Глава 9

1–8. Healing of the paralytic in Capernaum. – 9–17. The calling of Matthew, the feast he gave, and the conversation regarding the statements made by the Pharisees and John's disciples. – 18–26. The healing of the bleeding woman and the resurrection of Jairus' daughter. – 27–31. Healing of two blind men. – 32–34. Healing a mute demoniac. – 35–38. Preparatory considerations spoken before the embassy of the apostles for the sermon, which is discussed in detail in the 10th chapter. Matthew 9:1. Then He, getting into the boat, crossed back and arrived at His city. (Cf. Mark 5:18–21; Luke 8:37–40.) The city where the Savior arrived, Matthew calls Him “his own.” According to Jerome, this was Nazareth. But others think it was Capernaum. The latter opinion has very good reasons. Matthew says that Christ left Nazareth and “settled in Capernaum by the sea” (Matthew 4:13). This was before the events told by the evangelist in chapter 9. Further, the miracle that Matthew talks about in further verses of the 9th chapter, according to the Evangelist Mark, took place in Capernaum (Mark 2:1 et seq.). John Chrysostom, Theophylact, Augustine and others say that Bethlehem was the city in which He was born, Nazareth was where He was raised, and in Capernaum He had a permanent residence. As for the order in which the healing of the paralytic in Capernaum is told by Matthew and other weather forecasters, it should be noted that it is almost completely different. In Mark (Mark 2:1 et seq.), the story is placed immediately after the healing of the leper, as well as in Luke (Luke 5:17), but the time of the healing of the paralytic is determined in more general terms. Mostly from this they conclude that the present story of Matthew should be attributed to an earlier time, i.e. to the circumstances described to them in Matthew 8:1–4 et seq. We cannot here enter into a detailed consideration of the question in what order the gospel events should have followed after the healing of the leper, because this question is extremely difficult and complex. It is enough for us to note that in Matthew the verse in question is directly related to the previous chapter, i.e. that when the inhabitants of the Gadarene country asked Christ to leave their borders, then at this very request He entered the boat, moved to the other side of Lake Galilee and then healed the paralytic in Capernaum. Matthew 9:2. And so they brought to Him the paralytic, lying on the bed. And Jesus seeing their faith, said to the paralytic: Be of good cheer, child! your sins are forgiven you. (Cf. Mark 2:3–5; Luke 5:18–20.) Mark and Luke describe the event in greater detail than Matthew (Mark 2:1–12; Luke 5:17–26). The words “I believe them” (αὐτῶν) must first of all refer to the persons who brought the paralytic. If even the most paralytic had strong faith, there would be no need to remind him of his sins. It is quite possible that the patient himself could look at his illness as a punishment for his sins. Thus, he could suffer not only physically, but also spiritually. To stop this suffering, it was necessary, therefore, first of all to heal him from mental illness. Therefore, as if postponing the work of miraculous healing, Christ says first of all: “Your sins are forgiven you.” Having uttered these words, the Savior “first healed the soul, relieving sins; if He had healed the sick person in advance, it would not have brought Him great glory” (St. John Chrysostom). Matthew 9:3. At this some of the scribes said to themselves: He blasphemes. (Cf. Mark 2:6–7; Luke 5:21.) The word “some” in Matthew and Mark seems to show that there were quite a few scribes, but that not all of them took part in the condemnation of Christ. The scribes and Pharisees thought that He was blaspheming because He arrogated to Himself, as a man, prerogatives (forgiveness of sins) that are characteristic only of God. Matthew 9:4. Jesus, seeing their thoughts, said: Why do you think evil in your hearts? The accusation is refuted not only by the fact that Christ heals the paralytic (verse 6), but also by the fact that Christ is made aware of what His enemies were secretly thinking or talking about. This insight into their thoughts alone would have shown them that He had the power to forgive sins. Matthew 9:5. for which is easier to say: your sins are forgiven, or to say: get up and walk? The question proposed to the scribes is remarkable in its depth and subtlety. They thought that it was difficult to say what had already been said by Christ. They themselves would not say that. And “get up and walk” - they wouldn’t dare say that at all. Thus, neither one nor the other was possible for them. But it’s a different matter for Christ. He already said the first thing, so it was easy for Him. But was it as easy to say: “get up and walk”? Inter dicere et facere, says Jerome, multa distantia est (there is a great distance between deed and word). The expected answer was that it was easier to forgive sins because the words had already been spoken; but they, in themselves, could neither be proven nor disproved. On the other hand, if the words “rise and walk” were not valid, they could only cause ridicule. Therefore Christ confirms His apparently easier expression by demonstrating His power with a more difficult one. In the proof presented by the Savior, one must carefully pay attention to the fact that He does not ask: what is easier - to forgive sins or to raise the sick? Because it cannot be said that forgiveness of sins is easier than healing. But - which is easier to say. Ratione judicii humani facilius est dicerë remissa sunt (Bengel) - for human reasons it is easier to say: released. But I, the Savior explains, will prove My right to speak this way by saying a more difficult word (Trench). Matthew 9:6. But so that you may know that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins, then he says to the paralytic: get up, take up your bed, and go to your house. Matthew 9:7. And he got up, took up his bed and went to his house. (Cf. Mark 2:11–12; Luke 5:24–25.) In some codes there are no words “took his bed”, in the Russian translation they are underlined, in the Slavic they are put in brackets, in the Vulgate, German and English translations, they are released. In the Russian and Slavic translations they were inserted arbitrarily, probably only in accordance with the testimony of other evangelists. In the original Matthew there are not even discrepancies in this verse. The story of the miracle is extremely simple. A person who could not be brought into the house sick comes out of it healthy without outside help. Matthew 9:8. The people, seeing this, were surprised and glorified God, who had given such power to men. (Cf. Mark 2:12; Luke 5:26.) “Who gave such power to men.” The Evangelist in this verse clearly depicts the impression made by the healing of the paralytic on the people, and, probably, in the very words in which it was expressed by the people themselves - the people were, in general, simple (ὄχλοι). Could he be thinking about something particularly lofty, philosophical, and not express himself here in his common language? It is obvious that the power of expression here is almost equivalent to those of our usual and common folk expressions that we use when, having heard about the happiness of an individual, we say: “What happiness are people.” Matthew 9:9. Passing from there, Jesus saw a man named Matthew sitting at the toll booth, and he said to him, “Follow Me.” And he stood up and followed Him. (Cf. Mark 2:13–14; Luke 5:27–28.) In the Gospels of Mark and Luke the same story is conveyed with some details and in the same connection. According to Mark, the Savior, after healing the paralytic in Capernaum, went out again to the sea, the people followed Him, and He taught them. On this path He saw Levi, who, after the command to follow, “rose up” and followed Him. Luke does not speak about Christ’s journey to the sea, but the circumstance is noted that Matthew, after being called, left everything and, getting up, followed Christ. The transmission of the very words of Christ by the three evangelists can be considered identical. All three evangelists connect the story of the calling with the previous miracle of the healing of the paralytic in Capernaum and the subsequent feast in Matthew. From this it is clear that they are all talking about the same event. The only difference is that the first evangelist calls himself Matthew, while Mark and Luke call him Levi. This disagreement has been the cause of much debate and research. According to some, it was absolutely impossible for stories that were almost identical to the point of literalness to report different persons. The identity of Matthew and Levi was therefore recognized from ancient times. They think that the evangelist was known under the name Levi before he became a disciple of Christ. And the name Matthew either was adopted by him after his calling and was given to him by Jesus Christ (cf. John 1:42), or he previously had two names, like John - Mark (Acts 12:12). According to other exegetes, the name Levi actually indicates his origin from the tribe of Levi, and Matthew (in Hebrew - the gift of God, the same as the Greek Theodore) was the name by which the evangelist was known. Speaking about his calling, Matthew, out of modesty, calls himself the name by which he was known as a publican, in order to more fully designate his former sinful life and, therefore, by contrast, to exalt Christ, who did not disdain him, a sinner, a publican. Matthew himself does not have the slightest hint that he was called Levi, while other evangelists, calling Matthew Levi in ​​the stories about his calling, in listing the apostles called by Christ (Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15), mention Matthew here and make no reference to Levi. “This,” says Alford, “is almost inexplicable, if we suppose that Matthew had two names.” The circumstance that, according to the meaning of the story, Matthew immediately followed Christ, even in ancient times forced us to doubt the authenticity of the fact reported by the evangelist. Porfiry and Julian said that it was unreasonable for the publican to follow “some” person who called him. But this objection is refuted by the fact that Matthew could hear both the former teaching of Christ and see His miracles and thus could know Him much earlier than his calling. In fact, from the story it is not at all clear that Matthew immediately followed Christ, because the word “immediately” is not in the Gospel. But if the following began immediately (cf. John 1:43), then this would not at all exclude the possibility of Matthew settling accounts and calculations for his previous activities. There is no need to assume that Matthew’s feast was arranged immediately after he was called by Jesus Christ to the apostleship, although this latter was possible. Matthew was a publican, or tax collector. We do not have detailed information about the methods of collecting taxes in the country ruled by Herod Antipas at that time, so we can say definitively whether Matthew was an official who served under Herod Antipas (cf. Luke 8:3), or an agent of the general collection of taxes in favor of the Romans, is very difficult (Zan, [1905]). Matthew was undoubtedly a Jew. If so, then this circumstance only further aroused distrust and contempt for him on the part of his compatriots, who considered such people to be traitors and enemies of the fatherland. Matthew belonged to the class of tax collectors whom the Romans called portitores (collecting taxes from transporters). Publicans were disliked throughout the empire. But their position was profitable. Mark and Luke say that Matthew was sitting on a “mytnitsa,” which probably should be understood not as a house, but as some kind of hut or tent with a table, where accounts were made and money was paid for various goods transported across the lake. Mark (Mark 2:14) calls Alpheus the father of Matthew. Since Matthew reports his calling among the story of the miracles performed by the Savior, the opinion was expressed that his calling was the same great miracle as the other miracles of Christ, a miracle in the sense that the publican became an apostle. Theophylact, it seems, is the only one who notes that the Savior called Matthew after Peter and John. Matthew 9:10. And while Jesus was reclining in the house, many tax collectors and sinners came and reclined with Him and His disciples. (Compare Mark 2:15; Luke 5:29.) Mark speaks about the same thing in more detail, Luke speaks more clearly. Matthew presents the matter too briefly, without placing this verse in close connection with the previous one. This is how he sees things. Matthew followed Christ, without indicating where exactly. Then the speech seems to be interrupted, the picture of following is immediately replaced by the picture of reclining at the table, and the evangelist does not at all indicate in whose house this happened. Mark added that this happened “in his house,” but in whose house exactly is again unknown, because the word “his” can also refer to Jesus Christ. Luke adds the sentence that Levi held a great feast “in his house” (ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ αὐτοῦ), from which they conclude that the house belonged to Levi himself. If Matthew had come to the house of Christ, then there would have been relatively nothing particularly remarkable here. But if Christ visited Matthew's house, then it was wonderful. He, the Divine Teacher, Who taught differently than the scribes and Pharisees, Who performed such great miracles, came to the house of the poor publican and lay down in his house, accepting refreshments from him! Naturally, Matthew and other weather forecasters want to expose this remarkable fact to their readers. Matthew 9:11. Seeing this, the Pharisees said to His disciples: Why does your Teacher eat and drink with publicans and sinners? Matthew 9:12. When Jesus heard this, he said to them, “It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick, Matthew 9:13. Go and learn what it means: I want mercy, not sacrifice? For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. (Cf. Mark 2:16–17; Luke 5:30–32.) The train of thought seems to be as follows. You think that I did the wrong thing by coming to the sick. You think this way because you are too attached to the law and its sacrifices, you believe that all piety and pleasing to God is exhausted by the fact that people bring sacrifices to Him. But sacrifices are sacrifices, and in dealing with people in need of help, it is not sacrifices that are required, but mercy. You make sacrifices and are indifferent to people who demand mercy and love; I act differently; the first, prominent place in My activities is occupied by mercy. And this mercy lies in the fact that I came to call them to Myself - and, moreover, only them, sinners, and not the righteous - and to cure them of their ailments. Regarding the words: “I have come to call...” some church writers ask the following questions. Christ came to everyone - why does He say that He did not come to the righteous? Therefore, there were some people who did not need Him to come? Did Christ really want to express the idea that He came only to sinners? If, by both sinners and (imaginary) righteous people, He actually means only sinners, then can we attribute to Him the idea of ​​dividing sinners into classes? In answer to these questions, let us say that the expression of Christ should be understood only in the broadest, if not the absolute, sense: He came exclusively to sinners. Why not to the righteous? Because they don't exist. Who is the man who will live and not sin? Only Christ is absolutely righteous, and all others are sinners. Verse 13 thus expresses Christ's thought about the sinfulness of all people. The scribes and Pharisees, who considered themselves righteous, were mistaken: they were not only sinners, but even more sinful than these tax collectors and their comrades. Thus, the distinction should not be made between sinners and righteous, but only between relative sinners and absolute sinners. The first are not so sinful as not to accept Christ, the second are more sinful than them because, in the face of living and absolute Truth and Sinlessness, they consider themselves righteous and therefore cannot accept Christ. Christ never said that everyone should accept Him, accepted Him or accepts Him. Running through the entire Gospel is the thought of sinners being saved and sinners for whom the door of salvation is closed. Matthew 9:14. Then John’s disciples come to Him and say: Why do we and the Pharisees fast a lot, but Your disciples do not fast? (Compare Mark 2:18; Luke 5:33.) All three evangelists have a story about this event, similar in essence, but completely different in expression. To explain what the matter is, let’s try to present it a little more clearly by comparing all three evangelists. Matthew (Matthew 9:14) – disciples of John Mark (Mark 2:18) – disciples of John and Pharisees Luke (Luke 5:30) – Pharisees and scribes Matthew (Matthew 9:14) – about himself and the Pharisees Mark (Mk.2:18) – about himself and the disciples of the Pharisees Luke (Luke 5:33) – about the disciples of John and the disciples of the Pharisees. From this comparison it is clear that the disciples of John and the Pharisees came to Christ and spoke both about themselves and about other persons who were like-minded with them. Since Christ’s further speech is obviously directed to John’s disciples, we can conclude that they primarily spoke before Christ and spoke to Him. But since the Pharisees are mentioned next to them, it can be understood that the latter incited John’s disciples to ask Christ questions and, perhaps, hoped to put Him in difficulty. Matthew 9:15. And Jesus said to them, Can the sons of the bridal chamber mourn while the bridegroom is with them? But the days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast. (Cf. Mark 2:19–20; Luke 5:34–35.) The general meaning of Christ's speech is the same for all three evangelists. This speech was apparently directed to John’s disciples and reminded them of what the Baptist himself had previously spoken about. According to the testimony of the Evangelist John, when the disciples of the Baptist had a dispute with the Jews about cleansing and when his disciples came and told him about Christ (John 3:25-28), the Baptist said among other things: “he who has a bride is the groom, and the friend of the groom, standing and listening to him, rejoices with joy, hearing the voice of the groom” (John 3:29). The meaning of the speech of the weather forecasters is literally similar in meaning to this speech of the Baptist. But instead of the words of John, who only considered himself “the groom’s friend,” Christ now speaks of many “friends,” “sons of the bridal chamber,” almost the same as our “friends” at weddings. The Savior does not answer at all the first part of the question put to Him, the statement that the disciples of John and the Pharisees fast a lot. He completely leaves the Pharisees and John's disciples to be guided by their own conscience. The entire content of His answer is directed towards the protection of His disciples. He Himself takes upon Himself the image of the bridegroom indicated by the Baptist. This image is not something new, but has its basis in the Old Testament (Ps. 44; Song 2; cf. Eph. 5:22–23; Rev. 19:7–9, 21:9). Among the Jews, wedding feasts lasted up to seven days and it was a time of joy and fun. Meanwhile, fasting served as a sign of grief. The presence of Christ as the bridegroom among the sons of the bridal chamber was supposed to destroy sorrow in them. But this time will not always last. Just as the wedding celebrations end and the “friends” go home, so will Christ’s stay with his disciples end. After His departure the disciples will fast. There is no need to understand these words as a commandment. The Savior says here something like this: “the disciples cannot fast now, but there will come a reason and time both for fasting and for various expressions of grief.” It is rightly noted that here for the first time in Matthew the Lord points out His suffering. Matthew 9:16. And no one puts patches of unbleached fabric on old clothes, because what is sewn again will be torn away from the old one, and the hole will be even worse. (Cf. Mark 2:21; Luke 5:36.) Here the expressions of all three evangelists are extremely obscure, and this has always caused great difficulties to exegetes. The idea of ​​this verse is expressed more clearly in Luke (Luke 5:36): no one sews patches from new clothes onto old clothes, but if he does otherwise, then the new (clothing) is torn and the patch from the new clothes does not fit the old clothes. So according to the literal and possibly accurate translation. Now, what connection do these words have with the previous one? It was about posts. The absence of fasting while the groom is with his groomsmen was one of its characteristics in the new religion. A characteristic of the old religion was the existence of fasts in it. If we now take away the new characteristic and apply it to the old one, then a gap will be formed in the new one, which will, however, be useless for the old clothes, because it cannot be corrected by this patch. If there is a hole in old clothes, then it doesn’t matter. It is doomed to destruction. But new clothes create a hole that is unpleasant to have and see. Matthew 9:17. Neither do they pour new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the wineskins break, and the wine flows out, and the skins are lost, but new wine is poured into new wineskins, and both are preserved. (Cf. Mark 2:22; Luke 5:37–39.) The speech in this verse is much clearer than in the previous one, and the imagery is clearer. Everyone knows that if a liquid capable of fermentation is enclosed in some weak vessel, it will rupture it and spill out on its own. Christ deliberately takes on the familiar image of young and therefore fermentable wine, which in Palestine is still poured into bottles. If they are not strong, then the wine tears them apart, makes them completely unusable and pours itself out. In Mark and Luke the meaning is the same, unless you mean the addition of the 39th verse in Luke, which is not found in either Matthew or Mark. The expressions of all three evangelists are different. What do you mean by “new wine”? It should be noted that the connection between the speech about new and old clothes, new wine and old wineskins with the images of verse 15, which speaks of the wedding feast and Christ as the bridegroom - if you think that new clothes and new wine are characteristic of the wedding feast - is only external. The parable was told in response to a question about fasting. They should be understood as old clothes and old furs. The new teaching about fasting means new clothes and new wine. To demand from disciples the same observance of fasts means pouring new wine into old wineskins or sewing a new patch onto old clothes. According to Tsang, the teaching in this verse is essentially the same as the teaching in verse 16, but the purpose is different: there it is about maintaining the old, here it is about maintaining the new. Matthew 9:18. When He was telling them this, a certain leader came up to Him and, bowing to Him, said: My daughter is now dying; but come, lay Your hand on her, and she will live. (Cf. Mark 5:22–23; Luke 8:41–42.) The contradiction that arises here between Matthew and other weather forecasters is considered irreconcilable by some exegetes. But one can hardly agree with this if we assume that Matthew presents the events briefly, omitting the details that we find in other weather forecasters. In fact, the whole matter seems to be like this. Jairus left his daughter only dying, but not dead, and when he came to the Savior, he thought that she had already died. Therefore, he spoke about the death of his daughter either by conjecture, or because he received news of her death during the very negotiations with the Savior. Matthew and Mark do not mention the resurrection of the son of the widow of Nain. From Luke's account we can conclude that this event occurred before the resurrection of Jairus' daughter. If so, it is easy to understand why Jairus asks Christ to come and lay hands on his daughter. But if the resurrection of Jairus’s daughter was the first resurrection, then it is not easy to understand the father’s speech in Matthew, since he asks the Savior for nothing other than the resurrection of his daughter. It must therefore be assumed that Jairus already knew the fact of the resurrection of the son of the widow of Nain. As for the name Jairus, it means that which shines or shines, from the Hebrew root “or”, i.e. “lit up” (luxit). Jairus was undoubtedly a Jew. Matthew 9:19. And Jesus stood up and followed him, and His disciples. (Cf. Mark 5:24; Luke 8:42.) From the word “rising” one cannot conclude that Jesus Christ was reclining at Matthew’s feast at that time. Judging by Mark's account, this was at a time when Jesus Christ was surrounded by many people (ὄχλος πολύς). In the Bible, the word ἐγείρεσθαι, like ἀνίστασθαι (Hebrew “kam”), often means only “the transition from rest to movement” (Tsang, [1905]). Matthew 9:20. And behold, a woman who had suffered from bleeding for twelve years came up from behind and touched the hem of His garment, Matthew 9:21. for she said within herself: If I only touch His garment, I will be healed. (Cf. Mark 5:28–29; Luke 8:44.) Mark gives details about the healing process itself, while Luke gives the same very briefly. Matthew does not talk about healing, but it is, of course, implied. The woman’s actions and her thoughts cannot be considered “superstitious,” because this word means vain, vain faith; circumstances showed that the woman’s faith was neither vain nor vain. This eliminates all speculation about the woman’s superstitious act and the fact that she believed in the benefits of touching the Savior’s clothes. Matthew 9:22. Jesus, turning and seeing her, said: Be of good cheer, daughter! your faith has saved you. From that hour the woman became healthy. (Cf. Mark 5:30–34; Luke 8:45–48.) Compared to the stories of Mark and Luke, Matthew's story is short. Matthew only tells us that the Savior, turning back and seeing the woman, told her that her faith saved her, and she became healthy from that hour. In Matthew it is not as clear as in other weather forecasters what the woman’s fear was or why it occurred. However, the fact that she was really afraid of something can be deduced from his story, because she secretly touches Christ, and what prevented her from speaking to Him was, of course, her fear or fear. “Daughter” in this case can serve as an addition to the word “dare.” A woman must be brave, because she is not a stranger to Christ, but His daughter, like the paralytic, His “child” (Matthew 9:2), like all other people who believed in Christ. An address full of love. Matthew 9:23. And when Jesus came to the ruler's house and saw the flute players and the people in confusion, Matthew 9:24. He said to them, “Come out, for the maiden is not dead, but sleeps.” And they laughed at Him. (Cf. Mark 5:35–40; Luke 8:49–53.) The message that on the way to Jairus’s house people approached the chief (according to Luke, τις - one person), who told him that the girl had died, that he should not bother the Teacher, and Matthew skips the rest of the details in Mark and Luke. Mark has the most detailed story. According to Matthew's account, Jesus Christ enters the house of Jairus (who is not named) and sees flute players (αὐλητάς) and the people, thrown into confusion (τὸν ὄχλον θορυβούμενον), commands everyone to go out ( ἀναχωρεῖτε - expresses movement back, retreat, removal), because the girl did not die, but was sleeping. The circumstance that the girl actually died is not clearly stated by Matthew, but the further message that “they laughed at Him” - they laughed, of course, because they saw at least an error in His words - indicates the reality of death. The Evangelist, although in the briefest terms, here presents to us an ordinary picture of preparations for funerals, which among the Jews usually took place on the very day of death. In a small town where everyone knows each other and knows what is going on with their neighbors, they quickly learned about the girl’s death. And as soon as they found out, hired flute players and mourners appeared. The presence of pipe-players is not mentioned in the parallel accounts of Mark and Luke. The instruments they used were flutes. The number of pipers usually exceeded the number of mourners, if we can draw such a conclusion from the statement (in the Talmud) that the poorest Israelite was obliged to take care of two pipers and one mourner when his wife died. The number of both increased according to the means of the family, and in the present case there were probably a significant number of both. The prophet Jeremiah already mentioned mourners (Jer.9:17). The custom of crying over the dead existed among the Greeks and Romans. Since the flute players and mourners were hired, there was, of course, a lot of lies and hypocrisy in this matter. The lamentations listed the merits and virtues of the deceased in order to induce those close to him to cry even more. It was this lie and this hypocrisy that aroused the indignation of Christ, who ordered everyone present to leave, leaving (according to other weather forecasters) only a few people. As one must think, His words: “The maiden is not dead, but sleeps,” were intended to counteract not only hired and hypocritical, but even sincere crying. For the first they were reproof, for the second they were consolation. The further meaning of Christ’s words, as is rightly noted, was that He considered death to be a dream. This happens more than once, but also during the resurrection of Lazarus. Death is a lie in human life; being a lie, it produces and causes other lies. This lie is opposed to the truth, which usually causes ridicule from lies and liars. This explains the mockery of Christ. In the deepest and most serious moments of human history, people laughed at the Son of Man. But all this only further proved the truth of the words of Truth itself: the evangelists would not have said κατεγέλων αὐτοῦ if the whole matter seemed to be an unfounded legend or if the girl had fallen into a lethargic sleep. Κοράσιον – diminutive of κόρη – means “girl” or “maiden”. In interpreting these verses, John Chrysostom seems to make the mistake of saying that, according to Mark and Luke, Christ took three disciples with Him, while Matthew simply says that (Christ took) disciples. Matthew 9:25. When the people were sent out, He entered, took her hand, and the girl stood up. (Cf. Mark 5:40–42; Luke 8:54–56.) This was the first resurrection recorded in Matthew. In the account of the resurrection of Jairus' daughter, Matthew is almost as brief as Luke, but Mark gives vivid details. No stories, of course, have been subject to such great doubt as the stories about the resurrection. They tried to explain them by lethargic sleep, fainting, etc. resurrected persons. One thing is certain: the evangelists themselves intended to present and convey the facts so that those reading their stories could see that persons who actually died were brought back to life by Christ. No matter how scanty the details may be, it is clear from various small features that this was indeed the case. Without entering into a detailed exposition of this subject, we can only note that “research of very recent times tends to recognize the greater, not the lesser, historical value of the Gospels” (Sandey). The evidence for all the miracles recounted in the Gospels is very strong. Particularly favorite methods for the natural explanation of miracles are the following three provisions: 1) gospel miracles - imitation of Old Testament stories; 2) exaggeration of natural events; 3) transforming what was originally a parable into actual facts. But whatever value we may attach to these provisions in themselves, they are not able to explain, either together or separately, most of the miraculous stories of the Gospels (Sunday). To this we add that if we recognize as unreliable one series of miracles - physical miracles, then we will encounter another series of miracles - in the word, which should include the parables and speeches of Jesus Christ. If physical miracles were invented, who could have invented the doctrine attributed to Him? Matthew 9:26. And the rumor about this spread throughout all that land. Actually, not “rumor”, but talk, rumor (ἡ φήμη αὔτη, lat. fama); such was the natural consequence of the great miracle. Matthew does not mention the horror reported by the evangelists Mark and Luke (Mark 5:42; Luke 8:56) about the miracle and the prohibition to talk about it. The expression: “throughout that whole country” (in fact, “throughout that whole country”) serves for some exegetes (Bengel) as proof that the Gospel was written not “in that country,” but in another. Otherwise, Matthew would not have said “in that one,” but “in this one.” Matthew 9:27. When Jesus walked from there, two blind men followed Him and shouted: Have mercy on us, Jesus, son of David! The two miracles reported in verses 27–31 and 32–34 are reported by Matthew alone. The words of the blind “Son of David” addressed to Christ are found in the Gospel of Matthew in all three cases of the Savior healing the blind (see Matthew 12:23, 20:30–31). Often the prophets called kings this way, “whom they wanted to honor and exalt” (St. John Chrysostom). In all likelihood, earthly ideas about the worldly King-Conqueror were associated with this name, which explains Christ’s clearly expressed displeasure both in the present case and during the healing of the Canaanite woman. Matthew 9:28. When He came into the house, the blind came to Him. And Jesus said to them: Do you believe that I am able to do this? They say to Him: Yes, Lord! It is unknown which house the Savior entered. The fact that the event took place on the road from Jairus’s house cannot be stated with certainty, even in view of Matthew’s neglectful attitude towards chronological and partly topographical data. In any case, one can think that this was not Jairus's house. It is unlikely that this was the house of Matthew or Peter. Most likely, this was the house where the mother, brothers and sisters of Christ lived (John 2:12; cf. Matt. 4:13). As can be seen from the story, the Lord at first did not answer the cries of the blind for the above reason, but they followed Him into the house itself and here they asked Him for healing. The healing did not happen immediately, but after the question: “Do you believe” and so on. “In general, Matthew reports a wide variety of actions during healing: a simple word (Matthew 8:13, 16, 32, 9:6), a word and a touch (Matthew 8:3, 9:29), only a touch (Matthew 8:15, 9:25, otherwise Mark 5:41), neither one nor the other (Matthew 9:20–22); there is no description (Matthew 9:33)” (Tsang, 1905). The word translated in Russian “ey”, expressed in Greek through ναί, is used many times in the New Testament and means: yes, exactly, of course. Matthew 9:29. Then He touched their eyes and said, “According to your faith, be it done to you.” The opening of the eyes of blind people due to the touch of a hand has been reported. This was a response to the faith of the blind. The story is so short that there can be no talk about the nature of the illness of the blind or what and how they saw when their eyes opened. Matthew 9:30. And their eyes were opened; and Jesus sternly said to them: Take care that no one finds out. The reason for prohibiting the blind from disclosing their healing, according to the interpretation of John Chrysostom, Theophylact and others, was the humility of the Savior, who did not want His glory to spread and interfere with His preaching. It is also very possible that He observed in the persons to whom He addressed prohibitions some individual characteristics that prompted Him to give such prohibitions. Matthew 9:31. And they went out and spread the word about Him throughout all that land. “Throughout all that land” – probably Galilee. The healing of the blind was the tenth miracle (Jerome). Church writers justify the blind people in divulging healing. They did this not out of disobedience, but out of gratitude (Theophylact). But others hold a different opinion, although, so to speak, the harmful consequences of this disclosure are not visible in the Gospel. It could be that the prohibition was given in view of the malicious intentions of the enemies of Jesus Christ, who were already preparing to announce that He was casting out demons by the power of Beelzebub. Matthew 9:32. When they went out, they brought to Him a mute man possessed by a demon. Matthew 9:33. And when the demon was cast out, the dumb man began to speak. And the people, surprised, said: such a phenomenon has never happened in Israel. The miracle of the healing of a mute demoniac is reported only in Matthew. The healing causes surprise among the people, but such as is typical at the sight of a miracle (this is indicated by the verb θαυμάζω). Matthew 9:34. And the Pharisees said: He casts out demons by the power of the prince of demons. The meaning of this accusation will be discussed below, when explaining Matthew 12:24 et seq. Now let us note with Bengel that magnitudinem miraculorum negare non poterant: magno igitur ea auctori, sed pessimo, adscribunt (great miracles could not be denied and therefore are attributed to the great culprit, but the worst). Matthew 9:35. And Jesus went through all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every disease and every disease among the people. With this verse begins a new section, constituting a transition to the instructions given at the embassy of the apostles for preaching, set out in the 10th chapter. The time is not specified. According to Mark and Luke, the apostles were called earlier (Mark 3:16; Luke 6:13). Matthew 9:36. Seeing the crowds of people, He took pity on them because they were exhausted and scattered, like sheep without a shepherd. The reason for pity is that people were tired (“exhausted”) and “distracted.” What these concepts mean is not easy to determine, although the comparison shows that people were like sheep in the desert that have no shepherd. These sheep are thin in body from hunger and have a suffering appearance; they have no unity, they are not gathered into one herd, but wander wherever they may, exposed to numerous dangers. This is the picture that presented itself to the eyes of Christ during His travels. Matthew 9:37. Then He said to His disciples: The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few; The image of exhausted and scattered sheep is replaced by the image of the harvest (θερισμός) - a field in which ears of corn have grown and are ripe for reaping. Wed. John 4:35 et seq., where the same word is used. The field is large and the harvest is plentiful, but there are no workers who would take on this work. Here for the first time we encounter the thought of the harvest, which was the fruit of the Savior’s intensified activity over these months. Matthew 9:38. Therefore pray to the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into His harvest. Christ refers the message of “workers” (workers, although laborers are more precisely from Greek) not to Himself, but to God, Whom He calls the Lord of the harvest, the Owner of the field where the ears of corn ripened for the harvest grew. And the Savior Himself, without a doubt, prayed to the Lord of the harvest, and invited His disciples to take part in His prayer. You might be interested in: