Chapter Seven

The Sermon on the Mount. 1–5. Judgment (condemnation) of others. – 6. Perverted, improper zeal for “holiness.” – 7–12. On prayer. – 13–14. Narrow gates and narrow path leading to life. – 15–23. False prophets. – 24–27. The concluding parable. – 28–29. The general impression on the people of the Sermon on the Mount of the Savior.

Matthew 7:1. Do not judge, so that you will not be judged, (Cf. Luke 6:37.) First of all, it is striking that there is a question whether there exists a connection, and what kind, between the first verse and all of chapter 7 in general with what was said in the preceding chapter and, most closely, in verse 34 of chapter 6. One needs only to connect simply these two verses: “it is sufficient for each day its own trouble.” “Do not judge, so that you will not be judged,” to see that there is no connection between these verses at all. This conclusion is confirmed by the fact that in the verse in question there is no connecting particle, such as “but” (δέ), “and,” “or,” etc., used in Greek to express connection. If, therefore, any connection at all exists with the preceding, it can refer not to a single verse but to the whole preceding chapter. But many exegetes deny even this connection, saying that in chapter 7 begins the discussion of completely new subjects. “No connection with the preceding,” — thus a brief and vigorous German commentator expresses it (De Wette,). Those exegetes who acknowledge a connection give explanations which sometimes are completely unlike each other. Some explain the connection, saying that in chapter 7 there is presented opposition to what is said in Matt 6:14 and following, or else to what is said in chapter 6 about the Pharisees, and thus it is indicated that judgment should not be because of the obligation of people to forgive one another, or at least that judgment should not be Pharisaic. Others explain the connection thus: in chapter 6 it was spoken of the relation of people to the Kingdom of Heaven, now begins the discussion of their relation to one another. Citizens of the Kingdom of Christ should prudently judge their fellow-citizens and first of all improve themselves if they wish to be judges and correct others. Still others: if you seriously and zealously strive for perfection, then toward your neighbors as well you should be meek and not condemn. Still another explanation: “With the obscuring of human feeling about God, which is expressed in concern only for earthly goods, there develops more and more the extreme corruption of religious life, expressed in Pharisaic righteousness, and among people, on the one hand, fanaticism develops, which judges the neighbor with increasing harshness, while on the other — more and more carnal behavior and contempt of holiness” (Lange,). Alford expresses the connection in the following formulas: “The connection with the preceding chapter is directly served by the word κακία (Matt 6:34), by means of which the Savior casts a look at the best at the poverty and sinfulness of human life; and now He gives rules how one should live in this world among such sinners as ourselves; mediately and in a more general sense — the continuing warning here against hypocrisy in us and others.” All these and similar suppositions appear improbable. The best interpretation appears to be that of Zahn, who says that if hitherto the speech in the Sermon on the Mount has been an ordered whole, composed of clearly distinguished but nevertheless internally connected groups of thoughts, then from the beginning of chapter 7 there follows a series of very diverse small passages, whose connection at first glance seems like a string on which pearls are strung, and with the two-part speech Matt 6:19-34 this connection is not clear. Such an explanation apparently comes closest to the point. The whole Sermon on the Mount consists of so-called obvious truths, gradually becoming unclear to natural man and clarified for his consciousness by the Savior. If so, then to seek a close connection between individual sayings, at least in some cases, is fruitless. Here one can only seek the string on which pearls are strung, all of equal worth, but not touching one another. Where is this string? Without going back too far, let us take only chapter 6 and see whether one can find it here. We encounter here a whole series of negative expressions, or prohibitions, to which in places positive commandments are added. The prohibitions do not have the same form everywhere (in the Greek text), but it is clear that they contain a listing of what people should not do. Thus, schematically, with the addition of expressions from chapter 7, all the matter can be presented thus. The Savior says: “do not trumpet before yourself, do not be like the hypocrites; do not speak uselessly, like the Gentiles, do not be like them; do not be sad; do not gather treasures for yourself on earth; do not be concerned for the soul of your body; do not be concerned and do not say; do not be concerned about tomorrow” (Matt 6:2). In chapter 7 the speech continues in the same spirit: “do not judge; do not give what is holy to dogs” (Matt 7:1). If it is said that there is no connection between Matt 7:1 and Matt 6:34, then it was also unclear before, for example, in Matt 6:19, because there was no connecting particle there either. Surveying all the above-mentioned negative expressions, what connection can we discover between them? Evidently there is no connection or it is very slight in places. And yet we see that all this speech is completely natural and corresponds to popular oratorical speech, in which thoughts flow strictly logically and coherently. This connection is distinguished by extreme simplicity and is so artless that in some cases it seems to disappear entirely. All this may cause difficulty for scholars, but on the contrary, greatly facilitates understanding of the speech for simple people, who usually follow not how one proposition logically proceeds from another, but rather separate thoughts themselves. To what has been said must be added that the search for the proper connection between chapters 6 and 7 and in the sayings of this latter is further complicated by the fact that chapter 7 has similarity with a part of the Sermon on the Mount as expounded in Luke (Luke 6:37-49), whereas the whole chapter 6 of Matthew is omitted in Luke. It is said that in Luke’s exposition there is more connection than in Matthew. But at first glance this is not evident. As to the meaning of the very expression: “do not judge, so that you will not be judged,” for its explanation can serve first of all the fact that the apostle Paul decisively protests against the custom of Corinthian Christians “to judge themselves among the wicked,” exhorts them to judge themselves “among the saints,” clearly denying the then-current civil court (1 Cor 6:1 and following). It is useful to note that in the earliest Christian literature the saying of Christ is cited in the Epistle to the Philippians of Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna (Epistula ad Philippenses, II, 3), and Clement of Rome (Epistula I ad Corinthios, 13, 2). Since the real meaning of Christ’s saying, despite its apparent simplicity, appears to be one of the most difficult to interpret, it is far from unnecessary to pay attention to how the saying was understood in the very deep antiquity by the direct and nearest disciples of the apostles. Polycarp invites those to whom he writes to abandon empty vain-talking (ἀπολιπόντες τὴν κενὴν ματαιολογιάν — Epistula ad Philippenses, II, 1). He who raised Christ from the dead, says Polycarp, will also raise us if we will accomplish His will, will love what He loved, and will turn away from all unrighteousness, greed, love of money, slander (or defamation — καταλαλιᾶς — there II, 2). Polycarp proves these theses with texts borrowed from the Sermon on the Mount as expounded by Matthew and Luke (Matt 7:1; Luke 6:20). The text “do not judge, so that you will not be judged” is cited verbatim according to Matt 7:1. For us now what is important is not this, but that the text is clearly cited by Polycarp as proof of the sinfulness of slander, defamation, and false testimony. Polycarp does not apply it to judicial institutions and their activity, but only — to various sins and shortcomings in human society. According to Clement, “non-judgment” of others is a result of humility. Further follows such an exhortation: “Have mercy, so as to be pitied, forgive, so that you be forgiven, as you do, so shall it be done to you; as you give, so shall be repaid to you; as you judge, so shall you be judged (ὡς κρίνετε οὕτως κριθήσεσθε); by what measure you measure, so shall it be measured to you.” And here again there is no talk of either official judges or judicial institutions. The general tone of the reasoning of later Church writers, so far as we know, is the same. They do not speak of civil court. Discussing private judgment, they point out that man should not be a harsh judge (πικρός δικαστής) and that the judgment itself should consist of admonition, counsel, desire for correction. But private judgment is not denied. “What then?” asks John Chrysostom. “If (someone) commits fornication, is it not that I should say that fornication is bad, and should I not correct the fornicator? Correct, but not as an enemy, and not as an enemy seeking vengeance, but as a physician applying medicine. The Savior did not say, do not stop the sinner, but: do not judge, that is, do not be a harsh judge.” John Chrysostom says that both Christ Himself and the apostles judged many times and condemned sinners and that if one were to understand the text in the literal sense, then such understanding would contradict many other places of the New Testament. These words are correct, because in the New Testament it is indeed indicated that Christ Himself judged people (Matt 23:14); He gave authority to judge also to the apostles, who used this authority (1 Tim 5:20; 2 Tim 4:2; Titus 1:9; also 1 Tim 4:1; 2 John 1:10; 1 Thess 5:21). Augustine proposed to explain here “doubtful facts,” interpreting them “in the best light.” “In two cases,” he says, “we should be careful of rash judgment: when it is unknown with what intention some deed was done, or when it is unknown what sort of person is he who seems either good or bad.” Jerome, having pointed out that Paul condemned the Corinthian fornicator (1 Cor 5), and Peter Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5), says that Christ did not forbid, but taught how to judge. Thus it is clear that Church writers, refraining from discussion of civil court, nevertheless acknowledge the necessity of private or even ecclesiastical judgment, making concessions to the practical necessity of condemning sin as such. In later times some commentators understood the commandment of the Savior much more strictly. The categorical and stated without any limitations commandment was by many, especially by sectarians, understood literally as the negation of any judgment, protest against authorities and their overthrow (Anabaptists). On the other hand, similar interpretations in modern times were often made a pretext for adopting “weak sentimentality” and “subjective looseness” with regard to criminals, served as justification for broad tolerance, which treated falsehood and sin, truth and justice indifferently. And in cases where judgment for crimes was not weakened, they tried to base on Christ’s commandment at least tolerance toward false teachings or people erring in opinions or teachings. No wonder then if modern exegetes have concentrated all their attention on explaining this difficult saying and tried to clarify this. The opinions expressed by them are so diverse that it is difficult even to enumerate them. It was asserted, for example, that Christ speaks not “de ministeriis vel officiis, divinitus ordinatis, sed de judiciis, quae fiunt extra seu praeter vocationes et gubernationes divinas (not about ministries or offices divinely appointed, but about judgments which occur outside or apart from divine callings or governments).” Objecting to the negation of secular courts, they pointed out that Christ’s commandment cannot be understood categorically in view, on the one hand, of the opposition: do not judge — you will not be judged, which supposedly can be altered thus: judge, but so that you can receive an acquitting judgment when you yourself stand before judgment, and on the other — that Christ in verse 5 does not forbid judgment of a neighbor entirely, but requires that the judge first remove the log from his eye. Thus in verses 2–5 there is implied a limitation of the categorical commandment given in verse 1. Christ forbids not judgment in general, but only “incompetent” judgment, which is committed not by calling, not by office, and without love. Further, the opinion was expressed that in the verse in question is meant only Pharisaic judgment, that Christ continues here to condemn only hypocrites. But, people said, man possesses reason, and this faculty is critical. If we were deprived of the faculty of judgment, we would be dependent not only on every wind of doctrine, but also on every surge of passion. Therefore the Savior, saying “do not judge,” does not understand here either ordinary judgment or ordinary criticism. His speech is “epigrammatic” and directed against scribes, Pharisees, and others, who loved to judge about and condemn others (Matt 9:11-13; Luke 7:39; John 7:49). However, against such an opinion one can say that Christ addresses Himself to the disciples, not to the scribes and Pharisees. If He had in mind only the latter, then probably He would have said: do not judge as the scribes and Pharisees. The expression is limited by nothing at all. The words κρίνειν, κατακρίνειν, καταδικάζειν can mean judgment in general, whether it be official or private. Perhaps one of the newer exegetes, Zahn, had this in mind when, in interpreting the expression in question, he said that Christ in it indeed has in mind any and all judgment whatsoever. But the prohibition to judge, according to Zahn, refers only to the disciples, who should not take upon themselves the obligation of judges, entrusting this to others. This opinion cannot be considered sound. Did not the Savior foresee that judges in His Kingdom might also be His disciples? We shall apparently never understand this, on the one hand clear and extremely simple expression, and on the other — extremely difficult, if we do not suppose that it, like other expressions of Christ in the Sermon on the Mount, is not abstract or theoretically philosophical. Again one must keep in mind that Christ spoke to simple people, not to official judges, who perhaps were not even among the simple people surrounding Him. How could simple people understand His saying? Undoubtedly in the sense that Christ was not speaking here about civil judges or judicial institutions at all. Therefore one can look at His teaching as a light illuminating human activity in the sphere of all judgment and criticism. But this is only a light. All the rest the Savior leaves to the people themselves, who should work out various legal questions when the dominion of the old man in themselves and others forces them to this. The expression “so that you will not be judged” is interpreted in the sense that here exclusively God’s judgment is meant. “Do not judge, so as not to be judged at the last judgment.” Others say that here exclusively human judgment is meant, that is, if we judge people, then in turn we shall be judged by them. As an analogy to this passage, reference is made to the parable Matt 24:48-51, where there is talk of an evil servant and it is indicated, first, on worldly care and anxiety (“but if that servant, being evil, shall say in his heart: my lord is not soon coming”), second, on legal fanaticism, condemnation and punishment of neighbors (“and shall begin to beat his fellow-servants”), and, third, on the abuse of holiness (“and to eat and drink with drunkards”). However, in this latter interpretation exegetes do not agree much among themselves. Some understand here directly human judgment, others — properly God’s judgment, which uses human judgment as an instrument for its purposes. In the divine arrangement of the world a law of retribution (jus talionis) dominates in a certain sense. As we ourselves deal with people, so will they deal with us; often this happens even here on earth, but of course it will be inevitable at the last judgment (Mark 4:24; Jas 2:13). It is more correct, apparently, to see in the words in question judgment in general, both God’s and human, produced by people, usually acting though unconsciously, but according to the commands of God. Man reaps what he sowed.

Matthew 7:2. for by the judgment you judge, you will be judged; and by the measure you measure, it will be measured to you. (Cf. Luke 6:38.) Literally: “in what judgment you judge, you will be condemned; and by what measure you measure, it will be measured to you.” The meaning of this saying is clear. What is our judgment, or how we judge our neighbors, so will we be judged (by people or by God). If we judge harshly, mercilessly, then we ourselves can expect such harsh and merciless judgment. Judgment without mercy to him who himself does not have or know or show mercy. This is not so much confirmed as clarified by the comparison: “by what measure you measure”... And this image is understandable, especially to us Russians, where both grain and fruits are sold and bought “by measures.” There is no need to suppose that in the word “measure” (μέτρον) is understood not some definite, precise measure, such as a “modius” or a gornec (Russian measure), but any “measure” of grain, for example, a vessel with which grain is measured, regardless of its size. In the East (and in Russia), the customs depicted by the Savior exist even now. In Palestine, according to travelers, grain is brought or carried to markets in sacks and poured from them into a “measure,” and traders do this constantly. Sitting on the ground with folded legs, they fill with their hands a “timna,” which they shake so that the grain settles well, and when the “measure” is full, they level off the grain on top with their hand and, if asked, add more. It is clear that both buyer and seller must use the measures that are in use. Such or such judgment is a measure that can equally be used both for the defendant and for the judge himself if the latter commits some crime. There remain some remarks of a more philological character to be made. Κρίμα (judgment) — a rare word among classical writers, replaced by them with the word κρίσις (judgment) — has different meanings: judicial sentence, punishment (in case of condemnation), and even equivalent to the word “right.” In the given verse it is used in the first of the indicated meanings. The expression has only the appearance of dativus instrumenti, but by meaning cannot be taken as such, because neither “measure” nor “judgment,” at least in this place, serves as “instruments,” but is used simply to express “correspondence” or “proportionality,” as in the apostle Paul (2 Cor 10:12). In Luke (Luke 6:38) the same expression as in Matthew, but without ἐν. This expression was current among the Jews and is found in various places in the Talmud and “seems to have been a proverb” (Edersheim).

Matthew 7:3. And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, and do not notice the log in your own eye? (Cf. Luke 6:41.) In interpreting this verse much depends on what is understood by the word κάρφος, whether a speck that has fallen into the eye or actually a real twig, though small. The word, of course, has both meanings (Vulgate — festuca — twig; Luther’s German translation — Splitter — splinter, chip, match; English translation — mote — small particle, match). In all likelihood, the inaccurate words placed in German and English translations were the reason that Western exegetes apparently almost completely misunderstood this text and their reasonings sometimes appear even strange. However, this reproach can be directed not only at them but also at some ancient commentators. For example, Theophylact writes: “The Lord shows that he who sins greatly cannot see the sin of his brother well (δείκνυσι δὲ ὁ κύριος, ὅτι οὐδὲ δύναται ἰδεῖν καλῶς τὸ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ ἀμάρτημα ὁ μεγάλα ἀμαρτάνων), because how will he be able to see the transgression of another, easily wounded, he who himself has a log in his eye?” But is this what the Savior is saying? It seems that He is saying exactly the opposite, that we ordinarily see well the sin of a brother but do not notice our own great sin. The explanations of Western exegetes are even more unsatisfactory than Theophylact’s. Thus Toluck says that “man’s own sinfulness deprives him of a proper spiritual view in order to judge the moral crimes of others.” Zahn asserts that a “small foreign body fallen in the eye hinders vision, while a large one makes it impossible.” A speck or log, therefore, are images of small and large moral defects and hinder us from properly knowing and dealing with things. Therefore Zahn considers it incomprehensible that one who has a great defect (like a log) notices an unimportant defect in another, and thinks that “in the sphere of bodily life” this is even “impossible.” Although it so happens on “moral ground,” however, all this appears so “unnatural” that to the question why the person to whom the Savior addresses the speech (τί δὲ βλεπεις) acts exactly so, “no satisfactory” answer, justifying his deed, is conceivable. Regarding this interpretation one should say that indeed, if in my brother’s eye there is a speck causing him pain, and in my eye there is a much larger body, a whole log, then the latter not only should cause me pain, but moreover completely hides from me any foreign specs or sins. That a speck can get into a brother’s eye — this happens often and is quite understandable. But how can a whole log fall into and remain in my eye? In commentaries we have nowhere found the necessary explanation. If it is said that all this is only images to denote moral relations, then to this one can answer that images should at least to some extent correspond to nature and reality, otherwise they will turn out to be too crude, unnatural and exaggerated, which various commentators quite acknowledge. We, for our part, think that by κάρφος in verse 3 should be understood not a “speck” and not a “straw” causing pain (the Savior says nothing about this pain), but a real actual “twig,” festuca, as in the Russian, Slavonic, and Vulgate, and that this twig does not cause any pain at all. In the eye various external objects are always reflected, like in a mirror, which can be seen (βλέπειν) by anyone who looks closely into his brother’s eye. He can see objects reflected beyond the cornea and other membranes in the eye, in the pupil (διαβλέπειν). It is clear that such reflected objects do not produce and cannot produce any pain, and do not at all hinder vision. In my eye can be reflected a whole log, while in my brother’s eye — a twig. I do not see the log, but I see the twig. With such an interpretation, the other expression is also satisfactorily explained: κατανοεῖν. The Savior does not say: you do not feel pain from the log, or you do not see it, but rather you do not think, do not reflect on what is reflected in your own eye (the meaning of κατανοεῖν only as an exception — intransitive = simply to reflect, the usual meaning is transitive, to direct attention to something, to regard, to notice, to observe — Cremer). Consequently, the images used by the Savior appear to be quite natural and answer to reality. True, against the interpretation proposed by us one can object that it seems to be contradicted by the expressions of the following verses 4 and 5. We shall speak about this in its place; now we note that the connection of verse 3 with the preceding is clear. In verse 3 the Savior explains why we should not judge others, because to judge — means to look into the eyes of a brother, to notice his shortcomings and not pay attention to one’s own. And yet the latter — are greater than the sins of a brother. The thought is the same as expressed in the parable Matt 18:23-35. To what has been said let us add that a similar thought is found in the Talmud in several places (see Edersheim. The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, vol. I, p. 678 and following).

Matthew 7:4. Or how can you say to your brother: ‘Let me pull out the speck from your eye,’ and behold, there is a log in your own eye? (Cf. Luke 6:42). The thought of this verse seems to contradict the interpretation given above. If the Savior speaks only of reflected or reflecting objects, it is unclear how one can say to a brother: ‘let me pull out,’ and further (verse 5) ‘pull out the log’ and so forth. The explanations of exegetes are also unsatisfactory here. Thus, for example, one of them thinks that here there is talk of “eye operations” and that the Savior supposedly says: with a log in your eye you are a poor eye surgeon. But what is beyond doubt here is that the Savior is not speaking of eye operations at all. The speech is figurative, but in verse 3 it has a literal sense, while in verse 4 — a figurative one. The natural and quite comprehensible images of verse 3 give occasion to speak in a figurative sense of extracting specks or logs from the eye. The former images are not abandoned, but their application is different. So it often happens in ordinary speech; something similar is found in the Gospels. The first thought, so to speak, the root of the image, is exclusively concentrated on the flower, on the lily, on how they grow; and then through the aid of intermediate thoughts (do not toil, do not spin — all this corresponds to reality) the transition occurs to the thought of how the lilies are “clothed.” It is quite clear that “clothing” of lilies can be spoken of only in an improper, figurative sense, because in reality lilies have no clothing at all. Thus, in the speech of the Savior, the simple mention of log and speck reflected in the eyes gives rise to new images, still true to reality and not having a figuratively spiritual meaning, but clarifying the truth already from other sides. All listeners of Christ knew how people deal with specks and logs: they take them, carry them, throw them out, cut them, saw them, build houses from them, burn them. All these predicates could also be applied to logs reflected in the eye. But for the purpose that the Lord set for Himself, it was convenient to use only one word: ἔκβαλε (literally — throw out, verse 5). The Savior could have expressed Himself differently: stop looking at the log, turn away from it so that it is not reflected in your eye. But such speech would not possess the requisite power and would not be to the point. Instead of “how can you say” some translate: “how are you able to say.” This, apparently, without any need. “Let me pull out” — in Greek and in Russian it would be more correct: let me pull out (infinitive). But the combination of two verbs in the imperative and indicative (instead of the infinitive) moods is not unusual elsewhere in the New Testament. The Savior condemns here the evil when people, and precisely the better part of them, never listen to anything more eagerly and talk about nothing more willingly than about the errors of other people. In Cicero there occurs the saying: “It is characteristic of fools to see the faults of others and forget their own.”

Matthew 7:5. Hypocrite! First remove the log from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. (Cf. Luke 6:42.) First of all, the word “hypocrite” attracts attention. It gives some commentators occasion to suppose that the Savior here returns to His former speech about hypocrites and again begins to condemn them. This also influences the explanation of verse 1, since here also it is supposed that the Savior’s condemnation is only of such judgment as is committed by Pharisees. But all this is arbitrary. The word ὑποκριτά, of course, means “hypocrite,” and there is no need to seek or devise any other meanings of this word. But one cannot fail to notice that it has great similarity with the words used at the beginning of the speech κρίνειν, κρίματι, κριθήσεσθε and has with them the same root, though in meaning it differs. Therefore one can think that it is inspired by these words, and should understand here not the Pharisees but all people in general who judge the errors of a neighbor while having whole logs in their own eye. To judge a neighbor — it is easy. But it is always difficult to judge oneself. This is what the comparisons point to. The Savior, further, does not say: you will see clearly the speck in your brother’s eye, after you remove the log from your own eye; but: you will see clearly how to remove the speck. One must first accomplish and before all accomplish the most difficult deed, and then the small deed will be easy. If these rules were to be followed by all, both private people and judges, then a golden age would come on earth.

Matthew 7:6. Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, so that they do not trample them with their feet and, turning around, tear you to pieces. The translation itself raises no questions, but the connection of the words in question with the preceding has always appeared difficult. Some say that this verse directly follows the preceding. The activity of those capable of judging and correcting the defects of others should not consist of throwing precious stones before swine. Therefore there is no need to deny a connection here. The connection is also explained by the fact that if the preceding verses point to excess in judgments, not excessive strictness in judging the lapses of neighbors, then verse 6, on the contrary, points to the thoughtless or critical weakness of people when, without any deliberation and fear, with complete condescension, paying no attention to different characters, they give people what they cannot accept because of their evil and character. Thus, according to this opinion, the internal connection lies in denoting the essential difference between fanatical harshness and moral weakness in dealing with holiness. Further, one thinks that besides the internal there is also an external connection, which lies in the opposition of a brother, about whose correction and salvation we hypocritically are concerned, to dogs and swine, who treat us completely differently than brothers, and completely differently receive our cares than does a brother. The Savior speaks as it were thus: you are a hypocrite with respect to a brother, to whom you should according to your love preach only holiness. But with respect to other people, whom you cannot call your brothers and cannot conduct yourself with them as with brothers, you are not a hypocrite, but actually preach holiness. There is still another opinion: people whom we judge, but whom, however, we should not judge, represent themselves as swine and dogs. We refrain from judgment over them, but should we at the same time be too sentimental, that is, refraining from condemning, preach holiness to them. To condemn others — this is one extreme, to be too condescending to people, to enter into communion with them, to try to enlighten them, to give them what is holy when they are unworthy of it, — this is another extreme, from which the disciples of Christ should refrain. In the first five verses severity in judgment is condemned; in verse 6 — excessive weakness. The disciples should not strive to be judges of others, but they should not unreasonably expose before people their high calling. Because what is sacred and valuable is given to them not only for possession, but also with the purpose that they communicate it to other people. But the disciples would fulfill badly this obligation if they communicated their entrusted valuable and sacred goods to such people about whom they know or can know that they lack any understanding of the sacred and its value. All these opinions do explain, to some extent, the content of verse 6, but not by much. It is more probable to think that here begins a new speech, not having marked internal connection with the preceding. The external connection is given, as before, by negations. However, one can think that both the Lord Himself and His listeners could look upon all that He had said before as holiness. In verse 6 the Savior says that this holiness should not be revealed before people not understanding it. Or one can consider verse 6 an introduction to the following speech and explain it in the same sense. Since the word “holiness” is obviously figurative and applied to human relations, the interpretation depends much on the precise definition of the word “holiness” itself. This word is so difficult that in order to explain it appeal was even made to the Sanskrit language and there people tried to understand what it means. In this language words similar to Greek τὸ ἅγιον jag, jagami mean “I bring sacrifice,” “I honor,” and jagus, jâgam, jagnâm (in Russian — agnus) — “sacrifice.” Further they compared this word with the Hebrew “kodesh” — holiness; and this latter was derived from the word “kad,” which means “distinguished,” “separated.” But although the etymology, says Cremer, casts some light on the word in question, it rarely reveals its meaning in ordinary usage. One scholar made the guess that the Aramaic word used here by Christ was “kedasha.” In the Greek translation of the Gospel of Matthew this word is rendered inaccurately by the word “holiness” (τό ἅγιον), whereas it means properly an amulet, mainly an earring. With such an interpretation, “holiness” could be brought near and with further “pearls,” as an object which can just as, as pearls, be thrown before animals. However, such a hypothesis is now recognized as untenable, and if one can still speak of it, then not in exegetical but in purely historical interests. Unable to find suitable images in actual life and nature, people tried to explain the word “holiness,” as well as the other words of this verse, “pearls,” “swine,” and “dogs,” in an allegorical sense. Thus, for example, Jerome understood by holiness the bread of children. We should not take away the bread from the children and throw it to the dogs. John Chrysostom and others understood by dogs the Gentiles both because of their deeds and because of their faith, while by swine — the heretics, who, apparently, do not acknowledge the name of the Lord. Interesting is the reference to this verse found in one of the most ancient documents, namely in the “Teaching of the Twelve Apostles” (IX, 5). Here there is talk of the Eucharist: “No one should eat and drink from our Eucharist except those baptized in the name of the Lord, for concerning this the Lord said: ‘do not give what is holy to dogs.’” Of the five words by which the Greeks designated “the sacred,” the word ἅγιος is the rarest and in distinction from other synonymous terms indicated mainly “the holy” in the moral sense. Being little used among the Gentiles, this word, one can say, penetrates the whole Old and New Testament and expresses the concept in which all Divine revelation is concentrated. Therefore the word has generally a broad meaning. But the main moment here — the moral concept, an understanding of which the Greeks and Romans almost completely lack. The concept of holiness receives its special coloring from the fact that holiness is ascribed to God and to what belongs to Him. Besides God this concept is applied only to such people and objects as belong especially to God. The word “holiness” or “holy” or “holies” (plural) is used in the Old Testament of the temple. Further it is used, as in Lev 22:14, of sacred food, usually in the plural number (cf. Lev 22:2-5). Therefore the majority of commentators are inclined to think that the image in verse 6 is taken by the Savior from sacrificial meat, which could not be eaten by anyone except priests (Exod 29:33; Lev 2:3; Num 18:8-19). This meat could not be given to dogs at all — it would be a transgression, and if anyone did so, he would be punished with death (Toluck,). Sacred meat was not to be eaten and by any unclean person (Lev 22:6-7). Some understand by holiness everything opposite to what is unclean, or “pure.” The Savior thus applied Old Testament images to truths which should become new wine and new garments in the Church He was founding, as the Kingdom of God. He Himself called His teaching the mysteries of the Kingdom of God (cf. Matt 13:11; Mark 4:11; Luke 8:10). He said to His disciples that it is given to them to know the mysteries of the Kingdom of God, but to other people it is not given, and He refrained from direct revelation of these mysteries before people without the help of parables. Further, in explaining the mysteries of the Kingdom, He said that the Kingdom of Heaven is like “treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and hid, and from joy about it goes and sells all that he has and buys that field” (Matt 13:44); “a merchant seeking good pearls, who, having found one precious pearl, went and sold all that he had and bought it” (Matt 13:45-46). The first part of the verse: “do not give what is holy to dogs,” can be separated from the second and considered by itself. This is necessary because some commentators could not understand how swine could, turning around, tear at people, because it is dogs that are capable of this, and they referred the latter words of the verse to dogs. But such an opinion has no basis for itself. Sacrificial food, meat and bread, for dogs — is pleasant food. In the first half of the sentence therefore the verb “give” (δίδωμι) is used, not the further one — throw. Dogs are often mentioned in Old Testament writings. Moses says to his fellow-countrymen that their exodus from Egypt occurred in such silence that not even a dog moved his tongue against any man or beast (Exod 11:7). Judith says the same to Holofernes — that she will lead him to Jerusalem so that a dog will not move its tongue against him. Much from good old times has remained even to the present time, including dogs, which even now live in great numbers in Palestinian cities. They sleep during the day, rise at sunset and begin their cleanup of dirty alleys on the streets. At this time they howl, growl, and among them begins fighting over scraps and filth, which are thrown from houses, because in Eastern cities everything is thrown into the streets and eaten by dogs. They are the only sanitation workers in dirty Eastern cities. We turn to another image. The former “do not give” (μὴ δῶτε) is replaced by the words “do not throw” (μὴ βάλητε). By pearls (μαργαρίτας) should be understood pearls, and perhaps mother-of-pearl, but not beads, as in our Slavonic translation. In the Vulgate — margaritas — the same word as in Greek. Pearls resemble peas or even acorns, which swine like and eat. But for them these cheap edible objects are of greater value than precious pearls. Of course, facts when swine tear, for example, a man are little known, if known at all. There is no need to understand by the word “swine” some fierce breed of swine, such as, for example, a wild boar. From ordinary household swine it is known from practice that they eat animals and sometimes bite children to death; they can consequently bite to death an adult man. On the basis of the context there is no grounds to specifically refer the words of Christ either to the Gentiles or to heretics. The first would be incorrect because He came to preach to the Gentiles and save them, and the apostles were to go by His command and teach all peoples (Matt 28:19). And heretics could not exist then, and if Christ should speak about them now, His speech hardly would be understood by His listeners. In conclusion to the explanation of this verse we note that in it there is an intensification from the beginning to the end: first there is talk of dogs, which do not become fierce, but can eat sacred meat, and then of swine, which become fierce and tear the giver. According to Toluck, here is meant in general shamelessness (ἀναισχυντία) of people.

Matthew 7:7. Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you; It is remarkable that in this verse there are no variations in the manuscripts. The translation is precise. But the connection of this verse with the preceding is even more difficult to explain than that of verse 6 with verse 5. Some commentators find no connection here at all, and verse 6 appears to them written as it were out of place in the general exposition. Some explain the matter thus. From the preceding verses it was clear that everyone should strive to be wise and good in order to serve his neighbors, his brothers, as much as possible. Who is able to do this? We cannot do this by our own strength. But this is possible for us if God gives us His help. Therefore the Savior commands us to turn to God with prayer for the gifts and grace needed by us. It is easy to see that such a connection is purely external and does not touch the essence of the matter. Of the exegetes with whom we have become acquainted, Zahn comes closest to the mark, it seems. But his explanation, as we shall soon see, is distinguished by some peculiarities. “When,” he says, “the commandment was given not to give what is holy to dogs and not to throw pearls before swine, then a listener, being conscious of his ignorance, could say: I do not see that I have what you forbade me to give to swine. And therefore it is well that the Savior added, saying: ask and receive.” It seems to us that if Zahn had expressed himself only somewhat differently, he would have explained the matter better. The Savior did not command people to be stingy in dealing with earthly goods. But quite another should be the relation of people to spiritual goods. Here is required a certain restraint or even stinginess, because otherwise holiness can fall into the possession of such people who, being unclean, will either desecrate it or, not understanding its value, will trample it. Consequently, these people, not understanding and not valuing holiness, should be deprived of it. It is given to believers, will remain with them and will increase. And in order that it increase, one must make requests to the heavenly Father. You do not give, and it will be given to you. In the words designating how people should request goods for themselves there is a certain gradation and transition from the lesser to the greater. First simply “ask,” then are implied greater efforts and labor in comparison with ordinary petition — “seek”; then, when these actions will not lead to the goal, — “knock.” The expressions of verses 7 and 8 are literally repeated in Luke (Luke 11:9-10), but in a different context, and there, according to the opinion of exegetes, this context is “more skillfully done.” After the Lord’s Prayer Luke speaks of a man who asks for bread from his friend. The latter at first asks not to bother him, but then, by his persistent request, gives him what he asks. Then follow the words: “ask” and so forth to verse 11 literally the same as in Matthew, and from verse 11 there is a difference. Therefore it is thought that in Matthew the expressions of verses 7 and 8 would have connection with the preceding only if they stood after Matt 6:15, and that if one does not suppose that Matthew borrowed these verses from the “Logia” and placed them in an improper order, the connection in general is difficult to explain. But this seems hardly particularly important. Much more important is the question what exactly man should ask himself. Verse 11 with clarity shows that people should ask for goods from God. What goods? The majority of commentators assert that here exclusively spiritual goods are meant. Such an interpretation is well expressed in the words of Saint John Chrysostom: “Ask for nothing worldly, but for everything spiritual, and you will receive all.” However, the Savior Himself does not limit our requests to only the spiritual and generally says nothing about what the content of our requests should be. The speech set forth in verses 7–11 is one of the most attractive and most beloved to the human heart. Apparently, the Church also understands these words in a broader sense, not only in the spiritual, that is, the Savior in response to the requests of believers promised them the giving not only of spiritual but also of material goods. These words are read among us at services to the Savior, performed for various occasions and under various circumstances. Consequently, according to the words of the Savior, we can ask God for all goods, both spiritual and bodily, and hope for receiving them. But we consider as good many things that are not actually good. Material goods, according to evangelical teaching, are in closest connection with spiritual goods, and consequently we can ask for material goods, such as well-being, health, success in life, always keeping in view the close dependence of the material on the spiritual, and especially striving for God’s righteousness, being confident that all else will be added to us.

Matthew 7:8. for everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. In some manuscripts, instead of “it will be opened” — “they open,” or, better, “it opens itself.” The expressions of this verse are fully parallel to those of the preceding. They serve as it were an encouragement to prayer. There are no limitations to the word “everyone.” The images are taken from actual life, where indeed those who ask ordinarily receive, those who seek find, and those who knock have it opened to them. As with people, so with God. Persistent and unrelenting requests lead to the desired. If God, according to Augustine, often does not give us what we want, He gives what we want even more.

Matthew 7:9. Is there among you such a man who, when his son asks him for bread, would give him a stone? The difference in translation here may depend on how we first understand the particle ἤ placed at the very beginning of the verse, and further whether we understand τίς as a relative or interrogative pronoun. If we translate ἤ as “otherwise,” “on the other hand” (alioquin), we do not get a satisfactory meaning; if as “for” (nam), then it is not clear why verse 9 serves as proof of what precedes it and in what exactly. This cannot be accepted all the more because in the preceding verse there is already its own “for,” which serves as proof for verse 7. In exactly the same way it is hardly possible to translate: “is there among you such a man” (an quisquam vestrum), as in our Russian and Slavonic translations, considering ἤ as an interrogative particle and τίς — as an indefinite pronoun. In verse 10 this ἤ is repeated, but the Russian translators expressed it as “and.” According to Toluck, ἤ should be understood here as a disjunctive particle, corresponding to the same one in verse 10. Such usage is frequent (verse 4; also Matt 12:29; Rom 3:1). In the Vulgate the particle is translated correctly by the twice-repeated aut in verses 9 and 10: either who is there of you a man, who, if his son asks him for bread, will surely give him a stone? Thus, in the Vulgate there are two particles (or and surely — aut and numquid), one serving to divide speech, and the other — interrogative. The first (ἤ) is almost equivalent here to our expressions: on the one hand, in other words, first, second. The words of the Savior in this verse are distinguished by complete naturalness. It appears with intention that the poverty of the son is not directly shown, who is in need only of bread. The son asks for a piece of bread to satisfy hunger, and only as an exception might one find such a cruel father who would give him a stone instead of bread. The extraordinary reality and vividness of the comparison is increased still more by the circumstance that a stone resembles bread, and thus giving a stone instead of bread would be not only cruelty but also deception. With this it is remarkable that for illustration the very simplest, most uncomplicated circumstances are chosen, which, despite their simplicity and lack of complexity, are still almost impossible even among people who are evil by nature. Under bread here one cannot in any way understand only “teachings or mercy” or “the spiritual.” Of course, such a meaning the word can have, but only in a figurative sense. In Luke to this speech is added: “or, if he asks for a fish, would give him a serpent?” (Luke 11:12).

Matthew 7:10. and when he asks for a fish, would give him a serpent? Literally: “or if he also asks for a fish (besides bread), would surely give him a serpent?” In the Vulgate and in the Slavonic translation “and” is omitted. The construction of the verse and meaning are the same as in the preceding. But from the difference in translation a somewhat different sense is obtained. In the Russian and other translations, the request is presented as separate, independent, that is, the son asks for fish before all, without first asking for bread. In the Greek, this request serves as it were a supplement to the preceding, which appears more natural. To satisfy hunger, one needs bread first of all, and fish and other things appear already to be a certain luxury for a hungry man. But even with this, the father who gives his son a serpent instead of fish would appear to be an extreme and repugnant exception. The comparison is based on the similarity of fish, and especially some, to serpents. If the talk were only of spiritual goods, the Savior could well conveniently replace these images with also spiritual objects, for example, saying: if your son asks you for love, or good will, or instruction, would you give him something else? This completely refutes the thought that our requests to God should be limited to only spiritual goods.

Matthew 7:11. Therefore, if you, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give good things to those who ask Him. The verse is connected with the preceding by the connecting particle “therefore,” which shows that it is a continuation of the preceding speech. The particular facts of human life indicated in verse 10 are here as it were generalized, understood in a broader sense. The Savior speaks as it were thus: behold, how it is done among you and what occurs. And this is done among you at a time when you are evil. The word πονηροί in connection with πόνος — work, fatigue, and πενία — poverty, properly indicates affliction, weakness; in the moral sense πονηρός — bad, evil; in both cases opposite to χρηστός. Further, πονηρός means a concrete manifestation relatively to the general, expressed by κακός. The latter more about essence and character, the first — about activity and value of our deeds with regard to others (cf. Matt 5:45; Luke 6:35, — Cremer). It is completely incorrect to express the thought of this verse as Augustine does, according to whom people are called evil here because, being lovers of this world and sinners, when they give some goods, call them good in their sense, though by nature they are not true goods but only temporary, relating to the present unstable life. But why should bread and fish be considered goods only in our own, sinful sense? Does the Savior call these goods untrue or false? The essence of the matter is evidently not in the goods, which are goods in any sense, but in the fact that people are evil. Good gifts — this is opposition to people being evil. People are evil, and yet they know how to give their children good gifts. Some harshness and categoricalness of expression: “if you, being evil,” gave ground for commentators to think that here the Savior wanted to point to the original sin inherent in people. According to one writer, “this saying appears to be the strongest dictum probans in all scriptures in defense of original sin.” But why did the Savior not say: therefore, if all of you, being evil?.. Then His words would with greater probability testify to the presence in people of universal original sin. Therefore one can think that in the expression in question there is no thought of original sin. The teaching of original sin can, of course, be derived from other places of Scripture, but not from this. Here there is simply an ordinary characterization of people who indeed show in their relations more evil and malice than good and good will. The word “know” (οἴδατε) is translated variously: know how to give, are accustomed to give. Some say that “know” or “understand” (in translations) is completely unnecessary and that one can simply translate: you give. Finally, others assert that here are compressed two thoughts: if you, being evil, give gifts to your children; and, if you know how to give good gifts, it makes sense to give what is good, not stones instead of bread and not serpents instead of fish... But such an interpretation appears somewhat artificial and hardly necessary. In opposition to people is shown the heavenly Father, Who, not like people, is good and kind by His very nature. When people turn to Him with requests, then He evidently gives more than people do, “good” to those asking Him. The former “good gifts” (δόματα ἀγαθά) are replaced here, in the second half of the sentence, simply by the word “good” without mention of gifts. But it is clear that the sense is the same. It is remarkable, however, that as in the first case δόματα ἀγαθά stands without the article, so in the second, the simple ἀγαθά also without the article. This would be difficult to expect if by “gifts” or “good” something definite were meant. In Luke (Luke 11:13) we find an attempt to define somewhat more closely and concretely what these “good gifts” are. Instead of “will give good,” in Luke: “how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him.” Meyer thinks that this expression in Luke — a later, more definite embellishment. The reading at this place in Luke varies greatly. In some manuscripts “Holy Spirit,” in others — “good Spirit” (πνεῦμα ἀγαθόν) or “good gift”; Vulgate — spiritum bonum. For us now, of course, there is no need to discuss whether this expression in Luke is authentic or not. One should pay attention to the expressions: “the Father in the heavens” (ὁ πατὴρ ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς), as here, and “the Father from heaven” (ἐν οὐρανοῖς). The first is used when people turn to the heavenly Father with a request, the second — when the heavenly Father Himself bestows some goods from heaven (Luke 11:13).

Matthew 7:12. Therefore, in all things, as you wish that people would do to you, so also do to them, for this is the law and the prophets. (Cf. Luke 6:31.) In the Greek the speech is somewhat peculiar and characteristic of only this language: therefore all, as many as you wish people would do (not “would deal”) to you, so also you do to them, for such (is) the law and the prophets. In the interpretation of this verse much depends on whether we recognize as authentic the “therefore” (οὖν) placed at the beginning of the verse. The reading varies greatly: in many manuscripts this particle is absent. In the Vulgate — ergo. If “therefore” is to be retained, then there will be a close connection between verse 12 and the preceding verses. The given verse will be simply a conclusion from the preceding verse. If “therefore” is omitted, then the thought of the given verse will take on an independent and independent of the preceding speech value, in other words, the connection here will either be entirely unclear, or will not exist at all. Some of the newer exegetes accept the latter. According to Zahn’s opinion, one can find sufficient evidence that in the original text there was no “therefore” and that it is suspicious also elsewhere, despite the ancient and more or less strong testimony in its favor (Matt 6:22; Luke 11:35). Let us try first of all to weigh what thought is obtained by omitting “therefore.” The almost unanimous explanation is that this verse is not placed by Matthew in its proper place. We are presented with whole theories. At Luke 6:30 the expression is parallel to Matt 5:42. Therefore the verse in question of Matthew, in any case, is more appropriate at Matt 5:38-48, where there is talk of how we should treat others. But the expression could be placed also after Matt 7:1-2. Verses 3–5 and 7–11 — “interpolations” from different parts of the Logia. From this it is easy to see what chaos is obtained if one omits οὖν. Other exegetes are not so strict. They do not suspect the verse of being inauthentic, but say that it has no connection with the preceding, and οὖν should be completely struck out and one should allow that in Matt 7:12 there is contained an independent link in the chain of equally having no syntactic connection exhortations (Matt 7:1-5). The connecting thread in these expressions is only κρίνειν. To this thread one should attach also verse 15. Now let us see what thought is obtained if οὖν is recognized as authentic. John Chrysostom accepted οὖν, though he considered it puzzling. The connection which he supposes between verse 12 and the preceding verses, according to Toluck’s opinion, is unnatural, though one cannot understand it otherwise, says Toluck, than as Chrysostom does. How did John Chrysostom understand this connection? “In these brief words (of verse 12) the Savior concluded all and showed that virtue is both brief and easy, and known to all. And He did not simply say: ‘in all things, as you wish,’ but: ‘therefore’ (οὖν) ‘in all things, as you wish’; the word ‘therefore’ did not use without intention, but with special thought. If you wish, He says, to be heard, then besides what I have said to you, do also this.” Which of the indicated opinions should be considered correct? Should οὖν be considered authentic? Of the two suppositions, in our opinion, the second is more probable: οὖν should be accepted as authentic. The words of verse 12 refer not to the nearest verse 11, but to all the preceding speech, which speaks of the relation of people to one another. Similar insertions are found in all other oratorical speeches and serve either for the rest of the orator himself or to enable listeners to gather their thoughts. In many cases frequent repetitions or generalizations or simply a fleeting glance at what was said before is found. The content of the verse or the thought expressed in it was known in antiquity. Gibbon, apparently with the purpose of disparaging the rule proposed by Christ, pointed out that it is found in Socrates four hundred years before the Nativity in the following form: “what others anger you by doing, do not do to them.” Diogenes Laërtius says that Aristotle, when asked how we should conduct ourselves toward friends, answered: just as we wish they conducted themselves toward us. Confucius, when asked whether there is a word expressing all that we should conduct ourselves, answered: is it not reciprocity? “What you do not do to yourself, do not do to others.” Similar expressions are attributed to Buddha, Seneca, Philo, and rabbis. In the Old Testament such an expression is not found. But the ancients, who lived before Christ, never expressed with such power an ideal as He. In Aristotle — about friends, in the words of Jesus Christ — about all people. In other persons who expressed such a thought (including the Hebrew rabbi Hillel), the rule is expressed in a negative form, in Christ — positively. Further, it is rightly noted that Christ, having expressed the commandment and laid its foundation in natural law, does not claim that He wished to come forward with any new discovery and indicates that “in this is the law and the prophets” (cf. Matt 22:40). However, the prophets reached this rule only “barely,” as Mic 6:8. In this commandment is expressed rather the spirit and essence of Old Testament law and the expectations of the prophets, than their own words. The expression does not mean: “what people do to you, do the same to them,” because we often cannot do to others all that they do to us. It should be understood in a more general sense: for love we should repay with love. The general thought is that we should do to people what we wish for ourselves. Further, we cannot always and should not do to others what we wish for ourselves, because, as Alford rightly notes, sometimes what would be convenient for us would be inconvenient for others. “We should think about what pleases us, and then apply this rule to our treatment of others, that is, do to them what we have reason to suppose they wish. This is a very important distinction, and one which is often not paid attention to in the interpretation of this golden rule” (Alford).

Matthew 7:13. Enter through the narrow gate, because the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and many are those who enter through it; Literally: “enter through the narrow gates, because smooth and wide is the path leading to destruction, and many are those who enter through it.” First of all, we note that the speech in verses 13–27 is considered the epilogue of the Sermon on the Mount. When it is compared with the Ten Commandments, it is said that the latter has a “prologue”: “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt” (Exod 20:2). In the Sermon on the Mount, on the contrary, instead of a prologue there is an epilogue. It consists of separate concluding exhortations and warnings. In verses 13–14 there is an exhortation to serious seeking of the right path, in 15–23 — a warning against such bad guides on the path who have the appearance of righteousness but deny its essence; in 24–27 — a concluding exhortation to strengthen faith by deeds. In general, here are presented especially strongly the dangers of hypocrisy and a warning is given against hypocritical teachers in our internal life. At the beginning of the discourse there is an invitation to enter through the narrow gates. First the gates, then the path. If it were otherwise, such a presentation of the matter, according to Meyer and other scholars, would be ascetic—that is, before entering the gates, a long path is required to achieve the proper goal, beyond which eternal life comes. Christ’s thought is entirely different: first the narrow gates, through which one can enter into life, and then the path. To enter these gates, one must obviously accept the teaching that Christ has offered regarding how to conduct oneself toward our neighbors and toward God. Much of what Christ proposed seemed difficult to fulfill, but then it may turn out that the commandments He offered are marked by ease. The emphasis is placed on the choice of the narrow gates, not on the requirement to enter them. Through the narrow gates one must enter because the wide gates and broad path are those through which many enter to their destruction. It should not be understood that the narrow gates refer only to the commandment just set forth—not to do to others what we do not wish for ourselves—as some have interpreted this place. With respect to the second ἡ πύλη, it must be said that it is omitted in some codices and by many Church Fathers. Its authenticity is generally doubtful. Tischendorf places it in brackets. The word was probably inserted by copyists “to complete the parallelism.” The existence of this word would not be subject to doubt if in the Greek instead of ἡ ἀπάγουσα there stood the plural, and instead of “through it” — “through them,” as incorrectly in the Russian translation (“leading,” “through them”).

Matthew 7:14. Because narrow are the gates and constricted is the path that leads into life, and few are those who find it. The correct translation of this passage depends on resolving the question of which word should stand at the beginning of the verse, τί or ὅτι. In many uncial codices and ancient Latin translations τί is read, but Chrysostom and others read ὅτι. If the reading were τί, the meaning would be sentimental: how narrow are the gates and how constricted is the path that leads into life! Theophylact says that τί here is exclamatory. Jerome translates: quam angusta porta! Zahn accepts τί. On the other hand, if it were ὅτι, this verse would contain an almost completely unnecessary proof of the thought expressed in verse 13. “Enter through the narrow gates... because narrow are the gates...” But with the acceptance of ὅτι, one can understand the expression also thus: in the first proposition of verse 13 a commandment is given: “enter through the narrow gates,” and it is proved in the following words, whose meaning is that the wide path beyond the gates leads to destruction. In the following verse 14 the same thought is proved, but from a different side. If many go on the wide path, this alone serves as sufficient reason for Christ’s disciples not to follow the indulged luxury and corrupt crowd; they must go their own way, which Christ has pointed out to them. The logical emphasis stands here, therefore, not on the words wide or narrow path, but on the fact that many either perish or receive life. On these grounds one can consider ὅτι (“because”—as in the Russian translation) more probable.

Matthew 7:15. Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but within are ravenous wolves. For the word “beware” the Greek verb is the same as in Matt 6:1. Whom should one understand here by false prophets? Some understand simply guides who are encountered on the wide path that Christ pointed out earlier. As soon as the Savior spoke of a path, He immediately had the thought of people who stand on the path and show it. On the false path stand false guides who deceive the people, or rather way-guides—they must be guarded against. These are the false prophets. Others understand the Pharisees, who were teachers and corrupted the people. Finally, still others—“heretics,” or false messiahs, false Christian teachers, of whom there were so many in the early apostolic Church, as Christ Himself and the apostles testify. One can easily see that Christ speaks here of false prophets in a completely general sense, not specifically identifying individual persons or separate classes of people. The word “false prophets” itself can be understood not in the sense that here are understood people endowed with the gift of prophecy, even if false, but generally those speaking falsehood and deceiving. These false prophets come to believers in sheep’s clothing. The latter, in distinction from ἱμάτιον, means a whole or complete garment. German scholars cannot understand how wolves could dress in sheep’s clothing. “Wolves,” says Zahn, “do not wear any clothing so as not to be recognized, even when a sheep is their prey. On the other hand, sheep’s clothing, which is worn by people of lower classes and shepherds, is not a sign of their sheep-like thinking.” Of course, a real wolf, an animal, never dresses in or could put on sheep’s clothing. But do we not speak of animals as if they do actions similar to human ones? This is known in literature. On the basis of his reflections, Zahn concludes that sheep’s clothing should be understood here as the rough prophetic haircloth that false prophets wore (Zech 13:4). Of course, one can. But the heart of the matter is not in this. The expressions “wolves” and “sheep’s clothing” are obviously figurative, and here images very familiar in Hebrew literature are employed. The people of Israel were represented under the image of a sheep pen (Ps 77:52). Among other predatory animals (Jer 5:6) is the wolf (Zeph 3:3; Ezek 22:27; Matt 10:16; John 10:12; Acts 20:29), and to them belong false prophets as well (Ezek 22:28; Mic 3:9-11). Thus according to the words of Zahn himself. In this way, false prophets were known in antiquity from the Old Testament Scripture. According to Saint John Chrysostom, the Savior here understands by false prophets not heretics, but those who, leading a dissolute life, cover themselves with the mask of virtue, those commonly called deceivers. The expression is found in the writings of Hermas. He says: “Judge by the deeds and life the man who says of himself that he has received inspiration from God” (Hermes, Pastor, commandment XI, p. 43, 16; the translation is not entirely accurate; see: δοκίμαζε οὖν ἀπὸ τῶν ἔργων καὶ τῆς ζωῆς τὸν ἄνθρωπον τὸν λέγοντα ἑαυτὸν πνευματοφόρον εἶναι. – Editor’s note).

Matthew 7:16. By their fruits you will know them. Do they gather grapes from thorn bushes, or figs from thistles? Great confusion even among ancient interpreters was caused here by the word “fruits”—what exactly should be understood by it? Jerome interpreted the word thus: you will know false prophets by their teachings. Such was the opinion held by many Western theologians, including recent ones. Christ’s saying became the weapon—the anchor of the Inquisition, which persecuted sectarians for their teaching. But an important difficulty presented itself: some sectarians, despite their heresy, distinguished themselves by great purity of life. How was this to be explained? They resorted to a miserable sophistry, that at this time the devil entered into the sectarians and forced them to live a good life. But Christ’s discourse here is so simple and intelligible that one need only look at the matter directly to understand its meaning. People are divided into good and evil. Good people bring forth good fruits. Included in these fruits is everything good in people, whether it be teaching, virtuous life, or in general any activity beneficial to people. The good fruits of the spirit are so many that they cannot even be counted, just as the different good fruits that grow on various good trees. As for the plants themselves taken here as examples, under ἄκανθαι here are understood generally spiny plants, and especially thorn bushes, which grow in abundance in Palestine. By outward appearance it somewhat resembles grapes, and perhaps for this reason it is said: “Do they gather grapes from thorn bushes”? Under τρίβολος is understood a spiny plant known as thistle or burdock. From this plant, of course, figs are never gathered. The latter, although useful medicinally, is always considered a weed, harmful to grain plants.

Matthew 7:17. So every good tree brings forth good fruits, but a bad tree brings forth bad fruits. Comparisons taken from the actual life of nature. We divide trees into good and bad, not reasoning, or reasoning little about how well such a division corresponds to reality itself. For example, one can say of a wild apple tree that it brings forth bad apples, and of a grafted one, that good fruits appear on it. But there are different kinds of trees which, however useful medicinally, are not considered good trees bearing good fruits. The Savior makes the comparison in this general sense, paying no attention to how well it corresponds to scientific reality.

Matthew 7:18. A good tree cannot bring forth bad fruits, nor can a bad tree bring forth good fruits. To explain the same thought four verses are used, in which the subject is examined from different angles, almost to the point of tautology. But according to Chrysostom, if the Savior speaks of one and the same thing twice, there is no tautology here. “Lest someone say that a bad tree, though it brings forth bad fruits, might also bring forth good ones, and with such double fruiting it would be difficult to make a distinction. In refutation of this the Savior says that this does not happen, that it brings forth only bad fruits and can never produce good ones, and vice versa. What, is it possible that a good person cannot become bad and conversely? Human life is filled with many such examples. But Christ does not say that it is impossible for a bad person to change or for a good one to fall, but that a person cannot bring forth good fruit while living badly.” According to Augustine, by tree here is understood the human soul. By fruit—the deeds of a person, because an evil person cannot do good and a good one cannot do evil. Consequently, if an evil person wishes to do good, he must first become good.

Matthew 7:19. Every tree that does not bring forth good fruit is cut down and cast into the fire. And here Christ speaks only in a general sense. Of course, not every tree suffers such a fate. Many trees are preserved intact despite bearing no fruit. But ordinarily it happens otherwise.

Matthew 7:20. Therefore by their fruits you will know them. Ἐπιγνώσεσθε is stronger than simple γνώσεσθε. You will know them fully, completely. Cf. 1 Cor 13:12. According to some—a solemn repetition of what was said before to affirm the thought expressed. But others see it differently. They cite the insertion of Matt 20:1-15 to explain Matt 19:30, also the insertion of parables of Matt 24:43-25:12 to explain Matt 24:42. In Matt 25:13 Matthew also repeats the verse from which he began (Matt 24:42). Matthew probably found, in the Sayings, after the saying about false prophets (verse 15), the words of verse 16: ἀπὸ τῶν καρπῶν αὐτῶν ἐπιγνώσεσθε αὐτούς—by their fruits you will know them, and this prompted him to insert “from somewhere” from the Sayings the saying about trees and fruits, which he concludes by repeating the words that inspired this saying. But the matter is so dark that it is difficult to say how it was in reality. One can recognize what the true character of people is in various ways: by the friends they choose, by the words they speak, by their occupations, way of life and so forth. But the best and most reliable testimony about a person is the fruits he brings forth. The fruits brought forth by evil people sometimes seem even good. But in reality they are always evil and harmful.

Matthew 7:21. Not everyone who says to Me: “Lord! Lord!” will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in Heaven. The meaning of this passage is very well explained by Clement of Rome in his Second Epistle to the Corinthians: “Therefore let us not merely call Him Lord, because that will not save us. Because He says: not everyone who says to Me: Lord! Lord! will be saved, but he who does righteousness (οὐ πᾶς ὁ λέγων μοι Κύριε Κύριε, σωθήσεται ἀλλ´ ὁ ποιῶν τὴν δικαιοσύνην). Therefore, brothers, let us acknowledge Him in works of love toward one another, not committing adultery, not slandering others, nor envying, but being self-controlled, merciful, and good.” Here, as one can see, the words taken from Matthew are somewhat altered. The expression “not everyone” does not mean “no one,” as it was sometimes explained. That is, it means that many people will be found who, calling upon the name of the Lord, will be saved. But not all who merely do this will be saved. The passage generally indicates false invoking of the name of the Lord, feigned piety. People are meant, according to Zahn, who can bring nothing else as proof of their righteousness except that they have invoked the name of the Lord. If there is no question of enemies of the Savior and whether they will be saved, then the latter is understood of itself. It should be noted that from this verse until the end of the discourse the Savior “imperceptibly” appears as the future Judge of people (Zahn, Alford). Yet He here speaks not of His own will, but of the will of His heavenly Father. Alford considers this important and invaluable, instructive at the very beginning of His ministry. In rabbinical writings one finds many parallels to this passage.

Matthew 7:22. Many will say to Me on that day: Lord! Lord! Did we not prophesy in Your name? And in Your name cast out demons? And in Your name do many mighty deeds? The aorists placed in this verse indicate completed actions that have left no trace behind them. By the words “on that day” (in the Greek text with the article), the great judgment day is meant, before which all other days appear completely insignificant (Bengel). In the Hebrew language this expression corresponds to “be yom hagu,” often found in the Old Testament Scripture. People at the time of the judgment day, when the question is about entering the Kingdom of Heaven, will approach Jesus Christ and say to Him the same words as were previously mentioned, that is, the doubled Κύριε Κύριε. Since it will seem that He is slow to recognize them as His disciples, they will present Him with proofs of their faith in Him, point to their prophecies, deeds and miracles which, as they will say, were accomplished “in His name.” In the Greek there is here the dative of instrument, in distinction from ἐν τῷ σῷ ὀνόματι. That is, they used Christ’s name as an instrument for performing their miracles. By the word “prophesied” here is meant simple preaching, not prophecy in the proper sense, though the latter is not completely excluded. Toluck raises the question of how false prophets were able to accomplish such extraordinary deeds. Many exegetes have drawn a distinction here between devilish and divine miracles, but this does not apply here. The false prophets mentioned did not consciously call for the devil’s help here; they wished to serve Christ’s cause, but they approached Him for this with complete self-conceit and expectation of reward from Him, like those depicted by Luke (Luke 13:26). A much more important question, which one can raise, is this: can miracles be performed when faith exists so unclean and clouded? To this one can answer that incantations and miracles in Christ’s name were produced from the first century of Christianity. Miracles by appearance, kind and character of their performance are various. Many miracles seem to be only miracles, are accomplished through deceit and represent only fraud, though the people believe in them. Miracle-workers are especially numerous in eras of the development of superstition.

Matthew 7:23. Then I will tell them plainly: I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness. Some translate: “and I will explain to them: since I never knew you, depart from Me all who practice lawlessness.” Thus the word ὅτι is related to the word “depart” (ἀποχωρεῖτε). Others so: “and then I will explain to them: depart from Me all who practice lawlessness, because I never knew you.” Meyer believes that the meaning obtained from this last translation is correct. The words are borrowed from Ps 6:9: “depart from Me all who practice lawlessness,” with a slight difference from the Septuagint translation (ἀποχωρεῖτε instead of ἀπόστητε). The word “lawlessness” presupposes either ignorance of the law or a conscious, contemptuous attitude toward it. Often encountered in the Septuagint, which translates it by the Hebrew “awen,” meaning properly nullity, vanity, and then falsehood, deception. The Greek ἀνομία better than the Hebrew expresses the thought that these people, invoking Christ’s name, performing miracles in His name, prophesying and casting out demons, committed transgressions against the moral law. The word can have a meaning similar to ἀδικία—injustice or sin. Ὁμολογέω was chosen, as it seems, to better express the contrast between the words of these wonder-workers and the declaration of the Judge. It means in a figurative sense to acknowledge, also to speak something openly, not to keep silent, to declare.

Matthew 7:24. Therefore, everyone who hears these words of Mine and does them will be likened to a wise man who built his house on rock; (Cf. Luke 6:47.) Literally: “therefore everyone who (anyone) hears these words and does them will be likened to a wise man,” and so forth. There is of course no difference in meaning. However, in the Greek the reading “will be likened” is once approved (ὁμοιωθήσεται). “Everyone who”—a form characteristic of the New Testament, instead of ὅς. One can hardly suppose that ὅς here would mean identification, while ὅστις would mean classification (Alford). “These words” have considerable importance in explaining the Sermon on the Mount, because they clearly refer to all that was said before by Christ, from which one concludes that the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew’s account is not a collection of fragments from various places, but was spoken entirely at one time. To enter the Kingdom of Heaven requires not only hearing the words of Christ, but also practical fulfillment of them in life. Whoever not only hears the words of Christ but fulfills them is likened to a wise man, or properly speaking, a reflecting person, who built his house on rock (generally on some firm place). Zahn notes that, as a preacher of the word, Christ gave His true listeners the first impetus to establish the Kingdom of God. Now He evaluates His work as Judge and defends it so that it may come through judgment unharmed and vindicated. Here the requirement is for deed, not as, for example, with Luke (Luke 8:4-18).

Matthew 7:25. And rain fell, and floods came, and winds blew and beat against that house, and it did not fall, because it had been founded on rock. (Cf. Luke 6:48.) The Greek word ἡ βροχ means rain. A later and rare word. Of course, all the discourse here is not literal, but metaphorical; under these images are understood the fates of people and misfortunes, such as slander, attacks, sorrows, death, the loss of loved ones, insults from others, and any other evil whatever that occurs in the present life (Saint John Chrysostom).

Matthew 7:26. And everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not do them will be likened to a foolish man who built his house on sand; (Cf. Luke 6:49.) Opposite explanation of the same truth. The construction of the verse is completely identical to the previous one (24), with only the replacement of positive affirmations by negative ones.

Matthew 7:27. And rain fell, and floods came, and winds blew and beat against that house; and it fell, and great was its fall. (Cf. Luke 6:49.) Again both the construction and meaning of this verse are the same as in verse 25. This verse concludes the Sermon on the Mount.

Matthew 7:28. And when Jesus had finished these sayings, the multitude was amazed at His teaching, In this verse are set forth historical details about what impression the discourse of Christ made on the people. When He had finished His sermon, the people were amazed at His teaching. Literally: “and it came to pass when He finished” and so forth. Instead of “was amazed” it would be better to translate: was struck, was amazed, as at a wonder. In the Greek it is stronger than in Russian.

Matthew 7:29. for He taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes and Pharisees. The reason is indicated why the people “were amazed.” For simple listeners surrounding Christ, the sharp difference between His speech and the speeches of the scribes and Pharisees was very noticeable. They taught without having the spiritual power that Christ possessed. The evangelists’s words can be verified even now. Reading the Talmud, where the teaching of the scribes and Pharisees of that time is set forth, we are struck by the poverty of its contents and the complete absence of the spirit of life. In not a single Talmudic treatise can one find such “power of spirit” as is characteristic of all the sayings of the Savior’s Sermon on the Mount. This is now recognized by all exegetes.