Глава 10

1–16. The message of the twelve apostles for preaching. – 17–25. An indication of the dangers to which the apostles would be exposed during their preaching. – 26–33. An invitation to fearlessly confess Christ. – 34–36. Enmity between people. – 37–39. Conditions for following Christ. – 40–42. Conclusion. Matthew 10:1. And having called His twelve disciples, He gave them power over unclean spirits to cast them out and heal every disease and every infirmity. The verse in question does not speak about the calling or election of the apostles, but only about their embassy to preach. Matthew previously reported the calling of several disciples (Matthew 4:18 et seq.) and one Matthew (Matthew 9:9); in total, according to his message, only five disciples had been called before: Peter and Andrew, James and John of Zebedee, and Matthew. Matthew does not say anywhere about the calling of the remaining disciples and the “twelve disciples” appear before us here for the first time, although it is possible to assume that before the embassy to preach they were already with the Savior (μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ – Matthew 5:1, 8:21, 23, Matthew 9:10–11, 14, 37 and etc.). The evangelist could not have listed the names of the apostles in Matthew 10:2 at all, and this, apparently, was what his speech was leaning towards in this verse. But, having written this verse, he, perhaps, only then remembered that it was inconvenient to designate these people with one numeral and therefore considered it necessary to call them by name, which in any case was more understandable to the readers for whom he wrote. The main essence of the matter now was that the Savior gave these disciples power over unclean spirits and healing. The speech of all weather forecasters about the embassy of the apostles is not distinguished by the similarity of expressions. Matthew's speech is closer to Luke's. From Luke's testimony (Luke 6:13) it is clear that the twelve apostles were called or chosen before the Sermon on the Mount was delivered. What is to be noted here is the gradual expansion of Christ's activity as Matthew portrays it. First (Matthew 4:23) he speaks of the journey of only Christ Himself through Galilee. Then in Matthew 9:35 he speaks in almost the same words about the same Galilean activity, only with the addition of speech about “cities and villages.” Finally, in Matthew 10:1-2 the embassy of the apostles joins here to preach. Therefore, they think that this verse contains the conclusion of the speech begun in Matthew 4:13. Jerome correctly notes that the Savior does not envy the fact that His disciples and slaves will wield the powers that belong to Himself. And just as He Himself healed every disease and infirmity, so He transferred this power to His disciples. But there is a great distance between the words “have” and “distribute,” “give” and “receive,” and the actions they denote. Matthew 10:2. The names of the twelve Apostles are these: the first Simon, called Peter, and Andrew his brother, James Zebedee and John his brother, (Cf. Mark 3:16–17; Luke 6:13–15; Acts 1:13). When interpreting this verse, one should, firstly, keep in mind its connection with other verses that talk about the apostles, i.e. with the 3rd and 4th, secondly, the special meaning of only the 2nd verse. 1. We have four lists of the apostles, three in the Synoptics and one in Acts. The first observation we can make when looking at these lists is that they are all different. This will be clearer from the following table: There is no doubt that Simon is one and the same person with Peter. He comes in first place in all four lists (but is not called Simon in Acts), Philip is everywhere in fifth, James Alphaeus is in ninth, and Judas Iscariot (replaced in Acts 1:26 by Matthias) is in last. These persons serve, as it were, as dividers of the apostolic lists into three “quaternions”, with four persons in each. Some persons in the lists, although they are called differently, must be identical, because if we accept that different persons are named here by different names, then this will not be in accordance with the direct testimony of the weather forecasters that there were “twelve” apostles, the tacit recognition in Acts 1:13 by the writer of Acts of the same truth and the clear one in Acts 1:26. On the one hand, the elementary and too simple characteristics given by the apostles (“Simon, called Peter, his brother, a publican, a Canaanite,” a traitor, etc.), and on the other, fluctuations in the names of the same persons (if we admit that they were really identical) serve as indisputable evidence: a) absence of forgery or fabrication; b) the ancient, under Christ Himself, emergence of apostleship as a fact; c) compiling lists after the resurrection of Christ. 1) How could we admit a deliberate forgery or fiction here, if the persons who compiled the lists, despite all the different languages, retained significant similarities, which fully allows us to consider the lists identical? On the other hand, the differences in the lists do not give us any right to suspect the evangelists of mutual agreements and borrowings from each other. You can borrow and reinterpret a fact, but rarely and only with extreme negligence do you borrow and alter, or, better yet, when borrowing alter something as simple as a small number of names of some people. Thus, there can be no doubt that the evangelists, so to speak, copied names from real persons, but did not pay attention to the fact that the lists they compiled would cause major misunderstandings over time or give rise to them. 2) If the apostles had not been called by Christ Himself, then we could expect more extensive discussions about them, depictions of their activities and other things, but there is almost no talk about this in the lists. What significance and what importance lay in the fact that such and such was, for example, the brother of another? In a short historical account, devoid of any historical details, this would probably not be worth mentioning. But it’s a different matter if the apostles had a real (and not fictitious) relationship to Christ. The circumstance that He chose and sent so-and-so and with him his brother to preach has not only real, but also too touching significance, especially since, as the subsequent speech shows, there was not a trace of any nepotism characteristic of the church life of subsequent times. 3) If the fact of the calling of the apostles and their embassy to preach was historically contemporary with Christ, then, as one must think, the compilation of the lists themselves, considered as a fact, occurred after His death and resurrection. If it were different, i.e. if the compilation of the lists and the act of election itself were simultaneously or occurred very close to one another, then we would perhaps only encounter such characteristics as “sons of thunder” (Βοανηργές – Mark 3:17), but would not have such characteristics as “traitor.” 2. Having made these general remarks, let us proceed to consider in particular the 2nd and subsequent verses, where we speak of the apostles. First of all, the word “apostle” attracts attention here. It occurs here for the first time in the Gospel of Matthew and never again. In Mark, the apostles are mentioned only once, and it was after they had already made their first journey (Mark 6:30). In John, the word “apostle” is found in John 13:16, but in the general sense - sent, and the disciples are not called apostles even once. The exception is Luke, who mentions the apostles several times, namely in the same place as Matthew and Mark, and, in addition, on all “important occasions” (Luke 6:13, 9:10, 11:49, 17:5, 22:14, 24:10). Bengel explains just a single mention of the apostles in Matthew and Mark by the fact that until then the apostles were more disciples than apostles. But after the descent of the Holy Spirit, the twelve were never called disciples, but apostles. Disciples in Acts are those who either taught with the apostles or studied with them. Matthew simply lists the apostles by name, but Mark and Luke report that it was at this point that they were either called apostles (Luke 6:13), or that on the occasion of this calling some apostles were given other names (Mark 3:16–17). Only in the Gospel of Matthew is Simon called “first” (πρῶτος), but this is where the listing ends, and it is not said about further apostles that he was “second”, “third”, etc. Explaining the meaning of this numeral is very difficult. Catholic exegetes take this opportunity to impress upon the minds of their readers the ideas of the supremacy and authority of Peter over all the apostles, and then of the "primacy" of Peter and the Roman high priests. Protestants, of course, do not agree with them. Thus, Beza, denying the primacy of the Roman popes, believed that the word “first” was inserted here in the Gospel of Matthew “incorrectly” (mendose) and therefore should be removed. For their part, Catholic exegetes claim that πρῶτος (the first) is found in all codes - Greek, Latin, Syriac, etc. Further, say Catholic exegetes, the Greeks, whom Catholics consider schismatics who deny the primacy of Peter, would probably exclude the word “first” from the Gospel if only it could be done “honestly,” i.e. without any damage to the truth. The primacy of Peter gives rise to Catholic theologians for another kind of reasoning, which is not devoid of interest, but, apparently, does not always tend towards the elevation of the chair of the Roman pontiff. Some Catholics greatly elevate Peter not only above the apostles, but also above the bishops, considering it almost unthinkable that bishops should have the right to be the successors of Peter and the other apostles. “You will say: bishops, as they say, are the successors of the apostles. I answer: this is said only by analogy and for the sake of some convenience, in the only sense that bishops receive from the apostles the power of ordination and episcopal jurisdiction, and because bishops are superior to other priests in the same way as the 12 apostles were superior to the 70 disciples; otherwise, the bishops would lack apostolic power, and precisely triple. But the power of bishops extends only to their own dioceses, and the power of the apostles to all nations scattered throughout the world. Thus, strictly speaking, comparisons cannot even be made between the two institutions - apostolate and bishopric. The power of the apostles in the Church was supreme and much greater than the power of bishops. For the apostles were taught and sent directly by Christ the Lord, being, as it were, close legates of Christ with absolute power over the whole world and with supreme power over the entire Church, in order to have the power everywhere, firstly, to preach the Gospel and confirm their preaching with the gift of tongues and miracles, and also to write literary works, for the apostles had the power to write canonical books - as it was in fact when Matthew and Mark wrote the Gospels - canonical messages and the Apocalypse; secondly, they had the power to found churches everywhere, etc.” If the word “first” causes a lot of exegetical work for Catholic scholars-exegetes, then it causes no less difficulties for scientists - Protestant theologians, who give reason to talk about the notorious German “ranks”. At the same time, it is almost completely forgotten that other weather forecasters in their parallels to the place in question do not have the slightest hint of the word “first” and that, according to the teaching of Christ Himself, told to the disciples, the one who wanted to be “first” in His Kingdom must be last of all and servant of all. The general meaning of Protestant discussions on this subject can be expressed by the fact that Peter was only the first among equals, i.e. apostles This is confirmed by the subsequent history of the apostle’s life, when he was told by Christ that “on this rock” He would establish His Church and “the gates of hell will not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18). Peter was the first after the descent of the Holy Spirit to preach on behalf of all the disciples and was the first to preach to the pagans. The Savior sometimes turns to Peter as the first (Matthew 26:40; Luke 22:31; see also Matthew 17:24; Acts 1:15, 2:14, 37, Acts 4:8, 5:29). But in further considerations regarding this “primacy” of Peter among equals, opinions again differ. According to some Protestant exegetes, the word "first" refers only to "order", although it does not exactly mean that Peter was "first" in rank or authority. All the apostles were of the same rank and authority. Their positions were the same. There was no “hierarchy” within this class. But, as always happens among all persons equal in office, among the apostles there were differences in character, gifts and position. The word can only mean that Peter was an outstanding personality among the apostles. In view of this rather significant diversity of opinions, it is interesting to check with St. John Chrysostom and see exactly how he interpreted the word in question. He says: “First... Peter. Because there was also another Simon, a Canaanite. Mark lists the apostles according to their dignity, placing Andrew after the two supreme ones, but Matthew lists them differently, otherwise, he places Thomas above himself, who was much lower.” This interpretation may not seem entirely satisfactory. But in any case, it is clear from it that the same expressions can be looked at completely differently compared to how Catholic and Protestant theologians look. We do not mean to give an interpretation that would not be subject to any criticism and would immediately eliminate all further questions and misunderstandings. Let us note, however, that much that initially appears to people in a completely natural form, over time acquires a meaning that it did not have at its very first appearance or origin. For Christ Himself to somewhere call Peter “first” and make him the head of all the apostles - this is not visible from anywhere. The meaning of the word “first”, attributed to Peter by the evangelist, would be best understood if we continued this calculation and placed the corresponding numerals before the name of each further apostle, i.e. second, third, etc. until twelve o'clock. In this case, it would be immediately obvious that the entire speech of the evangelist would be dotted with numerals, for which there was no special need and which, without any need, would only lengthen and stretch the speech. Let us note here that what the evangelist wrote often happens in practice among us. When compiling any lists, we rarely provide all the names with the corresponding numerals, but put 1, 5, 10, etc. Having written the word πρῶτος, the evangelist, perhaps, only wanted to show that all the apostles could be easily counted, but he left this enumeration, for the sake of brevity of speech, to the readers themselves, if they so desired. If the evangelist wanted to signify the highest dignity of Peter through πρῶτος, he would have put this numeral with an article. At the same time, however, the idea is not denied that both Matthew and the other evangelists and the writer of Acts treated Peter with special respect and even considered him “first among equals.” It cannot only be argued that they intended to express such respect through any numerals. But if it were completely different, i.e. if the evangelist wanted to express through πρῶτος the supreme dignity of Peter over the other apostles, then even in this case this would not give the popes any right to express any of their own claims and advantages and cover them with the authority of the apostle or apostles, because the personal dignity of no person can be transferred to other persons and belongs only to him alone. The original name of Peter, as is especially clear from the Gospel of John, was Hebrew - Simon (Simeon), which means “hearing” (and not “listener”), the same as Simeon. The derivation of the name Peter from the Hebrew “patar” - to decide, to dismantle into parts, to interpret dreams, to expound - cannot be accepted. The Greek name Peter means the same as the Hebrew name Cephas - stone. This is according to the explanation of the Savior Himself (John 1:42). Next to Peter, the evangelist places his brother Andrew, who, according to John (John 1:40), was called before Peter. Andrei and Philip are Greek names, the first means “adult, mature, courageous, husband, man,” and the second means “lover of horses or horses.” The assumption that both apostles also had Jewish names, although possible, is not based on anything. In any case, their Jewish names are completely unknown to us. Little is known about Andrew from the Gospels and Acts. They think that he, along with Philip, was especially close to the Savior after Peter, James and John (Mark 13:3; John 6:8, 12:22). According to Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History, III, 1), he preached in Scythia. According to ancient legend, recorded in the Russian chronicle, Andrei laid the foundation for Christianity in Russia. “Passing Thrace, Scythia and Sarmatia with his preaching, he allegedly reached the Dnieper Mountains, where Kyiv later arose” (Prof. I. Znamensky). According to legend, he died in Achaia, crucified on the cross. Epiphanius (Adversus Haereses, LI, 17) believes that Andrew was the elder brother of Peter, but some consider him the younger, because the evangelist calls him Peter’s brother. The apostles James and John who followed Andrew were the sons of Zebedee, from fishermen on Lake Galilee. Their mother's name was Salome (cf. Matt. 27:56; Mark 15:40, 16:1). If it is John who calls her the sister of the Mother of God (John 19:25), then James and John were cousins ​​of the Savior. They both worked with their father and were so successful that they had employees, although that doesn't imply too much. The Gospel says that they had only one boat. If Zebedee's boat was similar to the modern boats on Lake Galilee, it could carry four people and could hold 6 or 7 tons. But, probably, the size of the boats was larger then than now, with the prosperity of the fishing industry. The rent for the fishermen was probably the same as for the workers in the vineyard, i.e. a denarius a day. Mark mentions James and John before Andrew, and so does Acts 1:13. Zebedee is mentioned here probably only to distinguish his son James from James Alphaeus, mentioned later. John was the writer of our fourth Gospel. Matthew 10:3. Philip and Bartholomew, Thomas and Matthew the publican, James Alphaeus and Levbeus, called Thaddeus, (Cf. Mark 3:18–19; Luke 6:15–16; Acts 1:13). These names, except Matthew, are indicated by Matthew for the first time. In the subsequent chapters of the Gospel of Matthew, none of these persons, except for Judas the traitor, are named. This verse has many different readings, so determining how to read it was considered very difficult even in ancient times. Little is known about Philip, who joined Christ the day after Andrew, Simon (Peter) and John (John 1:43). Together with Peter and Andrew, he was a fisherman and lived in Bethsaida (western, suburb of Capernaum). Philip the evangelist, mentioned in Acts (Acts 8:5), was a different person. Philip the Apostle is mentioned in Acts after the ascension (Acts 1:13), as well as in several places in the Gospel of John (John 1:44–49, 6:5, 7; John 12:21–22, 14:8–9). Apart from this, we have only unreliable traditions about the life and work of the apostle. Eusebius (“Ecclesiastical History”, III, 30; V, 24), from the words