Глава 17

1–8. Transfiguration. – 9–13. Question from the disciples about Elijah. – 14–21. Healing a demon-possessed youth. – 22–23. It's about death and resurrection. – 24–28. Payment of taxes on the church. Matthew 17:1. And when six days had passed, Jesus took Peter, James, and John his brother, and led them up to a high mountain alone, (Cf. Mark 9:2; Luke 9:28; 2 Pet.1:16). The verse is almost word for word similar to Mark 9:2, except that Mark does not call John “the brother of James” and adds “some” (μόνους) at the end - this word, according to some readings, is not found in Matthew. In the Russian translation, Mark 9:1 is assigned to the 9th chapter, but in the Greek editions it is attached to the 8th chapter (see Tischendorf). At the beginning of the verse in the Russian translation (but not in the Slavic) the word “and” is omitted (omitted only in Sirokyurt.). In Luke (Luke 9:28), instead of “six” days, “eight” are indicated. His story is not similar to the story of the first two weather forecasters. At the end of the verse, Luke indicates the purpose of climbing the mountain - “to pray.” First of all, attention is drawn to the difference in the indications of time by the first two weather forecasters and Luke: six and eight days. It is explained quite easily. Jerome already considered the answer to this “easy” (facilis responsio est), because Matthew and Mark speak of intermediate days, and Luke adds the first and last. In addition, it should be added that Luke does not indicate the exact number of days here and uses the word ὡσεί, i.e. about eight days. It must be assumed that the time of transfiguration was at night, which was the usual time of prayer of the Savior (Matthew 14:23, 25; Luke 6:12, 21:37, 22:39, etc.); The apostles at this time were burdened with sleep and fell asleep. The Savior and His disciples descended from the mountain the next day (Luke 9:37). When the Savior ascended the mountain, nine disciples were left at its foot, and He took only three with Him further up the mountain: Peter, James and John. According to the general opinion of interpreters, this was because these disciples were “superior” to all others (οὗτοι τῶν ἄλλων ἦσαν ὑπερέχοντες – St. John Chrysostom). Such an interpretation would mean that the Savior had especially trusted and beloved disciples. But here, apparently, the matter should be explained somewhat more simply. Jesus Christ needed solitude to pray, and He had to withdraw. It was a natural desire, and all the disciples understood Him. It was perhaps written on the faces of the three, undoubtedly the most devoted disciples to Him, that they did not want to leave Him alone, and they were taken and rewarded for this devotion with an extraordinary heavenly vision. Taking three disciples with Him, the Savior undoubtedly withdrew from them, as was the case in Gethsemane, which is clear both from the circumstances of the transfiguration in general, and, especially, from the fact that He then “approached” (προσελθών, in Russian translation - “approaching”, verse 7) to the disciples when the vision ended. The word “raised” (“raises up” – ἀναφέρει) only here in Matthew and Mark, and also in Luke 24:51. The question of which mountain the Savior and his disciples ascended is very difficult. The evangelists do not indicate which mountain it was. In Matthew and Mark the word is used without an article (some kind of mountain, indefinitely), in Luke - with an article: to a known, definite mountain, also, however, not named. In the parallel passage of 2 Peter 1:16, the mountain is not mentioned at all. Matthew and Mark agree only that it was a “high” mountain. Among the ancient interpreters - Chrysostom, Hilary, Zigavin and others - we also encounter complete silence about this subject. But here and there in Origen, St. Cyril of Jerusalem (IV century) and Jerome there is news that this was Mount Tabor. After them, the news that Mount Tabor was considered in ancient times to be the mountain of transfiguration comes to us from the 6th and 7th centuries. Some travelers who lived at this time agree that in their time there were three churches on the top of Tabor, corresponding to the three tabernacles that the Apostle Peter wanted to build. The churches were round and “extremely overgrown with grass and flowers.” Around the same time, Tabor became a favorite shrine for pilgrims, and during the Crusades it was a subject of special interest. Most of the newest interpreters, however, accept that the transfiguration took place on one of the spurs of Hermon, not far from Caesarea Philippi. The English traveler Stanley stands for Hermon, and Thomson also thinks so, although not without hesitation. But all this, of course, is just speculation. The issue of grief should still be considered unresolved. The silence of the ancient exegetes about it is profound. Matthew 17:2. and He was transfigured before them: and His face shone like the sun, and His clothes became white as light. (Cf. Mark 9:2–3; Luke 9:29; 2 Pet.1:16–17). Transformed, i.e. the ordinary image of Christ received some perfect, higher form. Matthew 17:3. And behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them, talking with Him. (Cf. Mark 9:4; Luke 9:30–32). Matthew and Mark talk about this briefly, with slight differences. But Luke reports something that the first two synoptics do not have, namely, that the men who appeared spoke with Christ “about His departure” in Jerusalem, that the disciples “were heavy with sleep and, waking up, saw His glory and the two men standing with Him.” When these latter began to depart from Him, Peter spoke words about tabernacles. How, asks Theophylact, did the disciples know that it was Moses and Elijah? Not from images, because making images of people was then considered illegal. Apparently, they recognized them by the words they spoke. Matthew 17:4. At this Peter said to Jesus: Lord! It’s good for us to be here; If you want, we will make three tabernacles here: one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah. (Cf. Mark 9:5-6; Luke 9:33 with slight differences in speech). Mark added: “for I did not know what to say; because they were in fear." Luke has the same thing, but much shorter: “not knowing what he said.” Matthew skips all this. Peter's words addressed to Christ, according to John Chrysostom, are an expression of love and extraordinary admiration, the cause of which was the vision. By “tabernacles” we should not understand tents, but huts made of tree branches, as at the Feast of Tabernacles. Matthew 17:5. While he was still speaking, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them; and behold, a voice from the cloud said: This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; Listen to him. (Cf. Mark 9:7; Luke 9:34–35; 2 Pet.1:17–18). The words spoken from the cloud were obviously the words of God Himself. They are the same as those said at baptism. But here all weather forecasters have the same addition: “Listen to him.” Matthew 17:6. And when the disciples heard, they fell on their faces and were very afraid. Matthew 17:7. But Jesus came and touched them and said: Arise and do not be afraid. According to Mark (Mark 9:6), the fear of the disciples was revealed when Peter was still speaking about the tabernacles, and according to Luke (Luke 9:34), when the disciples entered the cloud. Fear was quite natural for the disciples under the circumstances in which they found themselves. The very extraordinary beauty and attractiveness of the phenomenon could frighten them (cf. Matt. 28:5, 8; Mark 16:6, 8). Matthew 17:8. Lifting up their eyes, they saw no one except Jesus. (Compare Mark 9:8 – with a significant difference in expression). Here is a small detail that indicates the reality of the event. The evangelists are silent about what would be more important and interesting to us. In the present case, it would be enough if the Evangelist Matthew ended his speech with the 7th verse. But he did not do that, but added verse 8, pictorially depicting what was happening. The historical reality of the event is fully recognized by the best exegetes. It is connected by certain characteristics with what happened before, i.e. with the confession of Peter, and has a close connection with what is told next. An event cannot be taken out of context without leaving a gap. The story of the weather forecasters, which is exactly consistent in all details, is confirmed by the hint of the fourth evangelist, who, however, does not directly speak of the transfiguration, although he himself witnessed it, but clearly hints at it (John 1:14). And another eyewitness directly reports about him (2 Pet. 1:16-18). “Is this the truth, or a lie, or partly both, this transfiguration on Mount Hermon? – asks Edersheim. – One thing, at least, is certain: if this is a true story, then it does not speak only of a subjective vision without objective reality. But in this case it would be not only difficult, but also impossible to separate one part of the story from the other - the appearance of Moses and Elijah and the transfiguration of the Lord - and to attribute objective reality to the latter, and to consider the former only a vision.” Attempts to represent the vision as a myth or to interpret it on rationalistic principles, according to Edersheim, are untenable. Matthew 17:9. And when they came down from the mountain, Jesus rebuked them, saying: Tell no one about this vision until the Son of Man rises from the dead. Matthew conveys the Savior’s own words (highlighting them with punctuation marks), Mark puts them in his own words in the form of so-called indirect speech. Luke points only to the result of the prohibition, saying that the disciples “kept silent and did not tell anyone in those days what they had seen.” The reason for the prohibition to talk about the transfiguration, as is usual in such cases, is considered by the fathers and church writers to be humility and at the same time a reluctance to seduce those who, having learned about the transfiguration, would then see Christ crucified. Maybe so. But, apparently, it is more correct to think that the story of the transfiguration could seem not only true, but also understandable only in its connection with the resurrection. Therefore, it was possible to talk about him only after the resurrection. It is precisely this connection that the Savior Himself puts both of these events into. It is unlikely that the reason for the prohibition was that Jesus Christ wanted to deviate the disciples and people from false expectations of the coming of Elijah. Matthew 17:10. And His disciples asked Him, “How come the scribes say that Elijah must come first?” The question posed by the disciples during the descent from the mountain suggests that the scribes' teaching that Elijah would come before the establishment of the messianic kingdom was in conflict with what the disciples had just experienced or with the thoughts they had as a result of the transfiguration. It was not the appearance of Elijah in itself, but his immediate disappearance after the appearance that seemed to contradict the teachings of the rabbis. Where was there room for Elijah's activity when Christ was about to die and rise again? Based on the words of the prophet Malachi (Mal. 4:5), it was expected that Elijah would not only convert individual Israelites and prepare them for the day of revelation, but would also contribute to the restoration of the entire nation. Matthew 17:11. Jesus answered and said to them, “It is true that Elijah must come first and arrange everything; (Compare Mark 9:12 – more details). It is possible that the Russian translation of this verse is inaccurate. In Matthew, instead of “must,” as in Mark, there is an emphasized “must.” Literally: “Elijah comes and will restore everything.” Perhaps the Slavic translation of the verse in question in Matthew is also inaccurate: “Elijah will come first.” The Savior’s words contain the answer to the disciples’ question. First, the opinion of the scribes conveyed by the disciples is formulated, and then the Savior corrects it in the next verse. What the scribes say is true, but not about the Elijah who appeared during the transfiguration, but about another. Matthew 17:12. but I tell you that Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but did to him as they wanted; so the Son of Man will suffer from them. (Compare Mark 9:13 – there is no word “and they knew him not” and the end of the verse is omitted). Jesus Christ says that Elijah came, meaning John the Baptist. John, not being Elijah in the proper sense, undoubtedly came in the spirit and power of Elijah (Luke 1:17). It is in this latter sense that the Savior calls John Elijah. That John was not recognized or, better yet, recognized as Elijah is understandable. It is more difficult to understand the expression “they treated him as they wanted.” Here, of course, there is an allusion to the historical circumstances of the death of the Baptist, but perhaps also to the contrast between the lives of the first Elijah and the second. People could not do as they wanted with the first Elijah. He was taken alive to heaven, and John was executed. Matthew 17:13. Then the disciples realized that He was talking to them about John the Baptist. In the previous verses, the Savior did not say a single word about John the Baptist, but His figurative speech showed that He was speaking specifically about him. The disciples now understood this. Matthew 17:14. When they came to the people, a man came up to Him and, kneeling before Him, Matthew 17:15. said: Lord! have mercy on my son; On new moons he goes berserk and suffers greatly, for he often throws himself into fire and often into water, Matthew 17:16. I brought him to Your disciples, and they could not heal him. (Cf. Mark 9:18; Luke 9:40). Instead of the Russian “privodil” (verse 16), perhaps “led” (προσήνεγκα, οβτυλι). By saying this, the boy's father indirectly accuses the disciples. But many ancient commentators note that in reality he himself was to blame for the fact that the disciples could not heal his son, and instead of blaming himself, he accused them of impotence. Evfimy Zigavin says that the disciples could not heal the boy due to the unbelief of the one who came. We cannot agree with the latter interpreters. Matthew 17:17. Jesus answered and said: O faithless and perverse generation! How long will I be with you? How long will I tolerate you? bring him here to Me. (Cf. Mark 9:19; Luke 9:41). The details of Mark 9:20–24 are omitted from Matthew. Jerome, Hilary, John Chrysostom, Theophylact and others refer the accusatory words of Jesus Christ to the father of the sick young man and to the Jews and scribes who were under the mountain. But these opinions of the ancient interpreters are completely rejected by the newest exegetes, who say that here Jesus Christ condemns not the scribes, but His disciples, because they were not able to heal the boy. But why doesn’t He speak directly about the disciples, but about “an unfaithful and perverse generation,” i.e. in general about the people who lived then, about the generation? Therefore, they answer, the lack of active faith in the disciples put them on a par with other people of Christ’s contemporary generation. Bengel: “With severe reproof the disciples are numbered among the crowd.” The fact that the disciples are meant here is clear from verse 20: the father of the sick man had faith and therefore asked for help. The strong expressions γενεὰ ἄπιστος καὶ διεστραμμένη ("unfaithful and corrupt generation") can be explained from the contrast between the faith of the father and, apparently, other persons who asked for help, the faith of the disciples. Matthew 17:18. And Jesus rebuked him, and the demon came out of him; and the boy was healed at that hour. (Cf. Mark 9:25; Luke 9:42). "Him" (αὐτῷ) refers to a "demon", this is evident from the parallel passages in Mark and Luke, where the prohibition clearly refers to a demon. Matthew 17:19. Then the disciples came to Jesus privately and said, “Why couldn’t we drive him out?” Mark 9:28 says that this was when the Savior entered the house. It is unknown where this house was located. Matthew 17:20. Jesus said to them: Because of your unbelief; For truly I say to you, if you have faith as a mustard seed and say to this mountain, “Move from here to there,” and it will move; and nothing will be impossible for you; Christ's speech cannot be taken literally. This speech is figurative, indicating the possibility of achieving extraordinary results with the help of faith. Matthew 17:21. this race is driven out only by prayer and fasting. Some exegetes, citing the fact that verse 21 is not in some manuscripts and translations, recognize this verse as a later insertion or borrowing from Mark 9:29. “This kind” refers, of course, to demons. “It is driven out only by prayer and fasting,” i.e. Only a true believer becomes capable of casting out demons through prayer. Matthew 17:22. While they were in Galilee, Jesus said to them: The Son of Man will be delivered into the hands of men, (Cf. Mark 9:30–31; Luke 9:43–44). Vulgatä: Conversantibus autem eis in Galilea.) The Greek word συστρεφομένων indicates close proximity, being together with the exclusion of strangers. The testimony of Mark and Luke agrees with this. Mark and Luke further point to the disciples’ insufficient understanding of the Savior’s speech, Matthew to their sorrow (verse 23). “Son of Man” here obviously comes in connection with the expression “into the hands of men.” Matthew 17:23. and they will kill Him, and on the third day He will rise again. And they were very sad. (Cf. Mark 9:31–32; Luke 9:44–45). According to Mark, the Savior’s words about suffering, death and resurrection were incomprehensible to the disciples, and they were afraid to ask Him. Matthew does not talk about this, but only adds that the disciples were “very sad.” This sadness was caused, of course, by the sorrowful messages of Christ. “That is why they grieved, because they loved the Teacher very much” (St. John Chrysostom). Based on the word “they were saddened,” one cannot, however, conclude that Christ’s words were completely understandable to the disciples. This consideration eliminates the apparent discrepancy between Matthew and other weather forecasters. Matthew 17:24. When they came to Capernaum, the collectors of didrachms approached Peter and said: Will your teacher give didrachms? (Cf. Mark 9:33 - limited to the note that the Savior and His disciples arrived in Capernaum and entered the house). The entire further story about the payment of taxes is found only in Matthew. In the post-exilic period (Ex. 30:13 ff.; cf. 2 Chronicles 24:6; 2 Kings 12:12; Neh. 10:33) it was established that all Israelite men who were 20 years old should annually pay half a shekel, or two Attic drachmas, or one Alexandrian drachma (LXX; Gen. 23:15; Joshua 7:21) in favor of the church to support worship. The time for collecting money, according to the Talmudic treatise Shekalim, was the month of Adar (see Pereferkovich. T. 2, p. 269; information about this tax in Chapters 2 and 7 of this treatise). That the tax existed at the time of Christ is clear from the reports of Philo (Quis rerum divinarum heres sit, ed. P. Wendland, Philonis Alexandrini opera quae supersunt, vol. 3. Berlin 1898, repr. De Gruyter, 1962, 186, 1-3) and Josephus ("Antiquities of the Jews" XVIII, 9, 1; "The Jewish War" VII, 6, 6). It was so universal that even the Jews of the Diaspora paid it. This was not a Roman tax, although after the destruction of Jerusalem money was sent to Rome for the church of Jupiter Capitolinus (see Schürer, Geschichte, II, S. 314–315). Whether this tax was forced or not is unclear. From the question proposed by the tax collectors, one could conclude that the tax was voluntary and therefore rejected by some. When collecting taxes, the rich could not give more than what was established; the poor - less. The price of everyone's soul was the same (Ex. 30:11–16). The Greek word δίδραχμον means double drachma. According to the Talmud, “all the money that the law speaks of is Tyrian money” (Tosefta Ketuvot XII, end, quoted in Schurer, vol. II, p. 315 note). Four Tyrian drachmas were equal to one Hebrew shekel. One drachma in our money was worth about 20–30 kopecks (4–6 g of silver); didrachm – 40–60 kopecks (8–12 g of silver). The stater was equal to 4 drachmas. Instead of “Will your teacher give didrachms,” it would be more accurate to say “wouldn’t he give didrachms,” because in the original the plural is used in both cases. Tsang explains the plural by the fact that the collectors asked not about the didrachm that should have been paid in that particular year, but in general about whether Jesus Christ agreed to pay this tax. Similarly, we say: “would someone give me money,” although “money” sometimes means only one coin. The story undoubtedly indicates the state of affairs in Palestine before 70 AD. Matthew 17:25. He says yes. And when he entered the house, Jesus warned him and said: What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth take duties or taxes? from your own sons, or from strangers? Matthew 17:26. Peter says to Him: from strangers. Jesus said to him: So the sons are free; Peter said that in every kingdom the sons of the king are free, i.e. not subject to taxes. Moreover, therefore, the sons of that King, to whom all earthly kingdoms are subordinate, should be free in any earthly kingdom. The meaning of the comparison is that Jesus Christ is the Son of God (verse 5) and the Heir of all, but the house of God is His church, and didrachms were collected for the benefit of this church. The question was given specifically to Peter and had a close connection with his confession (Matthew 16:16). Matthew 17:27. but, so that we don’t tempt them, go to the sea, throw a fishing rod, and take the first fish that comes along, and when you open its mouth, you will find a statir; take it and give it to them for Me and for yourself. The stater consisted of four drachmas, which is why it was called a tetradrachm. It should not be mixed with the gold statir (20 drachmas). You might be interested in: