7:1 The Pharisees and some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem gathered to Him, We noticed that the Pharisees and scribes who CAME from Jerusalem gathered to Jesus.
WHAT made them come from afar to some son of a carpenter from Jehovah’s people? Curiosity? Interest in God's word? The desire to incriminate? Doesn't matter. It is a fact that at present the interest of the leaders of God’s people in the “sons of the carpenter” is IMPOSSIBLE in principle.

7:2 The “residents” of modern “Jerusalem” are, as a rule, unaffordable and inaccessible in general, but not because they are elders. THE SYSTEM of power over the people of God raised them to unimaginable heights: neither they, the sons of carpenters, can descend to them, nor can they rise to them, the sons of carpenters. and having seen some of His disciples
Those who ate bread with unclean, that is, unwashed, hands were reproached. Some Muslims cite this verse as evidence that the Gospels are distorted - how could Jesus be so unclean - there is no?
washed hands

However, not washing your hands the way the Pharisees imagined it did not mean being unclean. Bible scholar Barclay
gives the following explanations:

The Jews had... strict rules regulating the washing of hands.
A person who neglected this procedure was considered in the eyes of the Jews not just ill-mannered or slutty, but unclean in the eyes of God. It was believed that a person who started eating with unwashed hands was possessed by the demon Shibta.

Poverty and ruin allegedly awaited a person who neglected to wash his hands. Bread eaten with unwashed hands was not supposed to bring any benefit. One rabbi, who once forgot to wash his hands, was buried as excommunicated from the synagogue.

7:3,4 What’s interesting is this: Jesus’ disciples probably knew about these “traditions of the elders,” and besides, zealous guardians of these rules came to them - from the very center, and they, you see, “eat bread with unclean hands.” For the Pharisees, this was a whole catastrophe, which showed: the disciples of Christ, like Christ himself, cannot be from God, if only because they do not follow the washing procedure developed by the religious “elders” of Judaism.
For the Pharisees and all the Jews, holding to the tradition of the elders, do not eat without washing their hands thoroughly;

4 And, [coming] from the market, they do not eat without washing. There are many other things that they decided to adhere to: observing the washing of bowls, tankards, cauldrons and benches.

As we see, the “elders” of Judaism, interpreting the law of God, interpreted a lot of things beyond what was written in God’s requirements; one might say, they overdid it themselves in their zeal to maintain ceremonial purity - and began to demand the fulfillment of this unbearable burden from others, passing them off as God’s demands.

7:5 The conclusion suggests itself: there is no point in inventing anything beyond what is written in the Bible, and even more so, trying to demand that someone fulfill these inventions.
Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him: Why do not Your disciples walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands?
Jesus, as we see, was in no hurry to force the disciples to wash their hands at the first request of the Pharisees to please the authorities. Why did he do this if he recognized that the scribes and Pharisees sat on the seat of the Mosaic Law and that what they say according to the law should be fulfilled?

Because these “traditions of the elders” were not God’s law, but were invented by the “elders.” And not only is it not necessary to fulfill human fantasies, but Jesus considered it his duty to expose all dreamers. Although the “elders” seemed to want to do the best: they brought to God’s requirement for purity the theoretical basis of the doctrine of purity, supposedly trying to fulfill God’s requirement as best as possible. This happens among Scripture: they want the best, but it will turn out as always. They will be guilty before God for distorting His requirements.

7:6-8 He answered and said to them, “Isaiah prophesied well about you hypocrites, as it is written: This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me.
7 But in vain they worship Me, teaching doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For you, having abandoned the commandment of God, hold to the tradition of men, the washing of mugs and cups, and do many other things like these.
Jesus exposes the hypocritical and ostentatious service of God, despite the fact that the Pharisees began to fulfill exactly the human commandments written down by the “elders”, and at the same time rejected God’s.

7:9 And he said to them, “Is it good [that] you set aside the commandment of God in order to keep your own tradition?”
The question is rhetorical: it is clear that the Jews did not do well, placing the commandment of their respected “elders” above the commandment of God.

7:10,11 For Moses said: Honor your father and your mother; and: He who curses his father or mother shall die by death.
11 But you say: whoever says to father or mother: corban, that is, a gift [to God] that you would use from me,
ANDAn interesting trap: the Pharisees believed that dedicating something to God could justify breaking the Lord's commandments and neglecting to care for parents under the plausible pretext of greater concern for God's things.

Like: “this is not for yourself, this is for God, for the work of God.”
Many people today believe that in order to do something for God, there will be nothing wrong if you deviate a little from His standards. For example, to speed up the process of dedicating a religious building, put a “gift in the bosom” of officials in the form of a bribe. Or, using the excuse of freeing up time for preaching, work in a not entirely honest job (without paying taxes). Or, using the excuse of being busy preaching, neglecting your responsibilities in the family.
King Saul, for example, also tried to justify himself by benefiting the cause of God when the people took from the accursed:
The people took the best of the cursed goods from the spoils, from the sheep and oxen,for sacrifice to the Lord your God (1 Samuel 15:21)

What is God's point of view on such tricks?
22 And Samuel answered, “Are burnt offerings and sacrifices as acceptable to the Lord as to obey the voice of the Lord?” Obedience is better than sacrifice, and to obey than the fat of rams; 23 For disobedience is [the same] sin as witchcraft, and rebellion [the same as] idolatry; because you rejected the word of the Lord, and He rejected you so that you would not be king

Total: from the point of view of God, whoever does a lot for Him, violating His commandments, will not receive His approval, all the work of such a person may turn out to be in vain.

7:12,13 you already allow him to do nothing for his father or his mother,
13 making void the word of God by your tradition which ye have established; and you do many similar things.
Jesus masterfully SHOWED the mechanism for substituting service to the “elders” - instead of serving God: the ability of the “elders” to introduce their own traditions and thereby gradually supplant God’s principles is amazing.

SUBSTITUTION is not easy to see. That is why it often happens that we sometimes serve the “traditions of the elders,” while being confident that we are serving the principles of God.

7:13-16 How did it happen to the Pharisees, who carefully washed their hands and thought that by doing so they were serving God.
And he called all the people and said to them, “Listen to Me, all of you, and understand:
15 Nothing that enters a person from without can defile him; but what comes from it defiles a person.
16 If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear!

7:17 Jesus, returning to the issue of uncleanness of hands, showed that it is not the dirt of the streets that defiles a person, but his inner essence, if it is vicious.
And when He entered the house from the people, His disciples asked Him about the parable.

7:18,19 The disciples, although they had ears and heard, did not fully understand why Jesus thinks that eating with unwashed hands is not so sinful?
They wanted to know the mind of Christ, to understand why he thinks this way or that way? Without spiritual questions to him, it is impossible to know the mind of Christ.
He said to them: Are you really so slow-witted? Don't you understand that nothing that enters a person from outside can defile him?

7:20 19 Because it does not enter into his heart, but into his belly and out, [by which] all food is purified.
Food, whether dirty or clean, does not deteriorate the character and inner essence of a person, as it entered, so it came out, the body processed it, collected everything valuable, threw away everything useless, what a person was before eating it, remained so.
He further said: what comes from a person defiles a person.
But the inner essence and character of a person makes him either a man of God or an opponent of God.

7:21-23 In other words, Jesus brought to light the very essence of the matter regarding the observance of the rites of the “elders”: ritual impurity is merely a symbol of the impurity of human evil hearts.
22 Why?
23 all this evil comes from within and defiles a person.
Because the external so-called “dirt” is all creation God's hands (earth, sand, dust, etc.) therefore cannot defile a person in the eyes of God, and besides, it is easy to wash off with water.
But a person forms internal “dirt” within himself; it is not washed off with water, turning a person into an unclean (unclean) person.
The students should have understood that God’s main interest is in the inner essence of man. Everything else is easy to fix.

Note that the types of evil that LIVE inside a person are listed here. You may not even know about them. It's like a wormhole in an apple: its size is not visible from the outside. Until you open the inside of the apple.
Extreme life helps to bring out (discover) what is deeply hidden inside: if there is no evil inside, then evil does not come out.

7:24-30 The case of a pagan woman asking Jesus Christ for help for her daughter. See analysis Mtf. 15:21-28

7:24-26 And departing from there, he came to the borders of Tire and Sidon; and, having entered the house, he did not want anyone to find out; but could not hide.
25 For a woman whose daughter was possessed by an unclean spirit heard about Him, and she came and fell at His feet;
26 And the woman was a pagan, a Syrophoenician by birth; and asked Him to cast out the demon from her daughter.
An example of the faith of the Canaanites: some descendants of the cursed Ham (from those nations that God said “destroy them”) were able to believe Jesus much faster than many of God’s people.

7:27 But Jesus said to her, “Let the children have their fill first, for it is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.”
It may seem that Jesus even rudely refused the pagan woman, drawing an analogy between children and dogs. But at that time, he had a different task ahead of him: the schedule of his affairs was not chaotic, but had a certain sequence: first, the primary task was to find all the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Only then should we look for the pagans. Regardless of who and what thinks about him, he was obliged to do what he was sent from heaven to do without being distracted by extraneous matters.

He could not physically heal EVERYONE who wanted healing; he would not have had enough time for the other things for which he was sent.
So, by refusing the Canaanite woman, Jesus showed that, first of all, he came to take care of the people of God (Judea are the children of God) and only secondly - about all other nations.

7:28 She answered Him: So, Lord; but even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.
The woman did not challenge the right of primacy of the children of God, but only modestly asked that Jesus, not out of duty, of course (for he was not obliged to help her), but at least out of his mercy, would help her.

7:29,30 And he said to her: for this word, go; The demon has left your daughter.
30 And when she came to her house, she found that the demon had gone out and her daughter was lying on the bed.
Jesus realized that before him was a woman who deeply believed in him. She was not offended by such a “cordial” reception, agreeing that it was better to be a dog with God than not to be with Him at all. Her faith in God’s mercy and desire to receive healing from Christ were so great that she did not move away and did not stop asking, was not afraid of the discontent of the “children” - the Jews and the fact that Jesus might be angry: she did not believe that he would refuse and angry, she believed in his mercy, and therefore continued to “knock” on the right “doors” with faith.
So, the mercy of God is not for those who desire and strive (not only for pretending “children”), but from God who has mercy: He HIMSELF knows where to put a comma in the sentence: execute cannot have mercy

Reminds me of the case when Jacob fought with God for a blessing, and did not just decide to take it from God. In struggle it was only possible for him to receive his birthright, although he was not born first.

Let us not forget that God is not obliged to bestow blessings on us: we must fight for them. God always takes into account the strength of our desire to have His blessing, the strength of faith that we can receive it, and the willingness to persistently “knock” on closed “doors.”

7:31-35 A case of healing of a deaf, tongue-tied man, also a pagan.
31 Having left the borders of Tire and Sidon, [Jesus] again went to the Sea of ​​Galilee through the borders of the Decapolis.
Brockhaus Dictionary:
Decapolis [Greek decapolis]. Cities to the east banks of the Jordan, since the time of Alexander the Great, inhabited predominantly. or exclude.

non-Jews. They, following the example of other Greek. colonies united into a union of cities. In the era of Rome. the dominion of the city of D. was directly subordinated.
governor of the province of Syria.
32 They brought to Him a deaf man, speech-impaired, and asked Him to lay His hand on him.
33 [Jesus] took him aside from the people, put His fingers into his ears, and spit and touched his tongue;
From the story of the healing of the daughter of a pagan and this sick pagan from Decapolis, they show how the pagans “pick up the crumbs from the table of the lords” - they use the benefits intended, first of all, for God’s people of that time. Thus God begins to accustom His people to the idea that God's mercy extends to all people on earth who are able to believe in the existence of the God of Israel and His blessing.

7:36 And he ordered them not to tell anyone. But no matter how much He forbade them, they divulged even more.
The Forbidden fruit is sweet. If you want to encourage someone to do something, then forbid it. The easiest way to achieve what you want. If you want people to know about you, tell us a big secret about yourself.
And there's nothing new under the sun.

7:37 And they marveled exceedingly, and said: He does everything well, and makes the deaf hear, and the dumb speak.
People who encountered Jesus could not help but notice that the fruit of his activity was good in absolutely everything.
A tree is always recognized by its fruit and, it seems, everyone should see the Christ of God in it.

But history shows a different picture: seeing - they did not see, hearing - they did not hear.

Commentary (introduction) to the entire book of Mark

Comments on Chapter 7

INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL OF MARK

SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

The first three Gospels - Matthew, Mark, Luke - are known as the Synoptic Gospels. Word synoptic comes from two Greek words meaning see the general that is, consider in parallel and see common places.

Undoubtedly, the most important of the Gospels mentioned is the Gospel of Mark. You could even say that this is the most important book in the world, because almost everyone agrees that this Gospel was written before all others and, therefore, it is the first living account of Jesus that has come down to us. There have probably been attempts to record the life of Jesus before this, but, without a doubt, the Gospel of Mark is the earliest surviving biography of Jesus that has come down to us.

THE RISE OF THE GOSPELS

When thinking about the question of the origin of the Gospels, we must keep in mind that in that era there were no printed books in the world. The Gospels were written long before the invention of printing, in an era when every book, every copy had to be carefully and painstakingly handwritten. Obviously, as a consequence of this, only a very small number of copies of each book existed.

How can we know, or from what can we conclude, that the Gospel of Mark was written before the others? Even when reading the Synoptic Gospels in translation, there are remarkable similarities between them. They contain the same events, often conveyed in the same words, and the information they contain about the teachings of Jesus Christ often coincides almost completely. If we compare the event of the feeding of the five thousand (Mar. 6, 30 - 44; Mat. 14, 13-21; Onion. 9, 10 - 17) it is striking that it is written in almost the same words and in the same manner. Another clear example is the story of the healing and forgiveness of the paralytic (Mar. 2, 1-12; Mat. 9, 1-8; Onion. 5, 17 - 26). The stories are so similar that even the words “speaking to the paralytic” are given in all three Gospels in the same place. The correspondences and coincidences are so obvious that one of two conclusions suggests itself: either all three authors took information from the same source, or two of the three relied on a third.

Upon closer examination, the Gospel of Mark can be divided into 105 episodes, of which 93 are found in the Gospel of Matthew and 81 in the Gospel of Luke, and only four episodes do not appear in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. But even more convincing is the following fact. The Gospel of Mark has 661 verses, the Gospel of Matthew has 1068 verses, and the Gospel of Luke has 1149 verses. Of the 661 verses in the Gospel of Mark, there are 606 verses in the Gospel of Matthew. Matthew's expressions sometimes differ from Mark's, but Matthew nevertheless uses 51% words used by Mark. Of the same 661 verses in the Gospel of Mark, 320 verses are used in the Gospel of Luke. Additionally, Luke uses 53% of the words that Mark actually used. Only 55 verses of the Gospel of Mark are not found in the Gospel of Matthew, but 31 of these 55 verses are found in Luke. Thus, only 24 verses from the Gospel of Mark do not appear in either the Gospel of Matthew or Luke. All this indicates that both Matthew and Luke appear to have used the Gospel of Mark as a basis for writing their Gospels.

But the following fact convinces us of this even more. Both Matthew and Luke largely adhere to Mark's accepted order of events.

Sometimes this order is broken by Matthew or Luke. But these changes in Matthew and Luke never do not match.

One of them always preserves the order of events accepted by Mark.

A careful study of these three Gospels shows that the Gospel of Mark was written before the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, and they used the Gospel of Mark as a basis and added those additional information that they wanted to include in it.

It takes your breath away when you think that when reading the Gospel of Mark, you are reading the first biography of Jesus, on which the authors of all subsequent biographies of His relied.

MARK, AUTHOR OF THE GOSPEL

What do we know about Mark, who wrote the Gospel? The New Testament says quite a lot about him. He was the son of a wealthy Jerusalem woman named Mary, whose home served as a meeting and prayer place for the early Christian church. (Acts 12, 12). From childhood, Mark was brought up in the midst of Christian brotherhood.

Also, Mark was Barnabas' nephew, and when Paul and Barnabas went on their first missionary journey, they took Mark with them as their secretary and assistant. (Acts 12:25). This trip turned out to be extremely unsuccessful for Mark. Arriving with Barnabas and Mark in Perga, Paul proposed to go deep into Asia Minor to the central plateau and then, for some reason, Mark left Barnabas and Paul and returned home to Jerusalem (Acts 13:13). Perhaps he turned back because he wanted to avoid the dangers of the road, which was one of the most difficult and dangerous in the world, on which it was difficult to travel and on which there were many robbers. Perhaps he returned because leadership of the expedition was increasingly passing to Paul, and Mark did not like that his uncle, Barnabas, was being relegated to the background. Maybe he came back because he didn't approve of what Paul was doing. John Chrysostom - perhaps in a flash of insight - said that Mark went home because he wanted to live with his mother.

Having completed their first missionary journey, Paul and Barnabas were about to embark on a second. Barnabas again wanted to take Mark with him. But Paul refused to have anything to do with the man “who lagged behind them in Pamphylia” (Acts 15, 37-40). The differences between Paul and Barnabas were so great that they separated and, as far as we know, never worked together again.

For several years Mark disappeared from our sight. According to legend, he went to Egypt and founded a church in Alexandria. We, however, do not know the truth, but we do know that he has reappeared in the strangest way. To our surprise we learn that Mark was with Paul in prison in Rome when Paul wrote his letter to the Colossians (Col. 4, 10). In another letter to Philemon, written in prison (v. 23), Paul names Mark among his co-workers. And in anticipation of his death and already very close to his end, Paul writes to Timothy, his former right hand: “Take Mark and bring him with you, for I need him for service” (2 Tim. 4, 11). What has changed since Paul branded Mark a man without self-control. Whatever happened, Mark corrected his mistake. Paul needed him when his end was near.

INFORMATION SOURCES

The value of what is written depends on the sources from which the information is taken. Where did Mark get information about the life and accomplishments of Jesus? We have already seen that his house was from the very beginning the center of Christians in Jerusalem. He must have often listened to people who knew Jesus personally. It is also possible that he had other sources of information.

Sometime towards the end of the second century there lived a man named Papias, a bishop of the church of the city of Hierapolis, who loved to collect information about the early days of the Church. He said that the Gospel of Mark is nothing more than a record of the sermons of the Apostle Peter. Without a doubt, Mark stood so close to Peter and was so close to his heart that he could call him “Mark, my son” (1 Pet. 5, 13). This is what Papia says:

“Mark, who was the interpreter of Peter, wrote down with accuracy, but not in order, everything that he recalled from the words and deeds of Jesus Christ, because he himself did not hear the Lord and was not His disciple; he later became, as I said, a disciple of Peter “Peter connected his instruction with practical needs, without even trying to convey the word of the Lord in a sequential order. So Mark did the right thing by writing down from memory, because he was only concerned about not missing or distorting anything he heard.” .

Therefore, we consider the Gospel of Mark to be an extremely important book for two reasons. Firstly, it is the very first gospel, and if it was written shortly after the death of the Apostle Peter, it dates back to the year 65. Secondly, it contains the sermons of the Apostle Peter: what he taught and what he preached about Jesus Christ. In other words, the Gospel of Mark is the closest eyewitness account we have of the life of Jesus to the truth.

LOST ENDING

Let us note an important point regarding the Gospel of Mark. In its original form it ends with Mar. 16, 8. We know this for two reasons. First, the following verses (Mar. 16, 9 - 20) are missing from all important early manuscripts; they are contained only in later and less significant manuscripts. Secondly, style Greek language so different from the rest of the manuscript that the last verses could not have been written by the same person.

But intentions stop at Mar. The author could not have 16, 8. What happened then? It is possible that Mark died, perhaps even the death of a martyr, before he could complete the Gospel. But it is likely that at one time only one copy of the Gospel remained, and its ending could also have been lost. Once upon a time, the Church made little use of the Gospel of Mark, preferring the Gospel of Matthew and Luke. Perhaps the Gospel of Mark fell into oblivion precisely because all copies were lost except the one with the missing ending. If this is so, then we were on the verge of losing the gospel, which is in many ways the most important of all.

FEATURES OF THE GOSPEL MARK

Let us pay attention to the features of the Gospel of Mark and analyze them.

1) It comes closer than others to an eyewitness account of the life of Jesus Christ. Mark's task was to portray Jesus as He was. Wescott called the Gospel of Mark "a copy from life." A. B. Bruce said that it was written “like a living love memory,” and that its most important feature in its realism

2) Mark never forgot the divine qualities in Jesus. Mark begins his Gospel with a statement of his creed of faith. "The Beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God." He leaves us in no doubt as to who he thought Jesus was. Mark speaks again and again of the impression that Jesus made on the minds and hearts of those who heard Him. Mark always remembers the awe and wonder He caused. “And they marveled at His teaching” (1:22); “And everyone was horrified” (1, 27) - such phrases appear in Mark again and again. This surprise not only amazed the minds of the people in the crowd listening to Him; even greater surprise reigned in the minds of His closest disciples. “And they feared with great fear, and said among themselves, Who is this, that both the wind and the sea obey him?” (4, 41). “And they were exceedingly amazed and amazed” (6:51). “The disciples were horrified at His words” (10:24). “They were extremely amazed” (10, 26).

For Mark, Jesus was not just a man among men; He was God among men, constantly amazing and awe-inspiring people with His words and deeds.

3) And, at the same time, no other Gospel shows the humanity of Jesus so clearly. Sometimes His image is so close to the image of man that other writers change it a little, because they are almost afraid to repeat what Mark says. In Mark, Jesus is “just a carpenter” (6:3). Matthew later changes this and says "the carpenter's son" (Mat 13:55), as if calling Jesus a village craftsman was a great impudence. Writing about Jesus' temptations, Mark writes: "Immediately thereafter the Spirit led Him (in the original: drives) into the wilderness" (1:12). Matthew and Luke do not want to use this word drive in relation to Jesus, so they soften him and say: “Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness.” (Mat. 4, 1). "Jesus... was led by the Spirit into the wilderness" (Onion. 4, 1). No one has told us more about Jesus' feelings than Mark. Jesus took a deep breath (7:34; 8:12). Jesus had compassion (6:34). He was surprised at their unbelief (6, 6). He looked at them with anger (3, 5; 10, 14). Only Mark told us that Jesus, looking at a young man who had a lot of property, fell in love with him (10:21). Jesus could feel hunger (11,12). He could feel tired and need to rest (6, 31).

It was in the Gospel of Mark that the image of Jesus came to us with the same feelings as ours. The pure humanity of Jesus as portrayed by Mark makes Him more relatable to us.

4) One of the important features of Mark’s writing style is that he again and again weaves into the text vivid pictures and details characteristic of an eyewitness account. Both Matthew and Mark tell how Jesus called a child and placed him in the center. Matthew reports this event as follows: “Jesus called a child and set him in the midst of them.” Mark adds something that casts a bright light on the whole picture (9:36): “And he took the child, put him in the midst of them, and embraced him, and said to them...”. And to the beautiful picture of Jesus and the children, when Jesus reproaches the disciples for not letting the children come to Him, only Mark adds the following touch: “and having embraced them, he laid his hands on them and blessed them.” (Mar. 10, 13 - 16; Wed Mat. 19, 13 - 15; Onion. 18, 15 - 17). These little living touches convey all the tenderness of Jesus. In the story of the feeding of the five thousand, only Mark indicates that they sat down in rows one hundred and fifty, like the beds in a vegetable garden (6, 40) and the whole picture vividly appears before our eyes. Describing the last journey of Jesus and His disciples to Jerusalem, only Mark tells us that “Jesus went ahead of them” (10, 32; Wed Mat. 20, 17 and Luke. 18:32), and with this short phrase emphasizes the loneliness of Jesus. And in the story of how Jesus calmed the storm, Mark has a short phrase that the other gospel writers do not have. "And He was sleeping aft at the top"(4, 38). And this small touch brings the picture to life before our eyes. There can be no doubt that these small details are explained by the fact that Peter was a living witness to these events and now saw them again in his mind's eye.

5) The realism and simplicity of Mark's presentation is also evident in the style of his Greek writing.

a) His style is not marked by careful processing and brilliance. Mark talks like a child. To one fact he adds another fact, connecting them only with the conjunction “and”. In the original Greek of the third chapter of the Gospel of Mark, he gives successively one after another 34 main and subordinate clauses, starting with the conjunction “and”, with one semantic verb. This is exactly what a diligent child says.

b) Mark is very fond of the words “immediately” and “immediately”. They appear in the Gospel about 30 times. Sometimes a story is said to “flow.” Mark’s story rather does not flow, but rushes quickly, without taking a breath; and the reader sees the events described so vividly, as if he were present at them.

c) Mark really likes to use the historical present tense of the verb, when talking about a past event, he talks about it in the present tense. "Hearing this, Jesus speaks to them: It is not the healthy who need a physician, but the sick" (2:17). "When they drew near to Jerusalem, to Bethphage, and to Bethany, to the Mount of Olives, Jesus sends two of his students and speaks to them: enter the village that is right in front of you..." (11, 1.2). "And immediately, while He was still speaking, comes Judas, one of the twelve" (14, 49). This historical present, characteristic of both Greek and Russian, but inappropriate, for example, in English, shows us how vivid the events are in Mark's mind, as if everything happened before his eyes .

d) Very often he quotes the very Aramaic words that Jesus spoke. Jesus says to Jairus' daughter: "talifa-ku Oii!" (5, 41). To the deaf and tongue-tied He says: "effapha"(7, 34). A gift to God is "corvan"(7, 11); In the Garden of Gethsemane Jesus says: "Abba, Father" (14:36); on the cross he shouts: "Eloy, Eloy, lamma sava-khfani!"(15, 34). Sometimes the voice of Jesus sounded in Peter's ears again and he could not resist telling Mark everything in the same words that Jesus spoke.

THE MOST IMPORTANT GOSPEL

It wouldn't be unfair if we called the Gospel of Mark the most important gospel. We would do well to lovingly and diligently study the earliest Gospels at our disposal, in which we again hear the Apostle Peter.

PURE AND UNCLEAN (Mark 7:1-4)

The differences of opinion touched upon in this chapter between Jesus, on the one hand, and the Pharisees and scribes, on the other, are extremely important, because they clearly show the essence and basis of the differences in the views of Jesus and the Orthodox Jews of that time. The question was asked: Why do Jesus and His disciples not follow the tradition of the elders? What were these traditions and what was their driving force? Originally the law meant two things for the Jew: first and foremost, the Ten Commandments, and secondly, the first five books Old Testament, or the Pentateuch. The Pentateuch, however, already has a certain number of precise instructions and rules. As for moral issues, a number of great moral principles are set out there, which each person must interpret and implement for himself. And the Jews were content with this for a long time. But in the fifth and fourth centuries BC a special class of lawyers arose, known to us as scribes. They were not content with great moral principles; they had, so to speak, a passion for definitions and clarifications. They wanted to expand these general principles and dismembered them so that they got thousands and thousands of small rules and regulations that regulated every possible action and every possible situation in life. These rules and regulations remained unwritten for a very long time and were written down long after the episode described here. This was the so-called unwritten law or traditions of the elders.

In this context, elders do not at all mean the leaders of the synagogues; it's more likely ancestors, the great lawyers of the past such as Hillel and Shammai. Much later, in the third century after Christ, a set of these rules and regulations was compiled and written down, known as Mishna. The controversy mentioned in this passage involves two aspects of these scribe-derived rules and regulations. One of them concerns washing hands. The scribes and Pharisees accused Jesus' disciples of eating with unwashed hands. The word used in the Greek text is koinos. This word originally meant ordinary, then it began to mean ordinary as opposed to sacred something profane, profane, worldly. And, finally, it begins to mean something ritually unclean and unsuitable for service and worship. The Jews had certain and strict rules governing the washing of hands. It should be noted that this hand washing was not related to hygiene requirements, it was purely ritual purity. Before each meal and between all dishes, hands had to be washed, and they had to be washed in a certain order. To begin with, the hands had to be clean of sand, lime, gravel and other things. Water for washing hands had to be kept in special large stone jugs so that it itself was ritually clean and so that it was absolutely clear that it was not used for other purposes, and that nothing fell into it or was mixed in. Firstly, the hands should be held so that the fingertips pointed up water was poured on them so that it flowed down at least to the wrist; Water should have taken at least one and a half eggshells. A still wet hand should be cleaned with a hand clenched into a fist, that is, rub the palm and the back of the other hand with the hand clenched into a fist. It was assumed that at this moment the hands were still wet, but this water was now unclean because it came into contact with unclean hands. After this, the hands should be held with the fingertips pointing down, and water should be poured onto the wrist so that it flows from the fingertips. After completing this entire procedure, the hands were considered clean.

A person who neglected this procedure was considered in the eyes of the Jews not just ill-mannered or slutty, but unclean in the eyes of God. It was believed that a person who started eating with unwashed hands was possessed by the demon Shibta. Poverty and ruin allegedly awaited a person who neglected to wash his hands. Bread eaten with unwashed hands was not supposed to bring any benefit. One rabbi, who once forgot to wash his hands, was buried as excommunicated from the synagogue. Another rabbi, imprisoned by the Romans, used his due drinking water for washing his hands and, in the end, almost died of thirst, because he decided to observe the rules of ritual purity rather than quench his thirst.

This was religion in the eyes of the Pharisees and scribes. They considered such rituals, rites and rules to be the essence of worship. The moral essence of religion was buried under a mass of prohibitions and rules.

The last verses of this passage also deal with the issue of ritual purity. An object could also be completely pure in the ordinary sense, but be unclean in the light of the law. This concept of impurity is dedicated to A lion. 11-15 and Number 19. Nowadays we would rather talk about forbidden or sacred subjects rather than about unclean. Certain animals were unclean (A lion. eleven). The woman in labor, the leper, and anyone who touched the dead were unclean. A person who was considered unclean made everything he touched unclean. The pagan was also unclean, the food touched by the pagan was unclean, every vessel touched by the pagan became unclean, and therefore the Orthodox Jew, returning from the market, completely immersed himself in clean water to cleanse yourself of possible impurity. It is quite obvious that various vessels could very easily become unclean due to the touch of an unclean person or unclean food. This is what is meant in this passage by the washing of cups, cups, and cauldrons. In the above collection Mishnah no less than twelve points of such impurity are given. If you look at some of them, you will see how far they go. Hollow clay vessels could be unclean from the inside. and not outside. In other words, it didn't matter who touched them on the outside, but it did matter who touched them on the inside. If such a vessel became unclean, it should be broken, and not a single shard should remain on which could fit enough oil to anoint the little toe. A flat plate without a rim could not become unclean at all, but a plate with a rim could become so. Flat items made of leather, bone or glass could not become unclean, and hollow could become unclean and from the inside And outside. If they were unclean, they had to be broken, and the hole made in the vessel had to be large enough to allow a medium-sized pomegranate fruit to pass through. To clean the vessels, clay vessels had to be broken, others had to be immersed in water, boiled, cleaned in fire, metal vessels had to be polished. A three-legged table could become unclean by losing three legs, because then it could be used as a board, and the board could become unclean; having lost one or two legs, he could not become unclean. Metal objects except the door, bolt, lock, hinge, door knocker and drainpipe could become unclean. Wood used in iron products could become unclean, but iron used in wooden products could not, and therefore a wooden key with iron teeth could become unclean, but an iron key with wooden teeth could not.

We dwelled in more detail on these laws of the scribes, on the traditions of the elders, because Jesus was against it. The Pharisees and scribes saw these rules and norms as the essence of religion: God, in their opinion, favored those who followed them, and violating them was considered a sin. This is how they imagined virtue and service to God. Jesus and these people said, religious sense, on different languages. It was precisely because He found their demands and standards wrong that they considered Him bad person. This is where the fundamental discrepancy lies between a person who looks at religion as a ritual, as a rite, a set of rules and norms, and a person who sees a loving God in religion and loves his brothers.

The next passage develops this theme, but it is already clear that Jesus' ideas about religion had nothing in common with the ideas of the Pharisees and scribes.

THE LAWS OF GOD AND THE RULES OF MEN (Mark 7:5-8)

The scribes and Pharisees saw that Jesus' disciples were not observing the finer points of tradition and the code of unwritten law in matters of washing their hands before and during meals, and they asked why. Jesus first quoted to them from Is. 29, 13. Isaiah reproaches people there for praising God with their lips while their hearts are occupied with something completely different. In fact, Jesus accused the scribes and Pharisees of two things.

1. He accused them of hypocrisy. Word hipocrites has an interesting and significant history. Originally it simply meant the one who answers; then the meaning came to be the one who answers in a certain dialogue or conversation, that is actor, finally, it began to mean not just an actor on stage, but a person whose whole life is a game in which there is not a drop of sincerity. Anyone who sees in religion the embodiment of the law, who considers religion to be the fulfillment of certain external rules and norms, for whom religion is entirely connected with the observance of certain rituals and prohibitions, will be a hypocrite because he considers himself a virtuous person if he acts correctly and as he should, whatever his thoughts and heart may be. Take, for example, the Jewish legalist in the time of Jesus. He could hate his fellow men with all his heart, he could be filled with envy, jealousy, hidden malice and pride - all this did not matter as long as he performed his ablutions correctly and observed the rules regarding purity and impurity. Such people take into account only the external actions and actions of a person, and do not take into account his internal feelings at all. He can serve God really well with his outward actions, and completely disobey Him inwardly - this is hypocrisy.

A devout Muslim must pray to God a certain number of times a day. To do this, he carries a prayer mat with him: wherever he is, he will lay out his mat, fall on his knees, say his prayers and move on. There is a story about a Muslim who chased a man with a knife in his hands to kill him. When the call to prayer came, he immediately stopped, laid out a prayer mat, knelt down, said his prayers as quickly as possible, jumped up and pursued his victim further. Prayer was for him simply a formal ritual, an external observance of the norm, which in no way interfered with the murder. The greatest danger to religion lies precisely in this identification of religion with external observance of norms. This is the most typical mistake- identify virtue with certain so-called religious acts. Going to church, reading the Bible, donating money, even praying on a schedule - none of this makes a person virtuous. The most significant thing is what place God and his brothers occupy in a person’s heart. And if in his heart there is hostility, malice, rancor and pride, even observing all the religious practices in the world will make him only a hypocrite.

2. Moreover, Jesus accused the lawyers of they replace the law of God with the achievements of human ingenuity. In their behavior, they listened not to the voice of God, but to skillful arguments and disputes, finely worked out details, and deft interpretations of lawyers. Religion cannot be built on ingenuity, it cannot be a product of the human mind, it must not be the result of ingenious discoveries, but the result of listening and following the voice of God.

UNLAWFUL RULE (Mark 7:9-13)

The exact meaning of this passage is difficult to determine. It is associated with the word corvan, which apparently changed its meaning several times.

1. This word meant gift and was used to designate objects specifically dedicated to God. All that has gone before corvan, as if it had already been placed on the altar, in other words, it was completely removed from ordinary use and became the property of God. A person who wanted to dedicate part of his money or his property to God declared it corvan, and after that they could never be used for ordinary and worldly purposes. One gets the impression, however, that already at this stage this word was used in a narrower sense. So, for example, a creditor lent money to a person, which he is now not ready to repay or refuses to return. Then the creditor can say: “I declare your debt to me.” corvan", that is, "What you owe me is dedicated to God." And from that moment on, man was not a debtor to his fellow creditor, but to God, and this is much more serious. It may well be that the creditor then got out of the situation very simply - he donated a small symbolic share to the temple, and took the rest for himself. Anyway, introduction of the idea corvan, This kind of debt relationship was somewhat similar to religious blackmail, turning a person’s debt into a debt to God. It also seems that people were already misusing this word. And if this is exactly what is hinted at in this passage. It talks about a man declaring his property corvan, dedicated to God, so that if later parents in extreme need turn to him for help, they can say: “I’m sorry, but I can’t help you with anything, because I dedicated everything to God and can’t give you anything.” Given to God the vow served as an excuse not to help parents in need. And the vow that the lawyers insisted on led to the violation of one of the ten commandments - the actual law of God.

2. Over time corvan became a common oath of alienation. Announcing the subject corvan, the person is completely different from his interlocutor. For example, he could say: “Corvan, what can I use from you” and thereby undertake to never touch, try, take or use anything belonging to the interlocutor. Or he could say: “Corvan is all that you can use from me,” and thereby swore to help or allow his interlocutor to use any of his property. If the word is used in this sense, then the passage means that at one time, perhaps in a fit of anger or indignation, the man said to his parents: "Corvan is all I could ever do to help you," and then, even if he repented of what he had said, the lawyers declared that the vow was unbreakable and he could never help his parents again. Be that as it may, we can never be sure what the true meaning of this passage is, but one thing is certain: there have been cases where strict adherence to the rules and regulations of the unwritten law prevented a person from following the law of the Ten Commandments.

Jesus opposes a system that puts norms and rules above human needs. The commandment of God said that above all are the demands of love; The commandment of the lawyers stated that the requirements of norms and rules are above all. Jesus was absolutely sure that any requirement or rule that prohibits a person from providing help to someone in need is contrary to the law of God. We must pay Special attention to ensure that norms and rules never prevent us from fulfilling the demands of love. God will never approve of anything that prevents us from helping our neighbor.

GENUINE COIL (Mark 7:14-23)

It may seem different now, but at the time these words were spoken, they sounded revolutionary in the New Testament. Jesus discussed with the scribes various issues of traditional, unwritten law. He showed the inappropriateness and worthlessness of complex ablutions. He showed that rigid adherence to the custom of our ancestors could, in fact, be a violation of God's law. Here He makes an even more stunning statement. He declares that nothing that enters a person can defile him, because it enters only the womb, which itself is cleansed in the usual, physical way. No Jew ever thought so, and no Orthodox Jew thinks so today. IN A lion. eleven there is a long list of unclean animals that should not be eaten. How seriously the Jews took this can be seen from many examples dating back to the Maccabean era. At that time, the Syrian king Antiochus Epiphanes decided to eradicate the Jewish faith at all costs. Among other things, he demanded that the Jews eat pork, but they died by the hundreds without agreeing to eat it. “But many in Israel remained firm and strengthened themselves, so as not to eat unclean things, and chose to die, so as not to be defiled by food and not to violate the holy covenant, and they died” (1 Makk. 1,63.64 ). AT 4 Makk. 7 tells of a widow and her seven sons. They were required to eat pork, but they refused. The first one had his tongue cut out and his arms and legs cut off, and then fried alive in a frying pan. The second had his scalp torn from his head. One by one they were tortured to death. Their elderly mother looked at them and encouraged them. They chose to die rather than eat meat, which they considered unclean.

And in the face of such fanatical attitudes, Jesus made His revolutionary declaration that nothing that enters a person can defile him. Thus, He questioned the laws for which the Jews suffered and died.

It is not surprising, therefore, that the disciples were amazed. And in fact Jesus said that things in themselves they can be neither unclean nor pure in the strictly religious sense of the word. Only People can be truly desecrated. They become defiled through their actions, which, in turn, come from the heart. It was a new thought, and a stunningly new one at that. The Jews had and still have a whole classification of things, considered pure or unclean. And Jesus, in one powerful phrase, declared this whole system untenable and declared that defilement has nothing to do with what a person consumes, but it comes exclusively from the heart.

Let's see what, according to Jesus, comes from the heart and makes a person unclean.

1. Jesus puts things first evil thoughts (dialogism). Every outward act of sin is preceded by an inner act of choice, which is why Jesus begins with the evil thoughts that lie at the root of evil deeds. Next are fornication (porneai), Then adultery (moiheai); word pornyay has the broader of the two meanings: it means all kinds of sins and vices in the area of ​​sexual life, and the word adultery means violation of marital fidelity. Next come thefts (bugs). In Greek there are two words for robber: kleptes And lestes. Lestes is robber; Barabbas was a robber (John 18,40 ). A robber can be a very brave person, although an outcast. Kleptes - this is a thief. Judas was a thief when he stole from the cash drawer (John 12,6 ). Kleptes - This is a petty, low, deceitful, dishonest thief who does not even have that captivating, arrogant courage that a robber should have. Next on this list are murder And fornication - their meaning is clear.

Extortion. Greek pleonexia comes from two words that have the meaning have more. This word was defined as the destructive desire to want more, and also as “the spirit of seizing what should not be taken”, “a destructive inclination towards what belongs to others.” It is the spirit that seizes things not in order to accumulate them like a miser, but in order to squander them in lust and luxury. Cowley gave this word the following definition: “the greedy desire to acquire, not for the sake of acquiring, but in order to immediately enjoy what has been acquired in pride and luxury.” This is not a passion for money and material values; it is rather a thirst for power and authority, an insatiable carnal lust. Plato put it this way: “Man’s desire is like a sieve and a leaky vessel, which he tries but never can fill.” Pleonexia - it is a person's passion to possess material things, possessing the heart of a person who sees happiness in them and not in God.

Anger. In Greek there are two words with the meaning evil, harm: which - meaning a thing that is bad in itself, and poneros - person or thing acting as active carriers of evil. In this context the word used neros. In the heart of a person characterized as poneros - the desire to cause evil and harm dominates. As Bengel puts it, “he is an expert in any crime and is easily capable of causing harm to any person.” Jeremy Taylor defined poneria as “the ability to commit evil deeds, the ability to find pleasure and joy in people’s failures, the desire to cause trouble to one’s neighbor, the manifestation of irritability, grumpiness, and depravity.” Poneria It corrupts and corrupts not only the person who suffers from it, it corrupts and corrupts others as well. Poneros - Evil Spirit is one of the names of the devil. The worst of men is the man who does the devil's work, making others as bad as himself.

Deceit. Greek word dolos comes from a word with the meaning bait; it is used for purposes of deception and trickery, such as in mousetraps. The Greeks, who had unsuccessfully besieged Troy for a long time, sent the Trojans a gift of a huge wooden horse as a sign of goodwill. The Trojans opened the city gates and took the horse. But inside the horse were Greek warriors who went out at night and sowed death and destruction in Troy. Here it is dolos. This is cunning, insidious, deceitful, skillful treachery.

Obscenity (aselgeya). The Greeks characterized the word aselgeia as “the disposition of the soul that rejects all discipline”, as “a spirit that does not recognize any restrictions, does whatever it pleases, whatever arbitrary insolence pushes.” The person responsible for aselgeii devoid of any sense of decency and shame. Evil person may hide a vice, but a person who has aselgeii, sins without remorse and is always ready to shock others. Classic example Aselgei - Jezebel, who built a pagan altar in the holy city of Jerusalem.

Envious eye. This is the eye that looks with envy at the success and happiness of others.

Blasphemy. The word used in the Greek text is blasphemia, meaning slander. This word was used to describe actions and speeches directed against man and God ( blasphemy).

Pride (hyperephania). The Greek word means “to put oneself above oneself,” and it describes the attitude of a person who “feels a certain contempt for everyone except himself.” Interestingly, the Greeks used to use this word to mean hidden feeling when a person in his soul makes a favorable comparison with other people. He may act modestly, but he is proud in his heart. Sometimes, however, this pride is clearly visible. The Greeks even had a legend about such pride. The Titans, the sons of Uranus and Gaia, in their pride tried to conquer the sky, but were overthrown by Hercules. This is it hyperephania, that is, rebellion against God, "invasion of God's prerogatives." That is why it was called “the pinnacle of all vices” and that is why “God opposes the proud” (James 4:6).

And finally, madness (afrosyune). This word does not mean stupidity and recklessness, which stems from dementia and lack of intelligence, but moral madness; it characterizes not a stupid person, but a person who himself has chosen the role of a fool. Jesus gave a truly terrifying list of character traits that come from the heart. After carefully studying them, a shiver runs through you. But this is not a call for us to wince and turn away from all this, but for us to honestly look into our hearts.

PORTION OF THE WORLDWIDE VICTORY OF CHRIST (Mark 7:24-30)

If we look at this episode against the general background, we will see that it is one of the most touching and unusual in the life of Jesus.

Let's look first at the geographical background. Tire and Sidon were Phoenician cities that were part of Syria. Phenicia lay north of Carmel, on the coastal plain, between Galilee and the Mediterranean Sea. “Phenicia,” said Josephus, “surrounded Galilee.” Tire was located approximately sixty-five kilometers northwest of Capernaum. Shooting range - Means rock. The city was called so because it was built on two large rocks remote from the shore, connected by a dam about one kilometer long, which also served as a natural breakwater, and therefore Tire was one of the largest natural ports ancient world. But the rocks served not only as a breakwater, but also for protection, and therefore Tire was not only a famous port, but also a famous fortress. Sailors from Tire and Sidon were the first to learn to sail by the stars. Before this, ships had to stay close to the shore and enter ports at night, and the Phoenicians sailed throughout Mediterranean Sea and even went beyond the “Pillars of Hercules” (Straits of Gibraltar) and reached Britain and the tin mines of the Cornish Peninsula. It is quite possible that they even went around Africa. Sidon was located forty kilometers northeast of Tire and approximately one hundred kilometers from Capernaum. Sidon, like Tire, had a natural breakwater. It was such an old city that no one remembered its founder. Although the Phoenician cities were part of Syria, they were all completely independent and competed with each other. They had their own kings, their own gods, they minted their own coins, and their power extended over 25-30 kilometers in the area. One side they faced the sea, the other - to Damascus; sea vessels and caravans from many countries came here. Later Sidon lost its greatness, lost its trade to Tire and fell into decline. But the Phoenician sailors went down in history forever because they were the first to learn to sail by the stars.

1. Thus, this brings us the first extremely important news - Jesus came to a pagan country. Is it a coincidence that this event happened here?

We saw from the previous episode that Jesus made no distinction between clean and unclean foods. Perhaps this symbolically shows that He did not distinguish between pure and unclean peoples? A Jew would never defile his lips with unclean food, and in the same way would not defile his life by communicating with unclean pagans. Maybe here Jesus wants to show that there is also a place for pagans in the Kingdom of God and that one cannot talk about unclean peoples.

Jesus must have retired to the northern regions to rest for a while. In His homeland He was attacked from all sides. Long ago, the scribes and Pharisees branded Him as a sinner because He flagrantly violated their rules and regulations. Herod Antipas also saw Him as a threat to himself. The people of Nazareth disliked Him very much. The time will come when He will openly challenge His enemies, but that hour has not yet come. And now He was looking for peace and solitude, and the result of this departure was the foundation of the Kingdom of God among the pagans. This episode is a harbinger of the entire history of Christianity. The rejection of the good news by the Jews opened up opportunities for the Gentiles.

2. But there is more to this episode. In principle, the Phoenician cities were part of the Israeli state. When the land was divided under Joshua, the tribe of Asher was assigned land "as far as Sidon the great... to the fortified city of Tire" (Is. N. 19.28-29). The Jews were never able to subjugate or enter this territory. Isn't this symbolic? Where even weapons were powerless, the all-conquering love of Jesus Christ triumphed. Earthly Israel could not triumph over the Phoenicians, and now true Israel has triumphed over it. Jesus did not come to a foreign country - God gave Him this land a long time ago. He most likely entered into His rights of inheritance, and did not come to strangers.

3. The episode itself must also be read very, very carefully. The woman asked Jesus to help her daughter. He replied to this that it is not good to take bread from children and throw it to the dogs. At first glance, these statements seem terrible. The dog did not, as it does now, enjoy the love and glory of a watchman; it rather served as a symbol of dishonor. For the Greek the word dog was associated with a shameless and arrogant woman; they used it in exactly the same negative sense in which we use the word bitch. And for the Jew it was also a contemptuous word: “Do not give holy things to dogs.” (Matt. 1, 6; Wed Phil. 3, 2; Rev. 22, 15). In a word dog Jews sometimes called pagans contemptuously. Rabbi Jesus ben Levi had this parable. Once seeing that the pagans were also tasting the bliss of God, he asked: “If the pagans, who do not have the law, taste such bliss, how much greater bliss will Israel, God’s chosen people, taste?” “It’s the same as if a king gave a feast and, having invited guests, sat them down at the entrance to the palace, and they saw dogs leaving the palace, carrying pheasants in their teeth, the heads of well-fed birds and calves. And the guests said: “If so well do they feed the dogs, how much more luxurious will the feast itself be." And the peoples of the world are compared to dogs, as it is said (Isa. 56, 11): "Dogs ... who do not know enough." All in all, dog - offensive word. How then can we explain Jesus' use of it here?

a) He did not use an ordinary word, but a diminutive, denoting not wild stray and street dogs, but small lap dogs - lapdogs. In Greek, the diminutive is widely used as a term of endearment. Jesus stripped the word of its negative connotation.

b) And, undoubtedly, His intonation was completely different. The same word can sound both like a deadly insult and like a term of endearment, depending on the intonation given to it. A person can be called an “old rogue” both contemptuously and affectionately. The intonation of Jesus robbed the word of its poison.

c) Anyway, Jesus Not immediately closed the door for her. First, He said, the children must be satisfied, but only first, There will be some meat left over for pets. And indeed. The Gospel was first brought to Israel, but only at first, then it was given to other nations. The woman was Greek (and Greeks had a sense of humor), and she immediately noticed that Jesus spoke with a smile. She knew that the door was not yet closed in front of her. In those days, people had no knives, no forks, no napkins. People ate with their hands and wiped their dirty hands with pieces of bread, which they then threw away, and they went to the domestic dogs. And the woman answered Him: “Yes, I know, the children must be fed first, but can’t I get the pieces that the children throw away?” Jesus liked this answer. The bright and joyful faith of this woman could not be satisfied with a simple refusal; This woman's fate was tragic, she had a sick daughter, and yet there was enough light in her heart to respond with a smile. Her faith was tested, it was proven true, her prayer was heard and answered. She symbolizes the pagan world, which so passionately grasped at the food of heaven, rejected and discarded by the Jews.

CORRECTION OF DEFECTS (Mark 7:31-37)

The passage begins with a description of a journey that seems strange at first glance. Jesus traveled from Tire to the region around the Sea of ​​Galilee. He went from Tire, which lies in the north, to the south, first to Sidon. In other words: He went south, but first went north! This, as someone put it, is the same as walking from Leningrad to Moscow via Arkhangelsk.

This difficulty caused some scholars to doubt the correctness of the text: they believed that Sidon should not be mentioned here at all. But the text is almost certainly correct. Other scientists believe that such a journey must have taken at least eight months, and this is more likely. It may even be that this long journey is the peace before the storm; long communication with students before the onset of the last storm. Right in the next chapter Peter makes the great discovery that Jesus is the Christ (Mar. 8:27-29), and perhaps it was precisely as a result of this long journey and stay together that this thought was strengthened in Peter’s heart and turned into confidence. Jesus needed this long time together with His disciples to face the stress and hardships of the last days.

On his way back to Galilee, Jesus passed through the area of ​​the Decapolis, where they brought him to deaf and tongue-tied. Without a doubt, these two symptoms were closely related: it was the inability to hear that made it difficult for this man to speak. This example shows, as nowhere else, the way Jesus used to heal people.

1. He took the man away from the crowd so that he could be alone with him. Jesus was very gentle towards the deaf man. Deaf people always feel somewhat confused. One's own deafness confuses a person more than blindness. The deaf man knows that he cannot hear, and if someone in the crowd shouts to him and tries to make him hear, he becomes agitated and becomes even more helpless. Jesus was very respectful of the feelings of a man whose life was so difficult.

2. Jesus acted like in a pantomime. He put his fingers in the deaf man's ears and touched his tongue with saliva. At that time people believed in medicinal properties saliva. The Roman historian Suetonius Tranquillus cites an incident from the life of Emperor Vespasian. “Two people from the common people, one blind, the other lame, simultaneously approached him while he was holding court and begged him to heal them, as the god Serapis showed them in a dream: his eyes would see if he spit on them, his leg would be healed if he was worthy touch it with his heel. Not hoping for success, Vespasian did not even want to try; finally, yielding to the persuasion of his friends, he tried his luck in front of a huge crowd, and the success was complete" (Suetonius Tranquillus. "Life of Vespasian" 7). Jesus looked up to heaven to show the deaf man that help would come from God, and then he spoke the word and the man was healed.

From the entire episode it is clear that he saw in the deaf personality. Man had his own needs and his own problems. Treating this man extremely delicately, sparing his feelings, Jesus communicated with him in a language he understood. When everything was completed, the people declared that He had done everything well. This is nothing more than God's assessment of His creation at the very beginning (Gen. 1, 31). When Jesus came bringing healing to the bodies and salvation to the souls of men, He began anew the work of creation. Everything was good from the beginning, but man's sin disrupted everything. Jesus brought again the beauty of God to a world that had been disfigured by human sin.

The Pharisees and some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem gathered to Him;

And when they saw some of His disciples eating bread with unclean, that is, with unwashed hands, they reproached him.

For the Pharisees and all the Jews, holding to the tradition of the elders, do not eat without washing their hands thoroughly;

And having come from the market, they do not eat without washing. There are many other things that they decided to adhere to: observing the washing of bowls, mugs, cauldrons and benches.

The differences of opinion and reasoning between Jesus on the one hand and the Pharisees and scribes on the other, raised in this chapter, are extremely important because they clearly show the essence and basis of the differences between Jesus and the orthodox Jews of that time. The question was asked: Why do Jesus and His disciples not follow the tradition of the elders? What were these traditions and what was their driving force? Initially, the law meant two things for the Jew: first and foremost, the Ten Commandments, and secondly, the first five books of the Old Testament, or the Pentateuch. In the Pentateuch, it is true, there is already a certain number of precise instructions and rules, but as for moral issues, a number of great moral principles are set out there, which each person must interpret and implement for himself. And the Jews were content with this for a long time. But in the fifth and fourth centuries BC a special class of lawyers arose, known to us as scribes. They were not content with great moral principles; they had, so to speak, a passion for definitions and clarifications. They wanted to expand these general principles and dissected them so that they got thousands and thousands of small norms and rules that regulated every possible action and every possible situation in life. These rules and regulations remained unwritten for a very long time and were written down long after the episode described here. This was the so-called unwritten law or traditions of the elders.

In this context, elders do not at all mean the leaders of the synagogues; it's more likely ancestors, the great lawyers of the past such as Hillel and Shammai. Much later, in the third century after Christ, a set of these rules and regulations was compiled and written down, known as Mishna. The controversy mentioned in this passage involves two aspects of these scribe-derived rules and regulations. One of them concerns washing hands. The scribes and Pharisees accused Jesus' disciples of eating with unwashed hands. The word used in the Greek text is koinos. This word originally meant ordinary, then it began to mean ordinary as opposed to sacred something profane, profane, worldly, as opposed to sacred; and finally it begins to designate, as in this case, something ritually unclean and unsuitable for service and worship. The Jews had certain and strict rules governing the washing of hands. It should be noted that this hand washing was not related to hygiene requirements, it was purely ritual purity. Before each meal and between all dishes, hands had to be washed, and they had to be washed in a certain order. To begin with, the hands had to be clean of sand, lime, gravel and other things. Water for washing hands had to be kept in special large stone jugs so that it itself was ritually clean and so that it was absolutely clear that it was not used for other purposes, and that nothing fell into it or was mixed in. Firstly, the hands should be held so that the fingertips pointed up water was poured on them so that it flowed down at least to the wrist; Water should have taken at least one and a half eggshells. A still wet hand should be cleaned with a hand clenched into a fist, that is, rub the palm and the back of the other hand with the hand clenched into a fist. It was assumed that at this moment the hands were still wet, but this water was now unclean because it came into contact with unclean hands. After this, the hands should be held with the fingertips pointing down, and water should be poured onto the wrist so that it flows from the fingertips. After completing this entire procedure, the hands were considered clean. A person who neglected this procedure was considered in the eyes of the Jews not just ill-mannered or slutty, but unclean in the eyes of God. It was believed that a person who started eating with unwashed hands was possessed by the demon Shibta. Poverty and ruin allegedly awaited a person who neglected to wash his hands. Bread eaten with unwashed hands was not supposed to bring any benefit. One rabbi, who once forgot to wash his hands, was buried as excommunicated from the synagogue. Another rabbi, imprisoned by the Romans, used the drinking water allotted to him to wash his hands and finally almost died of thirst because he decided to observe the rules of ritual purity rather than quench his thirst.

This was religion in the eyes of the Pharisees and scribes. They considered such rituals, rites and rules to be the essence of worship. The moral essence of religion was buried under a mass of prohibitions and rules.

The last verses of this passage also deal with the issue of ritual purity. An object could also be completely pure in the ordinary sense, but be unclean in the light of the law. This concept of impurity is dedicated to A lion. 11-15 and Number 19. Nowadays we would rather talk about forbidden or sacred subjects rather than about unclean. Certain animals were unclean (A lion. eleven). A woman in labor, a leper, and anyone who touched a dead person were unclean. A person who was considered unclean made everything he touched unclean. The pagan was also unclean, the food touched by the pagan was unclean, every vessel touched by the pagan became unclean, and therefore the Orthodox Jew, returning from the market, completely immersed himself in clean water in order to cleanse himself of possible impurity. It is quite obvious that various vessels could very easily become unclean due to the touch of an unclean person or unclean food. This is what is meant in this passage by the washing of cups, cups, and cauldrons. In the above collection Mishnah no less than twelve points of such impurity are given. If you look at some of them, you will see how far they go. Hollow clay vessels could be unclean from the inside, and not from the outside, in other words, it didn’t matter who touched them from the outside, but what mattered was who touched them from the inside. If such a vessel became unclean, it should be broken, and not a single shard should remain on which could fit enough oil to anoint the little toe. A flat plate without a rim could not become unclean at all, but a plate with a rim could. Flat items made of leather, bone or glass could not become unclean, and hollow could become unclean and from the inside And outside. If they were unclean, they had to be broken, and the hole made in the vessel had to be large enough to allow a medium-sized pomegranate fruit to pass through. To clean the vessels, clay vessels had to be broken, others had to be immersed in water, boiled, cleaned in fire, metal vessels had to be polished. A three-legged table could become unclean by losing three legs, because then it could be used as a board, and the board could become unclean; having lost one or two legs, he could not become unclean. Metal objects except the door, bolt, lock, hinge, door knocker and drainpipe could become unclean. Wood used in iron products could become unclean, but iron used in wooden products could not, and therefore a wooden key with iron teeth could become unclean, but an iron key with wooden teeth could not.

We dwelled in more detail on these laws of the scribes, on the traditions of the elders, because Jesus was against it. The Pharisees and scribes saw these rules and norms as the essence of religion: God, in their opinion, favored those who followed them, and violating them was considered a sin. This is how they imagined virtue and service to God. Jesus and these people spoke, in a religious sense, different languages. It was precisely because He found their demands and standards wrong that they considered Him a bad person. This is where the fundamental discrepancy between man lies; looking at religion as a ritual, as a rite, a set of rules and norms, and a person who sees a loving God in religion and loves his brothers.

The next passage develops this theme, but it is already clear that Jesus' ideas about religion had nothing in common with the ideas of the Pharisees and scribes.

Brand 7.5-8 The laws of God and the rules of men

Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him: Why do not Your disciples walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands?

He answered and said to them, “Isaiah prophesied well about you hypocrites, as it is written: “This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me;

But in vain they worship Me, teaching doctrines the commandments of men”;

For you, having abandoned the commandment of God, adhere to the tradition of men, the washing of mugs and cups, and you do many other things like this.

The scribes and Pharisees saw that Jesus' disciples were not observing the finer points of tradition and the code of unwritten law in matters of washing their hands before and during meals, and they asked why. Jesus first quoted to them from Isa. 29:13. Isaiah reproaches people there for praising God with their lips while their hearts are occupied with something completely different. In fact, Jesus accused the scribes and Pharisees of two things.

1. He accused them of hypocrisy. Word hyupokrites has an interesting and significant history. Originally it simply meant the one who answers; then the meaning came to be the one who answers in a certain dialogue or conversation, that is actor, finally, it began to mean not just an actor on stage, but a person whose whole life is a game in which there is not a drop of sincerity. Anyone who sees in religion the embodiment of the law, who considers religion to be the fulfillment of certain external rules and norms, for whom religion is entirely connected with the observance of certain rituals and prohibitions, will be in this sense a hypocrite, and here’s why: he considers himself a virtuous person if he and how it should be done, whatever his thoughts and heart may be. Take, for example, the Jewish legalist in the time of Jesus. He could hate his fellow men with all his heart, he could be filled with envy, jealousy, hidden malice and pride - all this did not matter as long as he performed his ablutions correctly and observed the rules regarding purity and impurity. Such people take into account only the external actions and actions of a person, and do not take into account his internal feelings at all. He can serve God really well with his outward actions, and yet disobey Him inwardly—that is hypocrisy.

A devout Muslim must pray to God a certain number of times a day. To do this, he carries a prayer mat with him: wherever he is, he will lay out his mat, fall on his knees, say his prayers and move on. There is a story about a Muslim who chased a man with a knife in his hands to kill him. When the call to prayer came, he immediately stopped, laid out a prayer mat, knelt down, said his prayers as quickly as possible, jumped up and pursued his victim further. Prayer was for him simply a formal ritual, an external observance of the norm, which in no way interfered with the murder. The greatest danger to religion lies precisely in this identification of religion with external observance of norms. This is the most common mistake - to identify virtue with certain so-called religious acts. Going to church, reading the Bible, diligently contributing money, even praying on a schedule - none of this makes a person virtuous. The most significant thing is what place God and his brothers occupy in a person’s heart. And if in his heart there is hostility, anger, rancor and pride, even observing all the religious practices in the world will make him only a hypocrite.

2. Moreover, Jesus accused the lawyers of they replace the law of God with the achievements of human ingenuity. In their behavior, they listened not to the voice of God, but to skillful arguments and disputes, finely worked out details, and deft interpretations of lawyers. Religion cannot be built on ingenuity, it cannot be a product of the human mind, it must not be the result of ingenious discoveries, but the result of listening and following the voice of God.

Brand 7.9-13 Illegal rule

And he said to them: Is it good that you cancel the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition?

For Moses said: “Honor your father and your mother”; and: “Whoever curses his father or mother, let him die.”

And you say: whoever says to father or mother: “corvan, that is, a gift to God that you would use from me,”

You already allow him to do nothing for his father or his mother.

By making void the word of God by your tradition which ye have established; and you do many similar things.

The exact meaning of this passage is difficult to determine. It is associated with the word corvan, which apparently underwent several changes in Jewish use.

1. This word meant gift and was used to designate objects specifically dedicated to God. All that has gone before corvan, as if it had already been placed on the altar, in other words, it was completely removed from ordinary use and became the property of God. A person who wanted to dedicate part of his money or his property to God declared it corvan, and after that they could never be used for ordinary and worldly purposes. One gets the impression, however, that already at this stage this word was used in a narrower sense. So, for example, a creditor lent money to a person, which he is now not ready to repay or refuses to return. Then the creditor can say: “I declare your debt to me.” corvan", that is, “What you owe me is dedicated to God.” And from that moment on, man was not a debtor to his fellow creditor, but to God, and this is much more serious. It may well be that the creditor then got out of the situation very simply - he donated a small symbolic share to the temple, and took the rest for himself. Anyway, introduction of the idea corvan, This kind of debt relationship was something like religious blackmail, turning a person’s debt into a debt to God. It also seems that people were already misusing this word. And if this is what this passage is alluding to, then it is talking about a man declaring his property corvan, dedicated to God, so that if parents in extreme need later turn to him for help, they can say: “I’m sorry, but I can’t help you with anything, because I dedicated everything to God and can’t give you anything.” The vow made to God served as an excuse not to help parents in need. And the vow that the lawyers insisted on led to the violation of one of the ten commandments - the actual law of God.

2. Over time corvan became a commonly used alienating oath. Announcing the subject corvan, the person is completely different from his interlocutor. For example, he could say: “Corvan, what can I use from you” and thereby undertake to never touch, try, take or use anything belonging to the interlocutor. Or he could say: “Corvan is all that you can use from me,” and thereby swore to help or allow his interlocutor to use any of his property. If the word is used in this sense, then the passage means that at one time, perhaps in a fit of anger or indignation, the man said to his parents: "Corvan is all I could ever do to help you," and then, even if he repented of what he had said, the lawyers declared that the vow was unbreakable and he could never help his parents again. Be that as it may - we can never be sure what the true meaning of this passage is - one thing is certain there have been cases where strict adherence to the rules and regulations of the unwritten law prevented a person from following the law of the Ten Commandments.

Jesus opposes a system that puts norms and rules above human needs. The commandment of God said that above all are the demands of love, the commandment of the lawyers said that above all are the demands of norms and rules. Jesus was absolutely sure that any requirement or rule that prohibits a person from providing help to someone in need is contrary to the law of God. We must take special care to ensure that rules and regulations never prevent us from fulfilling the demands of love. God will never approve of anything that prevents us from helping our neighbor.

Brand 7.14-23 True corruption

And he called all the people and said to them, listen to Me, all of you, and understand

Nothing that enters a person from without can defile him, but what comes out of him defiles him.

If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear."

And when He entered the house from the people, His disciples asked Him about the parable

He said to them, “Are you really so slow-witted?” “Don’t you understand that nothing entering a person from outside can defile him?

Because it does not enter into his heart, but into his belly, and comes out, by which all food is purified

For from within, from the heart of man, come evil thoughts, adultery, fornication, murder,

Theft, covetousness, malice, deceit, lewdness, the envious eye, blasphemy, pride, madness

All this evil comes from within and defiles a person

It may seem different now, but at the time these words were spoken, they were almost the most revolutionary words in the New Testament. Jesus discussed with the scribes various issues of traditional, unwritten law. He showed the inappropriateness and worthlessness of complex ablutions. He showed that rigid adherence to the custom of our ancestors could, in fact, be a violation of God's law. Here He makes an even more stunning statement. He declares that nothing that enters a person can defile him, because it enters only the womb, which itself is cleansed in the usual, physical way. No Jew ever thought so, and no Orthodox Jew thinks so today. In Lev. 11 contains a long list of unclean animals that should not be eaten. How seriously the Jews took this can be seen from many examples dating back to the Maccabean era. At that time, the Syrian king Antiochus Epiphanes decided to eradicate the Jewish faith at all costs. Among other things, he demanded that the Jews eat pork, but they died by the hundreds without agreeing to eat it. “But many in Israel remained firm and strengthened themselves, so as not to eat unclean things, and chose to die, so as not to be defiled by food and not to violate the holy covenant, and they died” (1 Makk. 1, 63.64). In 4 Macc. 7 tells of a widow and her seven sons. They were required to eat pork, but they refused. The first had his tongue cut out and his arms and legs chopped off, and then fried alive in a frying pan, the second had his scalp torn off from his head - hair along with skin, and so one after another they were tortured to death, and their elderly mother looked at them and encouraged them; they chose to die rather than eat meat, which they considered unclean. And in the face of such fanatical attitudes, Jesus made His revolutionary statement that nothing that enters a person can defile him. With one stroke he swept away the laws for which the Jews suffered and died. It is not surprising, therefore, that the disciples were amazed. And in fact Jesus said that things in themselves they can be neither unclean nor pure in the strictly religious sense of the word. Only People can be truly desecrated. They become defiled through their actions, which, in turn, come from the heart. It was a new thought, and a stunningly new one at that. The Jews had and still have a whole classification of things, considered pure or unclean. And Jesus, in one powerful phrase, declared this whole system untenable and declared that defilement has nothing to do with what a person consumes, but it comes exclusively from the heart.

Let's see what, according to Jesus, comes from the heart and makes a person unclean.

1. Jesus puts things first evil thoughts (dialogism). Every outward act of sin is preceded by an inner act of choice, which is why Jesus begins with the evil thoughts that lie at the root of evil deeds. Next are fornication (porneai), Then adultery (moiheai); word pornyay has the broader of the two meanings: it means all kinds of sins and vices in the area of ​​sexual life, and the word adultery means violation of marital fidelity. Next come theft (bug). In Greek there are two words for robber: kleptes And lestes. Lestes is robber; Barabbas was a robber (John 18, 40); a robber can be a very brave person, although an outcast. Kleptes - this is a thief. Judas was a thief when he stole from the cash drawer (John 12, 6). Kleptes - This is a petty, low, deceitful, dishonest thief who does not even have that captivating, arrogant courage that a robber should have. Next on this list are murder And fornication - their meaning is clear.

Extortion. Greek pleonexia comes from two words that have the meaning have more. This word was defined as more destructive is the desire to want more, and also as “the spirit of seizing what should not be taken”, “a destructive inclination towards what belongs to others.” It is the spirit that seizes things not in order to accumulate them like a miser, but in order to squander them in lust and luxury. Cowley gave this word the following definition: “the greedy desire to acquire, not for the sake of acquiring, but in order to immediately enjoy what has been acquired in pride and luxury.” This is not a passion for money and material values; it is rather a thirst for power and authority, an insatiable carnal lust. Plato put it this way: “Man’s desire is like a sieve and a leaky vessel, which he tries but can never fill.” Pleonexia - it is a person's passion to possess material things, possessing the heart of a person who sees happiness in them and not in God.

Anger. In Greek there are two words with the meaning evil, harm: which- meaning a thing that is bad in itself, and poneros - person or thing acting as active carriers of evil. In this context the word used neros. In the heart of a person characterized as poneros - the desire to cause evil and harm dominates. As Bengel puts it, “he is an expert in any crime and is easily capable of doing harm to any person.” Jeremy Taylor defined poneria as “the capacity for evil deeds, the ability to find pleasure and joy in the failures and tragedies of people, the love of causing trouble to a neighbor and doing him bad services; irritability, quarrelsomeness, viciousness, perversity in character.” Poneria It corrupts and corrupts not only the person who suffers from it, it corrupts and corrupts others as well. Poneros - Evil Spirit is one of the names of the devil. The worst of men is the man who does the devil's work, making others as bad as himself.

Deceit. Greek word dolos comes from a word with the meaning bait; it is used for purposes of deception and trickery, such as in mousetraps. The Greeks, who had unsuccessfully besieged Troy for a long time, sent the Trojans a gift of a huge wooden horse as a sign of goodwill. The Trojans opened the city gates and took the horse. But inside the horse were Greek warriors who went out at night and sowed death and destruction in Troy. Here it is dolos. This is cunning, insidious, deceitful, skillful treachery.

Obscenity (aselgeya). The Greeks characterized the word aselgeia as “the disposition of the soul that rejects all discipline,” as “a spirit that does not recognize any restrictions, doing whatever it pleases and whatever arbitrary insolence pushes.” The person responsible for aselgeii devoid of any sense of decency and shame. An evil person can hide a vice, but a person with aselgeii, sins without remorse and is always ready to shock others. Classic example aselgei - Jezebel, who built a pagan altar in the holy city of Jerusalem.

Envious eye. This is an eye that looks with envy at the success and happiness of others, always ready to put the evil eye on them.

Blasphemy. The word used in the Greek text is blasphemia, meaning slander, if actions and speeches are directed against a person and blasphemy, if they are directed against God; that is, an insult to man or God.

Pride (hyuperephania). The Greek word means “to put oneself above oneself,” and it describes the attitude of a person who “feels a certain contempt for everyone except himself.” Interestingly, the Greeks used to use this word to mean hidden feeling when a person in his soul makes a favorable comparison with other people. He may act modestly, but he is proud in his heart. Sometimes, however, this pride is clearly visible. The Greeks even had a legend about such pride. The Titans, the sons of Uranus and Gaia, in their pride tried to conquer the sky, but were overthrown by Hercules. This is it hyporephany, that is, rebellion against God, "invasion of God's prerogatives." That is why it was called “the height of all vices” and that is why “God opposes the proud” (James. 4, 6).

And finally, madness (afrosyune). This word does not mean stupidity and recklessness, which stems from dementia and lack of intelligence, but moral madness; it characterizes not a brainless person, but a person who himself has chosen the role of a fool. Jesus gave a truly terrifying list of character traits that come from the heart. If you study them carefully, it makes you shiver. But this is not a call for us to wince and turn away from all this, but for us to honestly look into our hearts.

Brand 7.24-30 A harbinger of the worldwide victory of Christ

And departing from there, he came to the borders of Tire and Sidon; and when he entered the house, he did not want anyone to know; but could not hide.

For a woman whose daughter was possessed by an unclean spirit heard about Him, and she came and fell at His feet;

And that woman was a pagan, a Syrophoenician by birth; and asked Him to cast out the demon from her daughter.

But Jesus said to her: First let the children be satisfied; for it is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.

She answered Him: So, Lord; but even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.

And he said to her: for this word, go; The demon has left your daughter.

And when she arrived at her house, she found that the demon had left and her daughter was lying on the bed.

If we look at this episode against the general background, we will see that it is one of the most touching and unusual in the life of Jesus.

Let's look first at the geographical background. Tire and Sidon were Phoenician cities that were part of Syria. Phenicia lay north of Carmel, on the coastal plain, between Galilee and the Mediterranean Sea. “Phoenicia,” said Josephus, “surrounded Galilee.” Tire was located approximately sixty-five kilometers northwest of Capernaum. Shooting gallery - Means rock. The city was called so because it was built on two large rocks remote from the coast, connected by a dam about one kilometer long, which also served as a natural breakwater, and therefore Tire was one of the largest natural ports of the ancient world. But the rocks served not only as a breakwater, but also for protection, and therefore Tire was not only a famous port, but also a famous fortress. Sailors from Tire and Sidon were the first to learn to sail by the stars. Before this, ships had to stay close to the coast and enter ports at night, and the Phoenicians sailed throughout the Mediterranean Sea and even went beyond the “Pillars of Hercules” (Strait of Gibraltar) and reached Britain and the tin mines of the Cornish Peninsula. It is quite possible that they even went around Africa. Sidon was located forty kilometers northeast of Tire and approximately one hundred kilometers from Capernaum. Sidon, like Tire, had a natural breakwater, and it was such an old city and such an old harbor that no one remembered its founder. Although the Phoenician cities were part of Syria, they were all completely independent and competed with each other. They had their own kings, their own gods, they minted their own coins, and their power extended over 25-30 kilometers in the area. One side of them was facing the sea, the other - to Damascus; sea vessels and caravans from many countries came here. Later Sidon lost its greatness, lost its trade to Tire and fell into decline. But the Phoenician sailors went down in history forever because they were the first to learn to sail by the stars.

1. Thus, this brings us the first extremely important news - Jesus came to a pagan country. Is it a coincidence that this event happened here?

We saw from the previous episode that Jesus made no distinction between clean and unclean foods. Perhaps this symbolically shows that He did not distinguish between pure and unclean peoples? A Jew would never defile his lips with unclean food, and in the same way would not defile his life by communicating with unclean pagans. Maybe here Jesus wants to show that there is also a place for pagans in the Kingdom of God and that one cannot talk about unclean peoples.

Jesus must have retired to the northern regions to rest for a while. In His homeland He was attacked from all sides. Long ago, the scribes and Pharisees branded Him as a sinner because He flagrantly violated their rules and regulations. Herod Antipas also saw Him as a threat to himself. The people of Nazareth disliked Him very much. The time will come when He will openly challenge His enemies, but that hour has not yet come. And now He was looking for peace and solitude, and as a result of this departure from the hatred of the Jews, He laid the foundation of the Kingdom of God among the pagans. This episode is a harbinger of the entire history of Christianity. The rejection of the good news by the Jews opened up opportunities for the Gentiles.

2. But there is more to this episode. In principle, the Phoenician cities were part of the Israeli state. When the land was divided under Joshua, the tribe of Asher was assigned land “as far as Sidon the great... to the fortified city of Tire” ( Iis. N. 19, 28-29). The Jews were never able to subjugate or enter this territory. Isn't this symbolic? Where even weapons were powerless, the all-conquering love of Jesus Christ triumphed. Earthly Israel could not triumph over the Phoenicians, and now true Israel has triumphed over it. Jesus did not come to a foreign country—God had given Him this land long ago. He most likely entered into His rights of inheritance rather than coming to strangers.3. The episode itself also needs to be read very, very carefully. The woman asked Jesus to help her daughter. He replied to this that it is not good to take bread from children and throw it to the dogs. At first glance, these statements seem terrible. The dog did not, as it does now, enjoy the love and glory of a watchman; it rather served as a symbol of dishonor. For the Greek the word dog was associated with a shameless and arrogant woman; they used it in exactly the same negative sense in which we use the word bitch. And for the Jew it was also a contemptuous word: “Do not give holy things to dogs.” (Mat. 7, 6; Wed Phil. 3, 2; Rev. 22, 15). In a word dog Jews sometimes called pagans contemptuously. Rabbi Jesus ben Levi had this parable. Once seeing that the pagans were also tasting the bliss of God, he asked: “If the pagans, who do not have the law, taste such bliss, how much greater bliss will Israel, God’s chosen people, taste?” “It’s the same as if a king gave a feast and, having invited guests, sat them down at the entrance to the palace, and they saw dogs leaving the palace carrying pheasants, the heads of well-fed birds and calves in their teeth. And the guests said: “If the dogs are fed so well, how much more luxurious will the feast itself be.” And the peoples of the world are compared to dogs, as it is said (Isa. 56, 11): “Dogs ... who do not know enough.” All in all, dog - offensive word. How then can we explain Jesus' use of it here?

a) He did not use an ordinary word, but a diminutive, denoting not wild stray and street dogs, but small lap dogs - lapdogs. In Greek, the diminutive is widely used as a term of endearment. Jesus stripped the word of its negative connotation.

b) And, undoubtedly, His intonation was completely different. The same word can sound both like a deadly insult and like a term of endearment, depending on the intonation given to it. A person can be called an “old rogue” both contemptuously and affectionately. The intonation of Jesus robbed the word of its poison.

c) Anyway, Jesus Not immediately closed the door for her. First, He said, the children must be satisfied, but only first, There will be some meat left over for pets. And indeed, the Gospel was first brought to Israel, but only at first, then it was given to other nations. The woman was Greek (and Greeks had a sense of humor), and she immediately noticed that Jesus spoke with a smile. She knew that the door was not yet closed in front of her. In those days, people had no knives, no forks, no napkins. People ate with their hands and wiped their dirty hands with pieces of bread, which they then threw away, and they went to the domestic dogs. And the woman answered Him: “Yes, I know, the children must be fed first, but can’t I get the pieces that the children throw away?” Jesus liked this answer. The bright and joyful faith of this woman could not be satisfied with a simple refusal; This woman's fate was tragic, she had a sick daughter, and yet there was enough light in her heart to respond with a smile. Her faith was tested, it was proven true, her prayer was heard and answered. She symbolizes the pagan world, which so passionately grasped at the food of heaven, rejected and discarded by the Jews.

Brand 7.31-37 Correction of deficiencies

Having left the borders of Tire and Sidon, Jesus again went to the Sea of ​​Galilee through the borders of the Decapolis.

They brought to Him a deaf man who was tongue-tied and asked Him to lay His hand on him.

Jesus, taking him aside from the people, put His fingers into his ears and, spitting, touched his tongue;

And looking up to heaven, he sighed and said to him: “Ephphatha,” that is, “open.”

And immediately his ears were opened, and the bonds of his tongue were loosed, and he began to speak clearly. And he ordered them not to tell anyone. But no matter how much He forbade them, they divulged even more

And they were extremely amazed and said: He does everything well: he makes the deaf hear and the dumb speak.

The passage begins with a description of a journey that seems strange at first glance. Jesus traveled from Tire to the region around the Sea of ​​Galilee. He went from Tire, which lies in the north, to the south, first to Sidon. In other words: He went south, but first went north! This, as someone put it, is the same as walking from Leningrad to Moscow via Arkhangelsk.

This difficulty caused some scholars to doubt the correctness of the text: they believed that Sidon should not be mentioned here at all. But the text is almost certainly correct. Other scientists believe that such a journey must have taken at least eight months, and this is more likely. It may even be that this long journey is the peace before the storm; long communication with students before the onset of the last storm. Right in the next chapter Peter makes the great discovery that Jesus is the Christ (Mar. 8:27-29), and perhaps it was precisely as a result of this long journey and stay together that this thought was strengthened in Peter’s heart and turned into confidence. Jesus needed this long time together with His disciples to face the stress and hardships of the last days.

On his way back to Galilee, Jesus passed through the area of ​​the Decapolis, where they brought him to deaf and tongue-tied. Without a doubt, these two symptoms were closely related: it was the inability to hear that made it difficult for this man to speak. This example shows, as nowhere else, the way Jesus used to heal people.

1. He took the man away from the crowd so that he could be alone with him. Jesus was very gentle towards the deaf man. Deaf people always feel somewhat confused. One's own deafness confuses a person more than blindness. The deaf man knows that he cannot hear, and if someone in the crowd shouts to him and tries to make him hear, he becomes agitated and becomes even more helpless. Jesus was very respectful of the feelings of a man whose life was so difficult.

2. Throughout the entire miracle, Jesus acted as if in pantomime, with signs. He put his fingers in the deaf man's ears and touched his tongue with saliva. At that time, people believed in the healing properties of saliva. The Roman historian Suetonius Tranquillus cites an incident from the life of Emperor Vespasian. “Two people from the common people, one blind, the other lame, simultaneously approached him while he was holding court and begged him to heal them, as the god Serapis showed them in a dream: his eyes would see if he spit on them, his leg would be healed if he was worthy touch it with your heel. Not hoping for success, Vespasian did not even want to try; finally, yielding to the persuasion of his friends, he tried his luck in front of a huge crowd, and the success was complete” (Suetonius Tranquillus. “Life of Vespasian” 7). Jesus looked up to heaven to show the deaf man that help would come from God, and then he spoke the word and the man was healed.

It is clear from the entire episode that Jesus did not view the deaf man as happening, He saw in him personality. Man had his own needs and his own problems; treating him with extreme delicacy and sparing his feelings, Jesus communicated with him in a language he understood. When everything was completed, the people declared that He had done everything well. This is nothing more than God's assessment of His creation at the very beginning (Gen. 1, 31). When Jesus came bringing healing to the bodies and salvation to the souls of men, He began anew the work of creation. Everything was good from the beginning, but man's sin disrupted everything. Jesus brought again the beauty of God to a world that had been disfigured by human sin.

John baptizes Jesus and the people with a baptism of repentance. Fasting, temptation of Jesus 40 days. The calling of the apostles. He taught and healed the sick with authority: those possessed by demons, Peter’s mother-in-law, the leper. Preached in synagogues. The scribes allegedly did not know where John’s baptism came from.

AND, coming from the market, they do not eat without washing. There are many other things that they decided to adhere to: observing the washing of bowls, mugs, cauldrons and benches.

. Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him: Why do not Your disciples walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands?

Taught to adhere to one virtue and not to worry about anything else besides it, the Lord’s disciples without intent and in simplicity ate with unwashed hands. Meanwhile, the Pharisees, wanting to find a pretext for reproach, seized on this case and accused the apostles, although not as violators of the Law, but as violators of the tradition of the elders, for in the Law there is no requirement to wash their hands up to the elbows before eating, but they adhered to this as the tradition of the elders.

. He answered and said to them, “Isaiah prophesied well about you hypocrites, as it is written: This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me.

. but in vain they worship Me, teaching doctrines the commandments of men.

. For you, having abandoned the commandment of God, adhere to the tradition of men, the washing of mugs and cups, and do many other things like this.

. And he said to them; is it good? What Do you set aside the commandment of God in order to keep your own tradition?

. For Moses said: Honor your father and your mother; and: He who curses his father or mother shall die.

. And you say: whoever says to father or mother: corvan, that is, a gift? to God what you would use from me,

. you already allow him to do nothing for his father or his mother,

. making void the word of God by your tradition which ye have established; and you do many similar things.

To further convict the Jews, the Lord also brings a prophet to condemn them. They accused the disciples because the disciples transgressed the tradition of the elders, and the Lord directs a much stronger accusation against them themselves, namely, that they transgress the law of Moses. The Law, He says, teaches: “Honor your father and your mother”(); and you teach children to say to their parents this way: what you want from me is korvan, that is, dedicated to God. For the Pharisees, desiring to take advantage of the property ordinary people, taught children (when the children had any property and their parents demanded it from them) to say the following: I have already dedicated it to God, and you do not demand what is dedicated to God. By seducing children in this way and convincing them to dedicate their property to God, the Pharisees thereby forced them to neglect their parents, and dedicated to God devoured themselves. It is the Lord who blames them for breaking the Law of God for the sake of self-interest.

. And he called all the people and said to them, “Listen to Me, all of you, and understand:

. nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile him; but what comes from it defiles a person.

. If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear!

. And when He entered the house from the people, His disciples asked Him about the parable.

. He said to them: Are you really so slow-witted? Don't you understand that nothing that enters a person from outside can defile him?

. Because it does not enter into his heart, but into his belly and out, how All food is purified.

. For from within, from the heart of man, come evil thoughts, adultery, fornication, murder,

. theft, covetousness, malice, deceit, lewdness, an envious eye, blasphemy, pride, madness, -

. all this evil comes from within and defiles a person.

Teaching people to understand the prescriptions of the Law on food in a non-carnal way, the Lord here begins to gradually reveal the meaning of the Law and says that nothing that enters inside defiles anyone, but defiles what comes from the heart. By “envious eye” one means either envy or debauchery: because the envious one usually casts a sly and sarcastic glance at the envied, and the depraved one, gazing with his own eyes, strives for evil deeds. “Blasphemy” refers to an insult to God: if, for example, someone begins to say that there is no Providence of God, then this will be blasphemy: which is why the Lord combines “pride” with it. Pride is, as it were, a disregard for God, when someone, having done a good deed, attributes it not to God, but to his own strength. By “madness” he means offense against one’s neighbors. All these passions defile the soul, and arise and emanate from it. The Lord spoke to the people in this way, not quite clearly, which is why he remarked: “whoever has ears to hear, let him hear,” that is, he who understands, let him understand. As for the apostles, who understood the Lord’s speech more deeply and came to ask Him about the “parable,” that is, about this hidden speech (a parable is a hidden speech), the Lord first reproached them, saying: “Are you really that slow-witted?”, but then he allowed them what was incomprehensible to them.

. And departing from there, he came to the borders of Tire and Sidon; and, having entered the house, he did not want anyone to find out; but could not hide.

. For a woman whose daughter was possessed by an unclean spirit heard about Him, and she came and fell at His feet;

. and that woman was a pagan, a Syrophoenician by birth; and asked Him to cast out the demon from her daughter.

. But Jesus said to her, “Let the children have their fill first, for it is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.”

. She answered Him: So, Lord; but even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.

. And he said to her: for this word, go; The demon has left your daughter.

. And, having arrived at her house, she found that the demon had left and her daughter was lying on the bed.

After he spoke about food and saw that the Jews did not believe, the Lord moved into the borders of the pagans, for with the unbelief of the Jews, salvation had to pass to the pagans. At first the Lord tried to hide, so that the Jews would not have an excuse to accuse Him, as if he had sided with the unclean pagans. However, He could not hide, for it was impossible for Him to hide and not be recognized by anyone. The said wife, having heard about Him, reveals ardent faith. Therefore, the Lord does not immediately agree (to her request), but delays the gift in order to show that the wife’s faith is firm and that she is patiently waiting, despite the refusal. Let us also learn not to give up prayer immediately when we do not immediately receive what we ask for, but to patiently continue prayer until we receive what we ask for. The Lord calls the pagans “dogs” because they were considered unclean by the Jews. “Bread” He calls the good deed ordained by God for the “children,” that is, for the Jews. Therefore, he says that pagans should not participate in the good deeds that are assigned to the Jews. Since the wife answered wisely and with faith, she received what she asked for. The Jews,” she says, “have bread, that is, all of You who came down from heaven, and Your good deeds, but I ask for a “crumb,” that is, a small share of Your good deeds. But look how the Lord works! He did not say: My power has saved you, but what did he say? “For this word,” that is, for your faith, “go,” your daughter was healed. Take a useful lesson from here too. Each of us, when we commit a sin, is a “woman,” that is, a weak soul. Such a soul is a “Phoenician,” as having a crimson, that is, bloody and murderous sin. Such a soul has a “daughter” - evil actions, demonic actions. Being sinners, we are called “dogs”, full of impurities, which is why we are unworthy to accept the “bread” of God, that is, to partake of the most pure Mysteries. But if we humbly realize that we are dogs, if we confess and reveal our sins, then our daughter will be healed, that is, her demonic deeds. . And they marveled greatly and said, “He does everything well—he makes the deaf hear, and the dumb speak.”

The Lord does not hesitate in pagan places, but quickly moves away from them, so that, as I said, He would not give the Jews a reason to say about Himself that He is acting illegally by mingling with the pagans. Therefore, leaving the borders of Tire and Sidon, He comes to Galilee and here heals a deaf-mute man whose illness was caused by a demon. He takes “him aside” because he was not a lover of glory, having humbled himself to our poverty and not wanting to perform miracles in front of many, unless the benefit of the audience required it. “He spat and touched his tongue.” as a sign that all parts of His holy flesh were divine and holy, so that even spitting loosed the bonds of the tongue. Every spitting is an excess (of juice), but in the Lord everything is wonderful and divine. Looking up to heaven, the Lord “sighed,” on the one hand, prayerfully to the Father, so that He would have mercy on man, and as an example to us, so that we, intending to do some good deed, would look to God and ask Him for help to accomplish it; and on the other hand, he sighs out of regret for human nature how she is so devoted to the devil that she endures such reproach and suffering from him. That is why, when the Lord healed, those healed preached about Him, despite the fact that He forbade them to do so and commanded them not to say anything. From here we will learn, when we do good to others, not to accept praise from them, and when we receive benefits, to glorify the benefactors and publicize them, even if they do not want it.