Глава 25

1–13. Parable of the Ten Virgins. – 14–30. Parable of the Talents. – 31–46. Prophecy of the Last Judgment. Matthew 25:1. Then the Kingdom of Heaven will be like ten virgins, who, taking their lamps, went out to meet the bridegroom. Matthew 25:2. Of these, five were wise and five were foolish. The word “then” (τότε) here refers to the time when the Son of Man will come. Of course, primarily (but not exclusively) His final coming for judgment before the end or at the end of the world. Τότε also serves as a connection with previous speech and indicates its continuation. The Savior continued to speak to His disciples on the Mount of Olives, at the sight of Jerusalem. Wieseler defines the time as Tuesday, April 14, 12 Nisan 783 from the founding of Rome. The Kingdom of God cannot, of course, be like ten virgins - this is only a special turn of phrase, as in Matthew 13:24, etc., and means that the Kingdom of Heaven is like all the circumstances set out in the parable, in which ten virgins took part. The same thing that happened to the ten virgins who came out to meet the groom happens or will happen in the Kingdom established by the Savior. All members of this Kingdom, without exception, believers and unbelievers, or those who have only heard about Christ, can resemble ten virgins. With extreme precision and brevity, in only eighteen separate words (in Greek), the personality of every person who is a member of Christ's Kingdom or has anything to do with Christ is described here. The number ten was apparently not chosen arbitrarily, because in a speech that was highly artistic and vital, there could be nothing arbitrary or accidental. But it is quite difficult to explain why exactly the number ten was chosen. The answer to why the parable refers to virgins must be that the whole parable is full of the most beautiful, extremely attractive, poetic and artistic images, and the reference to virgins could best correspond to the thought that was supposed to be expressed in the parable. The Baptist was a friend of the groom and rejoiced when he heard His voice. Christ Himself called Himself the bridegroom (Matthew 9:15; Mark 2:19–20; Luke 5:34–35). As He now continued to speak of His second coming, there was no better or more beautiful image that He could have chosen than that of a wedding feast, the whole joy and gladness of which depends on the presence of the bridegroom. An illustration for the parable can be the 44th Psalm and the Song of Songs; Wed 1Mac.9:37. Matthew 25:3. The foolish ones took their lamps and took no oil with them. This verse contains proof (γάρ) why in the previous verse the five virgins are called foolish: because they did not take with them oil for their lamps. Matthew 25:4. The wise, together with their lamps, took oil in their vessels. By oil here we generally mean all the virtues that make a person worthy of participation in the feast of the Kingdom of Heaven, mainly those that are opposite to stupidity, carelessness, frivolity and carelessness of stupid virgins. Matthew 25:5. And as the groom slowed down, everyone dozed off and fell asleep. The word “slowed down” is inaccurate, in the original: χρονίζοντος (present tense) δὲ τοῦ νυμφίου - when the groom delayed, he did not come for a long time. It should be noted that all the virgins fell asleep, both the foolish and the wise. Neither one nor the other is blamed or rebuked for this. Therefore, there is no talk here about the crime and sinfulness of spiritual slumber and sleep. Only the need for wakefulness is indicated. Otherwise, when the groom arrives, he will not receive any greeting at all. The virgins are completely different from the evil servant (Matthew 24:48), who says: “My master will not come soon,” - they expect his speedy arrival. Stupid people say something like this: “He will probably come soon, and therefore there is no need to store a lot of oil.” “This,” says Alford, “may serve as an indication of how generally different the foundations of the two parables are.” Matthew 25:6. But at midnight a cry was heard: behold, the groom is coming, go out to meet him. It should be noted that from this verse the so-called Codex of Alexandria, which dates back to the 5th century, comes to the aid of critics of the Gospel text. It is kept in the British Museum. Up to this verse in this codex all previous chapters of the Gospel of Matthew are lost. "At midnight", i.e. at a time when sleep is especially deep. Who raised the cry? Unknown. The matter seems so ordinary and natural that there was no need to mention it. Perhaps, while the maidens were sleeping, there were lovers of all kinds of processions and ceremonies, who from afar raised a cry when the groom appeared. Some think that the cry was raised by the virgins themselves, who woke up earlier than others, and who began to wake up their friends. The word γέγονεν (in Russian translation – “random”) is very picturesque. It means: the cry rang out (started, happened) and did not stop (past perfect tense), as if it was hanging in the air. This happens during all kinds of popular celebrations. It can also be translated in the present tense: “at midnight there is a cry.” Trench and Morison cite excerpts from the English writer Ward, where he describes a wedding ceremony he witnessed in India: “After two or three hours of waiting, finally, around midnight, it was announced: “here is the groom coming, go out to meet him.” All those participating in the procession lit their lamps and hastily took their places in the procession, some of them lost their lamps and were unprepared. But it was too late to search, and the cavalcade moved on.” What happens in India now, of course, happened in Palestine at the time of Christ. Chrysostom uses the words “at midnight” to indicate that there will be a resurrection at this time. “He (the Savior) says this either in accordance with the parable, or showing that the Sunday will happen at night.” Jerome goes further and points to the “Jewish tradition”, according to which “Christ will come at midnight, just as it was in Egypt, when the Passover was celebrated, and the (Angel) destroyer came, and the Lord passed over the tabernacles, and the doorposts of our houses were sanctified by the blood of the lamb (Ex. 12). Hence, I think, the apostolic tradition remained that on the waking day of Easter it was not allowed to dismiss the people awaiting the coming of Christ before midnight.” This opinion has been criticized, it has been said that Christ is more likely to come for judgment in the morning because He is the pater lucis - the Father of light. Neither opinion appears to be based on anything. Midnight simply indicates a time of calm and deep sleep, in order to sharpen the surprise of the bridegroom's arrival (cf. Matt. 24:37). At what time the coming of Christ will be, this is not said and this is not explained. Everything here has a symbolic meaning and serves only to explain that the coming of Christ will be unexpected. Matthew 25:7. Then all the virgins stood up and trimmed their lamps. Matthew 25:8. But the foolish said to the wise, Give us your oil, for our lamps are going out. In the 8th and following verses there is a “dialogue” of the parable. Explaining this verse, Origen says: “Although the virgins were foolish, they understood that they had to go with light to meet the groom, having all the lamps of their feelings burning.” Jerome: “If someone has a virgin soul and loves modesty, he should not be content with the average, which quickly dries out and, having begun to burn, goes out; here the perfect virtues are indicated, emitting eternal light.” Matthew 25:9. And the wise answered: so that there is no shortage for both us and you, you better go to those who sell and buy for yourself. The response of the wise virgins is sometimes considered callous and even “ignoble.” But Jerome notes: “So (the virgins) respond not out of greed, but out of fear. And just as during the Babylonian captivity Jeremiah could not help sinners, and he was told: “Don’t ask for this people” (Jer. 7:16), so the day when everyone will have to think only about themselves will be terrible.” Some suggested that the answer of the wise virgins contained simple irony or mockery of the foolish. Modern critics and exegetes resolutely reject such an interpretation. It appeared, it seems, mainly because if the answer is not taken as a joke and if he was serious, then it is difficult to explain where and how stupid virgins could get oil at night, “when all the shops were locked.” But this matter is explained more simply. If wise virgins advised fools to go and buy themselves oil, then this advice was easy to implement. From the following verse 10 we can conclude that the fools did get the oil, only it was too late; They may not have needed it at all. In all likelihood, the sellers lived somewhere nearby. It is known that in hot countries, as in Palestine, due to the heat of the day, brisk trade is carried out at night. By “selling” Chrysostom means the poor. “Do you see how the poor benefit us? If you eliminate them, you will lose all hope of salvation. So, here we must stock up on oil, so that when the time demands, we can use it: the present, and not the future, is the time of preparation.” The same thought is repeated by Theophylact: “The foolish go to those who sell, i.e. to the poor. This means: they repented that they did not give alms. Only now do they learn that we must receive oil from the poor. Therefore, the words that they went to the sellers to buy oil mean that in their thoughts they went to the poor and began to reflect on what a good deed alms is.” But the parable does not say at all that sellers are poor people. Matthew 25:10. And when they went to buy, the bridegroom came, and they that were ready went in with him to the wedding, and the door was shut; Matthew 25:11. Afterwards the other virgins came and said: Lord! God! open to us. Matthew 25:12. He answered and said to them, “Truly I say to you, I do not know you.” Wed. Luke 13:25–27 – similar expressions are found, but in a different connection, and we are talking about a different subject. Matthew 25:13. Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour in which the Son of Man will come. “In the end, Christ no longer speaks as the Bridegroom, but as the Judge” (Goltsman). The last words: “in which the Son of Man shall come” are not found in some codices, and may have been added to the original text. (Sinaiticus, BL 33 C, Coptic-Saidic, Syro-Sinaitic codes and the text of Jerome end the verse with the word “hours”). But although this addition is not genuine, it can serve as an interpretation of the words “not a day, not an hour.” Verse 13 explains the whole point of the parable of the ten virgins. It does not say that people should have various virtues, for example, alms, mercy, etc. The parable gave rise to the famous disputes between Protestants and Catholics about what should be understood by oil in lamps, faith or good deeds. Protestants, of course, understood only faith, and Catholics understood good deeds. But, strictly speaking, it does not talk about either one or the other. They even thought that it was talking about the Holy Spirit. But all such interpretations have little relevance. The essence of the parable, apparently, is that it constitutes only “an illustration of the last part of Christ’s speech” (Matthew 24:44–51). The parable of the ten virgins can be summarized in its main outlines as follows: Be personally ready, be ready at all times, be ready to go straight to Christ. Let us add to this that both the parable of the ten virgins and the subsequent parable historically had a huge influence on Christian life. In no other religion do we find anything like this. In all other religions, so to speak, there is a constant lack of stimulants or stimulants for activity, progress and improvement. Because of this, in all other religions, except Christian, there is constant stagnation, laziness and inertia. In contrast to these shortcomings of the people's life, Christ encourages Christians to constant vigilance, and this is one of the strongest engines of all progress and improvement. Here the leaven is thrown into the mass of humanity. Here, an unrestrained and constant movement forward is excited, not stopping or calming down at any dead point. The invitation to constant wakefulness is opposed to all stagnation and reaction. But one may ask: where does such strength come from? What is its source? The answer of Christ Himself to these questions may seem somewhat strange. Stay awake, do not sleep, be active and intelligent, do not fall into laziness... because you do not know either the day or the hour... The motive for wakefulness is, therefore, the constant expectation of the coming of the Son of Man, although no one knows exactly the time of this coming. What an amazing motive! Who could expose him except the true Messiah, Who said: “Watch,” constantly wait for Me, “because you do not know” when I will come. Only the enormous authority and dignity of the Messiah who appeared on earth could impart power to such words. Others, perhaps, would only say: stay awake until I come, and I will come at such and such an hour. Don't sleep until I arrive, then you can calm down. This is what masters say to their servants. But the Messiah says otherwise. Matthew 25:14. For He will act like a man who, going to a foreign country, called his servants and entrusted them with his property: In Russian, “He will do” is emphasized. These words are not in the original. Literally: “for as a man departing from his people, he called his servants and gave them his substance.” From this we can see that there is one subordinate clause that begins with “how” (ὥσπερ), but there is no main clause. In our Slavic, this Greek form is conveyed quite accurately (without the main clause): “as if a certain man, when he departed, called his slaves and gave them his property,” etc. Many old and new translations also lack the main clause. So in the Vulgate: sicut enim homo peregre proficiens vocavit servos suoset tradidit illis bona sua. In the English (Authorised version) the following addition was made: For the kingdom of heavens as a man traveling into a far country who called his own servants, etc. (for the Kingdom of Heaven is like a man traveling to a far country, who called his slaves, etc.). This translation has a main and subordinate clause, but the main thing is not the same as the Russian translation. From what has been said, you can see how difficult it is to convey exactly the 14th verse in Russian. What kind of turn of phrase is this? It is called by the tricky word “anantapodoton”, which is not in dictionaries and which is not in all grammars and means “non-return, non-return; lack of consistency with previous speech.” Such phrases are found in other places in the New Testament (Mark 13:34); they are also called ellipsis (abbreviation) or aposiopesis (default) and are used for brevity of speech. The same expressions were used in the Jewish Midrash (Merke). The particle γάρ (“for”) connects the speech of verse 14 with the previous one, but its meaning is not easy to explain here. In all likelihood, the connection is as follows: you know neither the day nor the hour, and you resemble not only the virgins mentioned in the previous parable, but also like slaves to whom one man divided his property. Because (γάρ) when he went to a distant country, he called, etc. The difference between the parable of the talents and the parable of the ten virgins is that the latter depicts the “personal state” of the members of Christ’s Kingdom, while the former refers to their personal activities. Chrysostom compares the parables of the virgins and the talents with the parable of the faithful and evil servant (Matthew 24:40–51). “These parables are similar to the previous parable about the unfaithful servant who squandered his master’s property.” The words “own property” here do not mean real estate, but only money. From the fact that the master further says: “I will put you over many things” (verses 21 and 23), we can conclude that he was not even relatively poor and, going to a distant country, entrusted his slaves with only part of his property. In Luke (Luke 19:12–27), a similar parable is told earlier in time and in a different connection - the parable of the ten minas. The question of whether the parable of the mines is identical to the parable of the talents is very difficult. Some consider them to be two different parables due to some differences. This includes, first of all, the difference in time and place. Luke's parable was told before the Lord's entry into Jerusalem and was addressed to the people and disciples. It is believed that its historical basis was the well-known circumstances of Archelaus’s accession to the throne, when he had to go to Rome and seek succession there (Schürer, Geschichte, I, S. 442). Matthew's parable is part of Christ's last eschatological speech; in this parable there is no hint of a “man of high birth” whom “the citizens hated.” It was said to the closest circle of students. But, on the other hand, there is a very close similarity of expressions in both parables (although not literal), especially cf. Matthew 25:20–29; Luke 19:16–26, does not allow one to abandon the idea that both parables were only variants of the same parable. The identity of both parables is recognized by many serious scientists. At the same time, Matthew’s review, as more “homogeneous and compact,” is recognized as original, and Luke, they say, combines with the parable of the talents another parable - about the indignant citizens. Now, of course, it is very difficult to decide what actually happened. Due primarily to the differences in expressions, it is more likely that two separate parables were spoken on different occasions, under different circumstances and at different times. We have to stop here, since there are not sufficient materials for further judgments. In Mark (Mark 13:34–35) we find only a slight hint of the circumstances set out in the parables of Matthew and Luke. Matthew 25:15. and to one he gave five talents, to another two, to another one, to each according to his strength; and immediately set off. The entire property of a person who went to a foreign country consisted, therefore, of eight talents. These talents, as can be seen from verses 18 and 27, were silver (τὸ ἀργύριον, τὰ ἀργύρια). Holtzmann determines the value of the entire sum of money given to the slaves at 35,000 German marks, i.e. approximately 17-18 thousand rubles with our money 4. Others, converting the value of one silver talent into English pounds sterling, consider one talent equal to 234 pounds sterling (a pound sterling is about 10 rubles in our money), two talents - 468 pounds sterling, five - 1,170, and the whole amount was therefore equal to 1,872 pounds sterling, in our money approximately 18,000 rubles. 5 In the spiritual sense, talent was understood as various abilities given by God to man, which he must use to serve God and for the purpose of advancing the Kingdom of Heaven. Expressions borrowed from this parable - talent, talented, don't bury your talent, etc. - have become stereotypical and common among us, and have become proverbs. By talent that is given to people, different exegetes understand every gift that a person receives from God. But there is some difference in the particular definitions of this general concept. “By talents,” says Chrysostom, “here we mean what is in the power of everyone (ἡ ἑκάστου δύναμις - the power of everyone): either patronage, or property, or teaching, or something similar.” Others understood the gifts that the Apostle Paul speaks of in the 12th chapter of First Corinthians. By "power" (δύναμις) one can understand rather the readiness of a person, his disposition, voluntary or involuntary, to serve the cause of Christ's Kingdom, rather than any positive gift or talent. All gifts or talents are given to a person by God. Matthew 25:16. He who received five talents went and put them to work and acquired another five talents; Matthew 25:17. in the same way, the one who received two talents acquired the other two; Matthew 25:18. He who received one talent went and buried it in the ground and hid his master’s money. It points to the usual way of preserving money among the ancients (used even recently in our villages), when money was buried in secret places known only to the person burying it or to several trusted persons (treasures). Matthew 25:19. After a long time, the master of those slaves comes and demands an account from them. (Compare Luke 19:15 – the expressions are completely different.) Origen says: “Notice here that (slaves) do not go to the master for judgment and to receive what they deserve for their deeds, but the master comes to them.” The master of the slaves went to a foreign country without giving the slaves any instructions regarding his money. They had to guess about this themselves, as can be seen from the parable. The two guessed that they would be required to report and acted wisely. The third thought differently. The expression “after a long time” is understood in the sense that it influences the expressions said before about the surprise and speed of the second coming of the Lord, and they say that this latter should not be understood in an absolute sense. Non est absoluta celeritas adventus Domini (Benguel). Some people think that, strictly speaking, there is no talk here of a general Last Judgment, but of a particular one, when God will demand an account from every person before or during his death. One can, of course, understand the words of Christ in this latter sense. Συναίρει λόγον – confert, vel componit rem seu causam. This expression is conveyed in Russian accurately, although not literally. Matthew 25:20. And the one who had received five talents came and brought another five talents and said: Master! you gave me five talents; Behold, I acquired another five talents with them. Wed. Luke 19:16. In ancient times, money was expensive, and one hundred percent was not unusual. Matthew 25:21. His master said to him: Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful in small things, I will put you over many things; enter into the joy of your master. Wed. Luke 19:17. By “many” we can understand all the property, the whole house (cf. Heb. 3:6). The expressions "good" and "faithful" are different; the first indicates absolute kindness, kindness in itself, the inner virtues of the slave, regardless of the assignment given to him; the second - on his attitude towards the master and his property. Both expressions are distinguished as genus (ἀγαθός) and species (πιστός) - genus and species. By “joy” we cannot understand any celebrations or feasts arranged by the master on the occasion of his return, but simply the joy of the return itself, or the fact that when meeting with the first and second slaves, everything was, in fact, found prosperous, and the loss caused by the lazy slave was more than covered by the profit received by other slaves. Wed. Gen.1:31, 2:2; Isa.53:11; Hebrews 4:3–11, 12:2 ; Rev.3:21. Matthew 25:22. The one who had received two talents also came up and said: Master! you gave me two talents; behold, I acquired the other two talents with them. Matthew 25:23. His master said to him: Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful in small things, I will put you over many things; enter into the joy of your master. Matthew 25:24. The one who had received one talent came up and said: Master! I knew you that you were a cruel man, reaping where you did not sow and gathering where you did not scatter, Matthew 25:25. and, being afraid, you went and hid your talent in the ground; here's yours. To preserve talent without profit, it had to be buried in the ground; Luke has a small amount, just one mina, wrapped in a scarf. Despite all the similarities in meaning, Matthew and Luke have a strong difference in expression. The slave’s speech is distinguished by efficiency - at least that’s what it seems to him. Instead of reasoning, he points to facts that are well known to both him and the gentleman himself. The opinion that talis non erat hic dominus (the master was not like that in reality), as the slave portrays him, is wrong. If the parable depicts real persons, if it is a depiction of contemporary reality at that time, then one must assume that the gentleman was just like that. Such an assumption not only does not harm the spiritual meaning of the parable, but, on the contrary, greatly enhances it. There is no need for sentimentality and embellishment, which are allowed by various exegetes, if only we recognize that Christ depicted persons as they were, and did not idealize them. The slave’s words were fair, which is partly confirmed by the master himself. The kindness of the latter, shown to the first two slaves, cannot be called impeccable from the point of view of absolute morality. He doesn’t care about the ways in which his slaves made money and doubled his capital, as long as they made money. He loves to reap where he has not sowed, that is, perhaps from his neighbors, in the fields adjacent to his own, and to collect grain from other people's threshing floors. He was cruel (σκληρός), the slave expresses fear of him (φοβηθείς – verse 25; ἐφοβούμην – Luke 19:21), and not only “knows” him like that, but also “knew” (ἔγνων – aorist) before, before, during indefinite time. There is no need to assume that this slave here serves as the personification of the Jewish people, who were in lege persistens, totus carnalis et stupidus; here is meant every single person, every single person whom God calls to give an account of his actions. Matthew 25:26. His master answered him: “You wicked and lazy servant!” You knew that I reap where I did not sow, and gather where I did not scatter; The former joy upon meeting the first two slaves is now out of the question. The former gentle and quiet speech now turns into a menacing breath of a storm. Again, the opinion is incorrect that here the master refutes the slander of the slave (servus autem malus appellatur: quia calumniam domino facit, - Jerome) or speaks here only hypothetically, presumably (ὑποθετικῶς τὸν λόγον προήγαγεν , Evfimy Zigavin). There is no refutation of slander here, no hypotheticalness. The slave’s words are recognized as fair, but the master is so powerful and powerful that ordinary morality seems to have no meaning for him. Strength is his right! Therefore, greed, predation, love of profit, the absence of ordinary logic in him are virtues. If he reaps in other people's fields, then that's right! If you collect grain from other people's threshing floors, then it is legal! The slave knew this well, and he needed to take note of it. Since the slave did not do what was desired by his master, he is subjected to trial, and, moreover, on the basis of principles, again disapproving from the point of view of ordinary morality. The master almost entirely repeats what the slave just said and blames him for it. Matthew 25:27. Therefore, you should have given my silver to the merchants, and when I came, I would have received mine with profit; The meaning of the speech is not the following: you had to give my silver to the merchants, and if you, through negligence, inability, or for some reason, had wasted the talent given to you, then you would have nothing to fear, I would not have subjected you to punishment for this. On the contrary, one must think that if a slave squandered the property entrusted to him and did not return anything to the master or returned only part, then he would be subjected to even greater condemnation and punishment. This is just not talked about. The portrayed character of the person is perfectly maintained in the parable from beginning to end. He is a cruel, capricious and greedy man, he does not talk about anything more than profit. He does not demand from the “evil” and “lazy” slave that he certainly make money for him, like others, one hundred percent. But there must be at least some profit! If it were too small, the master would not invite the slave to enter into his joy; but he would not have subjected him to severe punishment either. The imperfection of this whole matter and demands, which, however, so easily, quickly and naturally, as if imperceptibly passes into the most sublime Christian morality, is visible from the fact that the Jews had laws that allowed them to lend money to Jews, but it was strictly forbidden to give them money on interest (Lev.25:35-37; Deut.15:1-10, 23:19-20). Among the persons who can abide in the dwelling of the Lord and dwell on the holy mountain of the Lord, the Psalmist includes the one “who does not lend his money at interest” (Ps. 14:5). But if usury was prohibited between Jews, then it was completely permitted in relation to the pagans: “You shall give to a foreigner at usury, but you shall not lend to your brother at usury” (Deut. 23:20); “Thou shalt exact it from the foreigner, but forgive thy brother what is thine” (Deut. 15:3). In the Talmud (Rosh Hashanah I, 8; Talmud, trans. Pereferkovich. Vol. 2, p. 427; Sanhedrin, III, 3; ibid., vol. 4, p. 258) there are general rulings that those who give money on interest cannot be witnesses and judges. “The one who gives loans on interest cannot repent until he tears up the borrowed letters he has and makes complete repentance” (The Bavli adds that he will not give on interest even to the pagans; Talmud, trans. Pereferkovich. Vol. 4, p. 259; see also Bava Metzia, ch. IV-IV; ibid., vol. 4, pp. 103–127, where there are intricate discussions about buying, selling, deception, growth, etc.). In Bava-Metzia, V, 6 (ibid., T. 4, p. 119) it is said: “They do not accept “iron cattle” (“tzon barzel”) from a Jew, for this is growth, but they accept “iron cattle” from the pagans, just as they borrow from them and give them at interest; the same applies to the sedentary proselyte. A Jew may lend (with interest) money belonging to a Gentile with the knowledge of the Gentile, but not with the knowledge of the Jew.” Despite all such regulations, at that time, however, “usury flourished without limit” and “there is no doubt that the Jewish moneylenders in Palestine and everywhere were engaged in this kind of enterprise.” This is what the master points out to his slave, using the exact Greek expression meaning birth, growth (σὺν τόκῳ, in Russian translation - “with profit”). Matthew 25:28. So take the talent from him and give it to the one who has ten talents, Origen says: “How something that was previously given to him is taken away from someone and given to another, active, so that he can have more than he has already acquired, it is not easy to explain.” Origen then follows with an allegorical and vague explanation. In a spiritual sense, of course, the explanation is quite difficult, but if we adhere to the historical or everyday basis of the parable, then the explanation will not seem particularly difficult. A slave who does not pay back the amount given to him, as an inactive and lazy person, has it taken away. This serves as his first punishment. The talent that did not bring growth is given to the first slave, and not to the second, although he was also kind and faithful. It's more reliable. All this is so natural and vital! There is no need that the first one already has a lot of talents. His powers are great, and he can act again and acquire more. The gentleman is prudent everywhere and everywhere and knows perfectly well how to look after his interests. Matthew 25:29. For to everyone who has, more will be given and he will have an abundance, but from him who does not have, even what he has will be taken away; A peculiar, but quite vital and understandable reason is indicated for why the last talent is taken away. It lies not in the fact that the crafty and lazy slave has no talent, but in the fact that he has no growth and profit. For this lack of profit, his very talent is taken away from him. Τοῦ δὲ μὴ ἔχοντος, so-called. genitivus privativus (cf. Matt. 13:12 and comments on this verse). Matthew 25:30. and throw the worthless slave into outer darkness: there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Having said this, he exclaimed: whoever has ears to hear, let him hear! Luke 19:27 deals with a completely different subject. The last words “Having said this... let him hear!” , placed in Russian and Slavic texts, are not in any ancient codes or translations, and they should be considered inauthentic. They rightly point out the difference between speech to good and faithful servants and to the evil and lazy. There the master himself invites his faithful slaves to enter into his joy; here, as in Matthew 22:13, he commands his servants to throw out the unprofitable slave. On outer darkness, etc., see comments on Matthew 8:12. The parable considered, even more than the parable of the ten virgins, had, has and will have enormous practical and vital significance. It serves as a powerful stimulator of Christian activity. Her influence has always been great. Its practical meaning is this: do not stop at anything, but use the talent given to you by God and use it to serve His Kingdom. It serves as a counteraction and antidote to any stagnation, inertia, laziness, idleness, retrograde and complacency. Steady movement forward on the path to self-improvement, continuous activity and development, this constitutes the main postulate of the parable. The motive exhibited for all this is even more astonishing than in the parable of the ten virgins. If some ordinary person, say even the father of a family, began to encourage people to vigilant, restless activity, he would probably point out its practical benefits, benefits, happiness, the need for movement, the harm of idleness and inactivity. The Savior indicates a completely different and peculiar motive. When He comes again and returns to His own, He will sternly, cruelly and without concessions exact from everyone for the correct use of the talent given to Him, and if there is no profit, He will punish them severely. Such a motive has truly become a driving force among Christian peoples, and people, believers and non-believers, are all, in essence, consciously and unconsciously guided by it in their activities. No one, not even the most exalted religious teacher, could offer such a motive, except one only - the true Messiah. Matthew 25:31. When the Son of Man comes in His glory and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory, "Saints" - this word is not in some codes, and it is inserted here, perhaps from Zech. 14:5. The speech, from verse 31 to the end of the chapter, is considered by many not to be a parable, but a prophecy, into which only a rich figurative and symbolic element is introduced. Christ's speech becomes more and more majestic. It reveals new aspects of His eschatological teaching. Initially, the groom comes suddenly and takes those ready to the wedding feast with him. Then - the master, rewarding his slaves for good performance of their work and severely punishing them for inactivity. Finally, the king (verse 34) coming into the world for judgment. In all these cases, obviously, one and the same Person of the Son of Man Himself appears, acting differently under different circumstances. This is the deep internal connection of all three parables, which are closely related to the entire eschatological speech set out in the 24th chapter. This connection can be expressed in a few words: one and the same Lord. The new appearance of Christ will be completely opposite to the previous one. If His first coming was in the form of a Slave, complete humility and humiliation, then the second was in the form of a King, accompanied by Angels and sitting on a throne. How these figurative expressions should be understood, in a literal or only spiritual sense, is difficult to say. They usually talk about the personal appearance of the Son of Man, sitting on a majestic and exalted throne, and so they write in paintings and icons. But the phenomenon can also be understood in a spiritual sense. To at least somewhat explain this last one and bring it closer to understanding, let’s say that after centuries and now the Son of Man sits, albeit invisibly, on a throne (also invisible), and people are constantly approaching Him and gravitating towards Him as their King. Something similar may happen at the final trial. Let us add to what has been said that the images taken for the prophecy are distinguished by their extreme simplicity. The speech is not complicated by more and more new reasoning, but almost all consists of repetition of the same thing, done with extraordinary skill, and this makes it easily accessible and easily digestible even by small children. There were exegetes who did not dare to interpret this speech of the Savior. Matthew 25:32. and all nations will be gathered before Him; and will separate one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats; There has been much discussion about the expression “all peoples”. What nations? Are they Christians only, or are they pagans as well as Jews? Origen added other differences here. “It is not clear enough,” he said, whether the word “all” means from all generations (ab omnibus generationibus), or those who will remain until the day of judgment, or those only who believed in God through Christ, and whether they are all, or not all. However, some people think that this is said about the separation of those who believed.” These expressions are not clear enough. Zigavin argued that here we are talking only about Christians (περὶ τῶν χριστιανῶν δὲ μόνον ὁ λόγος ἐνταῦθα). But if we are talking only about Christians, which could be concluded from the subsequent conversation of the Tsar with the defendants, showing that they all know Christ, then the question is, will other nations, besides Christians, be judged or not? If they do not, then, consequently, the final judgment will not be universal. In view of this, some make a concession and say that the judgment will be universal, all people without exception will be called to it, Christians will be judged on the basis of the principles of “mercy and philanthropy” indicated in the speech itself, and all others - either on the basis of natural law or their existing codes of moral law. This opinion is supported by the expression πάντα τὰ ἔθνη - all nations, and this opinion, with certain modifications, is generally accepted by the newest exegetes. Against him, however, it can be argued that Christ told His disciples that they would not be judged, but that they would judge with Him the twelve tribes of Israel (Matthew 19:28). On the other hand, there is no doubt about the authenticity of the following words spoken by the Savior Himself: “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life” (John 5:24). These words are very clear, the judgment will not be universal, some people will be spared from the judgment. Thus, this first and important limitation will have to exist at the Last Judgment. To understand all this, apparently contradicting one another, we should not imagine the Last Court in the form of an ordinary court, where the case is investigated and considered by ignorant judges who borrow materials from the judicial investigation for their judgments. The Heavenly Judge is not like earthly judges, He is omniscient and knows in advance the secrets of the human heart, for Him there will be no need for interrogations and interrogations, as ordinary judges do. This interpretation greatly simplifies the matter. We must renounce all ideas about our human judgments and then we will understand that all prophecy consists of images and symbols aimed at the main practical goal - to encourage people to acts of mercy and love. Thus, the parable of the virgins encourages vigilance, the parable of talents encourages activity, and the prophecy of the Last Judgment encourages deeds of mercy and love. From what has been said, only one conclusion remains: all people will be judged, but the moments of judgment will be long; some will pass into eternal life before the final judgment. All expressions in the prophecy are figurative. A great difficulty for interpretation appears in the circumstance that πάντα τὰ ἔθνη (all peoples) is neuter, and the further “them” (in Russian translation - “one from the other” - αὐτοὺς ἀπ´ ἀλλήλων) is a masculine pronoun. Such an impossible and unusual combination in the Greek language of a masculine pronoun with a neuter noun forced some exegetes to even assume that two completely different speeches were borrowed from two different sources and mechanically (even without coordination) combined into one speech. “The introduction is therefore not suitable for further speech; no unification is possible between συναχθήσονται πάντα τὰ ἔθνη and καὶ αφοριεῖ αὐτούς, and here therefore there is a rapprochement of those who initially had no connection with each other parts, which can no longer be explained with certainty." The point here is somewhat exaggerated. Similar ad sensum constructions, as Blass shows, are found in other places in the New Testament (Blass, Gram., S. 162 et seq.). Thus, Acts 8:5: ἐκήρυσσεν αὐτοὲς τόν Χριστόν ; Gal.4:19: τεκνία μου, οὕς; John 6:9: παιδάριον, ὅ; Phil.2:15: γενεᾶς σκολιᾶς, ἐν οἷς, etc. The division is compared to the actions of a shepherd who separates the sheep from the goats (ἐρίφων – masculine gender). Why sheep will be placed on the right side, which represent the righteous, this does not require explanation, because the image of sheep is so common in the New Testament that the matter does not present any difficulties. But why not even goats, but goats, were chosen to designate those standing on the left side is not easy to explain. Jerome said: “He did not speak about goats, which can have offspring,” but “about goats, a lustful and eager animal” et fervens semper ad coitum. Others argue that goats were “little valued” (cf. Luke 15:29), and therefore even the contemptuous diminutive τὰ ἐρίφια is used in verse 33. All of these explanations are unlikely. It is better to explain the matter using natural images. All the peoples who came to judgment represent a herd, not homogeneous, but consisting of different elements. If Christ had said that the shepherd would separate the wolves from the sheep, then such speech would, of course, be unnatural. But goats and sheep constantly graze together in eastern herds. One traveler says that, while traveling between Joppa and Jerusalem, he saw in one place a large mixed herd of sheep and goats. The goats were completely black, the sheep were all distinguished by a beautiful whiteness, and thus, even at a considerable distance, the difference between the two classes of animals was clearly visible. The separation of sheep from goats is common in all countries where these animals graze in large numbers. Goats, of course, do not serve in this tributary speech as a characteristic of the persons standing on the left side; Christ briefly uses these animals to indicate the division of people, perhaps into blacks and whites, i.e. evil and good. The relationship of this verse to Ezek. 34:17 ff. Tsang considers it “very doubtful.” Matthew 25:33. and He will put the sheep on His right hand, and the goats on His left. The Russian translation is accurate, but does not fully express the idea of ​​the original. In Greek: "from (from, ἐξ) the right side" and "from the left side". The face of the Judge will be turned towards the nations, and the right side does not mean the right side towards Him (as we have in the churches), but away from Him. Instead of ἔριφος in verse 32, now ἐρίφιον is a goat, a diminutive. It is quite difficult to explain this difference. Probably, τὰ ἐρίφια is put here in closer correspondence with the previous τὰ πρόβατα and means not so much “goats” as “a flock of goats,” which was not discussed in verse 32, because the goats were mixed with the sheep and together with them formed one flock. In verse 32 it could not be said that the shepherd was separating the “flock of goats” from the “flock of sheep,” because that would not be accurate and would not correspond to what actually happens. Now, when the goats (and female goats) were separated, their entirety, the entire herd, is called τὰ ἐρίφια. Matthew 25:34. Then the King will say to those on His right hand: Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: The goats and sheep completely disappear from view in this verse and beyond. They served only to designate different classes of people, to whom the Tsar now addresses. Instead of “sheep,” the expression “which is on the right side” is used, and instead of goats, “which are on the left side” (verse 41). The King calls those on the right side blessed of His Father and invites them to inherit “the kingdom prepared from the foundation of the world.” “He did not say: accept, but “inherit” as your own, as your father’s, as yours, as belonging to you from time immemorial” (St. John Chrysostom). The expression "from the creation of the world" (ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου) is difficult to accurately translate from Greek. In use among the classics, Καταβολή is sometimes placed next to θεμέλιον, base; means sometimes fertilization, insemination (Heb. 11:11). In the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament, the expression indicates a historical beginning with a relation to the future, a goal and completion, because in καταβολή there is always a relation to what must be restored (Kremer). The New Testament makes a distinction between the time πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου, before the creation of the world, and from the creation of the world. In the present case, one should not understand the pre-eternal preparation or preparation before the creation of the world (cf. Eph. 1:4), but the Savior uses simply a general expression to designate a long time ago, “not going back very far.” The expression may simply mean “for a long time.” Theophylact here draws attention to the fact that a speech is being made before the court. “The Lord rewards and punishes not before reasoning, because He loves mankind, and by this he teaches us that we should not punish before examining the matter.” When, Bengel notes, good and evil are compared with each other, then eternal existence, so to speak, antecedent, is always attributed to good, but evil is said to be from the beginning (ab exitu). So in the present verse (cf. verse 41; 1 Cor. 2:6-7). Matthew 25:35. For I was hungry, and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger and you accepted Me; Matthew 25:36. I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me. The picture suddenly changes without becoming any less majestic. The King recalls His past. He is not ashamed of His former poverty and squalor. These words were clear to everyone. Matthew 25:37. Then the righteous will answer Him: Lord! when did we see you hungry and feed you? or to the thirsty and gave them something to drink? Matthew 25:38. when did we see you as a stranger and accept you? or naked and clothed? Matthew 25:39. When did we see You sick, or in prison, and came to You? Matthew 25:40. And the King will answer them, “Truly I say to you, just as you did it to one of the least of these brothers of Mine, you did it to Me.” Matthew 25:41. Then He will also say to those on the left side: Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: In verse 41, the word κατηραμένοι - “cursed” - attracts special attention. It comes from ἀρά or ἀρή - prayer, request; in the Greek epic and among poets it is used in the sense of “misfortune”, “disaster”, “punishment”, “punishment from the gods”. The Greeks even had a goddess of curse and death, who was called that. In the New Testament, the words κατάρα and καταρᾶσθαι are used several times, and always, apparently, as the opposite of εύλογία - blessing (Matthew 5:44; Mark 11:21; Luke 6:28; James 3:9–10; 2 Pet.2:14; Rom.12:14; Gal.3:10, 13; Heb.6:8), as in the present place (for details see Kremer under ἀρά and κατάρα). Thus, the word “cursed” here refers to those people to whom a word was spoken that would bring upon them disasters, destruction, death and “eternal fire.” The curse should be understood here in the sense of condemnation. But they pay attention that formally the curse is not attributed to God the Father and “the curse is pronounced as if in an impersonal form.” The expression “eternal fire prepared for the devil and the angels,” as in other places of the New Testament, perhaps does not mean material fire, but simply torment that will be eternal (cf. Jude 1:7). Matthew 25:42. For I was hungry, and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty, and you gave Me no drink; Matthew 25:43. I was a stranger, and they did not accept Me; I was naked, and they did not clothe Me; sick and in prison, and they did not visit Me. Matthew 25:44. Then they too will answer Him: Lord! when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not serve You? Verse 44 repeats the speech of verses 37–39, but with strong abbreviations. Both the righteous and the sinners show ignorance of what the King is talking about. If sinners had ever seen Him as He portrays Himself, i.e. hungry, thirsty, etc., then - oh, of course! - would serve Him. But if the mistake, or, better, the naive and modest ignorance of the righteous is interpreted in their favor, then the opposite is true here. Matthew 25:45. Then he will answer them, “Truly I say to you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” Matthew 25:46. And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into everlasting life. The gold content of the then ruble was 0.86 g; those. the entire amount approximately corresponded to the cost of 15 kg of gold. – Approx. ed. That is approximately 15 kg 480 g of gold. – Approx. ed. You might be interested in: