2:1 in the house. Apparently, in the house of Peter (1.29).

2:4 They opened the roof. This was not difficult since the roofs were made of branches and clay and were supported by cross beams.

2:5 their faith. The common faith of the patient and the people who brought him.

your sins are forgiven you. The fact that sin is the cause of illness is evidenced by both the Old Testament (Ex. 15:26; Deut. 28:50.61; 2 Chron. 21:18) and New Testament(John 5:14; see, however, John 9:2). What was unexpected for those present was the power of Jesus to forgive sin, since, according to Scripture, this is the exclusive prerogative of God (Ex. 34:7; Isa. 1:18).

2:10 Son of Man. Son of God in human form. Messianic title.

2:14 Levia Alfeev. In the Evangelist Matthew (9:9-13) this man is called Matthew. Since Matthew is present in the list of apostles given by Mark (3.18), while the name of Levi is not there, it should be assumed that Levi, like Simon, having become a disciple and apostle of Jesus, received a new name.

at the collection of duties. The tents of the toll collectors stood on large trade routes, at bridges and canals where duties were collected for the transportation of goods, as well as in fishing grounds where taxes were collected from fishermen. Toll collectors were disliked for their illegal exactions, but especially for their collaboration with the Roman conquerors (the collected funds went to the Roman treasury).

2:15 sinners. This is what the Pharisees called all the Jews who did not follow their traditions regarding the observance of ritual purity.

reclined with Him. By coming into contact with sinners, Jesus became their equal, since rabbinic regulations strictly forbade all teachers of the law from participating in such meals.

2:16 Pharisees. The Pharisees were the theological heirs of the Hasidim, supporters of a movement that arose in the 2nd century. BC as a reaction to the penetration of Hellenistic pagan influences into Judaism. Hasidim emphasized personal piety, study, and observance of the law. In the time of Jesus, strict observance of the law, and especially the rules concerning ritual purity, was achieved through the fulfillment of a series of casuistic requirements known as “the traditions of the elders” (7:3). The need to know the law itself and endless interpretations of it naturally gave rise to a social and religious division between the professional elite - the “righteous” and other people - the “sinners”.

2:18 fasted. The law provided for only one annual fast - Yom Kippur, i.e. day of Atonement (Lev. 16:29-31; cf. Acts 27:9, where Yom Kippur is called a “fast”). Nevertheless, as a sign of repentance and repentance, fasting has been a thing since the time of the judges. integral part Old Testament spirituality (Judges 20:26; 1 Kings 21:27), turning, however, over time into a formal ritual (Isa. 58:3). It is not surprising that the Pharisees and their followers fasted twice a week (Luke 18:12). Since the main thing in the teaching of John the Baptist was the call to repentance (Matthew 3:11), fasting was acceptable for his disciples.

2:19 groom. IN Old Testament Marriage symbolism is widely used, in which God appears as the husband, Israel as the wife (“daughter of Zion”), and the covenant is likened to marriage. Jesus, who has not yet entered into a marriage covenant with the Church ("the bride of the Lamb", Rev. 21:9), calls himself the bridegroom.

2:23 on Saturday... the ears of corn began to be plucked. The picking of ears of corn was not only not prohibited by law, but, on the contrary, it was allowed (Deut. 23:25). The Pharisees, therefore, blamed the disciples not for plucking ears of corn and eating, but for doing it on the Sabbath. The Talmud categorically prohibits this. Picking and grinding ears of grain to separate the grains from the husk was considered to be threshing and was considered one of the 39 ordinary jobs prohibited on the Sabbath.

2:25 David. David ate consecrated bread, which only priests were supposed to eat (1 Samuel 21:5). What David did was not a violation of the Sabbath law, but of the law of the temple and the tabernacle. The Savior argues here on the principle of equivalents: the temple and the Sabbath were equal in holiness.

2:26 at... Aviafar. In 1 Samuel 21:1-6 states that the priest who gave David the consecrated bread was Abimelech, the father of Abiathar, not Abiathar. There are suggestions that the mentioned priest bore two names - Abiathar and Abimelech.

2:28 lord and sabbath. God has power over all days. However, the Sabbath was specifically designated as a day dedicated to the Lord God (see Ex. 16:23.25; Lev. 23:3; Deut. 5:14), and therefore God was the lord (master) of the Sabbath time. By calling Himself Lord of the Sabbath, Jesus thereby equates Himself with God.

This chapter describes:

I. Christ's healing of the paralytic, v. 1-12.

II. His calling of Matthew from the collection of duties and His meal on this occasion with tax collectors and sinners; His justification of Himself in this act, v. 13-17.

III. His justification for His disciples was that they did not fast, and that they plucked ears of corn on the Sabbath day, v. 23-28. We have already read about all this in Matt. 9 and 12.

Verses 1-12. Christ had been preaching in the countryside for some time, and now returned to Capernaum, where His headquarters were, and appeared there openly, hoping that by this time the talk about Him should subside and the crowds diminish. So, let's note the following:

I. A large crowd of people to Him. Although He was in the house (either in Peter's house, or in some of His own dwellings, which He had rented for Himself), nevertheless the people came to Him as soon as it was heard that He was in the city. They did not wait for Him to appear in the synagogue, which He certainly had to do on the Sabbath day, and they could be quite sure of it, but they immediately gathered, and many of them. Where the king is, there are the courtiers; where Shiloh is, there the people gather. In seizing opportunities for the good of our souls, we must take care not to waste time. They invited each other (Let's go see Jesus.) so that His house could not accommodate all the visitors. There were so many people that there was no longer any room at the door. It is a blessed sight to see people flying to the house of Christ, although it was a poor house, like clouds, and like doves to their dovecotes!

II. The kindness which Christ gave them was the best that could be given in his house, and the best that could have been given in any other house: he spoke the word to them, v. 2. Perhaps many of them came only for healing, and others out of curiosity to look at Him, but when they gathered, He began to preach to them. The doors of the synagogue were opened for Him at the appropriate time, but He did not at all consider it inappropriate to preach according to weekdays in the house, although someone might consider such a place and such a time inappropriate. Blessed are you who sow by all waters, Isaiah 32:20.

III. They brought him an unfortunate paralytic so that He could help him. The patient was relaxed. This was probably not the paralytic about whom it is written in Matthew 8:6 that he suffered severely, but a completely helpless man, so that four people carried him, carried him on a bed, as if on a stretcher. It was his misfortune that he had to be carried, and spoke of the wretched condition of human life; and on the part of those who carried it, it was mercy and spoke of the compassion that is justly to be expected from the children of men towards their fellows in distress, for it is not known how soon the same misfortune will befall us ourselves. These good relatives or neighbors thought that if they once brought this unfortunate man to Jesus, they would no longer have to carry him. Therefore they did all they could to bring him to him, and when they could do it in no other way, they opened the roof of the house where he was, v. 4. I see no need to conclude that Christ preached in the upper room, although it was in such rooms that the Jews, who had rich houses, set up their prayer houses - for why then would a crowd of people stand at the door, as those invited by wisdom usually do? (Prov 8:34). I am inclined to think that the house in which Christ was was so small and wretched (in accordance with His position at that time) that there was no upper dwelling in it, and the ground floor was located immediately under the roof. Therefore, the intercessors of this unfortunate man decided not to despair when they were unable to get to Christ through the crowd at the door, they somehow lifted their friend onto the roof of the house, dismantled part of the roof and lowered him on a bed using ropes into the house where Jesus was preaching. This testified both to their faith and to their zeal in turning to Christ. It was evident that they were in earnest, and would not go away, or let Christ go, until they had received the blessing, Gen. 32:26.

IV. The kind words with which Christ addressed the unfortunate patient. He saw their faith, perhaps not so much of the sick man himself, since his ill health prevented him from exercising faith, but of those who brought him. While healing the centurion’s servant, Christ noted as a manifestation of his faith that he did not bring the sick man to Him, being confident that He was able to heal him even at a distance. Here Christ praised their faith, because they were able to bring their companion after overcoming so many obstacles.

Note. True and strong faith can act in different ways, sometimes defeating the objections of reason, sometimes the objections of feelings; however it appears, it will be accepted and approved by Jesus Christ. Christ said: Child! your sins are forgiven you. What a tender address the child is, it indicates fatherly care for him and sympathy for him. Christ treats true believers as His sons: although a paralytic, yet a son. In this God deals with you as with sons. The medicine is unusually strong: Your sins are forgiven. Notes

1. Sin is the cause of all our illnesses and suffering. The word of Christ was supposed to distract his thoughts from the illness that was the consequence, and direct them to sin, the reason for him to be more concerned about it, about receiving its forgiveness.

2. God then graciously removes the sting of disease when he forgives sin; deliverance from illness is only true mercy when it is achieved through the forgiveness of sin. See Isaiah 38:17; Ps 112:3. The effect can only be eliminated by eliminating the cause. Forgiveness of sin strikes at the root of all diseases and either heals them or changes them qualitatively.

V. The scribes’ cavils about the words of Christ and the proof of the unreasonableness of these cavils. They were representatives of the law, and rightly taught that the forgiveness of sins to creatures was blasphemy, for it was the prerogative of God, Isa. 43:25. But, as is usually the case with such teachers, they misapplied the teaching, and this came from their ignorance and hostility to Christ. Yes, truly no one can forgive sins except God alone, but it is not true that Christ, who has repeatedly proven that He is endowed with Divine power, cannot do this. But Christ immediately knew by His spirit that they thought so within themselves. This proved that He was God, and therefore proved what was to be proved, that He had power to forgive sins, for He is the one who searches the hearts and the reins, Rev. 2:23. God's privileges and prerogatives are inseparable - He who could read minds could forgive sins. The grace of Christ in the forgiveness of sin is magnified by the fact that He knows the thoughts of men, and therefore knows their sins better than any other man, in all their fullness and detail, and yet is ready to forgive them. He here confirms His power to forgive sins, by demonstrating it in healing the paralytic, v. 9-11. He would not have claimed one thing if he could not do the other: But so that you may know that the Son of Man, the Messiah, has power on earth to forgive sins, that I have this power, he said to the paralytic: I say to you, get up, take up your bed .

1. This argument was suitable in itself. If Christ could not eliminate sin, the cause of the disease, then he could not heal the disease, its consequence. Moreover, His healing of illness was external sign His forgiveness of sin, for sin is a disease of the soul; when sin is forgiven, the disease is healed. He who could accomplish a sign with one word could, undoubtedly, accomplish what it signified.

2. It was also suitable for scribes. For them, carnal people, such a result of the forgiveness of sin as the healing of an illness should have made a greater impression than any other, more spiritual, consequences. Therefore, the question was quite correct: What is easier to say: “your sins are forgiven” or to say: “get up, take up your bed and walk”? The removal of such punishment as this was remission of sin. He who could begin such a cure could certainly complete it, Isa. 33:24.

VI. The healing of the sick person and the impression he made on those around him, v. 12. Not only did he get out of bed completely healthy, but to show that his strength had fully returned, he, taking the bed (because it lay on the road), went out in front of everyone, so that everyone was amazed and glorified God as best they could , saying: “We have never seen anything like this; before, such miracles have not been performed in our days.” Note. Christ's actions were unprecedented. When we see Him healing souls, we have no choice but to admit that we have never seen anything like it.

Verses 13-17. I. Christ preaching by the sea (v. 13), whither he came in search of a place, because he could not find either a house or a wide street sufficient to accommodate his hearers, and the coast could accommodate any number of people. This seems to mean that our Lord Jesus had a strong voice, could and did speak loudly - wisdom proclaiming in the street... in the main meeting places. Wherever Christ came, even to the seashore, all the people came to Him. Wherever the true teaching of Christ is preached, even in secluded and deserted places, we must follow it.

II. Calling Him to Levi. This was the same man as Matthew, who occupied a place in the customs house of the city of Capernaum, which is why he received the nickname of the tax collector. This position tied him to the coast, where Christ came to meet him and call him. Here it is said that Levi was the son of Alphaeus, or Cleopas, the husband of that Mary, who was a sister or near relative of the Virgin Mary, and if this is so, then he was the brother of James the younger, Judas and Simon the Canaanite, so that four of the apostles were brothers. Matthew was probably a dissolute and wasteful young man, otherwise he, being a Jew, would never have become a tax collector. However, Christ called him to follow Him. Paul, although a Pharisee, was one of the main sinners, and yet Christ called him to be an apostle. God has in Christ mercy enough to forgive the greatest sins, and grace enough to sanctify the greatest sinners. A former tax collector, Matthew became an evangelist and wrote down the story of the life of Christ very first and half of all the others. Great sins and a shameful life before conversion can in no way be an obstacle to great gifts, virtues and high position after it. Moreover, God is more glorified. Christ warned Levi with this call; in cases of physical healing they usually sought Him, but in spiritual healings He was found by those who did not seek Him. For this is the greatest evil and destructiveness of a sinful illness, that those suffering from it do not want to be healed.

III. Christ's close fellowship with publicans and sinners, v. 15. It says here that:

1. Christ reclined in the house of Levi, who invited Him and his disciples to the farewell dinner he had prepared for his friends when he left everything to follow Christ. He arranged the same holiday as Elisha (1 Kings 19:21), wanting to show that he not only joyfully, but also with gratitude to God leaves everything, accepting the call of Christ. He did the right thing by making the day of his marriage to Christ a holiday. By this he also wished to testify to his respect for Christ and to express his grateful gratitude to Him for the kindness shown in pulling him out of the customs house like a brand from the fire.

2. Many publicans and sinners reclined with Christ in the house of Levi (for there were many of them in that customs house), and they followed Him. They followed Levi - this is how some understand it (in the English Bible version of 1611, which the author of the commentary uses, personal pronouns do not clearly indicate the Person of our Lord, as, for example, in the Russian Synodal Bible and in other more modern translations. - Translator's note. ), believing that Levi, like Zacchaeus, was rich and held the position of chief of publicans, so the junior publicans accompanied him in order to get something. I am inclined to believe that they followed Jesus because of the rumors they heard about Him. They did not leave everything out of conscience to follow Him, but out of curiosity they came to Levi's feast to see Him; but whatever brought them there, they sat with Jesus and His disciples. Here and elsewhere, publicans were equated with sinners, with the worst of sinners.

(1) Because that's how they usually were. Corruption, oppression of the weak, extortion, extortion of bribes or gifts, false accusations, were common in their work, Luke 3:13,14. Honest and just publicans were such a rarity, even in Rome, that a certain Sabinus, who maintained a clean reputation in this field, was honored after his death with the following inscription: KaAo? teYutsaaul - Here lies an honest publican.

(2) Because the Jews had a special dislike for them and their office, considering them as an insult to their national freedom and as a sign of their servile condition. Therefore they slandered them and considered it a disgrace to be in their company. And it was with these that our blessed Lord, who appeared in the likeness of sinful flesh, wished to talk.

IV. The temptation of the scribes and Pharisees, v. 16. They came not to listen to His preaching, which could convict and instruct them, but to see with their own eyes Him reclining with tax collectors and sinners and to get a reason to be irritated by this. They tried to lead the disciples to disappointment in their Teacher as a person who did not have the holiness and strict morality that befitted His title, and therefore turned to them with the question: How does He eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?

Note. It is not new that what is done well and with good intentions is misrepresented and used as an excuse to vilify the wisest and best of men.

V. How Christ justified Himself in this, v. 17. He did not give up what he was doing, and did not intend to retreat, like Peter (Gal. 2:12), although the Pharisees were tempted by this. Let us note: those who are too sensitive to their good name try to preserve it in the eyes of some discerning people, avoiding good deeds for the sake of this. Christ didn't do that. People believed that publicans were worthy of hatred. “No,” said Christ, “they should be pitied, they are sick and need a doctor, they are sinners and need a Savior.” They thought that the holiness of Christ should separate Him from them. “No,” said Christ, “I must go to them. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. If the world were righteous, then there would be no need for My coming here, there would be no need to preach repentance or acquire forgiveness. I was sent specifically to a sinful world, and therefore I must most of all deal with the greatest sinners in it.” Or like this: “I came to call not the righteous, not the proud Pharisees who consider themselves righteous and ask: How can we turn? (Mal 3:7) What should we repent of? But he came to the poor tax collectors, who recognize themselves as sinners and respond with joy when they are invited and encouraged to repent.” It's good to deal with those who show some promise. There is more hope in a fool than in one who is wise in his own eyes, Prov. 26:12.

Verses 18-28. Christ was forced to justify Himself in the fact that He communicated with tax collectors and sinners; now He has to justify His disciples; He is ready to justify and support them in everything they do according to His will.

I. He acquits the disciples of that for which the Pharisees reproached them, namely, that they did not fast. Why did the Pharisees and John's disciples fast? They fasted according to custom, the Pharisees fasted twice a week (Luke 18:12), and probably John's disciples did the same. Perhaps the very day on which Christ and his disciples feasted in the house of Levi was a day of fasting (for the word vqoTsdoooiv means: they are fasting now), and this increased the discontent of the Pharisees. Strict zealots of the faith are always inclined to make their customs the standard for everyone, to criticize and condemn those who do not follow them exactly. They defiantly argued that if Christ communicated with sinners in order to do good to them, as He said this in His defense, then the disciples came to them with the goal of indulging their lusts, since they never knew what fasting and self-denial meant.

Note. Evil wishers always assume the worst.

Two reasons Jesus gave to justify His disciples for not fasting.

1. They were worried favorable days, and fasting was not now as appropriate for them as it might later turn out to be, v. 19, 20. Everything has its time. Those entering into marriage must prepare to have cares and sorrows in the flesh, and yet during the marriage celebration they are joyful and believe that this is how they should be. It was not normal for Samson's wife to weep before him for seven days during which they had a feast, Judges 14:17. Christ and His disciples were newlyweds, the groom was with them, the guests were still celebrating the wedding (especially Matthew). When will the groom have to leave them in distant country according to their affairs, then the time will come for them to sit like a widow alone and fast.

2. These were their early days: they were not yet capable of severe religious exercises, as they later became. The Pharisees had long been accustomed to an ascetic lifestyle, and John the Baptist himself, when he came, did not eat or drink. His disciples accustomed themselves to difficulties from the very beginning, and it was not difficult for them to observe strict and frequent fasting. But this was not the case with the disciples of Christ. The Lord ate and drank them and did not force them to perform difficult religious duties, for the time was still favorable. Imposing frequent fasts at the very beginning would have discouraged them and might have deterred them from following Him; the consequences would be the same as when they pour new wine into old wineskins, or put a patch of unbleached cloth on worn and shabby clothing, v. 21, 22. Note. God generously considers the condition of young Christians; He knows that they are weak and tender. And we should treat them the same way. We should not expect from a given day more work than can be done on that day, and more strength than is available for it, for it is not in our power to give strength in proportion to the day's work. Many people acquire an aversion to certain types of food, which are good in themselves, because they were fed up with them in their youth. Thus many are prejudiced against religious exercises because they were burdened with them, forced to perform sacrificial service in their early years. Weak Christians must beware of overloading themselves and making the yoke of Christ not what it is - easy, sweet and pleasant.

II. He justifies them in the fact that they plucked ears of corn on the Sabbath, which, I assure you, the disciples of the Pharisees would never have dared to do, for it contradicted the clear tradition of their elders. In this, as in the previous case, they blame the discipline of the school of Christ, because it was not so strict as the discipline of their school. Those who reject the power of piety are usually zealous for its form and condemn those who do not observe their form.

Note:

1. How modest the breakfast of Christ's disciples was on Saturday morning, when they went to church, v. 23. They plucked ears of corn, and this was the best they had. They were so absorbed in spiritual food that they even forgot about their daily bread; the word of Christ was to them instead of bread, and zeal for it consumed them. The Jews made the elaborate Sabbath table part of their religion, but the disciples were content with little.

2. How even this little thing caused the Pharisees to grumble against them, because it was unlawful to gather ears of corn on the Sabbath, and that it was the same as hard work as harvesting (v. 24): Look what they do on the Sabbath, which they ought not to do. do. Note. If the disciples of Christ do something illegal, it casts a shadow on Christ Himself, brings censure upon Him, as happened here, and brings disgrace to His name. Note, When the Pharisees thought that Christ was wrong, they told the disciples about it (v. 16), but now when they thought that the disciples were wrong, they told Christ about it; they did everything possible, as instigators, to sow discord between Christ and His disciples, to cause a split in their family.

3. How Christ defended the disciples for what they did.

(1) By example. They had an excellent precedent in the life of David when he ate the showbread (vv. 25, 26): Have you never read?... Note. We could avoid many errors and unfair criticism of others if we would remember what we have read in the Scriptures. Christ finds the most convincing argument. “You have read how David, a man after God’s own heart, when he was hungry, saw no hindrance to eating the showbread, which by law no one could eat except the priests and their families.” Note. Ritual observances must give way to moral duties, and when necessary, one can do things that otherwise cannot be done. This David did, as it is said, in the days of Abiathar the high priest, or: before the days of Abiathar, who succeeded his father Abimelech as high priest and was probably at that time his deputy or assistant in this ministry; It was he who escaped the massacre and brought the ephod to David.

(2) By argument. To reconcile them with the fact that the disciples plucked ears of corn, He invites them to reason:

For whom was the Sabbath instituted, v. 27. It was instituted for man, not man for the Sabbath. Matthew does not have these words. The Sabbath is a sacred, Divine institution, but we must perceive it as a privilege and as a blessing, and not as a duty and a heavy burden.

First, God never intended it to be forced on us, and therefore we should not force it on ourselves. Man was not created for the Sabbath, since he was created the day before it was established. Man was created for God, for His honor and for His service, and He would rather die than give it up. He was not made for the Sabbath, so that the law of the Sabbath should forbid him what was necessary for the maintenance of his life.

Second, God intended it for our advantage, and we should treat it and use it the same way. He installed it for a person.

1. In this institution He had a certain care for our bodies, that they should rest and not be overworked by the endless affairs of life (Deuteronomy 5:14): that your servant and your maidservant might rest, as you do. So, He who intended the Sabbath for the rest of our bodies could not, of course, mean that it should keep us from obtaining the necessary reinforcement for the body in case of need; the interpretation of the law on the Sabbath should not contradict its purpose, for creation, and not for destruction.

2. But He had much more in mind concerning our souls. The Sabbath was established as a day of rest only to be a day of holy work, a day of fellowship with God, a day of praise and thanksgiving; Therefore, rest from worldly affairs is necessary in order for us to devote ourselves more fully to this work and spend the whole day in it, public and personal. But at the same time we are given the time necessary to prepare our bodies to participate in the service performed by our souls, in the service of God, so that they are able to keep pace with them in this service.

Notice here:

(1) What good Master we serve. All His statutes work for our good, and if we are so wise as to keep them, we are wise for ourselves; it is not He who gains as a result of our service, but we.

(2.) What we should strive for in our Sabbath work: to achieve the good of our own souls. If the Sabbath was established for a person, then we should ask ourselves in the evening, “Am I any better for this Sabbath?”

(3.) How we must take care not to make a burden to ourselves or others those exercises of godliness which God has ordained to be blessings: not to add to this institution unreasonable severity, nor to indulge whims which are not in accordance with it, for such Thus we make these pious exercises a punishment for ourselves, when they should be a pleasure for us.

2:1,2 After [several] days He came again to Capernaum; and it was heard that He was in the house.
2 Immediately many gathered together, so that there was no longer room at the door; and He spoke the word to them.
News of Christ's movements spread with lightning speed, so it is not surprising that there were many who wanted to see and hear Jesus.
Jesus, we note, first of all, spoke the word of God to those gathered, was in no hurry to amaze with healings, therefore in the history of mankind he is better known as a teacher, and not as a folk healer.

2:3-12 The episode of the healing of a paralyzed man lowered to Jesus through the roof, see the detailed analysis in Mtf. 9:2-7

2:3-5 And they came to Him with the paralytic, who was carried by four;
4 And, not being able to approach Him because of the crowds, they uncovered the roof [of the house] where He was, and having dug through it, they lowered down the bed on which the paralytic lay.
5 Jesus, seeing their faith, said to the paralytic: child! your sins are forgiven you.
Here Jesus points to sinfulness as the cause of illness, and therefore, if the sinner is truly forgiven (God has given Jesus Christ the authority to forgive sins in His name), then forgiveness will certainly MANIFEST in healing from illnesses. Physical healing awaits all the saved, whose sins will be forgiven through Jesus Christ, which is why the time of salvation is predicted when the lame will leap like a deer, and the dumb will speak (Isa. 35: 5,6)

However, the question arises: does the forgiveness of sins and the healing of the paralyzed by Christ mean that from now on he will certainly be saved?
Unfortunately no. If, having been healed and forgiven by Christ, this person does not follow Christ and returns to a sinful lifestyle, then this healing will not help him in any way.
There is an allegory in this: all Christians, through the atonement of Christ, were forgiven the sins they had committed before. But in order to achieve true salvation and eternal life, they will have to work on themselves and in the work of the Lord for the rest of their lives. Redemption and forgiveness of sins through atonement is only a chance to achieve true salvation in the age to come.

2:6-9 Some of the scribes sat there and thought in their hearts:
7 Why does He blaspheme so much? who can forgive sins except God alone?
8 Jesus, immediately knowing in His spirit that they were thinking this way in themselves, said to them, “Why are you thinking this way in your hearts?”
9 Which is easier? Should I say to the paralytic: your sins are forgiven? or should I say: get up, take your bed and walk?
Of course, simply saying: “you are forgiven” is much easier than saying “get up and walk” in confirmation of forgiveness, for many in Israel were informed about forgiveness, but few became healthy from this.

2:10,11 But so that you may know that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins, he says to the paralytic:
11 I say to you, get up, take up your bed and go to your house.
Jesus, HAVING HEALED a seriously ill man, showed everyone, and especially the suspicious Pharisees, that he not only has the right to SPEAK like that, but also the right (power from God) to FORGIVE

2:12 He immediately got up and, taking the bed, went out in front of everyone, so that everyone was amazed and glorified God, saying: we have never seen anything like this.
An apparent paradox: Jesus performs miracles of healing, but all the glory rushes past him - to God, who sent him. Why is that?
Because Jesus Christ did not have the slightest desire to grab for himself a “piece” of the glory that belonged to God: he presented everything in such a way that people correctly understood the essence of what was happening and that it was all about God, who sent Jesus to earth.

But at one time the devil was caught in Eden precisely by the desire to appropriate someone else's glory (vanity): the anointed cherub was indignant at the fact that he inspired people to do good deeds and overshadowed people with outlandish thoughts - he, and the glory from them for this - went to God (Ezek. 28:13,14). From that moment, his fall and landing began to the low level of the enemy of God.

2:13 And [Jesus] went out again to the sea; and all the people went to Him, and He taught them.
Let us note again that the main activity of Jesus Christ was to become a spiritual teacher for people.

2:14 As He passed, He saw Levi Alpheus sitting at the toll collection, and said to him: Follow Me. And [he] stood up and followed Him.
The Evangelist Matthew (9:9-13) calls this man Matthew. Since Matthew is present in Mark's list of apostles (3:18), but Levi's name is not there, it should be assumed that Levi, like Simon, received a new name when he became a disciple and apostle of Jesus.

The “assembly”, in which Christ was the “leader”, included MANY tax collectors and sinners. But Jesus did not deprive them of his fellowship, but allowed them to follow him - just so that they would have the opportunity to see a different way of life and learn how to lead it if they liked it. The reason for this attitude towards tax collectors and sinners is simple: the doctor tries to help the sick, but he is not interested in the healthy; with them, even without the doctor’s participation, everything is normal.

2:18-20 The disciples of John and the Pharisees fasted. They come to Him and say: Why do the disciples of John and the Pharisees fast, but Your disciples do not fast?
19 And Jesus said to them, “Can the sons of the bridal chamber fast while the bridegroom is with them?” As long as the groom is with them, they cannot fast,
20 but the days will come when the bridegroom will be taken away from them, and then they will fast in those days.
Fasting is not really about observing formal ceremonies and rituals of abstaining from food, but about sadness and sorrow of the heart. If the heart does not grieve, then the ceremonies of fasting will not improve it and will not make it purer.
Why should Christ’s disciples grieve in their hearts if Jesus Christ was with them and they felt great?
The disciples' fast will begin when Jesus Christ dies.

2:21,22 No one puts patches of unbleached fabric on old clothes: otherwise the newly sewn garment will be pulled away from the old one, and the hole will be even worse.
22 No one puts new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the new wine will burst the skins, and the wine will leak, and the skins will be lost; but new wine must be put into new wineskins.
Why does the hole from combining new and old become even larger (superimposing new on old only aggravates the problem)?
Jesus' example concerns old and new fabric and is based on the tendency of natural fabrics to shrink after washing. The patch is usually taken larger than the hole and sewn further away from the edges of the hole. But, since new The fabric shrinks more when washed - it tears the old fabric along the sewn line, so the hole in the old fabric becomes even larger.

With this example, Jesus showed the incompatibility of the Old and New Testaments, if in application they are superimposed on one another (for example, if you accept the sacrifice of Christ, then sacrifices in the temple are no longer necessary. And if you continue to make sacrifices in the temple, then the meaning of Christ’s sacrifice is misunderstood) .
In order to accept the new (fulfill the new Testament), you need to reject the old (Old Testament). If you combine them -It is impossible to see the clear clarity of the path of serving God (for example, it is not clear: has temple service been canceled or is it in effect, has sacrifice been canceled or is it in effect?).

2:23 And it happened that on the Sabbath He passed through the sown [fields], and His disciples began to pluck the ears of corn along the way.
24 And the Pharisees said to Him: Look, what are they doing on the Sabbath that ought not [to be done]?
25 He said to them: Have you never read what David did when he had need and was hungry, he and those who were with him?
26 How did he enter into the house of God in the presence of Abiathar the high priest and eat the showbread, which no one was to eat except the priests, and gave it to those who were with him?
See analysis of Matthew 12:1-8
Why did Christ, one might say, argue with the leaders of God’s people over some trivial issue about ears of grain? After all, at that moment, for the people of God, they had the undeniable authority of the teachers of Israel; couldn’t he have given in to them in order to maintain their reputation? Was it really difficult to simply apologize and leave, so as not to offend the bosses and not lower their authority in the eyes of those watching this picture?

Here's why: Jesus knew for sure that these demands of teachers are not God's, but human, the wrong point of view needs to be corrected even among those who consider themselves teachers unsurpassed in wisdom.
Jesus did just that: by meditating aloud on the Scriptures, he showed them where their view of the Sabbath differed from God's.

Conclusion: in such cases, when the point of view of spiritual teachers does not correspond to the point of view of the word of God, the Bible is UNACCEPTABLE to agree because the authority of God is incomparably higher than the authority of any human teacher or leader. The leaders of God's people are also the people for whom Jesus came to earth, so they too should learn God's point of view, if it is possible to show it from Scripture.

2:27 And he said to them: The Sabbath is for man, and not man for the Sabbath;
First, God created man, and then organized the Sabbath day of rest for him, so that man would feel good. And not vice versa, it is not that first God created the seventh day of the week, and then created man so that he would observe this day, and this would be good for the Sabbath.
Who thinks the day of the week is more important? well-being of a person - he did not know God and did not understand His requirements.

2:28 therefore the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.
In what sense is Jesus "Lord of the Sabbath"? In two spiritual senses:
1) The Jews, having become "slaves to the letter" of the Sabbath law, were not able to understand that God's law is flexible: it was given to help people in spiritual healing, and not to make people tremble before the rules (Jer. 18: 7-10 ; Matthew 12:11,12). Since the Israelites did not devote time to spiritual matters and serving Jehovah voluntarily, God established the law of the 7th day for them so that they would devote time to spiritual matters at least 1 day a week - for their own good.

But if Jesus voluntarily devoted all his time to serving Jehovah, why did he need the Sabbath law? (Gal.5:23). He has a spiritual “Sabbath” - every day, He decided for himself when to “have a Sabbath” - to engage in spiritual affairs, and when not: thus Jesus, as it were, ruled the “Saturday” himself, and not “the Saturday ruled him” . This is the first meaning of the Lordship of Jesus Christ over the Sabbath. The Pharisees, who slavishly “served the 7th day,” could not understand this. Why?

Because they were too carried away by the point about the 7th day, it became an idol for them, and people became victims, obliged to serve their beloved “Sabbath”. Preoccupation with the external side of the Sabbath law crowded out from their understanding the essence of the Sabbath as a day intended for the good of people. Therefore, they did not understand that healing on the Sabbath could not be a sin (Matt. 12:10-12).

2) Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath in the sense of "God's rest" - in principle; he is the king of God's future world order, Lord over everything - in the period of God's rest, in the eternal Sabbath, in the eternal day of the Lord. If over eternity Jesus is the Lord in the earthly world order, then over the day of the week he has even more authority from God: he himself decides what to do on Saturday and what not. And the Pharisees are not a decree to him about this.

Let us now move on to the second chapter of the Gospel of Mark.

A few days later He came again(Christ) to Capernaum; and it was heard that He was in the house. Immediately many gathered, so that there was no longer room at the door, and He spoke the word to them. And they came to Him with the paralytic, who was carried by four; and, not being able to approach Him due to the crowds, they opened the roof of the house where He was, and, having dug through it, lowered the bed on which the paralytic lay. Jesus, seeing their faith, says to the paralytic: child! your sins are forgiven you. Some of the scribes sat there and thought in their hearts: Why does He blaspheme so much? who can forgive sins except God alone? Jesus, immediately knowing in His spirit that they were thinking this way in themselves, said to them, “Why are you thinking this way in your hearts?” What's easier? Should I say to the paralytic: “Your sins are forgiven”? or to say: “get up, take up your bed and walk”? But so that you may know that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins, he said to the paralytic, I say to you, get up, take up your bed and go to your house. He immediately got up and, taking up the bed, went out in front of everyone, so that everyone was amazed and glorified God, saying: We have never seen anything like this. (2: 1-12).

I want to draw your attention to several features of this story. First, it should be noted how often Christ came to Capernaum and preached there; He even lived there at one time. And yet, the inhabitants of this city, although they came in crowds to listen to Christ, and were amazed at His speeches and miracles, still remained insensitive. The fault lies not in the sermon, but in themselves, in their hearts, which were cold and unresponsive. When we hear the gospel of God, on us responsibility for our attitude towards him falls. We must remember this because often we expect to hear a gospel word or a sermon, or to talk to someone who is spirit-bearing, and the living word of this person should turn us from the dead to the living. This is wrong. The Word of God (you probably noted the expression in the passage you just read: and He spoke a word to them) not a magical action, the word of God this is a revelation of the utmost beauty and truth to a person; but one must be able to respond to beauty, to truth. And not only to respond with our hearts, to admire, because we admire many things and not for long, but it is necessary for it to reach our heart, ignite it, reach our mind and make it as bright as light, inspire our will to live and act accordingly what we have experienced and learned. This is an enormous difficulty for us, because beauty, truth, goodness require feat from us - and we so often we don't want any achievement it's a pity to leave our past life, we want to continue to live as before, but at the same time “everything will be fine.”

I remember a man who came to me for quite a long time and kept saying: “I want to know God, open God to me!” I answered him once: “Suppose I could do this: are you ready to give up the life you live and start a new life, or do you dream of God only as an additional pleasure in life, to become better? He, an honest man, looked at me and said: “Yes, I would like God to enter my life without disturbing the order that I have established, so that He would add a new dimension, which would make me happier or better to live.” . This is very important because the word of God double-edged sword, as the apostle says (see Heb 4:12). If we accept the word, it will separate the light from the darkness in us, and we must do choice. And which of us is brave enough and resilient enough to do this?..

And here I remember the words of St. Seraphim of Sarov, who said that there is only one difference between a perishing sinner and a saved righteous person: determination. A sinner often perceives beauty, goodness, and truth with emotion, but he ignites for one moment and goes out, because what reached him touched only his emotions. He understood what was going on, but it didn’t move him will to stand against oneself, to decide to fight and win for the sake of truth, for the sake of beauty, for the sake of one’s own dignity and, ultimately, for the sake of God, to defeat everything that is unworthy of neither God, nor oneself, nor humanity, nor relationships those who surround him with love.

The Gospel goes on to say: came to Him with the paralytic. What is relaxation, where does it come from? Of course, we all know that a person can be relaxed from hunger or from a nervous breakdown. But there is a form of relaxation that comes from internal mental distress. I'm not talking about emotions, but about a psychological or even, often, psychiatric disorder. And this is what I want to draw your attention to. This man's condition was probably not due to illness, but to the fact that there was something wrong with him; because Christ does not say to him: “I can heal you, do you believe it?” and in response to him: “Yes, Lord, I believe!” heals. Verse five says: Jesus says to the paralytic: Son, your sins are being sold to you. It would seem that this has nothing to do with the disease. This is relevant because Christ, looking at this man, saw his depths, saw that the reason for his relaxation was spiritual.

Of course, others noticed this. Some listened in amazement: how could Jesus Christ, Who for them was a man, a preacher, a mentor, but Whom they had not yet come to know as God who became a man, can forgive sins? Some were outraged. Some of the scribes sat there and thought in their hearts: Why does He blaspheme so much? Who can forgive sins except God alone? Jesus, Who had just seen the depths of the sick man, with His spirit, as an all-seeing, all-knowing God, knew their thoughts and, turning to them, although they did not express out loud what they were thinking, said to them: Why do you think this way in your hearts?(Why do such thoughts arise from your depths?) What's easier? Should I say to the paralytic: “Your sins are forgiven”? or say: "get up, take your bed and walk"? He confronted them with a direct question: Who is this Person who can - or claims to be able - in one word, make the patient whole? If they were right when they said that only God can perform the forgiveness of sins, then wouldn’t a miracle be proof, as it were, the beginning of proof that He really is the Son of God who came to save the world? And the Gospel continues: But so that you may know that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins says(Christ) to the paralytic: I say to you: get up, take up your bed, go to your house. And with this He confronted the listeners with an insoluble question for them: if He can perform such an unheard-of miracle, is He not the One who has the power, according to His own word, to forgive sins on earth? Because in this case, the person, having received remission of sins, turned out to be free from illness, not vice versa; he did not become virtuous because he was healed, he was healed because the Lord, having seen his whole life, his whole being, and seeing that he was ripe for repentance, absolves him of his sins, and the former patient begins a new life in the body yours, and in your soul.

We need to think about this, because we are all in a state of illness. Which of us can say that his body, mind, and all his spiritual powers are in such order that he is in complete harmony with himself, with God, with his neighbor, with nature? And if not so, then and to us this parable relates; we need to look deep into ourselves, ask the question: what is spiritually, mentally upset in me? Why does my physicality suffer from this? Why does everything around me suffer because in my depths there is poison, there is disorder?

Jesus went out again to the sea; and all the people went to Him, and He taught them. As He passed, He saw Levi Alpheus sitting at the toll collection, and said to him: Follow Me. And he got up and followed Him. And as Jesus reclined in his house, his disciples and many publicans and sinners reclined with him: for there were many of them, and they followed him. The scribes and Pharisees, seeing that He was eating with publicans and sinners, said to His disciples: How is it that He eats and drinks with tax collectors and sinners? Hearing this, Jesus said to them: It is not those who are healthy who need a doctor, but those who are sick; I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance(2: 13-17).

This passage is very interesting because Levi Alfeev and the Apostle Matthew, who wrote the first Gospel, are one and the same person. Publicans were collectors of Roman taxes or duties, which they took on farm, and were hated and despised by everyone for dishonesty, extortion, and serving foreign conquerors. Christ never disdains a person’s past life. The publican becomes an apostle and evangelist. But how could this happen? Is it really just because Christ passed by him and turned to him with the words: “ Follow me"Could Matthew get up and follow Him? Of course not. Here, as in all cases of Christ’s miracles, we are talking about the fact that man has heard the word of Christ more than once, seen Him in action more than once, and contemplated His face more than once; and gradually, from these rare, chance, fleeting meetings, a feeling of amazement and reverence for Christ grew in him, and, as a result, this feeling forced him to reconsider himself, his life, his actions, his position in society. What could he notice? He could notice, as I just said, that he was surrounded by contempt and hatred, that he had become a stranger to his own people because he had stuck to his enemies. And at the same time, the Lord Jesus Christ does not look at him with contempt, does not treat him the way others treat him or the way he himself treats others. This made him think, probably, and gradually he matured to become a disciple of Christ; the darkness dissipated within him. And when Christ, surrounded by people who considered themselves righteous, virtuous, pure, faithful, passing by Levi, stopped and said: Follow me, that is, he included him in the circle of His disciples, His closest friends, despite how those around him, the publican, looked at him, Levi could not do otherwise than get up and follow Christ, because he was, as it were, healed, he was called, he recognized a man in himself and, out of gratitude and amazement, could follow Christ. He invited Christ to his place, and Christ (again, breaking how should I say? all the “rules of decency”) went to his house, to a house where no decent person would go. And many publicans surrounded Him, that is, people like Matthew, traitors to their people, as if bought by the Romans, sinners of all kinds and types; there were many of them, and Christ did not shy away from them. The Gospel says: they followed him, for the only one who did not drive them away from himself, did not say: get away from me, you unclean, vicious The scribes and Pharisees, who considered themselves righteous, were indignant at this: how can He eat with tax collectors and sinners!.. At that time, and even now in some pagan countries, they do not eat with outcast people, do not share food with them, do not sit at the table with them. And Christ heard their rumor and turned to those who considered themselves healthy, and clean, and righteous, and said to them: It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick; I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance When He says “not the righteous,” of course, He is talking about the self-righteous, that is, about those who consider themselves righteous, not about those who are truly righteous before the face of God and do not need repentance, because already repented because they had already become new people.

That is why sinners of all kinds, publicans, and even those Pharisees who knew how to test their hearts followed Christ. We have in the Gospel of John a story about how the Pharisee Nicodemus came to Christ to talk, not satisfied with his Old Testament righteousness. He heard something new in the words of Christ, the Kingdom of God was revealed to him, the Kingdom of all-conquering love; not a weak love that accepts everyone indiscriminately into its society, but that love that can kindle in a person gratitude, reciprocal love with such strength that a person becomes a new creature and begins to live worthy of his humanity and worthy of his God.

They come to Him and say: Why do the disciples of John and the Pharisees fast, but Your disciples do not fast? And Jesus said to them, “Can the sons of the bridal chamber fast while the bridegroom is with them?” As long as the groom is with them, they cannot fast. But the days will come when the bridegroom will be taken away from them; and then they will fast in those days(2: 12-20).

I want to raise the issue of fasting. The Old Testament suggested fasting once a week. The Pharisees and scribes, out of excess of piety, fasted for a whole series of days and by this (they believed) deserved God's favor. Isn’t it true, we see that many are fasting now? People who live, perhaps, not so wonderfully morally, whose hearts are not so pure, whose morality is questionable, do everything that the Church seems to command them. And they fast, forgetting that bodily fasting does not add anything to human spirituality unless the intention comes specifically from spirituality. The Apostle Paul says: food does not bring us closer to God(1 Cor 8:8); and further: He who eats, do not disparage the one who does not eat; and whoever does not eat, do not judge the one who eats He who eats eats for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and whoever does not eat does not eat for the Lord and gives thanks to God Who are you, judging someone else’s servant? Before his Lord he stands, or he falls. And God is able to raise him up(See Rom 14:3ff.)

This is not about physically fasting. only(I insist on the word “only” because I do not want to say that church-established fasts have no meaning), but another dimension must be added to fasting: a spiritual one. We must fast not to torment our body, but to revive our soul. Already in ancient times, in the prophecy of Isaiah there is a place where the prophet describes what kind of fasting is pleasing to God. I will quote this passage, although it is lengthy:

Behold, on the day of your fast you do your will and demand hard work from others. Behold, you fast for quarrels and strife, and in order to strike others with a bold hand; you are not fasting at this time so that your voice is heard on high(that is, by Me). Is this the fast that I invented, the day on which a person languishes his soul, when he bends his head like a reed and spreads rags and ashes under him? Can you call this a fast and a day pleasing to the Lord? This is the fast that I have chosen: loose the chains of unrighteousness, untie the bonds of the yoke, and set the oppressed free, and break every yoke; Share your bread with the hungry, and do not hide from your half-blood. Then your light will break forth like the dawn, and your healing will quickly increase, and your righteousness will go before you, and the glory of the Lord will follow you. Then you will call, and the Lord will hear; You will cry out, and He will say: “Here I am!” When you remove the yoke from your midst, stop raising your finger and speaking offensively, and give your soul to the hungry, and feed the soul of the sufferer: then your light will rise in darkness, and your darkness will be like the noonday; and the Lord will always be your guide: and in times of drought he will satisfy your soul and make your bones fat, and you will be like a garden watered with water and like a spring whose waters never fail. And the deserts of centuries will be populated by your descendants: you will restore the foundations of many generations, and they will call you the restorer of ruins, the renewer of paths for the population(Isaiah 58:3-12).

This is the kind of fasting the Lord speaks about through His prophet, this is what the Church is talking about when it calls for fasting, and not about the formal fasting that the Pharisees kept and which we so often pharisaically keep ourselves.

Here is the following passage from the second chapter of the Gospel of Mark:

No one puts patches of unbleached fabric on old clothes: otherwise the newly sewn garment will be pulled away from the old one, and the hole will be even worse. No one puts new wine into old wineskins, otherwise the new wine will burst the skins, and the wine will leak out, and the skins will be lost. But new wine must be put into new wineskins. (2: 21—22).

What are we talking about here? The point is that Christ brought to the Jewish people (and through the Jewish people of that time - to the whole world) a completely new teaching: not a theoretical teaching, not some philosophical views, but a new life, a life that cannot fit into any there were no formal categories. The difference between this teaching and the teaching of the Old Testament can be defined as follows. In the Old Testament everything rests on the law; in the New Testament the Spirit of God breathes freely, which is the Spirit of grace, that gift of God that makes us free, that is, ourselves, and at the same time children of God. If we compare the effect of the Old Testament law with the effect of the commandments of Christ, which are often considered as orders from God, as the same law, only transferred to the New Testament, coming from the mouth of Christ instead of the mouth of Moses, then we see what a profound difference there is. Anyone who fulfilled the laws of the Old Testament could consider himself righteous before God. He has not violated His will in any way, he has nothing to repent of in this regard, he is pure before God, he can stand with an open face before Him, and the Lord can only accept him as His faithful friend and servant.

In the New Testament, in the Gospel, there is a place where Christ says that we must fulfill everything He commanded, and adds: but when you have done all this, consider yourself unworthy servants (see Luke 17:10). What does it mean? Does this mean: no matter what we do, we are still good for nothing? Of course not. But this means that when we fulfill all the commandments of Christ, we cannot say: “And now we (pardon the expression) are “even” with God; nothing will be asked of us.” The difference between the Old Testament commandment and the commandment of Christ is precisely that the commandment of the Old Testament, as I have already said, can make a person righteous before God, that is, ideally law-abiding; The commandments of Christ are not the law of external behavior. In the form of instructions on how a person should live, they describe to us what a person should be in order to appear like that outwardly. In other words: until the commandment becomes a second nature for us, or rather, until our second sinful nature is supplanted by our true nature, until we become, as it were, an icon of God, the image of God on earth, the fulfillment of these commandments will still not make us righteous. These commandments tell us what we should be like inside, and how, being like this in our depths, we should act. This distinction is very important. And so the passage that I just read tells us that we cannot take the New Testament commandments, we cannot accept the life that Christ offers us, and simply do what He told us, slavishly or with the expectation of a reward. We need to completely rebuild; we must not seek righteousness before God, that is, not seek safety before His judgment, but must gradually, as it were, acquire, in the words of the Apostle Paul, mind of Christ(I Cor 2:16); one could add: the heart of Christ, the spirit of Christ, so that life according to the commandments of Christ would be our natural state.

And so Christ tells us: do not transfer the categories of the Old Testament to the New, do not think that you can simply fulfill the commandments of the New Testament, live the New Testament, the new fullness of life that I offer, as simply as you lived the Old Testament righteousness. New wine, still raging, still seething with life, must be poured into strong new wineskins, because if you pour this wine into old wineskins, the new wine will burst them. And so it happens. Every time people turn to Christ and think that by following His commandments, like simple orders, they become righteous before Him, they cease to be Christians. They remain the people of the Old Testament who have not yet understood that the law of Christ is the law of freedom: not arbitrariness, but that royal, wondrous freedom that is given to us through sonship, when we become like Christ and when everything to which He calls us is done. for us it is a natural breakthrough of the soul, when everything we create is precisely the fruit of the new life that was born in us.

Here are the last six verses from the second chapter of the Gospel of Mark:

And it happened to Him(to Christ) on Saturday to pass through sown fields; and His disciples began to pluck the ears of corn along the way. And the Pharisees said to Him: Look, what are they doing on the Sabbath that ought not to be done? He said to them: Have you never read what David did when he had need and was hungry, he and those who were with him? How did he enter the house of God, in the presence of Abiathar the high priest, and eat the showbread, which no one was to eat except the priests, and gave it to those with him? And he said to them: The Sabbath is for man, and not man for the Sabbath. Therefore the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath (2: 23—28).

What are we talking about here? Plucking ears of corn with one's hand was permitted according to the Law of Moses, but the Pharisees saw this as a violation of the Sabbath, and in their interpretations likened plucking and rubbing with one's hands to reaping and threshing. Here they once again (and throughout the entire Gospel we see this) try to either apply the law absolutely formally, so that it would be a prison for people, and not a path or freedom, or this law of Moses, which was given so that a person would grow from their natural state into the state of a God-worshipper, God's servant, they try to distort it so that they can use it to condemn - in this case, Christ, but often, as we know from history, to condemn other people. This is what Christ answers: Have you never read what David did when he had need and was hungry, he and those who were with him?.. How much? there is affection, compassion, and at the same time how much irony there is in His words: Haven’t you read?.. The Pharisees believed that they were rooted in the Old Testament, that there was no feature of the Law of Moses that they did not know, but Christ says to them: “Have you really not read, you who are so proud of your erudition, your learning?..”

Doesn’t this often remind us of our attitude towards the Holy Scriptures and church institutions? How we read into all the rules, how we (not always, but sometimes) claim that we follow everything, and how we turn these rules into tools for condemning our neighbor. We pass by mercy in order to apply - formally - a law that we ourselves do not apply to ourselves. The same thing happens here. The Pharisees apply the law, which they themselves interpret: after all, Moses did not say anything of what they refer to, but they apply his words in such a way as to find a way to condemn Christ and His disciples. And the law, the Old Testament in this regard has all the depth, all the scope of humanity. This is one of the most wonderful things about the Old Testament: it is a book which was written with perfect sincerity by men about men; in this book there is no attempt to embellish or explain what happens to an unworthy person or people; this book is written as if from the point of view of a person who looks through the eyes of God, with the understanding of God. And understanding means compassion, and at the same time - a fair trial: evil, any “wrong”, of course, is condemned, but the person is not necessarily condemned. I feel sorry for the person, and at the same time his action is irreconcilably condemned.

In this case, the Pharisees do just the opposite, and this approach was seen repeatedly, time after time, during our analysis of the Gospel. And Christ says to them: Don’t you remember what David did? - David, who is considered the greatest saint of the Old Testament, - and adds: The Sabbath is for man, not man for the Sabbath.... That is, all the rules that are given in the Old or New Testaments are given for man, for his benefit, for his salvation, and not in order to break him, smash him, or enslave him.

This is a wonderful place. We see at the beginning of the Old Testament that God rested from His work on the seventh day (see Gen. 2:2). This seventh day is the Sabbath, the day of rest. But what happened on this day? God did not turn away from His creation, God did not retreat from His all-creative creativity; but at the same time He entrusted man with the continuation of His work on earth. He has prepared everything; now man is commanded (or given, entrusted) to bring the work of God under His guidance to perfection. This seventh day is the history of mankind, this is our time in which we live and into which we must enter creatively, as co-workers of God, as builders of the Kingdom in which God will everything in everything(see I Cor 15:28).

In the Old Testament, this seventh day was considered a holy day, when a person had to rest from his usual earthly affairs, devoting the day to God, prayer, reading and studying the Holy Scriptures, and the feat of spiritual life. But not only man had to rest: all of nature had to rest. Man did not do earthly affairs, did not plow; This seventh day extended to nature in that every seventh year it was ordered to give rest to the earth, to give rest to the field, and other areas should be plowed. This already in the Old Testament establishes an environmental theme, which has now become so tragically important. So the question is raised: should one do good on this day (which, according to the Pharisees and scribes, violated the Sabbath) or, by abstaining from every good deed, actually do evil?.. It is clear that this “Sabbath” is a period of time that is history, man must use it to bring the whole work of God to perfection, without shackling it in such laws that do not allow any creature, neither man nor the rest of the world, to breathe, act, grow, outgrow its natural state, to become carnal spiritual. This is what Christ is talking about in this passage.

2. Papias of Hierapolis reports: “Mark, the translator of Peter, accurately wrote down everything that he remembered, although he did not adhere to the strict order of the words and deeds of Christ, because he himself did not listen to the Lord and did not accompany Him. Subsequently, however, he was, as said, with Peter, but Peter expounded the teaching in order to satisfy the needs of the listeners, and not in order to convey the Lord’s conversations in order” (Eusebius, Church History. Ill, 39). According to Clement of Alexandria, “while the Apostle Peter preached the gospel in Rome, Mark, his companion... wrote... a Gospel called the Gospel of Mark” (cf. Eusebius, Church. Ist. 11, 15).

St. Justin, quoting one passage from Mark, directly calls it “Memoirs of Peter” (Dialogue with Tryphon, 108). St. Irenaeus of Lyons reports that Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome shortly after the martyrdom of Peter, whose “disciple and translator” he was (Against Heresies, III, 1,1). An Peter was crucified in all likelihood in 64 (or 67), and, therefore, the Gospel of Mark must be dated to the late 60s.

3. Mark addresses pagan Christians living mainly in Rome. Therefore, he explains to his readers the geography of Palestine, often explaining Jewish customs and Aramaic expressions. He considers everything related to Roman life to be known. For the same reason, Mark contains far fewer references to the OT than Matthew. Most of Mark's narrative is similar to that of Matthew, and therefore the comments on parallel texts are not repeated.

4. Mark's main purpose is to establish faith in the divinity of Jesus Christ among the converted Gentiles. Therefore, a significant part of his Gospel is occupied by stories of miracles. In performing them, Christ at first hides His messiahship, as if expecting that people would first accept Him as a Wonderworker and Teacher. At the same time, Mark, to a greater extent than Matthew, depicts the appearance of Christ as a man (for example, Mark 3:5; Mark 6:34; Mark 8:2; Mark 10:14-16). This is explained by the author’s closeness to Peter, who conveyed to his listeners a living image of the Lord.

More than other evangelists, Mark pays attention to the personality of the head of the apostles.

5. Plan of Mark: I. The period of hidden messiahship: 1) The preaching of the Baptist, the baptism of the Lord and the temptation in the desert (Mark 1:1-13); 2) Ministry in Capernaum and other cities of Galilee (Mark 1:14-8:26). II. The Mystery of the Son of Man: 1) Peter’s confession, transfiguration and journey to Jerusalem (Mark 8:27-10:52); 2) preaching in Jerusalem (Mark 11:1-13:37). III. Passion. Resurrection (Mark 14:1-16:20).

INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

The Holy Scriptures of the New Testament were written in Greek, with the exception of the Gospel of Matthew, which, according to tradition, was written in Hebrew or Aramaic. But since this Hebrew text has not survived, the Greek text is considered the original for the Gospel of Matthew. Thus, only the Greek text of the New Testament is the original, and numerous editions in different modern languages all over the world are translations from the Greek original.

The Greek language in which the New Testament was written was no longer the classical ancient Greek language and was not, as previously thought, a special New Testament language. It is a spoken everyday language of the first century A.D., which spread throughout the Greco-Roman world and is known in science as “κοινη”, i.e. "ordinary adverb"; yet both the style, the turns of phrase, and the way of thinking of the sacred writers of the New Testament reveal Hebrew or Aramaic influence.

The original text of the NT came to us in large quantities ancient manuscripts, more or less complete, numbering about 5000 (from the 2nd to the 16th century). Before recent years the most ancient of them did not go back further than the 4th century no P.X. But for Lately Many fragments of ancient NT manuscripts on papyrus (3rd and even 2nd century) were discovered. For example, Bodmer's manuscripts: John, Luke, 1 and 2 Peter, Jude - were found and published in the 60s of our century. In addition to Greek manuscripts, we have ancient translations or versions into Latin, Syriac, Coptic and other languages ​​(Vetus Itala, Peshitto, Vulgata, etc.), of which the most ancient existed already from the 2nd century AD.

Finally, numerous quotes from the Church Fathers have been preserved in Greek and other languages ​​in such quantities that if the text of the New Testament were lost and all the ancient manuscripts were destroyed, then experts could restore this text from quotes from the works of the Holy Fathers. All this abundant material makes it possible to check and clarify the text of the NT and classify its various forms (so-called textual criticism). Compared with any ancient author (Homer, Euripides, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Cornelius Nepos, Julius Caesar, Horace, Virgil, etc.), our modern printed Greek text of the NT is in an exceptionally favorable position. And in the number of manuscripts, and in the shortness of time separating the oldest of them from the original, and in the number of translations, and in their antiquity, and in the seriousness and volume of critical work carried out on the text, it surpasses all other texts (for details, see “Hidden Treasures and new life", Archaeological Discovery and the Gospel, Bruges, 1959, pp. 34 ff.). The text of the NT as a whole is recorded completely irrefutably.

The New Testament consists of 27 books. The publishers have divided them into 260 chapters of unequal length to accommodate references and quotations. This division is not present in the original text. The modern division into chapters in the New Testament, as in the whole Bible, has often been attributed to the Dominican Cardinal Hugo (1263), who worked it out in his symphony to the Latin Vulgate, but it is now thought with greater reason that this division goes back to Archbishop Stephen of Canterbury Langton, who died in 1228. As for the division into verses, now accepted in all editions of the New Testament, it goes back to the publisher of the Greek New Testament text, Robert Stephen, and was introduced by him in his edition in 1551.

The sacred books of the New Testament are usually divided into laws (the Four Gospels), historical (the Acts of the Apostles), teaching (seven conciliar epistles and fourteen epistles of the Apostle Paul) and prophetic: the Apocalypse or the Revelation of John the Theologian (see Long Catechism of St. Philaret of Moscow).

However, modern experts consider this distribution to be outdated: in fact, all the books of the New Testament are legal, historical and educational, and prophecy is not only in the Apocalypse. New Testament scholarship pays great attention to the precise establishment of the chronology of the Gospel and other New Testament events. Scientific chronology allows the reader to trace with sufficient accuracy through the New Testament the life and ministry of our Lord Jesus Christ, the apostles and the primitive Church (see Appendices).

The books of the New Testament can be distributed as follows:

1) Three so-called synoptic Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke and, separately, the fourth: the Gospel of John. New Testament scholarship devotes much attention to the study of the relationships of the first three Gospels and their relation to the Gospel of John (synoptic problem).

2) The Book of the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles of the Apostle Paul (“Corpus Paulinum”), which are usually divided into:

a) Early Epistles: 1st and 2nd Thessalonians.

b) Greater Epistles: Galatians, 1st and 2nd Corinthians, Romans.

c) Messages from bonds, i.e. written from Rome, where ap. Paul was in prison: Philippians, Colossians, Ephesians, Philemon.

d) Pastoral Epistles: 1st Timothy, Titus, 2nd Timothy.

e) Epistle to the Hebrews.

3) Council Epistles("Corpus Catholicum").

4) Revelation of John the Theologian. (Sometimes in the NT they distinguish “Corpus Joannicum”, i.e. everything that St. John wrote for the comparative study of his Gospel in connection with his epistles and the book of Rev.).

FOUR GOSPEL

1. The word “gospel” (ευανγελιον) in Greek means “good news.” This is what our Lord Jesus Christ Himself called His teaching (Mt 24:14; Mt 26:13; Mk 1:15; Mk 13:10; Mk 14:9; Mk 16:15). Therefore, for us, the “gospel” is inextricably linked with Him: it is the “good news” of the salvation given to the world through the incarnate Son of God.

Christ and His apostles preached the gospel without writing it down. By the mid-1st century, this preaching had been established by the Church in a strong oral tradition. The Eastern custom of memorizing sayings, stories, and even large texts helped Christians of the apostolic era accurately preserve the unrecorded First Gospel. After the 50s, when eyewitnesses of Christ's earthly ministry began to pass away one after another, the need arose to write down the gospel (Luke 1:1). Thus, “gospel” came to mean the narrative recorded by the apostles about the life and teachings of the Savior. It was read at prayer meetings and in preparing people for baptism.

2. The most important Christian centers of the 1st century (Jerusalem, Antioch, Rome, Ephesus, etc.) had their own Gospels. Of these, only four (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) are recognized by the Church as inspired by God, i.e. written under the direct influence of the Holy Spirit. They are called “from Matthew”, “from Mark”, etc. (Greek “kata” corresponds to Russian “according to Matthew”, “according to Mark”, etc.), for the life and teachings of Christ are set out in these books by these four sacred writers. Their gospels were not compiled into one book, which made it possible to see the gospel story from different points of view. In the 2nd century St. Irenaeus of Lyons calls the evangelists by name and points to their gospels as the only canonical ones (Against heresies 2, 28, 2). A contemporary of St. Irenaeus, Tatian, made the first attempt to create a single gospel narrative, compiled from various texts of the four gospels, “Diatessaron”, i.e. "gospel of four"

3. The apostles did not set out to create a historical work in the modern sense of the word. They sought to spread the teachings of Jesus Christ, helped people to believe in Him, to correctly understand and fulfill His commandments. The testimonies of the evangelists do not coincide in all details, which proves their independence from each other: the testimonies of eyewitnesses always have an individual coloring. The Holy Spirit does not certify the accuracy of the details of the facts described in the gospel, but the spiritual meaning contained in them.

The minor contradictions found in the presentation of the evangelists are explained by the fact that God gave the sacred writers complete freedom in conveying certain specific facts in relation to different categories of listeners, which further emphasizes the unity of meaning and orientation of all four gospels (see also General Introduction, pp. 13 and 14) .

Hide

Commentary on the current passage

Commentary on the book

Comment to the section

1 He also reports on the healing of a paralytic. Matthew ( see Ev's explanation. Matthew 9:1-8). But ev. Mark gives some details here that Matthew does not. Thus, already in the first verse he explains that Christ, having come to Capernaum, went into a house, of course, belonging to Peter. It should be noted that this verse is in Russian. translation conveyed inaccurately. It is precisely the expression “in a few days” that is unsuccessfully placed at the beginning: Christ did not spend “several days” away from Capernaum, but, undoubtedly, several weeks - otherwise the indication of verse 35 of the first chapter on the preaching of Christ throughout Galilee remains incomprehensible. Therefore, this verse should be more accurately translated as follows: “when Jesus entered Capernaum again (according to the best reading: καὶ εἰσελθὼν πάλιν , but not καὶ πάλιν εἰση̃λθὲν ), then after several days it became known that He entered the house (εἰς οἴκον - v. p.). Christ's sojourn in solitude could have been intended to teach the Gospel to the disciples, whom He promised to make fishers of men ( 1:17 Edersheim explains this by the fact that at that time winter had already arrived, and in winter it was extremely difficult to travel preaching from city to city. This is also stated in Matthew 24:20(p. 630).).

2 Ev. Mark notes that the Lord spoke a word to the assembled people, but does not report the content of this “word” or speech.

3 There were four who carried the paralytic. Consequently, the patient was an adult.

4 One ev. Mark reports about the special energy that those who brought the paralytic discovered. They climbed onto the roof or along the stairs that led there from outside the house, or they crossed there from the roof of a neighboring house, since the roofs of eastern houses often touch each other. Ev. Mark says that those who brought them opened the roof and dug through it in order to lower the bed with the paralytic. This means that they first removed the bricks or slabs from which the roof was made over a fairly large area, and then dug or made a hole in the easily constructed frame that supported these bricks or slabs. This was a relatively easy matter (Edersheim, p. 633). All this testified to the extraordinary trust in the love and power of the Lord that those who brought and the paralytic himself had, who was brought here, of course, not without his consent.

7 Here ev. Mark adds that the scribes said: “Who can forgive sins except God alone?” The Jews did not think it possible that God would give a person, even a righteous one, the power to declare the forgiveness of sins. This can be done either by God Himself, or by a person specially authorized by God, for example, an angel ( Isaiah 6; Zech 3 ch.). John the Baptist received the right to perform baptism for the remission of sins “from heaven” ( 2:31 ). Moreover, the scribes did not believe John either.

8 Christ, as Mark notes, knew the thoughts of the scribes by His Spirit; the Prophets knew secret things by the Spirit of God, and not by their own. Christ recognized everything Himself, according to His Divine omniscience.

9 Here it is added to what is in Hebrew. Matthew's expression: "take up your bed."

12 Here ev. Mark adds that the healed man “went out before everyone.” He was to appear to the crowds gathered at the door to testify to the power of Christ. Then, according to Ev. Mark, people said that they had never seen anything like it before. In fact, although Christ had healed the sick before, he did not forgive sins, as was the case here.

13-14 (See Matthew 9:9) In the history of the calling of Levi ev. Mark accurately indicates that Christ left the house and again went to the sea, where he had taught before, and here the people who followed Him began to teach. Of course, Levi already knew Christ and was devoted to Him, like the first four disciples ( 1:16 et seq.). Publican-disciple Ev. Mark does not call Matthew, as St. Matthew, and Levi Alfeev. Since in ev. Matthew added to the name of the called publican the expression called (λεγόμενον, according to the Russian translation, not exactly: “name”), then one can think that the real, original name of the apostle is indicated by Ev. Mark, and Ev. Matthew reports what Christ gave him when Levi became His apostle. Who Alpheus was is unknown.

15-17 (See Matthew 9:10-13) Ev. Mark notes on his own that the meal was held in the house of the publican Matthew and that publicans and sinners took part in it because they usually followed Christ in large numbers. Note to students, according to Ev. Mark was made not only by the Pharisees, but also by the scribes. This expression, however, is better replaced by the expression of some codes “scribes from the Pharisees,” that is, those who belonged to the Pharisaic party.

18-22 (For explanation, see Ev. Matthew ch. 9, art. 14-17.) Ev. Mark, for his part, only points out that the question to Christ was proposed not by the disciples of John and the Pharisees, but by someone else (he comes and speaks - an impersonal expression) about the disciples of John and the Pharisees. These were probably scribes, but not from the Pharisaic party, who were interested in how Christ resolved the issue of observing traditional fasts (cf. Art. 16). Then in the 19th century. ev. Mark uses the direct designation “to fast” instead of the descriptive expression of St. Matthew "to be sad." Other features relating only to style do not need explanation.

23-28 (For explanation, see Ev. Matthew ch. 12, art. 1-8.) Mark adds to Matthew's story that the Lord mentioned the name of the high priest who gave the showbread to David: it was Abiathar (v. 26). Since in 1 Samuel 22:20 et seq. The high priest with whom David entered into friendly communication is called not Abiathar, but Ahimelech - Abiathar was his son, then many interpreters consider this addition to Ev. Mark with an insertion made by the hand of a reader of the Gospel who is little knowledgeable in Scripture (Stanton. The Gospels... II, 145). Others, recognizing this expression as genuine, suggest that the high priest bore both mentioned names (John Chrysostom, Victor), or that main role Abiathar played in everything that happened, as the Jewish tradition said, whom Christ adheres to here, and in the Old Testament the name of the high priest who then ruled over the liturgical affairs and was responsible for all the actions of the priests is mentioned (Lagrange). One ev. Mark also cites (v. 27) Christ’s saying that “the Sabbath is for man, and not man for the Sabbath.” This means that the Sabbath, as an institution adapted to creation, together with everything created, is placed in a service relationship to man, appointed in order to benefit him. Man, therefore, has the free right to dispose of the Sabbath: it is not an end in itself, it is not a ruler who imposes his yoke on the person subordinate to him. Similar expressions are also found among the rabbis. Yes, words Exodus 31:14 about the Sabbath: “it must be holy” is interpreted by Rabbi Jonathan as meaning that the Sabbath must be subject to the Jews, but the Jews should not be subject to it. Rabbi Judah said: “ laws, according to Scripture, were given so that man might live through them (Lev 18:5), and not to die"(tract. Ioma). - Finally, the last saying about the Son of Man as “Lord of the Sabbath” (v. 28), which in Hev. Matthew is the basis for the above stated position about the innocence of the disciples of Christ who violated the Sabbath ( Art. 7), in Mark is given as a corollary: therefore (ὥστε) in relation to the right of Christ to allow His disciples to violate the Sabbath. Christ wants to say by this that He is like the Messiah and, therefore, like a perfect man, having no sin in Himself and, therefore, retaining all the rights over creation and the Sabbath that were granted by the Creator to the first-created man at his very creation (this is the meaning has here the expression Son of Man), is already the undoubted ruler of the Sabbath, and can permit or not observe it when it is necessary for the well-being of people. Other people themselves can achieve this right only when, in communication with Him, they again acquire the original human dignity they have lost.

It should be noted that the issue of fasting and the Sabbath was very important for the readers of Ev. Mark, Gentile Christians, who, living among Jewish Christians, heard their demands for special respect for the mentioned Jewish institutions. This solution to the issue took a huge burden off of them.

Biblical information about the personality of St. Brand. Given name The writer of the second gospel was John, - Mark (Μα ̃ ρκος) was his nickname. The latter was probably accepted by him when Barnabas and Saul, returning from Jerusalem (Acts 12:25), took him with them to Antioch to make him their companion on missionary journeys. Why John adopted this particular nickname can be somewhat answered in the similarity of the initial three letters of this nickname with the three initial letters of the name of his mother, Mary.

For a long time John Mark was on friendly terms with the apostle. Peter. When this apostle was miraculously freed from prison, he came to the house of Mary, the mother of John, called Mark (Acts 12:12). Shortly before his death, the Apostle Peter calls Mark his son (1 Peter 5:13), showing by this that he converted Mark to faith in Christ. This conversion took place early, because Mark was a companion of the apostles Barnabas and Paul around Easter in the year 44. In the autumn of the same year he settled in Antioch and, perhaps, was engaged in preaching the Gospel. However, he did not stand out as anything special at that time - at least his name was not mentioned in the 1st verse of the 13th chapter. Acts, which contains a list of the most prominent prophets and teachers who were in Antioch at that time. Still, in the spring of 50, Barnabas and Paul took Mark with them on their first missionary journey as a servant (υ ̔ πηρέτης - Acts 13:5). From the letter to the Colossians (Col 4:10) we learn that Mark was Barnabas cousin(α ̓ νεψ ιός). But if the fathers of Barnabas and Mark were brothers, then we can assume that Mark belonged to the tribe of Levi, to which, according to legend, Barnabas belonged. Barnabas introduced Mark to Paul. However, in Perga, and maybe earlier, when departing from Paphos to the island. Cyprus, Mark separated from Paul and Barnabas (Acts 13:13). Probably, further participation in their “work” seemed difficult to him (Acts 15:38), especially the journey through the mountains of Pamphylia, and his very position as a “servant” under the apostles might have seemed somewhat humiliating to him.

After this, Mark returned to Jerusalem (Acts 13:13). When Barnabas, after the Apostolic Council and, as it seems, after a short stay in Antioch (about the 52nd year, Acts 15:35), wanted to take Mark again on a second missionary journey, which he undertook again with the apostle. Paul, the latter opposed Barnabas’s intention, considering Mark incapable of making long and difficult journeys for the purpose of spreading the Gospel. The dispute that arose between the apostles ended (in Antioch) with Barnabas taking Mark with him and going with him to his homeland - Cyprus, and Paul, taking Silas as his companion, went with him on a missionary journey through Asia Minor. But where did Mark stay in the interval between his return to Jerusalem and his departure with Barnabas to Fr. Cyprus (Acts 15:36), unknown. The most likely assumption is that he was in Jerusalem at that time and was present at the Apostolic Council. From here Barnabas, who had previously separated from the apostle, could have taken him with him to Cyprus. Paul precisely because of Mark.

From now on, Mark disappears from view for a long time, precisely from the year 52 to the year 62. When Paul, about the year 62 or 63, wrote from Rome to Philemon, then, conveying to him greetings from various men, whom he calls his colleagues, he also names Mark (v. 24). From the same Mark he sends greetings in the letter to the Colossians written at the same time as the letter to Philemon (Col. 4:10). Here he calls Mark “cousin” of Barnabas (in the Russian text, “nephew.” This is an inaccurate rendering of the Greek word α ̓ νεψιός) and adds that the Colossian church received certain instructions regarding Mark, and asks the Colossians to accept Mark when he will come. It is important that Paul here calls Mark and Justus his only co-workers for the Kingdom of God, who were his delight (Col. 4:11). From this you can see that Mark was with the apostle. Paul during his Roman imprisonment and helped him in spreading the Gospel in Rome. It is unknown when his reconciliation with Paul took place.

Then we see Mark together with the Apostle Peter in Asia, on the banks of the Euphrates, where Babylon formerly stood and where the Christian church was founded under the apostles (1 Peter 5:13). We can conclude from this that Mark actually went from Rome to Colossae (cf. Col. 4:10) and here somewhere he met the apostle. Peter, who kept Mark with him for a while. Then he was with the ap. Timothy in Ephesus, as can be seen from the fact that St. Paul instructs Timothy to bring Mark with him to Rome, saying that he needs Mark for ministry (2 Tim. 4:11) - of course, for preaching service, and perhaps to familiarize himself with the mood of the 12 apostles, with whose representative, Peter, Mark was on the most friendly terms. Since 2 Timothy was written around the year 66 or 67, and Mark, according to Col. 4:10, was supposed to go to Asia around 63-64, then, therefore, he stayed away from the apostle. Paul for about three years, and, most likely, traveled with the apostle. Peter.

In addition to these, one might say, direct testimony about the life of Martha, in his gospel itself one can also find information about his personality. So it is very likely that he was the young man who followed the procession in which Christ was taken, taken in Gethsemane, and who fled from those who wanted to seize him, leaving in their hands the veil with which he had wrapped himself (Mark 14:51). Perhaps he was present at Christ’s last Easter supper (see commentary on Mark 14:19). There are also some indications that the evangelist himself was present at some of the other events in the life of Christ that he describes (for example, Mark 1:5 et seq.; Mark 3:8 and Mark 3:22; Mark 11:16).

What does St. say? tradition about Mark and his Gospel. The most ancient testimony about the writer of the second Gospel is from Bishop Papias of Hierapolis. This bishop, according to Eusebius of Caesarea (Church history III, 39), wrote: “the presbyter (i.e., John the Theologian - according to the generally accepted opinion) also said: “Mark, interpreter (ε ̔ ρμηνευτη ̀ ς) of Peter Mark, through the compilation of his work, became the “interpreter” of Peter, that is, he conveyed to many what the apostle said. Peter became, as it were, the mouth of Peter. It is a mistake to assume that Mark is characterized here as a “translator”, whose services allegedly were used by the apostle. Peter and who was needed by Peter in Rome to translate his speeches into Latin language. First, Peter hardly needed a translator for his preaching. Secondly, the word ε ̔ ρμηνευτη ̀ ς in classical Greek often meant a messenger, transmitter of the will of the gods (Plato. Republic). Finally, at Blessed. Jerome (letter 120 to Gedibia) Titus is called the interpreter of Paul, just as Mark is the interpreter of Peter. Both of these only indicate that these co-workers of the apostles proclaimed their will and desires. Perhaps, however, Titus, as a natural Greek, was an employee of the apostle. Paul in writing his epistles; as an experienced stylist, he could give the apostle explanations of some Greek terms., accurately wrote down, as much as he remembered, what the Lord taught and did, although not in order, for he himself did not listen to the Lord and did not accompany Him. Subsequently, it is true, he was, as I said, with Peter, but Peter expounded the teaching in order to satisfy the needs of the listeners, and not in order to convey the Lord's conversations in order. Therefore, Mark made no mistake in describing some events as he recalled them. He only cared about how not to miss something from what he heard, or not to change it."

From this testimony of Papias it is clear: 1) that the ap. John knew the Gospel of Mark and discussed it among his disciples - of course, in Ephesus; 2) that he testified that St. Mark reported those memories that he retained in his memory about the speeches of the apostle. Peter, who spoke about the words and deeds of the Lord, and thus became a messenger and mediator in the transmission of these stories; 3) that Mark did not adhere to chronological order. This remark gives reason to assume that at that time a condemnation was heard against ev. Mark on the grounds that it has some shortcomings in comparison with the other Gospels, which were careful about the “order” (Luke 1:3) in the presentation of the Gospel events; 4) Papias, for his part, reports that Mark was not personally a disciple of Christ, but, probably later, a disciple of Peter. However, this does not deny the possibility that Mark is communicating something from what he himself experienced. At the beginning of the Muratorian fragment there is a remark about Mark: “he himself was present at some events and reported them”; 5) that Peter adapted his teachings to the modern needs of his listeners and did not care about a coherent, strictly chronological presentation of the Gospel events. Therefore, Mark cannot be blamed for deviations from a strictly chronological sequence of events; 6) that Mark’s dependence on Peter in his writing extends only to certain circumstances (ε ̓́ νια). But Papias praises Mark for his thoroughness and accuracy in the narration: he did not hide anything and did not embellish events and persons at all.

Justin Martyr in his Conversation with Tryphon (chapter 106) mentions the existence of “sights” or “memories of Peter”, and cites a passage from Mark 3:16 et seq. It is clear that by these “attractions” he means the Gospel of Mark. St. Irenaeus (Against Heresies III, I, 1), also knows definitely that Mark wrote the Gospel after the death of Peter and Paul, who, according to the chronology of Irenaeus, preached in Rome from 61 to 66 - he wrote exactly as Peter proclaimed the Gospel. Clement of Alexandria (hypot. to 1 Peter 5:13) reports that Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome, at the request of some noble Roman Christians. In his Gospel, he outlined the oral sermon he heard from the apostle. Peter, who himself knew about the desire of Roman Christians to have a monument to his conversations with them. To this testimony of St. Clement Eusebius of Caesarea adds that the ap. Peter, on the basis of the revelation that was given to him, expressed his approval of the Gospel written by Mark (Church history VI, 14, 5 et seq.).

Eusebius reports on the further fate of Mark that Mark appeared as the first preacher of the Gospel in Egypt and founded the Christian church in Alexandria. Thanks to Mark's preaching and his strictly ascetic lifestyle, Jewish therapists turned to faith in Christ (Mark 2:15). Although Eusebius does not call Mark the bishop of Alexandria, he begins the number of Alexandrian bishops with Mark (Mark 2:24). Having installed Anyan as bishop in Alexandria and made several persons presbyters and deacons, Mark, according to the legend of Simeon Metaphrast, withdrew to Pentapolis from persecution of the pagans. Two years later he returned to Alexandria and found the number of Christians here had increased significantly. He himself then begins to preach again and work miracles. On this occasion, the pagans accuse him of sorcery. During the celebration of the Egyptian god Serapis, Mark was captured by the pagans, tied with a rope around his neck and dragged out of the city. In the evening he was thrown into prison, and the next day a crowd of pagans killed him. This happened on April 25th (year unknown Prof.'s assumptions Bolotov “about the day and year of the death of St. Mark" (63 - April 4) (Christian Reading 1893 July and subsequent books) do not agree with what is obtained from familiarization with the biblical data about the death of Mark.). His body rested for a long time in Alexandria, but in 827 Venetian merchants took him with them and brought him to Venice, where Mark, with his lion symbol, became the patron saint of the city, in which a magnificent cathedral with a wonderful bell tower was built in his honor. (According to another legend, Mark died in Rome.)

At St. Hippolyta (refut. VII, 30) Mark is called fingerless (ο ̔ κολοβοδάκτυλος). This name can be explained by the evidence of an ancient preface to the Gospel of Mark. According to the story of this introduction (prologue), Mark, as a descendant of Levi, had the title of a Jewish priest, but after his conversion to Christ he cut off his thumb to show that he was not suitable for correcting priestly duties. This, as the author of the introduction notes, did not, however, prevent Mark from becoming the bishop of Alexandria, and thus Mark’s mysterious destiny to serve God in the priesthood was still fulfilled... One can, however, assume that Mark’s loss thumb occurred sometime during the torture to which he was subjected by his pagan persecutors.

The purpose of writing the Gospel of Mark. The purpose of writing the Gospel of Mark is revealed already from the first words of this book: “The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God” is an inscription that clearly indicates the content and purpose of the Gospel of Mark. Like ev. Matthew, with the words: “the book of Genesis (βίβλος γενέσεως according to Russian translation, inaccurately: “genealogy”) of Jesus Christ, the Son of David,” etc., wants to say that he intends to give the “history of Christ” as a descendant of David and Abraham, Who in His activities he fulfilled the ancient promises given to the people of Israel, and so did He. With the first five words of his book, Mark wants to let his readers know what they should expect from him.

In what sense? Mark here used the word “beginning” (α ̓ ρχη ̀) and in which - the word “Gospel” (ευ ̓ αγγελίον)? The last expression in Mark occurs seven times and everywhere means the good news brought by Christ about the salvation of people, the announcement of the coming of the Kingdom of God. But in conjunction with the expression “beginning,” the word “Gospel” of Mark no longer appears. Ap comes to our aid here. Paul. In the last to the Philippians he uses this very expression in the sense of the initial stage of the gospel preaching, which he proposed in Macedonia. “You know, Philippians,” says the apostle, “that at the beginning of the gospel, when I left Macedonia, not a single church helped me with alms and acceptance, except you alone. "(Philippians 4:15). This expression: “the beginning of the Gospel” can only have the meaning here that the Philippians then knew only the most necessary things about Christ - His words and deeds, which formed the usual subject of the initial preaching of the evangelists about Christ. Meanwhile, now, eleven years after the apostle’s stay in Macedonia, which he speaks of in the above passage, the Philippians undoubtedly stand much higher in their understanding of Christianity. So the Gospel of Mark is an attempt to give an elementary description of the life of Christ, which was caused by the special condition of those persons for whom the Gospel was written. This is confirmed by the testimony of Papias, according to which Mark recorded the missionary conversations of St. Petra. And what these conversations were - the apostle gives us a fairly definite concept about this. Paul in the letter to the Hebrews. Addressing his readers, Jewish Christians, he reproaches them for lingering for a long time at the initial stage of Christian development and even taking a certain step back. “According to the times, you were destined to be teachers, but you again need to be taught the first principles of the word of God, and you need milk, not solid food” (Heb. 5:12). Thus the apostle distinguishes the beginnings of the word of God (Τα ̀ στοιχει ̃ α τη ̃ ς α ̓ ρχη ̃ ς τ . Χρ . λογ .) as “milk” from the solid food of the perfect. The Gospel of Mark or the sermon of St. Peter and represented this initial stage of the Gospel teaching of the facts from the life of Christ, offered to Roman Christians who had just entered the Church of Christ.

Thus, “the beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ” is a short designation of the entire contents of the proposed narrative, as the simplest presentation of the Gospel story. This understanding of the purpose of writing the Gospel of Mark is consistent with the brevity and conciseness of this book, which makes it look like, one might say, a “condensation” of the Gospel story, most suitable for people still at the first stage of Christian development. This is evident from the fact that in this Gospel, in general, more attention is paid to those facts from the life of Christ in which the divine power of Christ, His miraculous power was revealed, and, moreover, the miracles performed by Christ on children and youths are reported in quite detail, while the teaching Relatively little is said about Christ. As if the evangelist meant to give to parents Christian leadership for presenting the events of the Gospel story when teaching children the truths of the Christian faith... It can be said that the Gospel of Mark, mainly drawing attention to the miracles of Christ, is perfectly adapted to the understanding of those who can be called “children in the faith”, and, perhaps even for Christian children in the proper sense of the word... Even the fact that the evangelist likes to dwell on the details of events and, moreover, explains everything in almost detail - and this may indicate that he meant to offer precisely the initial, elementary a presentation of the gospel story to people who needed this kind of instruction.

Comparison of the Gospel of Mark with the testimony of church tradition about him. Papias reports that the “presbyter,” i.e., John the Theologian, found that in the Gospel of Mark the strict chronological order in the presentation of events was not observed. This is indeed seen in this Gospel. So, for example, reading the first chapter of Mark Mark 1:12.14.16, the reader remains perplexed as to when the “tradition” of John the Baptist occurred and when Christ’s appearance in public ministry followed, in what chronological relation to this appearance the temptation of Christ stands in the desert and within what framework the story of the calling of the first two pairs of disciples should be placed. — The reader also cannot determine when the Lord calls the 12 apostles (Mark 3:13 et seq.), where, when and in what sequence Christ spoke and explained His parables (chapter 4).

Then tradition names John Mark as the writer of the Gospel and presents him as a disciple of the apostle. Peter, who wrote his Gospel from his words. In the Gospel of Mark we find nothing that could contradict the first message of the tradition, and very much that confirms the latter. The writer of the Gospel is obviously a Palestinian native: he knows the language as the Palestinian inhabitants spoke at that time, and it apparently gives him pleasure to sometimes quote a phrase in his own language, accompanied by a translation (Mark 5:1; Mark 7:34; Mark 15:34, etc.). Only the most famous Hebrew words remained without translation (Rabbi, Abba, Amen, Gehenna, Satan, Hosanna). The entire style of the Gospel is Jewish, although the entire Gospel is undoubtedly written in Greek (the legend about the original Latin text is a fiction that does not have any sufficient basis).

Perhaps from the fact that the writer of the Gospel himself bore the name John, it can be explained why, when speaking about John the Theologian, he calls him not just “John”, but adds to this in Mark 3:17 and Mark 5:37 the following definition: "Brother of Jacob" It is also remarkable that Mark reports some characteristic details that define the personality of the Apostle Peter (Mark 14:29-31.54.66.72), and on the other hand, omits such details from the history of the apostle. Peter, who could have too exalted the importance of the personality of the ap. Petra. Thus, he does not convey the words that Christ said to the apostle. Peter after his great confession (Matthew 16:16-19), and in the listing of the apostles he does not call Peter “first,” as St. Matthew (Mt 10:2, cf. Mk 3:16). Isn’t it clear from here that the Evangelist Mark wrote his Gospel according to the memoirs of the humble ap. Petra? (cf. 1 Peter 5:5).

Finally, tradition points to Rome as the place where the Gospel of Mark was written. And the Gospel itself shows that its writer dealt with pagan Latin Christians. Mark, for example, incomparably more often than other evangelists, uses Latin expressions(eg centurion, speculator, legion, census, etc., of course, in their Greek pronunciation). And most importantly, Mark sometimes explains Greek expressions using Latin and specifically Roman terms. Rome is also indicated by the designation of Simon of Cyrene as the father of Alexander and Rufus (cf. Rom 15:13).

Upon closer examination of Mark's Gospel, it turns out that he wrote his work for pagan Christians. This is evident from the fact that he explains in detail the Pharisees’ customs (Mark 7:3 et seq.). He does not have the speeches and details that the Evs have. Matthew and which could have meaning only for Christian readers from the Jews, and for Christians from the pagans, without special explanations, would even remain incomprehensible (see, for example, Mark 1:1 et seq., the genealogy of Christ, Matthew 17:24; Matthew 23 ; Matthew 24:20 ; nor on the Sabbath, Matthew 5:17-43).

The relationship of the Gospel of Mark to the other two synoptic Gospels. Blazh. Augustine believed that Mark in his Gospel was a follower of Ev. Matthew and shortened only his Gospel (According to Ev. I, 2, 3); There is undoubtedly a correct idea in this opinion, because the writer of the Gospel of Mark obviously used some more ancient Gospel and actually shortened it. Critics of the text almost agree on the assumption that the Gospel of Matthew served as such a guide for Mark, but not in its current form, but in its original form, namely the one that was written in Hebrew. Since the Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew was written in the first years of the 7th decade in Palestine, Mark, who was at that time in Asia Minor, could get his hands on the Gospel written by Matthew and then take it with him to Rome.

There were attempts to divide the Gospel into separate parts, which, in their origin, were attributed to different decades of the first century and even to the beginning of the second (First Mark, Second Mark, Third Mark, etc.). But all these hypotheses about the later origin of our current Gospel of Mark from some later alterator are shattered by the testimony of Papias, according to which already around the year 80, John the Theologian apparently had in his hands our Gospel of Mark and talked about it with his students.

Division of the Gospel of Mark according to content. After the introduction to the Gospel (Mark 1:1-13), the evangelist in the first section (Mark 1:14-3:6) depicts in a number of individual artistic paintings how Christ came out to preach, first in Capernaum, and then throughout Galilee, teaching, gathering the first disciples around Himself and performing astonishing miracles (Mark 1:14-39), and then how the defenders of the old order began to rebel against Christ. Christ, although in fact he observes the law, nevertheless takes seriously the attacks on Him by the followers of the law and refutes their attacks. Here He expresses a very important new teaching about Himself: He is the Son of God (Mark 1:40-3:6). The next three sections - the second (Mark 3:7-6:6), the third (Mark 6:6-8:26) and the fourth (Mark 8:27-10:45) depict the activity of Christ in the north of the holy land, mostly especially in the first period, in Galilee, but also, especially in the later period, beyond the borders of Galilee, and finally His journey to Jerusalem through Perea and Jordan as far as Jericho (Mark 10:1ff.). At the beginning of each section there is always a narrative relating to the 12 apostles (cf. Mark 3:14; Mark 5:30): narratives about their calling, their sending to preach and their confession on the issue of the Messianic dignity of Christ, the evangelist obviously wants show how Christ considered it His indispensable task to prepare His disciples for their future calling as preachers of the Gospel even among the pagans, although, of course, this point of view cannot be considered exclusive here. It goes without saying that the face of the Lord Jesus Christ, as a preacher and wonderworker, the promised Messiah and Son of God, is in the foreground here. — The fifth section (Mark 10:46-13:37) depicts the activity of Christ in Jerusalem as a prophet, or rather as the Son of David, who must fulfill the Old Testament predictions about the future kingdom of David. At the same time, the increase in hostility towards Christ on the part of representatives of Judaism to its highest point is described. Finally, the sixth section (Mark 14:1-15:47) tells about the suffering, death and resurrection of Christ, as well as His ascension into heaven.

A look at the gradual unfolding of the thoughts contained in the Gospel of Mark. After a short caption that gives readers an idea of ​​what the book is (Mark 1:1), the evangelist in the introduction (Mark 1:2-13) depicts the speech and activities of John the Baptist, the forerunner of the Messiah, and, above all, his baptism of the Messiah Himself. Then the evangelist makes a brief remark about Christ’s sojourn in the desert and about His temptation there from the devil, pointing out that at that time angels served Christ: with this he wants to signify the victory of Christ over the devil and the beginning of a new life for humanity, which will no longer be afraid of everything the forces of hell (figuratively represented by the “beasts of the desert”, which no longer harmed Christ, this new Adam). Further, the evangelist consistently depicts how Christ subjugated humanity to Himself and restored people’s communion with God. — In the first section (Mark 1:14-3:6), in the first part (Mark 1:14-39 of the 1st chapter), the evangelist first gives a general image of the teaching activity of the Lord Jesus Christ (Mark 1:14-15) , and at the end (v. 39) - His works. Between these two characteristics, the evangelist describes five events: a) the calling of the disciples, b) the events in the synagogue of Capernaum, c) the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law, d) the healing of the sick in the evening in front of Peter’s house and e) the search for Christ, who retired in the morning to pray, by the people and, most importantly, image, Peter and his companions. All these five events took place during the time period from the pre-dinner hour of Friday to Sunday morning (in Hebrew, the first day after Saturday). All events are grouped around Simon and his companions. It is clear that the evangelist received information about all these events from Simon. From here the reader receives a sufficient understanding of how Christ, who revealed His activity after taking John the Baptist into prison, carried out His ministry as a Teacher and Wonderworker.

In the second part of the first section (Mark 1:40-3:6), the evangelist depicts the gradually growing hostility towards Christ on the part of the Pharisees and mainly those Pharisees who belonged to the scribes. This enmity is explained by the fact that the Pharisees see in the activities of Christ a violation of the law given by God through Moses, and therefore a number of, one might say, criminal offenses. Nevertheless, Christ treats all Jews with love and compassion, helping them in their spiritual needs and physical illnesses and revealing Himself at the same time as a being superior to ordinary mortals, standing in a special relationship with God. It is especially important that here Christ testifies of Himself as the Son of man, who forgives sins (Mark 2:10), who has authority over the Sabbath (Mark 2:28), who even has the rights of the priesthood, as similar rights were once recognized for His ancestor David (eating the sacred bread). Only these testimonies of Christ about Himself are not expressed directly and directly, but are included in His speeches and deeds. Here we have before us seven stories: a) The story of the healing of the leper is intended to show that Christ, in fulfilling the works of His high calling, did not violate the direct decrees of the Mosaic Law (Mark 1:44). If he was reproached in this regard, then these reproaches were based on a one-sided, literal understanding of the Mosaic Law, of which the Pharisees and rabbis were guilty. b) The story of the healing of the paralytic shows us in Christ not only a doctor of the body, but also a sick soul. He has the power to forgive sins. The Lord reveals to everyone the attempt of the scribes to accuse Him of Blasphemy in all its insignificance and groundlessness. c) The history of the calling of the publican Levi as a disciple of Christ shows that the publican is not so bad as to become a helper of Christ. d) Christ’s participation at the feast organized by Levi shows that the Lord does not disdain sinners and tax collectors, which, of course, stirs up even more Pharisee scribes against Him. e) The relationship between Christ and the Pharisees became even more strained when Christ acted as a principled opponent of the old Jewish fasts. f) and g) Here again Christ appears as the enemy of the Pharisaic one-sidedness in relation to the observance of the Sabbath. He is the King Kingdom of Heaven, and His servants may not fulfill the ritual law where it is necessary, especially since the Sabbath law was given for the good of man. But such a speech by Christ brings the irritation of His enemies to the extreme, and they begin to plot against Him.

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 ( 2 Cor. 4:4),

c) all New Testament or Christian teaching in general, primarily the narration of the most important events from the life of Christ ( 1 Cor. 15:1-4), and then an explanation of the meaning of these events ( Rome. 1:16).

e) Finally, the word “Gospel” is sometimes used to designate the very process of preaching Christian teaching ( Rome. 1:1).

Sometimes the word “Gospel” is accompanied by a designation and its content. There are, for example, phrases: Gospel of the kingdom ( Matt. 4:23), i.e. good news of the kingdom of God, the gospel of peace ( Eph. 6:15), i.e. about peace, the gospel of salvation ( Eph. 1:13), i.e. about salvation, etc. Sometimes following the word "Gospel" Genitive means the author or source of the good news ( Rome. 1:1, 15:16 ; 2 Cor. 11:7; 1 Thess. 2:8) or the personality of the preacher ( Rome. 2:16).

For quite a long time, stories about the life of the Lord Jesus Christ were transmitted only orally. The Lord Himself did not leave any records of His speeches and deeds. In the same way, the 12 apostles were not born writers: they were “unlearned and simple people” ( Acts 4:13), although literate. Among the Christians of the apostolic time there were also very few “wise according to the flesh, strong” and “noble” ( 1 Cor. 1:26), and for most believers, oral stories about Christ were much more important than written ones. In this way, the apostles and preachers or evangelists “transmitted” (παραδιδόναι) the stories about the deeds and speeches of Christ, and the believers “received” (παραλαμβάνειν) - but, of course, not mechanically, only by memory, as can be said about the students of rabbinical schools, but with all my soul, as if something living and life-giving. But this period of oral tradition was soon to end. On the one hand, Christians should have felt the need for a written presentation of the Gospel in their disputes with the Jews, who, as we know, denied the reality of Christ’s miracles and even argued that Christ did not declare Himself the Messiah. It was necessary to show the Jews that Christians have genuine stories about Christ from those persons who were either among His apostles or who were in close communication with eyewitnesses of the deeds of Christ. 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 to the miracles of Christ were thinning. Therefore, it was necessary to secure in writing individual sayings of the Lord and His entire speeches, as well as the stories of the apostles about Him. It was then that separate records began to appear here and there of what was reported in the oral tradition about Christ. The words of Christ, which contained the rules of Christian life, were most carefully recorded, and they were much more free to convey various events from the life of Christ, preserving 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 recordings did not think about the completeness of the story. Even our Gospels, as can be seen from the conclusion of the Gospel of John ( In. 21:25), did not intend to report all the speeches and deeds of Christ. This is evident, by the way, from the fact that they do not contain, for example, the following saying of Christ: “It is more blessed to give than to receive” ( Acts 20:35). The Evangelist Luke reports about such records, saying that many before him had already begun to compile narratives about the life of Christ, but that they lacked proper completeness and that therefore they did not provide sufficient “affirmation” in the faith ( OK. 1:1-4).

Our canonical Gospels apparently arose from the same motives. The period of their appearance can be determined to be approximately thirty years - from 60 to 90 (the last was the Gospel of John). The first three Gospels are usually called biblical science synoptic, because they depict the life of Christ in such a way that their three narratives can be viewed in one without much difficulty and combined into one complete narrative (synoptics - from Greek - looking together). They began to be called Gospels individually, perhaps as early as the end of the 1st century, but from church writing we have information that such a name began to be given to the entire composition of the Gospels only in the second half of the 2nd century. As for the names: “Gospel of Matthew”, “Gospel of Mark”, etc., then more correctly these very ancient names from Greek should be translated as follows: “Gospel according to Matthew”, “Gospel according to Mark” (κατὰ Ματθαῖον, κατὰ Μᾶρκον). By this the Church wanted to say that in all the Gospels there is a single Christian gospel about Christ the Savior, but according to the images of different writers: one image belongs to Matthew, another to Mark, etc.

Four Gospels

Thus, the ancient Church looked upon the portrayal of the life of Christ in our four Gospels, not as different Gospels or narratives, but as one Gospel, one book in four types. That is why in the Church the name Four Gospels was established for our Gospels. Saint Irenaeus called them the “fourfold Gospel” (τετράμορφον τὸ εὐαγγέλιον - see Irenaeus Lugdunensis, Adversus haereses liber 3, ed. A. Rousseau and L. Doutreleaü Irenée Lyon. Contre les h érésies, livre 3, vol 2. Paris, 1974, 11, 11).

The Fathers of the Church dwell on the question: why exactly did the Church accept not one Gospel, but four? So St. John Chrysostom says: “Couldn’t one evangelist write everything that was needed. Of course, he could, but when four people wrote, they wrote not at the same time, not in the same place, without communicating or conspiring with each other, and for all that they wrote in such a way that everything seemed to be uttered by one mouth, then this is the strongest proof of the truth. You will say: “What happened, however, was the opposite, for the four Gospels are often found to be in disagreement.” This very thing is a sure sign of truth. For if the Gospels had exactly agreed with each other in everything, even regarding the words themselves, then none of the enemies would have believed that the Gospels were not written according to ordinary mutual agreement. Now the slight disagreement between them frees them from all suspicion. For what they say differently regarding time or place does not in the least harm the truth of their narrative. In the main thing, which forms the basis of our life and the essence of preaching, not one of them disagrees with the other in anything or anywhere - that God became a man, worked miracles, was crucified, resurrected, and ascended into heaven.” (“Conversations on the Gospel of Matthew”, 1).

Saint Irenaeus also finds a special symbolic meaning in the fourfold number of our Gospels. “Since there are four countries of the world in which we live, and since the Church is scattered throughout the entire earth and has its confirmation in the Gospel, it was necessary for it to have four pillars, spreading incorruptibility from everywhere and reviving the human race. The All-Ordering Word, seated on the Cherubim, gave us the Gospel in four forms, but permeated with one spirit. For David, praying for His appearance, says: “He who sits on the Cherubim, show Yourself” ( Ps. 79:2). But the Cherubim (in the vision of the prophet Ezekiel and the Apocalypse) have four faces, and their faces are images of the activity of the Son of God.” Saint Irenaeus finds it possible to attach the symbol of a lion to the Gospel of John, since this Gospel depicts Christ as the eternal King, and the lion is the king in the animal world; to the Gospel of Luke - the symbol of a calf, since Luke begins his Gospel with the image of the priestly service of Zechariah, who slaughtered the calves; to the Gospel of Matthew - a symbol of a person, since this Gospel mainly depicts the human birth of Christ, and, finally, to the Gospel of Mark - a symbol of an eagle, because Mark begins his Gospel with a mention of the prophets, to whom the Holy Spirit flew, like an eagle on wings "(Irenaeus Lugdunensis, Adversus haereses, liber 3, 11, 11-22). Among the other Fathers of the Church, the symbols of the lion and the calf were moved and the first was given to Mark, and the second to John. Since the 5th century. in this form, the symbols of the evangelists began to be added to the images of the four evangelists in church painting.

Mutual relationship Gospels

Each of the four Gospels has its own characteristics, and most of all - the Gospel of John. But the first three, as mentioned above, have extremely much in common with each other, and this similarity involuntarily catches the eye even when reading them briefly. Let us first of all talk about the similarity of the Synoptic Gospels and the reasons for this phenomenon.

Even Eusebius of Caesarea, in his “canons,” divided the Gospel of Matthew into 355 parts and noted that 111 of them were found in all three weather forecasters. IN modern times exegetes developed an even more precise numerical formula for determining the similarity of the Gospels and calculated that the total number of verses common to all weather forecasters goes back to 350. In Matthew, then, 350 verses are unique to him, in Mark there are 68 such verses, in Luke - 541. The similarities are mainly noticed in the rendering of the sayings of Christ, and the differences are in the narrative part. When Matthew and Luke literally agree with each other in their Gospels, Mark always agrees with them. The similarity between Luke and Mark is much closer than between Luke and Matthew (Lopukhin - in the Orthodox Theological Encyclopedia. T. V. P. 173). It is also remarkable that some passages in all three evangelists follow the same sequence, for example, the temptation and the speech in Galilee, the calling of Matthew and the conversation about fasting, the plucking of ears of corn and the healing of the withered man, the calming of the storm and the healing of the Gadarene demoniac, etc. The similarity sometimes even extends to the construction of sentences and expressions (for example, in the presentation of a prophecy Small 3:1).

As for the differences observed among weather forecasters, there are quite a lot of them. Some things are reported by only two evangelists, others even by one. Thus, only Matthew and Luke cite the conversation on the mount of the Lord Jesus Christ and report the story of the birth and first years of Christ’s life. Luke alone speaks of the birth of John the Baptist. Some 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 are the expressions.

This phenomenon of similarities and differences in the Synoptic Gospels has long attracted the attention of interpreters of Scripture, and various assumptions have long been made to explain this fact. It seems more correct to believe that our three evangelists used a common oral source for their narrative of the life of Christ. At that time, evangelists or preachers about Christ went everywhere preaching and repeated in different places in a more or less extensive form what was considered necessary to offer to those entering the Church. Thus, a well-known specific type was formed oral gospel, and this is the type we have in written form 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, characteristic only of his work. At the same time, we cannot exclude the assumption that an older Gospel could have been known to the evangelist who wrote later. Moreover, the difference between the weather forecasters 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 differ in very many ways from the Gospel of John the Theologian. So they depict almost exclusively the activity of Christ in Galilee, and the Apostle John depicts mainly the sojourn of Christ in Judea. In terms of content, the Synoptic Gospels also differ significantly 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 entire people. John, on the contrary, omits a lot from 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 the attention of their readers to the Kingdom founded by Him, 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 portrays 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 primarily spiritual (πνευματικόν), in contrast to the synoptic ones, as depicting primarily the human side in the person of Christ (εὐαγγέλιον σωματικόν), i.e. The gospel is physical.

However, it must be said that the weather forecasters also have passages that indicate that the weather forecasters knew the activity of Christ in Judea ( Matt. 23:37, 27:57 ; OK. 10:38-42), and John also has indications of the continued activity of Christ in Galilee. In the same way, weather forecasters convey such sayings of Christ that testify to His Divine dignity ( Matt. 11:27), and John, for his part, also in places depicts Christ as a true man ( In. 2 etc.; John 8 and etc.). Therefore, one cannot speak of any contradiction between the weather forecasters and John in their depiction of the face and work of Christ.

The Reliability of the Gospels

Although criticism has long been expressed against the reliability of the Gospels, and recently these attacks of criticism have especially intensified (the theory of myths, especially the theory of Drews, who does not recognize the existence of Christ at all), however, all the objections of criticism are so insignificant that they are broken 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 talk about the most important general reasons for which we recognize the Gospels as completely reliable documents. This is, firstly, the existence of a tradition of eyewitnesses, many of whom lived to the era when our Gospels appeared. Why on earth would we refuse to trust these sources of our Gospels? Could they have made up everything in our Gospels? No, all the Gospels are purely historical. Secondly, it is not clear why the Christian consciousness would want - as the mythical theory claims - to crown the head of a simple Rabbi Jesus with the crown of the Messiah and Son of God? Why, for example, is it not said about the Baptist that he performed miracles? Obviously because he didn't create them. And from here 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 Christ’s miracles, since the highest miracle - His Resurrection - is witnessed like no other event? ancient history(cm. 1 Cor. 15)?

Bibliography foreign works according to the four gospels

Bengel - 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. Gottingen, 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. Gottingen, 1901.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Loisy (1907-1908) - Loisy A.F. Les èvangiles synoptiques, 1-2. : Ceffonds, près 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. Gottingen, 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. Gottingen, 1902.

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

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

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

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

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

Heitmüller - see Yog. 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 für 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 N. The Greek Testament in four volumes, vol. 1. London, 1863.