1 reason for divorce. 13 Jesus blesses the children. 16 Eternal life; rich young man 23 "It is difficult for a rich man to enter..."
1 When Jesus finished these words, he went out of Galilee and came into the borders of Judea, on the side of the Jordan.
2 Many people followed him, and he healed them there.
3 And the Pharisees came to him, and tempting him, they said to him, Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason?
4 He answered them and said: Have you not read that He who made male and female in the beginning created them?
5 And he said: Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.,
6 so that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, let no man separate.
7 They say to him, How then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce and divorce her?
8 He says to them: Moses, because of your hardness of heart, allowed you to divorce your wives, but at first it was not so;
9 but I say to you, whoever divorces his wife not for adultery and marries another, that commits adultery; and whoever marries a divorcee commits adultery.
10 His disciples say to him: If such is the duty of a man to his wife, then it is better not to marry.
11 And he said to them: not all can accommodate this word, but to whom it is given,
12 for there are eunuchs who were born in this way from their mother's womb; and there are eunuchs who are castrated out of men; and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven. Who can accommodate, yes accommodate.
13 Then children were brought to him, that he should lay his hands on them and pray; the disciples rebuked them.
14 But Jesus said: let the children go and do not prevent them from coming to me, for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
15 And laying his hands on them, he went out from there.
16 And behold, someone came up and said to him: Good teacher! What good can I do to have eternal life?
17 And he said to him: why do you call me good? Nobody is good but God alone. If you want to enter into life eternal, keep the commandments.
18 He says to him, What kind? Jesus said: "dont kill"; "do not commit adultery"; "do not steal"; "do not bear false witness";
19 "honor your father and mother"; and: "Love your neighbor as yourself".
20 The young man said to him, All this I have kept from my youth; what else am I missing?
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 and follow me.
22 Hearing this word, the young man departed with sorrow, because he had a large estate.
23 But Jesus said to his disciples: I tell you truly, it is difficult 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 into the kingdom of God..
25 When his disciples heard this, they were greatly amazed and said, Who then can be saved?
26 But Jesus looked up and said to them, It is impossible for men, but for God all things are possible..
27 Then Peter answered and said to him, Behold, we have left everything and followed you; what will happen to us?
28 And Jesus said to them: Truly, I say to you that you who have followed Me are in everlasting life, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you will also sit on twelve thrones to judge the twelve tribes of Israel..
29 And whoever leaves houses, or brothers, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for the sake of my name, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit eternal life..
30 Many will be the first last, and the last first.
Found a mistake in the text? Select it and press: Ctrl + Enter
Gospel of Matthew, chapter 19
. When Jesus finished these words, he went out of Galilee and came into the borders of Judea, by the side of the Jordan.
. Many people followed Him and He healed them there.
The Lord comes again to Judea so that the unbelieving people of Judea would not have an excuse to justify themselves by the fact that He visited the Galileans more often than them. So, after the teaching, at the end of the conversation, miracles again follow. For we must both teach and do. However, the foolish Pharisees, when they should have believed at the sight of miracles, tempt Him. Listen:
. And the Pharisees came to Him and, tempting Him, said to Him, Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason?
. He answered and said to them, Have you not read that He who created male and female in the beginning created them ()?
. And he said, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh,
. so that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what he has combined, let no man separate.
Oh, the folly of the Pharisees! With such questions they thought to stop the mouth of Christ. Indeed, if He had said: For every reason it is permissible to divorce a wife, they could object to Him: how did You say before that no one should divorce, except with an adulterous wife? And if He had said: It is absolutely unlawful to divorce a wife, then they thought to accuse Him of contradicting Moses, for this latter allowed the removal of a hated wife without a plausible reason. What is Christ? It shows that monogamy is established from the very beginning by our Creator. “In the beginning,” Christ says, “God combined one husband with one wife; therefore, one husband should not be combined with many wives, nor should one wife be combined with many husbands, but as they are coupled from the beginning, so they must remain, not terminating cohabitation without reason. In order not to amaze the Pharisees, Christ does not say: "I" created male and female, but says vaguely: "He who created." So, according to Him, marriage is so pleasing to God that for the sake of it, He allowed even parents to leave in order to cleave to a spouse. Well, now in the book of Genesis it is written that the words: “Therefore a man will leave his father and mother,” Adam said, and here Christ says that God Himself said: “Therefore he will leave,” etc. We affirm: what Adam said , he said by the inspiration of God, so that the word is the word of God. But if Adam and Eve, as a result of natural love and copulation, became one flesh, then how criminal it is to cut one's own flesh, it is just as unlawful to separate spouses. The Lord did not say, “Let not Moses separate,” so as not to anger the Pharisees, but said in general, “Let no man separate,” expressing the great distance between the uniting God and the separating man.
. They say to Him: how did Moses command to give a bill of divorce and divorce her?
. He says to them: Moses, because of your hardness of heart, he allowed you to divorce your wives, but at first it was not so;
. but I say to you, whoever divorces his wife not for adultery and marries another, that commits adultery; and he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
The Pharisees, seeing that the Lord had blocked their mouths, were forced to refer to Moses, who, in his instructions, seemed to contradict Christ. They say: how did Moses command to issue a bill of divorce and divorce? But the Lord, who turns every accusation against their heads, defends Moses and says: Moses, giving such a law, does not contradict God; he made such a decree because of your hardness of heart, so that you, due to your moral licentiousness, intending to marry other wives, did not begin to destroy the first wives. Indeed, being cruel, the Jews would go so far as to kill their wives if the law compelled them to live with them without fail. In view of this, Moses decreed: let the wives hated by their spouses receive a divorce paper. But I, - continues the Lord, - I say to you: it is good to divorce only from a criminal, adulterous wife; but when someone drives away a wife who has not fallen into fornication, he will be guilty if she begins to commit adultery. It can also be understood like this: "he who is united with the Lord is one spirit with the Lord"(). In this regard, there is a certain combination of the believer with Christ, since we all have become one body with Him and are members of Christ. Indeed, no one can break this union, just as Paul says: "who radiates us from love Christ's?" (). For what he has combined cannot be separated “neither man nor any other creature, nor angels, nor principalities, nor authorities,” as Paul () says.
. His disciples say to him: if such is the duty of a man to his wife, then it is better not to marry.
The disciples were embarrassed and said: if the husband and wife are united in order to remain undissolved for life, so that the husband should not drive his wife away, even if she was evil, then it is better not to marry. It is easier not to marry and fight natural lusts than to endure an evil wife. "The duty of man" Christ calls the inseparable marital union. Some interpreters, however, understand it this way: if such is the fault of a person, that is, if a husband, illegally driving his wife away, is subject to censure and condemnation, then it is better not to marry.
. And he said to them, Not all receive this word, but to whom it has been given,
Since the disciples said that it is better not to marry, the Lord says that although virginity is a great thing, not everyone can keep it, but only those whom God helps. The word "given" is here instead of "whom God helps." It is given to those who ask, as it is said: “Ask, and it will be given to you. Everyone who asks receives."
. for there are eunuchs who were born in this way from their mother's womb; and there are eunuchs who are castrated out of men; and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven. Who can accommodate, let him accommodate.
The Lord says: the virtue of virginity is accessible to a few. "There are eunuchs from their mother's womb", that is, there are people who, by the very structure of their nature, are not attracted to women: the chastity of such has no value. There are, further, those who are castrated by people. But it is not those who cut off their own hands that castrate themselves for the Kingdom of Heaven—no, that is cursed—but those who have temperance. Understand it this way: there is an eunuch by nature - a person who, according to his natural structure, is unexcited to voluptuousness. People castrate the one who, as a result of the instruction of other people, removed, as it were cut out, the kindling of carnal lust; the one who castrates himself is a person who has been inclined to chastity, not by the instruction of others, but by his own disposition. This latter is the most perfect: he was brought to the Kingdom of Heaven by no one else, but he himself came to it. The Lord, desiring that we voluntarily exercise the virtue of virginity, says: "Who can accommodate, let him accommodate". He does not force virginity or humiliate marriage; He only prefers virginity.
. Then children were brought to him, that he should lay his hands on them and pray; the disciples rebuked them.
. But Jesus said: Let the children go and do not prevent them from coming to Me, for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven.
Mothers brought children so that their children would be blessed through the touch of His hands. But women with children came up in disorder and noisy, and therefore the disciples did not allow them. In addition, the disciples believed that the dignity of their Teacher could be humiliated if they offered children. But Christ, showing that it is more pleasant for Him in whom there is no guile, says: "Let the children go, for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven." He did not say: "these", but "such", that is, simple, innocent, non-malicious. Therefore, if even now Christians come to any teacher, offering children's questions, then the teacher should not remove them from himself, but should accept them.
. And laying hands on them, he went from there.
. And behold, someone came up and said to Him: Good teacher! What good can I do to have eternal life?
. And he said to him, Why do you call me good? Nobody is good but God alone.
This man came not to tempt Christ, but to be instructed, for he longed for eternal life. Only he approached Christ as a simple man, and not as God. That is why the Lord says to him: “Why do you call me good? No one is good, but God alone”, that is, if you call Me good, at the same time considering Me as an ordinary teacher, then you are mistaken: in reality, none of the people is good. Firstly, we very easily deviate from the good, and secondly, the very kindness of man in comparison with the goodness of God is nothing more than malice.
If you want to enter into life eternal keep the commandments.
. He says to him: what? Jesus said: do not kill; do not commit adultery; do not steal; do not bear false witness;
. honor father and mother; and: love your neighbor as yourself.
The Lord sends the questioner to the commandments of the law, so that the Jews could not say that He despises the law. What?
. The young man says to Him: I kept all this from my youth; what else am I missing?
Some condemn this young man as a boastful and conceited man. How, then, they say, he loved his neighbor perfectly when he remained rich? He who loves his neighbor as himself cannot be richer than his neighbor. The neighbor is every person. Others understand it this way: let's say that I would keep all this: then what else would I lack?
. 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 and follow me.
. Hearing this word, the young man departed with sorrow, because he had a large estate.
What he says you did according to your words, you did only in the Jewish way. If you want to be perfect, that is, My disciple and Christian, then go, sell your property and immediately give everything away, leaving nothing under the pretext that you want to constantly give alms. He did not say, “Give to the poor,” but, “Give everything and become poor.” Then, since some, although merciful, lead a life full of all kinds of impurity, Christ says: “Come and follow Me,” that is, have all the other virtues as well. But the young man was sad. Although he desired, although the soil of his heart was deep and fat, yet the seed of the word of the Lord was crushed by the thorns of wealth, “for,” the evangelist notes, “he had a large property.” Whoever has a little is less entangled in the bonds of property, but the greater the wealth, the stronger the fetters it imposes. Also: since the Lord spoke to the rich, He said: “You will have treasure in heaven,” if you are already a lover of wealth.
. Jesus said to his disciples: Truly, I say to you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven;
. 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 into the kingdom of God.
The rich man will not enter the kingdom of heaven as long as he is rich and has surplus, while others do not have what is necessary. But when the rich man shakes everything off and thus enters the Kingdom of Heaven, he will enter by no means rich. He who has much is just as impossible to enter as it is impossible for a camel to go through the eye of a needle. See, then, how Christ said above: “it is difficult to enter,” but here he says that it is absolutely impossible. Some people do not understand the camel as an animal, but as a thick rope that sailors use when throwing anchors.
. When His disciples heard this, they were very astonished and said, Who then can be saved?
. And Jesus looked up and said to them: With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.
The philanthropic disciples ask not for themselves, for they themselves were poor, but for all people. The Lord teaches us to measure the work of salvation not by human weakness, but by the power of God. If someone begins to avoid covetousness, then, with the help of God, he will first succeed in cutting off what is superfluous, and then he will reach the point that he will spend on the poor and what is necessary; so the help of God will lead him in a good way to the Kingdom of Heaven.
. Then Peter, answering, said to Him, Behold, we have left everything and followed Thee; what will happen to us?
Although Peter, being poor, apparently did not leave anything great, yet know that in fact he left a lot. We humans are deeply attached to little. Peter, on the other hand, neglected everything pleasant in the world, even suppressed the natural love for his parents. These passions are at war not only against the rich, but also against the poor. What is the Lord?
. Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to you that you who have followed Me in the afterlife, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you will also sit on twelve thrones to judge the twelve tribes of Israel.
Do they really sit down? No: under the image of the seat, the Lord designated a special honor. But will Judas also sit down? Again, no: this is said about those who followed, that is, remained faithful to Christ to the end, but Judas did not remain so. promises blessings to those who are worthy, but when these people change and become unworthy, these blessings are taken away. It is the same with calamities: God sometimes threatens us with calamities, but does not send us if we change. By "resurrection" understand resurrection.
. And everyone who leaves houses, or brothers, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for the sake of my name, will receive an hundredfold and inherit eternal life.
Lest anyone think that the above concerns only the disciples, the Lord extended the promise to all who act like His disciples. And they, instead of relatives in the flesh, will have property and brotherhood in Christ, instead of fields - paradise, instead of stone houses - mountainous Jerusalem, instead of a father - elders in the church, instead of a mother - old women, instead of a wife - all faithful wives, not by marriage – no, but out of spiritual love and care for them. But the Lord does not command that one must be separated from one's family, but only when they interfere with a pious life. Similarly, He commands to neglect the soul and body, and not in the sense that one must kill oneself. See how God, being good, not only restores to us what we have left behind, but moreover gives us eternal life. Try to sell your property and give it to the poor. And this possession of the angry is his wrath, the adulterer's is his adulterous inclination, the vindictive man's is memory of malice, etc. Sell it and give it to the poor, that is, to demons who have nothing good. Return your passions to the originators of passions, and then you will have a treasure, that is, Christ, in heaven, that is, in your mind that has risen to the heights. You can have heaven within you if you become like He who is above all heaven.
. Many will be the first last, and the last first.
Here Christ points to Jews and Gentiles. Those who were first became last, and the Gentiles who were last became first. In order that you may clearly understand what is being said, He adapts the following parable to this.
1–2. Travel to Jerusalem. - 3-12. The doctrine of marriage and divorce. - 13-15. Blessing of children. - 16-30. Rich young man.
Matthew 19:1. When Jesus finished these words, he went out of Galilee and came into the borders of Judea, by the side of the Jordan.
Matthew 19:2. Many people followed Him and He healed them there.
(Compare Mark 10:1; Luke 9:51; John 7:10).
Can these three passages really parallel Matt. 19:1, this is, of course, only a matter of conjecture. The speech of the forecasters is distinguished here by such brevity that it is difficult to affirm positively whether, in particular, their testimony coincides with Jn. 7:10. But if such a coincidence can be recognized, then the case will be presented in the following form. Matthew omits John's account (invitation of Christ by His brothers to go to Jerusalem for the Feast of Tabernacles John 7:2–9). According to John, Christ initially refused this journey. But when His brothers went to Jerusalem, then “He came there for the Feast (of Tabernacles) not openly, but as if secretly.” They think that it is precisely this journey that Matt. 19 and Mk. 10:1. Then John tells about the very presence of Christ at the Feast of Tabernacles (John 7:11-53), about a woman convicted of adultery (John 8:1-11), about a conversation with the Jews (John 8:12-59 ), about the healing of the man born blind (John 9:1-41), about the good shepherd (John 10:1-18), about the strife among the Jews regarding the person of Christ and their intention to kill Him (John 10:19-39). John's further words "and he went again beyond the Jordan, to the place where John had baptized before, and remained there" (John 10:40) may coincide with Mk. 10καὶ πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου (literally: "beyond the Jordan"). Here John, so to speak, interrupting the speech of the synoptics (John 7:2-10:40), is in turn interrupted by them, and it is precisely by the story of Lk. 9:51, which may coincide with the last part of the 1st verse of the chapter of the Gospel of Matthew under consideration. Luke (Luke 9:51–62) tells of Christ's intention to go to Jerusalem through Samaria, the refusal of the Samaritans to accept Him, and then of two petitioners who wanted to follow Him; then about the embassy of the 70 disciples and their return (Lk. 10:1-24), the Good Samaritan (Lk. 10:25-37), the visit of Martha and Mary, and other parables and events are described (Lk. 10-16: 17) with minor insertions in Matthew, Mark and John (eg John 11:1-16). Only then does a parallel story begin, mainly of the first two evangelists, again interrupted by long interpolations of Lk. 14-18:1-14 and Jn. 11:17–54.
From what has been said, it can be seen that verses 1-2 are a very short and concise designation of complex events, and therefore very obscure, primarily because of their brevity. The words “When Jesus finished these words, he went out of Galilee,” although they do not serve as an exact designation of time, as in Matthew at all, can be placed in the closest relation to the parable of the evil servant told in the previous chapter. As for the further expressions placed in verse 1, they are so incomprehensible that they are difficult not only to correctly interpret, but even to translate them correctly. In the Greek translation, somewhat differently than in Russian, literally: "I came to the borders of Judea beyond the Jordan." The difficulty lies in how these words are to be understood, whether in the sense that Jesus Christ entered Judea itself, or that He only approached it. If he did, then why is it said “beyond the Jordan”? Does this mean that Judea, being on the western side of the Jordan, extended also to the east of this river, in the opinion, of course, of the evangelist himself? Or, perhaps, when writing his Gospel, the evangelist himself was or lived on the east side of the Jordan and the expression "beyond the Jordan" only wanted to designate Judea itself, which really lies "beyond the Jordan"? These questions were posed by Origen, and he gave an answer to them as obscure as in the Gospel; “I came to (ἐπί instead of εἰς, i.e., differently than in Matthew) the borders of Judea, not to the middle (οὐκ ἐπὶ τὰ μέσα), but, as it were, to its edge.” Chrysostom is similar to Origen: "he does not yet enter Jerusalem itself, but visits only the Jewish borders." The latest interpreters unanimously affirm that Perea and Judea were different countries, and some are therefore inclined to see here in the words of the evangelist simply a geographical error, meaning that Jesus Christ "came into the region of Judea beyond the Jordan." But historically it can be established with sufficient accuracy that the region of Judea did not extend eastward beyond the Jordan, and that the latter was the border between Judea and the region beyond the Jordan, which was called Perea. The expression "beyond the Jordan" (πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου) cannot therefore serve as a definition of the words "into the borders of the Jews"; those. does not mean "the borders of the Jews beyond the Jordan." On this basis, it is accepted that “beyond the Jordan” refers simply to the word came (ἦλθεν), and in order to better understand the speech of the evangelist, one must arrange the words differently from him, namely this way: “came beyond the Jordan (went to the other side of the Jordan) into the borders of the Jews." The meaning, therefore, will be exactly the one that is expressed in the Russian translation. A similar expression in Mk. 10 (literally: “into the borders of Judea and beyond the Jordan”) does not contradict such an interpretation. As for the expression "into the borders of Judea," one can agree with both ancient and modern interpreters that it does not mean "into Judea itself." The essence of the matter is simply that instead of traveling to Judea through Samaria, i.e. on a shorter and more ordinary route, the Savior went there through Perea. It was not a hasty, but a slow approach to Jerusalem (Matt. 20:17, 29; Matt. 21:1).
Matthew 19:3. And the Pharisees came to Him and, tempting Him, said to Him, Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason?
(Compare Mark 10:2).
The reasons why the Pharisees approached Jesus Christ just now and asked Him just such a question are not clearly indicated either by Matthew or Mark. But it can be observed that, according to the reports of the evangelists, such speeches were the result of an increasingly developing enmity towards Christ. Now this is clearly evidenced by the word “tempting” (πειράζοντες) used by both evangelists, indicating the desire of the Pharisees to trap Christ, to put Him in a difficult position, especially in front of His simple listeners, to undermine confidence in Him in order to more easily achieve their goal - to get rid of Him even through murder. We know that Christ has already exposed these tricks of His enemies several times with His answers. But His enemies not only did not hold back from new actions against Him, but became more and more wicked. “Such is,” says John Chrysostom, “anger and such is envy, shameless and impudent. Although you repulse her a thousand times, she will attack again the same number of times! The Pharisees wanted to tempt Christ with the so-called "horned" (cornutus) syllogism. If He had said that one could divorce a wife for any reason and take other wives for oneself, He would have taught what is contrary to common sense, or, as Jerome puts it, "shame" (puditiae praedicator sibi videbitur docere contraria). If the Savior would have answered that one could not divorce for any reason, then he would have become guilty, as it were, of sacrilege (quasi sacrilegii reus tenebitur - Jerome) and would have opposed the teachings of Moses, or, more precisely, against the teachings given by God Himself through Moses .
Theophylact expresses himself somewhat more clearly than Jerome, a similar opinion is also found in Evfimy Zigavin. Both of them draw attention to Christ's earlier teaching on divorce given in the Sermon on the Mount (see comments on Matt. 5:31–32) and say that the Pharisees now wanted to put Christ in conflict with Himself, with His own words then spoken. and teaching. If He had said that it was possible to divorce a wife for any reason, then the Pharisees might object: how did You say before that one should not divorce a wife, except for the guilt of adultery? And if He had said that one should not divorce a wife, then they would have slandered Him as proposing new laws that disagree with the laws of Moses. It should be added that the issue of divorce at that time became acute as a result of the dispute between the two schools of the Pharisees, Hillel and Shammai, as to how to interpret what is found in Deut. 24 The Hebrew expression given as the reason for divorce is "ervat dabar". We do not need to enter into a discussion of the immediate causes of this dispute, but it is enough to point out the very fact of its existence. Hillel, who lived twenty years before, taught that a man can divorce his wife for any reason. Shammai, on the contrary, argued that divorce is permissible only because of the indecency of the wife.
Matthew 19:4. He answered and said to them: Have you not read that He who created male and female in the first place created them?
(Compare Mark 10:3-5).
The Russian text of this verse must be recognized as very obscure. Slavic translation: "Creating from the beginning, male and female created I am." Here, “the one who created from the beginning”, obviously, no longer refers to the creation of a man and a woman (as in the Russian translation), but to creation in general. In other words: the Creator, who created the world, also created male and female. In Luther's German translation it is clearer: "Have you not read that He who first created men made it so that male and female come into existence." English translation (Authorised version): "... did you not read that He who created them in the beginning, created them male and female (gender) and said...". Some later English translators, in turn, change the translation to read: "Have you not read that the Creator made them male and female from the beginning?" These translations show how difficult it is to render the Greek speech accurately here. The most accurate and closest to the original should be considered the Slavic and the last of the stated translations, English, where the word “creator” is expressed simply by the word “Creator” (in Greek - ὁ ποιήσας). The meaning is that, according to the divine institution, from the very beginning there should have been a male and a female, therefore, marriage is a divine, and not a human institution. Evfimy Zigavin expresses this thought with particular clarity: “(Created) one male and female, so that one (husband) would have one (wife). Because if He wanted a man to leave one wife and take another again (ἠγάπηται), then He would have created many women from the very beginning; but since he did not create many, then, of course, He wants the husband not to divorce his wife.
Matthew 19:5. And he said, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh,
(Compare Mark 10:7-8).
The speech given in Matthew serves as a continuation of the previous one. For the time being, Christ leaves unanswered the tricky question of the Pharisees, which they actually wanted to propose, namely, can a person, after a divorce from his first wife, take another, and argues exclusively within the limits of the proposed question as such. A man should not leave a woman, because, according to the law given by God, he cannot remain single and live in a celibate state. In order not to be lonely and celibate, he leaves even the people closest to him, his father and mother. The quote is taken from Gen. 2:24, where these words are attributed not to God but to Adam.
Matthew 19:6. so that they are no longer two, but one flesh. So what God has joined together, let no man separate.
(Compare Mark 10:8-9).
The words of Christ in the verse under consideration are a conclusion from what He said before. The abandonment of a wife by a man, or divorce, contradicts, first of all, nature, because in this case “the same flesh is cut” (St. John Chrysostom), and, further, the law of the Lord, because “you attempt to divide what God has united and didn't tell me to share. It is noteworthy that the Savior does not say “whom” God combined, let not man separate those, but “what” (ὅ) God combined, etc. The speech, as this passage is correctly interpreted, is not about two bodies, but about one body, which is expressed through "what."
Matthew 19:7. They say to Him: how did Moses command to give a bill of divorce and divorce her?
(Compare Mark 10:3-4).
The objection made to Christ seemed to the Pharisees very strong and irrefutable. This is expressed in the word ἐνετείλατο, which does not mean “allowed”, “allowed”, but “commanded”. Judging by the previous words of Christ, God "commanded" that husband and wife be one body, and therefore, according to the intention and law of God, divorce is not allowed. This commandment, given by God, was stated by Moses in the book he wrote. But the same Moses set forth another commandment, which is also contained in the book of Deuteronomy that he wrote (Deut. 24:1). Those who objected to Christ thus continue to adhere to the text of Deuteronomy, while the Savior Himself refers to the book of Genesis. The word ἐνετείλατο (commanded, gave an obligatory commandment) chosen by the Pharisees is somewhat strong, because it is not clear from the indicated place in Deuteronomy that a person must and is obliged to give his wife a bill of divorce even if there is “ervat dabar”. But if you do not pay attention to all this, it will be seen that between the original teaching on marriage, as explained by Christ, and the permission to issue letters of divorce, there was a clear contradiction, and in order to eliminate it, school casuistry was required. How does Christ resolve this contradiction? If the best Jewish casuists Hillel and Shammai argued about this and disagreed with each other, then how will Jesus Christ get out of the difficult situation in which, according to the Pharisees, they put Him?
Matthew 19:8. He says to them: Moses, because of your hardness of heart, allowed you to divorce your wives, but at first it was not so;
(Compare Mark 10:5).
In the Russian translation, the initial ὅτι (in the Slavic translation - “like”) is not expressed in the speech of Christ, which corresponds to the τί of verse 7 (in the Russian translation - “how”, but better “so, why” or “why”). The Pharisees ask: why? The Savior answers: because (ὅτι) Moses, etc. The name Moses (not God) also has an obvious correspondence with the same name in the 7th verse question. The Pharisees could not say that God commanded to give letters of divorce. The Savior confirms this by saying that Moses allowed it. The word "hardness of heart" (σκληροκαρδία) is used by Matthew only here and also in the New Testament in Mk. 10:5, 16:14. In the last place, it is connected with ἀπιστία (unbelief). They consider it “highly characteristic” that in His answer Christ replaced ἐνετείλατο (“commanded” - verse 7), used by the Pharisees, with the word ἐπέτρεψεν - allowed, allowed. But in Mark (Mark 10:3-4) Jesus Christ and the Pharisees are expressed in reverse, and there these changes are just as appropriate as in Matthew. The thought expressed here is similar to Gal. 3:19. Some believe that the permission to give the wife a divorce letter was due to the necessity that otherwise the husband, due to his "hardness of heart", could torture his wife, and the divorce letter was thus the wife's "protection" against her husband's cruel treatment of her. This, of course, could be one of the reasons for the divorces allowed by Moses, but not the only one. The main reason was in “hardness of heart” in general - a word that indicates the “uncircumcised heart”, the rudeness of the temper of the Old Testament man, his mental and moral underdevelopment. It is obvious that the Savior Himself considers this Mosaic institution to be human, and not divine. It was given as a temporary adaptation of the supreme and eternal law to the spirit of the times and had only a temporary character. The mistake of the Pharisees was that they looked at this temporary law given by Moses too highly, considered it equal to the commandments of God. But it was "consilium hominis", "non imperium Dei" (Jerome). In the Old Testament, many such decrees were given, which were only temporary. In the state of hardness of heart, divorces and letters of divorce were permissible, but "at first it was not so."
Matthew 19:9. but I say to you, whoever divorces his wife not for adultery, and marries another, commits adultery; and he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
(Compare Mark 10:10-12; Luke 16:18).
If in the speech of the Savior (verses 4–8) the answer to the question of the Pharisees (verse 3) was given, then here He obviously answers the idea that they did not express, that it is possible to take another wife after a divorce. Whoever does this commits adultery, unless the divorce is for any other reason than πορνεία. The Savior does not say that πορνεία must be allowed for divorce. See detailed commentary on Matt. 5:32. It should be noted that, according to Matthew, this speech of Christ was spoken to the same Pharisees with whom the Savior spoke earlier, but, according to Mark (Mark 10:10), it was said in response to a question from the disciples when they were with the Savior entered a house. Since Mf. 19 and Mk. 10:10-12 do not have the same connection, it is more likely to think that Matt. 19It was said to the Pharisees, but Mark repeated these expressions in his speech only to the disciples and in the house.
Matthew 19:10. His disciples say to him: if such is the duty of a man to his wife, then it is better not to marry.
Verses 10-12 are found only in Matthew. The speech, one must think, was given to the disciples in the home and in private. The word "duty" (in the Russian Bible), apparently, inaccurately and incorrectly expresses the thought of the original. The Greek word αἰτία does not mean “duty”, but “guilt”, “reason” and is used in this sense in many places in the New Testament (Acts 10:21, 22:24; 2 Tim. 1:6, 12; Tit. 1 :13; Matt. 27:37; Mark 15:26; John 18:38; John 19:4, 6 etc.). But the literal translation “if, therefore, there is a reason (or fault) of a man with a woman, then it is inconvenient (not useful - οὐ συμφέρει) to marry” would not make sense. Therefore, not an exact, but only a descriptive translation is possible here. Meaning: “If adultery can be the only reason for a man’s divorce from a woman, then it’s better not to marry.” Other translations, like Russian, also cannot be considered completely accurate and clear. The disciples obviously understood the Savior's previous speech correctly in the sense of the complete inadmissibility of divorce, if there is no adultery on one side or the other. The adultery of one of the parties is, of course, an extremely serious family misfortune, a complete violation of the marriage bond and family relations, which makes the continuation of a life together not only difficult, but even unthinkable and unacceptable. In the Old Testament law, adultery was punishable by death (Lev. 20:10). But besides adultery, there may be other reasons that aggravate family life. Jerome proposes questions concerning women: quid enim si temulenta fuerit, si iracunda, si malis moribus, si luxuriosa, si gulosa, si vaga, si jurgatrix, si maledica, tenenda erit istiusmodi? (what if (the wife) is prone to drunkenness, will be angry, immoral, wasteful, greedy, windy, quarrelsome, slanderous, is it really necessary to keep her in such a case?) Then, expressing briefly and correctly the teaching of Christ, Jerome answers: volumus nolumus sustinenda est (willy-nilly, you need to keep this one as well). A further increase in Jerome is characteristic and written, obviously, in an ascetic spirit: cum enim essemus liberi, voluntarie nos subjecimus servituti (although being free, we voluntarily submitted to such slavery). The essence of the question of the disciples was precisely what Jerome set out in more detail. Cato's saying is well known: mulier est malum necessarium (a woman is a necessary evil). But if it is a necessary evil, then isn't it better, isn't it more prudent, isn't it more useful for a person to be free from such an evil? Wouldn't it be better to renounce marital relations, when so many evils can be expected from them, and, moreover, without any hope of being freed from them, when the wife, with all her shortcomings, will remain marital fidelity and will not allow such guilt as adultery?
Matthew 19:11. And he said to them, Not all receive this word, but to whom it has been given,
Regarding the words of the disciples “it is better not to marry,” the Savior here gives explanations, borrowed partly from historical, and partly from psychological experience. Answering the Pharisees, He countered their wrong and erroneous opinions with the divine law establishing marriage. Answering the disciples, He opposes their opinions with a physical law. Since the latter operates in people as well as in animals, it is natural that not everyone can submit to the condition under which a celibate life is acceptable, namely, to observe moral purity in a celibate state. In His answer to the disciples, the Savior could not say: "You must not marry." Such speech would be contrary not only to the physical (ordained by God), but also to the moral (also ordained by God) and lofty law, as well as to Christ's own words about the sanctity of marriage. On the other hand, He could not say "everyone should marry," because there are conditions under which it is necessary to evade the physical law. Who are these people who are not subject to physical law? This is explained in the next verse.
Matthew 19:12. for there are eunuchs who were born in this way from their mother's womb; and there are eunuchs who are castrated out of men; and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven. Who can accommodate, let him accommodate.
Instead of "made themselves eunuchs" it would be more correct to translate "castrated themselves" (εὐνούχισαν ἑαὐτούς), although the meaning is the same in both cases. This verse, literally understood by eunuchs, serves as the actual basis for a monstrous phenomenon - eunuchs; this sect, especially here in Russia, exists and even flourishes to this day. To justify their opinions, the eunuchs refer not only to the verse under consideration, but also to the words of the prophet Isaiah: “Let not the eunuch say: “Behold, I am a dry tree.” For the Lord thus speaks of the eunuchs: who keep my sabbaths and choose what is pleasing to me, and hold fast my covenant, to them I will give in my house and within my walls a place and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off” (Isaiah 56:3–5). The words of the prophet cannot, of course, serve as a basis or encouragement for assemblage, but have only a prophetic meaning and, of course, refer only to eunuchs of the first and second categories indicated by the Savior, i.e. to persons who themselves were not guilty of their castration and were not engaged in the castration of others. But not only sectarian eunuchs held and hold the opinion that the words of the Savior give the right to artificially maintain and spread eunuchs. There is a well-known case of Origen, who castrated himself in his youth, revealing in this matter his “immature youthful mind” (Eusebius of Caesarea, Church History, VI, 8). As an old man, Tsang notes, Origen repented of his act, and his repentance influenced his interpretation of the passage being analyzed. In general, in antiquity, if a literal interpretation of verse 12 was not affirmed, then it was, apparently, characteristic of some, even prominent, people. Among others, Justin misunderstood the words of the Savior, telling without censure (Apologia, I, 29) about the case of how, around the year 150, a Christian in Alexandria, vainly asked the authorities for permission to castrate himself as a doctor. Eusebius knew many Christians who voluntarily castrated themselves (see Zahn, Das Evangelium des Matthäus, S. 586, note). Is such a literal interpretation (in the scopal sense) correct or false? Undoubtedly, it is false, because Christ, in any case, could not offer here a doctrine that is unnatural, fraught with danger to life and does not achieve the goal that is meant by this, but, on the contrary, serves only to strengthen lust and secret depravity.
Further, in the Law of Moses, clear rulings were made regarding the eunuchs, which are also completely inconsistent with the literal understanding and interpretation of the words of the Savior. So, in Deut. 23 eunuchs are said to be unable to "enter into the congregation of the Lord," and Lev. 22:24-25 is commanded not to sacrifice even castrated animals and accept them from foreigners "as a gift to God, because they have damage, a vice on them: they will not win you favor." In addition, it is commanded: "And in your land do not do this." In view of all this, it was natural if not only among the first Christians there were only extremely rare cases of a literal understanding of the words of the Savior regarding the “third category of eunuchs”, but also direct and strong opposition to such an understanding. St. John Chrysostom is especially ardently armed against him. “When Christ says, “hoard for yourself,” he does not mean cutting off the members—let it not happen! - but the destruction of evil thoughts, because the member that cuts off is subject to a curse, as Paul says: "Oh, that those who corrupt you may be cut off!" (Gal. 5:12). And very fair. Such one acts like murderers, assists those who humiliate the creation of God; he opens the mouth of the Manichaeans and transgresses the law, like those of the Gentiles who cut off the members. From time immemorial, to cut off the members was the work of the devil and the malice of Satan, in order to distort the creation of God through this, in order to harm the man created by God, and so that many, attributing everything not to freedom, but to the members themselves, sin fearlessly, conscious of themselves as if innocent ... All this was devised by the devil, who, wanting to incline people to accept this error, introduced yet another false doctrine of fate and necessity, and thus tried in every possible way to destroy the freedom bestowed on us by God, assuring that evil is a consequence of physical nature, and through this spreading many false teachings, albeit covertly. Such are the arrows of the devil!”
The Savior's words, "Whoever can accommodate, let him accommodate" cannot be seen as a requirement that all followers of Christ take lifelong vows of celibacy, which most people cannot keep. Here Christ had in mind only special human characters, special natures, who are capable of rising above family life by the strength of their spirit in order to devote themselves more fully to the service of the Kingdom of Christ.
Matthew 19:13. Then little children were brought to Him, that He might lay His hands on them and pray; but the disciples rebuked them.
(Compare Mark 10:13; Luke 18:15).
The reason that the disciples hindered the bringing of children to Jesus Christ was, according to the usual explanation, that they were afraid that they would interfere with His teaching and not distract Him to what they considered to be a lower activity. Chrysostom expresses this reason in two words: ἀξιώματος ἕνεκεν (out of respect for Jesus Christ).
Matthew 19:14. But Jesus said: Let the children go and do not prevent them from coming to Me, for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven.
(Compare Mark 10:14; Luke 18:16).
The word "indignant" found in Mark is omitted by Matthew and Luke. Instead of "let go" you can translate "leave" or "let go". The following words "come to Me" do not depend on this verb, but on "do not hinder them" (in the Greek text). There is no doubt that this simple gospel story was of great importance and influence in establishing the right relationship between adults and children and serves as the basis of all modern pedagogy. Christ's teaching was completely opposite to the harsh opinions of the Old Testament people (for example, Sir. 30:1-13).
Matthew 19:15. And laying hands on them, he went from there.
(Compare Mark 10:16.)
Mark adds: "and, embracing them." This story may be regarded as an addition and clarification of all the previous teaching set forth in this chapter. First, it sets out the deepest doctrine of marriage and accidental exceptions to the universal, embedded in human nature, natural and moral law. Then the Savior, as it were, returns to His original thought about the sanctity of the marriage union and lays hands on children as the fruit of marital relations and marital fidelity. After that, He sets off on a further journey, which is especially clear from the opening words of Mk. 10:17.
Matthew 19:16. And behold, someone came up and said to Him: Good teacher! What good can I do to have eternal life?
(Compare Mark 10:17; Luke 18:18).
In this and the next verse, Matthew has a huge mass of discrepancies. In Matthew, the following reading is recognized as correct: “Teacher! What good will I do, ”etc. Matthew calls the approacher “young man” (νεανίσκος) not here, but in verses 20 and 22. This word undoubtedly indicates youth. In Mark, the one who comes up is not called a young man, nor by any other name; from the words of Mk. 10 and Luke. 18it cannot be concluded that he was young. Luke calls him ἄρχων - boss, but over what - is unknown. This word occurs many times in the New Testament. Some considered the one who approached Christ to be one of the leaders of the Jerusalem Sanhedrin and even identified him with Lazarus, whom Christ resurrected. The most likely opinion is that the young man was simply one of the leaders of the local synagogue (The word "archon" often means simply a member of the municipality from among the richest residents of the city. - Note. ed.). The words of the young man, which are the best suited to the person of Christ, His teaching and activity (“Teacher”, “good”, “eternal life”, and in Mark and Luke the addition Teacher is “good”), show that the young man, if not previously knew Christ personally, then at least he heard enough about Him to make such an unusual request. “This,” says Tsang, “was not the question of a man irritated by his sinfulness and moral impotence in his aspirations to achieve holiness, but the question of such a person who was not satisfied with the demands of other teachers regarding piety and moral behavior. On the contrary, Jesus made an impression on him, and he had confidence in Him that He would raise His disciples above the unsatisfactory mass of hitherto existing Jewish piety (cf. Matt. 5:20).”
Matthew 19:17. And he said to him, Why do you call me good? Nobody is good but God alone. If you want to enter into eternal life, keep the commandments.
(Compare Mark 10:18; Luke 18:19).
According to Mark and Luke, the Savior, as if objecting to the young man about what he called Him good, actually appropriates this property of God, goodness; and the meaning of his question, therefore, is this: you call me good, but no one is good, except God alone; Therefore, you also address Me not just as an ordinary Teacher, but as a good Teacher and therefore having an equal dignity with God. In other words, in Christ's answer to the young man, we meet with a covered and extremely subtle, almost imperceptible to those around Christ, His teaching about His Sonship of God and equality with God the Father. According to Matthew (in the Greek text) otherwise: “Why do you ask me about good things?”
Matthew 19:18. He says to him: what? Jesus said: do not kill; do not commit adultery; do not steal; do not bear false witness;
Matthew 19:19. honor father and mother; and: love your neighbor as yourself.
(Compare Mark 10:19; Luke 18:20).
The question "what?" no other weather forecasters except Matthew. The order of the commandments is the same in Mark and Luke, but different in Matthew. Mark adds: "Do not offend."
At first glance, it seems somewhat strange that the young man, who claimed that he “kept all this from his youth” (verse 20), at the invitation of Christ to keep the commandments, asks: “what?” As if he did not know if the commandments were given and which ones! But the young man's question becomes understandable if we assume that he did not expect such an answer from Christ. The young man did not think that Christ would tell him exactly what he knew so well, what he had done so well, and yet did not satisfy him. Here we meet with a very interesting qui pro quo. The young man thinks of one thing, Christ tells him of another. The young man expects to receive from the new great and kind Teacher information about some new commandments, similar to those given, for example, in the Sermon on the Mount; but Christ tells him that he must fulfill what he has already done.
It is rather difficult to answer the question why Jesus Christ chooses (according to Matthew) only six commandments of the Old Testament law, completely omitting commandments 1–4 of the Decalogue. It is difficult to agree with the explanations that such a choice was adapted to the moral state of the young man himself, who, thinking that he was keeping the commandments, actually violated those listed by Christ, it is difficult to agree, simply because we know almost nothing about this. From the tone of the story and the context, it is absolutely impossible to assume that the young man was infected with such sins as murder, adultery, theft, perjury, disrespect for his father and mother, and enmity towards his neighbor. Could such a person be an archon (chief)? It is obvious that he was not like that. Nor can it be assumed that Christ's indication of these and not other commandments was simply a matter of chance, i.e., in other words, a mere set of words. Thus, only one thing remains - to assume that, on the contrary, the young man especially strongly, especially zealously cared about the fulfillment of precisely those commandments that Christ pointed out to him, and His answer, so to speak, was directly calculated not to say nothing new compared to what was already well known from the Old Testament law. This interpretation, at any rate, is well supported by the young man's further statement (verse 20) that he "kept all these things." What else does he lack?
The commandments themselves listed by Christ are an abbreviated summary of the Decalogue and other passages of the Old Testament law (Ex. 20:12-16; Lev. 19:18; Deut. 5:16-20).
Matthew 19:20. The young man says to Him: I kept all this from my youth; what else am I missing?
Matthew 19:21. 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 and follow me.
(Compare Mark 10:21; Luke 18:22).
When listing the commandments that had to be fulfilled in order to enter into eternal life (verses 18-19), Christ did not call wealth an evil and did not say that for eternal life it is absolutely necessary to renounce wealth and, in general, any property. The closest meaning of His answer is even that it is enough to fulfill the Old Testament commandments indicated by Him in order to enter into eternal life. But this fulfillment involves many gradations, and it cannot be said that a person, guarding one or the other, has become truly perfect. He who does not kill his neighbor with a weapon, of course, does well, acts in accordance with the commandment of God. But he who does not kill him even with a word does better. The one who avoids hurting him and any harm is even better. There are people who not only do not kill people with weapons or words and do no harm, but do not even say anything bad about their neighbors. This is an even higher level if one and the same commandment is observed. The same is true of other commandments. Christ's words in verse 21 seem to refer closest to the command at the end of verse 19: "Love your neighbor as yourself." What does it mean? With the observance of both other commandments, and this one, many gradations are possible. One can love one's neighbor as oneself and limit oneself only to love that is useless for him and inactive. One can love in deed, but not in word. One can, finally, love one's neighbors in such a way as to lay down one's life for them. Christ in verse 21 points to one of the highest grades of perfect love. It lies in the fact that a person gives away all his property, wanting to alleviate the suffering of his neighbors out of love for them. This was suggested to the young man, who wished to be perfect and said that he "kept all this", including love for his neighbor, "from his youth".
Matthew 19:22. Hearing this word, the young man departed with sorrow, because he had a large estate.
Matthew 19:23. Jesus said to his disciples: Truly, I say to you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven;
(Compare Mark 10:22-23; Luke 18:22-23).
Chrysostom says that “Christ does not condemn wealth with these words, but those who are addicted to it. But if it is difficult for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, then what about the covetous? Experience, however, shows that many rich people are more true Christians than poor people. The point, therefore, is not in wealth, but in the attitude of rich people to Christ and the Gospel.
Matthew 19:24. 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 into the kingdom of God.
(Compare Mark 10:24-25; Luke 18:25).
According to Mark, the Savior first repeated the saying He had said about the difficulty for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, because the disciples were “horrified at His words,” and only after that did he add the doctrine common to all weather forecasters. Here, obviously, Christ only explains His former saying by means of an example. All weather forecasters have κάμηλος, camel. But in some manuscripts κάμιλος is read, which is explained as παχὺ σχοινίον - a thick ship's rope. Differences when transmitting further expression “through the needle ears” (in Matthew - διὰ τρυπήματος ῥαφίδος; in Mark - διὰ τρυμαλίας ῥαφίδος; in Luke - διὰ τρήματος τατος; all these expressions have the same meaning), in any way, it is difficult, and in any way, what is difficult. The Savior was felt even in antiquity. There has been a lot of controversy about the meaning of these expressions. Lightfoot and others have shown that this was a proverb found in the Talmud for some kind of difficulty. Only the Talmud does not speak of a camel, but of an elephant. So, in one place it is said about dreams that during them we cannot see what we have not seen before, for example, a golden palm tree or an elephant passing through the eye of a needle. One man who did what seemed absurd or even unbelievable was told, "You must be one of the Pombedites [a Jewish school in Babylon] who can make an elephant go through the eye of a needle." Similar expressions are found in the Koran, but with the replacement of an elephant by a camel. And even in India there are proverbs "an elephant passing through a small door" or "through the eye of a needle." In this sense, many of the latest interpreters understand the saying of the Savior. The opinion that the "eyes of the needle" should be understood as narrow and low gates through which camels cannot pass, is now considered generally erroneous. Even less likely is the opinion, which appeared already in antiquity, that a camel here should be understood as a rope. The change of κάμηλος into κάμιλος is arbitrary. Κάμιλος - a word so rare that in Greek it can even be considered non-existent, it does not occur in good Greek dictionaries, although it must be said that the metaphor of a rope that is difficult to pull through the eye of a needle could be somewhat more natural than about a camel which cannot pass through the eye of the needle.
But whatever interpretation we may adopt, the main difficulty lies not in this, but in the purpose for which such a strange metaphor is used here. Did Christ want to point out here the complete impossibility for the rich to enter the Kingdom of Heaven? Did He mean to say that just as it is impossible for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, so it is impossible for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God? But Abraham was “very rich in cattle, and in silver, and in gold” (Gen. 13:2), and yet, according to the Savior Himself, this did not prevent him from being in the Kingdom of God (Lk. 13:28; cf. Lk. 16:22–23, 26; John 8, etc.). It is difficult, further, to suppose that the Savior's speech referred only to this rich man who had just departed from Him; πλούσιον would then be placed with an article, which all three synoptics do not have. If, finally, we accept the words of the Savior in their literal meaning, then it will be necessary to recognize that they must serve (and, it seems, serve) as a stronghold for all kinds of socialist doctrines and the proletariat. Anyone who owns any property has not enrolled in the ranks of the proletarians cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven. In the comments we do not find the answer to these questions, they should be considered unresolved until now, and the words of Christ are not clear enough. Perhaps this is a general New Testament view of wealth, which serves as an obstacle to the service of God (cf. Mt. 6:24; Lk. 16:13). But it seems that the most likely explanation is as follows. The New Testament in the foreground puts the service of God and Christ, the result of this can be the use of external blessings (Matt. 6:33). But for a rich man who puts the service of mammon in the foreground and only the last - following Christ and serving Him, or even does not do this latter at all, it is really difficult to become an heir to the Kingdom of Heaven.
Matthew 19:25. When His disciples heard this, they were very astonished and said, Who then can be saved?
Matthew 19:26. And Jesus looked up and said to them: With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.
(Compare Mark 10:27; Luke 18:27).
The meaning of Christ's answer is: for God this is also possible; and the rich man, devoted to the service of mammon, can turn and assimilate for himself the correct view of his wealth, assimilate for himself a new evangelical principle, i.e. the grace of God can act on him and help him to be converted.
Matthew 19:27. Then Peter, answering, said to Him, Behold, we have left everything and followed Thee; what will happen to us?
(Compare Mark 10:28; Luke 18:28).
There is an obvious reference here to the 21st verse. If it was necessary to leave everything to follow Christ, then Peter and the other disciples did just that. The order of their actions was exactly as indicated by Christ Himself in verse 21. First leaving everything, and then following Christ. True, the apostles did not look like a rich young man; they did not have a large estate. But if we accept that there are different degrees of wealth, that one is rich with a hundred rubles in reserve, while the other is poor with thousands, then Peter had every right to assert that the disciples not only left everything, but even left all their wealth.
Matthew 19:28. Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to you that you who have followed Me are in everlasting life, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you, too, will sit on twelve thrones to judge the twelve tribes of Israel.
(Compare (Luke 22:28-30) where speech is of a different character and in a different connection.)
The word "pasto-being" shows that the new existence of people will certainly come in one form or another. The earthly state is one being, beyond the grave is another. This latter is the “pacing-being”. This word (παλιγγενεσία) is used only twice in the New Testament, here in Matthew and again in Titus (Titus 3:5). The expressions “sit down”, “sit down”, of course, are figurative, and they cannot be taken literally. The word "judge" is also figurative, meaning, in Semitic usage, "dominion", "power" (cf. Rev. 20:4).
Regarding whether Judas, to whom these words were also spoken, will be numbered among the judges, there are many notes among the ancient and modern exegetes. “So, what,” John Chrysostom asks, “and Judas will sit on the throne? Not". “I promise a reward only to the deserving. Conversing with His disciples, He made a promise not without conditions; He did not simply say, "You," but he also added, "Those who followed me," in order to reject both Judas and draw those who later turned to Him. These words of His did not refer to the disciples alone, and not to Judas, who later became unworthy of His promise. Theophylact adds that the Savior here speaks "of those who followed Him to the end, but Judas did not remain such."
The expression "to judge the twelve tribes of Israel" is obviously figurative and cannot be taken literally.
Matthew 19:29. And whoever leaves houses, or brothers, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for the sake of my name, will receive an hundredfold and inherit eternal life.
(Compare Mark 10:29-30; Luke 18:29-30).
Love for Christ is placed above love for earthly acquisitions and family ties. This verse, however, apparently should not be understood in a strictly literal sense, since this would be inconsistent not only with the teachings of Christ, but also with His own actions (see John 19, etc.). Love for Christ gives a special meaning to both earthly acquisitions and family ties.
Matthew 19:30. Many will be the first last, and the last first.
(Compare Mark 10:31; Luke 13 in another connection).
The meaning of this verse is explained further by the parable of the laborers in the vineyard.
Again the Lord comes to Judea, so that the unbelieving Jews would not have an excuse to justify themselves by the fact that He visited them less often than the Galileans. For the same reason, the teaching, at the end of the conversation, is again followed by miracles. For we must both teach and do. But the foolish Pharisees, when they should have believed by the sight of the signs, tempt Him. Listen:
And the Pharisee approached him, tempting him, and saying to him: if it is worthy for a man to let his wife go for every fault? And he answered and said to them: Do you bear the members, as if you had created from the beginning, the male sex and the female I created to eat? And he said, For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall both become one flesh. It’s like someone carries two, but the flesh is one: even if God combines, let a person not separate.
O foolishness of the Jews! With such questions they thought to stop the mouth of Christ. Indeed, if He said that it is permissible to divorce a wife for any reason, then they would object to Him: how did you (before) say that no one should divorce, except with an adulterous wife? And if he had said that it was not at all permissible to divorce his wives, then He would have been convicted of contradicting Moses, who ordered that a hated wife be driven away without a plausible reason. What is Christ? It shows that the Creator legitimized monogamy from the very beginning. From the very beginning he combined a man with one wife; therefore, one husband should not be combined with many wives, not one wife with many husbands, but as they were paired at the beginning, so they must remain, not breaking off cohabitation without a good reason. At the same time, in order not to irritate the Pharisees, he did not say: I created male and female, but said vaguely: Creative. Further, it is pleasing to God that they, after mating, live so inseparably that he allows them to leave their parents and cling to each other. Question: how is it written in the book of Genesis that the words: for this sake a man will leave his father and mother Adam said, and Christ says here that God himself said: Why will a man leave his father and mother and cling to his wife? Answer: and what Adam said, he said by the inspiration of God, so that the word of Adam is the word of God. But if they (Adam and Eve) became one flesh, having been united through mating and natural love; then to terminate legal spouses is as indecent as to cut one's own flesh. In order not to anger (the Pharisees), the Lord did not say - let not Moses separate, but in general - human, thus signifying the (immeasurable) distance between God who combines and man who dissolves.
Saying unto him: Why then did Moses command to give a libertine, and let her go? She said to them, for Moses, in your hardness of heart, commanded you to let your wife go: from the beginning it was not so. I say to you, as if he let his wife go, is she an adulterous woman, and marries another, she commits adultery: and marry a woman, adulterous deed.
The Pharisees, seeing that the Lord had blocked their mouths, were at a loss, and pointed to Moses, who allegedly contradicted Christ, and said: how did Moses command to give the book of divorce and let the wife go? Therefore, the Lord, turning every accusation on their heads, justifies Moses and says: Moses did not give such a law out of desire to contradict God, but out of your hardness of heart, so that you, wanting to marry other wives, through your cruelty, would not destroy the first wives. Indeed, being cruel, they would have killed their wives if Moses had compelled them not to let them go. Therefore, he legalized giving wives, hated by their husbands, a book of divorce. And I, the Lord continues, say to you that it is good to let a prodigal wife go away as an adulteress, but if anyone casts out a woman who has not committed adultery, he is guilty if she becomes an adulteress. Take into account the following: cling to the Lord, one spirit with the Lord(1 Corinthians 5:17); and in this case there is a kind of combination of the believer with Christ. For we have all become one body with Him and are members of Christ. If so, then no one has the right to separate from this union, according to the word of Paul, who says: who will separate us from the love of Christ(Rom. 8:35)? For what God has joined together cannot be separated, as Paul says, neither man nor any other creature, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers (Rom. 8:36-39).
The disciples were embarrassed and said: if (husband and wife) are mated so that they are one and remain inseparable for life, so that the wife, if she does not commit adultery, should not be cast out, even if she were evil; it's not good to get married. It is better not to marry and fight against natural lusts than to take and endure an evil wife. The fault of a man with his wife called their inseparable union. Some understand it this way: more so the fault of a man, - that is, if a man who unlawfully drives away his wife is subject to guilt or condemnation; it's better not to get married.
Since the disciples said that it is better not to marry, the Lord in response says that although the acquisition of virginity is a great thing, it cannot be preserved by everyone, but only by those whom God grants: the word - given to eat- stands here instead of - "whom God helps." It is given to those who ask from the heart, for it is said: ask and it will be given to you, everyone who asks accepts.
The feat of virginity, he says, is the lot of not many. There are eunuchs from the womb, that is, people who, by nature, do not have an inclination to copulate (with wives), but their chastity does not benefit them. There are also those who are castrated by people. Those who castrate themselves for the sake of the kingdom of God are not those who cut off their own limbs, for this is a crime, but those who abstain. Understand this also: there is an eunuch by nature, that is, as it was said above, by natural constitution, not prone to lust. The castrated from people is the one who removes from himself the kindling of carnal lust as a result of human instruction. Finally, the one who castrates himself is the one who, not out of someone else's, but out of his own disposition, voluntarily decided on the feat of chastity. Such a one is very good, because independently of others, and he himself arbitrarily embarks on the path to the kingdom of heaven. Desiring that we voluntarily strive in virtue (virginity), the Lord says: able to contain yes contain. Thus He does not force virginity, He does not forbid marriage, but virginity is preferred.
Mothers brought children to Him, so that through the laying on of hands He would bless them. But how randomly and noisily they approached, therefore the disciples rebuked them, and together also because they thought whether the dignity of their teacher was not humiliated by bringing children to Him. But Christ, wanting to show that He loves the mild-tempered more, forbids them, and says: leave the children, for such is the kingdom of heaven. Didn't say - now, but - such, that is, simple, alien to malice and slyness. Therefore, if today any teacher is approached with children's questions, he should not send them from himself, but accept them.
This one approached, not as one who tempts, but as one desiring instruction and thirsting for eternal life. But he approached Christ, not as to God, but as to a simple man. That is why the Lord says: that you say good things to me? no one is good, only one God That is, if you call me good, as an ordinary teacher, then you call me not like that: because none of the people is good in itself. This is, firstly, because we are usually changeable, turning from good to evil; secondly, because human kindness, in comparison with the goodness of God, is thinness.
If you want to go into the stomach, keep the commandments. The verb to Him: cue? Jesus said: hedgehog, do not kill: do not commit adultery, do not steal: do not bear false witness: honor your father and mother: and love your sincere as to yourself.
The Lord sends the questioner to the commandments of the law, lest the Jews say that He despises the law. What?
Some condemn this young man as a boastful and conceited man. As he says, did he fulfill the commandment to love his neighbor when he was rich? No one, loving his neighbor as himself, can be richer than his neighbor; and every man is a neighbor. Then many suffered hunger and were without clothes; if he had been merciful, he would not have been rich.
What you have kept according to your words, he says, you have kept according to the Jews. If you want to be perfect, that is, My disciple and Christian; then go and sell your possessions and immediately distribute everything all of a sudden, without holding back anything, even under the pretext of giving constant alms. He did not say - give to the poor (that is, a little), but - give it all at once, and be left without everything. After that, since others, giving alms, lead a life full of all kinds of impurity, he says: and follow me that is, acquire every other virtue. But the young man was sad. For although he desired, and the soil of his heart was deep and fat, yet it was dried up by the thorns of wealth: be bo says the Evangelist, have many possessions. He who has not much is bound by wealth not much, but great wealth imposes the strongest bonds. Further, since the Lord spoke to the rich, he added: you will have treasure in heaven, for he loved treasure.
A rich man will not enter the kingdom of heaven as long as he is rich and has something superfluous, while others do not have what is necessary. And when he renounces everything, then he is no longer rich, and later he will enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who has much cannot enter into it any more than a camel can go through the eye of a needle. Look, I said above that it is difficult to enter, but here - that it is not possible. Some people do not understand a camel as an animal, but as a thick rope used by shipbuilders when throwing anchors to strengthen the ship.
The philanthropic disciples ask not for themselves, for they themselves were poor, but for other people. The Lord teaches us to measure the work of salvation not by human weakness, but by the power of God. And with the help of God, whoever begins to be non-possessive will succeed in cutting off the superfluous; and then it will come to the point that he will begin to deny himself even the necessary, and in this way (with the same help of God) he will manage well and receive the kingdom of heaven.
Although Peter, as a poor man, apparently did not leave anything more, but know that in fact he left a lot. We - people - usually hold on tight to a little, and Peter, in addition, left all worldly pleasures and the very love for his parents, renounced relatives, acquaintances, and even his own will. And nothing is so pleasant for a person as his own will. However, all the aforementioned passions rise up not only against the rich, but also against the poor. - What is the Lord?
Will they really sit down, as the Lord says? No. Under the image of graying, only the advantage of honor is signified. But will Judas also sit down, who was there with the others when the Lord spoke these words? Also no: for this is said of those who resolutely followed Christ, that is, to the end, but Judas did not follow Him to the end. God often promises good things to the worthy; but when they change and become unworthy, it robs them of these benefits. He deals likewise with the disobedient; often threatens them, but does not send trouble, as soon as they change. Under re-existence understand immortality.
Lest anyone think that the above applies to only the disciples, the Lord extends his promise to all who do similar things to what the disciples did. And they, instead of relatives in the flesh, will have property and brotherhood with God, instead of fields - paradise, instead of stone houses - mountain Jerusalem, instead of a father - church elders, instead of a mother - church elders, instead of a wife - all faithful wives, not in marriage in relation - no, but in spiritual relationships, in spiritual love and care for them. However, the Lord does not simply, not without reason, command us to separate ourselves from the household, but when they interfere with piety. Just as when He commands to hate the soul and the body, it does not follow that one should kill oneself, but - that one should not spare oneself for the sake of keeping the faith of Christ, when circumstances require it. When Mark (Mk. 10:30) at the same time says that he will receive in abundance even in the present age; then this must be understood about spiritual gifts, which are incomparably higher than earthly ones and serve as a guarantee of future blessings. Those who use these gifts are in great honor, so that all people respectfully ask for their prayers in order to receive divine grace for them. Note also that God, being good, gives not only what we have left, but also adds eternal life to it. Try to sell your property and give it to the poor. But the property of the angry is his wrath, the fornicator has his adulterous lusts, the vindictive has memory of malice, and other passions. And so sell and give to the poor, that is, demons who have nothing good, throw your passions to the culprits of passions, demons, and - then you will have a treasure, that is, Christ in heaven, in heaven, that is, your mind. For whoever becomes like a heavenly person has heaven in himself.
When Jesus finished these words, he went out of Galilee and came into the borders of Judea, beyond the Jordanian side. Many people followed Him and He healed them there. The Lord comes again to Judea so that the unbelieving people of Judea would not have an excuse to justify themselves by the fact that He visited the Galileans more often than them. So, after the teaching, at the end of the conversation, miracles again follow. For we must both teach and do. However, the foolish Pharisees, when they should have believed at the sight of miracles, tempt Him. Listen:
And the Pharisees came to Him and, tempting Him, said to Him, Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason? He answered and said to them: Have you not read that He who in the beginning created male and female created them (Genesis 1:27)? And he said, Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh, so that they are no longer two, but one flesh. So what God has joined together, let no man separate.
Oh, the folly of the Pharisees! With such questions they thought to stop the mouth of Christ. Indeed, if He had said: For every reason it is permissible to divorce a wife, they could object to Him: how did You say before that no one should divorce, except with an adulterous wife? And if He had said: It is absolutely unlawful to divorce a wife, then they thought to accuse Him of contradicting Moses, for this latter allowed the removal of a hated wife without a plausible reason. What is Christ? It shows that monogamy is established from the very beginning by our Creator. “In the beginning,” Christ says, “God combined one husband with one wife, therefore one husband should not be combined with many wives, nor should one wife be combined with many husbands, but as they are paired from the beginning, so they must remain, not terminating cohabitation without reason." In order not to amaze the Pharisees, Christ does not say: "I" created male and female, but says vaguely: "He who created." So, according to Him, marriage is so pleasing to God that for the sake of it, He allowed even parents to leave in order to cleave to a spouse. Well, now in the book of Genesis it is written that the words: “Therefore a man will leave his father and mother,” said Adam, but here Christ says that God Himself said: “Therefore he will leave,” etc. We affirm: what Adam said , he said by the inspiration of God, so that the word of Adam is the word of God. But if Adam and Eve, as a result of natural love and copulation, became one flesh, then how criminal it is to cut one's own flesh, it is just as unlawful to separate spouses. The Lord did not say: “Let not Moses separate,” so as not to anger the Pharisees, but said in general: “Let no man separate,” expressing the great distance between God who united God and the man who separated.
They say to Him: how did Moses command to give a bill of divorce and divorce her? He says to them: Moses, because of your hardness of heart, allowed you to divorce your wives; but at first it was not so; but I say to you, whoever divorces his wife not for adultery, and marries another, commits adultery; and he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery. The Pharisees, seeing that the Lord had blocked their mouths, were forced to refer to Moses, who, in his instructions, seemed to contradict Christ. They say: how did Moses command to issue a bill of divorce and divorce? But the Lord, who turns every accusation against their heads, defends Moses and says: Moses, giving such a law, does not contradict God; he made such a decree because of your hardness of heart, so that you, due to your moral licentiousness, intending to marry other wives, did not begin to destroy the first wives. Indeed, being cruel, the Jews would go so far as to kill their wives if the law compelled them to live with them without fail. In view of this, Moses decreed: let the wives hated by their spouses receive a divorce paper. But I, - the Lord continues, - I say to you: it is good to divorce only from a criminal, adulterous wife; but when someone drives away a wife who has not fallen into fornication, he will be guilty if she begins to commit adultery. It can also be understood in this way: "He who unites with the Lord is one spirit with the Lord" (1 Cor. 6:17). In this regard, there is a certain combination of the believer with Christ, since we all have become one body with Him and are members of Christ. Indeed, no one can break this union, just as Paul says: "Who will separate us from the love of Christ?" For what God has joined together cannot be separated "neither man nor any other creature, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers," as Paul says.
His disciples say to him: if such is the duty of a man to his wife, then it is better not to marry. The disciples were embarrassed and said: if the husband and wife are united in order to remain undissolved for life, so that the husband should not drive his wife away, even if she was evil, then it is better not to marry. It is easier not to marry and fight natural lusts than to endure an evil wife. "The duty of man" Christ calls the inseparable marital union. Some interpreters, however, understand it this way: if such is the fault of a person, that is, if a husband, illegally driving his wife away, is subject to censure and condemnation, then it is better not to marry.
He said to them, Not everyone can receive this word, but to whom it has been given. Since the disciples said that it is better not to marry, the Lord says that although virginity is a great thing, not everyone can keep it, but only those whom God helps. The word "given" is here instead of "whom God helps." It is given to those who ask, as it is said: "Ask, and it will be given to you. Everyone who asks receives."
For there are eunuchs who were born in this way from their mother's womb; and there are eunuchs who are castrated out of men; and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven. Who can accommodate, let him accommodate. The Lord says: the virtue of virginity is accessible to a few. "There are eunuchs from their mother's womb," that is, there are people who, by the very structure of their nature, are not attracted to women: their chastity has no value. There are, further, those who are castrated by people. And it is not those who cut off their chops that castrate themselves for the Kingdom of Heaven—no, that is cursed—but those who have self-restraint. Understand it this way: there is an eunuch by nature - a person who, according to his natural structure, is unexcited to voluptuousness. People castrate the one who, as a result of the instruction of other people, removed, as it were cut out, the kindling of carnal lust; the one who castrates himself is a person who has been inclined to chastity, not by the instruction of others, but by his own disposition. This latter is the most perfect: he was brought to the Kingdom of Heaven by no one else, but he himself came to it. The Lord, desiring that we voluntarily exercise the virtue of virginity, says: "Whoever can accommodate, let him accommodate." He does not force virginity or humiliate marriage; He only prefers virginity.
Then the children were brought to Him, that He might lay His hands on them and pray, while the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said: Let the children go and do not prevent them from coming to Me, for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven. Mothers brought children so that their children would be blessed through the touch of His hands. But women with children came up in disorder and noisy, and therefore the disciples did not allow them. In addition, the disciples believed that the dignity of their Teacher could be humiliated if they offered children. But Christ, showing that it is more pleasing to Him in whom there is no guile, says: "Let the children go, for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven." He did not say, "these," but "these," that is, simple, innocent, non-malicious. Therefore, if even now Christians come to any teacher, offering children's questions, then the teacher should not remove them from himself, but should accept them.
And laying hands on them, he went from there. And behold, someone came up and said to Him: Good Teacher! What good can I do to have eternal life? And he said to him, Why do you call me good? Nobody is good but God alone. This man came not to tempt Christ, but to be instructed, for he longed for eternal life. Only he approached Christ as a simple man, and not as God. Therefore, the Lord says to him: "Why do you call Me good? No one is good, but God alone", that is, if you call Me good, considering at the same time an ordinary teacher, then you are mistaken: in reality, none of the people good. Firstly, we very easily deviate from goodness, and secondly, the very goodness of man in comparison with the goodness of God is nothing more than malice.
If you want to enter into eternal life, keep the commandments. He says to him: what? Jesus said: do not kill; do not commit adultery; do not steal; do not bear false witness; honor father and mother; and: love your neighbor as yourself. The Lord sends the questioner to the commandments of the law, so that the Jews could not say that He despises the law. What?
The young man says to Him: I kept all this from my youth: what else do I lack? Some condemn this young man as a boastful and conceited man. How, then, they say, he loved his neighbor perfectly when he remained rich? He who loves his neighbor as himself cannot be richer than his neighbor. The neighbor is every person. Others understand it this way: let's say that I would keep all this: then what else would I lack?
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 and follow me. Hearing this word, the young man departed with sorrow, because he had a large estate. What he says you did according to your words, you did only in the Jewish way. If you want to be perfect, that is, My disciple and Christian, then go, sell your property and immediately give everything away, leaving nothing under the pretext that you want to constantly give alms. He did not say, "Give to the poor," but, "Give all and become poor." Then, since some, although merciful, lead a life full of all kinds of impurity, Christ says: "come and follow me," that is, have all the other virtues as well. But the young man was sad. Although he desired, although the soil of his heart was deep and fat, yet the seed of the word of the Lord was crushed by the thorns of wealth, "for," remarks the evangelist, "he had a large estate." Whoever has a little is less entangled in the bonds of property, but the greater the wealth, the stronger the fetters it imposes. Also: since the Lord spoke to the rich, He said: "You will have treasure in heaven," if you are already a lover of wealth.
Jesus said to his disciples: Truly, I say to you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven; Again I tell 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.
The rich man will not enter the kingdom of heaven as long as he is rich and has surplus, while others do not have what is necessary. But when the rich man shakes everything off and thus enters the Kingdom of Heaven, he will enter by no means rich. He who has much is just as impossible to enter as it is impossible for a camel to go through the eye of a needle. See, then, how Christ said above: "it is difficult to enter," but here he says that it is absolutely impossible. Some people do not understand the camel as an animal, but as a thick rope that sailors use when throwing anchors.
When His disciples heard this, they were greatly amazed and said, Who then can be saved? And Jesus looked up and said to them: With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible. The philanthropic disciples ask not for themselves, for they themselves were poor, but for all people. The Lord teaches us to measure the work of salvation not by human weakness, but by the power of God. If someone begins to avoid covetousness, then, with the help of God, he will first succeed in cutting off what is superfluous, and then he will reach the point that he will spend on the poor and what is necessary; so the help of God will lead him in a good way to the Kingdom of Heaven.
Then Peter, answering, said to Him, Behold, we have left everything and followed Thee; what will happen to us? Although Peter, being poor, apparently did not leave anything great, yet know that in fact he left a lot. We humans are deeply attached to little. Peter, on the other hand, neglected everything pleasant in the world, even suppressed the natural love for his parents. These passions are at war not only against the rich, but also against the poor. What is the Lord?
Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to you that you who have followed Me in the afterlife, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you will also sit on twelve thrones to judge the twelve tribes of Israel.
Do they really sit down? No: under the image of the seat, the Lord designated a special honor. But will Judas also sit down? Again, no: this is said about those who followed, that is, remained faithful to Christ to the end, but Judas did not remain so. God promises good things to the worthy, but when these people change and become unworthy, these good things are taken away. It is the same with calamities: God sometimes threatens us with calamities, but does not send us if we change. By "resurrection" understand resurrection.
And whoever leaves a house, or brothers, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for the sake of My name, will receive a hundredfold and inherit eternal life. Lest anyone think that the above concerns only the disciples, the Lord extended the promise to all who act like His disciples. And they, instead of relatives in the flesh, will have property and brotherhood in Christ, instead of fields - paradise, instead of stone houses - mountainous Jerusalem, instead of a father - elders in the church, instead of a mother - old women, instead of a wife - all faithful wives, not by marriage - no, but out of spiritual love and care for them. But the Lord does not command that one must be separated from one's family, but only when they interfere with a pious life. Similarly, He commands to neglect the soul and body, and not in the sense that one must kill oneself. See how God, being good, not only restores to us what we have left behind, but moreover gives us eternal life. Try to sell your property and give it to the poor. And the property of the angry is his anger, the adulterer's is his adulterous inclination, the vindictive man's is memory of malice, etc. Sell this and give it to the poor, that is, to demons who have nothing good. Return your passions to the originators of passions, and then you will have a treasure, that is, Christ, in heaven, that is, in your mind that has risen to the heights. You can have heaven within you if you become like the One who is above all heaven.
Many will be the first last, and the last first. Here Christ points to Jews and Gentiles. Those who were first became last, and the Gentiles who were last became first. In order that you may clearly understand what is being said, He adapts the following parable to this.