The Lord in the Gospel repeatedly calls on every person to become like a child. Be “like little children” (Matthew 18:3), “for of such is the kingdom of God” (Mark 10:14).

Every person grows, develops, becomes more mature. And this is not only the reality of our time. Even before the Fall, man was called to grow in the love of God, to develop his abilities. Thus, he learned about God’s creation and named the animals (see: Gen. 2:20). According to St. Basil the Great, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil “was given because a commandment was needed for our obedience.” That is, in heaven, a person was brought up and developed.

In the same way, as we grow up, we are called to become better, to grow physically and spiritually. We must master our abilities and develop God's gifts. Is it really in spite of this that the Lord says: “Be like children” - inept, undeveloped, helpless? Intuitively, you and I understand what He means. Everyone, seeing a child, feels What We lost, growing up, what children are really better than us at. Let's try to understand a little about what Christ valued so much in children.

At an early age, children still retain an amazing integrity of mind, heart and will. Such qualities of an adult as double-mindedness, guile, and hypocrisy are alien to them. Harmony in a child’s soul allows you to see harmony around you. It turns out that this is the true Kingdom of God, which is “within us” (Luke 17:21).

Children are characterized by simplicity, spontaneity, and a special realism of the soul. The world of fantasy and the world of reality often do not have clear boundaries. Mastering the world, they immediately create something new, perceiving their fantasy no less real than the world around them. The same applies to time. Remember how long it takes a child to master our usual time categories. He already speaks well, knows and remembers a lot, but, for example, “yesterday” and “a year ago” are the same for him, the past lives in the present, and the present dominates the future. We can say that this is an image of future life in eternity.

We, having gained a lot of knowledge and experience, lose the direct connection of the heart with God, characteristic of children

Children are by nature open and sociable. They absorb new knowledge, and their hearts are open to the word of God, goodness, and light. Christ, seeing how children are drawn to Him, listening with the spirit of love and purity of heart, in His prayer to the Heavenly Father says: “I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You hid this from the wise and prudent and revealed it to babes” ( Matthew 11:25). We, having a lot of knowledge, intelligence and experience, lose the direct connection of our hearts with God.

Trust and goodwill towards people. Children are not characterized by hostility, malice, enmity, or hatred towards anyone. “Be childish to evil” (1 Cor. 14:20), says the Apostle Paul, meaning how children often do not even see the evil around them, and if they feel evil against themselves, they very quickly forget and forgive the offenders. Indeed, like is known by like. A child, who by nature does not know evil, will not see this evil around him. A parent who punishes his child with anger will for a long time feel a heaviness in his heart - a consequence of the sin he has committed. The child, having quickly forgiven, again runs to the parent with a heart full of love. Everything good and pure inspires trust and attraction in a child.

Faith is natural for children; it is an experiential part of their lives. On the contrary, they are not characterized by doubts, hesitations, crafty wisdom and self-justifications. Their faith is unaccountable and at the same time sincere. A child with any trouble runs to his mother, knowing that she will always help. This belief in unconditional love and help extends to spiritual life; the child’s natural faith in God is formed through the experience of love and trust in parents. Children believe in the words of adults, for them these words are the same as their deeds. If parents do not throw words to the wind, but confirm reasonable words with reasonable deeds, then they gain authority in the eyes of their children, complete trust and cordial friendship. The faith of children in adults, the faith of the latter in children lead to a deep, sincere and natural faith in God.

The child has natural humility. As we grow up, we retreat from this saving virtue

When the disciples asked Christ: who is greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven, He, placing a child in the midst of them, said: “If you do not turn and become like children, you will not enter into... Whoever humbles himself [humbles] like this child, he is the greatest in Kingdom of Heaven" (Matthew 18: 1-4). A child is “little” from birth; he has natural humility and modesty. Growing up, we lose this saving virtue and cultivate pride, ambition, and vanity. We already consider ourselves, if not better than everyone else, then certainly not worse. Moreover, from early childhood we often instill in our children the desire to be better than others.

It turns out that a child from birth already possesses many qualities for life in the Kingdom of God, but as they grow older, they weaken, are lost, or are even replaced by opposing passions. This is largely facilitated by the examples that surround a growing child. We create people like ourselves. Lacking a genuine spiritual life, and caring primarily about the values ​​of “this world,” we contribute to the rapid departure of our children from their still slightly spoiled nature.

There is a path of the chosen ones from the womb, examples of which we see in the lives of saints who pleased God with their holy lives from infancy. However, for you and me, the Lord offers a second path - the path of returning to a humble childish spirit: the spirit of faith, love, modesty, purity and boundless trust in God.

Teaching His disciples the practical skills of spiritual life, faith in God and the conditions by which a person can become an heir of salvation from eternal death, Jesus Christ set children as an example: “Truly I tell you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.”(Matt. 18:2-4). Oddly enough, adults can learn a lot from children. After all, the harsh realities of life on a sinful earth forced adults to leave many valuable qualities in their childhood. Jesus, pointing to children indirectly brings back the memory of adults to best years own life. He draws parallels between the attitude of children towards their parents and the attitude of people towards their Creator God.

What can children teach us?
Faith and trust
Look at the children's faith. Children, unlike adults, tend to easily take their word for it. To say that young children are more trusting of their parents than adults is an understatement. As a rule, initially children believe their parents 100%. Try to tell your offender seriously small child: “So, now I will treat you for disobedience. I’ll give you an injection.” You will see how much faith there will be in his frightened eyes. He is in fear and with tears will loudly ask you not to do this, although you simply intimidated him. By the way, with such intimidation in order to achieve obedience, parents gradually weaken the trust of their young children. When we promise something good to children, they look forward to it as if what was promised was already in their hands. If the promise is not fulfilled, they are perplexed at their level and experience terrible disappointment. Unlike adults, children do not suffer from skepticism. They tend to believe in miracles. They do not have the mundane limited experience that supposedly proves that miracles do not exist. Using the example of children's absolute trust, Jesus teaches people to also trust God and His Word. One day the angel Gabriel, informing Mary about the miraculous birth of the Savior, said affirmatively: “For with God no word will fail”(Luke 1:37).
Frankness and sincerity
Unlike adults, small children are very frank and sincere. They are not so hypocritical and crafty. Without any complexes, they will tell Uncle Petya and Aunt Lyusa everything that Mom and Dad said about them in the kitchen. Before God our life is like open book. He personally does not need any additional information about us. What He sees is the absolute truth. It is impossible to hide anything from him. However, the Lord appreciates our sincerity and frankness. After all, we speak sincerely and openly about ourselves, our thoughts and feelings only with those closest to us - those whom we trust. When we sincerely pour out our souls in prayer to God, He hears us. This is exactly what the Bible calls for: “Trust in Him at all times; pour out your heart to Him: God is our refuge” (Psalm 61:9).
Children are not vindictive
Small children quickly forget insults. When their parents punish them, they do not become bitter like adult children, and after that they are able to show even more love. They understand that the parents who punish them love them and they cannot imagine life without them. Small children do not blame their parents for all their problems. When they feel bad, they do not run away from them, but, on the contrary, immediately ask them for help. “Those I love, I rebuke and punish”– the Savior once said. Also in relation to their peers, they hold grudges and grudges. When they meet after any quarrel, they do not remember and do not demand “justice”, the main thing is that they have a common activity - in the sandbox or with a bicycle...
Affection and patronage
Small children, unlike adults, are extremely attached to their parents. They can’t even imagine a day without mom and dad. They know that their dad and mom are the best. When a child in a crowd loses sight of his parents, he immediately begins to panic and looks for them with a frightened look. Children are not shy about admitting their weaknesses. That's why they turn to them for help. God says about His parental love: “Will a woman forget her suckling child, so as not to have compassion on the son of her womb? but even if she forgot, I will not forget you.”(Isaiah 49:15).
Contact
Jesus Christ not only uses children as examples for His disciples. He calls them directly: “Unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.” It seems that the disciples of Jesus certainly had to fully meet the Savior’s expectations. Nevertheless, Jesus called them to real conversion. As it turned out, they did not yet believe Jesus 100%. They did not take His predictions about His death and resurrection seriously. It was only when this happened that the disciples were shocked to the core. Only then did they realize that Jesus had been right all along. He was never wrong. “And without faith it is impossible to please God; for he who comes to God must believe that He exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him.”(Heb. 11:6).
Conversion - repentance means a change in lifestyle. Adults are proud of their experience: military actions, labor merits, children born, education, etc. Therefore, it is difficult for them to admit that life without obedience to God does not deserve salvation and is doomed to destruction. In order to convert and repent, it is necessary in complete humility not only to come to the “zero” of your life, but also to realize your spoiled, doomed state without God. And only deep faith, like that of children, will give the strength to bow before Christ and accept Him as the Redeemer from destruction and subordinate your future life to Him. “For if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved: for with the heart one believes leading to righteousness, and with the mouth one confesses leading to salvation.”(Rom.10:9,10). This is why the vast majority come to God and turn in their youth.

Why is there a call in the Gospel to “be like children” (see Matt. 18:3) and what specific childlike qualities does Christ call to imitate? Correspondent Elizaveta PRAVIKOVA asked the famous translator Natalia TRAUBERG and Orthodox psychologist Olga FILIPOVSKAYA about the strength of childhood weakness. The answers were unexpected.

Natalya Leonidovna TRAUBERG born in 1928 in Leningrad. Her father, Leonid Trauberg, is a famous Soviet theater and film director. In 1949, she graduated from the department of Romance-Germanic philology at Leningrad University (initially, at the insistence of her mother, she entered the physics department, but quickly realized that this was absolutely not for her). Translator from English, Italian and Spanish languages(G. K. Chesterton, Wodehouse, G. Green, J. Cortazar, M. A. Asturias, M. Vargas Llosa, R. Alberti, F. García Lorca, K. H. Sela, R. Gomez de la Serna, G. Deledda, L. Pirandello). Member of the board of the Russian Bible Society, the Chesterton Institute (UK), and the editorial board of the journal Foreign Literature. Translator of children's literature: P. Gellico “Thomasina”, C. S. Lewis “The Chronicles of Narnia”, J. Webster “Daddy Long Legs” and “Dear Foe”, Cecilia Jamison “Lady Jane”, Francis Barnett “The Little Princess”. born in 1957 in Moscow. In 1979 she graduated from the Faculty of Psychology of Moscow State University. She worked on the first “Helpline” in Moscow. Currently teaches at the Faculty of Psychological Counseling of the Moscow City Psychological and Pedagogical University. Author of many popular articles published in psychological, pedagogical and children's publications. As a parishioner of the Moscow Church of St. Maron the Hermit of Syria, conducts psychological consultations in the parish of the temple.

—What exactly is the childlike quality that Christ calls us to imitate?
Natalia Trauberg: In the children's books that I translated, everything is too optimistic, because they still describe Victorian children, idealized children, children as they should be: Lady Jane or Sarah Crewe ("The Little Princess"). And I have very sad thoughts about children. The rector of our church, Father Vladimir Lapshin, likes to repeat: when they say “be like children,” just don’t think that these are our children who push everyone apart with their elbows at communion. What we mean are children who were completely dependent on adults, who had absolutely no freedom. That is, they could have it if they were loved, or they could not have it. The child was supported only by love. If he was loved, he existed; if he was not loved, then it was as if he did not exist. Because without the experience of love, without living warmth, the soul cannot grow and develop normally.
In a way, children are the best people, not because they are good, but because being a child is so incredibly hard. How children, if they do not hold on to this magnet of love, to God’s magnet, can be difficult for themselves, and for their parents, and for those around them, how cunning and lying they can be. I feel very sorry for the children, because they are truly completely helpless - either street children, or children of strict parents, or children of lax parents who caress them - these are absolutely helpless creatures.
So, I think, “be like children” Christ said in no way in the sense of Dr. Spock, not in the sense that these are some kind of ideal beings. We all know what these “ideal creatures” are as soon as you give them a little indulgence. But not giving them any concessions and being very tough with them is also cruel. I survived this, I had a very harsh mother, who made me cry for decades. Although at first she was so ingratiating, completely Rousseauist, in the spirit of the 20s, when it was believed that children should be absolutely free! But how can a child be free if he takes his shirt to a hot stove and lights it, if he runs out into the street and runs across the road?
Olga Filippovskaya: The traditional way of interpreting this evangelical expression usually consists of trying to find such purely childish properties that a Christian should imitate. But let's look again at the text itself. “At that time the disciples came to Jesus and said, “Who is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” Jesus, calling a child, placed him in the midst of them and said: Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 18:1-4). The disciples tried to reason about who was greater, and Christ put a child in front of them, as if giving an example of measure - “whoever humbles himself like this child is greater.” In this fragment of the Gospel, the child appears only as a small creature. Note that we are not talking here about any childish qualities or traits. Moreover, almost everywhere in the Gospels and Epistles, childishness and infancy are synonymous with immaturity, instability, and frivolous gullibility. For example, Paul in the Epistle to the Ephesians (4:13) calls us to grow “into a perfect man, to the measure of the full stature of Christ; so that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried away by every wind of doctrine,” and in the Epistle to the Hebrews (5.13) he writes: “Everyone who is fed on milk is ignorant of the word of righteousness; because he is a baby."

Natalia Trauberg: Of course, “like children” means helpless. The child, apparently, is as sinful as anyone. Although children under six years old still have some kind of angelic aftertaste. But there are such believing children that God forbid anyone. They play the fool, they are such Pharisees, they are selfish. After all, when Christ speaks some kind of parable, it is not an allegory, he takes part of the phenomenon and speaks about it. Otherwise, “be like children” are very broad words. You can say, “be disobedient like children,” you can say, “be natural, like children.”
Why are those who cry, those who thirst, those who are poor in spirit blessed, and what is the most touching thing about people in general? Complete helplessness in front of a fallen world. The child is more helpless in the face of a fallen world than anyone else. And I think, “Be like children,” when this is advised to adults, this means that a person should not be confident, all-knowing, judging everyone.
Olga Filippovskaya: A Christian should overcome many childish qualities and become like a child only in his smallness and helplessness, which Natalya Leonidovna spoke about. The child is weak and helpless by nature. It is infinitely difficult and scary for an adult to accept this. But only in the consciousness of our complete helplessness and insecurity can we sincerely exclaim: “Lord, Thy will be done in me. Into Your hands, my God, I commend myself entirely, come and give me understanding!” Matthew (Matthew 11:25) has the following words: “...I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and prudent,” that is, by the standards of this world, from the successful, strong...
Natalia Trauberg: And he opened it to the babies... that says it all.
Olga Filippovskaya: By the way, in everyday life these words - “child”, “adult” - have a double meaning. For example, we say to a child, trying to encourage him to be patient, generous, and forgiving: “You’re already big.” We are always trying to move him to a different position, a more mature one, we are pulling him out of this childhood. At the same time, we are touched by children's naivety, spontaneity, enthusiasm, and, lamentingly, we call too serious children “little adult”, “little old man”.
Speaking about an adult, we sometimes say with warmth: “He remained a child.” However, this same phrase can also be said in disappointment, with regret, if we want to draw attention to infantility, selfishness, and irresponsibility.

Catholic hagiographic story: St. Thomas de Villanueva, as a child, gives his clothes to beggar children

- We can often observe in children, even the most spoiled, complete trust in God. Adults, when praying, can reflect: do I need this, what am I asking for? And the child prays and says: “Lord, mommy’s tooth hurts - let it go away.” And ten minutes later he comes and asks: “Well, has it become easier?” That is, he undoubtedly believes that the Lord heard him.
Natalia Trauberg: But try not to give a child a toy that he asked for... Here you can give the following example - an ordinary believer can even be very disgusting. And for absolutely every reason, turn to the saints...
Olga Filippovskaya: There can be no automatism in prayer. The child will inevitably be faced with the fact that not every prayer will be immediately and literally fulfilled. There is a long, difficult path between the innocence of a child’s prayer and the quiet simplicity of the words “... not my will, but Thine, be done.” But, of course, when we see children's naive simplicity, our own view seems to be renewed.

- But still, there are some qualities in children that are almost absent in an adult, for example, forgivingness?
Natalia Trauberg: Forgiveness in adults and children is difficult to separate. The fact is that often, when a person feels deeply, he forgives absolutely, but he remembers what happened. It does not say - “whatever you are told, forget it.” It's not up to you. Forgive, and do not forget, and besides, the person must also accept forgiveness. After all, forgiveness is a mutual thing.
Olga Filippovskaya: I think that a child’s forgivingness and the ability to forgive that Christ speaks of are completely different things. As a psychologist, I will say that a child may not be able to truly, truly forgive. Often, suffering himself and tormenting others, a person carries his childhood grievances and traumas all his life. And it is often possible to help him only as a result of long psychotherapeutic work.
But even in the most favorable case, both the offense and forgiveness of a child, an inexperienced being, are still pre-experienced, blind.
Forgiveness in the gospel sense has a gracious nature; it is realized synergistically, that is, by the joint efforts of man and God. For example, in the Sermon on the Mount, Christ sets a task that is impossible for man himself - to love his enemies, not only to forgive them, but to love them!
You know, now, at the end of our conversation, I thought about something else. “For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus...” says the Epistle to the Galatians (3.26). And sons and children “partake of the flesh and blood” (Heb. 2.14) of their parents. To be like children also means to be involved in God - in these words there is simultaneously a call to us, an indication of the path, and a promise of the Kingdom.

How can we speak in simple, everyday, rational language about the most important, the most indescribable in a person - his religious experience? The whole point here is that this experience is truly almost indescribable, that as soon as you try to express it in words, what you get is completely different, you get something cold, dull and abstract. And that’s why all debates about religion so often seem so boring. And at the same time, both sides so rarely agree on the main thing in these disputes.

And isn’t that why the Gospel says: “Be like children” (Matthew 18:3)? - What could this mean? After all, our entire civilization is aimed precisely at making children adults, as smart, rational, prosaic creatures as we ourselves. Isn’t all our evidence, reasoning and debate designed specifically for this adult, for whom childhood is only and only a time of growth, preparation, a time of living out childhood in ourselves?

But behold, “Be like children,” says Christ, and also: “Do not prevent children from coming to me” (Matthew 19:14). And if this is said, then we believers have no need to be ashamed of the undeniable childishness inherent in both religion itself and any religious experience.

It is no coincidence that the first thing we see when entering the church is the image of a child, the image of a young Mother with a child in her arms - as if this is the most important thing in Christ, as if the Church is taking care that we do not forget about this very first, most important phenomenon Divine in the world. For the same Church further affirms that Christ is God, Wisdom, Thought, Truth. But all this is first, first of all, revealed in the image of this child, as if this very appearance is the key to everything else in religion.

Let us ask ourselves: what do these words mean, what can these words mean - “be like children”? It is unlikely, firstly, that this means some kind of artificial simplification, denial of growth, education, accumulation of growth, development, that is, everything that we call in childhood preparation for life, mental, spiritual and physical maturation. And about Christ himself it is said in the Gospel that He “grew in wisdom” (Luke 2:40).

Consequently, “be like children” in no way means any kind of infantilism, it is not a contrast between childhood and adulthood; This does not mean that in order to embrace religion or religious experience, you need to become some kind of simpleton, or even more crudely, a fool. I insist on this because this is what they say, this is how religion is understood by its enemies. They reduce it to fairy tales, fables and inventions that only children, or adult children - immature people - can fall for.

But what then do the words of Christ mean? To answer this question, you must first ask another question - the question is not about what a person gains when becoming an adult, for this is clear without words, but about what he loses when leaving childhood. For there is no doubt that he is losing something, so unique and precious, that then all his life he remembers his childhood as a lost paradise, about some kind of golden dream, with the end of which life became sadder, emptier, more terrible.

I think that if I had to define this something in one word, the word would be “integrity.” The child does not yet know this split of life into past, present and future, this sad experience of time flowing away irrevocably. He is all in the present, he is all in the fullness of what is now, be it joy, be it grief. He is all in joy, and therefore they talk about “childish” laughter and a “childish” smile; he is all in grief and despair, and that is why they talk about the tears of a child, because he cries and laughs so easily, so uncontrollably.

The child is integral not only in relation to time, but also to all life, he gives himself completely to everything; he perceives the world not rationally, not analytically, not with any one of his senses, but with his whole being without reserve - but therefore the world is revealed to him in all its dimensions. If for him animals speak, trees suffer or rejoice, the sun smiles, and an empty matchbox can miraculously shine like a car, or an airplane, or a house, or anything, then this is not because he is stupid and undeveloped, but because he V highest degree This feeling of wonderful depth and connection of everything with everything is given and open. Because he has the gift of complete merging with the world and with life, because when we grow up, we really hopelessly lose it all.

First of all, we lose this very integrity. The world gradually disintegrates in our mind and consciousness into its component elements, but outside of this deep connection between them all of them, all these elements, become only themselves, and, having become only themselves, they become limited, flat, empty and boring.

We begin to understand more and more and perceive less and less; we begin to know about everything, but no longer have real communication with anything.

But this wonderful connection of everything with everything, this opportunity to see something different in everything, this ability for complete self-giving and merging, this inner discovery, this trust in everything - after all, all this is the essence of religious experience, this is the feeling of Divine depth, Divine beauty, the Divine essence of everything, this is the direct experience of God, filling everything in everything!

The word religion itself means “connection” in Latin. Religion is not one of the parts of experience, it is not one of the areas of knowledge and feeling, religion is precisely the connection of everything with everything and therefore the final truth about everything. Religion is the depth of things and their height; religion is light, pouring from everything, and therefore illuminating everything; religion is the experience of the presence in everything, behind everything and above everything, of that final reality, without which nothing has any meaning. This holistic Divine reality is comprehended only by holistic perception, and this is what it means - “be like children.”

This is what Christ calls for when he says that “whoever does not receive the Kingdom of God like a child will not enter it” (Mark 10:15). For to see, to want, to feel, to perceive the Kingdom of God - this means to see this depth of things, what they tell us about in the best moments of our lives, the light that begins to pour out of them when we return to childhood integrity.

No related posts.

Commentary on the book

Comment to the section

1-4 The child is taken by Christ as an example of trust in God. The child does not rule - this is how students should be.

3 "If... you are not like children, you will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven" - “Try to acquire childlike humility, childish simplicity and kindness, childish devotion to the will of God, and you will know on earth that there is a kingdom of God" (St. Philaret of Moscow).

1. Evangelist Matthew (which means “gift of God”) belonged to the Twelve Apostles (Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13). Luke (Luke 5:27) calls him Levi, and Mark (Mark 2:14) calls him Levi of Alpheus, i.e. son of Alphaeus: it is known that some Jews had two names (for example, Joseph Barnabas or Joseph Caiaphas). Matthew was a tax collector (publican) at the Capernaum customs house, located on the shore of the Sea of ​​Galilee (Mark 2:13-14). Apparently, he was in the service not of the Romans, but of the tetrarch (ruler) of Galilee, Herod Antipas. Matthew's profession required him to know Greek. The future evangelist is depicted in Scripture as a sociable person: many friends gathered in his Capernaum house. This exhausts the data of the New Testament about the person whose name appears in the title of the first Gospel. According to legend, after the Ascension of Jesus Christ, he preached the Good News to the Jews in Palestine.

2. Around 120, the disciple of the Apostle John, Papias of Hierapolis, testifies: “Matthew wrote down the sayings of the Lord (Logia Cyriacus) in the Hebrew language (under Hebrew here the Aramaic dialect should be understood), and whoever could translate them” (Eusebius, Church History, III.39). The term Logia (and the corresponding Hebrew dibrei) means not only sayings, but also events. The message Papius repeats ca. 170 St. Irenaeus of Lyons, emphasizing that the evangelist wrote for Jewish Christians (Against heresies. III.1.1.). The historian Eusebius (IV century) writes that “Matthew, having preached first to the Jews, and then, intending to go to others, set forth in the native language the Gospel, now known under his name” (Church History, III.24). According to most modern researchers, this Aramaic Gospel (Logia) appeared between the 40s and 50s. Matthew probably made his first notes while he was accompanying the Lord.

The original Aramaic text of the Gospel of Matthew is lost. We only have Greek. translation, apparently made between the 70s and 80s. Its antiquity is confirmed by the mention in the works of “Apostolic Men” (St. Clement of Rome, St. Ignatius the God-Bearer, St. Polycarp). Historians believe that the Greek. Ev. from Matthew arose in Antioch, where, along with Jewish Christians, large groups of pagan Christians first appeared.

3. Text Ev. Matthew indicates that its author was a Palestinian Jew. He is well acquainted with the Old Testament, with the geography, history and customs of his people. His Ev. is closely connected with the tradition of the OT: in particular, it constantly points to the fulfillment of prophecies in the life of the Lord.

Matthew speaks more often than others about the Church. He devotes considerable attention to the question of the conversion of the pagans. Of the prophets, Matthew quotes Isaiah the most (21 times). At the center of Matthew's theology is the concept of the Kingdom of God (which he, in accordance with Jewish tradition, usually calls the Kingdom of Heaven). It resides in heaven, and comes to this world in the person of the Messiah. The good news of the Lord is the good news of the mystery of the Kingdom (Matthew 13:11). It means the reign of God among people. At first the Kingdom is present in the world in an “inconspicuous way,” and only at the end of time will its fullness be revealed. The coming of the Kingdom of God was predicted in the OT and realized in Jesus Christ as the Messiah. Therefore, Matthew often calls Him the Son of David (one of the messianic titles).

4. Plan Matthew: 1. Prologue. The birth and childhood of Christ (Mt 1-2); 2. The Baptism of the Lord and the beginning of the sermon (Matthew 3-4); 3. Sermon on the Mount(Matthew 5-7); 4. The ministry of Christ in Galilee. Miracles. Those who accepted and rejected Him (Matthew 8-18); 5. The road to Jerusalem (Matthew 19-25); 6. Passions. Resurrection (Matthew 26-28).

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

The original text of the NT came to us in large quantities ancient manuscripts, more or less complete, numbering about 5000 (from the 2nd to the 16th century). Before recent years the most ancient of them did not go back further than the 4th century no P.X. But 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 Discovery and the Gospel, Bruges, 1959, pp. 34 ff.). The text of the NT as a whole is recorded completely irrefutably.

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

Holy books The New Testament is usually divided into legal (Four Gospels), historical (Acts of the Apostles), teaching (seven conciliar epistles and fourteen epistles of the Apostle Paul) and prophetic: Apocalypse or 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 (Lk 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 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 (Mark 9:33,34; Luke 9:46,47) Parallel story of weather forecasters (before Matthew 17:23; Mark 9:32; Luke 9:45) was interrupted by the insertion of Matthew 17:24-27 a story about the payment of taxes, which is not found in other evangelists. The expression in the Russian translation “at that time” should imply the correct Greek reading - ἐν ἐκείνη̨ τη̨̃ ὥρα̨ , which, however, if translated literally, means “at that hour.” This reading is confirmed by the most important Greek codes and translations; but in some (by the way Syro-Sinai, Kyurt., Armenian) this word is replaced by ἡμέρα - day. The latter is considered a later amendment. ‛Ώρα, however, cannot be taken here as an exact designation of time, as in Matthew in general. But that this expression was not used by the Evangelist solely to designate a connection is evident from the parallel passage of Mark indicated above, which says that the Savior, when he came to Capernaum and was in the house, Himself asked the disciples what they were discussing on the road. Thus, this last could actually happen “at that hour.” Judging by the fact that the disciples’ disputes over which of them was greater occurred more than once and each time provoked denunciations of the Savior (see. Matthew 20:20 et seq.; Mark 10:35 et seq.; Luke 22:24 et seq.; John 13:5 et seq.), one must think that the idea of ​​earthly advantages, in connection with the supposed earthly dominion of such a Person as the Savior, took root in the minds of the disciples, they cherished it, did not want to part with it, and under suitable circumstances expressed it in the presence of the Savior Himself, without holding back and paying almost no attention to His reproofs. Perhaps this explains that the Savior revealed to his disciples the incorrectness of such opinions not only in words (as Luke 14:7-11), but sometimes with the help of strong, plastic images, which were supposed to indelibly imprint in the minds of the disciples and all people the idea of ​​the need in the Kingdom of Heaven not for domination, but for service and humility. The immediate reasons for the present dispute between the disciples about which of them is greater in the Kingdom of Heaven, however, are not clear enough and are quite difficult to determine. Paying attention to ὥρα (hour), they thought that the reason for the question was the envy of Peter on the part of the other disciples because Christ, preferably before others, commanded him to pay a wonderful tax both for Himself and for him. That all the disciples would occupy a high position in the kingdom that was being founded seemed certain to them. But which of them and will who be the most important, the greatest? They reasoned about it in a worldly sense: who will have the highest position under the Messiah in His Kingdom? - Here is an indirect, but very important confirmation of the fact that the apostles themselves recognized the Savior as the Messiah - the King, albeit in an earthly sense - otherwise the question they proposed would not have made sense.

2 (Mark 9:35,36; Luke 9:47) Instruction and edification are given not only by word, but also by example. So - often in ordinary life; similar, most sublimely and in the full sense classical (so to speak), methods of instruction and teaching were used by Christ. The present example, chosen by Him, is distinguished by its extreme simplicity; but it implies a whole revolution in the thinking and views of that time, and points to it. The truth that is imprinted in the mind and heart by this example is distinguished by such depth that even today it is not fully understood by everyone.

3 (Mark 9:36; Luke 9:48) The coincidence here lies in the weather forecasters only in two words (Matthew: καὶ εἰ̃πεν; Mark and Luke: εἰ̃πεν αὐτοι̃ς ). Mark and Luke skip further words of the Savior in Matthew. Words placed Mark 10:15 and completely similar to them Luke 18:17, were said at another time and for a different reason.

It is rightly noted that if in the previous sections of Matthew’s Gospel we were talking about the attitude of the people who gathered to Christ towards the Jewish people in general and towards public worship, then further instructions before 20:28 concern the inner life of the society founded by Christ. In the words of Christ addressed to the disciples, it is obvious that they, as adults, are given instruction and moral teaching to leave their previous thoughts, dispositions and aspirations (στραφη̃τε, some believe = μετανοη̃τε = repent) and become like children. But what does it mean to be like children, to be like children? What should adults do if they want to become like children? The answer to these questions can be that the child’s character is quite well known and the thought expressed by Christ is quite understandable without further analysis.

Since the child was placed among the disciples and as an example to them due to their desire to solve the question of who is greater, then from general discussions about the child’s character and “an adult like children,” we can now move on to more specific definitions. Here we find one of the strongest and most convincing proofs of the idea that, according to the general New Testament view, the followers of Christ should, like children, avoid appropriating to themselves any external authority and any preference for themselves over their fellows. " To rise high means to fall proportionally low" The idea of ​​the New Testament is not to dominate people, but to serve them. It is not external power that should be characteristic of the followers of Christ, but moral power. The servants of Christ acquire power over people by becoming like children. This idea is purely Christian and is distinguished by its extreme moral beauty and attractiveness, and is generally explained in the Gospels by the self-devoted service of Jehovah’s Servant and, in particular, by several other examples in which the idea of ​​Christian service is also expressed.

4 (Matthew 23:12; Luke 14:11; 18:14 ) One cannot think that the thoughts expressed in verses 3 and 4 are completely identical. Verse 3 sets out the general idea that the disciples should be like children, that is, with all the good qualities inherent in them. Verse 4 seems to be a conclusion from the previous one, as indicated by the particle οὑ̃ν (so), indicating a more partial trait of the child’s character, which really consists in humility. Literally: “So whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.”

5 (Mark 9:37; Luke 9:48) This verse is explained in more detail in Luke; Matthew's most abbreviated speech. The connection of this verse with the previous one is difficult to explain. In our opinion, an explanation is possible only on the assumption that in the words of Christ “He accepts me” the thought is expressed as much about the King, i.e. Christ, as about His Kingdom. With this interpretation, Art. 5 you can see the answer to the last part of the question set out in Art. 1. This question can be divided as follows: 1) who is greater; 2) who is greater in the Kingdom of Heaven. The answer to the first part was given in the sense that whoever is greater must be the least of all, be like a child. The second part is that whoever wants to be the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven must accept Christ. Thus, the King and the Kingdom here seem not only not to be separated, but to be identified, and at the same time, the closest idea of ​​what Heavenly Kingdom. According to Matthew, this is the acceptance (into your soul and heart) of Christ; but according to Mark and Luke - and the Father who sent Him. So it is with John. “Whoever loves Me keeps My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make our abode with him" ( John 14:23). The difference is that the weather forecasters, speaking about the same thing as John, express their thoughts in images - the Savior does not simply say: “receives Me,” but “whoever receives one such child in My name receives Me,” with other additions in Mark and Luke. The idea expressed here is similar to Matthew 25:35,36,40,42,43,45, where Christ identifies Himself with the hungry, thirsty, strangers, naked, sick and imprisoned. Here He identifies Himself with the children. Christ was humble, gentle, etc., like “this child” or “one of these children.” Whoever accepts a child, in his person accepts both Christ Himself and the Father who sent Him, and, therefore, becomes a participant in the Kingdom of Heaven. But what does it mean: “accepts”, or, better, “who would accept” ( ὃς ἐὰν δέξηται - all three evangelists)? Why is it said not simply: “the child receives,” but “receives in My name”? What does this last expression “to receive a child in the name of Christ” mean? Obviously, these questions can only be answered by establishing exact value here the verb δέχομαι, which, of course, means “I accept” and is usually translated in this sense (Vulgate: susceperit; German aufnimmt, etc.), but not always. Unlike λαμβάνω, which has almost the same meaning, but without regard to the feelings with which something is taken or received, δέχομαι in general and for the most part means: I accept with affection, love, joy, friendly, and in this sense it is used both among the classics and in the Old and New Testaments (in the Bible never in a hostile sense). See eg LXX Proverbs 1:3; 2:1 ; 4:10 ; 9:9 ; Jer 5:3; 17:23 and many more etc.; John 4:45; Gal 4:14; Eph 6:17; Col 4:10; Heb 11:31 etc. Thus, the meaning of Christ’s words is: “whoever receives one such child with love receives Me.” And where Christ is accepted with love, His Kingdom is accepted there, and the person who accepted them is close to Christ, therefore, occupies the highest place in the kingdom, just as people close to some earthly king are the highest state dignitaries. But, obviously, between a simple reception, even with love, and one that is done in the name of Christ ( ἐπὶ τω̨̃ ὀνόματί μου ) a distinction is made here. Receiving a child with love, treating him friendly, imitating him, appreciating his humility and modesty - this does not mean accepting Christ Himself with love; He is accepted only when the child is accepted in His name, that is, when there is a certain relationship between the acceptor and the accepted to His name, when the child is accepted in Christian sense. This is the closest, exact Meaning of Christ’s words. Since the child was placed among the apostles as a living example of the idea that Jesus Christ wanted to imprint in the minds and hearts of His disciples, it is clear that by child we can also mean here adults who are similar to children in character, in particular, the apostles themselves. This means that the Savior does not speak here exclusively about children or adults, but indifferently about both. What conclusion can be drawn from all that has been said? Christ’s speech and its connection will be even more clear if we present everything in such a paraphrase. You ask who is greater in the Kingdom of Heaven. You can understand this if you look at this child placed here among you. You need to ask not about who is greater, but change your way of thinking (στραφη̃τε) and become like this child. Does it ask anyone similar questions? No, it doesn't even think about them. And you must also, first of all, humble yourself like a child, and only on this condition will you achieve the primacy that you desire. Achieving dominance and primacy in the worldly sense is not possible for everyone; Yes, there is no need for this. But it is possible for everyone to achieve such dominance and such primacy as are characteristic of this child; they are completely opposite to the worldly. Trying to imitate children, you will look at them and accept them with love; and by accepting children with love, you will have the same close relationship with Me as you have with them, you will accept Me with love and, thus, you will become the highest, great citizens of the Heavenly Kingdom founded by Me.

About the numeral ἓν Bengel notes: “ frequens unius in hoc hapite mentio (the word "one" is used often in this chapter)».

6 (Mark 9:42) In Luke Luke 17:1,2- similar expressions, but in a different connection. U Mark 9:38-41 And Luke 9:49-50 stories are inserted here about a man who cast out demons in the name of the Savior; then the speech of the Savior is given in Matthew and Mark with almost literal similarity.

What is said in the verse in question is obviously the opposite of what was said in the previous one. It talks about acceptance with love; here - about the harm that occurs as a result of temptation - this is the last word (σκανδαλίση̨), as in other cases ( see note by 5:29), indicates a fall. As in 5 tbsp. “if anyone accepts” (lit.), so here “if someone seduces.” But if in 5 tbsp. - “one child”, then in 6 - “one of these little ones who believe in Me.” Speech thus expands and generalizes. The child standing among the disciples serves as an image to clarify the complex relationships that exist among adults who believe in Christ. At first glance, it seems that the Savior here proceeds to speak about an almost completely new subject, and, moreover, by simple association, so that verse 6 seems to have only an external connection with what was said earlier. But there is no doubt that it also has a more internal, deep, intimate connection with the previous verses. This latter is expressed, apparently, mainly by the word “to seduce” (σκανδαλίση̨). If in the previous verses an accessible and reliable path was indicated for everyone to acquire not imaginary, but real advantages in the Kingdom of Heaven established and established by Christ, then in Art. 6 indicates the obstacles that deviate from this path and the consequences of this type of activity.

The word πιστευόντων does not mean only small children in themselves and as such, because children generally do not have conscious faith, which is revealed in humility and humiliation, but adults who put themselves on the same level as babies.

The word (in the Greek text) συμφέρει can be translated, as in Russian, through “it would be better” - in the sense of more useful. This is the meaning of this word among the classics and in the New Testament (in the intransitive sense - Matthew 5:29,30; 19:10 ; John 11:50; 16:7 ; 18:14 ; 1 Cor 6:12; 2 Cor 8:10; 12:1 etc. (The meaning of the further speech shows what is the benefit for the person who produces the temptation. Before he seduces someone, it would be more useful for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and drowned in the depths of the sea. Then his body would have perished, but his soul would have been saved by preventing him from causing temptation.

“Millstone” - the translation is inaccurate; in Slavic exactly: “a millstone of an ass”, i.e. a large millstone that a donkey turns; the latter was therefore called ὄνος μυλικός (millstone donkey). Inaccurate translation in Russian exiled, apparently due to assimilation Luke 17:2(λίθος μυλικός - millstone stone or millstone). Here, of course, there is the upper millstone, or the so-called runner. Drowning at sea was not a Jewish execution; but it was practiced by the Greeks, Romans, Syrians and Phoenicians.

Gospel

The word “Gospel” (τὸ εὐαγγέλιον) in classical Greek was used to designate: a) a reward that is given to the messenger of joy (τῷ εὐαγγέλῳ), b) a sacrifice sacrificed on the occasion of receiving some good news or a holiday celebrated on the same occasion and c) this good news itself. In the New Testament this expression means:

a) the good news that Christ reconciled people with God and brought us the greatest benefits - mainly founded the Kingdom of God on earth ( Mf. 4:23),

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

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

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

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

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

Our canonical Gospels apparently arose from the same motives. The period of their appearance can be determined to be approximately thirty years - from 60 to 90 (the last was the Gospel of John). The first three Gospels are usually called 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 hé résies, livre 3, vol. 2. Paris, 1974, 11, 11).

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

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

Mutual relationship Gospels

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

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

As for the differences observed among weather forecasters, there are quite a few 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. At the same time, the difference between weather forecasters should be explained for various purposes, which 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 ( Mf. 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 ( Mf. 11:27), and John, for his part, also in places depicts Christ as true man (In. 2 etc.; John 8 and etc.). Therefore, one cannot speak of any contradiction between the weather forecasters and John in their depiction of the face and work of Christ.

The Reliability of the Gospels

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

Bibliography foreign works according to the four gospels

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Heitmüller - see Yog. Weiss (1907).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hide

Commentary on the current passage

Commentary on the book