Commentary on Matthew 15.14–15.21

If this man is perfect, someone might ask how it is that, when the young man said, “All these I have kept from my youth; what do I still lack?”, the Saviour answered—as though the one who had done all these were not perfect, and yet as though agreeing with “All these I have done”—“If you wish to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” Consider, then, whether we can meet the question before us in one way thus: perhaps it may be suspected that “You shall love your neighbour as yourself” was not taken up by the Saviour here, but was added by someone who did not understand the precision of what was said. The suspicion that “You shall love your neighbour as yourself” was added here will be supported by the account of the same events in Mark and Luke, neither of whom added “You shall love your neighbour as yourself” to the commandments taken up by Jesus in the passage. And the one who maintains that the commandment “You shall love your neighbour as yourself” was thrown in out of place will say that, if the same things are recorded by the three in different words, Jesus would not have said, “You lack one thing,” or “One thing you still lack,” to one who professed to have fulfilled “You shall love your neighbour as yourself.” But since, according to Mark too, looking at this rich man who said, “All these I have kept from my youth,” he loved him, he seems to have agreed that he had done what he professed to have fulfilled. [The commandment; especially if, according to the Apostle, “You shall not murder,” and “any other commandment, is summed up in this word, in: You shall love your neighbour as yourself.”] For having looked intently into his mind, he saw a man who in good conscience professed to have fulfilled the commandments set before him. And if, besides the other commandments, “You shall love your neighbour as yourself” had also been spoken, Mark and Luke would not have left out the more comprehensive and excellent commandment—unless someone should say that what is written is similar but was not said about the same person. And how, too, would Jesus have said to one who professed to have fulfilled, besides the others, the commandment “You shall love your neighbour as yourself,” as to one not yet perfect, “If you wish to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor,” and what follows? Now if there were not disagreement among the copies about many other things as well, so that not all the copies of Matthew agree with one another, and likewise those of the other Gospels, anyone who suspected that the commandment “You shall love your neighbour as yourself” had been thrown in here, not having been spoken by the Saviour to the rich man, might have seemed impious. But as it is, plainly the difference among the copies has become great, whether from the carelessness of some scribes, or from the wicked daring of some in correcting what is written, or from those who in correcting add or remove what seems good to them. The disagreement in the copies of the Old Testament, God granting, we found a way to heal, using the other editions as a criterion. For in the passages of the Seventy that are in doubt because of the disagreement of the copies, we made the judgment from the other editions and kept what agreed with them; and some things we marked with an obelus as not found in the Hebrew, not daring to remove them altogether, while some we added with asterisks, so that it might be clear that we added them, not being found in the Seventy, from the other editions in agreement with the Hebrew. And whoever wishes may accept them; and the one who is offended by such a thing may do as he wishes about accepting them or not. The one, then, who wishes that the commandment “You shall love your neighbour as yourself” was not thrown in here, but was truly spoken then by the Lord after the former ones, will say that our Saviour, wishing gently and indirectly to show that rich man to be not speaking the truth when he said he had kept the commandment “You shall love your neighbour as yourself” as well, said to him, “If you wish to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor”; for in this way you will be shown to be speaking the truth about having kept the commandment “You shall love your neighbour as yourself.”

But if someone, looking at human weakness and at how hard it would be for anyone to do such a thing for the sake of perfection in God, despises the literal text and turns to allegory, he will be put to shame by certain Greek histories too, in which some are recorded to have done, for the sake of the wisdom of the Greeks, what the Saviour said here to the rich man. For they say that Crates the Theban, having chosen this for the sake of freedom and as an example of a frugal life, and wishing to present himself to the Greeks as, so he thought, blessed and in need of nothing, sold all his property and gave it to the people of Thebes, saying: “Today Crates frees Crates.” If someone did such a thing because of Greek wisdom and doctrines that had taken hold of a man’s soul, how much more is it possible for someone seeking perfection for himself to do such a thing? And if anyone wishes to be persuaded from divine Scripture as well that such a thing is possible, let him hear what Luke records in the Acts of the Apostles about those who were moved by the power in the apostles to believe and to live perfectly according to the word of Jesus. The words are these: “And all who believed were together and had all things in common,” and so on, up to “praising God and having favour with all the people”; and a little later it is written again in the same book that “the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and soul,” and so on, up to “he brought the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet.” Then is added the account of Ananias and Sapphira, who sold a property of theirs but kept back part of the price, and laid not the whole but a part at the feet of the apostles, and for this suffered for their sin what is recorded. For they were worthy, by divine oversight, to receive here the penalty of their sin of keeping back, so that they might depart from life purer, punished by the discipline that met them in a common death, because they had both believed and laid some part at the feet of the apostles. It seems to me that Ananias, hearing those words, fell and expired because he could not bear the reproof; tormented, he was so punished that he even expired, the words of Peter striking home to his soul. And it is not to be thought that Peter killed Ananias here, but that Ananias could not endure the vehemence of Peter, who said to him, “Why has Satan filled your heart?” and so on, up to “And great fear came upon all who heard.” It is likely that someone will object, on account of Sapphira, to the explanation about Ananias by which we defended Peter, since she came in not knowing what had happened. “And Peter answered her, saying, Did you sell the land for so much? And when she said, For so much, Peter says to her, Why is it that you have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? Behold, the feet of those who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out. For she too fell immediately at his feet and expired.” But it might be said that she too, rebuked and weighed down in soul, partly by the reproof of her sin, partly by her husband’s misfortune and her grief over him, and partly by godly grief, …, Peter having foreseen in the spirit what would befall her. All this we have said, wishing to establish that it is possible for one who wishes to become perfect to obey Jesus when he says, “Go, sell your possessions and give to the poor.” And it would be the work, I think, of noble men, who have all the marks that characterize the bishop, to urge those who are able and are persuaded by the exhortation, and, by providing them with what they need from the common fund, to invite others also to do this; for there would then be an image of the life of concord of the believers in the time of the apostles.

Someone might ask: if the one who has all the virtues and no longer acts from wickedness is perfect, how could the one who has sold his possessions and given to the poor become perfect? For suppose someone has done this: how could he become free of anger all at once, if he happened to be prone to anger? How could he become free of grief, and superior to anything whatever that may happen to provoke grief? How will he be entirely free of fear—of pains, or of death, or of whatever can frighten a still imperfect soul? In what way will the one who has sold his possessions and distributed them to the poor be outside all desire? For someone might say that it is possible, just because he sold all his possessions, that, suffering something human from poverty, he should repent of what he dared and desire a similar possession. And if so-called pleasure, being an irrational elation of the soul, is a passion, how could someone at one and the same time sell all his possessions and give to the poor, and be freed from irrational elation? Someone might add to the difficulty: how can a person, by having sold his possessions and distributed them to the poor, become wise with the wisdom of God, so as to give an account to everyone who asks him about the faith that is in him, about each of the things believed, and about the things said in hidden ways in the sacred Scriptures? See that the difficulty is far-reaching, or rather weighty and not easily solved. For if we say that someone has become perfect merely by this, even without having taken up the things we set out, we shall fall into absurdity, saying that someone is at once perfect and a sinner; for the angry man is a sinner, and so is the one who grieves with the grief of the world, the one who fears hardships and death, the one who desires what is absent, and the one irrationally elated in soul at things not good as though they were good. Or if we say that, at the same moment as someone sells his property and distributes it to the poor, he becomes as it were possessed by God and takes up all the virtues and lays aside all wickedness, we shall speak faithfully, to use a common expression, but I do not know whether truly; and perhaps those who hear such a solution offered to the difficulty will laugh at us as speaking without sense.

One might, then, seem more sensible who keeps to the letter and in no way takes the passage figuratively, and answers in this way—as a believer; but whether I understand what is said in the passage worthily or not, you yourself will judge. He will say that, if the one who shares with the poor is helped by their prayer, receiving, for his own salvation, the abundance in spiritual things of those who lack material things to supply his own lack, as the Apostle hinted in the Second Letter to the Corinthians, who else would experience this, and be helped with great help, so much as he, since God hears the prayers of so many poor who have been refreshed, among whom there might perhaps be some like the apostles, or a little below them, poor in bodily things as they were, but rich in spiritual things? This man, who in exchange for wealth takes poverty in order to become perfect, persuaded by the words of Jesus, would be helped all at once, as the apostles of Christ were too, to become wise in Christ, and courageous, and just, and temperate, and outside every passion. And the one who defends the passage in this way will say that it is not necessary to understand that this befalls on that very day the one who has sold his possessions and gives to the poor; but perhaps from that day divine oversight will begin to lead him to such things—I mean the praiseworthy freedom from passion and all virtue; and advancing, like Isaac, through the help given him by God in Christ, he will become greater, until, growing, he becomes very great indeed in every virtue, all wickedness having vanished from his soul. And the one who has given this explanation will not be compelled to say that a man who sins in other respects became perfect merely by this.

Another—whether limping in faith through an appearance of advancing to understanding, I do not know, or whether he has sought and found a certain greatness and passages of thoughts worthy of God, I do not know—will leave the letter and go up to a figurative reading, and will say that each person’s possessions are the things that follow him after his departure, so that among possessions there is a good possession for the righteous and the opposite for the wicked. Here, then, he says, the rich man with many possessions is a symbol of one who has acquired many wicked things, among which may be the love of wealth, the love of glory, and other earthly things that have filled his soul with blameworthy wealth. Since, then, one who is rich in this way can sometimes abstain from certain wicked things, such as adultery, murder, theft, and false witness, and can render to his parents their due with some honour, and be also kind to his neighbour, and yet not be perfect, the Saviour symbolically commands such a one to sell his wicked possessions and, as it were, to hand them over to the powers that produced them, which are poor in every good and therefore do not withstand a threat, according to what is written: “But the poor man does not withstand a threat.” But I know well that such an explanation will seem very forced: it solves not ignobly the difficulties about perfection, but it is not at all convincing how putting off wickedness is selling the possession that comes from wickedness and giving to the poor. Caught in such a position, the one who supports this view will say that the sinner is filled with spirits in proportion to his sins: for example, if he is sexually immoral, with what is called in the prophets “a spirit of sexual immorality”; if he is wrathful, with a spirit of wrath; and likewise, if a slanderer, with a spirit of slander. These, then, are the possessions someone acquired while wicked, becoming, by sharing in the worse spirits, more complex than Typhon. And just as he acquired them, buying them with a will that yielded to wicked things, so he may sell them, by obeying Jesus, to those whom this account means by “the poor.” For just as the peace of the apostles returns to them if the one who hears “Peace to you” happens not to be a son of peace, so sexual immorality and all the sins would all return to the poor who caused the sins. And one need not doubt that the one who has thus sold all the possessions to be sold and given to the poor becomes perfect. And if the possessions are sold over a long time, and much time is needed to give them to the poor we spoke of, nothing would prevent this account, granting time, from making the one who does this perfect in proportion to what has been sold to the poor. Clearly the one who has done this will have treasure in heaven, becoming himself heavenly; for “as is the earthly one”—the evil one, that is—“so are those who are earthly; and as is the heavenly one”—that is, Christ—“so are those who are heavenly.” In his own heaven, then, the one who wished to become perfect, and sold all his possessions and gave to the poor, will have treasure. But do not suppose that such a one can be found among those who are rich in the things of this life. For which of them has sold the love of wealth and, if I may so name it, the love of the world? Who has entirely sold the spirit of vainglory, so as to hold in his own heaven a treasure of the glory of God and of the riches that are in all the word and all the wisdom of God? Who has put off the spirit of desire, and of fear, and of pleasure, and of anger? For it would be much if, examining things truly, one could declare this even of the apostles. And the one who has sold everything, as we have explained, and has treasure in heaven, is also able to follow Jesus; for he is not dragged about by any wicked possession so as not to follow Jesus.

Next after this it is said: “When the young man heard the word, he went away grieving; for he had many possessions.” And you will see, as regards the higher sense, how hard it is for us to be torn away from thinking that wealth, or glory here below, is a good; rather we prefer, since we love desire, to obtain what is wickedly desired than to be freed from desire, and rather to fall into the things we imagine to be fearful than to put off the fear that is hostile to the fear of God. And it is not an elder of settled years who is brought in, nor a man who has put away the things of a child, but a young man who heard the word and went away grieving. For such was he in soul; therefore he left Jesus and went away. For “he went away” is said in blame, and “he went away grieving,” with “the grief of the world that works death.” For who … that loves being angry and grieving, having many possessions which he loved—and for this reason he went away grieving—and all the things that came from wickedness and had mastered his soul? If, however, you remain with the narrative according to one of the explanations given before, you would find this young man half praiseworthy and half blameworthy. Insofar as he did not commit adultery, nor murder, nor steal, nor bear false witness, but even as a young man had already honoured his father and mother, and was grieved at the words of Jesus that set out perfection and promised it if he sold his possessions, there was something fine in him; but insofar as he went away from Jesus grieving because of his possessions, when he ought to have rejoiced that instead of them he would have treasure in heaven and, following Jesus, would walk in the footsteps of the Son of God, he was blameworthy.

When he had gone away, “Jesus said to his disciples, Truly I say to you, a rich man will enter the kingdom of heaven with difficulty.” Here we must observe that the recorded saying of the Saviour is precise. For he did not say, “A rich man will not enter the kingdom of heaven”; for had he said this, he would have shut the rich man out of the kingdom of heaven. But he says, “A rich man will enter with difficulty,” presenting the difficulty, not the impossibility, of the rich man’s salvation. In the literal sense this plainly appears reasonable, since rich men can with difficulty resist passions and sins and not be wholly overcome by them; but if the rich man is taken figuratively, you will inquire how he will enter the kingdom of heaven even with difficulty. The difficulty of entry for the rich man, understood either way, is shown by the parable: “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.” In the parable the rich man is compared to a camel, not only because of the uncleanness of the animal, as the law taught, but also because of its whole crookedness; and the kingdom of heaven to the eye of a needle, to show that the entry into the kingdom of heaven is very narrow and exceedingly hard for the rich man in either sense. He makes plain that in itself it is impossible for the camel to go through the eye of a needle; but since all things are possible to God, this too is possible to him, when by his unspeakable power he makes the grossness of the wicked fine, or makes the narrowness of the entrance passable for him. That he took the eye and the camel as an example of the difficulty, not of the impossibility, of the rich man’s entering the kingdom of heaven is clear from what was said to the disciples when they said, “Who then can be saved?”: “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” So it is possible for the camel to enter through the eye of a needle, though not possible with men; and so also for the rich man to enter the kingdom of God. The ways by which God would make such things possible he himself would know, and his Christ, and the one to whom the Son reveals it. One who has advanced in wisdom and word might venture further, on the explanation of the needle and its eye. But how much shall we set out? That there are certain things in the law that are made by the art of the embroiderer, who needs a needle, so that he may make, according to the wisdom of God, the works of the art he has taken up. As, then, the works of the embroiderer and that needle are understood, so will what is said here be understood; to say and make this clear now is perhaps beyond us, and perhaps, even for one who knows it, it would involve a long and untimely digression. Of the two things proposed, a camel entering through the eye of a needle and a rich man entering the kingdom of God, he says the former is easier. And you will seek, among men, one who is the camel entering through the eye of a needle, and another who is the rich man entering the kingdom of God—impossibly for men, but possibly for God. So also with the eye of a needle: it is impossible for men that whoever is found to be a camel, whoever he may be, should enter through the eye of a needle; but with God this too is possible. Whether these things indicate and present certain mysteries concerning the end, leading to the end by certain ways possible to God alone, or not, let the one who is able examine.

Next we must look at the words: “Then Peter answered and said to him, Behold, we have left everything and followed you; what then shall we have?” One person will keep this according to the letter; another, setting aside the literal sense as not lofty, will take it figuratively. The one who stands by the letter will say something like this: As with giving, God, accepting not what is given but the intention, justifies and accepts the one who gave less with a more perfect intention above the one who gave more out of greater means and with an inferior disposition—as is clear from what is recorded about the giving of the rich and the two mites which the widow, as one of the poor, cast into the treasury—so also with those who, for love of the divine, leave what they possess in order to follow the Christ of God without distraction, doing all things according to his word: the one who has left more is not in every case more acceptable than the one who has left less, especially when someone happens to have left lesser things with his whole soul, compared with one who seems to have despised greater things. Even if, then, Peter, together with his brother Andrew, left small and cheap things when both, hearing, “Come, follow me, and I will make you fishers of men, immediately left their nets and followed him,” yet it has not been reckoned small by God, who perceived that they did it from such a disposition that, even if they had possessed many possessions and very great property, they would not have been held back by them, nor would their impulse to follow Jesus have been hindered. And taking courage, I think, from the intention rather than from the material of what he had left, Peter spoke boldly and said to Jesus: “Behold, we have left everything and followed you; what then shall we have?” It is likely that he left not only nets but also a house and a wife, whose mother was freed from fever when Jesus stood over her; and one might conjecture that he possibly left children too, and not impossibly a small property. Something great, then, is shown about Peter and his brother, since, hearing “Come, follow me, and I will make you fishers of men,” without any delay “they immediately left their nets and followed him,” not imitating the one who said, “But first permit me to go to my house and bid farewell to those at my house,” nor doing anything like the one who said, “Permit me first to go and bury my father.” And notice carefully that, struck as they deserved by the command of Jesus and his promise, and believing that, leaving a little fishing for fish, they would catch men for salvation, and as if wounded by … for Jesus and for the humane ministry he had promised them, since they were to hunt men, “they immediately left their nets,” and, as if forgetting those at home, “followed him”; so that it was fitting for Peter to take pride in that impulse and to say what was said above. At the same time we must observe that Peter said this having understood the saying spoken by Jesus, “If you wish to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me”; and having seen the young man who heard it and went away with grief, because he had preferred his many possessions on earth to becoming perfect in God; and having understood also the difficulty of the rich man’s entering the kingdom of heaven, he said what is before us, as though he himself had done no easy thing in leaving everything and following the Saviour. Therefore to Peter, who spoke boldly, the Saviour answers with the great promise that follows, that Peter would be one of the judges of Israel.