Luke 18:27 — How This Verse Has Been Interpreted

The Verse

Text (KJV): "And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God."

Immediate context: Jesus speaks this immediately after declaring that it is easier for a camel to pass through a needle's eye than for a rich person to enter God's kingdom (18:25). The disciples respond with alarm ("Who then can be saved?"), and 18:27 functions as Jesus's direct answer. The setting is a teaching moment during Jesus's final journey to Jerusalem (9:51-19:27), positioned between the rich ruler's rejection (18:18-23) and Peter's question about the disciples' reward (18:28-30).

The context itself creates interpretive options because Jesus shifts from speaking about rich people specifically to using the universal "with men," leaving unclear whether the "impossible" refers only to rich people being saved, to all human salvation, or to something broader about human moral/spiritual capability.

Interpretive Fault Lines

1. Scope of "Impossible"

Specific (rich people entering kingdom) vs Universal (all human salvation)

Why the split exists: The immediate trigger is the rich ruler's failure, but Jesus's shift to "with men" (ἀνθρώποις) uses the generic term for humanity, not "rich people."
What hangs on it: If specific, the verse addresses wealth as a unique barrier; if universal, it becomes a statement about total human inability in salvation, foundational to debates over free will and grace.

2. Nature of Divine Possibility

Salvific (God enables what humans cannot achieve) vs Providential (God's general power over nature/circumstances)

Why the split exists: The Greek δυνατός can mean "possible" in either a moral/spiritual sense or a general capacity sense. The camel/needle image is hyperbolic, inviting either salvation-specific or general omnipotence readings.
What hangs on it: Salvific readings make this a soteriological statement (informing doctrines of grace, election, regeneration); providential readings make it a reassurance about God's power to change external circumstances.

3. Human Agency Negation

Total (humans contribute nothing to the "impossible" thing) vs Partial (humans cooperate with divine enabling)

Why the split exists: "Impossible with men" can mean "utterly outside human power" or "not achievable by human effort alone." The verse does not specify whether God acts unilaterally or in response to human turning toward him.
What hangs on it: This axis directly fuels the monergism/synergism debate: Reformed traditions read total negation, Arminian/Wesleyan traditions read partial, and Roman Catholic/Orthodox traditions structure sacramental cooperation around it.

4. Temporal Application

Salvation-moment (justification) vs Sanctification-process (ongoing transformation) vs Eschatological (final glorification)

Why the split exists: "Enter the kingdom" is linguistically ambiguous—it can refer to initial conversion, progressive holiness, or final entrance into eternal life.
What hangs on it: If justification, the verse anchors doctrines of irresistible grace; if sanctification, it addresses human moral transformation; if eschatological, it speaks to perseverance and final deliverance.

The Core Tension

The central question is whether Jesus is answering "How can the rich be saved?" or "How can anyone be saved?" The disciples' "Who then can be saved?" could mean "If even the rich (who were considered blessed by God) cannot be saved, who can?" or "If entering the kingdom is this difficult, who is capable?" The verse survives centuries of debate because it is positioned precisely at the hinge between a specific case (the rich ruler) and a universal principle (human inability). For the specific reading to win, one would need to establish that "with men" refers back exclusively to "rich people" despite the grammatical shift to a universal term. For the universal reading to win, one would need to explain why Jesus addresses the general question of salvation mechanics in a passage focused on wealth. Neither reading can fully absorb the other without leaving textual residue.

Key Terms & Translation Fractures

ἀδύνατα (adynata) — "impossible"

Semantic range: powerless, unable, impossible, incapable

Translation options:

"Impossible" (KJV, ESV, NIV) — strongest negation, favored by Reformed readings emphasizing total inability
"Cannot" (some dynamic equivalents) — slightly softer, implies incapacity rather than metaphysical impossibility
"Powerless" (rare) — emphasizes lack of agency rather than impossibility of outcome

Interpretive impact: "Impossible" supports monergistic readings (salvation is categorically outside human reach); "cannot" leaves room for cooperation models (humans lack power but not all agency).

παρὰ ἀνθρώποις (para anthrōpois) — "with men"

Semantic range: beside men, in the presence of men, from the standpoint of men

Translation options:

"With men" (KJV, NKJV) — locative, suggests perspective or means
"For man" (ESV, NIV) — instrumental, emphasizes human incapacity
"From a human perspective" (some paraphrases) — epistemological, softens ontological claim

Interpretive impact: "With" preserves ambiguity (is this about human means or human perspective?); "for" strengthens the total inability reading; perspective translations allow that God's possibility might involve human participation under divine enabling.

παρὰ τῷ θεῷ (para tō theō) — "with God"

Parallel structure to παρὰ ἀνθρώποις: Identical preposition (παρά) creates formal symmetry, suggesting the contrast is locative (what is impossible in the human sphere is possible in the divine sphere) rather than instrumental (what humans cannot do, God does unilaterally).

What remains genuinely ambiguous: Whether "with men/with God" denotes means (human effort vs. divine action) or sphere (human realm vs. divine realm). The locative sense could allow for God's possibility to include transformed human action within the divine sphere, while the instrumental sense requires absolute replacement of human agency with divine action.

Competing Readings

Reading 1: Universal Soteriological Monergism

Claim: Jesus declares that all human salvation is impossible by human effort and is achieved entirely by God's unilateral action.

Key proponents: John Calvin (Institutes 2.3), Martin Luther ("The Bondage of the Will"), Jonathan Edwards ("Freedom of the Will"), contemporary Reformed theologians (R.C. Sproul, John Piper)

Emphasizes: The disciples' alarm ("Who then can be saved?") as recognizing universal human inability; the absolute contrast between ἀδύνατα and δυνατά (impossible/possible); the parallel with Jesus's earlier statement that humans cannot make themselves acceptable to God (Luke 16:15).

Downplays: The rich ruler's specific failure as the immediate trigger; Jesus's prior commands to the ruler (sell, follow) which imply human action; the ruler's reported obedience to the commandments (18:21).

Handles fault lines by:

Scope: Universal—shift to "men" generalizes the principle
Nature: Salvific—entering the kingdom requires regeneration
Agency: Total negation—humans are passive recipients
Temporal: Justification-moment—God unilaterally regenerates the will

Cannot adequately explain: Why Jesus addresses the question via a story about wealth if the point is universal inability; why Peter's subsequent question ("We have left everything") is treated as meaningful if human action contributes nothing.

Conflicts with: Reading 3 (Synergistic) at the precise point of human agency—whether "impossible with men" excludes all human contribution or only unaided human effort.

Reading 2: Wealth-Specific Providential

Claim: Jesus addresses the specific impossibility of a rich person entering the kingdom by natural means, and affirms God's power to overcome wealth's spiritual dangers.

Key proponents: Early patristic interpreters (Clement of Alexandria, Who Is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved?), some Anabaptist traditions (emphasis on economic discipleship), liberation theology interpreters (Gustavo Gutiérrez)

Emphasizes: The structural coherence of 18:18-30 as a unit about wealth; the rich ruler's failure as the immediate interpretive lens; the disciples' "Who then can be saved?" as expressing shock that the materially blessed (rich) are excluded; Jesus's follow-up about leaving houses/family (18:29-30) as continuing the wealth theme.

Downplays: The universal language "with men" rather than "with rich people"; the broader Lukan theme of total human dependence on grace (1:37, 5:20-24); the parallel in Mark 10:27 where the context equally supports universal readings.

Handles fault lines by:

Scope: Specific—rich people are the subject throughout
Nature: Providential—God can change hearts hardened by wealth
Agency: Partial—humans must respond to God's liberation from mammon
Temporal: Conversion-process—progressive detachment from wealth

Cannot adequately explain: Why Jesus uses the universal "men" if he means "rich people"; why Paul later uses similar language (Romans 3:20, Ephesians 2:8-9) in explicitly universal salvation contexts disconnected from wealth.

Conflicts with: Reading 1 (Universal Soteriological) at scope—whether the impossibility is anthropological (all humans) or circumstantial (rich humans).

Reading 3: Synergistic Enablement

Claim: Salvation is impossible by human effort alone, but God makes it possible by enabling humans to respond, cooperate, and participate in their own salvation.

Key proponents: Eastern Orthodox tradition (John Chrysostom, Homilies on Matthew), Wesleyan-Arminian theology (John Wesley, Sermons on Several Occasions), Roman Catholic soteriology (Council of Trent, Session 6)

Emphasizes: The preposition παρά as locative ("with" = in the sphere of) rather than instrumental, allowing God's possibility to include human cooperation; Jesus's prior commands to the ruler as meaningful (sell, follow); the disciples' own abandonment (18:28) as a model response to divine enabling.

Downplays: The strength of ἀδύνατα ("impossible," not "difficult"); the total depravity theme in Luke's narrative (5:8, 13:1-5); the absence of any mention of human cooperation in the immediate text.

Handles fault lines by:

Scope: Universal—all humans need divine grace
Nature: Salvific—grace enables saving faith
Agency: Partial—God enables, humans respond
Temporal: Justification-moment + sanctification-process

Cannot adequately explain: Why Jesus uses the absolute "impossible" if humans retain any native capacity to respond; how to distinguish this from Pelagianism (salvation by human effort) if humans cooperate prior to regeneration.

Conflicts with: Reading 1 (Monergism) at the agency axis—whether grace is resistible (God enables response) or irresistible (God unilaterally regenerates).

Reading 4: Eschatological Resurrection

Claim: "Entering the kingdom" refers to bodily resurrection and eternal life, which is impossible for humans to achieve but which God will accomplish at the eschaton.

Key proponents: N.T. Wright (The Resurrection of the Son of God), some apocalyptic Jewish readings emphasizing God's future intervention, certain Pentecostal traditions prioritizing final glorification

Emphasizes: The resurrection theme in Luke 18:31-34 (immediately following this passage); the Jewish background of "entering the kingdom" as eschatological (Daniel 7:13-14, 12:1-3); Jesus's own resurrection as the paradigm for the impossible made possible.

Downplays: The immediate context of the rich ruler's present decision; the disciples' question as about current salvation requirements; the lack of explicit resurrection language in 18:27.

Handles fault lines by:

Scope: Universal—all humans will die and need resurrection
Nature: Providential + salvific—God's power over death
Agency: Total negation—humans cannot resurrect themselves
Temporal: Eschatological—final entrance into eternal kingdom

Cannot adequately explain: Why the rich ruler's present obedience is discussed if the point is future resurrection; why Jesus does not mention resurrection explicitly here despite mentioning it in 18:31-34.

Conflicts with: Reading 2 (Wealth-Specific) at temporal application—whether the verse addresses present conversion or future bodily transformation.

Harmonization Strategies

1. Layered Impossibility (Both/And)

How it works: The verse addresses multiple impossibilities simultaneously—rich people entering (specific), all humans achieving righteousness (universal), and bodily resurrection (eschatological).

Which Fault Lines it addresses: Scope (reconciles specific and universal), Temporal (allows multiple applications)

Which readings rely on it: Synthesizers who resist single-axis interpretations; some Catholic interpreters applying analogia fidei (Scripture interprets Scripture)

What it cannot resolve: How to weight the layers—which impossibility is primary in Jesus's intent, and whether the text actually supports reading multiple senses into a single statement without eisegesis.

2. Grace-Before-Response Sequence

How it works: God's enabling grace (prevenient grace in Wesleyan terms) makes human response possible, so "impossible with men" means "impossible without prior grace" rather than "impossible with any human involvement."

Which Fault Lines it addresses: Agency (reconciles total inability with human response), Nature (grace is salvific but requires cooperation)

Which readings rely on it: Reading 3 (Synergistic), Arminianism, Catholicism, Orthodoxy

What it cannot resolve: Whether prevenient grace itself is resistible or irresistible—if irresistible, it collapses into monergism; if resistible, it reintroduces human autonomy as the deciding factor.

3. Salvation/Sanctification Split

How it works: Justification (initial salvation) is entirely God's work (addressing Reading 1), but sanctification (progressive transformation) involves human cooperation (addressing Reading 3).

Which Fault Lines it addresses: Temporal (separates justification from sanctification), Agency (God alone justifies, God + human sanctify)

Which readings rely on it: Some Reformed interpreters (distinguishing forensic justification from transformative sanctification), evangelical Protestants

What it cannot resolve: Which aspect Jesus primarily addresses in 18:27—nothing in the text explicitly signals a justification/sanctification distinction, and "entering the kingdom" could refer to either or both.

4. Rhetorical Hyperbole Adjustment

How it works: "Impossible" is Semitic hyperbole meaning "extremely difficult" or "humanly impossible without God's help," not metaphysically impossible.

Which Fault Lines it addresses: Agency (softens total negation), Scope (allows for degrees of difficulty)

Which readings rely on it: Reading 3 (Synergistic), popular evangelical preaching

What it cannot resolve: Why Jesus chooses ἀδύνατα (impossible) rather than δυσκόλως (difficult, used in 18:24)—the text itself distinguishes difficulty from impossibility, making hyperbole reduction textually awkward.

Non-Harmonizing Option: Canon-Voice Conflict

How it works: Brevard Childs and James Sanders argue the canon preserves competing voices—Luke's Jesus emphasizes divine sovereignty, James emphasizes human works (2:14-26), and Paul navigates between them (Romans 3-4). The tension is canonical pedagogy, not a puzzle to solve.

Which readings it affects: All—removes pressure to force coherence

What it preserves: The text's resistance to single-axis resolution; the possibility that early Christian communities held tension without needing systematic resolution.

Tradition-Specific Profiles

Reformed/Calvinist

Distinctive emphasis: Total depravity and unconditional election—18:27 proves that regeneration precedes faith (ordo salutis), since faith itself is impossible "with men."

Named anchor: Westminster Confession of Faith (1646), Chapter 10 ("Of Effectual Calling"); John Calvin, Institutes 2.3.5

How it differs from: Arminianism—denies prevenient grace as resistible; salvation is monergistic from start to finish, not synergistic at any stage.

Unresolved tension: Whether "impossible with men" also applies to the reprobate (double predestination) or only describes the elect's inability apart from regeneration (single predestination). Reformed theologians (supralapsarianism vs. infralapsarianism) remain internally divided.

Wesleyan-Arminian

Distinctive emphasis: Prevenient grace—18:27 means "impossible without grace" but grace is universally given and resistible, so human response is meaningful.

Named anchor: John Wesley, "On Working Out Our Own Salvation" (Sermon 85); Remonstrance (1610), Article 4

How it differs from: Reformed—affirms human inability but denies that grace is irresistible; the "possibility with God" includes enabling human cooperation, not replacing it.

Unresolved tension: How prevenient grace differs from Pelagianism if humans can resist it—is the deciding factor God's grace or human choice? Arminians navigate this by affirming that grace is necessary but not sufficient without human response, but critics argue this reintroduces human autonomy as the final cause.

Roman Catholic

Distinctive emphasis: Sacramental mediation—God's "possibility" operates through baptism (regeneration), Eucharist (ongoing grace), and penance (restoration), making salvation a cooperative process.

Named anchor: Council of Trent, Session 6, Canon 4 ("If anyone says that man's free will moved and aroused by God, by assenting to God... does not cooperate... let him be anathema")

How it differs from: Protestantism—grace is infused (transformative), not merely imputed (forensic); human cooperation is essential at every stage.

Unresolved tension: How to balance sola gratia (grace alone, affirmed against Pelagius) with human cooperation (affirmed against Luther). Catholic theology holds both in tension but struggles to explain how cooperation is necessary without making grace insufficient.

Eastern Orthodox

Distinctive emphasis: Theosis (deification)—18:27 addresses humanity's inability to achieve divine likeness by nature, but God makes it possible through synergy (συνεργία), where human will cooperates with divine energies.

Named anchor: Maximus the Confessor, Ambiguum 7; Gregory Palamas, Triads (essence-energies distinction)

How it differs from: Western Christianity—rejects forensic justification entirely; salvation is participatory transformation, not legal status change.

Unresolved tension: Whether synergy applies at the moment of initial faith (do the unregenerate have capacity to turn toward God?) or only after baptismal regeneration. Patristic sources (Chrysostom vs. Augustine) differ, and Orthodoxy has not systematized an official ordo salutis.

Liberation Theology

Distinctive emphasis: Socio-economic impossibility—the rich cannot enter the kingdom because wealth structurally blinds them to justice; God's "possibility" is revolutionary transformation of economic systems.

Named anchor: Gustavo Gutiérrez, A Theology of Liberation (1971), Chapter 13; Ched Myers, Binding the Strong Man (1988)

How it differs from: Traditional soteriology—foregrounds systemic sin (economic oppression) over individual sin; entering the kingdom is inseparable from solidarity with the poor.

Unresolved tension: Whether Luke 18:27 is primarily about spiritual salvation (which requires economic implications) or economic liberation (which has spiritual dimensions). Liberation theologians resist separating the two, but critics argue this collapses soteriology into politics.

Reading vs. Usage

Textual reading

Careful interpreters note that 18:27 functions as Jesus's answer to "Who then can be saved?" in a context triggered by a rich man's failure. The verse's scope (specific vs. universal), nature (salvific vs. providential), and agency implications (total negation vs. partial cooperation) remain exegetically contested. Responsible readings anchor interpretation in the immediate narrative (18:18-30), the broader Lukan theology of grace and human response, and the Synoptic parallels (Matthew 19:26, Mark 10:27).

Popular usage

In contemporary Christian culture, Luke 18:27 circulates primarily as a motivational reassurance: "Nothing is impossible with God" (often conflated with Luke 1:37). It appears on inspirational posters, social media memes, and prosperity gospel sermons to affirm that God will overcome any obstacle—financial, medical, relational. The verse is detached from its context (the rich ruler's failure, the disciples' alarm) and repositioned as a promise of divine intervention in personal circumstances.

The gap

What gets lost: The impossibility side of the equation. Popular usage foregrounds God's possibility while erasing human impossibility, inverting the verse's function. Jesus's point is not "God can do anything you want" but "salvation (or wealth-renunciation) is impossible for humans; only God can accomplish it." The existential weight of ἀδύνατα (impossible) evaporates.

What gets added: Personal application to non-salvific situations. The verse becomes a generic theodicy ("God will fix my problems") rather than a specific soteriological claim. Prosperity theology weaponizes this: if nothing is impossible with God, then lack of breakthrough indicates insufficient faith.

Why the distortion persists: The popular reading meets a pastoral need—reassurance in difficulty—without requiring the theological heavy lifting (monergism vs. synergism, scope of grace, nature of impossibility) that the text actually demands. The distortion also avoids the rich ruler's uncomfortable challenge: if entering the kingdom requires leaving wealth behind, the verse becomes a threat rather than a comfort.

Reception History

Patristic Era (2nd-5th centuries)

Conflict it addressed: Pelagian controversy—whether humans can choose God without prior grace.

How it was deployed: Augustine used Luke 18:27 (alongside Romans 9:16 and Philippians 2:13) against Pelagius to argue that salvation is impossible by human will and is entirely God's gift. Pelagius countered that "impossible" refers to difficulty, not metaphysical incapacity, and that God's grace assists human effort rather than replacing it.

Named anchor: Augustine, On Grace and Free Will (426 CE), sections 31-33; Pelagius, Letter to Demetrias (414 CE)

Legacy: Augustine's reading became Western Christian orthodoxy, embedding Luke 18:27 in debates over free will, original sin, and grace. Eastern Christianity retained more synergistic readings (Chrysostom emphasized the rich ruler's choices), creating a permanent East-West fault line.

Reformation Era (16th century)

Conflict it addressed: Whether salvation is by faith alone or by faith plus works; whether grace is cooperative or unilateral.

How it was deployed: Luther and Calvin weaponized Luke 18:27 against Rome's sacramental system, arguing that "impossible with men" demolishes any notion of human contribution to justification. The Council of Trent (1547) responded by anathematizing those who deny human cooperation (Canon 4), reading "impossible" as "impossible without grace" rather than "impossible even with grace-enabled human response."

Named anchor: Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will (1525), responding to Erasmus; Council of Trent, Session 6, Canons on Justification

Legacy: Luke 18:27 became a Reformation battlefield. Protestant soteriology (sola gratia, sola fide) and Catholic sacramental theology both claim it, producing irreconcilable readings that persist 500 years later.

Modern Era (20th-21st centuries)

Conflict it addressed: Whether Christian soteriology is individualistic (personal salvation) or includes socio-political liberation.

How it was deployed: Liberation theologians reframed "impossible with men" as the structural impossibility of the rich renouncing wealth without divine intervention in economic systems. Traditional evangelicals countered that this distorts a spiritual truth into political ideology.

Named anchor: Gustavo Gutiérrez, A Theology of Liberation (1971); Carl F.H. Henry, God, Revelation, and Authority (1976-83), Volume 6

Legacy: Luke 18:27 now functions in debates over the gospel's scope—is salvation purely spiritual, or does it necessarily include economic discipleship? The verse's reference to wealth makes it a recurring flashpoint.

Open Interpretive Questions

Does "with men" (παρὰ ἀνθρώποις) refer specifically to the rich people under discussion, or does it generalize to all humanity?
Is the "impossibility" metaphysical (categorically outside human nature) or moral (humans lack the will/virtue to achieve it)?
Does God's "possibility" operate unilaterally (regeneration without human response) or cooperatively (enabling human response that remains resistible)?
What specific "thing" is impossible/possible—entering the kingdom (justification), leaving wealth (sanctification), bodily resurrection (glorification), or all three?
How does Luke 18:27 relate to Luke 1:37 ("For nothing will be impossible with God," spoken to Mary about the virgin birth)—are these parallel statements of divine omnipotence, or does 1:37 address biological/providential possibility while 18:27 addresses salvific possibility?
Why do the disciples react with alarm ("Who then can be saved?") if Jesus is merely stating a general truth about divine power? Does their alarm indicate they understood Jesus to mean universal human inability?
If salvation is "impossible with men," what is the function of Jesus's prior commands to the rich ruler ("sell all," "follow me")? Are these commands designed to expose inability, or are they meaningful imperatives?
Does Peter's claim "We have left everything" (18:28) represent cooperation with grace (synergism) or evidence of prior regeneration (monergism)?
Can "impossible" (ἀδύνατα) be read hyperbolically as Semitic idiom for "very difficult," or does the lexical and syntactic context require literal impossibility?
How should interpreters weigh the immediate context (rich ruler) against the universal language ("with men")—does context constrain meaning, or does grammar override context?

Reading Matrix

Reading	Scope	Nature	Agency	Temporal
Universal Soteriological Monergism	Universal	Salvific	Total negation	Justification
Wealth-Specific Providential	Specific (rich)	Providential	Partial	Conversion-process
Synergistic Enablement	Universal	Salvific	Partial	Justification + sanctification
Eschatological Resurrection	Universal	Providential + salvific	Total negation	Eschatological

Agreement vs. Disagreement

Broad agreement exists on:

The verse responds to the disciples' question about who can be saved
Human capacity is contrasted with divine capacity
The immediate trigger is the rich ruler's failure
The verse belongs to a broader Lukan theme of divine grace (1:37, 5:20-24, 7:50)
The parallel versions (Matthew 19:26, Mark 10:27) support the same basic structure

Disagreement persists on:

Scope: Whether "with men" means rich people specifically or humanity universally (Fault Line 1)
Nature: Whether divine "possibility" is salvific (grace enabling faith) or providential (power over circumstances) (Fault Line 2)
Agency: Whether humans contribute nothing (monergism) or cooperate with grace (synergism) (Fault Line 3)
Temporal: Whether the verse addresses justification, sanctification, or final glorification (Fault Line 4)
Harmonization with James 2:14-26: Whether human works are evidential (Reformed) or contributory (Catholic/Orthodox)

Related Verses

Same unit / immediate context:

Luke 18:18-23 — The rich ruler's failure provides the immediate occasion for 18:27
Luke 18:24-25 — Jesus's camel/needle statement that provokes the disciples' alarm
Luke 18:28-30 — Peter's claim of abandonment tests whether human action is meaningful

Tension-creating parallels:

Matthew 19:26 — Parallel account; nearly identical wording raises questions about Synoptic source (Q, Mark priority)
Mark 10:27 — Parallel account; adds "Jesus looked at them" (personal address), sharpening the pastoral tone
James 2:14-26 — Insists faith without works is dead, creating tension with readings that deny human contribution

Harmonization targets:

Luke 1:37 — "Nothing is impossible with God" (virgin birth context); interpreters must reconcile providential (1:37) and soteriological (18:27) uses
Romans 3:20-28 — Paul's "no one is justified by works of the law" aligns with monergistic readings of 18:27
Ephesians 2:8-9 — "By grace through faith... not of works" supports Reformed use of 18:27
Philippians 2:12-13 — "Work out your salvation... for God works in you" creates tension between human effort (v12) and divine agency (v13)

Generation Notes

Fault Lines identified: 4
Competing Readings: 4
Sections with tension closure: 10/10