Chapter Nineteen

1–2. Journey to Jerusalem. – 3–12. Teaching on marriage and divorce. – 13–15. Blessing of children. – 16–30. The rich young man.

Matthew 19:1. When Jesus had finished these sayings, he left Galilee and came to the region of Judea beyond the Jordan. Matthew 19:2. Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there. (See Mark 10:1; Luke 9:51; John 7:10). Whether these three passages can truly serve as parallels to Matt 19:1 is, of course, only a matter of conjecture. The narrative of the synoptics here is of such brevity that it is difficult to assert positively whether their accounts coincide in particular with John 7:10. But if such coincidence could be recognized, the matter would present itself as follows. Matthew omits John’s account (Christ’s brothers inviting him 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 left for Jerusalem, he “came there to the feast not openly, but as it were in secret.” People think that Matt 19:1 and Mark 10:1 refer to this very journey. Then in John comes the account of Christ’s very stay at the Feast of Tabernacles (John 7:11-53), the woman caught in adultery (John 8:1-11), the discourse with the Jews (John 8:12-59), the healing of the man born blind (John 9:1-41), the good shepherd (John 10:1-18), the dispute among the Jews regarding Christ’s identity and their intention to kill him (John 10:19-39). John’s further words “and he went away again beyond the Jordan, to the place where John had been baptizing, and he remained there” (John 10:40) could coincide with Mark 10:1 καὶ πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου (literally: “beyond the Jordan”). Here John, as it were interrupting the synoptics’ narrative (John 7:2-10:40), is in turn interrupted by them, and specifically by the account of Luke 9:51, which could coincide with the latter part of verse 1 of the discussed chapter of Matthew’s Gospel. In Luke (Luke 9:51-62) is related the intention of Christ to go to Jerusalem through Samaria, the refusal of Samaritans to receive him, and then of two would-be followers who wished to follow him; then of the mission of seventy disciples and their return (Luke 10:1-24), the merciful Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37), the visit to Martha and Mary, and other parables and events are given (Luke 10:38-16:17) with small insertions from Matthew, Mark, and John (for example, John 11:1-16). Only then does the parallel narrative begin, especially of the two first evangelists, again interrupted by long insertions from Luke 14:18-18:1-14 and John 11:17-54). From what has been said, one can see that verses 1–2 are a very brief and compressed indication of complex events, and therefore very obscure, first of all because of their brevity. The words “when Jesus had finished these sayings, he left Galilee,” although they do not serve, as generally in Matthew, to indicate time precisely, can be placed in close relation to the parable of the wicked servant related in the previous chapter. As for the further expressions placed in verse 1, they are so unclear that it is difficult not only to interpret them correctly, but even to translate them correctly. In the Greek text it is somewhat different than in the Russian translation, literally: “came to the region of Judea beyond the Jordan.” The difficulty is how to understand these words – in the sense that Jesus Christ was entering Judea itself, or that he was only approaching it. If entering, why is it said “beyond the Jordan”? Does this mean that Judea, lying on the western side of the Jordan, extended also to the east of this river, in the opinion of the evangelist? Or perhaps the evangelist, when he wrote his Gospel, himself lived or dwelled on the eastern side of the Jordan and meant by the expression “beyond the Jordan” simply to denote Judea itself, lying truly “beyond the Jordan”? These questions were raised as early as Origen, and he gave answers as unclear as those in the Gospel; “he came to (ἐπί instead of εἰς, that is, differently than in Matthew) the region of Judea, not in the middle (οὐκ ἐπὶ τὰ μέσα), but as it were to the edge of it.” Chrysostom similarly to Origen: “not yet entering Jerusalem itself, but visiting only the Judean region.” Modern commentators unanimously assert that Perea and Judea were different countries, and some are inclined to see here simply a geographical error in the evangelist’s words, meaning that Jesus Christ “came to the trans-Jordan region of Judea.” But historically one can establish with sufficient precision that the region of Judea did not extend east beyond the Jordan, and the latter was the boundary between Judea and the trans-Jordan region, which was called Perea. The expression “beyond the Jordan” (πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου) cannot therefore serve as a definition of the words “into the region of Judea”; that is, it does not mean “the Judean region beyond the Jordan.” On this basis, it is accepted that “beyond the Jordan” relates simply to the word “came” (ἦλθεν), and to better understand the evangelist’s speech, we need to arrange the words differently than he did, namely thus: “he came beyond the Jordan (went to the other side of the Jordan) into the region of Judea.” The meaning, consequently, is precisely that expressed in the Russian translation. A similar expression in Mark 10:1 (literally: “into the region of Judea and beyond the Jordan”) does not contradict such an interpretation. As for the expression “into the region of Judea,” we can agree with both ancient and modern commentators that it does not mean “into Judea itself.” The essence of the matter is simply that instead of journeying to Judea through Samaria, that is, by the shorter and usual route, the Savior went there through Perea. This was not a hasty but a slow approach to Jerusalem (Matt 20:17; Matt 21:1).

Matthew 19:3. Then Pharisees came to him and, testing him, said to him: Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason? (See Mark 10:2). The reasons why the Pharisees approached Jesus Christ precisely now and proposed to him precisely this question are not clearly indicated by either Matthew or Mark. But one can observe that, according to the evangelists’ accounts, such confrontations were the result of increasingly developing hostility toward Christ. Now this is clearly evidenced by the word used by both evangelists – “testing” (πειράζοντες) – indicating the desire of the Pharisees to ensnare Christ, to place him in a difficult position, especially before his simple listeners, to undermine their trust in him, in order more easily to achieve their goal – to rid themselves of him even through murder. We know that Christ already several times uncovered these schemes of his enemies through his answers. But his enemies not only refrained from further attacks on him, but became increasingly malicious. “Such,” says John Chrysostom, “is the wickedness and such is the envy – shameless and audacious. Even if you repel it a thousand times, it will attack a thousand times again!” The Pharisees wanted to tempt Christ by means of what is called the “horned” (cornutus) syllogism. If he said that one can divorce one’s wife for any reason and take other wives, he would be teaching something contrary to common sense, or, as Jerome expresses it, to “modesty” (puditiae praedicator sibi videbitur docere contraria). If, on the other hand, the Savior answered that one can divorce for not any reason, he would become guilty of sacrilege as it were (quasi sacrilegii reus tenebitur – Jerome) and would act against the teaching of Moses, or more precisely, against the teaching given by God himself through Moses. Theophylact expresses himself somewhat more clearly than Jerome, expressing a similar opinion held by Euthymius Zigabenus. Both draw attention to Christ’s earlier teaching on divorce given in the Sermon on the Mount (see commentary on Matt 5:31-32), and say that the Pharisees now wanted to place Christ in contradiction with himself, with his own words then spoken and his teaching. If he said that one can divorce one’s wife for any reason, the Pharisees could object: how is it that you said before that one should not divorce one’s wife except for the cause of unchastity? And if he said that one cannot divorce one’s wife, they would slander him as proposing new laws that are not in accord with the laws of Moses. It should be added that the question of divorces became sharp at that time due to the dispute between two Pharisaic schools, those of Hillel and Shammai, concerning how to interpret the expression found in Deut 24:1 – a Hebrew expression, pointed out as the cause for divorce, “ervat davar.” We need not enter into discussion of the immediate grounds for this dispute; it is enough only to point to the fact of its existence. Hillel, who lived about twenty years before, taught that a man can divorce his wife for any reason. Shammai, on the contrary, asserted that divorce is permitted only because of the wife’s unchastity.

Matthew 19:4. He answered them: Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning made them male and female? (See Mark 10:3-5). The Russian text of this verse must be considered very unclear. The Slavonic translation reads: “he who created in the beginning – the male sex and female he created.” Here “he who created in the beginning” apparently refers not to the creation of the man and woman (as in the Russian translation), but to creation in general. In other words: the Creator, who created the world, also created the male and female sexes. The German translation of Luther is clearer: “have you not read that he who in the beginning created mankind caused there to come into being a man and a woman.” The English translation (Authorised version): “...have you not read that he who created them in the beginning created them male and female, and said...” Some later English translators, in turn, change the translation thus: “have you not read that the Creator from the beginning created them male and female?” These translations show how difficult it is to render the Greek speech precisely here. The most accurate and closest to the original should be considered the Slavonic and the last of the stated translations – the English, where the word “created” is rendered simply by the word “Creator” (in Greek – ὁ ποιήσας). The meaning is that by divine ordinance from the very beginning there was to exist a male sex and a female sex; consequently, marriage is a divine, not a human institution. This thought is expressed with special clarity by Euthymius Zigabenus: “(He created) one male sex and female, so that one (husband) would have one (wife). Because if he wanted the husband to leave one wife and take another (ἠγάπηται), then he would have created many women from the beginning; but since he did not create many, he certainly wants the husband not to divorce his wife.”

Matthew 19:5. And he said: For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. (See Mark 10:7-8). The discourse set forth in Matthew is a continuation of the previous one. Christ for now leaves without answer the tricky question the Pharisees actually wanted to pose – namely, whether a man can, after divorcing his first wife, take another – and reasons exclusively within the bounds of the question as such. A man should not leave a woman because, by the law given by God, he cannot remain alone and live in unmarried state. To not be alone and unmarried, he leaves even the people closest to him, his own father and mother. The citation is borrowed from Gen 2:24, where these words are attributed not to God but to Adam.

Matthew 19:6. So they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, let no one separate. (See Mark 10:8-9). The words of Christ in the verse in question are a conclusion from what he said before. Abandonment of a woman by a man, or divorce, contradicts, first of all, nature, because in this “the same flesh is divided” (St. John Chrysostom), and, further, the law of the Lord, because “you try to divide what God joined and did not command to divide.” It is noteworthy that the Savior does not say “whom” God joined together, let no one separate, but “what” (ὅ) God joined and so forth. The speech, as is correctly interpreted in this place, concerns not two bodies but one body, which is expressed through “what.”

Matthew 19:7. They said to him: Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce and to divorce her? (See Mark 10:3-4). The objection raised against Christ seemed to the Pharisees very strong and irrefutable. This is expressed in the word ἐνετείλατο, which means not “permitted,” “allowed,” but – “commanded.” Judging by the preceding words of Christ, God “commanded” that husband and wife be one body, and consequently, in accordance with God’s intention and law, divorce is not permitted. This command given by God was set forth by Moses in the book he wrote. But the same Moses set forth another command, also contained in the book he wrote – Deuteronomy (Deut 24:1). Those objecting to Christ continue thus to hold to the text of Deuteronomy, while the Savior himself appeals to the book of Genesis. The word chosen by the Pharisees ἐνετείλατο (commanded, gave a binding command) is somewhat strong, because from the place indicated in Deuteronomy it does not appear that a man must necessarily and is obligated to give his wife a certificate of divorce even when “ervat davar” is present. But if we disregard all this, it will be seen that between the original teaching on marriage, as explained by Christ, and the permission to give certificates of divorce there was obvious contradiction, and to eliminate it required scholastic casuistry. How does Christ resolve this contradiction? If the best Jewish casuists, Hillel and Shammai, disputed this and disagreed with one another, how will Jesus Christ come out of the difficult position in which, in the opinion of the Pharisees, they placed him?

Matthew 19:8. He said to them: Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because of the hardness of your hearts, but from the beginning it was not so. (See Mark 10:5). In the Russian translation the initial ὅτι (in the Slavonic translation – “yaко”) is not expressed in Christ’s speech, which corresponds to τί of verse 7 (in the Russian translation – “why then,” but better “therefore, why” or “why then”). The Pharisees ask: therefore, why? The Savior answers: because (ὅτι) Moses and so forth. The name of Moses (not God) also has obvious correspondence with the same name in the question of verse 7. The Pharisees could not say that God commanded to give certificates of divorce. The Savior confirms this, saying that it was Moses who permitted it. The word “hardness” (σκληροκαρδία) is used by Matthew only here and elsewhere in the New Testament in Mark 10:5. In the latter place it is placed in connection with ἀπιστία (unbelief). It is considered “highly characteristic” that in his answer Christ replaced ἐνετείλατο (“commanded” – verse 7), used by the Pharisees, with the word ἐπέτρεψεν – permitted, allowed. But in Mark (Mark 10:3-4) Jesus Christ and the Pharisees are expressed oppositely, 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 a wife a certificate of divorce arose from the necessity that otherwise the husband, because of his “hardness of heart,” could subject his wife to torture, and the certificate of divorce was thus a “protection” of the wife against cruel treatment by her husband. This, of course, could be one of the reasons for the divorces permitted by Moses, but not the only one. The chief reason was “hardness of heart” in general – a word indicating “uncircumcision of heart,” the coarseness of the ancient Old Testament man’s character, his mental and moral underdevelopment. Apparently, the Savior himself considers this institution of Moses to be human, not divine. It was given as a temporary adaptation of a higher and eternal law to the spirit of the time and had only a temporary character. The error of the Pharisees consisted in the fact that they regarded this temporary law, given by Moses, too highly, considered it equal to God’s commandments. But it was a “consilium hominis”, “non imperium Dei” (Jerome). In the Old Testament there were many such ordinances having only a temporary character. In a state of hardness of heart, divorces and certificates of divorce were permissible, but “from the beginning it was not so.”

Matthew 19:9. But I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. (See Mark 10:10-12; Luke 16:18). If in the Savior’s discourse (verses 4–8) there was an answer to the Pharisees’ question (verse 3), here he apparently answers their unspoken thought – that after a divorce, one can marry another woman. Whoever does so commits adultery, provided the divorce takes place for any reason other than πορνεία. The Savior does not say that for a divorce it is necessary to allow πορνεία. 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 was speaking before, but, according to Mark’s testimony (Mark 10:10), it was spoken in answer to a question from the disciples when they, together with the Savior, entered some house. Since Matt 19:9 and Mark 10:10-12 do not have the same connection, it is more likely that Matt 19:9 was spoken to the Pharisees, and in Mark this is repeated in discourse only to the disciples and in the house.

Matthew 19:10. His disciples said to him: If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry. Verses 10–12 are found only in Matthew. The discourse, as should be thought, was spoken to the disciples in the house and in private. The word “case” (in the Russian Bible) apparently does not express the thought of the original precisely and correctly. The Greek word αἰτία means not “case” (as in the Russian Bible) but “cause,” “reason” and is used in this sense in many places of the New Testament (Acts 10:21; 2 Tim 1:6; Titus 1:13; Matt 27:37; Mark 15:26; John 18:38; John 19:4 and others). But a literal translation “if, therefore, there is a cause (or fault) of a man with a woman, it is not expedient (not useful – οὐ συμφέρει) to marry” would have no meaning. Therefore, here a literal translation is not possible, only a descriptive one. The meaning: “if the only cause for a man divorcing his wife is unchastity, it is better not to marry.” Other translations, as well as the Russian, also cannot be considered completely accurate and clear. The disciples apparently understood the Savior’s previous discourse correctly in the sense of the full impossibility of divorce if there is no adultery on either side. Adultery of one of the parties is, of course, an extremely grave family misfortune, a complete destruction of the marriage bond and family relations, making the continuation of common life not only difficult but even unthinkable and inadmissible. In the Old Testament law, death was prescribed for adultery (Lev 20:10). But besides adultery, there can be other causes aggravating family life. Jerome poses such questions concerning the woman: 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 inclined to drunkenness, is prone to anger, is immoral, is wasteful, is greedy, is fickle, is quarrelsome, is malicious – should she be kept in such a case?) Then, expressing briefly and correctly the teaching of Christ, Jerome answers: volumus nolumus sustinenda est (willingly or unwillingly, she must be kept). Jerome’s further addition is characteristic and apparently written in an ascetic spirit: cum enim essemus liberi, voluntarie nos subjecimus servituti (although we were free, we voluntarily subjected ourselves to such slavery). The essence of the disciples’ question was precisely in what Jerome later set forth more fully. The saying of Cato is known: mulier est malum necessarium (woman is a necessary evil). But if she is a necessary evil, is it not better, more prudent, more beneficial for a man to be free from such evil? Is it not better to renounce marriage when one can expect so many evils from it, and moreover without any hope of being freed from them, when the wife, despite all her faults, will maintain marital fidelity and will not permit such guilt as adultery?

Matthew 19:11. But he said to them: Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. In response to the words of the disciples “it is better not to marry,” the Savior here gives clarifications drawn partly from historical and partly from psychological experience. In answering the Pharisees, he opposed their incorrect and mistaken opinions to the divine law about the institution of marriage. In answering the disciples, he opposes their opinions to a physical law. Since the latter acts in people, as in animals, it is natural that not everyone can submit to the condition under which an unmarried life is commendable – namely, to maintain moral purity in the unmarried state. In his answer to the disciples, the Savior could not say: “one should not enter into marriage.” Such speech would contradict not only the physical (established by God) but also the moral (also established by God) law, which has moreover an exalted character, as well as Christ’s own words about the holiness of marriage. On the other hand, he could not say: “everyone should enter into marriage,” because there are conditions under which deviation from observance of the physical law is necessary. Who are these people not subject to the physical law? This is clarified in the following verse.

Matthew 19:12. For there are eunuchs who were born so from their mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it. Instead of “made themselves eunuchs,” it is more correct to translate “castrated themselves” (εὐνούχισαν ἑαυτούς), though the sense is the same in both cases. This verse, taken literally by the Khlysty sect, serves as the factual basis for the monstrous phenomenon – castration practices; this sect, especially in Russia, exists and even flourishes to this day. In justification of their opinions, castration practitioners appeal not only to this verse, but also to the words of the prophet Isaiah: “Let not the eunuch say, ‘Behold, I am a dry tree.’ For thus says the Lord concerning the eunuchs: ‘Those who keep my Sabbaths and choose what pleases me and hold fast my covenant, I will give them in my house and within my walls a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that will not be cut off’” (Isa 56:3-5). The words of the prophet cannot, of course, serve as a basis or encouragement for castration practices, and have only a prophetic sense and refer, of course, only to the first and second categories of eunuchs indicated by the Savior – that is, to persons who were not themselves guilty of their castration and did not engage in castrating others. But not only castration sect members held and hold the opinion that the Savior’s words give the right to the artificial promotion and spread of castration. The case of Origen is well known, who castrated himself in youth, showing in this deed his “immature youthful mind” (Eusebius of Caesarea, “Church History,” VI, 8). Being old, notes Zahn, Origen repented of his deed, and his repentance influenced his interpretation of the passage being discussed. Generally in antiquity, if a literal interpretation of verse 12 was not asserted, it seemed, to some degree, to be characteristic of some even distinguished persons. Among others, Justin interpreted the Savior’s words incorrectly, without censuring relating (Apologia, I, 29) the case of how around the year 150, a Christian in Alexandria vainly asked the authorities for permission to castrate himself by a physician. Eusebius knew many Christians who voluntarily subjected themselves to castration (see Zahn, “Das Evangelium des Matthäus”, p. 586, note.). Is such a literal interpretation (in the castration sense) correct or false? Without doubt false, because Christ, in any case, could not here propose teaching which is unnatural, fraught with danger to life, and does not achieve the goal which is intended, but on the contrary, serves only to strengthen lust and secret debauchery. Further, in the law of Moses clear ordinances were made concerning eunuchs, which also completely do not accord with a literal understanding and interpretation of the Savior’s words. Thus, in Deut 23:1 it is said of eunuchs that they cannot “enter the assembly of the Lord,” and in Lev 22:24-25 it is commanded not to offer in sacrifice even castrated animals and to take them from foreigners “as a gift to God, because on them there is a defect, a blemish on them: they will not gain your favor for you.” Moreover, it is commanded: “And do not do this in your land.” In view of all this, it was natural that not only in the circle of the first Christians but also after, only extremely rare cases of literal understanding of the Savior’s words concerning the “third category of eunuchs” were encountered, but also direct and strong opposition to such understanding. Saint John Chrysostom especially vehemently armed himself against it. “When Christ says: ‘castrated themselves,’ he means not cutting off members – may it never be! – but the destruction of evil thoughts, because one who cuts off a member is subject to a curse, as Paul says: ‘Oh, that those who are troubling you would castrate themselves!’ (Gal 5:12). And most justly. Such a person acts like a murderer, contributes to those who debase God’s creation; opens the mouths of Manicheans and transgresses the law, like those of the pagans who cut off members. Cutting off members from of old was the work of the devil and a cunning stratagem of Satan, so that through this he might distort God’s creation, so that he might harm mankind, created by God, and so that many, ascribing everything not to freedom but to the members themselves, would fearlessly sin, considering themselves as it were innocent... The devil devised all this, and wishing to incline people to accept this delusion, introduced yet another false teaching about fate and necessity, and in this way strove in every way to destroy the freedom given to us by God, assuring us that evil is a consequence of physical nature, and through this spreading many false doctrines, though secretly. Such are the arrows of the devil!” The Savior’s words “let the one who is able to receive this receive it” cannot be regarded as a requirement that all followers of Christ accept lifelong vows of celibacy, which the majority of people cannot fulfill. Christ had in mind here only special human characters, special natures, which are able by the power of their spirit to rise above family life in order to give themselves more fully to service to Christ’s kingdom.

Matthew 19:13. Then little children were brought to him so that he might lay his hands on them and pray; and the disciples rebuked them. (See Mark 10:13; Luke 18:15). The reason that the disciples prevented children from being brought to Jesus Christ was, by the usual explanation, that they feared they might hinder his teaching and distract him to what they considered 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 little children come to me and do not forbid them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven. (See Mark 10:14; Luke 18:16). The word “was indignant,” found in Mark, is omitted by Matthew and Luke. Instead of “let come” one could translate “leave” or “allow.” The further words “to come to me” depend not on this verb, but on “do not forbid them” (in the Greek text). Undoubtedly, this simple Gospel account had enormous significance and influence on the establishment of correct relationships between adults and children and serves as the foundation of all modern pedagogy. Christ’s teaching was completely contrary to the harsh opinions of Old Testament peoples (for example, Sir 30:1-13).

Matthew 19:15. And he laid his hands on them and went on his way. (See Mark 10:16.) Mark adds: “and embraced them.” This account can be considered an addendum and clarification of all the preceding teaching given in this chapter. First, it sets forth the deepest teaching on marriage and occasional exceptions from the universal natural and moral law implanted in human nature. Then the Savior as it were returns to his original thought about the holiness of the marriage bond and lays his hands on children as the fruit of marriage relations and marital fidelity. After this he sets out on his further journey, which is especially clear from the opening words of Mark 10:17.

Matthew 19:16. And behold, someone came to him and said: Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life? (See Mark 10:17; Luke 18:18). There is an enormous number of variant readings in this and the following verse in Matthew. What is considered correct in Matthew is the reading: “Teacher! What good deed will I do” etc. Matthew calls the one who came “a young man” (νεανίσκος) not here, but in verses 20 and 22. This word undoubtedly indicates youth. In Mark the one who came is not called a young man or any other designation; from the words of Mark 10:20 and Luke 18:21 one cannot conclude that he was young. In Luke he is called ἄρχων – a ruler, but of what – is unknown. This word occurs many times in the New Testament. Some considered the one who came to Christ to be one of the rulers of the Jerusalem Sanhedrin and even identified him with Lazarus, whom Christ raised. The most probable opinion is that the young man was simply one of the leaders of the local synagogue (The word “archon” often denotes simply a member of the municipality from among the wealthiest residents of the city. – Editor’s note). The young man’s words, which fit perfectly the person of Christ, his teaching and activity (“Teacher,” “good deed,” “eternal life,” and in Mark and Luke the addition of the Teacher being “good”), show that the young man, if he did not know Christ personally before, was at least well-informed about him to turn to him with such an extraordinary request. “This,” says Zahn, “was not a question from a man irritated by his sinfulness and moral weakness in his striving to achieve holiness, but a question from such a man whom the requirements of other teachers regarding piety and moral conduct did not satisfy. On the contrary, Jesus made an impression on him, and he became trusting toward him, thinking that he would raise his disciples above the unsatisfactory mass of previously existing Jewish piety (see Matt 5:20).”

Matthew 19:17. And He said to him: Why do you call Me good? No one is good but God alone. But if you wish to enter into eternal life, keep the commandments. (See Mark 10:18; Luke 18:19). According to Mark and Luke, the Savior, as if objecting to the young man about his calling him good, actually claims for himself this attribute of God – goodness; and the meaning of his question, therefore, is: you call me good, but no one is good except God alone; therefore, in calling me good, you are appealing to me not simply as to an ordinary teacher, but to a good teacher, and therefore one having equal dignity with God. In other words, in Christ’s answer to the young man we encounter a hidden and extremely subtle, almost imperceptible to those around Christ, teaching about his divine sonship and his equality with God the Father. According to Matthew (in the Greek text) it is different: “why do you ask me about good?”

Matthew 19:18. He said to him: Which ones? Jesus said: You shall not murder; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness; Matthew 19:19. honor your father and mother; and you shall love your neighbor as yourself. (See Mark 10:19; Luke 18:20). The question “which ones?” is not in the other synoptics except Matthew. The order of the commandments is the same in Mark and Luke, but different in Matthew. Mark adds: “do not defraud.” At first glance it seems somewhat strange that the young man, who asserted that he “kept all these from his youth” (verse 20), when invited by Christ to keep the commandments, asks: “which ones?” As if he did not know whether commandments had been 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 speak to him about precisely what was so well known to him, was so well kept by him, and yet did not satisfy him. Here we encounter a very interesting qui pro quo. The young man thinks of one thing, Christ speaks to him of another. The young man was expecting to receive from the new great and good teacher information about some new commandments, similar to those given, for example, in the Sermon on the Mount; but Christ speaks to him of what he should fulfill that which he has already fulfilled. To the question of why Jesus Christ selects (according to Matthew) only six commandments of the Old Testament law, entirely omitting commandments 1–4 of the Decalogue, it is rather difficult to answer. With explanations that such a selection was adapted to the moral state of the young man himself, who, thinking that he was keeping the commandments, was actually violating those enumerated by Christ, it is difficult to agree, simply because we know almost nothing about this. By the tone of the narrative and context it is entirely unthinkable to suppose that the young man was infected with such sins as murder, adultery, theft, false witness, disrespect for father and mother, and enmity toward neighbors. Could such a person be an archon (ruler)? Everything indicates that he was not such. Neither can we assume that Christ’s indication of these and not other commandments was simply a matter of chance, that is, simply a random selection of words. Thus, it remains only one – to assume that, on the contrary, the young man was especially strong, especially zealously concerned with the keeping of precisely those commandments that Christ was indicating to him, and his answer, if we may so express ourselves, was directly calculated so as to say nothing new compared with what was already well known from the Old Testament law. This interpretation, in any case, is well supported by the young man’s further statement (verse 20) that he “kept” all these. What else is he lacking? The commandments themselves enumerated by Christ are a condensed presentation of the Decalogue and other passages of Old Testament law (Exod 20:12-16; Lev 19:18; Deut 5:16-20).

Matthew 19:20. The young man said to him: I have kept all these from my youth; what do I still lack? Matthew 19:21. Jesus said to him: If you wish to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give the proceeds to the poor; and you will have treasure in heaven; then come and follow me. (See Mark 10:21; Luke 18:22). When enumerating the commandments that must be kept to enter into eternal life (verses 18–19), Christ did not call wealth evil and did not say that for eternal life it is absolutely necessary to renounce wealth and all possessions in general. The immediate meaning of his answer even is that it is sufficient to keep the Old Testament commandments he indicated to enter into eternal life. But this keeping presupposes many gradations, and one cannot say that a person, by observing one or another, becomes truly perfect. One who does not kill his neighbor with weapons certainly does well, acts in accordance with God’s command. But one who does not kill him even with a word does better. One who refrains from causing him injury and any harm – even better. There are people who not only do not kill people either with weapons or with words and cause no harm, but who also do not say anything bad about their neighbors. This is a still higher degree in observing the same commandment. The same applies to the other commandments. The words of Christ in verse 21 seem to relate most closely to the commandment set forth at the end of verse 19: “you shall love your neighbor as yourself.” What does this mean? While observing both the other commandments and this one, many gradations are possible. One can love one’s neighbor as oneself and limit it only to useless and inactive love. One can love by deed, but not by word. One can finally love one’s neighbors so as to lay down one’s life for them. Christ in verse 21 points to one of the highest gradations of perfect love. It consists in the fact that a person gives away all his possessions, wishing to relieve the sufferings of neighbors out of love for them. This is what was proposed to the young man, who desired to be perfect and said that he “kept all these” – including love for his neighbor – “from his youth.”

Matthew 19:22. When the young man heard this statement, he went away grieving, because he had great wealth. Matthew 19:23. Then Jesus said to his disciples: I tell you truly, it is difficult for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven. (See Mark 10:22-23; Luke 18:22-23). Chrysostom says that “Christ by these words does not condemn wealth, but those who have become attached to it. But if it is difficult for the rich to enter the kingdom of heaven, what should one say of the lover of money?” Experience, however, shows that many wealthy persons are truer Christians than poor people. The matter, consequently, is not in wealth itself, but in the attitude of wealthy people toward 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 person to enter the kingdom of God. (See Mark 10:24-25; Luke 18:25). According to Mark, the Savior first repeated what he said about the difficulty for the rich to enter the kingdom of heaven, seeing that the disciples “were amazed at his words,” and only after this added the teaching common to all the synoptics. Here, apparently, Christ simply clarifies his previous saying by means of an example. In all the synoptics one finds κάμηλος – camel. But in some manuscripts there is κάμιλος, which is explained as παχὺ σχοινίον – a thick ship’s rope. The variations in the transmission of the further expression “through the eye of a needle” (in Matthew – διὰ τρυπήματος ῥαφίδος; in Mark – διὰ τρυμαλίας τῆς ῥαφίδος; in Luke – διὰ τρήματος βελόνης; all these expressions have the same meaning), in any case, show that the difficulty of the Savior’s speech was felt even in antiquity. There was no small amount of dispute over the meaning of these expressions. Lightfoot and others showed that this was a proverb found in the Talmud to denote a difficulty. Only in the Talmud it is not of a camel but of an elephant. Thus, in one place concerning dreams it is said that during them we cannot see what we have not seen before, for example, a golden palm or an elephant passing through the eye of a needle. To a man who did something that seemed absurd or even incredible, it was said: “you must surely belong to the Pumbedita members (a Jewish school in Babylon), who can make an elephant pass through the eye of a needle.” In the Quran there are similar expressions, but with the replacement of the elephant with a camel. And even in India there are proverbs about “an elephant passing through a little door” or “through the eye of a needle.” Many modern commentators understand the Savior’s saying in this sense. The opinion that by “the eye of a needle” one should understand narrow and low gates through which camels cannot pass is currently considered erroneous in general. Even less probable is the opinion, which appeared in antiquity, that by the camel one should understand a rope. The change of κάμηλος to κάμιλος is arbitrary. Κάμιλος – a word so rare that in the Greek language it can be considered almost nonexistent; it does not occur in good Greek dictionaries, though it should be said that the metaphor of a rope that is difficult to thread through the eye of a needle could be somewhat more natural than that of a camel that cannot pass through the eye of a needle. But whatever interpretation we adopt, the main difficulty lies not in this, but in the purpose for which such a strange metaphor is used. Did Christ want to point here to the complete impossibility for the rich to enter the kingdom of heaven? Did he want to say that, as a camel cannot pass through the eye of a needle, so a rich person cannot enter the kingdom of God? But Abraham was “very rich in livestock, in silver, and in gold” (Gen 13:2), and yet this did not prevent him, according to the words of the Savior himself, from being in the kingdom of God (Luke 13:28; see Luke 16:22-23; John 8:56 and others). Further, it is difficult to suppose that the Savior’s speech referred only to this rich man who had just left him; ὁ πλούσιος would then be placed with the article, which is absent in all three synoptics. If, finally, we take the Savior’s words in their literal meaning, then we shall have to recognize that they should serve (and seem to serve) as a bulwark for all kinds of socialist teachings and of the proletariat. One who possesses any property and has not enrolled in the ranks of the proletariat cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. We find no answer to these questions in the commentaries; they should be considered unresolved to the present time, and the words of Christ – insufficiently clear. Perhaps the general New Testament view of wealth is expressed here, which serves as an obstacle to serving God (see Matt 6:24; Luke 16:13). But it seems that the most probable explanation lies in the following. The New Testament places foremost the service to God and Christ; as a result of this, the use of external goods may follow (Matt 6:33). But to the rich man who places foremost the service to mammon and only last – the following of Christ and service to him, or even does not do the latter at all, it is truly difficult to become an heir of the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 19:25. When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astounded and said: Then who can be saved? Matthew 19:26. But Jesus looked at them and said: For mortals it is impossible, but for God all things are possible. (See Mark 10:27; Luke 18:27). The meaning of Christ’s answer: for God this too is possible, that is, even a rich man devoted to the service of mammon can turn and adopt the correct view of his wealth, can adopt the new Gospel principle, that is, God’s grace can work upon him and contribute to his conversion.

Matthew 19:27. Then Peter, answering, said to him: Look, we have left everything and followed you; what will be given to us? (See Mark 10:28; Luke 18:28). Here is an obvious reference to verse 21. If to follow Christ it was necessary to leave everything, then Peter and the other disciples did exactly this. The order of their actions was precisely the order indicated by Christ himself in verse 21. First abandonment of everything, then following Christ. The apostles, it is true, were not like the rich young man; they did not have great wealth. But if we accept that there are different degrees of wealth, that one can be rich with one hundred rubles in reserve while another can be 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: I tell you the truth: in the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man is seated on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (See (Luke 22:28-30), where the speech is different in character and in a different context). The word “renewal” shows that new existence of people will certainly occur in one form or another. Earthly existence is one form of being; that beyond the grave is another. This latter is “renewal” (παλιγγενεσία). This word (palegenesia) is used only twice in the New Testament – here in Matthew and in the Epistle to Titus (Titus 3:5). The expressions “sit,” “you shall sit,” are certainly figurative, and cannot be understood literally. The word “judge” is also figurative, meaning, according to Semitic usage, “dominion,” “authority” (see Rev 20:4). Regarding whether Judas, to whom these words were also spoken, will be numbered among the judges, there are many notes among ancient and modern exegetes. “Well then,” asks John Chrysostom, “will Judas also sit on a throne? No.” “I promise reward only to the worthy. Speaking with his disciples, he did not give the promise unconditionally; he did not simply say: ‘you,’ but added moreover: ‘you who have followed me,’ so as to reject even Judas and attract those who later turned to him. His words referred not 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 evidently figurative and cannot be understood literally.

Matthew 19:29. And everyone who has left houses, 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 will inherit eternal life. (See Mark 10:29-30; Luke 18:29-30). Love for Christ is placed above love for earthly possessions and family bonds. This verse, however, apparently should not be understood in a strictly literal sense, because it would be contrary not only to Christ’s teaching but also to his own actions (see John 19:26 and others). Love for Christ gives special meaning to both earthly possessions and family bonds.

Matthew 19:30. But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first. (See Mark 10:31; Luke 13:30 – in a different context). The meaning of this verse is explained by the parable that follows about the workers in the vineyard.