<p>19:27&nbsp;<em>Then asked Peter, saying: We have left all</em>- The family based structure of the first century is hard to fully empathize with from our distance. Family was all. Peter comments that the disciples had &ldquo;left our own homes&rdquo; (Lk. 18:28 RVmg.), and the parallel Mt. 19:27 says &ldquo;left&nbsp;<em>all</em>&rdquo;. Your home was your all. To have to leave it for the sake of Christ was the most fundamental thing you could do. Hence the real meaning in the first century of the Lord&rsquo;s response that such converts would receive families in this life, i.e. in their relationships in the ecclesia. And yet the radical call of Christ is no less demanding and intrusive as men and women meet it today, the only difference being that the starkness of the choices is less pronounced today- but just as essentially real.</p>
<p>I have repeatedly mentioned that the material in chapter 19 is strongly related to that in chapter 18. The Greek here for &ldquo;left / forsook all&rdquo; is identical to that in 18:32: &ldquo;I&nbsp;<em>forgave&nbsp;</em>you&nbsp;<em>all</em>&rdquo;. Peter had balked at the idea of &lsquo;forgiving all&rsquo;. It is easier to &lsquo;forsake&rsquo; [s.w. &lsquo;forgive&rsquo;] all material things than to&nbsp;<em>forgive</em>&nbsp;all. This explains why the incident of the rich young man follows the teaching about the need to forgive all. He would not forsake all, just as some would not forgive all. Peter claims to have forsaken all, and yet it&rsquo;s apparent that he struggled with the idea of&nbsp;<em>forgiving&nbsp;</em>all, thinking that seven times / day was more than generous enough of him. Likewise one wonders whether Peter had really forsaken all materially- he still had a wife, and apparently his fishing boats back in Galilee, to which he returned after the Lord&rsquo;s resurrection.</p>
<p><em>And followed You</em>- Just as Peter&rsquo;s claim to have &ldquo;left all&rdquo; was perhaps questionable, likewise Peter seems to have under-estimated what &lsquo;following Christ&rsquo; really meant- for the idea of carrying the cross is strongly connected with following Christ (10:38; 16:24). And Peter failed to carry that cross to the end, for he denied the Lord when the going got tough.</p>
<p><em>What then shall we receive as a reward?-</em>&nbsp;The emphasis is on the word &quot;we&quot;. The Lord had taught that the rich needed to give up their wealth if they were to be saved- but God's grace was enough to make even their salvation possible if they didn't rise up to that higher level. Peter considered that he and the disciples&nbsp;<em>had</em>&nbsp;given up what wealth they had. And the Lord agrees with Peter- indeed, there would be great blessings for them in the future Kingdom.</p>
<p>Peter had the impression that by forsaking all and following the Lord, he would somehow benefit. He still had to learn that the carrying of the cross is not to be motivated by any desire for personal benefit, spiritual or otherwise. We live in a world in which religion, like everything else, is seen as a means toward some personal benefit. If we love the Lord, we will follow Him, wherever the life in Him leads us; purely for love of Him, and recognition that His way is the way to glorifying the Father. Peter had left all, but expected something back. For the excellency of fellowshipping the sufferings of the future Saviour, Moses gave up all the riches of Egypt. The Lord responded by saying that nobody who had left all&nbsp;<em>for His Name's sake</em>&nbsp;would go unrewarded (Mt. 19:29). The riches, the surpassing excellence of Christ, all the things tied up in His Name, these were not appreciated at that time by Peter. They are enough, purely of themselves, to make a man count all things as dung. Later, he understood this. He told the lame man that the silver and gold which he had was the salvation possible in the Name of Jesus (Acts 3:6). Peter rejoiced that he was counted worthy to suffer shame for the Name, and he preached in that Name. There is quite some emphasis on this: Acts 2:21,28; 3:6,16; 4:10,12,30; 5:41. Now he had learnt his mistake, or rather he realized the poverty of his understanding of the Lord. He now found the excellency of the Lord's Name an imperative of itself to witness to it. Likewise &quot;for his name's sake they went forth&quot; in obedience to the great preaching commission (3 Jn. 7; Rev. 2:3). &nbsp;</p>