Reflections on difficult parts of the gospel. “I did not bring you peace, but a sword...

"and the sword (!) of the Spirit, which is the Word of God."
Epistle to the Ephesians of St. Paul the Apostle, Chapter 6 verses 10-17

• Ilya Popov:
• 14:03 | 29.06.2011 |

• Vasily Ivanov-Ordynsky:
• 14:04 | 29.06.2011 |

***I did not bring you peace, but a sword***

The teaching of Christ makes a person reconsider his imaginary well-being, makes him think. And peace is lost...
A person begins to accompany every step in life with the question: “Am I doing the right thing? Should a Christian do this?”

But, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions.”

• Ilya Popov:
• 15:04 | 29.06.2011 |

Jesus Christ says in the Holy Gospel: “I did not come to bring peace to earth, but a sword, for I came to divide a man with his father, and a daughter with her mother, and a daughter-in-law with her mother-in-law” (Matthew 10: 34-35). That is, the Lord came to earth to separate the lover of peace from the lover of God.

Now many people talk about peace, but all this talk is lies and deception. How can there be peace on earth when there is no unanimity in faith? One is Orthodox, another is Catholic, the third is Lutheran, the fourth is a sectarian or atheist. Only the Lord alone can give true Divine peace. He said in the Holy Gospel: “My peace I give to you” (John 14:27). In whom there is this peace of God, who has Christ in his heart, for him there are no wars, no earthquakes, no fires, no disasters. Such a person always feels good under any circumstances of life.

August 14, 1960
Archimandrite Alipy (Voronov)
http://www.pravoslavie.ru/put/030813121155.htm

• Artyom Bykov:
• 15:00 | 23.09.2011 |

Yes, there are a lot of interesting things going on here...
afraid, I guess =))

• Natalya Vikhareva:
• 15:00 | 23.09.2011 |

I really liked the explanation in #5. For some reason, I used to take these words too literally.

• Tatyana Balashova:
• 16:05 | 23.09.2011 |

Saint Nicholas of Serbia.
“On the meaning of Christ’s words: “I did not come to bring peace, but a sword”:
http://pravklin.ru/publ/8-1-0-411

• Maya Piskareva:
• 17:00 | 23.09.2011 |

That is, the Lord came to earth to separate the lover of peace from the lover of God.*******

It’s strange how this phrase sounds... either the monk said... for whom the world is the enemy... then there is a line of agreement with that. that “peace be upon the world”...))

• Galina Smirnova:
• 17:01 | 23.09.2011 |

Well, yes, it sounds cool.
The peace lover here is not a pacifist, but one to whom what is in the world is more important than God. To a greater or lesser extent, this is about all of us. “Love not the world, nor the things in the world.” After all, in the world there is the lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh and the pride of life. I am still amazed at how correctly this was noted. For all times and peoples...

• Maya Piskareva:
• 17:02 | 23.09.2011 |

and Christ says it best:
“Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break through and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break through and steal, for where your treasure is, there your heart will also be." (Matt. 6:20-21)

tell me... and here it is. that we are called laity, what is this?

• Alexandra Nikolaeva:
• 18:01 | 23.09.2011 |

• Maya Piskareva:
• 19:02 | 23.09.2011 |

Why did you cut off the quote? after all, the most important thing is the continuation...
“For everything that is in the world: the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and pride...is not from the Father, but from this world. And the world passes away, and its lust, but he who does the will of God abides forever.”

otherwise one can assume that in the world of God there is only lustful pride... We are laymen not only because we don’t live in a monastery, but because living in the world we try to do the will of God. Because the word layman is associated with a Christian...

• Margarita Ivanova:
• 19:03 | 23.09.2011 |

***Catholics used this phrase in the Middle Ages as one of the reasons for the Crusades.***

If we exclude from crusades the plunder of Constantinople and other Christian lands - the crusades were aimed at a noble goal: the liberation of Christian lands captured by Muslim occupiers.

But, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions.” ===

The Catechism of the CC says that on earth there is a militant church, but with God there is a triumphant church. We had to fight for Christianity more than once. So the word "sword" has complete real value. True, a contradiction can easily be seen here with the idea that if you are hit on one cheek, turn the other. Some people mistakenly understand this phrase as a call for non-resistance to evil.

• Galina Agapova:
• 19:04 | 23.09.2011 |

#5 Ilya, I completely agree with you. Jesus Christ came to separate those who are with God and those who are against God. This main principle, according to which all of humanity is divided into two parts. The sheep stand on the right hand of Christ, and the goats on the left.

• Alexandra Nikolaeva:
• 23:03 | 23.09.2011 |

#14 <а зачем обрезали цитату >But I know that you know...)))

• Vasily Ivanov-Ordynsky:
• 17:03 | 05.10.2011 |

I also agree with Ilya.

More precisely - with the words of Archimandrite Alypius

• Natalia Zaitseva:
• 15:05 | 10.12.2011 |

I was looking for a topic suitable for my question.
I couldn't find anything better than this one. In order not to open a new one, do not create similar topics.
According to my observations, people who are stern, ascetic, who love to teach others that they should “pray, fast and listen to radio Radonezh” (figuratively speaking) are people who are not very friendly and cordial towards their neighbors.
Lately I’ve been thinking: how is this connected...
Why does asceticism (not even the maximum, as in a monastery, but at least some kind of feat) make the soul callous? (((

• Alexander Solovyov:
• 16:05 | 10.12.2011 |

"Why does asceticism (not even the maximum, as in a monastery, but at least some kind of feat) make the soul callous? ((("
Probably because the ascetic building was built on an unsuitable foundation.

• Natalia Zaitseva:
• 16:05 | 10.12.2011 |

That in itself is true.
But..
Maybe I'm not paying attention, but here's how it turns out this way on purpose, from personal observations:
- whoever is “more relaxed” (in terms of fasting, prayers and other deeds) is the one who is kinder to his neighbor;
- the one who is more severe is the more evil. Well, what is this? Why is that?(((((
(Applies to both priests and laity.)
After all, asceticism was given for this reason, so that the soul IMPROVES, and does not become embittered...

St. John Chrysostom

And indeed, it is better to see ease in reality than in words. That is why He was not content with this expression, but, explaining the very image of the battle, shows that it will be much more terrible even than internecine warfare, and says: He came to divide a man with his father, and a daughter with her mother, and a daughter-in-law with her mother-in-law. Not only, he says, friends and fellow citizens, but also relatives themselves will rebel against each other, and discord will occur between consanguineous people. For I have come- speaks, - to divide a man with his father, and a daughter with her mother, and a daughter-in-law with her mother-in-law; that is, the fight will not just be between family members, but even between those who are united by sincere love and the closest ties.

This especially proves the power of Christ that the disciples, hearing such words, accepted them themselves and convinced others. And although it was not Christ who caused this, but human malice, he nevertheless says that He Himself does this. This mode of expression is characteristic of Scripture. So in another place it is said: God gave them eyes so that they could not see (Isa. 6:9; Ezek. 12:2). This is what Christ says here too, so that the disciples, as I said above, having previously become accustomed to this way of speaking, would not be embarrassed even in the midst of reproaches and insults.

If some find this painful, then let them remember ancient history. And in ancient times it was the same, which is what unity is especially shown Old Testament with the New, and what is said here by the same One who then gave the commandments. And among the Jews, precisely when they merged the calf, and when they communed with Beelphegor (Ex. 32:28; Num. 25:3), as soon as each one killed his neighbor, God ceased his anger against them. So, where are those who claim that that God was evil and this one is good? So this God filled the universe with the blood of relatives. However, we say that this too is a matter of great mercy.

Conversations on the Gospel of Matthew.

St. Hilary of Pictavia

for I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law

When by the power of the Word we are renewed in the waters of baptism, then we are separated from original sins and his ancestors, and the destroying sword of God crushes in us affections to father and mother. And when we have put off the old man with all his sins and unbelief, having renewed soul and body by the Spirit, we should hate the custom of ancient and innate sin.

Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew.

Blazh. Hieronymus of Stridonsky

Art. 35-36 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a man's enemies are his household

This passage is found almost verbatim in the book of the prophet Micah (Micah 7:6: For a son disgraces his father, a daughter rebels against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; a man's enemies are his household). And at the same time, it is necessary to note, whenever evidence is given from the Old Testament, whether it agrees only in meaning, or in terms of expressions.

Interpretation of the Gospel of Matthew.

Blazh. Theophylact of Bulgaria

for I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law

Eusebius of Emesa

for I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law

The Lord Himself preaches peace, and therefore the Apostle Paul calls for it, saying: For He is our peace(Eph. 2:14) . That is, peace belongs to those who believe and accept. Why then does He not bring peace to earth? When the daughter believed and the father remained an unbeliever, what complicity of the faithful with the infidel(2 Cor. 6:15) ? For the proclamation of peace produces division. When the son is a believer and the father is an unbeliever, discord is inevitable. And the proclaimed peace brought about division: but a good division! For by peace we are saved.

Homilies.

Evfimy Zigaben

For I came to separate a man from his father, and a daughter from her mother, and a daughter-in-law from her mother-in-law

Interpretation of the Gospel of Matthew.

Lopukhin A.P.

Art. 35-36 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a man's enemies are his household

(Luke 12:52, 53) . A thought is expressed here that was probably well known to the Jews, because the words of Christ are a quotation from Mic. 7:6: “For a son disgraces his father, a daughter rebels against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; A man's enemies are his own household".

Explanatory Bible.

The Holy Church reads the Gospel of Matthew. Chapter 10, art. 32 - 36; chapter 11, art. 1

32. Therefore, everyone who confesses Me before men, him will I also confess before My Father who is in heaven;

33. But whoever denies Me before men, him will I also deny before My Father who is in heaven.

34. Do not think that I came to bring peace to earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword,

35. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.

36. And a man’s enemies are his own household.

11:1. And when Jesus finished teaching his twelve disciples, he went from there to teach and preach in their cities.

(Matt. 10, 32-36; 11, 1)

Today we hear the conclusion of the tenth chapter of the Gospel of Matthew, which we read for almost a whole week - this is the instruction that the Lord gives to His disciples before sending them to preach.

“Therefore everyone who confesses Me before men, him will I also confess before My Father who is in heaven; But whoever denies Me before men, him will I also deny before My Father who is in heaven.”. A Christian is always faced with a choice; it inevitably happens when we meet Christ: accept Him in our lives or reject Him. The world is divided into those who accepted Christ and those who did not accept Him. Probably the most terrible situation is when we have to choose between Himself and our earthly attachments.

When we read in the Gospel about attitudes towards material or social issues, they do not consist in the fact that everything that concerns this world is bad or sinful. The principle is where our heart is. As the Lord says: “Where your heart is, there will your treasure be.” If we direct it to heaven, this means that we are looking for treasure there, and no worldly connections and attachments will become an obstacle for us and will not prevent us from ascending to heaven. But there is always some kind of choice.

What does it mean to “confess Christ before men”? This means not hiding, being a real Christian, the kind that the Lord speaks about in Scripture. But this does not mean at all that we need to perform some supernatural acts and incredible deeds. The Lord does not call us to do something beyond our strength, but even the smallest deeds can bring us great benefit and give us hope and a chance to be in the Kingdom of Heaven. The Lord says: “Give cool water to a passing traveler and you will gain for yourself great wealth in heaven.” That is, our life is made up of the smallest things: these small “puzzles” make up the whole picture of our life and what we ultimately go to.

“Do not think that I came to bring peace to earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword, for I came to divide a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.”. The words are incomprehensible to us, because we said that the Christian religion unites people, but here we are talking about division. The Christian faith is a sermon about love, and love is unity, a sermon about the high moral qualities of the human heart: kindness, honor, conscience.

Why did the Romans hate Christians so much? It turns out that Christians bring this division into the world. The Roman Empire was huge and included different peoples and nationalities, but for the Romans it was not important who they worshiped. The main thing is to bow to the Roman emperor, and you can believe in whoever you want: “we will include your god in our pantheon.” This is unity.

But the Christian does not want to worship the Roman emperor as a god, and then division arises. It would seem that there is a general flow general principles. Live like everyone else, why show your individuality? After all, then persecution, rebuke, and everything that divides people begins. That is why the Romans hated Christians, who did not want to put up with things that, at first glance, were simple, but behind which a completely different reality could be hidden. The Lord says: “I did not bring peace to earth, but a sword”, and this sword really divides, separating sin from another state. We always have a choice, but only two ways: either to go to God, to heaven, or in the opposite direction. There is no other way. “Let your word be yes, yes, no, no,” said Christ, “everything else is from the evil one.” In Christianity there are no halftones, no gray, there is only white and black. This gradation is objective, because everything that is outside of God turns out to be pernicious. “I have come to bring a sword” - this sword divides us, and we must make a choice.

"A man's enemies are his own household". The devil sometimes works slyly through loved ones and relatives. The most striking example is in the book of Job, when relatives and friends come to him, asking questions and putting evil thoughts against God into Job’s heart. Pets can become real enemies for us. There is a very serious and scary choice here - to follow Christ or to obey loved ones and friends with whom we have close ties. Therefore, this point is also very important for us.

“And when Jesus had finished teaching his twelve disciples, he went away from there to teach and preach in their cities.”. Now they were clothed with power - and the preaching of the apostles began. The Lord gave them power and warned them that this power was given to them not for war or struggle, but so that they would bring light to the world. And for this light they will be forced to suffer, and suffer just like the Lord Himself.

Priest Daniil Ryabinin

Transcript: Yulia Podzolova

Commentary on the book

Comment to the section

34 The teachings of Christ contribute much more to the establishment of peace on earth than any other teaching that has appeared in the history of mankind. However, not everyone agrees to accept and implement it. Therefore, it becomes a source of discord and hostility even within the family. The words “not peace, but a sword” also refer to social, state and international life.

35-37 These words do not mean that Christ desires division, but He knows that it will occur as a result of the hardness of heart and callousness of people. Loyalty to the Gospel transcends blood ties. "Enemies to man" - a saying from Micah 7:6.

38 In the mouth of Christ, “carrying the cross” means patiently enduring life’s trials in unity with Him.

39 "Soul" in this context means life. He who loses his life for Christ finds it in eternity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

e) Epistle to the Hebrews.

3) Council Epistles (“Corpus Catholicum”).

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

FOUR GOSPEL

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

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

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

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

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

Hide

Commentary on the current passage

Commentary on the book

Comment to the section

34 Parallel passage in Luke Luke 12:51, where the same idea is expressed somewhat differently. The best explanation of this verse can be the words of Chrysostom: “ How did He Himself command them (the disciples), when entering every house, to greet them with peace? Why, in the same way, did the angels sing: glory to God in the highest and peace on earth? Why did all the prophets preach the same thing? Because then especially peace is established when what is infected with disease is cut off, when what is hostile is separated. Only in this way is it possible for heaven to unite with earth. After all, the doctor then saves other parts of the body when he cuts off an incurable member from it; Likewise, a military leader restores calm when he destroys the agreement between the conspirators" Further Chrysostom says: “ unanimity is not always good; and robbers sometimes agree. So, the war was not a consequence of Christ’s determination, but a matter of the will of the people themselves. Christ Himself wanted everyone to be unanimous in the matter of piety; but as people were divided among themselves, a fight broke out».

35-36 (Luke 12:52,53) A thought is expressed here that was probably well known to the Jews, because the words of Christ are a quotation from Micah 7:6: “For a son disgraces his father, a daughter rebels against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; A man’s enemies are his own household.”

37 (Luke 14:26) Luke expresses the same idea, but only much stronger. Instead of: “who loves more” - if someone “does not hate his father, and mother, and wife, and children,” etc. The expressions of both evangelists were explained in the sense that it speaks of greater love for the Savior in general, and when that circumstances require, for example, when immediate relatives do not agree with His commandments, when love for them would require the violation of these commandments. Or: love for Christ should be distinguished by such strength that love for father, mother and others should seem like hatred in comparison with love for Christ. It should be noted that these words remind Deuteronomy 33:9, where Levi “speaks of his father and mother: I do not look at them, and does not recognize his brothers, and does not know his sons; For they, the Levites, keep Your words and keep Your covenant”; And Exodus 32:26-29, which talks about the beating of the Israelites after the construction of the golden calf, when each killed his brother, friend, and neighbor. Thus, in the Old Testament there is no shortage of examples when fulfilling the commandments of the Lord required hatred and even murder of loved ones. But one cannot, of course, think that Christ instills with His words any kind of hatred towards loved ones, and that this commandment of His is distinguished by any kind of callousness. There are many cases in life when love, for example, for friends exceeds love for closest relatives. The Savior's words point to the divine and sublime self-consciousness of the Son of Man; and no one, by sound reasoning, can say that He demanded here anything more than human strength, immoral or illegal.

38 (Mark 8:34 ; Luke 9:23 ; 14:26 ) The real meaning of this saying is quite clear. To follow Christ means first of all to take up the cross. Here for the first time there is a literal speech about the cross in the Gospel of Matthew. The Savior Himself was already bearing this cross in secret at that time. Cross-bearing by others is assumed to be voluntary. There is no need to take this expression literally. By the cross we mean suffering in general. This expression is found in Matthew 16:24 .

39 (Mark 8:35 ; Luke 9:24) Lit. “he who finds his soul...” “will find it.” In addition to the indicated place, the saying in a slightly modified form is found in Matthew 16:25 ; Luke 9:24 ; 17:33 ; John 12:25 .

Gospel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Four Gospels

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

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

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

Mutual relationship of the Gospels

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Reliability of the Gospels

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

Bibliography of foreign works on the Four Gospels

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Heitmüller - see Yog. Weiss (1907).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hide

Commentary on the current passage

Commentary on the book

Comment to the section

39 The concept of soul, in this and in some other cases, is almost equivalent to the concept of life.

Hide

Commentary on the current passage

Commentary on the book

Comment to the section

The author of the first Gospel in the New Testament, Matthew, was a collector of taxes and duties in favor of the authorities of the Roman Empire. One day, while he was sitting in his usual place of collecting taxes, he saw Jesus. This meeting completely changed Matthew's whole life: from that time on he was always with Jesus. He walked with Him through the cities and villages of Palestine and was an eyewitness to most of the events that he talks about in his Gospel, written, as scientists believe, between 58 and 70 AD. according to R.H.

In his narrative, Matthew often quotes the Old Testament to show readers that Jesus is the very promised Savior of the world, whose coming was already predicted in the Old Testament. The evangelist presents Jesus as the Messiah, sent by God to create the Kingdom of Peace on this earth. As the One who came from the Heavenly Father, Jesus can and does speak as God, with the consciousness of His Divine authority. Matthew gives five major sermons, or speeches, of Jesus: 1) The Sermon on the Mount (chap. 5-7); 2) the commission given by Jesus to His disciples (chapter 10); 3) parables about the Kingdom of Heaven (chapter 13); 4) practical advice to students (chapter 18); 5) the verdict on the Pharisees and a prediction about what awaits the world in the future (chap. 23-25).

The third edition of “The New Testament and Psalms in Modern Russian Translation” was prepared for printing by the Institute of Bible Translation in Zaoksky at the suggestion of the Ukrainian Bible Society. Conscious of their responsibility for the accuracy of the translation and its literary merits, the staff of the Institute used the opportunity of a new edition of this Book to make clarifications and, where necessary, corrections to their previous many years of work. And although in this work it was necessary to keep deadlines in mind, maximum efforts were made to achieve the task facing the Institute: to convey to readers the sacred text, as far as possible in translation, carefully verified, without distortion or loss.

Both in previous editions and in the present, our team of translators has strived to preserve and continue the best that has been achieved by the efforts of the Bible societies of the world in the translation of the Holy Scriptures. In an effort to make our translation accessible and understandable, we, however, still resisted the temptation to use rude and vulgar words and phrases - the kind of vocabulary that usually appears in times of social upheaval - revolutions and unrest. We tried to convey the Message of Scripture in generally accepted, established words and in such expressions that would continue the good traditions of the old (now inaccessible) translations of the Bible into the native language of our compatriots.

In traditional Judaism and Christianity, the Bible is not only a historical document to be treasured, not only a literary monument to be admired and admired. This book was and remains a unique message about God’s proposed solution human problems on earth, about the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, who opened the way for humanity to an ongoing life of peace, holiness, goodness and love. The news of this must be conveyed to our contemporaries in words directly addressed to them, in a language simple and close to their understanding. The translators of this edition of the New Testament and the Psalter did their work with prayer and hope that these sacred books, in their translation, will continue to support the spiritual life of readers of any age, helping them to understand the inspired Word and respond to it with faith.

PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION

Less than two years have passed since the “New Testament in Modern Russian Translation” was published at the Mozhaisk Printing Plant by order of the Dialogue Educational Foundation. This publication was prepared by the Institute of Bible Translation in Zaoksky. It was received warmly and with approval by readers who love the Word of God, readers of different confessions. The translation was met with considerable interest by those who were just getting acquainted with the primary source of Christian doctrine, the most famous part of the Bible, the New Testament. Just a few months after the publication of The New Testament in Modern Russian Translation, the entire circulation was sold out, and orders for the publication continued to arrive. Encouraged by this, the Institute of Bible Translation in Zaoksky, whose main goal was and remains to promote the familiarization of compatriots with the Holy Scriptures, began to prepare the second edition of this Book. Of course, at the same time, we could not help but think that the translation of the New Testament prepared by the Institute, like any other translation of the Bible, needed to be checked and discussed with readers, and this is where our preparations for the new edition began.

After the first edition, the Institute, along with numerous positive reviews, received valuable constructive suggestions from attentive readers, including theologians and linguists, who prompted us to make the second edition, if possible, more popular, naturally, without compromising the accuracy of the translation. At the same time, we tried to solve such problems as: a thorough revision of the translation we had previously made; improvements, where necessary, of the stylistic plan and easy-to-read design of the text. Therefore, in the new edition, compared to the previous one, there are significantly fewer footnotes (footnotes that had not so much practical as theoretical significance have been removed). Previous letter designation footnotes in the text are replaced by an asterisk for the word (expression) to which a note is given at the bottom of the page.

In this edition, in addition to the books of the New Testament, the Institute of Bible Translation publishes its new translation of the Psalter - the very book of the Old Testament that our Lord Jesus Christ loved to read and often referred to during His life on earth. Over the centuries, thousands and thousands of Christians, as well as Jews, have considered the Psalter to be the heart of the Bible, finding for themselves in this Book a source of joy, consolation and spiritual insight.

The translation of the Psalter is from the standard scholarly edition Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (Stuttgart, 1990). A.V. took part in the preparation of the translation. Bolotnikov, I.V. Lobanov, M.V. Opiyar, O.V. Pavlova, S.A. Romashko, V.V. Sergeev.

The Institute of Bible Translation offers to the attention of the widest circle of readers “The New Testament and Psalter in the Modern Russian Translation” with due humility and at the same time with confidence that God still has new light and truth ready to illuminate those who read His holy words. We pray that, with the blessing of the Lord, this translation will serve as a means to achieve this goal.

PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION

Meeting any new translation of the books of Holy Scripture gives rise to any serious reader a natural question about its necessity, justification and an equally natural desire to understand what can be expected from new translators. This circumstance dictates the following introductory lines.

The appearance of Christ in our world marked the beginning of a new era in the life of mankind. God entered history and established a deeply personal relationship with each of us, making it abundantly clear that He is on our side and doing everything He can to save us from evil and destruction. All of this was revealed in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. The world was given in Him the utmost possible revelation of God about Himself and about man. This revelation shocks with its greatness: the One who was seen by people as a simple carpenter, who ended his days on a shameful cross, created the whole world. His life did not begin in Bethlehem. No, He is “He who was, who is, and who is to come.” It's hard to imagine.

And yet all sorts of people have steadily come to believe it. They were discovering that Jesus was God who lived among them and for them. Soon people of the new faith began to realize that He lives in them and that He has the answer to all their needs and aspirations. This meant that they acquired a new vision of the world, themselves and their future, a new experience of life unknown to them before.

Those who believed in Jesus were eager to share their faith with others, to tell everyone on earth about Him. These first ascetics, among whom there were direct witnesses of the events, put the biography and teachings of Christ Jesus into a vivid, well-remembered form. They created the Gospels; in addition, they wrote letters (which became “messages” for us), sang songs, said prayers and recorded the Divine revelation given to them. To a superficial observer it might seem that everything written about Christ by His first disciples and followers was not specially organized by anyone: all this was born more or less arbitrarily. Over the course of just fifty years, these texts formed an entire Book, which later received the name “New Testament.”

In the process of creating and reading, collecting and organizing written materials, the first Christians, who experienced the great saving power of these sacred manuscripts, came to the clear conclusion that all their efforts were guided and directed by Someone Mighty and Omniscient - the Holy Spirit of God Himself. They saw that there was nothing accidental in what they recorded, that all the documents that made up the New Testament were in deep internal interconnection. Boldly and decisively, the first Christians could and did call the resulting body of knowledge “the Word of God.”

A remarkable feature of the New Testament was that its entire text was written in simple, colloquial Greek, which at that time spread throughout the Mediterranean and became an international language. However, for the most part, “it was spoken by people who were not accustomed to it from childhood and therefore did not truly feel Greek words.” In their practice, “it was a language without soil, a business, trade, service language.” Pointing to this state of affairs, the outstanding Christian thinker and writer of the 20th century K.S. Lewis adds: “Does this shock us? I hope not; otherwise we should have been shocked by the Incarnation itself. The Lord humiliated Himself when he became a baby in the arms of a peasant woman and an arrested preacher, and according to the same Divine plan, the word about Him sounded in popular, everyday, everyday language.” For this very reason, the early followers of Jesus, in their testimony about Him, in their preaching and in their translations of the Holy Scriptures, sought to convey the Good News of Christ in a simple language that was close to the people and understandable to them.

Happy are the peoples who have received the Holy Scriptures in a worthy translation from the original languages ​​into their native language that is understandable to them. They have this Book that can be found in every family, even the poorest. Among such peoples, it became not only, in fact, prayerful and pious, soul-saving reading, but also that family book that illuminated their entire spiritual world. This is how the stability of society, its moral strength and even material well-being were created.

Providence wished that Russia would not be left without the Word of God. With great gratitude we, Russians, honor the memory of Cyril and Methodius, who gave us the Holy Scriptures in the Slavic language. We also preserve the reverent memory of the workers who introduced us to the Word of God through the so-called Synodal translation, which to this day remains the most authoritative and best known among us. The point here is not so much in his philological or literary characteristics, but in the fact that he remained with Russian Christians throughout the difficult times of the 20th century. Largely thanks to him Christian faith was not completely eradicated in Russia.

The Synodal translation, however, with all its undoubted advantages, is not considered today to be completely satisfactory due to its well-known (obvious not only to specialists) shortcomings. The natural changes that have occurred in our language over more than a century, and the long absence of religious education in our country, have made these shortcomings sharply noticeable. The vocabulary and syntax of this translation are no longer accessible to direct, so to speak, “spontaneous” perception. In many cases, the modern reader can no longer do without dictionaries in his efforts to comprehend the meaning of certain translation formulas that were published in 1876. This circumstance responds, of course, to a rationalistic “cooling” of the perception of that text, which, being by its nature uplifting, should not only be understood, but also experienced by the whole being of the pious reader.

Of course, to make a perfect translation of the Bible “for all times,” a translation that would remain equally understandable and close to readers of an endless series of generations, is impossible, as they say, by definition. And this is not only because the development of the language we speak is unstoppable, but also because over time the very penetration into the spiritual treasures of the great Book becomes more complex and enriched as more and more new approaches to them are discovered. This was rightly pointed out by Archpriest Alexander Men, who saw the meaning and even the need for an increase in the number of Bible translations. He, in particular, wrote: “Today pluralism dominates in the world practice of biblical translations. Recognizing that any translation is, to one degree or another, an interpretation of the original, translators use a variety of techniques and language settings... This allows readers to feel different measurements and shades of text."

In line with precisely this understanding of the problem, the staff of the Institute of Bible Translation, established in 1993 in Zaokskoe, considered it possible to make an attempt to make a feasible contribution to the cause of familiarizing the Russian reader with the text of the New Testament. Driven by a high sense of responsibility for the work to which they devoted their knowledge and energy, the project participants completed a real translation of the New Testament into Russian from the original language, taking as a basis the widely recognized modern critical text of the original (4th expanded edition of the United Bible Societies, Stuttgart , 1994). At the same time, on the one hand, the characteristic orientation towards Byzantine sources, characteristic of the Russian tradition, was taken into account, on the other hand, the achievements of modern textual criticism were taken into account.

The employees of the Zaoksk Translation Center could, naturally, take into account in their work foreign and domestic experience in Bible translation. In accordance with the principles that guide Bible societies around the world, the translation was originally intended to be free from denominational bias. In accordance with the philosophy of modern Bible societies the most important requirements For the translation, fidelity to the original and preservation of the form of the biblical message were recognized wherever possible, with a willingness to sacrifice the letter of the text for the sake of an accurate transmission of the living meaning. At the same time, it was impossible, of course, not to go through those torments that are completely inevitable for any responsible translator of the Holy Scriptures. For the inspiration of the original obliged us to treat its very form with reverence. At the same time, in the course of their work, the translators had to constantly convince themselves of the validity of the thought of the great Russian writers that only the translation that, first of all, correctly conveys the meaning and dynamics of the original can be considered adequate. The desire of the staff of the Institute in Zaoksky to be as close to the original as possible coincided with what V.G. once said. Belinsky: “Closeness to the original consists in conveying not the letter, but the spirit of the creation... The corresponding image, as well as the corresponding phrase, does not always consist in the visible correspondence of the words.” A glance at other modern translations that convey the biblical text with harsh literalness made us recall the famous statement of A.S. Pushkin: “Interlinear translation can never be correct.”

At all stages of work, the Institute’s team of translators was aware that not a single real translation could equally satisfy all the diverse requirements of different readers. Nevertheless, the translators strove for a result that could, on the one hand, satisfy those who turn to Scripture for the first time, and on the other, satisfy those who, seeing the Word of God in the Bible, are engaged in its in-depth study.

This translation, addressed to the modern reader, uses mainly words, phrases and idioms that are in common circulation. Outdated and archaic words and expressions are allowed only to the extent that they are necessary to convey the flavor of the story and to adequately represent the semantic nuances of the phrase. At the same time, it was found expedient to refrain from using highly modern, transient vocabulary and the same syntax, so as not to violate the regularity, natural simplicity and organic majesty of presentation that distinguish the metaphysically non-vain text of Scripture.

The Bible message is of decisive importance for the salvation of every person and, in general, for all of his Christian life. This Message is not a simple account of facts, events, and a straightforward exhortation of commandments. It is capable of touching the human heart, inducing the reader and listener to empathy, and arousing in them the need for living and sincere repentance. Zaoksky's translators saw their task as conveying such power of the biblical narrative.

In cases where the meaning individual words or expressions in the lists of books of the Bible that have come down to us do not, despite all efforts, lend themselves to a definite reading, the reader is offered the most convincing, in the translators’ opinion, reading.

In an effort to achieve clarity and stylistic beauty of the text, translators introduce into it, when the context dictates, words that are not in the original (they are marked in italics).

Footnotes offer the reader alternative meanings for individual words and phrases in the original.

To assist the reader, chapters of the biblical text are divided into separate meaningful passages, which are provided with subheadings in italics. While not part of the text being translated, subtitles are not intended for oral reading or interpretation of Scripture.

Having completed their first experience of translating the Bible into modern Russian, the staff of the Institute in Zaoksky intend to continue searching for the best approaches and solutions in transmitting the original text. Therefore, everyone involved in the appearance of the translation will be grateful to our dear readers for any help that they find possible to provide with their comments, advice and wishes aimed at improving the text currently proposed for subsequent reprints.

The staff of the Institute are grateful to those who helped them with their prayers and advice throughout the years of work on translating the New Testament. V.G. should be especially noted here. Vozdvizhensky, S.G. Mikushkina, I.A. Orlovskaya, S.A. Romashko and V.V. Sergeev.

The participation in the now implemented project of a number of Western colleagues and friends of the Institute, in particular W. Iles, D.R., was extremely valuable. Spangler and Dr. K.G. Hawkins.

For me personally, it was a great blessing to work on the published translation together with highly qualified employees who devoted themselves entirely to this work, such as A.V. Bolotnikov, M.V. Boryabina, I.V. Lobanov and some others.

If the work done by the Institute’s team helps someone in knowing our Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, this will be the highest reward for everyone who was involved in this translation.

January 30, 2000
Director of the Institute of Bible Translation in Zaoksky, Doctor of Theology M. P. Kulakov

EXPLANATIONS, CONVENTIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS

This translation of the New Testament is made from the Greek text, mainly from the 4th edition of The Greek New Testament. 4th revision edition. Stuttgart, 1994. The translation of the Psalter is from the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (Stuttgart, 1990).

The Russian text of this translation is divided into semantic passages with subtitles. Subheadings in italics, although not part of the text, are introduced to make it easier for the reader to find the right place in the proposed translation.

In the Psalter, the word “LORD” is written in small capital letters in cases where this word conveys the name of God - Yahweh, written in Hebrew with four consonant letters (Tetragrammaton). The word “Lord” in its usual spelling conveys another address (Adon or Adonai), used in relation to both God and people in the meaning of “Lord”, friend. trans.: Lord; see in Dictionary Lord.

In square brackets contains words whose presence in the text is considered not fully proven by modern biblical studies.

In double square brackets contain words that modern biblical scholarship considers to be insertions into the text made in the first centuries.

Bold Quotes from the books of the Old Testament are highlighted. In this case, poetic passages are located in the text with the necessary indents and breakdowns in order to adequately represent the structure of the passage. A note at the bottom of the page gives the address of the citation.

Words in italics are actually absent from the original text, but the inclusion of which seems justified, since they are implied in the development of the author’s thoughts and help to clarify the meaning inherent in the text.

An asterisk raised above the line after a word (phrase) indicates a note at the bottom of the page.

Individual footnotes are given with the following abbreviations:

Lit.(literally): formally accurate translation. It is given in cases where, for the sake of clarity and a more complete disclosure of the meaning in the main text, it is necessary to deviate from a formally accurate rendering. At the same time, the reader is given the opportunity to get closer to the original word or phrase and see possible translation options.

In meaning(in meaning): given when a word translated literally in the text requires, in the translator’s opinion, an indication of its special semantic connotation in a given context.

In some manuscripts(in some manuscripts): used when quoting textual variants in Greek manuscripts.

Greek(Greek): used when it is important to show which Greek word is used in the original text. The word is given in Russian transcription.

Ancient lane(ancient translations): used when you need to show how a particular passage of the original was understood by ancient translations, perhaps based on another original text.

Friend. possible lane(another possible translation): given as another, although possible, but, in the opinion of the translators, less substantiated translation.

Friend. reading(other reading): given when, with a different arrangement of signs denoting vowel sounds, or with a different sequence of letters, a reading different from the original, but supported by other ancient translations, is possible.

Heb.(Hebrew): used when it is important to show which word is used in the original. Often it is impossible to convey it adequately, without semantic losses, into Russian, so many modern translations introduce this word in transliteration into the native language.

Or: used when the note provides another, sufficiently substantiated translation.

Nekot. manuscripts are added(some manuscripts add): given when a number of copies of the New Testament or Psalter, not included in the body of the text by modern critical editions, contain an addition to what is written, which, most often, is included in the Synodal translation.

Nekot. manuscripts are omitted(some manuscripts are omitted): given when a number of copies of the New Testament or Psalter, not included in the body of the text by modern critical editions, do not contain an addition to what is written, but in a number of cases this addition is included in the Synodal translation.

Masoretic text: text accepted as the basis for translation; a footnote is given when, for a number of textual reasons: the meaning of the word is unknown, the original text is corrupted, the translation has to deviate from the literal rendering.

TR(textus receptus) - an edition of the Greek text of the New Testament prepared by Erasmus of Rotterdam in 1516 based on lists of the last centuries of the Byzantine Empire. Until the 19th century this publication served as the basis for a number of famous translations.

LXX- Septuagint, translation of the Holy Scriptures (Old Testament) into Greek, made in the 3rd-2nd centuries. BC References to this translation are given from the 27th edition of Nestlé-Aland. Novum Testamentum Graece. 27. revidierte Auflage 1993. Stuttgart.

ABBREVIATIONS USED

OLD TESTAMENT (OT)

Life - Genesis
Exodus - Exodus
Leo - Levite
Number - Numbers
Deut - Deuteronomy
Joshua - Book of Joshua
1 Kings - First Book of Samuel
2 Kings - Second Book of Kings
1 Kings - Third Book of Kings
2 Kings - The Fourth Book of Kings
1 Chronicles - 1 Chronicles
2 Chronicles - 2 Chronicles
Job - Book of Job
Ps - Psalter
Proverbs - Book of Proverbs of Solomon
Ekkl - Book of Ecclesiastes, or Preacher (Ecclesiastes)
Is - Book of the Prophet Isaiah
Jer - Book of the Prophet Jeremiah
Lamentations - Book of Lamentations of Jeremiah
Eze - Book of the Prophet Ezekiel
Dan - Book of the Prophet Daniel
Hos - Book of the Prophet Hosea
Joel - Book of the Prophet Joel
Am - Book of the Prophet Amos
Jonah - Book of the Prophet Jonah
Micah - Book of the Prophet Micah
Nahum - Book of the Prophet Nahum
Habak - Book of the Prophet Habakkuk
Hagg - Book of the Prophet Haggai
Zech - Book of the Prophet Zechariah
Mal - Book of the prophet Malachi

NEW TESTAMENT (NT)

Matthew - Gospel according to Matthew (Holy gospel from Matthew)
Mark - Gospel according to Mark (Holy gospel from Mark)
Luke - Gospel according to Luke (Holy gospel from Luke)
John - Gospel according to John (Holy gospel from John)
Acts - Acts of the Apostles
Rome - Epistle to the Romans
1 Cor - First Epistle to the Corinthians
2 Cor - Second Epistle to the Corinthians
Gal - Epistle to the Galatians
Eph - Epistle to the Ephesians
Philippians - Epistle to the Philippians
Col - Epistle to the Colossians
1 Thess - First Epistle to the Thessalonians
2 Thess - Second Epistle to the Thessalonians
1 Tim - First Timothy
2 Tim - Second Timothy
Titus - Epistle to Titus
Hebrews - Epistle to the Hebrews
James - Epistle of James
1 Peter - First Epistle of Peter
2 Peter - Second Epistle of Peter
1 John - First Epistle of John
Revelation - Revelation of John the Theologian (Apocalypse)

OTHER ABBREVIATIONS

ap. - apostle
aram. - Aramaic
V. (centuries) - century (centuries)
g - gram
year(s) - year(s)
Ch. - head
Greek - Greek language)
other - ancient
euro - Hebrew (language)
km - kilometer
l - liter
m - meter
note - note
R.H. - Nativity
Rome. - Roman
Syn. lane - Synodal translation
cm - centimeter
see - look
Art. - poem
Wed - compare
those. - that is
so-called - so-called
h. - hour

How to combine communist and Christian values? This question has been bothering me for a long time. Despite the fact that I have friends who are close to both communist and Christian ideals, I did not fully understand how one coexists with the other in their heads (and hearts).

Of course, there are fundamental common humanistic ideals that are sacred to both Christians and communists, for example, justice or brotherhood. However, I believed that if a believer is capable of fighting, it is only to fight the “infidels” (as was the case during the Crusades) or to fight to establish his vision of Christian teaching (remember the brutal religious wars between Catholics and Protestants).

But Christians are not capable of a revolutionary struggle for a global change in the existing world order, because religion teaches them humility. “Everything is in the hands of the Lord and man should not interfere in God’s providence,” believers usually say. A person should not rebel against the existing order, he should humbly endure all the hardships of fate, not grumble, avoid bad deeds, think about God - and then, probably, after death, heavenly bliss awaits him.

I thought so, and it cannot be said that I was completely wrong. Indeed, religion (which has its own canonical framework) for the most part teaches humility and submission. She promises a reward for this obedience in the “kingdom of heaven,” and the person is consoled, knowing about this reward and believing in the salvation of the soul.

However, this is not only what the Christian religion teaches. She teaches that there is a “spark of God” in every person. But is a person always able to show this “spark of God” when living in a world of injustice, inequality, violence, and falsehood? No, being oppressed (and it doesn’t even matter what: hard physical labor for the exploiter, as was the case in the 19th century, or the eternal pursuit of things, as happens in modern society consumption), a person cannot reveal the “divine spark” within himself, that is, in secular terms, his truly human creative potential.

Jesus Christ taught that we must love our neighbor as ourselves. But is it possible, having loved one’s neighbor and seeing that this neighbor does not live, but drags out a miserable existence as a slaughtered animal, to remain indifferent? Is it possible to humbly endure this?

Liberation theologists have always answered this question unequivocally: “No!” And with their sermons and deeds they confirmed this position. Religious figures Camilo Restrepo, Antonio Cardenal, Salvador Romero and others were also revolutionary figures. They dedicated their lives to the revolutionary struggle and went to the death for their ideals. I read about them in the article “On Communism and Marxism - 53”. Their statements and their fates shocked me!

With their lives, these people proved that religion is not necessarily humility and submission. Religion can inspire people to fight against world injustice, against everything that prevents the “divine spark” from flaring up in a person. And I am sure that this ignition is man’s overcoming all forms of alienation that Karl Marx spoke about.

It turns out that religion and communism have much more in common than it might seem at first superficial glance. And it turns out that religion can not only console, but also call people to a revolutionary struggle against injustice.

Jesus Christ said: “Do not think that I came to bring peace to earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.”(Gospel of Matthew, chapter 10). These words are very important for Christian revolutionaries. They are important for me too. Not being a believer, I, however, cannot deny the enormous influence of Christian values, Holy Scripture, and the figure of Jesus on our culture. And so I think: what did he want to say with this? “I did not come to bring peace, but a sword”? After all, of course, it is not that peace on earth is not needed, but war is needed. No, Jesus Christ wanted peace, and a just peace. But he did not want this world to be given to people for nothing, so that they themselves would not do anything for its sake. We must fight for peace, man is fully capable of this, and Jesus Christ himself puts a sword in his hand for this sacred struggle.

However, we can understand Jesus' statement about the sword in a slightly different way. The sword is not as a weapon of struggle, but as a weapon that cuts the connection with the old world. A world of inequality, indifference and hatred of one’s own kind. To free oneself from the old orders in the name of new ones, to decisively cut off all the ends - this is why Jesus Christ brought a sword to man.

However, the first and second interpretations do not contradict each other. Cut the connection with the old world of injustice with the sword, fight with the sword for the new world, defend with the sword your ideals of the highest Justice. But this looks like the logic of revolutionary struggle, doesn’t it? I think this is how the revolutionary leaders of liberation theology understood their mission, this was the meaning of life for them.

And after all, in essence, it is not so important whether a person believes in God or not. It is much more important whether he is ready to see the “spark of God” in every person (a secular person will call this creative potential, the “embryo” of a new person striving for his highest possibilities). And no less important is whether a person is ready to fight for a world in which “God’s sparks” will burn brightly in all people, forming together a single Fire that will warm all humanity and illuminate (give them a chance to pave) the way to the future.