Interpretation of the Gospel of Matthew Chapter 19. New literal translation from IMBF. On the value of earth and celestial treasures

When Jesus graduated from the words of this, then he left Galilee and came to the limits of the Jewish, Zaio District.

A lot of people followed him, and he healed them there.

And the Pharisees have begun to him and, silent him, said to him: for any reason, a person is allowed to divorce his wife?

He told them in response: didn't you read the man and a woman created at the beginning?

And said: therefore the man will leave the man and mother and go to his wife, and there will be two things,

so they are no longer two, but one flesh. So, that God combined, that person does not separate.

They tell him: How did Moses command a divorce letter and divorce with her?

He tells them: Moses on your cruel eye allowed you to divorce your wives, and at first there was no way;

but I tell you: who divorces his wife not for adultery and marries another, he adulters; and married at the divorced commitment.

Here Jesus appeals to the question, which was in his time the same burning, as in our. On the issue of divorce, Jews did not have unity, and Pharisees deliberately wanted to involve Jesus in a discussion.

The Jews had the highest marriage rates in the world. Marriage was a sacred duty. Stay after reaching the twentieth age, except if he all dedicated himself to studying the law, it meant to break the commandment "Move and multiply." In the representation of the Jews, a person who had no children "killed his offspring" and "diminished the image of God on Earth." "If the husband and wife are worthy, the glory of God is with them."

Marriage could not be joined frivolously and carefree. Joseph Flavius \u200b\u200bdescribes the Jewish views on marriage, based on Moses ("Jewish antiquities" 4.8.23). A man must marry a girl from an approximate family. He should never corrupt another wife, and should not marry a woman who was a slave or a harlot. If a man accused his wife is that she was not a girl when he took her wife, he had to bring evidence to confirm his accusations. Her father or brother should have protected her. If the girl proved his innocence, her husband had to take her to a legitimate marriage and could never send her from himself, except for adultery. If it was proved that such an accusation was false and malicious, who put forward by his man received forty blows to the whip without one and paid 50 Sicle the father of the girl. But, if the guilt of the girl was proven and she was convicted, she had to beat stones if she was from ordinary people, or burn alive if she was a priest's daughter.

If a man seduced the engaged girl, and with her consent, both had to be committed to death. If a man has forcibly selected the girl in a deserted place, or where no one could have helped her, death was betrayed only a man. If a man seduced an incomplete girl, he had to marry her, and if his father did not want to give her daughter for him, he had to pay the father of 50 Sikle.

The Jews had very high norms and laws regarding marriage and purity. Ideally, the divorce considered a thoughtful matter. Jews said that even the altar sheds tears when a man was divorced with his wife's wife.

But the ideal and reality of the Jews did not go hand in hand. The whole situation was aggravated by two dangerous elements.

First, in the Jewish law, the woman was a thing. She was the property of his father or her husband and therefore she, practically, was not at all right. Most of the Jewish marriages satisfied parents or professional futures. The girl could crawl in childhood, and often with a man she had never seen. But she had one guarantee - when she was 12 years old, she could refuse to recognize the father of the chosen her husband. But in matters of divorce, the general rule and the law gave the whole initiative to her husband. The law read "The wife can be divorced from his consent or without it, but the husband is only from his consent." The woman could never start the marriage process; She could not divorce, her husband had to be divorced with her.

Of course, there were certain guarantees. If the husband was divorced with her not because of her immorality, he had to return her dowry: it was supposed to reduce the number of irresponsible divorces. The courts could have pressure on a man on a divorce issue with his wife, in the event that a refusal to make marriage relationships, sexlessness or, if it was proven that a man cannot provide decent content. The wife could force her husband to dilute with her if he had any disgusting disease, like, for example, leprosy, or, if he was a tunner of the skin, which was associated with collecting a dog litter, or, if he offered her to leave the holy earth. But, in general, the law states that a woman has no legal rights, and that the right to demand a divorce fully belongs to her husband.

Secondly, the divorce process itself was excessively simple. The whole process was founded on the excerpt of Moses of the Law, to which the question of Jesus belongs. "If anyone takes his wife and makes her husband, and she will not find a favor in his eyes, because he finds something nasty in her, and he will write her a deliberate letter, and will give her hands, and let go of his home ..." (De. 24.1).An ordinary letter was a simple statement in the form of one sentence that the husband lets his wife. Joseph Flavius \u200b\u200bwrites: "The one who wants to divorce his wife for whatever cause (and such cases are found among men), let him in writing it will be certified that he never uses it as his wife; Because in this way it will be free to marry another husband. " The only guarantee against such a simple divorce procedure was that the woman had to return the dowry.

Matthew 19,1-9(continued) Jewish grounds for divorce

One of the important problems of divorce from Jews is associated with Moses law. In this law, it is said that the husband can divorce his wife if "she will not find his favor in his eyes, because he finds in her "Naturally".The question is how to understand the phrase anything nasty]

And therefore, the question among Jewish rabbis was fierce disagreements, and it was here that they wanted to draw Jesus to a discussion, asking him a question. School Shamaai definitely believed that the expression something nastyso the fornication, extramarital connections, and only for this reason can be divorced with his wife and send it. If even a woman is disobedient and harmful, as Jezebel, it is impossible to send it away if she did not violate the matrimonial loyalty. Gillel School, on the contrary, interpreted expression something nastythe biggest way: she believed that her husband could divorce his wife if she ruined him dinner if she walked unclean if she spoke on the street with men, if she disrespectfully spoke in the presence of her husband about his parents, if she was a grumpling woman Whose voice was heard in a nearby house. Rabbi Akiba even reached the point that the phrase, if she does not find favor in his eyesit means that the husband can divorce his wife if he found a woman who liked him more and which he considered more beautiful.

The whole tragedy was that, as it was necessary to expect, preference was given to the Gillel School; The marriage bonds were not durable, and the divorces on the most banal reasons became, unfortunately, the usual matter.

To complete the picture I must say that on Rabbi law in two cases divorce it was mandatory.First, in the event of a violation of married loyalty. "A woman who violated marital loyalty, you must definitely give a divorce." And, secondly, the divorce was mandatory in the case of fibrity.The meaning of marriage was in the children, in the work of the offspring, and, if after ten years of marriage, the married couple remained childless, the divorce was mandatory. In this case, the woman could get married again, but these norms remained in force and in the second marriage.

It is necessary to spend two more interesting Jewish legal standards due to a divorce. Firstly, leaving the familynot considered to be a reason for divorce. If there was a leaving of the family, it was necessary to bring evidence that the spouse was died. In this case there was only one relaxation in the law: if in the Jewish law in all other cases it was necessary to assign two witnesses, in the case when one spouse disappeared from the house and did not return back, there was only one witness.

Secondly, oddly enough insanityit could not be caused for divorce. If the wife went crazy, the husband could not divorce with her, because, being divorced, she would not have any defender in his helplessness. This provision reflects the compassion for a woman. In the event that a husband went crazy, the divorce was impossible because he was unable to write a divorce letter, and without such a letter drawn up on his initiative, could not be divorce. The question that Jesus was asked was a very painful and rapidly discussed problem. His answer put both parties to a dead end and this answer suggested that it was necessary to radically change the whole situation.

Matthew 19,1-9(continued) Jesus's answer

In reality, the Pharisees asked Jesus, whether he prefers a strict approach to the problem of Shamai divorce, or a wider interpretation of the Guillel to involve it in the discussion.

In his reply, Jesus returned to the very beginning, to the ideal of creation. At first, Jesus said, God created Adam and Eve, a man and a woman. In the most circumstances of the history of creation, Adam and Eve were created by one for the other and no more; Their union was perfect and inseparable. Well, says Jesus, these two are a symbol and an example for all future generations. As one of theologians put it: "Each wedding couple is a copy of the pair of Adam and Eve, and therefore their union is the same inextant."

Jesus's argument is absolutely clear: according to the example of Adam and Eva, the divorce was not only unwanted and erroneous, and he was completely impossible, for the very simple reason that they were not married to them more. And because Jesus sets out the principle that every divorce is erroneous. It is necessary, however, immediately note that it is not law,but principle, A.this is quite another matter.

Here, the Pharisees immediately suspected a vulnerable place. Moses (De. 24.1)he said that if a person wants to divorce his wife, because she did not find his favor in his eyes and because he finds something nasty in her, he could give her a divorce letter, and the marriage was terminated. That's what it was necessary to Pharisees. They could now say Jesus: "Maybe you want to say that Moses became mistaken? Maybe you want to cancel the Heavenly Law, which was given Moses? Maybe you put yourself above Moses, as a legislator? "

Jesus responded to that, that this Moses was not lawbut only concession.Moses N. ordereddivorce, at best, only allowedthis in order to put a situation in order that threatened to lead to complete disorder and indispensability in relationships. Moiseev rules were only the concession of the fallen human nature. IN Life. 2,23.24an ideal designed for us is an ideal: two people who have entered into marriage should become such an inseparable unity so that there are like one flesh. Jesus answered them: "Indeed, Moses alloweddivorce, but it was concessionin view of the complete lost ideal. The ideal of marriage is in the irregular, perfect Union of Adam and Eve. This is what should be marriage; This is how God wanted to see him. "

Now we come close to one of the most real and burning difficulties in the New Testament. What did Jesus mean? The difficulty lies in the fact that Matthew and Mark transmitted the words of Jesus in different ways.

Matthew says:

"I tell you: who divorces his wife not for adultery and marries another, he adulteries" (Matt. 19.9).

The brand says:

"Who divorces his wife and marries another, he adulters away from her, and if the wife divorces her husband and comes out for another, adulterates and Luke says:

"All binding his wife and fearing on another, adulterates; And everyone who feels in diluted with her husband adulterates " (Bow 16,18).

A relatively small difficulty here is that according to the Mark it means that a woman can divorce her husband that, as we have seen, it was impossible for the Jewish law. But everything can be explained by the fact that under the laws of the pagans, a woman could divorce his husband. The big difficulty lies in the fact that the brand and bows are made ban on divorce absolute.They did not show any exceptions to this rule. But Matthew has one sentence containing the reservation: the divorce is permitted if the reason for this is married infidelity. In this case, we find the only way out that in the Jewish law, the divorce in the event of a marital infidelity was compulsoryand therefore, Mark and Luke did not mean that it was necessary to remind about it, but then the divorce was still mandatory.

Ultimately, we will have to make a comparison with what is said in the Gospel of Matthew, and said in Gospels from Mark and Luke. In our opinion, it does not have to doubt that the brand and Luke is correctly said. There are two reasons for it. Only the absolute ban on the divorce corresponds to the ideal of the symbolic complete unity of Adam and Eve. And the surprised voices of students are heard when it comes to the full, absolute ban on divorce because they say (19,10), what if marriage is so irrevocable, it is better not to marry at all. You do not have to doubt that here Jesus sets out principle,not law.The ideal of marriage is unity that cannot be broken. Here is laid idealCreator.

Matthew 19,1-9(continued) High ideal

Now consider the high ideal of marriage, which Jesus puts before those who agree to take his covenants. We will see that the Jewish ideal of marriage was the basis of Christian marriage. The Jews have a marriage called kiddushin. Kiddushinso consecrationor dedication.This word was used to refer to what was devoted to God into his exceptional and special ownership. Everything that was completely and completely given to God was kiddushin.This means that in marriage the husband was dedicated to his wife, and his wife - her husband. One became the exceptional property of another, in the same way as the sacrifice became the exclusive property of God. This is what Jesus meant, when he said that for the sake of marriage, a person will leave his father and his mother and go to his wife; And it meant, he meant when he said that her husband and wife would be so one that they could be called one flesh. That was God's ideal of marriage, as he was transferred in ancient history (Life. 2.24)and this ideal restored Jesus. This idea, of course, entails certain consequences.

1. This absolute unity means that the marriage is given not only for staying in life, no matter how important this stay is, and forever. This means that although physical proximity is an extremely important factor in marriage, it is not yet exhausted. Marriage, which entered the sole purpose to satisfy the cleaner physical desire, is doomed to failure. The marriage exists not to make one to do something together, and so that they all do together.

2. In other words, marriage is the complete unity of two personalities. Two people can live together in different ways. It may be that one of them is so dominant that only his desires, convenience and goals in life matter, and the other is completely subordinate and exists only to serve the desires and needs of another. In addition, two can live together in a state of a kind of weapons neutrality, with constant tension and with a constant confrontation, with a constant collision of interest. A joint life can be one continuous dispute, while the relationship can be based on uncomfortable for both compromises. People can also arrange their relationships on more or less badly accepting each other. Although they live together, everyone lives, essentially, his life goes to its own way. They live in the same house, but it would be an exaggeration to say that they have a common house.

It is quite obvious that all these relationship is far from ideal. The ideal is that in marriage two people find their completion, their completeness.

Marriage should not make life more limited, he must do it complete. He must bring to the life of each spouse a new fullness, new satisfaction and new satisfaction. In the marriage union of two personalities, one complements the other, everyone finds its completion. This does not mean that it is not necessary to somehow adapt to each other and even sacrifice something, but that means that, ultimately, such relationships are more complete, happier, and bring more satisfaction than life alone.

3. This can be expressed easier. In marriage you need to share in half. In a beautiful period of courtship behind the girl, some danger lies: at this time, two lovers almost inevitably see each other from the best side. It is time for charm and charm. They see each other are dressed in better clothes, usually their thoughts are directed towards joint entertainment and enjoyment, money often does not play an important role. And in marriage, these two should see each other and then when they are not in better shape, when they are tired and exhausted; Children inevitably in the house lead a mess; Money into the edge, and buying products, food, clothing and everything else becomes a problem; Moonlight and roses turn into a sink in the kitchen and have to pace along the corridor with a crying child. If these two are not ready for the routine of life, as well as its charm - their marriage is doomed to failure.

4. Hence the conclusion that, however, cannot be considered universally fair, but in which there is a large proportion of truth. The marriage is most often good if these two were familiar for quite a long time and the surroundings and past each other would know well. Marriage is a constant and continuous joint life. After all, it can be very easy to come into a collision augable habits, unconscious manners and methods of education. The better people recognize each other before they decide to conclude an unbreakable union, the better for them. But this does not deny the fact that there is love at first sight, and that such love can indeed defeat everything, but the experience shows that the better people know each other, the more likely they can make from their marriage what It should be.5. All this brings to the final practical conclusion - the basis of marriage is unit, A.the basis of compatibility lies attentive attitude to each other.So that marriage is happy, each of the spouses must take care of the partner more than about himself. Egoism kills any personal relationship and most of all it is when two people are connected to each other in marriage.

The famous English writer Somerset Moem talks about his mother, that she was beautiful, charming and loved by everyone. His father was not beautiful at all, and his other visible attractive properties had a little. Someone said once the mother: "When everyone loves you, and when you could get married to whom you just want, how can you then remain faithful to this ugly person, for whom you married?" She answered it: "He never offends me." It was impossible to do a larger compliment.

The present basis of marriage is simple and easy to understand - this is love that takes care of the happiness of another more than about her, love that is proud if you can serve that can understand, and therefore always can forgive. In other words, this is such love, like Christ, who knows that she will find himself in selflessness, and that, having lost themselves, she will find fullness.

Matthew 19,10-12The embodiment of the ideal

They tell him the disciples: if this is the responsibility of a person to his wife, then it is better not to marry.

He also told them: not everyone can hold the word this, but who was given,

for there are scratches that were born out of the womb of the mother's; and there are Skattsi, which are degraded from people; And there are Skattsi, who made themselves with the Skatters themselves for the kingdom of heaven. Who can accommodate, but accommodate.

Here we return to the necessary clarification of what was discussed before. Pupils, having heard about the ideal of a marriage, which Jesus outlined by them was frightened. Many sayings of rabbis should come to the memory of the disciples. They had a lot of sayings about unfortunate marriage. "Among those who will never see the face of Gehenna, the one who had a harmful wife." Such a person is saved from Hell, because he redeemed his sins on earth! "To those whose life is not life, there is a man who commanded the wife." "A harmful wife is like a leprosy on her husband. What is the medicine? Let it divorce with it and cure from leprosy. " It was even installed: "If a person has a bad wife, his religious debt is to divorce her."

Men lought up on such sayings, the uncompromising requirement of Jesus should seem incredible. And therefore they reacted simply: if the marriage is such final and mandatory relationships, and if the divorce is prohibited, it is better not to marry at all, because there is no way to retreat, there is no way back from a disastrous situation. Jesus gives it two answers.

1. He directly says that not all people can take such a state of affairs, but only those who are given. In other words, only Christians can take Christian ethics.Only a person who always has the help of Jesus Christ and is always the leadership of the Holy Spirit, can create such personal relationships that the ideal of marriage requires. Only with the help of Jesus Christ can man can show sympathy, understanding, spirit of all promenade, attentive love that is demanding a real marriage. Without his help, all this is impossible to achieve. The Christian Ideal of Marriage assumes that both spouses are Christians.

And this is the truth that goes far beyond the limits of this case. We constantly hear how people say: "We are taking ethics of the Nagorno sermon, but why ask questions of the divinity of Jesus, his resurrection and his constant presence here after the Resurrection, about His Holy Spirit and the like? We recognize that he was a noble man, and that his teaching deserves the highest marks. Why not leave it as it is, and continue to live in accordance with this teaching and not pay attention to theology? " The answer to this question is very simple: no one can live by the teachings of Jesus Christ without the help of Jesus Christ. And if Jesus was just a great and good man if he was even the greatest and best of people, then he was for us a great example. His teaching becomes possible only if the person is convinced that Christ did not die, but he is present here and helps us embody it into life. The teaching of Christ requires the presence of Christ, otherwise it represents only the impossible and painful ideal. Thus, we must accept that only Christians can live in a Christian marriage.

2. An excerpt ends with a very strange verse about Skobtsi, about eunuch.

Even, Skobc - a man deprived of the floor. Jesus distinguishes three classes of people. Some are incapable of sexual life as a result of physical disadvantage or deformity; Others were turned into eunuch people. Such customs seem to be strange people of Western civilization. In the East, the servants of the tsarist palaces often were covered, especially servants of the royal harem. Quite often, temple priests were also castrated, for example, the priests of the Temple of Diana in Ephesus.

And then Jesus says about those who have become eunuch for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Here Jesus meant those who are sake of the kingdom of God refuses the marriage and family and from physical love.

How can this happen? It happens that a person must choose between the call and human love heard. There is such a saying: "Faster traveling alone." A person may feel that he can work in the parish somewhere in the slums he can only one, because in those circumstances he can not be at home or family. Maybe he will feel the call to go by a missionary in such a place where he, with a sound reasoning, cannot take his wife with him, and even have children there. It may even be that he loves a man, and then the task that a person's beloved does not want to divide them. Then he must choose between human love and the task, to whom Christ calls on.

Thanks to God that such a choice does not often have to be a person; But there are such people who voluntarily accepted the vows chastity, celibacy, purity, poverty, abstinence and moderation. A simple person will not go through this way, but the world would have become the poorer if there were no those who obey the call and go to the path alone for the sake of doing the case of Christ.

Matthew 19,10-12(continued) marriage and divorce,

It would be wrong to leave this topic without making attempts to consider what kind of relation she has to the modern situation in the divorce issue.

From the very beginning, we can note that Jesus outlined here the principle, not the law.Make this statement of Jesus law, then misunderstanding it. In the Bible, we are not given laws,but principleswhich we must prayer and reasonably apply to each specific situation.

Regarding Saturdays in the Bible says: "Do not do in (day) no matter" (Ex. 20.10).We know that the complete cessation of work was not possible in any civilization. On the farm you still need to look after your cattle and feed it, and the cows need to milk, regardless of the day of the week. In the developed industrial society, some public services should work, because otherwise transport will stop, there will be no water, no light, no heat. In every house, especially where there are children, you always need to do something.

The principle should never be given as a final law; Principles should always be applied to a specific situation. And therefore it is impossible to solve the problem of the divorce, simply by quoting the words of Jesus. We must apply this principle for each individual case that we meet. And therefore you can highlight some points.

1. Without a doubt idealthe marriage should be an unbreaky union of two people and in such a marriage need to join, as in the absolute unity of two personalities, intended not only for the commission of one act, but aimed to make life brotherhood, in which everyone is satisfied, and one mutually complements the other. Here is the required basis from which we must come.

2. But life does not represent and can never represent a completely even and well-organized process. It comes to life something unexpected. Suppose that two entered the marriage relationship; Suppose they made it with the highest hopes and highest ideals, and then, let's say something unexpected and unpleasant, and the relationship, which should deliver the greatest joy, become unbearable hell on Earth. Suppose they called for help all possible to correct the disturbed position. Suppose you called a doctor for healing physical ailments, a psychiatrist - to heal the mental ailments, a priest, in order to eliminate all spiritual ailments, and the problem is still unhappy. Suppose that the physical, mental or state state of one of the spouses make marriage absolutely impossible, and let's say that it was possible to figure out this only after the conclusion of marriage should then have these two people to remain compounded together in a situation that can not give both nothing but unhappy life?

It is extremely difficult to imagine such reasoning to be called Christian; It is extremely painful to see Jesus, as a legitimate, condemn two people in this position. This does not mean that the divorce must be simplified, but this means that all physical, mental and spiritual possibilities have been exhausted in an attempt to make such a position that, however, remains unbearable and even dangerous, then such a position must be put an end, and the church, Not considering them completely hopeless, it must do everything possible in its power to help them. Apparently, only the Spirit of Christ can really manifest on this path.

3. But in this matter we are confronted with a completely tragic situation. After all, the law often does not have any respect to those things that destroy the marriage. Effective by passion and losing control over his own, a person violates the marriage, and then all his life is ashamed of the made and regrets him. It is incredible that he even once again in his life. The other is a model of high morality in society, which and think can not about married treasure, but his everyday sadistic cruelty, his everyday egoism and spiritual heartlessness makes hell for those who live with him and does it with a heartless payment.

It should be remembered that sins falling into newspapers and sins, the consequences of which are striking, are not necessarily worse sins in the eyes of God. Many men and women destroy their family and at the same time retain impeccable, high morality in the eyes of society.

So, in this matter we must show more sympathy than to condemn, because it is necessary to approach an unsuccessful marriage not so much with the standards of the law, as with love. In this case, it is necessary to protect the so-called right, but human hearts and soul. But, before entering the marriage relationship, it is necessary to pray for everything and show extreme care and caution; If the marriage faces collapse, it is necessary to mobilize all medical, psychological and spiritual resources to save it, but if there is something irreparable in it, then it is necessary to approach everything from the point of view of the law, but with understanding and love.

Matthew 19,13-15Jesus blesses children

Then the children were given to him, so that he laid his hands on them and prayed; The disciples also bought them.

But Jesus said: let the children and do not let them come to me, because there are the kingdom of heaven.

And, having laid hands on them, went from there.

It can be said that this is the most beautiful moment in all the evangelical history. All actors are visible clearly and distinctly, although the whole story takes only two verses.

1. Mothers led their children.

It is not surprising that they wished Jesus to lay hands on them and prayed, because they saw that these hands could do; They saw them touching their pain and healed diseases; They saw that these hands returned vision to blind eyes, and they wanted such hands to touch and their children. Only a few episodes show with such a clarity What of the beauty of Jesus's life. Those who led children could not know who Jesus was actually; They were well aware that Jesus did not use honor from Knitnikov and Pharisees, priests and Saddukeev, and at the heads of orthodox religion; But it had wonderful beauty.

The Hindu Premanand, who appeals in Christianity, was addressed above, leads the words of his mother. When Premanand accepted Christianity, his family was driving him, and the house doors were closed for him. But sometimes he still came to the seashest to see his mother. His adoption of Christianity broke her heart, but she did not cease to love him. She told Premanand that when she wore him in the womb, one missionary gave her the Gospel Book. She read them; This book was even still with her. She told her son that she had no desire to become a Christian, but in those previously preceding his birthdays she sometimes dreamed so that he would grow and become such a person like Jesus.

In Jesus Christ, there is a beauty that everyone can see. It is not difficult to imagine that these mothers felt in Palestine, although they did not understand why the touch of the hands of such a person to their children would bring them a blessing.

2. Pupils are presented as strict and coarse, but if it really was so, then this love made them such. They had one desire to express Jesus.

They saw him tired; They saw what the healing of people stands. He so often spoke about him about the cross, and they probably saw the tension of his hearts and souls on his face. They just wanted one thing - so that no one disturb Jesus; They could only think that at such a time, children could be a hindrance to Jesus. No need to consider that they were harsh, do not condemn them; They only wanted to guard Jesus from another such persistent requirement that demanded so much forces from him.

3. And this is Jesus himself. This story says so much about him.

He was one of those people who love children. Someone said that that person could not be a follower of Christ, whose doors are afraid to play children. Jesus, of course, was not a gloomy ascetic if children loved him.

4. Next, there were no minor people for Jesus. Others could say: "Yes, this is a child, let it do not care." Jesus could never say this. For him, no one has ever been a hindrance or someone unimportant. He was never too tired, too busy to refuse to give all her own who needed. Jesus is strangely different from many famous preachers and evangelists. It is often almost impossible to get to the reception to such a famous person. They have a kind of retinue or the Life Guard, which holds the public away, so that it does not make and did not bother a great man. Jesus was not at all like that. The road in his presence was opened to the most modest person and the smallest child.

5. And these are children. Jesus told them that they were closer to God than any of those present. Children's simplicity really god closer than anything else. The tragedy of life is just that, as we grow, we are so often distinguished from God, instead of approaching it.

Matthew 19,16-22 Renouncement

And so, someone, coming up, told him: Teacher of Good! What makes me good to have eternal life?

He told him: What do you call me good? No one is good as soon as one God. If you want to enter the eternal life, follow the commandment.

Tells him: what? Jesus said: Do not kill; Do not commit adultery; do not steal; not false witness;

read the father and mother; And: love your neighbor, like yourself.

The young man tells him: all this kept me from my youth; What still lacks me?

Jesus said to him: If you want to be perfect, go, sell your estate and distribute the poor; And you will have a treasure in heaven; And come and follow me.

Hearing the word Sie, the young man went with sadness, because he had a great estate.

This is one of the most famous and favorite evangelical stories. Interestingly in connection with it, as most of us, completely unconsciously, unite various details from different gospels to get a complete picture. It is usually called the story of a rich young man. All the Gospels say that the young man was richbecause in this salt of history. Only Matthew says he was young (Matt. 19.20),and Luka says still that he was from rulers (bow 18,18).I wonder how we, completely unconsciously, created themselves a complex image made up of elements of all three gospels (Matt. 19,16-22; map. 10,17-22; onions 18, -18-23).

In this story, one of the deepest lessons was taught, because in it we see the basis on which the difference between the right and false idea about what faith is.

The man who applied to Jesus was looking for himself eternal life.He was looking for happiness, satisfaction, peace with God. But the question itself gives it. He asks: "What doto me?" He argues in categories actions, actions.He is similar to the Pharisees, thinking about compliance with the rules and rules. He thinks about achieving a positive balance in relations with God by complying with the affairs of the law. It is clear that he has no idea about faith of mercy and grace. And because Jesus tries to bring him to the right look.

Jesus responds to him in his own expressions. He tells him to observe the commandments. The young man is interested in what the commandments mean Jesus, after which Jesus leads him five out of the ten commandments. In connection with the above-mentioned Commandments, two important points should be noted.

Firstly, these are the commandments from the second half of a dozen, in which it is not about our responsibilities towards God, but about our responsibilities towards people.These are the commandments regulating personal human relationsand our attitude towards our brethren.

Secondly, Jesus leads the commandments, not in the order established for them. The latter he leads the commandment to read the parents, while she should go first. It is quite obvious that Jesus wants to emphasize this commandment. Why? Maybe this young man got rich and made a career, and then I forgot about my parents, because they were poor. He, maybe came to people and sacked relatives in the old house, and then he could easily justify themselves, leading the principle cabban,who Jesus so mercilessly condemned (Matt. 15.1-6; map. 7,9-13).These passages show that the young man, even making it, may well assert the law that he observed all the commandments. In the commandments given by him, Jesus asks a young man, as he treated his fellows and to his parents, asks what his personal relationships. The young man replied that he observed the commandments and, nevertheless, he knew something he did not fulfill. And because Jesus said he to sell his estate, he distributed him to beggars and followed him.

There is another description of this event in the "Gospel of Jews" - one of the Gospels that did not enter the New Testament. In it we find very valuable additional information:

"One rich man told him:" Mentor, what good should I do to live? " He told him: "Perform the law and the prophets!" He replied to him: "I performed them." He told him: "Go, sell everything you have and distribute the poor and follow me." But the rich began to scratch his head and did not like it. And the Lord told him: "How do you say that I performed the law and the prophets when the law says:" Love your neighbor, like yourself "; And now, look, many of your brothers, the sons of Abraham, are dressed in rags, die from hunger, and your home has a lot of good things and not getting out of it. "

Here is the key to everything passage. The young man claimed that the law was observed. In the presentation of the laws, it may be so it was, but in the spiritual sense it was not true, because he was incorrectly related to his fellows; Ultimately, his behavior was completely egoistic. That is why Jesus called him to sell everything and hand out the poor and beggar. This man was so tied to his property, which could only help in this, so to speak, surgical clipping. If a person believes that his property is given to him only for his comfort and convenience, this property is the chains that need to be broken; If a person sees in his property tool to help others, then it is his crown.

The Great Truth of this passage is that it covers the meaning of eternal life. Eternal life is the life that God himself lives. In the Greek Original eternal -this is ionios,which does not mean only lasting forever;it means like God, to God, belonging to God or distinguishing, characterizing God. The great feature of God lies in the fact that he loves so much and so generously gives love. And therefore the eternal life is not a diligent and calculated fulfillment of the commandments, rules and norms; The eternal life is based on a kind and sacrificial generosity to our brethren. If we are destined to find the life of eternal, if we are destined to gain happiness, joy, peace of mind and heart, it is not accumulated by a positive balance in relations with God, not the fulfillment of the law and compliance with the norms and rules, but by the manifestation of God's love and concern for raising. Follow Christ and serve the merciful and generous to people for whom Christ died is the same thing.

In the end, the young man was saddened. He did not accept the proposal given to him, because he had a great estate. The tragedy was that he loved things more than people, and he loved himself more than others. Each person who puts things above people, and itself above others, drawn back to Jesus Christ.

Matthew 19,23-26Danger in wealth

Jesus said to his disciples: True I tell you that it is difficult to enter the kingdom of heaven, it is hard to enter the kingdom of heaven;

and I also tell you: It is more convenient to pass through the needle ears, rather than rich in the kingdom of God.

Hearing this, his disciples were very amazed and said: So who can escape?

And Jesus, the rest, told them: It's impossible for people to people, God is everything.

The story of the rich young man sheds the bright and tragic light on the dangers that robes with them. Before us, a person who has refused from the Great Way, because he had a great estate. And Jesus further emphasizes this danger. "It's hard," he said, "to enter the kingdom of heaven rich in the kingdom."

To demonstrate the degree of difficulty, he used a bright comparison. Jesus told a rich man, it is also difficult to enter the kingdom of heaven, as a camel to pass through the needle ear. There were various interpretations drawn by Jesus paintings. The camel was the biggest of famous animal Jews. It is reported that sometimes there were two gates in the urban walls: some big, the main gate, through which all movement passed and all trade, and nearby are small, low and narrow doors. When at night, the big main gates were closed and guarded, it was possible to get into the city only through the small gate, through which he could hardly go through, not bent, adult man. It is said that sometimes these little gates were called "needle ear". And therefore it is suggested that Jesus said that the rich is as hard to enter the kingdom of God, as a camel to enter the city through the small gate, through which a person could hardly squeeze.

But, most likely that Jesus used this picture in the right sense, and that he really wanted to say that a rich man is also difficult to enter the kingdom of God, as a camel go through the needle ear. What then is this difficulty? Wealth has a three-way effect on the point of view of a person.

1. Wealth gives man a false sense of independence.When a person has all the benefits of this world, he easily inspires himself that he can cope with any situation.

We see a vivid example of such a relationship in a letter to the Laodician church in Revelation. Laodicia was the richest city in Malaya Asia. It was destroyed and devastated by an earthquake. In 60, the Roman government offered assistance and a large cash loan for the repair of destroyed buildings. Lodicia refused the proposed assistance, stating that it was completely able to cope with the situation herself. "Laodicia," the Roman historian Tacitus wrote, "the ruins rebelled exclusively on its own forces and without any help from us." The resurrected Christ hears how Laodicia says: "I am rich, rich and never have anything" (Rev. 3.17).

It is said that every person has its price. A rich man may think that everything has its price and, if he really wants something, he can buy it; If it falls into a difficult position, then you can buy a way out of it with money. He may even think that he can buy his happiness and boot from the seals. And therefore such a person may assume that he will cost without God and can arrange his life himself. But the time comes when a person realizes that it was an illusion that there are things that can not be bought for money, and that there are things from which money cannot save him.

2. Wealth attracts man to this world."Where is your treasure," said Jesus, - there will be your heart " (Matt. 6,21).If the desires of a person are limited to this world, if all of his interests are here, he never thinks about another world and about the future. If a person has a very large proportion on Earth, he may well forget that somewhere there are heavens. After examining the luxurious palace and located around the estate, Samyel Johnson (1709-1784) said: "Because of such things, a person is difficult to die." A person may well be so interested in the worldly, which forgets about heaven, so busy visible that she forgets about invisible. This is the tragedy, because visible is transient, and invisible - forever.

3. Wealth usually makes man egoist.As far as a lot of people, it is, such a human nature that he wants even more, for, as someone said: "Enough is always a little more than a person there is." In addition, if a person has comfort and luxury, he is always afraid that the day will come, when he will lose all this, and life becomes a tense and painful struggle for keeping all this. And therefore, when a person becomes rich, instead of feeling the need to give, he begins to grab and cling to his good. He instinctively tries to accumulate more and more, for his safety and reliability.

But Jesus did not say that the rich impossiblelog in the kingdom of God. Zakhey was one of the richest people in Jericho, and yet, quite unexpectedly, he found a way to the kingdom of God (Bow. 19.9).Joseph from Arimafia was a rich man (Matt. 27.57).Nicodemus, too, should be very rich, because it brought the composition from Smyrna and Aloe to embalm Body Jesus (John 19, -39).It does not mean that everyone who has wealth and estate will not fall into the kingdom of heaven. This does not mean that wealth is sin; But it is in danger. The basis of Christianity is a strong feeling of need; And when a person has many things on Earth, he threatens the danger to forget God; When a person has a need, she will not rarely lead him to God, because he has no more to go.

Matthew 19.27-30Wise answer to an inappropriate question

Then Peter, answering, told him: Here, we left everything and followed you; What will be to us?

Jesus said to them: True I tell you that you followed by me - in the package, when the Son of Human is sitting on the throne of His glory, you will sit on the twelve thrones to judge the twelve knees of Israel.

And anyone who leaves houses, or brothers, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or land, for the sake of my name, will get a hundred times and inherit eternal life.

Many will be the first last, and the last first.

Jesus could easily respond to an impatient reproach to Peter's question. In a sense, this question was inappropriate. Roughly speaking, Peter asked: "What do we get for what followed by you?" Jesus could answer that everyone next to him with such thoughts, does not understand what it means to follow him. But still it was a completely natural question. True, in the next, then the parable hears reproach for this, but Jesus did not scold Peter. He accepted his question and, based on it, outlined the three great truths of Christian life.

1. The truth is that anyone who shares his struggle with Jesus will divide him and his victory. When conducting hostilities, after the end of battles, people often forgot the simple soldiers who participated in the battles and mined victory. Very often, people who fought for the creation of a country inwhich should live her heroes, saw that in this country their heroes died with hunger. But this is not waiting for those who fight with Jesus Christ. Who shares the battle with Christ, shares him and his victory; And the one who carries the cross will wear a crown.

2. It is always fair that the Christian will get much more than he came or sacrificed; But he will receive not new material benefits, but a new community, human and heavenly.

When a person becomes a Christian, he is part of a new humancommunity; If there is a Christian church in a certain place, a Christian can always have friends. If his decision to become a Christian led to the fact that he lost his former friends, then it simultaneously means that he entered a wider range of friends than he had ever had before. True, it should also be that there is hardly such a city or such a village, wherever the Christian was alone, for where there is a church, there is a fraternity in which he has the right to join. Maybe in a foreign city of the Christian will be too shy to join it, as it applies to him, it may also be that the church in the place where this alien lives, has become too closed to reveal his arms and doors to reveal him. But when the Christian ideal is embodied in life, there is no such place in the world, where there is a Christian church, where a separate Christian was alone and without friends. Become a Christian - it means to join the brotherhood that applies to the whole world.

Next, when a person becomes a Christian, he joins new heavencommunity. He comes into possession of eternal life. With all the rest, a Christian can be separated, but he can never be separated from God's love in Jesus Christ, his Lord.

3. And finally, Jesus declares that surrises are expected in the final assessment of people. God judges people not according to human standards, because God sees and reads what is in the heart of the human. In the new world there will be a revision of the old world; In eternity, incorrect judgments of time will be corrected. And it may be so that humble and imperceptible people will be great in heaven on Earth, and the great world of this will be modest and the last in the world upcoming.

Again, the Lord comes in Judea, so that unbelievored from the people of Jews did not have an excuse to justify themselves by the fact that he visited them less often Galilean. For the same reason for the teachings, at the end of the conversation, wonders follow again. For we should learn and do. But the reckless Pharisees, when to them, at the sight of the signs, should be assumed, tempting him. Listen:

And I start up by the Fariser tempting him, and the verb to him: Does it take to a person to leave his wife for any fault? Having reacted with them: Does it be worn, I can be causing an encouraging, the masculine sex and female do I have? And RECEFT: This will leave the father of his father's father and Mother: and go to his wife, and Buda is both in the flesh. Jike it's so that there is two, but the flesh is one: I am a worm of God, the man does not separate.

About madness Jews! These questions they thought to score the mouth of Christ. It was if he said that it would be allowed to divorce with his wife for any reason, it would be objected to him: how did you (before) said that no one should divorce, isn't it with the adulterial wife? And if I said that it would be unable to divorce with my wives at all, then it would be caught in contradiction, Moses, who ordered a hated wife and without a faithful reason. What is Christ? It shows that the creator from the very beginning legalized the onlyness. He at the very beginning combined her husband with his wife himself; Therefore, there should be no one husband to be combined with many wives, not a single wife with many husbands, but as first they were conjugate, and should remain, without breaking the cohabitation without a valid reason. With this, so as not to irritate the Pharisees, did not say: I created the masculine sex and female, but said vaguely: Coperty. Further God is pleased that they, by conjugation, lived so inextricably, which allowed them to leave parents and pin down each other. Question: How in the book of being it is written that words: this will leave the father of his father and Mother - said Adam, and Christ says here that God himself said: some will leave the father of his father and Mother and get to his wife? Answer: And what Adam said, he said on the suggestion of God, so the word Adamovo is the Word of God. If they (Adam and Eve) became the same flesh, the former is connected through copulation and naturally love; It is also indecent to dissolve legitimate spouses, how to dissect your own flesh. So as not to outrage (Pharisees), the Lord did not say - yes it does not separate Moses, but in general - human, meaning in this way (immeasurable) distance between the combining God and a terminating person.

Glablasha Him: What's the work of Moses Moses Data Datty, and let go? The verb to them, Yako Moses on the clarity of your presen of your wife, your wife: From the beginning it is not to be like that. The verb is also to you, Yako, it will let his wife, unless the word committed, and marries the forelane, the adulteries are creating: and marry Putchinice, the adultery of deets.

Pharisees, seeing that the Lord stoleed their mouths, came to the difficulty, and point to Moses, as if the contrary to Christ, and they say: how did Moses give a book to give a book and let go of his wife? Therefore, the Lord, reversing any accusation of their head, justifies Moses and says: Moses gave such a law not at the request to contradict God, but according to your cruel, so that you want to marry with other wives, in our cruelty, did not destroy the first wives. In fact, being cruel, they would kill their wives if Moses had forced them not to let them down from themselves. Therefore, he led to give wives, hated his husbands, the book is divorced. And I, continues the Lord, I tell you that it is well let the wife of his wife, like the adultery, but if someone rhines who did not see the victim, he was guilty, if it was made by the adultery. Take into account the following: pilting the Lord of the One Spirit with the Lord (1 Cor.5: 17); And in sees there is a kind of combining the believer with Christ. For we all pretended to be a body with him and make up the members of Christ. If so, no one has the right to separate from this Union, according to Paul, who says: who will give us away from Lyuba of Christ (Rome.8: 35)? For, that God combined, he could not separate, as Paul says, nor a person, nor another creature, nor angels, nor began nor power (Rom.8: 36 -39).

The disciples were embarrassed and said: if (husband and wife) are conjugate in order to be uniform and remained not dissolved for life, so the wife, if it does not commit adultery, should not be expelled, although it was and evil; That is not good to marry. It is better not to marry and fight natural lusts than to take and endure the evil wife. WINE OF HUMAN WITH WOMAN Call an indisputable union of them. Some understand it like this: thickel wines man, - That is, if a person who illegally distinguishes his wife is subject to fault or condemnation; That is better not to marry.

The stupid said that it was better not to marry, then the Lord in response says that although there is a great deal of magazine, but it can not be kept all, but only those who give God: the word - given it - It is here instead of - "God promotes." Given those who are asked from the heart, for it is said: ask and let you, all of the bo.

The feat of Naughty, says there is a lot of not many. There are scratches from the womb of Motherney, that is, people who are naturally attracted to the copulation (with their wives), but their chastity does not benefit them. There are those who are covered by people. The sharpening themselves, the essence of God, are not those who cut down members, because it is criminal, but those who refrain. Understand and so: there is a slaughterhouse from nature, that is, as described above, according to natural addition, not inclined to ugrasture. Possible from people there is one who removes from itself the dismissal of the carnal lust of the human instruction. Finally, the decoration itself is the one who is not for someone else, but in its own arrangement, voluntarily decided on the feud chastity. Such is very good, because he is independent of others, and himself arbitrarily joins the kingdom of heavenly. Wanting, so that we voluntarily laugh in virtues (Nity), the Lord says: mojogi is accommodated. Thus, he does not force to the virgin, marriage does not rebel, but the lament is preferred.

Mothers brought children to him, but through the laying on hands bless them. But as they approached randomly and noisy, therefore the disciples and they were bought to them, and together and because they thought if the advantage of their teacher was unused by what they bring children to him. But Christ, wanting to show that he loves the kind of kind, forbids them, and says: leave children, so much the kingdom of heaven. Did not say - it is, but - such, that is, simple, alien malice and lucavia. Therefore, if now to which teacher come with children's issues, he should not send them from himself, but take.

This approached, not as the tempting, but as the desired instruction and thirsty of the eternal abdomen. But walked to Christ, not as God, but as a simple person. Therefore, the Lord says: what is the wrong good good? Niktegro Good, Tokmo is God, That is, if you call me good, as an ordinary teacher, then you call something wrong: because none of the people are not the best in itself. This is first because we are usually changeable, we turn to the evil; Secondly, because human kindness in comparison with the goodness of God is thin.

Is it somehow chosen in the stomach, keep the commandment. Verb to him: cue? Jesus is spectable: hedgehog, do not be killed: no prefertility coordinates are not stiffening: not false witness: honor father and mother: and love your sincerenyago yours myself.

The Lord refers to the law questioned to the commandments, so that Jews did not say that he despises the law. What?

Some condemn the young man as a person's boastful and vain. How did he say, fulfilled the commandment of love for her neighbor when he was rich? Nobody, loving the near, like himself, can not be the richest of the near; And every person is near. Then many have suffered hunger and were without clothes; If he had been gracious, he would not be rich.

What have you been observed, according to your words, then says, observed on Jewish. If you want to be perfect, that is, my student and a Christian; then come, sell the estate and immediately distribute everything suddenly, without holding anything, even under the pretext to serve a permanent alms. Did not say - let's be the poor (that is, gradually), but - give suddenly, and stay without everything. Over the wrong cast, feeding alms, lead a life performed by any uncleanness, "says: and ridges in the trail, that is, get all the other virtue. But the young man was saddened. For, although he wanted, and the soil of his heart was deep and fat, but her thorns of wealth were arrested: be bo, says evangelist, having tie a lot. Who has no much, he is not much associated with wealth, but great wealth imposes the steady bonds. Further, the Lord spoke to the rich, then I fisched: you will have a treasure in heaven, for he loved the treasure.

Rich will not enter the kingdom of heaven, while rich and has an excess one, meanwhile, as others do not have the necessary. And when he refuses everything, then he is no longer rich, and will continue to enter the kingdom of heaven; Having a lot of not possible to enter it just as a camel pass through the needle ears. Look, above said, it is difficult to enter, but here - that is not possible. Some under the camel do not mean an animal, but a thick rope, used by ships when throwing anchors to strengthen the ship.

Pody's human-loving students are not asked for themselves, for they themselves were poor, but for other people. The Lord teaches to measure the case of salvation, not a human, but - the power of God. And with the help of God, who will begin to be an incubatory, he will have time and in order to cut off excessive; And then it comes to the fact that it will be denying himself and in the necessary, and thus (with the same assistance of God) will be engaged and will receive the kingdom of heaven.

Although Peter, as a poor man, apparently, did not leave anything more, but know that in fact and he left a lot. We are people - usually and for a little kept firmly, and Peter, in addition, left all the worldly pleasures and the most love of parents, refused the affinations, from friends and even from their will. And nothing is so nice for a person, like his will. However, all the meaning passions rebel not only on the rich, but also on the poor. - What is the Lord?

Care really sit down, as the Lord says? Not. In the manner is only the advantage of honor. But Judah, who was there, together with others, will sit down, when the Lord said these words? There is also no: for it is said about those who resolutely followed Christ, that is, to the end, and Judas did not follow him to the end. God often promises the benefits worthy; But when they change and become unworthy, take these benefits from them. In a similar way, he comes with dismissed; Often threatens them, but does not send trouble, as soon as they change. Under cabinet Reason immortality.

So that someone did not think that the above applies to one students, the Lord spreads his promise at all creating similar to what the disciples worked. And they, instead of affixes in the flesh, will have property and fraternity with God, instead of fields - paradise, instead of stone houses - Gorenia Jerusalem, instead of the Father - Elders of Church, instead of Mothers - church old men, instead of his wife - all loyal wives, not in the marriage No, no, but in the relationship of spiritual, in spiritual love and care about them. However, the Lord is not easy, not without reason, tells to separate from home, but then when they impede piety. As well as when he commands having to wave a soul and body, it should not be killed by himself, but what should not spare themselves to comply with the faith of Christ when they require the circumstance. When Mark (MK.10: 30), when he says that he will receive an excess in the current century; This is necessary to dispose of spiritual dating, which are incomparably above the earth and serve as the key to future benefits. These dating are in great honor, so that all people respectfully ask their prayers in order to receive the Divine grace for them. Note also that God, as good, gives not only what is left by us, but - attaches to this eternal life. Try and you sell your estate and challenge. And the estate of an amphibious anger, his adulterate appearance, in a malicious - monosalobia, and other passions. And so sell and give the poor, that is, we have no good demons, throw your passion to the perpetrators of passions, demons, and then you will have a treasure, that is, Christ in the sky, in the sky, that is, your mind. For who is predicted as heavenly, he has the sky in itself.

Comment to the book

Comment to the section

1-2 Spring of the last year of his earthly life, Christ spent in the cities of Zaindanya (cf In 10:40.; In 11:54.).

3 cm Matt 5:32.

11 Genuine Christian Marriage Ideal is not available to everyone.

12 "Made themselves with the scratches"- in a moral sense, observing voluntarily celibacy and abstinence for the kingdom of heaven.

17 For an opportunity, Jesus was only a person; Therefore, he rejects an overly respectful appeal, approved only towards God.

20 In the apocryphaic gospel of Nazoriev, Christ adds: "How can you speak, what did the law and the prophets? After all, the law says:" Love the nearby, like yourself, "and here are a lot of your brothers, children of abraham, dress up in miserable raches and Dying from hunger, and your house will break away from wealth, from where nothing comes to them. "

21 Jesus offered the young man to distribute the property because he commanded everyone to do so (among his followers were wealthy people), but because he wanted to make him his student. To establish the kingdom, Christ needs followers that fully dedicate themselves to the preaching of the Gospel; To do this, they must donate from earthly affections ( MF 18:12) and from the world's world ( MF 8: 19-20).

24 "More convenient camel to pass through the needle ears"- This figurative expression was used in many eastern peoples to designate difficult to be feasible. A person tied to earthly benefits is extremely difficult to enter the kingdom of heaven.

25-26 Christ already talked about the need to be free from attachment to any treasure ( MF 6:21). Even the poor can be attached to what he has, and it can enslave it.

"So who can escape?"The answer of Christ shows that internal freedom is achieved only with the help of God.

27 "What will be to us?"The disciples were still in the power of false ideas about the Messianic kingdom and hoped for some privileges.

28 "in the package" - in the revival, in the new life of the future century, the beginning of which Christ put his resurrection. In this life, the apostles will not receive the privileges, but will become ancestor of the updated Israel, the church.

The first 30 in the eyes of the people (for example, leaders and teachers of the people) in the kingdom of God will be the last, and rejected and despised - the first. Human estimates and the court of God are incommensurable (cf MF 22:14Where is the verse MF 19:30probably borrowed).

1. The evangelist Matthew (which means "the gift of God") belonged to the number of twelve apostles (Matt 10: 3; MK 3:18; LK 6:15; Dean 1:13). LK (LK 5:27) calls him Leviem, and MK (MK 2:14) - Leviem Alfheyev, i.e. The son of Alfeya: It is known that some Jews wore two names (eg, Joseph Varnava or Joseph Kaiaf). Matthew was a collector duties (Mytarem) on Capernaum customs, located near the shore of the Galilee Sea (MK 2: 13-14). Apparently, he was not in the service not at the Romans, but the tetrarch (ruler) of Galilee is Herod Antipa. Matthew's profession demanded that he knows the knowledge of the Greek. The future evangelist is depicted in Scripture as a sociable person: many friends gathered in his capernaum house. This is exhausted by the data of the New Testament about the person, whose name is in the title of the first Gospel. According to legend, after the ascension of Jesus Christ, he preached the good news by Jews in Palestine.

2. About 120 g. The student of the apostle John Papia Ierapolsky testifies: "Matthew recorded the gentlemen of the Lord (Kiriaku logic) in Jewish language (under the Jewish language, the Aramaic adverb should be understood here, but who translated them as he could" (Eustian, Church. History, III.39). The term logging (and the corresponding Jers. Dibrey) means not only a saying, but also events. Pope message repeats OK. 170 g. Irina Lyon, stressing that the evangelist wrote for Christians from Jews (against Yerezi. III.1.1.). Historian Evsevius (IV century) writes that "Matthew, preaching first by Jews, and then, reimbursed to go to others, outlined in the domestic language the gospel, known under his name" (church. History, III.24). According to the majority of modern researchers, this Aramaic Gospel (Logia) appeared between the 40s and 50s. Probably, the first records Matthew did yet when accompanied the Lord.

The initial Aramaic text of the Gospel of Matt is lost. We have only Greek. Translation made, apparently between the 70s and 80s. His antiquity is confirmed by the reference in the creations of "apostolic husbands" (St. Clement Roman, St. Ignatius Godproop, St. Polycarp). Historians believe that Greek. Ev. From MF arose in Antioch, where, along with the Christians-Jews, large groups of Christians from the pagans appeared for the first time.

3. Text of ev. From MF indicates that his author was a Palestinian Jew. He is well acquainted with vz, with geography, history and customs of his people. His ev. It is closely connected with the tradition of the CZ: in particular, he constantly indicates the execution of the prophecies in the life of the Lord.

Matt is more often about the church. He pays conscientious attention to the issue of treating pagans. From the prophets of the MF cutes Isaiah (21 times). In the center of theology, Matt is the concept of the kingdom of God (which he in harmony with the Jewish tradition usually calls the kingdom of heaven). It is in the sky, and in this world comes in the face of the Messiah. The Blagovests of the Lord is the governing about the mystery of the kingdom (MF 13:11). It means the welling of God among people. At first, the kingdom is present in the world "Incomprehending," and only at the end of times it will be revealed. The offensive of the kingdom of God was predicted in the vg and implemented in Jesus Christ as the Messiah. Therefore, MF often calls his son Davidov (one of the messianic titles).

4. MF: 1. Prologue. Birth and childhood of Christ (MF 1-2); 2. Baptism of the Lord and the beginning of the sermon (MF 3-4); 3. Nagorny sermon (MF 5-7); 4. The ministry of Christ in Galilee. Wonders. Adopted and rejected it (MF 8-18); 5. Path in Jerusalem (MF 19-25); 6. Passion. Resurrection (MF 26-28).

Introduction to the books of the New Testament

The Holy Scripture of the New Testament was written in Greek, with the exception of the Gospel of Matthew, which, according to legend, was written in ancient European or Aramaic. But since this Hebrew text has not been preserved, the Greek text is considered a script and for the Gospel of Matthew. Thus, only the Greek text of the New Testament is a script, and numerous editions in different modern languages \u200b\u200bof the whole world are translating from the Greek script.

The Greek language, which was written by the New Testament, was no longer a classic ancient Greek language and was not, as previously thought, a special New Testament. This is the conversational day-to-day language of the first century on R.Kh., spreading in the Greek-Roman world and known in science called "κοινη", i.e. "Normal adverb"; Yet style, and speech turnover, and the image of the thoughts of the Sacred Writers of the New Testament discover the Hebrew or Aramaic influence.

The authentic text of the NZ reached us in a large number of ancient manuscripts, more or less complete, with a number of about 5,000 (from the 2nd to the 16th century). Until recent years, the most ancient of them did not go further than the 4th century NO P.X. But recently there were many fragments of the ancient manuscripts of the NZ on the papyrus (3rd and even 2nd c). So for example, manuscripts of Boder: EB from Ying, Lk, 1 and 2 Peter, Juda - were found and published in the 60s of our century. In addition to Greek manuscripts, we have an ancient translations or versions of Latin, Syrian, Coptic, etc. Languages \u200b\u200b(Vetus Itala, Peshitto, Vulgata, etc.), of which the most ancients existed from the 2nd century on R.H.

Finally, numerous quotes of the fathers of the Church in Greek and other languages \u200b\u200bare preserved in such a number that if the text of the New Testament was lost and all ancient manuscripts were destroyed, then experts could restore this text on quotations from the creations of the Holy Fathers. All this abundant material makes it possible to check and clarify the text of the NC and classify its various forms (so-called textual criticism). Compared to any ancient author (Homer, Eurypid, Eshil, Sophocl, Cornelia Noglia, Yulia Caesar, Hoodie, Vergilia, etc.) Our modern - Printed - Greek text NZ is in an exceptionally favorable position. And by the number of manuscripts, and in short, separating the oldest of them from the original, and by the number of translations, and by their antiquity, and seriousness and the volume of critical work carried out on the text, it exceeds all other texts (for details, see "Hiding Treasures and New Life, Archaeological Opening and Gospel, Bruges, 1959, Page 34 Slal). The text of the NZ is generally fixed completely irrefutable.

The new covenant consists of 27 books. Publishers are divided into 260 heads of unequal length to invest links and quotes. In the original text of this unit there. Modern division on the heads in the New Testament, as in the whole Bible, was often attributed to Dominican Guard Cardinal Gogo (1263), which developed it, making up a symphony to Latin Vulgate, but now thinking with a great reason that this unit goes back to the Archbishop of Canterbury Stefan Langton, deceased in 1228. As for the unit to the poems, adopted now in all publications of the New Testament, it goes back to the publisher of Greek New Testament Text, Robert Stefan, and it was introduced to him in its publication in 1551.

The Sacred Books of the New Testament is commonly used to divide on the legitimate (four-day), historical (Acts of Apostles), the teacher (seven Cathedral Messages and fourteen messages of the Apostle Paul) and the prophetic: apocalypse or the revelation of Ev John the Bogoslov (see St. Catechism Svet. Filaret Moscow).

However, modern specialists consider such a distribution to obsolete: in fact, all the books of the New Testament - both the legislative, and historical and teacher, and the prophecy is not only in the apocalypse. New Testament science pays great attention to the accurate establishment of the chronology of evangelical and other New Testament events. Scientific chronology allows the reader with sufficient accuracy to follow the new Testament of the life and service of the Lord of our Jesus Christ, the Apostles and the original church (see Apartment).

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

1) Three so-called synoptic gospels: Matthew, Brand, Luke and, separately, fourth: Gospel from John. New Testament science pays a lot of attention to the study of the relationship between the three first gospels and their relationship to the Gospel of John (synoptic problem).

2) The book of the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistle of the Apostle Paul ("Corpus Paulinum"), which are usually divided into:

a) Early posts: 1st and 2nd to thesalonians.

b) big messages: to Galatians, 1st and 2nd to Corinthians, to the Romans.

c) Messages from UZ, i.e. Written from Rome, where ap. Paul was in conclusion: to the Philippians, to Colossians, to Ephesians, to Filimon.

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

e) Message to the Jews.

3) Cathedral messages ("Corpus Catholicum").

4) Revelation of John the Bogoslov. (Ineigda in the NZ allocate "Corpus Joannicum", i.e. everything that has written AP for a comparative study of its Gospel in connection with his messages and book Open).

Four-Genuine

1. The word "gospel" (ευανγελιον) in Greek means "joyful news." So the Lord my Jesus Christ himself called my teachings (MF 24:14; MF 26:13; MK 1:15; MK 13:10; MK 14: 9; MK 16:15). Therefore, for us the "Gospel" is inextricably linked to it: it is "good news" about salvation, given to the world through the incarnate son of God.

Christ and his apostles preached the gospel without recording it. By the middle of the 1st century, this preaching was fixed by the church in a resistant oral tradition. Eastern custom remembered by heart of sayings, stories and even large texts helped Christians of the Apostolic era accurately preserve an unwritten proe element. After the 50s, when the eyewitnesses of the earthly ministry of Christ became one after another to leave lives, the need arose to record gospel (LK 1: 1). Thus, the "gospel" began to designate the narration of the life and teaching of the Savior to the apostles. It was read at prayer meetings and when preparing people to baptism.

2. The most important Christian centers of the 1st century (Jerusalem, Antioch, Rome, Ephesus, and others) had their own gospels. Of these, only four (MF, MK, LC, IN) are recognized by the Church of Bogovnovnnaya, i.e. Written under the direct influence of the Holy Spirit. They are called "Matthew", "from Mark", etc. (Greek. "Kata" corresponds to Rus. "According to Matthew", "according to the brand", etc.), for the life and teaching of Christ are outlined in these books by these four sacred-writers. Their gospels were not reduced to one book, which made it possible to see the evangelical history from various points of view. In the 2nd century St. Irina Lyon calls evangelists by name and indicates their gospels as the only canonical (against Yeresy 2, 28, 2). The contemporary of Europe Irinea Tatian took the first attempt to create a single gospel narration, composed of various texts of four Gospels, Diathrower, i.e. "Gospel of four".

3. The apostles did not set themselves the goal of creating historical work in the current sense of the word. They sought to spread the teachings of Jesus Christ, helped people to believe in him, correctly understand and fulfill his commandments. The evangelical testimonies do not coincide in all details, which proves their independence from each other: eyewitness testimonies are always individual painting. The Holy Spirit certifies the accuracy of the details of the facts described in the Gospel, and the spiritual meaning consisting in them.

Ensuring evangelists encountered in the presentation are due to the fact that God provided to the priests of complete freedom in the transfer of certain specific facts in relation to different categories of listeners, which further emphasizes the unity of the meaning and orientation of all four gospels (see also General Introduction, Page 13 and 14) .

Hide

Comment on the current passage

Comment to the book

Comment to the section

1 (MK 10: 1; LK 9:51; Ying 7:10) Can, indeed, these three places serve parallel MF 19: 1 This, of course, serves only the subject of guesses. Speech of weather forecasters is characterized here by such a briefness, which is difficult to assert positively, whether, in particular, their testimony coincide with Ying 7:10 . But if such a coincidence can be recognized, then it will be introduced as follows. Matthew misses the story In 7: 2-9 (The invitation of Christ to his brothers to go to Jerusalem for a holiday). Originally Christ, by John, refused to travel. But when his brothers went to Jerusalem, he came there for a holiday (bunch) not clearly, but as if secret. Think that this is the journey and says MF 19: 1 and MK 10: 1 . Then John is a story about the stay of Christ for the feast of the Holiday ( In 7: 11-53), a woman shown in adultery ( In 8: 1-11), conversation with Jews ( Ying 8: 12-59), the healing of the elbow ( In 9: 1-41), good shepherd ( In 10: 1-18), the distribution between Jews about the identity of Christ and their intention to kill him ( In 10: 19-39). The further words of John "and went again for Jordan, to the place where John baptized before, and remained there" ( In 10:40.) may coincide with MK 10: 1 καὶ πέραν του̃ ’Ιορδάνου (Literally: "For Jordan"). Here John, so to speak, interrupting the speech of weather forecasters Ying 7: 2-10: 40 , in turn, is interrupted by them, and it is the story LK 9:51 with which the last part may coincide MF 19: 1 . At Luka B. LC 9: 51-62 It is told about the intention of Christ to go to Jerusalem through Samaria, the refusal of Samaryan to accept it and then about two rarers who wanted to follow him; Then, about the embassy 70 students and their return ( 10:1-24 ), merciful Samaryanin ( 10:25-37 ), visiting Martha and Mary, and outlines other parables and events ( 10:38-16:17 ) with small inserts in Matthew, Mark and John (eg, In 11: 1-16). Only then begins a parallel story of preferably the first two evangelists, again interrupted by long inserts LK 14: 18-18: 14 and In 11: 17-54 .

From what we can see that MF 19: 1,2 There is a designation of complex events very brief and compressed, and therefore it is very obscure, first of all, because of its short. Words "When Jesus graduated from the words of this, then left Galilee" although they do not serve, as in general, the Matthew, the exact designation of time, can be delivered in the nearest attitude towards the parable of the parable about the evil slave. As for further expressions placed in 1 verse, they are so dark that they are difficult not only to interpret correctly, but even correctly translate. In Greek, somewhat different than in Russian translation, letters: "came to the limits of Judah for Jordan." The difficulty is to understand these words, in the sense of whether Jesus Christ entered the most Judea, or that he was just approaching her. If it was, then why it is said: "For Jordan"? Does this mean that Judah, being on the western side of Jordan, stretched east of this river, - according to, of course, the Evangelist himself? Or maybe the evangelist when he wrote his gospel, he himself was or lived on the eastern side of Jordan and the expression "for Jordan" wanted only to designate the most lying "for Jordan", Judea. These questions were still ordered Origen, and he gave them an answer as unclear as in the Gospel: "It came to (ἐἐί instead of εἰς, that is, otherwise than the Matthew) the limits of Judea, not in the middle ( οὐκ ἐπί τὰ μέσα ), but as if to the edge of it. " Zlatoust is similar to Origen: " in the most Jerusalem is not even, but visits only the limits of Jewish" The newest interpretors unanimously argue that Perey and Judea had various countries, and some are inclined so to see here in the words of the evangelist just a geographical mistake meaning that Jesus Christ "came to the Zaioradan region of Jews." But historically, it is possible to establish with enough accuracy that the region of the Jews did not extend to the east for Jordan and that the latter was the border between Judah and the Zairadan region, which was called reinstalling. The expression "for Jordan" ( πέραν του̃ ’Ιορδάνου ) maybe therefore serve as a definition of the words "within the limits of the Jewish"; i.e. does not mean "the limits of the Jewish Zaitransky". On this basis, it is assumed that "for Jordan" refers simply to the word came (ἠλθεν), and in order to better understand the speech of the evangelist, you need to position the words otherwise than it is exactly: "I came for Jordan (I went on the other side of Jordan) Jewish. " The meaning, therefore, will be exactly the one that is expressed in Russian translation. Similar expression MK 10: 1 (At the limits of Jews and for Jordan), this interpretation does not contradict. As for the expression "at the limits of Jewish", then you can agree with both ancient and new interpreters that it does not mean "in the most Jew." The essence of the case is simply that instead of a trip to Judea through Samaria, that is, on a shorter and usual way, the Savior went there through I I. It was not hasty, but slow approach to Jerusalem ( 20:17,29 ; 21:1 ).

3 (MK 10: 2) For the reasons why Pharisees approached Jesus Christ now and suggested that it is just such a question, neither Matthew nor Mark clearly does not indicate. But it is possible to observe that, according to evangelists, such performances were the result of more and more developing hostility to Christ. Now it clearly indicates the word "temptation" used by both evangelists (πειάάοοοοοςς), indicating the desire of the Pharisees to catch Christ, put it in a difficult position, especially before his simple listeners, to undermine confidence in him in order to make it easier to achieve its goal - to get rid of him even With the help of murder. We know that Christ has repeatedly exposed these tricks of their enemies with his answers. But his enemies not only have not been held from new speeches against him, and all the evil and evil became. "Such," says Zlatoust, - anger and such an envy - shameless and dangling; Although they will reflect it a thousand times, she again will attack the same time!"Pharisees wanted to tempt Christ with the help of the so-called" horned "(Cornutus) Silogism. If he had said that it would be possible to divorce his wife for any reason and to take other wives to himself, it would have to learn what was opposed to common sense, or, as Jerome, "Shame" ( puditiae Praedicator Sibi Videbitur Docere Contraria). If the Savior would answer that it would be possible to divorce for any reason, then it would be guilty of as if in the sacrence ( quasi Sacrilegii Reus Tenebitur - Jerome) and would speak against the teachings of Moses, or better, against the teachings given by God by God through Moses. Feofilak spokes up somewhat clearer than hieronim; There is a similar opinion and Eviefmy Zigabena. Both of them pay attention to the former teachings of Christ about the divorce given in the Nagorno sermon ( see approx. K 5: 31,32), and they say that the Pharisees wanted to now put Christ in contradiction with himself, with his own, who were said, in words and teachings. If he said that it was possible to divorce with his wife for any reason, then the Pharisees could argue: how did you say before that it should not be divorced with the wife, except for the guilt of love? And if he said that he could not be divorced with his wife, they would have slandered him, as the proposing new laws disagree with the laws of Moses. It should be added that the issue of divorces at that time was acute as a result of the dispute of two Pharisees, Gillel and Chammah, as to how to interpret Second 24: 1 Jewish expression indicated as a reason for divorce, "Ervat Dabar." We do not need to be needed to discuss the closest reasons to this dispute, but it is enough to indicate the very fact of its existence. Guillel, who lived in twenty years, taught that a person can be divorced with his wife for any reason. Shammai, on the contrary, argued that the divorce is allowed only due to the obsolence of his wife.

4 (MK 10: 3-5) Russian text 4 verse should be recognized very unclear. Slavic translation: " co-starry, the masculine floor and female created I am" Here, "Correct Correspondence", obviously, no longer belongs to the creation of a man and a woman (as in Russian), but in general to creation; Otherwise, to say: the Creator, who created the world, also created the masculine sex and female. In the German translation of Luther more clearly: did you read that the one who first created people did so that a man and a woman got their existence. English translation (AV): Did you read that the one who created them first, created their masculine and female (floors) and said. Some later English translators, in turn, change the translation like this: Did you read that the Creator did the Creator do the Music Family and Women? These transfers show how difficult it is to pass here exactly Greek speech. Our Slavic and the last of the outlined transfers should be considered the most accurate and close to the original - English, where the word "created" is expressed simply the word "Creator" (Greek. Ὁ ποιήσας). The meaning is that the masculine and female should be existed on the divine establishment from the very beginning; Consequently, marriage is divine, not a human establishment. The idea of \u200b\u200bthis with a strong clarity expresses Eupmy Zigaben: "(created) one male floor and female to one(husband) had one (wife) . Because if he wanted her husband one wife to leave, and another took another (ἀγάπηται ), it would have made many women; But since he did not create many, then, of course, he wants her husband to not divorce his wife».

5 (MK 10: 7) Speech outlined in Matthew, serves as a continuation of the previous one. Christ is still unanswered by the secret question of the Pharisees, who, really, wanted to offer, whenever a person, after a divorce with his first wife, to take another, and argues only exclusively within the proposed question as such. A person should not leave women, because, according to this God, the law can not stay alone and live in a celibic state. In order not to be lonely and celibe, he leaves even the most closest people, his father and mother. Quote borrowed from Life 2:24 where these words are not attributed to God, but Adam.

6 (MK 10: 8.9) The words of Christ, in the verse under consideration there is a conclusion from what was said before. Leaving a man's wife, or divorce, contradicts nature, because at the same time " dispels the same flesh"(John Zlatoust); And further, the law of the Lord, because " you will succeed to divide what God has connected and did not say to divide" The circumstance is drawn to the fact that the Savior does not say "who" God combined, those people do not separate; But "that" (o) God combined. We are talking about how to interrupt this place, not about two bodies, but about one body, which is expressed in "that."

7 (MK 10: 3.4) The objection made by Christ seemed like the Pharisees very strong and irrefutable. This is expressed in the word ἐνετείλατο, which does not mean allowed, allowed, and commanded. Judging by the previous words of Christ, God "commanded" so that her husband and wife were one body, and, therefore, according to the intention and law of God, the divorce is unacceptable. This commandment given by God was set out to Moses in the book written by him. But the same Moses outlined another commandment contained also in the book written by him Second 24: 1 . The objective of Christ, in this way, to keep the text of Deuteronomy, while the Savior himself refers to the Book of Being. The word ἐνετείλατο chosen by Pharisees, the commanded, gave a mandatory commandment, somewhat strongly, because in any case, from the specified place, Deuteronomy is not seen that a person must necessarily have to give his wife a divorce letter even in cash "Ervat Dabar". But if you do not pay attention to all this, it will be seen that there will be an explicit contradiction between the initial learning about marriage, as clarified by Christ, and there was a clear contradiction with the permission to give recording letters, and to eliminate it, school casuisics was required. How does this contradict Christ? If the best Jewish casuists, Guillel and Shammay, argued about it and were disagree between them, then how Jesus Christ came out of the difficult situation in which, according to Pharisees, they put it?

8 (MK 10: 5) In Russian, the initial ὅτι is not expressed in the speech of Christ (Slavic: "Yako") corresponds to τί art. 7th (Russian. "How"; better: "So, why" or "why"). Pharisees ask: why? The Savior answers: because (ὅὅι) Moses, etc. The name of Moses (and not God) also has an obvious match with the same name in the question of Art. 7th. Pharisees could not say that God commanded giving recruiting letters. The Savior confirms this, saying that this allowed Moses. "Cravascular" (σκληροκαρδίαν) used by Matthew only here and in the New Testament MK 10: 5; 16:14 . In the last place, it is delivered in touch with ἀπιστία (disbelief). They consider the circumstance "highly characteristic" that in its response, Christ replaced ἐνετείλατο (commanded - Art. 7), used by Pharisees, the word ἐπέτρεψεν - allowed, allowed. But W. MK 10: 3.4 Jesus Christ and Pharisees are expressed on the contrary, and there these changes are just as completely appropriate as Matthew. Thought expressed here, similar to Gal 3:19 . Some believe that the allowance to give his wife a divorce letter was due to the need that otherwise the husband, as a result of his "hard-hearth," could try his wife torture, and the divorce letter was thus "protection" of his wife against the ill-treatment of her husband . This, of course, could be one of the reasons for the divorces permitted by Moses, but not the only one. The main reason was in the "hard-wit" in general - a word indicating the "non-cutness of the heart", on the rudeness of the inheritance of the Old Testament man, on his mental and moral underdevelopment. Obviously, the Savior himself considers this Moiseev to establish human, and not Divine. It was given as a temporary adaptation of the highest and eternal law to spirit, time and had only temporary. The mistake of Pharisees was that they looked at this temporary law, this Moses, too high, considered it to be equal to God's commandments. But it was "Consilium Hominis", "Non Imperium Dei" (Jerome). In the Old Testament, many such resolutions were given, which are only temporary. In a state of severe divorces and adjustable letters were resolved; "But first was not so."

9 (MK 10: 10-12; LK 16:18) If in the speech of the Savior 19:4-8 A response to the question of Pharisees Art. 3, here he obviously answers the thought of them who are underwent, that after the divorce to take another wife. Who does this, he adulters, unless the divorce is committed by any other reasons except πορνεία. The Savior does not say that for the divorce it is necessary to allow πορνεία. . It should be noted that, according to Matthew, this speech of Christ was said was the same Pharisees with which the Savior talked earlier; but on MK 10:10 She was told in response to the question of the disciples when they, together with the Savior, entered some kind of home. As MF 19: 9 and MK 10: 10-12 have not the same connection, it is likely to think that MF 19: 9 It was said to the Pharisees, and the brand repeated these expressions in speech only to the disciples and in the house.

10 tbsp. 10-12 meet only Matthew. It is about how to think, was told to students in the house and privately. The word duty (in Russian), apparently, inaccurately and incorrectly expresses the conference. The Greek word ἰἰἰτία does not mean the duty, and the fault, the reason, and in this sense is used in many places of the New Testament (eg, Acts 10:21; 22:24 and etc.; 2 Tim 1: 6,12; Tit 13.; Heb 2:11; MF 27:37; MK 15:26; In 18:38; 19:4,6 etc.). But the literal translation "If, thus, there is a cause (or wine) of a person with a woman, it is inconvenient (not useful - οὐ συμφέεέ)) marry" would not make sense. Therefore, the accurate translation is impossible here, but only descriptive. Meaning: "If the cause of a man's divorce with a woman can only be adultery, it is better not to marry." Other translations can also be recognized completely accurate and clear as Russian. The disciples obviously understood the previous speech of the Savior correctly in the sense of complete inadmissibility of the divorce, if there is no adultery from one side or the other. The adultery of one of the parties is, of course, the extreme and extremely serious family misfortune, a complete violation of the marriage and family relationship, which makes the continuation of living together not only heavy, but even unthinkable and unacceptable. In the Old Testament Law for adultery, the death penalty was established ( Lion 20:10). But besides adultery, there may be other causes aggravating family life. Ieronim offers issues related to women: quid Enim Si Temulenta Fuerit, Si Uracunda, Si Malis Noribus, Si Luxuriosa, Si Gutosa, Si Vaga, Si Jurgatrix, Si Maledica, Tenenda Erit Istiusmodi? (what if (wife) is tilted to drink, will be anger, immoral, wasteful, greeding, windy, grumpling, energly, - Do it should be held it and in this case?) Then, expressing briefly and correct the teachings of Christ, Ieronim answers: vOLUMUS NOLUMUS SUSTINENDA EST (the will of the unilles need to hold and such). Further increase in Jerome is characteristic and written, obviously in the ascetic spirit: ( being free, we voluntarily obeyed such slavery). The essence of the question of students was just that Ieronim outlined in more detail. Kakon's saying is known: Mulier Est Malum Necessarium ( woman eating evil). But if it is the necessary evil, then is it not better, is it not more prudent, is it not more good to be free from such an evil? Whether it is not better to replace the marriage connections when they can be expected so much angry, and moreover, without any hope of liberate, when a wife, with all its drawbacks, will keep married faithfulness and will not allow such guilt as adultery?

11 Regarding the words of students "Better not to marry" the Savior gives clarification here, borrowed partly from historical, and in part from psychological experience. Responding to the Pharisees, he opposed them to the wrong and erroneous opinion of the Divine Law on the establishment of marriage. Responding to students, he opposes their opinions physical law. Since the latter acts in people, as in animals, it is natural that not everyone can comply with the condition in which the celibacy life is approved, it is to observe moral purity in a celibic state. In his republic, the Savior could not say: it should not marry. Such a speech would contradict not only the physical (established by God), but also the moral (also established by God) and having a sublime character, the law, as well as the own words of Christ about the holiness of the marriage. On the other hand, he could not say: everyone should marry because there are conditions under which evasion of compliance with the physical law. Who are these people who are irrelevant to the physical law? This is explained in the next verse.

12 instead of "made themselves the scratches" more correctly translate - "illegal themselves" ( εὐνούχισαν ἑαυτοὺς ) Although the meaning in the same case is the same. This verse, literally understood by the scratches, serves as the actual base of the monstrous phenomenon - ascent; This sect, especially with us, in Russia, exists and even flourishes until now. In justifying his opinions, the Skoptsy refer not only to the verse considered, but also on words IP 56: 3-5 : "Yes, he does not say Enun:" Here I am a dry tree. " For the Lord says so about the eunuchs: who keep my Saturdays and choose a pleasing to me and firmly hold the advice of mine, the hell I am in my house and in the walls of my place and the best name, rather than sons and daughters: I will give them an eternal name that will not be extended " . The words of the prophet cannot, of course, serve as the basis or promotion of recovery, but have only a prophetic meaning and belong, of course, only to eunuham of the first and second category indicated by the Savior, that is, to the persons who themselves were innocent in their deposition and not They were engaged in the destruction of others. But not only the Skatts sectarians kept and hold the opinions that the words of the Savior give the right to artificially maintaining and distributing the scope. A known case with Origen, who slept himself in his youth, finding his " immature youthful mind"(Eusevius. Church. East. Vi, 8). Being an old man, notes Tsan, Origen repented in his act, and his repentance influenced the interpretation of the place of the site. In general, in antiquity, if the literal interpretation of 12 verses was not approved, it was, apparently, is characteristic of some, even outstanding, people. Among others, the words of the Savior of Justin misunderstood incorrectly. In apol. I, 29 he tells without renewing about the case, as one Christian in Alexandria, about 150 years, in vainly asked the authorities to castrate herself with a doctor. Eusevian knew many Christians who voluntarily exposed their castrations (see Tsana, Das Evangelium Des Mattäus, p. 586, approx.). Such a literal interpretation (in a stratic sense) is correct or false? It is undoubtedly false, because Christ could, in any case, could not offer exercises here, which is unnatural, conjugate with danger to life and does not reach the goal, what is meant, but, on the contrary, it only serves to strengthen the incentive and secret debauchery. Further, in the law of Moiseev, clear decisions were made regarding the skustrs, which are also completely inconsistent with the literal understanding and interpretation of the words of the Savior. So, in Second 23: 1 The Skobtsi says that they cannot "enter the Society of the Lord", and in Lion 22: 24,25 Comes not to sacrifice even loose animals and take them from the ingeness "as a gift", "because there are damage to them, the vice for them: they will not get good luck to you." In addition, it is coordinated: "And in the Earth you do not do this." In view of all this, it was natural, if not only in the middle of the first Christians we only encounter exceptionally rare cases of literal understanding of the words of the Savior regarding the "third category of ENUOhov", but also straight, and sometimes strong, performances against such an understanding. Especially hotly armed with Zlatoust. When Christ "says: Skopish himself, it will certainly do not cut off the members, - so it will not be! - But the extermination of evil thoughts, because the cut-inside member is subjected to a curse, as Paul says: Oh, in order notes were unregistered you (Gal 5:12)! And very fair. Such is coming like human bikes, it contributes to those who humiliate the creation of God; Overwells the mouth of Manjäyev and breaks the law, like topics from the pagans who cut down members. Cut off members of the invoice was the case of the Diavolskoye and the maliciousness of Satan, in order to distort the creation of God through it in order to harm the man created by God, and that many, attributing all the freedom, and the members themselves, sinlessly sinlessly, confessing themselves as innocent ... All This is an intense Dvil, who, wanting to arrange people to accept this delusion, introduced another false doctrine of fate and necessity and, thus, hardly tried to destroy the freedom given to us by God, assuring that evil is a consequence of physical nature, and through it Spreading many false teachings, although secretly. These are the arrow of the diaboli!"- The words of the Savior" Who can accommodate, but will be accommodated, "cannot be considered as a requirement that all followers of Christ take over the whole life about the celibacy, which most people cannot fulfill. Christ had in mind only special human characters, special nature, which are capable of strength of their spirit, to rise over family life to surrender to the ministry of Christ the kingdom.

13 (MK 10:13; LK 18:15) The reasons for the fact that students prevented to bring children to Jesus Christ was, on the usual explanation, in what was afraid, as if not to prevent his teachings and not distract him to lower, in their opinion, activities. Zlatoust expresses this reason in a nutshell: ἀξιώματος ἕνεκεν (From respect to Jesus Christ).

14 (MK 10:14; LK 18:16.) The word "revived", occurring from Mark, Matthew and Luca skip. Instead of "let" you can translate "Leave" or "release". Further words "come to me" dependes not from this verb, but from "do not hinder them" (Greek). There is no doubt that this simple gospel story was of great importance and the impact on the establishment of the correct attitudes of adults to children and serves as the basis of all modern pedagogy. The teaching of Christ was completely opposite to the harsh opinions of the Old Testament people (for example, Sir 30: 1-13).

15 (MK 10:16.) Mark adds: "And hugging them." This story can be considered adding and explaining the entire previous exercise set out in this chapter. First, it sets out the deepest doctrine of marriage and random exceptions from the universal, invested in human nature, natural and moral law. Then the Savior, as it were, returns to his initial thought about the holiness of the marriage union and imposes hands on children as the fruit of marriage relationships and marital loyalty. After that, he goes to the future way, which is especially clear from the initial words. MK 10:17 .

16 (MK 10:17; LK 18:18) In this verse and next 17 Matthew has a huge mass of differentials. The right thing is recognized by Matthew Such Reading: Teacher! What a kind do, etc. Matthew calls the approached young men (νεανίσκος) is not here, but in Art. 20 and 22. The word is undoubtedly points to youth. Mark approached is not called neither young man and any other name; from words MK 10:20 and LK 18:21 It is impossible to conclude that he was young. At Luka, it is called ἄρχων - the boss, but above what is unknown. The word is found many times in the New Testament. Some considered to be approached by Christ one of the heads of Jerusalem Sanhedrin and even identified him with Lazar, who was resurrected to Christ. The most likely opinion is that the young man was simply one of the heads of the local synagogue. The words of the young men who are all better fit to the personality of Christ, his teachings and activities ("Teacher", "Good", "Eternal Life", and the brand and Luke Poster the teacher "BlaHy"), show that the young man, if before He did not know Christ personally, at least quite poisoned about him to turn to him with such an extraordinary request. "This," says Tsan, - there was no question of a person irritated his sinfulness and moral powerlessness in his aspirations to achieving holiness, but the question of such a person who did not meet the demands of other teachers regarding piety and moral behavior. On the contrary, Jesus made an impression on him, and he sowed him confidence that he would raise his students over the unsatisfactory mass of Dotol of the existing Jewish piety, Wed. 5:20 ».

17 (MK 10:18; LK 18:19) According to Mark and Luke, the Savior, as it were, as if to object the young man about the fact that he called him good, actually assigns this property of God, good; And the meaning of his question, therefore, such: you call me good, but no one is good, except for one God; Therefore, you also appeal to me not just as an ordinary teacher, but the teacher is good and therefore having equal dignity with God. In other words, in the Answer of Christ Junior, we meet with the insertion and extremely subtle, almost imperceptible to those who surround Christ the teachings of His God and about the equality of God to God. According to Matthew (Greek.) Otherwise: "What do you ask me about good"?

18-19 (MK 10:19; LC 18:20) Question "What?" No other weather forecasters, except Matthew. The order of the commandments is the same in Mark and Luke, but other - Matthew. Mark adds: "Do not hurt."

At first glance, it seems somewhat strange that the young man who claimed that he "did all this" from his youth, to invite Christ the commandments, asks: what? As if he did not know whether the commandments were given and what! But the day of the young man is clear, if we assume that he did not expect such an answer from Christ. The young man did not think that Christ would tell him exactly that he was so well known, it was so well fulfilled and however, he did not satisfy him, here we meet with a very interesting QUI PRO Quo. The young man thinks about one, Christ tells him about a friend. The young man expects to receive information about any new commandments, similar to those who were given, for example, in Nagorno sermons; And Christ tells him that he must fulfill them already fulfilled. When the question, why Jesus Christ elects (by Matthew), only the six commandments of the Old Testament law, completely lowering 1-4 conventions of the ten, respond rather difficult. With the explanations that such a choice was inferred to the moral state of the youth itself, who, thinking that he keeps the commandments, in fact violated those that are listed by Christ, it is difficult to agree, it's just because we are almost quite aware of it. According to the tone of the story and the context, it is absolutely impossible to assume that the young man is infected with such sins, like murder, adultery, theft, perjury, displacement to the father and mother and a feud near the neighbor. Could such a person be archon (boss)? It is clear that he was not that. It is also impossible to assume that the indication of Christ is such, and not other commandments was simply a chance, that is, in other words, a simple set of words. Thus, only one thing remains - to assume that, on the contrary, the young man especially strongly, especially zealously took care of the execution of those commandments, which Christ indicated to him, and his answer, if I could say so, was rightly designed to not say Nothing new is compared with the fact that it was already well known from the Old Testament Law. This interpretation in any case is well confirmed by the further statement of the young man (Art. 20) that all this he has "saved." What is still lacking? - the most commandments listed by Christ have a reduced presentation of the decodes and other places of the Old Testament Law ( OX 20: 12-16; Lion 19:18; Second 5: 16-20).

21 (MK 10:21; LK 18:22) When listing the commandments, which should be performed to enter the life of the eternal (Article 18 and 19), Christ did not call the wealth of evil and did not say that for the life of the eternal one would certainly need to renunciate from wealth and in general all the property. The nearest meaning of his answer is even the one that it is enough to fulfill the Old Testament commandments specified by them to enter the eternal life. But this execution assumes many gradations, and it cannot be said that a person, guarding one or another, has become truly perfect. Do not kill the near weapon makes, of course, well, comes according to the commandment of God. But not killing him even the word makes better. The evasion from the application of the offense and any harm is even better. There are people who not only do not kill people either with a weapon, nor the word and do not harm any harm, but they don't even say anything bad about their neighbors. This is a step, even higher with the observance of the same commandment. Also relative to other commandments. Words of Christ in Art. 21, apparently, are closest to the commandment set forth in the late 19 verse. "Love your neighbor, like yourself." What does it mean? Subject to both other commandments and this, many gradations are possible. You can love your neighbor as yourself, and it is limited only to useless for him and misunderstanding. You can love the case, but not in a word. You can finally love your neighbor so as to believe your life for them. Christ in 21 verse indicates one of the highest gradations of perfect love. It lies in the fact that a person distributes all his property, wanting to alleviate the suffering of neighboring love for them. This was proposed to the young man who desired to be perfect and said that "retained" "all this", including the love of neighbor, from his youth.

23 (MK 10:23; LK 18:23) Zlatoust says that " Christ with these words is not wealth, but those who were addicted to him. But if it's hard to enter the kingdom of heaven to the rich, what to say about the mindwork?"Experience, however, shows that many rich are more true Christians than the poor. The case, therefore, is not in wealth, but in relation to people rich in Christ and the Gospel.

24 (MK 10: 24,25; LC 18:25) According to the brand, the Savior first repeated the saying about the difficulty for the rich in the kingdom of Heaven, about the fact that the disciples were "horrived by the words of him," and only after that he added the doctrine, common to all weather forecasters. Here, obviously, Christ only explains its former saying with the help of an example. All weather forecasters are found κάμηλος - camel. But in some manuscripts, it is read by κάμιλος, which is explained as παχὺ σχοίνιον - a thick ship rope. Difficulties in the transfer of further expression "Through Needle Ears" (Matthew διὰ τρυπήματος ῥαφίδος ; at Marka διὰ τρυμαλια̃ς τη̃ς ῥαφίδος ; at Luka. διὰ τρήματος βελόνης ; All these expressions have the same value) in any case show that the difficulty of speech of the Savior felt in antiquity. There was a lot of disputes about the meaning of these expressions. Lightfoot and others have shown that it was a proverb that occurred in the Talmuda to designate any difficulty. Only in Talmuda is not talking about a camel, but about an elephant. So, in one place about dreams it is said that during their time we cannot see what they have not seen before, for example. Golden palm or elephant passing through the needle's eyelas. One person who committed something seemed to be ridiculous or even incredible, was said: " you must have to penetrate (Jewish school in Babylon) which can force the elephant through the eyelas" There are similar expressions in the Quran, but with the replacement of the elephant camel; And even in India there are proverbs: "Elephant passing through a small door" or "through the eye of the needle." In this sense, the Savior's saying is understood by many of the latest interpreters. The view is that under the "needle ears", a narrow and low gate should be intelligible through which camels cannot pass, is currently considered to be mistakenly. An even less likely the opinion that appeared in antiquity that under the camel here should be intelligible rope. The change in κάμηλος in κάμιλος - arbitrarily. Άάμιλος - the word is so rare that in Greek it can be considered even non-existent, it is not found in good Greek dictionaries, although it must be said that the metaphor of a rope, which is difficult to drag into the needle, could be somewhat natural than about camel which can not go through the needle ear.

But whatever interpretation we have taken, the main difficulty is not in this, but for what purpose such a strange metaphor is used here. Wanted Christ to point out here on the full impossibility for the rich to enter the kingdom of heaven? I wanted to say that, as a camel, it is impossible to go through the needles of the needle, and it is impossible to enter the kingdom of God that it is not possible to enter the kingdom of God? But Abraham was very rich in cattle, silver and gold ( Life 13: 2) And however, this, according to the most Savior, did not prevent him from being in the kingdom of God ( LK 13:28 ; cf. 16:22,23,26 ; Ying 8:56. etc.). It is difficult, further, assume that the speech of the Savior belonged only to this rich, who has just moved away from him; πλούσιον would then be delivered with a member that all three evangelists. If finally, take the words of the Savior in their literal meaning, then it will be necessary to recognize that they must serve (and seem to serve) with a stronghold for all kinds of socialist teachings and proletariat. The one who owns any property and has not written in the ranks of the proletarians, cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. In the comments, we, in general, do not find an answer to these questions; They should be considered unresolved so far, and the words of Christ are not clear enough. Maybe here is expressed here the general New Testamental view of the wealth, which is an obstacle to the ministry of God (cf. MF 6:24; LK 16:13). But it seems that the most likely explanation is as follows. The new covenant in the foreground delivers the ministry to God and Christ; The result of this may be the use of external benefits ( MF 6:33). But the rich, which puts the ministry of Mamon in the foreground and only on the latter - following Christ and serving him or even not at all makes this last, indeed, it is always difficult to deal with the heir of the kingdom of heaven.

26 (MK 10:27; LK 18:27) The meaning of the answer of Christ: For God, it is possible that, that is, the rich, devoted to the ministry Mamon, can apply and assimilate himself the right look at their wealth, to learn the new Gospel principle, that is, the grace of God and promote his appeal.

27 (MK 10:28; LC 18:28) Here is an obvious reference to MF 19:21 . If for the following follows, it was necessary to leave everything, then Peter and other students did it. The procedure for their actions was precisely as indicated by Christ in 21 verse. First, leaving everything, and then following Christ. Apostles, however, did not resemble a rich young man; They did not have a big estate, but if we take that the degrees of wealth are different that one happens is rich, having in stock a hundred rubles, while the other is the poor and with thousands, then Peter had the full right to argue that the disciples not only left everything But even left all their wealth.

28 (LK 22: 28-30 where it is distinguished by another character and in another connection.) The word "package" shows that the new existence of people will certainly come in such or otherwise. The earthly state is one being; Behind the coffin is another. This is the last and there is a "package". The word is (παλινγενεσία̨ - so correct, but not παλιγγενεσία̨) used only twice in the New Testament, here Matthew and more Tit 3: 5 . The expressions "sit down", "sit", of course, shaped, and cannot be understood in a literal sense. The word "judge" is also figurative, implies on semi-artic use, "domination", "power" (cf. Open 20: 4). Regarding whether it is counted for the judges and Judas, which these words were also said, there are many notes in ancient and new eczegets. "So what? - asks Zlatoust, - and Judas will sit on the throne? Not». « I promise only worthy reward. Chatting with his disciples, he did not give a promise without condition; Not said simply: you, but I added more: Smeast for me so that the Judas reject, and those who after have to contact him, attract, - these words were not one of the students alone, and not to Judas, who subsequently became unworthy of his promises" Feofilakt adds that the Savior here speaks about those who followed him to the end, and Judas did not remain so. "

The expression "judge twelve knees of Israel" is obviously shaped and cannot be understood in the exact sense.

29 (MK 10: 29-30; LK 18: 29-30) Love to Christ is placed above the love of earthly acquisitions and related links. This verse, however, should not seem to be understood in a strictly literal sense, as it would be disagreeably not only with the teachings of Christ, but also with his own actions (see, for example, In 19:26 etc.). Love to Christ attaches a special meaning of both earthly acquisitions and related links.

30 (MK 10:31; LC 18:30 - In another connection.) The meaning of this verse is explained by further subcuting about employees in the vineyard.

Gospel

The word "gospel" (τὸ εὐαγγέλιον) in the classic Greek language was used to designate: a) awards, which is given by the joy of joy (τῷ εὐαγγέλῳ), b) the victims schemes on the occasion of receiving any kind news or holiday, perfect for the same occasion And c) this good news. In the New Testament, this expression means:

a) Good news that Christ made reconciliation of people with God and brought us the greatest benefits - mostly founded the kingdom of God ( MF. 4:23),

b) the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ, preached by himself and his apostles about him, as about the king of this kingdom, Messiah and the Son of God ( 2 Cor. 4: 4.),

c) all in general New Testament or Christian doctrine, first of all the narration of events from the life of Christ, the most important ( ; 1Pes. 2: 8.) or the identity of the preacher ( Rome. 2:16.).

Pretty long legend about the life of the Lord Jesus Christ was transmitted only orally. The Lord himself did not leave any records of his speeches and affairs. Similarly, 12 apostles were not born with writers: they were "people nexic and simple" ( Dean. 4:13), although competent. Among the Christians of the Apostolic Time was also very few "wisely on flesh, strong" and "noble" ( 1 Cor. 1:26.), and for most believers, oral legends of Christ have much more important than writing. Thus, the apostles and preachers or evangelicals "transmitted" (παραδιδόναι) of the legends on cases and speeches of Christ, and the believers "took" (παραλαμβάνειν), - but, of course, not mechanically, only the memory, as can be said about the disciples of the Rabbian schools, and All soul, as if something living and giving life. But soon this period of oral legend was supposed to end. On the one hand, Christians had to feel the need in writing presentation of the Gospel in their disputes with Jews, which, as we know, denied the validity of the wonders of Christ and even claimed that Christ did not declare themselves. It was necessary to show the Jews that Christians have genuine legends about Christ those who or were among his apostles, or stood in the nearest communication with eyewitnesses of Christ. On the other hand, the need for written presentation of Christ's history began to feel because the generation of the first students gradually died out the ranks of direct witnesses of the wonders of Christ Radlie. Therefore, it was necessary to consolidate the individual sayings of the Lord and the whole speech, as well as the stories about it apostles. They then began to appear there, here are individual records of what was reported in oral tradition of Christ. In total, the words of Christ were carefully recorded, which contained the rules of the life of Christian, and were much freer to the transfer of different events from the life of Christ, while maintaining their overall impression. Thus, one in these records, by virtue of its originality, was transmitted everywhere equally, the other was modified. About the completeness of the narrative, these initial records did not think. 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 cases of Christ. This can be seen by the way, and from the fact that they are not placed in them, for example, such a saying of Christ: "Honor to give, rather than taking" ( Dean. 20:35). According to such records, the evangelist Luka reports, saying that many before him had already begun to draw narrations about the life of Christ, but that they were not proper completeness and that therefore they did not give enough "approval" in faith ( LK. 1: 1-4).

According to the same prompting, our canonical gospels arose. The period of their appearance can be determined by about thirty - from 60 to 90 g. (The latter was the Gospel of John). The first three gospels are called synoptic in biblical science, because they depict the life of Christ so that their three narratives without much work can be viewed for one and combine in one whole narration (weather forecasters - with Greek - watching together). The Gospels they began to be called each separately, maybe even at the end of the first century, but from church writing we have information that such a name of the whole composition of the Gospels began to be fastened only in the second half of the II century. As for the names: "Gospel Matthew", "Gospel Mark", etc., then it is more correct to translate these very ancient names with Greek: "Matthew" Gospel, "Gospel by Mark" (κατὰ ματθαῖον, κατὰ ᾶᾶρκον). This church wanted to say that in all the Gospels there is a single Christian gospel about Christ the Savior, but on images of different writers: one image belongs to Matthew, another - brand, etc.

Four-Genuine

Thus, the ancient church looked at the image of the life of Christ in our four Gospels not as a variety of gospels or narration, but as a single gospel, for one book in four types. Therefore, in the church and established the name of the Name of Yogeliya for our Gospels. Holy Irinev called them a "four-shaped gospel" (τετράμορφον τὸ εὐαγγέλιον - see Irenaeus Lugdunensis, Adversus Haeresees Liber 3, ed. A. Rousseau and L. Doutreleaü Irenée Lyon. Contre Les Hérésies, LIVRE 3, Vol. 2. Paris, 1974, 11, 11).

The fathers of the Church stop on the question: why did the church adopted not one gospel, and four? So the saint John Zlatoust says: "Did one evangelist could not write everything that you need. Of course, he could, but when he wrote four, they didn't write at the same time, not in the same place, without being demolished and without claiming themselves, and with all that they wrote that everything as if she was uttered, then This serves as the strongest proof of truth. You will say: "It happened, however, nasty, because the four gospels are often informed in disagreements." This is the most faithful sign of truth. For if the Gospels were in accurately agreed among themselves, even on the most words, then none of the enemies would believe that the gospel was not written on an ordinary mutual agreement. Now, the small disagreement is located between them frees them from any suspicion. For what they are differently talking about time or place, does not harm the truth of their narration. In the main, which constitutes the basis of our life and the essence of the sermon, none of them will disagree any of them anywhere with the other, - that God fell by man, wondered, was crucified, rested, ascended to the sky. " ("Conversations on the Gospel of Matthew", 1).

Holy Irinean finds a special symbolic meaning in the fourth number of our gospels. "Since four countries in the world in which we live, and since the church is scattered throughout the land and has its own statement in the Gospel, it was supposed to have four pillars, from everywhere of hawker and reviving the human race. A volunteer word, squeezing on Cherubim, gave us the gospel in four types, but imbued with one spirit. For And David, praying for his phenomenon, says: "Sanding on Cherubims, Javi yourself" ( PS. 79: 2.). But the cherubs (in the vision of the Prophet of Ezekiel and the Apocalypse) have four persons, and their licks are the appearance of the activities of the Son of God. " Holy Irina finds it possible to attach a lion symbol to the Gospel of John, as this gospel depicts Christ as the Eternal King, and the lion is the king in the animal world; The Gospel of Luke is the symbol of the Taurus, since Luka begins his gospel by the image of the priestly ministry of Zechariah, who ordered Tales; Matthew's gospel is a symbol of a person, since this gospel predominantly depicts the human birth of Christ, and finally, to the Gospel of Mark - the symbol of the eagle, because Mark begins his gospel with the mention of the prophets to which the Holy Spirit flew, as if eagle on wings "(Irenaeus Lugdunensis, Adversus Haeresees, Liber 3, 11, 11-22). In other fathers of the church, the symbols of Lion and the Taurus moved and the first one was granted, and the second - John. Starting with V c. In this form, the symbols of evangelists began to join both images of four evangelists in church painting.

Mutual relations of the Gospels

Each of the four Gospels has its own characteristics, and the most - the Gospel of John. But the three first, as already mentioned above, there are extremely many common among themselves, and this similarity involuntarily rushes into the eyes even when they are fluently reading. See primarily about the similarity of the synoptic gospels and the causes of this phenomenon.

Evseviy Kesiai in his "canons" divided the Gospel from Matthew to 355 parts and noticed that 111 of them are in all three weather forecasters. In the modern times, the exegenes have developed even a more accurate numerical formula to determine the similarities of the Gospels and calculated that the entire number of poems common to all weather forecasters rises to 350. Matthew, then, 350 verses are characterized only by him, the brand of such verses 68, at Luke - 541. Similarities are mainly noticed in the transmission of the sayings of Christ, and differences in the narrative part. When Matthew and Luke literally converge in their gospels, and Mark is always consistent with them. The similarity between Luka and Mark is much closer than between Luka and Matfey (Lopukhin - in the Orthodox Theological Encyclopedia. T. V. P. 173). It is more wonderful that some passages for all three evangelists go in the same sequence, for example, temptation and performance in Galilee, the vocation of Matthew and talking about post, breaking over the bumps and healing of the surcoury, wounds of storms and healing of the Gadarinsky is idle, etc. Similarity sometimes extends even on the design of proposals and expressions (for example, in bringing prophecy Mal. 3: 1.).

As for the differences observed in the weather forecasters, they are very much. Other only two evangelists are reported, even one. So, only Matthew and Luke lead the Nagorno conversation of the Lord Jesus Christ, report the history of the birth and the first years of the life of Christ. One Luka speaks of the birth of John the Forerunner. A single evangelist transmits in a more abbreviated form than the other, or in another connection than the other. Different and details of events in each gospel, as well as expressions.

Such a phenomenon of similarity and differences in the synoptic gospels have long already addressed the attention of the writers of Scripture, and a long time ago, various assumptions have long been expressed explaining this fact. It seems more correct that our three evangelists used a common oral source for their narration about the life of Christ. At that time, evangelists or preachers about Christ went with a sermon everywhere and repeated in different places in more or less extensive form what was considered to be necessary to offer the church joined. It was formed, thus known to a certain type oral GospelAnd this type we have in writing in our weather forecasters. Of course, at the same time, looking at the goal, what one or another evangelist had, his gospel took some special, only his work characteristic features. At the same time, it is impossible to exclude that assumption that the more ancient Gospel could be known to the Evangelist who wrote later. At the same time, the difference between weather forecasters should be explained by various purposes, which I meant each of them when writing its gospel.

As we have already said, the synoptic gospels differ in very much from the Gospel of John the Bogoslov. So they depict almost exclusively the activities of Christ in Galilee, and the Apostle John depicts the mainly staying of Christ in Judea. In relation to the content of the synoptic gospels also differ significantly from the Gospel of John. They give, so to speak, the image of more external life, deeds and the teachings of Christ and from the speeches of Christ only those that were available to understand the entire people. John, on the contrary, misses a lot of Christ's activities, for example, he cites only six wonders of Christ, but those speeches and miracles that he leads have a special deep meaning and the extreme importance about the identity of the Lord Jesus Christ. Finally, while weather forecasters depict Christ predominantly 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 is underway through the periphery of the kingdom, i.e. On the very Lord Jesus Christ, whom John depicts as the only sole of God and as light for all mankind. Therefore, the Gospel of John still ancient interpretatives were called the advantage of spiritual (πνευματικόν), in contrast to the synoptic, as depicting mainly the human side in the face of Christ (εὐαγγέλιον σωματικόν), i.e. Gospel bodily.

However, it must be said that the weather forecasters have places that they say that both weather forecasts have been the activities of Christ in Judea ( MF. 23:37, 27:57 ; LK. 10: 38-42.) and John has guidance on the prolonged activities of Christ in Galilee. Similarly, weather forecasters transmit such sayings of Christ, which testify to his divine dignity ( MF. 11:27), and John, for its part, also depicts Christ as a true person in some places ( In. 2. and syl.; In.8. and etc.). Therefore, it is impossible to talk about any contradiction between weather forecasters and John in the image of the face and the case of Christ.

Reliability of Gospel

Although the criticism has long been against the accuracy of the Gospels, and recently these attacks of criticism have become particularly intensified (the theory of myths, especially the theory of the grace, who does not recognize the existence of Christ), but all the objections of criticism are so insignificant that they are divided into the smallest collision with Christian apologetics . Here, however, we will not give objections of negative criticism and disassemble these objections: it will be done with the interpretation of the text of the Gospels. We only say about the most important general reasons for which we recognize the Gospel of quite reliable documents. This, firstly, the existence of an eyewitness legend, of which many have lived to the era when our gospel appeared. Why would we deny these sources of our Gospels in trust? Could they invent everything in our Gospels? No, all the Gospels are purely historical. Secondly, it is not clear why the Christian consciousness wanted - so affirms the mythical theory - to impeach the head of the plain Rabbi Jesus the crown of the Messiah and the Son of God? Why, for example, about the bapticle does not say that he worked wonders? Obviously because he did not figure them out. And hence it follows that if Christ is said as a great wonderworker, then he really was so. And why could you deny the accuracy of the wonders of Christ, once the highest miracle - His Resurrection - was witnessed as any other event of ancient history (see 1 Cor. fifteen)?

Foreign Bibliography on Four Genuine

Bengel - Bengel J. Al. Gnomon Novi Testamentage in Quo Ex Nativa Verborum Vi Simplicitas, Profunditas, Concinnitas, Salubritas Sensuum Coelestium Indicatur. Berolini, 1860.

Blass, GRAM. - Blass F. Grammatik Des Neutestamentliclichen Griechisch. Göttingen, 1911.

Westcott - The New Testament in Original Greek The Text Rev. By Brooke Foss Westcott. NEW YORK, 1882.

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

IOG. Wece (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. Göttingen, 1907.

Gode \u200b\u200b- Godet F. KOMMENTAR ZU DEM EVANGELIUM DES JOHANNES. Hannover, 1903.

De Vetta - De Wette W.m.l. Kurze Erklärung Des Evangeliums Matthäi / Kurzgefastestees Exegetisces Handbuch Zum Neuen Testament, Band 1, Teil 1. Leipzig, 1857.

Kale (1879) - Keil C.F. Commentar Über Die Evangelien des Markus und Lukas. Leipzig, 1879.

Kale (1881) - Keil C.F. Commentar Über Das Evangelium Des Johannes. Leipzig, 1881.

Klostermann - Clostermann A. Das Markusevangelium Nach Seinem Quellenwerthe Für Die Evangelische Geschichte. Göttingen, 1867.

Cornelius and Lyapid - Cornelius a lapide. In SS Matthaeum et marcum / commentaria in scripturam sacram, t. 15. Parisiis, 1857.

Lagrange - Lagrange M.-J. Études Bibliques: Evanangile Selon St. Marc. Paris, 1911.

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

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

Luisi (1907-1908) - Loisy A.F. Les èvangiles synoptiques, 1-2. : CEFFONDS, PRèS MONTIER-EN-DER, 1907-1908.

Luturdt - Luthardt ch.e. Das Johanneische Evangelium Nach Seiner Eighthümlichkeit Geschildert Und Erklärt. Nürnberg, 1876.

Meyer (1864) - Meyer H.A.W. Kritisch Exegetisches Kommentar Über Das Neue Testament, Abteilung 1, Hälfte 1: Handbuch über Das Evangelium Des Matthäus. Göttingen, 1864.

Meyer (1885) - Kritisch-Exegetischer Kommentar 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, BEARBEITETT VON B. Weiss. Göttingen, 1902.

MERX (1902) - MERX A. Erläuverung: Matthaeus / Die Vier Kanonischen Evangelien Nach Ihrem Ältesten Bekannten Texte, Teil 2, Hälfte 1. Berlin, 1902.

MERX (1905) - MERX A. Erläuverung: 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. Toleak (1856) - Tholuck A. Die Bergpredigt. Gotha, 1856.

Toleka (1857) - THOLUCK A. Commentar Zum Evangelium Johannis. Gotha, 1857.

Haythmulller - see Iiog. Weiss (1907).

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

Tsan (1905) - Zahn Th. Das Evangelium Des Matthäus / Kommentar Zum Neuen Testament, Teil 1. Leipzig, 1905.

CAN (1908) - Zahn Th. Das Evangelium Des Johannes Ausgelegt / Kommentar Zum Neuen Testament, Teil 4. Leipzig, 1908.

Shanz (1881) - Schanz P. Commentar Über Das Evangelium Des Heiligen Marcus. Freiburg Im Breisgau, 1881.

Shantz (1885) - Schanz P. Commentar Über Das Evangelium Des Heiligen Johannes. Tübingen, 1885.

Schalatter - Schlatter A. Das Evangelium Des Johannes: Ausgelegt Für Bibeller. Stuttgart, 1903.

Shurer, Geschichte - Schürer E., Geschichte des Jüdischen Volkes Im Zeitalter Jesu Christi. BD. 1-4. Leipzig, 1901-1911.

Eiders (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.

Elleford - Alford N. The Greek Testament in Four Volumes, Vol. 1. London, 1863.

19: 3-6 pervertible person to divorce ..? The question of Pharisees, apparently, expresses the opinion of Rabbi Gillel, who allowed a divorce even by a non-essential reason on the basis of the second. 24,1-4. He objected to another rabbi, shammy, who believed that only married treason could be a serious reason for a divorce. The answer of Jesus goes beyond the limits of casual interpretations of Deuteronomy and refers to the order of creation established by God. Jesus believes that the divorce in the root denies God's order and the nature of the marriage.

19:7-8 Hearing what Jesus thinks about marriage, the Pharisees decided that they could catch him in contradiction Moses. But Jesus explains that Moses (De. 24.1-4) did not defend the divorce, but envisaged what to do in case of a divorce. Indeed, the second. 24,1-4 consists of a long introductory "if", and ends that the man is forbidden to marry a woman with whom he divorced.

19:10 It is better not to marry. The disciples are skeptical to the teachings of Jesus about the irregularity of the marriage. In response, Jesus notices that, perhaps, it is really better not to marry, but only if you do not marry the sake of the kingdom, and not because God has a strict look at marriage (1 Cor. 7.7-9).

19:16 Have eternal life. The same thing that "enter into the kingdom of God" (Art. 24) and "escape" (Art. 25).

19:21 Sell your estate. This command shows that the young man has no determination to leave everything (16.24), rearing only for the grace of God.

19:23-26 Since wealth was considered in Palestine, the evidence of God's favor, Jews usually thought that the rich was the most likely "candidates" for the kingdom. Jesus changed this idea, which caused the question of the disciples: "So who can escape?" (Art. 25).

19:28 To judge. "Manage", and not "make sentence."

19:29 Get a hundred times. The grace of salvation exceeds everything that exists in this world (1 Cor. 2.9).

19:30 will be the first last. The earthly position and heaven do not correspond to one other, on the contrary, they are often diametrically opposed.

Synodal translation. The head is voiced by the role of the Studio "Light in the East".

1. When Jesus graduated from the words of this, then he left Galilee and came to the limits of Jewish, for Jordan Party.
2. There was a lot of people behind him, and he healed them there.
3. And the Pharisees have begun to him and, the cramped it, told him: for any reason, a person is allowed to divorce his wife?
4. He told them in response: did you read that the man did first at the beginning did they create them?
5. And said: therefore the man will leave the man and mother and go to his wife, and there will be two things, one flesh,
6. So they are no longer two, but one flesh. So, that God combined, that person does not separate.
7. They say to him: How did Moses command a divorce letter and divorce with it?
8. He tells them: Moses on the cruelfold you allowed you to divorce your wives, but at first there was no way;
9. But I tell you: who divorced his wife is not for adultery and marries another, he adultered; and married at the divorced commitment.
10. They tell him his disciples: if this is the responsibility of a person to his wife, it is better not to marry.
11. He told them: Not everyone can accommodate the word this, but to whom it is given,
12. For there are scratches that were born out of the wrath of the mother's; and there are Skattsi, which are degraded from people; And there are Skattsi, who made themselves with the Skatters themselves for the kingdom of heaven. Who can accommodate, but accommodate.
13. Then the children were given to him, so that he laid hands on them and prayed; The disciples also bought them.
14. But Jesus said: let the children and not let them come to me, because there are the kingdom of heaven.
15. And, putting hands on them, went from there.
16. And so, someone, approach, told him: Teacher of Goodness! What makes me good to have eternal life?
17. He told him: What do you call me good? No one is good as soon as one God. If you want to enter the eternal life, follow the commandment.
18. He tells him: what? Jesus said: "Do not kill"; "Do not commit adultery"; "Do not steal"; "Not false witness";
19. "Read the Father and Mother"; And: "Love your neighbor, like yourself."
20. The young man tells him: all this kept me from my youth; What still lacks me?
21. Jesus told him: If you want to be perfect, go, sell your estate and distribute the poor; And you will have a treasure in heaven; And come and follow me.
22. Having heard the word Sie, the young man departed with sadness, because he had a great estate.
23. Jesus said to his disciples: True I tell you that it is difficult to enter the kingdom of heaven who is hard to enter the kingdom;
24. And I also tell you: It is more convenient to pass through the needle ears, rather than rich in the kingdom of God.
25. Hearing this, his disciples were very amazed and said: So who can escape?
26. And Jesus, the rest, told them: it is impossible to people, God is everything possible.
27. Then Peter, answering, told him: Here, we left everything and followed you; What will be to us?
28. Jesus said to them: True I tell you that you followed by me - in the package, when the Son of Human is sitting on the throne of His Glory, you will sit on the twelve thrones to judge the twelve knees of Israel.
29. And anyone who leaves houses, or brothers, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or land, for the sake of my name, will receive a hundred times and inherit eternal life.
30. Many will be the first last, and the last first.