Глава 28

1–10. Resurrection of Jesus Christ. – 11–15. Bribing the guards. – 16–20. The appearance of the risen Christ to the disciples in Galilee. Matthew 28:1. After the Sabbath had passed, at dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb. (Cf. Mark 16:1–5; Luke 24:1–5; John 20:1–2.) It is difficult, both in this verse and in all the others, to unite Matthew's account with the accounts of the other gospel writers, and thus to reconcile them. “The improbability,” says Alford, “that the evangelists were familiar with each other’s stories becomes a complete impossibility in this section of their Gospels.” The evangelists talk about different appearances of Christ: obviously, they change the order in which events should have followed in their historical sequence. This last point is observed in Matthew from the very first verses of the chapter under consideration. If he had conducted his narrative in strictly chronological order, then, obviously, he would have had to first present what he says further in verses 2-4, because the events described here undoubtedly predated the arrival of the women at the tomb. If we only had the Russian translation of the Gospel of Matthew, then the first verse would not give us any particular difficulties. When the Sabbath, before which the Savior was buried, had passed, then at dawn of the next day, i.e. in our opinion, early on Sunday morning, two women came to the tomb with the goal of “seeing the tomb” (according to Mark - “to anoint Him”). With such a fairly clear presentation, only one difficulty would remain: why, speaking of “the dawn of the first day of the week,” does the evangelist add that it was “after the Sabbath,” although it was already known that this “first day” always followed the Sabbath? No one says: I set off on a journey early in the morning on Tuesday, when Monday ended, because if it were simply said: I set off early in the morning on Tuesday, then such speech would in itself be more understandable without the indicated addition, and the latter would not only be an unnecessary pleonasm, but would also obscure the speech. If we turn from the Russian text to the Slavic, we will find that it is even less intelligible: “on the Sabbath evening” (corrected; “after the Sabbath supper”), “coming together from the Sabbaths, Mary Magdalene came,” etc. In the Vulgate it is equally unclear: vespere autem sabbati, quae lucescit in prima sabbati, venit Maria Magdalene and etc., i.e. on the evening of Saturday, which dawns on the first day of Saturday (vesper - masculine here, obviously, vespera is feminine, which is why it was put quaë Mary Magdalene came, etc.). If we now turn to the Greek text from these translations, we will find that the obscurity of the translations also depends on its obscurity. The interpretation here is further complicated by the fact that for the Jews the day began in the evening, and “Sabbath evening”, i.e. in our opinion, the evening from Saturday to the first day of the week (Sunday) could be called simply “the first day.” This is the first thing. Secondly, if we assume that the evangelist wanted to express himself in the same way as we express ourselves, i.e. “on Saturday evening,” then how was it possible to say that this evening coincided with the “dawn” (τῇ ἐπιφωσκούσῃ εἰς μίαν σαββάτων) of the first week day? Many explanations have been proposed for this expression. 1) “On Saturday evening is equivalent to what was said in Luke: deep in the morning (“very early”), and in Mark: “at sunrise” (Theophylact). 2) "Ὀψέ - after Saturday. So in Plutarch: ὀψὲ τῶν βασιλέως χρόνων - after the time of the king, and Philostratus: ὀψὲ Τροϊκῶν - after the Trojan War." In Russian the translation obviously accepts this interpretation of ὀψέ, when it is said: “after the Sabbath has passed.” 3) By “evening” (vespera) they meant the star Venus, which is called Lucifer, in Greek - ἕσπερος, in Latin - vesperus. But hanc stellam non significat graecum ὀψὲ nec latinum vespere (this star does not mean the Greek ὀψὲ and the Latin vespere). 4) “The plural ὀψὲ σαβάτων has no meaning.” Therefore, in many translations the only thing used is Saturday. 5) The expression in Matthew was redone from διαγενομένου τοῦ σαββάτων Mark and lost all meaning. 6) The difficulty disappears if we admit that the Jews had a “more or less widespread custom” of adding not day to night, but night to day, so that there were two ways of counting complete astronomical days: night - day and day - night. If so, then Matthew's expression would be clear. But, unfortunately, such a “widespread custom among Jews” is difficult to prove. Therefore, “it must remain, important as it is, unknown whether ὀψὲ σαββάτων refers to Saturday evening or indicates early Sunday morning.” The simplest explanation may be as follows. The evangelist's expression ὀψὲ δὲ σαββάτων belongs to the category of those that are difficult to explain grammatically. Nevertheless, their real meaning is clear, and, of course, bearing in mind precisely this meaning, Blass (Gram., S. 96) translates the expression “spät am Sabbath” - “late on Saturday,” which almost corresponds to the Russian translation and is in accordance with both the further words of the evangelist and the testimony of Mark 16:1. After ἐπιφωσκούσῃ, some add “day” (ἡμέρᾳ), others add “hour” (ὥρᾳ). That is, literally, late on Saturday, when the day dawned on one of the Saturdays or when the hour dawned, it was the day or hour of dawn. The substitution of ὥρα (Tsan) is more likely because further μίαν implies ἡμὲραν, and therefore the repetition of ἡμὲραν would be completely unnecessary. On the Jewish counting of days, see comments on Matthew 21:1. Since σάββατα was used by the Jews in the sense of a week, the meaning of the expression εἰς μίαν σαββάτων - “the first day of the week” - is clear. This expression was used by the rabbis. The general meaning of the first words of the verse in question is that when midnight, attributed by the evangelist to the previous Saturday, had not yet ended, and when the dawn of the next day was just approaching, etc. This indicates the time when the women approached the coffin, without indicating when they left the house. According to Matthew, these women were "Mary Magdalene and the other Mary." Mark calls the latter “Mary of Jacob” - the mother of James the less and Josiah, the wife of Cleopas or Bedbugs, and also mentions Salome (see comments on Matthew 20:20). On the occasion of the Sabbath, women stayed at home and did not go to the tomb. They point out a “curious coincidence” that among Jews, relatives and friends of the deceased usually went to his tomb on the third day after his death (when decomposition supposedly began) to make sure that the deceased was really dead. Commenting on the fact that Abraham saw Mount Moriah on the third day (Gen. 22:4), the rabbis insisted on the importance of the third day in various events in the history of Israel and specifically spoke of it in connection with the resurrection, citing Hos. 6:2 as evidence. In one place, referring to the same prophetic saying, they deduced from Genesis 40:13 that God never leaves the soul of the righteous to languish and torment for more than three days. When weeping for the dead, the third day was like a deadline, because they thought that the soul hovered around the body until the third day and at that time finally left its earthly home. Luke does not name the women here, but John speaks only of Mary Magdalene. John's story gives reason to think that Mary Magdalene came first to the tomb, separating herself from other women who came from different places. The grounds on which this latter opinion is disputed are insufficient. The account of Matthew and Mark does not contradict this opinion. Going to the tomb, the women obviously did not know that the stone was sealed and that a guard was assigned to the tomb (Mark 16:3). This serves as proof that the sealing of the tomb and the posting of the guard took place between the time of Christ's burial and the end of the Sabbath, the implication being that women did not visit the tomb during this period of time. Matthew 28:2. And behold, there was a great earthquake, for the Angel of the Lord, who descended from heaven, came and rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb and sat on it; Matthew departs here from the story of the other evangelists and only one reports these details. It is impossible to imagine more majestic circumstances. First of all, there was a "great earthquake" (σεισμὸς ἐγένετο μέγας). And here again there is no need to assume that these words of the evangelist do not indicate a physical earthquake, as during the crucifixion. One can only agree that instead of several underground blows, as during the crucifixion, at that time there was one very strong one. But there is, in fact, no need to allow this either. There was generally a strong earthquake, if we interpret the words of the evangelist in their literal sense. This was a new earthquake, which was, as it were, an echo and renewal of the first, at the crucifixion. Undoubtedly, this often happens during natural earthquakes. Simultaneously with a strong underground blow, an Angel descended from heaven and rolled away the stone from the tomb. And at the same time, the resurrected Christ emerged from the tomb. The other interpretations of the event found here seem to be at least groundless and, undoubtedly, greatly detract from the greatness of the miracle. Chrysostom says that “after the Resurrection an Angel comes. Why does he come and roll away the stone? For the wives who saw him then in the tomb.” So does Zigavin: “Christ rose again before the Angel descended.” Such interpretations were proposed in order to show that Christ, now possessing a spiritualized body, could just as easily leave the tomb when the stone was rolled against him as he could pass through the locked doors (John 20:19). In modern times they said that σεισμός was, in fact, not an earthquake, but a sudden opening of the tomb by a descended or descending Angel, as shown by γάρ. The falling off of the stone did not occur in a natural way, but through a shaking - the word that is here (σεισμός). It cannot be assumed that the Resurrection took place at this time, as some imagined and as is depicted in the pictures. It was there before. Such opinions are expressed on the basis that women did not see the Angel descend from heaven and roll away the stone. They themselves did not see anything, but could deduce the circumstances of the Resurrection from what they saw afterwards. But all this is hypercriticism. One important factor is forgotten under the present circumstances - the soldiers who saved the coffin. They were, according to the meaning of the story, the first and closest witnesses of the Resurrection and could report about it later, since it is difficult to admit that, bribed by the high priests, none of them decided, even after a few years, to tell about such a miracle with the whole truth (cf. τινές - verse 11). It can be assumed, however, that the guards did not see the resurrection of Christ itself, but witnessed the miraculous phenomena of the descent of the Angel and the falling of the stone from the tomb. This is all we know about the original event. It, in fact, is covered in complete uncertainty and it is rightly noted that the evangelists only talk about the results of the Resurrection, i.e. about the events that followed, and not about the Resurrection itself. During the actual act of the Resurrection, the women were on their way to the tomb. “From the door of the tomb” - these words are not in the Sinaiticus, BD, Syro-Sinaitic codes or Latin translations. It is impossible not to see that without this addition the speech of the evangelists is more concise, stronger and outwardly beautiful. Matthew 28:3. his appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow; Any apocryphal fiction would probably say otherwise. The shining and radiant Christ Himself would be displayed in it. Evangelists, speaking about the fact of the Resurrection, initially say nothing about the Risen Christ. Instead of Him, the women are presented with a majestic appearance of an Angel. “Appearance” here, of course, does not mean the face, but the whole appearance in general. It is possible that the Angel did not seem like this until the women saw him. In the New Testament the expression εἰδέα is found only here, but in the Old - Dan.1:15; 2Mac.3:16 and often among the Greeks. Perhaps ἀστραπ (“lightning”) here should be understood in the sense that rays similar to lightning emanated from the Angel. But although Plato’s Phaedrus contains the expression εἶδον τὴν ὄψιν... ἀστράπτουσαν (Meyer), we cannot imagine what this phenomenon was like. The presence of an Angel indicated the extreme grandeur and splendor of the event taking place. Matthew 28:4. Frightened by him, those guarding them trembled and became as if they were dead; The word ἐσείσθησαν corresponds to σεισμός used in verse 2 - “they were shocked,” “were in awe.” Evfimy Zigavin says that ἐσείσθησαν is put here instead of ἐτρόμαξαν from τρομέω - “to tremble”, “to be afraid”. The guards were not killed, but became as dead. Since we no longer see them that same night at the coffin, we must think that, waking up from horror, they all ran away. Matthew 28:5. The angel, turning his speech to the women, said: Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus crucified; (Cf. Mark 16:6; Luke 24:5). In Mark, similar (but not literally the same) words are spoken to the women by a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in white clothing - obviously the same Angel about whom Matthew speaks; in Luke - “two men in shining robes.” Since Matthew and Mark could simply remain silent about one of the two Angels, there is no contradiction here. Matthew's angel does not “speak” to the women, but “answers” ​​(ἀποκριθείς) to them. This can be understood in two ways, paying attention to the particle δέ placed here. Firstly, the appearance of an Angel (or, according to Luke, two) caused fear and trembling in the soldiers who made up the guard; but (δέ) the attitude of the Angel (or Angels) towards the women who approached the tomb was different - the Angel addressed them with words of encouragement, announcing to them the good news of the Resurrection. Secondly, the women themselves did not say anything to the Angel (or Angels), but were in fear, “bowed their faces to the ground” (Luke) and “were horrified” (Mark). “Responding” not to their words, but to this state of mind, the Angel announces to them the news of the Resurrection. The whole condition of the women seemed to be a question caused by extreme amazement and fear. De Wette believes that the personal pronoun “you” (ὑμεῖς) here does not have a special and definite meaning and that in this sense personal pronouns are used in different cases (Mark 13:9; Acts 8:24). But other exegetes attach special meaning to the pronoun “you” here. The guards, as the Angel says, were afraid and trembled, but as for you women, do not be afraid. The reason (γάρ) for women to be free from all fear is that, as the Angel knows, women “seek Jesus crucified.” They do not belong to the enemies of Christ, they came with good, good intentions to find the Body of the Crucified One. The angel calls Christ “Crucified.” “I am not ashamed to be called Crucified, because this is our highest good” (St. John Chrysostom). Ζητεῖτε (“seek”) is a verb that appears frequently in the New Testament. If the Savior was in the tomb, then even then one could say about the women who wanted to see the body of the Savior that they were “looking” for Christ. Since the Body was not in the tomb, the verb ζητέω here has a more complete meaning - to search and not find and therefore continue your search. The verb generally indicates the desire to find some object. Matthew 28:6. He is not here - He has risen, as He said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay, (Compare Mark 16:6; Luke 24:5–8.) Luke has more detail than Matthew and Mark: The angels quote the very words spoken by the Savior when He was still in Galilee. “He is not here” refers to the simple fact that the Body of Jesus Christ was not in the tomb. The reason (γάρ) why He is not here is then explained: “He has risen” (ἠγέρθη γάρ). This was the first news of the Resurrection, and it was given to women; only the message, and not the appearances of the Risen Lord themselves. People heard from heavenly messengers that He had risen. The resurrection is presented in all the Gospels as something completely opposite to both crucifixion and death. The Crucifixion was a state of extreme humiliation and shame, the Resurrection was the highest glory and the highest majesty of Christ. The resurrection could not have happened if death had not followed first. Death was the end of this temporary life, Resurrection was the beginning of a new, endless one. The question of the reality of the Resurrection of the Savior is very complex and its resolution relates, in fact, to the tasks of apologetics. Let's just say a few words about this. To explain not so much the fact of the Resurrection of Christ, but the messages of the evangelists about this fact, many theories have been presented. Apologists for the most part only deal with their analysis, preferring here almost exclusively the negative path and avoiding a positive solution to the issue. Thus, in the end, it turns out that if Renan, Strauss and many other negative critics could not refute the gospel stories about the Resurrection, and if their theories, in which attempts are made in one way or another to belittle the significance of this most important Christian fact, do not stand up to criticism, then this fact is true. Justice demands that we say that this negative path, which consists in refuting anti-Christian theories of the Resurrection, completely leads to the goal - the defense of the fact of the Resurrection itself, and it can be fully asserted that to date, negative critics have not presented a single, not only completely, but also any satisfactory theory, with the help of which it would be possible to explain the Gospel stories about the Resurrection by some natural (and not miraculous) reasons. However, this negative path, usually adopted by apologists, is insufficient and does not satisfy the believer. He feels extreme boredom when a number of fictions belonging to numerous negative critics are presented to him in apologetic treatises, and when apologists are engaged in a thorough refutation of them, although some fictions (especially the notorious Renan) do not deserve not only any refutation, but even a simple mention. The method adopted here by the apologists boils down to this: wanting to prove that twice two is four, they prove that twice two is not equal to 1, not equal to 2, and not equal to 3, and stop there. But, of course, it would be much better if they directly set out to prove that two and two equal four, without resorting to an analysis of the various absurdities presented in order to refute this mathematical truth. Of course, not all apologists follow this negative path. Some people try to resolve the issue positively. The positive path to its solution lies, first of all, in considering the testimony of the Apostle Paul, who speaks either directly about the Resurrection of Christ, or implies and presupposes it in his speech. The testimony of the Apostle Paul, both direct and indirect, about the Resurrection of Christ has complete and positive significance for us, even if we were completely distrustful of the stories of all the evangelists without exception. But if the Resurrection of Christ as a simple fact, regardless of the details, is fully and clearly confirmed by the Apostle Paul, then this gives us the right to assert that the evangelists also affirm a reliable fact in their testimony (again, regardless of the details), and their testimony should therefore be accepted with complete confidence. The Apostle Paul states, among other things, that “if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, and our faith is also vain” (1 Cor. 15:14). These words have the deepest theological meaning. The Apostle does not say: our knowledge is vain or our activity (except preaching) is vain. But: preaching is in vain, faith is in vain. What does it mean? Why faith and not knowledge? This means that the Resurrection of Christ has not a scientific, but a predominantly religious significance, significance for our faith. If Christ had not been resurrected, then this whole amazing gospel story about the great Teacher, who was, however, crucified in the end, would have been perhaps even less instructive for us than the life story of Mohammed or Confucius. One has only to imagine that all the evangelists omit, completely do not exist, the chapters where they talk about the Resurrection, and one can immediately see that the entire gospel story does not have a proper conclusion. It would seem completely unknown what exactly the evangelists wanted to explain when outlining the life story of a great historical Person. Reading the Gospels, we could only think that every noble, selfless activity for the benefit of humanity, every manifestation of an outstanding mind and talent always ends only very sadly, as it ended for the Savior - with only the Cross. Not only would this not be attractive to anyone, but, on the contrary, it would repel and force one to avoid following the same path that Christ walked; it would be a very serious warning, especially for those who are inexperienced and unfamiliar with life. But the matter appears in a completely different light if we understand that the Resurrection is a necessary postulate of the entire gospel story and its natural epilogue. In this case, the entire previous gospel history, the entire life and activity of Christ, starting from the Bethlehem manger to the Cross, will appear to us in a completely different and completely radiant light. We will clearly see that here the deepest and most comprehensive life problem, the problem of life and death, is clearly, accessible and understandable, and its solution has the same deep, say, inexhaustible theological and philosophical meaning. Some of the evangelists report more details about this fact, others less, nevertheless, one main and all-sufficient fact remains with them, so to speak, completely inviolable. In the verse of Matthew under discussion, this main fact is indicated with amazing simplicity and in only five main words: οὐκ ἔστιν ὧδε ἡγέρθη γάρ - literally: “(He) is not here, for (He) has risen.” So that this fact does not seem completely new and unexpected to women, the Angel adds: καθὼς εἶπεν - “as he said,” of course, when he was still living on earth. And in order to destroy any further doubts in women, the Angel invites them, in equally simple, clear words, to come closer to the tomb and personally verify the truth of their words. Literally: “Here! Look at the place where he was lying." The additional word “Lord” is not found in many important codices, although it appears in the ACDL, Minuscule, Latin translation and Pescito. When the Lord “resurrected,” the Angel did not speak. Therefore, it is almost unnecessary to interpret, somewhat violating the harmony and wonderful simplicity of the angelic speech, according to which “all the holy fathers and teachers agree to consider the first crowing of the roosters to be the time of His Resurrection, which already foreshadowed the light of the Lord’s day” (Evfimy Zigavin). Matthew 28:7. and go quickly and tell His disciples that He has risen from the dead and is going before you to Galilee; you will see Him there. Here, I told you. In Mark - “tell His disciples and Peter.” Do not be afraid, but “quickly” (ταχύ – “soon”, “hurriedly”), go from here, go not to the women who believed in Christ, not to the Mother of God Herself, but to the disciples. The angel refers to the words of the Savior Himself about His Resurrection (verse 6) and now quotes His own words that the Lord will meet the disciples in Galilee (Matthew 26:32). The women had to repeat to the disciples the words spoken to them by the Angel, that “He has risen from the dead.” Προάγει - see comments on Matthew 26:32. This verb does not mean that Jesus Christ will go before the disciples and lead them to Galilee, but will already be in Galilee when they arrive there. It is difficult to say whether ὄψεσθε refers to women and disciples together, or to just the disciples alone. The meaning can be conveyed as follows: “tell His disciples: He has risen from the dead and is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him"; and so: “Tell His disciples: He has risen from the dead. There He precedes you women (together with the disciples); there you women (and disciples) will see Him.” In the following story, Matthew does not clearly say that Christ appeared in Galilee and to women (verse 16). Meyer notes that ὑμᾶς and ὄψεσθε refer to disciples, and not just to women who have already seen Jesus Christ. Regarding this, we can say that, as can be seen from the stories of other evangelists, the disciples also saw the Lord before His appearance in Galilee. The end of this verse and the rest of chapter 28 are lost in the Syro-Sinai manuscript (Merx). Matthew 28:8. And, hastily leaving the tomb, they ran with fear and great joy to tell His disciples. (Compare Mark 16:8; Luke 24:8–11.) Literally: “and departing quickly from the tomb,” etc. None of the synoptics expresses exactly the idea that the women came “out of” the tomb (as in the Russian translation), unless we accept Matthew’s reading ἐξελθοῦσαι, found in several codes, instead of ἀπελθοῦσαι (in Vulgate – exierunt). Mark uses ἐξελθοῦσαι with ἀπό. The replacement of the preposition “from” with the preposition “from” in the Russian translation was probably a consequence of the fact that the Angel invited the women to enter the very tomb (verse 6), or into the cave where it was located. But there is no big difference in meaning with this or that translation. Ταχύ – “rather” – verse 7 corresponds to the same word in verse 8. But instead of “go” (πορευθεῖσαι) of verse 7 here ἔδραμον, from τρέχω - “I run.” The angel commanded them only to “go” quickly; Fulfilling this command, the women quickly “ran.” While they were still at the tomb, there was fear in their souls (φόβος), although the Angel told them: “Do not be afraid” (v. 5). This fear was completely natural for the initial witnesses of such miraculous events. But he was mixed with “great joy.” The combination of such feelings is psychologically explainable and understandable. But as soon as the women left the coffin, the feelings of joy completely left them. They were “struck by trembling and horror,” and they “said nothing to anyone”—it is implied on the way—“they did not say anything, because they were afraid” (Mark 16:8). Matthew 28:9. When they went to tell His disciples, behold, Jesus met them and said: Rejoice! And they came, grabbed His feet and worshiped Him. In all these and many other circumstances reported by the evangelists, we see signs of the night movement of Christ's disciples to and from His tomb. If, as noted above, Christ’s disciples were asleep just before the time of His suffering, while His enemies were awake, now, on the contrary, the enemies, having calmed down, show almost no movement, and the disciples, on the contrary, are awake and moving in different directions. It is always and everywhere difficult to describe such a movement. Mary Magdalene came to the tomb, probably first, and then retired to Jerusalem. Other myrrh-bearing women follow her and, having received the news of the Resurrection, quickly run to Jerusalem to the disciples to tell them the news of the Resurrection. Around the same time, Peter and John leave Jerusalem, followed by Mary Magdalene again. The movement to the tomb probably took place from different places and along different roads from Jerusalem and back. Therefore, it is difficult to say whether the myrrh-bearers spoken of in this verse were the same ones spoken of in verse 8, or whether they were other women who came last to the tomb and were now returning back alone or together with the first. It is usually accepted that these were others and that Mary Magdalene joined them. In any case, it should be considered probable that the present story of Matthew has no parallels in the other evangelists. To these women, after His appearance to Mary Magdalene, the Savior now appears on the road and greets them with the word “Rejoice” (χαίρετε). The women immediately, perhaps by just one word, recognized Him, grabbed His feet, as if not wanting to part with Him, and worshiped Him, which is characteristic of God (προσεκύνησαν, see comments on Matthew 2:2). The opinion that previously only pagans rendered such worship to Him is incorrect (cf. Matt. 14:33; John 9:39). Matthew 28:10. Then Jesus says to them: Do not be afraid; go, tell my brothers to go to Galilee, and there they will see me. The Savior repeats here almost verbatim the words of the Angel spoken to the women at the tomb (verse 7). It is incredible that these words would be repeated if the evangelist were telling fictitious facts. But this repetition gave rise to different exegetes to define the meaning of Christ’s words differently. Some thought that the previous story continued here. Others say that there is an insertion here that is not related to the previous speech. And all this was expressed on one basis: that the words of Christ are a repetition of what was said before! Further, it was assumed that, when placing this story, Matthew knew nothing about the appearances of Christ in Jerusalem, as well as about His Ascension. This seems unlikely. The evangelist, apparently, only wants to briefly outline the main fact that Christ was resurrected, without going into details. Why this was so cannot be resolved at present due to lack of data. Meyer, recognizing the section of Mark 16:9–20 as inauthentic, divides all the appearances of Christ into three categories: 1) purely Galilean, about which only Matthew speaks; 2) purely Jewish, about which only Luke and John speak, with the exception of the 21st chapter of John; 3) mixed in John with the addition of the 21st chapter. This division is somewhat artificial, and one cannot agree that Matthew says nothing about the appearances of Christ in Judea. Καὶ ἐκεῖ μὲ ὄψονται – this sentence does not depend on the previous ἵνα. The Risen Savior here calls His disciples His brothers. Matthew 28:11. As they walked, some of the guards entered the city and announced to the high priests everything that had happened. The train of thought is as follows. Having stated the fact that Christ was resurrected, and indicating that its truth was confirmed by several persons, the evangelist immediately proceeds to explain that at first the enemies of Christ wanted to refute this fact with the help of soldiers stationed on guard at the tomb. The evangelist has an obvious goal: not to tell pragmatically about all the appearances of Christ, but only to certify, on the one hand, the truth of the fact of the Resurrection, and on the other, the unreliability of rumors refuting it. Thus, Matthew's presentation is more logical and schematic than pragmatic. The story about the lies of the high priests is found only in Matthew, and is so brief that we would in vain look here for details with the help of which we could understand how the matter happened. We do not know how the guards awoke from their horror or where it was. We can only conclude that they were eyewitnesses of miraculous events, at least in part. Not all the guards went to the bishops and told them ἅπαντα τὰ γενόμενα - everything that was at the tomb, but only some (τινές). The connection with the previous one is clear. The guards themselves, with their own strength, could not prevent what happened. But since they were subject to responsibility, they now come with a report to the bishops that what happened happened against their will. The evangelist connects the arrival in the city and the announcement of everything that had happened to the bishops with the journey of the women from the grave. But, despite this indication of time, it is impossible to determine exactly when the guards entered the city. One can only assume that it was on the very night of the Resurrection of Christ or in the early morning. Matthew 28:12. And these, having gathered with the elders and held a meeting, gave enough money to the soldiers, They think that this was a meeting of the Sanhedrin, but hardly official and open. The enemies of Christ assumed that the most convenient way to refute the truth was with money. They did what everyone who buys and sells the truth does. Strong and influential people are now afraid of simple guards and possible, unpleasant and perhaps even dangerous disclosures on their part for the enemies of Christ. The criminal whom they executed was resurrected. What will people say about this when they find out? “Enough (silver) money” (ἀργύρια ἱκανά) is a characteristic expression that shows that exactly as much money was given as was needed to stop the guards’ mouths and force them to tell lies, no more, no less. Some of the guards were obviously needy people and agreed to say what they were ordered to say, even if it was a lie. Matthew 28:13. and they said: Say that His disciples came at night and stole Him while we were sleeping; It was a lie, and in this verse it comes through in almost every word. The guards are secretly, of course, from the people and all outsiders, invited to tell public lies. Since the disciples were close to the Teacher, it was not anyone else, but they who stole His body. But, asks Chrysostom, “tell me, how did the disciples steal Him, these poor and simple people who did not even dare to show themselves?” How could the disciples approach (ἐλθόντες) to the tomb when guards were posted around it? To give some credibility to this lie, the guards, when divulging it, had to add that it happened while they were sleeping. But if the body was stolen while the guards were sleeping, how could they know about it? All this was an obvious lie, but, on the other hand, very characteristic. All sorts of thefts and thefts occur when the guards are asleep. Matthew 28:14. and if rumors about this reach the ruler, we will convince him and save you from trouble. From these words it is clear that the guard was given by Pilate (cf. comments on Matthew 27:65). The warriors were responsible to him. He could have dealt harshly with them (cf. Acts 12:19). Therefore, it is natural if the guards turn with a report not to Pilate, but to the high priests, as if asking them for protection (however, in the apocryphal Gospel of Peter 28:11-15 it is different). The latter assure them that they have nothing to fear. The enemies of Christ know that Pilate will not delve into this matter, and therefore rumors about it, in all likelihood, will not reach Pilate. But if something like this happened, then “we” - special emphasis is placed on this word - we, strong, influential people who have access even to Pilate, “we will convince him” that all this happened not through the fault of the guards and that the disciples were to blame. Πείσομεν – “we will convince” – in Acts 12:20 it is translated: “by winning over to our side.” The word can have the same meaning in the present place. Since Pilate will be convinced by the speeches of the high priests (perhaps with the presentation of a gift), then the soldiers not only have nothing to fear, but they will also be spared from any troubles. This is expressed by the word ἀμερίμνους, which is here freely translated into Russian by the expression “and we will save you from trouble.” Foreign commentators note that ἀμερίμνους is not exactly translatable into their languages. Luther translates it by sicher, which is also inaccurate. Vulgate – securos. Closer to the original, our Slavic translation is “careless,” although it is also not entirely accurate. The German word sorgenfrei is quite accurate here - “carefree”: we will make you carefree regarding the consequences of negotiations with Pilate, you will have nothing to worry about. But, it is clear that it is impossible to accurately convey this word in real connection in Russian. Matthew 28:15. They, having taken the money, acted as they were taught; and this word spread among the Jews to this day. The first sentences of the verse are clear without explanation. As for the last sentence, here they see the so-called. hiatus – gaping; the full speech would be this: the rumor about this spread among the Jews and exists to this day. Justin Martyr testifies to the existence of such rumors, saying that they continued until his time (Dialogus cum Tryphone, 108). It is strange that on their basis some of the newest critics have built their theories that the disciples really stole the body of Jesus Christ and then announced His Resurrection. Matthew 28:16. The eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus commanded them, Matthew does not report many subsequent appearances of Christ and His ascension. Instead, his Gospel ends with the apotheosis of Jehovah's Servant, now the glorified Messiah. The evangelist’s speech here is sublime and majestic, despite all its simplicity. Other evangelists have no parallels for this verse; perhaps it should be found in 1 Cor. 15:6. “What Matthew speaks of happened afterward, precisely when what John speaks of happened first,” i.e. after the appearance of Christ on Lake Tiberias (Theophylact). Small details, for example, the exact indication of the mountain and the time when the event occurred, perhaps due to the overwhelming greatness of the event itself, are omitted here by the evangelist. There is no trace of any mention of “five hundred” brothers, but only eleven disciples. Matthew 28:17. and when they saw Him, they worshiped Him, but others doubted. The mention of “others” makes one think that there were much more than eleven gathered. The evangelist’s message that these “others doubted” leads to the same conclusion. After the appearances in Jerusalem and Galilee, it would be difficult to expect the eleven to doubt the truth of the Resurrection and the presence of Christ among them. However, the story is so short that it is very difficult to draw any definite conclusions regarding this subject from it. Theophylact concludes that here, in addition to eleven students, there were seventy. Οἱ δὲ, according to Theophylact, is used here instead of τινὲς δὲ - “some”. Seeing Christ, the disciples worshiped Him as God (προσεκύνησαν), but some doubted (ἐδίστασαν, see comments on Matthew 14:31). Perhaps they now saw the Risen Christ for the first time and did not believe their eyes. He was, apparently, some distance away from those gathered, perhaps on the highest point of the mountain. But if some “doubted,” this does not in the least prevent them from thinking that they also worshiped Him. The reading οὐδὲ instead of οἱ δὲ, proposed in order to eliminate the mention of doubt (if we accept οὐδὲ, then it should be translated “and did not doubt”) cannot be accepted. Matthew 28:18. And Jesus approached and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me.” “Now the New Covenant in its entirety was first announced on earth.” Instead of the former διακονία in a humiliated state, now ἐξουσία - “power”, “dominion”, “domination”. "Everyone" (πᾶσα), i.e. all. The addition of the words “in heaven and on earth” indicates world domination, power and strength. It does not say that authority is “given from God”; the meaning is that Christ received this power by destroying the barrier, the mediastinum between God Matthew 28:19. Go therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, “So” (οὖν) is added in many codes, but is usually considered only a gloss, albeit a “correct” one. In some manuscripts it is replaced by the word "now", which in Greek is similar to "therefore" (νῦν – οὖν). But whether οὖν is recognized as genuine or not, verse 19 is a conclusion from the previous speech of Christ, and, moreover, purely evangelical. Christ said that He was given “all (all) authority in heaven and on earth.” One would expect in further speech that He would transfer this authority to His disciples and say: go, rule... Instead: “go, teach”... Teach because all authority has been given to Christ. The word “teach” (μαθητεύσατε) cannot be precise translate. If Christ wanted to say “teach”, then another verb would have been placed here - Μαθητεύω. It does not mean “teach”, but to put people in the same position and attitude towards Christ in which the twelve, seventy and others were. Thus, the meaning of the expression is that the disciples had to, according to the commandment of Christ, go to the “nations” and acquire disciples (followers) of Christ among them. By πάντα τὰ ἔθνη we mean all the peoples living on earth, not excluding the Jews. The further αὐτούς is masculine, not consistent with ἔθνη (neuter), but clearly refers to it. This is explained by the fact that here we mean both the peoples themselves and individuals among them. Fulfilling this commandment of Christ, the apostles never doubted that everyone, both Jews and pagans, should be admitted into the Kingdom of Christ, or the Church. Doubts in subsequent apostolic times arose only regarding circumcision and Jewish rituals in general - whether pagans should be allowed into the Church, having first circumcised them, or not. Regarding the further "baptizing" (βαπτίζοντες), many disputes arose: whether it should be understood in a literal or only in a spiritual sense; whether baptism should be performed by immersion, or by pouring, or sprinkling; whether children should be baptized, or only adults, and precisely those who have previously been taught Christian truths. All these questions belong, in fact, to the field of practical theology. The verse in question, from the exegetical side, apparently has only a general meaning, and it is not clearly indicated whether one should first teach and then baptize, or vice versa, or at the same time. The purpose of Christ's commandment is to attract people into His Kingdom by baptizing and teaching, teaching and baptizing. But baptism here means not only a spiritual, but also a physical act (ordinary baptism). The Greek word βαπτίζοντες indicates immersion. In BD – βαπτίσαντες (aorist). The last words are difficult to interpret and have been the subject of much speculation. It is possible, however, to establish that "in the name" does not correspond to the Hebrew formula "be shem" - in which case the Greek would be ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι, corresponding to the Latin in nomine, and this would mean: baptize with the pronouncement of the name or in communion (ἐν) with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Greek expression εἰς τὸ ὄνομα corresponds to the Hebrew “le shem” - “to the name,” that is, baptize people to recognize the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, to assimilate one of the most important New Testament truths about the Trinity of Persons of the Divine. The idea can be simply and briefly expressed in such a way that baptism expresses the “belonging” of people to the Kingdom of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. By virtue of the very act of baptism, a person becomes a member of the Church of Christ - his original sin is forgiven and he becomes a participant in all further grace-filled Christian gifts. Ὄνομα (“name”) is used in the singular. This indicates the unity of the Persons of the Holy Trinity (otherwise it would be said εἰς ὀνόματα). Matthew 28:20. teaching them to observe everything that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age. Amen. Theophylact notes that, by commanding us to baptize in the name of the Holy Trinity, Christ taught us theological teaching (τὴν θεολογίαν), and by commanding us to keep the commandments, he proposed practical virtue. The word διδάσκοντες actually means “teaching”, i.e. teaching the truths of the Christian faith, and indicates duration and constancy. Disciples of Christ must act as He commanded. He Himself will abide with them, provide them with constant guidance and assistance until the end of the age (τῆς συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος - see the explanation of this expression in the comments to Matthew 24:3). You might be interested in: