Large Christian library. Bible online

I. Transfiguration of Christ on the mountain, v. 1-13.

II. His casting out a demon from a boy when His disciples could not do it, v. 14-29.

III. His prediction of His suffering and death, v. 30-32.

IV. The reproach expressed by Christ to the disciples for their dispute about which of them was greater (vv. 33-37), and to John for condemning a man who cast out demons in the name of Christ, but did not follow them, vv. 38-41.

V. Christ’s conversation with his disciples about the danger of tempting one of these little ones (v. 42) and allowing in ourselves that which serves as a temptation and a reason for sin for ourselves, v. 43-50; We have already read most of these stories in Matt. 17 and 18.

Verses 1-13. I. The prediction that the kingdom of Christ is at hand, v. 1. The following is predicted:

1. That the Kingdom of God will come, and come in a visible way: The Kingdom of the Messiah will be established in this world through the complete destruction of the Jewish state that stood in its way. This was the restoration of God's Kingdom among men, which had been lost, in a sense, through the terrible decline of both Jews and Gentiles.

2. That it will come in strength, make its way and overthrow all opposition. It came in force when retribution was accomplished on the Jewish people for the crucifixion of Christ and when the idolatry of the pagan world was defeated.

3. That it will come while some are still alive: there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see it. The same thing is said in Matthew 24:34: This generation will not pass away until all these things are done. Those who stood with Christ then will see him, while others will not be able to recognize him, for the Kingdom of God will come unseen.

II. The manifestation of the glory of this Kingdom in the transfiguration of Christ, which took place six days after this prediction. He has already begun to tell the disciples about His suffering and death and, in order to prevent their temptation, He gives them a glimpse of His glory in order to show that His suffering will be voluntary and that the dignity and glory of His person will be manifested in it, in order to prevent the temptation of the cross.

1. The transfiguration took place on the top of a high mountain, just as Moses talked with God on the top of Mount Sinai, and as from the top of Mount Pisgah he surveyed Canaan. Tradition says that Christ was transfigured on the top of Mount Tabor; if this is so, then the words of Scripture are fulfilled: Tabor and Hermon rejoice in Your name, Ps 89:13. Dr. Lightfoot, noting that the last place where we find Christ was in the countries of Caesarea Philippi, located quite a distance from Mount Tabor, believes that the transfiguration most likely took place on the high mountain of which Joseph speaks, near Caesarea.

2. The transfiguration was witnessed by Peter, James and John; it was these three who were to testify on earth, corresponding to the three witnesses, Moses, Elijah and the voice from heaven, who were to bear witness from above. Christ did not take all the disciples with Him, since everything that happened had to be kept secret. Just as there are special graces that are granted only to the disciples and not to the world, so there are graces that are awarded only to some of the disciples. All saints are close to Christ, but only a few recline at His breast. James was the first of the twelve to die for Christ, and John survived them all to be the last eyewitness of this glory; he testified (John 1:14): We have seen His glory. Peter said the same thing, 2 Peter 1:16-18.

3. How the transformation took place. He transformed before them. He appeared to them in a different form from his usual one. Only the side properties changed, but the essence remained the same - it was a miracle. A change in essence, when all the side properties remain the same, is not a miracle, it is just deception and fraud, which Christ never did. See what great changes can happen to human bodies when Christ is pleased to cover them with glory; He will clothe the bodies of the saints with the same glory at their resurrection. He was transformed before them. Probably the change took place gradually, from glory to glory, so that the disciples who had been watching Him all this time had the clearest and most certain evidence that this glorious vision was none other than the blessed Jesus, that it was no illusion of the eye. John must have meant this when he spoke of the Word of life, which they saw with their own eyes and considered, 1 John 1:1. His clothes became shining, and if hitherto they might have been dark, if not black, now they became very white, like snow, as a whitener on earth cannot bleach.

4. His partners in this glory were Moses and Elijah, v. 4. They appeared and talked with Jesus, not to teach Him, but to testify to Him and learn from Him. From this it is clear that conversations and communications take place between the glorified saints, they are talking about something that we cannot understand. Moses and Elijah lived in perfect different times, but it makes no difference in heaven, where the first will be last and the last will be first, because all are one in Christ.

5. The great pleasure the disciples derived from beholding this vision and hearing this conversation was expressed by Peter, who served as the mouth of all the others. He said: Rabbi! It’s good for us to be here, Art. 5. Although Christ was transfigured and talked with Moses and Elijah, He gave Peter the opportunity to talk and communicate with Him as freely as usual. Note. Our Lord Jesus, in His majesty and glory, remains just as kind to His people. Many, being at the height of greatness, force their friends to keep their distance, but to Jesus, even glorified, true believers can always come boldly and talk freely with Him. Even in this heavenly conversation there was a place for Peter to insert a word, and he said: “Equal! It’s good for us to be here, it’s good for us to be here; Let’s make three tabernacles and stay here forever.” Note. Blessed souls consider it good for themselves to be in communion with Christ, to be near Christ, to be with Him on the mountain, although it is cold and deserted there; It’s good to be here, away from the world, alone with Christ. And if it is good to be with the transfigured Christ on the mountain, only with Moses and Elijah, then how good it will be with the glorified Christ in heaven along with all the saints! While arguing for staying on the mountain, Peter forgot about the need for the presence of Christ among people, as well as for the preaching of His apostles. At this very time the other disciples were in great need of them, v. 14. Note. When we are doing well, we tend to be indifferent to others; enjoying the abundance of goods, we forget about the needs of our brothers. Peter showed weakness when he chose personal fellowship with Christ over public benefit. Paul was ready to remain in the flesh, and not retire to the mountain of glory (although it is incomparably better there), realizing how necessary he was to the church, Phil 1:24,25. Peter spoke of building three separate tabernacles for Moses, Elijah, and Christ, which was a rash proposal: there is such perfect harmony between the Law, the Prophets, and the Gospel, that one tabernacle can contain them all, for they are all in unity. But, however foolish what he said, he may be excused, for they were all in fear, and he, for his part, knew not what to say (v. 6), nor what the result of it would be.

6. The voice from heaven confirmed the mediatorial mission of Christ, v. 7. And a cloud appeared, overshadowing them and becoming a refuge for them. Peter spoke of building tabernacles for Christ and His friends, but look how his project was changed: while he was still speaking, a cloud descended over them, instead of a tabernacle, to cover them (Isa. 4:5);

While he was speaking about tabernacles, God created His tabernacle, not made with hands. And from this cloud (which was only a shadow of that excellent glory of which Peter speaks and from which the voice came) it was proclaimed: This is My beloved Son; Listen to him. God recognizes and accepts Him as His beloved Son, and in Him He is ready to accept us. Therefore, we must acknowledge and accept Him as our beloved Savior and submit ourselves to His guidance.

7. The vision, intended only to make the disciples hear the voice, disappeared immediately after it sounded (v. 8): And suddenly, looking around, amazed at the situation in which they found themselves, they saw no one else with them - all disappeared. They no longer saw Elijah and Moses; only Jesus remained with them, and not transformed, but as He was before. Note. Christ does not leave the soul even when extraordinary joy and consolation leave it. Though the more tangible and rapturous fellowship may end, yet the disciples of Christ have and will have His habitual presence with them always, even to the end of the age; this is what we should count on. Let us give thanks to God for our daily bread and not expect a constant feast while we are here.

8. Conversation of Christ with the disciples during their descent from the mountain.

(1) He ordered them to keep everything that happened on the mountain in great secrecy until He rose from the dead, thus completing the whole series of proofs of His Divine mission; then they will announce His transfiguration along with all other testimonies, v. 9. Moreover, being in a state of humiliation, He did not want His inconsistency with this state to somehow be revealed, for He strove to conform to it in everything. This requirement to remain silent could also benefit the disciples - to protect them from boasting about the closeness with Christ to which they were allowed, so that they would not become proud from the abundance of revelations. It is not easy to be bound by a vow of silence about your superiority, but it helps to avoid pride.

(2) The disciples were at a loss as to what the resurrection from the dead could mean; they could not form any idea of ​​the death of the Messiah (Luke 18:34), and therefore they wanted to think that Christ spoke of the resurrection in a figurative sense, that He would rise from His present humble state to the glory and dominion that they so expected. But if this is so, then something else still confused them (v. 11): How then do the scribes say that, in accordance with the chronology of the prophecies of the Old Testament, Elijah must come before the appearance of the Messiah in glory - Elijah must come first? But Elijah left, and so did Moses. Their difficulty was due to the fact that the scribes taught them to expect Elijah personally, while the prophecy spoke of one who would come in the spirit and power of Elijah. Note. Misunderstanding of the Scriptures is a serious obstacle to accepting the truth.

(3.) Christ gave them the key to understand the prophecy concerning Elijah, v. 12, 13. “Indeed, there was a prophecy that Elijah would come and arrange everything, bring everyone into proper condition; it was also predicted (although you do not want to understand this) that the Son of man must suffer much, be humiliated, endure reproach and humiliation from people. The scribes do not tell you this, but the Scriptures do, and you have every reason to expect this, as well as everything else written in them, and not consider it strange. As for Elijah, he came, and if you think a little, you will understand who I mean - the one with whom they did as they wanted. These words were quite applicable to John the Baptist, who was treated so wickedly. Many of the ancients and, especially, of the papist writers believe that, in addition to the coming of John the Baptist in the spirit of Elijah, one should expect before the second coming of Christ the personal coming of Elijah, in his own image, together with Enoch, and this is supposedly the prophecy of Malachi will be realized more fully than in John the Baptist. However, these are baseless fantasies. The true Elijah, like the true promised Messiah, has come, and we need not wait for another. The words as written about him do not refer to the phrase “they treated him as they wanted” (it is an introductory sentence), but only to his arrival. He came and lived and did everything as it was written about Him.

Verses 14-29. Before us is the story of Christ casting out a demon from a boy, described here more fully than in Matthew 17:14 ff. Let's note the following:

I. The return of Christ to the disciples, whom He found in great confusion. Having taken off His garments of glory, He came to look at His children and find out what was wrong with them. The heavenly glory of Christ will not make Him forget about the earthly affairs of the Church, He visits it in great humility, v. 14. Christ came very timely, because His disciples just found themselves in a difficult situation, they were defeated: the scribes, the sworn enemies of Christ and His disciples, gained an advantage over them. They brought to them a youth possessed by an unclean spirit, and they could not cast out the demon. As a result, the scribes began to insult them, disgrace their Teacher and triumphed as if their time had come. Christ saw the scribes arguing with them in the presence of many people; some of them were probably shocked by what was happening. Moses, coming down from the mountain, found the Israelite camp in great disorder. So quickly the absence of both Moses and Christ was felt. The return of Christ was, without a doubt, very desirable for the disciples and unwelcome for the scribes. But what deserves special attention is that this was a big surprise for the people, who were probably already ready to say: As for this Jesus, we do not know what became of Him. When they saw Him coming towards them again, the people were amazed (in some copies it was added: kai exefobhqhsan - and were afraid), and, running up, they greeted Him. It is not difficult to understand why they were so glad to see Him, but why were they amazed, and were they greatly amazed? There was probably something wonderful left in His countenance, like that of Moses, whose face shone as he came down from the mountain, making the people afraid to approach him, Exod. 34:30. Perhaps something similar happened with the face of Christ; at least, instead of any signs of fatigue, a wonderful liveliness and vigor were noticeable in His appearance, which caused the amazement of the people.

II. A situation was presented to Christ that left the disciples in confusion. He turned to the scribes, knowing that they always annoyed His disciples and pestered them on any occasion: “What are you arguing with them about? What are you two bickering about this time?” The scribes did not give any answer, confused in His presence; The disciples did not say anything, because they took courage and gave everything into His hands. The boy’s father told what the matter was, Art. 17, 18.

1. His son was possessed by a dumb spirit - he had a falling illness, and during seizures he became mute. His situation was very deplorable, for wherever he had a fit, the spirit seized him and threw him to the ground, subjecting him to such severe convulsions, as if it wanted to tear him apart. And what was especially painful for him and terrible for those around him was that he emitted foam from his mouth and gnashed his teeth, as if from severe pain and suffering. Although the seizures soon stopped, they exhausted him so much that he became numb and looked like a dead man; his flesh was withered, that is the meaning of the word, Ps. 111:4-6. This was constant torment for a loving father.

2. The disciples could not bring him the slightest relief: “I told your disciples to expel him, since they expelled many and would have expelled this one with joy, but they could not, so you came as never before on time; Teacher, I have brought my son to You."

III. The rebuke addressed to all those assembled (v. 19): O faithless generation! How long will I be with you? How long will I tolerate you? Dr. Hammond believes that Christ is speaking here to His disciples, reproaching them for not exercising the power He had given them, and for not fasting and praying as He commanded them to do in certain cases. But Dr. Whitby refers this reproach to the scribes, who rejoiced at the failure of the disciples and hoped that through it they would overthrow them. Christ calls them an unfaithful race and says of Himself that He is tired of being with them, of having to endure them. We never heard Him complain: “How long will I remain in this humiliating position and endure it?” No, but: “How long will I be among this unfaithful people, how long will I endure them?”

IV. The deplorable state of the youth in which he was when he was led to Christ, and the sad description of this state made by his father. When the youth saw Christ, he had a fit: the Spirit shook him, as if the devil was challenging Christ in the hope that this incident would be too difficult even for Him and that he would retain his power over the victim. The youth fell to the ground and lay there, emitting foam. We can offer another explanation: the devil was furious, he was in great rage, knowing that he did not have much time left, Rev. 12:12. Christ asked: How long ago did this happen to him? This illness seems to have been a long one, having afflicted him from childhood (v. 21), which made his situation the more sad, and the cure more difficult. We are all by nature sons of disobedience, and the evil spirit operates in the sons of disobedience, and this begins from our childhood; for stupidity has become attached to the heart of the young man, and nothing but the almighty grace of Christ can drive it out from there.

V. The father of the boy gives convincing arguments to Christ, asking for healing (v. 22): And many times the spirit threw him into fire and into water to destroy him; but, if you can, take pity on us and help us.

Note. The devil seeks to destroy those in whom he operates and controls; he seeks whom he can devour. But if you can, take pity on us and help us. The leper (Matthew 8:2) was convinced of the power of Christ, but admitted if in relation to His will: If you want, you can... This same unfortunate man relied on the favor of Christ, but said if, expressing doubt about His power, since His disciples who cast out demons in His name were powerless in this case. Thus, because of the failure and foolishness of the disciples, the honor of Christ suffers.

VI. Christ's answer to these words (v. 23): If you can believe a little, all things are possible to him who believes.

1. Christ delicately reproached him for his weakness of faith. The sufferer questioned the power of Christ: if you can, and referred to the lack of strength of the disciples. But Christ shifts the responsibility for this onto himself, urging him to test his own faith and attribute his disappointment to its lack: If you can believe at all...

2. He generously strengthens the strength of his desire: “Everything is possible, everything will be possible to him who believes in the almighty power of God, for whom all things are possible.” Or: “For those who believe in the promise of God, His grace will do what seems completely impossible.” Note. In our relationship with Christ, much depends on our faith, and much is promised to it. Can you believe? Do you dare to believe? Are you ready to decide to give yourself into the hands of Christ? Entrust all your spiritual and everyday worries to Him? Do you have the courage to do this? If so, then nothing is impossible, and although you are a great sinner, you can find peace with God; although you are an insignificant and unworthy person, you can reach heaven. If you can believe a little, then your hardened heart can soften, spiritual illnesses can be healed, and no matter how weak you are, you can stand to the end.

VII. The profession of faith of the unfortunate man which followed this, v. 24; he exclaimed: “I believe, Lord. I am fully convinced of both Your power and Your compassion. May my lack of faith not become an obstacle to healing, I believe, Lord!” He adds a request that grace may enable him to rely more firmly on the assurance that Christ is able and willing to save him: Help my unbelief. Note:

1. Even those who by the grace of God can say: I believe, Lord, have reason to complain about their unbelief, about the fact that they cannot readily apply the word of Christ to themselves and to their life situation and joyfully rely on it.

2. Those who complain of unbelief should look to Christ for grace to help them against it, and His grace will be sufficient for them. “Help my unbelief; forgive me my unbelief, give me the strength to overcome it, fill what my faith lacks with Your grace, the power of which is made perfect in weakness.”

VIII. Healing of the boy and victory over the fierce demon that owned him. Christ, seeing that the people were coming running, wanting to see how this test of strength would end, no longer began to keep those gathered in bewilderment and noticed the unclean spirit. Note:

1. What was the order of Christ, given not to a pure spirit: “The dumb and deaf spirit, who made the unfortunate youth deaf and dumb, now you will hear your verdict and will not be able to say anything against him, I command you: come out of him immediately and no longer enter it. May he not only get rid of this attack, but may these attacks never happen again.” Note. Whomever Christ heals, He heals completely. Satan himself can come out, but at the same time retaining power over a person; if Christ drives him out, then He will keep him outside of man.

2. How it was perceived by the unclean spirit. He became even more furious: screaming and shaking him violently, he subjected the boy to such convulsions as he left him that he became as if dead. He so did not want to leave his possession, he was so irritated by the power of Christ that surpassed him, he hated the boy so much and so wanted to kill him. Many said that he died. The soul may be subjected to such a terrible shock at the moment of crushing the power of Satan in it, but it will open the door to eternal peace for him.

3. Then the boy was completely healed (v. 27): Jesus, taking him by the hand, grasping him tightly, lifted him up with a strong hand, and he stood up and became completely healthy.

IX. The reason Christ gave for why His disciples were unable to cast out this demon. The disciples asked Him privately why they could not expel him, so that next time they could do what they failed to do now, and not disgrace themselves in front of everyone. To this He said to them (v. 29): This generation cannot come out except by prayer and fasting. What other difference there could be between this and another race is not clear, but one thing is clear, that this unclean spirit possessed the unfortunate boy from childhood, and this strengthened his power and confirmed his dominion over him. When vicious habits take root as a result of prolonged use, they claim their right of prescription, like chronic diseases that are difficult to cure. Can an Ethiopian change his skin? The disciples could not be expected to perform their work with the same ease at all times; in some cases they might be required to exert themselves more than usual. Only Christ can do with one word what they must achieve by fasting and prayer.

Verses 30-40. I. Christ predicts His approaching suffering. He passed through Galilee with more haste than usual, and did not want anyone to know (v. 30), because he had already done many great and good works among them in vain; they will no longer see them and benefit from them as before. The time of His suffering was very near, so He desired to be alone and to associate only with His disciples, to prepare them for the coming trial, v. 31. He said to them: The Son of Man, according to God's predestination and foreknowledge, will be delivered into the hands of men (v. 31), I will kill Him. If He had been delivered into the hands of evil spirits and they would have tormented Him, it would not have been so strange; but that people who had reason and should have had love should so hate the Son of Man, who came to free and save them, remains inexplicable. But it is noteworthy that Christ, when he spoke about His death, always spoke about His resurrection, which was supposed to remove the shame of it from Him and remove sorrow from His disciples. But they did not understand these words, v. 32. The words were quite simple, but they could not come to terms with what they were talking about, so they wanted to see in them some kind of mystical meaning, which they did not understand, and were afraid to ask Him; not because Christ was difficult to reach them or harsh with those who turned to Him, no, but because they were either not disposed to know the truth, or thought that He would reproach them for their unwillingness to accept it. Many remain ignorant because they are ashamed to ask.

II. Christ reproaches the disciples for their self-exaltation. Arriving at Capernaum, He privately asked the disciples what they were discussing among themselves on the way, v. 33. Christ knew perfectly well what they were arguing about, but wanted to hear it from them themselves, wanted them to confess to Him the sin and foolishness of their reasoning. Note:

1. We must all be prepared for the fact that our Lord will call us to account for everything that happens to us during our earthly journey along the path of trials.

2. In particular, we will be called to account for our conversations among ourselves, for by our words we will either be justified or condemned.

3. Just as our reasonings with each other along the way, especially disputes, will be remembered, and we will have to give an account for them.

4. Christ will certainly demand an account from His disciples for their disputes about primacy and seniority; this was precisely the subject of discussion in this case: who is greater, Art. 34. Nothing so strongly contradicts the two greatest laws of the Kingdom of Christ, which He teaches in His school and shows by His example, the laws of humility and love, as the desire to be high in this world and disputes about it. He tried at all times to suppress these unhealthy sentiments, because they proceeded from an erroneous understanding of the nature of His Kingdom (as a kingdom of this world) and had a direct tendency to humiliate the honor and discredit the purity of His Gospel, and also, as Christ foresaw, threatened mortal danger for Churches. So:

(1.) They wanted to hide it (v. 34): They were silent.... As when they did not ask (v. 32), because they were ashamed to confess their ignorance, so here they did not answer, ashamed to own it. your pride.

(2) He wanted to correct their error and put them in a better frame of mind, so he sat down to talk with them at length on the subject. He called the twelve and told them,

That with their ambition and love for titles and power they will not only not achieve primacy in His Kingdom, but will lose it: If anyone wants or sets his goal to be first, he will be the last, whoever exalts himself will be humiliated - man’s pride humiliates him.

That to be above others does not mean an advantage, but a favorable opportunity for greater work and for greater indulgence towards others, as well as an obligation to both: He who wants to be first must work more and serve everyone. Whoever desires episcopacy desires a good deed, for he must, like the Apostle Paul, work harder and be a servant of all.

That the most humble and selfless are more like Christ than others, and will be accepted by Him with greater tenderness. He took the child, who had no pride and no ambition, and, hugging him, said to them:

“Look, whoever accepts a child like this accepts Me. People with a humble, meek and gentle disposition - these are the ones I recognize and will be favorable to; and I urge everyone else to do the same, and I will perceive what is done for them as done for Me personally; My Father will do the same, for he who receives Me also receives him who sent Me; it will be credited to Him and richly rewarded.”

III. Christ reproaches them for humiliating everyone except themselves. Finding out which of them was greater, they put those who did not follow them into nothing. Note:

1. John's message to Christ about how they forbade one person to use His name because he was not one of them. Although the disciples were ashamed to admit that they had argued about their own superiority, yet at the same time they seemed to be proud of the fact that they had exercised their power, and expected that the Teacher would not only justify their action, but also praise it. They hoped that He would no longer reproach them for wanting to be great, after they had used their power to defend the honor of the holy community. “Teacher,” said John, “we have seen a man who casts out demons in Your name, and does not follow us,” v. 38.

(1.) It is strange that one who did not recognize himself as a disciple and follower of Christ should nevertheless have the power to cast out demons in His name, for this, it would seem, should have been the prerogative of only those called by Him, chapter 6:7. Some suggest that this was a disciple of John, that he used the name of the Messiah, not yet come, but coming, not knowing that Jesus was the Messiah. It is most likely that he used the name of Jesus, believing, like the other disciples, that He was the Christ. And why couldn’t he receive this power from Christ, whose Spirit, like the wind, breathes where it wants, without such a visible calling as the apostles had? And there were probably many more of them. The grace of Christ is not limited to the visible Church.

(2) It is strange that the one who cast out demons in the name of Christ did not join the apostles and did not follow Christ with them, but continued to act separately from them. I don’t know anything that could prevent him from following them, except that he was not ready to leave everything; if so, it was a bad principle. This did not look good, and therefore the disciples forbade him to use the name of Christ, as they did, if he did not want to follow Him, as they followed. This is similar to the sentence of Joshua regarding Eldad and Modad, who prophesied in the camp and did not come to the door of the tabernacle: “My lord Moses! rebuke them (Numbers 11:28), make them silent, for this is a schism.” In the same way we are apt to imagine that those who do not follow Christ with us do not follow Him at all, and that those who do not do everything as we do do nothing good. But the Lord knows His own, even though they are scattered. This example warns us that, driven by excessive zeal for the unity of the Church and what we believe firm conviction, rightly and well, did not oppose what contributes to the creation of the Church and the promotion of its true interests, albeit in a different way.

2. The reproach given by Christ for this, v. 39: Jesus said, “Do not forbid him or anyone else who does the same.” Moses said something similar to Joshua: Are you not jealous for me? Note. One cannot prohibit what is good and beneficial, despite some shortcomings and incorrect actions. Casting out demons, that is, destroying the kingdom of Satan, and doing this in the name of Christ, which means recognizing His Divine mission, honoring Him as the Source of grace, preaching against sin and in favor of Christ is a good, very good deed, which should not be forbidden to anyone only from - because he doesn’t follow us. Paul said that he rejoiced and would rejoice that Christ was preached, even if it overshadowed himself, Phil. 1:18. Christ gives two reasons why this should not be prohibited.

(1) Because it is impossible to allow a person who works miracles in the name of Christ to slander His name, as the scribes and Pharisees did. True, there were those who cast out demons in the name of Christ, but at the same time were workers of unrighteousness, but they did not slander Christ.

(2.) Because those who have differences in the matter of fellowship, but are united in the struggle against Satan under the banner of Christ, should look upon each other as supporters. He who is not against you is for you. Regarding the greatest disagreement between Christ and Beelzebub, He said: He who is not with Me is against Me, Matthew 12:30. Anyone who does not belong to Christ belongs to Satan. But in relation to those who belong to Christ and follow Him, although not after us, we must admit that they are not against us, and therefore for us, and should not create any obstacles to their useful activities.

Verses 41-50. I. Christ promises a reward to all who show any kindness to his disciples (v. 41): "And who will give you a cup of water (when you need it for strength) in my name (because you are Christ's, because you belong to my family), truly I tell you, he will not lose his reward.” Note:

1. It is the honor and happiness of Christians that they are Christ's, have entered into union with Him, and He recognizes them as His own. They wear the garments of servants in His house; Moreover, their relationship is so close that they are members of His Body.

2. Those who belong to Christ may sometimes find themselves in such straitened circumstances that they would welcome a cup of cold water.

3. Helping God's needy children in their time of need is a good deed, it will be counted by those who do it: Christ will accept it and reward it.

4. Showing kindness to the poor of Christ's children should be done in His name, on the ground that they are Christ's, for this is what sanctifies kindness and makes it valuable in the eyes of God.

5. This is the reason why we should not refuse to support or discourage those who serve the interests of the kingdom of Christ, although they do not always think and act as we do. This is the reason given here why those who cast out demons should not be opposed in the name of Christ, although they do not follow Him, for (as Dr. Hammond paraphrases the words of Christ): “I accept not only the great outstanding works done you, My constant followers and disciples, but any, the weakest manifestation of sincere faith, any Christian act expressing the smallest kindness, like giving a cup of cold water to My disciples in My name, will be accepted by Me and rewarded.” If Christ considers kindness to us to be service to Him, then we should consider service to Him to be kindness to us and encourage those who do it, even if they do not follow us.

II. He threatens those who seduce these little ones, who deliberately give them occasion for sin or sorrow, v. 42. If anyone upsets or offends any of the true Christians, even the weakest, prevents him from taking the path of God or hinders his progress along this path, keeps him from good deeds or draws him into sin, it would be better for him if he were hanged a millstone was placed on his neck and they threw him into the sea: his punishment will be very great, the death and destruction of his soul will be more terrible than the death and destruction of his body mentioned here, see Matthew 18:6.

III. He warns all His followers about the danger of destroying their own soul. This charity must begin at home; if we should be afraid of becoming a stumbling block for others on the path of good and a reason for their sin, then how much more careful should we ourselves be in order to avoid what can hinder us in the fulfillment of our duty or lead us into sin; we must part with all such things, no matter how dear they may be to our hearts. We have already read about this twice in Matthew, Matthew 5:29,30 and 8:8,9. This is discussed here in more detail and urgently, and therefore requires our most serious attention.

Please note:

1. Our own hand, foot, or eye is supposed to seduce us; that the impurity we indulge in is as dear to us as the eye or the hand; or: what is for us the same as an eye or a hand becomes an invisible temptation to sin, or a reason for it. Suppose that something we love has become sinful, or something sinful has become loved, that we cannot keep something dear to us without it becoming a snare for us, a stumbling block, so that we must part with either this object dear to us or with Christ and with a good conscience.

2. The duty prescribed to us in this case: Pluck out an eye, cut off an arm and a leg, in other words: kill your beloved passion, crucify it, fight it, do not feed it. Let the idols, which were objects of pleasure, be thrown out as something vile; keep your distance from that which tempts, no matter how pleasant it may be. An organ affected by gangrene must be cut off in order to preserve the entire body. What cannot be treated must be cut off so that healthy members do not become infected. We must endure pain in order to avoid destruction, our self must be rejected so as not to be destroyed.

3. Why it is necessary to do this. The flesh must be mortified so that we can enter into life (vv. 43, 45), into the Kingdom of God, v. 47. Although in leaving sin we may feel as if we had become lame and crippled (it may seem that we are committing violence against ourselves and causing ourselves some inconvenience), but this is necessary for the sake of life (and for life people will give everything they have is), for the sake of the Kingdom, the Kingdom of God, which cannot be achieved in any other way. These cripples and lameness will be like marks of the Lord Jesus in the Kingdom of God, scars of honor.

4. Why it is dangerous not to do this. The question comes down to this: either sin must die or we must die. If Delilah lives in our hearts, she will betray us; if sin guides us, it will certainly harm us; If we keep our two hands, two eyes and two legs, then together with them we will be cast into Gehenna. Our Savior often urges us to do our duty by citing as an argument the torments of hell to which we expose ourselves if we continue to live in sin. With what expression of horror the words are repeated here three times: Where their worm does not die, and the fire does not go out. They are quoted from Isaiah 66:24.

(1) The torment and remorse of a sinner is the worm that does not die. They cleave to the damned soul like worms to a dead body, and torment it, never leaving it alone until they completely consume it. Son, remember, this worm will gnaw, and how terribly the words will sting (Proverbs 5:12,23): Why did I hate instruction! The soul, which is food for this worm, does not die, the worm breeds in it, becomes one with it, so both of them do not die. Condemned sinners will be forever blaming, condemning, and reproaching themselves for their own follies, which, however much they love them, will in the end bite like a serpent and sting like an adder.

(2) The wrath of God, poured out on a guilty and defiled conscience, is that fire that does not go out, for it is the wrath of the living God, the eternal God, into whose hands it is terrible to fall. The Spirit of grace has no effect on the souls of the condemned, therefore nothing can change the quality of combustible material, which must always remain combustible. No merit of Christ can be applied to them, so nothing can calm or extinguish this fire. Dr. Whitby testifies that not only the Christian, but also the Jewish church has always believed that the torments of hell are eternal. Joseph said: the Pharisees were of the opinion that the souls of the wicked were punished with eternal punishment, that an eternal prison was prepared for them. And Philo also said that the punishment of the wicked is to live forever dying, to endure eternal suffering and torment that will never cease.

The last two verses are somewhat difficult to understand, and interpreters differ in their explanation of their meaning: For everyone, in general every person, or rather everyone who is thrown into Gehenna, will be salted with fire, and every sacrifice will be salted with salt. Therefore, have salt in you.

The Law of Moses prescribed that each sacrifice should be salted, not to preserve it from spoilage (since it was immediately burned), but so that it could be food for the table of God, since no meat is eaten without salt; particularly the grain offering, Lev. 2:13.

Human nature, being corrupted, and therefore called flesh (Gen. 6:3; Ps. 77:39), one way or another must be salted in order to become a sacrifice to God. When fish is salted (and other foods, I think), it is called preserving for future use.

Our main task is to present ourselves to the grace of God as a living sacrifice (Rom. 12:1), and in order to be accepted by God, we must be seasoned with salt, that is, our evil inclinations must be suppressed and mortified, there must be taste in our souls grace. So also the offering or sacrifice of the Gentiles is said to be acceptable to God by being sanctified by the Holy Spirit, like sacrifices salted with salt, Rom. 15:16.

Those who have the salt of grace must demonstrate that they have it, have the salt in them - have a living principle of grace in their hearts, which removes all their sinful inclinations, everything tending to moral corruption and disgusting God or ours. own conscience, which is caused by tasteless food. Nashar must always be seasoned with this salt so that no rotten word comes from our mouths, so that it causes us the same disgust as if we brought a piece of spoiled meat to our mouth.

This blessed salt will keep our conscience from temptation, as well as our behavior with others, so that we do not offend any of these little ones who belong to Christ, but that we may be at peace with each other.

We must not only have this salt of grace, but also forever preserve its taste and distinctive properties, for if the salt is not salty, if a Christian turns away from his Christianity, if he loses its flavor and is not under its influence, he will not have it. strength, then what can restore it, how will you correct it? This is also stated in Matthew 5:13.

Those who are unwilling to present themselves as a living victim of God's grace will be an ever-dying victim of His justice; since they did not want to give Him honor, He will get His glory from them; they did not want to be salted with the salt of Divine grace, they did not want to accept it in order to subordinate their vicious inclinations to it, they did not want to submit to its operation, they could not bear its corrosive effect necessary for the destruction of proud flesh - for them it was tantamount to cutting off a hand or pluck out an eye, so in the underworld they will be salted with fire. Burning coals will be rained down on them (Eze 10:2), like salt on bread, and brimstone (Job 18:15), just as fire and brimstone were rained down on Sodom. The pleasures in which they live will consume their flesh like fire, James 5:3. The suffering that accompanies the mortification of the flesh, in comparison with the punishment for not mortifying it, is a salting compared to burning. Christ said that the fire in Gehenna does not go out, and since it can be objected to this statement that the fire cannot burn forever, He makes it clear here that by the power of God it will always burn: those thrown into Gehenna will discover that its fire has not only the corrosive property of salt, but also its preserving property, which is why its name is usually used to designate something eternal: the covenant of salt is an eternal covenant, Lot’s wife turned into a pillar of salt - an eternal monument of God’s retribution. And since this fire will certainly become the fate of those who have not crucified the flesh with passions and lusts, let us, knowing the fear of the Lord, be wise to do this.

The transfiguration witnessed by the chosen disciples of Jesus is a precursor to the great changes that were to take place by the omnipotent power of God, although this amazing scene was only a fleeting glimpse of an enduring glory. The elect were able to see with their own eyes the image of the kingdom of God coming in power, the main reason for the onset of which was man’s renunciation of Christ and the imminent implementation of the power of Jesus, rejected by man, but glorified by God. Of course, our Lord's ministry had a double meaning. As with everything in Scripture, man had to be held accountable for it before its results were to be manifested on God's part. To any question man was given an answer and proof: the mercy of God was revealed in everything, but man did not heed it. The only thing that man did in response to the testimony of God was to reject Christ and God himself, morally manifested on earth. What could God do?

Undoubtedly, He will carry out His intentions by His own power, for nothing emanating from Him will fail, and every testimony of His will achieve its goal. But He endures for a long time; and before laying the foundation upon which He will establish His power and His kingdom, God sends to the elect a vision of that kingdom. Consequently, the transformation was a kind of bridge connecting the present and the future; it represents God's thoughts to people. This is indeed a forewarning, as well as a testimony, and even an image of what believers can see in the kingdom that will be established and revealed in due course. And here it is not that the rejection of Christ will cease after this, on the contrary, it will last until the crucifixion. But in the crucifixion, resurrection and ascension of our Lord Christ Jesus, we see in faith the outcome of the matter: on the one hand, Christ was rejected by people, and on the other, God laid the foundations of a new relationship with man. On the holy mountain, those chosen by the Lord himself witnessed the transfiguration.

He was transfigured only before a few of the chosen twelve; only a few witnessed his glory. But this transformation plays a very important role in the synoptic gospels, revealing to us the successful work of Christ in Galilee, especially from the point of view of his ministry, which is spoken of in our gospel.

The Lord, taking James, John and Peter with him, is transfigured before these disciples. The disciples see the famous men Elijah and Moses talking with Jesus. Peter expresses a lack of understanding of the glory of Christ. This is all the more remarkable because shortly before, in the previous scene, Peter had vigorously testified to Jesus. But God had to show that there was only one credible witness; and that same soul, which stood out brightly for a moment in the scene preceding the transfiguration, in that scene of transfiguration shows itself, more than any other, to be an earthly vessel of testimony. He (Peter) says to Jesus: “It is good for us to be here; We will make three tabernacles: one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah.” Obviously, although Peter could place the Savior first of the three, he considered the other two worthy to be on the same level with him. We see that immediately a cloud appeared, overshadowing them, and we hear a voice emanating from this cloud, confirming the highest and indivisible glory of the Son of man: “This,” says the Father, for it is He who says this, “is My beloved Son; Listen to him.”

You can see that Mark is missing something here. We do not find expressions of satisfaction here. In Matthew this is what is highlighted; there in chapter 17 it says, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; Listen to him.” I believe the reason here is to highlight this contentment against the background of the rejection of Christ by the Jewish people. And again in the gospel according to Luke, Christ is testified as the Son of God on the basis that he should be listened to more than Moses or Elijah. God says: “This is My Beloved Son.” He says, “Listen to him,” omitting the expression that he found favor in him. There is no doubt that Jesus was always the object of the Father's favor, but the reason for confirming this is not always the same. Comparing the evidence given in 2 Pet. 1, we find that Peter omits the expression “Listen to Him,” which we find in the first three gospels. He quotes the expression: “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” Obviously, Peter did not intend to show the superiority of the Lord Jesus Christ over the law and the prophets. The reason, I think, is clear. This issue has already been resolved: Christianity entered into the existence of people. The point now was not to achieve the superiority of Christ over the law and the prophets, but to simply show the glory of the Son in the eyes of his Father, the joy and his love and favor towards him; and after this Peter explains that in all the Word of God the Holy Spirit has one purpose, the glory of Christ, for the saints of old said that they were moved by the Holy Spirit. The Scripture was not written by the will of man; God in his glory had a great purpose in view, which would not be adequate to the superficial application of parts of this Word to isolated facts, to this or that person. There was one very important thread that connected all the prophecies of Scripture. The subject of all these prophecies was the glory of Christ. Separate the prophecies from Christ and you will take away from his personality that stream of testimonies that are given to him according to his deserts. This stream contains not just warnings regarding peoples, languages ​​or countries, regarding predetermined events or, in other words, regarding kings, empires or world systems; Christ is the object of the Spirit. Therefore, on the mount of transfiguration we hear the voice of the Father testifying to Christ, who is the object of his favor. Here the pattern of the kingdom of God was revealed; Moses and Elijah were also present there, but the Father primarily saw one in front of him, and this one was Jesus. “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” The point was not to listen specifically to Christ, but to listen to what the Father said about him. This is what is emphasized here, and why, it seems to me, the words “Listen to Him” are missing. In Matthew we find the fullest expression, reinforcing the call to listen to him. Luke uses the expression “Hear ye Him” in his gospel, but both Luke and Mark lack the expression conveying the personal satisfaction of the Father with the Son, since this was not their main purpose. Of course, there is a commonality in the use of these expressions, but at the moment I wanted to note and show the difference in their expression.

We then discover, without going into detail, that our Lord does not tell his disciples to tell what they saw until he rises from the dead. His resurrection would have brought something completely new into the testimony about him. Then the disciples of Christ would be able to testify to this great truth without hindrance. Thus, the Lord explains to them why they do not have the opportunity to testify until that great event takes place, which will precede the new act of God, which is the basis for a new and free testimony, when the old will pass away and everything will be renewed for the believer.

This I find very important if the disciples of Christ are viewed as called to serve him. It is not within the power of a person himself to begin to serve Christ or testify about him when he wants to. This is why the resurrection of Christ from the dead occupies such an important place in Scripture. Outside of Christ, sin reigns in death. There was no sin in him; but until his resurrection there could be no full testimony of his glory or his ministry. And this was true. After this, as if in passing, attention is drawn to those difficulties which indicate how our Lord determined the true failure of the disciples, for they were at that time actually under the influence of the scribes themselves.

A new scene unfolds at the foot of the mountain. At the top we saw not only the kingdom of God, but also the glory of Christ, and, most importantly, Christ as the Son, whom the Father commands to listen to more than the law or the prophets. This the disciples would never have understood before the resurrection, and the reason for this is clear, for until then the law retains its place, and the prophets come to confirm the law and support its authority by justifying it. The resurrection in no way weakens the law or diminishes the prophets, but makes it possible to reveal the highest glory. However, at the foot of the mountain we find clear confirmation of the events that took place just after the appearance of the prototype of the coming kingdom. And while the kingdom of God has not yet established itself in power, who is the ruler who influences people and rules in this world? This is Satan. In this case, a power was revealed to us that even the disciples of Christ themselves, because of their unbelief, could not expel from this world. Here again we see how clearly the great thought of service runs through this whole gospel.

The father is in despair, for he has suffered for a very long time; This is not the first time that Satan has dominated people in this world. Since childhood, the boy was possessed by an evil spirit that had long tormented a person. In vain did the boy's father cry out to those who bore the name of the Lord in this world, for they could do nothing. This prompted the Lord Jesus to seriously rebuke their unbelief, and especially because they were his servants. The predicament in which they found themselves was not due to any urgent need for him or his strength. It was due to their unbelief. Therefore, the only thing He could say at the sight of the powerlessness of his disciples revealed before him was the following: “Oh, unfaithful generation! How long will I be with you? How long will I tolerate you? Bring him to Me.” And “they brought him to Him. As soon as the demoniac saw Him, the spirit shook him; he fell to the ground and lay there, emitting foam.” The Lord did not hide the power of the devil in all its fullness, but allowed him to shake the child in front of those present. There is no doubt that the obsession has still not been eliminated. The disciples could not tame, stop or crush the power of the devil over the boy. “And Jesus asked his father, “How long ago did this happen to him?” He said: since childhood.” This scene is truly typical of our world. And what a contrast does it present in relation to the new creation - the creation of the world, or rather the kingdom of God, the prototype of which was just revealed on the mount of transfiguration.

So this chapter first of all announces the death of Christ, wholly rejected, and the assurance that God will establish his kingdom of glory for Christ, who was rejected by men. Secondly, it speaks of the futility and impossibility of witnessing the transfiguration until the resurrection of Christ from the dead is confirmed. Only then will the most appropriate moment for this testimony come. And finally, proof is given that until the kingdom of God fully comes into power, the devil will rule wherever evidence of him is even invisible. The fact is, as it is said here, that it is hidden under the outer shell of this world, where the gaze of the disciples penetrated, and the presence of our Lord Jesus brought out the fact that it completely subjugated man from the first days of his existence. The power of the devil over man is obvious, and the servants of the Lord only proved their powerlessness before it. This was not explained by the fact that Christ lacked strength, but by the fact that his disciples did not have enough faith to cast out the devil. The Savior immediately begins to act, allowing the person who suffered from the devil to become convinced that everything depends on faith. Meanwhile, Christ proves the evidence of the devilish forces operating until the kingdom of God comes. This is the testimony at the foot of the mountain. The Kingdom of God will undoubtedly come in due time, but for now only faith in Christ can defeat the power of the enemy. It is, without any doubt, the only necessary means of victory. Only faith in him could provide a blessing, and therefore the father of the boy with trepidation turns to the Lord with his grief: “I believe,” he exclaims, “Lord! help my unbelief.” At the same time, “Jesus, seeing that the people were running together, rebuked the unclean spirit, saying to him: the spirit is dumb and deaf! I command you, come out of it and do not enter it again.” The job was done. It seemed that the child had died, but the Lord, “taking him by the hand, raised him up; and he stood up.” Upon entering the house, Jesus gives his disciples another useful lesson about service.

It is easy to understand the essence of what is being said here. The Lord shows that along with faith they also lack recognition of dependence on God. This also affects a person's strength. “And he said to them, “This generation cannot come forth except by prayer and fasting.” While there is strength in Jesus, only faith draws it, but this faith is accompanied by a death sentence over human nature, just as turning to God is the only source of strength.

Next we are given another lesson related to the ministry of the Lord in a world where the devil rules until the establishment of the kingdom of God. We must understand the state of mind of Christ's servants. They longed for a special position. However, this is corrupting. “When they left there, they passed through Galilee; and He didn't want anyone to find out. For He taught His disciples and told them that the Son of Man would be delivered into the hands of men and they would kill Him, and after He was killed He would rise again on the third day. But they did not understand these words.” At first glance, this lack of ability to understand what Jesus said seems strange and at the same time common. What does this oblige you to? - To self-condemnation. They were ashamed to admit to the Lord the true reason. But the Lord guesses about this himself. He came to Capernaum and, while he was in the house, asked the disciples: “What did you talk about among yourselves on the way?” “They were silent; because along the way they argued among themselves who was the greatest.” It is not surprising that they showed powerlessness before the devil. No wonder they did not understand Jesus' words. Behind was a dead weight: thoughts about ourselves, the desire to somehow stand out among people and become famous. They really didn't believe what God was feeling and what He was going to reveal in His kingdom. For God set himself with one thought - to magnify Jesus. They were thus completely out of communication with God on this matter. And not only those of the disciples who were not on the mount of transfiguration, but even James, Peter and John - they all failed. How little does special position or privilege have to do with the obedience of faith! This was the true reason for their powerlessness, manifested both in the struggle with the devil and before Jesus. Further, I believe, the connection of all this with the ministry of the Lord should be revealed.

But immediately after this, another case is presented, typical of Mark. The Lord reproaches the disciples for obstinacy and, taking a child, uses his example to explain to them what it means to be humble. What a damning condemnation of their self-aggrandizement! Even John proves by his action that the glory of Christ, which forces a person to admit his insignificance, now worries his soul little. The day will come when this glory will take deep roots in their souls, when they will truly realize its lasting benefit, but at the present moment it is painful to see that they need anything else more than a word, even one spoken by Jesus. Therefore, John immediately after this turns to our Lord with a complaint about the man who cast out demons in His name, that is, did what they could not do: “Teacher! We have seen a man who casts out demons in Your name.” Was this then the act of a soul grateful to God? Not at all! The very essence of John kindled this fire and became the source of that strong feeling that gripped them all. “We have seen a man who casts out demons in Your name, and does not follow us; and they forbade him, because he does not follow us.” Obviously, no previous reproach had cleared their souls of self-aggrandizement, for this feeling flared up in them with renewed vigor. But Jesus said to them, “Do not forbid him.” This is another very important lesson of ministry given by Christ, because here we are not talking about insulting Christ - nothing in this case suggests or allows anything that would be contrary to his name. On the contrary, it was about a servant who spoke out against the devil, who believed in the effectiveness of the name of the Lord. If we were talking about the enemies or false friends of Christ, who overthrew or undermined his glory, then this person would be the one about whom it is said: “He who is not with Me is against Me; and whoever does not gather with Me scatters.” Whether the question is of the true Christ or the false Christ, his glory cannot be compromised one iota. Here, on the contrary, we are talking about a man who may have been ignorant and not enjoyed the privileged position in which the disciples were, but he understood the value and effectiveness of the name of the Lord, and Jesus graciously defends him.

“Do not forbid him, for no one who has performed a miracle in My name can quickly slander Me. For whoever is not against you is for you.” That man truly believed in the name of the Lord and thanks to this faith he had the power to do what - alas! - the students were unable to do it! Instead of humbly admitting their own action and their own unbelief (which prompted even John to seek means and pretexts to hinder the man whose actions God had approved), the disciples of Christ were filled with a feeling of envy of him in whom this effective power and who never seemed to have the privileges that they had. Therefore our Lord gives them instructions here, which, of course, differ from those we found in Matt. 12:30. I in no way want to suggest that the instructions in Matthew are not important - they are useful at other times and under other circumstances. However, Mark in his gospel talks about service, and it is the issue of service that is addressed here. So God's power in ministry is not dependent on position. No matter how correct (i.e., in accordance with the will of God) the position may be, it will still not give strength in service to those individuals who occupy the most correct position. In following Christ, his disciples occupied an impeccable position: there could be no more correct position than that which they occupied - for Jesus himself called them, gathered them around him, and sent them out to serve, endowing them with his own power and authority. Despite this, it was obvious that they showed weakness in practice. They showed a clear lack of faith so that they could draw strength from the origins of Christ in the fight against the devil. In remaining faithful to Christ and not following anyone else, they were absolutely right. They were right in choosing Jesus over John, but they were not right in not fully acknowledging the power of God at work in another man who was not so fortunately privileged as themselves. Our Lord therefore severely condemns this spiritual limitation and puts forward a principle which at first sight seems contradictory, but which is in reality harmonious. So there is no contradiction in God's Word here or anywhere else. Faith can fully agree that in Matt. 12:30 there is nothing that contradicts what was said in the Gospel according to Mark (chapter 9). At first glance, it undoubtedly may seem that there is such a contradiction, but look, read again and you will easily understand everything.

In Matt. 12:30 we are talking about something completely different when it says: “He who is not with Me is against Me; and whoever does not gather with Me scatters.” It is about Christ himself, the glory and power of God in Jesus on earth. As soon as it comes to his personality being attacked by enemies, then he who is not with Christ is against Christ. Are there still no people who commit offenses that discredit his personality? Everything else is secondary in comparison with this, and anyone who is not above reproach in this regard takes the side of the enemies of Christ. And he who contributes to the dishonor of Jesus proves, no matter how much he pretends that he does not collect, but still squanders. However, the thought expressed by the Lord in the Gospel according to Mark is completely different. Here we are talking about a person exalting Christ to the extent of his faith in him, but, of course, not with the same strength as it could be. Therefore, the disciples in this case should have recognized the testimony of the name of Christ and rejoiced in it. Of course, this man did not occupy the privileged position that they occupied, but he clearly magnified the name of Christ. If they could understand it, they would agree with it and thank God for it. Therefore, the Lord inspires them here with a completely different thought: “Whoever is not against you is for you.” Therefore, wherever we speak of the power of the Spirit used in the name of Christ, it is obvious that the one who thus turned to God for help could not be against Christ. And if God responds by bestowing such power and using it for the good of man to defeat the devil, then we should rejoice in this.

Need I tell you how useful both of these lessons are? We know, on the one hand, that this world has rejected and despised Christ. This is basically what is said in the Gospel according to Matthew. As proof of this, we see in chapter 12 that He was not only hated, but was hated even by those who at that time appeared to be devout and God-honoring. And, therefore, no matter how good a person may enjoy, no matter how revered and respected by people, if he highly valued and loved Christ, so despised and humiliated, in this case he did not find support in society. On the other hand, if we consider the ministry of Christ, then among those who tolerated the name of Christ there may have been people whom God used for this purpose or for the accomplishment of an important mission. Can I deny the fact that God uses such people in his work? In no case. I accept God's power over them and thank him. However, this is not a reason to give up the blessed service of following Jesus. It does not say “follow them,” but “follow Him.” Obviously, his students were busy with themselves and forgot about him. They sought to make this service their monopoly, instead of witnessing in the name of Christ. But the Lord puts everything in its place. And the same Lord who insists on a sentence for himself, in which his enemies testified to their hatred and contempt for his glory, in Mark He recognizes the power that his nameless servant displays in serving him. “Do not forbid him,” He says. “For whoever is not against you is for you.” Did the one who, according to the testimony of John himself, use his name in the fight against the devil, act against Christ? The Lord, in any case, highly values ​​that faith that knows how to use his name to gain victory over the devil. Thus, if God gives power to a person to, say, convert sinners to Christ, or free believers from some harmful teaching that dominates them, or pull them out of some other trap, then Christ recognizes him, and therefore we must also recognize it. This is pleasing to God and honors the name of Christ, although it is not a reason - and I repeat once again - to take lightly the question of following Christ if such a privilege is graciously granted to us. This is certainly a legitimate reason to resign ourselves to the idea that, while empowered by God, we give too little. So, on the one hand, we must defend and uphold the personal glory of Christ, without giving up anything, and on the other, we must recognize any power that God, of his own choice, gives to anyone to serve him. And no truth should in the slightest degree interfere with another.

Let me next call your attention to the relevance of this event in this gospel passage. It is impossible to transfer this event to another place, just like the harsh word from the gospel according to Matthew. In either case, the beauty of truth would be violated. On the one hand, the day of Christ's contempt and renunciation is the day of faith that affirms his glory, on the other hand, wherever the power of God is revealed, I must recognize it. I myself can be reproached for my own impotence, but at least give me the right to recognize the power of God wherever it is manifested.

Our Lord concludes this thought with stern instruction, and his sermon tells us that it is not simply a matter of following him temporarily or anything like that. Undoubtedly, his disciples will follow him throughout the world, where there are so many stumbling blocks and where danger awaits him at every step. But, moreover, in this world, where there are snares and snares all around, He deigned to shed the light of eternity. Consequently, it was not just a matter of the moment, for it was about something more than the struggle of parties. Therefore, our Lord protests against what essentially guided the actions of the erring disciples. He announces to them that anyone who gives them a cup of water in his name will do at least a small but effective service to those in need, and he, “because you are Christ’s, truly I tell you, will not lose his reward.” Although it was still not just about reward, on the one hand, and eternal damnation, on the other. They (the disciples) should have looked at themselves while it was still possible. Flesh is a vile and destructive thing. Whatever a person is, whoever he is, he cannot be confident in himself, especially, I dare add, when he serves Christ. There is no reason to doubt where exactly the souls of people are most susceptible to sin. And it’s not just a matter of moral failure. There are people who, although they resort to such seductions, are not dangerous. But it is a completely different and very dangerous matter when, under the pretext of serving the Lord, they cherish that which is offensive to Christ and the Holy Spirit. This lesson is instructive not only for the saints, but also for those who are still under the power of sin. “And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off... And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out.” Fight every obstacle mercilessly, and do it on the simplest moral basis with all perseverance, personally, because these obstacles are fraught with terrible danger. This struggle tests a person, it reveals everything in him that is from God.

The end of the ninth chapter of Mark's gospel is reminiscent of the end of the ninth chapter of 1 Corinthians, where the Apostle Paul also undoubtedly speaks of ministry, adopting a cautionary tone and hinting that ministry can often become a means of revealing not only the real condition, but also something imaginary. In the first case, this may not be a manifestation of open immorality, but where the soul does not remain before the Lord in constant self-condemnation, there the service quickly grows into evil, as the case of the Corinthians proved, for they thought much more about reward and power, than about Christ. And what moral consequences did this lead to? The apostle begins by considering this case in its most direct relation to himself. He believes that his preaching of the gospel is suitable for other occasions, but without any concern for holiness. Preoccupied with the thought of reward and other things, such a person, without remorse, gives in to what the flesh strives for, and, as a result, a complete fall occurs. If it were Paul, he would have to become an outcast or a reprobate (that is, rebuke from God). This word was never used to mean “loss of reward,” but meant complete rejection of the person himself. Then in chapter 10 he speaks of the fall of the Israelites, warning the Corinthians themselves of a similar danger.

Our Lord, in this very passage of Mark's gospel, warns of the same thing. He opposes the disdain that John shows towards a man who openly uses the name of Christ to save the souls of people and fight the devil. But John unwittingly ignored, if not rejected, the true secret of this power. It was John who needed care, no matter how holy and virtuous a person he was. They made a clear mistake, and a very serious one, and the Lord then proceeds to the most serious warning that He ever gave in His sermons. Nowhere else in this gospel is this gospel more emphatically spoken of eternal destruction. Here, as nowhere else, we have the opportunity to hear the dirge for lost souls constantly ringing in our ears: “Where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched” and, in addition: “Every sacrifice is salted with salt,” although these are two different things.

No human child can escape the judgment of God, for “it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment.” Judgment in one form or another is the fate of life's journey. No matter how you look at what is universal law, but man who is a sinner is subject to divine judgment. Although this is not the whole truth. There are people on earth who are not subject to the judgment of God, who even now have access to his favor and joyfully hope for his glory. Who are they? It is those who hear the word of Christ and believe the one who sent the Savior - they have eternal life and are not subject to judgment. But shouldn't they pass the test? Of course they should. But this is on a completely different basis - “every sacrifice will be salted with salt.” It is clear that here we are not just talking about a sinful person, but about one who is pleasing to God and therefore salted not with fire, but with salt. Of course, this tests and proves the spirituality of those who belong to God; and if this is so, then their special proximity to him is meant.

Thus, whether it is merely the judgment of man, of every soul as such, or of the special treatment of those who belong to God (that is, every offering pleasing to God is considered as made by Christ on the basis of his own great sacrifice), this is the rule, certainly applies to everyone and is true for everyone - not only for every sinner, but also for the believer. However, those who are truly pleasing to God are identified by Jesus Christ our Lord. As for the glorious saints, although they are certainly not subject to the judgment of God, the truth should not be hidden about what God in his mercy makes lasting. It may not be entirely pleasant, but the preserving power of divine mercy with its cleansing effect is evident. This, I think, is what it says: “It will be salted with salt.” The image of this well-known remedy leaves no room for things that are pleasing to the flesh with all their fragility. The Lord says that “salt is a good thing.” It does not belong to those things that act only for a moment and then disappear without a trace; salt tastes of God's covenant. “Salt is a good thing; but if the salt is not salty, how will you season it?” What a fatal loss! How dangerous it is to break a covenant! “Have salt in yourselves, and have peace among yourselves.” That is, firstly, be blameless in soul and, secondly, maintain peace among yourself, as the Apostle James calls for in his letter. Purity has to do with the flesh, it resists everything rotten, it is preserved by the almighty power of God's mercy. Observe it, for without it nothing is valuable, and “have peace among yourselves.” May we have this peace, but at the cost of inner purity, if we value the glory of God!

This concludes the ministry of the Lord in connection, as it seems to me, with transformation. This manifestation of the power of God cannot fail to introduce a new and proper character into those concerned.

Mark 10

In the next chapter (10) our Lord passes on to another subject, which is very surprising, for if we hastily conclude that death and resurrection are the basis of everything, and also taking into account the coming glory, then it turns out that such a ministry is as this, one should not attach importance to the relationships that develop between people according to the flesh. In this case, everything is just the opposite. Namely, when the highest principles established by God on earth are presented to you, they find their proper place. For example, the sanctity of marriage was not established when God gave the law. Everyone must know that for a person there are no more important relationships on earth - there is nothing that would truly form social ties as the institution of marriage. What else in this world is so important to family happiness and personal integrity, not to mention other important points on which all human relationships depend? And yet it is surprising that during the reign of the law, things were constantly allowed to weaken the marriage bond. For example, divorce was allowed for unimportant reasons, and this could lead to anything other than strengthening the good reputation of the marriage. On the contrary, in Christ mercy was revealed in its entirety, and, moreover, when this mercy was rejected, when the Lord Jesus Christ proclaimed what was to be based on his imminent humiliation and death, and when He taught that this new system could not and should not be proclaimed until He had risen from the dead, He also insisted that men should value the different relationships established among them according to the flesh. I believe that the connection with the resurrection is only mentioned in the Gospel of Mark. And this is really important, because Mark naturally points to the significance of that period and that glorious event, for the ministry of Christ and his testimony reveal the truth to others.

Here, however, the Lord, having rejected all that from the point of view of eternity was fleeting, having analyzed it to the end of the scene mentioned, showing the results of it to those who have nothing to do with it, as well as to those who enjoy the mercy of God in its preserving power, especially those who belong to Christ now consider the relation of these new principles to nature, to that which God himself recognizes as the external world.

Here the Lord primarily acts as the protector of marriage. He says that in the law, as important as it is, Moses does not make excessive demands on the marriage bond in the world. On the contrary, Moses allows the dissolution of marriage bonds, taking into account the condition of the Israelites. “Because of your hardness of heart, he wrote you this commandment. At the beginning of creation, God created them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother.” That is, other, even the closest relationships, so to speak, are inferior to these relationships. “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh; so that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, let no man separate.” This is what everything was leading to, but this simple and at the same time detailed interpretation the purpose of God we owe to the Lord Jesus, the great witness of God's mercy and eternity, with which are now connected his own rejection and the kingdom of God coming in power, and the removal of the long spell of the devil. This same Jesus is now clearing from the dust of ruins the laws established by God on earth.

A similar principle is seen in the subsequent events described here. “They brought children to Him so that He could touch them; but the disciples did not allow those who brought them.” If His followers had absorbed all the mercy with which He was fully endowed, then they would have allowed babies to see their teacher with a completely different feeling. The fact is that the spirit of selfishness was still strong in them. After all, what could be even more petty and narrow-minded? Their consciousness was so saturated with Judaism that they even despised infants. But almighty God despises no one, and mercy, which understands the thoughts of God, imitates his actions. And the Lord Jesus rebuked them, as follows from what was said: “Jesus was indignant and said to them: let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for of such is the kingdom of God.” Both of these details, which are so important for this world, testify to such mercy of the Lord Jesus Christ, which in no way deprives the nature of the position he occupies, but is the only protector of it, according to the thoughts of God.

What follows is another lesson, in some ways even more telling because it is even more complex. We can believe that God's mercy extends especially to children. But let us picture to ourselves an unconverted man who walks his life according to the established law, and is supremely content with the fulfillment of his duties. What would the Lord say about this? How would He feel towards such a person?

“When He set out on the road, someone ran up, fell on his knees before Him and asked Him: Good Teacher! What must I do to inherit eternal life? Jesus said to him: Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone.” This man was in deep ignorance, he was not armed with the knowledge of God, he truly knew nothing about man. He did not know the feeling of the true glory of Christ: he revered Christ, but only as a person who was very different from himself. He recognized him as a good mentor; he wanted, like a good student, to carefully learn from him everything he could. Therefore, for now he puts himself on the same level as Jesus, admitting that he is able to say and do the same things as Jesus. Therefore, it is obvious that the soul of this young man did not know that sin was punishable, and he also knew nothing about God. However, the Lord completely guesses his condition. He tells him: “You know the commandments,” emphasizing those duties that concern human relationships. “He answered and said to Him: Teacher! I have kept all this from my youth.” The Lord does not reject his statement - does not ask how accurately he fulfills the commandments of the second table. On the contrary, it says that “Jesus looked at him and loved him.” Many have great difficulty in trying to understand what the Spirit of God is saying here. It seems to me that this passage is as beautiful as it is instructive.

Of course this young man was not converted, for that is obvious; of course he did not know the truth, for his problem came from ignorance of the truth; and, of course, this man did not follow Jesus, on the contrary, we learn that he walked away from Jesus, and his heart certainly did not feel happiness from the mercy of God, because he seemed to walk away with sadness. Therefore, if you judge this person from the point of view of eternity, then you can find every reason to look at him with pain and anxiety. However, it is clear that Jesus looked at him and looked at him with love.

Is there nothing in this that has to do with perfect evangelism? I have no doubt that we can draw useful conclusions for ourselves. The Lord Jesus, having a perfect understanding of God and his mercy, and being able to infinitely value eternal life before his Spirit, felt himself free enough to be above the condemnation of all this human crowd, and could understand and appreciate the character and behavior of man, weigh all that is manifested conscientiousness, to love everything that deserves love in a person from the point of view of human nature. Without intending to disparage mercy, I am convinced that it always strengthens such feelings. For many, undoubtedly, this may seem strange, but they themselves prove what they are a hindrance to. Let them examine and judge whether the Word is silent about what is revealed here from what is said. Let it be known that we also have expressive confirmation of this in the gospel, which tells of Christ as a perfect servant; and this confirmation teaches us how we should serve by following him. In no other gospel do we see our Lord express this so clearly as here. He clearly speaks about the same event in the gospels of Matthew and Luke. But only Mark mentions that He “loved him.” Neither Matthew nor Luke say a word about why the Lord loved this young man. And only Mark tells us that, “having looked at him,” Christ loved him. Of course, this is the main essence of this event. The Lord truly admired that which naturally aroused admiration in man, that which by happy chance had been preserved from the evils of the world and was diligently cultivated in the law of God, which he followed perfectly, experiencing an irresistible desire to learn from Jesus, but at the same time he could not realize of his sinfulness. However, the Lord does not touch here on the narrow-mindedness or callousness that we so often display. Alas! we are poor servants of his grace! The Lord knew much better than us and felt the dangerous situation of this young man much more deeply than we did. However, we must appreciate that Jesus looked at the young man and loved him.

But then He “said to him: you lack one thing.” So what was he missing? “You are missing one thing.” The Lord does not deny anything that for one reason or another deserves praise: He recognizes everything that was really good. Who, for example, can blame an obedient child for anything? or a life lived honestly and dedicated to charity? Should I therefore attribute all this to divine mercy? or deny the need for it? No! These virtues I recognize as a gift belonging to man in this world, which should be properly appreciated. Anyone who thinks they don't matter is, in my opinion, simply disregarding the wisdom of the Lord Jesus Christ. And at the same time the one who makes from this or from something similar remedy attainment of eternal life, clearly does not know what he ought to know. One way or another, this question certainly requires careful handling, but can find true recognition in Jesus and in the blessed Word of God, and nowhere else. Therefore, our Lord says: “You lack one thing: go, sell everything you have and give to the poor.” Isn't this what Jesus did, when in fact He did infinitely more? Of course, He gave up everything so that God could be glorified by saving lost man. But if He deprived himself of his glory, then how great are the consequences of that humiliation, even death?

The young man wanted to learn something from Jesus. But was he ready to follow even the earthly path of the crucified? Didn't he just want to find what he lacked? Did he want to witness divine self-denial in mercy towards the disadvantaged? or give up earthly treasures in order to gain treasures in heaven? If he had done this, Christ would certainly have asked him for more, since even here He adds: “And come, follow Me, taking up the cross.” The Savior, as we see, does not outstrip the light of God; It does not hasten the coming of what will soon be revealed. He is in no hurry to announce the amazing change that this gospel will tell in due course, but He tests the soul of the young man to the end. A man in his best intentions turned out to be more frivolous than vain in comparison with the one who was only good; and this was revealed in Christ, in his worthy image and manifestation. And yet He, this unsurpassed man (not to mention the incomprehensible mystery of his crucifixion), could look at that young man with love, despite all his obvious shortcomings. And yet, no matter who he is, he should in no way be singled out in this world. His soul lived in the flesh and was influenced by mammon. He loved his property, and therefore himself; and the Lord, testing him, discovered the root of evil and confirmed it. For it is said: “He was troubled by this word and went away sad, because he had great possessions.” So, it seems to me that the Lord sets a perfect example of communication; and this is manifested first of all in the fact that He does not refer to what is still hidden by God. He doesn't talk about spilling his own blood, death or resurrection. After all, this was still to come, and this would not yet be understood. Even none of his disciples actually knew about this, although the Lord repeatedly spoke about it to the twelve. But how could the young man understand this? Our Lord did what was most important: He tried to awaken the man's conscience. He revealed to him the moral value of what He himself had done, urging him to give up everything he had. But this was the last thing the young man thought about. He wanted to be a donor, a generous patron; but to give up everything and, dooming himself to ridicule and dishonor, to follow Christ - he was completely unprepared for this. And this led to the fact that the young man, through his own fault, had no choice but to admit that he could not do the good that the good mentor to whom he turned to told him. What the Lord could have done for him then - only the Lord could say about it. But since the Word of God is silent about this, it is not given to us to know this, and it would be vain and unworthy to invent anything on this matter. God here proves that no matter how highly moral a person may show himself, following the letter of the law, no matter how amazingly blameless he may seem outwardly and no matter how openly he submits to the demands of God, all this does not save his soul, does not make a person happy, but leaves him deeply unhappy and far from Christ. This was the lesson the rich young aristocrat learned, and it must be said that it was a very serious lesson.

Our Lord further uses the same principle in His dealings with His disciples, for He now turns His attention to the external side of the matter. We saw a man of very decent nature, in a certain sense, seeking Christ, but this is what it all led to: in the end the man remained unhappy and walked away from Jesus, who looks at his disciples, who are in obvious confusion, having explained to them that wealth is an obstacle on the path to the divine. Alas! This was not taken as evidence of God's blessing. And if only they were rich, how much good they could not do! “How difficult it is,” says Christ, “for those who have wealth to enter the Kingdom of God!” Then He says to them, horrified by his words: “Children! How difficult it is for those who hope for wealth to enter the Kingdom of God! It's easier for a camel to pass through needle ears rather than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” The Lord persistently and even more seriously explains this lesson, so poorly understood even by his disciples. They, in extreme amazement, say to each other: “Who can be saved?” And this gives the Lord the opportunity to clarify what is the essence of the whole matter: salvation depends on God, and not at all on man. Law, nature, wealth, poverty, everything that a person loves or fears, have nothing to do with the salvation of the soul, and in this we must completely rely on the power of God’s mercy, and on nothing else, for what is impossible for men is possible for God. Therefore, everything depends on his mercy: salvation is in our Lord. Blessed be his name! Everything is possible with God: otherwise how can we or anyone else be saved?

Peter, in a somewhat boastful tone, says that the disciples left everything for him, after which the Lord pronounces a very expressive speech, characteristic of the Gospel according to Mark: “There is no one who has left home, or brothers, or sisters, or father, or mother , or a wife, or children, or land, for My sake and the Gospel, and would not have received... a hundred times more.” It should be noted that only Mark says “And the Gospels.” And this is precisely what service is emphasized here. Others might say, “For his sake,” but here it is written, “For my sake and the gospel’s.” Thus the value of the person of Christ is seen as integral to his ministry in this world. Whoever faithfully follows Christ, everyone, as He says, will receive “in the midst of persecution, a hundred times more houses, and brothers, and sisters, and fathers, and mothers, and children, and lands, and in the age to come, eternal life.” " This is not only a beautiful, but also a deeply true connection, for this is said by the Lord and is the hope of faith.

Everything that Christ is rich in belongs to us who believe in him. Undoubtedly, such wealth will not satisfy the greedy soul, but the believer will find deep and enormous satisfaction in it, since he does not strive to somehow stand out himself, but finds peace in the realization that everything that belongs to the assembly of God on earth , belongs to every saint of God in this world. Faith does not seek to own anything; it rejoices in what is common among the faithful. The unbeliever considers as his property only what one selfishly owns. On the contrary, if I am driven by love, then the situation is completely different. But this will be accompanied by “amidst persecution.” You cannot escape this if you are faithful to Christ. Those who live in godliness cannot escape this. Should I experience it just because they experience it? It would be better for me to experience this myself by relentlessly following Christ. But what honor can be earned from his struggle? This honor is especially evident in the ministry of Christ. And here again we see how fully Mark characterizes this: “But many who are first will be last, and those who are last will be first.” The same thing is said in the Gospel according to Matthew. Not the beginning of life's journey, but its end is decisive. On this path of life, a lot can change: there will be falls and mistakes, failures and vicissitudes of fate.

Then the Lord goes to Jerusalem, the city that became fatal for the true prophet. The people were wrong in asserting that the prophet never appeared in Galilee, for God did not leave himself without a testimony even there. But the Lord was undoubtedly right that not a single prophet should perish outside of Jerusalem. The center of religious tradition is precisely the place where true witnesses of God's grace must die. Therefore, the disciples did not understand well Jesus going to Jerusalem, and they followed him in surprise. They were little prepared for those impending persecutions, which were to be their pride in the coming day, and for which they were undoubtedly to be strengthened by the Holy Spirit. But so far this has not been felt in them. “Jesus walked ahead of them, and they were terrified and, following Him, were in fear. Having called the twelve, He again began to tell them about what would happen to Him: behold, we are ascending [how condescending! not only “I”, but “we” ascend] to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be delivered to the chief priests and scribes, and they will condemn Him to death, and deliver Him to the Gentiles.” Then we learn about suffering, even death (and what death!), so vividly described to us. And at this critical moment, James and John show how little people, even servants of God, delve into his thoughts.

“What is born of the flesh is flesh” - it doesn’t matter in whom. And this did not manifest itself in some vicious people, but in those who seemed to represent something of themselves; and therefore their lesson should serve as our edification. "Teacher! We want You to do for us whatever we ask.” The mother asks for them in another gospel - in one where we can expect the manifestation of a similar relationship in the flesh. But here - alas! - ask the servants themselves, who should have known better about this. And yet their eyes were closed to this. They turned the very fact that they were servants of God into a means of obtaining material gain even in the kingdom of God. They strive to please their flesh here, flattering themselves with the thought of occupying a high position there. But the Lord guesses the thoughts of their hearts and answers them with his inherent dignity: “You don’t know what you ask. Can you drink the cup that I drink and be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized? They answered: we can. Jesus said to them, “You will drink the cup that I drink, and you will be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized.” and let me sit by me right side and on the left - it does not depend on Me, but [will be given] to whomever is prepared.” He is a servant; and even on the eve of glory He remains so. A high position in the kingdom of God will be occupied only by those for whom it is destined.

Not only these two disciples discovered themselves, but also the other ten fully revealed what they cherished in their hearts. And not only this or that person is to blame for the fact that the carnal manifested itself in them; What is also important is how we behave in the face of the wrongdoings that others commit. The indignation that the other ten could not contain testified to their own guilt as much as the two thirsted best place. If selfless love dwelt in them, their ambition would undoubtedly become a matter of shame and regret. I will not say that they did not resist it from lack of faith, but I will say that their indignation proved that they were thinking about themselves and not about Christ. Therefore our Lord reproaches them all and proves that it was the spirit of paganism that prompted them to oppose the sons of Zebedee. He could not help but look for in them what was contrary to everything that was in him. Understanding what the kingdom is leads the believer to be satisfied with even a small position. The true greatness of Christ's disciples lies in their ability to be his moral servants, willing to give up everything in the service of others. It is not power that guarantees this greatness in the eyes of Christ, but the ability to be content with the position of a servant - a slave occupying the lowest position. As for Christ himself, He did not simply come to earth to provide help or to be a servant, He had what only He could have: the right, like love, to give his life for the ransom of many.

Mark 11

Starting from verse 48, the last scene opens - the Lord heads to Jerusalem. He comes there, as we already know, from Jericho. His advance to Jerusalem, as we see, begins with the healing of a blind man. I do not need to dwell in detail on individual details, for example, on the entry of Christ into the capital riding on a young donkey, like a king (chap. 11); I will not talk again about the fig tree (which Christ cursed and which the next day completely withered) or about Christ’s call to believe in God and how to pray in faith. Nor is it necessary to dwell upon the question of the authority given to Christ, which was raised by the religious leaders.

Mark 12

The parable of the vineyard, which begins chapter 12, talks a lot about the responsibility of servants before God. Then we learn about the stone rejected by the builders, which later became the head of the corner. And again we see representatives from different parties of the Jews who turn to the Lord with questions. Of course, each of the scenes passing before our eyes has its own important points, but time does not allow me to dwell on each of them in detail. Therefore, I will deliberately avoid these details. We see the Pharisees, Herodians and Sadducees convicted of hypocrisy, whose claims were refuted; we see a scribe proving the essence of the law, answering whose question our Lord shed the light of God on the law and at the same time gave a remarkable assessment of the lawyer himself. “Jesus, seeing that he answered wisely, said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” The wonderful characteristic that characterizes the ministry of our Lord is his readiness to acknowledge truth wherever He finds it. Our Lord then asks his own question regarding his identity according to Scripture. He then gives a brief warning to the people concerning the scribes, and singles out among the donors the poor blessed widow as an example of true devotion and true faith in this almost completely devoid of spirituality in the world of God's people on earth. How He ignores the money that was put into the treasury out of abundance, and how He singles out and forever sanctifies the action of faith where it could least be expected!

This widow, who had no money except two mites, put all her food into the treasury of God, and at this time, when everything was mired in selfishness and was collapsing, the last thing this widow thought was that she had found even here on earth , an eye that can see and a tongue that can proclaim what God could do for his own praise in the heart of the poorest woman of Israel and by her hand!

Mark 13

Our Lord then gives instructions to his disciples in a prophecy strictly consistent with the manner of Mark (ch. 13). For this very reason, only here, in this sermon, is it said about the ministry of the Lord, about the strength with which they will be able to withstand difficult times. Our Lord therefore leaves out all characteristic references to the end of the world, and the expression does not even appear here. The fact is that, although this is the same prophecy in which Matthew indicates the end of the world, here the Holy Spirit does not specifically mention it for the simple reason that the prophecy that prepared them for the upcoming service explains what is missing, and what is added here in comparison with the gospel according to Matthew. I can also notice that in this prophecy alone He says that not only the angels, but even the Son does not know when that day will come. The reason here is special and, at first glance, stunning. Although this expression, it seems to me, is due to the fact that Christ carefully fulfills the office of one who confines himself to what God entrusts to him, he is a perfect servant, and not a master, and from this point of view remains so even in relation to the future. He knows and conveys to others only what God tells him. And since God does not say anything about that day or that hour, He does not mention them. Notice in what special manner our Lord here describes himself, his servants, and their work. This description is not preachy in nature, as in the parable of the talents given by Matthew. It simply says, “Just as someone, when he went on a journey and left his house, gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work, and commanded the gatekeeper to watch.” The distinctive features of Matthew's gospel are clear. There is much more majesty there. There, those setting off on a long journey anticipate a long absence. Here he, undoubtedly, also sets off on a journey, but gives “power to his servants.” Who will not notice that what is written corresponds to the purpose of the gospel according to Mark? He gives “everyone his own business.” Can't we ask why we find these expressions here? Yes, because they reveal the content of the entire given gospel, since even in prophecy the Lord never abandons the great thought of service. Here we are not mainly talking about rewarding with gifts or benefits upon completion of work. His servants are given power. They wanted her. They didn't take her without permission. Here we are talking more about doing his will than about benefiting from his gifts. The latter is spoken of more in the Gospel according to Matthew, because the purpose of the previous Gospel was to show the unusual change that took place after the Lord left the earth, as well as the hopes placed in the Messiah by the Jews, for with His ascension into heaven He was going to take a new position . There He is represented as distributing gifts, which in itself is very different in character from the institutions accepted by Judaism; and people trade these gifts, and the righteous and faithful finally enter into the joy of their master. Here the ministry of Christ is simply narrated, here He is shown as a faithful servant.

Mark 14

The 14th chapter shows extremely interesting and instructive scenes where our Lord, alone with his disciples, no longer prophesies, but honors them with the last vow of his love. Furious, the high priests and scribes conspire to put him to death. In the house of the leper Simon in Bethany, a certain woman anoints the body of the Lord for burial, she recognizes him among the disciples and chooses among them a mentor, whom we further see not accepting the sacrifice of love, but giving the great and unchanging sign of his love - the supper. The state of Judas's soul is manifested in two cases: when he conceives his plan and when he sets out to carry it out. From this time on our Lord comes forward: not only to endure the wrath of God, but also to accept it in spirit before God throughout the entire gospel. We had the opportunity to verify that He had the habit of turning to God, to which I now want to draw attention in passing. Since the crucifixion was the most difficult task and caused the deepest suffering, the Lord could not go to Calvary without first praying in Gethsemane. And He in due course appears before the high priest and Pilate, who judge him.

Mark 15

We read about how our Lord was crucified in the 15th chapter. From it we learn about how this affected those who followed him: about the mercy of women and the despicable cowardice of men in the face of death, while weak women turned out to be strong.

Mark 16

And finally, the 16th chapter tells of the resurrection of Christ, and it is told strictly in accordance with the nature of this gospel. Accordingly, when we learn that the Lord has risen from the dead, we read about how the angel says to the women who entered the tomb: “Do not be dismayed. Look for Jesus of Nazareth, crucified; He has risen, He is not here. This is the place where He was laid. But go, tell His disciples and Peter.” Peter is mentioned separately only in the Gospel of Mark. And this is understandable. This is an important lesson for the soul. After all, in fact, Peter despised the word of the Lord, although not intentionally; Peter did not accept this word with faith in his soul, but, on the contrary, relied on himself and was faced with a difficulty that he could not overcome, because he had never before been tempted in the spirit before God. And it so happened that Peter fell shamefully. By the way the Lord looked at him, he acutely felt his transgression. But he continued to grieve, he needed support, and therefore our Lord singles out the name of Peter in his message and mentions only one of his names. He encourages the weak soul of his stumbling student. This was a manifestation of the same mercy that had prayed for him before his fall.

The Lord influenced Peter in order to completely revive him spiritually, and with the help of the word influenced not only his conscience, but also showed love for him. A man would have thought Peter the last to be mentioned, but Peter needed it most of all, and that was enough for the mercy of Christ to be revealed. The Gospel according to Mark is a gospel of the ministry of love.

I need not speak now of the crucifixion and resurrection as depicted here. The peculiarity of this gospel is that some events are narrated here, while others are not mentioned, which shows the difference in the coverage of the events set out in this gospel from what we learn from other sources. So, here we read that one During the arrest of Jesus, the young man, leaving the veil, ran away naked from the riotous crowd that had captured him, who grabbed the Savior, and also that on the road to Calvary, the soldiers in their senseless cruelty “forced a passing certain Simon of Cyrene, the father of Alexandrov and Rufus.. ...to bear His cross.” But God did not forget about that difficult day for Jesus, about which Alexander and Rufus could later testify. Not a word is said here about the earthquake at the hour of Christ's death or when He was resurrected: it does not say that the tombs were opened and that many bodies of the departed saints were resurrected and appeared in the holy city. Although it is said here about women who, as we know, wanted to serve him even when He died, but his resurrection prevented this and brought a better and imperishable light into their service, and the angel who served the Lord dispelled their fear, declaring that the crucified Jesus has resurrected. It is hardly necessary to say how wonderfully this scene suits this gospel.

I also admit that there is an undeniable difference between this passage (Editor's note: the author is referring to verses 9-20 of chapter 16, which were not found in the two most ancient manuscripts, Sinaiticus and Vatican, and were partially omitted in others) and the previous part of the 16th chapter. But I believe that the Spirit deliberately presented them in different light. Here, as you have seen, we are talking about making disciples. Corresponding to this is the resurrection from the dead, for which He prepared them. If this gospel had not mentioned this, we would have discovered a glaring gap that cannot help but be felt. The Lord himself, before his resurrection, determined the importance of this. If the account of this event had not mentioned the servants and ministry of Christ, it would indeed have been an intolerable loss, and this wonderful gospel would have had the most unconvincing conclusion imaginable. Chapter 16 would end with the women remaining silent and stating the reason for this - “because they were afraid” (v. 8). Is such a conclusion worthy of the servant who was the Son of God?

What impression would be left if it raised doubts among educated people for whom it has some value? Could anyone who knows the character of the Lord and his ministry imagine that we should be content with only a message that women would withhold because of fear? Of course, I admit that external evidence predominates. But inwardly it seems to me impossible that anyone who compares the earlier consummation of the gospel with the purpose set before it, as well as with its character, can agree with such an end after he appreciates what is written in verses 9-20. Certainly these verses seem to me best suited to complete what would otherwise be a feeble and hopeless record of the event. And besides, the very free style of presentation, the use of expressions not found anywhere else except in Mark, and the difficulties associated with the individual circumstances that are narrated here - all this suggests to my mind the authenticity of the authorship, since if it were a fake , then the forger would strictly adhere to the letter if he could not easily comprehend the spirit of what Mark said.

Of course, I admit that the earlier verses, as they are now arranged, answer a special purpose; I admit the influence of the providence of God on them; but surely Jesus' ministry had a higher purpose than God's ordained ways. On the other hand, if we accept the common ending of the Gospel according to Mark, then how can we reconcile all this? Here we see a woman, and not just any woman, but Mary Magdalene, from whom Jesus, now dead and risen, once cast out seven demons; Was she not a worthy witness to the resurrection power of the Son of God?

The Lord had come to put an end to the devil's activities, and she knew this even before He died and rose again. Who then, I ask, if not Mary Magdalene, would be a suitable messenger? There is a divine reason that agrees with this gospel. This woman proved the effectiveness of the blessed ministry of Jesus by being delivered from the power of the devil. And she was ready to tell the world about his even more glorious deed, since now by his death Jesus had destroyed the power of the devil in death. “She went and told those who were with Him, weeping and mourning.” It was premature sadness on their part; what tremulous joy this news must have given them! But alas! Their unbelief left them in sorrow and sorrow. “After this he appeared in another form to two of them on the road, when they were going to the village. And they returned and told the others; but they didn’t believe them either.” There is one important detail here concerning the Lord's ministry which must be remembered. We are talking about the callousness of human souls (hearts) and the resulting enmity and resistance to everything true. Where the truth does not greatly affect people, they disregard it without fear, hatred or enmity. Thus, resistance to the truth itself, if it is a manifestation in some way of a person’s unbelief, proves at the same time that this unbelief leads to resistance.

Suppose you tell a person that some boss owns a huge fortune in Tartary, and he may think that this is all the true truth - at least he is not going to deny it in this case. But tell him that he himself has such a condition there: will he believe you? The moment something affects a person, it is in his interest to stubbornly resist it. It was of great importance that students should be taught to feel with their hearts and recognize an event from their own experience. We have the same thing in the case of our Lord. He told them everything clearly in His Word; He spoke of the resurrection again and again and again, but how slow were these chosen servants of the Lord! No one else would have had the patience to serve with those towards whom the Lord has shown so much kindness and mercy! And here again we find everything of any importance from the point of view of the Lord’s ministry.

After this, the Lord personally appeared to the eleven who were reclining at the table, and “reproached them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they did not believe those who saw Him risen.” And yet He showed Himself to be a most merciful teacher, who knew well how to make good servants out of bad ones; and so the Lord says to them immediately after He has rebuked them for their unbelief: “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved.” It is not only the truth that is important, but also that it is confessed openly and publicly before God and man, for it is clear that baptism symbolizes the death and resurrection of Christ.

This is the value of it: “Whoever believes and is baptized.” Do not imagine that if you have accepted Christ, you have avoided all the difficulties and dangers of confessing him. Not at all like that. “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; and whoever does not believe will be condemned.” The last sentence does not say a word about baptism. A person can be baptized, but not believe, and therefore will not be saved. “And whoever does not believe will be condemned.” So the point is to have faith. However, if a person pretends to be a believer and avoids publicly acknowledging the one in whom he believes, such a profession of religion is worthless; it will not be recognized as true. This is the basis of an important principle which the servants of Christ must adhere to.

What follows is what can be attributed to the external manifestations of power: “These signs will follow those who believe: in My name they will cast out demons.” And soon the power of the devil will be significantly shaken. It was only evidence, but how weighty it was! In this case, the Lord does not say how long these signs should last. He says, “Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.” And He continues, adding to what has been said: “These signs will follow those who believe: in My name they will...” That is, He continues to be close to His signs, baptizing and teaching all the pagans what is pleasing to Him. This matter must, as we see, last until the end of time. As for the signs that Mark mentions in chapter 16, when he talks about them, he wisely omits mention of time. He does not say how long these signs should follow those who believe. He only says that these signs should follow them - and so they did. He did not promise that the signs would last five, fifty, one hundred, or five hundred years. He simply said that they should accompany them, and signs were given and accompanied not only the apostles, but all believers. They reinforced what the believers said wherever they spoke. This was nothing less than a testimony, and I have no doubt that the highest wisdom was manifest in the giving of these signs accompanying the Word, but no less wise was the cessation of their operation. I am sure that in the present disastrous state of Christianity, these external signs, which are no longer so necessary, would bring harm. Undoubtedly, their cessation testifies to our sinfulness and low moral state. At the same time, his refusal to give these signs to his people at a time when they would bring him nothing but harm and could discredit his moral glory was a manifestation of mercy.

But there is no need to delve into the reasons for such a verdict now - suffice it to say that these signs were indeed given. “They will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will take snakes; and if they drink anything deadly, it will not harm them; They will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.” Thus the abundant source of evil in this world was dealt a blow (the bountiful mercy of God was now revealed to the world), and effective evidence was given of the benefits of divine mercy, which saved the watchful throughout the whole earth. And that, I think, characterizes ministry. Moreover, there still remains an expressive part of this conclusion, which, I venture to say, could not have been written by anyone except Mark. Undoubtedly, the Holy Spirit was the true author of all that Mark wrote; and surely the final part of the gospel fits here and nowhere else. If you take away these verses (Editor's note: i.e. verses 9-20), then leave the gospel without the final part. If you accept these verses as the work of God, you will have, I repeat, a conclusion which is in harmony with the truly divine gospel; and not only that, but here you have a divine conclusion for the gospel of Mark, and not for any other. This conclusion would not apply to any other gospel than that of Mark, for notice what the Spirit of God says at the very end. “And so the Lord, after talking with them, ascended into heaven.” You might think that Christ now rests in heaven, since He completed His work on earth, and in such a perfect manner, especially since it further says: “And He sat down at the right hand of God.” If this is what is said here about the position of Christ, the more it can be assumed that now the time has come for him to rest, for He has completed his work. But that's not true. Since the gospel according to Mark emphasizes Jesus as the servant of God, then, even though He rests in glory, He still remains a servant. Obviously, therefore, it is written here that having gone on their mission, they had to set about the work that the Lord commanded them to do: “They went out and preached everywhere,” for such is the scope of the gospel according to Mark. “They went out and preached everywhere, with the Lord working together and confirming the word with signs that followed.” Thus, Mark, and no one else, gives us the most detailed description, all the details of which are agreed upon from beginning to end. Could the falsifier of the gospel have maintained the bold idea that the Lord was working for them, when every other word hints that He was then at least in a state of rest?

So, we quickly looked at the Gospel according to Mark and saw that here, first of all, it talks about the Lord’s introduction into his ministry of those who were entrusted with an unusual task before his coming - we are talking about John the Baptist. And now that He is seated at the right hand of God, we find that the Lord, as it is said of him, assisted the apostles. The assumption that verses from the ninth to the end are reliable, but not from the pen of Mark, seems to me the most unfortunate of all possible assumptions.

May He bless His own Word and give us here another confirmation that if there is any passage in which we sense the divine hand more clearly than in others, this is his passage, and will not allow us to reject it an expression of disbelief! I do not know where in the whole gospel there can be found another passage so characteristic of its author, than that which man, with his characteristic rashness, attempts to uproot from the soil in which God raised it. But, dear friends, these words do not belong to a person. Every plant not planted by the heavenly Father should be uprooted. This plant can never be uprooted - it will live forever, no matter what great or small human minds say about it.

CHAPTER 9
1. “Yes!” he continued. I tell you that there are people here who will not know death until they see the Kingdom of God come in power!
2. After six days, Yeshua took Cephas, Ya'akov and Yohanan and led them secretly to a high mountain. Before their eyes, his appearance began to change,
3. and the clothes became dazzling white, so white that nothing on earth could bleach them.
4. After this they saw that Eliyahu and Moshe were talking with Yeshua.
5. Cephas said to Yeshua: “It’s good that we are here, Rabbi! Let’s build three dwellings here - one for you, one for Moses and one for Eliyahu.”
6. (He didn’t know what to say, since they were very scared.)
7. 3Then a cloud enveloped them; and a voice came from the cloud: “This is my Son, beloved by me. Listen to him!”
8. Suddenly, when they looked around, they saw no one except Yeshua.
9. As they came down from the mountain, he warned them not to tell anyone what they had seen until the Son of Man had risen from the dead.
10. And they kept it secret; however, they constantly asked each other: “What does it mean to be raised from the dead?”
11. They also asked him: “Why do the Torah teachers say that Eliyahu must come first?”
12. “Indeed, Eliyahu will come first,” he answered, “and will restore everything. However, why is it written in the Tanakh that the Son of Man will have to suffer much and will be rejected?
13. Moreover, I tell you that Eliyahu has already come, and they did with him as they wanted, as it was said about him in the Tanakh."
Verse 1-13. See Mat. 11:10-14&com., 17:10-12&com.

14. Returning to the talmidim, they saw that a huge crowd had gathered around them, and some of the Torah teachers were arguing with them.
15. As soon as the people noticed him, they were surprised and ran to greet him.
16. He asked them: “What are you arguing about?”
17. One of the people answered him: “Rabbi, I brought you my son, because he has an unclean spirit of dumbness.
18. Every time he grabs him, he throws him to the ground - the boy sputters with saliva, grinds his teeth and his whole body goes numb. I asked your talmidim to cast the spirit out of him, but they couldn’t do it.”
19. "People without faith!" - he answered. “How much longer must I be with you? How long must I endure you? Bring him to me!”
20. They brought the boy to him; and as soon as the spirit saw him, he threw him to the ground to convulse.
21. Yeshua asked the boy’s father, “How long has this been happening to him?”
22. “Since childhood,” he answered, “and he often tries to kill him by throwing him into fire or water. But if you can do anything, take pity on us and help us!”
23. Yeshua said to him: “What do you mean, ‘if you can?’ All things are possible to him who believes!”
24. Immediately the child’s father exclaimed: “I believe - help my unbelief!”
25. Yeshua, seeing that the people were beginning to crowd them from all sides, rebuked the unclean spirit, saying: “Spirit of deafness and dumbness! I command you: get out of it and never return to it again!”
26. Having uttered a piercing cry and caused the boy severe attack, he came out. The boy lay as if dead, and most people thought he was dead.
27 But Yeshua took his hand, lifted him up, and he stood up.
28. After Yeshua entered the house, the talmidim turned to him secretly from everyone: “Why couldn’t we drive him out?”
29. He told them: “This kind of spirit can only be driven out by prayer.”
Verse 29. Only through prayer. Some manuscripts add: “and fasting.”

30. Having left that place, they went through Galil. Yeshua didn't want anyone to know about this
31. because he taught his talmidim. He told them: "The Son of Man will be delivered into the hands of people who will put him to death; but three days after he is killed, he will rise again."
32. But they did not understand what he meant and were afraid to ask him.
33. They arrived at Kfar Nachum. While in the house, Yeshua asked them: “What did you discuss while we were walking?”
34. But they were silent; for on the way they argued with each other as to which of them was the greatest.
35. He sat down, called the Twelve to him and said to them: “If someone wants to be first, he must become the last of all and a servant of all.”
36. He took the child and placed him in the midst of them. Then he hugged him and said to them:
37. “Whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me, and whoever welcomes me welcomes not me, but Him who sent me.”
38. Yochanan said to him: “Rabbi, we saw a man casting out demons in your name and since he is not one of us, we told him to stop.”
39. But Yeshua said: “Do not forbid him, because no one who performs miracles in my name will be able to say anything bad about me soon after.
40. Because he who is not against us is for us.
Verse 40. He who is not against us is for us. Seeming contradiction to Matityahu 12:30, but see note there.

41. Indeed, if someone gives you even a cup of water for the reason that you came in the name of the Messiah - yes! I tell you that he will not lose his reward.
42. “And if anyone deceives one of these little ones who believe in me, it would be better for him if a millstone were placed around his neck and thrown into the sea.
43. If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off! It is better for you to be crippled and gain eternal life than to keep both hands and end up in Gei-Khinom, in the unquenchable fire!
Verse 43 Hei-Hinom, see com. to Mat. 5:22

45. And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off! It is better for you to be lame and gain eternal life than to keep both legs and be thrown into Hei-Hinom!
Some manuscripts add the same verses 44 and 46: "Where their worm dieth not, neither is the fire quenched." (Isaiah 66:24)

47. And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out! It is better for you to have one eye and enter the Kingdom of God than to keep both eyes and be thrown into Hei-Khin,
48. where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched. (Yeshayahu - Isaiah 66:24)
Verse 48. Isaiah 66:22-24 teaches that there is “a new heaven and a new earth” (as confirmed in 2 Cephas 3:13, Rev. 21-22) in which God’s people will worship God, “ and they will go and see the corpses of the people who have sinned against me; for their worm shall not die, and their fire shall not be quenched".

49. That’s right, everyone will be salted with fire.
50. Salt is a great thing, but if it loses its saltiness, what do you season it with? Therefore have salt in yourselves, that is, be at peace with one another."
Verse 49-50. Salt is used to season food (Col. 4:5-6&N), and also as a preservative, preserving agent (Matt. 5:13-14&N). “It is forbidden to offer any sacrifice without salt” (Rambam, Commandments, Prohibiting Commandments No. 99; see Leviticus 2:13); therefore, for the talmidim who must offer themselves as living sacrifices (Rom. 12:1-2), it is necessary to be salted by fire. Religious Jews sprinkle salt on bread before saying b'rah over it (see Matt. 14:19N); this follows from the fact that the rabbis equate the dinner table at home with the altar in the Temple (7:2-4&N). See Luke 14:34-35N.

Commentary on the book

Comment to the section

1 The promise of Christ was fully realized on the day the Holy Spirit descended on them on the feast of Pentecost.

5 "Tabernacles" - cm Matthew 17:4.

13 "Elijah has come" - see Matthew 17:12-13.

29 "This generation", i.e. evil spirit; a person cannot overcome his sinfulness without the feat of prayer and fasting.

30 After Christ left for Phenicia, His enemies were able to arm many Galileans against Him.

38-40 Those who have believed in the healing power of Jesus are not far from believing in Him as a Prophet and Messiah. " He who is not against you is for you" - Wed Matthew 12:30. In Matthew, the Savior outlines to his listeners the path of personal salvation: those who do not accept Him thereby take the side of His enemies. In Mark we are talking about the spread of the Gospel: those in power who grant those who preach Christ a certain freedom provide indirect support for apostolic activity.

49-50 Fire, like salt, - cleanser, destroying all filth, and also a symbol of strength, safety and fidelity (cf. Lev 2:13).

1. John, who bore the second Latin name Mark, was a resident of Jerusalem. Ap. Peter and the other disciples of Christ often gathered in his mother's house (Atti 12:12). Mark was the nephew of St. Joseph Barnabas, a Levite, a native of Fr. Cyprus, who lived in Jerusalem (Atti 4:36; Colossesi 4:10). Subsequently, Mark and Barnabas were companions of St. Paul on his missionary travels (Atti 12:25), and Mark, as a young man, was destined “for service” (Atti 13:5). During the apostles' trip to Perga, Mark left them, probably due to the difficulties of the journey, and returned to his homeland in Jerusalem (Atti 13:13; Atti 15:37-39). After the Apostolic Council (c. 49), Mark and Barnabas retired to Cyprus. In the 60s, Mark again accompanies St. Paul (Filemone 1:24), and then becomes a companion of St. Peter, who calls him his “son” (Pietro 1 5:13).

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

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

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

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

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

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

INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

e) Epistle to the Hebrews.

3) Council Epistles (“Corpus Catholicum”).

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

FOUR GOSPEL

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

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

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

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

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

Hide

Commentary on the current passage

Commentary on the book

Comment to the section

1 (Wed. Matthew 16:28) These words represent the conclusion to the speech of the Lord contained in Chapter 8 Art. 34-38. Ev. Matthew is much more specific than Mark (and with him Luke). He speaks specifically about the coming of Christ as a powerful king, and Mark speaks about the coming of the Kingdom of God in general.

The following must be said about the fulfillment of this prophecy of Christ. The Kingdom of God is “in power,” that is, the spread of the Gospel throughout the entire world of that time ( Rom 1:8; Col 1:6; 1 Thessalonians 1:8), saw some of those who were listeners of Christ. They saw how the Kingdom of God penetrated the hearts of people, renewing them and supplying them with new vital forces - in a word, revealing all its miraculous power.

2 The story of the transfiguration of Christ that begins here is generally similar to the story of the same thing in Ev. Matthew ( Matthew 17:1-13), but it also has some peculiarities.

3 Without mentioning the “change in the face of Christ” (cf. Matt.), Hev. Mark speaks in particular detail about the garments of Christ, which were illuminated with extraordinary light. This very light was of heavenly origin, as can be seen from the fact that, says the evangelist, the shine of clothes cleaned by a whitener “on earth” could not be compared with it.

4 Ev. Mark puts Elijah in first place (and not Moses, like St. Matthew) - perhaps because further there is a conversation about Elijah (v. 11 et seq.).

5 Rabbi. This word, in meaning, is equal to the expression: Lord (in Matthew cf. John 20:16: Ravbouni).

It's good for us to be here- right: “It’s good that we are here!”

6 Peter was accustomed to acting as the representative of the apostles. But now he couldn’t find anything to say, because what had happened had filled him with fear. His speech shows that he and the other disciples were not yet able to imagine their Teacher in His glory.

10 Keep that word. It is very likely that this is an allusion to the silence that the disciples had to observe in relation to the great event on the mountain (cf. Art. 9). Ev. Luke directly says that the apostles kept silent about what happened ( 9:36 ).

What means . The apostles were perplexed, of course, not about the resurrection of the dead in general, but about the resurrection of the Messiah, who, according to them, should not have died (cf. John 12:34).

11 The idea behind the disciples' question is this. The scribes, who spoke a lot about the signs of the coming of the Messiah, focused the attention of their listeners on the prophecy of Malachi, according to which, before the coming of the Messiah, Elijah the prophet should appear and prepare the Jews to receive the Messiah ( Mal 4:5 et seq.). Now the disciples have already seen Elijah - he came from heaven, and, therefore, will certainly prepare the Jews to accept Christ when Christ deigns to reveal Himself to the world. Why else would Christ suffer and die? Who will raise a hand against Him if Elijah prepares everyone for faith in Christ?

12 The Lord here repeats the disciples’ question, revealing its meaning. “If it is true that Elijah must prepare the Jews to accept Me as the Messiah, then how - this is the essence of your bewilderment - agree with this, what is said in Scripture about the Son of Man, precisely those prophecies that speak of the hostility of the Jews towards Messiah, about His great suffering and humiliation?

13 To put an end to the misunderstanding in which the disciples were, Christ says: “Yes, so it is said! But I explain to you that even with Elijah himself, My forerunner, who has already come, people who were hostile to Me acted cruelly. They did with him what they wanted - exactly as the Scriptures predicted about the Son of Man, about the attitude of people towards Him.” How it is written about him, - that is, about the Messiah, and not about Elijah or John the Baptist. The Old Testament does not say that Elijah, who is to come, must suffer from people, but it does say about the Messiah. Ev. Mark often refers to Christ simply by the 3rd person pronoun ( 1:32,36 , Wed John 20:15).

14 Legend of Ev. Mark about the healing of a demon-possessed youth is much more detailed than the legend of St. Matthew ( Matthew 17:14-21). He reports first of all that the people and scribes argued with the disciples of Christ when Christ, after the transfiguration, came to the disciples. The dispute, of course, was about whether the real miraculous power was given by Christ to the disciples. The disciples, it turned out, were unable to heal the youth brought to them.

15 The people were amazed or, more correctly, amazed by surprise mixed with fear (ἐκθαμβει̃σθαι): they were amazed by the unexpected appearance of Christ and, perhaps, by some remnants of the radiance that was on the face of Christ during the transfiguration.

16 The Lord asks what the scribes argued with the people (with them). But the scribes are silent: obviously, they spoke ill of Christ, and now they are ashamed to repeat their speeches to the people.

17 Then the father of the boy makes a statement on behalf of the people. He explains that the demon deprived the boy of the power of speech and plunged him into epilepsy.

21 Like a doctor, Christ asks the father how long his son has been sick. The Lord does this for the purpose of bringing the father to the realization of how difficult the situation of his son is and how helpless he has been until now.

22 The boy's father does not have enough strong faith into Christ, although he himself brought his son to Him. He says: “if you can do anything...”

23 Then the Lord inspires in the father the necessity of faith in Him.

If any. It would be more correct to translate: “what does this mean: if as much as you can?” (the expression: to believe is not read in the best codes). Everything is possible for a believer, that is, if you have real faith, you will receive everything you need, and not just “something” or “something.”

24 The father understood the reproach contained in the words of Christ, and began to confess his lack of faith, asking Christ to strengthen him in faith.

25 Those who brought the sick man obviously warned the people, who only now began to gather in crowds to Christ. Now, in the face of a whole crowd of people, the Lord found it useful to perform a miracle of healing the boy: the crowd should not think that this healing seemed difficult for Him, as it was difficult for the apostles. There were no other reasons that forced Christ right now to perform healing, for example, fear of the Pharisees and scribes, who allegedly could incite the people against Christ (Bishop Michael).

30-32 (Wed. Matthew 17:22-23) Ev. Mark notes that Christ also this time passed through Galilee incognito (unrecognized), because His activity here was already approaching the end. The miracle that He performed after the transfiguration was the last in Galilee. From now on, the people must seek admonition not from Christ, but from the apostles. Christ devoted all of His time on this journey to preparing His disciples for their future activities (taught them) and, moreover, especially instilled in them the idea of ​​His imminent violent death. If in the 8th ch. (v. 31) Christ also spoke about the death awaiting Him, then there He spoke about it as something that still had to happen, as something that should (should), but here He speaks about His death as a fact that has already , one might say, is ready to be fulfilled (the Son of Man will be betrayed).

32 They did not understand - cf. Matthew 17:23 .

33-47 (Wed. Matthew 18:1-5) Ev. Mark notes that Christ held this conversation with his disciples in Capernaum. In all likelihood, the evangelist who mentioned Capernaum only in the history of the discovery of Christ’s activity in Galilee ( 1:21 ; 2:1 ), now mentions this city in order to hint that the Galilean activity of Christ had come to an end. The Lord, according to Ev. Mark, wants to do the last honor to the house of Simon, where He has always found a warm welcome.

33 I asked them. Thus, it is clear from this that the question of the disciples, which He reports. Matthew ( 13:1 ), was preceded by the question with which Christ addressed them. From Ev. Mark shows that the disciples were discussing with each other about which of them was superior. Their silence testifies to the fact that they were ashamed, realizing that their conversation, as they were having among themselves, was still known to Christ. Silently, so to speak, they confessed their sin before Him.

35 Wed. Matthew 20:26 .

36-37 Hugging him. According to a more reliable translation: “took him in his arms.”

There is some disconnect between verses 36 and 37. Namely, in verse 37 we are obviously talking about children in a figurative sense - that is, about Christians who, in their humility, are like children and generally occupy unseen places in the Church. And in the 36th Art. We are talking about an ordinary child. Probably, the evangelist here shortens the speech of Christ, who undoubtedly explained to the apostles that by child He means humble people. This is the only way to explain the appearance of the expression: one of these children (v. 37).

38-41 Listening to Christ’s speech about condescension towards people standing at the first stage of Christian life, ap. John recalled a recent incident in which Christ’s disciples apparently acted contrary to the basic view contained in the words of Christ just quoted ( Art. 37). They forbade one person to cast out demons in the name of Christ, because this person, perhaps due to some timidity, did not join the circle of Christ’s disciples. The apostles, so to speak, considered working miracles in the name of Christ to be their personal advantage, and they were annoyed that someone else, who obviously had not received authority from Christ, nevertheless performed the same miracles as they did.

Christ inspires them so that the next time they meet this miracle worker, they should not repeat their act towards him. Such a person cannot soon become hostile to Christ: he sees in Him the messenger of God. Then Christ points out that in the present situation of the disciples, when representatives of the Jewish people are clearly hostile to Christ and the apostles, one thing is dear to the disciples if one of the people does not go against them: this means that such a person sympathizes with them in the depths of his soul - otherwise he, of course, would have followed his leaders, the scribes and Pharisees. Previously it was a different matter. Then, when the sympathy of the people was on the side of Christ ( Matthew 12:23), direct following of Christ was required, and whoever was not with Him was clearly hostile to Him ( Matthew 12:30). Finally, if the one who gave the disciple of Christ a cup of water does not lose his reward, then, of course, those who perform miracles in His name have much more rights to the reward and, therefore, have more rights to use the miraculous powers brought to earth by Christ, i.e. e. glorifies Christ (cf. Matthew 10:42).

42-43 Christ again continues the interrupted speech about the attitude in which the apostles should stand towards the weak in the faith (see. Matthew 18:5-6).

44 (See interpretation of Isaiah 67:24.) Blessed. Theophylact by worm and fire means the torments of conscience that a sinner will feel after death. This torment will continue forever.

49-50 This place is the so-called crux interpretum. It is not clear why the Lord justifies His teaching on the need to avoid temptations by indicating the salting of everyone with some kind of fire and every sacrifice with salt. Due to the impossibility of giving a natural explanation for this text, found only in St. Mark, some scholars (eg Könnecke in Beiträge z. Förder. Tn. 1908, 1) make such a correction to this place. He rearranges the words of the 50th verse at the beginning of the 49th, in place of the expression: “for everyone will be salted with fire,” which seems to this scientist not to be genuine. Thus, his 49th verse looks like this: “salt is a good thing, for (see. Lev 2:13) Every sacrifice will be seasoned with salt.” Prof. Bogdashevsky, however, finds this new attempt at interpretation leading nowhere, since it leaves unclear the connection between verse 49 and 48 and, moreover, has no basis in the most authenticated copies of the Gospel, in which our form 49 is most accepted. th verse. According to prof. Bogdashevsky, the idea contained in the 48th and 49th verses can be expressed in this way. " Do not be afraid, says Christ, of spiritual self-denial. To avoid temptations, do not spare a single member of your body that tempts you, for the path of My faithful disciple, as a true spiritual sacrifice to God, is the path of salting with fire, that is, with the fire of self-sacrifice, self-denial, spiritual purification. We generally need to have “salt” in ourselves, that is, a Christian spirit, a Christian constant mood, Christian principles of faith and life, and once this “salt” loses its power in us, we can no longer influence others. There will be no peace between us, and we will argue which of us is greater"(Proceedings Kyiv. D. Acad. 1909, July - Aug., pp. 485-487). One can completely agree with this interpretation: one only needs to put verse 49 in connection with the entire section of art. 37-48. In fact, it is very plausible that the Lord, at the end of his speech about temptations, returned to His main point - the need for humility for His disciples, and to prove this need, he pointed out that His disciples must go to perfection through various tests. Only we would prefer to express the thought of verses 49-50 this way: “Why are you afraid of sacrificing any affection? (cf. Matthew 5:29). After all, none of My followers can escape the fire of suffering that God will send them so that they can be tempered in virtue. It was not in vain that in the Old Testament every sacrifice was salted with salt - this had a special spiritual meaning, since salt imparted a certain taste to the sacrificial meat. Likewise, the salt of self-sacrifice must be preserved in Christ’s followers, without which they cannot find favor with God. If this self-denial disappears, the Christian life will decline. And having self-denial, Christians will be able to have peace among themselves, without extolling themselves to each other about their advantages.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

b) the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ, preached by Himself and His Apostles about Him as the King of this Kingdom, the Messiah and the Son of God ( 2 Cor. 4:4),

c) all New Testament or Christian teaching in general, primarily the narration of the most important events from the life of Christ ( 1 Cor. 15:1-4) or the personality of the preacher ( Rome. 2:16).

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

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

Four Gospels

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

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

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

Mutual relationship of the Gospels

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

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

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

This phenomenon of similarities and differences in the Synoptic Gospels has long attracted the attention of interpreters of Scripture, and various assumptions have long been made to explain this fact. It seems more correct to believe that our three evangelists used a common oral source for their narrative of the life of Christ. At that time, evangelists or preachers about Christ went everywhere preaching and repeated different places in a more or less extensive form, what was considered necessary to offer to those entering the Church. Thus, a well-known specific type was formed oral gospel, and this is the type we have in written form in our Synoptic Gospels. Of course, at the same time, depending on the goal that this or that evangelist had, his Gospel took on some special features, characteristic only of his work. At the same time, we cannot exclude the assumption that an older Gospel could have been known to the evangelist who wrote later. Moreover, the difference between the weather forecasters should be explained by the different goals that each of them had in mind when writing his Gospel.

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

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

The Reliability of the Gospels

Although criticism has long been expressed against the reliability of the Gospels, and recently these attacks of criticism have especially intensified (the theory of myths, especially the theory of Drews, who does not recognize the existence of Christ at all), however, all the objections of criticism are so insignificant that they are broken at the slightest collision with Christian apologetics . Here, however, we will not cite the objections of negative criticism and analyze these objections: this will be done when interpreting the text of the Gospels itself. We will speak only about the most important general reasons for which we fully accept the Gospels. reliable documents. This is, firstly, the existence of a tradition of eyewitnesses, many of whom lived to the era when our Gospels appeared. Why on earth would we refuse to trust these sources of our Gospels? Could they have made up everything in our Gospels? No, all the Gospels are purely historical. Secondly, it is not clear why the Christian consciousness would want - as the mythical theory claims - to crown the head of a simple Rabbi Jesus with the crown of the Messiah and Son of God? Why, for example, is it not said about the Baptist that he performed miracles? Obviously because he didn't create them. And from here it follows that if Christ is said to be the Great Wonderworker, then it means that He really was like that. And why would it be possible to deny the authenticity of Christ’s miracles, since the highest miracle - His Resurrection - is witnessed like no other event in ancient history (see. 1 Cor. 15)?

Bibliography of foreign works on the Four Gospels

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

Blass, Gram. - Blass F. Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch. Gottingen, 1911.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Loisy (1907-1908) - Loisy A.F. Les èvangiles synoptiques, 1-2. : Ceffonds, près Montier-en-Der, 1907-1908.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Heitmüller - see Yog. Weiss (1907).

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

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

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

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

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

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

Schlatter - Schlatter A. Das Evangelium des Johannes: ausgelegt für Bibelleser. Stuttgart, 1903.

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

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

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

Alford N. The Greek Testament in four volumes, vol. 1. London, 1863.

And after six days Jesus took Peter, James and John, and led them alone up to a high mountain, and was transfigured before them:

His clothes became shining, very white, like snow, as on earth a bleacher cannot bleach.

And Elijah appeared to them with Moses; and talked with Jesus.

At this Peter said to Jesus: Rabbi! It’s good for us to be here; We will make three tabernacles: one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah.

For I didn’t know what to say; because they were in fear.

And a cloud appeared overshadowing them, and out of the cloud came a voice saying, “This is My beloved Son; Listen to him.

And suddenly looking around, they saw no one else with them, except Jesus alone.

This incident from the life of Jesus is shrouded in mystery. We can only try to understand it. Mark says that this happened six days after the event in Caesarea Philippi. Luke says this happened after eight days. There is no contradiction in this. They both mean, as we would say, "in about a week." Both the Eastern and Western Churches celebrate the day of the Transfiguration, August 6th. It doesn’t matter whether this is really that day or not, but it would be good for everyone to remember it.

Tradition says that the Transfiguration took place on Mount Tabor. Actually in the Eastern Church the feast of the Transfiguration is called taborion Maybe the reason is that Mount Tabor is mentioned in Ps. 88, 13, but this is a bad option. Mount Tabor is located in the south of Galilee, Caesarea Philippi is far to the north. In addition, Mount Tabor has a height of no more than three hundred meters, and in the time of Jesus there was a fortress on its top. This event most likely took place among the eternal snows of Mount Hermon, which is about 4,500 meters high and is much closer to Caesarea Philippi and has much more privacy. We, however, cannot say what happened there. As we try to understand what has happened, we must bow our heads respectfully. Mark says that Jesus' clothes became shiny; at the same time Mark uses the word stilbane, which is usually used to convey the shine of polished copper, gold, blued steel or golden sunshine. When the glow and the whole incident ended, a cloud dawned on everyone.

In the Jewish worldview, the presence of God is always closely associated with the cloud. After all, Moses also met God in the cloud. In the cloud, God appeared in the tabernacle. A cloud filled the temple when it was opened in the time of Solomon. And the Jews dreamed of when the Messiah would appear on earth, when the cloud of God's presence would fill the temple again (Ex. 16, 10; 19, 9, 33,9, 3 Tsar 8, 10, 2 Mat. 2, 8). The overshadowing cloud is a sign that the Messiah has come, and every Jew would understand this phrase exactly like that.

The transfiguration of Jesus has a double meaning.

1. It was extremely important to Jesus himself. Jesus had to make a decision. He decided to go to Jerusalem, and this was tantamount to a decision to accept the cross and bear it. It is clear that before He went, He had to check the correctness of the decision He had made. At the top of the mountain He received double approval of His decision.

a) Moses and Elijah met Him. Moses was supreme legislator Israel. The people of Israel owed him the law of God. Elijah was the first and greatest of the prophets. People always looked at him as a prophet who brought people the voice of God Himself. The meeting of these two great historical figures with Jesus meant that the greatest of lawgivers and the greatest of their prophets said to Him, “Go.” This meant that they saw in Jesus the fulfillment of everything they had dreamed of in the past. This meant that they saw in Him everything that all history had longed for and expected and hoped for. At this moment Jesus was assured that He was on the right way, because the entire history of mankind led there, to the crucifixion.

b) God spoke to Jesus. As before, Jesus did not discuss His desires. He turned to God with words. “What will You command Me to do?” And God answered Him: “You are doing as My beloved Son should do. Keep doing this!” On the Mount of Transfiguration, Jesus saw not only the inevitability, but also saw once again the essential justification of crucifixion.

2. It was important to His disciples.

a) They were stunned by Jesus' announcement that He would go to Jerusalem to die there. This seemed to them a complete refutation of their ideas about the Messiah. They were still shocked and could not understand anything. Something was happening that not only completely confused them, but also tore their hearts. What they saw on the Mount of Transfiguration provided some kind of guiding thread, even if they could not understand everything. Whether the Crucifixion should happen or not, they heard the voice of God recognizing Jesus as His Son. b) This event made them, in a sense, witnesses of the glory of Christ. A witness is a person who first sees and then testifies. This event on the mountain showed them the glory of Christ, and now they had to hide the story of this glory in their hearts and tell people about it not immediately, but when the time came.

Brand 9.9-13 Fate of the Harbinger

When they came down from the mountain, He commanded that they should not tell anyone what they had seen until the Son of Man rose from the dead.

And they kept this word, asking each other what it meant to rise from the dead.

And they asked Him: Why do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?

And He answered and said to them: It is true that Elijah must come first and arrange everything; and the Son of Man, as it is written about Him, must suffer many things and be humiliated;

But I tell you that Elijah also came, and they did to him as they wanted, as it was written about him.

It was only natural that the three disciples would rack their brains as they walked down the mountain.

First, Jesus began by forbidding them to talk about what they saw. Jesus understood that they were still overwhelmed by the idea of ​​a Messiah who was strong and powerful. If they talk about what happened on the top of the mountain, about how the glory of God appeared, how Moses and Elijah appeared, how will this coincide with everyone’s expectations? After all, this could sound in the mouths and ears of people as a prelude to the coming outbreak of God's vengeful power on the nations of the world! The disciples still had to learn what Messiahship was. Only one thing could teach them - the Crucifixion and subsequent resurrection. When the Crucifixion will show them what Messiahship is, and when after the resurrection they will be convinced that Jesus really was the Messiah, Then, and only then can they tell of the glory on the mountain top, for then, and only then, will they see everything as it should be - not as a prelude to the invasion of history by the power of God, but as a prelude to the crucifixion of the love of God. But the students' minds continued to work. They did not understand what Jesus said about the resurrection. Their behavior shows that they, in fact, did not understand them. When the crucifixion took place, they were in the position of people for whom the end had come. But we cannot scold them: the point is simply that they grew up with completely different ideas about the Messiah, and therefore could not understand what Jesus said. And then they asked about what struck them. The Jews believed that before the Messiah came, Elijah must come as His messenger (Small. 4, 5, 6). Rabbinic tradition said that Elijah would come three days before the Messiah. On the first day he will stand on the heights of Israel, mourning the grief and desolation of the land. And then in a voice that will be heard from one end of the earth to the other, he will shout: "World descends to earth! World descends to earth! On the second day he will shout: "Good descends to earth! Good descends to earth! And on the third day he will shout: "Yeshua(salvation) is coming to earth! Yeshua descends to earth! He will fix everything. He will correct all the family discord of the last dark days, resolve all controversial issues of ritual and ceremonial, cleanse the people, returning those unjustly expelled and expelling those unjustly accepted. Elijah occupied an amazing place in the worldview of Israel. It was believed that he was always doing something for them, whether in heaven or on earth, and would be the harbinger of completion.

It is quite natural that the disciples wondered: “If Jesus is the Messiah, then what happened to Elijah?” Jesus responded in words that every Jew could understand. “Elijah came,” He said, “and the people did to him as they wanted. They took him and treated him despotically according to their own will, forgetting the will of God.” Jesus was referring to the imprisonment of John the Baptist and his death at the hands of Herod. Then Jesus again drew the disciples' attention to the thought that they did not even want to keep in their heads, but which, as He believed, they should clearly understand. They had to ask themselves the unspoken question out loud: “If they did this to the harbinger, to the forerunner, then what will they do to the Messiah?” Jesus literally changed all the ideas and thoughts of his disciples. They were waiting for the appearance of Elijah, the coming of the Messiah, the sudden invasion of God into history and the crushing victory of heaven, which they considered at the same time the victory of Israel. Jesus wanted to make them see, to face the fact that the messenger was brutally killed and that the Messiah would have one end - crucifixion. But they still did not understand, and this failure to understand is the same as always - people cannot understand anything because they cling to their ideas and ways of acting and refuse to see the way of God. They wanted everything to be as they wanted, and not as God indicated, the errors of their thoughts prevented them from seeing the revelation of God's truth.

Brand 9.14-18 Coming down from the mountain

When he came to the disciples, he saw many people around them and scribes arguing with them.

Immediately, when they saw Him, all the people were amazed, and they ran up and greeted Him.

He asked the scribes: What are you arguing about with Them?

One of the people answered: Teacher! I brought to You my son, possessed by a dumb spirit:

Wherever he grabs him, he throws him to the ground, and he emits foam, and grinds his teeth, and becomes numb; I told Your disciples to drive him out, but they could not.

It was precisely these situations that Peter wanted to avoid. On the mountain top, in the presence of the glory of God, Peter said, “It is good for us to be here.” Then he wanted to build three tabernacles: for Jesus, for Moses and for Elijah and stay there. Life was so good there on the mountain top, it was so close to God. Why go down there at all? But that is the meaning of life, that a person must going back down from the top of the mountain. Someone said that in religion you need privacy, but not privacy. Man needs solitude because he needs communication with God; but if a person, in search of true solitude, isolates himself from his fellow men, is deaf to their calls for help and callous to their tears and suffering - this is not religion. Solitude should not make people individualistic hermits. Solitude should enable people to better cope with the demands of everyday life.

Coming down from the mountain, Jesus found a sensitive situation. One father brought his son, possessed by a mute spirit, to his disciples. All the symptoms of possession were evident, but the disciples could not do anything, and the scribes took advantage of this. The helplessness of the disciples gave them the perfect opportunity to humiliate not only them, but also their Lord. This is what made the whole situation so unpleasant, and why all human situations are so sensitive for a Christian: his behavior, his words, his ability or inability to cope with certain demands of human life are used by others to judge not only about him personally, but about Jesus Christ. In Christian Education, A. Victor Murray writes: “Some people have that faraway look in their eyes when they talk about the Church. But this is a supernatural society, the body of Christ, His immaculate bride, the keeper of the prophecies of God, the blessed community of the saved, and it has many more romantic titles, none of which, apparently, coincide with what an outsider might see in “ Parish Church of St. Agata" and others." Regardless of what the name of a person’s profession sounds like, people judge by his deeds, and by judging him, they judge his Lord. That's how it was this time too. But then Jesus appeared. When people saw Him, they were surprised. One should not think that they could still see the radiance of the Transfiguration. After all, then His instructions not to talk about it would make no sense. The crowd believed that He was still on the deserted slopes of Mount Hermon. They were so immersed in their argument that they did not see Him come, and now, just at the right moment, He was here among them. They were surprised by this unexpected, sudden, but very appropriate arrival. Here we learn two things about Jesus.

1. He was ready to go to the crucifixion, but He was also ready to face any everyday problem that confronted Him. It is human nature, even if he meets critical moments in life with honor and dignity, to be irritated by ordinary everyday problems. People often heroically withstand the crushing blows of fate, but become frustrated and saddened by minor pinpricks. Many people face great misfortune or great loss calmly, but become angry over a poorly prepared meal or a delayed train. Amazingly, Jesus could calmly go to the Crucifixion and just as calmly study and cope with everyday life problems. The fact is that He turned to God not only at critical moments, as many do. He lived with Him constantly.

2. He came into the world to save it, and yet He could devote Himself entirely to the problems of individual people, helping them. It is much easier to preach the Gospel of love to all humanity than to love every single, not very attractive sinner. It's easy to feel sentimental love for people in general, but just as easy to think that it would be difficult to turn out of your way to help one of them. Jesus had the gift, the royal gift, of giving Himself completely to the person He encountered.

Brand 9.19-24 Cry of Faith

Answering him, Jesus said: O faithless generation, how long will I be with you? How long will I tolerate you? bring him to Me.

And they brought him to Him. As soon as the demoniac saw Him, the spirit shook him; he fell to the ground and lay there, emitting foam.

And Jesus asked his father, “How long ago did this happen to him?”

He said: since childhood;

And many times the spirit threw him into both fire and water to destroy him; but, if you can, take pity on us and help us.

Jesus said to him: if you can believe as much as possible, all things are possible to him who believes.

And immediately the father of the boy exclaimed with tears: I believe, Lord! help my unbelief.

The passage begins with a cry from the heart of Jesus. He had just been on the top of the mountain and saw the great task that awaited Him. He decided to sacrifice His life to save the world. But now, having descended from the mountain, He saw His closest followers, His chosen ones, beaten, discouraged, helpless and inactive. Apparently, at that moment even Jesus was discouraged. He seems to have suddenly realized, as others would say, the hopelessness of His task. At this point He must have almost completely despaired of His attempt to change human nature and turn the people of the world into people of God. How did He behave in a moment of despair? “Bring the boy to Me,” He said. When we cannot cope with extreme situations, or do not know how to approach them, we turn to immediate problems. Jesus seemed to be saying, “I don’t know if I can ever change My disciples, but now I can help this boy. Let's get to the immediate problems rather than despair about the future." In this way, you can escape from despair again and again. Sitting and thinking about the state of the world can lead to despair; it is better to get busy in your corner of the big world. Sometimes a person becomes overwhelmed with despair because of the state of the Church—then one must begin to work in one’s church. Jesus did not sit, frightened and amazed by the slow-wittedness of people - He resolved pressing and urgent problems. As Kingsley wrote: “Give me the work at hand, Even if sometimes it’s tedious. If necessary, help the lame dog cross the fence.”

The easiest way to avoid pessimism and despair is to do everything in our power - and there will always be something to do.

Jesus set a condition for the boy’s father under which a miracle could happen: “For him who believes, all things are possible.” Jesus seemed to be saying, “The healing of the boy does not depend on Me, but on you.” This is not a purely Theological, but a universal truth. To begin a task with the consciousness of hopelessness means to make the task hopeless; to begin a task with faith in it means to make it possible. Cavour once said that what a statesman needs above all is “a sense of possibility.” Many people are cursed with a feeling of impossibility, which is why miracles do not happen. The attitude of the boy's father is very revealing. He came looking for Jesus Himself. Because Jesus was on the mountain top, he had to make his request to the disciples. And they greatly disappointed him. His faith was so shaken that when he came to Jesus, he first said only, “Help me if You can.” And then, when he was face to face with Jesus, faith flared up in him again. "I believe! - he shouted, “and if there is still any doubt and unsteadiness in me, take them from Me and give me unconditional faith.”

Sometimes a person receives less from a church or from a person than he hoped for. In this case, you need to turn, bypassing the church to the Head of the church, bypassing the servant of the church, to Jesus Himself. Sometimes the church can disappoint us, but if we fight our battle next to Christ, He will never disappoint us.

Brand 9.25-29 Reason for failure

Jesus, seeing that the people were running, rebuked the unclean spirit, saying to him, dumb and deaf spirit, I command you, come out of it and do not enter it again

And he cried out and shook him greatly and went out, and he became as if dead, so that many said that he had died.

But Jesus took him by the hand, lifted him up, and he stood up

And when Jesus entered the house, His disciples asked Him privately why we could not drive him out?

And he said to them that this generation cannot come out except through prayer and fasting

Jesus must have taken the boy and his father aside. But hearing their cries, the people came running too, and when Jesus saw this, he began to act. The boy had his last convulsions, completely weakening him, and he was healed.

Left alone with Him, the disciples asked Him the reason for their failure. They, of course, remembered how Jesus Sent them to preach, heal and cast out demons (Mar. 3, 14.15). Why have they now suffered such a remarkable failure? Jesus answered simply that such healing requires prayer. What he told them was, essentially, “You are not living close enough to God.” He gave them power and authority, but in order to maintain it, they had to Pray. And this is an important lesson for us. God may have given us some kind of gift, but if we do not communicate closely with Him, the talent will fade and perish - and this is true of any gift. God may give a man great natural gift for preaching, but if he does not constantly communicate with God, his words will lose all their attractive power. God can give a person the gift of a musician or a singer, but if he does not constantly communicate with God, he will remain just a specialist using his gift for profit, and this is a terrible thing. This does not mean, however, that a person should not use his talent for profit at all, no, he can earn money from it, but even in this case he should find joy in his work, because he also uses this talent to achieve the goals of God . They said that Jenny Lind, the famous Swedish opera artist of the last century, remained alone before the start of each performance and prayed: “God, help me sing correctly today.” If we do not maintain such contact with God, then no matter how gifted we may be, we lose two things.

1. We lose the vitality that gives greatness to a person. We're losing that one vitality, that very little thing that gives a person greatness. We no longer serve God voluntarily, but fulfill duties. An energetic living body turns into a beautiful corpse.

2. We lose humility. We begin to use for our own personal purposes what should be used for glory, and it loses its power. What was supposed to serve the exaltation of God serves self-aggrandizement - and the spirit of enchantment disappears. And this serves as a warning to us. The disciples received their strength and authority directly from Jesus, but they did not feed it with prayer and the power disappeared. Whatever gift we have received from God, we will lose it if we use it exclusively for ourselves. But we can preserve and develop it in continuous communication with God, from Whom we receive it.

Brand 9.30-32 Vision of the end

Having left there, they passed through Galilee; and He didn't want anyone to find out.

For He taught His disciples and told them that the Son of Man would be delivered into the hands of men, and they would kill Him, and after He had been killed, He would rise again on the third day.

But they did not understand these words, and were afraid to ask Him.

We are facing an important milestone in the life of Jesus. He left now northern part countries where He was not in direct danger, and took the first steps on the way to Jerusalem to the crucifixion that awaited Him. Sometimes He did not want to see a crowd around Him. He knew well that if He could not impress His message well on the hearts of His chosen people, all was lost. Any teacher can leave behind a few suggestions or theories, but Jesus knew that this was not enough; He must leave behind Him a group of people in whose hearts this teaching must be written. Before leaving this earth physically, He must be sure that there are still a few who understand, albeit very, very dimly, what He wanted to say, what the purpose of His coming was. This time there is even greater anguish in His predictions: if we compare this statement with His previous prediction of His death (Mar. 8:31), it is clear that He added one phrase: “The Son of Man will be delivered into the hands of men.” There was a traitor in the small group, and Jesus knew it. He saw what Judas was thinking, perhaps even better than Judas himself. And when He said, “The Son of Man will be delivered into the hands of men,” He was not only stating a fact and warning, He was also speaking for the last time to the person in whose heart betrayal was brewing. But the disciples still did not understand. They didn't understand the part about being raised again. By this time they began to realize the tragedy of the situation, but they never understood the inevitability of the Resurrection. This miracle was too grandiose for them, a miracle that they realized only when it had already become an accomplished fact. But even before they understood, they were too scared to ask any more questions. They were like those people who already know so much that they are afraid to learn anything more. Another person learns his diagnosis from a doctor and considers it bad; he doesn't understand all the details of the diagnosis, but doesn't ask any questions because he's afraid to find out more. The disciples did the same. Sometimes we are surprised that the disciples did not understand what was so clearly said. But this is a property of the human brain - not to perceive what it does not want to see. Aren't we the same? We have repeatedly heard the Christian gospel. We know what glory it brings to those who accept it, and what tragedy awaits those who refuse it, but many of us are still as far from fully accepting it and building our lives on its foundation as and before. People still accept those parts of the Christian gospel that please and suit them, and refuse to understand the rest.

Brand 9.33-35 Genuine Ambition

Came to Capernaum; and when he was in the house, he asked them: What did you talk about among yourself on the way?

They were silent because on the way they were arguing among themselves who was the greatest.

And he sat down and called the twelve and said to them, whoever wants to be first must be last of all and servant of all.

No episode shows better than this how little His disciples understood the meaning that He put into the true Messiahship. He repeatedly told them what awaited Him in Jerusalem, but they still thought about His Kingdom in purely worldly terms, and imagined themselves as His chief ministers. It breaks your heart to imagine Jesus going to the Crucifixion while His disciples argue about which of them will come first. But in the depths of their hearts they understood that they were behaving unworthily. When He asked what they were arguing about, they had nothing to answer: they were bashfully silent. When Jesus looks at things, they immediately take their proper place and take on their true character. As long as the disciples believed that Jesus neither heard nor saw anything, they found the dispute about primacy to be completely ethical, but as soon as the essence of this dispute had to be stated in the presence of Jesus, they saw all its unworthiness. Once you see things through Jesus' eyes, it makes a big difference. If, before we did anything, we first asked ourselves, “Could I do this if Jesus was looking at me?” if we said something, we asked ourselves: “Could I say this if Jesus had heard it?” — we wouldn’t do or say much. But the essence of Christian life is that this “if” cannot happen: everything that is done and everything that is said is done and said in the presence of Jesus. May God protect us from deeds and words that we would be ashamed to utter in His presence.

Jesus took this incident very seriously. As Mark says, He sat down and called the twelve to Himself. When the rabbi acted in his function as a mentor and teacher, when he did Official statement or made a decision, he sat down and began the instruction. Jesus deliberately sat down, first as a rabbinical mentor, and only then spoke to His disciples, and told them that if they intended to occupy an important position in His Kingdom, they should not begin with claims, but first be servants. Jesus did not dismiss their ambitions. He rather restored their ambition and gave it the right direction. In place of the desire to rule, He put the desire to serve. In place of the desire for others to do everything for themselves, He put the desire to do everything for others.

This is not an idealistic view of life at all - it is common sense. Indeed, the people whom humanity remembers as having made a genuine contribution to the life of society are not those who said to themselves: “How can I use the state and society to increase my prestige and satisfy my ambition?”, but those who said: “How to use my talent for serving society? Stanley Baldwin paid tribute to the late Lord Curzon in these words: “I want to say a couple more things that no one else can say. The Prime Minister sees through human nature, and I have twice seen him suffer from deep disappointment: when I, rather than him, was appointed Prime Minister, and when I had to tell him that he could serve his country better as Chairman of the Committee defense than as Foreign Minister. And each time he was deeply and bitterly disappointed, but he never subsequently showed his disappointment with a single word, look, indirectly or in any other way. He was not vindictive and did only what I expected of him and performed his duty where we considered it most useful. The greatness of this man lay not in the fact that he reached the highest government positions, but in the fact that he was ready to serve his homeland in any position.” True selflessness is a rare quality, but where it is shown, people do not forget it. The Greeks had a legend about the Spartan Pedaret. When 300 Spartans were elected to rule the country, Pedaret was one of the candidates, but his name was not on the list of those elected. “It’s a pity,” said one of Pedaret’s friends, “that you weren’t elected. You would serve your homeland wisely." “And I’m glad,” replied Pedaret, “that in Sparta there are three hundred people better than me.” Here is an example of a person who is ready to give first place to another without any evil feeling. If people lived by the principle: what can I do for others, and not by the principle: what can I get for myself, all economic problems would be solved. And political problems would be solved if people used their ambition to serve their homeland, and not to inflate their prestige. And all the disputes and differences of opinion that tear the Church apart could have been avoided if the church hierarchs served the Church without worrying about the positions they held. In speaking of the true greatness and worth of man, Jesus presented one of the greatest practical truths in the world.

Mark 9,36.37 Helping the helpless is helping Christ

And he took the child, placed him in the midst of them, and, embracing him, said to them:

Whoever receives one of these children in My name receives Me; and whoever receives Me does not receive Me, but Him who sent Me.

And here Jesus emphasizes the importance of healthy ambition over unhealthy vanity.

Taking the child, He placed him in the middle. But a child cannot contribute to a person’s career or raise his prestige; it cannot give him material benefits. On the contrary, the child must be provided with material benefits, they must be given to him, everything must be done for him. And Jesus says: “If a person welcomes a poor, simple person who has no influence in society, who needs to be helped and who needs to be provided for, he is a welcome guest with Me; Moreover, he is a welcome guest of God.” A child is a typical example of those who need to be helped and who need to be provided with material values; these are the people you need to communicate with and need to help. And in this episode there is a warning to us. It is not difficult to seek the friendship and favor of influential and useful people; it is also not difficult to avoid communicating with people who suddenly, to our inconvenience, need our help. It is not difficult to curry favor with the influential and powerful of this world, and ignore ordinary, humble people. It is not difficult at some reception or ceremonial meeting to seek the company and acquaintance of a famous person and avoid a poor relative. Essentially, what Jesus is saying here is that we should not seek the company and acquaintance of people who can do something for us, but those for whom we can do something, because in doing so we are seeking His company. In other words: “Just as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.” (Matthew 25, 40).

Brand 9.38-40 A Lesson in Tolerance

At this John said: Teacher! We have seen a man who casts out demons in Your name, and does not follow us; and they forbade him because he did not follow us.

Jesus said: do not forbid him; for no one who has performed a miracle in My name can quickly curse Me.

For whoever is not against you is for you.

As we have said many times, in the time of Jesus they believed in the existence of demons. Everyone believed that both physical and mental illnesses are nothing more than bad influence evil spirits. And there was one typical way to cast out demons. If someone knew the name of an even stronger spirit and ordered the evil spirit to leave the person in his name, it was believed that the demon was already powerless to resist. The demon could not withstand the power of a more powerful name. That's what we're talking about here. John saw a man using the almighty name of Jesus to defeat demons and tried to stop him from doing so because he was not part of the small circle of disciples. But Jesus explained that no man could do anything important and be His enemy at the same time. And then Jesus laid down the great principle that “he who is not against us is for us.”

This is a lesson in tolerance that almost everyone should learn.

1. Every person has the right to think. Every person has the right to independently formulate their thoughts and think through them independently until they come to their own conclusions and convictions. We must respect this right. People very often rush to stigmatize what they themselves do not understand. William Penny once said: “Do not despise or reject what you do not understand.” And Jude 10 says, “But these speak evil of what they do not know.” We must remember:

a) There is not only one path to God. “God,” said Gennison, “has many ways to accomplish His purposes.” Cervantes once said: “God brings His own to heaven in many ways.” The earth is round, and two people can arrive at the same place by going in completely opposite directions. All paths, if a person follows them long enough and far enough, lead to God. It is dangerous if a person or church thinks they have a monopoly on salvation.

b) We must remember that the truth is always greater than human understanding. No person can understand the whole truth. The basis of tolerance is not a lazy acceptance of everything, it is not the consciousness that one cannot be sure of anything. The basis of tolerance is a simple awareness of the size of the spectrum of truth. John Morley said: “Tolerance is respect for all the possibilities (all shades) of truth, it is the recognition that it lives in different dwellings, wears clothes of different colors and speaks different languages; this is a sincere respect for the freedom of living consciousness, and not mechanical templates, official opinions or the violence of society; it is charity that even surpasses faith and hope.” Intolerance is a sign of arrogance and ignorance because it indicates that a person believes that there is only one truth in which he believes.

2. We must recognize not only the right of every person to think for himself, we must recognize his right to say what he sees fit. Of all democratic freedoms, the most precious is freedom of speech. Of course there are some boundaries. A person who preaches a doctrine aimed at destroying morality, as well as the foundations of a civilized and Christian society, must be fought. But this does not mean that he needs to be destroyed or removed by force, we need to prove to him that he is wrong. Voltaire once summed up the concept of freedom of speech with a very powerful sentence: “I hate what you say, but I will die for your right to say it.”

3. We must remember that any teaching or belief must be judged by the kind of people they educate. Dr. Chalmers put it very succinctly: “The Church is looked upon only as an instrument for the practice of Christian virtue.” The question, ultimately, is not at all how and who governs the Church, but what kind of people it educates.

There is such an Eastern parable. One man had a ring with a wonderful opal. Everyone who wore this ring became so sweet and sincere in character that everyone loved him. This ring was worn as an amulet, it passed from father to son and always had its amazing effect. One day he moved to a father who had three sons, and he loved each one equally. What could he do when the time came to pass on the amulet? My father bought two more rings, so similar to the original that no one could tell them apart. At his death hour, he called his sons to him in turn, and, having said a few warm words to each, gave him a ring, without telling the other two about it. When the sons found out that each other had the same ring, a big dispute broke out about which of the rings was genuine and had miraculous powers. The case went to court. The judge carefully examined the rings and said: “I cannot say which one is magical. But you yourself can show it to everyone.” The sons were very surprised. “After all, a real ring adds pleasantness to the character of the person who wears it, so I and other people in the city will see which of you has a real ring based on the nobility of his life. Here, live, be kind, sincere and wise, be fair in your actions and deeds; whoever meets these requirements is the owner of a real ring.” Thus, it was necessary to prove with one’s life that one was right. No one can judge the faith or beliefs of another if they make him a good person. With this in mind, we will be more tolerant.

4. You can hate a person’s beliefs, but not the person himself. You can want to destroy his theory, but you don’t need to want his death.

“He drew a line to separate himself from me - the Rebel, the heretic, the despicable creature. But love and I - we managed to win - We drew a line that included him.”

Mark 9,41.42 Awards and Punishments

And whoever gives you a cup of water to drink in My name, because you are Christ’s, truly I tell you, will not lose his reward.

But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and thrown into the sea.

The moral of this passage is simple, obvious, and helpful.

1. It says that every show of kindness, any help provided to Christians will not go unrewarded if this help is provided to people in need in Christ. Every needy person is dear and close to Christ, and therefore we are obliged to help him. If Jesus had been among us in the flesh, He would have helped this needy in the best possible way, but now the duty to help has passed to us. It is interesting to note that the help should be very simple. A glass of cold water is also a gift. There is no need to do the impossible or beyond their strength. But we need to give what we can, provide simple help. One missionary told an interesting story. She spoke to one African elementary school class on the topic: Bring a glass of cold water in the name of Jesus. One day she was sitting on the veranda of her house when a group of native porters carrying heavy bales entered the village square. They were tired and thirsty; They sat down to rest and asked the simple pagan natives for water to drink, but they advised them to find water themselves, since they were from another tribe. The tired porters sat, the missionary watched, when suddenly a small group of African girls came out of the school door, carrying jugs of water on their heads. The surprised porters took the jugs, drank the water and returned them to the girls; the girls took to their heels and ran to the missionary. “We have given the thirsty man a drink,” they said, “in the name of Jesus.” Young children took history and their duty literally. If only more people did this! All that is required of us is simple kindness. As Mohammed once said: “To set a person on the right path, to give a thirsty person a drink of water, to smile in the face of your brother—this is all also mercy.”

2. But the opposite is also true: to help means to receive an eternal reward. To induce a weaker brother to stumble means to be doomed to eternal punishment. The passage is deliberately harsh. The millstone mentioned in this passage is a large millstone. In Palestine, there were two types of mills: hand mills, used in the household, and very heavy millstones, powered by animals. The millstone mentioned here is of the second type, driven by donkeys. A man thrown into the sea with such a millstone around his neck had no chance of survival. Such punishment and such execution were actually practiced in Rome and Palestine. Josephus notes that, having carried out a successful coup, the Galileans "took men from Herod's party and drowned them in the lake." The Roman historian Suetonius Tranquillus talks about Emperor Augustus Octavian: “When the mentor and servants of his son Gaius, taking advantage of the latter’s illness, began to shamelessly and greedily plunder the province, he ordered them to be thrown into the river with a load around their necks.”

Sin is terrible, but teaching others to sin is much worse. The American writer O'Henry has this story. One little girl's mother died. Her father used to come home, take off his jacket, sit down with a newspaper and, lighting a pipe, put his feet on the mantelpiece. The girl came up to him and asked him to play with her , because she felt very lonely. He answered her that he was tired and asked her to leave him alone, to go play outside. And she went outside and as a result the inevitable happened - she became a street woman. Over the years, she died and her the soul ascended to heaven. The Apostle Peter saw her and said to Jesus: “Lord, a girl of bad behavior has come here. Shall we send her straight to hell, perhaps?” “No,” said Jesus, “let her in, let her in.” But then His eyes became stern: “But be careful not to let in the man who refused to play with his little girl and sent her out into the street - send him to hell! God is not hard on the sinner, but he is hard on those who cause others to sin and whose behavior, whether unconscious or deliberate, places a stumbling block in the path of a weaker fellow.

Brand 9.43-48 A goal for which you can sacrifice everything

And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off: it is better for you to enter into life maimed, than with two hands to go into hell, into the unquenchable fire,

And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off: it is better for you to enter into life lame than, having two feet, to be cast into hell, into the unquenchable fire,

Where their worm does not die, and the fire does not go out.

And if your eye offends you, pluck it out: it is better for you to enter the Kingdom of God with one eye, than with two eyes to be cast into fiery hell,

Where their worm does not die, and the fire does not go out.

In this passage, in living oriental language, the main truth is stated that in life there is one goal for which one can sacrifice everything. Physically, this may mean that a person will have to lose some member or organ in order to stay alive. Sometimes surgical removal of an organ or amputation of a limb remains the only option to save a person’s life. Exactly the same can take place in the sphere of spiritual life.

Jewish rabbis had sayings related to how certain parts of the body could sin. “The eyes are the mediators of sin. The eyes and the heart are the two handmaidens of sin. Passion nests only in the one who sees. Woe to him who follows his eyes, for the eyes deceive.” Certain instincts and certain organs of the human body promote sin. The statement of Jesus should not be taken literally - this figurative Eastern statement means that in life there is a goal worth any sacrifice. The expression is repeated several times in this passage fiery Gehenna. ABOUT Gehenna the New Testament says Mat. 5, 22.29.30; 10,28; 18,9; 23, 15.33; Onion. 12,5; Jacob 3.6. This word is literally translated as hell. It has its own history; it represents the form of a word Hinnom(the valley of Hinnom was outside the walls of Jerusalem), which had a sinister past. This was the valley in which Ahaz once set up a place for worshiping fire and sacrificing small children. “And he burned incense in the valley of the sons of Hinnom and caused his sons to pass through the fire (in Barkley - and in other translations, except Russian - and burned his sons as sacrifices) (2 Steam. 28, 3). Manasseh also committed the same terrible pagan idolatry (2 Steam. 33, 6). The Valley of Hinnom, Gehenna, was, therefore, one of the most terrible instances of relapse into pagan customs in the history of Israel. As part of his reforms, Josiah declared it an unclean place. “And he desecrated Tophet, which is in the valley of the sons of Hinnom, so that no one saw off his son and daughter his through the fire to Molech" (4 Tsar. 23, 10). When this valley was thus declared unclean and defiled, it was set aside for the burning of the rubbish of Jerusalem. As a result, it became a stinking, nasty, dirty place where disgusting worms multiplied on the garbage, and where everything was always smoldering and smoking, like in a huge incinerator. And the phrase that their worm does not die and the fire does not go out is taken from the description of the fate of Israel’s evil enemies in Is. 66.24. As a result of all this, Gehenna became a prototype or symbol of hell, a place where the souls of evil and vicious people will suffer and burn. It is also used in this sense in the Talmud. “The sinner who does not keep the word of the law will ultimately inherit hell.” And therefore Gehenna means a place of punishment, and this word evoked the darkest and most terrible pictures in the mind of every Jew. Yes, but what is the goal for which you need to sacrifice everything? It is characterized in two ways. She is named twice life and once Kingdom of God. How can we characterize Kingdom of God? We can take the definition of the Kingdom of God from the Lord’s prayer “Our Father.” In the prayer, two petitions stand side by side: “Thy kingdom come; Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” Most distinctive feature the style of the Jews is parallelism. Parallelism is the placement of two phrases next to each other, the second of which either repeats the first, or strengthens, develops or explains it. Every verse of the Psalms demonstrates this in action. Therefore, we can consider that in the Lord's Prayer one prayer is an explanation or strengthening of another. Combining them together, we get the following definition: “The Kingdom of God is a society on earth in which the will of God is just as perfectly fulfilled on earth as in heaven.” We can further very simply say that the perfect fulfillment of the will of God makes a person a citizen of the Kingdom of God. Applying the resulting definition to the interpretation of this passage, we find that it has the following meaning: fulfilling the will of God is worth any sacrifice, self-discipline and self-denial, and only in fulfilling this will of God is true life and final and complete satisfying peace. Origen understood this statement symbolically. He believed that the phrase could have the following meaning: it may be necessary to cut off a heretic or some vicious person from the church brotherhood in order to preserve the purity of the body of the Church. But this concept of this statement seems to offend people; It may well be, however, that this means cutting off, destroying, abolishing our habits, giving up any pleasures, friends, some things that have become very dear to us, in order to unquestioningly fulfill the will of God. And the fact is that in such a matter no one can think and do anything for another; it is all a matter of individual consciousness. If anything in our life prevents us from completely fulfilling the will of God, no matter how dear and necessary this or that habit has become for us, we must eradicate it. It may well be that such an eradication will be painful, like a surgical operation, but if we want to know the true life, true happiness and true peace, we must go for it. This may sound dark and harsh, but in reality this is just the harsh reality of life.

Mark 9.49.50 The Salt of the Christian Life

For everyone will be stripped of fire, and every sacrifice will be salted with salt.

Salt is a good thing; but if the salt is not salty, how will you season it? Have salt in yourselves, and have peace among yourselves.

These verses are among the most difficult in the New Testament. Commentators have already offered dozens of different interpretations. But the interpretation will be easier if we remember what we have already emphasized. Jesus often made little remarks that stayed in people's minds because they simply could not forget them. But often people, having remembered a phrase, forgot on what occasion and in what situation it was said, and therefore a series of unrelated statements of Jesus, collected together, have often reached us, because they stuck in the author’s memory in that order. Here is one example of such memorization. We will not be able to understand these two verses at all unless we start from the fact that they are three separate unrelated statements Jesus. They came together in the head of the person who wrote down this Gospel and settled there in this order, because the word is found in all three salt. In other words, this is a small collection of sayings of Jesus in which He uses the word salt as metaphors for various illustrations, and therefore there is no need to look for even a remote connection between these three statements. They must be interpreted separately, in order of citation.

1. Everyone will be salted with fire. According to Jewish law, each victim had to be salted before being offered to God on the altar. (Lev. 2, 13). This sacrificial salt was called salt of the covenant (Num. 18, 19; 2 Steam. 13, 5). It was the addition of this salt that made the sacrifice acceptable to God, and according to His covenant, the addition of this salt was obligatory. Therefore this statement of Jesus means: “For the Christian life to be pleasing to God, it must be purified by fire, just as every sacrifice is sprinkled with salt.” Fire is the salt that makes life pleasing to God. Well, what does this mean? In the ordinary language of the New Testament, fire is associated with two things.

A) With cleansing. Fire purifies the base metal and separates all impurities; pure metal remains. That is, fire means everything that purifies life, self-discipline, which helps a person overcome sin; life experience that purifies and strengthens the human soul. In this case, this means the following: “God is pleased with a life purified by self-discipline and Christian obedience and Christian approval of the guiding hand of God.”

b) Fire is associated with destruction. In this case, the statement refers to persecution and implies that God is pleased with a life that has withstood the trials, difficulties and dangers of persecution and persecution. A person who voluntarily risked the destruction of his property and his own life because of his loyalty to Jesus Christ is dear to God. Jesus' first statement can be taken to mean that the sacrifice of a life that has been purified by self-discipline and has withstood the danger of persecution to which one has been subjected because of one's faithfulness is pleasing and dear to God.

2. Salt is a good thing, but if the salt is not salty, how will you season it? This statement is even more difficult to interpret. It is impossible to say that no other interpretations exist, but it seems to us that it can be understood this way: salt has two features, two beneficial properties. Firstly, it gives taste. An egg without salt is tasteless. Everyone knows how unpleasant many dishes taste if they forget to add salt when preparing them. In addition, salt was used as a food before all other things. preservative: To prevent spoilage, food was salted. The Greeks said that salt acts like the soul in a dead body. The meat itself spoils quickly, but seasoned with salt it retains freshness. Salting seemed to give the meat something like new life. Salt protected against spoilage.

But Christians were sent into the pagan world to help it in this way. The pagan world was distinguished by two features. Firstly, fatigue and satiety. The very luxury and abundance of the ancient world served as proof that in its bored satiety this world was looking for something sharp and exciting in life, from which this sharpness had disappeared. As the English poet Andrew Arnold wrote: “Abominations fell on that harsh pagan world

and hidden disgust;

Deep fatigue and satiated lust

They made human life hell.

In cool peace, with sunken eyes,

The Roman patrician reclined.

He drove away looking crazy

Along the Appian Way.

He threw a feast, drank wildly and quickly,

And decorated his hair with a wreath of flowers -

But they didn’t go faster or easier

Stubborn watch."

Christianity came to this tired and satiated world, and Christians had to give this world a new taste and a new sharpness, like salt to dishes. Secondly, the ancient world was corrupted and corrupted. The ancients themselves knew this very well. Juvenal compared Rome to a dirty sewer. Purity disappeared completely, and no one had even heard of chastity. And Christianity came to this depraved world, and it was supposed to give this world a remedy against the poison of life, to have a cleansing effect on this depravity. Just as salt protected meat from rotting and decay, so Christianity had to fight the corruption prevailing in the world. And so in this statement Jesus called on Christians: “The world,” He said, “needs the taste and purity that only Christianity can bring. And if a Christian himself loses a keen sense of life and purity, where can this world even find them? Unless the Christian, in the power of Christ, destroys satiety and corruption, they will flourish freely.

3. Have salt in yourselves, and have peace among yourselves. And here salt used in the sense cleanliness. The ancients said that salt is the purest element in the world because it is obtained from the two purest elements - the sun and the sea. The brilliant whiteness of the salt itself served as an image of purity. Therefore, this expression means the following: “Have within you the cleansing influence of the Spirit of Christ. Be clean from selfishness and greed, from bitterness, anger and envy, be clean from irritability, bad mood and self-centeredness, and then, and only then, will you be able to live in peace with your fellow men.” In other words, Jesus is saying that only a person who is devoid of selfishness and overflowing with Christ can live in true brotherhood with people.