Глава 23

1–36. A diatribe against the scribes and Pharisees. – 36–39. Prediction about the fate of Jerusalem. Matthew 23:1. Then Jesus began to speak to the people and His disciples (Cf. Mark 12:38; Luke 20:45.) One can assume and even say with confidence that the Savior’s accusatory speech against the scribes and Pharisees was delivered immediately after the question He proposed about Christ (Matthew 22:42). All three evangelists connect it with this issue. In Matthew, the denunciations of Christ are presented more fully than in other synoptics, and in the latter some parts of the speech are presented in a different connection, as said under other circumstances. This leads some to consider the entire 23rd chapter of Matthew to be an “artificial composition” of the evangelist himself, who here combined speeches delivered by Christ at different times, like the Sermon on the Mount. It’s hard to say what it really was like. Nothing prevents us from thinking that Christ sometimes repeated His speeches. The view of Christ’s speech as an “artificial composition” does not in the least prevent the most reasonable, even negative critics, from fully recognizing the words of Christ as authentic, truly coming from the mouth of the Messiah Himself. This can already be seen from the fact that, despite all its simplicity and artlessness, His speech in its content and thoughts is higher not only than the concepts of that time, but also of any time. If not theoretical, then at least a practical understanding of it is not always characteristic even of Christians living at the present time. And now one can hear that the hypocrisy exposed in it is sometimes not only unnecessary, but even necessary. If, for example, in his inner content a person is nothing more than a “lowered coffin,” then, at least outwardly, he should not seem like that out of simple fear of causing temptation in others. Hence the numerous and varied counterfeits that make it possible for people to appear pious and religious even when they are alien to any piety and religiosity, starting from Catholic and Jesuit “pious exercises” and formalities and ending with the antics of the petty, low, vulgar, superstitious and ignorant bigot, who constantly puts all kinds of external ritual and religious decorum above the inner spiritual qualities of a person, above judgment, mercy and faith ( Matthew 23:23). But let us return to the question of the authenticity of the speech. “The whole speech,” says Meyer, “is distinguished by such liveliness and originality that the authenticity of its essential content, even if something was added to it from what was said at another time, can hardly be doubted.” Some recent commentators are even more emphatic than Meyer, arguing that “this speech should be considered a primary historical source. It clearly and concisely depicts not only the essence of Pharisaism, but it also casts a clear light on the very Person of Jesus Christ. Because, expressing strong denunciations against His opponents, He reveals here His own Personality, whose main property was love for truth” (Weiss). The fact that Jesus Christ made the subject of His accusatory speech in the very last days of His earthly ministry precisely hypocrisy, so clearly expressed in such works as the Talmud, exegetes usually do not pay attention, without at all asking the question why it was so and why the Messiah did not end His sermon by denouncing any other vices characteristic of people, for example, “evil thoughts, murders, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, blasphemy,” etc. (Matthew 15:19; Mark 7:21–22). If the Messiah who came into the world spoke so menacingly about hypocrisy in His last accusatory speech, this means that hypocrisy is one of the main human vices and the source of all other lawlessness. It is not difficult to check this in practice. From numerous examples we see that where false, ostentatious piety is established, the presence of all kinds of evil should always be assumed. And this is understandable. By committing ordinary crimes, a person deceives people; in religious hypocrisy, he tries to deceive not only people, but also God Himself with his ostentatious and false piety, and this alone testifies to the cessation of all religious life, the loss of all good spiritual qualities and all good feelings. Not a single vice leads to such colossal absurdities, obscenities and such immorality as hypocrisy. We do not find that in Christ’s speech it is necessary to distinguish between individual moments when He addressed either only the people, or the disciples, or the scribes and Pharisees themselves. Similar testimonies of Matthew and Luke (Matthew 23:1; Luke 20:45) indicate that Christ spoke only to the people and disciples (τοῖς ὄχλοις καὶ τοῖς μαθηταῖς – Matthew; (Luke), but not to the scribes and Pharisees. This did not in the least prevent Him from speaking almost exclusively about them. All preachers do this, exposing the vices of even completely absent persons for the edification of their closest listeners. But with this view, the division of the entire accusatory speech into three parts, of which the first speaks of the scribes and Pharisees in their opposition to the disciples of Christ (verses 1-12), the second exposes the hypocrisy of the Pharisees and scribes (verses 13-36), and the last part constitutes the conclusion (verses 37-39), can be accepted. It cannot be thought that verses 13–33 were spoken in the absence of the Pharisees or that the entire speech was said when the enemies were released (omissis adversariis - Bengel). Chrysostom understands the matter more correctly, saying that the speech was delivered not after the absolution of the enemies, but when the Savior “finished His conversation with the Pharisees, when He stopped their mouths, when He brought them to the point that they no longer dared to tempt Him, when He showed that they were suffering from an incurable illness.” The abbreviations in Luke's speech are explained by the fact that he omitted much that was of no interest to his readers - Christians from the pagans - (Weiss). Matthew 23:4, 23:6–7, 13, 23, Matthew 23:25–31, Matthew 23:34–36 corresponds to Luke 11:37–52, a speech given at a supper in the house of Simon the Pharisee. “Less certain is the historical connection of Luke 13:34–35; Matthew 23:37–39. Here Matthew could give a historically accurate message, while Luke connects these provisions with the word spoken over Jerusalem during the journey.” Matthew 23:2. and said: The scribes and Pharisees sat on Moses’ seat; The word "seat" or "cathedra" was sometimes used as a sign of dominance and authority. The Savior’s speech here is obviously figurative. Moses gave a written law. He was a Jewish legislator. Both the written law itself and the legislator enjoyed unquestioned authority at that time. But next to the Bible, the scribes and Pharisees also developed an oral law, an oral tradition, which they attached no less importance to than the law given by God through Moses. In this sense, the Savior says that they sat on the seat or pulpit of Moses. This means that they arrogated to themselves the authority that Moses had. Per cathedram doctrinam legis ostendit (by the pulpit he means the teaching of the law - Jerome). “People who said that their duty was to interpret the law of Moses, who were famous for this or even for superiority over the law, they sit on the seat of Moses” (Origen). It has been said that this is a Semitic turn of phrase, or that the “publisher” is writing here from his own point of view, looking back to the period when the scribes and Pharisees came into power. Matthew 23:3. So whatever they tell you to observe, observe and do; But do not act according to their deeds, for they say and do not: The ancient interpreters explained this verse by the fact that Christ did not want to reject here the law given by God through Moses (cf. Matt. 5:17) and, to the extent that the scribes and Pharisees were his interpreters, one should listen to them and not act on their deeds. Origen, Chrysostom, Jerome, Hilary, Theophylact, Euthymius Zigavinus and others argue in this spirit. Origen, by the way, applies the Savior’s saying to persons serving in the Christian Church, where many have the ability to teach and explain it rationally, but do not want to act in accordance with what they teach: their teaching should be listened to, but their deeds should not be imitated. The Pharisees and scribes, according to John Chrysostom, offered “not their own commandments, but God’s, which God revealed in the law through Moses. And notice how much respect He shows for Moses, again proving the agreement of His teaching with the Old Testament, when He considers the scribes themselves worthy of respect out of respect for Moses.” But the purpose of this saying of the Savior, according to Chrysostom, was not only this. “Since He wanted to expose the Pharisees, so that the foolish would not think that He Himself is seeking the power that belongs to them, or that He is doing this out of hatred, first of all He destroys such suspicion and, having done this, begins to expose it.” According to Theophylact, the Savior says: “take the words of the teachers as the words of Moses, or rather, of God Himself.” The meaning of the verse is unclear, the text is probably damaged. Matthew 23:4. they bind heavy and unbearable burdens and place them on people’s shoulders, but they themselves do not want to lift them with a finger; (Cf. Luke 11:46 - in another connection.) “Binding burdens” is an expression borrowed from ordinary life, when they tie up any objects (for example, firewood, brushwood) and carry them on their shoulders. The burden placed on the people by the Pharisees is heavy. People carry it reluctantly, because it is something forcibly imposed. The word δυσβάστακτα ("unbearable"), placed in the Russian and Slavic translations, is not in the best codices, and it is correctly produced by the best publishers of the Greek New Testament. It is borrowed from Luke (Luke 11:46), but there it is used instead of the word βαρέα (heavy) almost as its synonym. Jerome notes that shoulders, fingers, burdens, ligaments should be understood in a spiritual sense. Of course it is, because all of Christ’s speech is obviously figurative. The expression “to move them with a finger” is considered Aramaic. We must understand these words of Christ in the sense that the common vice of all hypocrites and hypocrites is a secret spiritual reluctance to their teachings. They do everything just for show, but when no one sees them, they shy away from practicing the teachings they preach. Hypocrites preach, for example, fasting, abstinence, threaten people with the torments of hell for violating the commandments, but they themselves lead not only intemperate, but even licentious and depraved lives. Matthew 23:5. yet they do their deeds so that people can see them: they expand their storehouses and increase the length of their clothes; A repetition of the thoughts expressed in Matthew 6:1, 5, 16, changing only the example. Nothing is done with good will, on the contrary, “everything” is done for show, for the sake of seniority, distinction, gaining reputation and fame, especially in the eyes of the ignorant and ordinary people, and in the end - profit and religious exploitation. “Repositories”, in Greek “phylacteries”, in the Old Testament - “totafot”, among the rabbis - “tefillin”, from “tefilah” - prayer, are used by Jews to this day on the basis of Ex. 13: 9, 16; Deut.6:8, 11:18. Every Jew must wear two phylacteries, one on the forehead and the other on the left hand, tied with belts during morning prayer (except on Saturdays and holidays). They are made of parchment in the form of a small box, into which is placed a small scroll with passages from Exodus 13:1–16; Deut.6:4–9, 11:13–21. The phylactery, worn on the forehead, had the difference that the box was divided into four parts, into which four small scrolls with the above prayers were inserted. As usually happens, the zealots made their phylacteries larger than those of others in order to demonstrate their imaginary piety here too. “Phylactery” is an inaccurate translation into Greek of the Hebrew “tefillin,” a prayer. Zigavin produces "phylactery" from φυλάττειν (to guard), and ῥέσθαι (to get rid of danger, to guard, to protect, to defend). Φυλακτήριον actually means a guard post, fortification, tower, in a figurative sense - security, amulet. The word “expand” refers, perhaps, to the straps with which the phylacteries were tied, but perhaps also to the cases or boxes themselves, as Tsang thinks. The tassels on the “tallif”, a special white garment that looked like an oblong quadrangular scarf with a round slit in the middle for the head, also belonged to the same category. Brushes were made of white and blue threads, in Hebrew they were called “tzitzit”, and in Greek - κράσπεδα. The tallif with tassels is worn by Jews even now (only by men, like phylacteries) in fulfillment of Numbers 15:37 ff.; Deut.22:12. “The Pharisees did this,” says Theophylact, “because it was prescribed in the law. It was prescribed so that, seeing this, the Jews would not deviate from the commandments of God. But God did not want such a literal fulfillment; no, having a storehouse meant fulfilling the commandments.” “Since the Jews,” says St. John Chrysostom, “often forgot the blessings of God, God commanded them to write His miracles on special pieces of paper and tie these pieces of paper to their hands... God commanded them, like little children, to do the same thing that many do to avoid forgetfulness, tying a finger with flax or thread.” The recepta omits the Greek γάρ, which is very easy to prove. The second half of the verse serves as one of the proofs of the hypocrisy and vanity of the Pharisees, who wanted to be seen by people. It was a unique type of religious publication, testifying to the acquisition and assimilation of religious righteousness and piety. Matthew 23:6. they also love to sit at banquets and preside over synagogues (Cf. Mark 12:38–39; Luke 20:46.) Something so ordinary is depicted here that the Savior’s words are quite understandable. The expressions in Mark and Luke are almost literally similar. Matthew changes the order, speaking first of “feasts” and then of “synagogues.” Matthew 23:7. and greetings in public assemblies, and for people to call them: teacher! teacher! The last word "teacher" should be read once, not twice. The rabbis revealed claims to higher dignity. They differed from others in their clothing, they wore long clothes (στολαί), and according to Epiphanius (Adversus haereses, 15), special ἀμπεχόνας (cloaks) and δαλματικάς (Dalmatian clothes). The word “rabbi” means “my master”, from “slave” or “rabbi” - the highest, greatest, master in contrast to slaves, teacher in contrast to students. Matthew 23:8. But do not call yourself teachers, for you have only one Teacher - Christ, yet you are brothers; “Do not call yourself” - do not call yourself and do not accept such a name from others. The word "rabbi" is changed here in the second case to "teacher." In Russian and Slavic this is not expressed; ῥαββί and διδάσκαλος are translated the same way: “teacher”. But in the Vulgate it is certain: vos autem nolite vocare rabbi unus est enim magister vester. Thus, Christ does not say: “you are not called rabbis, we have only one rabbi,” but, speaking about Himself, replaces “rabbi” with the word “teacher.” The word “rabbi” began to be associated with “hateful associations” and began to designate people prone to “debate, complacency and dogmatism,” so the Savior leaves the name with some dissatisfaction and calls Himself more modestly a teacher (διδάσκαλος). The expression ὁ διδάσκαλος indicates that Christ is speaking here about Himself. In Russian, Slavic and in general in the recepta (but not in the Vulgate), after “you have one Teacher”, “Christ” is added. The latter is proven very weakly and therefore is usually released, although this insertion indicates to whom the ancient expression ὁ διδάσκαλος was attributed. The addition is modeled after verse 10. Alford thinks that by ὁ διδάσκαλος is meant not Christ, but the Holy Spirit on the basis of John 14:26; Jeremiah 31:33–34; Ezek.36:26–27. Regarding this, we can say that the Savior called Himself a teacher (Matthew 26:18; John 13:13–14, etc.). The addition Χριστός, made according to the meaning, is actually correct. This is also proven by the fact that the further words “yet you are all brothers” can be explained better by the attitude of the disciples towards Christ than towards the Holy Spirit. In any case, if the Savior spoke here about the Holy Spirit, then there would be silence that would make His speech completely incomprehensible to the disciples. The expression “yet you are brothers” seems to be more suitable at the end of verse 9: “you have one Father, who is in heaven”; yet you are brothers.” But for such a transfer, found only in one uncial codex U (IX or 10th century) and more than thirty italic ones, there is no sufficient basis. The change from ὁ διδάσκαλος to καθηγητής, as in verse 10, found in many manuscripts, is not clearly proven. When considering this verse, many commentators propose the following question: if Christ forbade the disciples to be called teachers (rabbis), then is it right to strive to obtain the so-called academic degrees of doctor, master, etc.? Jerome asked why, contrary to this commandment, the Apostle Paul called himself “teacher of the Gentiles” (1 Tim. 2:7; 2 Tim. 1:11; quotations from Jerome, 2 Cor. 5; Col. 1, apparently incorrect). Or how in popular speech, mainly in Palestinian and Egyptian monasteries, do they call themselves fathers? This, Jerome answers, is decided this way: it is another thing to be a father or teacher by nature and another by “indulgentia.” If we call a person father, then we give him the honor corresponding to his age, and do not consider him the culprit of our life. Cornelius Lapid argues: “It is permissible to strive for a doctorate as a certificate of knowledge, so that with the help of this certificate one can acquire authority to teach and preach to the people and thus bring greater fruit through teaching and preaching.” Therefore, the Council of Trent (Sessio 24, cap. 12) ordered “that all honorary positions and at least half of the canonical positions in cathedral churches and important collegia be filled by masters and doctors or even licentiates of theology or canon law.” Therefore, Christ does not say: “Do not be,” but “Do not be called teachers.” “Christ, therefore, does not prohibit the gradum doctoratus, but pride and vanity about receiving this degree, arrogance and arrogance, when a person who has received a doctorate considers himself superior to others, walks around sulking and despises others, as if he had knowledge and teaching from himself, and not from Christ, as the scribes did.” Barnes, on the basis of the words of Christ, objected to the title doctor divinitatis (doctor of divinity), because Christ forbade the name to be called that way. But, says Morison, Barnes did not notice the fact that the title "divinity teacher" is modest in its meaning, nor did Barnes notice that if it is really deserved, there is no reason why people should not allow it and speak so. It is a fact that in ancient times Jews did not have academic degrees. “Rabbi”, “rabbi” and so on are a product of rabbinism and pharisaism. In the original Christian Church there were no candidates, masters and doctors; such titles were completely alien to the original Christian antiquity. “All who received the word were fully disciples of Jesus alone, this expressed the principle of the equality of all.” Christ was not the founder of the school. The title doctor ecclesiae appeared in later times of scholasticism, and regarding theologus a determination was made at the 2nd Lateran Council in 1215, according to which “the metropolitan church should have one theologian, so that he teaches the priests and others the Holy Scriptures and especially teaches them the pastoral care of souls.” As always happens, initially degrees simply meant “fach” (from German das Fach - “subject”, “occupation”. - Approx. ed.), the activities and occupations of any person engaged in teaching, but subsequently, on the one hand, obstacles and difficulties for persons who wanted to acquire academic degrees, and on the other, advantages, gave rise to a number of dreamers who, calling themselves doctors and teachers, began to look at themselves as gods and scientific legislators. Christ exposes precisely this in the person of the scribes and Pharisees, explaining the principle that no name should eliminate in a person the consciousness of his unworthiness, as well as the dependence of all his activities on Christ as on the Vine, only in connection with Which the branches can bear good fruit. Matthew 23:9. And do not call anyone on earth your father, for you have one Father, who is in heaven; The remarks that were made to the previous verse partly apply to the present one, i.e. Christ’s words cannot be taken in a literal sense, for example, in that a child should not utter the words “father” or “mother.” The very fact that there is no mention of the mother here shows that we are not talking about simple family relationships. Christ again means only the scribes and Pharisees with their arrogance. There is a whole treatise in the Talmud called Avot, i.e. sayings of the "fathers". In treatise Eduiot I, 4, Hillel and Shammai are called “fathers of the world” (Talmud, trans. Pereferkovich. T. 4, p. 406). In the Mishnah and Tosefot the word "father" appears as a title of many rabbis (Schürer, Geschichte, II, 377). Probably, this name had its basis in the Bible (Sir.44). The Savior, of course, only says that His disciples should not call anyone father in the rabbinic sense. Chrysostom limits the meaning of Christ’s words in this way: “This does not mean that they should not call anyone father, but that they should know who, in fact, should be called father.” The last words of the verse are read variously: “Which is in heaven” or “Which is in heaven.” The best reading seems to be not ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ (which Tischendorf does not have) and not ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, but the adjective οὐράνιος - “heavenly”, accepted by the best and the newest publishers of the New Testament. Matthew 23:10. and do not be called instructors, for you have only one Teacher—Christ. The words “mentors” (καθηγηταί) and “Mentor” (καθηγητής) are inaccurate, because καθηγητής means only figuratively “mentor”, but literally “leader”, “leader”. In the Russian translation, due to the absence of this distinction, almost a tautology is allowed in verses 8 and 10, because the words “teacher” and “mentor” in ordinary speech are one and the same, with the only difference being that the latter is somewhat softer and, perhaps, has a broader meaning than the more specialized “teacher.” In Greek there is no this tautology, because in the 8th verse there is διδάσκαλος, and in the 10th verse - καθηγητής - rather an educator than a teacher. Καθηγητής is also different from ὁδηγός (Matt. 15:14, 23:16, 24; Acts 1:16; Rom. 2:19), and is used in the New Testament only here (if you do not pay attention to the discrepancy in verse 8). It is interesting that the word ὁδηγός in the New Testament in the indicated places is everywhere used to designate false leaders. But etymologically one word is not different from another (Tsang). In pronouncing the words of the verse under discussion, Christ does not refer them directly to Himself, but offers a general principle: the Messiah is your leader. Matthew 23:11. The greatest of you shall be your servant: (Compare Mark 9:35; Luke 9:48 – in another connection.) There is no doubt that these words unconditionally and irrevocably condemn all kinds of claims to dominance. The Pharisees have always strived and strive to rule and lead the people among whom they live, and for this the Savior publicly reproaches them. The fact that Christ here does not deny power and dominion is evident from the fact that, according to His thoughts, there may be “great ones” among people. But their character is completely different from what is usually characteristic of rulers. This character is serving people out of love (διάκονος as opposed to δοῦλος). Anyone can strive to surpass others and, therefore, to become “greater” than them, to gain dominance over them in selfless and loving service to people; the actual, actual rulers are those who take upon themselves this selfless service. An interesting remark by Origen shows how they looked at this in ancient times: qui enim habet in se quae Paulus enumerat de episcopo, etsi non est coram hominibus episcopus, episcopus est apud Deum, etsi non per ordinationem hominum ad eum gradum pervenit. Of course, due to human weakness and imperfections, heads and leaders may deviate from this ideal, but we must never forget that these are deviations, not an ideal. Matthew 23:12. for whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted. For an explanation of the verse, see the commentary on Matthew 18:4. “Do you see,” says Chrysostom, “how He here leads the listener to deeds that are completely opposite to pride? It not only prohibits seeking primacy, but also prescribes choosing the last place.” (Compare Job 22:29; Prov. 29:23; Ezek. 21:26–27; 1 Pet. 5:5.) Matthew 23:13. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you close the Kingdom of Heaven to men, for you yourself do not enter and you do not allow those who want to enter. Wed. Luke 11:52, which says that the lawyers “took the key of understanding, did not enter in, and hindered those who were entering.” In Matthew, as can be seen, a similar thought is expressed differently and in a different connection. Some think that the word “grief” is repeated eight times in this and subsequent verses, while others, considering verse 14, which will be discussed below, not to be genuine, only seven times. It is difficult to find a correspondence between the “sorrows” and the “beatitudes” at the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount. But the fact that the Messiah, almost at the very beginning of His sermon to the people, began to speak about the beatitudes, and at the very end of it announced grief, is remarkable. No matter how this fact is interpreted, one cannot think, however, that Christ’s last speech to the people was the result of embitterment over the enmity of the people’s leaders towards Him. It was rather something organic, crying at the sight of a dying person before his last breath due to complete hopelessness. Christ saw with His penetrating gaze that the state of affairs contemporary to Him could not last long, and expressed this in a formidable accusatory speech, which is fundamentally applicable to all nations, showing that fanaticism, petty ritualism, robbery and greed, hypocrisy and love of external conventions can threaten the death of any nation if it does not try in time to free itself from all these and related vices. Similar announcements of grief are found in the ancient prophets (Is.5:8, 11, 18, Is.5:20–22, Is.10:1; Hab.2:6, 9, 12, 15, 19). The mission of Christ had a definite character. He was supposed to preach about repentance and the approach of the Kingdom of Heaven to the Jewish people. One has only to imagine what would have happened if “his own people had accepted Him.” Probably, Jerusalem, having become Christian, would have avoided the disasters and destruction that befell it after some time. The same certainty as the mission of Christ itself is distinguished by His denunciations of the scribes and Pharisees in the last popular speech of the Savior. Christ denounces them for deviating from the moral ideal, and not only for deviating, but also for a stubborn unwillingness to understand it. According to Hilary, “vae vox dolentis est” (“grief” is the voice of sorrow; see comments on Matthew 11:21, 18:7). In Luke (Luke 11:39–52), the word “woe” is repeated six times, and the announcements of woe are divided into two groups – to the Pharisees and to the lawyers. The meaning of the verse under analysis is explained in detail and satisfactorily by Origen. The scribes and Pharisees themselves do not enter the Kingdom of Heaven and do not allow others to enter. These two sins are naturally inseparable from one another. He who commits one sin commits another. There is not a single person known who, entering the Kingdom of Heaven himself, would prevent others from entering it. During the time of Origen, this was done mainly by those who seem to be more famous in the church, such as bishops, presbyters and deacons. Those who live well and preach the word of truth well open the Kingdom of Heaven to people; and they themselves enter, and others are invited to enter. The evil ones, who are not shepherds, but mercenaries, close the doors of the Kingdom of Heaven in front of people. “One can see,” adds Origen, “many teachers who do not allow those who want to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, especially when they excommunicate some without reasoning and unreasonably, not because they commit any sins, but due to envy and enmity, they often forbid the entry of such people who are better than themselves.” Matthew 23:14. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you devour the houses of widows and hypocritically pray for a long time: for this you will receive all the more condemnation. (Compare Mark 12:40; Luke 20:47.) Some interpreters consider this verse of Matthew to be an interpolation from the indicated passages of Mark and Luke. It is not in Codex Sinaiticus, B, D, Z, L, I, 28, 33, etc. Mark and Luke have this verse authentic. The denunciation is directed against the most vile predation - insults, insults and theft of the property of poor and helpless widows and against the imaginary piety of those who pray for a long time for show. Matthew 23:15. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you go around sea and land to convert even one; and when this happens, you make him a son of Gehenna, twice as bad as you. The point is that a pagan converted to Judaism by the Pharisees is twice worse than what he was, and, therefore, a person twice as worthy of Gehenna as the Pharisees themselves. This, of course, was not always the case. But this usually happened, just as corrupt disciples usually emerge from the leadership of corrupt teachers (cf. Rom. 2:17-24). Matthew 23:16. Woe to you, blind leaders, who say: if anyone swears by the church, it is nothing, but if anyone swears by the gold of the church, he is guilty. Another characteristic of Pharisaism is given, which does not have a particularly close external connection with other characteristics. It is not difficult to notice that the denunciations become more and more intense until the 33rd verse, where the completion of all previous characteristics and the strongest denunciation occurs. "Which you say" (οἱ λέγοντες) indicates that the Pharisees usually or even constantly taught this way. The denunciation of Christ is very characteristic. People who have lost the spirit and meaning of religion always go into detail and talk about subjects that have no meaning, and constantly make logical and all kinds of other errors, spinning in the narrow and cramped area of ​​empty speculation. There could be long and serious discussions about the oath of the church or the gold of the church. But Christ exposes their entire emptiness, arguing ad hoc regarding the particular case under consideration and without explaining the highest principle, which would have been completely incomprehensible to the scribes and Pharisees, as well as to the disciples and the people. From the point of view of this latter, swearing is generally reprehensible, and swearing either by the church or by the gold of the church should not be permissible. But if we put this highest principle aside and reason, revolving exclusively in the sphere of Pharisees’ thinking, then even then the teaching of the Pharisees will turn out to be not only incorrect, but also absurd. This is explained in the next verse. The word "guilty" is translated into Russian from the Greek ὀφείλει. The translation is inaccurate because the original does not express the idea of ​​guilt. In the Slavic Bible it is more precise – “must eat”, i.e. must fulfill his oath (in the Vulgate – debet). Matthew 23:17. Mad and blind! What is greater: gold, or the church consecrating gold? Μωροὶ καὶ τυφλοί ("mad" - actually, stupid - "and blind") indicates thoughtlessness, stupidity, illogicality and spiritual blindness of the Pharisees and scribes. Even taking their own point of view, one should reason differently. Just as a person is always more important than his clothes, so every house and church in itself is more important than those objects that serve only to decorate it. Γάρ (for) shows that the expression “what is greater: gold?” serves as proof that Christ correctly called the scribes and Pharisees “foolish and blind.” In the Russian translation this particle is not expressed. Matthew 23:18. Also: if anyone swears by the altar, it is nothing, but if anyone swears by the gift that is on it, he is guilty. The idea is the same as in the previous verse, only another particular case is chosen, proving the incorrectness of the Pharisaic teaching on oaths. Reasoning from a logical point of view (again without leaving the sphere of Pharisaic concepts and thinking), one should, of course, admit that the altar is higher than the gift that is placed on it. The word “guilty” is also inaccurate in verse 16 (see comments on verse 16). Matthew 23:19. Mad and blind! What is greater: the gift, or the altar that sanctifies the gift? The word "mad" is added here after the pattern of verse 17, and is not found in the best manuscripts. The idea of the verse is the same as verse 17. Matthew 23:20. So he who swears by the altar swears by it and by everything that is on it; The Savior “does not say this as one who allows one to swear. Because in the 5th chapter he completely (παντελῶς) forbade swearing; He speaks because the Jews swore by these objects” (Evfimy Zigavin). Matthew 23:21. and he who swears by the church swears by it and by Him who dwells in it; The construction of the verse is the same as the previous one. Verses 21 and 22 indicate special and separate types of oaths. Christ argues here too, taking the point of view of the Pharisees and scribes. They thought that some oaths were important and binding, others were not. But if we argue without regard to whether an oath is permissible, then we must assert that every oath with sacred objects is in fact an oath in the name of God. Matthew 23:22. and he who swears by heaven swears by the Throne of God and Him who sits on it. Continuation of the speech of the previous two verses. The speech is, of course, figurative. God is represented as sitting on a throne served by heaven. Matthew 23:23. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you tithe mint, anise and caraway seeds, and have abandoned the most important things in the law: judgment, mercy and faith; this had to be done, and this should not be abandoned. (Cf. Luke 11:42 - in another connection.) Precepts regarding tithes, i.e. a tenth of the property for the benefit of the Levites and the church, set forth in Lev. 27:30–34; Numbers 18:21–24, 26; Deut.12:6–17, 14:22–29, 26:12–15. Legal prescriptions are developed in detail in two Talmudic treatises Maasrot (tithes) and Maaser Sheni (second tithes; see Talmud, trans. Pereferkovich. Vol. 1, pp. 295–362). When reading these treatises, it is immediately clear that the Savior denounces the extreme pettiness of the Pharisees, to which they brought general legal decrees. Thus, Maasrot I, 1 says: “Concerning tithes, the following rule is established: everything that goes for food, is protected and grows from the earth, is subject to tithe fees. And they said another rule: everything that is food at the beginning and food at the end (that is, what is good for food as soon as it begins to grow), even if it was left in the ground for further development, is subject to tithe collections, whether it is plucked small or large; nevertheless, what is not food in the beginning is food in the end (i.e., what is not suitable for food at the beginning of growth, but only towards the end) is subject to tithe collections only from the time it becomes edible.” Further in Maasrot IV, 5 it says: “Anise is subject to duties on both its seed, herbs, and seed coat, and the sages say: only watercress and rejuha are subject to duties on seed and herbs.” By being busy with such petty regulations regarding small and worthless herbs, the scribes and Pharisees completely lost sight of what was most important in the law - judgment, mercy and faith. This last listing of the three items is thought to correspond to the prophecy of Mic. 6:8 and Hos. 12:6. Judgment, mercy and faith are called the most important in the law (τὰ βαρύτερα τοῦ νόμου) not because they are difficult to fulfill - God’s “commandments” are “not burdensome” (1 John 5:3) - but simply comparatively: judgment, mercy and faith are much more important ( βαρύτερα) than tithing mint, anise and cumin. The last words: “this should have been done, and this should not be abandoned,” are quite difficult to interpret. The direct meaning is this: it was necessary to comply with the requirements of court (justice), mercy and faith, without neglecting to pay tithes. Perhaps Christ wanted to say only in these words that paying tithes is, in essence, an indifferent matter, they can be paid or not paid, but even they matter when judgment, mercy and faith exist. If the latter are absent, then it is not the tithes themselves that become reprehensible, but the pettiness and stupidity with which discussions are conducted about them. Taata refers, of course, to “judgment, mercy and faith.” They notice that the last expression “not to leave” is less strong than the previous one ποιῆσαι. Christ does not say: “as this (judgment, mercy and faith), so also this (tithes) should be fulfilled (ποιῆσαι).” There is no need to stop paying tithes even on the smallest herbs, if this does not damage the main virtues - justice, mercy and faith. Matthew 23:24. Blind leaders, straining out a mosquito and devouring a camel! Leaders are blind, as in Matthew 15:14, 23:16, 17, 26 (cf. 2 Pet. 1:9; Rom. 2:19; Rev. 3:17). Only those leaders who are blind can engage in such an empty activity as “straining” mosquitoes. In reality, they themselves can neither move forward nor lead others and sit in one place, engaged in the most insignificant activities. But this does not stop them from being extremely evil, bloodthirsty and greedy. By straining out a mosquito, they think that they are fulfilling the law of the Lord, but when instead of a mosquito they drink (literally - καταπίνοντες) a whole camel, they do not think that this is against the law. The camel, as a large animal, was obviously chosen to contrast such a small animal as a mosquito. The mosquitoes were "strained" (διϋλίζοντες), i.e. The water poured into the vessel was passed through a sieve or towel, so that there would be no dead mosquito in the vessel, which would defile all the water, and so that it could be seen during straining. Thus, the purpose of straining is to protect oneself from water contaminated by the corpse, which, if there were a mosquito in it, would have to be poured out and replaced with another. But, being blind, the scribes and Pharisees did not notice that instead of a mosquito, a whole large camel fell into the vessel and they drank it along with the water that they drank from the vessel. It is clear that this is a hyperbole, which contains a very subtle and apt description of all hypocrites. The opinion that instead of “camel” one should read “gadfly”, “horsefly” (asilum) is not based on anything. Matthew 23:25. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you cleanse the outside of the cup and platter, while inside they are full of robbery and unrighteousness. (Cf. Luke 11:39 - in another connection.) At least twelve treatises are devoted to purifications in the Talmud. The interpretation of the Old Testament decrees on purity (Lev.11–15; Num.5:1–4; and especially Num.19) is based on the introduction to the treatise “Kelim,” which lists “the main types of uncleanness” (I, 1–4). On this basis, says Schürer, a huge, wide and comprehensive building was erected. Here the rabbis outdid themselves in their careful development of this subject (for details see: Schürer, Geschichte, II, 560-565). The Savior proves the inconsistency of the entire Talmudic teaching on purity by the fact that, despite all the efforts to cleanse the vessels, what is contained in them and what appears clean as the result of various washings and cleansings is in fact extremely dirty, being the result of theft and untruth. Such a deep thought, penetrating all hypocrisy with all its extreme stupidity! It is amazing that numerous hypocrites were not and are not afraid of this lightning, this terrible thunderclap, and do not think at all about the fact that the vessels from which they drink and eat are full of the most terrible, most vile and most shameful theft and untruth! Γέμω means to be filled with something (connected with the genitive case). What is said here is not that the cups and dishes are filled with theft and untruth, but that their contents were obtained from theft and untruth. Therefore, the genitive case is used not without a preposition, but with the preposition ἐκ. Ἁρπαγή actually means robbery, plunder (in comparison with this word, “theft” is somewhat softer). Ἀκρασία - a later form of ἀκρατεία, means intemperance, immoderation (cf. 1 Cor. 7:5). In Russian and Slavic translations, another, less confirmed reading is adopted - ἀδικίας - “untruths”. But in the Vulgate and some translations it is accurate (immunditia, Unenthaltsamkeit). In general, the word ἀκρασία is translated differently and sometimes inaccurately. According to Bengel, ἀκρασία is the opposite of abstinence not only in food and drink, but also from money and self-interest. Matthew 23:26. Blind Pharisee! First cleanse the inside of the cup and the dish, so that the outside of them may also be clean. This means: stop theft and intemperance (untruth), then what you eat and drink, with which you fill different vessels, will be clean, and you will not need to think much and worry about the external, external cleanliness of the vessels. Regarding the words of the Savior in this verse, there are sometimes very petty arguments about whether He meant people or vessels here, whether He invited people to be clean, or whether He spoke about the purity of vessels. When comparing the verse with the indicated parallels in Luke's Gospel, some difficulties indeed arise. But they are generally not important. The whole speech is obviously figurative, and Christ invites, in fact, people to moral purity, and does not say that they should cleanse their vessels. Matthew 23:27. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, for you are like whitewashed tombs, which appear beautiful on the outside, but inside are full of the bones of the dead and all uncleanness; In Luke the saying, placed in a different connection, has a different meaning than in Matthew. There the hypocrites are like hidden tombs, over which people walk and do not know it, and as a result of this ignorance - which should be implied in Luke - they are defiled. In Matthew, the coffins are not hidden, but, on the contrary, visible to everyone and beautiful, but inside full of bones and all uncleanness. It is not difficult to understand the Savior’s words here. We all know what beautiful coffins are, which are decorated with various objects to pay the last tribute to the deceased. But, despite all sorts of external decorations, not a single coffin, of course, is attractive, otherwise they would not have buried it in the ground in order to hide it from human eyes and save people from constant contemplation of the sad consequences of human sin. The Jews had a slightly different relationship with the dead than we do. Touching any carrion at all, a corpse or a coffin, resulted in defilement for seven days (Num. 19), and cleansing required sprinkling with fresh water from a vessel in which the ashes of a red heifer, preserved for the community of the children of Israel, were placed. To protect against desecration, tombstones were whitened with slaked lime (konia). During the time of Christ, this was usually done at the end of winter, the first Adar (“Shekalim”, I, 1; see Talmud, trans. Pereferkovich. T.2, p. 268). Thus, the Savior refers here to customs that were very common among the Jews at that time. It should be noted that Christ did not, in fact, need to talk about the tombs themselves. He used this metaphor to characterize people; It could be said not about coffins, but about people that, while resembling “painted coffins” in their internal contents, they are sometimes very beautiful outwardly. Many hypocrites develop such artistic techniques during prayers and worship that one cannot help but be surprised at their excellent beauty. But in life this does not prevent such persons from being completely “washed (painted) coffins.” Matthew 23:28. So, on the outside, you seem righteous to people, but inside you are filled with hypocrisy and lawlessness. Matthew 23:29. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, who build tombs for the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous, It points to a common and general phenomenon of human life, according to which the best people are very often persecuted by their contemporaries, and the descendants of the latter build monuments to them and honor their memory as benefactors of humanity. This phenomenon is so common that there is no need to look for any particular examples. Christ does not say what Hilary interprets, that prophetas omnes legis populus occidit. There were exceptions, such as Elijah and Elisha. But in general, the words of Christ are accurate. There is news about the construction of monuments and tombs in Palmyra and Nabataean inscriptions, where it is called “bana” - οἰκοδομεῖν, as in Matthew (Merx). Near Jerusalem there were “the tombs of David” (Neh. 3:16), the high priest John Hyrcanus, Alexander Jannai and many others. On certain days, some left sums of money to decorate the tombs with flowers (Schürer, Geschichte, III, S. 18 at the beginning). Matthew 23:30. and say: If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been their accomplices in shedding the blood of the prophets; This is what all people say, spiritual and secular, ancient and modern, building monuments to the prophets and generally remarkable people of the past. Actually, there is nothing reprehensible here. On the contrary, the memory of many people of the past is revered and worthy of perpetuation, at least in the form of building monuments to them. But all this is good only in the moral state of society. When hypocrisy and the accompanying vices are developed in it, then people who build monuments to the tortured and persecuted prophets only take part in the persecution and torment of their ancestors, not directly, but indirectly. Treating former prophets with imaginary respect, they persecute and subject to torture the present prophets, their contemporaries. This is how it was with the generation contemporary with Christ. It built monuments to the prophets of the past, who prophesied about Christ, and put Christ Himself to death on the cross. Instead of “in the shedding” (emphasized in the Russian Bible), “blood” can simply be translated “in the blood.” Matthew 23:31. Thus, you testify against yourself that you are the sons of those who beat the prophets; In the book of Acts (Acts 7:52), the first martyr Stephen speaks in the same words: “Which of the prophets did not your fathers persecute? They killed those who foretold the coming of the Righteous One, Whom you have now become traitors and murderers.” The word "sons" has a double meaning: sons in the flesh and in the spirit. One of the features of the unsatisfactory moral state of the scribes and Pharisees is pointed out: their fathers were murderers of the best people, the prophets; they themselves are the same killers or capable of murder. Matthew 23:32. complete the measure of your fathers. The image is taken from the usual method of filling vessels for dry, liquid or granular bodies. The Russian word “mera” fully corresponds to the Greek τὸ μέτρον and here means a measure in general, and not some specific one, for example, a grain measure. Thus, the meaning is that the ancestors of the Pharisees and scribes tried to fill the “measure” with their iniquities and cruel treatment of the prophets. Their descendants not only did not stop in this activity, but they tried to add even new ones to the lawlessness that their ancestors committed. A clear indication of the impending death of the Savior Himself and the execution of His disciples. Πληρώσατε in Russian translation is not exact: “complete”; you need to “fill to the top, with excess.” It is clear that this is not a command on the part of Christ, but only a designation of a fact (cf. John 14:27). The Savior says something like this: you have already decided to fill the measure of your fathers, do this in order to be subject to even greater condemnation. Matthew 23:33. Serpents, spawn of vipers! How will you escape from condemnation to Gehenna? On the “brood of vipers” see comments on Matthew 3:7. A similar expression is found in Matthew 12:34; Luke 3:7. The words of Christ throw light on the words of the Baptist (Matthew 3:7). There, future anger is only assumed, here it is presented as having already occurred. The Pharisees and scribes can no longer escape the judgment of Gehenna. Matthew 23:34. Therefore, behold, I send you prophets and wise men and scribes; and some you will kill and crucify, and others you will beat in your synagogues and drive from city to city; In Luke (Luke 11:49) these are not Christ’s own words, but a quotation from the speech of wisdom. But where exactly, from which book this quote was taken, is completely unknown. It is even suggested that in Luke 11:49 the words “therefore also the wisdom of God spoke” could be an insertion of the evangelist himself into the speech of Christ, and by σοφία he could mean Himself. Others think that Luke is referring to 2 Chronicles 24:18–22, but the similarity is difficult to find. Matthew does not say that the words of verse 34 are a quotation and does not make any hint about it. The best opinion is that the quotation, if there is one, is borrowed from an unknown source. It should be noted that some expressions of the section under discussion are distinguished by their similarity to several verses of the 3rd book of Ezra (3Ezra 1). This can be seen from the following comparison: Complete the measure of your fathers (Matthew 23:32) - The sins of their parents increased in them (3Ezra 1:6). May all righteous blood come upon you (Matthew 23:35) – You have defiled your hands with blood, and your feet are swift to commit murder (3Ezra 1:26). How often have I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings (Matthew 23:37) - I have gathered you together as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings (3Ezra 1:30). Therefore, behold, I send you prophets and wise men and scribes; and some you will kill and crucify, and others you will beat in your synagogues and drive from city to city (Matthew 23:34) - I have sent My servants the prophets to you; You grabbed them, killed them and tore their bodies to pieces. I will require their blood, says the Lord (3Ezra 1:32). Behold, your house is left to you empty (Matthew 23:38) - Thus says the Lord Almighty: your house is empty (3Ezra 1:33). It could be that in the book of Ezra these passages were borrowed from the Gospels. The time of origin of the book has not yet been precisely determined; the most likely assumption is that it was written under Domitian (81–96) and was subsequently supplemented (Schürer, Geschichte, III, S. 328). By prophets, wise men and scribes we mean Christian teachers. They are so called according to the various Hebrew titles of the officials. Unlike the false prophets, the wise men and the scribes whom Christ denounces, these are the true ones. On many of them, as is known from history, His words were literally fulfilled (see Acts 12:2; Eusebius of Caesarea, “Church History.” III, 32 - about the crucifixion of Simeon, etc.). Matthew 23:35. May all the righteous blood shed on earth come upon you, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Barachi, whom you killed between the church and the altar. When considering this verse, the first question is why the scribes, Pharisees and the Jewish people contemporary with Christ were guilty, that all the righteous blood should have come to them from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah. Cain was guilty of killing Abel, not them. Why were they held accountable for this, according to Christ’s words? This is explained by the fact that in the lives of both individuals and entire societies and even nations there is a concentration of both good and evil. The murder of Abel was an expression of Cain’s malice, but this malice developed and reached an extreme intensification in the Pharisees and scribes contemporary with Christ. Hence the usual biblical view that the descendants are punished for the sins of the fathers, sins of which the descendants, in fact, are actually innocent. The scribes and Pharisees contemporary to Christ were so depraved, so bad, that they had to bear responsibility for previous crimes, because they were capable and ready to commit not only them, but also much greater ones. The story of Cain's murder of Abel is known, and there is no need to repeat it. This was the first murder of a person committed in the world. One would expect that Christ would then point to the last murder, wanting to briefly outline all the intermediate murders, from beginning to end. He points to the murder of Zechariah, son of Barahiah. Which Zechariah is meant here? Jerome accepts that the Zechariah mentioned in the Gospel of Matthew was the one who was killed by Joash, king of the Jews between the church and the altar (inter templum et altare). But it should be noted, says Jerome, that this Zechariah was not the son of Barachiah, but of the priest Jehoiada. In Evangelio quo utuntur Nazareni, pro filio Barachiae, filium Joiadae reperimus scriptum (in the Gospel used by the Nazarenes we find that instead of “son of Barachiah” it is written “son of Jehoiada”). The newest interpreters, in agreement with Jerome, are of the opinion that it was Zechariah, killed by Joash (2 Chron. 24:20 ff.). The name of his father Varakhiya is explained by the fact that his father could bear two names - Varakhiya and Joiada. Matthew 23:36. Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation. Confirmation of the thought expressed in verse 35. Luke, in essence, says the same thing, but differently and more clearly: “it will be required of this generation.” Matthew 23:37. Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to you! how many times have I wanted to gather your children together, as a bird gathers its chicks under its wings, and you did not want to! (Cf. Luke 13:34 - in another connection.) The entire speech of Christ is distinguished by a prophetic character and has a connection with His further prophetic speech about the destinies of the world and Jerusalem. He does not say: Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who killed the prophets and stoned, etc., but “he who beats and stones” (ἡ ἀποκτείνουσα καὶ λιθοβολοῦσα). These words cannot arouse doubt in anyone that this was what actually happened, and they were repeated several times later by the writer of Acts and the Apostle Paul, also without arousing doubt in anyone, even though in the past it was impossible to find cases of such actual beatings. Matthew 23:38. Behold, your house is left to you empty. The word “house” (ὁ οἶκος) can mean the church, all of Jerusalem, or interpret this word in the general sense - a dwelling abandoned by everyone. Matthew 23:39. For I say to you, you will not see Me from now on until you cry: Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord! The Savior does not mean that the inhabitants of Jerusalem will not see Him in person. But they will not see Him as He appeared among them - the Great Teacher, the Accuser, the Healer of diseases. From further history it is clear that this was indeed the case. The story about the healing of the high priest's servant (Luke 22:51) does not contradict what has been said. We are talking about Christ’s stay in Jerusalem, greeted with cries: “Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!” (Matthew 21:9), here it is quite natural and appropriate to wrap things up. But the events in which people should exclaim: “Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord,” will now be new and completely different from the previous ones. You might be interested in: