Chapter Eleven

1–6. The question of the Baptist and the answer of Jesus Christ. – 7–15. Christ’s testimony about John the Baptist. – 16–19. Condemnation of unbelieving Jews. – 20–24. Condemnation of unbelieving cities. – 25–30. Speech to the troubled and burdened.

Matthew 11:1. Now when Jesus had finished instructing his twelve disciples, he went on from there to teach and proclaim his message in their cities. This verse forms the conclusion of the preceding chapter and has little relation to chapter 11. Literally: “went (μετέβη) from there to teach and proclaim in their cities.” The expression “in their cities” should be understood in an indefinite sense, in the sense of Jewish cities in general.

Matthew 11:2. When John heard in prison about the works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples The whole of chapter 11 has no parallels in Mark. The parallel passage is Matt 11:2-19 – Luke 7:18-35. Matt 11:2-3 has similarity with Luke 7:18-21; on the contrary, Matt 11:4-11 are literally similar to most of what is said in Luke 7:22-28. The verse in question from Matthew in Luke has this form: “and the disciples of John told him of all these things,” that is, about the miracles of Christ, and in particular about the raising of the widow of Nain’s son. Thus the information “about the deeds of Christ” John received from his own disciples. This was the external occasion for the embassy from John, although the true, or rather, secret motives for the embassy are not indicated. Where the meeting of the Savior with John’s disciples took place, the evangelists say nothing about this. But it is certain that it took place in the absence of the apostles. The imprisonment of the Baptist is presupposed as something known to the readers, and this was mentioned by Matthew earlier (Matt 4:12). John was imprisoned in Machaerus (Metropolitan Filaret), or, as others read, in Machar, about which Josephus speaks (“Antiquities of the Jews”, XVIII, 5, 2). By “deeds” of Christ are meant not only His teaching but His entire activity, which included His preaching. Instead of the Russian “of Christ’s” in some Greek texts – “of Christ” – the genitive with the article to denote a proper name. According to Alford, this shows that the deeds of Christ of which John was told were not the deeds of Him whom he knew only as Jesus, but – the deeds of the Redeemer-Christ. Therefore John now wished to assure himself of the identity of Jesus and Christ. But since in some ancient manuscripts and in Origen the word “Christ” is replaced by the word “Jesus”, it is clear that the ancients perhaps did not attach the significance to this that Alford does. One should only suppose that the use of the word “Christ” was not entirely accidental here. The deeds accomplished by Christ could not belong to anyone else except the true, genuine Christ whom they expected. In the reading of the further words there is a difference. Some read “sent by” (διά), others – “sent two” (δύο). This variant, of course, is best explained by the great similarity of these two words (διά and δύο). Further, the copyists could be influenced by the expression of Luke, who clearly has “two” (cf. Matt 18:19; Mark 11:1; Luke 10:1; John 8:17). Finally, the construction “sent by” is unusual. There would be no special need to discuss this difference in detail if the one or the other reading did not exert some influence on the sense and consequently on the interpretation of the passage in question. Namely, there is a great difference in whether John sent “two” disciples of his so that they, almost in their own name, should propose Christ a question; or to interpret the verse in such a way that John, having no opportunity to see Christ owing to his imprisonment in prison, sent to Him to ask “by” the disciples to resolve the misunderstandings that troubled John himself. In the first case, they wish to get an answer from Christ, and the disciples receive it; in the second case, they are only John’s agents and have no significance in themselves, resemble people who go to buy bread for others, themselves not being hungry at all. Of course, in correspondence with the testimony of Luke, we have full right to suppose that in the present case too there were two disciples. The expression διά itself has somewhat of a Hebrew character, sent “by the hands” of disciples, that is, by their mediation. Why some find “istherology” here is not entirely clear. The embassy could have taken place shortly before the martyrdom and death of the Baptist, probably in the 32nd year of Christ’s life, in the second year of His preaching, when He had already become famous for His teaching and miracles.

Matthew 11:3. and to say to him, “Are you the one who is to come, or are we to wait for another? (Compare Luke 7:19). Even in ancient times the question was raised, why, actually, John sent this embassy to Christ. One can say that, according to the general view of the ancient Church interpreters, John sent this embassy not for himself but only for the sake of his disciples. The disciples doubted Christ, and they were precisely the ones who were to be convinced of His worth as the Messiah. The representatives of the “orthodox” view on this subject – John Chrysostom, Jerome, Hilary, Euthymius Zigabenus, Theophylact and others. According to their opinion, John himself, having so many times testified confidently of Christ as the Lamb of God, could not have any doubts about Him. But since John’s disciples were not favorably disposed toward Christ and envied Him, in order to convert them, John sent them so that, seeing miracles, they would believe that Christ is greater than John. John does not question as one who does not know, because he himself pointed to the Savior at the time when others did not believe in Him (John 1:29; Matt 3:17). Just as the Savior asked to be shown the place where Lazarus was buried so that others would see the resurrected dead and thus believe, so John, facing death at the hands of Herod, now sends his disciples to Christ so that they, seeing on this occasion signs and powers, would believe in Him and, by proposing their teacher’s question, themselves learn. In more recent exegesis it is increasingly established that John himself doubted.

Matthew 11:4. Jesus answered them, “Go and tell John what you hear and see: (Compare Luke 7:22). If Christ had answered that He is the Messiah, such an answer would in the present case be a testimony of Christ about Himself and would seem untrue. This prompted the Savior to give an indirect, though in no way evasive answer, to the disciples of John. There is no need to suppose that He intentionally performed for them the miracles of which it speaks further. Jesus Christ simply refers to them as a fact known to everyone, not excluding John himself. But this, of course, does not exclude the possibility that miracles were performed even before the eyes of the disciples (see Luke 7:21). Instead of theoretical proofs the Savior proposes evident truths – ἀκούετε καὶ βλέπετε (“what you hear and see”).

Matthew 11:5. the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor have good news brought to them. (Compare Luke 7:22). In one only manuscript D is omitted the expression “and the lame walk”; in many manuscripts “the dead are raised” is placed either after “the poor have good news brought to them” or the Greek ἐγείρονται is replaced by ἀνίστανται. Surveying the manuscript variants, we encounter here a very curious phenomenon indicating ancient corrections by copyists, which in different manuscripts sometimes omitted and sometimes added “and” (καὶ). The verse according to the best manuscripts reads as follows: “The blind receive their sight And the lame walk, The lepers are cleansed And the deaf hear, And the dead are raised, And the poor have good news brought to them.” In Luke (Luke 7:22) in the Greek (according to the best readings) there is not a single “and” except one placed before ἠκούσατε. The passage itself is taken from Isa 61:1. Whether the prophet (Isa 29:18-19) used the words “blind, deaf, lame and dumb” in the literal or figurative sense cannot be clarified. Matthew understood them in the literal sense. Jesus Christ speaks in the same sense (Zahn, 1905). With these words of the prophet He portrays here His own miraculous activity and sets it as proof of His messianic nature. The answer fits the Baptist’s question perfectly. The passage of Isaiah according to the LXX translation differs in expressions from the words of both evangelists and reads as follows: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because (οὗ ἕνεκεν) He anointed me to bring good news to himself (about myself) to the poor (εὐαγγελίσασθαι πτωχοῖς), He sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to proclaim to the captives deliverance and to the blind recovery of sight” (cf. Isa 35:3 and following). According to the translation from the Hebrew: “The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because He anointed me to bring good news to the poor, He sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to proclaim to the captives deliverance and to the prisoners – opening of the prison.” Both citations are changed by the evangelists so that the citation would fit the present case. The words “the poor have good news brought to them” are placed by them in the last place. Regarding this last expression it should be said that the Russian and Slavic translations (“the poor have good news brought to them”) are inaccurate and have no basis. “To bring good news” in Greek is εὐαγγελίζειν with the dative, not εὐαγγελίζεσθαι. If we translate the active voice into the passive, then the dative becomes the nominative, something like: “I am brought profit” (active) and “I profit” (passive). The verb εὐαγγελί- ζομαι is found in Matthew’s Gospel only here. For explanation of the construction the best illustration can serve Heb 4:2: “for the good news has come to us too” (namely the promise) (καὶ γάρ ἐσμεν εὐηγγελισμένοι), “like those, and those to whom it came before” (καὶ οἱ πρότερον εὐαγγελισθέντες) and so forth. It is true that εὐαγγελίζομαι can also be joined with the accusative case. But in the Hebrew text in Isaiah – “lebasser anawim”, where “anawim” (the poor) is the accusative, serves as a verification of the reading accepted – to bring good news to the poor. The Vulgate: pauperes evangelizantur; German translation: den Armen wird das Evangelium geprediget; English translation: and the poor have the gospel preached to them. Accurately, though not in Russian, one can translate: the poor have good news brought to them the poor are brought good news.

Matthew 11:6. “And blessed is anyone who takes no offense at me. (Compare Luke 7:23). “And blessed is anyone who is not scandalized because of me”, that is, because of My lowly, humiliated condition. In verse 5 Jesus Christ presented objective proofs of His messianic dignity, speaking of His deeds. In verse 6 He speaks of Himself. His words have a general sense.

Matthew 11:7. As they went away, Jesus began to speak to the crowds about John: “What did you go out into the wilderness to look at? A reed shaken by the wind? (Compare Luke 7:24). The speech of the Savior in two evangelists is distinguished by almost literal similarity (instead of ἐξήλθατε in Luke is ἐκληλύθατε). “A reed shaken by the wind?” – a figurative expression to denote, by contrast, the character of John. The listeners of Christ could understand the words of the Savior only in the sense that if John sent His disciples to Him to, as it were, assure himself of His personality, this in no way meant that John wavered in his beliefs and convictions, like some little reed on the shores of the Dead Sea or the Galilean lake. Since John did not resemble a reed, in the minds of the listeners, by association, at once there could arise a picture of such a tree which does not bend before any gust of wind, does not yield to any storm. The storm would soon uproot such a man and he would die, but he would never waver while alive. Everything known about the Baptist shows that he was precisely such a man and that the words of Christ were a completely clear and exact characterization of this great personality. John proposed his question because he did not waver in his harsh, ascetic views of life and the Messiah Himself.

Matthew 11:8. What then did you go out to see? Someone dressed in soft robes? Look, those who wear soft robes are in royal palaces. (See Luke 7:25). Having posed a question in the preceding verse, the Savior leaves it unanswered. But this answer from the people may be implied—to the question of verse 7 the people could only have answered: no, we went into the wilderness to look not at a reed being swayed by the wind. But then why did you go? To see a man clothed in soft garments? Thus according to the best readings. The negatory answers to these questions are merely supposed, although the addition: “those who wear soft garments are in the palaces of kings,” serves to confirm the validity of the supposed negatory answers. The repetition of such questions serves here to strengthen the speech, presents the truth from different sides, and in antiquity was used by the greatest masters of the art of oratory. But John was not a man who clothed himself in soft garments. Why? Because such people live in the palaces of kings. That this was so was clear to all. John lived not in the palaces of kings, but in the wilderness and then in prison. In the wilderness he did not resemble a reed and did not sway like it; and although the prison was connected with the palace, it was quite unlike a royal palace. John’s life was so austere that in no way could he be considered a man of luxury.

Matthew 11:9. But what did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet. (See Luke 7:26). The meaning of Christ’s words is sufficiently clear. The Savior asks again: but then why did you go (into the wilderness)? To see a prophet? Here a positive answer is assumed: yes, a prophet. But the person whom the people went to see is greater than a prophet (Vulgate: plus quam prophetam). The considerations that John himself did not consider himself a prophet (John 1:21) because of humility, and that a prophet in the proper sense is one who predicts the future, like Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the other prophets, whereas John did not predict the future Christ but rather pointed to one already come—these considerations hardly apply, not to mention that this opinion is incorrect in itself, because prediction of the future was only one aspect of the activity of the Old Testament prophets. In Jewish public opinion, prophets were highly valued, though not by all. In saying that the Baptist is greater than a prophet, the Savior expresses to him before the people the highest praise. But that is not all. The future here seems to draw close to the present. If John had been only a prophet, then, like the prophets, he would have looked upon the Savior as the forerunner of the future Messiah. But the Baptist is greater than a prophet. He himself is none other than the Forerunner, sent to prepare the way for the Messiah.

Matthew 11:10. For this is he of whom it is written: behold, I send my angel before your face, who will prepare your way before you. (See Luke 7:27). This verse contains the exposition of the reason why John should be considered greater than a prophet. John is not only a prophet, but also a messenger before the face of God. This thought is confirmed by a citation from Mal 3:1, which presents enormous exegetical interest. The fact is that this citation in the three evangelists is given differently both from the Seventy’s translation and from the Hebrew text. In the Seventy: “Behold I send forth my angel, and he will examine the way before my face,”—literally: “behold, I send (dispatch) my angel, and he will examine the path before my face.” The Seventy’s text nearly agrees with the Hebrew original (“behold, I send my angel, and he will prepare (clear) the way before me”). But, as can be seen, Matthew’s ἐξαποστέλλω from the Seventy is changed to ἀποστέλλω; instead of “before my face” or “before me”—“before your face” is put, ὅς is placed instead of καί; instead of ἐπιβλέψεται from the Seventy, κατασκευάσει is placed. If such changes in the prophet’s words existed only in Matthew, they could be explained by quoting from memory, lapsus memoriae, etc. But the matter is that this same citation is repeated almost verbatim in agreement with Matthew in Mark and Luke (Mark 1:2 and Luke 7:27), and moreover with the same changes. The most important of the changes, to which particular attention should be given, concerns the pronoun “me,” which in all evangelists is replaced by the word “you.” But in the Old Testament there is also another similar citation in Exod 23:20: “and behold I send my angel before your face so that he will guard you on the way.” Here the LXX translation agrees with the Hebrew text: “behold I send an angel before you to keep you on your way,” and so forth. This latter place does not contain in the proper sense a prophecy, but only a promise of protection for the Hebrews on the path through the Sinai Peninsula. If the cited places in the Gospels were taken only from here, then it would be hard to explain the μήπως appearing in Mark ὡς γέγραπται ἐν τοῖς προφήταις (Mark 1:2)—it is said that the citation is taken not from one prophet but from several (however, it must be said that such a reading in Mark is not recognized as correct by the newest exegetes). Therefore, they accept that the direct reference in the Gospels is to Mal 3:1, and the place from Exod 23:20 influenced the change in the evangelists of “me” to “you” and so forth. Furthermore, since the expressions from the prophet in the three Gospels are given identically, it is concluded from this that they were spoken by Christ Himself and recorded exactly as they came from His own lips. In other words, the Savior here Himself changed the first person of the original prophecy to the second—σου. He did so by applying what the prophet Malachi had said to Himself in the dignity of Messiah. The existence of the citation in an identically changed form in three evangelists shows that it was in circulation in Christian circles of the early Church and precisely in a form slightly different from the Seventy and the Hebrew, with the replacement of “before me” by the expression “before you.” In this citation the word “angel” should be understood in the sense of “messenger,” and moreover not as a disembodied being but as a man. Similar usage of the word is found in other places, for example in Rev 1:20. Thus, according to the words of the Savior, John is not only a prophet but is himself the subject and fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecy, and precisely such a one as relates to the manifestation of God to His people in the end.

Matthew 11:11. Truly I say to you: among those born of women no one greater than John the Baptist has arisen; but the least in the Kingdom of Heaven is greater than him. In Luke (Luke 7:28)—somewhat shorter and clearer: “among (ἐν—among) those born of women there is no prophet greater than John the Baptist.” The phrase “no prophet,” seemingly eliminates the interpretation of Matthew’s words in the sense of “no man.” But one can interpret it so that Matthew’s generalization does not contradict the more specific meaning of Luke’s expression, because if among those born of women none was greater than John the Baptist, then clearly none, not even a prophet, was greater than him. Instead of “in the Kingdom of Heaven” (in Matthew)—in Luke “in the Kingdom of God.” With the exception of these words, the last sentence agrees literally (according to the Greek text) in both evangelists. The expression “among those born of women” is found in the Old Testament (Job 14:1; cf. Gal 4:4). The further words of Matthew: “but the least in the Kingdom of Heaven is greater than him,” have from ancient times been subjected to great interpretations, which is explained by the considerable difficulty of the expression. According to the interpretation of John Chrysostom, by the least in the Kingdom of Heaven the Savior understood Himself, as younger in age (κατὰ τὴν ἡλικίαν) compared to John, and even lesser “in the opinion of many” (κατὰ τὴν πολλὴν δόξαν). In this, Chrysostom refutes the opinions of those who interpreted the expression as referring either to apostles or to angels. This, according to Chrysostom, is unjust. If the Savior had spoken here about apostles, what would have prevented Him from naming them? Then Chrysostom resolves the question by introducing considerations about the humility which Christ showed everywhere in His activity. In a similar spirit, Theophylact explains this place, saying that Christ was lesser than John in age and in the opinion of His listeners, but greater than him in relation to spiritual and heavenly blessings. Later exegetes understood here the very least Christian in the Kingdom of Heaven, that is, in the Church, or a citizen of the Kingdom of Heaven. Bengel says that Johannes nondum erat in regno coelorum, sed praeibat—John was not yet in the Kingdom of Heaven but was only the forerunner. There is the well-known saying: “minimum maximi majus est maximo minimi.” The sense is that John was maximus in minimo (in the Old Testament), while the Christian is minimus in maximo (in the New Testament) and therefore greater than John. Here the Savior calls John by name and then applies other designations to him—Baptist and prophet—for the first time.

Matthew 11:12. And from the days of John the Baptist until now, the Kingdom of Heaven is seized by force, and those using force seize it, (See Luke 16:16). Verses 12–15, difficult to explain, serve as a link between verse 11 and verse 16. By the “days of John the Baptist” is meant the time of his emergence into preaching. The words “Kingdom of Heaven” are used here, obviously, in the sense of “the Kingdom of God, established by the Savior on earth.” Chrysostom interprets this verse thus: “The Savior compels and drives His listeners to faith in Him through these words and at the same time confirms what he said earlier about John. Indeed, if everything was fulfilled before John, then that means I am the one coming. For all, he says, the prophets and the law prophesied before John. The prophets, consequently, would not have ceased appearing if I had not come. So do not stretch your hopes into the distance and do not expect another (Messiah). That I am the one coming is evident both from the fact that the prophets ceased to appear and from the fact that with each day faith in Me grows; it has become so clear and evident that many seize it. But who, you might ask, has seized it? All those who come to Me with zeal.”

Matthew 11:13. For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. Since γάρ (for) is placed at the beginning of this verse, it means that it contains proof of the preceding verse. The sense is that the new people who forcibly enter the kingdom are not like the prophets—they were messengers of its assault and plunder, as was John himself. The word “until” here denotes terminus ad quem; in the words “from the days of John” (verse 12) the terminus a quo, a time following the first. Thus the course of events is presented in reverse chronological order. What occurred later is presented first, and vice versa. First an indication of New Testament events, then of Old Testament ones. First a brief designation of the New Testament movement of people toward the Kingdom of God, then of the Old Testament prophecy about this Kingdom. The personality and activity of John are placed as it were in the interval, whether we take as the beginning of this activity the time of John’s emergence into preaching or the time of his birth. The correct chronological order is: 1) prophets before John; 2) John; 3) the coming of the New Testament. The characteristic of the first point is that the prophets prophesied before John. But is this correct? It is usually accepted that prophecy ceased among the Jews from the time of Malachi. Harnack’s objection, that prophecy existed among the Jews until the time of the Savior (John, the prophetess Anna), in any case does not contradict the words of the Savior. One can, first, think that if prophets existed, they did not have the significance and renown as before Malachi (οἱ προφῆται). Second, the determination of time cannot be considered precise. Third, the general fact remains true, that prophets prophesied about the Kingdom before John, while John himself (and with him other New Testament prophets) was already a “messenger” and above all the Old Testament prophets. The simplest way to understand the matter is to draw a distinction between prophecy about future activity and that activity itself. The prophets only prophesied about the activity that began from the days of John. John himself became greater than the prophets, but did not rise to the full understanding of the nature of the Kingdom of Heaven, although he was the greatest of the prophets and those born of women. Thus, the verse in question actually presents itself as the finest transition to the following verse 14. Schematically the entire course of speech in verses 9–14 is as follows. Verse 9: John is more than a prophet, because he is the fulfillment of prophecy. A prophet predicts the future. At John’s time began what he preached. He announced the Messiah and at the same time prepared His way. Verse 10: he was thus a messenger, predicted by Malachi. Verse 11: therefore he was the greatest of men. But although in some sense the Kingdom began at his time, he stood outside it. The very least in this Kingdom has more privileges than he, because (verse 12) since the time of his preaching, people have been able, in some sense, to be within the Kingdom. News of its coming has penetrated into life with all the force and energy of a spiritual movement, and men and women with burning enthusiasm desire to enter it. Verses 13–14: the prophets before John foretold this Kingdom, and moreover the law, that is, all Holy Scripture, testified to the same. But when John came, prophecy ended and fulfillment began. Because John was the predicted Elijah. But is it really true from the words of Christ that the law appeared after the prophets? This, of course, can only be a question. One can explain the verse so that closer to the time of John the prophets prophesied, and earlier than the prophets—the law. In this regard, it should be noted that the Savior speaks not of the persons of the prophets but of their writings. That they could render this service naturally happened since they were written, and to this the word πάντες points, which seems to relate not only to the word “prophets” but also to the word “law,” that is, all prophesied: both the prophets and the law. It is certain that with John the prediction ceased; he did not predict; he did not point, like all prophets before him, to the future day; he spoke of the present, not of the future, spoke of Him who had already come, with whom the Kingdom of Heaven had come. From the time of John, the language of God’s messengers suddenly changed; prophecy became Gospel, testimony of the future was replaced by testimony of the present.

Matthew 11:14. And if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah who was to come. First of all, we must examine the meaning of the words “if you are willing to accept.” They constitute a clear limitation of the expression “he (John) is Elijah,” which without them would be entirely categorical. Why then was “if you are willing to accept” (δέξασται) added, rather than—“understand”? Obviously, because Christ expressed here a thought entirely new to His listeners, who themselves did not identify John with Elijah. The words of Christ are a simple qualification, made in view of the fact that His statement about John as Elijah might seem strange to His listeners. It means: if you can trust Me, if you can rely on My words, then John is Elijah. John is above the prophets and those born of women. He is Elijah, but not the one known from the Old Testament, but a new, coming one, who was to come. There is an obvious reference to Mal 4:5. This expression cannot be understood to mean: “if you desire to receive from Me information, then I will give it.” The word “he” (αὐτός) clearly points to John. Before “Elijah” there is no article, as in all other places in the New Testament where the name Elijah appears. In general, the use of the article before proper names in the New Testament is very indefinite, “here there is great, often untranslatable subtlety of language” (Blass). It can hardly be said that the omission of the article occurred because here is a figurative expression (antonomasia—Bengel), when a proper name has the appearance of a common noun. John is called Elijah, of course, because he resembled the actual Elijah in his outward appearance and in the force of his denunciatory preaching. But this was a “second” Elijah, predicted, Elijah “in a spiritual sense.” John did not consider himself a prophet. He had as it were a double prophetic spirit and was above the Old Testament prophets. If by “prophets” and “law” one understands the writings of the prophets and the written law, then John left no writings. In the words “who was to come” (one cannot translate: intending to come, or having come) can be found a reference to the then current Jewish beliefs about Elijah, who was to appear before the coming of the Messiah. On the basis of Mal 4:5-6, already Jesus, son of Sirach, supposed that Elijah would accomplish the work of restoration: “You are destined for rebukes in your own time, to turn back the wrath before it breaks out in fury, to turn the heart of the father to the son, and to restore the tribes of Jacob” (Sir 48:10). This idea is common in later Jewish literature. To what has been said, it only remains to add that verse 14 in Matthew is the only place where this appears and is not found anywhere else.

Matthew 11:15. He who has ears to hear, let him hear! It is thought that the words “he who has ears (plural), let him hear” were a proverb. In these words the listeners should have seen that Christ called John Elijah not personally, but in spirit. But Alford sees here an even deeper meaning: “if John the Baptist is Elijah, and Elijah is the forerunner of the coming Lord, then be assured that the Lord has already come.”

Matthew 11:16. But to what shall I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the marketplace and calling to their companions, (See Luke 7:31-32). The connection of this verse with the preceding is found in the fact that after praise of John as the one destined to come and the expected Elijah, the Savior contrasts with such ideal views of John the actual behavior toward him of his fellow countrymen, who did not wish to recognize either John or the Savior Himself. People of this “generation” have ears to hear and do not hear. They do not understand and do not accept what is said to them; they are whimsical, like children playing in marketplaces, and full of prejudices. According to some interpreters, by children one should understand all γενεά—generation, the whole then current Jewish people in its mass, who is reproached for its unprincipled, whimsical behavior.

Matthew 11:17. saying: we played the flute for you, and you did not dance; we sang a dirge for you, and you did not mourn. Compare Luke 7:32—almost verbatim the same, only ἐκόψασθε (Matthew) is replaced in Luke with ἐκλαύσατε. The sense of the verse is as follows: this generation is like a crowd of angry children who does nothing rightly; one half wants one thing, another—another. ἐκόψασθε, when they struck themselves on the chest, was considered a sign of sorrow.

Matthew 11:18. For John came neither eating nor drinking; and they say: he has a demon. (See Luke 7:33). In Luke the speech is in the second person: you “say.” Instead of ἦλθεν—ἐλήλυθεν. Βαπτιστής in Matthew is omitted, also ἄρτον and οἶνον. However, by sense the expressions agree.

Matthew 11:19. The Son of Man came eating and drinking; and they say: behold, a man who loves to eat and drink wine, a friend of tax collectors and sinners. And wisdom is vindicated by her deeds. (See Luke 7:34-35). Like in verse 16, there are many variant readings here. “Tax collectors (tax collectors) a friend” and “a friend of tax collectors”; “from all deeds”; instead of “deeds” in some codices “children”—“vindicated from her children” (or as in the Russian translation); instead of “say” in Luke “you say,” as in verse 18; “wisdom is vindicated by her children”—in Luke “by all her children.” According to Chrysostom, the Savior, “having allowed John to shine forth by fasting, Himself chose the opposite path: He participated in the meals of tax collectors and ate and drank with them.” “Wisdom is vindicated by her deeds.” What does this mean? The expression has caused almost endless difficulties for commentators. First, it was difficult to explain the “and” (καί) instead of “but”; “vindicated” (ἐδικαιώθη) instead of the present tense—“is vindicated” (δικαιοῦται); “from her children” instead of “by her children.” And then, to what wisdom does the Savior refer here? To what vindication? What connection do these words have with the preceding? To resolve these questions, first of all, one must establish how one should read in Matthew “from children” or “from deeds.” In Jerome’s time the reading “from deeds” was found only in some codices. To the opinion that before the fourth century there are no traces of the reading “from children,” one cannot agree. In the parallel place in Luke (Luke 7:35), the word τέκνων is undoubtedly placed. But Zahn accepts ἔργων and proposes a clever hypothesis about how the word τέκνων appeared over time in Matthew. The reason for this was the similarity of Hebrew words “eved”—slave (hence—son, child, τέκνων) and “avoda” (from “avaḏ”—to work)—deed, occupation. Thus, in the Aramaic original, copyists could have read both “her (wisdom’s) deeds” and “her slaves” (servants). And the difference in the pronunciation of these words, says Zahn, is not so great as to make such a substitution impossible, which is found in other places, for example, in the 1st Letter to the Corinthians of Clement of Rome (39: 4). The correct translation of abdeh would be οἱ παῖδες (more common than δοῦλοι) αὐτῆς, not τέκνα. The newest exegetes accept τέκνων, but not all. Morison reproaches Tischendorf for his partiality to the Sinai and Vatican codices and says that the expression ἔργων “has no sense.” But Holtzmann, accepting ἔργων, believes that the meaning of the expression is as follows: the wise are known by their deeds. This is the meaning of the word δικαιοῦν—to recognize or consider just (cf. Matt 12:37; Luke 7:29 (Greek); Luke 10:29). By ἔργα here one should not understand “wondrous deeds,” but precisely the outward form of life, on which depends the judgment of the crowd. The meaning of the expression is that the work of the life of John and the Savior vindicate their behavior, and by this the wisdom of God is vindicated, which sent and guided them.

Matthew 11:20. Then He began to rebuke the cities in which most of His mighty works had been done, because they did not repent: This verse is not in Luke. The following verses are found in Luke 10, but in a completely different context. According to Luke, Christ spoke these words when the seventy apostles were sent out to preach. Various interpreters have tried to explain why Matthew placed them here. It was thought, for example, that this speech was delivered twice, because if one and the same evangelist sometimes repeats the same utterances, then there is nothing surprising if they appear in different contexts in different evangelists. As one should think, the connection with the preceding is that from the general denunciation of the Jews the Savior now turned to denunciations of them individually, namely to the cities in which He had performed especially many miracles, the inhabitants of which, however, did not repent.

Matthew 11:21. Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes, (See Luke 10:13). In the word “woe” is heard sorrow, as well as indignation. The Greek οὐαί is translated as “alas” in Rev 18:10. The parallel place in Luke 10:13 (in the speech when the seventy apostles are sent to preach), nearly verbatim the same, with the addition of καθήμενοι after ἐν σάκκῳ καὶ σποδῷ. And in general, Matt 11:21-23 closely resembles Luke 10:13-15. Saint John Chrysostom explains this place thus: “But so that you might be assured that the inhabitants of these cities were evil not by nature, He mentions such a city from which five apostles originated; namely, from Bethsaida came Philip and the four first-called apostles.” By his words also, “the Savior adjoins to these cities Sodom not without reason, but to increase the condemnation. Truly, the strongest proof of the evil of the Jews is that they turn out to be worse not only than their contemporaries, but than all the evil people who ever existed.” The first city named in this denunciation is Chorazin. It is mentioned only in Matt 11:21 and Luke 10:13. In manuscripts and in the Church Fathers there is much variety in the reading (Chorazeni, Choraim, Chorazaim, Corazaim, Corazain, Choraze, Chorazan). The location of this city is not precisely known. It is difficult to determine especially now, when the local inhabitants and Arabs point out to travelers and researchers different places, about which it is hard to say that it was Chorazin. Most likely is the identification of Chorazin with the ruins of Kerazeh, or Kerasseh, because of the similarity of this name to Chorazin. The ruins are visible even now a few versts to the north of Tell-Huma. Here is how one of the newest travelers who visited this place describes this locality. “Kerazeh is located in a desolate place; there are so many stones here that my horse found it difficult to move along them. The ruins occupy as much space as in Tell-Huma, and are located partly in a dry ravine and partly on the ridge of a hill, formed by a sharp turn of a wadi. What prompted people to build a city in such a place is difficult to understand. Like the stones lying here, the ruins are of black lava, and therefore they are easily overlooked, but few of them draw attention to themselves. There are, for example, remains of a synagogue with elegantly hewn Corinthian capitals of hard black basalt, thresholds, door frames, hewn stones, tops of columns, and one large round stone, resembling a millstone, about four feet thick and wide, once a roller in an olive press for grinding berries and pressing out oil. Now there are no olives here, only a few fig trees grow near the graves of two Arab sheikhs. But especially striking is the characteristic of this terrible place by several houses, very probably existing also in the time of the Savior, which stand now as if just built. Their walls are about six feet high, about two feet thick; in some cases the stones are fitted without mortar, in others they are beautifully bonded with cement. In the middle of one of the sides is a wide door and one or two windows in each house, but only about a foot high and half a foot wide. One or two stone pillars stand inside in the middle, supporting a flat roof, but the houses are almost all very small, in some there are two rooms, but mostly only one, although there are one or two houses, divided into four small chambers. From the middle of this place flows a stream, near a tree at the Arab graves, but this is the only living thing we saw. To the north there remained traces of a paved road connecting the city with the large Damascus caravan road.” If it is difficult to determine where Chorazin was, it is no less difficult to determine the location of Bethsaida. Schürer (Geschichte) says that the question of whether the New Testament Bethsaida is identical with the Bethsaida of Julius, which recently stirred up numerous disputes, cannot now be resolved (II, 208–209). Like Chorazin, Bethsaida is written in different ways: Bethsaidān, Betsaida, Bethsaida. The first reading in Matthew in the best manuscripts. The most probable assumption is that in the time of Christ there were two Bethsaidas, eastern, or rather northeastern (from the Sea of Galilee), and western, and that in Christ’s speech one speaks of western Bethsaida, which was a suburb of Capernaum. The very name of Bethsaida long ceased to attract the attention of travelers. The earliest historical mention of it is in Jerome, but he provides no more information about it than can be drawn from the New Testament. Dr. Robinson is deeply convinced that the various identifications of Bethsaida with Irbid, Khan-Minia, Magdalene (Magdala), and Ain-Tabiga were only due to the impressions of the moment. He carefully inquired of the natives on the shore of the lake, but no Muslim knew of such a name or one similar to it. Christians of Nazareth and Tiberias, it is true, were familiar with the name Bethsaida, like Christians in Capernaum, from the New Testament, and they apply it to different places, depending on how the local monks teach them or how they find it best and most convenient to answer travelers. Tyre and Sidon are well-known Phoenician cities on the shore of the Mediterranean Sea, in Phoenicia. The cause of “woe” lies in the fact that these cities did not repent. The expression is too general. It is not known for what exactly these cities were struck by punishment. Since idolatry flourished in Tyre and Sidon, and along with it pagan debauchery, then in Chorazin and Bethsaida, as one should think, an even greater debauchery was spread. Tyre and Sidon here are indirectly rebuked for their debauched life. But even they would have repented if there had been the same preaching in them as was heard on the streets of Chorazin and Bethsaida. The more, therefore, is the sin of the condemned Jewish cities, in which there was not only preaching but also many “mighty works,” that is, miracles and signs. “Sackcloth and ashes” indicate the expression of sorrow accompanying the repentance of the Jews, who had such a custom.

Matthew 11:22. But I tell you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you. (See Luke 10:14). If the same mighty works that were done in Chorazin and Bethsaida had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented in sackcloth and ashes. But Bethsaida and Chorazin did not repent. Therefore, “woe” is pronounced upon them, whatever it might consist of. But “besides that” (πλήν), the Savior wishes to say something more. Not ordinary, customary human woe will befall these cities, but such that in the day of judgment it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon than for them.

Matthew 11:23. And you, Capernaum, exalted to heaven, you will be brought down to Hades, for if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day; (See Luke 10:15). Capernaum was exalted to heaven—presumably because of the activity of Christ, His teaching, which, however, did not produce the proper effect on the inhabitants of this city and the proper influence. The expression “you will be brought down to Hades” according to one interpretation means “you will be cast down to Hades, because you acted very haughtily toward My preaching.” According to another—“since you were exalted to heaven because of My stay with you, My signs and activity, since you have such privileges, you will be struck by numerous punishments because you did not want to believe them” (Jerome). It is hardly correct to think that the Savior does not speak here of the temporal destruction of Capernaum, Bethsaida, and Chorazin, although they now do not exist (Meyer). The expression seems to be a reminder of Isa 14:13 (LXX), εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν ἀναβήσομαι εἰς ᾅδην (εἰς ἅδον—in the Sinai and Alexandrian codices) καταβήσῃ. Ἅιδης is the “Sheol” of the Hebrews, the dwelling of the dead until the Messianic judgment. They represented it as a dark dungeon located in the depths of the earth, with strong gates, and believed that it receives all the dead and returns none, until its bonds are broken in the last day (cf. Job 10:21 sqq.; Job 17:16; Ps 29:4; Prov 23:14; Rev 1:18 sqq.).

Matthew 11:24. But I tell you that it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for you. The parallel in Luke 10:12 provides important help for explaining the difference between “you” and “you” (singular) appearing here in Matthew. The word “you” (singular) in Luke corresponds to “that city.” Therefore, the explanation of Euthymius Zigabenus is correct, that the word “you” (plural) in Matthew refers to the listeners of Christ, while the word “you” (singular)—to Capernaum. “The land of Sodom”—so-called metonymy. Thus the word “cup” is often used instead of the words “wine in the cup” (Luke 22:20; John 18:11; 1 Cor 11:25). In the first comparison (verses 21–22) Jewish continental cities are contrasted with maritime pagan ones; in the second (verses 23–24)—a city standing on the shore of the Sea of Galilee is contrasted with a city that stood where the Dead Sea was formed. In the first comparison, simultaneous facts are taken; in the second—facts separated by a considerable time.

Matthew 11:25. At that time, continuing His speech, Jesus said: I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and revealed them to infants; (See Luke 10:21). According to some, the words “at that time” here simply indicate some indefinite time and the speech in verse 25 has no connection with the preceding. Confirmation of such an opinion is sought in the fact that the words of verse 25 agree closely with Luke 10:21, spoken upon the return of the seventy apostles from preaching. How it was in reality, one cannot now say. But, in any case, the reader cannot free himself from the impression that the utterances placed in Matthew and Luke were spoken once, and the connection given by Luke is somewhat more understandable than in Matthew. Matthew replaces “in that hour” (Luke 10:21) with the expression “at that time” and instead of the words “rejoiced in spirit” writes “said,” “answered” (ἀποκριθείς). But to what exactly he answered remains unclear. This latter expression is considered a Hebraism, found in other places of the Old and New Testaments. In this, it is not at all necessary that there be questions earlier and ἀποκριθείς was the exposition of an answer to them. It simply begins a new speech (cf. Deut 21:7; Job 3:2; Isa 14:10). The Greek word translated into Russian as “praise,” means properly “I confess.” But as Augustine notes, this does not at all mean here a confession of sin—confession is appropriate not only to a sinner, but sometimes also to one rendering praise. We confess either praising God or accusing ourselves. The Savior in Matthew here calls God His Father for the first time. To the word Father is added “Lord of heaven and earth,” probably in order to show that upon the will of God, as Master of the world, depends the concealment of “this” (ταῦτα) from the wise and intelligent and so forth. In the connection given by Matthew, if it exists at all, ταῦτα implies the “mighty works,” not recognized by the people of Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum in their true significance, and the paths of divine wisdom, which the Jews did not understand. The verbs “hid” and “revealed” are placed in the aorist to express the thought that the reference relates to past time, to the past activity of the Master of the world. Wise and intelligent here are called people who have adopted false wisdom and at the same time lost common sense. Being devoted to their false wisdom, and along with it their false doctrines and proud of their wisdom, they do not know and cannot understand the simple mysteries or truths of the Kingdom of God, revealed to people with pure hearts, who resemble infants.

Matthew 11:26. Yes, Father! For such was your good pleasure. (See Luke 10:21). Ναί (in the Russian Bible—“yes”) means “yes.” Father—by sense the vocative case, but in the Greek text the nominative is placed instead of the vocative. Instead of the vocative, they eagerly used (already in Homer) the nominative, in the New Testament in adjectives without a noun. Especially uncommon is in the vocative θεέ (cf. ὁ δεσπότης—Rev 6:10; βασιλεύς—Rev 15:3; Matt 27:29—codices BD and others, βασιλεῦ, etc.). Literally one could translate: “yes, Father, (You hid... and... revealed), because so was the good pleasure (desire) before You.” But if correctly—a literal Russian translation is impossible here. The words έμπροσθέν σου refer to εὐδοκία: if it was so and not otherwise, it was because this was pleasing to You. In Luke 10:21 only εὐδοκία and ἐγένετο are rearranged, one in place of the other.

Matthew 11:27. All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. (See Luke 10:22—with a slight difference in expressions). The thought is expressed in an extraordinarily delicate connection with the preceding verse and in general with what was spoken earlier. The Savior speaks here as if saying: “You gave infants understanding of mysteries and hid them from the wise and intelligent. I know these mysteries because all else has been given to Me by My Father. From these mysteries, the most important—the knowledge of the Son (understanding of all His activity, all His teaching, and His very being) and the knowledge of the Father. And both are incomprehensible to ordinary people: no one knows the Son except the Father, and so forth.” Remarkably, already in ancient times attempts were made to somewhat change this verse. It seemed inconsistent that here one speaks first of the Son, whom the Father knows; one would think it should be the opposite. Therefore, rearrangements are found in Justin (Dialogus cum Tryphone, 100 and Apologia, I, 63), Tertullian (Adversus Marciohem, IV, 25). In Irenaeus (Adversus haereses, I, 13, 2) there is also a reverse order, but in 4, 11, 1 he says: hi autem, qui peritiores apostolis volunt esse sic describunt: Nemo cognovit patrem nisi filius, nec filium nisi pater et cui voluerit filius revelare (people who wish to be more clever than the apostles write as follows: no one knew the Father except the Son, and the Son except the Father, and to whom the Son wished to reveal). From the words of the Savior it is evident that the knowledge of the Father (like that of the Son) is not impossible, but is imparted only to those to whom the Son wishes to reveal it. There is a certain mystery here, understandable only to people who love the Son and to whom the Son responds with the same love.

Matthew 11:28. Come to me, all who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest; This and the following verses to the end of the chapter have neither the slightest parallels in all the other evangelists and appear only in Matthew. The speech in the original is characterized by extraordinary softness and love, but at the same time by extraordinary energy and brevity. There is here the depth of theological thought, reminiscent of the Gospel of John and bringing it closer to the Gospel of Matthew. Instead of the less vivid ἔρχεσθε—the imperative δεῦτε, untranslatable in translations and meaning “here, to Me!” The words spoken here by the Savior would be blasphemy if spoken by the mouth of an ordinary man. But on the lips of the Son of Man they are natural. “The small word ‘all’ has vast significance.” This is the most important and final answer to the question: σὺ εἶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος... δεῦτε πρός με πάντες. These words recall Isa 45:22, where a similar speech is put in the mouth of the Lord Himself. But even greater similarity is observed with several places in the book of Jesus, son of Sirach (cf. Matt 11:25 = Sir 51:1; Matt 11:28 = Sir 51:31; Matt 11:29 = Sir 51:34-35, in the text of the Seventy according to Tischendorf’s edition, the verse count is different).

Matthew 11:29. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am meek and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls; Christ probably has in mind here not only “heavy burdens and difficult to bear,” which were laid upon the people by the then Pharisaic teachers, but also in general all sorts of teachings and obligations imposed by whatever teachers, not only those having no connection with Him, but also those expressing to Him feigned devotion. The burden of Christ is easy and His yoke is good, while the burden imposed by all other teachers, if they themselves are not disciples and do not take upon themselves the burden of Christ, is always heavy.

Matthew 11:30. For my yoke is good, and my burden is light. In examining this verse, the following questions were proposed: how can the yoke of Christ be good and His burden light, when He Himself said that “narrow are the gates and narrow the path leading to life” (Matt 7:14)? To this question it was answered that what seems narrow at first becomes pleasant with the passage of time because of inexhaustible love. In such a spirit, Augustine and some later exegetes answer this question.