Commentary for (Matthew XXII, 15–XXIII, 39; Matthew XXIV, 36

Oleksandr Zhabenko 🇬🇧
Glory Be to Jesus Christ!
🌞

Since in the work published at the link:
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/02082025.html
and even earlier in others, published at the links:
https://churchandsociety.org.ua/pdf/projects/zbirnyk.pdf
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/17082024.html
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/12112025.html
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/27112024.html
it is written that the use of prepositions has important significance for the correct understanding of important and topical questions, particularly the question of power, I am writing comments regarding the use of precisely these prepositions. As advice regarding reading what is written — one can read the verse in translation or/and original (whoever has such possibility), and then the corresponding comment regarding prepositions here. Then it is necessary to understand which part of the verse the comment concerns, and also to consider what essential for understanding it affirms — or more rarely — denies. Such thoughtful reading helps to deepen understanding and protects from the mentioned mistakes.

I prepared an improved version of my research, the presentation of which is available at the link:
https://www.facebook.com/Oleksandr.S.Zhabenko/posts/
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/uk/commentaries/vystup-2025-hypo-genitive-Romans-XIII_1.pdf

The research material is currently being prepared for publication. I hope, God willing, to present fuller results later after the publication comes out.

I will update the list of references regarding prepositions at the links:
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/02082025.html
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/uk/commentaries/Pryjmennyky.html
the latter — once or twice a month (in Ukrainian), to keep the text version current and up to date.

Translated from Ukrainian by Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Anthropic AI), with subsequent editing by me.

Strong's references (note: according to Strong) in the translation of the original text mean that the word is taken from Strong's dictionary, and the specific meaning was chosen following the translation and commentary by Google Gemini Fast 3.

Matins:
(Matthew XXII, 15–XXIII, 39)
Matthew XXII, 15 — 'ὅπως αὐτὸν παγιδεύσωσιν ἐν λόγῳ' — 'hopos auton pagideusosin en logo' - how to catch Him in His word; so as to catch Him in His word; in such a way as to catch Him in His word. All variants are possible.

Matthew XXII, 16 — 'ἐν ἀληθείᾳ' — 'en aletheia' - in truth; truthfully. That is, how. 'εἰς πρόσωπον ἀνθρώπων' - 'eis prosopon anthropon' - into the face of people. That is, you do not try to fit into social expectations.

Matthew XXII, 23 — 'Ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ' — 'en ekeine te hemera' - on that day; in that day.

Matthew XXII, 25 — 'παρ' ἡμῖν' — 'par hemin' - in the vicinity of us. The preposition 'para' in its form before the following 'he' here with the dative case indicates here that these brothers were (according to the Sadducees' words — many consider the story to be invented, although there is nothing fantastical or unrealistic about it) among those Sadducees.

Matthew XXII, 28, 30 — 'ἐν (γὰρ) τῇ ἀναστάσει' — 'en (gar) te anastasei' - (for) in the resurrection. That is, after the general resurrection of the dead. 'ὡς ἄγγελοι θεοῦ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ εἰσίν' - 'hos angeloi theou en to ourano eisin' - like God's angels in heaven are. That is, the state of people after the general resurrection of the dead is similar to the state of God's angels in heaven. This concerns all people — what is spoken of is the state of nature. At the same time, this does not mean that people will experience the same as God's angels, since the experience of God's angels depends greatly upon God's grace. People will have a state of blessedness or of judgement in varying degrees depending upon their union with God and its degree, form, and depth.

Matthew XXII, 31 — 'τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑμῖν ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ' — 'to rhethen hymin hypo tou theou' - what was said to you by God. The preposition 'hypo' here with the genitive case indicates that this is the passive voice of the participle what was said.

Matthew XXII, 35 — 'εἷς ἐξ αὐτῶν' — 'heis ex auton' - one of them. The preposition 'ek' in its form before the following vowel indicates here that that Pharisee was of one mind with them, with those Pharisees, was their typical representative.

Matthew XXII, 36 — 'μεγάλη ἐν τῷ νόμῳ' — 'megale en to nomo' - great in the Law; greater in the Law; greatest in the Law. All variants are possible.

Matthew XXII, 37 — 'ἀγαπήσεις κύριον τὸν θεόν σου ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ καρδίᾳ σου καὶ ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ ψυχῇ σου καὶ ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ διανοίᾳ σου' — 'agapeseis kyrion ton theon sou en hole te kardia sou kai en hole te psykhe sou kai en hole te dianoia sou' - you shall love the Lord your God in all your heart, and in all your soul, and in all your mind (deep reflection, understanding); you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your understanding (deep reflection, mind, understanding). Comparison with parallel passages shows the use of different prepositions in them, which is significant. See the detailed analysis below in the text.

Matthew XXII, 40 — 'ἐν ταύταις ταῖς δυσὶν ἐντολαῖς' — 'en tautais tais dysin entolais' - in these two commandments; with these two commandments. Both translations are possible, the first indicating that they briefly contain the meaning of all the commandments and the ministry of the prophets, and the second — that they are the foundation for the Law and the Prophets.

Matthew XXII, 43 — 'ἐν πνεύματι' — 'en pneumati' - in the Spirit; with the Spirit. Both translations are possible, the first indicating that the Holy Spirit says more than David himself, and the second — that David cooperates with the Holy Spirit, consciously prophesying about the Son of God, calling us too to say this.

Matthew XXII, 44 — 'ἐκ δεξιῶν' — 'ek dexion' - at the right (side). That is, at the right hand — a common expression.

Matthew XXII, 46 — 'ἀπ' ἐκείνης τῆς ἡμέρας' — 'ap ekeines tes hemeras' - from that day. The preposition 'apo' in its form before the following vowel indicates here the starting point of the reckoning.

Matthew XXIII, 6 — 'φιλοῦσιν δὲ τὴν πρωτοκλισίαν ἐν τοῖς δείπνοις καὶ τὰς πρωτοκαθεδρίας ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς' — 'philousin de protoklisian en tois deipnois kai tas protokathedria en tais synagogais' - they love (are emotionally attached; this evokes in them many positive emotions) the first places at banquets and the first seats in the synagogues. That is, they love honour and seek it.

Matthew XXIII, 7 — 'ἐν ταῖς ἀγοραῖς' — 'en tais agorais' - in the markets; in the places of assembly. 'καλεῖσθαι ὑπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων' - 'kaleisthai hypo ton anthropon' - to be called by people. The preposition 'hypo' here with the genitive case indicates that this is the passive voice of the verb to be called.

Matthew XXIII, 11 — 'ὁ δὲ μείζων ὑμῶν ἔσται ὑμῶν διάκονος' — 'ho de meizon hymon estai hymon diakonos' - the great one (greater, greatest) among you will be your servant. In confirmation of the thoughts on verse 6 above.

Matthew XXIII, 16, 21 — 'ἐν τῷ ναῷ' — 'en to nao' - with the temple; with the sanctuary. 'ἐν τῷ χρυσῷ τοῦ ναοῦ' - 'en to khryso tou naou' - with the gold of the temple. Here throughout this refers to the Jerusalem temple, the sole temple of Judaism.

Matthew XXIII, 18, 20 — 'ἐν τῷ θυσιαστηρίῳ' — 'en to thysiasterio' - with the altar. 'ἐν τῷ δώρῳ τῷ ἐπάνω αὐτοῦ' - 'en to doro to epano autou' - with the gift upon it. That is, with the sacrifice on the altar.

Matthew XXIII, 20 — 'ἐν αὐτῷ καὶ ἐν πᾶσιν τοῖς ἐπάνω αὐτοῦ' — 'en auto kai en pasin tois epano autou' - with it and with all that is upon it. That is, with the altar and the sacrifice upon it. Nothing was placed upon the altar except sacrifices.

Matthew XXIII, 21 — 'ἐν αὐτῷ καὶ ἐν τῷ κατοικοῦντι αὐτόν' — 'en auto kai en to katoikounti auton' - with it and with the One Who dwells in it. That is, with God. Christ indicates that the temple must be treated with reverence, for although God is omnipresent and limited by nothing and no one, the reverence for the temple must be maintained with regard to the fact that it is a place of God's special presence, a place consecrated to God Himself.

Matthew XXIII, 22 — 'ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ' — 'en to ourano' - by heaven. 'ἐν τῷ θρόνῳ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ἐν τῷ καθημένῳ ἐπάνω αὐτοῦ' - 'en to throno tou theou kai en to kathemeno epano autou' - with the throne of God and with the One Who sits upon it. That is, with God the King, the Most High, the Almighty. That is, with the Highest. Christ says where the desire of people to swear oaths may lead — to the madness of overstepping their own authority. See more on this regarding the Sermon on the Mount:
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/PowerOfHuman.html

Matthew XXIII, 25 — 'ἔσωθεν δὲ γέμουσιν ἐξ ἁρπαγῆς καὶ ἀκρασίας' — 'esothen de gemousin ex harpages kai akrasias' - but within they are full of extortion and intemperance. That is, of desires to break the limits, to go beyond their own and others' real boundaries, to obtain what does not belong and similar violations. A devout person must overcome such impulses when they arise. This will mean that they have the virtue of temperance, unlike the Pharisees here.

Matthew XXIII, 30 — 'ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις τῶν πατέρων ἡμῶν' — 'en tais hemerais ton pateron hemon' - in the days of our fathers. When. 'ἐν τῷ αἵματι τῶν προφητῶν' - 'en to haimati ton propheton' - in the blood of the prophets. In what.

Matthew XXIII, 33 — 'ἀπὸ τῆς κρίσεως τῆς γεέννης' — 'apo tes kriseos tes geennes' - from the judgement of Gehenna. The preposition 'apo' indicates here that what is spoken of is complete flight, total avoidance — that is, how not to end up there at all.

Matthew XXIII, 34 — 'ἐξ αὐτῶν' — 'ex auton' - from among them. That is, representatives of those divine messengers. 'ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς ὑμῶν' - 'en tais synagogais hymon' - in your synagogues. Where. 'ἀπὸ πόλεως εἰς πόλιν' - 'apo poleos eis polin' - from city to city. The preposition 'apo' indicates here that the persecutions will compel God's faithful messengers to leave one city and go to another, where the story will repeat itself.

Matthew XXIII, 35 — 'ἀπὸ τοῦ αἵματος Ἅβελ τοῦ δικαίου ἕως τοῦ αἵματος Ζαχαρίου υἱοῦ Βαραχίου' — 'apo tou haimatos Abel tou dikaiou heos tou haimatos Zakhariou hyiou Barakhiou' - from the blood of Abel the righteous right up to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Barachiah. That is, one of the twelve minor prophets, Zechariah the Sickle-Seer. The preposition 'apo' indicates here the starting point of the reckoning and a certain range.

Matthew XXIII, 37 — 'ὑπὸ τὰς πτέρυγας' — 'hypo tas pterygas' - under the wings. The preposition 'hypo' here with the accusative indicates that what is spoken of is a gathering under the wings (figuratively — God has no wings).

Matthew XXIII, 39 — 'ἀπ' ἄρτι' — 'ap arti' - from now on. Common expression. 'εὐλογημένος ὁ ἐρχόμενος ἐν ὀνόματι κυρίου' - 'eulogemenos ho erkhomenos en onomati kyriou' - blessed is He Who comes in the name of the Lord (with the name of the Lord). Various translations are possible. In general, there is an obvious parallel to the Entry of Christ into Jerusalem, which those scribes and Pharisees had rejected.

In general, all of today's extensive readings are devoted to four main themes — a learned disputation with the Jewish elders, the exposure of their hypocrisy, instruction concerning readiness for the Second Coming of Christ, and parables which show how we are to live wisely.

Since I have examined almost all of these themes previously, I shall for the most part now simply give links to the corresponding posts.

Concerning the word ἐξουσία (exousia), translated here as authority, Google Gemini Pro writes the following, drawing on the works of BDAG (Bauer, Danker, Arndt, Gingrich), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, and Kittel, G., & Friedrich, G. (Eds.), Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT):

The word ἐξουσία (exousia) in ancient Greek (in particular in the Koine period) has a very clear origin which reveals its legal and philosophical meaning. It derives from the impersonal verb ἔξεστι(ν) (exesti), which translates as 'it is permitted', 'it is lawful', or 'it is possible'.

Etymological analysis

The word is formed by the combination of two elements:

The prefix ἐξ (ex) / ἐκ (ek): meaning 'from', 'out of', 'from inside outward'.

The root from the verb εἰμί (eimi): 'to be', 'to exist'. More precisely, it is directly connected with the noun οὐσία (ousia) — 'essence', 'being', 'nature' (which is itself formed from the present participle feminine ousa — 'the one that is').

Literally, exousia can be understood as that which 'comes from the essence' — that is, a state where an action flows from someone's nature, right, or property. Hence comes the idea of a person having grounds to do something.

Meaning in the Koine language

In the everyday language of the Hellenistic period (including the texts of the Septuagint and the New Testament) this word became established in the following meanings:

Right and freedom of action: The possibility to choose and act freely, a privilege.

Legitimate authority and power: Authority which gives the right to govern, to make decisions, or to dispose.

Jurisdiction: The sphere of influence over which someone's authority extends.

Power structures: In the plural (exousiai) it often designated the rulers, magistrates, or even spiritual beings themselves.

Key nuance: Exousia versus Dynamis

To understand precisely the essence of exousia, scholars often compare it with another Greek word — δύναμις (dynamis):

Dynamis is raw power, might, capacity, inner energy (from this root come the words 'dynamic', 'dynamite'). It answers the question 'Can I physically do this?'.

Exousia is authority, jurisdiction, and delegated right. It answers the question 'Do I have the legal right to do this?'.

For example, a burglar has dynamis (the force) to break down a door and enter a house, but only the owner has exousia (the right) to enter.

Here therefore what is spoken of is whether Christ acts lawfully from the Jewish point of view, and if so (though the Jews who raised the question here rejected that possibility in advance, being biased), then whence this lawfulness comes. The key point is the origin of Jesus. Christ answers by saying that He comes from heaven, meaning that He is the God-man. See a fine poem on this theme at the link:
https://www.instagram.com/oleksandr_zhabenko/p/DWv_JXXjbPZ/

The craftiness and feigned righteousness of those who asked about the tax became evident even in their very question. If Christ is a Teacher from God (or rather, is God and Lord Himself), then why did they wish to test Him? Ought they not to listen to Him? The tax — what is spoken of is a tax on the person themselves or on property, not certain payments for use of something. In Antiquity people perceived money as belonging to the ruler. Also the concept of human rights in the modern sense did not exist, though the Roman state was in fact the first state of law in an approximation of the modern understanding. If a person paid such a tax for themselves, they attested their loyalty to the authority in the person of Caesar, effectively showing their citizenship by this. And the Lord says to give to the state and society what belongs to them, and to God what belongs to God. The order is important. First one must discern what belongs to whom, and then give it. This means that it is always to some degree a question for discernment, but at the same time Jesus's answer shows that the correct answer to it always exists and must also be chosen and carried out. At the same time, this clearly shows that the existence of authority in general corresponds to God's will.

Concerning the resurrection of the dead, what is important is that after the resurrection there is no belonging of people to anyone except God, there are no sexual relations, and therefore the question of to whom will she be wife cannot be an obstacle to faith in the resurrection of the dead. It must also be said that according to the general belief, despite the absence of the aforementioned state of the present age, the spiritual closeness in the relationships of a married couple who are saved will be preserved in a special manner.

I examined the main commandments and their formulations in detail at the link:
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/28012026.html

Here I cite.

Luke X, 26 — 'ἐν τῷ νόμῳ' — 'en to nomo' — in the Law. Where.

Luke X, 27 — 'ἐξ ὅλης τῆς καρδίας' — 'ex holes tes kardias' — from all the heart; of all the heart. The preposition 'ek' in its form before the following 'ho' indicates the origin of love for God — it ought to be sincere, cordial, to manifest the heart of the person. 'ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ ψυχῇ' - 'en hole te psykhe' - in all the soul; with all the soul. 'ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ ἰσχύϊ' - 'en hole te iskhyi' - in all the strength; with all the strength. 'ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ διανοίᾳ' - 'en hole te dianoia' - in all the mind; with all the mind. Here everywhere both variants of translation are possible with predominantly the second widespread. The first variants indicate the objective filling of the soul, strength, mind — that is, with what they ought to be filled, and the second — more generally and fully — the soul, strength and mind as such, entirely. Comparison with Matthew XXII, 36-39 shows the following (I quote:
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/15042025.html
Matthew XXII, 37 — 'ἀγαπήσεις κύριον τὸν θεόν σου ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ καρδίᾳ σου καὶ ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ ψυχῇ σου καὶ ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ διανοίᾳ σου' — 'agapeseis kyrion ton theon sou en hole te kardia sou kai en hole te psykhe sou kai en hole te dianoia sou' — you shall love the Lord your God in all your heart, and in all your soul, and in all your mind (deep comprehension, understanding); you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your understanding (deep comprehension, mind). Comparison with parallel places shows their use of different prepositions, which has significance. Comparison with that written by the link:
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/05022025.html
shows that the first variant is better by meaning, since it says where love ought to be, that it ought to fill the whole person, the whole human being with all the consequences of this filling.
Comparison with the Gospel according to Luke shows that there both variants of prepositions are combined:
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/10112024.html
Moreover at first the lawyer says 'ex holes tes kardias', and further uses the preposition 'en'. The answer of Christ shows that so also is correct. The use of 'ex' shows where love begins and is born, and also that it ought to be entirely sincere.
In general one can say that 'en' in this place everywhere is better translated as in, whilst 'ek' — as from or of. The first emphasises filling with love, its depth and meaningfulness, and the second — sincerity, origin and freedom, naturalness, spontaneity.
Comparison with Mark XII, 30-33 (I quote:
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/05022025.html
Mark XII, 30 — 'ἐξ ὅλης τῆς καρδίας σου καὶ ἐξ ὅλης τῆς ψυχῆς σου καὶ ἐξ ὅλης τῆς διανοίας σου καὶ ἐξ ὅλης τῆς ἰσχύος σου' — 'ex holes tes kardias sou kai ex holes tes psykhes sou kai ex holes tes dianoias sou kai ex holes tes iskhyos sou' — from (out of) all your heart, and from (out of) all your soul, and from (out of) all your understanding (deep comprehension, mind), and from (out of) all your strength. The preposition 'ek' in its form before the following 'ho' indicates from whence that love ought to be, and also emphasises that this is substantial. To a certain degree: You have a heart — let love for God proceed from all of it! You have a soul — let love for God proceed from all of it! You have comprehension, understanding, mind — let love for God proceed from all of them! You have strength, let love for God proceed from all of it!. It is important to emphasise that not 'en' is used, that is, with what?, but 'ek' ('ex'), that is, from where?. This indicates that one cannot compel to love, use for love, but one needs to give freedom to the heart, soul, mind, strength, that they by it might love God. Let the children come to Me, — the Lord says about that.
Mark XII, 33 — 'τὸ ἀγαπᾶν αὐτὸν ἐξ ὅλης τῆς καρδίας καὶ ἐξ ὅλης τῆς συνέσεως καὶ ἐξ ὅλης τῆς ἰσχύος' — 'to agapan auton ex holes tes kardias kai ex holes tes syneseos kai ex holes tes iskhyos' — to love Him from (out of) all the heart, and from (out of) all the understanding, and from (out of) all the strength. See above. It is noticeable that the lawyer understands all that is named as powers of the person, whilst in Christ there is more subjectivity, each named part exists more, more fully.
All this shows the deep meaning of all variants and their interrelation.

To love — in the first place to care for, to be concerned for, to value, so as all this concerning oneself.

Neighbour — literally near one (neighbour, for example, in English — neighbour) — a person who is near in this or that respect. The Jews considered neighbours either co-religionists and fellow citizens-Jews, or those who somehow very much favoured and helped them. In the parable it is seen that the neighbour became the Samaritan hostile to the Jews (the Jews and Samaritans were at enmity), who was moved to mercy (more literal meaning of the words had compassion here). The meaning is that people are capable of becoming near (not only in the personal sense, but in the social. Social nearness in distinction from — which also can be combined with — personal nearness in family, friendly, marital relations) and not simply capable, but called.

Go, and do thou likewise and thou shalt live — that is, thou shalt be capable of following life eternal. And becoming near, one needs to love the other person, as oneself, not only concerning what kind this love is, but also concerning its strength (just as strongly).

About this they often forget. The capability to become and to be near lies at the foundation of love.

The question of the lawyer is literally translated as And what must I do to follow life eternal?. Do — means constancy is needed, and not something once-off.

End of citation.

Concerning the Lord King David and Jesus Christ, Christ conducts the conversation in the manner that the teachers of the Law themselves used: He refers to the Old Testament, to Scripture, interpreting it.

Concerning hypocrisy — it was the chief reason why the Jewish elders rejected Christ, and for this reason a great many pages of the Gospel are devoted to this theme; and naturally the faithful must beware of it in all its manifestations. See in particular:
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/19082025.html

I cite:

Matthew XXIII, 25 — 'ἔσωθεν δὲ γέμουσιν ἐξ ἁρπαγῆς καὶ ἀκρασίας' — 'esothen de gemousin ex harpages kai akrasias' - but within they are full of extortion and intemperance. That is, desires to break the framework, go beyond one's own and others' real boundaries, obtain what does not belong and similar violations. A pious person needs to overcome such impulses if they arise. This will mean that they have the virtue of temperance, unlike the Pharisees here.

It must be said that voluntary sins proceed from the heart, that is, from within the personality according to Christ's words in another place, where He also exposes the Pharisees and warns against their leaven. Involuntary sins are also largely connected with the heart, if not by source of origin, then at least by everything connected with them, accompaniment and further sinful influence, enslavement, dependencies (also addictions and obsessions) and other similar things. If one cleanses the heart of all that, then it will not only not be a source of voluntary sins, but will not be able to participate in involuntary ones, and therefore will not allow those latter ones either. And then everything will become clean.

Also important here is the thought that we do not fulfil the Gospel commandments in all their possible depth, fullness, breadth. I have written about this before, and here we see confirmation of those words.

1) we do not fulfil all Gospel commandments as is possible, as the Lord sees in eternity, as that to which we are called;

2) nevertheless, we are capable of approaching that;

3) certain commandments act according to the principle of resonance: proper fulfilment is based on love, each, even the smallest commandment opens a new world, reveals the world anew, at all times different communities are capable more or less of fulfilling certain commandments of the Gospel, which is what their, communities', development consists in;

4) to the extent of resonant fulfilment of Gospel commandments, societies develop; to the extent of non-fulfilment, they decline.

See the links:
https://www.facebook.com/Oleksandr.S.Zhabenko/posts/
https://churchandsociety.org.ua/pdf/projects/zbirnyk.pdf

End of citation.

It is important to examine the question of the verses Matthew XXIII, 29-36 (more precisely — 30-31). Why does Christ not accept the scribes' and Pharisees' critique of their fathers' sins as repentance?

The simple answer — because the awareness of evil concerning something, the awareness of the sinfulness of something, is not yet repentance.

The scribes and Pharisees became aware that their fathers had done evil to the prophets and the righteous, but they did nothing to prevent themselves from doing likewise. There is no movement in them towards God, towards genuine conversion and repentance, and therefore this ostentatious reverence merely conceals genuine impenitence and an unwillingness to repent. From this a lesson in repentance may be drawn — if someone becomes aware that they have done something evil, something wrong, this is not yet repentance and may even quite readily lead to a situation where the awareness of evil in no way hinders or prevents the evil, and may even increase it through subsequent impenitence.

It is worth noting that the awareness of evil and sin is often the preamble to repentance, but the preamble alone is insufficient. From it must begin repentance itself — already an active movement towards change, correction, forgiveness, cleansing, and conversion.

Awareness as a state by no means necessarily involves the active participation of the person themselves — one may become aware of something simply by permitting another vision, another thought, evaluation, position, or view to exist within (at least on the periphery of) one's perception, regardless of what actually constitutes the very position and orientation of the person. That is, one may become aware of anything whilst remaining almost entirely a stranger, an outsider, unrelated to what one has become aware of.

Let us recall, for example, the story of the New Testament prophet — John the Baptist. Herod kept him in prison but listened to his words (was aware of them), and then commanded him to be killed at the request of Herodias.

One more weighty argument on the matter: at the Last Judgement all will become aware of their sins, but this will not be repentance. Scripture says that some will even weep from distress, but this too will not be repentance.

I shall add the following.

It is not the sons (descendants) of the prophets and righteous ones who build and adorn tombs and monuments to them. And indeed, the prophets were persecuted in the very places where they preached, which prevented them from having many descendants; and even when they did, there were always very few compared with those whom they exposed. Similarly, the righteous were always fewer than other people, and therefore they are accorded a special honour — which at the same time testifies that it is not the descendants of the righteous who honour them, but all the other people who were not righteous. And here the Pharisees were appropriating to themselves the virtues of the prophets and the righteous in order to justify themselves, whilst in reality they were the descendants of sinners. This blindness closed off the path of repentance to them, which is why they crucified Christ.

The prophets struggled for the welfare of the people, and the people subsequently appropriated the virtues of the prophets to themselves, forgetting repentance — as we see in the example of the Pharisees.

From this the living and Risen Christ cautions all of us.

The Lord concludes the exposure with the fact that God's glory departs from those elders until the time of their repentance. Something similar is found in the prophet Ezekiel, when God's glory, on account of the sins of the people and the priesthood, departed from the Jewish temple. Subsequently after that the temple was destroyed (as likewise subsequently after the words of Christ — a second time).

The acknowledgement Blessed is He Who comes in the name of the Lord! with respect to Jesus means that those people were to repent fully and accept God's salvation in Christ.

Concerning monuments and tombs and the prophet Zechariah the Sickle-Seer there is a work at the links:
https://www.instagram.com/p/CaPLr0IsFcB/
https://www.facebook.com/Oleksandr.S.Zhabenko/posts/

Concerning the exaltation of oneself and humility, and also the desire for primacy and superiority, primacy and superiority themselves, it is well written in the works at the links:
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/07082025.html
https://www.instagram.com/oleksandr_zhabenko/p/DVCfQjCAjZp/

Matthew XXIII, 15 — why twice as much a child of Gehenna as yourselves? Hypocrites do not truly struggle against their own sins, but struggle only for the opinion of people about themselves; therefore the disciples of such persons do not learn to struggle with their own sins, but learn from their teachers also those teachers' sins, thus approximately doubling their sinfulness.

Concerning oaths and words (departing somewhat from the theme of the exposure of hypocrisy) there are fine works in general at the links:
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/PowerOfHuman.html

Concerning the external and the internal there is an interesting work at the link:
https://www.instagram.com/p/Bj3_otXgmh1/
Here I cite: The Lord says: 'Cleanse first the inside of the cup, and then the outside will be clean too.' The cup has a distinctive topology (I note, incidentally, that topology is a branch of mathematics which studies properties that remain unchanged under continuous transformations: for example, from the point of view of topology, a sphere and a cup are practically identical, because one can transform one into the other by means of a continuous transformation). So the cup we generally hold from the outside and wash from the inside. If we were to wash it only from the outside, then from the inside, on account of its special shape, it might remain unwashed. At the same time, it is inconvenient to hold the cup from the inside whilst washing it, so we generally hold it from the outside, wash it from the inside, and also touch it from the outside. So too in spiritual life, and indeed in life in general: access to our life we generally receive from the outside (psychologists might mention internalisation, for example), whilst life itself is interior, and we live predominantly internally. If something does not work out, it is often precisely on account of the 'cup' and 'incorrect topology'.

The acknowledgement Blessed is He Who comes in the name of the Lord! with respect to Jesus means that those people were to repent fully and accept God's salvation in Christ.

More concerning the readings see at the links:
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/15042025.html
https://www.facebook.com/Oleksandr.S.Zhabenko/posts/
https://www.facebook.com/Oleksandr.S.Zhabenko/posts/
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/19082025.html
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/20082025.html
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/11042023.html
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/30042024.html

Liturgy:
(Matthew XXIV, 36–XXVI, 2)
Concerning the verses Matthew XXIV, 36-44 see at the link:
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/18012025.html

Matthew XXIV, 45 — 'ἐν καιρῷ' — 'en kairo' - in due time; at the right time. Common expression.

Matthew XXIV, 48 — 'ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτοῦ' — 'en te kardia autou' - in their heart.

Matthew XXIV, 50 — 'ἐν ἡμέρᾳ' — 'en hemera' - on a day. 'ἐν ὥρᾳ' - 'en hora' - at an hour; in a season. Common expression.

Concerning parallel passages to the verses Matthew XXIV, 45-51 see at the links:
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/22022025.html
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/13022025.html

Concerning chapter XXV see at the links:
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/04102025.html
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/19012025.html
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/15022026.html
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/25012025.html
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/23022025.html

Matthew XXVI, 2 — 'ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου παραδίδοται εἰς τὸ σταυρωθῆναι' — 'ho hyios tou anthropou paradidotai eis to staurothenai' - the Son of Man is handed over for crucifixion. The preposition 'eis' indicates here whither Christ is handed over, whither they wish to direct him, whither he goes voluntarily.

More concerning the readings from the Gospel see at the links:
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/15042025.html
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/11042023.html

Glory be to Thee, our God, glory be to Thee!