Chapter Five

The Sermon on the Mount. 1–12. Nine beatitudes. – 13–16. Salt of the earth and light of the world. – 17–20. Christ’s relation to the Old Testament law. – 21–26. The commandment “You shall not kill.” – 27–32. The commandment “You shall not commit adultery.” – 33–37. Oaths. – 38–42. Law of retaliation. – 43–48. Love for enemies.

Matthew 5:1. Seeing the crowds, He went up on the mountain; and when He sat down, His disciples came to Him. (Cf. Mark 3:13; Luke 6:12.) To the time between the events set forth by Matthew at the end of the previous chapter (verses 23–24) and the pronouncing by the Savior of the Sermon on the Mount are attributed, among other things: the healing of the paralyzed man in Jerusalem, of which only John speaks (John 5:1-47), the passing through the sown fields, the plucking of grain by the disciples and the rebuking of the Pharisees (Matt 12:1-8; Mark 2:23-27; Luke 6:1-5); the healing of the withered hand (Matt 12:9-13; Mark 3:1-5; Luke 6:6-11). Then, after the events briefly set forth in Matt 4:25; Mark 3:7-8, the Savior went up on the mountain; according to Mark and Luke, immediately following this came the choosing of the 12 (Mark 3:13-19; Luke 6:12-16), which Matthew recounts afterward. From this brief enumeration of events it is evident that the order adopted by Matthew is completely different from that of the other evangelists, and this alone rules out the likelihood of any borrowing from one another. “Seeing the crowds.” According to Luke (Luke 6:12-13), it was early in the morning, after the Savior had spent the night in prayer. The article before the word “crowds” (τοὺς ὄχλους—the crowds) shows that the evangelist is speaking of the same crowds of which he spoke in Matt 4:25, where the word “crowd” is placed without the article (ὄχλοι πολλοί). Ὄχλοι is used many times in all four Gospels, the book of Acts, and the Apocalypse (but not in the Epistles) and apparently always to denote the common people, a crowd of people, a gathering of unprivileged people (Latin plebs in distinction from populus), which is especially clear from John 7:49, where the Pharisees call the crowd ignorant “in the law” and say it is “cursed.” In Rev 7:9 it speaks of “a great multitude” (ὄχλος πολύς) “from every tribe and nation and tongue”—that is, a mixed gathering of all common people (cf. Rev 17:15). To the Savior gathered all who wished; those who had heard of His glory, which had now spread widely. “He went up on the mountain.” According to Luke (Luke 6:12), at first he speaks in agreement with Matthew that He “went up” on the mountain, but then (Luke 6:17)—that He came down from the mountain and stood on a level place. This latter circumstance is omitted in Matthew, but we do not see any contradiction between the evangelists here. Matthew does not say that Jesus Christ, having gone up on the mountain, did not come down from it, but only passes over this in silence. In other words, in Matthew one circumstance is indicated, in Luke two. From the accounts of the evangelists one can only conclude that the sermon was delivered in the mountainous regions of Palestine, where amid the mountains there were also level places. The word “level,” joined with τόπος (τόπος πεδινός), found in the New Testament only in Luke (Luke 6:17), though indeed it may mean “plain,” does not always, and in the present case it speaks simply of some level place (small) amid mountains. As for the word “mountain” itself in Matthew, to the present time all attempts to determine its location can be considered futile. “This mountain has never been able to be determined by any geography” (John Weiss). In Jerome’s time some thought it was the Mount of Olives. But this, Jerome says, could in no way be true, because in the preceding and following discourse the reference is to Galilee. Jerome himself supposes it was Mount Tabor “or some other high mountain.” Later Catholic exegetes (for example, Cornelius Lapide) on the basis of the traditions of the “chorographers of the Holy Land” affirm with great confidence that this mountain is called the “Mount of Christ” because Christ was accustomed to pray and preach on it. It is located to the west of Capernaum about three miles, not far from the Sea of Galilee, and lies near the city of Bethsaida. Its height is such that from it one can see the land of Zebulun, Naphtali, Trachonitis, Ituraea, then Seir, Hermon, and Lebanon. The value of the testimony of these “chorographers of the Holy Land” can be seen from the fact that their testimony dates from not earlier than the thirteenth century and is found only among the Latins, whence of itself it “has no historical value.” The opinion that it was the so-called “Mount of Beatitudes” (present-day Kurn or Carn Hattin) should be considered only “plausible,” but by no means certain (it is unclear from Cornelius Lapide’s words whether he has in mind this particular mountain). The evangelists themselves do not name the mountain by name, though they place the word “mountain” with the article. Perhaps the article merely means that the mountain was at the place where the Savior saw the crowd. Meyer considers the opinion that this was a “well-known mountain” arbitrary and not consistent with analogies Matt 14:23. Having gone up on the mountain, the Lord sat down. According to Augustine, this was “becoming to the dignity of a teacher” (ad dignitatem magistri). Among the Hebrews preachers usually preached sitting. Christ Himself did not always preach sitting (see John 7:37), and Christian preachers preached standing only in exceptional cases when delivering elevated, more prophetic than teaching, discourses (Acts 2:14). Some stone lying on the surface could serve as a simple and convenient platform for the Savior. Zahn points out that the Savior sat down because He wanted to pronounce a long discourse. “And His disciples came to Him.” “Came” (προσῆλθον)—a favorite word of Matthew, occurring 52 times in him, 6 in Mark, 10 in Luke, and only once in John (John 12:21). The expression indicates not that only the disciples drew near, but that they stood out from the crowd and approached the Savior more closely than others. One can understand here the 12 disciples only on the basis of Luke’s indication (Luke 6:13 ff.), from Matthew’s words alone this is not directly apparent, because earlier he had spoken only of four disciples (Matt 4:18), and the calling of Matthew himself, according to his account, occurred already after the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 9:9). The question is adequately resolved by understanding that here, in any case, the general disciples of Christ who had joined Him during His early activity in Galilee should be kept in mind. But this does not exclude the possibility of the presence of the 12 near Christ, including Matthew, even if he had not yet been called to discipleship. Christ began to speak His sermon to them aloud before all the people (Matt 7:28). According to Theophylact and others, He taught not only the disciples but also the people.

Matthew 5:2. And He opened His mouth and taught them, saying, Matthew 5:3. “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (Cf. Luke 6:20.) The same discourse, but in an abbreviated form and with changes, appears in Luke (Luke 6:20-49). The question of the relationship between Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount and Luke’s Sermon on the Mount is extraordinarily difficult. Some say that it is one and the same discourse, spoken under identical circumstances and at one time, but only set forth in different editions. Others, conversely, think that these were two discourses, spoken twice for different reasons and under different circumstances. In favor of the first opinion speaks the fact that many expressions in Matthew and Luke coincide, for example, Matt 7:3-5 and Luke 6:41-42, or Matt 7:24-27 and Luke 6:47-49. The beginning, course of thought, and conclusion of both discourses are almost identical. The historical circumstances are similar. Against the identity of the discourses it is pointed out that the similarity does not extend to complete exactness. In Matthew the Savior pronounces His discourse sitting; in Luke standing; in Matthew on a mountain, in Luke on a level place. According to Matthew, before the pronouncing of the discourse the Savior had only four disciples; according to Luke twelve. The Greek Church recognizes both discourses as identical. The differences, in our opinion, are well explained only and exclusively by the theory of fragments, nor does it deny that some parts of the teaching could have been repeated. We must suppose that the Savior’s discourse was recorded soon after its pronouncing by one or several persons; and both Matthew and Luke made use of the records of the discourse, while for Matthew they served to help his personal recollections. It is quite probable that Matthew himself recorded the discourse. The opinions of recent critics on the compilative character of the Sermon on the Mount are so unstable that they hardly deserve any consideration and are refuted simply by the fact that the Sermon on the Mount surpasses in its depth the understanding even of contemporary theologians, and therefore could not at all have been an invention of antiquity. One of the most recent German critics (John Weiss) says that this discourse of Christ is “all-embracing and richest in content, is not exhausted by any interpretation and is not lived through by any human life.” The Sermon on the Mount, according to the same author, is intelligible only from the conditions of the time when it was pronounced. Of the 107 verses in Matthew of which it consists, Luke has only 30. The sermon begins in both evangelists, Matthew and Luke, with the so-called “beatitudes.” There has been much dispute over their number. Without going into detail, we can point out that some exegetes accepted only seven beatitudes on the ground that in verses 3 and 10 the same expressions are repeated: “for theirs is the kingdom of heaven,” and therefore these two beatitudes should be taken as one. Others say that all beatitudes are ten, by analogy with the ten commandments. A third group says eight, counting verses 11 and 12 as an expansion of verse 10. Some regarded verse 5 as a marginal gloss. It is evident that the question about this is not of essential importance. The number of beatitudes is best determined by the word itself “blessed,” which is repeated nine times, and therefore one must acknowledge that there are altogether nine beatitudes. To express the concept of blessedness, there are four Greek words: μακάριος, εὐδαίμων, εὐτυχής, and ὄλβιος. In Russian all of them can be translated as “happy.” At first glance at these words, one can immediately see that neither εὐδαίμων nor εὐτυχής were suitable here, since the first is connected with the (purely pagan) notion of a happy demon living in man and contributing to his happiness, while the second is connected with pagan notions of fate and chance. Thus, only ὄλβιος or μακάριος remained. But ὄλβιος indicates chiefly external happiness, worldly wealth, while μακάριος indicates chiefly spiritual happiness. The first word does not appear at all in the New Testament, the second appears many times. Among classical authors the word μακάριος is used to denote the heavenly and also the future blessedness of gods and men. The word expresses the notion of ideal happiness without admixture of earthly sorrows, though it is used to denote earthly happiness as well, especially in a religious sense. Μακάριος corresponds to the Hebrew “ashre” (“ashar,” “esher”), which means chiefly “salvation.” This word begins the first Psalm. The Seventy translators translated the Hebrew “ashre” as μακάριος 38 times. Thus, by the blessed, if one takes into account the meaning of Greek and Hebrew words, one may understand people for whom eternal salvation and blessedness are prepared. They possess inner qualities, inner peace, and happiness here on earth. The word “blessed” serves as the guiding idea for the beatitudes. This is evident from the fact that the Savior repeats it in all the beatitudes. It is much harder to explain the expression “poor in spirit” (πτωχοὶ τῷ πνεύματι). This difficulty is increased because in Luke (Luke 6:20) it says (in the Greek text) simply “the poor” without the addition “in spirit” (in the Russian and Slavonic Bibles it is added—“in spirit”). In different commentaries we have found about twenty translations of this expression, very different from one another. The given definitions include: the poor, poor in spirit, the humble, those who have voluntarily taken upon themselves poverty, the spiritually poor, poor sinners, poor souls, poor children, people occupying a low social position; the oppressed, humiliated, wretched, unfortunate, those in need of help, those who hope in God, the blessed in spirit (or in spirit) poor, the pious, people who have turned their thoughts, heart, and love away from the things of the present world and lifted them to heaven, so that if externally they appear poor, they feel themselves satisfied, but if externally they are rich, they do not attach themselves to their riches but are humble and modest, diligently seek God, are hospitable, make generous donations for deeds of mercy, piety, or generally for whatever is required in the service of God and neighbor. It has been established with sufficient probability that the Greek word πτωχός corresponds to the Hebrew “ani,” which means poor, needy, and also humble, meek. “The pious person, who is troubled in his heart by the awareness that he is wretched and helpless, turns to God and knows and expects no help for himself except that which he asks from the merciful God, is the true ‘ani.’” Of the indicated translations, none, in our opinion, withstands criticism. The most probable seems to us the translation of the expression οἱ πτωχοὶ τῷ πνεύματι as “the humble,” “the modest.” It is certain that it can be accepted, at least in elementary explanations of this expression. However, this does not mean that such a translation is quite sufficient. Aside from the fact that the notions of humility and modesty are expressed further by πραεῖς, one can ask why the Savior did not express them through the word ταπεινός, if He spoke precisely of humility, because ταπεινός with its derivatives occurs many times in the New Testament and was better known to all than the somewhat enigmatic οἱ πτωχοὶ τῷ πνεύματι. If indeed all the indicated translations are wrong, can one explain the expression in question? To explain it, let us say that exegetes encounter similar difficulties when explaining many other sayings of the Savior in the Sermon on the Mount. From what does this result? In our opinion, from the fact that the Sermon on the Mount possesses one remarkable property, to which little attention is paid: it does not allow, or allows very little, abstraction in interpretation. It is so well adapted to the customs and notions of the simple people surrounding Christ that as soon as we forget about this crowd, we immediately enter the realm of abstraction, and Christ’s expressions become not entirely clear to us. This, of course, does not at all prevent us from considering Christ’s sayings as abstract theological-theoretical teaching, but in doing so we should never lose sight of the ground on which we should stand for the nearest and concrete explanation of the Sermon on the Mount. We must, consequently, first of all imagine what kind of crowd gathered before Christ, in order to understand the meaning of the first beatitude, and after it the rest. This crowd, of course, stood silently before Him with bated breath, and the eyes of all the people gathered from different places, in different clothes, of different ages and positions, were fixed on Him. We see that the crowd is so attentive that it even notices how and when He opened His mouth. How does Christ Himself relate to this simple people? He does not drive them away from Him, wishes to teach them, and teaches in such a way that His words, being fully comprehensible to the people, are at once indelibly impressed in the memory and heart of His listeners. Therefore, the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount and, as we shall see, in some places its continuation, can be considered as a whole series of greetings from Christ to the gathered ὄχλοι, as a certain kind of captatio benevolentiae on the part of the Great Teacher toward His numerous simple listeners. If we agree with this interpretation, then to us immediately and in complete plasticity will appear clear the expression: “blessed are the poor in spirit,” and we will not need to resort to any arbitrary guesses and unsatisfactory translations. Anyone who has seen a popular crowd or dealt with it knows well that it always consists of those πτωχοὶ τῷ πνεύματι, poor in spirit. If it were otherwise, no preacher would ever see any crowd around his pulpit. But even a developed crowd is no exception, and not only a crowd, but every individual person. Standing, so to speak, face to face before Christ’s teaching and before His Person, to which is inherent extraordinary “spiritual power,” both the individual person and the crowd always feel their extreme spiritual poverty, poorness, and destitution. Once, the contemplation of this crowd was expressed from Christ in sympathy and concern for it concerning its material needs (John 6:5; Matt 15:32; Mark 8:2). And in the present case, the Lord also, probably, looked with sympathy on the crowd and, greeting it, called all, without exception, of those who composed it “poor in spirit.” Clearly, there was not the slightest thought of humility or anything of the sort, but merely a simple characterization of the people who came to Christ to hear His teaching. And all the more did that crowd differ in poverty of spirit precisely those people who came to the Savior and, without doubt, caught every word of His—all the more by reason of their extreme opposite state with the state of Christian enlightenment and advancement in the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ. In the midst of this still unenlightened and not yet assimilated to itself the spirit of Christ’s teaching crowd were heard delightful, enchanting sounds. The Lord called the crowd gathered before Him happy precisely because of its Christian underdevelopment and in view of the possibilities lying before it—with a full and open heart and an undamaged and uncorrupted mind—to receive the Christian truths, which are the very spirit. To it, this crowd which the religious teachers of that time had abandoned, belongs the kingdom of heaven. It has come to her, and she receives it. Such is the nearest, direct meaning of the first beatitude, fully comprehensible to Christ’s listeners and assimilated by them. From what has been said it follows that the “poor in spirit” must be seen, observed, imagined. But precise definitions of these words are difficult and hardly possible. This we must always bear in mind and in explaining other beatitudes, as well as in general the teaching set forth in the Sermon on the Mount.

Matthew 5:4. “Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted. (Cf. Luke 6:21.) First of all, let us point out that in various manuscripts verses 4 and 5 are transposed, and this transposition was known as early as the second century. After the first beatitude (“blessed are the poor in spirit”) in Tischendorf and in the Vulgate follows: “blessed are the meek.” But in several manuscripts (Sinaitic, Vatican, Ephrem, and many uncial) following the first beatitude is “blessed are those who mourn.” The latter order may be considered the accepted one; it is adopted both in our Slavonic and Russian texts. The difference, of course, either has no effect, or has very little effect on the meaning and content of the beatitudes. Why it occurred is difficult to say. The existing explanations of the connection between the first and second beatitudes are generally unsatisfactory. As was said above, the guiding idea of the beatitudes is given by the word “blessed” (μακάριοι). Attempts to explain them by a different connection should be recognized as unsuccessful. In explaining logically the course of thought of the Savior in the beatitudes, one presents (Toluck (1856) and others) the matter as follows. At first in man there is an awareness of his inner poverty, his spiritual destitution; as a consequence of this there is sorrow, which arises from awareness of one’s guilt and imperfection; and from this there arise meekness and striving for righteousness. As this striving is satisfied and man is granted forgiveness, compassion and love for others are awakened in him, he is cleansed from sins and strives to impart the peace which he himself has attained to others. But, not to mention the fact that such construction is unclear and somewhat artificial and, in any case, could not have been understood by Christ’s immediate listeners, it can have some application only to the beatitudes set forth in verses 3–7, and suffers from great stretches and even greater obscurities in application to the remaining beatitudes. Because how, after poverty of spirit, sorrow, meekness, striving for righteousness, and mercy, should follow beatitudes depending on various reproaches, persecutions, and pursuits? The theory does not explain this. It is much more probable to suppose that the Savior simply wished to enumerate the qualities and character of people who should become citizens of the Heavenly Kingdom He was establishing, the ground for which was given by the very appearance of the crowd standing before Him, and not at all to indicate a psychological process, in the order of gradualness aimed at preparation for the Kingdom and toward the spiritual development of man (cf. Luke 6:20 and ff., where the beatitudes are indicated in a completely different order than in Matthew). To the question of whether Christ’s words exhaustively express all man’s happiness in the new Kingdom, or, in other words, whether all those people are listed who should become blessed, it is hardly possible to answer. Perhaps if before Christ had stood still other people, different from those in the surrounding crowd, then other beatitudes would have been added to His discourse. We at least know that besides the blessed enumerated by Christ, worthy of becoming members of His Kingdom, there were also other blessed people (Matt 11:6; Luke 7:23; Acts 20:35). Without doubt, no matter how simple and obvious the truths indicated by Christ, natural man could not have reached them by his own reason, and they should be recognized as revelation, and indeed the highest and divine revelation. The parallels drawn from the Talmud have reference not to all the beatitudes. Attempts to draw together verses 3–4 of Matthew with Isa 61:1-3 and to show that Christ only repeats the words of the prophet can be considered unsuccessful, because for anyone reading the Bible it is completely obvious that there is no similarity between Christ’s discourse on the beatitudes and the indicated passage from the prophet Isaiah, except for only individual expressions. However, it is possible that the order of the first two beatitudes, that is, the discourse about the mourning after the poor, could have been determined by the indicated passage from the prophet Isaiah. As for the meaning itself of the word “those who mourn” (πενθοῦντες), the distinction from other Greek words expressing sorrow and grief seems to be that it means sorrow accompanied by the shedding of tears. Therefore the indicated Greek word is opposed to laughter (Luke 6:25; Jas 4:9). In general the expression means both literally and figuratively—mourning, and particularly as a result of some suffering (πένθος from πάσχω—I suffer). To say that here is meant mourning for sins and the like is to move again into the realm of abstraction. According to our explanation, Christ, seeing before Himself the poor in spirit, could perhaps also see those who mourn. Without doubt, such people are known to every ordinary preacher as well. If there were no mourners near Christ at that time, He could have seen them before. He greeted them in the second beatitude, from whatever cause their mourning originated. The word “will be comforted” most fully corresponds to the word “those who mourn,” differs in complete naturalness. Of course, for all those who mourn, the most natural state is that they will be comforted. The word “will be comforted” does not fully, however, express the thought of the Greek word (παρακαλέω), which means, properly, “to call,” “to summon,” then “to say something to someone,” “to exhort,” “to persuade,” “to request help from someone and to render help.” The last expression most closely corresponds to the παρακληθήσονται used in verse 4. Therefore the meaning of the beatitude in question may be thus: blessed are those who mourn, for they will receive help, at which their tears will cease.

Matthew 5:5. “Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth. By the word “meek” are understood the quiet, humble, harmless, modest, gentle. Such people are opposite to the harsh (χαλεποί), the irritable (πικροί), the wild (ἄγριοι). According to blessed Augustine, “the meek are those who yield to importunate acts (improbitatibus) and do not resist evil, but overcome evil with good (Rom 12:21).” The Greek πραΰς or πρᾷος means quiet, calm, meek, soft, merciful. The observation of meek people is accessible to all, and therefore the meaning of the word “meek” (πραεῖς) presents no particular difficulties. On the other hand, the explanation of the further expression: “they will inherit the earth,” presents great difficulties, because there arise the following questions: what earth? Why does the meek inherit the earth? Such questions were posed by Chrysostom. “What earth? Tell me. Some say that a spiritual one. But that is not so, because in Scripture we nowhere find any mention of a spiritual earth. But what does this mean? Christ here established a sensory reward, as did Paul as well.” What exactly is meant by such a sensory reward or earth, Chrysostom does not explain. Some light on these words of Christ is cast by the circumstance that His words almost literally coincide with the words Ps 36:11: “the meek will inherit the earth” (οἱ δὲ πραεῖς κληρονομήσουσιν γῆν—according to the Septuagint translation). In the Hebrew and in the Septuagint psalm the word “earth” is used without the article (earth in general, unknown which). In the Gospel—with the article. It is noteworthy that the expression: “will inherit the earth,” is repeated in the psalm several times (Ps 36:9), and the word “earth” is used in the same indefinite meaning as in the Gospel. In the psalm those hoping in the Lord, the meek, the righteous, the blameless, etc., are contrasted with evildoers, wicked people, those doing evil, the godless, the lawbreakers. The discourse is of the destruction (on the earth) of evildoers, who, “like grass, will soon be mown down and, like growing grain, will wither, perish” with their descendants. “I have seen,” says the psalmist, “a wicked man in his pride, spreading himself like a green tree; but he passed, and behold he is no more; I seek him and cannot find him” (Ps 36:2). Consequently, the chief thought of the psalm is that the wicked will be replaced by the righteous and in this sense will inherit the earth. One can think that the Savior spoke in the same sense. He spoke not of the fact that the meek inherit the Holy Land, Palestine, but in general will inherit the earth, will become masters of the earth, the universe. History justifies such a prophecy. Christians, having assimilated to themselves the Christian ideals of meekness, harmlessness, humility, truly inherited the earth which before was occupied by the wicked (pagans). This process continues to the present time and when it will end is unknown. Οἱ πτωχοὶ τῷ πνεύματι and πραεῖς—are not synonymous terms.

Matthew 5:6. “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be satisfied. (Cf. (Luke 6:21)—simply “those who hunger.”) These words in themselves present no difficulties for interpretation. What is somewhat difficult is only the word “righteousness.” What righteousness? One could say that under righteousness is understood truth, but then in Greek it would be ἀλήθεια, not δικαιοσύνη. This latter word has many meanings. In the passage in question, most likely, it means the righteousness of God, a life in accord with the laws and commandments given by God. As for the figure adopted by Christ, it is not unusual in Scripture (see Ps 41:3 ff.; Ps 62:2; Isa 55:1-3; Amos 8:11-14). Christ’s followers should strive toward righteousness before God with the same force that the hungry strive to find themselves food or the thirsty to find water.

Matthew 5:7. “Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy. And here, as in the second and fourth beatitudes, the reward is set in the most natural correspondence with the virtue. The word “merciful” is used in the sense of people in general who show mercy, benevolence toward their neighbors, and not only the poor. In the Old Testament the same truth was expressed quite similarly to the Savior’s commandment, but mercy is limited only in relation to the poor (Prov 14:21—according to the Septuagint translation). More similar to the Savior’s words are the words of the prophets (Hos 6:6; Mic 6:8). Quite correctly writes Saint John Chrysostom: “It seems to me that He speaks here not only of the merciful in distributing their possessions, but also of the merciful through deeds. For diverse are the ways of mercy and broad is this commandment.” As for the showing of mercy toward the merciful, it is understood by some interpreters as showing mercy only at the Last Judgment. But it is hardly likely that the Savior had in mind such a precise limitation. The merciful, of course, will be shown mercy at the Last Judgment, but this does not at all prevent their being shown mercy in the present life as well.

Matthew 5:8. “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God. One of the deepest truths. Purity of heart is set as the condition for seeing God. But the term used to designate this vision (ὄψονται—will see, shall behold) relates to the eye and means optical vision. Since from other passages of Scripture it is evident that man cannot see God, we must think that the discourse here is figurative, ordinary vision serving as an image of the spiritual. This is evident from the combination of terms: “pure in heart” and “will see.” To see God requires purity of heart. What is purity of heart? Such a state of man when his heart, the source of feelings, is not darkened by any influences that obscure it with vicious passions or sinful deeds. Between absolute or complete purity of heart and relative purity there exist in men many intervals where partial sickness and partial perfection are observed, as also in the eye. Man’s ability to see (spiritually) God increases as his heart, his conscience, is cleansed. Pure heart = clean conscience. Although the thought of the possibility of seeing God did exist in antiquity (cf. Ps 23:4-6), it is found, for example, several times in Philo, we have not found examples where the vision of God, as in the New Testament, is placed in dependence on purity of heart (cf. Heb 10:22).

Matthew 5:9. “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God. That by peacemakers are understood not only the so-called peaceful, calm people who themselves bother no one and no one bothers them, but also people working to achieve and establish peace on earth, hardly admits of doubt. Jerome understands by peacemakers those “who first in their own heart and then among brothers at odds with one another establish peace. What use is it if you make peace with strangers while vices war in your soul?” But Jerome does not explain why peacemakers will be called (recognized as) sons of God. What connection is there between peacemaking and sonship? Why will only peacemakers be called sons of God? What are sons of God? When will peacemakers be called sons of God? Attempts to resolve these questions with the help of Old Testament analogies, as well as examples from rabbinical and apocryphal writings, hardly can be considered successful. In these latter cases, peacemakers are sometimes called simply “blessed” or “happy,” in others “disciples of Aaron”; or here is spoken of “sons of God,” and Israelites are called “sons of God,” but not because they are peacemakers. One must acknowledge that Christ’s expression is original and the combination of peacemaking with sonship belongs to Him alone. What He said and intended to say is extraordinarily difficult to explain. Nothing remains but to make use of the explanations given by Saint John Chrysostom and blessed Theophylact. The first says: “The work of the Only-Begotten Son of God consisted in uniting what was divided and reconciling what was at enmity.” Consequently, peacemakers will be called sons of God because they imitate the Son of God. Theophylact says that here “not only are understood those living in peace with others, but also those who reconcile others quarreling. Peacemakers are also those who through their teaching bring God’s enemies to God. They are sons of God. For the Only-Begotten also reconciled us with the Father.”

Matthew 5:10. “Blessed are those who have been persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Those persecuted are meant not simply persecuted, but persecuted for righteousness’ sake. “Many suffer persecution for their sins, and are not righteous,” says blessed Jerome (“multi enim persecutionem propter sua peccata patiuntur, et non sunt justi”). People persecuted for righteousness are found often in every society. The truth-loving are unbearable in bad and wicked society. By righteousness may be understood truth in general. Since these people find no peaceful place on earth among the bad and wicked, they receive the promise of “kingdom”—earthly in a spiritual sense and future—heavenly.

Matthew 5:11. “Blessed are you when they insult you and persecute you and say all kinds of evil against you on account of Me. (Cf. Luke 6:22.) The reading of this verse varies considerably. In numerous manuscripts and patristic citations, ῥῆμα is added—they will say every evil word (εἴπωσι πᾶν πονηρὸν ῥῆμα). In Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, in the Sinaitic and Vatican codices, and in many Latin translations (also in the Vulgate), the word ῥῆμα (or its corresponding Latin equivalent) is omitted. But in meaning there is almost no difference whether ῥῆμα is accepted or omitted—in the first case the discourse appears merely somewhat clearer. Furthermore, the recepta, Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, and all the uncial manuscripts (except D) accept ψευδόμενοι. This word is omitted in many Latin translations and the Vulgate. In the Russian translation ψευδόμενοι is rendered: “and falsely say all evil of you.” Such a translation not only poorly corresponds to the original, but is also imprecise in itself, because one can hardly slander anyone truthfully. The Slavonic “lying” is quite exact, but in Russian one cannot express this word through a gerund, which probably was the reason why “lying” was necessarily replaced in the Russian translation by the word “falsely.” Being precise, the Slavonic translation is not, however, free from ambiguity: it is unclear to what “Me” should be related—to “lying” or to “will say all evil.” It is more probable to understand the expression thus, that “Me” relates to all the preceding verbs—“they insult,” “persecute,” “will say all evil.” “It is not recommended to relate ἕνεκεν ἐμοῦ (“Me”) only to the last verb because all three verbs in these propositions, taking the place of διώκειν (to persecute) in verse 10, equally need this addition” (Zahn, 1905). The Savior speaks here not of some particular possible case (then “if” would stand at the beginning of the verse—ἐάν—instead of “when”), but of the actual coming persecutions, insults, slanders coming to the disciples and calls the people who will bear all this happy.

Matthew 5:12. “Rejoice and be very glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you. (Cf. Luke 6:23.) To the general expression of Matthew, “rejoice and be very glad,” Luke adds “in that day,” i.e., in the very time of insults, persecutions, and slander, in the very day of grief resulting from all these evils. The thought of a higher heavenly reward for people who encounter nothing in this world except malice, persecution, and insult for Christ’s sake is natural and fully meets the demands of sound logic and morality. One cannot agree with the opinion that the Savior here had in mind only the disciples, and that only through them He spoke to all others who intended to imitate the disciples (Euthymius Zigabenus and others). The fact that His words did not refer only to the immediate disciples was proved by the history of persecutions of Christians. Christ confirms His thought by saying that “in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you,” on the one hand, placing and elevating His listeners to the same degree as the prophets, and on the other—indicating the general, usual character of the prophetic lot and service. What exactly are the facts of persecution of the former prophets that the Savior has in mind, He does not say. It must be supposed that Christ’s listeners were well acquainted with these facts (cf. Acts 7:52; Heb 11:32-40; Jer 20:2; 2 Chr 24:21).

Matthew 5:13. “You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt has lost its taste, how will it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot by men. From what we have seen, the word μακάριοι was a greeting to the gathered crowd. In all the beatitudes a thin, barely perceptible thread of criticism of existing opinions and views on human happiness runs through, and to them is opposed a completely new view of what this happiness consists in. One can observe that in the given verse this greeting continues and even intensifies; the dignity of Christ’s disciples is still further elevated, but at the same time, now in regard to the disciples, a light, very bright criticism passes—in case the disciples do not correspond to their high calling. “You,” He says to them, “are the salt of the earth.” Salt, being a necessary food product without which neither men nor animals can do, was considered in antiquity a noble, highly-valued substance. Nil sole et sale utilius (nothing is more useful than sun and salt), said the ancient Romans. “The chief of all necessities for human life,” says Jesus, son of Sirach, “are water, fire, iron, salt, flour of wheat, honey, milk, grape juice, oil, and clothing” (Sir 39:32). Plutarch calls salt a grace (χάρις), Homer applies to it the epithet—divine (θεῖον), and Plato calls salt a god-loving substance (θεοφιλὲς σῶμα). The disciples of Christ (in the broader sense) are necessary and equally as valuable for the world as salt. The following words are understood in two ways: either, as in Russian: “if the salt has lost its taste, how will it be made salty again?” or: “if salt loses its power, then how will it be made salty, i.e., the earth?” The following discourse shows that the discourse is about salt; the Russian translation should be considered correct. The possibility of salt losing its power was a subject of many discussions among exegetes. Some tried to prove that salt could indeed lose its power when mixed with other substances, for example with resin, or when it “evaporates,” others that one salt could be more salty because of its greater purity, another less; a third group, contrary to all philology, understood “asphalt,” “potassium carbonate,” “saltpeter” here or referred to Pliny, who mentions salem inertem nec candidum (ineffective and non-bright salt). Finally, some thought that the Savior indicated here an impossible fact. A Jewish rabbi, Jesus ben Hanania, when asked by Athenian sages: if salt spoils, how will it be made salty, expressed the opposite opinion, that salt can never become unsalty (see Zahn. Das Evang. d. Matt., p. 198, note). To understand Christ’s utterance, we need to leave the realm of chemistry—simply because Christ does not reason about chemical questions at all, but refers to simple daily (some say even “kitchen”) experience, known to everyone—when salt spoils for various reasons and is thrown out for uselessness. In the commentaries on this verse, Jerome, as is known, not particularly favorably disposed toward “city” clergy, exclaims: caveant ergo doctores et episcopi potentes potenter tormenta sustinere; nihilque esse remedi: sed majorum ruinas ad tartarum ducere (let teachers and bishops beware: “the mighty will be punished severely” (Wis 6:6), nothing will help, but the ruin of the great will lead them to perdition). To this one can respond that in the passage in question the Savior hardly had in mind only teachers and bishops.

Matthew 5:14. “You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden. The greeting becomes even more lofty and with no, not even the slightest shade of criticism in regard to the disciples. The Savior calls His disciples “the light of the world.” Augustine rightly observes that Christ Himself is lumen illuminans (the light that illuminates), while John the Baptist was lumen illuminatum (borrowed light). In the latter sense, of course, one must understand the expression also in regard to the disciples of Christ. Christ Himself was “the light of the world” (John 8:12), “the true Light” (John 1:9) and so forth; the disciples, however, were “light in the Lord” (Eph 5:8), “children of light” (Luke 16:8) and others. Here one can note even the fullness of the feeling of Christ. He passes from one comparison to another and then again returns to the former. The comparison with light quickly ends and the disciples are further compared with a city standing on top of a mountain. They point here to a parallel expression from the “Sayings,” 7: “a city built and established on the summit of a high mountain cannot fall or be hidden.” In this parallel, if it can be called such, three words remind us of verse 14: πόλις (city), δύναται (can), and κρυβῆναι (be hidden). The thought expressed in the “Sayings” is similar to the thought of the verse in question. One hardly needs to say much about the fact that the precise determination of which city exactly Jesus Christ had in mind here is not of great importance. Πόλις—without the article, any city. The thought expressed by the Savior is clear.

Matthew 5:15. “And having lit a lamp, they do not put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. The thought about a city set on top of a mountain is immediately broken off, and the Savior again returns to discourse about light. Now the disciples are compared to a lamp which “gives light to all in the house.” By the word λύχνος here one cannot understand a “candle” (as in the Russian translation), but a lamp filled with oil, because candles were little used among the Greeks and Eastern peoples (Zahn, 1905). The words translated in the Russian Bible as “under a basket,” in the Slavonic as “under a bushel,” are Latin modius, a grain measure adopted also among the Greeks, equal to 8.754 liters. According to Morison it was equal to the Hebrew “sate” or “seah” (capacity of 432 eggs). Λυχνία—properly a stand for a lamp, sometimes arranged up to one and a half meters in height (Heb 9:2—“lampstand” in the tabernacle; in the Apocalypse there is mention of golden lampstands—Rev 1:12 and others).

Matthew 5:16. “So let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father who is in heaven. The greeting takes on a pathetic tone, and the discourse is distinguished by great beauty, especially in Greek and probably in all languages. Salt of the earth, a city standing on a mountain and visible to all, “you are light,” lamps which no one puts under a basket—and then again “light,” which should shine before all people—all these poetic images are here mingled together and present themselves as a shimmering brilliance of diamonds turned now in one direction, now in another. Light issues as much from the persons as from their “good deeds,” which are characteristic of them. These deeds let men see and glorify for them the Father in heaven. The word καλός (= Latin pulcher) in the expression τὰ καλὰ ἔργα indicates more the outward beauty of deeds, “the manifestation of good in praiseworthy actions,” than only the thought of them or their moral-theoretical merit. The distinction between ἀγαθός and καλός is difficult to express in Russian. Both words mean “good.” But the first means good in itself, independent of external manifestation, while the second, first of all—beautiful, pleasing, pleasant. The Savior speaks here of deeds not only good, virtuous in themselves, but also beautiful, pleasant to look at, light from which is as pleasant and necessary as the light of the sun or a lamp in a dark room.

Matthew 5:17. “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. With this verse begins a new discourse, not connected with the preceding by any transitional particles (οὖν, δέ, ἀλλά). If it belonged to an ordinary speaker, we could speak of the fact that after the greetings addressed to the listeners, He now proceeded to set forth the matter itself. But although, as we said above, Christ’s discourse in verses 1–16 was greeting in nature and only under such a supposition is it somewhat clear to us, it is nevertheless completely rightly considered an exposition of the new—New Testament—law. This law was new because nothing like it had ever been heard before. To the listeners of Christ it could seem that, in teaching new laws, He was completely abolishing the former ones. It could also be that the earlier teaching of Christ, known to us only in part, chiefly from the Gospel of John, also seemed new in comparison with Old Testament legislation. Such an opinion of the listeners the Savior now subjects to criticism. He says that He does not abolish the former law, does not wish to destroy or break it (καταλῦσαι). He sets His new laws in a genetic connection with the former. This is well expressed by the Savior Himself in another place, in the parable of the seed: “first the blade, then the ear, then the full grain in the ear” (Mark 4:28). “The Old Testament was the first steps in the great course of revelation and redemption, which reach their completion in Christ.” Christ had indeed previously based Himself on the Old Testament law, rejecting temptations. Now He, as it were, confirms what He said before. The fulfillment of the Old Testament law by the new was a great historical process. The Old Testament was like an empty, unfilled vessel, or, in other words, was only a form without inner content. Christ fills this vessel, gives the form inner content and meaning. Jesus Christ filled or fulfilled the Old Testament law completely with His own person, life, His teaching, where He expounded the absolute truths of religion and the universal principles of morality. In such a fulfillment everything that had a firm value and significance in Old Testament religion remained inviolate. But the process itself of fulfillment presupposes the abolition of Old Testament religion by itself. It could not continue its existence now independently of the New Testament. Only together with it and in its light not a single feature or jot of the Old Testament passes away or will pass away until the end of the world. In explaining the expression “law and prophets” it is enough to say that all the Old Testament Scripture is meant, which was indeed called in this way: “torah” (law) and “neviim” (prophets), with the addition here of “ketuvim,” or Hagiographa. Since the Psalms were the first book of the Hagiographa, the latter were also called by the general name “Psalms” (cf. Luke 24:44; Acts 24:14). If Christ had said here only of the law and had not mentioned the prophets, even then the word “law” could be understood of all the Old Testament Scripture (cf. 1 Cor 14:21). The objection that the reference to the prophets here is inappropriate because the Savior further says nothing about them is therefore without significance. Nor is the other objection strong, that Matthew only put these words in the mouth of Jesus Christ because “false prophets” appeared, attempting to reject the Old Testament law both wholly and in parts, referring to the words of Christ, which were distorted for this purpose. About Marcion, for example, it is known that he changed the expression of verse 17 thus: “Why do you think that I came to fulfill the law and the prophets? I came to destroy them, not to fulfill” (τί δοκεῖτε; ὅτι ἦλθον πληρῶσαι τὸν νόμον ἢ τοὺς προφήτας; ἦλθον καταλῦσαι, ἀλλ’ οὐ πληρῶσαι). But these words—one of the oldest heretical references to the verse in question by Matthew—only show that it was not Matthew who put the words of verse 17 in the mouth of Jesus Christ for defense against heretics, but heretics borrowed Matthew’s words for their own purposes and distorted them.

Matthew 5:18. “For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass away from the Law until all is accomplished. “For” shows that the following discourse serves as confirmation of the preceding. “Until heaven and earth pass away.” In the Greek text—“until passes away…” (without negation); in the Slavonic Bible exactly—“until passes away.” The Russian translation does not fully correspond to the original, but the meaning is expressed precisely. The law, both Old and New, was given for the earth, for people living on it. As long as people live on the earth and see the sky, both laws will continue. The meaning of the Savior’s words is clear. It is somewhat harder to understand the following words: “not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter…” All interpreters agree that by “jot” here is meant the small Hebrew letter “yod” (י), resembling our comma, and by “part of a letter” are meant scarcely visible to the eye small marks by which the Hebrew letters differ, such as “bet” and “kaph” (ב and כ), “dalet” and “resh” (ד and ר), “heh” and “het” (ה and ח) and others. The Savior says that as long as heaven and earth exist, even the smallest marks, minor provisions in the law, will not be destroyed, will not pass away, will not be forgotten, will not disappear from view.

Matthew 5:19. “Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. “What is spoken of in the law is called least; what Christ intended to say is greatest” (Augustine). In Christ’s discourse (in Greek text) a series of aorists in the subjunctive mood “annuls,” “teaches,” “keeps and teaches” (λύσῃ, διδάξῃ, ποιήσῃ καὶ διδάξῃ), and twice “shall be called” (κληθήσεται)—future indicative mood. From this it is concluded that “annuls” and so forth and “shall be called” do not indicate actions that are simultaneous, contemporary, or accompanying one another. Not at once and not simultaneously shall he be called when he annuls, but in the future, in the Kingdom of Heaven. The word “least” (commandments) is in correspondence with “least” (shall be called); but whoever keeps, that is, fulfills, one of the “least” commandments and teaches others this, he shall be called “great” and so forth. Here, however, is understood not mechanical fulfillment of commandments, from great to least, but rather understood, inner, spiritual. The explanation of this thought is served by the following and further verses.

Matthew 5:20. “For I say to you, unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. (Concerning the Pharisees see the commentaries on Matt 3:7.) Scribes are called those persons who were engaged in the study of Scripture, the “learned” (homines literati), in Hebrew—“soferim.” Since they were occupied with the study of the law, they were also called lawyers or teachers of the law. Josephus calls them interpreters of the ancestral laws, sophists, and sacred scribes (ἱερογραμματεῖς). They were also given the honorable title of rabbis. These were people who managed the scribal business of that time, up to and including the writing of private letters. Scribes enjoyed great influence among the people. As for the meaning of the verse, it is evident that what is meant is the fulfillment by the scribes of only the Old Testament law, only Old Testament righteousness (δικαιοσύνη), without the addition of such actions as would testify to the fulfillment indicated by Christ. The Old Testament law is not abolished by Christ’s teaching. But if it is fulfilled, to speak crudely, without the additions made by Him, then such a fulfillment of the law, characteristic of the scribes and Pharisees, should be considered insufficient, imperfect, mechanical, unthinking, unreasonable, and even immoral. The disciples of Christ should surpass the scribes and Pharisees in the fulfillment of the law. If the disciples do not do this, they will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Thus, the law and its fulfillment—this should be characteristic of the disciples. Either the law alone, or the law without its fulfillment—this is characteristic of the scribes and Pharisees.

Matthew 5:21. “You have heard that it was said to the ancients, ‘You shall not kill,’ and whoever kills will be liable to judgment. The passage begins with the expression: “you have heard.” It should be noted that Christ does not say: you have read. The same applies to the further expression: “it was said” (ἐρρήθη), but not “it was written” (γέγραπται). Such expressions were clearly chosen with the intention to simplify the speech as much as possible and adapt it to the understanding of ordinary people. If Christ had said: you have read, this would have been factually false, since the crowd in general consisted of illiterate or insufficiently literate people. But Scripture was read in Hebrew synagogues at that time, and the people were able to hear this reading. He heard what was said “to the ancients.” This last word has been the subject of much dispute, because grammatically it can be understood: to the ancients (dative case) or by the ancients (instrumental case). Nowadays almost all interpreters accept that here the dative case is not in the sense of the instrumental, which is chiefly evident from the contrasts found in verses 21, 22, 27, 28 – “but I say to you.” Further, against the understanding of τοῖς ἀρχαίοις in the sense of ὑπὸ τῶν ἀρχαίων it is argued that such a use of the dative case is foreign to Matthew and occurs very rarely in the New Testament (Holtzmann, Zahn). The objections that τοῖς ἀρχαίοις is contrasted not with “you,” but with the pronoun “I” (“to the ancients” it was said, but I, and so forth), that Christ in subsequent expressions has in mind the interpretation of the law given by the scribes rather than the law that was given by God through Moses, and that the formula of Christ corresponded to a similar formula used by the rabbis at that time, cannot be considered strong. Of course, with one or another translation of ἀρχαίοις the meaning changes. If we translate: “it was said to the ancients,” this will mean that God Himself said it through Moses to the ancient Hebrews. If – “it was said by the ancients,” this will mean that the utterances of the ancients may not have had or did not have divine sanction and were an addition to the Old Testament law, or its interpretation made on the basis of human authority. But in the latter case, Christ would hardly have used the word “ancient” about the scribes, because they appeared with their interpretations not long before Christ – though it must be said that in the New Testament the word “ancient” denotes not only times and circumstances long past (cf. 2 Cor 5:17; 2 Pet 2:5; Rev 12:9), but sometimes it is also used of recent people and events (Acts 15:7). The commandment “do not kill” is repeated in the law several times (Exod 20:13; Lev 24:17; Deut 5:17) in various forms of expression, but the words: “whoever kills is subject to judgment,” literally do not occur in the law, unless one refers to Deut 17:8. One may suppose that here the Savior either briefly stated the last of the mentioned passages, or pointed to an interpretation which the scribes attached to the commandment “do not kill.” Zahn decisively expresses himself for the latter, saying: “With this (that is, with the commandment ‘do not kill’) the scribes connected something not attached in the Decalogue and not literally encountered in the law at all, namely a definition according to which whoever violated the commandment ‘do not kill’ was subject to judgment, and the judge was required to demand an answer from him.” Such a definition, if made by the scribes, naturally contradicted neither the letter nor the spirit of the Old Testament law. To clarify the further speech of Christ, first of all let us note that the commandment “do not kill” undoubtedly applied only to people, not to animals (mercy toward which, however, was required), that its fulfillment in the Old Testament, according to some exegetes, was not required with decisive strictness, and in general it did not have an absolute and immutable significance. Such an interpretation is based on the fact that, as it is said in many places of the Old Testament, punishments occurred by command of God (Agag and Samuel, priests of Baal and Ashtaroth and Elijah, and so forth). Killings in war were not, of course, denied. But on the other hand, Cain for the murder of Abel, David – of Uriah were strictly punished. From this it was inferred that in the Old Testament killings were divided into legal and illegal, and only for the latter were the guilty subject to and did they undergo responsibility. But if one were to agree with such an interpretation, one would have to recognize nevertheless that the commandment “do not kill” was not given so that it would be violated, and that it retained its force for all possible cases, and its categorical expression ought constantly to shed light on the gloomy life relationships of that time. Thus, if there were violations of this commandment in the Old Testament, it was not because this was legal, but as a result of “hardness of heart,” or one or another practical necessity. In other words, the commandment was sacred and immutable and was law, but its violations for one or another reason were permitted, and precisely these violations, and nothing else, were illegal, if we attend to the causes of the violations, which lay in the conduct of those being punished themselves, and not in those who were punishing them. The word “judgment” is used, apparently, only in a general sense, and therefore there is no need to elaborate on what kind of judgment this was.

Matthew 5:22. But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother without cause is subject to judgment; and whoever says to his brother, “Raca,” is subject to the Sanhedrin; and whoever says, “You fool,” is subject to the fire of Gehenna. “But I say to you” – contrast with the previous speech: “it was said to the ancients.” According to the interpretation accepted above, it was said by God through Moses. If the Savior had said: “God did not command you to kill, but I say to you – kill,” then His words would contain a complete refutation of the Old Testament commandment and complete contradiction of the word of God. This means that the contrast here is only verbal and does not relate to the substance of the commandment itself. Just as God through Moses, the Savior forbids killing, but with even greater categoricalness, eliminating the very causes upon which killings have depended and depend. In the Old Testament obstacles were created to the fact of killing, but attention was not paid to its internal causes. People were to refrain from killings not only because of the commandment but also from fear of being subjected to judgment. The Savior transfers the matter, so to speak, from the external court to the internal – to the heart of a man. To understand the meaning of these words, one must again first of all bear in mind the people to whom Christ spoke. We do not think there were members of the Sanhedrin or local court around Him, those who had authority to decide on capital punishment, or any rulers, officials, judges who “bear the sword.” But even if they were present, certainly they bore no signs of their civil honors or duties, mingling with the crowd and in no way distinguished from it. Therefore, in all His Sermon on the Mount, Christ apparently pays no attention to any officials but speaks only to the common people, who could understand His words only in a strictly literal sense. Since the chief cause of ordinary killings in human society has always been, is, and will be anger at one’s brother, in the New Testament not only killings themselves are forbidden but also the anger from which they proceed. At this point it is remarkable that, so to speak, the domain of anger here is limited only to relations with one’s “brother,” but nothing is said about anger at an enemy or even a neighbor. Why is the word “brother” specifically chosen, and not some other? Did Christ wish to say that anger is forbidden only toward one’s brother and is entirely appropriate toward all other people, our enemies and those in general who do not stand in any particularly close relationship with us? Or should the word “brother” be taken in a broad sense – all people in general? Ἀδελφός is used very frequently in the New Testament – to designate brotherhood by birth and brotherhood in a spiritual sense. In the verse under consideration, the word “brother” should be understood in the sense of both a blood brother and a fellow countryman and a human being in general (quivis alius homo – Mitmensch). Thus, according to at least Grimm and Kremer, if we interpret the word “brother” precisely in this sense, we must recognize that, according to the thought of Christ, not only murder of brother by brother or of man by man is forbidden, but even the anger of one man toward another. In other words, on the basis of Christ’s commandment we must deny every kind and possible killing. Thus indeed, and not otherwise, could the people gathered to Him understand Christ’s speech. They were not “official” people in our sense and therefore could not draw any teaching for themselves regarding “official” killings from Christ’s speech. Continuing the interpretation and departing from the crowd, we at once enter here too into the domain of abstractions. But we must always remember that the concepts of “official” and “unofficial” are invented by men. Before Christ, however, all people are equal and no such distinctions exist. Before Him the entire domain of the “official” is smoothed out and all “official” people should mingle with the crowd surrounding Christ, if they wish to listen to and understand His speech. From this flows a clear conclusion that no official killings, killings in war, or executions of criminals, according to the teaching of Christ, should exist. This is the law. Everything else is a departure from the law. But then further questions arise: what should be done when enemies attack us – should we also go to war against them and kill? How should one act if killing is required, for example, for the purpose of defense against attacks by robbers, who, if not killed, themselves will commit many killings, and of completely innocent and defenseless people? Can killings in war and in general for purposes of defense be justified? Yes, and in exactly the same way as they were justified in the Old Testament when there existed a clear, categorical, and immutable commandment “do not kill.” In the Old Testament this commandment was given, which was really directed against the old man with his passions, and yet the “Old Testament” man existed. In the New Testament a new commandment was given that supplemented the Old Testament one. But this does not mean at all that as soon as the New Testament commandment was given, the Old Testament man immediately ceased to exist. He existed after Christ and exists now. The thought of the New Testament is the expulsion and disarming of the old man, and this goal is constantly being achieved. But this is a very slow process. When all people become New Testament people, then, of course, there will be no need for either wars or death sentences for criminals. But while the Old Testament continues to exist and the Old Testament man lives, wars and death sentences are a matter of practical necessity, although they are departures from the law. One must only always and without fail remember that those defending wars and death sentences, like the defenders of them and the criminals whom they kill, are in no way moving in the sphere of purely New Testament concepts, but conduct all their reasoning only on Old Testament ground. Being themselves old men, they struggle of necessity with the Old Testament man and very often in the process completely forget about the light given in the Old Testament commandment – “do not kill” – and about the teaching given by Christ. The word “without cause” usually serves to justify unjustified anger. But “without cause” is not in the Sinai and Vatican codices; it is omitted by Tischendorf, Westcott, and Hort. In some codices, Jerome notes, “without cause” (sine causa) is added, but in the majority of codices the thought is definite, and anger is completely eliminated when Scripture says: “whoever is angry with his brother” (that is, without the addition: “without cause”). For if we are commanded to turn the other cheek to one who strikes us, to love our enemies and to pray for those who persecute us, then every occasion for anger ceases. Consequently, “without cause” should be omitted, because “the anger of a man does not accomplish the righteousness of God” (Jas 1:20). Origen said that some people inopportunely (μὴ καλῶς) add in the Gospel εἰκῇ, thinking that in some cases reasonable anger is possible. Some omit the word “without cause” – Basil the Great and Athanasius of Alexandria (not Irenaeus, Justin, Eusebius, Gregory of Nyssa, John Chrysostom, and others). However, Euthymius Zigabenus says that “by adding εἰκῇ, the Savior did not exclude all anger but only inopportune anger. For timely anger is useful. The latter occurs against those who act contrary to God’s commandments, when not for vengeance but for the benefit of those living wickedly, from love and kindness, one gives oneself to anger with proper decorum.” We agree that when the word “without cause” is omitted – that is, when the Savior’s saying is understood in an absolute sense – it is difficult to explain the “anger” of the Savior (Mark 3:5). But the word ὀργή applied to Him apparently does not have the meaning it has in the verse under consideration. The expression of the latter is in direct correspondence with verse 21. There the one who kills is subject to judgment (it is not said – without cause); here – the one who is angry with his brother and disposed as a result of this to killing. The one who is angry is subject to judgment, but not of course in all cases. In the further expressions there is an indication of different degrees of an angry state, which are indeed reprehensible. Ὀργιζόμενος implies a prolonged but more concealed, hidden anger, which can lead to killing without being expressed in any actions or words. The angry state is then expressed in the utterance of “Raca,” a verbal insult or insults. The word “Raca” was explained variously. Chrysostom considers it an expression of slight anger, rather of scorn and contempt. This word, according to Chrysostom, in the Syrian language is equivalent to “you.” Augustine considers it more probable that this word does not mean anything definite but expresses the movement of an angered spirit, and refers the word “Raca” to angry exclamations. Theophylact and Euthymius Zigabenus agree with Chrysostom. Jerome supposes that the word is equivalent to the Hebrew “raka,” which means “empty,” brainless. Morison considers the word to remain unexplained to the present day. The derivation of “raca” from Aramaic “reka” or “reika,” meaning “empty,” presents linguistic difficulties. One can only accept that this word, which is similar to several Hebrew and Aramaic expressions, designates in general contempt, disrespect, spitting, and the like, although its exact meaning is unknown. The word μωρέ, expressing, as is evident from the responsibility, already a strong, irreconcilable anger, has been compared with the Hebrew word “more” (unizh dignified; or disobedient, stubborn – Deut 21:18), but unsuccessfully. This Greek word, corresponding to the Hebrew “naval,” means “foolish.” It is difficult to establish a precise distinction between “Raca” and μωρέ. The opinion of Zahn that Jesus Christ here wished to punish the rabbis by imitating their method and that the casuistic rabbinic distinctions and reasonings found in abundance in almost every tractate of the Mishnah served as a model for Christ here can hardly be accepted. In the present case, the meaning of the word, which in itself is obscure, can be determined only if we pay attention to the greater responsibility which Christ points to for the utterance of this word. From this responsibility it is clear that μωρέ does not simply mean “foolish” and is not equal to the word “Raca,” but means something else, because otherwise there would be no need to single out this crime from the general jurisdiction of human institutions. But what exactly is the precise meaning of μωρέ is difficult to say. The best explanation of this word and the punishment following it is that here is meant anger at one’s brother for his religious opinions, which, naturally, is no longer subject to civil judgment. Confirmation of this is found in the fact that μωρέ is Hebrew “naval,” and the latter is used in Deut 32:21; Ps 13:1; Job 2:10 (cf. 1 Sam 25:3) to designate predominantly religious errors. As for the words: “judgment,” “Sanhedrin,” “fire of Gehenna,” they in this verse undoubtedly have a more definite meaning than in the preceding one and point to the lower court composed of 3 judges in small towns with a population of about 120 people, to a court of 23 – where the population exceeded 120, and to the highest tribunal – the Sanhedrin of 71 (according to Schürer) in Jerusalem. The word “Gehenna” points to a place south of Jerusalem where the worship of Moloch was practiced (2 Chr 28:3; Jer 7:31 and others). Josiah “defiled Topheth, which is in the valley of the sons of Hinnom, so that no one might pass his son or his daughter through the fire to Moloch” (2 Sam 23:10). The corpses of criminals, animals, and all filth were thrown here. To destroy the smell and decomposing matter, fire was kindled here. This place became an image for designating eternal torment. The word “Gehenna” occurs several times in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and in the epistle of James (Jas 3:6).

Matthew 5:23. Therefore, if you bring your gift to the altar and there you remember that your brother has something against you, Matthew 5:24. leave your gift there before the altar, and first go and be reconciled with your brother, and then come and offer your gift. In the previous verse, addressing his listeners, the Savior spoke of their own anger, which serves to disturb peace. Now He speaks of anger from the side of the brother, and this anger also must be stopped. The existence of the temple and sacrifices in the words of the Savior is necessarily presupposed – that is, the words were spoken (and the Gospel was written) before the destruction of the Jerusalem temple; otherwise such speech would be impossible. Many brought various sacrifices in the temple, which were then the highest expression of service to God and worship. If anyone brings any gift to the temple and, being present in the temple himself, remembers that his brother is angry at him, then he should leave his gift before the altar, return, and be reconciled with his brother. Interpreting these verses, the holy archbishop John Chrysostom exclaims: “O kindness! O ineffable compassion! The Lord commands that worship of Him be abandoned because of the demands of love for one’s neighbor... Let, says He, service to Me be interrupted, only so that your love be preserved, because even that is a sacrifice when someone reconciles himself with his brother. Therefore, He does not say: be reconciled after making an offering or before making a gift, but sends to be reconciled with the brother when the gift lies before the altar and the sacrifice has already begun.” Nothing prevents literally fulfilling these beautiful words and beautiful interpretation in practical life. The word κἀκεῖ in the expression “there you remember” occurs in the most important codices, is accepted in the received text, in Tischendorf and Westcott and Hort, but is omitted in more than 50 cursive manuscripts. Both κἀκεῖ and καὶ ἐκεῖ are written. The verb “be reconciled” (διαλλάττεσθαι) occurs in the New Testament only here.

Matthew 5:25. Be reconciled with your accuser quickly, while you are still on the way with him, lest the accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge hand you over to the officer, and you be put in prison; The thought of verse 24 is repeated regarding speedy, immediate reconciliation, but the matter is considered from somewhat different sides. Whoever is forced to go to a judge should be reconciled with his accuser more quickly, on the road itself which leads to the court. The word “accuser” (ἀντίδικος) was interpreted variously. Under accuser, according to Augustine, one can understand here “either the devil, or a man, or the flesh, or God, or His commandment. But I,” says Augustine, “do not see how one can show favor to the devil or be reconciled with him, for where there is favor, there is also friendship; one cannot say to anyone that one should make friendship with the devil, it is inconvenient to make an agreement with him. Therefore,” continues Augustine, “only one thing remains – to understand by accuser God’s commandment, which resists those who wish to sin.” Others understood the devil as the accuser, and this thought was, one might say, universally accepted in the ancient Church and among ancient interpreters. The basis for such interpretation was 1 Pet 5:8, where it says: “your” “adversary” (ἀντίδικος) “is the devil.” But all the interpretations mentioned above are based on an obvious misunderstanding, because ἀντίδικος both in Old Testament usage and among the classics simply means a man who wishes to litigate or is litigating with another, in our language “plaintiff” and “defendant” – both these persons are called ἀντίδικος, although in verse 25 the word is used evidently in the sense of “plaintiff.” It is incorrect to understand “judges” here (Saint John Chrysostom), because how would one be reconciled with them on the road to court? The practical advice which Chrysostom gives here is very good: “As long as you have not entered into the court, you are the full master of yourself, but as soon as you cross its threshold, you are already the subject of another, and however much you might struggle, you cannot already dispose of yourself as you wish.” The variants in this verse are not of special importance.

Matthew 5:26. Truly I say to you: you will not get out of there until you pay the last quadrans. The meaning of the speech is that if a man does not reconcile himself with his accuser and brings the matter to court, he must undergo legal punishment and pay the entire debt. From this one can see how necessary early reconciliation is. The quadrans was a small Roman coin mentioned in the New Testament only twice (also Mark 12:42), the Latin quadrans = 1/4 of an as or assarius = 2 leptons = nearly a German pfennig and the old Russian half-kopeck (1/4 of a kopeck). It was the smallest copper coin of the time of the Roman Empire.

Matthew 5:27. You have heard that it was said: do not commit adultery. The same speech as at the beginning of verse 21, but (according to the best readings) without the addition of “to the ancients.” In the received text, many cursive manuscripts, the Vulgate and others, the word “ancients” crept in from verse 21. In the Old Testament the commandment in the same words as in Matthew is set forth in the Hebrew text and in the translation of the Seventy Exod 20:14. In Deut 5:18 it is repeated with the addition in the Hebrew text of a conjunction “and,” which in the Seventy and Matthew is omitted. The Hebrew word “nach” means all kinds and types of unchastity.

Matthew 5:28. But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with desire has already committed adultery with her in his heart. The Greeks distinguished μοιχεία and πορνεία. The first, according to Theophylact and others, refers to adultery with a married woman, the second – with a divorced (or literally, “dismissed” – εἰς ἀπολελυμένην) woman. Lawful marital relations are excluded from the Savior’s speech, and the strengthening of family relations is His chief purpose. The word “woman” is in a general sense, any woman. A look at a woman with the intention of satisfying lust is in itself adultery in the heart. According to Old Testament law the sin was the fact of adultery itself, but according to the teaching of the Savior sin occurs when adultery is committed in the heart. The listeners of Christ could understand His speech in the sense that He commanded strict abstinence from unchastity, even in thoughts. The Savior speaks of the sin of a man, but it is entirely understood that the same applies to a woman as well. Their adulterous sins can be forgiven, nonetheless – they are sins and a departure from the norm, and people should abstain from them. Luther remarks: “If we cannot prevent a bird from flying over our head, we can prevent it from building a nest in our hair.” The expression “with her” (αὐτήν) may be spurious.

Matthew 5:29. If your right eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is better for you that one of your members perish than that your whole body be cast into Gehenna. “Right eye” – the right, not the left, because it, like the right hand, is more precious to man. In antiquity this was expressed by Aristotle thus: φύσει βελτίων τὸ δεξιὸν τοῦ ἀριστεροῦ (by nature the right is better than the left). The ancient exegetes hardly dared to interpret the words of the Savior literally. Augustine says that by an eye we (usually) understand a very beloved friend... But here one should understand by an eye a friend-counselor, because an eye shows the path. “Hearing about eye and hand,” says Theophylact, “do not think that here we are speaking of limbs, because then (the Savior) would not have added the words ‘right’ and ‘right.’ Here we are speaking of seeming friends, who bring us harm.” Such interpretations cannot be considered correct. The Savior said “right” and “right” (verse 30) precisely because he spoke of limbs of the body, and such expressions do not apply to friends. Moreover, the speech evidently relates to adultery, and the limbs of the body are spoken of as instruments of passion. The best explanation of the word “scandal” (stumbling block) is found in Trench (Parables, 2nd ed. 1888, p. 89): “σκάνδαλον (in its classical form σκανδάληθρον) is that part of a trap or snare on which bait is placed and which, as soon as one touches it, springs out and causes a spring suddenly to tighten the snare; then in general the word designates snares. In the New Testament it is applied to spiritual things and includes everything that, entangling the feet of people, causes them to fall, as a result of which it closely approaches the word πρόσκομμα and is closely connected in meaning also with the words παγίς and θήρα, with which it is sometimes used together, as, for example, in Rom 2:9.” Cf. Lev 19:14, where under σκάνδαλον (in the Seventy) is understood an object over which one stumbles on one’s path when blind. Modern interpreters understand the expressions of Christ literally, that is, He says that if even the right eye or right hand causes you to stumble, then it is better to pluck out the eye or cut off the hand and so forth. This interpretation seems to be as incorrect as the first one, because all this is abstraction. The crowds could understand the words of Christ only as figurative expressions, where the necessity of observing great strictness is indicated when the matter concerns the sin of adultery.

Matthew 5:30. And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is better for you that one of your members perish than that your whole body be cast into Gehenna. By construction and meaning this verse is in no way different from the preceding one. The same truth is considered from different sides and thus more firmly impressed on the consciousness of the listeners.

Matthew 5:31. It is also said that if anyone divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce. Again the formula of verse 21 and 27, repeated in verses 33, 38, 43, which indicates that all this speech of the Savior was uttered simultaneously and at one time. The connection is well explained by the holy archbishop John Chrysostom: “The Savior only transitions to a new subject after he fully reveals the previous one. So also in the present case He shows us yet another form of adultery.” A detailed discussion of this subject is in Deut 24:1-4 set forth by the Savior very briefly and completely freely. Only the substance of the matter is conveyed and circumstances are not at all indicated that gave rise to divorce mentioned in Deuteronomy.

Matthew 5:32. But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except for the cause of fornication, causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. In explaining this, one of the most difficult verses – not that it is difficult in itself, but because it touches very complex practical life relationships – we must first of all consider the meaning of separate terms and then the general meaning of the Savior’s speech. We will set forth this subject with the utmost brevity, and those interested in details we refer to a very valuable scientific brochure by Professor N. P. Glubokovskii entitled: “Divorce for Adultery and Its Consequences According to the Teaching of Christ the Savior” (St. Petersburg, 1895). The first difficult word encountered in considering this verse is παρεκτός. In Russian it is translated as “except,” in Slavonic as “unless,” Vulgate: excepta (fornicationis) causa. Παρεκτός is everywhere translated the same way with the word “except,” with the exception of Luther’s translation, which is not sufficiently clear; modern German translators, instead of es sei denn um Ehebruch, as in Luther (in parentheses), translate better and more precisely – ausser dem Grunde der Hurerei. “Παρεκτός,” says Professor N. Z. Glubokovskii, “was not original to the Greek language” and its origin dates to the period between 322 and 150 BC. In any case, it is not found in the classics or in the Septuagint, where the equivalent π άρεκ and πάρεξ are used. It is established, however, that παρεκτός, according to the same professor, indicated (along with other expressions) “an exception for what is outside the given order and does not fall under its laws.” The further λόγος is necessary. If it were not, then the expression “divorces, except for adultery” would be incomprehensible. Λόγος here means “cause” (causa, Grund). The meaning: if anyone divorces, excepting that case when he is compelled to this by a solid cause – the adultery of the wife or generally of one of the parties and so forth. The next word is πορνεία. Euthymius Zigabenus says: Christ “commands not to divorce one’s wife ‘for another cause, except fornication’” (such should be the Russian translation of verse 32 based on the above), that is, without (δίχα) debauchery (πορνεία), and debauchery (πορνείαν) here He calls adultery (μοιχείαν).” According to Professor Glubokovskii, the term πορνεία is not so specialized that there could be no dispute over its content.” At this point it is quite interesting that Christ uses πορνεία, although – actually – the speech is about μοιχεία. If there is no πορνεία, then the one releasing the wife “tramples on the very foundation of marriage itself, separates what God has joined together by the law of nature and consecrated in Christianity by a special Sacrament.” After these explanations the meaning of the subsequent words of the Savior will appear to us clearer. One who divorces his wife (or a wife her husband) for any other cause except the guilt of adultery causes (gives reason), as a result of lack of satisfaction of carnal passion, the divorced (abandoned) party to commit adultery. Thus, one evil – voluntary separation from one’s wife (or from one’s husband) without any solid cause (guilt of adultery) – brings with it another, causes the innocently abandoned (or abandoned) to fall into sin, to commit adultery, and this sin, as one can judge from the tone of Christ’s speech, falls with its full weight not on the divorced (or divorced), but on the one who divorces without guilt on her part, and his guilt becomes thus twofold. This is evident from the verb ποιεῖ used here. Moreover, one who enters into a new union with a woman divorced without guilt also commits sin, but this sin should again be charged both to that man and to the man who divorces his wife without guilt on her part. Thus a groundless divorce is a conjunction of many evils, many sins, which fall with their full weight on the person who allowed the voluntary and unjustified divorce. Such is the essence of Christ’s teaching set forth in the given verse. He perhaps did not speak of women because they were not among those listening to Him. But “if anyone should assert that the Lord allowed, as a cause for abandoning a spouse, only debauchery that is committed in unlawful concubinage, then you can say that the Lord spoke of both the faithful, not allowing them to abandon each other, except for the guilt of adultery” (Augustine). Such a view of the Savior of marriage can quite be justified by reasonable considerations. “Relations between the sexes,” says Tolück, “introduce us into the deepest mystery of life; without duality there is no living unity; without opposition between positive and negative there is no birth. The law of polarity runs through the kingdom of stars and planets, as well as through other forces, elements, matter and kingdoms of the world, only, naturally, in each kingdom it is expressed differently.” Thus the union between man and woman is an expression of natural, fitting the world order established by God, “polarity,” and its violation contradicts all natural laws. The Savior nowhere opposed marital life and, as is known, sanctified marriage by His presence. But He condemned the violation of marital bonds more than once. Further, “the birth of a child,” says the same scholar, “need not be considered a separate act; it necessarily presupposes upbringing as a continuation of the initial act of obtaining life through bodily birth.” And this also cannot serve as justification for voluntary and groundless divorces, except in those cases when the Sacrament of Marriage itself is destroyed because of the guilt of adultery. But beyond all this, of course, a multitude of further legal questions arise. We fully agree that “the canonical tradition permitted divorce for adultery and even allowed a new marriage for the innocent party, even though it occurred for causes less worthy of consideration”; that “the release of one’s wife is conceivable even in the Christian Church on the basis of a cause punctually noted by the Redeemer” (Glubokovskii). But how should one act if adultery, being the only fault when divorce is permitted, will be presented as a means to obtain a divorce from an unloved wife or unloved husband? In other words, if for the sake of obtaining a divorce an intentional adultery will be committed, as does happen in practice, when even “they take the fault upon themselves,” not being guilty of it. Can only adultery be considered a valid cause for divorce, or can there be other causes as well, for example impotentia, illnesses, incompatibility of character, crimes and so forth? These legal questions are resolved by the fact that the Savior looks at the violation of marital bonds in general as a sin. Each person can then, in his conscience, decide whether he permits the sin of divorcing his wife or whether his wife allows divorcing her husband, and act according to the dictates of his conscience, always keeping the commandment in view. Here, obviously, we again depart from the sphere of pure moral teaching and enter the practical-legal realm, the development and particular application of the commandment which the New Testament always leaves to people themselves. It provides only the light by which practical moral relations should be resolved. In practice almost always an individual case comes forward, which is resolved through one or another application of teaching and principle to it. On this we will conclude the present discussion, noting only that a departure from the sphere of pure moral teaching and its violation always and invariably testify only to “another law,” which opposes in man the law of his mind and makes him a prisoner of the law of sin found in his members (Rom 7:23). All the numerous abuses that occur in marital life testify only to the continuing life of the “old man” and to nothing else.

Matthew 5:33. Again you have heard that it was said to the ancients: do not break your oath, but fulfill your oaths to the Lord. The commandment is set forth in Lev 19:12; Num 30:3; Deut 23:21. And here again the Savior conveys only the essence of the Old Testament law briefly. In Lev 19:12 it forbids not all oaths in general but only false ones. The translation of the Seventy almost corresponds to the Hebrew text. In the last two mentioned passages vows are spoken of. The Russian and Latin translations: “do not break your oath,” Vulgate: non perjurabis – are not precise; the Slavonic: “you will not swear falsely”; in the Hebrew text Lev 19:12 to “do not swear” is added the word “lashaquer” – “for falsehood,” which is expressed by the Greek verb ἐπιορκέω, which unlike the simple ὀρκέω means “I swear falsely.” Therefore the meaning of the Savior’s words appears to be as follows: do not swear falsely, but when you swear (not falsely), then fulfill before the Lord (in the Slavonic translation more precisely – “you will render to the Lord”) your oaths. Thus approximately Chrysostom: “What does it mean: ‘you will fulfill before the Lord your oaths’? This means: when you swear, you must speak truth (ἀληθεύεις ὀμνύς).” There is no mention of oath-breaking here.

Matthew 5:34. But I say to you: do not swear at all – neither by heaven, because it is the throne of God; Matthew 5:35. nor by the earth, because it is the footstool of His feet; nor by Jerusalem, because it is the city of the great King; Matthew 5:36. nor by your head shall you swear, because you cannot make a single hair white or black. Matthew 5:37. But let your word be: yes, yes; no, no; and what is more than this, comes from the evil one. The teaching of Christ concerning oaths. The verb ἐπιορκέω (I swear falsely) of the previous verse is replaced here by ὄμνυμι. Ὀρκέω, ὄρκος corresponds to the Hebrew “shaba,” which they derive from “sheva” – seven – a sacred number among the Hebrews and used in the East in oaths (Gen 21:28 seq.) and curses (Num 23:1), and “shebuya” – oath. Ὄμνυμι corresponds to the Hebrew “nishba,” that is, the same verb but in the form “nifal,” which has a reflexive meaning in contrast to “kal.” “Nishba,” consequently, – “he swore,” in contrast “he cursed” or “he cursed.” Thus, assuming that Christ spoke in Aramaic, we can permit that His words differed only in form and were consequently in meaning the same; the translator, however, expressed them in Greek with two different verbs. The first impression created in reading verses 34–37 is that Christ forbade every kind of oath whatsoever, completely and unconditionally. This impression is supported by the parallel passage Jas 5:12, where the apostle says: “Above all, my brothers, do not swear – neither by heaven nor by earth nor by any other oath (μὴ ὀμνύετε... ἄλλον τινὰ ὄρκον), but let your word be: ‘yes, yes’ and ‘no, no,’ so that you do not fall under judgment.” Thus the ancient Church understood these words of Christ, in the sense of absolute abstinence from every oath. Justin the Martyr: “He (Jesus Christ) commanded us not to swear at all, but to speak always the truth, in the words: ‘do not swear at all’ and so forth (literally citing words from verse 37 with minor variations).” Eusebius of Caesarea (“Church History,” VI, 5) recounts of the martyr Basilides that his companions in some circumstance demanded an oath from him, but he affirmed that it was not permitted him to swear at all because he was a Christian – and openly confessed this. The confession of Basilides was at first taken as a joke, but since he firmly stood by his position, he was taken to the judge, who, having heard the same thing, placed him in prison. After some time Basilides was beheaded. Saint John Chrysostom decisively rises up against every oath, saying that it was permitted only to the ancients, just as the breast is permitted only to children, not to adults. What is proper for a boy is improper for a man. Dress a boy in the clothes of an adult – it will be both ridiculous and dangerous for him to walk, because he will often become entangled. Entrust to him the conduct of civil affairs, entrust trade to him, make him sow and reap – it will again be ridiculous. “But what,” you say, “if someone requires an oath and even compels one to do so? Fear of God must be stronger than any compulsion. If you make such excuses, you will not keep any commandment.” Theophylact: “An oath, except for ‘yes’ and ‘no,’ is unnecessary and is a work of the devil. But you will say, was not the law of Moses, commanding one to swear, bad? Know that at that time an oath did not constitute a bad deed, but after Christ it – is a bad deed, just as circumcision and being Jewish in general. For it is proper for an infant to nurse, but improper for a man.” Euthymius Zigabenus: “Let, says He (the Savior), your confirmatory word, when you assert something, be ‘yes,’ and when you deny – ‘no.’ And use only these words for confirmation instead of an oath and do not use anything else except ‘yes’ and ‘no.’ Anything superfluous beyond this (the Savior) calls an oath.” Among Latin fathers and ecclesiastical writers we find some hesitation. Augustine, it is true, expresses himself in one place just as categorically against an oath as John Chrysostom: “The Lord did not wish that we, without pronouncing an oath, should depart from the truth, but that, pronouncing an oath in the truth, should not approach perjury.” But Jerome thought somewhat differently. Paying attention to the fact that the Savior did not forbid swearing by God, Jerome says: “Whoever swears swears either honoring or loving him by whom one swears. In the law we are given a commandment so that we do not swear except only by the Lord our God (Deut 6-7)... Pay attention to the fact that the Savior here did not forbid swearing by God but by heaven, earth, Jerusalem, and your head.” However, notes Jerome, “evangelical truth does not require an oath (non recipit juramentum), since all speech is truthful and replaces an oath (cum omnis sermo fidelis pro jurejurando sit).” According to Tolück (1856), “only from the fifth century onward did they begin to consider refusal to swear as a heretical deed” (S. 284). And this is understandable why. Having become dominant, the Christian Church entered into closest relations with civil authority and had to make a concession, because an oath was required to confirm loyalty to kings and rulers, as well as in courts. Later we constantly encounter various ingenious bypassing of the positive law given by Christ, which was almost unanimously recognized in the ancient Church. It is true that modern exegetes sometimes directly and boldly declare themselves for the illegality of an oath. Thus the German commentator on the Gospel of Matthew, Meyer, says: “Christianity, as it ought to be according to the will of Christ, should not know any oath... The presence of God should be so alive in the conscience of a Christian that his ‘yes’ and ‘no’ and for himself and for others in Christian society equal the meaning of an oath.” But, adds Meyer, an oath becomes nevertheless necessary at the imperfect state of Christianity. Therefore, for example, Anabaptists and Quakers incorrectly reject the oath altogether, as did Justin, Irenaeus, Clement, Origen, John Chrysostom, Jerome, and many others. According to Zahn, “Jesus forbids not only forms of false oath but all kinds of it.” However, among Protestant and Catholic scholars there are many voices in defense of an oath. They point to the Savior, Who Himself did not always use only “yes” (yea) or “no,” but accompanied His words with stronger assurances (amen and so forth). When the high priest demanded an oath from Him, asking whether He is the Son of God, He apparently repeated his oath in the expression: “you have said” (σὺ εἶπας) (Matt 26:63-64). The Apostle Paul not only did not teach abstinence from an oath but himself pronounced it several times (Rom 1:9; Phil 1:8; 1 Thess 2:5; 2 Cor 11:11; Gal 1:20; 1 Cor 15:31; 2 Cor 1:23; Heb 6:16-18). The denial of an oath in the ancient Church was not unconditional but found firm defenders. Tolück points to the example of (heretic) Novatus (the second half of the 3rd c.), who during communion “compelled poor people to swear instead of thanksgiving, and meanwhile, holding their hands with both hands, did not release them until the one receiving (the gifts) had sworn and pronounced the known words and so forth.” (Eusebius of Caesarea, “Church History,” VI, 43); and also to Athanasius of Alexandria, who, as much as he avoided an oath, swore before Constantine, – and to the decisions of councils (against the Pelagians). The denial of an oath, says Morison, is based on an incorrect interpretation of verse 34, where the Savior forbade oath not absolutely but relatively – oath by those objects which are listed further. God Himself sometimes pronounced an oath (Ps 109:4; Ezek 33:11; Heb 6:13-18), and Angels (Rev 10:6). By the nature of things it cannot be considered incorrect the lifting of the soul to God, as a Witness, Protector, Defender of truth and Avenger of falsehood. A man who is in communion with God cannot free himself from references to God in one form or another. Zahn, asserting that an oath is contrary to Christianity, writes that only a misunderstanding of verses 33–37 leads to the thought that Christ allegedly forbade an oath by the requirement of civil authorities and at the same time the voluntary use of confirmatory forms in everyday life. Such an opinion is incompatible with the general purpose of the commandments from verse 21. Just as the Savior refrained from any judgment about whether power should or should not apply capital punishment, or in what cases divorce is impermissible or permissible, so now He did not say that disciples must literally fulfill the laws indicated in verse 33. The words of the martyr Apollonius (180–185 AD), who declared to his judge that pronouncing an oath for a Christian is something shameful, and at the same time added: “If you wish me to swear that we honor the emperor and pray for his rule, then I will bring reliable oath of this before the true God,” Zahn calls excellent. Observing what impartiality is possible, we have adduced arguments pro and contra oaths. But what conclusion can the reader draw from all that is set forth above? That the Savior did not forbid oaths but limited the words of an oath only to ‘yes, yes,’ ‘no, no,’ which in meaning equal every oath. This is completely sufficient in every practice. This in no way contradicts the above-cited quotations from the Epistles of the Apostle Paul and so forth, because in his words there is not a trace of any formal and especially forced oaths, and they are only simple assurances in which the apostle invokes the name of God. Extensive oath formulas in no way serve as greater and higher confirmation of truth compared with simple ‘yes’ and ‘no.’ Detailed and extensive oath formulas, pronounced either by mistake or by misunderstanding or because of the practical impossibility of fulfilling them, sometimes had fatal consequences. In general, as is evident, in the words of the Savior the speech is about forbidding not an oath but only various oath formulas except ‘yes, yes,’ ‘no, no.’ The defense of forced and extensive oath formulas, if one takes into account the numerous abuses that occur with them, shows only that the defenders move among the deeds of the flesh, where “adultery, fornication, uncleanness, depravity, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, dissension, division, [temptations,] heresies, hatred, murder, drunkenness, carousing” (Gal 5:19-21). And for governments and the governed, in this Old Testament realm, testifying to the continuation of the life of the Old Testament man, oaths are necessary as are killings, which are a counteraction to killings themselves. But once again let us repeat that the defenders of both extensive oaths and killings should never say that they stand on purely New Testament ground, have completely freed themselves from the power of the Old Testament man, and have crossed into the new realm where love, “joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, mercy, faith, gentleness, self-control” (Gal 5:22-23). In this New Testament realm, when all people enter into it, no oaths except simple assurances are required and will be required. Coming forth from the Old Testament and striving toward the New, the Old Testament man becomes less and less inclined to murders, executions, oaths, and so forth. Conversely, leaving the new testament and striving toward the old, the New Testament man manifests an ever greater inclination toward them – because of the understandable practical necessity, confirmed by all sorts of legal codes. The first ‘yes’ in verse 37 some consider as subject, and the second – as predicate. The meaning: let ‘yes’ be your ‘yes,’ that is, true in affirmations, and ‘no’ be ‘no,’ that is, true in denials. But Zahn objects and considers such translation “grammatically inadmissible,” because ἔστω, as copula, is evidently related to λόγος, and “yes, yes” and “no, no” – are predicates. Therefore Zahn “dares” to repeat the guess that the translator here obscured the meaning of the original, which probably read: “let your affirmation be yes, and your no – no,” that is, let your ‘yes’ and ‘no’ be true and worthy of trust, not simultaneously ‘yes’ and ‘no,’ or today ‘yes’ and tomorrow ‘no.’ Regarding τοῦ πονηροῦ of verse 37, the best interpreters recognize that this is neuter singular and consequently here is not meant the devil but evil in general. Instead of plural τῶν πονηρῶν, the singular is used because this is grammatically possible when the speech concerns collective notions.

Matthew 5:38. You have heard that it was said: an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. The words are taken from Exod 21:24; Lev 24:20; Deut 19:21, wherein “and” is only added, which is in none of the indicated places in the Hebrew language. But in comparison with the Hebrew, the speech is shortened, omitting: “hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, injury for injury” (Exod 21:24-25), “fracture for fracture” (Lev 24:20); “soul for soul... hand for hand, foot for foot” (Deut 19:21). The Hebrew text is literally conveyed in the Seventy, and also with the omission of “and.” In the Old Testament, as in other ancient peoples, there existed the so-called law of retaliation (among the Romans – jus talionis), which was applied not only in court but also in relations between private persons. Christ here points to this law.

Matthew 5:39. But I say to you: do not resist the evil one. But whoever strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other as well; Luke 6:29 with the omission of the words “do not resist the evil one.” John Chrysostom and Theophylact suppose that under “evil” here is meant the devil acting through a man. Theophylact asks: “Should one not resist the devil?” – and answers: “Yes, but only not by striking him, but by patience. For fire is not extinguished by fire but by water. But do not think that here the Savior speaks only of a blow on the cheek; He speaks of every other insult and injury and in general simply of danger.” Other exegetes understand τῷ πονηρῷ to mean an evil man, and moreover in the dative: “do not resist an evil man.” Morison asks: “Should we never resist an evil man?” – and answers: “Yes, we should resist him often and to the utmost degree. But this resistance should never be an act of personal revenge, and here the Savior speaks precisely of personal revenge and only of it.” According to Zahn’s opinion, here the speech is not about resistance to the devil nor to a man but to evil existing in the world, insofar as it shows us its strength, that is, that we should not combat evil with evil, because resistance to hostile attack upon us, even in cases of necessity, constantly tends to increase the power of the opponent. Under τῷ πονηρῷ, according to Zahn, one should understand not ὁ πονηρός, which would mean the devil, but τὸ πονηρόν, because the Savior could only announce resistance to the devil as a sacred duty. Zahn proves this assertion by noting that when ὁ πονηρός (in masculine) is used, there are ordinarily put ἁνήρ (man), διδάσκαλος (teacher), δοῦλος (servant) for the avoidance of ambiguity. These interpretations are undoubtedly good. But we will understand better what the matter is if we imagine how the disciples and common people standing around Christ could have understood His words. They could not understand His words in some abstract-philosophical sense but naturally understood only some definite, threatening evil. What exactly it consisted of is difficult, of course, to say, although in the subsequent words definitions of it are given: “strike on the cheek,” “litigate,” “take,” “compel” and so forth. These four definitions well characterize the evil of Palestine at that time. From this one can conclude that the “evil” of which the Savior speaks must always be concrete, and only in such a way determine what evil one should resist and what – not. If Christ spoke of “worldly evil” and non-resistance to evil in general, then certainly His speech would be incomprehensible to the listeners. Besides, they could see in the words of Christ a contradiction to His own actions, because it is certain that the entire activity of Christ was a resistance to evil. And yet in the indicated contradiction in the words of the evangelists we do not meet any hint. Indicating that in concrete cases one should not resist evil, Christ in reality points to ways not of non-resistance but of resistance to evil by patience and gentleness. We have expressed the abstract doctrine of non-resistance to evil especially by the Count L. N. Tolstoy. The chief error of this doctrine lies precisely in that it is distinguished by abstraction. A good analysis of this doctrine can be found, among other things, in the book of the late Professor A. F. Gusev “The Fundamental Religious Principles of Count L. Tolstoy,” Kazan, 1893, pp. 33–108, although not all the conclusions of the author can be agreed with. For example, one cannot translate the passage under consideration as did the Kazan professor Nekrasov, to whom Gusev refers: “But I say to you not to yield to an evil man, but, on the contrary, whoever strikes you on the right cheek, offer to him the other as well.” Although the verb ἀνθίστημι is sometimes used in the sense of prospere cedo, successfully yielding, such usage of the verb is foreign to the New Testament (see Luke 21:15; Acts 6:10; Jas 4:7; Rom 9:19; Gal 2:11; Eph 6:13; 2 Tim 3:8). Briefly and clearly the principal teaching of the Savior can be expressed thus: whoever insults commits a sin; if anyone resists the one insulting, he commits the same sin as the other, because he wishes to insult him. Whoever does not resist is free from sin and consequently is justified by God. This ought to have and always has enormous practical significance, because in such cases God Himself becomes the avenger of the guilty and the defender of the innocent and defeats the evil with which an individual man finds it difficult or impossible to struggle. Such appears to be the chief thought of the final sentences of verse 39 and the following ones.

Matthew 5:40. And whoever wishes to contend with you and take your shirt, let him have your cloak as well; Cf. Luke 6:29. Interpreters agree that under χιτών is understood the lower garment, the tunic, shirt; under ἱμάτιον – the upper garment, the cloak and the like. The general thought is the same as in the preceding verse.

Matthew 5:41. And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. The meaning of the verse is clear and does not require explanation. One need only explain the word ἀγγαρεύσει (“compel you to go”). This word comes from Persian, which the Greeks expressed through ἀγγαρος, in the Ionic dialect ἀγγαρήιος, a courier. It was transferred into the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin languages (Vulgate: angariaverit). These couriers were established by Cyrus and carried out a kind of postal and transport service, forcibly requiring at stations mainly people and beasts of burden (Herodotus, “History,” VIII, 98). The verb ἀγγαρεύω is found in Josephus Flavius (“Jewish Antiquities,” XIII, 2–3 – ἀγγαρεύεσθαι τὰ Ἰουδαίων ὑποζύγια), in Epictetus (Dissertationes, IV, 1, 79 – ἂν δὲ ἀγγαρεία ᾖ καὶ στρατιώτης ἐπλάβηται, ἄφες, μὴ ἀντίτεινε μηδὶ γόγγυζε). From this the expression becomes clear: “whoever compels you to go one mile.” The numerals “one” and further “two” should not be considered strictly defined. The meaning: do more than what you are compelled to do. “A mile” in its exact meaning equals a Roman mile (Greek μίλιον), which, according to Holtzmann, equals 1000 paces, or 8 stadia, or 1472 meters.

Matthew 5:42. Give to him who asks you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you. Cf. Luke 6:30, where the same thought is expressed somewhat differently: “Give to everyone who asks you, and if someone takes what is yours, do not ask him to return it.” The speech obviously concerns property relations and nothing else. Therefore, discussions about whether this commandment should be fulfilled literally and whether in all cases requests can be satisfied, for example, when a child asks for a knife to kill himself, are superfluous.

Matthew 5:43. You have heard that it was said: love your neighbor and hate your enemy. The first part of the commandment is borrowed from Lev 19:18; the second part: “hate your enemy,” is not in the ancient Hebrew law, and the Savior refers here either to later ordinances of Ezra, or to ordinances of the scribes intended to develop hatred of people in the Jews. The “hostile hatred toward all others” (Tacitus, “History,” V, 8) on the part of the Jews was well known to the pagans of that time, who themselves hated the Jews.

Matthew 5:44. But I say to you: love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who insult you and persecute you, (Cf. Luke 6:27-28.) In the text there is considerable variation. The expression: “bless those who curse you” is omitted in the Sinai, Vatican, Vulgate, and some other Latin translations, in Tischendorf, Westcott, and Hort, and is present in the received text, almost all cursive manuscripts, John Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, and many others. The expression: “do good to those who hate you” is omitted in the Sinai and Vatican but is present in the received text, almost all cursive manuscripts, the Vulgate, and the Syriac Peshitta. Finally, “those who insult you” is omitted in the Sinai and Vatican, in Tischendorf, Westcott, and Hort, but is present in the received text, almost all cursive manuscripts, ancient Latin translations, and the Peshito. Thus, in a number of codices the indicated words are not present, but in favor of them an overwhelming majority of manuscripts and citations from church writers. Many exegetes think that these words are interpolated from Luke 6:27-28. Comparing the text of Matthew and Luke, we find that, if we disregard transpositions, it is the same in both evangelists. But other exegetes hold other opinions and say that there is no sufficient basis for suspecting interpolation here. Zahn recognizes the text as genuine, although does not express himself decisively. The meaning is clear. Saint John Chrysostom finds, beginning with verse 39, nine degrees by which the Savior leads us ever higher – “to the very peak of virtue.” “The first degree is not to initiate offense; the second, when offense has already been caused, not to repay the one who offended with equal evil; the third – not only not to do to the one offending what you suffered from him but to remain calm; the fourth – to submit oneself to suffering; the fifth – to give more than the one causing offense wishes to take; the sixth – not to bear hatred toward him; the seventh – even to love him; the eighth – to do good to him; the ninth – to pray to God for him.” Such teaching was not foreign even to pagans. Thus, Buddhist sayings are known: “Overcome anger by the absence of anger, Overcome injustice by kindness, Overcome the base man by a gift, And the liar by truth.”

Matthew 5:45. that you may be sons of your Father in heaven, for He makes His sun rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. The speech very subtly and imperceptibly transitions again into a series of blessings, which is characteristic of brilliant oratory. A kind of pause occurs and the orator gives his listeners a chance to, so to speak, catch their breath. The Savior now equates them with sons of His Father in heaven, and they should act as their Father does, imitate Him. And the Father commands the sun to rise over evil and good and sends rain on the righteous and unrighteous. In Seneca one finds a remarkable parallel to these words of Christ: si deos imitaris, da et ingratis beneficia; nam et sceleratis sol oritur, et piratis patent maria (if you imitate the gods, bestow benefits even on the ungrateful; for the sun also rises for the wicked and the seas are open to pirates).

Matthew 5:46. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? Cf. Luke 6:32, where “tax collectors” are replaced by Luke with the word “sinners.” The word “tax collectors” in our Russian and Slavonic texts is less probable than “gentiles,” which occurs in the Sinai, in BD, in about 18 cursive manuscripts, in most Latin translations, in the Vulgate, and is accepted by Tischendorf, Westcott, Hort, and the publishers of the English revised Bible. In either case the meaning is almost the same, because tax collectors were considered no better than gentiles. The disciples of Christ should be above scribes and Pharisees. But if they love only those who love them, they will not stand above even gentiles (or tax collectors), who act this way according to the natural law of love implanted in man.

Matthew 5:47. And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing that is extraordinary? Do not even the gentiles do the same? The word “brothers” is used here obviously in a general meaning – relatives, fellow countrymen, and the like. This is the more correct reading than “friends” (φίλους), occurring in more than 150 cursive manuscripts. Brothers are contrasted with “gentiles” (in other codices – “tax collectors”). The difference in meaning between the readings οὕτω (thus) and τὸ αὐτό (the same – Sinai, Vatican, Tischendorf, Westcott, Hort, and others) is too insignificant to dwell on. Reference is made, of course, to Eastern customs most familiar to the listeners of Christ. The German commentator on the Gospel of Matthew, Merke, brings several clarifying examples of greetings from contemporary Eastern life.

Matthew 5:48. Therefore, be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect. In Luke (Luke 6:33-36) there are additions that Matthew does not have, and in general the speech is set forth somewhat differently. The concluding verse in Luke (Luke 6:36): “be merciful, just as your Father is merciful,” is similar in construction to the verse of Matthew given but differs in wording. The word τέλιος (perfect) occurs among the evangelists only in Matthew twice (also Matt 19:21), but occurs several times in the apostles Paul, James, and once in 1 John 4:18. It comes from τέλος – in the sense of an achieved goal, is used of sacrificial animals having no bodily defects, of adults in their distinction from infants, and in a moral sense means perfection, completeness, irreproachableness, spotlessness. The words of the Savior have a clear connection with verse 45, where not all properties of God but only kindness is enumerated. In this sense only could the listeners of Christ understand His speech.