Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew chapter 20. Gospel of Matthew

About free will and envy.

Matthew 20:1 For the kingdom of heaven is like a man, the owner of a house, who went out at dawn to hire laborers for his vineyard.

Matthew 20:2 Having agreed with the workers for a denarius a day, He He sent them into his vineyard.

Matthew 20:3 And going out about the third hour, He I saw other unemployed people standing in the square.

Matthew 20:4 And so He He said, “Go you too into the vineyard, and I will give you justice.”

Matthew 20:5 So they went. Going out again about the sixth and ninth hours, He did the same.

Matthew 20:6 When he went out about the eleventh hour, He found others standing and said to them: “Why are you standing here all day, unemployed?”

Matthew 20:7 They say to him: “Because no one hired us.” He says to them: “Go you too to the vineyard. my.»

Matthew 20:8 When evening came, the lord of the vineyard said to his manager: “Call the workers and give them their wages, beginning from the last to the first.”

Matthew 20:9 And those who came about the eleventh hour received a denarius.

Matthew 20:10 Those who came first thought that they would receive more, but they also received a denarius.

Matthew 20:11 and they murmured against the owner of the house,

Matthew 20:12 saying: “These last one hour worked, and you made them equal to us, who endured the burden of the day and the heat.”

Matthew 20:13 He answered one of them and said: “Friend! I I don't offend you. Isn't it for a denarius? You agreed with me?

Matthew 20:14 Take what is yours and go. I I want to give to this last one what I give to you.

Matthew 20:15 Or am I not allowed to do what I want with what I have? Or is your eye evil because I am kind?”

Matthew 20:16 So the last will be first, and the first will be last.

About Jesus' third prediction of His suffering, death and resurrection.

Matthew 20:17 And when Jesus went up to Jerusalem, he called his twelve disciples apart, and on the way said to them:

Matthew 20:18 “Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be handed over to the chief priests and scribes, and they will condemn Him to death.

Matthew 20:19 And they will hand him over to the pagans to be mocked and scourged and crucified, and on the third day he will rise again.”

About serving many.

Matthew 20:20 Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee and her sons came to Him, bowing down and asking Him for something.

Matthew 20:21 And he said to her, “What do you want?” She says to him: “Tell these two sons of mine to sit, one on Your right and the other on Your left in Your Kingdom.”

Matthew 20:22 Jesus answered and said, “You do not know what you ask. Can you drink the cup that I am about to drink?” They say to Him: “We can.”

Matthew 20:23 AND He says to them: “You will drink My cup, but to sit on My right and on My left is not for Me to decide, but for whom My Father has prepared.”

Matthew 20:24 And when the ten heard it, they were indignant against the two brothers.

Matthew 20:25 But Jesus called them and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles rule over them, and the great ones rule over them.

Matthew 20:26 This should not be the case between you. But if anyone wants to become great among you, let will be your servant.

Matthew 20:27 And if anyone wants to be first among you, he will be your slave.

Matthew 20:28 How And The Son of Man did not come to accept service, but to serve and to give His life as a ransom for many.”

About the healing of the blind.

Matthew 20:29 And when they went out from Jericho many people followed him.

Matthew 20:30 And behold, two blind men sitting by the road heard that Jesus was passing by by, shouted, saying: “Have mercy on us, O Lord, Son of David!”

Matthew 20:31 People reproached them so that those fell silent; they are more more shouted, saying: “Have mercy on us, O Lord, Son of David!”

Matthew 20:32 And Jesus stood still and called them. And he said, “What do you want Me to do to you?”

Matthew 20:33 They say to Him: “Lord! So that our eyes may be opened."

Matthew 20:34 Having compassion, Jesus touched their eyes, and immediately They they received their sight and followed Him.

Matt. 20:1-16. Continuing this conversation, Jesus told a parable about the owner of the house, who went out early in the morning to hire workers for his vineyard, and, having hired them, promised to pay them a denarius - the usual amount in such cases. Later, around the third hour (at about 9 o’clock in the morning), the owner of the house again went to the marketplace (market square) and agreed with others standing there idle to work in his vineyard; he did not specify how much he would pay them, but only promised to pay what was due.

And the owner hired new workers - already at six o’clock (about noon), and again at nine (about three o’clock in the afternoon); even around the eleventh hour (at five o'clock in the afternoon) he hired workers who had only one hour left to work, and these were the last of those he hired. When evening came (six o'clock in the afternoon), the owner began to settle accounts with everyone who worked in his vineyard, and began with those who worked less than the others, and paid each of them a denarius.

Seeing this, those who worked a full day thought that they would receive more, but when their turn came, they also received a denarius. And they began to grumble, saying to the owner: You have made them equal to us, who have endured the burden of the day and the heat. They received, however, the amount for which they agreed to work (verse 13). The owner responded to their murmurs that he was free to dispose of his money as he wanted. And he advised the “offended” not to be tormented by envy because he was kind to those who worked for a short time.

Using this example, Jesus showed his disciples that the distribution of rewards is the work of the “Supreme Householder,” i.e., God, and that the following situation is possible: those who worked a lot and those who worked little will receive the same “payment,” because its “accrual” depends on kindness and goodness The owner. Therefore, the “first” should not be proud of their “superiority” - after all, it may happen that they will be compared with the “last”, or that the “last” will even gain an advantage over them; “the workers in the vineyard of Christ” must be guided by precisely this principle, not forgetting that the last may turn out to be first, and the first last. For in the end what will be decisive is how God evaluates a person. ( Last words Verse 16: For many are called, but few are chosen - considered a later insertion, apparently transferred here from Matt. 22:14. - Ed.)

12. INSTRUCTION AS HIS DEATH APPROACHES (20:17-19) (MARK 10:32-34; LUK 18:31-34)

Matt. 20:17-19. No one could say that Jesus did not prepare the disciples for His death. He had told them at least three times before that He was about to die (12:40; 16:21; 17:22-23). And now they were heading to Jerusalem (trace the route of Jesus' movements - 4:12; 16:13; 17:24; 19:1; 21:1). On the way there, He again told His disciples that death awaited Him in this city.

But only here did He first speak about the humiliation and crucifixion that lay ahead of Him. Again He reminds us that all this does not mean the end, because on the third day He will rise again (compare 16:21; 17:23). The disciples did not respond to the Lord’s words. Maybe they just couldn't believe that all this would actually happen to Him.

13. ABOUT AMBITION (20:20-28) (Mark 10:35-45)

Matt. 20:20-23. Perhaps the incident described in these verses was caused by Jesus' recent reference to "coming into being" (19:28). The mother of the sons of Zebedee (it is believed that her name was Salome) was among the women who accompanied Jesus Christ and served Him in Galilee (Matt. 27:56). And so she approached Him... with her sons, bowing and asking Him for something. When Jesus asked what she wanted, the woman replied: ...that these two sons of mine may sit at Your right hand and the other on Your left in Your kingdom. She probably heard the words of the Lord that the disciples would “sit on thrones” (19:28), and, possessed by a mother’s natural pride in her sons, decided that they deserved the most honorable places

Jesus did not talk to her about the essence of His coming Kingdom, but addressed the question to her sons, who, perhaps, persuaded the mother to ask the Teacher about them. He asked James and John if they could drink the cup that He would drink. Jesus was referring to His future suffering and death on the cross (26:39,42).

The sons of Zebedee answered: We can. And then Jesus confirmed that they would indeed share with Him the cup of suffering and death (implying that this path was by no means the path to worldly dominion, which James and John apparently dreamed of at that time), and would be baptized with baptism with which He is baptized.

This is how it all happened: James died at the hands of Herod Agrippa shortly after the creation of the Church (Acts 12:1-2), and John, according to tradition, was executed at the end of the first century.

However, Jesus continued, it is not up to Him to let one sit on His right and on His left. For these places are prepared by the Heavenly Father for those whom He has chosen as a merciful and righteous Judge (in this regard, Matt. 20:1-16).

This whole passage undoubtedly indicates that the sons of Zebedee did not fully understand what they were asking for, as well as the fact that the nature of the Kingdom was not yet clear to them. It also says that Jesus’ teaching about humility had not yet been learned by the disciples (18:1-6). Peter's question (19:27) indicates the same thing. All of them were then concerned with thoughts about a high position, in some purely earthly kingdom, and they continued to discuss this issue until the death of Jesus.

Matt. 20:24-28. When the other ten disciples heard about the request of the mother of James and John, they were indignant at the two brothers. Perhaps they were offended that they didn’t think to be the first to ask for the same thing for themselves! (18:1). Jesus, of course, was aware of the friction between the disciples. Therefore, having gathered them all together, He set forth to them some of the fundamental principles of the Kingdom.

While some people (princes... and nobles) dominate others, He said, this should not be the case among His disciples. For greatness in the Kingdom of God is determined not by power and authority, but by the willingness to serve others (20:26-27). So, they should not strive to rule, but to serve. It is those among them, being meek and humble, who will receive the highest honors.

The world knows no more a shining example this than Jesus Himself, Who came into the world not to be served, but to serve and give His soul as a ransom for many. Christ repeatedly spoke to his disciples about the death that awaited Him. However, I still haven’t talked about what it is needed for. Now He made it clear that He would die “as a ransom for many.” His death had to be accomplished instead of many deaths, for only by it could sin be atoned for (John 1:29; Rom. 5:8; 1 Pet. 2:24; 3:18). The death of Jesus Christ was substitutionary and the sacrifice was perfect.

14. JESUS ​​REVEALS HIS POWER AND AUTHORITY (20:29-34) (MARK 10:46-52; Luke 18:35-43)

Matt. 20:29-34. Before entering Jerusalem, Jesus showed His power and authority one last time by healing two blind men near Jericho. The authors of the Synoptic Gospels present this story with some discrepancies. Thus, Matthew writes about two blind men, and Mark and Luke write about one. Moreover, Mark gives the name of the blind man - Bartimaeus. Apparently, there were two blind men, but Bartimaeus attracted more attention.

According to Matthew and Mark, this healing occurred after Jesus left Jericho, but Luke writes that this happened when the Lord approached Jericho. This can be explained by the fact that at that time there were two Jerichos - old and new. Christ performed this miracle when he came out of the old Jericho (Matthew and Mark) and was heading towards the new (Luke).

Hearing that Jesus was passing by, the blind began to cry out for help, believing that He was the Lord, the Son of David. Previously, two other blind men also addressed Jesus with these words - “Son of David” (Matt. 9:27 compare with 15:22). That is, in both cases, those in need of healing turned to Him as the Messiah.

The blind men were persistent in their plea and did not respond to the people's attempts to silence them. And when Jesus asked them what they wanted, they answered simply and briefly: Lord! so that our eyes may be opened. Having mercy on them, Jesus once again demonstrated His power as the Messiah: the blind immediately received their sight. It is interesting to note that this rather lengthy section (17:14 - 20:34), in which Jesus teaches His followers about what they will need to know and remember after His death, ends with a description of His manifestation of His supernatural power and divine authority.

Commentary on the book

Comment to the section

1-16 With this parable, Jesus Christ teaches that the Kingdom of Heaven is not only a reward, but also a free gift of the overabundant goodness of God, infinitely exceeding any measure of our labor and incommensurable with the limited human concept of justice. The Jews considered themselves to have worked harder and longer for God than anyone else. But the Lord will also accept the pagans who will enter the Kingdom after the Jews.

16 cm Mt 19:30.

20-23 "Mother of the sons of Zebedee" - the apostles James and John. This episode shows that the disciples of Christ did not completely overcome earthly illusions even in last days His stay on earth. Cup - biblical metaphor (cf. Isaiah 51:17), symbolizing approaching suffering. Words " Baptism... be baptized" are missing from most manuscripts.

25 “Princes of the nations” - the word “nations” in the Bible is used as a synonym for the word “pagans”. Spiritual power, the power of love and service given to the apostles, is contrasted here with earthly power with its violence and exaltation.

28 “For redemption” (Greek “lutron” - ransom) - Christ freed man from slavery to sin and from eternal death ( Rom 3:24; Rom 6:6; Rom 6:16; Rom 6:17) at the cost of His blood ( 1 Cor 6:20; 1 Cor 7:23), i.e. died in the place of the guilty, as was announced in the prophecy of Isaiah: “The Lord laid on Him the sins of us all” and “by His stripes we were healed.” Man himself was not able to offer an atoning sacrifice to God, for holiness is incompatible with sinfulness, and the offense to the infinite love and justice of God exceeded the ability of limited and sin-prone man to redeem himself. Only the Son of God, having become man and dying for sinners, could offer a “sacrifice of propitiation” (Isa. 53:10), worthy of God, and save from destruction everyone who believed in Him (John 3:16).

29 “From Jericho” - The path of Christ from Transjordan to Jerusalem lay through Jericho.

30-31 "Son of David". The people have already become convinced that Jesus is the Messiah. But it is far from becoming universal. This is evident from the attempts to silence the blind.

1. Evangelist Matthew (which means “gift of God”) belonged to the Twelve Apostles (Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13). Luke (Luke 5:27) calls him Levi, and Mark (Mark 2:14) calls him Levi of Alpheus, i.e. son of Alphaeus: it is known that some Jews had two names (for example, Joseph Barnabas or Joseph Caiaphas). Matthew was a tax collector (tax collector) at the Capernaum customs house, located on the shore of the Sea of ​​Galilee (Mark 2:13-14). Apparently, he was in the service not of the Romans, but of the tetrarch (ruler) of Galilee, Herod Antipas. Matthew's profession required him to know Greek. The future evangelist is depicted in Scripture as a sociable person: many friends gathered in his Capernaum house. This exhausts the data of the New Testament about the person whose name appears in the title of the first Gospel. According to legend, after the Ascension of Jesus Christ, he preached the Good News to the Jews in Palestine.

2. Around 120, the disciple of the Apostle John, Papias of Hierapolis, testifies: “Matthew wrote down the sayings of the Lord (Logia Cyriacus) in Hebrew (the Hebrew language here should be understood as the Aramaic dialect), and translated them as best he could” (Eusebius, Church History, III.39). The term Logia (and the corresponding Hebrew dibrei) means not only sayings, but also events. The message Papius repeats ca. 170 St. Irenaeus of Lyons, emphasizing that the evangelist wrote for Jewish Christians (Against heresies. III.1.1.). The historian Eusebius (IV century) writes that “Matthew, having preached first to the Jews, and then, intending to go to others, set forth in the native language the Gospel, now known under his name” (Church History, III.24). According to most modern researchers, this Aramaic Gospel (Logia) appeared between the 40s and 50s. Matthew probably made his first notes while he was accompanying the Lord.

The original Aramaic text of the Gospel of Matthew is lost. We only have Greek. translation, apparently made between the 70s and 80s. Its antiquity is confirmed by the mention in the works of “Apostolic Men” (St. Clement of Rome, St. Ignatius the God-Bearer, St. Polycarp). Historians believe that the Greek. Ev. from Matthew arose in Antioch, where, along with Jewish Christians, they first appeared large groups pagan Christians.

3. Text Ev. Matthew indicates that its author was a Palestinian Jew. He is well acquainted with the Old Testament, with the geography, history and customs of his people. His Ev. is closely connected with the tradition of the OT: in particular, it constantly points to the fulfillment of prophecies in the life of the Lord.

Matthew speaks more often than others about the Church. He pays considerable attention to the question of the conversion of the pagans. Of the prophets, Matthew quotes Isaiah the most (21 times). At the center of Matthew's theology is the concept of the Kingdom of God (which he, in accordance with Jewish tradition, usually calls the Kingdom of Heaven). It resides in heaven, and comes to this world in the person of the Messiah. The good news of the Lord is the good news of the mystery of the Kingdom (Matthew 13:11). It means the reign of God among people. At first the Kingdom is present in the world in an “inconspicuous way,” and only at the end of time will its fullness be revealed. The coming of the Kingdom of God was predicted in the OT and realized in Jesus Christ as the Messiah. Therefore, Matthew often calls Him the Son of David (one of the messianic titles).

4. Plan Matthew: 1. Prologue. The birth and childhood of Christ (Mt 1-2); 2. The Baptism of the Lord and the beginning of the sermon (Matthew 3-4); 3. Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7); 4. The ministry of Christ in Galilee. Miracles. Those who accepted and rejected Him (Matthew 8-18); 5. The road to Jerusalem (Matthew 19-25); 6. Passions. Resurrection (Matthew 26-28).

INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

The Holy Scriptures of the New Testament were written in Greek, with the exception of the Gospel of Matthew, which, according to tradition, was written in Hebrew or Aramaic. But since this Hebrew text has not survived, the Greek text is considered the original for the Gospel of Matthew. Thus, only the Greek text of the New Testament is the original, and numerous editions in different modern languages all over the world are translations from the Greek original.

The Greek language in which the New Testament was written was no longer the classical ancient Greek language and was not, as previously thought, a special New Testament language. It is a spoken everyday language of the first century A.D., which spread throughout the Greco-Roman world and is known in science as “κοινη”, i.e. "ordinary adverb"; yet both the style, the turns of phrase, and the way of thinking of the sacred writers of the New Testament reveal Hebrew or Aramaic influence.

The original text of the NT has come down to us in a large number of ancient manuscripts, more or less complete, numbering about 5000 (from the 2nd to the 16th centuries). To recent years the most ancient of them did not go back further than the 4th century no P.X. But for lately Many fragments of ancient NT manuscripts on papyrus (3rd and even 2nd century) were discovered. For example, Bodmer's manuscripts: John, Luke, 1 and 2 Peter, Jude - were found and published in the 60s of our century. In addition to Greek manuscripts, we have ancient translations or versions into Latin, Syriac, Coptic and other languages ​​(Vetus Itala, Peshitto, Vulgata, etc.), of which the most ancient existed already from the 2nd century AD.

Finally, numerous quotes from the Church Fathers have been preserved in Greek and other languages ​​in such quantities that if the text of the New Testament were lost and all the ancient manuscripts were destroyed, then experts could restore this text from quotes from the works of the Holy Fathers. All this abundant material makes it possible to check and clarify the text of the NT and classify its various forms (so-called textual criticism). Compared with any ancient author (Homer, Euripides, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Cornelius Nepos, Julius Caesar, Horace, Virgil, etc.), our modern printed Greek text of the NT is in an exceptionally favorable position. And in the number of manuscripts, and in the shortness of time separating the oldest of them from the original, and in the number of translations, and in their antiquity, and in the seriousness and volume of critical work carried out on the text, it surpasses all other texts (for details, see “Hidden Treasures and new life", Archaeological Discovery and the Gospel, Bruges, 1959, pp. 34 ff.). The text of the NT as a whole is recorded completely irrefutably.

The New Testament consists of 27 books. The publishers have divided them into 260 chapters of unequal length to accommodate references and quotations. This division is not present in the original text. The modern division into chapters in the New Testament, as in the whole Bible, has often been attributed to the Dominican Cardinal Hugo (1263), who worked it out when composing a symphony for the Latin Vulgate, but it is now thought with greater reason that this division goes back to Archbishop Stephen of Canterbury Langton, who died in 1228. As for the division into verses, now accepted in all editions of the New Testament, it goes back to the publisher of the Greek New Testament text, Robert Stephen, and was introduced by him in his edition in 1551.

The sacred books of the New Testament are usually divided into laws (the Four Gospels), historical (the Acts of the Apostles), teaching (seven conciliar epistles and fourteen epistles of the Apostle Paul) and prophetic: the Apocalypse or the Revelation of John the Theologian (see Long Catechism of St. Philaret of Moscow).

However, modern experts consider this distribution to be outdated: in fact, all the books of the New Testament are legal, historical and educational, and prophecy is not only in the Apocalypse. New Testament scholarship pays great attention to the precise establishment of the chronology of the Gospel and other New Testament events. Scientific chronology allows the reader to trace with sufficient accuracy the life and ministry of our Lord Jesus Christ, the apostles and the primitive Church in the New Testament (see Appendices).

The books of the New Testament can be distributed as follows:

1) Three so-called synoptic Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke and, separately, the fourth: the Gospel of John. New Testament scholarship devotes much attention to the study of the relationships of the first three Gospels and their relation to the Gospel of John (synoptic problem).

2) The Book of the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles of the Apostle Paul (“Corpus Paulinum”), which are usually divided into:

a) Early Epistles: 1st and 2nd Thessalonians.

b) Greater Epistles: Galatians, 1st and 2nd Corinthians, Romans.

c) Messages from bonds, i.e. written from Rome, where ap. Paul was in prison: Philippians, Colossians, Ephesians, Philemon.

d) Pastoral Epistles: 1st Timothy, Titus, 2nd Timothy.

e) Epistle to the Hebrews.

3) Council Epistles (“Corpus Catholicum”).

4) Revelation of John the Theologian. (Sometimes in the NT they distinguish “Corpus Joannicum”, i.e. everything that St. John wrote for the comparative study of his Gospel in connection with his epistles and the book of Rev.).

FOUR GOSPEL

1. The word “gospel” (ευανγελιον) in Greek means “good news.” This is what our Lord Jesus Christ Himself called His teaching (Matthew 24:14; Matthew 26:13; Mark 1:15; Mark 13:10; Mark 14:9; Mark 16:15). Therefore, for us, the “gospel” is inextricably linked with Him: it is the “good news” of the salvation given to the world through the incarnate Son of God.

Christ and His apostles preached the gospel without writing it down. By the mid-1st century, this preaching had been established by the Church in a strong oral tradition. The Eastern custom of memorizing sayings, stories, and even large texts helped Christians of the apostolic era accurately preserve the unrecorded First Gospel. After the 50s, when eyewitnesses of Christ's earthly ministry began to pass away one after another, the need arose to write down the gospel (Luke 1:1). Thus, the “gospel” came to mean the narrative recorded by the apostles about the life and teaching of the Savior. It was read at prayer meetings and in preparing people for baptism.

2. The most important Christian centers of the 1st century (Jerusalem, Antioch, Rome, Ephesus, etc.) had their own Gospels. Of these, only four (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) are recognized by the Church as inspired by God, i.e. written under the direct influence of the Holy Spirit. They are called “from Matthew”, “from Mark”, etc. (Greek “kata” corresponds to Russian “according to Matthew”, “according to Mark”, etc.), for the life and teachings of Christ are set out in these books by these four sacred writers. Their gospels were not compiled into one book, which made it possible to see the gospel story from different points of view. In the 2nd century St. Irenaeus of Lyons calls the evangelists by name and points to their gospels as the only canonical ones (Against heresies 2, 28, 2). A contemporary of St. Irenaeus, Tatian, made the first attempt to create a single gospel narrative, compiled from various texts of the four gospels, “Diatessaron”, i.e. "gospel of four"

3. The apostles did not set out to create a historical work in the modern sense of the word. They sought to spread the teachings of Jesus Christ, helped people to believe in Him, to correctly understand and fulfill His commandments. The testimonies of the evangelists do not coincide in all details, which proves their independence from each other: the testimonies of eyewitnesses always have an individual coloring. The Holy Spirit certifies not the accuracy of the details of the facts described in the gospel, but the spiritual meaning contained in them.

The minor contradictions found in the presentation of the evangelists are explained by the fact that God gave the sacred writers complete freedom in conveying certain specific facts in relation to different categories of listeners, which further emphasizes the unity of meaning and orientation of all four gospels (see also General Introduction, pp. 13 and 14) .

Hide

Commentary on the current passage

Commentary on the book

Comment to the section

1 The adverb γάρ (for) puts the Savior’s further parable in close connection with His previous speech, i.e. 19:30 . But since this last verse is connected with the 29th verse of the same chapter by the particle δή and since the connection (expressed through καί, δέ, τότε) can be traced not only to the 27th verse of the 19th chapter, but even to the 16th verse of the same chapter (although in 16-26 it is not expressed everywhere by the indicated adverbs and particles), it is clear that the evangelist’s story in 19:16-20:16 represents something integral, coherent and therefore should be considered in this form. Peter’s question (v. 27), in its internal content, has an obvious relation to the story about the rich young man, and the external content is connected to the story by the adverb “then” of verse 27. The train of thought is this: the rich young man refused to follow Christ because he did not want to leave his earthly acquisitions. On this occasion, Peter tells Jesus Christ that the disciples left everything and asks: “What will happen to us?” In response to this question, Jesus Christ indicates what kind of reward the disciples will receive, and not only they, but also “everyone who leaves home,” etc. (v. 29). The apostles will “judge” the twelve tribes of Israel” (28), and, in addition, all who follow Christ will receive “a hundredfold and inherit eternal life” (29). The particle “the same” (δὲ) in verse 30 expresses the opposite of the thought expressed in verse 29. It does not follow from the words of verse 29 that the reward will be the same for everyone. On the contrary (δὲ - v. 30), many who are first will be last, and those who are last will be first. This idea is proven (γάρ 20:1 ) a further parable, which, judging by the course of thought, should, firstly, explain who exactly is meant by the first and last, and, secondly, why an order should prevail in the relations of the Kingdom of Heaven, completely different from the one that exists in earthly relationships. By the vineyard one should mean the Kingdom of Heaven, and by the owner of the vineyard, God. Origen meant the church of God by the vineyard, and the market and places outside the vineyard ( τὰ ἔξω του̃ ἀμπελω̃νος ) is what is outside the church ( τὰ ἔξω του̃ ’Εκκλησίας ). Chrysostom meant by the vineyard “the behavior and commandments of God.”

2 With our money, a denarius was equal to 20-25 kopecks.

3 In the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, the Jewish account of time is adopted. There is no trace of the division of day and night into hours in the Old Testament writings. There were only the main divisions of the day, which were distinguished by their primitive nature - evening, morning, noon (cf. Psalm 54:18). Other designations for the time of day were "heat of the day" ( Gen 18:1), σταθερὸν ἠ̃μαρ (Proverbs 4:18- “full day”), “coolness of the day” ( Gen 3:8). The times of the night were sometimes distinguished (except for the division into watches) by the expressions ὀψέ (evening), μεσονύκτιον (midnight), ἀλεκτροφωνία (roosters crowing) and πρωΐ (dawn). In the Talmud Vavil. Avodah Zara, leaf. 3.6 ml. there is a distribution of the day into four parts of three hours, which served to distribute the time of prayer (at the third, sixth and ninth hour of the day; this is also indicated in Matthew 20:3). The division into hours was borrowed by the Jews, like the Greeks (Herodotus II, 109), from Babylonia. The Aramaic word chas shaya or shaa in the Old Testament is found only in Daniel ( 3:6 etc.). In the New Testament, counting by the hour is already common. The twelve hours of the day were counted from sunrise to sunset, and therefore the sixth corresponds to noon, and at 11 o'clock the day ended ( Matthew 20:6). Depending on the time of year, the hours varied in duration from 59 to 70 minutes.

Thus, the third hour is equal to our ninth in the morning.

5 In our opinion, around twelve and three o'clock in the afternoon.

6 About 11 o'clock, in our opinion, about 5 o'clock in the afternoon.

11-12 To compare the first with the last and, conversely, to explain and prove that this happens and can be, at least not always, and that equal pay simply depends on the very kindness and goodness of the Supreme Householder - this is the main and essential idea of ​​​​the parable . And we must admit that this very thought was fully explained and proven by Christ. When interpreting the parable, like many other sayings of Christ, one must generally avoid, if possible, abstractions. Understood more specifically, the parable means that those who are first should not be proud of their primacy or exalt themselves before others, because there may be such cases in human life, which clearly show that the former are completely compared with the latter and the latter is even given preference. This should have been instructive for the apostles, who reasoned: “What will happen to us? ( 19:27 )". Christ says something like this: you ask who is greater and what will happen to you. You who have followed Me will have many things ( 19:20 ); but do not accept this in the full and unconditional sense, do not think that it should always be this way, that it will certainly be so. Maybe (but it shouldn’t be, it certainly happens or will happen) and this is what (the parable of the workers). The conclusion that the disciples who listened to Christ should have drawn from here is thus completely clear and understandable. There is no command here to be necessarily compared with the latter, no advice is offered, but a principle is explained by which the workers in Christ's vineyard should carry out their work.

16 Words spoken in 19:30 are repeated here, and this clearly shows that they contain precisely the goal, the main idea and moral teaching of the parable. The meaning of the expression is not that the last should always be first, and vice versa; but that may be so, under certain, almost exceptional circumstances. This is indicated by the οὕτως (so) used at the beginning of the verse, which can mean here: here, in such or similar cases (but not always). To explain verse 16, they find a parallel in 2 John 8 and they think that it “gives the key” to explaining the parable, with which one can agree. Jerome and others connect the verse and the whole parable with the parable of prodigal son, where the eldest son hates the younger, does not want to accept his repentance and accuses his father of injustice. The last words of Art. 16th: “for many are called, but few are chosen” should be recognized as a later insertion, both on the basis of the testimony of the best and authoritative manuscripts, and for internal reasons. These words were probably borrowed and transferred here from Matthew 22:14 and greatly obscure the meaning of the entire parable.

17 (Mark 10:32; Luke 18:31) Matthew's words are not connected by any adverbs with the previous one, with the exception of the union and (καί). One can even assume that here is a gap in the presentation of events that took place shortly before the last Easter (the 4th year of the public ministry of Jesus Christ), only partially filled in John 11:55-56. “The disciples were recalled,” obviously because the Savior’s speech, in its content, required secrecy, or as Euthymius Zigaben thinks: “ because this should not have been communicated to many, lest they be offended».

19 (Mk 10:33,34 ; Luke 18:32-34) By “pagans” we mean the Romans.

20 (Mark 10:35) In Mark, disciples named by name, James and John, sons of Zebedee, turn to Christ with a request. It is absolutely clear that in the historical narrative it was possible to talk about the mother together with her sons, and about the sons alone, without mentioning the mother for the sake of brevity. To find out the reasons for the request, you should first of all pay attention to the increase in Luke 18:34(which other weather forecasters do not have), where it is reported that the disciples did not understand Christ’s words about His suffering. But they could pay special attention to the word “resurrect” and understand it somewhat, albeit in a wrong sense.

What was the name of the mother of James and John? This question is quite difficult. There in the Gospels, where it is mentioned about “the mother of the sons of Zebedee” ( Matthew 20:20; 27:56 ), she is nowhere called Salome; and where it says about Salome ( Mark 15:40; 16:1 ), she is nowhere called “the mother of the sons of Zebedee.” Only mainly on the basis of comparison of evidence Matthew 27:55,56 And Mark 15:40,41 come to the conclusion that Salome was the mother of the sons of Zebedee. This is easy to see from the following. At the cross there were women looking at the crucifix from afar:

From this we can see that “the mother of the sons of Zebedee” is mentioned in Matthew where Mark speaks of Salome. Further, the Evangelist John says ( 19:25 ) that “at the cross of Jesus stood His mother and His mother’s sister, Mary of Cleophas and Mary Magdalene.” This passage can be read in two ways, namely:

1. His (Christ's) Mother
2. and His Mother's sister, Mary of Cleopas,
3. and Mary Magdalene.

or:

1. His mother
2. and his mother's sister,
3. Maria Kleopova,
4. and Mary Magdalene.

According to the first reading, therefore, only three women stood at the cross, according to the second - four. The first reading is refuted on the grounds that if Mary of Cleopas were the sister of the Mother of God, then the two sisters would be called same name, which is quite incredible. Further, in the Gospel of John, two groups of women are indicated, and the names of the first and second, and then the third and fourth are connected by the conjunction “and”:
1st group: His Mother “His Mother’s sister,
2nd group: Mary of Cleopas and Mary Magdalene.

Thus, here too, by “sister of His Mother” it is possible to mean Salome or the mother of the sons of Zebedee. Such an identification, for various reasons, cannot, of course, be considered completely undoubted. But he cannot be denied some probability. If, on the one hand, Salome was the “mother of the sons of Zebedee,” and on the other hand, the sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus, then it means that James and John Zebedee were cousins ​​of Christ. Salome was among the women who accompanied Jesus Christ, who followed Him in Galilee and served Him ( Matthew 27:56; Mark 15:41).

In all likelihood, the idea of ​​turning to Jesus Christ with a request arose from the apostles themselves, and they asked their mother to convey their request to Jesus Christ. In Mark, the disciples' request is expressed in a form that was only appropriate when addressing the King, and in some cases was even uttered and proposed by the kings themselves (cf. Matthew 14:7; Mark 6:23). Based on Matthew's testimony, it can be concluded that Salome, with all her respect for Jesus Christ, did not have sufficient information about the nature and purpose of His ministry. She approached Jesus Christ with her sons, bowed to Him and asked for something (τι). She, no doubt, spoke, but her words were so unclear and vague that the Savior had to ask what exactly she wanted.

21 (Mark 10:36,37) Christ addresses the disciples with the question of what they want. Instead of “tell”, Mark has a more categorical “give” (δòς). Instead of “in Thy Kingdom” - “in Thy glory.” Other differences in the speech of the evangelists are due to the fact that the request is put into the mouths of different petitioners. Salome asked that in His future Kingdom the Savior would seat her sons, one on His right and the other on His left. The customs referred to here have not disappeared to this day. Seats on the right and on left hand, that is, in the very proximity of some important person, are still considered especially honorable. It was the same among the ancient pagan peoples and Jews. The places closest to the royal throne were the most honorable. This is mentioned in the Bible in 1 Kings 2:19; Psalm 45:10. Josephus Flavius ​​(Jude. ancient. VI, 11, §9) sets out the famous biblical story about the flight of David, when Saul, on the New Moon holiday, having purified himself according to custom, reclined at the table, and his son Jonathan sat on his right side, and Abner - on the left. The meaning of the request of the mother of the sons of Zebedee was, therefore, that Christ would provide her sons with the main, most honorable places in the Kingdom that would be established by Him.

22 (Mark 10:38) The Savior points out that the disciples do not know or understand what His true glory and His true dominion and kingdom are. This is the glory, dominion and kingdom of Jehovah's servant who offers Himself as a sacrifice for the ransom of mankind. Chrysostom expresses this well, paraphrasing the speech of the Savior: “ you remind Me of honor and crowns, and I speak of the exploits and labors that lie before you" In essence, the words of the mother of the sons of Zebedee and themselves contained a request for admission to the suffering that lay before Christ and about which He had already spoken earlier. Therefore, the real meaning of the request was terrible; but the disciples did not suspect this. Savior, in full agreement with the message, or better yet, the teaching just taught ( 20:18,19 ), exposes its true meaning. He points to the cup that He was to drink ( Matthew 26:39), which the psalmist ( Ps 114:3) calls mortal diseases, hellish torments, cramped conditions and sorrow (Jerome points to these texts in his interpretation of verse 22). The Savior does not say that the disciples’ request was based on the disciples’ misconception of the nature of His spiritual Kingdom and does not predict here that He will be crucified among two thieves. He only says that suffering, self-sacrifice and death do not and cannot be the path to worldly dominion. He speaks only of the cup, without adding, however, that it will be a cup of suffering. It is very interesting that the word “cup” was used in the Old Testament scriptures in two senses, to designate and happiness ( Psalm 15:5; 22:5 ), and disasters ( Ps 10:6; Isa 3:22; Jer 49:12). But it is doubtful whether the disciples understood the words of Christ in the first sense. The most likely assumption is that their understanding was, so to speak, something in between (cf. Luke 18:34). They did not understand the full meaning of the word "cup" with all that was implied; but, on the other hand, they did not imagine the matter in such a way that there would be only suffering and nothing more. They could present the matter this way: in order to acquire external, worldly dominion, they first needed to drink the cup of suffering that Christ Himself had to drink. But if Christ Himself drinks it, then why shouldn’t they also accept it? This should not and will not exceed their strength. And so, to Christ’s question, the disciples boldly answer: we can. " In the heat of zeal, they immediately expressed consent, not knowing what they said, but hoping to hear consent to their request"(John Chrysostom).

23 (Mark 10:39,40) This verse has always been considered one of the most difficult to interpret and even gave rise to some heretics (Arians) to falsely claim that the Son of God is not equal to God the Father. The opinion of the Arians was rejected by all the Church Fathers as unfounded and heretical, for from other places in the New Testament ( Matthew 9:6,8; 28:18 ; Mark 2:10; John 17:2; 10:30 etc.) it is clearly seen that Christ everywhere arrogates to Himself power equal to that of God the Father.

To correctly interpret the sayings of the Savior set forth in verse 23, one should pay attention to two very important circumstances. Firstly, if the disciples and their mother in verse 21 ask Him for first places in His Kingdom or in “glory,” then in the speech of the Savior, starting from verse 23 and ending with 28 (and in Luke in the section placed in a different connection, Luke 22:24-27, which is sometimes given here in the form of a parallel), there is not the slightest mention of either the kingdom or glory. Coming into the world, the Messiah appeared as the suffering Servant of Jehovah, the Redeemer of mankind. From here it is clear that sitting on the right and left sides of Christ does not mean, first of all, to participate in His glory, but indicates a preliminary approach to Him in His suffering, self-denial and bearing the cross. Only after this will people have the opportunity to enter into His glory. By the will and advice of God, there are always people who take part in the sufferings of Christ and thus become especially close to Him, as if they sit on His right and left sides. Secondly, it should be noted that the two evangelists, Matthew and Mark, use two different expressions here: “for whom my Father has prepared” (Matthew) and simply “for whom it has been prepared” (Mark). Both of these expressions are precise and strong and contain the same idea - about the providential significance of suffering in the earthly life of mankind.

24 (Mark 10:41; Luke 22:24) The reason for the indignation of the 10 disciples was the request of James and John, which tended to belittle the other apostles. The occurrence of such phenomena shows in any case that the disciples of Christ were not always distinguished, even in His presence, by love for each other and completely fraternal unity. But in the present case this was not out of malice, but more, apparently, out of simplicity, underdevelopment and insufficient assimilation of the teachings of Christ. The struggle for the first places in the new kingdom, localism, was repeated again, at the Last Supper.

25 (Mark 10:42; Luke 22:25) Luke has a completely different connection. Mark's speech is stronger than Matthew's; instead of the more positive “princes of the nations” ( ἄρχοντες τω̃ν ἐθνω̃ν ) at Mark's οἱ δοκου̃ντες ἄρχειν τω̃ν ἐθνω̃ν , that is, those who think that they rule over the peoples, imaginary rulers.

26 (Mark 10:43; Luke 22:26) The opposite of what is said in the previous verse. It’s like this for the “peoples”, but it should be completely different for you. The Savior’s words are highly instructive not only for spiritual leaders, but also for all rulers and bosses, who usually want to have all the “fullness of power”, without at all thinking that true (and not imaginary) Christian power is based only on services provided to people , or in serving them, and, moreover, without any thought about any external power that comes by itself.

27 (Mark 10:44) The idea is the same as in Art. 26.

28 (Mark 10:45; Luke 22:27) The highest and most understandable example and model is offered to everyone familiar with the life of Christ. Both angels and people served Christ ( Matthew 4:11; 8:15 ; 27:55 ; Mark 1:13,31; 15:41 ; Luke 4:39; 8:3 ; 10:40 ; John 12:2,26); and He demanded and demands for Himself this service and even an account for it ( Matthew 25:34-45). But no one will say that the teaching revealed in the verse under discussion contradicts His own teaching and behavior or does not correspond to reality. On the contrary, it seems that the indicated passages from the Gospels not only do not contradict, but only further emphasize the idea that the Son of Man came to earth only to serve. In His service to people, they responded to Him in some cases with service full of love, and thus, being a servant, He was fully Lord and Teacher and called Himself so (see especially John 13:13,14 and many more etc.). But how different everything here is from the usual manifestation of power on the part of various rulers and princes of this world! The expression ὥσπερ (in Russian translation since) means, in fact, just as (German gleichwie; Latin sicut), indicates a comparison, not a reason. Thus, the meaning: whoever wants to be first among you must be your slave, just as the Son of Man came, etc. But in parallel, Mark gives the same words as a reason (καὶ γάρ, Russian for and). The word “came” indicates Christ’s consciousness of His higher origin and coming to earth from another world, from a higher sphere of existence. On the idea of ​​redemptive self-sacrifice cf. 2 Macc 7:37,38. Λύτρον, used in Matthew (and Mark in parallel) only here, comes from λύειν - to untie, resolve, free; used by the Greeks (usually in the plural) and is found in the Old Testament in the sense of: 1) Ex 21:30 a ransom for your soul from the threat of death; 2) Lev 19:20 wages for a female slave and Lev 25:25,51,52- slave; 3) Numbers 18:15 ransom for the firstborn; 4) Proverbs 13:8, in the sense of propitiation. Synonymous terms ἄλλαγμα ( Isaiah 40:3 etc.) and ἐξίλασμα ( Proverbs 21:18) - both of these words are usually translated through ransom. The only λύτρον is obviously placed in correspondence with the only ψυχὴν. Christ does not say that He will give His soul to redeem Himself, but to redeem “many.” The word “many” aroused a lot of bewilderment; if only for the redemption of “many” people, then that means not all. The redemptive work of Christ does not extend to everyone, but only to many, perhaps even a relatively few, the elect. Jerome adds: to those who wished to believe. But Euthymius Zigaben and others consider here the word πολλούς to be equivalent to πάντας, because Scripture often says so. Bengel introduces here the concept of individuals and says that here the Savior speaks of giving Himself as a sacrifice for many, not only for all, but even for individuals ( et multis, non solum universis, sed etiam singnlis, se impendit Redemptor). They also said that πάντων is an objective, πολλω̃ν is a subjective designation of those for whom Christ died. He died for everyone - objectively; but subjectively only a huge multitude will be saved by Him, which no one could count, πολλοί. The Apostle Paul in Rom 5:12-19 there is a change between οἱ πολλοί and simply πολλοί and πάντες. The actual meaning of ἀντὶ πολλω̃ν is expressed in a place that can serve as a parallel for the present, 1 Tim 2:6, Where λύτρον ἀντὶ πολλω̃ν , as here in Matthew, is replaced ἀντίλυτρον ὑπὲρ πάντων . All these interpretations are satisfactory and can be accepted.

29 (Mark 10:46; Luke 18:35-19:28) The order of events of the three evangelists here is quite difficult. Luka ( 18:35 ) begins his story: “when He approached Jericho ( ἐγένετο δὲ ἐν τω̨̃ ἐγγίζειν αὐτòν εἰς ’Ιεριχὼ ); Mark ( Mark 10:46): "comes to Jericho" ( καὶ ἔρχονται εἰς ’Ιερειχώ ); Matthew: “And when they came out of Jericho” ( καὶ ἐκπορευομένων αὐτω̃ν ἀπò ’Ιεριχὼ ). If we accept these testimony of the evangelists in their exact value, then you need to put the story first Luke 18:35-19:27, where the healing of one blind man is reported ( Luke 18:35-43) before entering Jericho; then, when Jesus Christ entered there, He visited Zacchaeus ( Luke 19:1-10) and told the parable of the ten minas ( Luke 19:11-27). Then after Mark's note "they come to Jericho" Luke 19:1, there is a parallel story of the two first evangelists ( Matthew 20:29-30; Mark 10:46), and finally Luca joins them in 18:38 . With this arrangement, however, great difficulties are not eliminated, as will be seen from what follows.

Jericho was located on the western side of the Jordan, slightly north of where the Jordan flows into the Dead Sea. He is mentioned only six times in the New Testament ( Matthew 20:29; Mark 10:46; Luke 10:30; 18:35 ; 19:1 ; EUR 11:30). In Greek it is written ’Ιεριχώ and ’Ιερειχώ. In the Old Testament - often; it was one of the oldest Palestinian cities. The area where the city is located is one of the most fertile in Palestine, and at the time of Christ was probably in a flourishing state. Jericho was famous for palm trees, balsam and other fragrant plants. On the site of the ancient city there now stands the village of Eriha, full of poverty, dirt and even immorality. There are about 60 families in Erich. During the procession of Christ from Jericho to Jerusalem, He was accompanied by a large crowd of common people (ὄχλος πολύς).

30 (Mark 10:46,47; Luke 18:35-38) Matthew speaks of two blind men whom the Savior healed after leaving Jericho; Mark talks about one thing, calling him by name (Bartimaeus); Luke also speaks of one whom the Savior healed before His entry into Jericho. If we assume that all the evangelists are talking about the same thing, then we get obvious and completely irreconcilable contradictions. Even in ancient times, this provided a powerful weapon to the enemies of Christianity and the Gospels, who considered this place as irrefutable proof of the unreliability of the Gospel stories. Attempts to reconcile stories on the part of Christian writers, therefore, date back to ancient times. Origen, Euthymius Zigabenus and others accepted that this speaks of three healings of the blind, Luke speaks of one healing, Mark speaks of another, and Matthew speaks of a third. Augustine argued that there were only two healings, of which one is spoken of by Matthew and Mark and the other by Luke. But Theophylact and others consider all three healings to be one. Of the new exegetes, some explained the discrepancy by the fact that there were only two healings and only two blind men, about whom Mark and Luke speak separately, of which one took place before entering Jericho, and the other upon leaving it. Matthew combined both healings in one story. Others - because the diversity of the evangelists depended on the fact that the sources from which each evangelist borrowed his story were different.

It must be admitted that the stories of the evangelists do not allow us to recognize either three persons and their healings, or to unite them into one. Here there is simply ambiguity in the story, something left unsaid, and this prevents us from imagining and understanding how it really happened. The surest way to resolve this issue would seem to be as follows. Reading stories about the healing of blind people, we should not imagine that as soon as one of them shouted, calling on Christ for help, he was immediately healed. In an extremely condensed and brief story, events that could have occurred over a more or less long period of time are brought together. This is indicated, by the way, by the testimony common to all weather forecasters that the people forbade the blind to shout and forced them to remain silent ( Matthew 20:31; Mark 10:48; Luke 18:39). Further from the story of Luke ( Luke 18:35-43) it is absolutely impossible to conclude that the healing of the blind man took place before the entry of Jesus Christ into Jericho. On the contrary, if we assume that it was already after the departure of Christ from Jericho, then all the details of Luke’s story will become clearer to us. First, the blind man sits by the road, begging. When he hears that a crowd is passing by, he asks what it is. Having learned that “Jesus of Nazareth is coming,” he begins to shout for help. Those walking in front force him to remain silent; but he screams even louder. It is not clear from anywhere that at the time when all this was happening, Jesus Christ was standing in one place. He stopped only when he came out of Jericho and ordered the blind man to be brought to Him. If he ordered to bring him, then it means that the blind man was not at the closest distance from Him. To this it must be added that when passing through a city, it can be crossed in both a long and short time, depending on its size. Even through the most big city you can walk in a short time, crossing, for example, the outskirts. It is not clear from anywhere that Jericho was then a big city. Thus we have every right to identify the blind man of whom Luke speaks, either with Bartimaeus of Mark, or with one of the unnamed blind men of Matthew. This means that all three evangelists are in complete agreement regarding the fact that the blind were healed after the departure of Jesus Christ from Jericho. Having dealt with this difficulty, we must, as far as possible, clarify another. According to Mark and Luke there was one blind man, according to Matthew there were two. But the question is, if only one blind man was healed, then why did Matthew need to say that there were two of them? If, as they say, he had before him the Gospels of Mark and Luke, then did he really want to undermine the credibility of these evangelists by giving a different testimony, without any reservations about the inaccuracy of their messages? Did he really want to artificially increase the glory of Christ as a healer by adding one miracle that was supposedly invented by him? All this is extremely incredible and inconsistent with anything. Let's say that it would be absurd to argue even with the most hostile attitude towards the Gospels. Further, even if Mark and Luke knew that two blind men were healed, but wished intentionally (in the present case, no special intention is completely imperceptible) to report only one healing and the healed one, then even then not a single conscientious critic familiar with the documents, and especially the ancients, I would not dare to accuse the evangelists of fiction and distortion historical facts. True, we cannot explain why Matthew talks about two blind men, and Mark and Luke only about one. But in fact it could well have been that two blind men were healed during the movement of the crowd; This does not at all contradict any historical probability.

31 (Mark 10:48; Luke 18:39) Why did people force the blind to remain silent? Perhaps blind people passing by forced them to remain silent simply because they “disturbed public silence” and their cry did not comply with the rules of public decency of the time.

32 (Mark 10:49; Luke 18:40) It is very noticeable that here Luke uses soft, elegant and precise Greek expressions. Matthew and Mark use the beautiful word φωνει̃ν, which is more typical of popular speech (to make a sound and then call, beckon). According to Matthew, Jesus Christ called (ἐφώνησεν) the blind Himself; according to Mark - he ordered to call ( εἰ̃πεν φωνήσατε ). Mark further reports interesting and lively details about the conversation with the blind person who called him, and about who, throwing off his clothes, stood up (jumped up, jumped up - ἀναπηδήσας) and went (not said - ran) to Jesus Christ. Christ's question is natural.

33 (Mark 10:51; Luke 18:41) The speech of the blind in Matthew (and other weather forecasters) is abbreviated. Full speech is: Lord! we want our eyes to be opened. Blind people do not ask for alms, but for a miracle to be performed. Obviously, they had heard about Christ as a Healer before. The healing of the man born blind, as described by John (chapter 9), should be attributed to a time earlier than the present events. And the people probably knew that Christ could open the eyes of the blind.

34 (Mark 10:52; Luke 18:42,43) According to Matthew, the Savior does not speak a single word to the blind, but instead touches their eyes. With Mark and Luke it’s different. The word εὐθέως (immediately) indicates sudden insight, which is also spoken of by Mark and Luke (εὐθὺς and παράχρημα).

Gospel

The word “Gospel” (τὸ εὐαγγέλιον) in classical Greek was used to designate: a) a reward that is given to the messenger of joy (τῷ εὐαγγέλῳ), b) a sacrifice sacrificed on the occasion of receiving some good news or a holiday celebrated on the same occasion and c) this good news itself. In the New Testament this expression means:

a) the good news that Christ reconciled people with God and brought us the greatest benefits - mainly founded the Kingdom of God on earth ( Matt. 4:23),

b) the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ, preached by Himself and His Apostles about Him as the King of this Kingdom, the Messiah and the Son of God ( 2 Cor. 4:4),

c) all New Testament or Christian teaching in general, primarily the narration of the most important events from the life of Christ ( 1 Cor. 15:1-4), and then an explanation of the meaning of these events ( Rome. 1:16).

e) Finally, the word “Gospel” is sometimes used to designate the very process of preaching Christian teaching ( Rome. 1:1).

Sometimes the word “Gospel” is accompanied by a designation and its content. There are, for example, phrases: Gospel of the kingdom ( Matt. 4:23), i.e. good news of the kingdom of God, the gospel of peace ( Eph. 6:15), i.e. about peace, the gospel of salvation ( Eph. 1:13), i.e. about salvation, etc. Sometimes the genitive case following the word "Gospel" means the author or source of the good news ( Rome. 1:1, 15:16 ; 2 Cor. 11:7; 1 Thess. 2:8) or the personality of the preacher ( Rome. 2:16).

For quite a long time, stories about the life of the Lord Jesus Christ were transmitted only orally. The Lord Himself did not leave any records of His speeches and deeds. In the same way, the 12 apostles were not born writers: they were “unlearned and simple people” ( Acts 4:13), although literate. Among the Christians of the apostolic time there were also very few “wise according to the flesh, strong” and “noble” ( 1 Cor. 1:26), and for most believers much higher value had oral stories about Christ than written ones. Thus, the apostles and preachers or evangelists “transmitted” (παραδιδόναι) the stories about the deeds and speeches of Christ, and the believers “received” (παραλαμβάνειν) - but, of course, not mechanically, only by memory, as can be said about the students of rabbinical schools, but with all my soul, as if something living and life-giving. But this period of oral tradition was soon to end. On the one hand, Christians should have felt the need for a written presentation of the Gospel in their disputes with the Jews, who, as we know, denied the reality of Christ’s miracles and even argued that Christ did not declare Himself the Messiah. It was necessary to show the Jews that Christians have genuine stories about Christ from those persons who were either among His apostles or who were in close communication with eyewitnesses of the deeds of Christ. On the other hand, the need for a written presentation of the history of Christ began to be felt because the generation of the first disciples was gradually dying out and the ranks of direct witnesses to the miracles of Christ were thinning. Therefore, it was necessary to secure in writing individual sayings of the Lord and His entire speeches, as well as the stories of the apostles about Him. It was then that isolated records of what was reported in the oral tradition about Christ began to appear here and there. The words of Christ, which contained the rules of Christian life, were most carefully recorded, and they were much more free to convey various events from the life of Christ, preserving only their general impression. Thus, one thing in these records, due to its originality, was transmitted everywhere in the same way, while the other was modified. These initial recordings did not think about the completeness of the story. Even our Gospels, as can be seen from the conclusion of the Gospel of John ( In. 21:25), did not intend to report all the speeches and deeds of Christ. This is evident, by the way, from the fact that they do not contain, for example, the following saying of Christ: “It is more blessed to give than to receive” ( Acts 20:35). The Evangelist Luke reports about such records, saying that many before him had already begun to compile narratives about the life of Christ, but that they lacked proper completeness and that therefore they did not provide sufficient “affirmation” in the faith ( OK. 1:1-4).

Our canonical Gospels apparently arose from the same motives. The period of their appearance can be determined to be approximately thirty years - from 60 to 90 (the last was the Gospel of John). In biblical scholarship, the first three Gospels are usually called synoptic, because they depict the life of Christ in such a way that their three narratives can be viewed in one without much difficulty and combined into one coherent narrative (synoptics - from Greek - looking together). They began to be called Gospels individually, perhaps as early as the end of the 1st century, but from church writing we have information that such a name began to be given to the entire composition of the Gospels only in the second half of the 2nd century. As for the names: “Gospel of Matthew”, “Gospel of Mark”, etc., then more correctly these very ancient names from Greek should be translated as follows: “Gospel according to Matthew”, “Gospel according to Mark” (κατὰ Ματθαῖον, κατὰ Μᾶρκον). By this the Church wanted to say that in all the Gospels there is a single Christian gospel about Christ the Savior, but according to the images of different writers: one image belongs to Matthew, another to Mark, etc.

Four Gospels

Thus, the ancient Church looked upon the portrayal of the life of Christ in our four Gospels, not as different Gospels or narratives, but as one Gospel, one book in four types. That is why in the Church the name Four Gospels was established for our Gospels. Saint Irenaeus called them the “fourfold Gospel” (τετράμορφον τὸ εὐαγγέλιον - see Irenaeus Lugdunensis, Adversus haereses liber 3, ed. A. Rousseau and L. Doutreleaü Irenée Lyon. Contre les hé résies, livre 3, vol. 2. Paris, 1974, 11, 11).

The Fathers of the Church dwell on the question: why exactly did the Church accept not one Gospel, but four? So St. John Chrysostom says: “Couldn’t one evangelist write everything that was needed. Of course, he could, but when four people wrote, they wrote not at the same time, not in the same place, without communicating or conspiring with each other, and for all that they wrote in such a way that everything seemed to be uttered by one mouth, then this is the strongest proof of the truth. You will say: “What happened, however, was the opposite, for the four Gospels are often found to be in disagreement.” This very thing is a sure sign of truth. For if the Gospels had exactly agreed with each other in everything, even regarding the words themselves, then none of the enemies would have believed that the Gospels were not written according to ordinary mutual agreement. Now the slight disagreement between them frees them from all suspicion. For what they say differently regarding time or place does not in the least harm the truth of their narrative. In the main thing, which forms the basis of our life and the essence of preaching, not one of them disagrees with the other in anything or anywhere - that God became a man, worked miracles, was crucified, resurrected, and ascended into heaven.” (“Conversations on the Gospel of Matthew”, 1).

Saint Irenaeus also finds a special symbolic meaning in the fourfold number of our Gospels. “Since there are four countries of the world in which we live, and since the Church is scattered throughout the entire earth and has its confirmation in the Gospel, it was necessary for it to have four pillars, spreading incorruptibility from everywhere and reviving the human race. The All-Ordering Word, seated on the Cherubim, gave us the Gospel in four forms, but permeated with one spirit. For David, praying for His appearance, says: “He who sits on the Cherubim, show Yourself” ( Ps. 79:2). But the Cherubim (in the vision of the prophet Ezekiel and the Apocalypse) have four faces, and their faces are images of the activity of the Son of God.” Saint Irenaeus finds it possible to attach the symbol of a lion to the Gospel of John, since this Gospel depicts Christ as the eternal King, and the lion is the king in the animal world; to the Gospel of Luke - the symbol of the calf, since Luke begins his Gospel with the image of the priestly service of Zechariah, who slaughtered the calves; to the Gospel of Matthew - a symbol of a person, since this Gospel mainly depicts the human birth of Christ, and, finally, to the Gospel of Mark - a symbol of an eagle, because Mark begins his Gospel with a mention of the prophets, to whom the Holy Spirit flew, like an eagle on wings "(Irenaeus Lugdunensis, Adversus haereses, liber 3, 11, 11-22). Among the other Church Fathers, the symbols of the lion and the calf were moved and the first was given to Mark, and the second to John. Since the 5th century. in this form, the symbols of the evangelists began to be added to the images of the four evangelists in church painting.

Mutual relationship of the Gospels

Each of the four Gospels has its own characteristics, and most of all - the Gospel of John. But the first three, as mentioned above, have extremely much in common with each other, and this similarity involuntarily catches the eye even when reading them briefly. Let us first of all talk about the similarity of the Synoptic Gospels and the reasons for this phenomenon.

Even Eusebius of Caesarea, in his “canons,” divided the Gospel of Matthew into 355 parts and noted that 111 of them were found in all three weather forecasters. IN modern times exegetes developed an even more precise numerical formula for determining the similarity of the Gospels and calculated that the total number of verses common to all weather forecasters goes back to 350. In Matthew, then, 350 verses are unique to him, in Mark there are 68 such verses, in Luke - 541. The similarities are mainly noticed in the rendering of the sayings of Christ, and the differences are in the narrative part. When Matthew and Luke literally agree with each other in their Gospels, Mark always agrees with them. The similarity between Luke and Mark is much closer than between Luke and Matthew (Lopukhin - in the Orthodox Theological Encyclopedia. T. V. P. 173). It is also remarkable that some passages in all three evangelists follow the same sequence, for example, the temptation and the speech in Galilee, the calling of Matthew and the conversation about fasting, the plucking of ears of corn and the healing of the withered man, the calming of the storm and the healing of the Gadarene demoniac, etc. The similarity sometimes even extends to the construction of sentences and expressions (for example, in the presentation of a prophecy Small 3:1).

As for the differences observed among weather forecasters, there are quite a lot of them. Some things are reported by only two evangelists, others even by one. Thus, only Matthew and Luke cite the conversation on the mount of the Lord Jesus Christ and report the story of the birth and first years of Christ’s life. Luke alone speaks of the birth of John the Baptist. Some things one evangelist conveys in a more abbreviated form than another, or in a different connection than another. The details of the events in each Gospel are different, as are the expressions.

This phenomenon of similarities and differences in the synoptic Gospels has long attracted the attention of interpreters of Scripture, and various assumptions have long been made to explain this fact. It seems more correct to think that our three evangelists used a common oral source for their narrative of the life of Christ. At that time, evangelists or preachers about Christ went everywhere preaching and repeated in different places in a more or less extensive form what was considered necessary to offer to those entering the Church. Thus, a well-known specific type was formed oral gospel, and this is the type we have in written form in our Synoptic Gospels. Of course, at the same time, depending on the goal that this or that evangelist had, his Gospel took on some special features, characteristic only of his work. At the same time, we cannot exclude the assumption that an older Gospel could have been known to the evangelist who wrote later. Moreover, the difference between the weather forecasters should be explained by the different goals that each of them had in mind when writing his Gospel.

As we have already said, the Synoptic Gospels differ in very many ways from the Gospel of John the Theologian. So they depict almost exclusively the activity of Christ in Galilee, and the Apostle John depicts mainly the sojourn of Christ in Judea. In terms of content, the Synoptic Gospels also differ significantly from the Gospel of John. They give, so to speak, a more external life, the works and teachings of Christ and from the speeches of Christ are given only those that were accessible to the understanding of all the people. John, on the contrary, omits a lot from the activities of Christ, for example, he cites only six miracles of Christ, but those speeches and miracles that he cites have a special deep meaning and extreme importance about the person of the Lord Jesus Christ. Finally, while the Synoptics portray Christ primarily as the founder of the Kingdom of God and therefore direct the attention of their readers to the Kingdom founded by Him, John draws our attention to the central point of this Kingdom, from which life flows along the peripheries of the Kingdom, i.e. on the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, whom John portrays as the Only Begotten Son of God and as the Light for all mankind. That is why the ancient interpreters called the Gospel of John primarily spiritual (πνευματικόν), in contrast to the synoptic ones, as depicting predominantly the human side in the person of Christ (εὐαγγέλιον σωματικόν), i.e. The gospel is physical.

However, it must be said that the weather forecasters also have passages that indicate that the weather forecasters knew the activity of Christ in Judea ( Matt. 23:37, 27:57 ; OK. 10:38-42), and John also has indications of the continued activity of Christ in Galilee. In the same way, weather forecasters convey such sayings of Christ that testify to His Divine dignity ( Matt. 11:27), and John, for his part, also in places depicts Christ as a true man ( In. 2 etc.; John 8 etc.). Therefore, one cannot speak of any contradiction between the weather forecasters and John in their depiction of the face and work of Christ.

The Reliability of the Gospels

Although criticism has long been expressed against the reliability of the Gospels, and recently these attacks of criticism have especially intensified (the theory of myths, especially the theory of Drews, who does not recognize the existence of Christ at all), however, all the objections of criticism are so insignificant that they are broken at the slightest collision with Christian apologetics . Here, however, we will not cite the objections of negative criticism and analyze these objections: this will be done when interpreting the text of the Gospels itself. We will only talk about the most important general reasons for which we recognize the Gospels as completely reliable documents. This is, firstly, the existence of a tradition of eyewitnesses, many of whom lived to the era when our Gospels appeared. Why on earth would we refuse to trust these sources of our Gospels? Could they have made up everything in our Gospels? No, all the Gospels are pure historical character. Secondly, it is not clear why the Christian consciousness would want - as the mythical theory claims - to crown the head of a simple Rabbi Jesus with the crown of the Messiah and Son of God? Why, for example, is it not said about the Baptist that he performed miracles? Obviously because he didn't create them. And from here it follows that if Christ is said to be the Great Wonderworker, then it means that He really was like that. And why would it be possible to deny the authenticity of Christ’s miracles, since the highest miracle - His Resurrection - is witnessed like no other event? ancient history(cm. 1 Cor. 15)?

Bibliography foreign works according to the four gospels

Bengel - Bengel J. Al. Gnomon Novi Testamentï in quo ex nativa verborum VI simplicitas, profunditas, concinnitas, salubritas sensuum coelestium indicatur. Berolini, 1860.

Blass, Gram. - Blass F. Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch. Gottingen, 1911.

Westcott - The New Testament in Original Greek the text rev. by Brooke Foss Westcott. New York, 1882.

B. Weiss - Weiss B. Die Evangelien des Markus und Lukas. Gottingen, 1901.

Yog. Weiss (1907) - Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments, von Otto Baumgarten; Wilhelm Bousset. Hrsg. von Johannes Weis_s, Bd. 1: Die drei älteren Evangelien. Die Apostelgeschichte, Matthaeus Apostolus; Marcus Evangelista; Lucas Evangelista. . 2. Aufl. Gottingen, 1907.

Godet - Godet F. Commentar zu dem Evangelium des Johannes. Hanover, 1903.

De Wette W.M.L. Kurze Erklärung des Evangeliums Matthäi / Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Neuen Testament, Band 1, Teil 1. Leipzig, 1857.

Keil (1879) - Keil C.F. Commentar über die Evangelien des Markus und Lukas. Leipzig, 1879.

Keil (1881) - Keil C.F. Commentar über das Evangelium des Johannes. Leipzig, 1881.

Klostermann - Klostermann A. Das Markusevangelium nach seinem Quellenwerthe für die evangelische Geschichte. Gottingen, 1867.

Cornelius a Lapide - Cornelius a Lapide. In SS Matthaeum et Marcum / Commentaria in scripturam sacram, t. 15. Parisiis, 1857.

Lagrange - Lagrange M.-J. Etudes bibliques: Evangile selon St. Marc. Paris, 1911.

Lange - Lange J.P. Das Evangelium nach Matthäus. Bielefeld, 1861.

Loisy (1903) - Loisy A.F. Le quatrième èvangile. Paris, 1903.

Loisy (1907-1908) - Loisy A.F. Les èvangiles synoptiques, 1-2. : Ceffonds, près Montier-en-Der, 1907-1908.

Luthardt - Luthardt Ch.E. Das johanneische Evangelium nach seiner Eigenthümlichkeit geschildert und erklärt. Nürnberg, 1876.

Meyer (1864) - Meyer H.A.W. Kritisch exegetisches Commentar über das Neue Testament, Abteilung 1, Hälfte 1: Handbuch über das Evangelium des Matthäus. Gottingen, 1864.

Meyer (1885) - Kritisch-exegetischer Commentar über das Neue Testament hrsg. von Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer, Abteilung 1, Hälfte 2: Bernhard Weiss B. Kritisch exegetisches Handbuch über die Evangelien des Markus und Lukas. Göttingen, 1885. Meyer (1902) - Meyer H.A.W. Das Johannes-Evangelium 9. Auflage, bearbeitet von B. Weiss. Gottingen, 1902.

Merx (1902) - Merx A. Erläuterung: Matthaeus / Die vier kanonischen Evangelien nach ihrem ältesten bekannten Texte, Teil 2, Hälfte 1. Berlin, 1902.

Merx (1905) - Merx A. Erläuterung: Markus und Lukas / Die vier kanonischen Evangelien nach ihrem ältesten bekannten Texte. Teil 2, Hälfte 2. Berlin, 1905.

Morison - Morison J. A practical commentary on the Gospel according to St. Matthew. London, 1902.

Stanton - Stanton V.H. The Synoptic Gospels / The Gospels as historical documents, Part 2. Cambridge, 1903. Tholuck (1856) - Tholuck A. Die Bergpredigt. Gotha, 1856.

Tholuck (1857) - Tholuck A. Commentar zum Evangelium Johannis. Gotha, 1857.

Heitmüller - see Yog. Weiss (1907).

Holtzmann (1901) - Holtzmann H.J. Die Synoptiker. Tubingen, 1901.

Holtzmann (1908) - Holtzmann H.J. Evangelium, Briefe und Offenbarung des Johannes / Hand-Commentar zum Neuen Testament bearbeitet von H. J. Holtzmann, R. A. Lipsius etc. Bd. 4. Freiburg im Breisgau, 1908.

Zahn (1905) - Zahn Th. Das Evangelium des Matthäus / Commentar zum Neuen Testament, Teil 1. Leipzig, 1905.

Zahn (1908) - Zahn Th. Das Evangelium des Johannes ausgelegt / Commentar zum Neuen Testament, Teil 4. Leipzig, 1908.

Schanz (1881) - Schanz P. Commentar über das Evangelium des heiligen Marcus. Freiburg im Breisgau, 1881.

Schanz (1885) - Schanz P. Commentar über das Evangelium des heiligen Johannes. Tubingen, 1885.

Schlatter - Schlatter A. Das Evangelium des Johannes: ausgelegt für Bibelleser. Stuttgart, 1903.

Schürer, Geschichte - Schürer E., Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi. Bd. 1-4. Leipzig, 1901-1911.

Edersheim (1901) - Edersheim A. The life and times of Jesus the Messiah. 2 Vols. London, 1901.

Ellen - Allen W.C. A critical and exegetical commentary of the Gospel according to st. Matthew. Edinburgh, 1907.

Alford N. The Greek Testament in four volumes, vol. 1. London, 1863.

For the kingdom of heaven is like the owner of a house, who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard.

and, having agreed with the workers for a denarius per day, he sent them into his vineyard;

going out about the third hour, he saw others standing idly in the marketplace,

and he said to them, “Go you also into my vineyard, and whatever is proper I will give you.” They went.

Going out again around the sixth and ninth hours, he did the same.

Finally, going out about the eleventh hour, he found others standing idly, and said to them: Why have you been standing here all day idly?

They tell him: no one hired us. He says to them: You also go into my vineyard, and whatever follows, you will receive.

When evening came, the lord of the vineyard said to his steward, Call the workers and give them their wages, beginning from the last to the first.

And those who came about the eleventh hour received a denarius.

Those who came first thought that they would receive more, but they also received a denarius;

and having received it, they began to murmur against the owner of the house

and they said: these last worked for one hour, and you made them equal to us, who endured the hardship of the day and the heat.

He answered and said to one of them: friend! I don't offend you; Did you not agree with me for a denarius?

take yours and go; I want to give this last one the same as I gave you;

Don't I have the power to do whatever I want? Or is your eye envious because I am kind?

So the last will be first, and the first last, for many are called, but few are chosen.

Interpretation of Theophylact of Bulgaria

The Kingdom of Heaven is Christ. He becomes like a man because he took our image. He is the ruler of the house, since he rules over the house, that is, the church. This Christ came from the bosom of the Father and hires workers in the vineyard, that is, to study the Scriptures and fulfill the commandments contained there. It can be understood this way: He hires every person to cultivate the vineyard, that is, to perfect his own soul for good. He hires one in the morning, that is, in childhood, another around the third hour, that is, in adolescence, another around the sixth and ninth hours, in the twenty-fifth or thirtieth year, in general, at the age of man, and around the eleventh hour - the elders, for many believed when they were already old men. Or in other words: by day of course present century, for during it we work as during the day. In the first hour of the day, the Lord called Enoch, Noah and their contemporaries, in the third - Abraham, in the sixth - Moses and those who lived with him, in the ninth - the prophets, and in the eleventh, at the end of centuries - the pagans who had none good deed: “no one hired them,” that is, not a single prophet was sent to the pagans.

Matthew 20:8. When evening came, the lord of the vineyard said to his steward, Call the workers and give them their wages, beginning from the last to the first.

Matthew 20:9. And those who came about the eleventh hour received a denarius.

Matthew 20:10. Those who came first thought that they would receive more, but they also received a denarius;

Matthew 20:11. and having received it, they began to murmur against the owner of the house

Matthew 20:12. and they said: these last worked for one hour, and you made them equal to us, who endured the hardship of the day and the heat.

Matthew 20:13. He answered and said to one of them: friend! I don't offend you; Did you not agree with me for a denarius?

Matthew 20:14. take yours and go; I want to give this last one the same as you;

Matthew 20:15. Don’t I have the power to do whatever I want? Or is your eye envious because I am kind?

Matthew 20:16. So the last will be first and the first last; For many are called, but few are chosen.

The evening is the end of the century; upon death, everyone receives a denarius; A denarius is the grace of the Holy Spirit, which transforms a person in the image of God, making him a partaker of the Divine nature. Those who lived before the coming of Christ suffered more labor, since then death had not yet been destroyed, the devil had not been crushed, and sin was alive. We, having been justified by the grace of Christ in baptism, receive the power to defeat our enemy, who had already been deposed and put to death by Christ. According to the first interpretation, those who believed in their youth bear more labor than those who came to Christ in old age. The young man endures the “burden” of anger and the heat of lust, but the old man is calm from this. However, everyone is granted the same gift of the Holy Spirit. The parable teaches us that it is possible even in old age to receive the Kingdom of Heaven through repentance, for old age is signified by the eleventh hour. But, according to the parable, will not the saints be jealous of those who receive equal rewards with them? No way. What is shown here is only that the benefits prepared for the righteous are so abundant and high that they could arouse envy.

Just like there is a kingdom heavenly to man Domovit, who went out in the morning, hired laborers to harvest their grapes. And having consulted with the laborers according to the penalty for the day, she sent them into her vineyards. And when he went out at the third hour, he saw others standing idle in the market place: And he said, “Go you too into my vineyard, and if there is righteousness, I will give it to you.” They are Idosha. When the packs came out at the sixth and ninth hours, do the same. At the same ten hour you left, and found others standing idle, and said to them: Why are you standing here all day, idle? I tell him that no one has hired us. The verb to them: go you also into my vineyard, and you will receive it righteously.

Jesus is the kingdom of heaven and He is like a man, for He also took our image. He is also the ruler of the house, for he rules over the house, that is, over the church. This Lord Christ came from the bosom of the Father and hires laborers in the vineyard, that is, to fulfill the commandments and study the Scriptures. He hires each of us to cultivate the vineyard, that is, his own soul, but He hires one in the morning, that is, at at a young age, another at the third hour, that is, about twenty-five years old, others at the sixth and ninth hour, that is, about thirty years old and generally at the age of manhood, and at the eleventh hour - elders, for many, even in old age, believed, received salvation. Or in other words: day means the present age in which, as in days, we do things. The Lord called in the first hour of the day Epoch, his contemporaries and Noah, in the third - Abraham, in the sixth - Moses and those who lived in his time, in the ninth the prophets, and in the eleventh, that is, at the end of the centuries, us - the pagans who had not done anything. one good deed, since no one hired pagans; for no prophet was sent to them.

In the evening the lord of the grapes said to his steward: Call the laborers, and give them a reward, beginning from the last to the first. And when he came at just ten o’clock, he received a penalty. Having arrived first, they will accept me as if they were more generous: they both accepted and accepted the penalty. Having accepted the murmur against the master, saying: for these last one hour have you created, and you have created them equal to us, who have borne the burden of the day and war. He answered their only speech: friend, I will not offend you: did you not deliberately consult with me? Take what is yours and go: I want to give to this last one, as I did to you. Or should I not create what I want in my own? Even if your eye is evil, because I am good? Thus the last will be first, and the first will be last: for many are the ranks, but few are the chosen.

The evening is the end of the age: at death, everyone receives a denarius, that is, the grace of the Holy Spirit, which renews man in the image and makes him a partaker of the Divine nature. Those who lived before the coming of Christ worked harder, for then death was not yet destroyed, the devil was not crushed, and sin was still alive; and we, by the grace of Christ, justified by baptism, receive the power to defeat our enemy, already deposed and put to death by Christ. According to the first interpretation, those who believed and followed Christ in their youth suffered more labor than those who converted in old age; for young men, in the struggle with passions, experience heaviness from their own movements of anger and sensual lust, and the old remain calm, but they are all rewarded with the same gift of the Holy Spirit. - This parable teaches us that if anyone repents even in old age, he will be considered worthy of the kingdom (of heaven), for old age is the one and tenth hour. Will not the saints envy those who have received equal grace with them? No. From this it can only be seen that the righteous are destined for so many and so ineffable blessings that they could arouse envy.

And as Jesus ascended to Jerusalem, the ten disciples were alone on the way, and he said to them: Behold, we are ascending to Jerusalem, and the Son of man will be betrayed by the bishop and the scribe: and they will condemn Him to death, And they will deliver Him up with the tongue to be mocked and beaten and crucified: and in the third day he will rise again. Then the mother of Zebedee and her son come to Him, bowing and asking something from Him. He said to her: what do you want? The verb said to Him: Let these two sons of mine sit, one on Your right hand, and one on Your left, in Your kingdom.

The sons of Zebedee thought that if the Lord went to Jerusalem, He would become the king of the earthly kingdom, since they often heard from Him the words: We are ascending to Jerusalem. Therefore, they were carried away by human thoughts and forced the mother to approach Jesus, ashamed to openly approach Him themselves, although they secretly approached Him, according to Mark; for he says that James and John approached Him, that is, they approached Him secretly and in private.

Having left the mother of the sons of Zebedee, the Lord speaks to her sons themselves, in order to show that He knows that they forced the mother to talk to Him. He tells them: you do not know what you are asking, for what you are asking is beyond reason, above the angelic powers themselves: you strive for glory, but I call you to death. This is what He said to them, wanting to ward them off from such thoughts. And he proposes the question not out of ignorance, but wanting the answer to necessarily reveal their secret illness and try to fulfill the promise. For He seems to say this: since no one can be a participant in my kingdom if he does not share in my suffering, then tell Me, can you suffer in a similar way? He calls his suffering and death a cup, at the same time showing that just as it is easy to drink the cup, so we can not be afraid to go to death for Christ; Besides this, it also shows that He Himself goes to death with joy. Just as one who drinks a cup of wine soon falls asleep, weighed down by the drink, so one who drinks the cup of suffering plunges into mortal sleep. He calls his death baptism, because with it he accomplished the cleansing of our souls. They made a promise without understanding what they were saying and promising everything to get what they wanted.

I know that you will suffer and die, and this indeed happened: Jacob killed Herod, John was condemned by Trajan for witnessing the truth. Words: to sit on the right hand and the left I cannot bear My gift, but I am prepared for it, mean: if there is a person who, while drinking the cup of torment, has all the other virtues, then he will receive the gift; because the gift is prepared for the worker, just as crowns are prepared for warriors. So, if at the opening of a horse competition, in the presence of the king distributing awards, someone who did not participate in the competition appeared and said to him - give me a crown, although I did not participate in the competition, then the king would say to him: I cannot give the crown for nothing , it is prepared for the one who ran and gained victory. Likewise, Christ says here: I cannot give you a rightful place next to me freely, because it is prepared for others who have labored more. Therefore I say to you, the sons of Zebedee, that you will suffer and die for My sake. But if anyone martyrdom will have all other virtues, he will be greater than you. You, of course, ask: who will sit there? Know that no one. This place belongs only to Divine nature: to whom the angel said when: sit at my right hand(Heb. 1:13)? No one. Thus the Lord spoke to them, referring to the degree of their concepts; for they did not know that when the Lord spoke about sitting on twelve thrones, he meant the future glory that was to be revealed to them for virtue. Therefore, they asked for such graying, not understanding it.

And he heard ten indignations about both his brother. Jesus called them, saying: You know that the princes of the tongue rule over them, and the great ones rule over them. It will not be the same in you: but if he will be in you, let him be your servant: And if he will be first in you, he will be your servant: Like the Son of man, he did not come and let him be served, but serve, and give His soul a deliverance for many.

When the ten saw that Christ had exposed those two, they too began to be indignant, and through this they discovered in themselves a desire for the same honor. For they were still imperfect, and two wanted to rise above ten, and ten were jealous of two. And since the ten were confused when they heard (such words from Jesus Christ); then Jesus, wanting to calm them down, calls them to Himself, for only the sons of Zebedee were with Him and talked with Him. He addresses everyone, knowing that the love of primacy needs strict reproof and speaks bitter words to them, classifying them among the pagans and infidels if they want to seek glory, and thus shames them with the following speech: some people, having superiors, are magnified by this , as if they themselves owned something great: but to love the authorities is a pagan passion, and My disciples are recognized by humility and accept honor for humility. Therefore, whoever wants to be great must serve the last: for this is the highest humility. I showed this in Myself, when, being the ruler and king of heaven, I humbled Myself in order to serve for your salvation, and moreover, in such a way that I am ready to give My soul for the deliverance of many, that is, all, for all are many.

And He came forth from Jericho, and many people followed Him. And behold, two blind men sat along the way, hearing Jesus pass by, and they cried out, saying, “Lord, have mercy on us, Son of David.” Let the people keep silent instead of her; but she cries rather, saying: have mercy on us. Lord Son of David. And Jesus stood up and cried out, “What do you want me to do to you?” Speak to Him: Lord, let our eyes be opened. Having shown mercy to Jesus, I touched their eyes: and their eyes saw, and walked after Him.

The blind, hearing about Christ, recognized Him, and when they learned that He was passing by, they took advantage of this time. They believed that Jesus, who was descended from the seed of David according to the flesh, could heal them. And since they had ardent faith, they did not remain silent, despite the prohibition, but cried out even more; Therefore, Jesus does not ask them whether they have faith, but what they want, so that no one would think that they want one thing, but He gives them something else. It also shows that they are not asking for pieces of silver, but for healing. He heals them with his touch, so that we know that every member of His Holy flesh is a life-giving and Divine member. True, Luke and Mark talk about the same blind man, but this does not lead to disagreement, because they mentioned the most famous blind man. Or in other words: Luke says that Jesus healed the blind man before entering Jericho, and Mark that after leaving Jericho, but Matthew, for the sake of brevity, suddenly mentioned both. Pay attention also to the fact that the blind were pagans, and were healed by Christ in passing: because Christ came mainly not for the pagans, but for the Israelites; and just as the blind knew Jesus by hearing, so the Gentiles believed in Christ by hearing. Those who forbid the blind to call on the name of Jesus are persecutors and tormentors who attempted to prohibit the preaching of the church. But she confessed the name of Christ even more, and therefore received healing, seeing clearly the true light, and began to follow Christ, imitating Him in her life.