“The last will be the first” is a well-known phrase, there is a second part, it is less inspiring.
There are many such metamorphoses in life: when the neighboring cash desk opens, Az became I. These are all our earthly things, more or less pleasant.
But what she first spoke about was our salvation.
And he went through the cities and villages, teaching and guiding the way to Jerusalem. Someone said to Him: Lord! Are there few who are saved? He said to them: Strive to enter through the narrow gate, for I tell you that many will seek to enter and will not be able. When the owner of the house gets up and shuts the door, then you, standing outside, will begin to knock on the door and say: Lord! God! open to us; but He will answer you, I do not know where you are from. Then you will begin to say: We ate and drank before You, and You taught in our streets. But He will say, I say to you, I do not know where you are from; depart from Me, all workers of iniquity. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth when you see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, and yourself being cast out. And they shall come from the east and the west, and the north and the south, and shall lie down in the kingdom of God. And behold, there are the last who will be the first, and there are the first who will be the last. (Luke 13:22-30)
Will only a few be saved? - The man figured it out! This was at odds with his idea.
When people hear the teaching of Christ, begin to read the Bible, there is a conflict with their idea. It's good to read the Bible.
The main thing is that God knows you! So that external well-being, this wrapper, candy wrapper, does not deceive us. How often it is heard: “I live well, I don’t offend anyone, I don’t kill, I try to do good.”
Okay, but does God know you? - Yes, of course he knows, but how whom?
Who thinks he is better than the apostle Paul? There are no such? But here is what Paul wrote to Titus: “...we too were once foolish, disobedient and deceived. We were slaves to passions and pleasures of every kind. We spent our lives in malice and envy. We were despicable, we were hated by others, and we hated each other."
And finally, here it is, that same phrase (v. 30): And the one who is the last in life now will be the first in the Kingdom of God, and the one who is the first now will be the last.
What is it about? Of course, about the system of values: this world has its own, and God has His own!
This world is full of ambition!
God's values: righteousness, which is manifested in honesty, peace, love, fidelity, respect, help. How often do we humans give up all this in order to achieve earthly superiority!
Jesus said to his disciples: Truly, I say to you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven; And again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. When His disciples heard this, they were very astonished and said, Who then can be saved? And Jesus looked up and said to them: With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible. Then Peter, answering, said to Him, Behold, we have left everything and followed Thee; what will happen to us? Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to you that you who have followed Me are in everlasting life, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you will also sit on twelve thrones to judge the twelve tribes of Israel. And whoever leaves houses, or brothers, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for the sake of my name, will receive an hundredfold and inherit eternal life. Many will be the first last, and the last first. (Matthew 19:23-30)
Even the disciples were confused. Because wealth allows you not to depend on others
Well done Peter - expressed what was on everyone's mind: How does God appreciate what I did?! By the way: it is always useful to tell God about your feelings.
How supported the students felt! You can see the heart of God: He highly values faith and sacrifice!
And this statement works. All this has come true in their lives. In mine too. Although some of my relatives, when I became a student and a missionary, said: “I ruined my life!”
Verse 30 does not end the explanation, Jesus continues:
For the kingdom of heaven is like a master of a house who went out early in the morning to hire laborers into his vineyard, and having agreed with the laborers for a denarius a day, sent them into his vineyard; going out about the third hour, he saw others standing idle in the marketplace, and he said to them, “You also go into my vineyard, and whatever is right I will give you.” They went. Going out again about the sixth and ninth hours, he did the same. Finally, going out about the eleventh hour, he found others standing idle, and he said to them: Why are you standing idle here all day? They tell him: no one hired us. He says to them: Go, you also into my vineyard, and whatever follows, you will receive. When evening came, the lord of the vineyard said to his steward, Call the laborers and pay them their wages, beginning from the last to the first. And those who came about the eleventh hour received a denarius each. Those who came first thought that they would receive more, but they also received a denarius each; and, having received it, they began to grumble against the owner of the house and said: these last worked one hour, and you made them equal to us, who endured the burden of the day and the heat. He answered one of them: friend! I don't offend you; Was it not for a denarius that you agreed with me? take yours and go; I want to give this last then same, as to you; Am I not in my own power to do what I want? Or is your eye envious because I am kind? So the last will be first, and the first last, for many are called, but few are chosen. (Matthew 20:1-16)
A small test: what is the Kingdom of Heaven like in this parable? - A man who owns a vineyard.
This parable is already for believers, people serving God.
The general meaning of the parable:
God is the Chief, He is the master, and that He is not only fair, but more importantly, merciful.
God needs workers, there is work, calling at different times, everyone will have the same pay.
Some believers may develop a negative attitude towards God (and towards other workers).
And it can be viewed from several angles:
- Israeli spiritual leaders (called long ago) and disciples of Christ (called the last);
- Believers according to the Old Testament and according to the New Testament (Law and Mercy);
- All believers under the New Testament, called at different times.
Okay, so how does this parable apply to us?
God has called us all at different times. But he put the same reward - eternal life in Heaven.
Why can we have a negative attitude towards God and other workers? When we begin to compare ourselves with others: it is easier for him, he is richer.
Has there been heat in your life? God knows about it, and when he called you he knew. And you knew he would.
Soon our children will lead the church. How will we react to this? Will we constantly evaluate from the height of our experience, correct?
Or can, seeing how others zealously set to work, calm down?
What motivates you to serve God? The important thing is that although the owner negotiated the payment, the mere fact that he gave them work is a mercy on his part!
How did these first ones feel when they were hired in the morning? They were happy, they have a job!
How did you feel when you were called? Just think: we could be useless to God!
Do you feel like you're the last one? - You have every chance to become the first! God loves you.
Do you feel like you're number one? - Remember the mercy of God to you and do not slow down!
Do you feel like you're in the middle of nowhere? - Well, you know what to do.
So let's sum it up:
God judges us by His standards and standards - get to know them quickly and live by them.
Guard your heart from a selfish attitude towards God. He is just, but most importantly, He is merciful!
And when you stand before Him, let Him meet you with the words: Ah, hello! I know I know! Finally! And let him hug you tightly and seat you at the table!
1–16. The Parable of the Laborers in the Vineyard. - 17-19. An Announcement of Suffering. – 20–28. The request of the mother of the sons of Zebedee. - 29-34. Healing of two blind men.
. For the kingdom of heaven is like a master of a house who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard.
The adverb γάρ (“for”) puts the further parable of the Savior in the closest connection with His previous speech, i.e. with . But since this last verse is connected with Matt. 19particle δέ and since the connection (expressed through καί, δέ, τότε ) can be traced not only to the 27th verse of the 19th chapter, but even to the 16th verse of the same chapter (although it is not everywhere expressed by the indicated adverbs and particles), it is clear that the story of the evangelist before Matt. 20 is something integral, coherent, and therefore must be considered in this particular form. The question of Peter () in terms of its internal content has an obvious relation to the story of a rich young man and is externally connected to the story with the adverb “then”. The train of thought is this: the rich young man refused to follow Christ because he did not want to leave his earthly possessions. Peter on this occasion tells Jesus Christ that the disciples left everything, and asks: "what will happen to us?" In answer to this question, Jesus Christ indicates what reward the disciples will receive, and not only they, but also "anyone who leaves home" etc. (). the apostles will "to judge the twelve tribes of Israel"(), and in addition, all who followed Christ will receive “a hundredfold and inherit eternal life”(). The particle "same" (δέ) in Matt. 19 expresses the opposite of the thought expressed in . It does not follow from the words of verse 29 that everyone will have the same reward. On the contrary (δέ), many firsts will be last, and the last ones will be first. This idea is proved (γάρ - ) by a further parable, which, judging by the course of thought, should, firstly, clarify who exactly is meant by the first and last, and, secondly, why in the relations of the Kingdom of Heaven an order should prevail that is completely different from to the one that exists in earthly relations.
Under the vineyard one should understand the Kingdom of Heaven, and under the owner of the vineyard - God. Origen under the vineyard understood the Church of God, and the market and places outside the vineyard ( τὰ ἔξω τοῦ ἀμπελῶνος ) is what is outside the church ( τὰ ἔξω τῆς Ἐκκλησίας ). Chrysostom understood the vineyard to be "the commandments and commandments of God."
. and having agreed with the laborers for a denarius a day, he sent them into his vineyard;
With our money, a denarius was equal to 20-25 kopecks (corresponding to the cost of 4-5 g of silver. - Note. ed.).
. going out about the third hour, he saw others standing idle in the marketplace,
. And he said to them, Go you also into my vineyard, and whatever is right I will give you. They went.
In the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, the Jewish account of time is adopted. There is no trace of the division of day and night into hours in the added captive Old Testament writings. There were only the main divisions of the day, which were distinguished by a primitive character - evening, morning, noon (cf.). Other designations for the time of the day were “heat of the day” (), σταθερὸν ἧμαρ (- “full day”), “coolness of the day” (). The times of the night were sometimes distinguished (except for the division into guards) by the expressions ὀψέ (evening), μεσονύκτιον (midnight), ἀλεκτροφωνία (rooster crow) and πρωΐ (dawn). In the Babylonian Talmud (Avoda Zara, sheets 3, 6 et seq.), there is a distribution of the day into four parts of three hours each, which served to distribute the time of prayer (at the third, sixth and ninth hours of the day; there is also an indication of this). The division into hours was borrowed by both the Jews and the Greeks (Herodotus, "History", II, 109) from Babylonia. The Aramaic word hour "shaa" in the Old Testament is found only in the prophet Daniel (etc.). In the New Testament, counting by the hour is already common. The twelve hours of the day were counted from sunrise to sunset, and therefore the 6th corresponds to noon, and at the 11th hour the day ended (verse 6). Depending on the time of year, hours varied in duration from 59 to 70 minutes.
Thus, the third hour is equal to our ninth in the morning.
. Going out again about the sixth and ninth hours, he did the same.
In our opinion, around the twelfth and third hours of the day.
. Finally, going out about the eleventh hour, he found others standing idle, and he said to them: Why are you standing idle here all day?
About 11 o'clock - in our opinion, about 5 o'clock in the afternoon.
. They tell him: no one hired us. He says to them: Go, you also into my vineyard, and whatever follows, you will receive.
. When evening came, the lord of the vineyard said to his steward, Call the laborers and pay them their wages, beginning from the last to the first.
. And those who came about the eleventh hour received a denarius each.
. Those who came first thought that they would receive more, but they also received a denarius each;
. and, having received, they began to grumble at the owner of the house
. and they said: these last worked one hour, and you made them equal to us, who endured the burden of the day and the heat.
To compare the former with the latter and vice versa, to explain and prove that this happens and can be, even if not always, and that equal pay depends simply on the very kindness and goodness of the Supreme Household – this is the main and essential idea of the parable. And it must be admitted that it is precisely this idea that Christ fully explained and proved. When interpreting the parable, as well as many other sayings of Christ, one should generally avoid, if possible, abstractions. More concretely understood, the parable means that the former should not be proud of their primacy, exalted before others, because there may be such cases in human life that clearly show that the former are completely compared with the latter and the latter are even given priority. This should have been instructive for the apostles, who reasoned: "what will happen to us?"(). Christ says something like this: you ask who is greater and what will happen to you. You, who followed Me, will have a lot (), but do not accept this in the full and unconditional sense, do not think that it should always be like this, it will certainly be. maybe (but not it must be, it certainly happens or will happen) and this is what (the parable of the workers). The conclusion that the disciples who listened to Christ had to draw from this is thus perfectly clear and understandable. Here no command is given to be sure to compare with the latter, no advice is offered, but the principle is explained, guided by which laborers in Christ's vineyard should do their work.
. He answered one of them: friend! I don't offend you; Was it not for a denarius that you agreed with me?
. take yours and go; but I want to give this latter the same as I give you;
. Am I not in my own power to do what I want? Or is your eye envious because I am kind?
. So the last will be first, and the first last, for many are called, but few are chosen.
The words spoken in , here (verse 16) are repeated, and this clearly shows that it is precisely in them that the purpose, main idea and moralizing of the parable lies. The meaning of the expression is not that the last must always be the first and vice versa, but that this may be the case under certain, almost exceptional circumstances. This is indicated by the οὕτως used at the beginning of the verse (“so”), which can here mean: “here, in such or similar cases (but not always)”. To explain verse 16, they find a parallel in the 8th chapter of the Second Epistle of the Apostle John and think that it “gives the key” to explaining the parable, with which one can agree. Jerome and others put the verse and the whole parable in connection with the parable of the prodigal son, where the eldest son hates the younger one, does not want to accept his penitent and accuses his father of injustice. The last words of the 16th verse: "for many are called, but few are chosen", should be recognized as a later insert, both on the basis of the testimony of the best and most authoritative manuscripts, and for internal considerations. These words are probably borrowed and transferred here from Mt. 22and greatly obscure the meaning of the whole parable.
. And going up to Jerusalem, Jesus took the twelve disciples alone on the way, and said to them:
Matthew's words are not connected by any adverbs with the previous one, with the exception of the union "and" (καί). It can even be assumed that here the gap in the presentation of events that took place shortly before the last Easter (the 4th year of the public ministry of Jesus Christ), is only partially filled. The disciples were recalled, obviously, because the content of the Savior's speech required secrecy, or, as Evfimy Zigavin thinks, "because it was not necessary to tell this to many, so that they would not be offended."
. behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be delivered up to the chief priests and scribes, and they will condemn him to death;
. and hand him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and beaten and crucified; and rise on the third day.
By "pagans" is meant the Romans.
. Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came to Him with her sons, bowing down and asking something of Him.
In the Gospel of Mark, the disciples named by name turn to Christ with a request: James and John, the sons of Zebedee. It is perfectly clear that in the historical narrative it was possible to speak of the mother together with her sons, and of the sons alone, without mentioning the mother for the sake of brevity. To clarify the reasons for the request, one should first of all pay attention to the increase in (which other weather forecasters do not have), which reports that the disciples did not understand the words of Christ about His sufferings. But they could pay special attention to the word "resurrect" and somewhat understand it, although in a wrong sense.
The question of what the mother of James and John was called by name is rather difficult. In those places of the Gospel where the mother of the sons of Zebedee () is mentioned, she is nowhere called Salome, and where Salome () is mentioned, she is nowhere called the mother of the sons of Zebedee. It is only mainly on the basis of a comparison of testimony that they come to the conclusion that Salome was the mother of the sons of Zebedee. This is easy to see from the following. At the cross were women who looked from a distance at the crucifixion: - “Among them were Mary Magdalene and Mary, the mother of James and Josiah, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.”; – “There were also women who looked from afar: between them was Mary Magdalene, and Mary, the mother of James the Less and Josiah, and Salome”.
From here it is clear that "mother of the sons of Zebedee" is mentioned in Matthew where Mark speaks of Salome. The Evangelist John goes on to say that "at the cross of Jesus stood His Mother and His Mother's sister, Mary Cleopova, and Mary Magdalene". This passage can be read in two ways, namely:
1. His mother (Christ),
2. and the sister of His Mother, Maria Kleopova,
3. and Mary Magdalene;
1. His mother,
2. and the sister of his mother,
3. Maria Kleopova,
4. and Mary Magdalene.
According to the first reading, therefore, only three women stood at the cross, according to the second - four. The first reading is refuted on the grounds that if Maria Kleopova were the sister of the Mother of God, then the two sisters would be called by the same name, which is highly unlikely. Further, in the Gospel of John, two groups of women are indicated, as it were, and the names of the first and second, and then the third and fourth are connected by the union "and":
1st group: His mother and his mother's sister,
2nd group: Maria Kleopova and Mary Magdalene.
Thus, here, too, under "his mother's sister" it is possible to see Salome or the mother of the sons of Zebedee. Such an identification, for various reasons, cannot, of course, be considered completely undoubted. But he cannot be denied some probability. If, on the one hand, Salome was the mother of the sons of Zebedee, and on the other hand, the sister of Mary, the Mother of Jesus, then James and John of Zebedee were cousins of Christ. Salome was among the women who accompanied Jesus Christ, who followed Him in Galilee and served Him (; ).
In all likelihood, the idea to ask Jesus Christ arose from the apostles themselves, and they asked their mother to convey the request to Jesus Christ. In Mark, the request of the disciples is expressed in such a form that was decent only when addressing the king and in some cases was even pronounced and offered by the kings themselves (cf.;). Based on Matthew's testimony, it can be concluded that Salome, with all due respect to Jesus Christ, did not have sufficient information about the nature and purpose of His ministry. She approached Jesus Christ with her sons, bowed to Him and asked for something (τι). She no doubt spoke, but her words were so vague and vague that the Savior had to ask what exactly she wanted.
. He said to her: what do you want? She says to him: Tell these two my sons to sit with you, one on your right hand and the other on your left in your kingdom.
Wed —Christ addresses the disciples with the question of what they want. Instead of "tell" Mark has a more categorical "give" (δός ). Instead of "in your kingdom" - "in your glory." Other differences in the speech of the evangelists are due to the fact that the request is put into the mouth of different petitioners. Salome asked that in His future Kingdom the Savior would seat her sons: one on His right, and the other on His left. The practices referred to here have not disappeared to this day. Places on the right and on the left hand, i.e. in the very vicinity of some important person, are still considered especially honorable. It was the same with the ancient pagan peoples and the Jews. The places closest to the royal throne were the most honorable. This is mentioned in the Bible (; ). Flavius Josephus (“Antiquities of the Jews”, VI, 11, 9) recounts the well-known biblical story about the flight of David, when Saul, on the feast of the New Moon, having cleansed himself according to custom, lay down at the table, and his son Jonathan sat on his right side, and Abner - on the left. The meaning of the request of the mother of the sons of Zebedee was, therefore, that Christ give her sons the main, most honorable places in the Kingdom that He would establish.
. Jesus answered, You don't know what you are asking. Can you drink the cup that I will drink, or be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized? They say to him: we can.
The Savior points out that the disciples do not know or understand what is His true glory and His true dominion and kingdom. This is the glory, the dominion and the kingdom of the Servant of Jehovah, who gives Himself as a sacrifice for the redemption of mankind. This is well expressed by Chrysostom, paraphrasing the speech of the Savior: "You remind Me of honor and crowns, and I speak of the deeds and labors that are set before you." In essence, in the words of the mother of the sons of Zebedee and themselves, there was a request for admission to the sufferings that were coming to Christ and about which He had already spoken earlier. Therefore, the real meaning of the request was terrible, but the disciples did not suspect it. The Savior, in full agreement with the message just given, or rather the teaching (verses 18-19), exposes its true meaning. He points to the cup that He was to drink (), which the Psalmist () calls the diseases of death, the torments of hell, oppression and sorrow (Jerome points to these texts in his interpretation of the 22nd verse). The Savior does not say that the disciples' request was based on the disciples' misconception of the nature of His spiritual kingdom, nor does He predict here that He would be crucified among two thieves. He only says that suffering, self-sacrifice, and death do not and cannot be the path to worldly dominion. He speaks only of the cup, without adding, however, that it will be the cup of suffering. It is very interesting that the word "chalice" was used in the Old Testament writings in two senses: to denote both happiness () and disasters (; ; ). But it is doubtful whether the disciples understood the words of Christ in the first sense. The most likely assumption is that their understanding was, so to speak, something in between (cf.). They did not understand the full depth of the meaning of the word "chalice" with everything that was implied here, but, on the other hand, they did not represent the case in such a way that there would be only suffering and nothing more. They could present the matter as follows: in order to acquire external, worldly dominion, they must first drink the cup of suffering, which Christ Himself was to drink. But if Christ Himself will drink it, then why shouldn't they also take part in this? It should not and will not exceed their strength. And so, to the question of Christ, the disciples boldly answer: we can. “In the heat of zeal, they immediately expressed their consent, not knowing what they said, but hoping to hear consent to their request” (St. John Chrysostom).
. And he says to them: You will drink My cup, and with the baptism with which I am baptized you will be baptized, but to let me sit on my right hand and on my left is not up to me, but to whom it has been prepared by my Father.
This verse has always been considered one of the most difficult to interpret, and even gave rise to some heretics (Arians) to falsely assert that the Son of God is not equal to God the Father. The opinion of the Arians was rejected by all the fathers of the church as unfounded and heretical, because from other places in the New Testament (; ; , 10, etc.) it is clear that Christ everywhere appropriates to Himself an authority equal to that of God the Father.
For a correct interpretation of the sayings of the Savior set forth in the verse under consideration, two very important circumstances should be noted. First, if the disciples and their mother in verse 21 ask Christ for the first places in His Kingdom or in glory, then in the speech of the Savior, starting from the 23rd verse and ending with the 28th (and in Luke in the section set by in another connection, which is sometimes given here as a parallel), there is not the slightest mention of either the Kingdom or the glory. Coming into the world, the Messiah appeared as the suffering Servant of Jehovah, the Redeemer of mankind. From this it is clear that to sit on the right and on the left side of Christ does not mean, first of all, to participate in His glory, but indicates a preliminary approach to Him in His sufferings, self-denial and cross-bearing. Only then will people have the opportunity to enter into His glory. By the will and advice of God, there are always people who take part in the sufferings of Christ and thus become especially close to Him, as if they sit on His right and left sides. Secondly, it should be noted that the two evangelists, Matthew and Mark, use two different expressions here: "for whom it has been prepared by my Father"(Matthew) and simply: "to whom it is destined"(Mark). Both of these expressions are precise and powerful and contain one and the same idea - about the providential significance of suffering in the earthly life of mankind.
. Hearing this, the other ten disciples were indignant with the two brothers.
The reason for the indignation of the ten disciples was the request of James and John, which tended to belittle the other apostles. The emergence of such phenomena shows that the disciples of Christ, even in His presence, were not always distinguished by love for each other and brotherly unity. But in the present case, it was not from malice, but rather, apparently, from simplicity, underdevelopment, and insufficient assimilation of the teachings of Christ. The struggle for the first places in the new Kingdom, localism, was also repeated at the Last Supper.
. But Jesus, having called them, said: You know that the princes of the nations rule over them, and the nobles rule over them;
Luke has a completely different connection. Mark's speech is stronger than Matthew's. Instead of the more unambiguous "princes of nations" ( ἄρχοντες τῶν ἐθνῶν ) at Mark οἱ δοκοῦντες ἄρχειν τῶν ἐθνῶν , i.e. "those who think that they rule over the peoples, imaginary rulers."
. but let it not be so among you: but whoever wants to be great among you, let him be your servant;
(Compare ; ). The opposite of what is said in the previous verse. This is the case with the “peoples”, but with you it should be completely different. The words of the Savior are highly instructive not only for the spiritual, but also for all rulers and bosses, who usually want to have all the fullness of power, not at all thinking that true (and not imaginary) Christian power is based only on services rendered to people, or in their service, and, moreover, without any thought of any external authority that comes of itself.
. and whoever wants to be first among you, let him be your slave;
The thought is the same as in verse 26.
. for the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.
The highest and understandable example and model for all those familiar with the life of Christ is offered. Both Angels and people served Christ (; ; ; ), and He demanded and requires Himself this service and even an account in it (). But no one will say that the teaching revealed in the analyzed verse is contrary to His own teaching and behavior or does not correspond to reality. On the contrary, it seems that the indicated passages from the Gospels not only do not contradict, but only further emphasize the idea that the Son of Man came to earth only to serve. On His service to people, they also responded to Him in some cases with a full of love service, and thus, being a servant, He was fully Lord and Teacher and Himself called Himself that way (see especially, etc.). But how everything here does not look like the usual manifestation of power on the part of various rulers and princes of this world!
The expression ὥσπερ (in Russian translation - “because”) means, in fact, “just like” (German gleichwie; Latin sicut), indicates a comparison, not a reason. Thus, the meaning is this: whoever wants to be first among you, let him be your slave, just as the Son of Man came and so on. But in Mark's parallel, the same words are given as a reason (καὶ γάρ, in Russian translation - "for and").
The word "came" indicates Christ's consciousness of His higher origin and coming to earth from another world, from the highest sphere of being. On the idea of redemptive self-sacrifice, cf. .
Λύτρον, used in Matthew (and Mark in parallel) only here, comes from λύειν - untie, loosen, release; was used among the Greeks (usually in the plural) and is found in the Old Testament in the sense:
1) ransom for his soul from threatening death ();
2) payments for a woman to a slave () and for a slave ();
3) ransom for the firstborn ();
4) in the sense of propitiation ().
The synonymous terms ἄλλαγμα (Is. 43 and others) and ἐξίλασμα () are usually translated through "ransom". The unique λύτρον is obviously brought into line with the unique ψυχήν . Christ does not say that He will give His life for the redemption of Himself, but - "for the redemption of many". The word "many" aroused many perplexities; if only for the redemption of "many" people, then, therefore, not all. The redemptive work of Christ does not extend to all, but only to many, perhaps even to a relatively few, chosen ones. Jerome adds: to those who wished to believe. But Evfimy Zigavin and others consider here the word πολλούς to be equivalent to πάντας, because in Scripture it is often said so. Bengel introduces here the concept of individuals and says that here the Savior speaks of sacrificing himself for many, not only for all, but even for individuals (et multis, non solum universis, sed etiam singulis, se impendit Redemptor). They also said that πάντων is the objective, πολλῶν is the subjective designation of those for whom Christ died. He died for all objectively, but subjectively He will save only a huge multitude, which no one could count, πολλο... . The Apostle Paul in the Epistle to the Romans () has a change of οἱ πολλοί and simply πολλοί, and πάντες. The actual meaning of ἀντὶ πολλῶν is expressed in a place that can serve as a parallel for the present (), where λύτρον ἀντὶ πολλῶν , as here in Matthew, is replaced ἀντὶλυτρον ὑπὲρ πάντων . All these interpretations are satisfactory and can be accepted.
. And when they went out of Jericho, many people followed Him.
The order of events among the three evangelists is rather contradictory here. Luke () begins his story like this: “when He came near to Jericho” (ἐγένετο δὲ ἐν τῷ ἐγγίζειν αὐτὸν εἰς Ἰεριχώ ); Mark(): "come to Jericho" (καὶ ἄρχονται εἰς Ἰεριχώ ); Matthew: "and when they went out of Jericho" (καὶ ἐκπορευομένων αὐτῶν ἀπό Ἰεριχώ ). If we take these testimony of the evangelists in their exact meaning, then first we need to place the story of Luke (, there is a parallel story of the first two evangelists (;), and finally, Luke () joins them. With this arrangement, however, great difficulties are not eliminated, that will be seen from what follows.
Jericho was located on the western side of the Jordan, somewhat north of the place where the Jordan flows into the Dead Sea. It is mentioned only six times in the New Testament (; ; ; ). In Greek it is written Ἰεριχώ and Ἰερειχώ. It is often mentioned in the Old Testament that it was one of the oldest Palestinian cities. The area where the city is located is one of the most fertile in Palestine, and at the time of Christ, it was probably in a flourishing state. Jericho was famous for palms, balsams, and other fragrant plants. On the site of the ancient city, the village of Erich now stands, full of poverty, dirt and even immorality. There are about 60 families in Erich. During the procession of Christ from Jericho to Jerusalem, He was accompanied by a large crowd of common people (ὄχλος πολύς ).
. And so, two blind men sitting by the road, hearing that Jesus was walking by, began to cry: Have mercy on us, Lord, Son of David!
Matthew speaks of two blind men whom the Savior healed after leaving Jericho; Mark - about one thing, calling him by name (Bartimaeus); Luke also speaks of one whom the Savior healed before His entry into Jericho. If we assume that all the evangelists are talking about the same thing, then here we get obvious and completely irreconcilable contradictions. Even in ancient times, this gave a strong weapon to the enemies of Christianity and the Gospels, who considered this place an irrefutable proof of the unreliability of the Gospel stories. Attempts to reconcile the stories on the part of Christian writers are found, therefore, even in antiquity. Origen, Euthymius Zigavin, and others accepted that it speaks of three healings of the blind, Luke speaks of one healing, Mark speaks of another, and Matthew speaks of a third. Augustine claimed that there were only two healings, of which Matthew and Mark speak of one and Luke of the other. But Theophylact and others consider all three healings as one. Of the new exegetes, some explained the disagreement by the fact that there were only two healings and only two blind men, which Mark and Luke separately tell about, one of them took place before entering Jericho, and the other after leaving it. Matthew combined both healings in one story. Others - because the heterogeneity of the evangelists depended on the fact that there were different sources from which each evangelist borrowed his story.
It must be admitted that the stories of the evangelists do not allow us to recognize either the three persons and their healings, or to unite them into one. There is just an ambiguity in the story, something left unsaid, and this prevents us from imagining and understanding how it really happened. The most reliable way to resolve this issue may, apparently, be as follows. Reading stories about the healing of the blind, we should by no means imagine that as soon as one of them cried out, crying out to Christ for help, he was immediately healed. In an extremely concise and brief story, events are brought together that could have taken place over a more or less long period of time. This is indicated, among other things, by the general testimony of all weather forecasters, that the people forbade the blind to shout and forced them to be silent (; ; ). Further, from the story of Luke it is absolutely impossible to conclude that the healing of the blind man took place before the entry of Jesus Christ into Jericho. On the contrary, if we assume that it was already after the departure of Christ from Jericho, then all the details of Luke's story will become clearer to us. First, the blind man sits by the road, begging for alms. Upon learning that a crowd is passing by, he asks what it is. Knowing that "Jesus of Nazareth is Coming" he starts screaming for help. Those ahead make him silent, but he shouts even louder. From nowhere it is not clear that at the time when all this was happening, Jesus Christ was standing in one place. He only stopped when he left Jericho and ordered the blind man to be brought to Himself. If He ordered to bring, it means that the blind man was not at the closest distance from Him. To this it must be added that when passing through a city, it can be crossed both in a long and in a short time, depending on its size. Even the largest city can be passed in a short time, crossing, for example, the outskirts. Nowhere does it appear that Jericho was then a large city. Thus, we have every right to identify the blind man that Luke talks about either with Mark's Bartimaeus, or with one of the unnamed blind men that Matthew talks about. This means that all three evangelists are in complete agreement regarding the fact that the blind were healed after the departure of Jesus Christ from Jericho. Having done away with this difficulty, we must, as far as possible, clarify another.
According to Mark and Luke there was one blind man, according to Matthew there were two. But the question is, if only one blind man was healed, then why did Matthew need to say that there were two of them? If, as they say, he had the Gospels of Mark and Luke before him, did he really want to undermine the credibility of these evangelists by giving a different testimony without any reservations about the incorrectness of their messages? Is it possible that by adding one miracle, as if invented by him, he wanted to artificially increase the glory of Christ as a healer? All this is extremely unbelievable and inconsistent with anything. Let us say that it would be so absurd to argue even with the most hostile attitude towards the Gospels. Further, even if Mark and Luke knew that two blind men were healed, but wished intentionally (in the present case, no special intention is noticeable) to report only one healing and the healed, then even then not a single conscientious critic familiar with the documents, and especially the ancients, would not dare to accuse the evangelists of fiction and distortion of historical facts. True, we cannot explain why Matthew talks about two blind men, and Mark and Luke only about one. But in fact it could well be that two blind men were healed during the movement of the crowd, this does not at all contradict any historical probability.
. The people forced them to be silent; but they began to shout even louder: have mercy on us, Lord, Son of David!
Why did the people force the blind to be silent? Maybe the blind people who passed by forced them to be silent simply because they "violated the public silence" and their cry was not consistent with the then rules of public decency.
. Jesus stopped and called them and said, What do you want from Me?
It is clearly seen that here Luke has soft, elegant and precise Greek expressions. Matthew and Mark use the word φωνεῖν (to make a sound and then call, beckon) which is beautiful, but rather typical of the common dialect. According to Matthew, Jesus Christ called (ἐφώνησεν ) the blind ones Himself, and according to Mark, He ordered them to be called (εἶπεν φωνήσατε ). Mark gives further interesting and lively details about the conversation with the blind man of the persons who called him, and how he, throwing off his clothes, got up (jumped up, jumped up - ἀναπηδήσας) and went (it is not said “ran”) to Jesus Christ. The question of Christ is natural.
. They say to Him: Lord! to open our eyes.
The speech of the blind in Matthew (and other weather forecasters) is abbreviated. The full speech is: Lord! We want our eyes to be opened. The blind do not ask for alms, but for a miracle. Apparently they had heard of Christ as the Healer before. The healing of the blind man, as described by John (εὐθέως ("immediately") indicates a sudden insight, which is also mentioned by Mark and Luke ( εὐθύς ώ παραχρῆμα ).
When you see a bum on the Moscow streets or in the subway, you mentally lose his fate. How did he come to such a life - dirty, smelly, despised by everyone? He sleeps anywhere, eats anything, gets sick with anything. Out of society, out of morality...
I remember that in the early 90s, as a novice journalist, I received an editorial assignment to make a story about homeless people. Moreover, the agreement was this: if you manage to infiltrate and write, like no one before you - sir, if you can't - you've disappeared. There was nothing to do, I really wanted to work in that publication, and having grown a three-day stubble, I rushed to the people. I found the homeless quite quickly, near the Kursk railway station - four terrible-looking men and two cyanotic women. Everyone was moderately drunk and eager to continue the pleasure, especially since the summer evening was just beginning. I walked several times past an honest company until I got used to it, then I sat down on the asphalt nearby, took an open bottle of Agdam from my jacket pocket and took a sip. From what he saw, the homeless took their breath away. For some time they were importantly silent, then they began to swear, and the women were the initiators of the squabble. They reproached the peasants for laziness, for the fact that they do not strike a finger on a finger in order to find "swill".
I handed them a bottle, which was instantly knocked over into their gloomy stomachs. The first bottle was followed by another. Then we wandered aimlessly around the station square, then saw off the trains, collecting empty bottles, then an unexpected decision was made to go to Saltykovka to our comrades. They rode in the vestibule of the train. By that time, I had already sniffed quite a bit at the homeless stink and, it seems, began to whine myself. There were no thoughts, instincts and a keen desire to devour reconciled me with life. The senior bomzhar, bald, similar to the big monkey, Alexander Sergeevich, dozed standing. Little Volodka started the same conversation with me - about how he served in the signal battalion in Germany and how he was "tired of everything." Big Volodka squeezed the woman behind him, and she resisted mildly. Another woman was sleeping on a bench in the carriage. And only a shaggy silent man looked out the window, sucking on Prima. He seemed a stranger to the rest of the company, but it was still clear that he was respected and feared. When Volodya the little one got tired of his own memories, I went up to the silent man and asked for a light. We started talking. He introduced himself as God's servant Naum and said that he was following a certain apostle Peter all the way from Krasnodar and that his task was to gather as many "outcasts" as possible under his banner. I was surprised, but did not show it, although from that moment on, no, no, yes, I asked him about Peter. So we rolled to Saltykovka. The report on the homeless turned out to be excellent. Everything was there - an overnight stay in the private sector, in an abandoned hut, and drunken hubbub, interspersed with massacre, and reflections on the topic "Who should live well in Russia" ...
By morning, completely dumbfounded by the meaninglessness of their existence, the company fell asleep. Grandfather, not yet old, whom no one hit with whirlwinds, and from whom little Volodka took ten rubles of money, laying down, wept like a child. Nahum reassured him, promising to lead him to "a pure source, sent by Christ to the people." The old man did not listen, whined, and then began to hiccup. “Soon they will be in Petrova’s army, you’ll see,” Nahum told me with conviction, “not the rich, but the outcasts of the world will inherit the kingdom of God.” On that they parted: I - to write a report, Naum - to gather the flock.
Then it seemed that everything I heard about the homeless apostle, if not the fantasies of an inflamed brain, then at least the prank of a peasant, was cunning. Well, what other hopes can there be for a spiritual revival among a completely savage public? Upon the release of the note, I completely forgot about the Apostle Peter and his adherents, and only a tragic accident forced me to return to the topic. The fact is that my distant relative, in order to fill her leisure time after a divorce, took a liking to the Christian sect "Zealots of true piety." And everything would be fine if, after six months, she had not registered her apartment for the assistant of a certain Apostle Peter, monk Naum (!). When the case became public, the parents of this blessed woman, mindful of the publication about Nahum, rushed to me for help. It is clear that it was too late to save the apartment, it was necessary to save the soul. I began to make inquiries through the Center for Victims of Non-Traditional Religions and found out: "Zealots of true piety" is not a phantom, but a very fanatical sect with rigid hierarchical subordination. The main contingent of the Zealots are homeless people, and they are led by the fifty-five-year-old Peter (last name unknown).
Then came the following information: the newly-appeared apostle pretends to be a representative of the Sukhumi mountain elders who suffered from the authorities "for the glory of God." He really was imprisoned under the Soviet regime, only not for Christ, but for violating the passport regime (he burned his passport). He was homeless around the country, then settled down in Krasnodar, where he organized a sect. When the prospect of ending up in a psychiatric hospital loomed, he fled to Moscow along with a letter in which the holy Patriarch Tikhon allegedly points to his, Peter, appearance to the world. The capital received Peter affectionately, and soon the homeless intercessor put together a new team, which took over the apostolic ministry of preaching Orthodoxy. More precisely, his own, "special" view of Orthodoxy.
This is the plausible version. According to another, rooted among his adherents, Peter was the spiritual child of Sheikhumen Savva from the Pskov-Caves Monastery. For disagreements in the understanding of the Creed and for the rebellious spirit, Savva rejected him, forcing him to wander around the world. Repeatedly beaten, expelled from churches for criticizing priestly sermons, Peter himself began to preach, which earned him the halo of a sufferer for "people's happiness" among the outcasts like him.
Living in conflict with the Russian Orthodox Church, the Zealots attended the services without fail. Their goal was to confuse the minds and cause division among the believers. Finding a pliable soul among the parishioners, they immediately offered her a "sensible choice" - to serve Satan, being the "body of the official church", or to become a "holy martyr for the faith of Christ under the leadership of Peter." The criterion for including such a soul in the community was the sale of an apartment or its registration in the name of one of the leader's assistants. At the same time, the Zealots always referred to the Gospel of Matthew, which says: "If you want to be perfect, go sell your possessions and give to the poor..."
My relative did just that - she signed off her apartment to the poor and herself was left with nothing. At first, she escaped from the world in a homeless community, where she was worn like a saint. Then she fell ill with influenza, and the merciful brothers and sisters lost all interest in her. True, she was lying under two blankets, true, they brought her water and gave her aspirin, but no more. She was completely alone in an empty room littered with dirty rags, and the desire to see her parents became more and more obsessive. She even wanted to call them at home, but pride and faith in the correctness of the choice made interfered. Lack of normal nutrition, wandering and need marked the beginning of psychosomatic disorders. She lost a lot of weight, her periods stopped, going outside in the daytime meant for her an indispensable meeting with the devil. She called the wine that is communion at the Eucharist "cadaverous", because, in her opinion, "priests added filtered sludge - tap water" to it. It was also impossible to eat bread from the store, because it was "kneaded with dead water", etc. But with particular fervor she pounced on the Orthodox clergy: "Priests weighing over 80 kg are graceless, you can't take communion with them! These are fat shepherds, shepherding themselves!"
One of these demoniac sermons ended for my relative with a trip to the neighborhood. There, together with two more unkempt "first Christians", they kept her in the "monkey house" until, under the pressure of persuasion, she shouted out her home phone number. "Come soon, take your granny, very violent ..." - the policemen told the parents. The parents who rushed in a taxi for a long time did not want to recognize their thirty-two-year-old daughter in a dilapidated crazy creation, and when they recognized it, they burst into tears. Three years have passed since then. Three years of unparalleled courage of psychiatrists who nevertheless pulled a young woman out of the clutches of the sect. Moreover, having recovered, she remarried a man much older than her, a poor but honest worker in the field of art crafts. In a word, happy ending. That would be the end of the fairy tale, but only the "Zealots of true piety" continue to exist and stir up the minds of believers. Now, in the era of Putin's "thaw", they increasingly prefer the Moscow region to Moscow. But the Apostle Peter and his entourage solidly dug in Belokamennaya and, as they say, are very indignant when homeless walkers disturb the entrances of their houses with their immortal smell.
Alexander Kolpakov
The last will be first
The last will be first
From the Bible. The New Testament (Gospel of Matthew, chap. 19, article 30 and Gospel of Mark, chap. 10, article 31) says: "Many will be the first last, and the last first." The same is in the Gospel of Luke (ch. 13, v. 30): “And behold, there are the last who will be the first, and there are the first who will be the last.”
Allegorically: about hopes for social revenge, for social success as compensation for a period of failures, bad luck, poverty.
Encyclopedic Dictionary of winged words and expressions. - M.: "Lokid-Press". Vadim Serov. 2003 .
See what "Last will be first" is in other dictionaries:
The last will be first. See LIFE DEATH...
Wed You who have followed me... for my name's sake... will receive a hundredfold and inherit eternal life. Many will be the first last, and the last first. Matt. 19, 28 30. Cf. 20, 16. Cf. Mark. 10, 31. Luke. 13, 30…
The last will be the first. Wed You who have followed me... for my name's sake... will receive a hundredfold and inherit eternal life. Many will be the first last, and the last first. Matt. 19, 28 30. Cf. 20, 16. Cf. Mark. 10, 31. Luke. 13, 30…
Sura 9 AT-TAUBAH REPENTANCE, Madinan, the last two verses are Meccan, 129 verses- 1. Allah and His Messenger renounce those with whom you have made a vow from those who share faith in Allah with faith in statues. 2. Walk the earth in safety for four months and know that you cannot escape from Allah and that Allah will subject the infidels ... ... Koran. Translated by B. Shidfar
έσχατος - η, ο last, extreme, ultimate: η έσχατη μέρα της ζωής last day of life; οι έσχατοι έσονται πρώτοι (εισίν έσχατοι οι έσονται πρώτοι, Λουκ. 13, 30) the last will be first (there are the last who will be first, Lk. 13, 30); ΦΡ. έσχατα τ … Η εκκλησία λεξικό (Church Dictionary of Nazarenko)
A smile will set you on edge. Live nimbly (valko), die astringently. You live, you don't look back, you die, you don't catch on. You live high: you will die on your hump. Lives neither in a sieve nor in a sieve. Living is bad, but dying is not a godsend. Live bitterly... IN AND. Dal. Proverbs of the Russian people
- (inosk.) to be in time, to receive value, to rise Wed. He has been engaged in contracts and construction of houses for a long time and everything went uphill. P. Boborykin. China town. 1, 8. Cf. ...After all, Godunov looks like he is climbing a mountain! He sat below everyone, and in the end became ... ... Michelson's Big Explanatory Phraseological Dictionary
Go uphill, climb (inosk.) to be in time, to gain value, to rise. Wed He has long been engaged in contracts and the construction of houses, and everything went uphill. P. Boborykin. China city. 1, 8. Cf. .... After all, Godunov looks like he’s climbing into ... ... Michelson's Big Explanatory Phraseological Dictionary (original spelling)
FIRST, or southern., West. first, by count, in order of count, initial; one, the time from which the count comes. First, second, third and miscalculated! not much, little. This is not the first time I've told you this. First roosters, midnight. (Second, two hours; third, three). ... ... Dahl's Explanatory Dictionary
The Holy Church reads the Gospel of Matthew. Chapter 20, Art. 1 - 16
1. For the kingdom of heaven is like a master of a house who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard.
2. And having agreed with the laborers for a denarius a day, he sent them into his vineyard;
3 going out about the third hour, he saw others standing idle in the marketplace,
4. And he said to them, Go you also into my vineyard, and whatever is right, I will give you. They went.
5. Going out again about the sixth and ninth hours, he did the same.
6. Finally, going out about the eleventh hour, he found others standing idle, and said to them, Why are you standing idle all day long?
7. They tell him: no one hired us. He says to them: Go, you also into my vineyard, and whatever follows, you will receive.
8 And when evening came, the lord of the vineyard said to his steward, Call the laborers and pay them their wages, beginning from the last to the first.
9. And those who came about the eleventh hour received a denarius each.
10. And those who came first thought that they would receive more, but they also received a denarius each;
11. and, having received, they began to grumble against the owner of the house
12. And they said: These last worked one hour, and you made them equal to us, who endured the burden of the day and the heat.
13. He answered one of them: friend! I don't offend you; Was it not for a denarius that you agreed with me?
14. take yours and go; but I want to give this latter the same as I give you;
15. Am I not in my power to do what I want? Or is your eye envious because I am kind?
16. So the last will be first, and the first last, for many are called, but few are chosen.
(Matthew 20:1-16)
This parable is well known to us from the words of the Paschal Epistle of St. John Chrysostom, in which he, addressing all those who have come to the feast of Pascha and rejoicing in the Resurrection of the Savior, says: “Come, all you who labor, all who have fasted and not fasted, all enter into the joy of your Lord. ".
Today's parable sounds like it describes an imaginary situation, but it is not. A similar situation often happened in Palestine at certain times of the year. If the crop was not harvested before the onset of rains, then he died, so any worker was welcome, regardless of the time at which he could come, even if he could work for the shortest period of time. The parable provides a vivid picture of what could happen in the marketplace of any Jewish village or city when it was urgently required to remove the grapes before the onset of rains. You have to understand that there might not have been such work for the people who came to the square today. The payment was not so big: one denarius was only enough to feed his family for one day. If a man who had even worked half a day in the vineyard came to his family with a pay of less than one denarius, the family, of course, would be very upset. To be a servant of your master is to have a constant income, constant food, but to be a hired worker means to survive, from time to time receiving some money, the life of such people was very sad and sad.
The owner of the vineyard first hires one group of people, with whom he negotiates a payment of one denarius, and then, every time he goes out into the square and sees idle people (not from idleness, but because they cannot find someone to hire them), he calls them to work. This parable tells us about the comfort of God. Regardless of when a person enters the Kingdom of God: in his youth, adulthood, or at the end of his days, he is equally dear to God. In the Kingdom of God there is no first or last person, more beloved or one who stands in the backyards - the Lord loves everyone equally and calls everyone to Himself equally. Everyone is valuable to God, whether they come first or last.
At the end of the working day, the master instructs the manager to distribute the due salary to all who worked in the vineyard, doing this as follows: first he would give to the last, and then to the first. Each of these people, probably, was waiting for his pay, how much he could work hard and earn. But the last one, who came at the eleventh hour and worked for one hour, the manager gives one denarius, to the others - also one denarius, and everyone receives equally. Those who came first and worked all day, seeing such generosity of the master, might think that when it was their turn, they would receive more. But this did not happen, and they turn to the owner with complaints: “Why is it so? We worked all day, endured the heat and heat of the whole day, but you gave us as much as they did.
The vineyard owner says: "Friend! I don't offend you; didn’t you agree with me for a denarius?” The people who worked in the vineyard, as it were, are divided into two groups: the first entered into an agreement with the owner that they work for one denarius, the others did not agree on payment and waited for exactly as much money as he would give them. This parable shows the justice of the owner and can well characterize us too: every person who is in the Church or turns to God from childhood, perhaps, is also waiting for some kind of encouragement or great merit in the Kingdom of Heaven. But we know the promise - the Lord promises us the Kingdom of Heaven, we, just like the workers of the vineyard, agreed with Him about this, and we have no right to grumble if God is merciful and kind to other people, because, as we remember, he is the first to enter paradise robber.
The paradox of the Christian life lies in the fact that everyone who strives for a reward will lose it, and whoever forgets about it will gain it, and let the first be last and the last be first. “Many are called,” says the Lord, “but few are chosen.” This is how wisely God reveals to us what the Kingdom of Heaven is.
Priest Daniil Ryabinin
Transcription: Yulia Podzolova
