Can a married and unmarried both attain to it? Dilemma between Charity Doctrine, Unmarried Hundredfold Highest Heavenly Reward, or is this lifestyle a Catholic invention or Biblical Truth?
Did you know there is a strong possibility that the Lord Jesus Christ taught that almsgiving, as an expression of charity, surpasses even virginity and fasting without it in spiritual excellence?
Who says so?
This is how two legendary Church Fathers—John Chrysostom and Augustine of Hippo—interpreted the teachings of Christ and the Scriptures in the quotations that follow.
Caution: Both Fathers ultimately regarded charity (love) as the highest virtue, and they valued almsgiving chiefly because it is a concrete expression of charity.
“Yet virginity, and fasting, and lying on the ground, are more difficult than this, but nothing is so strong and powerful to extinguish the fire of our sins as almsgiving. It is greater than all other virtues” (Blessed St. John Chrysostom, Father and Doctor of the Church, in Homily 6 on Titus)
Fuller version:
“Do you see, that when the prophet gave that excellent counsel to Nebuchadnezzar, he did not merely consider the poor. For he does not content himself with saying, Give to the poor; but what? Break off your sins by almsdeeds, and your iniquities by showing mercy to the poor. Daniel 4:27 Part with your wealth, not that others may be fed, but that you may escape punishment. And Christ again says, Go and sell that you have, and give to the poor…and come and follow Me. Matthew 19:21 Do you see that the commandment was given that he might be induced to follow Him?…
Yet virginity, and fasting, and lying on the ground, are more difficult than this, but nothing is so strong and powerful to extinguish the fire of our sins as almsgiving. It is greater than all other virtues. It places the lovers of it by the side of the King Himself, and justly.
For the effect of virginity, of fasting, of lying on the ground, is confined to those who practice them, and no other is saved thereby. But almsgiving extends to all, and embraces the members of Christ, and actions that extend their effects to many are far greater than those which are confined to one.
For almsgiving is the mother of love, of that love, which is the characteristic of Christianity, which is greater than all miracles, by which the disciples of Christ are manifested.”[1]
Here is the other one:
“Next, when we set it down that many men and women so keep virginal chastity, as that yet they do not the things which the Lord says, If you will to be perfect, go, sell all that you have, and give unto the poor,” (Blessed St. Augustine of Hippo, Father and Doctor of the Church, in De virginitate [Of Holy Virginity])
Augustine is saying that virginity alone is not the highest spiritual attainment, because those who add radical poverty and charity (like selling possessions and giving to the poor) have greater fruitfulness than virgins who do not. Fuller version:
“Next, when we set it down that many men and women so keep virginal chastity, as that yet they do not the things which the Lord says, If you will to be perfect, go, sell all that you have, and give unto the poor, and you shall have treasure in Heaven: and come, follow me; and dare not unite themselves to those dwelling together, among whom no one says that anything is his own, but all things are unto them common; do we think that there is no addition of fruitfulness unto the virgins of God, when they do this?
Or that the virgins of God are without any fruit, although they do not this? Therefore there are many gifts, and some brighter and higher than others, each than each. And at times one is fruitful in fewer gifts, but better; another in lower gifts, but more.”[2]
If we focus on Augustine’s concluding sentence alone:
“Therefore there are many gifts, and some brighter and higher than others, each than each. And at times one is fruitful in fewer gifts, but better; another in lower gifts, but more.”
Augustine’s point appears to be that spiritual excellence is not measured merely by the quantity of virtues or acts, but also by their quality and rank. Some Christians possess many good works of a lower order; others possess fewer virtues, yet virtues of a higher order. God evaluates both the number and the excellence of spiritual fruits.
Within the immediate context, Augustine has just discussed virgins who practice chastity but do not embrace Christ’s counsel to sell possessions and give to the poor. He asks whether virgins who do embrace such poverty and charity have an additional fruitfulness beyond virginity itself. His answer is yes. Virginity remains fruitful, but voluntary poverty and charity add another, and in some sense higher, fruit.
Therefore, Augustine seems to be saying:
- Virginity is a genuine and excellent gift.
- Radical charity and renunciation are also genuine gifts.
- One may possess virginity without possessing the further gift of evangelical poverty.
- Those who possess both may be more fruitful than those possessing only one.
- Different virtues contribute differently to heavenly reward.
Could this imply that Christ’s “perfection” in Matthew 19:21 is connected to charity?
A reasonable Augustinian reading would be: yes, at least partly.
When Christ says:
“If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor…” (Matthew 19:21)
Augustine frequently treats this not merely as a command to become materially poor, but as an expression of perfect charity and detachment from earthly goods.
Thus, the “perfection” Christ describes is not simply poverty for its own sake but:
- love of God above possessions,
- love of neighbor through giving to the poor,
- freedom from earthly attachment,
- wholehearted following of Christ.
Under that reading, charity toward the poor is not incidental but an essential component of the perfection being described.
However, Augustine would likely stop short of saying that every person must literally sell everything to attain salvation. Rather, he distinguishes between salvation and higher degrees of fruitfulness or reward. The counsel of perfection represents a higher path, not necessarily a universal obligation.
What does the Bible say?
Who becomes first on earth but last in heaven, or vice versa?
This means that we should not assume that those who appear to have the greatest ministry opportunities on earth (seemingly “first on earth”) will necessarily remain so in God’s Kingdom, nor that those who seem to be discriminated against or rejected from pastoral or ministry positions (“those last on earth”) will remain last forever. Christ Himself surprisingly prophesied this reversal in the very same context. Please read carefully—and do not be deceived.
If those who manipulate and control jobs, positions, and influence, even within various forms of Christianity through racial, denominational, or other forms of dominance, were truly not interested in being “first,” then why would they exclude some who are willing to serve in ministry on common Christian grounds, while favoring others simply because they belong to another denomination—even when they disagree with them on other matters? Such practices are common, and many readers can likely relate to them:
Matthew 19:28–30 (ESV)
“28 Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to you, in the new world,2 zwhen the Son of Man will sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me awill also sit on twelve thrones, bjudging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29 cAnd everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name’s sake, will receive a hundredfold3 and will dinherit eternal life. 30 But emany who are ffirst will be last, and the last first.”
Note: the phrase “new world” here literally meaning “regeneration” in original Koine Greek.
Note that this general phenomenon occurs even within ministry itself—not merely in the world, but within Christianity. Christ says that “many” (not merely a few) will experience this reality, indicating that it is not an isolated or statistically rare case. Rather, many will undergo what I call the “Great Reversal” in His eternal Kingdom ranking.
Luke 18:29–30 (ESV)
“And he said to them, ‘Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God,
who will not receive many times more in this time, and in the age to come eternal life.’”
The phrase “receive many times more in this time” does not necessarily support prosperity-gospel interpretations, since none of the apostles to whom the promise was directly given became materially wealthy in this present life. Rather, the phrase is contrasted with “the age to come,” suggesting that “this time” may refer to an age or era rather than merely one’s earthly lifespan.
Within a Chiliasm framework, one possible interpretation is that “this time” refers to the 1,000-year Millennial Reign of Christ, during which these promises are fulfilled. Luke 20:35–36 may be read in support of this view, since Christ connects reward and participation in the coming age with the resurrection.
On this reading, the “age to come,” in which eternal life is fully realized, corresponds to what I have proposed as Theosis in my journal papers and books discussing this Chiliasm framework.
Matthew 19:29 (ESV) states that anyone who leaves houses, family members, or lands for Christ’s sake will receive the highest “hundredfold” heavenly reward (a context implied immediately by Matthew 19:28, which speaks of “the regeneration,” that is, the resurrection, rather than rewards received now on earth alone—or both now and in the resurrection—as the prosperity gospel frequently errs by teaching) and will inherit eternal life. The ESV does not include the word “wife” because the earliest Greek manuscripts of Matthew do not contain it.
Luke 18:29–30 (ESV), however, explicitly includes “wife” among the things that may be left behind for the kingdom of God. This wording is consistently found in the major early manuscripts of Luke.
Although Matthew does not mention leaving a wife, Luke does. This illustrates that God did not preserve every detail in identical form within every Gospel account. Nevertheless, because Luke records the phrase, its teaching remains faithfully preserved and communicated.
Matthew presents discipleship in broader terms, emphasizing the willingness to leave family relationships and possessions for Christ’s name. Luke provides a more detailed description by specifically mentioning a wife, thereby highlighting how devotion to God’s kingdom may sometimes require the surrender of even the deepest earthly comforts, whether in missionary service, celibate dedication, or other forms of sacrificial discipleship.
When I began regarding the Church Fathers on this topic seriously around 2018 onward, the most difficult question has been this:
Can someone who is married attain some type of hundredfold highest heavenly gradation?
I am not sure, but here are my honest thoughts:
I am not going to give any “church fathers” references here, but plenty of well-known quotes already exist, as provided by many scholars. According to this patristic line of interpretation, many Church Fathers also interpreted the hundredfold, sixtyfold, and thirtyfold harvests mentioned in Matthew 13:8, 23 and Mark 4:8, 20 as symbolizing different degrees of spiritual fruitfulness associated with various states of life, commonly identifying the hundredfold with virginity, the sixtyfold with widowhood, and the thirtyfold with marriage.
Analysis: That the “hundredfold” highest reward level is reserved for those doing one or more things listed here, which certainly includes the “charity doctrine” aspect of leaving houses and lands [possessions context] for Gospel reasons [the charity doctrine of giving them to the poor, or the renunciation of claiming an inheritance from one’s family despite being entitled to it, for example, in order to become a missionary].
I always wondered if, say, one has a “wife” (did not leave her), but together with his spouse has “left children” (by not having children), and also gives possessions to charity through a will at the end of life while both are doing ministry together during their lifetime, can they also attain a form of the hundredfold final heavenly reward level, since they did at least two things mentioned in the combined context of Matthew 19:29 and Luke 18:29–30, namely, “left children” (not having children) and “left houses and lands” (giving possessions to charity through a will at the end of life in a modern adaptation, regardless of whether people later rob them of it, since they already wrote the will and thus such manipulations do not affect their intention?*), while also doing so for the “Gospel,” since they intentionally chose to live a missionary life together as a couple in their own way?
*I write this because some may steal from others, since the “love of money” is prevalent, whether by changing a will or through other unknown techniques.
A key example would be Christ’s commendation of the widow’s giving of two coins, which He regarded as entitled to the greatest reward (implied) in Luke 21:1–3, since it shows that God counts by percentage, which usually reveals the heart (when all other factors are held constant).
The Lord Jesus (not merely men, but God in the Flesh) compares her gift which almost fed none against the giving of the rich, which had more tangible effects but was still lower in value before God. This implies that human advantages do not invalidate the ability of those from poorer backgrounds to attain a greater final reward. Nor did God, who already knew that the widow would give the “most,” make her a financial leader or rich, as some prosperity-gospel theology mistakenly teaches by suggesting that people are chosen for ministry jobs or pastoral roles because they are the best givers. That is not necessarily true, as Christ’s own real-life observation in this passage contradicts it. If it were true, the widow should have been rich like the New Testament Lydia or other wealthy women, since she could have benefited the Church more materially.
This shows clearly that wealth accumulation, whether through ministry positions or secular work, often has to do with human systems and biases, and God does not always intervene to ensure that every decision is “fair.” Indeed, unjust suffering may increase heavenly reward, and no one can manipulate that outcome.
Another key point is that Christ knew that the temple funds to which the widow contributed were also being manipulated by the religious leaders of that time (the Pharisees and Sadducees), who even “devour widows’ houses” in Luke 20:47 (or Mark 12:40, or Matthew 23:14), meaning that they took love offerings and similar contributions from the poorest people and lived comfortably and even luxuriously with their families—a type of lifestyle that is also seen among some modern pastors and so-called charity ministry leaders. Can you see it?
Yet, even if the widow’s two coins were later used by the Pharisees for their own manipulation, her reward still remained the greatest in relative measure for that situation in heaven.
Can you see the genius of God, and how perfect, deep, and fair the way of the Lord Jesus is?
That is why Lord Jesus alone is the Christ (Messiah), since even in financial context and final heavenly rewards, His Ways are “Holiest” and Fair to all!
Compare His words against other flawed human opinions, which reduce everything to support their own bias and nepotism (including racism, religious bias, language bias, and all other forms of bias both within and outside of Christianity).
No wonder He declared majestically:
“These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.” (John 16:33, NKJV)
Let each man decide his eternity!
About the author:
Jonathan Ramachandran is an ecumenical Christian, a Malaysian theologian, missionary blogger, and operations manager who bridges mathematics and ministry. A self-taught enthusiast of Chiliasm Church Fathers, he has published in peer-reviewed journals and runs www.AnonymousChristian.org. He is an International Mathematical Olympiad (IMO) coach for Malaysia, guiding students in advanced competition mathematics. A graduate in actuarial science and Bank Negara scholar, his professional path spans seismic engineering, education, charity, and freelance preaching, including baptizing students into Christianity[3]. He holds honorary doctorates in theology, divinity, and ministry, dedicating his life to scholarship, service, and mathematical coaching.
[1] John Chrysostom, “Homily 6 on Titus,” in Homilies on Titus, trans. Philip Schaff, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, vol. 13, ed. Philip Schaff (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1889), revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/23086.htm.
[2] Augustine of Hippo, “Point 46,” in De virginitate (On Holy Virginity), trans. C. L. Cornish, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, vol. 3, ed. Philip Schaff (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1887), revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1310.htm.
[3] YouTube, “Baptism Playlist,” YouTube video playlist, accessed March 29, 2026, https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLaeVcfrWAwrykoxjlxFCERAlo-X9bE521
Recent free books by author:
1) Title: Free High School Math Olympiad (546 Problems & Solutions): 1430-Page Complete Collection of 2020–2026 Olympiad Mathematics Solutions by Jonathan Ramachandran (Free PDF Download or Google Book)
Jonathan Ramachandran, Free High School Math Olympiad: 546 Problems & Solutions (5 Loaf 2 Fish Publications, 28 May 2026), https://books.google.com.my/books/about?id=eaHdEQAAQBAJ Or https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1d0go0yKivMwt7mseVcJucot_E56h1po7?usp=sharing.
2) Title: Thank God Regardless Math, Merit, and Being Unapologetically Christian.
Jonathan Ramachandran, Thank God regardless: Math, merit, and being unapologetically Christian (5 Loaf 2 Fish Publications, 31 May 2026), https://books.google.com.my/books/about?id=3KPfEQAAQBAJ or https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1d0go0yKivMwt7mseVcJucot_E56h1po7?usp=sharing.
Thank you for reading!
Source:
