Holy Gospel of Matthew Chapter 6. Gospel of Matthew. Completion of the Gospel of Mark

| Contents of the book | Contents of the Bible

1 Be careful not to do your charity in front of people so that they can see you: otherwise you will not be rewarded from your Father in heaven.
2 Therefore, when you do almsgiving, do not blow your trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that the people may glorify them. I tell you truly, they already receive their reward.
3 But when you do charity, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing,
4 so that your charity may be in secret; and your Father, who sees in secret, will reward you openly.
5 And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites who love in synagogues and on street corners, stopping to pray so that they can appear before people. I tell you truly, they already receive their reward.
6 But when you pray, go into your closet, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in the secret place; and your Father, who sees in secret, will reward you openly.
7 But when you pray, do not talk too much like the Gentiles, for they think that in their verbosity they will be heard;
8 Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.
9 Pray thus: Our Father who art in heaven! hallowed be thy name;
10 Thy kingdom come; may Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven;
11 Give us this day our daily bread;
12 And forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors;
13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one. For yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.
14 For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you,
15 But if you do not forgive people their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive you your trespasses.
16 Also, when you fast, do not be despondent like the hypocrites, for they put on gloomy faces in order to appear to people who are fasting. I tell you truly, they already receive their reward.
17 But you, when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face,
18 to appear to those who fast, not before men, but before your Father who is in the secret; and your Father, who sees in secret, will reward you openly.
19 Lay not up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal,
20 but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in and steal,
21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
22 The lamp for the body is the eye. So if your eye is clear, then your whole body will be bright;
23 But if your eye is evil, your whole body will be dark. So if the light that is in you is darkness, then what is the darkness?
24 No one can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one and love the other; or he will be zealous for one, and neglect the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.
25 Therefore I say to you, worry not for your soul what you should eat or drink, nor for your body what you should wear. Is not the soul more than food, and the body more than clothes?
26 Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow, nor reap, nor gather into barns; and your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you much better than them?
27 And which of you, by taking care, can increase his stature although one cubit?
28 And why are you concerned about clothing? Look at the lilies of the field, how they grow: neither toil nor spin;

Commentaries (introduction) to the entire book "From Matthew"

Comments on Chapter 6

INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

SYNOPTIC GOSPEL

The gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke are commonly referred to as synoptic gospels. synoptic comes from two Greek words that mean see together. Therefore, the above-mentioned Gospels received this name because they describe the same events from the life of Jesus. In each of them, however, there are some additions, or something is omitted, but, in general, they are based on the same material, and this material is also located in the same way. Therefore, they can be written in parallel columns and compared with each other.

After that, it becomes quite obvious that they are very close to each other. If, for example, we compare the story of the feeding of five thousand (Matt. 14:12-21; Mark. 6:30-44; Luke 5.17-26), it is the same story told in almost the same words.

Or take, for example, another story about the healing of a paralyzed (Matt. 9:1-8; Mark. 2:1-12; Luke 5:17-26). These three stories are so similar to each other that even the introductory words, "he said to the paralytic", are in all three stories in the same form in the same place. The correspondences between all three gospels are so close that one has to either conclude that all three took material from the same source, or two based on a third.

FIRST GOSPEL

Studying the matter more carefully, one can imagine that the Gospel of Mark was written first, and the other two - the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke - are based on it.

The Gospel of Mark can be divided into 105 passages, of which 93 occur in Matthew and 81 in Luke. Only four of the 105 passages in Mark are found in neither Matthew nor Luke. There are 661 verses in the Gospel of Mark, 1068 verses in the Gospel of Matthew, and 1149 verses in the Gospel of Luke. At least 606 verses from Mark are given in the Gospel of Matthew, and 320 in the Gospel of Luke. Of the 55 verses of the Gospel of Mark, which not reproduced in Matthew, 31 yet reproduced in Luke; thus, only 24 verses from Mark are not reproduced in either Matthew or Luke.

But not only the meaning of the verses is conveyed: Matthew uses 51%, and Luke uses 53% of the words of the Gospel of Mark. Both Matthew and Luke follow, as a rule, the arrangement of material and events adopted in the Gospel of Mark. Sometimes there are differences in Matthew or Luke from the Gospel of Mark, but they are never both were different from him. One of them always follows the order that Mark follows.

IMPROVEMENT OF THE GOSPEL FROM MARK

In view of the fact that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke are much larger than the Gospel of Mark, one might think that the Gospel of Mark is a summary of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. But one fact indicates that the Gospel of Mark is the earliest of them all: if I may say so, the authors of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke improve on the Gospel of Mark. Let's take a few examples.

Here are three descriptions of the same event:

Map. 1.34:"And He healed many suffering from various diseases; expelled many demons."

Mat. 8.16:"He cast out the spirits with a word and healed all sick."

Onion. 4.40:"He laying on everyone of them hands, healed

Or take another example:

Map. 3:10: "For many he healed."

Mat. 12:15: "He healed them all."

Onion. 6:19: "...power went out from him and healed them all."

Approximately the same change is noted in the description of Jesus' visit to Nazareth. Compare this description in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark:

Map. 6:5-6: "And he could do no miracle there... and marveled at their unbelief."

Mat. 13:58: "And he did not do many miracles there because of their unbelief."

The author of the Gospel of Matthew does not have the heart to say that Jesus could not perform miracles, and he changes the phrase. Sometimes the writers of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke omit little allusions from the Gospel of Mark that might somehow belittle the greatness of Jesus. The gospels of Matthew and Luke omit three remarks found in the gospel of Mark:

Map. 3.5:"And looking at them with anger, grieving for the hardness of their hearts..."

Map. 3.21:"And when his neighbors heard him, they went to take him, for they said that he had lost his temper."

Map. 10.14:"Jesus was indignant..."

All this clearly shows that the Gospel of Mark was written before the others. It gave a simple, lively, and direct account, and the writers of Matthew and Luke were already beginning to be influenced by dogmatic and theological considerations, and therefore chose their words more carefully.

TEACHINGS OF JESUS

We have already seen that there are 1068 verses in Matthew and 1149 verses in Luke, and that 582 of them are repetitions of verses from the Gospel of Mark. This means that there is much more material in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke than in the Gospel of Mark. A study of this material shows that more than 200 verses from it are almost identical in the authors of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke; For example, passages such as Onion. 6.41.42 And Mat. 7.3.5; Onion. 10.21.22 And Mat. 11.25-27; Onion. 3.7-9 And Mat. 3, 7-10 almost exactly the same. But here is where we see the difference: the material that the writers of Matthew and Luke took from the Gospel of Mark deals almost exclusively with events in the life of Jesus, and these additional 200 verses, common to the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, do not concern that Jesus did, but that he said. It is quite obvious that in this part the authors of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke drew information from the same source - from the book of sayings of Jesus.

This book no longer exists, but theologians called it KB, What does Quelle mean in German? a source. In those days, this book must have been extremely important, because it was the first anthology on the teachings of Jesus.

THE PLACE OF THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW IN THE GOSPEL TRADITION

Here we come to the problem of Matthew the apostle. Theologians agree that the first gospel is not the fruit of Matthew's hands. A person who witnessed the life of Christ would not need to turn to the Gospel of Mark as a source of information about the life of Jesus, as does the author of the Gospel of Matthew. But one of the first church historians named Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, left us the following extremely important news: "Matthew collected the sayings of Jesus in Hebrew."

Thus, we can consider that it was Matthew who wrote the book from which all people should draw as a source if they want to know what Jesus taught. It is because so much of this source book was included in the first gospel that it was given the name Matthew. We should be eternally grateful to Matthew when we remember that we owe him the Sermon on the Mount and almost everything we know about the teachings of Jesus. In other words, we owe our knowledge of the life events Jesus, and Matthew - the knowledge of the essence teachings Jesus.

MATTHEW-COLLECTOR

We know very little about Matthew himself. IN Mat. 9.9 we read about his calling. We know that he was a publican - a tax collector - and therefore everyone must have hated him terribly, because the Jews hated their fellow tribesmen who served the conquerors. Matthew must have been a traitor in their eyes.

But Matthew had one gift. Most of Jesus' disciples were fishermen and had no talent for putting words on paper, and Matthew must have been an expert in this business. When Jesus called Matthew, who was sitting at the tax office, he got up and, leaving everything but his pen, followed Him. Matthew used his literary talent nobly and became the first person to describe the teachings of Jesus.

GOSPEL OF THE JEWS

Let us now look at the main features of the Gospel of Matthew, in order to pay attention to this when reading it.

First and foremost, the Gospel of Matthew it is a gospel written for the Jews. It was written by a Jew to convert the Jews.

One of the main purposes of the Gospel of Matthew was to show that in Jesus all Old Testament prophecies were fulfilled and therefore He must be the Messiah. One phrase, a recurring theme, runs through the entire book: "It came to pass that God spoke through a prophet." This phrase is repeated in the Gospel of Matthew at least 16 times. Birth of Jesus and His Name - Fulfillment of Prophecy (1, 21-23); as well as the flight to Egypt (2,14.15); massacre of the innocents (2,16-18); Settlement of Joseph in Nazareth and education of Jesus there (2,23); the very fact that Jesus spoke in parables (13,34.35); triumphal entry into Jerusalem (21,3-5); betrayal for thirty pieces of silver (27,9); and casting lots for the garments of Jesus as He hung on the Cross (27,35). The author of the Gospel of Matthew set as his main goal to show that the Old Testament prophecies were embodied in Jesus, that every detail of the life of Jesus was foretold by the prophets, and, thereby, to convince the Jews and force them to recognize Jesus as the Messiah.

The interest of the author of the Gospel of Matthew is directed primarily to the Jews. Their conversion is nearer and dearer to his heart. To a Canaanite woman who turned to Him for help, Jesus first replied: "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (15,24). Sending the twelve apostles to proclaim the good news, Jesus said to them: "Do not go to the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter the city of the Samaritans, but rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (10, 5.6). But one must not think that this gospel excludes the Gentiles in every possible way. Many will come from the east and the west and lie down with Abraham in the Kingdom of Heaven (8,11). "And the gospel of the kingdom will be preached throughout the whole world" (24,14). And it is in the Gospel of Matthew that the Church is given the order to go on a campaign: "Go, therefore, make disciples of all the nations." (28,19). It is, of course, obvious that the author of the Gospel of Matthew is primarily interested in the Jews, but he foresees the day when all the nations will gather.

The Jewish origin and Jewish focus of the Gospel of Matthew is also evident in its relationship to the law. Jesus did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. Even the smallest part of the law will not pass. Don't teach people to break the law. The righteousness of the Christian must surpass the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees (5, 17-20). The Gospel of Matthew was written by a man who knew and loved the law, and who saw that it has a place in Christian teaching. In addition, it should be noted the obvious paradox in relation to the author of the Gospel of Matthew to the scribes and Pharisees. He recognizes special powers for them: "The scribes and Pharisees sat on the seat of Moses; therefore, whatever they tell you to observe, observe and do" (23,2.3). But in no other gospel are they condemned so strictly and consistently as in Matthew.

Already at the very beginning we see the merciless exposure of the Sadducees and Pharisees by John the Baptist, who called them the offspring of vipers. (3, 7-12). They complain that Jesus eats and drinks with publicans and sinners (9,11); they claimed that Jesus cast out demons not by God's power, but by the power of the prince of demons (12,24). They plot to destroy him (12,14); Jesus warns the disciples not to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teachings of the Pharisees and Sadducees (16,12); they are like plants that will be uprooted (15,13); they can't see the signs of the times (16,3); they are the killers of the prophets (21,41). In the whole New Testament there is no other chapter like Mat. 23, which condemns not what the scribes and Pharisees teach, but their behavior and way of life. The author condemns them because they do not at all correspond to the doctrine that they preach, and do not at all achieve the ideal established by them and for them.

The author of the Gospel of Matthew is also very interested in the Church. Of all the synoptic gospels, the word Church found only in the Gospel of Matthew. Only in the Gospel of Matthew is there a passage about the Church after Peter's confession in Caesarea Philippi (Matt. 16:13-23; cf. Mark 8:27-33; Luke 9:18-22). Only Matthew says that disputes should be decided by the Church (18,17). By the time the Gospel of Matthew was written, the Church had become a large organization and indeed a major factor in the lives of Christians.

In the Gospel of Matthew, an interest in the apocalyptic was especially reflected; in other words, to what Jesus said about His Second Coming, about the end of the world and the Day of Judgment. IN Mat. 24 a far fuller account of the apocalyptic discourses of Jesus is given than in any other gospel. Only in the Gospel of Matthew is there a parable about the talents (25,14-30); about the wise and foolish virgins (25, 1-13); about sheep and goats (25,31-46). Matthew had a special interest in the end times and the Day of Judgment.

But this is not the most important feature of the Gospel of Matthew. This is a highly inclusive gospel.

We have already seen that it was the Apostle Matthew who gathered the first assembly and compiled an anthology of Jesus' teachings. Matthew was a great systematizer. He collected in one place everything he knew about the teachings of Jesus on this or that issue, and therefore we find in the Gospel of Matthew five large complexes in which the teachings of Christ are collected and systematized. All these five complexes are connected with the Kingdom of God. Here they are:

a) The Sermon on the Mount or the Law of the Kingdom (5-7)

b) Duty of Kingdom Leaders (10)

c) Parables of the Kingdom (13)

d) Majesty and Forgiveness In the Kingdom (18)

e) The Coming of the King (24,25)

But Matthew not only collected and systematized. It must be remembered that he wrote in an era when there was no printing yet, when books were few and rare, because they had to be copied by hand. At such a time, relatively few people had books, and therefore, if they wanted to know and use the story of Jesus, they had to memorize it.

Therefore, Matthew always arranges the material in such a way that it is easy for the reader to remember it. He arranges the material in triplets and sevens: three messages of Joseph, three denials of Peter, three questions of Pontius Pilate, seven parables about the Kingdom in chapter 13, seven times "woe to you" to the Pharisees and scribes in chapter 23.

A good example of this is the genealogy of Jesus, which opens the gospel. The purpose of the genealogy is to prove that Jesus is the son of David. There are no numbers in Hebrew, they are symbolized by letters; moreover, in Hebrew there are no signs (letters) for vowel sounds. David in Hebrew will be respectively DVD; if these are taken as numbers and not as letters, they add up to 14, and the genealogy of Jesus consists of three groups of names, each with fourteen names. Matthew goes to great lengths to arrange the teaching of Jesus in such a way that people can absorb and remember it.

Every teacher should be grateful to Matthew, because what he wrote is, first of all, the gospel for teaching people.

The Gospel of Matthew has another feature: dominant in it is the thought of Jesus the King. The author writes this gospel to show the royalty and royal lineage of Jesus.

The bloodline must prove from the very beginning that Jesus is the son of King David (1,1-17). This title Son of David is used in the Gospel of Matthew more than in any other Gospel. (15,22; 21,9.15). Magi came to see the King of the Jews (2,2); Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem is a deliberately dramatized statement by Jesus of His rights as King (21,1-11). Before Pontius Pilate, Jesus consciously assumes the title of king (27,11). Even on the Cross above His head stands, albeit mockingly, the royal title (27,37). In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus quotes the law and then refutes it with royal words: "But I tell you..." (5,22. 28.34.39.44). Jesus declares: "All authority has been given to me" (28,18).

In the Gospel of Matthew we see Jesus the Man, born to be King. Jesus walks through its pages, as if dressed in royal purple and gold.

THE MOTIVE OF REWARD IN CHRISTIAN LIFE (Matt. 6:1-18 (continued))

As soon as we begin the study of chapter six, we are faced with the question: what place does the idea of ​​reward occupy in the Christian life? In this passage, Jesus says three times that God will reward those who serve Him in His own way. (Matt. 6:4.6.18). This question is so important that it is better for us to stop here and deal with it before turning to the detailed study of the chapter.

It is often argued that the idea of ​​reward has no place at all in the Christian life. It is believed that we must be good simply in order to be good, and that virtue will be the only reward, that the idea of ​​retribution should be banished from the Christian life in general. One Christian said that he would put out all hellish fires with water and burn all heavenly joys with fire, so that people would strive for virtue solely for the sake of virtue, and in order to completely banish from life the idea of ​​reward and the idea of ​​punishment.

At first glance, this is a very beautiful and noble idea, but Jesus did not think so. We have already seen that Jesus speaks of retribution three times in this passage. The one who does alms correctly, who prays correctly, who fasts correctly will be rewarded.

And this is not the only instance in which the idea of ​​reward occurs in Jesus' teaching. He says that great will be the reward of those who remain faithful in persecution, who endure insults without malice. (Matt. 5:12). Jesus says that whoever gives even one of these little ones to drink only a cup of cold water, in the name of a disciple, will not lose his reward. (Mam. 10:42). At least part of the teaching of the parable of the talents is that the faithful servant will be rewarded. (Matt. 25:14-30). In the parable of the last judgment, the teaching is clear that a person can be rewarded or punished by how he responds to the needs of his fellow men. (Matt. 25:31-46). Jesus did not hesitate to talk about reward and punishment. And we must be especially careful not to try to become more spiritual than Jesus in the matter of reward. Some obvious facts should be noted.

1. Life clearly shows that all actions that do not achieve any result are useless and meaningless. Virtue and generosity that does not achieve the desired result is a meaningless virtue. As it is rightly said: "What is unsuitable for its intended purpose is useless." If there is no goal in the life of a Christian, the achievement of which brings him joy, it loses its meaning to a large extent. A person who believes in the Christian way of life and in the Christian promise cannot but believe that virtue will not bear fruit in the world to come.

2. To banish from religion any idea of ​​reward and punishment is to say that, in the end, injustice will always prevail. It would be simply unreasonable to suppose that a good, virtuous person and a bad person meet the same end; this would mean that God is completely indifferent to whether a person is good or bad. Roughly speaking, this would simply mean that there is no point in being good and virtuous, and that there is no need for a person to lead such a lifestyle, and not another. To exclude from religion any idea of ​​reward and punishment is to say that in God there is neither justice nor love.

Punishments and rewards are necessary to bring meaning to life.

1. The Christian Idea of ​​Retribution

Having thus considered the idea of ​​reward and reward in the Christian life, we need to be clear about a few things.

1. Speaking of reward, Jesus obviously did not mean material rewards. True, in the Old Testament the ideas of virtue and prosperity are closely linked. If a person prospered, if his fields were fertile and he got a good harvest, if he had many children and a large fortune - this was considered proof that he was a good person.

It is this failure that lies at the heart of the Book of Job. Job is out of luck. His friends come to him and claim that his misfortune is the result of his sin, and Job very passionately rejects such an accusation: “Remember, then,” says Eliphaz, “whether an innocent person perished, and where were the righteous uprooted?” (Job 4:7).“And if you are pure and upright,” said Bildad, “then today He will stand over you and pacify the dwelling place of your righteousness.” (Job 8:6).“You said: “My judgment is right, and I am pure in Your sight,” said Zophar, “but if God spoke and opened His mouth to you, and revealed to you the secrets of wisdom, what would you have to bear twice as much!” (Job 11:4-6). The book of Job was written to refute the idea that virtue goes hand in hand with success in life. “I was young, and I grew old,” said the psalmist, “and I did not see the righteous man left behind and his descendants asking for bread” (Ps. 36:25).“A thousand will fall at your side, and ten thousand at your right hand,” says the psalmist, “but it will not come near you. Only you will look with your eyes and see the retribution of the wicked. evil will befall you, and the plague will not come near your dwelling" (Ps. 90:7-10). But Jesus would never say that. No, Jesus did not promise material prosperity to His disciples, but He promised them hard trial and misfortune, suffering, persecution and death. It is clear that Jesus was not thinking about material things here.

2. Still it is necessary to pay attention to the fact that the one who strives to acquire it never acquires the highest reward.

The man who is always seeking a reward, weighing and counting what he thinks he deserves, will not get the reward he seeks, because he has a wrong view of God and of life. A person who constantly calculates his reward sees God as a judge or an accountant, but looks at life in categories law. He thinks that he has done so much and deserved so much; that life is a ledger of income and expenses that will hand the bill to God and say, "Now I want my reward."

This approach is erroneous primarily because life is viewed in terms of law, not in categories love. When we deeply and passionately, timidly and self-sacrificingly love a person, then, no matter how much we give him, we will always consider that we are indebted to him; even if we give him the sun, the moon and all the stars, it will still not be enough. He who loves is always in debt, and the least of all can come to his mind is the thought that he deserves some kind of reward. Man talking about life in terms of law can constantly think about the reward he deserves; if a person looks at life in terms of love he would never have such a thought.

The greatest paradox of Christian reward is this: the one who calculates what reward is due to him will never receive it, but the person who is driven only by love and who does not think at all that he is worthy of a reward will actually receive it. It is striking that Christian retribution is both the result of the Christian life and its ultimate goal.

2. Christian reward

And now we must ask ourselves the question: "What is the Christian reward?"

1. First, we will pay attention to one fundamental and well-known truth. We have already seen that Jesus Christ did not think about retribution in material terms at all. Retribution in the Christian life is a retribution only for spiritually and exalted people; for people concentrating on material values, this will not be a reward and a reward at all. Christian retribution is a retribution for Christians only.

2. The first Christian reward is satisfaction. Doing righteous deeds, obeying Jesus Christ, following His path gives a Christian satisfaction, whether he gets something for it or not. It may well be that a person, doing righteous deeds and obeying Jesus Christ, will lose his condition and his position, end up in prison or even on the scaffold, end up in complete obscurity, notoriety, loneliness, but he will not lose inner satisfaction, which no one can take away from him. This satisfaction cannot be valued in currency and there is nothing equal to it in the whole world. It is the crown of life.

The English poet George Herbert organized with his friends something like an amateur musical orchestra. One day, on his way to a rehearsal, he passed a draft cab stuck in the mud. He put aside his musical instrument and hurried to the aid of the cabman; it took a long time and when they finished, Herbert was covered in mud, and when he came to his friends, it was too late to make music. He explained to his friends the reason for the delay, and one of them said: "You missed all the music." "Yes," replied Herbert, "but at midnight I will be listening to songs." He was satisfied because he had done a Christian work.

Here's what they have to say about one of England's biggest plastic surgeons. During the war, he left his private practice, which gave him a lot of money, and devoted himself entirely to the restoration of the faces and bodies of pilots burned and mutilated in battle. "What is your purpose in life?" they asked him. "I want to be a good master," he replied. Big money did not go to any comparison with the satisfaction that selfless work brought him.

One day, a woman stopped a pastor in the street. "God bless you," she said, and without giving her name, she moved on, only thanking and blessing him. For a moment the pastor stood despondent. "But," he says, "the fog cleared, the sun came out, I breathed in the fresh and free wind of God's heights." Materially, he did not receive anything, but the deep satisfaction from the fact that he helped someone gave him countless treasures.

The first Christian reward is this satisfaction, which no amount of money can buy.

3. The second reward for a Christian is that he should do even more work. The paradox of the Christian reward lies in the fact that a job well done does not give the right to rest, peace and comfort, but brings with it even greater demands and requires even more energetic efforts. In the parable of the talents, the reward for the faithful servant was an even greater task. (Matt. 25:14-30). A brilliant young musician is given more difficult, rather than simpler, things to play. A boy who has played well in the second team is not sent to the third team, where he could calmly walk around the field, but to the first, where he will have to strive very, very hard. The Jews had an interesting saying. They said that a wise teacher "treats the student like a young bull, gradually and daily increasing the load." The Christian reward, the Christian reward, is something quite different from the worldly reward. The worldly reward is that a person gets a simpler deed; the Christian reward is that God places upon man more and more difficult tasks to accomplish for him and for his fellow men. The more difficult the task is entrusted to us, the greater the reward.

4. And finally, the third and last Christian reward is what people in all ages called vision of God. For a worldly person who has never thought about God, meeting with God will bring not joy, but horror. The man who walks his own way moves farther and farther away from God; the gulf between him and God grows larger and larger, until God finally becomes for him a gloomy stranger whom he would like to avoid meeting. And if a person has striven all his life to walk before God, if he has striven to obey his Lord, if he has always sought virtue, then all his life he becomes closer and closer to God, until he finally approaches, without any fear and with a radiant joy in the presence of God - and this is the greatest of all rewards.

RIGHT ACTIONS FROM BAD MOVEMENTS (Matt. 6:1)

In the sphere of religious life for a Jew there were three great, extremely important deeds: charity, prayer And fast. Jesus would not dispute this for a moment, but He was concerned that the most beautiful things are so often done from bad motives.

It is strange, but it is a fact that these three great deeds were often used by people for bad purposes. Jesus just warns that deeds that are performed solely out of vanity, in order to attract attention, lose their value. A person can give alms not to help a person, but to show everyone his generosity and enjoy the warmth of someone's gratitude and the praise of everyone. A person can also pray in such a way that his prayer is actually addressed not to God, but to his brothers; he can pray solely to show everyone his special piety. A person can fast not for the good of his soul, not in order to show his humility to God, but in order to demonstrate to the whole world how well he controls himself. A person can do good deeds only in order to receive the praise of people, to raise his prestige, to show the world his virtue.

In the eyes of Jesus and for such deeds, people will receive their reward. He says three times the phrase, which in the Bible is translated as follows: "Truly, I say to you, they already receive their reward." (Matt. 6:2.5.16). But it would be better to translate it like this: "They have already received their full." The Greek text uses the word apehein, and it was a special commercial term with the meaning received the full payment. This word was used on receipts for receipt. For example, one person gives another receipt: "I received (apeho) rent from you for the olive press you rented." The tax collector gave the following receipt: "I received (apeho) the tax due from you." A man sells a slave and gives this receipt: "I received (apeho) all the price due to me."

Jesus, in fact, says this: "If you give alms to show your generosity, you will achieve the admiration of people - you receive in full what is due to you. If you pray to flaunt your piety in front of people, then you will gain a reputation a very pious man, but that's all, and you get everything in full. If you fast in such a way that all people know about it, you will get a reputation for being moderate in food and ascetic, but that's all; it's your pay in full." That is, Jesus says: "If your only goal is to receive worldly reward, then you will certainly receive it, but do not expect a reward that only God alone can give." He who clings to fleeting rewards and misses the reward of eternity is an unfortunate and short-sighted person.

HOW NOT TO GIVE alms (Matt. 6:2-4)

Almsgiving and charity were the most sacred duties among the Jews. How holy these duties were is already shown by the fact that the Jews have one word tzedakah means at the same time righteous And alms. Giving alms meant being righteous. Giving alms meant gaining merit in the eyes of God and even receiving forgiveness for past sins.

The rabbis had a saying: "The one who gives alms is greater than the one who makes sacrifices." Charity was at the top of the list of good deeds.

And therefore, it is quite natural and inevitable that a person who wanted to be virtuous and good would diligently give alms. In its highest manifestation, the teachings of the rabbis corresponded with the teachings of Jesus. The rabbis were also against ostentatious beneficence. "He who gives alms in secret," they said, "is higher than Moses." In their opinion, such a good deed saves from death, "in which the recipient does not know from whom he receives, and the giver does not know to whom he gives." One rabbi, if he wanted to give alms, threw it back over his head so as not to see who would pick it up. "It is better," they said, "to give a man nothing, than to give him something and humiliate him with shame." There was such a beautiful custom in the Temple. There was a room called the Room of Silence; people who wanted to be cleansed for any sins left money there, from which they provided secret assistance to impoverished members of noble families.

But very often the practice was very different from the commandment. People gave alms in such a way that everyone could see the gift, and they gave more in order to bring glory to themselves than in order to help someone. During the service in the synagogue, sacrifices were collected for the poor, and many tried to do everything so that everyone could see how much they gave. Information about such an ancient oriental custom has been preserved: “There is so little water in the east that sometimes you need to buy it. If a person wanted to do a good deed and thereby earn a good deed for his family, he went to the water carrier and said to him:“ Give the thirsty one to drink. The water carrier filled his waterskin, went to the marketplace and shouted: "O thirsty ones, go to drink the sacrificial offering." And the one who sacrificed stood by and said: "Bless me, who gave you drink." hypocrites who do such things. hypocrite - it's in greek artist. Such people acted out the scene of almsgiving in order to become famous.

MOTIVATIONS FOR GIVING ALMS (Matt. 6:2-4 (continued))

Consider now the motives for which people gave alms.

1. A person can give from sense of duty. He can give, not because he wants to give, but because he feels that he cannot avoid the duty of giving. A person may even think, although unconsciously, that the poor exist in the world so that he can fulfill his duty and thereby have merit in the eyes of God.

In her autobiographical book Awakened, Catherine Carswell tells of her early days in Glasgow: "The poor, so to speak, were our favorites and darlings. They were decidedly always near us. We were taught to love, honor and entertain the poor." Giving was considered a duty, but charity was often associated with moral sermons and self-satisfied enjoyment of the giver. At that time, Glasgow was a drunken city on a Saturday night. Kathryn Carswell writes: "For years my father went around holding cells on Sunday afternoons, freeing Saturday drunks for fifty dollars so they wouldn't lose their jobs on Monday morning. He would ask everyone to sign a vow and get their fifty dollars back from their week's pay." He was quite right, no doubt, but he gave out of self-satisfied superiority and accompanied his beneficence with a moral lecture. He ranked himself in a completely different moral category of people than those to whom he gave. Of one great but arrogant man, someone said: "With what he gave, he never gave himself." When a person gives from above, as if from his pedestal, always with some calculation, when he gives from a sense of duty, even from a sense of Christian duty, he may be generously giving things, but he never gives himself, and therefore his giving is not fully.

2. A person can give from prestigious motives. He can give in order to win the glory of the giver. Therefore, it may be that when no one finds out about it, or if it is not associated with wide publicity, he will not give it at all. If he is not thanked, or praised and honored, he will be sadly disappointed and annoyed. Such a man gives, not for the glory of God, but for his own glory; not to help the poor, but to satisfy their vanity and feel their strength and power.

3. A person can give simply because he should give, because the love and kindness that overwhelms his heart does not allow him to do otherwise. He gives because, no matter how hard he tries, he cannot get rid of his sense of responsibility for the needs of others.

The eighteenth century English writer Samuel Johnson was a very kind man. In his house lived the unfortunate creature Robert Levett, who was once a waiter in Paris and later became a doctor in the poor quarters of London. With his manners and behavior, he, as Johnson himself put it, "repelled the rich and scared the poor." And so he somehow settled in Johnson's house. Johnson's friend explained the situation this way: "He (Levett) is poor and honest, which is a very good recommendation for Johnson. He has become unhappy, and this provides him with Johnson's protection." Misfortune served Levett as a pass through the heart of Samuel Johnson.

James Boswell tells of Samuel Johnson: "While returning home one evening, he saw a poor woman lying in the street, so exhausted that she could no longer walk. He put her on his back and carried her to his home, where he learned that she was alone of women who fell to the very bottom of vice, sickness, and poverty.Instead of starting to sharply reproach and scold her, he tenderly cared for her for a long time, spending quite a lot of money until she recovered, and put a lot of effort into so that she embarks on the path of virtue." Johnson's reward was only unworthy suspicion, but his heart demanded that he give.

One of the most beautiful pictures in the history of literature is Samuel Johnson himself in a beggarly state, coming to the embankment in the predawn hours and thrusting pennies into the palms of vagrants and homeless people sleeping in the doorway and in the entrance. When once asked how he could bear to have his house filled with poor and unworthy people, Johnson replied: "If I did not help them, no one would help them, but they should not be lost due to the fact that They don't have the essentials." This is true giving, coming from the fullness of love in the human heart; a giving that comes, so to speak, from the fullness of God's love.

An example of such perfect giving is given to us in Jesus Christ Himself. Paul writes to his friends in Corinth, "For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, he became poor for your sake, that you might be rich through his poverty" (2 Cor. 8:9). We should never associate our giving with a sense of inevitable duty and self-satisfaction, still less should it contribute to our glory or prestige among people; it must come from the abundance of a loving heart. We must give as Jesus Christ Himself gave.

HOW NOT TO PRAY (Matt. 6:5-8)

The Jews had the highest of all nations the ideal of prayer; in no religion has it been given such importance as in Judaism. "Strong is prayer," said the rabbis, "stronger than all good deeds." Another saying of the rabbis about prayer in the family circle is beautiful: "He who prays in his house surrounds it with walls that are stronger than iron." The rabbis only regretted that it was impossible to pray all day.

But certain shortcomings crept into the custom of praying among the Jews. Here it should be noted that these shortcomings are by no means peculiar only to the Jewish conception of prayer; they can occur everywhere, but they could only occur in a society where prayer was taken very seriously. These shortcomings are not at all due to carelessness or neglect; they spring from misunderstood piety.

1. Prayer became more and more formal. The Jews were prescribed two things to pray daily.

Firstly, shema, which consists of three passages of Scripture: Deut. 6.4-9; 11:13-21; Number 15:37-41. Shema - is the imperative mood of the Hebrew verb with the meaning listen and it takes its name from the verse which is the essence and central point of all: "Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one."

Every Jew had to read the entire prayer every morning and every evening. It had to be read as early as possible, when there was enough light to distinguish the blue from the white, in any case before the third hour, that is, before 9 o'clock in the morning, and before 9 o'clock in the evening. When the last moment came, when it was still possible to read shemu, wherever a person was - at home, on the street, at work, in the synagogue - he had to stop and say it.

many loved Shemu and repeated it with a feeling of reverence, admiration and love, but even more people quickly and incomprehensibly pronounced it and went on their way, and Shema could well turn into a meaningless repetition, like a magic formula and a spell. It is not for us Christians to criticize, because everything that has been said about formal muttering Shema, and can be attributed to a prayer that is read before dinner in many homes.

In addition, every Jew should have read Shemonech esrech that means eighteen. It consisted of eighteen prayers and was, and still is today, an important part of the service in the synagogues. Over time, the number of prayers increased to nineteen, but the name remained the same. Most of these prayers are small in length and almost all of them are downright beautiful. So, the twelfth prayer sounds like this:

"Show, O Lord, Your mercy to the honest, obedient elders of Your chosen people Israel, and to the remnants of their teachers; be favorable to the pious foreigners living among us and to all of us. Reward those who sincerely believe in Your name and let it come true our destiny in the world to come, and may our dreams not be in vain. Blessed are You, O Lord, the hope and faith of those who believe."

And the fifth prayer goes like this:

"Turn us back to Your law, O our Father; turn us back, O King, to Your service; turn us back to You through true repentance. Blessed be You, O Lord, who accepts our repentance."

There is no more beautiful liturgy in the Church than that which was in Shemonekh esreh. According to the law, the Jews had to read them three times a day: in the morning, at noon and in the evening. And here the same thing happened: a pious Jew read them with love and piety, and for many this collection of beautiful prayers became formal mumbling. A kind of summary was put together that a person could read if he did not have time, or if he could not memorize and repeat all eighteen prayers. Repetition Shimoneh esreh became nothing more than a superstitious spell and magic formula. And again, it is not proper for us Christians to engage in criticism, because we often do exactly the same thing with the prayers that we have learned.

2. In addition, in the Jewish liturgy there were ready-made prayers for all occasions. There was hardly such an event or circumstance in life for which there would not be a ready prayer: prayers before each meal and after each meal; prayers concerning light, fire, lightning; at the sight of a new moon or comets; on the occasion of rain or storm; at the sight of the sea, lakes, rivers; when receiving good news; on the occasion of the purchase of new furniture; when entering the city or when leaving it. There was a prayer for every occasion. There was, of course, something beautiful about it: behind it was the desire to bring all aspects of life into the presence of God.

But precisely because the prayers were so precisely prescribed and worked out, the whole system tended to become formalized and there was a danger that the prayers would slip out of the tongue without any meaning. There was a tendency to glibly say the right prayer at the right time. The great rabbis knew this and tried to warn against it.

“If a person,” they said, “reads a prayer as if he needs to complete a task assigned to him, then this is not a prayer at all.” "Do not look upon prayer as a formal duty, but as an act of humility in order thereby to obtain mercy." Rabbi Eliezer was so alarmed by the danger of formalism that he made it a habit to compose a new prayer every day so that his prayers would not be repeated. It is clear that this danger threatens not only Judaism.

3. Moreover, the devout Jew had fixed hours of prayer. These were the third, sixth, and ninth hours, that is, at 9 o'clock in the morning, 12 o'clock, and 3 o'clock in the afternoon. Wherever a person was at that time, he had to pray. Of course, he could really remember God, or he could perform the usual formality. These are the customs of modern Muslims. It is wonderful when a person remembers God three times, but there is a danger that this will come down to the fact that he will only quickly mutter his prayer, without thinking about God at all.

4. There was a tendency to associate prayers with certain places, especially the synagogue. No doubt there are places where God seems especially close, but some rabbis went so far as to say that prayer has the desired effect only if it is said in the Jerusalem Temple or in the synagogue, and therefore it became a habit to go to the Temple at hours prayers. In the early days of the Christian Church, even the disciples of Jesus thought in these terms, because we read that Peter and John went together to the Temple at the ninth hour of prayer. (Acts 3:1).

There was a danger in this that a person would begin to think that God is associated with certain holy places, and that he will forget that the whole world is the Temple of God. The wisest of the rabbis saw this danger. They said, "God says to Israel, 'Pray in the synagogue of your city; if you can't, pray in the field; if you cannot, pray in your house; if you can't, pray in your bed; if you can't, talk to your heart on your bed, and be silent."

The danger of any system lies not in the system itself, but in the people who use it. A person can turn any system of prayer into an instrument of piety or into a formality that must be clearly and without hesitation carried out.

5. The Jews had an obvious tendency to long prayers, which, however, is also characteristic not only of the Jews. In Scotland in the eighteenth century, the duration of worship was identified with piety. We read Scripture for an hour, then another hour of sermon. The prayers were long and impromptu. The effectiveness of prayer was judged by zeal and fluency, and no less by its ardor and length. Rabbi Levi once said: "He who prays for a long time will be heard." And the Jews also had a saying: "When the righteous pray for a long time, they are heeded."

There was a notion that if a man knocked on God's door long enough, God would answer him; that God can be persuaded to be lenient. The wisest of the rabbis saw this danger as well. One of them said: "It is impossible to draw out the praise of the Almighty, because the Psalter says:" Who will speak the power of the Lord, will proclaim all His praises? (Ps. 105:2). Only who can do it can drag out his praise and say it - but no one can do it.""Do not hasten with your tongue, and do not let your heart hasten to utter a word before God; for God is in heaven, and you are on earth; therefore, let your words be few" (Eccl. 5:1)"The best worship is to remain silent." It is not difficult to confuse verbosity with piety, and fluidity of speech with prayer, and many Jews fell into this error.

HOW NOT TO PRAY (Matt. 6:5-8 (continued))

6. There were, of course, other forms of repetition, which the Jews, like all Eastern peoples, liked to use. The Eastern peoples had a habit of hypnotizing themselves with an endless repetition of a phrase or even just one word. IN 3 Kings 18.26 we read that the prophets of Baal cried out: "Baal, hear us!" from morning to noon; in Acts. 19.34 We read that the Ephesian crowd shouted for two hours: "Great is Artemis of Ephesus!"

Muslims can repeat the sacred syllable for hours on end hee, running in circles until they bring themselves into ecstasy and, finally, fall without strength and consciousness. The Jews did the same Shemop. It was a kind of substitution of self-hypnosis for prayer.

But there were other cases when the Jews used repetitions during prayer. There have been attempts to heap all sorts of titles and adjectives in the address of the one praying to God. One famous prayer begins like this:

"Holy, blessed, and glorified, exalted, exalted and highly revered, praised and exalted be the name of the Most High."

There is one Jewish prayer that actually begins with sixteen adjectives for the name of God. The Jews were, one might say, infected with words. When a person thinks more not about what he prays about, but about how he prays, his prayer dies on his lips.

7. Finally, Jesus notes and reproves the Jews for praying to be seen by the people. The Jewish system of prayer greatly contributed to such a display. The Jews prayed standing up, with their arms outstretched, their heads bowed forward. Prayers had to be read at 9 in the morning, 12 o'clock and 3 o'clock in the afternoon, wherever a person was at that time, and a person could well calculate so as to be at that time at a busy intersection, or in a square crowded with people, so that the whole world could see how devoutly he prays. It was easy for a man to stop on the upper step at the entrance to the synagogue and pray there for a long time and defiantly, so that all people could admire his exceptional piety; it was easy to act out a scene of prayer that the whole world could see.

The wisest of the Jewish rabbis clearly saw this trend and condemned it unreservedly. "A hypocritical person invites wrath upon the earth and his prayer will not be heard." "Four types of people will not see the face of the glory of God: scoffers, hypocrites, liars and slanderers." The rabbis said that a person in general can only pray when his heart is attuned to prayer. They stated that for real prayer, an hour of preparation in seclusion was needed, and after prayer, an hour of meditation. But the whole Jewish system of prayer itself gravitated toward ostentation if there was pride in a person's heart.

Jesus lays down two supreme rules for prayer.

1. He insists that true prayer must be directed to God. The main mistake of the people whom Jesus reproved was that their prayers were addressed to people, and not to God. Regardless of whether a person prays for a long time or in a public place, he should have only one thought about God, and in his heart only one desire.

2. Jesus says that we must remember that the God we pray to is a God of love and that He is more ready to answer us than we are to pray. There is no need to forcefully draw gifts and grace from Him. We go to God, who does not need to be persuaded to answer our prayers, or constantly pester Him, or even beat out this answer by force. We go to the One who has only one desire - to give. If we keep this in mind, then, without any doubt, it is enough to come to God with a desire in our hearts and with the words on our lips: "Thy will be done."

PRAYER OF THE DISCIPLES (Matt. 6:9-15)

Before we begin to speak of the Lord's Prayer or the Lord's Prayer in detail, it is good to note some general facts.

First of all, it should be noted that by this prayer Jesus taught His students how to pray; Matthew and Luke are clear about this. Matthew generally cites the entire Sermon on the Mount in connection with the disciples (Mat. 5:1), and Luke says that Jesus said a prayer in response to the request of one of the disciples (Luke 11:1). The Lord's Prayer is a prayer that only a disciple can offer; it can only be put into one's mouth giving it true meaning by a person who has dedicated himself to Christ.

The Lord's Prayer is not a child's prayer, as many often believe; in fact, she says nothing to the child. The Lord's Prayer is not a family prayer, as it is often called, unless, of course, under family we do not understand Church. The Lord's Prayer is for students, and only in the mouth of the disciples does it acquire its full significance. In other words, only a person who knows well what he is saying at the same time can offer the Lord's Prayer, and he cannot know this if he has not become a disciple.

pay attention to order in which there are appeals and requests in this prayer. The first three references are to God and to the glory of God; the next three are to our wants and needs. In other words, first God is given his proper supreme position, and then, and only then, do we turn to our needs and desires. It is only when God is given his proper place that all other things take their proper place. Prayer should never be an attempt to connect the will of God with our desires; prayer should always be an attempt to bring our desires into subjection to the will of God.

The second part of prayer, which relates to our needs and wants, is unity. It affects the three most important human needs and the three dimensions of time in which a person lives and rotates. First, it is a request for bread, which is necessary for maintenance and preservation of life, which brings before the throne of God our current, current needs. Secondly, it is a request for forgiveness and thus, before the throne of God, our past; and thirdly, it is a request for help against temptation and, thus, all our future. In these three brief requests, we are directed to bring our present, our past, and our future to the footstool of the throne of God's grace.

In prayer, not only is our whole life offered before God, but God in His fullness enters into our life. When we ask for bread to maintain our earthly existence, this request immediately turns our thoughts to God the Father, Creator and Preserver of all life. When we ask for forgiveness - it immediately directs our thoughts to God the Son Jesus Christ, our Savior and Redeemer. When we ask for help against future temptations, our thoughts immediately turn to God the Holy Spirit, Comforter, who gives us strength, shines on us, guides and keeps us on the way.

In the Lord's Prayer, Jesus teaches to offer our whole life before God and receive God in our whole life.

THE FATHER WHO IS IN HEAVEN (Matt. 6:9)

It can be said that the word Father used in relation to God, conveys in brief the entire content of the Christian faith. The great meaning of this word Father lies in the fact that through it all the relationships of our life are established.

1. It establishes our relationship to the invisible world. The missionaries say that one of the greatest reliefs that Christianity brings to the mind and heart of the Gentile is the realization that there is only one God. The pagans believe that there are many gods, that every stream and every river, every tree and every valley, every hill and every forest and every natural force has its own god. The pagan lives in a world filled with gods; moreover, all these gods are jealous, envious and hostile, and they all need to be appeased and appeased. A person can never be sure that he has not forgotten to pay honor to any of these gods, and therefore he constantly lives on guard before these gods. His religion does not help him, but persecutes him. One of the most remarkable ancient Greek legends is the legend of Prometheus. Promethius was one of the gods; it was at a time when people still did not know how to use fire, and life without fire was uncomfortable, uncomfortable and joyless. Out of pity for people, Promethius took fire from the sky and brought it as a gift to people. Zeus, the king of the gods, was very angry at this, and therefore he ordered Promethius to be chained to a rock, where he was tormented by heat and thirst during the day, and cold at night. Moreover, Zeus sent an eagle to tear the liver of Promethius, which grew again in order to be torn out again. That's what happened to a god who tried to help people. The whole idea boils down to the fact that the gods are jealous, vindictive and envious, and that the last thing the gods would want to do is help people. This is how the pagans imagined the attitude towards people of the otherworldly, invisible world. The pagan is driven by fear of jealous and envious gods. And therefore, when we learn that the God to whom we turn our prayers has a name and a heart father, then the world changes completely. There is no need to shudder before a host of jealous gods; you can rest in a father's love.

2. It determines our relationship with the visible world around us, with the world in time and space in which we live. It is not difficult to start thinking that this world is hostile to us. Life changes, it brings good and bad luck. There are iron laws of the universe and space, which we violate at our own peril and risk; there is suffering and death. But if we can be sure that beyond this world, not a capricious, jealous and mocking god awaits us, but God, whose name is the Father, then, even if much still remains gloomy and dark, everything is easier to bear, because behind all this love is worth it. It will always be easier for us if we consider that this world is so organized because we have to go through a certain school in it, and not just live for our own pleasure.

Take for example pain. You can decide that pain is a bad thing, but pain also takes its place in the providence of God. Some people do not feel pain at all, and such a person is a danger to himself, while for others he creates many problems. If there were no pain, we would never know that we were ill, and we would die before measures could be taken against the disease. This does not mean that pain sometimes cannot become an extremely unpleasant thing, but it means that very often pain is a red light that God warns us that danger lies ahead of us.

If we can be sure that the name of God who created the world is Father, then we can also be sure that this universe is in principle benevolent. Name God Father means to establish our relationship with the world in which we live.

3. If we believe that God is the Father, then this establishes our relationship with our brethren. If God is the Father, then He is the Father of all people. The Lord's Prayer teaches us to pray Our Father, but not My father. It is noteworthy that in the Lord's Prayer there is no word at all me, me And my; it is fair to say that Jesus came to remove these words from life and put words in their place we, us, us, ours. God is not anyone's exclusive property. The very phrase "Our Father" suggests exclusion of any "I". The relationship to God as to the Father is the only possible basis for brotherly relations between people.

4. If we believe that God is the Father, then this establishes our relationship to ourselves. At times every man hates and despises himself; he realizes that he has sunk below every reptile on earth. Bitterness comes into the heart of everyone, and no one realizes his unworthiness better than the person himself.

English pastor Mark Rutherford would like to supplement the list of beatitudes in the Sermon on the Mount with one more: "Blessed are those who deliver us from self-contempt." Blessed are those who restore our self-respect. And that's just what God does. In these terrible, dark, depressing moments, we can remind ourselves that by the infinite mercy of God we are of royal lineage, children of the King of kings. 5. If we believe that God is our Father, this establishes our relationship with God. No, this does not at all eliminate the power, majesty and power of God, it does not at all diminish His importance, but it makes available to us this power, this greatness and this power.

There is a story about the triumph of the Roman emperor. It was a privilege that Rome gave only to generals who had won major victories to march through the streets of Rome with their troops, with captured booty and trophies, and with captured captives. Now, this emperor marched with his troops through Rome. Romans cheering and tall legionnaires lined the streets to hold back the crowd. The empress and her family sat on a specially constructed platform, watching the emperor proudly marching past in triumph. Next to the empress on the platform was a little boy - the youngest son of the emperor. As the emperor's chariot approached, the boy jumped off the platform, made his way through the crowd, and tried to slip between the legionary's legs to run out onto the road and meet the emperor's chariot. The legionnaire bent down and stopped him, then lifted him up in his arms and said, "Boy, you can't do this. Don't you know who's in the chariot? It's the emperor. You can't run out to his chariot." And the boy laughed from above: "He may be the emperor for you, but he is my father." This is precisely the attitude of Christians towards God. His might, His majesty, and His authority is the might, majesty, and authority of Him whom Jesus taught us to call Our Father.

THE FATHER WHO IS IN HEAVEN (Matt. 6:9 (continued))

So far, we have only talked about the first two words of this appeal to God - Our Father. But God is not only our Father: He is the Father, existing in heaven.

These last words are of paramount importance. They contain two great truths.

1. They remind us of holiness God. It is not difficult to belittle your idea of ​​the fatherhood of God, to reduce it to sentimentality, and to make of it an excuse for your carefree and convenient religion. As the great nineteenth-century German poet Heinrich Heine said of God: "God will forgive. That is his trade." If we were to say Our Father and stop there, then such an attitude would still be somehow justified, but we lift up a prayer to our Father, existing in heaven. There is indeed love here, but there is also holiness here.

It's amazing how rarely Jesus uses the word Father(Father) towards God. The gospel of Mark was written before everyone else, and therefore in it we have the most accurate account of what Jesus said and did, and in the gospel of Mark, Jesus names God father only six times and never outside the circle of disciples. For Jesus the word Father was so holy that He could hardly use it, and even then only in the presence of those who at least understood something of its meaning. And therefore we, too, should never use the word Father flippant, casual, or sentimental. God is not a careless parent, condescendingly closing his eyes to all sins, shortcomings and mistakes. To that God whom we can call the Father, we must address with reverence and worship, reverence and amazement. God is our Father who is in heaven, in whom and love and holiness.

2. They remind us of authorities God. Human love is often confused with the tragic feeling of dashed hopes. Maybe we love a person, but we are not able to help him achieve something, or discourage him from doing something. Human love can be strong, and at the same time completely powerless. Every parent who has a naughty child knows this, or anyone who loves a fickle person. But when we speak Our Father who art in heaven we put next to each other love God's and power God's. We tell ourselves that the authority and power of God is always moved by the love of God and is always manifested only for our benefit. We tell ourselves that the love of God is backed up by His power and strength, and therefore His purposes will never be in vain. When we lift Our Father, we must always remember the holiness of God, and also the power and strength that governs love, and love that has the invincible power of God behind it.

HONORING THE NAME (Matt. 6:9 (continued))

"Hallowed be thy name" - of all the requests of the Lord's Prayer, it is most difficult to explain the meaning of this particular one. Let us first look at the literal meaning of the words.

Let it shine - is a form of the Greek verb hagiadzesfay, cognate with an adjective hagios, and it means treat a person as a saint, or a thing as sacred. hagios usually translated as Saint, and its original meaning is different or isolated. A thing or object characterized as hagios, different from other things or objects. The person described as hagios, isolated from other people, secluded. That is why the Temple is characterized as hagios, because it is different from all other buildings. The altar is characterized as hagios, because it is intended for other purposes than ordinary things and objects. Lord's day hagios, because it is different from other days. Priest hagios, because he separate, different from all other people. And so this prayer means this: "Treat the name of God differently from all other names; give the name of God a very special, unique place."

But something else needs to be added to this. In the Hebrew word name it means not just the name by which a person is called - John or James; in Hebrew it also means nature, character, personality, individuality man, inasmuch as they are known or told to us. This becomes clear if you look at how it is used by biblical authors. The psalmist says: "Those who know will put their trust in you your name" (Ps. 9:11). It is quite obvious that this does not mean at all that everyone who knows that the name of God is Yahweh will trust in Him, but this means that everyone who knows what God is will trust in Him. The Psalmist also says: "Some with chariots, others with horses, but we glory in the name of the Lord our God" (Ps. 19:8). It is quite obvious that in difficult times the psalmist will remember and think not about the fact that the name of God is Yahweh, which means that at such moments some people will rely on human help and material means of protection, and the psalmist will remember what nature is and the character of God. He will remember what God is like and this memory will give him confidence.

Now let's combine these two ideas. Hagiadzesfay, which is translated here as let it be holy means be very special, take a very special place; but name - this is the nature, nature, character, personality, individuality of a person, since they are open and told to us. And so when we pray, "Hallowed be Thy name," it means, "Give us the ability to give You a completely unique place, as befits Your nature and Your character."

Prayer for Reverence (Mat. 6:9 (continued))

Is there such a word in Russian or in another language that would assign God or represent that unique place that His nature and character require? There is, perhaps, such a word, and it will be awe. Thus, it is a plea that God will enable us to have the reverence for Him that is due to Him. True reverence includes four necessities.

1. To experience reverence for God, one must believe that God exists. We cannot be in awe of one who does not exist; we must first be sure of the existence of God.

It may seem strange to a modern person that nowhere in the Bible is a single attempt made to prove the existence of God. For the Bible, His existence is an axiom, that is, an initial position accepted without proof, which underlies the proofs of the truth of other positions. So, for example, the positions "a straight line is the shortest distance between two points" and "two parallel lines will never intersect, no matter how we continue them in space" are axioms.

The biblical writers would say that it is superfluous to prove the existence of God, since they felt the presence of God in every moment of their lives. They would say that a man has just as much to prove the existence of God as the existence of his wife. He sees his wife every day and every day he meets God.

But let's say we would need to prove the existence of God with our minds. Where would we start then? We could start from the world in which we live. Let us suppose that a man is walking along the road and stumbles over a clock; let us suppose that he has never seen a clock before, and he does not know what it is. He picks up this watch, sees that it consists of a metal case, inside of which there is a complex mechanism of wheels, levers, springs and precious stones. He sees that the whole mechanism is in motion and works very well; he also sees that the hands of the clock move on the dial in a given order. What will this person say? Will he say: "All these pieces of iron and precious stones, by themselves, quite by accident gathered from all over the earth, accidentally formed into wheels, levers and springs, accidentally gathered into a mechanism, accidentally wound up and went and accidentally earned very well? No, he say: "I found the watch; so there must be a watchmaker somewhere."

Order presupposes the presence of reason. We look at the world and see a gigantic machine in perfect working order: the sun rises and sets in an unchanging pattern; how the tides come and go according to the schedule; the seasons follow each other in a fixed order. We look at the world and the universe and we are forced to say: "Somewhere there must be the Creator of this world." The very fact of the existence of this world leads us to God. As one English mathematician, physicist and astronomer James Jean (1877-1946) stated: "No astronomer can be an atheist." The order in which the world exists requires the mind of God behind it.

We can also start with themselves. Man has never created life. Man can change, rebuild and reshape all sorts of things, but he cannot create a living creature. Where did we get our life from? From our parents. Yes, but where did they get theirs from? From their parents. But where did it all start? Once upon a time, life had to appear on earth, and it had to appear from outside, because a person cannot create life, and this again pushes us to God.

When we look inside - at ourselves, and outside ourselves - at the world - this pushes us towards God. As the German philosopher Immanuel Kant said long ago: "The moral law is within us and the starry sky above us" pushes us towards God.

2. In order to feel a sense of reverence for God, we must not only believe in the existence of God, but we must also know what this God is like. No one can feel a sense of reverence for the Greek gods with their love affairs and wars, their hatred and adultery, their fraud and deceit. No one can be in awe of capricious, immoral, impure gods. The God we know has three great attributes: holiness, justice, love. We should have a sense of reverence for God, not only because He exists, but also because He is as we know Him.

3. But a person can believe in the existence of God; he can intellectually understand that God is holy, just, and loving, and yet have no reverence for him. In order to be in awe of Him, one must constantly feel His presence in the world. To experience reverence for God means to live in a world in which God is everywhere and always; live a life in which God is never forgotten. This feeling should not be associated only with the church or with other holy places; this feeling should be in a person everywhere and always.

The tragedy of many people is that they only occasionally experience a sense of the presence of God. This sharp feeling comes only in certain places and is completely absent in others. Reverence is based on a constant sense of the presence of God.

4. But reverence has another characteristic. We must believe in the existence of God; we must know what God is; we must constantly feel His presence. Some people have all this, but still do not have a sense of reverence, because in addition to all these qualities, a person also needs humility and obedience to God. Reverence is knowledge plus obedience. The great German reformer Martin Luther asks in his theses the question: "How is the name of God hallowed among us?" and answers: "When both life and doctrine are truly Christian"; that is, when both our beliefs and our actions are fully in accordance with the will of God. Know that God exists; to know what He is; always to feel His presence and always to be obedient to Him is what reverence is, and this is what we pray for when we pray, "Hallowed be thy name." Let us show before God the reverence due to His nature and character.

THE KINGDOM OF GOD AND THE WILL OF GOD (Matt. 6:10)

Expression Kingdom of God characteristic of the New Testament. No other phrase occurs more frequently in prayers, sermons, and Christian literature than this one. And therefore it is extremely important to understand for yourself what it means.

It is clear that the Kingdom of God is central to the good news of Jesus. Jesus first appeared on the historical stage when He came to Galilee preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom of God. (Map. 1.14). Jesus Himself spoke of the preaching of the Kingdom of God as an obligation placed upon Him: "The Kingdom of God must also be preached to other cities, for to this I have been sent" (Luke 4:43; compare Mark 1:38). Luke describes the activity of Jesus as walking around cities and villages, preaching and proclaiming the Kingdom of God. (Luke 8:1). It is clear that we must try to understand the meaning of the Kingdom of God.

In trying to understand the meaning and meaning of this phrase, we come across some startling facts: Jesus spoke of the Kingdom of God in three different ways. He spoke of the Kingdom as existing in past. He said that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and all the prophets are in the Kingdom of God (Matt. 8:11; Luke 13:28). From this it is clear that the Kingdom of God goes back to ancient times. He spoke of the Kingdom as existing present:"The kingdom of God is within you" (Luke 17:21). Therefore, the Kingdom of God is a reality given to us here and now. And He spoke of the Kingdom of God as of a lying in future, because in His prayer He taught people to pray for the coming of the Kingdom. How can this Kingdom be simultaneously in the past, in the present and in the future? How can this Kingdom be something that has been, is, and is to be prayed for?

The key to this problem lies in this double supplication in the Lord's Prayer. One of the specific elements of the style of the Jews was the so-called parallelism. The Jews had a tendency to say everything twice: first in one form, and then in another, repeating, amplifying or explaining the first statement. This parallelism can be seen in almost every verse of the Psalter; almost every verse of the psalms is divided in the middle, and the second part repeats or strengthens the first half. Let's take a few examples and everything will become clear.

"God is our refuge and strength, a quick helper in trouble" (Ps. 45:2).

"The Lord of hosts is with us; the God of Jacob is our intercessor" (Ps. 45:8).

"The Lord is my shepherd; I will not need anything; He makes me lie down in green pastures and leads me to still waters" (Ps. 22:1.2).

Let us now apply this principle to these two supplications of the Lord's Prayer. Let's put them one next to the other:

"Thy Kingdom come - Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven."

Let us suppose that the second supplication explains, strengthens, and establishes the meaning of the first. Then we have a different definition of the Kingdom of God: The Kingdom of God is a society on earth in which the will of God is carried out just as perfectly as it is done in heaven. Here is an explanation for the fact that the Kingdom can be simultaneously in the past, present and future. Every person who has ever done the will of God perfectly in history has been in the Kingdom; every person who perfectly does the will of God is in the Kingdom; but in view of the fact that our world is very far from the fact that in it the will of God is carried out in perfection everywhere and by everyone, the completion of the Kingdom is still in the future, and therefore we need to pray for it.

To be in the Kingdom is to obey the will of God. We immediately see that the Kingdom from the very beginning had nothing to do with peoples, countries and nations: it has something to do with each of us. The kingdom of heaven is, in fact, a highly personal matter. The Kingdom of Heaven Requires Submission my will, my hearts, my life. The kingdom of heaven will come only when each of us makes a personal decision and obeys.

Chinese Christians used to offer the well-known prayer "Lord, revive Thy Church, beginning with me," and we can paraphrase it and say: "Lord, establish Thy Kingdom, beginning with me." To pray for the Kingdom of God means to pray that we could completely subordinate our will to the will of God.

THE KINGDOM OF GOD AND THE WILL OF GOD (Matt. 6.10 (continued))

From what he sees it becomes clear that the most important thing in the world is obedience to the will of God; and the most important words in the world are "Thy will be done." It is also clear that it is extremely important in what mood and what tone these words are spoken.

1. A person may say "Thy will be done" in a tone of acknowledgment of defeat. He can say this, not because he wants to, but because he has agreed that there is nothing left for him to say, since he has recognized that he can do nothing against the power of God, and that it is pointless to beat his head against the walls of the universe. He can say this with only the inescapable power of God in his grasp. A person can accept the will of God only because he has realized that there is nothing left for him to do.

2. A person may say "Thy will be done" in a tone of bitter resentment or indignation. The great German composer Beethoven died alone, and it is said that when his body was found, his lips were drawn into a growl and his fists were clenched as if he were raising them before God Himself and heaven. Man may regard God as his enemy, but such a strong enemy that it is impossible to resist Him; and therefore he accepts the will of God, but with a feeling of extreme indignation and burning anger.

3. A person can say "Thy will be done" with a feeling of perfect love and trust; he can say it with joy and willingness, no matter what that will be. It shouldn't be difficult for a Christian to say just that, "Thy will be done," because a Christian can be absolutely sure of two things.

a) He can be sure wisdom God. Having decided to build, build, change or repair something, we go to a specialist for advice. He gives some advice and we often say: "Well, okay. Do what you think is best. You are an expert." God is an expert in matters of life and His guidance will never lead you astray.

When Richard Cameron, leader of the Covenant, an association of Scottish Presbyterians, was killed, a certain Murray cut off his head and hands and brought them to the capital of Scotland, Edinburgh. Richard Cameron's father was in prison for his religious beliefs; his enemies brought his son's head and hands to him to increase his grief, and asked him if he recognized them. Taking his son's head and hands in his hands, he kissed them and said: "I know them. I know them. These are the head and hands of my dear and beloved son. This is the will of the Lord. Good is the will of the Lord, who cannot harm either me or my loved ones, and His goodness and mercy accompany us all our days." When a person is sure that his life is in the hands of the infinite wisdom of God, it is not at all difficult for him to say: "Thy will be done."

b) He can be sure love God's. We do not believe in a mocking and capricious God, nor in blind and iron determinism. Paul said, "He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all, how with him will he not give us everything" (Rom. 8:32). No man can look at the Crucifixion and doubt the love of God, and when we are sure of the love of God, it is not difficult to say, "Thy will be done."

OUR DAILY BREAD (Matt. 6:11)

It could be denied that there can no longer be any doubt about the meaning of this supplication in the Lord's Prayer. At first glance, it seems to be the simplest and most direct of all. But, as the facts show, many commentators gave completely different interpretations of it. Before turning to its simple and most obvious meaning, let's look at some of them.

1. Bread is identified with the bread of the sacrament, with the bread of the Lord's Supper. From the very beginning, people have closely associated the Lord's Prayer with the Lord's Supper. Already in the earliest liturgical manuals that have come down to us, it has always been pointed out that the Lord's Prayer is read during communion; and some commentators thought it was a plea to give a person the right and privilege to take the sacrament every day and partake of the spiritual food that he receives there.

2. Bread was identified with the spiritual food of the word of God. And therefore we understand this prayer as a prayer for the true word, for the true teaching laid down in the Scriptures, which are really food for the mind, heart and soul of a person.

Sermon on the Mount 1–4. About mercy. – 5–13. About prayer. - 14-15. Forgiving the sins of others. - 16-18. About the post. - 19-21. About earthly and heavenly treasures. – 22–23. About the bright and darkened eye. – 24–25. About the impossibility of serving two masters. - 26–27. About food. - 28-30. About clothes. – 31–34. On the hope in God and the search for the Kingdom of God.

Matthew 6:1. Be careful not to do your alms before people so that they can see you: otherwise you will not be rewarded from your Heavenly Father.

The word "look" is the Greek προσέχετε. In the Slavic translation - "listen". Since there is reason to think that in ancient times this word was used as a signal that warned others from some kind of danger, the word πρόσεχε meant: beware, carefully watch yourself. This is also the main meaning of the corresponding Greek Hebrew word "shamar", which in the Seventy is transmitted through προσέχειν. Thus, it is more accurate to translate this Greek word in this verse as: beware, beware lest (μή). A further δέ is issued in the Vatican and other manuscripts, but is found in Sinai and others. Some interpreters argue that the presence of this particle in the text is "too little proven." Chrysostom lowers her. Others say that δέ disappeared only with the passage of time and, moreover, due to a very simple reason, which consists, if not in discord, then, in any case, in some inconvenience to pronounce the adjacent Greek "te" and "de" (προσέχετε δέ). Some place δέ in brackets, but most of the newest and best commentators defend the presence of this particle either in part or in full. So, Alford, although he himself puts δέ in brackets, says that the omission of this particle arose, probably due to the fact that they did not pay attention to the connection of the first verse with the fifth chapter and assumed that a new subject was being discussed here. The importance of the particle is evident from the fact that with the adoption or omission of it, the meaning changes greatly. Christ earlier (Matt. 5) spoke about what true "righteousness" consists of (Matt. 5:6, 10, 20), determined by the true and correct interpretation of the spirit and meaning of the Old Testament law, and that if "righteousness" His disciples will not be higher than the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, then the disciples will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Now the Savior begins to illuminate the same subject from other and new sides. In a free translation, the meaning of His words could be conveyed as follows. But if you, He says to the disciples, and achieve the ideal that I told you about before, if you acquire true "righteousness" (according to the translation of some German scholars Frömmigkeit - piety), then beware, however, that this righteousness of yours does not become the subject of careful observation. from other people. In this paraphrase, as the reader sees, the word "righteousness" is replaced by the word "alms" used in Russian and Slavic translations. This substitution has very solid grounds. First of all, we note that the German and English translations (recepta) agree with the Russian and Slavonic (Almosen, alms). But in the Vulgate, a completely different expression is used - justitiam vestram, corresponding to the Greek διακιοσύνην, meaning "righteousness."

The question of which word should be used here, "righteousness" or "charity" (διακιοσύνη or ἐλεημοσύνη), has been the subject of painstaking research. Authoritative publishers and interpreters of the New Testament lean in favor of "righteousness." Such reading has been approved almost unanimously by all eminent publishers and critics. This word is found in the Vatican Code, in Beza, in ancient Latin translations, as well as in Origen, Hilary, Augustine, Jerome and many others, but in Chrysostom, Theophylact and many others - "alms". Western critics and interpreters have taken the trouble to trace where and why such a replacement came about. Having omitted the first "but" or "but" in the first verse, the scribes, as mentioned above, did not pay attention to the connection of the 6th chapter with the previous one and thought that in the 6th chapter a new subject was being discussed. About what? This was shown to them in verse 2, which speaks of "almsgiving." Since the first verse (with the omission of δέ) serves as an introduction to the second, they thought that the first should also contain a speech about alms, and replaced the word "righteousness" with it. This replacement could have taken place all the more easily and more conveniently because there were certain circumstances that justified it. If the reader takes the trouble to look through the Russian and Slavic Bibles the following passages: Deut. 6:25, 24:13; Ps. 23:5, 32:5, 102:6; Is. 1:27, 28:17, 59:16; Dan. 4:24, 9:16, he will find that in the Slavic text mercy, almsgiving, mercy, pardon are found everywhere, and in Russian - righteousness, truth, justice, and only in one place the Russian text almost agrees with the Slavic, namely, in Ps. 23 (almsgiving is mercy). Thus, the same texts in Slavic and Russian translations sometimes have completely different meanings. So, for example, in Dan. 4we read in the Slavic text: “atone for your sins with alms,” and in Russian: “atone for your sins with righteousness.” This difference came from the fact that our Slavonic translation was made from the translation of the Seventy, where in the above cases (which we for the sake of brevity have not indicated all) the word ἐλεημοσύνη - almsgiving is used, and Russian - from the Hebrew, where the word "tsedaka" is found - righteousness. The question therefore arises as to why the Seventy found it possible to translate the Hebrew "tsedakah" through ἐλεημοσύνη - "alms", and whether "tsedakah", meaning "righteousness" proper, in some cases, at least, also served to express the concept about mercy. The answer must be in the affirmative. Righteousness is a tricky word, especially for a simple, undeveloped person it is difficult to understand what it means; it is much easier to understand this word if righteousness takes a more concrete form - mercy, mercy, alms. From here, very early, even before R.X., the word “tsedaka” began to designate alms, which, as was said, probably facilitated the replacement of “righteousness” with alms in the verse of the Gospel of Matthew under consideration (see, for example, Gesenius W. Hebräisches und aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das neue Testament 17. Auflage, Berlin-Göttingen-Heidelberg, 1962. S.675, left column. Note. ed.).

However, this replacement was unsuccessful, and this can be shown on the basis of "internal considerations" (context) when analyzing our place. The meaning of the instruction of this verse is that the disciples do not work their righteousness before people, for show, in order for people to glorify them. From further instructions it is clear that alms should not be given for display, but not only that, and prayer (verse 5 et seq.) and fasting (verse 16 et seq.) should not be ostentatious. If “righteousness” in the verse under consideration is replaced by “almsgiving”, then one might think that only one of them is performed for show and that Christ rebukes only showy alms, because verse 1 will then be put in closest relation only to verses 2–4. It follows from what has been said that, accepting "righteousness" in verse 1, we must take the word for the designation of a "generic" or general concept that embraces almsgiving, prayer, and fasting. In other words, according to Christ, almsgiving, prayer and fasting serve as an expression of human righteousness. A person distinguished by these virtues can be considered righteous if this righteousness is based on love for God and neighbor. It is necessary that all the virtues that make up righteousness should in no case be used for show. The Greek word used for the latter concept (θεαθῆναι) means staring, prolonged, intense and attentive looking at something, as, for example, is done in the theater, indicates contemplation, in contrast to βλέπειν, which means simply to see, look, have to this ability. Hence the instruction of the Savior is clear: He teaches His disciples that their "righteousness" should not be the subject of careful observation, scrutiny by other people. Instead of "so that they can see you" in Greek "to be seen" (or "to be seen by them, αὐτοῖς, i.e. ἀνθρώποις, to people", cf. Matt. 23:5). Thus, the first half of this verse would be better translated thus: but beware (take care not to do) to do your righteousness before people for the purpose that it be visible to them (striking to their eyes, subject to their close, long observation).

The further "otherwise" (in the Russian Bible) seems to refer to the words: "there will be no reward for you" and so on. In the original, the meaning is somewhat different: beware ... but if you do not beware, then you will not be rewarded, and so on. Those. here, for the sake of brevity, a gap has been made in the Gospel (cf. Matt. 9:17; 2 Cor. 11:16). Christ does not specify what the reward should be. It is not known whether He means earthly or heavenly reward, or both. Nothing prevents us from understanding here both earthly and heavenly rewards. But instead of the Russian “you will not have”, it should be translated simply “you do not have” (οὐκ ἔχετε), so that the whole expression is this: if you do not beware, then you have no reward from your Heavenly Father.

Matthew 6:2. Therefore, when you do almsgiving, do not blow your trumpets before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that people may glorify them. I tell you truly, they already receive their reward.

The translation is accurate, and the somewhat ambiguous “they” in the last sentence should, of course, refer not to people in general, but to hypocrites. In the original, ambiguity is avoided by the usual omission of the pronoun before the verbs and by putting the verbs (ποιοῦσιν - ἀπέχουσιν) in the same voices, tenses and moods.

The Jews, more than all other nations, were distinguished by charity. According to Tolyuk, the famous teacher Pestalozzi used to say that the Mosaic religion encourages charity even more than the Christian one. Julian set the Jews to pagans and Christians as an example of charity. While reading the long and tedious Talmudic treatise on charity On the Remnants for the Poor at Harvest (translated by Pereferkovich, vol. I), we come across many petty regulations aimed at ensuring that the poor collect the remnants after the harvest. It was even said that "almsgiving and gratuitous services are equivalent to all the commandments of the Torah." Questions arose as to whether it is not the same thing not to give alms and to worship idols, and how to prove that alms and gratuitous services protect Israel and promote harmony between him and the Father who is in heaven. Therefore, there is no doubt that the Jews developed charity even at the time of Christ, as evidenced by the mention by Christ himself of the poor and their obvious presence, especially in Jerusalem. There is no doubt that in this charity and the distribution of alms to the poor, the “hypocrites”, whom Christ denounces here, also took part. But the question, "whether they trumpeted before them," gave much difficulty to both ancient and modern exegetes.

Chrysostom understood the expression: "Do not blow your trumpet" in an improper sense. The Savior “in this metaphorical expression does not want to say that the hypocrites had trumpets, but that they had a great passion for showiness, ridiculing (κωμωδῶν) it and condemning them ... The Savior requires not only that we give alms, but also that so that we serve it the way it should be served.” Theophylactus expresses himself in a similar vein: “The hypocrites had no trumpets, but the Lord mocks (διαγελᾷ.) their thoughts, because they wanted to trumpet their almsgiving. Hypocrites are those who appear to be different from what they really are. It is not at all surprising that many of the latest interpreters, in their remarks about these "trumpets", follow the paternal interpretations just given. “There is nothing left but to understand this expression in an improper sense,” says Tolyuk.

Such opinions are confirmed by the fact that so far, among the Jewish customs, not a single case has been found when “hypocrites”, distributing alms, literally “trumpeted” before themselves.

The English scientist Lightfoot spent a lot of time and effort searching for such or a similar case, but “although he searched a lot and seriously, he did not find even the slightest mention of a pipe when giving alms.” Regarding Lightfoot's remark, another English commentator, Morison, says that there was no need for Lightfoot "to search so diligently, because it is well known that, at least in the synagogues, when private persons wished to give alms, the trumpets in the literal sense could not be used. ". This is not enough. It was said that if the "hypocrites" blew their trumpets, then such "boasting" of them (καύχημα) before people would be incomprehensible, and that if they wanted to, they would be able to better hide their bad motives. There are even cases that are opposite to what Christ is talking about. So, for example, about one rabbi, whose charitable work was considered exemplary, it is told in the Talmud that, not wanting to shame the poor, he hung an open bag of alms on his back, and the poor could take from there what they could, inconspicuously.

All this, of course, does not serve as an objection to the gospel text, and is usually not put forward as an objection. However, the concreteness and liveliness of the expression "do not blow your trumpet" and its obvious connection with the subsequent denunciations of hypocrites, confirmed in fact in the information that has come down to us about their customs (verses 5 and 16), forced us to look for some real, factual confirmation for him. It was found that such customs really existed among the pagans, among whom the servants of Isis and Cybele, begging for alms, beat tambourines. The same, according to the description of travelers, was done by Persian and Indian monks. Thus, among the pagans, the noise was made by the poor themselves, asking for alms. If these facts are applied to the case under consideration, then the expression "do not blow" will have to be interpreted in the sense that hypocrites do not allow the poor to make noise when demanding alms for themselves. But the author who pointed out these facts, the German scientist Icken, according to Tolyuk, himself “honestly” admitted that he could not prove such a custom either among Jews or Christians. Even less likely is the explanation according to which the words "do not blow" ... "are borrowed from thirteen tubular boxes or mugs placed in the temple to collect donations (γαζοφυλάκια, or in Hebrew "chaferot"). Objecting to this opinion, Tolyuk says that the money that fell into these pipes (tubae) had nothing to do with charity, but was collected for the temple; mugs for donations to the poor were called not “chaferot”, but “kufa”, and nothing is known about their shape. But if only in the Gospel of Matthew we meet with the indication that trumpets were used in the deed of doing good, then this does not at all exclude the possibility that this was actually the case. The trumpets were used by the priests in the temple and synagogues, there were "trumpet-shaped" boxes, and therefore the expression "do not trumpet", having become metaphorical, could have some basis as a metaphor in reality. In the rabbinical treatises of Rosh Hashanah and Taanit, there are many rulings on "trumpeting", so if the expression of Christ could not be understood in the sense: do not blow before yourself when giving alms, then it could well be understood as follows: when you give alms, do not blow before themselves, as the hypocrites do on various other occasions. The meaning of the expression - to draw public attention to one's charity - is completely understandable and does not change at all, whether we consider the expression to be true or only metaphorical. And how can one demand that the Talmud reflect, in spite of the pettiness of the Jews, all the then Jewish customs with all their numerous interweavings?

Synagogues in this verse should not be understood as "assemblies," but synagogues. To the boasting "in the synagogues" is added the boasting "in the streets". The purpose of the hypocritical almsgiving is clearly stated: "to glorify them" (hypocrites) "people". This means that through charity they wanted to achieve their own and, moreover, selfish goals. They were guided in their charity not by a sincere desire to help their neighbor, but by various other selfish motives - a vice inherent not only to Jewish hypocrites, but also to hypocrites of all times and peoples in general. The usual goal of such charity is to gain confidence from the strong and rich and to receive rubles from them for a penny given to the poor. It can even be said that there are always few true, completely non-hypocritical benefactors. But even if no selfish goals could be achieved with the help of charity, then "fame", "rumour", "fame" (the meaning of the word δόξα) constitute in themselves a sufficient goal of hypocritical charity.

The expression "they receive their reward" is understandable enough. The hypocrites seek rewards not from God, but first of all from people, they receive it and should only be content with it. Exposing the bad motives of the hypocrites, the Savior at the same time points to the futility of "human" rewards. For life according to God, for the future life, they have no meaning. Only the person whose horizons are limited by real life appreciates earthly rewards. Those who have a broader outlook understand both the futility of this life and earthly rewards. If the Savior said at the same time: “Truly I say to you,” then by this he showed His true penetration into the secrets of the human heart.

Matthew 6:3. With you, when you do almsgiving, let your left hand not know what your right hand is doing,

Matthew 6:4. so that your charity may be in secret; and your Father, who sees in secret, will reward you openly.

In order to explain these verses, it must be remembered that the Savior does not make any prescriptions or give any instructions regarding the very methods of charity. It can no doubt be expressed in a thousand different ways, according to convenience and circumstances. Someone said that a deed done for the benefit of neighbors, or a word, chores, and so on, are just as good a deed for them as material alms in the form of kopecks, rubles, and provisions for life. The Savior points not to the ways of charity, but to what makes it true and pleasing to God. Charity must be a secret, and a deep secret.

“But when you do alms, don’t let your left hand know what your right hand is doing.” But even the most open, wide-ranging charity does not contradict the teachings of Christ, if it is all imbued with the spirit of secret charity, if the philanthropist who is open and visible to people has fully assimilated or is trying to assimilate the methods, conditions, motives, and even habits of the secret benefactor. In other words, the impetus for charity should be an inner, sometimes little noticeable even to the benefactor himself, love for people, as their brothers in Christ and children of God. There is no need for a philanthropist if his case comes out. But if he takes care of it, then his business loses all value. Explicit charity has no value without the intent to keep a secret. This will be easier and clearer from the further interpretation of prayer. Now let's say that neither Christ himself nor His apostles prevented obvious charity. In the life of Christ, there are no cases when He Himself would provide any financial assistance to the poor, although the disciples who followed the Savior had a cash box for donations (John 12:6, 13:29). In one case, when Mary anointed Christ with precious ointment and the disciples began to say: “why not sell this ointment for three hundred denarii and distribute it to the poor?” The Savior even made, apparently, an objection to this ordinary charity, approved the act of Mary and said: “You always have the poor with you” (John 12:4–8; Matt. 26:6–11; Mark 14:3– 7). However, no one will say that Christ was a stranger to all charity. His charity is characterized by the same words that were spoken by the apostle Peter when he healed the lame from birth: “I have no silver and gold; but what I have, I give you” (Acts 3:1–7). The charity of the Apostle Paul is well known, he himself collected donations for the poor in Jerusalem, and his work was completely open. However, it is quite clear that such charity, although quite obvious and open, differed sharply in spirit from the charity of the hypocrites and did not aim at glorifying people.

Matthew 6:5. And when you pray, don't be like the hypocrites who love in synagogues and on street corners, stopping to pray in order to appear before people. I tell you truly, they already receive their reward.

According to the best readings - plural - "when you pray, do not be like hypocrites, because they love to pray standing (ἑστῶτες) in synagogues and on street corners" and so on. In the Vulgate, the plural ("pray") according to the Vatican Code, Origen, Chrysostom, Jerome and others. In the 2nd verse - the only thing - "when you do alms"; in the future, the 6th - "you" and so on. This seemed incongruous to the scribes, and in many manuscripts they replaced the plural with the singular. But if “pray” and so on is correct, then the solution of the question why the Savior here changed the former and future singular to plural is extremely difficult, if not impossible. Different interpretations of "when you pray, don't be" show that this difficulty was already felt in the deepest antiquity. We can only say that speech is equally natural in both cases. It may also be that the plural is used for a stronger opposition to the following verse. You listeners sometimes pray like hypocrites; you, a true prayer book, and so on.

Considering the characteristics of the "hypocrites", one can observe that the tone of speech is almost the same in verses 2 and 5. But μή (in "don't blow") refers generally to the future and prospective and is replaced in verse 5 by οὐκ (don't be). In both the first and second cases, "in the synagogues" occurs, but the expression in verse 2 "in the streets" (ἐν ταῖς ῥύμαις) is replaced in verse 5 with "at the corners of the streets" (ἐν ταῖς γωνίαις τῶν πλατειῶν). The difference is that ῥύμη means narrow and πλατεῖα means wide street. The word "glorified" (δοξασθῶσιν - were glorified) was replaced by the word "shown" (φανῶσιν). Otherwise, verse 5 is a literal repetition of the end of verse 2. If it can only be argued that verse 2 does not have anything that corresponded to the then Jewish reality, but consists only of metaphorical expressions, then regarding verse 5 we can say that it contains the real (without metaphors) characterization of "hypocrites", known from other sources. Here you need to know first of all that both the Jews and later the Mohammedans had certain hours of prayer - the 3rd, 6th and 9th days according to our account 9th, 12th and 3rd. “And now a Mohammedan and a conscientious Jew, as soon as a certain hour strikes, perform their prayer, wherever they are” (Tolyuk). The Talmudic treatise Berakhot contains many prescriptions, from which it is clear that prayers were performed on the road and even despite the dangers from robbers. There are, for example, such characteristics. "Once R. Ishmael and R. Elazar, the son of Azariah, stopped in one place, and r. Ishmael was lying, and r. Elazar stood. When it was time for the evening shem (prayer), r. Ishmael got up, and R. Elazar lay down ”(Talmud, translation of Pereferkovich, vol. I, p. 3). “Workers (gardeners, carpenters) read the shema while remaining on a tree or on a wall” (ibid., p. 8). In view of such characteristics, the stops of the hypocrites “at the corners of the streets” become quite understandable.

"Do not be" - in Greek it will be indicative (ἔσεσθε), not imperative. We have already encountered this usage (ἔστε never in the New Testament; see Blass, Gram. S. 204). The word "love" (φιλοῦσιν) is sometimes translated as "have a custom, habit". But this word never has such a meaning in the Bible (Tzan). Standing (ἑστῶτες) is the usual position for prayer. There is no need to assume that the hypocrites prayed standing up precisely because of their hypocrisy and love for show, and that it is precisely for this that Christ rebukes them. It contains a simple characterization that is not logically stressed. The purpose of praying on street corners was to "appear" (φανῶσιν) as praying. A vice inherent in all sorts of hypocrites and hypocrites, who often pretend to pray to God, but in fact - to people, and especially to the powerful of this world. The meaning of the last two phrases: "Truly I say to you" ... "their reward", the same as in the 2nd verse: they receive completely - this is the meaning of the word ἀπέχουσιν. It should be noted that after the words “Truly I say to you” (as in verse 2), in some codices, “what” (ὅτι) is placed: “what they receive” and so on. The addition "what", though correct, may be considered superfluous and not justified by the best manuscripts.

Matthew 6:6. But you, when you pray, go into your closet, and having shut your door, pray to your Father who is in the secret place; and your Father, who sees in secret, will reward you openly.

As in the teaching on almsgiving, so here too it is pointed out not to the methods of prayer, but to its spirit. To understand this, we must imagine a person shut up in his room and praying to the Heavenly Father. No one forces him to this prayer, no one sees how he prays. He can pray with or without words. Nobody hears these words. Prayer is an act of free, unconstrained and secret communication between man and God. It comes from the human heart.

Already in antiquity, the question was raised: if Christ commanded to pray in secret, then did He not forbid public and church prayer? This question was almost always answered in the negative. Chrysostom asks: “So what? In the church, says the Savior, one should not pray? - and answers: “It must and it must, but only depending on the intention with which. God everywhere looks at the purpose of works. If you enter an upper room and close the doors behind you, and do it for show, then the closed doors will not bring you any benefit ... Therefore, even if you close the doors, He wants you to drive them out of self-conceit and closed the doors of his heart. To be free from vanity is always a good deed, and especially during prayer.” This interpretation is correct, although at first glance it seems to contradict the direct meaning of the Savior's words. The latest exegetes explain this somewhat differently and quite witty. “If,” says Tsang, “almsgiving is, by its very nature, an open and related activity and therefore cannot be completely secret, then prayer, by its very essence, is the speech of the human heart to God. Therefore, for her, any abandonment of the public is not only not harmful, but she is then also protected from any admixture of extraneous influences and relations. The Savior did not consider it necessary to weaken the energies of His speech with petty warnings against unreasonable generalizations, such as, for example, the prohibition of all public prayer (cf. verse 9 et seq.; Matt. 18 et seq.) or in general any prayer heard by others ( cf. Matt. 11:25, 14:19, 26 et seq.)”. In other words, secret prayer does not need any restrictions. The spirit of secret prayer can be present in open prayer. The latter has no value without secret prayer. If a person prays in church with the same disposition as at home, then his public prayer will benefit him. This is not the place to discuss the meaning of public prayer in itself. The only important thing is that neither Christ nor His apostles denied it, as can be seen from the above quotations.

The shift from "you" in verse 5 to "you" can again be explained by a desire to reinforce the opposition of true prayer to the prayer of the hypocrites.

"Room" (ταμεῖον) - here refers to any closed or locked room. The original meaning of this word (more correctly ταμιεῖον) was - a pantry for provisions, storage (see Luke 12:24), then a bedroom (2 Kings 6:12; Eccl. 10:20).

Here we should pay attention to the general conclusion that Chrysostom makes when considering this verse. “Let us make prayers not with body movements, not with a loud voice, but with a good spiritual disposition; not with noise and uproar, not for show, as if in order to drive away your neighbor, but with all decency, contrition of heart and unfeigned tears.

Matthew 6:7. And while praying, do not say too much, like the pagans, for they think that in their verbosity they will be heard;

Again, a clear transition to speech on "you". The example is now taken not from Jewish, but from pagan life. The whole explanation of the verse depends on the meaning we give to the words "do not say too much" (μὴ βατταλογήσητε; in the Slavic Bible - "do not talk too much"; Vulgatä: nolite multum loqui - do not talk too much). First of all, we note that determining the meaning of the Greek word βατταλογήσητε is important for determining the properties of true prayer. If we translate “do not talk much”, then it means that our (as well as Catholic and other) church services according to the teachings of Christ are superfluous due to their verbosity. If we translate “do not repeat”, then this will be a rebuke of the repeated use of the same words during prayer; if - "do not say too much", then the meaning of Christ's instruction will remain indefinite, because it is not known what exactly we should understand here by "superfluous".

It is not at all surprising that this word has long occupied exegetes, all the more so since it is extremely difficult, because in Greek literature it occurs on its own only here, in the Gospel of Matthew, and in another 6th-century writer, Simplicius (Commentarii in Epicteti enchiridion, ed. F Dubner, Paris, 1842, in cap XXX, pp. 91, 23). One might hope that with the help of this last one it will be possible to throw light on the meaning of the word being analyzed in Matthew. But, unfortunately, in Simplicius the meaning of the word is as little clear as in Matthew. Firstly, Simplicius does not have βατταλογεῖν, as in the Gospel (according to the best readings), but βαττολογεῖν, but this is not of particular importance. Secondly, in Simplicius this word undoubtedly means “to chat”, “to idle talk” and, therefore, has an indefinite meaning. There is a whole literature about the word in question in the West. So much was said about this that the exegetical "wattalogy" even aroused ridicule. “Scientific interpreters,” said one writer, “are liable for the fact that they have so much wattologised».

The result of numerous studies was that the word is still considered "mysterious". They tried to produce it on their own behalf Βάττος. Since tradition points to three different Watts, they tried to find out from which of them the word in question comes. In the History of Herodotus (IV, 153 et seq.), one of them is described in detail, who stuttered, and the word "wattalogia" was derived from him. This opinion could be supported by the fact that Demosthenes was called in derision βάτταλος - a stutterer. Thus, the gospel word βατταλογήσητε could also be translated “do not stutter”, like pagans, if only the meaning of the speech and the context would allow it. The suggestion that the Savior here denounced paganism and any kind of "stuttering" is completely impossible and has now been completely abandoned.

Of the proposed productions, the best seems to be that this is the so-called vox hybrida, a mixture of different words, in this case Hebrew and Greek. The Greek that is part of this compound word is λογέω, the same as λέγω, meaning "to speak". But as to which Hebrew word the first part of the expression is derived from, the opinions of exegetes differ. Some derive from the Jewish "bat" - to chat, it's pointless to talk; others - from "batal" - to be idle, inactive, or from "betel" - not to act, stop and interfere. From these two words the word βατάλογος could be formed instead of βαταλόλογος, just as idolatra from idololatra. But in Hebrew there are not two "t", as in Greek, but one. In order to explain the two "t" used a rather rare word βατταρίζειν, which means "talk", and thus got βατταλογέω Matt. 6:7. Of these two productions, the first should be preferred, on the ground that "l" is contained in the Greek λογέω (λέγω), and therefore for production it is not necessary to take this letter into account. If we derive from “bat” and λογέω, then the explanation of the word will be similar to that given by Chrysostom, considering βαττολογία - φλυαρία; this last means "idle chatter", "trifles", "nonsense". This is how the word is rendered in Luther's German translation: soltt ihr nicht viel flappern - you must not talk much. In English: "do not make empty repetitions." The only objection that can be made against this interpretation is that the Hebrew word "bata" already implies the concept of idle talk, and it is not clear why the Greek λογέω, which also means "to catch", is added, so that if literally translate the expression into Russian, then it would take the following form: “to idle talk - to catch”. But is it true that, as Tsang says, λογέω means exactly "to speak"? This verb in Greek appears only in compound words and means, like λέγω, to always speak meaningfully, according to a plan, with reasoning. To denote meaningless speaking, λαλεῖν is usually used. It turns out something incongruous if we combine λογέω - to speak meaningfully with the Hebrew word "bata" - to speak meaninglessly. This difficulty can apparently be avoided if we give λογέω the meaning of thinking more than talking. This will give a clearer meaning of the verb in Mt. 6 - "do not think idlely", or, better, "do not think idlely, like the Gentiles." Confirmation of this interpretation can be found in the fact that, according to Tolyuk, among the ancient church writers, “the concept of verbosity receded into the background and, on the contrary, prayers about the unworthy and indecent were put forward.” Tolyuk confirms his words with a significant number of examples from patristic writings. Origen says: μὴ βαττολογήσωμεν ἀλλὰ θεολογήσωμεν, paying attention not to the process of speaking, but to the very content of the prayer. If, further, we pay attention to the content of the Lord's Prayer, which, as can be seen from the meaning of the speech, was supposed to serve as a model for the absence of vattalogy, then we can see that everything unworthy, senseless, trifling and worthy of censure or contempt has been eliminated in it. Thus, we come to the conclusion that in the word βαττολογεῖν, first of all, idle thought when praying, idle speaking depending on it, and, among other things, verbosity (πολυλογία) is condemned - this word is further used by the Savior Himself, and this, apparently, has a meaning for explanations of wattology.

It was said above that Christ now warns against imitating not hypocrites, but pagans. Considering this warning from the actual side, we find examples proving that in addressing their gods, the pagans were distinguished by both thoughtlessness and verbosity. Such examples can be found in the classics, but in the Bible this is confirmed twice. The priests of Baal "called on the name" of him "from morning until noon, saying: Baal, hear us!" (1 Kings 18:26). The pagans in Ephesus, filled with rage, shouted: “Great is Artemis of Ephesus!” (Acts 19:28-34). However, it seems doubtful whether these cases can serve as an illustration of the multi-verb prayer of the pagans. Much closer comes here the general remark that verbosity was generally characteristic of the pagans and even had different names among them - διπλασιολογία (repetition of words), κυκλοπορεία (bypass), tautology and polyverb in the proper sense. The multiplicity of gods prompted the pagans to talkatively (στωμυλία): the gods numbered up to 30 thousand. During solemn prayers, the gods should have listed their nicknames (ἐπωνυμίαι), which were numerous (Tolyuk,). For the interpretation of this verse of the Gospel of Matthew, it would be completely sufficient for us if there were at least one clear case in paganism that confirms the words of the Savior; such a coincidence would be quite important. But if there are many cases known to us, and, moreover, quite clear, then we come to the conclusion that the Savior accurately depicts the historical reality of His day. Protests against long and meaningless prayers are also found in the Bible (see Is. 1:15, 29:13; Am. 5:23; Sir. 7:14).

Matthew 6:8. do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask Him.

The meaning of this verse is clear. "Them", i.e. pagans. Jerome points out that as a result of this teaching of the Savior, a heresy arose and a perverted dogma of some philosophers who said: if God knows what we would pray for, if He knows our needs before our requests, then in vain will we speak to Him who knows. To this heresy, both Jerome and other church writers answer that we do not tell God about our needs in our prayers, but only ask. “It’s another thing to tell someone who doesn’t know, it’s another thing to ask someone who knows.” These words can be considered sufficient to explain this verse. One can only add, together with Chrysostom and others, that Christ does not hinder people's persistent and intensified requests to God, as indicated by the parables of Christ about the poor widow (Lk. 18:1-7) and the persistent friend (Lk. 11:5 -13).

Matthew 6:9. Pray like this: Our Father who art in heaven! hallowed be thy name;

"Pray thus" - literally: "therefore, pray ye thus." In Russian, the dissonant "so" (οὖν) in conjunction with "so" (οὕτως) was the obvious reason why "so" was changed to "same". The Greek particle is expressed in the Vulgate by the word "hence" (si ergo vos orabitis), and in German and English by "therefore" (darum, therefore). The general idea of ​​the original is expressed in these translations insufficiently clearly and correctly. This depends not only on the difficulty, but also on the impossibility of rendering exactly the Greek speech here into other languages. The thought is that “since you should not resemble the praying pagans in your prayers and since your prayers should differ in a different character compared to their prayers, then pray like this” (Meyer, ). But even this is only a certain approximation to the meaning, beyond which, apparently, it is no longer possible to go. Meanwhile, a lot depends on the correct explanation of the word "so". If we accept it in the sense of “just so, and not otherwise,” then it will be clear that all our church and other prayers, with the exception of “Our Father,” are superfluous and disagree with the teachings of the Savior. But if the Savior commanded to pronounce only this prayer (ταύτην τὴν εὐχήν) or only what He said (taata), then one would expect complete accuracy in the expression, and it would be, moreover, incomprehensible why, in two editions of the Lord's Prayer, in Matthew and Luke (Luke 11:2–4), there is a difference. There are more differences in Greek than in Russian, but in the latter it is noticeable in the fourth petition (Luke 11:3). If we translate οὕτως - thus, in this kind, in this sense, like this (simili or eodem modo, in hunc sensum), then this will mean that the Lord's Prayer, according to the Savior, should serve only as a model for other prayers but do not exclude them. But in this last case, we will give a meaning to the word oύτως which it does not really have, and especially it is not used in the sense of simili modo or in hunc sensum. Further, they say that if the expression were to be understood not in a strict sense, then it would be said: “pray as it were” (ούτως πως - Tolyuk,). The accuracy and certainty of the words of prayer, according to some exegetes, are also indicated by the words from the Gospel of Luke: “when you pray, speak” (Luke 11: 2), where the word “speak” expresses the exact command that those praying utter those exact words, which are indicated by Christ.

However, one cannot fully agree with either of the above interpretations due to their one-sidedness. It must be remembered that Christ, both before and here, leaves it to the people themselves to deduce further conclusions and consequences from His words. So here, too, simply the initial or initial prayer, the prayer of all prayers, the most excellent prayer, is expounded. Its study is first of all necessary for every Christian, whether it be an adult or a child, because in its childish simplicity it is accessible to the understanding of a child and can serve as a subject of thoughtful reasoning for an adult. It is the baby talk of a child who is beginning to speak, and the deepest theology of an adult husband. The Lord's Prayer is not a model for other prayers and cannot be a model, because it is inimitable in its simplicity, artlessness, richness and depth. She alone is sufficient for a person who does not know any other prayers. But, being initial, it does not exclude the possibility of continuations, consequences and clarifications. Christ Himself prayed in Gethsemane, uttering this prayer itself (“Thy will be done” and “Lead us not into temptation”), expressing it only in other words. Also, His "farewell prayer" can be considered an extension or extension of the Lord's Prayer and serve to interpret it. Both Christ and the apostles prayed differently, and gave us an example of saying other prayers.

Judging by the message of Luke, the Savior, in a slightly modified form, said the same prayer at a different time, under different circumstances. But there is also an opinion that He said this prayer only once and that either Matthew or Luke does not determine the exact time and circumstances of the utterance. There is currently no way to resolve the issue as it was.

Is the Lord's Prayer an independent work, or is it borrowed in general or in separate expressions from Holy Scripture and from other sources? Opinions are again divided. Some say that “it is all skilfully composed of Hebrew formulas (tota haec oratio ex formulis Hebraeorum concinnata est tam apte). Others hold the opposite opinion. While asserting that the first view, if accepted, would not contain anything irreverent or subject to objection, they point out, however, that attempts to find parallels for the Lord's Prayer from biblical or rabbinical sources have so far been unsuccessful. This view is now predominant in New Testament exegetics. Distant parallels, they say, if they can be found, then only to the first three petitions. The similarity of the Lord's Prayer pointed out by Bengel and others with certain sayings in the First Epistle of the Apostle Peter (1 Pet. 1:15–16, 2:9, 15, 3:7, etc.) should be recognized as only very remote and, perhaps, only accidental. , although the parallels encountered here are of some importance for interpretation. In church literature, the oldest mention of the Lord's Prayer is found in the "Teaching of the 12 Apostles" ("Didache", ch. 8), where it is given completely according to Matthew with a slight difference (ἀφίεμεν - ἀφήκαμεν), with the addition of "doxology" and the words: " so pray thrice a day.”

The number of requests is determined differently. Blessed Augustine accepts 7 petitions, St. John Chrysostom - 6.

Prayer begins with an invocation, where God is called "Father". This name occurs, although rarely, in the Old Testament. Apart from the fact that in the Old Testament people are sometimes called "sons of God", there are also direct names of God the Father, (Deut. 32:6; Pr. 14:3; Is. 63:16; Jer. 3:19; Mal. .1:6). In Sir. 23and Jer. 3 the name of God, as the Father, is used as an invocation. And not only Jews, but also pagans called, for example, Zeus or Jupiter the father. In Plato's Timaeus there is a place where God is called the Father and Creator of the world (ὁ πατὴρ καὶ ποιητὴς τοῦ κόσμου); Jupiter according to Tolyuk Diovis Deus et pater. But in general, “in the Old Testament idea (not to mention the pagans) we observe that it was rather special than universal, and did not become a concept that determines the character of God. God's attitude towards Israel was paternal, but it was not evident that it was such in its very essence and that all people were subject to God's paternal love and care. The legitimate idea of ​​God still prevailed. Power and transcendence were the outstanding attributes of God. The recognition of this was correct and important, but it was subject to a one-sided development, and such a development took on a separate form in later Judaism. The legalism and ritualism of the later Jewish period arose to a large extent from the inability of the people to fill the truth about the royal Power of God with the truth about His paternal love. Lawful submission, expressed in rites in which they thought to express reverence for the transcendent majesty of God, more than filial piety and moral obedience, was the dominant note of Pharisees' piety. But Jesus Christ spoke of God primarily as a father. The expression "Our Father" is the only one where Christ says "our" instead of "your"; usually "My Father" and "your Father." It is easy to understand that in invocation the Savior does not put Himself in relation to God in the same way as other people, because the prayer was given to others. The words “being in heaven” do not express the thought: “most exalted and omnipresent Father”, or “highest, omnipotent, most good and all-blessed”, etc. Here is signified the usual idea that people have of God as a Being who has a special sojourn in heaven. If "who is in heaven" were not added, then the prayer could almost refer to any earthly father. The addition of these words shows that it refers to God. If the invocation had said: “Our God,” then there would be no need to add “who is in heaven” at all, because this would have been clear without that. Thus, "Our Father" is equivalent and equivalent to the word God, but with the addition of an important characteristic - the patronymic of God and at the same time the thought of God's loving attitude towards people, as the Father towards His children. The remarks of exegetes that the Savior wanted to designate here not only the patronymic or paternal love for people, but also the brotherhood of people among themselves, the participation of every believer in this brotherhood, can be accepted. The filial relationship of people to God is based, however, on their personal relationship to Christ, because only through Him do people have the right to call God their Father.

"Hallowed be thy name." Instead of any ingenious reasoning and interpretation of these words, the easiest way, it seems, is to understand the meaning of the petition from the opposition. When is the name of God not sanctified among people? When they do not know God, they teach about Him incorrectly, do not honor Him with their lives, and so on. The attitude of people to God in all petitions is presented under the images of earthly relations. It is quite understandable for us when children do not honor their earthly father. The same can be said about honoring the name of God. God Himself is holy. But we contradict this holiness when we disrespect the name of God. The point, then, is not in God, but in ourselves. As for the very expression “Hallowed be Thy name,” and not the very being or any of the properties of God, then the essence of God and the properties are not spoken of, not because it is holy in itself, but because the very essence of God is for us it is also incomprehensible that the name of God is a designation, in a sense accessible to all ordinary people, of the very divine Being. The simple people speak not about the essence of God, but about His name, they think about the name, with the help of the name they distinguish God from all other beings. According to Tolyuk, the word "sanctify" corresponds to "to glorify" and "to glorify" (εύλογεῖν). Origen has ὑψοῦν, to exalt, exalt and glorify. Theophylact says: “Make us holy, just as You are glorified through us. As blasphemy is uttered by me, so may God be hallowed by me, i.e. let him be glorified as a Saint."

Matthew 6:10. let your kingdom come; may Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven;

Literally: “Thy kingdom come; Thy will be done, as it is in heaven and on earth." In the Greek text, only the words are arranged differently, but the meaning is the same. Tertullian moves both petitions of this verse, putting after “Hallowed be Thy name” – “Thy will be done” and so on. The words, "as in heaven, so on earth" can refer to all three of the first petitions. Many arguments are found among exegetes about the words: "Thy Kingdom come." What Kingdom? Some refer this expression to the end of the world and understand it exclusively in the so-called eschatological sense, i.e. they think that Christ here taught us to pray that the Last Judgment would happen soon and the Kingdom of God would come in the “resurrection of the righteous”, with the destruction of evil people and in general all evil. Others dispute this opinion and argue that the second and third petitions are closely related to each other - the will of God is fulfilled when the Kingdom of God comes, and, conversely, the coming of the Kingdom of God is a necessary condition for the fulfillment of the will of God. But to the third petition is added: "as in heaven, and on earth." Therefore, the kingdom is spoken of here on earth as opposed to the kingdom of heaven. Obviously, heavenly relations serve here simply as a model for earthly relations, and, moreover, simultaneous ones. This is the best explanation anyway. Christ was hardly talking here about the distant future, in the eschatological sense. The advent of the Kingdom of God on earth is a slow process, implying the constant improvement of man, as a moral being, in the moral life. The moment when a person realized himself as a moral being was in itself the onset of the Kingdom of God. Further, the Jews, to whom Christ spoke, knew the continuation and development of the Kingdom of God from their previous history, with constant setbacks and obstacles from the side of evil. The kingdom of God is the dominion of God, when the laws given by Him receive more and more power, significance and respect among people. This ideal is realizable in this life, and Christ taught us to pray for its realization. Its fulfillment is connected with the prayer that the name of God be hallowed. “A goal has been set before the eyes, which can be achieved” (Tsang, ).

Matthew 6:11. give us our daily bread this day;

Literally: "give us our daily bread today" (in the Slavic Bible - "today"; in the Vulgate - hodie). The word “bread” is completely analogous to the one used in our Russian expressions: “work to earn your own bread”, “work for a piece of bread”, etc., i.e. bread here should be understood in general as a condition for life, subsistence, a certain well-being, etc. In Holy Scripture, the word "bread" is often used in its proper sense (cibus, and farina cum aqua permixta compactus atque coctus - Grimm), but it also means in general any food necessary for human existence, and not only bodily, but also spiritual (cf. John 6 - about the bread of heaven). Commentators do not pay attention to the word "our" at all. This, let's say, is a trifle, but in the Gospel, trifles are also important. From the first time, it seems not entirely clear why we need to ask God for bread for ourselves, when this bread is “ours”, i.e. already belongs to us. The word "our" seems superfluous, one could simply say: "give us our daily bread today." An explanation will be given below.

"Durable" (ἐπιούσιος) is explained in various ways and is one of the most difficult. The word occurs only here and also in the Gospel of Luke (Luke 11:3). In the Old Testament and classical Greek literature, it has not yet been found anywhere. To explain it "was torture for theologians and grammarians" (carnificina theologorum et grammaticorum). One writer says that “to wish to achieve something precise here is like driving a nail in with a sponge” (σπόγγῳ πάτταλον κρούειν). They tried to avoid difficulties by pointing out that this is a scribal error, that in the original it was originally τόν ἄρτον ἐπὶ οὐσίαν – bread for our existence. The scribe mistakenly doubled the τον in ἄρτον and changed επιουσιαν to επιουσιον accordingly. This is how the Gospel expression was formed: τοναρτοντονεπιουσιον. To this, without going into details, let us say that the word ἡμῶν (τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον) completely prevents such an interpretation, moreover, in Lk. 11 undoubtedly stands ἐπιούσιον - as in Matthew. Therefore, the interpretation in question is now completely abandoned. Of the interpretations that exist and are accepted by the latest scholars, three can be noted.

1. The word "daily" is derived from the Greek preposition ἐπί (on) and οὐσία from εἶναι (to be). Such an interpretation has the authority of the ancient church writers, and precisely those who wrote in Greek. Among them are John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa, Basil the Great, Theophylact, Evfimy Zigavin and others. If the word is understood in this way, then it will mean: "give us the bread that is necessary for our existence, necessary for us, today." This interpretation is obviously accepted in our Slavic and Russian Bibles. Against him, it is objected that if nowhere, except for the Lord's Prayer, is the word ἐπιούσιος found, then there is, however, ἔπεστι and others, a word composed of the same preposition and verb, but with the omission of ι. Therefore, if the Gospel spoke specifically about “daily bread”, then it would be said not ἐπιούσιος, but ἐπούσιος. Further, οὐσία in popular usage meant property, wealth, and if Christ had used οὐσία precisely in this sense, then it would not only be “purposeless” (Wiener-Schmiedel), but it would also have no meaning. If He used it in the sense of “being” (bread needed for our being, existence) or “being”, “essence”, “reality”, then all this would be distinguished by a philosophical character, since οὐσία in this sense is used exclusively by philosophers and the words of Christ would not be understood by the common people.

2. The word ἐπιούσιος is derived from ἐπί and ἰέναι - to come, to advance. This word has different meanings; for us it is only important that in the expression ἐπιοῦσα ἡμέρα it means tomorrow or the coming day. This word was composed by the evangelists themselves and applied to ἄρτος in the meaning of "future bread", "bread of the coming day". Support for such an interpretation is found in the words of Jerome, who among his rather brief interpretations contains the following note. “In the Gospel, which is called the Gospel of the Jews, instead of daily bread, I found “mahar”, which means tomorrow (crastinum), so the meaning should be this: our bread is tomorrow, i.e. give us the future today.” On this basis, many recent critics, including some of the best, such as the German New Testament grammarians Wiener-Schmiedel, Blass, and the exegete Zahn, have suggested that the word means tomorrow (from ἡ ἐπιοῦσα, i.e. ἡμέρα). Such an explanation is given, by the way, by Renan. It is perfectly clear what a difference in meaning results from whether we accept this interpretation or agree with the previous one. However, if we accept the interpretation of Jerome, then we should recognize, not to mention various philological difficulties, that it contradicts the words of the Savior: “do not worry about tomorrow” (Matt. 6:34); It would also be incomprehensible why we ask: "Give us tomorrow's bread today." Pointing to "mahar", Jerome himself translates ἐπιούσιος with the word super-substantialis. According to Kremer, not a single production ending in -ιουσιος can be proved from ἰέναι and complex with it, on the contrary, many such words are produced from οὐσία. In words compounded with ἐπί, whose root begins with a vowel, fusion is avoided by dropping ι, as in ἐπεῖναι. But it happens not always and ι is held, for example, in such words, as ἐπιέτης (in other cases - ἐπέτειος), ἐπιορκεῖν (in the church Greek - ἐπιορκίίειν), ἐπιεικής, ἐπίουρος (at Homer ἔθορος). Thus, it should be assumed that ἐπιούσιος was formed from οὐσία, similar to similar formations from the words ending on ια - ιος (πιθυμία - ἐπιθύμιος, ἐπικαρπία - ἐπικάρπιος, περιουσία - περιούσιος and other). The meaning of οὐσία in the place under consideration will not be philosophical, but simply - being, nature, and ἄρτος ἐπιούσιος means "bread necessary for our existence or for our nature." This concept is well expressed in the Russian word "daily". This explanation is also confirmed by the use of the word οὐσία by the classics (for example, by Aristotle) ​​in the sense of even life, existence. "Daily bread", i.e. necessary for existence, for life, is, according to Kremer, a short designation of what is found in Proverbs. 30 of the Hebrew “lehem hawk” is the daily bread, which the Seventy translates with the words “necessary” (necessary) and “sufficient” (in the Russian Bible - “daily”). According to Kremer, it should be translated: "our bread, necessary for our life, give us today." The fact that the interpretation "tomorrow" occurs only in Latin writers, and not in Greek, is of decisive importance here. Chrysostom, of course, knew Greek quite well, and if he had no doubt that ἐπιούσιος was used in the sense of "daily", then this interpretation should be preferred to the interpretation of Latin writers, who sometimes knew Greek well, but still not like natural Greeks.

3. Allegorical interpretation, partly caused, apparently, by the difficulties of other interpretations. Tertullian, Cyprian, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, Isidore Pilusiot, Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine and many others explained this word in a spiritual sense. Of course, in the application of the expression to "spiritual bread" there is, in fact, nothing subject to objection. However, in the understanding of this "spiritual bread" among the interpreters there is such a difference that it deprives their interpretation of almost any meaning. Some said that the bread here means the bread of the Sacrament of Communion, others pointed to the spiritual bread - Christ Himself, including the Eucharist here, others - only to the teachings of Christ. Such interpretations, apparently, most of all contradict the word "today", as well as the fact that at the time when Christ spoke His words, according to the evangelist, the Sacrament of Communion had not yet been established.

Translations: "daily" bread, "supernatural", must be recognized as completely inaccurate.

The reader will see that of the above interpretations, the first seems to be the best. With him, the word “ours” also acquires some special meaning, which, they say, although “does not seem superfluous”, could also be omitted. In our opinion, on the contrary, it makes sense, and quite important. What kind of bread and by what right can we consider "ours"? Of course, the one that is acquired by our labors. But since the concept of earned bread is very flexible—one works a lot and gains little, another works little and gains a lot—the concept of “ours,” that is, earned, bread is limited to the word "daily", i.e. necessary for life, and then the word "today". It has been well said that this simply points to the golden mean between poverty and wealth. Solomon prayed: “Give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with my daily bread” (Proverbs 30:8).

Matthew 6:12. and forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors;

The Russian translation is accurate, if only we admit that “we leave” (in the Slavic Bible) - ἀφίεμεν is really set in the present tense, and not in the aorist (ἀφήκαμεν), as in some codices. The word ἀφήκαμεν has "the best attestation". Tischendorf, Elford, Westcote, Hort put ἀφήκαμεν - "we left", but the Vulgate is the present (dimittimus), as well as John Chrysostom, Cyprian and others. Meanwhile, the difference in meaning, depending on whether we accept this or that reading, is significant. Forgive us our sins, because we ourselves forgive or have already forgiven. Anyone can understand that the latter is, so to speak, more categorical. Forgiveness of sins by us is set as a condition for forgiveness of ourselves, our earthly activity here serves as a model for the activity of heaven. The images are borrowed from ordinary lenders who lend money, and debtors who receive it and then return it. The parable of the rich but merciful king and the ruthless debtor can serve as an explanation for the petition (Matt. 18:23-35). The Greek word ὀφειλέτης means a debtor who must pay someone ὀφείλημα, money debt, other people's money (aes alienum). But in a broader sense, ὀφείλημα generally means any obligation, any payment, to give, and in the place under consideration this word is put in place of the word "sin", "crime" (ἀμαρτία, παράπτωμα). The word is used here on the model of the Hebrew and Aramaic "lov", which means both money debt (debitum) and guilt, crime, sin (culpa, reatus, peccatum).

The second sentence ("as we also forgive" and so on) has long led interpreters into great difficulty. First of all, they discussed what to understand by the word "how" (ὡς), whether to take it in the strictest sense or in an easier one, in relation to human weaknesses. Understanding in the strictest sense made many church writers tremble at the fact that the very size or amount of divine forgiveness of our sins is completely determined by the size of our own ability or ability to forgive the sins of our fellowmen. In other words, divine mercy is defined here by human mercy. But since a person is not capable of the same mercy that is characteristic of God, the position of the one who prays, who did not have the opportunity to reconcile, made many shudder and tremble.

The author of the work “Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum” attributed to St. John Chrysostom testifies that in the ancient Church those who prayed completely omitted the second sentence of the fifth petition. One writer advised: “Saying this, oh man, if you do so, i.e. pray, think about what is said: “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (Heb. 10:31). Some, according to Augustine, tried to make some kind of detour and instead of sins they understood monetary obligations. Chrysostom, apparently, wanted to eliminate the difficulty when he pointed out the difference in relations and circumstances: “Remission initially depends on us, and the judgment pronounced on us lies in our power. What judgment you yourself pronounce on yourself, the same judgment I will pronounce on you. If you forgive your brother, then you will receive the same benefit from Me - although this last is actually much more important than the first. You forgive another because you yourself have a need for forgiveness, and God forgives Himself without needing anything. You forgive a brother, and God forgives a servant, you are guilty of countless sins, and God is sinless. Modern scholars are also aware of these difficulties and try to explain the word "how" (ὡς), apparently correctly, in a slightly softened way. A strict understanding of this particle is not allowed by the context. In the relationship between God and man, on the one hand, and man and man, on the other, there is no complete equality (paritas), but only a similarity of argument (similitudo rationis). The king in the parable shows more mercy to the slave than the slave to his comrade. Ὡς can be translated as "like" (similiter). What is meant here is a comparison of two actions by kind, not by degree.

In conclusion, let us say that the idea of ​​the forgiveness of sins from God under the condition of the forgiveness of the sins of our neighbors was, apparently, alien at least to paganism. According to Philostratus (Vita Apollonii, I, 11), Apollonius of Tyana suggested and recommended that the worshiper turn to the gods with such a speech: “You, oh gods, pay me my debts, - my due” (ὦς θεοί, δοίητέ μοι τὰ ὀφειλόμενα).

Matthew 6:13. and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one. For yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.

The words "and do not bring in" immediately make it clear that God leads into temptation, there is a reason for it. In other words, if we do not pray, we may fall into temptation from God, who will lead us into it. But is it possible and how is it possible to attribute such a thing to the Supreme Being? On the other hand, such an understanding of the sixth petition, apparently, contradicts the words of the Apostle James, who says: “in temptation (during, in the midst of temptation) no one says: God tempts me, because God is not tempted by evil and Himself does not tempt anyone ” (James 1:13). If so, then why pray to God so that He does not lead us into temptation? Even without prayer, according to the apostle, he does not tempt anyone and will not tempt anyone. Elsewhere the same apostle says, “My brethren, receive with great joy when you fall into various temptations” (James 1:2). From this we can conclude that, in at least some cases, temptations are even useful, and therefore there is no need to pray for deliverance from them. If we turn to the Old Testament, we find that "God tempted Abraham" (Gen. 22:1); “The wrath of the Lord was again kindled against the Israelites, and he excited David in them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah” (2 Sam. 24:1; cf. 1 Chr. 21:1). We will not explain these contradictions if we do not admit that God allows evil, although He is not the author of evil. The cause of evil is the free will of free beings, which is split in two as a result of sin, i.e. takes either a good or an evil direction. Due to the existence of good and evil in the world, world actions or phenomena are also divided into evil and good, evil appears like turbidity in clean water or like poisoned air in clean air. Evil can exist independently of us, but we can become participants in it by virtue of the fact that we live in the midst of evil. The verb εἰσφέρω used in the verse under consideration is not as strong as εἰσβάλλω; the first does not express violence, the second does. Thus "do not lead us into temptation" means: "do not lead us into such an environment where evil exists", do not allow this. Do not allow us, due to our unreason, to go in the direction of evil, or that evil approaches us regardless of our guilt and will. Such a request is natural and was quite understandable to the hearers of Christ, because it is based on the deepest knowledge of human nature and the world.

It seems that there is no particular need here to discuss the very nature of temptations, some of which seem beneficial to us, while others are harmful. There are two Hebrew words, "bahan" and "nasa" (both used in Ps. 25:2), which mean "to try" and are used more often of a just test than an unjust test. In the New Testament, only one corresponds to both of these words - πειρασμός, and the Seventy interpreters translate them into two (δοκιμάζω and πειράζω). The purpose of temptations may be that a person be δόκιμος - "tested" (James 1:12), and such an activity may be characteristic of God and useful to people. But if a Christian, according to the Apostle James, should rejoice when he falls into temptation, because as a result of this he may turn out to be δόκιμος and “receive the crown of life” (James 1:12), then in this case he should also “pray for salvation from temptations, because he cannot claim that he will overcome the test - δόκιμος. Thus, Christ calls blessed those who are persecuted and reviled for His name (Matt. 5:10-11), but what kind of Christian would seek slander and persecution, and even strive for them strongly? (Tolyuk,). The more dangerous for a person are temptations from the devil, who is called πειραστής, πειράζων. This word eventually acquired a bad meaning, as well as used several times in the New Testament πειρασμός. Hence, the words “lead us not into temptation” can be understood as temptation not from God, but from the devil, who acts on our inner inclinations and thereby plunges us into sin. The understanding “do not introduce” in a permissive sense: “do not allow us to be tempted” (Evfimy Zigavin), and πειρασμός in a special sense, in the sense of a temptation that we cannot endure, must be rejected as unnecessary and arbitrary. If, therefore, temptation in the place under consideration means temptation from the devil, then such an explanation should affect the subsequent meaning of the words "from the evil one" - τοῦ πονηροῦ.

We have already met this word, here it is translated in Russian and Slavic indefinitely - “from the evil one”, in the Vulgate - a malo, in the German translation of Luther - von dem Uebel, in English - from evil (also there is an English version from the evil one.- Note. ed.), i.e. from evil. Such a translation is justified by the fact that if it were to be understood here as “from the devil”, then it would be a tautology: do not lead us into temptation (it is understood - from the devil), but deliver us from the devil. Τὸ πονηρόν in the neuter gender with an article and without a noun means "evil" (see comments on Mt. 5:39), and if Christ meant the devil here, then, as it is rightly noted, he could say: ἀπὸ τοῦ διαβόλου or τοῦ πειράζον . In this regard, “deliver” (ῥῦσαι) should also be explained. This verb is combined with two prepositions "from" and "from", and this, apparently, is determined by the real meaning of this kind of combinations. One cannot say about a person who has plunged into a swamp: deliver him from (ἀπό), but from (ἐκ) a swamp. One might suppose, therefore, that in verse 12 it would have been better to use "of" if it were speaking of evil rather than the devil. But there is no need for this, because from other cases it is known that "to deliver from" indicates a real, already occurring danger, "to deliver from" - an assumed or possible one. The meaning of the first combination is “to get rid of”, the second - “to protect”, and the thought of getting rid of the already existing evil to which a person is already subject is not completely eliminated.

In conclusion, we note that the two petitions set forth in this verse are considered by many sectarians (Reformed, Arminian, Socinian) as one, so that the Lord's Prayer has only six petitions.

Doxology is accepted by John Chrysostom, the Apostolic Decrees, Theophylact, Protestants (in the German translation of Luther, in the English translation), as well as Slavic and Russian texts. But there are some reasons to think that it was not said by Christ, and therefore it was not in the original gospel text. This is primarily indicated by differences in the pronunciation of the words themselves, which can also be observed in our Slavic texts. So, in the Gospel: “for yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever, amen”, but the priest says after “Our Father”: “for yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, now and forever and till the end of time". In the Greek texts that have come down to us, such differences are even more noticeable, which could not be if the doxology were borrowed from the original text. It is not in the oldest manuscripts and the Vulgate (only "amen"), it was not known to Tertullian, Cyprian, Origen, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Jerome, Augustine, St. Gregory of Nyssa and others. Evfimy Zigavin directly says that it was "applied by church interpreters." The conclusion to be drawn from 2 Tim. 4:18, according to Alford, speaks against doxology rather than in favor of it. The only thing that can be said in its favor is that it is found in the ancient monument "The Teaching of the 12 Apostles" (Didache XII apostolorum, 8, 2) and in the Peshito Syriac translation. But in the "Teaching of the 12 Apostles" it is in this form: "because Yours is the power and the glory forever" and the Peshitta "does not stand above suspicion in some interpolations and additions from the lectionaries." It is assumed that this was a liturgical formula, which over time was introduced into the text of the Lord's Prayer (cf. 1 Chr. 29:10-13). Initially, only, perhaps, the word “amen” was introduced, and then this formula was spread partly on the basis of existing liturgical formulas, and partly by adding arbitrary expressions, similar to how common in our church (and Catholic) song “Virgin Mary, Rejoice » gospel words spoken by the Archangel Gabriel. For the interpretation of the gospel text, doxology either does not matter at all, or has only a small one.

Matthew 6:14. For if you forgive people their trespasses, your Heavenly Father will also forgive you,

Matthew 6:15. but if you do not forgive people their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive you your trespasses.

(Compare Matt. 18:35; Mark 11:25–26.)

Matthew 6:16. Also, when you fast, do not be despondent like the hypocrites, for they take on gloomy faces in order to appear to people who are fasting. I tell you truly, they already receive their reward.

Literally: “When you fast, do not be like hypocrites, dull. They darken their faces in order to appear to people who are fasting. I tell you truly, they receive their reward.” There are many cases in the Bible when fasting people put on mourning clothes and sprinkled ashes on their heads as a sign of grief. The Hebrew names for fasting indicate primarily humility and contrition of the heart, and the Seventy translate these names through ταπεινοῦν τὴν ψυχήν - humble the soul. In the Talmudic treatises Taanit (fasting) and Ioma, there are several prescriptions for fasting. It is not at all surprising that in the course of time a gross hypocrisy developed here, which Christ denounces. "Mournful" (σκυθρωποί, from σκύθρος - gloomy, and ὤψ - face; cf. Luke 24 - in the Seventy; Gen. 40: 7; Neh. 2: 1; Sir. 25 - Russian translation; Dan. 1: 10, - πρόσωπα σκυθρωπά) can also be translated "gloomy" or "sad". The prophet Isaiah (Is. 61:3) characterizes fasting (mourning) with ashes, weeping, and a despondent spirit (cf. Dan. 10:3; 2 Sam. 12:20). The hypocrites especially used these methods to draw attention to their posts, to make them visible. As for ἀφανίζω, translated in Russian “take on gloomy faces”, its meaning is understood differently and much has been written to explain it. Chrysostom understood it in the sense of "distort" (διαφθείρουσιν, ἀπολλύουσιν - the latter means "destroy"). Meyer's examples of such distortion in the Bible (2 Sam. 15:30; Esther 6:12) hardly fit here. Ἀφανίζω generally means to obscure, to make obscure, unrecognizable. Some explained this in the sense that the hypocrites polluted, soiled their faces, although this is the later meaning of the word (in ancient times it was used in the sense of completely covering - τελεως ἀφανῆ ποιῆσαι). In the sense of "dirty", "contaminate", apparently, this word was used by the classics: they pronounced it about women who "put on makeup". Therefore, says Alford, the allusion here is not to the covering of the face, which might be looked upon as a sign of mourning, but to the uncleanness of the face, hair, beard, and head. This is indicated by a further contrast, verse 17. They rightly see here a play on words (ἀφανίζουσι - φανῶσι), understandable, of course, only in Greek.

Matthew 6:17. But you, when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face,

There is an almost exact correspondence with the decrees of Taanit and Ioma. Only there it served as a sign of the end of the fast, but here it was the beginning and continuation of it. It was thought that the Savior speaks only of private fasts, during which it is possible to observe the decrees given by Him. As for public posts, it would be inconvenient to perform with a washed face and a cheerful look at a time when everyone else behaved differently. But such a distinction does not seem to be necessary; both fastings could serve as an occasion for show for the hypocrites, and this latter is condemned for all kinds of fasting. According to the teachings of the Savior, fasting should in all cases be a secret, inner disposition of a person in his relation to God, fasting for God, and not for man.

Matthew 6:18. to appear fasting not before men, but before your Father who is in the secret; and your Father, who sees in secret, will reward you openly.

The construction and expressions of this verse are very similar to verse 6. The word "in secret" in verse 6 (ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ) is replaced twice with ἐν τῷ κρυφαίῳ. There is no difference in meaning between these expressions, although it is difficult to explain why one expression is replaced by another. The last word "clearly", as in verse 6, is not found in almost all uncials, more than 150 italics, in the main ancient translations and in the most important church writers. It is believed that this expression was brought here from the margins of some ancient manuscript.

Matthew 6:19. Lay not up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal,

In this verse, the Savior immediately moves on to a subject that seems to have no connection with His previous instructions. Tsang explains this connection as follows: “Jesus, who spoke to His disciples in the hearing of the Jewish crowd, does not preach here in general against the pagan and worldly way of thinking (cf. Luke 12:13-31), but shows the incompatibility of such with piety, about which the disciples should and will take care. This is where the connection with the previous parts of speech lies. Until that time, the Pharisees were considered by the people mainly as pious people, but with pious zeal, which Jesus Christ never denied for them, worldly interests were associated with many Pharisees and rabbis. Next to pride (Matt. 6:2, 5, 16, 23:5–8; Luke 14:1, 7–11; John 5:44, 7:18, 12:43) is indicated mainly by their love for money. Thus, the section under consideration also serves to explain Matt. 5:20".

It can be assumed that such an opinion quite accurately reveals what the connection is, if only there really is one between these different sections. But the connection can be expressed more clearly. We think that the whole Sermon on the Mount is a series of obvious truths and that it is sometimes extremely difficult to find a connection between them, just as it is difficult to find it in a dictionary between words printed on the same page. It is impossible not to see that Tsan's opinion about such a connection is somewhat artificial, and, in any case, such a connection could hardly be seen by the disciples to whom Jesus Christ spoke, and the people. Based on these considerations, we have every right to consider this verse the beginning of a new section, which deals with completely new subjects, and, moreover, without the closest relation to the Pharisees or the Gentiles.

Christ in the Sermon on the Mount not so much convicts as teaches. He does not use reproofs for their own sake, but again - for the same purpose - to teach. If one can assume a connection between the various sections of the Sermon on the Mount, then it seems to consist in a variety of indications of perverse concepts of righteousness, which are characteristic of a natural person. The thread of the Sermon on the Mount is a description of these perverse concepts and then an explanation of what the true, correct concepts should be. Among the perverted concepts of a sinful and natural man are his concepts and views on worldly goods. And here the Savior again allows people to conform to the teaching given by Him, it is only a light in which moral work is possible, which has the goal of moral improvement of a person, but not this work itself.

The correct and general view of earthly treasures is: "Lay not up for yourselves treasures on earth." There is no need to argue, as Tsang does, about whether here only "great savings", "gathering large capitals", the enjoyment of them by a miser, or also the collection of insignificant capitals, cares for daily bread are meant. The Savior does not seem to speak of either. He expresses only a correct view of earthly riches and says that their properties in themselves should prevent people from treating them with special love, making their acquisition the goal of their lives. The properties of earthly riches, indicated by Christ, should remind people of non-acquisitiveness, and the latter should determine a person's attitude to wealth and, in general, to earthly goods. From this point of view, a rich person can be just as non-possessive as a poor person. Any, even "large savings" and "gathering of large capitals" can be correct and legal from a moral point of view, if only the spirit of non-acquisitiveness, indicated by Christ, is introduced into these actions of a person. Christ does not require asceticism from a person.

“Do not lay up treasures for yourselves on earth” (μὴ θησαυρίζετε θησαυρούς) is apparently better translated as follows: do not value treasures on earth, and “on earth” will, of course, refer not to treasures, but to “do not value” (“ do not collect). Those. do not collect on the ground. If "on earth" referred to "treasures", i.e. if “earthly” treasures were meant here, then, firstly, it would probably stand, θησαυρούς τοὺς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, as it would be in the next verse, or, perhaps, τοὺς θησαυρούς ἐπὶ τῆς. But Tzan's indication that if "on earth" referred to treasures, then one would expect οὕς instead of ὅπου here, can hardly be accepted, because οὕς could stand in both cases. Why shouldn't we store up treasures for ourselves on earth? Because (ὅπου ηαβετ ᾳιμ αετιολογιαε) there "moth and rust destroy and thieves break in and steal." "Moth" (σής) - similar to the Hebrew word "sas" (Is. 51 - only once in the Bible) and has the same meaning - should be taken in general for some harmful insect that harms property. Also the word "rust", i.e. rust. By this last word one must understand corruption of any kind, because the Savior did not want, of course, to say that one should not save only those objects that are subject to damage from moths or rust (although the literal meaning of these words is this), but expressed only in its general sense; the following words are said in the same sense, because the cause of losses is not only digging and theft in the literal sense. Parallel place in Jas. 5:2–3. The rabbis had a common word for rust, “chaluda” (Tolyuk, 1856).

Matthew 6:20. but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in and steal,

The opposite of the previous one. Of course, obviously, spiritual treasures that are not subject to the same extermination as earthly ones. But there is no closer definition of what exactly these spiritual treasures should consist of (cf. 1 Pet. 1:4-9; 2 Cor. 4:17). The explanation here requires only "do not destroy" (ἀφανίζει - the same word that is used in verse 16 about persons). Ἀφανίζω (from φαίνω) here means "remove from view", hence - destroy, destroy, exterminate. The rest of the construction and expression is the same as in verse 19.

Matthew 6:21. for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

The meaning is clear. The life of the human heart is concentrated on and near that which a person loves. A person not only loves this or that treasure, but also lives or tries to live near them and with them. Depending on what treasures a person loves, earthly or heavenly, his life is either earthly or heavenly. If love for earthly treasures predominates in a person's heart, then heavenly treasures fade into the background for him, and vice versa. Here in the words of the Savior there is a deep conviction and explanation of the secret, heartfelt human thoughts. How often we seem to care only about heavenly treasures, but with our hearts we are attached only to earthly ones, and our very aspirations to heaven are only an appearance and a pretext for hiding from prying eyes our love for only earthly treasures.

Instead of "your" Tischendorf, Westcote, Hort and others - "your treasure", "your heart". So on the basis of the best authorities. Perhaps in the recepta and many italics "thine" is replaced by the word "your" to harmonize with Lk. 12:34, where "your" is beyond doubt. The purpose of using "thine" instead of "your" may have been to designate the individuality of the heart's inclinations and aspirations of man, with all their infinite variety. One loves one thing, the other loves another. The familiar expression “my heart lies” or “it does not lie to such and such” is almost equivalent to the gospel expression of this verse. It can be paraphrased as follows: "Where is what you consider your treasure, there your heart thoughts and your love will go."

Matthew 6:22. The lamp for the body is the eye. So if your eye is clear, then your whole body will be bright;

Matthew 6:23. but if your eye is evil, your whole body will be dark. So if the light that is in you is darkness, then what is the darkness?

The interpretation of this place by the ancient church writers was distinguished by simplicity and literal understanding. Chrysostom accepts “pure” (ἁπλοῦς) in the meaning of “healthy” (ὑγιής) and interprets it as follows: “For as a simple eye, i.e. healthy, illuminates the body, and if it is thin, i.e. painful, darkens, so the mind darkens from care. Jerome: “Just as our whole body is in darkness, if the eye is not simple (simplex), so if the soul has lost its original light, then the whole feeling (sensual side of the soul) remains in darkness.” Augustine understands by the eye the intentions of a person - if they are pure and correct, then all our deeds, proceeding from our intentions, are good.

Some modern exegetes look at this matter differently. “The idea of ​​verse 22,” says one of them, “is rather naive—that the eye is an organ through which light finds access to the whole body, and that there is a spiritual eye through which spiritual light enters and illuminates the whole personality of man. This spiritual eye must be clear, otherwise the light cannot enter and the inner man lives in darkness.” But even from the point of view of modern science, what other organ can be called a lamp (at least for the body), if not the eye? The idea of ​​verse 22, therefore, is not at all as "naive" as it is imagined, especially since the Savior does not use the expressions "finds access", "enters", which are used by people familiar with the latest conclusions of the natural sciences. Holtzman calls the eye "a specific light organ (Lichtorgan), to which the body owes all its light impressions." Undoubtedly, the eye is the organ for their perception. If the eye is not pure, then - whichever of these expressions we choose - the light impressions we receive will not have such liveliness, regularity and strength as a healthy eye has. It is true that, from a modern scientific point of view, the expression: "the lamp for the body is the eye" might seem not entirely clear and scientifically correct. But the Savior did not speak modern scientific language to us. On the other hand, modern science is no stranger to such inaccuracies, for example, “the sun rises and sets,” while the sun remains motionless, and no one should be blamed for such inaccuracies. So, the expression should be considered correct and equivalent to the modern scientific expression: the eye is an organ for the perception of light impressions. With this understanding, there is no need to introduce further reasoning, as if the contrasting reasoning of this and the following verse suggests a contrast between generosity and alms, and that according to the Jewish axiom, “a good eye” is a metaphorical designation of generosity, “bad eye” - stinginess. It is true that in several places in Scripture "greedy" and "envious" eyes are used in this sense (Deut. 15:9, 28:54-56; Proverbs 23:6, 28:22, 22:9; Tov. 4 :7; Sir. 14:10). But in the passage under consideration there is no talk of generosity or almsgiving, but simply it turns out what should be the attitude of a person to earthly goods. In this last and the connection of the 22nd and 23rd verses with the preceding speech. A dim, gloomy, sore eye loves to contemplate the earthly things more; it is hard for him to look at the bright light, at the heavenly. According to Bengel, in Scripture words expressing simplicity (ἁπλοῦς, ἀπλότης) are never used in a negative sense. Simple and kind, having heavenly intentions, striving for God - one and the same thing.

In verse 23, the opposite of the previous speech. The last sentences of this verse have always seemed difficult. One can observe in this place an extremely poetic and subtle play on words and translate in the same way as in our Russian (in the Slavic translation - “tma kolmi” - exactly, but unclear) and the Vulgate (ipsae tenebrae quantae sunt), without referring to the word “darkness” to "the inner thoughts of man, his passions and inclinations." The latter meaning is only further and improper, since images and metaphors serve as a designation of internal spiritual relations. The metaphor is based on the difference in degrees of darkness, ranging from lack of light, twilight, and ending with complete darkness. The eye is unhealthy (πονηρός) as opposed to healthy (ἁπλοῦς), and the body is only partly illuminated; in other words, the eye only partially perceives light, and, moreover, incorrect impressions. So "if the light in you" equals darkness, then "how much darkness". Grimm explains this expression as follows: “If your inner light is darkness (dark), i.e. if the mind is devoid of the faculty of understanding, how great will be the darkness (how much more pitiable it is compared to the blindness of the body). Σκότος refers to the so-called "fluctuating" expressions of the classics, who use it in both the masculine and neuter genders. In MF. 6 is the neuter gender and is used in the meaning of "illness", "destruction" (cf. John 3:19; Acts 26:18; 2 Cor. 4:6 - Kremer).

Matthew 6:24. No one can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one and love the other; or he will be zealous for one, and neglect the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.

Instead of “to be zealous for one”, it is better to “prefer one and neglect the other” (in the Slavic translation: “or it holds on to one, but it will start negligence about a friend”). First of all, the real meaning of the expression draws upon itself: does it really happen that a person cannot serve two masters? It can be said that there is no rule without exceptions. But it usually happens that when there are "many masters," slave service is not only difficult, but also impossible. Even for practical purposes, therefore, the concentration of one power in one hand is carried out. Then pay attention to the construction of speech. It is not said: “he will hate one (τὸν ἕνα) and despise one”, because in this case an unnecessary tautology would result. But one will be hated, one will be preferred, another will be loved, another will be hated. Two masters are indicated, sharply different in character, which, apparently, is expressed by the word ἕτερος, which (unlike ἄλλος) in general means a generic difference. They are completely heterogeneous and diverse. Therefore, "or" "or" are not repetitions, but sentences inverse to one another. Meyer puts it this way: "He will hate A and love B, or he will prefer A and despise B." Different attitudes of people towards two masters are pointed out, starting with complete devotion and love on the one hand and hatred on the other, and ending with simple, even hypocritical, preference or contempt. In the interval between these extreme states, various relations of greater or lesser strength and tension can be implied. Again, an extremely subtle and psychological depiction of human relations. From this, a conclusion is drawn, justified by the images taken, although without οὖν: "you cannot serve God and mammon", - not just "serve" (διακονεῖν), but be slaves (δουλεύειν), be in full power. Jerome explains this place very well: “For he who is a slave of wealth guards wealth like a slave; and whoever has thrown off the slave yoke, he disposes of them (wealth) as a master. The word mammon (not mammon and not mammonas - the doubling of the "m" in this word is proved very weakly, Blass) means all kinds of possessions, inheritances and acquisitions, in general, any property and money. Whether this later-formed word was found in Hebrew, or whether it can be reduced to an Arabic word, is doubtful, although Augustine states that mammona is the name of wealth among the Hebrews, and that the Punic name is consistent with this, because lucrum in the Punic language is expressed by the word mammon. The Syrians in Antioch used to have the word, so that Chrysostom did not consider it necessary to explain it, substituting χρυσός (gold coin - Tsan) instead. Tertullian translates mammon as nummus. That mammon is the name of a pagan god is a medieval fable. But the Marcionites explained it mainly about the Jewish god, and St. Gregory of Nyssa considered it to be the name of the devil Beelzebub.

Matthew 6:25. Therefore I say to you: do not worry about your soul what you will eat and what you will drink, nor about your body what you will wear. Is not the soul more than food, and the body more than clothes?

The connection with the previous verse is expressed through διὰ τοῦτο - therefore, “therefore”, for this reason. The Savior here says something like this: “Since you cannot collect treasures both on earth and in heaven at the same time, because this would mean serving two masters, then leave your thoughts about earthly treasures, and even about the most necessary things for your life.” According to Theophylact, the Savior “does not prevent here, but prevents us from saying: what shall we eat? So say the rich in the evening: what shall we eat tomorrow? You see that the Savior here forbids effeminacy and luxury. Jerome notes that the word "drink" is added only in some codices. The words "and what to drink" are omitted from Tischendorf, Westcott, Hort, the Vulgate, and many others. The meaning hardly changes. The words "for the soul" are opposed to the further "for the body", but they cannot be taken in the meaning of only the soul, but, as Augustine correctly notes about this, for life. John Chrysostom says that “for the soul” is not said because it needs food, and that here the Savior simply denounces a bad custom. The next word cannot be translated as "life", isn't life greater than food and a body of clothing? So ψυχή has some other meaning here. One must think that something close to soma is meant here - a living organism, and that yuc ”is used in some common sense, like how we say: the soul does not accept, etc.

Matthew 6:26. Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow, nor reap, nor gather into barns; and your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you much better than them?

Is it possible for a person to live like the birds of the sky? The impossibility of this led the ancient interpreters to explain the verse in an allegorical sense. “So what? – asks Chrysostom. - Do you need to sow? But the Savior did not say: one should not sow and do useful work, but that one should not be cowardly and uselessly indulge in worries. Later writers (including Renan) even allowed themselves to mock this saying and said that Christ could be preached in this way in a country where daily bread is obtained without special worries, but that His words are completely inapplicable to people living in more severe climatic conditions, where the care of clothing and food is necessary and sometimes associated with great difficulties. In popular usage, the expression “to live like the birds of the sky”, which has become almost a proverb, has come to mean a frivolous, homeless and carefree life, which, of course, is reprehensible. The true meaning of these expressions lies in the fact that the Savior only compares human life with the life of the birds of the air, but does not at all teach that people should live like them. The thought itself is correct and expressed vividly. Indeed, if God cares about the birds, then why should people put themselves outside of His care? If they are sure that the Providence of God cares for them no less than for birds, then this confidence determines all their activities regarding food and clothing. You need to take care of them, but at the same time you need to remember that food and clothes for people are at the same time the subject of God's care and care. This should turn the poor man out of despair and at the same time restrain the rich man. Between the complete lack of care and excessive, let's say even painful care, there are many intermediate stages, and in all the same principle - hope in God - should operate in the same way.

For example, the birds of the sky are chosen, in order to more clearly express whom a person should imitate. The word "heavenly" is not superfluous and indicates the freedom and freedom of the life of birds. Birds of prey are not understood, because expressions are chosen to characterize such birds that feed on grains. These are the most gentle and pure of birds. The expression "birds of the sky" is found among the Seventy - they render the Hebrew expression "yof ha-shamayim" in this way.

Matthew 6:27. And who among you, by taking care, can add even one cubit to his stature?

The Greek word ἡλικία means both growth and age. Many commentators prefer to translate it with the word "age", i.e. continuation of life. In a similar sense, a similar expression is used in Ps. 38:6: “behold, you have given me days like spans,” i.e. very short days. But it is objected to such an interpretation that if the Savior had in mind the continuation of life, then it would be very convenient for Him to use, instead of “cubit” (πῆχυς), some other word denoting time, for example, an instant, an hour, a day, a year. Further, if He were talking about the continuation of life, then His thought would not only be not entirely clear, but also incorrect, because with the help of care and care, we, at least for the most part, can add to our life not only days, but and whole years. If we agree with this interpretation, then "the whole medical profession would seem to us a mistake and absurdity." This means that the word ἡλικία should be understood not as age, but as growth. But with such an interpretation, we encounter no less difficulties. A cubit is a measure of length, it can also be a measure of height, it equals approximately 46 cm. It is unlikely that the Savior wanted to say: which of you, taking care, can add at least one cubit to his height and thus become a giant or a giant? There is one more circumstance added to this. Luke (Luke 12:25-26) says in a parallel place under consideration: “And which of you, taking care, can add even one cubit to his height? So, if you cannot do the slightest thing; what do you care about the rest? An increase in height by one cubit is here considered the smallest matter. To resolve the question of which of the two interpretations given is correct, little can be borrowed from the philological analysis of both words (age - ἡλικία, and elbow - πῆχυς). The original meaning of the first is undoubtedly the continuation of life, age, and only in the later New Testament did it acquire a meaning and growth. In the New Testament it is used in both senses (Heb. 11:11; Luke 2:52, 19:3; John 9:21, 23; Eph. 4:13). Thus, the expression seems to be one of the difficult ones. To correctly interpret it, we must first notice that verse 27 certainly has a close relationship to the preceding verse, and not to the next. This connection in the present case is expressed by the particle δέ. According to Morison, the exegetes paid little attention to this particle. This is the connection of speech. Your Heavenly Father feeds the birds of the air. You are much better than them (μᾶλλον there is no need to translate the word "more"), therefore, you can fully hope that the Heavenly Father will feed you too, and, moreover, without special cares and care on your part. But if you give up hope in the Heavenly Father and you yourself put a lot of care about food, then it is completely useless, because you yourself, with your cares, cannot add even one cubit to a person’s growth with “your food”. The correctness of this interpretation can be confirmed by the fact that verse 26 speaks of bodily nutrition, which, of course, primarily promotes growth. Growth happens naturally. Some kind of enhanced nutrition cannot add even one cubit to the growth of an infant. Therefore, there is no need to assume that the Savior is speaking here of giants or giants. The addition of height per cubit is an insignificant amount in human growth. With this explanation, any contradiction with Luke is eliminated.

Matthew 6:28. And what do you care about clothes? Look at the lilies of the field, how they grow: neither toil nor spin;

If a person should not be overly concerned about food, then he is also overly concerned about clothing. Instead of "look" in some texts, "learn" or "learn" (καταμάθετε) is a verb that implies more attention than "look" (ἐμβλέψατε). Lilies of the field do not fly through the air, but grow on the ground, people can more easily observe and study their growth (now - αὐξάνουσιν). As for the field lilies themselves, some understand here the "imperial crown" (fritillaria imperialis, κρίνον βασιλικόν), growing wild in Palestine, others - amaryliis lutea, which with its golden-purple flowers covers the fields of the Levant, others - the so-called Guleian lily, which very large, has a magnificent crown and is inimitable in its beauty. It is found, though rare, it seems, on the northern slopes of Tabor and the hills of Nazareth. “Having spoken about the necessary food and showing that it is not necessary to take care of it, He goes on to what is even less necessary to take care of, because clothing is not as necessary as food” (St. John Chrysostom).

Matthew 6:29. but I tell you that even Solomon in all his glory was not dressed like any of them;

(For the glory of Solomon, see 2 Chr. 9ff.)

All human jewelry is imperfect compared to natural jewelry. Until now, man has not been able to surpass nature in the arrangement of various beauties. Ways to make jewelry completely natural have not yet been found.

Matthew 6:30. But if the grass of the field, which is today, and tomorrow will be thrown into the oven, God so clothes, how much more than you, you of little faith!

The grass of the field is distinguished by its beauty, it is dressed in a way that Solomon did not dress. But usually it is good only for being thrown into the furnace. You care about clothes. But you are incomparably superior to the lilies of the field, and therefore you can hope that God will clothe you even better than the lilies of the field.

"Little faith" - the word does not occur in Mark, but once in Luke (Luke 12:28). Matthew has 4 times (Mt. 6:30, 8:26, 14:31, 16:8). This word does not exist in pagan literature.

Matthew 6:31. So do not worry and do not say: what shall we eat? or what to drink? Or what to wear?

The meaning of the expressions is the same as in verse 25. But here the thought is stated already as a conclusion from the previous one. It is brilliantly proved by the given examples. The point is that all our cares and concerns should be imbued with the spirit of hope in the Heavenly Father.

Matthew 6:32. because the Gentiles are looking for all this, and because your Heavenly Father knows that you need all this.

The mention of pagans (τὰ ἔθνη) here seems somewhat strange from the first time. John Chrysostom explains this quite well, saying that the Savior mentioned the pagans here because they work exclusively for the present life, without thinking about the future and heavenly things. Chrysostom also attaches importance to the fact that the Savior did not say God here, but called Him Father. The pagans have not yet become filial to God, but the listeners of Christ, with the approach of the Kingdom of Heaven, have already become. Therefore, the Savior instills in them the highest hope - in the Heavenly Father, Who cannot but see His children if they are in difficult and extreme circumstances.

Matthew 6:33. Seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all this will be added to you.

Translated accurately and, however, not in accordance with the original. According to the Russian translation, it turns out that “His” refers to the Kingdom, i.e. look for the Kingdom of God and the truth of this Kingdom, while in the original, if the pronoun “His” referred to the Kingdom (βασιλεία), then instead of αὐτοῦ (masculine) there would be αὐτῆς. This means that the word "His" must refer to "your Father in Heaven" and the meaning of the expression is this: seek first the Kingdom and righteousness of your Father in Heaven. In the Russian translation, however, this is expressed by the fact that "Him" is printed with a capital letter. In order to avoid any ambiguity in Greek, in several codices τὴν βασιλείαν is added to τοα θεοα (in the Vulgate and Latin translation: regnum Dei, et justitiam ejus), and in some τοῦ θεοῦ also after δικαιοσύνν. The Vatican code shifts: seek first the truth and the Kingdom, which is probably caused by the consideration that the truth is a condition for entering the Kingdom (Matt. 5:20) and therefore must come first. The saying of Christ found in Origen, Clement and Eusebius: “Ask much and little will be added to you; ask the heavenly things and the earthly things will be added to you,” explains the meaning of this verse, but not quite. "Seek" here is replaced by "ask". People must first of all strive to ensure that the Kingdom and the truth of God come or appear on earth, in every possible way contribute to this with their lives, behavior and faith. This is in a positive sense, in a negative sense - to shy away from any untruth (lie, deceit, ostentation, etc.), wherever it exists. If such a desire were common, then everything else, which the pagans seek so diligently and take care of so much, will appear without special labors and worries. Experience really shows that prosperity among people does not appear when they concentrate all their attention on worldly interests and self-interest, but when they seek the truth. The well-being of people is never denied by Christ.

Matthew 6:34. So do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will take care of its own: enough for each day of its own care.

St. John Chrysostom explains these words as follows: "He did not say - do not worry, but do not worry about tomorrow." If this interpretation is taken separately and without connection with other interpretations, then some ambiguity results. Tomorrow should not be taken care of, but other, future days should be taken care of. One might think that the Savior is generally giving here instruction not to worry about the future, which is clear from the context. Therefore, tomorrow is spoken of in a general sense, and perhaps because it is usually the subject of our immediate and special concerns.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

CHAPTER 6

1 Be careful not to do your charity in front of people so that they can see you: otherwise you will not be rewarded from your Father in heaven.
2 Therefore, when you do almsgiving, do not blow your trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that the people may glorify them. I tell you truly, they already receive their reward.
3 But when you do charity, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing,
4 so that your charity may be in secret; and your Father, who sees in secret, will reward you openly.
5 And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites who love in synagogues and on street corners, stopping to pray so that they can appear before people. I tell you truly, they already receive their reward.
6 But when you pray, go into your closet, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in the secret place; and your Father, who sees in secret, will reward you openly.
7 But when you pray, do not talk too much like the Gentiles, for they think that in their verbosity they will be heard;
8 Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.
9 Pray thus: Our Father who art in heaven! hallowed be thy name;
10 Thy kingdom come; may Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven;
11 Give us this day our daily bread;
12 And forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors;
13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one. For yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.
14 For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you,
15 But if you do not forgive people their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive you your trespasses.
16 Also, when you fast, do not be despondent like the hypocrites, for they put on gloomy faces in order to appear to people who are fasting. I tell you truly, they already receive their reward.
17 But you, when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face,
18 to appear to those who fast, not before men, but before your Father who is in the secret; and your Father, who sees in secret, will reward you openly.
19 Lay not up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal,
20 but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in and steal,
21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
22 The lamp for the body is the eye. So if your eye is clear, then your whole body will be bright;
23 But if your eye is evil, your whole body will be dark. So if the light that is in you is darkness, then what is the darkness?
24 No one can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one and love the other; or he will be zealous for one, and neglect the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.
25 Therefore I say to you, worry not for your soul what you should eat or drink, nor for your body what you should wear. Is not the soul more than food, and the body more than clothes?
26 Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow, nor reap, nor gather into barns; and your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you much better than them?
27 And which of you, by taking care, can increase his stature although one cubit?
28 And why are you concerned about clothing? Look at the lilies of the field, how they grow: neither toil nor spin;
29 but I tell you that even Solomon in all his glory did not dress like one of them;
30 But if the grass of the field, which is today, and tomorrow will be thrown into the oven, God so clothes, how much more than you, you of little faith!
31 So worry not, and say, What shall we eat? or what to drink? Or what to wear?
32 because all these things are sought by the Gentiles, and because your Father in heaven knows that you have need of all this.

1 Doctrine of almsgiving; 5 about prayer; 9 "Our Father..."; 16 about fasting; 19 about treasure; 22 eye - a lamp; 24 serving two masters; 25 about worries.

1 Be careful not to do your charity in front of people so that they can see you: otherwise you will not be rewarded from your Father in Heaven..

2 Therefore, when you do almsgiving, do not blow your trumpets before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that people may glorify them. Truly I say to you, they already receive their reward.

3 But with you, when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing.,

4 so that your charity may be in secret; and your Father, who sees in secret, will reward you openly.

5 And when you pray, don't be like the hypocrites who love in synagogues and on street corners, stopping to pray in order to appear before people. Truly I say to you that they already receive their reward..

6 But you, when you pray, go into your closet, and having shut your door, pray to your Father who is in the secret place; and your Father, who sees in secret, will reward you openly.

7 And when praying, do not say too much, like the pagans, for they think that in their verbosity they will be heard;

8 do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

9 Pray like this: “Our Father who art in heaven! hallowed be thy name;

10 let your kingdom come; may Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven;

11 give us our daily bread for this day;

12 and forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors;

13 and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one. For yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen".

14 For if you forgive people their trespasses, your Heavenly Father will also forgive you.,

15 but if you do not forgive people their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive you your trespasses.

16 Also, when you fast, do not be despondent like the hypocrites, for they take on gloomy faces in order to appear to people who are fasting. Truly I say to you that they already receive their reward..

17 And you, when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face,

18 to appear fasting not before men, but before your Father who is in the secret; and your Father, who sees in secret, will reward you openly.

19 Lay not up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal,

20 but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in and steal,

21 for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

22 The lamp for the body is the eye. So if your eye is clear, then your whole body will be bright;

23 but if thy eye be evil, thy whole body shall be dark. So if the light that is in you is darkness, then what is the darkness?

24 No one can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one and love the other; or he will be zealous for one, and neglect the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.

25 Therefore I say to you: do not worry about your soul what you will eat and what you will drink, nor about your body what you will wear. Is not the soul more than food, and the body more than clothes?

26 Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow, nor reap, nor gather into barns; and your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you much better than them?

27 And which of you, by caring, can add to his growth although one cubit?

28 And what do you care about clothes? Look at the lilies of the field, how they grow: neither toil nor spin;

29 but I tell you that even Solomon in all his glory did not dress like one of them;

30 But if the grass of the field, which is today, and tomorrow will be thrown into the oven, God so clothes, how much more than you, you of little faith!

31 So don't worry and don't say, "what shall we eat"? or "what to drink"? or “what to wear?”

32 because the Gentiles are looking for all this, and because your Heavenly Father knows that you need all this.

33 Seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all this will be added to you..

34 So don't worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow myself will take care of his own: enough for everyone day of care.

Found a mistake in the text? Select it and press: Ctrl + Enter

Gospel of Matthew, chapter 6