Chapter Ten

1–16. The sending of the twelve apostles on a preaching mission. – 17–25. An indication of the dangers which the apostles will face during their preaching. – 26–33. An exhortation to fearless confession of Christ. – 34–36. Enmity among people. – 37–39. Conditions for following Christ. – 40–42. Conclusion.

Matthew 10:1. And He called His twelve disciples to Him and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every disease and every infirmity. (See Mark 6:7; Luke 9:1). In the verse being considered, there is speech not of the calling and not of the choosing of the apostles, but only of sending them on a preaching mission. Matthew had earlier reported the calling of several disciples (Matt 4:18 and following) and Matthew alone (Matt 9:9); altogether, according to his account, only five disciples had been called before: Peter and Andrew, James and John the sons of Zebedee, and Matthew. About the calling of the remaining disciples Matthew nowhere speaks, and “the twelve disciples” appear before us for the first time, although it is quite possible to suppose that before being sent on the preaching mission, they were already with the Savior (μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ — Matt 5:1, Matt 9:10-11 and others). The evangelist could have not even listed the names of the apostles in Matt 10:2, and the speech seems to incline that way. But having written this verse, he perhaps only then recalled that it was inconvenient to designate these people by a mere numeral, and therefore deemed it necessary to call them by name as well, which in any case was clearer for his readers. The main point of the matter now lay in the fact that the Savior gave these disciples authority over unclean spirits and healing power. The speech of all the synoptics about the sending of the apostles does not stand out for similarity of expression. Matthew’s speech is closer to Luke’s. From Luke’s account (Luke 6:13) it appears that the twelve apostles were called or chosen before the delivery of the Sermon on the Mount. Here one should note the gradual broadening of Christ’s activity as depicted by Matthew. At first (Matt 4:23) he speaks of the journey of Christ alone throughout Galilee. Then in Matt 9:35 almost in the same words he speaks of the same Galilean activity, only with the addition of speech about “cities and villages.” Finally, in Matt 10:1-2 to this is added the sending of the apostles on a preaching mission. Therefore, it is thought that this verse contains the conclusion of the speech begun in Matt 4:13. Jerome rightly remarks that the Savior did not envy that His disciples and servants would possess powers that belong to Him. And just as He Himself healed every disease and infirmity, so He also gave the disciples this authority. But there is great distance between the words “to have” and “to grant,” “to give” and “to receive” and the actions they denote.

Matthew 10:2. The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; (See Mark 3:16-17; Luke 6:13-15; Acts 1:13). In interpreting this verse, first, one must keep in mind its connection with the remaining verses where the apostles are spoken of, that is, with verses 3 and 4, and second, the special meaning of verse 2 alone. 1. We have four lists of apostles — three from the synoptics and one in the Acts. The first observation we can make when examining these lists is that they are all different. This will be clearer from the following table: It is beyond doubt that Simon is the same person as Peter. He is placed in all four lists in the first position (but in the Acts he is not called Simon); Philip is everywhere in the fifth; James of Alphaeus in the ninth; and Judas Iscariot (replaced in Acts 1:26 by Matthias) in the last place. These persons serve as it were dividers of the apostolic lists into three “quaternions,” four persons in each. Some persons in the lists, though called by different names, should be identical, because if we accept that here are named different persons by different names, this would not accord with the direct testimony of the synoptics that there were “twelve” apostles, the silent acknowledgment in Acts 1:13 on the part of the writer of Acts of the same truth, and the clear statement in Acts 1:26. On the one hand, elementary and too simple characteristics given the apostles (“Simon, called Peter, his brother, a tax collector, a Canaanaean,” a traitor, etc.), and on the other — variations in the names of the same people (if we acknowledge that they were truly identical) serve as irrefutable testimony of: a) the absence of forgery or fabrication; b) the ancient origin, in the time of Christ Himself, of the apostolate as a fact; c) the composition of the lists after the resurrection of Christ. The reason is that: 1) How could we admit here intentional forgery or fabrication if those compiling the lists, despite all discrepancies, preserved considerable similarity, which fully allows us to consider the lists identical? On the other hand, the differences in the lists give us no right to suspect the evangelists of mutual agreements and borrowing from each other. One can borrow and rework a fact, but rarely and only with extreme carelessness does one borrow and rework, or rather, in borrowing rework, such a simple matter as a small number of names of certain people. Thus, there can be no doubt that the evangelists, so to speak, copied the names from actual persons, but did not pay attention to the fact that the lists they compiled would cause great misunderstandings in the future or provide an occasion for them. 2) If the apostles had not been called by Christ Himself, we could expect more elaborate discussions about them, depictions of their activities and such, but there is almost no such speech in the lists. What significance and importance was there in the fact that such and such was, for example, the brother of another? In a brief historical narrative lacking historical details, it probably would not be worth mentioning. But it is different if the apostles had a real (and not imaginary) relation to Christ. The fact that He chose and sent on a preaching mission such a one and together with him his brother has not only real but also deeply touching significance, all the more so since, as the subsequent speech shows, there was not the slightest trace of the nepotism characteristic of church life in subsequent times. 3) If the fact of the calling of the apostles and their sending on a preaching mission was historically contemporary with Christ, then, as should be thought, the composition of the lists themselves, considered as a fact, occurred after His death and resurrection. If it were otherwise, that is, if the composition of the lists and the very act of choosing were simultaneous or occurred very close to each other, then we perhaps would encounter only such characteristics as “sons of thunder” (Βοανηργές — Mark 3:17), but would not have such a characteristic as “traitor.” 2. Having made these general remarks, let us turn to the particular examination of verse 2 and the subsequent verses where the apostles are discussed. First of all, the word “apostle” stands out. It appears for the first time in Matthew’s Gospel and never again. In Mark apostles are mentioned only once, and only after they had already completed their first journey (Mark 6:30). In John the word “apostle” appears in John 13:16, but in a general sense — a messenger — and the disciples are never called apostles. An exception is Luke, who mentions the apostles several times, namely, at the same place as Matthew and Mark, and moreover, in all “important cases” (Luke 6:13). Bengel explains the sole mention of apostles in Matthew and Mark by the fact that the apostles were until then more disciples than apostles. But after the descent of the Holy Spirit the twelve were never called disciples, but apostles. In the Acts disciples are called persons who either taught together with the apostles or learned from them. Matthew simply lists the apostles by name, but Mark and Luke report that it was at this time that they were either called apostles (Luke 6:13), or that on the occasion of this calling some apostles were given other names (Mark 3:16-17). Simon is called “first” (πρῶτος) only in Matthew’s Gospel, but with this the listing ends, and of the further apostles it is not said that he was “second,” “third,” and so on. The explanation of the meaning of this numeral is very difficult. Catholic exegetes use this occasion to impress on the minds of their readers ideas about Peter’s supremacy and power over all apostles, and then about the “primacy” of Peter and Roman pontiffs. Protestants, of course, do not agree with them. Thus Beza, denying the primacy of Roman popes, believed that the word “first” was inserted into Matthew’s Gospel “erroneously” (mendose) and therefore should be removed. On their part, Catholic exegetes assert that πρῶτος (first) is found in all codices — Greek, Latin, Syrian, and so forth. Furthermore, say Catholic exegetes, the Greeks, whom Catholics regard as schismatics denying Peter’s primacy, would probably have excluded the word “first” from the Gospel if they could have done so “honestly,” that is, without any damage to truth. Peter’s primacy gives reason to Catholic theologians for other kinds of reasoning, which are not without interest, but seem not always to tend toward the exaltation of the Roman pontiff’s see. Some Catholics greatly exalt Peter not only over the apostles but also over bishops, considering it almost inconceivable that bishops would have the right to be successors of Peter and other apostles. “You will say: bishops, as it is said, are successors of the apostles. I reply: this is said only by analogy and for convenience, only in the sense that bishops receive from the apostles the power of ordination and episcopal jurisdiction, and because bishops surpass other priests as the 12 apostles surpassed the 70 disciples; otherwise bishops would lack apostolic power, namely, the threefold power. But the power of bishops extends only to their own dioceses, while the power of the apostles extended to all peoples scattered throughout the whole world. Thus, between the two institutions — apostleship and episcopacy — one cannot properly even draw a comparison. The power of the apostles in the Church was highest and far greater than the power of bishops. For the apostles were taught and sent directly by Christ the Lord, being as it were His appointed legates with absolute power over the whole world and with supreme power over the entire Church, so as to have power everywhere, first, to preach the Gospel and confirm their preaching by the gift of tongues and miracles, and also to write literary works, for the apostles had the power to write canonical books — as indeed happened when Matthew and Mark wrote the Gospels — canonical epistles and the Apocalypse; second, they had power everywhere to found churches and so on.” If the word “first” causes much exegetical labor for Catholic learned exegetes, it causes no less difficulty for Protestant scholars and theologians, who are given an occasion to discourse on the famous German “ranks.” Moreover, it is almost entirely forgotten that in the parallels of the other synoptics to the place being considered there is not the slightest hint of the word “first” and that, according the teaching of Christ Himself, spoken to the disciples, he who wished to be “first” in His Kingdom should be last of all and servant of all. The general sense of Protestant reasoning on this matter can be expressed in the fact that Peter was only first among equals, that is, among the apostles. This is confirmed by the subsequent history of the apostle’s life, when he was told by Christ that “upon this rock” He would build His Church and “the gates of Hades will not prevail against it” (Matt 16:18). Peter was the first after the descent of the Holy Spirit to come forward with preaching on behalf of all the disciples and was the first to preach to the Gentiles. The Savior sometimes addresses Peter as first (Matt 26:40; Luke 22:31; see also Matt 17:24; Acts 1:15, Acts 4:8). But in further considerations regarding this “primacy” of Peter among equals, opinions again differ. According to some Protestant exegetes, the word “first” has relation only to “order,” though it does not have precise significance that Peter was “first” in rank or authority. All apostles were of equal rank and authority. Their office was the same. There was no “hierarchy” within this class. But, as is always the case among people equal in office, and among the apostles there existed differences in character, gifts, and position. The word can mean only that Peter was an outstanding personality among the apostles. In view of such considerable diversity of opinions, it is interesting to consult Saint John Chrysostom and see how precisely he interpreted the word in question. He says: “First... Peter. Because there was also another Simon, the Canaanaean. Mark lists the apostles by dignity, placing Andrew after the two chief ones, but Matthew does not list them in the same way; rather, he puts Thomas, who was far inferior, above himself.” This interpretation may not seem fully satisfactory. But it clearly shows that identical expressions can be viewed quite differently compared to how Catholic and Protestant theologians view them. We do not intend to give an interpretation that would not be subject to any criticism and immediately eliminate all further questions and misunderstandings. However, let us note that much which at first appears to people in a completely natural way acquires in the course of time a significance which it did not have at its first appearance or origin. That Christ Himself anywhere called Peter “first” and set him as head over all apostles — nowhere is this evident. The meaning of the word “first,” referred to Peter by the evangelist, would be best understood if we were to continue this enumeration and place corresponding numerals before the name of each further apostle, that is, second, third, and so on, to the twelfth. In that case it would immediately be evident that the entire speech of the evangelist would be spotted with numerals, in which there was no particular need and which without any necessity would only lengthen and expand the speech. Here let us note that what the evangelist wrote often happens in practice in our own time. In compiling various lists, we rarely provide all names with corresponding numerals, but place 1, 5, 10, and so on. Having written πρῶτος, the evangelist perhaps wished only to show thereby that all the apostles could easily be counted, but he left this counting, for the sake of brevity of speech, to the readers themselves, if they wished. If the evangelist wished to indicate Peter’s higher dignity through πρῶτος, he would have placed this numeral with the article. However, the thought is not at all denied that both Matthew and the other evangelists and the writer of the Acts regarded Peter with special respect and even considered him “first among equals.” One cannot only assert that such respect they intended to express through any numerals. But if it were otherwise, that is, if the evangelist wished through πρῶτος to express Peter’s higher dignity before the other apostles, then even in that case this would not give the Roman popes any right to express any claims of their own and advantages and cover them with the authority of an apostle or the apostles, because the personal merits of no single person can be transferred to other persons and belong only to him alone. Peter’s original name, as is especially clear from John’s Gospel, was Hebrew — Simon (Shimeon), which means “hearing” (and not “listener”), the same as Simeon. The derivation of the name Peter from the Hebrew “patar” — to decide, divide into parts, interpret dreams, explain — cannot be accepted. The Greek name Peter means the same as the Hebrew Cephas — stone. So explained by the Savior Himself (John 1:42). Beside Peter the evangelist places his brother Andrew, who, according to John (John 1:40), was called before Peter. Andrew and Philip are Greek names; the first means “adult, mature, manly, man, human being,” and the second — “lover of horses or steeds.” The supposition that both apostles also had Hebrew names, while possible, is unsupported. In any case their Hebrew names are quite unknown to us. From the Gospels and Acts little is known about Andrew. It is thought that he, together with Philip, was especially close to the Savior after Peter, James, and John (Mark 13:3; John 6:8). According to Eusebius (“Church History,” III, 1), he preached in Scythia. By ancient tradition, recorded in the Russian Chronicle, it was Andrew who established the beginning of Christianity in Russia. “While traveling with his preaching through Thrace, Scythia, and Sarmatia, he is said to have reached as far as the Dnieper mountains, where afterward Kiev arose” (Prof. I. Znamensky). He died, by tradition, in Achaia, crucified on a cross. Epiphanius (Adversus Haereses, LI, 17) supposed that Andrew was Peter’s older brother, but some consider him younger, because the evangelist calls him precisely Peter’s brother. The apostles following Andrew, James and John, were sons of Zebedee, fishermen on the Sea of Galilee. The name of their mother was Salome (see Matt 27:56; Mark 15:40). If she indeed was John’s sister to the Theotokos (John 19:25), then James and John were cousins of the Savior. Both worked with their father, and their activity was so successful that they had hired workers, though this does not imply very much. The Gospel says that they had only one boat. If Zebedee’s boat was like modern boats on the Sea of Galilee, it could hold four people and could carry 6 or 7 tons. But probably the size of boats was greater then than now, given the flourishing fish trade. The hired wages for fishermen were probably the same as for workers in a vineyard, that is, a denarius a day. Mark mentions James and John before Andrew, as does Acts 1:13. Zebedee is mentioned here probably only to distinguish his son James from James of Alphaeus, mentioned afterward. John was the writer of our fourth Gospel.

Matthew 10:3. Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus called Lebbaeus; (See Mark 3:18-19; Luke 6:15-16; Acts 1:13). These names, except for Matthew, are indicated by Matthew for the first time. In the subsequent chapters of Matthew’s Gospel, none of these persons, except Judas the traitor, is mentioned. This verse has many variants, so that determining how it should be read was considered very difficult even in ancient times. Little is known about Philip, who joined Christ the day after Andrew, Simon (Peter), and John (John 1:43). Together with Peter and Andrew, he was a fisherman and lived in Bethsaida (western, a suburb of Capernaum). Philip the evangelist, mentioned in the Acts (Acts 8:5), was a different person. Philip the apostle is mentioned in the Acts after the ascension (Acts 1:13), as well as in several passages of John’s Gospel (John 1:44-49; John 12:21-22). Aside from this, we have only unreliable traditions about the life and activity of the apostle. Eusebius (“Church History,” III, 30; V, 24) from Clement of Alexandria and Polycarp, bishop of Ephesus, lists the apostles “who, contrary to those who reject marriage, lived in a married state.” “Will they censure the apostles?” asks Clement. “Peter and Philip begot children; Philip gave his daughters in marriage.” It was also said that Apostle Philip died in Hierapolis in Phrygia, taking upon himself together with John the care of the churches of Asia Minor. In recounting this, Eusebius seems to confuse apostle Philip and his daughters with Philip the evangelist and his daughters (“Church History,” III, 31; V, 24). The name Philip itself, as we said above, is clearly Greek, but by some tedious medieval exegetes it was derived from Hebrew words meaning the opening of a lamp (os lampadis or lampadarius), from the Hebrew words “pe,” — mouth, and “lapid,” — lamp, light, torch, because Philip’s mouth resembled a lamp illuminating the world. Bartholomew follows Philip in all the synoptics, but in Acts 1:13 — Thomas. Since Nathanael is mentioned in no one of the apostolic lists we have, this gave occasion to some of the fathers, including John Chrysostom and Augustine, to think that Nathanael did not belong to the number of the twelve. Even in the most recent times the opinion has been expressed that this was Matthew. However, no confirmation of such opinions is found anywhere. By a very widespread tradition, though not particularly ancient, Nathanael was the same person as Bartholomew. This tradition is confirmed by the fact that John’s Gospel makes no mention of Bartholomew, but only of Nathanael (John 1:46-50). The word Bartholomew was not a name but a patronymic (son of Tolmai), and consequently the apostle’s name was different. Nathanael is connected with Philip in John’s Gospel, while in Matthew and Mark (καί) — Bartholomew. Therefore it was supposed that Bartholomew was the same person as Nathanael. Some also supposed that Bartholomew-Nathanael was Philip’s brother, but such supposition is unsupported and highly improbable. When the evangelist John, having said of Andrew that he found and brought to Jesus Christ “his brother” Simon, makes no similar remark about Philip when he found Nathanael. It is thought that the name Bartholomew was not Hebrew but Aramaic. Medieval exegetes derived the meaning of this name from Hebrew words “bar” — son, “tala” — hang, suspend (Latin suspendere) and “mayim” — waters, thinking that the miracle of turning water into wine in Cana of Galilee was performed for Bartholomew’s sake, who was the bridegroom at this wedding feast. Such opinion should rightly be attributed to the realm of baseless fabrications, though it is accepted by some of our church historians, for example by Philaret, Archbishop of Chernigov (see his “Lives of the Saints” June 11). It is far more probable to derive the name Bartholomew from the Hebrew “bar” — son, and Tolmai, or Talmay — a proper name found in Josh 15:14; 2 Sam 3:3 (Tolmai). The derivation of the name from “son of Ptolemy” is even less probable than the first. Who this Tolmai was is unknown; little is known also about his son, who became a disciple of the Savior. We meet Nathanael on the shore of the Sea of Galilee after the resurrection (John 21:2). Thomas is placed after Matthew in Mark and Luke. This was probably also an Aramaic name and meant, as in Hebrew, twin, in Greek Didymus (John 11:16). But there are also approximations of the name Thomas to the Greek “abyssos” — abyss, because “the longer he doubted the resurrection, the deeper was his faith.” Such interpretation, belonging to one medieval exegete, can hardly be accepted. By tradition, Thomas preached the Gospel in Parthia or Persia, and his body was buried in Edessa. Chrysostom mentions his tomb as one of four authentic apostolic tombs. In Eusebius (“Church History,” I, 13) there is preserved a tradition that Thomas was also called Judas: “Judas, that is, also Thomas.” According to Chrysostom, Matthew places himself after Thomas “out of humility.” But aside from this single fact, nothing, it seems, can be drawn from such placement. If Matthew indeed placed himself after Thomas “out of humility,” then the question arises why he did not preserve such humility with respect to the other apostles, but only precisely to Thomas? Matthew calls himself here “a tax collector,” and does this, perhaps, truly out of humility, although it is unclear why this recollection of his former activity was appropriate precisely in this case. Perhaps Matthew wished to express here the thought that he, a tax collector, a man previously considered by all as completely unworthy and rejected, was now deemed worthy of such great honor, having become not only a disciple of the Savior, but also being sent by Him on such a great matter as the preaching of the coming of the Kingdom of God. In the passage in question, Matthew clearly identifies himself with the person mentioned by him in Matt 9:9. He was the writer of the Gospel, which from ancient times bore his name. Some supposed that he was Thomas’s brother, moreover that they were twins. But nothing positive can be said about this. Regarding James of Alphaeus, first of all let us note that in the calendar accepted in our Church (see “Complete Calendar of the East” of Blessed Sergius. 2nd ed. 1901), three Jameses mentioned in the New Testament are accepted as three different persons, namely: James the son of Zebedee (April 30, June 30), James of Alphaeus (October 9), and James, the Lord’s brother (October 23). The fact that James the son of Zebedee, mentioned in verse 2, is not identical with James of Alphaeus is hardly worth saying given that the evangelists themselves clearly distinguish these persons, and of course to this end add Zebedee and Alphaeus. As for the relation of James of Alphaeus to James, the Lord’s brother, the traditions and opinions on this matter are so vague and confused that it is positively impossible to say or establish anything precise about these apostles. Some medieval writers held that this James (that is, of Alphaeus) was the Lord’s brother and he is also mentioned in the Epistles (1 Cor 9:5; Gal 1:18-19), because Mary (Mark 15:40), wife of Alphaeus, was the sister of Mary, Mother of the Lord, and the evangelist John (John 19:25) called the wife of Alphaeus Mary of Clopas; perhaps he was called both Clopas (Klofas) and Alphaeus. Or the same Mary after the death of Alphaeus and after giving birth to James married Clopas. But the fact that Mary of Clopas was the sister of the Theotokos is not confirmed by anything. The circumstance that two sisters (the Theotokos and Mary of Clopas) were called by the same name is improbable. The opinion about the identity of James of Alphaeus and James, the Lord’s brother, can therefore at present be considered completely abandoned. John Chrysostom and Theophylact distinguish two Jameses — James of Zebedee and James of Alphaeus, two Judases — Thaddaeus and Judas the traitor, three Simons — Peter, the Canaanaean, and the traitor, who, according to Theophylact, was also called Simon. But in the interpretations of the passage being considered in Matthew’s Gospel, they do not mention James, the Lord’s brother. This Alphaeus, father of James, was not the same Alphaeus who was the father of Matthew (Mark 2:14). By Alphaeus and Mary were born James and Judas. James is called the Small, or Lesser (μικρός — Mark 15:40), that is, by age, as some suppose, or perhaps by the time of his calling he was younger than Big James, the brother of John. According to Zahn, regarding the second James there exists great textual variation, which apparently arose from the desire to smooth out the discrepancies between the evangelists. Apart from very strained reconciliations and combinations, which because of their very insufficiency and improbability are left without consideration, harmonistic texts are also suspect, where Matthew and Mark have identical names. If we encounter such a diversity of opinions regarding James the son of Alphaeus, then the accounts of the next apostle mentioned by the evangelist, Lebbaeus, are even more confused. John Chrysostom distinguishes Judas Iscariot from Judas Lebbaeus, also called Thaddaeus; Luke calls him Judas the son of James, saying: Judas, son of James (Luke 6:16). Augustine thought that one and the same apostle was called by three names, that is, Thaddaeus, Lebbaeus, and Judas, “because who ever forbade anyone to be called by two or three names?” Historically nothing can be objected to the fact that one apostle was called by three names. In the Middle Ages it became generally established that Thaddaeus was the one whom Luke calls Judas son of James, that is, the brother of James – the writer of the Epistle of Jude. According to Bengel, Thaddaeus and Lebbaeus (“tad” and “leb”) are synonyms, and both these names mean a man of heart. It was suggested that Thaddaeus was a name somewhat problematic for an apostle because the Aramaic word “tad” means literally a woman’s breast. Therefore its name was replaced with the corresponding Lebbaeus, which is similar to the first because it means heart, but was more, so to speak, fitting for an apostle. The words of Luke that besides the traitor one more apostle was called Judas are powerfully, according to Zahn, confirmed by John 14:22, and by this alone is satisfactorily explained the unwavering designation of the traitor as Iscariot.

Matthew 10:4. Simon the Cananaean and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed Him. (Compare Mark 3:19; Luke 6:16). Jerome derives the name Cananaean from Cana of Galilee, and the difference in Luke, who calls the apostle Simon the Zealot (Luke 6:15), he reconciles by saying that the word Cana itself means zeal. Some other exegetes interpret the word the same way. According to this interpretation Simon the Cananaean (so one should read, not Cananite – see Schürer, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes, I, 486, note 138) was called so exclusively because he lived in Cana of Galilee. In modern times this interpretation has been entirely abandoned because it is completely unknown whether Simon was a resident of Cana. The name of the apostle is explained not from the city of Cana and not from the word Cananaean, that is, an inhabitant of Canaan, but simply from the Hebrew “kanna” – to be zealous, or “kania” – zeal, which correspond to the Greek ζηλόω (to be zealous) or ζηλωτής (one who is zealous). Thus the name of the apostle indicates not his life in Cana of Galilee and not his origin from that city, but only his belonging to the party which at that time had only just arisen in Palestine, namely the Zealots. As grounds for why this name cannot be derived from Cana, they point to the fact that then the apostle would have been called not κανανάες but κανναῖος, examples of which are found among the classical writers (inhabitants of Κάναι in Aeolia, Strabo, “Geography”, XIII, 1). The party of Zealots gradually brought Jerusalem to its fall. They fanatically hated the Romans. Josephus calls them robbers, but these were not ordinary robbers but avengers who dealt with their political enemies by means of war and plunder. The Roman procurator Felix captured the head of this party, Eleazar, and sent him along with his associates to Rome. And many other “robbers” were crucified by Felix. But since they were enemies of Rome, they enjoyed great sympathy from the Jewish people. According to Meyer, the fact that Judas Iscariot was the only disciple who did not come from Galilee cannot be proved. As for the very form of the surname Judas Iscariot, attempts have been made to explain it in various ways, most of them unsatisfactory. It was supposed, for example, that this word is equivalent to the Hebrew “Iskarioth” (from “Eskar” – purchase, merchandise), but if it were actually so, it would be surprising why this form remained untranslated in the Gospels. The view that Judas came from the village of Kerioth or Karioth in the tribe of Judah, and was therefore called Iscariot, seems to remain the best up to the present time. Confirmation for it is found in the words of Josephus, who calls one man from Tob “Istovos”, that is, “man from Tob”. Thus one might suppose that Judas too was “a man from Karioth”. Furthermore, in some manuscripts, also in the Syriac and Armenian translations, it is written not Iscariot but Karioth or Scarioth. The village of Kerioth (Kiriath) is mentioned in the Book of Joshua (Josh 15:25). But perhaps Judas came from a village in the tribe of Ephraim called Kerioth, about which Jerome speaks in his commentary on Isa 1:9. Much more interesting and important is the question of why the Savior admitted into the circle of His closest disciples a man such as Judas was. In answering this question, Ambrose says that “the Savior chooses Judas not out of lack of prudence but out of foresight, that is, from him Christ wished to be betrayed, so that you too, if a friend abandons you, if you are betrayed by him, might judge your error and the emptiness of your attachment to him temperately”. Some later exegetes offered other explanations. Just as there was a serpent in paradise, and just as in Noah’s ark there was Ham, so in the midst of the Savior’s disciples there could be Judas. To raise questions about why he was chosen among the disciples is the same as to raise questions about why God created not only good spirits – angels – but also those who afterwards became evil. Did not God foresee that they might abuse their freedom? But most reliably, it seems, we should explain this matter thus: Judas at his first encounters with the Savior showed sincerity and genuine devotion to Him. But the actual purpose of such sincerity and devotion was worldly good or even money. If we look at all this directly, it is hardly possible to suppose that Judas was any outstanding personality out of thousands of other persons for whom religion serves as a subject of speculation. From the Gospels it is known that even other disciples besides Judas did not have truly ideal relations to Christ, at least insofar as other interests mixed into these relations, for which the Savior rebuked the disciples. As for the question of why the Savior chose exactly twelve disciples, the usual explanation is that this corresponded to the number of the twelve tribes of Israel. One Catholic medieval theologian even cites a whole series of quotations from which it is clear in what manner the Old Testament “foreshadowed” this New Testament event – the choosing of twelve apostles. Besides the twelve tribes, there were twelve sons of Jacob, twelve heads of the sons of Israel (Num 1:16), twelve springs of fresh water in Elim (Exod 15:27), twelve loaves of the bread of presence, twelve spies, twelve stones taken and placed in the Jordan, twelve bronze bulls of the so-called bronze sea in the temple, and so forth. But if one attends only to the numbers, then one can ask, first, why did Christ choose and send seventy disciples as well, and secondly, why was the number of disciples not always strictly limited to twelve, but later Paul and others were added, who were also called apostles. In all probability, the number of disciples was determined by purely practical considerations – the fact that twelve men were found who were suitable for apostolic work, but if only ten had been found, or thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen, then the number would have correspondingly decreased or increased. We cannot imagine that Christ on the basis of any numerical or merely symbolic considerations rejected people who wished to be His disciples and would have proved capable of it. John also had disciples, but their number is not indicated. Only after the coincidence of the twelve with the numbers of the Old Testament did it become possible to discourse on their symbolic significance, but these numbers did not influence and could not have influenced Christ’s choice, any more than the example given by the rabbis, who also gathered and had disciples around them – though Christ could have acted in accordance with the customs of His time in this case.

Matthew 10:5. These twelve Jesus sent out, and instructed them, saying: Do not go on the road to the Gentiles, and do not enter any city of the Samaritans; According to the general opinion of ancient interpreters, which is particularly well expressed by Chrysostom, Jerome, and Theophylact, the prohibition against going to preach to the Gentiles and Samaritans was prompted by the fact that the disciples were to preach first of all to the Jews, who after this could no longer have any excuse to say that the initial preaching was not directed to them, and to bring this fact to their justification. As a parallel, they point to Acts 13:46. The prohibition to preach to the Gentiles and Samaritans was given despite the fact that both the Gentiles and the Samaritans were even more capable than the Jews of accepting the Gospel preaching. Later, after the Resurrection, this prohibition was revoked.

Matthew 10:6. but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel; By lost sheep there is no need to understand only the immoral or criminal classes of the population, but all Jews without any distinction or exception, who had not yet believed in the Messiah and had not turned to Him in heart and life.

Matthew 10:7. And as you go, proclaim that the kingdom of heaven has come near; (Compare Luke 9:2). Literally: “proclaim, saying, that the kingdom of heaven has come near.” In the absence of chronological data it is difficult to determine with precision when exactly this mission of the apostles on preaching took place. However, it is evident that according to the view of the evangelist himself, this was already after the Savior Himself had preached much and healed the sick. If we keep this circumstance in mind, we will better understand what the initial preaching of the apostles should have consisted of. The material for it is outlined in the words: “the kingdom of heaven has come near.” If those sent had only uttered these words before someone, that alone would have been sufficient. But if they had been asked to explain what this means, they could simply tell of the appearance of an extraordinary person who worked miracles and spoke as none of the scribes and Pharisees spoke. Thus the mission on preaching of people inexperienced in it, owing to the very simplicity of the preaching, in no way exceeded the powers of the apostles. This preaching was not bookish, did not require study or any scholarly knowledge or pursuits, but was taken straight from life and was carried on for its sake. The word “repent” before “for the kingdom has come near” is found only in one Coptic translation in the Sahidic dialect.

Matthew 10:8. Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, drive out demons; freely you have received, freely give. (Compare Luke 9:2). According to Jerome, Jesus Christ gave the apostles “authority to heal the sick, cleanse lepers, and cast out demons in order to prove the greatness of the promises by the greatness of miracles”. The words: “freely you have received” and so forth refer, of course, to the miracles, not to the teaching (Meyer, 1864). The miracles were to serve as confirmation of the authority given by the apostles. But if they were not performed freely, that would be poor confirmation. No other expression, it seems, bears such marks of trustworthiness and authenticity as precisely this simple expression. It could not have been said by anyone except the Savior Himself.

Matthew 10:9. Do not acquire gold or silver or copper for your belts, Matthew 10:10. nor a bag for the journey, nor two tunics, nor sandals, nor a staff; for the worker deserves his sustenance. (Compare Mark 6:8-9; Luke 9:3). An interesting explanation of this verse is given by Thomas Aquinas: “Before suffering the apostles were sent to the Jews. The Jews had the custom of caring for their teachers, therefore Christ, sending disciples to the Jews, commanded them to take nothing with them. But the Gentiles had no such custom. Therefore, when the disciples were sent to the Gentiles, they were given permission to take support; and so they took it when preaching to others, besides the Jews”. In connection with this commandment, exegetes raise questions about whether the commandment was only temporary or permanent, that is, whether it concerned only the apostles, and moreover only during their initial preaching, or had binding force for all preachers of the Gospel. Some answer that the commandment was permanent (Hilary, Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine), so that the apostles were to observe this form and manner of poverty throughout their lives when preaching to the Gentiles. But others hold that the Savior’s commandments were of a temporary character and were binding only during the apostles’ preaching to the Jews during the time of Christ. Of course, strict fulfillment of the Savior’s commandments, for example in preaching in severe climates, is sometimes impossible. However, the spirit of non-attachment commanded by Him remains in full force for all preachers of the Gospel. Why then were the disciples to refrain from all cares before their journey? Because the people will be glad to hear the new Gospel tidings and if necessary will supply those who brought them with all that is needed. This thought is expressed in the further words (“for the worker deserves his sustenance”), which became almost a proverb. Theophylact remarks that the Savior said here τροφῆς (sustenance, food), not τρυφῆς (luxury, softness), because it is not right for teachers to give themselves over to luxury. In Luke (Luke 10:7) instead of “sustenance” – “reward”: “for the worker deserves his reward (τοῦ μισθοῦ αὐτοῦ) for his labors”.

Matthew 10:11. Now whenever you enter a town or a village, find out who in it is worthy, and stay there until you leave; Matthew 10:12. As you enter the house, greet it, saying, “Peace be to this house”; (Compare Mark 6:10; Luke 9:4). The Savior’s commandment is marked by simplicity. Those sent by Him were to enter some city and there by available means find out who was “worthy” – a word which may mean a person capable and inclined to accept the Gospel tidings, hospitable, God-fearing, pious, of honest life, longing for salvation, and so forth. Such people are not particularly difficult to find even in large cities, much less in small and provincial ones, such as were generally the cities of Palestine at that time. To a “worthy” person the apostles were to go directly and remain there as long as needed, – until the time of their departure from there – an indefinite expression, but one that well characterizes the work of the apostles.

Matthew 10:13. And if the house is worthy, let your peace come upon it; but if it is not worthy, let your peace return to you. “Peace” in the words of the Savior is as it were personified, represented as it were as a person who enters to the master but, rejected by him, returns to the apostles. By peace one can understand general well-being, depending on tranquility, health, absence of enmity, quarrels, disagreements, divisions; in a figurative sense the word “peace” means salvation.

Matthew 10:14. And if anyone will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town; (Compare Mark 6:11; Luke 9:5). According to Alford, the “solemn” act of shaking dust from one’s feet could have two meanings: 1) that the apostles took nothing from those who rejected them and are free from any connection with them; 2) that they are free from any share in the condemnation which will befall those who refused hospitality. The apostles were to show the unbelieving that they considered them unclean and responsible for their uncleanness (see Acts 18:6). Perhaps this commandment was so clear to the apostles because the Jews had the custom upon returning from pagan lands where they had wandered to shake the dust from their feet.

Matthew 10:15. Truly I tell you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town. Matthew 10:16. Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; therefore be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. (Compare Luke 10:3). From the sixteenth verse begins a new section. The connection of this section with the preceding one may consist in the fact that the Savior spoke of people who did not receive the apostles, whom He was to leave and shake dust from their feet. In the further verses He portrays in greater detail the environment in which the apostles would have to labor, and His view shifts from the immediate reality to future times, and He, so to speak, depicts both the present and the future simultaneously. The environment to which the apostles were sent was unsatisfactory. The mention of Sodom and Gomorrah indicates its low condition, the decline of the general moral level, under which everything of which the Savior speaks further was possible. When the disciples enter this environment, they may be required to make all sorts of sacrifices. Thus, in the view of the Savior, on the one hand, there could appear sheep without a shepherd, and on the other – a world full of sin, malice and hatred. Now, it is as if the sheep are forgotten, and all attention is concentrated on the wolves in the midst of which the apostolic preaching was to take place. If there were only sheep everywhere, there would be no danger for the apostles, but since sheep are surrounded by wolves, the apostles will encounter great dangers. Confirmation of such an interpretation is found in the words of the holy John Chrysostom: “He begins to speak now also of those misfortunes that were to befall them, and not only of those that were soon to befall them, but of those that were to follow after a long time, and thus he prepares them beforehand for battle against the devil”. In the next part of the sentence the images change: the apostles, on the one hand, in the midst of wolves should remain sheep as before, but, on the other, also transform themselves into serpents. “The pious often appear to the impious in the image of serpents and thus overcome the ancient serpent” (Bengel). The wisdom of the serpent became a proverb probably from the time of the account of the fall. But in reality the serpent apparently is not at all as wise as is reported of it in the Bible and in particular in the Gospel. In Gen 3:1 the Hebrew word “arum” is translated by the Seventy as ὄφις, the same word is used here in the Gospel. It does not necessarily mean an animal distinguished from others by wit. From natural history it is known that, for example, the elephant and the dog are much wiser than any serpent. Therefore it is thought that the word translated as “wise” is imprecise, especially in the present application. The Greek word more signifies prudence regarding one’s own safety rather than mental or moral wisdom (Greek σοφός; here is used φρόνιμος prudent). Here reference is made to the real or supposed caution or cunning of the serpent in time of danger. Therefore the commandment is better translated thus: be as prudent as serpents. The Savior does not say: be wise as foxes, whose cunning consists in deceiving others; but – as serpents, whose policy consists in defending themselves, not in cunning for their own safety. In the work of Christ we should be wise enough not to bring misfortunes on our heads without need. The word innocent – ἀκέραιος is derived from ἀ and κεράννυμι. Thus ἀκέραιος means “unmixed”, “pure”, and in such sense this word is used, for example, of metals to denote their purity and the absence of any impurities in them. In figurative meaning the word is similar to the Latin sincerus, or to the Greek “pure in heart” (Matt 5:8) and “clean”, “simple” (ἁπλοῦς – Matt 6:22). In this sense, it is unquestionably used also in the Epistles (Rom 16:19; Phil 2:15). Some ancient manuscripts replace the word ἀκέραιος with the word ἁπλούστατοι.

Matthew 10:17. Beware of men, for they will hand you over to councils and flog you in their synagogues; (Compare Mark 13:9; Luke 21:12). As for whether the apostles suffered any floggings during this first journey of theirs, nothing is known. It may be that the Savior spoke here, as was explained above, only in the prophetic sense. But that persecution of the disciples could have been raised even during the first journey (although we know nothing about this), this is indicated by the malice of the scribes and Pharisees that had already begun, which is clearly spoken of in the Fourth Gospel. Floggings were common among the Jews at that time. We have sufficiently detailed information even about how they were carried out. Such, for example, was the famous flogging of forty stripes except one, to which the apostle Paul was subjected. One commonly thinks that the last blow was not delivered in order not to cause death to the condemned. But the matter is explained differently. The Hebrew scourge originally consisted of only one lash, and then perhaps, according to the law, they actually gave forty blows except one. But later this scourge began to be made with three lashes, whereupon they gave thirteen blows, so that exactly thirty-nine resulted, and if another blow were to follow, it would be a violation of the law which forbade delivering more than forty blows to a criminal. This punishment was assigned by courts of three, seven, or twenty-three, which were established in each city to resolve civil and criminal cases. That such punishments were indeed carried out in synagogues, we have indisputable testimony from the Book of Acts (Acts 22:19). This is evident, among other things, from the testimony of Eusebius (“Church History”, V, 16), who cites a work of unknown authorship against the Montanists (perhaps of Apollinaris, or Apollonius), where it is said that in synagogues Jewish women were never subjected to flogging and never stoned. Thus from this it is evident that men were no exception. Floggings in synagogues were appointed, as it is supposed, by verdicts of a tribunal of three, who were judges in them.

Matthew 10:18. and you will be brought before governors and kings because of me, as a testimony to them and the Gentiles. (Compare Mark 13:9; Luke 21:12). By governors and kings one can understand generally any persons to whom the Jews or the Gentiles, out of their malice, might lead preachers now or later. The delivery of the apostles will take place not on account of any crimes committed by the apostles, but “because of me” (cf. Matt 5:11), that is, the sufferings of the apostles were to serve as a testimony about Christ before all the people before whom the disciples will suffer, indifferently whether before Jews or before pagan governors and kings or before Gentiles. The thought is that at a time when people will satisfy their cruelty and malice by subjecting the Savior’s disciples to disgrace and suffering, these very trials for them will be directed by God to the benefit and advancement of the Gospel and the Kingdom of Heaven (Morison).

Matthew 10:19. When they deliver you up, do not be anxious about how or what you should speak; for it will be given you in that hour what you should speak, In the synoptists (Mark 13:10-11; Luke 21:13-14) everywhere the same thought is expressed, only in different words. The disciples should not be anxious. Should not deliberate on what to say. Should not defend themselves. “In that hour”, when they will stand before the court, it will be given them what to speak.

Matthew 10:20. for it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you. (Compare Mark 13:11; Luke 21:15). The Holy Spirit will use the disciples as it were as His instruments for speaking and in their own and in His own defense. He knows better than the disciples themselves how and what to say. However brief these words of the Savior are, they express such profound thoughts that analysis can only diminish their force. One can only say that no man could speak as the Savior spoke here.

Matthew 10:21. “Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death; This verse is repeated almost literally in Mark (Mark 13:12) and somewhat differently in Luke (Luke 21:16). Since in the latter two synoptists these words are cited in the last speech of Christ upon leaving the Jerusalem temple in Holy Week, it is thought that here is the so-called isteology, that is, an afterwards inserted, introduced here by Matthew. Whether this is so or whether Christ simply repeated these words in His last speech is difficult to determine at present. Nothing prevents us from recognizing that these words could be repeated by Him. In any case, the historical fulfillment of this prophecy is beyond any doubt, and during persecutions of Christians many cases are known when parents and other relatives rose up against children and conversely (as examples they point especially to the great martyr Barbara, and the martyrs Christina and Lucy). If someone were to say what is beneficial in the teaching of Christ if it encourages children to rise against parents and so forth, the reply can be given that without such action the evil flourishing in the world would be even greater and would remain uncured. Well-being sometimes requires many sacrifices.

Matthew 10:22. and you will be hated by all because of my name. But the one who endures to the end will be saved. The verse is literally repeated in Mark (Mark 13:13) and Luke (Luke 21:17). In the latter, however, without the second half, which is replaced in Luke 21:19 with the words: “by your endurance you will gain your souls.” The object of hatred is pointed out, but its cause is not. In other words, hatred for Christ begins and continues as though without any cause, only because He is Christ. His very name alone is capable of arousing hatred in many people. It is clear that here there are some hidden but fully intelligible causes, which He does not point out directly. The ideals are too high, the demands are too high, which, as it seems at first glance, are not applicable to life and whose implementation requires hard struggle. And where there is struggle, there is hatred, which is absent only perhaps in a few cases not relating properly to struggle. The expression “all” is explained differently. According to some, this expression is put instead of “many” (Theophylact); according to others – it is only a popular expression of universal hatred, exceptions disappeared from view (Meyer, 1864 and Morison). Neither explanation, it seems, can be considered satisfactory. The expression will be clearer if we again turn to the idea of struggle, when people are divided into two camps. People of the opposite or hostile camp are here called “all”. For them the very name of Christ will serve as an object of hatred. The further expression in Greek can be understood in two ways: “the one who endures for my name’s sake to the end – he will be saved”, or as in Russian: “you will be hated by all because of my name; and the one who endures” and so forth. If it were the first, then the article before the word “endures” would be replaced by the article before “because of my name” (cf. Matt 24:13). The expression “to the end” is also explained differently: the end of the sufferings of the disciples, the end of life, the destruction of Jerusalem, and so forth. But it is much better to explain it as “to the end of sufferings”, because that, it seems, is the point of the matter. “It is not the beginning but the completion that is important,” Jerome says.

Matthew 10:23. When they persecute you in one town, flee to another. For truly I tell you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes. The first impression that remains in our mind upon reading the verse is that Christ, sending the disciples to preach, and Himself, it seems, wished to withdraw from them for a more or less prolonged time. Where He withdrew to is unknown, and what He did during this time is known only in part, but that the withdrawal really took place, in this it is hardly possible to doubt. Thus, the simple, natural and immediate meaning of the words of Christ consists in this, that the apostles will not have time to go through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man will come again, will meet them again. Now they are to depart alone, He will leave them for a time. But this separation will not be prolonged. He will come to them again. It seems that the holy John Chrysostom understood it in this way, asserting that here “the Lord speaks not of persecutions which were to come after, but of those which were to come before His crucifixion and suffering.” “You will not have time to go through Palestine before I come to you at once.” With such an interpretation, the expression “Son of Man” does not remain without significance. It could mean that Christ would return to the disciples not in glory and power, but in an even more abased state, and debased, no less suffering than the disciples themselves.

Matthew 10:24. A disciple is not above the teacher, nor a slave above the master; (Compare Luke 6:40). If the expression “Son of Man” in the preceding verse is understood in the sense as indicated, then the words of the twenty-fourth verse contain a very subtle transition to the further speech. The Son of Man is treated and will be treated not as he should be. He is himself a sufferer, similar to the apostles depicted by Him. This should serve as consolation for the apostles in their sufferings. Why? Because this is the usual order of things, although not the normal one. If the master is persecuted, then at this time his servants are persecuted. If the teacher is not in honor, then his disciples do not enjoy honor. If it were otherwise, then the disciples would be above their teachers, and the slaves – above their masters. The thought expressed here is repeated with different variations in Luke in the Sermon on the Mount (Luke 6:40) and in John (John 13:16). According to Alford, this was a proverb. This verse is well explained by Theophylact, who says: “But you will say: how is ‘a disciple not above a teacher’ when we see that many disciples are better than their teachers? Learn then that as long as they are disciples they are less than their teachers, but when they become better than them, then they are no longer disciples, just as a slave, as long as he remains a slave, cannot be above his master.” This thought is fully in agreement with the mentioned expression of Luke, according to which “when one has completed the training, will be like the teacher”.

Matthew 10:25. It is enough for the disciple to be like the teacher, and the slave like the master. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign those of his household? (Compare Luke 6:40). A disciple can, of course, surpass his teacher, and a slave – his master. But this does not happen always. Usually it is quite sufficient if a slave or disciple achieves that they resemble their masters and teachers. This is especially significant in the case when we are speaking of such a Teacher as Christ. The disciples cannot at all compare themselves with Him. For them it would be quite sufficient if they at least somewhat resembled their Teacher. In what did they resemble? In the extraordinary ability to teach, in the performance of extraordinary miracles? No, in the fact that they were to suffer just as their Teacher suffered. They can, of course, imitate Him in this. But they will never have to compare themselves with Him in this regard. The further speech serves as it were an explanation of why this is so. If the master of the house, the teacher, the lord, evil people call Beelzebul, then the household, the disciples, the subordinates cannot hope for better treatment of themselves. The matter, of course, is not in the name itself, but in what consequences follow from it. However we explain the word Beelzebul, calling any person Beelzebul in any case serves as an indication of a bad connection and a sign of hostile relations to the person. Thus, if the teacher is treated by people with hostility, then the disciples should also expect similar treatment. Remarkably, the Savior, as is evident from the Gospels, was never called Beelzebul by anyone. It was only His activity that was put in connection with Beelzebul (Matt 9:34; Mark 3:22; Luke 11:15). Speaking, as indicated in the Gospels, He wants to say precisely only this. The very word Beelzebul has provided many difficulties to exegetes, and it can be said that the question on this subject has not been finally resolved to the present time. By this name was called the Philistine deity in Ekron, about which only simple mentions are found in 2 Sam 1:2. But there it is always written in Hebrew not Beelzebul but Beelzebub. Since “zebub” in Hebrew means “fly”, the word Beelzebub can be translated as “god (lord, chief) of flies”. With such an explanation of this word the translation of the Seventy agrees, who everywhere in the mentioned places render Baalzebub through “Baal-fly” (Βάαλ μυῖα), the Ekronite deity. But whether this Baal was the “god of flies” or was himself “god-fly” is extremely difficult to determine due to lack of data. From what has survived from antiquity, as far as we know, only on one silver coin of Arad is there a depiction of a fly, but this shows that paganism in any case was not unfamiliar with the idea of a “god-fly”. We have no need to engage in detailed studies of this Philistine god, which readers will find in commentaries on the Fourth Book of Kings. If in the New Testament the name of the Ekronite god was Beelzebub, then the interpretation would be simplified by at least half. But in the New Testament we do not encounter the name Beelzebub, but everywhere Beelzebul, however, far from in all manuscripts. The Vulgate, the Syriac Peshitto, the Syriac-Sinaitic, Cyprian, Jerome, Augustine, Beza and others write Βεελζεβούβ. Thus questions arise, first, about the relationship of this New Testament Beelzebul to the Ekronite Beelzebub, whether Beelzebul is the same deity that was worshipped in Ekron, or another, and, secondly, what is the correct reading in the New Testament, Beelzebul or Beelzebub. To the latter question one can answer affirmatively in the sense that the reading Beelzebul is attested more strongly than Beelzebub. But in that case how to explain such a change, supposing that it is the same Ekronite god, only named differently? It is explained by the fact that Hebrew jesters and mockers changed the word “zebub” to “zevul” – a word found in the Talmud (from “zabal” – to be rolled up, to bunch up) and meaning a lump, filth, dung, and thus the Ekronite god from “god of flies” became “god of filth” or “dung”. Although such changes are not without analogies in other cases, because “curse words against idolaters were clearly allowed among the Jews”, however against such a derivation one can object that dung in rabbinical language is “zebel”, not “zevul”, and thus it would result not in Beelzebul but in Beelzebel. Besides, if we accept this view, then it will turn out that the Savior to express His thought made use in this case of a folk witticism, and moreover not quite a proper one, which is hardly probable. Therefore some accept another explanation, according to which Beelzebul means “god (lord) of the dwelling” (dominus domicilii), first, because in rabbinical literature “zebul” is the name of the fourth heaven where the heavenly Jerusalem, temple, altar and Michael are located, and “zibbul” – an idolatrous offering, and, secondly, because Christ Himself, it seems, explains the meaning of the name He used with the words “master of the house”. This explanation also is subject to many objections, but for now remains the only one on which one can stop. In this case Beelzebul means “head of the temple” or “of idolatrous worship”. “This is the evilest and chief of demons, who was the instigator of idolatry and urged it. The “Lord of the temple” (which was His Church) was for them the “head of idolatrous worship”, the representative of the worst of demons. What then could the “members of his household” expect in such treatment?” (Edersheim). [Actually, the etymology of this word is different: the Aramaic root “zavav” or “davav” denotes “complaint, lawsuit” (from Akkadian daba-bu). In that case “baalzevav” denotes nothing other than “lord of accusation”, that is simply “plaintiff, accuser”. In such a meaning this word, for example, was widely used up to and including the 13th century after R.H. in the Syriac language. The identification of this word with the similarly sounding word “fly” (Hebrew “zevuv”) was the result of folk etymology, when the original meaning of the Akkadian borrowing was forgotten, which led to a change in the phonetic form of the word from “baalzevav” to “baalzevuv”. The Hebrew equivalent of the word “baalzevav” is the word “satan”, originally meaning “the opposing side in court”. – Editor’s note.] In conclusion, note that in this verse there is a rather strange construction, not expressed in our Russian translation. According to the literal translation: “it is enough for the disciple (to the disciple) that he be like his teacher, and (to the) slave like his master.” Instead of the dative (“to the slave” or “for the slave”) in the second case in the Greek text the nominative (“slave”) is put. It is thought that this nominative is put owing to “careless translation”.

Matthew 10:26. So do not be afraid of them, for nothing is covered up that will not be uncovered, and nothing secret that will not become known. (Compare Luke 12:2). The word “so” clearly indicates the connection of this verse with the preceding ones. The Savior now exhorts His disciples not to fear evil people and bases His exhortation not on the powerlessness of the enemies, not on divine protection of the disciples against them, but on the fact that all that is secret will in time be revealed. It is immediately evident that this verse is not as simple for explanation as it appears at first glance. Besides, it is difficult to explain such a categorical assertion that all that is secret must necessarily be revealed. Are there not secret deeds that have never been and never will be revealed? Such difficulties prompted many ancient and modern interpreters to relate the fulfillment of Christ’s words exclusively to the future judgment, when the Lord “will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart, and then each one will receive commendation from God” (1 Cor 4:5). So Jerome explained this passage, who continues: do not fear the cruelty of persecutors and the fury of blasphemers, because the day of judgment will come when your virtue and their unrighteousness will be revealed. But Chrysostom and Theophylact did not relate these expressions to the future judgment, but interpreted them in the sense that the truth will be revealed and time will show both the virtue of the disciples and the malice of the slanderers. “Wait a little,” Chrysostom says, “and all will call you saviors and benefactors of the universe. Time reveals all that is hidden, it will expose the slander of the enemies and reveal your virtue”.

Matthew 10:27. What I tell you in the dark, tell in the light; and what you hear whispered, proclaim from the rooftops. (Compare Luke 12:3). From these words of Christ one can draw a direct and clear conclusion that He did not speak this speech before the disciples openly and in public. “He spoke with the disciples privately and in a small corner of Palestine” (St. John Chrysostom). But what He spoke under such circumstances, neither He Himself nor the disciples had any need to hide. With the help of various figurative expressions, which there is no need to understand literally, because they were borrowed from everyday life and contained no hints at synagogue customs, the Savior clarifies this thought. What I speak only in your presence, speak before everyone; what you hear from Me as it were on the ear, speak aloud.

Matthew 10:28. And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear the one who can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna. (Compare Luke 12:4). The sense of this verse is that one is commanded to fear God more than people, to trust in Him more than in people. A similar passage is in the Epistle of the apostle James (Jas 4:12). Euthymius Zigabenus: “Cast out fear by fear, not before people but before God.” This interpretation is called excellent. Regarding the soul, it is here said that it will not be killed but destroyed, because, according to Bengel’s remark, the soul is immortal.

Matthew 10:29. Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father. (Compare Luke 12:6). Deliberately are chosen as an example small, insignificant little birds in general (στρουθία), not sparrows (although στουθίον means also sparrow), and moreover not one but two, in order to even more strongly show their small value. In Luke instead of two – five, πέντε. The reference probably had in mind the familiar customs to everyone of the sale of little birds in the market. The current copper coin in Palestine at that time was the as, the ancient Latin assar and later Greek ἀσσάριον. The value of the as originally equaled 1/10 denarius, and after the Punic War (217 B.C.) – only 1/16 denarius. The smallest coin was the mite – 1/8 as, with it was identical the lepton found in the New Testament, making up half a quadrans (Schürer). The expression “will not fall” has a general meaning – will not perish, regardless of the reasons for this perishing. Therefore it is idle to debate whether the little bird perishes because it falls into a snare, is shot down, falls from the sky or from branches, and so forth.

Matthew 10:30. And even the hairs of your head are all counted. (Compare Luke 12:7). In Luke: “but even the hairs of your head are all numbered” (Luke 21:18). A figurative and plastic expression. In other words: even the hairs on your head, however insignificant in themselves, are, however, on record, not one of them is lost without the knowledge and will of God.

Matthew 10:31. So do not be afraid; you are of more value than many sparrows. (Compare Luke 12:7, the second half of the verse – with slight difference). The sense is that if you were and only a little better than small little birds, then even in that case there would be great care of your heavenly Father for you. It is, consequently, much greater, the more the value of the disciples exceeds the value of small little birds. The Russian translation is not quite accurate and is made more according to sense than literally. In the original: you are distinguished from many small little birds. The Russian translation is similar to the Slavic, Latin Vulgate, German and English translations.

Matthew 10:32. “Everyone therefore who acknowledges me before others, I also will acknowledge before my Father in heaven; (Compare Luke 12:8). Literally: “everyone who confesses in me before people, I also will confess in him before my Father in heaven.” The thought which the Savior wished to express here is clear. Ὀμολογέω means, among other things, to acknowledge, and regarding Christ – to acknowledge Him as the Messiah and His teaching as divine. Such acknowledgment can be expressed not only in words but also in deeds. The connection with the preceding is also sufficiently clear. Speaking of persecutions on account of His name, the Savior here indicates what consequences they may have. Many of them will cause, on account of fear or worldly attachments, to deny Him, similar to Peter. Foreseeing this, He speaks of what consequences such denial may have. Theophylact explains, however, this verse somewhat differently. “He did not say: whoever confesses me, but in Me, that is, by My power. But of those who deny, He did not say: by Me, but from Me, thus showing that the one who denies is the one who does not have help from above”.

Matthew 10:33. But whoever denies me before others, I also will deny before my Father in heaven. (Compare Luke 12:9). The thought is the same as in the preceding verse, only expressed in the form of negation. This verse can serve to clarify what is said in the preceding verse.

Matthew 10:34. “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. A parallel passage in Luke (Luke 12:51), where the same thought is expressed somewhat differently. The best explanation of this verse can be given by the words of John Chrysostom: “But how did He Himself command them (the disciples), entering each house, to greet it with peace? Why also did the Angels sing: “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace” (Luke 2:14)? Why also do all the prophets proclaim the same? Because it is then that peace is especially established, when what is infected by disease is cut off, when what is hostile is separated. Only in this way is it possible for heaven to be united with earth. For a doctor saves the remaining parts of the body when he cuts off an incurable limb from it; likewise a military commander restores tranquility when he destroys harmony among conspirators.” Further Chrysostom says: “Unanimity is not always good, and robbers are in agreement. Thus also warfare was the result not of Christ’s determination but of the action of the will of people themselves. Christ Himself wished that all be unanimous in the matter of piety, but as people divided among themselves, warfare ensued.”

Matthew 10:35. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; Matthew 10:36. and one’s foes will be members of one’s own household. (Compare Luke 12:52-53). Here is expressed a thought which was probably well known to the Jews, because Christ’s words are a quotation from Mic 7:6: “For the son dishonors the father, and the daughter rises up against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; a man’s enemies are the people of his own house”.

Matthew 10:37. “Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; (Compare Luke 14:26). In Luke the same thought is expressed, but much more forcefully. Instead of “whoever loves more” – “if anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children” and so forth. The expressions of both evangelists have been explained in the sense that here it is spoken of greater love for the Savior and in general, and when circumstances require it; for example, when His commandments do not accord with those nearest, when love for them would require breaking these commandments. Or love for Christ should be distinguished by such force that love for father, mother and others should seem in comparison with love for Christ to be dislike. It should be noted that these words remind one of Deut 33:9, where Levi “speaks of his father and mother: ‘I do not regard them’, and does not acknowledge his brothers, and does not know his sons; for the Levites guard your words and keep your covenant”; and Exod 32:26-29, where it is told of the slaughter of Israelites after the setting up of the golden calf, when each one killed his brother, friend, neighbor. Thus even in the Old Testament there is no lack of examples when the fulfillment of the commandments of the Lord required hatred and even killing of close ones. But one cannot, of course, think that Christ by His words inspires any hatred of the close and that this commandment of His is distinguished by any hardness. In life it is not at all unknown for cases when love for, say, friends exceeds love for the closest relatives. The words of the Savior indicate the divine and exalted self-consciousness of the Son of Man, and no one in sound judgment can say that He demanded here something exceeding human strength, immoral or unlawful.

Matthew 10:38. “And whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. (Compare Mark 8:34; Luke 9:23). The real meaning of this saying is fully clear. To follow Christ means first of all to take up a cross. Here in the first time in the Gospel of Matthew is literal speech about a cross. The Savior Himself was already bearing this cross in secret at that time. The bearing of the cross by others is presupposed to be voluntary. There is no need to understand this expression literally. By a cross are meant sufferings in general. This expression is found also in Matt 16:24.

Matthew 10:39. “Those who find their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will find it. (Compare Mark 8:35; Luke 9:24). Literally: “whoever finds his life... will find it.” Besides the mentioned passage, the saying in a somewhat changed form is found also in Matt 16:25; Luke 9:24; John 12:25.

Matthew 10:40. “Whoever welcomes you welcomes me, and whoever welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me. The thought expressed in this verse indicates the divine self-consciousness of Christ, because under “the one who sent” one cannot understand anyone except God. It is repeated in various forms in Matthew and in the other Gospels (Matt 18:5; Mark 9:37; Luke 9:48; John 13:20).

Matthew 10:41. “Whoever welcomes a prophet in the name of a prophet will receive a prophet’s reward; and whoever welcomes a righteous person in the name of a righteous person will receive the reward of the righteous. The general sense of this expression is fairly clear. Whoever enters into communion with prophets receives the same reward that prophets receive, and whoever enters into communion with righteous people receives the same reward that righteous people receive. The reward here is presupposed to be, of course, that which is given by God. Not some material reward, but a spiritual one. The only difficult thing here is the expression: “in the name of a prophet” and: “in the name of a righteous person.” Why not simply: prophet and righteous person, but “in the name”? The Greek expression εἰς ὄνομα allows such a translation: whoever welcomes a prophet as a prophet… and a righteous person as a righteous person and so forth. Incorrect Greek form, owing its origin to Hebrew “beshem” (Blass). Jerome paraphrases this expression thus: whoever receives a prophet as a prophet and understands him as speaking of the future, receives the reward of a prophet. Jews who understood the prophets in the strict sense will not receive the reward of prophets. In other words, in every profession the tares are mixed with the wheat. Explaining the same verse, Jerome further asks: “Therefore are we to receive even false prophets and Judas and provide them with support? Anticipating this, the Lord said earlier that it is necessary to receive not the persons but the names; and those who receive will not be deprived of rewards, even if the one they receive were not worthy.” Those receiving show that they obey God, as a prophet does. Similarly those receiving robbers receive the recompense appointed for robbers, coming into close connection with them. So it is done according to common law.

Matthew 10:42. “And whoever gives one of these little ones even a cup of cold water because he is a disciple – truly I tell you, he will certainly not lose his reward. (Compare Mark 9:41). By “the little ones” here can be understood only the disciples being sent out on preaching, who by their development were for now similar to children. Even the smallest service rendered to them will not be forgotten, will not lose its reward. The importance of their work lends significance to even small services rendered to them. In conclusion, note that “only” should be connected with the words “a cup of cold water”, not with the words “because he is a disciple”.