Bible chapter 6 from Matthew. Interpretation of the Gospel of Matthew (Blessed Theophylact of Bulgaria)

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

CHAPTER 6

1 Be careful that you do not do your alms in front of people so that they will see you: otherwise you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.
2 So, when you give alms, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that people may praise them. Truly I tell you, they are already receiving their reward.
3 But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing,
4 that your alms 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 to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the streets, so that they may be seen by people. Truly I tell you that they are already receiving their reward.
6 But you, when you pray, go into your room and, having shut your door, pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father, who sees in secret, will reward you openly.
7 And when you pray, do not talk too much, like the pagans, for they think that for their many words they will be heard;
8 Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask Him.
9 Pray this way: Our Father who art in heaven! hallowed be your name;
10 Thy kingdom come; 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 forgive our debtors;
13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. 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 your trespasses.
16 Also, when you fast, do not be sad, like the hypocrites, for they put on gloomy faces in order to appear to people as fasting. Truly I tell you that they are already receiving their reward.
17 And you, when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face,
18 That you may appear to those who fast, not before men, but before your Father who is in secret; and your Father, who sees in secret, will reward you openly.
19 Do not lay 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 will your heart be also.
22 The lamp of the body is the eye. So, if your eye is clean, 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 neglectful of the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.
25 Therefore I say to you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, nor about your body, what you will wear. Is not the life more than food, and the body than clothing?
26 Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap, nor gather into barns; and your Father in heaven feeds them. Aren't you much better than them?
27 And which of you, by being anxious, can add to his stature? Although one elbow?
28 And why are you concerned about clothing? Look at the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin;
29 But I tell you that Solomon in all his glory was not dressed like any of these;
30 But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today exists and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, how much more than you, O you of little faith!
31 So do not be anxious and say, “What shall we eat?” or what to drink? or what to wear?
32 Because the Gentiles seek all these things, and because your Father in heaven knows that you need all these things.

Sermon on the Mount 1–4. About alms. – 5–13. About prayer. – 14–15. About forgiveness of sins of neighbors. – 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. About hope in God and the search for the Kingdom of God.

Matthew 6:1. Be careful not to do your alms in front of people so that they will see you: otherwise you will have no reward from your Heavenly Father.

The word “look” conveys the Greek προσέχετε. In 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 danger, the word πρόσεχε meant: beware, watch yourself carefully. This is also the main meaning of the corresponding Greek Hebrew word “shamar”, which among the Seventy is transmitted through προσέχειν. Therefore, it is more accurate to translate this Greek word in this verse as: beware, beware lest (μή). Further δέ is issued in the Vatican and other manuscripts, but is available in the Sinaiticus and others. Some commentators argue that the presence of this particle in the text is “too little proven.” Chrysostom lowers it. Others say that δέ disappeared only over time and, moreover, due to a very simple reason, which consists, if not in cacophony, then, in any case, in some inconvenience in pronouncing the adjacent Greek “the” and “de” (προσέχετε δέ). Some place δέ in parentheses, but most of the newest and best interpreters defend the presence of this particle either partially or completely. Thus, Alford, although he himself places δέ in parentheses, says that the omission of this particle was 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 (Matthew 5) spoke about what true “righteousness” consists of (Matthew 5:6, 10, 20), determined by the true and correct interpretation of the spirit and meaning of the Old Testament law, and about what 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 tells the disciples, achieve the ideal that I told you about earlier, 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 the Russian and Slavic translations. This replacement has very solid foundations. First of all, we note that the German and English translations (recepta) agree with the Russian and Slavic (Almosen, alms). But the Vulgate uses a completely different expression - justitiam vestram, corresponding to the Greek διακιοσύνην, meaning “righteousness”.

The question of which word should be used here, “righteousness” or “alms” (διακιοσύνη or ἐλεημοσύνη), has been the subject of painstaking research. Authoritative editors and interpreters of the New Testament tend to favor "righteousness." This reading is approved almost unanimously by all eminent publishers and critics. This word is found in the Vatican Codex, 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 missed the first “same” or “but” in the first verse, the scribes, as stated above, did not pay attention to the connection of the 6th chapter with the previous one and thought that in the 6th chapter a speech about a new subject began. Which one? This was shown to them by verse 2, which talks about “alms.” Since the first verse (with the omission of δέ) serves as an introduction to the second, they thought that the first should also talk about alms, and replaced the word “righteousness” with it. This replacement could have happened all the more easily and conveniently because there were some 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, then he will find that in the Slavic text mercy, alms, mercy, pardon are found everywhere, and in the Russian - righteousness, truth, justice, and only in one place the Russian text almost agrees with the Slavic, namely, in Ps. 23 (alms - mercy). Thus, the same texts in Slavic and Russian translations sometimes have completely different meanings. So, for example, in Dan. 4 we read in the Slavic text: “atone for your sins with alms,” and in Russian: “atone for your sins with righteousness.” This difference arose from the fact that our Slavic translation was made from the translation of the Seventy, where in the above cases (which we have not all indicated for the sake of brevity) the word ἐλεημοσύνη is used - alms, and the Russian - from Hebrew, where the word “tzedakah” is found - righteousness. The question, therefore, arises as to why the Seventy found it possible to translate the Hebrew “tzedakah” through ἐλεημοσύνη – “alms”, and whether “tzedakah” actually means “righteousness”, in some, according to at least, cases also served to express the concept of alms. 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 specific form - mercy, mercy, almsgiving. Hence, very early, even before Christ, the word “tzedakah” began to mean alms, which, as said, probably facilitated the replacement of “righteousness” with alms in the verse of the Gospel of Matthew in question (see, for example, Gesenius W. Hebräisches und aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das neue Testament. 17. Auflage, Berlin-Göttingen-Heidelberg, 1962. S.675, column left. – Note edit.).

However, such a 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 should not perform their righteousness before people, for show, so that people would glorify them. From further instructions it is clear that alms should not be given for show, 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 “alms,” then one might think that only it is done for show and that Christ denounces only ostentatious alms, because verse 1 will then be placed in close relation only to verses 2–4. From what has been said it follows that, taking “righteousness” in verse 1, we must consider the word to designate “tribal” or general concept which embraces almsgiving, prayer and fasting. In other words, according to the thought of Christ, almsgiving, prayer and fasting serve as an expression of human righteousness. A person distinguished by these virtues can be considered righteous if his righteousness is based on love for God and his neighbors. It is necessary that all the virtues that make up righteousness should in no case be used for display. Greek word, used for the latter concept (θεαθῆναι), means a close, prolonged, intense and attentive examination of something, as, for example, is done in the theater, indicates contemplation, in contrast to βλέπειν, which means simply to see, watch, have to do with it ability. Hence the Savior’s instruction is clear: He teaches His disciples so that their “righteousness” should not be the subject of careful observation, close scrutiny by other people. Instead of “so that they may see you” in Greek “to be visible” (or “to be visible to them, αὐτοῖς, i.e. ἀνθρώποις, people”, cf. Matt. 23:5). Thus, the first half of this verse would be better translated as follows: but beware (be careful not to do) to perform your righteousness before people in order for it to be visible to them (catch their eyes, subject to their close, prolonged 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... if you don’t beware, you will not be rewarded, and so on. Those. here, for the sake of brevity, an omission has been made in the Gospel (cf. Matt. 9:17; 2 Cor. 11:16). Christ does not determine what the reward should be. It is unknown whether He means an earthly or heavenly reward, or both. Nothing prevents us from understanding both earthly and heavenly rewards here. But instead of the Russian “you will not have”, it should be translated simply “you do not have” (οὐκ ἔχετε), so the whole expression is this: if you are not careful, then you will not have a reward from your Heavenly Father.

Matthew 6:2. So, when you give alms, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that people may glorify them. Truly I tell you, they are already receiving 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 pronouns before verbs and the placement of verbs (ποιοῦσιν - ἀπέχουσιν) in the same voices, tenses and moods.

The Jews, more than all other peoples, were distinguished by their charity. According to Tolyuk, the famous teacher Pestalozzi used to say that the Mosaic religion encourages charity even more than the Christian religion. Julian held up the Jews to pagans and Christians as an example of charity. Reading the long and tedious Talmudic treatise on charity, “On Leftovers for the Poor at the Harvest” (translation by Pereferkovich, vol. I), we come across many petty regulations aimed at ensuring that the poor collect leftovers after the harvest. They even said that “alms and free services are equivalent to all the commandments of the Torah.” Questions arose about whether not giving alms and worshiping idols are not the same thing, and how to prove that alms and free 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 in the time of Christ, as evidenced by Christ himself’s mention of the poor and their obvious presence, especially in Jerusalem. There is no doubt that the “hypocrites” whom Christ denounces here also took part in this charity and distribution of alms to the poor. But the question of whether they “sounded a trumpet before themselves” has caused many difficulties for both ancient and modern exegetes.

Chrysostom understood the expression: “do not blow a trumpet before you” 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 ostentation, ridiculing (κωμωδῶν) it and condemning them... The Savior demands not only that we give alms, but also that so that we serve it the way it should be served.” Theophylact expresses himself in a similar way: “The hypocrites did not have trumpets, but the Lord mocks (διαγελᾷ.) their thoughts, because they wanted to trumpet their alms. Hypocrites are those who appear to be different in appearance than they really are.” It is not at all surprising that many of the newest interpreters, in their comments about these “pipes,” 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 to date, not a single case has been found among Jewish customs in which “hypocrites”, when distributing alms, literally “blowed a trumpet” before themselves.

The English scientist Lightfoot spent a lot of time and effort searching for this or a similar case, but “although he searched a lot and seriously, he did not find even the slightest mention of a trumpet during the distribution of alms.” Regarding Lightfoot's remark, another English commentator, Morison, says that Lightfoot did not need to “search so diligently, because it is well known that, at least in synagogues, when private individuals wanted to give alms, trumpets literally could not be used " This is not enough. They said that if the “hypocrites” blew the trumpets, then such “boast” of them (καύχημα) before people would be incomprehensible, and that if they wanted, they would be able to hide their bad motives better. There are even known 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 behind his back, and the poor could take from there what they could, unnoticed.

All this, of course, does not serve as an objection to the Gospel text, and is usually not presented as an objection. However, the specificity and vividness of the expression “do not blow a trumpet before you” and its obvious connection with subsequent denunciations of hypocrites, confirmed in fact in the information that has reached us about their customs (verses 5 and 16), forced us to look for some real, factual confirmation for it. It was found that similar customs actually existed among the pagans, among whom the servants of Isis and Cybele, begging for alms, beat tambourines. According to the descriptions of travelers, Persian and Indian monks did the same. Thus, among the pagans, the noise was made by the poor themselves, begging for alms. If we apply these facts to the case under consideration, then the expression “do not blow a trumpet” will need to be interpreted in the sense of the hypocrites not allowing the poor to make noise when demanding alms for themselves. But the author who pointed out these facts, the German scientist Iken, 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 that the words “do not blow” are borrowed from the thirteen trumpet-shaped boxes or cups placed in the temple for collecting donations (γαζοφυλάκια, or in Hebrew “shoferot”). Objecting to this opinion, Tolyuk says that the money dropped 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 “shoferot”, but “kufa”, and nothing is known about their form. But if we only meet in the Gospel of Matthew with an indication that trumpets were used in the work of charity, then this does not at all exclude the possibility that this actually happened. Trumpets were used by priests in the temple and synagogues; there were “pipe-shaped” boxes, and therefore the expression “do not blow a trumpet,” having become metaphorical, could have some basis in reality as a metaphor. In the rabbinical treatises of Rosh Hashanah and Taanit there are many regulations about “blowing trumpets”, so if the expression of Christ could not be understood in the sense: do not blow a trumpet before you when giving alms, then it was quite possible to understand it like this: when you give alms, do not blow a trumpet before you. themselves, as hypocrites do on various other occasions. The meaning of the expression - to attract public attention to one's charity - is completely clear and does not change at all, whether we consider the expression to correspond to reality or only metaphorical. And how can one demand that the Talmud reflect, despite the pettiness of the Jews, all the Jewish customs of that time with all their numerous interweavings?

By synagogues in this verse we should not understand “meetings,” but rather synagogues. To boasting “in the synagogues” is added boasting “in the streets.” The purpose of hypocritical almsgiving is clearly indicated: “so that they” (hypocrites) “people” can glorify. 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 characteristic not only of Jewish hypocrites, but also of hypocrites in general of all times and peoples. The usual goal of such charity is to gain trust from the powerful and rich and, for a penny given to the poor, to receive rubles from them. One might even say that there are always few true, completely unhypocritical philanthropists. But even if no selfish goals could be achieved with the help of charity, then “fame”, “rumor”, “fame” (the meaning of the word δόξα) constitute in themselves a sufficient goal of hypocritical charity.

The expression: “they receive their reward” is quite clear. Hypocrites seek reward not from God, but first of all from people, receive it and should only be content with it. While exposing the evil motives of hypocrites, the Savior at the same time points to the futility of “human” rewards. For life according to God, for future life they don't matter. Only that 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 this showed His true penetration into the recesses of the human heart.

Matthew 6:3. But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing,

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

To explain these verses, it must be remembered that the Savior makes no precepts or instructions concerning the actual 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 others, or a word, troubles, etc., is the same benefit for them as material alms in the form of kopecks, rubles and life supplies. The Savior does not point out methods of charity, but what makes it true and pleasing to God. Charity should be a secret, and a deep secret.

“But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing.” But even the most open, widespread charity does not contradict the teachings of Christ, if it is all imbued with the spirit of secret charity, if obvious and visible to people the benefactor has completely mastered or is trying to learn the methods, conditions, motives and even habits of the secret benefactor. In other words, the motivation for charity should be an internal, 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 benefactor if his case comes out. But if he takes care of this, then his business loses all value. Overt charity has no value without the intention of keeping it secret. This will be simpler and clearer from the further interpretation of prayer. Now let’s say that neither Christ himself nor His apostles prevented obvious charity. There are no known cases in the life of Christ when He Himself provided any financial assistance to the poor, although the disciples who followed the Savior had a money 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 give it to the poor?” The Savior even apparently made an objection to this usual charity, approved of Mary’s act 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 alien to all charity. His charity is characterized by the same words that were spoken by the Apostle Peter when he healed a man lame from birth: “I have no silver and gold; and whatever I have I give to you” (Acts 3:1–7). The charity of the Apostle Paul is well known; he himself collected donations for the poor of Jerusalem, and this work of his was completely open. However, it is quite clear that such charity, although completely obvious and open, was sharply different in spirit from the alms of the hypocrites and was not aimed at glorifying people.

Matthew 6:5. And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, who love to stop and pray in the synagogues and on street corners in order to appear before people. Truly I tell you that they are already receiving their reward.

By best readings– plural, – “when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray in synagogues and on street corners (ἑστῶτες)” and so on. In the Vulgate the plural (“pray”) is consistent with the Vatican Codex, Origen, Chrysostom, Jerome and others. In verse 2 - the only thing - “when you give alms”; in the future, the 6th - “you” and so on. This seemed incongruous to the scribes, and in many manuscripts they replaced plural the only one. But if “pray” and so on are correct, then solving the question of why the Savior here changed the previous and future singular to plural is extremely difficult, if not impossible. The different interpretations of “when you pray, do not be” show that this difficulty was felt already in ancient times. We can only say that speech is equally natural in both cases. It may also be that the plural is used for a stronger contrast to the subsequent 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 style of speech is almost the same in verses 2 and 5. But μή (in the expression “do not blow”) refers generally to the future and the foreseeable and is replaced in verse 5 by οὐκ (do not be). In both the first and second cases it is found “in the synagogues,” but the expression of verse 2 “in the streets” (ἐν ταῖς ῥύμαις) in verse 5 is replaced by “on the street corners” (ἐν ταῖς γωνίαις τῶν πλατε ιῶν). The difference is that ῥύμη means a narrow street, and πλατεῖα means a wide street. The word “glorified” (δοξασθῶσιν – were glorified) is replaced by the word “appear” (φανῶσιν). The rest of verse 5 is a literal repetition of the end of verse 2. If it can only be argued that verse 2 has nothing that corresponded to the Jewish reality of that time, but consists only of metaphorical expressions, then regarding verse 5 we can say that it contains a real (without metaphors) characteristic of “hypocrites”, known from other sources. Here you need to first of all know that both the Jews and subsequently the Mohammedans had certain hours of prayer - the 3rd, 6th and 9th days, according to our account, the 9th, 12th and 3rd. “And now the Mohammedan and the conscientious Jew, as soon as the certain hour strikes, perform their prayer, wherever they are” (Tolyuk). The Talmudic treatise Berakhot contains many instructions, 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. “One day r. Ishmael and R. Elazar, the son of Azariah, stopped in one place, and r. Ishmael lay, and R. Elazar stood. When it was time for the evening shema (prayer), R. Ishmael stood up, and R. Elazar lay down" (Talmud, translation by 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 hypocrites “on street corners” become completely understandable.

“Do not be” is indicative (ἔσεσθε) in Greek, not imperative. We have already encountered this use (ἔστε not once 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 (Tsan). Standing (ἑστῶτες) is the usual position during prayer. There is no need to assume that the hypocrites prayed while standing precisely because of their hypocrisy and love of ostentation and that Christ condemns them precisely for this. This contains a simple characteristic on which there is no logical stress. The purpose of prayers on street corners was to “appear” (φανῶσιν) to be praying. A vice characteristic of all kinds of hypocrites and hypocrites, who often pretend that they pray to God, but in reality they pray to people, and especially strong of the world this. The meaning of the last two phrases: “Truly I tell you”... “their reward” is the same as in verse 2: they receive in full - this is the meaning of the word ἀπέχουσιν. It should be noted that after the words “Truly I tell you” (as in verse 2), in some codes there is “what” (ὅτι): “what they receive” and so on. The addition “that,” although correct, may be considered unnecessary and is not justified by the best manuscripts.

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

As in the teaching on almsgiving, so here too it is not the methods of prayer that are pointed out, but its spirit. To understand this, we must imagine a man shutting himself up in his room and turning to the Heavenly Father in prayer. Nobody forces him to this prayer, none of the people see him praying. He can pray with words and without saying them. None of the people hears these words. Prayer is the act of free, spontaneous and secret communication between a person and God. It comes from the heart of a person.

Already in ancient times, the question was raised: if Christ commanded to pray in secret, then did He not thereby prohibit public and church prayer? This question was almost always answered in the negative. Chrysostom asks: “So what? In church, says the Savior, one should not pray? - and answers: “It should and really should, but only depending on the intention. God always looks at the purpose of works. If you enter the upper room and close the doors behind you, and do it for show, then the closed doors will not bring you any benefit... So, even if you close the doors, He wants you, before closing them, to expel them from himself with vanity and shut 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 that it contradicts the direct meaning of the Savior’s words. The newest exegetes explain this somewhat differently and quite wittily. “If,” says Tsang, “almsgiving is, by its very nature, an open activity relating to fellow human beings 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 also then protected from any admixture of extraneous influences and relationships. The Savior did not consider it necessary to weaken the energy 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. Matthew 11:25, 14:19, 26 et seq.).” In other words, secret prayer and 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 arrangement 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 quotes.

The transition from the “you” of verse 5 to the “you” can again be explained by the desire to strengthen the contrast between true prayer and the prayer of hypocrites.

“Room” (ταμεῖον) - here we mean any room that is locked or locked. The original meaning of this word (more correctly ταμιεῖον) was a pantry for provisions, a storehouse (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 say 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 to drive away a neighbor, but with all decency, contrition of heart and unfeigned tears.”

Matthew 6:7. And when you pray, do not say too much, like the pagans, for they think that in their many words they will be heard;

Again there is a clear transition to speech using “you”. The example is now taken not from Jewish, but from pagan life. The entire 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 say too much”; Vulgatä: nolite multum loqui - do not say 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 “don’t talk too much,” then it means ours (as well as Catholic and others) church services according to the teachings of Christ, they are unnecessary due to their verbosity. If we translate “do not repeat,” then this will be a denunciation of repeated use of the same words during prayer; if “do not say unnecessary things,” then the meaning of Christ’s instruction will remain uncertain, because it is not known what exactly we should understand here by “superfluous things.”

It is not at all surprising that this word has long occupied exegetes, especially since it is extremely difficult, because in Greek literature it appears independently 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, p. 91, 23). One would hope that with the help of this latter it would be possible to shed 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, in Simplicius it is not βατταλογεῖν, as in the Gospel (according to the best readings), but βαττολογεῖν, but this is not of particular importance. Secondly, Simplicius given word, undoubtedly means “to chat,” “to chatter,” and therefore has an indefinite meaning. There is a whole literature about the word in question in the West. There was so much talk about this that the exegetical “wattalology” even aroused ridicule. “Learned interpreters,” said one writer, “are subject to responsibility for the fact that they say so much about this word Wattlogized».

The result of numerous studies is that the word is still considered “mysterious”. We tried to produce it from own nameΒάττος. Since the legend indicates three different Watts, they tried to find from which of them the word in question comes. Herodotus’s “History” (IV, 153 et seq.) tells in detail about one of them who stuttered, and from him the word “wattalology” was derived. This opinion could be supported by the fact that Demosthenes was called in mockery βάτταλος - stutterer. Thus, the Gospel word βατταλογήσητε could be translated “do not stutter,” like the pagans, if only the meaning of the speech and the context allowed this. The assumption that the Savior here denounced paganism and any kind of “stuttering” is completely impossible and is now completely abandoned.

Of the proposed productions, the best seems to be that this is the so-called vox hybrida, a cross between different words , in this case Hebrew and Greek. The Greek that is included in this compound word is λογέω, the same as λέγω, meaning “to speak.” But regarding which Hebrew word the first part of the expression is derived from, the opinions of exegetes differ. Some derive from the Hebrew “bat” - chatter, talk meaninglessly; others - from “batal” - to be idle, to be inactive, or from “betel” - not to act, to 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,” they used the rather rare word βατταρίζειν, which means “to chat,” and thus it turned out βατταλογέω Matt. 6:7. Of these two productions, preference should be given to the first on the grounds that “l” is contained in the Greek λογέω (λέγω), and therefore for production there is no need to take this letter into account. If we derive from “bata” and λογέω, then the explanation of the word will be similar to that given by Chrysostom, considering βαττολογία - φλυαρία; this latter means “idle chatter,” “trifles,” “nonsense.” This is how the word is rendered in the German translation of Luther: soltt ihr nicht viel flappern - you should 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” itself already contains the concept of idle talk, and it is not clear why the Greek λογέω was added, which also means “to catch,” so if literally translate the expression into Russian, then it would take the following form: “to talk idle talk - to catch.” But is it true that, as Tsang claims, λογέω means precisely “to speak”? This verb in Greek appears only in complex words and means, like λέγω, to always speak meaningfully, according to 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 rather than speaking. This gives us a clearer meaning of the verb in Matthew. 6- “do not think idlely,” or, better, “do not think idlely, like the pagans.” Confirmation of this interpretation can be found in the fact that, according to Tolyuk, among 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 the 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 an example of the absence of vattology, then we can see that everything unworthy, meaningless, trivial and worthy of reproach or contempt was eliminated in it. Thus, we come to the conclusion that the word βαττολογεῖν condemns, first of all, idle thought during prayer, idle talking that depends on it, and, among other things, verbosity (πολυλογία) - this word is further used by the Savior Himself, and this, apparently, has meaning for Wattology explanations.

It was said above that Christ now warns against imitation not of hypocrites, but of pagans. Considering this warning from the factual side, we find examples proving that in addressing their gods the pagans were distinguished by both their lack of thought and their prolixity. Such examples can be found in the classics, but this is confirmed twice in the Bible. The priests of Baal “called on his name” “from morning to 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-verbal prayer of the pagans. Much closer comes here to the general remark that verbosity was generally characteristic of the pagans and they even had different names - διπλασιολογία (repetition of words), κυκλοπορεία (detour), tautology and polyphony in the proper sense. The plurality of gods encouraged 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,). To interpret this verse of the Gospel of Matthew, it would be completely sufficient for us if at least one clear case was found in paganism confirming 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 ones, then we come to the conclusion that the Savior accurately depicts the historical reality contemporary to Him. Protests against long and meaningless prayers are also found in the Bible (see Isa. 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. “They”, i.e. to the pagans. Jerome points out that as a result of this teaching of the Savior, a heresy and a perverted dogma of some philosophers arose, who said: if God knows what we would pray for, if before our requests He knows our needs, then in vain we will speak to Him, who knows. To this heresy, both Jerome and other church writers respond 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, another thing to ask someone who knows.” These words may be considered sufficient to explain this verse. One can only add, together with Chrysostom and others, that Christ does not interfere with people’s persistent and intense requests to God, as indicated by Christ’s parables about the poor widow (Luke 18:1–7) and about the persistent friend (Luke 11:5 -13).

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

“Pray like this” - literally: “So, you pray like this.” In Russian, the dissonant “so” (οὖν) combined with “so” (οὕτως) was obvious reason, according to which “so” was changed to “the same”. The Greek particle is expressed in the Vulgate by the word “therefore” (si ergo vos orabitis), and in German and English by “therefore” (darum, therefore). The general idea of ​​the original is expressed in these translations not clearly and correctly. This depends not only on the difficulty, but also on the impossibility of conveying here exactly the Greek speech into other languages. The thought is that “since in your prayers you should not be like the praying pagans and since your prayers should have a different character compared to their prayers, then pray like this” (Meyer, ). But this is only some 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 take it in the meaning of “exactly this way and not otherwise,” then it will be clear that all our church and other prayers, with the exception of “Our Father,” are unnecessary and disagree with the teachings of the Savior. But if the Savior had commanded to say only this prayer (ταύτην τὴν εὐχήν) or only what He said (taata), then one would expect complete accuracy in the expression, and it would, moreover, be 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 even in the latter it is noticeable in the fourth petition (Luke 11:3). If we translate οὕτως - thus, in this way, 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’s thought, should only serve as a model for other prayers , but do not exclude them. But in this last case we will give a meaning to the word ούτως that it does not actually 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 not to be understood in a strict sense, then it would be said: “pray as if like this” (ούτως πως - Tolyuk,). The accuracy and definiteness of the words of the 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, we cannot completely 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 draw further conclusions and consequences from His words. So here too, simply the initial or initial prayer is stated, the prayer of all prayers, the most excellent prayer. Its study is, first of all, necessary for every Christian, whether it be an adult or a child, because in its childlike simplicity it is understandable to a child and can serve as a subject of thoughtful reasoning for an adult. This is the babble of a child 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, content and depth. It 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, saying this prayer itself (“thy will be done” and “lead us not into temptation”), expressing this only in other words. Likewise, 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 Luke's message, 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 accurately determine the 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, as a whole or in individual expressions, borrowed from Holy Scripture and other sources? Opinions are again divided. Some say that “the whole thing is skillfully composed of Jewish 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, it is pointed out, however, that attempts to find parallels for the Lord's Prayer from biblical or rabbinic sources have hitherto been unsuccessful. This view currently prevails in New Testament exegesis. Distant parallels, they say, if they can be found, are only to the first three petitions. The similarity of the Lord's Prayer indicated by Bengel and others with some sayings in the First Epistle of the Apostle Peter (1 Pet. 1:15-16, 2:9, 15, 3:7, etc.) should be considered only very distant and, perhaps, only accidental , although the parallels found here have some significance for interpretation. In church literature, the most ancient mention of the Lord’s Prayer is found in the “Teaching of the 12 Apostles” (“Didache”, Chapter 8), where it is given entirely according to Matthew with a slight difference (ἀφίεμεν – ἀφήκαμεν), with the addition of “doxology” and the words: “ So pray three times a day.”

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

The prayer begins with an invocation, where God is called “Father.” This name appears, although rarely, in the Old Testament. Not to mention the fact that in the Old Testament people are sometimes called “sons of God,” there are also direct names of God as the Father (Deut. 32:6; Wis. 14:3; Isa. 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 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 defining the character of God. God's attitude towards Israel was paternal, but it was not clear that it was such in its very essence and that all people were subject to God's paternal love and care. The legal idea of ​​God still prevailed. Power and transcendence were the outstanding attributes of God. Recognition of this was correct and important, but it was subject to one-sided development, and such development took isolated view in later Judaism. The legalism and ritualism of the later Jewish period arose to a large extent from the inability of the people to complement the truth about the royal Power of God with the truth about His fatherly love. Legal submission, expressed in rites in which they thought to express respect for the transcendental majesty of God, more than filial respect and moral obedience, was the dominant note of Pharisaic piety. But Jesus Christ spoke about God primarily as a father. The expression “Our Father” is the only one where Christ says “our” instead of “yours”; usually “My Father” and “your Father.” It is easy to understand that in calling the Savior does not put Himself in a relationship with God that is the same as other people, because prayer was given to others. The words “he who is in heaven” do not express the thoughts: “the most exalted and omnipresent Father,” or “the highest, omnipotent, most good and all-blessed,” etc. This refers to the usual idea that people have of God as a Being who has a special presence in heaven. If “he who is in heaven” had not been added, the prayer could almost apply to any earthly father. The addition of these words shows that it refers to God. If the invocation said: “Our God,” then there would be no need to add “who is in heaven,” because this would already be clear. 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, like a Father towards His children. The remarks of the exegetes that the Savior wanted here to designate not only patronymic or fatherly 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 clever reasoning and interpretation of these words, it seems easiest to understand the meaning of the petition from the opposite. When is the name of God not sanctified among people? When they don’t know God, they teach about Him incorrectly, they don’t honor Him with their lives, and so on. The relationship of people to God in all petitions is presented under the images of earthly relationships. It is quite understandable to us when children do not honor their earthly father. The same can be said about honoring the name of God. God is holy in Himself. But we contradict this holiness when we treat the name of God with disrespect. The point, therefore, is not in God, but in ourselves. As for the very expression “hallowed be Thy name,” and not the very essence or any of the properties of God, then the essence of God and properties are not spoken of not because it is holy in itself, but because the very essence of God is for us incomprehensible and that the name of God is a designation in a sense accessible to everyone ordinary people, the most divine Being. The simpletons speak not about the being of God, but about His name; they think about the name, and with the help of the name they distinguish God from all other beings. According to Tolyuk, the word “sanctify” corresponds to “glorify” and “glorify” (εύλογεῖν). For Origen - ὑψοῦν, to exalt, magnify and glorify. Theophylact says: “Make us saints, just as You are glorified through us. As blasphemies are uttered by me, so may God be sanctified by me, i.e. let him be glorified as a Saint.”

Matthew 6:10. Thy kingdom come; 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, placing 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. There is a lot of reasoning among exegetes about the words: “Thy kingdom come.” What Kingdom? Some attribute 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 for the Last Judgment to happen sooner and for the Kingdom of God to come in the “resurrection of the righteous,” with the destruction of evil people and all evil in general. Others dispute this opinion and argue that the second and third petitions have a close connection with each other - the will of God is fulfilled when the Kingdom of God comes, and, conversely, the advent of the Kingdom of God is a necessary condition for the fulfillment of the will of God. But to the third petition was added: “as in heaven and on earth.” Consequently, it speaks of the earthly kingdom, as opposed to the heavenly one. Obviously, heavenly relations serve here simply as a model for earthly relations and, moreover, simultaneous ones. That's 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 moral life. The moment when a person realized himself as a moral being was in itself the advent 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 failures and obstacles from evil. The Kingdom of God is the dominion of God when the laws given by Him receive more and more power, meaning and respect among people. This ideal is feasible in life here, and Christ taught us to pray for its realization. Its implementation is in connection with the prayer that the name of God may be sanctified. “A goal is set before your eyes that can be achieved” (Tsang, ).

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

Literally: “give us our daily bread today” (in the Slavic Bible – “today”; in the Vulgate – hodie). The word “bread” is completely similar to what is used in our Russian expressions: “earn your bread by labor”, “work for a piece of bread”, etc., i.e. here bread should be understood as a general condition for life, food, a certain well-being, etc. In the Holy Scriptures, 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 all 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 is, let’s say, a trifle, but in the Gospel, even the little things are important. At first glance, it seems not entirely clear why we need to ask God for bread when this bread is “ours,” i.e. already belongs to us. The word “our” seems to be superfluous; one could simply say: “give us this day our daily bread.” An explanation will be given below.

“Essential” (ἐπιούσιος) is explained differently and is one of the most difficult. The word is found only here and also in the Gospel of Luke (Luke 11:3). It has not yet been found anywhere in the Old Testament and classical Greek literature. Explaining it “was torture for theologians and grammarians” (carnificina theologorum et grammaticorum). One writer says that “wanting to achieve something precise here is like hammering a nail in with a sponge” (σπόγγῳ πάτταλον κρούειν). They tried to avoid difficulties by pointing out that there was a copyist's mistake, that in the original there was originally τόν ἄρτον ἐπὶ οὐσίαν - bread for our existence. The scribe mistakenly doubled τον in the word ἄρτον and, in accordance with this, changed επιουσιαν into επιουσιον. This is how the Gospel expression was formed: τοναρτοντονεπιουσιον. To this, without going into details, we will say that the word ἡμῶν (τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον) completely prevents such an interpretation, in addition, in Lk. 11 undoubtedly stands ἐπιούσιον - as in Matthew. Therefore, the interpretation in question is now completely abandoned. Of the existing and accepted interpretations by the latest scientists, three can be noted.

1. The word “urgent” is derived from the Greek preposition ἐπί (to) and οὐσία from εἶναι (to be). This interpretation has the authority of ancient church writers, and precisely those who wrote in Greek. Among them are John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa, Basil the Great, Theophylact, Euthymius Zigavin and others. If the word is understood this way, then it will mean: “give us today the bread necessary for our existence, necessary for us.” This interpretation is obviously accepted in our Slavic and Russian Bibles. It is objected to that if the word ἐπιούσιος is not found anywhere except the Lord’s Prayer, then, however, ἔπεστι and others are found, a word composed of the same preposition and verb, but with the omission of ι. Therefore, if the Gospel spoke specifically about “daily bread”, it would say not ἐπιούσιος, but ἐπούσιος. Further, οὐσία in popular usage meant property, state, and if Christ had used οὐσία in exactly this sense, then it would not only be “purposeless” (Wiener-Schmiedel), but 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 understandable to the common people.

2. The word ἐπιούσιος is derived from ἐπί and ἰέναι - to come, to advance. This word has different meanings; the only thing that is important for us is that in the expression ἐπιοῦσα ἡμέρα it means tomorrow, or the coming day. This word was composed by the evangelists themselves and attached to ἄρτος in the meaning of “future bread”, “bread of the coming day”. Support for this interpretation is found in the words of Jerome, who among his brief interpretations The following note appears. “In the Gospel, which is called the Gospel of the Hebrews, 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 new critics, including the best, for example, the German compilers of grammars for the New Testament Wiener-Schmiedel, Blass and the exegete Zahn, suggested that the word means tomorrow (from ἡ ἐπιοῦσα, i.e. ἡμέρα). This explanation is given, by the way, by Renan. It is absolutely clear what a difference in meaning comes from whether we accept this interpretation or agree with the previous one. However, if we accept Jerome’s interpretation, then we should admit, not to mention various philological difficulties, that it contradicts the words of the Savior: “do not worry about tomorrow” (Matthew 6:34); It would also be unclear why we ask: “Give us tomorrow’s bread today.” Pointing to “mahar”, Jerome himself translates ἐπιούσιος with the word super-substantialis. According to Kremer, from ἰέναι and compounds with it it is impossible to prove a single production ending in -ιουσιος; on the contrary, many such words are produced from οὐσία. In words compounded with ἐπί, in which the root begins with a vowel, the merger is avoided by deleting ι, as in the word ἐπεῖναι. But this does not always happen and ι is retained, for example, in words such as ἐπιέτης (in other cases - ἐπέτειος), ἐπιορκεῖν (in Church Greek - ἐπιορκίζειν), ἐπι εικής, ἐπίουρος (in Homer ἔθορος). Thus, it should be assumed that ἐπιούσιος was formed from οὐσία, like similar formations from words ending in ια - ιος (ἐπιθυμία - ἐπιθύμιος, ἐπικαρπ ία – ἐπικάρπιος, περιουσία – περιούσιος and so on). 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 “urgent”. This explanation is also confirmed by the use of the word οὐσία among the classics (for example, 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 “lechem hok” is urochny bread, which is translated by the Seventy with the words “necessary” (necessary) and “sufficient” (in the Russian Bible - “daily”). According to Kremer, it should be translated: “give us the bread we need for our lives today.” The circumstance that the interpretation of “tomorrow” is found only among Latin writers, but not Greek, is of decisive importance here. Chrysostom, of course, knew quite well Greek language, and if there was no doubt that ἐπιούσιος is used in the sense of “essential,” 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. IN spiritual sense This word was explained by Tertullian, Cyprian, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, Isidore Pilusiot, Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine and many others. 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” there is such a difference among interpreters that it deprives their interpretation of almost all meaning. Some said that bread here meant the bread of the Sacrament of Communion, others pointed to spiritual bread - Christ Himself, including the Eucharist here, and others - only to the teaching of Christ. Such interpretations seem to be most contradicted by the word “today,” as well as by the fact that at the time when Christ spoke His words, according to the Evangelist, the Sacrament of Communion had not yet been established.

The translations: "daily" bread, "supernatural" must be considered completely inaccurate.

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

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

The Russian translation is accurate, if only we recognize that “we leave” (in the Slavic Bible) - ἀφίεμεν is actually put in the present tense, and not in the aorist (ἀφήκαμεν), as in some codices. The word ἀφήκαμεν has “the best certification.” Tischendorf, Alford, Westcott, Hort put ἀφήκαμεν - “we left”, but the Vulgate - present (dimittimus), as well as John Chrysostom, Cyprian and others. Meanwhile, the difference in meaning, depending on whether we accept one or another reading, is significant. Forgive us our sins, because we ourselves forgive or have already forgiven. Anyone can understand that the second, so to speak, is more categorical. Our forgiveness of sins is set as a condition for the forgiveness of ourselves; our earthly activity here serves as a kind of image for heavenly activity. The images are borrowed from ordinary lenders who lend money, and debtors who receive it and then return it. An explanation of the petition can be the parable of the rich but merciful king and the merciless debtor (Matthew 18:23–35). The Greek word ὀφειλέτης means a debtor who must pay someone ὀφείλημα, a monetary debt, someone else's money (aes alienum). But in a broader sense, ὀφείλημα generally means any obligations, any payment, tax, and in the place under consideration this word is placed instead of the word “sin”, “crime” (ἀμαρτία, παράπτωμα). The word is used here on the model of the Hebrew and Aramaic "lov", which means both monetary debt (debitum) and guilt, crime, sin (culpa, reatus, peccatum).

The second sentence (“just as we forgive,” etc.) has long caused interpreters 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 a lighter sense, in relation to human weaknesses. Understanding in the strictest sense led many church writers to be in awe of the fact that the very extent or quantity of divine forgiveness of our sins is completely determined by the extent of our own ability or the possibility of forgiving the sins of our neighbors. In other words, divine mercy is defined here by human mercy. But since man is not capable of the same mercy that is characteristic of God, the position of the one praying, who did not have the opportunity to be reconciled, caused many to shudder and tremble.

The author of the work “Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum” attributed to St. John Chrysostom testifies that in the ancient Church those praying completely omitted the second sentence of the fifth petition. One writer advised: “Saying this, O man, if you do this, i.e. When you 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 a kind of detour and, instead of sins, understood monetary obligations. Chrysostom, apparently, wanted to eliminate the difficulty when he pointed out the difference in relationships and circumstances: “Remission initially depends on us, and the judgment pronounced on us lies in our power. The same judgment you 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 latter is actually much more more important than the first. You forgive another because you yourself need forgiveness, and God forgives without needing anything. You forgive your brother, and God forgives your slave; you are guilty of countless sins, but God is sinless.” Modern scientists are also not alien to the awareness of these difficulties and try to explain the word “how” (ὡς), apparently correctly, in a somewhat softened form. 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 does to his comrade. Ὡς can be translated with the word “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 ​​​​forgiveness of sins from God under the condition of 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 person praying address the gods with the following speech: “You, O gods, pay me my debts, my due” (ὦς θεοί, δοίητέ μοι τὰ ὀφειλόμε να).

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

The words “and do not lead” immediately make it clear that God leads into temptation and is the 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, this 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 should say: God is tempting me, because God is not tempted by evil and He 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. In another place the same apostle says: “Count it all joy, my brethren, 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 kindled again against the Israelites, and he aroused David in them to say: Go, number Israel and Judah” (2 Sam. 24:1; cf. 1 Chron. 21:1). We cannot 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 into two as a result of sin, i.e. takes either a good or 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 dregs among clean water or like poisoned air in clean air. Evil can exist independently of us, but we can become participants in it due to the fact that we live among 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 an environment where evil exists,” do not allow it. Do not allow us, as a result of our foolishness, to go towards evil, or for evil to approach us regardless of our guilt and will. Such a request is natural and was completely understandable to Christ’s listeners, because it is based on the deepest knowledge of human nature and the world.

Apparently, there is no particular need to talk about the very nature of temptations, some of which seem useful to us, while others seem harmful. In Hebrew there are two words, “bahan” and “nasa” (both words used in Ps. 25:2), which mean “to test” and are used more often about fair than unfair testing. 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 temptation may be for a person to be δόκιμος - “tested” (James 1:12), and such activity may be characteristic of God and useful for people. But if a Christian, according to the Apostle James, should rejoice when he falls into temptation, because as a result he may turn out to be δόκιμος and “receive the crown of life” (James 1:12), then in this case he should “pray for preservation from temptations, because he cannot claim that he will overcome the test - δόκιμος. Thus Christ calls blessed those who are persecuted and slandered for His name’s sake (Matthew 5:10–11), but what kind of Christian would seek slander and persecution, or even strive strongly for it?” (Tolyuk,). All the more dangerous for a person are temptations from the devil, who is called πειραστής, πειράζων. This word over time acquired a bad meaning, as did πειρασμός, which was used several times in the New Testament. Hence, the words “do not lead us 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 of “do not introduce” in the permissible sense: “do not allow us to be tempted” (Evfimy Zigavin), and πειρασμός in a special sense, in the sense of temptation that we cannot endure, must be rejected as unnecessary and arbitrary. If, therefore, temptation in the passage under consideration means temptation from the devil, then such an explanation should influence the subsequent meaning of the words “from the evil one” - τοῦ πονηροῦ.

We have already met with this word, here it is translated in Russian and Slavic vaguely - “from the evil one”, in the Vulgate - a malo, in the German translation of Luther - von dem Uebel, in English - from evil (there is also an English version from the evil one. – Note edit.), i.e. from evil. This translation is justified by the fact that if it were to be understood here as “from the devil,” then there would be a tautology: do not lead us into temptation (implying 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 Matthew 5:39), and if Christ meant the devil here, then, as they rightly note, he could have said: ἀπὸ τοῦ διαβόλου or τοῦ πε ιράζοντος . In this regard, “deliver” (ῥῦσαι) should also be explained. This verb is combined with two prepositions “from” and “of”, and this, apparently, is determined by the real meaning of this kind of connection. About a person immersed in a swamp, one cannot say: deliver him from (ἀπό), but from (ἐκ) the swamp. One might therefore assume that in verse 12 it would be better to use “of” if it were talking about evil rather than the devil. But there is no need for this, because from other cases it is known that “to get rid of” indicates an actual, already occurred danger, “to get rid of” is assumed or possible. The meaning of the first combination is “to get rid of”, the second is “to protect”, and the thought of getting rid of an 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, Arminians, Socinians) to be one, so that the Lord’s Prayer has only six petitions.

The Doxology is accepted by John Chrysostom, the Apostolic Constitutions, Theophylact, Protestants (in the German translation of Luther, in English translation), also Slavic and Russian texts. But there is some reason 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. Thus, in the Gospel: “For Thine is the Kingdom and the power and the glory forever, Amen,” but the priest says after “Our Father”: “For Thine is the Kingdom and the power and the glory, of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, now and ever and forever and ever". In the Greek texts that have come down to us, such differences are even more noticeable, which could not have happened if the doxology had been borrowed from the original text. It is not in the most ancient 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 “appended by church interpreters.” The conclusion that can be drawn from 2 Tim. 4:18, according to Alford, speaks more against doxology than for it. The only thing that can be said in its favor is that it is found in the ancient monument "Teaching of the 12 Apostles" (Didache XII apostolorum, 8, 2) and in Peshito's Syriac translation. But in the “Teaching of the 12 Apostles” it is in this form: “for Yours is the power and the glory forever” ἰῶνας); and the Peshitta “does not stand above suspicion in certain interpolations and additions from the lectionaries.” It is believed that this was a liturgical formula, introduced over time into the text of the Lord's Prayer (cf. 1 Chron. 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 those common in our church (and Catholic) song “Virgin Mother of God, rejoice.” » Gospel words spoken by Archangel Gabriel. For the interpretation of the Gospel text, doxology either has no significance at all, or only a small one.

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

Matthew 6:15. and if you do not forgive people their sins, then your Father will not forgive you your sins.

(Compare Matthew 18:35; Mark 11:25–26.)

Matthew 6:16. Also, when you fast, do not be sad like the hypocrites, for they put on gloomy faces in order to appear to people as fasting. Truly I tell you that they are already receiving their reward.

Literally: “When you fast, do not be like the hypocrites, sad. They darken their faces in order to appear to people as fasting. Truly I tell you, they are receiving their reward.” The Bible tells of many cases where fasting people put on mourning clothes and sprinkled ashes on their heads as a sign of grief. The Hebrew names for fasting refer primarily to humility and contrition of heart, and the Seventy translate these names by ταπεινοῦν τὴν ψυχήν - to humble the soul. In the Talmudic treatises Taanit (fasting) and Yoma there are several instructions about fasting. It is not at all surprising that over time, gross hypocrisy developed here, which Christ denounces. “Dejected” (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 (Isaiah 61:3) characterizes fasting (lamentation) with ashes, crying and sad spirit(cf. Dan. 10:3; 2 Kings 12:20). Hypocrites especially used these methods to attract attention to their posts and make them noticeable. 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 “to destroy”). The examples of such distortion in the Bible indicated by Meyer (2 Samuel 15:30; Esther 6:12) hardly fit here. Ἀφανίζω generally means to obscure, to make unclear, unrecognizable. Some explained this in the sense that hypocrites polluted, stained their faces, although this is a later meaning of the word (in ancient times it was used in the sense of completely covering - τελεως ἀφανῆ ποιῆσαι). Apparently, this word was used by the classics in the sense of “to stain”, “to pollute”: they pronounced it about women who “paint themselves”. Therefore, says Alford, the allusion here is not to the covering of the face, which might be seen as a sign of grief, but to the impurity 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. And when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face,

Here there is almost exact correspondence with the rulings of Taanit and Yoma. Only there it served as a sign of the end of the fast, but here it was a sign of its beginning and continuation. They thought that the Savior was speaking only about private fasts, during which it was possible to observe the decrees He gave. As for public posts, it would be inconvenient to appear with a washed face and a cheerful appearance at a time when everyone else behaved differently. But such a distinction is apparently unnecessary; both fasts for hypocrites could serve as a reason for showing off, and this latter is condemned for all types of fasting. According to the teachings of the Savior, fasting should in all cases be a secret, inner disposition of a person in his relationship to God, fasting for God, and not for man.

Matthew 6:18. that you may appear to those who fast, not before men, but before your Father who is in 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 “secretly” in verse 6 (ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ) is replaced twice by 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 “manifestly,” 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. They think that this expression was brought here from the margins of some ancient manuscript.

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

In this verse, the Savior immediately proceeds to speak about a subject that apparently has no connection with His previous instructions. Tsang explains this connection this way: “Jesus, who spoke to his disciples in the hearing of the Jewish crowd, is not preaching here in general against the pagan and worldly way of thinking (cf. Luke 12:13-31), but showing the incompatibility of such with the piety that the disciples should and they 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 primarily as pious people, but with pious zeal, which Jesus Christ never denied for them, many Pharisees and rabbis associated worldly interests. Next to pride (Matt. 6:2, 5, 16, 23:5–8; Luke 14:1, 7–11; John 5:44, 7:18, 12:43) their love for money. Thus, the section under consideration serves to explain Matt. 5:20".

It can be accepted that such an opinion quite accurately reveals what the connection is, if only it really exists between these different sections. But the connection can be expressed more clearly. We think that the entire 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 Tsang’s opinion about such a connection is somewhat artificial, and, in any case, such a connection could hardly have been seen by the disciples to whom Jesus Christ spoke, and by the people. Based on these considerations, we have every right to consider this verse the beginning of a new section, which speaks of completely new subjects, and, moreover, without any immediate relation to the Pharisees or pagans.

Christ in the Sermon on the Mount does not so much denounce as teach. He uses reproofs not for their own sake, but again - for the same purpose - to teach. If it is possible to assume a connection between different sections of the Sermon on the Mount, then it appears to lie in the variety of indications of the perverted concepts of righteousness that are characteristic of natural man. The thread of the Sermon on the Mount is a description of these perverted concepts and then an explanation of what the true ones should be, correct concepts. Among the perverted concepts of a sinful and natural person are his concepts and views on worldly goods. And here the Savior again allows people to conform to the teaching He gave; it is only a light in which moral work is possible, with the goal of moral improvement of man, but not this work itself.

Correct and general view on earthly treasures is this: “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth.” There is no need to argue, as Tsang does, about whether this refers only to “large accumulations”, “collecting large capitals”, the miser’s enjoyment of them, or also the collection of small capitals, worries about daily bread. The Savior apparently speaks of neither one nor the other. He expresses only the correct view of earthly wealth and says that their properties in themselves should prevent people from treating them with special love and making their acquisition the goal of their lives. The properties of earthly riches indicated by Christ should remind people of non-covetousness, and the latter should determine a person’s attitude towards wealth and towards earthly goods in general. From this point of view, a rich person can be just as non-covetous as a poor one. Anything, even “great accumulations” and “collecting large capitals,” can be correct and legal from a moral point of view, if only the spirit of non-covetousness indicated by Christ is introduced into these human actions. Christ does not require asceticism from a person.

“Do not lay up for yourselves treasures 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, the same would be in the next verse, or maybe τοὺς θησαυρούς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. But Tsang’s indication that if “on earth” referred to treasures, then one would expect οὕς instead of ὅπου put here, can hardly be accepted, because οὕς could stand in both cases. Why shouldn't we lay 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 generally be taken for some kind of harmful insect that damages property. Also the word “rust”, i.e. rust. By this last word one must understand corruption of all kinds, because the Savior, of course, did not want to say that one should not preserve only those objects that are subject to damage by moths or rust (although the literal meaning of these words is such), but only expressed in its general sense; The subsequent words are said in the same sense, because the cause of losses is not only digging and theft in the literal sense. Parallel passage in James. 5:2–3. The rabbis had a common word for rust, “haluda” (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, this refers to spiritual treasures, which are not subject to the same destruction as earthly treasures. But closer to what exactly these spiritual treasures should consist of is not determined (cf. 1 Pet. 1:4-9; 2 Cor. 4:17). The only thing that requires explanation here is “they do not destroy” (ἀφανίζει - the same word as used in verse 16 about persons). Ἀφανίζω (from φαίνω) here means “to remove from sight”, hence - to destroy, destroy, destroy. Otherwise the construction and expression are the same as in verse 19.

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

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

Instead of “your” Tischendorf, Westcott, Hort and others - “your treasure”, “ your heart" So on the basis of the best authorities. Perhaps in the recepta and many italics “yours” is replaced by the word “yours” to agree with Luke. 12:34, where “yours” is not in doubt. The purpose of using “yours” instead of “yours” may have been to indicate the individuality of a person’s heartfelt inclinations and aspirations with all their endless variety. One loves one thing, the other another. The familiar expression “my heart lies” or “does not lie with so and so” is almost equivalent to the Gospel expression of this verse. It can be paraphrased as follows: “where there is what you consider to be your treasure, there your heart’s thoughts and your love will be directed.”

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

Matthew 6:23. if your eye is bad, then 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 passage by ancient church writers was distinguished by simplicity and literal understanding. Chrysostom takes “pure” (ἁπλοῦς) to mean “healthy” (ὑγιής) and interprets it as follows: “For like a simple eye, i.e. healthy, illuminates the body, and if thin, i.e. is painful, darkens, and the mind is darkened by 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 all feeling (the sensory 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 a person. This spiritual eye must be pure, 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 is therefore not at all as “naive” as is imagined, especially since the Savior does not use the expressions “finds access”, “enters”, which are used by people familiar with the latest conclusions natural sciences. Holtzman calls the eye “a specific light organ (Lichtorgan), to which the body owes all its light impressions.” There is no doubt that the eye is an organ for their perception. If the eye is not pure, then - no matter which of these expressions we choose - the light impressions we receive will not have such vividness, correctness and strength as those of healthy eye. It is true that from a modern scientific point of view, the expression: “the lamp of the body is the eye” might seem not entirely clear and scientifically correct. But the Savior did not speak modern scientific language. On the other hand, and 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 perceiving 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 “ good eye" is a metaphorical designation of generosity, "thin eye" - stinginess. It is true that in several places in Scripture the “greedy” and “envious” eye are used in this sense (Deut. 15:9, 28:54-56; Prov. 23:6, 28:22, 22:9; Tob. 4 :7; Sir. 14:10). But in the passage under consideration there is no talk of generosity or almsgiving, but simply clarifies what a person’s attitude should be towards earthly goods. This latter is the connection between verses 22 and 23 with the previous speech. A dull, darkened, diseased eye loves to contemplate earthly things more; it is difficult for it to look at the bright light, at the heavenly. According to Bengel, in the Holy Scriptures words expressing simplicity (ἁπλοῦς, ἀπλότης) are never used in a negative sense. Simple and kind, having heavenly intentions, striving for God are one and the same.

Verse 23 is the opposite of the previous speech. The last sentences of this verse have always been difficult. One can observe in this place an extremely poetic and subtle play on words and translate it in the same way as in our Russian (in the Slavic translation - “darkness kolmi” - accurate, but unclear) and the Vulgate (ipsae tenebrae quantae sunt), without referring to the word “darkness” to “a person’s inner thoughts, his passions and inclinations.” The latter meaning is only further and improper, since images and metaphors serve to designate internal spiritual relationships. 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 partially illuminated; in other words, the eye only partially perceives light impressions, and, moreover, incorrect ones. So “if the light in you” equals the darkness, then “how much darkness.” Grimm explains this expression as follows: “If your inner light is darkness (dark), i.e. if the mind is deprived of the ability to understand, then how great will be the darkness (how much more pitiable is it in comparison with the blindness of the body).” Σκότος refers to the so-called “oscillating” expressions among the classics, who use it in both the masculine and neuter gender. In Matt. 6 is neuter and is used in the meaning of “illness,” “harm” (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 one and love the other; or he will be zealous for one and neglectful of 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 he sticks to one, but begins to be careless about his friends”). First of all, the real meaning of the expression attracts attention: does it really happen that a person cannot serve two masters? To this we can say 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, there is a concentration of one power in one hand. Then attention is paid to the construction of speech. It is not said: “one (τὸν ἕνα) will be hated and one will be despised,” because in this case an unnecessary tautology would result. But he will hate one, prefer one, love another, hate another. Two gentlemen are indicated, sharply different in character, which, apparently, is expressed by the word ἕτερος, which (unlike ἄλλος) generally means a generic difference. They are completely heterogeneous and diverse in character. Therefore, “or” “or” are not repetitions, but sentences that are the opposite of one another. Meyer puts it this way: “Will hate A and love B, or prefer A and despise B.” The different attitudes of people towards the 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 force and tension may be implied. Again an extremely subtle and psychological depiction of human relationships. From this a conclusion is drawn, justified by the taken images, although without οὖν: “you cannot serve God and mammon,” - not just “serve” (διακονεῖν), but to be slaves (δουλεύειν), to be in complete power. Jerome explains this passage very well: “For whoever is a slave of wealth guards wealth like a slave; and whoever has cast off the yoke of slavery disposes of it (riches) like a master.” The word mammon (not mammon and not mammonas - the doubling of the “m” in this word has been very weakly proven, Blass) means all kinds of possessions, inheritances and acquisitions, in general all kinds of 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 claims that mammona is the name of wealth among the Jews 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 had a common word, so Chrysostom did not consider it necessary to explain it, substituting χρυσός instead ( gold coin– Tsang). Tertullian translates mammon with the word 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 life, what you will eat or what you will drink, nor about your body, what you will wear. Is not the life more than food, and the body than clothing?

The connection with the previous verse is expressed through διὰ τοῦτο - therefore, “therefore”, for this reason. The Savior says here something like this: “Since you cannot store up treasures on earth and in heaven at the same time, because this would mean serving two masters, then therefore leave thoughts about earthly treasures, and even about the most necessary things for your life.” According to Theophylact, the Savior “does not prevent us from eating here, but prevents us from saying: what shall we eat? This is what the rich say in the evening: what will 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 remains almost unchanged. The words “for the soul” are contrasted with the further “for the body,” but they cannot be taken to mean 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 is simply denouncing a bad custom. Further words cannot be translated through “life”; is not life greater than food and the body of clothing? Therefore, ψυχή has some other meaning here. One must think that here something close to soma is meant - a living organism, and that yuc" is used in some common sense, like how we express it: 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 Father in heaven feeds them. Aren't you much better than them?

Is it possible for a person to live like the birds of the air? The impossibility of this forced the ancient interpreters to explain the verse in an allegorical sense. “So what? - asks Zlatoust. – Don’t 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 have been preached like this in a country where daily bread was obtained without much care, but that His words were completely inapplicable to people living in more severe conditions. climatic conditions, where caring for clothing and food is necessary and sometimes associated with great difficulties. IN popular usage The expression “live like the birds of the air”, which has become almost a proverb, began to mean a frivolous, homeless and carefree life, which, of course, is reprehensible. The true meaning of these expressions is 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 the same way as them. The thought itself is correct and clearly expressed. Indeed, if God cares about birds, then why should people put themselves outside of His care? If they are confident that God’s Providence cares about them no less than about 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 clothing for people are at the same time an object of God’s care and concern. This should divert the poor man from despair and at the same time restrain the rich man. Between complete absence care and unnecessary, let's even say, painful care, there are many intermediate stages, and in all of them the same principle - hope in God - should operate in the same way.

The birds of the air were chosen as examples, in order to more clearly express whom man should imitate. The word “heavenly” is not superfluous and indicates the freedom and freedom of bird life. By birds we do not mean birds of prey, because expressions were chosen for the characteristics that indicate birds that feed on grains. These are the most gentle and clean of birds. The expression “birds of the air” is found among the Seventy - they convey it like this Jewish expression“Yof ha-shamayim.”

Matthew 6:27. And which of you, by caring, can add even one cubit to his height?

The Greek word ἡλικία means both height and age. Many commentators prefer to translate it with the word “age”, i.e. continuation of life. A similar expression is used in a similar sense in Ps. 38:6: “Behold, You have given me days like spans,” i.e. very short days. But it is objected to this 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 spoke 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 entire medical profession would seem to us a mistake and absurdity.” This means that the word ἡλικία should be understood not as age, but as height. But with such an interpretation we encounter no less difficulties. A cubit is a measure of length, perhaps also a measure of height; it is approximately 46 cm. The Savior hardly wanted to say: which of you, by caring, can add at least one cubit to his height and thus become a giant or a giant? There is one more circumstance added here. In a parallel passage to the passage in question in Luke (Luke 12: 25–26) it says: “And which of you, by being careful, can add even one cubit to his stature? So, if you can’t do the slightest thing; Why are you worrying about other things? An increase in height by one cubit is considered a small matter here. To resolve the question of which of the two given interpretations 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 continuation of life, age, and only in the later New Testament did it acquire the meaning of 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 interpret it correctly, it is necessary first of all to pay attention to the fact that verse 27 undoubtedly has the closest relation to the preceding verse, and not to the subsequent one. This connection in the present case is expressed by the particle δέ. According to Morison, exegetes paid little attention to this particle. The connection of speech is as follows. 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 worries and care on your part. But if you give up hope in the Heavenly Father and put a lot of care into food yourself, then this is completely useless, because with your worries you cannot add even one cubit to a person’s height with “your nutrition.” 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 enhanced nutrition cannot add even one elbow to the baby’s growth. Therefore, there is no need to assume that the Savior is speaking here about giants or giants. An extra cubit of height is an insignificant amount in human growth. With this explanation, any contradiction with Luke is eliminated.

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

If a person should not worry too much about food, then it is also unnecessary for him to worry about clothing. Instead of “look” in some texts, “learn” or “learn” (καταμάθετε) is a verb that implies more attention than “look” (ἐμβλέψατε). Field lilies 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 here mean the “imperial crown” (fritillaria imperialis, κρίνον βασιλικόν), growing wild in Palestine, others – amaryliis lutea, which with its golden-lilac flowers covers the fields of the Levant, others – the so-called Goulet lily, which very large, has a magnificent crown and is inimitable in its beauty. It is found, although apparently rare, on the northern slopes of Tabor and the hills of Nazareth. “Having spoken about necessary food and shown that there is no need to take care of it, He moves 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 Solomon in all his glory was not dressed like any of them;

(For the glory of Solomon, see 2 Chron. 9 et seq.)

All human decorations are imperfect in comparison with natural ones. Until now, man has not been able to surpass nature in creating various beauties. Ways to make jewelry completely natural have not yet been found.

Matthew 6:30. But if God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, then God will clothe it more than you, O you of little faith!

The grass of the field is distinguished by its beauty; it dresses in a way that Solomon did not dress. But usually it is only good for being thrown into the oven. 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” is not a word found in Mark, but once in Luke (Luke 12:28). Matthew has 4 times (Matthew 6:30, 8:26, 14:31, 16:8). This word does not exist in pagan literature.

Matthew 6:31. So do not worry and 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 idea is presented as a conclusion from the previous one. It is brilliantly proven by the examples given. 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 pagans seek all this, and because your Heavenly Father knows that you need all this.

The mention of pagans (τὰ ἔθνη) here seems somewhat strange at first. John Chrysostom explains this quite well, saying that the Savior mentioned the pagans here because they work exclusively for real 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 had not yet entered into a filial position with God, but the listeners of Christ, with the approach of the Kingdom of Heaven, had already become so. Therefore, the Savior instills in them the highest hope - in the Heavenly Father, Who cannot help 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 these things 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. seek the Kingdom of God and the truth of this Kingdom, meanwhile, 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 is 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 “His” is printed in capital letters. To avoid any ambiguity in Greek, in several codes it is added to τὴν βασιλείαν - τοα θεοα (in the Vulgate and Latin translation: regnum Dei, et justitiam ejus), and in some τοῦ θεοῦ also after δικαιοσ ύνην, which is unnecessary. The Vatican Code moves: seek first righteousness and the Kingdom, which is probably due to the consideration that truth serves as a condition for entry into the Kingdom (Matthew 5:20) and therefore must come first. The saying of Christ found in Origen, Clement and Eusebius: “Ask much and little will be given to you; ask for heavenly things and earthly things will be given to you,” explains the meaning of this verse, but not completely. “Seek” is replaced by “ask” here. People must first of all strive to ensure that the Kingdom and truth of God comes or appears on earth, and contribute in every possible way to this with their life, behavior and faith. This is in a positive sense, in a negative sense - to evade all untruth (lies, deception, ostentation, etc.), wherever it exists. If such a desire were common, then everything else, which the pagans are so diligently seeking and about which they care so much, would appear without much work or worry. Experience really shows that prosperity among people does not appear when they focus all their attention on worldly interests and self-interest, but when they seek truth. Christ never denies the welfare of people.

Matthew 6:34. So do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about its own things: each day’s own troubles are enough.

Saint John Chrysostom explains these words this way: “I didn’t say, don’t worry, but don’t worry about tomorrow.” If we accept this interpretation separately and without connection with other interpretations, then some ambiguity results. You should not worry about tomorrow, but you should worry about other, future days. One might think that the Savior generally gives instructions here 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.

See that you do not do your alms in front of people so that they will see you: otherwise you will have no reward from your Heavenly Father. Having raised to the highest virtue - love, the Lord now rebels against vanity, which follows good deeds. Notice what it says: Beware! speaks as if of a fierce beast. Be careful that he doesn't tear you to pieces. But if you know how to perform mercy in front of people, but not in order to be looked at, you will not be condemned. But if you have vanity as your goal, then even if you did it in your cage, you will be condemned. God punishes or crowns the intention.

So, when you give alms, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that people may glorify them. The hypocrites did not have trumpets, but the Lord ridicules their intention here, since they wanted their alms to be trumpeted. Hypocrites are those who appear to be different from what they really are. So, they seem merciful, but in reality they are different.

Truly I tell you, they are already receiving their reward. For they are praised, and they have received everything from people.

But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing. He said this exaggeratedly: if possible, hide it from yourself. Or this way: the left hand is vain, and the right hand is merciful. So, let vanity not know your alms.

So that your alms may be in secret; and your Father, who sees in secret, will reward you openly. When? When everything turns out to be naked and obvious, then you will be most glorified.

And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, who love to stop and pray in the synagogues and on street corners, so as to appear before people. Truly I tell you that they are already receiving their reward. And he calls these hypocrites, since they seem to listen to God, but in reality they listen to people from whom they have, that is, receive, their reward.

But you, when you pray, go into your room and, having shut your door, pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father, who sees in secret, will reward you openly. So what? Won't I pray in church? Absolutely not. I will pray, but with pure intention, and not in a way that shows myself: for the place does not harm, but the inner disposition and purpose. Many people pray in secret and do it in order to please people.

And when praying, do not say unnecessary things, like the pagans. Much verbosity is idle talk: for example, begging for something earthly - for power, wealth, victory. Polyphony is also inarticulate speech, like the speech of children. So, don't be an empty talker. One should not perform long prayers, but short ones, but continually remain in short prayer.

Don't be like them; for your Father knows what you need before you ask Him. We pray not in order to teach Him, but so that, distracting ourselves from everyday worries, we may benefit by talking with Him.

Pray like this: Our Father who art in heaven! A vow is one thing, prayer is another. A vow is a promise to God, as when someone promises to abstain from wine or anything else; prayer is asking for benefits. Saying “Father” shows you what blessings you have received by becoming the son of God, and with the word “in heaven” he points you to your fatherland and your father’s house. Therefore, if you want to have God as your Father, then look at heaven, not at earth. You do not say: “My Father,” but “Our Father,” because you must consider all the children of one Heavenly Father to be your brothers.

Hallowed be Thy name, that is, make us holy, so that Your name may be glorified, for just as God is blasphemed through me, so through me He is sanctified, that is, glorified as Holy.

Thy kingdom come that is, the second coming: for a person with a clear conscience prays for the coming of resurrection and judgment.

Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. As the angels, he says, carry out Your will in heaven, so grant us to do it on earth.

Give us this day our daily bread. By “daily” the Lord means that bread that is sufficient for our nature and condition, but He eliminates concern for tomorrow. And the Body of Christ is our daily bread, for whose uncondemned communion we must pray.

And forgive us our debts, just as we forgive our debtors. Since we sin even after baptism, we pray that God will forgive us, but forgive us in the same way that we forgive. If we hold a grudge, He will not forgive us. God has me as His example and does to me what I do to others.

And do not lead us into temptation. We are weak people, so we should not expose ourselves to temptation, but if we fall, we must pray so that temptation does not consume us. Only the one who is consumed and defeated is drawn into the abyss of trial, and not the one who fell but then won.

But deliver us from evil. He did not say, “from evil people,” for it is not they who do us harm, but the evil one.

For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen. Here we are encouraged, for if our Father is a King, strong and glorious, then we, of course, will defeat the evil one and will be glorified in the times to come.

For if you forgive people their sins, your Heavenly Father will also forgive you. Again he teaches us not to remember evil and reminds us of the Father, so that we should be ashamed and not become like the beasts, being His children.

And if you do not forgive people their sins, then your Father will not forgive you your sins. The meek God hates nothing so much as cruelty.

Also, when you fast, do not be sad like the hypocrites: for they put on gloomy faces in order to appear to people as fasting. Truly I tell you that they are already receiving their reward. “Darkness of face” is pallor. He reproaches when someone seems not to be what he is, but feigns a gloomy appearance.

And you, when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face, so that you may appear as fasting not to men, but to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly. Just as the ancients anointed themselves with oil after washing as a sign of joy, so show yourself rejoicing. But under oil we also mean alms, and under our head is Christ, who must be anointed with alms. “To wash your face” means to wash your feelings with tears.

Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal; But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in and steal. Having banished the disease of vanity, the Lord further speaks of non-covetousness, for people are concerned about acquiring many possessions because of their vanity. He shows the uselessness of earthly treasures, because worms and aphids destroy food and clothing, and thieves steal gold and silver. Then, so that someone does not say: “not everyone steals,” He points out that at least nothing of the kind happened, but isn’t the very fact that you are nailed down by concern for wealth a great evil? Therefore the Lord says:

For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. The lamp for the body is the eye. So, if your eye is clean, then your whole body will be bright; if your eye is bad, then your whole body will be dark. So, if the light that is in you is darkness, then what is the darkness? He says this: if you have nailed your mind with concern for property, then you have extinguished your lamp and darkened your soul, for like the eye, when it is clean, that is, healthy, it illuminates the body, but when it is bad, that is, unhealthy, it leaves it in darkness , so the mind is blinded by care. If the mind is darkened, then the soul becomes darkness, and even more so the body.

No one can serve two masters. By two masters he means those who give opposing orders. We, for example, make the devil our master, just as we make our womb god, but our God is by nature and truly Lord. We cannot work for God when we work for mammon. Mammon is all untruth.

For either he will hate one and love the other; or he will be zealous for one and neglectful of the other. You cannot serve God and mammon. Do you see that it is impossible for the rich and unrighteous to serve God, for greed separates him from God?

Therefore I say to you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, nor about your body, what you will wear.“Therefore”, that is, why? Because property separates people from God. The soul, as having no body, does not eat, but the Lord said this according to general custom, for the soul, apparently, cannot remain in the body if the flesh is not nourished. The Lord does not forbid work, but forbids us to completely devote ourselves to worries and neglect God. One must also engage in agriculture, but one must also take care of the soul.

Is not the life more than food, and the body than clothing? That is, the One who gave more, having formed the soul and body, will He not give food and clothing?

Look at the birds of the air: they do not sow, nor reap, nor gather into barns; and your Father in heaven feeds them. Aren't you much better than them? The Lord could have pointed to Elijah or John as an example, but He reminded us of the birds in order to shame us that we are more foolish than them. God feeds them by putting in them natural knowledge to gather food.

And which of you, by caring, can add even one cubit to his height? The Lord says: “No matter how much you care, you will not do anything apart from the will of God. Why are you bothering yourself in vain?”

And why do you care about clothes? Look at the lilies of the field, how do they grow? They neither toil nor spin. But I tell you that Solomon in all his glory did not dress like any of them. He shames us not only with the foolish birds, but also with the cranes that dry out. If God decorated them in this way, although it was not necessary, then how much more will He satisfy our need for clothing? It also shows that even though you cared a lot, you will not be able to adorn yourself like the krins, for the wisest and most pampered Solomon during his entire reign could not put on anything like that.

If the grass of the field, which is there today and tomorrow will thrown into the oven, God clothes him this way, especially than you, you of little faith. From here we learn that we should not worry about decoration, as is characteristic of perishable flowers, and that anyone who adorns himself is like grass. You, he says, are rational beings for whom God created body and soul. Everyone who is mired in worries is of little faith: if they had perfect faith in God, they would not worry so intensely.

So do not worry and say, “What shall we eat?” or: what to drink? or: what should I wear? Because the pagans are looking for all this. It does not prohibit eating, but it does prohibit saying: “What shall we eat?” The rich say in the evening: “What will we eat tomorrow?” Do you see what He forbids? Prohibits effeminacy and luxury.

And because your Heavenly Father knows that you need all this. Seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all this will be added to you. The Kingdom of God is the tasting of good things. It is given for living in truth. So, whoever seeks the spiritual, by the generosity of God, the physical is also given to him.

So, do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about its own things: enough for each day is its own care. The worries of the day mean contrition and sadness. It is enough for you that you lamented the present day. If you begin to worry about tomorrow, then, constantly worrying about yourself because of the physical, when will you have leisure for God?

1 Be careful that you do not do your alms in front of people so that they will see you: otherwise you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.
2 So, when you give alms, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that people may praise them. Truly I tell you, they are already receiving their reward.
3 But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing,
4 that your alms 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 to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the streets, so that they may be seen by people. Truly I tell you that they are already receiving their reward.
6 But you, when you pray, go into your room and, having shut your door, pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father, who sees in secret, will reward you openly.
7 And when you pray, do not talk too much, like the pagans, for they think that for their many words they will be heard;
8 Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask Him.
9 Pray this way: Our Father who art in heaven! Hallowed be Thy name;
10 Thy kingdom come; 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 forgive our debtors;
13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. 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 your trespasses.
16 Also, when you fast, do not be sad, like the hypocrites, for they put on gloomy faces in order to appear to people as fasting. Truly I tell you that they are already receiving their reward.
17 And you, when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face,
18 That you may appear to those who fast, not before men, but before your Father who is in secret; and your Father, who sees in secret, will reward you openly.
19 Do not lay 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 will your heart be also.
22 The lamp of the body is the eye. So, if your eye is clean, 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 neglectful of the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.
25 Therefore I say to you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, nor about your body, what you will wear. Is not the life more than food, and the body than clothing?
26 Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap, nor gather into barns; and your Father in heaven feeds them. Aren't you much better than them?
27 And which of you, by worrying, can add even one cubit to his stature?
28 And why are you concerned about clothing? Look at the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin;
29 But I tell you that Solomon in all his glory was not dressed like any of these;
30 But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today exists and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, how much more than you, O you of little faith!
31 So do not be anxious and say, “What shall we eat?” or what to drink? or what to wear?
32 Because the Gentiles seek all these things, and because your Father in heaven knows that you need all these things.
33 But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.
34 So do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about its own things: each day’s own troubles are sufficient.

 1 Doctrine of almsgiving; 5 about prayer; 9 “Our Father...”; 16 about fasting; 19 about the treasure; 22 eye – lamp; 24 serving two masters; 25 about worries.

1 Be careful not to do your alms in front of people so that they will see you: otherwise you will have no reward from your Heavenly Father..

2 So, when you give alms, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that people may glorify them. Truly I tell you, they are already receiving their reward..

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

4 so that your alms 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 to stop and pray in the synagogues and on street corners in order to appear before people. Truly I tell you that they are already receiving their reward.

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

7 And when you pray, do not say too much, like the pagans, for they think that for their many words 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 Thy kingdom come; 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 forgive our debtors;

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

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

15 and if you do not forgive people their sins, then your Father will not forgive you your sins.

16 Also, when you fast, do not be sad like the hypocrites, for they put on gloomy faces in order to appear to people as fasting. Truly I tell you that they are already receiving their reward.

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

18 that you may appear to those who fast, not before men, but before your Father who is in secret; and your Father, who sees in secret, will reward you openly.

19 Do not lay 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 will your heart be also.

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

23 if your eye is bad, then 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 one and love the other; or he will be zealous for one and neglectful of the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.

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

26 Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap, nor gather into barns; and your Father in heaven feeds them. Aren't you much better than them?

27 And which of you, by caring, can add to his height? Although one elbow?

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

29 but I tell you that Solomon in all his glory was not dressed like any of them;

30 But if God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, then God will clothe it more than you, O you of little faith!

31 So, do not worry and say, “What shall we eat?” or “what to drink”? or “what should I wear?”

32 because the pagans are seeking all these things, and because your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things.

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

34 So do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow myself will take care of his own: enough for everyone day of your care.