Church Fathers Commentary Matthew 19

St. John Chrysostom: The Lord had previously left Judea because of their jealousy, but now He kept more to it, because His passion was near. Yet He did not go up to Judea itself, but to the borders of Judea, from where it is said, “And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these sayings, he departed from Galilee.”¹

Rabanus Maurus: Here, then, He begins to relate what He did, taught, or suffered in Judea. First, beyond the Jordan to the east, and afterward on this side of the Jordan when He came to Jericho, Bethphage, and Jerusalem, from which it follows, “And came into the coasts of Judaea beyond Jordan.”

Pseudo-Chrysostom: As the righteous Lord of all, He loves these servants in such a way that He does not despise those.

Rabanus Maurus: It should be known that the whole territory of the Israelites was called Judea to distinguish it from other nations. But its southern portion, inhabited by the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, was called Judea proper to distinguish it from other districts in the same province, such as Samaria, Galilee, Decapolis, and the rest.

It follows, “And great multitudes followed him.”

Pseudo-Chrysostom: They were escorting Him, like young children of a father going on a long journey. And He, setting out like a father, left them pledges of His love—the healing of their diseases—as it is said, “And he healed them.”

St. John Chrysostom: It should also be observed that the Lord is not always delivering doctrine or always working miracles, but at one time does this, and at another time turns to that. This was so that by His miracles, faith might be given to what He said, and by His teaching, the benefit of the things He did might be shown.

Origen of Alexandria: The Lord healed the multitudes beyond the Jordan, where baptism was given. For all are truly healed from spiritual sickness in baptism, and many follow Christ as these multitudes did, but not rising up as Matthew did, who arose and followed the Lord.

St. Hilary of Poitiers: He also cures the Galileans on the borders of Judea, so that He might admit the Gentiles to the pardon for sin that was prepared for the Jews.

St. John Chrysostom: For indeed, Christ healed people in such a way as to do good both to them and, through them, to many others. For the healing of these people was an occasion for others to know God—but not for the Pharisees, who were only hardened by the miracles.

From this it follows: “And the Pharisees came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?”

St. Jerome: They did this so they might catch Him, as it were, on the horns of a dilemma, so that whatever answer He gave would be open to criticism. If He allowed a wife to be put away for any reason and another to be married, He would seem to contradict Himself as a preacher of chastity. If He answered that she may not be put away for any reason whatsoever, He would be judged to have spoken impiously and to have contradicted the teaching of Moses and of God.

St. John Chrysostom: Observe their wickedness even in the way they pose their question. The Lord had previously discussed this law, but they now ask Him as though He had said nothing about it, supposing He had forgotten what He had previously taught on this matter.

Pseudo-Chrysostom: But just as you know someone is sick when you see them constantly seeking out physicians, so also when you see a man or woman inquiring about divorce, you know that the man is lustful and the woman is unchaste. For chastity finds pleasure in marriage, but sinful desire is tormented by it as if under slavish bondage. And knowing they had no sufficient reason to give for putting away their wives, except for their own immorality, they invented many different causes.

They were afraid to ask Him for what cause a man could divorce, lest they be restricted to fixed and certain causes. Therefore, they asked if it were lawful for every cause. They did this because they knew that sinful appetite knows no limits and cannot contain itself within the bounds of one marriage; rather, the more it is indulged, the more it is inflamed.

Origen of Alexandria: Seeing the Lord tempted in this way, let none of His disciples who are appointed to teach think it strange if they are also tempted by some. However, He replies to His tempters with the doctrines of piety.

St. Jerome: But He frames His answer in such a way as to evade their snare. He brings in the testimony of Holy Scripture and the law of nature, opposing God's first declaration to this second one: “He answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female?”

This is written in the beginning of Genesis. It teaches that second marriages are to be avoided, for He did not say “male and females”—which is what is sought by putting away the first wife—but “male and female,” implying only one bond of marriage.

Rabanus Maurus: For by the wholesome design of God, it was ordained that a man should have in the woman a part of his own body and should not look upon her as separate from himself, knowing she was formed from him.

Pseudo-Chrysostom: If, then, God created the male and female from one flesh so that they should be one, why from that point on were they not born as man and wife in a single birth, as is the case with certain insects? It is because God created male and female for the continuation of the species, yet He is always a lover of chastity and a promoter of continence. Therefore, He did not follow this pattern in all creatures, so that if a man chooses to marry, he may know the nature of the husband-and-wife relationship according to the original order of creation. But if he chooses not to marry, he is not forced to do so by the circumstances of his birth. This prevents his continence from becoming the ruin of another who was unwilling to be continent. For this same reason, God forbids that one spouse should separate from the other if the other is unwilling.

St. John Chrysostom: But not by the law of creation alone, but also by the practice of the law, He shows that they ought to be joined one to one and never separated: “And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife.”

St. Jerome: In the same way, He says “his wife,” not “wives,” and adds expressly, “and they twain shall be one flesh.” For it is the reward of marriage that one flesh—namely, in their offspring—is made from two.

Glossa Ordinaria: Or, “one flesh,” that is, in carnal union.²

Pseudo-Chrysostom: If, then, a man shall leave his father and mother because his wife is made from him and they are both from one flesh, then there should be even greater affection between brothers and sisters, for they come from the same parents, while a husband and wife come from different ones. But this argument goes too far, because the ordinance of God is more powerful than the law of nature. For God's precepts are not subject to the law of nature, but nature bends to the precepts of God. Also, brothers are born of one set of parents so that they might seek out different paths, but the husband and wife are born of different parents so that they might merge into one.

The order of nature also follows the appointment of God. For affection in humans is like sap in trees. The sap ascends from the roots into the leaves and passes out into the seed. Therefore, parents love their children but are not loved by them in the same way, for a man's desire is not toward his parents but toward the sons he has fathered. This is what is meant by the saying, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife.”

St. John Chrysostom: See the wisdom of the Teacher. When asked, “Is it lawful?” He did not immediately say, “It is not lawful,” lest they be troubled, but instead established His point through a proof. For God made them male and female from the beginning, and not only joined them together but also commanded them to leave father and mother. He did not command the husband merely to approach his wife, but to be joined to her, showing by this manner of speaking the inseparable bond. He even added a still closer union, saying, “And they twain shall be one flesh.”

St. Augustine of Hippo: Since Scripture testifies that these words were spoken by the first man, yet the Lord here declares that God spoke them, we should understand that because of the ecstasy that had come upon Adam, he was enabled to speak this as a prophecy.³

Remigius of Auxerre: The Apostle saysⁱ that this is a mystery in Christ and the Church; for the Lord Jesus Christ left His Father when He came down from heaven to earth; and He left His mother, that is, the synagogue, because of its unbelief; and cleaved to His wife, that is, the Holy Church, and they two are one flesh, that is, Christ and the Church are one body.

St. John Chrysostom: When He had brought forward the words and facts of the old law, He then interpreted it with authority and laid down a law, saying, “Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh.” For just as those who love one another spiritually are said to be one soul—“And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul” (Acts 4:32)—so a husband and wife who love each other according to the flesh are said to be one flesh. And just as it is a wretched thing to cut the flesh, so it is an unjust thing to put away a wife.

St. Augustine of Hippo: For they are called one, either from their union, or from the derivation of the woman, who was taken out of the side of the man.⁴

St. John Chrysostom: He brings in God yet again, saying, “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder,” showing that it is against both nature and God's law to put away a wife. It is against nature because one flesh is divided, and it is against God's law because God has joined them and forbidden them to be separated.

St. Jerome: God has joined them by making man and woman one flesh; this, then, man may not separate, but only God. Man separates them when the first wife is put away out of desire for a second. God, who also joined them, separates them when, by mutual consent for the service of God, we have our wives as though we had them not.ⁱ

St. Augustine of Hippo: Behold, now it is proved to the Jews from the books of Moses that a wife may not be put away. For they thought they were acting according to the purpose of Moses' law when they put them away. From this, we also learn by the testimony of Christ Himself that it was God who made it this way and joined them male and female. When the Manichaeans deny this, they are condemned for resisting the Gospel of Christ.⁵

Pseudo-Chrysostom: This declaration on chastity seemed harsh to these adulterers, but they could not answer the argument. However, they would not submit to the truth but took shelter in Moses, just as people with a bad case flee to a powerful person, so that where justice is lacking, his influence may prevail. “They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?”

St. Jerome: Here they reveal the clever objection they had prepared, although the Lord had not given His own judgment but had recalled to their minds ancient history and the commands of God.

St. John Chrysostom: If the Lord had been opposed to the Old Testament, He would not have contended on Moses' behalf in this way, nor would He have tried to show that Moses' teaching was in agreement with the ancient scriptures. But the unspeakable wisdom of Christ answered and made an excuse for Moses in this way: “He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives.” By this, He clears Moses from their charge and turns it all back on them.

St. Augustine of Hippo: For how great was that hardness? Not even the requirement of a bill of divorce—which gave time for just and prudent men to try to dissuade them—could move them to renew their marital affection. And with what cleverness do the Manichaeans blame Moses for severing marriages with a bill of divorce, while commending Christ for, on the contrary, confirming their strength? In fact, according to their impious teaching, they should have praised Moses for separating what the devil had joined and found fault with Christ, who strengthened the devil's bonds.

St. John Chrysostom: Finally, because what He had said was severe, He returned to the original law, saying, “But from the beginning it was not so.”

St. Jerome: What He says is to this effect: Is it possible that God would so contradict Himself as to command one thing at first, and later defeat His own ordinance with a new statute? Do not think so. Rather, since Moses saw that the first wives were being put to death or treated badly out of a desire for second wives who were richer, younger, or more beautiful, he chose to permit separation rather than allow the continuation of hatred and murder. Observe, moreover, that He did not say God permitted you, but Moses did, showing that it was, as the Apostle speaks, a counsel of man, not a command of God.ⁱ

Pseudo-Chrysostom: Therefore, He rightly said that Moses permitted, not commanded. For what we command, we always desire. But when we permit something, we yield against our will because we do not have the power to fully restrain the evil wills of men. He therefore permitted you to do evil so that you might not do worse. Thus, in permitting this, he was not enforcing the righteousness of God but was removing the appearance of sin from a sin, so that while you did it according to his provision, your sin would not seem to be sin.

St. John Chrysostom: Having stopped their mouths, He now set forth the Law with authority, saying, But I say unto you that whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and marrieth another, committeth adultery.

Origen of Alexandria: Perhaps someone will say that Jesus, in speaking this way, allowed wives to be put away for the same reason that Moses allowed it, which He says was because of the hardness of their hearts. The answer to this is that if an adulteress is stoned according to the Law, then that sin is not to be understood as the “shameful thing” for which Moses allows a certificate of divorce (Deuteronomy 24:1). For in a case of adultery, it was not lawful to give a certificate of divorce. But perhaps Moses calls any sin in a woman a “shameful thing,” and if it is found in her, a bill of divorce is written against her.

But we should inquire: if it is lawful to put away a wife only for the cause of fornication, what about a case where a woman is not an adulteress but has committed some other heinous crime, such as being a poisoner or murdering her children? The Lord explained this matter in another place, saying, Whoso putteth her away, except for the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery (Matthew 5:32), giving her an opportunity for a second marriage.

St. Jerome: It is fornication alone that destroys the marital relationship. For when she has divided one flesh into two and has separated herself from her husband by fornication, she is not to be retained, lest she also bring her husband under the curse spoken of in Scripture: He that keepeth an adulteress is a fool and wicked (Proverbs 18:23).

Pseudo-Chrysostom: For just as the man who puts away a chaste wife is cruel and unjust, so the man who keeps an unchaste one is a fool and unjust. For by hiding his wife’s guilt, he becomes an encourager of wickedness.

St. Augustine of Hippo: A reunion in marriage, even after the actual commission of adultery, is neither shameful nor difficult where there is an undeniable remission of sin through the keys of the kingdom of heaven. This does not mean that an adulteress should be called back to her husband after being divorced, but that after her union with Christ, she should no longer be called an adulteress.¹

Pseudo-Chrysostom: For everything is destroyed by the same causes that created it. It is not the physical bond but the will that creates the union; therefore, it is not the separation of bodies but the separation of wills that dissolves it. The man who puts away his wife and does not take another is still her husband, for though their bodies are not united, their wills are. But when he takes another wife, he then clearly puts his first wife away. This is why the Lord does not say, “Whoever puts away his wife,” but rather, Whoso marrieth another, committeth adultery.

Rabanus Maurus: There is, then, only one carnal reason for a wife to be put away—that is, fornication—and only one spiritual reason—that is, the fear of God. But there is no reason why another should be married while the one who was put away is still alive.

St. Jerome: For it could be that a man might falsely charge an innocent wife and, for the sake of another woman, fabricate an accusation against her. Therefore, it is commanded that the first wife be put away in such a manner that a second is not married while the first is still alive.

Furthermore, because it might happen that a wife would divorce her husband under the same law, it is also provided that she not take another husband. And because a woman who had become an adulteress would have no further fear of disgrace, it is commanded that she not marry another husband. But if she does marry another, she is guilty of adultery. This is why it follows, And whoso marrieth her that is put away, committeth adultery.

Glossa Ordinaria: He says this to frighten the man who would take her as his wife, for the adulteress would have no fear of disgrace.²

St. Jerome: A wife is a grievous burden if one is not permitted to divorce her except for the cause of fornication. For what if she is a drunkard, has an evil temper, or evil habits—must she be kept? The Apostles, perceiving this burden, expressed what they felt: If this is the case for a man with his wife, it is not good to marry.

St. John Chrysostom: For it is an easier thing to contend with oneself and one's own lust than with an evil woman.

Pseudo-Chrysostom: And the Lord did not say it is good, but rather agreed that it is not good. However, He considered the weakness of the flesh, saying, Not all can receive this saying; that is, not all are able to do this.

St. Jerome: But let no one think, when He adds, save they to whom it is given, that either fate or fortune is implied, as though they were virgins only because chance led them to such a state. For it is given to those who have sought it from God, who have longed for it, and who have striven to obtain it.

Pseudo-Chrysostom: But not all can obtain it, because not all desire to obtain it. The prize is before them; whoever desires the honor will not consider the toil. No one would ever be victorious if everyone shunned the struggle. Therefore, because some have fallen from their commitment to continence, we ought not to lose heart in that virtue, for those who fall in battle do not kill the rest.

Therefore, when He says, save they to whom it is given, it shows that unless we receive the aid of grace, we have no strength. But this aid of grace is not denied to those who seek it, for the Lord says above, Ask, and you shall receive.

St. John Chrysostom: Then, to show that this is possible, He says, For there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men. This is as if to say: Consider that if you had been made that way by others, you would have lost the pleasure without gaining the reward.

Pseudo-Chrysostom: For just as a deed without the will does not constitute a sin, so a righteous act is not in the deed unless the will accompanies it. Therefore, honorable continence is not that which bodily mutilation necessarily enforces, but that which the will, with holy purpose, embraces.

St. Jerome: He speaks of three kinds of eunuchs: two are carnal, and one is spiritual. First are those born that way from their mother's womb. Second are those whom enemies or the luxury of a court has made so. Third are those who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven—who could have been men but became eunuchs for Christ. To them the reward is promised, for to the others, whose continence was involuntary, nothing is due.

St. Hilary of Poitiers: He assigns the cause in the first case to nature, in the second to violence, and in the last to personal choice—namely, in the one who determined to be so from hope of the kingdom of heaven.

Pseudo-Chrysostom: For they are born this way, just as others are born having six or four fingers. If God had unchangeably continued the same order by which He formed our bodies in the beginning, His work would have been forgotten among humanity. Therefore, the order of nature is at times changed from its usual course so that God, the framer of nature, may be remembered.

St. Jerome: Or we may say it differently. The eunuchs from their mothers' wombs are those whose nature is colder and not prone to lust. And those who are made so by men are those whom physicians have made so, or those whom the worship of idols has made effeminate, or those who, from the influence of heretical teaching, pretend to be chaste so that they may thereby claim truth for their doctrines.¹

But none of them obtain the kingdom of heaven except for the one who has become a eunuch for Christ's sake. From this it follows, He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. Let each one calculate his own strength, whether he is able to fulfill the precepts of virginity and abstinence. For continence in itself is sweet and alluring, but each person must consider his own strength, so that only the one who is able may receive it.

This is the voice of the Lord exhorting and encouraging His soldiers toward the reward of chastity, so that whoever can fight, may fight, conquer, and triumph.

St. John Chrysostom: When He says, Who have made themselves eunuchs, He does not mean the cutting off of limbs, but the putting away of evil thoughts. For he who cuts off a limb is under a curse, as such a person undertakes the deeds of murderers. He also opens a door to the Manichaeans, who devalue creation and cut off the same limbs as the Gentiles do.

To cut off limbs is from the temptation of demons. Furthermore, by this physical act, desire is not diminished but is actually made more urgent, for it has its source elsewhere—chiefly in a weak will and an unguarded heart. For if the heart is well-governed, there is no danger from natural impulses. Nor does the amputation of a limb bring such peace and immunity from temptation as does a bridle on the thoughts.

Pseudo-Chrysostom: The Lord had been speaking about chastity, and some of His hearers now brought infants to Him, who are the purest regarding chastity. They supposed that He had approved only those who were pure in body, and this is what is meant by the words, "Then were brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray."

Origen of Alexandria: For they now understood from His previous mighty works that evils were averted by the laying on of His hands and by prayer. Therefore, they bring children to Him, judging it impossible that any harm or demon could come near them after the Lord had conveyed divine virtue into them by His touch.

Remigius of Auxerre: For it was a custom among the ancients that little children should be brought to aged persons to receive a blessing by their hand or tongue; and according to this custom, little children are now brought to the Lord.

Pseudo-Chrysostom: The flesh, since it does not delight in what is good, readily forgets any good it hears, but it always retains the evil it has. Only a little while before, Christ had taken a little child and said, Except ye become as this child, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 18:3). Yet His disciples, immediately forgetting this innocence of children, now forbid them, as if they were unworthy to come to Christ.

St. Jerome: This was not because they disliked them receiving a blessing from the Savior's hand and mouth, but because their faith was not yet perfect, they thought that He, like other men, would be wearied by the requests of those who brought them.

St. John Chrysostom: Or, the disciples would have pushed them away out of respect for Christ's dignityⁱ. But the Lord, teaching them to have holy thoughts and to subdue the pride of this world, took the children into His arms and promised the kingdom of heaven to such as these. "But Jesus said to them, Suffer little children and forbid them not to come unto me, for of such is the kingdom of heaven."

Pseudo-Chrysostom: For who would be worthy to come to Christ, if simple infancy were pushed away? Therefore, He said, "Forbid them not." For if they turn out to be saints, why do you hinder the sons from coming to their Father? And if they turn out to be sinners, why do you pronounce a sentence of condemnation before you see any fault in them?

St. Jerome: And He said distinctly, Of such is the kingdom of heaven, not "of these," to show that it was not age but disposition that He judged, and that the reward was promised to those who had similar innocence and simplicity.

Pseudo-Chrysostom: The present passage instructs all parents to bring their children to the priests, for it is not the priest who lays his hands on them, but Christ, in whose name hands are laid. For if the one who offers his food to God in prayer eats it sanctified—as it is sanctified by the word of God and by prayer, as the Apostle says (1 Timothy 4:5)—how much more should children be offered to God and sanctified?

This is also the reason for the blessing of food: Because the whole world lieth in wickedness (1 John 5:19). This means that all things that have a body, which are a great part of the world, lie in wickedness. Consequently, infants, when they are born, are lying in wickedness with respect to their flesh.

Origen of Alexandria: Mystically, we call those who are still carnal in Christ and in need of milk "children." Those who bring the infants to the Savior represent teachers who profess knowledge of the word but are still simple, feeding on basic lessons, as they are yet novices. In contrast, those who seem more perfect, and are therefore disciples of Jesus, rebuke these teachers. Before they have learned the way of righteousness that is suited for children, they rebuke those who use simple doctrine to bring "children"—that is, the less learned—to Christ.

But the Lord, exhorting His disciples (who have now become mature) to condescend to the needs of infants—to be infants to infants, that they may gain infants—says, For of such is the kingdom of heaven. For He Himself, when He was in the form of God, was made an infant. We should pay attention to these things, lest, in esteeming our own more excellent wisdom and spiritual advancement, we become proud and despise the little ones of the Church, forbidding children to be brought to Jesus.

But since children cannot follow all the things that are commanded, Jesus laid His hands on them. Leaving virtue in them by His touch, He went away from them, seeing they were not able to follow Him like the other, more perfect disciples.

Remigius of Auxerre: Also, by laying His hands on them, He blessed them, to signify that the lowly in spirit are worthy of His grace and blessing.

Glossa Ordinaria: He laid His hands on them while people held them, to signify that the grace of His help was necessary. ¹

St. Hilary of Poitiers: The infants are a type of the Gentiles, to whom salvation is given through faith and hearing. But the disciples, in their initial zeal for the salvation of Israel, forbid them to approach. The Lord, however, declares that they are not to be forbidden. For the gift of the Holy Spirit was to be conferred on the Gentiles by the laying on of hands, as soon as the Law had ceased.

Rabanus Maurus: This man had, perhaps, heard from the Lord that only those who were like little children were worthy to enter the kingdom of heaven. But wanting to know more certainly, he asks to have it explained to him not in parables, but plainly, by what merits he could attain eternal life. ¹

Therefore it is said, And behold, one came and said to him, "Good Master, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?"

St. Jerome: The one who asks this question is young, rich, and proud, and he asks not as someone who desires to learn, but as one testing Him. We can prove this by the fact that when the Lord had said to him, If you want to enter into life, keep the commandments, he then insidiously asks which commandments they are, as if he could not read them for himself, or as if the Lord could command anything contrary to them.

St. John Chrysostom: For my part, though I do not deny that he was a lover of money, because Christ convicts him of this, I cannot consider him to have been a hypocrite. It is unsafe to pass judgment in uncertain cases, and especially in making charges against anyone. Moreover, Mark removes all suspicion of this kind, for he says that the man came to Jesus and knelt before Him, and that Jesus, when He looked on him, loved him.ⁱ

If he had come to test Him, the Evangelist would have indicated as much, as he has done in other places. Or if the Evangelist had said nothing of it, Christ would not have allowed the man's motive to be hidden, but would either have convicted him openly or suggested it covertly. ²

But He does not do this, for it follows, He says to him, "Why do you ask me about what is good?"

St. Augustine of Hippo: This may seem to be a discrepancy, since Matthew here has, "Why do you ask me about what is good?" whereas Mark and Luke have, "Why do you call me good?" The first phrase, "Why do you ask me about what is good?" seems to refer to his question, "What good thing shall I do?" because in it he both mentioned "good" and asked a question. But the address, "Good Master," is not yet a question. Either sentence can be understood very appropriately in this passage. ³

St. Jerome: But because the man had called Him "Good Master" and had not confessed Him as God or as the Son of God, Jesus tells him that, in comparison to God, no one is to be called good. It is of God that it is said, Confess to the Lord, for he is good (Psalm 118:1), and therefore He says, There is one who is good, that is, God.

But so that no one should suppose that the Son of God is excluded from being good by this statement, we read in another place, The good shepherd lays down his life for his sheep (John 10:11).

St. Augustine of Hippo: Or, consider this: the man sought eternal life, and eternal life consists in that contemplation in which God is seen not for punishment, but for everlasting joy. Yet he did not know with whom he was speaking and thought Him only a Son of Man. Therefore, Jesus says, "Why do you ask me about what is good?"—as if to say, "Why do you call me 'Good Master' based only on the human form you see?"

This form of the Son of Man will appear at the judgment, not only to the righteous but also to the wicked, and for the wicked, the very sight of it will be their evil and their punishment. But there is a vision of My divine form, in which I am equal to God. That one God—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—is therefore alone good, because no one sees Him to their mourning and sorrow, but only to their salvation and true joy. ⁴

St. Jerome: For our Savior does not reject this testimony to His goodness, but corrects the error of calling Him "Good Master" apart from God.

St. John Chrysostom: What then was the benefit of Him answering this way? He leads the man by degrees, teaching him to set aside false flattery. He teaches him to rise above the things on earth, to cling to God, to seek the things to come, and to know Him who is truly good—the root and source of all good.

Origen of Alexandria: Christ also answers this way because of what the man said: "What good thing shall I do?" For when we depart from evil and do good, what we do is called "good" only in comparison with what other people do. But when compared with absolute good—in the sense that it is said, "There is one who is good"—our good is not truly good.

However, someone might say that the Lord knew the man's purpose in asking was not even to do the kind of good a person can do. Therefore, He said, "Why do you ask me about what is good?" as if to say, "Why do you ask me about good when you are not prepared to do what is good?" But after this, He says, "If you want to enter into life, keep the commandments." Note here that He speaks to him as one still standing outside of life, for a person is, in one sense, without life who is without Him who said, "I am the life."

In another sense, every person on earth may be not in life itself but only in its shadow while clothed in a body of death. But anyone will enter into life if he keeps himself from dead works and seeks living works. There are dead words and living words, and also dead thoughts and living thoughts. Therefore, He says, "If you want to enter into life, keep the commandments."

St. Augustine of Hippo: He did not say, "If you desire eternal life," but, "If you want to enter into life," calling that which will be everlasting simply "life." We should consider, then, how much eternal life ought to be loved, when this miserable and finite life is loved so much. ⁵

Remigius of Auxerre: These words prove that the Law gave to those who kept it not only temporal promises but also eternal life. And because hearing these things made the man thoughtful, it says, He said to him, "Which ones?"

St. John Chrysostom: He said this not to test Him, but because he supposed that there were other commandments, apart from those of the Law, that would be the means of life for him.

Remigius of Auxerre: And Jesus, condescending to him as to a weak person, most graciously laid out for him the precepts of the Law. Jesus said, You shall not murder, and from all these precepts follows the explanation: and you shall love your neighbor as yourself.

For the Apostle says, Whoever loves his neighbor has fulfilled the Law (Proverbs 13:10).

But it should be asked why the Lord enumerated only the precepts of the Second Table. Perhaps it was because this young man was zealous in the love of God, or because love of our neighbor is the step by which we ascend to the love of God.

Origen of Alexandria: Or perhaps these precepts are enough to introduce someone, if I may say so, to the entrance of life. But neither these, nor any like them, are enough to lead someone to the more inward parts of life. And whoever transgresses one of these commandments will not even come to the entrance of life.

St. John Chrysostom: But because all the commandments that the Lord had recounted were contained in the Law, the young man says to him, All these I have kept from my youth. And he did not even rest there, but asked further, What do I still lack? This question alone is a mark of his intense desire.

Remigius of Auxerre: But to those who would be perfect in grace, He shows how they may come to perfection: Jesus said to him, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor." Mark the words: He did not say, "Go and consume all you have," but "Go and sell." And not just some of it, as Ananias and Sapphira did, but "all."

He rightly added, "what you possess," for what we possess are our lawful possessions. Therefore, what the man justly possessed was to be sold; what had been gained unjustly was to be restored to those from whom it had been taken. And He did not say, "Give to your neighbors," or "to the rich," but "to the poor."

St. Augustine of Hippo: Nor should anyone scruple about which monasteries or which needy brethren to give his possessions to, for there is but one commonwealth of all Christians. Therefore, wherever any Christian has distributed his goods, he will in all places alike receive what is necessary for himself, receiving it from that which belongs to Christ. ⁶

Rabanus Maurus: See the two kinds of life that have been set before us: the Active, to which pertains, You shall not murder, and the rest of the Law; and the Contemplative, to which pertains, If you want to be perfect. The active life pertains to the Law, the contemplative to the Gospel; for as the Old Testament came before the New, so good action comes before contemplation.

St. Augustine of Hippo: Nor are the only partakers in the kingdom of heaven those who, in order to be perfect, sell or part with all that they have. Also numbered in the Christian ranks, by reason of a certain sharing of their charity, are a multitude of "hired troops"—those to whom it will be said in the end, I was hungry, and you gave me food (Matthew 25:35). Far be it from us to consider them excluded from eternal life, as if they do not obey the commands of the Gospel. ⁷

St. Jerome: Vigilantius asserts that those who retain the use of their property and from time to time divide their income among the poor do better than those who sell their possessions and give them away in one act of charity. To him, not I, but God will answer: If you want to be perfect, go and sell. That which you so extol is but the second or third grade of perfection. We certainly admit this grade, but only while remembering that what is first must be set before what is second or third. ⁸

Pseudo-Augustine: It is good to distribute to the poor with discernment. It is better, with the resolve to follow the Lord, to strip oneself of everything at once and, freed from anxiety, to endure poverty with Christ. ⁹

St. John Chrysostom: And because He spoke of riches, warning us to strip ourselves of them, He promises to repay with things that are greater, by as much as heaven is greater than earth. Therefore He says, And you will have treasure in heaven. By the word "treasure," He denotes the abundance and permanence of the reward.

Origen of Alexandria: If every commandment is fulfilled in this one word, You shall love your neighbor as yourself, and if he who has fulfilled every command is perfect, how is it that the Lord said to the young man, If you want to be perfect, when the man had just declared, All these I have kept from my youth? Perhaps the phrase, You shall love your neighbor as yourself, was not said by the Lord but was added by someone, for neither Mark nor Luke include it in this place.

Alternatively, it is written in the Gospel according to the Hebrewsⁱ that when the Lord said, Go, and sell all that you have, the rich man began to scratch his head, being displeased with the saying. Then the Lord said to him, "How can you say, 'I have kept the Law and the Prophets,' since it is written in the Law, You shall love your neighbor as yourself? For how many of your brethren, the sons of Abraham, are clothed in filth and perishing from hunger? Your house is full of many good things, and nothing goes out from it to them."

The Lord, then, desiring to convict this rich man, says to him, If you want to be perfect, go and sell all that you have, and give to the poor, for in this way it will be seen if you do indeed love your neighbor as yourself. But if a person is perfect who has all the virtues, how does he become perfect merely by selling all that he has and giving to the poor? For suppose someone has done this; will he thereby immediately become free from anger and desire, possessing every virtue and abandoning all vice? Perhaps wisdom suggests that he who has given his goods to the poor is aided by their prayers, receiving from their spiritual abundance for his own need, and is made perfect in this way, though he may still have some human passions.

Or perhaps it is this way: he who exchanges his riches for poverty in order to become perfect will receive assistance to become wise in Christ, just, chaste, and devoid of all passion. This does not mean that in the moment he gives up all his goods he immediately becomes perfect, but only that from that day forward the contemplation of God will begin to lead him to all virtues.

Or again, we can turn to a moral interpretation and say that a person's "possessions" are the acts of his mind. Christ then bids a person to sell all his evil possessions and, as it were, give them over to the virtues that should take their place—virtues that were "poor" in all that is good. For just as the peace of the Apostles returns to them againⁱ unless there is a son of peace, so all sins return to their actors when one will no longer indulge his evil propensities. Thus, there can be no doubt that he who sells all his "possessions" in this sense will immediately become perfect.

It is clear that he who does these things has treasure in heaven and has himself become heavenly. He will have in heaven the treasure of God's glory and the riches of all God's wisdom. Such a person will be able to follow Christ, for he has no evil possession to draw him away from doing so.

St. Jerome: For many who leave their riches do not therefore follow the Lord. It is not enough for perfection to despise money unless they also follow the Savior—that is, unless after forsaking evil, they also do what is good. For it is easier to condemn the hoard than to quit the propensity for it.ⁱ

Therefore, it follows, And come and follow me. For he who is His imitator and walks in His steps is the one who follows the Lord. It then follows, And when the young man had heard these words, he went away sorrowful. This is the sorrow that leads to death. And the cause of his sorrow is added: for he had great possessions—thorns and briars, that is, which choked the holy seed.

St. John Chrysostom: For those who have little and those who have much are not burdened in the same way. The acquisition of riches fans a greater flame, and desire is more violently kindled.

St. Augustine of Hippo: I do not know how, but in the love of worldly excess, it is what we have already acquired, rather than what we desire to acquire, that most strictly enslaves us. For why did this young man go away sorrowful, if not because he had great possessions? It is one thing to set aside thoughts of further acquisition and another to strip ourselves of what we have already made our own. The first is only rejecting what is not ours; the other is like parting with one of our own limbs. ¹⁰

Origen of Alexandria: But from a historical perspective, the young man is to be praised because he did not kill and did not commit adultery. He is to be blamed, however, because he sorrowed at Christ's words calling him to perfection. He was indeed young in soul, and therefore, leaving Christ, he went his way.