of Clement of Alexandria and Polycarp, Bishop of Ephesus, counts the apostles “who, in spite of people who reject marriage, lived in the marriage state.” “Will they also blame the apostles?” - asks Clement. “Peter and Philip gave birth to children, Philip married off his daughters.” They also said that the Apostle Philip died in Hierapolis in Phrygia, taking upon himself, together with John, the care of the churches of Asia Minor. Talking about this, Eusebius apparently confuses the apostle Philip and his daughters with Philip the evangelist and his daughters (Ecclesiastical History, III, 31; V, 24). The name Philip itself, as we said above, is obviously Greek, but by some idle medieval exegetes it was derived from Hebrew words that mean the hole of a lamp (os lampadis or lampadarius), from the Hebrew words “pe” - mouth and “lappid” - lamp, lamp, torch, because Philip’s mouth was like a lamp that enlightened the world. Philip is followed by Bartholomew in all weather forecasters, but in Acts 1:13 - Thomas. Since Nathanael is not mentioned in any of the apostolic lists we have, this gave reason to some fathers, including John Chrysostom and Augustine, to think that Nathanael did not belong to the number of the 12. Even in modern times it has been argued that it was Matthew. However, there is no evidence for such opinions anywhere. According to a very widespread legend, although not particularly ancient, Nathanael was the same person as Bartholomew. This tradition is confirmed by the fact that the Gospel of John does not mention Bartholomew at all, but only Nathanael (John 1:46–50, 21:2). The word Bartholomew was not a name, but a patronymic (son of Falmai), and, therefore, the name of the apostle was different. In the Gospel of John, Nathanael is associated with Philip, and in Matthew and Mark (καί) - Bartholomew. Therefore, it was assumed that Bartholomew was the same person as Nathanael. Some also assumed that Bartholomew-Nathanael was Philip's brother, but such an assumption is not based on anything and is very incredible. The Evangelist John, having said about Andrew that he found and brought his “brother” Simon to Jesus Christ, does not make any similar remarks about Philip when he found Nathanael. They think that the name Bartholomew was not Jewish, but Aramaic. Medieval exegetes derived the meaning of this name from the Hebrew words “bar” - son, “tala” - to hang, suspendere (Latin suspendere) and “mayim” - water, thinking that the miracle of turning water into wine in Cana of Galilee was performed for the sake of Bartholomew, who was the groom at this wedding feast. Such an opinion, in all fairness, should be attributed to the realm of unfounded fiction, although it is accepted by some of our church historians, for example Philaret, Archbishop of Chernigov (see his “Lives of the Saints” on June 11). It is much more likely to derive the name Bartholomew from the Hebrew “bar” - son, and Tolmai, or Talmai - a proper name found in Joshua 15:14; 2 Samuel 3:3 (Talmai). Derivation of the name from “son of Ptolemy” is even less likely than the first. Who this Falmai was is unknown, little is known about his son, who became a disciple of the Savior. We meet Nathanael on the shore of Lake Galilee after the resurrection (John 21:2). Thomas appears in Mark and Luke after Matthew. It was probably also an Aramaic name and meant, as in Hebrew, twin, in Greek Didymus (John 11:16, 20:24, 21:2). But there are also similarities between the name Thomas and the Greek “abyssos” - abyss, because “the longer he doubted the resurrection, the deeper his faith was.” Such an interpretation, which belongs to one medieval exegete, can hardly be accepted. According to legend, Thomas preached the Gospel in Parthia or Persia, and his body was buried in Edessa. Chrysostom mentions his tomb as one of the four authentic apostolic tombs. Eusebius (“Ecclesiastical History”, I, 13) preserved the tradition that Thomas was also called Judas: “Judas, he is also Thomas.” According to Chrysostom, Matthew places himself after Thomas “out of modesty.” But apart from one fact, it is apparently impossible to deduce anything from such a resolution. If Matthew really placed himself after Thomas “out of modesty,” then the question arises, why did he not maintain such modesty in relation to the other apostles, but only to Thomas? Matthew calls himself here a “publican” and does so, perhaps truly out of modesty, although it is not clear why this recollection of previous activities was appropriate in the present case. Perhaps Matthew wanted to express here the idea that he, the publican, a man previously considered by everyone to be completely unworthy and rejected, was now awarded such a great honor, having become not only a disciple of the Savior, but also being sent by Him to such a great work as preaching about the coming of the Kingdom of God. In the place under consideration, Matthew clearly identifies himself with the person mentioned by him in Matthew 9:9. He was the writer of the Gospel, which from ancient times bore his name. Some suggested that he was Thomas's brother, moreover, they were twins. But nothing positive can be said about this. Regarding Jacob Alpheus, first of all, we note that in the hagiology adopted in our Church (see “The Complete Monthly Book of the East” by Blessed Sergius, 2nd edition, 1901), the three Jacobs mentioned in the New Testament are taken as three different persons, namely: Jacob Zebedee (April 30, June 30), Jacob Alpheus (October 9) and Jacob, brother of the Lord (October 23). The fact that Jacob Zebedee, mentioned in verse 2, is not identical with Jacob Alpheus, this hardly needs to be said in view of the fact that the evangelists themselves clearly distinguish between these persons and, of course, for the purpose of this distinction they add Zebedee and Alpheus. As for the relationship of James Alpheus to James, the brother of the Lord, the traditions and opinions on this subject are so vague and confused that it is absolutely impossible to say or establish anything precise about these apostles. Some medieval writers accepted that this James (i.e. Alpheus) was the brother of the Lord and he is also mentioned in the Epistles (1 Cor. 9:5, 15:7; Gal. 1:18–19, 2:9, 12), because Mary (Mark 15:40), the wife of Alpheus, was the sister of Mary, the Mother of the Lord, and the evangelist John (John 19:25) named the wife of Alpheus Maria Kleopova; perhaps he was called the same by both Cleopas (Klophas) ​​and Alpheus. Or the same Mary, after the death of Alpheus and after the birth of Jacob, married Cleopas. But the fact that Mary of Cleopas was the sister of the Mother of God is not confirmed by anything. The circumstance that two sisters (Our Lady and Mary of Cleopas) were called by the same name is unlikely. The opinion about the identity of Jacob Alpheus and Jacob, the brother of the Lord, can therefore now be considered completely abandoned. John Chrysostom and Theophylact distinguish two Jacobs - James Zebedee and James Alphaeus, two Judas - Thaddeus and Judas the traitor, three Simons - Peter, the Canaanite and the traitor, who was also, according to Theophylact, called Simon. But James, the brother of the Lord, is not mentioned in the interpretations of the passage in question in the Gospel of Matthew. This Alpheus, the father of James, was not the same Alpheus who was the father of Matthew (Mark 2:14). Alpheus gave birth to James and Judas from Mary. Jacob is called the Lesser, or the Lesser (μικρός – Mark 15:40), i.e. by age, as some believe, or perhaps by the time of his calling, he was younger than James the Greater, brother of John. According to Zahn, there is a wide variety of textual tradition about the second James, which apparently arose as a result of the desire to erase the differences between the evangelists. Next to very strained reconciliations and combinations, which, due to their insufficiency and improbability alone, are left without consideration, harmonious texts where Matthew and Mark have the same names are also suspicious. If we encounter such a variety of opinions regarding James Alphaeus, then the traditions about the next apostle mentioned by the evangelist, Levve, are even more confusing. John Chrysostom distinguishes between Judas Iscariot and Judas Levway, nicknamed Thaddeus; Luke calls him Jacob's, saying: Judas Jacob (Luke 6:16). Augustine thinks that the same apostle was called by three names, i.e. Thaddeus, Levway and Judas, “because who ever forbade someone to be called by two or three names?” Historically, nothing can be argued against the fact that one apostle was called by three names. In the Middle Ages, the opinion was generally established that Thaddeus was the one whom Luke calls Judas of Jacob, i.e. brother of James - writer of the Epistle of Jude. According to Wengel, Thaddeus and Levvey (“tad” and “leb”) are synonyms, and both of these names mean a man of the heart. It has been suggested that Thaddeus was a somewhat seductive name for the apostle, because the Aramaic word "tad" means the actual breast of a woman. Therefore its name was replaced by the corresponding Lebway, which is similar to the first, because it means heart, but was more, so to speak, befitting an apostle. Luke's words that, in addition to the traitor, another apostle was called Judas, according to Tsan, are strongly confirmed by John 14:22, and this alone satisfactorily explains the constant naming of the traitor Iscariot. Matthew 10:4. Simon the Canaanite and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed Him. (Cf. Mark 3:19; Luke 6:16). Jerome derives the name Canaanite from Cana of Galilee, and the discrepancy in Luke, who calls the Apostle Simon a Zealot (Luke 6:15), reconciles by the fact that the word Cana itself means jealousy. This is how some other exegetes interpret this word. According to this interpretation, Simon the Canaanite (this should be read, not the Canaanite - see Schürer, (Schürer, Geschichte des judischen Volkes, I, 486, note 138) was called so solely because he lived in Cana of Galilee. In modern times, this interpretation has been completely abandoned, because it is completely unknown whether Simon was a resident of Cana. The name of the apostle is explained not from the city of Cana and not from the word Canaan, i.e. resident of Canaan, but simply from the Hebrew “canna” - jealous, or “cania” - jealousy, which correspond to the Greek ζηλόω (jealous) or ζηλωτής (zealot). Thus, the name of the apostle does not indicate his life in Cana of Galilee and not his origin from this city, but only his belonging to the party. which was then just emerging in Palestine, namely, the Zealots. As a reason why this name cannot be derived from Cana, they point out that then the apostle would not be called καναναῖος, but κανναῖος, examples of which are found in classical writers (the inhabitants of Κάναι in Aeolis, Strabo, “Geography”, XIII, 1). The Zealot party gradually brought Jerusalem to the point of its fall. They fanatically hated the Romans. Josephus calls them robbers, but they were not simple robbers, but avengers who dealt with their political enemies through war and robbery. The Roman procurator Felix captured the head of this party, Eleazar, and, together with his accomplices, sent him to Rome. And numerous other “robbers” were crucified by Felix on crosses. But since they were enemies of Rome, they enjoyed great sympathy from the Jewish people. According to Meyer, it cannot be proven that Judas Iscariot was the only disciple who did not come from Galilee. As for the very form of the nickname of Judas Iscariot, they tried to explain it in different ways, most of them unsatisfactory. It was assumed, for example, that this word was equivalent to the Hebrew “iscariot” (from “eshkar” - purchase, goods), but if this were really so, it is surprising why this form remained untranslated in the Gospels. The opinion that Judas came from the village of Kariot or Keriot, located in the tribe of Judah, which is why he was called Iscariot, seems to be the best to this day. Confirmation for this is found in the words of Josephus, who calls one person who came from Tob “Istovos,” i.e. "man from Tova". Thus, one can think that Judas was also a “man from Kariot.” Further, in some codes, also in the Syriac and Armenian translations, it is written not Iscariot, but Kariot or Skariot. The village of Kerioth (Kiriath) is mentioned in the book of Joshua (Joshua 15:25). But perhaps Judah also came from one village in the tribe of Ephraim, called Kerioth, which Jerome speaks of in his interpretation of Is. 1:9. A much more interesting and important question is why the Savior allowed such a person as Judas into the circle of His closest disciples. Answering this question, Ambrose says that “the Savior chooses Judas not as a result of imprudence, but as a result of forethought, i.e. from him Christ wanted to be betrayed, so that you, if a friend leaves you, if you are betrayed by him, would judge your mistake and the futility of your disposition towards him moderately.” Some of the later exegetes offered other explanations. Just as there was a serpent in paradise, or just as there was Ham in Noah’s ark, so there could be Judas among the Savior’s disciples. Proposing questions about why he was chosen as one of the disciples is the same as proposing questions about why God created not only good spirits - Angels, but also those who later became evil. Didn't God foresee that they would abuse their freedom? But it is most reliable, apparently, to explain this matter in such a way that Judas, at his first meetings with the Savior, revealed sincerity and unfeigned devotion to Him. The real goal of such sincerity and devotion was worldly goods or even money. If you look at all this directly, then you can hardly think that Judas was any outstanding personality among thousands of other persons for whom religion is a subject of speculation. From the Gospels it is known that the other disciples, except for Judas, did not have truly ideal relations with Christ, at least all of them, that other interests were mixed into these relations, for which the Savior denounced the disciples. As for the question of why the Savior chose 12 disciples, the usual explanation is that this corresponded to the number of the 12 tribes of Israel. One Catholic medieval theologian even cites a whole series of quotes from which it is clear how this New Testament event was “foreshadowed” in the Old Testament - the election of the 12 apostles. In addition to the 12 tribes, there were 12 sons of Jacob, 12 heads of the children of Israel (Num. 1:16), 12 springs of fresh water in Elim (Exod. 15:27), 12 showbread, 12 spies, 12 stones taken and laid in the Jordan, 12 so-called bronze oxen. copper sea in the church and so on. But if you pay attention only to the numbers, then you can ask, firstly, why Christ chose and sent 70 more disciples, and secondly, why the number of disciples was not always limited to exactly 12, but later Paul and others were added, who were also called apostles. In all likelihood, the number of disciples was determined by purely practical considerations - the fact that there were 12 people who were suitable for apostolic activity, but if only 10, or 13, 14, 15, 16 of them were found, then the number would have decreased or increased accordingly. We cannot imagine that Christ, for any numerical or only symbolic reasons, would reject from Himself people who would wish to be His disciples and would be capable of this. John also had disciples, but their number is not indicated. Only after the coincidence of 12 with the numbers of the Old Testament did it become possible to talk about their symbolic meaning, but these numbers did not and could not influence the choice of Christ, as well as the example given by the rabbis, who also recruited and had disciples - although Christ could act in this case in accordance with the customs of His time. Matthew 10:5. Jesus sent these twelve and commanded them, saying: “Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter into the city of the Samaritans; According to the general opinion of ancient interpreters, which is especially well expressed by Chrysostom, Jerome and Theophylact, the prohibition of going with a sermon to the pagans and Samaritans was caused by the fact that the disciples had to first of all preach to the Jews, who after this could no longer have any pretext to say that the initial sermon was not directed to them, and cite this fact in their justification. In the form of a parallel, they point to Acts 13:46. The ban on preaching to pagans and Samaritans was given despite the fact that both pagans and Samaritans were even more capable than the Jews of accepting the Gospel preaching. Subsequently, after the Resurrection, this prohibition was lifted. Matthew 10:6. but go ye especially unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel; By lost sheep there is no need to understand only the immoral or criminal classes of the population, but all Jews, without any differences or exceptions, who did not yet believe in the Messiah and did not turn to Him in their hearts and lives. Matthew 10:7. As you go, preach that the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand; Literally: “preach, saying that the Kingdom is at hand.” Due to the lack of chronological data, it is difficult to determine with accuracy exactly when this embassy of the apostles took place to preach. However, it is clear that in the opinion of the evangelist himself, this was after the Savior Himself preached a lot and healed the sick. If we keep this circumstance in mind, we will better understand what the initial preaching of the apostles should have consisted of. The material for it is outlined in the words: “The Kingdom of Heaven has come near.” If the messengers began to pronounce only these words in front of anyone, then this would be enough. But if they were asked to explain what this means, they could simply talk about the appearance of an extraordinary Person who performed miracles and spoke in a way that none of the scribes and Pharisees spoke. Thus, the embassy of people inexperienced in preaching, due to the very simplicity of preaching, did not in any way exceed the strength of the apostles. This sermon was not bookish, did not require study or any scientific knowledge or training, but was taken directly from life and was performed for it. The word “repent” before “for it has come” appears in only one Coptic translation in the Sahidic dialect. Matthew 10:8. Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out demons; freely you have received, freely give. According to Jerome, Jesus Christ gave the apostles "power to heal the sick, cleanse lepers, and cast out demons, for the purpose of proving the greatness of the promises by the greatness of miracles." The words: “they received it freely” and so on, refer, of course, to miracles, and not to teaching (Meyer, 1864). Miracles were supposed to serve as confirmation of the authority given by the apostles. But if they were not done for nothing, then this would be a bad confirmation. No other expression seems to have such signs of reliability and authenticity as this simple expression. It could not have been said by anyone except the Savior Himself. Matthew 10:9. Take with you neither gold, nor silver, nor copper in your belts, Matthew 10:10. neither a bag for the journey, nor two coats, nor shoes, nor a staff, for the worker is worthy of food. (Cf. Mark 6:8–9; Luke 9:3, 10:4). The explanation of this verse given by Thomas Aquinas is interesting: “Before the suffering, the apostles were sent to the Jews. The Jews had the custom of taking care of their teachers, so Christ, sending disciples to the Jews, commanded them not to take anything with them. But the pagans did not have such a custom. Therefore, when the disciples were sent to the pagans, they were given permission to take dependents with them; and so they took it when they preached to others besides the Jews.” In connection with this command, exegetes have questions about whether the command was only temporary or permanent, i.e. whether it concerned only the apostles alone, and moreover, during their initial preaching, or whether it was binding on all preachers of the Gospel. Some answer that the command was constant (Hilary, Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine), so that the apostles had to observe this form and type of poverty throughout their lives, when they preached to the pagans. But others believe that the Savior’s commandments were temporary in nature and were binding only for the period of the apostles’ preaching to the Jews during the life of Christ. Of course, exact fulfillment of the commandments of Christ, for example, when preaching in harsh climates, may be impossible. However, the spirit of non-covetousness commanded by Him remains in full force for all preachers of the Gospel. Why did the disciples have to remove themselves from all worries before their journey? Because the people will be glad to hear the new gospel messages and, if necessary, provide the people who brought them with everything they need. This thought is expressed in further words (“the worker is worthy of food”), which have become almost a proverb. Theophylact notes that the Savior said here τροφῆς (sustenance, food), and not τρυφῆς (luxury, delicacy), because teachers should not indulge in luxury. In Luke (Luke 10:7) instead of “food” there is “reward”: “for the worker is worthy of reward (τοῦ μισθοῦ αὐτοῦ) for his labors.” Matthew 10:11. Whatever city or village you enter, visit who is worthy in it, and stay there until you leave; Matthew 10:12. and when you enter a house, greet it, saying: Peace to this house; (Cf. Mark 6:10; Luke 9:4, 10:5–6). The Savior's command is simple. Those sent by him were supposed to enter some city and there, by means available to them, find out who is “worthy” - a word that can mean a person capable and inclined to accept the gospel messages, hospitable, God-fearing, pious, honest life, thirsty for salvation, etc. Such people are not particularly difficult to find even in big cities, and even more so in small and provincial ones, such as the cities of Palestine were then in general. The apostles had to go straight to a “worthy” person and stay there as long as necessary - until the time of their departure from there - an expression that is vague, but well characterizes the activity of the apostles. Matthew 10:13. and if the house is worthy, then your peace will come upon it; if you are not worthy, then your peace will return to you. “The world” in the words of the Savior is, as it were, personified, presented as a person who enters the owner, but, rejected by him, returns to the apostles. By peace we can generally understand well-being, which depends on tranquility, health, the absence of hostility, disputes, disagreements, divisions; In a figurative sense, the word “peace” means salvation. Matthew 10:14. And if anyone does not receive you and does not listen to your words, then, when leaving that house or city, shake off the dust from your feet; (Cf. Mark 6:11; Luke 9:5, 10:10–11). According to Alford, the "solemn" act of shaking one's feet could have two meanings: 1) that the apostles took nothing from those who rejected them and are free from any connection with them; 2) that they are free from any participation in the condemnation that will befall those who refuse hospitality. The apostles had to show unbelievers that they considered them unclean and responsible for their uncleanness (see Acts 18:6). Perhaps this command was all the clearer to the apostles because the Jews had a custom, when returning from pagan countries where they wandered, to shake off the dust from their feet. Matthew 10:15. Truly I say to you, it will be more bearable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that city. Matthew 10:16. Behold, I send you out as sheep among wolves: therefore be wise as serpents, and innocent as doves. A new section begins at verse 16. The connection of this section with the previous one may lie in the fact that the Savior spoke about people who did not accept the apostles, who had to leave them and shake off the dust from their feet. In subsequent verses, He depicts in more detail the environment in which the apostles will have to work, and His gaze is transferred from the immediate reality to future times, and He, so to speak, simultaneously depicts the present and the future. The environment into which the apostles were sent was unsatisfactory. The mention of Sodom and Gomorrah indicates its low state, a decrease in the general moral level, at which everything that the Savior speaks about further was possible. When students enter this environment, all sorts of sacrifices may be required of them. Thus, on the one hand, the Savior could see sheep without a shepherd, and on the other, a world full of sin, malice and hatred. The sheep are now seemingly forgotten, and all attention is focused on the wolves, among whom the apostolic preaching was supposed to take place. If there were only sheep everywhere, then there would be no danger for the apostles, but since the sheep are surrounded by wolves, the apostles will face great dangers. We find confirmation of this interpretation in the words of St. John Chrysostom: “He begins to speak about those disasters that were to befall them, and not only about those that were to befall them soon, but also about those that were to follow after a long time, and thus prepares them in advance for battle against the devil.” In the next part of the sentence, the images change: the apostles, on the one hand, among the wolves must still be sheep, but, on the other, turn into snakes. “The pious often appear to the wicked under the guise of snakes and thus defeat the ancient serpent” (Bengel). The wisdom of the snake has become a proverb, probably since the story of the Fall. In fact, the serpent, apparently, is not at all as wise as it is reported in the Bible and, in particular, in the Gospel. In Genesis 3:1 the Hebrew word “arum” is translated by the Seventy by the word ὄφις, the same word is used here in the Gospel. It does not necessarily mean an animal that is superior to others in intelligence. It is known from natural history that, for example, an elephant and a dog are much smarter than any snake. Therefore, it is thought that the word translated "mudras" is inaccurate, especially in the present application. The Greek word denotes prudence regarding one's own safety rather than mental or moral wisdom (Greek σοφός; here used φρόνιμος prudens). Here is a reference to the real or perceived caution or cunning of a snake in times of danger. Therefore, the command is better translated as follows: be as careful as snakes. The Savior does not say: be wise as foxes, whose cunning lies in deceiving others; but - like snakes, whose policy is to protect themselves, and not to use cunning for their own safety. In the cause of Christ we must be so wise as not to unnecessarily bring disasters upon our own heads. The word simple - ἀκέραιος is derived from ἀ and κεράννυμι. Thus, ἀκέραιος means “unmixed”, “pure”, and in this sense this word is used, for example, about metals to denote their purity and the absence of any impurities in them. In its figurative meaning, the word is similar to the Latin sincerus, or the Greek “pure in heart” (Matthew 5:8) and “pure”, “simple” (ἁπλοῦς – Matthew 6:22). In this sense, it is undoubtedly used in the Epistles (Rom. 16:19; Phil. 2:15). Some ancient codices replace the word ἀκέραιος with the word ἁπλούστατοι. Matthew 10:17. Beware of people, for they will hand you over to the courts and beat you in their synagogues, (Cf. Mark 13:9; Luke 21:12). As to whether the apostles were subjected to any kind of scourging during this first journey, nothing is known. It could be that the Savior spoke here, as explained above, only in a prophetic sense. But that persecution of the disciples could have been initiated during the first journey (although we know nothing about this), this is indicated by the already begun malice of the scribes and Pharisees, which is clearly spoken of in the fourth Gospel. Flagellation was common among the Jews at that time. We even have fairly detailed information about how they were carried out. Such, for example, is the famous scourging of forty blows minus one, to which the Apostle Paul was subjected. They usually think that the last blow was not given in order not to cause death to the condemned person. But they explain the matter differently. The Jewish scourge originally consisted of only one lash, and then, perhaps, according to the law, they actually gave 40 blows without one. But later they began to make this scourge from three lashes, and they gave 13 blows, so it turned out to be 39, and if the next blow was applied, it would be a violation of the law, which prohibited inflicting more than forty blows on a criminal. This punishment was imposed by courts of 3, 7 or 23, which were established in each city to resolve civil and criminal cases. That such punishments were actually carried out in synagogues, we have indisputable evidence of this from the book of Acts (Acts 22:19, 26:11). This is also evident, by the way, from the testimony of Eusebius (“Ecclesiastical History”, V, 16), who quotes one work of an unknown author against the Montanists (maybe Apollinaris, or Apollonius), which says that in the synagogues Jewish women were never scourged or stoned. Thus, it can be seen that men were no exception. Scourgings in synagogues were ordered, it is believed, according to the verdicts of a tribunal of three who were judges in them. Matthew 10:18. and you will be brought before rulers and kings for My sake, for a testimony before them and the Gentiles. Под правителями и царями можно понимать вообще каких бы то ни было лиц, к которым иудеи или язычники по своей злобе могли или теперь, или после повести проповедников. Отведение апостолов совершится не по поводу каких-либо преступлений, совершенных апостолами, но "за Меня" (ср. Мф.5:11 ), т.е. страдания апостолов должны были служить свидетельством о Христе перед всеми людьми, перед которыми ученики будут страдать, безразлично, перед иудеями, или перед языческими правителями и царями, или перед язычниками. Мысль та, что в то время, когда люди будут удовлетворять своей жестокости и злобе, подвергая учеников Спасителя позору и страданиям, эти самые испытания их будут направлены Богом к пользе и преуспеянию Евангелия и Царства Небесного (Морисон). Matthew 10:19. When they betray you, do not worry about how or what to say; for at that hour it will be given to you what to say, The weather forecasters (Mark 13:10–11; Luke 21:13–14) express the same thought everywhere, only in different words. Students don't have to care. You don't have to think about what to say. Don't have to defend yourself. “At that hour”, when exactly they appear in judgment, they will be given what to say. Matthew 10:20. For it is not you who will speak, but the Spirit of your Father who will speak in you. (Cf. Mark 13:11; Luke 21:15). The Holy Spirit will use the disciples, as if His instruments, to speak both in their own and in His defense. He knows better than the students themselves how and what to say. No matter how brief these words of the Savior are, they express such deep thoughts that analysis can only diminish their power. One thing can only be said: not a single person could speak like the Savior spoke here. Matthew 10:21. Brother will betray brother to death, and father his son; and children will rise up against their parents and kill them; This verse is repeated almost literally in Mark (Mark 13:12) and somewhat differently in Luke (Luke 21:16). Since the last two weather forecasters cite these words in the last speech of Christ when leaving the Jerusalem temple on Holy Week, they think that there is so-called hysteriology here, i.e. afterword added here by Matthew. So it was or whether Christ only repeated these words in His last speech, it is difficult to decide at the present time. Nothing prevents us from recognizing that these words could have been repeated by Him. Be that as it may, the historical fulfillment of this prediction is beyond any doubt, and during the persecution of Christians there are many cases where parents and other close people spoke out against children and vice versa (as examples, they especially point to the Great Martyr Barbara, the martyrs Christina and Lucia). If someone were to say what is beneficial in the teaching of Christ when it encourages children to rebel against their parents, etc., then the answer can be that without such influence the evil that flourishes in the world would be even greater and would remain uncured. Well-being sometimes requires many sacrifices. Matthew 10:22. and you will be hated by everyone because of My name; he who endures to the end will be saved. The verse is literally repeated in Mark (Mark 13:13) and Luke (Luke 21:17). The latter, however, does not have the last half, which is replaced in Luke 21:19 with the words: “through your patience save your souls.” The object of hatred is indicated, but the reason for it is not indicated. In other words, hatred of Christ begins and continues as if for no reason, only because He is the Christ. His name alone can arouse hatred in many people. It is clear that there are some secret, but completely understandable reasons, which He does not directly indicate. The ideals are too high, the demands are too high, which, as it seems at first glance, are not applicable to life and the implementation of which requires a difficult struggle. And where there is struggle, there is hatred, which is absent only in a few cases not related to the struggle itself. The expression “by all” is explained differently. According to some, this expression is put instead of “many” (Theophylact); according to others, it was only a popular expression of universal hatred, the exceptions disappeared from view (Meyer, 1864 and Morison). Neither one nor the other explanation, apparently, can be considered satisfactory. The expression will be clearer if we again turn to the idea of ​​a struggle when people are divided into two camps. People of the opposite or hostile camp are called “everyone” here. For them, even just the name of Christ will serve as an object of hatred. The further expression in Greek can be understood in two ways: “he who endures to the end for My name will be saved,” or as in Russian: “You will be hated by everyone for My name’s sake; who has endured” and so on. If it were the first, then the article before the word “suffered” would be replaced by the article before “for my name” (cf. Matt. 24:13). The expression “to the end” is also explained in different ways: the end of the suffering of the disciples, the end of life, the destruction of Jerusalem, and so on. But it is much better to explain, of course, “until the end of suffering,” because this, apparently, is the essence of the matter. “It’s not the beginning that matters, but the ending,” says Jerome. Matthew 10:23. When they persecute you in one city, flee to another. For truly I say to you, before you have gone around the cities of Israel, the Son of Man comes. The first impression that remains in our mind when reading the verse is that Christ, sending his disciples to preach, himself, apparently, wanted to withdraw from them for a more or less long time. Where He retired is unknown, and what He was doing at that time is only partly known, but that the removal really took place is hardly possible to doubt. Thus, the simple, natural and immediate meaning of Christ’s words is that before the apostles have time to go around all the cities of Israel, the Son of Man will come to them again and meet with them again. Now they must go alone, He will leave them for a while. But this separation will not last long, He will be with them again. Apparently, St. John Chrysostom understood this passage as it is stated, arguing that here “the Lord is not speaking about those persecutions that were to happen after, but about those that were to happen before His crucifixion and suffering.” “You will not have time to go around Palestine before I will immediately come to you.” With this interpretation, the expression “Son of Man” does not remain without meaning. It could mean that Christ would return to the disciples not in glory and power, but in an even more humiliated state, and dishonored, no less suffering than the disciples themselves. Matthew 10:24. A student is not higher than a teacher, and a servant is not higher than his master: If the expression “Son of Man” in the previous verse is understood in the sense indicated, then the words of the 24th verse contain a very subtly expressed transition to further speech. The Son of Man is and will be treated differently than he should be treated. He presents Himself as a sufferer, similar to the apostles He depicted. This should serve as a consolation for the apostles in their suffering. Why? Because this is the usual order of things, although not normal. If the master is persecuted, then his servants are also persecuted. If a teacher is not respected, then his students are not respected either. If it were otherwise, then students would be higher than their teachers, and slaves – their masters. The idea expressed here is repeated with various variations in Luke in the Sermon on the Mount (Luke 6:40) and in John (John 13:16). According to Alford, it was a proverb. This verse is well explained by Theophylact, who says: “But you ask: how is it that “the student is not higher than the teacher,” when we see that many students are better than their teachers? Know that while they are students, they are less than teachers, but when they become better than them, they are no longer students, just as a slave, while he remains a slave, cannot be higher than his master.” The above-mentioned expression of Luke, according to which “everyone having perfected himself, will become like his teacher,” is completely consistent with this thought. Matthew 10:25. It is enough for a student that he should be like his teacher, and for a servant that he should be like his master. If the master of the house was called Beelzebub, how much more of his household? A student can, of course, surpass his teacher, and a slave his master. But this doesn't always happen. Usually it is quite enough if a slave or student achieves to be like their masters and teachers. This is especially important when we are talking about such a Teacher as Christ. The disciples cannot compare with Him at all. It would be completely enough for them if they were just a little like their Teacher. What did they wear? In an extraordinary ability to learn, in performing extraordinary miracles? No, it is that they must suffer just like their Teacher. They, of course, can imitate Him in this. But they will never have to match Him in this regard. The following speech serves as an explanation of why this is so. If evil people call the owner of the house, the teacher, the ruler Beelzebub, then the household, students, and subordinates cannot hope to be treated better. The point, of course, is not the name itself, but the consequences that arise from this. No matter how we explain the word Beelzebub, calling a person Beelzebub in any case serves as an indication of a bad relationship and a sign of hostile relations towards a person. Thus, if people treat a teacher with hostility, then students should expect the same attitude towards themselves. It is remarkable that, as can be seen from the Gospels, no one ever called the Savior Beelzebub. Only His activity was connected with Beelzebub (Matthew 9:34, 12:24–27; Mark 3:22; Luke 11:15, 11:18–19). Expressed as stated in the Gospels, this is exactly what He wants to say. The very word Beelzebub has caused numerous difficulties for exegetes, and it can be said that the question of this subject has not been finally resolved to this day. This name was used to call the Philistine deity in Ekron, of which only simple mentions are found in 2 Kings 1:2, 3, 16. But everywhere there the name is written in Hebrew, not Beelzebub, but Beelzebub. Since “zebub” in Hebrew means “fly,” the word Beelzebub can be translated “god (lord, chief) of flies.” The translation of the Seventy is consistent with this explanation of this word, which everywhere in the indicated places conveys Baalzebub through “Baal-fly” (Βάαλ μυῖα), the Ekron deity. But whether this Baal was the “god of flies”, or whether he himself was a “god-fly”, is extremely difficult to decide due to lack of data. Of the coins that have come down to us from antiquity, as far as we know, only one silver coin of Arad contains the image of a fly, but this also shows that paganism, in any case, was not alien to the idea of ​​a “fly god.” We need not go into any of the detailed studies of this Philistine god which readers will find in the commentaries on the Fourth Book of Kings. If in the New Testament the name of the Akron god was Beelzebub, then the interpretation would be simplified by at least half. But in the New Testament we do not find the name Beelzebub, and everywhere Beelzebub, however, not in all codes. The Vulgate, Syriac Peshito, Syriac-Sinaiticus, Cyprian, Jerome, Augustine, Beza and others write Βεελζεβούβ. Thus, the questions arise, firstly, about the relationship of this New Testament Beelzebub to the Ekron Beelzebub, whether Beelzebub is the same deity worshiped in Ekron or a different one, and, secondly, what is the correct reading in the New Testament, Beelzebub or Beelzebub. The last question can be answered in the affirmative in the sense that the reading of Beelzebub is more attested than Beelzebub. But in this case, how can such a change be explained, assuming that this is the same Akron god, only named differently? This is explained by the fact that Jewish wits and scoffers changed the word “zebub” into “zebul” - a word found in the Talmud (from “zabal” - to roll up, crumple) and meaning lump, uncleanness, dung, and thus the Ekron god from the “god of flies” turned into the “god of sewage” or “dung”. Although such changes do not remain without analogies in other cases, because “swear words against idolaters were clearly permitted among the Jews,” it can be objected to such production that dung in the rabbinic language is “zebel” and not “zebul”, and thus it would turn out not Beelzebub, but Beelzebel. In addition, if we accept this opinion, then it turns out that the Savior, in order to express His thought, in this case used a folk witticism, and, moreover, of a not entirely clean character, which is hardly probable. Therefore, some accept another explanation, according to which Beelzebub means “god (lord) of the dwelling” (dominus domicilii), firstly, because in rabbinical literature “zebul” is the name of the fourth heaven, where the heavenly Jerusalem, the church, the altar and Michael are located, and “zibbul” is an idol sacrifice, and, secondly, because Christ Himself, apparently, explains the meaning of the name he used by the words "master of the house" This explanation is also subject to many objections, but for now it remains the only one that can be settled on. In this case, Beelzebub means "head of the church" or "idol sacrifice." “This is the most evil and most important of the demons, who was the instigator of idolatry and encouraged it. The “Lord of the church” (which was His Church) was for them “the head of idolatry,” the representative of the worst of demons. What could “his household” expect from such treatment? (Edersheim). [In fact, the etymology of this word is different: the Aramaic root “zavav” or “davav” means “complaint, lawsuit” (from Akkadian daba-bu). In this case, “baalzebav” means nothing more than “master of the accusation,” i.e. simply “plaintiff, accuser.” In this meaning, this word, for example, was widely used until the 13th century. according to R.H. inclusive in Syriac. The identification of this word with the similar-sounding word "fly" (Heb. "zevuv") was the result of folk etymology, at a time when the original meaning of the Akkadian loan was forgotten, which led to a change in the phonetic appearance of the word from "baalzebav" to "baalzebuv". The Hebrew equivalent of the word "baalzebab" is the word "satan", which originally meant "opposite party in court." – Approx. ed. ]. In conclusion, we note that in this verse there is a rather strange construction that is not expressed in our Russian translation. According to the literal translation: “it is enough for the student that he should be as his teacher, and the servant as his master.” Instead of the dative (“to the servant” or “for the servant”) in the second case, the Greek text contains a nominative (“servant”). They think that this nominative was placed as a result of “careless translation”. Matthew 10:26. So do not be afraid of them, for there is nothing hidden that will not be revealed, and nothing secret that will not be known. The word “therefore” clearly indicates the connection of this verse with the previous ones. The Savior now exhorts His disciples not to be afraid of evil people and at the basis of His exhortation he places not the powerlessness of the enemies, not the divine protection of the disciples against them, but the fact that everything secret will be revealed over time. It is immediately clear that this verse is not as simple to explain as it seems at first. In addition, it is difficult to explain such a categorical statement, according to which everything secret must certainly be revealed. Are there secret cases that have never been and will never be solved? This kind of difficulty has led many ancient and modern interpreters to attribute the fulfillment of Christ’s words exclusively to the future judgment, when the Lord “will bring to light the things hidden in darkness and reveal the intentions of the heart, and then everyone will have praise from God” (1 Cor. 4:5). This is how Jerome explained this passage, who continues: Do not be afraid of the cruelty of the persecutors and the rage of the blasphemers, because the day of judgment will come when your virtue and their iniquity will be revealed. But Chrysostom and Theophylact did not refer these expressions to the future judgment, but interpreted them in the sense that the truth will be revealed, and time will show both the virtue of the disciples and the malice of the slanderers. “Wait a little,” says Chrysostom, “and everyone will call you the saviors and benefactors of the universe. Time reveals everything hidden, it will expose the slander of enemies and reveal your virtue.” Matthew 10:27. What I tell you in the dark, speak in the light; and whatever you hear in the ear, preach on the housetops. From these words of Christ one can draw a direct and clear conclusion that He did not speak this speech openly and publicly to the disciples. “He talked with his disciples alone and in a small corner of Palestine” (St. John Chrysostom). But what He said under such circumstances, neither He Himself nor the disciples had any need to hide. With the help of various figurative expressions, which do not need to be taken literally, because they were borrowed from everyday life and did not contain any allusions to the customs of the synagogue, the Savior explains this idea. What I say only in your presence, say in front of everyone; whatever you hear from Me as if in your ear, speak loudly. Matthew 10:28. And do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; but fear Him more who can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna. The meaning of this verse is that it is commanded to fear God more than people, to trust in Him more than in people. There is a similar place in the Epistle of the Apostle James (James 4:12). Evfimy Zigavin: “Drive out fear with fear, not before people, but before God.” This interpretation is called excellent. It is said here about the soul that it will not be killed, but destroyed, because, as Bengel notes, the soul is immortal. Matthew 10:29. Are not two small birds sold for an assarium? And not one of them will fall to the ground without the will of your Father; The example of small, insignificant birds in general (στρουθία) was deliberately chosen, rather than sparrows (although στουθίον means sparrow), and, moreover, not one, but two, in order to further demonstrate their low value. Luke has five instead of two, πέντε. The indication probably meant the familiar customs of selling birds at the market. The current copper coin in Palestine was then as, the ancient Latin assary and after the Greek ἀσσάριον. The cost of an ace was initially 1/10 of a denarius, and after the Punic War (217 BC) - only 1/16 of a denarius. The smallest coin was the pruta - 1/8 of an asa; the mite found in the New Testament, which was half a kodrant (Schürer), was identical to it. The expression “will not fall” has a general meaning - will not die, regardless of the reasons for this death. Therefore, it is idle to speculate about whether a bird dies because it is caught in a snare, is shot, whether it falls from the sky or branches, etc. Matthew 10:30. Even the hairs on your head are all numbered; In Luke: “but not a hair of your head will perish” (Luke 21:18). Figurative and plastic expression. In other words: even the hair on your head, no matter how little value in itself, is, however, in the account, not one of them will be lost without the knowledge and will of God. Matthew 10:31. Do not be afraid: you are better than many small birds. (Cf. Luke 12:7, second half of the verse - with a slight difference). The meaning is that even if you were a little better than little birds, then even then your Heavenly Father would have great care for you. It is therefore greater, the more the price of the disciples exceeds the price of the little birds. The Russian translation is not entirely accurate and is made more meaningful than literal. In the original: you are different from many little birds. The Russian translation is similar to the Slavic, Latin Vulgate, German and English translations. Matthew 10:32. Therefore, everyone who confesses Me before men, him will I also confess before My Father in heaven; Literally: “Whoever confesses me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in heaven.” The thought that the Savior wanted to express here is clear. Ὀμολογέω means, by the way, to recognize, and in relation to Christ - to recognize Him as the Messiah and His teaching as divine. Such recognition can be expressed not only in words, but also in deeds. The connection with the previous one is also quite clear. Having spoken about persecution for His name, the Savior here indicates what their consequences may be. They will cause many, through fear or worldly attachments, to deny Him, like Peter. Providing for this, He talks about what consequences such renunciation may have. Theophylact explains, however, this verse somewhat differently. “He did not say: whoever confesses Me, but by Me, i.e. By my strength. Of those who deny, he did not say: By Me, but from Me, showing by this that the one who renounces is the one who does not have help from above.” Matthew 10:33. But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father in heaven. The idea is the same as in the previous verse, only expressed in the form of negation. This verse may serve to clarify what is said in the previous verse. Matthew 10:34. Do not think that I came to bring peace to earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword, There is a parallel passage in Luke (Luke 12:51), where the same thought is expressed somewhat differently. The best explanation of this verse can be the words of John Chrysostom: “How did He Himself command them (the disciples), when entering every house, to greet them with peace? Why, in the same way, did the Angels sing: “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace” (Luke 2:14)? Why did all the prophets preach the same thing? Because then especially peace is established, when what is infected with disease is cut off, when what is hostile is separated. Only in this way is it possible for heaven to connect with earth. After all, the doctor then saves other parts of the body when he cuts off an incurable member from it; Likewise, a military leader restores calm when he destroys the agreement between the conspirators.” Further, Chrysostom says: “Unanimity is not always good, and robbers sometimes agree. So the warfare was not a consequence of Christ’s determination, but a matter of the will of the people themselves. Christ Himself wanted everyone to be unanimous in the matter of piety, but as people were divided among themselves, a fight broke out.” Matthew 10:35. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. Matthew 10:36. And a man’s enemies are his own household. Here a thought is expressed that was probably well known to the Jews, because the words of Christ are a quotation from Micah 7:6: “For a son disgraces his father, a daughter rebels against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; A man’s enemies are his own household.” Matthew 10:37. Whoever loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and whoever loves a son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me; Luke expresses the same idea, but much stronger. Instead of “who loves more” - “unless anyone hates his father and mother, wife and children” and so on. The expressions of both evangelists were explained in the sense that it speaks of greater love for the Savior in general, and when circumstances require it; for example, when immediate relatives do not agree with His commandments, when love for them would require breaking these commandments. Or love for Christ should be distinguished by such strength that love for father, mother and others should seem like hostility in comparison with love for Christ. It should be noted that these words are reminiscent of Deuteronomy 33:9, where Levi “speaks of his father and mother: “I do not look at them,” and does not recognize his brothers, and does not know his sons; For they, the Levites, keep Your words and keep Your covenant”; and Exodus 32:26–29, which speaks of the massacre of the Israelites after the construction of the golden calf, when each killed his brother, friend, and neighbor. Thus, in the Old Testament there is no shortage of examples when fulfilling the commandments of the Lord required hatred and even murder of loved ones. But one cannot, of course, think that Christ instills with His words any kind of hatred towards loved ones and that this commandment of His is distinguished by any kind of callousness. There are many cases in life when love, for example, for friends exceeds love for the closest relatives. The Savior’s words point to the divine and sublime self-consciousness of the Son of Man, and no one, by sound reasoning, can say that He demanded here anything beyond human strength, immoral or illegal. Matthew 10:38. and whoever does not take up his cross and follow Me is not worthy of Me. (Cf. Mark 8:34; Luke 9:23, 14:27). The real meaning of this saying is quite clear. To follow Christ means first of all to take up the cross. Here for the first time in the Gospel of Matthew there is literal speech about the cross. The Savior Himself was already bearing this cross in secret at that time. Cross-bearing by others is assumed to be voluntary. There is no need to take this expression literally. By the cross we mean suffering in general. This expression is found in Matthew 16:24. Matthew 10:39. He who saves his soul will lose it; but he who loses his life for My sake will save it. (Cf. Mark 8:35; Luke 9:24). Literally: “he who finds his soul... will find it.” In addition to the indicated place, the saying in a slightly modified form is found in Matthew 16:25; Luke 9:24, 17:33; John 12:25. Matthew 10:40. Whoever receives you receives Me, and whoever receives Me receives Him who sent Me; The idea expressed in this verse points to the divine self-consciousness of Christ, because by “He who sent” one cannot understand anyone other than God. It is repeated in various versions in Matthew and in other Gospels (Matthew 18:5; Mark 9:37; Luke 9:48, 10:16; John 13:20). Matthew 10:41. whoever receives the prophet, in the name of the prophet, will receive the reward of the prophet; and whoever receives the righteous, in the name of the righteous, will receive the reward of the righteous. The general meaning of this expression is quite clear. Whoever enters into fellowship with the prophets receives the same reward as the prophets receive, and whoever enters into fellowship with the righteous receives the same reward as the righteous receive. The reward here means, of course, that which is given by God. Not some kind of material reward, but a spiritual one. The only difficult thing here is the expression: “in the name of the prophet”, and: “in the name of the righteous”. Why is it not simply said: a prophet and a righteous man, but “in the name”? The Greek expression εἰς ὄνομα allows for the following translation: whoever takes a prophet for a prophet... and a righteous person for a righteous person, etc. Irregular Greek form, owing its origin to Hebrew. “beshem” (Blass). Jerome rephrases this expression as follows: whoever accepts a prophet as a prophet, and understands him as speaking about the future, receives the reward of a prophet. The Jews who understood the prophets in the exact sense will not receive the reward of the prophets. In other words, in every profession the chaff is mixed with the wheat. Explaining the same verse, Jerome further asks: “We must therefore accept false prophets and Judas and provide support for them? Warning about this, the Lord said earlier that it is necessary to accept not faces, but names; and those who receive will not be deprived of the reward, even if the one whom they receive is not worthy.” Those who receive show that they obey God like a prophet. Likewise, those who receive robbers receive the retribution assigned to robbers, becoming in close contact with them. This is done according to common law. Matthew 10:42. And whoever gives one of these little ones to drink only a cup of cold water in the name of a disciple, truly I tell you, will not lose his reward. By “little ones” here we can only understand the disciples who were sent to preach, and who, in their development, were still like children. The smallest merit rendered by him will not be forgotten and will not lose his reward. The importance of their business gives meaning to even the low-value services provided to them. In conclusion, we note that “only” should be connected with the words “a cup of cold water”, and not with the words “in the name of the student.” You might be interested in: