Parallels between Origen's Commentary on Matthew chapter 15 and Clement's Quis Dives Salvetur with respect to the 'rich man' narrative:
1. Arguments which sound like Clement is thinking of Origen and Origen is thinking of Clement
(a) Origen attacks those who allegorize Matthew 19:21 (= Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me”)
just as Clement attacks those who take Mark 10:21 (= And Jesus, looking upon him, loved him, and said, One thing thou lackest. If thou wouldest be perfect, sell what thou hast and give to the poor, and thou shall have treasure in heaven: and come, follow Me."
Clement's version)
literally. Origen takes the passage absolutely literally and Clement the equivalent absolutely 'spiritually' or figuratively.
Clement QDS 3 "For some, merely hearing, and that in an off-hand way, the utterance of the Saviour, "that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven," despair of themselves as not destined to live, surrender all to the world, cling to the present life as if it alone was left to them, and so diverge more from the way to the life to come, no longer inquiring either whom the Lord and Master calls rich, or how that which is impossible to man becomes possible to God. But others rightly and adequately comprehend this, but attaching slight importance to the works which tend to salvation, do not make the requisite preparation for attaining to the objects of their hope."
Clement rejects those who want to interpret 'possessions' (ὑπάρχοντά) literally - doing this by curiously starting with a gospel that doesn't use the word ὑπάρχοντά in the 'rich man' narrative:
Clement QDS 11 What then was it which persuaded him to flight, and made him depart from the Master, from the entreaty, the hope, the life, previously pursued with ardour? -- "Sell thy possessions (πώλησον τὰ ὑπάρχοντά σου)." And what is this? He does not, as some conceive off-hand, bid him throw away the substance he possessed (τὴν ὑπάρχουσαν οὐσίαν), and abandon his property ... [However] the renunciation and selling of all possessions, is to be understood as spoken of the passions of the soul (τὸ οὖν ἀποτάξασθαι πᾶσι τοῖς ὑπάρχουσι καὶ πωλῆσαι πάντα τὰ ὑπάρχοντα τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον ἐκδεκτέον ὡς ἐπὶ τῶν ψυχικῶν παθῶν διειρη μένον)
and again:
Clement QDS 19 And how may you abandon them? By selling them. What then? Are you to take money for effects, by effecting an exchange of riches, by turning your visible substance into money? Not at all.
Origen clearly says that ὑπάρχοντά must be taken literally:
Origen Comm Matt 15.16 Jesus says, “Go, sell your ὑπάρχοντά and give to the poor.” It seems to me, also, that those excellent men who together represent the episcopacy are to urge those who are able and are persuaded by [Jesus’] exhortation to this work, and to encourage others unto this because they hold the provisions from the community.
(b) does the gospel narrative mean you have to give up all your private possessions? Clement says no; Origen says yes
Origen Comm Matt 15.18 - "For he had many possessions which he loved, loving to be angry and to grieve (since he went away grieving) and such things having been begotten by him from vice which have seized his soul. If then one remains at the literal level of explanation of things previously set forth, you would find half a measure of praise and half a measure of blame extended to this young man. On the one hand, after presenting the difficulty for the salvation of the wealthy person, not the impossibility which the passage at hand has displayed on the literal level, with wealthy people being able with difficulty to resist the passions and the sins, and not to be completely caught by these things. On the other hand, if one might take up a figurative understanding of the wealthy person, you. will inquire how it is that he might enter with difficulty into the kingdom of the heavens. The parable countenances the difficulty of the wealthy person’s entrance into salvation either way he is understood, with “It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a wealthy person to enter into the kingdom of the heavens (Matt 19.24) ... Of the two things at hand, the camel entering through the eye of a needle and the wealthy person [entering] into the kingdom of God, he says that the first is easier. And you might inquire among men as to whether it has ever happened that a camel enters through the eye of a needle, and whether a wealthy person (impossibly for men but possibly for God) has entered into the kingdom of God. In the same way also for the camel and for the eye of the needle, [you might inquire] if any camel whatsoever might be found and any “eye of a needle” might be understood, [that] will enter through it. For even this, while impossible for men, is possible with God.
Clement QDS 19, 20 - "It is thus that thou dost rightly sell the possessions, many are superfluous, which shut the heavens against thee by exchanging them for those which are able to save. Let the former be possessed by the carnal poor, who are destitute of the latter. But thou, by receiving instead spiritual wealth, shalt have now treasure in the heavens. The wealthy and legally correct man, not understanding these things figuratively, nor how the same man can be both poor and rich, and have wealth and not have it, and use the world and not use it, went away sad and downcast, leaving the state of life, which he was able merely to desire but not to attain, making for himself the difficult impossible."
(c) both men appeal to the example of Crates the philosopher
Origen Comm Matt 15.15: "If someone looking with human weakness, as though it were difficult for someone to do such things for the sake of the perfection in God, might despise the text, but turn[ing] away from allegory, he will be put to shame by certain Greek histories, in which certain ones, because of Greek wisdom, are recounted to have performed what the Savior here tells the rich man"
Clement QDS 11: "[n]or was the renunciation of wealth and the bestowment of it on the poor or needy a new thing; for many did so before the Saviour's advent, some because of the leisure for learning, and on account of a dead wisdom; and others for empty fame and vainglory, as the Anaxagorases, the Democriti, and the Crateses."
(d) how does the act of "selling" goods make the seller blessed or is it something else? Clement says it isn't about literally selling your goods, but Origen does and thinks that the poor you give your money to will pray on your behalf which assists you in getting to heaven. Clement says the poor aren't that blessed as a group and so have no power to effect your efforts to attain perfection
Origen Comm Matt 15.17 "Or, should we say that, by selling certain substance and giving it to the poor, he assumes all the virtues even becoming as one inspired of God, and puts away all vice from himself, we would be speaking honestly (if I may speak in a more common manner), but I do not know if truly. Perhaps indeed those who hear this explanation for the difficulty raised will mock us, as though we speak without prudence. Someone, who keeps to the letter and in no way offers a figurative reading, might seem to be more prudent to speak, offering a rejoinder in this way, as though honest, but if the things said are worthy or not of the thoughts according to the passage, indeed you yourself will judge. One may say therefore that, since he who distributes to the poor is assisted by their prayer for his own salvation, receiving for his own lack of spiritual things an abundance of spiritual things from those who are lacking bodily things (as the Apostle indicated in the second [letter] to the Corinthians [8.14]), might it be that someone else could experience the same thing and be assisted greatly by it, with God hearkening unto the prayers of those who have found rest in such poverty—among such ones there may perhaps be those who are similar to the Apostles though a little inferior to them, ones who are poor in bodily things, as were [the Apostles], but who are wealthy in spiritual things? This one then who accepts poverty in exchange for wealth for the sake of becoming perfect (having been persuaded by the words of Jesus) might be assisted quickly, as indeed the Apostles of Christ [were]."
Clement counters that there is no more likelihood of finding 'spiritual people' among the poor than the rich:
Clement QDS 11 " "Sell thy possessions." And what is this? He does not, as some conceive off-hand, bid him throw away the substance he possessed, and abandon his property; but bids him banish from his soul his notions about wealth, his excitement and morbid feeling about it, the anxieties, which are the thorns of existence, which choke the seed of life. For it is no great thing or desirable to be destitute of wealth, if without a special object, -- not except on account of life. For thus those who have nothing at all, but are destitute, and beggars for their daily bread, the poor dispersed on the streets, who know not God and God's righteousness, simply on account of their extreme want and destitution of subsistence, and lack even of the smallest things, were most blessed and most dear to God, and sole possessors of everlasting life."
(e) Peter said "we have left all and followed Thee" but he had nothing to begin with - therefore the passage can't be about excluding rich people from heaven
Clement QDS 21 "Therefore on hearing those words, the blessed Peter, the chosen, the pre-eminent, the first of the disciples, for whom alone and Himself the Saviour paid tribute, quickly seized and comprehended the saying. And what does he say? "Lo, we have left all and followed Thee? Now if by all he means his own property, he boasts of leaving four oboli perhaps in all, and forgets to show the kingdom of heaven to be their recompense. But if, casting away what we were now speaking of, the old mental possessions and soul diseases, they follow in the Master's footsteps, this now joins them to those who are to be enrolled in the heavens. For it is thus that one truly follows the Saviour, by aiming at sinlessness and at His perfection, and adorning and composing the soul before it as a mirror, and arranging everything in all respects similarly."
Origen Comm on Matt 15.22: "The one who despises the literal text as though not sufficient to persuade a hearer with a more noble nature, he will say, as with other texts of Scripture which hold something revered in an anagogical sense, such things about this passage: “Behold, we have left everything behind, and have followed you” (Matt 19.27), a little net having been abandoned, and a poor house, and a laborious life in poverty, is in no way something big nor is it worthy to be recounted of such a disciple, to whom “flesh and blood did not reveal” that Jesus is “the Christ, the Son of the living God,” “but” his “Father in the heavens,” and to whom it is recounted, “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it” (Matt 16.17, 18).
Origen Comm on Matt 15:21 "Someone might indeed observe these things according to the literal level, but someone else who disparages the [level] of the letter, as though not noble-natured, will offer a figurative reading ... Even if it was something small and cheap that Peter had forsaken along with his brother, Andrew, when they both heard, “Come, follow me, and I will make you fishers of humans; immediately, leaving their nets, they followed him” (Matt 4.19-20), yet it is not reckoned a small thing to God who observes that they had done this from such a state ...
(f) is 'wealth' a figure of 'the good' from heaven? Clement says yes, Origen no
Clement QDS 14 "So let no man destroy wealth, rather than the passions of the soul, which are incompatible with the better use of wealth . So that, becoming virtuous and good, he may be able to make a good use of these riches (τὰ μὴ συγχω ροῦντα τὴν ἀμείνω χρῆσιν τῶν ὑπαρχόντων, ἵνα καλὸς καὶ ἀγαθὸς γενόμενος καὶ τούτοις τοῖς κτήμασι χρῆσθαι δυνηθῇ καλῶς). The renunciation, then, and selling of all possessions, is to be understood as spoken of the passions of the soul (τὸ οὖν ἀποτάξασθαι πᾶσι τοῖς ὑπάρχουσι καὶ πωλῆσαι πάντα τὰ ὑπάρχοντα τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον ἐκδεκτέον ὡς ἐπὶ τῶν ψυχικῶν παθῶν διειρη μένον)."
Origen Comm Matt 15 "You will indeed see (as though in anagogical terms), we have become firmly fixed in thinking that the wealth is a certain figure of the good (τὸν πλοῦτον ἀγαθὸν), rather than the opinion below (i.e. the opinion Origen espouses that it is to be taken literally)
(g) Clement bring up Matthew 12:15 and it's 'good man' as a way of proving that even Matthew knew the mystical truths known originally to Mark, Origen disagrees:
Clement QDS 17 But he who carries his riches in his soul, and instead of God's Spirit bears in his heart gold or land, and is always acquiring possessions without end, and is perpetually on the outlook for more, bending downwards and fettered in the toils of the world, being earth and destined to depart to earth, -- whence can he be able to desire and to mind the kingdom of heaven, -- a man who carries not a heart, but land or metal, who must perforce be found in the midst of the objects he has chosen? For where the mind of man is, there is also his treasure. The Lord acknowledges a twofold treasure, -- the good: "For the good man, out of the good treasure of his heart, bringeth forth good ("ὁ ἀγαθὸς ἄνθρωπος ἐκ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ θησαυροῦ τῆς καρδίας προφέρει τὸ ἀγαθόν") and the evil: for "the evil man, out of the evil treasure, bringeth forth evil: for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh ("ὁ κακὸς ἐκ τοῦ κακοῦ θησαυροῦ προφέρει τὸ κακόν, ὅτι ἐκ περισσεύματος τῆς καρδίας τὸ στόμα λαλεῖ"). As then treasure is not one with Him, as also it is with us, that which gives the unexpected great gain in the finding, but also a second, which is profitless and undesirable, an evil acquisition, hurtful; so also there is a richness in good things, and a richness in bad things, since we know that riches and treasure are not by nature separated from each other. And the one sort of riches is to be possessed and acquired, and the other not to be possessed, but to be cast away. In the same way spiritual poverty is blessed. Wherefore also Matthew added, "Blessed are the poor." How? "In spirit." And again, "Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after the righteousness of God." Wherefore wretched are the contrary kind of poor, who have no part in God, and still less in human property, and have not tasted of the righteousness of God.
Our Matthew reads here - ὁ ἀγαθὸς ἄνθρωπος ἐκ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ θησαυροῦ ἐκβάλλει ἀγαθά, καὶ ὁ πονηρὸς ἄνθρωπος ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ θησαυροῦ ἐκβάλλει πονηρά. Clement's citation is slightly different - ὁ ἀγαθὸς ἄνθρωπος ἐκ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ θησαυροῦ
τῆς καρδίας προφέρει τὸ ἀγαθόν [καὶ] ὁ κακὸς ἐκ τοῦ κακοῦ θησαυροῦ προφέρει τὸ κακόν, ὅτι ἐκ περισσεύματος τῆς καρδίας τὸ στόμα λαλεῖ. Clement's point is that the good man has goodness in his heart from God and thus is like God. Origen disagrees using the same passage:
Origen Comm Matt 10 “And behold one came to him and said, ‘Teacher, what good thing shall I do in order that I might attain eternal life?’,” etc., up to, “Many who are first will be last, and last first” (Matt 19.16-30). On the one hand, it is written in the Psalms, as though a man is able to do good, that, “The one who desires life, who loves to see good days let your tongue cease from evil, and your lips from speaking deceit; turn away from evil, and do what is good” (Ps 33.13 -15). Here on the other hand, to the one who says, “What good thing shall I do in order that I might inherit eternal life?,” the Savior says, “Why do you speak to me concerning what is good? There is one who is good” (Matt 19.17), as though “good” is, properly speaking, applicable to no one other than God. It is necessary to see, that here [the term] “good” is employed in its proper sense for God alone, but in other places by a misuse of language [is employed] for good works, a good man, and a good tree. Indeed you will find that [the term] “good” is also employed of many other things. One must not deem there to be a quarrel, therefore, between “Do what is good” and “Why do you speak to me concerning what is good? There is one who is good,” which is said to the one who inquires and says, “Teacher, what good thing shall I do?” On the one hand, therefore, Matthew has recorded “What good thing shall I do?” as though the Savior was being asked concerning a good work. Mark and Luke on the other hand have represented the Savior as having said, “Why do you call me good? None is good except one, God” (Mk 10.18; Lk 18.19) as though the term “good” applied to God may not be applied to any other thing. For God is not good in the same way that one might talk about “a good man who from the good treasure of his heart brings forth good things ἀγαθὸς ἄνθρωπος ἐκ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ θησαυροῦ <τῆς καρδίας αὐτοῦ>« προφέρων τὰ ἀγαθά” (Matt 12.35; Lk 6.45).
(h) Clement's description of 'certain Christians' who were patronizing sycophants might well have applied to Origen:
Clement QDS 3 "Those then who are actuated by a love of the truth and love of their brethren,
and neither are rudely insolent towards such rich as are called, nor, on the other hand, cringe to them for their own avaricious ends, must first by the word relieve them of their groundless despair, and show with the requisite explanation of the oracles of the Lord that the inheritance of the kingdom of heaven is not quite cut off from them if they obey the commandments; then admonish them that they entertain a causeless fear, and that the Lord gladly receives them, provided they are willing ... let the man who is endowed with worldly wealth reckon that this depends on himself." Origen's dependence on his patron Ambrose is described at length by Jerome
"Ambrose, who provided the parchment, money, and short-hand secretaries that allowed Adamantius, our Chalcenterus, to produce his innumerable books, reported in a letter that he wrote him from Athens, that never in his presence had Origen taken a meal without a reading, nor did he ever go to sleep without one of the brothers reading aloud something from the sacred writings, and be comported himself thus night and day so that reading took the place of prayer and prayer of reading." (Epistle 43) Indeed the expectation for money on Origen's part seems to have crossed a line with the death of his wealthy patron
"He (Ambrose) died ... and is condemned by many (of Origen's followers), in that being a man of wealth, he did not at death, remember in his will, his old and needy friend." (Jerome Vir Ill 56)
(i) Origen rejects Clement's appeal to Mark's 'good God' to argue for a mystical understanding of the 'rich man' narrative:
Origen's argumentation is surprising. Despite making reference (as is the habit in Comm Matt) to what Mark and Luke says, the focus of exegesis is a harmony reading shared in Clement's Quis Dives Salvetur. Origen's gospel reads "τί ἀγαθὸν ποιήσω, ἵνα ζωὴν αἰώνιον κληρονομήσω" Clement's gospel "ἀγαθέ τί ποιήσω ἵνα ζωὴν αἰώνιον κληρονομήσω." Matthew by contrast - Διδάσκαλε, τί ἀγαθὸν ποιήσω ἵνα
σχῶ ζωὴν αἰώνιον." κληρονομήσω is a Markan phrase. τί ἀγαθὸν ποιήσω is Matthean. It is odd that Origen should be citing a harmony reading here in a Commentary on Matthew but this would tend to argue that at the core there was originally more similarities than presently visible.
Interestingly, the shared variant 'harmony' text forms the critical link between the two author's exegeses. Yet, as with the entire Commentary, the chapter begins with a citation of what we might call a 'normative' text of Matthew:
“And behold one came to him and said, ‘Teacher, what good thing shall I do in order that I might attain eternal life (Καὶ ἰδοὺ εἷς προσελ θὼν εἶπεν αὐτῷ· διδάσκαλε, τί ἀγαθὸν ποιήσω ἵνα σχῶ ζωὴν αἰώνιον)?’,” etc., up to, “Many who are first will be last, and last first” (Matt 19.16-30).
Let's suppose that as with the mekhilta laid down in the same period, the scriptural citation that begins each chapter was not originally there. Was the Commentary necessarily a commentary on Matthew specifically? It is an interesting question which can't be answered here at the present time.
The point is that in the main body of the Commentary Origen sums up Clement's exegesis in Quis Dives Salvetur based on a scriptural reading almost identical with Clement's text of Mark:
Origen Comm Matt 15.10 - 12 Here on the other hand, to the one who says, “What good thing shall I do in order that I might inherit eternal life?,” the Savior says, “Why do you speak to me concerning what is good? There is one who is good” (Matt 19.17), as though “good” is, properly speaking, applicable to no one other than God. It is necessary to see, that here [the term] “good” is employed in its proper sense for God alone, but in other places by a misuse of language [is employed] for good works, a good man, and a good tree. Indeed you will find that [the term] “good” is also employed of many other things. One must not deem there to be a quarrel, therefore, between “Do what is good” and “Why do you speak to me concerning what is good? There is one who is good,” which is said to the one who inquires and says, “Teacher, what good thing shall I do?” On the one hand, therefore, Matthew has recorded “What good thing shall I do?” as though the Savior was being asked concerning a good work. Mark and Luke on the other hand have represented the Savior as having said, “Why do you call me good? None is good except one, God” (Mk 10.18; Lk 18.19) as though the term “good” applied to God may not be applied to any other thing. For God is not good in the same way that one might talk about “a good man who from the good treasure of his heart brings forth good things” (Matt 12.35; Lk 6.45) ... But in terms of what is truly good, just as “every living thing will not be justified before God” (Ps 142.2), with each human righteousness being proven as not righteousness when the righteousness of [M1284] God is contemplated, so in the same way everything which might be called good in relationship to inferior things by a comparison of these things [to one another] may in no way be termed “good” before the good God.
Someone might suggest that, insofar as the Savior knows that the state and free will of him who inquires is clearly deficient for performing the good attainable by humans, he responds to him (who inquires, “What good shall I do?”) with “Why do you ask me concerning what is good?,” saying in effect: You who are not prepared [to do] the things communicated concerning what is good would inquire about doing “something good” [that] you may inherit eternal life? Then he teaches that there is only One who is truly good, concerning whom the law indeed says, “Listen, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one” (Deut 6.4), for this [One] is properly Savior and properly Lord and properly good, Whom I am persuaded does all things as [One who is] good. You might inquire how even the things not understood by those who, so far as it is up to them, slander the God of the law and bring accusation against him are redolent of his goodness, which things it is not easy to speak about succinctly in human terms. For I am persuaded that God’s goodness is expressed through “I kill,” no less than through, “And I cause to live,” similarly also through “I will smite” no less than through “And I will heal” (Deut 32.39).
But next it is to be contemplated how it is said that, “If you desire to enter into life, keep the commandments.” You will take note in this [text] that he speaks to the one who inquires concerning the “good” as though he is still outside of life [when he says], “If you desire to enter into
life.” At this point I could inquire as to how many ways there is to understand [what it means] to be outside of life and to enter into life ... If, then, we also desire to enter into life, we must listen to Jesus who says, “If you desire to enter into life, keep the commandments” (Matt 19.17), and we, according to the proportion of [our] keeping the commandments, might enter into life, whether coming into its most inward and blessed parts, or the middle parts, or wherever the keeping of the more insignificant and more obscure commandments of life brings us.
This lengthy section is a comprehensive rejection of Clement's exegesis as represented by Quis Dives Salvetur. At its core Clement says that τί ἀγαθὸν ποιήσω has to be understood in terms of 'making (oneself) good' rather than - as with Origen - (doing good (works)' viz. the Law:
Clement QDS 6 - 10 - "And having been called "good," and taking the starting note from this first expression, He commences His teaching with this, turning the pupil to God the good (τὸν θεὸν τὸν ἀγαθὸν), and first and only dispenser of eternal life, which the Son, who received it of Him, gives to us. Wherefore the greatest and chiefest point of the instructions which relate to life must be implanted in the soul from the beginning, to know the eternal God, the giver of what is eternal, and by knowledge and comprehension to possess God, who is first, and highest, and one, and good. For this is the immutable and immoveable source and support of life, the knowledge of God, who really is, and who bestows the things which really are, that is, those which are eternal, from whom both being and the continuance of it are derived to other beings ... Jesus, accordingly, does not charge him with not having fulfilled all things out of the law, but loves him, and fondly welcomes his obedience in what he had learned; but says that he is not perfect as respects eternal life, inasmuch as he had not fulfilled what is perfect, and that he is a doer indeed of the law, but idle at the true life ... One thing is lacking thee, - the one thing which abides, the good, that which is now above the law, which the law gives not, which the law contains not, which is the prerogative of those who live."
2. why does Clement introduce a lengthy citation from Mark and say that Mark has the best, purest understanding of the narrative only to focus attention on Matthew and terminologies that are only found in Matthew? The best answer perhaps is that he knew or had heard Origen's exegesis of the material from Matthew or possibly even read Origen's Commentary on Matthew.
(a) Clement's exclusive mention of Matthew after the initial appeal to Mark
In the same way spiritual poverty is blessed. Wherefore also Matthew added, "Blessed are the poor." How? "In spirit." And again, "Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after the righteousness of God." Wherefore wretched are the contrary kind of poor, who have no part in God, and still less in human property, and have not tasted of the righteousness of God. (QDS 17)
(b)Clement's citation of 'kingdom of heaven' from the passage - a terminology which doesn't appear in his cited text of Mark:
- For some, merely hearing, and that in an off-hand way, the utterance of the Saviour, "that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven," despair of themselves as not destined to live, surrender all to the world, cling to the present life as if it alone was left to them, and so diverge more from the way to the life to come, no longer inquiring either whom the Lord and Master calls rich, or how that which is impossible to man becomes possible to God. But others rightly and adequately comprehend this, but attaching slight importance to the works which tend to salvation, do not make the requisite preparation for attaining to the objects of their hope. (QDS 2)
Those then who are actuated by a love of the truth and love of their brethren, and neither are rudely insolent towards such rich as are called, nor, on the other hand, cringe to them for their own avaricious ends, must first by the word relieve them of their groundless despair, and show with the requisite explanation of the oracles of the Lord that the inheritance of the kingdom of heaven is not quite cut off from them if they obey the commandments; then admonish them that they entertain a causeless fear, and that the Lord gladly receives them, provided they are willing; and then, in addition, exhibit and teach how and by what deeds and dispositions they shall win the objects of hope, inasmuch as it is neither out of their reach, nor, on the other hand, attained without effort; but, as is the case with athletes -- to compare things small and perishing with things great and immortal -- let the man who is endowed with worldly wealth reckon that this depends on himself. (QDS 3)
This is he who is blessed by the Lord, and cared poor in spirit, a meet heir of the kingdom of heaven, not one who could not live rich.(QDS 16)
But he who carries his riches in his soul, and instead of God's Spirit bears in his heart gold or land, and is always acquiring possessions without end, and is perpetually on the outlook for more, bending downwards and fettered in the toils of the world, being earth and destined to depart to earth, -- whence can he be able to desire and to mind the kingdom of heaven, -- a man who carries not a heart, but land or metal, who must perforce be found in the midst of the objects he has chosen? For where the mind of man is, there is also his treasure.(QDS 17)
To him who is poor in worldly goods, but rich in vices, who is not poor in spirit and rich toward God, it is said, Abandon the alien possessions that are in thy soul, that, becoming pure in heart, thou mayest see God; which is another way of saying, Enter into the kingdom of heaven. (QDS 19)
For to save the unwilling is the part of one exercising compulsion; but to save the willing, that of one showing grace. Nor does the kingdom of heaven belong to sleepers and sluggards, "but the violent take it by force." (QDS 21)
And what does he say? "Lo, we have left all and followed Thee? Now if by all he means his own property, he boasts of leaving four oboli perhaps in all, and forgets to show the kingdom of heaven to be their recompense.(ibid)
But if one is able in the midst of wealth to turn from its power, and to entertain moderate sentiments, and to exercise self-command, and to seek God alone, and to breathe God and walk with God, such a poor man submits to the commandments, being free, unsubdued, free of disease, unwounded by wealth. But if not, "sooner shall a camel enter through a needle's eye, than such a rich man reach the kingdom of God." (QDS 26) - the only reference to 'kingdom of God' in the context of the rich man narrative in Quis Dives Salvetur Very unusual again for a homily that begins by explicitly citing 17 verses from Mark!
(c) Clement always cites
(d)
Origen, apparently working from Matthew, always cites the order of the commandments after Mark:
Matthew 19:18 τὰς ἐντολὰς οἶδας
Μὴ φονεύσῃς, Μὴ μοιχεύσῃς, Μὴ κλέψῃς, Μὴ ψευδομαρτυρήσῃς, Τίμα τὸν πατέρα καὶ τὴν μητέρα, καὶ Ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς σεαυτόν.
Mark 10:19 τὰς ἐντολὰς οἶδας
Μὴ φονεύσῃς, Μὴ μοιχεύσῃς, Μὴ κλέψῃς, Μὴ ψευδομαρτυρήσῃς, Μὴ ἀποστερήσῃς, Τίμα τὸν πατέρα σου καὶ τὴν μητέρα.
Clement's Gospel of Mark in Quis Dives Salvetur - τὰς ἐντολὰς οἶδας·
μὴ μοιχεύσῃς, μὴ φονεύσῃς, μὴ κλέψῃς, μὴ ψευδομαρτυρήσῃς, τίμα τὸν πατέρα σου καὶ τὴν μητέρα
Origen Comm Matt 15.13 Having heard [Jesus’ response], “Keep the commandments” (Matt 19.17), he replies, “Which ones?” (19.18), so that we might learn “which ones” are the more important “commandments” Jesus desires us to keep. For to [the question] “Which ones?” he replies, “You will not commit adultery; You will not murder; You will not steal; You will not bear false witness; Honor your father and mother, (τὸ οὐ μοιχεύσεις, οὐ φονεύσεις, οὐ κλέψεις, οὐ ψευδομαρτυρήσεις τίμα τὸν πατέρα καὶ τὴν μητέρα)” and, “You will love your neighbor as yourself” (Matt 19.18-19). Perhaps these [commandments] are in fact sufficient for some to enter into the beginning of life (if I may name it such), while these [commandments] and others similar to them are not sufficient to initiate some into perfection, inasmuch as one guilty of one of these commandments is not able to enter into the beginning of life. The one who desires to enter into the beginning of life must keep himself clean from adultery, murder, and all theft. For as an adulterer and murderer will not enter into life, so also the one who steals will not (ὡς γὰρ μοιχὸς καὶ φονεὺς οὐκ εἰσελεύσεται εἰς τὴν ζωήν, οὕτως οὐδὲ ὁ κλέπτων) [enter].
Origen Comm Matt 15.18 Since therefore it is possible that at that time the wealthy person, as it were, was containing certain bad things such as adultery, murder, theft, bearing false witness (ὡς μοιχείας καὶ φόνου καὶ κλοπῆς καὶ ψευδομαρτυρίας) , but was also rendering the proper respect to his parents, and had a certain philanthropy toward his neighbor, even though not perfect, the Savior in symbolic fashion enjoins this person to distribute all the wretched substance, indeed as if to hand over these things to powers who put them to use, who are destitute of every good thing, and because of this do not submit to a threat, in accordance with what is written, “A poor person is not subjected to a threat” (Prov 13.8).
Origen Comm Matt 15.19 For on the one hand in so far as he was not committing adultery, nor murdering, nor stealing, nor bearing false witness (οὐκ ἐμοίχευσεν οὐδὲ ἐφόνευσεν οὐδὲ ἔκλεψεν οὐδὲ ἐψευ δομαρτύρησεν), but, being a young man, he indeed honored his father and mother,40 and he was grieved at the teachings of Jesus set forth about perfection and promised it [to him], if he would give away his substance, there would be something beneficial for him
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote