Глава XXII

Matthew 22:1–2. Jesus, continuing to speak to them in parables, said: The kingdom of heaven is like a king, who held a wedding feast for his son. The Pharisees, realizing that He was speaking parables about them, looked for an opportunity to seize Him and put Him to death. The Lord, knowing this desire of theirs, does not in the least forbid them from their irritation, but does not succumb to the influence of fear in order to denounce them with no less force. This king, giving a wedding feast to his son, is God Almighty. He arranges the marriage of Jesus Christ and the Church, which is gathered from both Jews and pagans. Matthew 22:3. And he sent his servant to call those invited to the marriage, but they did not want to come. 490. There is no doubt that it was Moses through whom He gave the law to those invited. If we read: “slaves,” as is contained in many lists, then this place should be attributed to the prophets, because those called by them rejected [the call] with contempt. Matthew 22:4–5. 491 Again he sent other servants, saying: Tell those who are invited: “Behold, I have prepared my dinner, my bullocks and what is fattened, slaughtered, and everything is ready; come to the wedding feast.” But they neglected it. It is much better to understand the slaves sent a second time as prophets than as apostles; This, however, is the case [if] it is written here, as above, “slaves,” and if there you read “slaves,” then here by second slaves you will have to understand 493 apostles. By the prepared feast and bulls and fattened slaughtered animals, it is necessary to understand either, in a figurative sense, an image of royal wealth, judging the spiritual from the flesh, or, perhaps, the greatness of dogmas and the Divine teaching, which is fully consistent with the law. Matthew 22:6. [end of the 5th] Let's go, some to their field, and some to their trade. The others, seizing his slaves, insulted and killed them. There is a great difference between those who do not accept the truth of the Gospel. Indeed, those who did not want to come because they were busy with other matters are less guilty than those who turned human feeling into cruelty and, having tortured the king’s slaves and dishonored them, killed them. In this parable there is no indication of the murder of the groom by slaves: contempt for the king’s wedding feast was expressed only through the killing of his slaves. Matthew 22:7. The king, when he heard about this, became angry 494 The one about which it was said before: “The Kingdom of Heaven is like a king to a man,” when he invited to a wedding feast and discovered in himself a work of mercy, was called with the addition: “to a man.” And now, when He burns with vengeance, then the man is already kept silent, and only the king is spoken of. And he sent his troops, destroyed their murderers, and burned their city. An army, that is, avenging angels, about whom it is written in the psalms: “Embassy through the worst angels” [or: “evil”] (Ps. 77:49); 495 but we can also understand 496 the Romans under the leadership of Vespasian and Titus, who, having killed the Jewish people, burned the city of treachery. Matthew 22:8–10. Then he says to his servants: “The wedding feast is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy. So go to the highways, and invite everyone you find to the wedding feast.” And those slaves, going out onto the roads, gathered everyone they found, both evil and good; and the wedding feast was filled with those reclining. The tribe of the pagans was not on the path, but at the crossroads. But, one may ask, how is it that among them, who were outside [the rule of the law], there are also good ones among the evil ones? The apostle [Paul] discusses this passage more fully in his letter to the Romans (Rom. 2:14), saying that the pagans, who by nature did the works of the law, will be judges of the Jews, who did not fulfill the written law. But even among the pagans themselves there is an endless difference, since we know that some were prone to vices and strived for evil, while others, due to the purity of their morals, were devoted to virtue. Matthew 22:11–12. The king, entering to look at those reclining, saw a man there, not dressed in wedding clothes, and said to him: “Friend! How did you come here not wearing wedding clothes? He was silent. The royal meal was filled by those who were invited from under fences, from crossroads, from streets and various places. But then, when the king entered to see those reclining at his feast (that is, those who rested on their visible faith (in sua quasi fide), just as on the day of judgment He will visit the feasters and judge the merits of each), he found a man who was not dressed in a wedding robe. By this one person we must understand all those who are connected with each other by malice, as allies. And the wedding garment is the commandments of God, as well as deeds performed according to the law and the Gospel and constituting the clothing of the new man. So, whoever, during the judgment, is found having the name of a Christian, but not having the wedding garment, that is, the clothing of the super-heavenly 497 (supercoelestis) [or: heavenly - coelestis] man, but having filthy clothing, that is, the armor of the old man, he immediately receives instruction and is told to him: “Friend! how did you get in here?” He calls him a friend as an invitee to the marriage; but he accuses him of shamelessness, because with dirty clothes he desecrated the purity of the wedding feast. “But he remained unanswered,” 498 for at that time there will no longer be room for repentance, nor the opportunity to deny what happened, because all the angels and the world itself will be witnesses 499 against sinners. Matthew 22:13. Then the king said to the servants: “having tied his hands and feet, take him and throw him into outer darkness (exteriorem, τό σκότος τό έξώτερον): there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. You understand the bound hands and feet, the weeping of eyes and the gnashing of teeth, in the sense of proof of the truth of the resurrection, or, perhaps, that his hands and feet are tied so that they stop doing evil and rushing to shed blood. And in the crying of the eyes and the gnashing of teeth, the magnitude of the torment is figuratively shown through the bodily members. Matthew 22:14. For many are called, but few are chosen. He embraces all the parables with one brief conclusion, namely: in the cultivation of grapes, and in the creation of a house, and in the wedding feast, it is not the beginning [of the act] that matters, but the end. Matthew 22:15–16. [beginning of the 16th] Then the Pharisees went and consulted how to catch Him in words. And they sent their disciples to Him with the Herodians, saying: Not long before that time, under Caesar Augustus, Judea was conquered by the Romans, and when a census was taken throughout the [then] world, Judea was subject to tribute; Then there was great indignation among the people, since some said that in order to maintain security and peace - for the Romans fought in defense of everyone - taxes should be paid; and the Pharisees, who ascribed justice to themselves, on the contrary, argued that the people of God - who paid tithes, gave firstfruits [fruits] and did everything else prescribed by the law - should not obey human laws. Caesar Augustus appointed Herod, the son of Antipater, a foreigner and proselyte, over the Jews as king, so that he would be in charge of collecting taxes and maintaining obedience to Roman rule. So, the Pharisees send their disciples along with the Herodians, that is, Herod’s warriors, or with those whom the Pharisees mockingly called “Herodians” because they paid tribute to the Romans and were not faithful performers of Divine service. Some of the Latins have a funny idea that the Herodians are those who recognized Herod as Christ, which we have never read about. Matthew 22:16–17. [end of 16th] Teacher! we know that You are just, and You teach truly the way of God, and do not care about pleasing anyone, for You do not look at any person. So tell us, what do you think? Is it permissible to give tribute to Caesar or not? A flattering and deceptive question - it provokes the due 500 to answer so that out of fear of God more than of Caesar, He should say that tribute should not be paid; this is for the purpose that the Herodians, hearing this, would immediately seize [Him as] the instigator of the indignation against the Romans [or: for the indignation against the leader of the Romans]. Matthew 22:18. But Jesus, seeing their wickedness, said: Why are you tempting Me, you hypocrites? The first virtue of the Answerer was that He recognizes the thoughts of those asking and calls them not disciples, but hypocrites. So, a hypocrite is one who in reality is one thing, but pretends to be another, that is, he does one thing, but in words represents something else. Matthew 22:19. Show Me the coin with which the tax is paid. They brought Him a denarius. Wisdom always acts wisely, so that tempters are best refuted by their own words. “Show me,” he says, “the denarius,” that is, that coin (genus nummi), which was counted as ten coins and had the image of Caesar on it. Matthew 22:20. And he says to them: whose image and inscription is this? Those who think that the Savior’s question is a consequence of ignorance, and not a desire for a wise solution to the question, let them learn from this place that Jesus could undoubtedly know whose image it was on the coin. And He asks them in order to answer their speech appropriately. Matthew 22:21. They say to Him: Caesar's. Then he says to them, “Render therefore the things that are Caesar’s to Caesar, and the things that are God’s to God.” Under Caesar we will not see a reference to [Caesar] Augustus, but to his stepson Tiberius, his successor on the throne under which the Lord suffered. And all the Roman sovereigns (reges) from the first Caius Caesar, who seized imperial power, were called Caesars [or: called]. Then, by His words: “render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s,” we must understand 501 tribute, money, “and God’s things to God” [indicate] tithes of firstfruits, offerings, and sacrifices. And He himself paid taxes in the same way for himself and for Peter (Matthew 17), and he rendered God’s tribute to God, fulfilling the will of the Father (John 6:38). Matthew 22:22. And hearing [this], they were amazed 502. Those who should have believed in such great wisdom were amazed, because their wickedness found no room for plotting. “And they left Him and went away,” carrying away [their] unbelief at the same time with amazement. Matthew 22:23. On that day the Sadducees came to Him, saying that there is no resurrection. The Jews had two heresies (divisions): one - the Pharisees, the other - the Sadducees. The Pharisees put righteousness in the first place [through observance of] traditions and external rituals, which they called δευτερώσεις (exact reproduction); therefore they were popularly called 503 “separated” (separate from others); and the Sadducees, which means “righteous,” arrogated to themselves 504 what they were not. While the first believed in the resurrection of body and soul and taught about the existence of angels and spirit, the second (according to the testimony of the Acts of the Apostles) denied everything (Acts 4). These are the two houses about which Isaiah more clearly says that they will stumble 505 over the stone of temptation 506 . Matthew 22:24–27. [end of the 23rd] And they asked Him: Teacher! Moses said: “If a man dies without having children, let his brother take his wife and raise up seed for his brother.” We had seven brothers: and the first, having married, died and, having no children, left his wife to his brother. Likewise the second and third, even up to the seventh; after all, the wife died. Those who did not believe in the resurrection of the dead and believed that the soul perishes along with the body, correctly constructed a fiction that exposed the error of those who affirm the resurrection of the dead. Or it may be that something similar actually happened in their family someday. Matthew 22:28. So, in the resurrection, which of the seven will she be the wife of? for everyone had it. They contrast their fiction with something shameful [as a consequence] in order to deny the truth of the resurrection. Matthew 22:29. Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures or the power of God.” They are mistaken because they do not know the Scriptures, therefore, they do not know the power of God, that is, Christ, Who is “God’s power and God’s wisdom” (1 Cor. 1:24). Matthew 22:30. For in the resurrection they neither marry (nubent) nor are given in marriage (nubentur), but remain (sunt), like the Angels of God in heaven. The property of the Latin language does not correspond to the Greek, because about women, in fact, it is said: nubere (to marry), and about men: uxores ducere (to take a wife). And we will simply understand that it is said about men nubent (get married), and about women nubentur (taken into marital cohabitation). If in the resurrection of the dead they neither marry nor are given in marriage, then it follows that bodies will be resurrected that could marry and be given in marriage. Indeed, no one will say about wood, stone and such things that do not have the necessary members for reproduction (membra genitalia), that they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but only about those [creatures] that, although they can enter into marriage, do not enter into marriage for another reason. And by indicating that they “will be like the Angels of God in heaven,” a promise is given about a spiritual way of life. Matthew 22:31–33. And regarding the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what God said to you: “I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob”? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. And when the people heard, they marveled at His teaching. To prove the truth of the resurrection, He could have used other clearer examples, of which one is: “Your dead will live, your dead bodies will rise” (Is. 26:19); and in another place [it is said]: “And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awaken, some to everlasting life, others to everlasting contempt and disgrace” (Dan. 12:2). Therefore, it is asked why the Lord wanted to prefer this testimony, which seems doubtful, or insufficiently related to the truth of the resurrection: “I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob” (Ex. 3:6), and, having said this, He seemed to confirm what He wanted, and added immediately after that: “He is not the God of the dead, but of the living.” Even the crowds surrounding him, learning the secret of this place (rei), were surprised at His teaching and answers. We said above that the Sadducees, not professing faith in either an angel, or a spirit, or the resurrection of the dead, also preached the destruction of the soul. They accepted only the five books of Moses, rejecting the teachings of the prophets. Therefore, it was unreasonable to cite evidence from those (inde) books that they did not recognize as binding. Then, to prove the eternity of souls [that is, immortality], He cites a passage from Moses: “I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob,” and directly adds: “He is not the God of the dead, but of the living,” with the aim of, after proving the continuation of life of souls after death (for it is impossible for God to be the God of non-existents), to consistently lead to the resurrection of bodies that, together with souls, did good or evil. The Apostle Paul explores this place in more detail in the last part of the first letter to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 15, 12-56). Matthew 22:34–40. And the Pharisees, hearing that He had brought the Sadducees into silence (silentium imposuit), gathered together. And one of them, a lawyer, tempting Him, asked, saying: Teacher! What is the greatest commandment in the law? Jesus said to him: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind: this is the first and greatest commandment; the second is similar to it: love your neighbor as yourself; All the law and the prophets are based on these two commandments. What we read concerning Herod and Pontian Pilate. It is precisely that they agreed regarding the tradition of the death of the Lord that we now see in the persons of the Pharisees and Saducees, who, although they were at enmity with each other, unanimously agreed among themselves about the temptation of the Lord. Those who were embarrassed when they showed the denarius to the Lord, and who saw the defeat of the party hostile to themselves, should have been convinced by these examples that they should no longer plot intrigues; but malice and envy incite (nutrit) shamelessness. One of the teachers of the law asks a question, not out of a desire to know, but testing whether the Questioned One knows what is being asked of Him, that is, what is the great commandment; he asks not about the commandments [in general], but about what is the first and great commandment (primum magnumque mandatum); this is for the purpose of having a reason for slander, because everything commanded by God is great; thus, no matter what He answered, He would recognize something else of many as great. So, whoever knows and asks a question not out of a desire to know, but with the goal of finding out whether the one who must give the answer knows, like the Pharisees, approaches not as a student, but as a tempter. Matthew 22:41–45. 509 When the Pharisees had gathered together, Jesus asked them, “What do you think about Christ?” whose son is he? They say to Him: David. He said to them: How then does David, by inspiration, call Him Lord, when he says: The Lord said to my Lord: Sit on My right hand, until I make Your enemies Your footstool? Those who gathered to tempt Jesus and tried to find out the truth through a falsely posed question gave rise to the fact that they themselves were confused. They are asked a question about Christ: whose son is He? The question of Jesus is also useful for us at the present time in the struggle against the Jews, because they, too, confessing that Christ must come, claim that He is a simple man and a holy man from the line of David. Thus, we, taught by the Lord, will ask them: “If He is a simple man and only a descendant (filius) of David, then how does David call Him his Lord, not as a result of error, not of his own will, but by the Holy Spirit [or: in the Spirit]. And the testimony He gave was taken from the One Hundred and Ninth Psalm. So, the Lord is called [the son of] David, not because He was born of him, but because He is born from eternity (always -semper) of the Father, existing before the father himself in His flesh. To resolve this issue, the Jews invent a lot of empty things, claiming that Abraham had a servant who had a son, Eliezer Damascus; that the psalm was written on his behalf, and that after the slaughter of the five kings, the Lord God said to his master Abraham: “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool” (Ps. 109:1). 511 But in this case, how did God say the following to Abraham then: “In the day of your power, your people are ready in the splendor of holiness; from the womb before the dew is birth like dew.” Yours.” And: “The Lord swore and will not repent: You are a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek” (Ps. 109: 3-4). On the other hand, they are forced to answer: how was Abraham born before the star and was a priest in the order of Melchizedek, when Melchizedek sacrificed bread and wine for him and when he received a tenth of the spoil from him? Matthew 22:46. And no one could answer Him a word, and from that day no one dared to ask Him. The Pharisees and Sadducees, looking for a reason for slander and some word that would give them the opportunity to intrigue against Him, do not ask any more, because they were embarrassed, but, having seized Him, they openly hand him over to the hands of the Roman authorities. From this we conclude that the poison of envy, however, can be defeated, but it is difficult to calm down. In the translation: The Gospel of Matthew - ed. According to the new Synodal Russian translation: “And he sent his servants to call those invited to the wedding feast; and didn’t want to come - ed. Gives a different breakdown into verses than in the new Synodal Russian translation of the Gospel. – ed. According to the new Synodal Russian translation: “Hearing about this, the Tsar became angry - ed. According to the new Synodal Russian translation: “The Embassy of Evil Angels” - ed. In the lane: above the heavens - ed. According to the new Synodal Russian translation: “He was silent” - ed. In the lane: witness - ed. According to the new Synodal Russian translation: “When they heard this, they were surprised” - ed. In the lane: from this among the people - ed. In the lane: it should have been - ed. Another breakdown into verses in the new Synodal Russian translation - ed. The text makes reference to Genesis 14 – ed. You might be interested in: