Chapter Six

The Sermon on the Mount. 1–4. Concerning almsgiving. – 5–13. Concerning prayer. – 14–15. Concerning the forgiveness of the sins of neighbors. – 16–18. Concerning fasting. – 19–21. Concerning earthly and heavenly treasures. – 22–23. Concerning the bright and darkened eye. – 24–25. Concerning the impossibility of serving two masters. – 26–27. Concerning food. – 28–30. Concerning clothing. – 31–34. Concerning trust in God and the seeking of the Kingdom of God.

Matthew 6:1. Beware of practicing your righteousness before men in order for them to see you; otherwise, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. The word “beware” renders the Greek προσέχετε. In the Slavonic translation – “heed.” Since there is reason to think that in antiquity this word was used as a signal by which others were warned of some danger, the word πρόσεχε meant: be on guard, watch yourself carefully. This is also the main meaning of the corresponding Hebrew word “shamar,” which the Seventy renders through προσέχειν. Thus, more precisely one could translate this Greek word in the given verse as: beware, be on guard, lest (μή). The further δέ is omitted in the Vatican and other manuscripts but is present in the Sinai and others. Some interpreters assert that the presence of this particle in the text is “too little proven.” Chrysostom omits it. Others say that δέ vanished only with time and moreover because of a very simple reason contained, if not in discord, then in any case in some inconvenience in pronouncing the adjacent Greek “te” and “de” (προσέχετε δέ). Some place δέ in brackets, but the majority of modern and best interpreters defend the presence of this particle either in part or in full. Thus, Alford, although placing δέ in brackets, says that the omission of this particle probably arose because attention was not paid to the connection of verse 1 with chapter 5 and it was supposed that a new subject begins here. The importance of the particle is evident from the fact that with the acceptance or omission of it the meaning changes greatly. Christ previously (Matt 5) spoke about what true “righteousness” consists of (Matt 5:6), defined by the true and correct interpretation of the spirit and meaning of the Old Testament law, and about the fact that if the “righteousness” of His disciples is not greater than the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, then the disciples will not enter the Kingdom of heaven. Now the Savior proceeds to elucidate the same subject from other and new sides. In a free translation the meaning of His words could be conveyed thus. But if you, He says to the disciples, reach the ideal of which I spoke to you earlier, if you assimilate the true “righteousness” (according to the translation of some German scholars Frömmigkeit – piety), then be on guard nonetheless lest this righteousness of yours become an object of careful observation on the part of other people. In this paraphrase, as the reader sees, the word “righteousness” is substituted for the word “alms” used in the Russian and Slavonic translations. Such a substitution has very firm bases. First of all, note that German and English translations (received text) agree with Russian and Slavonic (Almosen, alms). But in the Vulgate a completely different expression is used – justitiam vestram, corresponding to the Greek διακιοσύνην, meaning “righteousness.” The question of what word should be placed here – “righteousness” or “alms” (διακιοσύνη or ἐλεημοσύνη) – was the subject of painstaking research. Authoritative editors and interpreters of the New Testament incline toward “righteousness.” This reading has been approved almost unanimously by all distinguished editors and critics. The word occurs in the Vatican codex, in Beza, in ancient Latin translations, as well as in Origen, Hilary, Augustine, Jerome, and many others, but in Chrysostom, Theophylact, and many others – “alms.” Western critics and interpreters have labored to trace where and why such substitution occurred. Omitting the first “and” or “but” in the first verse, the copyists, as stated above, paid no attention to the connection of chapter 6 with the preceding one and thought that in chapter 6 a new subject begins. What subject? This was shown to them by verse 2, which speaks of “alms.” Since the first verse (with the omission of δέ) seems to serve as an introduction to the second, they thought that in the first also the speech should be about alms and substituted it for the word “righteousness.” This substitution could occur all the more easily because there were certain circumstances justifying it. If the reader takes the trouble to review according to the Russian and Slavonic Bible the following places: Deut 6:25; Ps 23:5; Isa 1:27; Dan 4:24, he will find that in the Slavonic text everywhere are encountered mercy, alms, mercy, forgiveness, while in the Russian – righteousness, justice, justice, and only in one place the Russian text almost agrees with the Slavonic, namely in Ps 23:5 (alms – mercy). Thus the same texts in Slavonic and Russian translations sometimes have a completely different meaning. For example, in Dan 4:24 we read in the Slavonic text: “ransom your sins by alms,” while in the Russian: “ransom your sins by righteousness.” This difference arose from the fact that our Slavonic translation was made from the translation of the Seventy, where in the above-mentioned cases (which for brevity we have not all indicated) the word ἐλεημοσύνη – alms is used, while the Russian – from the Hebrew, where the word “sedakah” – righteousness occurs. The question consequently arises why the Seventy found it possible to translate Hebrew “sedakah” through ἐλεημοσύνη – “alms,” and whether “sedakah,” meaning properly “righteousness,” sometimes served to express the concept of alms. The answer should be affirmative. Righteousness – a difficult word, especially for a simple, undeveloped man, difficult to understand what it means; it is much easier to understand this word if righteousness takes on a more concrete form – mercies, compassion, alms. Hence very early, even before the common era, the word “sedakah” began to denote alms, which, as stated, probably facilitated the substitution of “righteousness” for alms in the verse under consideration from Matthew’s Gospel (see for example Gesenius W. Hebräisches und aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das neue Testament. 17. Auflage, Berlin-Göttingen-Heidelberg, 1962. S.675, left column. – Editor’s note). However, such substitution was unfortunate, and this can be shown on the basis of “internal considerations” (context) in examining our passage. The meaning of the instruction of this verse is so that disciples do not practice their righteousness before people for the purpose of showing, so that people glorify them. From subsequent indications it is evident that for show should not be given alms, but not only it – shown should not be also prayer (verse 5 and following) and fasting (verse 16 and following). If “righteousness” in the verse under consideration is replaced with “alms,” one might think that only it is practiced for show and that only ostentatious alms Christ condemns, because the 1st verse will then be placed in the closest relation only to verses 2–4. From what is said it follows that, accepting “righteousness” in verse 1, we should consider the word as the designation of a “generic” or general concept that includes alms, prayer, and fasting. In other words, according to the thought of Christ, alms, prayer, and fasting serve as an expression of human righteousness. A man distinguished by these virtues can be considered righteous if his righteousness is based on love for God and neighbor. It is necessary that all virtues constituting righteousness in no case serve for display. The Greek word used for the latter concept (θεαθῆναι) means a steady, prolonged, intense, and attentive looking at something, as is done, for example, in a theater, indicates contemplation, in contrast to βλέπειν, which simply means to see, to look, to have this ability. From this the instruction of the Savior is clear: He teaches His disciples that their “righteousness” should not be an object of careful observation, a steady looking at on the part of other people. Instead of “so that they see you” in Greek “so as to be seen” (or “so as to be seen by them, αὐτοῖς, that is, ἀνθρώποις, people,” cf. Matt 23:5). Thus, the first half of the given verse would better be translated as: but be on guard (beware, lest) practice your righteousness before people with the purpose that it be visible to them (strike them in the eye, be subject to their steady, prolonged observation). The further “otherwise” (in the Russian Bible) seems as if to relate to the words: “you will not have a reward” and so forth. In the original the meaning is somewhat different: be on guard... if, however, you do not be on guard, then you will not have a reward, and so forth. That is, here for brevity of speech an omission has been made in the Gospel (cf. Matt 9:17; 2 Cor 11:16). Christ does not define what the reward should consist of. It is unknown whether He has in mind an earthly or heavenly reward, or both together. Nothing prevents understanding here both earthly and heavenly reward. But instead of the Russian “you will not have,” one should translate simply “you do not have” (οὐκ ἔχετε), so that the whole expression is as follows: if you do not be on guard, then you do not have a reward from your Father in heaven.

Matthew 6:2. Therefore, when you give alms, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be glorified by men. Truly I say to you: they already receive their reward. The translation is precise, wherein the somewhat ambiguous “they” in the final sentence should of course relate not to people in general but to hypocrites. In the original the ambiguity is avoided by the usual omission of the pronoun before verbs and the placement of verbs (ποιοῦσιν – ἀπέχουσιν) in like voices, tenses, and moods. The Jews more than all other peoples were distinguished by benevolence. According to Tolück, the well-known pedagogue Pestalozzi used to say that Mosaic religion stimulates benevolence even more than Christianity. Julian held the Jews up to pagans and Christians as an example of benevolence. Reading the long and tedious Talmudic tractate on benevolence “Concerning the Remnants for the Benefit of the Poor at Harvest” (Peffer­kovich translation, vol. I), we encounter a multitude of petty ordinances intended to ensure the gathering of remnants for the poor after harvest. It was even said that “alms and free service are equal to all the commandments of the Torah.” Questions arose as to whether failure to give alms and worship of idols were one and the same thing, and how to prove that alms and free service protect Israel and promote harmony between him and the Father Who is in heaven. Therefore it is beyond doubt that the Jews had developed benevolence even in the time of Christ, of which the mentions of the poor by Christ Himself and their obvious presence testify, especially in Jerusalem. It is equally beyond doubt that “hypocrites,” whom Christ condemns here, also participated in this benevolence and distribution of alms to the poor. But the question of whether “they sounded a trumpet before themselves” has given much difficulty both to ancient and modern exegetes. Chrysostom understood the expression: “do not sound a trumpet before yourself” in a non-literal sense. The Savior “in this figurative expression does not mean to say that hypocrites had trumpets, but that they had a great passion for showing off, mocking (κωμωδῶν) it and condemning them... The Savior requires not only that we give alms but that we give alms as we should.” In a similar manner Theophylact expresses himself: “Hypocrites did not have trumpets, but the Lord mocks (διαγελᾷ) their thoughts, because they wanted to trumpet their almsgiving. Hypocrites – those who seem to others different from what they actually are.” It is not at all surprising that many modern interpreters in their remarks on these “trumpets” follow the patristic interpretations just cited. “Nothing remains but to understand this expression in a non-literal sense,” says Tolück. Such opinions are confirmed by the fact that to the present day no case has been found among Jewish customs when “hypocrites,” in distributing alms, in the literal sense “sounded a trumpet” before themselves. The English scholar Lightfoot spent much time and effort searching for such or a similar case but “although he searched much and seriously, did not find even the slightest mention of a trumpet at the distribution of alms.” Regarding Lightfoot’s remark, another English commentator Morison says that Lightfoot had no need “to search so diligently, because it is well known that, at least in synagogues, when private individuals wished to distribute alms, trumpets in the literal sense could not be used.” This is not enough. It was said that if “hypocrites” sounded trumpets, then such “boasting” (καύχημα) before people would be poorly understood, and that if they wished, they would have been able to conceal their bad motives better. Even cases are known opposite to what Christ speaks of. Thus, for example, about one rabbi whose charitable activity was considered exemplary, it is recounted in the Talmud that, not wishing to shame the poor, he attached an open purse with alms to his back, and the poor could take from it what they could unobtrusively. All this, of course, is not an objection to the gospel text, and ordinarily is not presented as such. However, the concreteness and vividness of the expression “do not sound a trumpet before yourself” and its evident connection with the subsequent condemnations of hypocrites, confirmed factually in the information about their customs that has come down to us (verses 5 and 16), caused searches for some real, factual confirmation for it as well. It was found that such customs really existed among pagans, in whom the servants of Isis and Cybele, asking for alms for themselves, beat on tambourines. The same, according to the description of travelers, was done by Persian and Indian monks. Thus among pagans the poor themselves who asked for alms made noise. If we apply these facts to the case under consideration, then the expression “do not sound” should be interpreted in the sense of a prohibition on the part of hypocrites of the poor making noise when demanding alms from themselves. But the author who pointed out these facts, the German scholar Iken, according to Tolück, himself “honestly” confessed that he cannot prove such a custom either among Jews or among Christians. Even less probable is the explanation according to which the words “do not sound...” are borrowed from the thirteen trumpet-shaped boxes or cups placed in the temple for collecting donations (γαζοφυλάκια, or in Hebrew “shoferot”). Arguing against this opinion, Tolück says that the money dropped into these tubes (tubae) had no relation to charity but was collected for the temple; the cups for donations to the poor were called not “shoferot” but “kufa,” and nothing is known about their form. But if we encounter in Matthew’s Gospel an indication that trumpets were used in charitable work, this does not at all exclude the possibility that it actually happened. Trumpets were used by priests in the temple and synagogues, there were “trumpet-shaped” boxes, and therefore the expression “do not sound,” having become metaphorical, could have some foundation in reality and have as a metaphor. In Talmudic tractates Rosh Hashanah and Taanit there are many ordinances concerning “sounding,” so that if the expression of Christ could not be understood in the sense: do not sound a trumpet before yourself at the distribution of alms, then it is quite possible to understand it thus: when you give alms, do not sound a trumpet before yourself, as hypocrites do in various other cases. The meaning of the expression – attracting public attention to one’s charity – is completely clear and is in no way changed whether we consider the expression to correspond to reality or only be metaphorical. And how can one demand that in the Talmud, despite the Jews’ attention to minutiae, all the Jewish customs of that time with all their numerous complexities be reflected? By synagogues in this verse should be understood not ‘assemblies,’ but rather synagogues themselves. To the boasting ‘in synagogues’ is added boasting ‘in the streets.’ The purpose of hypocritical almsgiving is stated clearly: ‘so that they may be glorified by people.’ This means that through charity they wanted to achieve their own, moreover selfish, aims. They were guided in their charitable deeds not by genuine desire to help their neighbor, but by various other selfish motives—a vice characteristic not only of Jewish hypocrites, but of hypocrites generally in all ages and nations. The usual goal of such charity is to gain the trust of the powerful and rich and from a penny given to a poor man to receive rubles from them. One might even say that truly genuine, perfectly sincere benefactors have always been few. But even if no selfish aims could be achieved through charity, the ‘glory,’ ‘fame,’ ‘renown’ (the meaning of the word δόξα) constitute in themselves a sufficient goal for hypocritical almsgiving. The expression ‘they receive their reward’ is clear enough. Hypocrites seek reward not from God, but first of all from people, receive it and must be satisfied with it alone. In exposing the wicked motives of hypocrites, the Savior at the same time points to the emptiness of ‘human’ rewards. For living according to God, for the future life they have no significance whatsoever. Only a person whose horizon is limited to the present life appreciates earthly rewards. One who has a broader outlook understands both the emptiness of this earthly life and of earthly rewards. If the Savior said ‘truly I say to you,’ he showed his true insight into the secrets of the human heart.

Matthew 6:3. But you, when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, Matthew 6:4. so that your almsgiving may be in secret; and your Father, who sees in secret, will reward you openly. To explain these verses we must remember that the Savior makes no prescriptions and gives no instructions regarding the actual methods of charity. It can, without doubt, be expressed in thousands of different ways, depending on convenience and circumstances. Someone said that a deed done for the benefit of neighbors, or a word, efforts and such can be as much a benefaction to them as material alms in the form of kopecks, rubles, and provisions. The Savior does not point to the methods of charity, but to what makes it true and pleasing to God. Charity must be secret, and profoundly secret. ‘But you, when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing.’ Yet even the most open and public charity does not contradict the teaching of Christ if it is entirely permeated by the spirit of secret charity, if the openly visible benefactor fully adopted or is trying to adopt the methods, conditions, motives, and even habits of the secret benefactor. In other words, the inspiration for charity must be the inner, sometimes scarcely noticeable even to the benefactor himself, love for people, as fellow brothers in Christ and children of God. The benefactor has no need for his deed to come to light. But if he will concern himself with this, his deed loses all value. Open charity has no value without the intention to preserve secrecy. This will be simpler and clearer from the further exposition on prayer. For now we will say that neither Christ Himself nor His apostles prevented open charity. In Christ’s life there are no known instances of Him offering any monetary assistance to the poor, although the disciples who followed the Savior had a money box for offerings (John 12:6). In one instance, when Mary anointed Christ with precious ointment and the disciples began to say, ‘Why was this ointment not sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor?’ The Savior even, it seems, raised an objection to this usual charity, approved Mary’s act and said, ‘The poor you always have with you’ (John 12:4-8; Matt 26:6-11; Mark 14:3-7). Yet no one will say that Christ was indifferent to all charity. His charity is characterized by the same words which were spoken by the apostle Peter when he healed the lame man from birth: ‘Silver and gold I do not have; but what I have I give you’ (Acts 3:1-7). The charity of the apostle Paul is well known; he himself collected offerings for the poor in Jerusalem, and this work of his was completely open. Yet it is entirely clear that such charity, although completely open and public, differed sharply in spirit from the alms of hypocrites and had not the goal of human glorification.

Matthew 6:5. And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, who love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the corners of the streets, in order to be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they receive their reward. According to the best readings—plural—‘when you pray, do not be like hypocrites, for they love in the synagogues and at the corners of the streets standing (ἑστῶτες) to pray,’ and so on. In the Vulgate the plural (‘pray’) agrees with the Vatican Codex, Origen, Chrysostom, Jerome and others. In the 2nd verse—singular—‘when you give alms’; in the following 6th—‘you’ and so forth. This seemed inconsistent to scribes, and in many manuscripts they replaced the plural with the singular. But if ‘pray’ and so on is correct, then the question why the Savior changed the previous and subsequent singular to plural is extremely difficult, if not impossible to answer. The variants ‘when you pray, do not be’ show that this difficulty was felt already in the deepest antiquity. One can only say that the discourse is equally natural in both cases. It may be also that the plural is used for stronger contrast to the following verse. You, listeners, sometimes pray like hypocrites; but you, true pray-er, and so forth. In examining the characteristics of the ‘hypocrites,’ one can observe that the structure of speech is almost identical in the 2nd and 5th verses. But μή (in the expression ‘do not sound a trumpet’) relates generally to the future and presumed and is replaced in the 5th verse by οὐκ (do not be). As in the first, so in the second case ‘in synagogues’ is encountered, but the expression of the 2nd verse ‘in the streets’ (ἐν ταῖς ῥύμαις) is replaced in the 5th verse by ‘at the corners of the streets’ (ἐν ταῖς γωνίαις τῶν πλατειῶν). The difference is that ῥύμη means a narrow street, while πλατεῖα means a broad street. The word ‘glorified’ (δοξασθῶσιν—were glorified) is replaced by the word ‘appear’ (φανῶσιν). Otherwise the 5th verse is a literal repetition of the end of the 2nd verse. If one could assert that the 2nd verse and does not contain anything corresponding to the then Jewish reality, but consists only of metaphorical expressions, then regarding the 5th verse one can say that it contains an actual (without metaphors) characteristic of ‘hypocrites,’ known also from other sources. Here one must first of all know that both the Jews and later the Muhammadans had definite hours of prayer—the 3rd, 6th, and 9th hour of the day, according to our reckoning the 9th, 12th, and 3rd. ‘And now the Muhammadan and conscientious Jew, as soon as the appointed hour strikes, perform their prayer, wherever they may be’ (Tholuck). In the Talmudic tract Berakot there is a multitude of prescriptions from which it is evident that prayers were performed on the road and even despite dangers from robbers. One encounters, for example, such characteristics. ‘Once Rabbi Ishmael and Rabbi Elazar, son of Azariah, stopped in one place, and Rabbi Ishmael lay down, and Rabbi Elazar stood. When the time for evening Shema (prayer) came, Rabbi Ishmael arose, and Rabbi Elazar lay down’ (Talmud, translation of Perefiercovitch, vol. I, p. 3). ‘Workers (gardeners, carpenters) read Shema, remaining on a tree or on a wall’ (ibid., p. 8). Given such characteristics, the stops of hypocrites completely clearly become understandable ‘at the corners of the streets.’ “Do not be”—in Greek this is an indicative (ἔσεσθε), not an imperative. We have already encountered such usage (ἔστε never occurs in the New Testament; see Blass, Gram. S. 204). The word ‘love’ (φιλοῦσιν) is sometimes translated as ‘have the custom, habit.’ But this word never has such meaning in the Bible (Zahn). Standing (ἑστῶτες) is the ordinary position during prayer. There is no need to suppose that hypocrites prayed standing precisely because of their hypocrisy and love of ostentation and that Christ rebukes them precisely for this. Here there is a simple characterization on which no logical emphasis is placed. The purpose of prayers at the corners of streets was to ‘appear’ (φανῶσιν) as praying. A vice characteristic of all sorts of hypocrites and sanctimonious people, who often pretend to pray to God, but in reality—to people, and especially the powerful of this world. The meaning of the last two phrases: ‘truly I say to you’ ... ‘receive their reward,’ is the same as in the 2nd verse: they receive completely—such is the meaning of the word ἀπέχουσιν. It should be noted that after the words ‘truly I say to you’ (as in the 2nd verse), in some codices ‘that’ (ὅτι) is placed: ‘that they receive’ and so forth. The addition of ‘that,’ although correct, can be considered superfluous and is not supported by the best manuscripts.

Matthew 6:6. But you, when you pray, enter into your chamber and, having shut your door, pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father, who sees in secret, will reward you openly. As in the teaching on charity, so here we are pointed not to the methods of prayer, but to its spirit. To understand this, we must imagine a person shut in his room and addressing prayer to our Heavenly Father. No one compels him to pray; no one of men sees how he prays. He may pray, pronouncing words or not pronouncing them. No one of men hears these words. Prayer is an act of free, unforced, and secret communion of a person with God. It proceeds from the human heart. Already in antiquity the question arose: if Christ commanded to pray in secret, did he not thereby forbid public and church prayer? To this question the answer was almost always negative. Chrysostom asks: ‘And so what? In church, the Savior says, one should not pray?’ and answers: ‘One should and very much should, but only depending on the intention. God everywhere looks to the purpose of deeds. If you even enter your chamber and shut the doors behind you, but do this for show, then the shut doors will bring you no benefit... So, even if you shut the doors, He desires that you, before shutting them, drive vanity out of yourself and shut the doors of your heart. To be free from vanity is always a good deed, and especially during prayer.’ Such an interpretation is correct, although at first glance it seems to contradict the direct sense of the Savior’s words. Somewhat differently and quite cleverly the modern exegetes explain this. ‘If,’ says Zahn, ‘almsgiving is by its very nature open and concerning brothers and therefore cannot be completely secret, then prayer by its very essence is the speech of the human heart to God. Therefore for it any abandonment of publicity is not only not harmful, but it is even protected from all admixture of extraneous influences and relations. The Savior did not see fit to weaken the energy of His speech with petty warnings against unreasoning generalizations, such as, for example, a prohibition of all public prayer (see verse 9 and following; Matt 18:19 and following) or generally of any prayer heard by others (see Matt 11:25 and following).’ In other words, secret prayer does not need any restrictions. The spirit of secret prayer can be present in open prayer. The latter has no value without secret prayer. If a person prays in church with the same disposition as at home, then his public prayer will benefit him. This is not the place to discuss the significance of public prayer in itself. The important thing only is that neither Christ nor His apostles denied it, as is evident from the above citations. The transition from ‘you’ of the 5th verse to ‘you’ (singular) may again be explained by the desire to strengthen the contrast between true prayer and the prayer of hypocrites. “Chamber” (ταμεῖον)—here understood as any room that can be shut or locked. The original meaning of this word (more correctly ταμιεῖον) was—a storeroom for provisions, a storehouse (see Luke 12:24), then a bedroom (2 Sam 6:12; Eccl 10:20). Here attention should be called to the general conclusion which Chrysostom draws, examining this verse. ‘Let us perform prayers not with movements of the body, not with a loud voice, but with good spiritual disposition; not with noise and tumult, not for show, as if to drive away our neighbor, but with all propriety, contrition of heart and unfeigned tears.’

Matthew 6:7. And when you pray, do not speak uselessly, as the gentiles do, for they suppose that they will be heard by their wordiness; Again a clear transition to speech in the plural ‘you.’ The example is now taken not from Jewish but from pagan life. The entire explanation of the verse depends on the meaning we assign to the words ‘speak uselessly’ (μὴ βατταλογήσητε; in the Slavic Bible—‘do not speak unnecessarily’; Vulgate: nolite multum loqui—do not speak much). First of all let us note that determining the meaning of the Greek word βατταλογήσητε is important for determining the properties of true prayer. If we translate ‘do not speak much,’ then, it seems, our (as well as Catholic and other) church services are unnecessary according to Christ’s teaching because of their verbosity. If we translate ‘do not repeat,’ then this will be a rebuke of repeated use of the same words in prayer; if ‘do not speak uselessly,’ then the meaning of Christ’s teaching will remain indefinite, because it is unknown what we should understand by ‘uselessly’ here. It is not at all surprising that this word has occupied exegetes from ancient times, especially since it is extremely difficult, because in Greek literature it is found independently only here, in Matthew’s Gospel, and also in one writer of the 6th century Simplicius (Commentarii in Epicteti enchiridion, ed. F. Dubner. Paris, 1842, in cap. XXX, p. 91, 23). One could hope that with the help of the latter one might be able to shed light on the meaning of the word under examination in Matthew. But unfortunately, in Simplicius the meaning of the word is as unclear as in Matthew. First, in Simplicius it is not βατταλογεῖν, as in the Gospel (according to the best readings), but βαττολογεῖν, but this is not particularly important. Second, in Simplicius the word clearly means ‘to babble,’ ‘to talk nonsense’ and has consequently an indefinite meaning. In the West there exists an entire literature on this word. So much has been said about this that even exegetical ‘battalogy’ has provoked mockery. ‘The learned interpreters,’ said one writer, ‘are responsible for saying so much battalogizing about this word.’ The result of numerous investigations has been that the word is still considered to this day ‘mysterious.’ They tried to derive it from the proper name Βάττος. Since tradition points to three different Battoses, they tried to find from which one the word in question comes. In the “History” of Herodotus (IV, 153 and following) there is a detailed account of one of them who stammered, and from him they derived the word ‘battalogy.’ Support for such an opinion could come from the fact that Demosthenes was called in mockery βάτταλος—stammerer. Thus the evangelical word βατταλογήσητε could be translated ‘do not stammer,’ as the gentiles do, if only the sense of the speech and the context allowed this. The assumption that the Savior exposed here pagan and any ‘stammering’ is completely impossible and is now completely abandoned. Of the proposed derivations the best seems to be that this is a so-called vox hybrida, a mixture from different words, in this case Hebrew and Greek. The Greek that entered into the composition of this compound word is λογέω, the same as λέγω, meaning ‘to speak.’ But as to which exactly Hebrew word the first part of the expression is derived from, the opinions of exegetes differ. Some derive it from the Hebrew ‘bata’—to babble, speak nonsensically; others—from ‘batal’—to be idle, inactive, or from ‘betel’—not to act, to cease and to hinder. From these two words could be formed the word βατάλογος instead of βαταλόλογος, similar to how idolatra is formed from idololatra. But in Hebrew there are not two ‘t’s as in Greek, but one. To explain the two ‘t’s they used the rather rare word βατταρίζειν, which means ‘to babble,’ and thus was formed βατταλογέω Matt 6:7. Of these two derivations, the first should be preferred on the basis that ‘l’ is contained in the Greek λογέω (λέγω), and therefore to derive it there is no need to take into account this letter. If we derive from ‘bata’ and λογέω, then the explanation of the word will be similar to that which Chrysostom gave it, considering βαττολογία—φλυαρία; the latter means ‘empty babbling,’ ‘trifles,’ ‘nonsense.’ So this word was rendered in the German translation of Luther: sollt ihr nicht viel flappern—you should not babble much. In English: ‘do not make vain repetitions.’ The only objection that could be made against this interpretation is that the Hebrew word ‘bata’ already by itself contains the notion of talking nonsense, and it is unclear why the Greek λογέω is added, which also means ‘to speak,’ so if we translate the expression literally into Russian, it would have such a form: ‘to talk nonsense—to speak.’ But is it really true, as Zahn asserts, that λογέω means precisely ‘to speak’? This verb in Greek appears only in compound words and always means, like λέγω, to speak sensibly, by plan, with reasoning. To denote senseless speech the Greek word λαλεῖν is ordinarily used. One gets something incongruous if we combine λογέω—to speak sensibly with the Hebrew word ‘bata’—to speak senselessly. It is possible, it seems, to avoid this difficulty if we give λογέω the meaning—to think rather than to speak. This gives a clearer meaning to the verb in Matt 6:7—‘do not think idly,’ or, better, ‘do not think idle-words, as the gentiles do.’ Confirmation of such an interpretation can be found in the fact that, according to Tholuck, among the ancient church fathers ‘the concept of verbosity receded to the background and, on the contrary, prayers with unworthy and improper thoughts were emphasized.’ Tholuck supports his words with a significant number of examples from patristic writings. Origen says: μὴ βαττολογήσωμεν ἀλλὰ θεολογήσωμεν, directing attention not to the process of speaking, but to the content of the prayer itself. If, further, we attend to the content of the Lord’s Prayer, which, it seems from the sense of the speech, should serve as a model for the absence of battalogy, we can see that in it everything unworthy, senseless, trivial and worthy of blame or scorn is eliminated. Thus we come to the conclusion that in the word βαττολογεῖν what is criticized is first of all idle thought during prayer, the idle speech depending on it and among other things verbosity (πολυλογία)—the Savior himself uses this word further on, and this, it seems, is important also for explaining battalogy. Above it was said that Christ now warns not of imitating hypocrites but of imitating gentiles. Examining this warning from the factual side, we find examples proving that in their appeal to their gods the gentiles were distinguished both by little thought and much verbosity. Such examples can be found in the classics and in the Bible it is confirmed twice. The priests of Baal ‘called upon’ his ‘name from morning until noon, saying, Baal, hear us!’ (1 Sam 18:26). The gentiles in Ephesus, filled with rage, cried out, ‘Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!’ (Acts 19:28-34). Nevertheless, it seems doubtful whether these instances can serve as an illustration of the verbose prayers of the gentiles. Much more appropriate here is the general observation that the gentiles were generally characterized by verbosity and it even had various names among them—διπλασιολογία (repetition of words), κυκλοπορεία (going around), tautology and talkativeness in the proper sense. The multiplicity of gods prompted the gentiles to talkativeness (στωμυλία): the gods were said to number up to 30 thousand. During solemn prayers to the gods one had to list their titles (ἐπωνυμίαι), which were numerous (Tholuck,). For the interpretation of this verse of Matthew’s Gospel it would be completely sufficient for us if in paganism we encountered even one clear case confirming the Savior’s words; such a coincidence would be quite important. But if we have not one but rather quite clear cases, then we come to the conclusion that the Savior describes the contemporary historical reality precisely. Protests against long and senseless prayers are found also in the Bible (see Isa 1:15; Amos 5:23; Sir 7:14).

Matthew 6:8. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you have need of, before you ask him. The meaning of this verse is clear. “Them,” that is, the gentiles. Jerome points out that as a result of this teaching of the Savior a heresy arose and the perverted dogma of certain philosophers who said: if God knows what we will pray about, if before our requests He knows our needs, then why pointlessly do we speak to Him, who knows? In response to this heresy, both Jerome and other church fathers answer that in our prayers to God we do not recount our needs, but only ask. ‘It is one thing to recount to one who does not know, another to ask of one who knows.’ These words can be considered sufficient for the explanation of this verse. We can only add, together with Chrysostom and others, that Christ does not hinder persistent and earnest requests of people to God, which is indicated by Christ’s parables about the poor widow (Luke 18:1-7) and the persistent friend (Luke 11:5-13).

Matthew 6:9. Pray then in this way: Our Father in heaven, let your name be held holy; “Pray then in this way”—literally: ‘then, pray you in this way.’ The Russian word ‘then’ (οὖν) in connection with “in this way” (οὕτως) was obviously the reason why ‘then’ was changed to ‘thus.’ The Greek particle is expressed in the Vulgate with the word ‘therefore’ (si ergo vos orabitis), and in German and English with ‘therefore’ (darum, therefore). The general thought of the original is expressed in these translations not sufficiently clearly and accurately. This depends not only on the difficulty, but on the impossibility of transmitting the Greek speech precisely in other languages. The thought is that ‘since in your prayers you should not be like praying gentiles and since your prayers should be distinguished by a different character compared to their prayers, pray in this way’ (Meyer,). But even this is only a certain approximation to the sense, beyond which, it seems, it is impossible to go. Yet much depends on the correct explanation of the word ‘way.’ If we take it in the strictest sense ‘in exactly this way, not otherwise,’ then it will be clear that all our church and other prayers, with the exception of the ‘Our Father,’ are unnecessary and contrary to the teaching of the Savior. But if the Savior had commanded to pronounce only this prayer (ταύτην τὴν εὐχήν) or only what He said (ταῦτα), then full precision should be expected in the expression, and it would, moreover, be unclear why in two versions of the Lord’s Prayer, in Matthew and Luke (Luke 11:2-4), there is a difference. There are more differences in Greek than in Russian, but even in the latter they are noticeable in the fourth petition (Luke 11:3). If we make the translation of οὕτως—in this way, in this kind, in this sense, in this manner (simili or eodem modo, in hunc sensum), then this would mean that the Lord’s Prayer, in the Savior’s thought, should serve only as a model for other prayers, but not exclude them. But in this latter case we would assign to the word οὕτως a meaning which it does not actually have, and especially it is not used in the sense of simili modo or in hunc sensum. Further, they say that if the expression were to be understood not in a strict sense, then it should have been said: ‘pray somehow in this way’ (οὕτως πως—Tholuck,). The accuracy and definiteness of the words of the prayer, according to the opinion of some exegetes, are indicated also by the words from Luke’s Gospel: ‘when you pray, say’ (Luke 11:2), where the word ‘say’ expresses a precise command to pronounce precisely those words which Christ has indicated. Neither of these interpretations, however, can be fully agreed with because of their one-sidedness. We must remember that Christ, as before, so here, leaves it to people themselves to draw further conclusions and consequences from His words. So here too the initial or first prayer is simply set forth, the prayer of all prayers, the most excellent prayer. Its study is above all necessary for every Christian, whether child or adult, because by its childish simplicity it is accessible to a child’s understanding and can serve as a subject for profound reasoning for an adult. It is the childish babbling of a child beginning to speak and the deepest theology of an adult man. The Lord’s Prayer is not a model for other prayers and cannot be a model, because it is inimitable in its simplicity, artlessness, substantiality and depth. It alone is sufficient for a man who knows no other prayers. But, being initial, it does not exclude the possibility of continuations, consequences and clarifications. Christ Himself in Gethsemane prayed, pronouncing precisely this prayer (‘your will be done’ and ‘lead us not into temptation’), expressing it only in other words. Also His ‘farewell prayer’ can be considered an expansion or development of the ‘Our Father’ and serves for its interpretation. As Christ, so also the apostles prayed differently, and gave us an example of the pronouncing of other prayers. According to Luke’s account, the Savior in a somewhat altered form pronounced the same prayer at another time, under different circumstances. But there is also the opinion that He pronounced this prayer only once and that either in Matthew or Luke the time and circumstances of its pronouncement are not defined precisely. To decide how it was, at present there is no possibility. Is the Lord’s Prayer an independent composition or is it as a whole or in individual expressions borrowed from Holy Scripture and other sources? Opinions again divide. Some say that ‘the entire prayer is skillfully composed from Hebrew formulas (tota haec oratio ex formulis Hebraeorum concinnata est tam apte).’ Others hold the opposite opinion. Asserting that the first view, if accepted, would contain nothing disrespectful or subject to objection, they point out, however, that attempts to find parallels for the Lord’s Prayer from biblical or rabbinical sources have so far proven unsuccessful. This opinion now predominates in New Testament exegesis. Distant parallels, it is asserted, can be found, if at all, only to the first three petitions. The similarity pointed out by Bengel and others between the Lord’s Prayer and some passages in the First Epistle of the apostle Peter (1 Pet 1:15-16 and others) should be recognized as only very distant and perhaps merely accidental, although the parallels encountered here have some significance for interpretation. In ecclesiastical literature, the earliest mention of the Lord’s Prayer is found in ‘The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles’ (‘Didache,’ ch. 8), where it is given in full according to Matthew with a small difference (ἀφίεμεν—ἀφήκαμεν), with the addition of ‘a doxology’ and the words: ‘so pray three times a day.’ The number of petitions is determined differently. Blessed Augustine accepts 7 petitions, Chrysostom—6. The prayer begins with an invocation, where God is called ‘Father.’ Such a name is encountered, though rarely, in the Old Testament. Not to mention that in the Old Testament people are sometimes called ‘sons of God,’ direct names of God as Father are also found (Deut 32:6; Wis 14:3; Isa 63:16; Jer 3:19; Mal 1:6). In Sir 23:1 and Jer 3:4 the name of God, as Father, is used in the form of an invocation. And not only the Jews, but also the pagans called, for example, Zeus or Jupiter father. In Plato’s ‘Timaeus’ there is a passage where God is called Father and Creator of the world (ὁ πατὴρ καὶ ποιητὴς τοῦ κόσμου); Jupiter according to Tholuck = Diovis = Deus et pater. But in general ‘in the Old Testament idea (not to speak of the pagans) we observe that it was rather special than universal, and did not become a conception determining God’s character. God’s relation to Israel was fatherly, but there was no sign that it was so by its very essence and that all people were subject to God’s fatherly love and care. The legal idea of God still predominated. Power and transcendence were God’s outstanding properties. Acknowledgment of this was right and important, but it was subject to one-sided development, and such development took on a peculiar form in later Judaism. The legalism and ritualism of the later Jewish period arose to a considerable extent from the people’s inability to supplement the truth about God’s royal Power with the truth about His fatherly love. Legal submission, expressed in rituals through which they thought to express respect for God’s transcendent greatness, more than filial respect and moral obedience, was the dominant note of Pharisaic piety.’ But Jesus Christ spoke of God primarily as Father. The expression ‘Our Father’ is the only place where something said by Christ is ‘our’ rather than ‘your’; ordinarily ‘My Father’ and ‘your Father.’ It is easy to understand that in the invocation the Savior does not place Himself in a relation to God identical with other people, because the prayer was given to others. The words ‘who is in heaven’ do not express the thought: ‘most exalted and omnipresent Father,’ or ‘most high, almighty, supremely good and supremely blessed’ and so on. Here the usual representation is indicated which people have about God, as a Being having a special abode in heaven. If the words ‘who is in heaven’ were not added, the prayer could almost refer to any earthly father. The addition of these words shows that it refers to God. If in the invocation it had been said: ‘Our God,’ then there would be no need at all to add ‘who is in heaven,’ because this would be understood anyway. Thus, ‘Our Father’ is equivalent and synonymous with the word God, but with the addition of an important characteristic—God’s fatherhood and at the same time the thought of God’s tender relation to people as a Father to His children. The observations of exegetes that the Savior here wanted to denote not only fatherhood or fatherly love for people, but also brotherhood of people among themselves, participation of every believer in this brotherhood, can be accepted. The filial relation of people to God, however, is based on their personal relation to Christ, because only through Him do people have the right to call God their Father. “Let your name be held holy.” Instead of any clever reasoning and interpretation of these words, it is easiest, it seems, to understand the meaning of the petition from the opposition. When is God’s name not held holy among people? When they do not know God, teach about Him incorrectly, do not honor Him in their lives and so on. The relation of people to God in all the petitions is presented under the images of earthly relations. We fully understand when children do not honor their earthly father. The same can be said regarding the honoring of God’s name. God Himself is holy. But we contradict this holiness when we relate disrespectfully to God’s name. The matter, thus, is not in God, but in ourselves. As regards the very expression ‘let your name be held holy,’ and not God’s very essence or some property of God, this is so because God’s essence and properties are incomprehensible to us and because God’s name is a designation in a sense accessible to all simple people of the very divine Being. Not about God’s essence, but about His name do simple people speak, about His name they think, by means of His name they distinguish God from all other beings. According to Tholuck, the word ‘to hold holy’ corresponds to ‘to glorify’ and ‘to praise’ (εὐλογεῖν). In Origen—ὑψοῦν, to exalt, to magnify and to glorify. Theophylact says: ‘Make us holy, just as You are glorified through us. As blasphemies are pronounced by me, so let God be held holy by me, that is, let Him be glorified, as the Holy One.’

Matthew 6:10. let your kingdom come; let your will be done on earth as it is in heaven; Literally: ‘let your kingdom come; let your will be done, as in heaven, and on earth.’ In the Greek text only the words are arranged differently, but the sense is the same. Both petitions of this verse Tertullian transposes, placing after ‘let your name be held holy’—‘let your will be done’ and so on. The words: ‘as in heaven, so on earth’ can refer to all three first petitions. Many discussions are found among exegetes about the words: ‘let your kingdom come.’ What kingdom? Some relate this expression to the end of the world and understand it exclusively in the so-called eschatological sense, that is, they think that Christ here taught us to pray for the Last Judgment to be completed sooner and for God’s Kingdom to arrive in the ‘resurrection of the righteous,’ with the destruction of evil people and all evil in general. Others dispute this opinion and assert that the second and third petitions have a close connection—God’s will is fulfilled when God’s Kingdom comes, and, conversely, the coming of God’s Kingdom is a necessary condition for the fulfillment of God’s will. But to the third petition is added: ‘as in heaven, and on earth.’ Consequently, here we are speaking of an earthly kingdom, in distinction from the heavenly. Clearly, the heavenly relations serve here simply as a model for the earthly relations and at the same time. This, in any case, is the best explanation. Christ hardly spoke here of the distant future in the eschatological sense. The coming of God’s Kingdom on earth is a slow process, implying constant perfection of man, as a moral being, in moral life. The moment when man realized himself as a moral being was already in itself the coming of God’s Kingdom. Further, the Hebrews to whom Christ spoke were acquainted with the continuation and development of God’s Kingdom from their preceding history, amid constant failures and obstacles from evil. God’s Kingdom is God’s dominion, when the laws given by Him receive more and more strength, significance and respect among people. This ideal is achievable in this earthly life and about achieving it Christ taught us to pray. Its achievement is connected with prayer for God’s name to be held holy. ‘Before the eyes is placed a goal which can be achieved’ (Zahn,).

Matthew 6:11. give us this day our daily bread; Literally: ‘our daily bread give us today’ (in the Slavic Bible—‘this day’; in the Vulgate—hodie). The word “bread” is entirely analogous to that used in our Russian expressions: ‘to earn one’s bread by labor,’ ‘to labor for a piece of bread’ and so on, that is, under bread here should be understood generally the condition for life, livelihood, certain well-being and so on. In Holy Scripture the word ‘bread’ is often used in the proper sense (cibus, a farina cum aqua permixta compactus atque coctus—Grimm), but also means generally any food necessary for human existence, and not only bodily but also spiritual (see John 6—about heavenly bread). The commentators pay no attention whatsoever to the word “our.” This, let us say, is a trifle, but in the Gospel trifles are important. At first it seems not quite clear why we need to ask God for bread for ourselves when this bread is ‘ours,’ that is, already belongs to us. The word “our” seems, apparently, superfluous; one could simply say: ‘give us daily bread today.’ The explanation will be given below. “Daily” (ἐπιούσιος) is explained differently and belongs to the most difficult words. The word is found only here and again in Luke’s Gospel (Luke 11:3). In Old Testament and classical Greek literature it has not yet been found anywhere. The explanation of it ‘was torture for theologians and grammarians’ (carnificina theologorum et grammaticorum). One writer says that ‘to want to achieve something precise here is the same as driving a nail with a sponge’ (σπόγγῳ πάτταλον κρούειν). They tried to avoid difficulties by suggesting that here is an error of a scribe, that in the original there was first τόν ἄρτον ἐπὶ οὐσίαν—bread for our existence. The scribe inadvertently doubled the τον in the word ἄρτον and correspondingly changed επιουσιαν to επιουσιον. Thus was formed the evangelical expression: τοναρτοντονεπιουσιον. To this, without going into details, we will say that the word ἡμῶν (τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον) completely prevents such an interpretation, besides which, in Luke 11:3 undoubtedly stands ἐπιούσιον—as it does in Matthew. Therefore the interpretation under consideration is now completely abandoned. Of the existing and accepted by modern scholars interpretations, three can be noted. 1. The word ‘daily’ is derived from the Greek preposition ἐπί (upon) and οὐσία from εἶναι (to be). Such an interpretation has the authority of the ancient church fathers, and precisely those who wrote in the Greek language. Among them John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa, Basil the Great, Theophylact, Euphymius Zigavenus and others. If the word is understood in this way, then it will mean: ‘bread necessary for our existence, necessary for us, give us today.’ Such an interpretation, evidently, is adopted also in our Slavonic and Russian Bibles. Against it they object that if the word ἐπιούσιος does not occur anywhere except in the Lord’s Prayer, yet ἔπεστι and others do occur, words composed from the same preposition and verb, but with the omission of ι. Therefore, if the Gospel spoke precisely of ‘necessary’ bread, it would not be ἐπιούσιος, but ἐπούσιος. Further, οὐσία in common usage meant property, estate, and if Christ had used οὐσία precisely in this sense, then this would be not only ‘pointless’ (Winer-Schmiedel), but would make no sense. If He used it in the sense of ‘being’ (bread necessary for our being, existence) or ‘essence,’ ‘substance,’ ‘reality,’ then all this would be distinguished by a philosophical character, since οὐσία in this sense is used exclusively among philosophers and the words of Christ would not be understood by simple people. 2. The word ἐπιούσιος is derived from ἐπί and ἰέναι—to come, to arrive. The word has different meanings; for us the important thing is only that in the expression ἐπιοῦσα ἡμέρα it means tomorrow, or the coming day. This word was composed by the evangelists themselves and applied to ἄρτος in the meaning ‘future bread,’ ‘bread of the coming day.’ Support for such an interpretation is found in the words of Jerome, who among his quite brief commentaries has the following note. ‘In the Gospel which is called the Gospel of the Hebrews, instead of daily bread, I found “mahar,” which means tomorrow (crastinum), so that the meaning should be such: our future bread, that is tomorrow’s, give us today.’ On this basis, a multitude of modern critics, including the best, for example, the German compilers of New Testament grammars Winer-Schmiedel, Blass and the exegete Zahn, assumed that the word means tomorrow (from ἡ ἐπιοῦσα, that is, ἡμέρα). Renan also gives such an explanation. It is completely understandable what difference in sense results from whether we accept this interpretation or agree with the previous one. However, if we accept Jerome’s interpretation, then it would have to be recognized, not to mention various philological difficulties, that it contradicts the Savior’s words: ‘do not be anxious about tomorrow’ (Matt 6:34); it would also be unclear why we would ask: ‘tomorrow’s bread give us today.’ Indicating ‘mahar,’ Jerome himself translates ἐπιούσιος with the word super-substantialis. According to Cremer, from ἰέναι and compounds with it one cannot prove any derivation with the ending -ιουσιος, on the contrary, many such words are derived from οὐσία. In words composed with ἐπί, where the root begins with a vowel, the fusion is avoided through the omission of ι, as in the word ἐπεῖναι. But this does not always happen and ι is retained, for example, in words such as ἐπιέτης (in other cases—ἐπέτειος), ἐπιορκεῖν (in ecclesiastical Greek—ἐπιορκίζειν), ἐπιεικής, ἐπίουρος (in Homer ἔθορος). Thus, it should be admitted that ἐπιούσιος was formed from οὐσία, similar to analogous formations from words ending in ια—ιος (ἐπιθυμία—ἐπιθύμιος, ἐπικαρπία—ἐπικάρπιος, περιουσία—περιούσιος and others). The meaning of οὐσία in the place under discussion will be not philosophical, but simply—being, nature, and ἄρτος ἐπιούσιος means ‘bread necessary for our existence or for our nature.’ This concept is well expressed in the Russian word “daily.” Such an explanation is confirmed also by the use of the word οὐσία in the classics (for example, in Aristotle) in the sense of even life, existence. ‘Daily bread,’ that is, bread necessary for existence, for life, is, according to Cremer, a brief designation of the Hebrew ‘lechem hoc’ found in Prov 30:8—daily bread, which by the Seventy is translated with the words ‘necessary’ (necessary) and ‘sufficient’ (in the Russian Bible—‘daily’). According to Cremer it should be translated: ‘our bread necessary for our life give us today.’ The fact that the interpretation ‘tomorrow’ is found only among Latin writers, but not Greek, is decisive here. Chrysostom, of course, knew the Greek language well, and if he had no doubt that ἐπιούσιος was used in the sense of ‘daily,’ then this interpretation should be preferred to the interpretation of Latin writers, who sometimes knew Greek well, but still not as well as native Greeks. 3. An allegorical interpretation, apparently provoked in part by the difficulties of other interpretations. Church fathers in ancient times explained this word in a spiritual sense: Tertullian, Cyprian, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, Isidore of Pellusium, Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine and many others. Of course, in the application of the expression to ‘spiritual bread’ there is, properly speaking, nothing to be objected to. However, in the understanding of this ‘spiritual bread’ among the interpreters there is such a difference that this deprives their interpretations of almost all significance. Some said that by bread here is understood the bread of the Sacrament of Communion, others pointed to spiritual bread—Christ Himself, reckoning the Eucharist here, still others—only to Christ’s teaching. Such interpretations are contradicted most of all, it seems, by the word ‘today,’ and also by the fact that at the time when Christ pronounced His words, according to the evangelist, the Sacrament of Communion had not yet been established. The translations: ‘everyday’ bread, ‘supernatural,’ should be considered completely inaccurate. The reader sees that of the interpretations above the first seems the best. With it the word “our” acquires some special significance, which they say, although it ‘does not seem superfluous,’ could have been omitted. In our opinion, on the contrary, it has sense, and quite an important one. What bread and by what right can we consider ‘ours’? Certainly, that which is acquired by our labors. But since the concept of earned bread is quite elastic—one works much and acquires little, another works little and acquires much—the concept of ‘ours,’ that is, earned, bread is limited by the word ‘daily,’ that is, necessary for life, and then by the word ‘today.’ It was well said that here simply is indicated the golden mean between poverty and wealth. Solomon prayed: ‘give me neither poverty nor wealth; feed me with bread adequate for my life’ (Prov 30:8).

Matthew 6:12. and forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors; The Russian translation is accurate if only we recognize that “forgive” (in the Slavic Bible)—ἀφίεμεν is indeed placed in the present tense, and not in the aorist (ἀφήκαμεν), as in some codices. The word ἀφήκαμεν has ‘the best attestation.’ Tischendorf, Alford, Westcott, Hort place ἀφήκαμεν—‘we have forgiven,’ but the Vulgate—present tense (dimittimus), as does John Chrysostom, Cyprian and others. Meanwhile the difference in sense, depending on which reading we accept, is significant. Forgive us our sins, because we ourselves forgive or have already forgiven. Everyone can understand that the second, so to speak, is more categorical. Forgiveness of sins by us is set as a kind of condition for forgiveness of ourselves; our earthly activity here serves as a kind of image for heavenly activity. The images are borrowed from ordinary moneylenders, who lend money, and debtors, who receive them and then repay. An explanation of the petition is the parable of the rich, but merciful king and the merciless debtor (Matt 18:23-35). The Greek word ὀφειλέτης means a debtor, who must repay someone ὀφείλημα, a monetary debt, someone else’s money (aes alienum). But in a broader sense ὀφείλημα means generally any obligations, any payment, tax, and in the place under discussion the word is placed instead of the word ‘sin,’ ‘transgression’ (ἀμαρτία, παράπτωμα). The word is used here in accordance with Hebrew and Aramaic “lov,” which means both a monetary debt (debitum) and a fault, transgression, sin (culpa, reatus, peccatum). The second clause (‘as we also forgive’ and so on) has from of old brought interpreters into great difficulty. First of all they reasoned about what should be understood by the word “as” (ὡς),—should it be taken in the strictest sense or in a more lenient sense, in accordance with human weakness. Understanding in the strictest sense brought many church fathers to trembling at the thought that the measure or quantity of divine forgiveness of our sins is completely determined by the measure of our own ability or possibility to forgive the sins of our neighbors. In other words, divine mercy is determined here by human mercy. But since man is not capable of such mercy as is characteristic of God, the situation of the one praying, unable to reconcile, caused many to shudder and tremble. The author of the work attributed to John Chrysostom, “Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum,” testifies that in the ancient Church those praying would completely omit the second clause of the fifth petition. One writer advised: ‘Saying this, O man, if you will do so, that is, pray, remember what has been said: “it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God”’ (Heb 10:31). Some, according to Augustine, tried to make a kind of circumlocution and instead of sins understood monetary obligations. Chrysostom, it seems, wished to remove the difficulty when he pointed to the difference in relations and circumstances: ‘First of all, forgiveness depends on us, and the judgment pronounced upon us is in our power. The judgment you yourself pronounce upon yourself, the same judgment I will pronounce upon you. If you forgive your brother, you will receive the same favor from Me—although this latter is actually much more important than the former. You forgive another because you yourself have need of forgiveness, but God forgives, Himself having need of nothing. You forgive a brother, but God—a servant; you are guilty of countless sins, but God is sinless.’ Modern scholars are also conscious of these difficulties and try to explain the word “as” (ὡς),—apparently correctly,—in a somewhat softened sense. A strict understanding of this particle is not permitted by the context. In the relations between God and man, on the one hand, and man and man, on the other, there is no complete equality (paritas), but only a similarity of reasoning (similitudo rationis). The king in the parable shows the servant greater mercy than the servant shows his companion. Ὡς can be translated with the word ‘similarly’ (similiter). Here a comparison of two acts is implied in kind, not in degree. In conclusion, let us say that the thought about forgiveness of sins from God under the condition of forgiveness of sins of our neighbors was, it seems, foreign to at least paganism. According to Philostratus (Vita Apollonii, I, 11), Apollonius of Tyana proposed and recommended to the one praying to address the gods with such speech: ‘You, O gods, pay me my debts,—what is owed me’ (ὦς θεοί, δοίητέ μοι τὰ ὀφειλόμενα).

Matthew 6:13. and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. For yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen. The words ‘lead us not’ immediately make it clear that God leads into temptation, is its cause. In other words: if we do not pray, we can fall into temptation from God, who will lead us into it. But is it possible and in what way is it possible to attribute such a deed to the Highest Being? On the other hand, such an understanding of the sixth petition seems to contradict the words of the apostle James, who says: ‘in temptation (in the time of, amid temptation) let no one say: God tempts me, because God is not tempted by evil and Himself does not tempt anyone’ (Jas 1:13). If so, then why pray to God that He not lead us into temptation? He and without prayer, according to the apostle, tempts no one and will tempt no one. In another place the same apostle says: ‘with great joy accept, my brothers, when you fall into various temptations’ (Jas 1:2). From this one can conclude that, in at least some cases, temptations are even beneficial and therefore to pray for deliverance from them there is no need. If we turn to the Old Testament, we find that ‘God tempted Abraham’ (Gen 22:1); ‘the anger of the Lord again kindled against the Israelites, and He incited David to number Israel and Judah’ (2 Sam 24:1; compare 1 Chr 21:1). We will not explain these contradictions if we do not recognize that God permits evil, although He is not the cause of evil. The cause of evil is the free will of free beings, which becomes divided because of sin, that is, takes either a good or evil direction. Due to the existence in the world of both good and evil, worldly actions or phenomena are also divided into evil and good; evil appears like mud amid clear water or like poisoned air in clean. Evil can exist independently of us, but we can become its participants because we live amid evil. The verb εἰσφέρω, used in the verse under discussion, is not as strong as εἰσβάλλω; the first does not express force, the second does. Thus ‘lead us not into temptation’ means: ‘do not lead us into such an environment where evil exists,’ do not allow this. Do not allow that we, because of our lack of wisdom, go toward evil, or that evil should come upon us independently of our guilt and will. Such a request is natural and was completely understood by the listeners of Christ, because it is based on the deepest knowledge of human nature and of the world. Apparently, there is no special need to discuss the very character of temptations, of which some appear beneficial for us, and others—harmful. In Hebrew there are two words, ‘bachan’ and ‘nasa’ (both words are used in Ps 25:2), which mean ‘to test’ and are used more often of just than unjust testing. In the New Testament there is only one word for both—πειρασμός, while the Seventy translate them with two (δοκιμάζω and πειράζω). The purpose of temptations can be to make a man δόκιμος—‘tested’ (Jas 1:12), and such activity can be characteristic of God and beneficial for people. But if a Christian, according to the apostle James, should rejoice when he falls into temptation, because as a result he can prove to be δόκιμος and ‘receive the crown of life’ (Jas 1:12), then even in this case he should ‘pray for protection from temptations, because he cannot affirm that he will overcome the test—δόκιμος. So Christ calls blessed those who are persecuted and slandered for His name (Matt 5:10-11), but what Christian will seek slander and persecution, and even strongly strive for them?’ (Tholuck,). All the more dangerous for man are temptations from the devil, who is called πειραστής, πειράζων. This word eventually acquired a bad meaning, as did the word πειρασμός, used several times in the New Testament. Hence under the words ‘lead us not into temptation’ can be understood temptation not from God, but from the devil, who acts upon our inner inclinations and thus throws us into sin. The interpretation of ‘lead’ in a permissive sense: ‘do not allow that we be tempted’ (Euphymius Zigavenus), and πειρασμός in a special sense, in the sense of temptation which we cannot bear, should be rejected, as unnecessary and arbitrary. If, thus, temptation in the place under discussion means temptation from the devil, then such an explanation should influence the subsequent meaning of the words ‘from evil’—τοῦ πονηροῦ. We have already encountered this word; here it is translated in Russian and Slavonic indefinitely—‘from evil,’ in the Vulgate—a malo, in the German translation of Luther—von dem Uebel, in English—from evil (also found in English variant from the evil one—note), that is, from evil. Such a translation is justified by the fact that if here one were to understand ‘from the devil,’ there would be tautology: lead us not into temptation (presumably—from the devil), but deliver us from the devil. Τὸ πονηρόν in the neuter gender with the article and without a noun means ‘evil’ (see the commentaries to Matt 5:39), and if Christ meant here the devil, then, as justly remarked, He could have said: ἀπὸ τοῦ διαβόλου or τοῦ πειράζοντος. In connection with this should explain and ‘deliver’ (ῥῦσαι). The verb is joined with two prepositions ‘from’ and ‘out of,’ and this, apparently, is determined by the real meaning of such connections. Of a man plunged in mud, one cannot say: deliver him from (ἀπό), but out of (ἐκ) mud. One might expect therefore that in the 13th verse it would be better to use ‘out of’ if here we were speaking of evil, and not the devil. But there is no need for this, because from other cases it is known that ‘deliver out of’ indicates actual, already arrived danger, ‘deliver from’—supposed or possible. The meaning of the first combination ‘deliver from,’ the second—‘protect,’ while it does not at all eliminate the thought of deliverance from already existing evil to which man is already subjected. In conclusion, let us note that the two petitions set forth in this verse are by many sectarians (reformers, Arminians, Socinians) considered as one, so that the Lord’s Prayer has only six petitions. The doxology is accepted by John Chrysostom, the Apostolic Constitutions, Theophylact, the Protestants (in the German translation of Luther, in the English translation), also the Slavonic and Russian texts. But there are some grounds to think that it was not said by Christ, and therefore it was not in the original evangelical text. This first of all is indicated by the differences in the pronunciation of the very words themselves, which one can observe even in our Slavonic texts. So, in the Gospel: ‘for yours is the kingdom and power and glory forever, amen,’ but the priest pronounces after ‘Our Father’: ‘for yours is the kingdom and power and glory, of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, now and ever and forever.’ In the Greek texts that have come down to us, such differences are even more noticeable, which could not be if the doxology were borrowed from the original text. It is absent in the most ancient manuscripts and the Vulgate (only ‘amen’), it was not known to Tertullian, Cyprian, Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Jerome, Augustine, Gregory of Nyssa and others. Euphymius Zigavenus directly says that it ‘was added by church interpreters.’ The conclusion that can be drawn from 2 Tim 4:18, according to Alford, rather speaks against the doxology than in its favor. The only thing that can be said in its favor is that it is found in the ancient work ‘The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles’ (Didache XII apostolorum, 8, 2) and in the Syriac translation Peshitta. But in ‘The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles’ it appears in such a form: ‘because yours is the power and the glory forever’ (ὅτι σοῦ ἐστιν ἡ δύναμις καὶ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας); and the Peshitta ‘is not beyond suspicion in certain interpolations and additions from lectionaries.’ It is supposed that this was a liturgical formula which, with the passage of time, was inserted into the text of the Lord’s Prayer (compare 1 Chr 29:10-13). At first perhaps only the word ‘amen’ was inserted, and then this formula was expanded partly on the basis of existing liturgical formulas, and partly by the addition of arbitrary expressions, similar to how the Gospel words spoken by the Archangel Gabriel are expanded in our church (and Catholic) hymn ‘Rejoice, Virgin Mary’ (Hail Mary). For the interpretation of the evangelical text the doxology either has no significance, or has only a slight one.

Matthew 6:14. For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you; Matthew 6:15. but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. (See Matt 18:35; Mark 11:25-26.) These words can be considered a supplement and development of the fifth petition of the Lord’s Prayer, using the same Greek verb ‘to forgive’ (ἀφιέναι), but ‘debts’ are replaced by ‘trespasses’ (παραπτώματα).

Matthew 6:16. Also, when you fast, do not be gloomy, like the hypocrites, for they make their faces dark, so that they may appear to men to be fasting. Truly I say to you, they receive their reward. Literally: ‘And when you fast, do not be, like hypocrites, gloomy. They darken their faces, so that they may appear to men to be fasting. Truly I say to you, they receive their reward.’ The Bible tells of many instances when those fasting put on mourning clothes and sprinkled ashes on their heads as a sign of sorrow. The Hebrew names of fasting point primarily to humbling and contrition of heart, and the Seventy translate these names through ταπεινοῦν τὴν ψυχήν—to humble the soul. In the Talmudic tracts Taanith (fasting) and Yoma there are several prescriptions concerning fasting. It is not at all surprising that with the passage of time gross hypocrisy developed here, which Christ exposed. “Gloomy” (σκυθρωποί, from σκύθρος—gloomy, and ὤψ—face; compare Luke 24:17—in the Seventy; Gen 40:7; Nehem 2:1; Sir 25:25—Russian translation; Dan 1:10, πρόσωπα σκυθρωπά) can be translated also ‘dark’ or ‘sad.’ The prophet Isaiah (Isa 61:3) characterizes fasting (lamentation) with ashes, weeping and gloomy spirit (compare Dan 10:3; 2 Sam 12:20). The hypocrites especially made use of these methods to attract attention to their fasting, to make them noticeable. Regarding ἀφανίζω, translated in Russian ‘make their faces dark,’ the sense is understood differently and much has been written to explain it. Chrysostom understood it in the sense of ‘to disfigure’ (διαφθείρουσιν, ἀπολλύουσιν—the latter means ‘to destroy’). The examples indicated by Meyer of such disfigurement in the Bible (2 Sam 15:30; Esth 6:12) hardly suit here. Ἀφανίζω generally means to darken, to make unclear, unrecognizable. Some explained this in the sense that hypocrites soiled, dirtied their face, although this is and a later meaning of the word (in antiquity it was used in the sense of completely covering—τελεως ἀφανῆ ποιῆσαι). In the sense of ‘to soil,’ ‘to dirty,’ it apparently was used by the classics: they used it of women who ‘paint.’ Therefore, says Alford, the hint here is not to covering of the face, which could be looked upon as a sign of sorrow, but to the uncleanness of the face, hair, beard and head. This is also indicated by the further contrast—the 17th verse. They rightly see here a play on words (ἀφανίζουσι—φανῶσι), understandable, of course, only in the Greek language.

Matthew 6:17. But you, when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face, Here there is almost exact correspondence with the prescriptions of Taanith and Yoma. Only there it served as a sign of the ending of a fast, while here it is a sign of its beginning and continuation. It was thought that the Savior speaks only of private fasts, in which it is possible to observe the prescriptions given by Him. As for public fasts, it was inconvenient to appear with a washed face and a cheerful appearance at a time when everyone else was behaving differently. But such a distinction seems not to be necessary; both fasts could serve for hypocrites as an occasion for show, and this latter is condemned for all types of fasting. According to the Savior’s teaching, fasting should be in all cases secret, an inner disposition of a person in his relation to God, fasting for God, not for man.

Matthew 6:18. so that you may appear to be fasting not to men, but to your Father, who is in secret; and your Father, who sees in secret, will reward you openly. The construction and expressions of this verse are very similar to the 6th verse. The word ‘in secret’ of the 6th verse (ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ) is replaced twice with ἐν τῷ κρυφαίῳ. There is no difference in meaning between these expressions, although it is difficult to explain why one expression is replaced by the other. The word ‘openly,’ like in the 6th verse, is absent in almost all uncials, more than 150 cursives, in the main ancient translations and in the important church fathers. It is thought that this expression was inserted here from the margin of some ancient manuscript.

Matthew 6:19. Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust consume and where thieves break in and steal, In this verse the Savior immediately transitions to a subject which has, it seems, no connection with His preceding teachings. Zahn explains this connection thus: ‘Jesus, speaking to His disciples in the hearing of the Jewish crowd, here preaches not generally against pagan and worldly thinking (compare Luke 12:13-31), but shows the incompatibility of such thinking with the piety concerning which the disciples should and will care. Precisely here is found the connection with the preceding parts of the speech. The Pharisees were considered in the people predominantly as pious men, but together with the pious zeal, which Jesus never denied to them, many Pharisees and rabbis were characterized by worldly interests. Along with pride (Matt 6:2; Luke 14:1; John 5:44) their love of money is pointed out particularly. Thus this section serves to explain Matt 5:20.’ One can accept that such an opinion fully accurately reveals in what the connection consists, if indeed it exists between these various sections. But the connection can be expressed more clearly. We think that the entire Sermon on the Mount presents a series of obvious truths and that to find connections between them sometimes is extremely difficult, similar to how it is difficult to find connections in a dictionary between words printed on the same page. It cannot be overlooked that Zahn’s opinion about such a connection is marked by a certain artificiality, and in any case, such a connection could hardly be perceived by the disciples to whom Jesus Christ spoke and by the people. On the basis of these considerations we have full right to consider this verse the beginning of a new section, where completely new subjects are discussed, and moreover without direct relation to Pharisees or pagans. Christ in the Sermon on the Mount does not so much expose as teach. He uses exposures not for their own sake, but again—for the same purpose—to teach. If one can suppose a connection between the various sections of the Sermon on the Mount, then it seems to consist in the variety of indications of perverted concepts about righteousness, which are characteristic of natural man. The thread of the Sermon on the Mount is the description of these perverted concepts and then the clarification of what true, correct concepts should be. Among the perverted concepts of sinful and natural man are included his concepts and views about worldly goods. And here again the Savior leaves it to people to be guided by the teaching given to them; it is only light, by which moral work is possible, aimed at moral perfection of man, but not the work itself. The correct and general view about earthly treasures consists in the following: ‘Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth.’ There is no need to reason, as Zahn does, about whether here only ‘great accumulations,’ ‘amassing of great capital,’ the enjoyment of them by a miser, or also the gathering of insignificant capital, care about daily bread, is meant. The Savior apparently speaks of neither one nor the other. He only expresses the correct view about earthly riches and says that their properties themselves should prevent people from relating to them with special love, making their acquisition the goal of their life. The properties of earthly riches indicated by Christ should remind people of non-possessiveness, and the latter should determine man’s relation to riches and in general to earthly goods. From this perspective, a rich man can be as non-possessive as a poor man. Any, even ‘great accumulations’ and ‘amassing of great capital’ can be correct and lawful from a moral point of view, if only the spirit of non-possessiveness, indicated by Christ, is introduced into these acts of man. Christ does not require asceticism from man. “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth” (μὴ θησαυρίζετε θησαυρούς) is better, it seems, translated thus: do not value treasures on earth, with ‘on earth’ referring, of course, not to treasures, but to ‘do not value’ (‘do not lay up’). That is, do not lay up on earth. If ‘on earth’ referred to ‘treasures,’ that is, if here ‘earthly’ treasures were meant, then, first, probably θησαυρούς τοὺς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς would stand, and it would be in the following verse as well, or perhaps τοὺς θησαυρούς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. But Zahn’s indication that if ‘on earth’ referred to treasures, then one should expect οὕς instead of the ὅπου placed here, can hardly be accepted, because οὕς could stand in both cases. Why should we not lay up treasures for ourselves on earth? Because (where they have deterioration) there ‘moth and rust consume and thieves break in and steal.’ “Moth” (σής) is similar to the Hebrew word ‘sas’ (Isa 51:8—only once in the Bible) and has the same meaning, should be taken generally as some harmful insect which damages property. Also the word “rust,” that is, corrosion. By this latter word should be understood decay of every kind, because the Savior certainly did not mean to say that only things subject to decay from moth or rust (although the literal sense of these words is such) should not be preserved, but expressed it only in a general sense; the subsequent words are expressed in the same sense, because the cause of losses is not only breaking in and theft in the literal sense. A parallel passage in Jas 5:2-3. Among the rabbis the common word for rust was ‘chaluda’ (Tholuck, 1856).

Matthew 6:20. but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consumes and where thieves do not break in and steal, A contrast to the preceding verse. Clearly, spiritual treasures are meant, which are not subject to the same destruction as earthly ones. But what precisely these spiritual treasures should consist of is not defined further (see 1 Pet 1:4-9; 2 Cor 4:17). Here clarification is needed only for ‘do not consume’ (ἀφανίζει—the same word used in the 16th verse about faces). Ἀφανίζω (from φαίνω) here means ‘to remove from sight,’ hence—to destroy, to ruin, to consume. In the rest the construction and expression are the same as in the 19th verse.

Matthew 6:21. for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. The sense is clear. The life of the human heart centers on that which man loves. Man not only loves certain treasures, but lives or tries to live around them and together with them. Depending on what treasures man loves, earthly or heavenly, his life is either earthly or heavenly. If in man’s heart the love of earthly treasures predominates, then heavenly ones recede to the background for him, and vice versa. Here in the Savior’s words is a deep exposure and explanation of the hidden, secret human thoughts of the heart. How often we care, apparently, only for heavenly treasures, but are attached in our heart only to earthly ones, and our very aspirations toward heaven are only appearance and pretext for concealing from others our love for treasures only of the earth. Instead of ‘your’ some—Tischendorf, Westcott, Hort and others—have ‘your treasure,’ ‘your heart.’ So on the basis of the best authorities. Perhaps in the Received Text and many cursives ‘your’ is replaced by the word ‘your’ to agree with Luke 12:34, where ‘your’ is undoubtedly. The purpose of using ‘your’ instead of ‘your’ perhaps consisted in denoting the individuality of the heart’s inclinations and aspirations of man with all their infinite variety. One loves one thing, another loves another. The familiar to everyone expression ‘my heart is set on’ or ‘my heart is not set on’ that one is almost equivalent to the evangelical expression of this verse. It can be paraphrased thus: ‘where is that which you consider your treasure, thither will be directed your heart’s thoughts and your love.’

Matthew 6:22. The lamp of the body is the eye. So if your eye is healthy, your whole body will be full of light; Matthew 6:23. but if your eye is unhealthy, your whole body will be full of darkness. So if the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness? The interpretation of this passage in the ancient church fathers was marked by simplicity and literal understanding. Chrysostom accepts ‘simple’ (ἁπλοῦς) in the sense of ‘healthy’ (ὑγιής) and interprets thus: ‘For as the eye simple, that is, healthy, illuminates the body, but if evil, that is, diseased, darkens, so the mind also grows dark from care.’ Jerome: ‘As all our body is in darkness if the eye is not simple (simplex), so, if the soul has lost its original light, then all feeling (the sensible part of the soul) remains in darkness.’ Augustine understands by the eye the intentions of man—if they are pure and correct, then all our deeds issuing from our intentions are good. Modern exegetes look at this matter differently. ‘The idea of the 22nd verse,’ says one of them, ‘is rather naïve—as if the eye is an organ through which light gains access to the whole body, and as if there is a spiritual eye through which spiritual light enters and illuminates the whole personality of man. This spiritual eye must be pure, otherwise light cannot enter and the inner man lives in darkness.’ But even from the perspective of modern science what other organ could be called the lamp (though for the body) if not the eye? The idea of the 22nd verse therefore is not at all as ‘naïve’ as imagined, all the more so because the Savior does not use the expressions ‘gains access,’ ‘enters,’ which are used by people familiar with the latest conclusions of natural science. Holtzmann calls the eye a ‘specific light organ (Lichtorgan), to which the body owes all its light impressions.’ Without doubt the eye is an organ for their reception. If the eye is not pure, then—whatever expression we choose—the light impressions we receive will not have the vividness, correctness and strength characteristic of a healthy eye. It is true that from the modern scientific perspective the expression: ‘the lamp of the body is the eye,’ might seem not entirely clear and scientifically correct. But the Savior did not speak in the contemporary scientific language of our time. On the other hand, modern science is not free from similar inaccuracies; for example, ‘the sun rises and sets,’ while the sun remains motionless, and no one can blame such inaccuracies. Thus the expression should be considered correct and equivalent to the modern scientific expression: the eye is an organ for the reception of light impressions. With such an understanding there is no need to introduce further reasoning, as if the contrast of this and the following verse suggests the contrast between generosity and charity, and that according to a Jewish axiom a ‘good eye’ is a metaphorical designation of generosity, ‘evil eye’—of stinginess. It is true that in several places of Holy Scripture a ‘greedy’ and ‘envious’ eye are used in this sense (Deut 15:9; Prov 23:6; Tob 4:7; Sir 14:10). But in the passage under discussion there is no talk of either generosity or charity, but simply the question is clarified regarding how man’s relation to earthly goods should be. In this latter is found the connection of the 22nd and 23rd verses with the preceding speech. A dim, darkened, sick eye loves more to contemplate the earthly; for it it is difficult to look at bright light, at the heavenly. According to Bengel, in Holy Scripture words expressing simplicity (ἁπλοῦς, ἀπλότης) are never used in a negative sense. Simple and good, having heavenly intentions, striving toward God—are one and the same. In the 23rd verse there is a contrast to the preceding speech. The last sentences of this verse have always seemed difficult. One can observe in this passage an extremely poetic and subtle play on words and translate just as in our Russian (in the Slavonic translation—‘darkness how great’—exactly, but unclear) and the Vulgate (ipsae tenebrae quantae sunt), not referring the word “darkness” to ‘the inner thoughts of man, his passions and inclinations.’ The latter sense is only a further and improper one, insofar as images and metaphors serve to designate internal spiritual relations. The metaphor is based on the distinction of degrees of darkness, beginning from lack of light, twilight and ending in complete gloom. The eye is unhealthy (πονηρός) in contrast to the healthy (ἁπλοῦς), and the body is illuminated only in part; in other words, the eye perceives only partly the light impressions, and moreover incorrect ones. So that ‘if light in you’ equals darkness, then ‘how much darkness.’ Grimm explains this expression thus: ‘If your inner light is darkness (dark), that is, if the mind is deprived of the ability to understand, then how great will be the darkness (how much more is it worthy of compassion in comparison with bodily blindness).’ Σκότος is one of the so-called ‘fluctuating’ words in the classics, which they use both in masculine and neuter gender. In Matt 6:23 it is neuter and used in the sense of ‘sickness,’ ‘ruin’ (compare John 3:19; Acts 26:18; 2 Cor 4:6—Cremer).

Matthew 6:24. No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate one and love the other; or he will hold to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon. Instead of ‘prefer one’ it is better to say ‘prefer one and despise the other’ (in the Slavonic translation: ‘or he will hold to one and begin to neglect another’). The first thing that draws attention is the realistic sense of the expression: is it really true that a man cannot serve two masters? To this one can say that there is no rule without exceptions. But ordinarily it happens that when ‘there are many masters,’ slave service is not only difficult, but impossible. Even for practical purposes, therefore, the concentration of one power in one’s hands is effected. Then the construction of the speech draws attention. It is not said: ‘he will hate one (τὸν ἕνα) and despise one,’ because in this case there would be unnecessary tautology. But he will hate one, will prefer one, will love another, will hate another. Two masters are indicated, sharply distinguished in character, which, it seems, is expressed by the word ἕτερος, which (in distinction from ἄλλος) generally denotes generic difference. They are completely heterogeneous and of different character. Therefore ‘or’...’or’—are not repetitions, but propositions inverse to each other. Meyer expresses it thus: ‘He will hate A and love B, or will prefer A and despise B.’ Different relations of people to two masters are indicated, beginning with complete devotion and love on the one hand and hatred on the other, and ending with simple, though even feigned, preference or contempt. In the interval between these extreme states various relations of greater or lesser force and intensity can be implied. Again an extremely subtle and psychological depiction of human relations. From this a conclusion is drawn, justified by the images taken, though without οὖν: ‘you cannot serve God and mammon,’—not simply ‘serve’ (διακονεῖν), but be slaves (δουλεύειν), be in complete subjection. Jerome explains this place very well: ‘For he who is a slave to riches protects riches as a slave; but he who has thrown off the slave’s yoke becomes their master.’ The word mammon (not mammona and not mammonas,—the doubling of ‘m’ in this word is proven very weakly, Blass) means all kinds of possession, inheritance and acquisition, in general all property and money. Whether this, later formed word, existed in Hebrew, or it can be traced to an Arabic word, is doubtful, although Augustine asserts that mammona among the Hebrews means riches and that a Punic designation agrees with this, because lucrum in the Punic language is expressed by the word mammon. Among the Syrians in Antioch the word was common, so that Chrysostom did not see fit to explain it, substituting χρυσός (golden coin—Zahn) for it. Tertullian translates mammon with the word nummus. That mammon is the name of a pagan god—this is a medieval fable. But the Marcionites explained it mainly about the Jewish god, and Chrysostom considered it the name of the devil Beelzebul.

Matthew 6:25. Therefore I say to you, do not be anxious about your life, what you will eat and what you will drink, nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? The connection to the preceding verse is expressed through διὰ τοῦτο — therefore, “for this reason.” The Savior speaks here as it were thus: “Since you cannot at once gather treasures both on earth and in heaven, because this would mean serving two masters, therefore abandon thoughts of earthly treasures, and even of what is necessary for your life itself.” According to Theophylact, the Savior “does not forbid here, but forbids saying: what shall we eat? Thus the rich speak from evening: what shall we eat tomorrow? Do you see that the Savior forbids luxury and excess here?” Jerome remarks that the word “drink” is added only in certain manuscripts. The words “and what to drink” are omitted by Tischendorf, Westcott, Hort, in the Vulgate, and many others. The sense is scarcely changed. The words “for the soul” are set in opposition to the further “for the body,” but they should not be understood merely as “for the soul” but, as Augustine correctly notes, for life itself. John Chrysostom says that “for the soul” is said not because it needs food, and that here the Savior is simply condemning a bad custom. The further words cannot be translated as “life,” is it not more than life what is food, and the body what is clothing? Therefore ψυχή must have some other meaning here. One must suppose that something close to soma — a living organism — is understood here, and that yuc” is used in some common, everyday sense, like our saying: the soul does not accept, etc.

Matthew 6:26. Look at the birds of the sky: they neither sow, nor reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of much greater value than they? Can a man live like the birds of the sky? The impossibility of this led ancient commentators to explain the verse in an allegorical sense. “What then?” asks Chrysostom. “Must one not sow? But the Savior did not say: one should not sow and do useful work, but that one should not be faint-hearted and fruitlessly give oneself over to worries.” Later writers (including Renan) even allowed themselves to mock this saying and argued that Christ could preach thus in a land where daily bread is obtained without particular effort, but that His words are entirely inapplicable to people living in harsher climates, where concern for food and clothing is necessary and sometimes bound up with great labors. In popular usage the expression “to live like the birds of the sky” became almost proverbial, coming to mean a carefree, homeless, and untroubled life, which is of course reprehensible. The true meaning of these expressions lies in the fact that the Savior only compares human life with the life of the birds of the sky, but does not at all teach that people should live as they do. The thought itself is correct and expressed vividly. Indeed, if God cares for the birds, why then should people place themselves outside His care? If they are convinced that God’s Providence cares for them no less than for the birds, then this conviction should determine all their activity regarding food and clothing. One ought to be concerned about them, but while doing so one must remember that food and clothing for people are at the same time also objects of God’s care and solicitude. This should turn the poor away from despair and at the same time restrain the rich. Between complete absence of care and excessive, even, so to speak, morbid concern, there exist many intermediate stages, and in all of them the same principle — hope in God — should operate equally. Birds of the sky are chosen as an example in order to express more clearly whom man should imitate. The word “sky” is not superfluous and points to the freedom and openness of the birds’ life. The birds meant are not predatory, for the expressions used characterize such birds as feed on grain. These are the most harmless and pure of birds. The expression “birds of the sky” is found in the Septuagint — they render thus the Hebrew expression “yof ha-shamayim.”

Matthew 6:27. And which of you, by being anxious, can add even one cubit to his height? The Greek word ἡλικία means both height and age. Many commentators prefer to translate it as “age,” that is, the duration of life. In a similar sense a similar expression is used in Ps 38:6: “behold, you have made my days as handbreadths,” that is, very short days. But against this interpretation it is objected that if the Savior had in mind the duration of life, it would be quite convenient for him to use instead of “cubit” (πῆχυς) some other word denoting time, such as a moment, an hour, a day, a year. Further, if He were speaking of the prolongation of life, His thought would not only be not entirely clear, but also untrue, because by means of care and solicitude we can, at least in most cases, add to our life not only days but entire years. If one agrees with such an interpretation, then “the whole medical profession would appear to us an error and nonsense.” This means that ἡλικία must be understood not as age, but as height. But with such an interpretation we encounter difficulties no less great. A cubit is a measure of length, perhaps also a measure of height, equal to roughly 46 cm. It is scarcely that the Savior wanted to say: which of you, by being anxious, can add to his height even one cubit and thus become a giant or a great man? There is added to this yet another circumstance. In the parallel passage in Luke (Luke 12:25-26) it is said: “And which of you, by being anxious, can add to his height even one cubit? If therefore you are unable to do even the least thing, why are you anxious about the rest?” The addition of height by one cubit is considered here a matter of the very least. To settle the question of which of the two interpretations given is correct, from the philological analysis of both words (age — ἡλικία, and cubit — πῆχυς) one can borrow but little. The original meaning of the first is undoubtedly the continuation of life, age, and only in the later New Testament usage did it acquire the meaning of height. In the New Testament it is used in both senses (Heb 11:11; Luke 2:52; John 9:21; Eph 4:13). Thus the expression appears to be one of the difficult ones. For its correct interpretation it is necessary first of all to pay attention to the fact that verse 27 undoubtedly has the closest connection to the preceding verse, not to the following one. This connection in the present case is expressed by the particle δέ. According to Morison, exegetes have paid little attention to this particle. The connection of speech is thus. Your heavenly Father feeds the birds of the sky. You are of much greater value than they (μᾶλλον there is no need to translate as “more”), consequently, you can fully hope that the heavenly Father will also feed you, and that without particular troubles and cares on your part. But if you abandon hope in the heavenly Father and yourselves exert much care about food, this is completely useless, because you yourselves, through your cares, cannot add “to your sustenance” height even by one cubit. The correctness of this interpretation can be confirmed by the fact that in verse 26 there is talk of bodily nutrition, which, of course, primarily contributes to growth. Growth occurs naturally. Any intensive feeding cannot add to the growth of an infant even one cubit. Therefore there is no need to suppose that the Savior speaks here of giants or great men. The addition of height by a cubit is an insignificant measure in human height. With such an explanation, all contradiction with Luke is removed.

Matthew 6:28. And why do you worry about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin; If a man should not be excessively concerned about food, then for him likewise it is unnecessary to have great cares about clothing. Instead of “consider” in some texts is “learn” or “come to understand” (καταμάθετε) — a verb implying more attention than “look at” (ἐμβλέψατε). The field lilies do not fly through the air but grow on the ground, from which people can more easily observe and study their growth (now — αὐξάνουσιν). As to the field lilies themselves, some understand by this the “imperial crown” (fritillaria imperialis, κρίνον βασιλικόν), which grows wild in Palestine, others — amaryliis lutea, which with its golden-violet flowers covers the fields of the Levant, still others — the so-called Golia lily, which is very large, has a luxuriant crown, and is unrivaled in its beauty. It is found, though apparently rarely, on the northern slopes of Mount Tabor and the hills near Nazareth. “Having spoken of necessary food and shown that one need not worry about it, He passes further to that about which even less need one worry, because clothing is not as necessary as food” (St. John Chrysostom).

Matthew 6:29. yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his glory was clothed like one of these; (Concerning Solomon’s glory, see 2 Chr 9:15 and following.) All human adornments are imperfect in comparison with those of nature. Man, until now, has not been able to surpass nature in arranging various beauties. The ways of making adornments wholly natural have still not been found.

Matthew 6:30. and if the grass of the field, which exists today and tomorrow will be thrown into the furnace, God clothes in this way, how much more you, O you of little faith! The grass of the field is distinguished by beauty, it is clothed as Solomon was not clothed. But ordinarily it is good only for the fact that it is thrown into the furnace. You worry about clothing. But you incomparably surpass the field lilies, and therefore you can hope that God will clothe you even better than He clothes the field lilies. “O you of little faith” — a word not found in Mark, but once in Luke (Luke 12:28). In Matthew — 4 times (Matt 6:30). In pagan literature this word does not appear.

Matthew 6:31. Therefore do not be anxious and do not say: what shall we eat? or what shall we drink? or what shall we wear? The meaning of the expressions is the same as in verse 25. But here the thought is presented already as a conclusion from the preceding. It is brilliantly proved by the examples given. The meaning is that all our cares and worries should be pervaded by the spirit of hope in the heavenly Father.

Matthew 6:32. for all these things the Gentiles seek, and your heavenly Father knows that you have need of all these things. It seems somewhat strange at first that mention is made here of the Gentiles (τὰ ἔθνη). This is explained quite well by John Chrysostom, saying that the Savior mentioned the Gentiles here because they labor exclusively for the present life, not thinking about the future and the heavenly. Chrysostom also attaches significance to the fact that the Savior did not say here “God” but called Him “Father.” The Gentiles have not yet taken on the position of children toward God, but the listeners of Christ, with the approach of the Kingdom of Heaven, were already becoming so. Therefore the Savior inspires in them a higher hope — in the heavenly Father, Who cannot but see His children if they are in difficult and extreme circumstances.

Matthew 6:33. But seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things will be given to you. It has been translated precisely and yet not in accordance with the original. According to the Russian translation it appears that “His” refers to the Kingdom, that is, seek the Kingdom of God and the righteousness of this Kingdom, while in the original, if the pronoun “His” referred to the Kingdom (βασιλεία), then instead of αὐτοῦ (masculine) there would be αὐτῆς. This means the word “His” should refer to “your Father in Heaven” and the meaning of the expression is thus: seek first the Kingdom and the righteousness of your heavenly Father. In the Russian translation, this is however expressed by the fact that “His” is printed with a capital letter. To avoid any ambiguity in Greek, in several manuscripts the addition of τὴν βασιλείαν — τοα θεοα (in the Vulgate and Latin translation: regnum Dei, et justitiam ejus), and in some τοῦ θεοῦ also after δικαιοσύνην, which is superfluous. The Vatican Codex transposes: seek first righteousness and the Kingdom, — which was probably occasioned by the consideration that righteousness serves as a condition for entering the Kingdom (Matt 5:20) and therefore should come first. The saying of Christ found in Origen, Clement, and Eusebius: “ask for much and the least will be added to you; ask for heavenly things and earthly will be added to you” explains the meaning of this verse, but not entirely. “Seek” here is replaced by “ask.” People should first of all strive for the Kingdom and righteousness of God to appear or become established on earth, and in every way contribute to this by their life, conduct, and faith. This is in the positive sense; in the negative — to turn away from all unrighteousness (lies, deception, pretense, etc.) wherever it exists. If such striving were universal, then everything else that the Gentiles so eagerly seek and are so concerned about would appear without particular labors and cares. Experience indeed shows that prosperity among people appears not when they focus all their attention on worldly interests and self-interest, but when they seek righteousness. Christ never denies the well-being of people.

Matthew 6:34. Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious about itself: it is sufficient for each day its own trouble. Saint John Chrysostom explains these words thus: “He did not say — do not worry, but do not worry about tomorrow.” If one accepts this interpretation separately and without connection with other interpretations, then a certain ambiguity is obtained. One should not worry about tomorrow, but in that case one should worry about other, further days. One can think that the Savior gives here in general a teaching not to worry about the future, which is clear from the context. Therefore concerning tomorrow it is said in a general sense, and perhaps also because tomorrow is usually the object of our nearest and particular cares. “It will be anxious about itself” — μεριμνήσει ἑαυτῆς; — in the Greek a rather crude construction, owing to translation from Aramaic. Apparently, in order to give a somewhat classical appearance to this expression, in some manuscripts τὰ ἑαυτῆς or τὰ περὶ αὑτῆς is placed. The second clause serves as proof of the first. We do indeed worry only about the present day. To extend our cares to tomorrow and several days — is not in our power. Our so-called “foresight” is often not justified in the future. The meaning of the expression therefore is thus. Worry (you can worry) only about the present day, as you ordinarily do. Tomorrow will bring its own particular cares, peculiar to that day alone. And this is proved by the fact that “it is sufficient for each day its own trouble.” “Sufficient” in both Russian and Greek — neuter gender, literally: “sufficient for the day evil” (instead of “trouble”). Such a combination is impossible in Russian, but in Greek it is admissible, is found in other places of the New Testament (see 2 Cor 2:6; Luke 22:38), though it cannot be brought under a general rule. The word “evil” (κακία) has many meanings, generally opposite in meaning to the word “virtue” (ἀρετή), but here is used in the sense of “heaviness,” “calamity,” “evil” (as in Sir 19:6; Amos 3:6; 1 Maccabees 7:23 and others). To the ordinary daily activity of man there is always admixed an “element of evil” in the form of various annoyances, failures, unpleasantnesses, disappointments, fatigue, exhaustion, sickness, and the like. In the New Testament this word is sometimes placed alongside a listing of various vices (Rom 1:29; Col 3:8; Titus 3:3).