Cornelius a Lapide
Table of Contents
Synopsis of the Chapter
First, the Pharisees ask Christ whether it is lawful to dismiss a wife for any cause. Christ answers in the negative, and revokes the bill of divorce permitted by Moses, reducing marriage back to its first institution and indissolubility. Secondly, at verse 11, He commends celibacy and prefers it to marriage. Thirdly, at verse 13, He applauds and blesses little children, and promises them the kingdom of heaven. Fourthly, at verse 15, to one inquiring the way to heaven He assigns the observance of the commandments, and to the same, seeking more perfect things, He suggests that he give his wealth to the poor. On hearing this, the young man went away sad: from which Christ infers that it is with difficulty the rich are saved. Finally, at verse 27, Christ promises to His Apostles, who, being poor, had followed Him in His poverty, twelve thrones to judge the twelve tribes of Israel; and to the rest, who abandon their goods and their own for the love of Christ, He promises a hundredfold and eternal life.
Vulgate Text: Matthew 19:1-30
1. And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these words, He departed from Galilee and came into the coasts of Judea beyond the Jordan; 2. and great multitudes followed Him, and He healed them there. 3. And the Pharisees came to Him, tempting Him and saying: Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? 4. Who, answering, said to them: Have ye not read, that He who made man from the beginning, made them male and female? 5. And He said: For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they twain shall be in one flesh. 6. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. 7. They say to Him: Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce and to put away? 8. He saith to them: Because Moses, by reason of the hardness of your heart, permitted you to put away your wives; but from the beginning it was not so. 9. And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery; and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery. 10. His disciples say unto Him: If the case of a man with his wife be so, it is not expedient to marry. 11. Who said to them: All men take not this word, but they to whom it is given. 12. For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother's womb; and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men; and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take. 13. Then were little children presented to Him, that He should impose hands upon them and pray. And the disciples rebuked them. 14. But Jesus said to them: Suffer the little children, and forbid them not to come to Me; for the kingdom of heaven is for such. 15. And when He had imposed hands upon them, He departed from thence. 16. And behold one came and said to Him: Good Master, what good shall I do that I may have life everlasting? 17. Who said to him: Why askest thou Me concerning good? One is good, God. But if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. 18. He said to Him: Which? And Jesus said: Thou shalt do no murder; Thou shalt not commit adultery; Thou shalt not steal; Thou shalt not bear false witness: 19. Honour thy father and thy mother; and Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 20. The young man saith to Him: All these have I kept from my youth; what is yet wanting to me? 21. Jesus saith to him: If thou wilt be perfect, go, sell what thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me. 22. And when the young man had heard this word, he went away sad: for he had great possessions. 23. And Jesus said to His disciples: Amen, I say to you, that a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. 24. And again I say to you: It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven. 25. And when they had heard this, the disciples wondered very much, saying: Who then can be saved? 26. But Jesus, looking upon them, said to them: With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible. 27. Then Peter, answering, said to Him: Behold, we have left all things and followed Thee: what then shall we have? 28. And Jesus said to them: Amen I say to you, that you who have followed Me, in the regeneration, when the Son of Man shall sit on the throne of His majesty, you also shall sit upon twelve seats, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29. And every one that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for My name's sake, shall receive a hundredfold, and shall possess life everlasting. 30. And many that are first shall be last, and the last shall be first.
Verse 1: And It Came to Pass, When Jesus Had Ended These Words, He Departed From Galilee and Came Into the Coasts of Judea Beyond the Jordan
This narrative is the same as that which Mark relates in chapter X, 1, and Luke in chapter IX, 51, and, as it seems, the same as that which John relates in chapter VII, 1. So Jansenius, Franciscus Lucas, and others — although Maldonatus denies that it is the same as that in John, whose arguments will be resolved by the explanation of the context itself. From John it is clear that this happened at the feast of Tabernacles (Scenopegia), which was celebrated in September; for Christ was heading toward it in order to prepare Himself gradually for death, for in the following March He was crucified at Jerusalem. See the Chronotaxis. Luke adds that Christ made His journey through Samaria: whence it follows that from Samaria Christ, having left the direct way leading to Jerusalem and into the borders of Judea from the north, set out toward the Jordan; and having crossed it, made His way through Perea to the borders of Judea from the east, where, having remained only a short while, the crowd of people having been healed and sent away, He proceeded to Jerusalem to the middle of the feast of Tabernacles, as John has it in chapter VII, 14. So Franciscus Lucas. Hence you will understand the meaning of the expression "beyond the Jordan."
Beyond the Jordan. — Both Judea and Galilee lay not beyond, but on this side of the Jordan; yet it was said to be "beyond the Jordan" from the first crossing of it, by which the Israelites, having set out from Egypt, crossed the Jordan and came into Judea and Galilee — or at any rate, trans here means "on this side of" the Jordan; see what has been said at chapter IV, 15. So Maldonatus. Or rather, it is said because Christ, having left the direct way to Jerusalem, went on to the Jordan and crossed it and came into Perea, that is, the region beyond the river, as I have already said: for the phrase "beyond the Jordan" is to be referred to the word "came," not to "the borders of Judea," as is clear from Mark. For Christ crossed the Jordan near the borders of Judea in order to be farther from the eyes and ears of the Pharisees while He was teaching and healing the crowds. For Perea was beyond the Jordan, whence by William of Tyre, Adrichomius, and others everywhere, Perea is called "the region beyond the Jordan" or "the region across the river."
Verse 2: And Great Multitudes Followed Him, and He Healed Them There
"They followed Him," not so much out of Galilee — for there He wished to conceal His journey, as Mark and John say — but out of the other regions through which He was passing, or which were nearby; and they followed Him, stirred up by the fame of Christ, in order to hear Him preaching and to be healed by Him of their sicknesses. "There," namely in the borders of Judea; and there He sent them home: for He did not wish to enter Jerusalem with so great a crowd of people, lest He should further irritate the minds of the Pharisees, who were already plotting His death, nor give them occasion to accuse Him of having stirred up a commotion and sedition of the people — for this is what they charged Him with before Pilate.
Verse 3: And the Pharisees Came to Him, Tempting Him, and Saying: Is It Lawful for a Man to Put Away His Wife for Every Cause?
For that it was lawful to do so for some grave cause they did not doubt, from Deuteronomy XXIV, 1. So Origen, St. Jerome, and Bede. "They came up" — not then, when Jesus went from the borders of Judea to Jerusalem to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles, as John says in chapter VII, 1, but when, having celebrated the feast there, He returned to the borders of Judea and crossed the Jordan again, as is clear from John X, 40. For Matthew is silent about both Christ's going to Jerusalem and His return from there. Moreover, John has it thus: "And He went again beyond the Jordan, to the place where John first was baptizing" — namely, at Aenon near Salim (John 3:23), doubtless in order that from this place He might refresh the memory of the crowds concerning the testimony which John had borne there to Christ: that He was the Messiah and the true Son of God. It seems that this question about dismissing a wife was, in the time of Christ (as it still is), a matter very much disputed, and tricky and thorny, and therefore the Pharisees proposed it to Christ in order to test Him, catch Him, and trap Him. For if Christ were to say it was not lawful to dismiss a wife, He would incur the envy of many rich and carnal men, who were doing the opposite; but if He were to say it was lawful, they would attack His teaching as imperfect and carnal — the teaching, I say, of one who wished to be a master of perfection and of the spirit, as a teacher sent from heaven. Even now the Ethiopians or Abyssinians frequently dismiss their wives and take others; indeed they sometimes keep them only for a year or a month. See Damianus a Goes in his work on Ethiopia.
Verse 4: He Answered and Said to Them: Have You Not Read, That He Who Made Man From the Beginning, Made Them Male and Female?
Some persons from this passage suppose that Adam was created by God a hermaphrodite, and had both sexes, so that he was at once male and female: but away with such trifles! The sense therefore is, as if He said: Since Holy Scripture, Genesis 1:27, does not say that God made other animals male and female, but only man, by this very fact it signifies that marriage was instituted by God for man alone, and that between one male only and one female — namely, between Adam and Eve — so that he could not dismiss her and take another. So St. Chrysostom, Jerome, Theophylact, Euthymius. Again, from the fact that out of one Adam two were made, namely Adam and Eve, and from the fact that Eve was formed out of Adam, the same monogamy is shown — namely, that a wife ought not to be separated from her husband, since she is as it were a part and member of him; because, as Plato says in the Dialogue On Love, out of one man and one woman, as out of two imperfect parts, one perfect human being is made. So St. Augustine, City of God, book XIV, chapter XXII. Just therefore as a member, e.g. the head, cannot be separated from the man in origin and in formation, so marriage of one man and one woman must be perpetual and indissoluble, so that it cannot be dissolved except by death, just as in a man the soul or the head cannot be separated from the body except by death. Whence explaining this, He adds: "For this reason a man shall leave father and mother and cleave to his wife." Plato adds — and from him St. Basil, in his book On Virginity, after the opening — that for this reason a man so longs for a woman as for a part cut off from himself, so that, just as a magnet attracts iron to itself, so a woman draws a man.
Verse 5: For This Cause Shall a Man Leave Father and Mother, and Shall Cleave to His Wife, and They Twain Shall Be in One Flesh
"And He said" — namely God, through the mouth of Adam as a kind of prophet, instituting marriage in Adam and Eve and sanctioning its stability, Genesis 2:24. See what has been said there. "For this reason" — namely, because the woman formed out of the man (Eve out of Adam) is flesh of his flesh and bone of his bones, as is stated earlier in Genesis. "A man shall leave father and mother and cleave" — in Greek προσκολληθήσεται, that is, he shall be glued to, that is, intimately and inseparably cleave to his wife, as though bound to her by the closest glue of matrimony, so that, having left the company and often the house of father and mother, he may dwell together with his wife. Wherefore the sense of Hugh of St. Victor is irrelevant, indeed inept, who explains it as if to say: "A man shall leave father and mother," that is, with the exception of father and mother, he may enter into marriage with any others. Such also is the interpretation of others who expound it as meaning: A man shall love his wife more than father and mother, as is said in 4 Esdras 25. For this, though it is sometimes true, does not suit this passage.
And the Two Shall Be in One Flesh. — In Greek εἰς σάρκα μίαν, that is, into one flesh, so that they may be one flesh, as Christ explains in the following verse. Commonly it is thought that this comes about through the intermingling of bodies; but more purely and in simpler Hebrew idiom, the husband and wife are one flesh, as the Syriac renders it — that is, they are one man and one civil person, for "flesh" by synecdoche signifies the whole man, as if to say: Therefore, just as a part of the body, for example the heart or the stomach, ought not to be separated from the body, so neither ought the husband to be separated from the wife. Hence it follows morally that husband and wife ought to love each other mutually, as the heart and the soul love their body, and the body its heart and soul, Ephesians 5:28. And from this it follows again that the power over both bodies is one and common — namely, that the husband has a right over the wife's body as though it were his own, and vice versa, as the Apostle teaches, 1 Corinthians 7:4. I have said more about this passage at Genesis 2:24. Symbolically and metonymically St. Jerome, Bede, and St. Thomas explain: Husband and wife, they say, are one flesh, because they generate the same son, who is the one common flesh of both parents.
Verse 6: Therefore Now They Are Not Two, but One Flesh. What Therefore God Hath Joined Together, Let No Man Put Asunder
For "has joined," the Greek has συνέζευξε, that is, "has yoked together," or "has joined into one yoke": whence husbands and wives are called σύζυγοι ("yoked together"), because just as two horses are yoked together to one yoke in a chariot to draw it, so two spouses are yoked together to the same yoke of matrimony, that they may sustain it and from it bear and rear offspring. There is here a twofold reason by which Christ proves that it is not lawful for a man to dismiss his wife. The former, as if to say: The dismissal of a wife and a man's divorce from her is contrary to nature, just as it is contrary to nature that one flesh and one man should be divided into two; therefore it ought not to be done. The latter: this divorce is contrary to God's institution; therefore if it is done, it is done impiously, for that is torn apart which God has joined. Who shall dare to violate what God has sanctioned? Who shall dare to divide what God has united and joined? Who shall dare to tear apart the work of God the Creator — namely, one man — or to cut off and mutilate him from his flesh and from his own member? Erasmus is therefore wrong in his comment on 1 Corinthians 7, where he says: "God has joined that which is rightly joined; God tears apart that which is rightly torn apart" — as though marriages which were wickedly and rashly entered into could be separated, at the persuasion, not of God, but of the devil. For Christ speaks of nature and of the natural and primary institution of matrimony, according to which a marriage once entered into, in whatever way or at whosoever's persuasion, is indissoluble. For nature itself demands this, so that the offspring continually being born one after another from the marriage may be able to be conveniently reared by both parents; which rearing in man is difficult and slow, and lasts until the twentieth year of age and beyond; it is otherwise with beasts, which immediately within a few months — nay, a few weeks — come to maturity and are perfected, so that they no longer need the rearing of father and mother, and therefore their union is then dissolved. Therefore the a priori reason why the indissolubility of matrimony belongs to natural law, and why fornication, pollution, divorce, and polygamy are against nature, is this: that God, who is the Lord of nature, and of matrimony, and of our bodies, from the beginning, in Genesis and in the first production of the world and of all things, so instituted, limited, and sanctioned it, and gave us the right and the use of our bodies only for conjugal union; and if we use them otherwise, we abuse them against the will of God, who is the supreme Lord, and against the right given by Him. That this is so is clear from the fact that formerly, under the law of nature and the Mosaic Law, God dispensing with this right originally sanctioned by Himself, and giving a new right, polygamy and the bill of divorce were lawful. Thus Hosea in chapter I, at God's command, married a harlot. And so even now God could give someone a wife only for one or another act of union, and consequently make it so that the act which otherwise would be fornication would no longer be fornication, but the use of matrimony. See what has been said at Hosea, chapter I.
Furthermore, the end and cause for which God from the beginning sanctioned so great an indissolubility of matrimony was, first, that there might be a greater union and love of the spouses with each other. The second cause is because nature in man ordinarily, as it were, demands this — that the offspring may be conveniently reared by both parents. For this rearing in man is arduous and long, while in the meantime other and further offspring are born, who likewise must be reared by both. The third cause was allegorical, namely, that indissoluble marriage might be a type and figure of the indissoluble union and joining of the divine Word with our flesh, and through it with the Church, as the Apostle teaches, Ephesians 5:32: "This is a great sacrament," he says, "but I speak in Christ and in the Church." See what has been said there.
Verse 7: They Say to Him: Why Then Did Moses Command to Give a Bill of Divorce, and to Put Away?
The Pharisees "say" and object "to Him," that is, to Christ: "Why then did Moses command?" In order to make their objection stronger they say "commanded," whereas in fact, as Christ rightly inverts in the following verse, Moses only "permitted" this bill of divorce. Yet there was here some kind of commandment — not absolute, but conditional. For Moses had commanded that if the Jews wished to dismiss their wives, they should not do so except by giving a bill of divorce. About this bill — what and of what kind it was, and in what cases and with what ceremonies it was lawful, and what its purpose and effect were — I have spoken at length at Deuteronomy XXIV, 1 and following. Supply here from Mark, chapter X, verse 2, that when the Pharisees asked whether it was lawful to dismiss a wife, Christ first replied and said: "What did Moses command you about this matter? They said, Moses permitted us to write a bill of divorce and to put away." Then Christ, as Matthew says here in verse 14 [i.e. following], explained the first institution of matrimony and its indissolubility as instituted by God. The Pharisees replied: "Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce and to put away?" Jesus answered that Moses permitted that on account of the hardness of their heart; but from the beginning it was not so. Thus by placing the words that Mark has before, and subjoining the words that Matthew has, he reconciles him with Mark.
Verse 8: Because Moses, by Reason of the Hardness of Your Heart, Permitted You to Put Away Your Wives; but From the Beginning It Was Not So
As if He said: Moses permitted you to dismiss the wives who were hateful to you, lest you should kill them if you could not dismiss them: for this was the hardness and carnality of your heart, that you would rather kill them than lack the pleasure of a new and desired marriage.
But From the Beginning It Was Not So. — Because God from the beginning of the world instituted and sanctioned between Adam and Eve an inviolable and indissoluble union. Therefore from the beginning of nature rightly instituted by God it was so; but man's nature, once vitiated by sin, changed and corrupted this institution of God, and introduced the bill of divorce and polygamy.
Verse 9: Whosoever Shall Put Away His Wife, Except for Fornication, and Shall Marry Another, Committeth Adultery
"I say": Christ said this twice: First, publicly in this place, to the Jews and the Pharisees: whereby He here promulgated this new law, by which He abolished the bill of divorce and recalled matrimony to its original institution and indissolubility. Secondly, a little later He said and repeated the same thing privately before the disciples, Mark chapter X, 10.
"I say," — therefore, that is, I proclaim, and as a new legislator of a new law and as a reformer of the old, I sanction, and I restore and establish matrimony to its original rectitude and firmness, so that whoever dismisses his wife and marries another, shall be held and in fact shall be an adulterer.
Except for Fornication, — that is, except for adultery: for what in the unmarried is fornication, in the married is adultery, which dissolves the marriage with respect to the bed, but not with respect to the bond. For the adulterer does not keep the faith which he gave to his spouse: whence he may be dismissed by his spouse, according to the saying:
Frangenti fidem fides frangatur eidem. (To him who breaks faith, let faith be broken in return.)
From this exception, the Greeks — as Guido the Carmelite witnesses in his tract On Heresies — and modern heretics gather and conclude: "Whoever dismisses his wife, except for fornication, and marries another, commits adultery"; therefore by contrary inference, he who dismisses his wife for fornication and marries another does not commit adultery. Whence they themselves hold that through adultery marriage is dissolved, not only with respect to the bed, but also with respect to the bond, so that it is lawful to marry another wife and to contract another marriage. So Luther, Calvin, Erasmus, and commonly the Lutherans, Calvinists, and Anabaptists, and from among the Catholics, Catharinus and Cajetan; and thus the heretics and the Greeks do in practice. But this is an error condemned by the continuous tradition of the Church and by St. Paul in Romans 7:1 and 1 Corinthians 7:10 and 11, and explicitly by the Council of Trent, session 24, canons 6 and 7. To the argument, therefore, drawn from the contrary inference, Paul of Burgos replies here, in his Addition II to Nicholas of Lyra (whom our Ribera follows in Malachi 2, number 36), by admitting the consequence; but he adds that Christ is speaking only of the old law, in which it was lawful to give a bill of divorce for fornication, by which marriage was dissolved, so that it was lawful to marry another wife. But against this reply stands the fact that Christ here, just as in Matthew 5, plainly contrasts His own words — that is, the Evangelical law — with Moses and the old law; indeed He removes the bill of divorce which Moses had previously permitted, as in verses 8 and 9: "Moses," He says, "for the hardness of your heart permitted you to dismiss your wives, etc. But I say to you, that whoever dismisses his wife, except for fornication, and marries another, commits adultery." Behold, here clearly Christ opposes to Moses' permission in the bill of divorce His own pronouncement and His own sanction, by which He revokes this bill and condemns as adulterous him who uses it.
I say therefore, first: St. Augustine, in book I On Adulterous Marriages, chapter IX, better takes the "except" in a negative sense, so that "except for fornication" means the same as "apart from the cause of fornication." The Greek and Syriac versions favor this, which read: Not the adulterous woman; as if Christ wished only to affirm that a faithful and chaste wife cannot be dismissed, but wished to say nothing about the unfaithful — that is, the incestuous and adulterous — woman, in order to avoid the envy of the Pharisees and of the people, among whom in those times the repudiation of adulteresses and new marriages with others were lawful and customary.
Secondly, the "except" can be taken properly as an exception, but then not with reference to what follows — "and marries another" — but only with reference to what preceded: "Whoever dismisses his wife." It is to be referred in such a way that it excepts only the case of fornication from that word, as if to say: Whoever dismisses his wife — which is not lawful except for fornication — and marries another, this man commits adultery. The Ethiopic version favors this, which translates: Whoever dismisses his wife for any cause other than fornication, and marries another, is an adulterer. And the Persian: Everyone who dismisses his wife and not on account of adultery, and marries another, is an adulterer.
Thirdly, most plainly and most aptly, with Theophylact and St. Augustine (book Against Adimantus, chap. III), you may refer this exception to both — to what follows as well as to what precedes — as if to say: Whoever dismisses his wife, except for fornication, and marries another, commits adultery; he commits adultery, I say, both by dismissing his wife and by marrying another — that is, he commits adultery twice. For Christ answers both questions, because the Pharisees had asked both, and both are true. For even if a man only dismisses a chaste and innocent wife and does not marry another, he commits adultery — first because he violates the right of marriage and of his wife, which is a kind of adultery (for "adultery" properly signifies a vice directly opposed to marriage, such as the dismissal of an innocent wife); second because "he commits adultery" means "he makes her commit adultery," as Christ explains in Matthew chapter 5, verse 32. For Hebrew verbs of the Qal conjugation are often to be expressed by the Hiphil — that is, what is a simple active verb must be explained as a causative double action — as those skilled in Hebrew know. Whence only thus should the contrary inference be made: "Whoever dismisses his wife, except for fornication, and marries another, commits adultery"; therefore he who dismisses his wife for fornication and marries another does not indeed commit adultery by dismissing the fornicating woman, but nevertheless he commits adultery by marrying another. It is similar if you were to say: "He who breaks a fast without dispensation and gets drunk, this man sins"; therefore he who does not fast with dispensation does not sin, but by getting drunk he does sin. A similar manner of speaking is in Matthew chapter 5, verse 19, as I have said there.
I say secondly: Here Christ grants to the husband divorce with respect to the bed, on account of the wife's fornication, but not the dissolution of the marriage, so that he may marry another; this is clear first because Mark and Luke have an altogether general pronouncement (and that one must be true), and they omit this exception: for thus Luke has it in chapter XVI, 18: "Everyone who dismisses his wife and marries another commits adultery upon her"; for he does her a grave injury, because he violates the faith given to her.
You will say: Why then does Matthew add this exception? I answer: Because the Pharisees had tacitly proposed two questions to Christ: the first was, whether it was lawful to dismiss a wife for any cause whatever? The second, whether, the wife having been dismissed, by the bill of divorce the marriage was dissolved and another could be entered into? For this was why they dismissed their own: in order to take another. Christ therefore answered both questions, and that, as it seems, in two propositions. The first: Whoever dismisses his wife except for fornication, commits adultery. The second: Whoever marries another, commits adultery: for along with the bill of divorce He also abolished polygamy, or the plurality of wives formerly permitted. And so here the word "whoever" must be repeated in this manner: Whoever dismisses his wife, except for fornication, and whoever marries another, commits adultery. Matthew therefore here, as elsewhere, in his zeal for brevity, understands the word "whoever," and merges both of Christ's answers into a single sentence; for he wished to include both densely and concisely in one statement — whence this saying is here verified: Dum brevis esse laboro, obscurus fio ("While I strive to be brief, I become obscure"). I have shown a similar case at chapter IX, 18.
The same is proved, secondly, from what preceded, where Christ absolutely, from the nature and first institution of marriage — which fornication does not destroy — proved that marriage is plainly indissoluble. Thirdly, because in the following case this exception cannot be understood, so that one should say: "And he who marries her who has been dismissed, except for fornication, marries her, commits adultery." For thus she would be in a better condition, being dismissed on account of fornication, since she would be free and able to enter into another marriage, than if dismissed without her own fault, since she cannot marry another husband. Fourthly, because Paul so explains it in 1 Corinthians VII, 10 and 11, as do the Fathers generally: St. Jerome, Chrysostom, Bede here, St. Augustine (in his two books On Adulterous Marriages, which he wrote for this reason), Innocent I in his letter to Exuperius, the Council of Milevis, canon 17, of Foro Juliense, canon 10, of Nantes, canon 10, of Florence in the Instruction for the Armenians, and of Trent, session 14, canon 6. Indeed Origen here, tract 7, sharply rebukes some bishops of his age as unlearned, because with Tertullian (Book IV Against Marcion) and Ambrosiaster (on 1 Corinthians), they granted wives the right to remarry because of the adultery of their husbands, saying that it was lawful for an innocent spouse to dismiss a guilty and adulterous spouse and be joined to another. The same is found in the Council of Elvira, session 31, Question 1, chapter Si qua mulier, and in the First Council of Orleans, X. But these conciliar decrees are either apocryphal, or are cited by Gratian in a mutilated and imperfect form. Maldonatus responds differently, namely that these Councils permit the innocent spouse to remarry after the death of the adulterous wife, but do not permit the wife, as a penalty for adultery, to remarry after the death of her husband. But the chapter Si qua mulier expressly deals with a wife still living. See Thomas Sanchez, Book X On Divorce, disputation II and following. The remaining points relevant here we have heard at chapter V, 32, where I explained them.
Verse 10: If the Case of a Man With His Wife Be So, It Is Not Expedient to Marry
"Case," that is, the affair and business, as the Syriac renders it, as if to say: If such is the state of married people, if the indissolubility of marriage is so great, if a man is so tightly bound to his wife that he can dismiss her for no cause but fornication, but must live with her (though she be hateful, quarrelsome, ugly, filthy, etc.) and converse with her continually until death, "it is not expedient to marry," that is, to take a wife, as the Syriac renders it. For the Greek γαμῆσαι applies to both men and women. Perhaps our translator, rendering nubere (to be wed), alluded to the servitude and subjection by which a husband is bound to his wife, and not infrequently, if he wishes to have peace, must almost submit to her, and patiently bear her follies, complaints, quarrels, disputes, etc. Whence the Comic Poet says:
Uxori nubere nolo meae. (I do not wish to marry my wife.)
St. Chrysostom gives the reason: "For it is easier, he says, to fight against concupiscence, and against oneself, than against an evil woman." The Gentiles saw the same thing. Whence Cato: "A woman, he says, is a necessary evil," and indeed for unbelievers this evil was necessary; but for the faithful it is free and voluntary, because these through Christ's grace can cultivate virginity and celibacy, which to unbelievers, destitute of Christ's faith and grace, is given to those who ask as one ought. Theophylact: "In this passage, he says, 'it is given' means 'to those with whom God cooperates.' But it is given to those who ask: for 'ask,' He says," etc. The Author of the Imperfect Work: "But when He says: 'to whom it is given,' this does not mean that it is given to some and not given to others; rather, it shows that unless we receive the help of grace, we can do nothing of ourselves. But since grace is not denied to those who will, in the Gospel the Lord says: 'Ask,'" etc. St. Chrysostom: "But if this is the work of election, you will say, how did He begin by saying at once: Not all receive it, but those to whom it is given? That you may learn this to be a unique contest, not that you should suspect a necessity given by lot. For it is given to those who freely choose it: He said this to show that we need a help from above (which indeed is prepared for all those who desire it), if we wish to come out superior in this struggle." St. Chrysostom adds that although some fall away from continence, we ought not to become more slothful in our purpose of chastity: just as soldiers who fall in battle do not dishearten the rest, but rather incite and inflame them to fight more bravely. Finally, the same Chrysostom offers a consideration by which celibacy is shown to be not only possible but also easy for everyone: "Think with yourself, he says, if you were a eunuch by nature, or had been made so by men's injury, what would you do, when you would lack such pleasure and would gain no reward by lacking it? Give thanks therefore to God, that you will receive great rewards and shining crowns, if you live as those who without any reward: indeed much more easily, safely, and pleasantly, both because you are strengthened by the hope of recompense, and because you rejoice in the consciousness of virtue, and besides, you are not tossed about by such great waves of desire. For the cutting off of a member does not compress such waves as the bridle of reason — nay, reason alone compresses them. For I would say that this most restless heat does not come from the brain or the loins, but from the lasciviousness of the mind and the neglect of thought." Further, the author of the book On Chastity, falsely inscribed to St. Sixtus the Pontiff (for this author was a Pelagian), refers the word "given" not to chastity, but to the word, as if to say: Not all receive My words, but only those to whom it has been given to hear Me explaining them; for chastity, he says, is not a gift of God, but a virtue of one's own will and choice. For if it were a gift of God, chastity would be fated for those to whom God gives this gift, but impossible for others. Again, how do we merit the kingdom of heaven by chastity, if it were a gift of God and not a choice of free will? So this Pelagian, but unskillfully. This "word" is nothing other than the counsel of chastity, as is clear to the observer. That chastity is a gift of God is clear from 1 Corinthians VII, 7, and Wisdom VIII, 21. See St. Augustine, Book VI of the Confessions, chapter XI, whose famous saying is: "Lord, give what Thou commandest, and command what Thou wilt. Thou commandest continence; give continence."
Verse 12: For There Are Eunuchs, Who Were Born So From Their Mother's Womb; and There Are Eunuchs, Who Have Made Themselves Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven
Those who, although they could be men, for Christ's sake become eunuchs, says St. Jerome. Christ here assigns three kinds of eunuchs — that is, men castrated and impotent for begetting children: first, those who are such by nature; second, those made so by art, namely those cut for the purpose of guarding queens and noble matrons from defilement; third, those who "have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven." Christ alludes to Isaiah LVI, 3, where He foretells that such eunuchs will exist under Christ, and promises them a name better than sons and daughters — an everlasting name, I say. See what was said there.
Have Made Themselves Eunuchs. — This word signifies two things: First, that it is in our free will, with God's grace, to make ourselves eunuchs — that is, to become chaste and celibate, and to confirm and preserve this by a perpetual vow. For the word "eunuchs" and the word "have made themselves eunuchs" signify moral impotence for begetting; otherwise He would have said: There are those who castrate themselves, or strive to castrate themselves; but now He says "have made themselves eunuchs," that is, they have taken away from themselves the power, and as it were cut themselves off and made themselves unable to beget — namely by the vow of continence. Thus St. Epiphanius, Heresy 58; St. Fulgentius, Book On Faith to Peter, chapter III; St. Augustine, Book On Holy Virginity, chapter XXX. Secondly, "have made themselves eunuchs" signifies that this continence does not come about in the continent man without a great struggle and pain of the flesh, just as if his genitals were cut off. So Nazianzen, Oration 31. Furthermore, Origen took this literally. Hence, out of love for chastity, he actually castrated himself and cut off the member — but wrongly; both because it is not lawful to mutilate oneself by castration, and because lust is not extinguished by castration but sharpened. Hear Chrysostom: "But when He says 'those who have made themselves eunuchs,' He does not mean the cutting off of members, but the killing of evil thoughts; for he who cuts off a member is subject to the curse, etc.; nor does concupiscence thereby become tamer, but more troublesome." For eunuchs sin by thought and desire of lust, and grieve that they cannot experience and satisfy it. See what is said on Ecclesiasticus XX, 2, and XXXIX, 21.
For the Kingdom of Heaven — to be earned through the virtue of continence. Thus Origen, Hilary, Chrysostom, Euthymius here, and St. Augustine, On Holy Virginity, chapter XXIII. Wrongly, therefore, do the heretics interpret "for the kingdom of heaven" as meaning "in order to preach it," as if to say: There are eunuchs who castrate themselves — that is, refrain from a wife — in order to be more ready to preach the Gospel, or to be free from the troubles that married life brings; for continence is to be praised and sought not only for these reasons, but precisely in itself, because it is itself a great virtue, a victory over oneself, by which a man overcomes lust and lifts his mind to meditate on heavenly things and to pursue: wherefore it itself makes Angels out of men. See St. Augustine, St. Basil, St. Chrysostom and others who wrote on Virginity, where they celebrate it with wondrous praise.
He That Can Receive It, Let Him Receive It. — The Arabic: He that can bear it, let him bear it. Note here the Evangelical counsel of celibacy, promulgated by Christ and proposed to all — indeed counselled, but not commanded. For these words, "He that can receive it, let him receive it," are those of one exhorting and encouraging to celibacy, as St. Jerome and Chrysostom say; and they signify that Christ counsels it, and therefore that it is within our will and power, if we are willing to call upon God's grace and strenuously to cooperate with it. Nor does the phrase "he that can" contradict this; for it means only that celibacy is an arduous thing, as if to say: He who wishes to do violence to himself, who wishes to resist lust nobly, who wishes to ascend to the arduous summit of continence, let him embrace it — let him "receive" and take hold of it. Thus a young man, unwilling to marry a woman who displeases him, says in the Comic Poet: "I cannot, mother" — that is, I do not wish to marry her, for this is very hard for me and therefore as it were impossible. All the faithful, therefore, have the power — not proximate, but remote — to practise continence. So the Fathers cited at verse 11. Hear one on behalf of all — St. Chrysostom: "Therefore not all can receive it, because not all will; the palm is set forth: he who desires glory does not think of labour. No one would conquer if all feared danger." Hear also St. Jerome, Book I Against Jovinian: "The president of the games sets forth the prize, invites to the course, holds in his hand the reward of virginity, shows the purest fountain, and cries out: Let him that is thirsty come to Me and drink; he that can receive it, let him receive it." Hence it is clear how carnal and stupid Calvin's interpretation is, which runs thus: You, O Apostles, think it is good to live without a wife, but I forbid anyone to try to do so unless he is certain that he can do it — that is, live without a wife. But Christ does not forbid; rather He exhorts to celibacy. Nor can anyone be certain of it unless either he has a revelation from God (which is for very few), or he tries and proves his own constancy by practising continence. Therefore a man must first try continence before being certain of it; how then must he first be certain of it before trying it? as Calvin wishes. Worse still, Luther taught that it is as impossible for a man to be without a wife as to be without food and drink. Indeed for him and the heretics it is impossible, but not for the orthodox, strengthened by Christ's faith and grace.
Verse 13: Then Were Little Children Presented to Him, That He Should Lay His Hands Upon Them and Pray
[The disciples rebuked them] because they were calling Christ away, who was so occupied with greater matters, namely the teaching of men, to the little ones who lacked the use of reason, as if it were a vile thing and unworthy of Christ, so great a Prophet, to deal with children. So say St. Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthymius, Jansenius, Maldonatus, and others. "Little ones," in Greek παιδία, that is, little boys. Luke XVIII, 15, has βρέφη, that is, infants; and infancy lasts until the seventh year.
Morally: let princes learn here from Christ, who is "King of kings and Lord of lords," to give easy access to themselves to all — even the poor, women, and children — and to hear and heed their prayers and petitions kindly. This certain of the Roman Emperors did beyond others, though they were Gentiles: First, Hadrian, of whom Spartianus says: "In his conversations, even with the lowliest, he was most courteous, detesting those who would deny him this pleasure of humanity, as though they were guarding the loftiness of the prince." Second, Titus Vespasian, whose saying, Suetonius testifies, was this: "No one should depart sad from a conversation with the Prince;" and on any day when he had done no one a kindness, he would groan and say: "I have lost a day." Third, Trajan, of whom Pliny says in the Panegyric: "You, he says, do not crush the embraces of your fellow-citizens down to your feet, nor return their kiss with your hand: whoever approaches clings to your side, and each one's own modesty, not your pride, puts an end to conversation." And a little further down: "No difficulty in being heard, no delay in answering; they are heard at once, dismissed at once." And of the same, Eutropius says: "When his friends blamed him for being too affable toward everyone, he replied: An Emperor ought to be such to private citizens as he as a private citizen would have wished Emperors to be." Fourth, Alexander Severus, of whom Lampridius says: "He was of such moderation, he says, that no one was ever driven from his side: he showed himself so gentle and affable to all that he visited not only friends of the first and second rank, but even those of lower rank when sick." Finally, among Christians, Theodosius the Elder, Emperor: "By frequent going forth, says Pacatus in his Panegyric, thou showest thyself to the expecting people; nor only dost thou seem patient, but easy of approach: from near at hand thou receivest all the prayers of thy people."
That He Should Lay His Hands Upon Them. — That by the laying on of hands He might bless them, and by blessing invoke and implore divine grace upon them; and thus He prayed for them, that they might grow up into wise and holy men. That this was an ancient custom of the Hebrews is gathered from Genesis XLVIII, 14, where Jacob, crossing his hands in the form of a cross, blessed Ephraim and Manasseh, the little sons of Joseph. And from Ecclesiasticus III, 11, where he says: "The father's blessing establishes the houses of his children, but the mother's curse uproots their foundations." See what is said there. From Christ this custom descended to Christians, that the laity, especially children, should ask for and obtain a blessing from elders and priests even outside the Church — as is done in Belgium, where children eagerly run to priests and religious men as they pass by, and ask to be signed with the cross and blessed: and this they are taught to do by their catechists as well as by their parents. This custom the Author of the Imperfect Work here praises. Remigius adds that this custom existed among the Jews before Christ. That great Thomas More, the glory and martyr of England, while he was Chancellor of the realm, publicly asked his aged father for his blessing, as Stapleton testifies in his Life. Moreover, the Church, following Christ's example, employs this ceremony of the imposition of hands in Baptism, Orders, Penance, and whenever heretics are received into the Church: for it is itself as it were an invocation and conferring of the Holy Spirit.
Verse 14: But Jesus Said to Them: Suffer the Little Children to Come to Me, and Forbid Them Not; for the Kingdom of Heaven Is of Such
The reason why Christ so loves little ones is set forth here by Victor of Antioch, who assigns five of their natural endowments, writing on Mark X, 13: "For the soul of a little child, he says, is pure and free from all vicious affections: for when a little boy has suffered sad things or been injured by someone, he neither remembers the injuries nor plans revenge, but, as if he had borne no inconvenience, approaches the one who had hurt him as a friend. In like manner, although he be severely beaten by his mother, he runs nonetheless to her before all others, and prefers her above all other women. And if you should show him a queen crowned with a diadem, he does not prefer her to his mother, however clothed in mean garments, and he rather wishes to see her in her tattered clothes than the queen in splendid attire. Further, he requires nothing more than the necessity of nature demands. Wherefore, as soon as he has filled himself with the milk of the breasts, he immediately leaves his mother's breasts. Moreover, concerning the loss of those things which we are accustomed to value most highly — such as money, gems, and the like — he is in no way moved or grieved. Finally, he does not gape at, nor is he carried away by, bodily beauty, as other mortals are wont to be. For these reasons, therefore, the Lord said: For of such is the kingdom of heaven: admonishing us by this that we should, by zeal and a certain choice of the will, do such things and put on such dispositions as they have from the quality of their nature."
Thus Christ chose for Himself from boyhood and blessed St. Edmund, afterwards Bishop of Canterbury; St. Nicholas, St. Catherine of Siena, and other eminent saints. Gelasius, a boy of Piacenza, when he found his little brother St. Opilius praying in his chamber, saw with his own eyes a multitude of Angels conversing with him, and heard a voice saying: "Let the little children come to Me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven." As he grew in age, he also grew in holiness of life, and like a fruitful olive in the house of the Lord, brought forth abundant fruits of good works: and thus, while still of tender age, he passed over to Christ. So has it in the Office of the Church of Piacenza approved at Rome, and from it Philippus Ferrarius in his Catalogue of the Saints of Italy, for the 4th of February.
St. Babylas, Patriarch of Antioch and illustrious martyr under the Emperor Numerianus, condemned by him to death, wished that three children whom he had educated in faith and piety should be beheaded before him, lest they be seduced by anyone; and offering them to Christ as innocent victims, he said: "Behold, I and my children, whom the Lord hath given me for a sign and a wonder," as is related in the Life of St. Artemius in Surius. See what is said on Isaiah VIII, 18, and Hebrews II, 14. Our Philippus Berlemontius gives more examples of Christ's and the Blessed Virgin's love and care for little ones in his Paradise of Children.
Morally: learn here how great care must be taken in educating, teaching, and catechizing children, that they may remain pure. For
Quo semel est imbuta recens, servabit odorem
Testa diu. (The jar will long retain the scent with which it once was steeped when new.)
This John Gerson zealously did when he was Chancellor of Paris, who also wrote a book on the subject, from which some things may be gathered, Galatians VI. See Peter Ribadeneira in the Life of St. Ignatius, Book III, chapter XXIV, where he brings forward many weighty causes and utilities for which the Society of Jesus has embraced schools and the instruction of children. Indeed St. Basil proves from these words of Christ that the very same thing ought to be done. For in the Brief Rules, question 292, he asks: "Is it fitting that among the brothers there should be a master of secular children?" and answers affirmatively: "Let there be observed, he says, what is commanded by the Lord, who said: Let the little children come to Me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven." For little ones grow up into men and citizens, and what children have learned they retain in old age. Little ones, then, are the seed-bed of the Church and the commonwealth.
For of Such (the Syriac: "of those who are like these") Is the Kingdom of Heaven. — "Of such," namely those who resemble little ones in humility, simplicity, openness, and innocence, as I have already said from Victor of Antioch. Whence Luke adds: "Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, shall not enter into it." So Origen, St. Jerome, Theophylact and Euthymius. The sense is, as if Christ were saying: It is not unworthy of My dignity to bless little ones, because through My blessing they are made fit for the kingdom of heaven — whereas you, O adult Jews, who have so often heard Me teaching, are still unfit for it on account of pride and other vices in which you have grown hardened. Wherefore, that you may become fit, I set these little ones before you as examples to imitate. For the example and ideal of every soul willing to prepare itself to obtain the kingdom of heaven by Christ's grace is childlike simplicity. Hear St. Ambrose, Book VIII on Luke XVIII: "This age, he says, is weak in strength, feeble in understanding, immature in counsel. It is not, therefore, childhood itself, but the goodness that emulates childlike simplicity, which is here signified." And soon, symbolically: "Who then is the child to be imitated by Christ's Apostles? He of whom Isaiah says: A child is born to us, a son is given to us. For this very child says to you: Take up thy cross, and follow Me. And that you may know the child: when He was reviled, He did not revile again; when He was struck, He did not strike back: for this is perfect virtue. Thus even in childhood there is a venerable maturity of character, and in old age an innocent childhood." Hence it is clear how wrongly the Anabaptists keep children from baptism, and consequently from Christ and the kingdom of heaven, on the grounds that little ones do not use reason and cannot believe: for although they do not believe actually, they believe habitually, because in baptism the habit of faith, grace, and charity is infused into them; and they also believe actually in the faith of the Church, that is, of their parents and of the faithful of the Church, who frequently elicit acts of faith on behalf of themselves and all theirs.
Verse 15: And When He Had Laid His Hands Upon Them, He Departed From Thence
The hands of Christ were life-giving and saving. Whence Luke, chapter IV, 40, says: "But He, laying His hands on every one of them (the weak and the sick), healed them." The reason is that the hand is the instrument of instruments: therefore the divinity of Christ through His hands exerted His divine power and grace upon those whom He touched, giving them health of body and soul, or increasing the health given in circumcision or otherwise, and sanctifying them by His hidden power, and offering them to God and as it were consecrating them. Hence there is no doubt that these little ones blessed by Christ grew up into wise and holy men, who afterwards built up Churches and propagated the faith of Christ. So Franciscus Lucas.
Verse 16: And Behold One Came and Said to Him: Good Master, What Good Shall I Do That I May Have Life Everlasting?
"One;" St. Jerome thinks this was the lawyer of whom Luke X, 25, speaks, and that therefore he approached Christ with the intention of testing Him. Better, St. Chrysostom holds this one to be different from the one in Luke, and that with an open heart, in order to make himself like the children, according to Christ's precept, he asked of Him with sincere intent by what means he might obtain that eternal life which Christ had just before promised to children and those like them; hence this is the one whom Luke XVIII, 18, mentions. That this is so appears from comparing both passages. The same will be made clearer from what follows, especially from verse 22, where it is said that when he heard Christ's doctrine of perfection: "If thou wilt be perfect, go, sell what thou hast, and give to the poor," he went away sad, because he had great possessions — which is a sign that he was asking these things of Christ with a sincere mind and zeal for his own salvation.
Good Master. — This is a simple phrase by which the Hebrews greet and address someone, by which they capture the goodwill of a teacher and prophet, as if to say: Rabbi, I know you to be good — as a man, as a teacher, and as a prophet, who teach me and others well those things which are truly good and lead to beatitude. Tell me then what I should do that is good above others, that I may obtain the supreme good in heaven. For he plays on the word "good."
Verse 17: Why Askest Thou Me About the Good? One Is Good, God. But If Thou Wilt Enter Into Life, Keep the Commandments
The translator reads: Τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ ἀγαθοῦ, thus also read St. Augustine and St. Jerome in their Commentaries; but others now read: Τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν, that is, "why do you call Me good?" Both readings Origen puts forward. He adds the reason, saying:
One Is Good, God, — namely by His nature and by His essence. Christ humbly turns back praise and goodness from Himself to God, that He may teach us to do the same: because this questioner did not have full faith in Christ, nor did he believe Him to be God. To this faith, therefore, Christ wished as it were by rebuke to raise and stir him, as if to say: If you call Me good, believe Me to be God; for no one is good of himself, except God. So St. Jerome, Theophylact, Euthymius.
Furthermore, God alone is good through His essence, because just as He alone has true, solid, and full being (whence He Himself says in Exodus III: "I AM WHO I AM," as if to say: You therefore, O angels and men, are not, if compared with Me, because My being is so great and so full, but yours so slender and diminished, that in comparison with Me you seem rather not to be than to be), so likewise God alone is good, wise, powerful, just; because from Him all angels and men participate in a drop, or rather a shadow, of goodness, wisdom, power, and justice. See what is said on Amos VI, 13, and Exodus III, 14.
Furthermore, "good" is the same as "perfect," and the goodness of a thing is its perfection. That God is perfect, St. Dionysius proves at length in On the Divine Names, chapter XIII. For in God there is immense perfection both of nature and of wisdom, power, holiness, and virtue. There is therefore in Him the supreme goodness — natural, moral, and supernatural. Therefore He Himself is the fount of all goodness, in which all the goods of creatures are gathered together, and infinitely better than they are in creatures. Wherefore in God there is eminently the beauty of gold, the splendour of gems, the savour of delicacies, the harmony of music, the pleasantness of gardens, and whatever is beautiful, lovable, delightful, and delicious in creatures. Hence from God honey draws its sweetness, the sun its rays, the stars their light, the heavens their adornment, the angels their knowledge, men their virtue, animals their sense, plants their life, and all other things beg from God's goodness and essence — as a drop from the ocean — whatever of good they have, indeed their whole being. In God, therefore, is every good, and that in the most perfect and immense degree; in God is every enticement of love, every consummation of desire, every satisfaction of appetite: why then, O wretched man, do you wander among these meagre created goods, and therefore are not satisfied? Seek the good in which is every good, love and court God; He alone will satisfy your thirst and appetite fully and completely — both in this life through grace, and still more in the future through glory, indeed through Himself; for in heaven God exhibits Himself, as the supreme good, to the Blessed to be seen, tasted, and enjoyed.
But If Thou Wilt Enter Into Life, Keep the Commandments. — Calvin, as stupidly as impiously, thinks that Christ here ironically mocks the young man, who was trusting in his legal works: for, he says, the way to heaven is not the observance of the commandments, since this is impossible for man, but faith. There are as many errors and heresies — indeed blasphemies — in these words as there are words, which run diametrically contrary to Christ's meaning and statement, and utterly subvert it. Hence it is clear that Calvin is driven by the spirit not of Christ, but of Antichrist. See our Maldonatus and Adam Contzen, who professedly comment on the Gospels to refute Calvin and the New Sect: let us proceed to other matters more useful to the Orthodox. Christ therefore here teaches that not faith alone justifies and saves, but that good works are also required, by which, fulfilling the law, we may merit the reward of eternal life and glory, promised by God to those who fulfil the law. Calvin insists: At least Christ here, by "God's commandments," excludes the precepts and traditions of the Church, namely of Pontiffs and Prelates. I answer that these are contained in the fourth commandment of God: "Honour thy father and thy mother," namely the spiritual ones, such as Pontiffs and Prelates, as well as the carnal ones.
Verse 18: Thou Shalt Not Kill, Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery, Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness
The Syriac: "as thine own soul." I have expounded these commandments at Deuteronomy, chapter V, verse 6 and following. Moreover, Christ here proposes only the precepts of the second table, which concern one's neighbour, because in these are included the precepts of the first table, which concern God. For the love of God produces the love of neighbour, since we love him for God's sake: wherefore love of neighbour flows from love of God. Again, it is more difficult to love one's neighbour than God. For who would not love God, especially a religious man, such as this young man was?
Verse 20: All These Things Have I Kept From My Youth; What Is Yet Wanting to Me?
(Syriac and Arabic: "from my boyhood"; as if to say: Having been educated from a child in the law of God and prevented by God's grace, I have zealously kept all God's commandments; this is a rare example of youth): What Is Yet Wanting to Me? — (The Syriac: "in what am I deficient?") of good and of goodness? that I may be perfected in it and "may have eternal life" (as he had asked at verse 16) not just in any way, as all those have who keep the commandments, but securely and certainly, and at a great — nay, the first and most perfect — degree of happiness and glory. For Thou, O Christ, as master of heavenly virtue, seemest to teach a path and doctrine higher than that of our Scribes: tell me therefore what it is; for I, eager for salvation and perfection, desire to seize upon it. Furthermore, St. Jerome holds that the young man here lied: for if, he says, he had loved his neighbour as himself, he would have sold all he had and given to the poor. But this reasoning does not altogether convince; because to love one's neighbour as oneself is a precept, but to give all one has to the poor is a counsel. Whence Christ, as Mark says, "looking upon him, loved him," and suggested this counsel about giving his goods to the poor, in order to raise him to perfection.
Verse 21: If Thou Wilt Be Perfect, Go, Sell What Thou Hast, and Give to the Poor, and Thou Shalt Have Treasure in Heaven; and Come, Follow Me
This is an Evangelical counsel, not a precept. Hence He says, "if thou wilt," as if to say: I do not command, but I counsel, and I urge thee to the highest summit of perfection. So St. Jerome, Augustine, Hilary, Chrysostom, and others generally. See St. Augustine, Sermon 61 On the Season, and chapter XIV On Holy Virginity, where he beautifully distinguishes counsels from precepts against the heretics. Mark, chapter X, 21, adds: "And Jesus looking on him, loved him, and said to him: One thing is wanting to thee: go, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor." Hearing this word of Christ read in the Mass, St. Anthony left all things and followed Christ naked, says St. Athanasius. The same thing exactly was done by St. Prosper, afterwards Bishop of Riez, in the time of St. Leo, as his Life has it in Surius, on the 23rd of June. So also St. Francis. Hear St. Bonaventure in His Life, chapter III: "The first, he says, who joined himself as companion to St. Francis was Bernard. For he, having learned of the poverty of Christ's servant and disposed by his example to despise the world perfectly, asked him by what means he might accomplish it. Having heard this, the servant of God, filled with the consolation of the Holy Spirit over the conception of His own offspring, said: This counsel must be sought from God. They entered therefore the Church of St. Nicholas on the morning already mentioned; and after prayer, Francis, worshipper of the Trinity, opened the book of the Gospels three times, demanding by a threefold testimony from God that Bernard's holy resolution be confirmed. At the first opening of the book this came up: If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell all that thou hast, and give to the poor. At the second: Take nothing with you on the way. At the third: He that will come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me. This, says the holy man, is our life and rule, and of all who shall wish to join our Society. Go therefore, if thou wilt be perfect, and perform what thou hast heard."
Rightly, therefore, St. Bernard in his Declamations, near the beginning: "These are the words, he says, which have persuaded men throughout the whole world of contempt of the world and voluntary poverty. These are foremost among the words which fill the cloisters with monks, the deserts with anchorites. These, I say, are the words which plunder Egypt and carry off all its choicest vessels. This word is living and efficacious, converting souls by a happy emulation of holiness and a faithful promise of truth. For Simon Peter said to Jesus: Behold, we have left all things." Wherefore St. Jerome by this word of Christ, as by a trumpet, everywhere stirs his own — and all of us — to the pursuit of poverty. Whence, in epistle 150 to Hedibia: "Dost thou wish, he says, to be perfect, and to stand on the highest summit of dignity? Do what the Apostles did. Sell what you have, and give to the poor, and follow the Savior, and with naked virtue follow the naked and lonely cross." The same St. Jerome, in epistle 8 to Demetrias: "It belongs, he says, to the Apostolic summit and to perfect virtue, to sell all things and distribute them to the poor, and thus light and unencumbered to fly aloft with Christ to heavenly things." More eloquently still, the same author, epistle 24 to Julian: "And this I exhort, he says: if you wish to be perfect, if you desire the summit of Apostolic dignity, if to follow Christ with the cross taken up, if not to look back when the plow has been grasped, if set upon the lofty roof you despise your former garments, and in order to escape your Egyptian mistress you abandon the cloak of the world. Hence also Elijah, hastening to the kingdoms of heaven, cannot go with his mantle, but leaves his unclean garments to the unclean world. But this, you say, belongs to Apostolic dignity, and to him who wishes to be perfect. Yet why should you not also wish to be perfect? Why should you, who are first in the world, not be first in Christ's family?" And the same shortly afterward: "But if you have given yourself, he says, to the Lord, and in Apostolic virtue have begun to follow the Savior as one perfect, then you will understand where you have been, and in Christ's army what lowest place you have held."
Note: Christian perfection consists first and primarily in charity; nevertheless it is placed by Christ in poverty and the evangelical counsels, as in the means and instruments applied for acquiring charity. See St. Thomas, II-II, Question CLXXXIV, art. 3. All religious pursue this perfection, who renounce all goods in order to follow the naked Christ naked: yet not all attain this perfection at once from the beginning, but gradually tend toward it and by assiduous progress finally arrive at it. Hence Climacus wisely, in Step 26, establishes three degrees of them, namely of beginners, of the advancing, and of the perfect. For beginners he prescribes this alphabet of twenty-four — not of letters, but of virtues — to be learned by heart and imprinted on the mind: "The best alphabet of all the elements, he says, is this: obedience, fasting, hairshirt, ashes, tears, confession, silence, humility, vigils, fortitude, cold, labor or fatigue, distress, contempt, contrition, forgetfulness of injuries, fraternal charity, gentleness, simple and uninquisitive faith, disdain of the world, a hatred of parents in no way hateful, a heart free from attachment to all things, simplicity joined with innocence, voluntary lowliness." To the advancing he then assigns these doctrines of greater virtues: "The lot and manner of the advancing is victory over vainglory and wrath, good hope of salvation, quiet of mind, discretion, a firm and fixed memory of the last judgment, mercy, hospitality, modest rebuke, prayer free from every vicious affection." Lastly, to the perfect he gives these heights of complete holiness: "A heart free from every captivity, perfect charity, the fountain of humility, migration from the vanity of the world, immigration into Christ, a treasure of peace and of divine prayer safe from robbers, abundance of divine illumination, longing for death, hatred of life, flight of the body." He then adds that the perfect man ought to be so holy and pleasing to God, that he is "a legate or patron and advocate of the world, who can in a certain manner constrain God; a colleague of the Angels and a sharer in their mysteries, a most profound height of knowledge, a dwelling-place of heavenly mysteries, a guardian of divine secrets, or as it were God's privy-counsellor, the salvation of men, a god to demons, a lord over vices, a ruler of the body."
Go, Sell All. — You will ask: why is poverty the proper way and instrument of Evangelical perfection? St. Bonaventure answers in the Apologia pauperum that it is because the root of all evils is covetousness: this, therefore, is the foundation of the city of Babylon, for from it are born ambition, gluttony, and the other vices. This covetousness Christ cut down through poverty; poverty therefore first cuts down and takes away wealth, honors, and delights, which are the matter and fuel of all vices. For delights enervate the soul, and befit women, not men. Manly strength therefore abhors delights. Secondly, poverty begets humility, which is the foundation of holiness. Hence St. Francis, says St. Bonaventure, when asked by his brethren what virtue might most commend us to Christ the Lord and make us pleasing to Him, with a certain unusual affection replied: Poverty; for it is the way of salvation, the fountain of humility, the root of perfection, and from it manifold fruits arise, though hidden and known to very few. Thirdly, the poor in spirit, since he has no other cares, devotes himself entirely to gathering virtues, like a bee to its honey. Thus St. Anthony, free from the desire of wealth, had an insatiable desire for virtues, and therefore learned patience from this man, silence from that one, abstinence from another, constancy, prayer, and so forth from yet another. Hence the ancient religious poor were called ascetae, that is, exercisers, because they were wholly occupied in taming anger, gluttony, and the other passions, in the exercise of arduous and heroic virtues; so that some accustomed themselves to take food only once every two days, others only every three days; others scarcely to sleep, like those who lived in the monastery of the Acoemetae, that is, of the watchful, the sleepless. Fourthly, because perfection consists in the charity of God and of neighbor; and poverty directs to this: for it removes mine and thine, from which all quarrels and wars arise among neighbors, as Chrysostom says; the same tears the mind away from every care and love of earthly things, and so fixes it wholly in God. For what the Apostle says concerning the married man in 1 Corinthians 7 — "He who is with a wife thinks of the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and is divided" — applies also to the rich man. For he is divided, dividing his cares and thoughts between God and mammon, that is, his riches. Poverty therefore makes a man superior to the world and the flesh, as it were an angel conversing with the Angels, sighing toward heaven, and makes that saying of the Apostle true: "Mind the things that are above, not the things which are upon the earth," so that he transfers his whole mind, love, thought, and care into God, and becomes with Him as it were one spirit. Perfection therefore consists in this: that the mind be entirely torn away from fleeting things and fixed on the eternal good, that is, on God — which poverty brings about.
You will say: For this it is sufficient to leave all things in affection, not in reality and effect, as Abraham did. I answer with St. Jerome, Contra Vigilantium: This is one degree of poverty, but an inferior one; for the highest is to leave things also in effect, both because the one who does this gives everything — namely, both affection and effect — and because one cannot fully leave things in affection unless also in effect. For just as one who lies on a bed or sits upon a seat, if someone secretly binds him to the seat, does not know that he is bound until he tries to rise: so those who have wealth have a hidden affection by which they are bound to it, which they do not feel except when they lose or leave it. Thus St. Gregory, in the letter prefacing the books of his Moralia, relates that he had been deceived in the world: "It was being opened to me, he says, already then from the love of eternity what I should seek; but inveterate habit had bound me not to change my outward manner of life. And while my mind was still compelling me, as it were only outwardly, to serve the present world, many things began to rise up against me from the care of that same world, so that I might be held in it not now outwardly, but — what is worse — in mind." See Jerome Platus, book III On the Good of the Religious State, chapter XXII. See what I have noted on Acts IV, 32.
Go, Sell What You Have. — Hence the Pelagians taught that no rich man can be saved unless he sold his possessions and gave them to the poor, and became poor himself: against whom St. Augustine writes, in epistle 89 to Hilarius, teaching that this is a counsel, not a precept. Whence Pelagius was compelled to retract this error of his, as St. Augustine testifies in his epistle to Paulinus.
There are in circulation three little books recently reprinted under the name of St. Sixtus the Pope. The first is on riches, in which from this passage he proves that the faithful cannot be saved unless he abandon them and become poor. The second is on the works of faith, in which he teaches that these are required for salvation, but that they are works of free will, not of the grace of God. The third is on chastity, in which he asserts that chastity is a work of free will, not a gift of God. From these it is clear that the author of this book was not St. Sixtus, but some Pelagian, as the Doctors of Louvain, Lindanus, Baronius, Possevinus, and the Parisian editors in volume V of the Bibliotheca SS. Patrum have rightly noted, where they inserted these little books with the censure already mentioned. "Sell what you have, and give to the poor." Mark 10:16 and Luke 18:22 add: "Sell whatsoever you have, and give to the poor." Whence here is refuted the error of Vigilantius and Calvin, who teach that it is better and more perfect to retain one's wealth and to use it, giving alms according to place and time, than to leave all things at once — which St. Jerome refutes in the book Contra Vigilantium. For, as St. Anselm says: "It is more to give the tree with its fruits than the fruits alone." Again, an ascetic who gives part of his wealth to the poor but retains part for himself is neither fish nor flesh — that is, neither one renouncing the world nor a secular person, but a kind of amphibian. Hence St. Basil said to one entering upon the religious life but reserving certain things for himself: "You have destroyed the senator, and have not made the monk," as Cassian and others testify. Besides, such a one does not fully trust God, but partly God and partly the wealth which he reserves for himself. Whence he is not truly and fully poor in spirit, nor does he free himself from the care, distraction, and temptation which riches are wont to bring. For this reason St. Anthony, when someone wished to renounce the world in such a way as to reserve certain things for himself for times of necessity, ordered him to lay upon his naked body pieces of meat he had bought; and when he had done so, dogs and birds rushed in competition to seize the meat and tore his whole body. Then Anthony said: "Those who do not renounce all things are thus torn in pieces by demons," as Rufinus reports in the Lives of the Fathers, book III, number 68. Therefore St. Hilarion, as St. Jerome attests in his Life, when wealth was offered him by Orion — from whom he had expelled a legion of demons — that he might distribute it to the poor, refused it, saying: "To many, the name of the poor is an occasion for avarice; but mercy has no craft: no one gives better than he who reserves nothing for himself." For, as St. Leo wisely says in a similar matter, sermon 12 On Lent: "Through lawful uses one passes over into immoderate excesses, while through care for health the delight of pleasure creeps in, and what can be sufficient for nature is not enough for concupiscence." St. Gregory gives the a priori reason in homily 20 on Ezekiel, long before the end: "For when, he says, someone vows some of his goods to God but does not vow some, it is a sacrifice. But when he vows to almighty God everything that he has, everything that he lives, everything that he understands, it is a holocaust. For there are some who are still held in mind in this world, and yet from their possessions supply help to the needy, hasten to defend the oppressed: these in the good deeds they do offer a sacrifice, because they both immolate something of their action to God and reserve something for themselves. And there are some who reserve nothing for themselves, but offer to the almighty Lord the sense, life, tongue, and substance which they have received. What do these offer but a holocaust? rather, they themselves become a holocaust." The same is taught by St. Augustine, Diadochus, Cassian, and others, whom our Jerome Platus cites in book III On the Good of the Religious State, chapter II, and St. Thomas, II-II, Question LXXXVI, article 3.
Give to the Poor. — Christ does not say: give to your kinsfolk, or to rich friends, says Remigius, for this is an act of natural love and of kinship, by which you do not really renounce your wealth, but rather hand it over to your own people as if for safekeeping: and thus you do not abandon the world, but rather plunge yourself more deeply into it. Make an exception only if your kinsmen need what you have on account of their condition and status; for then they themselves rank among the poor. But "give to the poor," from whom you expect no recompense, but from God alone: hence this is a pure act of almsgiving, as well as of poverty and renunciation of riches. Origen adds: He who hands over his goods to the poor is aided by their prayers. On this account St. Jerome, writing to St. Paulinus (afterwards bishop of Nola) who wished to renounce the world, thus instructs him, Epistle 13: "Take care not to squander Christ's substance imprudently, that is, by immoderate judgment to give the property of the poor not to the poor, and, according to the saying of a most prudent man, lose it by liberality. Do not look to trappings and the empty names of Catos. What have you to do with the splendor of family, you who have renounced the pomps of the world?"
And Thou Shalt Have Treasure in Heaven. — "In the word 'treasure,'" says St. Chrysostom, "the abundance and permanence of the reward is shown." And St. Hilary: "By the loss of earthly substance, he says, the riches of heaven are purchased." Brilliantly St. Augustine, sermon 28 On the Words of the Apostle: "Great, he says, is the happiness of Christians, to whom it has been given to make poverty the price of the kingdom of heaven. Let not your poverty displease you: nothing richer than it can be found. Do you wish to know how wealthy it is? It buys heaven. To what treasures can what we see granted to poverty be compared? That a rich man might come to the kingdom of heaven he cannot obtain by his possession, now he obtains it by despising it and so arriving there." Sell, therefore, dung, and buy heaven; give a penny, and purchase a treasure.
And Come, Follow Me, — pilgrimaging in poverty and preaching the kingdom of God: "For many, says St. Jerome, even leaving their riches behind do not follow the Lord, nor does this suffice for perfection, unless after despising riches they follow the Savior, that is, having abandoned evils, they do good. For the purse is more easily despised than the will. And so there follows: And come, follow Me." The same St. Jerome, writing to Rusticus: "Naked, he says, follow the naked Christ." Again, "follow Me," that you may join the active life to the contemplative. For the holy life is of three kinds: the first and lowest is the active life; the second is the contemplative life; the third and most perfect is to join action to contemplation, so that what we have drawn from God in contemplation, we may afterwards teach to others. For such was the life that Christ and the Apostles led. Thus St. Thomas, II-II, Q. CLXXXVI, art. 6. St. Ambrose gives the reason in his exposition of the title of Psalm XXXVIII: "Christ, he says, is the end of all that we ask with pious mind. For whether you seek wisdom, or pursue virtue, or truth, or the way and justice, or resurrection, in all things Christ is to be followed by you, who is the power of God and wisdom, truth, way, justice, resurrection. To whom, then, should you strive but to the perfection of all things and the highest virtue? And therefore He says to you: Come, follow Me, that is, that you may deserve to arrive at the consummation of virtues. Therefore he who follows Christ ought, according to his ability, to imitate Him, so that he may meditate upon His precepts and the divine examples of His deeds."
Note, in this chapter Christ proposes the three principal evangelical counsels, namely, of celibacy and continence, verse 12; of poverty, verse 21, saying: "Sell what thou hast, and give to the poor;" and of obedience, when He says: "Follow Me," that is, obey Me and My institution and conform yourself to it, and imitate My obedience unto death.
Verse 22: And When the Young Man Had Heard This Word, He Went Away Sad: for He Had Great Possessions
Wisely St. Augustine, Epistle 43 to Paulinus and Therasia: "I know not, he says, how it is that when superfluous earthly things are loved, once obtained they bind us more tightly than when merely desired. For why did that young man go away sorrowful, except because he had great riches? For it is one thing not to wish to take to oneself what one lacks, and another to tear away what has already been taken to oneself. The former are rejected as things foreign; the latter are cut off as if they were limbs." Furthermore, in the Gospel of St. Matthew according to the Hebrews, which Origen cites, more is added here: for thus it has it: "One of the other rich men said to Him: Master, what good thing shall I do to live? He said to him: Man, keep the law and the prophets. He answered Him: I have done so. He said to him: Go, sell all that thou possessest, and divide among the poor, and come, follow Me. But the rich man began to scratch his head, and it did not please him. And the Lord said to him: How canst thou say, I have kept the law and the prophets? For it is written in the law: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself; and behold, many of thy brethren, sons of Abraham, are clothed with filth, dying of hunger, and thy house is full of many good things, and nothing at all goes forth from it to them. And turning, He said to Simon His disciple sitting beside Him: Simon, son of Jonas, it is easier for a camel to enter through the eye of a needle than for a rich man into the kingdom of heaven."
Verse 23: Amen I Say to You, That a Rich Man Shall Hardly Enter Into the Kingdom of Heaven
Jesus (taking occasion from the sorrow of the rich young man) said to His disciples: Amen I say to you, that a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven; — both because the desire of riches causes them to be heaped up by fair means and foul; and because the same thing so binds the mind to gold that it cannot think of heaven; and because riches are the matter and spur to pride, gluttony, luxury, and every kind of wickedness, according to that saying:
Effodiuntur opes, irritamenta malorum. (Riches are dug up, the incentives of evils.)
Hear St. Augustine, sermon 28 On the Words of the Apostle: "Gold, which the frost seeks out, which avarice covets, which anxiety guards; gold the matter of labors, a perilous thing for those who possess it; gold the weakening of virtues, gold an evil master, a treacherous servant, etc.; gold, which gleams to the destruction of its master; gold, whose seeking holds men damned, whose love makes a Judas," etc. Finally, avarice is the service of idols, Colossians chapter III. Poverty therefore, and contempt for wealth, opens heaven, which opulence and greed shut up.
Verse 24: It Is Easier for a Camel to Pass Through the Eye of a Needle, Than for a Rich Man to Enter Into the Kingdom of Heaven
"And again," in Greek πάλιν δὲ, that is, "and again." For Christ, by adding, as it were corrects what He had said, as if to say: I said that it was difficult for a rich man to be saved; now I add something further, that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into heaven. By "a rich man" Remigius understands one who trusts in his riches, who places all his hope in them, which many rich men do. More simply, however, you may take it of any rich man whatsoever.
You will ask: what is this camel, and how can it pass through the eye of a needle? Some, according to Theophylact, in Greek understand by "camel" a nautical rope, which in Greek is called κάμιλος, that is, "camelus." Others, with the Gloss, understand it as a gate in Jerusalem which, because it was very low and humble, was called "the Camel," since anyone passing through it had to lower and bend himself like a camel.
But I say that this is to be understood of that humpbacked and tall animal which in common speech is called a camel. So say the Syriac, the Arabic, Origen, St. Hilary, Jerome, Chrysostom, and others in many places. Here note that among the Jews this was a proverb, such that when they wished to signify that a thing was impossible, they would say: It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for this thing to happen. Whence the Talmudists still use this proverb, as Caninius testifies in his Hebrew Names of the New Testament. Similar proverbs signifying a thing's impossibility are these: a tortoise will sooner outrun a hare; a wolf will first take a sheep to wife; a locust will sooner bring forth an ox; a tortoise will vanquish an eagle; the earth flies; rivers run uphill; you will sooner hide an elephant beneath your wing; you will first fly without wings; a beetle will sooner make honey; the sky will first fall; the sea will more easily bear vines, for salt is harmful to crops but most hostile of all to vines; a woman will sooner run out of words; you will more easily feed the winds.
Moreover, this is a hyperbole; for that is called impossible which is very difficult. Hence that a rich man be saved, which here Christ says is impossible, in the preceding verse He said to be difficult. So St. Jerome: "It is not impossibility that is put forward, he says, but rarity that is demonstrated." So also Jansenius, Maldonatus, and others. Thus, at verse 12, He said: "He that can take, let him take it," signifying that some cannot take, that is, can only with difficulty take, the counsel of celibacy. And Jeremiah XIII, 23, says: "If the Ethiopian can change his skin, or the leopard his spots, you also may be able to do well, when you have learned evil," and yet this can be done, though with pain and difficulty. Thus it is impossible, that is, difficult, for a rich man to be saved, just as for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle: absolutely, nevertheless, this can be done: if, for example, the camel were cut into the tiniest parts, like atoms, each of which would be drawn through the eye of a needle bit by bit, slowly and laboriously; or if some needle were made so large and thick as to be like a tower or a pyramid; for then a hole could be made in it so great that an entire camel might pass through it. Finally, Emmanuel Sa explains "the eye of a needle" as "what a needle has" or "what a needle makes"; for a needle can itself by degrees make a huge and great opening.
Again, you may take "impossible" here in its proper sense; for that a rich man be saved is impossible with men, but with God it is possible, as Christ says at verse 26, because, namely, this is impossible to the powers of nature, but by the powers of grace given by God it is possible, just as for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle; for that this is possible to God is clear from a similar case, namely, from the quantity of Christ's body, which in the Eucharist is whole in a small host, indeed in any point of it whatsoever: for if God can place the whole body of Christ in a single point of the consecrated host, then He can cause a camel to pass through the eye of a needle. This is illustrated by the example of a circle; for from any point of a circle straight and diametrical lines can be drawn to the center, that is, to the midpoint of the circle. The center, therefore, contains in itself, and by terminating them receives, all these lines: and so it alone corresponds to, and is as it were equal to, all the points of the circle from which lines are drawn to the center; and consequently it corresponds to, and is as it were equal to, the whole circle itself and its circumference: for in a similar manner the point of the host in the Eucharist takes in all the lines of Christ's body, and His whole quantity and circumference.
Aptly and elegantly, says Franciscus Lucas, the rich man, swollen and puffed up with wealth, on whose back lie the long and wide burdens of riches — burdens which are often more of a weight to him than a use, since he carries them for others rather than for himself — is compared to a camel; and the narrow gate through which one enters life, to the eye of a needle, so that you may understand that those to whom riches flow in abundance are more inflated by pride and arrogance than to allow themselves to be reduced to the straits in which God keeps His own. I have recounted many analogies between camel and rich man at Ecclesiasticus XIII, 11.
By this similitude, then, of the camel and the needle, Christ signifies that riches are not so much an advantage to the rich man as a burden and hindrance to virtue and to the kingdom of heaven; and therefore that He had wisely given the young man the counsel to give them to the poor, and to follow Him, the poor One, in poverty. Hence,
Mystically: that the camels — that is, these rich men swollen and proud with their wealth — would, through the grace of Christ, having laid down the hump of pride, enter the Church as through the eye of a needle, that is, through the straits of humility and the Gospel law, Isaiah foretold at LX, 6, saying: "A flood of camels shall cover thee, dromedaries of Madian and Epha." So St. Jerome, Theophylact, and Procopius on that passage. Hear St. Jerome: "Such was your mother of holy memory, Paula, and her brother Pammachius, who passed through the eye of a needle, that is, through the narrow and strait way that leads to life, and, leaving behind with their burdens the broad way that leads to hell, carried whatever they had as gifts to the Lord, fulfilling that saying: 'The ransom of a man's life are his own riches'; for what is impossible with men is possible with God."
Allegorically: St. Augustine, book II of Questions on the Gospels, chapter XLVII, and St. Gregory, book XXXV of the Morals, chapter XVI, take the camel to mean Christ, and the needle His Passion, as if to say: It is easier for Christ to suffer for the lovers of the world than for the lovers of the world to be converted to Christ. Hear St. Gregory: "The camel passes through the eye of a needle when our Redeemer, even to the undergoing of death, entered through the straits of His Passion — which Passion stood as it were a needle, because it pierced His body with pain: but a camel enters the eye of a needle more easily than a rich man the kingdom of heaven, because unless He had first shown us the form of humility through His Passion, our proud stiffness would in no way incline itself to humility."
Symbolically and anagogically: the author of the Opus Imperfectum, cited under the name of St. Chrysostom, homily 33: "The souls of the Gentiles, he says, are likened to crooked camels, in which was the hump of idolatry: because the knowledge of God is the straightening of souls. The needle, moreover, is the Son of God, whose first part is slender according to His divinity, and the other thicker according to His incarnation. Yet the whole is straight, and has no curvature; through the wound of His Passion the Gentiles have entered into eternal life. With this needle was sewn the tunic of immortality; this is the needle that stitched flesh to spirit. This needle joined the Jewish people with the Gentiles; this needle coupled the friendship of Angels and men. Therefore it is easier for the Gentiles to pass through the eye of a needle than for the rich Jews to enter the kingdom of heaven."
Verse 25: And When They Had Heard This, the Disciples Wondered Very Much, Saying: Who Then Can Be Saved?
Because few, and scarcely any, were then to be found who did not desire to be rich: for all gaped after gain, as many still do even now. For, as St. Augustine says on this passage in his Questions on the Gospels: "All who desire riches are counted in the number of the rich."
Verse 26: With Men This Is Impossible; but With God All Things Are Possible
Nay, even easy. In Greek ἐπιβλέψας, that is, "having looked upon"; the Syriac adds "them," namely, the disciples, as if to say: Jesus, looking upon the Apostles with His kindly glance, calmed and soothed the disciples' timid and anxious mind: so Chrysostom. "With men," as if to say: By the powers of human nature, it is impossible for a rich man, entangled in his wealth, to attain salvation, because this salvation is a supernatural beatitude which accordingly we cannot attain without similarly supernatural powers of grace. But with God all things are possible, because God is the author and source both of nature and of grace and glory, and He brings it about that through grace we may generously and easily overcome all difficulties and obstacles of nature, and, as regards the present matter, makes it so that the rich are not attached to their riches, but use them rightly, indeed so that not a few, leaving them behind, pursue and follow the evangelical poverty of Christ: for this all the first Christians did, because they had all things in common, as is plain from Acts IV, 32.
Verse 27: Behold We Have Left All Things, and Have Followed Thee: What Therefore Shall We Have?
The Arabic: "What therefore will there be near at hand that will belong to us?" "What," that is, of reward in heaven and of glory in eternal life. Peter, following the counsel of Christ's poverty which the young man had spurned, taking courage, emboldens the Apostles because they almost alone had followed the counsel of poverty given by Christ; and, to cheer them even more, he asks what and how great a reward and glory in Him await him and the rest of the Apostles, who, following Christ the poor One in preaching the kingdom of heaven, may remain in Him — so that he may confirm himself and his companions in their holy resolve, advance them, and enkindle them.
We Have Left All Things, — which we had, that is, the boat and the nets with which we sought our food by fishing, which, though they were in themselves few and small, yet, as St. Gregory says in homily 5 on the Gospels, and from him St. Bernard, treatise on these words of Christ: "He has forsaken much who forsakes the desire of having: by those who follow Christ, so much has been left as could be desired by those who do not follow." For one who is poor in spirit, though he be destitute in property, is nevertheless rich in feeling, because for love of Christ he has left behind all that he could have, hope for, or attain throughout his whole life in the world — nay, the whole world and all that is in it — so that he may give himself wholly to God. This is a heroic act of poverty as much as of charity and religion, by which a man offers himself wholly to God as a holocaust, indeed becomes himself a living and continual holocaust of God.
Hear St. Augustine on Psalm CIII, conference 3: "Peter not only gave up whatever he had, but also whatever he desired to have. For what poor man does not swell with the hope of this world? Who does not daily desire to increase what he has? That desire has been cut off. It was going forth into the boundless; it received a limit; and has nothing been left behind? On the contrary, the whole world did Peter give up, and the whole world did Peter receive. 'As having nothing, and possessing all things.'"
Verse 28: You Also Shall Sit on Twelve Seats, Judging the Twelve Tribes of Israel
"In the regeneration," that is, in baptism: for this is a spiritual regeneration, by which, dying to sins, we are born to a spiritual, heavenly, and divine life. So St. Hilary, as if to say: You, who have followed Me through the regeneration of baptism, shall sit with Me as judges of the twelve tribes of Israel. But all the others generally take "the regeneration" to mean the common resurrection which is to come on the day of judgment: for this, since it will be a renewal of the body and of the whole man as well as of the world, and as it were a second generation unto glory, is here and elsewhere rightly called "regeneration." Hence the Syriac renders it "in the new age"; the Arabic, "in the generation to come"; for then there will be a new heaven and a new earth, Isaiah LXV, 17; Apocalypse XXI, 1; and 2 Peter III, 13.
When the Son of Man Shall Sit on the Seat of His Majesty. — The Arabic, "of His glory." St. Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Euthymius hold that by "sitting" judicial power is signified. For it belongs to judges to sit, so that they may judge calmly and tranquilly, without disturbance and haste. This is true, but in addition "He shall sit" and "you shall sit" properly signifies that Christ will take His seat in judgment, and with Him the Apostles and those like them, and that upon thrones of cloud, aerial and most splendid, yet each according to his own merit and dignity. Hence Sacred Scripture everywhere assigns a seat and session to Christ when about to judge; for sitting is common among all nations, and as it were the natural posture of judges. So Maldonatus, though Jansenius and some others deny it, holding that the proper posture of a glorified body such as Christ has is to stand rather than to sit. But in truth both befit a glorified body here, namely, to stand for combat and to sit for judgment.
You Also Shall Sit on Twelve Seats. — Richard of St. Victor, treatise On Judicial Power, Maldonatus, and some others think that these things are promised by Christ only to the twelve Apostles, because they were the first followers of Christ, as if to say: Each of you twelve will have his own seat in judgment, even Judas — so says Chrysostom — if he persists in his calling. But others, better, generally hold that these things are promised also to the successors and descendants of the Apostles, namely, Religious, who, leaving all things, most closely follow Christ and the Apostles evangelizing the kingdom of God. So a definite number is here put for an indefinite one, that is, twelve for all; for Christ speaks to the twelve Apostles, but in such a way that in them He addresses their followers: for those who take up equal labor with the Apostles merit equal honor with them. Christ therefore promises these judicial seats to those who leave all things and follow Him as He preaches the Gospel. Now this is what Religious do, especially those who dedicate themselves to the gain of souls. Hence St. Bernard, in his sermon On the Ungrateful: "We all, he says, have professed the Apostolic life." Hence Nazianzen, in his first oration against Julian, shows that it belongs to monks to sit upon thrones. The same is expressly taught by Origen here, tractate 8; St. Augustine, bk. XX of the City of God, chap. V; Cyril on Isaiah chap. LX; St. Jerome, Epistle 28; St. Gregory, bk. X of the Morals, chap. XVII; St. Anselm, Epistle 10; the Abulensis (Tostatus) here, Q. CCV; St. Bernard on the verse "Behold, we have left all things."
St. Augustine proves this on Psalm LXXXVI: "For if only twelve seats are going to be there, there will be no place for the thirteenth Apostle Paul to sit; nor will there be any way for him to judge, although he said he would judge not only men, but also Angels. Not only, therefore, those twelve and the Apostle Paul, he says, but however many are to judge, belong to the twelve seats by reason of the signification of totality." And St. Bernard, sermon On St. Benedict: "Altogether just, he says, is the recompense, that those who here for Christ's sake despised the heights of human glory should there, glorified by Christ as judges, sit in singular fashion together with Him. But let no one suppose that only twelve Apostles will then be judges, because in place of the apostate Judas, Matthias was chosen — just as the twelve tribes of Israel are not the only ones to be judged; otherwise the tribe of Levi, which is the thirteenth, would withdraw unjudged; and Paul, who is the thirteenth Apostle, would be deprived of the lot of judging, though he himself says: 'Know you not that we shall judge Angels?' For it is to be known that all who after the example of the Apostles have left all things and followed Christ will come as judges with them, just as also every kind of mortal is to be judged: because, since in Scripture totality is often designated by the number twelve, by the twelve seats of the Apostles the totality of those who judge is shown, and by the twelve tribes of Israel the totality of those who are to be judged." St. Thomas demonstrates the same at length, treatise Against Those Who Draw Men Back From Religion, chapters VI and VII, where he teaches that this session is promised to evangelical poverty, and from this shows how sublime and pleasing to God this poverty is, inasmuch as beyond other virtues it merits this summit and throne of judicial power. The reason is given by St. Gregory, book XXVI of the Morals, chap. XX, where, interpreting that verse of Job XXXVI: "He giveth judgment to the poor": "Because, he says, the more they were despised in this world by great humility, the more they rise up then, having received their seats, to a greater summit of power." For it is fitting, first, that Religious, who lived above the world, should judge the world; secondly, that those who in the world transcended all others with the eagle's glance of heavenly goods and the contempt of earthly things, should be judges and princes over the rest; thirdly, that those who were teachers of the world should examine and judge the world, whether it has lived according to their teaching; fourthly, that those who were judged fools by the world may judge the foolish world, and convict and condemn it of folly, Wisdom V, 4.
On this account, admiring their excellence, St. Bernard exclaims, sermon 8 on the Psalm Qui habitat: "O grace of familiarity! O summit of honor! O privilege of confidence! O prerogative of perfect security! For what can be conceived as more dreadful, more full of anxiety and most vehement solicitude, than to stand before that most terrifying tribunal to be judged, and to await still uncertain the sentence under so strict a Judge?" And soon after: "Blessed indeed is that poverty which makes them so secure, nay, so glorious, in that unique crashing of the elements, in that dread examination of merits, in that great crisis of judgments."
Furthermore, this glorious judicial session in the presence of the whole world — nay, concerning the whole world — is promised by Christ to each of those who, leaving all things, have followed Christ the poor One, themselves poor, with fervent and perfect imitation (thus St. Augustine and Gregory, already cited; whence from them St. Anthony and Francisco Suárez, III part, Q. LIX, disp. LVII, sect. 4, deny that this reward is to be given to imperfect Religious, but only to the perfect — and rightly so), and who have propagated His Gospel and kingdom. For since, as St. Bernard says on the verse "Behold, we have left all things," "in poverty there are two disadvantages, first humility, and then also the enduring of many labors, it has rightly been appointed by the Lord that in return for the labors a seat, and in return for the contempt the summit of such great power, should be given back."
The word "you shall sit," therefore, signifies first, the security of the evangelical poor; secondly, the office of judging; thirdly, dignity and eminence above the rest; fourthly, a place next to Christ, and the highest union with Him; fifthly, primacy of grace, happiness, and glory, inasmuch as, like princes of the kingdom of heaven, they shall have the right to judge others, and to admit the worthy into it and to exclude the unworthy from it.
Tropologically: the author of the Opus Imperfectum holds that by this session and judicial power there is promised to those who leave all things and follow Christ, dominion over hearts — namely, that they should rule over the hearts and minds of men, and in them set up the throne and kingdom of Christ, in which they themselves may sit, so that, like kings, they may rule over the hearts of men, and in all things render them obedient to Christ. Hence the Apostles and apostolic men, leaving all things — such as were religious men and monks, burning with the love of God — converted the globe, as Hieronymus Platus shows at length, bk. II On the Good of the Religious State, chap. XXX: "For whoever, says the Author of the Imperfect Work, by believing in Christ (and perfectly imitating Him) takes Him into himself, they are the seats of His majesty." And: "Whoever receive the word of Peter become the throne of Peter, and Peter sits in them."
Judging the Twelve Tribes of Israel. — "Judging," not only in the sense of "put not your lot among the ungodly," as St. Jerome, Chrysostom, Euthymius, and elegantly the author of the Opus Imperfectum expound it, in the manner in which the Queen of the South and the Ninevites are said to be going to condemn the Jews on the day of judgment, namely, by their own deed and example, because at Jonah's preaching they did penance, whereas the Jews refused to do penance at Christ's preaching, Matthew XII, 40 and 41. Nor, moreover, only in the sense of approving Christ's sentence, in the manner in which all the saints shall judge: for they will approve Christ's just sentence upon the pious as well as upon the impious, consigning them to heaven or to hell; but much more honorably and gloriously, as the foremost and princes of the heavenly kingdom, as teachers and judges, and as it were assessors of Christ the Judge sitting with Him on their thrones — like Cardinals with the Pope — they shall judge properly, and shall give the same sentence as Christ, by which they will adjudge the good to heaven and the wicked to hell, reproaching and rebuking those who neglected their teaching and the example of their holy life, and approving and praising those who embraced both and expressed them by imitation. For this aureole of judgment befits them. So Jansenius, Maldonatus, Suárez, and others.
The Twelve Tribes of Israel. — Not as though the Apostles and apostolic men on the day of judgment would judge only the Jews, as Theophylact and Euthymius explain it; but rather because under "the twelve tribes" He understands all the nations.
Here note that the tribes of Israel are said to be twelve: for although the tribe of Joseph was split in two and divided into Ephraim and Manasseh, Joseph's two sons — whom Jacob, the common father of all the tribes, adopted as his own sons, and made equal with his other sons in succession and inheritance (for he himself fathered twelve sons, each of whom with the posterity descended from him constituted one tribe, so that all together there are twelve), Genesis XLVIII, 16 — and consequently according to this reckoning the tribe of Levi would be not the twelfth but the thirteenth, nevertheless, looking back to the first origin of the tribes, that is, to the twelve Patriarchs, the sons of Jacob, there were no more than twelve tribes; for there were just as many Patriarchs, or sons of Jacob.
Note secondly, that these twelve tribes are called "Israel" because from Israel — that is, from the patriarch Jacob — through his twelve sons they descended and were propagated. Further, these twelve tribes once were the faithful and chosen people, that is, the Church of God, even in Christ's time; nay, this was the kingdom of Israel promised to the Messiah. Hence the Gentiles who believed in Christ were, as it were, engrafted into this Church and Jewish people — that is, into the twelve tribes of Israel — and as if given citizenship, so that they are no longer called "Gentiles," but "Jews," that is, those who confess and believe; and "Israelites," that is, those who rule with God, as the Apostle teaches, Romans II, 17 and following. Hence St. John, in Apocalypse XXI, 12, says that he saw the names of the twelve tribes of Israel inscribed on the gates of the heavenly Jerusalem. All Christians, therefore, of every nation, have already been divided and distributed among the twelve tribes of Israel just mentioned, so that some are counted as belonging to the tribe of Judah, others to the tribe of Joseph, others to the tribe of Levi, and so forth, according to the diversities of their souls and virtues: for to Judah belong magistrates, kings, and princes — for from Judah were born the kings and princes of Israel, according to the oracle of Jacob, Genesis XLIX, 10. To Joseph belong virgins, the chaste, and celibates; for such was Joseph before his principate in Egypt. To Levi belong priests, deacons, and Religious; for such were the Levites, and so for the rest.
Note thirdly: Unbelieving Gentiles do not strictly belong to the twelve tribes of Israel, inasmuch as these are of the faithful; therefore, by this tacit omission of the unfaithful, it is here signified that they will not be judged on the day of judgment; because: "He who does not believe is already judged," John III, 18. Understand this of the judgment of doubtful examination, for by this alone the faithful will be judged: for of the faithful there can be doubt whether they are to be condemned or saved, which doubt will be resolved by the examination of each one's works: for otherwise, that unbelievers also will appear on the day of judgment, and will likewise be judged, and that to each one according to his demerits a greater or lesser penalty in hell is to be decreed, is agreed among all and is plain from Joel III, 2, and Matthew XXV, 32.
Verse 29: Every One That Hath Left House, or Brethren, or Sisters, or Father, or Mother, or Wife, or Children, or Lands, for My Name's Sake, Shall Receive a Hundredfold, and Shall Possess Life Everlasting
Note that in each of these members a disjunctive conjunction "or" is used, because Christ is speaking not of those who, following Him, leave all things, but of those who renounce only some things "for His sake and the Gospel's," as Mark says, namely, in order to observe the doctrine, laws, and ordinances of the Gospel: so Origen, St. Jerome, Maldonatus, and others; although St. Chrysostom thinks otherwise, and holds that the same thing is promised here by Christ to the rest of the faithful that He had just now promised to the twelve Apostles, as if to say: All the faithful who did the same as the twelve Apostles, namely, leaving all things to follow Me, will receive the same honor, and will obtain one of the twelve seats among the Apostles, and in it will judge the twelve tribes of Israel. But the former explanation, which I gave, is truer, and is required by the disjunctive "or."
Who Shall Have Left His House, — either because he is stripped of his house and driven into exile by a tyrant, or because he willingly leaves his house on account of the scandals and temptations he finds in it, or because, having left his house, he takes refuge in a monastery or church to dedicate himself entirely to God's service. I say the same of brothers, sisters, father, mother, wife, and children: for even these, when they are unbelievers and wicked, strive to call the believer away from the faith or from integrity; whence if a wife should call her husband away from faith and piety, Christ counsels the husband to divorce her, for it is better to forsake a wife than to forsake Christ. But willingly he will leave all these, who out of zeal for a more perfect life take refuge in the camps of religious orders. And this is the meaning of "for My name's sake," that is, "for My sake," out of love and reverence for Me, that he may serve Me better and more fully, and devote himself wholly to Me.
Shall Receive a Hundredfold. — In Greek ἑκατονταπλασίονα, that is, "hundredfold things," namely, in each case, so that for one house which he leaves for Christ's sake he may receive a hundred; for one brother, sister, son, father, mother, he may receive a hundred brothers, sisters, sons, fathers, mothers. The Syriac: "one into a hundred," that is, increased and multiplied at a hundredfold of interest. So also the Egyptian (Coptic), Arabic, Ethiopic, and Persian, which commonly agree among themselves — especially the Ethiopic with the Persian, and the Egyptian with the Arabic, so that the latter seems to have been translated from the former. For the Egyptians, converted first by St. Mark, the disciple of St. Peter, received the Gospel. "Hundredfold," therefore, means "more things, and by many parts greater." Hence Luke has "manifold"; for a definite number is put for an indefinite one, so that the greatness and abundance of the reward may be signified.
You will ask: what is this "hundredfold" promised by Christ Himself to those who leave their possessions for His sake? First, the Chiliasts, or Millenarians, understand by "hundredfold" a thousand years, during which these Saints, after the common resurrection, will delight themselves on this earth and enjoy every pleasure. But this is an error, which I have refuted at Apocalypse XX, and Mark X, 31, contradicts it, saying: "He shall receive a hundred times as much now in this time." Hear St. Jerome: "On the occasion of this saying, certain persons introduce a thousand years after the resurrection, saying: Then to us the hundredfold of all things we have left behind, together with eternal life, is to be given back; not understanding that if in other matters the promise be worthy, in the matter of wives there would appear a foulness, in that he who had dismissed one for the Lord's sake would receive a hundred in the future."
Secondly, St. Gregory, homily 18 on Ezekiel: "He shall receive a hundredfold, he says, because God will bring it about that such a man will rejoice far more in his poverty or in the renunciation of his goods (inasmuch as it has been done for the love of Christ) than the rich rejoice in all their wealth and comforts." And those who renounce their goods for Christ's sake in fact experience that this is so.
Thirdly, St. Jerome, Bede, and others take "hundredfold" to refer not to temporal goods but to spiritual ones, such as peace, joy, divine consolations, and the other gifts and graces with which God soothes and heaps them, which far surpass all earthly goods and joys more than the number one hundred surpasses unity. But since Mark, in explaining "a hundred times as much" point by point, adds "houses, and brothers, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands," hence:
Fourthly, and more authentically, Origen, Theophylact, Euthymius, Cassian, and Franciscus Lucas explain "hundredfold" thus: that he who leaves his goods and his own for Christ's sake, by Christ's provision, finds another hundred — that is, very many — who lavish upon him the love, aid, and care of brothers, wives, and mothers with far greater charity and sweetness, so that he may seem not to have lost or relinquished his possessions, but to have deposited them in Christ's providence, and there to have multiplied them at great interest. For the affections of the spirit are sweeter than those of nature; and he who is rich in heavenly love, which piety produces, loves more than he who is steeped in earthly love, which birth joins. Therefore he who leaves one house for Christ will find a hundred or more homes of the pious ready and open to him, which receive him lovingly and joyfully. Priests experience this, as do those who flee from their homes on account of persecution in Japan, England, and Scotland: for they find the houses of all the faithful ready for their lodging, and they frequently move from house to house. So too the religious who leaves one father's house for Christ finds not a hundred houses, but very great and very beautiful colleges and monasteries, which receive him with motherly affection. So too whoever has left one field for Christ will find a hundred fields of those who worship Christ, from which he may be fed, and that without his own labor or cultivation, although he would have had to cultivate his own. Likewise, for one brother left behind, there will be very many Christians who follow him with brotherly love after the manner of brothers, clinging more sweetly by a spiritual bond; for one sister, very many young women will love him chastely, and regard him as a brother; for one father, many old men will cherish him as a son; for one mother, many matrons will with maternal affection provide for his necessities; for one wife, a hundred other wives, joined to him in chaste spirit, will be ready themselves and through others to serve his health and comforts, just as if they were his wives; finally, for one son or daughter, countless people will revere him as a father, and will hang upon his sound doctrine and counsel, from whom his soul will take greater delight than he would from his own children. This is what St. Augustine, from Solomon, says in Epistle 89, Question IV: "To the believer the whole world is a world of riches." Hear Cassian, Conferences, last conference, last chapter: "He will receive a hundredfold quantity of brothers, fathers, and parents. Whoever, out of charity for the name of Christ, has despised one father, or mother, or son, passes over into the most sincere love of all who serve Christ, since for one he is bound with more fervent and excellent affection to so many fathers and brothers. He will also be enriched by the multiplied possession of houses and fields: whoever, rejecting one house out of love for Christ, will possess innumerable monastic dwellings as his own in whatever part of the world, as though succeeding by right to his own house. For how is it not a hundredfold — and if anything may be added to our Lord's words, more than a hundredfold — that he receives, who, leaving behind the faithless and constrained services of ten or twenty slaves, is upheld by the spontaneous service of so many free and noble men?" The Apostles experienced this hundredfold, and the first Christians in the fervor of the primitive Church, of whom Paul says: "Having nothing, and possessing all things;" and Luke, Acts IV, 32: "Neither did any one say, he says, that aught of the things he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common;" and soon after: "For neither was there any one needy among them. For as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the price of the things they sold, and laid it down before the feet of the Apostles: and distribution was made to every one, according as he had need." Good religious experience this even now; and if sometimes it should happen otherwise, and anyone should lack something necessary for the body, then God supplies this corporal defect, and compensates it with an abundance of spiritual gifts and joys.
There is a striking example in the philosopher Peregrinus, who feigned to be a Christian, and as such offered himself to the governor and to prison during a persecution, so that he might enjoy the aid and resources of the Christians who came to his help: nor did his calculation fail him, for there, while the Christians vied with one another in giving him their goods, the impostor, laden with gold, returned to his homeland, as Lucian relates at length in his Peregrinus, and after him Baronius, in the year of Christ 75, chapter VII.
Finally, St. Ambrose, on Psalm 118, letter Cheth, or the eighth octonary, takes the hundredfold to mean God Himself, and consequently the whole world, which is God's peculiar possession. For to those who leave all and everything for His sake, God is father, mother, wife, brother, sister, and all things, Matthew 12:49. "For," says Ambrose, "whoever has left all things begins to possess God, and He Himself is the full reward of virtues, who is measured not by the enumeration of a hundredfold, but by the estimation of perfect virtue." He also brings forward the example of the tribe of Levi, which, because by the Lord's command it had no portion of land among the other tribes, therefore the Lord Himself so promised and often confirmed that He Himself would be its portion and possession. Whence he concludes with this golden maxim: "He whose portion is God is the possessor of all nature. For fields, he is sufficient for himself, having that good fruit which cannot perish. For houses, he is sufficient for himself, so that he is the dwelling of God and the temple of God, than which nothing can be more precious. For what is more precious than God? This is a portion which earthly portions cannot equal. What is more magnificent than a heavenly guest? What is more blessed than divine possession?" And Cassian, Conferences, last conference, last chapter: "For that joy, he says, which a man had in the possession of one field and one house, he will enjoy the gladness of riches a hundred times greater, who, passing into the adoption of the sons of God, will possess as his own all things that belong to the eternal Father, and will proclaim, in affection and virtue, in imitation of that true Son: All things that the Father has are Mine, and now without any painful anxiety of straining or solicitude, but secure and joyful, as it were in his own property everywhere he succeeds, hearing daily preached to him by the Apostle: All things are yours, whether the world, or things present, or things to come; and by Solomon: To a faithful man, the whole world is one of riches." This, then, is the fitting and worthy reward of poverty: that, having nothing, nothing may be wanting to him, but he may possess all things.
This St. Francis experienced, and he exhorted his followers to it: "Dearest sons, he says, great and indescribable are the benefits of our God toward us, who so bends the hearts of the faithful toward His humble and useless servants. From what we receive daily let us hope for what is to come: if the things granted seem small, He will add greater ones, as long as we persevere in the observance of the divine commandments. Cast therefore your thought upon the Lord, and He Himself will nourish you upon this mountain (of Alverno), He who nourished Elijah in the desert, and Antony and Paul in the hermitage. Know most certainly that there is no safer refuge for us for relieving our need than to have none at all. For if we are true and Evangelical poor, the world will have mercy on us and will feed us abundantly. But if we fall away from poverty, the world will flee us; and repelling our wants by unlawful means, we shall suffer greater scarcity." So Wadding reports in the Annals of the Friars Minor, in the year of Christ 1212, number 14. Mark X, 30 adds that this hundredfold is to be rendered "with persecutions": how this happens, I will discuss there.
Tropologically: Cassian, in the passage already cited, asserts that the joy of converts in virtue is a hundredfold greater than it had previously been in cupidity and vice: "If, he says, in place of the disturbance of anger and fury you shall have weighed the constant meekness of soul; in place of the anguish of anxiety and distraction, the calm of security; in place of the fruitless and punitive sadness of this age, the fruit of salutary sadness; in place of the vanity of temporal gladness, the abundance of spiritual joy — you will perceive a hundredfold recompense in the exchange of these affections."
Anagogically: St. Antony, according to the testimony of St. Athanasius in his Life, takes the hundredfold to mean the kingdom of heaven, in which goods are a hundredfold greater than they are on earth: "He who has forsaken the dominion of the whole world, he says, will receive a hundredfold of better rewards in a lofty seat." For in place of perishing things there shall be rendered to him things stable; for cheap things, precious; for small, great; for earthly, heavenly; for human, divine; for momentary, everlasting.
And Shall Possess Eternal Life. — The Syriac reads, "he shall possess by inheritance;" the Arabic, "he shall become the heir of eternal life." That is: Whoever, for Christ's sake, shall have left his own inheritance, as well as his own parents, brothers, sisters, etc., shall for them receive a hundredfold in this world, and the inheritance of eternal life in the future. For this is the most ample inheritance, in which the Blessed will be heirs of God and coheirs of Christ: and therefore not only heaven and earth and all that are in them, but even God Himself and all honor, all wealth, all glory, all sweetness, all delights, all joys — in short, all good things they will possess in God, not as usufructuaries but as heirs and lords by an inheritance perpetual and enduring into eternity, as long as God shall be God. All these things are signified and comprehended in eternal life. Now, all who keep God's commandments will obtain this eternal life, as Christ said in verse 17; but those who have added the counsels to the precepts will obtain it more fully and more gloriously: hence Christ here promises and assigns it to them alone. By this phrase He tacitly suggests that it is difficult to attain eternal life by the observance of the precepts alone, without the observance of the counsels; because the former without the latter is difficult: for it is difficult to keep all God's precepts unless the counsels also be kept, especially of poverty: for, as Christ says in verse 23, it is difficult and almost impossible for a rich man to be saved.
Verse 30: But Many That Are First Shall Be Last, and the Last First
Note how appropriately Christ adds this saying to what He had just said: for in almost this whole chapter He has set Himself, and His grace and the counsels of the Gospel, against the Pharisees and the old Law; hence consequently He here opposes the reward of the former to the reward of the latter, as will appear in the next chapter. Properly He refers to what He had just said about the twelve judgment-thrones, about the hundredfold, and about eternal life to be given to His followers; and He seems tacitly to meet an objection of the Apostles. For they might think within themselves: "How can it come about that we, lowly, poor, unlearned, and ignoble, should sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel — among whom there are very many men eminent in dignity, wealth, nobility, learning, fame, and authority, such as the Scribes and Pharisees, and that rich and splendid young man who was likewise an observer of the law, of whom verse 13 speaks?" Christ meets this, and asserts that those men are indeed eminent and first in this age, but in heaven and eternal life they will be last — that is, held of no account, but to be cast out and excluded from it (He used a similar phrase in chapter V, 19: "Whoever shall break one of these least commandments, etc., shall be called least" — that is, nothing — "in the kingdom of heaven"; and that "last" here means farthest removed from the kingdom of heaven, is clear from Luke XIII, 30) — because they despised Christ as a poor man. But the Apostles and others like them, who, having left all things, followed Christ and in this age seemed to be the poorest and last of men, in eternal life will be first, as being most dear to Christ the King of heaven, and in life and conduct — especially in poverty and zeal for preaching — most like Him. So St. Jerome, Bede, St. Thomas, Franciscus Lucas, and others, and Victor of Antioch on Mark chapter X. But He says "many," not "all," because some here are first who will also be first in heaven — such as holy kings, princes, doctors, bishops, and pontiffs, who, though they abound in wealth, are nevertheless poor in affection and spirit. And conversely, some here are last who will also be last in heaven, such as the poor and the beggars, who give themselves to theft, robbery, and other crimes in order to relieve their poverty and become rich and wealthy.
By this summary maxim Christ signifies that the rich, and those who gape after earthly goods, are to be excluded from heaven; but that the poor, who aspire to heavenly things, will be first in heaven. For He refers to what He said to the rich young man in verse 21: "If you wish to be perfect, go, sell what you have, and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven;" and, conversely, to verse 23: "A rich man shall with difficulty enter the kingdom of heaven;" and to Peter's word in verse 27: "Behold, we have left all things and have followed You; what then shall we have?" So Christ is first in heaven, because on earth He was last, according to Isaiah 53: "We have seen Him, and there was no comeliness; and we desired Him, despised, and the last of men." See what is said there. Nearest to Christ is the Blessed Virgin, because after Christ she was the last among men; then follow the Apostles, of whom Paul says: "I think that God has set forth us the last, as it were men appointed to death; for we are made a spectacle to the world, and to angels, and to men;" and soon after: "We are made as the refuse of this world, the offscouring of all even until now," 1 Corinthians IV, 9 and 13. So too of St. Martin, whose feast we celebrate today, the Church sings: "Martin is joyfully received into the bosom of Abraham; Martin, poor and humble, enters heaven rich; he is honored with heavenly hymns." A certain holy man saw a lofty and glorious seat in heaven, and as he wondered whose it was, he heard: "This seat is reserved for the humble Francis." So his Life has it.
Finally, many Fathers and Scholastic Doctors, whom I will cite in the next chapter, verse 1, take "the last and the first" precisely as referring to eternal life itself. That is to say: the rich, who in this life lived an honest but comfortable life, merely keeping the commandments of God (such as that young man in verse 21), will in heaven be last; but the poor, who added the counsels of the Gospel to the precepts, and who in poverty followed Christ while preaching the Gospel — these in heaven will be first; of which more in the following chapter.
A fuller and more complete sense, which matches all that is said in the following parable, will arise if you take "the last" in both ways — namely, as signifying both those who are to be excluded from heaven and the lowest in heaven. For the Apostles, who as the first will judge the twelve tribes of Israel, will assign many of them, as last, that is as just, to heaven, but more, as unjust, to hell.
Moreover, Christ explains this maxim — "Many that are first shall be last, and the last first" — by the following parable of the workers hired to cultivate a vineyard, in the next chapter. This maxim, then, is a pre-parable — that is, the title and argument of that parable, to which this post-parable (the scope and application of the parable) is appended at chapter XX, verse 16: "So shall the last be first, and the first last: for many are called, but few are chosen." Whence it is clear that the post-parable corresponds to the pre-parable on equal terms — indeed, that it is one and the same with it. Therefore "the chosen" are called "the first," while those who are only "called" but not chosen are called "the last."