Глава 18

1–5. Dispute among the disciples about who is greater in the Kingdom of Heaven. – 6–9. The doctrine of temptations. – 10–14. The doctrine of the salvation of the lost. – 15–20. Teaching on reconciliation with brothers. – 21–22. Teaching forgiveness of offenses. – 23–35. Parable of the cruel slave. Matthew 18:1. At that time the disciples came to Jesus and said: Who is greatest in the kingdom of heaven? (Cf. Mark 9:33–34; Luke 9:46–47). The parallel story of the weather forecasters (up to Matthew 17:23; Mark 9:32; Luke 9:45) was interrupted by the insertion in Matthew (Matthew 17:24–27) of a story about the payment of taxes, which is not found in other evangelists. In the expression of the Russian translation “at that time” one should mean the correct Greek reading - ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ὥρᾳ, which, however, if translated literally, means “at that hour”. This reading is confirmed by some Greek codices and translations, but in some (by the way, Syrosinai, Kyur., Armenian) this word is replaced by ἡμέρα, day. The latter is considered a later amendment. Ὥρα, however, cannot be taken here as an exact designation of time, as in Matthew in general. But that this expression was used by the Evangelist not only to denote a connection is evident from the parallel passage of Mark indicated above, which says that the Savior, when he came to Capernaum and was in the house, Himself asked the disciples what they were discussing on the road. Thus, this last could actually happen “at that hour.” Judging by the fact that the disputes of the disciples over which of them was greater occurred more than once and each time caused denunciations of the Savior (see Matthew 20:20 ff.; Mark 10:35 ff.; Luke 22:24 ff.; John 13:5 ff.), one must think that the idea of earthly advantages in connection with the supposed earthly dominion of such a Person as the Savior was rooted in the minds of the disciples, they cherished it, did not want to part with it, and under suitable circumstances expressed it in the presence of the Savior Himself, without holding back and almost not paying attention to His reproofs. Perhaps this explains that the Savior revealed to his disciples the incorrectness of such opinions not only in words (as in Luke 14:7-11), but sometimes also with the help of strong plastic images, which should have indelibly impressed in the minds of the disciples and all people the idea of ​​the need in the Kingdom of Heaven not for domination, but for service and humility. The immediate reasons for the present dispute between the disciples about which of them is greater in the Kingdom of Heaven, however, are not clear enough, and it is quite difficult to determine them. Paying attention to ὥρα (hour), they thought that the reason for the question was the envy of Peter on the part of the other disciples due to the fact that Christ, preferably before others, commanded him to pay a wonderful tax both for Himself and for him. That all the disciples would occupy a high position in the Kingdom being founded - this seemed certain to them. But which of them and will who be the most important, the greatest? They reasoned about it in a worldly sense: who will occupy the highest position under the Messiah in His Kingdom? Here is an indirect, but very important confirmation of the fact that the apostles themselves recognized the Savior as the Messiah-King, albeit in an earthly sense, otherwise the question they proposed would not have made sense. Matthew 18:2. Jesus called a child and placed him in the midst of them (Cf. Mark 9:35–36; Luke 9:47). Instruction and edification are given not only by word, but also by example. This often happens in ordinary life; similar, highest and in the full sense classical (so to speak) methods of instruction and teaching were used by Christ. The present example, chosen by Him, is distinguished by its extreme simplicity, but it implies and points to a whole revolution in the thinking and views of that time. The truth that is imprinted on the mind and heart by this example is of such depth that even today it is not fully understood by everyone. Matthew 18:3. and said: Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven; (Cf. Mark 9:36; Luke 9:48). The coincidence here lies with the weather forecasters in only two words (Matthew: καὶ εἶπεν; Mark and Luke: εἶπεν αὐτοῖς). Mark and Luke skip further words of the Savior in Matthew. The words placed in Mark 10:15 and completely similar to them in Luke 18:17 were spoken at a different time and on a different occasion. It is rightly noted that if in the previous sections of Matthew’s Gospel we were talking about the attitude of the people who gathered to Christ towards the Jewish people in general and towards public worship, then further instructions up to Matthew 20:28 concern the inner life of the society founded by Christ. In the words of Christ addressed to the disciples, it is obvious that they, as adults, are given instruction and moral teaching to leave their previous thoughts, dispositions and aspirations (στραφῆτε, as some believe μετανοεῖτε repent) and become like children. But what does it mean to be like children, to be like children? What should adults do if they want to become like children? The answer to these questions can be that the child’s character is quite well known and the thought expressed by Christ is quite understandable without further analysis. Since the child was placed among the disciples and as an example to them due to their desire to decide the question of who is greater, then from general discussions about the child’s character and “child-like adults” we can now move on to more specific definitions. Here we find one of the strongest and most convincing proofs of the idea that, according to the general New Testament view, the followers of Christ should, like children, avoid appropriating to themselves any external authority and any preference for themselves over their fellows. “To rise high means to fall proportionately low.” The idea of ​​the New Testament is not to dominate people, but to serve them. It is not external power that should be characteristic of the followers of Christ, but moral power. The servants of Christ acquire power over people by becoming like children. This idea is purely Christian and is distinguished by its extreme moral beauty and attractiveness, and is generally explained in the Gospels by the self-devoted service of Jehovah’s Servant and, in particular, by several other examples in which the idea of ​​Christian service is also expressed. Matthew 18:4. So whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven; (Cf. Matthew 23:12; Luke 14:11, 18:14). One cannot think that the thoughts expressed in verses 3 and 4 are completely identical. Verse 3 sets out the general idea that the disciples should become like children, i.e. all the good qualities inherent in them. Verse 4 seems to be a conclusion from the previous one, as indicated by the particle οὖν ("therefore"), indicating a particular trait of the child's character, which indeed lies in humility. Literally: “So whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.” Matthew 18:5. and whoever receives one such child in My name receives Me; (Cf. Mark 9:37; Luke 9:48). This verse is stated in more detail in Luke, the most abbreviated speech is in Matthew. The connection between this verse and the previous one is difficult to explain. In our opinion, an explanation is possible only on the assumption that in the words of Christ “He accepts me” the thought is expressed as much about the King, i.e. Christ as much as about His Kingdom. With this interpretation, this verse can be seen to answer the last part of the question posed in verse 1. This question can be broken down like this: 1) who is bigger? and 2) who is greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven? The answer to the first part was given in the sense that whoever is greater must be the least of all, be like a child. The second part is that whoever wants to be in the Heavenly Kingdom more than anyone else must accept Christ. Thus, the King and the Kingdom here seem to not only not be separated, but are identified, and at the same time, the closest idea of ​​​​what the Heavenly Kingdom is is communicated. According to Matthew, this is the acceptance (into one’s soul and heart) of Christ, but according to Mark and Luke - also the Father who sent Him. So it is with John: “Whoever loves Me will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make our abode with him” (John 14:23). The difference is that the weather forecasters, speaking about the same thing as John, express their thoughts in images. The Savior does not simply say “accepts Me,” but “whoever receives one such child in My name receives Me,” with other additions from Mark and Luke. The idea expressed here is similar to Matthew 25:35–36, 40, 25:42–43, 45, where Christ identifies Himself with the hungry, the thirsty, the stranger, the naked, the sick and those imprisoned. Here He identifies Himself with children. Christ was humble, gentle, etc. as "this child" or "one of these children". Whoever accepts a child, in his person accepts both Christ Himself and the Father who sent Him and, therefore, becomes a participant in the Kingdom of Heaven. But what does it mean “accepts” or, better, “who would receive” (ὃς ἐὰν δέηται for all three evangelists)? Why is it said not just “receives the child,” but “receives in My name”? What does this last expression “to receive a child in the name of Christ” mean? Obviously, these questions can only be answered by establishing the exact meaning of the verb here δέχομαι, which, of course, means “I accept” and is usually translated in this sense (in the Vulgate - susceperit, in the German translation - aufnimmt, etc.), but not always. Unlike λαμβάνω, which has almost the same meaning, but without regard to the feelings with which something is taken or accepted, δέχομαι generally and for the most part means “I accept with affection, love, joy, friendly” and in this sense is used both by the classics and in the Old and New Testaments (in the Bible never in a hostile sense). See, for example, the translation of the Seventy: Proverbs 1:3, 2:1, 4:10, 9:9; Jer.5:3, 17:23; John 4:45; Gal.4:14; Eph.6:17; Col. 4:10; Hebrews 11:31, etc. Thus, the meaning of Christ’s words is this: “whoever receives one such child with love receives Me.” And where Christ is accepted with love, His Kingdom is accepted there, and the person who accepted them is close to Christ, therefore, occupies the highest place in the Kingdom, just as people close to some earthly king are the highest state dignitaries. But, obviously, a distinction is made here between a simple reception, even with love, and one that is done in the name of Christ (ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματί μου). Accepting a child with love, treating him friendly, imitating him, appreciating his humility and modesty - this does not mean accepting Christ Himself with love. He is accepted only when the child is accepted in His name, i.e. when there is a certain relationship between the recipient and the received to His name, when the child is received in the Christian sense. This is the immediate, exact meaning of Christ’s words. Since the child was placed among the apostles as a living example of the idea that Jesus Christ wanted to imprint in the minds and hearts of His disciples, it is clear that by a child one can understand here also adults similar to children in character, in particular, the apostles themselves. This means that the Savior does not speak here exclusively about children or adults, but indifferently about both. What conclusion can be drawn from all that has been said? Christ’s speech and its connection will be even more clear if we present everything in such a paraphrase. You ask who is greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven. You can understand this if you look at this child placed here among you. You need to ask not about who is greater, but to change your way of thinking (στραφῆτε) and become like this child. Does it ask anyone similar questions? No, it doesn't even think about them. And you, too, must first of all humble yourself, like a child, and only on this condition will you achieve the primacy that you desire. Achieving dominance and primacy in the worldly sense is not possible for everyone, and there is no need for this. But it is possible for everyone to achieve such dominance and such primacy as are characteristic of this child; they are completely opposite to the worldly. Trying to imitate children, you will look at them and accept them with love, and by accepting children with love, you will have the same close relationship with Me as with them, you will accept Me with love and, thus, you will become the highest, great citizens of the Heavenly Kingdom founded by Me. Regarding the numeral ἕν, Bengel notes: frequens unius in hoc hapite mentio (the word “one” is often used in this chapter). Matthew 18:6. But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were drowned in the depths of the sea. Luke 17:1–2 has similar expressions, but in a different connection. In Mark 9:38–41 and Luke 9:49–50 stories are inserted here about a man who cast out demons in the name of the Savior; then the speech of the Savior is given in Matthew and Mark with almost literal similarity. What is said in the verse in question is obviously contrasted with what is said in the previous one. There it speaks of acceptance with love, here - about the harm that occurs as a result of temptation. This last word (σκανδαλίσῃ), as in other cases (see comments on Matthew 5:29), indicates a fall. As in the previous verse, “if anyone accepts” (literally), so here, “if anyone seduces.” But if in the previous verse “one child,” then in this one it is “one of these little ones who believe in Me.” Speech thus expands and generalizes. The child standing among the disciples serves as an image to clarify the complex relationships that exist among adults who believe in Christ. At first glance, it seems that the Savior here proceeds to speak about an almost completely new subject, and, moreover, by simple association, so that this verse seems to have only an external connection with what was said earlier. But there is no doubt that it also has a more internal, deep, intimate connection with the previous verses. This latter is expressed, apparently, mainly by the word “seduce” (σκανδαλίσῃ). If in the previous verses an accessible and reliable path was indicated for everyone to acquire not imaginary, but real advantages in the Kingdom of Heaven established and established by Christ, then this verse indicates the obstacles that deviate from this path, and the consequences of this kind of activity. The word πιστευόντων is meant here not only by small children in themselves and as such, because children in general are not characterized by conscious faith, which is revealed in humility and humiliation, but by adults who put themselves on the same level as babies. The Greek word συμφέρει can be translated, as in the Synodal Version, through “it would be better” in the sense of “more useful.” This is the meaning of this verb among the classics and in the New Testament (in the intransitive meaning - Matt. 5:29–30, 19:10; John 11:50, 16:7, 18:14; 1 Cor. 6:12; 2 Cor. 8:10, 12:1, etc.). The meaning of further speech shows what the benefit is for the person who produces the temptation. Before he seduces anyone, it would be more beneficial for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and drowned in the depths of the sea. Then his body would have perished, but his soul would have been saved by preventing him from causing temptation. “Millstone” – the translation is inaccurate; in the Slavic translation exactly: “Oselsky millstone”, i.e. a large millstone that is turned by a donkey; the latter was therefore called ὄνος μυλικός (millstone donkey). The inaccurate translation in the Russian Bible was made, apparently, due to the assimilation of Luke 17:2 (λίθος μυλικός - millstone or millstone). Here, of course, we mean the upper millstone, or the so-called runner. Drowning at sea was not a Jewish execution, but such execution was practiced by the Greeks, Romans, Syrians and Phoenicians. Matthew 18:7. Woe to the world from temptations, for temptations must come; but woe to the man through whom temptation comes. Previously it was said that a person who produces temptations will be subject to severe punishment; now “woe” is announced to him in a more general sense. When interpreting this verse, one can distinguish between its first half and the second, separated from the previous one by the adverb πλήν (in Russian translation - “but”). Interpreting the first half of the verse, some argued that “if temptations must come, then it is necessary to sin; if it is necessary to sin, then those who sin are unfairly punished, obeying necessity.” Here, then, is necessitas consequentiae. This opinion is cited, by the way, by Evfimy Zigavin and refutes it by the fact that “temptations need to come due to the necessity of the existence of demons, but there is no need for those devoted to virtue to produce temptations, because people are characterized by free will. When temptations appear, it does not depend on us, but not being subject to temptations is entirely up to us.” Or John Chrysostom: “From here it is clear that even if temptations need to come, i.e. those people who harm, then there is no need to harm us.” Matthew 18:8. If your hand or your foot offends you, cut them off and throw them away from you: it is better for you to enter life without an arm or without a foot, than to be cast into eternal fire with two hands and two feet; Literally: “...it is good for you to enter into life crippled or lame (κυλλὸν ἢ χωλόν)...” The Russian translation is made more by meaning than literally. In Slavic: “it is kinder to enter into the belly of the lame or the poor,” etc., and the word “kinder,” as in Russian, inaccurately expresses the Greek καλόν ἐστιν, and through “poor” – χωλόν. However, they note that καλόν must be taken here in the meaning of the comparative degree due to the further occurring ἤ (than). Among the Seventy this construction occurs frequently; there is a basis for it in the Hebrew construction, where the comparative degree is used with the further “min”. The connection between the verse and the previous one is defined as follows: “Do you want not to be the kind of person to whom woe is announced? ... cut them off and throw them away from you,” etc. The meaning is that “by temptations not only one person harms another, but they arise for the student and from his own nature” (Tsang), i.e. depend on his free will, and he has the ability to seduce and not seduce himself and others. This gives rise to the sayings of verses 8-9, the meaning of which is essentially the same as in Matthew 5:29-30 (see comments on this place). The expression “to life” in Greek with an article, “known life,” true, real, not imaginary, not illusory; and the corresponding expression “eternal fire” - also with an article, real, not ghostly fire. The idea of ​​eternal punishment was characteristic of the Jewish apocryphal literature of that time (Sol. 2, 35; Enoch 91:9, 27:3, etc.). According to John Chrysostom, the Savior speaks here not about the members of the body, but about our friends and relatives, who constitute, as it were, members necessary for us. This interpretation is considered "too restrictive". Our actions and habits, like faces, can be as dear to us as an arm or a leg. Matthew 18:9. and if your eye offends you, pluck it out and throw it away from you: it is better for you to enter into life with one eye than to be cast into fiery hell with two eyes. The construction of this verse is the same as the previous one. The same idea is repeated for the sake of expressiveness. Matthew 18:10. See that you do not despise one of these little ones; for I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of My Father in heaven. This verse contains “the amazingly beautiful thought that the little ones, as such, enjoy special protection from God, which is given to them by Angels - mediators who see the face of God.” Therefore, attempts to add and change this idea in the form that by “little ones” are meant only “those who believe in My name” or “are in the Church” (as in verse 6), seem to be restrictions that do not correspond to the general thought of Christ and the general tone of His speech. His thought is that neither physically nor spiritually “little ones” should not only not be tempted, but one should not even treat them arrogantly and with contempt. Here is a very subtle continuation of the answer to the question of who is greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven. Since the “small ones” are the most important, it is a mistake to belittle and humiliate them. The interpretation that Christ borrowed these images from the then existing Jewish angelology and that His words have more or less close parallels in the customs of the then court life under the kings (cf. 1 Kings 10:8; 2 Kings 25:19; Esther 1:14; Matthew 5:8; Heb. 12:14) does not actually explain anything. Closer to the Gospel expressions Tob.12:15; Daniel 9:13, 20–21. It is more correct to think that here is a new teaching about Angels, an independent thought about them, expressed by Christ and His apostles in numerous places in the New Testament and representing its own, original New Testament angelology, although, perhaps, having some formal similarities with the Old Testament and Jewish angelology. In any case, the idea that the “little ones” have Angels who protect them before God is nowhere found in exactly the same form as in the New Testament. By “little” one should most likely understand children who serve as images for teaching and edifying adults, but then also these latter; We must not seduce these “little ones,” but “imitate the Angels and their care for these little ones” (Bengel). Seeing the face of the Heavenly Father means being in special closeness to God. Matthew 18:11. For the Son of Man came to seek and to save that which was lost. Many exegetes recognize this verse as a later addition, borrowed from Luke 19:10. In their opinion, the insertion of this verse obscures the connection of the 10th verse with the 12th, which without the 11th verse is completely clear. Morison, however, says that the evidence for the non-authenticity of this verse does not exceed the evidence for its authenticity, and the latter is found in most of the ancient manuscripts, uncial and cursive, ancient Latin and Syriac translations and in the Vulgate. Matthew 18:12. What do you think? If someone had a hundred sheep, and one of them got lost, would he not leave the ninety-nine in the mountains and go looking for the lost one? Matthew 18:13. and if he happens to find her, then, truly, I tell you, he rejoices over her more than over the ninety-nine who were not lost. Luke calls this speech of Christ a parable. What is depicted in the parable constantly happens in the life of every shepherd. Who, for example, does not know how often missing animals are found by our village shepherds? The shepherd does not care about the rest of the flock, because he is confident in it, he knows that the animals entrusted to his supervision will not get lost, will not be in danger and will not disappear. But a lost animal can disappear. “One hundred sheep” and “one” are a contrast. “One hundred” has a general (imprecise) meaning and is used simply instead of the words “great flock” (as opposed to “little flock”, Luke 12:32); it's just a round number. The connection of the verse with the previous verse 10 (even if verse 11 were excluded) is not easy to explain. To clarify, we can point out that in verse 12 we continue to talk about the value in the eyes of God of “these little ones.” They have Angels - protectors standing before the face of God, and God does not allow these “little ones” to perish. The point of verse 12 is made clear by the further verse 14. Matthew 18:14. Thus, it is not the will of your Father in heaven that one of these little ones should perish. Some exegetes who consider verse 11 to be authentic accept that this section first sets out the “introduction to the parable” (verse 11), and then the parable itself (verses 12-13) and the afterword of the parable (verse 14). Matthew 18:15. If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone; If he listens to you, then you have gained your brother; (Cf. Luke 17:3 - in another connection). Just as God treats people with love, so people should love each other. Reconciliation with brothers, and precisely with those who have caused us any offense, appears as one of the sides of this brotherly love. Previously, the Savior said that people should not tempt “these little ones”; Now he talks about what to do when we ourselves are tempted. “Having directed a strong word against those who seduce, the Lord now corrects those who are seduced” (Theophylact). It is clear that these instructions do not mean sins in general, but specifically the particular sins of insults and insults. Therefore, some have incorrectly interpreted this verse in the sense that it is not about private individuals, but about the Church itself, and that when it notices any sins in its members, it should act as indicated here: reprove and then forgive or retain the sins. John Chrysostom interprets the expression “you have gained your brother” as follows: “The Savior did not say: you have taken enough revenge on him, but: “you have gained your brother,” showing that enmity causes harm to both. He didn’t say: he benefited only for himself; but: you, for your part, acquired it. And by this he showed that both of them had previously lost a lot, one lost his brother, and the other lost his own salvation.” Matthew 18:16. But if he does not listen, take with you one or two more, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established; This passage is explained very well by Chrysostom: “And the doctor, seeing that the disease does not stop, does not leave the patient and is not angry with him, but even more so takes care. The Savior commands us to do the same here. You were weak when you were alone; You will be stronger with the help of others.” Matthew 18:17. if he does not listen to them, tell the church; and if he does not listen to the church, then let him be to you as a pagan and a tax collector. As witnesses, the persons mentioned in the previous verse must also persuade and promote reconciliation. If the person being persuaded does not listen to them, then the offended person can turn to the church and present the case to its court. What do we mean by church here? They thought it was a Jewish “kahal” or synagogue. This opinion was based on the fact that at the time when the Savior spoke, there was no Christian Church yet and that He could use this word only in the Jewish sense, because otherwise His speech would have been incomprehensible to the listeners. There is an objection to this opinion: He never called the synagogue a church, he never uttered the word “synagogue” itself. Is it possible to think that the Savior meant a Jewish synagogue here, especially in connection with the 17th verse with further verses 18–20? From these latter it is quite obvious that there is really no talk about a synagogue here. There is no doubt that Christ understood here and could have meant only His own Church as a community of believers, and this speech of His was understandable to the disciples (to whom He now, in fact, spoke), because the speech about the Church had already been somewhat earlier (Matthew 16:18). But behind this question a further one immediately arises. Does the Savior here mean the Church as a society of believers in their entirety, or only “the primates of the Church”? The latter interpretation, one might say, was established in antiquity. “The Commandment of the Church, i.e. its representatives" (St. John Chrysostom). “Now he calls the primates of the Church, consisting of believers, the Church” (Evfimy Zigavin). Many other ancient Greek and Latin interpreters think so. "Like a heathen and a tax collector". For Christ Himself, the pagans and tax collectors were not lost, and He did not say that all duties and relations towards them should be terminated (cf. Matt. 8:5–13, 9:9–13). However, a “line of demarcation” between a member of the Church and someone condemned by it must still be drawn. Do not count him, says Augustine, among your brothers, but you must not be careless about his salvation, for although we do not include the pagans among our brothers, we are always concerned about their salvation. Matthew 18:18. Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven; and whatever you permit on earth will be permitted in heaven. Similar words were spoken to Peter in Matthew 16:19 and have the same meaning. Instead of “what” (ὅ) Matthew 16:19 here ὅσα is also neuter and indicates actions, not persons. Matthew 18:19. Truly I also tell you that if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by My Father in heaven, The strength of the disciples and, in general, of all believers is based on the internal spiritual unity of the community between its members (συμφωνεῖν) and with God. Matthew 18:20. for where two or three are gathered in My name, there I am in the midst of them. In Codex D, Syro-Sinai and Clement of Alexandria, this verse is given in a negative form: “for there are not two or three gathered in My name, among whom I am not (I am not) among them.” This indicates the church minimum. Christ is truly present among people even when two or three of them gather in His name. Matthew 18:21. Then Peter came to Him and said: Lord! How many times should I forgive my brother who sins against me? up to seven times? Peter's question has no close connection with Christ's speech in verses 18-20, but it does have a connection with verses 15-17. Christ, apparently, has now finished His speech. His words about forgiveness of offenses to others prompted Peter to ask Him for further clarification. In proposing the question, Peter, one might think, knew about the customs and opinions that existed at that time among the Jews regarding the forgiveness of offenses. “A person who sins against another is forgiven once, forgiven a second time, forgiven a third time, but not forgiven a fourth time.” This is the often quoted saying of the Babylonian Talmud (Yoma, l. 86, 2), which was supported by Job 33:29-30; Am.1:3, etc. Peter obviously wants to become higher than the scribes of his time and almost doubles the number of forgiveness, to seven. Matthew 18:22. Jesus says to him: I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven. The Savior refutes Peter’s thought first with a brief remark. If Peter thought that you need to forgive your neighbor up to seven times, perhaps every day for a whole week, then the Lord says that you need to forgive “until seventy times seven” (ἕως ἑβδομηκοντάκις ἑπτά). What does this last expression mean? Tertullian and Jerome connected this expression with Genesis 4:24, where Lamech says that “if Cain is avenged sevenfold, then Lamech is avenged seventy times sevenfold.” Therefore, they think that in the Gospel “a certain allusion to the story in the book of Genesis is very likely” and that the Gospel expression is formed on a similar phrase in the indicated place in the book of Genesis. It is rightly noted that the exact count is not important here. As can be seen from the following parable, Jesus Christ only wanted to point out that we must forgive personal insults to our brothers an unlimited number of times. Matthew 18:23. Therefore, the Kingdom of Heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants; (On ὁμοιώθη, see comments on Matthew 13:24). The kingdom is “like” a king – a feature of speech in the parables of the Savior. The king is called a man, indicating some event in human life, then or past. The expression “to settle accounts with your servants,” used in Matthew 25:19, is considered Latinism - rationes conferre. The pure Greek expression would be different: διαλογίζεσθαι πρός τινα. By slaves here we usually mean not simple, low slaves, but courtiers - ministers, treasurers, housekeepers. They are called slaves according to eastern custom; in relation to eastern despots they had the same rights as ordinary slaves in relation to their owners. Therefore, the Gospel expression is completely accurate and picturesquely depicts the relationships characteristic of that time and quite understandable to the listeners of Christ at that time. What is told in the parable serves as an image of human relationships towards God and neighbors. By the human king here we mean God, who considers people (Is. 1:18). “God begins to count when, through sorrows and infirmities, he leads people to the bed and death.” This, however, is not the final calculation and, therefore, not identical with the one spoken of in Matthew 25:19, 2 Cor.5:10; Rev. 20:11–12, but rather similar to Luke 16:2 et seq. (Trench). Matthew 18:24. when he began to reckon, someone was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents; The huge amount of debt (12,000,000 rubles, and according to other calculations - 25,000,000 rubles) shows that this slave occupied the highest position under the tsar, was the tsar’s highest official. The fact that a person, if these physical values ​​are transferred to spiritual ones, can be such an unpaid debtor to God is out of the question. Hand on heart, everyone will say that he commits many actions for which his conscience denounces him, contrary to the moral law, and he does it every day. How many of them does he commit every week, every year and, finally, throughout his entire life? We have become so accustomed to many things that we have completely stopped noticing that they were moral crimes that were offensive to the truth of God. Matthew 18:25. and since he did not have anything to pay with, his sovereign ordered him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and everything that he had, and to pay; The rights of Roman citizens were known under the technical name caput. The slave was deprived of these rights, and this was signified by the technical formula nullum habet caput. “The slave was practically deprived of all rights; what he apparently possessed was his property more by favor than by right. He was property and could not be a subject, but only an object of law.” “The master’s rights were almost absolute. Since the slave’s property, his wife and children were also considered the property of the master, the latter could do with them as he wanted” (Trench). According to Jewish laws, slaves were in a slightly better position (Lev. 25:39–55; see also 2 Kings 4:1, etc.). Matthew 18:26. then that slave fell, and, bowing to him, said: sir! Be patient with me, and I will pay you everything. In the words “have patience with me, and I will pay you everything,” they rightly see the conceit of a slave who promises to pay a debt that he could not pay. Matthew 18:27. The Emperor, having mercy on that slave, released him and forgave him the debt. The slave's debt is not only eased, but also completely forgiven. It is an unfair opinion that the parable does not say on what basis the debt was forgiven. The main reason for this was the mercy (σπλαγχνισθείς) of the king, and then, as must be implied, his great wealth, because the huge waste obviously does not bring him any damage or concern. The parable does not speak of any mediation, intercession or guarantee for the slave. Matthew 18:28. That servant went out and found one of his companions who owed him a hundred denarii, and he grabbed him and strangled him, saying, “Give me what you owe.” The word "coming out" shows that the former actions took place in the palace or palace of the king. In a spiritual sense, perhaps a church was meant here. What is depicted in this verse could not, of course, have taken place in the palace in the presence of the king and his servants (verse 24). "Found" indicates an accident. The companion of the forgiven slave (σύνδουλος) owed him an insignificant amount, only one hundred denarii (if a denarius is equal to 20 kopecks, then 100 denarii are equal to 20 rubles, which is equal to 400 g in silver equivalent). Matthew 18:29. Then his comrade fell at his feet, begged him and said: have patience with me, and I will give you everything. Matthew 18:30. But he didn’t want to, but went and put him in prison until he paid off the debt. Matthew 18:31. His comrades, seeing what had happened, were very upset and, when they came, they told their sovereign everything that had happened. Matthew 18:32. Then his sovereign calls him and says: evil slave! I forgave you all that debt because you begged me; Matthew 18:33. Shouldn't you also have had mercy on your companion, just as I had mercy on you? Logically, absolutely correct reasoning. The one to whom a large debt is forgiven thereby undertakes to forgive small debts of others. But people are evil and in pursuit of worldly blessings they often act contrary to all logic and common sense. Therefore, what is depicted in the parable is found very often in everyday practical life. Matthew 18:34. And, angry, his sovereign handed him over to the torturers until he paid him all the debt. “The torturers represent some foreign institution and lead us to think that the action of the parable took place in one of the eastern monarchies, and not in Judea” (Trench). Rabbinical laws regarding debt collection were much more lenient compared to this apparently harsh (Roman or Herodian) debtor disposition. If someone owed the church in money or in kind, then his property could be inventoried or seized, but at the same time the debtor was left with part of the property necessary for living. This should have happened between an ordinary creditor and debtor (see Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, 1892, vol. 2, p. 295, editor's note). The Roman Catholics try to confirm their doctrine of purgatory with the words of verse 34, “as if they signified the limit beyond which punishment does not extend, but the expression is a current proverb, and it means only that the criminal must now experience the extreme severity of the law, a judgment without mercy, an endless payment of an eternal debt” (Trench). This expression of the Savior does not contain the doctrine of purgatory. But there is some difficulty here that is not easily resolved. The debt had already been forgiven by the king to the debtor, and therefore the question is proposed: utrum peccata semel dimissa redeant (sins, once forgiven, are not imputed again)? The answer to this is that the form of a parable is determined by its spiritual meaning. Whoever withdraws from the state of grace enters into a state of condemnation. Matthew 18:35. So will My Heavenly Father do to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from his heart for his sins. Immortal in its simplicity, depth, liveliness, and clarity, the parable ends with an equally immortal in its dignity practical application in the highest area - to the relationship between God and man. You might be interested in: