Глава 5
Machine translation from the original · Show original
Sermon on the Mount. 1–12. Nine Beatitudes. – 13–16. The salt of the earth and the light of the world. – 17–20. The attitude of Christ to the Old Testament law. – 21–26. The commandment “thou shalt not kill.” – 27–32. The commandment “thou shalt not commit adultery.” – 33–37. Vows. – 38–42. Law of retribution. – 43–48. Love for enemies.
Matthew 5:1. Seeing the people, He went up the mountain; and when he sat down, his disciples came to him.
(Compare Mark 3:13; Luke 6:12.)
The time between the events outlined by Matthew at the end of the previous chapter (verses 23–24) and the Savior’s delivery of the Sermon on the Mount includes, among other things: the healing of the paralytic in Jerusalem, which only John speaks about (John 5:1–47), the passage through the sown fields, the disciples plucking the ears of grain and the denunciation of the Pharisees (Matthew 12:1–8; Mark 2:23–27); Luke 6:1–5); healing of the withered hand (Matthew 12:9–13; Mark 3:1–5; Luke 6:6–11). Then, after the events summarized in Matthew 4:25; Mark 3:7–8, The Savior ascended the mountain; according to the testimony of Mark and Luke, this was immediately followed by the election of the 12 (Mark 3:13–19; Luke 6:12–16), which Matthew talks about later. Already from this short list of events it is clear that the order adopted by Matthew is completely different from the order of the other evangelists, and this in itself excludes the possibility of any borrowing from each other.
"Seeing the People". According to Luke (Luke 6:12–13), it was early in the morning, after the Savior had spent the night in prayer. The article before the word “people” (τοὺς ὄχλους – peoples) shows that here the evangelist is talking about the same people about whom he spoke in Matthew 4:25, where the word “people” is placed without an article (ὄχλοι πολλοί). Ὄχλοι is used many times in all four Gospels, the book of Acts and the Apocalypse (not in the Epistles) and, apparently, always to designate the common people, the crowd, the gathering of unprivileged people (Latin plebs as opposed to populus), which is especially clear from John 7:49, where the Pharisees call the people (ὄχλος) ignorant "in the law" and they say that he is "cursed". Rev. 7:9 speaks of “people” (ὄχλος πολύς) “from all nations, and kindreds, and peoples, and tongues” - i.e. about a mixed gathering of all common people (cf. Rev. 17:15). Everyone who wanted to, having heard about His glory, which had now spread greatly, gathered to the Savior.
"He ascended the mountain". Luke (Luke 6:12) first says, in agreement with Matthew, that He “went up” onto the mountain, but then (Luke 6:17) that He came down from the mountain and stood on level ground. This last circumstance is missed by Matthew, but we do not see any discrepancy between the evangelists here. Matthew does not say that Jesus Christ, having ascended the mountain, did not come down from it, but only remains silent about this. In other words, Matthew indicates only one circumstance, and Luke indicates two. From the testimony of the evangelists, one can only conclude that the sermon was preached in the mountainous areas of Palestine, where there were even areas among the mountains. The word “flat”, in conjunction with τόπος πεδινός, found in the New Testament only in Luke (Luke 6:17), although it can, of course, mean “plain,” but not always, and in the present case it simply refers to some level place (small) among the mountains. As for the very word “mountain” in Matthew, so far all attempts to determine its location can be considered futile. “No geography has been able to define this mountain until now” (Jog. Weiss).
In Jerome's time some thought that this meant the Mount of Olives. But this, says Jerome, could not have happened in any case, because the preceding and subsequent speech refers to Galilee. Jerome himself suggests that it was Mount Tabor "or some other high mountain." At the end of the speech, the Savior soon came to Capernaum, and from this, according to Jerome, it is also clear that the Sermon on the Mount was delivered in Galilee. Later Catholic exegetes (for example, Cornelius Lapid), based on the traditions of the “chorographers of the Holy Land,” very confidently say that this mountain is called “Mountain of Christ” because Christ used to pray and preach on it. It is located three miles west of Capernaum, not far from the Lake of Galilee and adjacent to the city of Bethsaida. Its height is such that from it you can see the land of Zebulun, Naphtali, Trachonitis, Iturea, then Seir, Hermon and Lebanon.
The value of the testimony of these “chorographers of the Holy Land” can be seen from the fact that their testimony dates back no earlier than the 13th century and is found only among the Latins, which is why they themselves “do not have any historical significance.” The opinion that this was the so-called “mountain of beatitudes” (modern Kurn or Karn Gattin) should be considered only “plausible”, but not at all reliable (it is not clear from the words of Cornelius Lapid whether he means this particular mountain). The evangelists themselves do not call the mountains by name, although they use the word “mountain” with an article. Perhaps the article only means that the mountain was located in the place where the Savior saw the people. Meyer considers the opinion that it was a “famous mountain” to be arbitrary and not consistent with the analogies of Matthew 14:23, 15:29. Having ascended the mountain, the Lord sat down. According to Augustine, this circumstance related to the “dignity of the teacher” (ad dignitatem magistri). Among the Jews, preachers usually preached while sitting. Christ himself did not always preach while sitting (cf.
John 7:37), and Christian preachers preached standing only in exceptional cases, when they delivered sublime, more prophetic than teaching speeches (Acts 2:14, 13:16). Some stone lying on the surface could serve as a simple and convenient pulpit for the Savior. Tsang points out that the Savior sat down because he wanted to give a long speech.
“His disciples came to Him.” “They have come” (προσῆλθον) is Matthew’s favorite word; it appears in him 52 times, in Mark – 6, in Luke – 10, and only once – in John (John 12:21). The expression does not indicate that only the disciples approached, but that they only stood out from the crowd and came closer to the Savior than others. The 12 disciples can be understood here only on the basis of Luke’s instructions (Luke 6:13 ff.), but this is not directly visible from Matthew’s words, because earlier he spoke only about 4 disciples (Matthew 4:18, 21), and the calling of Matthew himself, according to his testimony, was after the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 9:9). The question is quite satisfactorily resolved by the fact that here one should, in any case, keep in mind the disciples of Christ in general who managed to join Him during His early activity in Galilee. But this does not exclude the possibility of the presence of the Twelve, including Matthew, around Christ, even if he had not yet been called to discipleship. Christ began to speak His sermon to them, out loud to all the people (Matthew 7:28). According to Theophylact and others, He taught not only the disciples, but also the people.
Matthew 5:2. And He opened His mouth and taught them, saying:
Matthew 5:3. Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.
The same speech, but only in an abbreviated form and with changes, is placed in Luke (Luke 6:20–49). The question of the relationship of Matthew's Sermon on the Mount to Luke's Sermon on the Mount is extremely difficult. Some say that this is the same speech, spoken under the same circumstances and at the same time, but only presented in different editions. Others, on the contrary, think that these were two speeches, spoken twice on different occasions and under different circumstances. The first opinion is supported by the fact that many expressions in Matthew and Luke coincide, for example, Matthew 7:3–5 and Luke 6:41–42, or Matthew 7:24–27 and Luke 6:47–49. The beginning, flow of thoughts and conclusion of both speeches are almost the same. The historical circumstances are similar. It is argued against the identity of the speeches that the similarity does not extend to complete accuracy. In Matthew the Savior pronounces, as stated above, His speech while sitting, in Luke - standing; in Matthew - on a mountain, in Luke - out of the blue. According to Matthew, before delivering the speech, the Savior had only 4 disciples, according to Luke - 12. The Greek Church recognizes both speeches as identical.
The differences, in our opinion, are well explained only and exclusively by the theory of fragments, and it is not at all denied that some parts of the teaching could be repeated.
We must suppose that the Savior's speech was written down soon after its delivery by one or more persons; Both Matthew and Luke made use of the recordings of the speech, and for Matthew they provided assistance in his personal reminiscences. It is likely that Matthew wrote down the speech himself. The opinions of the newest critics about the compilative nature of the Sermon on the Mount are so shaky that they almost do not deserve any consideration and are refuted by the fact that the Sermon on the Mount surpasses in its depth the understanding of even modern theologians, and therefore could not at all be any fabrication of antiquity. One of the newest German critics (Jog. Weiss) says that this speech of Christ “is comprehensive and rich in content, is not exhausted by any interpretation and is not experienced by any human life.” The Sermon on the Mount, according to the same author, is understandable only from the conditions of the time when it was delivered. Of the 107 verses it consists of in Matthew, only 30 belong to Luke.
The sermon begins in both evangelists, Matthew and Luke, with the so-called “beatitudes.” There was a lot of controversy about their number. Without going into details, we can point out that some exegetes accepted only seven beatitudes on the basis that the same expressions are repeated in verses 3 and 10: “for theirs is the kingdom of heaven,” and therefore these two beatitudes should be taken as one. Others say that there are ten beatitudes, by analogy with the ten commandments. Still others say eight, counting verses 11 and 12 as an extension of verse 10. Some have viewed verse 5 as a marginal gloss. It is clear that this question is not of significant importance. The number of beatitudes is best determined by the word “blessed” itself, which is repeated nine times, and therefore it must be recognized that all beatitudes are nine.
There are four Greek words to express the concept of beatitude: μακάριος, εὐδαίμων, εὐτυχής and ὄλβιος. In Russian, all of them can be translated through the word “happy”. At the first glance at these words, one can immediately see that neither εὐδαίμων nor εὐτυχής were suitable here, since the first is associated with the (purely pagan) idea of a happy demon living in a person and contributing to his happiness, and the second is associated with pagan concepts of fate and chance. Thus, either ὄλβιος or μακάριος remained. But ὄλβιος indicates primarily external happiness, worldly wealth, while μακάριος - primarily spiritual. The first word does not appear at all in the New Testament, the second - many times. Among the classics, the word μακάριος is used to designate the heavenly as well as the afterlife bliss of gods and people. The word expresses the idea of ideal happiness without any admixture of earthly sorrows, although it is also used to designate earthly happiness, especially in the religious sense.
Μακάριος corresponds to the Hebrew "ashra" ("ashar", "esher"), which primarily means "salvation". The first psalm begins with this word. Seventy interpreters translated the Hebrew “ashre” through μακάριος 38 times. Thus, by the blessed, if we take into account the meaning of the Greek and Hebrew words, we can mean people who are destined for eternal salvation and bliss. They have inner virtues, inner peace and happiness here on earth. The word "blessed" serves as the guiding idea for the beatitudes. This is also evident from the fact that the Savior repeats it in all the beatitudes. It is much more difficult to explain the expression “poor in spirit” (πτωχοὶ τῷ πνεύματι). This difficulty is increased due to the fact that Luke (Luke 6:20) says (in the Greek text) simply “poor” without adding “spirit” (in the Russian and Slavic Bibles it is added “spirit”). In different comments we found about 20 translations of this expression, very different.
Common definitions: the poor, the poor in spirit, the humble, those who have accepted voluntary poverty, the spiritually poor, poor sinners, poor souls, poor children, people occupying a low social position; oppressed, humiliated, pitiful, unfortunate, in need of help, trusting in God, blessed in spirit (or in spirit), poor, pious, people who have withdrawn their thoughts, hearts and love from the objects of the present world and raised them to heaven, so that if they outwardly seem poor, they feel content, and if outwardly they are rich, then they do not cling to their wealth, but are humble and modest, diligently seeking God, are hospitable, make generous donations to works of mercy, piety, or anything else at all, if this is required by the service of God and neighbor. It has been established with reasonable probability that the Greek word πτωχός corresponds to the Hebrew “ani”, which means poor, needy, as well as humble, meek.
“The pious man, who is burdened in his heart by the consciousness that he is pitiful and helpless, turns to God and does not know and does not expect any help for himself except that which he asks from the merciful God, is a true “ani”.
Of these translations, not one, in our opinion, stands up to criticism. The most likely translation of the expression οἱ πτωχοὶ τῷ πνεύματι seems to be “humble”, “modest”. There is no doubt that it can be accepted, at least with elementary explanations of this expression. However, this does not mean at all that such a translation is completely sufficient. Not to mention that the concepts of humility and modesty are expressed further πραεῖς, one can ask why the Savior did not express them through the word ταπεινός, if he spoke specifically about humility, because ταπεινός with its derivatives is found many times in the New Testament and was better known to everyone than the somewhat mysterious οἱ πτωχοὶ τῷ πνεύματι. If indeed all of the translations indicated are incorrect, then is it possible and how can the expression being analyzed be explained? To explain it, let us say that exegetes encounter similar difficulties when explaining many further sayings of the Savior in the Sermon on the Mount. What does this depend on?
In our opinion, the fact that the Sermon on the Mount has one remarkable property, which little attention is paid to: it does not allow or allows very few abstractions in interpretation. It is so well adapted to the morals and concepts of the crowd of common people surrounding Christ that as soon as we forget about the crowd, we immediately enter the realm of abstractions, and the expressions of Christ become not entirely clear to us. This, of course, does not in the least prevent us from considering the sayings of Christ as an abstract theological and theoretical teaching, but at the same time we should never lose ground under our feet, on which we must rely in the closest and concrete explanation of the Sermon on the Mount.
We need, therefore, first of all to imagine what the crowd gathered before Christ was like in order to understand the meaning of the first beatitude, and after it the rest. This crowd, of course, stood before Him silently, with bated breath, and the eyes of all the people who had gathered from different places, in different clothes, of different ages and positions were fixed on Him. We see that the crowd is so attentive that they even notice how and when He opened His mouth. How does Christ Himself relate to these common people? He does not drive the people away from Himself, He wants to teach them and teaches them in such a way that His words, being completely understandable to the people, are immediately indelibly imprinted in the memory and heart of His listeners. Therefore, the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount and, as we will see, in some places its continuation can be considered as a whole series of greetings from Christ to those gathered to Him, as a kind of captatio benevolentiae on the part of the Great Teacher from His many simple listeners.
If we agree with this interpretation, then first of all the expression will seem clear to us: “blessed are the poor in spirit,” and we will not have to resort to any arbitrary guesses and unsatisfactory translations. Anyone who has seen a crowd of people or dealt with it knows well that it always consists of people who are poor in spirit. If it were otherwise, then not a single preacher would see any crowd around his pulpit. But the developed crowd is no exception, and not only the crowd, but also each individual person. Standing, so to speak, face to face before the teachings of Christ and before His Person, Who is characterized by extraordinary “strength of spirit,” both the individual and the crowd always and completely feel their extreme spiritual poverty, squalor and misery.
One day, the contemplation of this crowd was expressed on the part of Christ in regret and concern for it regarding its material needs (John 6:5; Matt. 15:32; Mark 8:2). And in the present case, the Lord also probably looked with pity at the crowd and, greeting it, called everyone, without exception, who composed it “poor in spirit.” It is clear that there was no thought here about humility or anything like that, but only a simple description of the people who came to Christ to listen to His teaching. And all the more distinguished by their poverty of spirit was precisely that crowd that came to the Savior and, without a doubt, hung on His every word, especially due to its extreme contrast of its then state with the state of Christian enlightenment and prosperity to the extent of the age of Christ’s perfection. In the midst of this crowd, which was still unenlightened and had not assimilated the spirit of Christ’s teaching, sweet, enchanting sounds were heard.
The Lord calls the crowd gathered before Him happy precisely because of its Christian underdevelopment and in view of the opportunities ahead for it with a full and open heart and an intact and uncorrupted mind to perceive Christian truths, which are the spirit itself. To her, this crowd, which was abandoned by the religious teachers of that time, belongs the Kingdom of Heaven. It came to her, and she accepts it.
This is the closest, immediate meaning of the first beatitude, completely understandable to the listeners of Christ and assimilated by them. From what has been said it follows that the “poor in spirit” need to be seen, observed, and imagined. But precise definitions of these words are difficult and hardly possible. We must constantly keep this in mind when explaining other beatitudes, as well as in general the teaching set forth in the Sermon on the Mount.
Matthew 5:4. Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.
First of all, we point out that in different codes verses 4 and 5 are rearranged, and this rearrangement was already known in the 2nd century. After the first beatitude (“blessed are the poor in spirit”) in Tischendorf and in the Vulgate follows: “blessed are the meek.” But in several codes (Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Ephraim and many uncials), the first beatitude is followed by “blessed are those who mourn.” The latter order can be considered generally accepted; it is accepted in our Slavic and Russian texts. The difference, of course, either has no or very little effect on the meaning and content of the beatitudes. Why it happened is difficult to say.
Existing explanations for the connection between the first and second beatitudes are generally unsatisfactory. As was said above, the guiding idea of the beatitudes is given by the word “blessed” (μακάριοι). Attempts to explain them by another connection should be considered unsuccessful. Explaining logically the Savior’s train of thought in the beatitudes, Tolyuk (1856) and others present the matter this way. Initially, a person has a consciousness of his inner poverty, poverty of spirit; the consequence of this is sorrow, which comes from the consciousness of one’s guilt and imperfection; and from here come meekness and the desire for truth. As this desire is satisfied and a person is given forgiveness, mercy and love for others awakens in him, he is cleansed of sins and strives to communicate the peace that he himself has achieved to others.
But, not to mention the fact that such a construction is unclear and somewhat artificial and, in any case, could not be understood by the immediate listeners of Christ, it can still have some application only to the beatitudes set forth in verses 3-7, and suffers from great stretches and even greater ambiguities when applied to the rest of the beatitudes. Because how should poverty of spirit, sorrow, meekness, the search for truth and mercy be followed by blessings that depend on various reproaches, persecutions and persecutions? The theory does not explain this. It is much more likely to assume that the Savior here simply wanted to list the properties and character of the people who should become citizens of the Heavenly Kingdom He established, the basis for which was given by the very appearance of the crowd standing before Him, and did not at all point to the psychological process, gradually aimed at preparing for the Kingdom and at the spiritual development of man (cf. Luke 6:20 et seq., where the beatitudes are indicated in a completely different order than in Matthew).
The question whether the words of Christ exhaust all the happiness of man in the new Kingdom, or, in other words, whether those people who should become blessed are completely listed, can hardly be answered. Perhaps, if other people had stood before Christ, those who were not in the crowd surrounding Him, then other beatitudes would have been included in His speech. We at least know that in addition to the blessed ones listed by Christ, worthy to become members of His Kingdom, there were also blessed people (Matthew 11:6; Luke 7:23; Acts 20:35).
There is no doubt that no matter how simple and how obvious the truths indicated by Christ are, natural man could not reach them with his own reason, and they should be recognized as a revelation, and, moreover, the highest and divine. The parallels cited from the Talmud do not apply to all beatitudes. Attempts to connect verses 3-4 of Matthew with Is. 61: 1-3 and show that Christ only repeats the words of the prophet can be considered unsuccessful, because for anyone reading the Bible it is absolutely clear that there is no similarity between Christ’s speech about the beatitudes and the indicated passage from the prophet Isaiah, with the exception of only individual expressions. However, it could be that the order of the first two beatitudes, i.e. the speech about those crying after the beggars could be determined by the indicated passage from the prophet Isaiah. As for the very meaning of the word “crying” (πενθοῦντες), its difference from other Greek words expressing grief, sadness, apparently, is that it means grief combined with the shedding of tears. Therefore, the indicated Greek word is opposed to laughter (Luke 6:25; James 4:9).
In general, the expression means both literally and figuratively - crying, and, moreover, mainly due to some kind of suffering (πένθος from πάσχω - I suffer). To say that this refers to crying about sins, etc., means again moving into the realm of abstractions. According to our explanation, Christ, seeing the poor in spirit before Him, perhaps also saw those crying. Without a doubt, such people are familiar to everyone, even an ordinary preacher. If there were no crying people around Christ now, then He could have seen them earlier. He welcomed them to the second bliss, no matter what their crying depended on. The word “will be comforted” corresponds perfectly to the word “those who mourn” and is completely natural. Of course, for all those who cry, the most natural state is that they will be comforted. The word “will be comforted,” however, does not fully express the idea of the Greek word (παρακαλέω), which means, in fact, “to call,” “to call,” then “to say something to someone,” “to exhort,” “to convince,” “to ask someone for help and to provide help.”
The last expression most closely corresponds to the one used in verse 4: παρακληθήσονται. Therefore, the meaning of the blessedness in question may be this: blessed are those who cry, for they will receive help, from which their tears will stop.
Matthew 5:5. Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.
The word “meek” means quiet, humble, gentle, modest, meek. Such people are the opposite of stern (χαλεποί), irritated (πικροί), wild (ἄγριοι). According to St. Augustine, “the meek are those who yield to shameless deeds (improbitatibus) and do not resist evil, but overcome evil with good (Rom. 12:21).” The Greek πραΰς or πρᾷος means quiet, calm, meek, gentle, merciful. Observation of meek people is accessible to everyone, and therefore the meaning of the word “meek” (πραεῖς) does not present any particular difficulties. But the explanation of the further expression: “they will inherit the earth” presents great difficulties, because the following questions arise here: which land? Why is it the meek who inherit the earth? Such questions were proposed by Chrysostom. “Which land? Tell me. Some say spiritual. But this is not true, because nowhere in Scripture do we find any mention of a spiritual land. But what does this mean? Christ here established a sensual reward, as did Paul.” What exactly sensual reward or land is meant, Chrysostom does not explain.
Some light on these words of Christ is cast by the fact that His words are almost literally similar to the words of Ps. 36:11: “the meek will inherit the earth” (οἱ δὲ πραεῖς κληρονομήσουσιν γῆν - according to the translation of the Seventy). In the Hebrew Psalm and in the Seventy, the word “earth” is used without an article (generally land, no one knows what kind). In the Gospel - with an article. It is remarkable that the expression: “they will inherit the earth” is repeated several times in the psalm (Ps. 36:9, 11, 22, 29, 34), and the word “earth” is used in the same vague meaning as in the evangelist. In the psalm, those who trust in the Lord, the meek, the righteous, the blameless, etc. are contrasted with evildoers, wicked people who do evil, the wicked, the lawless. We are talking about the extermination (on earth) of evildoers, who, “like grass, will soon be cut down and, like green grass, will wither and be destroyed” with their offspring. “I saw,” says the psalmist, “a terrible wicked man, expanding like a rooted tree with many branches; but he passed by, and behold he was not; I sought him and did not find him” (Ps. 37:2, 9, 35-36).
Therefore, the main idea of the psalm is that the wicked will be replaced by the righteous and in this sense will inherit the earth. One might think that the Savior spoke in the same sense. He did not say that the meek would inherit the holy land, Palestine, but the earth in general, and would become masters of the earth, the universe. History justifies this prophecy. Christians who had adopted the Christian ideals of meekness, gentleness, and humility actually inherited the land that was previously occupied by the wicked (pagans). This process continues to this day and it is unknown when it will end. Οἱ πτωχοὶ τῷ πνεύματι and πραεῖς are not synonymous terms.
Matthew 5:6. Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be satisfied.
(Cf. (Luke 6:21) - simply “hungry.”)
These words in themselves present no difficulty of interpretation. Only the word “truth” seems somewhat difficult. What truth? One could say that truth means truth, but then the Greek would be ἀλήθεια, and not δικαιοσύνη. This last word has many meanings. In the place under consideration, most likely, it means the truth of God, life in accordance with the laws and commands given by God. As for the image adopted by Christ, it is not unusual in the Holy Scriptures (see Ps. 41:3 ff.; Ps. 63:2; Is. 55: 1-3; Am. 8: 11-14). Followers of Christ must strive with the same intensity for righteousness before God as the hungry strive to find bread for themselves or the thirsty to find water.
Matthew 5:7. Blessed are the merciful, for they will receive mercy.
And here, as in the second and fourth beatitudes, reward is placed in the most natural correspondence with virtue. The word “merciful” is used in the sense of people in general who show mercy and benevolence towards their neighbors, and not only the poor. In the Old Testament, the same truth was expressed very similarly to the Savior’s commandment, but mercy is limited only to the poor (Prov. 14:21 - according to the translation of the Seventy). The words of the Savior are more similar to the words of the prophets (Hos.6:6; Mic.6:8). St. John Chrysostom writes absolutely correctly: “It seems to me that He is speaking here not only about those who are merciful through the distribution of property, but also about those who are merciful through deeds. For the ways of mercy are varied and this commandment is broad.” As for the pardon of the merciful, here, according to some interpreters, pardon is understood only at the Last Judgment. But it is unlikely that the Savior had such a limitation in mind. The merciful, of course, will be pardoned at the Last Judgment, but this in no way prevents them from being pardoned in this life.
Matthew 5:8. Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.
One of the deepest truths. The condition for seeing God is purity of heart. But the term used to designate this vision (ὄψονται - will see, see) refers to the eye, means optical vision. Since it is clear from other places of Scripture that man cannot see God, one must think that the speech here is figurative, ordinary vision serves as an image of the spiritual. This can be seen from the combination of terms: “the pure in heart” and “they will see.” Seeing God requires purity of heart. What is purity of heart? This is the state of a person when his heart, the source of feelings, is not darkened by any darkening influences of vicious passions or sinful deeds. Between the absolute, or complete, and relative purity of the heart, there are many gaps in people, where half-soreness, half-perfection are observed, as in the eye. A person’s ability to see (spiritually) God increases as his heart, his conscience, is cleansed. A clean heart = a clean conscience. Although the idea of being able to see God existed in ancient times (cf.
Ps.23:4–6), appears, for example, several times in Philo, but we have not found examples where the vision of God, as in the New Testament, is made dependent on the purity of the heart (cf. Heb. 10:22).
Matthew 5:9. Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.
That peacemakers mean not only the so-called peaceful, calm people who themselves do not bother anyone and no one touches them, but also people working to achieve and establish peace on earth, it is hardly possible to doubt this. Jerome understands by peacemakers those “who, first in their hearts, and then among brothers who disagree with each other, establish peace. What good is it if you pacify strangers, but vices fight in your soul? But Jerome does not explain why the peacemakers will be called (recognized) sons of God. What is the connection between peacemaking and sonship? Why are only peacemakers called sons of God? What are the sons of God? When will the peacemakers be called sons of God? Attempts to resolve these issues with the help of Old Testament analogies, as well as examples from rabbinic and apocryphal writings, can hardly be considered successful.
In these latter cases the peacemakers are sometimes called simply "the blessed" or "blessed," in others "the disciples of Aaron"; or it speaks of “sons of God,” and the Israelites are called “sons of God,” but not because they are peacemakers. It must be recognized that the expression of Christ is original and the combination of peacemaking with sonship belongs only to Him. What He said and wanted to say is extremely difficult to explain. There is nothing left but to use the explanations given by St. John Chrysostom and Blessed Theophylact. The first says: “The work of the only begotten Son of God was to unite what was divided and to reconcile what was hostile.” Consequently, the peacemakers will be called sons of God because they imitate the Son of God. Theophylact says that here “we mean not only those who live in peace with others, but also those who reconcile others who are quarreling. Peacemakers are also those who, through their teaching, bring the enemies of God to God. They are the sons of God. For the Only Begotten has reconciled us to the Father.”
Matthew 5:10. Blessed are those who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.
This means not just expelled, but expelled for the truth. “Multi enim persecutionem propter sua peccata patiuntur, et non sunt justi,” says Blessed Jerome (“many suffer persecution because of their sins, but they are not righteous”). People expelled for telling the truth are common in every society. The truthful can be intolerant in a bad and vicious society. Truth can be understood as truth in general. Since these people do not find a peaceful place for themselves on earth among the bad and vicious, they receive the promise of a “kingdom” - earthly in the spiritual sense and a future - heavenly.
Matthew 5:11. Blessed are you when they revile you and persecute you and slander you in every way unjustly because of Me.
The reading of this verse fluctuates greatly. In numerous manuscripts and paternal quotations, ῥῆμα is added, - every bad word will be said (εἴπωσι πᾶν πονηρὸν ῥῆμα). In Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, in the Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and in many Latin translations (also in the Vulgate) the word ῥῆμα (or its corresponding Latin) is omitted. But in meaning there is almost no difference with the acceptance or omission of ῥῆμα - in the first case the speech seems only somewhat clearer. Further recepta, Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, all uncial (written in capital letters) manuscripts (except D) accept ψευδόμενοι. This word is omitted in many Latin translations and the Vulgate. In the Russian translation, ψευδόμενοι is translated: “it is unjust to slander.” Such a translation not only corresponds little to the original, but is also inaccurate in itself, because hardly anyone can be slandered righteously.
The Slavic “lying” is quite accurate, but in Russian it is impossible to express this word by means of a gerund, which was probably the reason why “lying” was necessarily replaced in the Russian translation by the word “unrighteous”. While accurate, the Slavic translation is not free, however, from ambiguity: it is unclear what “For the sake of me” should be classified as “lying,” or “they say all evil verbs.” It is more likely to understand the expression in such a way that “For my sake” refers to all the preceding verbs - “they reproach you”, “they will destroy you”, “they speak all kinds of evil verbs”. “It is not recommended to attribute ἕνεκεν ἐμοῦ (“For my sake”) only to the last verb because all three verbs in these sentences, replacing διώκειν (pursue, drive) in verse 10, equally need this addition” (Tsang, 1905). The Savior is not talking here about some special possible case (then there would be “if” at the beginning of the verse - ἐάν - instead of “when”), but regarding the reproaches, persecutions, and slander that are actually coming to the disciples, and he calls the people who will endure all this happy.
Matthew 5:12. Rejoice and be glad, for great is your reward in heaven: just as they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
To the general expression of Matthew, “rejoice and be glad,” Luke added “on that day,” i.e. in the very time of reproach, persecution and slander, in the very day of grief resulting from all these evils. The thought of the highest heavenly reward for people who, for Christ’s sake, do not encounter anything in this world except malice, persecution and reproach, is natural and fully meets the requirements of sound logic and morality. We cannot agree with the opinion that here the Savior meant only the disciples, and that only through them he spoke to all the others who intended to imitate the disciples (Evfimy Zigavin and others). The fact that His words did not apply only to his closest disciples was proven by the history of the persecution of Christians. Christ confirms His thought by the fact that “so they persecuted the prophets who were before you,” on the one hand, placing and elevating His listeners to a level equal to the prophets, and on the other hand, pointing to the general, ordinary nature of the prophetic lot and ministry. What exactly facts of persecution of the former prophets the Savior has in mind here, He does not speak about this.
It must be assumed that these facts were well known to Christ's listeners (cf. Acts 7:52; Heb. 11:32–40; Jer. 20:2; 2 Chron. 24:21).
Matthew 5:13. You are the salt of the earth. If the salt loses its strength, then what will you use to make it salty? It is no longer good for anything except throwing it out there for people to trample underfoot.
From the previous we saw that the word μακάριοι was a greeting to the assembled crowd. In all the beatitudes, a subtle, barely noticeable criticism of existing opinions and views on human happiness runs like a red thread, and they are contrasted with a completely new view of what this happiness consists of. It can be observed that in this verse this greeting continues and even intensifies, the dignity of Christ’s disciples is even more exalted, but at the same time, now in relation to the disciples, light, the brightest criticism runs through - in case the disciples do not answer their high calling. “You,” the Savior tells them, “are the salt of the earth.” Salt, being a necessary food product, which neither people nor animals can do without, was considered in ancient times a noble, highly valuable substance. Nil sole et sale utilius (there is nothing more useful than sun and salt), said the ancient Romans. “The most important of all needs for human life,” says Jesus, the son of Sirach, “are water, fire, iron, salt, wheat.” flour, honey, milk, grape juice, oil and clothing” (Sir.39:32).
Plutarch calls salt grace (χάρις), Homer attaches the epithet to it - divine (θεῖον), and Plato calls salt a God-loving substance (θεοφιλὲς σῶμα). Disciples of Christ (in a broad sense) are necessary and as valuable to the world as salt.
Further words were understood in two ways: or, as in Russian: “if the salt loses its strength, then how will you make it salty?” - or: “if the salt loses its strength, then what will it be salted with, i.e. Earth?" The following speech shows that it is said about salt, the Russian translation should be considered correct. The possibility of salt losing its power was the subject of much speculation among exegetes. Some tried to prove that salt can indeed lose its strength when mixed with other substances, for example with resin, or “weathered”, others - that one salt can be more salty due to its greater purity, another less so; still others, contrary to all philology, here understood salt as “asphalt”, “potash”, “saltpetre” or referred to Pliny, who mentions salem inertem nec candidum (inactive and non-shiny salt). Finally, some thought that the Savior was pointing out an impossible fact here.
The Jewish rabbi Jesus ben Hananiah, when asked by the Athenian sages: if salt spoils, then how to salt it, expressed the opposite opinion that salt can never become unsalted (see Zahn. Das Evang. d. Matt., p. 198, note). To understand the saying of Christ, we need to leave the area of chemistry - simply because Christ does not talk at all about chemical issues, but refers to a simple daily (some even say “kitchen”) experience, known to everyone - when salt spoils for various reasons and is thrown away due to its unworthiness.
In his comments on this verse, Jerome, who, as is known, did not have a particularly favorable attitude toward the “urban” clergy, exclaims: caveant ergo doctores et episcopi potentes potenter tormenta sustinere; nihilque esse remedi: sed majorum ruinas ad tartarum ducere (let teachers and bishops beware: “the strong will be greatly tormented” (Wis. 6:6), nothing will help, but the corruption of the highest will lead them to destruction). To this we can answer that in the passage under consideration the Savior hardly meant only teachers and bishops.
Matthew 5:14. You are the light of the world. A city standing on top of a mountain cannot hide.
The greeting becomes even higher and, moreover, without any, even a slight shade of criticism regarding the students. The Savior calls His disciples “the light of the World.” Augustine rightly notes that Christ Himself is lumen illuminans (enlightening light), and John the Baptist was lumen illuminatum (borrowed light). In the latter sense, one must, of course, understand the expression in relation to the disciples of Christ. Christ himself was “the light of the world” (John 8:12), “the true Light” (John 1:9) and so on, while the disciples were “light in the Lord” (Eph.5:8), “sons of light” (Luke 16:8), etc. Even the fullness of the feeling of Christ is noticeable here. He moves from one comparison to another and then returns to the same again. The comparison with light quickly ends and the disciples are further compared to a city on top of a mountain. They point here to a parallel expression from the “Sayings” of Jesus, 7: “a city built and established on the top of a high mountain can neither fall nor be hidden.” In this parallel, if it can be called such, three words resemble verse 14: πόλις (city), δύναται (may), and κρυβῆναι (hide).
The thought expressed in the Logia is similar to that of the verse under consideration. It hardly needs saying much that the exact definition of which city Jesus Christ had in mind here is not of great importance. Πόλις – without an article, any city. The thought that the Savior expressed here is clear.
Matthew 5:15. And having lit a candle, they do not put it under a bushel, but on a lampstand, and it gives light to everyone in the house.
The thought of a city placed on the top of a mountain immediately ends, and the Savior again returns to speaking about light. Now the disciples are compared to a lamp that “gives light to everyone in the house.” The word λύχνος here cannot be understood as “candles” (as in the Russian translation), but as a lamp filled with oil, because candles were rarely used among the Greeks and Eastern peoples (Tsang, 1905). The words translated in the Russian Bible: “under a vessel”, in the Slavic - “under a bushel”, are the Latin modius, a grain measure adopted by the Greeks, equal to 8.754 liters. According to Morison, it was equal to the Jewish "sata" or "sea" (capacity of 432 eggs). Λυχνία - the actual stand for the lamp, sometimes built up to one and a half meters in height (Heb. 9:2 - “lamp” in the tabernacle; the Apocalypse mentions golden lamps - Rev. 1:12, 2:1, etc.).
Matthew 5:16. So let your light shine before people, so that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven.
The greeting takes on a pathetic tone, and the speech is distinguished by great beauty, especially in Greek and probably in all languages. The salt of the earth, the city standing on the mountain and visible to everyone, “you are the light,” the lamps that no one puts under a bushel - and then again the “light” that should shine for all people - all these poetic images are mixed here and represent the flickering shine of diamonds, turned in one direction or the other. The light comes as much from the faces as from their “good deeds” that are characteristic of them. Let people see these deeds and glorify the Heavenly Father for them. The word καλός (= Latin pulcher) in the expression τὰ καλὰ ἔργα indicates more the external beauty of deeds, “the manifestation of goodness in praiseworthy actions,” than just the thought of them or their moral and theoretical merit. The difference between ἀγαθός and καλός is difficult to express in Russian. Both words mean “kind.” But the first means kind in itself, regardless of external manifestations, and the second, first of all, means beautiful, liked, pleasant.
The Savior speaks here of deeds that are not only good, good in themselves, but also beautiful, pleasant to look at, the light from which is as pleasant and necessary as the light of the sun or a lamp in a dark room.
Matthew 5:17. Do not think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I did not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
With this verse, a new speech begins, not connected with the previous one by any transitional particles (οὖν, δέ, ἀλλά). If it belonged to an ordinary speaker, then we could say that after greetings addressed to the listeners, He now began to present the essence of the matter. But although, as we said above, Christ’s speech in verses 1–16 was welcoming and only under such an assumption is any clear understanding of it available to us, it is quite rightly considered to be an exposition of the new - New Testament - law.
This law was new because people had never heard anything like it before. It might have seemed to Christ's listeners that, by teaching new laws, He was completely abolishing the old ones. It could also be that the previous teaching of Christ, known to us only in part before the Sermon on the Mount, mainly from the Gospel of John, also seemed new in comparison with the Old Testament legislation. The Savior now criticizes this opinion of his listeners. He says that he does not abolish the previous law, does not want to destroy or violate it (καταλῦσαι). He places His new laws in a genetic connection with the old ones. This is well expressed by the Savior Himself in another place, in the parable of the seed: “first the green, then the ear, then the full grain in the ear” (Mark 4:28).
“The Old Testament was the first steps in the great process of revelation and redemption which reaches its consummation in Christ.” Christ had already based himself on the Old Testament law, rejecting temptations. Now He seems to confirm what He said before. The fulfillment of the Old Testament law by the new was a great historical process. The Old Testament was like an empty, unfilled vessel, or, in other words, it was only a form without internal content. Christ fills this vessel, gives the form internal content and meaning. Jesus Christ filled or fulfilled the Old Testament law completely with His own personality, life, His teaching, where he explained the absolute truths of religion and the universal principles of morality. With this fulfillment, everything that had lasting value and significance in Old Testament religion remained intact. But this process of fulfillment itself presupposes the abolition of the Old Testament religion in itself. She could no longer continue to exist independently of the New Testament.
Only with it and in its light not a single stroke or iota of the Old Testament passes and will not pass until the end of the world. When explaining the expression “law and prophets”, it is enough to say that here we mean the entire Holy Scripture of the Old Testament, which is exactly what was called: “torah” (law) and “neviim” (prophets), with the addition of “ketuvim”, or hagiographers. Since the psalms were the first book of hagiographers, the latter were also called by the common name “psalms” (cf. Luke 24:44; Acts 24:14). If Christ spoke here only about the law and did not mention the prophets, then even then the word “law” could be understood about the entire Old Testament Scripture (cf. 1 Cor. 14:21). The objection that the reference to the prophets is inappropriate here, because the Savior says nothing further about them, therefore has no significance. There is also another objection that Matthew only put these words into the mouth of Jesus Christ because “false prophets” appeared who tried to reject the Old Testament law both in general and in particular, while referring to the words of Christ, which were perverted for this purpose.
Of Marcion, for example, it is known that he changed the expression of verse 17 as follows: “Why do you think that I came to fulfill the law and the prophets? I came to destroy, not to fulfill" προφήτας; But these words - one of the oldest heretical references to the verse of Matthew in question - only show that it was not Matthew who put the words of verse 17 into the mouth of Jesus Christ for the purpose of protection from heretics, but the heretics who borrowed the words of Matthew for their own purposes and perverted them.
Matthew 5:18. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one jot or one tittle will pass from the law until it is all fulfilled.
“For” shows that further speech serves as confirmation of the previous one.
"Until heaven and earth pass away." In the Greek text - “until it passes ...” (without negation); in the Slavic Bible it is exact - “until it will pass.” The Russian translation does not fully correspond to the original, but the meaning is expressed accurately. The Law, both Old and New, was given for the earth, for the people living on it. As long as people live on earth and see heaven, so long will both laws continue. The meaning of the Savior's words is clear. It is somewhat more difficult to understand further words: “not one iota or not one line” ... All interpreters agree that by iota here we mean the small Hebrew letter “yod” ( י ), similar to our comma, and under the line there are small dashes, barely visible to the eye, which distinguish the Hebrew letters “bet” and “kaf” ( ב and כ), “dalet” and “resh” ( ד and ר), “ge” and “het” (ה and ח), etc. The Savior says that as long as heaven and earth exist, even the smallest lines, petty regulations in the law will not be destroyed, will not pass away, will not be forgotten, will not disappear from sight.
Matthew 5:19. So, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches people to do so, he will be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven; and whoever does and teaches will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.
“What is spoken of in the law is called the least; what Christ intended to say is the greatest” (Augustine). In Christ's speech (in the Greek text) a series of aorists in the subjunctive mood "will break", "will teach", "will create and teach" (λύσῃ, διδάξῃ, ποιήσῃ καὶ διδάξῃ), and twice "will be called" ( κληθήσεται) – future indicative mood. From this they conclude that it will “violate” and so on. and “will be called” do not indicate actions that are simultaneous, contemporary or accompanying one another. He will not be called immediately and not at the same time when he breaks it, but in the future, in the Kingdom of Heaven, the Word of the “least” (commandments) is in accordance with the “least” (he will be called); but whoever creates, i.e. If he fulfills one of the “smallest” commandments and teaches this to others, he will be called “great” and so on. Here, however, what is meant is not a mechanical fulfillment of the commandments, from the greatest to the smallest, but a meaningful, internal, spiritual one. The following and subsequent verses illustrate this idea.
Matthew 5:20. For, I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.
(The Pharisees are mentioned in the comments to Matthew 3:7.)
Scribes are those who studied the Holy Scriptures, “scholars” (homines literati), in Hebrew – “soferim”. Since they studied the law, they were also called lawyers or teachers of the law. Joseph calls them interpreters of the fatherly laws, sophists and priests (ἱερογραμματεῖς). They were also given the honorary titles of rabbis. These were people who were in charge of the book business of that time, up to and including the writing of private letters. Scribes enjoyed great influence among the people.
As for the meaning of the verse, it obviously lies in the fact that here we mean the fulfillment by the scribes of only one Old Testament law, only one Old Testament truth (δικαιοσύνη), without the addition of such actions that would testify to the fulfillment indicated by Christ. The Old Testament law is not abolished by the teachings of Christ. But if it is fulfilled, to put it roughly, without the additions made by Him, then such fulfillment of the law, characteristic of the scribes and Pharisees, should be considered insufficient, imperfect, mechanical, thoughtless, unreasonable and even immoral. The disciples of Christ must surpass the scribes and Pharisees in fulfilling the law. If the disciples do not do this, they will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Thus, the law and its execution should be characteristic of the disciples. Either only the law, or the law without its execution - this is characteristic of the scribes and Pharisees.
Matthew 5:21. You have heard what was said to the ancients: do not kill; whoever kills will be subject to judgment.
The speech begins with the expression: “you heard.” It should be noted that Christ does not say: you have read. The following expression is the same: “said” (ἐρρήθη), but not “written” (γέγραπται). Such expressions were chosen with the obvious intention of simplifying the speech as much as possible and adapting it to the understanding of the common people. If Christ had said: you have read, then this would be factually incorrect, because the crowd in general consisted of people who were illiterate or insufficiently literate. But the Holy Scriptures were read then in Jewish synagogues, and the people could listen to this reading. He heard what was said to the "ancients". There has been a lot of controversy about this last word, because grammatically it can be understood as both ancient (dative case) and ancient (instrumental case). At present, almost all interpreters accept that the dative case here is not in the sense of the instrumental, which is mainly evident from the contrasts found in verses 21, 22, 27, 28 - “but I say to you.”
Further, what speaks against the understanding of τοῖς ἀρχαίοις in the sense of ὑπὸ τῶν ἀρχαίων is that such use of the dative case is alien to Matthew and is very rare in the New Testament (Goltzman [1901], Tsang [1905]). The objections that τοῖς ἀρχαίοις is opposed not to “you”, but to the pronoun “I” (“the ancients” said, and I, etc.), that Christ in further expressions means the interpretation of the law given by the scribes, and not the law that was given by God through Moses, and that the formula of Christ corresponded to a similar formula then used by the rabbis, cannot be considered strong. Of course, with this or that translation of ἀρχαίοις the meaning changes. If we translate: “said to the ancients,” then this will mean what was said by God Himself through Moses to the ancient Jews. If - “said by the ancients,” then this will mean that the sayings of the ancients may not have had or did not have divine sanction and were an addition to the Old Testament law, or its interpretation made on the basis of human authority.
But in the latter case, Christ would hardly have used the word “ancients” about the scribes, because they appeared with their interpretations shortly before Christ - although it must be said that the word “ancients” in the New Testament designates not only long-past times and circumstances (cf. 2 Cor. 5:17; 2 Pet. 2:5; Rev. 12:9), but sometimes it is also used about recent persons and events (Acts 15:7, 21:16).
The commandment “thou shalt not kill” is repeated several times in the law (Ex. 20:13, 21:12; Lev. 24:17; Deut. 5:17, 17:8) in various expressions, but the words: “whoever kills shall be subject to judgment” are literally not found in the law, unless Deut. 17:8 is included here. One might think that here the Savior either briefly outlined the last of these passages, or pointed to the interpretation that the scribes attached to the commandment “thou shalt not kill.” Tsang strongly speaks out for the latter, saying: “With this (i.e., with the commandment “thou shalt not kill”) the scribes associated a definition not included in the decalogue and generally not literally found in the law, according to which the one who violated the commandment “thou shalt not kill” should be subject to trial, and the judge should have demanded an answer from him.” Such a definition, if made by the scribes, of course, did not in any way contradict either the letter or the spirit of the Old Testament law.
To clarify the further speech of Christ, we first note that the commandment “thou shalt not kill” undoubtedly applied only to people, and not to animals (mercy for which, however, was required), that its fulfillment in the Old Testament, according to some exegetes, was not required with decisive severity, and in general it, therefore, did not have absolute and immutable meaning. This interpretation is based on the fact that, as stated in many places in the Old Testament, executions took place at the command of God (Agag and Samuel, the priests of Baal and Astarte and Elijah, etc.). Of course, killings in war were not denied either. But, on the other hand, Cain was severely punished for the murder of Abel, David - Uriah. From this it was concluded that in the Old Testament murders were divided into legal and illegal, and only for the latter the perpetrators should have been and were subject to responsibility.
But if one were to agree with such an interpretation, one would, however, have to admit that the commandment “thou shalt not kill” was not given in order to break it, and that it retained its force for all kinds of cases, and its categorical expression was supposed to constantly shed light on the then gloomy everyday relations. Thus, if there were violations of this commandment in the Old Testament, it was not because it was legal, but as a result of “hardness of heart,” or one or another practical necessity. In other words, the commandment was holy and immutable and was the law, but violations of it for one reason or another were allowed, and these violations, and not anything else, were illegal, if you pay attention to the reasons for the violations, which lay in the behavior of the punished themselves, and not those who punished them.
The word “court” is used, apparently, only in a general sense, and therefore there is no need to expand on what kind of court it was.
Matthew 5:22. But I tell you that everyone who is angry with his brother without cause will be subject to judgment; whoever says to his brother: “raqa” is subject to the Sanhedrin; and whoever says, “You fool,” is subject to fiery hell.
“But I say to you” is the opposite of the previous speech: “said by the ancients.” According to the interpretation accepted above, it was said by God through Moses. If the Savior had said: “God did not command to kill, but I tell you, kill,” then His words would have contained a complete refutation of the Old Testament commandment and a complete contradiction of the word of God. This means that the opposition here is only verbal and does not relate to the essence of the commandment itself. Just like God through Moses, the Savior prohibits murder, but with even greater categoricality, eliminating the very reasons on which murder depended and depends. In the Old Testament, obstacles were created to the fact of murder, but no attention was paid to its internal causes. People had to refrain from killing not only because of the commandment, but also for fear of being judged. The Savior transfers the matter, so to speak, from the outer courtyard to the inner courtyard - into the heart of man. To understand the meaning of these words, we must again first of all keep in mind the people to whom Christ spoke.
We do not think that there were members of the Sanhedrin or local court around Him, who made decisions on the death penalty, or any kind of rulers, bosses, judges who “carry the sword.” But even if they were, then, of course, they did not wear any signs of the civil dignity or duties assigned to them, mingling with the crowd and not differing in any way from it.
Therefore, in all of His Sermon on the Mount, Christ obviously does not pay attention to any leaders, but speaks only to the common people, who could understand His words only in the literal sense. Since the main reason for ordinary murders in human society has always been, is and will be anger at one’s brother, the New Testament prohibits not only the murders themselves, but also the anger from which they arise. At the same time, it is remarkable that, so to speak, the area of anger here is limited only to relations with the “brother,” but nothing is said about anger at the enemy or even one’s neighbor. Why was the word “brother” chosen and not some other? Did Christ want to say that anger is impermissible only in relation to a brother and is quite appropriate in relation to all other people, our enemies and generally those who do not have any particularly close relationship with us? Or should the word “brother” be taken in the broad sense of all people in general? Ἀδελφός is used very often in the New Testament - to denote brotherhood by birth and brotherhood in the spiritual sense.
In the verse under consideration, one must understand the meaning of “brother” in the sense of a blood brother, a fellow citizen, and a person in general (quivis alius homo - Mitmensch). At least that's what Grimm and Kremer think. But, interpreting the word “brother” in this very sense, we must admit that, according to the thought of Christ, not only the murder of a brother by a brother or a person by a person is prohibited, but even the anger of one person against another is prohibited. That is, in other words, on the basis of the commandment of Christ, we must deny all kinds and all kinds of murders. This is exactly how, but not otherwise, the people gathered to Him could understand the speech of Christ. They were not “official” people in our sense and therefore could not extract any teaching for themselves regarding “official” murders from the speech of Christ.
Continuing the interpretation and moving away from the crowd, here too we immediately enter the realm of abstractions. But we must always remember that the concepts of “official” and “unofficial” are invented by people. Before Christ, all people are equal and no such differences exist. Before Him, the entire area of the “official” is smoothed out and all “official” people must mingle with the crowd surrounding Christ if they want to listen and understand His speech. Hence the clear conclusion is that there should be no official killings, killings in war or executions of criminals, according to the teachings of Christ. This is the law. Everything else is a deviation from the law.
But then further questions arise: what to do when enemies attack us - should we also go to war and kill them? What to do if murder is required, for example, for the purpose of protection during attacks by robbers, who, if not killed, will themselves commit many murders, and, moreover, of completely innocent and defenseless persons? Is it possible to justify killing in war and generally for purposes of protection? It is possible, and in exactly the same way as they were justified in the Old Testament with the existence of a clear, categorical and immutable commandment “thou shalt not kill.” In the Old Testament this commandment was given, which, in fact, was directed against the old man with his lusts, and, however, the “Old Testament” man existed. In the New Testament, a new commandment was given that supplemented the Old Testament. But this does not mean at all that as soon as the New Testament commandment was given, Old Testament man immediately ceased to exist. It existed after Christ, and it exists now.
The idea of the New Testament is the casting out and disarming of the old man, and this goal is constantly being achieved. But this is a very slow process. When all people become New Testament people, then, of course, there will be no need for either wars or capital punishment of criminals. But as long as the Old Testament continues and the Old Testament man lives, wars and death penalties are a matter of practical necessity, although they are deviations from the law. It is only necessary to always and certainly remember that, while defending wars and capital punishment, both their defenders and the criminals whom they kill, in no case revolve in the sphere of purely New Testament concepts, but conduct all their reasoning only on Old Testament soil. Being old people themselves, they fight, of necessity, with the Old Testament man and very often at the same time completely forget about the light given in the Old Testament commandment - “thou shalt not kill”, and about the teaching given by Christ.
The word “in vain” usually serves to justify unnecessary anger. But “in vain” is not in the Sinaiticus and Vatican Codes, it is omitted by Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort. In some codes, Jerome notes, “in vain” (sine causa) is added, but in most codes it is a definite thought, and anger is completely destroyed when Scripture says: “he who is angry with his brother” (i.e., without adding: “in vain”). For if we are commanded to turn the other cheek to those who beat us, to love our enemies and to pray for those who persecute us, then every reason for anger ceases. Therefore, “in vain” must be released, because “the wrath of man does not work the righteousness of God” (James 1:20). Origen said that some inappropriately (μὴ καλῶς) add εἰκῇ to the Gospel, thinking that in some cases reasonable anger is possible. The word “in vain” is issued by Basil the Great and Athanasius of Alexandria (not Irenaeus, Justin, Eusebius, Gregory of Nyssa, John Chrysostom, etc.). However, Evfimy Zigavin says that “by adding εἰκῇ, the Savior did not eliminate all anger, but only untimely anger.
Because well-timed anger is beneficial. The latter occurs against those who act contrary to the commandments of God, when, not for revenge, but for the benefit of those living poorly, out of love and philanthropy, you indulge in anger with due decency.” We agree that by omitting the word “in vain”, i.e. When understanding the Savior’s sayings in an absolute sense, it is difficult to explain the “wrath” of the Savior (Mark 3:5). But the word ὀργή, attached to Him, does not, apparently, have the meaning that it has in the verse under consideration. The expression of the latter is in direct correspondence with verse 21. There the one who kills is subject to judgment (it is not said - in vain), here - the one who is angry with his brother and, as a result, is disposed to murder. He who is angry is subject to judgment, but not in all cases, of course. Further expressions contain an indication of various degrees of an angry state, which are precisely reprehensible. Ὀργιζόμενος implies a long-lasting, but more hidden, hidden anger that can lead to murder without being expressed in any actions or words.
The angry state is then expressed by uttering rak, verbal abuse, or insults. The word "cancer" has been explained in various ways. Chrysostom considers it an expression of minor anger, rather of contempt and disdain. This word, according to Chrysostom, in Syriac is equivalent to “you”. Augustine considers it more likely that this word does not mean anything (specific), but expresses the movement of an angry spirit, and relates the word “cancer” to angry exclamations. Theophylact and Euthymius Zigavin agree with Chrysostom. Jerome believes that the word is equivalent to the Hebrew "raqa", which means "empty", brainless. Morison believes the word has not yet been clarified. The production of "raqa" from Aramaic "river", or "reika" "empty", presents linguistic difficulties. We can only accept that this word, which is similar to several Hebrew and Aramaic expressions, generally denotes contempt, disrespect, spitting, etc., although its exact meaning is unknown.
The word μωρέ, which, as can be seen from responsibility, already expresses strong, irreconcilable anger, was brought together with the Hebrew word “sea” (וּמוֹרֶה - humiliating; or rebellious, obstinate - Deut. 21:18), but unsuccessfully. This is the Greek word corresponding to the Hebrew "nabal" and means "foolish." It is difficult to establish an exact difference between “raka” and μωρέ. Tzan's opinion that Jesus Christ here wants to punish the rabbis by imitating their method and that for Christ here the casuistic rabbinical distinctions and reasonings, found in abundance in almost every treatise of the Mishnah, served as a model, can hardly be accepted. In the present case, the meaning of the word, which in itself is obscure, can only be determined if we pay attention to the great responsibility that Christ indicates for the utterance of this word. From this responsibility it is clear that μωρέ does not simply mean “stupid” and is not equal to the word “cancer,” but means something else, because otherwise there would be no need to separate this crime from the general jurisdiction of human institutions.
But what exactly is the exact value of μωρέ is difficult to say. The best explanation of this word and the punishment that follows it is that it refers to anger at the brother for his religious opinions, which, of course, is no longer subject to secular judgment. Confirmation of this is found in the fact that μωρέ is Hebrew for “naval,” and this latter is used in Deut. 32:21; Ps.13:1, 52:2; Job 2:10, 30:8 (cf. 1 Samuel 25:3, 25) to designate predominantly religious errors. As for the words: “court”, “sanhedrin”, “fiery hell”, in this verse they undoubtedly have a more specific meaning than in the previous one, and indicate a lower court, consisting of 3 judges in towns with a population of about 120 people, a court of 23 - where the population exceeded 120 people, and a higher court - the Sanhedrin of 71 (according to Schürer), which was in Jerusalem. The word "gehenna" indicates the place that was in the south of Jerusalem, where Molech was served (2 Chronicles 28:3, 33:6; Jer.7:31, 19:2-6, etc.). Josiah “desecrated Tophet, which is in the valley of the sons of Hinnom, so that no man would cause his son or his daughter to pass through the fire to Molech” (2 Kings 23:10).
The corpses of criminals, animals and all sorts of unclean things were thrown here. To destroy the smell and decaying objects, a fire was lit there. This place became an image to symbolize afterlife torment. The word "gehenna" appears several times in Matthew, Mark, Luke and in the letter of James (James 3:6).
Matthew 5:23. So, if you bring your gift to the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you,
Matthew 5:24. leave your gift there before the altar, and go first and be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.
Addressing his listeners, the Savior in the previous verse spoke of their own anger, which serves to disrupt the peace. Now He speaks of anger on the part of the brother, and this anger must also be stopped. The existence of the church and sacrifices in the words of the Savior is necessarily assumed, i.e. the words were spoken (and the Gospel was written) before the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem, otherwise such speech would have been impossible. Many made various sacrifices in the church, which were then the highest expression of service to God and reverence for God. If someone brings some gift for the church and, being present in the church, remembers that his brother is angry with him, then he must leave his gift before the altar, return back and be reconciled with his brother. Interpreting these verses, St. John Chrysostom exclaims: “Oh, goodness! Oh, inexpressible love for humanity! The Lord commands that worship of Him be abandoned due to the demands of love for one’s neighbor... Let, He says, service to Me be interrupted, if only your love is preserved, because even that is a sacrifice when someone is reconciled with a brother.
That is why He does not say: be reconciled after offering or before offering the gift, but He sends you to be reconciled with your brother when the gift lies before the altar and the sacrifice has already begun.” Nothing prevents you from literally implementing these beautiful words and beautiful interpretation in practical life. The word κἀκεῖ in the expression “there you will remember” appears in the most important codices, accepted in the recepta, in Tischendorf and Westcott and Hort, but issued in more than 50 italics. It is written both κἀκεῖ and καὶ ἐκεῖ. The verb "to reconcile" (διαλλάττεσθαι) occurs only here in the New Testament.
Matthew 5:25. Make peace with your opponent quickly while you are still on the way with him, lest your opponent hand you over to the judge, and the judge hand you over to the servant, and they throw you into prison;
The idea of verse 24 about speedy, immediate reconciliation is repeated, but the matter is viewed from slightly different angles. Whoever is forced to go to the judge should make peace with his opponent quickly, on the very road that leads to court. The word "rival" (ἀντίδικος) has been interpreted differently. By rival, according to Augustine, one can here understand “either the devil, or man, or the flesh, or God, or His commandment. But I,” says Augustine, “do not see how one can favor the devil or be reconciled with him, for where there is favor, there is friendship; You cannot tell anyone that you should make friends with the devil; it is inconvenient to enter into an agreement with him. Therefore,” Augustine continues, “there is only one thing left - to understand by a rival the commandment of God, which resists those who want to sin.”
Others understood the devil as a rival, and this idea was, one might say, generally accepted in the ancient Church and among ancient interpreters. The basis for this interpretation was 1 Peter 5:8, which says: “the enemy” (ἀντίδικος) “your devil.” But all of these interpretations are based on an obvious misunderstanding, because ἀντίδικος, both in the Old Testament and among the classics, simply means a person who wants to sue or is suing another, in our opinion “plaintiff” and “defendant” - both of these persons are called ἀντίδικος, although in In verse 25 this word is used, obviously, in the sense of “plaintiff.” It is also incorrect to understand “judges” here (St. John Chrysostom), because how could one be reconciled with them on the road to court? The practical advice that Chrysostom teaches here is very good: “Until you go to court, you are a complete master over yourself, but as soon as you cross its threshold, you are already a slave of another, and no matter how much you become stronger, you can no longer dispose of yourself as you want.” The differences in this verse are not particularly important.
Matthew 5:26. Truly I tell you: you will not come out of there until you have paid the last coin.
The meaning of the speech is that if a person does not reconcile with his rival and brings the matter to court, then he must be subject to judicial punishment and pay off the entire debt. This shows how early reconciliation is sometimes necessary. The codrant was a small Roman coin that is mentioned in the New Testament only twice (also Mark 12:42), Latin quadrans = 1/4 asa or assariya = 2 mepta = almost the German pfenning and the old Russian polushka (1/4 kopeck). It was the smallest copper coin from the Roman Empire.
Matthew 5:27. You have heard what was said to the ancients: Thou shalt not commit adultery.
The same speech as at the beginning of verse 21, but (according to the best readings) without the addition of “ancients.” In the recepta, many italics, the Vulgate and others, the word “ancient” came from the 21st verse. In the Old Testament, the commandment is stated in the same words as in Matthew, in the Hebrew text and in the translation of the Seventy Exodus 20:14. In Deut. 5:18 it is repeated with the addition in the Hebrew text of the conjunction “and”, which is omitted in the Seventy and Matthew. The Hebrew word naach means all kinds and kinds of fornication.
Matthew 5:28. But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
The Greeks distinguished between μοιχεία and πορνεία. The first, according to Theophylact and others, refers to adultery with a married woman, the second - with a divorced woman (literally, with a “freedwoman” - εἰς ἀπολελυμένην). Legal marital relationships are excluded from the Savior’s speech, and strengthening family relationships is His main goal. The word “woman” means, in a general sense, any woman. Looking at a woman with the intention of satisfying lust is in itself adultery in the heart. According to the Old Testament law, the very fact of adultery was sin, but according to the teachings of the Savior, sin occurs when adultery is committed in the heart. Christ's listeners could understand His speech in the sense that He commanded strict abstinence from fornication, even in thoughts. The Savior speaks of the sin of a man, but it is clear that the same applies to a woman. Their adulterous sins may be forgiven, but they are nevertheless sins and deviations from the norm, and people must abstain from them.
Luther remarks: “If we cannot stop a bird from flying over our heads, we can stop it from making a nest in our hair.” The expression “with her” (αὐτήν) may not be genuine.
Matthew 5:29. If your right eye offends you, pluck it out and throw it away from you, for it is better for you that one of your members perish, rather than your whole body being cast into hell.
The “right eye” is the right eye, not the left, because it, like the right hand, is more valuable to a person. In ancient times, this was expressed by Aristotle like this: φύσει βελτίων τὸ δεξιὸν τοῦ ἀριστεροῦ (by nature, the right is better than the left). The ancient exegetes did not seem to dare to interpret the words of the Savior literally. Augustine says that by the eye we (usually) understand a beloved friend... But here we should understand the eye as a friend-adviser, because the eye shows the way. “When you hear about the eye and the hand,” says Theophylact, “do not think that it is talking about members, because then (the Savior) would not have added the words “right” and “right.” It talks about imaginary friends who bring us harm.” Such interpretations cannot be considered correct. The Savior said “right” and “right” (verse 30) because he spoke about the members of the body, but these expressions are not applicable to friends. Moreover, the speech obviously refers to μοιχεία, and the members of the body are spoken of as instruments of passion.
The best explanation of the word “scandal” (temptation) is found in Trench (Proverbs, 2nd ed. 1888, p. 89): “σκάνδαλον (in its classical form σκανδάληθρον) is that part of the trap or snare on which the bait is placed and which, as soon as the it, jumps out and causes the spring to suddenly tighten the snare; Then, in general, this word refers to snares. In the New Testament it is applied to spiritual objects and includes everything that, entangling people’s feet, causes them to fall, as a result of which it comes close to the word πρόσκομμα and is closely related in meaning also to the words παγίς and θήρα, with which it is sometimes used side by side, as, for example, in Rom. 2:9.” Wed. Lev.19:14, where by σκάνδαλον (in the Seventy) is meant the object over which the blind man stumbles on his way.
The newest interpreters understand the expressions of Christ literally, i.e. He says that even if your right eye or right hand offends you, then it is better to pluck out the eye or cut off the hand and so on. This interpretation is, apparently, just as incorrect as the first, because all of this is abstraction. Ὄχλοι could understand the words of Christ only as figurative expressions, which indicate the need to observe great severity when it comes to the sin of adultery.
Matthew 5:30. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away from you, for it is better for you that one of your members should perish, and not that your whole body should be cast into hell.
In design and meaning, this verse is no different from the previous one. The same truth is viewed from different angles and thus becomes more imprinted on the minds of the listeners.
Matthew 5:31. It is also said that if anyone divorces his wife, he should give her a divorce decree.
Again the formula of verses 21 and 27, repeated in verses 33, 38, 43, which indicates that all this speech of the Savior was delivered simultaneously and at one time. The connection is well explained by Saint John Chrysostom: “The Savior moves on to a new subject only after he has revealed the previous one in its entirety. So in this case, He shows us another type of adultery.” The detailed speech on this subject in Deut. 24:1-4 is presented by the Savior very briefly and completely freely. Only the essence of the case is conveyed and the circumstances that gave rise to the divorce, indicated in Deuteronomy, are not indicated at all.
Matthew 5:32. But I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for the guilt of adultery, gives her a reason to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
In explaining this, one of the most difficult verses - not that it is difficult in itself, but because it touches on very complex practical everyday relationships - we must first of all consider the meaning of individual terms and then the general meaning of the Savior's speech. We will present this subject with the greatest possible brevity, and we refer those interested in details to the scientifically very valuable brochure of Professor N.P. Glubokovsky under the title: “Divorce due to adultery and its consequences according to the teachings of Christ the Savior” (St. Petersburg, 1895). The first difficult word that comes across when considering this verse is παρεκτός. In Russian it is translated – “except”, in Slavic – “unless”, Vulgatä: excepta (fornicationis) causa. Παρεκτός is translated everywhere the same way by the word “except”, with the exception of Luther’s translation, which is not clear enough; The newest German translators, instead of es sei denn um Ehebruch, as in Luther (in brackets), translate better and more accurately - ausser dem Grunde der Hurerei. “Παρεκτός,” says Professor N.Z. Glubokovsky, “was not original in the Greek language” and its emergence dates back to the period of time between 322 and 150. BC
In any case, it is not found either in the classics or in the Seventy, where πάρεκ and πάρεξ are used with equal meaning. It is certain, however, that παρεκτός, according to the same professor, indicated (together with other expressions) “an exception for that which is outside the given order and does not fall under its laws.” Further λόγος is necessary. If it were not for it, then the expression “divorce, excluding adultery” would be incomprehensible. Λόγος here means “reason” (causa, Grund). Meaning: if someone gets divorced, except for the case when he is forced to do so by a good reason - adultery of his wife or even one of the parties, etc. The next word is πορνεία. Euthymius Zigavin says: Christ “commands not to divorce a wife “for any reason other than adultery” (this should be the Russian translation of verse 32 based on the above), that is, without (δίχα) debauchery (πορνεία), and debauchery (πορνείαν) here He calls it adultery (μοιχείαν).”
According to Professor Glubokovsky, the term πορνεία was not so specialized that there could be no controversy about its content.” At this point it is far from uninteresting that Christ uses πορνεία, although - in fact - we are talking about μοιχεία. If there is no πορνεία, then he who lets his wife go “tramples the very foundation of marriage, separates what God has united by the law of nature and sanctified in Christianity by a deliberate Sacrament.” After these explanations, the meaning of the Savior’s further words will seem clearer to us.
Anyone who divorces his wife (or a wife from her husband) for any reason other than the guilt of adultery, forces (gives reason), due to lack of satisfaction of carnal passion, the divorced (left) party to commit adultery. Thus, one evil, arbitrary separation from a wife (or from a husband) without any good reason (the guilt of adultery), entails another, forces the innocently abandoned (or abandoned) to fall into sin, to commit adultery, and this sin, as can be judged by the tone of Christ’s speech, falls with all its weight not on the released (or released), but on the one who releases without guilt, and his guilt is thus made, purely. This is evident from the verb used here ποιεῖ. In addition, the one who enters into a new relationship with a woman divorced without fault also commits sin, but this sin must again be imputed to the person who divorces his wife without fault on her part.
Thus, an unreasonable divorce is a combination of many evils, many sins, which fall with all their weight on the person who allowed the arbitrary and unfounded divorce.
This is the essence of Christ's teaching in this verse. Perhaps He did not speak about women because they were not among the people who listened to Him. But “if someone began to assert that the Lord allowed, as a reason for leaving a spouse, only fornication, which is committed during an illicit concubinage, then you can say that the Lord spoke about both faithful, not allowing them to leave each other, except for the guilt of adultery” (Augustine). This view of the Savior on marriage is quite possible to justify by reasonable considerations. “The relationship between the sexes,” says Tolyuk, “introduces us into the deepest mystery of life; without duality there is no living unity; without the opposition between positive and negative there is no birth. The law of polarity passes through the kingdom of stars and planets, as well as through other forces, elements, matter and kingdoms of the world, only, naturally, it is expressed differently in each kingdom.”
This means that the union between a man and a woman is an expression of the natural “polarity” inherent in the world order established by God, and its violation is contrary to all natural laws. The Savior never spoke out against married life and, as is known, sanctified marriage with His presence. But He condemned the violation of marriage ties more than once. Further, “the birth of a child,” says the same scientist, “does not need to be considered an isolated act; it necessarily involves upbringing as a continuation of the initial act of receiving life through bodily birth.” And this also cannot serve as a justification for arbitrary and groundless divorces, except in those cases when the Sacrament of Marriage itself is destroyed due to the guilt of adultery.
But behind all this, of course, many further legal questions arise. We fully agree that “the canonical tradition allowed divorce for adultery and even allowed a new marriage for an innocent person, even if he separated for less valid reasons”; that “the absolution of a wife is also conceivable in the Christian Church for a reason punctually noted by the Redeemer” (Glubokovsky). But what to do if adultery, being the only offense when divorce is permissible, will be presented as a means of obtaining a divorce from an unloved wife or unloved husband? In other words, if, in order to obtain a divorce, deliberate adultery is committed, as happens in practice, when they even “take the blame” without being guilty of it. Can adultery alone be considered a valid reason for divorce, or can there be other reasons, such as impotentia, illness, dissimilarity of character, crime, etc.? These legal issues are resolved by the fact that the Savior generally views the violation of marriage as a sin.
Everyone can then decide in his conscience whether he is committing a sin by divorcing his wife, or a wife divorcing her husband, and act according to the dictates of his conscience, constantly keeping the commandment in mind. Here we are obviously again leaving the sphere of pure moral teaching and entering the practical-legal area, the development of which and the particular application of the commandment the New Testament always leaves to the people themselves. It provides only the light in which practical moral relations must be resolved. In practice, there is almost always a separate case that is resolved through one or another application of a doctrine and principle to it. This is where we will end this discussion, noting only that stepping out of the realm of pure moral teaching and violating it always and invariably testify only to “another law,” which in a person opposes the law of his mind and makes him a captive of the law of sin that is in his members (Rom. 7:23).
All the numerous abuses that occur in married life testify only to the continuing life of the “old man” and nothing else.
Matthew 5:33. You have also heard what was said to the ancients: do not break your oath, but fulfill your oaths before the Lord.
The commandment is stated in Lev.19:12; Numbers 30:3; Deut.23:21, 23. And here again the Savior briefly conveys only the essence of the Old Testament law. In Lev.19:12, not all oaths are prohibited, but only false ones. The translation of the Seventy is almost identical to the Hebrew text. The last two passages mentioned speak of vows. Russian and Latin translations: “do not break your oath”, Vulgatä: non perjurabis, are not accurate; Slavic: “do not swear to a lie”; in the Hebrew text Lev.19:12, the word “lashaker” is added to “do not swear” - “for lying,” which is expressed by the Greek verb ἐπιορκέω, which, in contrast to the simple ὀρκέω, means “I swear falsely.” Therefore, the meaning of the Savior’s words, apparently, is this: do not swear falsely, and when you swear (not falsely), then fulfill your oaths before the Lord (in the Slavic translation, more precisely - “render unto the Lord”) your oaths. So approximately Chrysostom: “What does it mean: “fulfill your vows before the Lord”? This means: when you swear, you must speak the truth (ἀληθεύεις ὀμνύς).” There is no talk of perjury here.
Matthew 5:34. But I say to you: do not swear at all: not by heaven, for it is the throne of God;
Matthew 5:35. nor the earth, because it is His footstool; nor by Jerusalem, because it is the city of the great King;
Matthew 5:36. Do not swear by your head, because you cannot make a single hair white or black.
Matthew 5:37. But let your word be: yes, yes; no no; and anything beyond this is from the evil one.
Christ's teaching on oaths. The verb ἐπιορκέω (I swear falsely) of the previous verse is replaced here by ὄμνυμι. Ὀρκέω, ὄρκος corresponds to the Hebrew “shaba”, which is derived from “sheba” - seven - a sacred number among the Jews and in the East used in oaths (Gen. 21:28 ff.) and curses (Num. 23:1), and "shebuya" - an oath. Ὄμνυμι corresponds to the Hebrew “nishba”, i.e. the same verb, but in the form “niphal”, which has a reflexive meaning in contrast to “kal”. “Nishba”, therefore, means “he swore,” as opposed to “he cursed” or “cursed.” Thus, assuming that Christ spoke in Aramaic, we can assume that His words differed only in form and were, therefore, the same in meaning; the translator expressed them in Greek with two different verbs.
The first impression that is created when reading verses 34-37 is that Christ forbade any kind of oath completely and unconditionally. This impression is reinforced by the parallel passage James 5:12, where the apostle says: “Above all, my brethren, do not swear by heaven or earth, or by any other oath (μὴ ὀμνύετε... ἄλλον τινὰ ὄρκον), but let it be with you: “yes, yes” and “no, no,” so that you do not fall into condemnation.” This is how the ancient Church understood these words of Christ, in the sense of absolute abstinence from any oath. Justin Martyr: “He (Jesus Christ) commanded us not to swear at all, but to always speak the truth, in the words: “do not swear at all” and so on (the words of verse 37 are literally given with minor differences).”
Eusebius of Caesarea (“Ecclesiastical History”, VI, 5) tells about the martyr Basilides that his comrades on some occasion demanded an oath from him, but he argued that he was not allowed to swear because he was a Christian - and he openly confessed this. Basilides' confession was at first taken as a joke, but since... He firmly stood his ground, he was taken to the judge, who, having heard the same thing, put him in prison. After some time, Basilides was beheaded.
Saint John Chrysostom resolutely takes up arms against any oath, saying that it was permissible only for the ancients, just as breasts are permissible only for children, and not for adults. What is appropriate for a boy is indecent for a husband. Dress a boy in the clothes of an adult - it will be both funny and dangerous for him to walk, because he will often get confused. Entrust him with the conduct of civil affairs, entrust him with trade, make him sow and reap - it will be funny again. “But what to do, you say, if someone demands an oath and even forces it? Let the fear of God be stronger than any compulsion. If you begin to present such pretexts, you will not keep a single commandment.”
Theophylact: “An oath, except: to her and neither, is unnecessary and is the work of the devil. But you will say, was the law of Moses, commanding one to swear, really bad? Find out that at that time swearing was not a bad thing, but after Christ it is a bad thing, just like being circumcised and Judaizing in general. After all, it is proper for a baby to suck the breast, but it is indecent for a husband.”
Evfimy Zigavin: “Let,” says He (the Savior), “let your word of authentication, when you affirm something, be “yes,” and when you deny it, “no.” And only use these words for identification instead of an oath and do not use anything other than “yes” and “no.” Any excess against this (the Savior) calls an oath.”
Among the Latin fathers and church writers we find some hesitation. Augustine, however, expresses himself in one place as categorically against the oath as John Chrysostom: “The Lord did not want us, without uttering an oath, to deviate from the truth, but so that, by uttering an oath in the truth, we would not approach perjury.” But Jerome thought somewhat differently. Drawing attention to the fact that the Savior did not forbid swearing by God, Jerome says: “He who swears either honors or loves the one whom he swears. The law gives a commandment that we should not swear, except by the Lord our God (Deut. 6–7)... Pay attention to the fact that the Savior here did not forbid swearing by God, but by heaven, earth, Jerusalem and your head.” However, Jerome notes, “the truth of the Gospel does not oblige an oath (non recipit juramentum), since all speech is truthful and replaces an oath (cum omnis sermo fidelis pro jurejurando sit).” According to Tolyuk (1856), “only from the fifth century did they begin to consider the refusal of an oath to be a heretical matter” (S. 284). And it's clear why.
Having become dominant, the Christian Church entered into close relations with the civil authorities and had to make a concession, because an oath was required to confirm allegiance to kings and rulers, as well as in the courts. Subsequently, we constantly encounter various and interesting detours of the positive law given by Christ, which was recognized almost unanimously in the ancient Church.
True, even the newest exegetes sometimes directly and boldly speak out for the illegality of the oath. Thus, the German commentator on the evangelist Matthew Meyer says: “Christianity, as it should be according to the will of Christ, should not know any oath... The presence of God should be so alive in the conscience of a Christian that his “yes” and “no” both for himself and for others in Christian society are equal in meaning to an oath.” But, Meyer adds, an oath is, however, necessary in the imperfect state of Christianity. Therefore, for example, Anabaptists and Quakers incorrectly completely reject the oath, as did Justin, Irenaeus, Clement, Origen, John Chrysostom, Jerome and many others. According to Tsang, “Jesus prohibits not only types of false swearing, but all kinds of them.”
However, among Protestant and Catholic scientists there are many voices in defense of the oath. They point to the Savior, Who Himself did not always use only “yes” (her) or “no,” but also accompanied His words with stronger assurances (Amen, etc.). When the high priest with an oath demanded that He say whether He was the Son of God, He allegedly repeated his oath in the expression: “you said” (σὺ εἶπας) (Matthew 26:63–64). The Apostle Paul not only did not teach to abstain from swearing, but he himself pronounced it several times (Rom. 1:9; Phil. 1:8; 1 Thess. 2:5, 10; 2 Cor. 11:11, 31; Gal. 1:20; 1 Cor. 15:31; 2 Cor. 1:23; Heb. 6:16–18). The denial of the oath in the ancient Church was not unconditional, but it found strong defenders.
Tolyuk points to the example of (the heretic) Novatus (second half of the 3rd century), who, during communion, “forced poor people to swear instead of thanksgiving, and at the same time, holding the hands of the recipient (gifts) with both hands, he did not release them until he swore and uttered certain words, etc.” (Eusebius of Caesarea, “Church History”, VI, 43); and also on Athanasius of Alexandria, who, no matter how much he avoided swearing, swore before Constantine - and on the resolutions of the councils (against the Pelagians).
The denial of the oath, says Morison, is based on an incorrect interpretation of verse 34, where the Savior prohibited the oath not absolutely, but relatively - the oath of those objects that are listed below. God Himself sometimes pronounced an oath (Ps. 109:4; Ezek. 33:11; Heb. 6:13-18), and Angels (Rev. 10:6). In the nature of things, the ascent of the soul to God as the Witness, Patron, Defender of truth and Avenger of lies cannot be considered wrong. A person who is in communion with God cannot free himself from references to God in one form or another. Tsang, who argued that the oath is contrary to Christianity, writes that only a misunderstanding of verses 33–37 leads to the idea that Christ allegedly prohibited the oath at the request of civil authorities, and at the same time the voluntary use of certification formulas in everyday life. This view is inconsistent with the general purpose of the commandments from verse 21 onwards.
Just as the Savior refrained from any judgment as to whether the authorities should or should not apply the death penalty, or as to in what cases divorce is impermissible or permissible, so now He did not say that the disciples should literally carry out the laws indicated in the 33rd verse. The words of the martyr Apollonius (180-185 AD), who told his judge that it is something shameful for a Christian to take an oath, and immediately added: “If you want me to swear that we honor the emperor and pray for his government, then I will take an authentic oath in this before the true God,” Tsang calls excellent.
While maintaining possible impartiality, we have given reasons pro and contra to the oaths. But what conclusion can the reader draw from all of the above? The fact that the Savior did not prohibit oaths, but limited the words of an oath only to “her to her”, “neither nor”, which in meaning are equal to any oath. This is absolutely sufficient in any practice. This is not at all contradicted by the above quotes from the Epistles of the Apostle Paul and so on, because in his words there is no trace of any formal and especially forced oaths, and they are only simple certificates in which the apostle calls on the name of God. Common oath formulas do not at all serve as a greater and higher proof of truth compared to simple “yes” and “no.” Detailed and widespread oath formulas, pronounced either by mistake, or by misunderstanding, or due to the practical impossibility of fulfilling them, sometimes had fatal consequences. In general, as can be seen, in the words of the Savior we are talking about the prohibition not of an oath, but only of various oath formulas, except for “her, her”, “neither nor.”
The defense of forced and common oath formulas, if we take into account the numerous abuses that occur in this case, only shows that the defenders move among the works of the flesh, where “adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, quarrels, envy, anger, strife, discord, [temptations,] heresies, hatred, murder, drunkenness, disorderly conduct” ( Gal.5:19–21). Both for governments and for the governed, in this Old Testament area, which testifies to the continuation of the life of the Old Testament man, oaths are necessary, as are murders, which are the counteraction to murders. However, we repeat again that the defenders of both common oaths and murders, let them never say that they stand on purely New Testament soil, have completely freed themselves from the power of the Old Testament man and stepped into a new area where love, “joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith, meekness, self-control” (Gal. 5:22-23).
In this New Testament realm, when all people enter into it, no oaths other than simple certifications are required or will be required. Coming out from the Old Testament and striving for the New, the Old Testament man becomes less and less inclined towards murders, executions, oaths, etc. On the contrary, leaving the new covenant and striving for the old, the New Testament man shows more and more inclination towards them - due to understandable practical necessity, confirmed by all kinds of legislation.
The first “yes” in verse 37 is considered by some to be the subject, and the second “yes” to be the predicate. Meaning: let your “yes” be “yes”, i.e. true in statements, and “no” will be “no”, i.e. true in negations. But Tsang objects and considers such a translation “grammatically unacceptable” because ἔστω, as a connection, obviously refers to λόγος, and “yes yes” and “no no” are predicates. Therefore, Tsang “dares” to repeat the guess that the translator here obscured the meaning of the original, which probably read; “let your statement be yes, and your no - no,” i.e. let your “yes” and “no” be true and trustworthy, and not simultaneous “yes” and “no”, or “yes” today and “no” tomorrow. Regarding τοῦ πονηροῦ verse 37, the best interpreters recognize that this is the neuter gender of the singular and, therefore, what is meant here is not the devil, but generally the evil in the world. Instead of the plural τῶν πονηρῶν, the singular is put in place because this is grammatically possible when we are talking about collective concepts.
Matthew 5:38. You have heard that it was said: an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.
The words are taken from Exodus 21:24; Lev.24:20; Deut.19:21, and only “and” is added, which is not in any of the indicated places in the Hebrew language. But, in comparison with the Hebrew, the speech is abbreviated, missing: “hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise” (Ex. 21:24–25), “fracture for fracture” (Lev. 24:20); “a soul for a soul... a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot” (Deut. 19:21). The Hebrew text is literally rendered by the Seventy, also with the “and” omitted. In the Old Testament, like other ancient peoples, there was a so-called law of retribution (among the Romans - jus talionis), which was applied not only in court, but also in relations between private individuals. Christ here points to this law.
Matthew 5:39. But I tell you: do not resist evil. But whoever strikes you on your right cheek, turn the other also to him;
Luke 6:29 with the words “do not resist evil” missing. John Chrysostom and Theophylact suggest that “evil” here means the devil acting through a person. Theophylact asks: “Shouldn’t we resist the devil?” - and answers: “Yes, but not by striking him, but by patience. Because fire is not extinguished by fire, but by water. But do not think that the Savior is speaking here only about a blow on the cheek; He is also speaking about any other insult and, in general, simply about danger.” Other exegetes understand by τυ πονηρυ an evil person, and moreover in the dative: “do not resist an evil person.”
Morison asks, “Should we never resist an evil man?” - and answers: “Yes, we must resist often and to the last degree. But this resistance should never be a matter of personal revenge, and here the Savior is talking about personal revenge, and only about it.” According to Tsang, here we are talking about resistance not to the devil or man, but to the evil that exists in the world, to the extent that it reveals its power to us, i.e. that we should not overcome evil with evil, because resistance to a hostile attack on us, even in cases of necessity, constantly tends to increase the enemy’s forces. By τῷ πονηρῷ, according to Tsang, one should understand not ὁ πονηρός, which would mean the devil, but τὸ πονηρόν, because the Savior could declare resistance to the devil only as a sacred duty. Tsang proves this position by the fact that when ὁ πονηρός (in the masculine gender) they usually put, to avoid ambiguity, ἁνήρ (husband), διδάσκαλος (teacher), δοῦλος (slave). These interpretations are no doubt good.
But we will understand even better what the matter is if we imagine how the disciples and common people standing near Him could understand the words of Christ. They could not understand His words in any abstract philosophical sense, but, naturally, they understood only some specific evil that threatened them. What exactly it consisted of is, of course, difficult to say, although in further words its definitions are given: “to hit on the cheek”, “to sue”, “to take”, “to force” and so on. These four definitions well characterize the Palestinian evil of that time. From this we can conclude that the “evil” that the Savior speaks of must always be concrete, and only in this way can the question of which evil should be resisted and which should not be resolved. If Christ had spoken about “worldly evil” and about non-resistance to evil in general, then, undoubtedly, His speech would have been incomprehensible to the listeners. In addition, they could see in the words of Christ a contradiction with His own actions, because there is no doubt that all the activities of Christ were opposition to evil.
Meanwhile, we do not find any hint of this contradiction in the words of the evangelists. By indicating that in specific cases one should not resist evil, Christ in fact indicates ways not of non-resistance, but of resisting evil with patience and meekness.
In our country, the abstract doctrine of non-resistance to evil is revealed especially by gr. L.N. Tolstoy. The main mistake of this teaching is precisely that it is abstract. A good analysis of this teaching can be found, by the way, in the book of the late professor A.F. Gusev “The main religious principles of Count L. Tolstoy”, Kazan, 1893, p. 33–108, although we cannot agree with all the author’s conclusions. For example, the text being analyzed cannot be translated in the same way as the Kazan professor Nekrasov, to whom Gusev refers: “And I am telling you not so as not to give in to an evil person, but, on the contrary, whoever hits you on your right cheek, offer him the other as well.” Although the verb ἀνθίστημι is sometimes used in the meaning of prospere cedo, I concede with success, such use of the verb is alien to the New Testament (see Luke 21:15; Acts 6:10, 13:8; James 4:7; Rom. 9:19, 13:2; Gal. 2:11; Eph. 6:13; 2 Timothy 3:8, 4:15).
Briefly and clearly, the fundamental teaching of the Savior can be expressed as follows: whoever offends commits sin; if someone resists the offender, he commits the same sin as he, because he wants to offend him. He who does not resist is free from sin and therefore justified by God. This should and always has great practical significance, because in such cases God Himself is the avenger of the guilty and the protector of the innocent and defeats evil with which it is difficult or impossible for an individual to fight. This seems to be the main idea of the last sentences of verse 39 and following.
Matthew 5:40. and whoever wants to sue you and take your shirt, give him your outer clothing too;
Wed. Luke 6:29. Interpreters agree that χιτών means underwear, chiton, shirt; under ἱμάτιον – top, cloak, etc. The general idea is the same as in the previous verse.
Matthew 5:41. and whoever forces you to go one mile with him, go with him two miles.
The meaning of the verse is clear and does not require explanation. Only the word ἀγγαρεύσει ("will force you to go") needs to be explained. This word comes from Persian, which the Greeks expressed through ἀγγαρος, in the Ionian dialect ἀγγαρήιος, courier. It passed into Hebrew, Greek and Latin (Vulgatä: angariaverit). These couriers were started by Cyrus and carried out a type of postal and transport service, forcibly demanding mainly people and pack animals at the stations (Herodotus, “History”, VIII, 98). The verb ἀγγαρεύω is found in Josephus (“Jewish Antiquities”, XIII, 2–3 – ἀγγαρεύεσθαι τὰ Ἰουδαίων ὑποζύγια), in Epictetus (Dissertationes, IV, 1, 79 – ἂν δὲ ἀγγαρεία ᾖ καὶ στρατιώτης ἐπλάβηται, ἄφες, μὴ ἀντίτεινε μηδὶ γόγγυζε ). This makes the expression clear: “who will force you to go the same mile with him.” The numerals “one” and the further “two” should not be considered precisely defined. Meaning: do more than you are forced to do.
The "field" in its exact meaning is equal to the Roman mile (Greek μίλιον), which, according to Holtzman, is equal to 1000 steps, or 8 stages, or 1472 meters.
Matthew 5:42. Give to the one who asks from you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
Wed. Luke 6:30, where the same thought is expressed somewhat differently: “Give to everyone who asks you, and do not ask him back from the one who took what is yours.” We are obviously talking about property relations and nothing else. Therefore, arguments that this commandment should not be fulfilled literally and that requests cannot be satisfied in all cases, for example, when a child asks for a knife to kill himself, seem unnecessary.
Matthew 5:43. You have heard that it was said: love your neighbor and hate your enemy.
The first sentence of the commandment is taken from Lev. 19:18; The second sentence: “hate your enemy” is not in the ancient Jewish law, and the Savior refers here either to the later decrees of Ezra, or to the decrees of the scribes, aimed at developing misanthropy among the Jews. Adversus omnes alios hostile odium - hostile hatred of all others (Tacitus, History, V, 8) on the part of the Jews was well known to the then pagans, who themselves hated the Jews.
Matthew 5:44. But I say to you: love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who despitefully use you and persecute you,
There is a very strong hesitation in the text. The expression: “bless those who curse you,” is issued in the Sinaiticus, Vatican, Vulgate and some other Latin translations, by Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, and is found in the recepta, almost all italics, of John Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact and many others. The expression: “do good to those who hate you,” is issued in Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, but is found in the recepta, almost all italics, the Vulgate and the Syriac Peshitta.
Finally, “for those who wrong you” is issued in Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, but is found in the recepta, almost all italics, ancient Latin translations and Pescito.
Thus, a number of codes do not contain these words, but the overwhelming majority of manuscripts and quotations from church writers support them. Many exegetes think that these words are interpolated from Luke 6:27–28. Comparing the text of Matthew and Luke, we find that, if we do not pay attention to the permutations, it is the same for both evangelists. But other exegetes hold different opinions and say that there is no sufficient reason to suspect interpolation here. Tsang recognizes the text as authentic, although he does not speak out decisively. The meaning is clear. Saint John Chrysostom finds, starting from verse 39, nine degrees by which the Savior raises us higher and higher - “to the very top of virtue.”
“The first degree is not to begin an offense, the second, when it has already been caused, is not to repay the offender with equal evil; third - not only not to do to the offender what you suffered from him, but also to remain calm; fourth - to expose oneself to suffering; fifth - to give more than what the offender wants to take; sixth - do not hate him; seventh - even to love him; the eighth is to do good to him; the ninth is to pray to God for him.” Such teaching was not alien to the pagans. Thus, the following Buddhist sayings are known:
“Conquer anger with the absence of anger,
Conquer injustice with kindness
Defeat a vile person for nothing,
Matthew 5:45. May you be sons of your Father in heaven, for He makes His sun to rise on the evil and the good and sends rain on the just and the unjust.
The speech very subtly and imperceptibly again turns into a series of greetings, which is characteristic of a brilliant oratorical speech. A break is taken, as it were, and the speaker gives his listeners the opportunity to breathe. The Savior now equates them to the sons of His Heavenly Father, and they must act as their Father does, imitate Him. And the Father commands that the sun rise on the evil and the good and send rain on the righteous and the unjust. In Seneca they find a remarkable parallel to these words of Christ: si deos imitaris, da et ingratis beneficia; nam et sceleratis sol oritur, et piratis patent maria (if you imitate the gods, show good deeds to the ungrateful, because the sun rises for evildoers and the seas are open to sea robbers).
Matthew 5:46. For if you love those who love you, what will be your reward? Don't publicans do the same?
Wed. Luke 6:32, “publicans” is replaced in Luke by the word “sinners.” The word "publicans" of our Russian and Slavonic texts is less probable than "pagans" found in Sinai, BD, about 18 italics, mostly Latin translations, Vulgate, and adopted by Tischendorf, Westcott, Hort and the editors of the English Revised Bible. In both cases the meaning is almost the same, because publicans were considered no better than pagans. The disciples of Christ must be higher than the scribes and Pharisees. But if they love only those who love them, then they will not become higher even than the pagans (or tax collectors), who do this according to the natural law of love implanted in man.
Matthew 5:47. And if you greet only your brothers, what special thing are you doing? Don't the pagans do the same?
The word "brothers" is used here, obviously, in a general sense - close people, compatriots, etc. This is a more correct reading than "friends" (φίλους), found in more than 150 italic manuscripts. The brothers are opposed to the “pagans” (in other codes - “publicans”). The difference in meaning in the readings of οὕτω (sic) and τὸ αὐτό (the same - Sinaiticus, Vatican, Tischendorf, Westcott, Hort, etc.) is too insignificant to dwell on. Of course, the Eastern customs most familiar to Christ's listeners are pointed out. The German interpreter of the Gospel of Matthew, Merke, gives several illustrative examples of greetings from modern Eastern life.
Matthew 5:48. Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect.
Luke (Luke 6:33–36) has additions that Matthew does not have, and in general the speech is presented somewhat differently. The final verse in Luke (Luke 6:36): “Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful,” similar in construction to this verse of Matthew, but dissimilar in word expression. The word τέλιος (perfect) is found in the evangelists only in Matthew twice (also Matthew 19:21), but several times in the apostles Paul, James and once in 1 John 4:18. Derived from τέλος - in the sense of an achieved goal, it is used about sacrificial animals that do not have physical defects, about adults in their difference from infants, and in a moral sense it means perfection, completeness, impeccability, innocence. The Savior’s words have a clear connection with verse 45, where not all the properties of God are listed, but only goodness. It was only in this sense that His listeners could understand the speech of Christ.
You might be interested in: