not intended to be applied to us today. Yes, we should forgive, but as a response to what Christ has already done for us. And be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God in Christ forgave you (Ephesians 4:32). 

Under law, a person forgives others and then is forgiven by God. Under grace, we are forgiven in Christ and our response should be to forgive others. This makes it no less important, and in fact, if we live by grace, it makes it much easier to do.

18 “Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

19 “Again I say to you that if two of you agree on earth concerning anything that they ask, it will be done for them by My Father in heaven.

20 For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.”

The instructions given to Peter in Matthew 16:19 are here given to all the apostles. See my notes on that passage for an explanation of this verse. In the immediate context, it is applied to the matter of dealing with a sinning member of the assembly.

in My name (v.20) — claiming and using Christ’s authority

The Lord was not talking about the church here. He was talking about the kingdom (vs. 1, 3-4). And He was not speaking to all believers, but to the disciples (v.1). But the principles of forgiveness and dealing with sinning brothers can be applied today.

15 “Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother.

16 But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’

17 And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.

This teaching on forgiveness is probably tied to the teaching on humility earlier in the chapter — Don’t think you are greater than your brother; don’t do anything to cause him to sin; and, if he sins against you, forgive him.

against you (v.15) — not in some manuscripts, so the Lord could have been referring to more general sins and not just those against a given individual.

gained (v.15) —In considering our Lord’s use of the word “gained” here, it is very interesting to trace it through the New Testament. It is a commercial word, a word of the market place. It is a word which is used to characterize the processes by which a man accumulates wealth. The use of the word in this connection, so far as the sinning brother is concerned, recognizes loss. A man who has sinned is in certain senses lost; when he is restored he is gained, and the gain is interpreted by the context. — Morgan, page 232.

by the mouth of two or three witnesses … (v.16) — taken from Deuteronomy 19:15

heathen (v.17) = Gentile — more evidence that the Lord was talking to Jews only in this passage (although the principle in verses 15-17 is universal — Leviticus 19:17; Galatians 6:1; 2 Corinthians 13:1; 1 Timothy 5:19). The Lord was NOT teaching about a future institution, the Christian church. He would not have said, in essence, “After the resurrection, I will establish a church among the Gentiles. In that church, if a sinner refuses to admit his sin, treat him like a Gentile.” It’s the audience, not the principle, that I’m pointing out here. Jesus was talking to a Jewish audience (His apostles) about the kingdom, although, as I’ve just mentioned, the principles also apply in the church.

church (v.17) = assembly (as always) — not referring to the still-future body of Christ church but to any assembly of believers (in the immediate context, an assembly of Jewish believers)

11 For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost.

12 “What do you think? If a man has a hundred sheep, and one of them goes astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine and go to the mountains to seek the one that is straying?

13 And if he should find it, assuredly, I say to you, he rejoices more over that sheep than over the ninety-nine that did not go astray.

14 Even so it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.

Verse 11 isn’t in many manuscripts in this passage, but it does appear in Luke 19:10.

Ironside has a take on verse 14 that is interesting. I’m not sure how I feel about it.

Verse 14 gives the assurance that all children dying [before] coming to years of accountability are forever saved through the work of Christ. It is not the Father’s will that any of them perish; and inasmuch as their wills are not set against the will of God we may be certain they are with Christ in the Father’s house. — Ironside, page 225.

I do think that this passage must be understood in the context of the kingdom and what would (and will) occur between this teaching by the Lord and the beginning of the kingdom — the tribulation.

Christ went on to show the twelve that He rejoiced over and loved the one who came to faith in Himself. He used the figure of a man who had a hundred sheep, one of which was lost (vs. 12-14). He searched until he found the sheep that had strayed. When he found it, he rejoiced over it. Christ’s heart was satisfied through the faith that this man had placed in His person … Christ searched for what was lost because “your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should be lost” (v.13). If the twelve shared the heart of Christ, they would have love for those who came to Him. — Pentecost, page 267.

I realize my notes are sketchy on this chapter. I’m still working though it. I trust that further study will shed more light.

7 Woe to the world because of offenses! For offenses must come, but woe to that man by whom the offense comes!

8 “If your hand or foot causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life lame or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into the everlasting fire.

9 And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes, to be cast into hell fire.

10 “Take heed that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that in heaven their angels always see the face of My Father who is in heaven.

woe (v.7) — the prophetic condemnation to death

Verses 8-9 repeat the Lord’s instructions from Matthew 5:29-30.

The reason I cut off this study where I did is because verse 10 has often confused me and I wanted to make sure I studied it well. I’m not sure I’ve figured it out yet. The commentaries are of two minds. Here’s Gaebelein:

At the first glance it would seem as if these little ones have angels in heaven. There is a passage in Acts 12:15 which is the key to solve the difficulty here. When Peter, rescued by an angel, led forth miraculously from the prison house, knocked at the door of the praying assembly and Rhoda maintained that Peter stood outside, they said, “It is his angel.” They believed that Peter had suffered death and that his angel stood outside. What does “angel” mean in this passage? It must mean the departed spirit of Peter. This fact throws light on the passage before us. If these little ones, who belong to the kingdom of heaven, depart, their disembodied spirits behold the Father’s fact in heaven; in other words, they are saved. — Gaebelein, pages 382-383.

I’m not sure I agree, because the passage in Acts isn’t really much connected to this one. There are plenty of other places in Scripture where angel means angel. I don’t see any reason to pick out that particular passage to explain this one. I also doubt very much that there are children in heaven, not because children can’t be saved (I believe they can) but because I don’t think they remain children for eternity.

Now Pentecost:

Look up from earth to heaven; those representative, it may be guardian, angels nearest to God, are not those of deepest knowledge of God’s counsel and commands, but those of simple, humble grace and faith … Even that which is little and looked down on by people is under the watch-care of God, and He assigns His angels to guard those who have trusted Him. — Pentecost, page 266.

This didn’t satisfy me either. I’ve been taught that guardian angels, if that really is a ministry, were for Israel alone. That would be the case in this passage, but is that what the Lord was referring to?

I asked Ricky Kurth, and here was his response:

I think the Word of God works on many different levels.  I think the Lord was talking about actual children, and how their innocence insures their salvation before they come to the age of accountability, and [of] the faith that little children are able to express once they do come to that age, for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

But when the Lord “called a little child” (Matthew 18:2), that phrase “little child” (v.4-5) is symbolic of His little flock, whom He called “little children” (John 13:33 cf. 1 John 2:1,12-13,18,28; 3:7,18; 4:4; 5:21), for as people who exhibited child-like faith in Him, theirs is the kingdom of heaven as well as [it is for] the innocent.

As for “their angels,” Hebrews 1:14 says of angels, “are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?”  Well, little children and believers are the heirs of salvation, and so I believe that each one in Israel had their own angel.  Remember, there are well over 100 million angels (Revelation 5:11).

But there is no evidence in Paul’s epistles that angels have a ministry to members of the Body of Christ as they did to Israel.  All Paul says about them is that they are learning about God’s grace from us (Ephesians 3:10).  

The Jews were “the children of Israel,” and God treated them like children, giving them a law filled with “thou shalts” and “thou shalt nots.”  That’s how you treat children!  Children must be “under tutors and governors” (Galatians 4:1-2).  Well, if the Law was their tutor, angels were the governors that ministered to those heirs of salvation.  

But as Paul goes on to say, we have received “the adoption of sons” (Galatians 4:5) and so we are sons, not children.  Because of that, I don’t think we have an individual angel assigned to us as the Jews did.

1 At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”

2 Then Jesus called a little child to Him, set him in the midst of them,

3 and said, “Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.

4 Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

5 Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me.

6 “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

This account also appears in Mark 9:33-50 and Luke 9:46-50.

This talk may have taken place in Peter’s house, and the child may have been a member of Peter’s family, but we aren’t told and so it isn’t important.

Who then is greatest (v.1) — This question reflects the apostles’ confusion after the Lord’s revelation of His approaching death. The kingdom He taught didn’t mesh with their understanding and expectations of what a kingdom should look like — and their lofty roles in it.

converted (v.3) = turn — from their expectations of exalted positions in the kingdom to humility and faith (Matthew 11:11)

become as little children (v.3) — humble, responsive to Christ’s call to come, obedient, trusting, utterly dependent

receive (v.5) = by way of giving hospitality

Their service (v.5) to the King should be service to the humble and meek, not concern for lofty positions.

sin (v.6) = lit. “cause to stumble”

millstone (v.6) = a great stone that had to be turned by a beast of burden