Gospel of Matthew 7 6. Gospel of Matthew

Judge not lest ye be judged. The Lord forbids condemning, not exposing, for exposing is beneficial, and condemnation is an insult and humiliation, especially in the case when someone himself, having serious sins, blasphemes others and condemns those who have much lesser sins, for which only God can judge.

For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with what measure you use, it will be measured to you again. And why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not feel the beam in your eye? Or, how will you say to your brother: let me take the speck out of your eye, but there is a log in your eye? Hypocrite! first take the log out of your eye, and then you will see how to take the speck out of your brother's eye. He who wishes to reproach others must be impeccable, for if he, having a log in his eye, that is, a large beam, or sin, reproaches another who has a knot, he will make him unscrupulous. But the Lord shows that the one who sins a lot cannot see the sin of his brother well, for how can he see the sin of another, easily wounded, who himself has a beam in his eye?

Do not give anything holy to dogs, and do not cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample it under their feet and, turning around, tear you to pieces. "Dogs" are infidels, and "pigs" are those who, although they believe, nevertheless lead a dirty life. Therefore, one should not speak about the mysteries of the faith before the unbelievers and pronounce the bright and pearly words of theology before the unclean, because pigs trample or neglect what they are told, while dogs, turning, torment us, as those who are called philosophers do. When they hear that God was crucified, they begin to torment us with their philosophies, proving with sophisms that this is impossible.

Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.

Before the Lord commanded us great and difficult things, here he shows how this can be done, namely, with the help of uninterrupted prayer. For he said "ask" instead of "ask always", but he did not say "ask once". Then he confirms what was said with a human example.

Is there a man among you who, when his son asks him for bread, would give him a stone? and when he asks for a fish, would you give him a snake? Here the Lord teaches us that we must ask strongly for what is useful. “For you,” he says, “see how your children ask you for useful things: bread and fish, and in the case when they ask for such, you give them, so you also look for the spiritual, and not the carnal.”

If then, being evil, you know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good things to those who ask Him. He calls people crafty, comparing them with God: our nature, as a creation of God, is good, but we become crafty of our own free will.

So, in everything you want people to do to you, so do you to them; for in this is the law and the prophets. Shows a short path to virtue, for we are people and therefore already know what is due. If you want to be blessed, do good; if you want to be loved by your enemies, love your enemies yourself. For both the law of God and the prophets say the same thing that the natural law commands us.

Enter through the narrow gate; For wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many go through it. Under the narrow gate he means tests, both voluntary, for example, fasting and others, and involuntary, for example, bonds, persecutions. Just as a man who is stout or burdened with a heavy burden cannot enter through a narrow place, so also a pampered or rich man: such go the wide way. Showing that both tightness is temporary and breadth is passable, He calls them the gates and the way. For he who endures offenses passes through some gates or suffering, just as the pampered one passes through voluptuousness, as a certain path. But since both are temporary, the best must be chosen.

For narrow is the gate and narrow is the way that leads to life, and there are few who find it. The word "because" means surprise. The Lord marvels: what a gate! Why does He say elsewhere, "My burden is light?" Because of future rewards.

Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Usually heretics are cunning and cunning; so he says, "Beware." They speak pleasant speeches and act as if they live honestly, but inside them is udder. Sheep's clothing is meekness, which other hypocrites use to flatter and deceive. From their fruit they are known, that is, by deeds and life. Even if they hide for a while, they are exposed by attentive ones.

Do they gather grapes from thorns or figs from thistles? So every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. The hypocrites are vineyards and burdocks: vineyards because they sting secretly, and burdocks because they are cunning and resourceful. An evil tree is everyone who is corrupted by an idle and dissolute life.

A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. While it is bad, it cannot, but if it changes, it can. Notice that the Lord did not say that he would never be able, but that until then he would not bear good fruit until it was bad.

Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. So by their fruits you will know them. This is directed against the Jews, for John told them the same thing. Man is likened to a tree because he can be grafted from barren sin into virtue.

Not everyone who says to me: Lord! God! enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father in heaven. Here the words "not everyone who says to Me: Lord! Lord!" shows himself to be the Lord, because he calls himself God and teaches us that if we have faith without works, we will not get any benefit from it. "Fulfilling the will"; He did not say: "performing once", but - "performing" until death. And he did not say: “My will,” so as not to tempt the hearers, but “the will of My Father,” although, of course, the will of the father and son is the same, unless the son is a traitor.

Many will say to Me in that day: Lord! God! Have we not prophesied in Your name? and did they not cast out demons in your name? and did not many miracles work in your name? And then I will declare to them: I never knew you; depart from Me, you workers of iniquity. At the beginning of the sermon, many, even being unworthy, cast out demons, since the demons fled in the name of Jesus. For grace also works through the unworthy, just as we receive sanctification through unworthy priests; and Judah did miracles, and the sons of Skeva. The words: "I never knew you" are said instead: "And then, when you did miracles, I did not love you." Knowledge here means love.

And so whoever hears these words of mine and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock; and the rain fell, and the rivers flooded, and the winds blew, and rushed against that house, and it did not fall, because it was on a rock. Apart from God there can be no virtue; therefore the Lord says, "I will liken to a wise man." The stone is Christ, and the house is the soul. So, whoever builds his soul in the fulfillment of the commandments of Christ, neither rain - I mean the devil who fell from heaven, nor rivers - harmful people, whose number increases from this rain, nor winds - spirits of malice, nor any other temptation.

And whoever hears these words of Mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on sand. And the rain fell, and the rivers flooded, and the winds blew, and fell upon that house, and it fell, and its fall was great. He did not say, "I will liken him," but "will be likened," that is, by itself, to the foolish one who has faith, but does not do works. So, such a person builds on sand, from rotten material, and therefore falls from the temptations of the devil. When he fails, that is, temptation falls upon him, he falls with a great fall. None of the unbelievers fall, for they always lie on the ground; believer, this one falls. Therefore, the fall is great, that the Christian falls.

And when Jesus finished these words, the people marveled at His teaching, for He taught them as one having authority, and not as scribes and Pharisees. It was not the rulers who were surprised, for how could those who envied Him be surprised? - but a gentle mass: they were surprised not at the turns of speech, but at its freedom, for the Lord showed Himself above the prophets. They said, "This is the Lord speaking," but Christ, as God, said, "I tell you."

The Gospel of Pseudo Matthew is an apocryphal gospel of childhood, written in Latin no earlier than the 9th century under the influence of the Protoevangelium of James and the Gospel of Thomas. The text consists of two parts, which in some editions have the headings “The Book of ... ... Wikipedia

- (II vangelo secondo Matteo) Italy France, 1964, 137 min. Historical film, adventure film. A year before this film was made, Pier Paolo Pasolini was put on trial for insulting religious feelings in a daring folk comic... ... Cinema Encyclopedia

Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted. Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy. Blessed are the pure in heart... Blessed are the peacemakers... Blessed are those persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven... ... Consolidated encyclopedia of aphorisms

Matthew for the creation of the gospel. Illustration from a manuscript gospel of the school of Ada, late 8th-early 9th century. Trier Library. Gospel of Matthew ... Wikipedia

Gospel of Matthew- The first of the four Gospels, unanimously attributed by the ancient church fathers to the apostle Matthew; they also unanimously testify that it was originally written in Aramaic, then the dialect of Palestine, although Greek ... ... Dictionary of Biblical Names

I. PRELIMINARY REMARKS 1) the first three E., called synoptic. (from Greek considered together, or having a common view, so they are named because of their similarity) require especially careful research for three reasons. First, they... ... Brockhaus Bible Encyclopedia

Healing the paralyzed; calling of Matthew. "Not righteous, but sinners." About the post. The resurrection of the chief's daughter and the healing of the woman through touch. Healing of two blind men and a mute possessed. Pity over... ...

Passing from there, Jesus saw a man sitting at the toll booth named Matthew, and he said to him, Follow me. And he got up and followed Him. Mark 2:14 Luke 5:27 ... Bible. Old and New Testaments. Synodal translation. Bible encyclopedia arch. Nicephorus.

And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached throughout the whole world, as a testimony to all nations; and then the end will come... Bible. Old and New Testaments. Synodal translation. Bible encyclopedia arch. Nicephorus.

Truly, I say to you, wherever this gospel is preached in the whole world, it will be said in her memory and about what she did ... Bible. Old and New Testaments. Synodal translation. Bible encyclopedia arch. Nicephorus.

And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every infirmity among the people... Bible. Old and New Testaments. Synodal translation. Bible encyclopedia arch. Nicephorus.

Books

The Gospel of Matthew in the Slavic Tradition, . This edition is based on the text of the Glagolitic Mariinsky manuscript of the 11th century, the best "representative" of the ancient text. The publisher claims that the Slavic Gospel of Matthew is based on...
Gospel of Matthew, Rudolf Steiner. In the proposed book, for the first time in Russian, volume No. 123 is published from the edition of the complete heritage of the outstanding thinker and founder of anthroposophy, Rudolf Steiner. The book contains 12 lectures,…

Comments:

Commentary on the book

Section comment

1-2 "Do not judge" (do not judge others), " lest you be judged"(Yes, you will not be condemned later). "Learn to endure with patience other people's shortcomings and weaknesses, whatever they may be, for you also have a lot of things that others must endure" (Thomas Kempis.)

1. The Evangelist Matthew (which means “gift of God”) was one of the Twelve Apostles (Mt 10:3; Mk 3:18; Lk 6:15; Acts 1:13). Luke (Lk 5:27) calls him Levi, and Mark (Mk 2:14) calls him Levi of Alpheus, i.e. son of Alpheus: it is known that some Jews had two names (for example, Joseph Barnabas or Joseph Caiaphas). Matthew was a tax collector (collector) at the Capernaum customs house, located on the coast of the Sea of Galilee (Mk 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 knowledge of the Greek language from him. 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 is 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 (Hebrew here should be understood as the Aramaic dialect), and he 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. Papias' message repeats ca. 170 St. Irenaeus of Lyons, emphasizing that the evangelist wrote for Jewish Christians (Against Heresies. III.1.1.). The historian Eusebius (4th century) writes that “Matthew, having first preached to the Jews, and then, intending to go to others, expounded in the native language the Gospel, now known under his name” (Church History, III.24). According to most modern scholars, this Aramaic Gospel (Logia) appeared between the 40s and 50s. Probably, Matthew made the first notes when he accompanied the Lord.

The original Aramaic text of the Gospel of Matthew has been lost. We have only the 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. Matthew arose in Antioch, where, along with Jewish Christians, large groups of Gentile Christians first appeared.

3. Text Ev. from Matthew indicates that its author was a Palestinian Jew. He is well acquainted with the OT, with the geography, history and customs of his people. His Ev. is closely related to the OT tradition: 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 Gentiles. 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, in accordance with Jewish tradition, he usually calls the Kingdom of Heaven). It resides in heaven, and comes to this world in the person of the Messiah. The gospel of the Lord is the gospel of the mystery of the Kingdom (Matthew 13:11). It means the reign of God among people. In the beginning, 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 foretold 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 MF: 1. Prologue. Birth and childhood of Christ (Mt 1-2); 2. Baptism of the Lord and the beginning of the sermon (Mt 3-4); 3. Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5-7); 4. Ministry of Christ in Galilee. Wonders. Those who accepted and rejected Him (Mt 8-18); 5. The road to Jerusalem (Mt 19-25); 6. Passion. Resurrection (Mt 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 is said to have been written in Hebrew or Aramaic. But since this Hebrew text has not survived, the Greek text is considered the original for the Gospel of Matthew. Thus, only the Greek text of the New Testament is the original, and numerous editions in various modern languages around the world are translations from the Greek original.

The Greek language in which the New Testament was written was no longer the classical Greek language and was not, as previously thought, a special New Testament language. This is the colloquial everyday language of the first century A.D., spread in the Greco-Roman world and known in science under the name "κοινη", i.e. "common speech"; yet the style, and turns of speech, and way of thinking of the sacred writers of the New Testament reveal the 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 century). Until recent years, the most ancient of them did not go back beyond the 4th century no P.X. But lately, many fragments of ancient manuscripts of the NT on papyrus (3rd and even 2nd c) have been discovered. So, for example, Bodmer's manuscripts: Ev from 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 oldest existed already from the 2nd century AD.

Finally, numerous quotations from the Church Fathers in Greek and other languages have been preserved in such quantity that if the text of the New Testament were lost and all ancient manuscripts were destroyed, then specialists could restore this text from quotations from the works of the Holy Fathers. All this abundant material makes it possible to check and refine the text of the NT and to classify its various forms (the 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 by the number of manuscripts, and by the brevity of time separating the oldest of them from the original, and by the number of translations, and by their antiquity, and by the seriousness and volume of critical work carried out on the text, it surpasses all other texts (for details, see "The Hidden Treasures and New Life, Archaeological Discoveries and the Gospel, Bruges, 1959, pp. 34 ff.). The text of the NT as a whole is fixed quite irrefutably.

The New Testament consists of 27 books. They are subdivided by the publishers into 260 chapters of unequal length for the purpose of providing references and citations. The original text does not contain this division. The modern division into chapters in the New Testament, as in the whole Bible, has often been attributed to the Dominican Cardinal Hugh (1263), who worked it out in his symphony to the Latin Vulgate, but it is now thought with good reason that this division goes back to Stephen the Archbishop 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 into his edition in 1551.

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

However, modern experts consider this distribution outdated: in fact, all the books of the New Testament are law-positive, historical, and instructive, and there is prophecy not only in the Apocalypse. New Testament science pays great attention to the exact establishment of the chronology of the gospel and other New Testament events. Scientific chronology allows the reader to trace with sufficient accuracy, according to the New Testament, the life and ministry of our Lord Jesus Christ, the apostles and the original Church (see Appendixes).

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 relationship of the first three Gospels and their relation to the Gospel of John (the 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: 1 and 2 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 to Timothy, to Titus, 2nd to Timothy.

e) The Epistle to the Hebrews.

3) Catholic Epistles ("Corpus Catholicum").

4) Revelation of John the Theologian. (Sometimes in the NT they single out "Corpus Joannicum", i.e. everything that ap Ying wrote for a 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 how 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 salvation given to the world through the incarnate Son of God.

Christ and His apostles preached the gospel without writing it down. By the middle of the 1st century, this sermon had been fixed by the Church in a strong oral tradition. The Eastern custom of memorizing sayings, stories, and even large texts helped the Christians of the apostolic age to accurately preserve the unwritten First Gospel. After the 1950s, when eyewitnesses to Christ's earthly ministry began to pass away one by one, the need arose to record the gospel (Luke 1:1). Thus, the “gospel” began to denote 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 (Mt, Mk, Lk, Jn) 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 forth in these books by these four priests. Their gospels were not brought together in one book, which made it possible to see the gospel story from different points of view. In the 2nd century, St. Irenaeus of Lyon calls the evangelists by name and points to their gospels as the only canonical ones (Against Heresies 2, 28, 2). Tatian, a contemporary of St. Irenaeus, made the first attempt to create a unified gospel narrative, composed of various texts of the four gospels, the Diatessaron, i.e. gospel of four.

3. The apostles did not set themselves the goal of creating 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, 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 are always individual in color. The Holy Spirit does not certify the accuracy of the details of the facts described in the gospel, but the spiritual meaning contained in them.

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

Hide

Commentary on the current passage

Commentary on the book

Section comment

1 "righteousness" (not mercy) - the text of ancient manuscripts.

Hide

Commentary on the current passage

Commentary on the book

Section comment

1 (Luke 1:37) First of all, attention is drawn to the question of whether there is a connection, and what kind, of the first verse and, in general, of the entire seventh chapter with what was said in the previous chapter and closest of all in verse 34 of this chapter. You just need to connect 6:34 with 7:1 : "Enough for every day of your care. Judge not, lest you be judged" to see that there is no connection between these verses. This conclusion is confirmed by the fact that 7:1 there is no connecting particle, such as, for example, “same” (δέ), “and”, “or”, etc., used in Greek. language to express connection. If, therefore, there is any connection with the previous one, then it may refer not to a single verse, but to the entire previous chapter. But many exegetes deny this connection entirely, saying that chapter 7 begins with completely new subjects. " No connection to previous", as one German commentator (de Wette) expresses it succinctly and vigorously. Those exegetes who recognize the connection give explanations that are sometimes quite unlike one another. Some explain the connection by saying that the 7th chapter contains the opposite of what is said in 6:14ff., or what is said in this chapter about the Pharisees, and thus indicates that the judgment should not be due to the duty of people to forgive one another, or at least that the judgment should not be Pharisees. Others explain the connection as follows: the sixth chapter spoke about the attitude of people to the Kingdom of Heaven; Now we are talking about their relationship to each other. Citizens of the Kingdom of Christ must judge carefully their fellow citizens and, above all, improve themselves if they want to be judges and correct others. Thirdly, if you seriously and zealously strive for perfection, then in relation to your neighbors you should also be meek and not judge. Another explanation: with the obscuration of the human feeling about God, which is expressed in concern only for earthly goods, the extreme corruption of religious life develops more and more, which is expressed in pharisaic righteousness, and among people, on the one hand, fanaticism develops, which judges its neighbor with more and more callousness, and on the other, more and more carnal behavior and neglect of the sacred"(Lyange). Alford expresses the connection in the following formulas: " the link with the previous chapter is directly the word κακία ( 6:34 ), by which the Savior glances at best at the poverty and sinfulness of human life; and now They are given rules on how to live in this World and among sinners like ourselves; in a mediocre way—and in a more general sense—there is a continuing warning against hypocrisy in ourselves and others.". All these and similar assumptions seem unlikely. The best interpretation seems to be Tsang, who says that if until now the speech in the Sermon on the Mount was an ordered whole, was composed of clearly isolated and yet internally interconnected groups of thoughts, then with 7:1 there follows a series of very varied little passages, the connection of which at first glance resembles a cord on which pearls are strung, and with a two-part speech 6:19-34 this connection is not clear. This explanation seems to be the closest to the point. The Sermon on the Mount consists entirely of so-called obvious truths, which gradually became obscure to natural man and clarified for his consciousness by the Savior. If so, then to look for a close connection between individual sayings, at least in some cases, is in vain. Here only one can find a cord on which pearls are strung, all of the same value, but not in contact with one another. Where is this cord? Without going too far back, let us take only the sixth chapter and see if we can find him here and see him. We meet here with a whole series of negative expressions, or prohibitions, to which positive commandments are added in places. Prohibitions do not have the same form everywhere (in Greek); however, it is clear that they contain a list of things that people should not do. Thus, schematically, with the addition of expressions and the 7th chapter, the whole matter can be represented as follows. The Savior says: "Do not blow your trumpet" ( 6:2 ); "Don't be like hypocrites" 6:5 ); "Don't talk too much like pagans" 6:7 ), "do not be like them" ( 6:8 ); "don't be sad" 6:16 ); "Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth" ( 6:19 ); "do not worry about your soul" ( 6:25 ); "do not worry and do not say ..." ( 6:31 ); "Don't worry about tomorrow" 6:34 ). In the 7th chapter, the speech continues in the same spirit: "do not judge" ( 7:1 ); "do not give shrines to dogs" ( 7:6 ). If we say between 7:1 and 6:34 there is no connection, then it was unclear before, for example, in 6:19 , because there was no connecting particle there either. Looking through all the above negative expressions, what connection can we discover between them? Obviously, there is no connection, or in places it is very insignificant. And yet we see that all this speech is completely natural and appropriate for popular oratorical speech, in which thoughts flow strictly logically and coherently. This connection is distinguished by its extreme simplicity and is so artless that in some cases it seems to even disappear altogether. All this can cause difficulties for scientists; but, on the contrary, it greatly facilitates the understanding of speech for ordinary people, who usually follow not how one sentence logically follows from another, but rather individual thoughts in themselves. To what has been said, it must be added that finding the proper connection between the 6th and 7th chapters and in the sayings of this last one is also difficult because the 7th chapter has a similarity with the part of the Sermon on the Mount set forth in Luke Luke 6:37-49, while the entire sixth chapter of Matthew is omitted from Luke. Luke's account is said to have more connection than Matthew's. But from the first time this, however, is not visible.

As for the meaning of the expression itself: "Judge not, lest you be judged," the circumstance that St. Paul resolutely rebels against the custom of the Corinthian Christians "to sue the ungodly", exhorts them to sue "the saints", here obviously denying the then civil court ( 1 Cor 6:1ff.). It is useful to note that in the most ancient Christian literature, the saying of Christ is given in the epistle to the Philippians of Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna (XI, 3), and Clement of Rome(1 Cor XIII). Since the real meaning of the saying of Christ, despite its apparent simplicity, seems to be one of the most difficult to interpret, it does not interfere with paying attention to how the saying was understood in the most ancient times by the immediate and closest disciples of the apostles. Polycarp invites the persons to whom he writes to leave idle talk ( ἀπολιπόντες τὴν κενὴν ματαιολογίαω , XI, 1). He who raised Christ from the dead, says Polycarp, will also resurrect us if we do his will, we love what He loved, and we will shy away from all unrighteousness, greed, avarice, slander (or slander - καταλαλίας, XI, 2). Polycarp proves these theses of his with texts borrowed from the Sermon on the Mount, according to the presentation of Matthew and Luke ( Matthew 7:1; 5:3,10 ; Luke 6:20,37). The text is not "Judge, lest you be judged" is quoted literally from Matthew 7:1. For us now, it is not this that is important, but the fact that the text is clearly cited by Polycarp as proof of the sinfulness of slander, slander and false evidence. Polycarp does not apply it to judicial institutions and their activities, but only to various sins and shortcomings in human society. According to Clement, "non-judgment" of others is the result of humility. This is followed by such an exhortation: “have mercy, that you may have mercy, forgive, that you may be forgiven; as you do, so it will be done to you; as you give, so it is repaid to you; as you judge, so you will be judged ὡς κρίνετε οὕτως κριθήσεσθε ); With what measure you use, it will be measured to you.” And here again there is no question of either official judges or judicial rulings. The general tone of the reasoning of later church writers, as far as we know, is the same. They don't talk about civil court. Speaking about a private court, they point out that a person should not be a harsh judge ( πικρὸς δικαστής ), and that judgment itself must consist in suggestion, advice, the desire for correction. But private judgment is not denied. “So what? - asks Chrysostom, - if (someone) commit fornication, then shall I not say that fornication is evil, and should not the libertine be corrected? Correct, but not like an enemy, and not like an enemy demanding retribution, but like a doctor applying medicine. The Savior did not say, do not stop the sinner, but: do not judge, that is, do not be a cruel judge". Chrysostom says that both Christ Himself and the apostles judged and condemned sinners many times, and that if the text were understood in the literal sense, such an understanding would contradict many other places in the New Testament. These words are true, because the New Testament really indicates that Christ Himself judged people ( Mt 23:14,33); gave the power to judge to the apostles, who used this power ( 1 Tim 5:20; 2 Tim 4:2; Titus 1:9; 2:15 ; also 1 Tim 4:1; 2 John 10:1; Eph 5:21). Augustine proposed to explain "dubious facts" here, interpreting them "from the best side." On two occasions, he says, we must beware of reckless judgment: when it is not known with what intention a deed is committed; or it is not known what will be the person who seems to be either good or evil". Jerome, pointing out that Paul condemned the Corinthian adulterer ( 1 Cor 5), and Peter Ananias and Sapphira ( Acts 5), says that Christ did not forbid, but taught how to judge. Thus, it is clear that ecclesiastical writers, while evading discussion of a civil court, recognize, however, the need for a private or even ecclesiastical court, making concessions to the practical necessity of condemning sin as such. In later times, some interpreters understand the commandment of the Savior much more strictly. The categorical commandment, spoken without any restrictions, was understood by many, mainly by sectarians, literally in the sense of denying any court, speaking out against the authorities and overthrowing them (Anabaptists). On the other hand, similar interpretations in modern times were often made a pretext for the assimilation of "weak sentimentality" and "subjective intemperance" in relation to criminals, served as a justification for a wide tolerance, which was indifferent to lies and sin, to truth and justice. And in cases where the judgment for crimes was not weakened, they tried to base on the commandment of Christ at least tolerance for false teachings or people who erred in opinions or teachings. It is not surprising, therefore, that even the latest exegetes concentrated all their attention on explaining this difficult saying and tried to find it out. The opinions expressed by them are so diverse that it is difficult to enumerate them. It has been asserted, for example, that Christ speaks not " de ministeriis vel officiis, divinitus ordinatis, sed de judiciis, quae fiunt extra seu praeter vocationes et gubernationes divinas (not of divinely ordained ministries, but of judgments that take place outside or apart from divine callings or administrations.)". Objecting to the denial of secular courts, they pointed out that the commandment of Christ cannot be understood categorically in terms, on the one hand, of the opposition: do not judge - you will not be judged, which supposedly can be changed like this: judge, but in such a way that you can receive an acquittal the sentence when you yourself stand in judgment, and on the other hand, that Christ in verse 5 does not completely forbid the judgment of your neighbor, but requires that the judge first remove the log from his own eye. Thus verses 2-5 imply a limitation of the categorical command given in verse 1. Christ does not forbid any court in general, but only “incompetent”, which is carried out not by vocation, not by position, and without love. Further, it has been argued that 7:1 only the Pharisees' judgment is understood, that Christ still condemns here only the hypocrites. But, they said, a person has reason and this ability is critical. If we were deprived of the faculty of judgment, we would be subject not only to every wind of doctrine, but also to every tide of passion. Therefore, the Savior, when he says "judge not," here does not mean ordinary judgment or ordinary criticism. His speech is "epigrammatic" and is directed against scribes, Pharisees and others who liked to judge and condemn others ( Matthew 9:11-13; 11:7 ; Luke 7:39; 15:2 ; 18:9-14 ; John 7:49). However, against such an opinion, it can be said that Christ is addressing the disciples, and not the scribes and the Pharisees. If he meant only the latter, he would probably say: do not judge like the scribes and Pharisees. The expression is not limited at all. The words κρίνειν, κατακρίνειν, καταδικάζειν can mean any court in general, whether it be official or private. It may be that one of the newest exegetes, Tsang, had this latter in mind when, interpreting the expression under consideration, he said that Christ really understands in it any kind of judgment whatsoever. The prohibition to judge, according to Tsang, applies only to students who should not take on the duties of judges, leaving this matter to others. This opinion cannot be considered valid. Didn't Christ foresee that His disciples could also be judges in His Kingdom? We, apparently, will never understand this, on the one hand, a clear and extremely simple expression, and on the other hand, extremely difficult, unless we assume that, like other expressions of Christ in the Sermon on the Mount, it is not abstract or theoretically philosophical. It must again be borne in mind that Christ spoke to the simple, and not to official judges, who, perhaps, were not among the simple people surrounding Him. How could the common people understand His saying? Undoubtedly in the sense that Christ here said nothing at all about civil judges or judicial institutions. Therefore, one can look at His teaching as a light illuminating human activity in the field of any judgment and criticism. But it's only light. Everything further the Savior leaves to the people themselves, who must deal with the development of various legal issues, when they are forced to this by the dominance in themselves and in others of the old man.

The expression "that ye be not judged" is interpreted in the sense that only the judgment of God is meant here. "Judge not" so that you will not be judged in the final judgment. Others say that only human judgment is meant here, that is, if we judge people, then in turn we will be judged by them. As an analogy to this place, they point to a parable Mt 24:48,49, which speaks of an evil slave and indicates, firstly, worldly care and worries (“if that servant, being angry, says in his heart: my lord will not come soon”); secondly, to legal fanaticism, condemnation and punishment of neighbors (“and he will start beating his comrades”) and, thirdly, to desecration of the shrine (“and eat and drink with drunkards”). However, in this last interpretation, the exegetes do not agree in many respects with each other; some understand here literally the court of man, others actually the court of God, which uses the court of man as a tool for its own purposes. In a certain sense, the law of retribution (jus talionis) dominates the divine order of the world. As we ourselves do to people, so shall it be done to us; often this happens here on earth, but, of course, it will inevitably be so at the last judgment ( Mark 4:24; Jas 2:13). It seems more correct, apparently, to understand in the words under consideration in general the judgment, both of God and of man, carried out by people who usually act, although unconsciously, according to the commands of God. Man reaps what he sows.

2 (Luke 6:38) Literally: in which court you judge, you will be condemned; and to what extent you measure, it will be measured to you. The meaning of this saying is clear. What is our judgment, or how we judge our neighbors, so we will be judged (by people or God), If we judge cruelly, mercilessly, then we ourselves can expect the same cruel and merciless judgment. Judgment without mercy to those who themselves do not have or do not know, or do not show mercy. This is not so much confirmed as it is clarified by comparison: with what measure do you measure ... And this image is understandable, especially to us Russians, where both grain and fruits are sold and bought by "measures." There is no need to assume that here in the word “measure” (μέτρον) any definite, exact measure is understood, for example, “garnz” or lat. mobius, but - any "measure" of loose bodies, sorry, like a vessel with which grain is measured, regardless of its size. In the East (and here, in Russia), the customs depicted by the Savior still exist. In Palestine, according to travelers, grain is brought or brought to the markets in bags and poured out of them in "measure", and this is what merchants do all the time. sitting on the ground; with their legs folded, they fill the “timne” with their hands, which they shake so that the grain is well settled, and when the “measure” is full, they round the grain on top with their hands and, if requested, sprinkle it. It is clear that both the buyer and the seller must use the measures that are commonly used. This or that court is a measure that can be used both for the defendant and for the judge himself, if the latter commits any crime.

It remains to make a few remarks of a more philological nature. Κρίμα (court), a rare word among the classics, is replaced by the word κρίσις (court), has different meanings: judgment, punishment (in case of accusation), and even = the word right. Matthew 7:2 used in the first of the indicated meanings. The expression has only the form dativus instrumentalis, but cannot be taken as such in meaning, because neither "measure" nor judgment, at least in this place, serve as "instruments", but are used simply to express "correspondence" or "proportionality", as in ap. Paul 2 Cor 10:12(at Luke 6:38- the same expression as in Matthew, but without ἐν). The expression in verse 2 was common among the Jews and is found in various places in the Talmud and " seems to have been a proverb"(Edersheim).

3 (Luke 6:41) When interpreting this verse, much depends on what is meant by the word κάρφος, whether it is a speck that has fallen into the eye, or really a tree knot, even if it is small. The word, of course, has both meanings (Vulgate: festuca - knot; German translation of Luther: splitter, splinter, match, splinter; English mote - atom, small particle, match). In all likelihood, the inaccurate words used in the German and English translations were the reason why Western exegetes seem to understand this text almost completely, and their reasoning sometimes even seems strange. However, this reproach may apply not only to them, but also to some ancient interpreters. For example, Theophylact writes: The Lord shows that he who sins much cannot see his brother's sin well. (δείκνυσι δὲ ὁ κύριος, ὅτι οὐδὲ δύναται ἰδει̃ν καλω̃ς τò του̃ ἀδελφου̃ ἁμαρτημα ὁ μεγάλα ἁμαρτάνων ); for how can he see the sin of another, easily wounded, he who himself has a beam in his eye? But is this what the Savior is talking about? It seems that He is expressing just the opposite, that we usually see the sin of a brother well, but we do not notice our own great sin. The explanations given by Western exegetes are even more unsatisfactory than those of Theophylact. So, Tolyuk says that " one's own sinfulness deprives a person of the correct spiritual view to judge the moral crimes of others". Tsang claims that hitting the eye " a small foreign body makes it difficult to see, and a large one makes it impossible ". A mote or a log are, consequently, images of small and large moral shortcomings and prevent us from correctly cognizing objects and dealing with them. Therefore, Tsang considers it incomprehensible that one who has a great defect (like a log) should notice an insignificant defect in another, and thinks that "in the field of bodily life" this is even "impossible." Although this happens on “moral grounds”, however, all this seems so “unnatural” that when asked why the person to whom the Savior addresses with a speech (τί δὲ βλέπεις ) behaves in this way, “we cannot conceive” any satisfactory justifying him. act response. With regard to this interpretation, it should be said that indeed, if there is a speck in my brother’s eye that causes him pain, and I have a much larger body in my eye, a whole log, then the latter should not only hurt me, but also completely blocks from me what no matter what other people's motes, or sins. That a speck might fall into a brother's eye is a frequent occurrence and therefore quite understandable. But how can a whole log get and be in my eye? We did not find the necessary explanation anywhere in the comments. If it is said that all these are only images for denoting moral relations, then it can be answered that the images must somehow correspond to nature and reality, otherwise they will turn out to be too rude, unnatural and exaggerated, which different interpreters fully admit. For our part, we think that by the κάρφος of verse 3 one should understand not a “mote” or a “straw” that causes pain (the Savior does not say anything about this pain), but a whole real “knot”, festuca, as in Russian, Slavic and Vulgate, and that this knot does not cause any pain at all. Various external objects are always reflected in the eye, as in a mirror, which can be seen (βλέπειν) by anyone who looks closely into the eye of his brother. He can see objects reflected behind the horny and other membranes in the eye of another, in the pupil (διαβλέψειν - p. 5). It is clear that such reflected objects do not and cannot produce any pain, and do not in the least prevent vision. A whole log may be reflected in my eye, but a speck in my brother's eye. I do not see a log, but I see a knot. With this interpretation, another expression is also satisfactorily explained: κατανοει̃ν. The Savior does not say: you don’t feel pain from the log, or you don’t see it, but actually you don’t think, you don’t think about what is reflected in your own eye (the meaning of κατανοει̃ν is only as an exception - transitive = just to think, ordinary transitive, direct attention to something, consider, notice, note - Kremer). Consequently, the images used by the Savior seem quite natural and correspond to reality. True, it may be objected to our proposed interpretation that it seems to be contradicted by the expressions of the following verses 4 and 5. We will say this in its place; Now we note that the connection of Art. 3rd with the previous is clear. In verse 3, the Savior explains why we should not judge others—because judging means looking into your brother's eyes, noticing his shortcomings, and not paying attention to your own. And yet the latter are greater than the sins of a brother. The idea is the same as expressed in the parable Matthew 18:23-35. Let us add to what has been said that a similar thought is found in the Talmud in several places (see Edersheim. The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah. T. 1. S. 678 et seq.).

4 (Luke 6:42) The thought of this verse seems to contradict the above interpretation. If the Savior speaks only of reflected or reflected objects, then it is incomprehensible how one can say to a brother: “Give me, I will take it out,” and then (v. 5) “take out the log,” etc. The explanations of exegetes are unsatisfactory here too. So, for example, one of them thinks that here we are talking about “eye operations” and that the Savior allegedly says: mit dem Balken im Auge bist du ein schlechter Augen-operateur(with a log in your eye you are a bad eye operator). But if there is anything beyond doubt here, it is precisely that the Savior does not speak of any eye operations. The speech is figurative, but in the 3rd verse it has a literal meaning, and in the 4th it is figurative. The natural and understandable imagery of verse 3 gives occasion to speak in a figurative sense of removing knots or logs from the eye. The former images are not left, but their application is already different. This is often the case in ordinary speeches; Something similar is found in the Gospels. The original thought, so to speak, the root of the image, focuses exclusively on the flower, on the lily, on how they grow; and then, with the help of mediating thoughts (they don’t work, they don’t spin - all this corresponds to reality), the transition to the thought of how lilies dress. It is quite clear that one can speak about the clothes of lilies only in an improper, figurative sense, because in reality lilies do not have any clothes.

Thus, in the speech of the Savior, a simple mention of a log and a twig reflected in the eyes gives rise to new images that are still true to reality and do not have a figurative spiritual meaning, but clarifying the truth from other sides. All the listeners of Christ knew how people treat knots and logs: they are taken, carried, thrown away, chopped off, sawn, built houses from them, burned. All these predicates could be applied to the beams reflected in the eye. But for the goal that the Lord set before him, only one word was convenient: ἔκβαλε (lit. throw away, Art. 5). The Savior could have expressed it differently: stop looking at the log, turn away from it so that it is not reflected in your eye. But such a speech would not have the proper force and would not be relevant to the case.

Instead of "as you say," some translate: "how can you say." This is apparently unnecessary. “Let me take it out”, in Greek and Russian it would be more correct: let me take it out (indefinite ink). But the combination of two verbs in the imperative and indicative (instead of indefinite) moods is not uncommon elsewhere in the New Testament. The Savior here denounces evil, when people, and, moreover, the best part of them, never listen to anything else and talk about nothing more willingly than about the mistakes of other people. Cicero says: " to see the vices of others and forget about their own is characteristic of fools».

5 (Luke 6:42) First of all, the word “hypocrite” attracts attention. It gives some interpreters a reason to assume that the Savior here returns to His former speech about the hypocrites and begins to denounce them again. This also affects the explanation of verse 1, since here again it is supposed to denounce judgment only such as is committed by the Pharisees. But all this is arbitrary. The word ὑποκριτά means, of course, a hypocrite, and there is no need to look for or invent any other meanings of this word. But it is impossible not to notice that it is very similar to those used at the beginning of speech κρίνειν, κρίματι, κριθήσεσθε, and has the same root with them, although it is different in meaning. One can, therefore, think that it was inspired by these words, and one should understand here not the Pharisees, but all people in general who judge the mistakes of their neighbor, having whole logs to their own eyes. Judging your neighbor is easy. But it's hard to always judge yourself. This is what comparisons point to.

The Savior, further, does not say: You will clearly see the speck in your brother's eye after you have taken the log out of your eye; but: you will see clearly how to remove the knot. It is necessary to do the most difficult task first and foremost, and then the small task will be easy. If these rules were followed by everyone, both private people and judges, then a golden age would come on earth.

Gospel

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

a) the good news that Christ accomplished the reconciliation of people with God and brought us the greatest blessings - mainly establishing the Kingdom of God on earth ( Matt. 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 narrative of events from the life of Christ, the most important ( 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 refer to the very process of preaching the Christian doctrine ( Rome. 1:1).

Sometimes the designation and content of it is attached to the word "Gospel". There are, for example, phrases: the gospel of the kingdom ( Matt. 4:23), i.e. joyful tidings of the kingdom of God, the gospel of peace ( Eph. 6:15), i.e. about the world, the gospel of salvation ( Eph. 1:13), i.e. about salvation, etc. Sometimes the genitive following the word "Gospel" means the originator or source of the good news ( Rome. 1:1, 15:16 ; 2 Cor. 11:7; 1 Thess. 2:8) or the identity 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 left no record of His words and deeds. In the same way, the 12 apostles were not born writers: they were “unlearned and simple people” ( Acts. 4:13), although they are 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 the majority of believers, oral stories about Christ were much more important than written ones. Thus the apostles and preachers or evangelists "transmitted" (παραδιδόναι) the tales of the deeds and speeches of Christ, and the faithful "received" (παραλαμβάνειν), but, of course, not mechanically, only by memory, as can be said of the students of rabbinic schools, but whole soul, as if something living and giving life. But soon this period of oral tradition was to end. On the one hand, Christians must have felt the need for a written presentation of the Gospel in their disputes with the Jews, who, as you know, denied the reality of the miracles of Christ and even claimed that Christ did not declare Himself the Messiah. It was necessary to show the Jews that Christians have authentic stories about Christ of those persons who were either among His apostles, or who were in close communion with eyewitnesses of Christ's deeds. 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 of the miracles of Christ were thinning out. Therefore, it was necessary to fix in writing individual sayings of the Lord and His whole speeches, as well as the stories about Him of the apostles. It was then that separate records of what was reported in the oral tradition about Christ began to appear here and there. Most carefully they wrote down the words of Christ, which contained the rules of the Christian life, and much more freely related to the transmission of various events from the life of Christ, retaining 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 notes did not think about the completeness of the narrative. 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 words and deeds of Christ. This is evident, among other things, from what is not included in them, for example, such a saying of Christ: “it is more blessed to give than to receive” ( Acts. 20:35). The evangelist Luke reports such records, saying that many before him had already begun to compose narratives about the life of Christ, but that they did not have the proper fullness and that therefore they did not give sufficient “confirmation” in the faith ( OK. 1:1-4).

Evidently, our canonical gospels arose from the same motives. The period of their appearance can be determined at about thirty years - from 60 to 90 (the last was the Gospel of John). The first three gospels are usually called synoptic in biblical science, because they depict the life of Christ in such a way that their three narratives can be easily viewed in one and combined into one whole narrative (forecasters - from Greek - looking together). They began to be called gospels each separately, perhaps as early as the end of the 1st century, but from church writing we have information that such a name was given to the entire composition of the gospels only in the second half of the 2nd century. As for the names: “The Gospel of Matthew”, “The Gospel of Mark”, etc., then these very ancient names from Greek should be translated as follows: “The Gospel according to Matthew”, “The 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, the other to Mark, etc.

four gospel

Thus the ancient Church looked upon the depiction of the life of Christ in our four gospels, not as different gospels or narratives, but as one gospel, one book in four forms. That is why in the Church the name of the Four Gospels was established behind our Gospels. Saint Irenaeus called them "the four-fold Gospel" (τετράμορφον τὸ εὐαγγέλιον - see Irenaeus Lugdunensis, Adversus haereses liber 3, ed. A. Rousseau and L. Doutreleaü Irenée Lyon. Contre les hérésies, livre 3 ., vol. 29 11, 11).

The Fathers of the Church dwell on the question: why did the Church accept not one gospel, but four? So St. John Chrysostom says: “Is it really impossible for one evangelist to write everything that is needed. Of course, he could, but when four wrote, they did not write at the same time, not in the same place, without communicating or conspiring among themselves, and for all that they wrote in such a way that everything seemed to be pronounced by one mouth, then this is the strongest proof of the truth. You will say: "However, the opposite happened, for the four Gospels are often convicted in disagreement." This is the very sign of truth. For if the Gospels were exactly in agreement with each other in everything, even regarding the very words, then none of the enemies would believe that the Gospels were not written by ordinary mutual agreement. Now, a slight disagreement between them frees them from all suspicion. For what they say differently about time or place does not in the least impair the truth of their narration. In the main thing, which is the foundation of our life and the essence of preaching, not one of them disagrees with the other in anything and nowhere - that God became a man, worked miracles, was crucified, resurrected, ascended into heaven. ("Conversations on the Gospel of Matthew", 1).

Saint Irenaeus also finds a special symbolic meaning in the quaternary number of our Gospels. “Since there are four parts of the world in which we live, and since the Church is scattered throughout the earth and has its affirmation in the Gospel, it was necessary for her to have four pillars, from everywhere emanating incorruption and reviving the human race. The all-arranging Word, seated on the Cherubim, gave us the Gospel in four forms, but imbued with one spirit. For David also, praying for His appearance, says: "Seated on the Cherubim, reveal 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 the calf, since Luke begins his Gospel with the image of the priestly service of Zechariah, who slaughtered the calves; to the Gospel of Matthew - a symbol of a person, since this Gospel mainly depicts the human birth of Christ, and, finally, to the Gospel of Mark - a symbol of an eagle, because Mark begins his Gospel with a mention of the prophets, to whom the Holy Spirit flew, like an eagle on wings "(Irenaeus Lugdunensis, Adversus haereses, liber 3, 11, 11-22). In other Church Fathers, the symbols of the lion and calf are moved and the first is given to Mark, and the second to John. Starting from the 5th c. in this form, the symbols of the evangelists began to join the images of the four evangelists in church painting.

Reciprocity 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 already mentioned above, have extremely much in common with each other, and this similarity involuntarily catches the eye even with a cursory reading of them. Let us first of all speak of the similarity of the Synoptic Gospels and the causes of this phenomenon.

Even Eusebius of Caesarea in his "canons" divided the Gospel of Matthew into 355 parts and noted that all three forecasters have 111 of them. In recent 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 goes up to 350. In Matthew, then, 350 verses are peculiar only to him, in Mark there are 68 such verses, in Luke - 541. The similarities are mainly seen in the transmission of the sayings of Christ, and the differences - in the narrative part. When Matthew and Luke literally converge 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. C. 173). It is also remarkable that some passages in all three evangelists go in the same sequence, for example, the temptation and speech in Galilee, the calling of Matthew and the conversation about fasting, the plucking of ears and the healing of the withered hand, the calming of the storm and the healing of the demoniac of Gadarene, etc. The similarity sometimes extends even to the construction of sentences and expressions (for example, in the citation of the prophecy Mal. 3:1).

As for the differences observed among weather forecasters, there are quite a few of them. Others are reported only by two evangelists, others even by one. So, only Matthew and Luke cite the conversation on the mount of the Lord Jesus Christ, tell the story of the birth and the first years of Christ's life. One Luke speaks of the birth of John the Baptist. Other 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 well as the expressions.

This phenomenon of similarity and difference in the Synoptic Gospels has long attracted the attention of interpreters of Scripture, and various assumptions have long been put forward to explain this fact. More correct is the opinion 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 in different places in more or less extensive form what it was considered necessary to offer to those who entered the Church. In this way a well-known definite type was formed oral gospel, and this is the type we have 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, only characteristic of his work. At the same time, one cannot rule out the possibility that an older gospel might have been known to the evangelist who wrote later. At the same time, the difference between synoptics should be explained by the different goals that each of them had in mind when writing his Gospel.

As we have already said, the synoptic gospels are very different from the gospel of John the Theologian. Thus they depict almost exclusively the activity of Christ in Galilee, while the apostle John depicts mainly the sojourn of Christ in Judea. In regard to content, the synoptic gospels also differ considerably from the gospel of John. They give, so to speak, a more external image of the life, deeds and teachings of Christ, and from the speeches of Christ they cite only those that were accessible to the understanding of the whole people. John, on the contrary, omits a lot of 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 their readers' attention to the Kingdom he founded, 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 depicts 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 predominantly spiritual (πνευματικόν), in contrast to synoptic ones, as depicting a predominantly human side in the person of Christ (εὐαγγέλιον σωματικόν), i.e. bodily gospel.

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

Reliability of the Gospels

Although criticism has long been expressed against the authenticity of the Gospels, and recently these attacks of criticism have become especially intensified (the theory of myths, especially the theory of Drews, who does not at all recognize the existence of Christ), however, all objections of criticism are so insignificant that they are shattered 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 speak about the main general grounds on which we recognize the Gospels as completely reliable documents. This is, firstly, the existence of the tradition of eyewitnesses, of whom many survived until the era when our Gospels appeared. Why should we refuse to trust these sources of our gospels? Could they have made up everything that is in our gospels? No, all the Gospels are purely historical. Secondly, it is incomprehensible why the Christian consciousness would want - so the mythical theory asserts - to crown the head of a simple rabbi Jesus with the crown of the Messiah and the Son of God? Why, for example, is it not said about the Baptist that he performed miracles? Obviously because he did not create them. And from this 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 the miracles of Christ, since the highest miracle - His Resurrection - is witnessed like no other event in ancient history (see ch. 1 Cor. fifteen)?

Bibliography of Foreign Works on the Four Gospels

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. Göttingen, 1911.

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

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

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

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

Name 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 A. Das Markusevangelium nach seinem Quellenwerthe für die evangelische Geschichte. Göttingen, 1867.

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

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

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

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

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

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. Göttingen, 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. Göttingen, 1902.

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

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

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

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

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

Heitmüller - see Jog. 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 fur 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 - Alford N. The Greek Testament in four volumes, vol. 1. London, 1863.

Judge not lest ye be judged,for by what judgment do you judge, so you will be judged; and by what measure do you measure, such and you will be measured.And why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not feel the beam in your eye?Or how will you say to your brother: “Give me, I will take the speck out of your eye,” but, behold, there is a log in your eye?Hypocrite! first take the beam out of your eye, and then you will see as take the speck out of your brother's eye.

Do not give holy things to dogs, and do not cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample it under their feet and turn and tear you to pieces.

Ask, and it shall be given you; seek and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you;For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.Is there a man among you who, when his son asks him for bread, would give him a stone?And when he asks for a fish, would you give him a snake?If then, being evil, you know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good things to those who ask Him.

So, in everything you want people to do to you, so do you to them, for this is the law and the prophets.

Enter through the narrow gate, for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many go through it;For narrow is the gate and narrow is the way that leads to life, and there are few who find it.

Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.By their fruits you will know them. Do they gather grapes from thorns or figs from thistles?So every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit.Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.Therefore, by their fruits you will know them.

Not everyone who says to me: “Lord! Lord!” will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in Heaven.Many will say to me that day, “Lord! God! Have we not prophesied in Your name? and did they not cast out demons in your name? and did they not work many miracles in your name?And then I will declare to them: “I never knew you; depart from Me, you workers of iniquity."

Therefore, whoever hears these words of mine and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock;and the rain fell, and the rivers flooded, and the winds blew, and rushed against that house, and it did not fall, because it was founded on a stone.

And whoever hears these words of Mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on sand;and the rain came down, and the rivers flooded, and the winds blew, and fell upon that house; and he fell, and his fall was great.

And when Jesus finished these words, the people marveled at his teaching,for he taught them as having authority, and not as scribes and Pharisees.

Do not give holy things to dogs, and do not cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample it under their feet and turn and tear you to pieces.

So, in everything you want people to do to you, so do you to them, for this is the law and the prophets.

And when Jesus finished these words, the people marveled at his teaching,for he taught them as having authority, and not as scribes and Pharisees.