Глава 11

1–6. The question of the Baptist and the answer of Jesus Christ. – 7–15. Testimony of Christ about John the Baptist. – 16–19. Denunciation of unbelieving Jews. – 20–24. Conviction of unbelieving cities. – 25–30. Speech to those who labor and are burdened. Matthew 11:1. And when Jesus finished teaching his twelve disciples, he went from there to teach and preach in their cities. This verse forms the conclusion of the previous chapter and has little to do with the 11th chapter. Literally: “he left (μετέβη) from there to teach and preach in their cities.” The expression “in their cities” should be understood in an indefinite meaning, in the meaning of Jewish cities in general. Matthew 11:2. John, having heard in prison about the works of Christ, sent two of his disciples The entire 11th chapter has no parallels in Mark. Parallel passage Matthew 11:2–19 – Luke 7:18–35. Matthew 11:2–3 is similar to Luke 7:18–21, but Matthew 11:4–11 is literally similar to most of what Luke 7:22–28 says. The verse of Matthew in question in Luke looks like this: “and his disciples told John about all this,” i.e. about the miracles of Christ, and in particular about the resurrection of the son of the widow of Nain. Thus, John received information “about the works of Christ” from his own disciples. This was the external reason for the embassy from John, although the real, or better, secret motives of the embassy are not indicated. Where the Savior’s meeting with John’s disciples took place, the evangelists do not report anything about this. But there is no doubt that it happened in the absence of the apostles. The presence of the Baptist in prison is assumed to be something known to the readers, and this was already mentioned by Matthew earlier (Matthew 4:12). John was in prison in Macheron (Metropolitan Philaret), or, as others read, in Macher, as Josephus Flavius ​​speaks about ("Jewish Antiquities", XVIII, 5, 2). By the “works” of Christ we understand not only His teaching, but in general His entire activity, which included His preaching. Instead of the Russian "Christ" in some Greek texts - "Christ" - genitive with an article to denote a proper name. According to Alford, this shows that the works of Christ that John was told about were not the works of Him Whom he knew only as Jesus, but the works of the Redeemer Christ. Therefore, John now wanted to verify the identity of Jesus and Christ. But since in some ancient codes and in Origen the word “Christ” is replaced by the word “Jesus,” it is clear that the ancients, perhaps, did not attach to works the meaning that Alford gives to it. It is only necessary to admit that the use of the word “Christ” was not completely accidental here. The works done by Christ could not belong to anyone other than the real, true Christ, Who was expected. There is a difference in reading further words. Some read “sent through” (διά), others read “sent two” (δύο). This discrepancy, of course, is best explained by the great similarity of both these words (διά and δύο). Further, the scribes could have been influenced in the present case by Luke’s expression, which clearly has “two” (cf. Matt. 18:19; Mark 11:1, 14:13; Luke 10:1; John 8:17). Finally, the “sent through” construction is also unusual. There would be no particular need to talk about this difference in detail if one or the other reading did not have any influence at all on the meaning, and therefore on the interpretation of the passage in question. Namely, there is a big difference in whether John sent “two” disciples so that they, almost on their own behalf, proposed a question to Christ; or interpret the verse in such a way that John, unable to see Christ due to imprisonment, sent to Him to ask “through” his disciples to resolve the misunderstandings that worried John himself. In the first case, they want to receive an answer from Christ, and the disciples receive it; in the second, they are only agents of John, have no meaning in themselves, and are like people who go shopping for bread for others, without being completely hungry themselves. Of course, in accordance with Luke’s testimony, we have every right to assume in the present case that there were two disciples. The expression διά itself has a somewhat Jewish character, sent by the “hands” of the disciples, i.e. through mediation. Why some people find “hysteriology” here is not entirely clear. The embassy could have taken place shortly before the martyrdom and death of the Baptist, probably in the 32nd year of Christ’s life, in the second year of His preaching, when He had already become famous for His teaching and miracles. Matthew 11:3. say to Him: Are you the One who is to come, or should we expect something else? Already in antiquity, the question was raised why, in fact, John sent this embassy to Christ. It can be said that, according to the general view of ancient church interpreters, John sent this embassy not for his own sake, but only for the sake of his disciples. The disciples doubted Christ, and they were the ones who should have been convinced of His merits as the Messiah. Representatives of the “orthodox” view on this subject are John Chrysostom, Jerome, Hilary, Euthymius Zigavin, Theophylact and others. In their opinion, John himself, who so many times testified with conviction about Christ as the Lamb of God, could not have any doubts about Him. But since John’s disciples were not disposed toward Christ and were jealous of Him, in order to convert them, John sends them so that, having seen miracles, they would believe that Christ is greater than John. John does not ask as if he were ignorant, because he himself pointed to the Savior at a time when others did not believe in Him (John 1:29; Matt. 3:17). Just as the Savior asked to show Him the place where Lazarus was buried, so that others would see the resurrected dead man and thus believe, so John, who was facing death at the hand of Herod, now sends his disciples to Christ, so that they, having seen signs and powers on this occasion, would believe in Him and, asking the question of their teacher, would learn themselves. In modern exegesis, the opinion is increasingly being established that John himself doubted. Matthew 11:4. And Jesus answered and said to them, Go and tell John what you hear and see: If Christ answered that He is the Messiah, then such an answer would in the present case be a testimony of Christ about Himself and would seem untrue. This prompted the Savior to give an indirect, although not at all evasive, answer to John’s disciples. There is no need to assume that He performed the miracles described below on purpose for them. Jesus Christ simply refers to them as a fact that was known to everyone, including John himself. But this, of course, does not exclude the possibility that miracles were performed before the eyes of the disciples (see Luke 7:21). Instead of theoretical proofs, the Savior offers obvious truths - ἀκούετε καὶ βλέπετε (“what you hear and see”). Matthew 11:5. the blind receive their sight and the lame walk, lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, the dead are raised and the poor are preached to; Codex D alone omits the expression “even the lame walk”; in many codes, “the dead are raised” is placed either after “the poor preach the good news,” or the Greek ἐγείρονται is replaced by ἀνίστανται. Looking through the handwritten versions, we encounter here a very curious phenomenon, indicating ancient corrections on the part of copyists, who in different manuscripts either omitted or added “and” (καὶ). This verse, according to the best manuscripts, reads like this: And the gospel is preached to the poor." Luke (Luke 7:22) in Greek (according to the best readings) does not have a single “and”, with the exception of the one placed before ἠκούσατε. The passage itself is borrowed from Isaiah 61:1. Whether the prophet (Isa. 29:18-19, 35:5-6) used the words “blind, deaf, lame and dumb” in a personal or figurative sense cannot be explained. Matthew understood them in their own sense. Jesus Christ speaks in the same sense (Tsan, 1905). Through the words of the prophet, He here depicts His own miraculous activity and places it as proof of His messiahship. The answer fits the Baptist's question perfectly. The place of Isaiah according to the LXX translation is dissimilar in expressions from the words of both evangelists and reads like this: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, why (οὗ ἕνεκεν) He anointed Me to preach Himself (about Himself) to the poor (εὐαγγελίσασθαι πτωχοῖς ), sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach liberation to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind” (cf. Is. 35:3 et seq.). According to the translation from the Hebrew: “The Spirit of the Lord Jehovah is upon Me, why Jehovah anointed Me to preach good news to the poor, sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, to proclaim release to the captives and the opening of the prison to the prisoners.” Both quotations are changed by the evangelists so that the citation is suitable for the present case. The words “the good news is preached to the poor” are placed in last place. Regarding this last expression, it should be said that the Russian and Slavic translations (“the poor preach the good news”) are inaccurate and have no basis. “To preach good news” in Greek is εὐαγγελίζειν with a dative, not εὐαγγελίζεσθαι. If you translate the active voice into the general voice, then the dative turns into the nominative, like, for example: “they benefit me” (active) and “I use” (general). The verb εὐαγγελί- ζομαι is found only here in the Gospel of Matthew. To explain the construction, Hebrews 4:2, 6 can best serve: “for it was proclaimed to us also,” i.e. promise (καὶ γάρ ἐσμεν εὐηγγελισμένοι), “as also to those to whom it was first proclaimed” (καὶ οἱ πρότερον εὐαγγελισθέντες), etc. It is true that εὐαγγελίζομαι can also be combined with the accusative case. But in the Hebrew text in Isaiah - “lebasser anavim”, where “anavim” (the poor) is the accusative case, serves as a verification of the accepted reading - to preach the gospel to the poor. Vulgate: pauperes evangelizantur; German translation: den Armen wird das Evangelium geprediget; English translation: and the poor have the gospel preached to them. Precisely, although not in Russian, it can be translated: the poor are preached to the poor, the gospel is preached to the poor. Matthew 11:6. and blessed is he who is not offended because of Me. “And blessed is he who is not offended because of Me,” that is, regarding My humble, humiliated state. In verse 5, Jesus Christ presented objective evidence of His messianic worth by speaking of His works. In verse 6 He talks about Himself. His words have a general meaning. Matthew 11:7. When they had gone, Jesus began to speak to the people about John: Why did you go into the wilderness to see? Is it a cane shaken by the wind? The speech of the Savior in the two evangelists is distinguished by almost literal similarity (instead of ἐξήλθατε in Luke ἐκληλύθατε). “Is it a cane shaken by the wind?” - a metaphorical expression to designate, in contrast, the character of John. The listeners of Christ could understand His words only in the sense that if John sent disciples to Him to ask how to verify His identity, this did not mean at all that John wavered in his beliefs and convictions, like some reed on the shores of the Dead Sea or Lake of Galilee. Since John did not resemble a reed, in the minds of the listeners immediately, by association, an idea could arise of a tree that does not bow to any pressure of the wind, does not yield to any storm. The storm will soon uproot such a person, and he will perish, but he will never be shaken while alive. Everything that is known about the Baptist shows that he was just such a person and that the words of Christ were a completely clear and accurate description of this great personality. John proposed his question because he did not waver in his stern, ascetic views on life and the Messiah Himself. Matthew 11:8. What did you go to see? a person dressed in soft clothes? Those who wear soft clothes are in the palaces of kings. Having proposed a question in the previous verse, the Savior leaves it unanswered. But this answer on the part of the people can be implied; to the question of verse 7, the people could only answer: no, we did not go into the desert to look at a reed shaken by the wind. But why did you go? A person to watch, dressed in soft clothes? So according to the best readings. To these questions, negative answers are again only assumed, although the addition: “those who wear soft clothes are in the royal palaces” serves as confirmation of the validity of the supposed negative answers. The repetition of such questions serves here to strengthen speech, exposes the truth from different sides, and in ancient times was used by the greatest artists of oratory. But John was not a man who dressed in soft clothes. Why? Because such people live in royal palaces. That this was so was clear to everyone. John did not live in the royal palaces, but in the desert and then in prison. In the desert he did not look like a reed, did not sway the same way as that one, and although the dungeon was at the palace, it did not at all resemble the royal palace. John's life was so harsh that in no case could he be considered a pampered person. Matthew 11:9. What did you go to see? prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet. The meaning of Christ's words is quite clear. The Savior asks again: but why did you go (to the desert)? Watch the Prophet? A positive answer is assumed here: yes, a prophet. But the face that the people went to see is more than a prophet (Vulgate: plus quam prophetam). Considerations that John himself did not recognize himself as a prophet (John 1:21) due to humility and that a prophet in the proper sense is the one who predicts the future, like Isaiah, Jeremiah and other prophets, while John did not predict the future Christ, but pointed to the one who had come, are hardly relevant, not to mention the fact that this opinion is incorrect in itself, because predicting the future was only one of the aspects of the activities of the Old Testament prophets In Jewish public opinion, prophets were highly valued, although not by everyone. Saying that the Baptist is more than a prophet, the Savior expresses the highest praise to him before the people. But this is not enough. The future seems to be approaching the present here. If John were only a prophet, then, like the prophets, he would look at the Savior as the forerunner of the future Messiah. But the Baptist is greater than the prophet. He himself is none other than the Forerunner, sent to prepare the way for the Messiah. Matthew 11:10. For he is the one of whom it is written: Behold, I send My angel before Thy face, who will prepare Thy way before Thee. This verse sets forth the reason why John should be considered superior to the prophet. John is not only a prophet, but also a messenger before the face of God. This idea is confirmed by a quotation from Mal. 3:1, which is of great exegetical interest. The fact is, firstly, that this quote from the three evangelists is given in a manner that is unlike either the translation of the Seventy or the Hebrew text. For the Seventy: Ἰδοὺ ἐξαποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν μου, καὶ ἐπιβλέψεται ὁδὸν πρὸ προσώπου μου, - literally: “behold, I am sending (sending out) My angel, and he will inspect the way before My face.” The text of the Seventy is almost similar to the Hebrew original (“behold, I am sending My angel, and he will prepare (make) the way before Me”). But, as you can see, in Matthew ἐξαποστέλλω Seventy is changed into ἀποστέλλω, instead of “before My face” or “before Me” - “before Your face”, put ὅς instead of καί; instead of ἐπιβλέψεται Seventy is put κατασκευάσει. If such changes in the prophet’s speech existed only in Matthew, then they could be explained by quoting from memory, lapsus memoriae, etc. But the fact is that the same quotation is repeated almost literally in a similar way to Matthew in Mark and Luke (Mark 1:2 and Luke 7:27), and with the same changes. The main change to which special attention should be paid relates to the pronoun “Me”, which in all the evangelists is replaced by the word “You”. But in the Old Testament there is another similar quote in Exodus 23:20: προσώπου σου ἵνα φυλάξῃ σε ἐν τῇ ὁδῳ . Here the LXX translation is similar to the Hebrew text: “Behold, I am sending an Angel before You to guard You in Your way” and so on. This last passage does not contain a prophecy in the proper sense, but only a promise of protection for the Jews on their way through the Sinai Peninsula. If the indicated passages in the Gospels were borrowed only from here, then it would be difficult to explain the ὡς γέγραπται ἐν τοῖς προφήταις found in Mark (Mark 1:2) - it is said that the quote was taken not from one prophet, but from several (however, it is necessary to say that such a reading of Mark is not recognized by the latest exegetes as correct). Therefore, it is accepted that the direct reference in the Gospels to Mal.3:1, and the passage from Exodus 23:20 influenced the change in the evangelists from “By Me” to “By You” and so on. Further, since the expressions from the prophet are given in the same way in the three Gospels, they conclude that they were spoken by Christ Himself and written down exactly as they came from His own lips. In other words, the Savior here Himself changed the first person of the original prophecy to the second - σου. He did this by applying what the prophet Malachi said to Himself in the dignity of the Messiah. The existence of the quotation in an identically modified form among the three Evangelists shows that it was in circulation in Christian circles of the primitive Church and precisely in a form slightly different from the Seventy and the Hebrew, with the expression "before Thee" being substituted for "before Me." In this quotation, the word “Angela” should be understood in the sense of “messenger,” and, moreover, not as an incorporeal being, but as a person. Similar uses of the word are found in other places, for example in Rev. 1:20. Thus, according to the Savior, John is not only a prophet, but he himself is the subject and fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy, and precisely one that refers to the eventual appearance of God to His people. Matthew 11:11. Truly I say to you, among those born of women there has not arisen a greater man than John the Baptist; but he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. Luke (Luke 7:28) is somewhat shorter and clearer: “of (ἐν – among) those born of women there is not a single prophet greater than John the Baptist.” The expression “not a single prophet” apparently eliminates the interpretation of Matthew’s words in the sense of “not a single person.” But it can also be interpreted in such a way that Matthew’s generalization does not contradict the more specific meaning of Luke’s expression, because if among those born of women there were none one greater than John the Baptist, it is clear that there was no other prophet more than him. Instead of “in the kingdom of heaven” (in Matthew) - in Luke “in the kingdom of God.” With the exception of these words, the last sentence is literally similar (according to the Greek text) in both evangelists. The expression “of those born of women” is found in the Old Testament (Job 14:1, 15:14, 25:4; cf. Gal.4:4) The further words of Matthew: “he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he,” have been subject to great reinterpretation since ancient times, which is explained by the rather significant difficulty of expression. According to the interpretation of John Chrysostom, by lesser in the Kingdom of Heaven the Savior meant Himself, as younger in age (κατὰ τὴν ἡλικίαν) compared to John, and even lesser “in the opinion of many” (κατὰ τὴν πολλὴν δόξαν ). At the same time, Chrysostom refutes the opinions of those who interpreted the expression either about the apostles or the Angels. This, according to Chrysostom, is unfair. If the Savior spoke here about the apostles, then what would prevent Him from calling them by name? Chrysostom then resolves the issue by introducing discussions about the humility that Christ showed throughout His activities. Theophylact explains this passage in a similar spirit, saying that Christ was less than John in age and in the opinion of His listeners, but greater than him in relation to spiritual and heavenly goods. Later exegetes meant here the least Christian in the Kingdom of Heaven, i.e. in the Church, or a citizen of the Kingdom of Heaven. Bengel says that Johannes nondum erat in regno coelorum, sed praeibat - John was not yet in the Kingdom of Heaven, but was only a forerunner. There is a well-known saying: “minimum maximi majus est maximo minimi.” The meaning is that John was maximus in minimo (in the Old Testament), and the Christian was minimus in maximo (in the New Testament) and therefore greater than John. The Savior here calls John by name and then appends to him other titles - Baptist and prophet - for the first time. Matthew 11:12. From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and those who use force take it by force, Difficult to explain, verses 12–15 serve as a link between 11 and 16. By “the days of John the Baptist” we mean the time of his preaching. The words “Kingdom of Heaven” are used here, obviously, in the sense of “The Kingdom of God established by the Savior on earth.” Chrysostom interprets this verse as follows: “The Savior forces and compels with them (i.e., these words) His listeners to believe in Him and at the same time confirms what he said before about John. In fact, if everything was fulfilled before John, then it means that I am coming. For, he says, the prophets and the law prophesied everything before John. The prophets, therefore, would not have ceased to appear if I had not come. So, do not stretch your hopes into the distance and do not expect another (Messiah). That I am coming is evident both from the fact that the prophets have ceased to appear, and from the fact that faith in Me increases every day; it has become so clear and obvious that many admire it. But who, you say, delighted her? All those who come to Me with zeal.” Matthew 11:13. for all the prophets and the law prophesied before John. Since γάρ (for) is placed at the beginning of this verse, it means that it contains a proof of the previous verse. The meaning is that the prophets are not like new people who forcibly invade the kingdom - they were messengers of the attack on it and its plunder, like John himself. The word “before” here denotes terminus ad quem; in the words “from the days of John” (verse 12) terminus a quo, in time following the first. Thus, the course of events is presented in reverse chronological order. What came after came before, and vice versa. First, an indication of New Testament events, and then - of Old Testament ones. First, in brief words, a designation of the New Testament movement of people towards the Kingdom of God, and then - the Old Testament prophecy about this Kingdom. The personality and activity of John are placed, as it were, in an interval, whether we take as the beginning of this activity the time of John’s speech to preach or the time of his birth. The correct chronological order is: 1) prophets before John; 2) John; 3) the advent of the New Testament. The characteristic of the first point is that the prophets prophesied before John. But is this true? It is generally accepted that prophecy ceased among the Jews from the time of Malachi. Harnack's objection that prophecy existed among the Jews until the very time of the Savior (John, the prophetess Anna), in any case, does not contradict the words of the Savior. One can, firstly, think that if prophets existed, they did not have the same importance and fame as before Malachi (οἱ προφῆται). Secondly, the determination of time cannot be considered accurate. Thirdly, the general fact remains true that it was the prophets who prophesied about the Kingdom before John, and John himself (and with him the other New Testament prophets) was already a “messenger” and above all the Old Testament prophets. The easiest way to understand the matter is that a distinction is made here between the prophecy of future activity and this activity itself. The prophets only prophesied about the activity that began from the days of John. John himself became higher than the prophets, but did not rise to a full understanding of the nature of the Kingdom of Heaven, although he was the greatest of the prophets and those born of women. Thus, in fact, the verse in question is a subtle transition to the next verse 14. Schematically, the entire flow of speech in verses 9–14 is presented as follows. Verse 9: John is more than a prophet because he is the fulfillment of prophecy. The prophet predicts the future. Under John, what he preached began. He announced the Messiah and at the same time prepared the way for Him. Verse 10: He was therefore the messenger foretold by Malachi. Verse 11: Therefore he was the greatest of men. But although in a sense the Kingdom began with him, he stood outside it. The least in this Kingdom has more privileges than he, because (verse 12) from the time of his preaching, people can already, in a sense, be inside the Kingdom. The news of its advent has permeated life with all the force and energy of a spiritual movement, and men and women are eager to enter into it with ardent enthusiasm. Verses 13-14: The prophets before John predicted this kingdom, and, moreover, the law, i.e. all Holy Scripture testified to the same thing. But when John came, the prophecy ended and the fulfillment began. Because John was the one prophesied by Elijah. But whether it really follows from the words of Christ that the law appeared after the prophets, this, of course, can only be a question. The verse can be explained in such a way that closer to the time of John the prophets predicted, and before the prophets the law. It should be noted that the Savior is not talking about the personalities of the prophets, but about their writings. That they could naturally provide this service since they were written is indicated by the word πάντες, which, apparently, refers not only to the word “prophets”, but also to the word “law”, i.e. everyone prophesied: both the prophets and the law. It is certain that the prediction ceased with John; he did not predict; did not indicate, like all the prophets before him, a future day; he spoke about the present, and not about the future, he spoke about the One who had already come, with whom the Kingdom of Heaven came. Since the time of John, the language of the messengers sent from God immediately changed, prophecy became the Gospel, testimony about the future was replaced by testimony about the present. Matthew 11:14. And if you want to accept, he is Elijah, who must come. Here you need to first of all understand the meaning of the words “if you want to accept.” They constitute an obvious limitation of the expression “he (John) is Elijah,” which without them would be completely categorical. Why is it added “if you wish to accept” (δέξασται), and not “to understand”? Therefore, it is obvious that Christ expressed here a completely new thought for His listeners, who themselves did not identify John with Elijah. The words of Christ are a simple reservation made in view of the fact that His speech about John as Elijah might seem strange to His listeners. It means: if you can trust Me, if you can rely on My words, then John is Elijah. John is superior to the prophets and those born of women. He is Elijah, but not the one who was known from the Old Testament, but the new one, the one who is coming, who must come. Obvious reference to Mal.4:5. This expression cannot be understood in this sense: “if you want to receive information from Me, then I will give it.” The word "he" (αὐτός) clearly points to John. There is no article before "Elijah", as in all other places in the New Testament where the name Elijah appears. In general, the use of the article before proper names in the New Testament is characterized by great uncertainty, “here there is a great, often untranslatable subtlety of language” (Blass). It can hardly be said that the omission of the article occurred due to the fact that here there is a figurative expression (antonomasia - Bengel), when the proper name has the form of a common noun. John is called Elijah, of course, because he resembled the real Elijah in appearance and in the power of his accusatory preaching. But this was the “second” Elijah prophesied, Elijah “in the spiritual sense.” John did not consider himself a prophet; He had, as it were, a double prophetic spirit and was higher than the Old Testament prophets. If by prophets and law we mean the writings of the prophets and the written law, then John did not leave any writings. In the words “who must come” (which cannot be translated: intending to come, or having come) one can find an indication of the then Jewish beliefs regarding Elijah, who should appear before the coming of the Messiah. Based on Mal.4:5-6, Jesus, the son of Sirach, already assumed that Elijah would accomplish the work of restoration: “you were destined for reproof in your times, to calm anger before it turned into rage, to turn the heart of a father to a son and to restore the tribes of Jacob” (Sir.48:10). This idea is common in later Jewish literature. To what has been said, it only remains to add that the 14th verse in Matthew is the only one and is not found anywhere else. Matthew 11:15. He who has ears to hear, let him hear! They think that the words “he who has ears (plural), let him hear” was a proverb. In these words, the listeners should have seen that Christ called John Elijah not personally, but in spirit. But Alford implies an even deeper meaning here: “if John the Baptist is Elijah, and Elijah is the forerunner of the coming Lord, then be convinced that the Lord has already come.” Matthew 11:16. But to whom shall I compare this generation? He is like children who sit on the street and, turning to their comrades, The connection between this verse and the previous one is found in the fact that after praising John as the one who was to come and the expected Elijah, the Savior contrasts such ideal views of John with the actual behavior towards him of his compatriots, who did not want to recognize either John or the Savior Himself. People of this “generation” have ears to hear and do not hear. They do not understand or accept what is said to them, they are capricious, like children playing in the markets, and full of prejudices. According to some interpreters, children should be understood as the entire γενεά - generation, the entire Jewish people of that time in its mass, which is condemned for its unprincipled, capricious behavior. Matthew 11:17. They say: we played the pipe for you, and you did not dance; We sang sad songs to you, and you did not cry. Wed. Luke 7:32 - almost literally similar, only ἐκόψασθε (Matthew) is replaced by ἐκλαύσατε in Luke. The meaning of the verse is this: This generation is like a crowd of angry children who are not doing anything right, one half wants one thing, the other half wants another. ἐκόψασθε, when hitting one's chest, was considered a sign of grief. Matthew 11:18. For John came neither eating nor drinking; and they say: he has a demon. Luke speaks in the second person: you “speak.” Instead of ἦλθεν – ἐλήλυθεν. Βαπτιστής is omitted from Matthew, as well as ἄρτον and οἶνον. However, the meaning of the expressions is similar. Matthew 11:19. The Son of Man came, eating and drinking; and they say: here is a man who loves to eat and drink wine, a friend of publicans and sinners. And wisdom is justified by her children. Just like verse 16, there are many different interpretations here. “The tax collector’s friend” and “the friend of publicans”; “from all matters”; instead of “deeds” in some codes “children” - “justified by her children” (or as in the Russian translation); instead of “they say” in Luke, “you say,” as in verse 18; “wisdom was justified by her children” - in Luke “by all her children.” According to Chrysostom, the Savior, “having left John to shine with fasting, He Himself chose the opposite path: he took part in the meals of publicans, ate and drank with them.” “Wisdom is justified by her children (deeds).” What does this mean? The expression caused almost endless difficulties for commentators. First of all, it was difficult to explain “and” (καί) instead of “but”; “justified” (ἐδικαιώθη) instead of the present tense - “justified” ( δικαιοῦται); “from her children” instead of “by her children.” And then what kind of wisdom does the Savior refer to here? What connection do these words have with the previous ones? To solve these questions, it is first necessary to establish how to read “from children” or “from works” in Matthew. “from children”, one cannot agree. In the parallel place in Luke (Luke 7:35), there is undoubtedly τέκνων. But Tsang accepts ἔργων and offers an ingenious hypothesis about how the word τέκνων appeared over time in Matthew. The reason for this was the similarity of the Hebrew words “eved” - slave (hence - son, child, τέκνων) and “avodah” (from “avad” - work) - business, occupation. Thus, in the Aramaic original, scribes could read both “her (wisdom’s) works” and “her slaves” (servants). And the difference in the pronunciation of these words, says Tsang, is not so great as to make such a replacement impossible, which is found in other places, for example, in the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians by Clement of Rome (39: 4). The correct translation of abdeh would be οἱ παῖδες (more common than δοῦλοι) αὐτῆς, not τέκνα. The newest exegetes accept τέκνων, but not all. Morison reproaches Tischendorf for his partiality for the Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and says that the expression ἔργων "does not make sense." But Holtzman, accepting ἔργων, believes that the meaning of the expression is as follows: the wise are known from their deeds. This is the meaning of the word δικαιοῦν - to recognize or consider just (cf. Matt. 12:37; Luke 7:29 (Greek); Luke 10:29, 16:15, 18:14). By ἔργα here we should not understand “wonderful deeds,” but precisely the external form of life on which the judgment of the crowd depends. The meaning of the expression is that the life work of John and the Savior justifies their behavior, and this already justifies the wisdom of God, which sent and guided them. Matthew 11:20. Then He began to rebuke the cities in which His powers were most manifested, because they did not repent: This verse is not in Luke. Further verses occur in Luke 10, but in a completely different connection. According to Luke, Christ said these words during the embassy of seventy apostles to preach. Various commentators have tried to explain why Matthew placed them here. They thought, for example, that this speech was delivered twice, because if the same evangelist sometimes repeats the same sayings, then it is not at all surprising if they are found in different connections among different evangelists. As one must think, the connection with the previous one is that from the general reproof of the Jews the Savior now turned to the reproof of them individually, precisely in the cities where He performed especially many miracles, the inhabitants of which, however, did not repent. Matthew 11:21. woe to you, Chorazin! woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the powers that were done in you had been done in Tire and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes, The word “grief” conveys sorrow as well as indignation. The Greek οὐαί is translated "alas" in Rev. 18:10, 16, 19. The parallel passage is in Luke 10:13 (in the speech at the embassy of the seventy apostles to preach), almost literally similar, with the addition of καθήμενοι after ἐν σάκκῳ καὶ σποδῷ. And in general, Matthew 11:21–23 is closely similar to Luke 10:13–15. Saint John Chrysostom explains this passage as follows: “And in order to convince you that the inhabitants of these cities were not evil by nature, He mentions a city from which the five apostles came; It was from Bethsaida that Philip and the four first-called apostles came.” According to him, “The Savior annexes Sodom to these cities not without reason, but to increase condemnation. Truly, the strongest proof of the evil of the Jews is that they are the worst not only of their contemporaries, but also of all evil people who have ever been.” The first city named in this denunciation is Chorazin. He is mentioned only in Matthew 11:21 and Luke 10:13. In the manuscripts and among the fathers there is a wide variety of readings (Khorazeni, Khorazeim, Khorazaim, Korazaim, Korazain, Khorazze, Khorazan). The exact location of this city is not known. This is difficult to determine, especially now, when local residents and Arabs point out different areas to travelers and explorers, about which it is difficult to say that this was Chorazin. It is most likely that Khorazin is identified with the ruins of Keraze, or Kerase, due to the similarity of this name with Khorazin. The ruins are still visible three miles north of Tell Hum. This is how one of the newest travelers who visited it describes this area. “Keraze is in a deserted place, there are so many stones that it was difficult for my horse to walk on them. The ruins occupy the same amount of space as at Tell Hum, and are partly in a dry hollow, and partly on the crest of a hill formed by a sharp bend in the wadi. What prompted people to build a city in such a place is difficult to understand. Like the stones lying here, the ruins are made of black lava, and therefore are easy to see, but few of them attract attention. There are, for example, the remains of a synagogue with exquisitely carved stone Corinthian capitals of hard black basalt, lintels, doorposts, ashlars, column tops, and one large round stone like a millstone, about four feet thick and wide, which was once a roller in an oil press for crushing the berries and squeezing the oil. Now there are no olive trees here, only a few fig trees grow near the graves of two Arab sheikhs. But a particularly striking characteristic of this terrible place is made up of several houses, very likely dating back to the time of the Savior, which even now stand as if they had just been built. Their walls are about six feet high, two feet thick; in some cases the stones are set without lime, in others they are perfectly fastened with cement. There is a wide door in the middle of one side and one or two windows in each house, but only a foot high and half a foot wide. One or two stone pillars stand inside in the middle, supporting a flat roof, but the houses are almost all very small, some have two rooms, but most have only one, although there are one or two houses divided into four small rooms. A stream flows from the middle of this place, near a tree near the Arab tombs, but this is the only living object that we saw. To the north there remains a trace of a paved road connecting the city with the great Damascus caravan road.” If it is difficult to determine where Chorazin was, then it is no less difficult to determine the location of Bethsaida. Schürer (Geschichte) says that the question whether the New Testament Bethsaida is identical with Bethsaida Julia, which has recently excited numerous disputes, cannot now be resolved (II, 208-209). Just like Chorazin, Bethsaida is spelled differently: Bethsaidan, Bethsaida, Bethsaida. The first reading in Matthew in the best manuscripts. The most likely assumption seems to be that at the time of Christ there were two Bethsaidas, eastern, or better north-eastern (from Lake Galilee), and western, and that Christ’s speech speaks of western Bethsaida, which was a suburb of Capernaum. The very name Bethsaida has long ceased to attract the attention of travelers. The oldest historical mention of it is from Jerome, but he reports no more information about it than can be borrowed from the New Testament. Dr. Robinson is deeply convinced that the various identifications of Bethsaida with Irbid, Khan-Miniya, Medjdel (Magdala) and Ain-Tabigha were due only to the impressions of the moment. He inquired carefully from the natives on the shore of the lake, but not a single Muslim knew anything about such a name or even one similar to it. The Christians of Nazareth and Tiberias, it is true, were familiar with the name Bethsaida, like the Christians of Capernaum, from the New Testament, and they apply it to different places, depending on how the local monks teach them or how they consider it best and most convenient to answer travelers. Tire and Sidon are famous Phoenician cities on the shores of the Mediterranean Sea, in Phenicia. The reason for the "woe" is that these cities did not repent. The expression is too general. It is not known for what sins these cities were punished. Since idolatry and at the same time pagan debauchery flourished in Tire and Sidon, even greater debauchery, one must think, was widespread in Chorazin and Bethsaida. Tire and Sidon are here indirectly condemned for their depraved lives. But they too would have repented if they had had the same sermon as was heard on the streets of Chorazin and Bethsaida. All the greater, therefore, is the sin of the exposed Jewish cities, in which not only was there preaching, but also many “powers” ​​were performed, i.e. miracles, signs. “Sackcloth and ashes” indicate the expression of sorrow accompanying repentance among the repentant Jews, who had such a custom. Matthew 11:22. But I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Tire and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. If the same powers had been manifested in Tire and Sidon as in Chorazin and Bethsaida, they would have repented in sackcloth and ashes. But Bethsaida and Chorazin did not repent. Therefore, “woe” is announced to them, no matter what it may be. But “besides this” (πλήν), the Savior wants to say something else. Not a simple, ordinary human grief will befall these cities, but such that on the day of judgment it will be more bearable for Tire and Sidon than for them. Matthew 11:23. And you, Capernaum, who have ascended to heaven, will be cast down to hell, for if the powers that were manifested in you had been manifested in Sodom, it would have remained to this day; Capernaum ascended to heaven - it is assumed as a result of the activity of Christ, His teaching, which, however, did not produce the proper actions and the proper influence on the inhabitants of this city. The expression “you will be cast down to hell,” according to one interpretation, means “you will be cast down to hell, because you were very arrogant about My preaching.” In another way - “since you ascended to heaven as a result of My presence with you, My signs and activities, since you have such advantages, you will be struck by numerous punishments for not wanting to believe them” (Jerome). It is hardly true that the Savior does not speak here about the temporary destruction of Capernaum, Bethsaida and Chorazin, although they no longer exist (Meyer). The expression seems to be a reminder of Is. 14:13, 15 (LXX), Codex Sinaiticus and Alexandria) καταβήσῃ. Ἅιδης is the “sheol” of the Jews, the stay of the dead until the messianic judgment. He was represented as a dark prison located in the depths of the earth, with strong gates, and they thought that he received all the dead and did not return a single one until his chains were destroyed on the last day (cf. Job 10:21 ff.; Job 17:16, 38:17; Ps. 29:4, 35:13, 88:49; Proverbs 23:14; Rev. 1:18, 20:13 ff.). Matthew 11:24. But I tell you that it will be more bearable for the land of Sodom on the day of judgment than for you. The parallel in Luke 10:12 is of great help in explaining the distinction found here in Matthew between “you” and “thee.” The word “you” in Luke corresponds to “that city.” Therefore, Evfimy Zigavin’s explanation is correct that the word “you” in Matthew refers to the listeners of Christ, and the word “you” refers to Capernaum. “Land of Sodom” is a so-called metonymy. So the word “cup” is often used instead of the words “wine in the cup” (Luke 22:20; John 18:11; 1 Cor. 11:25). In the first comparison (verses 21–22), the Jewish continental cities are contrasted with the pagan coastal cities; in the second (verses 23–24), the city standing on the shores of Lake Galilee is contrasted with the city that stood where the Dead Sea was formed. In the first comparison, simultaneous facts are taken; in the second - facts that are greatly separated by time. Matthew 11:25. At that time, continuing his speech, Jesus said: I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because You have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and have revealed them to babes; According to some, the words “at that time” here simply indicate some indefinite time and the speech of the 25th verse has no connection with the previous one. Confirmation of this opinion is found in the fact that the words of verse 25 are closely similar to Luke 10:21, spoken upon the return of the 70 apostles from preaching. It is currently impossible to say what happened in reality. But, in any case, the reader cannot free himself from the impression that the expressions found in Matthew and Luke were spoken once, and the connection given by Luke is somewhat clearer than in Matthew. Matthew replaces “at that hour” (Luke 10:21) with the expression “at that time” and instead of the words “rejoiced in spirit” he writes “said”, “answered” (ἀποκριθείς). But what exactly he answered remains unclear. This last expression is considered a Hebraism, found in other places in the Old and New Testaments. In this case, it is not at all necessary that there were questions before and that ἀποκριθείς was a statement of the answer to them. It simply begins a new speech (cf. Deut. 21:7; Job 3:2; Is. 14:10, 21:9). The Greek word translated into Russian as “glorify” actually means “I confess.” But as Augustine notes, this does not at all mean confession of sin here - confession is characteristic not only of the sinner, but sometimes also of the one who brings praise. We confess either praising God or blaming ourselves. The Savior in Matthew here calls God His Father for the first time. “Lord of heaven and earth” was added to the word Father, probably in order to show that it depended on the will of God, as the Ruler of the world, to hide “this” (ταῦτα) from the wise and prudent, and so on. In Matthew's connection, if there is one, ταῦτα implies "powers" not recognized by the people of Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum in their true meaning, and ways of divine wisdom which the Jews did not understand. The verbs “hid” and “opened” are placed in the aorist to express the idea that the indication refers to the past tense, to the past activity of the Lord of the world. Here people are called wise and reasonable who have acquired false wisdom and, along with it, lost common sense. Being attached to their false wisdom, their false teachings and proud of their wisdom, they do not know and cannot understand the simple sacraments or truths of the Kingdom of God, revealed to people with pure hearts, who are like babies. Matthew 11:26. Hey, Father! for such was Thy good pleasure. Ναί (in the Russian Bible - “ey”) means “yes”. Father is the vocative case, but in the Greek text the nominative is used instead of the vocative. Instead of the vocative, they readily used (already in Homer) the nominative; in the New Testament, in adjectives without a noun. Especially uncommon in the vocative θεέ (cf. ὁ δεσπότης – Rev. 6:10; βασιλεύς – Rev. 15:3; Matt. 27:29 – BD codes and others, βασιλεῦ, etc.). Literally it could be translated as follows: “yes, Father, (You hid... and... revealed), because this was the favor (desire) before You.” But if correct, a literal Russian translation is impossible here. The words έμπροσθέν σου refer to εὐδοκία: if it happened this way and not otherwise, then because it was pleasing to You. In Luke 10:21 only εὐδοκία and ἐγένετο are rearranged, one in place of the other. Matthew 11:27. All things have been handed over to Me by My Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father; and no one knows the Father except the Son, and to whom the Son wants to reveal it. (Compare Luke 10:22 – with a slight difference in expression). The thought is expressed in an extremely subtle connection with the previous verse and, in general, with what was said earlier. The Savior says here something like this: “You gave to babes the understanding of mysteries and hid them from the wise and prudent. I know these mysteries, because both this and everything else was handed over to Me by My Father. Of these secrets, the most important is knowledge of the Son (understanding of all His activities, all of His teaching and His very being) and knowledge of the Father. Both are incomprehensible to ordinary people: no one knows the Son except the Father, and so on.” It is remarkable that already in ancient times they tried to slightly alter this verse. It seemed incongruous that it was said here first about the Son, Whom the Father knows; the exact opposite was necessary. Therefore, there are permutations in Justin (Dialogus cum Tryphone, 100 and Apologia, I, 63), Tertullian (Adversus Marcionem, IV, 25). Irenaeus (Adversus haereses, I, 13, 2) also has the reverse order, but in 4, 11, 1 he says: hi autem, qui peritiores apostolis volunt esse sic describunt: Nemo cognovit patrem nisi filius, nec filium nisi pater et cui voluerit filius revelare (people who want to be more skillful than the apostles write this: no one knew the Father except the Son, and the Son except the Father, and to whom the Son wanted to reveal). From the words of the Savior it is clear that knowledge of the Father (as well as the Son) is not impossible, but is taught only to those to whom the Son wishes to reveal it. There is some mystery here, understandable only to people who love the Son and to whom the Son responds with the same love. Matthew 11:28. Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest; This and subsequent verses to the end of the chapter do not have the slightest parallel in all other evangelists and are found only in Matthew. The speech in the original is distinguished by its extreme softness and love, but at the same time by its extreme energy and brevity. There is a depth of theology here, reminiscent of the Gospel of John and bringing the Gospel of Matthew closer to it. Instead of the less bright ἔρχεσθε - imperative δεῦτε, unexpressed in translations and meaning “here, to Me!” The words spoken here by the Savior, as is rightly noted, would have been blasphemy if they had been uttered by the lips of an ordinary person. But in the mouth of the Son of Man they are natural. “The little word ‘everything’ has a vast meaning.” Here is the most important and final answer to the question: σὺ εἶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος... δεῦτε πρός με πάντες. These words are reminiscent of Isaiah 45:22, where similar speech is put into the mouth of Jehovah Himself. But even more similarities are observed with several passages in the book of Jesus, son of Sirach (cf. Matthew 11:25 = Sir.51:1, 14; Matthew 11:28 = Sir.51:31, 35; Matthew 11:29 = Sir.51:34–35, in the text of the Seventy according to Tischendorf’s edition the number of verses is different). Matthew 11:29. take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am meek and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls; Christ probably means here not only the “heavy and unbearable burdens” that the Pharisaic teachers of that time placed on the people, but also in general all kinds of teachings and duties imposed by any teachers, not only those who have no connection with Him, but also those who express imaginary devotion to Him. The burden of Christ is light and His yoke is good, but the burden imposed by all other teachers, unless they themselves are disciples and do not take upon themselves the burden of Christ, is always heavy. Matthew 11:30. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light. When considering this verse, questions were asked: how can Christ's yoke be good and His burden light, when He Himself said that “strait is the gate and narrow is the way that leads to life” (Matthew 7:14)? The answer to this question was that what seems difficult at first becomes pleasant over time due to inexhaustible love. In this spirit, for example, Augustine and some later exegetes answer this question. You might be interested in: