Глава 22

1–14. The parable of the wedding feast of the king's son. – 15–22. Questions from the Pharisees about paying taxes to Caesar. – 23–33. Questions of the Sadducees about the resurrection. – 34–40. Questions from a lawyer about the main commandment. – 41–46. Christ is the Son of David. Matthew 22:1. Jesus, continuing to speak to them in parables, said: There are no parallels in John for this entire chapter. A parallel for the parable of the wedding feast of the king's son was considered to be a similar parable set forth in Luke (Luke 14:16–24). If there had not been an addition in Matthew (verses 11-14), which speaks of a man who came to the feast not in wedding clothes, then it could be argued that the parables set out in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke are marked by great similarity in their main idea and its development. But, on the other hand, along with this general similarity, there is also a great difference in expression, connection and even the purpose of both parables, so that it is not easy and even completely impossible to consider them only as different versions of the same parable. Therefore, even in ancient times, the opinion was affirmed, accepted by all the best modern exegetes, that these are two different parables, told on different occasions and under different circumstances. “This parable,” says Augustine, “is told only by Matthew; something similar is found in Luke, but it is not the same thing, as the very arrangement of the parables indicates.” Luke's parable was spoken in the house of a Pharisee (Luke 14:1), and Matthew's in the church (Matthew 21:23). The wedding feast is called differently (γάμος - Matthew; δεῖπνον - Luke). According to Matthew, guests are invited by the king, according to Luke - by some person. Luke’s parable was told by Christ earlier, when the Pharisees had not yet expressed such hatred as they discovered in the last days of Christ’s earthly life. Therefore, in Luke’s parable, the actions of the host, who invited the guests, are generally softer, and he does not send his troops to destroy the murderers and burn their city (Matthew 22:7). The word "im" in both Russian and Greek is vague. One can understand here both the enemies of Christ and the people who listened to Him in general. Matthew 22:2. The kingdom of heaven is like a king who held a wedding feast for his son In the ancient interpretations of the parable by the fathers and church writers, we find, firstly, an abundance of commonplaces, and secondly, allegorical opinions, and this is understandable, because from the very first verses of the parable it is clear that it talks about spiritual subjects. Ancient interpreters put it in close connection with the parable of the evil winegrowers. “Do you see,” says Chrysostom, “what is the difference between the son and the slaves, both in the previous parable and in this one? Do you see the great similarity and at the same time the great difference between both parables? And this parable shows the long-suffering of God and His great care, as well as the wickedness and ingratitude of the Jews. However, this parable contains more than the first: it foreshadows the falling away of the Jews and the calling of the pagans and, in addition, shows the correct way of life and what kind of execution awaits the careless.” Theophylact says that here “the groom is Christ, and the bride is both the Church and every soul.” Matthew 22:3. and he sent his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding feast; and didn't want to come. The words of Christ have a general meaning and generally point to persons sent by God to preach and attract people to His Kingdom. The word κεκλημένους (called or invited) shows that the guests had already been invited by the king earlier, and those sent were only supposed to remind them of the previous call. John Chrysostom and others draw attention to the fact that in the parable of the evil husbandmen it was said that the Son was killed by the husbandmen. Despite this, in the parable under consideration, people are called again - to the wedding feast of the Son. This gives John Chrysostom reason to think that the first parable referred to events that ended with the crucifixion of Christ; and the second - to the events after His resurrection. “There He is depicted as attracting them (people) to Himself, before His crucifixion, and here - urgently attracting them to Himself even after the crucifixion; and at a time when they should have been punished in the most severe way, He draws them to the wedding feast and honors them with the highest honor.” But Christ’s thought, revealed by comparing both parables, seems deeper. People's spiritual relations to God and His spiritual feast may not resemble their relations to ordinary everyday celebrations. Both parables reveal the same theological truth, but from different angles. In a spiritual sense, the suffering, death and resurrection of the Son can be completely equated to the wedding feast of the Lamb (Rev. 19:7, 21:9). Matthew 22:4. Again he sent other slaves, 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. Matthew 22:5. But they, despising this, went, some to their field, and some to their trade; Matthew 22:6. the others, seizing his slaves, insulted and killed them. A figurative presentation of even more hostile relations towards the king. Those who left under various pretexts acted relatively wisely. Besides them, there were also people (οἱ δὲ λοιποί) who expressed their anger by insulting the royal servants and killings. There is a wonderful parallel for this verse in 2 Chronicles 30:10 (see also 1 Tim. 1:13; Heb. 10:29). Matthew 22:7. Hearing about this, the king became angry, and, sending his troops, destroyed their killers and burned their city. Matthew 22:8. Then he says to his servants: The wedding feast is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy; Matthew 22:9. So go to the crossroads and invite everyone you find to the wedding feast. “Rasputia” - τὰς διεξόδους τῶν ὁδῶν - shows that what is meant here is not the main roads or the main, large paths where honored guests live, but in general the nooks, alleys, country roads, paths where poor people huddle, walk and live. Matthew 22:10. 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 expression “evil and good” can be understood both in a moral sense and in a physical sense - the poor, the ragged, the sick. These people are in stark contrast to the first names, who were not at all like them. Matthew 22:11. The king, going in to look at those reclining, saw a man there, not dressed in wedding clothes, Matthew 22:12. and says to him: friend! How did you come here not wearing wedding clothes? He was silent. When the guests gathered, the king was not in the palace. He enters only when the feast has already begun. The contrast between the expressions “evil and good” and “those who recline” at the feast, i.e. The guests received at the royal feast in the royal palace were carried out, undoubtedly, deliberately and very subtly. Although the guests were “evil and good,” they were honored with the royal invitation and now reclined at the wedding feast, i.e. elegant clothes. The evil and vicious are transformed here into guests of honor quickly and by some miraculous force. The meaning, of course, is that the gospel messages, received by the evil and the good, quickly transform them. But the king’s gaze is darkened at the sight of one man who sat at the feast not dressed up, but in torn, dirty, “not wedding” clothes, in rags. Was this man guilty if he came to the feast directly, so to speak, from the street and if he did not have the means to buy smart clothes for himself? This question is resolved very simply by the fact that anyone who comes to the feast prepared by the King of Heaven can take for himself in the reception room of the royal palace any elegant clothes he wants and, thus, appear in decent appearance at the wedding feast of the Lamb. This is undoubtedly implied in the parable. Our church song: “I see Your palace, my Savior, adorned, and I have no clothes, but I will enter into it,” expresses, on the one hand, the deepest humility of a Christian, and on the other hand, a request addressed to God to give decent clothes in the spiritual sense: “illuminate the robe of my soul, O Light-Giver, and save me.” Thus, all that is required from the sinner is the desire to acquire elegant clothes for himself, which will undoubtedly be given to him, and, moreover, free of charge. The man, not in wedding clothes, obviously did not want to take advantage of this royal favor, and, not ashamed of either the Tsar or the guests, came to the feast in his rags. Verses 11–14 directly relate to the prophecy of Zeph. 1:7–8. By the slave who came to the feast not in wedding clothes, of course, here it is not Judas, but in general the carnal Old Testament man (cf. Rom. 13:14; Gal. 3:27; Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:12). Jerome interprets the expression “he was silent” as follows: “At that time there will be no place for repentance and the ability to justify, when all the Angels and the world itself will testify to sins.” Matthew 22:13. Then the king said to the servants: Having tied his hands and feet, take him and throw him into outer darkness; there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth; Binding, bonds, ropes are mentioned many times in the Gospels (see Mark 3:27, 5:3, etc.), Christ spoke about binding and untying several times. The words: “take him by the hands and feet” (ἄρατε αὐτὸν ποδῶν καὶ χειρῶν) are not in the best codes. Some think that the words “there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” are not the words of the king depicted in the parable, but of Christ Himself, added to the parable. Matthew 22:14. For many are called, but few are chosen. The man who came to the feast without wearing wedding clothes, so to speak, became on the same level with those numerous people who insulted and killed those sent by the king (verse 6). Compared to their enormous number, the guests received by the king represent an insignificant minority that could fit in the palace. And even among the guests themselves there was a person whose presence was undesirable and unacceptable (cf. 3 Ezra 8:1, 55, 3 Ezra 9:15). Luke has a similar conclusion to the parable (Luke 14:24). Matthew 22:15. Then the Pharisees went and consulted how to catch Him in words. According to Mark and Luke, the Pharisees understood that the Savior was speaking about them in the parable of the evil husbandmen (Mark 12:12; Luke 20:19). That's why they wanted to catch Him in the word (Mark 12:13; Luke 20:20). In Matthew this connection is not expressed as clearly as in other weather forecasters, but their messages throw light on his expressions. One can conclude, in the end, that the Pharisees were irritated not only by the parable about the evil winegrowers told by all the weather forecasters, but also about the marriage of the king’s son, told in this connection only by Matthew; Christ's enemies could interpret this parable to their detriment if they heard it. Thus, Matthew's testimony in the verse under discussion appears natural and coherent. As for time, both in Matthew and in the parallel stories of Mark (Mark 12:13–17) and Luke (Luke 20:20–26), it is not defined. Only one thing can be said with certainty: that these events were a continuation of the previous ones and took place on the third day of the Jewish week, or, in our opinion, on Tuesday. Perhaps the Pharisees went and consulted while the Savior was speaking parables, but more likely - after them. They think that these were not official representatives of the party, who were members of the Sanhedrin (as in Matthew 21:23, 45), but that the whole thing happened independently of the Sanhedrin, the Pharisees acted as a separate and independent party. The meeting took place, perhaps, among the crowd that was in the church or the crowd surrounding Christ. The Greek verb παγιδεύσωσιν is characteristic. In the entire New Testament, it is found only here in Matthew and comes from πάγη - παγίς (Luke 21:35; Rom. 11:9; 1 Tim. 3:7, 6:9; 2 Tim. 2:26) - net, noose, snare, snare. Since catching Christ in the word was important for His enemies, at their meeting they, of course, used all their strength and abilities in order to come up with a question as cunningly as possible, with the help of which they could put Christ in a difficulty and even a hopeless position. Matthew 22:16. And they send their disciples to Him with the Herodians, saying: 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; Matthew 22:17. So tell us: what do you think? Is it permissible to give tribute to Caesar or not? (Cf. Mark 12:13–14; Luke 20:20–22). Mark does not distinguish the Pharisees from their disciples, like Matthew, and Luke attributes the question to the high priests and scribes (Luke 20:19), who “sent” to Christ “wicked people”, no one knows what (Luke 20:20). It is clear from everything that this matter was the result of strong enmity, but at the same time also of fear of public denunciation, and this explains why some of Christ’s enemies only, so to speak, stick their heads out of the crowd, but do not say anything themselves, substituting in their place, albeit crafty, but inexperienced or less experienced in casuistry, students, perhaps young people. If the latter had been publicly exposed, then the real initiators of this whole matter would not have been ashamed in front of the people. Who were the Herodians? Most exegetes believe that the Herodians were members of a Jewish party loyal to the house of Herod, which was more political in nature than hierarchical. The basis of the question proposed to Christ was the domination of pagan Romans over Judea. This was recognized as an evil, the destruction of which should be strived for by all means. The tax levied in favor of the pagans was contrary to the theocratic idea. In Judea (and not in Galilee) unrest took place, the leader of which was Judas the Galilean. The reason for his rebellion was κῆνσος, a property tax, which was considered a sign of slavery. The payment of taxes in favor of the Romans began in Judea from 63 BC. From 6 AD. The question of taxes became a burning issue. By presenting Christ with the question of taxes to Caesar, i.e. To the Roman emperor, who was then Tiberius, the Pharisees and Herodians hoped to put Christ in a hopeless situation. If Christ recognizes the obligatory nature of the tax, he will thereby incite against himself the people, who generally considered the tax in favor of Caesar to be offensive. If Christ rejects the tax, he will appear as a rebel against the Roman government. Matthew 22:18. But Jesus, seeing their wickedness, said: Why are you tempting Me, you hypocrites? Matthew 22:19. show Me the coin with which the tax is paid. They brought Him a denarius. (Cf. Mark 12:15; Luke 20:24). The Jews usually did not have any images of faces on their coins, because this was considered idolatry. The Asmoneans minted their coins only with inscriptions in Hebrew and Greek and images of a vessel with manna, Aaron's rod, etc. On the Roman coins used to pay taxes, there were images of emperors with various inscriptions. Christ does not require any other coin, but the one with which the tax is paid. This somewhat vague expression of Matthew is replaced by other weather forecasters with a more specific one - the demand for a “denarius”, as was in reality. Matthew 22:20. And he says to them: whose image and inscription is this? (Cf. Mark 12:16; Luke 20:24). The visual way of explaining the matter adopted by Christ showed that if the Jews were an independent people, then they would not have had coins such as the denarius in circulation and in use. The use of Roman coins indicated the dependence of the Jews on Caesar, and they had to look straight into the eyes of this contemporary reality. The meaning of the verse can be briefly expressed in only one word: “if.” If you show Me the coin with which you pay the tax, then it will be clear to you whether it should be paid or not. If you tell Me whose image and inscription this is, you will know who needs to pay the tax. The Savior does not just say: “Whose image is this?” or: “whose inscription is this”? But it connects both these questions. When looking at the image made on the coin, it was impossible to doubt that it was an image of Caesar, and for those who did not know this or had not seen Caesar personally, the inscription testified to this. The denarius probably depicted a bust of Emperor Tiberius with the inscription: TI CAESAR DIVI AVG F AVGUSTUS, i.e. "Tiberius Caesar, son of the divine Augustus, Augustus." On the back of the coin, perhaps, were the letters: PONTIF MAXIM, i.e. "pontifex maximus". 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.” (Cf. Mark 12:17; Luke 20:25). The meaning of the answer: serving Caesar does not interfere with true service to the Lord God. Matthew 22:22. Hearing this, they were surprised and, leaving Him, went away. Matthew 22:23. That day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to Him and asked Him: (Cf. Mark 12:18; Luke 20:27). In their teachings, the Sadducees generally held opinions opposite to those accepted by the Pharisees, “they did not believe in the resurrection, nor in spirits, nor in Angels, being opponents of the Pharisees” (Theophylact). The conversation with the Sadducees took place on the same day and, apparently, soon after the conversation with the Pharisees and Herodians about taxes to Caesar, and not at the time when the Pharisees went and consulted how to catch Him in words (verse 15), as Origen notes. Matthew 22:24. Teacher! Moses said: If a man dies without having children, let his brother take his wife for himself and restore seed to his brother; (Cf. Mark 12:19; Luke 20:28). Rejecting the resurrection (cf. Acts 23:8), the Sadducees tried to confirm their teaching by referring to the decree of Moses regarding the so-called “levirate” marriage (from the Latin word “levir” - brother-in-law), set out in Deuteronomy (Deut. 25:5-10). All weather forecasters at the beginning of the verse repeat λέγοντες (Mark - οἵτινες λέγουσιν; Luke - ἀντιλέγοντες) of the previous verse. The quotation is not similar in expression among all weather forecasters; it deviates from both the Hebrew text and the translation of the Seventy. The Sadducees express the idea of ​​the Hebrew text here very briefly and in their own words. This law of coexistence is clear and has been applied in practice. According to him, if someone dies, leaving a wife from whom there were no children, then his wife must marry his brother (as in the Seventy and in the Gospels, but in the Hebrew - for a brother-in-law, which, of course, is the same thing; the difference is only in expressions) and restore his seed. Ἐπιγαμβρεύειν is the technical word for levirate marriage. Found in the New Testament only here in Matthew. In Lev.18:16, 20:21 marriage with the widow of a deceased brother is prohibited. But Deuteronomy 25:5–10 indicates some cases where exceptions were allowed. Matthew 22:25. We had seven brothers; the first, having married, died and, having no children, left his wife to his brother; Matthew 22:26. likewise the second and the third, even to the seventh; Matthew 22:27. after all, the wife also died; Matthew 22:28. So, in the resurrection, which of the seven will she be the wife of? for everyone had it. (Cf. Mark 12:20–23; Luke 20:29–33). The example given by the Sadducees was, of course, fictitious, because in reality such combinations usually do not exist (in Tob. 3:8-9 we are talking about a different subject). For their purpose, they could have limited themselves to two or three brothers, and their argument would not have lost any of its force. Speaking of seven brothers (perhaps they chose seven because the number was sacred), the Sadducees obviously want to present the matter in a caricature that would seem funny even here on earth, and not just in heaven. According to some, the Sadducees also wanted to express the idea that the legal doctrine of levirate marriage, if combined with it the Pharisaic doctrine of the resurrection, must necessarily lead to the doctrine of polyandry. This was a casuistic question, the solution of which was difficult for the Pharisees, as can be seen from the treatise Yevamot (Talmud, trans. Pereferkovich. T. 3. P. 10 et seq.). In Yevamot (ibid., c. 30) the following case is examined: “There are three brothers: two of them are married to two sisters, and the third is single; one of the married men died, and the single man made (with his widow) something like an agreement (“maamar” - saying, formula), and then the second brother died; the school of Shammai says: let his wife (betrothed to him according to “maamaru”) remain with him, and the second one is free, as his wife’s sister; and the school of Hillel says: he must let his wife go with a “get” (letter of divorce) and with a “chalitza” (removal of shoes), and his brother’s wife with a chalitza.” Matthew 22:29. Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures or the power of God, (Cf. Mark 12:24; Luke 20:34). In Luke, the words of Matthew and Mark are replaced by a completely different expression, not found in the first two weather forecasters. Ignorance is a common cause of error. Jesus Christ answers the Sadducees in this sense, putting their ignorance in the foreground. It consisted in ignorance of the Scriptures, which contained a teaching unknown to the Sadducees, and the power of God, because God, who gave life to the living, can give it to the dead and always has the power and authority to restore it. “Look,” says Saint John Chrysostom, “with what wisdom, befitting a true teacher, the Savior answers them. Although they approached Him with an insidious intention, their question stemmed more from ignorance. Therefore, the Savior does not call them hypocrites.” Matthew 22:30. for in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but remain as the Angels of God in heaven. (Cf. Mark 12:25; Luke 20:35–36). Comparison with Angels does not give the right to conclude that life in the future world will be incorporeal. The existence of bodies in resurrected people is “necessarily presupposed in the saying of Christ” (cf. 1 Cor. 15:40; Phil. 2:10). The resurrected will have bodies, but with a limitation - the impossibility and purposelessness of marriage. “Christ does not deny that there will be both men and women in heaven, but rather assumes the existence of women, but in such a way that they do not use their gender for marriage and birth. Nemo enim dicit de rebus quae non habent membra genitalia non nubent, neque nubentur" (Jerome). Matthew 22:31. And regarding the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what God said to you: Matthew 22:32. Am I 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. (Cf. Mark 12:26–27; Luke 20:37–38). There are places in the Old Testament that contain a clearer teaching about the resurrection than in the quotation from Exodus 3:6 given by Christ (see Job 19:25; Isaiah 26:19, 66:14; Ezek.37:1-14; Dan.12:12; 2Mac.7:9, 12, 14, etc.). Why does the Savior not refer to these clearer passages, but prefers the not so clear Exodus 3:6? In explaining this, Jerome assumed that they (the Sadducees) accepted only the books of Moses, rejecting the prophecies. Consequently, it was unwise to borrow evidence from sources whose authority the Sadducees did not recognize. The newest exegetes, however, admit that the Sadducees did not reject the prophets, but only considered the Pentateuch canonical in the proper sense. If so, then it is quite clear why the Savior turned to the Pentateuch of Moses to prove the resurrection. He chose a quote (Ex. 3:6), which, of course, was well known to the Sadducees, but which they did not understand. The words “God is not the God of the dead, but of the living” are not borrowed from Exodus 3:6, but are only the interpretation of the words of the law by the Savior Himself. In Luke, the Hebrew quotation is conveyed in paraphrase (in his own words); in Matthew and Mark the text itself is given, but with minor deviations from both the Hebrew and the translation of the Seventy. The meaning of Christ's words is quite clear. If the Law of Moses says that God called Himself the God of people who lived before and then died, this means that they are still alive, because the true and living God cannot be the God of dead and non-existent persons. Thus, the truth of the afterlife and continuing existence of people is based on the recognition of the truth of the existence of God as living and eternal. He only denies the immortality of man who denies the existence of God. Against the quotation from the law (verse 24), the Savior cites another quotation from the law, and with this weapon refutes His enemies. Matthew 22:33. And when the people heard, they marveled at His teaching. (Cf. Mark 12:27; Luke 20:39–40). Mark only adds: “So you are greatly mistaken,” but the words given in Matthew are not there. Luke does not have them either, but he makes the following addition: “To this some of the scribes said: Teacher! You said it well. And they no longer dared to ask Him about anything.” Matthew here denotes the impression made on the people by the word ἐξεπλήσσοντο (cf. Matt. 7:28, 13:54, 19:25; Mark 1:22, 6:2, 7:37, 10:26, 11:18; Luke 2:48, 4:32, 9:43 ; Acts 13:12 ). Matthew 22:34. And the Pharisees, hearing that He had silenced the Sadducees, gathered together. The defeat of the Sadducees apparently brought, at least to the scribes, some, perhaps only temporary, pleasure (Luke 20:39). But this did not stop the Pharisees from forming more and more conspiracies and intrigues against the Savior. It is very curious that Luke, having ended his speech with the words: “they dared not ask Him any more” (Luke 20:40), does not really bring any further questions to Christ from His enemies, and refers the question of the lawyer (Luke 10:25–28) to another time and puts it in a different connection. But Matthew and Mark do not repeat Luke’s words here, and therefore the lawyer’s question does not serve here as a contradiction to what they said before. Matthew 22:35. And one of them, a lawyer, tempting Him, asked, saying: Matthew 22:36. Teacher! What is the greatest commandment in the law? (Cf. Mark 12:28; Luke 10:25). Νομικός (legalist) appears here only in Matthew, never in Mark, but six times in Luke (Luke 7:30, 10:25, 11:45–46, Luke 11:52, 14:3), and once in the Epistle to Titus (Titus 3:13). Titus 3:9 uses the same word as an adjective. It is difficult to make a significant difference between νομικοί and γραμματεῖς. Perhaps it should only be said that νομικός is a more special name for a scribe. Unlike “wise,” which was considered a scribe, νομικός denotes a lawyer or legal adviser. Mark has no note at all that a “legalist” approached Christ, tempting Him; In general, Mark’s conversation seems only pleasant and sympathetic; at the end, the lawyer expresses praise for Christ and He for him. Mark's story throws some light on Matthew's story. Not everyone in the crowd surrounding Christ were His sworn and irreconcilable enemies. There were also exceptions. Even from among His enemies - this, apparently, is what Matthew wants to say by introducing the word “tempting”: some who came, if not completely, then almost with hostile intentions, left Him satisfied with His teaching and clarification of perplexities. But this only further intensified the darkness of that enmity towards Christ, which caused His denunciations in the 23rd chapter. This idea is well expressed by Evfimy Zigavin: “In Matthew the lawyer tempts, but in Mark he praises more. Why? Because he first tempted, being sent by the Pharisees. But after listening to the answer, he accepted it and, changing his way of thinking, agreed.” Matthew 22:37. 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: Matthew 22:38. this is the first and greatest commandment; (Cf. Mark 12:29–30; Luke 10:26–27). Mark’s words, missed by Matthew and Luke: “Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is one Lord,” may indicate that the Savior explained here only what the lawyer who asked Him was well aware of from the so-called Jewish “shema” (see Talmud, trans. Pereferkovich. Vol. 1, pp. 40–44), which consisted of three sections Deut. 6: 4–9, 11: 13–21 and Num. 15: 37–41, with different praises accompanying the “shema”. Tractate Berachot (see Talmud, trans. Pereferkovich. Vol. 1, pp. 1–39) contains various regulations regarding the reading of the Shema in the morning and in the evening and in general under various circumstances. Matthew 22:39. the second is similar to it: love your neighbor as yourself; (Compare Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27.) The quotation is taken from Lev.19:18, is completely similar in Matthew and Mark, and in Luke (Luke 10:27) the word “love” is replaced by the conjunction καί (“and”). The deviations from the Hebrew text and translation of the Seventy are minor. This second commandment is not lower than the first, but similar to it. Evfimy Zigavin says: “He said that in greatness the second commandment is similar to the first, for this one is great, these commandments are mutually connected and mutually support themselves.” But John Chrysostom, in a light expression, places the second commandment somewhat lower than the first: “Having been asked about the first commandment, he brings the second, almost as important as the first” (οὐ σφόδρα ἐκείνης ἀποδέουσαν). From the Gospels it can be concluded that the second commandment is no less than the first (Matthew 25:40, 45; Mark 12:31; John 13:34, 15:12–13; 1 John 4:16, 20–21). Matthew 22:40. All the law and the prophets are based on these two commandments. (Cf. Mark 12:31–34; Luke 10:28.) The verb κρέμαται does not mean, as translated in Russian, “is established”, but “hangs” (in the Slavic Bible - “hang”; in some texts it is singular, not plural; in the Vulgate - pendet, in the German translation of Luther and in the new German translators - hänget and hängt, in the English translation - hang). The verb is put in the present tense of the general voice (with the meaning of the past perfect action) from κρεμάννυμι, means to hang, to be hanged, to hang, to depend. In the New Testament this verb is used everywhere in this sense (Matt. 18:6; Luke 23:39; Acts 5:30, 10:39, 28:4; Gal.3:13). The Law and the Prophets are not established, but depend on the two main commandments and are a conclusion from them. If there were no these commandments, then there would be neither the law nor the prophets. In the sense contained in the Russian translation, there is essentially no big difference in comparison with the original. The verb is singular and agrees with ὁ νόμος. This construction is found in the New Testament (cf. John 2:2, 18:25, etc.). Matthew 22:41. When the Pharisees had gathered, Jesus asked them: In Mark 12:35 this verse has an obvious connection to Mark 12:34. This means that the lawyer’s question was given at the time when (according to Matthew) the Pharisees gathered for conferences. In Matthew this connection is expressed quite clearly, but not so clearly in Luke. Actually, this question serves as the beginning of further denunciations in Matthew (Matthew 23). Matthew 22:42. what do you think about Christ? whose son is he? They say to Him: David. (Compare Mark 12:35; Luke 20:41.) Christ asks not about who people consider Him to be and whether they consider Him to be the Son of David, but offers a general question about the origin of the Messiah. "Son of David" was the usual title of the Messiah (Schürer, Geschichte, II, 615). Matthew 22:43. He says to them: how is it that David, by inspiration, calls Him Lord when he says: Matthew 22:44. The Lord said to my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool? (Cf. Mark 12:36; Luke 20:42). Reference Ps.109:1. In the Jewish scriptures this entire psalm was applied to the Messiah and was considered messianic. Christ does not refute the correct (in verse 42) answer of the Pharisees, who called Christ the Son of David, and does not consider the answer insufficient, but, on the contrary, confirms it, asking His question in the types of its interpretation. The interpretation of the psalm in the sense that it was supposedly a relatively recent work at the time of Christ was completely unknown to either the Sadducees or the Pharisees (Edersheim). In the Hebrew Bible the psalm is inscribed “ledavid mizmor” (psalm of David), in the Greek translation of the Seventy the same (ψαλμός τῷ Δαβίδ). Matthew 22:45. So if David calls Him Lord, how can He be his son? (Cf. Mark 12:37; Luke 20:44). Some thought that Christ here refutes the opinion of the Pharisees, who claimed that the Messiah is the Son of David. But the whole context is against such an interpretation. It is more likely to assume that Christ’s question was caused by rumors spread by His enemies that He was not the Son of David and, therefore, not the Messiah, as His disciples and people recognized. If so, then Christ’s question becomes clear. If He is not the Son of David and not the Messiah, then who is David talking about when he calls his son Lord? “The true answer did not occur to them. It could be as follows. The Messiah is the Son of David by his human origin, but as the Son of God, originating eternally from the Father, He is exalted above David and above all humanity, and therefore David correctly called Him his Lord. But such a dual attitude of the Messiah to the great Jewish king and at the same time a true assessment of the dignity and service of the Messiah were not known in the theology of the rabbis.” Matthew 22:46. And no one could answer Him a word; and from that day no one dared to ask Him. (Compare Mark 12:34; Luke 20:40.) In general, the power of Christ’s answers is indicated. In subsequent history, we actually see that His enemies do not offer Him any questions in order to tempt Him. You might be interested in: