Глава 19

1–2. Travel to Jerusalem. – 3–12. Teaching on marriage and divorce. – 13–15. Blessing of children. – 16–30. Rich young man. Matthew 19:1. When Jesus finished these words, he left Galilee and came to the borders of Judea, on the Trans-Jordan side. Matthew 19:2. Many people followed Him and He healed them there. (Cf. Mark 10:1; Luke 9:51; John 7:10). Whether these three passages can really serve as parallels to Matthew 19:1 is, of course, only a matter of conjecture. The speech of the weather forecasters here is distinguished by such brevity that it is difficult to say positively whether, in particular, their testimony coincides with John 7:10. But if such a coincidence can be recognized, then the matter will present itself in the following form. Matthew omits John's story (the invitation of Christ by His brothers to go to Jerusalem for the Feast of Tabernacles John 7:2–9). According to John, Christ initially refused this journey. But when His brothers went to Jerusalem, then “He came there for the Feast (of Tabernacles) not openly, but as if secretly.” They think that it is this journey that Matthew 19:1 and Mark 10:1 speak about. Then John has a story about Christ’s very presence at the Feast of Tabernacles (John 7:11–53), about a woman caught in adultery (John 8:1–11), about a conversation with the Jews (John 8:12–59), about the healing of a man born blind (John 9:1–41), about the good shepherd (John 10:1–18), about the dispute between the Jews regarding the person of Christ and their intention to kill Him (John 10:19–39). Further words of John “and he went again beyond the Jordan, to the place where John had first baptized, and remained there” (John 10:40) may coincide with Mark 10:1 καὶ πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου (literally: “beyond the Jordan”). Here John, so to speak, interrupted the speech of the weather forecasters (John 7:2–10:40), in turn, is interrupted by them, and precisely by the story of Luke 9:51, with which the last part of the 1st verse of the chapter in question in the Gospel of Matthew may coincide. Luke (Luke 9:51–62) tells about Christ's intention to go to Jerusalem through Samaria, the refusal of the Samaritans to accept Him, and then about two petitioners who wanted to follow Him; then about the embassy of the 70 disciples and their return (Luke 10:1–24), the good Samaritan (Luke 10:25–37), the visit of Martha and Mary, and other parables and events are presented (Luke 10:38–16:17) with small inserts from Matthew, Mark and John (for example, John 11:1–16). Only then does a parallel story begin, mainly from the first two evangelists, again interrupted by long inserts of Luke 14:18–18:1–14 and John 11:17–54. From what has been said, it can be seen that verses 1–2 are a very brief and condensed designation of complex events, and therefore very unclear, primarily due to their brevity. The words “when Jesus finished these words, he left Galilee,” although they do not serve, as in Matthew generally, as an exact designation of time, they can be put in close relation to the parable of the evil servant told in the previous chapter. As for the further expressions placed in verse 1, they are so incomprehensible that it is difficult not only to interpret them correctly, but even to translate them correctly. In the Greek translation, somewhat differently than in Russian, literally: “came into the borders of Judea beyond the Jordan.” The difficulty is how these words should be understood, whether in the sense that Jesus Christ entered Judea itself, or that He was only approaching it. If he entered, then why is it said “beyond the Jordan”? Does this mean that Judea, being on the western side of the Jordan, also extended to the east of this river, according, of course, to the evangelist himself? Or, perhaps, when the evangelist wrote his Gospel, he himself was or lived on the eastern side of the Jordan, and with the expression “beyond the Jordan” he only wanted to designate Judea itself, which really lies “beyond the Jordan”? These questions were posed by Origen, and he gave an answer to them as unclear as in the Gospel; “came to (ἐπί instead of εἰς, i.e. differently than in Matthew) the borders of Judea, not to the middle (οὐκ ἐπὶ τὰ μέσα), but as if to the edge of it.” Chrysostom is similar to Origen: “he does not yet enter Jerusalem itself, but visits only the borders of Judea.” The newest interpreters unanimously claim that Perea and Judea were different countries, and some are therefore inclined to see here in the words of the evangelist simply a geographical error, meaning that Jesus Christ “came to the Trans-Jordanian region of Judea.” But historically it can be established with sufficient accuracy that the region of Judea did not extend east beyond the Jordan and that the latter was the border between Judea and the Trans-Jordan region, which was called Perea. The expression “beyond the Jordan” (πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου) cannot therefore serve as a definition of the words “into the borders of Judea”; those. does not mean “the borders of Judea beyond Jordan.” On this basis, it is accepted that “beyond the Jordan” simply refers to the word came (ἦλθεν), and in order to better understand the evangelist’s speech, you need to arrange the words differently than he did, namely: “came beyond the Jordan (went on the other side of the Jordan) into the borders of Judea.” The meaning, therefore, will be exactly the one expressed in the Russian translation. A similar expression in Mark 10:1 (literally: “to the borders of Judea and beyond the Jordan”) does not contradict this interpretation. As for the expression “into the borders of Judea,” we can agree with both ancient and new interpreters that it does not mean “into Judea itself.” The essence of the matter is simply that instead of traveling to Judea through Samaria, i.e. along a shorter and more usual route, the Savior went there through Perea. It was not a hasty, but a slow approach to Jerusalem (Matt. 20:17, 29; Matt. 21:1). Matthew 19:3. And the Pharisees came to Him and, tempting Him, said to Him: Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason? The reasons why the Pharisees approached Jesus Christ right now and asked Him just such a question are not clearly indicated by either Matthew or Mark. But it can be observed that, according to the evangelists, such speeches were the result of an increasingly developing hostility towards Christ. Now this is clearly evidenced by the word “tempting” (πειράζοντες) used by both evangelists, indicating the desire of the Pharisees to catch Christ, to put Him in a difficult position, especially in front of His simple listeners, to undermine trust in Him in order to more easily achieve their goal - to get rid of Him even through murder. We know that Christ has already exposed these tricks of His enemies several times by His answers. But His enemies not only did not restrain themselves from making new attacks against Him, but became angrier and angrier. “Such,” says John Chrysostom, “is anger and such is envy, shameless and impudent. Although you reflect it a thousand times, it will attack again the same number of times!” The Pharisees wanted to tempt Christ with the help of the so-called “horned” (cornutus) syllogism. If He had said that one can divorce one’s wife for any reason and take other wives, he would be teaching something that is contrary to common sense, or, as Jerome puts it, “bashfulness” (puditiae praedicator sibi videbitur docere contraria). If the Savior had answered that one could not get divorced for any reason, then he would have become guilty, as it were, of sacrilege (quasi sacrilegii reus tenebitur - Jerome) and would have spoken out against the teaching of Moses, or, more precisely, against the teaching given by God Himself through Moses. Theophylact expresses himself somewhat more clearly than Jerome; a similar opinion is found in Evfimy Zigavin. Both of them draw attention to Christ's previous teaching on divorce given in the Sermon on the Mount (see comments on Matthew 5:31-32), and say that the Pharisees now wanted to put Christ in contradiction with Himself, with His own words and teachings spoken then. If He had said that one could divorce one’s wife for any reason, then the Pharisees could have objected: how did You say before that one should not divorce one’s wife, except for the guilt of adultery? And if He had said that one should not divorce one’s wife, then they would have slandered Him as proposing new laws that disagree with the laws of Moses. It should be added that the issue of divorce at that time became acute due to the dispute between two schools of Pharisaism, Hillel and Shammai, regarding how to interpret the Hebrew expression found in Deut. 24:1, indicated as a reason for divorce, “ervat dabar.” We do not need to enter into a discussion of the immediate reasons for this dispute, but it is enough to just point out the very fact of its existence. Hillel, who lived twenty years earlier, taught that a man could divorce his wife for any reason. Shammai, on the contrary, argued that divorce is permissible only due to the wife's indecency. Matthew 19:4. He answered and said to them, Have you not read that He who created in the beginning made them male and female? The Russian text of this verse should be considered very unclear. Slavic translation: “I created from time immemorial, male and female I created.” Here “created from time immemorial” obviously no longer refers to the creation of man and woman (as in the Russian translation), but to creation in general. In other words: the Creator, who created the world, also created the male and female sexes. The German translation of Luther is clearer: “Have you not read that He who first created men caused man and woman to come into existence?” English translation (Authorised version): “...have you not read that He who created them at the beginning created them male and female and said...” Some later English translators, in turn, change the translation as follows: “Have you not read that the Creator from the beginning created them male and female?” These translations show how difficult it is to accurately convey the Greek speech here. The most accurate and closest to the original should be considered the Slavic and the last of the above translations, English, where the word “created” is expressed simply by the word “Creator” (in Greek - ὁ ποιήσας). The meaning is that, according to divine institution, from the very beginning there had to be a male and a female sex, therefore, marriage is a divine, not a human institution. This idea is expressed with particular clarity by Evfimy Zigavin: “(He created) one male and one female sex, so that one (husband) would have one (wife). Because if He wanted a husband to leave one wife and take another again (ἠγάπηται), then from the beginning he would have created many women; but since He did not create many, then, of course, He wants the husband not to divorce his wife.” Matthew 19:5. And he said, “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh, The speech presented in Matthew serves as a continuation of the previous one. Christ still leaves unanswered the tricky question of the Pharisees, which they actually wanted to propose, namely whether a man, after divorcing his first wife, can take another wife, and argues exclusively within the framework of the proposed question as such. A man should not leave a woman, because, according to the law given by God, he cannot remain single and live in a celibate state. In order not to be lonely and celibate, he leaves even the people closest to him, his father and mother. The quote is taken from Genesis 2:24, where these words are attributed not to God, but to Adam. Matthew 19:6. so that they are no longer two, but one flesh. So, what God has joined together, let no man separate. The words of Christ in the verse under consideration are a conclusion from what He said earlier. A man’s abandonment of his wife, or divorce, is contrary, first of all, to nature, because in this case “one and the same flesh is cut” (St. John Chrysostom), and, further, to the law of the Lord, because “you are attempting to divide what God has united and did not order to be divided.” What is noteworthy is the fact that the Savior does not say “whom” God has united, let no man separate, but “what” (ὅ) God has united, etc. The speech, as this passage is correctly interpreted, is not about two bodies, but about one body, which is expressed through “what.” Matthew 19:7. They say to Him: How did Moses command to give a letter of divorce and divorce her? The objection made to Christ seemed very strong and irrefutable to the Pharisees. This is expressed in the word ἐνετείλατο, which does not mean “allowed”, “allowed”, but “commanded”. Judging from Christ's previous words, God has "commanded" that husband and wife should be one body, and therefore, according to the purpose and law of God, divorce is not allowed. This commandment given by God was set forth by Moses in the book he wrote. But the same Moses also set forth another commandment, which is also contained in the book of Deuteronomy that he wrote (Deut. 24:1). Those who objected to Christ thus continue to adhere to the text of Deuteronomy, while the Savior Himself refers to the book of Genesis. The word chosen by the Pharisees ἐνετείλατο (commanded, gave an obligatory commandment) is somewhat strong, because from the indicated place in Deuteronomy it is not clear that a person must and is obliged to give his wife a letter of divorce even in the presence of “ervat dabar”. But if you do not pay attention to all this, it will be clear that between the original teaching on marriage, as explained by Christ, and the permission to issue letters of divorce, there was an obvious contradiction, and in order to eliminate it, school casuistry was required. How does Christ resolve this contradiction? If the best Jewish casuists Hillel and Shammai argued about this and disagreed with each other, then how will Jesus Christ get out of the difficult situation in which, according to the Pharisees, they put Him? Matthew 19:8. He says to them: Moses, because of your hardness of heart, allowed you to divorce your wives, but at first it was not so; In the Russian translation, the initial ὅτι (in the Slavic translation - “like”), which corresponds to τί of verse 7 (in the Russian translation - “how then”, but better “so, why” or “why then”), is not expressed in Christ’s speech. The Pharisees ask: why? The Savior answers: because (ὅτι) Moses, etc. The name of Moses (not God) also has an obvious correspondence with the same name in the question of verse 7. The Pharisees could not say that God commanded the issuance of letters of divorce. The Savior confirms this by saying that Moses allowed it. The word “hardness of heart” (σκληροκαρδία) is used in Matthew only here and also in the New Testament in Mark 10:5, 16:14. In the last place it is put in connection with ἀπιστία (unbelief). They consider it “highly characteristic” that in His answer Christ replaced ἐνετείλατο (“commanded” - verse 7), used by the Pharisees, with the word ἐπέτρεψεν - allowed, allowed. But in Mark (Mark 10:3–4) Jesus Christ and the Pharisees are expressed in the opposite way, and there these changes are just as appropriate as in Matthew. The idea expressed here is similar to Gal.3:19. Some believe that the permission to give a wife a letter of divorce was due to the necessity that otherwise the husband, due to his “hardness of heart,” could subject his wife to torture, and the letter of divorce was thus the wife’s “protection” against her husband’s cruel treatment of her. This, of course, could be one of the reasons for the divorces permitted by Moses, but not the only one. The main reason was “hardness of heart” in general - a word indicating “uncircumcision of the heart,” the rudeness of the character of Old Testament man, his mental and moral underdevelopment. It is obvious that the Savior Himself considers this Mosaic institution to be human and not divine. It was given as a temporary adaptation of the highest and eternal law to the spirit of the time and had only a temporary character. The mistake of the Pharisees was that they looked too highly at this temporary law given by Moses and considered it equal to the commandments of God. But it was “consilium hominis”, “non imperium Dei” (Jerome). There were many such decrees given in the Old Testament that were only temporary. In a state of hard-heartedness, divorces and letters of divorce were permissible, but “at first it was not so.” Matthew 19:9. but I say to you: whoever divorces his wife for reasons other than adultery and marries another commits adultery; and he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery. (Cf. Mark 10:10–12; Luke 16:18). If in the speech of the Savior (verses 4-8) the answer was given to the question of the Pharisees (verse 3), then here He obviously answers the unspoken idea that they can take another wife after a divorce. Whoever does this commits adultery, unless the divorce is for reasons other than πορνεία. The Savior does not say that for divorce it is necessary to allow πορνεία. See detailed comments on Matthew 5:32. It should be noted that, according to Matthew, this speech of Christ was spoken to the same Pharisees with whom the Savior had talked earlier, but, according to the testimony of Mark (Mark 10:10), it was said in response to a question from the disciples when they, together with the Savior, entered a house. Since Matthew 19:9 and Mark 10:10–12 do not have the same connection, it is more likely to think that Matthew 19:9 was said to the Pharisees, and Mark repeated these expressions in his speech only to the disciples and in the house. Matthew 19:10. His disciples tell Him: if such is a man’s duty to his wife, then it is better not to marry. Verses 10–12 are found only in Matthew. The speech, one must think, was given to the disciples in the house and in private. The word “obligation” (in the Russian Bible) seems to be inaccurate and incorrectly expresses the thought of the original. The Greek word αἰτία does not mean “obligation,” but “guilt,” “reason,” and in this sense is used in many places in the New Testament (Acts 10:21, 22:24; 2 Tim. 1:6, 12; Titus 1:13; Matt. 27:37; Mark 15:26; John 18:38, John 19:4, 6, etc.). But a literal translation “if, therefore, there is a reason (or guilt) for a man with a woman, then it is inconvenient (not useful - οὐ συμφέρει) to marry” would not make sense. Therefore, not an exact, but only a descriptive translation is possible here. Meaning: “if the reason for a man’s divorce from a woman can only be adultery, then it is better not to marry.” Other translations, like Russian, also cannot be considered completely accurate and clear. The disciples obviously understood the Savior’s previous speech correctly in the sense of the complete inadmissibility of divorce if there is no adultery on one side or the other. Adultery by one of the parties is, of course, an extremely serious family misfortune, a complete disruption of marriage and family relationships, making the continuation of life together not only difficult, but even unthinkable and unacceptable. In the Old Testament law, the death penalty was established for adultery (Lev.20:10). But besides adultery, there may be other reasons that aggravate family life. Jerome suggests the following questions regarding women: quid enim si temulenta fuerit, si iracunda, si malis moribus, si luxuriosa, si gulosa, si vaga, si jurgatrix, si maledica, tenenda erit istiusmodi? (what if (the wife) is inclined to drink, is angry, immoral, wasteful, greedy, flighty, quarrelsome, evil-tongued, should she really be kept in that case?) Then, briefly and correctly expressing the teaching of Christ, Jerome answers: volumus nolumus sustinenda est (willy-nilly one must be kept, too). Jerome's further addition is characteristic and written, obviously, in an ascetic spirit: cum enim essemus liberi, voluntarie nos subjecimus servituti (although being free, we voluntarily submitted to such slavery). The essence of the disciples’ question was precisely what Jerome stated in more detail. Cato's famous saying: mulier est malum necessarium (woman is a necessary evil). But if it is a necessary evil, then isn’t it better, isn’t it more prudent, isn’t it more beneficial for a person to be free from such evil? Isn’t it better to renounce marital ties, when so many evils can be expected from them, and, moreover, without any hope of being freed from them, when the wife, for all her shortcomings, will maintain marital fidelity and will not allow such guilt as adultery? Matthew 19:11. He said to them: not everyone can receive this word, but to those who have been given it, Regarding the words of the disciples “it is better not to marry,” the Savior here gives explanations, borrowed partly from historical and partly from psychological experience. Answering the Pharisees, He contrasted their incorrect and erroneous opinions with the divine law regarding the establishment of marriage. Answering the disciples, He contrasts their opinions with physical law. Since the latter operates in people as well as in animals, it is natural that not everyone can submit to the condition under which a celibate life is approved, namely, to maintain moral purity in a celibate state. In His answer to the disciples, the Savior could not say: “one should not marry.” Such speech would contradict not only the physical (established by God), but also the moral (also established by God) and, moreover, exalted law, as well as Christ’s own words about the sanctity of marriage. On the other hand, He could not say: “all must marry,” because there are conditions under which it is necessary to deviate from the observance of physical law. Who are these people who are not subject to physical law? This is explained in the next verse. Matthew 19:12. for there are eunuchs who were born like this from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who are castrated from people; and there are eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven. Whoever can contain it, let him contain it. Instead of “they made themselves eunuchs,” it would be more correct to translate “they castrated themselves” (εὐνούχισαν ἑαυτούς), although the meaning in both cases is the same. This verse, literally understood by the eunuchs, serves as the actual basis for the monstrous phenomenon - eunuchs; this sect, especially here in Russia, exists and even flourishes to this day. To justify their opinions, the eunuchs refer not only to the verse in question, but also to the words of the prophet Isaiah: “Let not the eunuch say, “Behold, I am a dry tree.” For the Lord speaks thus of the eunuchs: who keep My sabbaths, and choose what is pleasing to Me, and hold fast to My covenant—to them I will give in My house and within My walls a place and a better name than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that will not be cut off” (Isaiah 56:3–5). The words of the prophet cannot, of course, serve as the basis or encouragement of economies, but have only a prophetic meaning and relate, of course, only to the eunuchs of the first and second categories indicated by the Savior, i.e. to persons who themselves were not guilty of their own emasculation and did not engage in the emasculation of others. But it was not only the eunuchs-sectarians who held and still hold the opinion that the words of the Savior give the right to artificially maintain and spread the eunuchs. There is a well-known case with Origen, who castrated himself in his youth, revealing in this matter his “immature youthful mind” (Eusebius of Caesarea, “Ecclesiastical History”, VI, 8). As an old man, Tsang notes, Origen repented of his action, and his repentance influenced his interpretation of the passage under discussion. In general, in ancient times, if the literal interpretation of verse 12 was not affirmed, it was, apparently, characteristic of some, even outstanding, people. Among others, Justin misunderstood the words of the Savior, speaking without censure (Apologia, I, 29) about the case of how, around the year 150, a Christian in Alexandria vainly asked the authorities for permission to castrate himself by a doctor. Eusebius knew many Christians who voluntarily subjected themselves to castration (see Zahn, “Das Evangelium des Matthäus”, S. 586, note). Is this literal interpretation (in the scopic sense) correct or false? Undoubtedly, it is false, because Christ, in any case, could not here offer a teaching that is unnatural, fraught with danger to life and does not achieve the goal that is intended, but, on the contrary, serves only to strengthen lust and secret debauchery. Further, in the Law of Moses clear decrees were made regarding the eunuchs, which are also completely inconsistent with the literal understanding and interpretation of the Savior’s words. Thus, in Deut. 23:1 it is said about eunuchs that they cannot “enter into the congregation of the Lord,” and in Lev. 22:24–25 it is commanded not to sacrifice even castrated animals and to accept them from foreigners “as a gift to God, because they have a defect, a blemish on them: they will not gain you favor.” In addition, it is commanded: “You shall not do this in your land.” In view of all this, it was natural that not only among the first Christians there were only extremely rare cases of a literal understanding of the Savior’s words regarding the “third category of eunuchs,” but also direct and strong protests against such an understanding. Saint John Chrysostom especially ardently armed himself against him. “When Christ says: “Hoarding for yourself,” he does not mean cutting off members - let this not happen! - but the destruction of evil thoughts, because the severed member is cursed, as Paul says: “Oh, that those who corrupt you may be cut off!” (Gal.5:12). And quite fair. Such a person acts like murderers, assists those who humiliate God’s creation; opens the mouth of the Manichaeans and transgresses the law, like those of the pagans who cut off their members. From time immemorial, cutting off members was the work of the devil and the wiles of Satan, in order to distort the creation of God through this, in order to harm man, created by God, and so that many, attributing everything not to freedom, but to the members themselves, would fearlessly sin, recognizing themselves as if innocent... All this was invented by the devil, who, wanting to incite people to accept this error, introduced another false teaching about fate and necessity and Thus, he tried in every possible way to destroy the freedom given to us by God, assuring that evil is a consequence of physical nature, and through this spreading many false teachings, albeit secretly. Such are the arrows of the devil!” The Savior’s words “whoever can contain, let him contain” cannot be seen as a requirement that all followers of Christ take lifelong vows of celibacy, which most people cannot fulfill. Christ here had in mind only special human characters, special natures who are capable of rising above family life by the power of their spirit in order to more fully devote themselves to serving the Kingdom of Christ. Matthew 19:13. Then the children were brought to Him so that He could lay His hands on them and pray; the disciples rebuked them. (Cf. Mark 10:13; Luke 18:15). The reason that the disciples prevented children from being brought to Jesus Christ was, according to the usual explanation, that they were afraid that they would interfere with His teaching and divert Him to what they considered to be lower activities. Chrysostom expresses this reason in two words: ἀξιώματος ἕνεκεν (out of respect for Jesus Christ). Matthew 19:14. But Jesus said: Let the little children come and do not hinder them from coming to Me, for to such is the Kingdom of Heaven. (Cf. Mark 10:14; Luke 18:16). The word “indignant”, found in Mark, is omitted by Matthew and Luke. Instead of “let go,” you can translate “leave” or “let go.” The further words “come to Me” do not depend on this verb, but on “do not hinder them” (in the Greek text). There is no doubt that this simple gospel story had enormous significance and influence on the establishment of correct relationships between adults and children and serves as the basis for all modern pedagogy. The teaching of Christ was completely opposite to the harsh opinions of the Old Testament people (for example, Sir.30:1-13). Matthew 19:15. And he laid his hands on them and went from there. Mark adds: “and, hugging them.” This story can be considered an addition and clarification of the entire previous teaching set forth in this chapter. First, it sets forth the most profound doctrine about marriage and occasional exceptions to the universal natural and moral law embedded in human nature. Then the Savior, as it were, returns to His original thought about the holiness of the marriage union and lays hands on children as the fruit of marriage and marital fidelity. After this, He sets off on a further journey, which is especially clear from the opening words of Mark 10:17. Matthew 19:16. And so someone came up and said to Him: Good Teacher! What good thing can I do to have eternal life? (Cf. Mark 10:17; Luke 18:18). In this and the next verses Matthew has a huge number of discrepancies. The following reading in Matthew is recognized as correct: “Teacher! What good will I do,” etc. Matthew calls the one who approached “young man” (νεανίσκος) not here, but in verses 20 and 22. This word undoubtedly indicates youth. In Mark, the one who approached is not called either a young man or any other name; from the words of Mark 10:20 and Luke 18:21 one cannot conclude that he was young. In Luke he is called ἄρχων - chief, but over what is unknown. This word appears many times in the New Testament. Some considered the one who approached Christ to be one of the leaders of the Jerusalem Sanhedrin and even identified him with Lazarus, whom Christ resurrected. The most likely opinion is that the young man was simply one of the leaders of the local synagogue (The word “archon” often simply means a member of the municipality from among the richest residents of the city. - Ed.). The words of the young man, which perfectly suit the personality of Christ, His teaching and activity (“Teacher”, “good”, “eternal life”, and in Mark and Luke the addition “good Teacher”), show that the young man, if he did not know Christ personally before, then at least heard enough about Him to make such an extraordinary request. “This,” says Tsang, “was not the question of a person irritated by his sinfulness and moral impotence in his aspirations to achieve holiness, but the question of a person who was not satisfied with the demands of other teachers regarding piety and moral behavior. On the contrary, Jesus impressed him, and he gained confidence in Him that He would raise His disciples above the unsatisfactory mass of hitherto existing Jewish piety (cf. Matt. 5:20).” Matthew 19:17. He said to him: Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone. If you want to enter eternal life, keep the commandments. (Cf. Mark 10:18; Luke 18:19). According to Mark and Luke, the Savior, as if objecting to the young man about what he called Him good, actually appropriates to Himself this property of God, goodness; and the meaning of His question, therefore, is this: you call Me good, but no one is good except God alone; therefore, you turn to Me not just as an ordinary Teacher, but as a good Teacher and therefore having equal dignity with God. In other words, in Christ’s answer to the young man we encounter a hidden and extremely subtle, almost imperceptible to those around Christ, His teaching about His Sonship of God and equality with God the Father. According to Matthew (in the Greek text) otherwise: “Why do you ask Me about good things?” Matthew 19:18. He says to Him: which ones? Jesus said: Do not kill; Thou shalt not commit adultery; don't steal; do not bear false witness; Matthew 19:19. honor your father and mother; and: love your neighbor as yourself. (Cf. Mark 10:19; Luke 18:20). The question "which ones?" no other weather forecasters except Matthew. The order of the commandments is the same in Mark and Luke, but different in Matthew. Mark adds: “don’t offend.” At first glance, it seems somewhat strange that the young man, who claimed that he “kept all this from his youth” (verse 20), in response to Christ’s invitation to keep the commandments, asks: “which ones?” It was as if he did not know whether the commandments had been given and what they were! But the young man’s question becomes understandable if we assume that he did not expect such an answer from Christ. The young man did not think that Christ would tell him exactly what he knew so well, had done so well and, however, did not satisfy him. Here we encounter a very interesting qui pro quo. The young man thinks about one thing, Christ tells him about another. The young man expects to receive from the new great and good Teacher information about some new commandments, similar to those given, for example, in the Sermon on the Mount; and Christ tells him that he must fulfill what he has already accomplished. The question of why Jesus Christ chooses (according to Matthew) only six commandments of the Old Testament law, completely omitting the 1-4 commandments of the Decalogue, is quite difficult to answer. It is difficult to agree with the explanation that such a choice was adapted to the moral state of the young man himself, who, thinking that he was keeping the commandments, actually violated those listed by Christ, simply because we know almost absolutely nothing about this. Judging by the tone of the story and the context, it is absolutely impossible to assume that the young man was infected with such sins as murder, adultery, theft, false witness, disrespect for his father and mother and enmity towards his neighbors. Could such a person be an archon (chief)? It is clear that he was not like that. It also cannot be assumed that Christ’s indication of these particular commandments, and not other commandments, was simply a matter of chance, i.e., in other words, a simple set of words. Thus, only one thing remains - to assume that, on the contrary, the young man was especially strongly, especially zealously concerned about fulfilling precisely those commandments that Christ pointed out to him, and His answer, so to speak, was directly calculated to say nothing new in comparison with what was already well known from the Old Testament law. This interpretation, in any case, is well confirmed by the further statement of the young man (verse 20) that he “kept” all this. What else does he lack? The commandments themselves, listed by Christ, are an abbreviated summary of the Decalogue and other places of the Old Testament law (Exodus 20:12–16; Lev.19:18; Deut.5:16–20). Matthew 19:20. The young man said to Him: I have kept all this from my youth; what else am I missing? Matthew 19:21. Jesus said to him: if you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor; and you will have treasure in heaven; and come and follow Me. (Cf. Mark 10:21; Luke 18:22). When listing the commandments that had to be fulfilled in order to enter eternal life (verses 18–19), Christ did not call wealth evil and did not say that eternal life necessarily requires renunciation of wealth and all property in general. The immediate meaning of His answer is even that it is enough to fulfill the Old Testament commandments indicated by Him in order to enter eternal life. But this fulfillment involves many gradations, and it cannot be said that a person, by protecting one or the other, becomes truly perfect. He who does not kill his neighbor with weapons, of course, does good, acts in accordance with the commandment of God. But he who does not kill him even with a word makes him better. Avoiding causing offense and any harm to him is even better. There are people who not only do not kill people with weapons or words and do not cause any harm, but do not even say anything bad about their neighbors. This is an even higher level of observance of the same commandment. The same applies to other commandments. Christ's words in verse 21 seem to come closest to the commandment stated at the end of verse 19: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." What does it mean? By observing both other commandments and this one, many gradations are possible. You can love your neighbor as yourself and limit yourself only to useless and inactive love. You can love in deed, but not in word. You can finally love your neighbors so much as to lay down your life for them. Christ in verse 21 points to one of the highest gradations of perfect love. It consists in the fact that a person gives away all his property, wanting to alleviate the suffering of his neighbors out of love for them. This was proposed to the young man, who wanted to be perfect and said that he “kept all this,” including love for his neighbor, “from his youth.” Matthew 19:22. Hearing this word, the young man went away sad, because he had great possessions. Matthew 19:23. Jesus said to His disciples: Truly I say to you, it is difficult for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven; (Cf. Mark 10:22–23; Luke 18:22–23). Chrysostom says that “Christ with these words does not condemn wealth, but those who are addicted to it. But if it is difficult for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, then what can we say about the covetous?” Experience, however, shows that many rich people are truer Christians than poor people. The point, therefore, is not about wealth, but about the attitude of rich people to Christ and the Gospel. Matthew 19:24. And again I tell you: it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. (Cf. Mark 10:24–25; Luke 18:25). According to Mark, the Savior first repeated the saying He had said about the difficulty for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, due to the fact that the disciples “were horrified at His words,” and only after that added the teaching common to all weather forecasters. Here, obviously, Christ only explains His previous saying with the help of an example. All weather forecasters mention κάμηλος, camel. But in some manuscripts it reads κάμιλος, which is explained as παχὺ σχοινίον - thick ship rope. Discrepancies in the transmission of the further expression “through the ears of a needle” (in Matthew – διὰ τρυπήματος ῥαφίδος; in Mark – διὰ τρυμαλίας τῆς ῥαφίδος; in Luke - διὰ τρήματος βελόνης; all these expressions have the same meaning), in any case, they show that the difficulty of the Savior’s speech was felt in ancient times. There has been much debate about the meaning of these expressions. Lightfoot and others have shown that this was a proverb found in the Talmud to indicate some kind of difficulty. Only the Talmud speaks not of a camel, but of an elephant. Thus, in one place it is said about dreams that during them we cannot see what we have not seen before, for example, a golden palm tree or an elephant passing through the eye of a needle. One man, who had done what seemed absurd or even incredible, was told: “You must be one of the Pombedites (a Jewish school in Babylon), who can make an elephant pass through the eye of a needle.” Similar expressions are found in the Koran, but with the elephant replaced by a camel. And even in India there are proverbs “an elephant passing through a small door” or “through the eye of a needle.” In this sense, many of the newest interpreters understand the saying of the Savior. The opinion that the “eye of a needle” should be understood as a narrow and low gate through which camels cannot pass is now considered generally erroneous. Even less likely is the opinion, which appeared already in antiquity, that by camel here we should understand a rope. The change from κάμηλος to κάμιλος is arbitrary. Κάμιλος is a word so rare that in Greek it can even be considered non-existent; it does not appear in good Greek dictionaries, although it must be said that the metaphor of a rope that is difficult to pass through the eye of a needle might be somewhat more natural than about a camel that cannot pass through the eye of a needle. But whatever interpretation we accept, the main difficulty lies not in this, but in the purpose for which such a strange metaphor is used here. Did Christ want to point out here the complete impossibility for the rich to enter the Kingdom of Heaven? Did He want to say that just as it is impossible for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, so it is impossible for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God? But Abraham was “very rich in cattle, and silver, and gold” (Gen. 13:2), and yet this, according to the Savior Himself, did not prevent him from being in the Kingdom of God (Luke 13:28; cf. Luke 16:22–23, 26; John 8:56, etc.). It is difficult, further, to assume that the Savior’s speech applied only to this rich man who had just left Him; πλούσιον would then be placed with an article, which all three weather forecasters do not have. If, finally, we take the words of the Savior in their literal meaning, then we will need to admit that they should serve (and, it seems, serve) as a stronghold for all kinds of socialist teachings and the proletariat. Anyone who owns any property and has not enrolled in the ranks of the proletarians cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven. In the comments we do not find the answer to these questions; they should be considered unresolved to this day, and the words of Christ are not clear enough. Perhaps this expresses the general New Testament view of wealth, which serves as an obstacle to serving God (cf. Matt. 6:24; Luke 16:13). But it seems that the most likely explanation is this. The New Testament puts service to God and Christ in the foreground; the result of this can be the use of external goods (Matthew 6:33). But for a rich man who puts serving mammon in the foreground and only in the last place - following Christ and serving Him, or even does not do this last at all, it is really difficult to become an heir to the Kingdom of Heaven. Matthew 19:25. Hearing this, His disciples were greatly amazed and said: So who can be saved? Matthew 19:26. And Jesus looked up and said to them, “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” (Cf. Mark 10:27; Luke 18:27). The meaning of Christ’s answer: for God this is also possible, i.e. and the rich man, devoted to the service of mammon, can turn and acquire for himself the correct view of his wealth, acquire for himself a new gospel principle, i.e. the grace of God can influence him and promote his conversion. Matthew 19:27. Then Peter answered and said to Him: Behold, we have left everything and followed You; what will happen to us? (Cf. Mark 10:28; Luke 18:28). This is an obvious reference to verse 21. If following Christ required giving up everything, then Peter and the other disciples did just that. The order of their actions was exactly the same as indicated by Christ Himself in verse 21. First, leaving everything, and then following Christ. The apostles, however, did not look like a rich young man; they did not have much property. But if we accept that there are different degrees of wealth, that one is rich with a hundred rubles in reserve, while another is poor with thousands, then Peter had every right to assert that the disciples not only left everything, but even left all their wealth. Matthew 19:28. Jesus said to them, “Truly I say to you, that you who have followed Me, in the rebirth, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you also will sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (Cf. (Luke 22:28–30), where the speech differs in a different character and in a different connection). The word “re-existence” shows that a new existence of people will certainly come in one form or another. The earthly state is one existence, beyond the grave is another. This latter is “re-being.” This word (παλιγγενεσία) is used only twice in the New Testament, here in Matthew and also in the Epistle to Titus (Titus 3:5). The expressions “sit down” and “sit down” are, of course, figurative and cannot be taken in a literal sense. The word “judge” is also figurative, implying, according to Semitic usage, “domination”, “power” (cf. Rev. 20:4). Regarding whether Judas, to whom these words were also spoken, will be counted among the judges, there are many notes from ancient and modern exegetes. “So, what,” asks John Chrysostom, “will Judas sit on the throne? No". “I promise a reward only to the worthy. Talking with His disciples, He made a promise not without conditions; He did not simply say: “you,” but added: “those who followed Me,” in order to reject both Judas and to attract those who later turned to Him. These words of His did not apply to the disciples alone, and not to Judas, who later became unworthy of His promise.” Theophylact adds that the Savior here speaks “about those who followed Him to the end, but Judas did not remain so.” The expression “judge the twelve tribes of Israel” is obviously figurative and cannot be taken literally. Matthew 19:29. And whoever leaves houses, or brothers, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for My name’s sake, will receive a hundredfold and will inherit eternal life. (Cf. Mark 10:29–30; Luke 18:29–30). Love for Christ is placed above love for earthly acquisitions and family ties. This verse, however, apparently should not be understood in a strictly literal sense, since this would be inconsistent not only with the teachings of Christ, but also with His own actions (see John 19:26, etc.). Love for Christ gives special meaning to both earthly acquisitions and family ties. Matthew 19:30. But many who are first will be last, and those who are last will be first. (Cf. Mark 10:31; Luke 13:30 – in another connection). The meaning of this verse is explained further by the parable of the workers in the vineyard. You might be interested in: