William Barclay Commentaries on the New Testament. New Testament. Barclay's Commentary - New Testament - corrected

It may seem to the modern reader that Matthew chose a very strange beginning for his gospel, putting in the first chapter a long list of names through which the reader will have to wade. But for a Jew, this was completely natural and, from his point of view, it was the most correct way to start a story about a person's life.

The Jews were extremely interested in genealogies. Matthew calls it genealogical book - byblos geneseus- Jesus Christ. In the Old Testament, we often find genealogies of famous people ( Gen. 5.1; 10.1; 11.10; 11.27). When the great Jewish historian Josephus wrote his biography, he began it with a genealogy he said he found in the archives.

Interest in genealogies was due to the fact that the Jews attached great importance to the purity of their origin. A person whose blood contained the slightest admixture of someone else's blood was deprived of the right to be called a Jew and a member of God's chosen people. So, for example, the priest had to present a complete, without any omissions, list of his genealogy from Aaron himself, and if he married, then his wife had to present her genealogy at least five generations ago. When Ezra made a change in worship after the return of Israel from exile and established the priesthood again, the sons of Habaia, the sons of Gakkoz and the sons of Behrzell were excluded from the priesthood and were called unclean, because "they were looking for their genealogy record and it was not found" ( Ezdr. 2.62).

The genealogical archives were kept in the Sanhedrin. Purebred Jews always despised King Herod the Great because he was half Edomite.

This passage in Matthew may seem uninteresting, but it was extremely important to the Jews that Jesus' lineage could be traced back to Abraham.

In addition, it should be noted that this pedigree is very carefully compiled into three groups of fourteen people each. This arrangement is called mnemonics, that is, arranged in such a way that it is easier to remember. It must always be remembered that the Gospels were written hundreds of years before printed books appeared, and only a few people could have copies of them, and therefore, in order to own them, they had to be memorized. And so the pedigree is compiled so that it is easy to remember. It was meant to prove that Jesus was the Son of David, and was designed to be easy to remember.

THREE STAGES (Mt 1:1-17 continued)

The very location of the pedigree is very symbolic for all human life. The genealogy is divided into three parts, each of which corresponds to one of the great stages in the history of Israel.

The first part covers the history up to King David. David rallied Israel into a nation and made Israel a strong power to be reckoned with in the world. The first part covers the history of Israel until the advent of its greatest king.

The second part covers the period before the Babylonian captivity. This part speaks of the shame of the people, of their tragedy and misfortune.

The third part covers the history before Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ freed people from slavery, saved them from grief, and in Him tragedy turned into victory.

These three parts symbolize three stages in the spiritual history of mankind.

1 . Man was born for greatness. "God created man in His own image and likeness, in the image of God He created him" ( Gen. 1.27). God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness" Gen. 1.26). Man was created in the image of God. Man was meant to be in friendship with God. He was created to be related to God. As the great Roman thinker Cicero saw it: "The differences between man and God come down only to time." The man was essentially born to be a king.

2 . Man has lost his greatness. Instead of being a servant of God, man became a slave to sin. As the English writer G.K. Chesterton: "What is true about man, however, is that he is not at all what he was meant to be." Man used his free will to show open defiance and disobedience to God, instead of entering into friendship and companionship with Him. Left to his own devices, man nullified God's plan in His creation.

3 . Man can regain his greatness. Even after that, God did not leave man to the mercy of fate and his vices. God did not allow man to ruin himself with his recklessness, did not allow everything to end in tragedy. God sent His Son, Jesus Christ, into this world so that He would save man from the quagmire of sin in which he was mired, and free him from the chains of sin with which he bound himself, so that man could through Him regain the friendship he had lost with God.

In the genealogy of Jesus Christ, Matthew shows us the newfound royal greatness, the tragedy of lost freedom, and the glory of freedom returned. And this, by the grace of God, is the history of mankind and every person.

THE FULFILLMENT OF MAN'S DREAM (Mt 1:1-17, continued)

This passage highlights two characteristics of Jesus.

1 . It is emphasized here that Jesus is the Son of David; genealogy and was compiled mainly in order to prove this.

Peter emphasizes this in the first recorded sermon of the Christian Church ( Acts. 2, 29-36). Paul speaks of Jesus Christ, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh ( Rome. 1.3). The author of pastoral epistles urges people to remember Jesus Christ from the seed of David, risen from the dead ( 2 Tim. 2.8). The revelator hears the Risen Christ say, "I am the root and offspring of David" ( Rev. 22.16).

This is how Jesus is repeatedly referred to in the gospel story. After the demon-possessed blind and dumb was healed, the people said: "Is this the Christ, the Son of David?" ( Mt 12:23). A woman from Tire and Sidon, who sought Jesus' help for her daughter, addresses Him: "Son of David!" ( Mt 15:22). The blind cried out: "Have mercy on us, Lord, Son of David!" ( Mt 20:30-31). And, like the Son of David, Jesus is greeted by the crowd as he enters Jerusalem for the last time ( Mat 21.9.15).

It is very important that Jesus was so greeted by the crowd. The Jews were expecting something unusual; they never forgot, and could never forget, that they are God's chosen people. Although their whole history was a long chain of defeats and misfortunes, although they were a captive conquered people, they never forgot the fate of their destiny. And the common people dreamed that a descendant of King David would come into this world and lead them to glory, which, as they believed, was theirs by right.

In other words, Jesus was the answer to people's dream. People, however, see only answers to their dreams of power, wealth, material abundance and in the implementation of the ambitious plans they cherish. But if man's dreams of peace and beauty, greatness and satisfaction are ever to be realized, they can only find fulfillment in Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ and the life He offers people is the answer to people's dream. There is a passage in the story about Joseph that goes far beyond the scope of the story itself. Together with Joseph, the chief court cupbearer and the chief court baker-baker were also in prison. They had dreams that disturbed them, and they cried out in horror: "We have seen dreams, but there is no one to interpret them" (Genesis 40:8). Just because a person is a person, he is always haunted by a dream, and its realization lies in Jesus Christ.

2 . This passage emphasizes that Jesus is the fulfillment of all prophecy: in him the message of the prophets was fulfilled. Today we do not take much account of prophecy, and for the most part we are unwilling to look in the Old Testament for statements that have come true in the New Testament. But there is a great and eternal truth in the prophecy that this universe has a purpose and a purpose for it, and God wants to fulfill His specific purposes in it.

One play tells of a terrible famine in Ireland in the nineteenth century. Finding nothing better and not knowing any other solution, the government sent people to dig roads for which there was no need, in a completely unknown direction. One of the heroes of the play, Michael, having learned about this, left his job and, returning home, said to his father: "They are making a road leading to nowhere."

A person who believes in prophecy would never say such a thing. History cannot be a road that leads nowhere. Perhaps we view prophecy differently than our ancestors did, but behind prophecy is the enduring fact that life and peace are not a road to nowhere, but a path to God's purpose.

NOT RIGHTEOUS, BUT SINNERS (Mt 1:1-17, continued)

The most striking in the pedigree are the names of the women. In Jewish genealogies, female names are extremely rare in general. The woman had no legal rights; they looked at her not as a person, but as a thing; it was only the property of the father or husband, and they could do with it what they pleased. In everyday morning prayer, the Jew thanked God that He did not make him a pagan, a slave or a woman. In general, the very existence of these names in the pedigree is an extremely surprising and unusual phenomenon.

But if you look at these women - who they were and what they did - you have to wonder even more. Rahab, or Rahab as she is called in the Old Testament, was a harlot from Jericho ( Jesus N. 2,1-7). Ruth was not even Jewish, but a Moabite ( Ruf. 1.4), and is it not said in the law: "The Ammonite and the Moabite cannot enter into the congregation of the Lord, and the tenth generation of them cannot enter into the congregation of the Lord forever" ( Deut. 23.3). Ruth was from a hostile and hated people. Tamar was a skilled seductress ( Gen. 38). Bathsheba, the mother of Solomon, David most cruelly took away from Uriah, her husband ( 2 Kings 11 and 12). If Matthew had searched the Old Testament for improbable candidates, he could not have found four more impossible ancestors for Jesus Christ. But, of course, there is something very remarkable in this. Here, at the very beginning, Matthew shows us in symbols the essence of the gospel of God in Jesus Christ, because here he shows how barriers come down.

1 . Removed the barrier between Jew and Gentile. Rahab - a woman from Jericho, and Ruth - a Moabite - found a place in the genealogy of Jesus Christ. This already reflected the truth that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek. Already here one can see the universalism of the gospel and the love of God.

2 . Removed barriers between women and men. There were no female names in the regular genealogy, but there are in the Jesus genealogy. The old contempt is gone; men and women are equally dear to God and equally important to His purposes.

3 . The barriers between saints and sinners have disappeared. God can use for His purposes and fit into His plan even someone who has sinned a lot. "I came," says Jesus, "to call not the righteous, but sinners" ( Matthew 9:13).

Already here, at the very beginning of the Gospel, there are indications of the all-encompassing love of God. God can find His servants among those that respected Orthodox Jews would turn away with a shudder.

THE SAVIOR'S ENTRY INTO THE WORLD (Mt 1:18-25)

Such relationships can confuse us. First, it talks about betrothal Mary, then about what Joseph wanted secretly let go her, and then she is named wife his. But these relationships reflect the usual Jewish marriage relationship and the procedure, which consisted of several stages.

1 . Firstly, matchmaking. It was often done in childhood; this was done by parents or professional matchmakers and matchmakers, and very often the future spouses did not even see each other. Marriage was considered too serious a matter to be left to the impulse of human hearts.

2 . Secondly, betrothal. Betrothal can be called a confirmation of the matchmaking concluded between the couple earlier. At this point, the matchmaking could be interrupted at the request of the girl. If the engagement took place, then it lasted one year, during which the couple was known to everyone as husband and wife, although without marriage rights. The only way to end the relationship was through divorce. In Jewish law, one can often find a phrase that seems strange to us: a girl whose fiancé died during this time was called a "virgin widow." Joseph and Mary were engaged, and if Joseph wanted to end the engagement, he could only do so by giving Mary a divorce.

3 . And the third stage - marriage, after a year of engagement.

If we recall the Jewish customs of marriage, it becomes clear that this passage describes the most typical and normal relationship.

Thus, before the marriage, Joseph was told that the Virgin Mary from the Holy Spirit would give birth to a baby who was to be called Jesus. Jesus is the Greek translation of the Hebrew name Yeshua, and Yeshua means " Yahweh will save". Even the psalmist David exclaimed: "He will deliver Israel from all his iniquities" ( Ps. 129.8). Joseph was also told that the Child would grow up to be a Savior who would save God's people from their sins. Jesus was born as a Savior rather than as a King. He came into this world not for His own sake, but for the sake of people and for our salvation.

BORN OF THE HOLY SPIRIT (Mt 1:18-25 (continued))

This passage says that Jesus will be born of the Holy Spirit in an immaculate conception. The fact of the virgin birth is difficult for us to understand. There are many theories trying to figure out the literal physical meaning of this phenomenon. We want to understand what is the main thing for us in this truth.

When we read this passage with fresh eyes, we see that it emphasizes not so much the fact that Jesus was born by a virgin, but rather that the birth of Jesus is the result of the work of the Holy Spirit. "It turned out that She (Virgin Mary) is pregnant with the Holy Spirit." "What's born in her is from the Holy Spirit." And what does it mean then the phrase that at the birth of Jesus the Holy Spirit took a special part?

According to the Jewish worldview, the Holy Spirit had certain functions. We cannot invest in this passage in its entirety. Christian ideas of the Holy Spirit, since Joseph could not yet know anything about it, and therefore we must interpret it in the light of Jewish ideas of the Holy Spirit, for Joseph would have put that very idea into the passage, because he only knew it.

1 . According to the Jewish worldview The Holy Spirit brought God's truth to the people. The Holy Spirit taught the prophets what they needed to say; The Holy Spirit taught the people of God what they should do; throughout the ages and generations, the Holy Spirit has brought God's truth to people. Therefore, Jesus is the One who brings God's truth to people.

Let's say it differently. Jesus alone can tell us what God is like and what God would like us to be. Only in Jesus do we see what God is like and what man should be. Until Jesus came, people had only vague and unclear, and often completely wrong ideas about God. They could at best guess and grope; and Jesus could say, "He who has seen me has seen the Father" ( John. 14.9). In Jesus, as nowhere else in the world, we see love, compassion, mercy, a searching heart and the purity of God. With the coming of Jesus, the time of conjecture ended and the time of certainty came. Before the coming of Jesus, people did not know what virtue was at all. Only in Jesus do we see what true virtue, true maturity, true obedience to the will of God is. Jesus came to tell us the truth about God and the truth about ourselves.

2 . The Jews believed that the Holy Spirit not only brings the truth of God to people, but also gives them the ability to know this truth when they see it. In this way, Jesus opens people's eyes to the truth. People are blinded by their own ignorance. Their prejudices lead them astray; their eyes and minds are darkened by their sins and passions. Jesus can open our eyes so we can see the truth. In one of the novels of the English writer William Locke, there is an image of a rich woman who has spent half her life seeing the sights and art galleries of the world. Eventually she got tired; nothing could surprise her, interest her. But one day she meets a man who has few material goods of this world, but who truly knows and loves beauty. They begin to travel together and everything changes for this woman. "I never knew what things were like until you showed me how to look at them," she told him.

Life becomes completely different when Jesus teaches us how to look at things. When Jesus comes into our hearts, He opens our eyes so that we can see the world and things right.

CREATION AND RE-CREATION (Mt 1:18-25, continued)

3 . Jews in a special way associated the Holy Spirit with creation. God created the world by His Spirit. At the very beginning, the Spirit of God hovered over the waters and the world became out of chaos ( Gen. 1.2). “By the word of the Lord the heavens were made,” said the psalmist, “and by the spirit of his mouth all their host” ( Ps. 32.6). (As in Hebrew ruach, as well as in Greek pneuma, mean at the same time spirit And breath). "Send your spirit - they are created" ( Ps. 103.30). “The Spirit of God created me,” says Job, “and the breath of the Almighty gave me life” ( Job. 33.4).

The Spirit is the Creator of the world and the Giver of life. Thus, in Jesus Christ, the creative, life-giving power of God came into the world. The power that brought order to the primal chaos has now come to us to bring order to our disordered lives. The power that breathed life into that which had no life has come to breathe life into our weakness and our vanity. It can be said that we are not truly alive until Jesus comes into our lives.

4 . In particular, the Jews associated the Spirit not with creation and creation, but with recreation. Ezekiel has a grim picture of a field full of bones. He tells how these bones came to life, and then he hears the voice of God saying, "I will put My Spirit in you, and you will live" ( Ezek. 37.1-14). The rabbis had this saying: “God said to Israel: “In this world, My Spirit has given you wisdom, and in the future, My Spirit will give you life again.” The Spirit of God can awaken to life people who have died in sin and deafness.

Thus, through Jesus Christ, a power came into the world that could recreate life. Jesus can revive a soul lost in sin; He can revive dead ideals; He can again give strength to the fallen to strive for virtue. He can renew life when people have lost everything that life means.

So, this chapter says not only that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin. The essence of Matthew's account is that the Spirit of God was involved in the birth of Jesus as never before in the world. The Spirit brings the truth of God to the people; The Spirit enables people to know the truth when they see it; Spirit is the mediator in the creation of the world; only the Spirit can revive the human soul when it has lost the life it should have had.

Jesus gives us the ability to see what God is like and what man should be; Jesus opens the mind to understanding so that we can see God's truth for us; Jesus is a creative force that has come to people; Jesus is a recreative force capable of freeing human souls from sinful death.

Most often we see Jesus surrounded by ordinary people, and here we see Him meeting with one of the representatives of the aristocracy of Jerusalem. We know something about Nicodemus.

1. Nicodemus must have been rich. When Jesus was taken down from the cross for burial, Nicodemus brought to embalm His body "a composition of myrrh and scarlet, about a hundred liters" (John 19:39), and only a rich man could buy it.

2. Nicodemus was a Pharisee. The Pharisees were in many ways the best people in the land. Their number never exceeded 6 thousand and they were known under the name khaburakh or brotherhood. They entered into this brotherhood, having given a vow in the presence of three witnesses that they would observe the smallest details of the law of the scribes all their lives.

And what did that mean? For the Jews, the law - the first five books of the Old Testament - was the most holy in the world; they believed it to be the true word of God; adding one word to something or taking one word away from it was considered a mortal sin. Well, if the law is the perfect and final word of God, then it must clearly and precisely say what a person must know in order to lead a virtuous life. If something was not there, then it, in their opinion, could be deduced from what was said. The law, as it existed, was a comprehensive, noble and broadly formulated principle, which each person had to learn for himself. But in later times this was no longer enough for the Jews. They said: "The law is perfect, it has everything that is needed to lead a virtuous life; and therefore there must be rules in the law that regulate any situation in life at any time for any person." And they began to work out from these great principles of law innumerable rules and regulations governing every conceivable situation in life. In other words, they turned the law of the great general principles into a set of regulations and rules.

Their activities are best seen in the realm of the Sabbath provisions. The Bible simply says that the Jews must keep the Sabbath and do no work on that day, either for themselves or their servants or their animals. In later times, dissenting Jews, generation after generation, spent countless hours trying to establish what is work and what is not work, i.e., what can and cannot be done on the Sabbath. Mishnah - it is a written codified law. In it the section concerning the Sabbath occupies no more and no less than twenty-four chapters. Talmud - These are clarifications and comments on Mishnah and in Jerusalem Talmud the section dealing with explanations and interpretations of the Sabbath law occupies sixty-four and a half columns, and in the Babylonian Talmud - one hundred and fifty six large format pages. There is information about a rabbi who spent two and a half years studying one of these twenty-four chapters. Mishnah.

Here's what it all looked like. Tying a knot on the Sabbath was considered work; but now it was necessary to define what a node is. "The following are the knots by which a person breaks the law: the camel driver's knot and the sea knot. As soon as a person breaks the law by tying a knot, he breaks it and unties it." Knots that could be tied and untied with one hand were not against the law. Further, "a woman may tie a knot in her shirt or dress, the ribbon of her hat and her belt, the laces of her shoes or sandals, a wineskin of wine or oil." Well, now let's see how all this was applied in practice. Suppose a man needs to lower a bucket into a well on the Sabbath to draw water: he could not tie a knot in it, because tying a knot in a rope on the Sabbath was against the law, but he could tie it to a woman's belt and lower the bucket into the well. This sort of thing was a matter of life and death for the scribes and Pharisees; this was their religion; in their mind it meant serving and pleasing God. Or take walking on Saturday. IN Ref. 16.29 It is said: "Stay each one at your own place; no one leave his place on the seventh day." And so the Saturday journey was limited to a distance of 900-1000 meters. But if a rope was stretched at the end of the street, the whole street became one house, and a person could walk these 900-1000 meters beyond the end of the street. Or, if a person left enough food on Friday evening in a certain place, then this place became his home and he could already travel these 1000 meters from that place. Rules, norms and reservations were typed in hundreds and thousands.

And here's how it was with carrying weights. IN Jer. 17:21-24 It says, "Take care of your souls and carry no burdens on the Sabbath day." And so it was necessary to give a definition of burden and heaviness. A burden was defined as "food equivalent to a dried fig; wine enough to mix in a glass; milk, for one sip; enough honey to cover a wound; oil enough to anoint a small area of ​​the body; enough water to to make eye salve" and so on and so forth. Then it was necessary to establish whether a woman can wear a brooch on Saturday, and a man can wear a wooden leg and a denture, or is this equated to wearing heavy weight? Is it possible to lift a chair or at least a child? And so on and so forth.

These norms were developed lawyers, A Pharisees dedicated their lives to their observance. Whatever it was, it was clear that a man had to take everything very seriously if he was going to keep all those thousands of rules, and the Pharisees did just that. Word Pharisees Means separated, and the Pharisees were people who separated themselves from ordinary life in order to keep every rule of the law of the scribes.

Nicodemus was a Pharisee, and therefore it is extremely surprising that a man who looked at virtue from this point of view and devoted his life to such scrupulous observance of the law in the conviction that he was thereby pleasing God would even want to talk with Jesus.

3. Nicodemus was one of the leaders of the Jews; in the original Greek archon. In other words, he was a member of the Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin was the supreme court of the Jews, consisting of seventy members. It is quite obvious that during the period of Roman rule his rights were much limited; but he didn't lose them at all. In particular, the Sanhedrin resolved judicial issues concerning religion and any Jew, wherever he lived. Among other things, his task was to watch for those who were suspected of being false prophets and take appropriate measures. And so again it is amazing that Nicodemus came to Jesus.

4. It may well be that Nicodemus belonged to a noble Jerusalem family. So, for example, in 63 BC, when the Jews were at war with Rome, the Jewish leader Aristobulus sent a certain Nicodemus as his ambassador to the Roman commander Pompey the Great. Much later, in the terrible last days of the siege of Jerusalem, negotiations for the surrender of the remnants of the garrison were conducted by a certain Gorion, the son of either Nicodemus, or Nicomedes. It is quite possible that both of them belonged to the family of this same Nicodemus, and that it was one of the noblest families of Jerusalem. In such a case, it seems almost incomprehensible that this Jewish aristocrat should come to a homeless prophet, a former carpenter from Nazareth, to talk about his soul.

Nicodemus came to Jesus at night. There could be two reasons for this.

1. This could be a sign of caution. It is possible that Nicodemus did not want to show himself openly by coming to Jesus during the day. You can't blame him for this. It's amazing that such a person came to Jesus at all. It was much better to come at night than not to come at all. It is a miracle of grace that Nicodemus overcame his prejudices, his upbringing and his outlook on life and was able to come to Jesus.

2. But there could be another reason. The rabbis argued that the night, when nothing distracts a person, is the best time to study the law. Jesus spent whole days surrounded by crowds of people. It is possible that Nicodemus came to Jesus at night precisely because he wanted to spend time with Jesus completely alone, so that no one would disturb them.

Nicodemus seemed to be confused. He had everything, but something was missing in his life. And so he came to talk to Jesus in order to find light in the darkness of the night.

THE MAN WHO COMED BY THE NIGHT (John 3:1-6 continued)

In reporting Jesus' conversations with people who came to Him with questions, John follows a pattern that we can clearly see here. Man asks something (3,2), Jesus' answer is hard to understand (3,3), the person understands the answer incorrectly (3,4), the following answer is even less clear to the questioner (3,5). And then there is discussion and explanation. The evangelist uses this method so that we can see how people who come to Jesus with questions are trying to find the truth themselves, and so that we can do the same.

Coming to Jesus, Nicodemus said that everyone was amazed by the signs and wonders performed by Jesus. Jesus replied to this that it was not miracles and signs that mattered, but such a change in the inner spiritual life, which could be called a new birth.

When Jesus spoke about born again Nicodemus did not understand Him. This misunderstanding stems from the fact that the Greek word apophene, translated in the Russian Bible as over has three different meanings. 1. It can matter fundamentally, completely, radically. 2. It can mean again, In terms of a second time. 3. It can matter over, those. O t God. In Russian, this cannot be conveyed in one word, but the meaning is fully conveyed by the expression be born again. To be born again means to be changed so profoundly that it amounts to a new birth; this means that something happened to the soul that can be characterized as a complete rebirth and this does not depend on human accomplishments, because all this is from the grace and power of God.

When reading the passage of John, one gets the impression that Nicodemus understood the word apophene only in the second sense and, moreover, quite literally. How, he asked, can a man enter another time into his mother's womb and be born when he is already old? But something else sounds in Nicodemus' answer: there was a great unsatisfied desire in his heart. In immeasurably acute anguish, he seemed to be saying: "You are talking about being born again, You are talking about the need for a radical and complete change. I know that this necessary, but, after all, in my ministry, it is impossible. This is what I would like most of all, but You are telling me, a grown man, to enter my mother's womb and be born again." Nicodemus doubts not desirability this change (he understood very well its necessity), he doubted her feasibility. Nicodemus faced the eternal problem of a man who wants to change but cannot do it.

Expression be born again, be reborn runs throughout the New Testament. Peter speaks of the great mercy of God, regenerating us (1 Pet. 1:3); O revival not from a perishable seed (1 Pet. 1:22-23). James says that God gave birth us with the word of truth (James 1:18). The Epistle to Titus speaks of the bath of rebirth and renewal (Titus 3:5). This is sometimes referred to as death followed by revival or update. Paul speaks of Christians as dying with Christ and then resurrecting to new life (Rom. 6:1-11). He speaks of those who have recently entered the Christian faith as babes in Christ (1 Cor. 3:1-2)."He who is in Christ new creature; the old is gone, now everything is new (2 Cor. 5:17). In Christ Jesus, only the new creation (creation) matters (Gal. 6:15). New person created according to God in righteousness and holiness of truth (Eph. 4:24). A person who begins to learn the Christian faith is a baby (Heb. 5:12-14). This idea comes up all the time in the New Testament. revival, restoration.

But this idea was by no means unfamiliar to people who heard it in New Testament times. The Jews knew well what revival was. When a person from another faith converted to Judaism - and this was accompanied by prayer, sacrifice and baptism - they looked at him as revived."A proselyte," said the rabbis, "who has converted to Judaism, is like a newborn child." The change in the new convert seemed so radical that the sins he had previously committed were considered to be done away with once and for all, because in the view of the Jews he was now a different person. Theoretically, it has even been argued that such a person can marry his mother or sister, because he has become a completely new person and all old ties are broken and destroyed. The Jews were well aware of the idea of ​​regeneration.

The Greeks also knew this idea, and also very well. At this time, the Mysteries were the most widespread religion in Greece. The mysteries were based on the life story of some suffering god, who therefore died and rose again. This story played out as a mystery of passion and suffering. The newcomer first went through a long course of preparation, instruction, asceticism and fasting. After that, the drama was enacted with magnificent music and amazing ritual, incense and various other sense-affecting means. As the drama played out, the newcomer had to become one with God, and even in such a way as to go through the entire path of this god's suffering and participate in his triumph and partake of his heavenly life. These mystery religions offered man some kind of mystical union with some god. Upon reaching this unity, the newly initiated became, in the language of these mysteries second-born. At the heart of the mysteries of the god Hermes lay the fundamental belief that "there can be no salvation without rebirth." The Roman writer Apuleius, who went through the process of conversion, said that he "passed through a voluntary death" and that, thus, he reached the day of his "spiritual birth" and was "as it were reborn." Many of these mystical invocations were performed at midnight, when the day dies and a new day is born. Among the Phrygians, the convert after the conversion procedure was fed with milk, like a newborn.

The ancient world, therefore, knew all about rebirth and renewal. He craved it and looked for it everywhere. At the moment when Christianity brought the message of the resurrection and rebirth into the world, the whole world was waiting for it.

Well, what does this revival mean for us? There are four closely related ideas in the New Testament, and especially in the fourth gospel: the idea of ​​regeneration; the idea of ​​the Kingdom of Heaven, into which a person cannot enter unless he is born again; the idea of ​​the children of God and the idea of ​​eternal life. This idea of ​​regeneration is not something specific to the fourth gospel. In the Gospel of Matthew we see the same great truth expressed more simply and more vividly: "Unless you turn and become like children, you will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven" (Matt. 18:3). These ideas are based on a common thought.

BORN AGAIN (John 3:1-6 continued)

Let's start with Kingdom of Heaven. What does it mean? The best definition we can get is from the Lord's Prayer. There are two prayers:

"Thy kingdom come;

May Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven."

It is common in Jewish style to say the same thing twice, with the second saying explaining and reinforcing the first. Most of the Psalms exemplify what is known as parallelism:

"The Lord of hosts is with us,

The God of Jacob is our intercessor" (Ps. 45:8).

"For I acknowledge my iniquities,

And my sin is always before me" (Ps. 50:5).

"He makes me lie down in green pastures

And leads me to still waters" (Ps. 22:2).

Let us apply this principle to the two supplications mentioned in the Lord's Prayer. The second supplication explains and strengthens the first, then we get this definition: The Kingdom of Heaven is a society in which God's will is carried out just as perfectly on earth as it is in heaven. Therefore, to be in the Kingdom of God means to lead such a way of life in which we have voluntarily submitted everything to the will of God, that is, we have reached a stage when we completely and completely accept the will of God.

Now let's get to the idea. child of God. Being a child of God is a huge privilege. Those who believe are given the opportunity and ability to become children of God (John 1:12). The main meaning in the relationship between children and their parents is obedience."Whoever has My commandments and observes them he loves me" (John 14:21). The essence of filial relations is love, and the essence of love is obedience. We cannot seriously say that we love a person if we do something that hurts his heart and hurts him. Filial relations are a privilege, but they become effective only when we bring absolute obedience to God. Thus, being a child of God and being in the Kingdom of God are one and the same. Both a child of God and a citizen of the Kingdom of God are people who have completely and voluntarily accepted the will of God.

Now let's get to the idea. eternal life. It is far better to speak of eternal life than of eternal life: the basic idea of ​​eternal life is not only the idea of ​​infinite duration. It is quite obvious that a life that lasts forever can be hell as well as heaven. Behind eternal life stands the idea of ​​a certain quality. And what is she like? Only One can truly be defined by this adjective eternal (aponios) and this One is God. God lives eternal life. Eternal life is the life of God. To enter into eternal life is to acquire the life that God Himself lives; it is the life of God, that is, the life of God. It means being raised above purely human, transient things into that joy and peace that belong only to God. It is quite obvious that a person can enter into this friendship with God only when he brings Him that love, that reverence, that devotion, that obedience, which will really bring him into friendship with God.

Here, therefore, we have before us three great kindred conceptions - entry into the Kingdom of Heaven, filial relationship with God, and eternal life; all of them directly depend on perfect obedience to the will of God and are its consequences. And here they are united by the idea rebirth, rebirth. It is she who ties together all these three concepts. It is quite obvious that, in our present condition and in our own strength, we cannot offer this perfect obedience to God; only when the grace of God enters into us and takes possession of us and changes us, can we bring Him that reverence and that devotion that we should show Him. We are regenerated and born again through Jesus Christ, and when He takes possession of our hearts and our lives, this change occurs.

When this happens - we are born from water and Spirit. There are two thoughts in this. Water - symbol of purification. When Jesus takes over our lives, when we love Him with all our heart, the sins of the past are forgiven and forgotten. Spirit - symbol strength. When Jesus takes possession of our lives, our sins are not only forgiven and forgotten. If that were all, we could continue to commit the same sins, but a power comes into our lives that gives us the opportunity to be what we could never be on our own, and do what we could never be on our own. would do. Water and the Spirit symbolize the cleansing and strengthening power of Christ, which erases the past and gives victory to the future.

Finally, this passage contains a great law. What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit. Man himself is flesh, and his power is limited by what the flesh can do. On his own, he can only feel failure and emptiness: we know this very well - it is a well-known fact from the experience of mankind. And the very essence of the Spirit is power and life, which are higher than human power and life. When the Spirit takes possession of us, the unsuccessful life of human nature becomes the victorious life of God.

To be born again means to be changed in such a way that it is comparable only to rebirth and re-creation. The change comes when we love Jesus and let Him into our hearts. Then we are forgiven for the past and armed with the Spirit for the future and can truly accept the will of God. Then we become citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven and children of God, we enter into eternal life, which is the true life of God.

THE DUTY TO KNOW AND THE RIGHT TO SPEAK (John 3:7-13)

There are two types of misunderstanding. Failure to understand a person who has not yet reached the appropriate level of knowledge and experience necessary to understand the truth. When a person is at this level, we have to make a lot of effort and explain everything to him so that he can assimilate the knowledge that is offered to him. But there is still a misunderstanding of a person who does not want to understand: this inability to see and understand is the result of not wanting to see. A person can deliberately close his eyes and mind to truths that he does not want to accept.

That's what Nicodemus was. The doctrine of being born again from God should not have been out of the ordinary for him. The prophet Ezekiel, for example, repeatedly spoke of a new heart to be created in man. "Reject from yourselves all your sins with which you have sinned, and create for yourself a new heart and a new spirit; why should you die, O house of Israel" (Ezekiel 18:31)."And I will give you a new heart and a new spirit I will give you" (Ezekiel 36:26). Nicodemus was a scholar of the Scriptures, and the prophets repeatedly spoke of exactly what Jesus was now talking about. A person who does not want to be born again will deliberately not understand what it is to be born again, he will deliberately close his eyes, his mind and heart from the influence of a power that can change him. Ultimately, the problem with most of us is that when Jesus Christ comes to us with an offer to change and regenerate us, we most often say: "No thanks: I'm completely satisfied with myself and I don't need any changes."

Jesus' words forced Nicodemus to change his argument. He said, "This new birth that You're talking about might be possible, but I'm not sure what it'll look like." Jesus' answer to Nicodemus' objection and its meaning depend on the fact that the word He used pneuma, spirit, also has a second meaning wind; also the Jewish word ruach has the meaning spirit And wind. Thus, Jesus seemed to say to Nicodemus: "You can hear, see and feel wind (pneuma), But you don't know where or where it blows; you may not understand why the wind blows, but you see what it does; you may not know where the gust of wind came from, but you can see the bread left behind it and the trees uprooted. Much is clear to you in connection with the wind, for you clearly see its action. Spirit (pneuma), - continues Jesus, the same is true. You cannot know how the Spirit works, but you can see it in people's lives."

Jesus says: "We are not discussing a theoretical issue, we are talking about what We see with our own eyes. We can point to specific people who have been regenerated by the power of the Spirit." There is a story about an English worker who was a bitter drunkard but turned to Christ. His former drinking companions mocked him: "You certainly can't believe in miracles and all that. You certainly don't believe that Jesus turned water into wine." "I don't know," he replied, "whether He turned water into wine there in Palestine, but I know that in my house He turned beer into furniture!"

There are many things in the world that we use every day, but we do not know how they actually work. Relatively few people know how electricity, radio, television work, but we do not deny their existence. Many people drive with only a vague idea of ​​what's going on under the hood, but that doesn't stop them from using and enjoying the benefits of a car. We may not understand how the Spirit works, but everyone sees the result of its influence on people's lives. An irrefutable argument in favor of Christianity is the Christian way of life. No one can deny a religion that turns bad people into good people.

Jesus says to Nicodemus: "I tried to make it easy for you: I used simple human analogies taken from everyday life, but you did not understand. How then do you think you can understand deep and complex problems if simple ones are not available to you?" This is a warning to all of us. It is not difficult to sit in discussion groups, in a quiet office and read books, it is not difficult to discuss the truths of Christianity, but the whole point is to feel and realize their power. In general, a person can very simply and easily make a mistake and see in Christianity only a debatable problem, and not something that needs to be experienced and comprehended. No doubt it is important to understand Christian truth intellectually, but it is even more important to feel the power of Jesus Christ in your life. When a person undergoes a course of treatment or undergoes an operation, when he needs to take a medicine, he does not need an exhaustive knowledge of human anatomy, the action of anesthetic drugs or drugs on the human body in order to be cured. Ninety-nine people out of a hundred take treatment without knowing how they got cured. In a certain sense, Christianity is like that: in its essence there is a mystery that cannot be reached by the mind, because this mystery is redemption.

When reading the fourth Gospel, difficulties arise due to the fact that it is not always clear where the words of Jesus end and where the words of the author of the Gospel begin. John meditated on the words of Jesus for so long that he imperceptibly passes from them to his own thoughts about them. Almost certainly the last words of this paragraph are John's. It's as if someone asked, "What right does Jesus have to say that? How can we know it's true?" The evangelist answers this simply and thoroughly: "Jesus came down from heaven to tell us God's truth. And after He lived among people and died for them, He returned to His glory." John says of Jesus that He came from God, that He came to earth directly from heavenly mysteries; that everything He said to people is literally the truth of God, for Jesus is the incarnate mind of God.

ASCENTED CHRIST (John 3:14-15)

John refers to the Old Testament story set forth in Number 21:4-9 when the people of Israel, while wandering in the wilderness, faint-heartedly complained, murmured and regretted that they had left Egypt at all, to now die in the wilderness. To punish the Jews, God sent terrible poisonous snakes on them, the bite of which was fatal. The people repented and begged for mercy. God taught Moses to make a brass serpent and set it up in the middle of the camp so that if anyone were to be bitten by a serpent, he could look at this brass serpent and remain alive. This story made a great impression on the Jews: they had a legend that later this bronze serpent became an idol and even had to be destroyed in the time of Ezekiel, since the people worshiped him (2 Kings 18:4). Besides, this incident always puzzled the Jews, because they were forbidden to make idols and idols. The rabbis explained it this way: "It was not the serpent that gave life (healing). When Moses raised the serpent, the people believed in the One who taught Moses to do so. God gave the healing." The healing power did not come from the copper serpent: it was only a symbol designed to turn the thoughts of the Jews to God, and when their thoughts turned to Him, they were healed.

John took this story and used it as a kind of parable of Jesus. He says, "That serpent was lifted up, the people looked at it, their thoughts turned to God, and by the power and authority of the God they believed in, they were healed. Jesus must also be lifted up, and when people turn their thoughts to Him and believe in Him, they too shall have eternal life."

There is one extremely tempting thing here: the verb uplift, in Greek hoopsone, is used in relation to Jesus in two senses: in the sense lifted up on the cross (John 8:28; 12:32) And exalted to glory at the time of his ascension to heaven (Acts 2:33; 5:31; Phil. 2:9). Jesus was raised twice - to the cross and to glory, and both of these ascensions are closely and inextricably linked: one could not take place without the other. For Jesus, the cross was the way to glory; if He had abandoned it, if He had escaped it, then glory would have passed Him by. And for us it is the same: we can, if we want, choose a simple and easy way and refuse the cross that every Christian must bear, but in this case we will lose glory. The immutable law of life says: without the cross there is no crown.

In this passage we must pay particular attention to two expressions. It should be said at once that we cannot reveal all their meaning, because they mean much more than we will ever be able to comprehend, but we must try to understand at least a part.

1. This is an expression that refers to faith in Jesus. It has at least three meanings.

a) To believe with all our heart that God really is what Jesus tells us, that is, to believe that God loves us, cares for us, that above all He wants to forgive us. It was not easy for the Jew to believe this; he saw in God the One who placed the burden of laws on his people and punished people if they violated them. He saw in God the Judge, and in people the criminals sitting on the dock; he saw in God the One who demanded sacrifices and offerings. In order to enter into His presence, a person had to pay a set price. It was difficult to think of God, not as a Judge waiting to pass judgment, not as an overseer looking for some slip or flaw, but as a Father who most of all wants His children to come home. It took the life and death of Jesus to tell people this, and we cannot become Christians until we believe it with all our hearts.

(b) Where is the evidence that Jesus knew what He was talking about? Where is the guarantee that his wonderful gospel is true? We must believe that Jesus is the Son of God, that in him is the mind of God, that He came from God, that He is One with Him and therefore can tell us the full truth about Him.

c) We believe that God is a loving Father because we believe that Jesus is the Son of God and therefore everything He says about God is the truth. And we must unreservedly believe that everything Jesus said is the truth; we must do whatever He says, we must obey when He commands. When He tells us to rely implicitly on the mercy of God, we must do so; we must take Jesus at his word. Every action must be done in unquestioning obedience to Him.

Thus, faith in Jesus includes the following three elements: faith that God is our loving Father; faith that Jesus is the Son of God and therefore told us the truth about God and about life; and unquestioning and unrequited obedience to Him.

2. The second important expression in this passage is life eternal. We have already seen that eternal life is the life of God himself. But let us ask ourselves this question: if we have found eternal life, then what do we have? If we partake of eternal life, what does it look like? When we receive eternal life, we receive peace and rest.

a) It gives us peace with God. We stop groveling before the tyrant-king or hiding from the harsh judge. We are at home with our Father.

b) It gives us peace with people. If we have been forgiven, we must also forgive. Eternal life gives us the ability to see people as God sees them. It makes us with all people reborn from above as one great family united by love.

c) It gives us peace with life. If God is the Father, then He arranges all things so that everything is for the best. The German writer and art theorist Lessing said that if he could ask the sphinx, he would ask him only one question: "Is this a friendly universe?" When we believe that God is our Father, we can trust that the hand of God the Father will never cause his child unnecessary pain or cause him to shed unnecessary tears. We will not understand life better, but we will no longer resent it.

d) Eternal life gives us peace with ourselves. Ultimately, a person is most afraid of himself: he knows his weaknesses and the strength of temptations, his tasks and the demands of life. And he also knows that with all this he must appear before God. But now he does not live himself, but Christ lives in him. And peace and peace came into his life, based on the new strength in his life.

e) He is convinced that the most durable earthly rest is only a shadow of the coming perfect rest; it gives him hope and a goal to which he aspires, it gives him a life that is glorious and wonderful now, and at the same time a life in which the best is yet to come.

THE LOVE OF GOD (John 3:16)

Each of the people has their favorite verse, and this one was called "the verse of all and everyone." It lays out the very essence of the gospel for every heart. From this verse we learn some great truths.

1. He tells us that the initiative for salvation comes from God. Some present salvation as if God had to be propitiated, as if He had to be persuaded to forgive people. Others speak as if above us is, on the one hand, a stern, angry, and unforgiving God, and, on the other hand, a gentle, loving, and forgiving Christ. Sometimes people present the Christian good news in such a way that one gets the impression that Jesus did something that changed God's attitude towards people; turned His condemnation into forgiveness. But from this verse it is clear that God Himself was the initiator of everything: God sent His Son, and sent Him because He loves people. Behind everything is the great love of God.

2. This verse tells us that the main thing in God is love. It's easy to imagine God looking at careless, disobedient and rebellious people and saying: "I will break them: I will punish, punish, and educate them until they come back." It is simple to imagine God seeking the allegiance of people in order to exercise His right to rule and to ultimately submit the universe to Himself. But what strikes us in this passage is that God is presented as acting not in His interest, but in our interest, not to satisfy His desire for power and strength, not to bring the universe into obedience, but solely from a feeling of love. God is not an absolute monarch who treats each person in such a way as to bring him to humiliating servility; He is the Father Who cannot be happy until the lost children return home; He does not bring people into obedience by force, but suffers because of them and treats them with love.

3. This verse speaks of the power and limitlessness of God's love. God loves the whole world: not just some people, or good people, and not only those people who love Him - He loves world. Unworthy of love and unattractive, lonely, who have no one to love and are surrounded by cares, who love God and never thought about Him, who rest in God's love and reject it with contempt - all of them are embraced by this great all-encompassing love of God. As Aurelius Augustine put it, "God loves each of us as if He had no one else to love."

LOVE AND JUDGMENT (John 3:17-21)

Before us is another of the seeming paradoxes of the fourth gospel - the paradox of love and judgment. We have just talked about the love of God, and now we are suddenly faced with such things as judgment, condemnation, conviction. John was just saying that God sent His Son into the world because He so loved the world. In the future, we will still meet the saying of Jesus: "I came into this world for judgment" (John 9:39). How can such different words be considered true?

If a person has the ability to show love, then a judgment can be made by its manifestation. If a person has the ability to give people joy and pleasure, then he will be judged according to the results. Suppose we love serious music and come closest to God when we listen to our favorite symphony. Suppose we have a friend who knows nothing at all about such music and we want to introduce him to it and bring him into contact with that invisible beauty that gives us pleasure. At the same time, we have only one goal - to give a friend the joy of a great new experience, we will take him to a symphony concert, but very soon we see him terribly bored and restlessly looking around the hall. Our friend passed judgment on himself - he has no feeling for music in his soul. An experience that should have brought him only happiness brought him condemnation.

This is always the case when we introduce a person to something great: whether we take him to see some masterpiece of art, give him a rare book to read, or take him with us to see some beautiful place: his very reaction will be his judgment - if he will not find anything beautiful or amazing in it, then we will know that there is a dead spot in his soul. Somehow, an employee of an art gallery took a visitor through the halls, in which priceless masterpieces, works of recognized masters, were exhibited. "Well," the visitor said at the end, "I don't find anything special in your old pictures." "Sir," the gallery worker replied, "these paintings have long ceased to need evaluation, but those who look at them - yes." By his reaction, this visitor only showed his pitiful blindness.

The same is true of accepting Jesus. If the soul of a person, when he meets Jesus, is overwhelmed with amazement and joy, then this person is on the path to salvation, and if he does not see anything beautiful, then he condemned himself by his reaction. God out of love sent Jesus into this world to save this man, and now the man received condemnation instead of love. No, it was not God who condemned this man - God only loves him, the man condemned himself.

The man who is hostile to Jesus loves darkness more than light. A sincere person always has some subconscious feeling that he is worthy of condemnation. By comparing ourselves to Jesus, we see ourselves in the true light. Alcibiades - a brilliant but depraved Athenian and friend of the Greek philosopher Socrates - often said: "Socrates, I hate you, because every time I see you, I see what I am."

A person who engages in unsightly deeds does not want streams of bright light to pour on him, and a person who does a good deed is not afraid of the light.

Once an architect came to the Greek philosopher Plato and offered to build him a house in which not a single room would be visible from the street. To this Plato replied: "I will pay you double if you build a house in which every person can see into every room." Only a villain and a sinner does not want to see himself and does not want others to see him. Such a person will definitely hate Jesus Christ, because Christ shows him what he really is, and this is what he wants least of all. Such a person loves the darkness that hides everything, and not the light that reveals everything.

Already one such attitude of a person to Christ exposes and shows his soul. A person who looks at Christ with love, or even with acute longing, has hope, and whoever sees nothing attractive in Christ, has condemned himself. He who was sent out of love became his condemnation.

A MAN WITHOUT ENVY (John 3:22-30)

We have already seen that the purpose of the author of the fourth Gospel was to show the place that John the Baptist actually occupied: he was a forerunner and nothing more. There were people who called John the Baptist teacher and Lord, and the author shows that John the Baptist does indeed have a high place, but that the highest place belongs only to Jesus. In addition, John the Baptist himself pointed out that the first place belongs to Jesus. From these considerations, the author of the fourth gospel shows that the ministry of John the Baptist partially coincided in time with the ministry of Jesus. The Synoptic Gospels take a different view on this point. IN Mar. 1.14 Jesus is said to have begun his ministry after after John the Baptist was taken into prison. We do not need to enter into discussions about the historical accuracy of this fact. It seems that in the Gospel of John these two ministries are shown overlapping in order to better emphasize the superiority of Jesus.

One thing is clear: this passage shows the remarkable modesty of John the Baptist. It was quite obvious that people were leaving John the Baptist and going to Jesus. This worried the disciples of John the Baptist. They didn't want to see their teacher recede into the background. They did not want to see him abandoned and abandoned when the crowds gathered to listen to the new teacher.

John the Baptist, hearing their complaints and sympathy, did not react as offended and unjustly forgotten. Sometimes a friend's sympathy can be the worst thing: it can make us feel sorry for ourselves and feel unfair. But John the Baptist stood above that. He told the disciples three things.

1. He didn't expect anything else. He reminded them that he had already pointed out that he did not have the leading role, that he was sent only as a herald, forerunner and forerunner, preparing the way for the Great One to come after him. Life would be much easier if more people were willing to play the role of subordinates, and yet so many seek only great things for themselves! But John the Baptist was not like that: he knew well that God had given him a second role. We will save a lot of resentment and bad feelings if we realize that some things are simply not meant for us and wholeheartedly accept and do the work that God has ordained for us. It's a great task to do a minor thing for God. As the English poet Elizabeth Browning put it: "With God all ministries are equal." Any work done for God is therefore a great work.

2. John the Baptist told them that no man can take on more than God has given him: if Jesus now wins more and more followers, this does not mean at all that He steals them from John the Baptist, just God gives them to Him . The American preacher Dr. Spence was at one time very popular, and his church was always full of people, but over time the people began to decrease. A young preacher came into the church opposite; now it drew crowds. One evening Spence's church was not very crowded and he asked, "Where have all the people gone?" There was an uncomfortable silence, then one of the ministers said, "I guess they went to the church across the street to hear the new preacher." Spence was silent for a moment, then said, "Well, I think we should follow them," stepped off the pulpit and led his men across the road. How much jealousy, how much trouble and resentment could be avoided if we remembered that God gives success to others, and if we were ready to accept God's decision and God's choice.

3. Evangelist John used a vivid picture from the life of the Jews, which everyone should have known. John the Baptist compares Jesus to the bridegroom and himself to the groom's friend. One of the great symbolic pictures of the Old Testament is the representation of Israel as the bride and God as the bridegroom of Israel. Israel's union with God was so intimate that it could only be compared to a marriage union. When Israel followed foreign gods, it was perceived as an act of adultery (Ex. 34:15; Deut. 31:16; Ps. 72:28; Is. 54:5).

The New Testament writers adopted this picture and spoke of the Church as the bride of Christ. (2 Cor. 11:2; Eph. 5:22-32). Jesus came from God, He is the Son of God; The Church is a collection of souls saved by Him - His lawful bride, and He is her bridegroom. John the Baptist considered himself a friend of the groom.

groom's friend, shoshben, occupied a special place in the Jewish marriage ceremony: he acted as a link between the bride and groom; he arranged the wedding, distributed invitations, directed the course of the marriage feast. He brought the bride and groom, and, in addition, he had a special task: he had to guard the bride's room and not let anyone else in there except the groom. He opened the door only when he heard the voice of the groom in the darkness. Recognizing the groom, he let him into the bride's room, and he himself left joyful, because his task was completed and the lovers were together. He did not envy the groom and his happiness with the bride: he knew that he had to help them unite and, having completed his task, he left his place on the stage with pleasure and joy.

The task of John the Baptist was to help people meet Jesus and accept him as the Bridegroom. Having completed this task, he was happy to go into the shadows, because he had done his job. Without envy, and with joy, he said that Jesus should increase, and he should decrease. Sometimes we too should well remember that our task is not to draw people to ourselves, but to Jesus Christ; that we should encourage people to follow Him and not us and be faithful to Him and not to us

COMING FROM ABOVE (John 3:31-36)

As we have already seen above, when reading the Fourth Gospel, a difficulty arises, among other things, due to the fact that it is not entirely clear where the speech of the characters ends, and where the Evangelist John adds his comments. These lines may be the words of John the Baptist, but it is more likely that they represent the testimony and commentary of the evangelist John.

Evangelist John begins by affirming the leading role of Jesus. If we want to know something, we must go to a person who knows it; if we want to know something about a family, it is best to learn it from a member of that family. If we need information about a city, we can best get it from a resident of that city. And therefore, if we want to know something about God, we can only learn it from the Son of God, and if we want to know something about heaven and the life of heaven, we can only learn about it from Him who came down from heaven. When Jesus testifies of God and heavenly things, John says, He tells what he saw and heard - this is not secondhand. In short, only Jesus alone can really tell about God - and this story makes up the gospel.

John regrets that so few people accept the message brought by Jesus, but the person who accepts it, thereby confirms his faith in the truth of the word of God. When in the ancient world a person wanted to fully approve any document, such as a will, agreement or contract, he attached his seal to it. The seal was a sign that he agreed with the content and considered it authentic and binding on himself. Therefore, a person who receives the good news of Jesus assures and confirms by his faith that everything that God has said is the truth.

We can believe in what Jesus says, the evangelist continues, because God poured out the Spirit on Him in full measure, without a trace. The Jews themselves said that God would give the prophets measure Spirit. God kept the full measure of the Spirit for His Chosen One. In the Jewish worldview, the Spirit performed two functions: firstly, the Spirit revealed God's truth to people, and secondly, when this truth came to them, the Spirit gave people the ability to recognize and understand this truth. Thus, when John says that God fully gave the Spirit to Jesus, it means that Jesus perfectly knew and understood God's truth. In other words, listening to Jesus means hearing the true voice of God.

And finally, John puts people before the eternal choice: life or death. Throughout history, this choice has faced Israel. In Deut. 30.15-20 the words of Moses are quoted: “Behold, today I have offered you life and goodness, death and evil ... Today I call heaven and earth as witnesses before you: I have offered you life and death, a blessing and a curse. Choose life so that you and posterity live your". This call was echoed by Joshua: "Choose for yourselves today whom you will serve" (Josh. N. 24:15). Someone said that human life is decided mainly at crossroads. The most important thing in a person's life is his attitude towards Jesus Christ: whoever loves Jesus and longs to meet him will know eternal life, and whoever is indifferent or hostile to Him will know death. No, it is not God who sends His wrath on man: man himself brings it upon himself.

Dear users and visitors of our site! We have decided to remove from our library the writings of Protestant theologian from Scotland, Professor William Barclay. Despite the popularity of the works of this author among inquisitive readers, we believe that his works should not be placed on a par with the works of Orthodox writers and preachers, including the works of the holy fathers and teachers of the Church.

Many of William Barclay's thoughts can be judged as sound. Nevertheless, in his writings, in fundamental moments, there are such ideas that are a conscious deviation from the Truth, being "a fly in the ointment in a barrel of honey." Here is what the English Wikipedia writes about his views:

skepticism about the Trinity: for example, "Nowhere identifies Jesus with God";

faith in universal salvation;

evolution: “We believe in evolution, slowly rising up from the human to the level of the beast. Jesus is the end and culmination of the evolutionary process, because in Him people meet God. The danger of the Christian faith is that we have created Jesus as a kind of secondary God. The Bible never makes a second God to Jesus, but rather emphasizes Jesus' complete dependence on God."

For example, in analyzing the prologue of the Gospel of John and speaking of Christ, Barclay writes, “When John says that the Word was God, he does not say that Jesus was one with God, He was identical with God; he says that He was so the same as God in mind, heart and being, that in Him we perfectly see what God is, ”which gives reason to believe that he recognized the Evangelist’s attitude to Christ not as to one of the Persons of the absolutely One and Indivisible God, Who is one with the Father (), but only as equal to God. This perception of the gospel sermon gave reason to critics to suspect him of a penchant for tritheism.

Other statements of his also encourage a similar perception. For example: "Jesus is the revelation of God" (Comments on the Gospel of John). Or another, where the Holy Spirit is reported as an ally of Christ: "He speaks of His Ally– Holy Spirit” (Comments on the Gospel of John).

It is possible to conditionally distinguish biblical commentaries into spiritual, pastoral, theological, popular science and technical.

Most patristic commentaries can be classified as spiritual.

An example of "pastoral" comments is the sermons of Fr. Dmitry Smirnov.

There can be both classical “theological” comments (for example, the Saint wrote many comments for polemical purposes), and modern ones.

In "popular science" commentary, knowledge from biblical studies or history or biblical languages ​​is conveyed in popular language.

Finally, there are "technical" comments, which are most often intended for biblical scholars, but can be used by a wide range of readers.

Barkley's comments are a typical example of "popular science" comments. He was never a great or major biblical scholar. Just an average professor with a good work capacity. His comments were never particularly popular, even among the Protestant milieu. And his popularity with us is due to the fact that his comments were translated into Russian at the very moment when there was nothing at all in Russia as “popular science” comments.

***

W. Barclay's comments on the Books of Holy Scripture of the New Testament are widely known both in the countries of the Western world and in Russia. Strange as it may seem, many Russians who identify themselves with Orthodoxy not only find food for thought in his comments, but often take them as the surest guide to a deep understanding of the Gospel. It's hard to understand, but it's possible. In the course of presenting his views, the author gives many arguments, including historical and scientific-linguistic ones. Many of them seem convincing and indisputable. However, not all of them are. A significant drawback of the works of this author is the excessively weak consistency of their content with the Holy Tradition of the Church, and in some cases a direct contradiction to this source of Christian knowledge. W. Barclay's deviation from the purity of the gospel teaching affects a number of serious, fundamental issues of Christianity.

One of the most drastic digressions has to do with the question of the Church. Let's start with the fact that W. Barclay does not share the position on the existence of the One True Church, approved by the Lord Jesus Christ, and, going against the Gospel, insists on the existence of many saving Christian churches. At the same time, which is natural for such an approach, he accuses communities that claim to be called the only true one (in fact, there is only one such community - the Ecumenical Orthodox Church) of monopolizing Divine grace.

“Religion,” writes W. Barclay, “ should bring people together, not divide them. Religion should unite people into one family, and not split them into warring groups. The doctrine that claims that any church or any sect has a monopoly on the grace of God is false, for Christ does not divide, but unites Bible

It is clear that this statement, accepted by Protestants, cannot but arouse indignation among Orthodox Christians. After all, firstly, the Ecumenical Orthodox Church was founded by the Redeemer Himself, moreover, it was founded precisely as the only and only true; and it is to her that is entrusted the fullness of the saving doctrine, the fullness of the saving gifts of the Holy Spirit. And secondly, the Orthodox Church has always called and still calls people to unity, true unity in Christ, which cannot be said about the ideologists of Protestantism, who insist on the possibility of the coexistence of many "saving", "Christian" "churches".

Meanwhile, W. Barclay compares God's with the Pharisees: No, the Pharisees did not want to lead people to God; they led them into their own Pharisaic sect. That's where their sin was. Is this one expelled from the earth, if even today they insist that a person leave one church and become a member of another before he can take a place at the altar? The greatest of heresies lies in the sinful belief that one church has a monopoly on God or His truth, or that some church is the only gate to the Kingdom of God » Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/40/23/).

The true unity of Christians implies, among other things, the unity of faith. The Orthodox have always professed the doctrine entrusted to it by the apostles, while the Protestant communities - that which they received as a legacy from the founders of these communities. It would seem that in the fact that the Church keeps the truths of faith intact, one can see that it is she who is the pillar and affirmation of the truth (). However, such an attitude to the truth is assessed by W. Barclay as one of the symptoms of a protracted chronic illness. Accordingly, those “churches” that allow the perversion of true (“old”) dogmas and the introduction of so-called new dogmas are considered to be healthy.

“In the Church,” he insists, “ this feeling resentment against the new has become chronic, and attempts to squeeze everything new into old forms have become almost universal"(From the chapter - Barclay's comments - the Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/40/9/).

Perseverance in upholding the truths of the dogma W. Barclay refers to as a fossil: “ It really happened very often that a person who came with a message from God met with hatred and enmity. petrified orthodoxy » (From the chapter - Barclay's comments - Bible

Speaking in favor of free-thinking thinkers like the Protestants (and, of course, in favor of the Protestants themselves), the author seeks to assure his potential followers that the opposition that he shows against them is contrary to the spirit of Christianity, and that it is as if the Redeemer Himself warned about it: Jesus warned His disciples that in the future they can unite against them society, Church and family"(From the chapter - Barclay's comments - the Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/40/10/).

Recall what exactly unites the disciples of Christ, while the Protestant communities are the disciples of their leaders.

Speaking against the ancient church traditions, W. Barclay also denounces the tradition of monasticism, insisting that the doctrine of monasticism tends to separate "religion from life", and, therefore, it is false.

Here are his words: The teaching is false if it separates religion from life. Any teaching that says that a Christian has no place in life and in worldly activities is false. This was the mistake of monks and hermits. They believed that in order to live the Christian life, they must retire to the desert or to a monastery, to get out of this all-consuming and seductive worldly life. They believed that they could only be true Christians by leaving the worldly life. Jesus prayed for His disciples: “I do not pray that You take them out of the world, but that You save them from evil.” () » (From the chapter - Barclay's comments - the Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/40/7/).

Concerning the problems of man's struggle with sinful thoughts and desires, the author points to the activities of the monks as an illustration of a strange and irregular form of struggle. Like, the monks, without realizing it, fencing themselves off from the real temptations of this world, fell into even greater temptations that were born in their memory or imagination. With his negative criticism, he did not bypass even the founder (one of the founders) of monasticism, an outstanding Christian ascetic, St. Anthony the Great.

In history, he believes, there is one notable example mishandling such thoughts and desires: stylites, hermits, monks, hermits in the era of the early Church. These were people who wanted to be free from everything earthly and, in particular, from carnal desires. To do this, they went to the Egyptian desert with the idea of ​​\u200b\u200bliving alone and thinking only about God. The most famous of them is Anthony. He lived as a hermit, fasted, spent his nights vigilant, torturing his body. He lived in the wilderness for 35 years, which was an ongoing battle with his temptations... It is quite obvious that if anyone behaves carelessly, it applies to Antony and his friends.. Such is human nature that the more a person tells himself that he will not think about something, the more it will occupy his thoughts."(From the chapter - Barclay's comments - the Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/40/5/).

W. Barclay's mistake, in this case, is seen in the fact that he incorrectly looks both at monasticism itself and at the attitude of the Church to monastic life. The fact is that while recognizing monasticism as one of the forms of service to God, the Orthodox Church has never taught that a Christian has no life in the world. As you know, among the canonized saints there are many who became famous precisely for their life in the world: warriors, doctors, teachers, etc. Again, the monastic life, which implies a removal from worldly pleasures, worldly fuss, does not imply a complete spiritual break with the world. Suffice it to recall that for many centuries the monasteries played the role of spiritual centers not only for monks and monks, but also for the laity: the monasteries served as places of pilgrimage for them; libraries were created at monasteries, theological schools were opened; often, in difficult times, the monks helped the laity with bread and a ruble.

Finally, completely unaware of why monastic work was associated with spiritual exploits, and the monks themselves were often called ascetics, he defines the monastic life as very easy, and describes the monks themselves as fugitives from the real difficulties of life: “ It's easy to feel like a Christian in moments of prayer and meditation, it is easy to feel the closeness of God, when we are away from the world. But this is not faith - this is an escape from life. Genuine faith is when you get up from your knees to help people and solve human problems."(From the chapter - Barclay's comments - the Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/40/17/).

In the end, the interpreter seeks to bring Christian worship and worship under the humanitarian doctrine: “ Christian ministry - this is not the service of a liturgy or ritual, this is a service to a human need. Christian service is not a monastic retreat, but an active participation in all the tragedies, problems and demands that people face"(From the chapter - Barclay's comments - the Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/40/12/).

The author shows a rather peculiar attitude towards the Lord Jesus Christ.

On the one hand, he does not seem to mind that Jesus is the Incarnate Son of God the Father. In any case, some of his words, such as: “ When Glory came to this earth, He was born in a cave where people sheltered animals. Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/40/2/).

« God sent His Son into this world, - testifies W. Barkley, - Jesus Christ, so that He would save man from the quagmire of sin in which he was mired, and free him from the chains of sin with which he bound himself, so that man could through Him regain the friendship with God he had lost.(From chapter - Barclay's comments - Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/40/1/)

On the other hand, he ascribes to the Redeemer such traits as, for example, uncertainty about His chosenness (not to mention "uncertainty" in Divine dignity), ignorance of how to accomplish His mission, "which He entrusted".

“Thus,” Barclay prompts the reader, “ And in the act of baptism, Jesus received double certainty: that He really is God's Chosen One and that the way before Him was the way of the cross, at that moment Jesus knew that He had been chosen to be King"(From the chapter - Barclay's comments - Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/40/3/)

"Jesus," he continues his line, " went to the desert to be alone. spoke to him now He wanted to think about how to fulfill the mission that he had entrusted to Him. "(From the head - Barclay's comments - the Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/40/4/).

Already at the first acquaintance with these and similar statements one gets the impression that they are on the verge of admissible and inadmissible theologizing. The position of the interpreter is more clearly revealed in his attitude to the testimony of the Evangelist John the Theologian that Christ is none other than God the Word Incarnate. While formally recognizing that “the Word became flesh” (), W. Barclay, nevertheless, explains this gospel truth not in the spirit of the Gospel. Whereas the Orthodox teaches that the Word is a Hypostasis of the One Trinity God, consubstantial with the Father and the Holy Spirit, equally perfect and equal in honor to the other two Divine Hypostases, Barclay seeks to convince his readers of something else.

“Christianity,” he shares his reasoning, “ originated in Judaism and at first all members of the Christian Church were Jews... Christianity arose in the Jewish environment and therefore inevitably spoke their language and used their categories of thinking... The Greeks had never heard of the Messiah, they did not understand the very essence of the aspirations of the Jews - Messiah. The concepts with which Jewish Christians thought and imagined Jesus said nothing to the Greeks. And this was the problem - how to represent in the Greek world? ... Around the year 100, there lived a man in Ephesus who thought about this. His name was John; he lived in a Greek city, he communicated with the Greeks, to whom Jewish concepts were alien and incomprehensible, and even seemed strange and rude. How can we find a way to introduce Christianity to these Greeks in a way that they will understand and welcome? And it was revealed to him. Both in the Jewish and in the Greek worldview there was a concept words. Here it could be used in such a way that it corresponded to the worldviews of both the Hellenic and the Jew. It was something that lay in the historical legacy of both races; both of them could understand it"(From chapter - Barclay's commentary - Bible

It is known that in the understanding of (many) Jews it was conceived as the One, but not as the Trinity. The Word of God was comprehended in their minds as an active force, but not as a Divine Hypostasis (cf.: and God said...). Something similar was thought about the Logos (Word) and the mentioned Greeks.

“And so,” he develops his thought, “ when John was looking for a way to present, he found that in his faith and in the history of his people there was already an idea words, word, which in itself is not just a sound, but something dynamic -word God, by whom he created the earth; word from Targumi – Aramaic translation of the Bible – expressing the very idea of ​​God's action; wisdom from the books of Wisdom - the eternal, creative and enlightening power of God. So John says, "If you want to see Word God's, if you want to see the creative power of God, if you want to see Word, through whom the earth was created, and by whom gives light and life to every man, look at Jesus Christ. In him Word God has come to you" (From the chapter - Barclay's comments - the Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/43/1/).

As if confirming what was said above, U Barkley signals: “ . ..In the Greek world and in the Greek worldview, there is another name that we must get to know. In Alexandria lived a Jew named Philo, who devoted his life to the study of the wisdom of two worlds: the Greek and the Jewish. None of the Greeks knew as well as he did the Holy Scripture of the Jews, and not a single Jew knew as well as he did the greatness of Greek thought. Philo also loved and used this idea logos, words, reason God's. He believed that nothing in the world is older logos So what logos It is the instrument by which the world was created. Philo said that logos- this is the thought of God, imprinted in the universe; logos created the world and everything in it; God is the pilot of the universe, He holds logos like a helm and directs everything. According to Philo logos imprinted in the human brain, it gives a person reason, the ability to think and the ability to know. Philo said that logos mediator between the world and God, and that logos is a priest who presents the soul to God. Greek philosophy knew all about logos, she saw in logos the creative, leading and directing power of God, the power that created the universe and thanks to which life and movement are preserved in it. And so John came to the Greeks and said: “For centuries you have been thinking, writing and dreaming about logos, about the power that created the world and keeps order in it; about the power that gave man the ability to think, reason and know; about the power through which people entered into a relationship with God. Jesus is this logos, descended to earth." "The Word became flesh' John said. We can also express it like this: The Mind of God Incarnated in Man"" (From the chapter - Barclay's comments - the Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/43/1/).

Finally, Barclay explicitly points out that the Savior was identical with God, but was not “one” with God: “ When John says that the Word was God, he is not saying that Jesus was one with God, He was identical with God; he says that He was so much like God in mind, heart and being, that in Him we perfectly see what God is"(From the chapter - Barclay's comments - the Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/43/1/).

And elsewhere: "The Word became flesh - in this, perhaps, as nowhere else in the New Testament, the human essence of Jesus is wonderfully proclaimed. In Jesus we saw the creative Word of God, directing the Mind of God, Who Himself incarnates in man. In Jesus we see how God would live this life if He were a man. If we had nothing more to say about Jesus, we could still say that He shows us how to live the life we ​​need to live."(From the chapter - Barclay's comments - Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/43/1/)

How does W. Barclay explain that Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God the Father? He boils it down to the fact that Jesus is unique and most loved by God the Father. Here is how he says it himself: Jesus - only begotten Son. In Greek it is monogenesis, What means only Son, only begotten and in this case it fully corresponds to the Russian translation of the Bible. But the point is that long before the Fourth Gospel was written, this word lost its purely physical meaning and acquired two special meanings. It began to mean unique, special in its own way and especially loved, it is quite obvious that the only son also occupies a special place in the heart of the father and enjoys special love, and therefore this word has come to mean, first of all, unique. The writers of the New Testament are absolutely convinced that Jesus is unique, that there was no one like Him: He alone can lead God to people and people to God"(From the chapter - Barclay's comments - the Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/43/1/).

All these terms, i.e. both the word “covenant” itself and its combination with the adjectives “old” and “new” are taken from the Bible itself, in which, in addition to their general meaning, they also have a special one, in which we also use them, speaking of well-known bible books.

The word "covenant" (Heb. - Berit, Greek - διαθήκη, Latin - testamentum) in the language of Holy Scripture and biblical usage primarily means a known decree, condition, law, on which the two contracting parties converge, and from here already - this very treaty or union, as well as those external signs that served as his certificate, a staple, as it were, a seal (testamentum). And since the sacred books, which described this covenant or the union of God with man, were, of course, one of the best means of verifying it and fixing it in the memory of the people, the name “covenant” was also transferred to them very early. It already existed in the era of Moses, as can be seen from the book of Exodus (), where the record of the Sinai legislation read by Moses to the Jewish people is called the book of the covenant (“sefer hubberit”). Similar expressions, denoting not only the Sinai legislation, but the entire Mosaic Pentateuch, are also found in subsequent Old Testament books (; ; ). The Old Testament also owns the first, still prophetic indication of, namely, in the famous prophecy of Jeremiah: "Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah" ().

Division of the New Testament books by content

The historical books are the four Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and the book of the Acts of the Apostles. The Gospels give us a historical picture of the life of our Lord Jesus Christ, while the book of the Acts of the Apostles gives us a historical picture of the life and work of the apostles, who spread Christ's message throughout the world.

Teaching books are the Apostolic Epistles, which are letters written by the apostles to different Churches. In these letters, the apostles clarify various perplexities regarding the Christian faith and life that arose in the Churches, denounce the readers of the Epistles in various disorders they allow, convince them to stand firm in the Christian faith devoted to them, and expose the false teachers who disturbed the peace of the primordial Church. In a word, the apostles appear in their Epistles as teachers of the flock of Christ entrusted to their care, being, moreover, often the founders of those Churches to which they address. The latter takes place in relation to almost all the Epistles of the Apostle Paul.

There is only one prophetic book in the New Testament - the Apocalypse of the Apostle John the Theologian. Here are various visions and revelations that this apostle was honored with and in which the future fate of the Church of Christ before her glorification, i.e., is foreshadowed. before the opening of the kingdom of glory on earth.

Since the subject of the content of the Gospels is the life and teachings of the very Founder of our faith - the Lord Jesus Christ, and since, undoubtedly, in the Gospel we have the basis for all our faith and life, it is customary to call the four Gospels books law-positive. This name shows that the Gospels have the same meaning for Christians as the Law of Moses - the Pentateuch had for the Jews.

A Brief History of the Canon of the Holy Books of the New Testament

The word "canon" (κανών) originally meant "cane", and then began to be used to denote what should serve as a rule, a model of life (;). The Fathers of the Church and the Councils used this term to designate a collection of sacred inspired writings. Therefore, the canon of the New Testament is a collection of sacred inspired books of the New Testament in its present form.

What guided the first, accepting this or that sacred New Testament book into the canon? First of all, the so-called historical legend. They investigated whether this or that book was actually received directly from an apostle or a collaborator of the apostle, and, after a rigorous study, they included this book in the list of inspired books. But at the same time, attention was also paid to whether the teaching contained in the book under consideration, firstly, with the teaching of the entire Church and, secondly, with the teaching of the apostle whose name this book bore on itself. This is the so-called dogmatic tradition. And it never happened that, once recognizing a book as canonical, it subsequently changed its view of it and excluded it from the canon. If individual fathers and teachers of the Church even after that still recognized some New Testament writings as unauthentic, then this was only their private view, which should not be confused with the voice of the Church. In the same way, it has never happened that the Church did not first accept a book into the canon, and then included it. If there are no references to some canonical books in the writings of the apostolic men (for example, to the Epistle of Jude), then this is due to the fact that the apostolic men had no reason to quote these books.

The order of the New Testament books in the canon

The New Testament books found their place in the canon according to their importance and the time of their final recognition. In the first place, of course, were the four Gospels, followed by the book of the Acts of the Apostles; The Apocalypse formed the conclusion of the canon. But in some codices, some books do not occupy the place they occupy with us now. Thus, in the Codex Sinaiticus, the book of the Acts of the Apostles comes after the Epistles of the Apostle Paul. Until the 4th century the Greek Church placed the Catholic Epistles after the Epistles of the Apostle Paul. The very name "cathedral" was originally used only by the 1st Epistle of Peter and the 1st Epistle of John, and only from the time of Eusebius of Caesarea (4th century) did this name begin to be applied to all seven Epistles. Since the time of Athanasius of Alexandria (mid-fourth century), the Catholic Epistles have taken their present place in the Greek Church. Meanwhile, in the West they were still placed after the Epistles of the Apostle Paul. Even the Apocalypse in some codices is earlier than the Epistles of the Apostle Paul and even earlier than the book of Acts. In particular, the Gospels go in different codices in a different order. So, some, undoubtedly putting the apostles in the first place, place the Gospels in this order: Matthew, John, Mark and Luke, or, giving special dignity to the Gospel of John, they put it in the first place. Others put the Gospel of Mark last, as the shortest. Of the Epistles of the Apostle Paul, originally the first place in the canon was occupied by two to the Corinthians, and the last to the Romans (a fragment of Muratorius and Tertullian). Since the time of Eusebius, the Epistle to the Romans has occupied the first place, both in its volume and in the importance of the Church to which it is written, indeed, deserving of this place. In the arrangement of the four private Epistles (1 Tim.; 2 Tim.; Tit.; Philp.), apparently, they were guided by their volume, approximately the same. The Epistle to the Hebrews in the East was placed 14th, and in the West - 10th in the series of Epistles of the Apostle Paul. It is clear that the Western Church has put the Epistles of the Apostle Peter in the first place among the Catholic Epistles. The Eastern Church, putting the Epistle of James in the first place, was probably guided by the listing of the apostles by the Apostle Paul ().

History of the New Testament Canon since the Reformation

During the Middle Ages, the canon remained indisputable, especially since the books of the New Testament were read relatively little by private individuals, and only certain chapters or sections were read from them during divine services. The common people were more interested in reading the stories of the lives of the saints, and the Catholic even looked with some suspicion at the interest that certain societies, such as the Waldensians, showed in reading the Bible, sometimes even forbidding the reading of the Bible in the vernacular. But at the end of the Middle Ages, humanism renewed doubts about the writings of the New Testament, which were the subject of controversy in the first centuries. The Reformation began to raise its voice even more strongly against certain New Testament writings. Luther, in his translation of the New Testament (1522), in the prefaces to the New Testament books, expressed his view of their dignity. Thus, in his opinion, the Epistle to the Hebrews was not written by an apostle, as well as the Epistle of James. Nor does he recognize the authenticity of the Apocalypse and the Epistle of the Apostle Jude. Luther's disciples went even further in the strictness with which they treated various New Testament writings and even began to directly single out "apocryphal" writings from the New Testament canon: until the beginning of the 17th century, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 were not even considered canonical in Lutheran bibles. -e of John, Jude and the Apocalypse. Only later did this distinction between scriptures disappear and the ancient New Testament canon was restored. At the end of the 17th century, however, writings of a critical nature about the New Testament canon appeared, in which objections were raised against the authenticity of many New Testament books. The rationalists of the 18th century (Zemler, Michaelis, Eichgorm) wrote in the same spirit, and in the 19th century. Schleiermacher expressed doubts about the authenticity of some of the Pauline Epistles, De Wette rejected the authenticity of five of them, and F.X. Baur recognized only the four main Epistles of the Apostle Paul and the Apocalypse from the entire New Testament as truly apostolic.

Thus, in the West, in Protestantism, they again came to the same place that the Christian Church experienced in the first centuries, when some books were recognized as genuine apostolic works, others were controversial. It was already established that it was only a collection of literary works of early Christianity. At the same time, the followers of F.X. Bauer - B. Bauer, Loman and Steck - no longer found it possible to recognize any of the New Testament books as truly apostolic works ... But the best minds of Protestantism saw the depth of the abyss into which the Baur school, or Tübingen, carried Protestantism, and opposed its provisions with strong objections. Thus, Ritschl refuted the main thesis of the Tübingen school about the development of early Christianity from the struggle between Petrinism and Peacockism, and Harnack proved that the New Testament books should be regarded as truly apostolic works. Scientists B. Weiss, Gode and T. Tsang did even more to restore the significance of the New Testament books in the view of Protestants. “Thanks to these theologians,” says Barth, “no one can now take away from the New Testament the advantage that in it, and only in it, we have messages about Jesus and about the revelation of God in him” (“Introduction”, 1908, p. 400). Barth finds that at the present time, when such confusion reigns in the minds, it is especially important for Protestantism to have a "canon" as a guide given from God for faith and life, "and," he concludes, "we have it in the New Testament" (There same).

Indeed, the New Testament canon is of great, one might say, incomparable significance for the Christian Church. In it we find, first of all, such scriptures that present in its relation to the Jewish people (the Gospel of Matthew, the Epistle of the Apostle James and the Epistle to the Hebrews), to the pagan world (1st and 2nd to the Thessalonians, 1st to the Corinthians ). Further, we have in the New Testament canon writings that aim to eliminate the dangers that threatened Christianity from the Jewish understanding of Christianity (Epistle to the Galatians), from the Jewish legalistic asceticism (Epistle to the Colossians), from the side of the pagan desire to understand religious society as a private circle in which one can live apart from church society (Epistle to the Ephesians). The Epistle to the Romans indicates the worldwide purpose of Christianity, while the book of Acts indicates how this appointment was realized in history. In a word, the books of the New Testament canon give us a complete picture of the primordial Church, depict life and its tasks from all sides. If, as a test, we wanted to take away from the canon of the New Testament any book, for example, the Epistle to the Romans or the Galatians, we would thereby cause significant harm to the whole. It is clear that the Holy Spirit led the Church in the gradual establishment of the composition of the canon, so that the Church introduced into it truly apostolic works, which in their existence were caused by the most essential needs of the Church.

What language are the holy books of the New Testament written in?

Throughout the Roman Empire, during the time of the Lord Jesus Christ and the apostles, Greek was the dominant language, it was understood everywhere and it was spoken almost everywhere. It is clear that the writings of the New Testament, which were intended by the Providence of God for distribution to all churches, also appeared in Greek, although almost all of their writers, with the exception of St. Luke, were Jews. This is also evidenced by some internal signs of these writings: a play on words possible only in Greek, a free, independent attitude to the translation of the Seventy, when Old Testament passages are cited - all this undoubtedly indicates that they are written in Greek and are intended for readers. who know Greek.

However, the Greek language in which the books of the New Testament are written is not the classical Greek language in which the Greek writers of the heyday of Greek literature wrote. This so-called κοινὴ διάλεκτος , i.e. close to the Old Attic dialect, but not too different from other dialects. In addition, it included many Arameisms and other alien words. Finally, special New Testament concepts were introduced into this language, for the expression of which, however, old Greek words were used, which received a special new meaning through this (for example, the word χάρις - "pleasantness", in the sacred New Testament language began to mean "grace"). For more details, see the article by prof. S.I. Sobolevsky " Κοινὴ διάλεκτος ”, placed in the Orthodox Theological Encyclopedia, vol. 10.

New Testament text

All the originals of the New Testament books perished, but copies (ἀντίγραφα ) had long been taken from them. Most often, the Gospels were written off and least often - the Apocalypse. They wrote with reed (κάλαμος ) and ink (μέλαν ) and more - in the first centuries - on papyrus, so that the right side of each papyrus leaf was glued to the left side of the next sheet. From here, a strip of greater or lesser length was obtained, which was then rolled onto a rolling pin. This is how a scroll appeared (τόμος ), which was kept in a special box (φαινόλης ). Since reading these strips, written only on the front side, was inconvenient and the material was fragile, from the 3rd century New Testament books began to be copied on leather or parchment. Since parchment was expensive, many used the old manuscripts on parchment that they had, erasing and scraping out what was written on them and placing some other work here. This is how palimpsests were formed. Paper came into use only in the 8th century.

The words in the manuscripts of the New Testament were written without stress, without breaths, without punctuation marks and, moreover, with abbreviations (for example, IC instead of Ἰησοῦς, RNB instead of πνεῦμα), so it was very difficult to read these manuscripts. Letters in the first six centuries were used only in capital letters (uncial manuscripts from "ounce" - inch). From the 7th, and some say, from the 9th century, manuscripts of ordinary cursive writing appeared. Then the letters decreased, but abbreviations became more frequent. On the other hand, accents and breaths were added. There are 130 first manuscripts, and the last (according to von Soden) - 3700. In addition, there are so-called lectionaries containing either gospel or apostolic readings for use in worship (evangelaries and praxapostles). There are about 1300 of them, and the oldest of them date back in their origin to the VI century.

In addition to the text, manuscripts usually contain introductions and afterwords with indications of the writer, time and place of writing the book. To get acquainted with the content of the book in manuscripts divided into chapters (κεφάλαια ), these chapters are preceded by the designations of the content of each chapter (τίτλα , αργυμεντα ). The chapters are divided into parts (ὑποδιαιρέσεις) or sections, and these last into verses (κῶλα, στίχοι). According to the number of verses, the size of the book and its selling price were determined. This processing of the text is usually attributed to Bishop Euphalia of Sardinia (7th century), but in fact all these divisions took place much earlier. For interpretative purposes, Ammonius (3rd century) added parallel passages from other Gospels to the text of the Gospel of Matthew. Eusebius of Caesarea (4th century) compiled ten canons or parallel tables, on the first of which the designations of sections from the Gospel, common to all four evangelists, were placed, on the second - designations (by numbers) - common to three, etc. to the tenth, where the stories contained in only one evangelist are indicated. In the text of the Gospel, it was marked with a red number to which canon this or that section belongs. Our present division of the text into chapters was done first by the Englishman Stephen Langton (in the thirteenth century), and the division into verses by Robert Stephen (in the sixteenth century).

Since the 18th century uncial manuscripts began to be denoted by capital letters of the Latin alphabet, and cursive manuscripts by numbers. The most important uncial manuscripts are as follows:

N - Codex Sinaiticus, found by Tischendorf in 1856 in the Sinai Monastery of St. Catherine. It contains the whole, together with the epistle of Barnabas and a significant part of the "Shepherd" of Hermas, as well as the canons of Eusebius. It shows the proofreading of seven different hands. It was written in the 4th or 5th century. Kept in the St. Petersburg Public Library (now kept in the British Museum. – Note. ed.). Photographs were taken from it.

A - Alexandria, located in London. The New Testament is placed here, not in its entirety, along with the 1st and part of the 2nd epistle of Clement of Rome. Written in the 5th century in Egypt or Palestine.

B - Vatican, which concludes with the 14th verse of the 9th chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews. It was probably written by someone close to Athanasius of Alexandria in the 4th century. Stored in Rome.

S - Efremov. This is a palimpsest, so named because the treatise of Ephraim the Syrian was subsequently written on the biblical text. It contains only passages from the New Testament. Its origin is Egyptian, dates back to the 5th century. Stored in Paris.

A list of other manuscripts of later origin can be seen in the 8th edition of Tischendorf's New Testament.

Translations and quotations

Together with the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, translations of the sacred books of the New Testament, which began to appear already in the 2nd century, are very important as sources for establishing the text of the New Testament. The first place among them belongs to the Syriac translations, both in their antiquity and in their language, which approaches the Aramaic dialect spoken by Christ and the apostles. It is believed that Tatian's Diatessaron (circa 175) was the first Syriac translation of the New Testament. Then comes the Syro-Sinai codex (SS), discovered in 1892 in Sinai by Mrs. A. Lewis. Also important is the second-century translation known as the Peshitta (simple) translation; however, some scholars attribute it to the 5th century and recognize it as the work of the Bishop of Edessa Rabbula (411-435). Of great importance are also the Egyptian translations (Said, Fayum, Bohair), Ethiopian, Armenian, Gothic and Old Latin, subsequently corrected by Blessed Jerome and recognized as self-reliant in the Catholic Church (Vulgate).

Of no small importance for the establishment of the text are quotations from the New Testament, which are available from the ancient fathers and teachers of the Church and church writers. The collection of these quotes (texts) was published by T. Tsan.

The Slavic translation of the New Testament from the Greek text was made by the holy Equal-to-the-Apostles Cyril and Methodius in the second half of the 9th century and, together with Christianity, passed to us in Russia under the holy noble prince Vladimir. Of the copies of this translation that we have preserved, the Ostromir Gospel, written in the middle of the 11th century for the mayor of Ostromir, is especially remarkable. Then in the XIV century. Saint Alexis, Metropolitan of Moscow, translated the sacred books of the New Testament while Saint Alexis was in Constantinople. This translation is stored in the Moscow Synodal Library and in the 90s of the XIX century. published in phototype. In 1499, together with all the biblical books, it was corrected and published by Metropolitan Gennady of Novgorod. Separately, the entire New Testament was first printed in Slavic in Vilna in 1623. Then, like other biblical books, it was corrected in Moscow at the synodal printing house and, finally, it was published together with the Old Testament under Empress Elizabeth in 1751. First of all, in 1819, the Gospel was translated into Russian, and the New Testament appeared in full in Russian in 1822, in 1860 it was published in a corrected form. In addition to the synodal translation into Russian, there are also Russian translations of the New Testament published in London and Vienna. In Russia, their use is prohibited.

The fate of the New Testament text

b) the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ, preached by Himself and His apostles about Him as the King of this Kingdom, the Messiah and the Son of God (),

c) all the New Testament or Christian teaching in general, first of all, the narrative of the events from the life of Christ, the most important (), and then the explanation of the meaning of these events ().

d) Being actually the news of what he did for our salvation and good, the Gospel at the same time calls people to repentance, faith and change of their sinful life for the better (; ).

e) Finally, the word "Gospel" is sometimes used to refer to the very process of preaching the Christian doctrine ().

Sometimes the designation and content of it is attached to the word "Gospel". There are, for example, phrases: the gospel of the kingdom (), i.e. joyful news of the Kingdom of God, the gospel of peace (), i.e. about the world, the gospel of salvation (), i.e. about salvation, etc. Sometimes the genitive case following the word "Gospel" means the originator or source of the good news (; ; ) or the person of the preacher ().

For quite a long time, stories about the life of the Lord Jesus Christ were transmitted only orally. The Lord Himself left no record of His words and deeds. In the same way, the 12 apostles were not born writers: they were "people unlearned and simple"(), although literate. Among the Christians of the apostolic age there were also very few "wise according to the flesh, strong" and "noble" (), and for the majority of believers, oral stories about Christ were much more important than written ones. Thus, the apostles and preachers or evangelists “transmitted” (παραδιδόναι ) stories about the deeds and speeches of Christ, while the believers “received” (παραλαμβάνειν ), but, of course, not mechanically, only by memory, as can be said about the students of rabbinic schools, but whole soul, as if something living and giving life. But soon this period of oral tradition was to end. On the one hand, Christians must have felt the need for a written presentation of the Gospel in their disputes with the Jews, who, as you know, denied the reality of the miracles of Christ and even claimed that Christ did not declare Himself the Messiah. It was necessary to show the Jews that Christians have authentic stories about Christ of those persons who were either among His apostles, or who were in close communion with eyewitnesses of Christ's deeds. On the other hand, the need for a written presentation of the history of Christ began to be felt because the generation of the first disciples was gradually dying out and the ranks of direct witnesses of the miracles of Christ were thinning out. Therefore, it was necessary to fix in writing individual sayings of the Lord and His whole speeches, as well as the stories about Him of the apostles. It was then that separate records of what was reported in the oral tradition about Christ began to appear here and there. The most meticulously recorded words Christ's, which contained the rules of Christian life, and were much more free to transfer various events from the life of Christ, retaining only their general impression. Thus, one thing in these records, due to its originality, was transmitted everywhere in the same way, while the other was modified. These initial notes did not think about the completeness of the narrative. Even our Gospels, as can be seen from the conclusion of the Gospel of John (), did not intend to report all the words and deeds of Christ. This is evident, among other things, from what is not included in them, for example, such a saying of Christ: “It is more blessed to give than to receive”(). The evangelist Luke reports such records, saying that many before him had already begun to compose narratives about the life of Christ, but that they did not have the proper fullness and that therefore they did not give sufficient "confirmation" in the faith ().

Evidently, our canonical gospels arose from the same motives. The period of their appearance can be determined at about thirty years - from 60 to 90 (the last was the Gospel of John). The first three gospels are commonly referred to in biblical scholarship synoptic, because they depict the life of Christ in such a way that their three narratives can be easily viewed in one and combined into one whole narrative ( weather forecasters- from Greek - looking together). They began to be called gospels each separately, perhaps as early as the end of the 1st century, but from church writing we have information that such a name was given to the entire composition of the gospels only in the second half of the 2nd century. As for the names: “The Gospel of Matthew”, “The Gospel of Mark”, etc., then these very ancient names from Greek should be translated as follows: “The Gospel according to Matthew”, “The Gospel according to Mark” ( κατὰ Ματθαῖον, κατὰ Μᾶρκον ). By this I wanted to say that in all the Gospels there is single the Christian gospel of Christ the Savior, but according to the images of different writers: one image belongs to Matthew, the other to Mark, etc.

four gospel

As for the differences observed among weather forecasters, there are quite a few of them. Others are reported only by two evangelists, others even by one. So, only Matthew and Luke cite the conversation on the mount of the Lord Jesus Christ, tell the story of the birth and the first years of Christ's life. One Luke speaks of the birth of John the Baptist. Other things one evangelist conveys in a more abbreviated form than another, or in a different connection than another. The details of the events in each Gospel are different, as well as the expressions.

This phenomenon of similarity and difference in the Synoptic Gospels has long attracted the attention of interpreters of Scripture, and various assumptions have long been put forward to explain this fact. A more correct opinion seems to be that our three evangelists enjoyed a common oral source for his account of the life of Christ. At that time, evangelists or preachers about Christ went everywhere with a sermon and repeated in different places in more or less extensive form what was considered necessary to offer those who entered into. In this way a well-known definite type was formed oral gospel, and this is the type we have in writing in our synoptic gospels. Of course, at the same time, depending on the goal that this or that evangelist had, his gospel took on some special features, only characteristic of his work. At the same time, one cannot rule out the possibility that an older gospel might have been known to the evangelist who wrote later. At the same time, the difference between synoptics should be explained by the different goals that each of them had in mind when writing his Gospel.

As we have already said, the synoptic gospels are very different from the gospel of John the Theologian. Thus they depict almost exclusively the activity of Christ in Galilee, while the apostle John depicts mainly the sojourn of Christ in Judea. In regard to content, the synoptic gospels also differ considerably from the gospel of John. They give, so to speak, a more external image of the life, deeds and teachings of Christ, and from the speeches of Christ they cite only those that were accessible to the understanding of the whole people. John, on the contrary, omits a lot of the activities of Christ, for example, he cites only six miracles of Christ, but those speeches and miracles that he cites have a special deep meaning and extreme importance about the person of the Lord Jesus Christ. Finally, while the synoptics portray Christ primarily as the founder of the kingdom of God and therefore direct their readers' attention to the kingdom he founded, John draws our attention to the central point of this kingdom, from which life flows along the peripheries of the kingdom, i.e. on the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, whom John depicts as the Only Begotten Son of God and as the Light for all mankind. That is why the ancient interpreters called the Gospel of John predominantly spiritual (πνευματικόν) in contrast to synoptic ones, as depicting a predominantly human side in the person of Christ ( εὐαγγέλιον σωματικόν ), i.e. bodily gospel.

However, it must be said that the weather forecasters also have passages that indicate that just as the weather forecasters knew the activity of Christ in Judea (;), so John has indications of the continuous activity of Christ in Galilee. In the same way, weather forecasters convey such sayings of Christ that testify to His Divine dignity (), and John, for his part, also in places depicts Christ as a true man (and others; etc.). Therefore, one cannot speak of any contradiction between the synoptics and John in the depiction of the face and deed of Christ.

Reliability of the Gospels

Although criticism has long been expressed against the authenticity of the Gospels, and recently these attacks of criticism have become especially intensified (the theory of myths, especially the theory of Drews, who does not at all recognize the existence of Christ), however, all objections of criticism are so insignificant that they are shattered at the slightest collision with Christian apologetics. . Here, however, we will not cite the objections of negative criticism and analyze these objections: this will be done when interpreting the text of the Gospels itself. We will only speak about the main general grounds on which we recognize the Gospels as completely reliable documents. This is, firstly, the existence of the tradition of eyewitnesses, of whom many survived until the era when our Gospels appeared. Why should we refuse to trust these sources of our gospels? Could they have made up everything that is in our gospels? No, all the Gospels are purely historical. Secondly, it is incomprehensible why the Christian consciousness would want - so the mythical theory asserts - to crown the head of a simple rabbi Jesus with the crown of the Messiah and the Son of God? Why, for example, is it not said about the Baptist that he performed miracles? Obviously because he did not create them. And from this it follows that if Christ is said to be the Great Wonderworker, then it means that He really was like that. And why would it be possible to deny the authenticity of the miracles of Christ, since the highest miracle - His Resurrection - is witnessed like no other event in ancient history (see)?

Bibliography of Foreign Works on the Four Gospels

Bengel J. Al. Gnomon Novi Testamentï in quo ex nativa verborum VI simplicitas, profunditas, concinnitas, salubritas sensuum coelestium indicatur. Berolini, 1860.

Blass, Gram. Blass F. Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch. Göttingen, 1911.

Westcott – The New Testament in Original Greek the text rev. by Brooke Foss Westcott. New York, 1882.

B. Weiss – Weiss B. Die Evangelien des Markus und Lukas. Göttingen, 1901.

Yog. Weiss (1907) - Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments, von Otto Baumgarten; Wilhelm Bousset. Hrsg. von Johannes Weis_s, Bd. 1: Die drei alteren Evangelien. Die Apostelgeschichte, Matthaeus Apostolus; Marcus Evangelista; Lucas Evangelista. . 2. Aufl. Göttingen, 1907.

Godet - Godet F. Commentar zu dem Evangelium des Johannes. Hanover, 1903.

De Wette – De Wette W.M.L. Kurze Erklärung des Evangeliums Matthäi / Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Neuen Testament, Band 1, Teil 1. Leipzig, 1857.

Keil (1879) - Keil C.F. Commentar über die Evangelien des Markus und Lukas. Leipzig, 1879.

Keil (1881) - Keil C.F. Commentar über das Evangelium des Johannes. Leipzig, 1881.

Klostermann A. Das Markusevangelium nach seinem Quellenwerthe für die evangelische Geschichte. Göttingen, 1867.

Cornelius a Lapide - Cornelius a Lapide. In SS Matthaeum et Marcum / Commentaria in scripturam sacram, t. 15. Parisiis, 1857.

Lagrange M.-J. Études bibliques: Evangile selon St. Marc. Paris, 1911.

Lange J.P. Das Evangelium nach Matthäus. Bielefeld, 1861.

Loisy (1903) - Loisy A.F. Le quatrième evangile. Paris, 1903.

Loisy (1907-1908) - Loisy A.F. Les evangeles synoptiques, 1–2. : Ceffonds, pres Montier-en-Der, 1907-1908.

Luthardt - Luthardt Ch.E. Das johanneische Evangelium nach seiner Eigenthümlichkeit geschildert und erklärt. Nürnberg, 1876.

Meyer (1864) - Meyer H.A.W. Kritisch exegetisches Commentar über das Neue Testament, Abteilung 1, Hälfte 1: Handbuch über das Evangelium des Matthäus. Göttingen, 1864.

Meyer (1885) – Kritisch-exegetischer Commentar über das Neue Testament hrsg. von Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer, Abteilung 1, Hälfte 2: Bernhard Weiss B. Kritisch exegetisches Handbuch über die Evangelien des Markus und Lukas. Göttingen, 1885. Meyer (1902) - Meyer H.A.W. Das Johannes Evangelium 9. Auflage, bearbeitet von B. Weiss. Göttingen, 1902.

Merckx (1902) - Merx A. Erläuterung: Matthaeus / Die vier kanonischen Evangelien nach ihrem ältesten bekannten Texte, Teil 2, Hälfte 1. Berlin, 1902.

Merckx (1905) - Merx A. Erläuterung: Markus und Lukas / Die vier kanonischen Evangelien nach ihrem ältesten bekannten Texte. Teil 2, Hälfte 2. Berlin, 1905.

Morison J. A practical commentary on the Gospel according to St. Morison Matthew. London, 1902.

Stanton – Stanton V.H. The Synoptic Gospels / The Gospels as historical documents, Part 2. Cambridge, 1903. Toluk (1856) - Tholuck A. Die Bergpredigt. Gotha, 1856.

Tolyuk (1857) - Tholuck A. Commentar zum Evangelium Johannis. Gotha, 1857.

Heitmüller - see Jog. Weiss (1907).

Holtzmann (1901) - Holtzmann H.J. Die Synoptiker. Tubingen, 1901.

Holtzmann (1908) - Holtzmann H.J. Evangelium, Briefe und Offenbarung des Johannes / Hand-Commentar zum Neuen Testament bearbeitet von H. J. Holtzmann, R. A. Lipsius, etc. bd. 4. Freiburg im Breisgau, 1908.

Zahn (1905) - Zahn Th. Das Evangelium des Matthäus / Commentar zum Neuen Testament, Teil 1. Leipzig, 1905.

Zahn (1908) - Zahn Th. Das Evangelium des Johannes ausgelegt / Commentar zum Neuen Testament, Teil 4. Leipzig, 1908.

Schanz (1881) - Schanz P. Commentar über das Evangelium des heiligen Marcus. Freiburg im Breisgau, 1881.

Schanz (1885) - Schanz P. Commentar über das Evangelium des heiligen Johannes. Tubingen, 1885.

Schlatter – Schlatter A. Das Evangelium des Johannes: ausgelegt fur Bibelleser. Stuttgart, 1903.

Schürer, Geschichte - Schürer E., Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi. bd. 1–4. Leipzig, 1901-1911.

Edersheim (1901) - Edersheim A. The life and times of Jesus the Messiah. 2 Vols. London, 1901.

Ellen – Allen W.C. A critical and exegetical commentary of the Gospel according to st. Matthew. Edinburgh, 1907.

Alford - Alford N. The Greek Testament in four volumes, vol. 1. London, 1863. The Church, with such respect for the apostles, and, in particular, for the apostle Paul, could completely lose any of the apostolic works.

According to some Protestant theologians, the New Testament canon is something accidental. Some writings, even non-apostolic ones, were simply lucky enough to get into the canon, because for some reason they came into use during worship. And the canon itself, according to the majority of Protestant theologians, is nothing more than a simple catalog or list of books used in worship. On the contrary, Orthodox theologians see in the canon nothing more than the composition of the sacred New Testament books, already recognized at that time, devoted to the apostolic to subsequent generations of Christians. These books, according to Orthodox theologians, were not known to all Churches, perhaps because they had either a too private purpose (for example, the 2nd and 3rd Epistles of the Apostle John), or too general (The Epistle to the Hebrews), so that it was not known to which Church to turn for information regarding the name of the author of this or that epistle. But there is no doubt that these were books that truly belonged to those persons whose names they bore on themselves. The Church did not accidentally accept them into the canon, but quite deliberately, giving them the meaning that they actually had.

The Jews had the word "ganuz", corresponding in meaning to the word "apocryphal" (from ἀποκρύπτειν - "to hide") and was used in the synagogue to designate such books that should not have been used in worship. However, this term did not contain any censure. But later, when the Gnostics and other heretics began to boast that they had “hidden” books, which supposedly contained the true apostolic teaching, which the apostles did not want to make available to the crowd, who collected the canon, already reacted with condemnation to these “hidden” books and began to look at them as "false, heretical, fake" (decree of Pope Gelasius). Currently, 7 apocryphal gospels are known, of which 6 supplement the story of the origin, birth and childhood of Jesus Christ with different decorations, and the seventh - the story of His condemnation. The oldest and most remarkable of them is the First Gospel of James, the brother of the Lord, then come: the Greek Gospel of Thomas, the Greek Gospel of Nicodemus, the Arabic story of Joseph the woodworker, the Arabic Gospel of the childhood of the Savior and, finally, the Latin Gospel of the birth of Christ from St. Mary and the story of the birth of the Lord by Mary and the childhood of the Savior. These Apocryphal Gospels were translated into Russian by Prot. P.A. Preobrazhensky. In addition, some fragmentary apocryphal stories about the life of Christ are known (for example, Pilate's letter to Tiberius about Christ).

In ancient times, it should be noted, in addition to the apocryphal, there were also non-canonical Gospels that have not survived to our time. They, in all likelihood, contained in themselves the same thing that is contained in our canonical Gospels, from which they took information. These were: the Gospel of the Jews - in all likelihood, the corrupted Gospel of Matthew, the Gospel of Peter, the apostolic memoirs of Justin the Martyr, the Tatian Gospel in four ("Diatessaron" - a set of Gospels), the Gospel of Marcion - a distorted Gospel of Luke.

Of the recently discovered stories about the life and teachings of Christ, "Λόγια", or the words of Christ, deserves attention - a passage found in Egypt. This passage contains brief sayings of Christ with a brief initial formula: "Jesus speaks." This is a fragment of the deepest antiquity. From the history of the apostles, the recently discovered "Teaching of the Twelve Apostles" deserves attention, the existence of which was already known to ancient church writers and which has now been translated into Russian. In 1886, 34 verses of the Apocalypse of Peter, which was known to St. Clement of Alexandria, were found.

It is also necessary to mention the various "acts" of the apostles, for example, Peter, John, Thomas, and others, where information about the preaching work of these apostles was reported. These works undoubtedly belong to the category of so-called "pseudo-epigraphs", i.e. to the category of fakes. However, these "deeds" were highly respected among ordinary pious Christians and were very common. Some of them, after a certain alteration, entered the so-called "Acts of the Saints", processed by the Bollandists, and from there they were transferred by St. Demetrius of Rostov to our Lives of the Saints (Fourth Menaion). This can be said about the life and preaching work of the Apostle Thomas.

Dear users and visitors of our site! We have decided to remove from our library the writings of Protestant theologian from Scotland, Professor William Barclay. Despite the popularity of the works of this author among inquisitive readers, we believe that his works should not be placed on a par with the works of Orthodox writers and preachers, including the works of the holy fathers and teachers of the Church.

Many of William Barclay's thoughts can be judged as sound. Nevertheless, in his writings, in fundamental moments, there are such ideas that are a conscious deviation from the Truth, being "a fly in the ointment in a barrel of honey." Here is what the English Wikipedia writes about his views:

skepticism about the Trinity: for example, "Nowhere identifies Jesus with God";

faith in universal salvation;

evolution: “We believe in evolution, slowly rising up from the human to the level of the beast. Jesus is the end and culmination of the evolutionary process, because in Him people meet God. The danger of the Christian faith is that we have created Jesus as a kind of secondary God. The Bible never makes a second God to Jesus, but rather emphasizes Jesus' complete dependence on God."

For example, in analyzing the prologue of the Gospel of John and speaking of Christ, Barclay writes, “When John says that the Word was God, he does not say that Jesus was one with God, He was identical with God; he says that He was so the same as God in mind, heart and being, that in Him we perfectly see what God is, ”which gives reason to believe that he recognized the Evangelist’s attitude to Christ not as to one of the Persons of the absolutely One and Indivisible God, Who is one with the Father (), but only as equal to God. This perception of the gospel sermon gave reason to critics to suspect him of a penchant for tritheism.

Other statements of his also encourage a similar perception. For example: "Jesus is the revelation of God" (Comments on the Gospel of John). Or another, where the Holy Spirit is reported as an ally of Christ: "He speaks of His Ally– Holy Spirit” (Comments on the Gospel of John).

It is possible to conditionally distinguish biblical commentaries into spiritual, pastoral, theological, popular science and technical.

Most patristic commentaries can be classified as spiritual.

An example of "pastoral" comments is the sermons of Fr. Dmitry Smirnov.

There can be both classical “theological” comments (for example, the Saint wrote many comments for polemical purposes), and modern ones.

In "popular science" commentary, knowledge from biblical studies or history or biblical languages ​​is conveyed in popular language.

Finally, there are "technical" comments, which are most often intended for biblical scholars, but can be used by a wide range of readers.

Barkley's comments are a typical example of "popular science" comments. He was never a great or major biblical scholar. Just an average professor with a good work capacity. His comments were never particularly popular, even among the Protestant milieu. And his popularity with us is due to the fact that his comments were translated into Russian at the very moment when there was nothing at all in Russia as “popular science” comments.

***

W. Barclay's comments on the Books of Holy Scripture of the New Testament are widely known both in the countries of the Western world and in Russia. Strange as it may seem, many Russians who identify themselves with Orthodoxy not only find food for thought in his comments, but often take them as the surest guide to a deep understanding of the Gospel. It's hard to understand, but it's possible. In the course of presenting his views, the author gives many arguments, including historical and scientific-linguistic ones. Many of them seem convincing and indisputable. However, not all of them are. A significant drawback of the works of this author is the excessively weak consistency of their content with the Holy Tradition of the Church, and in some cases a direct contradiction to this source of Christian knowledge. W. Barclay's deviation from the purity of the gospel teaching affects a number of serious, fundamental issues of Christianity.

One of the most drastic digressions has to do with the question of the Church. Let's start with the fact that W. Barclay does not share the position on the existence of the One True Church, approved by the Lord Jesus Christ, and, going against the Gospel, insists on the existence of many saving Christian churches. At the same time, which is natural for such an approach, he accuses communities that claim to be called the only true one (in fact, there is only one such community - the Ecumenical Orthodox Church) of monopolizing Divine grace.

“Religion,” writes W. Barclay, “ should bring people together, not divide them. Religion should unite people into one family, and not split them into warring groups. The doctrine that claims that any church or any sect has a monopoly on the grace of God is false, for Christ does not divide, but unites Bible

It is clear that this statement, accepted by Protestants, cannot but arouse indignation among Orthodox Christians. After all, firstly, the Ecumenical Orthodox Church was founded by the Redeemer Himself, moreover, it was founded precisely as the only and only true; and it is to her that is entrusted the fullness of the saving doctrine, the fullness of the saving gifts of the Holy Spirit. And secondly, the Orthodox Church has always called and still calls people to unity, true unity in Christ, which cannot be said about the ideologists of Protestantism, who insist on the possibility of the coexistence of many "saving", "Christian" "churches".

Meanwhile, W. Barclay compares God's with the Pharisees: No, the Pharisees did not want to lead people to God; they led them into their own Pharisaic sect. That's where their sin was. Is this one expelled from the earth, if even today they insist that a person leave one church and become a member of another before he can take a place at the altar? The greatest of heresies lies in the sinful belief that one church has a monopoly on God or His truth, or that some church is the only gate to the Kingdom of God » Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/40/23/).

The true unity of Christians implies, among other things, the unity of faith. The Orthodox have always professed the doctrine entrusted to it by the apostles, while the Protestant communities - that which they received as a legacy from the founders of these communities. It would seem that in the fact that the Church keeps the truths of faith intact, one can see that it is she who is the pillar and affirmation of the truth (). However, such an attitude to the truth is assessed by W. Barclay as one of the symptoms of a protracted chronic illness. Accordingly, those “churches” that allow the perversion of true (“old”) dogmas and the introduction of so-called new dogmas are considered to be healthy.

“In the Church,” he insists, “ this feeling resentment against the new has become chronic, and attempts to squeeze everything new into old forms have become almost universal"(From the chapter - Barclay's comments - the Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/40/9/).

Perseverance in upholding the truths of the dogma W. Barclay refers to as a fossil: “ It really happened very often that a person who came with a message from God met with hatred and enmity. petrified orthodoxy » (From the chapter - Barclay's comments - Bible

Speaking in favor of free-thinking thinkers like the Protestants (and, of course, in favor of the Protestants themselves), the author seeks to assure his potential followers that the opposition that he shows against them is contrary to the spirit of Christianity, and that it is as if the Redeemer Himself warned about it: Jesus warned His disciples that in the future they can unite against them society, Church and family"(From the chapter - Barclay's comments - the Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/40/10/).

Recall what exactly unites the disciples of Christ, while the Protestant communities are the disciples of their leaders.

Speaking against the ancient church traditions, W. Barclay also denounces the tradition of monasticism, insisting that the doctrine of monasticism tends to separate "religion from life", and, therefore, it is false.

Here are his words: The teaching is false if it separates religion from life. Any teaching that says that a Christian has no place in life and in worldly activities is false. This was the mistake of monks and hermits. They believed that in order to live the Christian life, they must retire to the desert or to a monastery, to get out of this all-consuming and seductive worldly life. They believed that they could only be true Christians by leaving the worldly life. Jesus prayed for His disciples: “I do not pray that You take them out of the world, but that You save them from evil.” () » (From the chapter - Barclay's comments - the Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/40/7/).

Concerning the problems of man's struggle with sinful thoughts and desires, the author points to the activities of the monks as an illustration of a strange and irregular form of struggle. Like, the monks, without realizing it, fencing themselves off from the real temptations of this world, fell into even greater temptations that were born in their memory or imagination. With his negative criticism, he did not bypass even the founder (one of the founders) of monasticism, an outstanding Christian ascetic, St. Anthony the Great.

In history, he believes, there is one notable example mishandling such thoughts and desires: stylites, hermits, monks, hermits in the era of the early Church. These were people who wanted to be free from everything earthly and, in particular, from carnal desires. To do this, they went to the Egyptian desert with the idea of ​​\u200b\u200bliving alone and thinking only about God. The most famous of them is Anthony. He lived as a hermit, fasted, spent his nights vigilant, torturing his body. He lived in the wilderness for 35 years, which was an ongoing battle with his temptations... It is quite obvious that if anyone behaves carelessly, it applies to Antony and his friends.. Such is human nature that the more a person tells himself that he will not think about something, the more it will occupy his thoughts."(From the chapter - Barclay's comments - the Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/40/5/).

W. Barclay's mistake, in this case, is seen in the fact that he incorrectly looks both at monasticism itself and at the attitude of the Church to monastic life. The fact is that while recognizing monasticism as one of the forms of service to God, the Orthodox Church has never taught that a Christian has no life in the world. As you know, among the canonized saints there are many who became famous precisely for their life in the world: warriors, doctors, teachers, etc. Again, the monastic life, which implies a removal from worldly pleasures, worldly fuss, does not imply a complete spiritual break with the world. Suffice it to recall that for many centuries the monasteries played the role of spiritual centers not only for monks and monks, but also for the laity: the monasteries served as places of pilgrimage for them; libraries were created at monasteries, theological schools were opened; often, in difficult times, the monks helped the laity with bread and a ruble.

Finally, completely unaware of why monastic work was associated with spiritual exploits, and the monks themselves were often called ascetics, he defines the monastic life as very easy, and describes the monks themselves as fugitives from the real difficulties of life: “ It's easy to feel like a Christian in moments of prayer and meditation, it is easy to feel the closeness of God, when we are away from the world. But this is not faith - this is an escape from life. Genuine faith is when you get up from your knees to help people and solve human problems."(From the chapter - Barclay's comments - the Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/40/17/).

In the end, the interpreter seeks to bring Christian worship and worship under the humanitarian doctrine: “ Christian ministry - this is not the service of a liturgy or ritual, this is a service to a human need. Christian service is not a monastic retreat, but an active participation in all the tragedies, problems and demands that people face"(From the chapter - Barclay's comments - the Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/40/12/).

The author shows a rather peculiar attitude towards the Lord Jesus Christ.

On the one hand, he does not seem to mind that Jesus is the Incarnate Son of God the Father. In any case, some of his words, such as: “ When Glory came to this earth, He was born in a cave where people sheltered animals. Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/40/2/).

« God sent His Son into this world, - testifies W. Barkley, - Jesus Christ, so that He would save man from the quagmire of sin in which he was mired, and free him from the chains of sin with which he bound himself, so that man could through Him regain the friendship with God he had lost.(From chapter - Barclay's comments - Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/40/1/)

On the other hand, he ascribes to the Redeemer such traits as, for example, uncertainty about His chosenness (not to mention "uncertainty" in Divine dignity), ignorance of how to accomplish His mission, "which He entrusted".

“Thus,” Barclay prompts the reader, “ And in the act of baptism, Jesus received double certainty: that He really is God's Chosen One and that the way before Him was the way of the cross, at that moment Jesus knew that He had been chosen to be King"(From the chapter - Barclay's comments - Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/40/3/)

"Jesus," he continues his line, " went to the desert to be alone. spoke to him now He wanted to think about how to fulfill the mission that he had entrusted to Him. "(From the head - Barclay's comments - the Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/40/4/).

Already at the first acquaintance with these and similar statements one gets the impression that they are on the verge of admissible and inadmissible theologizing. The position of the interpreter is more clearly revealed in his attitude to the testimony of the Evangelist John the Theologian that Christ is none other than God the Word Incarnate. While formally recognizing that “the Word became flesh” (), W. Barclay, nevertheless, explains this gospel truth not in the spirit of the Gospel. Whereas the Orthodox teaches that the Word is a Hypostasis of the One Trinity God, consubstantial with the Father and the Holy Spirit, equally perfect and equal in honor to the other two Divine Hypostases, Barclay seeks to convince his readers of something else.

“Christianity,” he shares his reasoning, “ originated in Judaism and at first all members of the Christian Church were Jews... Christianity arose in the Jewish environment and therefore inevitably spoke their language and used their categories of thinking... The Greeks had never heard of the Messiah, they did not understand the very essence of the aspirations of the Jews - Messiah. The concepts with which Jewish Christians thought and imagined Jesus said nothing to the Greeks. And this was the problem - how to represent in the Greek world? ... Around the year 100, there lived a man in Ephesus who thought about this. His name was John; he lived in a Greek city, he communicated with the Greeks, to whom Jewish concepts were alien and incomprehensible, and even seemed strange and rude. How can we find a way to introduce Christianity to these Greeks in a way that they will understand and welcome? And it was revealed to him. Both in the Jewish and in the Greek worldview there was a concept words. Here it could be used in such a way that it corresponded to the worldviews of both the Hellenic and the Jew. It was something that lay in the historical legacy of both races; both of them could understand it"(From chapter - Barclay's commentary - Bible

It is known that in the understanding of (many) Jews it was conceived as the One, but not as the Trinity. The Word of God was comprehended in their minds as an active force, but not as a Divine Hypostasis (cf.: and God said...). Something similar was thought about the Logos (Word) and the mentioned Greeks.

“And so,” he develops his thought, “ when John was looking for a way to present, he found that in his faith and in the history of his people there was already an idea words, word, which in itself is not just a sound, but something dynamic -word God, by whom he created the earth; word from Targumi – Aramaic translation of the Bible – expressing the very idea of ​​God's action; wisdom from the books of Wisdom - the eternal, creative and enlightening power of God. So John says, "If you want to see Word God's, if you want to see the creative power of God, if you want to see Word, through whom the earth was created, and by whom gives light and life to every man, look at Jesus Christ. In him Word God has come to you" (From the chapter - Barclay's comments - the Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/43/1/).

As if confirming what was said above, U Barkley signals: “ . ..In the Greek world and in the Greek worldview, there is another name that we must get to know. In Alexandria lived a Jew named Philo, who devoted his life to the study of the wisdom of two worlds: the Greek and the Jewish. None of the Greeks knew as well as he did the Holy Scripture of the Jews, and not a single Jew knew as well as he did the greatness of Greek thought. Philo also loved and used this idea logos, words, reason God's. He believed that nothing in the world is older logos So what logos It is the instrument by which the world was created. Philo said that logos- this is the thought of God, imprinted in the universe; logos created the world and everything in it; God is the pilot of the universe, He holds logos like a helm and directs everything. According to Philo logos imprinted in the human brain, it gives a person reason, the ability to think and the ability to know. Philo said that logos mediator between the world and God, and that logos is a priest who presents the soul to God. Greek philosophy knew all about logos, she saw in logos the creative, leading and directing power of God, the power that created the universe and thanks to which life and movement are preserved in it. And so John came to the Greeks and said: “For centuries you have been thinking, writing and dreaming about logos, about the power that created the world and keeps order in it; about the power that gave man the ability to think, reason and know; about the power through which people entered into a relationship with God. Jesus is this logos, descended to earth." "The Word became flesh' John said. We can also express it like this: The Mind of God Incarnated in Man"" (From the chapter - Barclay's comments - the Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/43/1/).

Finally, Barclay explicitly points out that the Savior was identical with God, but was not “one” with God: “ When John says that the Word was God, he is not saying that Jesus was one with God, He was identical with God; he says that He was so much like God in mind, heart and being, that in Him we perfectly see what God is"(From the chapter - Barclay's comments - the Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/43/1/).

And elsewhere: "The Word became flesh - in this, perhaps, as nowhere else in the New Testament, the human essence of Jesus is wonderfully proclaimed. In Jesus we saw the creative Word of God, directing the Mind of God, Who Himself incarnates in man. In Jesus we see how God would live this life if He were a man. If we had nothing more to say about Jesus, we could still say that He shows us how to live the life we ​​need to live."(From the chapter - Barclay's comments - Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/43/1/)

How does W. Barclay explain that Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God the Father? He boils it down to the fact that Jesus is unique and most loved by God the Father. Here is how he says it himself: Jesus - only begotten Son. In Greek it is monogenesis, What means only Son, only begotten and in this case it fully corresponds to the Russian translation of the Bible. But the point is that long before the Fourth Gospel was written, this word lost its purely physical meaning and acquired two special meanings. It began to mean unique, special in its own way and especially loved, it is quite obvious that the only son also occupies a special place in the heart of the father and enjoys special love, and therefore this word has come to mean, first of all, unique. The writers of the New Testament are absolutely convinced that Jesus is unique, that there was no one like Him: He alone can lead God to people and people to God"(From the chapter - Barclay's comments - the Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/43/1/).