Reading Gospel stories about the circumstances of the earthly life of Jesus Christ

Contents 1. Introduction 2. The pre-eternal birth of the Son of God 3. The Conception of John the Baptist 4. The Annunciation of the Nativity of Christ 5. The Meeting of Mary with Elizabeth 6. The Nativity of John the Baptist and his adolescence 7. The Nativity of Christ 8. The Adoration of the Shepherds to the Born Christ 9. The Journey of the Magi and their Adoration of Jesus Christ 10. The Presentation of the Lord 11. Flight to Egypt, the massacre of the infants and the return of the Holy Family to Nazareth 12. The life of Jesus Christ in Nazareth, in the house of His parents 13. Twelve-year-old Jesus in the Temple of Jerusalem 14. The Sermon of John the Baptist Let's start reading the Gospels. We say - by reading, because our interpretation will really be similar to reading. When interpreting, we will not indulge in scientific research. The subject of our Reading will be the four Gospels. Their subject is the same - the life of Jesus Christ, or, more precisely, the appearance of God in the flesh, and the events of His earthly life. But we must remember that none of the evangelists thought of describing the life of Jesus Christ completely, but they wrote only in fragments and directly said that everything that Jesus Christ did cannot be described (John 21:25). For if in Jesus Christ was “all the fulfillment of the Godhead bodily” (Col. 2:9), then how can this be expressed? If in the physical world the Divine Word could not be fully expressed, but was expressed only in part, then It also could not be fully expressed in the Gospels. That is why in ancient times the Gospels were called only απομνημονευματα των Αποστολων What is the purpose of our reading? The same as the writing of the Gospels. John says: “Now this was written, that ye might believe” (Jn. 20:31); but we have been believing for a long time, therefore, for us, apparently, we no longer need the Gospel and reading it. But faith can have many degrees (Rom. 1:17, 12:3). So, the purpose of our reading is faith and obtaining eternal life. We will read the four evangelists together, but not all of them; it would take us a lot of time. Let's take what we need for our purpose. Let's look at the main events in the life of Jesus Christ. But not all of the legends about His teaching can be taken. For even from a few passages one can see what it is. Let us arrange our reading as the Church does: firstly, we will consider the circumstances of the life of Jesus Christ that preceded baptism before the feast of the Epiphany; secondly, we will review the last days of His earthly life during Lent; thirdly, His resurrection and the appearance of the disciples, as well as the descent of the Holy Spirit - before the feast of the Descent of the Holy Spirit; finally, fourthly, let us read from the Gospel about His deeds and teachings. 2. The eternal birth of the Son of God The three evangelists begin their narrative with the circumstances of the “earthly” life of Christ the Savior; two of them (Mark and Luke) are from the appearance of the Forerunner, and one (Matthew) is from the genealogy of Jesus Christ and His birth. But it is clear that the Person described in the Gospel existed before his earthly birth. Therefore, one evangelist (John) speaks of His heavenly existence. Let us forget, - this is how Saint Chrysostom invites us to read John the Theologian, - for a while everything earthly, let us be transported to heaven and see if that Person Whom the Evangelist describes is not there. This person existed from eternity (John 1:1-14). The first four verses of the first chapter of the Gospel of John can be called a preface or introduction to all four evangelists. This is an introduction to the heavenly history of Jesus Christ. Here, as it were, the heavens open up, and the Word appears, appears as the Creator, comes “to His own, and to those who receive Him, He gives the realm to become children of God” (John 1:11–12). This is a shortening of the entire life of Jesus Christ, the purpose of His appearance. Then the evangelists tell in great detail how it all happened, and the eternal Word is only presented here in all its clarity. In a detailed description of the life of Jesus Christ, only the Son of Man will be visible, and the Word is, as it were, hidden. We can say that the heavens seem to be hiding again. In Judea and Rome, darkness seems to be spreading again. Only something bright, Divine, shone through in Judea through the law, and in Rome through some knowledge. Then follows the story of the Evangelist Luke (Luke 1:5). The word described by John, like lightning, illuminates everything, and then again hides and forces one to grope. Saint Luke seems to imagine the field of activity of this Word. What kind of people are Zechariah and Elizabeth in comparison with the Caesars and the nobles of Rome, that the evangelist is concerned with them? Here, as it were, what the apostle said comes true: “both the lowly of the world and the lowly are chosen by God” (1 Cor. 1:28). Why didn’t the first three evangelists make a description similar to John’s? They stopped at earthly events, but John begins from heaven. Of course, because, as the apostle says, “the manifestation of the Spirit is given to everyone for the benefit” (1 Cor. 12:7). The Holy Spirit gives gifts “to everyone as he pleases” (1 Cor. 12:11). But is the Holy Spirit really not in accordance with any laws in the distribution of gifts? No! The difference in His gifts depends on the difference in the mental and moral powers of the recipients. In John we see deep love. This deep love produced equally deep knowledge. For him, the face of Jesus Christ is predominantly Divine. Such an addition made by John was very necessary, as St. Chrysostom notes. The first three Gospels would not be enough. Moreover, many heretics dwelled precisely on what was human in the Person of Jesus Christ, and in defense of their earthiness they could refer to the three evangelists, who supposedly only talk about the earthly affairs of Jesus Christ. Therefore, John’s theology was also extremely necessary. He, as if involuntarily, became a Christian metaphysician, but not without conformity to his spirit, his high love. It is impossible to completely explain and define these first verses of the Gospel of John, and the interpreters who dissected especially the first verse according to the rules of obituary interpretative art are similar to those who tore the clothes of Jesus Christ (John 19:23); on the contrary, one should deal with it in the same way as with a tunic that is not sewn, but worn from above. Trying to understand it means not understanding anything. All thoughts and words here are permanent, as St. Chrysostom beautifully notes. “If something is not enough,” he says, “to represent everything, then don’t be surprised; for the matter is about God, about whom nothing enough can be said or thought.” And in another place he says: “Not a single word is enough to express the Divine Word. And if anyone claims that he can say anything about God, he clearly shows that he does not understand God. There is no name that can fully express God; this way one cannot comprehend Him all.” But how does John introduce Him? and how can we represent Him on this basis? He seems to him to be God the Word. It is clear that the Face is Divine. Whether we say that God is the Word, and that the Word is God, that is, whether we take the word as a predicate or as a subject, the thought will be the same. It is clear, however, that this Word is inseparably united with God (John 1:2). What kind of inseparability is this? Is the connection only moral or physical? It must be both. It is impossible to understand here two Gods, for nothing frightened the Jews more than polytheism; therefore, if John meant duality here, he would certainly have to make a reservation. But there is a noticeable difference here. Otherwise, how could He be different if He were no different from the first? This difference is expressed in the first verse of his Gospel. And the Word δε προς τον Θεος. This word, προς, shows that It has His own personality. Will they say that our knowledge of the Greek language does not yet guarantee such an explanation? But even Saints Chrysostom and Basil the Great said in the hearing of the entire people of Constantinople, who certainly knew their native language very well, that here προς means personality. Chrysostom says: “When John says about the Word that It was in the beginning, so that no one would consider It not begotten by God from eternity, John says that It was “from the beginning” “to God”; and lest anyone consider Him to be a spoken word, John adds the Greek phrase προς, showing that it was not in God, but “to God.” Then he says that this Word was God Himself - “and God is the Word” (John 1:1), but this difference does not in the least harm the dogma of monotheism. This verse contains the entire doctrine of the Trinity. Further, John says that “God is the Word,” without a member (Θεος). Idle critics found some passages in Philo where he allegedly, speaking about the lower, created God, used the word Θεος, without a member. But St. Chrysostom says: “If John here meant the word, or God created, then what would prevent him from saying: in the beginning God created the Word? And the Only Begotten Son of God Himself would not have failed, in His humility, to say that He was created, if He really were such. He could rather remain silent about His greatness and Divinity than hide the fact that He was created.” Here is the once-for-all answer to the objections to the Divinity of Jesus Christ. The beginning of the Gospel of John seems to be similar to the beginning of the Mosaic book of Genesis, only there is an extreme difference; for John says: “in the beginning was the Word,” but not created. Why did John call Jesus Christ “the Word”? This is the most important question in Christian history and dogma. Is it your own (the name of the Word) or borrowed? Most likely it was borrowed. It could be borrowed either from Christian writers, or from uninspired Jewish writers, for example, from Philo, who in places speaks about the Word (λογος) of God, also from pagan writers, for example, from Plato. That it was possible to borrow something else from the Greek writers is evidenced by the Apostle Paul, who in his epistles sometimes cites Greek verses (Acts 17:28). In the New Testament the Word is mentioned very often, in the Old Testament - less often, for example in Jesus the son of Sirach (Sir. 43:28). Here the word seems to be a special action of Providence. In the book of the Wisdom of Solomon (Wisdom 18:15), the word is, as it were, ascribed a personality; it appears as if in the form of an Angel striking the Egyptians and leading the Israelites through the desert. In the book of the Wisdom of Solomon (Wisdom 7:21), “Wisdom” is described as a Person, who appears to be passed down through generations into the souls of the saints (Wis. 7:27), and this seems to hint at the incarnation of the Word (fn.: Sir. 1:9–10, Bar. 3:28–38). But more than a word in the Old Testament, “Wisdom” appears. Consequently, the Evangelist John did not himself invent this word; he borrowed it from the Old Testament biblical writers, for there is no need to borrow from others when you can borrow from your own. However, he also had in mind the “word” used by the Greek writers, who had an incorrect concept of the “word,” and it is more than likely that he wanted, with his depiction of the “Word,” to correct the errors of the pagans and Jews who wrote about the word. But why did the writers of the Old Testament use the “word”, and why did John find it decent and could not, so to speak, choose the best one to describe the second Person of the Holy Trinity? The main reason for this is that this name is really the most decent in this case. John saw no better. John himself values ​​this name, and only uses it twice more in the most important and decisive cases (1 John 1:1, Rev. 19:13). Among the revelations of the sublime, Divine, he did not forget his “Word” (Rev. 19:13). Of course, in this expression there is no complete correspondence with the case, and it cannot be found; at least there is at least a small shade and a faint semblance of truth in it. The Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity, His relationship to God the Father, His independence in human language cannot be more decently expressed than by the word Λογος. With us now Λογος mostly means an external word; among the Greeks it meant “thought”, and “mind” itself, and “external word”. The Holy Fathers also provide the reason why John called Jesus Christ “the Word.” St. Chrysostom says that “John called Him by this name so that no one would think that the Son was begotten by the Father passionately, and also because this Word announced to us the will of the Heavenly Father, and not only to us, but constantly proclaims it to everyone, and everything descends from the Father only through Him.” It is impossible not to notice here the divine propriety in the expressions, as the holy fathers noticed. The item is tall; people would write a lot about him; but this much would be little; John wrote little, but expressed everything, and this little was communicated to him from above. That’s why there is such firmness and determination in his words! Not the slightest hesitation is noticeable! Thus it is natural for one who is taught from above to speak. Saint Chrysostom says: “If someone were to suddenly transport a person standing on the seashore, seeing mountains and forests, to the middle of the sea, he would see the same thing from there in the same way.” Thus, “in the beginning there was” means nothing more than eternal and infinite existence. Then the evangelist characterizes the Person he describes by his actions: “all things were by Him, and without Him nothing came into being” (John 1:3). With this repetition, John, as it were, dispels in advance the heretical opinion of the Marcionites, who said that something was created by Jesus Christ, and something was not created. The Evangelist says δι Αυτου - “through Him”, and does not say: from Him. Of course, this is almost the same thing, but when he says: δι Αυτου, he does not remove the Father from creation. Saint Chrysostom says that the Evangelist John expresses himself this way, so that they would not think that the Son was not born, but that He was begotten by the Father from eternity, and that the Father through Him creates everything and acts in everything. Then, in verse four, Saint John shows His most personal attitude towards people, saying: “in that life was, and this life was the light of man” (John 1:4); he wants to show that not only does life lie in Jesus Christ, but that this life also extends to people, and by using the expression “be”, he shows that this was once the case, which means he hints at the past innocent state of people. We now have life from the light, while John says that light comes from the belly. But in fact, shouldn’t it be the stomach that shines? At least that’s how it was once, and that’s how it will be again. “The righteous,” says Scripture, “will be enlightened like the sun” (Matthew 13:43). And now only in Jesus Christ is light and life, without Him there is death and darkness. Jesus Christ still has a belly, but we don’t have it. “The light shines in the darkness” (John 1:5). What time does this hint at? It is obvious that the state of man is fallen. For Jesus Christ, even before His appearance in the flesh, shone in the darkness among the pagans, as the Apostle Paul says in the Epistle to the Romans (Rom. 1:18–19): only they hid the truth in unrighteousness, only the darkness did not assimilate this light. In this verse, the evangelist seems to show the first threads attaching the heavenly history of Jesus Christ to the earthly history. But the evangelist does not seem to want to part with the history of Heaven, and, having woven the first thread, he again turns to his favorite subject. “This is the true Light, which enlightens every man who comes into the world” (John 1:9). A beautiful and powerful expression: “the one coming into the world.” A person, as it were, emerges from the kingdom of light, comes into the world as if a ready guest, a wanderer, he is given directions, a sign is placed on his forehead - indelible seals. “Light... enlightens every person.” In verse ten, the evangelist turns to the ground, and here everything seems to be merged to his gaze, and he still cannot gather his strength, and says about Jesus Christ that He was in this “world, but His world does not know” (John 1:10). The whole history of His life will be proof of these words. “He came to his own, but did not receive him from his own” (John 1:11). By “our own” one can generally mean all people, just as the apostle calls people “the race of God” (Acts 17:29); more specifically, the Jews, from whom He came in the flesh; even more particularly, His closest relatives, for the evangelist notes that “neither His brethren believed in Him” (John 7:5). “And the little ones received Him, and gave them the province to become children of God” (John 1:12). This is the fruit of accepting Him. In what sense are they children of God? Without a doubt, morally; sin has made us enemies of God, but faith in Jesus Christ grants adoption as sons to God (Rom. 8:1–14). The Apostle Peter says that we will all one day be “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Pet. 1:4), and not of grace only. Jesus Christ in His prayer to God the Father says: “that they may all be one... as we are” (John 17:21–22). People, following the example of the incarnate Word, should be, as it were, divine people, God-men. The evangelist says: “gave the region,” and not “did.” Yes, it’s impossible to “do it.” God did not make Adam completely perfect, but left him to develop his spiritual and physical strength through testing things, and to achieve righteousness through exercise. This law is always in force, therefore: “gave the region” means given the opportunity, the right. Verse thirteen says: “who are not of blood, nor of the lust of the flesh” (John 1:13) - a Jewish expression. By this the evangelist wanted to say the same thing that the apostle says: “begotten not from the seed of corruption, but uncorrupted by the word of the living God” (1 Pet. 1:23), begotten by the “wash of regeneration” (Tit. 3:5), in the “verb” of faith (Eph. 5:26). The evangelist points to a new generation of people who will be born, following the example of the Word, dispassionately. “The word became flesh” (John 1:14). The Evangelist says that Jesus Christ seemed to take only our flesh; but it is clear that this should also mean the soul, that is, Jesus Christ took upon Himself all of our human nature. “Flesh,” according to Hebrew usage, means the whole person. Moreover, the Apostle Paul says that Jesus Christ “sincerely partook... flesh and blood" (Heb. 2:14). Apollinarians, on the contrary, claim that Jesus Christ took on only our flesh. “He dwelt in us,” εσχηνωσεν εν η ` μιν, that is, as if he placed a tabernacle between us. Thus, John begins from eternity, sees the Word in the bosom of the Heavenly Father, then sees His creativity and attitude towards humanity, His gift of light and life, sees not only the luminary, but the light itself. Then, as if feeling that everything he said was uncertain, John decisively said: “The Word became flesh”; lived between us. This is the relationship of the first verses of John's Gospel, called the prologue, to the Gospel in general. This is a preliminary and general overview, and an eagle overview, which is why the eagle is always depicted with this evangelist. Before he depicts the full series of events in the life of Jesus Christ, he finds the first link in eternity - in God. Then he goes through the series of creations, embraces the Divine economy of salvation and begins from the time when the Word should have appeared in the flesh. Since this is an important matter, it happens in silence, unnoticed by people. It was prepared over centuries, through a series of prophecies. But when this work was already completed, then the Savior came; but no one recognized Him: “and the world does not know Him.” Providence seems to have an indispensable law - to prepare great deeds in secret and to reveal them even when they are ripe - they will be accomplished; their beginning seems to be imperceptible. The appearance of Jesus Christ in the flesh was almost unnoticed by Jewish historians. Josephus mentions Him in one place, and also in one place – about John the Baptist; but of these two places, one is considered fraudulent. They cared so little about this matter! What do the sacred writers say about Him? 3. Conception of John the Baptist Herod was king in Judea and Augustus was king in Rome. In the thirtieth year of Herod’s reign there was “a certain priest named Zechariah... and his wife... Elizabeth” (Luke 1:5). These are the first persons with whom the New Testament opens. Jewish priest and his wife! The priest belonged to the line of Abieva. These orders were established by David (1 Chronicles 24:10). There were twenty-four of them. Avi's succession was considered the eighth. Each order got to perform divine services twice a year; Each succession began its service on Saturday and ended on Saturday. Zechariah's home was the mountainous country of Palestine, in which there were several cities. Some say that he was from Hebron, others from Jutta, which allegedly was in the tribe of Judah (Luke 1:39). But knowledge of his dwelling is not an important circumstance; what is more important is that they are “both righteous before God” (Luke 1:6). The evangelist is not content with the fact that they are both righteous before God; although this one expression is already strong, since before God every thing appears in its exact form, nothing will be hidden from His sight; but adds: “who walks in all the commandments and justifications of the Lord blameless,” that is, they kept the internal law - moral and ritual - in all accuracy; compliance with both laws is not easy. One ritual law requires many donations to preserve everything prescribed by it. “And there was no child” (Luke 1:7). The righteous couple in the Old Testament is barren; but this is not the first time; for the former righteous people also appeared childless, while the law positively promised many children to the righteous, and, moreover, they were deprived of children for their entire lives - “both of them became tired in their days” (Luke 1:7). The church law dealt with the righteous who emerged from the state of infancy as with men both at the beginning of the Old Testament and at the beginning of the New. God forces them to endure this kind of temptation. This is how Abraham suffered. This suffering was the greatest in the Old Testament, and was considered a reproach, as Elizabeth would later say (Luke 1:25). Misfortune was then considered a sign of God's wrath and humiliation, just as if in the present time there were always misfortunes in one house, for example, a father or son died unhappily, then they usually say about this house that the wrath of God is upon it. The physical cause of childlessness is in the wife: “no fruits... overworked” - of course, old age; a similar expression is used about Anna, the mother of Samuel. It is impossible to determine exactly the years of Zechariah and Elizabeth. Zechariah is not a Levite, but a priest. Levites who reached the age of fifty were dismissed from ministry, but the priests served until death. It can be assumed that this couple was about sixty years old, and, according to the natural order of things, was no longer capable of childbearing. But from this barren couple a royal branch was to come. Why was the Forerunner of the Messiah born of an elderly couple? The answer to this question is in one church verse, which says that John the Baptist was born of an elderly couple in order to be the true Forerunner of that God of the Word, who was to be born of the Virgin, so that these great events would be glorious. A series of miraculous events in the life of Jesus Christ were to begin with a great miracle. Such a miracle is the birth of John. In the Old Testament, some were also born from barren children, beyond expectation, for example Isaac, Samuel. Is there not a secret of Providence and nature in this birth? St. Augustine makes a good allusion to this when he says that Elizabeth was sterilis corpore, sed foecunda animo; The birth of great people was generally slowed down until everything sensual in the spouses faded with age and all lusts weakened. It is necessary for parents to be purified from the physical side in order to be instruments for the birth of extraordinary people, which is why children are born to them at a later time. On the other hand, a long wait serves as a better preparation for a more ripe fruit. Such a dispensation of Providence was more necessary in the Old Testament, for the Old Testament was more consistent with the infant state of the human race. “And it came to pass that he served him” (Luke 1:8). Chronologists tried to determine this time of Zechariah’s service, for it determines the time of our church holidays, namely: the conception of the Forerunner determines the time of the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin, and this determines the Nativity of Jesus Christ, and they found that the eighth Abiev order had to serve at the church in the month of September, according to the Hebrew “tucpu” for the second half of our September and the first of October. “According to the custom of the priesthood” (Luke 1:9). The position of the priests was to change the showbread, sacrifice animals, light lamps, burn incense, etc., and lots were cast to determine who would receive what portion of the service. According to this lot, Zechariah got to burn incense. The censing was performed twice a day, in the morning and evening (Exodus 30:7–8). In the morning the priest went out to bless the people who stood outside the sanctuary and awaited the blessing; This means that Zechariah burned incense in the morning. “I entered into the church of the Lord” (Luke 1:9), meaning “into the Holy Place,” where the showbread and lamps were. Some fathers say that he was a high priest; for this incense of his falls on the day of atonement, on which the high priest must enter into the Holy of Holies. But that Zechariah was not a high priest, but simply a priest, is revealed by the fact that, firstly, he is not on the list of high priests of that time; secondly, he was subject to the order, and the high priest was outside of any order; thirdly, he had to serve for seven days; fourthly, in verse five it says that he was “a priest... praying outside in the year of incense” (Luke 1:5, 10); and the Slavic translator, as if meaning to show that Zechariah was a high priest, translated: “in the year of incense,” meaning the day of purification. “Outside”: one compartment in the church was for the common people, and the other for the priests; since there was no partition, the priests were visible to the people. "Prayer of the Dey". According to the Law of Moses, there were no specific prayers, but the people were already praying. A religious feeling developed on its own - the people felt that it was not enough to just make sacrifices, but that they also needed to pray. There were no forms of prayer, but they prayed either from their own feelings, or in the words of David or other prophets: “An angel of the Lord appeared to him, standing at the right hand of the altar of incense” (Luke 1:11). This is the place and time the Angel chose! And people choose a decent place and time, but in heaven this pickiness is greater; there everything is accomplished by number, measure and weight. The angel says to Zechariah: “Your prayer is quickly heard” (Luke 1:13). But it is likely that Zechariah did not pray now, for he was embarrassed by the words of the Angel; but he had prayed before, and now he had forgotten about his prayer; but with God she is not forgotten. It was appointed in heaven to give him a son, but it was postponed until some convenient time. “Appearing” means suddenly becoming visible. When the gospel of the Blessed Virgin is spoken of, an Angel appears as having entered (Luke 1:28). "At the right hand of the altar is incense." Some fathers in this position of the Angel find a joyful phenomenon. The pagans called the left side unhappy, and the right side happy. Sacred revelation is given in the church. Was this not the first time in his life that Zechariah received the best lot of incense? For censing is higher than other services. And with this lot the appearance of an Angel was connected, and everything came together as if to console the long-term suffering of the spouse. On the other hand, it showed that he, although righteous before God, had little faith; and it is necessary, for faith produces everything; This is a necessary condition on the part of man. Of course, the word of the Lord will not return empty, but unbelief poses an obstacle to its action; it was necessary to tear Zechariah away from this inertia, and now was the time most convenient for this. But despite all this, “Zechariah was troubled when he saw...” (Luke 1:12). Here is the first action of the phenomenon! When a creature from another world appears, one cannot help but be confused. The fate of the lower world is to tremble at the appearance of a creature from another world; but in Zechariah, more than simple embarrassment is revealed: “and fear attacked nan.” This expression is strong: the soul was confused, thoughts were confused, the mind was darkened, and Zechariah said that he should not, while the place prevented this fear: will an evil spirit appear in the church? The priest must remember that the most holy place expelled every evil creature. Could an evil spirit appear amid incense and prayer? Only twice a year did Zechariah get to serve at the church, and enter the sanctuary even less often, and then with reverence and fear. And is there room for confusion here? Reverence itself prevented this fear. Finally, age itself protected him from fear: he was in his advanced years, in which the imagination is not as excited as in youthful years; Moreover, he was frightened by one vision - “seeing”; there were no words yet. We say this not as a reproach, but to explain the subsequent event. “Do not be afraid” (Luke 1:13), says the Angel. This means that the Angel noticed Zechariah’s fear and confusion. The angel considered it unnecessary to say who he was, but had to say why he appeared; That's what the Angel did. Since Zechariah was not praying at that time, he might have thought that this phenomenon was not for him. The children whom God Himself gives, He Himself names even before birth: “And you shall call his name John.” It happens for a reason; In our country, the name and the thing are not on friendly terms, names are often empty and are even opposite to things; but with God the name signifies the thing, and the face corresponds to the name; Moreover, God first gives a name to indicate that He calls “things that are not as though they are” (Rom. 4:17). Zechariah did not yet have a son; naming a name already means the power of those naming over those being named, just as names are now given on lands and fields. Moreover, the name remains for a lifetime, and its sound will constantly remind you of the miracle of naming. The word "John" means "grace", "mercy". Further, the Angel describes the qualities of the future son of Zechariah, as confirmation that it will be exactly as he predicts, namely: what kind of son will he be from the physical and moral side? “They will rejoice” (Luke 1:14) - in what, from what, how? This requires no explanation. John could not serve as joy for his parents only with his carnal life, much less with his deplorable death, and obviously here we must understand spiritual joy: “and many ... will rejoice.” This was fulfilled at his birth (Luke 1:58). But this joy must apply to all times and persons. Great people belong not only to their time, but to everyone. The source of joy was that he “will be great before the Lord” (Luke 1:15). Zechariah was only righteous, but John will be righteous and “great,” that is, he will have virtues that are not ordinary, since his purpose is special. Next, a trait of his life is indicated: firstly, negative (i.e., he refuses): “do not have wine or strong drink.” The trait is apparently not too great! In ancient times there were Nazirites who for some time took a vow not to drink wine or strong drink and not to cut their hair. The wine here is, of course, grape, and strong drink is a drink made from other fruits, especially palm trees. But does this really mean much to the prophet? This is a lot for our nature. Of course, it cannot be said that moderate consumption of wine was vicious - and the Savior was “poisonous and drunk” (Matthew 11:19), and the Apostle advised Timothy to drink “a little wine” due to illness (1 Tim. 5:23); but what the God-man did not reject, and what was useful to the apostolic husband, caused many troubles to others, which is known without reminder. If wine were to be destroyed by some chance or miracle, then half of the vices in the human race would be destroyed. Secondly, the trait is positive: “He will be filled with the Holy Spirit” (Luke 1:15). The Holy Spirit replaces all sensory pleasures, fills the hearts with gladness and joy, and produces in them the manifestation of spiritual joys and delights. “And he will go before Him” (Luke 1:17). “Before Him”: can be referred to God, as can be seen from the previous verse, that is, John will walk with God - live blamelessly; but it is more decent to refer to the Messiah. Why doesn't the Angel mention this person? Persons whose names are constantly, so to speak, in the languages ​​of people, do not need to be repeated; they can be replaced by a pronoun. Thus, the Romans, when talking about a famous person, always used ipse instead of a name. “By the spirit and power of Elijah.” John will be like Elijah in strength and spirit, but not in miracles. “Turn your father’s hearts to his children.” This trait comes from family life. It is taken because the division of a family means a lot. It can destroy the public – civil world. The angel here did not seem to finish the same thought found in the Prophet: this added: “lest I come and smite the earth to the end” (Mal. 4:6). It should be noted that our nature, being in a state of distress and sorrow, needs some excitement, encouragement, and delight. This encouragement can be produced in two ways: either by drinking wine, but this is low and unworthy of a person, or by the Holy Spirit. This is also visible in ordinary circumstances of life, such as, for example, in pious activities, or pious friendly conversations, from which self-pleasure and self-discovery occur in the human soul; sometimes a look at nature produces the same effect in the soul; Therefore, the human race can be divided into three classes: those who are filled with the Holy Spirit; or those who indulge in friendly conversations to enjoy their lives, or those who plunge into serious vices: drunkenness and the like. And David himself rode before the ark. In the Song of Songs, the bride is taken to a house of wine and becomes spiritually drunk. “And Zechariah said to the Angel: Why do I understand this? For I am old, and my wife has grown tired in her days” (Luke 1:18). This is where Zechariah's gaze turned! - on yourself. He should have looked up at the one who promised, but he turned down to his weakness. A similar circumstance happened to Abraham; Only this one turned his gaze upward, and therefore a different action took place. The Apostle Paul saw this height of Abraham’s faith (Rom. 4:19–20). It is good to remember your weakness, you just have to remember it with faith, and without this, this remembrance will be fruitless. “Why do I mean this?” These words show something of a contrast in Zechariah. If he believed that it was an Angel, then he had to believe what he said. But in such a state, ordinary logic disappears. The lips seem to be at odds with the heart. In all likelihood, Zechariah was at that time several degrees higher than he appears here. And in physical nature, the weakest being is shocked when a being approaches it, in which more strength and activity are concentrated. They say about visions: “If during a vision a short-term fear is followed by joy, then this is a sign that the vision is from God, but if the fear continues continuously, then this is a sign that the enemy is before you.” What is the power of Zechariah's question? In the original it’s like this: χατα τι γνωσομαιτουτο. We have some deviation from the original. What does Zechariah want to know? Birth of a son; this is shown by the following words: “I am old..”. As if he were saying: “It’s hard to believe your words; for I am old." But did he really not know the power of God? Didn't he know the story of Abraham and others like that? As a priest, he should know this, and as a righteous, holy priest, he should know even more. But when he came into a state of confusion, his tongue seemed to become tighter than his heart; the mind could not apply these general rules to his condition... The angel says: “I am Gabriel...” (Luke 1:19). – The answer doesn’t seem to answer the question. Zechariah demands the resolution of doubt; The angel answers: “I am Gabriel..”. But in fact the answer was reassuring, reassuring, and at the same time contained a reproach. “Gabriel” from the original means “the power of God,” and “every word of God fails” (Luke 1:37). It’s as if the Angel says this: my very name should already vouch for the justice of my words and the possibility of fulfilling them. "Stand Before God" This expression is taken from Eastern customs, and means closeness to the throne of the king and his special power of attorney. “I am sent to speak to you and bring this good news to you,” that is, I stand before you; and have you not understood this honor? “This”, that is, I came to proclaim joy to you, but you greet me with doubt. In one church verse it is sung: do not answer, do not contradict verbs, elder; Gabriel speaks to you. “And behold, you will remain silent” (Luke 1:20). But the matter did not end with this assurance. since Zechariah did not believe, he had to suffer punishment for unbelief. The angel says: “You will be dumb and not speak”: it seems that this is the same thing. Therefore, in order to avoid repetition, the fathers sometimes translate the first: deaf, on the grounds that people usually combine deafness with dumbness; but this can be taken as an enhanced expression due to the nature of the Hebrew language. However, in Zechariah, deafness could indeed be combined with dumbness. For the evangelist Luke in one place (Luke 1:22) says that Zechariah “would not anoint” people, and in verse 62 he says that people “would anoint” him. If he could hear, he would not be asked with signs, but with words. We say: you will become numb, in the original εση σιωπων. “You will be numb” means more than “you will remain silent... Until this day will come to pass” – punishment and at the same time mercy. For Zechariah was punished in this way to increase his joy; He will then rejoice over the birth of his son and the resolution of his tongue. Such were God’s punishments, and such was their beneficial purpose. “You did not believe my words.” Zechariah is first called a righteous man; how could he not believe? But he could sometimes be below the state of his righteousness. One church verse reads: “Silence is older than legal scripture; it depicts mystery; For the grace that came, Moses kept silent.” But in the punishment of Zechariah, did not the same thing come true that once happened with the fig tree, in which the Savior did not take away the power of fruitfulness, but only announced what had already naturally happened. Zechariah became confused with fear; his soul and body were in disarray, their powers were misdirected. If he had recovered (and faith would have recovered), then the soul would have prevailed over the body, and joy could have occurred. But Zechariah's faith was in doubt. This disorder was supposed to produce some kind of deficiency in the bodily member, and now it was revealed in the taking away of the tongue, that is, Zechariah himself took away the tongue through confusion and unbelief. So the numbness came from disbelief, but not in a direct direction. It is as if it is not typical for an angel to impose such punishment. This is how we can generally think about Divine punishments, and the punishments we consider to be those imposed by God can be considered the natural consequences of sin, although, however, we often cannot notice their close connection with sin. It is more beneficial for morality to think this way. The conviction that sin punishes itself has a strong effect on aversion from evil. Let God not, so to speak, positively punish us; evil will take its toll. “And the people ran wild, waiting for Zechariah” (Luke 1:21). The people could wait for Zechariah to receive the blessing, but they also considered it indecent to leave the church before the priest. “You could not speak to them” (Luke 1:22), that is, you could not bless, or answer the question why he delayed so long in church; people guessed that he had seen the vision in the church, for what else could there be in the church? “And when the days of his service were fulfilled, he went to his house” (Luke 1:23). But before the end of the series, he could not, or, better yet, did not want to return to the house. From this it is clear that he was righteous and walked in the justifications of the Lord blamelessly. For nothing prevented him from going to the house after the vision; but he remained in the church and probably performed some services, but could not bless. “It was hidden for five months” (Luke 1:24). For us this may mean that she could treat people, but at the same time hide her pregnancy. But in the original, περιεκρυνεν εαυτην μηνας πεντε means “hiding in the house.” Saint Ambrose partially guesses the reason for her concealment. Penitus sui erubescat estate,” he says. For an elderly woman, becoming a mother is associated with some shame. On the other hand, she could be hiding in the house out of joy. The joy of a Divine visitation likes to hide - to remain in the unknown. True, sometimes it is revealed, sometimes the heart belches out the word good and praises flow; Only human joy loves to open up and be revealed. “Seek to take away my reproach among men” (Luke 1:25). Truly, the reproach was terrible. Just as having many children was recognized as a sign of God’s favor, so childlessness was a sign of wrath. Here is the first appearance of an Angel in the New Testament with the good news of the conception of the Forerunner. Unbelievers today want miracles. Rousseau demanded that God Himself appear to him. But with these phenomena it is not always good; therefore, the Israelites did not act badly when they refused to talk directly with God, but asked Moses to be their intercessor. 4. Annunciation of the Nativity of Christ This is followed by another appearance of Gabriel, where he no longer says his name. In “the sixth month... from the appearance of Zechariah, or the conception of the Forerunner by Elizabeth, which falls almost at the same time, the Angel Gabriel was sent... to the city of Galilee, whose name is Nazareth” (Luke 1:26). If the gospel of Zechariah was in October, then the gospel of the Blessed Virgin should have been in March. It's calculated with intention. We see from the Apocalypse that in heaven, where judgment is pronounced on the whole world, there are some universal days, hours, years, according to which everything is distributed. So it is said that once there was silence (silence) in heaven for half an hour (Rev. 8:1). In this case, it is interesting to note the remark of St. Augustine, who says that the conception of the Forerunner took place after the autumnal equinox, when the days begin to diminish; birth - again after the autumn equinox, when the days again quickly diminish, and the conception of the Savior took place after the spring equinox, when the days begin to increase; birth is also after the winter, when the days increase again, and this shows that it was fitting for Jesus Christ to grow, and for John to grow small. The same Angel (Gabriel) appears to Mary, who appeared to Zechariah and Daniel for the revelation of the times of the Messiah. Angels are all “ministering spirits” (Heb. 1:14), but they serve us in different ways, and their offices are not the same. If in a well-ordered human society, positions are distributed in accordance with the properties and talents of each person, then much more should this be the case in heaven. Gabriel is an important person for us. It is used only for special service in the most important cases. “Sent from God” - directly, not as with us now a person reads the will of God in his mind, without having direct communication with God. “Nazareth” is not a name taken in vain, for it was predicted by the prophets. “To the virgin betrothed to a man whose name is Joseph” (Luke 1:26–27). Evangelist Luke especially represents the Mother of God; Joseph is touched upon in passing. This is not the case with Matthew; it says more about Joseph. “Betrothed” is usually used for marriage. History leaves us in this case, in the story of the Mother of God, and tradition says that the Blessed Virgin made a vow to God to remain a virgin for the rest of her life. since this was the first, unprecedented case, the priests decided to betroth Her to someone and give Her to preserve Her virginity and nourish Her. Husbands in the Old Testament had the right to live with their spouses not in a matrimonial way, but in an angelic way. If the participation of priests in the fate of Mary seemed strange to anyone, let him remember that this was an unprecedented and unique case, and especially that great things begin here. The laws of the present time must now be put aside; the tradition here serves as a kind of development and continuation of the Gospel story. Saint Chrysostom notes that Jesus Christ had to be born “of the betrothed Virgin” in order to save her from reproach and even death; for she might have been stoned as an adulterer. Saint Ignatius the God-Bearer in his letter to the Ephesians says that this was done in order to hide this sacrament from the devil. Saint Ambrose says: maluit Christus potius dubitare aliquos de sua generatione, quam matris pudore. The virgin asks: “What will this happen if I don’t know where my husband is?” (Luke 1:34). This means that she did not know her husband and did not want to know. Tradition says that Joseph was old at this time. This is confirmed by the Gospel, which nowhere mentions Joseph. He does not appear at the Cross, and Jesus Christ bequeaths His mother to John; but this would not have happened if Joseph had lived. “From the house, that is, from the tribe of David” (Luke 1:27), since the Messiah is promised from the house of David. But where was Mary at this time? It is usually believed that She was in Joseph's house at that time. The Jews have a custom that the bride is taken to the groom's house and lives there until they are united in marriage. The Evangelist Matthew says: “Before, you didn’t even dream about him.” If “dreaming” means living in the same house; it follows that she goes to live in Joseph’s house. The angel also says to Joseph: “Do not be afraid to accept Miriam your wife” (Matthew 1:18–20), but on the other hand it is also said that “Joseph... is willing to let him go” (απολησαι αυτην), to give her a vacation book. Among the Jews, although the marriage has not yet been consummated, as soon as the bride is engaged, and then the groom does not want to take her, he has the right to give her a book of divorce. From the demolition of passages in the Gospel on this subject, it is revealed that the annunciation to the Blessed Virgin followed when She was still living in Her house. It was then that She took a trip to the mountain to visit Elizabeth. Then Joseph took Her to his house, and She lived until the day of the birth of her Son. This is evident from the fact that Joseph, together with Mary, went to Bethlehem to record at the command of Caesar, where Mary gave birth (Luke 2:4–5); but this circumstance is not important. “An angel came in to her” (Luke 1:28). Zechariah suddenly appeared, and here he “enters” and again “departs.” This expression (“entered”) is perfectly depicted by Andrei of Crete in his homily for the Annunciation. The entry and exit brings the Angel closer to man, and therefore such a phenomenon could not astonish the Virgin. One Church Father says that the Mother of God had to be protected from all embarrassment; She had to be under God's special protection. “Rejoice, full of grace. A joyful greeting: The Lord is with you." This is the source of joy! Such a greeting prepared Her soul to accept the gospel. “Be troubled about words” (Luke 1:29). And here there is confusion, but not Zakhariino. The reason for the embarrassment was true, pure; She was confused about the “word” and not about the vision. Tradition says that She had visions of Angels even before this gospel; She had gotten used to them, so to speak; but the word that She now heard was bound to confuse Her soul. The Church penetrated into the soul of Mary when she put these words into the mouth of the Angel in his conversation with Mary: “The serpent sometimes deceives Eve, but I have great joy in bringing You good news” 1 . For a truly humble, kind person (and without humility there can be no true kindness), words about exaltation must certainly lead to confusion. “And he thought” (Luke 1:29). Andrew of Crete notes how great the soul of Saint Mary must be: Zechariah, seeing the Angel, seemed to have lost his mind and could not think, but the Blessed Virgin was thinking. However, we should in no way reproach the holy elder, for we do not know the state in which he was then, and no visions appeared to us. “What will this kiss be like?” that is, what quality? content? She thought: the attack is rich; will anything come of it later? There is no sign of proud humility in Her words and deeds; She does not deny that She is “gracious”, for She asked this from God; does not deny that She is “blessed”, for she desired this in every possible way. In general, in the words of the Blessed Virgin, some kind of happy, holy middle is visible. “Do not be afraid” (Luke 1:30). Where is the fear? How did the Angel notice him? He could recognize it by the face, only this fear was not Zachariah. The angel seemed to reassure Her: You really are what you told You, no matter how much I told You. The Evangelist Luke contains a prediction about John the Baptist, more detailed than about the Savior Himself (Luke 1:13–17); but in a few ways everything here is so consistent. A king can be expressed by one name, whereas to designate some important dignitary many words are required. The angel speaks here, as it were, not his own words, and takes from the prophets one feature at a time, and from this composes the most brilliant image, in which there is not the slightest shadow or darkness. There was no need to tell the Virgin then, as Simeon told Her later: “And a weapon will pierce Your very soul” (Luke 2:35). Jesus Christ had to do and did more than the Angel says here. And indeed, in a dream to Joseph, the Angel said more: “And you shall call His name Jesus: for He will save His people from their sins” (Matthew 1:21); but here - not a word about salvation; but God's revelation must be taken as a whole. Jesus Christ is depicted here by the Angel with more sensual features. This is, firstly, because the Blessed Virgin still belongs to the Old Testament; the secrets of the New have not yet been revealed to Her. In the Old Testament, any prophet knew much less than the most recent Christian in the New Testament, but this does not depend on our merits. That is why the Savior, having chosen twelve disciples, for a long time left them in the opinion that He would reign sensually; then he gradually weakened this opinion and left the complete eradication of this prejudice to the Holy Spirit and His Cross. Secondly, the Angel presents Her future Son to the Virgin more sensually because the source from which he took the features for his image is also more sensual. This source is prophecies (2 Samuel 7:12, 14, 18, 19, 25), in which Saint David says: “Who am I, my Lord, Lord; and what is my house, because you have loved me even to this day?” And the prophet Daniel saw that the stone that rolled away from the rock destroyed all other kingdoms. “And His kingdom will have no end” (Luke 1:32–33). It is called this way, probably in comparison with the final kingdoms, for the very Kingdom of Jesus Christ on earth will have a kind of end: it will give way to the Kingdom of glory. The angel says: “conceive yourself, that is, if my husband were involved in this, then I would tell you about it; and give birth to a Son, and call His name Jesus.” Jesus means Savior for everyone forever. “It will be called”: in the Holy Scriptures it is used instead of “will be.” The Jews partly retained in their language what should express the essence of a thing. “Son of the Most High” - this expression was taken from the highest government officials. "David" because he is considered the example of kings. Father, not forefather, although David was indeed his forefather. “He will reign” – spiritually. The angel did not say much to the Blessed Virgin, and there was no need to tell Her much; for if at the very conception the veil were lifted for Her and the whole future was revealed, then this could disturb Her - and this is not according to Her condition and purpose. “What will this be like if I don’t know where my husband is?” (Luke 1:34). She agrees, and from her heart believes that what the Angel told Her will happen; but he doesn’t know how it will be. The reason seems more important than that of Zechariah; This one seems to have more curiosity, and the Blessed Virgin is forced to ask this way by moral necessity. “I don’t know,” She says, “my husband now, I won’t recognize him and never will.” Obviously, She means here that Joseph will be Her husband only in name. If this had not happened, then the Angel could have said: You don’t know now, but you will recognize your husband later; or better: She should have made this answer to Herself. From the words of the Mother of God it is clear that She did not act in an embarrassed state, but calmly and deliberately. Her thoughts and expressions are so precise that you see the need to ask as the Holy Virgin asked. “The Holy Spirit will come upon You, and the power of the Most High will overshadow You” (Luke 1:35), that is, it will act on You directly; You will recognize the extraordinary action of the Holy Spirit. Now the question is - why does this action belong to the third Person of the Holy Trinity? The gracious action in the sanctification and perfection of mankind is attributed especially to the Holy Spirit; why the incarnation of Christ also had to take place through the action of the Holy Spirit. Saint Basil the Great says: “Perhaps in the Divine nature itself there is a basis for such a difference. And what basis this is, we don’t know.” The angel says: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you.” If the Spirit comes upon a person, then that person cannot help but feel the influx of the Holy Spirit. "Osenite". The canopy is a reflection of the body: the shadow of a person is similar to a person, the canopy of the Divine is similar to the Divine. “What is born of the flesh,” says the Savior, “is flesh; what is born of the Spirit is spirit” (John 3:6). Here the Holy is born from the Holy. It is said about John the Baptist that he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, and about the Savior that the Spirit will be in Him without measure (John 3:34). “He will be called the Son of God” - by origin. People are called by famous names, depending on who they come from. So Adam is called “God’s” (Luke 3:38). The Evangelist Matthew says that Mary, after the gospel, “was found rich in her womb” (Matthew 1:18). “You will find it” - from somewhere unknown, or, as we simply say, God knows from where. The action of the Holy Spirit is a mystery that cannot be tested. But from the moral side it must be tested. Why did Providence want to reject the ordinary image of birth? The reason for this is indicated by the Angel himself: “what is born is holy” (Luke 1:35), and if it were born in an ordinary way, it would not be holy, at least to the extent that it should be. The Apostle Paul says: “marriage... is honorable and the bed undefiled” (Heb. 13:4), and even a child born of half-holy, so to speak, parents, is holy; What is unholy in the ordinary birth of children? What the Savior says: “that which is born of the flesh is flesh.” Some heretics claim that the human body is the work of an evil spirit, the devil; Of course, this is a criticism, a blasphemy against the human body. But what is unholy in marriage is an action in the flesh, which always contains uncleanness. Besides, all people are sinners, and what can happen from sinners other than sinners? Therefore, coming from unclean people, it is inevitable to borrow from them some of the uncleanness. This idea about uncleanliness developed in ancient times and was universal. The mind, and more so the heart of the people of the ancient world, said that God would not leave people and would appear in the world, and that He would be born in an extraordinary way from God through the Virgin. The sense of decency and the concept of carnal impurity have given rise to such fortune-telling that it is indecent for God to come to us in a natural way. But in Jesus Christ these fortune-tellings were realized in all their fullness and purity. And Kant, who recognized a wonderful moral ideal in the depiction of Christian redemption, recognizes that everything pure in a person is not his own work, but a gift from above, and that good cannot come from evil. “And behold, Elisabeth is Thy little fellow, and she also conceived a son in her old age” (Luke 1:36). Here the Angel’s words seem to be superfluous and not relevant to the question. Virgo asks: how will it be? The angel, having already answered this question satisfactorily, now points to Elizabeth, Her relative. What is this for? For some support for Virgo’s thoughts. Points to a past miracle to assure the present miracle. But was such assurance necessary? The angel could not say without need. Couldn't he have said it just in case? In addition, this support is lightweight. The angel points to the example of a married wife - a distant one. It is true that the Holy Virgin did not yet know about Elizabeth’s conception of a son. But this discovery could serve as a basis for some incident. Moreover, the Angel here himself gives this instruction, as if in addition to his words, as a reward for Her faith. The purpose of this discovery was to dispose Her to travel, for this was necessary for Mary and Elizabeth. “With God every word fails” (Luke 1:37). Apparently, sometimes His verb returns “lean”; but sooner or later everything God has said will be fulfilled. With Him, word and deed mean the same thing. These words testify that the indication to Elizabeth was given to Mary to confirm Her faith. “And Miriam said: Behold, the handmaid of the Lord, do unto me according to thy command” (Luke 1:38). If there had been any doubt, these words would have completely dispelled it. They show that the Holy Virgin no longer doubted anything. The words are extremely simple and at the same time lofty! It is surprising how little we know how to appreciate what is best in human nature. People collect various words and thoughts of various famous and wise men. Why not pay attention to these words? One preacher, speaking a sermon on the Annunciation, said that first the word of the Creator - “let there be” brought into being the world of creatures: and “be” brings down the Creator into the world. It was necessary to say: “wake” in order for the Divine “let there be” to act. “Behold - here readiness is expressed; slave” - this expresses humility. The name slave was common among the Jews. It showed the subordination in which wives were to their husbands, as is still the case today in the east. However, at that time this expression was not so common among the Jews. The Holy Scripture says of Sarah that she called Abraham “lord,” but it speaks of this as a custom that has long passed, otherwise this expression would be unnecessary. Maria takes on a name that has already been forgotten. Humility makes Her language expressive. “Be with me according to your command.” These words show perfect devotion to the will of God, but how could it seem possible not to utter these words? Is there any merit here to the Blessed Virgin? An Angel appears, declares to Her the will of God and resolves Her perplexities. Virgo agrees to all this. But we must look at the motivation for faith in this case. Deciding to be the Mother of God meant for the Blessed Virgin to make the greatest sacrifice to the will of God. She conceives in the womb. This conception will bring suspicion upon Her even of Her betrothed husband, Joseph. For a pure virgin to be considered to have been robbed of her marriage - what a burden for the heart! Joseph himself wanted to let Her go by giving Her a book of divorce. She had to imagine all this, and she did. In addition, deciding to be the Mother of the Lord meant deciding to face all the vicissitudes of fate. The Jews expected that the Messiah had to suffer, struggle with various temptations and disasters in order to reign among them, so they imagined two Messiahs - one suffering and the other glorious. But the greatest sacrifice made by the Mother of God is Her greatness. For humble souls, words about exaltation are as painful as for low souls it is good to endure any humiliation or shame. In those who have a special purpose, this feeling is revealed to the highest degree. The Church believes the tradition that says that the Blessed Virgin did not want anything so much, did not pray to God for anything so much as to be a servant of the Mother of the Lord - and suddenly it is announced that She is the Mother of the Lord. An ordinary heart could feel joy here, but an extraordinary one had to make some compulsion here. Similar examples, only to a lower degree, are sometimes presented in ordinary human life. It is impossible not to notice at all the divine propriety that is expressed in all the miracles and revelations mentioned in the Holy Scriptures, especially if you compare them with revelations in other religions, for example in Mohammedan. The stamp of simplicity and dignity is noticeable in the Holy Scriptures. One has only to depict these phenomena in pictures - the scene will appear majestic. 5. Mary’s date with Elizabeth Let us now look at the meeting of two blessed souls, two extraordinary mothers, and two, each in their own way, sons of God still in their wombs. “And Miriam arose in those days, and went up into the mountains with diligence to the city of Judah” (Luke 1:39). “Rising up” is a Jewish expression. “In the days of Ty” - not suddenly, not the next day, but a few days later. The Angel's message was to occupy Mary's soul for several days, and She could not help but indulge in reverent meditation; then, in Her soul, a desire could be born to see Her relative. The motives for this meeting could be different. The Holy Virgin could think that the Angel announced to Her about the conception of Elizabeth in order to give Her the idea of ​​meeting with her. The Spirit Himself could captivate Her with secret power; the abundance of the Spirit in Her was extraordinary. And we know in what state there are those in whom the Spirit is revealed. Elijah the prophet moved from place to place when he was filled with the Spirit before his ascension. "With care". The Mother of God was not in a hurry to set out, but she was in a hurry along the way. Decency itself, like a Virgo, forced Her to hurry. She was not afraid to go herself, for she was confident in the special protection of God. On the other hand, She wanted to see Her relative as soon as possible; joy forced Her to speed up Her progress. "To the mountain". Palestine was cut off by a flat hill. To the east were Mount Tabor and Eumon, to the west was Anti-Lebanon, to the Red Sea were Sinai and Horeb. The Mother of God went to one of the cities in which the priests lived - “to the city of Judah. And Zechariah went into the house and kissed Elizabeth.” Greeting Mary has an extraordinary effect. “And when Elizabeth heard Mary kissing, the baby leapt in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit” (Luke 1:40–41). “Jumping up” is not an unprecedented case in history. Children sometimes make sounds in the womb of their mothers, this especially happens with great people. This happens mainly with saints: even before entering the light, they seem to begin to act. In our history, such an example appears in the life of Sergius of Radonezh. He uttered his voice three times in his mother's womb during the liturgy - before the Gospel, before the Cherubic hymn and before the exclamation: Holy to holies. Similar stories are told about some Caesars, great commanders... In different cases there are different reasons for this phenomenon. Here is the reason: “hearing Elizabeth.” The mother heard, and the baby heard with the mother’s hearing. From Mary's mouth came words filled with the Spirit. Nowadays words have died, but sometimes they are still alive. The word itself must be alive and strong. He was understood not only by babies, but also by soulless creatures. Here the action is physical, not mental; but his expression is very reasonable. "Be filled with the Holy Spirit." Elizabeth was already filled with the Holy Spirit, for it was said about her baby that he would be filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother’s womb. But here a new action of the Spirit took place, and it came from one greeting to the Mother of God. One glance of a good man is instructive, his image is edifying; but it is even more instructive and useful to deal with a holy person, and no small happiness in life is to meet a person filled with the Holy Spirit: this means already seeing in him Christ’s reality, seeing a person close (perfect identity cannot be achieved) to God, or to the highest good and perfection. The extraordinary action came from the fullness of the Spirit of the welcoming Mary. Elizabeth was influenced by the personality of the Mother of God and the presentation of Her Son, about whom she already knew. She saw that the Lord and His Mother were visiting her. Who would not be filled with joy at such a visit? “Cry out with a great voice and say: Blessed are You among women, and blessed is the fruit of Your womb.” And Elizabeth was blessed, but Mary’s blessing was incomparably greater. “And from where do I receive this, that the Mother of my Lord may come to me” (Luke 1:42–43). After joy, which cannot but be given first place, humility follows in Elizabeth’s soul; it accompanies the pious everywhere; if misfortune befell them, they said: this is how it should be; if there is happiness, they admit that they are not worthy of it. And in heaven this feeling prevails, and to the highest degree. In the Apocalypse we read that the Lamb appears sitting on the throne and twenty-four elders fall down before Him and confess: “Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor” (Rev. 4:10–11). There is a story that the devil fought with one virtuous man, and could defeat all the virtues, but could not overcome humility (Macarius). It extinguished his kindled arrows, and it crushed his tense bow. Humility is an indispensable virtue of creatures; Greatness is fitting for God alone. Humility is the basis of all good things. It is obvious that not everything was revealed to Elizabeth by the Holy Spirit; but much was revealed: otherwise her words would have shown exaggeration. And she herself was from Aaron’s daughters, the wife of a priest who had recently seen a miracle, who was about to give birth to a son who would be one of the greatest righteous people. With all this, she feels humility, for to what heights she places Mary, and in just one visit! If only the Sanhedrin would do her this honor; if Caesar of Rome himself had visited her, then even then her humility could no longer be expressed. Elizabeth’s idea of ​​the Fruit of the Mother of God, Which She bore in Her womb, is expressed in one church verse: “Why did you come to me, Blessed One among women? You bear the Tsar and you are the warrior; You are the Lawgiver and the Lawgiver; You are the Word and the one who preaches the Kingdom of Heaven.” "Mother of the Lord". He who was the first to call the Holy Virgin the Mother of God understood Her true name. Elizabeth felt a lot, therefore she assimilates a lot to the young Mary, who was previously unknown for anything special, except that she was born from pious parents, as a result of their prayers, and lived at the church. Having thus expressed surprise, she presents the reason for it. This reason, one might say, is maternal, which is closest to the mother’s heart. “Behold, as the voice of Thy kiss came into my ear, the child leaped with joy in my womb” (Luke 1:44). She points to the leaping of the baby in the womb, as if to say: the baby himself feels who You are. Saint Ambrose says: vocem prius Elisabeth avdivit, gratiam vero senserit Johannes. “The leaping of the baby shows how much Your visit will mean to everyone!” “With joy”: more than one ordinary movement followed, as happens in the sixth month of pregnancy; but some definite movement, and, moreover, not one-time, but multiple. Maternal feelings contain a lot of things that cannot be explained. Here one cannot help but recall the leaping of Herodias’s daughter before the death of John; but how different these leaps are! “And blessed is she who believed, for the things spoken to her by the Lord will be accomplished” (Luke 1:45). These words show that Elizabeth learned a lot. She seemed to be saying this: You did a wonderful thing by believing the words of the Evangelist. This means that she knew about Her conversation with the Angel. Blessed; for You have done Your work in the best way. All humanity then appeared in Your face before their eyes, and You appeared then as what needed to be revealed. That's not what my husband did. You did better, “believing that the accomplishment will be that which was spoken... from the Lord.” What God once said will come true, no matter how the Lord’s word differs from the ordinary ways of human understanding. Elizabeth said this with all the more confidence that she saw the fulfillment of the Divine words through experience. In general, extraordinary joy is visible in Elizabeth’s greeting; one can see respect based on insight into the matter. Didn’t Elizabeth hear in the usual way that God visited Mary in this way? She couldn't hear it that way. For if Mary had revealed to anyone what had happened to Her, then of course she would have revealed it to Joseph first of all. But he didn’t know about it either; and if you did not know, then you must certainly assume that the secret of the gospel was hidden in the heart of Mary. Therefore, Elizabeth speaks by inspiration from above. And Mariam said: “My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior: for I have looked upon the lowliness of my servant: behold, from henceforth all my kindred shall call me blessed” (Luke 1:46–48). How Maria has now become verbose, although there is nothing superfluous in this verbosity! This is a very good word, regurgitated from the heart, all the more surprising because She remained silent at home. Since the day of the Annunciation, how many thoughts and feelings were probably born to Her; however, She does not reveal them to anyone, for Joseph himself knows nothing about it. Revealing a secret to him could not be considered a violation of the secret. Now the praise of God is heard from Her lips, like a fragrance emanating from a precious vessel. Mary’s song is a thanksgiving praise to God, as if involuntarily poured out from the heart. The reason for it is the mercy of God, not deserved by Her, as She says, and mercy towards Israel, which has to be poured out on it through Her Son, and the external reason was a meeting with Elizabeth, who placed Her too highly. For to say: “Where do I get this from?” Mary needed to answer this with something, and She, as if forgetting Elizabeth and everything around Her, turns to God and magnifies Him. Such doxology was, as it were, national among the Jewish people. And other pious souls magnified Him: so Miriam, having crossed the Red Sea, sang a song of thanksgiving to God; Deborah, Hannah, Samuel's mother and others did likewise; but the magnificence of Mary the Mother of God surpasses them all. Did She sing this song by inspiration, or on Her own? It is said about Elizabeth that she was filled with the Holy Spirit and, moreover, she carried a holy child in her womb. If John sanctified his mother, then Jesus Christ, being in the womb of His Mother, sanctified Her all the more. But how could the Virgin praise God so sublimely without inspiration? She could. She says everything here almost in the words of Holy Scripture, and She knew the Holy Scripture, living constantly for several years at the church and being, moreover, so pious. Tradition directly says that She was well acquainted with the Old Testament and that, while reading it, she stopped at some places in Isaiah: for example, “Behold, a virgin will conceive with womb...” (Is. 7:14). She could collect these flowers from the Old Testament, weave such a beautiful wreath from them and put it on the Divine altar. And if She had any lack of understanding of the Holy Scriptures, then carrying Jesus Christ in her womb could make up for it. So, the content of this song is grateful. The motivation for this is: 1) the greatness of the good deed; 2) undeserved benefit; 3) the greatness of Her countenance and Her blessedness from all generations; 4) in relation to Israel - God, with the birth of Her Son, fulfills all the promises given to Israel. The Blessed Virgin says that God has acted before as He acts now. He seems to pass by the proud, does not look at them, but looks at the humble. “My soul magnifies the Lord.” It’s as if She says this: God exalted Me when I was completely unworthy of His mercy; in gratitude and I should magnify Him if it were possible. But He is so great that the heart can only feel His greatness, but cannot multiply Him. “And My spirit rejoiced”—my whole being, all the powers of My spirit. “About God My Savior” - not only about God Almighty, as He showed Himself in the Old Testament, but about God the Savior, as He will show Himself in the New. “Look upon the humility of His servant.” This expression could have been born in Her from her own feelings; but here it is borrowed, because it is also found in Anna. Without a doubt, God looked at Her virtues, but especially looked at her humility. His gaze seemed to dwell on this beautiful virtue. On external humility (for She was poor, unknown to anyone), but mainly on internal. Someone who is poor in appearance can be proud in his soul. “Behold, from now on you will bless Me”: Before I was not noble, but now, as the Mother of the Messiah, I will be the subject of blessing for everyone, for My Son will be a source of blessing for everyone. Mary feels that Providence combines extreme glory with Her title. Did this pleasing Her begin soon? From the very conception of Jesus Christ. She is pleased by Elizabeth, Joseph, when he learned from the Angel that “that which is born in Her of the Spirit is Holy” (Matthew 1:20). Then the wise men and shepherds come to worship the Son born of Her. During the preaching of Jesus Christ, one wife said out loud to the whole people (and a thousand felt it): “Blessed is the womb that bore Thee, and the breast that Thou didst piss” (Luke 11:27). But mainly, Her pleasure began after Her death. “For the Mighty One has done great things for Me” (Luke 1:49): for this I please God, because He has done a great thing with Me. “Strong” - because we are talking about a great, extraordinary work. This expression could have been taken from the Psalter (Ps. 126:2–3). “Holy is His name”: a new reason to glorify God. God Himself, whose name is holy, showed me mercy. “And His mercy endures throughout generations of those who fear Him” (Luke 1:50). The feeling of the benefit shown to Her by God Herself, as if makes Her remember the Divine property, beneficial for people, and, so to speak, kind, that is, that God is so merciful that for the sake of one righteous man he does good to many of his descendants. In the Old Testament there are many passages in which it is said that God, for the sake of a righteous father, pours out mercy on his sons, and vice versa, the son bears the wickedness and sin of his father. This, so to speak, property of the Heavenly Father was expressed primarily in the Messiah. For the Messiah was given to the Jewish people, at that time the most corrupted, precisely because Providence remembered the promises given through the prophets to the holy people - the patriarchs. The Jewish people, by the way, had the advantage over other peoples that they saw the Messiah, the God-man, with carnal eyes, and they owe this special gift to their ancestors. And here Mary’s new humility is visible. In Me,” She says, “God has looked upon humility; but this alone is not enough to attract so much of His mercy; My forefathers deserved that My humility did not remain fruitless, that it had the power to attract the Divine gaze. “Create a power”: showed strength in Me - in My Son. This expression is Hebrew (Ex. 20:6, Ps. 118:15–16). “Spend the proud thoughts of their hearts” (Luke 1:51). Having said that God showed Her mercy no matter what, the Virgin represents that the heads of the Jewish people were arrogant with pride; the most pious of them, the Pharisees, were infected with vanity, and that for this they were all bypassed, and She was chosen. Then, She turns to the Old Testament and says that it was so before. “Scatter” – scattered in different directions; “I think proudly” - because they think a lot about themselves. Thus, the Pharisees, burdened with pride, thought about the common people: “This people do not know the law, they are cursed”; and they said about themselves that they had experienced and comprehended everything related to the Messiah. So they said to Nicodemus: “Test the scriptures and see that a prophet does not come from Galilee” (John 7:49, 52). Political pride is visible in Caiaphas. When, after the resurrection of Lazarus, the council discussed what to do with Jesus Christ, he said to all the elders of the council, among whom were venerable people, such as Nicodemus: “You know nothing, neither do you think that we have nothing to do, that one man should die for the people, and not the whole tongue perish” (John 11:49-50). All kinds of pride can be found among the Jews, although they then endured all kinds of humiliation. “Waste” - διεσχορπισεν - a strong expression, it means, as it were: to tear the dress along the threads and scatter it. Yes, the proud waste themselves. Just as humility tends to unite, so pride tends to separate. For the proud tries to be above everyone, and only God can be above everyone. Therefore, the desire for elevation is at the same time a desire for humiliation. Truly, their proud hearts are wasted in thought. “Bring down the mighty from their thrones and lift up the humble; fill the hungry with good things, and let the rich let go of their vanity” (Luke 1:52–53). Dethrone the mighty. This, so to speak, is the rule of Providence, adopted in opposition to the world. The Holy Scriptures provide striking examples of this: Pharaoh is overthrown, and the people of Israel, then humble, are exalted. Saul, who became proud, lost his throne, and David, who was humble, received a crown that fell from Saul’s head; Rehoboam, who boasted that his finger was thicker than his father’s loins, remained with only two tribes; Haman, who did not want to look at Mordecai before, then led his horse along the street, and finally climbed the fatal tree of death that he had prepared for Mordecai; the proud Holofernes laughed at the misfortune of Vetulia when he besieged her, but after that he himself became an object of ridicule for everyone. Even the pagan world strictly noticed this rule of Providence. To bring the turbulent world to reason, such a contrast is necessary. And if Providence had not acted this way, then the history of mankind would have become even darker. He inspires and gives strength to the humble, and curbs the vain and proud. “Israel will receive His servant, remember his mercies” (Luke 1:54). “Receiving Israel” is a new encouragement to glorify God. He provided a very important benefit for the entire people of Israel. This people will be “perceived” as a mother perceives her baby. Until now he was, as it were, out of his hands, rejected. Why such mercy? Mary, out of humility, does not see virtues in Herself, although She had them, and about Israel, at that time bad and corrupt, one could only say: “remember” and not “look upon.” Israel was good only in name, in ancestors. He is called here “youth”; but it is called the same way before: when God sent Moses to Pharaoh, he told him to free Israel, who is “His firstborn son” (Ex. 4:22). All nations are, as it were, sons of God, and Israel is the firstborn among them. The prophet Hosea says in one place: “Out of Egypt I called my son” (Hos. 11:1). But what did Mariam mean by the name “perception, remembrance of mercy?” What will follow from this perception? This She does not say; Her thought dwells on common good deeds. Israel will be accepted into God's arms, and in these arms, of course, he will feel good. Zechariah, when he touches on this, will say in more detail (Luke 1:68–71). Deliverance, salvation through the Messiah of the descendant of David “from the hand of our enemies.” And who was not then an enemy of the Jews? who did not hate them, starting from the Romans, Arabians, Egyptians, Syrians and others? These nations were their inveterate enemies. Zechariah expected a kind of sensual liberation from sins. Was this what Mary had in mind? She may or may not have had it. “Perceive”—maybe this means spiritual—unearthly salvation from sins, that the Gospel will come out of Judea, that the Jews will be the first heralds of salvation to the world, and thereby provide a service to humanity. "Remember the favors". This expression can be taken both wider and narrower, just like “perception”. “As he spoke to our fathers, Abraham and his seed forever” (Luke 1:55). It is remarkable that where the Messiah is spoken of, David is mentioned, and where the Jewish people are spoken of, Abraham is mentioned there. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David and other similar men were, as it were, representatives of Judaism. Why doesn't Mary mention the whole human race, but only Israel? Perhaps this secret has not yet been revealed to Her. The Jews generally believed that the benefits of the Messiah would be limited to them alone, and the pagans, if they ever took part in this, would only be when they became Jews. The prophets sometimes lifted the veil of the future and showed part of the secret that the Messiah would belong to the entire human race, but the pride of the Jews did not like to dwell on these places. This prejudice was very strong. Even the apostles themselves were not free from it, not only before the descent of the Holy Spirit on them, but also after it. The Apostle Peter doubted whether it was possible to accept pagans into Christianity, and to resolve this perplexity it was necessary to send him from heaven “a certain vessel, like a great shroud” (Acts 10:11). The Holy Spirit was forced, so to speak, to descend on the house of Cornelius even before his baptism, and the Apostle Peter seemed to apologize for having baptized him. “What could I do,” he says, “when the Holy Spirit descended even before baptism?” (Acts 10:47). And the Holy Spirit at this time, perhaps, has not yet given this revelation. The Savior Himself, right up to His Cross, said: “I was not sent save to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matthew 15:24). We must remember that Divine revelation is announced to people gradually. Divine messengers are higher in moral qualities than in knowledge. From there, if the Old Testament prophet is compared with a Christian baby who knows only the catechism, the prophet will indeed seem less knowledgeable. Therefore, one cannot be surprised that in some messengers of the Divine ignorance of any secret of Providence is sometimes revealed. They could complete their journey with all accuracy and fidelity and without knowledge. In general, perfect knowledge does not belong to a person. The Angels themselves are presented in the Holy Scriptures as wanting to penetrate into the secret of our salvation. The Apostle says: “Let the manifold wisdom of God now be seen as the principle and authority of the heavenly Church” (Eph. 3:10). It seems strange to many that any Divine secret was not known to the Divine messengers, or prophets. But this is how it should be: in the matter of our salvation, not only people, but also Angels serve us; everything serves in its time, in its turn, no more, no less, as much as anyone needs. So the Virgin could know that the Messiah would provide services to the entire human race, but how this would be, she could not know until time. This is the greatest mystery, that the world will become a participant in Divine mercy. Here is the meaning and brief explanation of Mary's song! It is clear that She should be grateful on behalf of the entire people of Israel. Our Church acted very wisely in deciding to sing this song every day. Some other hymns have also been included in our divine service, and our canons are arranged according to the songs of the Old Testament, and the ninth hymn is always concluded with the hymn of the Mother of God. In the irmos, for the attentive listener, the entire history of Providence is repeated. The first song: “Let us drink to the Lord” (Ex. 15:21), was sung by Miriam after crossing the Red Sea. The second: “look up the heavens and I will speak” (Deut. 32:1–43), is an accusatory song of Moses to the Jewish people. since it contains a lot of mournful and unpleasant things, it is sung only during Lent. Here it is impossible not to notice that holy people love to praise God not in their own words, but in ready-made ones, taken from the Holy Scriptures, or from the writings of holy men. An example worthy of all imitation! Therefore, we also need to be as familiar as possible with the Bible; then our words, thoughts and language will become biblical. “And Miriam remained with her for three months and returned to her house” (Luke 1:56). This concludes the evangelist’s description of Mary’s meeting with Elizabeth. Adhering strictly to the order followed by the evangelist, one would have to assume that Mary returned to the house just before the time of Elizabeth’s birth of her son. For the evangelist says that in the sixth month after the conception of Elizabeth the gospel was preached to Mary, but after the gospel Mary did not suddenly go to meet with Elizabeth; She stayed with Elizabeth for about three months. Why shouldn't Mary stay with Elizabeth until John's birthday? Some Church Fathers think that She was actually present at the very birth of John. In “Her house”: “Her” - that is, in relation to Elizabeth’s house, which was not Hers. Perhaps at this time She was received into Joseph's house. 6. The Nativity of John the Baptist and his adolescence “Now the time was fulfilled for Elizabeth to give birth, and she gave birth to a son” (Luke 1:57). These words are apparently superfluous, for when are children born if not according to the fulfillment of time? But it is known that there are pre-term and time-related births. This shows that John's birth was timely. “And he who lived around heard her and her creatures, that the Lord had magnified his mercy toward her: and he rejoiced with her” (Luke 1:58–59). Events such as the birth of a son by an elderly woman spread easily and quickly. For everyone it seemed like God’s extraordinary mercy, and not only mercy, but also the exaltation of mercy. Therefore, Zechariah, not without reason, doubted the fulfillment of the Angel’s prediction. “I rejoice with her.” This is how the fact that “many will rejoice at the birth of John” begins to be fulfilled. “And it came to pass on the eighth day that the boy came to be circumcised.” On the eighth day, according to the law, circumcision was required; At the same time they named it. “Priidosha” was a family and religious ceremony. Since circumcision required art and a virtuous life in those performing it, then, apparently, special people were used for this, and they were primarily engaged in this. “And he was named after his father, Zechariah.” This was the custom among the Jews: to name a baby after his father, grandfather, or at least some relative. This shows that the customs of the Israelites have changed quite a bit. The patriarchs had a custom of giving names to children from famous events, domestic adventures and other things, such as: Benjamin, Isaac. Prophets also sometimes gave names from popular and social events. Now the custom of giving related names has entered. Of course, this is a private custom, but it shows the direction of thoughts of an entire people. The ancient custom of giving a name from events or omens was supported by the idea that the lower order is subordinate to the higher, the everyday order is subordinate to the heavenly and spiritual, the past is connected with the future. Later, when this thought weakened, the Jews lost their sense of faith in Providence, began to give names according to everyday calculations, settled on blood ties, and became, so to speak, on the same level as the pagans. "The name of Zechariah." It seemed closest to them. It is most fitting for a child who is given to his father in old age to be given the father's name; in him the father seems to be resurrected. The mother says, “let him be called John” (Luke 1:60). Why didn't the mother assign Zechariah's name? Did she somehow learn from her husband that her son should be named “John”? There was no way of knowing; but the reason seems to have been different. If Elizabeth had found out from her husband, the Evangelist would have mentioned it. The inner feeling, the thought itself could stop at this name. It could also have happened by mysterious inspiration from above. We have seen that Elizabeth spoke to Mary by revelation; why couldn’t she tell here from the same revelation? Why didn’t her husband somehow tell her the name of her son? The silence imposed on him let him know that he should not convey his thoughts not only through language, but also through other means. It seemed strange to the relatives to name the newborn John; for in their kinship no one else was called by this name. However, the name John was common among Jews; also found in Nehemiah. “And salute to my father...” It was considered necessary to contact my father. For he actually had the right to give a name, especially to a male child. “And everyone did wonders” (Luke 1:62–63). What was everyone wondering? Unprepared consent between husband and wife. The mother said: “Let his name be called John,” and the father wrote: “His name will be John.” And this already shows that the mother spoke on her own, and not in agreement with the father. They were especially miraculous because they did not know the circumstances that preceded this matter - the gospel of the Angel. “And his mouth was opened, and his tongue was opened, and he said, blessing God” (Luke 1:64). The time for punishment has passed and it has been lifted. But the punishment seems to have been somewhat extended beyond the term. The angel first said: “Behold, you will be silent and unable to speak until this day comes to an end” (Luke 1:20). But now eight days have passed since the birth of his son, and Zechariah is still without a tongue. But true birth and entry into life with God—spiritual—begins with circumcision; in physical birth the baby is, as it were, half-human. On the other hand, Providence seems to be preparing a pleasant surprise for the father. His tongue opened along with the naming of his son’s name. In these ways, one can notice that Providence seems to love to amuse holy people for the grief they often endure. “Abiye” was added to show that these events have a close connection with each other. Zechariah began to bless God for everything: for his son, for his former dumbness and for the gift of speech returned to him. He now thanks God - he says that he should, and no longer doubts. “And fear came upon all those who lived around them: and in all the land of the Jews we will tell you these words. And you set it in your heart, saying, “What will this child do?” And the hand of the Lord was with him” (Luke 1:65–66). The last words clearly referred to the subsequent life of John, and the gratitude to Zechariah, expressed by him in the song, should have been earlier. “Fear”: why not joy? What's scary about this? The appearance from another world was the appearance of a meek, kind Angel; Zechariah’s tongue was taken away, but was returned again; a baby is born who will be the benefactor of an entire people - all events are joyful: where does the fear come from? In a similar way, the Evangelist sometimes notes that during some of the miracles performed by Jesus Christ, fear fell on those who saw them. In general, where there are phenomena from another world, when our world seems to be falling apart, fear certainly attacks people there. Even in our world, which, however, has many divisions, lower and higher, when something from the higher division appears (when, for example, a feeling of graceful, lofty manifests itself), the soul seems to be involuntarily seized by fear. For here the soul approaches the boundaries of the spiritual world. This is because, they say, these two worlds are opposite, one excludes the other, they fight among themselves, one exists about the other. Where our world is visible, it is as if that world is not visible; and where this manifests itself, our world seems to disappear. In relation to a person, even more extraordinary things happen here. When another world opens up before him, and he approaches the boundaries of his existence, he cannot help but tremble, just as a criminal trembles before the instrument of execution; and of course, in order for him to pass to another world, he needs death. “In all the land of Judea we will tell all these verbs.” The rumor spread very far, because the event was extraordinary, and all its circumstances were recounted, such as the gospel of the Angel, the taking away and return of Zachariah’s tongue, the naming of the name. And imagine that the attention of the Jewish people at this time was extremely intense; disasters cleansed many of the Jews and revealed the grief of their thoughts; It is obvious that the news of the birth of such a baby as John, as the news of deliverance, should be joyful. “He who has heard everything has put it in his heart.” It was very well placed “in the hearts”; for where better to hide the story of the extraordinary action of Providence, if not in the heart? But experience shows that rare people kept it in their hearts; Much can disappear from the heart. The angel in his prophecy about John says that he “will go before Him with the spirit and with the power of Elijah” (Luke 1:17). Zechariah does not mention this now. Perhaps this trait was hidden by Zechariah in his heart, so to speak, this treasure was left to himself by him; for he was not obliged to preach this gospel. Moreover, the rumor about the birth of the Forerunner of the Messiah should have been dangerous for the city; on the other hand, if these verbs were fully confessed, then the people would still ask: “What will this boy do? And the hand of the Lord was with him” (Luke 1:66). This expression is used to commemorate the special power of God, of whatever kind. In babies destined for great purposes, there are special signs at birth itself, for example, sometimes babies fast on certain days and do not take their mother’s milk. This phenomenon is strange, and therefore many doubt its reality; but a deep look at nature makes you stand for it: there is a lot of unknown, and yet true, in ordinary things. These are natural signs. There are also spiritual ones, for example, the early development of abilities, the direction of thoughts towards one well-known subject, some special adventures. “And Zechariah his father was filled with the Holy Spirit and prophesied” (Luke 1:67). Not only was Zechariah’s punishment removed, but the gift of the Holy Spirit was also sent down to him: he prophesies. This expression does not always mean predicting the future; but here from the lips of Zechariah we will clearly hear about future events. What is the routine in this infilling of the Holy Spirit? First they are filled with pious wives - Elizabeth and Mary, then the priest Zechariah, as if as a result of the birth of a son. John means "grace." What is the subject of Zechariah's prophecy? The same as Mariina's songs. Zechariah thanks God for the visit, which he directly speaks of, and depicts this visit from various angles; then he turns to his son and reveals in his speech what he heard before from the Angel. This is an enthusiastic song or a holy hymn. “Blessed is the Lord God of Israel, for He has visited and brought deliverance to His people” (Luke 1:68). Clearly here Zechariah is referring to the prophecy of Israel's deliverance, and her present plight required deliverance. “Visit”: a biblical expression attached to Providence, so to speak, a favorite in the Holy Scriptures. It is expressed in Scripture under the name of coming and going away. What kind of deliverance does Zechariah mean here? There can be two of them: deliverance from physical troubles and from sins. “Raise up the horn of salvation for us in the house of His servant David” (Luke 1:69). This expression (horn) could have been taken, and probably was taken, from the simple life of animals. For many animals, especially in Palestine, salvation truly lies in the horns. This expression could also have been taken from a sacred place. It is known that the tabernacle had a raised platform like horns, and was called the horns of the altar. It was the custom among the Jews, and even among the pagans, that a criminal who hurriedly ran and grabbed the horn of the altar remained immune from trial and punishment. Hence David sometimes calls God “the horn of salvation, the rock.” In general, this expression means the source of salvation. "David, His servant". David here is called a “youth,” that is, close to God, trusted. “As His prophet has spoken in the mouth of the saints since the world began” (Luke 1:70). Here Zechariah speaks of prophecies given at different times to different men about the deliverance of Israel. In modern times, some non-Orthodox expositors of the Holy Scriptures have developed the idea that prophecies in the matter of faith are not so important that they can easily be abandoned. This idea is false and is a consequence of the anti-religious direction of thought of current scientists. Prophecies form a golden chain connecting times and peoples. In the Old Testament we see that both sinners and righteous people resorted to prophecies in the troubled circumstances of their lives. Jesus Christ and the apostles referred to them. The Apostle Peter calls prophecy a lamp shining “in a dark place” (2 Pet. 1:19). What is the essence of Zechariah's prophecy? Two sides are distinguished in him, and two directions of thoughts are noticeable: 1) God showed mercy to the fathers; 2) remembered His Covenant with them; One tangible benefit is promised: the liberation of the Jews from oppression is promised; another is the granting of spiritual benefits. “We will serve Him in honor and righteousness before Him all the days of our life” (Luke 1:75). Thus, Zechariah expected from the Messiah the restoration of the Kingdom of David, a temporary liberation; but that the Kingdom of Jesus Christ “is not of this world” (John 18:36), that the cross awaits Him - this secret could not be suddenly revealed, for it was beyond the strength of the people of that time to whom the revelation was given. Therefore, it is not surprising that the expectation of spiritual benefits from the Messiah was combined with the expectation of sensual benefits. The reason for this expectation, by the way, was that in some prophecies there was a promise of sensual benefits. The consequences showed that the prophecies about the sensual benefits associated with the coming of the Messiah were fulfilled, although not soon, but in their entirety, and not over the old (carnal) Israel, but over the new Israel. Thus, Christians have now become the stewards of the fate of almost the entire world, the strongest, richest, most enlightened people of all others. The Apostle Paul explains the name of Israel this way: “For all that are of Israel, these are Israel” (Rom. 9:6). But some ask: why was there no speedy fulfillment of these prophecies? We see similar expectations in the first and second centuries after the Nativity of Christ, when many Christians had the thought that the end of the world was soon, the Antichrist would soon appear (so the Apostle Paul was forced to warn his disciples against this thought). They say that during the reign of Jesus Christ, all the righteous Jews and even all Jews will be resurrected and will be blessed. Industry in such subjects, the knowledge or ignorance of which does not harm people, leaves their course to the natural order of things. Zechariah has the idea that the righteous, even after death in another world, do not cease to love their descendants on earth; therefore, showing mercy to descendants is like mercy to themselves. On the other hand, Jesus Christ did not perform His ministry on earth for long: three years and a half, and then passed on to another world, descended into hell after death, and ascended to heaven - where the bosom of the righteous is located, and with Him, without a doubt, it is good for them. “The oath with which they swear to Abraham our father” (Luke 1:73). “They swear”: indicates mercy to all fathers, and not an oath only to Abraham. This is often found in the Bible. God is often represented as acting in this way in relation to some famous person. Doesn't this contradict the fact that God is not partial? Is this in any way shortening the all-encompassing love of God? No. The universality of God's love remains in full force here. This happens due to the necessary laws of the Divine and human being. The Divine can be accepted differently by the earthly. If the acceptability on the part of people is great, then Providence reveals itself to them in greater fullness. We can say that it depends on the person himself to take a lot or a little from God. Therefore, one cannot be surprised that God sometimes seems to treat the righteous especially especially. Sometimes a lot can be concentrated in a person, from his mental and moral actions, just as in one act a lot of good and evil are concentrated. This is the crime of Adam, the consequences of which were especially revealed in the death of Jesus Christ on the cross. People like Abraham, Moses, John, attracted and are attracting God's blessing in the face of Jesus Christ to the human race. A wonderful trait is revealed here in Zechariah himself, as well as in the entire Jewish people: attributing all the mercy of God to the fathers. In later times, a kind of oblivion of the fathers was born; people began to take credit for everything. Considering the life of modern peoples, we notice in them some kind of alienation from their ancestors. This is, of course, a consequence of the great development of forces, and in this direction there is, of course, good, but it contains within itself something similar to the being of evil spirits, dark ones, where in each being the whole world is combined. People must have common feelings, common goods, common faith. So, we repeat again, the prophecy about the granting of sensual benefits did not come true over old Israel; but it did not come true because Israel itself did not fulfill the main condition - the acceptance of the Messiah. With this failure to fulfill the promise, some interpreters, so to speak, do not know what to do, and therefore, speaking about sensory goods, they try, as it were, to interpret spiritual benefits from them. But why reject the promise of sensual goods? If God did not spare His Only Begotten Son for people, then will He spare sensual goods for them? That is why Jesus Christ, entering Jerusalem before His death, turned to him with tears and said: “Jerusalem, Jerusalem! If you had “understood the day of your visitation” (Luke 19:44), then such calamities would not have befallen you; now “the days will come against you, and your enemies will lay guard against you, and will surround you and embrace you on every side” (Luke 19:43). But why, they say, the prophecy about physical blessings was not fulfilled over Israel during the time of Jesus Christ? Then many would have believed in Him. To this it must be said that one must first serve God with honor and truth in order to receive a reward from Him. While Jesus Christ was there, there was no persecution of Antiochus, the church was open, entry into it was free for everyone. Everything favored the Jews to serve God and fulfill His law. Moreover, during the short period of Jesus Christ’s ministry, it was impossible to suddenly endow the Jews with all the benefits; otherwise it would be to build a miracle on a miracle; the entire political order would need to be changed, and this would be harmful. “And you, as a child, were called a prophet of the Most High: for you went before the face of the Lord, preparing His ways” (Luke 1:76). Zechariah's gaze now turns to his son. What kind of appeal to a baby? Is this not a prophetic appeal? So sometimes the prophets turned to inanimate things and talked to them. Truly, the language of Zechariah is the language of a prophet - enthusiastic speech. His baby son was extraordinary. He heard Mary's greeting while still in his mother's womb; He heard, without a doubt, and now with his own ears, his father’s prophecy, which produces a strong effect in his soul and body. Blessed Theophylact makes some remark on this: “It’s strange that Zechariah turns his speech to the youth, but wasn’t it strange that the child himself, being in his mother’s womb, prophesied about the coming of the Messiah?” What kind of speech to this youth? “You will be called the Prophet of the Most High,” that is, the prophet of the Messiah. “Prepare His ways,” that is, moral paths and the paths of His external activity. John really prepared the way for Jesus Christ with his preaching to the people, with his baptism and drawing the attention of the people to Jesus Christ, and also prepared disciples for Him; for the first disciples came to Jesus Christ from John. “Give the understanding of salvation to His people, that they may forgive their sin” (Luke 1:77). The people did not understand their salvation, did not understand themselves: the Pharisees stopped at appearance alone, the Sadducees led an overly sensual life and fell into unbelief; therefore, it was necessary to let them understand their salvation, to force them to change their vicious life to a virtuous one. John, indeed, begins his sermon with the words: repent “and do not begin to say within yourself: father and imam Abraham” (Matthew 3:8–9). “For the sake of the mercy of our God, in them the east from above visited us” (Luke 1:78). Here the Messiah is indicated, who has to provide benefits to the human race. “East from above”: the Israelites had many names for the Messiah, some prophets actually represented Him as a source of light - the East, and the time before His coming - as darkness. And these people, sitting in darkness, the Messiah had to enlighten, and John had to prepare them for this. And John himself is called a “lamp” (John 5:35). “To enlighten those who sit in the darkness and shadow of death” (Luke 1:79). The expression is taken from the prophets, but is very much to the point: this is how Zechariah speaks of his contemporaries; and contemporaries thought of themselves that they were sitting not in darkness and the canopy of death, but in the canopy of heaven; in their conversations with Jesus Christ, extreme pride is noticeable. When they reasoned with the blind man, whose eyes Jesus Christ had opened, they said among other things: “food and we are blind”; (John 9:40)... “direct our feet in the path of peace” (Luke 1:79). The feet of the Jews walked along many paths, but, as David notes, they did not know the path of peace. Reading Josephus, we see that the moral state of the Jews at that time was the worst. “There is in the wilderness” (Luke 1:80). The Evangelist notes about the youth that they were strengthened in spirit - the Spirit of God was especially expressed in them; extraordinary abilities, especially moral ones, were revealed in him. "In the Deserts". The mountainous country of Palestine had many deserts, some of which were filled with animals. There is an ancient story, repeated by Origen, that immediately after Christmas John had to hide in the desert from the persecution of Herod, and that he lived in a cave above the Jordan with his mother, who died after six months; then John could live under the supervision of others, for in those deserts people sometimes lived as hermits. After this, John began to live alone. The order of Providence regarding the life of John is extremely surprising and wise. In due time, John, like a certain Angel, will appear from the desert preaching repentance, having nothing to do with earthly relatives and acquaintances - he knew only one God. His life was the best and most convincing preaching of a change in life. He was a relative of Jesus Christ in the flesh, which is why, living in the desert, having been separated, so to speak, from the Messiah from the very cradle, John thereby removed any suspicion of partiality towards Him; for he did not and could not know Him in the ordinary way, but preached about Him at the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. This is what the Evangelist Luke says about the circumstances preceding the birth of the Messiah. Let us now turn to the Evangelist Matthew. He will tell us one more circumstance that preceded the birth of Jesus Christ. Although he still speaks about the image of birth, he touches on it little, and speaks more about the circumstances surrounding this event. The image of birth is described in more detail by the Evangelist Luke. “I had never even dreamed of it before” (Matthew 1:18). It must be remembered that Mary still lived in Her home. It was the custom among the Jews for the bride to live a little longer in her house. At this time, She traveled to the mountainous country of Judea to visit Elizabeth, and stayed there for about three months, and the very fruit that She carried in her womb now became noticeable (“having been found in the womb”) for Joseph’s gaze. What did this “discovery” produce in Joseph’s mind? It must be extremely amazing for a holy man. The Church well understood and expressed Joseph’s feelings at that time: “Having a storm within with doubtful thoughts, chaste Joseph was confused.” Truly, there was a strong storm in his soul! On the one hand, he was confident in the purity of his betrothed, he knew the vow of eternal virginity given by Her, he did not know another maiden other than Her, more perfect in purity. On the other hand, in this very bride he saw, or at least thought to see, a stolen marriage. It was an arrow, the most poisonous and sharpest for his heart. No doubt he closed his eyes a hundred times so as not to see this; a hundred times he wanted to think that he was being deceived, but every day brought him new torment and confirmed his suspicions with greater clarity. To cover this up generously meant to break the law, which said that an unchaste bride dishonors the house, and the one who holds her is “foolish and wicked” (Prov. 18:23). To act according to the law seemed too harsh and cruel; for in that case, Mary should have been “beaten with a conum” (Deut. 22:23–24). But the same righteousness of the law prevented such terrible punishment. She discerned the sins of momentary weakness and ignorance (Deut. 22:25). Therefore, those interpreters who think to see only condescension in the word “righteousness” unjustly evade the direct meaning, for in relation to the Virgin Mary not only condescension, but also righteousness could be shown. Joseph wants to stand in the middle. He did not want to bring Her to trial, make her public, and wanted to separate from Her, only secretly. This could be done among the Jews, both by law and by custom. It was only possible to separate with the testimony of two or three, but this is not the same as a public divorce. And it was necessary to release the bride with a letter of permission and a letter of divorce (Deut. 24:1), on which the witnesses had to sign. This letter might not have stated why the engaged couple were getting divorced. Joseph also wanted to do this, preserving Mary’s honor. But why didn’t he ask Her herself about the reason for Her non-idleness? This was required by both justice and necessity. Joseph probably spared Mary's feelings here. It’s obvious, he thought, without that. She herself is tormented by her feelings: why should I aggravate her torment with my questions and inquiries? But why was Mary silent? She could not help but see how Joseph was suffering. Important reasons forced Her to speak, and yet She remains silent. But what would She say to Joseph? Should we announce the appearance of an Angel to him? But this phenomenon is so extraordinary that Joseph would hardly have had enough faith to believe it. Moreover, in this silence of Mary Her extraordinary devotion to the will of God is expressed. Silence was not imposed on Her, as was on Zechariah, but She Herself imposed it on Herself. She spoke at this time only with God in prayer, just as David says: “Open your way to the Lord, and trust in Him, and He will do it: and He will bring forth your righteousness as light and your destiny as the noonday” (Ps. 36:5-6). She thought: Whoever started this business will finish it. He will bring reason to Joseph if necessary. The fruit that was in Her womb occupied Her soul most of all. Joseph, no matter how close he was to Her, was now an even stranger. Be that as it may, this silence was not without great heaviness for Mary’s heart. Why did Providence allow such a difficulty? Why was Joseph not introduced into the mystery of redemption? Why did He allow such a heavy suspicion to arise in Joseph’s soul? Without a doubt, for the good of Joseph and Mary. Mary, as the Church puts it, was to “reciprocate” the purest humanity on behalf of the entire human race with Jesus Christ. Joseph was supposed to be His feeder, guardian, and be called, in a sense, father. All this expresses carnal birth; The Messiah had to first confirm in the souls of Mary and Joseph the conviction that spiritual birth cannot happen without special temptations and sorrows. It is not surprising that Providence put such holy people in a difficult position. He loves to test them in this way, so to speak. And what son of the king would agree to be subjected to such reproach that his mother would be suspected of impurity and unchastity? And Jesus Christ, the Son of the King of Heaven, is subject to it. Providence often leaves Its ways unclear to people until a certain time, and thereby wants to teach people self-sacrifice. “I thought this to him, and behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream” (Matthew 1:20). The expression is short, but how much it hides! “Behold, the Angel of the Lord appeared in a dream.” There were no natural means to admonish Joseph; God uses the supernatural, an Angel appears. But why didn't he appear earlier? He appears, no doubt, already when the fruit of temptation has been gathered; whereas his appearance before this not only could not be useful, but could even be harmful. But the Angel could still delay his appearance, because Joseph had one more remedy: to resolve his perplexities in the sacred books, as the Angel would tell him. But Joseph’s thought was doubled between two objects: between the innocence of Mary and the fact that She is not idle. He might have thought that Mary was guilty because she was not idle; another thought told him that She was innocent, for She was of holy and immaculate life and had given God a vow of virginity. But one more thought should tell him: Mary, although not idle, is at the same time innocent. But his thought stopped at the first two perplexities; but he did not think that Mary conceived from the Holy Spirit, although this was predicted by the prophets of the Old Testament. This prediction was to be an anchor for Joseph in the storm of doubts in which he wavered. Joseph, as a pious husband, should have known the Old Testament, and therefore he still needed to reveal his perplexities to Mary. “Angel of the Lord” – which one? It is said before that Gabriel appeared to Mary, but there is no name here. This was probably an Angel of some lower rank, for he acts in a dream. Why not in reality, as he appeared to Zechariah and Mary. Is this a lower or a higher kind of revelation? In some ways it is inferior to miraculousness: to appear in reality is more miraculous than in a dream. But if we take the state of the one to whom the revelation is given, then this type of revelation should be considered the highest: for if a person is satisfied with the revelation given to him in a dream, then through this he will show more faith than if he required a manifestation in the waking state. Saint Chrysostom notes: “For this reason an Angel appeared in a dream; Because Joseph was a faithful husband, he did not demand this manifestation” (in reality). Joseph's soul, extremely disposed towards Mary, needed only the slightest hint in order to turn in the other direction. "Son of David". In addition to the proper name “Joseph”, the Angel also adds: “son of David”; This reminder for Joseph is both joyful and sad at the same time. It is a joy to be a descendant of King David. But what was Joseph? A simple woodworker, and therefore the mention of his royal origin is, as it were, a reproach for him. The angel wanted to console Joseph with this and at the same time reproach him, as if saying: “You are embarrassed by these events; where should they be fulfilled if not in your tribe? Faith cannot be demanded from another, but faith can be demanded from you: you must ascend to the heights of prophecy.” This is how Saint Chrysostom notes about this: “Abiy I will remember again the Angel of David, from whom Christ wanted to be.” You are embarrassed,” he tells him, “from your own happiness and glory; remember David, and be above others in faith. Now the time has come for the promises to be fulfilled, the time for miracles has come. "Do not be afraid." Why be afraid? A law that prohibited keeping a bride who had been robbed. Saint Chrysostom notes: “Let God not be angry, for he is a fornicator.” “Acceptance” may mean acceptance in thoughts, but more accurately, acceptance into one’s home, for Mary, probably to this day, did not live in Joseph’s house, but in Her own. "Your wives". Saint Chrysostom says: “The Angel said “woman,” but he would not have called Her that if She had been corrupt.” "Born" (γεννηθεν) in it. The baby was still in the womb; Why does the Angel say: “born”? Saint Basil the Great and other Church Fathers thought about this, that the body of Jesus Christ was formed suddenly in the womb, but this guess seems unnecessary. It is known that the aorist is used for any tense; therefore γεννηθεν - “born” - in this case can be translated “born”. But this can be agreed differently. The angel here means Joseph, and for him the Child was already “born” - in relation to the guilt or innocence of his bride, who greatly occupied his soul. "From the Holy Spirit". This is clear to us now, but in the Old Testament the teaching about the Holy Spirit was incomprehensible to many. But Joseph probably understood this: otherwise the Angel would have explained his thought to him more. This means that Joseph had the same idea as we do. He could understand the working of the power of God. The angel opens the object here from one side. He should have said that what was born in Her was not from Her, as Joseph might have thought, but from the Holy Spirit. Saint Chrysostom says: The angel here reveals the guilt, showing the conception, so that Joseph will not just run away from doubt, but will also be convinced. “She will give birth to a Son, and you will call His name Jesus: for He will save His people from their sins” (Matthew 1:21). Having said where the fruit comes from, the Angel further reveals the future. Why this disclosure? Partly to encourage Joseph, partly to prove his words. “Son” is a male baby, which no one can predict before the time of birth. "Jesus". You have not only learned the secret, but you have been chosen to be the minister of this secret. Saint Chrysostom notes: The angel says to him: “You will call His name, even though you do nothing at birth, but the position of the name is given to the One who is born.” The Angel does not say: “You will be born”; for this Child belonged not only to Joseph, but to the whole universe. The name “Jesus” was also used in the Old Testament, and it was borne by those who freed Israel from disasters or defeated its enemies (Numbers 13:17). “He will save His people from their sins”; the reason for this and not another name is shown. “Jehoisua” or “Jehisua” for short means “the salvation of the Lord.” Saint Chrysostom notes: “He said to him: “His people,” and not the whole human race, so that he does not frighten those who hear. What was so scary for Joseph? The fact that the Jews were not prepared for this, and there was a lot of Providence, so to speak, then even the apostles themselves had to convince of this. The people of Judah were very rude; How could he be tied to the New Testament and encouraged to fulfill the commandments of God, if not with such promises? Spiritual blessings alone could not hold him back. This is like a shell in which the Divine fruit was stored. After this the shell broke apart and the fruit appeared. “But to those who hear wisely,” says St. Chrysostom, “name in tongues.” For a sensual person, spiritual promises become coarser, but for a spiritual person, sensual ones seem to become spiritualized. This interpretation is considered by some to be a figment of the imagination. But philological and school interpretation is the fruit of the poverty of the interpreters’ own feelings. And for secular writers who wrote with feeling, the rules of ordinary hermineutics are insufficient - the meaning is always higher than the word. Each sacred writer is a member of a host of other sacred writers and is in an inextricable spiritual connection with them. To understand them according to the rules of general hermineutics means to completely de-soul them. The sacred writers did not act this way when interpreting. The Apostle Paul, explaining what Israel is, says that true Israel is the one who lives like Abraham (Rom. 9:6). "From their sin." Some interpreters, crawling in the dust, want to explain it in their own way here too. What is closer to understand here if not sin? But they want to understand here physical evil, as a consequence of sin; for the word “sin” and in Holy Scripture often means “punishment” for sin. The reason for this interpretation is their preconceived thoughts and arbitrary speculation. They are afraid of the heights of the Holy Scriptures. In general, today’s interpreters exhibit a certain dryness, coldness, and a falling away from the higher life—spiritual; That’s why all their explanations seem to be dead. Then the Angel who appeared to Joseph in a dream points to the prophecy of the Old Testament. “Now all this happened, that the scripture might be fulfilled, which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying: Behold, a virgin is with child and bears a Son, and they will call His name Immanuel, which is what is said: God is with us” (Matthew 1:22–23). Whose words are these? In the immediate sense, they should be considered a continuation of the previous words of the Angel. But a fair number of interpreters take them for the words of the evangelist. The latter opinion is partly due to what was previously said in the future tense, and now in the past and present. However, this reason is unimportant. For the same speaking person changes times, depending on what he is talking about. Saint Chrysostom thinks about this too. Why does the Angel point to prophecies? More for clarification, and partly to confirm my thoughts. The case with Maria was the only one. It was predicted in the Old Testament in many places, but Joseph, no matter how familiar he was with the Holy Scriptures, could not stop at these places and apply them to his betrothed. The angel now did what Joseph himself should have done. He places it on a well-known solid point, points to the prophecies. St. Chrysostom presents a psychological reason for this: “For this reason, the Angel points out prophecies, so that if he forgets his words, if he remembers the prophetic scriptures, he will retain his words.” The reason is deep! The Angel's words might have been forgotten; the prophecy should remind them. But is it not more likely to forget the words of prophecy than the words of an Angel? No, the soul in a dream follows laws that are different from those by which it acts in reality. The appearance of an Angel in a dream, of course, should have remained in the soul; there was no astonishment here that would have occurred from a phenomenon in the waking state. Dreams, the most wonderful ones, sometimes disappear from our memory, and only the most ordinary circumstances remain. It was easier for Joseph to remember the prophecies, and the appearance of the Angel, having struck only the surface of his soul, could have been forgotten. It, like an anchor, was only thrown into his soul. "Everything will happen." What is "everything"? In fact, there was only one conception of Jesus Christ by the Holy Virgin, but in that alone lies everything. “Let it come true” - pious Jews, like Joseph, always lived more in the future and past than in the present. They expected the Messiah in the future, they saw pious ancestors in the past, but the present was disastrous for them. “Let him not imagine,” as St. Chrysostom says, “that this is now settled, but that it was foretold.” The angel does not mention the name of the prophet, as all this comes from the Lord, only through the prophet. The appearance of the Angel cleared Joseph's soul of all suspicions. Why did he believe the Angel? Joseph was born with such a strong and quick faith because there was a solid foundation for it in his soul; he was glad to lose faith in his suspicions. Moreover, the appearance of the Angel had a great influence on him. Saint Chrysostom notes about Joseph that he “having a cheerful soul, as if he had always looked upon Mariam, was not accepted by Yu, lower than when he was freed from suspicion, he rejected Yu.” Such souls as Joseph's were like rich, heavily laden ships; They are enriched with virtues, but they listen to one word of the helmsman, everything is harmonious with them, subject to one general law and brought to unity: but in the soul of a sinner everything is upset, everything is in disarray. “Accepted”, or left Her to live with him in the house. “Not knowing Her Dondezhe..” (Matthew 1:24–25). Some heretics think that Mary, having given birth to Jesus Christ, began to live in marriage with Joseph and had children from him. When simply reading, this idea really seems to appear. “Without knowing... Dondezhe..”. That means I found out after birth. “Firstborn”: this means that She had other children, but there is a saying: ita negat praeteritum, ut non ponat futurum; for example, we say: he remained childless until his death; did he have children after death? to death in enmity; and after death, was he reconciled? He is condemned before he is heard; But once he is condemned, is he then heard? But in the Hebrew language such expressions should and do occur even more often. For example, “sit at the right hand of Men, Dondezh...”. (Ps. 109:1); and then is it really necessary to become? So the base of the heretics is weak. “Firstborn” generally means the first child; sometimes it means the firstborn and one about whom it is unknown whether he will have brothers or sisters or not: God, for example, in Deuteronomy demands that all firstborns be dedicated to Himself; no doubt, among them there were those who had no brothers or sisters. And therefore, the teaching of the Church about the ever-virginity of the Mother of God remains undoubted. Here is the introductory narrative of the Evangelist Matthew; other evangelists do not have it. A morally precious passage! He shows how the most holy men, the chosen ones of Providence, are sometimes placed in a difficult state. A strange suspicion, born in the soul of a holy man and on a holy face, teaches a lesson to those who are sometimes innocently suspected. If the God-Man suffered such a grave reproach before he saw the light, then for other people can any suspicions seem grave and strange? Moreover, such temptations are necessary for pious people; without them, their virtues would lack one important aspect. The righteous cannot fully know the state of the sinner. True, he always seems to recognize himself as a sinner, and yet he does not completely feel the danger of such a state. In order to fully see it and receive a constant aversion to it, he must first be transferred to this state, just as God sometimes allows a sinner to enter the state of the righteous for a while in order to let him feel the sweetness and bliss of this state and thereby attract him to Himself. Let us turn again to the Evangelist Luke. He will tell us about the very birth of Jesus Christ. “And it came to pass in those days that a commandment went forth from Caesar Augustus” (Luke 2:1). What days are we talking about here? This was preceded by the legend that the boy (John) “stretched...” (Luke 1:80). It is obvious that here it is not this time, of course, but the time that followed the birth of the Baptist. “The commandment came from Caesar Augustus to write the whole world” (Luke 2:1). This expression is apparently simple, but in fact picturesque and powerful. Here the command seems to come from Augustus, then ruler of almost the entire world, or, as it were, from God. “Caesar” is a name inherited from Julius Caesar. Augustus (most sacred) is the name given to him by the Senate. “Write the whole universe” means the Roman qualification. There were two types of censuses: one consisted of a census of souls, and the other - a census of estates. The first could be done simply for reference, out of curiosity, and the other - for collecting taxes. Here, of course, there is a census of the first kind, because a census of another kind took place ten years later. She is mentioned in Acts (Acts 5:37). Archelaus, the ruler of Judea, was exiled, and Judea was annexed to the Roman Empire. The Jews then rebelled, but this census ended quietly. "The Whole Universe". If taken literally, it would mean “the whole world.” But many countries were not then subject to the rule of Augustus. The universe here may mean "Roman Empire". Augustus made two censuses during his reign. The time we are considering refers to the second, which supposedly was in the forty-fifth year of the reign of Augustus, and Jesus Christ was born in the forty-ninth. However, the universe can also be understood as Judea alone. For the writers of that time, πασαν οικουμενην meant much less than it does now. Josephus uses these words in this sense when he says that Ahab sent to look for Elijah throughout the entire universe. If by “universe” we mean Judea alone, then it is clear why secular writers do not mention it, precisely because Augustus, having the idea of ​​annexing Judea to the Roman Empire, wanted to know its population. “I rule Quirinia over Syria” (Luke 2:2). These words are introductory. The evangelist wanted to distinguish with them the time of that census (the first spelling, not the second). But this desire to determine the time caused a lot of trouble for the interpreters. Quirinius began to rule Syria ten years after this circumstance. The question arises: how could the evangelist, ten years later, anticipate these circumstances with his description? Some, to resolve this bewilderment, turned to the idea that these words were considered to be the words of a copyist, first put on the field, and then included in the text; but such an interpretation can be called too bold. Moreover, this verse is read in all ancient codes. Others think that the evangelist's memory failed here. But this same evangelist (Luke 1:3) says that he experienced everything in detail and in order: how could he forget what every Jew remembered? This opinion cannot be allowed, especially since he wanted to determine the time of the census with these words; therefore, in this place he should look for accuracy. They are turning to other methods of reconciliation. They are different: 1) Syria was ruled at that time by Sentius, that is, another, and here we are talking about Quirinius; Indeed, at that time there was a certain Quirinius in the east, but it is not clear whether he ruled Syria. But he could have had a special assignment from Augustus to oversee this census, and the evangelist could have taken the word “managed” in an improper sense. But why don't secular historians mention this? They do not mention the same reason why they are silent about some other circumstances of the reign of Augustus. 2) The first spelling can be taken instead of “first,” that is, before Quirinius began to rule Syria. But do sacred writers use positive words instead of comparative ones? They use, for example: “first” (πρωτος) “before I hated you” (John 1:15), “before (πρωτος) I hated you” (John 15:18). The word αυτη `, if you read αυτη, then the meaning will be this: a command came from Augustus to write the entire universe, and the very fulfillment of it began in parts; “the very” (αυτη `) spelling was “Quirinius, who rules Syria,” ten years later. Such different readings could easily have come from copyists. Be that as it may, only this contradiction between sacred writers and secular ones is unimportant. And among secular writers one can encounter many such contradictions. “And the Jews (Judea) were all written up, each one into his own city” (Luke 2:3), - into the city to which one belonged. The Jews were divided by tribes, tribes, surnames, or houses. “And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, no longer being from the house and fatherland of David” (Luke 2:4). Joseph was a descendant of David, and David was born in Bethlehem, therefore Joseph should have recorded his name in Bethlehem. Bethlehem was about three or four days' journey from Nazareth. Here it is said about Joseph: “I went up”, and in the previous one: “I went.” Of course, many wealthy people did not walk, but probably drove. And one could guess about Joseph that he did not set off on foot, for the non-idle Mary accompanied him; but from the words of the evangelist it is clear that he simply went with Mary. The manger will be their inheritance, but not for them, but for their Divine Child. Why did Mary and Joseph go with him? It seems that as a result of the command, only the heads of families were to go for registration. For if everyone, without exception, happened to go to their city, then this relocation would be terrible and would cause great confusion. They guess that Maria was the heiress of the house. She was an orphan and probably had no brothers or sisters; and therefore She had to represent Her house or clan in Her person. The basis of this custom of the Jews lies in the law, where it is commanded not only a married woman, but also an orphaned girl, to represent her entire house in her person (Num. 36:8). Here “living together” means the same as being orphaned, left alone. She should marry only in her own tribe, so as not to mix her heritage. Tradition says about Mary’s parents that they were both elderly, and they probably had no other children besides Her. But there could have been other reasons for Mary to go with Joseph to Bethlehem. We only need to notice the ways of Providence here. The prophets predicted that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem (Mic. 5:2). The Prophet is speaking here about contemporary events, and suddenly turns to Bethlehem and speaks about its high destiny as if this: you are small, Bethlehem, you are not even counted among the thousands of Judas; but a leader will come from you. Such appeals from present events to future ones are found very often among prophets. How could this prophecy be fulfilled? One could explain this prediction to Joseph and Mary. It would seem that this is the easiest way. But this would be a human performance. Providence commands here to issue a command from Augustus, as a result of which all the Jews will go, therefore Joseph and Mary, to Bethlehem, and thus fulfill the prophecy. The remedy seems to be enormous, but God is at work here, and therefore it is the best. And this is the main purpose of this writing! Augustus, of course, had his goal in mind. Perhaps he was prompted to this by curiosity, or perhaps by political considerations, for Herod at that time killed two sons - his heirs. But here the will of heaven is being accomplished! Everyone, without a doubt, talked about this worldwide event, everyone felt it, and yet no one knew the true reason for it. This can always happen with such events. In the most intelligent considerations, judgments, where everything is weighed, everything is evaluated, everything is examined, one true reason and the purpose of the event may not be understood. Therefore, when dealing with civil orders - the most apparently reckless and burdensome ones - there is no need to grumble and despair too much. There is a higher finger that controls everything, and always for the better. Why was the Holy Virgin brought to Bethlehem in no other way? Why did the Savior of the world choose to be born during the census of the whole world? Origen responds to this this way: a king is born, a new kingdom is established - therefore it was necessary to count the subjects; the Savior appears - therefore it is necessary to carry out a census of those to whom salvation is brought. “And it came to pass, when she was there, that the days of her giving birth were fulfilled” (Luke 2:6). Where? Why didn’t the evangelist speak in Bethlehem? Previously, the evangelist did not spare names, he said: the city of David Bethlehem, but now he simply says: “there.” Considering the legends about the place of birth of Jesus Christ, it is impossible to say affirmatively where Christ was born. Partly He was born in Bethlehem, partly outside it. The hotel that owned the place where Christ was born was probably located at the end of the city or outside it, for the greater convenience of travelers. "The days are fulfilled". And it is said of John that the days were fulfilled, and then he was born. Origen notes that this expression is used when speaking about the birth of the righteous; at the birth of the Holiest of Saints, this fulfillment must be the strictest. The days were fulfilled not only for Mary, but for the whole earth. We can say that the conception of Jesus Christ was in the heart of all humanity, the whole earth. Jesus Christ Himself said that “the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth” after His death (Matthew 12:40). And precisely, His appearance on earth concentrates all the forces of both worlds - human and Angelic; concentrates all times. This reckoning of times is incomprehensible to us, and hence the misinterpretation of the Apocalypse. “Give birth” (Luke 2:7) - in the usual way, as babies are born. In this case, one cannot help but notice the prejudice we have in Russia about the birth of Jesus Christ - from the side to Devich. This prejudice has degenerated from an incorrect translation of our sacred books, for example: in the Akathist of the Theotokos it is said: “from the side of a pure Son a mighty birth is born” (Ikos 2). And there are several other misconceptions born from the same source. Therefore, you need to be as careful as possible when translating: one word can lead several thousand people astray. “And he entwined Him, and laid Him in a manger” (Luke 2:7). The evangelist here seems to see the action itself. But on the other hand, when remembering who this begotten and midwife is, these expressions take on a broader meaning. Mary gave birth herself, gave birth herself and laid her in a manger; there was no woman present, as is usually the case during childbirth. On the one hand, this shows extreme poverty and constrained circumstances; on the other hand, the birth for the Mother of God was painless. She did not experience here what other women in labor experience. The curse uttered over Eve did not come true over Her: “bring forth your children in sickness” (Gen. 3:16). She gave birth to a child in joy. “In a manger” - in the original εν τη θατνη - a manger is a fenced-in place where cattle are driven. This is where this Firstborn of God and Man is laid. There was no other place for Him in the inn. There was probably only one hotel, there was a large crowd of people, and everyone in it was occupied. Joseph was a poor man, and, of course, no one agreed to give up his place; That's why he was placed in the cattle fence. The time was harsh then, and for the Baby in the manger it was still calmer and warmer than in the open air. Tradition says that this manger was not made by hands, that is, there was something like a canopy in the rock; and this is very likely, for Bethlehem lies in a mountainous country, surrounded by rocks, and the hotel probably adjoined one of these rocks. There is another legend that the Baby was lying between two animals - an ox and a donkey. This is where the Church Fathers include the prophecy of Habakkuk, according to the translation of LXX: “in the midst of two living creatures you will be known” (Hab. 3:2). In Jewish it is somewhat different. But one cannot help but be surprised by the combination of prophecies and events. When there was no room for His Mother and Father in the inn, it is likely that the manger was filled with oxen and donkeys, especially since some came to Bethlehem. Here another prophecy of Isaiah was fulfilled: “the ox knew the one who had acquired it, and the donkey knew his master’s manger” (Is. 1:3). If ever the ox knew the one who had acquired it, it was at this time. This is how the birth of Jesus Christ happened! The evangelist in the seventh verse repeats the words “Him”: and he entwined “Him” and put “Him” - by which, of course, he wanted to make it clear who “He” is. His birth was surrounded by extreme poverty and oppression, and this path was chosen by Providence, of course, not without intention. Jesus Christ here descended to the last degree of humiliation. How many babies in the world have or could have experienced such circumstances? And what more humiliating image could be chosen? It seems impossible to imagine anything else. Unless to be born in prison: that would be beneath this; but this image, for many reasons, could not be chosen by Providence. Afterwards, Jesus Christ says about Himself: “foxes have plagues, and birds of heaven have nests; but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head” (Matthew 8:20). And indeed, He was born in a manger, lived wherever it happened, and died on the Cross. What must Joseph and Mary have thought about the Child? They should have understood from this that the Kingdom of Jesus Christ “is not of this world” (John 18:36). They were to be introduced into the mystery of redemption, not by words, but by deeds. In harsh times, Mary walked through the mountainous country on foot, and was not idle. She, as we saw before, loved to hide everything in Her heart, to think about everything, and could, without a doubt, not think about this event: why such poverty? When Jesus Christ lay in the manger, no one in the world knew that the Savior of the world had appeared; everyone's minds were busy with the census. Yes, He didn’t need fame. The time of His open ministry will not come soon: in thirty years. However, this event, by its very extremeness (for there is nothing else like it on earth or in heaven), should not have remained unknown. It was indeed celebrated in heaven. The evangelist says about this: “and suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of howls from heaven, praising God” (Luke 2:13); but there is another general indication. The Epistle to the Hebrews says that the Divine world participated in this celebration: “When he again brings the Firstborn into the universe, he says: And let all the angels of God worship him” (Heb. 1:6). The Fathers of the Church here mean the incarnation, and the first introduction was when the Son was shown to the angels (1 Tim. 3:16); and then it is said that angels also desire to penetrate into the mystery of redemption (1 Pet. 1:12), but the appearance of the Son of God in the flesh was the beginning and focus of this mystery. He enters again into the universe, from which in some way He was expelled by the crime of Adam; in Him the restoration of the angelic world itself took place. Here is represented the part of the heavenly choir seen by the shepherds. But the earth could not help but know about the birth of its Savior. 8. Adoration of the shepherds to the born Christ The first gospel about this was to the shepherds. “The shepherd of the behu in the same country (according to legend, half an hour from Bethlehem) kept vigil and watch over the night watch” (Luke 2:8), - standing guard alternately. Shepherds, like warriors, take turns on guard. About their own flock, and not about someone else’s (they care - ed.), for they were not mercenaries. They ask: how could they graze the flock in December? Then it must be winter, especially in the mountainous country. This circumstance seemed so important to some critics that they decided to postpone the birth of Jesus Christ to another month. But this objection is a consequence of intentional or unintentional ignorance of the topography of Judea. There in December it can sometimes be warmer and sometimes colder; sometimes there is no snow, and there is a lot of grass. In March, sometimes the harvest is ripe there. Moreover, the Palestinian shepherds cannot be compared with the shepherds of the flocks of other countries. They could tend their flocks even when others did not think about it. So, for example, our Siberian or Taurian shepherds drive out their flocks to graze even when there is already snow, in the hope that the cattle will still gather something. Moreover, in Palestine they do not stock up on feed for livestock for the winter. What happened to these shepherds? “The Angel of the Lord was in them (Luke 2:9), that is, he found himself in the midst of them. The glory of the Lord is theirs,” that is, the light shone as if from the glory of the Lord surrounding the throne of the Lord; the light is pure, gentle, Divine. And the appearance of light in the middle of the night can produce fear in a simple person; but the appearance of the Angel, no matter how meek, could not help but strike them with fear. “Do not be afraid” (Luke 2:10). The angel calms the shepherds as he once calmed Zechariah, and as if he were saying: you have nothing to fear, I proclaim to you great joy that will be for all people, that is, one can understand, for the entire Jewish people, but in the Angel’s mind there was probably a thought about the entire human race. “Being born” (Luke 2:11), that is, in Bethlehem, which was one city of David and which was completely known to the shepherds. The name of the Messiah alone should have been extremely joyful for the shepherds. Palestine at that time lived on this hope alone; This was especially gratifying for the poor, such as the shepherds. The rich, of course, could not value this so much. “Behold a sign for you: you will find a midwife lying in a manger” (Luke 2:12). Why doesn’t the Angel say: go? With these words, he seems to be hinting that they should go themselves. The shepherds could not help but hasten to see the born Savior. “Sign” - but does not say where. The shepherds might have assumed that it was at the inn. But what is this sign for shepherds? The joy of greatness is brought to them, and the sign of this is a Child in a manger. One might not believe such a sign. But the shepherds were above this unbelief. Without a doubt, this secret was revealed to them; They were not invited by the Angel to worship the Messiah in vain, which means they deserved it with their faith and purity of life. Tradition says that there were three of them, and they were more worthy than the others who were with them on guard overnight. This sign is given to them to test their faith. “And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of heavenly howls, praising God and saying: Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men” (Luke 2:13–14). For whom? For shepherds. But they could not have expected this. They did not even expect the appearance of the Angel. Why - “suddenly”? One might think that this suddenness was for the event itself, or for the Angel himself. The angel alone had to do his job, and did it; but this multitude of “heavenly howls,” having been struck by the greatness of the miracle and goodness of God, seemed unable to resist revealing itself: the shell of this external world seemed to be dissolved, and the shepherds unexpectedly saw into the higher world and heard Angels there praising God and speaking. Their spirit, seeing this phenomenon, was delighted; their mental eye expanded and became sharper, more capable of seeing into the spiritual world. What did the Angels cry out for? “Glory” is thanksgiving to God, His highest power, revealed in all the power of His wisdom and love. Now His glory will no longer be darkened on earth; where before there was enmity, dispute, curse, there will now be peace. The earth, previously decisively separated from the sky, will now be united with it. Divine love for people will be revealed more fully. And before, God showed love to people, but now he shows it and will show it in a special way. Why do angels praise God? Out of pure love for humanity. But later we will see that the actions of Christ’s merits extended to the angelic world. Why don't the Angels mention this? Perhaps this secret was not revealed to them: they will recognize it later; for otherwise they would not want to delve into it. The proclamation of the Angelic Peace is the crown of all redemption, therefore, this secret had to be revealed at the end. “And it came to pass that the angels and the shepherd men departed from them into heaven, saying to one another, “Let us go to Bethlehem, and we see this word that has passed, which the Lord spoke to us” (Luke 2:15). First, the evangelist presents the descent of the Angels as accidental. Is this anthropomorphic expression only for shepherds? But this could be expressed through an accidental disappearance. It must be thought that the Angels really seemed to depart to heaven gradually. They also have their own permanent place, where after a short visit to the earth they were supposed to return. The series representing their ascension must be amazing! This reminds us of the ladder Jacob saw, on which the Angels ascended and descended. “Shepherd deciding to each other..”. This expression shows that there were more than three shepherds. Perhaps they left a part on guard, which should go to worship the born Messiah when they return. But maybe there were only three. This expression is also used about a few people. “And she came with haste” (Luke 2:16), - with zeal. The angel appeared to the shepherds at night, and he, of course, appeared soon after the birth of Christ. They went to worship also very soon. The place where they tended the flock was not far from Bethlehem; This means that they came to the place of the Nativity of Christ at night. From all this it is clear that the Son of God was also born at night. Hence, in the Eastern and Western Churches, it is the custom to celebrate the liturgy on Christmas Day at midnight. “Miriam was found” (Luke 2:16). Why did they see Mother first? Maybe because She is more important in this case. Having looked at such poverty, the shepherds hastened to tell what they had seen, and thus, as it were, excuse themselves that they had come to look for the Messiah in the manger. “And everyone who heard everything was amazed at those things that were spoken by the shepherds to them” (Luke 2:18). It was not just Joseph and Mary, but probably those who were in the hotel also came, for there were many people in it. "About those spoken by the shepherds". The shepherds told their vision, but Joseph and Mary remained silent. Approximate silence! Mary was putting everything together in her heart when the Angel preached the gospel to Her. She loved to think about everything, which is confirmed by this incident. She embraced all this with thought and feeling. From the very beginning She entered into a series of events, glorious, extraordinary, and disastrous - ordinary. And for us now such duality requires reflection. It cost her a lot. For Her, these states seemed to replace each other, contradicting one another and thereby forcing Her to think. The evangelist does not notice this about Joseph. His mind and character were very simple. He was righteous and pious, but did not think deeply. He was more of a spectator and a servant of mystery. “And the shepherd returned, glorifying and praising God for everyone, even as he had heard and seen, as it was said to be done to them” (Luke 2:20). We said that this sign was given to them to test them. They were not tempted by the vision of the Messiah in the manger and began to glorify the Divine Child. For the sense of vision there was little there, but for the sense of interiority there was a lot. “I’ve already heard...” . What did you hear? Perhaps Joseph and Mary, seeing such faithful and pious men in the shepherds, considered it necessary to tell them something about the Annunciation, about the appearance of an Angel in a dream to Joseph, in order to be mutually comforted and rejoice. Thus, the first news of the birth of the Messiah was given to shepherds - simple, ignorant people, about whom the Jewish Sanhedrin said: “This people, who do not know the law, are cursed” (John 7:49). Truly, he does not know the law, but he knows what is above the law. Our Church has recognized these shepherds as saints. 9. The journey of the Magi and their worship of Jesus Christ The Nativity of Jesus Christ was surrounded by many supernatural and natural events. Among the supernatural is, by the way, the worship of the Magi - an event important in its external and internal significance. The wise men go to worship the newborn King of the Jews, when He had nothing to do with them. They confuse Jerusalem with their arrival, force Herod to assemble a Sanhedrin, then bring Him gifts from the best they had. This is the external meaning. The internal meaning is that all paganism, all ancient wisdom, bows before Jesus Christ in the person of the Magi. But this event is difficult to establish in the order of other events; it is difficult to determine its chronology, as a result of which it seems out of order. There are many other moral difficulties regarding this event, which St. John Chrysostom felt: “We need much vigil, many prayers, so that we can understand who they (the Magi) are, where they came from, what prompted them to come, and what star?” The chronological difficulty probably did not present itself to St. Chrysostom, and perhaps because he looked at the Evangelist Matthew separately; and it can easily present itself when we compare this evangelist with the evangelist Luke. What is the difficulty? According to the Gospel of Matthew, it is clear that the worship of the Magi took place in Bethlehem, during the forty days of purification. But how many events were supposed to happen in these forty days! Circumcision, flight to Egypt, worship of the Magi, death of Herod. How could one escape to Egypt without bringing the Baby to the church and dedicating Him to the Lord? To resolve this, they say, there was special permission from the Lord to break the law. It is also believed that the Magi two weeks after the birth of Christ came to worship Him. From the “History” of Josephus, it is clear that Herod at that time was on healing waters due to illness, and yet in the Evangelist Matthew he appears to be talking with the wise men. But if these difficulties are eliminated, then the others will disappear like vapor. Therefore, it is believed that the worship of the Magi did not take place within forty days, but after being brought to the church. But why does the Mother of God appear in Bethlehem again? They say that She was there another time either in passing or with intention. How did the ancient Church celebrate the adoration of the Magi on the thirteenth day after the Nativity of Christ? To resolve this, they say that they actually worshiped on the thirteenth day after the Nativity of the Savior, only in a different year. Evangelist Matthew says that the Magi worshiped “Jesus... being born” (Matthew 2:1), that is, soon after birth, a few days later, and from the connection (events - ed.) it is clear that Jesus Christ was at that time in Bethlehem. Why in Bethlehem? in passing? but where? Bethlehem lies south of Jerusalem and cannot lead to Egypt; Also, the Mother of God could not be in Bethlehem, for all her relatives lived in Nazareth and Hebron. But why assume that the worship of the Magi took place after being brought to the church? To avoid difficulties. What are all these difficulties and perplexities based on? The fact that the evangelist, following the worship, speaks of fleeing to Egypt: “Behold, the angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream when he went away to the wise men, saying: rise up, understand the Child and His Mother, and flee to Egypt” (Matthew 2:13). But this can be resolved in this way: this imaginary immediacy, in which the flight into Egypt is imagined after the worship of the Magi, can mean a considerable amount of time for the evangelist, of which there are many examples in the Evangelist Luke. The course of events was as follows: the Magi came to worship soon after the Nativity of the Savior and found Him in Bethlehem, in the church (Matthew 2:11), and this makes it clear that the people from Bethlehem had already left and a free place had opened up in the house. This was still a year before Herod died, and he could do what he did. After the completion of forty days, Joseph and Mary are in Jerusalem; Then Herod had the idea to beat the babies. He could not suddenly come to this desperate remedy, but, probably, even before he had tried other, less cruel measures; he, of course, waited for the Magi for up to forty days. But what made the parents of Jesus Christ flee to Egypt, although Herod had the intention of beating the babies only in Bethlehem and its environs, and they were then in Jerusalem? For this it would be necessary to assume that they were then in Bethlehem or near it; but you don’t have to assume this. The angel says in a dream: “Herod wants to search” - and initially he could direct his blow at Bethlehem, then the search for him could spread to all of Judea, and this is all the more likely because the news spread from the shepherds, the prophecy of Simeon and Anna in Jerusalem, the worship of the Magi could not help but reach Herod, who at that time, according to the testimony of Josephus, lived, so to speak, as spies. Consequently, the parents of Jesus Christ urgently needed to retire to Egypt. Thus, all circumstances are in order. This assumption may seem weak from two sides: here the thread of events is somewhat broken, but this thread is not strong among the evangelists; It seems again that the flight is not from Bethlehem, but this is again probable. Let us now look at the moral difficulties regarding this subject and at their solution by St. Chrysostom. The entire ancient world believed in the influence of heavenly bodies on the fate of man. Nowadays this belief is considered a prejudice. In fact, couldn’t the star that appeared in this way confirm and root the prejudice of the people? Saint Chrysostom says that at that time some people were especially engaged in astrology, and therefore Providence, adapting to their concepts, used such a means. If He had used prophets or angels for this, they would not have listened to them. For this reason, God calls them with ordinary things, and by greatness and the image of sight to arouse them to worship. Therefore, the Apostle Paul, arguing with the pagans in the Areopagus, cites some of their poets as testimony, and with the Jews he speaks about circumcision. Saint Chrysostom even notes, although too much and boldly, that the purification itself, and other rites, and the temple itself were allowed by Providence only for the sake of the rudeness of the Jews - and all this was borrowed from the pagans. But we can also assume a greater reason, because this is not enough. It seems strange to reinforce the superstition of the whole world by adapting to the concept of famous sages. But what, in fact, is bad and strange here? Many details, trifles, and charlatanism constitute bad things in the science of stardom, but at its foundation lies a deep knowledge of nature. Nowadays they are again beginning to believe in the relationship between heaven and earth. Therefore, the story of the evangelist will not support error. That the luminaries have an influence on us is experimentally proven by certain diseases (sleepwalking). Some seizures have a certain relationship with the known positions of Venus and Jupiter. After this, can all astrological observations be considered superstition? Further, Saint Chrysostom asks: “What did the Magi know from that star? This is how the King of the Jews was born, but His Kingdom is not of the world: lower than weapons, lower than chariots, neither warriors, nor anything else from such, I have; but leading twelve men with Him.” The star predicted the appearance of the Messiah. How did she predict? According to the Magi, the appearance of a star must mean something unusual; more specifically: it was supposed to mean the birth of some extraordinary person and showed this by its extraordinary size. This shows that the Magi already knew somewhat about the Messiah; They, without a doubt, could know from the Jews, who were scattered everywhere in large numbers. Moreover, if these wise men are from Chaldea, then they could even more so know about the Messiah, for Daniel lived there, who was the head of the wise men, and to whom there was an exact revelation about the Messiah and the time of His appearance. The expectation of the Messiah at that time was universal; it was also in Rome, as evidenced by Tacitus and Suetonius. By the appearance of an extraordinary star, they could know that someone supreme had been born; with her inclination she could point to Palestine, and the rapprochement (proximity - ed.) of the time revealed to Daniel could directly draw the attention of the Magi to the King of the Jews. Therefore, the very first appearance of the star must be interpreted about the expected King of the Jews. At the same time, one must also admit the special grace that acted on the Magi. From the outside they were guided by a star, from the inside by grace. The desire to determine how a silent star could give a certain concept produced one pious legend, which appeared in the 4th century, where it is said that the image of the Virgin and Child was reflected in the newly appeared star, and on the Child - the Cross; but it seems like a lot has already been said here. Now: what prompted the Magi, let us ask St. Chrysostom, to go on such a long journey, to worship a foreign King, in a foreign land? They called Him the King of the Jews, but do not show their relationship to Him; but they must have meant, and probably did mean, that He would relate not only to Judea, but also to Chaldea and Persia, whence they may be thought to have come. They believed that the newborn King would be some kind of transformer - but whether it was a Teacher or a Savior - it is difficult to determine precisely, because there is no data. They had a high concept of Him, which is evident from their very worship; The height of this concept is difficult to determine. Of course, they did not have such a high concept of Him as we now have. The very Jewish righteous and God-enlightened men spoke about His fate as if only in a low voice. The concept of the Magi could be defined as the source of their knowledge, but this source is precisely unknown to us. The prophecy about the star from Jacob through tradition could have reached them from Balaam, and then could have been strengthened by the revelation of Daniel. We now formulate our concept of Jesus Christ according to the Old Testament, but with the help of the New. It was difficult for the Jews at that time to do this, because the New Testament did not yet exist, and therefore they generally had a weak concept of the Divinity of Jesus Christ. Therefore, if the Magi could borrow the concept of Jesus Christ from the scattered Jews, then they could only collect unclean materials from them - but the Magi worship Him as God. However, they could worship Him and bring gifts as a special person and the confidant of God. In the east, gifts are also given to kings at birth. What prompted the Magi to worship Jesus Christ? Hope for some good things. They thought that the born King of the Jews would be some kind of benefactor, and therefore they wanted to participate in His benefits, to be enlightened by Him; it is only clear that the motivation must be strong and the confidence undoubted. Saint Chrysostom also notes how they could come to a land where a famous king still reigned, and in his presence say that they had come to worship the newborn Tsar, who, in all likelihood, did not belong to the royal family. But we can say that when they left the house, they had not yet seen this danger. Having come to Judea and having learned something in detail, they could think; but they still could not assume Herod’s hateful attitude towards the Child. Yes, Herod was not angry with them. However, even if they saw such a danger, they could have boldness on the basis of prophecies. They saw that this event was under the special protection of heaven. “What then,” asks St. Chrysostom, “do I worship the One Who is in swaddling clothes?” Could they worship Him when He comes of age. But it is clear that at birth they could have shown more honor and zeal. The appearance of the star could have been an invitation for them to depart as quickly as possible; besides this, pious curiosity could prompt them to rush into worship, and, moreover, this Face should seem to them independent of human weaknesses and ages. Did they leave soon after worship? But what were they supposed to do? They did their job. Seeing the Child in a wretched form, they could, so to speak, be disappointed in their dreamy views, for, probably, they thought to find Him in the palace. And through them Providence did its job: it made Herod fear, assemble a Sanhedrin and look into the prophets. Who were these wise men? "Magi" is a word meaning a sage, of any kind. In particular, the name of a sorcerer can be understood as a person engaged in natural sciences, for example: astronomy, knowledge of herbs, treatment of diseases, and to this must be added some knowledge of the future. The title of sorcerer also included politics, as was the case in Persia and Egypt. Magi could also be, and were, advisors to kings, guardians, and sometimes kings. At the same time, in which the Savior was born, a sorcerer, in fact, meant a sage. But the ancient Church believed that the Magi who worshiped Jesus Christ were kings, and therefore depicted them with crowns. This opinion flowed, so to speak, from many sources. The reason for this could have been given by David’s prophecy: “The kings... They will bring gifts to Arabia and Saba” (Ps. 71:10). The ancient concept of the sorcerer could also lead to this; A pious desire to increase (embellish - ed.) this matter could also contribute to this. But this opinion does not have firm support, and it appeared already in the 4th century. In the Roman Catholic Church it is especially strong. But why not accept it? Because there is no reason. On the other hand, why increase the matter? When they came to Jerusalem, they, of course, would not have been received in the same way if they had been kings. One might, however, think that they were some princes of Arabia. Where did you come from!.. From the east (Matthew 2:1). Saint Chrysostom says that the country from which they came was Persia, lying east of Palestine. To the east of it also lies Mesopotamia and Chaldea. One of the church songs says: “the youths of Chaldeistia returned to Babylon.” Therefore they think that they are either from Chaldea or from Mesopotamia. There are two opinions in the Church: the Armenians point to one city or village from which these wise men supposedly came, and in which one of them was martyred; The Arabians point to one city in their country, in which, as it were, they were all tortured. That they are tormented is true. Their relics were first in Constantinople, then transferred to the West and are now kept there. That they came from afar may in some way be based on what they said: “We saw His star in the east” (Matthew 2:2). If they lived close, they would have expressed themselves more clearly in this case. Moreover, Herod will kill children “from two years old and under” (Matthew 2:16). From this we can conclude that the Magi went quickly after the appearance of the star, walked for a long time, and therefore came from afar, that is, from Armenia or Persia. The author of the above-mentioned legend says that, as a result of legends and prophecies, a society of twelve people was formed in Persia to observe an extraordinary star; but this legend has no support and arose from the desire to explain how the Magi did not overlook this star. But here's another question: what star is this? Saint Chrysostom expresses the opinion that it was some kind of intelligent force. Evidence of this: 1) it flows from the north towards noon, contrary to the natural flow of the stars; 2) she does not appear at night, but in the middle of the day. One can, however, assume that the Magi walked at night, or at least in the evening: in the east, as in a hot country, this is the custom; 3) the star appears and disappears again. When they arrived in Jerusalem, the star disappeared, but when they came out of it, they saw it again and rejoiced; 4) she pointed out the church in which the Child was. This means that she seemed to have descended onto the church. This may be so, but one need not assume that it was a smart force, but simply a meteor, controlled, however, by some kind of smart force. It was especially impossible for an ordinary star to stand before the Magi and show exactly the place or house where the Child was. How was this meteor made? It may be natural, but it was controlled by some Angel. But won't this be a miracle upon a miracle? No, for in the action of this star one must assume the special will of God. “And Jesus was born (when Jesus was born) in Bethlehem Judea, for there was another Bethlehem in Galilee, in the days of Herod the king” (Matthew 2:1). The Evangelist did not say before when the things he described took place, but now he says that it was in the days of King Herod, and thus secretly hints at the fulfillment of the prophecy that the prince has already been taken away from the loins of Judas. The holy evangelist did not use this instruction in vain, for this incident is worth special attention. “From the east” - probably the Jerusalemites did not know even after what country the Magi came from, and it was difficult to find out then, because then many states seemed to merge into one under the scepter of the Roman Caesars. “To Jerusalem” - for where to look for the king, if not in the capital? “Where is the King of the Jews born!” (Matthew 2:2). This means that they did not expect exact instructions either from the star or from their own hearts, but considered it necessary to ask other people about this. But in Jerusalem they needed to go straight to the royal palace, but they noticeably do not do this. Consequently, they seemed to have formed the idea that the newborn Tsar should not be looked for in the royal palace. They ask: where is “the King of the Jews born,” but in Jerusalem, apparently, they did not know whether the King of the Jews was born. In the question, the Begotten One is characterized only insofar as He is related to Judea, and not a word is said about His relationship to the whole world, and this is because they still had no other concept of Him, and they considered it indecent to reveal dark fortune-telling and their premonitions before the people. “When we saw His star in the east, we came to worship Him” (Matthew 2:2). These words show the reason and purpose of their coming. They wanted to apologize, so to speak, and therefore they say this: we are asking you about the birth of the King of the Jews not for any empty reasons or dreams, but according to instructions from above. We “see a star”, although it is not visible to you now. That none of the Jerusalemites saw the appearance of the star is clear from the fact that Herod asked the Magi about the time of the appearance of the star; and if he had seen her himself, he would have had no reason to ask about her; or if any of the Jerusalemites had seen her, he could have asked him. “In the east,” that is, when we were in the east, and not that she appeared in the east. “And when I lay down, I will worship Him” (Matthew 2:2). Consequently, the interpretation of those who say that these wise men were merchants who came to Judea on their trade business, and meanwhile, having learned about the birth of the King of the Jews, decided to do a good deed, is false. True, they have treasures, but not at all for sale, but in order to make a gift from them to the Newborn, and they could have these treasures, for they were probably some kind of owners of estates. One can imagine the confusion their arrival and inquiries caused in Jerusalem. At any time, with their arrival, they could confuse this capital, especially at this time, when all of Judea lived, so to speak, in anticipation of the Messiah. And that’s why, “when King Herod heard it, he was troubled” (Matthew 2:3). The king here seemed to be the first to hear; and so it had to be, for Herod had spies everywhere, who, having heard this news, unsafe for the king, immediately decided to convey it to him, and it flew like an arrow into his palace. “Confused” - with my heart, thinking. True, at that time he was ending his stormy long life, but still he did not want to be caught up in the new order of affairs. He is accustomed not to giving power to others, but to taking it away from others. Did he believe that the Messiah was actually born? He should have expected unpleasant actions from Providence. Did he consider this an invention of the Jewish parties, who wanted to pass someone off as the Messiah and overthrow him from the throne? One way or another, he still had to fear indignation from his subjects, for in the person of the Messiah they expected not only a Savior, but also a Judge; and Herod’s conscience could not help but worry. Thus, politics, conscience, illness and old age - all must have confused Herod. But why does Jerusalem participate in his confusion? The courtiers, the Herodian party, were undoubtedly embarrassed. This is the same party with which, agreeing, many of the Jews asked Jesus Christ: “Is it worthy... to give tribute to Caesar, or not!” (Luke 20:22). The happiness or misfortune of this party was connected with the happiness or misfortune of Herod. Many of Herod’s clients, whose fate was linked to his fate, were also embarrassed. Finally, the whole people should have been embarrassed. He believed in the birth of the Messiah, he had to fear His inexorable Judgment; Moreover, the ancient opinion was that with the appearance of the Messiah many troubles, dangers and disturbances in moral and civil relations would appear. Even if they did not believe in the actual birth of the Messiah, they still had to fear riots and disturbances from the party that decided to pass off the famous Infant as the Messiah, and at the same time fear punishment for such unrest from the Romans, and no less from Herod, who was especially suspicious at that time. In general, such phenomena produce extraordinary unrest in the capitals. Herod was embarrassed, but did not lose his political prudence. He proposes to the Sanhedrin the question of the Magi for resolution. Apparently this is not a matter of politics. It would be better for him, it seems, to quickly remove the Magi from the capital so that they do not make noise and confuse the people, and not force the Sanhedrin to reason. But, on the other hand, this act of Herod is a matter of extremely delicate politics. The noise of the people could no longer be stopped. Herod wanted to show that he was not afraid of anything, that he wanted to give this matter the proper course and publicity, he wanted to act as a king of the people should act, as any zealous Jew would act. Although he was a foreigner, he constantly showed himself to be the most ardent zealot and honorer of the Jewish law. In the second part of the Talmud there is a legend that even when he ascended the throne he asked the Sanhedrin whether it was not contrary to their laws that he ascended the throne as a foreigner, and this he did when he was installed as king by the Romans and recognized in this dignity by the Jews themselves. The Sanhedrin answered as if it was not the same for him. Some said that his accession to the throne was not contrary to their laws; others argued the opposite, saying that it would have been better if he had given the throne to one of the descendants of the Maccabees. Herod allegedly did nothing to these latter at first, and then secretly ordered them to be killed. That he was, or seemed to be, committed to the Jewish law is evident from his speech, preserved in the Acts, spoken during the rebuilding of the Temple of Jerusalem, where he said to the Jews: “Men, brethren...”. So, it is not surprising that Herod could ask the Sanhedrin. “And the chief priests and scribes of the people gathered together” (Matthew 2:4). The Sanhedrin had full and partial meetings. Herod makes the meeting complete, “gathering all.” The high priest, in fact, was alone, but he had an assistant who took his place during his illness; At that time, the leaders of the twenty-four priestly orders could also be called by this name; Moreover, retired high priests were still called by this name. The scribes constituted a special class of people in the Jewish people, something semi-spiritual. Their occupation was the study of the laws of God and man; they occupied the places of scribes, lawyers, and priestly advisers. They were sometimes brought up as social dependents. Some of them, more worthy, later occupied important places in the Sanhedrin. At this time, the difference between the human scribes and the priests almost reached the point of mutual hostility, and the scribes belonged to the people's party. Herod asks: “Where is Christ born?” (Matthew 2:4). It's remarkable how the tone of the question changes. The Magi assume that this thing has already come true and ask: “Where is the King of the Jews to be born?” - and Herod asks where Christ should be born. Through this he made it clear that he did not believe the Magi. Perhaps, he thought, Christ had not yet been born. He suggests that priests should know the passages from the prophets that speak of the appearance of the Messiah. And who is it more decent and necessary to know this subject? And the Sanhedrin, based on prophecies, really thought that Jesus Christ was born in Bethlehem. By reversing the question, Herod made it convenient to answer the Sanhedrin. If he had asked: “Where was Christ the King born?” - then the high priests would have to answer: “we know,” and this would be a crime against the royal greatness, for why, knowing about the newborn King, did not inform their king? Herod in his question does not call Jesus Christ King. Saint John Chrysostom notes that every name of the King was hateful for Herod. “They said to him: in Bethlehem Judaism” (Matthew 2:5). The answer seems to be given quickly, but there was nothing to speculate on here, for they had long known where Christ was to be born. If they had studied this question for a long time, the evangelist would not have failed to notice this. It is likely that that thought - “we don’t know where Christ will come from” - took its shallow roots and was in the minds of a few. “This is what was written by the prophet” (Matthew 2:5). The answer is short and positive. The Sanhedrin does not refer to traditions, of which there were many on this subject, and this is probably because the traditions were not yet in force at that time. Herod was not attached to the sect of the Pharisees, especially concerned with traditions. Does the prophecy given by the Sanhedrin accurately refer to the Messiah? The Evangelist says nothing about this; but does he agree or disagree with the Sanhedrin? One must assume that he approves of his opinion. Consequently, it was the evangelist himself who brought this prophecy anyway. Moreover, the event itself showed that this prophecy definitely goes to the Messiah (see: Micah 5:2–15). What does the prophecy predict? In the prophet, the prophecy we are considering is surrounded by many other prophecies, less specific; he turns to the Jews in captivity, sees some of them losing hope of liberation and deciding to stay in Babylon, and therefore asks them: don’t you have a king anymore? so it will be, the kingdom will be restored. After this, the prophet fixes his gaze on Bethlehem, from which the royal tribe (David) came, sees that this city is very small, although before it was small, but now it has become very small, and says: and you, Bethlehem, although you cannot field even a thousand soldiers to have your own prince or commander, but just as before you gave a leader (David), so now you will give to the people who returned from captivity The Leader, Whose outcome was from the days of the world (Micah 5:2). In this speech the prophet says a lot, assures, consoles, and denounces. The Jews formed the opinion that this prophecy referred to Zerubbabel, and many accepted this opinion, just so as not to attribute it to Jesus Christ. But St. Chrysostom says that Zerubbabel was not born in Bethlehem, but Jesus Christ was born in Bethlehem, whereas, apparently, He should have been born in Nazareth. Moreover, Zerubbabel did not reign, but only led the people out of captivity, and in the prophet the word “will fall” in the original reads: “will reign.” But the words of the prophet cited by the Sanhedrin in the New Testament and the words spoken by the prophet in the Old Testament are different from each other, and the difference is this: according to the Sanhedrin (New Testament - ed.): “and you, Bethlehem, land of Judah”; and according to the prophet: “And you, Bethlehem, house of Ephrath.” Further, according to the Sanhedrin: “neither more menshi”; and according to the prophet: “food is small.” According to the Sanhedrin: “in the lords of Judah”; from the prophet: “in the thousands of Judah” (see: Micah 5:2, Matt. 2:6). One can make two assumptions: either the evangelist himself inaccurately cited the words of the prophet, or the Sanhedrin inaccurately conveyed them. The latter is more likely. From this we can draw an important rule: remember that the words of the Old Testament are sometimes not literally given in the New. At this time, it was the custom of the Jews to quote passages from the Old Testament not word for word. Moreover, the difference here is small: “the land of Judah,” - this expression was used by the Sanhedrin, probably because “the house of Ephrath” has already fallen out of use. The question turned into a positive speech, as often happens, and vice versa happens. To be in the “thousands” or “rulers” over a thousand is used as “chief” - instead of “commanding”. So this is what the Sanhedrin says based on the prophecy. This soulless, dead corpse, over which, according to the Savior, all that remained was for the eagles to fly, solves the question in the proper way, makes inquiries, draws conclusions in the best possible way. If Nicodemus and Joseph had sat in it, then they could not have decided better. From this it is clear that hierarchy (even - ed.) in its worst state is very necessary and useful. Priests and teachers of the people can be like mileposts on a high road, which, without moving themselves, can show others the right path. Here it is appropriate to note that the prophecies about the Messiah in the Old Testament are like precious stones among other speeches. They, of course, have their own connection with those events, but it is as if invisible, and they, it seems, can be separated from there without disturbing the order of the whole. Why is this so? The closest thing, it seems, is because the prophet’s gaze initially naturally turned to contemporary events, and if sometimes it expanded, it embraced mostly political events, which always served as a reason for them to utter prophecies about spiritual objects; the gaze of the prophets was directed towards these last ones, and then turned back down again. Saint Chrysostom notes in this place: “The prophet says that “a leader will come out,” and does not say: “he will live in you,” as indeed he does; Jesus Christ only came from Bethlehem, and did not live in it.” Why does the prophet talk about Israel when Jesus Christ will “save” all people? In the Old Testament, the prophets portrayed the greatness of Christ gradually, especially adapting to the concepts of the Israelites. “He will fall” is a very common expression in the east, in speech about kings; it is found even among pagans, for example, in Homer kings are called shepherds. What effect did the Sanhedrin’s response to Herod have?.. He learns about the birthplace of the new King. What can he do? Let the wise men know to go to Bethlehem, for the Messiah must be there, if He was born, and let them know through someone? No, Herod calls them to himself, wants to ask them himself whether he himself learns something more from them than someone else would learn from them by questioning them, in order to win them over with a personal conversation and make it more convenient to force them to fulfill his instructions. So suspicion and cunning force him to call the Magi to him. Why call secretly? He calls the Sanhedrin openly, wants to give publicity to a matter that can no longer be hidden, and calls the Magi secretly - the act seems petty and unworthy of a king. And when he called in secret, he, of course, did not order his interview with them to be divulged. And he wants to know one thing from the Magi: “the time of the appearing star” (Matthew 2:7). Of course, he asked them about many other things, for example: about their fatherland, occupations, about their attitude towards the Jewish people, and so on. But the evangelist mentions only what is closest to his heart; and asked in order to later determine the time of birth of the Messiah and commit the murder he was planning. “Having experienced from them...”. Herod's question itself is simple, but he is tested by them. This question is fragmented in his imagination. He asks them: when they saw the star, were they the first to see it, or who told them? etc. At the end of the question, Herod sent them to Bethlehem, but they themselves would have gone (here). Herod here takes on the appearance of a pious zealot of the faith and admonishes them with his zealous desire. “Go ahead and test what is known about the Childhood” (Matthew 2:8). He does not call Him either King or Messiah, but simply: “Offspring.” “Tell me,” he gives them instructions. Why doesn’t he send the Sanhedrin to “know how to test the Rejection”? Is he betraying his usual cunning here? Exactly, here there is partly a change in his usual pretense. And it is not surprising if the mask of a sick despot gradually falls off his face. Herod dealt with this event as if in passing, reluctantly. When his imagination vividly imagines the consequences of this matter and touches his pride, he takes measures against the danger, and then forgets about it. However, the Magi themselves needed to return to Jerusalem, but Herod asks them to do this and does it very cunningly. He could have apologized right there for not sending a Sanhedrin or a detachment of warriors with the Magi. He could say that this event was under the special order of Providence; The great ones of this world are allowed to see him only by the will of God, and since the Magi are the first to be honored with seeing and worshiping the Newborn, he instructs them, having done this, to announce to him, “that he too may worship Him.” Then, he says, I, despite my greatness and my old age, will go and throw myself at the feet of the born Tsar, and until then it is unwise for me to confuse the people. “I will bow down,” and does not say: “I will take you into my palace”; the tongue betrays the heart, here too he expresses the feelings of his heart in relation to the Messiah: I will not take him into the palace and will not give him the throne; Providence destined Him to be born in an unknown place, so even if He lives there, there is no point in surrounding Him with ordinary royal greatness: only worship is fitting for Him! This was, in essence, the conversation of Herod with the Magi, the conversation of the fox with the zither itself (as the Savior later called one of his sons) with simple souls. “But they listened to the king and didsha” (Matthew 2:9). “Having listened to the king” - in the Greek original: αχουσαντες - can mean: “listen to the message” and “accept the assignment,” for the Magi still had no reason to suspect Herod of plotting against the Bethlehem “Offspring.” They heard, of course, from the Jews about Herod’s cruelty, but judging by how carefully he submitted the question of the Magi to the Sanhedrin’s investigation, and how he talked with them, they could not form an unfavorable idea about him. Herod apparently acts piously, but what is in his soul? What are his thoughts about famous events? It is not without difficulty that one can guess what was hidden in Herod’s gloomy soul. As far as (as far as - ed.) can be explained by historical considerations, the state of Herod’s soul is likely that, firstly, Herod did not believe in the birth of the Messiah at all. He read, of course, even out of curiosity, the books of the prophets, but he could consider all the predictions about the Messiah to be fiction, arising from various reasons. A witness to this possibility is Josephus, who loved justice, was confident in the immortality of the soul, and fought with the Romans for the freedom of the fatherland. But even this same Flavius, when the topic of the birth of the Messiah came up, says that all the prophecies about the Messiah came true over Vespasian and Titus. And if so, then Herod, who had recently been grafted into the tree of Judaism in the person of his ancestors, who lived as a courtier, could simply not believe the birth of the Divine “Offspring”. He saw, perhaps, in this “Offspring” a Child, although extraordinary, but still no more than a simple Man, and not the Messiah, in Whom the hopes of the people, both political and religious, were concentrated, and these hopes could easily produce fanaticism. Secondly, however, to assume Herod was completely unbelieving in the prophecies and promises about the Messiah seems to be a lot. As much as can be seen from a strict comparison of the circumstances of his way of thinking and feelings, he did not seem only to be a Jew, but was one in fact, adhered to the law of Moses and the prophets and, it seems, expected the Messiah. But how did he decide to kill the Messiah? This means attempting the impossible, going against God! But Herod was capable of this. Pharaoh saw in God only the Jewish God, the foreign God, the strongest of his gods; thought that his gods, having gathered their strength, would, so to speak, take revenge on the Jewish God. This opinion of him can be seen already from his questions: “Who is the God of Israel, Him I will listen to”? (Ex. 5:2). But Herod had the concept of one God, he was not a polytheist. To explain this apparent inconsistency, the following probable assumption can serve: Herod believed the prophets, therefore, expected the Messiah, although this expectation was not pleasant for him. Despite this, he could decide to kill the Messiah out of unbelief, he could think that the one born is not the Messiah, but some extraordinary child, which some party unfavorable to Herod wants to turn into a weapon against him. Not long before this, indeed, one party spread a rumor that the kingdom would be taken away from Herod and given to one of the descendants of the Maccabees. But how did the extraordinary star seen by the Magi not enlighten him? You need to know that he could also look at the Magi as participants in a conspiracy. The Magi came from the east. Beyond the Euphrates, to the east of Jerusalem, many Jews then lived. And we see from the history of Josephus that the Palestinian Jews, who could not easily stop their mouths with fear, armed themselves against Herod and spread many unfavorable rumors and rumors about him, and in order to more conveniently carry out their hostile plans they could persuade the Magi to spread false rumors about the born King. How could Herod darken the brightness of the star with his unbelief? Its appearance and observation related to astrology, and Herod, accustomed to consider all astrological observations as a work of superstition, could have assumed this in the reasoning of the star seen by the Magi. Otherwise, it is incredible that he would attempt an open war against God; It is incredible that he would have decided to kill the Messiah if he had been confident in the Divinity of the Bethlehem Youth. Similar unbelief can be assumed in the crucifiers of Jesus Christ. They did not have direct unbelief, therefore the apostle says that they did it out of ignorance; and in another place he says: “If they had known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.” The Apostle Peter says: “We know that through ignorance... we have done things together” (Acts 3:17), and this is not speaking to the common people, but to the priests. There are, of course, monsters who directly go against God and thus seem to repeat the secret of Lucifer’s indignation, but to the honor of people, or, better, to the honor of the Creator Himself, these cases are very rare, and this battle with God is a momentary impulse, expressed more in words, and not in the actions themselves. But someone will think: the devil went directly against God, possessing, moreover, great moral kindness. But this is the mystery of the fall of the angels. Scripture presents this matter already in development; but in the beginning was it abuse? Was the same abyss that opened from the very beginning between God and man as we see later? We must assume gradualism here. Now let's turn to the Magi. “Idosha” (Matthew 2:9) – at what time? They saw a star, therefore they seemed to be walking at night; but they could see the star during the day. There is a rather ancient legend that this star appeared during the day. But there is no need to make this assumption, for they could travel at night, according to the custom of the eastern inhabitants. When they entered Jerusalem and were in it, the star was not visible; but behold, they come out of it, and the star appears again. For what? The path is shown to them, and from Jerusalem to Bethlehem is only two hours' journey. To indicate the house in which the born King is located? But they themselves could find Him in such a small town. But the star points to more than the house. She says that the Child, which they will see, is Divine. If they had found the boy without a star, they might have come into some doubt. In addition, after their stay in Jerusalem, they needed special instructions from above. Everything that they saw in Jerusalem could not, of course, shake their faith, but it could not confirm it either. In Jerusalem no one knew about the birth of their King. Now they go to a poor (one might say) village; Of course, sad feelings and vague thoughts could be born. “When we saw the star, we rejoiced greatly with great joy” (Matthew 2:10), because we entered under the guidance of God, the best and most reliable of man. And at the very end of this guidance, the star appears, so to speak, even more wonderful, forgets its nature and more clearly adapts to their needs. “She walked before them” (Matthew 2:9), which means she was not very high from the ground, otherwise she could not have been visible. This star moved from north to south contrary to the law of motion of stars. “Having come to one hundred above, where the Child was” (Matthew 2:9), this means that the star sank even lower, for if it had been high, it would have stood above Bethlehem. But perhaps its lowering was replaced by a beam, as some fathers thought. Pious dreaminess extended its guesses further, and said that the rays of this star fell on the Child Himself. “When I saw the star, I rejoiced.” They saw it from the very beginning, and the evangelist here, speaking about the star, wanted to finish its path. The Magi's joy came from surprise. “Having come to the church” (Matthew 2:11)... The one who was born was already in the church. Either the people had already left, or out of respect they gave a place to the Baby in the church. But it is clear that there was no more room in it than in a manger. The first gaze of those who came was turned to the Child, then to the Mother; where is Joseph? The evangelist says nothing about him. In general, very little is said about this person in the Gospel, it is mentioned only in the most important cases, and then no more or less as needed. Saint John Chrysostom notes that Providence ordered here so that Joseph would not be in the church at that time, so that the piety of the Magi would not be clouded by the thought or bewilderment - is he not the father of the Child? “Videsha” (Matthew 2:11), - of course, they did not see any earthly greatness here. “By bowing to Him,” perhaps as God, but in any case, as a King. “And they opened their treasures and brought Him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh.” According to Eastern custom, the offering of gifts was combined with the worship of kings. God Himself commands through the prophet to every Israeli: “Do not appear before the Lord empty,” without any gift. “Own treasures” - your own bags or something similar. “Brought to Him” - to the Baby, not to the Mother; the action was performed in the spirit of the eastern inhabitants and in a reverent spirit. “To Him,” as if He understood and accepted gifts. “You brought not tribute, but gifts” - the most ardent offering. “Gold and Lebanon and myrrh” are the works of their countries, their best treasures. Many of the Fathers of the Church find a mysterious sign in these gifts: “liban” - fragrant resin, they say, was brought to Jesus as God, “gold” as the King, and “myrrh” was needed during burial: they anointed the deceased with it. But one teacher of the Church says that myrrh could also serve to strengthen the body of the Infant; it was often used for this purpose; Lebanon - to purify the air, which could not be clean in the manger and in the poor church; gold was needed because of poverty. Joseph and Mary were extremely poor, and they had to stay in a foreign city for forty days. Some also deduce from the fact that three gifts are offered here that there is a trinity of Persons of the Divine. These gifts were probably small, for after a while the parents of Jesus Christ had to make a sacrifice, and their hand did not find enough; they offer an incomplete sacrifice, or a sacrifice required of the poor. The Magi, of course, did not even think of enriching them, but only expressed their zeal. How long were the Magi in Bethlehem? Not visible. They probably did not suddenly part with the Divine Infant; they did not quickly, so to speak, become satisfied with seeing Him. When they decided to return, they wanted to go to Jerusalem in order to fulfill Herod’s instructions. But that night they receive “news... in a dream” - χρηματιςθεντες, - a word used in the answers of the oracles; more precisely, it means: “received a revelation in a dream.” In the Slavic translation, this word is taken specifically “the message was received in a dream” - Matt. 2:12, and in Russian it is even more specific (“having received a command in a dream”). How did they receive the message?.. Not through an Angel, for the evangelist does not say anything about him here. Moreover, if they received the news in a dream, then how did they believe it? They could believe, just as everyone accepted by faith. It was probably not revealed to them what Herod would do, but only ordered not to return the same way, so as not to confuse them any more and not to tempt their faith. How did sleep overcome Herod's flattering words? It should be noted that ordinary dreams sometimes make strong impressions on us, and when they come from God, they are extremely strong. An example of this is the dream seen by Nebuchadnezzar (see: Dan. 2:1–46). There have been examples of the most lawless people turning to virtue through dreams. There is an example in the lives of saints that someone saw a dream that shook his entire being, but forgot it upon his awakening. The only echo that remained in his soul was that he should turn from vice to virtue. He obeyed this suggestion and became a saint. What other way was there for the Magi to return? It was possible not to return to Herod and pass through Jerusalem; but they were so obedient to the voice of God that they did not want to return the same way. They went south from Bethlehem and had to go around the Dead Sea. This path is the most difficult and least traveled, but they followed it. Having said that the Magi returned to their country by a different route, the evangelist thus ends his story about them. What happened to them afterwards? In the history of the Gospel they are no more. An ancient legend says that their zeal for the Jewish faith and faith in the newborn King did not decrease at all upon their return, but increased even more. When the preachers of Christ were scattered throughout the world, the Magi, having heard their teaching, were the first to accept the Christian faith, and became its preachers, and finally martyrs for Christ. Thus, if they were adorned with earthly crowns, then later they were adorned with heavenly crowns. Such people could not fall away from their faith, but grew in it more and more, which is why they were gathered by the sword into the granary of Christ. For later the words of the Apostle were justified by experience over the followers of Jesus Christ: “But all who want to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution” (2 Tim. 3:12). But let's take another look at this event. How wisely is the order of Providence in it! The Jewish people were not worthy of having the Messiah directly revealed to them. There were, of course, among him some of the most chosen ones, but these vessels contained only kindness and piety. However, the news of the Messiah had to be brought to the attention of Herod and the Sanhedrin. How to do this? If any Jew were used for this, he would be subjected to endless questioning, and this would put the Divine Infant in danger. Providence calls for this people from the east, who are strangers to Jerusalem, causing him confusion. This is how God reveals himself to His people, and this is how he makes them unrequited! For there could not have been a more solemn appearance than this; everyone, young and old, could recognize the Messiah. Providence did its work and left it to the arbitrariness: either worship the Messiah together with the wise men and shepherds, or turn this subject into a subject of interrogation and curiosity, accept it with a cold heart and go your own way, and not the path to Bethlehem. What is especially noteworthy here is that the Jews heard about the appearance of the Messiah from the pagans. This is why Saint Chrysostom calls the Magi “the firstborn of the church.” Exactly, they themselves were a gift from paganism: gold, Lebanon and myrrh. But what was then can be now. Then the Jews, resting on the law, thought that salvation was only in their hands (so now the Church alone thinks about itself); It never occurred to them that the Messiah would be revealed to the pagans before the Jews. But the pagans came to Him and did their job, and the Jews only looked at it and nothing more. So today, some Christians think that outside of Christianity there is no salvation, that there is darkness and darkness, while God is everywhere. Just as the sky extends over the earth, so God’s Providence watches over the universe. And now there are pagans who can teach lessons of piety to Christians, at least some and in some virtues, if not in the dogmas of faith. History provides examples of this. Let us now turn again to the Evangelist Luke and see how the bringing of Jesus Christ to the church took place. “When the days of purification by her, according to the law of Moses, were fulfilled, He was taken up to Jerusalem to set Him before the Lord” (Luke 2:22). It must be thought that the bringing of the Child to the church was from Bethlehem, in accordance with the law, which did not allow the Mother who gave birth to appear in the church until a certain time. “When the days of her purification were fulfilled.” This offering took place on the basis of the law. But there were two laws. According to the first, the mother, after forty days, had to appear in the church on every (any -ed.) occasion to bring gratitude to God for the child born and for complete cleansing or sanctification. This cleansing was carried out in two periods: the one who gave birth to the male sex - on the fortieth day, the female - later. This law is remarkable for its deep foundation (see: Lev.12). On the seventh day she who gave birth was unclean with great uncleanness; everything that was brought to her was considered unclean. After seven days, the law commands, “let her not touch any holy thing and let her not enter the sanctuary, until the days of her purification will end. If a woman gives birth, she will be unclean for fourteen days because of her filthiness, and she will sit in the blood of her uncleanness for sixty and six days” (Lev. 12:4-5). According to the usual procedure, the female sex would require less time for purification as a weaker creature, but the law prescribes the opposite. The similarity of the law on death is noteworthy: the period of impurity in both cases is similar. The birth of a baby is indeed in some ways similar to death. When he is born, he seems to die and is buried only in his earthly life. In the womb he is clothed with a hymen, which first forms his body, then nourishes it; at birth, this shell disintegrates, then is ejected by the mother and given over to decay - complete burial occurs with it. “Days of purification by her” - that is, Mother and Child. There is not a word in the law about the uncleanness of a baby, since there is no reason for uncleanness in a baby; The laws apply mostly to the mother, in whom the dead body of the baby remains for some time. But the same should apply to the baby, for he lay for a long time at his mother’s breast, feeding on her milk. But did the Holy Virgin need to be cleansed when She gave birth without seed, without artifice? Moreover, did the Divine Infant have this need? The Church long ago expressed its opinion that there was no need for purification for the Messiah. He took upon Himself the laws of nature in their pure form, and not with the appendages of weakness resulting from the fall. St. Augustine expresses this well when he says to a heretic: Virgo nec concepit libidine, nec gignendo passa est dolorem. The legislator of the New Testament did not want to break the law of Moses and was pleased to undergo it together with his Mother. "Ascension...to Jerusalem". Jerusalem, as you know, lies on a ridge of mountains that stretch in the middle of Judea. The church was built on one of them, hence the “ascension”. “Place” - present before the Lord. The law is sacred and, one might say, very significant. This property always occurs in true laws. Born, barely purified, barely looking at the light of God, he comes to the church. But this spectacle should be especially touching in the Temple of Jerusalem, which was then alone, and to which therefore all the Jews from all over Palestine had to appear. For each of the Jews, such a phenomenon in the church should be very memorable and important. This very action expresses the closeness of the Jewish people to God. But what was this presentation before the Lord? According to Jewish tradition, the priest took the baby in his arms, carried him into the sanctuary and there presented him to the Lord. “As it is written in the law of the Lord: Every male child, when he opens his lieu, shall be called holy to the Lord” (Luke 2:23). Here is another law about the firstborn, which was given to the Israelites during their exodus from Egypt, in memory of the slaughter of all the firstborn of Egypt in one night. This expressed gratitude to God. This law extended not only to the firstborn of people, but also of animals; only the pure could and should have been sacrificed, and the unclean redeemed. Then in the desert these firstborns, since they were intended to serve God, were replaced by the entire tribe of Levi, but the dedication of the firstborns to God continued: only they were redeemed (as if redeemed - ed.). The price of redemption was five church shekels. It is difficult to determine their value with our money. Along with the offering of a baby, the law commanded that a sacrifice be offered, and moreover, the law usually required the cleansing of a lamb as a sacrifice, but the evangelist is silent about this. Only out of condescension, from the poor, the law required the sacrifice of small animals, but the Evangelist does not mention the ransom, although it is written that the priests should especially strictly observe this. Thus, humanity can say that we are not only bought with the price of the Blood of Jesus Christ, but Jesus Christ Himself is bought with a price; only there is the price of Blood, but here the price is five shekels. In the same way, to the honor of dying for Christ and paying as much as possible, an endless debt, some of the animals are also admitted - “two turtle doves” (Luke 2:24). This is a service that will not be forgotten. But just as in other cases, to natural, ordinary events, Providence added extraordinary events, so here, with an ordinary event that occurred according to the law, the extraordinary is connected. Humanity, with all its weaknesses, had its representatives at the manger - and here there were people worthy of the Lord. since the dedication to the Lord took place in the temple, then the characters here are no longer from the pagans, like the Magi, but from the Jews; there are two persons, from which one apparently formed itself, and in the other the special participation of Providence is visible. The first person is Anna, and the other is Simeon. “Behold, he is a man” (Luke 2:25). This is an ordinary expression with which the evangelist precedes something extraordinary. In our Russian translation, this expressiveness of the Greek language is lost (“then there was someone in Jerusalem”). In the original, the word “se, be” expresses some kind of surprise. The evangelist also says about the Magi: “Behold, the Magi...”. And truly, it was proper to say about Simeon: “behold.” The church at that time was a den of robbers, Jerusalem was even worse, and in this city a man appears, a creature worthy of the name of man: “Behold, he is a man.” He was a permanent resident of Jerusalem, for there were many strangers living there. Who was he? what type and condition? The evangelist says nothing about this. Therefore, most interpreters guess that he was the son of Hillel, the leader of the Pharisee sect, a kind and intelligent man; and others say that he is the father of Gamaliel, a glorious teacher in his time. But if he really were the father of Gamaliel, then he would be a Christian. Maybe he was a Christian, just hiding it. However, be that as it may, Simeon was the son of a good father and the father of a good son. A good seed is always more fruitful than an evil seed. True, there is an opinion that good parents, for the most part, have thin children; but in this opinion, if there is truth, then perhaps it is a hundredth part of it. If you look closely at the virtues of fathers, called good, whose children are bad, then all the virtues of such fathers will seem like tinsel, under which are hidden weaknesses and vices, which, if not directly subject to punishment by the law, then spoil human nature. The tree is bad and the fruit is bad; there are only a lot of leaves on it. The Evangelist is silent about Simeon’s external state, but describes in detail the state of his soul. He was “righteous and godly” (Luke 2:25). Both tablets of the Law of Moses were fulfilled by them, as much as man’s weakness allowed. Firstly, he was “righteous”, his heart was first filled with love for his fellow men, and then turned to God (1 John 4:20), while the other sons of Israel in his time were concerned about maintaining only external piety. Some of them, out of zeal for the law, were ready to lay their heads under the procurator’s sword; There was little true truth at that time. Therefore, the Savior to the young man, who asked Him: “having created eternal life, I will inherit” (Luke 18:18), pointed him to the commandments from the second table, about love for brothers. In Simeon, one duty did not interfere with another, one love did not destroy another. In addition, he (lived - ed.), “the tea of ​​the joy of Israel.” All Israel, of course, had hopes, but their hopes were idle; with Simeon it was based on living faith and was evidenced by good deeds. It is said about Anna that she served God with fasting and prayer day and night; and the same can and should be said about Simeon. "The joys of Israel.." Israel had a lot of sorrow and sorrow, so the Jews loved to call the Messiah “joy.” This name is also found in the Talmud. “Tea” - and not by acting, as many zealots acted without reason. Such was, by the way, Judas the Galilean. Simeon knew that God’s promise would be fulfilled in its own order, that a man could not add a single cubit to his age. Why else would he interfere in the affairs of God? The previous description could have ended the image of the Old Testament righteous man, but here is another new feature: “and the Holy Spirit was in him” - that Spirit Who has not been seen for about five hundred years in the people of Israel, in the best Israelites. About this time we can say with Solomon: “winter... has passed, a breath of spirit appears and shows flowers” ​​(Song. 2:11–12). Like shepherds, Joseph, Simeon, Anna are like spring flowers, emerging from under the snow after winter. “The Holy Spirit was in him,” and the (other -ed.) Gospel says: “There is no Holy Spirit, because Jesus was not glorified” (John 7:39). Jesus Christ also communicates the Holy Spirit to the disciples through a breath. To this it must be said that although the Holy Spirit is one and the same in Himself, His gifts and the degree of gifting are different. The Spirit that was in Simeon was close to the grace-filled action of the Spirit in the New Testament, to which the path is open through the Cross of Christ. By summarizing some passages about the prophets or righteous men of the Old Testament, in whom the Holy Spirit spoke and acted, one can see that the Holy Spirit dwelt in their minds and imparted to them the gift of foresight. On the practical (moral) side, He expressed himself in the spirit of legality or the execution of laws. In the New Testament, on the theoretical side, the Holy Spirit is also expressed in the knowledge of the future, and especially in the knowledge of the mysteries of salvation, but on the practical side - in the fulfillment of Christian virtues, in humility, in faith, in love, and so on. By this division we do not want to humiliate the person of Simeon and the Spirit who acted in him, but we only want to give due honor to the two Testaments - the wise construction of the same Spirit. Such is Simeon in terms of the moral qualities of his soul; by his external condition, was he not a priest? Otherwise, how could he bless the Child? In ancient times it was believed that he really was a priest; but in the Gospel there is no basis for such a guess. He could bless as a pious elder, for whom everything is sacred, and as a man known for his holiness and virtues, and most of all, as filled with the Holy Spirit, as a man and prophet of God; and such a person has the right to bless more than any priest. It was as if he especially belonged to the Messiah, and the Messiah belonged to him. So, it is better to follow the narration of the evangelist himself. Simeon was an extraordinary man: he was given an extraordinary promise. “There was a promise to him by the Holy Spirit” (Luke 2:26), that is, for some reason he himself did not think that he would live to see the Messiah and see Him. No matter how great and universal the expectation of the Messiah was at that time, for an old man in his most advanced years to hope to see Him with his own eyes would mean to be too arrogant and rely on his own virtues. How was it announced to him?.. Maybe through a dream or in some other way. This promise was the most precious at that time. The Savior says to the Jews of His time: you now see what the kings and the righteous greatly desired to see (fn.: Matt. 13:17, Luke 10:24). The anticipation of all the Jews at this time was most impatient, but the honor of seeing the Messiah was given mainly to Simeon. The promise says definitely: until “he sees Christ the Lord” (Luke 2:26), and does not just say: you will live until the time when the Messiah is born. When was this promise made? It could have been given to him in his youth, but the very course of the matter shows that it was given to him in old age, when he naturally could no longer hope to live until the appearance of the Messiah. He may have heard about the Messiah, but he is promised that he will see the Messiah. If the Apostle Paul says about some of his disciples that they would be ready “with all their hair ... twisted” (Gal. 4:15) just to see Him, then Simeon, of course, would be ready to make the same sacrifice a hundred times, just to be worthy to see the Lord. Afterwards he actually says: “My eyes have seen Your salvation” (Luke 2:30). He saw the true Messiah of God; At this time many false messiahs appeared. Therefore, the Savior Himself later warns His disciples so that they can discern spirits and recognize false messiahs, for in the last days many false Christs and false prophets will appear. The Evangelist does not mention how long this promise was given before its fulfillment. For greater solemnity, it must be assumed that three hundred years before the birth of Christ, admitting that Simeon was among the Seventy interpreters and, translating the prophet Isaiah from Hebrew into Greek, stopped over the place: “Behold, the Virgin will conceive in her womb and give birth to a Son” (Is. 7:14). It was then that he was supposedly promised (it was - ed.) to see this event with his own eyes. But there is no need to multiply miracles, where there are already enough of them. “And the Spirit came into the church” (Luke 2:27). Simeon needed a special inspiration from the Holy Spirit. For what? He went to church often anyway. But maybe this was a time when people didn’t go to church? Maybe Simeon was then for some reason not in the mood to go to church? Or maybe a special inspiration from the Holy Spirit was needed to let him know that the promise given to him would come true in the church? Be that as it may, it was not by chance that Simeon went to church. From here, by the way, it is clear that he was not a priest, at least not a priest. "Introducing.." . This expression is not entirely appropriate for the Savior’s childhood. “And receive Him in your hand” (Luke 2:28). The priest had to take the baby from the mother's arms; Why would anyone else take the baby? But that’s what’s wonderful. How did Simeon recognize the Child? I could recognize Him partly because He was perhaps alone in the church at that time, but if not alone, then a special order from above was required. An ancient legend says that the Mother and Child appeared to Simeon at that time in radiance. “And bless God, and say: now you let go” (Luke 2:28–29). The first gaze of the righteous turns to God, to Whom he sends thanksgiving and praise; then he turns his gaze to himself, then to the Jewish people, then to all humanity and, finally, to the Mother and the future lot of Her and the Child. “Now you are letting go...” Sublime speech, poured out from the fullness of a grateful heart! She hugs a lot. Who is Simeon addressing? Whom does he call the Lord? God in general, and not the Baby he holds. Further he says: “What you have prepared” (Luke 2:31), God has prepared, and the Messiah has been prepared. Therefore, Simeon’s prayer, which some attribute to the Messiah, does not really suit Him. "Thy servant.." This expression is taken from the custom of setting slaves free. It shows that Simeon looked at his body as a prison, as a heavy burden. The righteous always look at the world and their body this way, but even for the most lovers of the world and the flesh, it finally becomes old sackcloth that needs to be thrown off. “In peace” - that is, in a blissful, peaceful manner. For a different age, a different desire would be needed, but for an old man the best and most decent desire is peace. His aged eyes saw the body already being destroyed, the terrible misfortunes of his fellow tribesmen, they saw not only his own coffin, but, one might say, that of the entire Jewish people. But he dies with an unperturbed heart, for everything that the Jews expected came true. The Messiah has come, salvation is prepared. “Before all people” (Luke 2:30–32) - all nations. “My eyes have seen salvation,” and not the Savior. This is an enthusiastic, prophetic language. Nowadays our language likes to express abstract concepts in a concrete form, but then they expressed it the other way around - there is a big difference in the nature of our mental world and the ancient world. “Prepared” - did not send or make, but prepared for a long time, used a lot of money and time. “Light in revelation by tongue..”. What light? The Savior will be the Enlightener of all nations who sat in darkness and obscurity before His coming, and this will constitute a new great glory for Israel. All nations will turn their eyes to grief and revere Jerusalem, from which the law will come. And now many are extremely reverent towards Jerusalem, as the cradle of our salvation. Jesus Christ became the source of salvation for everyone through faith in the truths He communicated. And the recognition of the Messiah as universal shows that Simeon in his spirit was superior to many, if not all, of his compatriots contemporary with him, who limited the benefits of the Messiah only to the Israelis. Simeon's mind is enlightened by the Holy Spirit, and it embraces all humanity. “And he spoke to Mary His Mother: behold, he lies...”. (Luke 2:34), that is, destined, such is His destiny. “For the fall and for the rise...”. Why not just one uprising? The reason is people. The fall in the New Testament is called misfortune, and the uprising happiness. The Messiah lies for many to rebel. The Apostle Peter calls Him an honorable, chosen stone, set at the head of the corner. The Messiah is set to fall, for He is called the stone of “stumbling” (Rom. 9:32) and of temptation, by which those who disobey His teaching are tempted. So, indeed, it was. Israel was divided in two in its concept of the Messiah. The cross of Jesus was for the Jews “a temptation, for the Greeks foolishness, while for believers the crucified Jesus was God’s power and God’s wisdom” (1 Cor. 1:23–24). For some, the teaching of Jesus Christ stank of death, for others it stank into the stomach. All the blessings of God are such that people, at their own discretion, can use them for evil. The most useful and effective medicines can become ineffective and even deadly if abused. Food can sustain life and produce death. “And for a sign it is contradicted” (Luke 2:34). A sign, that is, something as if raised up, put on display, something miraculous. The evangelist notes that a little later the rumor about the Nativity of the Savior spread throughout Syria and other surrounding countries. But this sign was rejected by many. Some spoke of the Messiah, “for there is good”; others: “neither, but flatters the nations.” This prediction of Simeon was especially revealed at the Cross. At Calvary there were as many opinions about Him as there were people. “Let the thoughts of many hearts be opened” (Luke 2:35). Before the appearance of the Messiah, everyone was sure that when He came, they would recognize Him; everyone said that he was ready to sacrifice everything to Him, to fulfill everything prescribed by Him; but when He appeared, the thoughts that lay in the depths of the human heart were revealed. "Hearts..." Thus, the heart was the source of judgment about the Messiah, and the mind, so to speak, only floated on the surface of this judgment. The heart judged whether or not to accept the Messiah. What is pleasant to the heart, the mind also inclines towards it; and what is hard and unpleasant for the heart seems unrealizable and incredible. The heart wanted to see in the person of the Messiah a rich, glorious king, and when He appeared in the opposite form, the heart refused to believe in Him and began to see in Him only contradictions and shortcomings. “But a weapon will pierce your very soul” (Luke 2:35). This is what is predicted by the Mother of the Divine Child, to Whom apparently belonged only peace and joy! Sorrow awaits you, Simeon tells her, a fierce weapon will pierce your soul. Your Divine Son will suffer a lot and become the subject of controversy. What kind of weapon is this? Physical and moral disasters, need and sorrow. They soon began to pass through Her soul, for disasters, deprivations and unbelief surrounded, so to speak, the very cradle of the God-Man. Many began to reject Him from birth. There is no need or basis to think that Mary suffered torment at the Cross of Jesus Christ or after, and thus ended her life. About Joseph (the Beautiful) it is said in the book of Genesis: “iron pierced the soul,” but it is clear that what is meant here is not martyrdom, but unfortunate circumstances in life. Why is Joseph (the Betrothed) not mentioned here, but only the Mother of Jesus Christ? No doubt he was right there. One must think that nothing is said about him because of his old age, which probably soon brought him down to the grave. Even if he lived to see the fulfillment of this prediction, then the fate of the Baby was more concerned with His Mother. “And Anna was a prophetess... and that widow” (Luke 2:36, 37). A new face appears - a prophetess-widow, “having matured in many days.” Saint Ambrose of Milan notes that people from all conditions, ages and sexes are gathered around Jesus Christ. Only about Simeon it is said that he was led by the Spirit to church, and about Anna it is noted that she herself came up by chance, but here too, of course, Providence arranged it in such a way that she too would be there, in order to thus console and worthily reward her old age and deeds of virtue. Why was she right there? Because she was always in the church, did not leave the church, serving with fasting and prayers day and night; and whoever never leaves the church can see many extraordinary, great, wonderful things in it. Why is Anna called a prophetess? Maybe she was the wife of a prophet? But we do not see prophets in her time. Moreover, they say that she was called a prophetess for her long-term pious life, being left without a husband after living with him for seven years. But that’s not the only reason she’s a prophetess. She had the gift of clairvoyance, was a prophetess in the proper sense of the word, and she received this gift for a strict virtuous life. Origen says that she lived at the church for sixty years after the death of her husband, and therefore it is not surprising that she could receive the gift of prophecy. What this gift of prophecy consisted of is unknown. Here is another new proof that Anna was in the proper sense a prophetess: “Anna... daughter of Phanuel (a remarkable person for some reason), from the tribe of Asher,” known for its special wealth and tranquility. The Evangelist speaks about Anna in order to show that she was a widow. She lived with her husband for seven years and entered into marriage, according to the general custom of the Jews, probably for fifteen years. And in such years, dooming yourself to permanent widowhood, given the corruption of morals at that time, is extremely rare! “You did not leave the church” (Luke 2:37). Virgins and widows lived near the church (2 Mac. 3:19, 20). This circumstance partly explains why Mary was brought to the church at a certain time. “Not leaving” means she lived constantly in church, in her fasting and prayer, private and public. It’s remarkable how humanity has already sung here; clothing, a ritual law, was, so to speak, no longer suitable for him. Anna prayed as much as possible, whenever and wherever she could. “Having confessed to the Lord” (Luke 2:38), that is, she praised God, and not like Simeon - “bless God” (Luke 2:28); It is indecent for a woman to bless. “To all who look forward to redemption in Jerusalem” (Luke 2:38). There were people who no longer expected this, which is especially evident from the description of the last war between the Jews and the Romans. Then many fanatics appeared among the zealots, defenders of the freedom of the fatherland, who trampled on everything sacred. So here, in the church, the wife remains a preacher of the Messiah; after His resurrection, His wives were also the first preachers. This is what happened during the bringing of the Son of God to the church! What effect did all this have on Mary and Joseph? They were surprised. But to what? Did they not know the fate of their Child? Of course, His fate was hardly known, that is, as the apostles later revealed to us. But if they were completely aware of His fate, then even then they could not help but be surprised. They saw or, better yet, held in their arms a weak, crying baby, and about whom they talk so much; amazingly unique! They especially did not know the secret told by Simeon, that through this Child salvation was prepared for all nations. The apostle calls this a mystery, hitherto unknown to anyone. “For she has all died according to the law of the Lord” (Luke 2:39). Actually, there were few laws of Moses, but there could be some appendages that could still be fulfilled. “Returning... to your city of Nazareth.” No, now they will not return to Nazareth, but will retire to Egypt, only the Evangelist Luke missed this circumstance, and the Evangelist Matthew wrote it. 11. Flight to Egypt, massacre of the infants and return of the Holy Family to Nazareth We saw how the Magi, having worshiped the born Christ, returned another way to their fatherland, so as not to go to Herod; saw how Jesus Christ was brought into the church. Herod, seeing that the wise men were not returning for so long, at first thought that it was difficult for them to find the born King, or if they found Him, they could not soon, so to speak, tear themselves away from Him; Therefore, he does not soon begin to take strict measures. That is why the Angel says in a dream to Joseph: “For Herod wants to seek the Children” (Matthew 2:13). When this terrible thought was just emerging in Herod’s mind, God had already seen it and commanded Joseph to flee to Egypt. Thus, another journey begins again. Previously, Joseph walked from Nazareth to Bethlehem, then from Bethlehem to Jerusalem, and now again to Bethlehem, and then to Egypt. This circumstance seemed very strange to some opponents of Christianity. Celsus especially mocked him in his blasphemous writings. But an impartial look shows something else here. God came to earth to set an example of humility; there was no place for miracles or His omnipotence in this case. “Rising up, that is, without delay at all, take the Child and His Mother and flee to Egypt” (Matthew 2:13). Only the Child was in danger, but the Mother also had to be taken with Him, for the Child could not yet live without the Mother. There was nothing more to take, for this Family was in extreme poverty. Why did he have to flee to Egypt and not to another country? Because Egypt was not then subject to the power of Herod, and was closer to Bethlehem; Moreover, many Jews lived in Egypt, who had their own ethnarch there, and the king of Egypt was not in close ties with the house of Herod. It was dangerous to flee to Syria, for example; it was ruled by a proconsul who had known connections with Herod. Egypt was a quick forty hours' walk from Jerusalem. To what city or village did Joseph need to flee? This was not announced to them, partly to test their faith. Such a vague command shows that everything that happens to the Baby is under the special care of Providence. “Herod wants to look for...”. - he thinks, begins to suspect that the slowness of the non-returning Magi probably stems from another reason - betrayal of their given word. Along with suspicion, a terrible thought arises in his soul - to kill the Youth. “He (Joseph) rose up,” that is, that same night he fled to Egypt. The road there runs through part of rocky Arabia, and therefore was not entirely passable and safe; but when God commands, there is no longer room for any fears. "Be tamo" (Matthew 2:14–15). Where? Tradition has preserved for us one village in Egypt, between Cairo and Alexandria, which was called Mitara; also a tree under which the Holy Family seemed to rest, and the remains of a pond with a well. "Until the death of Herodov". Did it come soon? From Josephus we see that Archelaus, Herod’s successor, had already killed 3,000 Jews on the day of Easter, and their corpses lay in the church; therefore, if Jesus Christ was born in December, then the death of Herod followed two or three months after His birth. Others say that Jesus Christ was in Egypt for about two or three years. In this case, the death of Herod must be attributed to another year; but it is more likely that it followed in the first year. “That what was spoken of the Lord by the prophet might be fulfilled, saying: Out of Egypt I called my Son” (Matthew 2:15). The prophecy speaks of the people of Israel (Hos. 11:1). The Prophet, urging Hosea not to despair, but to trust in Providence, points him to miracles and, by the way, to the expulsion of the Israelites from Egypt. This prophecy refers to Jesus Christ, although not directly. Prophecies are not direct, when they partially come true for some people, but then come true more fully and accurately for others. Saint Chrysostom notes: “If you doubt about prophecy, we answer that this is also the law of prophecy: when many parts are spoken about others, but are fulfilled on others.” The prophecy speaks of Canaan having to be a slave to his brother, and the Gibeonites, his descendants, become slaves of Israel. In the same sense, the prophecy is applied here to Jesus Christ. “Who more can be called the Son of God? Food for the people who worship Baal and take communion with Beelphegor?” (sn.: Ps. 105:28) Why does the evangelist give such an indirect prophecy? (meaning Matthew 2 – ed.). He wrote his Gospel for the Jews, and for them the flight of Jesus Christ into Egypt, to the uncircumcised people, seemed an extreme temptation; but as soon as the prophecies are pointed out to them, they no longer doubt the authenticity and dignity of this event. Similar prophecies are found in other places, and their scope is even broader: they embrace a lot suddenly. The divine gaze embraces everything, but the human gaze, assisted by the Divine, embraces much. Thus, the return of Jesus Christ from Egypt happened quickly, therefore, the idea that Jesus Christ learned a lot in Egypt is absurd. For an Infant such learning is impossible; in adulthood He was not in Egypt. And wisdom at that time was not at a very high level in Egypt. We do not know the details of His stay in Egypt. Tradition says that during the coming of Jesus Christ, the idols in Egypt fell. This legend began in the 4th century and became common in the 7th century. Saint Chrysostom says that Jesus Christ sanctified Egypt with His coming. Eusebius says that the idols only fell silent during the coming of Jesus Christ, but did not fall. The subsequent fathers in this case had in mind the prophecy and sought its fulfillment: “He will come to Egypt, and things made with hands will be shaken” (Is. 19:1). How this fall took place is impossible to determine. Now let's see what Herod does. “Then Herod saw that he was quickly reproached by the wise men, and became very angry” (Matthew 2:16). Jesus Christ was already in Egypt at this time. At first, Herod could attribute the slowness and non-return of the Magi to other reasons; then he saw that he had been scolded and ridiculed by the Magi, while he, the king, had so favorably accepted them, not the kings, and this was the greatest blow to his pride. “Greatly angry.” From infancy his character was fiery; At the end of his life, this ardor and determination disappeared, and their place was taken by suspicion and extreme irritability. He killed two of his sons without any guilt, executed Antipater five days before his death, and once attempted his own life; Moreover, at that time he was in terrible illness. “Herod wants to look for the soul of the Youth.” Finally, this desire turns into determination to beat the infants in order to destroy the Divine Infant among them. He probably did not want to kill the Son of God; but, on the other hand, he did not have a high concept of the Messiah, and this intention was a consequence of his fear of conspiracies. Before his death, a conspiracy was revealed, for which many Pharisees paid with their lives; Soon after, they overthrew the golden eagle that Herod had placed on the door of the church. Antipater, sitting in the fortress, boasted that in a few days he would reign. Thus, it was not Herod’s anger alone that was the reason for the beating of the infants. Josephus is silent about this event, and this leads many to bewilderment regarding the authenticity of the Gospel story about this subject. But this matter had to (was - ed.) be accomplished in secret, for the fathers and mothers, having learned about this intention of Herod, could hide their children. Some point out that Herod in this case seems to be extremely cruel, which he hardly was. But this cruelty does not mean anything in comparison with what he planned before his death. He ordered his sister Salome to gather all the elders of Judah in Jericho and kill them on the day of his death. For, he says, the Jews will not weep for me; but his sister and son were ten times better than him and did not fulfill his hellish will. Why does this seem incredible? History shows that cruelty in a king is often combined with piety. “Beat all the children” (Matthew 2:16). All measures were taken to ensure that all the children were beaten. For if it had been discovered that at least one baby remained alive, then this measure would have been in vain. “In Bethlehem and all its borders” - in all the environs of Judea, except Jerusalem, in which, if a murder had also been carried out, there would have been an uproar. A measure was also given that should have been used to guide the killing of infants: “from two years old and from the lowest time, according to the known test of the wise men” (Matthew 2:16). Herod had previously tested this from the Magi for other purposes, but now it is used differently. The Jews also called one who had reached another year a two-year-old baby, just as they called a “son of the year” one who was still in his first year. Such a measure would show that the star appeared to the Magi two or at least one and a half years before the Nativity of Christ. Herod might have thought that the wise men either delayed their journey for a long time, or did not get ready to set off soon after the appearance of the star. Herod took the measure higher so as not to miss; I also took the one below, just in case. How many babies were killed? In our calendars it is said that “fourteen thousand”; in others this number is reduced to four thousand. Western Christians also have a difference; some are reduced to a very small number, in order to thus reduce the cruelty of Herod. But in Herod such cruelty is common. That time was completely different from ours. Then more cruelties were committed in one year than now in a hundred years. Archelaus, having only Herod's will, with which he still needed to appear in Rome to Augustus to ask for his consent, had already committed a terrible murder in Judea. It may seem strange to pious feeling how the very birth of the Savior was redeemed by the death of so many infants. Saint Chrysostom completely eliminates this bewilderment: “Many,” he says, “doubt; but the king’s cruelty was the cause of the death of the babies, and God could punish these babies as revenge, perhaps, on their parents.” He uses an excellent comparison in this case: “If a certain slave owed a lot to his master, and this slave’s property were stolen, but the master, knowing who it was stolen from and having the opportunity to return it, did not return it, but took it for himself for the debt, then should the slave be offended in this case? No! The Apostle says about one criminal: “Deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that the spirit may be saved in him” (1 Cor. 5:5). “What the hell? - asks Chrysostom, - were the children harmed when they passed on to a silent life? So, the murder of children happened for their own good. Moreover, for children, death is not as cruel and terrible as for older people. The fact that Josephus does not mention this event should not confuse us, for he does not mention other events either. When compiling his “History,” he was guided by the notes of Nicholas of Damascus, who was Herod’s secretary and his first flatterer. And that there really was a massacre of infants is evidenced by Macrovius, who in his notes left the saying of Augustus for this case: “It is better to be Herod’s pig than his son”; But many people don’t want to believe this story. Macrovius says that Augustus heard about the massacre of infants from Herod in Syria, but the Romans often called Judea, Idumea and Syria by the common name of Syria. A little later after this, Herod killed his son, and these news could have come to Rome at the same time. “Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet will be fulfilled, saying: a voice was heard in Rama, weeping and mourning and much crying: Rachel weeping for her children, not wanting to be comforted, because they are not” (Matthew 2:18). Here again is a prophecy similar to the previous one. The prophet speaks (Jer. 31:15) about Rachel. He predicts the Babylonian captivity of the Israelites; sees how they go to Babylon, how the tribe of Benjamin is deserted; Rachel was buried in Ramah, through which the Israelites had to pass to Babylon. And so, it seems to him that Rachel is coming out of the coffin, meeting and accompanying her children going into captivity; and the prophet said to console her: don’t cry, they will return from Babylon. The Evangelist adds to this the event of Bethlehem (Rama is adjacent to Bethlehem), and now Rachel seems to rise from the grave again and cry for the murdered babies. Why is such a prophecy given? Again, to eliminate the temptation that it is indecent for the Messiah to flee to Egypt at such a dangerous time, and for Him to die for several thousand babies. Saint Chrysostom also notices the same connection in this event. He, by the way, also says: “According to the leader of the tribe (Benjamin, Rachel’s son) and according to the place of burial, the beaten infants of Rachel are named children.” The prophet, of course, has this appeal to Rachel as a picturesque depiction of the Event; but the idea that the ancestors, even beyond the grave, remain indifferent to the fate of their descendants, that they stand before God for them, could also be involved in it, hence the expression among the Jews: “Israel forgot us, and Jehovah did not remember us.” And God in one place, angry, says: “If Moses and Samuel stand before Me, My soul will not be with this people” (Jer. 15:1). “I will kill Herod” (Matthew 2:19). Herod's death was terrible: his whole body was covered with wounds; different diseases appeared in different parts of it; worms attacked him from his wounds, and he could only be in an upright position; he was tormented by hunger and thirst, and could neither drink nor eat, so that the doctors themselves admitted that his illness was the execution of God. “Behold, the angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in Egypt in a dream” (Matthew 2:19). This means that only danger forced Jesus Christ to flee to Egypt, and not something else, for example, the desire to learn wisdom; and when it passed (danger - ed.), there was no longer any reason to stay in Egypt. A long stay there could lead to guesses and suspicions. “Go (and do not run) to the land of Israel (and not to Nazareth), for he who seeks the soul of the offspring is wasted” (Matthew 2:20). Our Slavic word “izomrosha” is good here, especially expressive, because the persecutors of Jesus Christ truly needed a special death. “The seeker” - that is, Herod, and perhaps Antipater, who was in some way the cause of Herod’s cruelty. Antipater wanted to preempt the throne from his brothers, and therefore slandered them before Herod. “Souls” - instead of “life”. “To the land of Israel” - more precisely to Judea. Joseph's home was in Nazareth. It must be thought that when Providence Joseph was miraculously brought to Bethlehem, where Mary was to give birth, and when Herod later asked the Sanhedrin about the place of birth of the Messiah and received the answer: “in Bethlehem,” then Joseph could come to the idea that the Messiah should live in Bethlehem, and therefore decided to change his place of residence. Therefore, it also becomes probable that the parents of Jesus Christ, after bringing Him to the church, went again to Bethlehem, and from there to Egypt, and from Egypt they again wanted to return to Bethlehem. “When he heard that Archelaus reigned in Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there” (Matthew 2:22). Why was Joseph afraid of Archelaus? And didn’t he, being in Egypt, know that Archelaus reigned in Judea? Might not know. Herod changed his will several times regarding the succession to the throne: first Aristobulus and Alexander were appointed, then Antipater, and after his murder, Archelaus. The news of the change of heir after the death of Antipater could not reach Egypt so quickly. Herod had other children: Herod Antipas and Philip, and Joseph would not have been so afraid if he had heard that one of them was reigning, for they were meek, and Archelaus was cruel. After Judea they complained about his cruelty to Caesar, and he was, indeed, dismissed from office. In Galilee, Herod Antipas, who was of a meek disposition, was the ruler at that time. “And he came to dwell in a city called Nazareth: that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, that he should be called a Nazarite” (Matthew 2:23). Jesus Christ is called a Nazarene. But where in Scripture? The book of Judges (Judges 13:5) talks about Samson's Naziriteship. Saint Chrysostom thinks that this prophecy was taken from a book lost by the Jews. This idea has some basis. In the Old Testament, indeed, some books are lost; but it is clear that these books were not inspired. Here the prophecy could be given not in letter, but in spirit. Nazarenes were usually called people of holy, strict life. Jesus Christ led the strictest life, which is why he could be called a “Nazarite.” For the prophets often presented Him in this form, and He really appeared like this on earth. This is a new way of giving prophecy, that is, the prophecy is given either directly, or one side refers to one thing, and the other to another, or not according to the letter, but according to the spirit. Doesn't this last way of comparing prophecy with events humiliate the evangelists? It may, of course, seem derogatory if anyone seeks literal accuracy here. Of course, it is needed in other places, but not necessary here. Where prophecy is given, many nations and centuries are covered. Consequently, the laws of ordinary logic do not apply here. The gaze of the prophet, turned to the main Person, also concerns other persons who have any relationship or similarity with the Messiah; Therefore, the features of the prophecy were often taken from persons and events of the present or past - without this they would not have been so close to the Jews. Bringing prophecy in spirit, and not in letter, is especially befitting of sacred writers, for they penetrated deeper into the spirit of events and Scripture, and therefore could better see their internal connection. Likewise, there are allusions to past events to explain later events, somewhat similar to prophecy among secular writers. Therefore, “He will be called a Nazirite” - can also be derived from the Hebrew “netsere” - “branch”, by which name the Messiah is sometimes called by the prophets (Is. 11:1). Moreover, now we need precision, but the prophets and evangelists did not need it at all. They did not always present the prophecy for proof. To cite prophecy as proof of any Divine event would be to prop up the sky with a pillar. So, Joseph wanted to settle in Bethlehem or its environs, where Zechariah and Elizabeth lived. But Providence did not want Jesus Christ to live near Jerusalem, but arranged for Him to live in Nazareth, and there were very important reasons for this. What does the flight of Jesus Christ represent? For the moral sense of the purified, the greatest secret of Providence appears here. Joseph and Mary were chosen to serve an extraordinary sacrament, and the joys in their lives are replaced by sorrows. Saint John Chrysostom notes: “He (Jesus Christ) experiences temptations and slander from the beginning, and persecution begins from the shrouds, but if you want to serve God, do not say: what is this? He then begins to correct himself and says that it is proper for him to have fun; but let him know that he must endure temptations relentlessly.” Thus, in the human heart there is an innate feeling that tells a person who begins to improve that he should feel good; but another, also innate, feeling suggests that one must first endure a lot of troubles. With this, the evangelists end the story of the first days of the life of Jesus Christ. The space of elapsed time is several months, but how many excitements, how many faces, how many events! Judea, Egypt, the East, Rome - everything is in motion, while the Child descends from heaven - like rain on a fleece, quietly and imperceptibly; everything moves and yet does not know where or why. This is how Providence accomplishes extraordinary things! The main character of these events is that the Divine in them comes into contact with the human. This is an example of the world history of mankind. People act, apparently go on a rampage, commit atrocities, and meanwhile Providence does its work. Some of these events have a prophetic sign. The stay of Jesus Christ in Egypt and the worship of the Magi is a foreshadowing of the participation of all people, including pagans, in the Kingdom of Jesus Christ. His Nativity was announced by the Angels to the whole world, then through the Magi and the Sanhedrin it was communicated to Jerusalem, the East and announced from many countries with a thunder trumpet; but everything is done in accordance with the prescribed measure, and until the age of thirty, nothing special happens in Judea in the life of the Messiah who came to earth. The thunder passed, the characters disappeared, and silence fell again. 12. The life of Jesus Christ in Nazareth, in the house of His parents What will happen in Nazareth with Jesus Christ until His thirty years of age? How will this Divine Child grow? The evangelists skip this entire period and say almost nothing at all about Jesus Christ until His solemn appearance on the Jordan. There is only a general review that the Child grew “in wisdom and understanding and grace with God and man” (Luke 2:52). The Evangelist Luke also has a private story about an incident that happened to Jesus Christ in the twelfth year of His age. The silence of the evangelists is noteworthy. If they followed the Jewish inclination towards the miraculous, then what a vast field there is for the narration of miracles! Here the imagination and the inanimate would become creative. And indeed, in ancient times idle hands appeared who wrote a lot about the miracles of Jesus Christ that happened in His infancy. The silence of the evangelists should be the strongest proof for impartial criticism that they were not partial to the miraculous and narrated only real miracles. Thanks to the evangelists for this silence, let us think a little about the stay of Jesus Christ in the house of his parents until he was thirty years old and use the general and private story of the evangelists. First, let us note the wise guidance of Providence in choosing the place to spend the youth of Jesus Christ. The main reason why Jesus Christ, by order of Providence, had to appear to the world in the thirtieth year of His life was that the ministry of the Messiah had to be revealed in adulthood. So the rabbis of Judah took office as national teachers in the thirtieth year of their lives. According to ordinary considerations, one would think that the best place to spend the youth of Jesus Christ should have been Jerusalem or its environs; but in reality it was not so. He had to spend some time in solitude, to be hidden, removed from all humanity. His fame among men, and especially in Jerusalem, would have harmed His ministry. We see that He was subsequently received poorly in Nazareth, all the more so one would expect this from the inhabitants of Jerusalem. But it’s a completely different matter when He appears for a sermon from nowhere, as if he had descended from heaven. On the other hand, this solitude of Him in a simple town separated Him from all human means and aids for education; and this disunity and the miraculous actions subsequently performed by Him show that He acted with the help of the Divine. Here it is not superfluous to highlight historically the place of His residence for greater clarity. Nazareth lies in Galilee, on the border of Judea and Syria, in the northeast, near the headwaters of the Jordan. This country is one of the wild, sparsely populated, but at that time it abounded in the gifts of nature, albeit wild. Its surroundings were rich in water, not far away there was Lake Tiberias, also the upper reaches from which the Jordan flows, there were also some mountains, including Tabor. Nazareth was inhabited by simple people who, according to Josephus, were engaged in agriculture, gardening, and wood products, which was what Joseph did. Such a place for the development of moral sense was the best. Therefore, in the sermons and parables of Jesus Christ one could often see an appeal to objects of nature, such as, for example, mountainous land, thorns (see: Lk. 8:6–13); Hence, according to the remark of Blessed Augustine, the expression: “no one lays his hand on the head.” How did Jesus Christ live in solitude? Monotonous, peaceful, quiet. Was there anything wonderful about her? The Evangelist does not show this, and probably did not happen. The first miracle of Jesus Christ mentioned by the Evangelist, performed by Him in Cana, is in the proper sense the first. Miracles are indecent in solitude, for they would suddenly draw attention to Him. It is remarkable that the rumor about the first miracles that took place at His birth soon fell silent, and they did not make Him an object of curiosity, and (we dare to say) it was more difficult for Providence in this case, if only there was something difficult for Him, to stop a series of miracles, rather than to continue them, and, moreover, as many as were needed for the nationwide revelation of the Messiah. The Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus Christ can serve as a good guide to distinguishing true miracles from counterfeit ones. There is no divine propriety in this gospel; for example, it says that when Christ fled to Egypt, He encountered a city filled with idols on the way, and He turned it into hills, from which the dead began to emerge. And one more thing: Jesus Christ, as if, while playing with children, wanted to show His omnipotence and commanded birds made of clay to fly through the air. There are many other similar tales. All counterfeit gospels are like this; and all of them together look like a counterfeit coin and show that antiquity was prone to the miraculous. How was the time of solitude of Jesus Christ? Evangelist Luke says: “The boy grew stronger and stronger in spirit, and was filled with wisdom; and the grace of God was upon Him” (Luke 2:40). The review is short, but contains a lot. Without this, one might think that the growth of the Messiah did not occur according to the laws of our growth and education. On the contrary, Jesus Christ, gradually becoming stronger in spirit, became stronger in body; in Him new concepts, thoughts and feelings appeared, the mind developed, and insight and understanding were especially revealed. Moreover, He was especially filled with grace (which does not happen to such an extent in others) “and man is with God” (Luke 2:52), that is, it was clear that God was pleased with Him. What did this favor consist of? The fact is that He was gifted with extraordinary abilities, He was smart, kind, obedient, meek, and such a person cannot help but be loved by people. But how could the Son of God grow in “wisdom” and “grace”? The same as with the body. Divinity united in Him with humanity once forever, for all eternity; but the participation of the Divine was revealed in Him not suddenly, but gradually. Previously, His participation was supernatural: first in the womb of the Mother, then in infancy, and when consciousness was revealed in humanity, then the Divine was united with consciousness; but even having united with consciousness, the Divinity was still gradually revealed in the life of the Savior. This gradualness is partly shown by the Apostle Paul when he says that Jesus Christ “not suddenly became equal with God: but He made Himself of no reputation, and took on the form of a servant, and became in the likeness of mankind, and was found in the likeness of a man” (Phil. 2:6–7). “In the same way God has highly exalted Him and given Him a name above every name” (Phil. 2:9). From the evangelist’s narrative it is also clear that Jesus Christ, in His own words, did not know the day of universal judgment and the end of the world before His suffering; after His resurrection, He no longer says this, that is, that He does not know, but says only to the disciples: “They understand the times and seasons that the Father has ordained in His power” (Acts 1:7). The Apostle also says that He learned obedience through experience and patience, that is, He did not demonstrate obedience before, because there were no experiences for this. But doesn’t such growth contradict the hypostatic union of the Divinity with humanity in Jesus Christ? No! For if the Divine were united with humanity in one moment for all eternity and expressed itself suddenly, then there would be no place for ordinary actions, for example, death, suffering, and so on. But how could the Divine unite with humanity in its entirety, and at the same time remain unconscious? This is a secret. Could we say more about this if It acted with consciousness from the very beginning? This is partly explained by the union of the divine with the human in general. In some people little of the divine is seen, in others more; in the future life much more will be revealed: then they will all be one, like the Father and the Son (fn.: John 17:21–22). Thus, the growth of Jesus Christ occurred according to ordinary human laws, and this gradualness was clearly allowed in order not to unnecessarily violate the laws of nature (only sin was not accepted by Jesus Christ, and this is because it is not natural to us, but came from outside); and this observance of the laws of nature gave place to moral merit. For completely without human nature in Jesus Christ the opportunity to sin would have been lost, and without this opportunity, what merit would there have been in the fact that He suffered then, even though He had not committed the slightest sin? Then He - as God - would not be an Intercessor for us; then He could not have prayed to God in Gethsemane to remove the cup of suffering. But the Apostle Paul says that He prayed then “with a strong cry and with tears... and was heard with reverence, even if the Son had become accustomed to obedience from those who had suffered” (Heb. 5:7-8). Before His Passion and Resurrection, He still had the opportunity to do or not do good; in the glorified Son of God this possibility no longer had a place: only good remained. The Apostle Paul also says: “The author of salvation... must be perfected by suffering” (Heb. 2:10); without this He would be imperfect. From this point of view, all expressions about Jesus Christ, which were discussed for several centuries, and some teachers were even cursed for heresies, are understandable and simple. This difficulty arose from the fact that they confused such things that needed to be distinguished, that is, one must always remember that the Divinity united with humanity suddenly and forever, but the very manifestation of the Divine did not follow suddenly and not in the same completeness, but developed gradually. 13. Twelve-year-old Jesus in the Temple of Jerusalem Let's see how Providence shows one experience of such success. This is the case in which Jesus Christ showed His wisdom in the twelfth year of His life, when He talked with the Jewish teachers of the law in the Temple of Jerusalem. Why does Saint Luke describe this incident? Apparently he had no intention of talking about the childhood of Jesus Christ. He has already said that Jesus Christ returned to Galilee and prospered there in wisdom, and then he narrates: “And His parent went to Jerusalem every summer on the feast of Passover” (Luke 2:41). The Israelites were commanded by law to go to Jerusalem three times a year on the feasts of Passover, Pentecost and Tabernacles. Women probably went only on Easter, and on others only men and some devout women went, for it is not easy to go three times a year. “And when they were twelve years old, and they went up to Jerusalem according to the custom of the feast, and their days ended, and they returned, the child Jesus remained in Jerusalem” (Luke 2:42–43). Why twelve years? Because from that age the children of Israel were obliged to fulfill the law. Therefore, Jesus Christ probably came to Jerusalem for the first time for the holiday. The children of these years were called “children of the law” by the Jews. The Easter holiday lasted eight days. The first and last days were especially important. Devout Jews came a week or more before the holiday and performed various ablutions there. “And to those who have passed away...”. This act of His is especially noteworthy. He made His Mother sick. Providence allowed this to show the experience of His wisdom. He stayed in the church. But how did their parents not notice His absence? They looked after Him well, but even with such looking, this could easily have happened. All Jews came to Jerusalem for the holiday, and they came in large numbers. Jesus, when His parents departed from Jerusalem, could have remained with relatives or acquaintances, which His parents might have thought, that is, that He was either ahead or behind going home. “Having found Him in the company of the present, I walked the path of the day and sought Him among my relatives and among those I knew” (Luke 2:44). Tradition says that they reached the village of Belilnichye, a thousand steps from Jerusalem. “Iskasta Him” - that is, in the evening, when it was necessary to eat and go to sleep, but He did not return. “And not having found Him” (Luke 2:45). One can imagine how His absence struck Joseph and Mary. The Son passed away - and what a Son!.. He remained in Jerusalem, where there were so many people. They might have had a lot of fears about Him, and that’s why their hearts ached. “And it came to pass in three days” (Luke 2:46) - that is, they walked from Jerusalem for a day, a day back, and on the third day they found Him (Jesus Christ later says: “in three days I will rise,” but meanwhile he rose on the third day). “In the church” - that is, in the vestibule, and not in the Holy Place, much less in the Holy of Holies. Sitting among the teachers meant a lot. The students of Jewish rabbis usually stood at the feet of their teachers. So it is said about the Apostle Paul that he was raised “beside the foot of Gamaliel” (Acts 22:3). Some of them, closer ones, were sitting. How did Jesus Christ find himself among the teachers? These latter paid special attention to Him, and as He was small, they took Him and sat Him in the middle; With young children there is no official relationship, which is observed with older ones. “He who listens to them and asks questions” (Luke 2:46)... This is not yet unusual, for the students usually asked the teachers and themselves answered them in return. “Everyone was terrified” (Luke 2:47)... That’s what’s extraordinary and amazing! What were His answers and questions? Of course not those described in the Infancy Gospel. From the further history of the Gospel it is clear that Jesus Christ once asked the Pharisees about the Messiah: “Whose Son is this?” (Matthew 22:42). There were probably questions of this kind as well. “And when the parents saw Him they marveled” that He was in the church. “Child, what can you do for us?” (Luke 2:48). Have you thought about what you did? Did you think that we would look for You with heart disease? The Mother in Her question reveals some power and reproach to Him. “Behold, your father...”. Which father? Mary could not call Joseph anything else among the teachers; otherwise, what would She appear to be in their eyes? Why did they seek Him with heart disease? If they did not imagine Him as God in its entirety, then at least they knew that He was from God and was under the special protection of Providence. But the loss of a jewel, no matter how lost, is still sensitive. They could still think, as some Church Fathers note, that they had sinned something before God? Maybe their Divine Son will now relate directly to God in everything, and has already left them? Origen stretched this too far, suggesting that they wondered if He had ascended to heaven? “And I said to him: what do you seek for Me?” (Luke 2:49). The answer with a question is directed against the question. Such a question from a twelve-year-old boy is strange. He, remaining in Jerusalem, had no refuge there. His question seems to show this tone: you didn’t take on your job, you didn’t act as you should. The words of the Mother contain a reproach to the Son, and the words of the Son contain a reproach to the Mother. “Is it not news that in those who are My Father, I am worthy of being?” (Luke 2:49). These words are somewhat vague. You can give them the following meaning: You need to look for Me in the abodes of My Father, and therefore there was no need to look for Me much. Or they can also have the following meaning: you should know that I must exercise myself in the deeds, activities, and commandments of My Father. You should know what I do. I deal with faith, and with whom is it more decent to discuss faith, if not with teachers of faith? For teachers of the faith, again, where is it more appropriate to be, if not in the church? It is also possible to combine both meanings together: “And she did not understand the verb which He spoke” (Luke 2:50). Parents are out of their minds. What? Could they really not understand the words He spoke? Exactly, these words contain more meaning than we usually imagine. Parents might have thought: how is it that He was with us before, and now wants to move away from us? wants to act independently without asking us? What will He do next? He says that He must be “in those who are His Father”; Obviously, He no longer wants to live with us, does not want to do handicrafts with Joseph. “And he left him and came to Nazareth” (Luke 2:51). Without these words, one would think that Jesus Christ has already changed his former way of life. No, He only stepped out of the ordinary order of life for a while. Mary did not understand this action, she marveled at it and composed all these verbs in Her heart, that is, She succeeded more and more in understanding the Face of Jesus Christ. After this, the evangelist repeats again: “Jesus excelled in wisdom and stature and grace with God and man” (Luke 2:52). The Evangelist says this in order to point out that Jesus at that time was not completely perfect, but after that he gradually became perfect. What can be seen from this whole story?.. A lot; Especially remarkable here are the words: “Is it not news that in those even My Father, Mi is worthy of being.” From this it is clear that Jesus Christ, while still twelve years old, already knew the will of God. But they will say: Jesus Christ should have always known this. If He grew in wisdom at all, He also grew in the understanding of His purpose. Did He always know His purpose from humanity? No, when the spiritual powers in Him had not yet developed, He did not yet know His purpose. This purpose is a natural consequence of the Word becoming flesh. But is complete ignorance of His purpose clearly visible? In the words: “Isn’t it good news,” He seems to be saying this: you should know this for sure. In these words one can see not a guess or an assumption, but a firm thought. "Father.." Which one? God. This shows the very place - the church; Moreover, this is also supported by other places in which Jesus Christ calls God His Father. In what sense does He call himself the Son of God? You can't see which one here. But since He always called Himself in the proper sense the Son of God, there is no doubt that the same meaning is here. Moreover, He called Himself the Son, for Whom the temple of Jerusalem was a home; and what prophet or righteous man, besides Him, could call the church his home? This also includes the place (Gospel - ed.) where Jesus Christ asks his disciples: “from whom do the kings of the earth take duties or taxes? from your own sons, or from strangers? (Matthew 17:25). And when the Apostle Peter said: “from strangers”, He answered: “for they are free sons” (Matthew 17:26). This means that He calls Himself the Son of the Father. “It is worthy of Me to be,” that is, I need to be, that is why I am now (in the church - the house of My Father). What's the idea here? After this He will remain in the house of His earthly parents for eighteen years. Is there any discrepancy here? Did He not have the idea that His ministry should begin at the age of twelve? Is it possible to conclude from these words that Jesus Christ said: “From now on I must live in My Father’s house - in the church”? Words apparently give rise to this thought, but they also give rise to another thought: “I must mind my own business” (without defining time). It was impossible to say: there is no time for Me to be, or: it is only fitting for this time. To the first one we can say: why now? In other cases, one must mean, especially this time, a revelation to the parents. Because they couldn’t have known otherwise. Why did you have to look for Me? When I am not with you, I am in the house of My Heavenly Father; I have two places of residence. Therefore, “worthy to be” means: I should generally be in the house of My Heavenly Father. But since the Evangelist says that even after this He excelled in wisdom, it means that the consciousness of His Own destiny became more and more enlightened in Him. We will see later that in the Garden of Gethsemane He asks His Father to let the cup of suffering pass from Him. This means that even then He did not have full consciousness of His purpose, and He also assumes that in the abyss of God’s goodness there are still other ways to save man, less burdensome for Him. But we still see in this case a strong consciousness. When did this consciousness open in Him? No doubt much earlier; He did not reach this degree suddenly, but one must certainly assume gradualness here. Usually, from the age of three or four, an infant’s concepts begin to develop. Consciousness in Jesus Christ could also awaken from within - from the Divinity itself, which before seemed to be at rest and silent. Some Church Fathers guessed that there were external motivations for this, for example, from the Mother’s stories about the gospel of the Archangel and the circumstances of His birth. What is also remarkable here is that the Mother assumes a certain degree of power over the Son and reproaches Him. Her attitude was amazing, unique to This Son; She imagined Him, of course, in great features, but not quite great. For at that time John had not yet written: “The Word is flesh and dwells in us” (John 1:14), and the Apostle Paul had not yet said: “In Him lives... the fulfillment of the Divinity bodily” (Col. 2:9). Here the attitude of the Mother to the Son seemed to be double: the future greatness inspired Her with reverence for the Son, and the humanity that She saw in Him awakened Her Motherly tenderness and gave Her some power; already after His death and Resurrection, everything in Him seemed Divine. From Jerusalem, Jesus Christ returned to Nazareth. Did He go to Jerusalem afterward for the feast? Without a doubt, he walked, but nothing memorable happened to Him anymore. He spent thirty years in the solitude of Nazareth from his birth. How many events were to take place in Judea during this time! It was divided into many and different parts and had many rulers. The main events were the following: Archelaus, who became an ethnarch after the death of Herod, nine years later was exiled for cruelty. Judea was then annexed to Syria and was ruled by special procurators, of whom there were four before the solemn appearance of Jesus Christ: Cato, Marcus Aurelius, Valerius, Gracchus. Other children of Herod still ruled some areas of Palestine. Herod Antipas ruled Galilee and Perea. But his deeds were evil. He killed John the Baptist and mocked Jesus Christ. So the scepter is taken away from Judas. It was taken away even when Antipater ruled Judea and was the guardian of Hyrcanus; then it was taken away under Herod, and even more after his death. For a patriot, this must be very painful. The misfortunes endured by the Jews inflamed the minds of everyone with the expectation of the Messiah. The time of “the weeks of Daniel and the vision of the kingdoms of the earth” immediately ends: gold, silver, iron and meager. The religious spirit was expressed strongly in the Jews, especially in two directions. One direction, moral-ascetic, in the Essenes is the spirit of virtue. The Essenes abandoned civil life and lived in the deserts in order to better please God. Flavius, having gone through all the sects, finally went into the desert to one Essenes and lived with him for three years to acquire perfection. The Jews themselves felt that to meet the Messiah they needed a special purification - preparation. On the other hand, the political spirit was found more in political sects - among the zealots, in whom morality seemed to be completely destroyed, and only one thought remained about civil freedom - how to overthrow the Roman yoke. 14. Sermon of John the Baptist Thirty years later, the rumor about the miraculous events that preceded and accompanied the birth of Jesus Christ could hardly survive among relatives and friends, also among some pious people like Simeon, perhaps His relative and Anna. In general, a new herald of the Messiah was needed; a new, strong voice was needed already because the Jews were still expecting a special herald before the coming of the Messiah and falsely understood the prophecy of Malachi, thinking that Elijah would appear for this; and others were waiting for other prophets, such as Jeremiah, Ezekiel, so that with united forces they could better cleanse the people. This was the state of affairs when John went out into the desert to preach the approach of the Kingdom of Heaven! The Messiah is coming, he says, get ready to meet Him. And from this era, in fact, the Gospel begins. St. Mark actually begins his Gospel with John. Jesus Christ Himself says: “From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has been destroyed” (Matthew 11:12). When did his service to the human race begin? “In the fifth and tenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar” (Luke 3:1). The definition, accurate at one time, has now become obscure. Based on these words, they think to determine the very time of the Savior’s birth. This is the only key to Christian chronology, but it does not unlock everything. This was in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius. The same evangelist later says that Jesus Christ came to the Jordan to be baptized by John when he was thirty years old. Therefore, it is necessary to calculate the years of Tiberius’s reign. But the years of the reign of the Caesars are generally uncertain. The reign of Tiberius can be considered either from the time when he began to reign after the death of Augustus, or when, three years before the death of Augustus, he was declared his co-ruler. August died on August 19. Here again there is bewilderment: did the half of the year that elapsed before the death of Augustus belong to the reign of Tiberius or not? There is also another perplexity. The historian Suetonius says that Augustus declared Tiberius co-emperor before his famous triumph. Evangelist Luke says that Jesus Christ was “about thirty years old” (Luke 3:23) when he went out to be baptized by John, that is, he was twenty-nine, thirty or thirty-one years old. The third significant inaccuracy is in determining the time of John's baptism. He came out in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius. Jesus Christ came to him to be baptized when he was about thirty years old, and probably not immediately after John the Baptist began to preach, but after a considerable time, for even before that they had come to John to be baptized from Jerusalem and all of Judea. Therefore, the chronograph is not able to accurately determine this time; the difference is a period of time from six to three years. Here you can also notice that without this narration of the Evangelist Luke, the words of the Evangelist Matthew: “In those days John the Baptist came” (Matt. 3:1), would be incomprehensible to us. The Evangelist Matthew, having spoken in the second chapter about the circumstances surrounding the birth of the Messiah, immediately after this speaks (in chapter 3) about the preaching of John and begins with the words: “In those days...”. It seems soon; meanwhile the interval is twenty-nine years. This difference shows that the interpreter of the New Testament should not be embarrassed by the definition of chronology. So, when Jesus Christ speaks about the end of the world and Jerusalem together, he only says: “then”, “abie” - and yet whole centuries are hidden under these words (Matthew 24). Before we read the Evangelist’s description of John’s ministry, let’s talk in general about the relationship of the face of John the Baptist to the Face of Jesus Christ. John's ministry was necessary for the ministry of Jesus Christ. The short-lived ministry of the Baptist could not accomplish much. John, according to the prophecy of his father, had to “turn the hearts of the father toward the children” (Luke 1:17). It was impossible to fulfill this assignment exactly. John apparently prepared the Jewish people, but, in fact, he was the preparer of the whole of humanity. With his preaching he aroused the attention of the people and awakened in them a pious feeling. For the Savior to suddenly appear Himself would be an unprepared task (unprepared - ed.), and therefore unsuccessful. John was the voice inviting Him to a proper meeting. How did he draw the people’s special attention to himself and the Savior? Not by the miracles that happened at his birth, for they had long been forgotten, and he himself did not perform any miracles, but drew attention to the place of his action, the desert, which echoed with silence or was resounding with the roar of only animals; also by his life, clothing, a new way of preaching that he only introduced - baptism, and in general by the power of his word, detachment from everything worldly, rejection of man-pleasing, devotion to the will of God. By all these means the attention of the people was naturally aroused to John, and through him to the Messiah. Moral feeling sometimes awoke by itself, for example, in the Jesses, but they were the smallest part, and for the most part morality was limited to Pharisaism. But John demanded a change of heart—correction of life, and baptism was only an external symbol of correction. In addition, John rebelled against the general prejudice in Judea, as if every Jew, by right of descent from Abraham, would enter the Kingdom of the Messiah. Moreover, he preceded the ministry of Jesus Christ with his clear testimonies about Him: he pointed out the Face of the Messiah both privately and publicly. He testified to the Messiah Himself: “I demand to be baptized by You, and are You coming to me?” (Matthew 3:14). He testified before his disciples (John 3:25-36), he testified before those sent from the Sanhedrin and, without a doubt, before the people who came to him to be baptized, for this people thought: “Is this food Christ?” (Luke 3:15). Now he attributes all the respect that he has acquired from the people to his future Successor; the connection between them is revealed to be close. When they asked John: is he not the Christ? - then he turned those asking to the coming Messiah, and Jesus Christ to the question: is he the Messiah? - He turned those asking to John. John's ministry could also serve Jesus Christ in that he divided the people into two sides: the Pharisees did not accept him, but the side of the virtuous accepted him. And it’s the same with Jesus Christ. If the side hostile to Him had not been moderated by the opposing side, then the first would have sooner encroached on the life of the God-Man, but we see that she was afraid of the opposing side and therefore delayed for a long time the fulfillment of her deicide plans. This can be seen from why they did not answer Jesus Christ’s question about John’s baptism. If we say, they thought, that it was from heaven, then He will ask: why didn’t you believe in it? If we say: from the people, then the people will rebel against us, for they consider him to be a prophet. John had already died, but they were still afraid of him, and the fear instilled by John terrified the enemies of Jesus. Finally, the ministry of John was useful for Jesus Christ in the sense that the first disciples of this latter were from the disciples of John. Now, what relation did the face of the Messiah have to the face of His Forerunner? The first relationship was related, close. When they were born, their mothers were the first to congratulate themselves on this extraordinary happiness. But this attitude lost its strength over time. After the death of John's parents, who probably died soon after his birth due to old age, they had no other children left, and no immediate relatives were visible either, and therefore John was left alone. In his early years, he was probably brought up by some relatives, although later; then he settled on the border of Judea in the desert, and Jesus Christ lived in Nazareth, in the middle of Galilee; This means that they both lived at two opposite ends of Palestine, and therefore there was no communication between them. Perhaps they could have seen each other in Jerusalem on Easter, but even this, due to the multitude of people, could hardly have happened. At the very least, it is certain that John did not know before the Baptism of Jesus Christ that He was the Messiah. He heard, perhaps, about His extraordinary abilities and was only amazed at them. It's amazing how wise Providence is in its revelations. John directly speaks about Christ: “I did not know Him” (John 1:31), but John knew that he should be the Forerunner of the Messiah. There also might not have been a personal acquaintance between them; they could only hear one about the other. Did Jesus Christ know John's attitude towards Himself? Before Epiphany, the evangelists talk about this, but He truly knew. This is evident from His words spoken before Baptism: “Leave it now” (Matthew 3:15), that is, it was so appointed by Providence, God’s will be done. Did John know in all the fullness the face of Jesus Christ as God as the evangelists represent Him? It is absolutely impossible to answer this, for the evangelists convey to us only the essence of this matter. From the well-known features in which John represents the Person of the Messiah, it is clear that His image is very similar to the apostolic one. He calls Him the Son of God in general (John 1:34). What does "Son of God" mean in John's language? It is not yet clear that he knew the Son of God in all its fullness. He also calls him “sent from God,” “coming from above” (John 1:29–31), while he says about himself that he is from the earth; also calls him “the highest of all.” Obviously, all these features are those that can befit a prophet. But here he calls Him “having the Spirit beyond measure” (John 3:34), mighty (Matthew 3:11), of whom he himself is not worthy to cut off “the thong of His boot” (John 1:27), judging those who are baptized, distinguishing the good from the evil. In expressing this, John says that in the hand of the Messiah there are a fan and a shovel. He also calls the Lamb who takes away “the sins of the world” (John 1:29) not only the Jews, but the whole world. Of course, here he already foresaw the Cross and the very lifting of the Lamb, which took place through the slaughter. Thus, John does not directly call Jesus Christ God; but these and similar expressions, being combined into one, represent the Divine image of the Messiah, and this image differs from the apostolic one only in vagueness and incompleteness, although the main features are the same. Therefore, John is higher than all the Old Testament righteous people; but, on the other hand, “he is greater than him in the Kingdom of Heaven” (Matthew 11:11). How? First, by understanding the Face of Jesus Christ. When, after the resurrection, the Divinity that dwelt in Jesus Christ was revealed in all its power (and it could not have been revealed before the Cross), then, without a doubt, now every Christian knows more about the Face of Jesus Christ than all the Old Testament prophets. This is from the dogmatic side. In relation to morality - knowledge and fulfillment of the commandments. John taught the rules of justice and love with limitations, and Jesus Christ taught the rules of loving even one's enemies. Second. Looking at how God forms the righteous, we must conclude that John was higher than all the Old Testament righteous people, and therefore worthy of the Forerunner of the Messiah - the Founder of the New Testament. Thus, the ministry of John was necessary as a preparation for the ministry of Jesus Christ, but later, when Christ began to preach and draw more and more people’s attention to Himself, John’s ministry became, as it were, superfluous, and if it had continued, it would have even become harmful. John himself felt this when he said: “It is fitting for him to grow, but for me to grow small” (John 3:30). Some of John's disciples followed Jesus Christ, while others remained with John and did not want to leave him. The human heart sometimes becomes so attached to a person that it cannot leave him for the rest of his life. In the east, even now, there is a sect of the Sabbeans, who recognize John as the Messiah, and have extremely distorted the teaching about the Person of Jesus Christ in their traditions. And in the Acts of the Apostles it is mentioned that the Apostle Paul found some of John’s disciples who knew nothing about Jesus Christ. Therefore, John, having given testimony about the One Whom he served, himself became unknown. The respect he gained was transferred to Jesus Christ. How, someone asks, did Providence not eliminate this duality? This means that Providence itself (we dare say) cannot do completely good without something nasty being mixed into it. This remark is important for those who govern nations and kingdoms. Not doing good just because something unfavorable may happen means refusing to always do good. Therefore, in carrying out certain actions and orders, one must always follow the law of choosing the greater good. “In those days John the Baptist came” (Matthew 3:1). “In those days,” that is, at the time when Pilate ruled Judea and its environs. It is impossible not to notice that these days were much more convenient for preaching than the previous ones. Under Herod, preaching would not have been as successful. Now all of Judea was in the hands of the Roman procurator, who did not pay attention to the Jewish religion, unless it concerned politics. “Come..”, where and from? He had been in the desert before, but probably in a different one. In the mountainous region of Hebron, where his father lived, there were many deserts. Now he came to the Judean desert, where the Jordan flows into the Dead Sea. Who sent him? Matthew does not say this, assuming it is already known, but Saint Luke alone says: “The quick word of God came to John Zechariah’s son in the desert” (Luke 3:2). The word “Baptist” became, as it were, a nickname for John. Others also baptized, but this name was predominantly adopted by the Forerunner. This is because he was the first to begin to baptize with that baptism, which even now, with some changes, is performed in the Christian Church. The same thing should be noted about the desert in which the revelation was given to John as about Nazareth. John spent thirty years in solitude, and what a vast field there is for inventions and counterfeit miracles, if only the first Christians wanted to invent! Nowadays, many interpreters have the idea that the ancient world was prone to the miraculous. This is true, and therefore the sacred writers, seeing such an excessive inclination, contrasted their stories with it and did not try to increase the miracles, and if they talk about any miracles, it means that these miracles really happened. It is impossible not to notice in John his submission to the will of God. He has one consolation - to go out and do his job. All his thoughts and feelings are rushing towards this, and yet he endures and does not go out to preach otherwise than having received a wave, or a voice from above. "In the desert" of Judea. This part of Judea, covering a space of fifty miles, is called the Judean desert, but it was not completely empty: in some places, although in a small part, it was inhabited. In general, in the deserts mentioned in the Holy Scriptures, we see settlements. Joab, David's commander, was buried in the desert where he lived and had a home. There are other similar examples. For a preacher like John, the desert was the most convenient place, even politically. He lived near the Jordan, which flowed through Judea; Perea began beyond the Jordan. Therefore, if any danger threatened John from Judea, then he would only have to cross the Jordan, and the eastern bank of this plain was owned by the tetrarch Herod Antipas. Such dangers actually happened in the life of John the Baptist. This new preacher was foreshadowed in the Old Testament by two prophets: Isaiah and Malachi (Is. 40ff.). Especially the prophecy of Malachi is the most direct, for it cannot apply to anyone else (Mal. 4:5, 3:1). This prophet spoke about building a second church. The Jews were sad that this church would be much poorer and smaller than the first church. For consolation, the Prophet says that the last church will be more glorious than the first, for the Lord Himself will visit it, Who will send an Angel before His Face, that is, the Forerunner. In the last chapter of this prophet, the Forerunner is also called Elijah. This name is taken here in an improper sense, that is, there will be such a messenger as Elijah was. Based on this passage, the Jews formed a firm opinion that Elijah would precede the coming of the Messiah. The prophet Isaiah calls the Forerunner the voice of “one crying in the wilderness” (Is. 40:3). Evangelist Luke gives (this) passage in more detail. This prophecy is not so straightforward. Isaiah describes the deliverance of the Israelites, probably from some kind of disaster (for it is difficult to determine from which one), and this deliverance is represented by the image of the coming of the Lord, just as the prophets usually depicted the help of God provided to the Jewish people through the coming of the Lord, and punishments or disasters through His removal (for in Judea there was a theocracy (theocracy)). The king will come, and the king must be preceded by someone, and so the Lord will be preceded by “a voice crying in the wilderness.” This metaphor has a moral meaning (Luke 3:5). Expressions of this kind are very often used in the Holy Scriptures, and especially among the prophets. So, for example, “to humble the mountain” means to put aside pride, “to fill the wilds” means to take away baseness of thoughts, cowardice, and despondency. The prophet does not name the face, but speaks only of the voice. John himself applies this prophecy to himself, and the Savior refers it to him (Matthew 11:4–14); as well as the prophet Malachi. This last one has some special property. In the prophet Isaiah, prophecy is impersonal, and in this impersonality it is assimilated by John the Baptist, whose entire personality was in his voice - in preaching, in doing his work. In Isaiah it is vague, but then a voice appears with the same intention to prepare the way of the Lord, to say that the Messiah is coming, prepare to meet Him. That is why, says Saint John Chrysostom, not only were the circumstances of the birth of Jesus Christ predicted, but also that of John, for his ministry was very important. What does this extraordinary voice say? "Repent.." (Matthew 3:2). This is the main subject of the sermon. The same content of the sermon of the Savior and the apostles (Matthew 4:17, Acts 2:38). The content is twofold: theoretical - faith, and practical - “repent”. But first repentance is required, and then faith; for true faith cannot exist without true repentance. The evangelists convey to us only the essence of this teaching; Saint Luke alone speaks in somewhat more detail about what virtues and what repentance John demanded. Morality was limited more to the fulfillment of the Law of Moses; faith had its object in the Person of Jesus Christ, and John presents it more clearly and distinctly to his disciples; He spoke to the people in general terms. John says: “repent,” and no one objects to him, for the last Israelite saw that there was much evil in Israel, and, therefore, there was something to repent of. Josephus says that at this time there was extreme corruption of morals in Jerusalem. If it were not for the Roman sword, then either fire or water would have destroyed Jerusalem from the face of the earth. Therefore, they were not surprised at John’s demand. Even the Pharisees themselves, flaunting, so to speak, their holiness, appear at the Jordan. But does not the piety of the Jews contradict such depravity of morals? The Jews had outward piety; but it, being untrue, could easily be combined with corruption of the heart; on the other hand, repentance was necessary because the Messiah is coming, the Kingdom of Heaven is approaching, and you cannot enter this Kingdom without leaving a lot behind you. What an expression - “Kingdom of Heaven!” Here (Matthew 3:2) it occurs for the first time, and then is repeated often. It's worth defining it; its meaning is very important. For the Jews thought differently about this Kingdom of God, about which John, the apostles and Jesus Christ Himself preached, and the sacred writers thought differently. At first they used this expression in a sense understandable to the Jews. They imagined the Messiah as the king of the earth, they said that He would be a great man who would correct many things in Judea, restore the kingdom of God - the feocracy. Until now, Judea was ruled by people: judges, kings, high priests, and finally, Roman procurators. Feocracy, of course, has not ceased now, only before it was more visible. Now they began to think again that God was again coming to rule Judea from heaven. But many Jews imagined this Kingdom too sensually; They thought that the Messiah would have his own rulers, which even the two apostles wanted to be. But this Kingdom, according to the teachings of Jesus Christ and the apostles, meant something completely different. Why didn't they make this clear first? This could not be done suddenly. At first, this Kingdom had to be shown under general features, then gradually, from sensory concepts, people were raised to the concept of a moral, spiritual Kingdom. If Jesus Christ had shown from the very beginning that the center of His Kingdom would be the Cross, and the capital would be Golgotha, then perhaps the very apostles would not have followed Him. However, whoever you want to think about the Messiah, just know that He is already coming. John has already sufficiently explained the concept of the Kingdom of the Messiah, which is so contrary to the sensual concept of the Messiah; He showed directly that His Kingdom would be Heavenly, but on earth He would be met with persecution and death, and the Savior Himself, already at the end of His life, began to predict about this. But John did a lot, demanding repentance and threatening the disobedient with terrible punishments; terrified everyone who had a feeling, forced them to examine themselves and change their lifestyle; further, he strengthened his preaching with the teaching of baptism in spirit and fire, or spiritual fire, that is, that after him the Messiah will baptize, and not bodies, but souls, imparting to them sublime, grace-filled thoughts. But most of all, he acted, although also negatively, by his denunciation of the prejudice of the Jews regarding their descent from Abraham. On the other hand, John does not have a single trait that could strengthen the sensual concept of the Jews, while the prophets have many such traits. First he said that the Kingdom of Heaven was approaching, then he said that the Messiah had already come. When he said “approaching in” a prophetic tone, the Jew could interpret that it would be fulfilled in another few thousand years, for in general the prophets spoke about distant objects as if they were nearest. But when he says: “The Messiah stands in your midst,” such evasion from fulfilling John’s demands could no longer happen. Moreover, such was John’s Sermon, such was his life. John's entire life was the most abstinent, strictly spiritual. “John himself called his robe from his hair, and his belt was taken away from his loins: his food was nothing but spring and honey” (Matthew 3:4). Here in the Russian translation the power of the word is imperceptible, and this is because, according to the grammatical phrase, the word is found here: “himself.” For who else? But according to the spirit of speech, such a word comes. John preached repentance, and at the same time he himself had a camel’s robe, and this is a consequence of a higher direction of thought. “From vlas there is great delusion” - that is, a kind of hair shirt. In our cold climate we wear several clothes, but in the east, in a warm climate, especially near the Dead Sea, we cannot wear extra clothes; it burdens the body. But the hair shirt could be more delicate, for example from wave (pure sheep's wool); for John, “from the hair of camels,” from which bedding was made like matting, that is, the hardest. “The belt has been changed...” . In the east, the belt was not the last decoration. John, as the son of a priest, could have one made of linen or fine linen, but he wears a leather belt, the simplest. “Springs”, or locusts, are a genus of Arabian locust, which serves as the only food for the poor local residents. She is greater than our locusts; ours is, as it were, a degenerate of that one. It's there in abundance. Appears in May and June. For people living in houses, it could be cooked and seasoned with something; John, a desert dweller, had it without any preparation or seasoning, and therefore it was the simplest of simple foods. "Divy honey" in Palestine is found in rocks into which bees apply it. Hence the expression in Palestine: “a land flowing with honey,” for indeed it appears to be flowing from the rocks. However, it could also be wood honey, for example, from a palm tree, and it looked like oil, which is why honey was called oil. Both of them could serve as food for John. So everything with him was poor and insufficient. At some times of the year he might have been short of locusts and honey, and therefore the common people formed the opinion that John ate nothing, just as Christ says: “For John came neither eating nor drinking” (Matthew 11:18), for indeed he ate so little food that in comparison with others we can say that he neither ate nor drank anything. Thus, his very life was a preaching of repentance and abstinence. One could rightly say about him: “begin to create and teach,” that is, first to create oneself, and then to teach others. This must have had a strong influence on the people, for they place external severity very highly, and not without reason, of course. And in the midst of the world, when anointing the head with oil, one can be a true Christian, but it is more natural to seek internal virtue where there is also external asceticism; Where there is internal holiness, there must be external holiness, and the fact that some, with an externally rich and contented life, were abstinent and holy, (then) this is an exception. John’s enemies could do nothing to undermine his authority except by saying: “Having a demon” (Matt. 11:18), is a reproach that was often repeated by worldly people about righteous people. Why such a reproach? One popular proverb hints at this; We often, when they want to excuse their incontinence or reproach another for their intemperance, they say: the demon neither drinks nor eats. What is the connection of ideas here? Such and such a person, they say, lives a very abstinent life; but the demon does not drink anything, does not eat anything, does not have carnal pleasures; however, he is not holy, but remains a demon - the same can happen with this person. “Then Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the country of Jordan came out to him” (Matthew 3:5). Here the effect of John's sermon is shown. Then, that is, when John began to preach and baptize, many saw him and, having listened to his teaching, told others about him, which is why they also went to him. Just as people hurried to Jerusalem for the Easter holiday, so people hurried from everywhere to John to the Jordan for baptism. The news of the Messiah was suddenly going to spread throughout Judea. “And I was baptized in the Jordan by him, confessing my sins” (Matthew 3:6). John baptized those who confessed their sins. What kind of baptism is this? Where did John get it from? He said about himself that he was sent from God to “baptize with water” (John 1:33). But was baptism from God established then, or did it exist before that? There are both opinions: some say that before there was no such baptism, that is, immersion in water. The Jews had a ritual of ablution; everything that could not pass through fire passed through water. So, for example, they washed their clothes after being desecrated by touching a dead person, and this washing was especially performed by the priests. But there is another opinion, that the pagans who accepted the Jewish faith were immersed in water. There is an indication of this in the Talmud. Some people think that the establishment of this rite preceded John, for, firstly, after the time of the Savior we find among the Jews an accepted rite of the pagans, performed through washing or immersion in water, similar to baptism; but it is incredible that the Jews took over this rite from the Christians; secondly, in the Ethiopian translation of the New Testament, in the place where it is said about the Pharisees that they go around “sea and dry land, creating one stranger” (proselyte) (Matthew 23:15), it says: “one baptized”; thirdly, one Roman-Greek historian calls the Jewish proselytes “washed out”; fourthly, the Jews were not surprised at John’s baptism, as it was already known to them; they did not ask him where he got such a rite from, but asked only about the purpose of baptism. But exactly when this ritual was established is impossible to determine with precision. In the Kingdom of Christ everything should not have happened again; it could take the best from the past, so the Savior Himself says: “I did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it” (Matthew 5:17); and if it (baptism) happened before, then all of it is not from man, but from God. Moreover, John also connects confession of sins with baptism, and this latter preceded the first. What was this confession? The Jews had a public confession on the day of their purification; There were also private confessions at private sacrifices. Was there a detailed confession to John? He probably did not demand detailed information, because he would not have had enough time for this, since all the Jews were coming to him. Some of them, the more devout, of course, could not resist confessing often and in detail. Others have a desire to hide their sins even when they repent; and others have a desire to tell their sins, even to the whole world. The prophet David says: “I have not covered my sin” (Ps. 31:5). Therefore, even before John, some could confess their grave and secret sins without demand. “When (John) saw many Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them: There are births of vipers, who told you to flee from the wrath to come?” (Matthew 3:7). Why did the Pharisees and Sadducees appear here among the common people? Many, probably, in order to see what John is doing, what he teaches, what his thoughts are about the Messiah; many walked with mixed thoughts, and some, perhaps, with good intentions. John draws strict attention to the fact that the Jews have the worst: “the birth of vipers.” Apparently, he is too harsh on people who come to him for baptism. But this very severity was dissolved by moral condescension. “You are running away from future anger - this is good, you can be welcomed with this; and who told you this? I listened to such words from John’s lips with pleasure. On the other hand, the evangelists present to us the words of John only in abbreviation. He preached for a long time, and how many teachings he could offer the people! And such menacing words: “the birth of vipers,” he probably spoke after many instructions and denunciations. The Jews loved to boast about their ancestors, especially Abraham; John does not see in them (the offspring, children - ed.) Abraham, or even an ordinary father. So the prophet Isaiah calls them the people of Gomorrah (Isaiah 1:10), and another (Amos) calls them the sons of the “Ethiopians” (Amos 9:7). “Who told you?” (Matthew 3:7). The Pharisees and Sadducees could answer this to John: you yourself said it. But he would have objected to them: my voice is unimportant for you, there was no special voice from heaven for you, but you realized that danger was close, and therefore you run, you go quickly; you are as cunning as the echidna (snake) is cunning. She is the most poisonous, and in order to escape from disaster, she uses many means. “From the wrath to come” - from the judgment of the Messiah. “Produce therefore fruit worthy of repentance” (Matthew 3:8). If you want to repent, act like people who truly repent; They demand from you the fruits of purification, for you have a lot of sins. Especially destroy the prejudice that destroys you and does not allow you to accept the conditions necessary for proper entry into the Kingdom of the Messiah. “And do not begin to say within yourself: father and imam of Abraham: for I say to you, that God is able from this stone to raise up a child for Abraham” (Matthew 3:9). Delusion is the root of evil, which must be destroyed with a thousand axes. They did not care about other conditions for entry into the Kingdom of the Messiah, relying on their carnal descent from Abraham. The Savior then tells them: “You are of (your) father’s nature” (John 8:44). The Jews thought this: the Kingdom of the Messiah was promised to the Jewish people, this people only comes from Abraham, there is no other Israel, therefore this Israel, which exists, even if it was bad, will still be worthy to enter the Kingdom of the Messiah, for otherwise how will God’s promise be fulfilled? Will not the Messiah make His Kingdom out of only good Israelites? But are there many of them? Everyone, turning over his relatives and acquaintances in his mind, could see that he was no worse than them. “May God raise up children of Abraham from this stone...” During his journey in the desert, God said to Moses: “I will consume them, and I will make you into a great language” (Ex. 32:10). In this desert where John was, they say there are very few stones. These were almost exactly the same stones that were laid by the priests when the Israelites crossed the Jordan into the Promised Land. If this guess is correct, then John very opportunely pointed out to the Pharisees the stones, of which there were twelve. Therefore, from every stone God could raise up one tribe of a new Israel. The Apostle Paul explains to the Jews that not all who are born according to the flesh from Abraham are his children; but that there is a birth and spiritual origin, into which the pagans entered. “Flee,” says John, “otherwise wrath will overtake you.” The Pharisees might have thought: “He is threatening great things, but this may not come true soon.” No, John even undermines this weak hope and says directly that “the ax already lies at the root of the tree.” “For I baptize you with water to repentance: but he who comes after me is mighty for me, and he who is not worthy to bear the boots: he who baptizes you with the Holy Spirit and with fire” (Matthew 3:11). What are these words for? Many Jews had a thought: is John the Messiah? He stands against this thought and says that I “baptize you with water, but he is coming after me, who will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.” Self-sacrifice here is truly prophetic. And I am a sinner, says John, although I came with the spirit and power of Elijah; but the Messiah is much stronger than me; do not rest all your hopes and expectations on me; I will not satisfy them completely; Don’t lean on me, I won’t hold back this weight! This can only be done by the One who follows me: “He is not worthy to carry the boots.” John reduces himself to the level of a slave. “Carry boots”: this expression is taken from local customs. In the east, shoes and their use are not the same as ours: people walk around in their rooms without shoes. When someone goes somewhere, he puts light, simple shoes on his feet, and the servant carries after him another, better one, and when the shoes he had on his feet become dusty from the road, then, approaching the house, he takes another, clean one from the servant, and again gives the old one to the servant. They also go to church there. The people thought very highly of John, and how amazed they must have been and what to think about the Messiah, hearing such words from John! My baptism, he says, is through water; The baptism of the Messiah will be through fire, and the Spirit of God will be spiritual fire. From ancient times, the actions of God were combined with fire: in the bush, on Sinai, during the legislation, on the fiftieth day after the resurrection of Jesus Christ, when the Holy Spirit descended on the apostles in tongues of fire. By this fire, contrary to all the latest interpretations, one should understand not disasters, but another, special revelation of the Divine. John expresses the judgment that the Messiah will carry out on the Jews metaphorically, borrowing a similarity from what is usually done with wheat on the threshing floor (Matthew 3:12), which is what John says about the Messiah, according to the legend of the Evangelist Matthew. Evangelist Luke adds to this some private instructions given by John to soldiers, publicans and others. “And the people asked him, saying: What shall we do? And he answered them, saying, “Let him give two garments to the poor; and if he has food, let him do likewise” (Luke 3:10–11). The trait is wonderful! “And the publicans also came to be baptized by him, and said to him, “Teacher, what shall we do?” He said to them: Do nothing more than that which is commanded you” (Luke 3:12–13). The publicans also came to John, for there was a customs house not far from the Jordan, and it was close for them to go to the Jordan. John tells them: do not take too much. Publicans, as a rule, took taxes and, in order to get more income, took excess and made oppressions. “And the soldiers also asked him, saying: What shall we do? And I said to them: Offend no one, nor slander anyone” (Luke 3:14). Finally, the soldiers came to John; he tells them: “offend no one,” for warrior and robber were synonymous names at that time. “Do not slander” - that is, do not inform in vain, for the soldiers were then spies and perpetrators of executions. Such a sermon sets an excellent example for the preacher of the word of God, how everyone should adapt to his condition, age, position, and why. “In many ways you comforted people with the gospel” (Luke 3:18). John did not speak harsh and stern words to everyone, but in many ways he comforted many, and his very reproach was comforting for the repentant sinner. John, with his preaching and baptism, attracted the attention of all Judea. There were so many people baptized by him that one could say: all people come to him. Even the Sadducees themselves were baptized, about whom the most appropriate reproach could be used - “brood of vipers.” What is the Jewish Sanhedrin doing at this time, to which God Himself was given the right to tempt the prophets? Sooner or later he had to investigate John. This story is told to us by the Evangelist John: “And this is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem, and asked him: Who are you?” (John 1:19). The Evangelist does not say exactly when this significant embassy, ​​consisting of priests and Levites, was sent. But it is likely that this was even before the Baptism of Jesus Christ, because, firstly, if the Savior had already been baptized by John, then this latter would have expressed himself more clearly and completely about Him, but he only says: “But he stands in the midst of you” (John 1:26); secondly, the narratives of other evangelists refer to the time before the Baptism of Jesus Christ; thirdly, Jesus Christ came to him to be baptized, probably after others. The purpose of this embassy was to find out who John is? Isn't he the Messiah? But how could it (the embassy) think this way about John, when he was not born from Bethlehem, and, moreover, the son of a priest, therefore, from the tribe of Levi, and not David or Judah? This is because thirty years have already passed since the birth of the Messiah, and the news of His origin from Bethlehem could have been forgotten. Moreover, some Jews, like Philip, had a different opinion, that is, that the Messiah would not come from Bethlehem, but would only open His Kingdom there. Perhaps the members of the Sanhedrin had a desire to recognize him as the Messiah, listen to his example, and improve their lives. Regarding the severity of his demands, they could think that John was doing this only for the first time, and after that he would relent. But when John decisively said that he was not the Messiah, but that the Messiah stood invisibly among them, they rejected the advice of God and were not baptized by him. “Who are you,” they asked him, “who baptizes, who introduces people into a new order of things? You introduce yourself as a person sent from God - who are you and what is your ministry?” He answered them: “I am not Christ.” The answer apparently does not answer the question, but John saw where all these questions were heading. “And confession and not denying: and confession, that I am not Christ” (John 1:20). He confessed openly, decisively, without any restrictions. But if he was not the main person (Messiah), then he could be another lower person - some kind of prophet, for the Jews were expecting Elijah, Jeremiah or some other prophets before the coming of the Messiah. “And I asked him: what’s wrong? Iliali you are; And the verb: no. Are you a prophet? And the answer is: neither” (John 1:21). He was Elijah only in the moral sense - in spirit and power, and not the resurrected Elijah. The Baptist is not afraid that he will lose honor and respect in the eyes of the people by speaking this way about himself, knowing that the dignity of his ministry does not depend on the accuracy or inaccuracy of expression. “Are you a prophet?” - that is, the Jews could here mean any of the famous prophets; but here we can also understand a special prophet. It is believed that with these words they wanted to primarily point to the prophet Jeremiah, because in the history of the Jews he appears in a special relationship to the disasters of the Jews; and on the other hand, he participated in hiding the Ark of the Covenant before the captivity of Babylon in one cave, which supposedly should open before the coming of the Messiah. Who better to open this cave and bring out the Ark of the Covenant than Jeremiah? For us now the question of the Jews is not so clear, but then it was clear which prophet we were talking about. From the Greek original it should be translated like this: “is this a prophet?”, that is, the one we are waiting for? For the word “prophet” stands here with a member (`o), with special power. “I decided to him: who are you? Yes, the lady’s answer to those who sent us: what are you saying about yourself?” (John 1:22). If you are neither one nor the other, nor the third, but it is clear from everything that you must be something special, then who are you? what can you say about yourself? what do you mean by yourself? Our expectations are as follows, we announced them to you; but maybe we don’t know everything; tell us, so that we can answer those who sent us. John's answers were short: no, no. They might seem to be the result of a reluctance to talk to them. Therefore, when they say: tell, they do not say: tell for us, but: at least tell, so that we can answer those who sent us; we must return to them with something. What does John finally answer? “I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness: straighten the way of the Lord, as Isaiah the prophet said” (John 1:23). “Az voice..”. As if in all of him, only the voice was important: “repent.” The Sanhedrin of Judah knew this prophecy, but still did not see that these words of Isaiah contained a prophecy. With this answer, John forced the Sanhedrin to think about many things: firstly, that he does not know how to note all prophecies; secondly, the indication that he was a crying voice and the previous Messiah was supposed to convince them that Elijah would not rise again, and this was supposed to destroy their prejudice. The members of the Sanhedrin might have thought: is it because John so quickly rejects their understanding of the prophecies that they falsely accept them? “And the message was received from the Pharisees” (John 1:24). The Pharisees were predominantly present in the Sanhedrin as zealots of tradition. “And I asked him and decided to him: why are you baptizing, if you bring Christ, neither Elijah nor the prophet!” (John 1:25). If you were Elijah or Jeremiah, your baptism would not be surprising; and now why are you baptizing? The embassy did not understand the prophecy and interpreted it as follows: John, bringing this prophecy, only wants to justify his baptism, not declaring himself, but applying only to himself the hidden prophecy of Isaiah. The Pharisees baptized or washed the Gentiles because they were unclean; and John baptizes the pure, chosen Jews. John could have said directly to this that he had the word of God, but that is not what he says. “John answered them, saying: I baptize with water: but there stands in the midst of you, whom ye know not” (John 1:26). You consider my baptism important; but no matter how important it may seem to you, it is only a pre-indication of another baptism, the most important one; I baptize because I precede another Person Who has the right to that baptism; my baptism is a preliminary to another baptism. John here did the same thing as Jesus did later, referring to John when they asked Him: “By what authority did you do these things?” (Matthew 21:23). John points to the future, Jesus refers to the past. What effect did this answer have on the Sanhedrin? Of course, he couldn’t produce anything pleasant. If John had declared himself the Messiah, they would have accepted him and perhaps calmed down; and now he gives a prophecy that they do not understand at all. The Sadducee politician thought: why is John deceiving the people? he will create excitement in him and thereby arouse the attention of the Romans. The Sanhedrin should have assessed his moral worth, but he does not do this: they could be reconciled with the Jordan, with the desert, only when John promised something brilliant in the future. The politician Caiaphas, hearing about him, might have thought that he was nothing more than a pious man who was trying to do a lot with little means. John had already told all the people that he was not the Messiah, but the Messiah was coming after him, and it was as if there was nothing left for him to do. But then Jesus Christ Himself appears to him. When all of Judea was already in the Jordan, when the Sanhedrin had already met with John, Jesus Christ still continued to live in Galilee, in Nazareth, in the works and occupations of his former days. Let us take another look at the private life of Jesus Christ, for it is soon approaching its end. When He was twelve years old from birth, Joseph was still alive, for Mary says to Jesus Christ: Father and I were looking for you. When Jesus Christ turned thirty years old, we no longer see Joseph; he has probably already passed away. And with him, the family circle of Jesus Christ was small, and without him it became even smaller. In Nazareth and its environs, some devout relatives of Jesus Christ knew him: Mary, the sister of His Mother, who was behind Cleopas, also half-brothers of Jesus Christ, or from Joseph’s first wife. His occupation was woodworking. An ancient tradition says that Jesus Christ was a tekton. After the death of Joseph, He and His Mother fed, perhaps, solely on the labor of their hands. For the Son of God such work was small, but for the Son of Man it was venerable. His moral occupation was probably reading the law. In every city of Israel there were synagogues, where every Israeli was obliged to come at a certain time to hear or read the law; and Jesus Christ was subject to this duty. At home, Jesus Christ could also read. Moreover, He could often pray to God in a solitary, wild desert, under the open sky. This is probably how He was formed in Nazareth. Let's look at the location of this city. He lies in the valley; near it there is a spring from which the Holy Family took water, which is why it is called the spring of Mary. From Tabor, which is two hours from Nazareth, the views are beautiful. Jesus Christ must have often gone there and prayed there. Mary herself probably witnessed His nightly prayers more than once. Travelers notice that this mountain has a majestic appearance. There the soul of Jesus Christ was transformed more than once, until finally the body was transformed. The people of Nazareth were ignorant and rude. But not far from this city was the capital of Galilee. This made it possible for Jesus Christ to naturally know the condition of Palestine. Every year He went to Jerusalem for the festival and saw all the people there, flocking from all over Judea. The stay in Jerusalem to celebrate the holiday was not short-lived. Devout Jews came to the holiday a week or earlier, because they performed various purifications there, and here one could learn everything about the Jewish people: their customs, morals, prejudices, the spiritual state of various ranks, their attitude towards the pagans. On Easter, to maintain order and pacify the indignant, the Roman procurators came with detachments of troops and were placed in the fortress, which was near the church and above it - and this is the abomination of desolation predicted by Daniel. Jesus Christ measured with His feet all of central Judea and Samaria, for He had to pass through it to Jerusalem. The life of Jesus Christ was solitary, strict, poor, but not to the same extent as John’s. This one lived in the desert, the Savior lived among his family; he ate harsh food and wore rough clothes; The Savior, of course, did not allow luxury, but he used food and clothing that were not so coarse. The Savior Himself later noticed this contrast when he said: “For John came neither eating nor drinking: and they said: I have a demon.” The Son of Man came, eating and drinking: and they said, “Behold, a man of food and drink of wine” (Matthew 11:18–19). John talked mainly with God, spoke, of course, a sermon to the people, but then sent them away; Jesus Christ almost constantly talked with publicans, sinners and harlots and made of them people who preceded the imaginary righteous in the Kingdom of Heaven. In the first years of the life of Jesus Christ, there were almost no physical miracles, but there was a moral miracle, that is, the Divinity united with humanity, and meanwhile gave room for the free action of all the powers of the soul. Jesus Christ, until the age of thirty, remains in simple occupations, engaged in making a plow, as Blessed Augustine notes, and other tools needed in the community; obeys his father and mother, accepts some suggestions from this latter and waits for a long time for a call from above. Finally, the time of unknown stay in Nazareth was over. The Gospel does not say that His special voice from above called out from this solitude, but one must think that there was some voice, either internal or external, as a result of which He seemed to renounce the ties that connected Him with His Mother and relatives. John was foreshadowed by a sign of how to recognize the Messiah, and he eagerly awaited His coming to the Jordan. Why does the Messiah go to the Jordan? If He was sent there, then why was He sent? He could have entered the ministry straight from Nazareth. Couldn’t it have been possible for the heavens to have opened above Him in another place and to have heard a voice testifying to His Divine origin? But Providence arranged it so that John and Jesus Christ met thirty years later, so that the ministry of one of them gave way to the ministry of the other. Without a doubt, the will of Providence was revealed to the Savior; for He says afterwards to John: “Leave it now: for it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness” (Matthew 3:15). He did not have to proclaim himself the Messiah for the first time, but he had to hear this proclamation from someone else - John. “Then Jesus comes from Galilee to the Jordan to John to be baptized by him” (Matthew 3:13). Why should He be baptized? Obviously not for what others do. He was sure that He was the Messiah, and therefore was baptized only as if in the form of dedication, and thus was declared by Providence to the people. Such a rite for the Son of Man was associated with some humiliation. He had to be tempted in all sorts of ways, and here a kind of temptation was revealed to Him. Baptism was taught in the name of the future Messiah. “I am the Messiah,” He could think, “why should I go to the Jordan and be baptized? In whose name will I be baptized? Every last Jew goes to be baptized in the hope of the coming Messiah. I am the Messiah, and should I go and be baptized? How then will I appear before the people? They will think that I am unclean.” But all such thoughts were alien to Jesus Christ. When John says to Him: “I demand that I be baptized by You,” He answers him: Leave it now (Matthew 3:14, 15). Should we entertain such thoughts now? Is it now considered a virtue? We need to fulfill all righteousness. Providence requires this. This was enough to perform the rite of Baptism over the Messiah. A series of great and at the same time humble deeds begins. The Savior extended His feat further. He, according to the testimony of the Evangelist Luke, prayed in the Jordan. Providence places Him, as it were, along with sinners, and He prays, whereas He could have been baptized without prayer. The Baptist rebukes Him. The Evangelist John says that until now the Baptist did not know Jesus Christ: how can he now forbid Him, when the Spirit, which bears witness to His heavenly origin, has not yet descended on Him? Apparently he already knew the Messiah. But John really might not have known Jesus Christ until he entered into His ministry, and then he found out. Where, it may be asked, does such knowledge come from? Others, to avoid this bewilderment, say that John first baptized Jesus Christ, and after that he began to regret this deed, as if it had happened. But such an interpretation is unnatural. It can be more quickly and more naturally explained in this way: one can think that John did not forbid Him as the Messiah, for he could forbid baptism and not the Messiah. Baptism was mainly necessary for the sinner, and the Baptist heard about Jesus Christ that He had high holiness, wisdom, and so on. He thought that this Baptism was lower than Him. “That’s why he says to Jesus Christ: if we need to prepare for the proper entry into the Kingdom of the Messiah, then rather You prepare me than I prepare You. But it can be interpreted even closer this way: as soon as John looked at Jesus, an inner voice could tell him: this is the Messiah. When such two persons met, something extraordinary was bound to happen. At first glance, John had a strong thought: is this the Messiah? We saw something similar to this when Jesus Christ was still in the womb of his Mother and when he was recognized by the mother of John. “Leave it now” - that is, do not think about our mutual relations, forget the difference. According to the ordinary concept, you are, of course, right. I should baptize you, but there is a special order of Providence. Now there is no need to talk much, but you need to do your job; after that, everyone will appear as what (that - ed.) he really is. We need to fulfill all righteousness. He calls the determination from above “truth,” because a person, by fulfilling this determination, is justified. It’s as if the Savior says this: what seems indecent to you will later be decent; we will do the will of God. God wants it to be so. “Then leave Him” (Matthew 3:15). John saw the common reason and was satisfied: for a righteous person no more reason is needed. Here it is appropriate to recall the controversy of the Apostle Peter when washing his feet. By the will of God, a dispute between humility and humility was allowed here. “And Jesus was baptized with water: and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming on him” (Matthew 3:16). "Being baptized.." How? Painters depict this incident in different ways. Sometimes they imagine the Savior standing and John pouring water on Him; but in all likelihood, it was accomplished by immersion in water, and there was no need for a libation. But with this assumption, how could John be called the Baptist of the Lord? John's participation in the Baptism of Jesus Christ could be expressed in some way in the preparation of this Baptism, although the immersion in water itself could be instantaneous. “When all the people were baptized, and I was baptized and prayed to Jesus, the heavens were opened” (Luke 3:21). What did Jesus pray for and how? About His service. It was revealed to Him that He should be baptized by John, and that this Baptism should be a dedication and promulgation of His purpose to everyone. Therefore, was not His prayer a prayer of humility, like the prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane, as one Church Father thought? In this case, this prayer would be an expression of immeasurable humility, and the human mind is not able to grasp the full depth of self-sacrifice of the Son of God, who in this case extended His humility to the point of praying to the Heavenly Father, that the glory that would proclaim His Divine Sonship would pass by from Him. Maybe so. Antiquity invented some rituals that allegedly took place at the Baptism of Jesus Christ, but this is hardly true. The baptism took place; then - extraordinary visions. “The heavens were opened to Him” (Matthew 3:16). Therefore, wasn’t He the only one who saw this? But John also saw the Holy Spirit; and the Spirit descended from heaven, therefore John saw the heavens opened. Therefore, this must be understood this way: “the heavens were opened” not to Him, but for Him, so that others could see it. since it is not visible that John’s disciples saw the opening of heaven, for they would later test Jesus Christ, the ancients (Origen and others) thought that this could be seen not with carnal eyes, but with spiritual eyes. But in fact there is no need to resort to spiritual vision here. For John’s disciples could not always be with their teacher, and even though they were with him, that is, in the desert, they were not always in one place and could disperse to other places. The opening of the heavens could be accomplished through a cloud or a ray: through a ray, the vault of heaven could appear as if it were split in two. Why does the Spirit of God descend on the Son of God? What could He tell Him? Or does He come only to testify before others? Not for this only, but also for the filling of His Spirit. For John says that He received the Spirit without measure. Why does the Spirit descend on God? From this it is clear that the Divinity of Jesus Christ did not suddenly express itself in humanity. Now, upon entering into the ministry of the Messiah, He needed to unite more closely with the third Person of the Holy Trinity. The possibility of connecting one Person with another, without merging them, is beyond doubt. The Spirit of God does not instantly descend on the Son of God, but appears as the One Coming: a picturesque and majestic descent! Another evangelist also says that the Spirit of God rested on Jesus Christ (John 1:33), that is, it lingered a little over His head. Why was the “dove” chosen as a symbol of the Spirit of God? In terms of moral and physical decency: he is clean, quiet, and gentle. But when the Son prayed, it was impossible for the Father not to hear His prayer, and therefore a voice was heard: “This is My beloved Son, in Him I am well pleased” (Matthew 3:17). This is how the humility of the Son of God was rewarded! If the blind Pharisees had been present, they too would not have doubted to recognize Him as the Messiah. He was baptized with water, and the Holy Spirit descended on Him. “This one is..”. Another evangelist says: “Thou art the Son...”. (Luke 3:22). Wonderful difference! And the evangelists do not literally convey such only Heavenly sayings! Isn't this reprehensible for an evangelist? Such inaccuracy is typical for them. Speaking on behalf of God, they value not words, but deeds. However, the difference here can also be psychological. The same voice could be heard by the Savior: “Thou art My Son,” and by John: “This is My Son.” Thus, Jesus Christ is declared the Son of God and the Messiah! Penetrating deeper into the connection of these events, one can come to the idea that although Jesus Christ went to Baptism by inspiration from above, it was hardly revealed to Him that a solemn announcement of His Divine dignity would take place here. Something unexpected happened here. But isn’t this unexpectedness strange? No, Jesus Christ directly says that He sometimes does not know something. And this should not be at all surprising. Saint John Chrysostom says that if there is anything to be marveled at in Christ, then it is the union of the Divinity with humanity in Him, and the rest, having assumed (putting this as a basis - ed.) will go in order. From now on, Jesus Christ is no longer the Son of Mary, but the Son of God, the Son of heaven and earth, the Son of Adam. From the Jordan He withdrew into the desert, and there spent forty days fasting, and then was subjected to temptation. We have established a fourty-day fast in memory of this remarkable event. After this, John extended his ministry for some more time, but it no longer had its original meaning. John had already sent the people coming to him to the Messiah; however, his stay in the Jordan for some more time could divide the people. The position of the Baptist and Jesus Christ has now become the same as the position of the moon and the sun. If the moon were visible in the sky at noon, it would harm the eyesight. Far from the place of the public ministry of Jesus Christ, John could testify to Him more powerfully and impartially; and indeed, he gave the most important, loudest testimony, and walked away. His ministry continued for several months after the Baptism of the Savior; then the insistence of Herod’s concubine forced this king to imprison the Baptist in the Macheron fortress, where he was beheaded to please the same woman. From the stichera for the Feast of the Annunciation.