Photo: Rembrandt_-_The_Parable_of_the_Rich_Fool
Where does He talk about wealth and what did He say about it? In Matthew 13, Jesus says: “Because knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven has been granted to you, but to them it has not been granted. To anyone who has, more will be given and he will grow rich; from anyone who has not, even what he has will be taken away. Is there a possible twist in this message, where He refers to ‘them it has not been granted’ – presumably He’s talking about the Faith and ability to believe the Gospel. Then he says anyone who ‘has, more will be given’. Thinking again He means ‘Faith’. Then the twist – where He refers to ‘grow rich’ He continues to mean in Faith, and certainly not in worldly riches. Then from anyone who has not, even what he has will be taken away – in this case – is He referring to Faith in same context – or – is He referring to worldly riches also – that the ‘rich’ man in worldly goods will not have Faith but He will also lose the worldly riches
Webb
This is a rich theological question that cuts across multiple traditions. Let me search across the Christian, Jewish, and other collections to surface how different interpreters have grappled with this passage.Steps6 completed
Your instinct about a “twist” is well-founded — and the Church Fathers saw it too. Let me walk through what the documents actually show.
The Unfolding Logic of Matthew 13: The Same Key for Both Lock and Door
You’re reading the passage as a tight sequence of three claims:
- “To you it has been given… to them it has not” — the grant of revelation
- “Whoever has, more will be given… he will grow rich” — faithful receive more
- “Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away” — the losing of what one has
Your question is whether #3 flips to worldly riches, breaking the frame from #1 and #2. The answer from the patristic sources is remarkably unified — but it’s also more interesting than a simple “no.”
John Chrysostom: The “Seeming to Have” Distinction
Chrysostom (Homily XLV on Matthew) directly addresses the obscurity you sense. He writes that the saying “indicates unspeakable justice” and explains it this way:
“When any one hath forwardness and zeal, there shall be given unto him all things on God’s part also: but if he be void of these, and contribute not his own share, neither are God’s gifts bestowed. For even ‘what he seemeth to have,’ so He saith, ‘shall be taken away from him;’ God not so much taking it away, as counting him unworthy of His gifts.”
Notice Chrysostom’s crucial move: he reads the Greek δοκεῖ (from Luke 8:18, “that which he seemeth to have”) and concludes the person never really had it in the first place. The “taking away” is not a loss of something genuinely possessed — it’s the exposure of a pretense. The phrase “even that which he seemeth to have” means “he hath not really even this” .
On your reading — whether the last clause refers to faith or worldly riches — Chrysostom’s answer is neither in isolation. The “having” and “not having” are about disposition toward the word. The person who “has” is the one with zeal and forwardness — an active receptivity. The person who “seems to have” but doesn’t really is the one who hears but lets the word get choked.
The Parable Context: Riches as a Cause, Not the Object
This is where the twist gets more layered. In the very same chapter, Jesus explains the parable of the sower and identifies “the deceitfulness of riches” (ἀπάτη τοῦ πλούτου) as one of the thorns that chokes the word . Chrysostom draws explicit attention to this phrasing:
“Therefore He said not, ‘the world,’ but ‘the care of the world;’ nor ‘riches,’ but ‘the deceitfulness of riches.'”
This is critical to your question. The patristic reading doesn’t treat worldly riches as the object being taken away, but as one of the mechanisms by which the person becomes spiritually barren. The person who “has not” (no genuine receptivity) may indeed be rich in worldly goods — but those goods are precisely what deceived him. He loses both: the faith he never truly had, and the worldly things that were his only supposed treasure.
Clement of Alexandria: The Double Treasure
Clement deepens this. He writes that the Lord acknowledges “a twofold treasure” — the good treasure of the heart and the evil. And he says of the truly rich person:
“He who holds possessions, and gold, and silver, and houses, as the gifts of God… is able with cheerful mind to bear their removal equally with their abundance. This is he who is blessed by the Lord, and called poor in spirit.”
So for Clement, the person who “has” (faith) can lose worldly riches and not be harmed. But the person who “has not” (genuine faith) but possesses worldly wealth — that person is actually poor, because he carries “his riches in his soul” and will lose both. The worldly riches themselves are not the thing taken away in the parable’s main thrust, but they are implicated in the loss because they were the substitute for the real treasure.
Origen: The Parables Are for Concealment, and the “Taken Away” Is Just
Origen (in the ANF volumes) offers a distinct angle. He argues that Jesus spoke to the crowds in parables deliberately, and the things spoken to the disciples inside the house were not parables at all but “similitudes” . The “having” and “not having” maps onto this: parables conceal from those who won’t see, and reveal to those who will. The “taking away” is the natural consequence — those who close their eyes lose even the ability to see what’s in front of them .
The Pseudo-Clementine Reading: Retributive Justice
One of the most striking interpretations comes from the Pseudo-Clementine literature, which says this concealment happened because the scribes and Pharisees had themselves hidden the knowledge of the kingdom from others:
“Since they hid the knowledge of the kingdom, and neither themselves entered nor allowed those who wished to enter, on this account, and justly… the secrets were hidden from them… For to him who is worthy to know, is due that which he does not know; but from him who is not worthy, even should he seem to have any thing it is taken away.”
This reframes the whole passage as a mirror of judgment: what you do to others is measured back to you.
Returning to Your Question
So is there a “twist” where verse 12b shifts from faith to worldly riches?
The patristic evidence says no — not as a shift in subject. The entire passage is about spiritual perception and receptivity to the kingdom. But the twist is more subtle: the “deceitfulness of riches” is precisely what makes a person think they “have” when they really don’t. The worldly rich person who lacks faith is the paradigmatic case of someone who “seems to have” but has nothing that matters. When “even what he has is taken away,” that includes both the illusion of spiritual possession and, in the eschatological framework Chrysostom and others develop, the worldly goods that were his only comfort.
The documents do not support a reading where Jesus is directly saying “the rich man will lose his money.” But they do support a reading where the logic of the kingdom inverts all earthly measures of wealth and poverty — the person who “grows rich” in the kingdom may be materially poor, and the person who “loses everything” may be the one who seemed wealthiest.
What’s Interesting Here
The documents reveal a tension the Fathers themselves felt. Chrysostom says the passage is “full of much obscurity” — and that’s honest. The text doesn’t fully resolve whether the “taking away” is a passive consequence (the person simply drifts into spiritual bankruptcy) or an active judgment (God removes what was given). Chrysostom leans toward the former (“God not so much taking it away, as counting him unworthy”). But the Pseudo-Clementine material leans toward the latter — a retributive stripping.
Your instinct about a possible worldly-riches reading gets at something real: the passage deliberately uses economic language (“grow rich,” “taken away”) to describe a spiritual reality, and in doing so creates the very ambiguity you’re sensing. The seed that fell among thorns was choked by “the deceitfulness of riches” — so riches are the cause of the loss, not the thing lost. But the person who trusted in them loses everything: both the worldly treasure and the kingdom.
Dig Deeper:
- “Chrysostom says God ‘counts him unworthy’ rather than actively taking — does any Church Father read Matthew 13:12 as describing an active divine stripping rather than a passive withering?”
- “The seed choked by thorns represents those deceived by riches — does the patristic tradition ever connect this directly back to the rich young ruler or the parable of the rich fool?”
- “The Pseudo-Clementine literature says the concealment was retributive justice against the Pharisees who hid knowledge — is this theme of mirroring judgment present in Origen or Augustine’s treatments of this same passage?”
