Глава 21

1–9. Entry of Jesus Christ into Jerusalem. – 10–17. Cleansing the church. – 18–22. Barren fig tree. – 23–27. The question of the high priests and elders about the authority of Christ and His answer to them. – 28–32. The parable of two sons. – 33–46. The parable of the evil vinedressers. Matthew 21:1. And when they drew near to Jerusalem and came to Bethphage to the Mount of Olives, then Jesus sent two disciples, (Cf. Mark 11:1; Luke 19:28–29; John 12:12). John's speech in the indicated verse has a general meaning, does not contain details that are found in weather forecasters, and refers to several events. John speaks primarily about the people coming out of Jerusalem to meet Jesus Christ. But only with the help of the Gospel of John can we more accurately determine the time when all this happened. He says that Jesus Christ came to Bethany “six days before the Passover.” True, this expression is not definite enough. If Easter 29 was Nisan 14 on Friday, then the sixth day before Easter could fall on the previous Saturday and on the day after Saturday. The first is more likely, and the circumstances told by John (John 12:2–8) about the supper arranged for Christ in Bethany and about Mary’s anointing of Him with precious myrrh are consistent with this. It was a day of rest and rest for Christ. The next day (John 12:12) the triumphal entry of Christ into Jerusalem took place. Forecasters skip here John's story about the supper in Bethany and present the matter in such a way that the Savior, as if immediately upon arriving from Jericho in Bethany, entered Jerusalem. But their story, in essence, does not contradict the testimony of John. Matthew and Mark report a supper in the house of Bethany in another place (Matthew 26:6–13; Mark 14:3–9). Why this is so will be discussed in the explanation of this section. Now we must only establish that the entry of the Lord took place on the day after Sabbath. We call it Sunday; What were the names of the days following the Sabbath among the Jews? In answer to this question, it is enough to say that the Jews did not use the names of individual days, and when necessary, they used numerals: first, second, third, etc. In the Gospels there are only indications of Saturday and Friday, the latter was, in fact, not the name of the day, but of preparations (παρασκευή) for Saturday. If Passover in the year 29 was the 14th of Nisan on Friday, then we can conclude that the Savior entered Jerusalem on the first day of the week and on the 10th day of the month of Nisan, when, according to the law (Ex. 12:3), the Jews had to prepare the Passover lamb. It is much more difficult to determine where Bethphage, mentioned by Matthew and Luke, was located. Mark does not say a word about her, mentioning only Bethany. Luke reports that Christ “approached Bethphage and Bethany, the mount called Olivet” (Luke 19:29). From this last testimony it cannot be concluded that the Savior approached first Bethphage and then Bethany. Luke expresses himself here vaguely, without observing order, listing the villages that were along the way. The information that has reached us about Bethphage is generally characterized by darkness. Some say that no trace of her remains today. It is not mentioned in the Old Testament, in the New - only here in Matthew and in the parallel of Luke (in Mark 11:1 only in a few and insignificant codices), also in the Talmud (Buxtorff, Lex. Chald. col. 1691 sq.). The word Bethphage means “house of figs,” according to Origen, it was located “near the Mount of Olives.” Origen also says that Bethphage was a “priestly place” (ἥτις τῶν ἱερέων ἦν χωρίον), and Schürer refers to his words (Geschichte, II, 297 note). In 1877 a stone with frescoes and Latin inscriptions from the 12th century was found, where, by the way, the name Bethphage is found. The stone is identical with the one mentioned by Theodoric in 1072 and Theodosius around 530 (see Zahn, 1905, S. 608–609, note 4). It can be considered reliable that Bethphage and Bethany were on the eastern side of the Mount of Olives and not far from one another. Leaving Bethany on the morning of the first day of the week, Jesus Christ sent two disciples there. It is unknown who these students were. Matthew 21:2. saying to them, Go to the village that is right in front of you; and immediately you will find a donkey tied and a colt with her; untie, bring to Me; (Cf. Mark 11:2; Luke 19:30). To which village did Jesus Christ send his disciples? According to Matthew, He arrived (ἦλθεν) in Bethphage and therefore could not send disciples to this village. According to Mark - to Bethany and, therefore, could have sent to Bethphage. According to Luke, he arrived in Bethphage and Bethany, and it remains completely unclear where he sent. The matter is somewhat clarified by John, according to whose testimony, the starting point of Christ’s journey to Jerusalem was Bethany (John 12:1ff.). But in this case, how can we understand the expressions of Matthew and Luke, according to which Christ sent the disciples from Bethphage? Was the “previous whole” the third village, or was it the same Bethphage? According to some, this refers to a village visible from the path (κατέναντι ὑμῶν), but not lying on the way, which was called Bethphage; its position cannot be determined either on the basis of the Gospels or Talmudic evidence. According to others, the name Bethphage was given, perhaps not to the village, but to the entire area where it was located. This was the “house of figs,” a place filled with fig trees. Jesus Christ, approaching a place that was a garden and was called Bethphage, could send disciples from there to the village itself. Still others explain this: it was natural if Christ, knowing what lay before Him, went to Jerusalem along the main road through the Mount of Olives. Soon after leaving Bethany (and Bethphage), He headed along the road that runs along a ravine, from where the top of Zion is visible, but the rest of Jerusalem is not visible. Just opposite the place from which Zion appears for the first time on the other side of the ravine, there are the remains of some ancient settlement. Isn’t it here that the Savior told the two disciples to go into the whole thing that was present? The main road here turns sharply to the right and gently descends into the depths of the ravine a short distance from the village, which is in ruins. Two disciples could cross the ravine straight, which could take one or two minutes, while the Savior and His companions slowly walked along the road. This last point deserves attention. It often happens that, due to different terrain conditions, the road again seems to return to the place from which it left. When the disciples were sent out, they were told that they would “immediately find a donkey tied and a colt” (colt) with her; let the disciples untie the donkey and bring her and her colt to Christ. Mark, Luke and John (John 12:14) speak only of a colt, and it is reported that no one sat on it. Let us note that Matthew has nothing here that contradicts the other evangelists. They even say that Matthew’s story here is not only more detailed, but also more accurate than that of other evangelists. But Matthew would not have mentioned, perhaps, the donkey, which was, in fact, unnecessary, if he had not further cited the prophecy (verse 4), in this case literally fulfilled in Christ. An analysis of these events will be given below. By citing the prophecy, Matthew wanted to show that the events were not random, but predicted. Justin (“Apologia”, I, 32) connects this verse with the prophecy of the book of Genesis (Gen. 49:11). In the colt, on which no one sat, they also see “significant symbolism”, which has a connection with the usual conditions of dedication to Jehovah (cf. Num. 19:2; Deut. 21:3). Matthew 21:3. and if anyone says anything to you, answer that the Lord needs them; and he will send them forthwith. (Cf. Mark 11:3; Luke 19:31). Mark and Luke again talk about the same colt. Luke leaves out “and immediately he will send them out.” If what is told in the previous verse can be considered a miracle of foresight or vision at a distance, then in what is told in the 3rd and next verses it is hardly possible to assume any miracle. The readiness of the owners of the animals to “immediately” (Matthew and Mark) is explained by the fact that the owners or owner not only knew Christ personally, but were also among His admirers. Therefore, it was enough to utter only one word “Lord” or “The Lord demands” for the owners to immediately agree to fulfill the demand. Matthew 21:4. Nevertheless this happened, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophet, who says: Matthew 21:5. Say to the daughter of Zion: Behold, your king comes to you, meek, sitting on a donkey and the colt of a donkey. (Compare John 12:15 - almost in the same connection). There was a lot of mockery at different times about these verses found in Matthew. Strauss ridiculed the evangelist's story, saying that two disciples sent by Christ to Bethphage, at His command, brought from there a donkey with a foal, the disciples laid their clothes on both animals and sat Jesus on them. When we think, says Strauss, how Jesus rode on two animals at the same time (it is impossible to talk about alternating riding on one and the other animal over a short distance), then our reason is silent, and we cannot reason until we become more familiar with the passage from the prophet quoted by the Evangelist. Anyone familiar with Hebrew poetry knows that there are no two animals being spoken of here, but one and the same thing. At first it is called a donkey, and then more closely defined as a foal. The publisher of the first Gospel knew this as well as you, but since he saw a prophecy about Christ in this place in the book of the prophet Zechariah, this time he wanted to take it literally and thought that it refers to two animals. If he thus fully justified the prediction, he thought that he had fulfilled his duty, and did not set out to find out further the question of how it was possible for the Messiah alone to travel on two donkeys. But the critic is mistaken, because if the prophecy of Zechariah does not speak of a donkey, then Matthew does not change this prophecy so as to obtain the required meaning. The Russian translation of the prophetic text ("on the donkey") of the Vulgate (super asinam) is not accurate, but in the Slavic ("on the donkey and the lot") it is accurate. In Greek ἐπὶ ὄνου - without an article, this word can be understood both in the meaning of a donkey and in the meaning of a donkey. Thus, in general, Matthew agrees with both the Hebrew and the Greek text of Zechariah 9:9. True, in the Seventy, instead of ἐπὶ ὄνου, as in Matthew, ἐπὶ ὑποζυγίου καὶ πώλου νέου was used, and this probably gave rise to the replacement of “donkey” “donkey” in the Russian translation and the Vulgate. The word ὑποζυγίου may indicate that Matthew is citing a text based on the translation of the Seventy; but his quotation differs in detail from both the Hebrew and the Greek text. From what has been said, one can see that if the evangelist wanted to confirm the Old Testament quotation from the prophet Zechariah with the help of an event that he supposedly invented, then there was no need for him to add a donkey to the colt. If he reports an event differently, then this was required of him not by a prophetic text, but by historical reality. Here was what usually happens. Just as our thought is either confirmed or corrected by reality, so a prophecy can be confirmed and corrected by it. According to the prophet, this is what should have happened, but in reality this is what happened. Reality did not at all contradict the prophecy, but the latter received a completely original and completely unexpected confirmation in it. John's testimony that it was not a ὄνος (donkey), but a little donkey (ὀνάριον - John 12:14) that was brought to Christ, clarifies all the confusion. It is clear that it was still a cub, a small donkey who had not weaned himself from his mother. She was needed, obviously, in order to force him to go. There seems to be no particularly symbolic meaning here. But the very fact that the Savior rode on a young, unbroken donkey is very interesting and characteristic. No matter how majestic the popular movement that began around Christ at that time was, He Himself was so meek that He rode not on a horse (like the conquerors) and not even on a large donkey, but on a donkey, the son of a yoke (cf. speeches about the equipment of kings Ex. 15: 1, 4; Deut. 17: 16; Ps. 19: 8; Is. 31: 1-3). Matthew 21:6. The disciples went and did as Jesus commanded them: (Cf. Mark 11:4–6; Luke 19:32–34; John 12:13). While all this was happening, a rumor spread among the people that Jesus Christ was going to Jerusalem. Comparing the expressions of the evangelists here, we find that they seem to reflect the disorder of the popular movement, which usually happens in such cases. Some go to meet the Savior, others follow Him and ahead of Him. Matthew reports only about the disciples' fulfillment of the Savior's command. Mark and Luke - about talking with different people when untying and taking a colt and a donkey. But John, already at this time, hurries towards the Savior with his welcoming choir and makes us listen to the cries of “Hosanna” (John 12:13). This is the most likely order of the Gospel events here. According to John, the popular movement from Jerusalem began due to the fact that the people knew and testified about the Savior's raising of Lazarus from the dead (John 12:17). Matthew 21:7. They brought a donkey and a colt and put their clothes on them, and He sat on top of them. (Cf. Mark 11:7; Luke 19:35; John 12:14). The disciples covered both animals with clothes because they did not know which of them Jesus Christ would sit on. "On top of them", i.e. over clothes The clothes were obviously placed instead of a saddle. Jerome directly says that this was done so that Jesus Christ “would be able to sit more softly” (ut Jesus mollius sedeat). Matthew 21:8. Many people spread their clothes along the road, while others cut branches from trees and spread them along the road; (Cf. Mark 11:8; Luke 19:36). Luke doesn't talk about branches. All this celebration was an expression of popular joy, as a result of which the people wanted to make the path as convenient as possible for the New and Great King, who was slowly entering Jerusalem. Theophylact notes: “As for the direct, historical meaning, the covering of clothes expresses great honor.” Simon Maccabeus made a similar entry “with praises, palm branches, harps, cymbals and harps, with psalms and songs” into the Jerusalem fortress (1 Maccabees 13:51; cf. 2 Kings 9:13). But then it was the triumph of the victor (“for the great enemy of Israel was crushed”), but now it was the triumph of the King, going to great and terrible suffering, the Servant of Jehovah, entering Jerusalem for the redemption of mankind. He, according to Chrysostom, often came to Jerusalem before, but never entered it so solemnly. “Of course, this could have been done from the very beginning, but it would have been unnecessary and useless.” Matthew 21:9. The people who preceded and accompanied exclaimed: Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord! Hosanna in the highest! (Cf. Mark 11:9–10; Luke 19:37–38; John 12:15–18). Luke supplements the word “Coming One” of the first two evangelists with the word “King” (ὁ βασιλεύς - so according to some readings). Compared to Mark and Luke, Matthew's speech is shortened. The Savior became the center of the popular movement. People preceded Him, accompanied Him, and followed Him. There were a lot of people gathered for Easter. There were years when, according to rough estimates, there were more than two million people in Jerusalem. The words "Hosanna" and so on. borrowed from a psalm (Ps. 117:25–26), which was probably often sung by pilgrims in Jerusalem. The psalm was part of the so-called "halleluia", or "Easter hymn". Theophylact explains the word “hosanna” this way: “According to some, it means a song or psalm, and according to others, which is more correct, save us.” The word "hosanna" is made up of two Hebrew words: "wasp" and "na." The first comes from the Hebrew word “shava” or “shua” (to be free), in piel - to seek liberation, cry for help, salvation; “on” (in German doch) strengthens the verb, expresses encouragement and request; in Russian - “save.” To better explain this word, it is necessary to distinguish between its original and later meanings. The original meaning is “give salvation”, “save”. If we keep in mind only the original meaning of the word, then the words of the evangelists should be translated as follows: “help, God, give salvation to the Son of David.” Initially, the word “hosanna” was a call, an appeal to God for help (as in Ps. 117:25), but then, due to frequent use, it lost its original meaning and became a simple greeting, completely equivalent to our “hurray,” “vive,” “hoch,” etc. Just as our “hurray” does not contain any specific meaning and is only a convenient word for expressing popular greetings, so is “hosanna.” But, having become popular, this word (“hosanna”) retained some features that were reminiscent of its original meaning. Therefore, if we cannot say “hurray in the highest,” then such a turn of phrase, on the contrary, was quite characteristic of the Jewish expression. Tsang connects the expression “in the highest” with the word “Hosanna” in a slightly different way. Ps. 149:1 says: “Praise the Lord from heaven, praise Him in the highest” (in Hebrew – “bamromim”), and the same Hebrew expression is used in Job (Job 16:19, 25:2, 31:2). In the Gospel of the Hebrews, as Jerome testifies, more than once (in a letter to Pope Damasus and a commentary on the Gospel of Matthew) it appeared in verse 9, osanna borrama (corrupted Hebrew “bamromim”). Thus, the people's cry was as much a greeting to the Savior as a request to God who lives in the highest. The meaning of the whole expression: save or save, O God, the Son of David. The Greeks and Romans used the shouts ἰὴ παιάν and io triumphe instead of “Hosanna” or our “Hurray.” The expression ὁ ἐρχόμενος “coming”, which in Luke is replaced by ὁ βασιλεύς “King”, was the then name of the Messiah. The people called Christ the King or the Messiah, combining with these names earthly ideas about the conquering king and conqueror of nations. The people at that time could not understand the true meaning of the word Messiah. But the welcomed King differed from ordinary conquering kings in that he came in the name of the Lord, like the best and pious kings of the Jews. “In the name of the Lord” - this expression should be put in connection with ὁ ἐρχόμενος, and not with εὐλογημένος. Similar expressions were often heard from the lips of the people during the Feast of Tabernacles. Matthew 21:10. And when He entered Jerusalem, the whole city began to stir and said: Who is this? Before this, Luke tells about the Pharisees who told Christ to forbid His disciples to greet Him, about Christ’s response to the Pharisees and about the lamentation over Jerusalem (Luke 19:39–44). Other evangelists, including John, skip Luke's story. But Matthew speaks in more detail than Mark and Luke about the events of the cleansing of the church and the miracles of Christ performed there (verses 12-17). When the Savior entered Jerusalem, the whole city “set into motion.” He was not yet known to all residents of Jerusalem and pilgrims. Therefore, many asked: who is this? Matthew 21:11. And the people said: This is Jesus, the Prophet of Nazareth of Galilee. Theophylact notes: “The ingenuous and simple people did not envy Christ, but at the same time they did not have the proper concept of Him.” However, since the word “Prophet” here comes with an article (ὁ προφήτης), it can be understood that the people meant the expected Prophet, i.e. The same one about whom Moses said: “The Lord God will raise up for you a prophet” (Deut. 18:15). Not only is it possible, but it should be. The people may have had limited ideas about the Messiah. But that he saw in the solemn entry of Christ the entry of the expected Messiah, it is impossible to doubt, because the goal of Christ now was precisely the public announcement of Himself as the Messiah, but not in the narrow sense of the earthly King, but in the broadest and deepest sense - the Servant of Jehovah, although this was not entirely clear to the people. Matthew 21:12. And Jesus entered the church of God and drove out all those who were selling and buying in the church, and overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves, (Cf. Mark 11:15–16; Luke 19:45). It is very difficult to determine exactly the order of the stories of the four evangelists. Approximately it can be done like this. First, Christ’s conversation with the Greek proselytes and the Savior’s speech on this matter, which is reported only by John (John 12:20–36). Then there was what the evangelist Matthew talks about next (verses 14-16). Mark confines himself here to only a very brief remark that “Jesus entered Jerusalem and into the church” (Mark 11:11). The end of John 12:36 shows that after a conversation with Greek proselytes, Jesus Christ “hidden himself from them,” that is, most likely from the people. John's speech (John 12:37–50) can be considered the evangelist's own reasoning regarding the miracles of Christ recounted in Matthew (Matthew 21:14–16). Matthew 21:17 corresponds to Mark 11:11 (end). If so, then the Savior, after the miracles performed in the church, retired to Bethany, and this ended the events of the first day of the Jewish week, in our opinion Week of Vay. Matthew's account in verses 12-13, when compared with Mark's account, undoubtedly refers to the next day, i.e. to the second day of the Jewish week, or, in our opinion, Monday. This, however, does not mean that Matthew here shortened the time of successive events by one day, as they are distributed in Mark and Luke. The weather forecasters talk about almost identical events, but Matthew talks about them somewhat artificially and not in the chronological order in which they actually happened. When Monday (the second day) arrived, in the morning there was a curse on the fig tree (verses 18-19; Mark 11:12-14), and only after that the cleansing of the church took place. In our further presentation we will follow the order of Matthew. The cleansing of the Jerusalem temple by Christ is spoken of here for the second time. The first cleansing was told by John (John 2:13–22). The events told by the evangelists are so similar that they gave rise not only to accusations of the evangelists of so-called overexposure, but also to mockery and mockery because they completely mixed up the same event, attributing it either to the beginning of the ministry of Christ (John) or to the end (the weather forecasters). Such objections were apparently made not only in modern times, but also in antiquity, and caused refutations. So, discussing this fact, Chrysostom claims that there were two cleansings, and at different times. This is clear both from the circumstances of the time and from the response of the Jews to Jesus. John says that this happened on the feast of Easter, and Matthew says that this happened long before Easter. There the Jews say: “By what sign will you prove to us that you have the power to do this?” (John 2:18). And here they are silent, although Christ reproached them - they are silent because everyone was already amazed at Him. Many ancient and modern exegetes agree with the opinion expressed by John Chrysostom (with the exception, of course, of negative critics, and only a few). The opinion that the evangelists here are talking about the same event is currently held by few. In fact, neither the weather forecasters nor the evangelist John could mistakenly mix up such an important event as the cleansing of the church. The latter is quite suitable for both the beginning and the end of the ministry of the Messiah. The initial cleansing could make a strong impression on both the leaders and the people, but then, as usually happens everywhere, the abuses developed again and became flagrant. The second cleansing is put in a barely noticeable connection with the hatred of the leaders of the church, which led to the condemnation and crucifixion of Christ. One can even say that nothing more contributed to such an end than the fact that the Savior by His act greatly affected various property interests associated with the church, because it is known that there is nothing more difficult and dangerous than the fight against thieves and robbers. And not being a priest, the Savior, of course, did not now enter the church itself. It is not even known whether He entered the court of men. The scene of events was undoubtedly the court of the pagans. This is indicated by the very expression used here by all weather forecasters, τὸ ἱερόν (the addition θεοῦ is not found here in other places; it was made for special expressiveness), which, in contrast to ὁ ναός, or the temple building itself, denoted all temple buildings in general, including the courtyard of the pagans. Trade could only take place in the courtyard of the pagans, which is expressed through πωλοῦντας καὶ ἀγοράζοντας ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ in Matthew and Mark. Sacrificial animals, incense, oil, wine and other paraphernalia of church worship were sold here. Here stood the “tables of the moneychangers” - κολλυβιστῶν, a word found in the New Testament in John 2:15 and only here in Matthew and Mark. Traders (κολλυβισταί), according to Theophylact and Zigavin, are the same as money changers (τραπεζῖται), and κόλλυβος is a cheap coin like an obol or a piece of silver. They were also called (according to Zigavin) καταλλάκται (money changers). As for the benches (καθέδρας), some thought that they were placed in the courtyard of the pagans for the women or were brought by them themselves, as if they were mainly engaged in selling doves. But in the Gospel text there is no hint of women, but rather men can be assumed here, because the participle of “selling” (τῶν πωλούντων) in Matthew and Mark is masculine. The matter is simply explained by the fact that the “benches” or benches were needed for cages with pigeons, and therefore they stood in the church. Hilary gives an interesting allegorical interpretation here. By the dove he means the Holy Spirit, and by the pew he means the priest’s pulpit. “Consequently, Christ overthrows the pulpits of those who sell the gift of the Holy Spirit.” All these merchants were “expelled” (ἐξέβαλεν) from the church by Christ, but “meekly” (tamen mansuetus - Bengel). It was a miracle. Even numerous warriors (magnum miraculum. Multi milites non ausuri fuerant, - Bengel) would not have dared to do such an act. Matthew 21:13. and he said to them, “It is written, My house will be called a house of prayer.” and you made it a den of robbers. (Cf. Mark 11:17; Luke 19:46). The expressions in the above quote, taken from Is.56:7 and Jer.7:11, are different for all weather forecasters. From Isaiah 56:7 only the last part of the verse is borrowed here, which in Hebrew represents a very insignificant difference from the LXX, and, moreover, only in the arrangement of words. Translated from Hebrew (literally): “for My house, a house of prayer, will be called for all nations.” The Seventy: “For my house will be called a house of prayer for all nations.” The quotations from Isaiah in Matthew and Mark are literally similar to the Seventy's translation, but Luke's is very different from both the Seventy and the Hebrew. Matthew's quotation from Isaiah is not complete; he omits the words “for all nations,” like Luke, and Mark adds these words. The omission from Matthew and Luke is very interesting in the sense that they released these words, perhaps not by accident, but because it seemed factually incorrect to them that the church was a house of prayer “for all nations” or, which is almost the same thing, “for the Gentiles.” Mark here allegedly overstepped his bounds and “took the quotation too far.” As for the second part of the quotation, only two words were taken from Jeremiah 7:11: “den of thieves”, in Hebrew “hash yarat naritsim”, according to the Greek text of the Seventy, just like all the weather forecasters, σπήλαιον λῃστῶν. How and in what sense could the church be called a “den of robbers”? If only fraudulent trade took place in the church, then it would be more convenient to call it a cave of thieves (κλέπται), rather than of robbers. To explain the expression “den of thieves,” it should be said that the strong speech of Christ was determined here by the strong speech of the prophet, and the latter puts his expression in an obvious connection with the shedding of innocent blood (Jer. 7:6), thefts, murders and adultery (Jer. 7:9). But if the Savior applied this prophecy to the then state of the church, then one must think that not only the prophecy, but also reality itself provided grounds for this. The high priests were corrupt and immoral people. They were engaged in trade themselves. “The market at the church and the bazaars of Anna’s sons were one and the same.” “Three years before the destruction of Jerusalem, the indignant people destroyed the bazaars of the sons of Anna.” The characteristic of the members of the high priestly family was vicious greed, which both Josephus and the rabbis depict in terrible, dark colors (see Edersheim. The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah. Vol. 1, p. 469 et seq.). “Den of Thieves” characterizes the church customs of that time. Therefore, Luther, not without reason, instead of “den of thieves” put “Mördergrube” - den of murderers (the newest German translators say Höhle von Räubern). Matthew 21:14. And the blind and the lame came to Him in the church, and He healed them. Matthew 21:15. When the high priests and scribes saw the miracles that He performed, and the children shouting in the church and saying: Hosanna to the Son of David! - were indignant “Miracles” (θαυμάσια) is a word used only here in the New Testament, but often among the Greeks and in the translation of the Seventy. This word has a more general meaning than qaama (miracle). It is not a noun, but an adjective; with a neuter article in the plural has the meaning of a noun. One can mean ἔργα, i.e. amazing deeds (θαυμάσια ἔργα). Matthew 21:16. and they said to Him, Do you hear what they say? Jesus says to them: Yes! Have you never read: from the mouths of babes and sucklings You have ordained praise? Literally from Hebrew: “from the mouths of babes and sucklings You have created (founded, justified) power (in the Russian Bible - “praise”) for the sake of Your enemies,” etc. In the Seventy: “from the mouths of dumb (νηπίων) and breastfeeding I will make praise (song of praise – αἶνον) for the sake of Your enemies,” etc. Matthew's words are literally similar to the translation of the Seventy. Here the Old Testament prophecy comes close to the New Testament event, and the purpose of this rapprochement was, on the one hand, to prove the strength and power of Christ before His enemies, and on the other, to expose them. If even children, foolish and little understanding, joined in the shouts of praise, then all the more should the high priests and scribes have done so. Matthew 21:17. And leaving them, he went out of the city to Bethany and spent the night there. Ancient interpreters understood the verse literally in the sense that the Savior went to Bethany and spent the night there in the house of Lazarus. Jerome notes: “The Savior was so poor and flattered anyone so little that in a very large city he did not find any hospitality, no place to stay, but found all this in a small village with Lazarus and his sisters, because they lived precisely in Bethany.” Many modern exegetes agree with this opinion. Indeed, the evangelists Matthew and Mark would have no need to point to Bethany if they did not want to say that the night was spent in the house of Lazarus. This assumption is all the more likely because the nights at that time were cold, as is often the case in Palestine (cf. Mark 14:54; Luke 22:55). Finally, the word ἐκεῖ is quite definite and may indicate that Jesus Christ spent the night in the house of Lazarus. Whether this was the last night in Bethany, or whether Christ still came there during Holy Week, nothing can be said about this. Bethany was located near Jerusalem. It is not mentioned in the Old Testament, at least by that name, but it appears in the Talmud. It is located on the road to Jericho from Jerusalem, on the eastern side of the Mount of Olives. Now this is a miserable village called El-Azaria, i.e. village of Lazar. It shows the tomb of Lazarus and the collapsed house where he allegedly lived. In the New Testament Bethany is mentioned here and in Matthew 26:6; Mark 11:1, Mark 11:11–12, Mark 14:3; Luke 19:29, 24:50; John 11:1, 18, 12:1. Matthew 21:18. In the morning, returning to the city, he became hungry; Christ's hunger is explained by the fact that He spent the whole night in prayer and fasting (but is it possible to think that He was not treated to food in Bethany). Matthew 21:19. and seeing a fig tree along the road, he approached it and, finding nothing on it except some leaves, said to it: Let there be no fruit from you henceforth forever. And the fig tree immediately withered. Mark talks about this miracle somewhat differently than Matthew, and adds that the time (not for picking, but) for the figs to ripen has not yet come, i.e. The figs could not yet become ripe and edible at this time. But both evangelists here clearly notice that there were not even unripe fruits on the fig tree, but only leaves. This shows that the condition of the tree was already abnormal in itself, that it was in danger of death, and probably in the same year. Similar circumstances are known to all gardeners. Sick and doomed fruit trees usually do not bear fruit, although they are covered with leaves. Ancient interpreters explained the event in an allegorical sense, by fig tree meaning the synagogue, the Jewish people, Jerusalem, etc. (Origen and others). John Chrysostom, Theophylact and Euthymius Zigavin explained the miracle in the sense that it was punitive. From the Gospels, they said, it is not clear that Christ ever punished or punished people, but over the fig tree He shows His power, wanting to show the disciples that He possesses it; and if necessary, He could easily punish His enemies. Disciples, therefore, should not be afraid of anything and be brave (ἵνα θαρρῶσιν - Chrysostom). Matthew 21:20. Seeing this, the disciples were surprised and said: How did the fig tree immediately wither? This event is attributed to the third day of the Jewish week (in our opinion, Tuesday) and, apparently, not without sufficient reason. Evangelist Mark, having talked about the expulsion of merchants from the church and that the scribes and high priests were looking for how to destroy Christ (Mark 11:15-18), adds: “When it became late, He went out of the city.” In essence, Luke’s story also agrees with Mark’s story (Luke 19:45–48). Then Mark notes: “in the morning” (πρωΐ, i.e. very early), “passing by, (the disciples) saw that the fig tree was withered to the root” (Mark 11:20). This and subsequent verses of Mark coincide with those analyzed and subsequent verses of Matthew. On this basis, it can be assumed with high probability that the events described here did not take place on the day when the fig tree was cursed, but on the next, and in this sense Matthew’s expression “immediately” (παραχρῆμα) should be interpreted. Although this word indicates suddenness and speed, it is not visible from anywhere that the disciples noticed that the fig tree began to dry up either immediately after the words of Christ, or on the way back from Jerusalem. They noticed this the next day early in the morning, and the word “immediately” must therefore be understood in the sense of the previous day and night. The drying up of the fig tree did not happen instantly, but so quickly that the very next day one could notice its death. It was a miracle, as indicated by the word ἐθαύμασαν. Matthew 21:21. Jesus answered and said to them, “Truly I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what was done to the fig tree, but if you also say to this mountain, “Be taken up and thrown into the sea,” it will happen. It is remarkable that in His answer to the disciples the Savior does not say a word about the withered fig tree. But that He considers the action performed on her a miracle is evident from the fact that, according to Him, similar miracles can be a consequence of faith. On the relocation of mountains, see comments on Matthew 17:20. Matthew 21:22. and whatever you ask in prayer with faith, you will receive. The Savior's words have approximately the same meaning here as in Matthew 7:7. Matthew 21:23. And when He came into the church and taught, the chief priests and the elders of the people came to Him and said: By what authority are You doing this? and who gave you such power? (Cf. Mark 11:27–28; Luke 20:1–2). As we have seen, this event must be attributed to Tuesday, when Christ returned to Jerusalem. He walked in the church building (περιπατοῦντος αὐτοῦ – Mark) and taught (Matthew and Luke). At this time, according to Matthew, the chief priests and elders approached Him, and according to Mark and Luke, also the scribes. One must think that this was an official deputation from the Sanhedrin. Chrysostom says: “They asked the Evangelist John a similar question, although not in the same words, but in the same sense (John 2:18).” The leaders of the church do not ask for signs now, as at the first cleansing of the church (John 2:18), because at that time Christ was not yet known as the Great Wonderworker. But now He has already performed many signs, which also come under the general expression ταῦτα. Matthew 21:24. Jesus answered and said to them: I will also ask you one thing; If you tell Me about this, then I will tell you by what authority I do this; (Cf. Mark 11:29; Luke 20:3). The Savior does not give a direct answer to the leaders’ question. He answers with a counter-question, the answer to which depended on the solution to the question proposed by the high priests and elders. Instead of answering the leaders’ question Himself, He offers to answer it for them. “I’ll ask you one thing” (λόγον ἕνα) - I’ll give you one question, I’ll say only a few words, no more. Matthew 21:25. Where did John's baptism come from: from heaven, or from men? They reasoned among themselves: if we say: from heaven, then He will tell us: why didn’t you believe him? (Cf. Mark 11:30–31; Luke 20:4–5). When John preached and baptized, the authorities sent priests and Levites to interrogate who he was (John 1:19 et seq.). This, in essence, amounted to the question of what authority he was doing this and who gave him this authority. John's answer was, of course, known to the Jews. It was given not so much in word as in deed. John's holy life and, in general, all his activities testified that he was sent from God. But this messenger of God testified about Jesus Christ as the Lamb of God, “Who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). From here it was clear with what authority Christ “does this” and who gave Him this authority: it was received not from people, not from high priests, scribes, elders, but from God Himself. Therefore, Christ’s question, proposed in this form, led the church leaders into difficulty. The circumstance that they “discussed among themselves” shows that they did not immediately answer Christ’s question. They approached Him while He was teaching and confronted Him with the issue of authority publicly. He, for His part, proposed the question to them also publicly. After this, they departed from Him and began to consult together, just as different political parties consult among themselves. None of this would have been necessary if the Savior had not been surrounded by people. During their meeting, the Savior, as must be assumed, continued to speak to the people. The subject of the meeting of the leaders was the question: is John's baptism from heaven? By baptism here we mean all of his activities and embassy. They are named here according to the main sign of his activity and preaching - baptism. Matthew 21:26. and if we say: from men, we are afraid of the people, for everyone reveres John as a prophet. (Cf. Mark 11:32; Luke 20:6). After the words “from men,” the so-called “aposiopesis” is suggested here - incomplete speech, or silence, used for the sake of brevity. The full speech would be: “if we say: John’s baptism was from men, then “all the people will stone us” (Luke), and we are afraid of the people.” This fear was partly in vain, because the people would hardly have dared to raise their hands against people who were under the protection of the Romans. But, on the other hand, a different turn was possible with eastern hot temper and quick irritability. If not now, then at another time one could be afraid of popular irritation, and the bosses did not want to arouse the latter, especially in view of a strong enemy. Thus, in the words of Christ’s enemies there was revealed a mixture, as they say, of subjective fear with objective fear. If the leaders of the church had given a direct and correct answer, then Christ could have asked them: quare ergo non estis baptizati a Joanne? (why didn’t you accept the baptism of John? - Jerome). Matthew 21:27. And they answered Jesus: We do not know. He also said to them: And I will not tell you by what authority I do this. (Cf. Mark 11:33; Luke 20:7–8). The scribes' response was popular. How could they say, “We don’t know,” when all the people knew that John was a prophet? Why did the chief priests and elders fear stoning for other answers, but not for this one? This can be explained, firstly, by the fact that they wanted, so to speak, and for their part to find out what Christ Himself would say about this in front of the people, and, secondly, by the fact that on the part of the leaders of the church there was a critical attitude towards the disciples and the activities of John. The people were convinced that John was a prophet. But, as one must assume, the church leaders tried for a long time and carefully to dissuade the people from this. With the help of various political techniques they managed to achieve this, but not completely. They only achieved that they instilled doubts in the people about the activities and teachings of John; perhaps they caused many of the people to waver in their opinions about John. “From heaven and from men” - these were two opposite poles in assessing the teachings and activities of John, positive and negative. If the answer was positive, one would expect a nationwide denunciation on the part of Christ; if the answer was negative, stoning would be expected. Therefore, the bosses very carefully choose the middle path, they do not want to say directly either yes or no. John may be a prophet, but perhaps he is not a prophet. This middle path was false, they lied. If they were internally convinced that John was a prophet or not a prophet, then they should have said so directly. In His answer Christ does not tell them that He does not know. Οὐκ εἶπεν, οὐδὲ ἐγὼ οὐκ οἶδα ἀλλὰ τί; οὐδὲ λέγω ὑμῖν (“Christ did not say to them: neither do I know; but what then? And I will not tell you,” St. John Chrysostom). Matthew 21:28. What do you think? One man had two sons; and he, approaching the first, said: son! Go today and work in my vineyard. The first question when considering this parable is whether it has any relation, and what exactly, to the previous words of Christ? Or is this a new speech and a new denunciation? The answer should be given in the sense that it does, as can be seen especially from the 31st and 32nd verses. But this attitude and this connection were expressed so subtly that the enemies of Christ could not immediately understand where this was going, who the parable was referring to, and what connection it had with the previous speech. In the speech of Christ, spoken in verses 27-28 and the following, it is difficult and even impossible to assume any break. The parable, set forth only in Matthew, is completely in its place here, and cannot be artificially transferred somewhere else. Whether the son to whom the father first addressed the request was the eldest or the youngest is unknown. Matthew 21:29. But he answered: I don’t want to; and then, repenting, he left. The son's words did not agree with the deeds. In words, he answered his father negatively and even rudely. But then he changed his mind, he began to feel ashamed that he had not listened to his father, and, without saying a single word about it, he went to work in the vineyard. Matthew 21:30. And going up to the other, he said the same thing. This one said in response: I’m going, sir, but I didn’t go. After the first son’s (verbal) refusal, the father had to approach the second son and ask him to go to the vineyard to work. Here are depicted such simple everyday relationships that happen often and are understandable to everyone. The second son verbally expresses his readiness to fulfill his father’s will, but in reality does not fulfill it. Instead of “I go” in the Greek text, “I, lord” (ἐγὼ κύριε) is an ellipsis, or shortened speech, the meaning of which is quite clear. Matthew 21:31. Which of the two fulfilled the will of his father? They tell Him: first. Jesus said to them: Truly I say to you, tax collectors and harlots are going into the kingdom of God ahead of you, The high priests and elders said to Christ: “first.” So according to the best codes and readings. The first one was not unconditionally right, but compared to his brother, he was right. By the first and second sons we should understand not Jews and pagans, but tax collectors and harlots and high priests. And to the high priests, elders and general leaders of the Jews, on the one hand, and to publicans and harlots, on the other hand, the call was sent to the vineyard. But here John’s voice seems to merge with the earlier call from the Father through the prophets. John and Christ Himself were the last persons to call into the vineyard. The leaders, being religious people, responded to this call, but did not actually go; The tax collectors and harlots refused; the call initially seemed strange to them, but then they went. Matthew 21:32. For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the harlots believed him; But you, having seen this, did not repent afterwards to believe him. A reminder of the historical ministry and activity of John, which has a connection with verse 24 and, as it were, rounds out the thoughts presented after this verse. By “the way of righteousness” we should understand an image, a way, a custom, a method. They didn’t believe him - they didn’t believe what he said and preached. “The Lord applies the answer of the rulers to their own conduct by way of opposition. They said that the son fulfilled the will of his father, who, at first not wanting to go, then went into the vineyard. But the Baptist came as a preacher of righteousness, calling people to go to the vineyard of God through repentance, and they did not heed his preaching. In this respect they were like the first son of the parable, who said: I will not go. But, unlike him, they later did not repent and did not obey the call of the Baptist. On the other hand, the publicans and harlots were also like the first son, but they changed their minds when John preached and obeyed his call. Thus, publicans and harlots go forward into the Kingdom of God.” The meaning of the second part of the verse in question seems to be this: but you, having seen all this, did not care, after the publicans and harlots believed, to believe John. Theophylact says: “And now many make a vow to God and the Father to become monks or priests, but after the vow they do not maintain zeal, and others did not make a vow about the monastic or priestly life, but spend their lives as monks or priests, so that they turn out to be obedient children, since they fulfill the will of the Father, although they did not promise anything.” Matthew 21:33. Listen to another parable: there was a certain owner of a house who planted a vineyard, surrounded it with a fence, dug a winepress in it, built a tower, and, having given it to winegrowers, went away. (Cf. Mark 12:1; Luke 20:9). Not only the thoughts of this parable, but also the expressions are very similar to what is said by the prophet Isaiah (Is. 5: 1–7). Isaiah 5:2 says: “And He (My Beloved) surrounded it (the vineyard) with a fence, and cleared it of stones, and planted choice vines in it, and built a tower in the midst of it, and dug a winepress in it, and expected it to bear good grapes, but it brought forth wild berries.” All the images used in the parable are borrowed from real life so much And just as it was from the prophecy, so it was in the past, where vineyards were cultivated, so it is now. Matthew 21:34. When the time for fruit approached, he sent his servants to the vinedressers to take their fruit; (Cf. Mark 12:2; Luke 20:10). Sent slaves are understood as prophets. Mark and Luke have the singular: sent “servant” or “slave.” Matthew 21:35. the winegrowers seized his servants, beat some, killed others, and stoned others. (Cf. Mark 12:3; Luke 20:10). Theophylact says: “The sent slaves are prophets, who were variously insulted by the winegrowers, i.e. contemporary prophets are false prophets and false teachers, unworthy leaders of the people. They beat some, as, for example, King Zedekiah hit the prophet Micah on the cheek; others were killed: for example, Zechariah was killed between the church and the altar; others were stoned, such as Zechariah, the son of Jehoiada the high priest.” Mark and Luke talk alternately about several slaves. Matthew speaks of many at once. Analogies to the behavior of evil winegrowers can be found in other places of Scripture (Neh.9:26; Matt.23:31-37; Heb.11:36-38; see also 1 Kings 18:13, 19:14, 22:24-27; 2 Kings 6:31; 2 Chronicles 24:19-22, 36:15-16; Jer.20:1–2, 37:15, 38:6, etc.). Matthew 21:36. Again he sent other servants, more than before; and they did the same to them. (Cf. Mark 12:4–5; Luke 20:11–12). “More” in number, but not “more honorable.” In Mark and Luke, what is, so to speak, concentrated in Matthew is presented more separately and in more detail. Matthew 21:37. Finally, he sent his son to them, saying: They will be ashamed of my son. (Cf. Mark 12:6; Luke 20:13). If by “owner” we mean God, then these words are obviously not entirely applicable to Him. Here there seems to be an error in calculation, a failure to fulfill hope, ignorance of the true character of the winegrowers and their intentions. All this is explained by the fact that here “the Lord represents His Heavenly Father as reasoning like a man” (Alford). Matthew 21:38. But the vinedressers, seeing their son, said to each other: This is the heir; Let's go, kill him and take possession of his inheritance. (Cf. Mark 12:7; Luke 20:14). The expression “let us go, let us kill him” (δεῦτε ἀποκτείνωμεν αὐτόν) is the same as that found in Genesis 37:20 (according to the translation of the Seventy) about the intention of Joseph’s brothers to kill him. Matthew 21:39. And they seized him, took him out of the vineyard and killed him. (Cf. Mark 12:8; Luke 20:15). Luke's order of actions for the evil vinedressers is similar to that of Matthew, but according to Mark's account, the vinedressers first killed the sent son (in the vineyard) and then threw his body out of there. The record of what the Savior said in Matthew is considered more ancient and original. But it is hardly possible to agree with the opinion that, relating these facts to the history of the Savior’s suffering and having them in mind, Matthew wanted to indicate here that Jesus Christ was crucified outside the city. Luke expresses himself in the same sense. To this we can simply answer that Mark’s special expressions also apply to the story of suffering. Matthew 21:40. So, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do with these vinedressers? (Cf. Mark 12:9; Luke 20:15). Matthew's speech is more complete than that of the other evangelists. “The Lord asks them not because he does not know what they will answer, but so that they condemn themselves by their own answer” (Jerome). Matthew 21:41. They say to Him: These evildoers will be put to an evil death, and the vineyard will be given to other vinedressers, who will give him the fruit in their own time. (Cf. Mark 12:9; Luke 20:16). Mark and Luke omit the words that are considered especially important here: “they say to Him.” It is difficult to imagine that the enemies of Christ themselves said this and thus condemned themselves. The parable was probably spoken before the people, the interview was public (cf. verse 26). Perhaps this answer was given by the people themselves instead of the high priests and elders. However, some think that the answer could have been given by them, because they did not guess what conclusion would be drawn from here. But the strong expression κακοὺς κακῶς found here indicates the opposite. Further, who gave the answer can be judged from the Gospel of Luke, according to which not everyone who listened to Christ agreed with this answer and some added: μὴ γένοιτο (“let it not be”; equivalent to our “God forbid”). The expression itself κακοὺς κακῶς (in Russian translation is not accurate; in Slavic - “evil evil”) is a classical Greek expression similar to λαμπρὸς λαμπρῶς, μεγάλοι μεγάλως, etc., not literally translated into modern Russian. The last “theirs” (αὐτῶν; in Russian translation – “theirs”) refers to fruits. “In its own time” - in a timely manner, without delay, when the fruits ripen and are harvested. They think that this contains a prediction about the destruction of Jerusalem. Matthew 21:42. Jesus says to them: Have you never read in the Scriptures: the stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner? Is this from the Lord, and is it marvelous in our eyes? (Cf. Mark 12:10–11; Luke 20:17). What stone are we talking about here? The words are borrowed from the post-captivity psalm (Ps. 118:22–23) and, in pronouncing them, the psalmist may have had in mind some actual fact known to him and others that happened during construction, but which one is completely unknown. Some said that it was during the construction of some Egyptian pyramid, others - the second temple in Jerusalem. These are all unfounded assumptions. The connection of the verse under consideration with the previous ones will be more understandable if by the stone placed at the head of the corner we mean Christ Himself, sent by God to accept the fruits they collected from the vinedressers. They killed the Son of God, but He, like the stone of Daniel, not only became the foundation of a new vineyard - the Church, but will also fill the whole earth (Dan. 2:35). Matthew 21:43. Therefore I tell you that the Kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people bearing the fruits thereof; This idea has already been explained with the help of a parable, and the words of Christ in this verse are the conclusion drawn from it. They had such a clear relationship with the Jewish leaders that the latter could not help but understand them. There were no fruits among the Jewish people, who fell under the influence of evil winegrowers. Therefore, the vineyard will be taken away from both the Jewish leaders and the Jewish people themselves, and all this will be transferred to such a people (without an article or a precise definition) who bear the fruits of the Kingdom of Heaven. Matthew 21:44. and whoever falls on this stone will be broken, and whoever it falls on will be crushed. This verse from Matthew is considered inauthentic and borrowed from Luke. This insertion, according to Merckx, falls at a time after Origen to Jerome, from approximately 250 to 380. However, some consider the verse to be genuine, finding in it a reference to Is. 8:14-15 and Dan. 2:44. But if the verse were genuine, it would probably be placed after verse 42, which talks about the stone. Since it is inserted after verse 43, the speech with such an insertion obviously does not have the proper connection. Matthew 21:45. And when the chief priests and Pharisees heard His parables, they understood that He was speaking about them, (Compare Mark 12:12 (end); Luke 20:19 (end)). Mark and Luke have a slightly different order of events than Matthew. The reference here is to Christ's parables about the two sons and the workers in the vineyard. Matthew 21:46. and they tried to seize Him, but they were afraid of the people, because they considered Him to be a Prophet. (Cf. Mark 12:12; Luke 20:19). The motive for the beginning of hostile actions against Christ was mainly His last strong accusatory speeches directed against the leaders. They would like to immediately carry out their plans and seize Him. But there was an important obstacle to this - the people who considered Jesus Christ to be a prophet. You might be interested in: