Week 16: Matthew Chapter 19
Week 16: Matthew Chapter 19, 20
I.
Matthew 19:1-12
a.
The Text - Marriage and Divorce. 1 When Jesus finished these words, he left Galilee
and went to the district of Judea across the Jordan. 2 Great crowds
followed him, and he cured them there. 3 Some Pharisees approached him,
and tested him, saying, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any
cause whatever?” 4 He said in reply, “Have you not read that from the
beginning the Creator ‘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 they are no longer two, but one
flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.”
7 They said to him, “Then why did Moses command that the man give the
woman a bill of divorce and dismiss [her]?” 8 He said to them, “Because of
the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from
the beginning it was not so. 9 I say to you, whoever divorces his wife
(unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.”
10 [His] disciples said to him, “If that is the case of a man with his
wife, it is better not to marry.” 11 He answered, “Not all can accept
[this] word, but only those to whom that is granted. 12 Some are incapable
of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by
others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom
of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.”
b.
Literary Context - The first two verses indicate the end of
one discourse and the beginning of a new one. This new one is Jesus' ministry
in Judea on his way to Jerusalem and the climax of his mission.
i.
Jesus is confronted by some Pharisees hoping to trip him up.
The question concerns divorce and seems to center on what grounds are
permissible for divorce. All of the commentaries indicate there were two
dominant views of divorce in ancient Israel: Shammai, who allowed divorce only
for porneia, and Hillel, who allowed divorce for practically any reason.
The common belief is that divorce is allowed because it is discussed in
Deuteronomy (24:1-4). Careful reading of the OT passage reveals the crux of the
law is that a man who has divorced a woman who remarries and is then divorced
or widowed cannot remarry her.
ii.
Jesus' response avoids the question of grounds for divorce
by declaring that divorce is indissoluble. There is no valid grounds for
divorce.
iii.
There is much speculation about the exception clause in v.
9. The clause in the original is translated literally whoever releases his wife
not over porneia and marries another commits adultery.
Many Protestants and Orthodox have turned the phrase "not over
porneia" into "except in the case of porneia." This is obviously
not the only translation. NABRE translates "unless the marriage is
unlawful," which is as far removed from the original as the former.
Catholic scholars tend to a number of interpretations, but none of them offer
valid grounds for divorce.
iv.
I think it's almost funny that the disciples are shocked at
the idea of lifelong monogamy. It really shows to what extent Jesus' call to
sexual morality deviated from the norm. Jesus' response to them seems even more
extreme: celibacy. But this is what the Church continues to teach, and what we
as Catholics are called to.
c.
The Big Idea - Marriage was ordained by God at the creation
and cannot be broken by humans.
d.
Key question(s) for today
i.
It does seem that the Church calls people either to the
married life, to the cloistered life, or to ordination. What about those who
choose to remain single, or those who are separated or civilly divorced and
chose not to remarry? Where do they fit in the Church?
ii.
Is it too harsh to deny communion to those who have divorced
and remarried? Why or why not?
II.
Matthew 19:13–15
a.
The Text - Blessing of
the Children. 13 Then children were brought to him that he might lay
his hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked them, 14 but Jesus said,
“Let the children come to me, and do not prevent them; for the kingdom of
heaven belongs to such as these.” 15 After he placed his hands on them, he
went away.
b.
Literary Context - Again Jesus is being counter-cultural by
valuing children. Children's rights were not highly valued in the ancient
world, possibly because of high infant mortality rates. And though there was a
Jewish custom of children being blessed by their fathers or teachers, there is
no record that this was accompanied by any kind of special affection by those
doing the blessing. The disciples' reaction to the children being brought for
blessing reflects this. This seems odd, however, given that Jesus has recently
told them that they must be childlike and that whoever receives children
receives him (Mt. 18:1-4). At any rate Jesus assures them that the kingdom of
heaven belongs to those who are like children ("such as these"). At
the very least this passage indicates that children should be treated with
equal respect for their innate dignity as anyone else. It may also be a rebuke
to any who would place their own concerns above others, especially the most
vulnerable.[1]
c.
The Big Idea - Jesus loves children and those who are like
children.
d.
Key question(s) for today
i.
How does this passage suggest Christians should respond to
those who seek to bring the less fortunate and more vulnerable to the Church?
ii.
Do you think there is a link between this passage and the
previous one about marriage?
III.
Matthew 19:16–22
a.
The Text - The
Rich Young Man. 16 Now someone approached him and said, “Teacher, what
good must I do to gain eternal life?” 17 He answered him, “Why do you ask
me about the good? There is only One who is good. If you wish to enter into
life, keep the commandments.” 18 He asked him, “Which ones?” And Jesus
replied, “ ‘You shall not kill; 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 of these I have observed. What do I still lack?”
21 Jesus said to him, “If you wish to be perfect, go, sell what you have
and give to [the] poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow
me.” 22 When the young man heard this statement, he went away sad, for he
had many possessions.
b.
Literary Context –
i.
There is every indication that this young man is a true
seeker of God. He keeps the commandments and his questioning of Jesus seems to
be sincere. The problem with his approach is revealed by his question and
Jesus' initial response. "There is only One who is good" redirects
the young man's assumption that he can do some "good" to attain
salvation.
ii.
Jesus' next reply is that he should "keep the
commandments" to which the young man asks "which ones?" It is
not an impudent question: there are over 600 commandments in the Torah and the
young man is naturally seeking to know which are the most important. Jesus'
delineation of five of the decalogue having to do with relationships and one
commandment from Leviticus to "love your neighbor as yourself" (Lv.
18:5) indicate a priority for right relationship with God and others, to the
point of considering the needs of others before your own. As Jesus tells us
elsewhere, all of the commandments point to this right relationship with God
and others.
iii.
But what if you have done or are doing all the right things
and still have this nagging sense of something missing? This is the young man's
predicament as he asks what he lacks. Jesus then identifies the young man's
dilemma by showing him his attachment to his possessions is keeping him from
full communion with God. The fundamental truth is here revealed that right
relationship is not achieved by good actions but by surrender. In reality, this
surrender involves the whole of life. As CS Lewis writes in Mere
Christianity, “Christ says, "Give me All. I don't want so much of your
time and so much of your money and so much of your work: I want You. I have not
come to torment your natural self, but to kill it. No half-measures are any
good...Hand over the whole natural self, all the desires which you think
innocent as well as the ones you think wicked--the whole outfit. I will give
you a new self instead. In fact, I will give you Myself: my own will shall
become yours.”
iv.
The young man's response contains a powerful warning for us.
What are we not willing to give to Jesus? What do we cling to that prevents our
total surrender? It is important to remember that this warning is not about
possessions; it is about devotion. Where does my allegiance lie?
v.
This story is probably apocryphal but illustrates the slow
and sometime painful journey toward perfection. "When
William Penn was convinced of the principles of Friends, and became a frequent
attendant at their meetings, he did not immediately relinquish his gay apparel;
it is even said that he wore a sword, as was then customary among men of rank
and fashion. Being one day in company with George Fox, he asked his advice
concerning it, saying that he might, perhaps, appear singular among Friends,
but his sword had once been the means of saving his life without injuring his
antagonist, and moreover, that Christ has said, "he that hath no sword,
let him sell his garment and buy one." George Fox answered, "I advise
thee to wear it as long as thou canst." Not long after this they met
again, when William had no sword, and George said to him, "William, where
is thy sword?" "Oh!" said he, I have taken thy advice; I wore it
as long as I could."[2]
c.
The Big Idea - Salvation rests in total devotion to God.
d.
Key question(s) for today
i.
If salvation requires my undivided devotion to God and
others, where does grace fit into the picture?
ii.
Where does my allegiance lie?
IV.
Matthew 19:23-30
a.
The Text - The
Dangers of Wealth 23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Amen, I say to
you, it will be hard for one who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven.
24 Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of
a needle than for one who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” 25 When
the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and said, “Who then can
be saved?” 26 Jesus looked at them and said, “For human beings this is
impossible, but for God all things are possible.” 27 Then Peter said to
him in reply, “We have given up everything and followed you. What will there be
for us?” 28 Jesus said to them, “Amen, I say to you that you who have
followed me, in the new age, when the Son of Man is seated on his throne of
glory, will yourselves sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of
Israel. 29 And everyone who has given up houses or brothers or sisters or
father or mother or children or lands for the sake of my name will receive a
hundred times more, and will inherit eternal life. 30 But many who are
first will be last, and the last will be first.
b.
Literary Context
i.
The incident with the rich young man illustrates the danger
posed by attachment to worldly things. Jesus points out how hard it is to
detach and surrender. The image of the camel and the eye of a needle is meant
to be taken literally.
ii.
Which understandably raises the questions in the disciples
minds about who can be saved? Jesus response is that no one can be saved by
their own effort. But God is able to make a way out of no way. [1]
iii.
In asking the question, "what about us?" Peter is
setting the disciples as an example of those who have given up much to follow
Jesus. Jesus tells them that those who follow him will "in the new
age" will judge the tribes of Israel. We might take the term
"judge" to have the OT meaning of ruling, as in the age of the Judges
following entry to the Promised Land. That political arrangement was based on
the idea that Israel's king was God and that the Judges administered the
kingdom for him. A Catholic take on this statement would suggest that Jesus is
laying the groundwork for apostolic succession.
iv.
What is the "new age," παλιγγενεσίᾳ? The word is
only used in one other place in the NT is in Titus 3:5, "4 But when the
kindness and generous love of God our savior appeared, 5 not because of any
righteous deeds we had done but because of his mercy, he saved us through the
bath of rebirth and renewal [παλιγγενεσίᾳ] by the holy Spirit" This
to me clearly marks the coming of the Kingdom. But does it mean only after the
Parousia? Probably not. The kingdom is "already but not yet."
v.
Compare v. 29 to Mark 17:29,30), 29 Jesus said, “Amen, I say
to you, there is no one who has given up house or brothers or sisters or mother
or father or children or lands for my sake and for the sake of the gospel 30
who will not receive a hundred times more now in this present age:
houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with
persecutions, and eternal life in the age to come." A more
literal time translation is "in the now time." Note the addition of persecutions. How do we as followers of Christ
receive a hundred time more houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and
children and lands? The original understanding would have been leaving behind
the earthly community we inhabited before baptism and entering the entire
community of believers as a new family.
c.
The Big Idea - Keep your eyes on the prize.
d.
Key question(s) for today
i.
Why does Jesus say to the disciples that they will be seated
on twelve thrones? What about Judas?
ii. Do you see a correlation between Jesus’ reversal of first and last and his statements and actions about children (13-15)?
[1] There is so much frustration in the world because we have relied on gods rather than God. We have genuflected before the god of science only to find that it has given us the atomic bomb, producing fears and anxieties that science can never mitigate. We have worshiped the god of pleasure only to discover that thrills play out and sensations are short-lived. We have bowed before the god of money only to learn that there are such things as love and friendship that money cannot buy and that in a world of possible depressions, stock market crashes, and bad business investments, money is a rather uncertain deity. These transitory gods are not able to save us or bring happiness to the human heart.
Only God is able. It is faith in him that we must rediscover. With this faith we can transform bleak and desolate valleys into sunlit paths of joy and bring new light into the dark caverns of pessimism. Is someone here moving toward the twilight of life and fearful of that which we call death? Why Why be afraid? God is able. Is someone here on the brink of despair because of the death of a loved one, the breaking of a marriage, or the waywardness of a child? Why despair? God is able to give you the power to endure that which cannot be changed. Is someone here anxious because of bad health? Why be anxious? Come what may, God is able.
Martin Luther King, Jr., Strength
to Love (Boston: Beacon Press, 2019), 116-117.
l. And it came to pass, that when
Jesus had finished these sayings, he
departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judaea beyond Jordan;
2. And great
multitudes followed him; and he healed them there.
3. The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, “Is
it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?”
4. And he answered and said unto them,
“Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5. And said, For this cause
shall a man leave father and mother, and shall
cleave to his wife: and they twain
shall be one flesh?
6. Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”
7. They
say unto him, “Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?”
8. He
said unto them, “Moses because of
the hardness of your hearts suffered you
to put away your wives: but from the
beginning it was not so.”
Chrys., Hom., lxii: The Lord had before
left Judaea because
of their jealousy, but now He keeps Himself more to it, because His passion was near at hand. Yet does He not go
up to Judaea itself, but into the borders
of Judaea; whence
it is said, “And [p. 650] it came
to pass when Jesus had ended all these sayings,
he departed from Galilee.”
Raban.: Here then He begins to relate what He did, taught, or suffered in Judaea. At first beyond Jordan eastward, afterwards
on this side Jordan when He came to Jericho, Bethphage, and Jerusalem; whence it follows, “And He came into the coasts of
Judaea beyond the Jordan.”
Pseudo-Chrys., [ed. note: The Latin commentary
that goes under the name of Chrysostom’s resumes again at the first verse of this
chapter]: As the righteous Lord of all, who loves these servants so
as not to despise those.
Raban.: It should be known, that the whole territory
of the Israelites was called Judaea, to distinguish it from other nations.
But its southern portion, inhabited
by
the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, was called Judaea proper, to distinguish it from other districts in the same province as
Samaria, Galilee, Decapolis, and the rest.
It follows,
“And
great multitudes followed him.”
Pseudo-Chrys.: They were conducting Him forth, as the young children of a father
going on a far journey. And He setting
forth as a father, left them as pledges
of His love the healing of their
diseases, as it is said, “And he healed
them.”
Chrys.: It should be also observed, that the Lord is not either
ever
delivering doctrine,
or ever working miracles, but one while
does this, and again turns to that; that by His miracles faith might be given to what He said, and by His teaching
might be shewed the profit of those things which He wrought.
Origen: The Lord healed the multitudes beyond Jordan, where baptism was given. For all are truly
healed from spiritual sickness in baptism; and many follow Christ as did these multitudes, but not rising up as Matthew, who arose and followed the Lord.
Hilary: Also He cures the Galileans
on the borders of Judaea,
that He might admit the sins of the Gentiles to that
pardon which was prepared for the Jews.
Chrys.: For indeed Christ so healed men, as to do good both to
themselves, and through them to many other. For these men’s
healing was to others
the occasion of their knowledge of God; but not to the Pharisees, who were only hardened by the miracles.
Whence it follows; “And the Pharisees cause to him, tempting
him, and saying, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for
every cause?”
Jerome: That they might have Him as it were between the [p.
651] horns of a syllogism, so that, whatever
answer He should make, it would lie open
to cavil. Should He allow a wife to be put
away for any cause, and the marriage
of another, he would seem
to contradict Himself as a preacher of chastity. Should He answer that she may not be put away for any cause whatsoever,
He will be judged to have spoken impiously, and to make against
the teaching of Moses and of God.
Chrys.: Observe their wickedness
even in the way of putting their question. The Lord had above disputed concerning this law, but
they now ask Him as though He had spoken nothing thereof, supposing He had forgot
what He had before delivered in this matter.
Pseudo-Chrys.: But, as when you see one much pursuing the acquaintance of physicians, you know that he is sick, so, when
you
see either man or woman enquiring concerning divorce, know that that man is lustful and that woman unchaste. For chastity has pleasure in wedlock, but desire is tormented
as though under a slavish bondage
therein. And knowing that they had
no sufficient cause to allege for their
putting away their wives,
save their own lewdness, they feigned many divers
causes. They feared to ask Him for what cause, lest they should be
tied down within the limits of fixed and certain causes; and therefore they asked if it were lawful for every cause; for they knew
that appetite knows no limits, and cannot hold itself within the
bounds of one marriage,
but the more it is indulged the more
it is kindled.
Origen: Seeing the Lord thus tempted, let none of His disciples
who is set to teach think it hard if he also be by some tempted. Howbeit, He replies to His tempters with the doctrines of piety.
Jerome: But He so frames His
answer as to evade their snare. He brings
in the testimony of Holy Writ, and the law of nature, and
opposing God’s first sentence
to this second, “He answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them
at the beginning made them male and female?”
This is written in the beginning
of Genesis. This teaches that
second marriages are to be avoided, for He said not male and
females, which was what was sought by the putting away of the
first, but, male and female,
implying only one tie of wedlock.
Raban.: For by the wholesome design
of God it was ordained that a man should have in the woman
a part of his own body, and
should not look upon [p. 652] as separate from himself that which he knew was formed out of himself.
Pseudo-Chrys.: If then God created the male and female out of
one, to this end that they should be one, why then henceforth were not they born man and wife at one birth,
as it is with certain insects?
Because God created
male and female
for the continuance of the species,
yet is He ever a lover of chastity, and
promoter of continence. Therefore did He not follow this pattern
in all kinds, to the end that, if any man choose
to marry, he may know
what is, according to the first disposition of the creation, the condition of man and wife; but if he choose not to marry, he shall not be under necessity to marry by the circumstances of his birth, lest he should by his continence be the destruction of the other who was not willing to be continent; for which same cause God forbids
that after being joined in wedlock one should
separate if the other be unwilling.
Chrys.: But not by the law of creation
only, but also by the practice of the law, He shews that they ought to be joined
one and one, and never put asunder;
“And he said, For this cause
shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to
his wife.”
Jerome: In like manner He says “his wife,” and not wives, and adds
expressly, “and they twain shall be one flesh.” For it is the reward of marriage that one flesh, namely in the offspring, is made of two.
Gloss. interlin.: Or, “one flesh,” that is
in carnal connexion.
Pseudo-Chrys.: If then because the wife is made of the man, and both
one of one flesh, a man shall leave his father
and his mother, then there should be yet greater affection between brothers and sisters, for these come of the same parents,
but man and wife of different. But this is saying too much, because the ordinance of God is of more force than the law of nature.
For God’s precepts are not subject to the law of nature, but nature
bends to the precepts of God. Also brethren
are born of one, that
they shouldst seek out different
roads; but the man and the wife are
born of different
persons, that they should
coalesce in one.
The order of nature
also follows the appointment of God. For as is the sap in trees, so is affection
in man. The sap ascends from
the roots into the leaves,
and passes forth into the seed. Therefore parents love their children, but are not so loved of them,
for the desire of a man is not towards his parents, but towards the sons whom he has begot; and this is what, is said,
[p.
653] “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother,
and shall cleave unto his wife.”
Chrys.: See the wisdom of
the Teacher. Being
asked, “Is it lawful,”
He said not straight,
It is not lawful, lest they should be troubled, but establishes it through
a proof. For God made them from the
beginning male
and
female,
and
not
merely
joined
them
together, but bade them quit father
and mother; and not bade the
husband merely approach his wife, but be joined to her, shewing by this manner of speaking the inseparable bond. He even added a still closer union, saying, “And they twain, shall be one flesh.”
Aug., Gen. ad lit., ix. 19: Whereas
Scripture witnesses that these words were said by the first man, and the Lord here declares that God
spake them, hence we should understand that by reason of
the ecstasy which had passed upon Adam, he was enabled
to speak this as a prophecy.
Remig.: The Apostle says [margin note: Eph 5:32] that this is a
mystery in Christ and the Church;
for the Lord Jesus Christ
left His Father when He came down from heaven to earth; and He
left His mother, that is, the synagogue,
because of its unbelief; and clave unto His wife, that is, the Holy Church, and they two are
one flesh, that is,
Christ and the Church are one body.
Chrys.: When He had brought
forward the words and facts of the old law, He then interprets it with authority, and
lays
down a law, saying, “Therefore they are no more twain, but one flesh.” For as those
who love one another spiritually are said to be one soul,
“And
all they that believed, had one heart and one soul,” [Acts
4:32] so husband
and wife who love each other after the flesh,
are said to be one flesh. And as it is a wretched
thing to cut the flesh, so is
it an unjust thing to put away a wife.
Aug., City of God,
book xiv, ch. 22: For they are called
one, either from their union, or from the derivation of
the woman, who was taken out of the side
of the man.
Chrys.: He brings in God yet again,
saying, “What God has
joined, let no man put asunder,”
shewing that it is against both
nature and God’s law
to put away a wife; against nature, because one flesh is therein divided; against law, because God has joined and forbidden
to sunder them.
Jerome: God has joined by making man and woman one flesh; this then man may not put asunder,
but God only. Man puts
asunder, when from desire of a second wife the first is put away;
God puts
asunder,
who also had joined, [p. 654] when by
consent for the service of God we so have our wives as though we had them not. [marg.
note: 1 Cor 7:29]
Aug., Cont. Faust., xix, 29: Behold
now out of the books of Moses it is proved to the Jews that a wife may not be put away. For they
thought that they were doing according
to the purport of Moses’ law when they did put them away. This also we learn hence by the testimony of Christ
Himself, that it was God who made it
thus, and joined them male and female; which when the Manichaeans
deny, they are condemned,
resisting the Gospel of
Christ.
Pseudo-Chrys.: This sentence
of chastity seemed hard to these adulterers; but they could not make answer to the argument.
Howbeit, they will not submit
to the truth, but betake themselves
for shelter to Moses, as men having a bad cause fly to some
powerful personage, that where justice
is not, his countenance
may prevail; “They say
unto him, Why did Moses then command,
to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?”
Jerome: Here they reveal the cavil which they had prepared; albeit the Lord had not given sentence of Himself,
but
had
recalled to their minds ancient
history, and the commands
of God.
Chrys.: Had the Lord been opposed to the Old Testament,
He would not thus have contended
in Moses’ behalf, nor have gone
about to shew that what was his was in agreement with the
things of old. But the unspeakable wisdom of Christ made answer
and excuse for these in this manner,
“He saith unto them, Moses for
the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives.” By this He clears Moses from their charge, and retorts it all upon their own
head.
Aug.: For how great was that hardness?
When not even the intervention of a bill of divorce, which
gave room for just and
prudent men to endeavour to dissuade, could move them to renew
the conjugal affection. And with what wit do the Manichaeans blame Moses, as severing wedlock
by a bill of divorce, and commend Christ as, on the contrary, confirming
its force? Whereas according
to their impious
science they should have
praised Moses for putting asunder what the devil had joined, and found fault with Christ who riveted the
bonds of the devil.
Chrys.: At last, because
what He had said was severe, He goes
back to the old law, saying, “From
the beginning it was not so.” Jerome: What He says is to this purpose
[p. 655]. Is it possible
that God should so contradict Himself, as to command one thing
at first,
and after defeat
His own ordinance by a new statute?
Think not so; but, whereas Moses saw that through desire of
second wives who should
be richer, younger, or fairer, that the first were put to death, or treated.
ill, he chose rather to suffer separation, than the continuance
of hatred and assassination.
Observe moreover that He said not God suffered
you, but, Moses; shewing that it was, as the Apostle
speaks, a counsel of man, not a command
of God. [marg. note: 1 Cor 7:12]
Pseudo-Chrys.: Therefore said He well, Moses suffered, not commanded. For what we command,
that we ever wish; but
when we suffer, we yield against
our will, because
we have not the power to put full restraint
upon the evil wills of men. He therefore suffered you to do evil that you might not do worse;
thus in suffering this he was not enforcing
the righteousness of God, but taking away its sinfulness from a sin; that
while you did it according to His
law, your sin should not appear sin.
9. And I say unto you, “Whosoever
shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth
commit adultery.”
Chrys.: Having stopped their mouths, He now set forth the Law with
authority, saying, “But I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and marrieth another, committeth adultery.
Origen: Perhaps some one will say, that Jesus in thus speaking,
suffered wives to be put away for the same cause
that Moses
suffered them, which He says was for the hardness of the hearts
of the Jews. But to this it is to
be answered, that if by the Law an adulteress is stoned, that sin is not to be understood as the shameful thing for which Moses suffers a writing of divorcement;
[Deut 24:1] for in a cause of adultery
it was not lawful to give a writing
of divorcement. But Moses perhaps calls every sin in a
woman a shameful thing, which if it be found
in her, a bill of
divorcement is written against her. But we should enquire,
If it is lawful to put away a wife
for the cause of fornication only, what is
it if a woman be not an [p. 656] adulteress, but have done any other
heinous crime; have been found a poisoner, or to have
murdered her children? The Lord has explained
this matter in another place, saying, “Whoso
putteth her away, except for the
cause of fornication, maketh her to
commit adultery,” [Matt 5:32]
giving her an opportunity of a second
marriage.
Jerome: It is fornication alone which destroys the relationship
of the wife; for when she has divided one flesh into two, and has separated herself
by fornication from her husband,
she is not to be retained, lest she should
bring her husband
also under the curse, which Scripture
has
spoken, “He that keepeth
an
adulteress is a fool and wicked.” [Prov 18:23]
Pseudo-Chrys.: For as he is cruel
and unjust that puts away a chaste wife, so is he a fool and unjust that retains an unchaste; for in that he hides the guilt of his wife, he is an encourager of foulness.
Aug., De Conjug.
Adult., ii, 9: For a reunion
of the wedlock, even after
actual commission of adultery, is neither shameful
nor difficult, where there is an undoubted remission
of sin through the keys of the kingdom of heaven; not that after being divorced from her husband an adulteress should be called back again, but
that after her union with Christ she should no longer be called an
adulteress.
Pseudo-Chrys.: For every
thing
by whatsoever causes it is created, by the same is it destroyed. It is not matrimony but the
will that makes the union; and therefore it is not a separation
of bodies but a separation of wills
that dissolves it. He then who puts away his wife and does not take
another is still her husband; for though their bodies be not united,
their wills are united. But when he takes another, then he manifestly
puts his wife away; wherefore the Lord says not, Whoso putteth away his wife,
but, “Whoso marrieth
another, committeth adultery.”
Raban.: There is then but one carnal
cause why a wife should be
put away, that is, fornication; and but one spiritual, that is, the fear of God. But there is no cause
why
while she who has been put
away is alive, another should be married.
Jerome: For it might be that a man might falsely
charge an innocent wife, and for the sake of another
woman might fasten an
accusation upon her. Therefore it is commanded so to put away the first, that a second be not married while the first is yet alive. Also because
it might happen that by the same law a wife
would divorce her [p. 657] husband, it is also provided that she
take not another husband; and because one who had become
an adulteress would have no further fear of disgrace, it is commanded that she marry not another husband.
But if she do marry another, she
is
in
the
guilt
of
adultery; wherefore it follows, “And whoso marrieth her that is put away, committeth
adultery.”
Gloss. ord.: He says this to the terror
of him that would take her to wife, for the adulteress would have no fear of disgrace.
10. His disciples say unto him, “If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.”
11. But he said unto them, “All men cannot receive this saying, save they
to whom it is given.
12. For there are some eunuchs, which
were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs,
which have made themselves eunuchs
for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.”
Jerome: A wife is a grievous burden, if it is not permitted
to put her away except for the cause of fornication. For what if she be a
drunkard, an evil temper, or of evil habits,
is she to be kept? The Apostles, perceiving this burdensomeness, express what they feel; “His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so
with his wife, it is not good to marry.”
Chrys.: For it is a lighter thing to contend with himself, and his own lust, than with an evil woman.
Pseudo-Chrys.: And the Lord said not, It is good,
but rather
assented that it is not good. However, He considered the weakness of the flesh;
“But he said unto them, All cannot receive
this saying;” that is, All are not able to do this.
Jerome: But let none think, that wherein
He adds, “save they to
whom it is given,” that either fate or fortune
is implied, as though they were virgins only whom chance
has led to such a fortune.
For
that is given to those who have sought
it of
God, who have longed for it,
who have striven that they might
obtain it.
Pseudo-Chrys.: But all cannot
obtain it, [p. 658] because all do
not desire to obtain it. The prize is before
them; he who desires the honour will not consider
the toil. None would ever vanquish,
if all shunned the struggle.
Because then some have fallen from their
purpose of continence, we ought not therefore to faint from that
virtue; for they that fall in
the battle do not slay the rest.
That He says therefore,
“Save they to whom it is given,” shews that unless we receive the aid of grace, we have not strength.
But this aid of grace is not denied to such as seek
it, for the Lord says above, “Ask; and ye shall receive.”
Chrys.: Then to shew that this is possible,
He says, “For there are some
eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men;” as much as
to say, Consider, had you been so made of others, you would have lost the
pleasure without gaining the reward.
Pseudo-Chrys.: For
as
the
deed
without
the
will
does
not
constitute a sin; so a righteous
act is not in the deed unless the
will go with it. That therefore
is honourable continence, not which
mutilation of body of necessity enforces, but which the will of holy
purpose embraces.
Jerome: He speaks of three kinds of eunuchs, of whom two are carnal, and one spiritual. One, those who are so born of their
mother’s womb; another, those
whom enemies or courtly luxury has
made so; a third, those who have made themselves so for the kingdom
of heaven, and who might have been men, but
become eunuchs for Christ. To them the reward is promised, for to the others whose continence was involuntary, nothing is due.
Hilary: The cause in one item he assigns nature; in the next violence, and in the last his own choice, in him, namely, that determined to be so from hope of the kingdom of heaven.
Pseudo-Chrys.: For they are born such, just as others
are born having six or four fingers.
For if God according as He formed our bodies in the beginning, had continued the same order
unchangeably, the working of God would have been brought into
oblivion among men. The order of nature is therefore
changed at times from its nature, that God the framer of nature may be had
in remembrance.
Jerome, cf Origen in loc.: Or we may say otherwise. The eunuchs from their mothers’ wombs are they whose nature is colder, and
not prone to lust. And they that are made
so of
men are they whom physicians
made so, or they whom worship
of [p. 659] idols has made
effeminate, or who from the influence of heretical teaching pretend
to chastity, that they may thereupon claim truth for their tenets.
But none of them obtain the kingdom of heaven, save he only who
has become a eunuch for Christ’s sake. Whence
it follows, “He that
is
able
to
receive
it, let him receive it;” let each calculate his own strength,
whether he is able to fulfil the rules of virginity and abstinence. For in itself continence is sweet and alluring, but each man must consider
his strength, that he only
that is able may receive it.
This is the voice of the Lord exhorting and encouraging on
His soldiers to the reward of chastity,
that he who can fight might
fight and conquer and triumph.
Chrys.: When he says, “Who have made themselves eunuchs,” He
does not mean cutting off of members,
but a putting away of evil
thoughts. For he that cuts off
a limb is under a curse, for such
an one undertakes the deeds of murderers,
and opens a door to Manichaeans who depreciate the creature,
and cut off the same members as do the Gentiles. For to cut off members is of the temptation of daemons. But by the means of which we have spoken desire
is not diminished but made more urgent;
for it has its source elsewhere, and chiefly in a weak purpose
and an unguarded heart. For if the heart be well governed,
there is no danger
from the natural motions;
nor does the amputation of a member
bring such peacefulness and immunity from temptation
as does a bridle upon the thoughts.
13. Then were there brought unto him little children,
that he should put his
hands on them, and pray: and the
disciples rebuked them.
14. But Jesus said, “Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto
me:
for of such is the kingdom of heaven.”
15. And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence.
Pseudo-Chrys.: The Lord had been holding
discourse of chastity; and
some of His hearers now brought unto Him infants, who in respect of chastity are the purest; for they supposed
[p. 660] that it was the pure in body only whom He had approved; and this
is that which is said, “Then were brought
unto him little children, that he should
put his hands on them, and pray.”
Origen: For they now understood from His previous mighty works, that by laying on of His hands and by prayer evils were
obviated. They bring therefore children to Him, judging
that it were impossible that after the Lord had by His touch conveyed divine virtue into them, harm or any daemon should come nigh them.
Remig.: For it was
a
custom
among
the
ancients that little children should be brought
to
aged
persons,
to
receive benediction by
their
hand
or
tongue;
and
according
to
this
custom little children are now
brought to the Lord.
Pseudo-Chrys.: The flesh as it delights
not in good, if it hear any good readily forgets
it; but the evil that it has it retains
ever. But a little while before Christ took a little child and said, “Except ye
become as this child, ye shall not enter into the kingdom
of heaven,” [Matt 18:3] yet His disciples,
presently forgetting this
innocence of children, now forbid children, as unworthy to come
to Christ.
Jerome: Not because they liked not that they should have
benediction of the Saviour’s hand and mouth; but forasmuch as their
faith was not yet perfect, they thought that He like other men
would be wearied by the applications of those that brought
them.
Chrys.: Or the disciples
would have thrust them away, from respect to Christ’s dignity [margin note: αξιωμα]. But the Lord
teaching them holy thoughts, and to subdue the pride of this
world, took the children into His arms, and promised to such the kingdom of heaven; “But Jesus saith unto them, Suffer little children and forbid them not to come unto me, for of such is the
kingdom of heaven.”
Pseudo-Chrys.: For who were worthy
to come to Christ, if simple
infancy were thrust away? Therefore he said, “Forbid them not.”
For
if they shall turn out saints, why hinder ye the sons from
coming to their Father? And if sinners, why do ye pronounce
a sentence of condemnation, before you see any fault in them?
Jerome: And He said distinctly, “Of such is the kingdom
of heaven,” not
Of these, to shew that it was not years, but
disposition that determined His judgment, and that the reward was promised
to such as had like innocence and simplicity.
Pseudo-Chrys.: The present
passage instructs all parents to [p.
661] bring their children to the priests, for it
is not the priest who lays his hands on them, but Christ,
in whose name hands are laid.
For if he that offers his food in prayer
to God eats it sanctified, for it is sanctified by the word of God, and by prayer, as the Apostle
speaks [marg. note: 1 Tim 4:5], how much rather
ought children
to be offered to God, and sanctified? And this is the
reason of blessing
of food, “Because the whole world lieth in
wickedness; [1 John 5:19] so that all things
that have body, which
are a great part of the world, lie in wickedness.
Consequently infants when born, are as respects
their flesh lying in wickedness.
Origen: Mystically; We call them children who are yet carnal
in Christ, having need of milk. They who bring the babes to
the Saviour, are they who profess
to have knowledge of the word, but are still simple,
and have for their food children’s lessons, being yet novices. They who seem more perfect, and are
therefore the disciples of Jesus, before they have learnt the way
of righteousness which is for children, rebuke those who by
simple doctrine bring to Christ
children and babes,
that is, such as
are less learned.
But the Lord exhorting His disciples now become men to condescend to the needs of babes, to be babes to babes, that
they may gain babes, says, “For of such is the kingdom
of heaven.” For He Himself also, when He was in the form of God, was made a babe. These things we should attend
to,
lest in esteeming that more excellent wisdom, and spiritual
advancement, as though we were become great we should despise the little ones of the Church, forbidding children to be brought to Jesus.
But since children
cannot follow all things that are commanded them, Jesus laid His hands upon them, and leaving virtue in them
by His touch, went away from them, seeing
they were not able to follow Him, like the other more perfect
disciples.
Remig.: Also laying His hands upon them, He blessed them, to
signify that the lowly in spirit are worthy His grace and blessing.
Gloss., non occ.: He laid His hands upon them while men held
them, to signify that the grace of His aid was necessary.
Hilary: The infants are a type of the Gentiles,
to whom salvation
is rendered by faith and hearing. But the disciples, in their first zeal for the salvation of Israel, forbid them to approach, but the Lord declares that they are not to be forbidden. For [p. 662] the gift
of the Holy Ghost was to be conferred upon the Gentiles by
laying on of hands, as soon as the Law had ceased.
16. And,
behold, one came and said unto him, “Good Master, what good
thing shall I do, that I may
have eternal life?”
17. And he said unto him,
“Why callest thou me good? there is none good but
one, that is, God:
but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.”
18.
He saith unto him, “Which?
Jesus said, “Thou shalt do no murder,
Thou shalt not commit adultery,
Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear
false witness,
19.
Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour
as thyself.”
20.
The young man saith unto him, “All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?”
21. Jesus said unto him, “If thou wilt be perfect,
go and sell that thou hast,
and give to the poor, and thou shalt
have treasure in heaven: and come
and follow me.”
22. But when the young man heard that saying,
he went away sorrowful:
for
he had great possessions.
Raban., e Bed. in Luc., Matt 18:3: This man
had, it may be, heard of
the Lord that only they who were like to little children
were worthy to enter into the heavenly kingdom;
but desiring to know
more certainly, he asks to have
it
declared to him not in parables, but expressly, by what merits he might attain eternal
life.
Therefore it is said; “And behold, one came and said unto him, Good
Master, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal
life?”
Jerome: He that asks this
question is both
young, rich, and proud, and he asks not as one that desires
to learn, but as tempting Him. This we can prove by this, that
when the Lord had said unto him, “If thou wilt [p. 663] enter
into life, keep the commandments,” he further insidiously asks, which are the
commandments? as if he
could not read them for himself, or
as if the Lord could command any thing contrary to them.
Chrys., Hom., lxiii: But I for my part, though
I deny not that he was a lover of money, because
Christ convicts him as such,
cannot consider him to have been a hypocrite, because
it is unsafe to decide in uncertain
cases, and especially in making charges against any. Moreover Mark removes all suspicion of this
kind, for he says that he came to Him, and knelt before Him; and
that Jesus when He looked on him, loved him. [marg. note: Mark
10:17] And if he had come to tempt Him, the Evangelist would have signified
as much, as he has done in other places. Or
if he had said nothing thereof, Christ
would not have suffered
him to be hid, but would either have convicted him openly, or have covertly suggested
it.
But He does
not this; for it follows, “He saith unto him, Why askest thou me concerning good?”
Aug., de Cons. Ev., ii, 63: This may seem a discrepancy,
that Matthew here gives it, “Why askest thou me concerning
good?” whereas Mark and Luke’s have, “Why callest thou me good?” For this,
“Why askest thou me concerning good?” may seem rather
to be referred to his question, “What good thing shall I do?” for in that he both mentioned “good,” and asked a question. But this, “Good Master,” is not yet a question. Either sentence may be understood thus very appropriately to the passage.
Jerome: But because he had styled Him Good Master, and had not confessed Him as God, or as the
Son of God, He tells him, that in
comparison of God there is no saint to be called good, of
whom it is said, “Confess unto the Lord, for he is good; [Ps. 118:1] and therefore He says, “There is
one good, that is, God.”
But that none should suppose
that by this the Son of God is excluded from being good, we read in another place, “The good Shepherd layeth down his life for his sheep.” [1 John 10:11]
Aug., de Trin., i, 13: Or, because he
sought eternal life, (and
eternal life consists in such contemplation in which God is beheld not for punishment, but for everlasting joy,) and knew not with
whom he spake, but thought
Him only a Son of Man, therefore He says, “Why askest thou me concerning good,” calling me in
respect of what you see in me, Good Master? This form of the
Son of Man shall appear in the judgment, not to the [p. 664]
righteous only, but to the wicked, and the very sight shall be to them an evil, and their punishment.
But there is a sight of My form,
in which I am equal to God. That one God therefore, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is alone good,
because none see Him to mourning and sorrow, but only to salvation
and true joy.
Jerome: For Our Saviour does not reject this witness
to His goodness, but corrected
the error of calling Him Good Master apart from God.
Chrys.: Wherein then was the profit that He answered thus? He leads him by degrees,
and teaches him to lay aside false flattery,
and rising above the things which
are upon earth
to cleave to God, to seek
things to come, and to know
Him that is truly good, the root and source of every good.
Origen: Christ also answers thus, because of that He said, “What good
thing shall I do? For when we depart from evil and do good,
that which we do is called good by comparison
with what other men do. But when compared
with absolute good, in the sense in which it is here said, “There is one good,” our good is
not good.
But some one may say, that because the Lord knew that the
purpose of him who thus asked Him was not even to do such
good as man can do, that therefore He said, “Why askest thou me
concerning good?” as much as to say, Why do you ask me concerning good, seeing you are not prepared
to do what is good. But after this He says, “If thou
wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.” Where note, that He speaks
to him as yet standing without life; for that man is in one sense without life,
who is without Him who said, “I am the life.”
Otherwise, every man upon earth may be, not in life itself, but only
in its shadow, while he is clad in a body of death. But any man shall enter into life, if he keep himself
from dead works, and
seek living works. But there
are dead words and living
words, also dead thoughts
and living thoughts, and therefore He says, “If
thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.”
Aug., Serm., 84, 1: And He said not, “If thou desirest life eternal;
but, “If thou wilt enter into
life,” calling that simply “life,” which
shall be everlasting. Here we should consider how eternal life
should be loved, when this miserable and finite life is so loved.
Remig.: These words prove that the Law gave to such as kept it
not only temporal promises,
but also life eternal. And because
the [p. 665] hearing these things made him thoughtful, “He saith
unto him, Which?”
Chrys.: This he said not to tempt Him, but because he
supposed that they were other than the commandments of the Law, which
should be the means of life to
him.
Remig.: And Jesus, condescending as to a weak one, most graciously set out to him the precepts of the Law; Jesus
said, “Thou shalt do no murder;” and of all these precepts follows
the exposition, “And thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” For the
Apostle says, “Whoso loveth his neighbour
has fulfilled the Law?” [Prov 13:10]
But it should be enquired, why the Lord
has enumerated only the precepts
of the Second Table? Perhaps because
this young man was zealous in the love of God, or because
love
of our neighbour is the step by which we ascend to the love of God.
Origen: Or perhaps these precepts
are enough to introduce one, if I may say so, to the entrance of life; but neither these, nor any
like
them, are enough
to conduct one to the more inward parts of life.
But whoso transgresses one of these commandments,
shall not even come to the entrance in unto
life.
Chrys.: But because all the commandments that the Lord had
recounted were contained in the Law, The young man saith unto
him, “All these have I kept from my youth up.” And did not even
rest there, but asked further, “What
lack I yet? which alone is a
mark of his intense desire.
Remig.: But to those who would be perfect
in grace, He shews how
they may come to perfection,
“Jesus saith unto him, If thou
wilt be perfect, go, and sell all that thou hast, and give to the poor.” Mark the words; He said not, Go, and consume
all thou hast; but Go, and sell; and not some, as did Ananias and Sapphira, but “All.” And well He added,
“that thou hast,”
for what we have are our lawful possessions. Those therefore that he
justly possessed were to be sold; what had been gained unjustly
were to be restored to those from whom they had been taken.
And He said not, Give to thy neighbours,
nor to the rich, but to
the poor.
Aug., de Op. Monach., 25: Nor need it be made a scruple in
what monasteries, or to the indigent brethren
of what place, any one
gives
those
things that he
has,
for
there
is but one commonwealth of all Christians. Therefore wheresoever any Christian has laid out his goods, in all places alike he shall
receive what is necessary
for himself, shall receive it of that which is Christ’s.
Raban.: See two kinds [p. 666] of life which we have heard set before men; the Active, to which pertains, “Thou shalt not kill,”
and the
rest
of
the
Law; and the Contemplative, to which
pertains this, “If thou wilt be perfect.”
The active pertains to the
Law, the contemplative to the Gospel;
for as the Old Testament
went before the New, so good action goes before contemplation.
Aug., cont.
Faust, v. 9: Nor are such only partakers in the kingdom of heaven, who, to the end they may be perfect, sell or
part with all that they have; but
in these Christian ranks
are numbered by reason of a certain
communication of their charity a
multitude of hired troops;
those to whom it shall be said in the end, “I was hungry,
and ye gave me to eat;” [Matt 25:35] whom
be it far from us to consider excluded from life eternal,
as they who obey not the commands
of the Gospel.
Jerome, Hieron. cont. Vigilant., 15: That Vigilantius asserts that they who retain the use of their property, and from time to time divide their incomes among the poor, do better than they who sell
their possessions and lavish them in one act of charity, to
him, not I, but God shall make answer, If thou wilt be perfect,
“Go and sell.” That which you so extol, is but the second or
third grade; which we indeed admit, only remembering that what is first
is to be set before what is
third or second.
Pseudo-Aug., Gennadius, de Eccles. Dogm. 36: It is good to
distribute with discrimination to the poor; it is better,
with resolve of following
the Lord to strip one’s self of all at once, and
freed from anxiety to suffer want with Christ.
Chrys.: And because He spake of riches warning us to strip ourselves of them, He promises to repay things greater, by how much heaven is greater than earth, and therefore He says, “And
thou shalt have treasure
in heaven.” By the word treasure He denotes the abundance and endurance of the reward.
Origen: If every commandment is fulfilled in this one word,
“Thou shalt love thy neighbour
as thyself,” and if he is perfect who has fulfilled every command,
how is it that the Lord said to
the young man, If thou wilt be perfect,
when he had declared, “All these have I kept from my youth up.” Perhaps that he says, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor
as thyself,” was not said by the Lord, but added
by
some one, for neither Mark nor Luke have given it in this place.
Or otherwise; It is written
in the Gospel [ed. note: see above, p.
4, note b] according to the [p. 667] Hebrews, that, when the Lord
said, “Go, and sell all that thou hast,” the rich man began to scratch his head, being displeased with the saying. Then the Lord said unto him, How sayest thou, I have kept the Law, and the Prophets, since it is written
in the Law, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself?” For how many of thy brethren sons of
Abraham, clothed in filth, perish for hunger? Thy house is full of many good things, and nothing goes thereout to them.
The Lord then,
desiring to convict this rich man, says to him, “If thou
wilt be perfect,
go and sell all that thou hast, and give to the poor;”
for so it will be seen if thou dost indeed
love
thy neighbour as thyself. But if he is perfect who has all the virtues, how does he become perfect who sells all that he has and gives to the poor? For suppose
one to have done this, will he thereby
become forthwith free from anger, desire, having every virtue, and abandoning all vice? Perhaps wisdom may suggest, that he
that has given his goods
to the poor, is aided by their prayers,
receiving of their spiritual abundance
to his want, and is made in
this way perfect, though he may have some human passions.
Or thus; He that thus exchanged
his riches for poverty, in order that
he might become perfect, shall have assistance
to become wise in Christ, just, chaste also, and devoid of all passion; but not
so as that in the moment
when he gave up all his goods, he should
forthwith become perfect; but only that from that day
forward the contemplation of God will begin to bring him to all
virtues.
Or again, it will pass into a moral exposition, and say, that the possessions of a man are the acts of his mind. Christ then bids a man to sell all his evil possessions, and as it were to give them over to the virtues
which should work the same, which were poor
in all that is good. For as the peace of the Apostles returns to them again, [marg.
note: Matt 10:13]
unless there be a son of
peace, so all sins return upon their actors,
when one will no
longer indulge his evil propensities; and thus there can be no doubt
that he will straightway become perfect who in this sense
sells all his possessions.
It is manifest
that he that does these things, has treasure
in heaven, and is himself
become of heaven; and he will have in
heaven treasure of God’s glory, and riches in all God’s wisdom.
Such an one will be able to follow Christ, for he has no evil possession to draw him off from so following. [p. 668]
Jerome: For many who leave their riches do not therefore
follow the Lord; and it is not sufficient
for perfection that they despise
money, unless they also follow the Saviour, that unless having
forsaken evil, they also do what is good. For it is easier to
contemn the hoard than quit the propensity [ed. note: Vallarsi
reads ‘voluptas,’ which would seem to make the passage mean,
‘It is
easier to relinquish avarice
than pleasure.’].
Therefore it follows, “And come and follow me;” for he follows the Lord who is his imitator, and who walks in his steps.
It follows, “And when the young man had heard these
words, he went away sorrowful.” This is the
sorrow that leads to death. And
the cause of his sorrow is
added, “for he had great possessions,” thorns, that is, and
briars, which choked the holy leaven.
Chrys.: For they that have little,
and they that abound, are not in like measure encumbered.
For
the acquisition of riches raises a greater
flame, and desire
is more violently kindled.
Aug., Ep. 31, 5: I know
not how, but in the love of worldly
superfluities, it is what we have already got, rather than what we
desire to get, that most strictly enthrals us. For whence went this
young man away sorrowful, but that he had great
possessions? It is one thing to lay aside thoughts of further acquisition, and another to strip ourselves of what we have already made our
own; one is only rejecting what is not ours, the other is like
parting with one of our own limbs.
Origen: But historically, the young man is to be praised for that
he did not kill, did not commit adultery;
but is to be blamed for
that he sorrowed at Christ’s words calling
him to perfection. He was young indeed in soul, and therefore leaving Christ, he went
his way.
23.
Then said Jesus unto his disciples, “Verily I say unto you, That a rich
man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.
24.
And again I say unto you, It is easier for
a camel to go through
the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter
into the kingdom of God.”
25. When his disciples heard it,
they were exceedingly amazed, saying, “Who then can be saved?”
26. But Jesus beheld them, and
said unto them, [p.
669] “With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.”
Gloss., ap. Anselm: The Lord took occasion from this rich man to
hold discourse concerning the covetous; “Then
said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, &c.”
Chrys.: What He spoke was not condemning riches in themselves,
but those who were enslaved by them; also encouraging His
disciples that being poor they should not be ashamed by reason of
their poverty.
Hilary: To have riches is no sin; but moderation is to be observed
in our havings. For how shall we communicate
to the necessities of the saints,
if we have not out of what we
may
communicate?
Raban.: But though there be a difference between having and
loving riches, yet it is safer neither to have nor to love them. Remig.: Whence in Mark the Lord
expounding the meaning of this
saying, speaks thus,
“It is hard for them that trust in riches
to
enter into the kingdom of heaven.” [Mark
10:24] They trust in
riches, who build all their hopes on them.
Jerome: Because riches once gained are hard to be despised, He saith not it is impossible, but it is hard. Difficulty
does not imply the impossibility, but
points
out
the
infrequency of the occurrence.
Hilary: It is a dangerous toil to become
rich; and guiltlessness occupied in increasing
its wealth has taken upon itself a sore burden; the servant of God gains not the things
of the world, clear of the sins of the world. Hence
is the difficulty of entering
the kingdom of heaven.
Chrys.: Having said that it was hard for a rich man to eater
into the kingdom of heaven, He now proceeds to shew that it is
impossible, “And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the
kingdom of heaven.”
Jerome: According to this, no rich man can be saved. But
if we read Isaiah, how the camels of Midian and Ephah came to Jerusalem with gifts and presents, [Isa 60:6] and they who once
were crooked and bowed down by the weight of their sins, enter the
gates of Jerusalem,
we shall see how these camels, to which
the rich are likened when they have laid aside the heavy
load of sins, and the distortion of their whole bodies,
may
then enter by
that narrow and strait way that leads to life. [p. 670]
Pseudo-Chrys.: The Gentile souls are likened to the deformed body of the camel,
in which is seen the humpback of idolatry; for the
knowledge of God is the exaltation of the soul. The needle is
the Son of God, the fine point of which is His divinity, and
the thicker part what He is according
to His incarnation. But it is altogether straight and without turning;
and through the womb
of His passion, the Gentiles
have entered into life eternal. By this
needle is sewn the robe of immortality; it is this needle
that has sewn the flesh to the spirit,
that has joined together the Jews
and the Gentiles, and coupled
man in friendship with angels. It is
easier therefore for the Gentiles
to pass through
the needle’s eye, than for the rich Jews to enter into the kingdom
of heaven.
For
if the Gentiles are with such
difficulty withdrawn from
the irrational worship of idols, how much more hardly shall the Jews be
withdrawn from the reasonable service
of God?
Gloss., ap. Anselm:
It is explained otherwise;
That at Jerusalem there was a certain
gate, called, The needle’s eye, through which a
camel could not pass, but on its bended
knees, and after its burden had been taken off; and so the rich should not be able to
pass along the narrow
way that leads to life, till he had put off the
burden of sin, and of riches, that is,
ceasing to love them.
Greg., Mor., xxxv, 16: Or, by the rich man He intends
any one who is proud,
by the camel he denotes the right humility. The
camel passed through the needle’s eye, when our Redeemer
through the narrow way of suffering
entered in to the taking upon Him death; for that passion was as a needle which pricked
the body with pain. But the camel enters the needle’s eye easier than the rich man enters the kingdom
of heaven; because
if He had not first shewn us by His passion the form of His humility, our proud stiffness would never have bent itself
to His lowliness.
Chrys.: The disciples though
poor are troubled
for the salvation of
others, beginning even now
to have the bowels
of doctors.
Aug., Quaest.
Ev., 1, 26: Whereas
the rich are few in comparison
of the multitude of the poor, we must suppose that the disciples
understood all who wish for riches, as included
in the number of the rich.
Chrys.: This therefore He proceeds to shew is the work of God,
there needing much grace to guide a man in the midst of riches; “But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is
impossible, but with God all things
are possible.” [p. 671]
By the word “beheld” them, the Evangelist
conveys that He soothed their troubled soul by His merciful eye.
Remig.: This must
not
be
so
understood as though it were possible for God to cause that the rich, the covetous,
the avaricious, and the proud should enter into the kingdom of heaven; but to cause him to be converted, and so enter.
Chrys.: And this is not said that
you should sit supinely, and
let alone what may seem impossibilities; but considering
the greatness of righteousness, you should strive to enter in with entreaty to God.
27.
Then answered Peter and said unto him, “Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what
shall we have therefore?”
28. And Jesus said unto them,
“Verily I say unto you, That ye which have
followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
29.
And every one that hath forsaken houses,
or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children,
or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundred fold, and shall
inherit everlasting life.
30. But many that are first
shall be last; and the last
shall be first.”
Origen: Peter had heard the
word of Christ when He said, “If thou
wilt be perfect, go and sell all that thou hast.” Then he observed
that the young man had departed
sorrowful, and considered the difficulty of riches entering
into the kingdom of heaven; and
thereupon he put this question
confidently as one who had
achieved no easy matter. For though what he with his brother
had left behind them were but little
things, yet were they not
esteemed as little with God, who considered that out of the fulness of their love they had so forsaken those least things, as
they would have forsaken the greatest
things if they had had them.
So Peter, thinking rather
of his will than of the intrinsic
value of the sacrifice, asked Him confidently [p. 672] “Behold, we have left
all.”
Chrys., Hom., lxiv: What was this “all,” O blessed
Peter? The reeds, your net, and boat. But this he says, not to call to mind
his own magnanimity, but in order to propose the case of the
multitude of poor. A poor man might
have
said, If I have nought, I cannot become perfect. Peter therefore puts this question that you, poor man, may learn that you are in nothing behind. For he had already
received
the kingdom
of heaven,
and
therefore
secure of what was already
there, he now asks for the whole world. And see how carefully he frames his question
after Christ’s
requirements: Christ required two things of a rich man, to give what he had to the poor, and to follow Him; wherefore
he adds, “and have followed thee.”
Origen: It may be said, In all things which the Father revealed
to Peter that the Son was, righteousness, sanctification, and the like, in all we have followed Thee. Therefore as a victorious athlete, he now
asks what are the prizes of his
contest.
Jerome: Because to forsake is not enough,
he adds that which
makes perfection, “and have followed thee.” We have done what
thou commandedst us, what
reward wilt thou then give us? What shall we have?”
Jerome: He said not only, “Ye who have
left all,” for this did the philosopher Crates, and many other who have despised riches, but added, “and have followed
me,” which is peculiar to the Apostles and believers. [ed. note: ~ The later editions
of the Catena, and nearly all the Mss. of Jerome, read ‘Socrates.’ but Vallarsi adopts the reading of a few Mss., Crates, as more
agreeable to history, as
being
named
by Origen whom S. Jerome in this place
follows, and as being often alluded to by S. Jerome. This is further supported by the ED. PR.
of the Catena]
Hilary: The disciples had followed Christ in the regeneration, that is, in the laver of baptism, in the sanctification of faith, for this is that
regeneration which the Apostles followed, and which the
Law could not bestow.
Jerome: Or it may be constructed
thus, “Ye which have followed me, shall in the regeneration sit, &c.;”
that is, when the dead shall rise from corruption incorrupt, you also shall sit on thrones of judges, condemning the twelve tribes of Israel, for that they would not believe when you believed.
Aug., City of God, book xx, ch. 5: Thus
our flesh will be regenerated by incorruption, as our soul
also
shall
be regenerated by faith.
Pseudo-Chrys.: For it would come to pass,
that in the day of
judgment the Jews [p. 673] would allege, Lord, we knew Thee
not to be the Son of God when
Thou wast in the flesh.
For
who can discern a treasure
buried in the ground, or the sun when
obscured by a cloud? The disciples therefore will then answer, We also were men, and peasants,
obscure among the multitude,
but you priests and scribes; but in us a right will became as it were a
lamp of our ignorance, but your evil
will became to you a blinding of your science.
Chrys.: He therefore said not the Gentiles
and the whole world, but, the “tribes of Israel,” because
the Apostles and the Jews had been
brought up under
the same laws and customs. So that
when the Jews should plead that they could not believe in Christ, because they were hindered
by their Law, the disciples will be
brought forward, who had the same Law.
But some one may say, What great thing is this, when
both the Ninevites and the Queen of the South will have the same? He
had before and will again promise them the highest
rewards; and even now He tacitly conveys something
of the same. For
of those others He had only said, that they shall sit, and shall condemn
this generation; but He
now says to the disciples, “When the Soul of Man shall
sit, ye also shall sit.”
It is clear then that they shall reign with Him, and shall share
in that glory; for it is such honour and glory unspeakable
that He intends by the “thrones.” How is this promise
fulfilled? Shall Judas sit among them? By no means.
For
the law was thus
ordained of the Lord by Jeremiah
the Prophet, “I will speak it
upon my people, and upon, the kingdom,
that I may build, and
plant it. But if it do evil in, my sight, then will I repent me
of the good which I said I would do to them;”
[Jer 18:9] as much as to
say, If they make themselves
unworthy of the promise, I will no more perform that I promised.
But Judas shewed himself unworthy
of the preeminence; wherefore when He gave this promise
to His disciples, He did not
promise it absolutely, for He said not, Ye shall sit, but, “Ye which
have
followed me shall sit;” at once excluding Judas, and admitting such as should be in after time; for neither
was the promise confined to them only, nor yet did it include Judas who had
already shewn himself
undeserving.
Hilary: Their following Christ
in thus exalting
the Apostles to twelve thrones to
judge the twelve tribes of Israel, associated them [p. 674] in
the glory of the twelve Patriarchs.
Aug.: From this passage we
learn that Jesus will judge with His disciples; whence He says in another place to the Jews,
“Therefore shall they be your judges.”
[Matt 12:27] And whereas He says they shall sit upon twelve thrones,
we need not think that twelve
persons only shall judge with Him. For by
the number twelve is signified the whole number
of those that shall judge; and that because the number seven which generally represents
completeness contains the two numbers
four and three,
which multiplied together make
twelve. For
if
it
were
not
so, as Matthias was elected into the place of the traitor Judas, the Apostle Paul who laboured more than they all should not have
place to sit to judge; but he shews that he with the rest of the saints
pertains to the number of judges, when he says, “Know
ye not that we shall judge Angels?”
[1 Cor 6:3]
Aug., Serm., 351, 8: In the number of judges therefore
are included all that have left their all
and followed the Lord.
Greg., Mor., x, 31: For whosoever, urged by the spur of divine love, shall forsake what he possesses here,
shall without doubt
gain there the
eminence of judicial authority; and
shall appear as judge with the Judge, for that he now in consideration of the judgment chastens himself by a voluntary
poverty.
Aug., City of God, book xx, ch. 5: The same holds
good, by reason of this number twelve, of those that are to be judged.
For when it is said, “Judging the twelve tribes,” yet is not the tribe of Levi,
which is the thirteenth, to be exempt from being judged by them; nor shall they judge this nation alone, and not also other nations.
Pseudo-Chrys.: Or, by that, “In the regeneration,”
Christ designs the period of Christianity that should be after His ascension,
in which men were regenerated by baptism; and that is the time in
which Christ sat on the throne
of His glory. And hereby you may
see that He spake not of the time of the judgment to come, but of the calling of the Gentiles, in that He said not, “When
the Son of Man shall come sitting upon the throne of his majesty;” but only, “In the regeneration when he shall sit,” which was from the time
that the Gentiles began to believe on Christ; according
to that, “God shall reign over the heathen; God sitteth upon his holy throne.” [Ps 47:8]
From that time also the Apostles have sat upon twelve thrones, that is, over all Christians; for every Christian who receives [p.
675] the word of Peter, becomes
Peter’s throne,
and so of the rest of the Apostles. On these thrones then the Apostles
sit, parcelled into twelve divisions, after the variety of minds and
hearts, known to God only. For as the Jewish
nation was split into twelve
tribes, so is the whole Christian people divided into twelve, so as that some souls are numbered with the tribe of
Reuben, and so of the rest, according
to their several qualities.
For
all have not all graces alike, one is excellent
in this, another in that. And so the Apostles
will judge the twelve tribes of Israel, that
is, all the Jews, by this, that the Gentiles received
the Apostles’ word.
The whole body of Christians are indeed twelve thrones for the Apostles, but one throne for Christ. For all excellencies are but
one throne for Christ, for He alone is equally perfect in all
virtues. But of the Apostles each one is more perfect
in some one particular excellence,
as Peter in faith; so Peter tests upon his faith, John on his innocence,
and so of the rest. And that Christ
spake of reward to be given to the Apostles in this world,
is shewn by what follows, “And every
one
that
hath
forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters,
&c.” For if these shall receive an
hundred fold in this life, without doubt to the Apostles also was promised a reward in
this present life.
Chrys.: Or; He holds out rewards
in the future life to the
Apostles, because they where already
looking above, and desired nothing of things present;
but to others He promises things present.
Origen: Or otherwise; whosoever shall leave all and follow Christ, he
also shall receive those
things that were promised to Peter.
But if he has not left all, but only those things
in special here enumerated, he shall receive manifold,
and shall possess eternal
life.
Jerome: There are that take occasion from this passage to bring forward the thousand years after the resurrection, and say that
then we shall have a hundred fold of the things we have given
up, and moreover life eternal. But though the promise be in
other things worthy, in the matter of
wives it seems to have somewhat shameful, if he who has forsaken one wife for the Lord’s sake, shall
receive a hundred in the world to come. The meaning
is therefore, that he that
has
forsaken carnal things for the
Saviour’s sake, shall receive spiritual
things, which in a
comparison of value are as a [p.
676]
hundred to a small number.
Origen: And in this world, because
for his brethren after the flesh
he shall find many brethren
in the faith; for parents, all the Bishops and Presbyters;
for sons, all that have the age of sons.
The Angels also are brethren, and all they are sisters that have offered themselves chaste virgins to Christ, as well they that still continue on earth, as they that now live in heaven. The houses
and lands manifold more suppose in the repose of Paradise, and
the city of God. And besides all these things they shall possess eternal life.
Aug., City of God, book xx, ch. 7: That He says, “An hundred fold,” is explained by the Apostle, when he says, “As having
nothing, and yet possessing all things.” [2 Cor 6:10] For a
hundred is sometimes put for the whole
universe.
Jerome: And that, “And every one that hath forsaken brethren,” agrees with that He had said before, “I am come to set a man at
variance with his father.” [Matt 10:35] For they who for the faith of
Christ and the preaching of the Gospel
shall despise all the
ties, the riches, and pleasures
of this world, they shall receive an
hundred fold, and shall possess eternal
life.
Chrys.: But when He says, “He that has forsaken wife,” it is not to
be taken of actual
severing of the marriage
tie, but that we
should hold the ties of the faith dearer
than any other. And here is,
I think, a covert allusion to times of persecution;
for because there should be many who would draw away their sons to heathenism, when that should happen,
they should be held
neither as fathers, nor husbands.
Raban.: But because many with what zeal they take up the pursuit of virtue, do not with the same complete it; but either grow cool, or fall away rapidly;
it follows, “But many that are first
shall be last, and the last first.”
Origen: By this He exhorts
those that come late to the heavenly
word, to haste to ascend to perfection before many whom they
see to
have grown old in the faith. This sense may
also
overthrow those that boast to have been educated in Christianity by Christian parents, especially if those parents
have filled the Episcopal see, or the office of Priests or Deacons
in the Church; and hinder them from desponding who have entertained the Christian doctrines more newly.
It has also another
meaning; the “first,” are the Israelites, who become last because of their unbelief; and the Gentiles
who were “last” become
first. He [p. 677] is careful to say, “Many;” for not
all who are first shall be last, nor all last first.
For before this
have many
of mankind, who by nature are the last, been made by
an
angelic
life
above
the
Angels; and
some
Angels
who
were first have been
made last
through their sin.
Remig.: It may also
be referred in particular to
the rich man, who seemed to be first, by
his
fulfilment of
the
precepts of
the
Law, but was made last by his preferring his worldly substance to God. The holy Apostles seemed to be last, but by leaving all they were made
first
by
the
grace
of
humility. There
are
many who
having entered upon good works, fall
therefrom, and
from having been first, become last.
Comments
Post a Comment