Глава 7
Machine translation from the original · Show original
Sermon on the Mount. 1–5. Judgment (condemnation) of neighbors. – 6. Perverted, wrong jealousy for the “sacred thing.” – 7–12. About prayer. – 13–14. The narrow gate and narrow path that leads to life. – 15–23. False prophets. – 24–27. The final parable. – 28–29. The general impression on the people of the Savior's Sermon on the Mount.
Matthew 7:1. Judge not, lest ye be judged,
First of all, attention is drawn to the question of whether there is a connection, and what kind of connection, between the first verse and in general the entire 7th chapter with what was said in the previous chapter and, most closely, in the 34th verse of the 6th chapter. You just need to simply connect these two verses: “there is enough trouble for each day.” “Judge not, lest ye be judged” to see that there is no connection between these verses. This conclusion is confirmed by the fact that in the verse under consideration there is no connecting particle, such as “the same” (δέ), “and”, “or”, etc., used in Greek to express a connection. If, therefore, there is any connection with the previous one, then it may refer not to a single verse, but to the entire preceding chapter. But many exegetes completely deny this connection, saying that in chapter 7 we begin to talk about completely new subjects. “No connection with the previous,” is how one German commentator puts it succinctly and forcefully (De Wette, [1857]). Those exegetes who recognize the connection give explanations that are sometimes completely different from one another.
Some explain the connection by saying that chapter 7 contains the opposite of what is said in Matthew 6:14 et seq., or what is said in chapter 6 about the Pharisees, and thus indicates that there should be no judgment due to the obligation of people to forgive one another, or at least that the judgment should not be Pharisaic. Others explain the connection this way: chapter 6 talked about the relationship of people to the Kingdom of Heaven, now we begin to talk about their relationship to each other. Citizens of the Kingdom of Christ must carefully judge their fellow citizens and, above all, improve themselves if they want to be judges and correct others. Third: if you seriously and zealously strive for perfection, then in relation to your neighbors you should be meek and not judgmental.
Another explanation: “With the darkening of the human feeling about God, which is expressed in concern only for earthly goods, the extreme depravity of religious life, expressed in Pharisaic righteousness, is developing more and more, and among people, on the one hand, fanaticism is developing, which judges its neighbor with more and more callousness, and on the other, more and more carnal behavior and neglect of the sacred” (Lange, [1861]). Alford expresses the connection in the following formulas: “The connection with the previous chapter is directly served by the word κακία (Matthew 6:34), with the help of which the Savior casts a glance, at best, at the poverty and sinfulness of human life; and now They are given rules on how to live in this world among sinners like ourselves; Indirectly, and more generally, there is a continuing warning against hypocrisy in ourselves and others.” All these and similar assumptions seem unlikely.
The best interpretation seems to be Zahn's, who says that if until now the speech in the Sermon on the Mount represented an ordered whole, was composed of clearly isolated, but, however, internally interconnected groups of thoughts, then from the beginning of the 7th chapter there follows a series of very diverse small passages, the connection of which at first glance resembles a cord on which pearls are strung, and this connection is not with the two-part speech of Matthew 6:19-34 clear. This explanation seems to come closest to the point. The entire Sermon on the Mount consists of so-called obvious truths, which gradually became unclear to natural man and were clarified for his consciousness by the Savior. If so, then it is futile to look for a close connection between individual sayings, at least in some cases. Here you can only find a cord on which pearls are strung, all of the same value, but not touching one another. Where is this cord? Without going too far back, let's take only the 6th chapter and see if we can find him here.
We encounter here a whole series of negative expressions, or prohibitions, to which in some places positive commandments are added. The prohibitions do not have the same form throughout (in the Greek text), but it is clear that they contain a list of things that people should not do.
Thus, schematically, with the addition of the expressions of Chapter 7, the whole matter can be presented as follows. The Savior says: “Do not blow a trumpet before yourselves, do not be like the hypocrites; do not say unnecessary things like the pagans, do not be like them; don't be sad; Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth; do not worry about your life; do not worry or talk; do not worry about tomorrow” (Matthew 6:2, 5, 7, 8, 16, 19, 25, 31, 34). Chapter 7 continues in the same vein: “Judge not; do not give holy things to dogs” (Matthew 7:1, 6).
If we say that there is no connection between Matthew 7:1 and Matthew 6:34, then it was unclear before, for example, in Matthew 6:19, because there was no connecting particle there either. Looking through all the negative expressions above, what connection can we discover between them? It is obvious that there is no connection or in some places it is very insignificant. And yet we see that all this speech is completely natural and corresponds to folk oratory, in which thoughts flow strictly logically and coherently. This connection is characterized by extreme simplicity and is so artless that in some cases it even seems to disappear completely. All this can cause difficulties for scientists, but, on the contrary, it greatly facilitates the understanding of speech for ordinary people, who usually follow not how one sentence logically follows from another, but rather the individual thoughts themselves.
To what has been said, it must be added that finding the proper connection between the 6th and 7th chapters and in the sayings of this latter is also complicated by the fact that the 7th chapter has similarities with part of the Sermon on the Mount set forth in Luke (Luke 6:37-49), while the entire 6th chapter of Matthew is omitted from Luke. Luke's account is said to have more coherence than Matthew's. But this is not visible the first time.
As for the meaning of the expression itself: “Judge not, lest ye be judged,” it can be explained, first of all, by the fact that the Apostle Paul resolutely rebels against the custom of the Corinthian Christians to “go to court before the wicked,” exhorting them to go to court “to the saints,” denying here, obviously, the civil court of that time (1 Cor. 6:1 et seq.). It is useful to note that in the oldest Christian literature the saying of Christ is given in the Epistle to the Philippians by Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna (Epistula ad Philippenses, II, 3), and Clement of Rome (Epistula I ad Corinthios, 13, 2). Since the real meaning of Christ’s saying, despite its apparent simplicity, seems to be one of the most difficult to interpret, it does not hurt to pay attention to how the saying was understood in very ancient times by the immediate and closest disciples of the apostles. Polycarp invites those to whom he writes to leave empty idle talk (ἀπολιπόντες τὴν κενὴν ματαιολογιάν – Epistula ad Philippenses, II, 1).
He who raised Christ from the dead, says Polycarp, will also resurrect us if we do His will, love what He loved, and let us shun all untruth, greed, love of money, slander (or slander - καταλαλιᾶς - ibid. II, 2). Polycarp proves these theses with texts borrowed from the Sermon on the Mount according to Matthew and Luke (Matthew 7:1, 5:3–10; Luke 6:20, 37). The text “judge not, lest ye be judged” is given literally from Matthew 7:1. What is important for us now is not this, but the fact that the text is clearly cited by Polycarp as proof of the sinfulness of slander, slander and false testimony. Polycarp does not apply it to judicial institutions and their activities, but only to various sins and shortcomings in human society. According to Clement, “non-judgment” of others is the result of humility.
This is followed by the following exhortation: “Have mercy so that you may be shown mercy, forgive so that you may be forgiven, as you do, so it will be done to you; as you give, so you will be rewarded; as you judge, so you will be judged (ὡς κρίνετε οὕτως κριθήσεσθε); With the measure you use, it will be measured back to you.” And here again there is no talk of official judges or judicial regulations.
The general tone of the reasoning of later church writers, as far as we know, is the same. They don't talk about civil court. When discussing private court, they point out that a person should not be a harsh judge (πικρός δικαστής) and that the court itself should consist of suggestion, advice, and the desire for correction. But private court is not denied. “So what? - asks John Chrysostom. - If (someone) commits fornication, then shouldn’t I say that fornication is bad, and shouldn’t the libertine be corrected? Correct, but not as an enemy, and not as an enemy demanding retribution, but as a doctor applying medicine. The Savior did not say, do not stop the sinner, but: do not judge, i.e. Don’t be a cruel judge.” John Chrysostom says that Christ Himself and the apostles judged and condemned sinners many times, and that if the text were to be taken literally, such an understanding would contradict many other places in the New Testament.
These words are fair, because the New Testament actually indicates that Christ Himself judged people (Matthew 23:14, 33); He also gave the power to judge to the apostles, who used this power (1 Tim. 5:20; 2 Tim. 4:2; Titus 1:9, 2:15; also 1 Tim. 4:1; 2 John 1:10; 1 Thess. 5:21). Augustine proposed to explain here “dubious facts”, interpreting them “from the best side.” “In two cases,” he says, “we must beware of reckless judgment: when it is not known with what intention any deed was committed, or when it is not known what kind of person will be who seems either good or evil.” Jerome, pointing out that Paul condemned the Corinthian adulterer (1 Cor. 5), and Peter Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5), says that Christ did not forbid, but taught how to judge. Thus, it is clear that church writers, while avoiding discussions about civil court, recognize, however, the need for private or even church court, making concessions to the practical need to condemn sin as such.
In later times, some interpreters understand the Savior’s commandment much more strictly. A categorical commandment spoken without any restrictions by many, mainly sectarians, was understood literally in the sense of denying any judgment, opposing the authorities and overthrowing them (Anabaptists). On the other hand, similar interpretations in modern times have often become a reason for the adoption of “weak sentimentality” and “subjective incontinence” in relation to criminals, and served as a justification for broad tolerance, which was indifferent to lies and sin, to truth and justice. And in those cases where the judgment for crimes was not weakened, they tried to base on the commandment of Christ at least tolerance for false teachings or people erring in opinions or teachings. It is not surprising, therefore, if the newest exegetes focused all their attention on explaining this difficult saying and tried to figure it out. The opinions expressed by them are so diverse that it is difficult to list them.
It has been argued, for example, that Christ does not speak “de ministeriis vel officiis, divinitus ordinatis, sed de judiciis, quae fiunt extra seu praeter vocationes et gubernationes divinas (not about divinely ordained ministries, but about judgments that occur outside or apart from the callings or administrations of the divine).” Objecting to the denial of secular courts, they pointed out that the commandment of Christ cannot be understood categorically in view of, on the one hand, the opposite: do not judge - you will not be judged, which supposedly can be changed as follows: judge, but in such a way that you can receive an acquittal when you yourself appear in court, and on the other hand, that Christ in verse 5 does not completely prohibit judging your neighbor, but requires that the judge first remove the beam from his eye his. Thus verses 2–5 imply a limitation of the categorical commandment given in verse 1. Christ does not prohibit all judgment at all, but only “incompetent” judgment, which is carried out not according to calling, not according to position and without love. Further, the opinion was expressed that in the verse under consideration only the Pharisaic judgment is understood, that Christ still condemns here only hypocrites.
But, they said, a person has reason, and this ability is critical. If we were deprived of the power of judgment, we would be dependent not only on every wind of doctrine, but also on every tide of passion. Therefore, the Savior, saying “do not judge,” does not mean here either ordinary judgment or ordinary criticism. His speech is “epigrammatic” and is directed against the scribes, Pharisees and others who loved to judge and condemn others (Matthew 9:11–13, 11:7; Luke 7:39, 15:2, 18:9–14; John 7:49). However, against this opinion it can be said that Christ is addressing the disciples, and not the scribes and Pharisees. If He had only the latter in mind, He would probably have said: do not judge like the scribes and Pharisees. Expression is not limited at all. The words κρίνειν, κατακρίνειν, καταδικάζειν can mean any court in general, whether it be official or private.
Perhaps one of the newest exegetes, Tsan, had this latter in mind when, interpreting the expression in question, he said that Christ in it really means any kind of judgment. But the prohibition to judge, according to Tsang, applies only to students, who should not assume the duties of judges, leaving this task to others. This opinion cannot be considered valid. Didn’t Christ really foresee that His disciples could also be judges in His Kingdom? We, apparently, will never understand this, on the one hand, a clear and extremely simple expression, and on the other, an extremely difficult one, if we do not assume that it, like other expressions of Christ in the Sermon on the Mount, is not abstract or theoretical-philosophical. Again, it must be borne in mind that Christ spoke to the simple people, and not to official judges, who, perhaps, were not among the simple people surrounding Him. How could the simple ones understand His saying? Undoubtedly, in the sense that Christ here said nothing at all about civil judges or judicial institutions.
Therefore, His teaching can be looked at as a light illuminating human activity in the field of all judgment and criticism. But it's only light. The Savior leaves everything further to the people themselves, who must engage in the development of various legal issues when they are forced to do so by the domination of the old man in themselves and in others. The expression “let you not be judged” is interpreted in the sense that it refers exclusively to the judgment of God. “Judge not,” so as not to be judged at the final judgment. Others say that this refers exclusively to human judgment, i.e. if we judge people, then in turn we will be judged by them. As an analogy to this place, they point to the parable of Matthew 24:48–51, which speaks of an evil servant and indicates, firstly, worldly care and worries (“if that servant, being evil, says in his heart: my master will not come soon”), secondly, legal fanaticism, condemnation and punishment of neighbors (“and begins to beat his comrades”), and thirdly, desecration of the shrine (“and eat and drink with drunkards."
However, even in this last interpretation, the exegetes do not agree with each other on many things. Some here understand directly human judgment, others understand the actual judgment of God, which uses human judgment as a tool for its own purposes. In a certain sense, the law of retribution (jus talionis) dominates in the divine structure of the world. As we ourselves do to people, so they will do to us; This often happens here on earth, but, of course, this will inevitably happen at the final judgment (Mark 4:24; James 2:13). It is more correct, apparently, to see in the words in question a judgment in general, both Divine and human, carried out by people who usually act, albeit unconsciously, according to the commands of God. A man reaps what he sows.
Matthew 7:2. For with whatever judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
Literally: “in whatever court you judge, you will be condemned; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you.” The meaning of this saying is clear. What is our judgment, or how we judge our neighbors, so we will be judged (by people or God). If we judge cruelly and mercilessly, then we ourselves can expect the same cruel and merciless judgment. Judgment without mercy to those who themselves do not have or do not know or do not show mercy. This is not so much confirmed as clarified by comparison: “with what measure do you measure”... And this image is understandable, especially to us, Russians, where grain and fruits are sold and bought by “measures.” There is no need to assume that here the word “measure” (μέτρον) does not mean any specific, exact measure, for example “garnz” or lat. modius, and any “measure” of granular bodies, for example, is like a vessel with which grain is measured, regardless of its size. In the East (and here, in Russia), the customs depicted by the Savior still exist. In Palestine, according to travelers, grain is brought or brought to markets in bags and poured into “measures” from them, and this is what traders do all the time.
Sitting on the ground with their legs folded, they fill the “timneh” with their hands, which they shake so that the grain settles down thoroughly, and when the “measure” is filled, they round the grain on top with their hands and, if requested, add more. It is clear that both the buyer and the seller must use the measures that are in use. This or that court is a measure that can equally be used both for the defendant and for the judge himself, if the latter commits any crime.
It remains to make a few notes of a more philological nature.
Κρίμα (court) - a rare word among the classics, is replaced by them with the word κρίσις (court) - has different meanings: judicial verdict, punishment (in case of accusation) and is even equivalent to the word “right”. In this verse it is used in the first of these meanings. The expression only has the appearance of dativus instrumenti, but in meaning cannot be taken as such, because neither “measure” nor “judgment,” at least in this place, serve as “instruments,” but are used simply to express “correspondence” or “proportionality,” as in the Apostle Paul (2 Cor. 10:12). Luke (Luke 6:38) has the same expression as Matthew, but without ἐν. The expression of this verse was common among the Jews and is found in various places in the Talmud and “seems to have been a proverb” (Edersheim).
Matthew 7:3. And why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not feel the plank in your own eye?
When interpreting this verse, much depends on what is meant by the word κάρφος, whether it is a speck that has gotten into the eye, or a real tree knot, even a small one. The word, of course, has both meanings (Vulgate - festuca - knot; German translation of Luther - Splitter - splinter, match, splinter; English translation - mote - small particle, match). In all likelihood, the imprecise words in the German and English translations were the reason why Western exegetes seem to have almost no understanding of this text at all and their reasoning sometimes even seems strange.
However, this reproach may apply not only to them, but also to some ancient interpreters. For example, Theophylact writes: “The Lord shows that he who sins a lot cannot clearly see the sin of his brother (δείκνυσι δὲ ὁ κύριος, ὅτι οὐδὲ δύναται ἰδεῖν because how can one who himself has Is there a log in the eye? But is this what the Savior is talking about? It seems that He is expressing just the opposite, that we usually see our brother’s sin clearly, but we do not notice our own great sin.
The explanations of Western exegetes are even more unsatisfactory than that of Theophylact. Thus, Tolyuk says that “one’s own sinfulness deprives a person of the correct spiritual view to judge the moral crimes of others.” Tsang argues that a small foreign body entering the eye makes vision difficult, while a large foreign body makes it impossible. A speck or a log, therefore, is an image of small and large moral shortcomings and prevents us from correctly recognizing objects and dealing with them. Therefore, Tsang considers it incomprehensible that someone who has a major deficiency (like a log) would notice an unimportant deficiency in another, and thinks that “in the realm of bodily life” this is even “impossible.” Although this happens on “moral grounds,” it all seems so “unnatural” that when asked why the person to whom the Savior is speaking (τί δὲ βλεπεις) acts this way, “we cannot imagine” any satisfactory answer that justifies his act.
Regarding this interpretation, it should be said that indeed, if there is a speck in my brother’s eye that causes him pain, and in my eye there is a much larger body, a whole log, then the latter should not only cause pain to me, but also completely blocks from me any specks or sins of others. That a speck can get into a brother's eye - this happens often and therefore is quite understandable. But how can a whole log get into and remain in my eye? We couldn't find the explanation we needed anywhere in the comments. If they say that all these are just images for designating moral relations, then the answer can be that the images must somehow correspond to nature and reality, otherwise they will turn out to be too rough, unnatural and exaggerated, which is fully recognized by different interpreters.
We, for our part, think that by κάρφος of verse 3 we should understand not a “mote” or a “straw” that causes pain (the Savior says nothing about this pain), but a whole real “twig”, festuca, as in Russian, Slavic and Vulgate, and that this twig does not cause any pain at all. Various external objects are always reflected in the eye, as in a mirror, which can be seen (βλέπειν) by anyone who looks closely into the eye of his brother. He can see objects reflected behind the cornea and other membranes in the eye of another, in the pupil (διαβλέπειν). It is clear that such reflected objects do not and cannot produce any pain, and do not in any way interfere with vision. My eye may reflect a whole log, but my brother’s eye may reflect a speck. I don't see a log, but I see a twig. With this interpretation, another expression is satisfactorily explained: κατανοεῖν.
The Savior does not say: you do not feel pain from the log, or you do not see it, but actually do not think, do not reflect on what is reflected in your own eye (the meaning of κατανοεῖν is only as an exception - intransitive = simply reflect, ordinary transitive, direct attention to something, examine, notice, note - Kremer).
Consequently, the images used by the Savior seem completely natural and consistent with reality. True, one can object to the interpretation we propose that it seems to be contradicted by the expressions of the following 4th and 5th verses. We will talk about this in its place, but now we note that the connection of the 3rd verse with the previous one is clear. In verse 3, the Savior explains why we should not judge others, because judging means looking into a brother's eyes, noticing his faults and not paying attention to our own. Meanwhile, the latter are greater than the brother’s sins. The idea is the same as expressed in the parable of Matthew 18:23–35. To what has been said, we add that a similar thought is found in the Talmud in several places (see Edersheim. The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, vol. I, p. 678 et seq.).
Matthew 7:4. Or how will you say to your brother: “Let me take the speck out of your eye,” but behold, there is a log in your eye?
The message of this verse seems to contradict the above interpretation. If the Savior speaks only about reflected or reflected objects, then it is not clear how one can say to a brother: “Give me, I will take it out,” and then (verse 5) “take out the log,” and so on. The explanations of the exegetes are unsatisfactory here too. So, for example, one of them thinks that here we are talking about “eye operations” and that the Savior allegedly says: mit dem Balken im Auge bist du ein schlechter Augenoperateur (with a log in your eye, you are a bad eye surgeon). But what is beyond any doubt here is precisely that the Savior does not speak about any eye operations. The speech is figurative, but in verse 3 it has a literal meaning, and in verse 4 it has a figurative meaning. The natural and completely understandable images of verse 3 give reason to talk in a figurative sense about removing knots or logs from the eye. The old images are not abandoned, but their use is different. This often happens in ordinary speech; something similar is found in the Gospels.
The initial thought, so to speak, the root of the image, focuses exclusively on the flower, on the lily, on how they grow; and then, with the help of intermediate thoughts (they don’t work, they don’t spin - all this corresponds to reality), the transition to the thought of how the lilies “dress.” It is absolutely clear that one can talk about the “clothes” of lilies only in an improper, figurative sense, because in fact lilies do not have any clothes.
Thus, in the speech of the Savior, the simple mention of a log and a branch reflected in the eyes gives rise to new images that are still true to reality and do not have a figurative-spiritual meaning, but clarify the truth from other sides. All of Christ's listeners knew how people deal with branches and logs: they take them, carry them, throw them away, chop them off, saw them, build houses from them, and burn them. All these predicates could be applied to the logs reflected in the eye. But for the purpose that the Lord set for himself, only one word was convenient: ἔκβαλε (literally - throw away, verse 5). The Savior could have expressed it differently: stop looking at the log, turn away from it so that it is not reflected in your eye. But such speech would not have the proper force and would not be relevant. Instead of “as you say,” some translate it as “as you say.” This is apparently unnecessary.
“Give me, I’ll take it out” - in Greek and Russian it would be more correct: let me take it out (indefinite mood). But the combination of two verbs in the imperative and indicative (instead of the indefinite) moods is not unusual in other places in the New Testament. The Savior here denounces evil when people, and, moreover, the best part of them, never listen to anything else and never talk about anything so willingly as about the mistakes of other people. Cicero has a saying: “It is common for fools to see the vices of others and forget about their own.”
Matthew 7:5. Hypocrite! First take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see how to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
First of all, the word “hypocrite” attracts attention. It gives some interpreters reason to assume that the Savior here returns to His previous speech about hypocrites and begins to expose them again. This also affects the explanation of verse 1, since here, too, it is assumed that only the judgment carried out by the Pharisees will be denounced. But all this is arbitrary. The word ὑποκριτά, of course, means “hypocrite,” and there is no need to find or invent any other meanings of this word. But one cannot help but notice that it is very similar to the ones used at the beginning of speech: κρίνειν, κρίματι, κριθήσεσθε and has the same root with them, although it differs in meaning. Therefore, one can think that it was inspired by these words, and one should understand here not the Pharisees, but all people in general who judge the mistakes of their neighbors, having whole beams in their own eyes. Judging your neighbor is easy. But it's hard to always judge yourself. This is what the comparisons point to.
The Savior, further, does not say: you will clearly see the speck in your brother’s eye after you remove the plank from your own eye; but: you will see clearly how to remove the knot. You need to do the most difficult task first and foremost, and then the small task will be easy. If these rules were followed by everyone, both private people and judges, then a golden age would come on earth.
Matthew 7:6. Do not give holy things to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet and turn and tear you to pieces.
The translation itself is not in doubt, but the connection of the words in question with the previous ones has always seemed difficult. Some say that this verse directly follows the previous one. The activity of persons capable of judging and correcting the shortcomings of others should not consist of throwing precious stones before swine. Therefore, there is no need to deny the connection here. The connection is also explained by the fact that if the previous verses indicate an excess in judgments, not too much severity in judgments about the misdeeds of others, then verse 6, on the contrary, indicates the rational or critical weakness of people, when, without any reasoning or fear, with complete condescension, without paying any attention to different characters, they give people what they cannot accept due to their malice and their character. Thus, according to this opinion, the internal connection lies in denoting the essential difference between fanatical callousness and moral weakness in handling the shrine.
Further, they think that in addition to the internal one, there is also an external connection, which consists in contrasting the brother, whose correction and salvation we hypocritically care about, with dogs and pigs, who treat us completely differently than brothers, and accept our concerns completely differently than our brothers. The Savior says something like this: you are a hypocrite in relation to your brother, to whom you should, out of your love for him, teach only sacred things. But in relation to other people whom you cannot call your brothers and cannot behave with them as brothers, you are not being a hypocrite, but teaching something truly sacred. There is also another opinion: the people whom we judge, but whom, however, we should not judge, are pigs and dogs. We refrain from judging them, but we should not be too sentimental, that is, while refraining from condemnation, we should also teach them sacred things.
Judging others is an extreme, being too lenient towards people, entering into communication with them, trying to enlighten them, giving them what is holy when they are unworthy of it - this is the other extreme, from which the disciples of Christ should abstain. The first five verses condemn too much severity; in verse 6 - too much weakness. Disciples should not strive to be judges of others, but they should not recklessly expose their high calling to others. Because the sacred and valuable is given to them not only for possession, but also for the purpose that they communicate it to other people. But the disciples would perform this duty poorly if they taught their valuable and sacred goods entrusted to them to people whom they know or can know that they lack any understanding of the sacred and its value. Although all these opinions explain the content of verse 6, it is not much. It is more likely to think that a new speech begins here, having no noticeable internal connection with the previous one. External connection is given, as before, by negations.
However, one might think that both the Lord Himself and His listeners could look at everything He had previously said as a shrine. In verse 6, the Savior says that this shrine should not be revealed to people who do not understand it. Or we may take verse 6 as an introduction to the speech that follows, and explain it in the same sense.
Since the word “shrine” is obviously figurative and applied to human relations, the interpretation largely depends on the exact definition of the word “shrine” itself. This word is so difficult that to explain it they even turned to the Sanskrit language and tried to understand what it means. In this language, the words jag, jagami, similar to the Greek τὸ ἅγιον, mean “I make a sacrifice”, “I honor”, and jagus, jâgam, jagnâm (in Russian - lamb) - “sacrifice”. Next, they compared this word with the Hebrew “kodesh” - shrine; and this latter was derived from the word “kad”, which means “selected”, “separated”. But although etymology, says Kremer, throws some light on the word in question, it rarely reveals its meaning in ordinary use. One scholar has conjectured that the Aramaic word used by Christ here was “kedasha.” In the Greek translation of the Gospel of Matthew, this word is conveyed inaccurately, by the word “shrine” (τό ἅγιον), while it means the amulet itself, mainly an earring.
With this interpretation, “shrine” could also be related to the further “pearl”, as an object that, like pearls, can be thrown in front of animals. However, such a hypothesis is currently recognized as untenable, and if one can still talk about it, it is not in interpretive, but in purely historical interests.
Unable to find any suitable images in real life and nature, they tried to explain the word “shrine”, as well as the other words of this verse, “pearls”, “pigs” and “dogs”, in an allegorical sense. So, for example, Jerome meant the bread of children by holy things. We must not take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs. John Chrysostom and others understood pagans by dogs both because of their deeds and because of their faith, and by pigs - heretics who, apparently, do not recognize the name of the Lord. An interesting reference to this verse is found in one of the most ancient documents, namely in the “Teaching of the 12 Apostles” (IX, 5). Here we are talking about the Eucharist: “No one should eat or drink from our Eucharist, except those baptized in the name of the Lord, for this is what the Lord said: “Do not give holy things to dogs.”
Of the five words that the Greeks used to denote “sacred,” the word ἅγιος is the rarest and, unlike other synonymous terms, indicated primarily “holy” in the moral sense. Being rarely used among pagans, this word, one might say, penetrates the entire Old and New Testaments and expresses the concept in which all Divine revelation is concentrated. Therefore, the word has a generally broad meaning. But the main point here is the moral concept, the concept of which the Greeks and Romans had almost no idea at all. The concept of holiness receives its special coloring from the fact that holiness is applied to God and what belongs to Him. Apart from God, this concept is applied only to such people and objects that especially belong to God. The word "holy" or "holy" or "holy" (plural) is used in the Old Testament about the church. Further it is used, as in Lev.22:14, about sacred food, usually in the plural (cf. Lev.22:2–5).
Therefore, most interpreters are inclined to think that the image in verse 6 was taken by the Savior from sacrificial meat, which could not be eaten by anyone except the priests (Exod. 29:33; Lev. 2:3, 22:10–16; Num. 18:8–19). It was absolutely forbidden to give this meat to dogs - it would be a crime, and if anyone did so, he would be punished by death (Tolyuk, [1856]). No unclean person was to eat sacred meat (Lev. 22:6–7, 10, 13, 15–16). Some understand by shrine everything that is the opposite of unclean, or “pure.” The Savior thus added Old Testament images to truths that were to become new wine and new clothing in the Church He established as the Kingdom of God. He Himself called His teaching the mysteries of the Kingdom of God (cf. Matt. 13:11; Mark 4:11; Luke 8:10). He told His disciples that it was given to them to know the secrets of the Kingdom of God, but not to other people, and he refrained from directly revealing these secrets to people, without the help of parables.
Further, explaining the mysteries of the Kingdom, He said that the Kingdom of Heaven is like “a treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and hid, and for joy he goes and sells everything he has and buys that field” (Matthew 13:44); “to a merchant in search of good pearls, who, having found one pearl of great price, went and sold all that he had and bought it” (Matthew 13:45–46).
The first part of the verse: “do not give what is holy to dogs,” can be separated from the second and considered on its own. This is necessary because some interpreters could not understand how pigs could turn and tear people to pieces, because dogs are capable of this, and attributed the last words of the verse to dogs. But such an opinion has no basis. Sacrificial food, meat and bread, is pleasant food for dogs. In the first half of the sentence, therefore, the verb “to give” (δίδωμι) is used, and not the further one - to throw. Dogs are often mentioned in Old Testament scriptures. Moses tells his compatriots that their exodus from Egypt took place in such silence that even a dog did not lift his tongue against man or beast (Ex. 11:7). Judith tells Holofernes the same thing - that she will lead him to Jerusalem so that not even a dog will lift his tongue against him. Much from the good old days has remained to this day, including dogs, which still live in large numbers in Palestinian cities.
They sleep during the day, rise when the sun sets, and begin cleaning the dirty nooks and crannies of the streets. At this time, they howl, grumble, and a squabble begins between them over garbage and sewage that is thrown out of houses, because in eastern cities everything is thrown out into the streets and eaten by dogs. They are the only orderlies in dirty eastern cities. Let's move on to another image. The former "don't give" (μὴ δῶτε) is replaced by the words "don't throw" (μὴ βάλητε). By pearls (μαργαρίτας) we need to understand pearls, pearls and, perhaps, mother-of-pearl, but not beads, as in our Slavic translation. In the Vulgate - margaritas - is the same word as in Greek. Pearls are similar to peas or even acorns, which pigs love and eat. But these cheap edible items are more important to them than precious pearls. Of course, the facts of pigs tearing apart, for example, a person, are little known, if only known. There is no need to understand here by the word “pig” any ferocious breed of pig, such as, for example, a wild boar.
It is known from practice about ordinary domestic pigs that they eat animals and sometimes maul children to death; therefore, they can also maul an adult. Based on the context, there is no reason to specifically refer the words of Christ to either pagans or heretics. The first would be wrong already because He came to preach to the pagans and save them, and the apostles, at His command, were to go and teach all nations (Matthew 28:19). But there could not yet be heretics then, and if Christ began to speak about them now, His speech would hardly be understandable to His listeners.
To conclude the explanation of this verse, we note that there is an increase in it from beginning to end: first it talks about dogs that do not become fierce, but can eat sacred meat, and then about pigs that become fierce and tear to pieces the giver. According to Tolyuk, this refers to the general shamelessness (ἀναισχυντία) of people.
Matthew 7:7. Ask, and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you;
It is remarkable that there are no discrepancies in this verse. The translation is accurate. But the connection of this verse with the previous ones is even more difficult to explain than the 6th with the 5th. Some interpreters do not find any connection here at all, and verse 6 appears to them to be written out of place in the general presentation. Some explain it this way. From the previous verses it was clear that everyone should try to be wise and kind in order to render as much service as possible to other people, his fellow human beings. Who can do this? We cannot do this in our own strength. But this is possible for us if God gives us His help. Therefore, the Savior commands us to turn to God in prayer for the gifts and grace we need. It is not difficult to see that such a connection is purely external and does not in the least affect the essence of the matter.
Of the exegetes with which we have had time to become acquainted, Augustine seems to come closest to the matter. But its explanation, as we will now see, is distinguished by some oddities. “When,” he says, “the commandment was given not to give holy things to dogs and not to throw pearls before swine, the listener, conscious of his ignorance, could say: I do not see that I have what You forbade me to give to swine. And therefore the Savior added well, saying: ask and you will receive.” It seems to us that if Augustine had expressed himself only a little differently, he would have explained the matter better. The Savior did not command that people should be stingy when handling earthly goods. But people’s attitude towards spiritual goods should be completely different. This requires some restraint or even stinginess, because otherwise the shrine may fall into the possession of people who, being unclean, will either desecrate it, or, not understanding its value, trample it. Consequently, these people, who do not understand and do not appreciate the shrine, should be deprived of it. It was given to believers, it will remain with them and increase.
And in order for it to increase, for this you need to make petitions to the Heavenly Father. Don't give, but it will be given to you.
In the words denoting how people should ask for benefits for themselves, a certain gradualness and transition from less to more is noticeable. At first simply “ask”, then greater effort and work are implied in comparison with an ordinary request - “seek”; then, when these actions do not lead to the goal, “knock”.
The expressions of verses 7 and 8 are literally repeated in Luke (Luke 11:9–10), but in a different connection, and there this connection, according to the exegetes, is “more skillful.” After the Lord's Prayer, Luke talks about a man who asks his friend for bread. The latter first asks not to disturb him, and then, at his persistent request, gives him what he asks for. Then the words follow: “ask” and so on until the 11th verse, literally similar to the words of Matthew, but from the 11th there is a difference. Therefore, they think that in Matthew the expressions of the 7th and 8th verses would only have a connection with the previous one if they stood after Matthew 6:15, and that if we do not assume that Matthew borrowed these verses from the Logia and placed them in the wrong order, then the connection is generally difficult to explain. But this hardly seems particularly important. A much more important question is what exactly a person should ask for. Verse 11 makes it clear that people should ask God for their own good. What benefits?
Most interpreters claim that this refers exclusively to spiritual benefits. A type of such interpretation can be the words of St. John Chrysostom: “Ask nothing worldly, but everything spiritual, and you will receive everything.” However, the Savior Himself does not limit our requests only to the spiritual and does not say anything at all about what the content of our requests should be. The speech set forth in verses 7-11 is one of the most attractive and dear to the human heart. Apparently, the Church understands these words in a broader sense, and not only in the spiritual, i.e. that the Savior, in response to the requests of believers, promised them the teaching of not only spiritual, but also material benefits. These words are read in our prayer services to the Savior, performed on different occasions and under different circumstances. Consequently, we can, according to the words of the Savior, ask God for all kinds of blessings, both spiritual and physical, and hope to receive them. But we consider many things to be good that in fact are not.
Material goods, according to the Gospel teaching, are in close connection with spiritual ones, and, therefore, we can ask for material benefits, such as well-being, health, success in life, constantly keeping in mind the close dependence of the material on the spiritual, and especially strive for the truth of God, being confident that everything else will be added to us.
Matthew 7:8. For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.
In some codes, instead of “open” - “open”, or, better, “opens”. The expressions of this verse are quite parallel to the expressions of the previous one. They serve as an encouragement to prayer. There are no restrictions on the word "any". The images are taken from real life, where those who really ask usually receive, those who seek find, and to those who knock, the door is opened. As with people, so with God. Long, persistent requests lead to what you want. If God, according to Augustine, often does not give us what we want, he gives us what we want even more.
Matthew 7:9. Is there a man among you who, when his son asks him for bread, would give him a stone?
The difference in translation here may depend on the sense in which, firstly, we take the particle ἤ placed at the very beginning of the verse, and then whether we take τίς as a relative or interrogative pronoun. If you translate ἤ with the expressions “otherwise”, “otherwise” (alioquin), then you will not get a satisfactory meaning; if through “for” (nam), then it is not clear why verse 9 serves as proof of the preceding and in what exactly. This cannot be accepted, especially since the previous verse already has its own “for”, which serves as evidence for the 7th verse. In the same way, it is hardly possible to translate: “is there such a person among you” (an quisquam vestrum), as in our Russian and Slavic translations, and they considered ἤ as an interrogative particle, and τίς as an indefinite pronoun. In verse 10 this ἤ is repeated, but the Russian translators expressed it through “and”. According to Tolyuk, ἤ should be taken here as a dividing particle corresponding to the same one in verse 10. This usage is common (verse 4; also Matt. 12:29, 16:26, 20:15; Rom. 3:1, 11:2).
In the Vulgate the particle is rendered correctly through the twice repeated aut in verses 9 and 10: or who is there among you whose son, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Thus, in the Vulgate there are two particles (or and really - aut and numquid), one serves to separate speech, and the other is interrogative. The first (ἤ) is almost equivalent to our expressions here: on the one hand, in other words, firstly, secondly.
The Savior’s words in this verse are completely natural. It seems to be the intention that the poverty of the son, who needs only bread, is not directly presented. The son asks for a piece of bread to satisfy his hunger, and only as an exception can there be such a cruel father who will give him a stone instead of bread. The extraordinary reality and picturesqueness of the comparison are further enhanced by the fact that the stone resembles bread, and thus giving a stone instead of bread would be not only cruelty, but also deception. At the same time, it is remarkable that the simplest, completely uncomplicated circumstances were chosen for illustration, which, despite their simplicity and uncomplicatedness, are still almost impossible even among people who are by nature evil. By bread here one cannot at all understand only “teaching or mercy” or “spiritual.” Of course, a word can have such a meaning, but only in a figurative sense. Luke added to this speech: “Or, if he asks for an egg, will he give him a scorpion?” (Luke 11:12).
Matthew 7:10. and when he asks for a fish, would you give him a snake?
Literally: “or if he asks for fish (besides bread), will he really give him a snake?” In the Vulgate and in the Slavic translation, “and” is omitted. The construction of the verse and the meaning are the same as the previous one. But the difference in translation results in a slightly different meaning. In Russian and other translations, the request is presented as separate, independent, i.e. the son asks for fish first of all, without first asking for bread. In Greek, this last request serves as a kind of addition to the previous one, which seems more natural. To satisfy hunger, bread is needed first of all, and fish and so on seem to be some kind of luxury for a starving person. But even so, a father giving his son a snake instead of a fish would seem an extreme and disgusting exception. The comparison is based on the similarity of fish, and especially some, with snakes.
When choosing comparisons, if we were talking only about spiritual goods, the Savior could quite conveniently replace these images with spiritual objects, for example, say: if your son asks you for love, or favor, or instruction, would you really give him something else? This completely refutes the idea that our requests to God should be limited only to spiritual benefits.
Matthew 7:11. So if you, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good things to those who ask Him.
The verse is connected with the previous connecting particle “so”, which shows that here it is a continuation of the previous speech. The particular facts of human life indicated in verse 10 are here, as it were, generalized and understood in a broader sense. The Savior says something like this: you see how things are going with you and what is happening. And this happens to you at a time when you are angry. The word πονηροί in connection with πόνος - work, fatigue, and πενία - poverty, actually indicates burden, thinness; in a moral sense, πονηρός - bad, evil; in both cases the opposite is χρηστός. Further, πονηρός means a specific phenomenon in comparison with the general one, expressed through κακός. The latter is more about essence and character, the first is about the activity and value of our actions in relation to others (cf. Matt. 5:45, 22:10, 13:49, 7:11; Luke 6:35, 11:13, - Kremer).
Augustine completely incorrectly expresses the idea of this verse, according to which people are called evil here because, being lovers of this world and sinners, when they give some benefits, they call them goods in their own sense, although they are not real goods by nature, but only temporary, related to real fragile life. But why should bread and fish be considered good only in our own, sinful sense? Does the Savior call these blessings untrue, false? The essence of the matter, obviously, is not in the goods, which are goods in every sense, but in the fact that people are evil. Good goods are the opposite of evil people. People are evil, but they also know how to give good things to their children.
Some harshness and categoricalness of the expression: “if you are evil,” gave interpreters reason to think that here the Savior wanted to point out the original sin inherent in people. In the words of one writer, "This maxim appears to be the strongest dictum probans in all scripture in defense of original sin." But why didn’t the Savior say: so, if you are all evil?.. Then His words would more likely testify to the presence of universal original sin in people. Therefore, one can think that in the expression under consideration there is no thought about original sin. The doctrine of original sin can, of course, be deduced from other places of Holy Scripture, but not from this one. This is just a common characteristic of people who really show more evil and malice in relationships than goodness and goodwill. The word “you know how” (οἴδατε) is translated differently: you know how to give, you are used to giving. Some say that “you can” or “you know” (in translations) is completely unnecessary and that you can simply translate: you give.
Finally, others argue that two ideas are briefly presented here: if you, being evil, give gifts to your children; and if you know how to give good gifts, it makes sense to give good things, not stones instead of bread and not snakes instead of fish...
Such an interpretation seems, however, somewhat artificial and almost unnecessary. In contrast to people, the Heavenly Father is indicated, Who, not like people, is good and good by His very nature. When people turn to Him with requests, He obviously gives “good things” to those who ask Him more than people do. The former “good gifts” (δόματα ἀγαθά) are replaced here, in the second half of the sentence, simply by the word “good” without mention of gifts. But it is clear that the meaning is the same. It is remarkable, however, that just as in the first case δόματα ἀγαθά is without an article, so in the second the simple ἀγαθά is also without an article. This would be difficult to expect if “gifts” or “good” meant anything specific. In Luke (Luke 11:13) we find an attempt to define somewhat closer and more specifically what these “good gifts” are. Instead of “will give good things,” in Luke: “much more will the Heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him.” Meyer thinks that this expression in Luke is a later, more definite embellishment. The reading at this point in Luke fluctuates greatly.
In some codes “the Holy Spirit”, in others - “the good Spirit” (πνεῦμα ἀγαθόν) or “good gift”; Vulgate – spiritum bonum. We now, of course, do not need to examine whether this expression in Luke is genuine or not.
Note the expressions: “Father in heaven” (ὁ πατὴρ ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς), as here, and “Father from heaven” (ἐν οὐρανοῖς). The first is used when a request is made to the Heavenly Father, the second is when the Heavenly Father Himself teaches some good things from heaven (Luke 11:13).
Matthew 7:12. So in everything, whatever you want people to do to you, do so to them, for this is the law and the prophets.
In Greek, the speech is somewhat peculiar and peculiar only to this language: therefore, whatever you want people to do (not do) to you, so do you to them, for such is (such are) the law and the prophets. When interpreting this verse, much depends on whether we recognize the “therefore” (οὖν) placed at the beginning of the verse as authentic or not. Reading varies greatly: in many codes this particle is not present. In the Vulgate – ergo. If the "therefore" is to be retained, there will be a close connection between the 12th and the preceding verses. This verse will simply be a conclusion from the previous verse. If the “thus” is omitted, then the thought of this verse will receive an independent and independent meaning from the previous speech, in other words, the connection here will either be completely unclear, or there will be none at all. Some recent exegetes accept the latter.
According to Tsang, one can find sufficient evidence to support the fact that this “therefore” was not in the original text and that it is suspect in other places, despite the ancient and more or less strong evidence in its favor (Matt. 6:22, 7:20, 24, 13:28, 28:19; Luke 11:35). Let us first try to weigh what kind of thought is obtained by omitting “so.” The almost unanimous explanation is that this verse is placed in the wrong place in Matthew. Here we are presented with whole theories. In Luke 6:30 the expression is parallel to Matthew 5:42. Therefore, the Matthew verse in question is, if anything, more appropriate in Matthew 5:38–48, which deals with how we should treat others. But the expression could also be placed after Matthew 7:1–2. Verses 3–5 and 7–11 are “interpolations” from different parts of the Logia. From here it is easy to see what kind of confusion results if you release οὖν. Other exegetes are not so strict.
They do not suspect the authenticity of the verse, but say that it has no connection with the previous ones; οὖν should be completely crossed out here and it should be assumed that Matthew 7:12 contains an independent link in the chain of equally unsyntactically connected exhortations (Matthew 7: 1–5, 6, 7–11, 13–14, 15–20). The connecting thread in these expressions is only κρίνειν. Verse 15 must also be attached to this thread.
Now let's see what kind of thought comes out if οὖν is recognized as genuine. John Chrysostom accepted οὖν, although he considered it mysterious. The connection that he assumes between the 12th and the previous verses, according to Tolyuk, is unnatural, although, Tolyuk says, it cannot be understood differently than John Chrysostom. How did John Chrysostom understand this connection? “In these brief words (verse 12) the Savior concluded everything and showed that virtue is short, and convenient, and known to everyone. And he didn’t just say: “in everything as you want,” but: “so” (οὖν) “in everything as you want”; I used the word “so” not without intention, but with a special thought. If you want, He says, to be heard, then do this too in addition to what I have said.”
Which of the above opinions is considered correct? Should οὖν be considered authentic? Of the two assumptions, in our opinion, the second is more likely: οὖν should be taken as genuine. The words of the 12th verse do not refer to the immediate 11th, but to the entire preceding speech, which talks about the relationship of people to each other. Similar insertions are found in all other oratorical speeches and serve either to rest the speaker himself or to give the listeners the opportunity to collect their thoughts. In many cases, there are frequent repetitions or generalizations, or simply a quick glance at what has been said before.
The content of the verse or the thought expressed in it were known in ancient times. Gibbon, apparently with the aim of disparaging the rule proposed by Christ, pointed out that it was found in Socrates four hundred years before Christ. in this form: “What others anger you with, do not do to them.” Diogenes Laertius says that Aristotle, when asked how we should behave towards our friends, answered: the way we would like them to behave towards us. Confucius, when asked if there was a word that would express everything about how we should behave, answered: isn’t such a word reciprocity? What you don’t do to yourself, don’t do to others. Similar expressions are attributed to Buddha, Seneca, Philo and the rabbis. The same expression does not appear in the Old Testament. But the ancients who lived before Christ never expressed with such force an ideal as He did. In Aristotle - about friends, in the words of Jesus Christ - about all people. Other people who expressed the same thought (by the way, the Jewish Rabbi Hillel) expressed the rule in a negative form, while Christ expressed it in a positive form.
Further, they rightly note that Christ, having expressed the commandment and laid the foundation of natural law with it, does not pretend that He wanted to make any new discovery and indicates that “in this is the law and the prophets” (cf. Matt. 22:40). However, the prophets reached this rule only “barely,” as Mic. 6:8. This commandment expresses the spirit and essence of the Old Testament law and the aspirations of the prophets rather than their words themselves.
The expression does not mean: “what people do to you, do the same to them,” because we often cannot do to others everything that they do to us. It should be understood in a more general sense: we must repay love with love. The general idea is that we should do to people what we want for ourselves. Further, we cannot and should always do to others what we would like for ourselves, because, as Alford correctly notes, sometimes what would be convenient for us would be inconvenient for others. “We must think about what pleases us, and then apply this rule to our treatment of others, i.e. to do to them what we have reason to suppose they would like. This is a very important distinction, and one that is often overlooked when interpreting this golden rule” (Alford).
Matthew 7:13. Enter in at the narrow gate, for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many go in through it;
Literally: “Enter through the strait gate, for smooth and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it.” Let us first note that the speech in verses 13–27 is considered the epilogue to the Sermon on the Mount. When they compare it with the decalogue, they say that this latter has a “prologue”: “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt” (Ex. 20:2). In the Sermon on the Mount it is the other way around. Instead of a prologue, there is an epilogue. It consists of separate concluding exhortations and warnings. Verses 13-14 contain an exhortation to earnestly seek the right path; verses 15-23 warn against such bad leaders on the way who have the appearance of righteousness, but deny its essence; in 24–27 - a final exhortation to strengthen faith with deeds. In general, the dangers of hypocrisy are highlighted here especially strongly and a warning is given against hypocritical teachers in our inner life.
At the beginning of the speech there is an invitation to enter through the narrow gate. First the gate, and then the path. If it were the other way around, then such a presentation of the matter, according to Meyer and other scientists, would be ascetic: i.e. Before entering the gate, a long journey is required to reach the proper goal, beyond which comes eternal life. Christ’s thought is completely different: first the narrow gate through which you can enter life, and then the path. To enter this gate, we must obviously accept the teaching Christ offered about how to behave towards our neighbors and towards God. Much that was proposed by Christ seemed difficult to fulfill, but then it may turn out that the commandments He proposed are easy. The emphasis is on choosing the narrow gate rather than on the requirement to enter through it. You must enter through the narrow gate, because the wide gate and the capacious and broad way are only that through which many enter to destruction.
Of course, by the narrow gate one should not mean the one commandment just stated - not to do to others what we do not wish for ourselves, as some have interpreted this passage.
Regarding the second ἡ πύλη, it must be said that it is omitted in some codes and by many fathers. Its authenticity is generally questionable. Tischendorf places it in parentheses. This word was probably inserted by scribes “to add parallelism.” The existence of this word would not be in doubt if in Greek instead of ἡ ἀπάγουσα there was a plural, and instead of “through it” - “through them”, as is incorrect in the Russian translation ("leading", "by them").
Matthew 7:14. for narrow is the gate and narrow is the way that leads to life, and few find it.
The correct translation of this passage depends on deciding which word should be placed at the beginning of the verse, τί or ὅτι. In many uncial codes and ancient Latin translations it is read τί, but Chrysostom and others – ὅτι. If reading were τί, then the meaning would be sentimental: how narrow is the gate and how narrow is the path that leads to life! Theophylact says that there is an exclamation point here. Jerome translates: quam angusta porta! Tsang accepts τί. On the other hand, if there were ὅτι, then this verse would contain almost completely unnecessary evidence of the thought expressed in verse 13. “Enter by the narrow gate... because the gate is narrow...” But with the acceptance of ὅτι, the expression can be understood this way: in the first sentence of the 13th verse the commandment is given: “Enter by the narrow gate,” and it is proven in further words, the meaning of which is that the broad path beyond the gate leads to destruction. The next verse 14 proves the same idea, but from the other side.
If many follow the broad path, then this alone serves as a sufficient reason for the disciples of Christ not to follow the devoted luxury and depraved crowd; they must follow their own path, which Christ showed them. The logical emphasis here, therefore, is not on the words wide or narrow path, but on the fact that many either perish or receive life. On these grounds, ὅτι ("because" - as in the Russian translation) can be considered more likely.
Matthew 7:15. Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.
The Greek verb for "beware" is the same as in Matthew 6:1. Who should be understood here as false prophets? Some simply understand leaders who meet along the broad path indicated by Christ earlier. As soon as the Savior spoke about the path, He immediately thought about the people who stand on the path and show it. False leaders, or better yet, guides, who deceive the people, stand on the wrong path; you need to beware of them. These are the false prophets. Others mean the Pharisees, who were teachers and corrupted the people. Finally, the third are “heretics,” or false messiahs, false Christian teachers, of whom there were so many in the original Apostolic Church, about whom both Christ Himself and the apostles speak. It is not difficult to notice that Christ speaks here about false prophets in a completely general sense, without specifically pointing out specific individuals or specific classes of people. The very word “false prophets” can be understood not in the sense that it refers to people endowed with the gift of prophecy, even if it is false, but who generally tell lies and deceive.
These false prophets come to believers in sheep's clothing. The latter, in contrast to ὶμ.τιον, means a whole or entire garment.
German scientists cannot understand how wolves can dress up in sheep's clothing. “Wolves,” says Tsang, “do not wear any clothes so that they cannot be recognized, even when a sheep is their victim. On the other hand, the sheep's skin worn by lower-class people and shepherds does not indicate their sheepish mentality." Of course, a real wolf, an animal, never puts on and cannot put on sheep's clothing. But don't they say about animals that they do actions similar to humans? This is known in the literature. Based on his considerations, Tsang comes to the conclusion that the sheep's skin should be interpreted here in the sense of the coarse prophetic hair shirt worn by the false prophets (Zech. 13:4). Of course you can. But that is not the point. The expressions “wolves” and “sheep’s clothing” are obviously figurative, and the images used here are very familiar in Jewish literature. The people of Israel were represented by the image of a sheepfold (Ps. 77:52, 79:2, 99:3).
Among other predatory animals (Jer.5:6) is the wolf (Zeph.3:3; Ezek.22:27; Matt.10:16; John 10:12; Acts 20:29), and false prophets also belong to them (Ezek.22:28; Mic.3:9-11). So according to Tsang himself. Thus, false prophets were known in ancient times from the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament. According to St. John Chrysostom, the Savior here means by false prophets not heretics, but those who, leading a depraved life, cover themselves with the guise of virtue, who are usually called deceivers. The expression is found in the writings of Hermas. He says: “Judge a man by his deeds and life who says of himself that he has received inspiration from God” (Hermes, Pastor, commandment XI, pp. 43, 16; the translation is not entirely accurate, see: δοκίμαζε οὖν ἀπὸ τῶν ἔργων καὶ τῆς ζωῆς τὸν ἄνθρωπον τὸν λέγοντα ἑαυτὸν πνευματοφόρον εἶναι - Ed.).
Matthew 7:16. By their fruits you will know them. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?
Even the ancient interpreters were very perplexed by the word “fruits” here - what exactly should be understood by them? Jerome interpreted this word as follows: you will recognize false prophets by their teachings. Many Western theologians, including the newest ones, held the same opinion. The saying of Christ was a shield - an anchor of the Inquisition, which persecuted sectarians for their teachings. But here an important difficulty presented itself: some sectarians, despite their heresy, were distinguished by great purity of life. How to explain this? In such cases, they resorted to the pathetic trick that the devil at that time possessed the sectarians and forced them to lead a good life. But Christ's speech here is so simple and intelligible that one need only look at the matter directly to understand its meaning. People are divided into good and evil. Good people bear good fruit. These fruits include everything that is good in people, be it teaching, or a virtuous life, or in general any activity useful to people.
There are so many good fruits of the spirit that they cannot even be counted, just like the various good fruits that grow on various good trees. As for the plants themselves, which are taken here as an example, here by ἄκανθαι we mean generally thorny plants, and mainly blackthorn, which grows in abundance in Palestine. In appearance it is somewhat similar to grapes, and perhaps that is why it is said: “Do they gather grapes from thorn bushes”? By τρίβολος we mean a thorny plant known as thistle, or burdock. Of course, figs are never harvested from this plant. The latter, although useful medicinally, is always considered chaff, harmful to grain plants.
Matthew 7:17. So every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.
Comparisons taken from the actual life of nature. We divide trees into good and bad, without reasoning or little reasoning about how our division corresponds to reality itself. So, for example, one can say about a wild apple tree that it bears bad apples, and about a grafted one that it bears good fruits. But there are different varieties of trees that, no matter how useful they are medicinally, are not considered good trees that bear good fruit. The Savior makes a comparison in this general sense, without paying attention to how much it corresponds to scientific reality.
Matthew 7:18. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit.
To explain the same idea, as many as four verses are used, in which the subject is considered from different sides, almost to the point of tautology. But, according to Chrysostom, if the Savior speaks about the same thing twice, then there is no tautology. “Lest anyone say that although a bad tree bears bad fruit, it can also bear good fruit, and with double fruiting it is difficult to make a distinction. To refute this, the Savior says that this does not happen, that it bears only bad fruits and can never bring good ones, and vice versa. Well, can’t a good person become bad and vice versa? Human life is filled with many such examples. But Christ does not say that it is impossible for a bad person to change or for a good person to fall, but that a person cannot bear good fruit while he lives badly.” According to Augustine, the tree here refers to the human soul. Underneath the fruit are the deeds of man, for an evil man cannot do good and a good man cannot do evil.
Therefore, if an evil person wants to do good, he must first become good.
Matthew 7:19. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
And here Christ is expressed only in a general sense. Of course, not every tree suffers such a fate. Many trees are preserved intact, despite the fact that they bear no fruit. But usually it happens differently.
Matthew 7:20. So by their fruits you will know them.
Ἐπιγνώσεσθε is stronger than simple γνώσεσθε. You will recognize them completely, completely. Wed. 1 Corinthians 13:12. According to some, it is a solemn repetition of what was said before to confirm the expressed thought. But others see it differently. Reference is made to the insertion of Matthew 20:1–15 to explain Matthew 19:30, and also to the insertion of the parables of Matthew 24:43–25:12 to explain Matthew 24:42. In Matthew 25:13 Matthew also repeats the verse with which he began (Matthew 24:42). Matthew probably found in Logia, after the saying about false prophets (verse 15), the words of the 16th verse: by their fruits you will recognize them, and this prompted him to insert “from somewhere” from the Logia a saying about trees and fruits, which he ends by repeating the words that inspired this saying. But this matter is so dark that it is difficult to say how it really happened. You can find out what the real character of people is in various ways: by the friends they choose, by the speeches they make, by their activities, lifestyle, and so on. But the best and most reliable evidence of a person is the fruit that he bears.
The fruits brought by bad people sometimes even seem good. But in reality they are always thin and harmful.
Matthew 7:21. Not everyone who says to Me: “Lord! Lord!” will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but he who does the will of My Heavenly Father.
The meaning of this passage is very well explained by Clement of Rome in his Second Epistle to the Corinthians: “Let us therefore not call Him only Lord, for this will not save us. Because He says: not everyone who says to Me: Lord! God! will be saved, but he who does righteousness τὴν δικαιοσύνην ). So, brethren, let us confess Him in deeds of love for one another, not committing adultery, not slandering others, and not being envious, but being self-controlled, merciful, and kind.” Here, as you can see, the words taken from Matthew have been slightly changed. The expression “not everyone” does not mean “no one,” as it has sometimes been explained. Those. This means that there will be many people who, by calling on the name of the Lord, will be saved. But not everyone who does only this will be saved. Here, in general, hypocritical invocation of the name of the Lord, ostentatious piety are indicated. This means, according to Tsang, people who cannot bring anything else to prove their righteousness except that they called on the name of the Lord.
If there is no talk about the Savior’s enemies and whether they will be saved or not, then the latter is implied by itself. It should be noted that from this verse to the end of the speech the Savior “imperceptibly” appears as the future Judge of people (Tzahn [1905], Alford). However, He here speaks not about His will, but about the will of His Heavenly Father. Alford considers this an important and invaluable sign, instructive at the very beginning of His ministry. There are many parallels for this passage in rabbinical writings.
Matthew 7:22. Many will say to Me on that day: Lord! God! Have we not prophesied in Your name? and was it not in Your name that they cast out demons? and did they not perform many miracles in Your name?
The aorists in this verse mean actions that are completed, but do not leave any traces behind. By the words: “on that day” (in the Greek text with an article), is meant the great day of judgment, before which all other days seem completely insignificant (Bengel). In Hebrew, this expression corresponds to “be yom hagu”, which is often found in the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament. During the Day of Judgment, when it comes to entering the Kingdom of Heaven, people will approach Jesus Christ and tell Him the same words that were given before, i.e. double Κύριε Κύριε. Since it will seem that He is slow to recognize them as His disciples, they will present Him with evidence of their faith in Him, pointing to their prophecies, deeds and miracles, which, as they will say, were performed “in His name.” In Greek, the dative case of the instrument is used here, as opposed to ἐν τῷ σῷ ὀνόματι. Those. they used the name of Christ as an instrument to perform their miracles.
By the word “prophesied” here we mean simple preaching, and not prophecy in the proper sense, although the latter is not excluded at all. Tolyuk raises the question of how false prophets were able to accomplish such extraordinary things. Many exegetes have made a distinction here between diabolical and divine miracles, but this does not apply here. The mentioned false prophets did not work here, consciously demanding the help of the devil, they wanted to serve the cause of Christ, but they also approached Him for this with complete conceit and expectation of reward from Him, similar to those depicted in Luke (Luke 13:26). Much more important is another question that can be asked: is it possible to perform miracles even in the presence of such an unclean and darkened faith? To this we can answer that both spells and miracles in the name of Christ have been performed since the first century of Christianity. Miracles vary in type, type and nature of their performance.
Many miracles seem only miracles, are performed with the help of deceptions and are only deceptions, although the people believe in them. There are especially many miracle workers in eras of the development of superstitions.
Matthew 7:23. And then I will declare to them: I never knew you; Depart from me, you workers of iniquity.
Some translate: “And I will explain to them: Since I never knew you, depart from Me, all you who practice iniquity.” Thus the word ὅτι is related to the word “go away” (ἀποχωρεῖτε). Others say: “And then I will explain to them: Depart from Me, all you who practice iniquity, for I never knew you.” Meyer believes that the meaning resulting from this latter translation is correct. The words are borrowed from Ps.6:9: "depart from Me, all you who practice iniquity", with a slight difference against the translation of the Seventy (ἀποχωρεῖτε instead of ἀπόστητε). The word “lawlessness” implies either ignorance, ignorance of the law, or a deliberately contemptuous attitude towards it. It is often found among the Seventy, who translate with this word the Hebrew “aven”, which actually means insignificance, vanity, and then lie, deception. The Greek ἀνομία better than the Hebrew expresses the idea that these people, by calling on the name of Christ, performing miracles in His name, prophesying and casting out demons, committed crimes against the moral law. This word can also have a meaning similar to ἀδικία - untruth or sin.
Ὁμολογέω was chosen, it seems, in order to better express the contrast between the words of these miracle workers and the announcement of the Judge. It means in a figurative sense to acknowledge, also to say something openly, not to keep silent, to announce.
Matthew 7:24. Therefore, everyone who hears these words of Mine and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock;
Literally: “So whoever (whoever it is) listens to these words and does them will be like a man of understanding,” and so on. There is, of course, no difference in meaning. However, in Greek the reading “I will liken” is necessary” (ὁμοιωθήσεται).
“Whoever” is a form peculiar to the New Testament, instead of ὅς. It can hardly be assumed that here ὅς would mean identification, and ὅστις – classification (Alford). “These words are quite important in explaining the Sermon on the Mount, because they obviously refer to everything that was said earlier by Christ, from which they conclude that the Sermon on the Mount as presented by Matthew is not a collection of passages from different places, but was spoken in its entirety at the same time.”
To enter the Kingdom of Heaven, it is necessary not only to hear the words of Christ, but also to practically implement them in life. He who not only listens to the words of Christ, but also fulfills them, is likened to a prudent, strictly speaking, reflective man who built his house on a rock (in general, on any solid place). Tsang notes that, as a preacher of the word, Christ gave His true hearers the first impetus towards the establishment of the Kingdom of God. Now He evaluates His cause as a Judge and defends it, so that it may emerge unharmed from the court acquitted. Here is a requirement of action, not as, for example, in Luke (Luke 8:4–18).
Matthew 7:25. and the rain fell, and the rivers flooded, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it did not fall, because it was founded on rock.
The Greek word ἡ βροχ means rain. A late and rare word. Of course, all the speech here is not personal, but metaphorical; these images mean the fate of people and misfortunes, such as slander, slander, sorrow, death, death of neighbors, insults from others and any other evil that only happens in real life (St. John Chrysostom).
Matthew 7:26. But everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand;
Opposite explanations of the same truth. The construction of the verse is exactly the same as the previous one (24), with only positive statements replaced by negative ones.
Matthew 7:27. and the rain fell, and the rivers overflowed, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and he fell, and his fall was great.
Again both the construction and the meaning of this verse are the same as the 25th. This verse ends the Sermon on the Mount.
Matthew 7:28. And when Jesus had finished these words, the people marveled at his teaching,
This verse gives historical information about the impact of Christ's preaching on the people. When He finished His sermon, the people marveled at His teaching. Literally: “and it was (happened) when I finished,” etc. Instead of “wondered” it is better to translate: he was amazed, he marveled as if at a miracle. In Greek it is stronger than in Russian.
Matthew 7:29. for He taught them as one who had authority, and not as the scribes and Pharisees.
The reason why the people “wondered” is indicated. For the ordinary listeners surrounding Christ, the sharp difference between His speech and the speeches of the scribes and Pharisees was very noticeable. They taught without having the same spiritual authority that Christ had. The words of the evangelist can be verified even now. Reading the Talmud, where the teaching of the scribes and Pharisees of that time was set forth, we are struck by the poverty of content and the complete absence of the spirit of life. In no Talmudic treatise can one find such “strength of spirit” as is characteristic of all the sayings of the Savior’s Sermon on the Mount. This is now recognized by all exegetes.
You might be interested in: