1 After [several] days He came again to Capernaum; and it was heard that He was in the house.
2 Immediately many gathered together, so that there was no longer room at the door; and He spoke the word to them.
3 And they came to Him with the paralytic, whom four men carried;
4 And, not being able to approach Him because of the crowds, they uncovered the [roof] of the house where He was, and having dug through it, they lowered the bed on which the paralytic lay.
5 Jesus, seeing their faith, says to the paralytic: child! your sins are forgiven you.
6 Some of the scribes sat there and thought in their hearts:
7 Why does He blaspheme so much? who can forgive sins except God alone?
8 Jesus, immediately knowing in His spirit that they were thinking this way in themselves, said to them, “Why are you thinking this way in your hearts?”
9 Which is easier? Should I say to the paralytic: your sins are forgiven? or should I say: get up, take your bed and walk?
10 But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins, he says to the paralytic:
11 I say to you, get up, take up your bed and go to your house.
12 He immediately arose and, taking up the bed, went out before everyone, so that everyone was amazed and glorified God, saying: We have never seen anything like this.
13 And [Jesus] went out again to the sea; and all the people went to Him, and He taught them.
14 As He passed by, He saw Levi Alphaeus sitting at the toll booth, and He said to him, “Follow Me.” And [he] stood up and followed Him.
15 And as Jesus reclined in his house, his disciples reclined with him, and many publicans and sinners: for they were many, and they followed him.
16 When the scribes and Pharisees saw that He was eating with publicans and sinners, they said to His disciples, “How is it that He eats and drinks with publicans and sinners?”
17 When Jesus heard [this], he said to them, “It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick; I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
18 The disciples of John and the Pharisees fasted. They come to Him and say: Why do the disciples of John and the Pharisees fast, but Your disciples do not fast?
19 And Jesus said to them, “Can the sons of the bridal chamber fast while the bridegroom is with them?” As long as the groom is with them, they cannot fast,
20 But the days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast in those days.
21 No one puts patches of unbleached cloth on old clothing, otherwise the newly sewn garment will be torn away from the old one, and the hole will be even worse.
22 No one puts new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the new wine will burst the skins, and the wine will leak, and the skins will be lost; but new wine must be put into new wineskins.
23 And it happened on the Sabbath that He passed through the sown fields, and His disciples began to pluck the ears of corn along the way.
24 And the Pharisees said to Him: Look, what are they doing on the Sabbath that ought not [to be done]?
25 He said to them: Have you never read what David did when he had need and was hungry, he and those who were with him?
26 How did he enter into the house of God in the presence of Abiathar the high priest and eat the showbread, which no one was to eat except the priests, and gave it to those who were with him?
27 And he said to them, “The Sabbath is for man, and not man for the Sabbath;
28 Therefore the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.
A few days later He came again to Capernaum; and it was heard that He was in the house.
Many immediately gathered, so that there was no longer room at the door; and He spoke the word to them.
And they came to Him with the paralytic, who was carried by four;
And, not being able to approach Him due to the crowds, they opened the roof of the house where He was, and, having dug through it, lowered the bed on which the paralytic lay.
Jesus, seeing their faith, says to the paralytic: child! your sins are forgiven you.
Having completed His journey through the synagogues, Jesus returned to Capernaum. The news of His coming instantly spread around. Life in Palestine was generally very social in nature. In the morning the door of the house opened and anyone could enter it. The door was closed only if a person really wanted privacy;
an open door means an invitation to everyone to enter the house. In a simple and modest house, such as the house in question here apparently was, there was no entryway and the door opened directly onto the street. And so the crowd instantly filled the house, people crowded at the door and everyone was eager to listen to Jesus.
And into this crowd came four people carrying their paralyzed friend on a stretcher. They could not get through the crowd, but they were cunning. The roofs of Palestinian houses were flat and people usually rested on them or sought peace and quiet; climbed up the outside stairs. The very design of the house prompted these people to come up with an invention. The roof consisted of flat beams laid from one wall to the other at a distance of about one meter from each other. The distance between the beams was filled with bundles of brushwood compressed with clay, and everything was covered with limestone clay on top. Basically, all the roofs were earthen and often grass grew lushly on the roof of a Palestinian house. Nothing could have been easier than digging up such a bundle of brushwood that filled the space between the two beams; it did not even cause much damage to the house and the defect could be easily corrected. And so these four dug up one bundle of brushwood between two beams and released their friend right at the feet of Jesus. When Jesus saw such boundless faith, He must have smiled a knowing smile, looked at the paralytic and said: “Child! Your sins are forgiven."
It may seem strange to begin healing a person in this way, but in Palestine at that time it was natural and necessary. The Jews believed that sin and suffering were inseparable. They argued that if someone suffers, then he has sinned. This was stated by Job’s friends: “Where,” asked Eliphaz the Temanite, “were the righteous destroyed?” (Job. 4, 7). The rabbis had a saying: “Not a single afflicted person was ever healed before all his sins were forgiven.” And to this day we find such a point of view among peoples and tribes at a low stage of development. Paul Tournier writes in his book: “Didn’t the missionaries tell us that savage peoples consider disease bad. Even Christian converts do not dare go to communion when they are sick, they believe that God has turned his back on them.” In the Jewish mind, the sick are those with whom God is angry. Indeed, the cause of many illnesses is sin, but more often it is the sin not of the sick person himself, but of other people. We do not connect sickness so directly with sin as the Jews did, but every Jew would agree that forgiveness of sins must come first, and then healing.
Christ first of all said to the paralytic: “Child! God is not angry with you, everything will be fine.” This is how one turns to a frightened child in the dark. The man's heart was filled with horror of the wrath of God and the fear of being alienated from Him, and now the burden was lifted and this made the healing complete.
This is a beautiful story: Jesus always tells us first of all: “Child, God is not angry with you. Go home and don’t be afraid.”
Brand 2.6-12 Irrefutable argument
Some of the scribes sat there and thought in their hearts:
Why does He blaspheme so much? who can forgive sins except God alone?
Jesus, immediately knowing in His spirit that they were thinking this way in themselves, said to them, “Why are you thinking this way in your hearts?”
What's easier? Should I say to the paralytic: “Your sins are forgiven?” or to say, “get up, take your bed and walk?”
But so that you may know that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins, he says to the paralytic:
I say to you: get up, take up your bed and go to your house.
He immediately got up and, taking the bed, went out in front of everyone, so that everyone was amazed and glorified God, saying: we have never seen anything like this.
As we have already seen, crowds of people gathered around Jesus, and therefore the official leaders of the Jews paid attention to Him. Supreme Court The Jews had a Sanhedrin. One of the main tasks of the Sanhedrin was to preserve the orthodox faith. For example, the task of the Sanhedrin was to persecute all false prophets. It seems that the Sanhedrin sent spies to watch Jesus, and so they also came to Capernaum. Without a doubt, they took a place of honor in front of the crowd and sat critically observing everything that happened. They were shocked by Jesus’ words to the paralytic that his sins were forgiven. An important element of the Jewish religion was the position that only God forgives sins. To claim this on the part of man was considered an insult to God; it was blasphemy, and blasphemy was punishable by death, stoning (A lion. 24, 16). But now the representatives of the Sanhedrin, apparently, were not yet ready to attack Jesus publicly, but Jesus could already see what they were planning and therefore He Himself decided to challenge them and give them battle on their own territory.
The scribes, like all Jews, firmly believed that sickness and sin were inextricably linked. The one who sinned was the one who was sick. So Jesus asked them, “Which is easier? Should I say to the paralytic: your sins are forgiven? or say: get up, take your bed and walk? After all, any charlatan could say: “Your sins are forgiven.” No one could ever demonstrate the validity of his words; such a statement cannot be verified. But to say, “Rise and walk,” means to say something that should immediately and immediately prove or disprove what was said. And so Jesus really said this: “Are you saying that I have no right to forgive sins? Do you believe that a sick person must be a sinner and cannot be cured before his sins are forgiven? Okay, then watch!” And Jesus spoke His word and the paralytic was healed. And the scribes fell into their own trap. According to their firm faith, a person could not be healed until he received forgiveness of sins. Well, relaxed was He is healed, therefore he was forgiven. Therefore, Jesus' claim that He can forgive sins must be fair. Jesus must have completely stunned a whole group of scribes, experts in law and law, and worse, they were apparently not only baffled, but furious about it.
We need to dwell on this in more detail: if this had continued further, the entire orthodox Jewish religion would have been shaken and destroyed. With this action, Jesus signed His death warrant—and He knew it. But for all that, this is a difficult episode. What does it mean that Jesus can forgive sin? There could be three explanations for this.
1. We can understand this to mean that Jesus conveyed God's forgiveness to man. When David sinned and Nathan reproached him and filled him with terror, and David obediently and humbly confessed to the sin he had committed, Nathan said: “And the Lord has taken away your sin from you; you will not die" (2 Tsar. 1, 1-13). Nathan did not forgive David's sins, but he conveyed God's forgiveness to David and assured him of it. Thus, we can say that by doing this, Jesus was assuring man that God had forgiven him of his sins, conveying to man what God had given Him. This is undoubtedly true, but apparently it is not the whole truth.
2. We can understand this to mean that Jesus, by acting in this way, acted as the representative of God. Jesus says, “For the Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son.”
(John. 5, 22). If the decision is handed over to Jesus, the person should be forgiven. Let's take a human analogy. Analogies, however, are always an imperfect thing, but then we get the opportunity to think in purely human categories. A person can give another power of attorney, that is, place all his goods and fortune at his complete disposal. He gives his consent for another to act on his behalf and for these actions to be looked upon as his own. We can imagine that this is exactly what God did towards Jesus. God gave Jesus His authority and His privileges, and the words Jesus spoke were the words of God.
3. But we can understand this episode in another way. The essence of Jesus is that in Him we can see God's relationship with people very clearly and distinctly. Well, God’s attitude towards people turned out to be not at all what people imagined him to be, let’s say even the complete opposite of it. It did not turn out to be the attitude of a stern, unforgivingly strict Judge, constantly demanding something; it turned out to be an attitude of perfect love, an attitude of a heart yearning for love and a desire to forgive. Let's use the human analogy again. In one of the short stories, Lewis Hind talks about how he recognized his father: he had always respected and admired him, but there was always a good amount of fear in his attitude. One Sunday he was with his father in church. It was a hot day, causing sleep and boredom. Lewis Hind became drowsier and drowsier, his eyelids getting heavier and heavier as he sank into waves of sleep. He could no longer hold his head up and saw his father’s hand rising and was sure that his father would push or hit him. But his father smiled softly and, putting his arm around his shoulders, pressed him close to him so that he would be more comfortable and calm. And from that day Lewis Hind learned that his father was not what he thought he was, and that his father loved him. Jesus did the same in relation to people and in relation to God. He literally brought God's forgiveness to people on earth. Without Christ, people would never have been able to even imagine this. “I tell you,” Jesus said to the man, “and I tell you this here and now on earth, that you are forgiven.” Jesus did a great job of showing people how God treats them. Jesus could say, “I forgive,” because in Him God said, “I forgive.”
Brand 2,13.14 The calling of the man everyone hated
And Jesus went out again to the sea; and all the people went to Him, and He taught them.
As He passed, He saw Levi Alpheus sitting at the toll collection, and He said to him: Follow Me. And he stood up and followed Him.
Gradually and inexorably, the doors of the synagogues were slammed shut on Jesus. There was a war between Him and the guardians of the Jewish orthodox faith. Now He taught no longer in synagogues, but on the shore of the lake. His church was under open air- its dome was the sky, and the pulpit was a hill or a fishing boat. This is where the terrible situation begins when the Son of God found himself expelled from the place that was considered the house of God.
He walked along the shore of the lake and taught. This is exactly what the Jewish rabbis usually taught. When the rabbis walked from one city to another or simply wandered in the open air, their disciples gathered around them, walked with them and listened to what they were saying. Jesus did what all the rabbis did.
The most important paths of the ancient world converged in Galilee. Someone said: “Judea lies on the road to nowhere; all roads lead through Galilee.” Palestine was a bridge connecting Europe and Africa; all land roads led through Palestine. The Great Coast Road led from Damascus through Galilee, through Capernaum and down past Mount Carmel, along the Valley of Sharon through Gaza into Egypt. It was one of the largest roads in the world at that time. Another road led from the port of Acre to the Mediterranean coast across the Jordan River into Arabia and to the borders of the Roman Empire, a road along which army legions and trade caravans walked.
Palestine was divided at that time. Judea was a Roman province ruled by a Roman governor - a procurator; Galilee was ruled by the tetrarch Herod Antipas, son of Herod the Great; in the east, the territory that included Iturea and the Trachonite region was ruled by the tetrarch Philip, another son of Herod. On the way from the region subject to Philip to the possessions of Herod Antipas, the first city where the traveler came was Capernaum: it was a border city already in its natural position and that's why there was customs there. At that time, export and import duties were paid and, apparently, they were collected in Capernaum. That's where Matthew worked. True, in contrast to Zacchaeus, he was not in the Roman civil service, but served Herod Antipas, but was an equally hated tax collector - a tax collector.
From this episode we learn something about Matthew and about Jesus.
1. Matthew was greatly hated. Tax collectors were never respected in society, and in the ancient world they were simply hated. After all, people never knew exactly how much they had to pay, and tax collectors took from them as much as they could, and pocketed the difference. Even a Greek writer like Lucian put tax collectors on a par with adulterers, pimps, flatterers and sycophants. Jesus needed a man that no one else needed. Jesus offered His friendship to a man whom all others would be ashamed to call a friend.2. Matthew, apparently, at that moment was restless and heavy in his soul. He must have already heard something about Jesus. Perhaps he repeatedly listened, lost in the crowd, to His sermons and they stirred his heart. Well, he couldn’t go to the respectable people of his time. For them he was unclean, they would refuse to deal with him at all. Hugh Redwood tells the story of a woman from the London waterfront who once came to a women's meeting. She lived with a Chinese man and had a mixed-race child whom she brought with her. She enjoyed the meeting and came to it again and again. And then one day the vicar approached her: “I must ask you,” he said, “not to come again.” The woman looked at him questioningly. “The other women,” explained the vicar, “said they would stop walking if you walked.” The woman looked at him with acute melancholy. “Sir,” she said, “I know that I am a sinner, but can’t a sinner go anywhere?” Luckily, the Salvation Army found this woman and brought her back to Christ. This was exactly the position Matthew was in until he found the One, the Cat came into this world to find and save what was lost.
3. We learn something about Jesus from this episode. He was just walking along the shore of the lake when he called Matthew. As one great scientist said, “Even while He was walking, He was looking for an opportunity.” Jesus never had free time. If He could find one person for God during His walk, He found him. What a rich harvest we could reap if we would seek people for Christ even while we are walking!
4. Of all Jesus' disciples, Matthew sacrificed more than anyone else. He literally left everything and followed Jesus. Simon Peter and Andrew, James and John could go back to their fishing boats. There were always plenty of fish left to catch and an old craft to return to; Matthew completely burned all his bridges behind him. In one act, in one moment, in one quick decision, he ended his trade forever, gave up a job as a tax collector, which he could never get again. Important decisions are usually made important people, but nevertheless, in the life of every person there comes a time when you need to make a decision, make a choice. A famous man used to take long walks. One day he came to a stream, which, however, was too wide to be easily jumped over. The first thing he did was throw his coat over to the other side and thereby made the decision that there would be no turning back. He made the decision to cross the stream and created the conditions to carry it out.
Matthew put everything on the line by following Christ, and he was not mistaken.
5. By making this decision, Matthew gained three things.
A) He put an end to his shameful past forever. From that moment on, he could look people in the eyes. Maybe he will live much poorer, life will become much more difficult; luxury and comfort were finished forever, but from that moment his hands were clean and, because his hands were clean, his conscience was calm.
b) He lost one job, but got a more important one. Someone said that Matthew gave up everything except one thing - he did not give up his pen, he did not give up writing. Scholars do not believe that the first Gospel is the work of Matthew, but they do believe that this Gospel contains one of the most important documents in human history - the first written account of the teachings of Jesus - and that this document was written by Matthew. Possessing a good memory, a habit of systematic work, and a good command of the pen, Matthew was the first apostle to give the world a book about the teachings of Jesus. c) The strangest thing can be considered that the bold decision taken by Matthew brought him what he, apparently, least of all was looking for - it brought him immortal and worldwide fame. The name Matthew is known to all as the name of the person forever associated with the transmission of the story of the life of Jesus. If Matthew had refused to accept the call, he could only have gained disrepute within his district as a master of a hated and disreputable craft. Having accepted the call, he gained worldwide fame as the man who gave people a record of the words of Jesus. God never abandons a person who risks everything for Him.
Brand 2.15-17 Who needs help most?
And as Jesus reclined in his house, his disciples and many publicans and sinners reclined with him; for there were many of them, and they followed Him.
The scribes and Pharisees, seeing that He was eating with publicans and sinners, said to His disciples: How is it that He eats and drinks with tax collectors and sinners?
Hearing this, Jesus said to them: It is not those who are healthy who need a doctor, but those who are sick; I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
Once again, Jesus defends himself and challenges. When Matthew followed Jesus, he invited Him into his home. It is quite natural that having discovered Jesus for himself, he wanted to share his great discovery with his friends, and they were just like him. Yes, it could not be otherwise: after all, Matthew chose a profession for himself that cut him off from the entire society of respected and believing people; and he found friends just like himself. Jesus gladly accepted this invitation, and they also sought fellowship with Him. There is no better way to see the differences between Jesus on the one hand and the scribes, Pharisees and faithful, good people of His time on the other. These were people with whom a sinner would not want to communicate: after all, they would look at him with cold condemnation and arrogant superiority. They would have gotten rid of him before he came to them. The Jews made a clear distinction between those who kept the law and those who were called Amhaarites, hillbilly. The hillbillies were those simple masses who did not observe all the norms and rules of established Pharisaic piety. The faithful were forbidden to have anything in common with these people. A person who strictly observed the law could have nothing to do with them at all: he should not speak to them, should not travel with them, if possible, he should not enter into business relations with them; marrying your daughter to such a man was like giving her to wild animals. It was also forbidden to visit them or invite such people to visit you. By coming to Matthew's house, sitting at the same table with him and communicating with his friends, Jesus ignored the Pharisaic norms and guidelines of His time. There is no need to believe even for a minute that all these people were sinners in the moral sense of the word. Word sinner, hamartolos had a double meaning. It meant a person who violated the moral law, but it also meant a person who did not comply with the standards developed by scribes and lawyers. Both the person who violated marital fidelity and the person who ate pork were sinners; a person who committed theft or murder, and a person who did not wash his hands the required number of times in a precisely established order before eating - all were sinners. Without a doubt, among Matthew's guests there were many who violated moral laws and led dishonest lives, but there were certainly many whose only sin was that they violated the unwritten norms of the lawyers. When Jesus was accused of unacceptable behavior, He answered very simply: “The doctor goes where he is needed. It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick; and I do the same: I go to people who are sick in soul and who need me most.” Verse 17 is extremely meaningful. At first glance, it seems that the healthy do not need Jesus at all, but the simple fact is that Jesus cannot help only those who consider themselves so good that they seem to need no help, but for a sinner who knows that he is a sinner and in his heart longs for healing - for him Jesus can do anything. A person who believes that he does not need anything puts up barriers between himself and Jesus, but a person who feels the need for something has a ticket to Him in his pocket.
Two aspects really dominated the attitude of devout Jews towards sinners.
1. Contempt.“An ignorant person,” said the rabbis, “can never be pious.” The Greek philosopher Heraclitus was an arrogant aristocrat. A certain Skifin tried to translate his discoveries into poetry so that simple and uneducated people could read and understand them. To this Heraclitus responded with an epigram: “I am Heraclitus. Why are you illiterates running around with me? I did not work for you, but for those who understand me. In my eyes, one person is worth thirty thousand, but countless crowds are not worth even one.” He just despised the crowd. The scribes and Pharisees despised the common man, but Jesus loved him. The scribes and Pharisees stood on the low elevation of their formal piety and looked down on the sinner; Jesus came and sat down next to him, and sitting with him, he lifted him up.
2. Fear. The faithful feared that sinners would infect others; they were afraid that sin might infect them. They were like a doctor who refuses to treat an infectious disease so as not to become infected himself. Jesus alone forgot Himself in the great desire to save others. S. T. Studd, a great missionary of Christ, loved to quote the following verse: “Some people like to live in the ringing of a church bell, but I want to keep a life-saving station right in the yard of hell.” A person who has contempt and fear in his heart can never become a fisher of men.
Brand 2.18-20 Funny company
The disciples of John and the Pharisees fasted. They come to Him and say: Why do the disciples of John and the Pharisees fast, but Your disciples do not fast?
And Jesus said to them, “Can the sons of the bridal chamber fast while the bridegroom is with them?” As long as the groom is with them, they cannot fast;
But the days will come when the bridegroom will be taken away from them, and then they will fast in those days.
Jews who strictly adhered to the law often fasted. But in the Jewish religion there was only one obligatory fasting day - the day of purification. The day on which the Jewish people confessed their sins and received forgiveness for them was called day of fasting. But Orthodox Jews also fasted two days a week - Monday and Thursday. But, I must say, the fast was not as strict as it might seem, because it lasted from 6 o’clock in the morning to 6 o’clock in the afternoon. Afterwards you could eat regular food. Jesus is not against fasting. There are many reasons for a person to fast. He may give up his favorite things out of feelings disciplines to make sure that he has power over them, and not they over him, to make sure that he is not so attached to them that he cannot do without them, that he may even abandon them. He can give up comforts and things that are pleasant to him in order to appreciate them even more after such self-denial. You can best appreciate your home when you stay for a long time outside the home; likewise, the best way to appreciate the gifts of God is to do without them for a while.
As already stated, there are reasons for fasting. As for the Pharisees, the problem was that they fasted most of the time to show off; thus they attracted attention of people to your virtue. They even painted their faces white and walked around casually dressed on fasting days so that everyone could see that they were fasting and admire their devotion. At the same time, their post was supposed to attract attention God to their piety. They believed that such a manifestation of their piety would attract the attention of God to them. The fasting of the Pharisees was a ritual and, moreover, a ritual in order to put themselves on display. For fasting to have value, it should not be a ritual, but an internal heartfelt need.
In explaining to the Pharisees why His disciples did not fast, Jesus used a vivid picture. After the Jewish wedding, the young couple did not go on a honeymoon, but stayed at home. For one week they kept the house open and continuously feasted and made merry. In a life full of hard work, the wedding week was the happiest for a person. This week they invited close friends of the groom and bridesmaids and called them children of the bridal chamber. Jesus compared the disciples who sat with Him to the children of the bridal chamber, chosen guests at the wedding feast. In fact, there was a rabbinical rule: “All those present at the wedding feast are exempt from observing all those religious rules that diminish joy and gladness.” The guests at the wedding feast were indeed exempt from all fasting. In this episode we learn that distinctive feature The Christian attitude towards life is joy. The key to this joy is that one discovers Christ and abides with Him. One Japanese criminal, Tokichi Ishi, was distinguished by extreme cruelty and ruthlessness: he brutally and heartlessly killed men, women and children. When he was captured and imprisoned, two Canadian ladies visited him. They couldn't even get him to talk; he simply looked at them with the expression of a wild animal. When they left, they left him the Bible in the faint hope that he might read it. He read the Bible, and the story of Christ's crucifixion transformed him, made him a different person. Later, when they came to take him to the scaffold, he was not that sullen, bitter beast, but a smiling, beaming man, because the murderer Ishi was born again. A sign of his rebirth was a radiant smile. Life in Christ can only be lived in joy. But the entire episode ends with a dark omen rising like a cloud on the horizon. At the moment when Jesus spoke about the day when the bridegroom will not be with his friends, no one, of course, understood what this meant. But even then, at the very beginning of His journey, Jesus saw His cross ahead. Death did not take Him by surprise, and despite this He chose His path. This is real courage, this is a portrait of a man who cannot be pushed off the road at the end of which awaits crucifixion.
Mark 2,21.22 The need to remain young at heart
No one puts patches of unbleached fabric on old clothes: otherwise the newly sewn garment will be pulled away from the old one, and the hole will be even worse.
No one puts new wine into old wineskins: otherwise the new wine will burst the skins, and the wine will flow out, and the skins will be lost; but new wine must be put into new wineskins.
Jesus was well aware that the message He brought was amazingly new, and He was also well aware that His way of life was stunningly different from the way of life of the faithful teachers - the rabbis. He was well aware that it was difficult for a person to understand with his mind and accept this new truth. He gives two examples that show how important it is for a person to have an enterprising and courageous mind.
Jesus, like no one else, had the gift of finding and using simple illustrations known to everyone in his speeches. He opens again and again in the most simple things paths and road signs to God. He was the best person to move from “here and now” to “there and then.” Jesus believed that “the earth is saturated with heavenly things.” He lived in such closeness to God that everything spoke to Him about God. Someone talks about their Sunday afternoon walks in the countryside with a very famous Scottish priest. They had long conversations and “no matter where we started, this Scottish priest always found a straight path leading to God.” Wherever Jesus looked, He always went straight to God.
1. Jesus talks about the danger of sewing a new patch on an old garment. The Greek word used by Mark means that the patch is made of completely new material, not worn or washed and therefore not yet shrunk. Once such patched clothing gets wet in the rain, the new patch will shrink and, being much stronger than the old one, tear it. The day will come when it will no longer be possible to patch and repair - everything will have to be done anew. In the era of Luther it was no longer possible to patch up all the abuses of the Roman Catholic Church; the time had come Reformation, era of transformation. In the era of John Wesley, the time for patching up the Church of England ended; he did not want to leave this church, but in the end he was forced to do so, because only a new brotherhood could become worthy. It is quite possible that we are often still trying to patch things up where we need to throw out the old and start something completely new.
2. In ancient times, wine was stored in skins; nothing like our bottles existed then. The new furs had a certain elasticity, but over time they hardened and lost flexibility. Young wine still continues to ferment and, as a result, gases are still formed, which in turn create pressure; the new skin stretches under the pressure of these gases, but the old, hard and dry skin will burst, and both wine and skin will be lost. Jesus demands from people a certain flexibility of mind. It is very simple and dangerous to become ossified in your habits and thoughts. J. A. Findlay quotes a friend of his as saying, “If you come to a conclusion, you are dead.” By this he meant that as soon as you stop your thought on something, and then ossify in this thought, get used to it and love it, as soon as a person loses the ability to perceive new thoughts and look for new paths, as he, being physically alive , will be dead mentally and spiritually.
With age, almost all people begin to feel a dislike for everything new and unfamiliar. Over time, a person finds it difficult and reluctant to change his habits and lifestyle. Leslie Newbigin, who took part in discussions about the formation of the United Church of South India, says that the question that most often and most delayed the work was: “Well, if we do this, where will we end up?” until finally someone said briefly: “A Christian has no right to ask where he is going.” Abraham also went, not knowing where (Heb. 11, 8). In the same chapter Hebrews We read this great verse: “By faith Jacob, dying, blessed every son of Joseph and bowed down on the top of his staff.” (Heb. 11, 21). Already feeling the breath of death on himself, the old wanderer did not let go of his staff. Until his last day, already at the end of his life, he was still ready to go. Those who really want to rise to the heights of the Christian calling must maintain an enterprising and courageous mindset. I once received a letter that ended with the words: “Your, at the age of 83, still growing...” - and why not, when we have the inexhaustible riches of Christ?
Brand 2.23-28 True and ostentatious piety
And it happened on the Sabbath that He passed through the sown fields, and His disciples began to pluck the ears of corn along the way.
And the Pharisees said to Him: Look what they are doing on the Sabbath, which they should not do!
He said to them: Have you never read what David did when he had need and was hungry, he and those who were with him?
How did he enter the house of God in the presence of Abiathar the high priest and eat the showbread, which no one was to eat except the priests, and gave it to those with him?
And he said to them: The Sabbath is for man, and not man for the Sabbath;
Therefore the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.
Once again, Jesus radically opposes the rules and regulations developed by the scribes. When He and His disciples walked through a field sown with grain on the Sabbath, the disciples began to pick the ears of grain and eat them. If the students did this on an ordinary day, there was nothing reprehensible or forbidden about it (Deut. 23, 25). As long as the traveler did not use a sickle, he could freely pick ears of corn. But in in this case everything happened on Saturday, and Saturday was literally protected by thousands of special norms and rules: all work was prohibited. All work was divided into thirty-nine types and among them there were four: reaping, winnowing, threshing and preparing flour. By their actions, the students violated virtually all of these four rules and should have been considered in violation of the law. This may seem monstrous to us, but in the eyes of the rabbis it was a mortal sin.
Well, the Pharisees immediately made their accusations and declared that Jesus’ disciples had broken the law. The Pharisees undoubtedly expected Jesus to immediately stop His disciples, but He responded to the Pharisees using their own methods. He cited the episode given in 1 Tsar. 21, 1-6. David fled for his life and came to the tabernacle at Nob and demanded bread and food, but there was nothing there except the sacred showbread. The sacred showbread is told in Ref. 25, 23-30. These were twelve loaves that were placed on a table covered with gold, measuring about 90 cm in length, about 50 cm in width and 20 cm in height. This table stood in the tabernacle in front of the Holy of Holies and the loaves represented a kind of sacrifice to God. They were changed once a week. When they were removed from the table and replaced with new ones, they became the property of the priests, and only the priests could eat them (A lion. 24, 9). But in a moment of need, David took the loaves and ate them. Jesus showed the Pharisees that there is an example in the Holy Scriptures that human need is above all human and even divine laws. “The Sabbath,” said Jesus, “is for man, and man is not for the Sabbath.” And it was completely obvious. Man was created before this man-made law regulating the Sabbath came into being. Man was not created to become a victim and slave to the rules and regulations governing the Sabbath, which, in fact, was originally created in order to make human life better and more complete. A person should not become a slave to the Sabbath, and the Sabbath exists to make his life even better.
This passage sets forth some truths that we sometimes forget, to our detriment.
1. Religion is not a set of norms and law. Even if we consider this particular issue: the observance of the resurrection is an important thing, but there are incomparably more important problems in religion than the observance of the resurrection. If a person could become a Christian simply because he abstains from work and pleasure on Sunday, and rushes to church on that day, says prayers and reads the Bible, it would be very easy to become a Christian. Once people begin to forget about love, forgiveness, service and mercy, which are the essence of religion, and replace them with adherence to rules and regulations, religion is in danger of decline. The essence of Christianity at all times has been to do something, and not to abstain from something.
2. But the most important thing in human relations is the need to help a brother in need - this requirement must be given priority over all other requirements. Even the catechism and confessions of faith admit that necessary works and works mercy Can be done on Saturday as well. If the rules of one's religion prevent one from helping a fellow man in need, then it is not a religion. A person always means much more than any system. A person is always more important than any rituals. The best way to honor God is to help people.
3. The most good way use sacred things - help people. This, in fact, is the only way to give them to God. One of the cutest stories is the story about the fourth sorcerer. His name was Artaban. He went for the Star of Bethlehem and took with him a sapphire, a ruby and a pearl, which had no price, to bring them as a gift to the King. He drove quickly in order to have time to meet his friends Caspar, Melchior and Balthasar at the appointed place; he had little time, and they would set off without him if he was late. And suddenly he saw a vague figure on the ground in front of him: it turned out to be a traveler tormented by a fever. Artaban was faced with a dilemma. If he stays to help the traveler, he will be late and lose his friends. But he stayed and healed the traveler. But now he was left alone. He needed camels and porters to help him cross the desert because he had missed his friends and their caravan. And he had to sell the sapphire to buy camels and hire porters. He regretted that the Tsar would not receive this gem. Artabanus continued his journey and arrived in Bethlehem, but he was late again: Joseph and Mary and the baby had already left Bethlehem, and then soldiers arrived to carry out Herod’s order and kill all the children. Artabanus just stopped in a house in which there was such a baby. The sound of soldiers' steps could already be heard at the door of the house, and the crying of women could be heard. Artaban stood at the door of the house, tall and dark with a ruby in his hand and, giving it to the commander, prevented the soldiers from invading the house. The baby was saved, his mother was overjoyed, but the ruby was gone and Artaban regretted that the Tsar would never receive this ruby. Artaban traveled for a long time in vain in search of the King, and after more than thirty years he arrived in Jerusalem. And in Jerusalem on this day some people were supposed to be crucified on the cross. Hearing that Jesus would be crucified, and this name sounded as beautiful to him as the King, Artaban rushed to Golgotha, hoping that he could buy the life of the King with the most beautiful pearl in the world. But a girl was running towards him along the street, running away from the soldiers. “My father has big debts,” she shouted, “and they want to take me and sell me into slavery to pay his debts. Help me!" Artaban hesitated at first, then with a feeling of sadness he took out his pearl, gave it to the soldiers and bought the girl freedom. The sky suddenly darkened, an earthquake occurred and a piece of tile hit Artaban on the head. Having lost half consciousness, he sank to the ground, and the girl put his head on her lap. Suddenly his lips moved. “No, Lord, have I ever seen You hungry and fed You? Or to those who were thirsty, and gave You something to drink? When did I see You as a stranger and let You into my home? Or naked, and clothed You? When did I see You sick in prison and came to You? I searched for You thirty years and three years, but I did not see Your face anywhere and did not serve You, my King.” And then, like a distant whisper, was heard: “Truly I say to you, “What you did to one of the least of My brothers, you did for Me.” And Artaban smiled in his death, because he knew the King had received and accepted his gifts.
The best way to use sacred things is to use them for people. It happened that children were blocked from entering the house of God because they believed that the church was too sacred for them and had too long a history for people like them to be worthy to enter it. It also happens that the church is more concerned with the problem of the sophistication of church services than with issues of helping ordinary people and ways to alleviate the lot of the poor. But sacred objects are only truly sacred when they serve people. Showbread was most sacred when it was fed to those dying of hunger. Love, not the letter of the law, is decisive in all our actions.
2. Papias of Hierapolis reports: “Mark, the translator of Peter, accurately wrote down everything that he remembered, although he did not adhere to the strict order of the words and deeds of Christ, because he himself did not listen to the Lord and did not accompany Him. Subsequently, however, he was, as said, with Peter, but Peter expounded the teaching in order to satisfy the needs of the listeners, and not in order to convey the Lord’s conversations in order” (Eusebius, Church History. Ill, 39). According to Clement of Alexandria, “while the Apostle Peter preached the gospel in Rome, Mark, his companion... wrote... a Gospel called the Gospel of Mark” (cf. Eusebius, Church. Ist. 11, 15).
St. Justin, quoting one passage from Mark, directly calls it “Memoirs of Peter” (Dialogue with Tryphon, 108). St. Irenaeus of Lyons reports that Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome shortly after martyrdom Peter, whose “student and translator” he was (Against Heresies, III, 1,1). An Peter was crucified in all likelihood in 64 (or 67), and, therefore, the Gospel of Mark must be dated to the late 60s.
3. Mark addresses pagan Christians living mainly in Rome. Therefore, he explains to his readers the geography of Palestine, often explaining Jewish customs and Aramaic expressions. He considers everything related to Roman life to be known. For the same reason, Mark contains far fewer references to the OT than Matthew. Most of Mark's narrative is similar to that described in Matthew and therefore the comments on parallel texts are not repeated.
4. Mark's main purpose is to establish faith in the divinity of Jesus Christ among the converted Gentiles. Therefore, a significant part of his Gospel is occupied by stories of miracles. In performing them, Christ at first hides His messiahship, as if expecting that people would first accept Him as a Wonderworker and Teacher. At the same time, Mark, to a greater extent than Matthew, depicts the appearance of Christ as a man (for example, Mark 3:5; Mark 6:34; Mark 8:2; Mark 10:14-16). This is explained by the author’s closeness to Peter, who conveyed to his listeners a living image of the Lord.
More than other evangelists, Mark pays attention to the personality of the head of the apostles.
5. Plan of Mark: I. The period of hidden messiahship: 1) The preaching of the Baptist, the baptism of the Lord and the temptation in the desert (Mark 1:1-13); 2) Ministry in Capernaum and other cities of Galilee (Mark 1:14-8:26). II. The Mystery of the Son of Man: 1) Peter’s confession, transfiguration and journey to Jerusalem (Mark 8:27-10:52); 2) preaching in Jerusalem (Mark 11:1-13:37). III. Passion. Resurrection (Mark 14:1-16:20).
INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
The Holy Scriptures of the New Testament were written in Greek, with the exception of the Gospel of Matthew, which, according to tradition, was written in Hebrew or Aramaic. But since this Hebrew text has not survived, the Greek text is considered the original for the Gospel of Matthew. Thus, only the Greek text of the New Testament is the original, and numerous editions in various modern languages around the world are translations from the Greek original.
The Greek language in which the New Testament was written was no longer classical ancient Greek and was not, as previously thought, a special New Testament language. It is a spoken everyday language of the first century A.D., which spread throughout the Greco-Roman world and is known in science as “κοινη”, i.e. "ordinary adverb"; yet both the style, the turns of phrase, and the way of thinking of the sacred writers of the New Testament reveal Hebrew or Aramaic influence.
The original text of the NT has come down to us in a large number of ancient manuscripts, more or less complete, numbering about 5000 (from the 2nd to the 16th centuries). Until recent years, the most ancient of them did not go back further than the 4th century no P.X. But for Lately Many fragments of ancient NT manuscripts on papyrus (3rd and even 2nd century) were discovered. For example, Bodmer's manuscripts: John, Luke, 1 and 2 Peter, Jude - were found and published in the 60s of our century. In addition to Greek manuscripts, we have ancient translations or versions into Latin, Syriac, Coptic and other languages (Vetus Itala, Peshitto, Vulgata, etc.), of which the most ancient existed already from the 2nd century AD.
Finally, numerous quotes from the Church Fathers have been preserved in Greek and other languages in such quantities that if the text of the New Testament were lost and all the ancient manuscripts were destroyed, then experts could restore this text from quotes from the works of the Holy Fathers. All this abundant material makes it possible to check and clarify the text of the NT and classify its various forms (so-called textual criticism). Compared with any ancient author (Homer, Euripides, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Cornelius Nepos, Julius Caesar, Horace, Virgil, etc.), our modern printed Greek text of the NT is in an exceptionally favorable position. And in the number of manuscripts, and in the shortness of time separating the oldest of them from the original, and in the number of translations, and in their antiquity, and in the seriousness and volume of critical work carried out on the text, it surpasses all other texts (for details, see “Hidden Treasures and new life,” archaeological discoveries and the Gospel, Bruges, 1959, pp. 34 ff.). The text of the NT as a whole is recorded completely irrefutably.
The New Testament consists of 27 books. The publishers have divided them into 260 chapters of unequal length to accommodate references and quotations. This division is not present in the original text. The modern division into chapters in the New Testament, as in the whole Bible, has often been attributed to the Dominican Cardinal Hugo (1263), who worked it out in his symphony to the Latin Vulgate, but it is now thought with greater reason that this division goes back to Archbishop Stephen of Canterbury Langton, who died in 1228. As for the division into verses, now accepted in all editions of the New Testament, it goes back to the publisher of the Greek New Testament text, Robert Stephen, and was introduced by him in his edition in 1551.
The sacred books of the New Testament are usually divided into laws (the Four Gospels), historical (the Acts of the Apostles), teaching (seven conciliar epistles and fourteen epistles of the Apostle Paul) and prophetic: the Apocalypse or the Revelation of John the Theologian (see Long Catechism of St. Philaret of Moscow).
However modern specialists They consider this distribution to be outdated: in fact, all the books of the New Testament are legal, historical and teaching, and prophecy is not only in the Apocalypse. New Testament scholarship pays great attention to the precise establishment of the chronology of the Gospel and other New Testament events. Scientific chronology allows the reader to trace with sufficient accuracy through the New Testament the life and ministry of our Lord Jesus Christ, the apostles and the primitive Church (see Appendices).
The books of the New Testament can be distributed as follows:
1) Three so-called synoptic Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke and, separately, the fourth: the Gospel of John. New Testament scholarship devotes much attention to the study of the relationships of the first three Gospels and their relation to the Gospel of John (synoptic problem).
2) The Book of the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles of the Apostle Paul (“Corpus Paulinum”), which are usually divided into:
a) Early Epistles: 1st and 2nd Thessalonians.
b) Greater Epistles: Galatians, 1st and 2nd Corinthians, Romans.
c) Messages from bonds, i.e. written from Rome, where ap. Paul was in prison: Philippians, Colossians, Ephesians, Philemon.
d) Pastoral Epistles: 1st Timothy, Titus, 2nd Timothy.
e) Epistle to the Hebrews.
3) Council Epistles (“Corpus Catholicum”).
4) Revelation of John the Theologian. (Sometimes in the NT they distinguish “Corpus Joannicum”, i.e. everything that St. John wrote for the comparative study of his Gospel in connection with his epistles and the book of Rev.).
FOUR GOSPEL
1. The word “gospel” (ευανγελιον) in Greek means “good news.” This is what our Lord Jesus Christ Himself called His teaching (Matthew 24:14; Matthew 26:13; Mark 1:15; Mark 13:10; Mark 14:9; Mark 16:15). Therefore, for us, the “gospel” is inextricably linked with Him: it is the “good news” of the salvation given to the world through the incarnate Son of God.
Christ and His apostles preached the gospel without writing it down. By the mid-1st century, this preaching had been established by the Church in a strong oral tradition. The Eastern custom of memorizing sayings, stories, and even large texts helped Christians of the apostolic era accurately preserve the unrecorded First Gospel. After the 50s, when eyewitnesses earthly service Christ began to pass away one after another, and the need arose to write down the gospel (Luke 1:1). Thus, “gospel” came to mean the narrative recorded by the apostles about the life and teachings of the Savior. It was read at prayer meetings and in preparing people for baptism.
2. The most important Christian centers of the 1st century (Jerusalem, Antioch, Rome, Ephesus, etc.) had their own Gospels. Of these, only four (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) are recognized by the Church as inspired by God, i.e. written under the direct influence of the Holy Spirit. They are called “from Matthew”, “from Mark”, etc. (Greek “kata” corresponds to Russian “according to Matthew”, “according to Mark”, etc.), for the life and teachings of Christ are set out in these books by these four sacred writers. Their gospels were not compiled into one book, which made it possible to see the gospel story from different points of view. In the 2nd century St. Irenaeus of Lyons calls the evangelists by name and points to their gospels as the only canonical ones (Against heresies 2, 28, 2). A contemporary of St. Irenaeus, Tatian, made the first attempt to create a single gospel narrative, compiled from various texts of the four gospels, “Diatessaron”, i.e. "gospel of four"
3. The apostles did not set out to create a historical work in the modern sense of the word. They sought to spread the teachings of Jesus Christ, helped people to believe in Him, to correctly understand and fulfill His commandments. The testimonies of the evangelists do not coincide in all details, which proves their independence from each other: the testimonies of eyewitnesses always have an individual coloring. The Holy Spirit does not certify the accuracy of the details of the facts described in the gospel, but spiritual meaning contained in them.
The minor contradictions encountered in the presentation of the evangelists are explained by the fact that God gave the sacred writers complete freedom in conveying certain specific facts in relation to different categories listeners, which further emphasizes the unity of meaning and focus of all four gospels (see also General Introduction, pp. 13 and 14).
Hide
Commentary on the current passage
Commentary on the book
Comment to the section
1 He also reports on the healing of a paralytic. Matthew ( see Ev's explanation. Matthew 9:1-8). But ev. Mark gives some details here that Matthew does not. Thus, already in the first verse he explains that Christ, having come to Capernaum, went into a house, of course, belonging to Peter. It should be noted that this verse is in Russian. translation conveyed inaccurately. It is precisely the expression “in a few days” that is unsuccessfully placed at the beginning: Christ did not spend “several days” away from Capernaum, but, undoubtedly, several weeks - otherwise the indication of verse 35 of the first chapter on the preaching of Christ throughout Galilee remains incomprehensible. Therefore, this verse should be more accurately translated as follows: “when Jesus entered Capernaum again (according to the best reading: καὶ εἰσελθὼν πάλιν , but not καὶ πάλιν εἰση̃λθὲν ), then after several days it became known that He entered the house (εἰς οἴκον - v. p.). Christ's sojourn in solitude could have been intended to teach the Gospel to the disciples, whom He promised to make fishers of men ( 1:17 Edersheim explains this by the fact that at that time winter had already arrived, and in winter it was extremely difficult to travel preaching from city to city. This is also stated in Matthew 24:20(p. 630).).
2 Ev. Mark notes that the Lord spoke a word to the assembled people, but does not report the content of this “word” or speech.
3 There were four who carried the paralytic. Consequently, the patient was an adult.
4 One ev. Mark reports about the special energy that those who brought the paralytic discovered. They climbed onto the roof or along the stairs that led there from outside the house, or they crossed there from the roof of a neighboring house, since the roofs of eastern houses often touch each other. Ev. Mark says that those who brought them opened the roof and dug through it in order to lower the bed with the paralytic. This means that they first removed the bricks or slabs from which the roof was made over a fairly large area, and then dug or made a hole in the easily constructed frame that supported these bricks or slabs. This was a relatively easy matter (Edersheim, p. 633). All this testified to the extraordinary trust in the love and power of the Lord that those who brought and the paralytic himself had, who was brought here, of course, not without his consent.
7 Here ev. Mark adds that the scribes said: “Who can forgive sins except God alone?” The Jews did not think it possible that God would give a person, even a righteous one, the power to declare the forgiveness of sins. This can be done either by God Himself, or by a person specially authorized by God, for example, an angel ( Isaiah 6; Zech 3 ch.). John the Baptist received the right to perform baptism for the remission of sins “from heaven” ( 2:31 ). Moreover, the scribes did not believe John either.
8 Christ, as Mark notes, knew the thoughts of the scribes by His Spirit; the Prophets knew secret things by the Spirit of God, and not by their own. Christ recognized everything Himself, according to His Divine omniscience.
9 Here it is added to what is in Hebrew. Matthew's expression: "take up your bed."
12 Here ev. Mark adds that the healed man “went out before everyone.” He was to appear to the crowds gathered at the door to testify to the power of Christ. Then, according to Ev. Mark, people said that they had never seen anything like it before. In fact, although Christ had healed the sick before, he did not forgive sins, as was the case here.
13-14 (See Matthew 9:9) In the history of the calling of Levi ev. Mark accurately indicates that Christ left the house and again went to the sea, where he had taught before, and here the people who followed Him began to teach. Of course, Levi already knew Christ and was devoted to Him, like the first four disciples ( 1:16 et seq.). Publican-disciple Ev. Mark does not call Matthew, as St. Matthew, and Levi Alfeev. Since in ev. Matthew added to the name of the called publican the expression called (λεγόμενον, according to the Russian translation, not exactly: “name”), then one can think that the real, original name of the apostle is indicated by Ev. Mark, and Ev. Matthew reports what Christ gave him when Levi became His apostle. Who Alpheus was is unknown.
15-17 (See Matthew 9:10-13) Ev. Mark notes on his own that the meal was held in the house of the publican Matthew and that publicans and sinners took part in it because they usually followed Christ in large numbers. Note to students, according to Ev. Mark was made not only by the Pharisees, but also by the scribes. This expression, however, is better replaced by the expression of some codes “scribes from the Pharisees,” that is, those who belonged to the Pharisaic party.
18-22 (For explanation, see Ev. Matthew ch. 9, Art. 14-17.) Ev. Mark, for his part, only points out that the question to Christ was proposed not by the disciples of John and the Pharisees, but by someone else (he comes and speaks - an impersonal expression) about the disciples of John and the Pharisees. These were probably scribes, but not from the Pharisaic party, who were interested in how Christ resolved the issue of observing traditional fasts (cf. Art. 16). Then in the 19th century. ev. Mark uses the direct designation “to fast” instead of the descriptive expression of St. Matthew "to be sad." Other features relating only to style do not need explanation.
23-28 (For explanation, see Ev. Matthew ch. 12, Art. 1-8.) Mark adds to Matthew's story that the Lord mentioned the name of the high priest who gave the showbread to David: it was Abiathar (v. 26). Since in 1 Samuel 22:20 et seq. The high priest with whom David entered into friendly communication is called not Abiathar, but Ahimelech - Abiathar was his son, then many interpreters consider this addition to Ev. Mark with an insertion made by the hand of a reader of the Gospel who is little knowledgeable in Scripture (Stanton. The Gospels... II, 145). Others, recognizing this expression as genuine, suggest that the high priest bore both mentioned names (John Chrysostom, Victor), or that main role Abiathar played in everything that happened, as the Jewish tradition said, whom Christ adheres to here, and in the Old Testament the name of the high priest who then ruled over the liturgical affairs and was responsible for all the actions of the priests is mentioned (Lagrange). One ev. Mark also cites (v. 27) Christ’s saying that “the Sabbath is for man, and not man for the Sabbath.” This means that the Sabbath, as an institution adapted to creation, together with everything created, is placed in a service relationship to man, appointed in order to benefit him. Man, therefore, has the free right to dispose of the Sabbath: it is not an end in itself, it is not a ruler who imposes his yoke on the person subordinate to him. Similar expressions are also found among the rabbis. Yes, words Exodus 31:14 about the Sabbath: “it must be holy” is interpreted by Rabbi Jonathan as meaning that the Sabbath must be subject to the Jews, but the Jews should not be subject to it. Rabbi Judah said: “ laws, according to Scripture, were given so that man might live through them (Lev 18:5), and not to die"(tract. Ioma). - Finally, the last saying about the Son of Man as “Lord of the Sabbath” (v. 28), which in Hev. Matthew is the basis for the above stated position about the innocence of the disciples of Christ who violated the Sabbath ( Art. 7), in Mark is given as a corollary: therefore (ὥστε) in relation to the right of Christ to allow His disciples to violate the Sabbath. Christ wants to say by this that He is like the Messiah and, therefore, like a perfect man, having no sin in Himself and, therefore, retaining all the rights over creation and the Sabbath that were granted by the Creator to the first-created man at his very creation (this is the meaning has here the expression Son of Man), is already the undoubted ruler of the Sabbath, and can permit or not observe it when it is necessary for the well-being of people. Other people themselves can achieve this right only when, in communication with Him, they again acquire the original human dignity they have lost.
It should be noted that the issue of fasting and the Sabbath was very important for the readers of Ev. Mark, Gentile Christians, who, living among Jewish Christians, heard their demands for special respect for the mentioned Jewish institutions. This solution to the issue took a huge burden off of them.
Biblical information about the personality of St. Brand. The proper name of the writer of the second gospel was John; Mark (Μα ̃ ρκος) was his nickname. The latter was probably accepted by him when Barnabas and Saul, returning from Jerusalem (Acts 12:25), took him with them to Antioch to make him their companion on missionary journeys. Why John adopted this particular nickname can be somewhat answered in the similarity of the initial three letters of this nickname with the three initial letters of the name of his mother, Mary.
For a long time John Mark was on friendly terms with the apostle. Peter. When this apostle was miraculously freed from prison, he came to the house of Mary, the mother of John, called Mark (Acts 12:12). Shortly before his death, the Apostle Peter calls Mark his son (1 Peter 5:13), showing by this that he converted Mark to faith in Christ. This conversion took place early, because Mark was a companion of the apostles Barnabas and Paul around Easter in the year 44. In the autumn of the same year he settled in Antioch and, perhaps, was engaged in preaching the Gospel. However, he did not stand out as anything special at that time - at least his name was not mentioned in the 1st verse of the 13th chapter. Acts, which contains a list of the most prominent prophets and teachers who were in Antioch at that time. Still, in the spring of 50, Barnabas and Paul took Mark with them on their first missionary journey as a servant (υ ̔ πηρέτης - Acts 13:5). From the letter to the Colossians (Col 4:10) we learn that Mark was Barnabas' cousin (α ̓ νεψ ιός). But if the fathers of Barnabas and Mark were brothers, then we can assume that Mark belonged to the tribe of Levi, to which, according to legend, Barnabas belonged. Barnabas introduced Mark to Paul. However, in Perga, and maybe earlier, when departing from Paphos to the island. Cyprus, Mark separated from Paul and Barnabas (Acts 13:13). Probably, further participation in their “work” seemed difficult to him (Acts 15:38), especially the journey through the mountains of Pamphylia, and his very position as a “servant” under the apostles might have seemed somewhat humiliating to him.
After this, Mark returned to Jerusalem (Acts 13:13). When Barnabas, after the Apostolic Council and, as it seems, after a short stay in Antioch (about the 52nd year, Acts 15:35), wanted to take Mark again on a second missionary journey, which he undertook again with the apostle. Paul, the latter opposed Barnabas’s intention, considering Mark incapable of making long and difficult journeys for the purpose of spreading the Gospel. The dispute that arose between the apostles ended (in Antioch) with Barnabas taking Mark with him and going with him to his homeland - Cyprus, and Paul, taking Silas as his companion, went with him on a missionary journey through Asia Minor. But where did Mark stay in the interval between his return to Jerusalem and his departure with Barnabas to Fr. Cyprus (Acts 15:36), unknown. The most likely assumption is that he was in Jerusalem at that time and was present at the Apostolic Council. From here Barnabas, who had previously separated from the apostle, could have taken him with him to Cyprus. Paul precisely because of Mark.
From now on, Mark disappears from view for a long time, precisely from the year 52 to the year 62. When Paul, about the year 62 or 63, wrote from Rome to Philemon, then, conveying to him greetings from various men, whom he calls his colleagues, he also names Mark (v. 24). From the same Mark he sends greetings in the letter to the Colossians written at the same time as the letter to Philemon (Col. 4:10). Here he calls Mark “cousin” of Barnabas (in the Russian text, “nephew.” This is an inaccurate rendering of the Greek word α ̓ νεψιός) and adds that the Colossian church received certain instructions regarding Mark, and asks the Colossians to accept Mark when he will come. It is important that Paul here calls Mark and Justus his only co-workers for the Kingdom of God, who were his delight (Col. 4:11). From this you can see that Mark was with the apostle. Paul during his Roman imprisonment and helped him in spreading the Gospel in Rome. It is unknown when his reconciliation with Paul took place.
Then we see Mark together with the Apostle Peter in Asia, on the banks of the Euphrates, where Babylon formerly stood and where the Christian church was founded under the apostles (1 Peter 5:13). We can conclude from this that Mark actually went from Rome to Colossae (cf. Col. 4:10) and here somewhere he met the apostle. Peter, who kept Mark with him for a while. Then he was with the ap. Timothy in Ephesus, as can be seen from the fact that St. Paul instructs Timothy to bring Mark with him to Rome, saying that he needs Mark for ministry (2 Tim. 4:11) - of course, for preaching service, and perhaps to familiarize himself with the mood of the 12 apostles, with whose representative, Peter, Mark was on the most friendly terms. Since 2 Timothy was written around the year 66 or 67, and Mark, according to Col. 4:10, was supposed to go to Asia around 63-64, then, therefore, he stayed away from the apostle. Paul for about three years, and, most likely, traveled with the apostle. Peter.
In addition to these, one might say, direct testimony about the life of Martha, in his gospel itself one can also find information about his personality. So it is very likely that he was the young man who followed the procession in which Christ was taken, taken in Gethsemane, and who fled from those who wanted to seize him, leaving in their hands the veil with which he had wrapped himself (Mark 14:51). Perhaps he was present at Christ’s last Easter supper (see commentary on Mark 14:19). There are also some indications that the evangelist himself was present at some of the other events in the life of Christ that he describes (for example, Mark 1:5 et seq.; Mark 3:8 and Mark 3:22; Mark 11:16).
What does St. say? tradition about Mark and his Gospel. The most ancient testimony about the writer of the second Gospel is from Bishop Papias of Hierapolis. This bishop, according to Eusebius of Caesarea (Church history III, 39), wrote: “the presbyter (i.e., John the Theologian - according to the generally accepted opinion) also said: “Mark, interpreter (ε ̔ ρμηνευτη ̀ ς) of Peter Mark, through the compilation of his work, became the “interpreter” of Peter, that is, he conveyed to many what the apostle said. Peter became, as it were, the mouth of Peter. It is a mistake to assume that Mark is characterized here as a “translator”, whose services allegedly were used by the apostle. Peter and which Peter needed in Rome to translate his speeches into Latin. First, Peter hardly needed a translator for his preaching. Secondly, the word ε ̔ ρμηνευτη ̀ ς in classical Greek often meant a messenger, transmitter of the will of the gods (Plato. Republic). Finally, at Blessed. Jerome (letter 120 to Gedibia) Titus is called the interpreter of Paul, just as Mark is the interpreter of Peter. Both of these only indicate that these co-workers of the apostles proclaimed their will and desires. Perhaps, however, Titus, as a natural Greek, was an employee of the apostle. Paul in writing his epistles; as an experienced stylist, he could give the apostle explanations of some Greek terms., accurately wrote down, as much as he remembered, what the Lord taught and did, although not in order, for he himself did not listen to the Lord and did not accompany Him. Subsequently, it is true, he was, as I said, with Peter, but Peter expounded the teaching in order to satisfy the needs of the listeners, and not in order to convey the Lord's conversations in order. Therefore, Mark made no mistake in describing some events as he recalled them. He only cared about how not to miss something from what he heard, or not to change it."
From this testimony of Papias it is clear: 1) that the ap. John knew the Gospel of Mark and discussed it among his disciples - of course, in Ephesus; 2) that he testified that St. Mark reported those memories that he retained in his memory about the speeches of the apostle. Peter, who spoke about the words and deeds of the Lord, and thus became a messenger and mediator in the transmission of these stories; 3) that Mark did not adhere to chronological order. This remark gives reason to assume that at that time a condemnation was heard against ev. Mark on the grounds that it has some shortcomings in comparison with the other Gospels, which were careful about the “order” (Luke 1:3) in the presentation of the Gospel events; 4) Papias, for his part, reports that Mark was not personally a disciple of Christ, but, probably later, a disciple of Peter. However, this does not deny the possibility that Mark is communicating something from what he himself experienced. At the beginning of the Muratorian fragment there is a remark about Mark: “he himself was present at some events and reported them”; 5) that Peter adapted his teachings to the modern needs of his listeners and did not care about a coherent, strictly chronological presentation of the Gospel events. Therefore, Mark cannot be blamed for deviations from a strictly chronological sequence of events; 6) that Mark’s dependence on Peter in his writing extends only to certain circumstances (ε ̓́ νια). But Papias praises Mark for his thoroughness and accuracy in the narration: he did not hide anything and did not embellish events and persons at all.
Justin Martyr in his Conversation with Tryphon (chapter 106) mentions the existence of “sights” or “memories of Peter”, and cites a passage from Mark 3:16 et seq. It is clear that by these “attractions” he means the Gospel of Mark. St. Irenaeus (Against Heresies III, I, 1), also knows definitely that Mark wrote the Gospel after the death of Peter and Paul, who, according to the chronology of Irenaeus, preached in Rome from 61 to 66 - he wrote exactly as Peter proclaimed the Gospel. Clement of Alexandria (hypot. to 1 Peter 5:13) reports that Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome, at the request of some noble Roman Christians. In his Gospel, he outlined the oral sermon he heard from the apostle. Peter, who himself knew about the desire of Roman Christians to have a monument to his conversations with them. To this testimony of St. Clement Eusebius of Caesarea adds that the ap. Peter, on the basis of the revelation that was given to him, expressed his approval of the Gospel written by Mark (Church history VI, 14, 5 et seq.).
ABOUT future fate Mark Eusebius reports the tradition that Mark appeared as the first preacher of the Gospel in Egypt and founded the Christian church in Alexandria. Thanks to Mark's preaching and his strictly ascetic lifestyle, Jewish therapists turned to faith in Christ (Mark 2:15). Although Eusebius does not call Mark the bishop of Alexandria, he begins the number of Alexandrian bishops with Mark (Mark 2:24). Having installed Anyan as bishop in Alexandria and made several persons presbyters and deacons, Mark, according to the legend of Simeon Metaphrast, withdrew to Pentapolis from persecution of the pagans. Two years later he returned to Alexandria and found the number of Christians here had increased significantly. He himself then begins to preach again and work miracles. On this occasion, the pagans accuse him of sorcery. During the celebration of the Egyptian god Serapis, Mark was captured by the pagans, tied with a rope around his neck and dragged out of the city. In the evening he was thrown into prison, and the next day a crowd of pagans killed him. This happened on April 25th (year unknown Prof.'s assumptions Bolotov “about the day and year of the death of St. Mark" (63 - April 4) (Christian Reading 1893 July and subsequent books) do not agree with what is obtained from familiarization with the biblical data about the death of Mark.). His body rested for a long time in Alexandria, but in 827 Venetian merchants took him with them and brought him to Venice, where Mark, with his lion symbol, became the patron saint of the city, in which a magnificent cathedral with a wonderful bell tower was built in his honor. (According to another legend, Mark died in Rome.)
At St. Hippolyta (refut. VII, 30) Mark is called fingerless (ο ̔ κολοβοδάκτυλος). This name can be explained by the evidence of an ancient preface to the Gospel of Mark. According to the story of this introduction (prologue), Mark, as a descendant of Levi, had the title of a Jewish priest, but after his conversion to Christ he cut off his thumb to show that he was not suitable for correcting priestly duties. This, as the author of the introduction notes, did not, however, prevent Mark from becoming the bishop of Alexandria, and thus Mark’s mysterious destiny to serve God in the priesthood was still fulfilled... One can, however, assume that Mark’s loss thumb occurred sometime during the torture to which he was subjected by his pagan persecutors.
The purpose of writing the Gospel of Mark. The purpose of writing the Gospel of Mark is revealed already from the first words of this book: “The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God” is an inscription that clearly indicates the content and purpose of the Gospel of Mark. Like ev. Matthew, with the words: “the book of Genesis (βίβλος γενέσεως according to Russian translation, inaccurately: “genealogy”) of Jesus Christ, the Son of David,” etc., wants to say that he intends to give the “history of Christ” as a descendant of David and Abraham, Who in His activities he fulfilled the ancient promises given to the people of Israel, and so did He. With the first five words of his book, Mark wants to let his readers know what they should expect from him.
In what sense? Mark here used the word “beginning” (α ̓ ρχη ̀) and in which - the word “Gospel” (ευ ̓ αγγελίον)? The last expression in Mark occurs seven times and everywhere means the good news brought by Christ about the salvation of people, the announcement of the coming of the Kingdom of God. But in conjunction with the expression “beginning,” the word “Gospel” of Mark no longer occurs. Ap comes to our aid here. Paul. In the last to the Philippians he uses this very expression in the sense of the initial stage of the gospel preaching, which he proposed in Macedonia. “You know, Philippians,” says the apostle, “that at the beginning of the gospel, when I left Macedonia, not a single church helped me with alms and acceptance, except you alone. "(Philippians 4:15). This expression: “the beginning of the Gospel” can only have the meaning here that the Philippians then knew only the most necessary things about Christ - His words and deeds, which formed the usual subject of the initial preaching of the evangelists about Christ. Meanwhile, now, eleven years after the apostle’s stay in Macedonia, which he speaks of in the above passage, the Philippians undoubtedly stand much higher in their understanding of Christianity. So the Gospel of Mark is an attempt to give an elementary description of the life of Christ, which was caused by the special condition of those persons for whom the Gospel was written. This is confirmed by the testimony of Papias, according to which Mark recorded the missionary conversations of St. Petra. And what these conversations were - the apostle gives us a fairly definite concept about this. Paul in the letter to the Hebrews. Addressing his readers, Jewish Christians, he reproaches them for lingering for a long time at the initial stage of Christian development and even taking a certain step back. “According to the times, you were destined to be teachers, but you again need to be taught the first principles of the word of God, and you need milk, not solid food” (Heb. 5:12). Thus the apostle distinguishes the beginnings of the word of God (Τα ̀ στοιχει ̃ α τη ̃ ς α ̓ ρχη ̃ ς τ . Χρ . λογ .) as “milk” from the solid food of the perfect. The Gospel of Mark or the sermon of St. Peter and represented this initial stage of the Gospel teaching of the facts from the life of Christ, offered to Roman Christians who had just entered the Church of Christ.
Thus, “the beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ” is a short designation of the entire contents of the proposed narrative, as the simplest presentation of the Gospel story. This understanding of the purpose of writing the Gospel of Mark is consistent with the brevity and conciseness of this book, which makes it look like, one might say, a “condensation” of the Gospel story, most suitable for people still at the first stage of Christian development. This is evident from the fact that in this Gospel, in general, more attention is paid to those facts from the life of Christ in which the divine power of Christ, His miraculous power was revealed, and, moreover, the miracles performed by Christ on children and youths are reported in quite detail, while the teaching Relatively little is said about Christ. It’s as if the evangelist meant to give Christian parents guidance for presenting the events of the gospel story when teaching children the truths of the Christian faith... It can be said that the Gospel of Mark, mainly drawing attention to the miracles of Christ, is perfectly adapted to the understanding of those who can be called “children in faith,” and, perhaps, even for Christian children in the proper sense of the word... Even the fact that the evangelist likes to dwell on the details of events and, moreover, explains everything in almost detail - and this may indicate that that he meant to offer precisely the initial, elementary presentation of the gospel story for people who needed this kind of instruction.
Comparison of the Gospel of Mark with the testimony of church tradition about him. Papias reports that the “presbyter,” i.e., John the Theologian, found that in the Gospel of Mark the strict chronological order in the presentation of events was not observed. This is indeed seen in this Gospel. So, for example, reading the first chapter of Mark Mark 1:12.14.16, the reader remains perplexed as to when the “tradition” of John the Baptist occurred and when Christ’s appearance in public ministry followed, in what chronological relation to this appearance the temptation of Christ stands in the desert and within what framework the story of the calling of the first two pairs of disciples should be placed. — The reader also cannot determine when the Lord calls the 12 apostles (Mark 3:13 et seq.), where, when and in what sequence Christ spoke and explained His parables (chapter 4).
Then tradition names John Mark as the writer of the Gospel and presents him as a disciple of the apostle. Peter, who wrote his Gospel from his words. In the Gospel of Mark we find nothing that could contradict the first message of the tradition, and very much that confirms the latter. The writer of the Gospel is obviously a Palestinian native: he knows the language as the Palestinian inhabitants spoke at that time, and it apparently gives him pleasure to sometimes quote a phrase in his own language, accompanied by a translation (Mark 5:1; Mark 7:34; Mark 15:34, etc.). Only the most famous Hebrew words remained without translation (Rabbi, Abba, Amen, Gehenna, Satan, Hosanna). The entire style of the Gospel is Jewish, although the entire Gospel is undoubtedly written in Greek (the legend about the original Latin text is a fiction that does not have any sufficient basis).
Perhaps from the fact that the writer of the Gospel himself bore the name John, it can be explained why, when speaking about John the Theologian, he calls him not just “John”, but adds to this in Mark 3:17 and Mark 5:37 the following definition: "Brother of Jacob" It is also remarkable that Mark reports some characteristic details that define the personality of the Apostle Peter (Mark 14:29-31.54.66.72), and on the other hand, omits such details from the history of the apostle. Peter, who could have too exalted the importance of the personality of the ap. Petra. Thus, he does not convey the words that Christ said to the apostle. Peter after his great confession (Matthew 16:16-19), and in the listing of the apostles he does not call Peter “first,” as St. Matthew (Mt 10:2, cf. Mk 3:16). Isn’t it clear from here that the Evangelist Mark wrote his Gospel according to the memoirs of the humble ap. Petra? (cf. 1 Peter 5:5).
Finally, tradition points to Rome as the place where the Gospel of Mark was written. And the Gospel itself shows that its writer dealt with pagan Latin Christians. Mark, for example, uses Latin expressions much more often than other evangelists (for example, centurion, speculator, legion, census, etc., of course, in their Greek pronunciation). And most importantly, Mark sometimes explains Greek expressions using Latin and specifically Roman terms. Rome is also indicated by the designation of Simon of Cyrene as the father of Alexander and Rufus (cf. Rom 15:13).
Upon closer examination of Mark's Gospel, it turns out that he wrote his work for pagan Christians. This is evident from the fact that he explains in detail the Pharisees’ customs (Mark 7:3 et seq.). He does not have the speeches and details that the Evs have. Matthew and which could have meaning only for Christian readers from the Jews, and for Christians from the pagans, without special explanations, would even remain incomprehensible (see, for example, Mark 1:1 et seq., the genealogy of Christ, Matthew 17:24; Matthew 23 ; Matthew 24:20 ; nor on the Sabbath, Matthew 5:17-43).
The relationship of the Gospel of Mark to the other two synoptic Gospels. Blazh. Augustine believed that Mark in his Gospel was a follower of Ev. Matthew and shortened only his Gospel (According to Ev. I, 2, 3); There is undoubtedly a correct idea in this opinion, because the writer of the Gospel of Mark obviously used some more ancient Gospel and actually shortened it. Critics of the text almost agree on the assumption that the Gospel of Matthew served as such a guide for Mark, but not in its current form, but in its original form, namely the one that was written in Hebrew. Since the Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew was written in the first years of the 7th decade in Palestine, Mark, who was at that time in Asia Minor, could get his hands on the Gospel written by Matthew and then take it with him to Rome.
There were attempts to divide the Gospel into separate parts, which, in their origin, were attributed to different decades of the first century and even to the beginning of the second (First Mark, Second Mark, Third Mark, etc.). But all these hypotheses about the later origin of our current Gospel of Mark from some later alterator are shattered by the testimony of Papias, according to which already around the year 80, John the Theologian apparently had in his hands our Gospel of Mark and talked about it with his students.
Division of the Gospel of Mark according to content. After the introduction to the Gospel (Mark 1:1-13), the evangelist in the first section (Mark 1:14-3:6) depicts in a number of individual artistic paintings how Christ came out to preach, first in Capernaum, and then throughout Galilee, teaching, gathering the first disciples around Himself and performing astonishing miracles (Mark 1:14-39), and then how the defenders of the old order began to rebel against Christ. Christ, although in fact he observes the law, nevertheless takes seriously the attacks on Him by the followers of the law and refutes their attacks. Here He expresses a very important new teaching about Himself: He is the Son of God (Mark 1:40-3:6). The next three sections - the second (Mark 3:7-6:6), the third (Mark 6:6-8:26) and the fourth (Mark 8:27-10:45) depict the activity of Christ in the north of the holy land, mostly especially in the first period, in Galilee, but also, especially in the later period, beyond the borders of Galilee, and finally His journey to Jerusalem through Perea and Jordan as far as Jericho (Mark 10:1ff.). At the beginning of each section there is always a narrative relating to the 12 apostles (cf. Mark 3:14; Mark 5:30): narratives about their calling, their sending to preach and their confession on the issue of the Messianic dignity of Christ, the evangelist obviously wants show how Christ considered it His indispensable task to prepare His disciples for their future calling as preachers of the Gospel even among the pagans, although, of course, this point of view cannot be considered exclusive here. It goes without saying that the face of the Lord Jesus Christ, as a preacher and wonderworker, the promised Messiah and Son of God, is in the foreground here. — The fifth section (Mark 10:46-13:37) depicts the activity of Christ in Jerusalem as a prophet, or rather as the Son of David, who must fulfill the Old Testament predictions about the future kingdom of David. At the same time, the increase in hostility towards Christ on the part of representatives of Judaism to its highest point is described. Finally, the sixth section (Mark 14:1-15:47) tells about the suffering, death and resurrection of Christ, as well as His ascension into heaven.
A look at the gradual unfolding of the thoughts contained in the Gospel of Mark. After a short caption that gives readers an idea of what the book is (Mark 1:1), the evangelist in the introduction (Mark 1:2-13) depicts the speech and activities of John the Baptist, the forerunner of the Messiah, and, above all, his baptism of the Messiah Himself. Then the evangelist makes a brief remark about Christ’s sojourn in the desert and about His temptation there from the devil, pointing out that at that time angels served Christ: with this he wants to signify the victory of Christ over the devil and the beginning of a new life for humanity, which will no longer be afraid of everything the forces of hell (figuratively represented by the “beasts of the desert”, which no longer harmed Christ, this new Adam). Further, the evangelist consistently depicts how Christ subjugated humanity to Himself and restored people’s communion with God. — In the first section (Mark 1:14-3:6), in the first part (Mark 1:14-39 of the 1st chapter), the evangelist first gives a general image of the teaching activity of the Lord Jesus Christ (Mark 1:14-15) , and at the end (v. 39) - His works. Between these two characteristics, the evangelist describes five events: a) the calling of the disciples, b) the events in the synagogue of Capernaum, c) the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law, d) the healing of the sick in the evening in front of Peter’s house and e) the search for Christ, who retired in the morning to pray, by the people and, most importantly, image, Peter and his companions. All these five events took place during the time period from the pre-dinner hour of Friday to Sunday morning (in Hebrew, the first day after Saturday). All events are grouped around Simon and his companions. It is clear that the evangelist received information about all these events from Simon. From here the reader receives a sufficient understanding of how Christ, who revealed His activity after taking John the Baptist into prison, carried out His ministry as a Teacher and Wonderworker.
In the second part of the first section (Mark 1:40-3:6), the evangelist depicts the gradually growing hostility towards Christ on the part of the Pharisees and mainly those Pharisees who belonged to the scribes. This enmity is explained by the fact that the Pharisees see in the activities of Christ a violation of the law given by God through Moses, and therefore a number of, one might say, criminal offenses. Nevertheless, Christ treats all Jews with love and compassion, helping them in their spiritual needs and physical illnesses and revealing Himself at the same time as a being superior to ordinary mortals, standing in a special relationship with God. It is especially important that here Christ testifies of Himself as the Son of man, who forgives sins (Mark 2:10), who has authority over the Sabbath (Mark 2:28), who even has the rights of the priesthood, as similar rights were once recognized for His ancestor David (eating the sacred bread). Only these testimonies of Christ about Himself are not expressed directly and directly, but are included in His speeches and deeds. Here we have before us seven stories: a) The story of the healing of the leper is intended to show that Christ, in fulfilling the works of His high calling, did not violate the direct decrees of the Mosaic Law (Mark 1:44). If he was reproached in this regard, then these reproaches were based on a one-sided, literal understanding of the Mosaic Law, of which the Pharisees and rabbis were guilty. b) The story of the healing of the paralytic shows us in Christ not only a doctor of the body, but also a sick soul. He has the power to forgive sins. The Lord reveals to everyone the attempt of the scribes to accuse Him of Blasphemy in all its insignificance and groundlessness. c) The history of the calling of the publican Levi as a disciple of Christ shows that the publican is not so bad as to become a helper of Christ. d) Christ’s participation at the feast organized by Levi shows that the Lord does not disdain sinners and tax collectors, which, of course, stirs up even more Pharisee scribes against Him. e) The relationship between Christ and the Pharisees became even more strained when Christ acted as a principled opponent of the old Jewish fasts. f) and g) Here again Christ appears as the enemy of the Pharisaic one-sidedness in relation to the observance of the Sabbath. He is the King of the Heavenly Kingdom, and His servants may not fulfill the ritual law where it is necessary, especially since the Sabbath law was given for the good of man. But such a speech by Christ brings the irritation of His enemies to the extreme, and they begin to plot against Him.
b) the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ, preached by Himself and His Apostles about Him as the King of this Kingdom, the Messiah and the Son of God ( 2 Cor. 4:4),
c) all New Testament or Christian teaching in general, primarily the narration of the most important events from the life of Christ ( 1 Cor. 15:1-4), and then an explanation of the meaning of these events ( Rome. 1:16).
e) Finally, the word “Gospel” is sometimes used to designate the very process of preaching Christian teaching ( Rome. 1:1).
Sometimes the word “Gospel” is accompanied by a designation and its content. There are, for example, phrases: Gospel of the kingdom ( Matt. 4:23), i.e. good news of the kingdom of God, the gospel of peace ( Eph. 6:15), i.e. about peace, the gospel of salvation ( Eph. 1:13), i.e. about salvation, etc. Sometimes following the word "Gospel" Genitive means the author or source of the good news ( Rome. 1:1, 15:16 ; 2 Cor. 11:7; 1 Thess. 2:8) or the personality of the preacher ( Rome. 2:16).
For quite a long time, stories about the life of the Lord Jesus Christ were transmitted only orally. The Lord Himself did not leave any records of His speeches and deeds. In the same way, the 12 apostles were not born writers: they were “unlearned and simple people” ( Acts 4:13), although literate. Among the Christians of the apostolic time there were also very few “wise according to the flesh, strong” and “noble” ( 1 Cor. 1:26), and for most believers, oral stories about Christ were much more important than written ones. In this way, the apostles and preachers or evangelists “transmitted” (παραδιδόναι) the stories about the deeds and speeches of Christ, and the believers “received” (παραλαμβάνειν) - but, of course, not mechanically, only by memory, as can be said about the students of rabbinical schools, but with all my soul, as if something living and life-giving. But this period of oral tradition was soon to end. On the one hand, Christians should have felt the need for a written presentation of the Gospel in their disputes with the Jews, who, as we know, denied the reality of Christ’s miracles and even argued that Christ did not declare Himself the Messiah. It was necessary to show the Jews that Christians have authentic stories about Christ from those persons who were either among His apostles or who were in close communication with eyewitnesses of the deeds of Christ. On the other hand, the need for a written presentation of the history of Christ began to be felt because the generation of the first disciples was gradually dying out and the ranks of direct witnesses to the miracles of Christ were thinning. Therefore, it was necessary to secure in writing individual sayings of the Lord and His entire speeches, as well as the stories of the apostles about Him. It was then that separate records began to appear here and there of what was reported in the oral tradition about Christ. The words of Christ, which contained the rules of Christian life, were most carefully recorded, and they were much more free to convey various events from the life of Christ, preserving only their general impression. Thus, one thing in these records, due to its originality, was transmitted everywhere in the same way, while the other was modified. These initial recordings did not think about the completeness of the story. Even our Gospels, as can be seen from the conclusion of the Gospel of John ( In. 21:25), did not intend to report all the speeches and deeds of Christ. This is evident, by the way, from the fact that they do not contain, for example, the following saying of Christ: “It is more blessed to give than to receive” ( Acts 20:35). The Evangelist Luke reports about such records, saying that many before him had already begun to compile narratives about the life of Christ, but that they lacked proper completeness and that therefore they did not provide sufficient “affirmation” in the faith ( OK. 1:1-4).
Our canonical Gospels apparently arose from the same motives. The period of their appearance can be determined to be approximately thirty years - from 60 to 90 (the last was the Gospel of John). The first three Gospels are usually called synoptic in biblical scholarship, because they depict the life of Christ in such a way that their three narratives can be viewed in one without much difficulty and combined into one coherent narrative (synoptics - from Greek - looking together). They began to be called Gospels individually, perhaps as early as the end of the 1st century, but from church writing we have information that such a name began to be given to the entire composition of the Gospels only in the second half of the 2nd century. As for the names: “Gospel of Matthew”, “Gospel of Mark”, etc., then more correctly these very ancient names from Greek should be translated as follows: “Gospel according to Matthew”, “Gospel according to Mark” (κατὰ Ματθαῖον, κατὰ Μᾶρκον). By this the Church wanted to say that in all the Gospels there is a single Christian gospel about Christ the Savior, but according to the images of different writers: one image belongs to Matthew, another to Mark, etc.
Four Gospels
Thus, the ancient Church looked upon the portrayal of the life of Christ in our four Gospels, not as different Gospels or narratives, but as one Gospel, one book in four types. That is why in the Church the name Four Gospels was established for our Gospels. Saint Irenaeus called them the “fourfold Gospel” (τετράμορφον τὸ εὐαγγέλιον - see Irenaeus Lugdunensis, Adversus haereses liber 3, ed. A. Rousseau and L. Doutreleaü Irenée Lyon. Contre les héré sies, livre 3, vol. 2. Paris, 1974, 11, 11).
The Fathers of the Church dwell on the question: why exactly did the Church accept not one Gospel, but four? So St. John Chrysostom says: “Couldn’t one evangelist write everything that was needed. Of course, he could, but when four people wrote, they wrote not at the same time, not in the same place, without communicating or conspiring with each other, and for all that they wrote in such a way that everything seemed to be uttered by one mouth, then this is the strongest proof of the truth. You will say: “What happened, however, was the opposite, for the four Gospels are often found to be in disagreement.” This very thing is a sure sign of truth. For if the Gospels had exactly agreed with each other in everything, even regarding the words themselves, then none of the enemies would have believed that the Gospels were not written according to ordinary mutual agreement. Now the slight disagreement between them frees them from all suspicion. For what they say differently regarding time or place does not in the least harm the truth of their narrative. In the main thing, which forms the basis of our life and the essence of preaching, not one of them disagrees with the other in anything or anywhere - that God became a man, worked miracles, was crucified, resurrected, and ascended into heaven.” (“Conversations on the Gospel of Matthew”, 1).
Saint Irenaeus also finds a special symbolic meaning in the fourfold number of our Gospels. “Since there are four countries of the world in which we live, and since the Church is scattered throughout the entire earth and has its confirmation in the Gospel, it was necessary for it to have four pillars, spreading incorruptibility from everywhere and reviving the human race. The All-Ordering Word, seated on the Cherubim, gave us the Gospel in four forms, but permeated with one spirit. For David, praying for His appearance, says: “He who sits on the Cherubim, show Yourself” ( Ps. 79:2). But the Cherubim (in the vision of the prophet Ezekiel and the Apocalypse) have four faces, and their faces are images of the activity of the Son of God.” Saint Irenaeus finds it possible to attach the symbol of a lion to the Gospel of John, since this Gospel depicts Christ as the eternal King, and the lion is the king in the animal world; to the Gospel of Luke - the symbol of a calf, since Luke begins his Gospel with the image of the priestly service of Zechariah, who slaughtered the calves; to the Gospel of Matthew - a symbol of a person, since this Gospel mainly depicts the human birth of Christ, and, finally, to the Gospel of Mark - a symbol of an eagle, because Mark begins his Gospel with a mention of the prophets, to whom the Holy Spirit flew, like an eagle on wings "(Irenaeus Lugdunensis, Adversus haereses, liber 3, 11, 11-22). Among the other Fathers of the Church, the symbols of the lion and the calf were moved and the first was given to Mark, and the second to John. Since the 5th century. in this form, the symbols of the evangelists began to be added to the images of the four evangelists in church painting.
Mutual relationship of the Gospels
Each of the four Gospels has its own characteristics, and most of all - the Gospel of John. But the first three, as mentioned above, have extremely much in common with each other, and this similarity involuntarily catches the eye even when reading them briefly. Let us first of all talk about the similarity of the Synoptic Gospels and the reasons for this phenomenon.
Even Eusebius of Caesarea, in his “canons,” divided the Gospel of Matthew into 355 parts and noted that 111 of them were found in all three weather forecasters. IN modern times exegetes developed an even more precise numerical formula for determining the similarity of the Gospels and calculated that the total number of verses common to all weather forecasters goes back to 350. In Matthew, then, 350 verses are unique to him, in Mark there are 68 such verses, in Luke - 541. The similarities are mainly noticed in the rendering of the sayings of Christ, and the differences are in the narrative part. When Matthew and Luke literally agree with each other in their Gospels, Mark always agrees with them. The similarity between Luke and Mark is much closer than between Luke and Matthew (Lopukhin - in the Orthodox Theological Encyclopedia. T. V. P. 173). It is also remarkable that some passages in all three evangelists follow the same sequence, for example, the temptation and the speech in Galilee, the calling of Matthew and the conversation about fasting, the plucking of ears of corn and the healing of the withered man, the calming of the storm and the healing of the Gadarene demoniac, etc. The similarity sometimes even extends to the construction of sentences and expressions (for example, in the presentation of a prophecy Small 3:1).
As for the differences observed among weather forecasters, there are quite a lot of them. Some things are reported by only two evangelists, others even by one. Thus, only Matthew and Luke cite the conversation on the mount of the Lord Jesus Christ and report the story of the birth and first years of Christ’s life. Luke alone speaks of the birth of John the Baptist. Some things one evangelist conveys in a more abbreviated form than another, or in a different connection than another. The details of the events in each Gospel are different, as are the expressions.
This phenomenon of similarities and differences in the Synoptic Gospels has long attracted the attention of interpreters of Scripture, and various assumptions have long been made to explain this fact. It seems more correct to believe that our three evangelists used a common oral source for their narrative of the life of Christ. At that time, evangelists or preachers about Christ went everywhere preaching and repeated in different places in a more or less extensive form what was considered necessary to offer to those entering the Church. Thus, a well-known specific type was formed oral gospel, and this is the type we have in written form in our Synoptic Gospels. Of course, at the same time, depending on the goal that this or that evangelist had, his Gospel took on some special features, characteristic only of his work. At the same time, we cannot exclude the assumption that an older Gospel could have been known to the evangelist who wrote later. At the same time, the difference between weather forecasters should be explained for various purposes, which each of them had in mind when writing his Gospel.
As we have already said, the Synoptic Gospels differ in very many ways from the Gospel of John the Theologian. So they depict almost exclusively the activity of Christ in Galilee, and the Apostle John depicts mainly the sojourn of Christ in Judea. In terms of content, the Synoptic Gospels also differ significantly from the Gospel of John. They give, so to speak, a more external image of the life, deeds and teachings of Christ and from the speeches of Christ they cite only those that were accessible to the understanding of the entire people. John, on the contrary, omits a lot from the activities of Christ, for example, he cites only six miracles of Christ, but those speeches and miracles that he cites have a special deep meaning and extreme importance about the person of the Lord Jesus Christ. Finally, while the Synoptics portray Christ primarily as the founder of the Kingdom of God and therefore direct the attention of their readers to the Kingdom founded by Him, John draws our attention to the central point of this Kingdom, from which life flows along the peripheries of the Kingdom, i.e. on the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, whom John portrays as the Only Begotten Son of God and as the Light for all mankind. That is why the ancient interpreters called the Gospel of John primarily spiritual (πνευματικόν), in contrast to the synoptic ones, as depicting primarily the human side in the person of Christ (εὐαγγέλιον σωματικόν), i.e. The gospel is physical.
However, it must be said that the weather forecasters also have passages that indicate that the weather forecasters knew the activity of Christ in Judea ( Matt. 23:37, 27:57 ; OK. 10:38-42), and John also has indications of the continued activity of Christ in Galilee. In the same way, weather forecasters convey such sayings of Christ that testify to His Divine dignity ( 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 weather forecasters and John in their depiction of the face and work of Christ.
The Reliability of the Gospels
Although criticism has long been expressed against the reliability of the Gospels, and recently these attacks of criticism have especially intensified (the theory of myths, especially the theory of Drews, who does not recognize the existence of Christ at all), however, all the objections of criticism are so insignificant that they are broken at the slightest collision with Christian apologetics . Here, however, we will not cite the objections of negative criticism and analyze these objections: this will be done when interpreting the text of the Gospels itself. We will only talk about the most important general reasons for which we recognize the Gospels as completely reliable documents. This is, firstly, the existence of a tradition of eyewitnesses, many of whom lived to the era when our Gospels appeared. Why on earth would we refuse to trust these sources of our Gospels? Could they have made up everything in our Gospels? No, all the Gospels are purely historical. Secondly, it is not clear why the Christian consciousness would want - as the mythical theory claims - to crown the head of a simple Rabbi Jesus with the crown of the Messiah and Son of God? Why, for example, is it not said about the Baptist that he performed miracles? Obviously because he didn't create them. And from here it follows that if Christ is said to be the Great Wonderworker, then it means that He really was like that. And why would it be possible to deny the authenticity of Christ’s miracles, since the highest miracle - His Resurrection - is witnessed like no other event in ancient history (see. 1 Cor. 15)?
Bibliography foreign works according to the four gospels
Bengel - Bengel J. Al. Gnomon Novi Testamentï in quo ex nativa verborum VI simplicitas, profunditas, concinnitas, salubritas sensuum coelestium indicatur. Berolini, 1860.
Blass, Gram. - Blass F. Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch. Gottingen, 1911.
Westcott - The New Testament in Original Greek the text rev. by Brooke Foss Westcott. New York, 1882.
B. Weiss - Weiss B. Die Evangelien des Markus und Lukas. Gottingen, 1901.
Yog. Weiss (1907) - Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments, von Otto Baumgarten; Wilhelm Bousset. Hrsg. von Johannes Weis_s, Bd. 1: Die drei älteren Evangelien. Die Apostelgeschichte, Matthaeus Apostolus; Marcus Evangelista; Lucas Evangelista. . 2. Aufl. Gottingen, 1907.
Godet - Godet F. Commentar zu dem Evangelium des Johannes. Hanover, 1903.
De Wette W.M.L. Kurze Erklärung des Evangeliums Matthäi / Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Neuen Testament, Band 1, Teil 1. Leipzig, 1857.
Keil (1879) - Keil C.F. Commentar über die Evangelien des Markus und Lukas. Leipzig, 1879.
Keil (1881) - Keil C.F. Commentar über das Evangelium des Johannes. Leipzig, 1881.
Klostermann - Klostermann A. Das Markusevangelium nach seinem Quellenwerthe für die evangelische Geschichte. Gottingen, 1867.
Cornelius a Lapide - Cornelius a Lapide. In SS Matthaeum et Marcum / Commentaria in scripturam sacram, t. 15. Parisiis, 1857.
Lagrange - Lagrange M.-J. Etudes bibliques: Evangile selon St. Marc. Paris, 1911.
Lange - Lange J.P. Das Evangelium nach Matthäus. Bielefeld, 1861.
Loisy (1903) - Loisy A.F. Le quatrième èvangile. Paris, 1903.
Loisy (1907-1908) - Loisy A.F. Les èvangiles synoptiques, 1-2. : Ceffonds, près Montier-en-Der, 1907-1908.
Luthardt - Luthardt Ch.E. Das johanneische Evangelium nach seiner Eigenthümlichkeit geschildert und erklärt. Nürnberg, 1876.
Meyer (1864) - Meyer H.A.W. Kritisch exegetisches Commentar über das Neue Testament, Abteilung 1, Hälfte 1: Handbuch über das Evangelium des Matthäus. Gottingen, 1864.
Meyer (1885) - Kritisch-exegetischer Commentar über das Neue Testament hrsg. von Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer, Abteilung 1, Hälfte 2: Bernhard Weiss B. Kritisch exegetisches Handbuch über die Evangelien des Markus und Lukas. Göttingen, 1885. Meyer (1902) - Meyer H.A.W. Das Johannes-Evangelium 9. Auflage, bearbeitet von B. Weiss. Gottingen, 1902.
Merx (1902) - Merx A. Erläuterung: Matthaeus / Die vier kanonischen Evangelien nach ihrem ältesten bekannten Texte, Teil 2, Hälfte 1. Berlin, 1902.
Merx (1905) - Merx A. Erläuterung: Markus und Lukas / Die vier kanonischen Evangelien nach ihrem ältesten bekannten Texte. Teil 2, Hälfte 2. Berlin, 1905.
Morison - Morison J. A practical commentary on the Gospel according to St. Matthew. London, 1902.
Stanton - Stanton V.H. The Synoptic Gospels / The Gospels as historical documents, Part 2. Cambridge, 1903. Tholuck (1856) - Tholuck A. Die Bergpredigt. Gotha, 1856.
Tholuck (1857) - Tholuck A. Commentar zum Evangelium Johannis. Gotha, 1857.
Heitmüller - see Yog. Weiss (1907).
Holtzmann (1901) - Holtzmann H.J. Die Synoptiker. Tubingen, 1901.
Holtzmann (1908) - Holtzmann H.J. Evangelium, Briefe und Offenbarung des Johannes / Hand-Commentar zum Neuen Testament bearbeitet von H. J. Holtzmann, R. A. Lipsius etc. Bd. 4. Freiburg im Breisgau, 1908.
Zahn (1905) - Zahn Th. Das Evangelium des Matthäus / Commentar zum Neuen Testament, Teil 1. Leipzig, 1905.
Zahn (1908) - Zahn Th. Das Evangelium des Johannes ausgelegt / Commentar zum Neuen Testament, Teil 4. Leipzig, 1908.
Schanz (1881) - Schanz P. Commentar über das Evangelium des heiligen Marcus. Freiburg im Breisgau, 1881.
Schanz (1885) - Schanz P. Commentar über das Evangelium des heiligen Johannes. Tubingen, 1885.
Schlatter - Schlatter A. Das Evangelium des Johannes: ausgelegt für Bibelleser. Stuttgart, 1903.
Schürer, Geschichte - Schürer E., Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi. Bd. 1-4. Leipzig, 1901-1911.
Edersheim (1901) - Edersheim A. The life and times of Jesus the Messiah. 2 Vols. London, 1901.
Ellen - Allen W.C. A critical and exegetical commentary of the Gospel according to st. Matthew. Edinburgh, 1907.
Alford N. The Greek Testament in four volumes, vol. 1. London, 1863.
I. HEALING AND FORGIVENESS OF THE PAUSED (2:1-12) (MAT. 9:1-8; LUK. 3:17-26)
Mar. 2:1-2. A few days later He came again to Capernaum (compare 1:21), and it was heard that He was in the house (probably in the house of Peter). In accordance with Jewish customs, many people came to the house without any invitation, and many crowded around the door of the house. He spoke the word to them (compare 1:14-15; 4:14,33).
Mar. 2:3-4. And then four people brought a paralyzed man (that is, a paralyzed man), hoping to get through to Jesus with him. But because of the crowds, they could not approach Him. As usual in the houses of Palestine, here, too, there was probably an external staircase that led to the flat roof of the house. And the “four” went up to the roof with their sick man, who was lying on the “bed”. Then they uncovered the roof, which was usually made of grass mixed with clay, and clay tiles (i.e., they dismantled the roof) and, having dug through it, lowered the bed on which the paralytic lay (perhaps using fishing gear that came to hand) .
Mar. 2:5. Christ perceived the decisive efforts of these people as clear proof of their faith that He could heal the paralytic. He did not reproach them for interrupting His conversation with the people, but immediately said to the sick man: Child! your sins are forgiven you.
In the Old Testament, sickness and death were always seen as a consequence of the sinful state of people, and healing as a sign of Divine forgiveness (for example, 2 Chron. 7:14; Ps. 40:4; 102:3; 146:3; Isa. 19: 22; 38:16-17; Jer. 3:22; Hos. 14:4). This, of course, does not mean that behind any disease was, in the minds of the ancients, the commission of one sin or another (Luke 13:1-5; John 9:1-3). Jesus most likely meant general dependence physical condition a person from his spiritual state.
Mar. 2:6-7. The scribes sitting here were offended by this seemingly veiled hint. After all, only God can forgive sins! (Ex. 34:6-9; Ps. 103:3; 129:4; Isa. 43:25; 44:22; 48:11; Dan. 9:9). Moreover, nowhere in the Old Testament is it said that the Messiah will be able to forgive sins. They reasoned in their hearts that whoever spoke as Jesus spoke challenged the power of God Himself and His authority, that is, blasphemy, and this sin was punishable by death (stoning; Lev. 24:15-16). It was this accusation that later served as the basis for the death sentence against Jesus (Mark 14:61-64).
Mar. 2:8-9. Jesus immediately (1:10) knew by His spirit that they thought this way, and challenged them in the form of a counter-question (a common rhetorical method in rabbinical debate; compare 3:4; 11:30; 12:37).
The scribes assumed that Jesus would heal this sick man physically, but He, instead, announced the forgiveness of his sins. Perhaps they thought that this was easier than healing, that is, performing some visible action that was subject to verification.
Mar. 2:10. This verse presents a particular problem for Bible translators because in the middle of it the “addressee” to whom the speech is directed suddenly changes. At first, Jesus seems to be addressing the scribes (verse 10a), but then His speech suddenly breaks off, and now He is addressing the “paralytic.” Another problem is that, according to Mark, Jesus declared Himself to be the Son of Man so early in His ministry, in the presence of those who did not believe in Him (compare verses 9:9 and 10:33).
With the exception of these two instances (here at 2:10 and 2:28), this “title” does not appear in Mark’s narrative until Peter confessed Jesus to be the Son of God (8:29). After this, it is repeated 12 times, playing a decisive role in Jesus revealing Himself to the disciples (8:31,38; 9:9,12,31; 10:33,45; 13:26; 14:21 (twice), 41, 62; commentary on 8:31).
Because of the difficulties mentioned, it has been suggested that the first part of verse 10 should perhaps be considered a “thought in parentheses” or an editorial comment by Mark himself (similar passages are found in verse 28; 7:3-4). That is, Mark could insert these words into his narrative in order to explain the meaning of this event to his readers, namely, that the exalted Son of Man has the power (in the sense of right and strength) on earth to forgive sins, which the scribes failed to understand.
In the Gospels only in Mark and only here does it say that the Son of Man has the right to forgive sins.
In light of precisely this understanding of the above, the section acquires literary unity: the petition is declared (2:5), questioned (verses 6-9), proven (verse 11), and accepted (verse 12). The phrase that begins verse 10 - but just so you know - can be rendered as "you (readers of Mark's Gospel) should now know that." At this point, Mark’s own words end, and he again goes on to describe the course of events.
Mar. 2:11-12. So Jesus told the paralytic to get up (this was a test of his faith that the One who spoke to him could heal him), take up his bed and go home (Christ's authoritative tone implied the need for obedience). And immediately the paralytic was given strength to rise up, and there he was... came out before everyone, so that people could see him with their own eyes, including those who were “critical” of Jesus.
And everyone was forced to admit that truly this man received forgiveness of his sins from God. Here is an illustration of the fact that, by saving, Jesus Christ heals a person “in all its fullness” - not only spiritually, but also physically. Everyone (apparently, including the scribes) was amazed and glorified God for the supernatural power revealed by Jesus (that is, the witnesses of what happened glorified God for this).
2. CALL TO LEVI; ABOUT MEALING WITH SINNERS (2:13-17) (MAT. 9:9-13; LUK. 5:27-32)
Mar. 2:13. And Jesus went out (from Capernaum) again to the Sea of Galilee... Mark often hears the idea that Jesus taught the people, that people flocked to Him in crowds. Mark’s constant motive is the desire of Christ to get away from densely populated places (1:45; 2:13; 3:7,13; 4:1; 5:21, etc.), and this echoes his “motive desert" (1:4,12-13,35,45).
Mar. 2:14. Capernaum was a customs point on the trade road leading from Damascus to the Mediterranean Sea. Levi (known as Matthew - 3:18; Matt. 9:9; 10:3) was a Jew who collected taxes from trade caravans passing through the city - in favor of Herod Antipas, then ruler of Galilee. Tax collectors or "publicans", whose work was often associated with fraud, were openly despised by the Jews. But the mercy and generosity of Christ also extended to Levi, whom He called to follow Him, leaving his former despicable occupation (compare Mark 1:17-18).
Mar. 2:15-16. Shortly after this, Levi arranged a feast for Jesus... and His disciples. Here Mark has the first mention (of 43) of the “disciples” as a separate group of followers of Christ. The Evangelist explains at the same time that there were many of them who followed Him (not only, they say, those five whom he still named by name).
At the meal, reclining with Jesus... were many tax collectors and sinners (the word “sinners” was perceived by orthodox Jews, that is, by the same scribes and lawyers, as a kind of term to designate the common people, untrained in the law and not adhering to strict Pharisaic standards. That circumstance that Jesus and His disciples “shared food with them” (in the original Greek - this is the expression symbolizing friendship and trust) outraged the guardians of the law.
The Pharisees were then the most influential religious party in Palestine, known for their special adherence to the Law of Moses. They meticulously checked every step in their lives and carefully correlated them with oral interpretations of the law, which were predominantly “prohibitive” in nature, and were meticulously punctual in matters of maintaining ritual purity (7:1-5). They accused Jesus of not sharing their “separatism,” their, as it seemed to them, pious division of the Jews into “righteous” (as the scribes and Pharisee, of course, considered themselves to be) and “sinners.”
Mar. 2:17. Christ responded to their accusations with a then well-known proverb (popular also among His opponents) and logically connected it with the nature of His own mission, revealed in His behavior and deeds. The word righteous was used by Him ironically - in relation to those who considered themselves to be them, and, first of all, in relation to the Pharisees (compare Luke 16:14-15). Deluded about themselves, they were unaware of their need for repentance and faith (Mark 1:15).
But Jesus knew that all people, including these “righteous”, are “sick”, and the name of their illness is sin. And so He came (to the world) to call... sinners (that is, those who humbly realize their need for repentance and want to receive His gracious forgiveness) into the Kingdom of God. That is why Jesus was ready to “recline” at the same table with them.
3. CONVERSATION ON THE TOPIC OF FAST AND THE NEW SITUATION (2:18-22) (MAT. 9:14-17; LUK. 5:33-39)
Mar. 2:18. Mark first explains that the disciples of John the Baptist (those who remained his followers) and the disciples of the Pharisees (that is, themselves and those who followed their teachings) were fasting, perhaps at the same time that Jesus and His disciples they ate food in the house of Levi. The Old Testament prescribed that all Jews must fast only once a year - on the Day of Atonement; it was a fast as a sign of general repentance (Lev. 16:29).
The Pharisees, on their own initiative, prescribed fasting twice a week (Luke 18:12) - on Thursdays and Mondays - as a sign of special piety. Jesus did not object to the fasting established by the Law (Matt. 6:16-18), but, answering His critics, He explains why for His disciples fasting in addition to given time- inappropriate (2:19-22).
Mar. 2:19-20. In his counter-question, Jesus draws a veiled analogy with Himself. The groom is He, and just as it was not appropriate for the guests of the groom (the sons of the bridal chamber) to fast (fasting is a symbol of sadness) in the presence of the one who invited them to the feast, so the disciples of Jesus Christ should not have fasted (to be in sadness) while He was with them. For His very presence created an atmosphere of joyful mood, similar to that which reigns at wedding feasts.
However, this situation will change: the days will come when the bridegroom will be taken away from them (here the Greek verb is aparte, implying forcible removal), and then they will fast in those days, i.e., starting from the day of His crucifixion. We are, of course, talking about “fasting” in the figurative sense of the word: instead of joy, sadness will overwhelm the disciples. Here is the first allusion in the Gospel of Mark to the coming death of Christ on the cross.
Mar. 2:21-22. For the first time, Mark cites two parables spoken by Jesus (their meaning goes beyond the scope of fasting). In the Greek original there is a very complex allegory here, which is not fully conveyed in Russian. Its meaning, however, is as follows. The presence of Jesus in this world, among His disciples, creates an unprecedented “newness” and a special “fullness”; it signifies that the “old”, the former, is gone. And therefore it is impossible to “combine” it with this “decrepit”; It is impossible to “tie” the Good News in all its fundamental novelty to the old (outdated) religion of Judaism, just as it is pointless to patch up old clothes with a piece of new fabric: such a “combination” would completely disintegrate the old clothes.
It is equally dangerous to pour young, unfermented wine into old wineskins (a word meaning “worn out, brittle, no longer elastic”); Just as wine in the fermentation stage would break such wineskins, so the teaching of Jesus Christ in its newness and completeness “breaks through” the “old wineskins” of Judaism. Salvation through Christ "does not mix" with this outdated religious system (John 1:17).
4. IS IT POSSIBLE TO PICK EARS ON THE SATURDAY (2:23-28) (MAT. 12:1-8; LUK. 6:1-5)
Mar. 2:23-24. And it happened on the Sabbath that He passed through the sown fields, and His disciples on the way began to pluck the ears of corn to eat them. There was nothing illegal about this (Deut. 23:25). But the Pharisees accused Jesus of breaking the Sabbath. There is an opinion among theologians that they equated the actions of the disciples with “harvesting” (Ex. 34:21) - after all, it was not forbidden to satisfy hunger on the Sabbath!
Mar. 2:25-26. In response, Jesus reminded them of what happened to David, when he was in need and he and those with him were hungry (1 Sam. 21:1-6). The key words here are “had need” and “those who were with him.” David then entered the House of God and demanded that the priest give him the showbread, which no one was to eat except the priests (Lev. 24:5-9).
It is said that David ate... and gave to those with him. Jesus cited this incident, for which God did not condemn David, as an example, to show that with their “narrow” interpretation of the law, the scribes and Pharisees distorted God’s intentions in the law and its very spirit. For the law placed human need above ritual requirements.
According to Mark, the mentioned incident with David occurred under the high priest Abiathar, although in fact the high priest was then Ahimelech, the father of Abiathar (1 Sam. 21:1). A possible explanation may be that it was customary among the ancient Jews, when mentioning a particular incident that happened in ancient times, to point to some outstanding or known to most Jews sign of the time when it happened. Abiathar became high priest soon after the incident here related by Christ, and since he acquired much greater fame than his father, the corresponding period of time is characterized by his high priesthood, and not his father.
Mar. 2:27-28. With the words beginning verse 27 - And he said to them... Mark emphasizes that everything he wrote next (verses 27-28) was said by Christ Himself. It was He who declared that the Sabbath (in the English text of the Bible the words “was created” - in the sense of “established”) is followed for man (implied by God), that is, it was given to people for their good and rest, and not for in order to saddle them with the heavy and burdensome rules associated with it.
The subsequent words of Christ in Mark (verse 28) sound like a conclusion from the above (whereas in Matthew they are the basis for expressing the same thought) - Therefore the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath - emphasize the truth of the previous ones (verse 27). Mark goes on to show how Christ demonstrated this in his healing of a withered hand on the Sabbath.
1 Healing the paralytic; "the power to forgive sins." 13 The calling of Levi. 18 About fasting: new wine and new wineskins. 23 “The Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”
1 Via some days He came again to Capernaum; and it was heard that He was in the house.
2 Immediately many gathered together, so that there was no longer room at the door; and He spoke the word to them.
3 And they came to Him with the paralytic, whom four men carried;
4 and not being able to approach Him due to the crowds, they revealed roofing house where He was, and, having dug through it, they lowered the bed on which the paralytic lay.
5 Jesus, seeing their faith, said to the paralytic: child! your sins are forgiven you.
6 Some of the scribes sat there and thought in their hearts:
7 Why does He blaspheme so much? who can forgive sins except God alone?
8 Jesus, immediately knowing by His spirit that they thought thus within themselves, said to them: Why do you think this way in your hearts?
9 What's easier? Should I say to the paralytic: “Your sins are forgiven”? or to say: “get up, take up your bed and walk”?
10 But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins, - says to the paralytic:
11 I say to you: get up, take up your bed and go to your house..
12 He immediately arose and, taking up the bed, went out before everyone, so that everyone was amazed and glorified God, saying: We have never seen anything like this.
13 And he went out Jesus again to the sea; and all the people went to Him, and He taught them.
14 As He passed by, He saw Levi Alphaeus sitting at the toll booth, and said to him, “Follow Me.” AND He, standing up, he followed Him.
15 And as Jesus reclined in his house, his disciples reclined with him, and many publicans and sinners: for they were many, and they followed him.
16 When the scribes and Pharisees saw that He was eating with publicans and sinners, they said to His disciples, “How is it that He eats and drinks with publicans and sinners?”
17 Hearing this, Jesus tells them: It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick; I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
18 The disciples of John and the Pharisees fasted. They come to Him and say: Why do the disciples of John and the Pharisees fast, but Your disciples do not fast?
19 And Jesus said to them: Can the sons of the bridal chamber fast when the bridegroom is with them? As long as the groom is with them, they cannot fast,
20 but the days will come when the bridegroom will be taken away from them, and then they will fast in those days.
21 No one puts patches of unbleached fabric on old clothes: otherwise the newly sewn garment will be torn away from the old one, and the hole will be even worse.
22 No one puts new wine into old wineskins: otherwise the new wine will burst the skins, and the wine will flow out, and the skins will be lost; but new wine must be put into new wineskins.
23 And it happened that on the Sabbath He passed through the sown fields, and His disciples began to pluck the ears of corn along the way.
24 And the Pharisees said to Him: Look what they do on the Sabbath, which should not be done do?
25 He said to them: Have you never read what David did when he had need and was hungry, himself and those who were with him?
26 how did he enter the house of God in the presence of Abiathar the high priest and eat the showbread, which no one should eat except the priests, and gave it to those with him?
27 And he said to them: Sabbath is for man, not man for Sabbath;
28 therefore the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.
Found an error in the text? Select it and press: Ctrl + Enter
Gospel of Mark, chapter 2
Loading...