Thomas Aquinas Commentary Matthew 19

In this passage, it was shown how one comes to eternal life by the common way. Here, He teaches how one comes by the way of perfection. This way of perfection is mentioned in two respects: first, as continence is addressed, and second, as voluntary poverty is addressed. Concerning the first, the Evangelist does two things:

1. He treats of His arrival.
2. He treats of continence, where it is said, His disciples say to him.

Concerning the first point (His arrival), he does three things:

1. The temptation of the Pharisees is related.
2. Christ’s solution is related.
3. An objection against His solution is related.

The second part is where it is said, Who answering, said to them; and the third part is where it is said, Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce? Concerning the first of these three (the temptation of the Pharisees), he again does three things:

1. The place is described.
2. The occasion for tempting is described.
3. The temptation is described.

He says, therefore,

And it came to pass, because what He says comes to pass. For he spoke and they were made (Psalms 32:9). When Jesus had ended these words, namely, His words about avoiding scandal, he departed from Galilee and came into the regions of Judea, beyond the Jordan.

Judea is sometimes taken for the whole land that the Jews inhabit. Sometimes it is taken for the land which fell to the tribe of Judah as an allotment, and so it is contrasted with the other allotments. Here it is taken in this way, for a man had to pass through Judea who wished to go to Jerusalem, which was in the tribe of Benjamin within the borders of Judea.

But why did He depart from Galilee? It was for three reasons:

1. So that He might give an example to preachers, that one should not preach in just one place, but in many places; hence: To other cities also I must preach the kingdom of God (Luke 4:43).
2. Because the time of the Passion was already near, and for that reason, He wanted to approach the place where He was to suffer. He has delivered himself for us, an oblation and a sacrifice to God for an odor of sweetness, etc. (Ephesians 5:2).
3. Because He wanted to return to the Jews, to signify that at the end of time He will be disposed to convert the Jews.

And great multitudes followed him. It is a sign of the multitude’s devotion that they followed him, just as children follow their father on a journey. My sheep hear my voice (John 10:27). And he healed them. He will strike, and he will cure us (Hosea 6:2). Sometimes the Lord was healing, and other times He was performing miracles. He performed miracles to strengthen them. Jesus began to do and to teach (Acts 1:1).

Someone might think that He went over to the Jews because He had abandoned the Gentiles. For that reason, to show that He did not abandon them, the Evangelist says, Multitudes followed him, meaning to salvation: They, being a wild olive, are ingrafted and are made partakers of the olive tree (Romans 11:17). Or, because they followed Him across the Jordan, it signifies that sins are forgiven through Baptism.

And there came to him the Pharisees tempting him. In this, they are reprehensible, because while the multitudes followed Him, the Pharisees were laying snares for Him. I will go to the great men, and will speak to them (Jeremiah 5:5). Hence, they approached Him, saying: Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

In these words, their malicious craftiness is first apparent, because they came to Christ to raise objections against Him. They thought that either He would say that she should or should not be put away. If He said yes, it would seem inappropriate for Him, because He Himself was a preacher of chastity. And if He said no, they would accuse Him, because this was contrary to Moses the Lawgiver. As Chrysostom says, they are rebuked concerning their incontinence, because if someone willingly listens to another speaking about separation from his wife, he is incontinent. Therefore, because these men were speaking about divorce, they were showing themselves to be incontinent. The Lord had given the grounds for which a wife might be put away, namely, for her depravity; but these men were seeking divorce not only on these grounds, but seeking whether they might obtain divorce on any grounds. Hence, they wanted to have free power to put away their wives.

For that reason, His response follows: Who answering, said to them. The Lord gives the best way of responding: when someone inquires in order to learn, the truth should be said immediately. But those who inquire in order to slander should not be told the truth immediately, but should first be told some things which they cannot deny. For that reason, the Lord first questions them about the Law. Hence, He first cites the words of Scripture; second, He says how they apply to the point under discussion; and third, He concludes His main argument.

Concerning the first, He does three things:

1. He shows the union of a man and a woman that God instituted.
2. He shows the affection for each other that He intended.
3. He shows the manner by which He united them.

He intends to prove that the union of a man and a woman was instituted by God. Have you not read, that he who made man from the beginning, made them male and female? For this is read in Genesis 1:27: And God created man to his own image and likeness. This should not be understood, as some have understood, that first He made a man and then a woman and, afterwards, He separated them; but first, He made one man, and, in making him, He made the one from whom the woman would come.

But why did God will this to be done in this way, namely, that a multitude of people would come into existence from one man and one woman? I answer that it was to indicate that the form of matrimony was from God. Likewise, it was so that they might love each other more.

But then Chrysostom asks, why does He not always do this, that is, have a man and woman be born together? He answers that if it were so, it would seem necessary to be married. And because the Lord willed it to be lawful to be married, or not to be married, He first created a man and a woman to signify that marriage was lawful. But after creating man and woman together, He willed that a man would be born without a woman, and a woman without a man, so that they might have full liberty both to be married or not to be married.

According to this, a twofold error is excluded. For some men were saying that matrimony was not from God; and He excludes this, because if He made them man and woman, and it is evident that He does nothing in vain, it follows that He did not do any of those things except for the union of marriage. Others said that if man had not sinned, God would not have made the woman; rather, men would have been multiplied in another way. But this is nonsense, because they were created before the sin. And He says man and woman, so that one man might have one woman.

For this cause shall a man leave father and mother. Here is related what affection He put into them. And he said. Who said? He who made them. But this does not seem true, because it seems that Adam said this. Augustine says that God cast a deep sleep upon Adam and took one of his ribs. This deep sleep was an ecstasy; thus, He revealed many good things on that occasion. Consequently, the Lord also revealed to him what is said here. As it was said above: For it is not you that speak, but the Spirit of your Father that speaks in you (Matthew 10:20). Therefore, because Adam said this by God’s inspiration, it is stated that God said this. Hence, a man leaves his father and mother, who nourished him, and cleaves to his wife.

What is the reason for this? A brother and sister are born of one set of parents, and they separate; but a man and a woman are born of different parents, and, nevertheless, they do not separate? Chrysostom says that this is from a divine ordination. Likewise, every cause seeks to produce its own effect, as the sap flows from the root to the branches. Hence, parents love their children more than children love their parents; for that reason, a husband and wife, even though they are born of different parents, are nevertheless united into one effect.

And they two shall be in one flesh. Jerome says: “Namely, in the flesh of their offspring.” And this is the fruit of marriage. Chrysostom explains this passage as follows: In one flesh, that is, in one carnal affection, just as unity comes to be in one spiritual affection, as it is said: The believers had but one heart and one soul (Acts 4:32). Or, they two shall be in one flesh, that is, in one carnal work. The Philosopher says that man and woman are always related to each other in that one work, because just as active and passive powers are always joined together into one effect, so, in that act, action and passion are joined together.

Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. Then He concludes His main point: What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder, because it is an act coming from the will of God. If it is from God, man is not able to put it asunder; because if God has joined something together, only He can separate it. For a separation can occur either from God or from man. If from man, it is either because of his will (namely, that he wants to have some other woman, and this is not a sufficient reason) or it is because of mutual consent, so that he might more freely serve God, and in this way, it is from God.

They say to him: Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce, and to put away? Here their objection against the general law is related, for they disclose what was in their mind: Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce, and to put away? Moses did not command men to put away their wives but rather indirectly wished to prohibit this. Moses did not want a wife to be put away unless a bill of divorce was given, and this pertains more to a prohibition because the bill of divorce was only given by public authority. Thus, people used to consult the wise to see if the men had grounds to put away their wives.

He says to them. Did not the Lord give the Law through Moses? Consider the following passage; for example, the Apostle says: Concerning virgins, I have no commandment of the Lord: but I give counsel (1 Corinthians 7:25). Hence, sometimes he was saying that he had received inspired teachings from the Lord, and sometimes he was saying that he had acquired them from his own efforts; so Moses did also. Now Moses permitted this bill of divorce, not because he heard it from the Lord, but it was from divine inspiration, yet, nevertheless, not confirmed by divine authority.

Moses by reason of the hardness of your heart permitted you to put away your wives. They had said that Moses commanded this; but he did not command, rather he permitted this to be done. Concerning the hardness of their hearts, it is stated: You stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Ghost (Acts 7:51).

Here a question usually arises: whether those men sin mortally who put away their wives. Some men said that those putting away their wives sin mortally. For permission is obtained in four ways. Something is said to be permitted when the contrary is not commanded, so that a lesser good is permitted because a greater good is not commanded, as when the Apostle says: I speak this by indulgence (1 Corinthians 7:6). Likewise, sometimes a thing is permitted through the lack of a prohibition; and in this way, venial sins are permitted. Sometimes, however, a thing is permitted through lack of an obstacle; and in this way, all the evils that occur in this life are sometimes said to be permitted, because a punishment is not imposed.

For that reason, certain things were sometimes permitted to the Jews which were mortal sins, because punishments were not imposed for them. We find the same thing in the affairs of the world: for thus, we see that simple fornication is not punished according to human laws. Hence, if the Old Law pertained only to the present life, it would follow that this solution is good. But although, according to its outer appearances, it seems to pertain to the present life, nevertheless, according to its inner core, it also pertains to eternal life: I gave them my statutes (Ezekiel 20:11). The Lord said to the young man, later in this chapter: If you will enter into life, keep the commandments (Matthew 19:17).

For this reason, some say that the Jews were poorly provided for if they were ignorant of sins, whereas it is written: Show my people their wicked doings (Isaiah 58:1). For that reason, Chrysostom says that the Lord took away the guilt of sin from sin. And although it was something inordinate, nevertheless, He did not want it to be imputed to them as their fault, just as the Lord had commanded Hosea to beget children of fornication. Hence, the permission did not derive from a precept, but rather it was permitted to avoid a greater evil.

But from the beginning it was not so. Hence, it was the existing practice, but it was not instituted from the beginning; thus, for many years, no one put away his wife. And I say to you, etc. Here He cites the Law. First, He does so regarding the man; second, He does so regarding the woman. He says, therefore, Whosoever shall put away his wife, etc. But fornication is excepted.

But see that fornication is twofold: carnal and spiritual. Hence, for both reasons, a man may put away his wife, as it is stated in 1 Corinthians 7: If one spouse is faithful and the other is unfaithful, the faithful spouse may put away the unfaithful spouse.

It should be observed that by no subsequent impediment can the bond of marriage be dissolved, because it signifies the union of Christ and the Church. Hence, since the union of Christ and the Church cannot be dissolved, neither may the union of marriage. But, on account of fornication, a man can be separated from common life, and a man ought not to retain his spouse, lest he seem to be aware of the shameful deed. However, for other shameful deeds, such as drunkenness, he cannot be separated. Likewise, if she wishes to induce her husband into infidelity, he may put her away.

But why is there more mention of carnal fornication than of spiritual fornication? It is contrary to the fidelity of marriage, and fidelity should not be kept towards one who is not faithful. Another reason is that which Origen proposes, namely, that the Lord said: Whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting the cause of fornication, makes her to commit adultery (Matthew 5:32). For that reason, he gives her an occasion of committing adultery; but after she has sinned, he does not give her an occasion of committing adultery, and so he can put her away after her infidelity, but not before.

He that shall marry another, commits adultery. But why does he only commit adultery if he marries another woman? It is because a thing is bound by the same things by which it is loosed. Hence, when a man has a wife who has been separated from him, and not another woman, there is still hope that they can be reunited, either by sin just like her sin, or by mutual agreement. But when he has married another woman, then he has completely separated his heart and withdrawn his marital consent from her.

Another reason is that if a man could put away his wife for a reason other than fornication, it would sometimes happen that a man would charge his wife with a crime so that he might be separated from her, and she would be united to another. For that reason, the Lord willed that he might not have another wife. Hence, He expressly forbade that a man have different wives, because when he has put away one and accepted another, he commits adultery.

And he that shall marry her that is put away, commits adultery. Here He gives the law regarding the woman: hence, He does not will that a wife who has been put away have another husband.

But why does He forbid the man from contracting marriage with her, and not the woman directly? I answer that women act more impetuously towards evil. You had a harlot’s forehead (Jeremiah 3:3). For that reason, if an explicit prohibition were also placed upon her, she might be driven to greater evils. Hence, He commands the man not to contract marriage with her that is put away, but He does not explicitly forbid the woman.

But what is this? Was it not lawful for her who had been divorced to marry another man? Some say that it was not lawful, because the bond of marriage remained. They cite what is stated in Deuteronomy 24: that the first husband could not take back his former wife if she had remarried and that second marriage ended, because she was defiled. However, they imply that if she had not been thus defiled (e.g., had not remarried), he could have taken her back. Others say that while the husband could marry another woman, he could not remarry his divorced wife (especially under those conditions of defilement), because if he could easily take her back, he might be more inclined to divorce her frivolously in the first place.

Therefore, what do you mean when you say that she was defiled? I say that she was defiled in relation to this man, because she cannot return to him. Or it can be understood to mean legal uncleanness, for example, that a priest cannot marry her.

His disciples say to him: If the case of a man with his wife is so, it is not expedient to marry. The Lord, after having spoken about the indissolubility of marriage, here discusses the perfection of those practicing continence. Concerning this, the Evangelist does two things: first, he gives the disciples’ opinion; and then he gives Christ’s teaching, where it is said, Who said to them, etc.

He says, therefore, His disciples say: If the case of a man with his wife is so, it is not expedient to marry. They were prompted to say this because they had heard that a wife could not be put away except for one reason, although many other grounds render marriage burdensome, such as uncleanness (leprosy and the like). Thus, the passage in Sirach 25:23 is fulfilled, which says: It will be more agreeable to abide with a lion and a dragon, than to dwell with a wicked woman. Likewise, marriage brings many anxieties: If a virgin marries, she thinks on the things of the world (1 Corinthians 7:34). Hence, on this account, the disciples argue that it is not expedient for any man to marry.

For that reason, the Lord tempers their opinion, because it happens that a thing is better in two ways: either simply or relatively. In this way, to be continent suits some men, but not other men, because, as the Apostle says, It is better to marry than to be burnt (1 Corinthians 7:9). He approves the Apostles’ opinion, first by words, and second by deeds, where it is said, Then were little children presented to him. And He approves continence in three ways:

1. He approves continence itself.
2. He points out the differences among those practicing continence, where it is said, For there are eunuchs, etc.
3. He points out the difficulty of practicing continence, where it is said, He that can take, let him take it.

He says, therefore, Who said to them: All men take not this word. So you say that it is not expedient to marry: this is true for some men, but it is not true for all, because not all men have such great virtue that they may abstain; but they to whom it is given. But it is given to some not by their own doing, but by a gift of grace. I knew that I could not otherwise be continent, except God gave it . For it is not from man, but from God, that someone lives not according to the flesh: I would that all men were even as myself. But everyone has his proper gift from God: one after this manner, and another after that (1 Corinthians 7:7).

And since they might suppose that all could be continent, for that reason, He says, For there are eunuchs, etc. Hence, He distinguishes the continence that is in some men by nature, at other times by compulsion, and at other times by free choice. For that reason, He mentions three kinds of eunuchs:

1. Some are eunuchs by nature, who were born so from their mothers’ womb. Just as some men are abnormally born lacking a hand, so also some are born without genital organs. This is from God’s providence, because if everything were to happen according to the usual course of nature, then all might be attributed to nature, and not to Divine Providence; hence: She knows signs and wonders before they be done .
2. Some are eunuchs by compulsion, such as those who are castrated by tyrants or barbarians, or those castrated for the guardianship of women, who were made so by men, namely, whom men’s cruelty or the need to protect women caused to be castrated. Jerome says this, because he knows that boys were taken and castrated and placed in the house of Nebuchadnezzar.
3. Some are voluntarily eunuchs, as He says, and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. But this [literal self-castration] must be reproved, and men who have done this ought to be removed from the clergy (Capit. Ex parte, et capitul. S ignificavit, extra de corp. vit.). Hence, an occasion is given to the error of the Manicheans, who said that material creatures are the cause of evil. Likewise, an occasion is given to the error of the Gentiles, because some men are made eunuchs in their sacrifices. Moreover, this serves no useful purpose, because such men, even if they do not have the act, nevertheless, are not immune from concupiscence. Hence: The lust of a eunuch shall deflower a young maiden . For that reason, it is better that a man put a bridle upon himself than cut off a member of his body, so that he may refrain from evil thoughts and desires. Take away the evil thoughts from your hearts (Isaiah 1:16).

Who have made themselves eunuchs, they have given themselves to continual chastity, and they have done this for the kingdom of heaven. For sometimes, a member of the body stands for an action, as for example: If your eye scandalizes you, pluck it out, and cast it from you (Matthew 18:9). So here the genital organs are taken for the act. Hence, he who metaphorically castrates himself is he who dedicates himself to chastity.

Or, according to Jerome, men keeping continence are sometimes so due to natural frigidity, such that they are not moved to that act. Hence, they are called eunuchs on account of the behavior of eunuchs, which they have due to their natures from the womb. Because some men are naturally inclined to certain virtues, such as Job, who was naturally inclined to mercy, and who says: from my infancy mercy grew up with me (Job 31:18). But some men are inclined to virtue due to their own will, or out of pretense; or a man has been taught by heretics, and consequently, has been made so “by men.”

Having an appearance indeed of godliness but denying the power thereof (2 Timothy 3:5). But other men are so disposed for the sake of eternal life. The first two groups, namely, those who are eunuchs by nature or by coercion, do not have the merit of eternal life, but only the third group (those who make themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven).

But is it never true of the first group (eunuchs by nature) that they do not merit eternal life? I say that they merit regarding the will, although they do not merit regarding the act; because although they cannot perform the act, nevertheless, they can will to be able to perform the act.

He that can take, let him take it. Having presented the different types of continence, here an exhortation to continence is set forth, as Jerome says. The Lord is acting like the leader of an army who, when a city is to be captured, says: ‘This or that will be given to him who enters the city,’ as David said to Joab. So he that can take this and be continent, let him take it and not hold back. The Apostle says: Be zealous for the better gifts (1 Corinthians 12:31).

But why does He say this? Is not everyone obliged to remain in the state of virginity? It seems so, because a man is obliged to do what is better. It should be answered that to remain in the state of virginity is not a commandment, but a counsel, as the Apostle says: Concerning virgins, I have no commandment of the Lord: but I give counsel (1 Corinthians 7:25).

But why is this? Is not a man obliged to do the greater good? I say that one must distinguish the greater good regarding actual performance or regarding desire. One is not held to the greater good regarding actual performance, but to the desire to do it, because every rule and every action is determined by something defined and certain. But if one is bound to do every action that is better, one is bound to something uncertain. Hence, regarding external actions, because one is not bound to do something uncertain, one is not bound to do the greater good. But regarding desire, one is held to desire the greater good. Hence, he who does not always wish to be better, cannot wish so without contempt.

But what does He mean when He says, He that can take, let him take it? For one can either remain in the state of virginity by his own natural power (and no one can do so in this way), or one does so by the power of grace (and everyone can do so in this way, because it is said: Ask, and it shall be given you (Luke 11:9)). Likewise, God’s grace can do all things.

I say that the word can includes the power of the will, for there is a firm will and a weak will. Now it is evident that a man, when he has a firm will, does not fear many sensual impulses; but when he does not have a firm will, he falls from a slight sensual impulse. Hence, he who can take [it] through firmness of will, let him take it; and this ability is not from nature, but from God. Hence, we counsel him who has this firmness of will from God that he take this path and be continent. Or, it refers to him who can do so according to the suitability of the time or the condition of his life, such as Abraham; hence, the celibacy of John is not preferred to the marriage of Abraham.

Likewise, this ability is relative to a person's state in life; because one who is married cannot practice continence in the same way as one who is celibate. Hence, married persons are generally excluded from this particular call, either by reason of their married state or specific circumstances.

Then were little children presented to him. Here He shows by a deed what He had said. The Evangelist relates three things:

1. The presentation of the children.
2. The disciples’ zeal.
3. Christ’s response addressing the situation.

The second part is where it is said, And the disciples rebuked them; and the third part is where it is said, But Jesus said to them, etc.

He says, therefore, Then were little children presented to him. The Lord had commended chastity, and because there is chastity and purity in children, purity pleased Him. And they presented their children to Him, that he should impose hands upon them and pray. It should be noted that it was customary to present children to elders, who blessed and prayed over them to indicate that the blessing was from God.

Similarly, they knew from experience that He had a healing touch, because He had cured a leper and many others; for that reason, they brought their children. Likewise, they presented the children because they believed that one who was touched by Him would not in the future be troubled by demons. For this reason, the Church adopted the custom that the sacraments of the Church be offered to children, so that they might be made stronger.

The disciples rebuked them. Here the disciples’ zeal is discussed. But why did the disciples rebuke those bringing the children? It is because they supposed that He, being a true man, was tired from the crowds; for that reason, they wanted to spare Him labor. Another reason is that they had a high opinion of Christ, so it seemed to them inappropriate that children should approach Him. Origen says that this signifies that there are some spiritually immature members in the Church. The disciples signify the mature; hence, such mature ones sometimes become indignant when they see these immature ones come to Christ, being ignorant that He wants all people to be saved. The Apostle says: To the Greeks and to the barbarians I am a debtor (Romans 1:14).

Afterwards, He addresses both groups. First, He addresses the disciples’ zeal for what they perceived as propriety; and second, He satisfies the devotion of those presenting the children. He says, therefore, Suffer the little children to come to me, meaning the humble or the poor; In malice be children: and in sense be perfect (1 Corinthians 14:20). And forbid them not, namely, the poor, on account of their innocence. For the imperfect should not be forbidden to come to perfection. For the kingdom of heaven is for such. He says, for such, meaning the kingdom of God does not belong to these children as such, but to those who are as pure as children through innocence. Unless you are converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 18:3). He that has been humbled, shall be in glory (Job 22:29).

Afterwards, He satisfies the devotion of those presenting the children: When he had imposed hands upon them. By this, He strengthened their virtues. It is he that gives strength to the weary (Isaiah 40:29). He departed from there. Sometimes Christ employs His hands and does not depart from a place; other times He employs His hands and departs, because some people are so strong that they do not regress. And so He called Peter and Andrew and remained with them (John 1). Therefore, because these children were still imperfect and were not skilled in following Him, for that reason, He departed from there.

And behold one came, etc. Here, He discusses the perfection of poverty. Because the way is twofold (the common way and the special way, just as the way of practicing continence is twofold), the first way being the way of salvation, and the second way being the way of perfection, He begins by discussing the first way, and afterwards, the second. Three things are related:

1. The asking of a question.
2. Christ’s response.
3. Christ’s explanation of His response.

The asking of a question is related: And behold one came and said to him: Good master. Concerning this man, there is a diversity of opinions. Jerome says that the man had a wicked heart, evident because he went away sad; hence, if he had approached with a good heart, he would not have gone away sad. Chrysostom says that he was held back by the passion of avarice and, for that reason, could not endure. This is evident because he did not come for the sake of tempting; for when some men came to tempt, the Lord always responded to their malice, saying, ‘Why do you tempt Me?’ or something similar, but the Evangelist does not relate any such answer here.

Hence, it is evident that he was not a tempter, but that the man was imperfect, drawing near to God so that he might be made perfect: Come you to him and be enlightened (Psalms 33:6). Good master, etc. He calls Him ‘master,’ as one who had knowledge, for such a man who has knowledge should be a master.

Likewise, he calls Him ‘good’: it belongs to the nature of goodness to communicate itself; hence, Communicate without envy . For He is truly good: You are good; and in your goodness teach me your justifications (Psalms 119:68). What good shall I do that I may have life everlasting? He had heard many things about eternal life. He had heard well: Decline from evil and do good (Psalms 37:27). But he had not heard eternal life promised in the Law; only temporal goods were promised: You shall eat the good things of the land (Isaiah 1:19).

Who said to him: Why do you ask me concerning good? Here, His response is related. First, He answers, as it is stated in Mark: Why do you call me good? (Mark 10:18). Here, however, He says, Why do you ask me? And this is not open to misinterpretation. But, based upon what Mark says, the Arians adopted an error, saying that the Father is good essentially, but the Son is good by participation; and so they asserted that the Son was unequal to the Father. But it should be observed that He says: One is good, God. Now by the name of God, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are understood; hence, by this statement, every creature is excluded, because they are not essentially good.

But why does He answer in this manner? Jerome says that He answers according to the mind of that man, who was praising the goodness that should be in a man, because they were adhering more to the tradition of men than to the tradition of God, as it is said above: You have made void the commandment of God for your tradition (Matthew 15:6). And so, He rebukes him, because he was asking Him as though He were just a good man, and not God.

But what does He mean when He says, Why do you ask me concerning good? He says this as one knowing the young man’s thoughts, because he did not have the willpower to obey Him who is good, and because every temporal good is imperfect and is a shadow of good in comparison to the Divine good: All our justices are as the rag of a menstruous woman (Isaiah 64:6). Hence, the implication is, ‘All these goods are from God; for that reason, if you wish to have them, ask from Him, for He alone is good.’ Praise the Lord, for he is good (Psalms 135:1). ‘Therefore, turn to God.’

But if you will enter into life, keep the commandments. For some men have imperfect life, others have perfect life, and still others are entirely without life, such as those who are in sin, or the infidels, because The just man lives by faith (Hebrews 10:38). Therefore, some men have an initial and imperfect life, such as just men in this world; but those men have a perfect life who are already in eternal life. Hence, If you will enter into life, keep the commandments, because a man is introduced to life through the Commandments. I gave them my commandments, and I showed them my judgments (Ezekiel 20:11).

But did the practice of the Commandments suffice for salvation? I say they did not, unless they were practiced out of faith and love of the Mediator. Hence, the Apostle says: If justice is by the law, then Christ died in vain (Galatians 2:21). Likewise: Keep my commandments, and you shall live (Proverbs 7:2).

He said to him: Which? An explanation of His response follows, in which He repeats the Commandments. First, He puts forward the Commandments; second, He puts forward their root, where it is said, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. He says, therefore: And Jesus said: You shall do no murder, etc. And why does He not mention the Commandments of the First Tablet? It is because He saw that the young man was inclined to the love of God, so it was not necessary. Likewise, these latter Commandments are conducive to the love of God.

First, He sets forth negative Commandments, and second, an affirmative Commandment. He begins with a greater Commandment, You shall do no murder, which is opposed to actual life; You shall not commit adultery, which is opposed to life in potency; You shall not steal, which is against a person’s possessions; You shall not bear false witness, which is against a person himself. Likewise, He sets forth an affirmative Commandment: Honor your father and your mother.