Law and Gospel according to the teaching of the Lord in the Gospel of Matthew ch. V, art. 13-48

You eat the salt of the earth. Yμεῖς ἐστε τὸ ἃ λας τῆς τῆς . Hilary expresses a well-known position when he says: sal, ut arbitror, ​​terrae nullum est (i.e., salt for the earth, I believe, has no meaning). The assumption that salt can be used to fertilize the land (see, for example, Schanz, S. 172) is erroneous. It cannot be based on Luke. 14:35, for here it is not in contrast to good quality salt, but in contrast to other spoiled substances that can be used for fertilizer - this is denied in relation to spoiled salt. By “earth” (v. 13) and by “world” (v. 14) we mean humanity living on earth and filling the world (Gen. 18:25; Hos. 1:2; Hab. 2:20; Zech. 12:12 and others). Consequently, the disciples of the Lord in their attitude towards humanity are compared to salt in its ordinary meaning and use. Here, as in some other cases (Matthew 6:22; Eph. 5:23), an obviously abbreviated form of comparison is used, in view of the fact that the object with which the subject of speech is compared is known to everyone from everyday experience 1 . Salt, firstly, is used as a seasoning for food, which it makes pleasant and tasty; secondly, salt protects some items, especially nutrients, from rotting and spoilage, keeping them fresh and healthy. Its use in sacrifices was also based on the property of salt to protect against spoilage, in contrast to leaven and honey, substances that could not be sacrificed because, although they made the food tasty, they at the same time caused fermentation and rotting (Lev. 2:11-13; Ezek. 43:24). As a protection against spoilage, salt served as a symbol of firmness and constancy. Therefore, the covenant of God with the people was called the covenant of salt (Lev. 2:13; Num. 18:19; 2 Chron. 13:5). Salt, as a symbol and even an instrument of the healing miraculous power of God, was used by the prophet Elisha when the inhabitants of Jericho complained to him about the harmful effects of the water there (2 Kings 2:19–22). The special attitude of the Lord’s disciples towards Him and towards God the Father imparts to them such properties, thanks to which they become capable - through their teaching (preaching the Gospel), reproofs (sharpness and causticity of salt) and pure, holy, blameless life - to protect humanity from moral decay and gradually bring it into such a state that it is no longer an object of God’s wrath and disgust (Jer. 29:17), but pleasantly pleasing. offering to God (Rom. 15:16). The world is in a state of religious and moral decay, but the existence of the Lord’s true disciples, as continuers of His work, provides the opportunity and arouses hope that something viable will emerge from the world, and not a decomposed corpse. If God showed His long-suffering towards the “first world”, waiting for the repentance of the wicked, to which He called them through Noah, “the preacher of righteousness” (1 Pet. 3:20; 2 Pet. 2:5-8; 2 Pet. 3:5-9; Jude 1:7; Rev. 11:8); if He promised Abraham to spare the city, already doomed to destruction, for the sake of ten righteous people (Gen. 18:32), then for the sake of the true disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ who are in the world, God shows His long-suffering and mercy, waiting “for all to come to repentance” (2 Pet. 3:9 3). But what should be even more frightening is the possibility of losing those properties thanks to which the Lord’s disciples are the “salt of the earth.” In this case, the disciples of Christ will not only fail to fulfill their extraordinary calling, but will turn out to be completely useless and unnecessary for the kingdom of Christ. If it happened that salt had lost its inherent nature, its taste and its seasoning and preservative power, then to the question of how such a substance could be returned to its previous state, no favorable answer could be obtained. There is simply no other substance like this in nature. Ἐὰν δέ τὸ ἄλας μωρανθ ῂ, ὲν τίνι άλισθήσεται . As soon as the salt takes over, it becomes salty. Since μωρός has, by the way, the meaning tasteless, tasteless (in contrast to sapere, sapiens), then μωραίνεσθαι expresses exactly the same thing as ἅ ναλον γίνεται (Mark 9:50). Erasmus and Baza convey μωρανθῆ well through infatuerit. It is in vain that some exegetes admit that Christ assumed here a case impossible in nature or even used a directly unnatural comparison. Thus, Hilary: natura salis semper eadem est, nec immutari unquam potest. Even earlier, the Jewish rabbi Jesus ben Hananiah, around 95 A.D. debated with the Athenian sages, in response to their question: “if salt spoils, then how to salt it?” - the one who pretended to be witty gave the answer that salt can never become unsalty. Guedemann considers this anecdote to be a satirical polemic against a real saying of the Lord Jesus Christ. But both the form itself is assumed (ἐάν), and the meaning of the saying, which contains a warning against a truly threatening danger, gives reason to assume a possible case in the Lord’s words about salt. And indeed, with the imperfect method of extracting salt in ancient times, pure salt, free from foreign impurities, was not always obtained. The salt that was extracted from the Dead Sea was especially not of high quality and had a significant proportion of impurities of foreign substances (Galen; ἅ λες Σοδομηνοί are mentioned more than once in the Talmud). Such impure salt could naturally spoil; through the decomposition of foreign substances entering into it, it became completely bitter and unsuitable for consumption. Not only the parallel passage of Mark 9:50, but also the immediately following sentence will have nothing to do with it - εἰς οὐδὲν ἰοχύει ὲτι leave no doubt that the subject of άλισθήσεται is τὸ ἅ λας 4. That is, there is no object in the world that would be able to restore the previous properties of a salt that has lost its strength. There is no salt that can make tasteless salt salty again; non datur sal salis. We are talking about the circle of disciples as a whole, as opposed to the world. Disciples have the opportunity, through their inherent grace, to serve as salt to the world; but the world is not able to influence disciples in this way. If those who are the organs of renewal and strengthening of the world lose their grace-filled ability to do this, then there will be no other organs on earth that would be able to restore their lost ability. Not only that. The disciples, who would have lost the dignity that distinguished them from the rest of humanity, would not simply return to the previous state in which they were before they became disciples of the Lord. They would not only become unfit to fulfill their special calling, but would lose all value and significance for the kingdom of God; - just as salt, which has become unusable, due to its complete uselessness, is thrown out of the house into the street and trampled underfoot by those passing by. The proverb: corruptio optimi pessima (i.e., corruption of the best can be the worst, the most extreme) - expresses the deep truth of spiritual life. The example of Judas showed that the threatening warning of the Lord was not unnecessary even for the Apostles. So, in the words of the Lord there was an exhortation - to stand vigilantly in guarding the protection of one’s apostolic title. The height of the apostolic calling and the resulting responsibility of the Lord's disciples are further represented by the image of light. You are the light of the world. Y ρεῖς ἐστε τὸ φῶς τοῦ κ ό σμου . Light is the usual image of truth. Christ Himself is the one “true light, which enlightens every man who comes into the world” (John 1:9; 8:12), as the prophets had already predicted about Him (Isa. 42:6; 49:6; cf. Is. 9:2). But His true disciples also become participants in this light, they are sons of light (1 Thess. 5:5), children of light - τέκνα φωτός (Eph. 5:8), luminaries in the world - φωστῆρες ἐν κόσμω (Phil. 2:15), the light of the Lord - φῶς ἐν Κορίφ (Eph. 5:8) - and, in turn, spread light in the world. To a world shrouded in the darkness of ignorance and the darkness of sins, they reveal the knowledge of truth, the purpose and meaning of human life, and indicate the right path of life, leading people to salvation and eternal life. The same action that was performed according to the image of Matt. 4:16 preaching and all the general activities of the Lord Himself on the Galilean population - Jesus Christ here points out to His disciples as the task of their activity in relation to all humanity. They will possess all the qualities necessary for such an impact on the world. Through a comparison with salt that has lost its natural properties, it has already been indicated what a sad fate threatens not only the world, but also the students themselves if they lose their special qualities that distinguish them from the rest of the world. But, while preserving their inherent dignity, the disciples of Christ must also have special care and direct all measures to ensure that the light of Christ manifests through them all its characteristic energy, so that their whole life, all their behavior is only pure and bright in itself without any clouding, but also appropriately influences the environment around them, so that the truth is obvious to people that the disciples of Christ reflect in themselves the light of the heavenly Father Himself. In this way, the unearthly beauty of the entire life and activity of Christ’s disciples will serve as a reason for the glorification of the Heavenly Father on the part of people who have not lost their sensitivity to the divine. The idea that the disciples of Christ, endowed with special powers from God and destined to enlighten the world with the light of Christ’s truth, do not have the right to hide this light, but must show it to everyone - this idea is expressed through a double comparison - with a city located on a high mountain and with a lamp lit to illuminate a house. In the first comparison, the thought is expressed from the negative side, and in the second - from both the negative and the positive. The disciples would not be the light of the world if they, like the city located on the mountain, were not visible to everyone, without, of course, losing the very ability of vision. The city, under the specified conditions, cannot hide, it must be visible, and so the activity of the disciples, who carry the light of Christ within themselves, cannot but go unnoticed, but must produce its characteristic influence (cf. 2 Cor. 2:15-16; 3:11-13). This is both encouragement for the disciples (St. Chrysostom) and a reminder of the height of their responsibility. The comparison with the city on the mountain also contains the idea that the true followers of the Lord constitute a special society, isolated from the rest of humanity, which cannot remain unnoticed, since it retains its own characteristics, reflecting the covenants of Christ (cf. 2 Cor. 4:9). Lighting a lamp expresses the intention - to give all the people in the house the light they need. It would be an incongruous thing to completely cover a lit lamp with a large vessel, instead of placing it on a high stand intended for this purpose, from which the light would reach all, even remote, corners of the rooms 5 . Likewise, the Lord’s disciples would have violated the very essence of their destiny if they had contained within themselves and hidden from the world the knowledge of the truth and the means of grace-filled salvation communicated to them. That the comparison offers a direct description of the correct attitude of the disciples towards their calling - this is already indicated by ο ὖ τως - such as Art. 16 6, connecting the admonition of this verse with the examples of negative and positive properties given in the parable. Ο ὕ τως in this case indicates that the Lord’s disciples must refrain from everything that could hinder the spread of the light of Christ to other people, and, on the contrary, not miss anything that could contribute to such a spread. The aspirations of the disciples should be aimed at ensuring that people, seeing the “good deeds”, the noble actions of the 7 followers of the Lord, surrounded by heavenly beauty, are encouraged by this to glorify their Heavenly Father. The behavior that Jesus Christ expects from his disciples must be such that it clearly reflects and specifically realizes the possession of the truth that they were to communicate to the world, so that by all their lifestyle they would testify to the world that they are sons of the Heavenly Father. The glorification of God is the ultimate goal of both the entire redemptive feat of the Lord and the entire life and activity of His followers. And this sonship of God is not only not only the sonship of the Israelites as members of the chosen people, 8 but it testifies to the especially close relationship of the disciples of Jesus Christ to God as their Heavenly Father. But, on the other hand, it is remarkable that Jesus Christ does not equate or merge his sonship with God with that of His disciples; neither here nor in any other place in the Gospel do the names “your Father” and “my Father” merge or unite in the expression “our Father” (cf. John 20:17; Matt. 12:49 seq.; Heb. 2:11 9). But how does this requirement of “good deeds”, by the performance of which the apostles and their successors must indisputably testify to the whole world about their especially close sonship with God and about themselves as true disciples of the Messiah - how does such a requirement relate to what constituted the norm of life and behavior of Israel - to the written Law of God and to its interpretation by the leaders of the Jewish people - the rabbis and Pharisees? According to the prophet’s prediction, the Jews expected in messianic times the conclusion of a “new covenant” with God, when the Law of God would be put “in the thoughts” of people and inscribed “on the hearts” of them, so that there would no longer be a need for external mutual teaching of the knowledge of God (Jer. 31:31). On the other hand, all the outstanding writers of the later era of Jewish history unanimously agreed in glorifying the eternity and immutability of the law. What the prophet said about the word of God and about the covenant of God with the people (Is. 54:10) was transferred to the law in general and to each of its regulations separately 10. The Lord promises a “great reward” to His disciples for the reproach they will endure for His own sake. The disciples could assume that for them, as for called participants in the approaching Kingdom of Heaven, the written Law of God would cease to serve as a mandatory norm of behavior. Any strong excitement of eschatological expectations is accompanied by the danger of antinomian tendencies. The apostles even outwardly abandoned their usual way of life (Matthew 4:18–22), and the Lord demanded from them a lifestyle completely opposite to the general idea, entirely inspired by the thought of the kingdom of heaven. Since the Discourse on the Mount was pronounced, in any case, not in the very early period of the Lord’s Galilean activity, then in His actions they could see - of course, completely unfoundedly - a manifestation of a disdainful attitude towards the prescriptions of the law and the so-called traditions of the elders (cf. Matt. 9:14-17; 12:1-13, etc.). Contrary to the false opinion of His enemies, and to prevent possible confusion even on the part of the disciples as to His actual relation to the written word of God, the Lord expresses definitely the doctrine of what is the providential purpose of His coming and the purpose of His activity in relation to the law and the prophets. - οὐκ ἦ λθον καταλῦσαι , ἀλλἀ πληρῷσαι . Do not think that you came to destroy the law, or the prophets: you did not come to destroy, but to fulfill. Αμήν γάρ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἔως ἄν παρέλθ ῃ ό οὐρανός καί ἡ γῆ, ἰῶτα ἕ ν ἤ μία κεραία ( κερέα W Η .) οὐ μὴ παρέλθ ῃ ἀπό τοῦ νόμου, ἕ ως ἄν ([ – ἄν ] WH) πάντα γένηται . Amen, for I say unto you: Until heaven and earth pass away, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass from the law, until they all shall be. Already in the very way of expressing λθον ... 11 the Lord indicates His messianic dignity and destiny, for ὸ ἐρχόμενος was the usual name for the expected Messiah (Matthew 3:11; 11:3; Luke 7:19; John 6:14; 11:27, etc.), - which - perhaps it originated from the expressions of the psalms Ps.39:8; 117:26 and Mal. 3:1. To designate the totality of all the books of the Holy Scriptures, which the chosen people possessed, the descriptive expression “law and prophets” was usually used, indicating the two main components of the sacred Jewish writing, of which one contained mainly commandments, and the other promises. If in the present case it is not the connecting particle καὶ that is used, but the dividing one ἤ, then the whole expression emphasizes more clearly and clearly the idea that Christ did not come to “destroy” either the entire Old Testament divine revelation in its entirety, or any of its main parts; but on the contrary, he “came” to “fulfill” both the commandments of the Old Testament divine revelation and its promises and predictions (cf. John 10:35) 12. This circumstance alone does not allow us to agree with Zahn’s opinion that the words of the Lord here mean the writing of the Old Testament only insofar as it contains the norm of good behavior given to the people of Israel, but does not at all mean the purely prophetic element of the Old Testament revelation (S. 211). The scientist, in support of his opinion, refers to the fact, firstly, that in Art. 18, instead of “law and prophets,” only “law” is named. However, nothing prevents us from seeing here simply a shortened way of expression, since the “prophets” were just mentioned in the previous verse (cf. Rom. 3:19), - especially since, according to the expression of the Lord Himself, transmitted by the first evangelist, not only the prophets, but also the law prophesied (πάντες οἱ προφῆται καὶ ό νὀμος ἕ ως Ί ωάννου προεφήτευσαν XI, 13; Wed. In the concept of the Messiah, it was impossible to renounce the prophetic predictions about Him. - Zahn, further, points out that καταλύειν, strengthened λύειν, - like this latter, - is used about the violation of the law and the destruction of its binding force, and not about the abolition of predictions (SS. 211–212). However, Zahn himself quite rightly explains (S. 216) that for the One through whom the prophecies were to be fulfilled - for the Lord Himself - the prophecy was - at the same time - a commandment (Matthew 26:54). At the same time, the verb by which the Lord’s attitude to the Old Testament Scripture is characterized from the positive side, i.e. πληροῦν, has as its object primarily what is “prophetic” in Scripture (SS. 213–214, note 75). Even more specifically, the expression of Art. 18: ... until they all will be - ἔως πάντα γένηται (cf. Matthew 26:54,56). Christ expresses His teaching about the “fulfillment” of the law and the prophets in Him through Him, so that everything must “come true” - to the smallest jot and dash - this teaching is expressed here only, so to speak, in principle, in general outlines and expressions, leaving the disclosure and understanding of this general position in particulars and details to be found and received in the upcoming historical development and course of events of His earthly life and the life founded by Him and having to remain “until the end of the age” of the Church. Even the closest disciples of the Lord, as noted by the Evangelists themselves, understood the fulfillment of Zechariah’s prophecy in the solemn procession of the Lord to Jerusalem only when “Jesus was glorified” (John 12:16). Even being at the tomb of the Risen Lord, Peter and John “still did not know from the Scriptures that Christ had to rise from the dead” (John 20:9). Having appeared to the Emmaus travelers, Christ says: “Oh, foolish ones and slow of heart to believe everything that the prophets predicted! Is this not how Christ had to suffer and enter into His glory? And beginning with Moses, of all the prophets he explained to them what was said about Him in all the Scriptures” (Luke 24:25–27). So, in Christ and through Christ it finds its perfect fulfillment, “fulfillment” both legal and prophesied. The negative characteristic of καταλύειν refers first of all and primarily, of course, to the “law.” Καταλύειν means - to untie, unravel, break the connection of homogeneous objects that make up one whole (for example, λιθους Matt. 24:2; Mark 13:2; Luke 21:6; τὶν ναὸν Matt. 26:61; 27:40 and etc.; ὀικία 2 Cor. 5:1; generally opposed to οἰκοδορεῖν Galat. metaphorically - to make insignificant, vain, invalid (Acts 5:38), to cancel, destroy, abolish (τὸν νόμον 2 Macc. 2:22). Ka τ a λῦσαι art. 17, – as evidenced by comparison with Art. 19, - here embraces both the Divine Teacher’s own behavior and His corresponding influence on His listeners and disciples. Both in καταλῦσαι and in πληρῶσαι the Lord’s personal attitude to the prescriptions of the law is primarily thought of, for it was primarily in the actions of the Lord that his contemporaries were embarrassed by His alleged violation, for example, of the Sabbath rest, the decree on the sacred tax, etc.; explanation and teaching were carried out in connection with and in view of the corresponding actions of the Lord (Matt. 12:1–14; Mark 1:21–26, 23–28; Matt. 17:25; 22:21; cf. 23:23, etc.; John 5:10, 18: οὐ μόνον ἔλοε τ o σάββατον, ἀλλὰ καί πατέρα ἴὸν ἔλυε τὸ Θεόν ...). And subsequently, Archdeacon Stephen was accused of allegedly hearing him say that Jesus of Nazareth would destroy (καταλύσει) this place (i.e., the church) and change (ἀλλάξει) the customs that “Moses” betrayed to the people of Israel (Acts 6:14; cf. 21:21). In fact, Christ “fulfilled all righteousness” (Matt. 3:15), voluntarily submitting not only to all the requirements of the law (Gal. 4:4), but also to those customs followed by his contemporaries; Thus, the Lord accepted baptism from John, which was performed by the Forerunner according to special instructions from above (John 1:33) and in accordance with ancient prophecies (Ezek. 34:25), as a symbol of taking upon himself the sins of people. And those cases that were considered, for example, a violation of the Sabbath, in fact, as the Lord Himself explains, had their justification in Scripture and were fully consistent with the very purpose and purpose of the Sabbath day, for “it is worthy to do good on the Sabbath” (Matthew 12:12), to save a perishing person (Mark 3:4). In such cases, Christ did not violate the law in the slightest, but simply did not take into account those prejudices that were based on a superficial, outwardly formal understanding of God’s commandment. Christ understood and fulfilled the commandments in their true meaning and deepest inner meaning, and “not one jot or tittle,” not a single event or command of the law was left unattended - in order to understand the true meaning and true meaning of God’s command. The Lord assumes as self-evidently that His disciples will continue to participate in the church cult (Matthew 5:23–24), just as He Himself not only usually visited the church as a “church of prayer” (Matthew 21:13), but was also “jealous” about the violation of its holiness and splendor (John 2:17). Before His suffering, the Lord, at the legal time, tasted the Passover lamb, slain in a legal way by the priests in the church (Matthew 26:17–30). And the early Christian Jerusalem community, led by its spiritual leaders, continued to adhere to the church and its cult while it remained in Jerusalem, and not fundamentally theological, theoretical considerations and reasons, but the destruction of the church and the cessation of the priesthood and cult put an end to this attitude towards them on the part of the Judeo-Christians. But still, Judeo-Christianity, although it recognized the freedom from the law of the linguistic-Christian Church, formed mainly by the missionary labors of St. Apostle Paul - continued even after the destruction of the church to adhere to circumcision and the observance of the Sabbath, as long as this trend can be traced in history (see, for example, Eusebius Church History III, 27, 5). Only in this way could Jewish Christians preserve their nationality, and if they considered such behavior their duty, then this was a natural consequence of their faith in the future conversion of their nation to Christ, together with the restoration of its spiritual significance for the whole world (cf. Matt. 23:39; Rom. 11:13–32). And if the fulfillment of the ritual prescriptions of the law completely ceased in Christianity over time, then, of course, this happened only because and to the extent that the Old Testament fulfilled, “fulfilled” its preparatory and educational meaning, and the distant “shadow” of future persons and events was replaced by the very real reality. The depiction of the already accomplished mystery of redemption in the Christian cult should have actually acquired a different - more perfect and spiritual - character, in comparison with the hay-like pre-depiction of the future redemption in the Old Testament cult. But even from the latter, everything that was most valuable and useful was retained, which did not lose its meaning for New Testament humanity. Moving on to an understanding of how the Lord “fulfilled” the religious and moral prescriptions of the law and the Old Testament in general, we should first of all point out that, according to the teachings of Christ the Savior, the Old Testament is not a collection of separate, scattered prescriptions and rules, devoid of close internal mutual connection, so that it would be possible to arbitrarily recognize some parts of the “law” as obligatory, while others are considered to have no meaning and force. Not only through Moses, but also through the prophets Hosea and Isaiah, God revealed His will to the chosen people and gave His commands and instructions, clarifying the religious and moral duties of the people (Matthew 9:13; 12:7; 15:7–9), and this and that part or side of the law, this or that prescription and rule should be considered and drawn not in isolation from the others, each separately, but in connections and from the point of view of the whole history of revelation, attested by the Old Testament, in order to understand the true thought and will of God. Some Old Testament injunctions, “commandments” and laws, according to the clear instructions of Christ the Savior Himself, did not actually express an ideal norm of behavior and life, but only allowed for a temporary compromise, in view of the “hardness of heart,” moral rudeness and backwardness of the people, and offered only minimal requirements in order to avoid the worst. In this case, the Lord pointed out the need to return to fulfilling the will of God - the way it was expressed “from the beginning,” “from the beginning” (Matt. 19:3–8). But in the Old Testament law there was generally an element of some convention (cf. Heb. 1:1). The “law” was “holy, and its commandment” was “holy and righteous and good” (Rom. 7:12), but they did not express the religious and moral ideal in all its perfection (cf. Heb. 7:19); the will of God was not expressed here in all its “fullness” (cf. Heb. 2:1–3) 13. The law had in mind primarily the education of a person as a member of a theocratic society, in the specific conditions of the national and cultural-historical environment, and regulated mainly his external behavior. The law could not extend to the very foundations of his inner personal life, for it required a radical regeneration of the human personality, revitalization and strengthening of his spiritual beginning (Rom. 7:14–25). The essence of the entire Old Testament revelation was the commandments about love for God and neighbor (Matthew 22:37–40), but they are revealed here mainly from their negative side, as a prohibition to “do evil to your neighbor” (cf. Rom. 13:8–10) and a warning not to anger the Lord with your sins and wickedness. Love, as a positively creative force, without any restrictions, as the force of complete and unconditional self-denial, is commanded only by Christ the Savior, for only He Himself, in infinite perfection and unconditional completeness, realized such Divine love as the “commandment” of God the Father (John 15:9-13). The commandment of love, being an ancient commandment in its essential content, is no less “new” in the perfection of its disclosure and the absoluteness of its requirement (1 John 2:7,8, cf. Ev. John 13:34). And other “commandments”, revealing from various sides the basic commandment of love, naturally should have received - and indeed received - a more in-depth and perfect interpretation in the teaching of the Lord, finally exhausting all their energy, from the point of view of the boundlessness and perfection of the demand for love. Perfect Christian love even “thinks no evil” (οὐ λογίζεται τὸ κακ όό ν 1 Cor. 13:5), and the primary and barely noticeable movements of a person’s thoughts and feelings, which tend to somehow disrupt the well-being of their neighbor, are incompatible with it. Likewise, the feeling of reverence for God is so deep and clear that a Christian not only does not swear falsely, but does not even dare to use the name of God to swear in his everyday affairs and everyday relationships. In the spirit of perfection and boundlessness of the commandment of love, Christ reveals, using specific examples, the content of some Old Testament commandments from verse 21 of the 5th chapter of the Gospel according to Matthew (Matthew 5:21–44). And it is absolutely clear that the prohibition to “be angry in vain” does not cancel the commandment: “do not kill,” but represents only its further logical and ethical psychological disclosure, bringing thought to the end, to the final conclusions, when all its energy is exhausted without a trace and in fact only partially is achieved and the ideal order previously outlined by it, etc. And, of course, the indicated interpretation of the commandments and prescriptions of the law is not their destruction, weakening, declaring them unnecessary or optional, but on the contrary, is their completion, the full disclosure of the thought contained in them (cf. the meaning of πληρόω in Matthew 23:32). And if all such commandments are raised by Jesus Christ to their higher, deeper and more perfect understanding, then, of course, these commandments do not “come” without “being fulfilled”, not “coming true” 14. But from here it is no less indisputable that there is not the slightest reason to see in the words of the Lord an indication of the preservation in the New Testament of all moral, and even more so social and everyday prescriptions and establishments of the “law” in their literal and formally precise meaning 15. On the issue of divorce, Christ pointed out with complete certainty that the legalization of Moses at this point was only a forced concession to the “hardness of heart” of the people, but did not express the original will of God, and therefore should lose its meaning in the life of His followers (Matthew 19:3 next). If the Old Testament laws and regulations were replaced by deeper and more sublime, essentially more strict, commandments and norms, then such a replacement in fact did not in the least “ruin” or abolish the first ones, which in the New Testament were recognized as not false, but only not perfect, but rather brought to the end, to perfection, the thoughts and intentions of the Lawgiver contained in them. Wed. 2 Cor. 10:6 your obedience will be fulfilled - πληρωθ ῇ ὑμῶν ή ὑπακοή, i.e. obedience will be continued and carried out to the end, to the possible extreme limit of the desired perfection. Ev. In. 3:29; 15:2; 16:24; 17:13: my joy is fulfilled - ή χαρά ἡ ἐμὴ πεπλήρωται, that is, joy has reached the highest possible tension, etc. Acts. 14:26: Paul and Barnabas completed the work of death - ἔργον ἐπλήρωσαν, that is, they completed, completed, and completely fulfilled the missionary journey entrusted to them. In relation to the Old Testament norm, the action and teaching of the Lord have always been what can be called, using Latin terminology, perfectio and absolutio, but never abrogatio 16. The further content of the Discourse on the Mount, where the interpretation does not stop at the letter of the prescriptions and commandments of the law, but delves into their inner meaning and deduces from here further consequences that were not literally contained in the Old Testament scriptures, is completely inconsistent with the indicated - literalistic - understanding of the expression “not one iota or a dash.” But not the slightest precept of the law, not a single stroke of it, in which the true will of God is expressed, disappears without a trace in the teaching of the Lord, which explains this will, in the New Testament gift of grace. “How even the smallest commandments remain valid for teaching and persuasion - examples of this are presented to us by the holy Apostle Paul, building his argument on the following precept of the law: do not stop the mouth of an ox (1 Cor. 9:9). Although no one adheres to this injunction in the strict sense, it reveals a manifold truth that should not be neglected, namely, that the worker should not have his wages withheld, that God takes care of everything,” etc. (Kannaber, Comment. in Matthaeum, p. 218). Ὃ ς ὲάν ο ὖ ν λύσ ῃ μίαν τῶν ἐντολῶν τούτων τῶν ἐλαχίστων, καὶ διδάξ ῃ ο ὕ τω τούς ἀνθρώποος , ἐλάχιστος κληθήσεται ἐν τ ῇ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν · ὃ ς δ ’ ἂ ν ποτήσ ῃ καὶ διδάξ ῃ, οῦτος μέγας κληθήσεται ἐν τ ῇ βασιλεί ᾳ τῶν οὐρανῶν . If anyone destroys these little commandments and teaches people this, he will be called in the kingdom of heaven, and if he does and teaches, he will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. Expression Art. 19 (Matthew 5:19): the unity of these little commandments - μίαν τῶν ἐντολῶν τούτων τῶν ἐλαχίστων - indicates - apparently - one jot, or one trait - ἰῶτα ἓ ν ἢ μία κεραία – art. 18. The commandment is called “the least” in comparison, of course, with the “first and greater” commandment - about love for God and with the “similar” to it - about love for one’s neighbor (Matt. 22:38–40), as well as with the commandments containing “the greater (τὰ βαρύτερα) law, judgment and mercy and faith” (Matt. 23:23). In comparison with these latter, the “lesser commandment” will be, for example, the one that concerns the tithe of mint, anise and cumin - which was also not without significance, according to the word of Christ, who commanded not to abandon this, since - of course - in the fulfillment of the indicated requirements of the law, zeal for the church and its servants was expressed, not neglecting the little things and not wanting to lose sight of the apparently insignificant. This mood and behavior expresses the constancy and firmness of a person’s moral energy, his continuous self-observation and unflagging attention to his religious and moral feat - and from this point of view and for the reason indicated, he will be called great in the kingdom of heaven - μέγας κληθήσεται ἐν τ ῇ βασιλεί ᾳ τῶν οὐρανῶν . The Pharisees 17 completely perverted the normal order of the commandments and one-sidedly falsely imagined the ideal of pleasing God. Neglecting the purification of the heart, they focused on external, ostentatious “righteousness” (Matthew 6:2). The latter embraced only the periphery of the human personality, but did not extend at all into its depth and to its foundation. The “heart” still remained the focus and source of “evil thoughts” that defile a person (Matthew 15:11, 18–20). The “righteousness” of Christ’s disciples must significantly “surpass” this Pharisee “righteousness,” for in order to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, it is necessary to have a “pure heart,” undefiled by sinful moods and passionate movements. Speaking about the Law of Moses, it was impossible to ignore those who were at that time teachers and leaders of the people, who occupied the “Seat of Moses” - the scribes and Pharisees. If the former were interpreters of the law, whose interpretation mediated the very understanding of the law among the Israeli people, then the latter wanted to be and were considered precise guardians of the law (Matthew 23:2-3), serving in this regard as a model or example for the people. If the Pharisaic execution of the law was external and ostentatious, fraught with “hypocrisy and lawlessness” (Matthew 23:28), then the interpretation of the law by the “scribes” did not express its true essence, but in many ways directly obscured and belittled it (cf. Matthew 23:16–22). However, in any case, the interpretation of the law contemporary to the Lord did not cause the Lord’s censure to the same extent as its hypocritical and soulless execution (cf. Matt. 23:8). In the law itself, in its adaptive-conditional and limited form of expression, there were reasons and, as it were, some excuse for its insufficient and superficial interpretation (cf. Matthew 19: 7–9). The "teachers" of the people were especially willing to dwell on this side of the "law", because it was more reconciled with human weakness and human limitations - and, putting it forward, they further obscured and polluted the true expression of the highest and most perfect will of God in the law, and made it even more difficult for the people to understand it. If in relation to the prescriptions of the law, the teaching of the Lord was the “fulfillment” and improvement of the law, the detachment of its prescriptions from the shell of historical and everyday conventions and temporary national adaptability and the elevation of it to the absolute perfection of the genuine and original expression of the will of God, then in relation to the interpretation of the law by the rabbis, which exaggerated and often emphasized precisely this temporary, accidental, incidental moment of the prescriptions of the law, sometimes detached from it general spirit and meaning - the teaching of the Lord seemed to be a direct and decisive opposite. Expanding on six examples (Matt. 23:21–48), - how and in what sense His teaching “fulfills” the law - the Lord means not only the prescriptions of the law in themselves, but also the form in which they were refracted in the minds of the leaders of the people and explained to this latter (esp. vv. 38, 43). But in these points the imperfections of the law itself were revealed, since the very way of expressing its prescriptions gave reason and opportunity to interpret them in a sense that was favorable to the selfish and coarsely sensual mood of an unregenerate person. If, turning to the leaders of the people who studied the law directly, the Lord expresses that they “read” this or that in the law (cf., for example, Matt. 19:4; 21:16, 42, etc.), then in the present case, meaning the people who knew the law mainly from the Sabbath synagogue readings and the interpretations offered in connection with them (cf. Acts 15:21; John. 12:34; Rom. 2:13, 18; 24:15), the Lord says: you have heard - ἠ κούσατε. Such fragmentary and indirect awareness of the people about the law involuntarily pushed aside the thought in their minds and obscured their understanding of the Divine First Author of the Law and even of the mediator of the giving of the law to the chosen people - Moses. The people perceived the prescriptions of the law as generally an ancient, authoritative tradition, and its commands not so much enlightened, enlivened and healed their conscience as they limited and bound the evil activities of each of its members, aimed at harming their neighbors. In order to limit and weaken the manifestation of a person’s evil will, the law determined strict punishments for violation of commandments, not maintaining the meaning of a purely religious and moral norm and acquiring the character and meaning of a criminal law, regulating primarily the external legal behavior and position of Israel in its social and civil life. Thus, the ultimate goal of all the laws protecting the fulfillment of the commandment “thou shalt not kill” was: do not defile the earth, on it you live, on it I will dwell among you (Num. 35:34. Wed. Gen. 9:6; 1 Kings 2:31). The very severity of the punishments was supposed to instill consciousness and a sense of grave responsibility for breaking the commandment, not only before the relatives who suffered, but also - above all - before Jehovah, who stood in a special relationship of internal spiritual closeness to the chosen people. Neglecting the education of their mood in the indicated direction - in a feeling of reverent fear of Jehovah and respect for the person and life of their neighbor, as a bearer of the image of God - the Lord's contemporaries, led by their spiritual leaders, - at most - sought to refrain only from gross murder for fear of being subjected to legal punishment, out of fear of responsibility - and naturally sought in every possible way to soften and weaken the punishment determined by law. Already from this point of view, some features of the expression of Art. 21. Ἠ κούσατε ὅ τι ἐρρέθη ( ἐρρήθη LTr) τοῖς ἀρχαίος, Οὐ φονεύσες · ὃ ς δ ’ ἂ ν φονεύσ ῃ, ἔνοχος ἔσται τ ῇ, χρίσει . Hear what was said quickly by the ancients; you will not kill: if he kills, he is guilty of the court. Ἐρρέθη is expressed impersonally. Neither Jehovah is called, for the law was not an accurate and perfect expression of the true and original will of God (cf. Matt. 19:8), nor even Moses, who in some cases made a necessary, conscious concession to the low level of the religious and moral state of the people (ibid.). At the same time, it is not the verba ipsissima of the law that is given, but only their traditional transmission (perhaps in their paraphrastic translation into the popular language), although it expressed quite accurately the general meaning of the legalization regarding murder. Ἀρχαίος - not the “ancients” (that is, the teachers of the early, preceding era πρεοβύτεροι Mark 7:3–5 18), but precisely the “ancients,” that is, the ancient generations of the chosen people, stretching back centuries to the very era of legislation (cf. Lk. 9:8, 19; Acts 15:21; 2Pet. Although the Old Testament revelation had the authority of the deepest antiquity, it was not the final and perfect expression of the will of God (cf. Heb. 1:1-2), much less the traditional tradition and interpretation of the law based on it (Matthew 15:1-6). Hence the need for a new and most perfect revelation in the person of the true Messiah. Thou shalt not kill, οὐ φονεύαεις - a form of the future tense in the sense of the imperative mood with a more energetic connotation, instead of the subjunctive aorist - μὴ φονεύσ ῃ ς% 19. Ἔ νοχός ἐστιν, often used when setting out the laws on murder - subject to the actual commission of murder by any person - contains the idea of ​​​​the moral sanity and corresponding legal responsibility of this crime 20. Ἔ νοχός in such cases means “responsible, subject to punishment and recovery.” A conscious and deliberate murderer who committed a crime “for the sake of enmity” – δἰ ἔχθραν (Num. 35:20, 22) or “out of hatred” (διὰ μῆνιν) (Num. 35:21) was subjected to the full punishment, the death penalty. Anyone who “does not want to kill a soul” (ἀχουαίως), “not for the sake of enmity,” “and seeks to do him harm” (Num. 35:11, 22, 23), enjoyed the right of refuge in cities specially designated for this, where he could hide from the revenge of “blood snakes” (v. 11 and par.) and where he was obliged live until the great priest dies (ὁ ἱερεύς ὁ μέγας art. 25), i.e., the high priest. Consequently, the unwitting killer was still subject to some restrictions. The synagogue court stood guard over justice and upholding the law on punishing murderers. May he who kills not die until he stands before the assembly at the judgment ( συναγωγῆς εἰς χρίσιν . In cases of doubt and perplexity, for which the authority of the “synagogue” court, i.e., the local court located in each city, was insufficient, the law prescribed that one should turn, in particular in cases of murder, to the higher court, which was to be “in the place that the Lord God chooses to call His name there” (Deut. 17:8), subsequently, of course, at the temple of Jerusalem (cf. 2 Chron. 19:10 ). These legalizations formed the basis of the order of legal proceedings that was in effect during the era of the earthly life of the Lord; there were local courts in cities, even in villages, but the highest court - τό σονέδριον - was located in Jerusalem 21 So, according to the law, every case of murder entailed a whole trial, strictly defined legal proceedings, with all the predetermined consequences ( τ ῇ χρίσει 22 ). The expression τ ῇ χρίσει brings to the fore the moment of assessing the crime from the point of view of the ethical and psychological motives that caused it, which the court was obliged to understand in order to pronounce this or that sentence. This was, at least, the intention of the legislator. If in the Old Testament the crime of gross physical murder was assessed and condemned from the point of view of the ethical-psychological motive of hatred and enmity, then in the New Testament “truth” is violated and insulted by the very presence of hostile disposition towards a person, towards whom a Christian should have a purely brotherly, condescending, loving and mercifully conciliatory disposition (cf. Matt. 23:8, 23). Ἐγ ὼ δὲ λέγω ύμῖν , ὅ τι π ᾶ ς ό ὀργιζόμενος τῷ ἀδελ ῳ ῷ αὐτοῦ εἰκῆ (- εἰκῆ LT [Τ r] Τ r marg. WH) ἔνοχος ἔοται τ ῇ κρίσει · ὃ ς δ ᾽ ἂ ν εἴπ ῃ τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ, Ῥ ακά (ῥ αχά Τ), ἔνοχος ἔοται τῷ συνεδρί ῳ· δς δ ’ ἂ ν ε ἒ π ῃ Μωρέ , ἔνοχος έαται εἰς τὴν γέενναν τς πυρός . But I say to you, that everyone who is angry with his brother is guilty of the court, for whoever says to his brother, cancer, is guilty of the host, and whoever says: freak, is guilty of fiery hell. Whoever has a constant dislike towards his “brother” (ὀργιζ ό μένος – present tense, means precisely a lasting, ongoing irritated state of mind, and not a short-term emotion or fleeting outburst 24), is subject to the same moral imputation and condemnation to which a murderer was subjected under the Old Testament law. In the present case, we can talk specifically and only about the moral aspect, since the very essence of the matter excludes the idea that the Lord intended to establish a better legal order in place of the existing legal order. In fact, how can one be brought to trial and punished for an angry and hostile mood, which is still so secretive that it is not revealed even in a word - which, perhaps, hides behind an indifferent, and sometimes even a friendly, expression on the face?! 25. The limitation of being angry - ὀργιζ ό μένος through in vain - εἰκῆ is rejected by the vast majority of scientific publications (of which only a few are given as marginal reading, i.e. placed in the margins) and exegetes - not only Protestant, but also Roman Catholic, of which the latter, of course, rely on the authority of the Vulgate 26. And such a rare agreement among scientists, in a sense unfavorable for the assumption of εἰκῆ, is actually based not on textual-critical considerations, but primarily on “internal grounds” 27 . Even A. Tholuck admitted that “evaluating external evidence by its antiquity and number decides the issue in favor of keeping the controversial word in the text.” The word εἰκῆ was no doubt read in the 2nd century both in the east and in the west; the oldest translations, originating in both the east and the west - Itala and Peschitto - convey it in agreement; it is also found in the fathers of the second century - in Irenaeus, the author of Epistol. ad Zenam 28, etc. Since then, the positive authority has significantly strengthened quantitatively and acquired even greater impressiveness. Now that the Sinai, Kuretonov, and Jerusalem languages ​​have become known to science (Lagarde, Bibliotheca syriaca. I. Gott. 1892, S. 279) version of the Syriac text - a consensus of the entire Syriac textual tradition has been established, unanimously accepting the disputed speech 29. In connection with the analysis of patristic certificates, the fact becomes clear that “about 200 after the Nativity of Christ, reading with εἰκῆ was widespread in Africa, in Smyrna (and Gaul), in Alexandria and in Syria (Edessa).” Where did this reading, observed in various ecclesiastical provinces, come from, if not from the original documents? And if we assume that the ancient text did not contain the word εἰκῆ, then “how can one imagine the occurrence of an insertion that simultaneously appeared in the most remote parts of the Christian world?” 30 Opponents of the speech under discussion attach great importance to the absence of εἰκῆ in א In [א ῾ εἰκῆ already offers]. However, can the testimony of two, admittedly very respectable documents, but speaking only for the 4th century (the earliest date) 31 and, moreover, being very close, related representatives of the same textual type 32, not only abolish, but even only shake all the significance that - in their totality - belongs to certificates of the opposite nature from the 2nd century? Likewise, does not the absence of a word in the Vulgate decisively fluctuate in its meaning by the fact of the presence of a utterance in the Itala? That reading without εἰκῆ was not exclusive or even dominant in the 4th century is confirmed by such a precisely dated translation as the Gothic, in which there is a “svare” conveying εἰκῆ, as well as quotations from Eusebius, Basil V., Gregory Η. Patristic quotations relevant to this case are carefully collected by E. Miller in his book: A Textual Coramentary upon the Holy Gospels. Part I. St., Matthew. London, 1899, pp. 27–28. Of these, 33 are for εἰκῆ and only 9 are against. But even of these last 5 - Origen, Cyril of Alexandria, Antiochus the monk, bl. Augustine and Bl. Jerome – offer – along with readings without εἰκῆ – also consonant with the accepted text. Some quotations cited against our reading actually “prove nothing” (Miller). Yes, St. Justin the Philosopher in the saying: δς ỡ ἄν ὀργισθ ῇ ἔνοχος ἔστιν e ἰς τὸ πῦρ (1 Apolog. P. XVI) - obviously briefly expresses only the general meaning of the Lord’s words about wrath, takes from the entire section only the initial and final words, omitting everything that was in between 33. Attract the given place from St. Justin as proof that this holy man did not read εἰκῆ in the Gospel - there is, therefore, no basis. With regard to εἰκῆ the case is, in any case, neutral. The attitude towards the εἰκῆ Western Church is undoubtedly less favorable. However, here too the negative judgment was neither original (Itala) nor universal (St. Cyprian of Carthage, Hilary of Pictavia, Lucifer, Salvian, Philastrius). Even Blessed Jerome, who sometimes spoke too decisively about the speech under discussion and was the main culprit in eliminating it - through the Vulgate - is, however, not entirely consistent. Exactly the same and bl. Augustine is cited as a witness not only against, but also for εἰκῆ. Justifying his point of view, Bl. Jerome refers to the fact that this saying is not in very many manuscripts” (m plerisque codicibus antiquis... additum non est. c. Pelag II, 5), and elsewhere he calls these codes “true” - since he recognized it as correct that the Gospel completely casts out anger (In quibusdam codicibus additur “sine causa”, caeterum in veris definita sententia est, et ira penitus, etc.). Bl. Augustine, referring to Greek 34 manuscripts that omit εἰκῆ, stipulates that even if this statement is accepted, the meaning of the Lord’s teaching will be the same 35. Lecturer John Cassian limits himself to just fundamental arguments, believing that εἰκῆ is added unnecessarily... “those who did not understand what was proposed in Scripture, which meant to completely cut out the tinder of anger and leave absolutely no opportunity for indignation, so that when we are commanded to be angry for a reason, we would not be given an opportunity to be angry without a reason.” Already from these references it is clear how much fundamental considerations, the so-called “internal grounds,” outweighed the actual textual-critical data among Western authorities. And in principle – no doubt – the blessed one is more right. Augustine, who is not afraid that the addition of εἰκῆ will open a loophole to “anger”, as an unreasonable, spontaneously disordered movement of the human heart. Westerners - obviously - understood εἰκῆ too narrowly and formally (starting with Tertullian), if they interpreted sine ratione as sine causa. In fact, εἰκῆ does not provide an external limitation to that internal state, which is the movement of the force ὀργή, in some cases allowing, and in others prohibiting the same affective state - no, it completely eliminates the dominance of the said force in a person, which has rejected the control of “reason”. And it was not at all the desire to limit and weaken the unconditional meaning of the Lord’s prohibition that subsequently (even if very early) caused the addition of εἰκῆ, but the ambiguity and uncertainty of ὀργιζ ό μένος itself prompted from the very beginning to more accurately indicate by means of εἰκῆ what kind of movements of the human heart are equated by the Lord with murder 36 . In classical usage, ὀργή generally meant an internal natural attraction, an internal, directed desire towards a specific goal, in which one or another human mood is manifested. Ὁ ργ ᾶ ν had an even broader meaning and was used to designate the productive power of the earth, sexual desire in animals. In Hippocrates, this verb is used to describe diseases that manifest themselves in sharp, violent symptoms (Schmidt, Synonymik der Griechischeń Sprache. Bd. III, S. 503–554). According to Hesychius ὀργ ᾶ ν ἐπιτεταμένως έπιθυμεῖν. Suiccrus. T. II, p. 501. When ὀργή among the classics meant such a desire that determined the mood and behavior of one subject in relation to another, then here could be understood the manifestations of such relationships both in the form of “anger” and in the form of love - the latter, however, less often. For example, Thucyditus has ὀργὰς ἐπιφερειν τι and ὶ to love someone, to turn one’s inclination towards someone. According to the interpretation of the Fathers of the Church, a Christian must not destroy or even weaken the strength and fervor of the spirit, manifested in ὀργή, but only give it the proper direction so that it fights only for the glory of God against those who insult it (cf. John 2:17; cf. vv. 14–16), as zeal for God and against sin (Basily V. Homil. adv. irat., col. 365 V. Gregory H. De virginitate, p. XVIII, col. 389 D), as care and zeal for the salvation of one’s neighbor and in general for his true good. This is - according to the expression of St. Basil the Great - λελογισμένος θυμός (θυμός synon. ὀργή Lib. cit., col. 368D). However, ὀργή often receives the direction and character of an unnatural, παρὰ φύσιν, vicious movement (Hesychius, Centuria de temperantia et virtute, II, 34, col. 1521), becomes “an unreasonable passion of anger” (Mart Lodvioknik, Praecept. salutar., p. VIII, col. 1041 A). All the energy of inner feeling is now poured out in violent, impetuous gusts, all the power of cardiac excitement (Nemesius, De nat. p. XXXIV, col. 672 B) is manifested and spent in connection with personal failures of everyday existence, personal clashes, insults and griefs. What is now protected from alien attacks is no longer the glory of God, not the good and salvation of one’s neighbor, not man’s own ideal, God-like nature, but only the empirical existence of man with all his random accessories, habits, inclinations, interests, external environment, etc. Whoever allows himself to reach such a state is ὁ ὀργιζ ό μένος τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ εἰκῆ 37 . The last word, therefore, is not at all unnecessary ballast 38, nor a utterance that distorts the meaning of the Lord’s teaching about non-wrath, 39 nor a weakening and violation of the unconditional nature of His command (π ᾶ ς ... 40). Anger, as an unreasonable emotion, is indeed condemned and forbidden by the Lord unconditionally, and εἰκῆ does not justify or allow “anger” as a passionate state for some cases, but characterizes this very state in a certain way; as reckless and counterintuitive (cf. Colossians 2:18 41) in its essence, and as a vain, aimless waste of energy intended for good, useful use (cf. 1 Cor. 15:2; Galat. 3:4; 4:11; Gregory the Theologian. Poemata moralia, v. 357, cod. 838). – If “anger”, as a state of inner life, as a heartfelt hostile mood towards a “brother”, although fully developed 42, but not yet manifested on the outside, is subject to the same moral condemnation of the Lord to which a murderer was subject according to the Old Testament law, then the tangible manifestation of such a mood, revealed in various ways and, above all, in offensive words and treatment, is subject to even more strict imputation and condemnation. This or that verbal expression in the Gospel is recognized as having a positive or negative value and dignity only because and to the extent that in the word the “good” or “evil” direction and content of the human heart is manifested and “recognized,” like “a tree by its fruit,” “for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.” That is why “people” “will give an account on the day of judgment” “for every idle word,” and everyone will be justified by his words and condemned by his words” (Matthew 12:33–37). The words with which an “angry person” in a state of irritation and hostility, according to the image of the Lord, addresses his “brother” also have this meaning. Namely, ῥ ακά (and not ῥ αχά, like א D and most Latin 43, which is a rendering of the Hebrew Rêka), a saying very common among Jewish writers and very common among the Jewish people 44, served as a swear word that roughly corresponded to our “stupid, brainless, stupid” 45. If by means of ραχά, thus, they wanted to humiliate and prick a person by indicating primarily his lack of insight and intelligence in the everyday sense, 46 then μωρέ had an even more offensive and cruel meaning. By use in ev. Matt. μωρός means the loss and perversion of religious and moral meaning in a person, the absence and darkening in him of the most important religious and moral ability of a person, called σοφία and φρ ό νησις (cf. Matthew 7:26; 25:2; 23:17, 19). The Syriac translations - Sinaitic, Curtonian and Jerusalem - consistently convey this expression with a word close to the Hebrew schotê. “Schaute” still serves as a dirty word among German Jews and means “crazy”, “crazy”. In the Jerusalem Talmud, schotê means a person who leaves home at night, sleeps on coffins, tears his dress, spoils everything that is given to him (Teruma I 40 6). This is the name that someone blinded by anger calls his “brother,” thus equating him to a creature that has completely lost his human appearance! According to the explanation of St. Chrysostom, “the word cancer... expresses... contempt or disrespect on the part of the one who utters it.” And by calling another a freak (insane), the angry one takes away from his brother that by which we differ from the dumb and what primarily makes us human, i.e., intelligence and reason, and through this deprives him of all nobility. the world dear to God, and with its curses prepares a spacious dwelling for the devil and contributes to his strengthening 47 . Hence the different degrees of punishment. In accordance with the first punishment to which “one who is angry in vain” is subject, the one who said cancer is subject to the judgment of the Sanhedrin, that is, the highest court at the church. According to the law, the murderer was subject to this trial when the ordinary court turned out to be insufficiently competent, when the case seemed especially serious or especially complicated. Having expressed his hostility in one way or another externally, even if only in a swear word contemptuously - of a disdainful character and tone, an “angry” person complicates and aggravates even more his guilt and responsibility before God and his neighbor - such, abstracted from the figurative form of expression, is the thought of the Lord. Whoever decides to consider and call his “brother” a freak, “crazy”, takes away from him in his soul the best asset of his neighbor - the image of God inherent in him. Such an attack reveals an attack on the soul of his neighbor, and this attack on the “destruction” of the soul is more dangerous and terrible than the often gross attack on a person’s physical life (cf. Matthew 10:28). In his hatred, the sinner thus reveals his kinship with the original murderer (John 8:44; cf. 1 John 3:8), so that his very tongue, driven by the fire of hatred, is kindled as if from the fire of Gehenna itself (cf. James 3:6), - which is why the guilty person becomes worthy of the fire of Gehenna - ἔνοχος ἔσται εἰςτὴν γέεναν τοῦ πυρός . G έεννα is found only in the New Testament; This word came from the Hebrew Gehinnom, i.e. the valley of Ennom (in a more complete form - ge ben hinnom - the valley of the sons of Ennom). This valley was located on the southern side of Jerusalem: under Ahaz, sacrifices were made here to Molech, and children were burned in honor of this pagan deity (1 Samuel 11:7, 33; 2 Kings 17:17; 2 Chronicles 28:3; Jeremiah 7:32, 19:2, 6). Josiah, having eradicated this cult, ordered the very place of sacrifice to be desecrated (2 Sam. 23:10. Compare Jer. 7:32). The bodies of executed people and the corpses of animals were thrown here, which is why the place became an object of disgust, and people tried to avoid it. It is even believed that a fire was constantly maintained in the valley to burn corpses. It is clear from this why this name has become the usual designation of an afterlife place of torment for atheists and unrepentant sinners, as opposed to paradise. An essential accessory of this place of torment and the weapon of the latter was fire - τ o ῦ πορός (Isa. 66:24; Mark 9:43, 48; Luke 16:24). E ἰς τὴν γέενναν, apparently, is a brachylogical construction, suggesting the addition of τ o ῦ βληθῆναι (Zahn). Or - as some understand - in the sense: guilty (of the judge’s verdict), deserves (the sentence): “to hell of fire.” If “anger” in its moral imputation is equated to murder, then this implies not only - which is clear without deliberate explanation - the obligation to refrain from anger by all means, but also the obligation to beware of giving the very reason for such a mood of hostility and enmity to arise on the part of the “brother”. If the latter has already happened, then it is necessary to immediately take measures to eliminate this reason and restore broken fraternal relations. This universal duty, arising from the previous revelation of the fratricidal essence of “wrath” (οὖν art. 23), is further characterized (vv. 23–25) by the approximate indication of two specific cases, clearly depicting the necessary importance and urgent obligation of mutual reconciliation. Ἐάν ο ὖ ν προσφέρ ῃ ς τὸ δῶρόν σου ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον, κἀχεῖ μνησθ ῇ ς ὁτι ὀ ἀδελφός σου ἔχει τί κατὰ σοῦ, ἄφες ἐκεῖ τὸ δῶρόν σου ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου, καί ὕ παγε, ? δῶρόν σου. If you then bring your gift to the altar and remember her, as if your brother has something for you: leave your gift before the altar and go first, reconcile yourself with your brother, and then come and bring your gift. The first example is the case when an Israelite, seeking reconciliation with God and the mercy of Jehovah, already appeared with his sacrificial gift (δῶρον κορβ ᾶ ν means every kind of sacrifice. Matthew 8:4; 15:5; 23:8) in the church ἐπὶ τὸ The altar of burnt offerings, the central point Old Testament church cult, towered at a distance of only 11 cubits to the west from the one who brought the gift 48. In a state of concentration and self-absorption, waiting only for the moment when the priest accepts the gift of the future and - in compliance with the legal rites - offers it to the altar - the Israeli in this position, κἀκεῖ (or καὶ ἐκεῖ) right here, remembers that his ἀδελφὸς ἔχει τὶ against him (κατὰ αοῦ), i.e., has reason or reason to consider himself offended or offended by something and in any way on the part of the one who brought the gift, and the latter - guilty before himself (cf. Mark 11:25; Acts 24:19; Rev. 2:4, 14, 20), nourishes hostile or even hostile feelings against him 49 . If the one who brought the sacrificial gift remembers something similar, then, according to the word of the Lord, he no longer has the right to make a sacrifice until he is reconciled with his brothers, that is, before he somehow eliminates the cause or reason for hostility and restores the broken peace. Since the law of Christian love and mercy is characterized here (cf. Matt. 9:13; 12:7), for which there are no limits or restrictions in any legal calculations and considerations (cf. Matt. 18:22), and, everything stems from the movements and motives of a brotherly loving heart (cf. Matt. 18:35), then in this case too, no grounds for restrictive assumptions are given in the words of the Lord, and the questions are in vain: isn’t there, of course, a real insult inflicted on the “brother” by the one who brought the gift? reconciliation towards the one who offended him, for such an act can sometimes give rise to even greater new insults, etc. 50. The Lord turns exclusively to the heart and conscience of a person at the moment of their highest enlightenment in the face of God and in a state of complete detachment and freedom of a Christian from earthly, grossly selfish feelings and sophistication and sensitivity to the greatness and importance of his sins before God (cf. Matt. 6:12). Let the question arise before his conscience at such moments of inner uplift whether he himself has given a reason for violating the fraternal peace, and let this mood inspire him to further behavior, when the most important thing for a person is to clear his conscience in the face of the greatness of the all-holy God, and not to defend his righteousness before people in order to preserve his imaginary dignity. Thus, the instruction on reconciliation has an absolute religious and moral character. Its main meaning is this: the God of peace accepts offerings and sacrifices only of peacemakers (v. 9), - people who not only themselves do not succumb to the passionate movements of anger and enmity, but direct all their efforts to extinguish the flame of enmity and hatred in the heart of their “brother,” i.e., not only are they themselves inclined to reconciliation, but they also dispose their “brother” to do the same. Only with such people does the Lord enter into communication, only to them does He show His mercy and forgiveness 51 . It is in vain that I. Welltiausen says that this “saying refers to the Jerusalemites, who had the church at hand, and not to the Galileans, to whom the Lord nevertheless addressed a speech; for them the situation as we find it here, in any case, would be completely unusual (however, see Mark 1:44). Hence the wording in ev. Mark (Mark 11:25) has the advantage: when you stand praying, let go, if you have anything against anyone. Matthew Judaizes here, as in other cases” (S. 20). Meanwhile, according to Lightfoot's observation, this saying of the Lord is in full agreement with national customs. Among the Jews it was recognized by law and custom that the sacrifices of private individuals were not immediately offered on the altar, but were preserved until one of the next great holidays - Passover, Pentecost and Tabernacles, when they were usually offered. But then all the Israelites were present at the festival, and it was not difficult to find the brother against whom the sacrificer had sinned (pp. 114–115). There is noticeable hesitation among exegetes on the question of which of the two verbs, i.e. ὕ παγε or διαλλάγηθι, as the main concept, is directly associated with πρῶτον. The first is suggested by Luther, Erasmus, Bengel, Meyer, de Wette, Schantz, Knabenbauer; second - Baza, Schmidt, Fritte, Künel, Tolyukk. Gersdorf's observation that in Ev. The Matthew adverb usually follows imperf., and itself indicates exceptions (in Tolyukk, S. 191). But this or that solution to the question does not have any serious influence on the meaning of the interpreted passage, because in meaning ὕ παγε itself is closely connected with διαλλάγηθι, forming with it one integral idea: go to reconcile, as well as ἐλθ ὼ ν πρόσφερε 52. If God accepts gifts and sacrifices only from those people who show themselves to be “peacemakers”, who, suppressing false pride and empty vanity, take all measures within their power to eliminate the misunderstandings that have arisen and the angry mood on the part of the “brother”; If only such people can hope for Jehovah’s mercy, then people who persist in their dislike for their “brother”, become stagnant in their “anger” and, i.e., remain unpaid debtors to their neighbor, will be rejected by the righteous Judge and will suffer eternal condemnation (James 2:13). Just as a prudent person takes all measures to end the matter peacefully with his client, to whom he owes a significant amount, without bringing the matter to court, out of fear of fair and strict punishment from the guardian of the law, so it should be recognized as a matter of wisdom and necessary spiritual self-preservation to fulfill the obligation of immediate reconciliation with the offended “brother”, while there is still time, before the final and irrevocable judgment of God is pronounced, punishing with all the severity of a non-brotherly loving person and unapologetic. This thought, which represents the disclosure and continuation of the moral teaching of Art. 23–24 on the negative side, expressed in Art. 25–26 in the form of a parable or, more precisely, in the form of an allegorical representation of an event of a higher order under the image of an event belonging to everyday life. Ἴ σθι εὐνοῶν τῷ ἀντιδίκω σου ταχύ, ἕ ως ὅ του ε ἶ ἐν τ ῇ ὁδῷ μετ ’ αὐτοῦ ( μετ ’ αὐτοῦ ἐν τ ῇ ὁδῷ LTTrWHR), μήποτέ σε παραδῶ ὁ ἀντίδικος τῷ κριτ ῇ, καί ὁ κριτής σε παραδῶ (- σε παραδῶ LTTrWHR magu.) τῷ ὑπηρέτ ῃ, καί είς φυλακήν βληθήσ ῃ. ἀμὴν λέγω σοι, οὐ μὴ ἐξέλθ ῃ ς ἐκεῖθεν, ἕ ως ἂ ν ἀποδῷς τὸν ἔσχατον κοδράντην. Be admonished with your opponent quickly, while you are still on the road with him, so that your opponent does not betray you to the judge, and the judge betrays you to prison, and you are cast into prison. Amen, I say to you: do not go away ommydy, until you render the last coin. That here one cannot see a simple exhortation to avoid property processes in court through timely compliance is recognized by the vast majority of exegetes and, in fact, is indisputable, both in view of the solemn assurance of Art. 26, as well as the connection with the previous one, for the sake of which the transition from the depiction of the most sublime law of religious and moral life to the presentation of the rule of everyday prudence would seem incredible and incomprehensible. In the same way, the event itself is characterized from those aspects that do not necessarily follow from the essence of the matter, but allegorically vividly depict the essence of the religious and moral attitudes of a Christian. In ordinary property proceedings, a Christian can in fact be either the right or wrong party (cf. 1 Cor. 6:1–8); here, in the words of the Lord, the “rival” is always the right side; he is the undisputed trustee. A disciple of Christ is certainly a debtor, who, in case of non-reconciliation and intractability, can only expect a severe sentence to the fullest extent of the law. Therefore, it is most natural here to understand the moral guilt of a Christian before his “brother,” the consciousness of which is always inherent in a Christian who has placed himself before the heavenly Judge in a sense of eternity and his own unworthiness. From the point of view of the absoluteness of Christian love, a “brother” who “has something against a Christian”, who perhaps gave not even a reason, but only a reason for displeasure and complaints against him, turns out to be the offended and offended party, ὁ ἀντίδιχος in relation to him - in the sense of a “plaintiff” seeking his due. The Christian himself is guilty and responsible if, on his part, he has not taken all measures and has not made every effort to reconcile with his “brother.” If the appearance of one who has not been reconciled with his brother before the “altar” brings him not justification, but condemnation, then the appearance before the eternal Judge after death will be accompanied by eternal and irrevocable condemnation. Here, as in other cases, often, sins both against one’s neighbor and against God are presented under the image of debt-related financial circumstances that must either be collected or forgiven (cf. Matt. 6:12, 14; 18:21–35). It goes without saying that we are talking about the Divine court, at which the litigation is decided if it has not previously been resolved between the disputing parties themselves. The path along which those disputing go is, obviously, the path of earthly life, for only people living on earth can, through an amicable agreement, end the dispute that has arisen between them and restore “brotherly” relations. Already the death of one of the two makes this impossible, and on the other side of death there is a judge and judgment (Heb. 9:27). And therefore, the one who feels guilty towards his brother is called upon to reconcile with him without any delay, before it is too late, that is, while they are both still in earthly life, and the Lord strengthens this admonition with the threat that - otherwise - the unreconciled one will be subject to final condemnation with all its consequences at the divine court. Πρῶτον - before Art. 24 corresponds soon to ταχύ art. 25. The sacrifice in the church may be postponed; reconciliation with his brother does not tolerate any delay, for no one can know how long he and his “brother” will live on earth. In an exhortation, as in a threat, the image taken of an unfulfilled debt obligation of a monetary nature on the part of one and the demand for a debt on the part of the other is maintained consistently: being exhorted expresses the voluntary readiness of the debtor to come to an agreement with his creditor, to convince him that he is not dealing with a malicious debtor. He can show his compliance in various ways - not only by agreeing to recognize the previously known amount of debt that he disputed, but also by recognizing the legal rights of his creditor and - in the event of his insolvency - by promising to pay his debt later and by requesting a deferment of payment (cf. Matt. 18:26, 29). Since the guilt against the brother is presented in the form of an unpaid debt obligation, then, accordingly, the punishment is depicted in the form of a criminal trial, as it was usually carried out in such cases - with the participation of a judge, a minister, and the punishment is imprisonment. The image of the criminal process taking place on earth represents the fact of an otherworldly divine court taking place after the cessation of earthly life (cf. Matt. 12:36; James 2:13; Heb. 10:27). Consequently, there is no reason or motivation to deal with such questions, for example: who is meant by “servant” at the trial, is it possible, and by what means can it be achieved, release from punishment in “prison”, etc. So the Lord with all decisiveness demands that the disagreement, hostility and enmity that have arisen, expressed in “anger” as an internal state and, moreover, manifested externally, at least in words of irritation, should be stopped by all means of compliance, at least with the sacrifice of legal rights in favor of the “brother”. This is the kind of duty that takes precedence over all, even the highest, duties and demands of the cult. Whoever neglects this duty will suffer the strictest, without any relief, punishment from the Highest Judge - God 53. By prison - φυλακή we mean the same as in Art. 22 is characterized as fiery Gehenna, γέεννα τοῦ πορός and in v. 26 – dondezhe repay, ἕ ως ἂ ν ἀποδῷς – a plastic expression to express the thought of the eternity of punishment (Chrysostom: τουτέστι διηνεκῶς). Καὶ Wav consecut. Κοδράντης – from Latin quadrans, the smallest Roman coin in the imperial era 1/4 assarium (ἀσσάριον Matt. 10:29); the name passed on to the Jews. Τὸν ἔοχατον – the last one that can be required at all. That is, not a single codrant will be forgiven; Justice will remain inexorable towards those who neglected the duty of reconciliation. Ἀντίδιοίκος - your rival is a parallel to the concept of “brother”, who “has something against you.” ’Ί οθι εὐνοῶν represents the opposite of ὀργιζόμενος εἰκῆ% 54. So, in the New Testament, in the kingdom founded by the true Messiah - the Lord Jesus Christ, the passionate state of “anger” seems to be as serious a crime as murder was in the Old Testament. Similar to the sixth commandment, the “fulfillment”, the improvement in the New Testament of the requirement contained in the seventh commandment, is immediately revealed. The Lord's speech here, as in Matt. 19:18, follows the order of the ten-words, while in other cases in the New Testament the mutual order of the sixth and seventh commandments is not strictly observed (cf. Luke 19:20; Rom. 13:9; James 2:11). In the seventh commandment, as in the sixth, one of the grossest violations of law and insult to the person of one’s neighbor is prohibited, and these crimes were sometimes actually connected (the well-known example of David) and are connected with each other. If the law imposed punishment for adultery as an external fact, then in the New Testament kingdom already passionate, sinful lust turns out to be an equivalent crime from a religious and moral point of view, for the heart in this case turns out to be already defiled, having lost “purity” (cf. Matthew 15:18–20). Ἠ χούσατε ότι ερρέθη τοῖς ἀρχαίοις ( ἐρρήθη LTr, – τοῖς ἀρχαίοις LTTrWHR) Οὐ μοι – χεύσεις. Ἠ χούσατε ότι ερρέθη τοῖς ἀρχαίοις ( ἐρρήθη LTr, – τοῖς ἀρχαίοις LTTrWHR) Οὐ μοι – χεύσεις. Ἐγ ὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν , ὅ τι πας ό βλέπων νυναῖκα πρὀς τὸ ἐπιθυμῆσαι αὐτῆς (αὐτὴν LTr, – αὐτῆς Τ, [αὐτὴν] WH) ἤ δη ἐμοίχευσεν αὐτὴν ἐν τῇ καρδί ᾳ αὐτοῦ (έαυτοῦ L). Hear what was said to the ancients: You shall not commit adultery. But I tell you that whoever looks at a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. The explanation of the seventh commandment is preceded by the same formula as the sixth, only, perhaps, somewhat abbreviated if we omit τοῖς ἀρχαίοις, which has many majusculs against it (Peshitto, Sir. syn., etc.), but which also finds quite serious support for itself. The commandment itself is given without any changes or additions, in the same form as we read it in Ex. 20:14 (cf. Deut. 5:17). Therefore, there is no justification for the statement that “Jesus here, too, contrasts His disclosure of the commandment not with the ten words in itself, but with its application by the rabbis” (Zahn, S. 235). In vain in this case they refer to the tenth commandment, which supposedly was already sufficient to interpret the seventh commandment in the Gospel sense before Christ (Th. Zahn, S. 236; The Holy Bible... edited F. C. Cook, vol. I. London 1878, p. 29). The tenth commandment actually contains a prohibition against indulging in envy, the “desire” to take possession, to appropriate for oneself what belongs to one’s “neighbor.” “The neighbor’s wife” is mentioned, although in the first place, but along with other objects of “wishes”: “house”, “village”, etc. etc., and both in the Hebrew original and in the Greek translation the same verb form is used to denote the prohibited state - as in other places, the object of the same verb is earth - ἡ γῆ (Ex. 34:24), silver - ἀργύριον (Deut. 7:25). Consequently, the tenth commandment refers to the desire to have another’s wife as one’s wife, and not fleeting lust, not regulated by a person’s self-control, as in the Lord’s interpretation. In any case, even the best people of the Old Testament, until later times, warned against actual adultery, sometimes accompanied by tangible results for women (Sir. 23:24–37). The Lord expresses the idea of ​​the superiority of the New Testament over the Old, and in this case, in an exemplary way, based on the Old Testament image of ideas and using familiar terminology. Here, one of the main views was that the usual, natural obligatory state of a person is his marital state, which imparts the fullness of life that he lacks alone and ensures the continuity of human generations. Marital fidelity was protected by severe punishments, as a necessary condition and guarantee of family stability - this basis of social life. Violation of marital fidelity - μοιχεία - was therefore thought of as the main form of sexual immorality (cf. Jer. 7:9: φονεύετε χαὶ μοιχ ᾶ σθε cf. Jer. 9:2; 23:14; 29:23; 49:18; Prov. 6:32; Wis. 3:16 and many others). We do not see a strict distinction between the synonymous concepts μοιχεία and πορνεία in the LXX (for example, Hos. 2:2, 4; Jer. 13:26–27; Am. 7:17), and πορνεία means in some cases the trampling of marital relations, elevated to a system - debauchery ( Sire. 23:23: ἐν πορνεί ᾳ ἐμοιχεύθη) or – the predominance of the coarse-sensual side in marital relations (Tov. 8:7), and in a metaphorical sense – religious and moral instability and licentiousness of the people in deviating from Jehovah for the sake of pagan temptations (2 Kings. 9:22; Hos. 2:2, 4; Jer. 3:2, 9; If the Old Testament law prohibited and punished the very fact of adultery, then in the New Testament such an attitude towards a woman is no longer acceptable when a man, when looking at a woman, mentally makes her an instrument of sensual pleasure, and in his heart voluptuously experiences the act of sexual intercourse with her. That inclination, which in normal marital relations is subordinate to the highest goals of marriage and is regulated by the mood of complete mutual devotion, the mood of love and respect of the spouses, in this case turns to a woman (γυναῖκα - without a member, i.e., any woman in general, but not “her own wife,” as Count Tolstoy believes) for the purpose of fleeting sensual pleasure, and she is considered not as a human god-like person, but as a means and an instrument of sensual pleasure. In this case, the very idea of ​​marriage is distorted, the true purpose for which the sexual need is invested in a person is violated, and the person, if not in fact, then in any case, fundamentally desecrates the establishment of marriage (π ᾶ ς ὁ βλέπω ... ἐμοίχευσεν). And in this regard, there is a complete analogy in the Lord’s revelation of the sixth and seventh commandments. There, the “vain”, not controlled by reason, spontaneous manifestation of “anger” is prohibited, as the ethical and psychological basis of murder; here is a lustful thought as the ethical and psychological basis of “adultery.” Just as the object of anger is indicated there - brother - ὁ αδελφός, before whom the “angry” one is guilty, even if his anger has not yet manifested itself even in words - so here γυνή is noted as the object of the criminal ἐμοίχευσεν ( έμοίχευσεν αὐτήν), even if the whole process was entirely limited to internal experience, heartfelt emotion (ἐν τ ῇ καρδί ᾳ αὐτοδ) 56. Aorist έμοίχευσεν, next to praesens βλέπων; the union ἤ δη, expressively emphasizing this opposition of times; designating the heart as the place where adultery is committed - all this clearly highlights the idea that already a lustful internal movement of the heart, prompting a person to fix his gaze on a woman in order to nourish and maintain his lustful mood - is already “adultery”. The lustful gaze turns out to be the primary, initial external manifestation of the indicated internal movement, ending - when the opportunity arises - with the brute fact of the final triumph of lust. By βλέπειν γυναῖκα we mean precisely a conscious, deliberate “view” of a woman; then πρὸς τὸ ἐπιθυμῆσαι αὐτῆν (attested more firmly than αὐτῆν) expresses such a goal βλέπειν (cf. 6:1; 13:30; 23:5; 20:12; Mark 13:22; And in this case, as in the presentation of the sixth commandment, the disclosure of the meaning of the seventh commandment in the kingdom of Christ is accompanied by a requirement directed at individual listeners to act in accordance with the law of the New Testament kingdom revealed by the Lord, which obliges complete purity of heart. And this requirement, like the very explanation of the seventh commandment, is not proposed in the form of an abstract and general proposition, but is clothed in the form of a specific example. Εδὲ ὁ ὀφθαλμ ό ς σου ὁ δεξιὸς σκανδαλ ί ζει σε ἔξελε αὐτὸν καὶ βάλε ἀπο %` σοῦ συμφέρει γάρ σοι ἵ να ἀπ ό ληται ἓ ν τῶν μελῶν σου καὶ μὴ ὅ λον τὸ σῶμά σου βληθ ῇ εἰς γέενναν . καὶ εἰ ἡ δεξιά σου χεὶρ σκανδαλ ί ζει σε ἔκκοψον αὐτὴν καὶ βάλε ἀπο %` σοῦ συμφέρει γάρ σοι ἵ να ἀπ ό ληται ἓ ν τῶν μελῶν σου καὶ μὴ ὅ λον τὸ σῶμά σου εἰς γέενναν ἀπέλθ ῃ LTTrWHR). If the eye of your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and turn away from yourself: for you alone, let one perish from your blows, and not your whole body will be cast into hell (fire): and if your right hand causes you to fall, cut it off and turn away from yourself: for you, let it alone perish from your blows, and not your whole body yours will be cast into Gehenna. Although the requirement of Art. 29–30 is essentially a consequence, a conclusion from the previous one, as in Art. 23, however, in the present case it is attached to the previous one not with the help of ο ὖ ν, but through δέ. And this is because verses 29–39 refer to essentially different cases than what is meant in v. 28. Namely, if in Art. 28 it is assumed that a person, as a result of a sinful lust arising in his heart, consciously directs his gaze to an object prohibited by the commandment of God - a stranger - here we take the case when the excitement to sin comes from the “eye of the gum” and the “hand of the gum”, and, moreover, such excitement that a person is not able to resist. The last point is undoubtedly highlighted by the verb σκανδαλίζει, which - both in the active and in the passive form - expresses, although not equally in all cases, a deep, but always disastrous fall and overthrow of a person from the relatively normal position in which he had hitherto been 58. Consequently, here we assume a case when it is no longer from the vicious heart, in which sin has gained the upper hand, that a certain influence and excitation to a sinful act arises, involving bodily members, for example, the eye and hand, in the process of the Fall, but when, on the contrary, from the members of the body, for example, from the right eye, an excitation to sin spreads to the heart and will, which a person is not able to overcome. Of course, the “eye” cannot in itself be a source of seductive excitement, but only because it is an organ of perception of objects and impressions that excite lust. The reference to the right eye (as well as the right hand) as one of the organs of an entire bodily organism clearly indicates that the use here is an exemplary way of expressing a general moral requirement that can be used in many different ways. Hence, the immediate meaning of the Lord’s requirement, apparently, is this: if a person, by his bodily nature, is so strongly drawn to sin that he is unable to resist temptation, then he must either cut off that part of his body from which the excitement comes, even if it is the most valuable organ. In the struggle against sin and in the desire to achieve the bliss of Christ’s Kingdom, the disciple of Christ cannot stop before such a sacrifice as anyone decides to make to preserve his bodily life, allowing the doctor to amputate the infected organ before it infects the whole organism. Not because of the severity of the requirement, for in another case the Lord requires the sacrifice of blood ties and bodily life itself for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven (Matthew 10:28-39), - the understandable words of the Lord from time immemorial arouse bewilderment, but from the point of view of the expediency of using self-sacrifice in this form and from the point of view of their correspondence with the spirit and mind of the entire teaching of the Lord. And only in the form of a very rare exception has the literal fulfillment of the words of the Lord been found and is found in relation to even those bodily organs that are specific in violating the seventh commandment, for such amputation, as experience shows, not only does not destroy lust, but also does not give a person dominion over it. A person has not only a duty, but also the opportunity to rule the spirit over the flesh, for “the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak” (Matthew 26:41). The source of “evil thoughts” that defile a person is the “heart” of a person (Matthew 15:19–20). Its “purity” ensures the normal state of a person’s entire spiritual life (6:21–23). And the body itself is intended to be preserved; cutting off or even eliminating any one organ is conceived as an exception, in a contract with the well-being of the whole body (cf. Matt. 18:8–9). The special tension of energy that is commanded in the fight against tempting evil (not only ἔξελε αὐτόν and ἔκκοψον αὐτήν, but καί βάλε ἀπὸ σοῦ in both cases) indicates that the strength with which a person in this case fights, there is strength of a spiritual nature. In the words of St. Apostle Paul, these are “the sinful passions working in our members to bear fruit in death” (Rom. 7:5); in other words, it is another law, warring against the law of the mind and making a person captive to the law of sin that is in his members” (v. 23). In this case, the task of the Christian is to fight to the point of blood in the battle against sin (Heb. 12:4), so as not to live according to the flesh; mortification by the power of the spirit of the deeds of the flesh (Rom. 8:13) or – figuratively speaking – mortification of one’s earthly members, one’s evil lust (Col. 3:6). This is the general meaning of the spoken words of the Lord 59. Now let's move on to a more detailed explanation of Art. 29–30. The requirement of certain actions, in which an exemplary way, clearly characterizes the unconditionality of the Christian duty to protect oneself from defiling temptations, is expressed conditionally. When deciding whether this conditional assumption can be realized in living reality, one should pay attention to the fact that the cases implied here are not characterized as possible in reality (as in Art. 23. through ἐάν) or how such things are carried out at times (it would be ὅ τ and ν), but that here, as in the parallel place 18:8 next, εἰ σκανδαλιζει is used - that is, such a form of a conditional sentence, which in itself can mean not only a case that carries out to a certain extent, but also a case that never turns into reality, but remains in the realm of conceivable assumption. Based on the above teaching of the Lord, it is most natural to assume that here we have such a frequently encountered case of using εἰ with the indicative mood, which means what is affirmed by the other side, but is not recognized by the speaker himself as an actual circumstance (cf. Matt. 12:26, ​​27; 27:40, 43, etc.). If indeed, as some argue, wanting to weaken the severity of the requirement and justify carnal pleasure, your bodily nature leads you into temptation and irresistibly draws you to slavery to sin, then you have no other means left to be saved from such slavery to sin and from eternal destruction, how to sacrifice a member, which is for you an insurmountable obstacle to the fulfillment of the divine will 60. Chr. A. Bugge refers to 29 and 30 art. to the category of a special kind of tributary sayings, which are called “paradoxes”. All these sayings are variations on the great fundamental theme of Christianity: man is absolutely dependent on God in a religious sense, and has unconditional duties to Him in a moral sense. But this thought seemed to be the direct opposite of the living norm that prevailed among Jews in the era of Jesus Christ - the Pharisaic one. For Pharisaic self-righteousness rested on the basic idea that man has the real opportunity and ability of himself, independently of God, to achieve moral independence in relation to Him, that he - in other words - has the opportunity to appear before God with his Mizwoth and demand a well-deserved reward. This idea, in turn, is associated with the casuistic division of duty into many separate duties. The complete opposite of this idea is the idea of ​​\u200b\u200bobligation to God as a single comprehensive “guilt.” The opposition between these two points of view is the opposition between casus and principium. Accordingly, the gospel “paradoxes” are sayings that are anti-casuistic in their tendency, but, on the contrary, casuistic in their form. Their goal is primarily negative: to destroy casuistry, but through the investment of positive principles in this very form. This discrepancy, even direct opposition, between form and content should have aroused keen interest and in-depth reflection in the souls of listeners who had not lost spiritual receptivity, in which process the fundamental content, the sublime idea, should have stood out from the form that did not correspond to it and, thus, acquired the ability to lift a person from the narrow practical sphere to a sublimely ideal mood and outlook. The “paradox” is close to the “parable”: in order to obtain the true meaning, in both cases a transfer (translatio) is necessary, and in the “parable” this transfer is made from the sphere of images to the sphere of actual things, persons and events, in the “paradox” from the sphere of life rules - to the sphere of principles. Both forms, therefore, have as their goal the elevation of human consciousness from a lower to a higher sphere, and both are indirect forms of teaching 61 . So, lustful attraction to a stranger, unrestrained casting of passionate gazes at her, according to the teachings of Christ the Savior, is already a violation of the seventh commandment. But unbridledness is also unacceptable in the marital state, while the Jews of the Lord’s time not only allowed themselves to arbitrarily violate the sanctity of the marriage bond, but at the same time did not even consider themselves guilty before the law, interpreting the latter in the sense that a man has an almost unlimited right to divorce his wife and enter into a new marriage, only formalizing this fact by issuing a divorce document (Sêpher k’rîtûm. Cf. Isa. 50:1; Jer. 3:8 62). The only restriction was, in the case of a second marriage, the prohibition for the ex-husband, who had let his wife go, to return her to marriage again, after the death of her second husband or after a second divorce, - after desecration of her (μετὰ τὸ μιανθῆναι αὐτήν), as it is disgusting to eat ( βδέλυγμά ἐοτιν) before the Lord your God (Deut. 24:1–4). At the same time, in the concept of “defilement” and “vileness” the moment of purely physical disgust and disgust was thought of very clearly (Lev. 18:20; Num. 5:13 next). Even from the point of view of the law itself, the permission of divorce was not an expression of the original will of God and did not correspond to the ideal essence of the marriage institution (Matt. 19:3–9. Wed. Life 1:27; 2:24), but was only a concession to the “hardness of heart” of the people (Matthew 19:8). “So that the evil Jews, out of hatred for their wives, would not kill them, the law allowed those who wished to let their wives go, that is, to separate and separate from her 63 . Be that as it may, this permission was understood and interpreted as a concession to human sensuality, and therefore the Lord’s prohibition from even looking with lust at a woman should have seemed too strict and inconsistent with the understood law. This connection Art. 31 with the previous one in contrast, in the sense of a possible objection or bewilderment regarding the words of the Lord about the sinfulness of an unclean “view” and the fight against temptations, is expressed through ἐρρέθη δέ. Ἐρρέθη ( ἐρρήθη LTr) δέ, ὅ τι (- ὅ τι LTTr WH) ὃ ς ἂ ν ἀπολύσ ῃ τήν τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ, δ ό τω αὐτῇ ἀποστάσιον ἐγ ὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν ὅ τι ὃ ς ἂ ν ἀπολύσ ῃ ( π ᾶ ς ό ἀπολύων LTTrWHR) τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ παρεκτὸς λ ό γου πορνε ί ας ποιεῖ αὐτὴν μοιχευθῆναι ( μοιχευθῆναι LTTr WHR), καὶ ὃ ς ἐὰν ἀπολελυμένην γαμ ή σῃ ( καὶ ό ἀπολελυμένην γαμ ή σας LTr marg.), μοιχ ᾶ ται. It was said that if anyone lets his wife go, let him give her a book of immorality. But I say to you, that whoever puts away his wife, except in the words of the fornicator, commits adultery: and whoever understands the prostitute commits adultery. Already such a greatly abbreviated formula of the introduction shows that it does not open a special section, but continues to explain the seventh commandment. In Art. 31–32 presents another case of violation of the seventh commandment, as an example of how this commandment should be understood and fulfilled in the New Testament kingdom of Christ, in its perfect interpretation and implementation 64. The very law on divorce (Deut. 24:1 seq.) is given by the Lord completely freely, with a strong abbreviation, without even indicating the circumstance that is named here as a permissible reason for divorce (ἄσχημον πρ ᾶ γμα 'ervat dabar), - perhaps because this expression is not clear and definite enough, could be understood - and was understood - in the sense of wide (cf. Matt. 19:3). Ervat dabar is also located in Deut. 23:15 (14), where it - in any case - means unclean, disgusting and disgusting in the physical sense (cf. vv. 10-14). In comparison with the indicated place, it is likely that in relation to a woman in the legalization of divorce, the said expression means something obscene, unclean, disgusting, disgusting, such as a disfiguring disease, bad breath, etc. The proper meaning of the formula, even before Christ the Savior and during the earthly life of the Lord, was the subject of dispute among Jewish scholars, especially between the school of Hillel and Shammai. The school of Hillel summed up Deuterozak under the said expression. 24:1 everything, even the smallest thing, that seemed unpleasant to the husband in his wife. This is how Josephus Flavius ​​understood the intended expression (Ant. IV, 8, 28). On the contrary, the school of Shammai understood, although not gross adultery, as is usually thought (for such adultery was punishable by death by law, and the point was precisely about understanding the law, even if it was not applied in all its severity at that time), it nevertheless understood the shamefulness and depravity of a wife in a moral sense - in the sense of shameless coquetry, generally obscene and indecent behavior. However, in any case, it was left to the husband himself to judge whether there were such shortcomings in his wife that gave him the right by law to divorce her. For we do not find any mention of any legal process for considering such cases in the law (Cf. Holtzmann, S. 269). To abolish such compliance of the law, Christ proclaims the indissolubility of marriage, and the one who divorces his wife, παρεκτὸς λόγου πορνείας (is it the word of an adulterer), as well as the one who marries a divorced woman, are declared violators of the seventh commandment. The idea is expressed in relation to the norms and views of that time, according to which the initiative for divorce belonged only to the man, but it itself contains an unconditional requirement 65. It is only important to understand the meaning of the only exception. Παρεκτὸς (from παρὰ and ἐκτός), not found either in the classics or in LXX 66, gives the idea of ​​a complete withdrawal of the concepts governed by this preposition from the sphere of action expressed by the verb. The only parallel in Acts. 26:29, where παρεκτὸς is used as a preposition, in connection with speech expresses the idea that the Apostle Paul, prayerfully desiring that Agrippa and all other listeners of his speech become like the Apostle himself, decisively excludes his bonds from the area of ​​this desired identity (παρεκτὸς τῶν δεσμῶν τούτων ). The latter stand out and are not subject to the action of judgment all the more decisively and sharply, the more desirable, from the point of view of the speaker, is the complete likeness of his listeners to the Apostle in everything else, in all other respects (cf. 1 Cor. 7:7). One exceptional circumstance, not in harmony with all the others, simply does not count and should not be taken into account when discussing a general categorical judgment and its consequences. In the present case, such a circumstance, when there can be no question of the fact that he who lets his wife commit adultery, is λόγος πορνείας. "Λόγου" is understood both in the sense of a foundation (cf. Acts 10:29) and in the sense of a reason - αἰτία (Euthimius Zigab.) or causa (Delitzsh, Schegg, Schürer, Grimm, Sclianz, etc.) and in the sense of a matter, the circumstances in question (Th. Zahn, S. 242 Anm.). But such hesitation in defining the meaning of this word, which brings this concept closer to the Hebrew dabar, makes it very plausible to assume that here the thought is expressed in relation to ’ervat dabar (Deut. 24:1), but is formulated with complete clarity, precision and certainty, thanks to the replacement of the extensible ’ervat with the concept πορνείας, which in the Old Testament sometimes denoted the debauchery of a married woman, her obvious debauchery. And in this case, in the Gospel saying one can notice a subtle sound play. “It is said: do not let your wife go until there is ’ervat dabar (ἄσχημον πρ ᾶ γμα LXX. Deut. 24:1); but I say: do not allow this except d e bar ervah (λόγος πορνείας).” Take the extreme case of a wife trampling on the marriage union, and then it is clear why even one who lets his wife go for this reason and on this basis cannot be found guilty of committing adultery, for she had already clearly committed violation and desecration the sanctity of the marital relationship and the height of marital responsibilities. In addition to this sole reason, the woman who is released gets the opportunity and reason, and sometimes is forced by force of circumstances, to enter into a new marriage. But since the first marriage remains essentially in force, for the divorce document, as an expression of the arbitrariness and whim of the husband, cannot destroy the already accomplished combination of two into “one flesh” in fulfillment of the original divine law of the Creator (Matt. 19:5-6), then a new marriage, concluded under such conditions, in the New Testament kingdom turns out to be adultery, an insult and trampling on that first marriage, which remains essentially in full force. The woman, of course, also turns out to be guilty, but the main blame in this case falls on her first husband, who put her in such a sometimes hopeless position. The latter shade is especially clearly expressed quite seriously (א BD, etc.) by the attested version of μοιχευθῆναι, while μοιχ ᾶ ται of the accepted text implies greater freedom and responsibility of the “released”. But the one who marries the released woman also becomes guilty - both for the sake of, and as a result of, this reason. In the first case, a new marriage is concluded in the presence of the first for the reasons already indicated, so that the one who has released his wife continues to be the legal and valid husband, while the second turns out to be trampling on this essentially undissolved union; in the second case, sin occurs because he who cleaves to the filthy woman has one body (with the harlot); Both will become one flesh (1 Cor. 6:16). Some consider the limitation of Matt. 19:9 ᾳ), not belonging to the Lord 67 - mainly on the basis that in parallel (Matt. 19:9) Matt. transmissions (Mark 10:11–12 and Luke 16:18) there is no such restriction, and the idea of ​​\u200b\u200bthe impermissibility of divorce is expressed with all unconditionality. However, it is more natural to assume that the evangelists Mark and Luke omitted this restriction, because it could weaken in the minds of their readers the strength of the Lord’s teaching about the impermissibility of arbitrary divorce. Such an impression could not have been received by the original readers of Matthew, who understood the saying from the point of view of the law, according to which adultery was punishable by death. Whatever the morals in the contemporary reality of Christ, the harsh law was not abolished (cf. John 8:5), and the saying of the Lord, introducing this only exception, in its tone and impression, did not lose the character of an unconditional prohibition of any arbitrary divorce. Thus, the Lord in v. 32. finishes revealing the question: who violates the seventh commandment, this time in relation to the law on divorce - but does not answer the question in what cases or in what forms is divorce legalized or prohibited. The second example of an unconditional prohibition in the kingdom of Christ of something that was permitted conditionally and restrictively in the Old Testament is further (vv. 33–37) an oath. Πάλιν ἠ κούσατε ὅ τι ἐρρέθη ( ἐρρέθη LTr) τοῖς ἀρχαίοις, Οὐκ ἐπιορκ ή σεις , ἀποδ ώ σεις δὲ τῷ Κυρ ίῳ τούς ὄρκους σου · ἐγώ δέ λέγω ὑμῖν μὴ ὀμ ό σαι ὅ λως · μ ή τε ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ ὅ τι θρ ό νος ἐστὶν τοῦ θεοῦ · μ ή τε ἐν τ ῇ γ ῇ ὅ τι ὑποπ ό δι ό ν ἐστιν τῶν ποδῶν αὐτοῦ · μ ή τε εἰς Ἱ εροσ ό λυμα , ὅ τι π ό λις ἐστὶν ?? ἢ μέλαιναν LTTrWH). ἔστω ( ἔσται LWH marg. R, marg) δὲ ὁ λόγος ὑμῶν, ναὶ να ί ο ὒ ο ὔ· τὸ δὲ περισσὸν τούτων ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ ἐστιν. Again, have you heard as it was said to the ancients: do not swear to lies, but repay your oaths to the Lord. But I tell you not to swear in any way: neither by heaven, for the throne is God; nor by earth, for His footstool is; nor by Jerusalem, for the city of the great King is; swear by your head, for you cannot make one hair, white or black; let your word be: to her, to her; neither, nor; I sow too much out of hostility. Although ἐπιορκεῖν (swearing) is found only here in the New Testament, it is a real Greek word, which generally means: to swear falsely, i.e., both to give a false oath and to break a given oath, not to fulfill an oath promise. Here this expression should also be understood in a general sense, that is, both of these points should be understood; the latter is especially highlighted in the second part of the sentence from the positive side, where it is said that the law obliges to fulfill oaths given to the Lord. Ἀποδιδόναι corresponds to the Hebrew schillêm, which means to give, to pay what was promised. We do not literally find the words themselves in the law, but they accurately express the general meaning of the various regulations of the law, on the one hand, commanding the exact and willing fulfillment of oaths and vows given to the Lord (Num. 30:3; Deut. 23:21–23), and on the other, prohibiting speaking the name of Jehovah in a lie, swearing falsely by His holy name (Ex. 20:7; Deut. 5:11, Lev. 19:12). In the following words, defining what is required of Christians in this regard, the Lord means not only these prescriptions of the law, but at the same time those interpretations that they received from the Jewish scribes, as well as the Jewish practice based on them. Fearing to use the most holy and terrible name of Jehovah in oaths, the Jews contemporary to the Lord swore by heaven and earth, Jerusalem, the church, the golden church, etc. (cf. Matt. 23:16 seq.), and the teachers of the people were sophisticated in distinguishing many oath formulas according to the degree of their obligatory nature, and regarding some - in their judgment, less important - formulas they claimed that they were completely deprived of binding force 68 . In contrast not only to these perverse interpretations of the law, but also to the very resolution of oaths in the Old Testament, 69 which prohibits only false oaths and oath-crimes, the Lord completely prohibits oaths: μήτε ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ ... Any attempts to weaken the energy of ὅ λως in a given place, meaning “completely”, “perfectly”, “entirely” (in Irenaeus, IV, 24, 1 and in the codex k in totum; vulg. omnino; etc. glory, from here, from here; in Const. Ev. 1383 of all sorts; in Evv. XV-XVII centuries everything, everything), - do not achieve the goal. And by analogy with 1 Cor. 15:29, where ὅ λως refers to a verb with negation (εἰ ὅ λως νεκροὶ οὐκ ἐγείρονται) and has the meaning “at all”, “completely”, “at all” - the named adverb in the present case characterizes the unconditional significance of μή ὀμνύν aI, which does not imply any exceptions (εἰς ἅ παν). Ὅ λως is opposed not to any individual oath formulas, but to ἐπιορκεῖν art. 23. In certain types of oath - and, moreover, a false one - but an oath (understood in the strict and precise sense of placing this or that object or person as collateral) is generally prohibited by the Lord. However, some draw attention to the fact that the conjunction μήτε (nor), through which the prohibition of certain individual types of oath is added to μή ὀμ ό σ a ι ὅ λως, is divisive, while with the help of μηδέ something special is added to the previous one, again. In view of this, it is believed that ὅ λως contains only the totality of what is further divided into its component parts, i.e. an oath by heaven, earth, etc. This is how Blessed Jerome already interprets this passage of the Gospel; of the later ones - Ewald, Tholuck, Keim. However, grammatically, such a distinction between the indicated unions does not have unconditional force (cf., for example, Rev. 9:21, where through ο ὔ τε, and not οὐδέ, new concepts are added to the previous ones), and in meaning it is impossible to agree that ὅ λως is exhausted by the indicated explicite types of oath and excludes the oath by the Lord God Himself. After all, certain types of oaths prohibited by Jesus Christ are prohibited precisely because in them the name of God, although not directly named, is essentially implied or, in any case, should be implied. How can one exclude ολω from the volume; the name of God, pronounced directly and undisguisedly, if such types of oaths are prohibited, in which the relationship to God and His holy name is only implied - and are prohibited specifically for the sake of this circumstance? According to the teachings of the Lord, an oath by heaven and earth is just as sacred and should inspire no less awe and fear, as an oath by the living God, for according to Isa. 66:1 God Himself calls heaven His throne, and the earth His footstool, i.e. “in heaven” the highest and complete revelation of the glory of God takes place, the reflection of which extends to the earth (cf. Acts 7:49; Ps. 18:1-7). The oath of Jerusalem is also sacred, for it is the “holy city” (Matthew 4:5), the only place of true worship of God in the Old Testament (John 4:20) or, as the Lord puts it in relation to Ps. 47:3 – “the city of the great King” (cf. Ps. 86:3; Tob. 13:9), the God of Israel (Ps. 45:5; 47:2, 9). It seems to be a different matter when a person swears by himself, or by some individual - naturally - the most expensive and valuable parts of his body, for example, by his head (which here is an example of a different kind of oath - this is shown by the shading of the last member suggested through the repetition of the verb in a different form όμόσ ῃ ς ). A person is usually inclined to think of himself in this regard as a full-fledged master and manager of his life, as well as other objects of his possession (cf. Mark 6:23). But the incorrectness and wickedness of this way of thinking is revealed by the fact that a person, of his own free will, is not able to change the natural color of his hair from black to white (for example, in youth) or from gray to black (in old age). God created the human body as an instrument of a God-like spirit (Gen. 1:26–27; 2:7), and the duty of a Christian is therefore to glorify God both in his body and in his soul, which are God’s (1 Cor. 6:20). Meanwhile, in an oath, a person considers himself to have the right to dispose of himself, his head and under, as his complete property, forgetting about the duty of complete submission to God and the fact of dependence on Him (cf. James 4:13–16). It is clear that here the oath is of course not in the sense of “calling as a witness,” but in the sense of a pledge. A person who swears by his head and other most precious and necessary organs of his body, in these objects offers a guarantee of the truth of his words and a guarantee of the fidelity of his promises, expressing his readiness and obligation to lose them in case of violation of the oath. Regarding the last type of oath (“with the head”), this meaning is recognized even by those exegetes who generally defend the understanding of the oath as testimony by someone and something (for example, Tholuck). In this case, the very prepositions that control the objects of the oath turn out to be characteristic - words that show what exactly a person swears by. Κατὰ, εἰς, έν, usually used in such cases (Heb. 6:16; Matt. 5:34–36; Matt. 23:16 next), indicate the actual bodily touch of the object (Tholuck), when the swearer lays his hand on the object that he offers as a pledge and guarantee. Of course, this is understood only in relation to some objects (for example, one’s own head, etc.), while others are thought and spoken of only metaphorically, but the essence of the matter remains unchanged in the sense that a person, testifying to his involvement and interest in certain objects, undertakes to give them up, to lose them, in case of violation of the oath. Of course, heaven and earth could be called - and were called (Deut. 32:1; Isa. 1:2) - simply to testify to the truth, but this is not the oath that the Lord is talking about in this case, for the construction remains the same for all indications of the types of oath, and the meaning is that it is assumed that a person has no right to dispose of all the objects indicated for example - which, in fact, does not happen when persons and objects are reverently called upon only as witnesses to the truth of the assurance. We find undoubted confirmation of this understanding of the oath in St. church fathers, for example St. Gregory the Theologian and St. John Chrysostom. St. Gregory the Theologian says: “Doesn’t it often happen that someone swears by his own salvation? Very often. What is this? He is afraid that, having done something bad, he will suffer evil for it, and he himself relies on the environment before God for his own salvation, deciding to perish if he somehow lies to his word. Make the same reasoning when you swear by God... You rely on the medium of God for your faith (μέσον τέθειχας τον θεὸν τῆς πίστεως). Yes, no differently. And for those who swear in truth, God is preserved; and if you swear falsely, then He is lost in relation to us.” “But not to keep God for yourself” “means to renounce God. So, a false oath, as has long been proven, is a renunciation of God” (On those who often swear. Created, part V. M. 1847, pp. 175–176. Compare the Greek text according to the Cologne (actually Leipzig) edition of 1690, vol. II, p. 225). Thus, the oath of God by Himself is not essentially an oath, as St. father. “What is more perfect than God? Of course, you won't find anything more perfect. And if there is nothing more perfect, it means that God cannot swear (εἰδ ’ ο ὔ τι κρεῖσσον, οὐδ ’ ἄν ὀμνύοι ποτέ). How does Scripture say that God swears? As soon as God says something, it is already an oath of God (λέγει τὶ, τοῦτο δ ’ ὅ ρκος ἐστὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ). How does Scripture say that God swears by Himself? How? He would completely cease to be God if he told a lie... And this is in the nature of God, so as not to lie” (ibid., p. 181; cf. Greek text quoted above ed., p. 227). From this it can be seen how groundlessly they refer to those cases when God swore by Himself to confirm the permissibility of swearing by God for Christians. And it is remarkable that in the New Testament we find only a single mention in the Apocalypse of the oath “To those who live forever and ever,” belonging to an angel (Rev. 10:5–6), i.e., in that book in which the Old Testament flavor was most preserved. Moreover, in this case we are talking about the action of a celestial being who received a direct, deliberate command for his action from the Lord God Himself. Serious reservations and significant restrictions require the often repeated indication that Jesus Christ Himself, at the trial of the high priest, was pleased to take an oath or oath, answering affirmatively to the “spell” of the high priest (Matthew 26:63 seq.), from which it is sometimes concluded that the Lord sanctioned the judicial oath. However, in cases of conjuration, the conjured person was required by law to respond: amen (γένοιτο). Number 5:20–22; Deut. 27:15. Meanwhile, the Lord’s answer is conveyed in the same words (σύ εἴπας) with which the Lord answered the ordinary question of Judas, which did not have an incantatory character (Matthew 26:25). Hence, it is possible to assume that the Lord simply answered affirmatively to the high priest’s question, regardless of the oath formula in which it was proposed 71 . The objection that Christ, if He considered an oath impermissible, would have denounced the high priest, does not take into account the fact that the prohibition of an oath has significance and meaning only under the condition of Christian improvement, elevated above Old Testament morality, and not as a separate commandment, a separate, formal prescription (as L. Tolstoy also understands the prohibition of an oath). Was it appropriate to denounce the high priest for an oath formula not prohibited by law, when he was preparing to deliberately commit a flagrant crime - the condemnation of the Innocent? What remains is the example of St. the Apostle Paul, who repeatedly called on God and the Lord Jesus Christ as evidence of the truth and sincerity of his words (Rom. 1:9; Phil. 1:8; 1 Thess. 2:5, 10; 2 Cor. 11:11, 31; Gal. 1:20; 1 Tim. 1:21; 1 Cor. 15:31; 2 Cor. 1:23). However, according to the explanation of St. Gregory the Theologian, “this is not an oath” (ταῦτ ’ οὐχ ὅ ρκου), but “an indisputable confirmation of the importance of what was said” (πίστωσίς ἐστι τοῖς τοσούτοις ἀ ῤῥ αγής) (ibid., p. 182. Greek text based on cit. ed., σ . 227). And according to the explanation of St. Chrysostom, “Paul calls God as a witness not because they did not trust him, but does this out of great affection, as well as for great conviction and encouragement.” Such calling of God as a witness is indeed not prohibited by the Lord, for He Himself indicates that a Christian living in the world, lying in evil, sometimes needs to use “more” than a simple affirmation or denial... So, swearing by the Lord God in the indicated sense is unconditionally prohibited by Christ the Savior. And the reason for this, of course, is not the oath formula itself, but the mood expressed in it, which is incompatible with the mood of a Christian in relation to God. A Christian, aware and vividly feeling his complete dependence on God, cannot place Him, his Creator, Provider, Savior and Judge, - figuratively speaking, - as a pledge and guarantee of the truth of his assurance, with the obligation to lose Him, to renounce Him, in case of violation of his oath... Another thing is if a Christian calls on the Lord God with reverence as evidence that he is telling the truth before the face of the Lord and does not intend to lie or deceive 72 ... For Christians themselves, even in those cases when, due to the special enthusiasm of the person reporting something, or due to the special importance of the communicated subject, there is a need to testify to the truth with special solemnity or to draw the deliberate attention of others to it, only a strengthened assurance, confirmation or denial in relation to what is being communicated is sufficient. R marg. περισσὸν τούτων ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ ἐστιν. Let your word be: to her, to her; neither, nor; I sow too much out of hostility. Of course, these words do not mean that the Lord, instead of the usual (among the Jews) formulas, for his part, indicates a new, simpler one - just as according to Sanhedrin, a double “yes” or “no” is already an oath (Klostermann. S. 192. Cf. and Professor A. Nekrasov, op. cit., p. 30) - for the Lord forbade an oath in the indicated sense in general, and not those or other oath formulas. Not only “yes, yes,” “no, no,” but also a simple “yes” and “no” in the mouth of a true Christian are equivalent in meaning to an oath, for in each of his actions he recognizes himself as acting in the face of God. “Na ί” (her) and “about” (ni) were named by the Lord in this case as an example of the most concise form of expressing affirmation and negation - which - naturally - did not exclude other similar assurances. The Lord Himself, to solemnly express the truth of His words, used, as is known, the expressions ἀμήν λέγω ὑμῖν, according to the Gospel of John - double ἀμήν (cf. Rev. I, 7: ναὶ, ἀμήν). Th. Zahn (and others) suggest that the Greek translation of Matthew in this case obscured the meaning of the original, which probably read: let your affirmation be a valid “yes” (and your) denial a valid “no” (cf. James 5:12), i.e., let your “yes” and “no” be true reliable, and not “yes” and “no” at the same time (2 Cor. 1:18), or today “yes” may not turn out to be “no” tomorrow. But not only the difference in the construction of this place with the construction of Iak. 5:12, where the thought: let your λόγος καταφατικός (affirmative word) be a simple “yes”, and let your λόγος ἀποφατικός (negative word) be a simple “no”, - expressed as follows: ἤ τω δὲ ὑμῶν τ ὸ ναί, ναί. καὶ τ ὸ ο ὔ, ο ὔ - but the very context of the speech prevents us from finding in this place of the Gospel a thought identical to James. 5:12. What would τὸ δὲ περισσὸν τούτων (more than this) refer to in this case if the preceding phrase expressed only “the requirement to strive for complete truth in all verbal expressions” (Th. Zahn, S. 249)? It is clear that we are actually talking about ways to certify the truth in necessary cases. However, what is completely sufficient for true Christians in their mutual relationships turns out to be insufficient for them, in view of their relationship to the “world”, where “until the harvest”, along with the wheat, the tares also grow (Matthew 13:30) and where the mutual trust of people is poisoned by the dominant principle of lies (cf. John 8:43-45). Hence the fact that “beyond this,” beyond the simple certification of the truth of an affirmation or denial, is ἐκ τ o ῦ πονηροῦ ἐστιν (from hostility), i.e., does not in itself belong to evil things (it would be ἐκ τῶν πονηρῶν. Cf. Matthew 7:9; Luke 1:5; 22:3), for in itself it can be not only indifferent, but also high, like the invocation of the name of God, but in this case, in its use, it has a psychological root, source and cause. τὸ πονηρὸν (cf. Matt. 5:39; 6:13; John 17:15; 1 John 5:19; Rom. 12:9 (cf. 12:21); 1 Sol. 5:22 73 But the evil that dominates the world and exerts violent pressure on a Christian not only encourages him, in order to prevent the consequences of this “evil,” to allow something περισσόν in comparison with what seems completely sufficient for the true Christian himself and in his relations with his fellow brothers - to allow, for example, in this case, calling on God as evidence of the truth of his words, when in essence a simple “yes, yes,” “no, no." This circumstance necessarily calls a Christian to the feat of an active and unremitting struggle against it. Since this “evil” is manifested in the activities of the people around a Christian, in their hostile, hostile, or at least unceremonious, excessively and unreasonably demanding attitudes towards him, the Christian, for his part, counters violence with patience, immeasurable condescension, endless forgiveness, a willingness to “give rather than receive” (Acts 20:35), and generally overcomes evil with good (Rom. 12:17, 21). This ideal of Christian relationship, based on self-sacrificing Christian love, ready to endure and suffer more willingly than to cause suffering and trouble to another, Christ proclaims in contrast to and in abolition of the Old Testament norm of equal retribution, which observed strict legal justice. Ἠ κούσατε ὅ τι ἐρρεθη ( ἐρρεθη LTr), Ὀφθαλμὸν ἀντὶ ὀφθαλμοῦ, καὶ ὀδ ό ντα ἀντὶ ὀδ ό ντος · ἐγ ὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν μὴ ἀντιστῆναι τῷ πονηρῷ · ἀλλ ᾽ ὅ στις σε ῥ απ ί ζει εἰς (ῥ απ ί ζει εἰς LTTrWHR) τὴν δεξιὰν σιαγ ό να ( σιαγόνα σου LTr, – σου Τ, [ σοῦ ] WH), στρέψον αὐτῷ καὶ τὴν ἄλλην · καὶ τῷ θέλοντ ί σοι κριθῆναι καὶ τὸν χιτῶνά σου λαβεῖν ἄφες αὐτῷ καὶ τὸ ἱμάτιον. καὶ ὅ στις σε ἀγγαρεύσει μ ί λιον ἕ ν ὕ παγε μετ ᾿ αὐτοῦ δύο. τῷ αἰτοῦντ ί σε δίδου ( δός LTTr WH)· καὶ τὸν θέλοντα ἀπο ` σοῦ δαν ί σασθαι ( δαν ί σασθαι TWH) μὴ ἀποστραφ ῇ ς . Hear, as it was said: an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. I tell you not to resist evil: but if someone strikes you on the right side of your cheek, turn him the other one too: and if anyone wants to sue you and take your robe, let him go and the swearer: and if someone understands you in strength in one race, go with him two. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away the one who wants to give you a loan. The Old Testament expression is given verbatim exactly according to the LXX translation (Ex. 21:24; Leviticus 24:20; Deut. 19:21). In the first of the passages quoted, the words given depend on the preceding verb δώσει (may he give), which is implied in the other two places. Taken together with other examples, the intended words express the idea that the one who causes harm or injury to his neighbor or, as in the last place, who acts as a witness with the intention of harm, must himself suffer exactly the same fate to which he brought or intended to bring another, that is, must be subjected to the same injury, suffer the same harm, which he inflicted on his neighbor. This strict jus talionis was the actual norm of criminal law, which determined the nature and amount of the punishment that the court should apply to the guilty person. And this norm undoubtedly had enormous educational significance for the people, on the one hand, by the fear of punishment, restraining them from causing harm and offense to their neighbors, teaching them to refrain from doing what everyone did not want for themselves in relation to their neighbors, and on the other hand, it kept the victim from taking revenge, leaving revenge to the court according to a strictly objective criterion. Being confident of judicial retribution, the victim himself could not only not succumb to feelings of bitterness and vindictiveness towards his offender, but could also remain patient and even complacent. “From here the Old Testament everyday utilitarian sermon developed about patiently bearing insults and forgiving one’s neighbor, about offering the cheek to the one who strikes and being full of reproach” (Sir. 28:2; Proverbs 3:27–31; Proverbs 24:29; 25:22–23 74). But even in such cases of the highest rise of religious and moral consciousness possible for an Old Testament person, he was not left by the legal point of view, the thought of his special merits before God and the inevitable, even more difficult - for the sake of the patience of the offended - revenge on the offender. If your enemy is hungry, give him food; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink: for when you do this, you heap coals of fire on his head, but the Lord will reward you with goodness (Prov. 25:22–23). Thus, the law of equal retribution not only determined the norm of Jewish criminal proceedings, but also accurately characterized the basic structure of the entire religious and moral worldview of the Jewish people, the most essential feature of nomistic practice. According to the Old Testament view, the truth of God is as follows: God is a lawgiver and a king, a ruler and a judge. He certifies with an oath that he will reward the fulfillment of the law with life (ζωή cf. Rom. 10:5; Gal. 3:12) and will fairly punish every crime and disobedience (Heb. 2:2). He repays everyone only according to duty, but not according to mercy ὀφέλειμα. Rom. 4:4). The grounds for retribution lie not in God, but in man, in his subjective mood. In this case, what is taken into account is not the general attitude of a person to the law, but also the attitude to each of its particular instructions (cf. Heb. 2:2). Life is given only to those who have fulfilled the whole law (cf. Rom. 10:5; Gal. 3:12). Anyone who does not fulfill the whole law, even if he has fulfilled most of it, is subject to a curse (Gal. 3:10; cf. Deut. 27:26). There is no complete forgiveness of sins here (cf. Heb. 9:15). Justice (δικαιοκρισία Rom. 2:5) and fidelity to threats and promises (πίστις τοῦ Θεοῦ III, 3) constitute the essence of God's righteousness (δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ), as it was revealed in the law. God is “the Lord God, merciful and true, merciful, long-suffering, reserving mercy, forgiving iniquity and trespasses and sin, but not leaving it unpunished, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and on their children’s children to the third and fourth generation” (Ex. 2:4, 7) 75. “The closest revelation of the religious and ethical ideas of the prophets are the concepts of truth and mercy, with the predominant meaning of truth” 76. According to the view of legalistic Judaism, “the fate of a person depends precisely on the legal assessment of his affairs. He who watches over a man’s soul rewards him according to his deeds” (Proverbs 24:12). The conflict between mercy and wrath is resolved by indifferent judicial justice (Sir. 16:13 77). Consequently, “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” is taken in the Sermon on the Mount as a general principle of moral and practical behavior, specifically in relation to one’s neighbors. Accordingly, Christ, in contrast to the legalistic principle, proclaims a new religious and moral principle of relations, expressing the ideal in four specific examples. Those who see in the words of the Lord a prohibition of any state system based on the use of external force and embodying in their circumstances that of the many possible cases of pressure on a Christian from the side of “τὸ πονηρόν,” Christ the Savior points out, as an example, only those that may well remain within the limits of personal relationships without causing judicial intervention. It does not say here, for example, that if someone knocks out a tooth or gouges out an eye, let the Christian allow the offender to continue to act in the same direction, much less does it say that the robber lying in wait on the way should be allowed to deal with the unarmed traveler as he wants, and the like. It speaks of fraternal Christian relationships and the willingness of a Christian to always pay for evil with good, even without remembering the insults and grief caused to him (cf. Matthew 18:15 next 78). The absolute nature of Christian forgiveness and Christian retribution of good for evil is revealed with complete clarity from the examples given by the Lord, and if the latter do not contain a direct reference to criminal acts, then it is natural to see in this not a limitation of the limits of Christian virtue only to less important and sensitive insults and insults, but the real and genuine scope of application and implementation of the characterized mood of brotherly love in mutual personal relationships, not complicated by the occurrence of any third party interference. So Christ commands not to resist evil with equal weapons, not to respond to its annoyances with the same method of action, not to respond to evil with evil, but to respond with trust and forgiveness, readiness to endure more, so as not to violate fraternal relations... Τῷ πονηρῷ by some (Fr. Schmid), understand as casus instrumentalis (instrumental case), and not casus dativus and translate: do not resist evil, evil means 79. However, the understanding of τῷ πονηρῷ in the meaning of the instrumental case or instrumental case is unlikely because nowhere, neither in the Old Testament (about 40 times), nor in the New, does the dative of this verb have an instrumental meaning - this is not typical of the classical language - especially such use is unnatural for a writer whose natural language was Semitic and who would probably have used a preposition to indicate the instrumental case, like Rom. 12:21 80 . But the meaning prohibiting resistance to evil is given in the prefix ἀντί, which - according to the relation τῷ πονηρῷ - indicates that the verb marks an action that puts the actor in the same position τῷ πονηρῷ, ethically related to him. “Αντί, in theory, involves standing in the form of a pendant to something (compare: ἀντιπρόεδρος vice-president, ἀντίγραφον copy). Only those who arm themselves with evil become a true pendant to evil” (Prof. V.V. Bolotov, Journals of meetings of the Council of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy for the 1899–1900 academic year, p. 46). However, under τῷ πονηρῷ one can hardly think of ό πονηρός, for in such cases - especially in indirect cases - a noun defined by an adjective could hardly be omitted (cf. Matt. 12:35; Luke 6:45). And according to the context of the speech, the insulter and offender may not be evil at all, but he himself may succumb to the influence of the “evil” operating in the world - hit, for example, on the cheek under the influence of momentary irritation, he may reveal only impudence and intrusiveness in demanding a favor... If a Christian repays evil for evil (κακόν άντι κακού 1 Pet. 3:9; Rom. 12:17; 1 Thess. 5:15), then he himself is overcome by evil (ὑπὸ τοῦ κακοῦ), and does not defeat it, for it is overcome only good (ἐν τῷ ἀγαθῷ Rom. 12:18, 21). The examples are arranged in such an order that the violence on the part of “τὸ πονηρὸν” seems less and less sharp and noticeable, but the inner wealth of the offended person appears all the more clearly, who, not at all for the sake of passive compliance, endures evil without avenging it, but strives to overcome evil with good, without weakening in love. The most difficult thing turns out to be to endure the so-called personal insults and insults, which in some cases - not only according to the immediate feelings of the offended person, but also according to the judgment of society - sometimes require revenge with the blood of the offender. And therefore, the Lord first of all takes the case when a Christian is insulted by an action - he is struck on one cheek. But even in this case, true Christian love remains unshakable, for it seeks the benefit and good not of its own, but of another (1 Cor. 10:24). “If her object does something unpleasant or harmful to her, she naturally does not impute it to evil (about ὐ λογίζεται τ about χαχόν), she never feels irritation (about ὐ παροξύνεται) towards her object. She endures all insults, insults and disasters (πάντα ὑπομένει) and endures generously (μακροθυμεῖ) and not only does not repay evil for evil (1 Sol. 5:15), but covers everything (πάντα στέγει), shielding with itself, as if with a cover, all evil from one’s own and from the eyes of others. While enduring all sorts of troubles and insults from her object, she does not cease to be kind and helpful towards him (χρηστεύεται. Compare Rom. 11:22; 2 Cor. 6:6; Gal. 5:22; Col. 3:12). Even when her good deed is associated with dishonor for her, she does not disdain the latter (οὐκ αἰσχυμονεῖ) for the happiness of the object, again because her own self seems to her either non-existent or of less importance than her object. Sacrificing herself to her beloved, despite his hostile attitude towards her, she believes everything (πάντα πιστεύει) that he says and promises. She also believes in those signs that promise the correction of the object and, believing them, hopes for everything (πάντα ἐλπίζει) the best" 81. And in a reasonable case, having received an insult not only by word, but also by action, a Christian is sincerely inclined to consider such an act of his neighbor as a manifestation of a random, superficial mood, continues to believe in the possibility of maintaining good relations on his part, and not only does not respond to the insult with an insult, but maintains complete calm and self-control, shows the same trusting attitude towards the offender, does not take measures of defense, even if he had to suffer a new insult from the offender. In this case, the ideal of Christian patience is expressed in the form of a concrete example. An example taken in itself not only does not exhaust, but also does not cover the idea in all its breadth and absoluteness. He even leaves the question unanswered: what should a Christian do if the offender turns out to be so stubborn and embittered that he hits him on the other cheek and is ready to continue the beating crescendo. Only inflaming, and not overcoming “evil,” would be the invitation of the offended offender: well, hit again!... just as on the part of the offended person, such an attitude would not be a manifestation of Christian love and forgiveness, but an affective rapture of insult, concealing a peculiar vengeful feeling 82... Meanwhile, there can be no doubt that the attitude commanded by the Lord towards the offender is intended not to cause more offense, to move the latter, but to incite him to repentance (Peter, Bishop of Laodicea, cit. ed., p. 54). The very way of expression is noteworthy: αὐτῷ καί τὴν ἄλλην (if someone hits your right cheek, turn the other one to him). Origen already noted that they usually strike not on the right, but on the left cheek. The explanation that refers to the usual way of expression and representation, according to which everything “right” is valued higher and is called before “left,” is also not sufficient. For, firstly, the “left” cheek is not called at all 83. Secondly, if the “right” eye is considered more valuable than the “left” eye, because it is used to aim (cf. 1 Sam. 11:2), and the right hand is more important than the left, as being stronger and more dexterous, then nothing similar can be said about the right cheek: it is no more valuable and no better than the left. It is in vain to try to prove that δεξιάν (gum) is not a genuine word, but was introduced later, perhaps by Origen (Merx). True, already in a parallel place ev. Luke we have (Luke 6:29): Lanita, wait for the other one). But ev. Luke generally reworks and improves this section of the Conversation stylistically (see A. Harnack, Beiträge zur Einleitung in d. N. Test IÏ Sprüche und Reden Jesu. Leipz. 1907, SS. 46–46), and therefore it is unnecessary to assume that the third evangelist has not yet read the intelligible word in his source (Merx, S. 104), for the evangelist could omit this word as not corresponding to τὴν ἄλλην (other). Reflection - most likely - explains the omission of the adjective in the first case and in Ss, Sc, in Aphraates, in D, and, perhaps, in Irenaeus L. (against Megh'a, SS. 103-104). So, in the very method of expression one can see an indication that in this saying the Lord depicts the ideal mood and behavior commanded by Him in the case and in view of insults and insults inflicted on a Christian, and does not prescribe a rule regarding only a separate case, even if it is characteristic. In the history of the Church of Christ one can find cases of literal fulfillment of the Lord’s commandment in the spirit of truly brotherly, humble love (St. Tikhon of Zadonsk). The Lord’s own example of reproaching the high priest’s servant, who hit Him “on the cheek,” refers to another area of ​​relations, for here the insult by action was not the result of personal irritation and hostility of the high priest’s servant, but related to the testimony that the Lord gave to the high priest’s question at the trial about His teaching... But here, too, the admonition of the Lord has the character of divine meekness and greatness 84... If a Christian endures insults to his so-called personal honor with majestic calm, imperturbable meekness and patience, then, in the event of an attempt to unjustly take away property, a Christian must show readiness to serve the offender even more than he intends to take away - just so as not to bring the matter to a quarrel, hostility, just not to give rise to litigation... Unlike Article 25, where the plaintiff seems legally right, in this case the offender only intends to give his claims the appearance of justice, to cover up his unfair harassment with the authority of the court, wants to intimidate the offended by the prospect of judicial red tape... And the Christian in this case must give in to the offender, but not out of fear and cowardice, but out of inspiration of brotherly love and generosity - to give in much more than what the offender is asking for - wanting to show by this that he values fraternal relations much more more than the things that the “who wants to sue” him wants... The method of revealing the divine truth is again tributary - the extreme possible case is taken to express the thought of sincerity and complete readiness for compliance and self-sacrifice... Κρίνεσθαι (to be judged) - to reach, to bring oneself to trial, to stand before the judge (Acts 23:6; 25:9, 10, 20; 26:6; 1 Cor. 6:1), with τινί (Isa. 50:8; Job 9:3; 13:9) and πρός τινα (Jer. 2:9, 33; Job 21:13) - to have a lawsuit with someone; to have a lawsuit with someone. Χιτών - lower dress like a shirt (tunica of the Romans), ίμάτιον - outer dress, cloak. The latter clothing was, perhaps, even more necessary for the poor than χιτών, since it also served as a night cover for them, and therefore the law contained a command to return the neighbor’s cloak, taken as a pledge, at least before sunset (Ex. 22:25 next, cf. Deut. 24:13). Hence, in a lawsuit, the creditor could rather be awarded χιτών than an outer dress, protected from the creditor’s encroachments by the law itself, which is why χιτών is called as the subject of the offender’s encroachment. Commanding to give and ἱμάτιον, Christ in this case indicates the voluntariness of the sacrifice, which gives even what the law made inviolable... Evangelist Luke understands the violent taking away of property, not even covered by the appearance of right, and therefore the subject of it calls ἱμάτιον, the compliance of the owner is expressed - according to him - in the readiness to give and τὸν χιτῶνα. The equanimity of complacent patience and readiness to serve the benefit and needs of one’s neighbor or society is revealed by a Christian both in view and on the occasion of any kind of compulsory demand for service in the performance of public and state duties. If in such cases the Christian is even distracted from his personal or family responsibilities; if the required services and duties are burdensome and difficult for him, the follower of the Lord bears them without grumbling and displeasure, performs them “not out of fear, but out of conscience,” with firmness of spirit and the warmth of Christian charity, he elevates the externally forced duty into a consciously fulfilled moral duty and personal feat, and not only does not show the desire to merely formally fulfill the duty imposed on him, but shows a readiness to do better and more than is required. The general idea is expressed by the Lord again in a concrete example taken from the area of ​​\u200b\u200bstate duties of that time. Ἀγγαρεύειν (from ἄγγαρος from the Persian ankâr express, courier) both in Greek and rabbinic language meant first of all: to carry out courier service or as part of transport, and then: to force, to force to bear the specified duty. In the future, this word could mean: to force someone to do a favor. In contrast to προπέμπειν (cf. Titus 3:13; 3 John 1:6), which meant: to accompany someone to express honor, love and respect, ἀγγαρεύειν sounded incomparably sharper, and spoke not of the motivation of duty, but of coercion by force. (Cf. St. Chrysostom: to drink by force means to draw someone unrighteously, without any reason and with offense). With this very verb like ev. Matt. (Matthew 27:32), and also in Mark. (Mark 15:21) indicates the action of the soldiers who forced, forced Simon of Cyrene to carry the cross of the Lord to Golgotha, exhausted under its weight 85. Μίλιν is a word of Latin origin, found in later writers - Polyvius, Plutarch, Strabo. Like ἀγγαρεία, it is also found in later Jewish literature - in the Targum, Babylonian Talmud, and Midrash. In the New Testament - only here. Roman mile = 1000 steps, 8 stades, 1478.5 meters. A follower of the Lord responds to external compulsion to perform a service with a voluntary readiness to perform much more - always keeping in mind the person in need of such a service, his rudeness and exactingness are overcome by gentleness, compliance and courtesy. Let it even be a matter of fulfilling civil or public duties - specific demands are made by certain persons (ὅ στις .., μετ ’ αὐτοῦ) - and the Christian overcomes the formalism of officials with the sincerity of his responsiveness, his gently delicate, inspired fulfillment of a duty that is sometimes unpleasant for him - perhaps even distracted from his serious business... Finally, moral pressure is also exerted on a person by someone who asks him for a favor or wants to receive it in return, even if the person asking does not reach the point of carelessness (Luke 11:8: διὰ τὴν ἀναιδίαν), that is, to direct bothersomeness, importunity. And the lender may involuntarily think of the following, almost indisputable observation of Sirach: “many consider a loan a godsend and cause grief to those who helped them. Until he receives it, he will kiss his hand and humble his neighbor’s voice because of money; and at the time of return, he will procrastinate and answer sadly and complain about the time. If he is able, he will barely bring half - and this will be credited to him as a find; and if he is unable, then the lender has lost his money and, without reason, has acquired an enemy in him: he will repay him with curses and abuse and, instead of respect, will reward him with dishonor. Many, due to such wickedness, shy away from a loan, fearing to suffer a loss in vain” (Sir. 29:4-10). And in cases of such or similar violence, the Lord commands to respond not with irritation and refusal, but with a willing readiness to fully satisfy the requester. Παντί ev. Luke characterizes even more clearly the absoluteness of the Gospel requirement, in contrast to the Old Testament limitations and conventions, which prescribed, for example, “to give to the good and not to help the sinner” (Sir. 12:7), “to distribute one’s bread at the grave of the righteous, but not to give to sinners” (Tov. 4:17). In all such relationships of a Christian who repays evil with good, the inner power of gracious love, penetrating his entire being, is manifested, overcoming and destroying all hostile heart movements even towards enemies, extending - without any weakening or darkening - to these latter, benefiting them in every way. If in relation to personal enemies from fellow tribesmen the law in some cases allowed (relatives of the murdered) revenge, extending to murder (Num. 35:19-21; Deut. 19:11-13; 2 Sam. 14:7), then in relation to foreigners, to the political national enemies of the people of God, irreconcilable enmity and hatred is often directly prescribed (Ex. 17:14 . Deut. 7:1-2, 23:3, 6-25, 17-19. Ἠ χούσατε ὅ τι ἐρρέθη ( ἐρρήη LTr), Ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου, καὶ μισήσεις τὸν ἐχθρόν σου. Hear what is said: love your sincere one and hate your enemy. In view of their special purpose, for the sake of their chosenness of God, the theocratic structure, the Jewish people naturally took a separate and oppositional attitude towards the pagan world. And this hostility received a direct religious justification, for it was inspired by zeal for the glory of God and fear of the spiritual corruption that the pagans could always bring - and did bring - into the midst of Israel. God himself was the “enemy” of the “enemies” of the Jewish people (Ex. 23:22), just as the “enemies” of Jehovah were inevitably the enemies of the one who worships Jehovah. “Should I not hate those who hate You, Jehovah, and not be disgusted by those who rebel against You (οὐχὶ τ o ύς μισοῦντας σε, κύριε, ἐμ ί σησα, καὶ ἐπι %` τούς ἐχθρούς σου ἐξετηκ ό μην .). I hate them with complete hatred (τέλειον μῖσος), they are my enemies” (Ps. 139:21–22). True, the cruelty of such a mood was softened by frequent instructions that commanded a benevolent attitude towards the stranger, calling for the renunciation of revenge and ill-will even towards the enemy. But hatred of the enemies of God's people had its roots in the particularism of the religion of Israel itself; in the same way, the “love” prescribed in the Old Testament was based on a sense of tribal, national, political and religious community, although it also captured “aliens” who humbly submitted to the religious and everyday conditions of life of God’s chosen people... In any case, the “love” commanded in the Old Testament did not have the character of unlimited and unconditional. The Old Testament man considered himself entitled to treat those who found himself outside the bounds of this “love” according to the principles of an ordinary egoistic mood, where, of course, there was a place and wide scope for feelings of enmity and hatred. The sharp contrast in the relations of the Jews towards their fellow tribesmen, on the one hand, and towards everyone else, on the other, involuntarily caught the eye, and was noted, for example, by the historian Tacitus, who says that in mutual relations the Jews remain unshakably faithful, always ready for mercy, but they harbor mortal hatred towards all others (adversus omnes alios hostite odium. Histor. V, 8). Although we do not find the words: μισήσεις τὸν ἐχθρόν σου (hate your enemy) verbally in the Old Testament, and they perhaps represent a rabbinic interpretation of the law, they accurately express the general spirit of the Old Testament, where it is so often spoken about “enemies”, and all sorts of disasters are called upon their head. Ἐγ ὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν · ἀγαπ ᾶ τε τούς ἐχθρούς ὑμῶν , εὐλογεῖτε τους καταρωμένους ὑμᾶ ς, καλῶς ποιεῖτε τούς μισοῦσιν ὑμ ᾶ ς (starting εὐλογεῖτε and ending with μισοῦντας ὑμ ᾶ ς – LTTrWHR), καὶ προσεύχεσθε ὑπὲρ τῶν διωκ ό ντων ὑμ ᾶ ς · πατρὸς ὑμῶν τοῦ ἐν οὐρανοῖς ὅ τι τὸν ἥ λιον αὐτοῦ ἀνατέλλει ἐπὶ πονηρούς καὶ ἀγαθούς , καὶ βρέχεὶ ἐπι δικα ί ους καὶ ἀδ ί κους . ; ; καὶ ἐὰν ἀσπάσησθε τούς ἀδελφούς ὑμῶν μ ό νον , τ ί περισσὸν ποιεῖτε; οὐχὶ καὶ οἱ τελῶναι ο ὕ τω) (ἐθνικοὶ τὸ αὐτὸ LTTr WHR) ποιοῦσιν. But I say to you: love your enemies, bless those who swear, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who attack you and drive you out, that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven: as His sun shines on the evil and on the good, and rains on the righteous and on the unjust. If you love those who love you, what kind of reward do you give? Don’t publicans do the same thing? And if you kiss your friends only, what are you doing? Don’t even pagan women do the same? 86 In Christianity, God is revealed as the God not only of Jews, but also of pagans (Rom. 3:29); “Here there is no difference between Jew and Greek, for there is one Lord of all, rich to all who call on Him” (Rom. 10:12); “He made from one blood the whole human race, and is close to every man, for in Him we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:20–28). God, the Lord of creation and Provider, pours out signs of His goodness, such as the radiance of the sun and rain, indifferently to the evil and the good, to the righteous and the unrighteous. Since only the “good” and “righteous” are “loved” by God, the “evil” and “unrighteous” are the “enemies” of God, the love that God shows to all people in the “richness of kindness, meekness and long-suffering” (Rom. 2:4), for the most part turns out to be precisely love for enemies. By exercising active love for “enemies,” the Lord’s disciples strive and achieve the fact that before everyone they reveal themselves to be the sons of their heavenly Father, 87 for they assimilate and reflect in their spiritual appearance His most essential and characteristic property in the relationship of the Divine to people. Love for enemies is primarily ἀγάπη, the most characteristic and specific manifestation of this highest Christian virtue. In Christianity, ἀγάπη became dominant as a technical expression to denote love in a religious and moral sense. In pre-Christian literature, this word has hitherto been found only in one place in Philo (Quod Deus immut. § 14); also, in the papyri examined so far, no undoubted evidence of the use of the named term has yet been found (cf. A. Deissmann, Neue Bibelstudien 1897, S. 26 f; Licht vom Osten. Tübingen, 1909, SS. 12, 48 88). If φιλία means love in the sense of a natural inclination, in the form of an affect with a tinge of involuntariness, why does this word, with the corresponding addition (φιλία ἑαυτοῦ) mean self-love (N. Schmidt, V. III, S. 478), then in the concept denoted by the term ἀγἀπη , the moment of free choice of the object of love (diligere) comes to the fore - ἀγαπ ᾷ ν means love in the sense of “direction of the will.” Thus, the concept of ἀγαπ ᾶ ν necessarily includes an element of rational consciousness, a moment of understanding. Ἀγάπη, of course, does not exclude feeling, affect, and in this case it means precisely the “moral” affect of the conscious will, rooted in the latter, and not the natural desire of immediate feeling (Cremer, S. 12). And in the New Testament writings ἀγαπ ᾷ ν are often used where we are talking about the election of someone, about a sympathetic attitude towards someone, which is opposed to negligence, carelessness (negligere. Wed. Matt. 6:24; Luke 16:13; Rom. 9:13, 26; Matt. 3:17; Rev. 20:9). Christianity brought this feature of “love” to the fore, exposing the most characteristic, essential, specific feature of love as boundless self-sacrifice, unconditional self-denial (cf. especially John 15:13; Rom. 5:7, cf. v. 10). In its full greatness and perfect revelation, ἀγἀπη was revealed in the redemptive work of Christ the Savior (cf. 1 John 3:16). God's love for people was manifested precisely in the humiliation and suffering on the cross of the incarnate Only Begotten Son of God (1 John 4:9; cf. Rom. 5:5–10). “Christ, while we were still weak, at a certain time died for the ungodly. For hardly anyone will die for the righteous... But God demonstrates His love for us by the fact that Christ died for us while we were still sinners... Although we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son...” (Rom. 5:5-10). From this feat of Divine love for enemies, “the love of God was poured out into our hearts by the Holy Spirit” (v. 5). Hence, in the love that is commanded to people, the central property and necessary accessory is precisely self-sacrifice, complete devotion (cf. 1 John 3:16; Gal. 2:20). Thus, the true and final basis of Christian “love” lies not in human nature, but in the Divinity itself; this love is only a reflection - to a certain extent - in human life of the basic property of Divine life (cf. 1 John 4:7, 12; cf. Gal. 5:22). From this it is already clear why a special word was required to designate the characteristic features of holy and divine Christian “love”. In the New Testament, only once is the revelation of God's love for man indicated by φιλεῖν (Titus 3:4; cf. John 16:27). Man's love for God is never denoted by the word φιλεῖν. The commandment to love both God and neighbors is constantly expressed through ἀγαπ ᾶ ν. About love for enemies - ἀγαπ ᾷ ν is constantly used, never - φιλεῖν. On the contrary, cf. In. 15:19: εἰ ἑκ τοῦ κόσμου ῆτε, ὁ κόσμος ἂ ν τὸ ἴδιον ἐφίλει (if they were quicker from the world, the world I would love my own). (Cremer, S. 11). Love and benevolence, limited to a narrow circle of close and pleasant individuals, are also characteristic of sinners, and are a common state among pagans. The disciples of Christ, of course, must stand at an incomparably higher level, doing something superior (περρισσὸν) to sinners and pagans. The textual fluctuation in verse 46 between τελῶναι (publicans) and ἐθνικοὶ (pagans) does not have any significant impact on the meaning, for τελώνης (publican) was placed no higher than ἐθνικ ό ς (pagan), but rather below him (Matthew 18:17). Greeting (ἐὰν ἀσπάσησθε) in the east meant more than simple politeness - it was equated to a blessing. By τούς ἀδελφούς (friends; actually, brothers, as in the Russian translation) we mean fellow tribesmen. This is evident, firstly, from the fact that in the Old Testament commandment, which the Lord laid as the basis for revealing the New Testament duty of love even towards enemies, the expression “sons of your people” is synonymous with the expression “thy neighbor” (Lev. 19:18); and, secondly, through τούς ἀδελφούς the idea of ​​ἐθνικοί is highlighted more clearly. This mood of love, which embraces even enemies, is based on a person’s desire to achieve god-like perfection, on the feat of constant, but at the same time infinite approach to God - to which the Lord calls His followers, presenting this duty as an inevitable conclusion from consciousness, the insufficiency of limited and conditional love for the kingdom of heaven (ο ὖ ν). Ἔ σεσθε ο ὖ ν ὑμεῖς τέλειοι ὡ σπερ (ὡ ς LTTr WHR) ὁ Πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς ( οὐράνιος LTTrWHR) τέλειός ἐστι. Be ye therefore perfect, even as your heavenly Father is perfect. In contrast to the partial righteousness of the Pharisees, with flaws and gaps, the disciples of the Lord must strive for the perfection they contemplate in their heavenly Father. Τέλειος in LXX, as in Deut. 18:13; Life 6:9; 2 Sam. 22:26, ​​is a translation of Heb. tamim whole, undamaged, meaning first of all completeness in number (1 Samuel 16:2), in time (Lev. 25:30), in the members of the body, for example, in a sacrificial animal (Exodus 12:5). Transferred to the moral and religious realm, this word meant not only purity from sin and guilt, but also devotion to God of the whole person, as opposed to half-heartedness and hypocrisy (Job 1:1; 2:3), i.e., that kind of piety that Satan doubted when expressing his judgment about the righteousness of Job 89. The rich young man, who kept all the commandments of the Law of Moses (Matthew 19:20), however, felt the insufficiency, incompleteness, imperfection of the successes he had achieved in religious and moral terms and sought to do something more, sufficient to “have eternal life” (v. 16). The Lord in response explains to the young man that he really lacks perfection. He will be “perfect (τέλειος)” only when he renounces and frees himself from all earthly attachments, sacrifices all his great (v. 22) possessions in favor of the poor for undivided and complete following of the Lord. So, only complete sacrifice, decisive and complete renunciation of everything that can attract and bind the human heart to itself, distracting it from following the Lord, from complete self-dedicated service to Him - only complete, undivided love for Him (compare Matthew 13:44-46) constitutes the “perfection” of a Christian. True followers of the Lord continually strive for this godlike perfection - for love, which is the union of perfection (σύνδεσμος τῆς τελειότητος) Col. 3:14. Wed. Eph. 4:29, not being content with its partial implementation, not stopping at any achieved level, no matter how high it may be (Phil. 3:12–14). One of the most decisive, characteristic signs of such love for the Lord, a manifestation of the highest degree of self-denial, is, in His own words, active love for enemies, as children of one Heavenly Father. With the demand for “perfection” (τελειότης), the Lord’s speech reaches its highest point in revealing the essence and characteristics of the truth of Christ’s Kingdom in itself and in its relation to the righteousness of the Old Testament and - especially - in its interpretation by the Pharisees. L. Friedlander, rabbi of the Jewish synagogue in London, agrees that the last verses of the fifth chapter of Matthew contain brilliant moral rules. But they do not seem to add anything to the law or to its interpretation by the rabbis (The Jewish Sources of the Sermon on the Mount. London, 1911, p. 84). In particular, the XIX chapter of Leviticus, according to him, inspires not to harbor malice, not to repay evil for evil, not to hate, but to love your neighbor. The Law of Moses, continues the learned rabbi, explains how we must love our neighbor, even if he were our enemy: “if you find your enemy’s ox or his donkey lost, bring it to him; If you see your enemy’s donkey fallen under his burden, do not leave him; unload him along with him” (Ex. 23:4–5). But here, in fact, mercy is instilled in cattle (cf. Job 38:41; Ps. 147:9), even if they belonged to the enemy, and - in any case - a certain external - benevolent, undoubtedly - behavior in relation to the enemy is commanded, which does not capture and does not degenerate the whole personality of a person, his entire inner mood and well-being in relation to the enemy. Very high, but far from the perfection commanded by the Lord of complete self-devoted love, decisively forgetting about oneself, and the instructions of Proverbs. 20:22: “Do not say: “I will repay evil”; trust in the Lord, and He will help you,” (E. Antonin. Quoted book, p. 122) and Proverbs. 24:27–29; “Do not become a groundless witness against your neighbor, and why should you allow deception with your lips? Do not say: as he did to me, so I will do to him; I will repay a man for his deeds” (Ibid., p. 154). Both here and here the instruction recommends refraining from revenge; in the second case, on top of this, do not violate justice to the enemy in testimony. As an example of the sublime rabbinic teaching about love for enemies, the following is usually cited. A pagan came to Rabbi Hillel, a contemporary of the Lord, and said: “I want to become a Jew, but you must teach me the whole law while I stand on one leg.” Hillel responded to this with the following saying: “What is unpleasant to you, do not do to your neighbor. This is the whole law; everything else is interpretation. Go, learn this” (Schabbath 31a). This rabbinic teaching, they say, recalls Matt. 7:12. However, the negative Jewish formulation is completely different from the teaching of the Lord, which contains a positive requirement. In Judaism, at most, it was required to refrain from taking revenge on the enemy; in Christianity, the fullness and unconditionality of the law of love, bearing each other’s burdens is proclaimed (Gal. 5:14; 6:2; Rom. 13:8; 12:17-21; 1 Cor. 13:4-6; Mark 10:17; 11:23-26, 12:31 90). It is enough to remember the instructions of Sir. 12:1–6 and compare them with Matt. 5:43–48, Luke. 6:34–35 - so that all the incommensurable differences between the teachings of the Jews, on the one hand, and the Gospel, on the other, would be revealed quite clearly. “If you do good,” says the Old Testament wisdom, “know to whom you are doing it, and there will be gratitude for your goodness. Do good to the righteous, and you will receive reward, if not from him, then from the Lord. The one who puts the wicked to rest does nothing good; he does not do alms by doing so. Give to the good and refuse to the evil, support the humble, but do not give to the wicked... For God also hates the wicked and sends vengeance to sinners” (Prof. Archpriest A.P. Rozhdestvensky, Quote. book, page 197). According to the Gospel, the Heavenly Father “commands His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unjust.” Is it possible to conscientiously perceive the identity between one and the other teaching and not see the complete superiority of the gospel? Nothing is said in the Old Testament about “love” for the enemy as a positive, creative force that penetrates a person’s entire personality and displaces and melts all his pride... In general, the desire to place our Lord Jesus Christ in the ranks of Jewish rabbis is, in essence, completely blasphemous, and decisively contradicts the historical state of affairs. The attitude of the Lord towards the law is completely different compared to the attitude towards it not only of the rabbis, but also of the prophets and divine messengers. The law given by Moses and passed on from generation to generation of the chosen people, according to the rabbis, contained the entire divine truth - not only for the past and present, but also for the entire future. This divine truth is contained there partly in a clear revelation, but partly it was only implied. The whole task of rabbinism essentially boiled down to discovering and revealing more and more divine truth, given in the law, but not revealed in detail, or only implied there, how useful it is for improving the religious and moral life of man. When a rabbi thought of any application of a religious rule, only that application was news; the rule itself remained ancient. He did not add anything to the law, but only discovered its content hitherto unknown to others. Thus, the new teaching of the rabbis could rest only on tradition, because this teaching turned out to be only a revelation with greater clarity and certainty of the content that, although in a hidden state, had already been contained in the law itself from time immemorial. Hence rabbinism never reached, and could not reach, the logical end of its method; but the complex and scrupulous explanation of the law in the Talmud, according to rabbinic theory, represents only a detailed disclosure of what was already essentially contained in the law from the very beginning, a transmission explicite of what was always already read in it implicite. This is evidenced by the formula constantly used in the Talmud: Rabbi A. speaks in the name of Rabbi B.; or: Rabbi A. says that Rabbi B. says that Rabbi B. says, etc. Some outside authority must confirm what every teacher says - hence the usual reference to the authority of one or more previous teachers. No teacher could base his teaching solely on his own authority... And if the Lord said: you have heard what was said to the ancients... But I say to you..., then He could say this only because He taught as one who had authority, and not like the scribes and Pharisees. (R T. Hereford, Christianity in Talmud and Midrasch. London, 1903, pp. 10–11, 8–9; U. Sandny, Inspiration. Eight Lecturos. London, 1894, p. 168 ff.; O. Cone, The Gospel and its Earliest Interpretations. 2 Ed. New-York - London, 1894, p. 65). The Lord acts as the Divine Legislator, broadcasting commands and establishing the laws of religious and moral life, not like Moses - in the name of God, but from His Person, who has not only Divine authority and Divine grace-filled gifts, but natural and inalienable Divine dignity, Divine power and authority (Matt. 28:18-20. Cf. Matt. 11:27; 1 Pet. 3:22; Eph. 1:10; Phil. 2:10; All this remains hidden from the “children of Israel”; hitherto “their minds have been blinded: for the same veil remains to this day in the reading of the Old Testament, because it is removed by Christ. To this day, when they read Moses, a veil lies over their heart; but when they turn to the Lord, then this veil is removed” (2 Cor. 3:13–16). In the predicate ό λοχν o ς τ o ῦ σωματος only λοχν o ς is an image; through connection with what is understood in the proper sense τ o ῦ σωματος the following comparison is expressed in abbreviated form: what a lamp serves in everyday life, what an eye is for the body. Wed. Eph. 5:23: As the head is to the body, so is the husband to the wife, Christ to the church. Job. 6:6; Mk. 9:50 , Col. 4:6. Among the necessary needs of human life and before other food sources, salt is mentioned in the book. Sire. 39:26. In the letter to Diognetus we find the following aphorism: what is in the body is the soul, then in the world are Christians - σμφ χριστιαν o ί . To explain it, it should be borne in mind that salt - for the sake of its protective and seasoning power - sometimes served as an image of the soul (Philon. De op, m. § 21 M. 15. Compare also De vict. § 3 M. 240). Hence the Valentinians called salt τὸ πνευματ i κόν (Irenaeus I, 6, 1). So in Tseshitto, near bl. Augustina, bl. Jerome and friend. Λ o χν o ς is not a candle (candela), which was generally little used among the Greeks and in the East, but an oil-filled lamp (lucerna). Λυχνία (vm. Attic λυχνιον) - a metal stand for a lamp, sometimes reaching 1 1/2 meters in height (Rev. 1:12; 2:1). Not a single example is given to support the understanding of oὕ τως as preceding ὁπως. Especially after the parable (XII, 45; XIII, 49; XVIII, 14; XX, 16; XXIII, 28) oὕ τως usually points to the latter and completes the comparison. Wed. Sire. 12:14; 13:16–19. Plural τὰ ἔργα already V.Z. often means in general ἐργάδεσθαι in all its diversity, activities and aspirations of man in general, and this also means their moral qualities (Gen. 8:21; Exod. 23:24; Ps. 32:4; 61:13; Proverbs 21:8; 1 Pet. 1:12 seq.; James 3:13). Ἀγαθ ό ς ; indicates primarily the mood and the moral dignity based on it, καλ ό ς - the manifestation of goodness in praiseworthy qualities (cf. Matt. 15; John 10:32; 1 Tim. 3:1, etc.). In the New Testament writings, καλ ό ς occurs more often than ἀγαθ ό ς, in the LXX it is the other way around. Israel, as the people of God, was called the son of God and God his Father (Ex. 4:22; Deut. 32:6; Hos. 11:1; Ezek. 63:16; Jer. 31:9; Mal. 1:6; 2:10); likewise, all the Israelites were called His sons and daughters (Deut. 14:1; 32:19; Ezek. 1:4; 63:8; Hos. 2:1), but only as members of the people. The “Our Father” of the Lord’s Prayer, of course, does not speak against this, for this prayer is given to the disciples and they are commanded to pray this way. See also D. Forrest's book The Christ of History and of Experience. Edinburgh, 1906, p. 27, 386–386, 472–481. The letter of Aristaeus to Philocrates on the origin of the LXX translation represents the apotheosis of the law. The main goal of I. Flavius ​​in his polemical work against Apion is to prove the eternity of the law, etc. According to the observation of A. Harnck, the names “sent” and “coming” are not exclusively messianic when used in the Holy Scriptures, although they always have a religious meaning and mean a messenger from God: with a special nuance and in connection with the context, they have an undoubted messianic meaning. At the same time, the expression “came” marks the most characteristic moments of the activity and service of the Divine Messiah, as the Savior of “lost” humanity (Luke 19:10), pact, “Doctor” of people who are spiritually sick (Mark 2:17. Wed. Matthew 9:13; Luke 5:32) - “sinners”, calling them to repentant faith (Mark 2:17), - destined to “save the world” (John 12:47): - as the Divine Teacher and Lawgiver, who proclaimed “in fullness and perfection” the will of God, which was only partially and gradually revealed by the Old Testament messengers of God (Matthew 5:17; cf. Heb. 1:1 next); - as the Divine Redeemer. Who “came” not “to be served, but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Matt. 20:28. Wed. Mark 10:45). Wed. article "Ich bin gekommen" in "Zeitschrift fur Theologie und Kirche". 1912, Hft. I. Ritschl's assertion that the disjunctive conjunction in this sentence, as in a negative one, simply replaces the connecting particle, cannot be accepted without restrictions because, firstly, the sentence ὅ τι ἦ λθον is itself actually affirmative, subordinate, however, to a negative sentence; secondly, even in negative sentences ὴ does not simply replace και or its corresponding οὐδὲ, μηδὲ, but also retains a dividing connotation (cf. esp. Eph. 5:3). See also Prof. N. N. Glubokovsky, Intercessor of the New Testament. Exegetical analysis of Heb. 1:1–5 (Sergiev Posad. 1915), pp. 14–15: “through the Son we must receive the highest revelation, not just final for everything that precedes, in agreement with the latter, but also absolutely final, by crowning it, since there can be nothing better than the appearance of the Father in the Son (Matt. 11:27. Luke 10:22. John. 1:18; 6:46; 14:9)". Ἓ ως ἂ ν παρέλθ ῃ ὁ οὐρανὸς καὶ ή γῆ like ἕ ως συντελείας τ o ῦ ἰῶν o ς Matthew 28:20 - exclusively marks the time limit before which the thought contained in the main sentence retains its significance; whereas ἕ ως ἂ ν πάντα γενηται - indicates a goal that must certainly be achieved. If other institutions and orders fall into decay over time and are replaced by others, even without achieving their goal, and precisely because they did not achieve it, then not even the smallest component of the law will fall into decay without receiving its “fulfillment”, without achieving its goal. According to E. Bischoffa, “whoever takes these words literally does not understand Eastern figurative speech.” Iesus und die Rabbinen. Leipzig. 1905, S. 28. Wed. and A. Harnack, “Ieh bin gekommen” in Zeitschritt für Theologie und Kirche 1912, 1 Heft, S. 19. The Pharisees, although they were numbered in the thousands, were actually a party of "scribes" numbering in the hundreds. What the latter taught to students in schools and people in synagogues, the Pharisees wanted to put into practice - in their lives, and also, as far as possible, in the life of the nation. The understanding of τοῖς ἀρχάιοις in the sense of ὑπὸ τών ἀρχάίοις (Beza, Fritzsclie, Ewald) has recently been almost abandoned. Although grammatically acceptable, such an understanding is unacceptable in the present case: 1) such use of the dative is unusual in Hebrew. Matt. and generally very rarely in the New Testament (cf. Luke 22:5); 2) by all analogies then it would be ει or λέλεκται, instead of ἐρρέθη; 3) τοῖς άρχαίοις, in accordance with ὲγ ὼ δέ λέγω ὑμῖν, would come before the verb, and not after it; 4) not a single ancient translator or interpreter understood the expression in this sense. Zahn, S. 225, Anm. 90. The subjunctive mood of the aorist and the future tense in the “common” (κοινή) language have become so close in meaning that the difference in their meaning has almost been erased. The consequence of this rapprochement was that the future penetrated into the sphere of the subjunctive. But the future still retained its special connotation - as it remained, at least until the 3rd century BC, and the special negative adverb οὐ and not μὴ - just as in the Russian language there is a difference between the expressions “you must not kill” and “you will not kill.” L. Radermacher. Handbuch zum Neuen Testament. Erst. Bd: erster Teil Neutestamentliche Grammatik. Das Griechisch des Neuen Testaments im Zusammenhang mit der Volkssprache (Tübingen, 1911), S.136. Eg. Ex. 22:3 ἔνοχός έστιν, ἀντ and π o θανεῖται is opposed to οὐκ ἔοτιν αὐτῷ φόνος. Lion. 20:9 ένοχο; έσται – θανατω θανατούοθω. With ρ. Art. 11. 12. 13. “Blood snake” οὐκ ενοχός εστιν, if he kills an unwitting murderer outside the walls of the city of refuge (Num. 35:27. Wed. v. 31), τοῦ ? . Deut. 19:10: αἱματι ἔνοχος. For details, see E Schürer'a Geschichte des Jüdiscren Volkes und Zeitalter, Jesu Christi. 4 Aufl. Zw. Bnd. (Leipz. 1907), S. 223 folg. K ρισις in LXX sometimes means direct judgment, sentence. Eg. Deut. 19:6: – τούτ ῳ ούκ εστ ᾽ κρισις θαναον. The Jewish “scribes” distinguished between the concepts of “brother” and “neighbor”; “brother” was an Israeli by nationality and blood; “neighbors” - not belonging to the people of Israel, but having joined in their worship of God, i.e. - a proselyte. In Christianity, where national differences have lost their religious significance, the concept of “brother” expands and inseparably embraces everyone who has Christ and the one Father in heaven as their “Teacher” (Matthew 23:8, 9). “Brother” in this sense is opposed to “pagan” (Cf. 1 Cor. 5:11; Matt. 18:15, sn. 17). The concept of “neighbor” embraces all people without exception. OK. 10:29, 30 . Lightfoot, Horae hebraicae et talmudicae, vol. II, p. 108. Prof. M. D. Muretov. Four Gospels. Comparative features of the canonical gospels according to their content, main thoughts and presentation, p. 63, note. 2nd. Wed. Zahn, S. 227, Anm. 93. Th. Zahn, S. 227. - “Origen once (in Homil. IX, 3 on the book of Joshua) quoting this passage, instead of what he usually uses in other cases, reus erit judicio, writes homicida est (i.e. there is a murderer), - expressing, apparently, exactly the thought of the Lord (cf. 1 John 3:15). We also find a negative attitude towards the question of the authenticity of εἰκῆ in the “Explanatory Bible”, ed. successors † prof. A. P. Lopukhina, vol. VIII (Gospel of Matthew), pp. 95–96. Regarding the Diatessaron, see the translation from Arabic by J. N. Hill, The earliest Life of Christ. Edinburgh, 1894, p. 75, where we have – the corresponding εἰκῆ – witliout a cause. A. Merx, Die vier kanonischen Evangelien. Berlin. 1897, S. 234. Unfortunately, the AC codes have completely lost the corresponding departments. See also Vop Soden'a Die Schriften d. N.Testament. Bnd. I, 2 Abteil. 1906. SS. 899, 905. The named scholar considers it quite probable that the omission of εἰκῆ in א B is due to the direct influence of Origen on the text of these manuscripts (S. 905). And according to the judgment of Albert V. Clark, we have absolutely clear evidence to have the right to attribute to both codes - both Sinaiticus and Vatican - the same place and time of origin. Thus, both were written after the point at which textual criticism was applied to the New Testament. In view of their general similarity, it is quite plausible that they represent a review by Origen or one of his friends. Representatives of this school were distinguished by their fear of interpolations. Any passage omitted by a certain number of manuscripts necessarily fell under suspicion, while the omission initially could have been due simply to chance. For such a researcher, the most accurate copy (ἀκριβέστατον ἀντιγραφον) was a manuscript that omitted the suspected passage. The Primitive Text of the Gospels and Acts (Oxford, 1914). p. 109–111; Fr. G. Kenyon. Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament. 2 Ed. (London, 1912), p. 83–85. J.IV. Burgon, The Cause of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Gospels. Wed. prof. prot. S. A. Sollertinsky, Explanation of Matt. 5:22; 5:38–42; 7:1; OK. 6:37. St. Petersburg 1887, p. 9. Vetshtein, not without right, assumes that Bl. Augustine added the word "Greek" without sufficient reason. Weistemi Ἡ κα. νη διαχθήκη ... Amstelod. 1751, b. 207. Codices enim graeci non habent "sine causa"... quamvis idem ipse sit sensus. Th. Benfey states that Εεικῆ, εἰκῆ (ancient instrumental case) means: of one's own will, of one's own whim, of one's own caprice, unplanned, inexpedient. Griecliisclien Wurzellexicon. I Bd. (Berlin, 1839), S. 349. Connection and Translation of the Four Gospels Ed. Elpidina. Genéve, 1892. T. I, p. 211. In the explanation in ev. Matthew, owned by N. Gressmann'y and E. Klostenuann'y (in the edition "Handbuch zum Neuen Testameut" Zw. Bnd, I. Hälfte, S. 189), the addition of εἰκῆ is recognized as excessive pedantry. They treat εἰκῆ with indifference and tolerance, for example, E. Bischoff, Jesus und die Rabbinen, S. 35. W. Allen, p. 49. Cp. Tholuck, S. 168. Gr. L. Tolstoy, for example, expresses himself: “it is unnecessary to explain the obviousness of the insertion of this word. Everyone understands how grossly it contradicts the meaning of the entire teaching, how simply stupid it is. If it is not good to be angry in vain, then one can be angry not in vain. And who will be the judge of what is vain and not in vain? Wed. A. Bengelii, Gnomon Novi Testamenti. Stuttgartiae, 1891, p. 42. In Polybius (1. I. 52. 2) εἰκῆ is found along with ἀλογιλιτως χαλεπαινειν εἰκῆ, as Lucian expresses when speaking of blind jealousy; εἰκῆ χρῆσθαι θαντασιαις Appian (Epict. 1, 9) contrasts ἐπακολουθεῖν λόγοω. Unlike θυμ ό ς, which designates “anger” in the initial stage of its development, ὀργή presupposes – according to the patristic interpretation – anger, as a passionate state that has already developed. Afanasy A. Exposit. in psalm. T. XXVII, col. 65 C. Wed. Vasily V. Homil. in psalm. XXIX, p. IV. T. XXIX, col. 313 A. Lighffoot, Horae hebraicae. vol. II, p. 109; According to the explanation of the blessed one. Jerome, rachavanus. raca enim dicitur κεν ό ς, inanis aut vacuus, quem nos possumus vulgata injuria “absque serebro” nuncuparo. According to the testimony of St. Chrysostom, this word in the Syriac language expressed a connotation of an arrogant and disdainful attitude in the address of those higher in position to the lower ones, for example, to servants (Demons XVI, p. 181). According to Bishop Peter of Laodicea, ῥ ακά is understood by some to mean “you,” which is a derogatory expression of arrogance, but in Syriac it means: “worthy of being spat upon, despised, hated (“καταπτυστε”). Quote cit., p. 47. Some understand the speech in the sense of the interjection “ugh!” Tholuck, S. 171; Bengelii Gnomon, b. 43. Prof. A. A. Olesnitsky. Old Testament Temple in Jerusalem, pp. 479–480, 483. Syrian Sinan, Kurton and Neshitto in the transmission ἔχειν τι κατά τινος offer the actual exegetical interpretation of this expression: harbors anger, vengeful feelings against you. This translation is also related to the Armenian one: “has something hostile against you.” The Memphite translates more roughly: “that a dispute exists between you and your brother.” Wed. explanation of St. AND . Chrysostom: “(the Lord) did not say: when you are angry justly or unjustly, but simply: if you have something against you, even if your anger were just, then you should not harbor enmity.” Therefore, it is in vain to try to bring the teaching of the Lord closer to the rabbinic teaching at this point. In rabbinic literature we read that the offering of a sacrifice, even one already presented at the altar, in some cases was not only postponed, but the sacrifice itself was rejected. But the latter happened precisely in the event that at the indicated moment a physical defect or some other defect was discovered in the animal intended for sacrifice, because of which, according to the law, it could not be sacrificed; or - if physical impurity (for example, leakage) was revealed in the person who made the sacrifice, so that he became unable to bring the gift at that moment. Jewish lawyers talk a lot about such things that prevented the offering of a sacrifice already presented to the altar. But among these things we do not find at all what the Savior is talking about here. Lightgoot, r. 114. In rabbinic literature it is sometimes said that what was unjustly withheld or stolen from a brother must be returned in order for the sacrifice “to be accepted by God. For example, “a sacrifice should not be made for sin unless what is (unjustly) withheld is first returned either to the owner or to the priest” (Maimon. in Gezelah, p. 8). In general, the rabbis here refer exclusively to material damage and prescribe a simple restoration of justice, which could be carried out without a merciful inner disposition and a brotherly heart (Ibid., pp. 113 and 114). Wed. Fnedrich Blass, Grammatik des Neutestamentlichen Griechisch. Zw. Auflage (Göttingen, 1902), S. 201, Anm.: in the expression Ma. V, 24, διαλλαγηθι και τότε πρόσφερε το δῶρόν σ about υ instructions are given on how and under what circumstances the correct offering of a sacrifice, pleasing to God, can be performed: “and then only you can offer.” A. Jülicher, Die Gleichnisreden. Jesu. 1 Th. SS. 240–241. On the meaning of the terms μοιχεία and πορνεία and their different understanding among various church writers, see also in the books of O. D. Walkins, Holy Matrimony. A Treatise on the Divine Laws of Marriage (London, 1895), p. 151 ff. and T. A. Lasey, Marriage in Church and State (London, 1912), p. 116 ff. Wed. M. S. Fleteher, The Psycliology of the New Testament, 1912, p. 80: In the New Testament, "heart" is a metaphorical term for the whole inner character and its moral significance; r. 81–82: behavior stems from inner character and reveals the inner moral nature of a person - what the Apostle Peter calls “the hidden man of the heart” (1 Pet. 3:4; cf. Luke 6:45; Mark 7:21). Wellhausen, joined by S. G. Montefiore (The Synoptic Gospels. Vol. II. p. 506), argues that the intelligible words of the Lord do not rise above Job. 31:1. Here we read: I have made a covenant before my eyes, that I will not think upon the maiden. → . However, firstly, it is not clear from anywhere that what is meant here is a purely internal experience of voluptuousness, which does not transform into a corresponding external act. On the contrary, there is every reason to believe the opposite, i.e., that the primary manifestations of sinful lust irresistibly entailed a further process, bringing it to the end. Wed. Life 35:1–2: Dinah, daughter of Leah, came out... And I saw Shechem... and I took her, and was with her, and humbled her. ... αὐτῆς καὶ ἐταπε ί νωσεν αὐτ ή ν . Wed. Sire. 9:5: You shall not despise the virgins, lest you be tempted by her beauty. But here the Slavic translation was influenced by the Latin. From the original it should have been translated: “Don’t look at the girl, so as not to pay a ransom for her.” For the seduced maiden, the seducer had to pay a ransom (Exod. 22:16–17) in 50 shekels of silver (Deut. 22:28–29), - Ben Sira probably speaks about this ransom: he who looks at a maiden... can easily be tempted, fall into sin with her and pay for it with a ransom (Prof. Archpriest A. II. Rozhdestvensky, The Book of the Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach (St. Petersburg, 1911, p. 138). The Testament does not contain the idea that an unclean, adulterous sinful thought, in its religious and moral sanity, is no less disgusting and serious for a sensitive conscience than the most sinful act. See also N. I. Wicks, The Doctrine of God in the Jewish Apocalyptic Literature, London, 1915, p. 282. dissertation by S. M. Zarina, Asceticism on Orthodox Christian teaching. Vol. 2, pp. 217–218. Dan. 11:41 σκανδαλισδθήσοντα: (Theodotion ἀσθενησουσι) of some is opposed · σωθήσονται of others. In N. 3. this verb occurs in Matt. 13:21; 24:10; 26:33. Wed. Bishop Peter of Laodicea Explanation of St. Matthew. Edition by Georg Heinrici. Leipzig. 1908, p. 51: ἐπιθυμιας, δν λεγει ἐκκ ό πτεσθαι, that is, the right eye and the right hand are called lustful thoughts, which (the Lord) commands to be cut off. If ev. Mark in his parallel to Matt. 9:43–47 uses the form εαν σκανδαλισ ῃ, then this form of a conditional sentence in the Gospel sometimes expresses the thought of such actions and events that should never happen (cf. Matt. 27:20; 21:21; (cf. Luke 17:6); Luke 19:40; John. 8:54, 55). Die Haupt-Parabeln Jesu. I Halfte. Giessen, S.S. 17–18. On the freedom of divorce among Jews, see also J. Benzinger, Hebräische Archaologie. Zw. Aufl. Tubingen, S. 109–110; at Prof. Iv. G. Troitsky, Biblical archeology, Scientific works of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy. Vol. 1st, St. Petersburg, 1913, pp. 237–239. Bishop Peter of Laodicea, page 51. In uncovering the divorce department, we also benefited from the excellent research of Prof. Η. N. Glubokovsky “Divorce due to adultery and its consequences according to the teachings of Christ the Savior. St. Petersburg, 1895." Even C. G. Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, agrees with this. Vol II, London, 1909, p. 506. Even regarding Old Testament legislation, the opinion that the right to divorce is assigned exclusively to the husband does not have completely solid foundations. The rabbis, often firmly rooted in ancient Jewish tradition, fully confirm the wife’s right to divorce. Prof. A. L. Lopukhin. Law of Moses. St. Petersburg 1881, pp. 92–94. According to L. Radermacher, παφεκτὸς Matt. 5:32 is in the proper sense a Hellenistic word, i.e., belonging to the so-called “common” (χοινή) language. Such formations of adverbs and prepositions with prefixes were directly prohibited by the Atticists, i.e., supporters of the classical style. Lib. cit., S. 55. According to prof. V.V. Bolotov, “a significant part of the oaths of the ancient Jews had the character of a “company” (cf. Matthew 26:74). Quite usually, the “company” (in a more developed form) consisted of the words: “halîlăh lî mēyhwh” (halil to me from the Lord if I do such-and-such or do not do such-and-such). The adjective hālîl (from the verb hillēl) for a Jew apparently meant the highest measure of everything vile and filthy (profanum), and “horns” obviously had the following meaning: may the Lord charge me with abomination, with filthiness, if I do such and such.” It is significant that in the LXX translation “nowhere is “halîlăh” literally translated. In six places it is replaced by the word μηδαμῶς, in four – μὴ γενοιτο, in two – μή μοι εὶη. But in the other three places (1 Kings 14:45; 2 Kings 20:20; 1 Chronicles 11:19) the translation is special”: here halîlăh is translated by the word ἱλεως or ἱλεως μοι. – For a developed moral consciousness, for a scrupulously sensitive conscience, it was clear that such “companies” are not without sin, in which the “rotated” person puts himself under anathema, albeit conditionally, - admits, although only theoretically, the possibility of becoming an abomination in the eyes of the Lord. And the translators, omitting the “rota,” replace it with an appeal to God’s mercy for the remission of the sin of such self-curse. A kind of literary ellipse is created to convey oath expressions.” "Christian. Reading”, 1897, part II, vol. SSIII, pp. 639–640 (article “Replacements of the concept ἱλεως in Eastern languages”). The command to swear in the name of God is sometimes given only as a counterweight to the prohibition of swearing in the name of pagan gods (Deut. 6:13; 10:20, cf. 1 Sam. 7:3), so that the goal in this case is actually a distraction from this last oath. Bishop Peter of Laodicea expresses it well, op. ed., p. 53: “God alone swears by Himself, that is, by His own glory, as the only free one.” This explanation is also expressed by those scientists who do not see the prohibition of an oath in the words of the Conversation on the Mount, and who, therefore, cannot be suspected of bias. See E. Bischoff, S. 53 Anm., from taxonomy H. Iacoby, Neutestam. Ethik. S. 87. Prof.'s remark is correct. A. Nekrasova, Reading the Greek text of Sts. Gospels, page 30: “with Christian feeling and Christian consciousness it is agreeable to pronounce an oath before Almighty God, rather than an oath by Almighty God.” Wed. use of ἐκ Matt. 12:37; Jacob 4:1; Rome. 14:23 ; Eph. 2:8 next Prof. Zh. M. Tareev. Gospel. Fundamentals of Christianity, vol. II, p. 213. Prof. V. N. Myshtsyn. The teaching of St. ap. Paul on the law of works and the law of faith. Serg. Pos. 1894, pp. 3–4. See also prof. M. M. Tareev. Gospel. Foundations of Christianity, vol. II, pp. 120–121. Prof. M. M. Tareev, cit. cit., p. 91. The author finds that such an exhortation would be in harmony with the teaching of the Lord that His kingdom is not of this world. The only reason that appears in favor of this explanation is that the Romans are called θηρία πονηρα (evil beasts) in Psalms of Solomon xiii. 3, and Pompey is called ὁ ἁ μαρτωλός (sinner) in the same apocryphal book. See about this Prof.-Prot. S. A. Sollertinsky. Actual speech. St. Petersburg 1887, p. 19. Prof. M. D. Muretov. Quote cit., p. 71, note. Prof. V. P. Myshtsyn, cit. cit., pp. 202–203. And in the ancient world there were examples of patiently enduring such insults and neglecting them... But here the basis was a selfish mood - contempt for the offender and the pride of those who neglect the insult. Mari refused the Teutonic man a duel: if the latter was tired of his life, let him hang himself!.. Having been kicked, Socrates said: “If a donkey had pushed me, would I have complained about him?!” Cynics, especially, put their pride in tolerating injustice. When Antisthenes was hit in the face by someone, he wrote the name of the offender on a note, which he attached to his forehead so that everyone could see... For some other examples, see Heinrici. Dic Bergpredigt, S. 47. Only g1, Vercellensis a (dated to the end of the 4th century) and Veronensis b (4th–5th centuries) have “Sinistram”. The statement by S. G. Montefiore that “do not resist evil” and “turn him the other cheek” is essentially the same as what we find in the book. Proverbs 15:1, and the latter is only revealed, systematized and idealized by the Lord (The Synoptic Gospels, vol. II. p. 513), is completely unfounded and frivolous. In the indicated place book. We read in the parable: anger destroys even the wise; but wrath turns away the answer of the humble. From the Hebrew: A gentle answer quells rage, but an insulting word stirs up anger. From Greek LXX: a meek answer turns away rage, and an insulting word excites anger (Bishop Antoninus. Book of Proverbs of Solomon. Text of the book. T. III. Sib., 1913, p. 87). The instruction here rests on the observation of real facts of softening of rage under the influence of a meek, humble response on the part of the one subjected to anger (cf. 1 Samuel 25:24, 35) and does not rise above everyday utilitarian morality, which recommends compliance in order to achieve one’s own goal and to prevent disasters and troubles for oneself. The first half of the phrase “to follow a separate parable from the Arabs” (her. Antonin, ibid.) is like the property of worldly wisdom. The Lord’s teaching is completely alien to utilitarian adaptability, it is entirely unconditional, universal in nature, depicting the manifestations and actions of complete divine self-devoted love. This property of Christian love is beautifully depicted by St. Ap. Pavel Rome. 15:1 next: “we, the strong, must endure the weaknesses of the powerless and not please ourselves: each of us must please our neighbor, for good, for edification” ... Herodotus and Xenophon speak of Persian ἄγγαροι. The word is of Persian origin and means royal couriers. From ἄγγαροι the verb ἄγγαρευω was formed, which - in addition to this place (Matthew 5:41) - is also used by Matthew. 27:32 ; Mk. 15:21, meaning to force someone to do something. The word is already used in verbal form by Menander († 290 BC), we meet it twice on the same papyrus (from 252 BC). Its use in the Egyptian dialect of the Greek language is confirmed by one inscription from 49 BC. These and other facts confirm that the word, originally used only in application to Persian life, already in the 3rd century BC received a more general meaning, although - as can be seen from the mentioned papyrus, the inscription and Josephus - it still retained a technical connotation for a long time. See A. Deissmann, Bible Studies for more details. 2 Edition. Edinburgh, 1909, p. 86–87. Reasonable evidence that the accepted text here represents what Matthew the Evangelist actually wrote is found in J. W. Burgon's study The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels. London, 1896, p. 144–153. The venerable author also does not agree with the opinion of Mill, joined by Griesbach, Tischendorf and, finally, most recently, von Soden, that the three disputed phrases were introduced here from Ev. Luke ch. VI, art. 27–28 (but to von Soden – through Tatian’s Diatessaron). “How then could it happen,” asks Burgon, “that the second and third sayings of the Evangelist Matthew are in the reverse order compared to the Gospel of Luke?” (pp. 148–149). That the influence of the Diatessaron could not be as general and stable as von Soden assumes, see also the article by N. N. V. Ayles A Recent Attempt to determine the Original New Testament Text in the journal “The Interpreter”, 1915, July, p. 412. VI, 16 also has this meaning γίνεσθαι, in connection with a predicative adjective or noun; X, 16; XXIV, 44; In. 20:27 ; Rome. 12:16 ; 1 Cor. 14:20; 15:10, 58; Col. 3:15 ; 1Sol. 1:5; 2:7. See also Prof. N. N. Glubokovsky, About the second letter of St. Apostle Paul to the Thessalonians. Petrograd, 1915, pp. 56–57. Th. Zahn, S. 259. Cf. 1. Kögel, Der Begriff τελειοῦν ini Hebräerbrief im Zusammenhang mit dem neutestamentlichen Spracligebrauch. Leipzig, 1915, S. 12. See A. Thoma, Geschichte der christlichen Sittenlehre in der Zeit des Neuen Testamentes Haarlem, 1879, S. 36–37; R. J. Knoruding, The Witness of the Epistles. London, 1892, p. 313–314; G. Kittel, Jesus und die Rabbinen. Berlin, 1914, S. 14; K. Grass, Crundriss der Lehre Jesu nach den drei ersten Evangelien. Dorpat, 1912, S. 29–30; B. Pick, Jesus in the Talmud. London, 1913, p. 92–94. This work is a direct continuation of the issue, which united a number of articles published in the Church Gazette under the title “The Beatitudes” (Matthew 5:3–2; Luke 6:20–26) and, together with it, provides a consistent interpretation of the fifth chapter of the Gospel of Matthew. You might be interested in: