Sweet, Henry Barclay (18351917). Anglican scholar. Professor of Theology in London (188290) and Cambridge (18901915). Author of works on the NT, OT and the Christian doctrine in general. Applying modern critical methods to biblical studies, treated scholars with respect,

Taylor, Nathaniel William (1786-1858). Creator of Newhaven theology. Modified Calvinism, combining it with the revivalism of the first decades of the 19th century, and thereby contributed to the development of evangelical theology. Born in 1786 in NewMilford (Connecticut), in

Farrar, Frederic William (1831-1903). Anglican theologian and writer. Born in Bombay, in the family of a missionary priest, he received a university education in London and Cambridge. He was strongly influenced by S. T. Coleridge and F. D. Maurice. Was ordained in 1854 or more

Hawking, William Ernest (Hocking, William Ernest, 1873-1966). American Protestant scholar, philosopher and religious scholar. He taught at Andover Theological School, Yale and Harvard. He believed that philosophy should not remain the lot of academic research, but should identify and

Channing, William Ellery (1780-1842). The largest figure of Unitarianism in the first half. 19th century Growing up in Rhode Island, he was influenced by the sermons of the adamant Calvinist S. Hopkins. In his last year of study at Harvard, he experienced a religious conversion - an experience, about chrome

Shedd, William Greenough Thayer (Shedd, William Greenough Thayer, 1820-1894), The largest, after Ch. Hodge, systematizer of American Calvinist theology in the years between the Civil War and the First World War. Shedd's father, a Congregationalist pastor, encouraged his son to study at the University of Vermont and

Dear users and visitors of our site! We have decided to remove from our library the writings of Protestant theologian from Scotland, Professor William Barclay. Despite the popularity of the works of this author among inquisitive readers, we believe that his works should not be placed on a par with the works of Orthodox writers and preachers, including the works of the holy fathers and teachers of the Church.

Many of William Barclay's thoughts can be judged as sound. Nevertheless, in his writings, in fundamental moments, there are such ideas that are a conscious deviation from the Truth, being "a fly in the ointment in a barrel of honey." Here is what the English Wikipedia writes about his views:

skepticism about the Trinity: for example, "Nowhere identifies Jesus with God";

faith in universal salvation;

evolution: “We believe in evolution, slowly rising up from the human to the level of the beast. Jesus is the end and culmination of the evolutionary process, because in Him people meet God. The danger of the Christian faith is that we have created Jesus as a kind of secondary God. The Bible never makes a second God to Jesus, but rather emphasizes Jesus' complete dependence on God."

For example, in analyzing the prologue of the Gospel of John and speaking of Christ, Barclay writes, “When John says that the Word was God, he does not say that Jesus was one with God, He was identical with God; he says that He was so the same as God in mind, heart and being, that in Him we perfectly see what God is, ”which gives reason to believe that he recognized the Evangelist’s attitude to Christ not as to one of the Persons of the absolutely One and Indivisible God, Who is one with the Father (), but only as equal to God. This perception of the gospel sermon gave reason to critics to suspect him of a penchant for tritheism.

Other statements of his also encourage a similar perception. For example: "Jesus is the revelation of God" (Comments on the Gospel of John). Or another, where the Holy Spirit is reported as an ally of Christ: "He speaks of His Ally– Holy Spirit” (Comments on the Gospel of John).

It is possible to conditionally distinguish biblical commentaries into spiritual, pastoral, theological, popular science and technical.

Most patristic commentaries can be classified as spiritual.

An example of "pastoral" comments is the sermons of Fr. Dmitry Smirnov.

There can be both classical “theological” comments (for example, the Saint wrote many comments for polemical purposes), and modern ones.

In "popular science" commentary, knowledge from biblical studies or history or biblical languages ​​is conveyed in popular language.

Finally, there are "technical" comments, which are most often intended for biblical scholars, but can be used by a wide range of readers.

Barkley's comments are a typical example of "popular science" comments. He was never a great or major biblical scholar. Just an average professor with a good work capacity. His comments were never particularly popular, even among the Protestant milieu. And his popularity with us is due to the fact that his comments were translated into Russian at the very moment when there was nothing at all in Russia as “popular science” comments.

***

W. Barclay's comments on the Books of Holy Scripture of the New Testament are widely known both in the countries of the Western world and in Russia. Strange as it may seem, many Russians who identify themselves with Orthodoxy not only find food for thought in his comments, but often take them as the surest guide to a deep understanding of the Gospel. It's hard to understand, but it's possible. In the course of presenting his views, the author gives many arguments, including historical and scientific-linguistic ones. Many of them seem convincing and indisputable. However, not all of them are. A significant drawback of the works of this author is the excessively weak consistency of their content with the Holy Tradition of the Church, and in some cases a direct contradiction to this source of Christian knowledge. W. Barclay's deviation from the purity of the gospel teaching affects a number of serious, fundamental issues of Christianity.

One of the most drastic digressions has to do with the question of the Church. Let's start with the fact that W. Barclay does not share the position on the existence of the One True Church, approved by the Lord Jesus Christ, and, going against the Gospel, insists on the existence of many saving Christian churches. At the same time, which is natural for such an approach, he accuses communities that claim to be called the only true (in fact, there is only one such community - the Universal Orthodox Church), in the monopolization of Divine grace.

“Religion,” writes W. Barclay, “ should bring people together, not divide them. Religion should unite people into one family, and not split them into warring groups. The doctrine that claims that any church or any sect has a monopoly on the grace of God is false, for Christ does not divide, but unites Bible

It is clear that this statement, accepted by Protestants, cannot but arouse indignation among Orthodox Christians. After all, firstly, the Ecumenical Orthodox Church was founded by the Redeemer Himself, moreover, it was founded precisely as the only and only true; and it is to her that is entrusted the fullness of the saving doctrine, the fullness of the saving gifts of the Holy Spirit. And secondly, the Orthodox Church has always called and still calls people to unity, true unity in Christ, which cannot be said about the ideologists of Protestantism, who insist on the possibility of the coexistence of many "saving", "Christian" "churches".

Meanwhile, W. Barclay compares God's with the Pharisees: No, the Pharisees did not want to lead people to God; they led them into their own Pharisaic sect. That's where their sin was. Is this one expelled from the earth, if even today they insist that a person leave one church and become a member of another before he can take a place at the altar? The greatest of heresies lies in the sinful belief that one church has a monopoly on God or His truth, or that some church is the only gate to the Kingdom of God » Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/40/23/).

The true unity of Christians implies, among other things, the unity of faith. The Orthodox have always professed the doctrine entrusted to it by the apostles, while the Protestant communities - that which they received as a legacy from the founders of these communities. It would seem that in the fact that the Church keeps the truths of faith intact, one can see that it is she who is the pillar and affirmation of the truth (). However, such an attitude to the truth is assessed by W. Barclay as one of the symptoms of a protracted chronic illness. Accordingly, those “churches” that allow the perversion of true (“old”) dogmas and the introduction of so-called new dogmas are considered to be healthy.

“In the Church,” he insists, “ this feeling resentment against the new has become chronic, and attempts to squeeze everything new into old forms have become almost universal"(From the chapter - Barclay's comments - the Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/40/9/).

Perseverance in upholding the truths of the dogma W. Barclay refers to as a fossil: “ It really happened very often that a person who came with a message from God met with hatred and enmity. petrified orthodoxy » (From the chapter - Barclay's comments - Bible

Speaking in favor of free-thinking thinkers like the Protestants (and, of course, in favor of the Protestants themselves), the author seeks to assure his potential followers that the opposition that he shows against them is contrary to the spirit of Christianity, and that it is as if the Redeemer Himself warned about it: Jesus warned His disciples that in the future they can unite against them society, Church and family"(From the chapter - Barclay's comments - the Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/40/10/).

Recall what exactly unites the disciples of Christ, while the Protestant communities are the disciples of their leaders.

Speaking against the ancient church traditions, W. Barclay also denounces the tradition of monasticism, insisting that the doctrine of monasticism tends to separate "religion from life", and, therefore, it is false.

Here are his words: The teaching is false if it separates religion from life. Any teaching that says that a Christian has no place in life and in worldly activities is false. This was the mistake of monks and hermits. They believed that in order to live Christian life, they must retire to the desert or to a monastery, get out of this all-consuming and seductive worldly life. They believed that they could only be true Christians by leaving the worldly life. Jesus prayed for His disciples: “I do not pray that You take them out of the world, but that You save them from evil.” () » (From the chapter - Barclay's comments - the Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/40/7/).

Concerning the problems of man's struggle with sinful thoughts and desires, the author points to the activities of the monks as an illustration of a strange and irregular form of struggle. Like, the monks, without realizing it, fencing themselves off from the real temptations of this world, fell into even greater temptations that were born in their memory or imagination. With his negative criticism, he did not bypass even the founder (one of the founders) of monasticism, an outstanding Christian ascetic, St. Anthony the Great.

In history, he believes, there is one notable example mishandling such thoughts and desires: stylites, hermits, monks, hermits in the era of the early Church. These were people who wanted to be free from everything earthly and, in particular, from carnal desires. To do this, they went to the Egyptian desert with the idea of ​​\u200b\u200bliving alone and thinking only about God. The most famous of them is Anthony. He lived as a hermit, fasted, spent his nights vigilant, torturing his body. He lived in the wilderness for 35 years, which was an ongoing battle with his temptations... It is quite obvious that if anyone behaves carelessly, it applies to Antony and his friends.. It is human nature that the more a person tells himself that he will not think about something, the more it will occupy his thoughts."(From the chapter - Barclay's comments - the Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/40/5/).

W. Barclay's mistake, in this case, is seen in the fact that he incorrectly looks both at monasticism itself and at the attitude of the Church to monastic life. The fact is that while recognizing monasticism as one of the forms of service to God, the Orthodox Church has never taught that a Christian has no life in the world. As you know, among the canonized saints there are many who became famous precisely for their life in the world: warriors, doctors, teachers, etc. Again, the monastic life, which implies a removal from worldly pleasures, worldly fuss, does not imply a complete spiritual break with the world. Suffice it to recall that for many centuries the monasteries played the role of spiritual centers not only for monks and monks, but also for the laity: the monasteries served as places of pilgrimage for them; libraries were created at monasteries, theological schools were opened; often, in difficult times, the monks helped the laity with bread and a ruble.

Finally, completely unaware of why monastic work was associated with spiritual exploits, and the monks themselves were often called ascetics, he defines the monastic life as very easy, and describes the monks themselves as fugitives from the real difficulties of life: “ It's easy to feel like a Christian in moments of prayer and meditation, it is easy to feel the closeness of God, when we are away from the world. But this is not faith - this is an escape from life. Genuine faith is when you get up from your knees to help people and solve human problems."(From the chapter - Barclay's comments - the Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/40/17/).

In the end, the interpreter seeks to bring Christian worship and worship under the humanitarian doctrine: “ Christian ministry - this is not the service of a liturgy or ritual, this is a service to a human need. Christian service is not a monastic retreat, but an active participation in all the tragedies, problems and demands that people face"(From the chapter - Barclay's comments - the Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/40/12/).

The author shows a rather peculiar attitude towards the Lord Jesus Christ.

On the one hand, he does not seem to mind that Jesus is the Incarnate Son of God the Father. In any case, some of his words, such as: “ When Glory came to this earth, He was born in a cave where people sheltered animals. Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/40/2/).

« God sent His Son into this world, - testifies W. Barkley, - Jesus Christ, so that He would save man from the quagmire of sin in which he was mired, and free him from the chains of sin with which he bound himself, so that man could through Him regain the friendship with God he had lost.(From chapter - Barclay's comments - Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/40/1/)

On the other hand, he ascribes to the Redeemer such traits as, for example, uncertainty about His chosenness (not to mention "uncertainty" in Divine dignity), ignorance of how to accomplish His mission, "which He entrusted".

“Thus,” Barclay prompts the reader, “ And in the act of baptism, Jesus received double certainty: that He really is God's Chosen One and that the way before Him was the way of the cross, at that moment Jesus knew that He had been chosen to be King"(From the chapter - Barclay's comments - Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/40/3/)

"Jesus," he continues his line, " went to the desert to be alone. spoke to him now He wanted to think about how to fulfill the mission that he had entrusted to Him. "(From the head - Barclay's comments - the Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/40/4/).

Already at the first acquaintance with these and similar statements one gets the impression that they are on the verge of admissible and inadmissible theologizing. The interpreter's position is more clearly revealed in his attitude to the testimony of the Evangelist John the Theologian that Christ is none other than God the Word Incarnate. While formally recognizing that “the Word became flesh” (), W. Barclay, nevertheless, explains this gospel truth not in the spirit of the Gospel. Whereas the Orthodox teaches that the Word is a Hypostasis of the One Trinity God, consubstantial with the Father and the Holy Spirit, equally perfect and equal in honor to the other two Divine Hypostases, Barclay seeks to convince his readers of something else.

“Christianity,” he shares his reasoning, “ arose in Judaism and at first all members Christian Church were Jews... Christianity arose in the Jewish environment and therefore inevitably spoke their language and used their categories of thinking... The Greeks had never heard of the Messiah, they did not understand the very essence of the aspirations of the Jews - the coming of the Messiah. The concepts with which Jewish Christians thought and imagined Jesus said nothing to the Greeks. And this was the problem - how to represent in the Greek world? ... Around the year 100, there lived a man in Ephesus who thought about this. His name was John; he lived in a Greek city, he communicated with the Greeks, to whom Jewish concepts were alien and incomprehensible, and even seemed strange and rude. How can we find a way to introduce Christianity to these Greeks in a way that they will understand and welcome? And it was revealed to him. Both in the Jewish and in the Greek worldview there was a concept words. Here it could be used in such a way that it corresponded to the worldviews of both the Hellenic and the Jew. It was something that lay in the historical heritage of both races; both of them could understand it"(From chapter - Barclay's commentary - Bible

It is known that in the understanding of (many) Jews it was conceived as the One, but not as the Trinity. The Word of God was comprehended in their minds as an active force, but not as a Divine Hypostasis (cf.: and God said...). Something similar was thought about the Logos (Word) and the mentioned Greeks.

“And so,” he develops his thought, “ when John was looking for a way to present, he found that in his faith and in the history of his people there was already an idea words, word, which in itself is not just a sound, but something dynamic -word God, by whom he created the earth; word from Targumi – Aramaic translation of the Bible – expressing the very idea of ​​God's action; wisdom from the books of Wisdom - the eternal, creative and enlightening power of God. So John says, "If you want to see Word God's, if you want to see the creative power of God, if you want to see Word, through whom the earth was created, and by whom gives light and life to every man, look at Jesus Christ. In him Word God has come to you" (From the chapter - Barclay's comments - the Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/43/1/).

As if confirming what was said above, U Barkley signals: “ . ..In the Greek world and in the Greek worldview, there is another name that we must get to know. In Alexandria lived a Jew named Philo, who devoted his life to the study of the wisdom of two worlds: the Greek and the Jewish. None of the Greeks knew as well as he did the Holy Scripture of the Jews, and not a single Jew knew as well as he did the greatness of Greek thought. Philo also loved and used this idea logos, words, reason God's. He believed that nothing in the world is older logos So what logos It is the instrument by which the world was created. Philo said that logos- this is the thought of God, imprinted in the universe; logos created the world and everything in it; God is the pilot of the universe, He holds logos like a helm and directs everything. According to Philo logos imprinted in the human brain, it gives a person reason, the ability to think and the ability to know. Philo said that logos mediator between the world and God, and that logos is a priest who presents the soul to God. Greek philosophy knew everything about logos, she saw in logos the creative, leading and directing power of God, the power that created the universe and thanks to which life and movement are preserved in it. And so John came to the Greeks and said: “For centuries you have been thinking, writing and dreaming about logos, about the power that created the world and keeps order in it; about the power that gave man the ability to think, reason and know; about the power through which people entered into a relationship with God. Jesus is this logos, descended to earth." "The Word became flesh' John said. We can also express it like this: The Mind of God Incarnated in Man"" (From the chapter - Barclay's comments - the Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/43/1/).

Finally, Barclay explicitly points out that the Savior was identical with God, but was not “one” with God: “ When John says that the Word was God, he is not saying that Jesus was one with God, He was identical with God; he says that He was so much like God in mind, heart and being, that in Him we perfectly see what God is"(From the chapter - Barclay's comments - the Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/43/1/).

And elsewhere: "The Word became flesh - in this, perhaps, as nowhere else in the New Testament, the human essence of Jesus is wonderfully proclaimed. In Jesus we saw the creative Word of God, directing the Mind of God, Who Himself incarnates in man. In Jesus we see how God would live this life if He were a man. If we had nothing more to say about Jesus, we could still say that He shows us how to live the life we ​​need to live."(From the chapter - Barclay's comments - Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/43/1/)

How does W. Barclay explain that Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God the Father? He boils it down to the fact that Jesus is unique and most loved by God the Father. Here is how he says it himself: Jesus - only begotten Son. In Greek it is monogenesis, What means only Son, only begotten and in this case it fully corresponds to the Russian translation of the Bible. But the point is that long before the Fourth Gospel was written, this word lost its purely physical meaning and acquired two special meanings. It began to mean unique, special in its own way and especially loved, it is quite obvious that the only son also occupies a special place in the heart of the father and enjoys special love, and therefore this word has come to mean, first of all, unique. The writers of the New Testament are absolutely convinced that Jesus is unique, that there was no one like Him: He alone can lead God to people and people to God"(From the chapter - Barclay's comments - the Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/43/1/).

One of the most popular interpretations of the New Testament, which uses rich cultural and historical material.

Barclay's Commentary - New Testament - corrected

11/12/11 - the second version of the corrected module

Many obvious spelling and grammatical errors have been corrected in the standard module (part of the "Bible Quote" installer); the text is formatted to fit the width of the page.

With this module, replace the standard module in the folder commentaries bible quotation program

SYNOPTIC GOSPEL

The Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke are commonly referred to as the Synoptic Gospels. Synoptic comes from two Greek words which mean to see together. Therefore, the aforementioned Gospels are given this name because they describe the same events in the life of Jesus. In each of them, however, there are some additions, or something is omitted, but, in general, they are based on the same material, and this material is also located in the same way. Therefore, they can be written in parallel columns and compared with each other.

After that, it becomes quite obvious that they are very close to each other. If, for example, we compare the story of the feeding of five thousand (Mat. 14:12-21; Mark 6:30-44; Luke 5:17-26), then this is one and the same story, told in almost the same words.

Or take, for example, another story about the healing of a paralytic (Matt. 9:1-8; Mark. 2:1-12; Luke 5:17-26). These three stories are so similar to each other that even the introductory words, "he said to the paralytic", are in all three stories in the same form in the same place. The correspondences between all three gospels are so close that one must either conclude that all three took material from the same source, or two based on a third.

FIRST GOSPEL

Studying the matter more carefully, one can imagine that the Gospel of Mark was written first, and the other two - the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke - are based on it.

The Gospel of Mark can be divided into 105 passages, of which 93 occur in Matthew and 81 in Luke. Only four of the 105 passages in Mark are found in neither Matthew nor Luke. There are 661 verses in the Gospel of Mark, 1068 verses in the Gospel of Matthew, and 1149 verses in the Gospel of Luke. At least 606 verses from Mark are given in the Gospel of Matthew, and 320 in the Gospel of Luke. Of the 55 verses of the Gospel of Mark, which not reproduced in Matthew, 31 yet reproduced in Luke; thus, only 24 verses from Mark are not reproduced in either Matthew or Luke.

But not only the meaning of the verses is conveyed: Matthew uses 51%, and Luke uses 53% of the words of the Gospel of Mark. Both Matthew and Luke follow, as a rule, the arrangement of material and events adopted in the Gospel of Mark. Sometimes Matthew or Luke are different from Mark, but they are never both different. One of them always follows the order that Mark follows.

IMPROVEMENT OF THE GOSPEL FROM MARK

In view of the fact that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke are much larger than the Gospel of Mark, one might think that the Gospel of Mark is a summary of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. But one fact indicates that the Gospel of Mark is the earliest of them all: if I may say so, the authors of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke improve on the Gospel of Mark. Let's take a few examples.

Here are three descriptions of the same event:

Map. 1:34: "And He healed many that were suffering various diseases; cast out many demons."

Mat. 8:16: "He cast out the spirits with a word and healed all the sick."

Onion. 4:40: "He, laying his hands on each of them, healed

Or take another example:

Map. 3:10: "For many he healed."

Mat. 12:15: "He healed them all."

Onion. 6:19: "...power went out from him and healed them all."

Approximately the same change is noted in the description of Jesus' visit to Nazareth. Compare this description in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark:

Map. 6:5-6: "And he could do no miracle there... and marveled at their unbelief."

Mat. 13:58: "And he did not do many miracles there because of their unbelief."

The author of Matthew does not have the heart to say that Jesus could not have performed miracles, and he changes the phrase. Sometimes the writers of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke omit little allusions from the Gospel of Mark that might somehow belittle the greatness of Jesus. The gospels of Matthew and Luke omit three remarks found in the gospel of Mark:

Map. 3:5: "And looking at them with anger, grieving for the hardness of their hearts..."

Map. 3:21: "And when his neighbors heard him, they went to take him, for they said that he had lost his temper."

Map. 10:14: "Jesus was indignant..."

All this clearly shows that the Gospel of Mark was written before the others. It gave a simple, lively, and direct account, and the writers of Matthew and Luke were already beginning to be influenced by dogmatic and theological considerations, and therefore chose their words more carefully.

TEACHINGS OF JESUS

We have already seen that there are 1068 verses in Matthew and 1149 verses in Luke, and that 582 of them are repetitions of verses from the Gospel of Mark. This means that there is much more material in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke than in the Gospel of Mark. A study of this material shows that more than 200 verses from it are almost identical in the authors of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke; for example, passages such as Lu. 6:41-42 and Matt. 7.3.5; Onion. 10:21-22 and Matt. 11.25-27; Onion. 3:7-9 and Matt. 3, 7-10 are almost exactly the same. But here is where we see the difference: the material that the writers of Matthew and Luke took from the Gospel of Mark deals almost exclusively with events in the life of Jesus, and these additional 200 verses, common to the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, do not concern what Jesus did, but what He said. It is quite obvious that in this part the authors of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke drew information from the same source - from the book of sayings of Jesus.

This book no longer exists, but theologians called it KB, which means Quelle, in German - source. In those days this book must have been extremely great importance because it was the first anthology on the teachings of Jesus.

It may seem to the modern reader that Matthew chose a very strange beginning for his gospel, putting in the first chapter a long list of names through which the reader will have to wade. But for a Jew, this was completely natural and, from his point of view, it was the most correct way to start a story about a person's life.

The Jews were extremely interested in genealogies. Matthew calls it genealogical book - byblos geneseus- Jesus Christ. In the Old Testament, we often find genealogies of famous people ( Gen. 5.1; 10.1; 11.10; 11.27). When the great Jewish historian Josephus wrote his biography, he began it with a genealogy he said he found in the archives.

Interest in genealogies was due to the fact that the Jews attached great importance to the purity of their origin. A person whose blood contained the slightest admixture of someone else's blood was deprived of the right to be called a Jew and a member of God's chosen people. So, for example, the priest had to present a complete, without any omissions, list of his genealogy from Aaron himself, and if he married, then his wife had to present her genealogy at least five generations ago. When Ezra made a change in worship after the return of Israel from exile and established the priesthood again, the sons of Habaia, the sons of Gakkoz and the sons of Behrzell were excluded from the priesthood and were called unclean, because "they were looking for their genealogy record and it was not found" ( Ezdr. 2.62).

The genealogical archives were kept in the Sanhedrin. Purebred Jews always despised King Herod the Great because he was half Edomite.

This passage in Matthew may seem uninteresting, but it was extremely important to the Jews that Jesus' lineage could be traced back to Abraham.

In addition, it should be noted that this pedigree is very carefully compiled into three groups of fourteen people each. This arrangement is called mnemonics, that is, arranged in such a way that it is easier to remember. It must always be remembered that the Gospels were written hundreds of years before printed books appeared, and only a few people could have copies of them, and therefore, in order to own them, they had to be memorized. And so the pedigree is compiled so that it is easy to remember. It was meant to prove that Jesus was the Son of David, and was designed to be easy to remember.

THREE STAGES (Mt 1:1-17 continued)

The very location of the pedigree is very symbolic for the whole human life. The genealogy is divided into three parts, each of which corresponds to one of the great stages in the history of Israel.

The first part covers the history up to King David. David rallied Israel into a nation and made Israel a strong power to be reckoned with in the world. The first part covers the history of Israel until the advent of its greatest king.

The second part covers the period before the Babylonian captivity. This part speaks of the shame of the people, of their tragedy and misfortune.

The third part covers the history before Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ freed people from slavery, saved them from grief, and in Him tragedy turned into victory.

These three parts symbolize three stages in the spiritual history of mankind.

1 . Man was born for greatness. "God created man in His own image and likeness, in the image of God He created him" ( Gen. 1.27). God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness" Gen. 1.26). Man was created in the image of God. Man was meant to be in friendship with God. He was created to be related to God. As the great Roman thinker Cicero saw it: "The differences between man and God come down only to time." The man was essentially born to be a king.

2 . Man has lost his greatness. Instead of being a servant of God, man became a slave to sin. As the English writer G.K. Chesterton: "What is true about man, however, is that he is not at all what he was meant to be." Man used his free will to show open defiance and disobedience to God, instead of entering into friendship and companionship with Him. Left to his own devices, man nullified God's plan in His creation.

3 . Man can regain his greatness. Even after that, God did not leave man to the mercy of fate and his vices. God did not allow man to ruin himself with his recklessness, did not allow everything to end in tragedy. God sent His Son, Jesus Christ, into this world so that He would save man from the quagmire of sin in which he was mired, and free him from the chains of sin with which he bound himself, so that man could through Him regain the friendship he had lost with God.

In the genealogy of Jesus Christ, Matthew shows us the newfound royal greatness, the tragedy of lost freedom, and the glory of freedom returned. And this, by the grace of God, is the history of mankind and every person.

THE FULFILLMENT OF MAN'S DREAM (Mt 1:1-17, continued)

This passage highlights two characteristics of Jesus.

1 . It is emphasized here that Jesus is the Son of David; genealogy and was compiled mainly in order to prove this.

Peter emphasizes this in the first recorded sermon of the Christian Church ( Acts. 2, 29-36). Paul speaks of Jesus Christ, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh ( Rome. 1.3). The author of pastoral epistles urges people to remember Jesus Christ from the seed of David, risen from the dead ( 2 Tim. 2.8). The revelator hears the Risen Christ say, "I am the root and offspring of David" ( Rev. 22.16).

This is how Jesus is repeatedly addressed in gospel history. After the demon-possessed blind and dumb was healed, the people said: "Is this the Christ, the Son of David?" ( Mt 12:23). A woman from Tire and Sidon, who sought Jesus' help for her daughter, addresses Him: "Son of David!" ( Mt 15:22). The blind cried out: "Have mercy on us, Lord, Son of David!" ( Mt 20:30-31). And, like the Son of David, Jesus is greeted by the crowd as he enters Jerusalem for the last time ( Mat 21.9.15).

It is very important that Jesus was so greeted by the crowd. The Jews were expecting something unusual; they never forgot and could never forget that they - chosen by God people. Although their whole history was a long chain of defeats and misfortunes, although they were a captive conquered people, they never forgot the fate of their destiny. And the common people dreamed that a descendant of King David would come into this world and lead them to glory, which, as they believed, was theirs by right.

In other words, Jesus was the answer to people's dream. People, however, see only answers to their dreams of power, wealth, material abundance and in the implementation of the ambitious plans they cherish. But if man's dreams of peace and beauty, greatness and satisfaction are ever to be realized, they can only find fulfillment in Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ and the life He offers people is the answer to people's dream. There is a passage in the story about Joseph that goes far beyond the scope of the story itself. Together with Joseph, the chief court cupbearer and the chief court baker-baker were also in prison. They had dreams that disturbed them, and they cried out in horror: "We have seen dreams, but there is no one to interpret them" (Genesis 40:8). Just because a person is a person, he is always haunted by a dream, and its realization lies in Jesus Christ.

2 . This passage emphasizes that Jesus is the fulfillment of all prophecy: in him the message of the prophets was fulfilled. Today we do not take much account of prophecy, and for the most part we are unwilling to look in the Old Testament for statements that have come true in the New Testament. But there is a great and eternal truth in the prophecy that this universe has a purpose and a purpose for it, and God wants to fulfill His specific purposes in it.

One play tells of a terrible famine in Ireland in the nineteenth century. Finding nothing better and not knowing any other solution, the government sent people to dig roads for which there was no need, in a completely unknown direction. One of the heroes of the play, Michael, having learned about this, left his job and, returning home, said to his father: "They are making a road leading to nowhere."

A person who believes in prophecy would never say such a thing. History cannot be a road that leads nowhere. Perhaps we view prophecy differently than our ancestors did, but behind prophecy is the enduring fact that life and peace are not a road to nowhere, but a path to God's purpose.

NOT RIGHTEOUS, BUT SINNERS (Mt 1:1-17, continued)

The most striking in the pedigree are the names of the women. In Jewish genealogies, in general, it is extremely rare to find female names. The woman had no legal rights; they looked at her not as a person, but as a thing; it was only the property of the father or husband, and they could do with it what they pleased. In everyday morning prayer the Jew thanked God that He had not made him a Gentile, a slave, or a woman. In general, the very existence of these names in the pedigree is an extremely surprising and unusual phenomenon.

But if you look at these women - who they were and what they did - you have to wonder even more. Rahab, or Rahab as she is called in the Old Testament, was a harlot from Jericho ( Jesus N. 2,1-7). Ruth was not even Jewish, but a Moabite ( Ruf. 1.4), and is it not said in the law: "The Ammonite and the Moabite cannot enter into the congregation of the Lord, and the tenth generation of them cannot enter into the congregation of the Lord forever" ( Deut. 23.3). Ruth was from a hostile and hated people. Tamar was a skilled seductress ( Gen. 38). Bathsheba, the mother of Solomon, David most cruelly took away from Uriah, her husband ( 2 Kings 11 and 12). If Matthew had searched the Old Testament for improbable candidates, he could not have found four more impossible ancestors for Jesus Christ. But, of course, there is something very remarkable in this. Here, at the very beginning, Matthew shows us in symbols the essence of the gospel of God in Jesus Christ, because here he shows how barriers come down.

1 . Removed the barrier between Jew and Gentile. Rahab - a woman from Jericho, and Ruth - a Moabite - found a place in the genealogy of Jesus Christ. This already reflected the truth that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek. Already here one can see the universalism of the gospel and the love of God.

2 . Removed barriers between women and men. There were no female names in the regular genealogy, but there are in the Jesus genealogy. The old contempt is gone; men and women are equally dear to God and equally important to His purposes.

3 . The barriers between saints and sinners have disappeared. God can use for His purposes and fit into His plan even someone who has sinned a lot. "I came," says Jesus, "to call not the righteous, but sinners" ( Matthew 9:13).

Already here, at the very beginning of the Gospel, there are indications of the all-encompassing love of God. God can find His servants among those that respected Orthodox Jews would turn away with a shudder.

THE SAVIOR'S ENTRY INTO THE WORLD (Mt 1:18-25)

Such relationships can confuse us. First, it talks about betrothal Mary, then about what Joseph wanted secretly let go her, and then she is named wife his. But these relationships reflect the usual Jewish marriage relationship and the procedure, which consisted of several stages.

1 . Firstly, matchmaking. It was often done in childhood; this was done by parents or professional matchmakers and matchmakers, and very often the future spouses did not even see each other. Marriage was considered too serious a matter to be left to the impulse of human hearts.

2 . Secondly, betrothal. Betrothal can be called a confirmation of the matchmaking concluded between the couple earlier. At this point, the matchmaking could be interrupted at the request of the girl. If the engagement took place, then it lasted one year, during which the couple was known to everyone as husband and wife, although without marriage rights. The only way to end the relationship was through divorce. In Jewish law, one can often find a phrase that seems strange to us: a girl whose fiancé died during this time was called a "virgin widow." Joseph and Mary were engaged, and if Joseph wanted to end the engagement, he could only do so by giving Mary a divorce.

3 . And the third stage - marriage, after a year of engagement.

If we recall the Jewish customs of marriage, it becomes clear that this passage describes the most typical and normal relationship.

Thus, before the marriage, Joseph was told that the Virgin Mary from the Holy Spirit would give birth to a baby who was to be called Jesus. Jesus is the Greek translation of the Hebrew name Yeshua, and Yeshua means " Yahweh will save". Even the psalmist David exclaimed: "He will deliver Israel from all his iniquities" ( Ps. 129.8). Joseph was also told that the Child would grow up to be a Savior who would save God's people from their sins. Jesus was born as a Savior rather than as a King. He came into this world not for His own sake, but for the sake of people and for our salvation.

BORN OF THE HOLY SPIRIT (Mt 1:18-25 (continued))

This passage says that Jesus will be born of the Holy Spirit in an immaculate conception. The fact of the virgin birth is difficult for us to understand. There are many theories trying to figure out the literal physical meaning of this phenomenon. We want to understand what is the main thing for us in this truth.

When we read this passage with fresh eyes, we see that it emphasizes not so much the fact that Jesus was born by a virgin, but rather that the birth of Jesus is the result of the work of the Holy Spirit. "It turned out that She (Virgin Mary) is pregnant with the Holy Spirit." "What's born in her is from the Holy Spirit." And what does it mean then the phrase that at the birth of Jesus the Holy Spirit took a special part?

According to the Jewish worldview, the Holy Spirit had certain functions. We cannot invest in this passage in its entirety. Christian ideas of the Holy Spirit, since Joseph could not yet know anything about it, and therefore we must interpret it in the light Jewish ideas of the Holy Spirit, for Joseph would have put that very idea into the passage, because he only knew it.

1 . According to the Jewish worldview The Holy Spirit brought God's truth to the people. The Holy Spirit taught the prophets what they needed to say; The Holy Spirit taught the people of God what they should do; throughout the ages and generations, the Holy Spirit has brought God's truth to people. Therefore, Jesus is the One who brings God's truth to people.

Let's say it differently. Jesus alone can tell us what God is like and what God would like us to be. Only in Jesus do we see what God is like and what man should be. Until Jesus came, people had only vague and unclear, and often completely wrong ideas about God. They could at best guess and grope; and Jesus could say, "He who has seen me has seen the Father" ( John. 14.9). In Jesus, as nowhere else in the world, we see love, compassion, mercy, a searching heart and the purity of God. With the coming of Jesus, the time of conjecture ended and the time of certainty came. Before the coming of Jesus, people did not know what virtue was at all. Only in Jesus do we see what true virtue, true maturity, true obedience to the will of God is. Jesus came to tell us the truth about God and the truth about ourselves.

2 . The Jews believed that the Holy Spirit not only brings the truth of God to people, but also gives them the ability to know this truth when they see it. In this way, Jesus opens people's eyes to the truth. People are blinded by their own ignorance. Their prejudices lead them astray; their eyes and minds are darkened by their sins and passions. Jesus can open our eyes so we can see the truth. In one of the novels of the English writer William Locke, there is an image of a rich woman who has spent half her life seeing the sights and art galleries of the world. Eventually she got tired; nothing could surprise her, interest her. But one day she meets a man who has little wealth of this world, but who truly knows and loves beauty. They begin to travel together and everything changes for this woman. "I never knew what things were like until you showed me how to look at them," she told him.

Life becomes completely different when Jesus teaches us how to look at things. When Jesus comes into our hearts, He opens our eyes so that we can see the world and things right.

CREATION AND RE-CREATION (Mt 1:18-25, continued)

3 . Jews in a special way associated the Holy Spirit with creation. God created the world by His Spirit. At the very beginning, the Spirit of God hovered over the waters and the world became out of chaos ( Gen. 1.2). “By the word of the Lord the heavens were made,” said the psalmist, “and by the spirit of his mouth all their host” ( Ps. 32.6). (As in Hebrew ruach, as well as in Greek pneuma, mean at the same time spirit And breath). "Send your spirit - they are created" ( Ps. 103.30). "The Spirit of God created me," says Job, "and the breath of the Almighty gave me life" ( Job. 33.4).

The Spirit is the Creator of the world and the Giver of life. Thus, in Jesus Christ, the creative, life-giving power of God came into the world. The power that brought order to the primal chaos has now come to us to bring order to our disordered lives. The power that breathed life into that which had no life has come to breathe life into our weakness and our vanity. It can be said that we are not truly alive until Jesus comes into our lives.

4 . In particular, the Jews associated the Spirit not with creation and creation, but with recreation. Ezekiel has a grim picture of a field full of bones. He tells how these bones came to life, and then he hears the voice of God saying, "I will put My Spirit in you, and you will live" ( Ezek. 37.1-14). The rabbis had this saying: “God said to Israel: “In this world, My Spirit has given you wisdom, and in the future, My Spirit will give you life again.” The Spirit of God can awaken to life people who have died in sin and deafness.

Thus, through Jesus Christ, a power came into the world that could recreate life. Jesus can revive a soul lost in sin; He can revive dead ideals; He can again give strength to the fallen to strive for virtue. He can renew life when people have lost everything that life means.

So, this chapter says not only that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin. The essence of Matthew's account is that the Spirit of God was involved in the birth of Jesus as never before in the world. The Spirit brings the truth of God to the people; The Spirit enables people to know the truth when they see it; Spirit is the mediator in the creation of the world; only the Spirit can revive human soul when she lost the life she should have had.

Jesus gives us the ability to see what God is like and what man should be; Jesus opens the mind to understanding so that we can see God's truth for us; Jesus is a creative force that has come to people; Jesus is a recreative force capable of freeing human souls from sinful death.