On the agreement of the evangelists

The work of the blzh. Aurelius Augustine's On the Concord of the Evangelists (4 books) is a commentary on the New Testament. Blzh. Augustine analyzes the features of each Gospel, and also reconstructs the Gospel story based on all 4 Gospels. The 1st book (35 chapters) talks about the Gospels, about the reasons why the Savior Himself did not write anything, about the relationship of the teaching of the holy apostles to the teaching of Christ. Books 2-3 (80 and 25 chapters respectively) compare the Gospel texts and show that there are no contradictions between them. Book 4 (10 chapters) examines the features of the Gospels of Mark, Luke and John. Blzh. Augustine writes that the evangelists are like the 4 cardinal directions, “along which the Church of Christ spreads everywhere.” The Four Gospels symmetrically split into the consonant testimony of eyewitnesses of Christ's earthly life (apostles Matthew and John) and their followers (apostles Mark and Luke). The Bishop of Hippo explains the peculiarities of each of the Gospels by the fact that the evangelists were familiar with each other’s writings (the theory of “mutual use”): “Each... adhered to their own way of narration, however, they all did not want to write as if they knew nothing about their predecessors, passing over as unknown what others had already written down, but added their own personal work to what was written” (Book 1, Chapter 2.4). According to blzh. Augustine, each of the evangelists had his own plan: St. Matthew emphasized the royal dignity of Christ, apost. Luke - in priestly, ap. Mark shortened the story. Matthew, ap. John emphasized the deity of the Son and His unity with the Father. Blzh. Augustine concludes that the Synoptic Gospels describe the active life of the Lord, and the ap. Joanna is contemplative. The Bishop of Hippo explains the absence of contradictions between the Gospels by the belief that they were written by the apostles or their disciples, guided by God, with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, and received by the Church, in which Christ is the Head. Despite all the differences in the gospel texts, the tradition contained in them is one, because the evangelists wrote down what the Lord wanted to communicate about His words and deeds. The texts of Scripture are inspired and sacred by virtue of the authority of the Church, which recognized them as such. The discrepancies in the Gospels can be explained by the fact that the evangelists “report about the same event as the same person could talk about it three times, somewhat varying the description, but without any contradiction” (Book 3, ch. 4.13). *The title of the work in Latin is De consensu Evangelistarum. Chapter I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII XIV XV XVI XVII XVIII XIX XX XXI XXII XXIII XXIV XXV XXVI XXVII XXVIII XXIX XXX XXXI XXXII XXXIII XXXIV XXXV Chapter I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII XIV XV XVI XVII XVIII XIX XX XXI XXII XXIII XXIV XXV XXVI XXVII XXVIII XXIX XXX XXXI XXXII XXXIII XXXIV XXXV XXXVI XXXVII XXXVIII XXXIX XL XLI XLII XLIII XLIV XLV XLVI XLVII XLVIII XLIX L LI LII LIII LIV LV LVI LVII LVIII LIX LX LXI LXII LXIII LXIV LXV LXVI LXVII LXVIII LXIX LXX LXXI LXXII LXXIII LXXIV LXXV LXXVI LXXVII LXXVIII LXXIX LXXX Chapter I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII XIV XV XVI XVII XVIII XIX XX XXI XXII XXIII XXIV XXV Chapter I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X 1. Among everything important in its divine significance contained in St. Scripture, the Gospel rightfully has the highest significance. In fact, what the Law and the Prophets foretold as coming is revealed in the Gospel as given and accomplished. The first heralds of this were the apostles, who saw our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ himself in the flesh and even face to face. They remembered not only what they heard from His lips or saw Him do, but, having received the gift of the gospel, they took care to announce to the human race also that which they could learn or reveal with the help of the truest testimony and the most undoubted testimonies, either from Himself, or from His parents, or from someone else, namely: what happened by action from above even before they became His disciples, and worthy of memory during His birth, childhood or adolescence. Some of them, Matthew and John, reported such information about Him in separate books, because, in their opinion, they should have been written down. 2. But lest it should be thought that with regard to preaching and assimilation there is some difference in what is proclaimed, on the one hand, by those who followed the Lord, who appeared here in the flesh, as His disciples, and on the other hand, by those who with full faith accepted what was revealed to them, Divine Providence through the Holy Spirit arranged it in such a way that some of the followers of the first apostles were given the authority not only to proclaim, but even to write Gospel: such are Mark and Luke. And other people who tried to write something about the acts of the Lord or the apostles were not such that the Church could have confidence in them and accept their writings as having the canonical importance of St. books; and this is not because, due to their wickedness, their stories should not have been believed at all, but because they introduced into their writings something false, condemned by the ecumenical and apostolic rule of faith and true teaching. 3. Thus, the four evangelists, known throughout the world - and, perhaps, there are four because there are four directions of the world along which the Church of Christ spreads everywhere - in some way, by the very sacred significance of their number, they clearly showed that they wrote in the following order, it seems: first Matthew, then Mark, then Luke, and finally John. Therefore, they had one order for acquiring knowledge and preaching, and another for writing. In fact, the first in knowledge and preaching were, of course, those who followed the Lord who was in the flesh, heard His words, saw His deeds and were sent through His mouth to preach the gospel. But in the writing of the Gospel, which, as one must believe, was commanded to be done from above, from among those whom the Lord chose before suffering, only two take first and last place, namely: the first is Matthew, and the last is John; so the other two, who were not among them, but only those who followed the preaching Christ between them, should have been, as it were, in an embrace, like their sons, and therefore in this place they are placed in the middle and, as if protected by a wall on both sides. 4. But of these four, only one Matthew, as the ancient legend reports, wrote in Aramaic, and the rest - in Greek. And although each of them, apparently, adhered to his own way of narration, they all did not want to write as if they knew nothing about their predecessors, omitting as unknown what others had already written down, but they added their own personal work to what was written, to the extent that each individual received a revelation for that. For Matthew tried to portray the incarnation of the Lord as a royal descendant and recorded many of His sayings and deeds. Mark, who followed him, turned out to be, as it were, his guide and shortener of his work, because he did not say anything in common with John alone, personally - only very little, together with Luke alone - relatively much, but most of all with Matthew, and besides, he largely agrees either with one or all together in conveying this or that, and often in almost the same words. Luke depicted mainly the priestly origin and the face of the Lord. In fact, it also approaches David himself if we follow not the royal line of ancestors, but through those who were not kings: Luke reached Nathan, the son of David (Luke 3:31), who was not a king. He depicts differently than Matthew, who, starting with King Solomon (Matthew 1:6), traced the order of all the other kings, maintaining a mysterious number in their series, which we will talk about below. 5. Indeed, the Lord Jesus Christ, the one true King and the one true Priest, the first to rule us, and the second to redeem us, discovered that these two persons, separately proclaimed by the forefathers, had their own external image: firstly, in the inscription nailed to His cross: “King of the Jews” - which is why Pilate, by a mysterious inspiration, answered the Jews: “What I wrote is wrote” (John 19:19, 22), for in the psalms it was predicted: “Do not destroy the inscription of the name”; secondly, regarding the person of the priest, in that He taught us to make and accept sacrifices, which is why He sent forth a prophecy saying about Him: “You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek” (Ps. 109:4). And in many other monuments of sacred writing, Christ is both King and Priest. Hence David himself, whose son He is called more often than others - like the son of Abraham - and whom Matthew and Luke both mention - the first, speaking of His descent through Solomon from David, and the second, raising Him to David through Nathan - although he was a king, he also represented the face of a priest when he ate the showbread, which only priests were allowed to eat (1 Sam. 21:6); Matthew 12:3). It should also be noted that only Luke says that Miriam, who heard the gospel from the angel, was a relative of Elizabeth, the wife of the priest Zechariah. He also writes that Elizabeth was the daughter of Aaron, i.e. that Zechariah had a wife from the tribe of priests (Luke 1:5, 36). 6. So, when Matthew focuses on the royal significance of Jesus Christ, and Luke on the priestly, then in both cases we are talking about the humanity of Christ, for Christ was made King and Priest as a man, since God gave Him the throne of His father David, so that His kingdom would have no end (Luke 1:32-33), and so that the man Christ would be a mediator between God and people, interceding for us (1 Tim. 2:5). But Luke did not have the same abbreviator as Matthew in the person of Mark. And this, perhaps, is also not without some mysterious meaning, for it is not common for royal persons to be without a retinue; therefore, he who took upon himself the image of the royal person of Christ also had, as it were, a companion who had joined him, who followed in his footsteps. And since the high priest alone entered the Holy of Holies, Luke, whose attention was concentrated around the priesthood, did not have an ally following him, who would shorten his narrative to some extent. 7. But the three above-mentioned evangelists focused primarily on those acts that Christ performed in human flesh, while John focused his attention on the divinity of the Lord, in which He is equal to the Father, and sought to carefully depict precisely this. Thus, he rushed much higher than the first three, so that when you see those revolving, as it were, on the earth with Christ as man, this one, surpassing the limits of the mists that closely encircle the earth, ascended to the clear heaven, whence with a penetrating and strong acuity of mind beheld in the beginning the Word, God with God, by whom all things were created, and declared that He became flesh to dwell among us ( John 1:13-14 ); that It took on flesh, but was not changed in the flesh. If the perception of the flesh had taken place without preserving the immutability of the divine nature, then it would not have been said: “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30), for the Father and the flesh are not one. And only John gives this testimony of the Lord about Himself, as well as the following: “He who has seen Me has seen the Father; I am in the Father and the Father in Me” (John 14:9, 10); “That they may be one, even as We are one” (Jn. 17:22); “Whatever He does, the Son also does also” (John 5:19). And if we know anything else similar that so reliably points us to the deity of Christ, in which He is equal to the Father, then John reported this in his Gospel; after all, it is no coincidence that it was he who reclined at the breast of Jesus during His supper (John 13:23), thereby, as it were, more abundantly and intimately tasting the sacrament of the deity. 8. Two forces are invested in the human soul: one is active, the other is contemplative; the first communicates movement, the second allows comprehension; with the first they act to cleanse the heart for the contemplation of God, with the second they free themselves and contemplate; the first - in the regulations and laws of this temporary life, the second - in the doctrine of eternal life; the first acts, the second remains at rest, for the first manifests itself in the cleansing of sinners, and the second in the enlightenment of the purified; for the same reason, in this mortal life, the former is found in acts of good conduct, and the latter chiefly in faith. These two powers are represented by the two wives of Jacob, of whom I spoke as best I could in refuting the teachings of Faustus Manichaeus. In fact, Leah is understood as the worker, and Rachel as the beginning of contemplation. Thus, it is clear that the three evangelists, very carefully studying the earthly deeds of the Lord and His words, which are of primary importance for edification in the morals of this life, remained in this active force, and John, who narrates much less about the deeds of the Lord and with greater care and detail collecting His sayings, which inspire the idea of ​​the trinity of the Divinity and the bliss of eternal life, kept his attention and preaching in praises of contemplative power. 9 . Therefore, it seems to me that when explaining the meaning of the four animals from Revelation in relation to the evangelists, those who attributed the lion to Matthew, the man to Mark, the calf to Luke, and the eagle to John were more correct than those who attributed the man to Matthew, the eagle to Mark, and the lion to John. Indeed, the latter sought foundations in the initial words of the books, and not in a holistic direction of thought, which alone should have been explored. After all, it is much more natural that the one who depicted primarily the royal face of Christ should be designated a lion. Therefore, in Revelation, along with the royal tribe, the lion is mentioned when it is said: “Behold, the lion of the tribe of Judah, the root of David, has overcome” (Rev. 5:5). Matthew tells us that the Magi also came from the East to worship the King, who was indicated to them by the star as already born; and Herod himself fears the royal Child and, in order to kill Him, kills all babies (Matthew 2:1-18). And that Luke was designated by the calf, in view of the greatest sacrifice of the High Priest, no one doubted this, for the narrator begins his speech with the High Priest Zechariah; it also reminds us of the relationship between Mary and Elizabeth; It also tells about the performance of the first sacred rite over the infant Christ. And many more examples can be given that Luke draws attention primarily to what is connected with the priesthood. Thus, Mark, who did not intend to narrate either the royal race or the priestly kinship and service, and nevertheless finds himself occupied with what Christ did as a man, of the four above-mentioned images, apparently, could only be designated as the image of a man. But these three: man, lion and calf, live on earth, and it is the three named evangelists who are primarily occupied with what Christ did in the flesh and with those commandments that He taught to those who wear flesh for the pious conduct of mortal life. John soars like an eagle over the darkness of human weakness and contemplates the light of unchanging truth with his sharpest and strongest eyes. 10. These four holy charioteers of the Lord, with the help of whom the people living throughout the world strive to submit to His pleasant burden and the easy yoke, are persecuted by some with slander, either because of ungodly vanity, or because of inexperience and foolishness, in order to undermine faith in the undoubtedly true narrative of those thanks to whom the Christian teaching, spread throughout the whole world, has achieved such fruitfulness that unbelievers barely dare to whisper utter their blasphemy, for they too are oppressed by the conversion of the pagans and the piety of all nations. But since with their slanderous reasoning they either slow down some in accepting the faith, or confuse others who already believe, arousing their doubts as much as possible; and on the other hand, since some of our brethren, moved by saving faith, wish to know that they should answer questions of this kind, both to strengthen their faith and to refute their idle talk, then by inspiration from God and with His help (oh that it would help their salvation!) we have in this work taken the trouble to show the error or folly of those who imagine that they can present sufficiently convincing accusations against the four books of the Gospel, written by four evangelists; and for this to be realized, it is necessary to show that these four writers do not contradict themselves, for our opponents see their victory precisely in the fact that the evangelists allegedly contradict each other. 11. But first of all, we must resolve the question that usually confuses many, namely: why didn’t the Lord Himself write anything so that it would force others who wrote about Him to believe? This is usually spoken about by those pagans who do not dare to accuse and slander Jesus Christ Himself and recognize in Him the highest wisdom, but only human wisdom; such people say that His disciples ascribed more to their Teacher than He really was, and that it was they who began to assert that He was the Son of God, the Word of God, by whom all things were created, that He and God the Father were one, and that in the apostolic writings there was something similar, from which we learned that He, together with the Father, should be revered as one God. Thus they believe that He should be worshiped only as the wisest man, but do not agree that He should be worshiped as God. 12. Thus, when they ask why He Himself did not write, it seems that they would be willing to believe what He Himself would have written about Himself, but not what others preached about Him at their discretion. Therefore, I ask them: on what basis did they themselves believe in what the latter’s disciples wrote about their most famous philosophers, although these philosophers themselves did not write anything about themselves? Indeed, they say that Pythagoras, compared with whom Greece has nothing clearer in the field of contemplative power, wrote nothing not only about himself, but also about anything else. And Socrates, whom they exalted above all in the field of activity aimed at education in morals, so that, according to the statement of their god Apollo, he was proclaimed the wisest of the Hellenes, added (let them not remain silent about this!) with several verses of Aesop’s fables, adapting his words and numbers to the subjects of another; he was so reluctant to write anything that he said that he was doing this at the behest of his demon, as the most famous of his students, Plato, reported; however, Plato himself preferred to embellish other people’s thoughts rather than express his own. So, what is the reason that our opponents are inclined to believe what their disciples reported about these philosophers, but regarding Christ they do not want to believe what His disciples wrote about Him, especially since they agree to recognize Him as surpassing all people in wisdom, although they do not agree to recognize Him as God? It turns out that those about whom they have no doubt that they were much lower than Him were able to make their disciples worthy of faith, but He could not. Since this assumption is very stupid, then let them believe in Him Whom they recognize as the wisest, not as they please, but as they find from those who learned from this Sage what they wrote about. 13. Then let them answer: How do they know that He was the wisest? If from the rumors that have spread, then does it come out that the rumor about Him is more knowledgeable than His disciples? Finally, let them favor some stories over others and trust those stories about Him that are most important. After all, those stories that come with amazing clarity from the Catholic Church, which, to their great surprise, has spread throughout the whole earth, without any doubt surpass their idle chatter. The testimonies of the Church are so majestic and glorious that her enemies, filled with fear, experience their timid doubts that have lost their former ardor only in their souls, afraid to listen to them from anyone else, and simply out of a sense of contradiction, not wanting to believe that Christ is the preached Only Begotten Son of God and God, through whom all things were created. So, if they are inclined to cite various traditions as evidence, why do they not choose those that surpass all others in such clarity? And if they choose the Scriptures, then why not the Gospels, which rise above others with such great significance? For example, regarding their gods, we trust what is contained both in their most ancient writings and in the most widespread stories. But if their gods should inspire respect for themselves, then why are they ridiculed in their own theaters? And if they should be ridiculed, then all the more deserving of ridicule are those who worship them in churches. It remains for them to wish to be witnesses of Christ - they, who have deprived themselves of the opportunity to know what they are talking about, and speaking about what they do not know. And if they say that they have certain books supposedly written by Him, then let them sell them to us. There is no doubt that they are the most useful and salutary, because they were written by the greatest, as they themselves admit, sage. If they are afraid to publish these books, then there is no doubt that they are bad; but if they are bad, then they were not written by the wisest person; but they confess that Christ is the greatest sage. It follows that Christ did not write such things. 14. But they are so unreasonable that they claim that the books that they believe He wrote contain descriptions of those simple techniques with the help of which (as they claim) He performed miracles that amazed everyone and everywhere. However, by thinking this way, they betray themselves regarding what they love and admire: they recognize Christ as the wisest because He allegedly knew something unacceptable, which is rightly condemned not only by the rules of Christian life, but even by earthly rulers. But they, who claim to have read books of Christ of this kind, why do they themselves not do anything that, according to these books, is supposedly the subject of their amazement? 15. Thus, some of them who believe or want to believe that such books were written by Christ are so much mistaken even in regard to the divine definition that they maintain that these books were originally nothing more than the epistles of Peter and Paul. And, of course, it could happen that either the enemies of the name of Christ, or those who believed that with such a glorious name they could give weight and significance to disgusting arts of this kind, wrote such books in the name of Christ and the apostles, and were so blinded in their daring deceit that they deservedly serve as a laughing stock even for children who still have a very naive, childish knowledge of the Christian scriptures. 16. Indeed, when they had the desire to imagine that Christ wrote such books to His disciples, they began to consider what their readers would most likely believe, and they came up with the idea that He wrote them to those who were most attached to Him and to whom He entrusted it as a secret worthy of keeping; and Peter and Paul came to mind to the writers, I am sure, because in many places they saw images of these apostles with Him; and, in addition, because the exploits of Peter and Paul, moreover, as a result of their martyrdom on the same day, Rome celebrates with special solemnity. Thus, those who found out about Christ and His apostles not in the collections of sacred books, but on painted walls, are deservedly deceived; and it is not surprising that the writers were deceived by the imagination of the painters. In fact, as long as Christ lived among His disciples in mortal flesh, Paul was not yet His disciple. With a voice from heaven He called him and made him His disciple and apostle after His suffering, after the resurrection, after the ascension, after the sending of the Holy Spirit from heaven, after the conversion and amazing faith of many Jews, after the stoning of the deacon and martyr Stephen, when Paul was still called Saul and cruelly persecuted those who believed in Christ (Acts 9:1-8). So, how could these books, which, according to them, He wrote before His death, could be written for Peter and Paul, as for the closest disciples, when Paul was not yet His disciple? 17. Those who spread absurd rumors that He did such great deeds and through them sanctified His name among the peoples who subsequently turned to Him with the help of witchcraft and sorcery, let them also pay attention to the fact that in this case He could not have been able, even before His birth on earth, with the help of magical art, to fill with the Divine Spirit so many prophets who predicted about Him what we read in the Gospels as having happened, and which we now see embodied in all corners of the earth. After all, even if He had achieved by magic that He was revered when He had already died, then how would He, for whose coming as a prophet, one people were destined, become a magician before His birth; and all the prophetic government of the state of this people belonged to Him, the King who was to come and establish the kingdom of heaven for all nations. 18. This same Jewish people, appointed to preach about Christ, had no other God than the one God, the true God, who created heaven and earth and everything that is on them; and for their deviations from Him the Jews often gave themselves over to the power of their enemies; and now, for the gravest crime - for the death of Christ - they are almost expelled from Jerusalem itself, which stood at the head of their kingdom, and are subordinated to the power of Rome. The Romans usually respectfully accepted the gods of the peoples they conquered and accepted their service. But they did not want to do this in relation to the God of the Jewish people, although they defeated and conquered the Jews. I think this is because they understood that if they accepted the priesthood of this God, who commanded to honor only Him and destroy idols, then they would have to leave everything that they had previously accepted as an object of veneration; but it was to these beliefs that they attributed the increase in their power. In this regard, they were most tempted by the lies of the demons; in fact, they should have understood that power was given to them and increased by the hidden will of that God in whose hands the highest power lies, and not at all thanks to the disposition of their gods; because if the latter had participated in this power in any way, they would rather have patronized their original admirers so that they would not be defeated by the Romans or even subjugate the Romans themselves, having won a victory over them. 19. Indeed, they cannot even say that the gods of the peoples they conquered loved and preferred the piety and morals of them, the Romans. They will never say this if they remember their origins, patronage of criminals and the fratricide of Romulus. In fact, when Remus and Romulus established a refuge where anyone guilty of any crime could hide and remain unpunished for their act, they did not establish repentance to heal the souls of criminals; but at the same time they did not leave unpunished the timidity of those people whom they gathered for the war against their hometowns, whose laws they themselves feared; on the other hand, when Romulus killed his brother, who had done nothing wrong to him, he imagined that he was taking revenge for violated justice, and not simply striving for primacy in power. Is it not these morals that the gods loved, hostile to their cities and favorable to their enemies? But why, leaving their own, did not they destroy those and, moving on to these, did not help them in any way? Yes, because they have no power either to give the kingdom or to destroy it; and God alone does this in secret council, not forever intending to make blessed those to whom he gave the earthly kingdom, and not forever miserable those from whom he took it away; but, making happy or unhappy for one reason or another, He distributed temporal and earthly kingdoms among those whom He pleased, according to an order determined from centuries, allowing or giving both, and for whatever time He pleased. 20. Therefore, they cannot say the following: “Why did not the God of the Jews, whom you call the true God, not only subject the Romans to them, but also help the Jews so that they would not fall under the yoke of the Romans?” After all, all this was preceded by the obvious sins of the Jews, because of which, as the prophets had foretold long before, this would happen to them. But first of all, this happened because in their ungodly rage they killed the Savior; Moreover, in their last sin they were blinded by the action of other secret sins; and that His sufferings would be beneficial to the pagan nations, this was predicted by the testimony of the same prophecy. And the kingdom of this people, and the church, and the priesthood, and the sacrifice, and that mysterious anointing, which in Greek is called hrisma, from where the name Christ gets its meaning, and why this people called their kings anointed - all this was intended only for the foretelling of Christ and this was revealed in nothing other than the fact that after the beginning of the preaching and the resurrection of the murdered Christ, all this ceased, although neither the Romans nor the Jews do not know that this cessation was a consequence of the victory of the former and the conquest of the latter. 21. Those few who remain pagans do not pay attention to the amazing fact that the God of the Jews, insulted by the vanquished and not accepted by the victors, is now preached and worshiped by all nations. After all, it is He who is the God of Israel, about whom the prophet so long ago proclaimed to the people of God: “He will be called the God of the whole earth” (Is. 54:5). This happened through the name of Christ, who came to people from the seed of that Israel, who was a descendant of Abraham, the ancestor of the Jews, for it was also said to Israel: “And in you and in your seed all the families of the earth will be blessed” (Gen. 28:14). From this it is clear that the God of Israel, the one God who created heaven and earth and provides for the affairs of men mercifully and righteously, so that truth does not hinder mercy and mercy does not hinder righteousness, was not defeated in the person of His Jewish people when He allowed His kingdom and priesthood to be destroyed and overcome by the Romans: for in fact, through the Gospel of Christ, the true King and Priest, He Himself The God of Israel destroys pagan idols everywhere; after all, it was precisely for the sake of preserving these idols that the Romans did not want to accept His shrines, as they accepted the shrines of the gods of other peoples whom they defeated. Thus He abolished the kingdom and priesthood of the prophetic people, because what was promised through Him had already come; but He also subdued the Roman rule, by which that people was defeated, to His name through Christ, and turned it to the overthrow of idols, because of the respect for which His shrines were not accepted, by the power and reverence of the Christian faith. 22. I believe that the fulfillment of what was indicated over Himself, according to what was foretold through so many prophets and through the priesthood and kingdom of each people, Christ did not arrange by any means with the help of magical art, moreover, even before His birth among people. After all, the people of this lost kingdom, scattered everywhere by the merciful providence of God, although they were left without any royal and priestly anointing, in which anointing the name of Christ is revealed, nevertheless retain the remnants of some of their traditions in order to carry prophetic books testifying about Christ, and so that the truth about the proclaimed Jesus would be confirmed from scrolls hostile to the Romans. The question arises: why do these unfortunate people aggravate their misfortunes? After all, if something magical was written in His name, while the teaching of Christ is hostile to this art, then at least from this they will understand how great is the name with the help of which those who live contrary to His commandments are trying to achieve veneration for their wicked art. Just as in various human errors many in His name have invented various heresies against the truth, so the enemies of Christ feel that in order to be convinced of what they propose contrary to the teaching of Christ, only that which bears the name of Christ will have significant significance. 23. Why don’t these empty praisers of Christ and insidious blasphemers of the Christian faith dare to slander Christ? Yes, because some of their philosophers, as Porphyry of Sicily wrote in his books, asked their gods for advice on what to say about Christ; and they were forced to praise Christ before their oracles. And this is not surprising, for we read in the Gospel that He was confessed by demons (Luke 4:41); and our prophets say: “For all the gods of the nations are idols” (Ps. 96:5). And therefore the pagans, so as not to act contrary to the advice of their gods, refrained from reproaching Christ and began to pour them out on His disciples; but it seems to me that the pagan gods, with whom the pagan philosophers consulted, would have been forced to praise the disciples of Christ if they had been asked a question regarding the latter. 24. Nevertheless, they are trying to prove that the destruction of churches, the condemnation of sacrifices and the destruction of idol images does not occur according to the teaching of Christ, but at the instigation of His disciples, who sought to teach differently than they themselves had learned from Him; Thus, they, while honoring and praising Christ, want to eliminate the Christian faith; for after all, through the disciples of Christ, the deeds and sayings of Jesus Christ were announced, on which the Christian religion stands, even to this day, unpleasant to these, already very few and no longer openly opposing it, but still quietly whispering about it. But if they do not want to believe that Christ taught this, then let them read from the prophets, who instructed people not only to destroy idolatrous superstitions, but also predicted that such destruction would occur during the time of Christianity. If they told a lie, then why did it come true so obviously? And if they spoke the truth, then why do these people resist so clearly divine power? 25. And yet you should urgently ask them: who do they think the God of Israel is; Why did they not accept Him, as they accepted the gods of other peoples who were conquered by the Roman state, especially if, in their own opinion, a wise man should honor all gods? So why exactly was He excluded from the rest? If it is because He has the greatest power, then why is He the only one not revered by them? If it is because He has little power or no power at all, then why, after the destruction of their idols, is He the only one revered by almost all nations? They will never be able to extricate themselves from the snares of the above question, for while they worship the lesser and greater gods that they worship as gods, they do not worship the true God, Who surpassed all those they worship. If He is great in power, then why is He considered one who should be rejected? If He has little or no power, then why is He alone separated from other good things? If He is evil, then why was He not defeated by so many good ones? If He is true, then why are His commands rejected? If He is a liar, then why do His predictions come true? 26. After all, let them think whatever they want about Him. Don’t the Romans recognize that even the evil gods should be honored, don’t they build churches for the gods of fever and pallor, and don’t they also appease the evil demons when they appeal to good demons for help? Let them therefore think of Him what they please; however, why did they consider it possible for Him alone to neither call nor propitiate? Who is this God, so unknown to them that He alone is not yet among the multitude of their gods, but so known to us that He alone is revered by us - already by so many nations? So, in response to the question why they did not want to accept the shrines of this God, they can only say one thing: God wanted to be revered alone and forbade honoring those pagan gods whom they had already revered by that time. But then they should be questioned about what exactly they consider this God to be, who did not want other gods to be worshiped, for whom they built churches and erected statues, a God so powerful that His desire to overthrow idols was much stronger than their reluctance to accept His shrines. Here, of course, they will refer to the opinion of that philosopher of theirs, whom their oracle told them was the wisest of all people. After all, according to Socrates, every god should be honored as he himself commanded this veneration. Therefore, it was extremely important for them not to honor the God of the Jews, for if they wanted to honor Him in a different way than He commanded, then, of course, they would not honor Him, but what they themselves invented. And if they wanted to honor Him according to His commandment, they would see that they should not honor others whom He forbade to worship. Because of all this, they rejected the worship of the one true God: so as not to offend many false gods, imagining that the anger of the latter would be more dangerous for them than His benevolence. 27. But their caution was in vain and their timidity was worthy of ridicule. Let us ask: what do those people who want to worship all gods in general think about this God? After all, if this God should not be honoured, then how do all the others deserve veneration when this one is not honoured? And if He must be revered, then the others cannot be revered, for He is revered only when He alone is revered. Or maybe they will say that He is not God, although they call those gods who, in our opinion, can only do what is permitted by His definition? But then they will have to admit that their gods are less powerful than the One who is not God in their eyes. Indeed, if the gods are those whose prophecies people asked, and who gave answers, not to say completely false, but only approximately corresponding to private affairs, then how is it not God, whose predictions are true not only in relation to individual events, but even regarding the entire human race and all peoples: after all, He predicted in advance what we now read and see. If they call God the one in whose name the Sibyl proclaimed the unfulfilled destinies of the Romans, then how is it not God who fulfilled, as he foretold, that the Romans and all nations through the gospel of Christ would believe in Him, the only God, and that all their idols would be overthrown? Finally, if they call those gods who, through their soothsayers, never dared to say anything against this God, then how is it not God who, through His prophets, not only commanded the overthrow of their images, but even predicted that they would be overthrown among all pagan nations by those who, after their overthrow, received the command to honor Him alone and, having received the command, serve Him alone? 28. And if they can, let them read how some of the Sibyls and some of their other soothsayers prophesied that the God of Israel would be revered by all nations, and that the worshipers of other gods would at first reject Him; and even the writings of His prophets about the future are so excellent in their meaning that, in obedience to them, the Roman government itself ordered the destruction of idols; the prophets even urged them not to obey such orders. If they can, then let them read about it in the books of their own soothsayers. I'm not even talking about the fact that what is written in their books is considered evidence of ours, i.e. Christian faith, as well as what they personally could hear from the holy angels and from our prophets, just as even demons were forced to confess the appearance of Christ in the flesh. Of course, many of them strive to prove that all this was invented by our coreligionists: no, they themselves must force themselves to present something predicted by the soothsayers of their gods against the God of the Jews, just as we, against their gods, on the basis of our prophetic books and commandments, observe, and give predictions, and show what has already come true. Those, already very few, prefer to grieve rather that all this has been fulfilled, than to recognize as God the One who could proclaim what has been fulfilled; while their false gods, who are real demons, do not value anything more than if someday, with the help of their answers, they learn something that is about to happen to them. 29. And if this is so, then why don’t they, miserable people, understand that the true God is precisely the One Who (and they cannot help but see this) stands out so much from the society of their gods that, wanting to honor all the gods, they cannot honor Him along with the others? Thus, if they cannot honor Him along with others, then why don’t they choose the One who forbids to honor others, leaving these who do not forbid to honor Him? Or if even these prohibit, then let them find evidence of this somewhere. In fact, shouldn’t such prohibitions be first of all announced to the people in churches? And of course, the prohibition of so many against one should be more significant and powerful than the prohibition of one against so many. For if the worship of this God is wicked, then those gods are useless who do not protect people from wickedness. And if worshiping Him is pious, then in this case it is wicked to serve other gods, since it is prohibited when worshiping Him. And if they forbid the veneration of Him so hesitantly that people are more afraid to hear about it than they dare to forbid, then who does not understand, who does not feel that it is Him who should be chosen - Who so publicly forbids the veneration of other gods, Who commanded the overthrow of their images, predicted this and actually overthrew them - than to venerate those about whom we do not know, so that they forbid the veneration of Him, we do not read, so that they predict, not Do we see them being able to do anything? I ask: Who is this God, Who so persecutes all the pagan gods, Who at once abolished all their sacred rites? 30. But is it worth asking about this to people who have discovered vanity when thinking about who He is? Some say: “This is Saturn”; I think this is because they sanctify the Saturday, for they attributed this day to Saturn. Varro considered the God of the Jews to be Jupiter, believing that He could be called by any name, for by Him he meant being. I think he was simply amazed by His greatness; after all, the Romans, indeed, do not recognize anyone higher than Jupiter, as their Capitol clearly testifies; They consider him the king of all gods. And when Varro drew attention to the fact that the Jews honor the highest God, he could not mean anyone else by this except Jupiter. But if anyone recognizes the God of the Jews as Saturn or Jupiter, let him answer: when did it happen that Saturn dared to prohibit the honoring of another god? And even his son Jupiter, who took away his power, he does not forbid to honor. If this latter is pleasing to his admirers as more powerful and as a winner, then let them not honor the defeated and exiled one. But Jupiter did not forbid the worship of Saturn, and thus allowed the one whom he could defeat to be a god. 31. They say that these fables should either be interpreted by wise men or ridiculed; and we honor Jupiter, about whom Maro says: “Everything is full of Jupiter” (Eclogue 3), i.e. everything has a life-giving spirit. Therefore, Varro, not without reason, believed that Jupiter was revered by the Jews, since God speaks through the prophet: “Do I not fill heaven and earth?” (Jer 23.24). Isn’t this the same thing that the poet called ether, saying: “So Ether, the almighty father, descended like a fruitful rain onto the bosom of the happy wife” (Georgics, book 2). After all, the ether, they say, is not spirit, but a mountainous body that extends under the sky above the air. What happens? Either the poet, following the teachings of the Platonists, imagines that God is spirit, and not body; then, following the Stoics, he says that He is the body? So what exactly do they honor in their Capitol? Is it the spirit, or, finally, the fleshly sky itself? Why does their Jupiter hold that shield called the Aegis? After all, the origin of this name goes back to the fable that Jupiter, hidden by his mother, was suckled by a goat. But maybe this was also composed by poets? Is the Capitol also the work of poets? And what, finally, does this not a poetic, but a clownish disagreement mean: to look for gods in the books of philosophers, but to venerate them in churches according to the ideas of poets? 32. But was the famous Euhemerus a poet, who so clearly presented Jupiter himself, and his father Saturn, and his brothers Pluto and Neptune as people that their admirers should rather be grateful to the poets for the fact that they invented a lot not to reduce their honor, but to embellish them; Cicero says that this Euhemerus was translated into Latin by the poet Ennius (On the Nature of the Gods, book 1). Was Cicero himself a poet when he convinces, as one initiated into the mysteries, his opponent with whom he competes in the “Tusculan Conversations”, saying this: “And if I try to explore the ancient and study what the writers of Greece conveyed, it will be revealed that the gods of many nations have retired from us to heaven. Ask: “Which of these graves are shown in Greece? Since you are initiated, remember what is presented in the Mysteries” (Tusculum. 1). Of course, this writer clearly enough confesses that the gods were people, only he benevolently assumes that they moved to heaven; however, when he spoke about Romulus, he did not hesitate to declare publicly that this supposed honor was appropriated to the gods by people. He says: “We raised that Romulus, who founded this city, by popular rumor and favor to the immortal gods” (Speech against Catalina). So, is it surprising that more ancient people did with Saturn and Jupiter what the Romans did with Romulus, and what they finally wanted to do with Caesar at a later time? Virgil wrote a flattering poem about this: “Here comes forward the star of Caesar, the son of Venus” (Eclogue 9). Let them see whether historical truth does not show the graves of false gods on earth, and whether the idle talk of poets has invented their stars in the sky. After all, this or that star does not actually belong to Saturn or Jupiter; the whole point is that after their death, people assigned their names to the stars created from the beginning of the world, people who wished to honor them, already dead, as gods. And for that matter, what evil has chastity done, or what good does lust deserve, that among the stars that rotate along with the Sun and Moon, Venus has its own star, but Minerva does not? 33. But Cicero, being an academician, was even less pious than the poets, since he dared to mention the graves of the gods and include this in his writings, although he did not invent all this, but borrowed from legends about their shrines. Did the poets really only imagine, and the academicians only assume, when they said that the sacred traditions about such gods were compiled on the basis of the life or death of each of them as people? Was it really possible that the famous Egyptian priest Leon was a poet or academician when he told Alexander the Great opinions about the origin of these gods, although different from the Greek ones, but similar in meaning, when he openly declared that they were people? 34. But what do we care about that? Let them say that in the person of Jupiter they worship not a dead man, and that they dedicated the Capitol not to a dead man, but to the life-giving spirit with which the world is filled, and let them interpret as they please the meaning of his shield, made of goatskin in honor of his nurse. What do they say about Saturn, which Saturn do they worship? Isn’t this the one who first descended from Olympus: Avoiding Jupiter’s arrows, an exile from the taken away kingdom, a rebellious people, scattered across the high mountains, He gathered and gave it a law, and wanted to call it Latium. For he hid in safety in these mountains for a long time. Doesn't the image of him with his head always covered hint at the fact that he is, as it were, hiding? Didn't he show the Italians agriculture, as evidenced by his sickle? “No,” they say, “for although it seems to you that he was a man and, as it were, a king, we understand Saturn in the sense of universal time, which is also shown by his Greek name, which, with the addition of an aspiration Κρονος, is the name of time; for this reason, in Latin, he is called Saturn, as if he were fed up with years.” I don’t know why talk with those people who, trying to explain the names and images of their gods, admit that their highest god and the father of all other gods is time. Indeed, what else could this mean if not that all their gods, whose father they represent time, are limited by time. 35. That is why their philosophers, the new Platonists, who lived already in Christian times, blushing with shame, tried to explain the name of Saturn differently, saying that he was named Kronos as if due to satiety with reason, because satiety in Greek is called χρονον, and reason or thought - χορος, with which the Latin name, composed as if from the Latin first part and the Greek last, so this expresses the idea that he is νους. Indeed, they saw that it was absurd to consider Jupiter the son of time if they thought or wanted to think that he was an eternal god. But with such a new interpretation, if only the most ancient of them knew about it, it is surprising that it was unknown to Cicero and Varro, who argued that Jupiter is the son of Saturn, as if a certain spirit emanating from the higher mind, and whom they represented as the soul of the world, filling all heavenly and earthly bodies. Hence the previously mentioned saying of Maro: “Everything is full of Jupiter.” Surely these sages, if only they could, would not also change the superstitions of people, as well as the above interpretation; and just as they would not have erected any idolatrous images at all, so the Capitol would rather have been erected to Saturn than to Jupiter. For they do not dispute that every rational soul can be wise only with the participation of the highest and unchangeable wisdom; not only the soul of every person, but even the soul of the whole world, which they call Jupiter. And we not only make a concession to them, but even mainly preach that there is a certain highest Wisdom, with the participation of which every wise soul becomes truly wise. But the great and, moreover, unresolved question is the following: does this entire corporeal mass, called the world, have any soul, i.e.? intelligent life that is controlled like every animal? This opinion should be affirmed only when it is clear that it is true, and denied only when it is clear that it is false. But is this really so important for us if it is known that any soul becomes wise and blessed not through any other soul, but only from the highest and unchangeable wisdom of God? 36. However, the Romans, who dedicated the Capitol not to Saturn, but to Jupiter, or other peoples who believed that Jupiter should be revered above all other gods, felt completely different from these philosophers; the latter, according to their new opinion, on the one hand, the highest arts - if only they had any strength in these things - were dedicated mainly to Saturn, and on the other hand, they persecuted mathematicians and star diviners, who placed Saturn among the other stars as an evil god, while the above-mentioned philosophers called him the creator of sages. The opinion of the former against the latter became so prevalent in the souls of people that they did not even want to call Saturn by name: they preferred to call him not Saturn, but an old man. Superstition was so fearful that the Carthaginians almost changed the name of their settlement, more often calling it the city of the old man rather than the city of Saturn. 37. So, there is no doubt about what exactly idolaters are forced to worship and what they strive to decorate. But these new interpreters of the meaning of the name of Saturn must also be asked what they think about the God of the Jews. In fact, they want, like all pagans, to honor all gods without exception, and at the same time, they, the proud, are ashamed to humble themselves before Christ for the forgiveness of their sins. So what do they think about the God of Israel? For if they do not honor Him, then it means that they do not honor all gods; and if they do, it is not as He commanded, because they also honor other gods, whose honor He forbade. After all, He forbade this through the same prophets through whom He predicted the very future that their idols now endure from Christians. For to these prophets or angels were sent, who showed them God, the Creator of all things, the one true God, to whom all things are subject, through sensible things, figuratively revealed the proper form and showed how He commanded to honor Himself; or in some of them, through the Holy Spirit, the thoughts were so sublime that in their visions they contemplated what the angels themselves contemplate. But it is known that they served that God who forbade the honoring of other gods, and served with pious faith in the kingdom and priesthood of His state (i.e., among the Jews) and in sacred rites, which were signs of the future coming of Christ, the true King and Priest. 38. And then regarding the gods of the pagans (while they want to honor them, they do not want to honor Him who cannot be worshiped with them) let them say: “The reason that there is not one of them who would forbid the worship of another is that each of them has his own duties and ministries and is concerned with matters that concern him alone.” Indeed, if Jupiter did not forbid the honor of Saturn, since he was not just a man, much less expelled from his own kingdom by his father, and Jupiter, in turn, is either a celestial body or a spirit that fills heaven and earth, and therefore cannot forbid the worship of the highest thought from which, as they say, he came; if, on the other hand, Saturn did not forbid the honor of Jupiter, not because he was defeated when his son rebelled, and fleeing from whose weapons he came to Italy, but supposedly because the original mind favors the soul born of him; then, of course, Vulcan would probably have forbidden the veneration of Mars, his wife’s lover, and Hercules would have forbidden the veneration of Juno, his persecutor. What kind of disgusting agreement is this between them, when the immaculate virgin Diana does not forbid honoring, not to mention Venus, but even Priapus? After all, if one person, for example, wanted to be both a hunter and a landowner, then he would have to become a servant of both of them, but he would be ashamed to create adjacent churches for them. But even if they understand Diana in the sense of any virtue, and Priapus in the sense of the god of fertilization, they understand him precisely in such a way that Juno, among the women giving birth, is ashamed to have such an assistant; let them say what they please; let them interpret as best they can; however, this is until the God of Israel put all their evidence to shame, since He forbade them all to be revered, but He Himself is not forbidden to be revered by anyone, but prescribed and predicted the destruction of their sacred rites and idols and fulfilled it; so He clearly showed that they are false and deceitful, and He is the true and worthy of faith God. 39. But who will not be amazed that these few admirers of many and, moreover, false gods, do not want to obey the One about whom each of them, being asked: who is God, answers in his own way, but no one dares to deny the existence of God? After all, if they deny Him, they can very easily be convinced by His works, prophecies and their fulfillment. And I’m not talking about what, in their opinion, one can freely disbelieve, namely: that in the beginning He created the heavens and the earth and everything that is in them (Gen. 1:1); and not about well-known ancient events, namely: that He carried Enoch to heaven, that He destroyed the wicked with a flood, that He saved righteous Noah and his house (Gen. 5:24; Gen. 7:1). I begin to examine His deeds among people from Abraham, for through angelic prophecy a promise was revealed to him, the fulfillment of which we now see. In fact, he was told: “And in your seed all the nations of the earth will be blessed” (Gen. 22:18); from his seed came the people of Israel, from him came the Virgin Mary, who gave birth to Christ; let them dare, if they can, to deny that through Him all nations are blessed. This promise was also to Isaac, the son of Abraham (Gen. 26:4); the same thing was said to Jacob, the grandson of Abraham (Gen. 28:14), who was also called Israel, from whom all this people descended and received their name, so that the God of this people is called the God of Israel. This does not mean that He is not the God of all nations, both those who do not know Him and those who know Him; which means that in this people He wanted to demonstrate more clearly the power of His promises. For this people, who initially multiplied in Egypt and were freed from slavery there with many signs and wonders, after conquering many nations, also received the land of promise, which they ruled through their kings who came from the tribe of Judah. This Judah was one of the twelve sons of Jacob, the grandson of Abraham, and in his name they, called Jews, accomplished much with the help of God and suffered much for their sins, until finally the Seed came, to whom it was promised that in Him all the nations of the earth would be blessed and would voluntarily destroy their idols. 40. And it was not in Christian times that what was predicted to be fulfilled through Christians was predicted. The Jews themselves, who remained enemies of the name of Christ, about whose future treachery is spoken of in the same prophetic writings, they themselves have and read the prophecy that says: “Lord, my strength and my fortress and my refuge in the day of trouble! Nations will come to You from the ends of the earth and say: “Our fathers inherited only lies, emptiness and that which is of no use” (Jer. 16:19). And now this is happening; now peoples from the uttermost reaches of the earth are coming to Christ, saying this and crushing idols. And it is great that God stands in His Church, which has grown everywhere, so that the Jewish people, deservedly broken and scattered in different countries everywhere, would carry the collections of the scrolls of our prophecies, so that the people would not think that they were compiled by us, and so that this people, hostile to our faith, would be a witness to our truth. Thus, how did the disciples of Christ teach what they themselves did not learn from Christ - as fools talk about it - namely: that the vain faith in pagan gods and idols should be destroyed? Is it really possible to say that those prophecies that are now read in the collections of books of Christ’s enemies were invented by Christ’s disciples? 41. Indeed, who declared this if not the God of Israel? For the people themselves were told in a divine word addressed to Moses: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord” (Deut. 6:4). “You shall not make for yourself any graven image or any likeness of anything in heaven above or on earth below” (Ex. 20:4). And so that he can also destroy it where he gets the opportunity, he is commanded like this: “Do not follow other gods, the gods of those nations that will be around you; But do this to them: destroy their altars, break their pillars, cut down their groves, and burn their images with fire” (Deut. 6.14; Deut. 7:5). And who would dare to say that Christ and Christians do not belong to Israel? After all, Israel was the grandson of Abraham, to whom first, and then to his son Isaac, and then to Israel himself, his grandson, it was said: “And in your seed all the nations of the earth will be blessed” (Gen. 22:18). But was it not from this seed that the Virgin came about, about whom the prophet of the people of Judah and the God of Israel proclaimed, saying: “Behold, a Virgin will be with child and bear a Son, and they will call His name Emmanuel” (Is. 7:14). And the word Emmanuel means: God is with us. So, the God of Israel, who forbade the veneration of other gods and the making of idols, who commanded the overthrow of them, who predicted through the prophet that the nations from the uttermost reaches of the earth would say: “Our fathers inherited only lies, emptiness and that in which there is no benefit,” He himself, through the name of Christ and the faith of Christians, commanded, bequeathed, and demanded the elimination of all these superstitions. So, they are in vain - since their gods, i.e. demons who fear the name of Christ, they are forbidden to slander the name of Christ - the unfortunate ones want to make this teaching alien to Him, with which Christians arm themselves against idols and eradicate all false beliefs wherever they can. 42. Let them answer regarding the God of Israel, about whom not only Christian, but also Jewish books testify that He taught this and commanded this; about Him let them ask advice from their gods, who forbade slandering Christ; let them testify to something disgraceful, if they dare, against the God of Israel. But who will they ask for advice? And where should I ask him? Let them read the books of their authors. If they see Jupiter in the God of Israel as Varro wrote about it, then why don’t they believe Jupiter that idols should be crushed? If they consider Him to be Saturn, then why do they not honor Him in this case? Or why do they not honor Him in the way in which He commanded through the prophets to honor Himself? Why don’t they believe Him that idols should be destroyed and other gods should not be worshiped? And if He is neither Jupiter nor Saturn (because He would not have spoken so much against the shrines of Jupiter and Saturn if He had been one of them), then Who is He, the only One Who was not revered because of other gods, but after the removal of others so obviously arranged so that He alone is revered (especially now that all the proud mockery that arose against Christ and resulted in persecution and massacre of Christians)? Of course, now they are already looking for where they can hide if they want to make sacrifices, or where they can remove their idols so that they are not found and defeated by Christians. Where does this come from, if not from fear of the laws and kings, through whom the God of Israel revealed His power, when they were already submissive to the name of Christ, exactly as He promised, saying through the prophet: “And all kings will worship Him; all nations will serve Him” (Ps. 71:11). 43. And what was predicted through the prophet is already being fulfilled, i.e. that He has to leave His wicked people (though not all of them, because many of the Israelites believed in Christ, for His apostles were among them) and humble everyone who is arrogant and offensive, so that only He alone will be exalted, i.e. Only He alone will appear to people high and powerful until idols are rejected by believers and hidden by unbelievers, since the earth is crushed from fear of Him, i.e. earthly people are overwhelmed with fear, out of fear either of His law, or of the laws of those who, believing in Him and ruling the nations, forbade such sacrilege. 44. Indeed, the prophet speaks about all this like this: “O house of Jacob! Come, let us walk in the light of the Lord. But You have rejected Your people, the house of Jacob, because they have adopted many things from the east: their sorcerers are like those of the Philistines, and they have fellowship with the sons of strangers. And his land was filled with silver and gold, and his treasures were without number; and the land was filled with his horses, and his chariots were without number; and the earth was filled with his idols; they worship the work of their hands, what their fingers have made. And the man bowed down, and the man humbled himself, and You will not forgive them. Go to the rock and hide yourself in the earth from the fear of the Lord and from the glory of His greatness. The proud views of man will be abandoned, and the lofty things of humanity will be humbled; and the Lord alone will be exalted in that day. For the day of the Lord of hosts is coming on everything that is proud and haughty and on everything that is exalted, and it will be humiliated, and on all the cedars of Lebanon that are high and exalted, and on all the oaks of Bashan, and on all the high mountains, and on all the high hills, and on every high tower, and on every strong wall, and on all the ships of Tarshish, and on all the desired ornaments thereof. And human greatness will fall, and human loftiness will be humbled; and the Lord alone will be exalted in that day. And the idols will completely disappear. And people will enter into the clefts of the rocks and into the pits of the earth for the fear of the Lord and for the glory of His majesty, when He arises to crush the earth. On that day man will throw to the moles and bats his silver idols and his gold idols, which he has made for himself to worship them, so that he may enter into the clefts of the rocks and into the clefts of the mountains for the fear of the Lord and for the glory of His majesty, when He rises to destroy the earth” (Isaiah 2.5-21). 45. What do they say about this God of hosts, what does it mean: “God of hosts” or “God of armies,” for the powers and armies of angels serve Him? What will they say about this God of Israel, because He is the God of that people who produced the seed in whom all nations will be blessed? Why don’t they honor only Him alone, although they claim that all gods should be honored? Why do they not believe in the One who showed that all other gods are false and eliminated them? I heard one of them say that he had read - I don’t know from which philosopher - that from what the Jews perform in their sacred rites, one can understand what kind of God they worship: “The Creator,” he said, “of those constituent substances from which this visible corporeal world is formed,” since in the writings of His prophets it is very clearly shown that the people of Israel were commanded to honor that God who created heaven and earth, and from whom comes all true wisdom. But why should we argue about all this, when it is enough that, out of some premonition, they speak about that God, whose existence they cannot deny? If He is the creator of those substances from which the world is created, then why is He not preferred by them to Neptune, who, in their opinion, created only the seas; or Silvanus, the organizer of only fields and forests; or the Sun, the organizer of the day and all the heavenly warmth; or the Moon, the organizer only of the night, even if she shone with her power over moisture; or Juno, who is declared to be only an air-holder? After all, it is obvious that these organizers of parts of the world, whoever they are, must necessarily be under the authority of the One who has dominion over all these parts and over this entire community! But He forbids honoring them all. Therefore, why do they, contrary to the command of the greatest of the gods, not only want to honor them, but because of them do not want to honor Him? Even to this day they have not found anything that they can firmly and quite clearly proclaim about this God of Israel, and they will never find it until they understand that He is the true God by whom all things were created. 46. Therefore, a certain Lucan, a great poet among them, who for a long time, as it seems to me, sought a solution to this question both through independent reflection and by studying the books of his compatriots, and who did not find a solution, because he searched wickedly, still preferred to call the God he had not found “unknown,” and not any God. Indeed, he says: “And devoted to the shrines of the unknown God the Jews” (Lucan, 2 books). But this God, the holy and true God of Israel, has not yet accomplished as much through the name of Christ among all nations as much has been accomplished up to the present time after the time of Lucan. And now who is so stubborn as not to bow down, who is so insensitive as not to be inflamed when what is written is fulfilled: “Nothing is hidden from His warmth” (Ps. 18:7)? And this is when, as if in the clearest light, what was predicted much earlier in the same psalm from which I took this little verse is revealed. After all, the apostles of Christ are designated by the name of heaven because God sits on them so that they proclaim the Gospel; for the heavens have already declared the glory of God, and the firmament has declared the work of His hands. Day imparts speech to day, and night to night proclaims knowledge. There are no longer voices and speeches whose words are not heard. The sound has already passed throughout the entire earth, and their words have reached the ends of the earth. Already in the sun, i.e. in preaching, He established His dwelling place, which is the Church, because to accomplish this He, as it is further said there, like a bridegroom, came out of the palace, that is, the Word, united with human flesh, came out of the maiden womb. And now His descent from the heights of heaven took place and His return to the heights of heaven. And therefore, immediately after this, the verse that I cited above was placed. But even to this day they prefer that their unstable and contradictory chatter turn to dust like straw, instead of being cleared of dirt like gold; whereas the statues of false gods had already turned into nothing, and the previously indicated truth of the unknown God became undoubted. 47. So, false praisers of Christ, who do not want to be Christians, let them stop claiming that Christ did not teach that their gods should be abandoned and their images cast into the dust. After all, the God of Israel, about whom it was predicted that He would be called the God of the whole earth, is already called that: the God of the whole earth. Through the prophets He foretold that this would happen, and through Christ He fulfilled it at the proper time. For undoubtedly, if the God of Israel is called the God of the whole earth, then it is necessary that what He commanded should be fulfilled when the commander became known. And that through Christ and in Christ He became known, so that His Church spread throughout all the borders of the universe and through it the God of Israel is called the God of the whole earth - about this let those who wish read the prophecy I cited above (it is not so lengthy that it should be skipped). After all, much is said about the incarnation, destruction and suffering of Christ and about His body, of which He is the head, i.e. about the Church, when one who has not given birth is called as if barren. Indeed, for many centuries the Church, which should have been among all nations in their sons, i.e., was not revealed. in his saints, since Christ had not yet been proclaimed by the evangelists to those people to whom He was foretold through the prophets; but it is said that there will be more sons of the abandoned one than the children of the one who had a husband; The name of this latter’s husband signifies either the Law or the King whom the people of Israel first chose. The pagans did not accept the Law at the time about which the prophet spoke, and the King of the Christians had not yet appeared to the pagans; and yet from these pagans came a more fruitful and more numerous number of saints. It is in this way that Isaiah prophesies, beginning with the humiliation of Christ and then turning to the greeting of the Church, right up to the very verse we mentioned, when he says: “Behold, My servant will prosper, and will be exalted, and exalted, and exalted. How many were amazed, looking at You, - His face was so disfigured more than any man, and His appearance - more than the sons of men! So He will make many nations astonished; The kings will shut their mouths before Him, for they will see what was not told to them, and will know what they have not heard. Who believed what they heard from us, and to whom was the arm of the Lord revealed? For He rose up before Him as an offspring and as a sprout from dry ground; There is no form or greatness in Him; and we saw Him, and there was no appearance in Him that would attract us to Him. He was despised and belittled before men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with pain, and we turned our faces away from Him; He was despised, and we thought nothing of Him. But He took upon Himself our... illnesses; and we thought that He was defeated, punished and destroyed by God. But He was revealed for our sins and tormented for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we were healed. We have all gone astray, like sheep, each of us has turned to his own way; and the Lord laid the sins of us all on Him. He was tortured, but He suffered voluntarily, without opening His mouth; like a sheep He was led to the slaughter, and like a lamb before its shearers is silent, so He did not open His mouth. He was taken from bonds and judgment; but who will explain His generation? for He is cut off from the land of the living; for the crimes of my people I suffered execution. He was assigned a grave with evildoers, but He was buried with a rich man, because He committed no sin, and no lie was in His mouth. But the Lord was pleased to strike Him, and He gave Him over to torture; when His soul brings a sacrifice of propitiation, He will see long-lasting offspring, and the will of the Lord will be successfully fulfilled by His hand. He will look at the feat of His soul with contentment; through the knowledge of Him, He, the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify many and bear their sins on Himself. Therefore, I will give Him a portion among the great, and He will share the spoils with the strong because He gave His soul to death and was counted among the evildoers, while He bore the sin of many and became an intercessor for the criminals. Rejoice, barren, barren; shout and shout, you who have suffered from childbirth; because she who is abandoned has many more children than she who has a husband, says the Lord. Enlarge the place of your tent, expand the covers of your dwellings; do not be shy, make your ropes longer and strengthen your stakes. For you will spread to the right and to the left, and your descendants will take possession of the nations and people the desolate cities. Do not be afraid, for you will not be put to shame; do not be embarrassed, for you will not be reproached; you will forget the shame of your youth and will no longer remember the disgrace of your widowhood. For your Creator is your husband; The Lord of hosts is His name, and your Redeemer is the Holy One of Israel; He will be called the God of all the earth” (Isa. 52:13–15, 53:1–12, 54:5). 48. What can be said against the obviousness and expressiveness of the prediction and fulfillment of events? If they believe that Christ’s disciples have invented lies about His divinity, then will they doubt the suffering of Christ; Usually they do not believe in the resurrection, but they willingly believe in everything that He suffered from people as a human being, because they want to believe that He is only a man. So He, like a sheep, was led to the slaughter, He was numbered among the evildoers; He was wounded for our sins; we were saved by the stripes of Him, whose face was mocked and spat upon, whose crucifixion on the cross is shameful; for the iniquities of the people of Israel He was put to death; He, who had neither appearance nor beauty, when they beat Him with fists, crowned Him with a crown of thorns, mocked Him hanging on the cross; He, who did not open His mouth, like a lamb before its shearers, does not give a voice when the words of scolders were addressed to Him, mockingly demanding prophecies from Him. Surely He is already exalted, already glorified. Undoubtedly, many nations look at Him in amazement. The kings have already closed their mouths, with which they promulgated the most ferocious laws against Christians. There is no doubt that those who were not told already see, and those who did not hear understand; because the nations to whom the prophets did not tell even better see how true was what was proclaimed through the prophets; and those who have not heard the words of Isaiah himself already understand in his writings who he was talking about. But in the Jewish people themselves - who believed the rumors of the prophets, to whom was the arm of the Lord revealed, which is Christ himself, proclaimed through them, when with their own hands they committed those crimes against Christ that their own prophets had predicted would be committed? There is no doubt that He already has a share among the great and divides the spoils with the strong, since He distributed what the devil and demons possessed, after their expulsion and death, among the institutions of His Churches and for all useful ministries. 49. So, what do the corrupt praisers of Christ and scolders of Christians say to this? How could it be that Christ could do with magical art what the prophets predicted much earlier than His birth; and could it be that His disciples composed it? Does not the Church, widespread among the nations, once barren, now rejoice in a greater number of sons than the famous Synagogue, which accepted the Law or the King as a husband? Has she not so expanded the place of her dwelling, embracing all peoples and languages ​​much further than the laws of the Roman state extend; it extends its ropes even to the Persians, Indians and other peoples; Doesn’t her name spread among so many peoples, both to the right through true Christians, and to the left through false Christians? Will not her seed now inherit many nations? Doesn’t she already inhabit states that were deprived of true reverence for God and true faith; Was she afraid of the threats and fury of people when she clothed herself in the blood of martyrs, as if in an honorable purple cloak; Didn’t she defeat her enemies in so many and such strong and terrible persecutions, didn’t she blush like a hated one when it was a great crime to even be a Christian; but she forgot the shame forever, because where sin abounded, grace began to abound (Rom. 5:20). Does she still remember her widowhood, since, abandoned for a time and subjected to reproach, she has now begun to shine with such great glory? Finally, is the fact that the Lord, who created it and snatched it from the power of the devil and demons, is already called the God of Israel and the whole earth, an invention of the disciples of Christ? After all, this was foretold by the prophets so long before Christ became the Son of Man, whose books are now in the hands of Christ’s enemies. 50. So, let them finally understand (after all, all of the above has long been obvious even to the most stupid and lazy), let, I say, the corrupted praisers of Christ and scoffers of the Christian faith understand that the disciples of Christ themselves learned and taught what the teaching of Christ contains against their gods, because the God of Israel, who appears in the books of the prophets, commanded to consider as an abomination and destroy everything that they want to honor, through Christ and the Church of Christ He Himself is already called the God of the whole earth, as He was predicted so much time earlier. If, in their amazing madness, they believe that Christ honored their gods and, thanks to their help, was able to do so much, then did the God of Israel, who through Christ fulfilled what He promised regarding the honoring of Himself by all nations and regarding the contempt for those gods and the overthrow of them (Deut. 7:5), honored their gods? Where are their gods? Where are the prophecies of frenzied people? Where are the oracles' fortune telling? Where are the predictions from the flight and singing of birds, from the entrails of animals, where are the prophecies of demons? Why don’t we find any admonition and prediction against the Christian faith, against the truth so clearly expressed and already obvious to all peoples, in the ancient books devoted to all this? They say: “We offended our gods and they abandoned us, and therefore the Christians took over us; and now happiness in human affairs, weakened and diminished, collapses and perishes.” But let them read in the books of their soothsayers that this was about to happen to them because of the Christians; let them read where, if not Christ, whom they want to see as the worshiper of their gods, then at least the God of Israel would be condemned and presented as hated, of whom it is known that He is their overthrower. But they will only imagine it when, perhaps, they invent something. When they present this, it will naturally be revealed that such an important circumstance seems so unknown, although it, for the purpose of pre-preparing and foreshadowing those who want or do not want to be Christians, of course, should have been made public in the churches of the gods of all nations before what was predicted happened. 51. Then, regarding the fact that they complain about the decrease in happiness in human affairs in Christian times: if they read the books of their philosophers, who prophesy what is now being taken away from them, even when they resist and grumble, then even then they will meet with great praises of Christian times. After all, what diminishes their happiness if not that which they wickedly and abundantly abused to the great insult of the Creator? Is it not because bad times are now coming that in all cities places of public spectacles, dens of shameful deeds and popular manifestations of debauchery are falling into disrepair, that squares and churches in which demons were worshiped are falling into disrepair? Indeed, they are destroyed only because of the lack of works for the voluptuous and sacrilegious accomplishment of which they were erected. Didn't Cicero, when praising a certain jester Roscius, say that he was so skillful that he was almost the only worthy person performing on stage; and at the same time he was so kind that he should not have been involved in this craft. What else did he show in the most clear way, if not that that place of action was so shameful that a person should be less likely to be there, the better a person he was? And yet their gods delighted in the ugliness that was considered necessary to remove from good people. There is also an open confession of the same Cicero, where he says that Flora should be propitiated by the celebrations of the games (Cicero. Against Veress, act. 5). Such shamelessness usually took place at these games that, in comparison with them, all other games seemed the height of decency, although virtuous people were excluded from participating in their performance. What kind of mother Flora is this? What kind of goddess is this if she was reconciled and appeased by a shameless, uninhibited action? And how much more decently did Roscius act than Cicero himself when he honored such goddesses? So, if the gods of the pagans are offended by the decrease in the abundance of wealth, which is squandered on such celebrations, then it is clear what those who delight in them are worth. And if in their anger they themselves have reduced them, then they are more usefully angered than appeased. Therefore, let the pagans either denounce their wise men, who condemned such acts in depraved people, or crush their gods, who demanded such acts from their admirers (if, of course, they are still able to find both those who can be crushed and those who can be hidden); but let them stop slandering attributing to Christian times the lack of favorable circumstances under which they fell into shame and crime, so as not to further persuade others to praise the power of Christ in every possible way. 52. Much more could be said on this subject, were it not that necessity forced me to finish this book and return to the intended purpose of this work. The whole point is that when I began to resolve the evangelical questions, where, at first glance, the four evangelists do not agree with each other on something, then after stating, as far as possible, the intentions of each of them separately, I needed to give an answer to the often arising bewilderment: why we cannot present any writings of Christ himself. For many pagans would like to believe that He wrote something - I don’t know what - that could please them, since, they say, there was nothing against their gods; others would even like to attribute to Him the veneration of their idols, accomplished through sorcery; on the other hand, they would very much like to believe that His disciples not only spoke falsely about Him, claiming that He was God by whom all things were created, while He was a simple man, although superior to others in wisdom, but also taught them about the gods differently than they learned from Him. That is why we should persistently expose their errors about the God of Israel, Who through the Church of Christ is revered by all nations and has already eliminated their sacrilegious vanity everywhere, as the Lord foretold about this through the prophets, and as He fulfilled what was predicted through the name of Christ, in Whom He promised blessing to all nations. From this they must understand that neither Christ could teach concerning their gods otherwise than the God of Israel commanded and predicted through His prophets, through whose mouth He promised and sent Christ himself, in whose name, according to the promise given to the forefathers, when all nations were blessed, it was that the God of Israel himself began to be called the God of the whole earth; neither His disciples deviated from the teachings of their Teacher when they forbade the worship of pagan gods, so that we would not worship insensitive images, would not have communication with demons, and would not serve the creature more than the Creator in obedience to faith. 53. Since Christ is the Wisdom of God, through whom all things were created, and since all the intellectual powers of angels or people are wise only in communication with Him to whom we cleave through the Holy Spirit - thanks to Whom love is poured out in our hearts - then this Trinity is one God. Therefore, for mortal beings, whose temporary life is spent in earthly affairs and all kinds of vanity, it was decided by divine providence that the same Wisdom, having accepted into the unity of the face of Her man, in order to be temporarily born, live, die and resurrect in Him, preaching and doing what is aimed at our salvation, enduring and suffering, would be for people staying in the lower world an example for restoring their unity, and thus to the angels who dwell in the heavenly world as an example of constancy. After all, if something similar had not happened in the nature of the rational soul, i.e. If something had not begun to be that had not existed before, then she would never have passed from a wicked and foolish life to a wise and blessed life. And thanks to this, since the truth of contemplating people enjoys eternal objects, and the faith of believing people needs objects that have a beginning in time, a person is purified by faith in temporal objects in order to achieve true knowledge of the eternal. In fact, the most famous pagan sage Plato in his book “Timaeus” says this: “As great as eternity is for what is born, so is truth for faith.” Eternity and truth reside in the intelligible, while what is born and faith reside in the corporeal. So, in order for us to be called from the lowest to the highest, what is born perceives eternity; one must ascend to the truth through faith. And since everything that is in contradiction is connected through something in between, and temporary untruth has separated us from eternal righteousness, then the need for an average temporary righteousness has arisen; and this average was temporary on the part of the lower, and righteous on the part of the higher; in contact with the lower, it returned the lower to the higher. This is why Christ is called a mediator (intercessor) between God and people: He is God and man between the immortal God and mortal man, reconciling man with God, remaining what He was and becoming what He was not. He, being truth in eternal things, is faith for us in temporal things. 54. This great and ineffable mystery, this kingdom and priesthood is revealed to the ancients through prophecy, and preached to their descendants through the Gospel. Indeed, the time has come to give to all nations what was promised for a long time through one nation. Therefore, He who sent the prophets before His condescension, Himself also sent the apostles after His ascension. But through the humanity He accepted, He is the head for all His disciples, as for members of His body. So, when they wrote down what He revealed or said, then in no way should it be said that He Himself wrote nothing; for in fact His members did what they learned from the words of His Head, because He commanded them, as His hands, to write down what He was pleased to convey to us about His deeds and speeches. Whoever comprehends this participation and agreement of members in various ministries under a single Head will understand what is read in the Gospels as if he sees the very writing hand of the Lord, which made movements in His own body. Therefore, let us take a closer look at what is so contradictory written in the Gospels (or what may seem so to ignorant people), so that after resolving these questions it will be even more clearly revealed that the members of this Chapter have preserved genuine agreement in the unity of the body itself, not only having the same thing in their thoughts, but even writing in a consonant manner. 1. Having rejected the frivolity of those who believe that the disciples of Christ, who wrote the Gospel, should be despised because we do not indicate any writings of Christ himself, regarding whom they do not doubt that He should be considered far superior in wisdom to other people (though not as God, but as a man), as well as those who try to show that He wrote something that suits their taste due to their depravity, and not something that they can, reading and learning, to correct ourselves and take the path of virtue, now let us consider what the evangelists wrote about Christ, always remaining true to themselves and agreeing with each other, so that in anything and here those who are more curious than receptive would not suffer temptations in the Christian faith, because not only re-reading, but also carefully examining the books of the Gospels, they imagine that they have noticed something discordant and contradictory, and they think that this should be a subject of controversy and reproach, and not of pious contemplation. 2. Evangelist Matthew begins like this: “The genealogy of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham” (Matthew 1:1). With this beginning he showed that he intended to narrate the birth of Jesus Christ according to the flesh. After all, according to it, Christ is the son of man, as He Himself very often calls himself (Matt. 8:20; Matt. 9:6). And that highest and eternal birth, according to which He is the only begotten Son of God before all creation, for all things were created through Him, is so indescribable that the prophet says about it: “But who can explain His generation?” (Isa. 53:8). So, Matthew examines the human birth of Christ when he names His ancestors from Abraham, whom he brings to Joseph, the husband of Mary, from whom Jesus was born. For he believed that he should not be separated from his marriage with Mary, although she gave birth to Him as a virgin, and not from his union with Joseph. This example perfectly demonstrates to all believers who are married that marriage can be preserved and called such even if bodily abstinence is observed by mutual consent, but with the preservation of mental inclination; after all, both Joseph and the Virgin Mary had a Son without any carnal intercourse, which should take place only for the sake of the birth of children. Therefore, Joseph should not be called the father of Christ, since he did not give birth to Him from a carnal union, although he truly was His father, for he adopted the one born of his wife. 3. However, many actually considered Christ to be the son of Joseph, as if He had actually been born of his flesh; but this is because at that time few people knew about Mary’s virginity. In fact, Luke says: “Jesus... was about thirty years old, and was, as they thought, the son of Joseph” (Luke 3:23). But Luke did not hesitate at all to call both spouses His parents, and not just Mary, when he said: “Every year His parents went to Jerusalem for the Feast of Passover” (Luke 2:41). And if anyone thinks that we are talking about Mary and her blood relatives, let him read there in Luke: “Joseph and His mother marveled at what was said about Him” (Luke 2:33). So, if he himself tells that Christ was born not from a union with Joseph, but from the Virgin Mary, then why does he call this latter His father, if not because we consider him the husband of Mary not by carnal union, but by marital union. Therefore, he was more suitable as the father of Christ, born from his wife, than if He had been adopted by Joseph from somewhere outside. From this it is clear that the words “as they thought, the son of Joseph” were spoken by those who imagined that He was born of Joseph like other people. 4. And therefore, if someone wanted to prove that Mary is not descended from David by blood, then it would be enough to recognize Christ as a descendant of David for the sole reason that Joseph is quite correctly called His father; but we should doubt even less that Mary herself has some blood relationship with the descendants of David, because the Apostle Paul quite clearly says that Christ is according to the flesh from the seed of David (Rom. 1:3). He is also not silent regarding the priestly family of this Woman, for Luke suggests that Her relative was Elizabeth, who, according to him, was one of the daughters of Aaron (Luke 1:5, 36). One should firmly hold to the opinion that the flesh of Christ came from both genera, namely: from the royal and priestly, who, according to the tradition of the Jewish people, received the mysterious anointing, or chrisma, from which the name Christ is derived, which was foretold long before His coming. 5. And those who are disturbed by the fact that the Evangelist Matthew lists some of the ancestors of Christ, descending from David to Joseph (Matthew 1:1-16), and the Evangelist Luke lists others, ascending from Joseph to David (Luke 3:23-38), can easily be persuaded to pay attention to the fact that Joseph could have two ancestors, one from whom he was born, and the other by whom he was adopted. Indeed, this people of God had an ancient custom of adoption, so that among them those whom they did not give birth to were considered children; because, not to mention the daughter of Pharaoh, who adopted Moses (Ex. 2:10), Jacob himself adopted his grandchildren born from Joseph, saying this: “And now your two sons, who were born to you in the land of Egypt, before I came to you in Egypt, they are mine; Ephraim and Manasseh, like Reuben and Simeon, will be mine; and your children that are born of you after them will be yours” (Gen. 48:5–6). Hence it came out that Israel had twelve tribes, excluding the tribe of Levi, which served in the church, although in reality there were thirteen, since Jacob had twelve sons. From this it is clear that the Evangelist Luke in his Gospel did not take the father Joseph from whom he was born, but the one by whom he was adopted, and whose ancestors, going upward, he listed until he reached David. And since it was necessary that both evangelists - Matthew and Luke, narrating the truth, adhere, on the one hand, to the family of the father who gave birth to Joseph, and on the other, to the one who adopted him, then in whom can we more likely see the one who adhered to the family of the adoptive father, if not the one who wanted to say that Joseph was not born from the one whose son, according to the narrative, he was? After all, it was more convenient to call him the son of the one by whom he was adopted, than the son of the one from whose flesh he was not born. And Matthew said: “Abraham begat Isaac; Isaac gave birth to Jacob” (with the word “gave birth” he invariably continues his speech until, finally, he says: “Jacob gave birth to Joseph”), quite strongly expressed the idea that he carried out the order or lineage of ancestors according to which Joseph was born, and not adopted. 6. And although Luke even said that Joseph was born of Elijah, this expression should not confuse us so much that we begin to look for another explanation besides the one by which one evangelist mentions the father who gave birth, and the other who adopted. Moreover, it is not without meaning that someone appears to be the father of a son whom he has adopted - a father not according to the flesh, but according to mercy; Has God really begotten us, to whom God has given the grace to be His children, from His nature and being, like the Only Begotten Son? There is no doubt that He adopted us out of love. The apostle uses this word (adopted) quite often, and one must think that it is only to distinguish the Only Begotten before all creation, through whom all things were created, who alone was born from the essence of the Father and, by equality of divinity, is the same as the Father. The Apostle says that He was sent to receive flesh from the same race from which we, by nature, come, in order, by sharing through love in our mortality, to make us partakers of His divinity by adoption. Indeed, the apostle says this: “When the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, made subject to the law, to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption as sons” (Gal. 4:4-5). However, we are also called born of God, i.e. we, who were already men, received the opportunity to become His sons, but to become by grace, and not by nature. After all, if we were sons by nature, we would never have become anything else, because John says this: “And to those who received Him, even to those who believe in His name, He gave the power to become children of God, who were born neither of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of a man, but of God” (John 1:12-13). So, he calls the same ones sons of God from God whom he calls sons according to the mercy received - and this means the adoption of which Paul speaks. At the same time, to show more clearly what a grace this was, he says: “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14); he seems to say: “What is surprising is that they became sons of God, although they were flesh, for whose sake the Only Son became flesh, although he was the Word. The only difference is that we, having become sons of God, change for the better, but He, the Son of God, when he became man, did not change for the worse, but only accepted the lower.” And Jacob says: “When He desired, He begot us by the word of truth, that we might be some of the firstfruits of His creatures” (James 1:18). But so that in the word “gave birth” it would not seem to us that we too became what God is, for this purpose he clearly showed that in this adoption only a certain beginning in creation was conceded to us. 7. So, even if Luke had said that He was born of the Joseph by whom He was adopted, then this would not be without foundation. In fact, He begot Him not in the sense that He should be a man, but that He should be a son, just as God gave birth to us, that we might be sons of Him who created us, that we might be men. And He begot the Only Begotten not only so that He might be the Son, but also so that He might be God, like the Father. But if Luke also uses the word “son,” then a doubt arises: which of the evangelists mentions the father who gave birth from his own flesh, and which one mentioned the one who adopted him. But since one says: “Jacob begat Joseph,” and the other says: “Joseph, son of Eli,” even by the very difference of words they perfectly instilled in the reader the idea of ​​what each of them understood. But, as I said, this is easy to accept for a pious person who would prefer to investigate anything rather than think that the evangelist is telling a lie. The detractors could understand the same if they did not prefer argument to pious contemplation. 8. And what then had to be suggested, so that it could really be applied to the case and become clear, required an attentive and diligent reader. In fact, it was wittily noted that Matthew, who decided to show Christ as a royal person, named forty persons in the series of generations, excluding Christ himself. This number serves as a sign of the time when in this life and on this earth we must be under the control of Christ, according to the difficulties of trials, with which, as it is written: “The Lord punishes whomever he loves; he beats every son whom he receives” (Heb. 12:6), and about which the apostle says that through tribulation we must enter the Kingdom of God (Acts 14:22). The iron rod also points to them, about which we read in the psalm: “You will strike them with an iron rod,” and it says above: “I have anointed My King over Zion, My holy mountain” (Ps. 2:6, 9). And indeed, even good people are ruled with an iron rod, about whom it is said: “For it is time for judgment to begin at the house of God; But if it begins with us first, what will be the end of those who do not obey the Gospel of God? And if the righteous are barely saved, then where will the wicked and sinful appear?” (1 Pet. 4:17–18). The following word also applies to us: “You will crush them like an earthen vessel” (Ps. 2:9). By this rule the wicked are governed, and the wicked are destroyed; both those and others are mentioned together due to the same sacraments, which are the same for good and evil. 9 . So, the fact that this is the essence of the mysterious number of difficult times when, under the control of Christ, we fought against the devil, is also shown by the fact that the Law sanctified forty days of fasting, i.e. humility of the soul, and the prophets revealed through Moses and Elijah, who fasted for forty days (Exodus 34:28, 1 Kings 19:8), and the Gospel reveals through the fasting of the Lord himself, when for forty days He was tempted by the devil (Matthew 4:1–2), depicting in His flesh, which He was worthy to accept from our mortality, nothing other than our temptation for all this time. Also, after His resurrection, He wanted to stay with His disciples for no more than forty days on this earth, still spending a completely human life and eating mortal food with them, although He no longer had to undergo death, in order to show them with these forty days that He wanted to fulfill the hidden present, since He says: “I am with you always, even to the end of the age” (Matthew 28:20). This means that this number denotes temporary and earthly life; here, first of all, the following reason appears (although there may be another, more mysterious): that the seasons pass through four changes, and the world itself is divided into four parts, which are holy. Scripture once calls the name of the four winds, East, West, North and South (Zech. 14:4); and forty has four times ten. Then, the number ten itself ends with a one following four twice. 10. So, Matthew, speaking about King Christ coming into this world and into this earthly and mortal life to rule over us who are in the difficulties of temptation, began with Abraham and listed forty people. Christ appeared in the flesh from that same Jewish people, to distinguish them from the rest, God separated Abraham from his land and from his people (Gen. 12:1-2), so that this also most clearly relates to the prophecies and predictions about Him, for there was a promise from what people He should come. And although the evangelist divides the forty genera into three parts, saying that from Abraham to David there were fourteen genera alone, from David to the resettlement to Babylonia there were fourteen others and the same number of genera before the birth of Christ (Matthew 1:17); however, he does not say: “There were forty-two of them all.” Indeed, one of the ancestors, namely Jehoiachin, who made some deviation towards foreign peoples when the migration to Babylon took place, is named twice. But where the race deviates from the straight path and goes to the side, there it makes, as it were, an angle; what is in the corner is counted twice, namely at the end of the first row and at the beginning of the deviation itself. But this itself already prefigured Christ, who had to move from circumcision to uncircumcision, as if from Jerusalem to Babylonia, both here and here - the cornerstone for those who believe in Him from both. Then God prepared these things in types for the events that were to take place hereafter. After all, the very name Jehoiachin, by which this stone is prefigured, means “preparation of God.” Consequently, it is not forty-two that are listed, i.e. fourteen, taken three times, but only, due to the repetition of one twice, forty-one generations, if we add Christ himself, who royally presides over the number forty in the management of this temporary and earthly life of ours. 11. Since Matthew wanted to show Him descending to our mortality and taking part in it, at the beginning of his Gospel he listed the genealogy itself in descending order, from Abraham to Joseph and even until the very birth of Jesus Christ. And Luke conveys about the birth not at the beginning of his Gospel, but after the baptism of Christ, and not in a descending, but in an ascending manner, as if emphasizing His importance as a priest for the atonement of sins, since, on the one hand, He was indicated by a voice from heaven, and on the other hand, John gave Him testimony with the words: “Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). Ascending, he passed Abraham and reached God, with whom we are reconciled after cleansing and redemption. According to his merit, He adopted the race of adoption, for through adoption we become children of God, believing in the Son of God. And through carnal birth, the Son of God became primarily for our sake the son of man. But Luke has sufficiently shown that he called Joseph the son of Elijah, not because he was born of him, but because he was adopted by him, just as he called Adam himself the son of God, not because of creation from God, but because by grace, which he lost after sin, Adam was placed in paradise as a son. 12. That is why in generations Matthew shows the acceptance of our sins by the Lord Christ, and in generations in Luke the destruction of our sins by the Lord Christ is indicated. Therefore, the first sets them out in descending order, and the second in ascending order. For the word of the apostle: “God sent his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh” indicates the acceptance of sins, and his addition: “as a sacrifice for sin and condemned sin in the flesh” (Rom. 8:3) indicates cleansing from sins. Therefore, Matthew descends from David himself through Solomon, with whose mother David sinned (2 Sam. 11:4). And Luke goes back to David from Nathan, through whom God cleansed his sin (2 Samuel 12:1–14). Moreover, the very number of generations conveyed by Luke most indubitably shows the destruction of sins. Indeed, since not a single iniquity from Christ was added to the iniquities of men, Who did not commit a single sin, although He accepted them in His flesh, then in Matthew, with the exception of Christ, we see the number forty. And since He united us, cleansed and redeemed from all sin, with the righteousness of the Father and the Son, so that it was according to the word of the Apostle: “And he who is united with the Lord is one spirit (with the Lord)” (1 Cor. 6:17), then in Luke’s enumeration both Christ Himself is named, with whom the enumeration begins, and God, to whom it reaches, and the number seventy-seven is obtained, which signifies the release and destruction of all sins, which the Lord Himself clearly indicated through the mysterious meaning of this number, saying that the sinner must be forgiven not only seven times, but seventy times seven (Matthew 18:22). 13. If you carefully examine, it turns out that this number does not coincidentally refer to the remission of all sins. In fact, the number ten is shown in the Law as the number of righteousness. But sin is a crime of the Law, and, of course, the crime of ten, as a symbol of the Law, is quite suitable to express not by a tenfold number. Therefore, eleven woolen blankets were ordered to be made in the tabernacle (Ex. 26:7). But who can doubt that wool is one of the signs of sin? Moreover, since our time is converted into seven-day weeks, it is quite logical that all sins fit under the number eleven, taken seven times. And in this quantity, after the redemption of us by the flesh of our Priest Christ, complete remission of sins is accomplished; This number receives its beginning from Him, and after we are reconciled with God to Him, this number passes through the Holy Spirit, who appeared in the form of a dove in that baptism, after which this number is mentioned (Luke 3:22). 14. After listing the births, Matthew continues in this way: “The birth of Jesus Christ was like this: after the betrothal of His Mother Mary to Joseph, before they were united, it turned out that She was pregnant with the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 1:18). How all this happened (Matthew is silent about this), Luke outlined after mentioning the conception of John, narrating this way: “In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee, called Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a husband named Joseph, from the house of David; The name of the Virgin is: Mary. The angel, entering her, said: Rejoice, full of grace! The Lord is with You; Blessed are You among women. When she saw him, she was embarrassed by his words and wondered what kind of greeting this would be. And the Angel said to Her: Do not be afraid, Mary, for You have found favor with God; and behold, you will conceive in your womb and give birth to a Son, and you will call His name Jesus; He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David; and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end. Mary said to the Angel: How will this be when I don’t know my husband? The angel answered Her: The Holy Spirit will come upon You, and the power of the Most High will overshadow You; therefore the Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God” (Luke 1:26–35). So, what Matthew indicated when speaking about Mary: “She is with child from the Holy Spirit” does not contradict Luke, for Luke stated what Matthew omitted. And since both of them testify that Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit, there is no contradiction in the fact that Matthew later added what was missing from Luke; Matthew continues and says: “Her husband Joseph, being righteous and not wanting to make Her public, wanted to secretly let Her go. But when he thought this, behold, the Angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said: Joseph, son of David! Do not be afraid to accept Mary your wife, for what is born in Her is from the Holy Spirit; and she will give birth to a Son, and you will call His name Jesus; for He will save His people from their sins. And all this happened, that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled, saying: Behold, a virgin is with child and will give birth to a Son, and they will call His name Immanuel, which means: God is with us. Rising from sleep, Joseph did as the Angel of the Lord commanded him, and took his wife, and did not know Her, when at last She gave birth to Her firstborn Son, and he called His name Jesus” (Matthew 1:19–25). 15. Regarding the city of Bethlehem, Matthew and Luke agree. But how and for what reason Joseph and Mary came to him, Luke tells, but Matthew omits. On the contrary, about the wise men who came from the east, Matthew says this: “The wise men from the east came to Jerusalem and said: Where is he who has been born King of the Jews? for we saw His star in the east and came to worship Him. Hearing this, King Herod became alarmed...”, and so on until the place where it is written about the Magi that they “having received a revelation in a dream not to return to Herod, they went back to their country by a different route” (Matthew 2:1-12). Luke omitted all this, just as Matthew, for his part, did not talk about the fact that the Lord was laid in a manger, and that the shepherds were told about His birth by an Angel, and that with the Angel there was a multitude of the heavenly army praising God, and that the shepherds came and saw that everything that was announced to them from the Angel was true, and that He received His name on the day of circumcision, and that after the days of Mary’s purification, how The same Luke tells us that they brought Him to Jerusalem, and about what Simeon and Anna said when, filled with the Holy Spirit, they recognized Him in the church - Matthew is silent about all this. 16. Therefore, it is natural to ask: when did what Matthew omits and Luke reports, or what Luke omits and Matthew reports, happen? Indeed, Matthew, after the story of the return of the wise men who came from the east to their country, continues to narrate that Joseph was convinced by an Angel to flee with the Child to Egypt so that He would not be killed by Herod; then Herod, not finding Him, killed boys two years old and younger; and after the burial of Herod, Joseph returned from Egypt and, hearing that Archelaus was reigning in Judea in place of Herod his father, he lived with the Boy in the city of Galilee, Nazareth. Luke is silent about all this. But even therefore, the story cannot seem contradictory: this one reports about what the other one is silent about, or the other one mentions what the other one does not talk about. However, the question is, when could it have happened that what Matthew said about going to Egypt and returning from there after the death of Herod in order to settle in Nazareth, when Luke mentions that they returned there after doing in the church everything that should have been done to the Child according to the Law? Here it should be noted (and this will subsequently be valid for other similar passages, so that they also do not confuse and disturb the spirit) that each evangelist composes his speech in such a way that the series of narration does not seem to have any omission: by keeping silent about what he does not want to talk about, he so connects what is being narrated with what he was talking about that both seem to follow each other immediately. But since one speaks about what the other is silent about, a carefully considered order shows exactly where this silence occurred. And thus it becomes clear that where Matthew spoke about the Magi, who received a command in a dream not to return to Herod and returned to their country in another way, there he missed what Luke reported about what happened to the Lord in the church and the words of Simeon and Anna; and on the other hand, where Luke omitted the story of the departure to Egypt, which Matthew talks about, he introduced what seemed to be an immediate return to Nazareth. 17. But if someone wanted to compile in its entirety one narrative from everything that is told or omitted in both narratives by one and the other about the birth of Christ, His infancy and childhood, he could do it approximately like this: “The Nativity of Christ took place under the following circumstances: in the days of Herod, king of Judah, there lived a certain priest named Zechariah, from the family of Abijah, and his wife was one of the daughters of Aaron and her name was Elizabeth. And they were righteous before God, acting according to all the commandments and justifications of the Lord without deviation. And they had no son, for Elizabeth was barren, and both of them were old in their days. One day it happened that when he was officiating before God in the order of his turn (for it was his lot, in accordance with the customs of the priesthood, to serve in the church of the Lord), while the people were praying outside the church, the Angel of the Lord appeared to him, standing on the right side of the incense altar; Zechariah, seeing him, was embarrassed and fear attacked him. But the Angel said to him: “Do not be afraid, Zechariah, for your prayer has been heard, and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, whom you will name John, and he will be your joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth, for he will be great before the Lord: and he will not drink wine, and from his mother’s womb he will be filled with the Spirit of God; He will turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord God, and he himself will precede Him in the spirit and power of Elijah, so that he will turn the hearts of the fathers to the children and the unbelievers to the prudence of the righteous, in order to prepare for the Lord a perfect people.” And Zechariah said to the Angel: “How do I know this? After all, I am old and my wife is elderly? And the Angel answered him: “I am Gabriel, standing before God and sent to speak to you and bring this good news to you; you will remain silent and will not be able to speak until the day this comes true, because you did not believe my words, which will be fulfilled in due time.” All this time the people were waiting for Zechariah and everyone was surprised that he hesitated and did not leave the church. But when he came out, he could not speak, and everyone understood that he had a vision. And he gave signs with his hands and remained mute. When the days of his ministry were ended, he went to his home. After this, Elisabeth his wife conceived and hid it for five months. In the sixth month, the Angel Gabriel was sent from God to the city of Galilee, Nazareth, to a Virgin betrothed to a husband named Joseph, from the house of David; and the name of the Virgin is Mary. And, appearing to Her, the Angel said: “Rejoice, full of grace; The Lord is with You; Blessed are You among women." When She saw the Angel, she was embarrassed by his words and thought: “What will this greeting be like?” And the Angel said to Her: “Do not be afraid, Mary; You have found favor with God; Behold, you will conceive in your womb and give birth to a Son and call Him Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David, and He will reign in the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end.” But Mary said to the Angel: “How will this be, since I don’t know my husband?” And the Angel answered her: “The Holy Spirit will come upon You and the power of the Highest will overshadow You; therefore the Holy One who is about to be born will be called the Son of God. Here is your relative Elizabeth, and she conceived a son in her old age, and this month, called barren, is already her sixth, for with God no word is impossible.” Mary said: “Here am I, the servant of the Lord, let it be done to me according to Your word.” And the Angel departed from Her. Mary, quickly getting ready, went to the city of Judah, entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth. And it came to pass that when Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the child in her womb rejoiced, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit and said with a loud voice: “Blessed are You among women, and blessed is the fruit of Your womb. And where does it come from for me that the Mother of my Lord came to me? For as soon as the voice of Your greeting was heard by my ears, the baby in my womb leaped joyfully, and blessed are You who believed, because what was spoken to You by the Lord will be fulfilled”; and Mary said: “My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior. For He heeded the humility of His servant, and from now on all nations will call Me blessed. For He, the Mighty One, has done great things for Me, and His name is holy, and His mercy is shown to those who fear Him from generation to generation. He has created power in His hand, and has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts. He has dethroned the mighty and exalted the humble. He filled the hungry with goods, and He sent the rich away empty-handed. He received Israel His servant, He remembered His mercy; just as he spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and his descendants forever.” Maria remained with her for about three months; when she returned home, she found herself pregnant with the Holy Spirit. And Joseph, Her husband, since he was righteous and did not want to give Her away, he wanted to let Her go secretly. But when he thought about this, the Angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream with the words: “Joseph, son of David! Do not be afraid to accept Mary your wife, because what is born in Her is from the Holy Spirit. And She will give birth to a Son, and you will name Him Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.” And all this happened in such a way that what was spoken by God through the prophet was fulfilled, who says: “Behold, the virgin will be with child and give birth to a son, and He will be called by the name “Emmanuel,” which means: “God is with us.” And Joseph, rising from sleep, did as the Angel of the Lord commanded him, and took his wife, and did not know her. When the time came for Elizabeth to give birth, she gave birth to a son. And her neighbors and those close to her heard that the Lord had magnified His mercy over her and they welcomed her. And it came to pass that on the eighth day they gathered to circumcise the child and wanted to name him after his father Zechariah. But his mother, on the contrary, said: “No, let’s call him John.” They objected to her: “There is no one in your family who is called by this name,” and with signs they asked his father what name he would like to call his son. He, asking for a tablet, wrote: “John.” Then his mouth was opened and his tongue was loosened, and he began to speak, blessing God. And there was fear over all their neighbors, and a rumor about this spread throughout the entire mountainous region of Judea. And everyone who heard about this asked: “What kind of child will this be?” For the hand of the Lord was upon him. And Zechariah his father was filled with the Holy Spirit and prophesied, saying: “Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, that He hath visited and wrought deliverance for His people, and hath raised up for us a horn of salvation in the house of His servant David, as He spake by the mouth of His prophets who were of old, salvation from our enemies and from the hand of all that hate us, to show mercy to our fathers, and to remember His covenant that was withdrawn, the oath which He swore to our father Abraham, that He would give us that, having been delivered from the hand of our enemies, we might fearlessly serve Him in holiness and righteousness before Him all our days. And you, child, will be called a prophet of the Most High, for you will go before the face of the Lord - to prepare His ways in order to give knowledge of salvation to His people, for the remission of their sins.” The child grew and became strong in spirit, and was in the wilderness until the day of his appearance in Israel. It happened in those days that Caesar Augustus ordered a census of all nations. And they all went, to appear to each one in his own city. Joseph also went out from Nazareth of Galilee to Judea, to the city of David, called Bethlehem, because he was from the house and family of David, with Mary betrothed to him as a wife, to appear for the census. And it came to pass that when they came there, the time had come for Her to give birth, and She gave birth to Her Firstborn Son, and wrapped Him in swaddling clothes and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn. And there were shepherds in that place who did not sleep and kept watch over their flock by night; and then an Angel of the Lord stood near them, and the radiance of God surrounded them, and they felt great fear. And the Angel said to them: “Do not be afraid! Behold, I proclaim to you the great joy that will be for all people, because today a Savior has been born to you, who is the Lord Christ from the line of David. And here is a sign for you: you will find a baby wrapped in swaddling clothes and lying in a manger.” And suddenly the heavenly army appeared with the Angel, glorifying God and saying: “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to people of good will.” And it came to pass that when the Angels had departed to heaven, the shepherds began to say to one another: “Let us go to Bethlehem and see what has happened.” And they went and found Mary, Joseph, and the Child lying in the manger; and from the word that was spoken to them about this Child, they recognized Him. Everyone who heard this was surprised. But Mary kept all these words, collecting them in Her heart. The shepherds returned back, glorifying and praising God for everything they saw and heard. And after the days for circumcising the Child were fulfilled, the name “Jesus” was given to Him, foretold by the Angel before He was conceived in the womb. And so the wise men came from the east to Jerusalem, asking: “Where is the King of the Jews, Who has been born? For we saw His star in the east and came to worship Him.” King Herod, hearing this, was embarrassed, and all Jerusalem with him. And he called together all the chief priests and scribes and asked them where Christ should be born. And they said to him: “In Bethlehem by Judah, for so it is written by the prophet: “And you, Bethlehem, the land of Judah, are in no way least among the possessions of Judah; For out of you will come a ruler who will govern my people Israel.” Then Herod secretly called the wise men and carefully found out from them the time of the appearance of the star. And, sending them to Bethlehem, he said: “Go and ask carefully about the Child, and when you find it, tell me. so that I too can worship Him.” The Magi, having listened to the king, set off, and the star that they saw in the east walked in front of them until it stopped over the place where the Baby was. And seeing this star, they rejoiced with great joy; Having entered the house, they found the Child with Mary, His Mother, and falling on their faces, they worshiped Him; then, opening their treasuries, they presented Him with gifts: gold, frankincense and myrrh. After this, having received instructions in a dream not to return to Herod, they went to their country another way. After the fulfillment of the days of Mary's purification according to the law of Moses, Jesus was brought to Jerusalem to present Him before the Lord, as it is written in the law of the Lord that every boy who opens a spoon will be called holy before the Lord, and that for him a sacrifice would be made according to what was prescribed in the law of the Lord: two turtledoves or two chicks of doves. There lived in Jerusalem someone named Simeon, a righteous and God-fearing man, who was waiting for the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was in him; he received notice from the Holy Spirit that he would not die before he saw the Lord’s Anointed; and so he came to the Church by the power of the Spirit. And when the parents of the baby Jesus brought Him into the church to fulfill His duties according to the law, Simeon took Him into his arms, blessed God and said: “Lord! Now You are releasing Your servant into the world, because my eyes have seen Your salvation, which You have prepared in the face of all nations: a light for revelation to the Gentiles and the glory of Your people Israel.” And His father and Mother were amazed at what was said about Him. And Simeon blessed them and said to Mary His Mother: “Behold, He is destined for the fall and restoration of many among Israel, and as a sign that will be contradicted. And a sword will pierce your very soul, so that meditation will appear in many hearts.” And there was also Anna the prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel from the tribe of Azer. She lived many days: she lived with her husband for seven years from her virginity, and as a widow for about eighty-four years; she did not leave the church, serving day and night in fasting and prayer. And she, at that hour drawing near, confessed the Lord and spoke about Him to all who were awaiting deliverance in Jerusalem. And so, when they were doing everything according to the law of the Lord, the Angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said: “Get up, take the Child and His Mother and run to Egypt, and be there until I tell you, because Herod will look for the Child to destroy Him.” And Joseph arose, took the Child and His Mother, and went into Egypt at night. And he was there until the death of Herod, so that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet was fulfilled, who says: “Out of Egypt I called My son.” Herod, seeing that he had been deceived by the wise men, became very angry and sent to kill all the babies who were in Bethlehem and throughout its borders from two years old and less, i.e. according to the time he learned from the Magi. Then what was said in the words of the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled: “A voice was heard in Rama, weeping and great sobbing: Rachel, crying for her children and not wanting to be consoled, because they were not.” And after the death of Herod, the Angel of the Lord again appeared in a dream to Joseph, saying: “Get up, take the Child and His Mother and go to the land of Israel, because those who sought the soul of the Child have died.” And he took the Child and His Mother and went to the land of Israel. But hearing that Archelaus reigned in Judea in place of Herod his father, he was afraid to go there and, having received notification in a dream, went to Galilee and stopped in the city of Nazareth, so that what was said through the prophets was fulfilled, that He would be called a Nazarene. Meanwhile, the Child, filled with wisdom, grew and matured, and the grace of God was in Him. And His parents went to Jerusalem every year on the days of the Passover; and when He was twelve years old, and when, as usual, they went to Jerusalem on the days of the holiday, and then returned back after it was over, the youth Jesus remained in Jerusalem, and His parents did not know about it. Assuming that He was among the companions, they spent the day on the road and only then began to look for Him among their relatives and friends, and not finding Him, they returned to Jerusalem. And it came to pass that after three days they found Him in the church, sitting among the teachers, listening and asking them questions. And all who heard Him were amazed at His prudence and His answers. And His Mother said: “My son! What have you done to us? Behold, Your father and I have been looking for You with sorrow.” And He said to them: “Why did you seek Me? Do you not know that I must be concerned with the things that belong to My Father? But they did not understand what He told them. And He went with them and came to Nazareth, and was in subjection to them. And His Mother kept all these words in Her heart. And Jesus increased in wisdom, grew, and was favored by God and men.” 18. From this moment on, the story of John’s sermon begins, which all four talk about. For Matthew, after the words that I cited above, namely those in which he cites evidence from the prophet: “He will be called a Nazarene” (Matthew 2:23), says: “In those days John the Baptist comes and preaches in the desert of Judea” (Matthew 3:1). And Mark, who did not tell anything about the birth, childhood and adolescence of the Lord, begins the gospel with this sermon, for he has the following introduction: “The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, as it is written in the prophets: Behold, I send My angel before You, who will prepare Your way before You. The voice of one crying in the wilderness: Prepare the way of the Lord, make His paths straight. John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” (Mark 1:1–4). Likewise, Luke after the words: “Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature and in favor with God and men” (Lk. 2:52), goes on to John’s sermon: “In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was in charge of Judea, Herod was tetrarch in Galilee, Philip his brother was tetrarch in Ituraea and the Trachonite region, and Lysanias was tetrarch in Abilene, under the high priests Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God was to John, the son of Zechariah, in wilderness" (Luke 3:1–2). And John, the most exalted of the four evangelists, having spoken of the Word of God, who is also the Son before all ages of creation, because all things were created through Him, reports the preaching and testimony of John, saying: “There was a man sent from God; his name is John” (John 1:6). From this it is clear that the narratives of the four evangelists about John the Baptist do not contradict each other in any way: they are not such that we should examine everything in detail and ask questions, as we just did when talking about the birth of Christ from Mary and how Matthew and Luke agree with each other, so we made one from the narrative of both, showing for the least understanding that each of them, mentioning what the other is silent about, or keeping silent about what another mentions does not prevent a proper understanding of the other’s narrative, so that according to this model, either as I did, or in some other way, everyone can see that in other places it is possible to do as was done here. 19. So, as I already said, we see the agreement of the four evangelists about John the Baptist. Matthew says: “In those days John the Baptist comes and preaches in the wilderness of Judea.” Mark does not say, “In those days,” because he did not foreshadow any kind of events from which it would be clear what days he was talking about if he said, “In those days.” And Luke, having listed the earthly authorities, more clearly indicated the time of John's sermon or baptism, saying this: “In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was in charge of Judea, Herod was tetrarch in Galilee, Philip his brother was tetrarch in Ituraea and the Trachonite region, and Lysanias was tetrarch in Abilene, under the high priests Anna and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John, the son of Zechariah, in the wilderness." We should not, however, think that Matthew designates only this time, i.e. the time of these rulers when he says: “In those days”; he, of course, meant a much longer period of time. Indeed, as soon as Matthew spoke about the return of Christ from Egypt after the death of Herod - what happened in the days of His childhood or adolescence, as can be understood from the fact that Luke reported what He did in the temple in Jerusalem when He was twelve years old - Matthew, having spoken about the return from Egypt, then says: “In those days John the Baptist comes,” meaning not only the days of His childhood, but also all the days from His birth until the time when John began to preach and baptize and when Christ was already a youth, because He and John were peers, and telling that He was almost thirty years old when He was baptized by John. 20. Of course, others may be confused by Luke's story about Herod when he mentions that in the days of John's baptism, Herod was the tetrarch of Galilee, i.e. at the time when the Lord was baptized; and Matthew says that the youth Jesus returned from Egypt after the death of Herod. Both can only be true if there were two Herods. And although it is obvious to everyone that this could well have been, some kind of blindness makes those who are more inclined to slander the gospel truth than to think a little in order to understand that two people are named here by the same name go crazy. We see plenty of examples of this. After all, this last Herod is recognized as the son of the first, as well as Archelaus, whom Matthew calls the heir to the kingdom in Judea after the death of his father; as well as Philip, whom Luke calls the brother of the tetrarch Herod and at the same time the tetrarch of Iturea; and that Herod who sought the soul of the infant Christ was king; the second Herod, his son, is called not a king, but a tetrarch (tetrarch), which word means one placed over the fourth part of the kingdom. 21. Further, perhaps someone will ask: “When Matthew says that Joseph was afraid to return to Judea because Archelaus, the son of Herod, reigned there, then why was he not later afraid to go to Galilee, where, according to Luke, his other son, Herod, was tetrarch?” But times were already different then: when Joseph decided to return to Galilee, neither Archelaus was no longer a real ruler, nor Herod, but Pontius Pilate, who was not the king of the Jews, but the governor of Rome; under Caesar Tiberius, the sons of the elder Herod did not have royal power, but tetrarchy. 22. The following question may also arise: “How does Matthew say that His parents went to Galilee with the boy Jesus because they did not want to go to Judea for fear of Archelaus, although it seems that they went to Galilee rather because their city of Nazareth was in Galilee, which Luke did not keep silent about.” But it should be borne in mind that when the Angel said to Joseph in a dream in Egypt: “Arise, take the Child and His Mother and go to the land of Israel” (Matthew 2:20), Joseph initially understood this in such a way that he was supposedly commanded to go to Judea - after all, it could initially be understood by him as the land of Israel; but then, when he learned that Herod’s son Archelaus reigned there, he did not want to expose himself to unnecessary danger, although by the land of Israel at that time one could also mean Galilee, because it was also inhabited by the people of Israel. However, this question can be resolved in another way, namely: that it might have seemed to the parents of Christ that with such a Youth, about whom they received such angelic instructions, it was necessary to live only in Jerusalem, where the church of the Lord was, and therefore, returning from Egypt, they would have wanted to go there and live there, if only they were not afraid of the presence of Archelaus. 23. Maybe someone will say the following: “How can this be, after all, according to Luke’s story, His parents went to Jerusalem throughout all the years of Christ’s childhood. Why then talk about fear of Archelaus? It is not difficult for me to resolve this issue, although none of the evangelists said definitely how long Archelaus reigned. In fact, it could be that among the huge crowd on the day of the holiday they secretly went to Jerusalem, only to then quickly return back, because they were afraid to live there at another time; Thus, they led a reverent life, not showing disdain for the great holiday, and did not expose the Youth to unnecessary dangers. But since everyone is silent about the duration of Archelaus’s reign, it is quite possible that Luke’s words about their annual pilgrimage to Jerusalem refer to the time when Archelaus was no longer dangerous to them. If any narrative says that the reign of Archelaus was quite long, then there is no reason to doubt it. What I said above sufficiently shows that the Youth’s parents were so afraid of living in Jerusalem that only out of the fear of God they did not miss the solemn celebration, during which they could very easily hide; This happens quite often when, having chosen a convenient time, people approach places where they are afraid to live. 24. From here the following question is resolved: “When Herod the Elder, amazed by the news of the Magi, was preoccupied with the fact that the king of the Jews had been born, how could they, at the end of the days of His Mother’s purification, safely go with Him to the church to perform on Him, according to the Law of the Lord, what Luke tells us?” Indeed, is it surprising that within one day He could hide from the king, who was busy with many other matters? And if this seems implausible, since the very worried Herod expected what the wise men would tell him about the Child, then, obviously, Herod noticed the deception so many days later that only after the end of the days of the purification of His Mother and after the rite of the firstborn over the Child in the temple of Jerusalem, and even after their departure to Egypt, it occurred to him to look for the soul of the Child and beat up so many children; so if this also raises doubts, then I will not say how many concerns could occupy the royal attention for many days, distracting him from this intention or preventing him from fulfilling it. After all, it is impossible to even list all the reasons why this could happen. And that there could be quite a lot of them, and also important ones, then who would be so inexperienced in human affairs as to deny or doubt it? Indeed, who does not understand how much other more terrible - true or false - news could have been communicated to the king, so that he, fearing that the royal Child would turn against him or his children, prompted by fears against other closer relatives, occupied his thoughts, distracted from that concern, by taking precautions in matters closer to him. So, leaving this assumption aside, I will say the following. After the Magi did not tell Herod anything, he might have thought that they had been deceived by a false vision of the star, and since they had not found the One Whom they thought had been born, they were ashamed to return to him. Such an assumption could well calm him down and distract him from the search and pursuit of the Youth. When, after the purification of His Mother, His parents came with Him to Jerusalem and what Luke tells about happened in the church, the words of Simeon and Anna, who prophesied about Him, began to spread and reached the ears of Herod, returning him to his previous intention. It was then that Joseph, by revelation in a dream, fled to Egypt with the Child and His Mother. Herod, seeing that he was ridiculed by the Magi and wishing to carry out his intention to kill Christ, killed, as Matthew relates, many babies. 25. Matthew says this about John: “In those days John the Baptist comes and preaches in the wilderness of Judea and says: Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. For he is the one about whom the prophet Isaiah said: the voice of one crying in the wilderness: prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight” (Matthew 3:1-3). Mark and Luke also agree that this testimony of Isaiah speaks of John. For many of the following words from the same prophet are mentioned by Luke when he talks about John the Baptist. And the Evangelist John shows that John the Baptist cited the same testimony of the prophet Isaiah about himself (John 1:23), just as Matthew cited some words of John that others did not bring: “Repent,” he says, “for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand”; The other evangelists missed these words of John. But what follows next in Matthew: “For he is the one about whom the prophet Isaiah said: the voice of one crying in the wilderness: prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight,” he said ambiguously, for it is difficult to understand whether Matthew said this on his own behalf, or whether he, following the words of John, added this too to show that John said all this. We should not be embarrassed by the fact that he does not say: “For I am the one of whom the prophet Isaiah spoke,” but says: “For he is the one.” Indeed, such a turn of phrase is common in Matthew and John, for the same Matthew says: “Jesus saw a man sitting at the tax office” (Matthew 9:9), and not: “He saw me.” John also says about himself: “This disciple testifies to this and wrote this; and we know that his testimony is true” (John 21.24); he did not say, “It is I,” nor, “This is my testimony.” The Lord Himself very often says: “Son of Man” or: “Son of God,” and does not say: “I.” So, John the Baptist, when he said: “For he is the one,” could well have meant himself. And if so, then it is not surprising that when asked who he was, as the Evangelist John reports, he said: “I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness” (John 1:23), i.e. answered as he had said before, calling for repentance. And Matthew continues to narrate about his clothing and lifestyle as follows: “John himself had clothing made of camel’s hair and a leather belt around his waist; and his food was locusts and wild honey” (Matthew 3:4). Mark says the same thing in almost the same terms. But the other two evangelists are silent about this. 26. Matthew continues: “Then Jerusalem and all Judea and all the surrounding Jordan came out to him and were baptized by him in the Jordan, confessing their sins. When John saw many Pharisees and Sadducees coming to him to be baptized, he said to them: You brood of vipers! who inspired you to flee from future wrath? produce fruit worthy of repentance, and do not think of saying to yourself: “We have Abraham as our father”; for I tell you that God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham. Already the ax lies at the root of the trees: every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who comes after me is mightier than I; I am not worthy to carry His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire; His shovel is in His hand, and He will clear His threshing floor, and gather His wheat into the barn, and burn the chaff with unquenchable fire” (Matthew 3:5–12). Luke also says all this, almost repeating the same words of John; where he has some difference in words, he still does not deviate from the same meaning. Matthew says: “I baptize you with water to repentance,” and this one inserts the question of those gathered about what they should do, and John’s answer about good works as the fruits of repentance, which Matthew missed; then, since they were wondering in their hearts whether he was Christ, then, according to Matthew, John answered: “He who comes after me is stronger than I,” and Luke says: “But he who is stronger than me comes” (Luke 3:16). Further, Matthew: “I am not worthy to bear His sandals,” and Luke: “Whose sandals I am not worthy to untie” (Luke 3:16). Mark also speaks about this, although he is silent about the rest, for after mentioning his clothing and way of life, he continues: “And he preached, saying: He who is mightier than I is coming after me, whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down to untie; I baptized you with water, and He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit” (Mark 1:7–8). The Evangelist John joins these three when he says: “John testifies of Him and, exclaiming, says: This was He of whom I said that He who came after me stood before me, because He was before me” (John 1:15). Thus, he showed that John the Baptist said this when, according to others, he said the same thing; but he repeated and recalled what was said when he says: “This was He of whom I said...”, etc. 27. So, if they ask what exact words John the Baptist said: those that Matthew puts into his mouth, or those that Luke brings, or those that Mark attributed to him, keeping silent about the rest, then the one who prudently imagines the matter in such a way that only thoughts are necessary for the knowledge of the truth, no matter in what words they are expressed, will in no way consider it necessary to rack his brain with such questions. Of course, there is no contradiction in the fact that one or the other adheres to his own, inherent style and method of expression. There is also no contradiction when one says what the other misses. In fact, as someone remembered, or as someone liked to present it - shorter or more extensively, but, of course, the same thought - that’s how he presented it. 28. And this sufficiently explains what is mainly relevant to the matter, namely: that the truth of the Gospel has received the highest degree of obligation, although the word of God, which remains unchanged and eternal above all creation, is taught to the creation by temporary signs and human tongues; and we should not think that one or the other is lying if the same circumstance is accepted by many who saw him or heard about him; or when the arrangement of words changes or some words are pronounced instead of others, but at the same time words are equivalent in meaning; or if something is said in a smaller volume, either because the narrator did not remember it in time, or because it can be understood from other words; or if, for the sake of narrating something else, about which someone has decided to say more, he decides not to make a complete exposition, but only partially touches on something, so that he has enough time; or if the one who is given full opportunity to add something to illuminate and clarify thoughts, adds only new words, and not new events; or if someone, perfectly retaining an event in memory, will not be able, although he will try, to accurately quote from memory the words that he heard. But undoubtedly someone thinks that by the power of the Holy Spirit the evangelists should have been given such a property that they would be unanimous in everything: in words, and in their arrangement, and in their quantity; such a person does not understand that the more the importance of the evangelists rises above others, the more through them the calmness of other people speaking the truth should be established, so that when many narrate the same circumstance, then let none of them in any way be exposed as a lie if he differs from the other only in such a way that he can be defended by the previous example of the evangelists. Indeed, since it is impossible to either think or say that any of the evangelists is a liar, it is clear that the one who, remembering certain events, admits something that, as it turns out, happened to them too, is not lying. And the more kind people tend to beware of lies, the more we should be guided by such a high value of them, so as not to perceive a lie in the case when we find that the stories of some differ from each other only as much as the stories of the evangelists differ from each other. And at the same time, it becomes clear to us that we need to look for truth not so much in words and turns of speech, but in the transmission of events, when we see that those who, without using the same methods of speech, did not at all contradict each other in relation to thoughts and circumstances, stood firmly in the same truth. 29. So, what should be considered contradictory in what I brought from the accounts of the evangelists? Could it be that one said: “I am not worthy to bear His sandals,” and the others: “I am not worthy to untie the thong of His sandals”? It seems that the expressions “to carry the shoes” and “to untie the shoe strap” are not the same thing, not only in the sense of the sound of the words, their location or in some way of expression, but also in terms of the subject itself. Therefore, we need to figure out why John considers himself unworthy: should he wear shoes or untie his shoe belt? For if he had said one thing, then the one who reported what was said verbatim would have told the truth, and the one who distorted John’s speech, although he did not lie, however, he either forgot or got it wrong. But one should not discern any untruth among the evangelists, neither that which comes from lies, nor that which is a consequence of forgetfulness. Thus, if the question is about the meaning of words, then what else can we assume but that John said both, or at different times, or even in the same phrase? Indeed, he could say: “Whose sandals I am not worthy to untie, nor to carry,” so that one of the evangelists reported one thing from this, and the others another; however, everyone spoke the truth; if John, when he spoke about the shoes of the Lord, had in mind only His incomparable superiority and his humility, then no matter which of these words he said - whether about untying or about wearing, everyone still firmly held the same thought when he expressed precisely this humility through the mention of shoes, and therefore did not deviate from the original intention. So, when we talk about the similarities between the evangelists, the most important thing is to understand that there is no lie in the case when someone, conveying in slightly different words what the one he is talking about said, nevertheless expresses the desire that the one whose words he quotes wanted to express. Indeed, in this way we learn with salvation that we need to look only for the meaning that the speaker wanted to convey. 30. Then Matthew continues: “Then Jesus comes from Galilee to the Jordan to John to be baptized by him. John restrained Him and said: I need to be baptized by You, and are You coming to me? But Jesus answered and said to him, Leave it now; for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness. Then John admits Him” (Matthew 3:13–15). And the rest testify that Jesus came to John. But three testify to baptism; however, they are silent about the words spoken to the Lord by John, and about the Lord’s answer to John, which Matthew cited. 31. Then Matthew says: “And having been baptized, Jesus immediately went up out of the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and John saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and descending on Him. And behold, a voice from heaven said: This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” (Matthew 3:16–17). Two others narrate this in a similar way: Mark and Luke; but regarding the words of the voice that came from heaven, the expressions change, although the thought remains inviolable. Indeed, the phrase quoted by Matthew: “This is My Beloved Son,” the other two convey the words: “You are My Beloved Son” (Mark 1:11, Luke 3:22); but both the first expression and the second serve to clarify the same thought, as we have already discussed above. Indeed, a voice from heaven uttered any one of these expressions; but the evangelist wanted to show that the words: “This is My Beloved Son” are intended to better show those who hear that He is the Son of God, and, moreover, would like to imagine that it was said: “You are My Beloved Son,” even if it were said: “This is My Beloved Son.” After all, here it is not Christ who is shown what He already knew; but those who came listened to it, for whose sake the voice itself was there. And regarding the fact that one says: “In whom I am well pleased” (Mark 1:11), the other: “In You I am well pleased” (Luke 3:22), then isn’t it obvious that these words conveyed the same thought? This difference in words is useful in that what is expressed monotonously is usually less understandable and is more often reinterpreted this way and that, and in this case the essence of the matter is often distorted. Indeed, anyone who wants to understand the words: “In whom I am well pleased” so that God in the Son has His favor, will be convinced of this from the words: “In You I am well pleased.” From what has been said, it is clear that each of the evangelists remembered the words of the heavenly voice, and to clarify the same thought more freely changed these words; so you need to understand that here it is said by everyone, as it were: “I have established My favor in You,” i.e. through You I have been pleased to fulfill what is pleasing to Me. And the fact that, according to the Gospel of Luke, some congregations of St. Books - then recalls the meaning of the words contained in the psalm: “You are My Son; Today I have given birth to You" (Ps. 2:7); although this is not found in the most ancient Greek collections of St. Books, however, if it could be confirmed by some trustworthy lists, then how else should it be understood, if not in the sense that both were heard from heaven in some combination of words. 32. John does not tell when what is said about the dove happened; but the words of John are quoted as recalling what he saw. At the same time, it is asked how it is said: “I did not know Him; but He who sent me to baptize in water said to me, “On whomever you see the Spirit descending and remaining on Him, it is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit” (John 1:33). Indeed, if he then knew Him when he saw a dove descending on Him, then how did he say to the one coming to be baptized: “I need to be baptized by You” (Matthew 3:14); after all, he said this before the dove descended. From this it is clear that although he knew Him (for even in his mother’s womb he rejoiced when Mary came to Elizabeth), yet what he did not yet know, he learned only through the descent of the dove - namely, that He would baptize with some of his own divine power in the Holy Spirit, so that no person who has received the baptism of God, even if he baptized someone, could say that what he communicates belongs to him, or what the Spirit The saint is served from him. 33. Matthew goes on to say: “Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil, and having fasted forty days and forty nights, he was finally hungry. And the tempter came to Him and said: If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread. He answered and said to him: It is written: “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God,” and so on until the words: “Then the devil left Him, and behold, angels came and served Him” (Matthew 4.1–11). Luke narrates all this in a similar way, although not in that order. Therefore, it is unknown what happened before: whether the kingdoms of the earth were first shown to Him, and then He was taken up onto the wing of the church; or this is before, or else after. However, while it is obvious that all this happened, no question of substance arises; and the fact that Luke expresses the same thoughts in other words should not always be taken into account, as long as no damage is done to the truth. And Mark testifies that He was tempted by the devil for forty days and forty nights; but he is silent about what was said to Him and what He answered. On the other hand, he did not keep silent about the fact that Angels served Him, about which Luke said nothing (Luke 4:1–13; Mark 1:12–13). But John missed this whole place. 34. Matthew continues the narrative as follows: “When Jesus heard that John had been taken into custody, he withdrew into Galilee”; Mark and Luke talk about this (Matthew 4:12; Mark 1:14; Luke 4:14); Luke, however, does not say anything in this place about the arrest of John. And the Evangelist John writes that before Jesus went to Galilee, Peter and Andrew joined Him; that Peter was then given his new name, since before his name was Simon; that the next day, when He was about to go to Galilee, He found Philip and told him to follow Him. John then goes on to tell the story of Nathanael and how on the third day, while staying in Galilee, Jesus performed the famous miracle of turning water into wine (John 1:39–51, 2:1–11). The other evangelists missed all this, immediately telling about the return of Jesus to Galilee; from here it is clear that John inserted several days, about which the others were silent. But this does not at all contradict the place in which Matthew narrates the words of the Lord to Peter: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church” (Matthew 16:18). However, Simon most likely received a new name when, according to John, it was said to him: “You will be called Cephas, which means stone (Peter)” (John 1:42), so that after saying: “You are Peter,” the Lord calls him by this name again, for He did not say: “You will be called Peter,” but: “You are Peter,” because he had already been told before: “You will be called.” 35. Then Matthew says: “And leaving Nazareth, he came and settled in Capernaum by the sea” (Matthew 4:13), etc. right up to the Sermon on the Mount. Mark narrates in the same sequence. But while Matthew goes directly to the lengthy speech that He made on the mountain, Mark speaks of something else, namely, that He taught in the synagogue and everyone was amazed at His teaching. He also said (as Matthew also mentioned after His wonderful speech) that “He taught them as one having authority, and not as scribes.” He also told about a man from whom an unclean spirit had been cast out, and then about Peter’s mother-in-law. And in this Luke agrees with him (Matthew 7:29; Mark 1:16–31; Luke 4:31–39). But Matthew said nothing about this demoniac; Peter did not keep silent about his mother-in-law, but only said about it later. 36. Matthew, after telling the story of the calling of the disciples, whom He ordered to follow Him while fishing, says that He went around Galilee, teaching in the synagogues, preaching the Gospel and healing all kinds of sickness, and when crowds of people gathered to Him, He ascended a mountain and made an extensive speech. So, from this it is clear that then what Mark reports after the story of the election of the disciples happened, i.e. when He went around Galilee and taught in the synagogues; The story of Peter’s mother-in-law also dates back to the same time. 37. Of course, the question may arise: why does John say not “in Galilee,” but “near the Jordan?” 1 (John 1:28) the Lord was followed first by Andrew and another, whose name is not mentioned, and then by Peter, who at the same time received this name, and then Philip was called to follow Him. The other three evangelists speak quite in agreement among themselves regarding those called from fishing, and especially Matthew and Mark, for Luke does not names Andrew, who, according to Matthew and Mark, was on that ship; they briefly report how it happened (Luke speaks about this in more detail), mentioning both the miracle of catching fish, and the fact that the Lord began to preach to the crowd even before this. In this place, as it may seem, Luke contradicts the others, for he says that only Peter was told by the Lord: “From now on you will catch men” (Luke 5:10), while they say that this was said to both brothers. However, this could have been said first to Peter, since he was surprised at the large catch, as Luke points out, and after that to both brothers, as mentioned by the other two evangelists. So, we need to carefully understand what we said about John, for here a lot of bewilderment may arise due to the fact that his narrative is very different from others, both in terms of places and times, and regarding the calling itself. Indeed, if near the Jordan, before Jesus came to Galilee, according to the testimony of John the Baptist, two followed Him, one of whom was Andrew, who then brought to Jesus his brother Simon, later called Peter, then how do other evangelists say that He found them fishing in Galilee and called them to discipleship (Matthew 4:18-23; Mark 1:16-20); Luke 5:1–11; John 1:35–44) One should think that at the Jordan they had not yet become completely attached to the Lord, but only just learned who He was and returned to their own in amazement. 38. After all, the same John says that in Cana of Galilee, when He turned water into wine, His disciples believed in Him. He talks about it like this: “On the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee, and the Mother of Jesus was there. Jesus and His disciples were also invited to a marriage” (John 2:1–11). Of course, if they then believed in Him, as John says a little later, then they were not yet His disciples when they were invited to the marriage. But this is said in the same sense in which we say when we declare that the Apostle Paul was born in Tarsus of Cilicia; after all, even he was not yet an apostle. Therefore, when we hear that Christ’s disciples were invited to a marriage, we must understand that they were not yet disciples then, but were only about to become them; but, of course, they were already disciples of Christ when all this was told and written. That's why the narrator calls them students. 39. As for the words of John: “After this He came to Capernaum, Himself and His Mother, and His brothers, and His disciples; and they remained there a few days” (John 2.12), then it is not known whether Peter, Andrew and the sons of Zebedee had already united with Him. For Matthew first said that He came and dwelt in Capernaum, and then that He called them from the ship while fishing; and John says that His disciples came with Him to Capernaum. Didn’t Matthew here restore what he had previously missed, for he does not say: “After this, walking near the Sea of ​​Galilee, He saw two brothers,” but: “As He walked near the Sea of ​​Galilee, He saw two brothers” (Matthew 4:18), etc.? Therefore, it is possible that he broke the sequence in the narrative in order to insert what he had missed earlier; if so, then it becomes clear that, as John said, His disciples also came to Capernaum with Him. There were other disciples with Him, since Philip was already following Him. In fact, the narrations of the evangelists do not show in what order all twelve apostles were called, because neither the method of calling nor the calling itself is mentioned, but only the calling of Philip, Peter, Andrew and the sons of Zebedee, and the tax collector Matthew, who was also called Levi. However, only Peter received the name from Him separately, because He did not call the sons of Zebedee each individually, but both together, “Son of thunder” (Mark 3:17). 40. It is also necessary to pay attention to the fact that the Gospel and Apostolic writings call His disciples not only the twelve, but also all those who, believing in Him, were prepared by His teaching for the Kingdom of Heaven. From all of them He chose twelve, whom He called apostles, as Luke says, for a little later he says: “And He went down with them and stood on level ground, and a multitude of His disciples, and a great multitude” (Luke 6:17). It is also evident from other places of Scripture that all those who learned from Him concerning eternal life are called His disciples. 41. But one may ask how He called first Peter and Andrew, and then, going a little further, the two sons of Zebedee, as Matthew and Mark relate; because Luke says that both of their boats were filled with a large catch of fish, and calls Peter’s assistants the two sons of Zebedee, James and John, who were called to help, for they could not pull out the filled nets and at the same time were surprised at such a large number of fish caught. But they all, having driven their ships to the shore, followed Him. From this you need to understand that initially what Luke reports happened, and the Lord called them not then, and only Peter was predicted that he would catch people. And this is not said in the sense that he will never fish again; for we read that even after the resurrection of the Lord, His disciples were engaged in fishing (John 21:3). So, it is said that from now on Peter will fish for people, but it does not say that he will no longer fish. From this it is possible to understand that out of habit they returned to fishing, so that what Matthew and Mark narrate happened later, namely, that He called them two by two and Himself ordered them to follow Him: first Peter and Andrew, and then the two sons of Zebedee. Then they followed Him; not after bringing the ships to the shore, but after He called them and ordered them to follow Him. 42. It is also necessary to consider how the Evangelist John says that Jesus went to Galilee before John the Baptist was imprisoned. After all, after he reported that in Cana of Galilee He turned water into wine and went down to Capernaum with the Mother and disciples, where they remained for a short time, he says that Jesus went to Jerusalem for the Easter holiday; After this, His disciples also arrived in the land of Judea, and He spent time there and baptized; After this, John continues: “And John also baptized at Aenon near Salem, because there was a lot of water there; and they came there and were baptized. For John was not yet imprisoned” (John 3:22–24); and Matthew says: “When Jesus heard that John had been taken into custody, he withdrew into Galilee” (Matthew 4:12). In a similar way, Mark: “After John was betrayed, Jesus came to Galilee” (Mark 1:14). Luke, however, says nothing about the tradition of John, but after the story of the baptism and temptation of Christ, he also says, like those two, that He went to Galilee. For he connects his narrative in this way: “And when the whole temptation was finished, the devil departed from Him for a time. And Jesus returned in strength of spirit to Galilee” (Luke 4:13–14). From this it is clear that these three evangelists do not speak contrary to John, but first missed the coming of the Lord to Galilee after He was baptized, when He turned water into wine there, for John had not yet been betrayed, but they included in their narratives that coming to Galilee, which took place after the tradition of John; about this His coming to Galilee, the Evangelist John says this: “When Jesus learned about the rumor that had reached the Pharisees that He was making more disciples and baptizing than John - although Jesus himself did not baptize, but His disciples - he left Judea and went again to Galilee” (John 4: 1-3). Thus we understand that John was already betrayed at that time; The Jews heard that He was making more disciples and baptizing than John was baptizing and making disciples. 43. And now let us dwell on that lengthy speech that, according to Matthew, the Lord delivered on the mountain: do not the other evangelists contradict him here? Indeed, Mark does not mention it at all and does not say anything similar to it, except for a few truths that the Lord repeated in other places, which he did not give in a connected speech, but scattered throughout the text. However, he leaves a place in the course of his narrative, from which we can understand that this speech was delivered, but was omitted by Mark; he says: “And He preached in their synagogues throughout all Galilee and cast out demons.” In this sermon, which Mark says that He preached throughout Galilee, it is clear that the speech that He delivered on the mountain, as reported by Matthew, was also spoken; Indeed, the same Mark continues: “A leper comes to Him and, begging Him and falling on his knees before Him, says to Him: If you want, you can cleanse me” (Mk. 1:39, 40); he reports about this cleansed leper in such a way that it becomes clear: this is the same man about whom Matthew also speaks, mentioning the cleansed one when the Lord came down from the mountain after delivering his speech; Matthew says this: “When He came down from the mountain, many people followed Him. And so the leper came up and, bowing to Him, said: Lord! if you want, you can cleanse me” (Matthew 8:1–2). 44. Luke also mentions this leper (Luke 5:12–13), and again without observing the order in time, but also remembering what was missed. However, the same Luke himself reported the lengthy speech of the Lord, in which he made the same beginning as Matthew, for Matthew writes: “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:3), and Luke: “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for yours is the kingdom of God” (Luke 6:20). Then much of what follows in Luke's narrative is also similar to Matthew's. And towards the end of the speech, he repeats the same conclusion, namely about the prudent man who builds on stone, and the foolish man who builds on sand, except that he does not say, like Matthew, that “rain and winds” rushed to the house, but only “a stream” (Matthew 7:24–27, Luke 6:48–49). So, it is clear that he also wrote down the same speech of the Lord, but only missed some of the instructions that Matthew offered; but he introduced others that he did not say; and some he stated not in the same words, but only in similar expressions, while keeping the truth intact. 45. As I said, this is all easy to understand, but what is confusing is that Matthew speaks as if this speech was spoken by the Lord sitting on an elevated place. Luke says that standing on level ground. Thus, this disagreement shows that one saw one thing and the other saw another. But what prevents us from assuming that Christ repeated in another place something that he had already said before? Of course, these two speeches, one of which was quoted by Matthew and the other by Luke, are not separated by a long interval. This is because both before her and after both of them reported something either similar or the same, so it is not unreasonable to believe that their narratives, when they make such insertions, relate to the same places and the same time; in fact, Matthew relates it this way: “And a great multitude followed him from Galilee, and from the Decapolis, and from Jerusalem, and from Judea, and from beyond the Jordan. Seeing the people, He went up the mountain; and when he sat down, his disciples came to him. And He opened His mouth and taught them, saying: Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 4:25, Matt. 5:1–3). From this we can see that He wanted to avoid the large crowd and therefore went up the mountain, as if moving away from the people, in order to speak only to His disciples. Luke, apparently, also testifies to this circumstance, narrating this way: “In those days He went up to the mountain to pray and spent the whole night in prayer to God. When the day came, He called His disciples and chose twelve of them, whom He named Apostles... And going down with them, He stood on level ground, and many of His disciples, and many people from all Judea and Jerusalem, and the seaside places of Tire and Sidon, who came to listen to Him and to be healed of their illnesses, also those suffering from unclean spirits; and were healed. And all the people sought to touch Him, because power came from Him and healed everyone. And He lifted up His eyes on His disciples and said, “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for yours is the kingdom of God” (Luke 6:12–29). From this we can understand that on the mountain He chose twelve from among many, whom He called Apostles (which Matthew missed); Then He made a speech, which Matthew contributed, but Luke did not bring; then, that is, on the mountain; and then, when he came down, out of the blue he uttered another, similar one, about which Matthew is silent, but Luke is not; but both these speeches were ended in the same way. 46. As for Matthew’s words about what happened after the end of the sermon: “And when Jesus finished these words, the people were amazed at His teaching” (Matthew 7:28), then they refer to those people from whom He chose the twelve. And regarding the subsequent events: “When He came down from the mountain, a multitude of people followed Him. And so, a leper came up...”, one should think that this was after both speeches, i.e. not only the one that Matthew cites, but also the one that Luke inserts. For it is not clear how much time has passed since the descent from the mountain; and Matthew wanted to indicate only that after this descent many crowds were with the Lord when He cleansed the leper, and not how much time had passed from that moment, especially in view of the fact that Luke says that the Lord, already in the city, cleansed the same leper, which Matthew did not care to say. 47. However, it is possible that the Lord was only with the disciples on some of the most elevated parts of the mountain when he chose twelve of them; and then He came down with them, not from the mountain, but from its highest point onto a level place, that is, onto a certain mountain plain, and could receive a lot of people, and stood there while crowds gathered to Him; and after He sat down, His disciples came closer, and thus He addressed them and the rest of the crowds there with one speech, which is reported by Matthew and Luke, using a different way of narration, but bearing in mind the same content and truths, which they both presented. For we have already pointed out before (and this should be easily seen and without special warning) that if someone leaves out something that another has said, then there is no contradiction in this, just as if someone says something in a different way, as long as the same truth is stated both in circumstances and in essence; so Matthew’s words about the descent from the mountain can also be understood in relation to that flat place that could be near the mountain. And then Matthew tells, like Mark and Luke, about the cleansing of the leper. 48. After this, Matthew continues and says: “When Jesus entered Capernaum, a centurion came to Him and asked Him: Lord! my servant lies at home in relaxation and suffers severely,” and further to the words: “And his servant recovered at that hour” (Matthew 8:5–13); Luke also reports this about the centurion’s servant, but not after the cleansing of the leper, which he remembered and mentioned later, but after the end of that lengthy speech, making the following connection: “When He had finished all His words to the listening people, He entered Capernaum. One centurion’s servant, whom he treasured, was sick and dying,” and further to the place where it is said that the servant recovered (Luke 7:1–10). It follows from this that He entered Capernaum after finishing his speech, but nothing can be said about how much time passed between these two events. And it was during this very period that the leper was cleansed, about whom Matthew spoke in his place, and Luke remembered after. 49. So, we already see whether the centurion’s servants Matthew and Luke agree on this. But Matthew says: “The centurion came to Him and asked Him: Lord! my servant lies at home in relaxation and suffers cruelly.” At first glance, what Luke says contradicts this: “When he heard about Jesus, he sent the elders of the Jews to him to ask him to come and heal his servant. And they came to Jesus and begged Him earnestly, saying: He is worthy that You should do this for Him, for He loves our people and has built us a synagogue. Jesus went with them. And when He was not far from home, the centurion sent friends to Him to tell Him: Do not labor, Lord! for I am not worthy for You to come under my roof; That’s why I didn’t consider myself worthy to come to You; but speak the word, and my servant will be healed” (Luke 7:3–7). If this was the case, then how can Matthew’s message be true if the centurion himself did not approach, but sent friends? We will understand this if we carefully consider whether Matthew was simply using a special turn of phrase. After all, we ourselves often say “find an approach” not in the sense of approaching directly (and rogues are by no means travelers!); if getting what you want is possible through third parties, then petition can even more so be done through others. Therefore, there is nothing incongruous in the fact that Matthew wanted to express himself as briefly as possible, although the centurion’s approach to the Lord did not take place directly, but through his friends. 50. Moreover, it is also necessary to pay attention to the sublimity of the mysterious speech of the evangelist, in accordance with what is written in the psalm: “Whoever turned their eyes to Him were enlightened” (Ps. 33:6). Therefore, Jesus himself praised the faith of the centurion with which he approached Him, so much so that he said: “Neither in Israel have I found such faith” (Matthew 8:10); the wise evangelist preferred to say that he himself approached Jesus, and not those through whom He expressed his request. And then Luke revealed how all this happened, so that we would be encouraged from this to understand exactly how the centurion approached Him, as the other one also says, who cannot lie. After all, that woman who suffered from bleeding, although she held only the edges of His garment, nevertheless touched the Lord more than those crowds that pressed Him. So whoever believes more touches the Lord more; So did the centurion: the more he believed, the more he approached the Lord. And regarding other things that in this chapter one missed and the other said, then here, if you follow the well-known rule that we have already proposed, there is nothing that would be contradictory. 51. Matthew continues to narrate this way: “When Jesus came to the house of Peter, he saw his mother-in-law lying in a fever, and he touched her hand, and the fever left her; and she arose and ministered to them” (Matthew 8:14–15). When this happened, that is, before or after what event, Matthew did not clearly indicate this. Mark, for example, narrates this before the story of the cleansing of the leper; and what happened after the speech on the mountain, about which Mark kept silent, apparently, now he interjected. And Luke tells about Peter's mother-in-law after the event, after which Mark, but before the speech, which he set out at length, but which can be considered as the one that Matthew speaks of as said on the mountain. But what is the importance of when someone puts an event in one place or another, or when he introduces it out of order, or remembers what was missed, or before deals with what happened after, when at the same time he does not. does not contradict another, telling about this or that, or oneself? In fact, no one can even remember perfectly and correctly known circumstances in any order (for the order of our memories depends not so much on us as on the will of the Almighty). It is very likely that each of the evangelists believed that they should narrate events in the order in which God pleased to awaken them in his memory; only one thing is important: none of the indicated orders in any way diminishes either the importance or the truth of the Gospel. 52. But if anyone in pious zeal would ask the question: “Why did the Holy Spirit, who divides the properties of each as it pleases Him, and therefore, without a doubt, guides and directs the thoughts of the saints in the compilation of books of such high importance, in collecting what they should write, allowed one to arrange his narrative in this way and another in another?” - he, with the help of God, can solve this. But this is not part of the task of our present work, which we undertook with the sole purpose of showing that the evangelists do not contradict either themselves or each other, no matter in what order each of them wishes to narrate both the same circumstances and different acts and sayings. Therefore, where the order of the sequence is not sufficiently clear, it should not be so important for us exactly for what reason each of them chose one or the other; but where it is obvious, and at the same time it seems to someone that there is a contradiction in the evangelist, either to himself or to another, then, of course, everything needs to be carefully considered and interpreted. 53. So, Matthew continues: “When evening came, they brought to Him many who were demon-possessed, and He cast out the spirits with a word and healed all the sick, so that what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled, who says: He took upon Himself our infirmities and bore our diseases” (Matthew 8:16–17). Here the evangelist clearly showed that all this happened on the day Peter’s mother-in-law was healed. Mark says the same thing, continuing what was said above: “And in the morning, getting up very early, he went out and went into a deserted place, and there he prayed” (Mark 1:31-35). And although there is no need to understand by the words: “when evening came” the evening of the same day, and by the words: “in the morning... early” - the morning of the same night, it is nevertheless logical to see here the preservation of the mentioned sequence of events. Luke, when he spoke about Peter’s mother-in-law, although he did not say: “When evening came,” nevertheless added something that is the same in meaning: “When the sun went down, all those who had people who were sick with various diseases brought them to Him, and He, laying His hands on each of them, healed them. Many demons also came out shouting and saying: You are the Christ, the Son of God. And He forbade them to say that they knew that He was the Christ. When the day came, He left the house and went into a deserted place, and the people sought Him and, coming to Him, restrained Him so that He would not leave them” (Luke 4:40–42). And here we see the observance of the same order in the distribution of time that we find in Mark. But Matthew seems to reproduce in order not what was done, but what was omitted; he mentioned Peter's mother-in-law after he reported what was done on the same day at evening; then he does not add the message about the dawn, but narrates this way: “When Jesus saw a large crowd around Him, he ordered (the disciples) to sail to the other side” (Matthew 8:18). This is already something different, and not what Mark and Luke say, who after evening talk about dawn. For in these words we see a reference to an event of some other day. 54. Then Matthew continues: “Then one scribe came and said to Him: Teacher! I will follow You wherever You go,” etc. to the words: “Let the dead bury their dead” (Matthew 8:19–22). Luke tells the same story. But he speaks about this after much else, without clearly indicating the sequence of time, and it is unknown why: either because he missed something that happened earlier, or perhaps because he first paid attention to a later event. Luke also mentions the one who said: “I will follow You, Lord! but first let me say goodbye to my family.” Matthew is silent about this. Then Luke moves on to something else, and not to what follows in the order of time: “After this the Lord chose seventy other disciples, and sent them two by two before Him” (Luke 9:61; Luke 10:1). True, the words “after this” are clear; but at what period of time after this the Lord did this is not clear. However, this was during the same period of time that Matthew indicated at first, for Matthew continues to maintain the same order, narrating as follows: 55. “And when He entered into the boat, His disciples followed Him. And behold, there was a great commotion on the sea,” to the words: “and he came to his city.” These two events, successively reported by Matthew, i.e. Mark and Luke tell the same story about the calming of the sea and about those who had a fierce demon and fled into the desert (Matthew 8:23–34, 9:1; Mark 4:36–41, 5:1–17; Luke 8:22–37). Both the same thoughts are expressed in different words, but nevertheless the thoughts are not different, such as, for example, what Matthew says, that He said: “Why are you so fearful, O you of little faith?” Mark gives this: “Why are you so fearful? How come you don’t have faith?” those. That perfect faith that is like a mustard seed. And Luke says: “Where is your faith?” Thus, all together can be expressed as follows: “Why are you so afraid? where is your faith? You of little faith!” Of these words, one says one thing, and the other says another. Also, the words that they utter to awaken Him are reproduced by Matthew as follows: “Lord! save us, we are perishing"; Mark: “Teacher! Do You really not need us to perish?” ; Luke: “Mentor! Mentor! We are dying." Those who awaken the Lord have the same thought; they want to be saved. And there is no need to inquire what exactly was said to Christ. Is it really important which of these three expressions is used if the essence of each of them is the same? However, it could also be that all these words were spoken, since there were many who woke Him up: some were said by some, others by others. Also in the words on taming the storm: according to Matthew: “Who is this, that even the winds and the sea obey Him?” ; according to Mark: “Who is this, that both the wind and the sea obey Him?” ; according to Luke: “Who is this that commands the winds and the waters, and they obey Him?” Who does not see that this is one and the same thought. 56. And the fact that Matthew speaks of two saved from a legion of demons who received permission to enter the herd of swine, and Mark and Luke name one, then this should be understood to mean that one of them was a more glorious and famous person, for whom the country mourned and for whose healing it took great care. Wishing to note this, the two evangelists thought it necessary to mention one thing about which the rumor had spread more widely and obviously. And the fact that the words of the demons are not given in the same way by the evangelists does not give rise to any doubt, since they can be reduced in meaning to the same meaning, or they can be understood in such a way that they were said all together. And what could be contradictory in the fact that Matthew speaks in the plural, and others in the singular; after all, they themselves narrate that when asked what to call him, the person asked answered that his name was legion, because there were many demons; as well as in what Mark says, namely, that a herd of pigs was near the mountain, and Luke was on the mountain; for the herd of pigs was so large that some of them were on the mountain, and some were near the mountain, because, as Mark clearly indicated, there were two thousand pigs. 57. After this Matthew continues, still maintaining the order of time, and thus connects the story: “Then He got into a boat and crossed back and came to His city. And behold, they brought to Him a paralytic, lying on a bed,” etc. to the words: “When the people saw this, they were amazed and glorified God, who had given such power to men” (Matthew 9:1–8). Mark and Luke also mentioned this paralytic; but, according to Matthew, the Lord said: “Be of good cheer, child! your sins are forgiven you,” and Luke does not say “child,” but simply: “He said to the man, “Your sins are forgiven you.” Mark says that this was not done in Nazareth, which is called His city, but in Capernaum, and about this he speaks like this: “After a few days He came again to Capernaum... And they came to Him with a paralytic, whom four men carried; and, not being able to approach Him due to the crowds, they opened the roof of the house where He was, and, having dug through it, lowered the bed on which the paralytic lay. Jesus, seeing their faith, says to the paralytic: child! Your sins are forgiven you,” and so on. (Mark 2:1–12). But Luke does not say in what place this was done, but says this: “One day, while He was teaching... some brought a man who was paralyzed on a bed, and they tried to carry him into the house and lay him before Jesus; and not finding where to carry him because of the crowd, they climbed onto the top of the house and through the roof lowered him with his bed into the middle before Jesus. And He, seeing their faith, said to the man: “Your sins are forgiven you,” etc. (Luke 5:17–26). 58. So, the question arises: why does Matthew write that this happened in the city of the Lord, and Mark - in Capernaum? This would indeed be difficult to resolve if Matthew had directly named Nazareth; but since the whole of Galilee could be called the city of Christ, because Nazareth was in Galilee, just as the whole kingdom, consisting of so many cities, is called the Roman Kingdom, and when the state is composed of so many cities, about which it is written: “Glorious things are proclaimed about you, city of God!” (Ps. 86:3), and when even before the people of God, who lived in so many cities, were called even one house, the house of Israel, then who can doubt that Jesus did this in His city, when He did it in Capernaum, the city of Galilee, where He returned after crossing the strait? So, having come to Galilee, He is rightly called returning to His city, no matter in which city of Galilee this happened; and even more so in Capernaum, in a kind of metropolis of this region. 59. So, after this, Matthew continues like this: “As Jesus passed from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the toll booth, and he said to him, “Follow Me.” And he arose and followed Him” (Matthew 9:9). Mark talks about it this way, while maintaining the same order after the story of the healing of the paralytic: “As He passed by, He saw Levi Alpheus sitting at the tax office, and said to him: Follow Me. And he stood up and followed Him” (Mark 2:14). It is clear that Levi and Matthew are one and the same person. And Luke talks about this after the healing of the same paralytic: “After this Jesus went out and saw a publican named Levi sitting at the collection office, and said to him: follow me. And he, leaving everything, stood up and followed Him” (Luke 5:27–28). It seems most likely that Matthew inserts this episode as something he had missed earlier, for one must think that Matthew was called before the famous speech delivered on the mountain; after all, Luke indicated that it was on this mountain that the election of twelve out of many disciples took place, and He called those chosen apostles (Luke 6:13). 60. Matthew continues: “And as Jesus reclined in the house, many publicans and sinners came and reclined with him and his disciples,” etc. to the words: “But new wine is put into new bottles, and both are preserved” (Matthew 9:10–17). Here Matthew did not indicate in whose house Jesus reclined with the tax collectors and sinners. From this it would seem that Matthew did not tell about this in the order of events, but reproduced from memory what happened at another time, if Mark and Luke, who similarly narrate this, did not clearly state that Jesus was reclining in the house of Levi, i.e. Matthew, and everything that follows was said there. For Mark, maintaining the same sequence, says this about this: “And when Jesus reclined in his house” (that is, Levi, whom he mentioned above), “his disciples and many publicans and sinners reclined with him” (Mark 2:15). Luke also tells about the same thing: “And Levi prepared a great meal for Him in his house; and there were many publicans and others who sat with them” (Luke 5:29). So, it's obvious whose house this took place in. 61. We have already seen that all three evangelists cited words, both those that were spoken to the Lord and those that He said in response; Matthew says this: “When the Pharisees saw this, they said to His disciples, “Why does your Teacher eat and drink with publicans and sinners?” (Matthew 9:11) Mark says this in almost the same words: “When the scribes and Pharisees saw that He was eating with publicans and sinners, they said to His disciples: How is it that He eats and drinks with publicans and sinners?” (Mark 2:16) And Luke, apparently, remembered this a little differently, because he writes: “The scribes and Pharisees murmured and said to His disciples: Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?” (Luke 5:30), not wanting, of course, to emphasize that he does not mean the Teacher here, but only pointing out that this reproach applied to everyone: both to Him and to His disciples. This is why, of course, Luke says that the Lord answered: “I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance” (Luke 5:32). He answered them this way only because the words: “you eat and drink” referred primarily to Him. And although Matthew and Mark reported that this reproach was made to His disciples, they, reproaching the disciples, reprimanded the Teacher, Whom the disciples imitated. So, the thought here is the same: it is suggested all the better because it is communicated in different expressions while maintaining the same truth. As for the Lord’s answer, according to Matthew, it was as follows: “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick, go and learn what it means: I want mercy, and not sacrifice? For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance” (Matthew 9:12–13). Mark and Luke held the same thought in almost the same words, only they both do not insert evidence from the prophet: “I want mercy, not sacrifice.” The words “to repentance” explain that Christ did not love sinners because they were sinners, just as the comparison with the sick perfectly instills the idea of ​​what God wants, calling sinners as a doctor of the sick, so that they would be saved from lawlessness, as from illness; and this is accomplished through repentance. 62. The words of Matthew: “Then John’s disciples come to Him and say: Why do we and the Pharisees fast a lot, but Your disciples do not fast?” (Matthew 9:14), Mark gave it in this form: “The disciples of John and the Pharisees fasted. They come to Him and say: Why do the disciples of John and the Pharisees fast, but Your disciples do not fast?” (Mark 2:18) It seems that Mark added the Pharisees because they said this together with the disciples of John, while Matthew reports that only the disciples of John said this. However, the words spoken by them, which we read in Mark, rather show that they said this about each other, i.e. the participants of the feast who were there came up to Jesus and told Him about the disciples of John and the Pharisees that they were fasting; those. those who were offended by this came up and told Him the above. This thought was most clearly expressed by Luke, who said after Jesus’ answer about calling sinners to repentance: “They” (i.e., those who grumbled about the presence of tax collectors and sinners at the feast) “said to Him: Why do John’s disciples fast often and say prayers, likewise those of the Pharisees, but yours eat and drink?” (Luke 5:33). From all this we can conclude that Matthew’s words only mean that among others there were John’s disciples, and everyone vying with each other, whoever could, made this reproach; but the thought of the evangelists, despite all the different ways of expression, retains the same content. 63. Matthew and Mark equally inserted the well-known passage about the sons of the bridal chamber, that they will not fast while the bridegroom is with them; and Luke says: “Can you force the sons of the bridal chamber to fast” (Luke 5:34). The idea is the same, just a little stronger. As for the fact that Matthew at first said not “fast”, but “sorrow,” then later he added: “Then they will fast” (Matthew 9:15), “fast,” and not “sorrow.” Thus, he indicated that the Lord was speaking about a fast that is associated with humiliation in sadness and sorrow, so it is clear that another mood, related to the joy of thought, attached to the spiritual and therefore to some extent abstaining from bodily foods, the Lord designated with further comparisons about new cloth and new wine, in order to show that for people of the soul and the body, who care about the body and therefore still retain ancient feelings, such a fast does not correspond; these comparisons are equally explained by the other two evangelists. After all, it is already sufficiently clear that there is nothing contradictory in the fact that one gives what another has omitted in words or in content, as long as he does not deviate from the same truth or as long as others do not contradict what is sometimes given differently. 64. Further, Matthew, observing the order of the narrative, says: “While He was telling them this, a certain leader came up to Him and, bowing to Him, said: My daughter is now dying; but come, lay Your hand on her, and she will live,” and so on. to the words: “And the rumor of this spread throughout all that land” (Matthew 9:18–26). Mark and Luke both talk about this; but they change the order of actions, because they remember this and insert it into the story in another place, i.e. after the story that after driving out the demons and allowing them to enter the swine, He crossed the strait from the country of the Gadarenes. For Mark thus continues the story after the famous event in Gadarene: “When Jesus again crossed in a boat to the other side, a large crowd gathered to Him. He was by the sea. And behold, one of the rulers of the synagogue, named Jairus, comes and, seeing Him, falls at His feet,” etc. (Mark 5:21–43). From this it can be understood that what happened to Jairus’s daughter took place after the return from the country of the Gadarenes, but how much after is not indicated. Indeed, if there were no interval, then there would be no time for those events that Matthew has just reported, i.e. events in his house; only he talks about them as if the matter concerns not him, but someone else, which is the custom of the evangelists, although it is specifically about him and his house. After this event, nothing else follows except what was reported about the daughter of the leader of the synagogue. Indeed, he compares events in such a way that the transition itself clearly shows: his narrative is consistent and the events follow in the same order; indeed, when he mentioned above the words of Jesus about the new cloth and the new wine, he directly added: “As He spoke to them these things, a certain ruler came to Him.” Luke, when he goes after the story of the miracle in the country of the Gadarenes to the story of the daughter of the ruler of the synagogue, does not do this in such a way that he seems to be based on Matthew, who shows that this happened after the well-known parables about the cloth and the wine; he makes this transition to other events: “When Jesus returned, the people received Him, because everyone was waiting for Him. And behold, there came a man named Jairus, who was the ruler of the synagogue; and falling at the feet of Jesus, he asked Him to come into his house,” etc. (Luke 8:40–56). It appears that the crowd immediately accepted Jesus because they were expecting His return; and the addition “and behold, a man came” should not be understood as an event that occurred immediately at that moment, but one must keep in mind the account of the feast of the tax collectors, which Matthew speaks of. 65. So, in this story, which we have now begun to examine, about the woman who suffered from hemorrhage, all three evangelists agree without any misunderstanding. And for the essence of the matter, it is not important that one is silent and the other mentions, nor is it important that, according to Mark, He said: “Who touched My clothes?” (Mark 5:30), and in the words of Luke: “Who touched Me?” (Luke 8:45); one said as they usually say, and the other in a special way, but both expressed the same thought; because we usually say: “You torment me,” and not: “You torment my clothes,” although it is quite clear what we want to say by this. 66. But with all this, Matthew narrates that the leader of the synagogue indicated to the Lord that his daughter was not nearing death or dying, but had already died; two other evangelists - that she is close to death, but has not yet died, so they even say that later they came to report her death, and that therefore the Teacher should not be disturbed, as if He could, by laying on his hand, only prevent her from dying, but not awaken the dead one. It should be thought that Matthew, for the sake of brevity, thought it best to say that the Lord was asked to do exactly what He did, i.e. awakened the deceased. He paid attention not to the father’s word about his daughter, but mainly to his desire, and used exactly those words that corresponded to this desire. After all, the father was in such despair that he wanted to see his daughter alive, since he did not believe that he would find alive the one he left dying. So, the first two evangelists presented the original words of Jairus, and Matthew presented what he desired and thought. It turns out that they asked the Lord for both: both that He would heal the sick woman and that He would raise the dead. And since Matthew decided to report briefly, he presented his father as saying what he wanted, and Christ did. Of course, if those two evangelists or one of them had attributed to the father the words spoken by the messengers from home, i.e. for Jesus not to worry because the girl died, this would contradict the words given in Matthew; but in reality we do not read that he did not agree to what the messengers from home said and opposed, i.e. for the Teacher to come. Therefore, the words of the Lord: “Do not be afraid, only believe, and you will be saved” (Luke 8:50) are not a reproach to the distruster, but a great strengthening of the believer. Indeed, he had the same faith as the one who said: “I believe, Lord! help my unbelief" (Mk 9.24). 67. In this state of affairs, in relation to the different but not contradictory words of the evangelists, we learn a very useful and extremely necessary rule: in the words of each we must discern only his intention. No one should be considered a liar if he expresses the intention of someone in other words without citing his words; Let not the pitiful literalists think that truth is in any way connected with alphabetic signs; one must look only for the true spirit of the speaker and, of course, not in words alone, but also in all other spiritual signs. 68. And the fact that in some copies in Matthew the words are found: “The woman (and not the “maiden”) did not die, but slept” (Matthew 9:24), although Mark and Luke call her a twelve-year-old maiden, then this, one should think, is due to the fact that Matthew speaks according to Jewish custom. Indeed, in other places of the Scriptures we find that not only those who are married are called women, but also pure, innocent wives; so it is said about Eve herself: “And the Lord God made ... a woman” (Gen. 2.22), and in a certain place in the book of Numbers it is commanded not to kill women who did not know the man’s bed, i.e. virgins (Numbers 31.18); Even the Apostle Paul uses similar language when he speaks of Christ as born of a woman (Gal. 4.4). This assumption is much more reasonable than the fact that at the age of twelve she was already married or had experienced her husband. 69. Matthew continues: “When Jesus went from there, two blind men followed Him and shouted: “Have mercy on us, Jesus, Son of David!” and so on. to the words: “And the Pharisees said: He casts out demons by the power of the prince of demons” (Matthew 9:27–34). These events are recounted only by Matthew, because those two blind men about whom others narrate are not the same; it’s just that similar events happened repeatedly, so that even though Matthew did not report this last event (Matthew 20:29–34), one could see that what he said was said about the other two. We advise you to understand and carefully remember that there are events similar to one another, which is proven precisely when the same evangelist speaks about both. Thus, when we find some similar events in individual evangelists and see in them something contradictory that cannot be resolved, then let us regard it as not the same, but only as similar or accomplished in the same way. 70. Further, Matthew clearly reveals the order of events, because after the incident with the blind and the dumb spirit, the narrative goes like this: “And Jesus went through all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of infirmity among the people... And having called His twelve disciples, He gave them power over unclean spirits,” and so on until the words: “Truly I say to you, He will not lose the reward.” his own” (Matt. 9:35–38; Matt. 10:1–42). In all this place which we have indicated, He gave many instructions to His disciples; but, as has been said, it is difficult to understand whether Matthew brought all this in the order of events, or whether this order was suggested to him by his memory. Mark, as we see, shortened this passage and began it with the following words: “Then he walked around the surrounding villages and taught. And, calling twelve...”, and so on. to the words: “Shake the dust from your feet as a testimony against them” (Mark 6:6–11). But before this, Mark, after the story of the resurrection of the daughter of the leader of the synagogue, reported that everyone was amazed at the Lord in His fatherland because He has such great wisdom and power, which Matthew mentions after the admonition to the disciples and after many other things (Matthew 13:54). Thus, it is unknown whether Matthew restored what was missing about the events in His fatherland, or whether Mark prevented the memories, i.e. It is unclear which of them followed the order of the events that took place, and which kept the sequence of thoughts in memory. And Luke, immediately following the resurrection of Jairus’s daughter, added a narrative about the power and admonitions that He gave to the disciples (Luke 9:1–6); however, as briefly as Mark, but not in such a way that one could find consistency in a number of events. Luke contradicts Matthew in listing the disciples elsewhere when they were chosen on the mount, speaking of Judas Jacob, whom Matthew calls Thaddeus, and some lists have the name of Levi; but who has ever forbidden the same person to be called by two or three names? 71. They often ask: how did Matthew and Luke mention that the Lord told the disciples not to carry even a staff with them, while Mark says: “And he commanded them not to take anything on the road except one staff”; but then he continues: “no bag, no bread, no copper in the belt” (Mark 6:8), so that he shows that his narrative revolves in the same place as the narrative of those who said that one should not even take a staff with oneself. This bewilderment is resolved by the fact that the staff, which according to Mark should be worn, is understood with one meaning, and the one, which according to Matthew and Luke should not be carried, with another, just as by temptation in one case we mean seduction, and in the other a test; as well as the judgment about which it is said: “And those who have done good will come forth into the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil into the resurrection of condemnation” (John 5:29) is understood in a different meaning compared to the one that says: “Judge me, O God, and enter into my litigation with an unkind people” (Ps. 42:1). The first court is a condemnation court, and the second court is a court for trial. 72. There are many other words that have several meanings and are understood differently in different places, which sometimes require special explanation, such as: “Brothers! Do not be children in mind; be children in evil, but mature in mind” (1 Cor. 14:20). The thought hidden here can be briefly expressed as follows: “Don’t be children, but be children.” Also this: “If anyone among you thinks to be wise in this age, let him be foolish in order to be wise” (1 Cor. 3:18), which may have a different meaning than “do not be wise in order to be wise.” And sometimes hidden instructions are expressed in such a way as to teach the seeker, such as what is said in Galatians: “Bear one another’s burdens, and in this way fulfill the law of Christ. For whoever thinks himself to be something when he is nothing deceives himself. Let each one test his own work, and then he will have praise only in himself and not in another, for each one will bear his own burden” (Gal. 6.2-5). If the word “burden” is not understood in different meanings, then one can undoubtedly think that in this place one and the same thing contradicts itself, and this in one and the same thought and in words used side by side. He who first said, “Bear one another’s burdens,” then says, “Each one will bear his own burden.” But the burden of mutual weakness is one thing, and the burden of reporting to God for one’s actions is quite another; the first is carried out in communication with the brothers, while the second, personal, is carried out by each individual. In the same way, the rod is understood spiritually when the apostle says: “Should I come to you with a rod, or with love and a spirit of meekness?” (1 Cor. 4:21), it is also understood physically when we use this word in application to some other matter; Let's not talk about other figurative meanings of this word. 73. So, one must accept both, i.e. and the fact that the apostles did not carry a staff, and the fact that they carried only a staff: indeed, when, according to Matthew, He says: “Take with you neither gold, nor silver... nor staff,” then immediately after this he continues: “For the one who works is worthy of food” (Matthew 10:9, 10); He clearly shows why He did not want them to have and wear these things: not because they are not needed for the support of this life, but in order to show that all these things should be provided by the very believers to whom they preached the Gospel, as wages to the warriors, as the fruit of the vine to the laborers, as the milk of the flock to the shepherds. Therefore, the Apostle Paul says: “What soldier ever serves on his own pay? Who, having planted grapes, does not eat its fruit? Who, tending a flock, does not eat milk from the flock? Here is what is needed for preachers of the Gospel. Therefore, a little later he says: “If we have sown spiritual things in you, is it great if we reap bodily things from you? If others have power over you, don't we? However, we did not use this power” (1 Cor. 9:7, 11–12). From this it is clear that the Lord did not command that evangelists should receive their livelihood only from those to whom they preach the Gospel; otherwise, the same apostle acted against this commandment, because he acquired the means of life with his own hands, so as not to be a burden to anyone (1 Thess. 2:9); but He gave the opportunity by virtue of which they knew that this should be their due. When the Lord commands something, then if one does not do it, it is a crime of disobedience, but when an opportunity (power) is given, then everyone is allowed not to use it and, as it were, to give up their right. So, in saying this to the disciples, the Lord was pointing out what the same apostle explains more clearly as follows: “Do you not know that those who officiate are fed from the sanctuary? that those who serve the altar take a share from the altar? So the Lord commanded those who preach the Gospel to live from the gospel. But I did not use anything like that” (1 Cor. 9:13–15). So, when he says that the Lord established it this way, but he did not use it, then, of course, he shows that the power to use it was given, but the inevitable need to use it was not given. 74. The Lord, commanding that those who proclaim the Gospel should live from the Gospel, thereby tells the apostles that in their care they should be careless and not carry with them what is necessary for this life, neither small nor great. That is why it is said: “not a staff,” which shows that His servants should be given everything and that they should not seek anything more than they need. And adding: “for the worker is worthy of food,” He unambiguously showed in what form and for what reason all this is said. So, He called this power a staff when “he commanded them not to take anything on the road except one staff”; here it could be briefly said like this: “Take nothing necessary with you, not even a staff, except only a staff,” so that with the words “not a staff” it is made clear that you do not need to take the most insignificant things, and the addition: “except only a staff” indicates the opportunity (power) received from the Lord not to have the need for what they do not have with themselves. The Lord said both, but since not a single evangelist expressed both at the same time, it seems that one contradicts the other; but based on the above, let no one else think so. 75. A similar thing is implied when Matthew says that one should not wear shoes; and here the Lord forbids the concern that there will be a shortage. It should also be understood regarding the two clothes, i.e. so that any of them does not think that it is necessary to carry with them something other than the one on their shoulders, worrying about the fact that they will need it; after all, he can receive this (other) by virtue of the acquired power. Therefore, Mark, when he says that they should put on sandals or soles, shows that such shoes have some mysterious meaning, namely, that the foot should not be left unprotected, but also not covered, i.e. so that the gospel is not hidden, but also not based on earthly comforts. In addition, He forbids not wearing or having two clothes, but rather, putting on: “not wearing two clothes,” which only admonishes them to walk in simplicity, and not in abundance. 76. Consequently, there is no doubt that the Lord said everything, but partly in the literal sense, and partly in a figurative sense; and the evangelists brought it into their Gospels so that one said one thing, and another said another; and something was introduced by two or three, or even all four evangelists. However, all this is not put together as was said or done. And whoever believes that the Lord could not say one thing in the literal sense and another in a figurative sense in the same speech, let him pay attention to the rest; then he will see that it is extremely unwise to think so. Such a person, perhaps, can imagine (let’s say one thing that accidentally came to mind) that in a figurative sense the admonition that the left hand should not know what the right hand is doing, as well as the teaching on alms or some other instruction, should be understood. 77. I again want to remind the reader that the Lord, in one or another place in his speeches, repeated what He had said earlier; so that if the order of the speeches or events of one evangelist does not coincide with the order of another, the reader should not think that there is any contradiction here, for this only means that in another place what was said elsewhere is said again; and this must be borne in mind not only regarding events, but also regarding speeches. After all, nothing prevents us from thinking that this was done a second time; but it is senseless sacrilege to slander the Gospel when a person does not believe that something has happened again, of the impossibility of which no one can be confidently convinced. 78. Matthew goes on to say: “And when Jesus had finished teaching his twelve disciples, he went away from there to teach and preach in their cities. John, having heard in prison about the deeds of Christ, sent two of his disciples to say to Him: “Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?” , etc. to the words: “And wisdom is justified by her children” (Matthew 11:1–19). Luke also gives this whole passage (Luke 7:18–35) about John the Baptist: how he sent disciples to Jesus, what kind of answer those he sent received, and what the Lord said about John after they left; True, not in the same order; However, it is not entirely clear here which of the evangelists follows the actual order of events in their story, and who reproduces them as they recall. 79. Then Matthew says: “Then He began to rebuke the cities in which His powers were most manifested, because they did not repent,” and so on. to the words: “It will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom on the day of judgment than for you” (Matthew 11:20–24). Luke also reports a similar thing (Luke 10.12-15), adding this place to the speech of the Lord from His lips, from which it is mainly clear that he brings it in the very order in which it was said by the Lord; and Matthew retained the order of words as he remembered; however, if the words of Matthew: “Then He began to rebuke the cities” one decides to understand that with the word “then” he wanted to indicate only a certain moment, and not some long period of time when this was said or done, then it will have to be assumed that this was said twice. After all, sometimes the same evangelist has something that the Lord said twice. So, for example, the same Luke twice says that the Lord said that on the road one should not carry bags and the like (Luke 9:3, 10:4). It follows that there is nothing surprising in the fact that among individuals something else is repeated in the same order in which it was said, and that, therefore, the order turns out to be different for individual narrators, since what was said appears both when one said it and when the other remembered it again. 80. Matthew further writes: “At that time, Jesus continued speaking, saying: I glorify You, Father,” and so on. to the words: “For My yoke is easy, and My burden is light” (Matthew 11:25–30). Luke also speaks partly about this, although he does not say: “Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” The Lord, of course, said this, but Luke probably did not remember everything that was said. Indeed, Matthew says: “At that time, continuing his speech...”, etc. after the reproach made to the cities, and Luke after this reproach inserts something else, though not much; and he adds the above words as follows: “At that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit and said...” (Luke 10:21). Therefore, even if Matthew had not said “at that time,” it would not have seemed unreasonable in view of the fact that Luke inserts so little in the middle. 81. Matthew continues: “At that time Jesus passed through the sown fields on the Sabbath,” etc. to the words: “For the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath” (Matthew 12:1–8). This is repeated, although without any puzzling question, by Mark and Luke (Mark 2:23–28; Luke 6:1–5). But they don't say, "At that time." From this we can conclude that Matthew predominantly maintained the order of events, while others adhered to the order of their memories; however, this conclusion is valid only if the words “at that time” are understood in a broad sense, i.e. when many different events were happening. 82. Then Matthew says: “And He departed from there and entered their synagogue. And behold, there was a man who had a withered hand,” etc. to the words: “And she became healthy, like another” (Matthew 12:9–13). Neither Mark nor Luke are silent about this healed man (Mark 3:1–5; Luke 6:6–10). But one would think that the events with the ears of corn and with this healed one happened on the same day, because here too the Sabbath is mentioned, if only Luke had not discovered that the healing of the hand took place on another Saturday, because the words of Matthew: “And having departed from there” in reality mean that He came there only when He passed from there; but how many days later He came to their synagogue after passing through the crops, nothing definite is said about this. This frees up space for Luke's narrative. But the question may arise: “How does Matthew say that they asked the Lord: “Is it possible to heal on the Sabbath?”, wanting to find a reason for the accusation; and He offered them a parable about a sheep: “Which of you, having one sheep, if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not take it and pull it out? How much better is a man than a sheep! So, you can do good on the Sabbath” (Matthew 12:10–12); whereas Mark and Luke much better reflect those who questioned the Lord with the words: “What ought one to do on the Sabbath? good or evil? save the soul, or destroy it? (Luke 6:9) So, it must be understood that first they asked the Lord: “Is it permissible to heal on the Sabbath?” And then, when He, understanding their thoughts, i.e. that they were looking for a reason to accuse, placed among them the one whom he wanted to heal, and asked what, according to Mark and Luke, He asked; and then, in response to their silence, He proposed to them the parable of the sheep and concluded it with the words that it is permissible to do good; and after all this, looking at them with an angry gaze (as Mark says), saddened by the blindness of their hearts, he said to the man: “Stretch out your hand” (Mark 3:5). 83. Matthew continues, introducing this connection into the narrative: “The Pharisees went and had a council against Him, how to destroy Him. But Jesus, having learned, withdrew from there. And a multitude of people followed Him,” and so on until the words: “And the nations will trust in His name” (Matthew 12:14–21). He is the only one who mentions this; the other two continue talking about something else. It seems that the order of events was somewhat kept in check by Mark, who says that Jesus, recognizing the evil thoughts of the Jews against Himself, withdrew with His disciples to the sea, that crowds flocked to Him and that He healed many (Mark 3:7–12). And after that He began to move on to other subjects, not those that immediately follow this; It is very difficult to understand whether the crowds really gathered to Him when Mark writes: “Then he went up into the mountain” (Mark 3:13). Luke, apparently, also mentions this when he says: “In those days He went up into the mountain to pray” (Luke 6:12). The very “in those days” shows clearly enough that this event described did not immediately follow the previous one. 84. Then Matthew says, “Then they brought to Him one who was possessed with a demon, blind and dumb; and he healed him, so that the blind and dumb man began to speak and see” (Matthew 12:22). Luke does not report this in that order, but after much else, and speaks only of the dumb, and not of the blind (Luke 11:14); but one should not think that he is talking about something else, since he is holding back something: after all, he adds in the further narration the same thing as Matthew. 85. Matthew continues: “And all the people marveled and said, Is this not the Christ, the Son of David?” , etc. to the words: “By your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned” (Matthew 12:23–37). Mark adds words about Jesus that He allegedly casts out demons by the power of the demonic prince, but not regarding the healing of the mute mentioned above, but after something else, which only he speaks about, and with this he connects his story either by borrowing from another place, or by omitting something, and then again returning to the previous order of events (Mark 3:22-30). And Luke says the same as Matthew, and in almost the same words (Luke 11:14–26); calling the Spirit of God the finger of God, he does not deviate from the same truth, because in this way he better teaches us to understand what the finger of God is when we read about it in some place in St. Scriptures. 86. Matthew goes on to say: “Then some of the scribes and Pharisees said: Teacher! We would like to see a sign from You,” etc. to the words: “So it will be with this evil generation” (Matthew 12:38–45). Luke also narrates in the same place, but in a slightly different order (Luke 11:16-37), because he spoke about the fact that they asked the Lord for a sign from heaven after the famous miracle with the dumb man, and he misplaced what the Lord answered them, but says that this answer was given after the arrival of the crowds, and he adds this after inserting a few words about the woman who said to the Lord: “Blessed is the womb that bore You” (Luke 11:27). And he talks about this woman when he cited the Lord’s speech about how the unclean spirit, having left a person, returned again and found the house cleansed. So, after the words about that woman, when he gave an answer to the crowds who asked for a sign from heaven, after inserting the parable of Jonah the prophet and the speech of the Lord himself, he brought what was said about the queen from the South and about the Ninevites. Thus, he reported something that Matthew was silent about, and something that he left out that he said. But who does not see that it is not so important in what order the Lord said this; Due to the special significance of the evangelists for us, we must know one thing: there is no lie in the fact that any of them conveys someone’s speech not in the order in which it was delivered, because for the matter it is not at all important whether it happened this way or that way. Moreover, Luke gives here an extensive speech of Jesus and reports about it something that Matthew gives in the speech of the Lord on the mountain; from this it becomes clear to us that it was pronounced twice: both then and now. 87. Now let us consider how far the evangelists agree with each other in what is said in the following passage from Matthew: “While He was still speaking to the people, His mother and His brothers stood outside the house,” etc. to the words: “Whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother, and sister, and mother” (Matthew 12:46–50). We must, without a doubt, understand that this happened in the order in which it is told. In fact, he introduced the introductory words: “When did He yet speak to the people,” which made it clear that the Lord continued the speech given by the evangelist above. For Mark, having written down the words of the Lord spoken about the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, says: “And His Mother and His brothers came” (Mark 3:31-35), while omitting some of the events that Matthew and, somewhat more extensively, Luke brought. Luke, however, did not maintain consistency in conveying this story, placing it ahead of what Jesus said earlier. In addition, he inserted it in such a way that it seemed unrelated to anything, separated from both the above and the events below. Indeed, after mentioning some parables, he cites the incident he remembered with his Mother and His brothers: “And His Mother and His brothers came to Him, and could not come to Him because of the people.” He did not indicate exactly when they approached Him. Then, when he described what happened, he says this: “One day He entered a boat with His disciples” (Luke 8:19–22). Obviously, when Luke said “one day,” he did not mean exactly the day the events of which he described above. Thus, what Matthew says about His Mother and His brothers does not in any way contradict the messages of Mark and Luke. 88. Matthew continues: “And Jesus went out of the house that day and sat down by the sea. And a multitude of people gathered to Him,” and so on. to the words: “Therefore, every scribe who is taught of the Kingdom of Heaven is like a master who brings out of his treasury new and old” (Matthew 13:1–52). All this happened immediately after what Matthew reported about His Mother and brothers; and that Matthew preserved the order of events in the narrative is proven by the fact that, moving from that event to this, he connected the story like this: “On that day.” By saying this, he (unless, according to the usual usage of words in the Scriptures, time is meant by day) clearly shows that this happened immediately after what was said above. Mark follows the same order (Mark 4:1–34). And Luke, after telling about the Mother and brothers of the Lord, moves on to something else, but at the same time does not indicate in any way the temporal sequence of events, which could contradict the above order (Luke 8:22). So, neither what Matthew told about the words of the Lord, nor what Mark and Luke, echoing Matthew, brought, gives any grounds for perplexed questions; and there is nothing contradictory in what Matthew alone told. 89. Further Matthew says: “And when Jesus had finished these parables, he went away from there,” etc. to the words: “And he did not perform many miracles there because of their unbelief” (Matthew 13:53–58). Here he does not explicitly indicate that one event followed another. Mark, like Luke, makes it clear that he maintains such a sequence, citing after the story with parables the incident in the boat where Jesus fell asleep, and the famous miracle of casting out demons in the land of the Gadarenes (Mark 4:35–41, 5:1–17; Luke 8:22–37), about which Matthew made an insert above (Matthew 8:23–34). So, let's now see if it agrees with the other two, i.e. with Mark and Luke, what, according to Matthew, the Lord said in His fatherland and what was said to Him, since the Evangelist John in various places of his narrative extensively mentions both that something similar was said to the Lord (John 6:42), and about what the Lord said. 90. Indeed, Mark brings here almost everything that Matthew did, except that the Lord was called by his fellow citizens the son of Mary and a carpenter (Mark 6:1–6), and not the son of a carpenter, as in Matthew. But this should not be surprising, because both could have been said, since they considered Him to be a carpenter who was the son of a carpenter. And Luke describes the same event in more detail: he brings it a little after His baptism and temptation, undoubtedly depicting before what happened after many intermediate events. From here, everyone can see (and this is necessary when considering such an important issue as the agreement of the evangelists) that they obviously missed something, or, not knowing what the order of events was, they cited the one that was preserved in their memories. This can be understood with complete clarity from this place, because here Luke, before reporting any act of the Lord in Capernaum, brought forward the event that we are now considering: when His compatriots were amazed at the power of power in Him and spoke contemptuously of His humble origin. In fact, Luke says that the Lord said to them: “Of course, you will tell Me the saying: doctor! heal yourself; Do also here, in Your fatherland, what we heard happened in Capernaum” (Luke 4:23), although Luke has not yet said anything about what was done in Capernaum. For clarity, we will cite the place after which Luke moved on to the narrative in question. Having told about the baptism and temptation of the Lord, Luke continues like this: “And having finished all the temptation, the devil departed from Him for the time being. And Jesus returned in strength of spirit to Galilee; and fame about Him spread throughout the surrounding country. He taught in their synagogues and was glorified by everyone. And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and, as was his custom, he entered the synagogue on the Sabbath day and stood up to read. He was given the book of the prophet Isaiah; and He opened the book and found the place where it was written: The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me; For He has anointed Me to preach good news to the poor, and He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach release to the captives, recovery of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord. And, closing the book and giving it to the servant, he sat down; and the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on Him. And He began to say to them: Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing. And they all witnessed this to Him, and marveled at the words of grace that proceeded from His mouth, and said, “Is this not Joseph’s son?” He said to them: Of course, you will tell Me the saying: doctor! heal yourself; Do also here, in Your fatherland, what we heard happened in Capernaum” (Luke 4.13–23), and so on. until the end of this part of his narrative. So, isn’t it obvious that Luke is deliberately ahead of events, wanting to tell in advance what happened (which he speaks directly about) after the great deeds committed in Capernaum, which he himself intends to report on later. 91. Matthew continues: “At that time Herod the tetrarch heard the report of Jesus and said to those serving with him, “This is John the Baptist; he rose from the dead, and therefore miracles were done by him” (Matthew 14:1–2). Mark says the same thing and in the same way, but not in the same order (Mark 6:14–16). Indeed, after the Lord sent the disciples, telling them not to take anything with them on the journey except a staff, Mark, having finished his speech, added this message, not prompted, however, by any necessity, by virtue of which we would be forced to admit that this event was closely connected in time with the previous ones according to Mark. He did not say, like Matthew, “at that time,” nor “on that day,” nor “at that hour.” And Luke, keeping the same order of narration as Mark, and not forcing the reader to admit that the order of events was exactly that, speaks about the same subject like this: “Herod the tetrarch heard about everything that Jesus did, and was perplexed: for some said that it was John who rose from the dead; others that Elijah appeared; and others that one of the ancient prophets was resurrected. And Herod said: I have beheaded John; Who is this one about whom I hear such things? And I sought to see Him” (Luke 9:7–9). In these words, Luke agrees with Mark; and the fact that he mentions the hesitation of Herod and his words gives reason to believe that Herod was finally confirmed in the thought that others openly declared, since, according to Matthew, he says: “This is John the Baptist; he rose from the dead, and therefore miracles are done by him.” If he had said: “Can it really be John” or: “How can this be,” then, of course, it would mean that he still doubted. Luke, having told about this, moved on to another, but the other two, Matthew and Mark, further report how John was beheaded. 92. Matthew goes on to say: “For Herod took John, bound him, and put him in prison,” etc. to the words: “His disciples came and took his body and buried it; and they went and told Jesus” (Matthew 14:3–12). Mark reports this in almost the same words (Mark 6:17–29). But Luke remembered this not in that order, but immediately after the baptism of the Lord; so Luke described ahead of time what happened much later. Indeed, having mentioned the words of John about the Lord, that the spade is in His hand and He will gather the wheat into His barn, and will burn the tares with unquenchable fire (Luke 3:15-21), Luke immediately after this added what, according to John’s very clear message, did not happen immediately after (since John reports that after baptism Jesus went to Galilee, where he turned water into wine, and then, after short stay in Capernaum, returned to Judea, and there he baptized many around John before John was imprisoned (John 2:1–12, 3:22–24). Only those ignorant of the Scriptures will not understand that Herod was offended by John much later than his words about the barn and wheat, and only then did he imprison him. From this it is obvious that Luke, who accidentally remembered this insult, spoke about the tragedy of John before many of the events that he had intended to narrate. But both Matthew and Mark in their story did not arrange the events with John in the order in which what happened was presented in their writings. After all, they also said that after the tradition of John, the Lord went to Galilee (Matthew 4:12; Mark 1:14), and after much that He had done in Galilee, they came to Herod with a message that made Herod doubt whether John, whom he had beheaded, had risen from the dead (Matthew 14:1-2; Mark 6:14-16); on this occasion they report everything concerning the imprisonment and death of John. 93. After the words about Christ’s announcement of the death of John, Matthew continues his narrative as follows: “And when Jesus heard, he went away,” and so on. to the words: “And he had compassion on them, and healed their sick” (Matthew 14:13–14). He says that this was immediately after John's suffering. Thus, then what was previously reported happened and what prompted Herod to say: “I beheaded John” (Luke 9:9). And indeed, we must consider it later that the rumor brought to Herod, so that he became confused and began to hesitate as to who could be the One about whom he was informed after he had beheaded John. And Mark, having reported the suffering of John, says that the apostles returned to Jesus and told Him everything that they had done and taught, and he alone says that the Lord commanded them to rest a little in a secluded place, then boarded a ship with them and sailed away, and the crowds who saw this came there before them; and the Lord, having compassion on them, taught them many things, and when the time was late, then it happened that all those present were fed with five loaves and two fish (Mk. 6:30–44). All four evangelists mentioned this miracle. Even Luke, who spoke about the suffering of John much earlier (Luke 3:20), now, after mentioning Herod and his doubt about who the Lord was, directly added the same as Mark, i.e. that the apostles returned to Him and told Him what they had done; that He withdrew with them into a deserted place; that at the same time many crowds of people followed Him; that He spoke to them about the Kingdom of God and healed those who suffered from illness; and afterwards he also mentions that at the end of the day a miracle was performed with five loaves (Luke 9:10–17). 94. But John, who differs in many respects from the other three evangelists, because he dwells more on the speeches uttered by the Lord than on the miraculously accomplished actions, after mentioning that He, leaving Judea, went again to Galilee (that is, after the tradition of John the Baptist), added to his narrative much of what He preached during the transition on the occasion of the meeting at the well with the Samaritan woman; two days later, according to John, He went from there to Galilee, then came to Cana of Galilee, where he turned water into wine and healed the son of a certain courtier (John 4:3-54). But the other evangelists spoke about something else that He did or said in Galilee, but John kept silent; on the contrary, he accurately conveyed (which others were silent about) that on a holiday he came to Jerusalem and performed a miracle there on a thirty-eight-year-old sick man who did not have a person who would lower him into a reservoir where those susceptible to various ailments were healed; he also mentioned many of the Lord’s speeches on this matter. And after this he says that the Lord crossed the Sea of ​​Tiberias and that a large crowd of people followed Him; that then He withdrew to the mountain, where He sat down with His disciples as the Passover of the Jews approached, and then, lifting up His eyes and seeing a multitude of people, He fed them with five loaves of bread and two fish (John 5:2–47, 6:1–15), i.e. what other evangelists also talk about; at the same time, he undoubtedly missed what others went through to narrate this miracle. However, although following different narrative paths, all the evangelists came together at the miracle of the five loaves. 95. Matthew brings his story to the famous miracle of the five loaves like this: “When evening came, His disciples came to Him,” etc. to the words: “And those who ate were about five thousand people, besides women and children” (Matthew 14:15–21). This miracle is reported by all four evangelists (Mark 6:34–44; Luke 9:12–17) and it is believed that their accounts differ somewhat. Therefore, it is necessary to carefully study their texts in order to learn how to act and reason in other similar cases, always following the truth. And the study must begin not with Matthew, but with John, whose narrative is structured in such a way that he even named the names of the disciples with whom the Lord talked on this subject. Indeed, he says: “Jesus, lifting up his eyes and seeing that many people were coming to Him, said to Philip: Where can we buy bread to feed them?” , etc. to the words: “And they gathered and filled twelve baskets with the pieces of the five barley loaves that were left over from those who ate” (John 6:5–13). 96. It is not so important here that he mentioned that the loaves were barley, which others did not say; It is also not important that he did not give the number of people: that there were five thousand people there, besides women and children, as Matthew said. It’s clear: one mentioned one thing, the other – another. What matters is how everything they say is true. In fact, if the Lord, according to John, looked at the crowds and asked Philip to test where they could get food for them, then doubt may creep in as to how what the disciples proposed to the Lord could be true, namely: to let the crowds go so that they could buy food for themselves in neighboring places, as other evangelists report, as well as what the Lord, according to Matthew, told them: “They don’t need to go, you give them something to eat” (Matt. 14:16). Mark and Luke agree with Matthew (Mark 6:37; Luke 9:13), omitting only his words: “They do not need to go.” Thus, it becomes clear that after these words the Lord looked at the crowds and told Philip what John mentions, but these miss. Then, Mark attributes Philip’s response to the Lord, quoted in John, to all the disciples; however, he could, as often happens, use the plural instead of the singular. Thus, Philip’s words: “Two hundred denarii worth of bread will not be enough for them” (John 6:7) mean the same thing that, according to Mark, the disciples asked: “Shall we go and buy two hundred denarii worth of bread and give them something to eat?” (Mark 6:37) And the words of the Lord, quoted by Mark: “How many loaves do you have?” (Mark 6:38) others missed it. And what, according to John, Andrew suggested about the five loaves and two fish, the other evangelists, replacing the singular with the plural, reported as what was said by all the disciples. Luke also combined the answers of both Andrew and Philip into one thought. Indeed, Luke’s words: “We have no more than five loaves and two fish” resemble the words of Andrew; and further words: “Should we go and buy food for all these people?” (Luke 9:13) apparently refer to Philip's answer, if he had not kept silent about the two hundred denarii. However, the same can be kept in mind regarding Andrei’s words. After all, when he says: “One boy here has five barley loaves and two fish,” he immediately adds: “But what is this for such a multitude?” (John 6:9) And this means to say: “Shall we go and buy food for all these people?” 97. So, we see that the words differ, but in objects and thoughts there is complete agreement; from this we receive a salutary lesson: to look in words only for the intention of the speakers, to the explanation of which all true narrators must be attentive, whether they say anything about a person, an angel or God; and their desire can be revealed from words, as long as they do not contradict each other in essence. 98. Of course, in this place the reader’s attention should be drawn to the rest, which is accidental: to how Luke says that they were ordered to arrange themselves in fifty, and Mark in a hundred and fifty in a row. But this should not confuse, for one named the part, and the other the whole; indeed, the one who reported hundreds reported what was missed to others; thus there is no contradiction. Of course, if one said about fifty, and the other about hundreds, then there would be some contradiction and it would not be easy to resolve why it was said this way and that. However, to tell the truth, with careful study, this contradiction could be resolved. I mentioned this because something often comes across that seems contradictory to inattentive and reckless people, but in fact it is not. 99. Then Matthew says, “And having sent the crowd away, He went up into the mountain to pray privately; and in the evening he remained there alone,” and so on. to the words: “And those in the boat came up and worshiped Him and said, “Truly You are the Son of God” (Matthew 14:23–33). Mark continues in the same way after the story of the miracle of the five loaves: “In the evening the boat was in the middle of the sea, and He was alone on the earth,” etc. (Mark 6:47–54); almost the same, with the exception of the speech about Peter. Here it is necessary to warn, so as not to give cause for doubt, that Mark, speaking about the Lord’s walking on the waters, said that He wanted to pass by them. How could anyone understand this in the sense that He wanted them to die, as if they were people alien to Him, who did not recognize Him so much that He seemed like a ghost to them? After all, He approached them, who were in confusion and shouting, with these words: “Be of good cheer; It is I, do not be afraid” (Matthew 14:27). So, how did He want to destroy those whom He so encourages, unless His desire to destroy them was intended to cause their cry, which was why it was necessary to come to their aid? 100. John described these events in somewhat more detail, for after the story of the miracle of the five loaves, he also speaks about the predicament of the boat and the Lord’s walk on the waters, thus connecting the story: “Jesus, having learned that they wanted to come and accidentally take Him and make Him king, again withdrew to the mountain alone. When evening came, His disciples went down to the sea and, entering a boat, went to the other side of the sea to Capernaum. It was getting dark, and Jesus did not come to them. A strong wind blew and the sea was troubled” (John 6:15–21). Here it may seem contradictory only that Matthew says that He went up to the mountain, sending the people away to pray there in solitude, and John writes that He was on the mountain with the same crowds, whom He fed with five loaves. But since John himself says that after this miracle He withdrew to the mountain so as not to be restrained by the crowd that wanted to make Him king, then, of course, it becomes clear that they had already descended from the mountain to the lowland when the loaves were distributed to the people. Therefore, there is no contradiction in the fact that He ascended the mountain again, as John and Matthew say. 101. And Luke, after narrating the miracle of the five loaves, moves on to another and deviates from the general order. Indeed, he does not say anything about the boat or about the Lord walking on the waves; but having said: “And they all ate and were filled,” he added: “At one time, when He was praying in a solitary place, and the disciples were with Him, He asked them: Who do the people say that I am?” (Luke 9:17, 18). Thus, he first talks about something different from what the other evangelists are talking about, who reported that the Lord, who walked on the waters, approached the disciples floating in a boat. And therefore we should think that He asked the disciples: “Who do the people say that I am?” not on the mountain to which, according to Matthew, He went up to pray in solitude (after all, Luke apparently agrees with Matthew, saying: “When He prayed in a solitary place,” since he also said: “He went up to the mountain to pray alone”), but in a completely different place, also solitary, but His disciples were with Him. 102. Matthew continues: “And having crossed over, they came to the land of Gennesaret, and so on. to the words: “Eating with unwashed hands does not defile a person” (Matthew 14:34–36, 15:1–20). Mark also speaks about this, without giving any reason for perplexed questions (Mark 7:1-23); and although he talks about some things differently, he does not deviate from his general thought. And John, after telling the story of entering the earth from the boat on which the Lord, who walked on the sea, ascended, as usual, focused his attention on the speech of the Lord and reported what He said about bread. And immediately after giving this speech, he again gets carried away in his speculations (John 6:22–72). However, where he differs from others, his transition to other subjects does not contradict the order of the others’ narratives. In fact, how does he prevent us from recognizing that those about whom Matthew and Mark speak were healed, and that to those who followed Him to the other side of the sea, He speaks what is reported in John; after all, Capernaum, where they crossed, according to John, is located near Lake Gennesar, to which land they came according to Matthew. 103. After the words of the Lord, when He spoke to the Pharisees about washing their hands, Matthew continues and connects the narrative in such a way that by the very transition he shows the sequence of events. He says: “And Jesus departed from there and went into the countries of Tire and Sidon,” etc. to the words: “And her daughter was healed at that hour” (Matthew 15:21–28). Mark also mentions the Canaanite woman, maintaining the same order of events and not giving reason for any doubts, except for what he added that the Lord was in the house when a wife came to Him asking for her daughter (Mark 7:24–30). However, it is not difficult to see that Matthew is silent about the house, although he narrates the same event; but his words that the disciples turned to the Lord in such expressions: “Let her go, because she is screaming after us” (Matthew 15:23), indicate that this woman shouted with prayers after the passing Lord. So, Mark's words about the house can only be understood in the sense that the woman entered where Jesus was, i.e. where He entered according to the previous words of Mark. And the words of Matthew allow us to assume that Jesus left that house in silence; This opens up a connection in the rest of the story. And Mark’s testimony that the Lord answered her about the impossibility of throwing the children’s bread to the dogs is placed after the words spoken by Matthew about the disciples who asked the Lord for the woman, His answer that He was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and Matthew’s message that she followed Him and worshiped Him with the words: “Lord! help me” (Matthew 15:25); then what both evangelists mention is already said. 104. Matthew continues his story like this: “Jesus went from there and came to the Sea of ​​Galilee, and going up to a mountain, he sat down there,” and so on. to the words: “And those who ate were four thousand people, besides women and children” (Matthew 15:29–38). Mark also mentions this second miracle with seven loaves and several fish, and in almost the same order, only with the addition of something that no one else talks about, namely, about the deaf man, to whom the Lord opened his ears by spitting and saying: “Ephphatha,” i.e. “open” (Mark 7:31–37, 8:1–9). 105. If one of the evangelists, without talking about the well-known miracle of the five loaves, would have told about it with seven, then he could be considered to disagree with the others. Who would not have thought that this is one and the same event, but conveyed not entirely accurately by either one or the other, or all together; but either one mistakenly reported seven loaves instead of five, or others said five instead of seven, or both of them committed a lie, or were deceived due to forgetfulness? The same contradiction could be seen in the number of twelve and seven boxes and baskets, as well as in the quantities of five and four thousand that were fed. But since those who reported the miracle with seven loaves did not keep silent about the miracle with five, this does not confuse anyone and everyone understands that we are talking about two different events here. 106. Then Matthew says: “And having sent the people away, He entered the boat and came to the region of Magdalene,” and so on. to the words: “An evil and adulterous generation seeks a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. And he left them and went away” (Matthew 15:39, 16:1–4). Matthew said the same thing in another place (Matthew 12:39). From this we should once again conclude that the Lord sometimes repeated what was said earlier, so if, in the presence of a contradictory circumstance, a passage cannot be resolved, then one must understand that it was said twice. Of course, following the same order, Mark, speaking about the famous miracle of the seven loaves, told the same thing as Matthew. We should not be embarrassed by the fact that Mark did not say the same thing as Matthew about someone asking for a sign from heaven, but only: “A sign will not be given to this generation” (Mark 8:10–12); here it is already clear that it was from heaven, for this is what they asked for; in addition, he omitted to say about Jonah, which Matthew reported. 107. Matthew continues: “Having crossed over to the other side...”, etc. to the words: “Then they understood that He was telling them not to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees” (Matthew 16:5–12). Mark also cites the same thing in the same order (Mark 8:13–21). 108. Further, Matthew says this: “When Jesus came to the countries of Caesarea Philippi, Jesus asked His disciples...”, and so on until the words: “And whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” (Matthew 16:13-19). Mark tells about this in almost the same order, but first inserts a story about the return of sight to a blind man (which only he told about); to the blind man who said to the Lord: “I see people passing by, like trees” (Mark 8:22–29). And Luke reminds the disciples of this question and introduces it after the story of the miracle of the five loaves (Luke 9:18–20). As we said above, this order of reproducing in memory does not in any way contradict the order of events following each other. But it may be puzzling that, according to Luke, the Lord asked the disciples who people thought He was when He was praying. in a secluded place, Mark says that they were asked by Him on the way. But this can only confuse one who has never prayed on the way. 109. I remind you of what I have already said above: let no one think that Peter received the name when he was told: “You are Peter” (Matthew 16:18). But this happened when, according to John, he was told: “You will be called Cephas, which means: stone (Peter)” (John 1:42). It follows that this did not happen in the place where Mark, listing the twelve disciples by name, said that James and John were called “sons of thunder,” because it only says that the Lord ordained that he should be called Peter (Mark 3:16–19); after all, he says so only as a reminder, and not in the sense that this then happened. 110. Matthew goes on to say: “Then (Jesus) forbade His disciples...”, etc. to the words: “You think not about the things of God, but about the things of men” (Matthew 16:20–23). Mark and Luke add this in the same order (Mark 8:30–33; Luke 9:21–22), but Luke did not say that Peter resisted the suffering of Christ. 111. Then Matthew continues: “Then Jesus said to His disciples: If anyone wants to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me,” before saying: “For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward everyone according to his deeds” (Matthew 16:24–27). Mark also adds this, maintaining the same sequence; but he does not speak of the Son of Man, who will come with His angels to render to everyone according to his work. However, he also adds that the Lord then said: “Whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will also be ashamed of him when he comes in the glory of His Father with the holy Angels” (Mark 8:34–38). It can be understood that this refers to the idea that He rewards everyone according to his work. And Luke added the same thing and in the same order with a slight difference in words, completely agreeing with the same truth (Luke 9:23-26). 112. Matthew then says, “Truly I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom” (Matthew 16:28). This appearance of the Lord on the mountain in the presence of the three disciples, Peter, James and John, when He was given the testimony of the Father's voice, is presented by the three evangelists in the same order and in exactly the same expressions (Matthew 17:1-9; Mark 9:1-9; Luke 9:27-36). And the rest, as readers can see, is different in words and expressions, but is stated in complete agreement in thoughts, as we have shown in many places above. 113. And the fact that Mark points to this as having happened six days later, like Matthew, and Luke - after eight days, should not be ignored, for this confuses others; such people must be instructed by presenting the reasons for this. We sometimes denote days by saying: “After so many days”; but sometimes we do not count the day on which we are talking and the one on which the event in question is expected, but only talk about the whole days in between. This is what Matthew and Mark do; they exclude the day on which Jesus spoke, and the one on which He presented them with the famous vision on the mountain, and speak only of the middle days. Luke, having added the finite ones, i.e. the first and last days, said "eight". 114. Also what Luke says about Moses and Elijah: “Peter said to Jesus: Master! It’s good for us to be here; Let us make three tabernacles, one for You, one for Moses and one for Elijah” (Luke 9:33), should not be considered contradictory to what Matthew and Mark added, i.e. that Peter allegedly pointed this out when Moses and Elijah were still speaking with the Lord. After all, in fact, they did not express this clearly, but rather kept silent about the fact that when they left, Peter inspired this idea to the Lord. Luke also adds that when they entered the cloud, there was a voice from the cloud, which the others did not say, but they did not say anything to the contrary either. 115. Matthew continues this way: “Then his disciples asked him, “How then do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?” , etc. to the words: Then the disciples understood that He had spoken to them about John the Baptist” (Matthew 17:10–13). Mark said the same thing, although partly in different words (Mark 9:10–12); but he did not add that they understood His words as a reference to John the Baptist when He said that Elijah had already come. 116. Next Matthew says: “When they came to the people...”, etc. to the words: “This generation is driven out only by prayer and fasting” (Matthew 17:14–21). This is also reproduced in the same order by Mark and Luke, without giving rise to any perplexed question (Mark 9:16–29; Luke 9:38–42). 117. Matthew continues: “While they were in Galilee, Jesus said to them: The Son of Man will be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill Him, and on the third day will rise again. And they... were saddened” (Matthew 17:22–23). In the same order, Mark and Luke remember the same thing (Mark 9:30–32; Luke 9:43–45). 118. Matthew goes on to say: “When they came to Capernaum, the collectors of didrachms came to Peter and said: Will your teacher give didrachms?” , etc. to the words: “You will find a statir; take it and give it to them for Me and for yourself” (Matthew 17:24–27). Only Matthew speaks about this, and after this insertion he follows the same order of events that Mark and Luke follow with him. 119. Then Matthew says this: “At that time the disciples came to Jesus and said, “Who is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” , etc. to the words: “So will My Heavenly Father also do to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother his sins from his heart” (Matthew 18:1–35). From this lengthy speech, following the same arrangement, Mark offered not everything, but only something, and he himself included something that Matthew does not say (Mark 9:33–49). And the entire speech up to the point to which we have appointed consideration is caused only by Peter’s question about how many times one should forgive a brother. Indeed, the Lord said this in such a way that it should be clear to everyone that both Peter’s question and the answer to it refer to the same speech. And Luke, while observing the same order, does not remember anything except the child whom the Lord set before the disciples as an example to follow when they thought about their greatness (Luke 9:46–48). 120. Matthew continues his story like this: “When Jesus finished these words, he left Galilee and came to the borders of Judea, on the Trans-Jordan side,” and so on. to the words: “Whoever can contain it, let him contain it” (Matthew 19:1–12). Mark also reports this, following the same order (Mark 10:1-12). Of course, one can see that there is no contradiction when the same Mark puts the question into the mouth of the Lord to the Pharisees: “What did Moses command you? , and their answer is that they are allowed to give a divorce note; while Matthew said in the words of the Lord, with which He showed them from the book of the Law, that God has united husband and wife, and therefore man should not separate them, and they referred to Moses: “How then did Moses command to give a letter of divorce and to divorce her?” But He said to them again: “Moses, because of your hardness of heart, allowed you to divorce your wives; but at first it wasn’t like that.” Indeed, Mark is not silent about this answer of the Lord; but this is after they answered the question about the divorce record. 121. In what order or way of expression we should consider this, it is not at all important for the truth of the matter: whether they themselves proposed a question to the Lord, who forbade divorce and confirmed His words from the Law, namely: the question of the divorce record, allowed to them by the same Moses, who wrote that God united man and woman (Gen. 2:24), or whether they themselves answered this from the commandment of Moses to His question. After all, His intention was to give them a thorough answer as to why Moses allowed this only after they remembered it. This intention, which is presented in Mark, is clearly indicated in the question itself. On the other hand, and their intention was that, on the basis of the obligation and significance of Moses, who commanded the giving of a letter of divorce, they could conclude His complete and undoubted denial of divorce; after all, testing Him, they approached with the intention of saying just that. This intention of theirs is expressed in Matthew in the fact that they were not asked by the Lord, but they themselves included the question of the commandment of Moses in order to gain a visible advantage over the Lord, since He prohibits the divorce of spouses. 122. And this can also be understood as it is clear from the words of Mark that the Lord asked them, since they first asked Him whether they should let their wife go: “What did Moses command you?” , since they answered that Moses allowed the writing of a bill of divorce and release, then He answered them from the book of the Law given by Moses, how God established the marriage of a man and a woman in the words that Matthew cited. And when they heard what they themselves initially answered His question, they repeated this: “Why did Moses allow the divorce to be issued?” Then Jesus pointed out to them that the reason for this was the hardness of their hearts; Mark put this reason in front for the sake of brevity, as if in response to their first question, which Matthew inserted; he rightly believed that the truth would not suffer any damage, no matter where in the same words an answer was given to what was said twice, when the Lord answered it twice with the same words. 123. Matthew continues: “Then children were brought to Him, so that He could lay His hands on them and pray,” and so on. to the words: “For many are called, but few are chosen” (Matthew 19:13–30, 20:1–16). This order, together with Matthew, was also maintained by Mark (Mark 10:13–31); Matthew alone inserts about the workers sent into the vineyard. And Luke, after His answer to the disciples’ disputes among themselves about which of them was greatest, added a story about that man casting out demons whom they saw, although he did not follow Him. From this point Luke diverges from others when he says that He wanted to go to Jerusalem (Luke 9:46–51); but after many insertions, he again converges with them when he remembers the rich man to whom it was said: “Sell everything that you have and give to the poor” (Luke 18:18–30), about whom the first two evangelists speak in the order in which they then follow the same path; after all, Luke did not fail to talk about the children before he told about the same rich man as them. 124. Then Matthew continues like this: “And Jesus going up to Jerusalem, on the way, called away the twelve disciples alone, and said to them...”, etc. to the words: “For the Son of Man came not to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many” (Matthew 20:17–28). Together with him, Mark also maintains the same order, speaking about the sons of Zebedee, that they themselves, and not their mother, as Matthew says, expressed the desire to sit on His right and left sides in His glory. Thus, Mark briefly indicated that it was they themselves rather than their mother who expressed this. Moreover, Matthew and Mark say that the Lord answered them rather than their mother. And Luke, having indicated in the same order that He predicted to His disciples about suffering and resurrection, missed what these evangelists mention; after this insertion, their narratives meet with what Luke related at Jericho (Luke 18:31–35). And what Matthew and Mark say about the princes of the nations who rule over those under their rule, and that it will not be so among His disciples, but the greatest among them will be the servant of others - then Luke also says something similar, but in the wrong place (Luke 22:24-27); Moreover, the order itself shows that the Lord expressed the same thought a second time. 125. Then Matthew says: “And when they left Jericho, a multitude of people followed Him,” and so on. to the words: “And immediately their eyes received sight, and they followed Him” (Matthew 20:29–34). Mark also speaks about this event, but only in relation to one blind man (Mark 10:46–52). This disagreement is resolved in the same way as the question of the two who suffered from the legion of demons was resolved, namely: of the two blind men, one was more famous and famous in that city; This, by the way, explains the fact that Mark mentions the name of him and his father, which is not often found when mentioning so many healed by the Lord. Thus, undoubtedly, this Bartimaeus, the son of Timaeus, having lost great prosperity, was plunged into such a well-known misfortune that he was not only blind, but even sat and begged. That is why Mark wished to mention only him alone, since his insight brought this miracle as great fame as the disaster of Bartimaeus was generally known. 126. And Luke, as follows from his text, although he narrates the same miraculous event, but only with another blind man, for he says that this happened during their approach to Jericho (Luke 18:35-43), and others say that it happened when they were leaving Jericho. But the mention of the same city and the similarity of events give reason to think that this still happened once. And the disagreement of the evangelists that one speaks of approaching Jericho, and the other - of moving away from it, is convincing, of course, only for those who are more inclined to believe in the falsity of the Gospel stories than to admit that Jesus performed two identical miracles. And that this is more likely and can sooner be recognized as true, every faithful son of the Gospel sees, so to speak, with the naked eye; Every avid debater, when he is convinced of this, let him answer himself, either by silence, or, if he does not want to remain silent, by reasoning. 127. Matthew continues: “And when they drew near to Jerusalem and came to Bethphage to the Mount of Olives...”, etc. to the words: “Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord! Hosanna in the highest!” (Matt. 21:1–9). Mark also talks about this, following the same order (Mark 11:1-10). And Luke remained in Jericho, telling what Matthew and Mark had missed, namely, Zacchaeus, the chief of the publicans, and reproducing something said in the parables. And after this, Luke hurried after the others to the story of the colt on which Jesus sat (Luke 19:1-38). Don’t be confused by the fact that Matthew speaks about a donkey and a colt, while the rest are silent about the donkey. However, we need to remember the rule that we instilled above regarding those located in hundreds and fifties, when five thousand were satisfied from five loaves; after referring to him, the reader should no longer be confused even if Matthew kept silent about the donkey, as the others kept silent about the donkey; after all, it would be much more contradictory if one spoke about the donkey, and the others about the colt. So: there is no reason for any objection even when one remembered one thing, and the other remembered another; but how much less reason can there be for this when one spoke only of one thing, and the others also of another! 128. Also, John, although he kept silent about the fact that the Lord sent His disciples to bring these animals to Him, however, he briefly introduced a message about the colt, and even with the testimony from the prophet, which Matthew cites (John 12:14-15). In this prophetic testimony one can discern a slightly different mode of expression, but the commonality of thought is undeniable. The confusion may be caused by the fact that Matthew quotes the words of the prophet in such a way as if the prophet were talking about the donkey. But this, of course, is not true. In my opinion, the reason for all this is that Matthew, according to tradition, wrote the Gospel in Hebrew. But it is known that the translation, known as the translation of the Seventy, in some places contains something different from the Hebrew (original), although these Seventy knew this language and translated the same Hebrew books one by one. If we then begin to look for the cause of this disagreement, i.e. why such an important translation of the Seventy deviates from the content of the Hebrew copies, then I see no other more probable explanation than that the Seventy translated under the influence of the same Spirit by which it was spoken and translated by them, which was confirmed by their amazing agreement, which is proclaimed everywhere. Thus, with some difference in words, but without departing from the will of the Lord, to whom what was said belongs and to whom their words should serve, they discovered in themselves only what we are now amazed at in the agreement of the four evangelists. At the same time, it is clear to us that there is no lie when someone conveys something in a slightly different way, but does not deviate from the thoughts of the person with whom he should be in agreement and unanimity. Knowing about this is useful in life to protect yourself from lies and in view of the need to condemn it; This is also useful for faith itself, so that we do not think that the truth is protected, as it were, by enchanted sounds, as if God were handing over to us the truth itself, as well as the words with which it is expressed. The truth to be proclaimed must be preferred to the words by which it is expressed; so that we should not make inquiries about them if we could know the truth as God knows it, and His angels in Him. 129. Matthew goes on to say, “And when He entered into Jerusalem, the whole city began to stir, and they said, Who is this?” , etc. to the words: “You have made it a den of thieves” (Matthew 21:10–13). Everyone talks about this expulsion of the merchants from the church (Mark 11:15–17; Luke 19:45–46; John 2:1–17); but John - in a completely different order, since after the Baptist's testimony about Jesus he said that He went to Galilee, where he turned water into wine and from there, after spending several days in Capernaum, He, according to John, went to Jerusalem, since it was the Passover of the Jews, and, making a scourge of ropes, drove the merchants out of the church. From this it is clear that the Lord did this not once, but twice. The first time was when John mentioned it, and the second time when the other three evangelists told about it. 130. Then Matthew says: “And the blind and the lame came to Him in the church...”, etc. to the words of Jesus: “Truly I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what was done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, “Be taken up and thrown into the sea,” it will happen; and whatever you do not ask in prayer in faith, you will receive” (Matthew 21:14–22). 131. Mark also talks about this, but he does not follow the same sequence. Indeed, firstly, like Matthew, who said that He entered the church and drove out those who were trading and buying from the church, Mark does not talk about this; and he says that the Lord, having surveyed everyone, since it was already evening, went out with the twelve to Bethany; and when the next day he left Bethany, he became hungry and cursed the fig tree, as Matthew also testifies. And, secondly, the same Mark adds that the Lord arrived in Jerusalem and, entering the church, expelled the merchants and buyers from the church, and allegedly not on the first, but on the second day (Mark 11:11-17). But since Matthew introduces the following connection: “And leaving them, he went out of the city to Bethany” (Matthew 21:17), upon returning from which in the morning he cursed the fig tree, it is more likely that it was Matthew who maintained the sequence of events after the expulsion of the merchants from the church. In fact, the words “leaving them, he went out” can only be understood in relation to those who were indignant at the children’s cries: “Hosanna to the Son of David!” (Matthew 21:15) So Mark missed what happened on the first day when He entered the church; but he remembered the words of the Savior when He found nothing but leaves on the fig tree; and this, according to the general testimony of both evangelists, was on the second day. And what the Lord told the disciples about faith and about the possibility of moving the mountain into the sea - all this happened not on the second day, when the fig tree was told: “Let there be no fruit from you forever” (Matthew 21:19), but on the third. So, Mark, having mentioned the expulsion of the merchants from the church on the second day, missed what happened on the first; for he says that on the same day in the evening He went out of the city, and as they passed by in the morning, the disciples saw that the fig tree was withered to the roots; Mark also remembered Peter’s words to the Lord: “Rabbi! look, the fig tree that You cursed has dried up” (Mark 11:21); Then Jesus told his disciples about the power of faith. And Matthew conveyed it as if all this, i.e. the words addressed to the tree, and the immediate drying up of the fig tree, and the surprise of the disciples at the sight of this, and His answer about the power of faith - all this happened on the same day. From this it is clear that Mark remembered on the second day the event that he missed to mention on the first, namely, the expulsion of those selling and buying from the church. Matthew, although he mentioned what happened on the second day, i.e. about the curse of the tree upon returning from Bethany, he missed what was said in Mark: about His arrival in the city and about His departure from it in the evening, and also about the fact that when He passed by in the morning, the disciples were surprised at the withered tree. In addition, to the events of the second day, when the tree withered, he also added what happened on the third day, i.e. the surprise of the disciples that the tree withered, and the fact that the disciples heard from the Lord about the power of faith; Matthew compared events in such a way that only from Mark’s story can one recognize where and what Matthew missed. 132. Matthew continues: “And when He came into the church and taught, the chief priests and the elders of the people came to Him and said, “By what authority are You doing these things?” and who gave you such power? , etc. to the words: “I will not tell you by what authority I am doing this” (Matthew 21:23–27). All this was stated in almost the same words by two others: Mark and Luke (Mark 11:27–33; Luke 20:1–8); in the sequential presentation of events, they do not contradict each other in any way, except for what I said above, namely: Matthew, having missed something relating to another day, juxtaposed the events in such a way that if you do not understand, you might think that he still continues to revolve within the second day, and Mark - the third. Luke spoke as if he did not observe the sequence of days; but after mentioning the expulsion of sellers and buyers from the church, he kept silent about the exit to Bethany and return to the city, without telling about everything that was connected with the fig tree; Moreover, having skipped this, he further related what we cited above from Matthew. 133. Matthew goes on to say, “What do you think? One man had two sons; and he, approaching the first, said: son! Go, work today in my vineyard. But he answered: I don’t want to; and then, repenting, he left. And going up to the other, he said the same thing. This one said in response: I’m going, sir, but I didn’t go. Which of the two fulfilled the will of his father? , etc. to the words: “And whoever falls on this stone will be broken, and whoever it falls on will be crushed” (Matthew 21:28–44). Mark and Luke do not mention these two sons, but they did not pass over in silence what Matthew talks about later: about the vineyard handed over to the workers who pursued the master's servants sent to them, and then killed their beloved son and threw him out of the vineyard. At the same time, Mark and Luke follow the same sequence as Matthew (Mark 12:1–11; Luke 20:9–18). 134. So, there can only be one puzzling question here, namely: Matthew says that the Lord asked the Jews: “When the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do with these tenants?” , and then adds that they said in response: “He will put these evildoers to an evil death, and he will give the vineyard to other vinedressers, who will give him the fruit in their seasons” (Matthew 21:40–41); and Mark says that this answer was not given by them, but by the Lord himself, immediately after His question, as if He had answered Himself. But it is easy to notice that either the phrases “they said”, “they answered”, although omitted, are implied; or this answer is appropriated to the Lord, because on their behalf, since they spoke the truth, the answer is given by He Who is the truth itself. 135. Much more doubt is raised by the fact that Luke not only attributes, like Mark, the above-mentioned answer to the Lord, but also puts the opposite answer into the mouths of the Jews, as if they had said: “Let it not be.” Indeed, Luke conveys this conversation this way: “What will the lord of the vineyard do with them? He will come and destroy those vinedressers and give the vineyard to others. Those who heard this said: Let it not be! But He looked at them and said, “What does this mean that is written: The stone that the builders rejected has become the head of the corner?” (Luke 20:15–17). If you think about it, the words of the Lord about the stone that was rejected by the builders, but became the head of the corner, were inserted so that this evidence would refute the contradictions in the parable told. After all, Matthew himself cites these words as if they were spoken by the objector; he says: “Have you never read in the Scriptures: the stone that the builders rejected has become the head of the corner” (Matthew 21:42). Doesn't he mean by this that there were those who objected to Jesus? The same is noted by Mark, who quotes these words in this form: “Have you not read this in the Scripture: the stone that the builders rejected has become the head of the corner” (Mark 12:10). This thought is certainly most appropriate after the objections from the Jews. 136. So, it remains for us to admit that among the people who listened to the Lord, some answered what Matthew quotes, and others what Luke did not fail to say. To those who gave the Lord the answer that Matthew gave, others objected: “Let it not be!” But the answer of the first by Mark and Luke is attributed to the Lord, for, as I said above, the truth itself spoke through them: or, if they were evil, through their ignorance, like Caiaphas, who, being a high priest, prophesied without understanding what he was saying (John 11:49-51); or consciously, as through those who understand and already believe. After all, there was that crowd through which the famous prophecy was fulfilled, when the people, meeting with great triumph the one entering Jerusalem, exclaimed: “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!” (Ps. 117:26; Matt. 21:9). 137. Let us not be confused by the fact that Matthew said that the first priests and elders of the people approached the Lord and asked by what authority He was doing this and who gave Him this authority; this is when He, on His part, asked them: “Where did the Baptism of John come from: from heaven, or from men?” And in response to their answer that they do not know this, he said to them: “And I will not tell you by what authority I am doing this.” Then Matthew continued to speak in this way: “What do you think? One man had two sons...” (Matthew 21:25–28), etc. According to Matthew, the speech is coherent up to the point where it talks about the transfer of the vineyard to other winegrowers. Indeed, one might think that the Lord spoke all this to the high priests and elders of the people, who asked Him about His authority. Of course, if they asked as tempters and enemies, then they should not be seen as believers, i.e. those who presented clear testimony to the Lord from the prophet. It would be foolish to deny the very possibility of the presence of believers in the crowd that then listened to the parables of the Lord. After all, Matthew, for the sake of brevity, kept silent about what Luke did not keep silent about, i.e. that this parable was spoken not only to those who asked Him about His power, but also to the people, because he says this: “And He began to speak this parable to the people.” Thus, by the name of this people it is necessary to understand those who were like those who exclaimed: “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!” , and, consequently, among them were those who answered: “He will put these evildoers to an evil death.” Therefore, Mark and Luke conveyed their answer to the Lord as if it were said by Him Himself, who is the truth, often proclaimed even by the lips of evil people, prompting the mind of a person to do this not in view of his holiness, but because of his own power. Moreover, due to the possibility of such qualities in them, it is not in vain that they are considered in the very body of the Lord as His members, so that their voice is entrusted to Him of Whom they were members, for He has already baptized more than John (Jn. 4:1), and had crowds of disciples, as the evangelists often testify to; from among them were those five hundred brethren to whom, according to the testimony of the Apostle Paul, He appeared after the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:6). 138. The Evangelist John has a speech from the Lord, from which it is easier to understand what I am saying: “Then Jesus said to the Jews who believed in Him: If you continue in My word, then you are truly My disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free. They answered him: we are Abraham's seed and have never been slaves to anyone, how can You say: You will become free? Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave of sin; But the slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So, if the Son sets you free, you will be truly free. I know that you are Abraham's seed; yet you seek to kill Me, because My word cannot be found in you” (John 8.31–37). Of course, He would not have said: “You seek to kill Me” to those who believed in Him and to whom He said: “If you continue in My word, then you are truly My disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” This was said to those who already believed in Him; but there was also a crowd there, among which were many of His enemies. And so, although the evangelist does not clearly indicate who the objectors were, from the answer itself and from what they deserved to hear from the Lord, it is quite clear to whom and what words should be attributed. So, just as in this crowd, according to John, there were those who already believed in Jesus, but there were also those who wanted to kill Him, so in the one that is now being discussed, there were those who insidiously tested the Lord by what power He was doing this, but there were also those who simply and with faith exclaimed: “Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!” , therefore, there were those who said: “He will put these evildoers to an evil death.” This answer can be understood as the word of the Lord himself, either because He is the truth itself, or because of the unity between the Head and the members. Finally, there were those who said to those who answered: “Let it not be,” because they understood that the parable was told regarding them. 139. Matthew goes on to say: “And when the chief priests and Pharisees heard His parables, they understood that He was speaking about them, and they tried to seize Him; but they were afraid of the people, because they revered Him as a prophet,” and so on. to the words: “For many are called, but few are chosen” (Matthew 21:45–46, 22:1–14). This parable about those invited to a marriage is told by Matthew alone; Luke also cites something similar, but this is not what is clear from the sequence of the narrative, although there is some similarity in this (Luke 14:16–24). But both Mark and Luke, maintaining the same order, testify that the Jews recognized all this as being said about them, as Matthew also indicated after presenting the parable of the vineyard and the killing of the owner’s son (Mark 12:12; Luke 20:19). And then they turn to other events, adding at the end what Matthew also inserted in order after this parable about marriage, which he alone cited. 140. So Matthew continues: “Then the Pharisees went and consulted how they might catch Him in words. And they send their disciples to Him with the Herodians, saying: Teacher! we know that You are just, and You teach truly the way of God, and do not care about pleasing anyone, for You do not look at any person; So tell us: what do you think? Is it permissible to give tribute to Caesar or not?” , etc. to the words: “And when the people heard, they marveled at His teaching” (Matthew 22:15–33). Mark and Luke report these two answers in a similar way, without deviating from the sequence of their transmission from Matthew: one about a gold coin for tribute to Caesar, and the other about a woman who married seven brothers who died successively one after another (Mark 12:13-27; Luke 20:20-40). Indeed, after the well-known parable about the workers in the vineyard and the story about the plotting Jews, against whom the parable was spoken, which all three mentioned, these two (Mark and Luke) skip the parable about those invited to the wedding feast, which only Matthew reported; but then they all go together, reporting both the tax to Caesar and the wife of seven husbands in the same sequence, without giving rise to any puzzling question. 141. Matthew thus continues the narrative: “When the Pharisees heard that He had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. And one of them, a lawyer, tempting Him, asked, saying: Teacher! What is the greatest commandment in the law?” , etc. to the words of the Lord: “On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets” (Matthew 22:34–40). Mark also mentions this, observing the same order (Mark 12:28–34). And do not be confused by the fact that Matthew calls the tempter the one from whom the question was proposed to the Lord, but Mark is silent about this and at the end concludes his speech that the Lord, in response to his wise answer, said: “You are not far from the Kingdom of God.” After all, it could be that he approached with the goal of tempting, but in his answer to the Lord he was truthful. Or perhaps we should believe that this temptation did not pursue an evil purpose, but was a temptation on the part of a cautious person who wanted to test the questioned. 142. Luke inserts something similar not in this sequence (Luke 10:25–37), but in a completely different place. And it is difficult to say whether this event is being spoken of here, or whether it was another person with whom the Lord spoke about these two commandments; rather it can be assumed that it was another; this follows not only from the fact that a complete difference is noticed in the order of presentation, but also from the fact that this man himself appears as giving an answer to the Lord’s question and in his answer mentioning these two commandments; and when the Lord said to him: “Do this and you will live,” i.e. so that he fulfills what, according to his own admission, is the most important thing in the law, the evangelist continues: “But he, wanting to justify himself, said to Jesus: who is my neighbor?” Then the Lord offered a parable about one who left Jerusalem for Jericho and fell into the hands of robbers. Since the lawyer presented by Luke is both a tempter and he himself gives an answer about the two commandments, and since, following the admonition of the Lord: “Do this and you will live,” it is said about him: “But he, wanting to justify himself...”, he does not seem good; and the one mentioned in a similar context by Matthew and Mark is depicted so well that he is told by the Lord: “You are not far from the Kingdom of God”; then, perhaps, Luke is talking about another person. 143. Matthew continues: “When the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, “What do you think about Christ?” whose son is he? , etc. to the words: “And no one could answer Him a word; and from that day no one dared to ask Him any more” (Matthew 22:41–46). Mark mentions this in the same sequence and order. But Luke is silent only about the man who asked the Lord: “What is the greatest commandment in the law?” (Matthew 22:36) But having missed this, he further follows the same sequence, reporting that the Lord asked the Jews: “How do they say that Christ is the son of David?” (Luke 20.41–44). For understanding, it does not matter that, according to Matthew, when Jesus asked the Jews what they thought about Christ, whose son He was, they answered: “David,” and it was then that He uttered the words: “If David calls Him Lord, how can He be his son?” , and according to the message of Mark and Luke there is no indication either of His question or of their answer. Indeed, we must understand that after their answer, the two evangelists indicated the thought of the Lord himself, as it was expressed by Him to those who heard Him, whom He wanted to instruct in His teaching ministry and deviate from the teaching of the scribes. They knew about Christ only that He was in the flesh from the seed of David, but they did not recognize God in Him, although He was the Lord of David himself. That is why, according to the instructions of the two evangelists, the Lord appears to be turning from those who were in error to those whom he wanted to free from their error. Thus the words: “How then is He his son?” one must understand not that they are addressed to the first, but to the second, to those whom He wanted to instruct. 144. Matthew goes on to follow this order in the narrative: “Then Jesus began to speak to the people and to His disciples, and said, “The scribes and Pharisees sat in the seat of Moses; So whatever they tell you to observe, observe and do; But do not act according to their deeds, for they say and do not do,” and so on. to the words: “You will not see Me from now on until you exclaim: Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!” (Matt. 23:1–39). That the Lord made a similar speech against the Pharisees, scribes and lawyers, Luke also mentions this, but only as if it happened in the house of some Pharisee who invited Him to a feast. To report this, Luke parted with Matthew near the place where they both mentioned what the Lord had said about the sign of Jonah, about three days and nights, about the queen of the South, about the Ninevites and about the unclean spirit that returned and found the house cleaned up; after this speech, Matthew says: “While He was still speaking to the people, His mother and brothers stood outside the house, desiring to speak with Him” (Matthew 12:39–46). And Luke, in the same speech, having mentioned something from the words of the Lord that was omitted from Matthew, then departs from the sequence that he and Matthew had observed up to this point: “When He was saying this, a certain Pharisee asked Him to dine with him. He came and lay down. The Pharisee was surprised to see that He did not wash His hands before dinner. But the Lord said to him: “Now you Pharisees cleanse the outside of the cup and the platter, but your insides are full of robbery and wickedness.” Foolish!” And then follows a speech against the same Pharisees, scribes and teachers of the law in the same way as Matthew in the present place, which we have now taken for consideration (Luke 11:29-52). So, although Matthew speaks about this without pointing to the house of the Pharisee, he does not speak specifically about the place where it was said, which could contradict Luke's story. However, since the Lord had already come to Jerusalem from Galilee, and, according to Matthew, after His entry into Jerusalem, previous events are so connected with this speech that it is most likely to admit that all this happened in Jerusalem, and Luke narrates about this as something that happened during the Lord’s journey to Jerusalem, it seems to me that there were two speeches similar to each other, of which one was cited by one evangelist, and the other by another. 145. Of course, it is necessary to pay attention to how it is said: “You will not see Me from now on until you cry: Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!” (Matthew 23:39), when, according to the same Matthew, these words had already been spoken (Matthew 21:9). After all, Luke also says that the Lord answered this way to those who persuaded Him to leave that place, because Herod wanted to kill Him. Luke even recalls that these same words were spoken, like those of Matthew, against Jerusalem itself. In fact, from the words of Luke it can be understood that it was like this: “That day some of the Pharisees came and said to Him: Come out and get away from here, for Herod wants to kill You. And he said to them: go, tell this fox: behold, I cast out demons and perform healings today and tomorrow, and on the third day I will finish; However, I must walk today, tomorrow and the next day, because it does not happen that a prophet perishes outside of Jerusalem. Jerusalem, Jerusalem! you who kill the prophets and stone those who are sent to you! how many times have I wanted to gather your children together like a bird gathers its chicks under its wings, and you did not want to! Behold, your house is left to you empty. I tell you that you will not see Me until the time comes when you say: Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!” (Luke 13:31–35). True, this narrative of Luke is not contradicted, apparently, by the fact that the crowds of people said to the Lord as He approached Jerusalem: “Blessed is He who comes...” (Matthew 21:9), because according to the sequence that Luke followed, He had not yet arrived there, and these words had not yet been spoken. But Luke does not say that the Lord went from there to Jerusalem. On the contrary, He lingers on His path, and His words: “Behold, I cast out demons and perform healings today and tomorrow, and on the third day I will finish” are spoken in a mysterious and figurative meaning, for He did not suffer on that third day, which is why He directly continues: “Nevertheless I must walk today, tomorrow and the next day.” Of course, all this forces us to understand His following words in a mysterious sense: “I tell you that you will not see Me until the time comes when you say: Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!” , i.e. understand that we are talking here about His coming, when He comes in His glory. At the same time, they also believe that His words: “Behold, I cast out demons and perform healings today and tomorrow, and on the third day I will finish” refer to His body, i.e. to the Church. In fact, demons are cast out when nations believe in Him, leaving behind their fatherly superstitions, and healings are accomplished when life follows His commandments after renouncing the devil and this world until the resurrection, in which, as if on the third day, the creation of the Church will end, i.e. its improvement to angelic fullness through the immortality of even the body. For this reason the present arrangement of events in Matthew must in no way be relied upon as being in any respect a disagreement. And Luke must be understood either as having warned what was happening in Jerusalem, and in remembrance making an insertion before his narrative brought the Lord to Jerusalem; or so that the Lord answered those who urged Him to beware of Herod, which happened when He approached this city; and Matthew says that He said this to the crowds when he had already reached Jerusalem and when everything that was described above had already ended. 146. Matthew continues: “And Jesus went out and walked away from the church; and His disciples came up to show Him the buildings of the church. Jesus said to them: Do you see all this? Truly I say to you, not one stone will be left upon another here; everything will be destroyed” (Matthew 24:1–2). Mark also mentions this in almost the same sequence, only retreating slightly to talk about the widow who put two mites into the treasury (Mark 12:41–13:2), which only Luke mentions with him. For in Mark, after the Lord talked with the Jews, asking them how they recognized Christ as the son of David, it is said that the Lord said to protect himself from the Pharisees and from their hypocrisy. Matthew outlined this passage in great detail and reported on many things that were said then by the Lord. At the same time, after the same place, which Mark presented briefly, and Matthew - at length, Mark, as I said, did not introduce anything more than a speech about the widow, the poorest and, at the same time, the richest, adding also what again coincides with Matthew: about the future destruction of the church. Luke, for his part, after asking how Christ is the son of David, mentions very little about the hypocrisy of the Pharisees. And after that, he, like Mark, goes to the widow, who threw two tiny coins into the treasury, and only then adds about the future destruction of the church, like Matthew and Mark (Luke 20:46–21:6). 147. Then Matthew says: “When He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately and asked: Tell us, when will this be? and what is the sign of Your coming and the end of the age? Jesus answered and said to them: Take heed that no one deceive you; for many will come in My name and say, “I am the Christ,” and will deceive many,” etc. to the words: “And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” We will consider this extensive speech of the Lord simultaneously according to the messages of three evangelists, Matthew, Mark and Luke, because they added it, maintaining the same order (Matthew 24:3–25:46; Mark 13:4–37; Luke 21:7–36). True, each of them adds something special, in which, however, there is no reason to suspect any contradiction. 148. So, here are the words of Matthew: “And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a testimony to all nations; and then the end will come” (Matthew 24:14); Mark echoes him like this: “And the Gospel must first be preached to all nations” (Mark 13:10). He does not say: “And then the end will come,” but this is quite clearly implied, for it is precisely in response to the disciples’ question about the end that he says: “The Gospel must first be preached to all nations,” i.e. it is this sermon that must precede the end. 149. And the words of Matthew: “So when you see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place...” (Matthew 24:15) Mark conveys this way: “When you see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing where it should not...” (Mark 13:14), with some discrepancy in words, it is nevertheless obvious that Mark expressed the same thought; for it is clear where the abomination of desolation should not be. And Luke speaks about the same thing, but quite specifically: “When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is drawing near” (Luke 21:20). After all, then the abomination of desolation will come in the holy place. 150. Recorded by the same Matthew: “Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains; and let him who is on the housetop not come down to take anything from his house; and let him who is in the field not turn back to take his clothes” (Matthew 24:16–18) Mark quotes almost verbatim. And Luke conveys the words: “Then those who are in Judea flee to the mountains” conveys the same with others, but expresses the rest differently, for then he says: “And if anyone is in the city, come out of it; and whoever is in the surrounding area, do not enter into it, for these are the days of vengeance, so that all that is written may be fulfilled” (Luke 21:21–22). At first glance, the words of the first two evangelists: “If anyone is on the housetop, let him not come down” are very different from the words of Luke: “If anyone is in the city, let him come out of it”; perhaps this is because when such a great danger comes, the confusion will be great, so that those under siege will be struck with horror and will want to see what danger threatens, or how to escape from it. But then how does he say: “Get out of it” if he said above: “You will see Jerusalem surrounded by troops”? Indeed, the following words: “Whoever is in the surrounding area, do not enter it,” apparently represent more suitable advice: after all, it is not difficult to ensure that those outside the besieged city do not enter it; but how can those inside escape, since the city is already surrounded by an army? Doesn’t “in the city” mean such danger that a person can no longer escape to preserve real life; this is also implied in the words “on the housetop” of the other two evangelists: that the soul must be ready and free, not occupied and not oppressed by carnal desires; so “come out of it” means: let them no longer be carried away by the desire for this life, but let them be ready to move into another life; This is also indicated by the words: “Let him not go down to take anything from his house,” namely: let him not succumb to any carnal desires with the intention of acquiring any benefit. Finally, the words of Luke: “If anyone is in the surrounding area, do not enter it” mean that people who, due to the good disposition of their hearts, find themselves outside this life, should no longer desire it again due to the impulse of the flesh; The other two evangelists expressed the same thought with the words: “Let him who is in the field not turn back to take his clothes,” i.e. do not turn to previous worries that you have thrown off. 151. And the words of Matthew: “Pray that your flight does not happen in winter or on Saturday” (Matthew 24:20) Mark conveyed only in part. He says: “Pray so that your flight does not happen in winter” (Mark 13:18). Luke didn’t remember them at all; but he alone said something that, in my opinion, illuminated this thought, expressed by others in a somewhat hidden form; Luke says: “Take heed to yourselves, lest your hearts be weighed down with overeating and drunkenness and the cares of this life, and lest that day come upon you suddenly, for like a snare it will come upon all those who live on all the face of the earth; Therefore, watch at all times and pray, that you may be counted worthy to escape all these future disasters...” (Luke 21:34-36). All this means the flight that Matthew speaks of, so that it does not happen in winter or on the Sabbath. Winter refers to the worries of this life, which Luke clearly speaks of, and Sabbath refers to drunkenness and gluttony. Indeed, worries are as painful as winter, and intoxication immerses and closes the heart with carnal joy and revelry; this evil is designated by the name of the Sabbath because it existed before, and now the Jews have a very bad custom of indulging in fun on this day, for many of them have already forgotten about the spiritual Sabbath. However, even if in the indicated words of Matthew and Mark one should see something completely different, or if Luke meant something different, then there is still no reason to doubt or be perplexed. And our goal was not to interpret the Gospels, but to protect them from slander and reproaches of forgery and deceit. But the other parts of this speech, presented in Matthew in accordance with Mark, do not raise any questions, and what he has in agreement with Luke, Luke presented not in that speech of the Lord, but in another, located in a different place. There Luke remembers and introduces into the book events and speeches that happened after, unless all this was said twice: both now, as Matthew says, and then, when Luke brings it. 152. Matthew goes on to say: “When Jesus had finished all these words, he said to his disciples, “You know that in two days the Passover will be, and the Son of Man will be handed over to be crucified” (Matthew 26:1–2). This testimony is joined by two others: Mark and Luke (Mark 14:1; Luke 22:1). But they do not inspire the idea that this was said by the Lord; indeed, they neglected to say this; but on their own behalf they say: Mark: “In two days the Easter holiday was to be”; Luke: “The Feast of Unleavened Bread, called Passover, was approaching.” And John mentioned in three places the proximity of the same feast day (John 11:55; John 12:1; John 13:1), and the third time in the same place where those three evangelists mention it, i.e. already before the approaching suffering of the Lord. 153. But a meticulous reader cannot help but notice some contradiction in the fact that Matthew and Mark, having said that there were two days left before Easter, only later mentioned that Jesus was in Bethany, where the precious anointing took place; and John says that Jesus came to Bethany six days before the Passover and immediately afterwards reports the same anointing (John 12:1). So, how do those two who said that the Passover would be in two days then end up with John in Bethany, reporting the same thing as he, about the anointing with the precious ointment, while he says that the Passover will be in six days? But those who are confused by this question do not understand that Matthew and Mark presented the events of the anointing retroactively, i.e. it happened not after their words about two days before Easter, but earlier, when there were still six days left before Easter. In fact, each of them, saying that Easter will be in two days, regarding the event in Bethany, did not say: “After this, while he was in Bethany,” but Matthew: “When Jesus was in Bethany” (Matthew 26:6), and Mark: “And while He was in Bethany” (Mk. 14:3); and this, of course, can be understood as having happened earlier than what is said “two days before Easter.” So, from the account of John it is clear that Jesus came to Bethany six days before the Passover; there that feast took place, in connection with which the famous precious anointing is mentioned; from there Jesus arrived on a donkey to Jerusalem; and only then does what is reported happen after this, His coming to Jerusalem. Thus, from the day on which He came to Bethany and when the well-known event of anointing took place, and until the day on which all this was done and said, we even without any special indication from the evangelists understand that four days have passed. And Luke, in his words: “The Feast of Unleavened Bread, called Passover,” did not even indicate two days; but we must understand in this mentioned proximity a two-day period. And when John says: “The Passover of the Jews is approaching” (John 11:55), he also does not indicate a two-day period; then, when he mentioned some events that happened after these words, wanting to show how close Easter was, he said: “Six days before Easter Jesus came to Bethany, where Lazarus was who had died, whom He raised from the dead. There they prepared supper for Him...” (John 12:1-2). This is what Matthew and Mark remember in hindsight, after they said that Easter would be two days later. Thus, in their repetition, they return to that day in Bethany, which was six days before the Passover, and tell the same about the evening and the precious anointing as John, who then directed his thought to Jerusalem and, having completed the description of the events that took place there, moved on to the day that was two days before the Passover, from which the other evangelists retreated, returning to what happened in Bethany, i.e. to the anointing. At the end of the story about this event, they return again to where they retreated, i.e. to the message of the Lord's speech, which He delivered two days before Easter. Indeed, if we throw out from the middle what they said out of order, from memory and retroactively, and restore the actual order, then, according to Matthew, the speech should be directed in such a way that the Lord says: “You know that in two days there will be Easter, and the Son of Man will be handed over to be crucified. Then the chief priests and scribes and the elders of the people gathered together in the courtyard of the high priest, whose name was Caiaphas, and decided in council to take Jesus by cunning and kill him; but they said: just not on a holiday, so that there is no indignation among the people. ...Then one of the twelve, called Judas Iscariot, went to the high priests...” (Matthew 26:2-14), and so on. So, between the words: “So that there is no disturbance among the people” and the words: “Then one of the twelve,” and what was in Bethany was inserted, given by the evangelists retroactively, with the omission of which we restored the narrative in order to instill the idea that there is no contradiction in the sequence in time. And according to Mark, with a similar omission from the story about that evening in Bethany, which he inserted retroactively, the sequence in the narrative is as follows: “In two days the feast of Passover and unleavened bread was to be. And the chief priests and scribes sought how to take Him by cunning and kill Him; but they said: just not on a holiday, so that there is no indignation among the people. ...And Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve, went to the high priests to betray Him to them” (Mark 14:1-10), and so on. And here, between the words: “So that there would be no disturbance among the people” and the words: “And Judas Iscariot went,” a well-known event in Bethany is inserted. Luke missed this incident. We told all this in order to connect those six days before Easter, which John spoke about, and those two days before Easter, which Matthew and Mark mentioned, because after that they remembered the same thing that, according to John, the Lord said in Bethany. 154. From the place where we ended the narrative under consideration, Matthew continues as follows: “Then the chief priests and scribes and the elders of the people gathered into the court of the high priest named Caiaphas, and in council they decided to take Jesus by cunning and kill him; but they said: just not on a holiday, so that there is no indignation among the people. When Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper, a woman came to Him with an alabaster vessel of precious ointment and poured it on His head as he reclined,” etc. to the words: “It will be said in memory of her and what she did” (Matthew 26:3–13). We have already paid attention to what happened in Bethany, about the woman and the precious anointing. As for Luke, although he mentions a similar event, and although the name of the one to whom the Lord was invited is the same, because Luke calls him Simon, however, since there is nothing unnatural and unusual in the fact that one person can have two names, and even more so in the fact that two people have the same name, it is much more likely that it was another Simon, and not the leper in whose house in Bethany the anointing took place. And Luke does not say about this event that it happened in Bethany; and although he did not mention the city or house where it took place, it does not seem that his narrative referred to the same place. However, I am convinced that there were two events, and the woman was one, who, like a sinner, came to the feet of Jesus, kissed them, washed them with tears, wiped them with her hair and anointed them with oil. The Lord, applying to her the parable of the two debtors, said that her many sins were forgiven, since she loved much; we must understand that the same Mary did this, but twice, with the first case described by Luke (Luke 7:36–50). John also talks about this event. Although he does not depict what happened in the same way as Luke, he also mentioned this woman, calling her Mary, when he began to talk about Lazarus having to rise again, before the Lord arrived in Bethany. He talks about this in this way: “A certain Lazarus from Bethany, from the village where Mary and Martha, her sister lived, was sick. Mary, whose brother Lazarus was sick, was the one who anointed the Lord with ointment and wiped His feet with her hair” (John 11:1-2). In saying this, John is a witness in favor of Luke, who reported that this happened in the house of a certain Pharisee Simon. So, Mary once already did this. And what she did in Bethany again is something else that has no relation to the narrative of Luke, but is equally reported by the other three evangelists (John 12:1-8; Matt. 26:7-13; Mark 14:3-9). 155. So, we need to notice how similar in Matthew, Mark and John is what they undoubtedly speak of as the same event in Bethany, where the disciples (as all three evangelists report) expressed dissatisfaction with the woman for wasting the most precious ointment. When Matthew and Mark say that the head of the Lord was anointed with myrrh, and John His feet, this does not contain a contradiction according to the rule that we showed when we said that He fed the crowds with five loaves. After all, there was one who said that the people were arranged in groups of five hundred and a hundred people, while another pointed only to hundreds, and a third - only to five hundred; but one cannot see a contradiction in this: after all, it is possible that when one arranged only in hundreds, the other arranged in five hundred, from which one must conclude that in reality there was both. From this example it follows that when the evangelists report similar, but at the same time and in some ways different events, it is necessary to understand that the cases are still different. Therefore, here too it must be recognized that the woman anointed not only the head, but also the feet of the Lord. 156. However, everything else related to this event, it seems to me, should not cause confusion. And if other evangelists testify to the discontent of the disciples, and John points only to Judas, then this only means that when they said “disciples,” the evangelists meant Judas. It can also be assumed that others shared Judas’s opinion, although they were silent, or that John mentioned Judas only because others, condemning wastefulness, cared about the poor, while Judas cared only about himself. 157. Matthew continues: “Then one of the twelve, called Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priests and said, “What will you give me, and I will deliver Him to you?” They offered him thirty pieces of silver,” and so on. to the words: “The disciples did as Jesus commanded them, and prepared the Passover” (Matthew 26:14–19). There is nothing in this passage that contradicts what Mark and Luke said (Mark 14:10–16; Luke 22:3–13). Indeed, Matthew, writing: “Go into the city to so-and-so and tell him: The Teacher says: My time is at hand, I will keep the Passover with you with My disciples,” he meant the same person as Mark and Luke, who mentioned him as the owner of the house. 158. Then Matthew says, “When evening came, He lay down with the twelve disciples; and while they were eating, he said, “Truly I say to you, that one of you will betray Me.” They were greatly saddened and began to say to Him, each one of them, “Is it not I, Lord?” , etc. to the words: “At this, Judas, who betrayed Him, said: Was it not I, Rabbi? Jesus says to him, “You have spoken” (Matthew 26:20–25). In this place, none of the evangelists cites anything that could cause confusion among readers (Mark 14:17–21; Luke 22:14–23; John 13:21–27). 1. Since now the narrative of all four (evangelists) has come to the point where they need to be followed to the end together, they (in their further writings) differ only very slightly from each other, although sometimes one mentions something that the other misses. It seems to me that the similarity of all the evangelists will be most obvious if, starting from here, we begin to compare the events described by all of them and reduce them to a single order and (integral) narrative. Thus, in my opinion, it will be more convenient and easier to explain what we have assumed by selecting from the messages of the evangelists those events that each of them was able or willing to remember; at the same time, of course, regarding all this it is necessary to show that there is no mutual contradiction here. 2. So, let's start with Matthew: “And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had blessed it, he broke it, and giving it to the disciples, said, Take, eat: this is my body” (Matthew 26:26). This is also mentioned by Mark and Luke (Mark 14:22, Luke 22:17–23). And the fact that Luke mentions the cup twice: the first time before the breaking of bread, and the second time after, then, perhaps, with the first mention, he, as usual, warned the event; but both the first and second together express the same thought that others (the evangelists) conveyed. And John said nothing about the Body and Blood of the Lord in this place, but later he testifies in more detail that the Lord said about this (John 6:32–64); here, having mentioned that the Lord arose from supper and washed the feet of the disciples, and also, although only in a hint, referring to Scripture, indicating that He will be betrayed by the one who eats His bread, he (John) moves on to the event that the other three evangelists report equally: “Having said this, Jesus was troubled in spirit, and testified, and said: Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you will betray Me. Then the disciples looked around at each other, wondering who He was talking about” (John 13:21–22). “They were greatly saddened,” as Mark and Matthew say, “and began to say to Him, each one of them: Is it not I, Lord?” “He,” continues Matthew, “said in response: he who put his hand into the dish with Me, this one will betray Me.” Further, the same Matthew says: “However, the Son of Man comes, as it is written about Him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed: it would have been better for this man not to have been born.” In this place Mark completely agrees with him. Then Matthew adds: “At this, Judas also, who betrayed Him, said: Was it not I Rabbi? Jesus says to him: “You said.” However, from this answer of the Lord it was still difficult to understand whether it was he (i.e. Judas – the traitor) (Matthew 26:22–25; Mark 14:18–21). 3. Then Matthew continues and inserts (speech) about the sacrament of body and blood given to the disciples from the Lord; Mark and Luke report the same thing (Matthew 26:26–28; Mark 14:22–24). But when the Lord handed over the cup, he again began to speak about His betrayer, as Luke narrates: “And behold, the hand of him who betrayed Me is with Me at the table; However, the Son of Man goes according to his destiny, but woe to the man by whom He is betrayed” (Luke 22:21–22). John also reports this repeated speech, but these (Matthew and Mark) missed it; John also missed what they said (before). So, to what, according to Luke, the Lord said after presenting the cup, we must add what was written by John: “And one of His disciples, whom Jesus loved, reclined at the breast of Jesus. Simon Peter made a sign to him to ask who it was that he was talking about. He fell to the chest of Jesus and said to Him: Lord! who is this? Jesus answered: the one to whom I dip a piece of bread and give it. And, having dipped the piece, he gave it to Judas Simon Iscariot. And after this piece Satan entered into him” (John 13:23–27). 4. It may seem that John is contradicting not only Luke, who said that Satan entered the heart of Judas when he made an agreement with the Jews that he would hand over (Jesus) for the promised money, but also himself, since he was already above, before (Judas) ate the bread, he said: “The devil had already put it into the heart of Judas that Simon Iscariot should betray Him” (John 13:2). Indeed, how else does the devil enter the heart if not by introducing an ungodly decision into lawless thoughts? Here we should understand that in the present (last) place Judas found himself even more in the power of the devil; and vice versa, like this, those who had already received the Holy Spirit when (Jesus) breathed on them and said: “Receive the Holy Spirit” (John 20:22), received Him even more fully later, when He was sent down to them from above on the day of Pentecost. So, after eating, Satan entered Judas, and, as John consistently reports: “Then Jesus said to him: whatever you are doing, do it quickly. But none of those reclining understood why He told him this. And since Judas had a box, some thought that Jesus was telling him: buy what we need for the holiday, or to give something to the poor. Having accepted the piece, he immediately left; and it was night. When he went out, Jesus said, “Now is the Son of Man glorified, and God is glorified in Him.” If God was glorified in Him, then God will also glorify Him in Himself, and will soon glorify Him” (John 13:27–32). 5. "Children! I won't be with you for long. You will seek Me, and just as I told the Jews that where I go you cannot come, so I tell you now. I give you a new commandment, that you love one another; just as I have loved you, let you also love one another. By this everyone will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another. Simon Peter said to Him: Lord! where are you going? Jesus answered him: Where I am going, you cannot follow Me now, but later you will follow Me. Peter said to Him: Lord! Why can’t I follow You now? I will lay down my soul for You. Jesus answered him, “Will you lay down your life for Me?” Truly, truly, I say to you, the rooster will not crow until you have denied Me three times” (John 13:33–38). This denial of Him by Peter is mentioned not only by John, but also by the other three (evangelists) (Matthew 26:30–35; Mark 14:26–31; Luke 22:31–34). But not all of them come to remember this in the same way, because Matthew and Mark speak (about this) after the Lord left the house in which he ate Easter, and Luke and John - before He left there. But we can assume that either they introduced words into the narrative later than they should, or these ones - earlier. However, some bewilderment may also be caused by the fact that they presented not only various words, but also the thoughts of the Lord, confused by which Peter expressed a certain readiness to die either with the Lord, or for the Lord; so, perhaps, we should think that Peter, in various places in Christ’s speech, expressed his readiness three times, and that three times he was told by the Lord about his three-fold denial before the rooster crowed. 6. Indeed, it could well have been that at certain intervals separated from each other, Peter was prompted to express his readiness (to die), as well as afterwards to renounce Him; also the Lord answered him three times; although, however, three times without any interruption, (without inserting) any words or actions, He asked Peter after His resurrection: does he love Him, and to his three-fold identical answer He Himself gave him three times the same commandment that Peter should feed His sheep (John 21:15-17). So, from the very words of the evangelists, which are quite different from each other, it is clearly seen that the most likely assumption is that Peter expressed his readiness (to die) three times and heard from the Lord three times about his future threefold renunciation. Let us remember what I have now brought from the Gospel of John. Surely He said: “Children! I won't be with you for long. You will seek Me, and just as I told the Jews that where I go you cannot come, so I tell you now. I give you a new commandment, that you love one another; just as I have loved you, let you also love one another. By this everyone will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another. Simon Peter said to Him: Lord! where are you going? From all that has been said, it is obvious that Peter was moved to say this when he heard the words of the Lord: “Where I am going, you cannot come.” Jesus said to the same Peter: “Where I am going, you cannot follow Me now, but later you will follow Me.” Then Peter said: “Lord! Why can’t I follow You now? I will lay down my soul for You." It was to this readiness that his Lord responded regarding his future renunciation. And citing the words of the Lord: “Simon! Behold, Satan has asked to sow you like wheat; but I prayed for you, so that your faith would not fail; and you have once turned and strengthened your brothers.” Luke added Peter’s answer: “Lord, I am ready to go with You to prison and to death.” And He said: “I tell you, Peter, before the rooster crows today, you will deny three times that you do not know Me.” Who will not notice that the last words are something different from those with which Peter was prompted to express his readiness to die? Matthew says: “And having sung, they went to the Mount of Olives. Then Jesus said to them: You will all be offended because of Me this night, for it is written: I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered. After My resurrection, I will go before you to Galilee.” Mark also says: But what is the similarity in the words or thoughts of this passage with what prompted Peter to express his readiness, both according to John and according to Luke? Here (in Matthew) is the following sequence: “Peter answered and said to Him, Even if all are offended because of You, I will never be offended. Jesus said to him, “Truly I tell you, this night, before the rooster crows, you will deny Me three times.” Peter said to Him: Even though I had to die with You, I will not deny You. All the disciples said the same thing.” 7. Mark also recalls almost word for word with Matthew; only he expressed the Lord’s words much more accurately about how this would all happen: “Truly I say to you, today, this night, before the rooster crows twice, you will deny Me three times.” Thus, although everyone said that the Lord predicted Peter’s denial of Him before the rooster crowed, not everyone said how many times (crow); Only Mark said this more definitely. Hence, it seems to some that Mark does not coincide with others (evangelists), for such people are inattentive and, in addition, their attention is often obscured, since they are guided by a hostile attitude towards the Gospel. So, Peter’s complete denial was (precisely) a threefold denial. He experienced spiritual trepidation and the severity of the lies supposed in him, until he was healed through bitter crying and spiritual grief, becoming convinced of the reality of what was predicted to him. But if all this, i.e. threefold renunciation, began after the first cock crow, then, as it may seem, three (the evangelists) made an inaccuracy. Of these, Matthew said: “Truly I tell you, this night, before the rooster crows, you will deny Me three times”; and John: “Truly, truly, I say to you, the rooster will not crow until you have denied Me three times.” Indeed, they expressed in different words the same thought of the Lord, namely, that Peter would deny Him before the rooster crowed. But, on the other hand, if Peter completed his three-fold denial before the rooster crowed, then one might think that Mark on behalf of the Lord said something unnecessary: ​​“Truly I say to you, that today, this night, before the rooster crows twice, you will deny Me three times.” In fact, why does Mark say “twice” if it turns out that all this threefold renunciation took place before the first rooster crow, and, consequently, before the second, and third, and all the rooster crows that night? But since this triple renunciation began before the rooster crowed, those three evangelists did not mean when Peter would finish it, but what it would be like and when it would begin, i.e. that it will be threefold and will begin before the rooster crows, for in his soul it has already taken shape before the rooster began to crow. Indeed, although in words this complete threefold renunciation began before the first rooster crow and ended before the second, in the mood of Peter’s soul and in his fear it was completely completed before the first crow. And at the same time, it is not so important how many intervals it was revealed in the threefold verbal refusal, since it completely took possession of Peter’s heart even before the first rooster crow, having penetrated into him due to such strong fear that he was able to renounce the Lord not only after the first question, but also after the second and after the third. So, just as he who looked at a woman with lust had already committed adultery with her (Matthew 5:28), so in Peter, whenever he expressed in words the fear that so powerfully took possession of his soul that it hardened him until the third denial, the entire threefold denial must be attributed entirely to the time when this fear attacked him, quite sufficient to cause a threefold denial. Therefore, even if the well-known words of Peter’s denial even before the first crowing of the rooster began to escape from his chest, shaken by interrogations, then it would not be so unreasonable and false to say that Peter denied three times before the crowing of the rooster, since even before the crowing, such a strong fear took possession of Peter’s soul that it was able to bring him to the third renunciation. This means that we should not be embarrassed by the fact that the threefold renunciation, which began even before the rooster crowed, was not completed before the first crow. For example: if someone is told: “This night, before the rooster begins to crow, you will sit down to write a letter in which you will scold me three times,” then, of course, it will not be possible to claim that the prediction was false only because this someone began writing before any crowing, and finished it after the first crowing of the rooster. So, Mark only described the event predicted by the Lord in more detail, which in no way contradicted the others. 8. And if the question is raised about the authentic words of the Lord, which He said to Peter, then, perhaps, they cannot be found, and it is in vain to look for them, since His thought, for the sake of understanding which the words are spoken, can be perfectly known even from the various words of the evangelists. Thus, either Peter, under the influence of various expressions in the Lord’s speeches, three times separately declared his readiness (to lay down his soul), and the Lord three times predicted his renunciation, which seems more likely; or in some other way the messages of all the evangelists can be reduced to one and shown that Peter, who expressed his readiness (to die), the Lord once predicted that he would deny Him. But here there can be no reproach of contradiction, because there is no trace of it. 9 . Thus, now we will try to follow the very arrangement of the narrative for everyone. So, after this (denial) was predicted to Peter, John continues and inserts the speech of the Lord, who says: “Do not let your hearts be troubled; believe in God and believe in Me. In My Father's house there are many mansions...", and so on. He conveys in detail the beautiful and very sublime words of this speech, until he reaches the place where he says: “Righteous Father! and the world did not know You; but I have known You, and these have known that You sent Me. And I have made your name known to them, and will make it known, that the love with which you loved me may be in them, and I in them” (John 14:1–17:26). When, as Luke mentions, a dispute arose between them about which of them should be considered the greatest, He said to them: “Kings rule over nations, and those who rule over them are called benefactors. But you are not so: but whoever is greatest among you must be like the younger, and the ruler like the servant. For who is greater: the one who reclines or the one who serves? isn't he reclining? And I am in your midst as one who serves. But you remained with Me in My tribulations, and I bequeath to you, as My Father bequeathed to Me, a Kingdom, that you may eat and drink at My table in My Kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” And to Simon, as Luke adds, He said: “Simon! Behold, Satan has asked to sow you like wheat; but I prayed for you, so that your faith would not fail; and you, having once turned, strengthen your brothers. He answered Him: Lord! I am ready to go with You to prison and to death. But He said: I tell you, Peter, before the rooster crows today, you will deny three times that you do not know Me. And he said to them: When I sent you without bag and without scrip and without sandals, did you lack anything? They answered: nothing. Then He said to them: but now, whoever has a bag, take it, and also the scrip; and whoever does not have it, sell his clothes and buy a sword; For I tell you that this which is written must also be fulfilled in Me: I am numbered with the evildoers. For what is about Me comes to an end. They said: Lord! behold, here are two swords. He said to them, “It’s enough” (Luke 22:24–38). Further, as Matthew and Mark say: “And having sung, they went to the Mount of Olives. Then Jesus said to them: You will all be offended because of Me this night, for it is written: I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered; After My resurrection I will go before you to Galilee. Peter answered and said to Him, “Even if everyone is offended because of You, I will never be offended.” Jesus said to him, “Truly I tell you, this night, before the rooster crows, you will deny Me three times.” Peter said to Him: Even though I had to die with You, I will not deny You. All the disciples said the same thing.” (Matthew 26.30–35). This we brought in according to Matthew. But in Mark we read almost the same thing (Mark 14:26–31), with the exception of those words about the rooster crowing twice, which we already mentioned above. 10. So Matthew continues this way: “Then Jesus comes with them to a place called Gethsemane...” (Matthew 26:36–46). Mark also says the same (Mark 14:32–42). And Luke reports the same thing, without specifically naming the court, when he says: “And going out, he went as usual to the Mount of Olives; His disciples also followed Him. Having arrived at the place, he said to them, “Pray so that you do not fall into temptation” (Luke 22:39–46). This is the place that others (evangelists) called Bethany. There, in our opinion, there was a garden, which John mentions, saying this: “Having said this, Jesus went out with His disciples beyond the brook Kidron, where there was a garden, into which He and His disciples entered” (John 18:1). Then, according to Matthew, He said to the disciples: “Sit here while I go and pray there.” And, taking Peter and the two sons of Zebedee with him, he began to grieve and be sad. Then He said: “My soul is sorrowful unto death; abide here and watch with Me." “And,” Matthew continues, “he went a little further, fell on his face, prayed and said: My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me; however, not as I will, but as you will. And he comes to the disciples and finds them sleeping, and says to Peter: Could you not watch with Me for one hour? Watch and pray, lest you fall into temptation: the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak. Again, going away another time, he prayed, saying: My Father! If this cup cannot pass from Me, lest I drink it, Thy will be done. And when he came, he found them sleeping again, for their eyes were heavy. And leaving them, he went away again and prayed a third time, saying the same word. Then He comes to His disciples and says to them: Are you still sleeping and resting? Behold, the hour has come, and the Son of Man is being delivered into the hands of sinners; Arise, let us go: behold, he who betrayed Me has drawn near” (Matthew 26:36–46). 11. Mark also speaks about all this, and in almost the same words and in the same order, sometimes shortening some thoughts, and (sometimes) reporting something more. It seems to others that this part of the conversation as presented by Matthew contradicts itself in that the Lord, after the third prayer, approaches His disciples and says to them: “Are you still sleeping and resting? Behold, the hour has come, and the Son of Man is being delivered into the hands of sinners; Arise, let us go: behold, he who betrayed Me has drawn near.” But is it really necessary to believe that the words “sleep and rest” were spoken as a reprimand? It is possible that this was His permission, and that is why Mark, having brought them, added: “It is finished,” and only then added the words: “The hour has come: behold, the Son of Man is delivered into the hands of sinners” (Mark 14:41). It should be assumed that after the words: “Sleep and rest,” the Lord fell silent for a while to allow what He allowed to be fulfilled, and then added: “It’s over,” i.e. It's enough to rest. But since this intermediate silence of the Lord is not mentioned, then (some) try to discern a different shade of thought in these words of the Lord. 12. But Luke omitted to say how many times the Lord prayed; however, he reported what was kept silent (Matthew and Mark), namely: that an angel strengthened Him praying, and about bloody sweat falling in drops to the ground. Thus, when Luke said: “Rising from prayer, He came to the disciples” (Luke 22:42–45), he did not clearly express how many times the prayer took place; however, Luke does not contradict these other two (evangelists). And John, having said that the Lord entered the garden with His disciples, does not say what He did there until His traitor appeared with the Jews to seize Him. 13. Thus, these three (evangelists) convey about the same event as the same person could talk about it three times, somewhat varying the description, but without any contradiction. Indeed, Luke more accurately indicated how much (the Lord) retreated from them, i.e. separated for prayer, saying: “He went away from them about a stone’s throw” (Luke 22:41). Then Mark, first in his own words, said the same thing about the Lord’s request, so that, if possible, this hour would pass from Him, i.e. the hour of suffering, which he later called the cup. Further, Mark presented the words of the Lord in this form: “Abba Father! everything is possible for You; take this cup away from me” (Mark 14:36). If we add to these words what Mark said above on his own behalf, then the following thought clearly emerges: “Father! if it is possible, and all things are possible for You, pass this cup by.” Lest anyone think that He diminished the Father's authority when He said “if it is possible,” He did not say “if you can do it,” but “if it is possible.” And whatever He wishes is possible. Thus, the words “if it is possible” mean “if it pleases You.” Indeed, Mark showed all this quite clearly. The mention of the evangelists about the words of the Lord: “But not what I want, but what You want” (which is equivalent to the words: “But let Your will be done, and not Mine”) sufficiently shows that the words “if it is possible” are said not in the sense of the impossibility of this for the Father, but in view of the fact that it depends on His will, and this is especially clear from the fact that Luke here instilled the same idea in more detail: he cited the words of the Lord not as “if it is possible”, but “if You have pleased” (Luke 22:42). What is said in Mark is more clearly connected with this thought: “All things are possible for You.” 14. Mark’s message is that the Lord exclaimed: “Abba Father!” , means that (He cried out) in Hebrew: “Abba!” , i.e. "Father!" And it may very well be that the Lord said both (words) in a mysterious sense, wanting to show that in His person He accepts the suffering of His Body, i.e. The Church, of which He was the cornerstone, and which comes to Him partly from the Jews, to whom “Abba” refers, and partly from the Gentiles, to whom “Father” refers. (Eph. 2:11–12). And the Apostle Paul, without losing sight of this sacrament, says: “And because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying: “Abba Father!” (Gal. 4:6). Indeed, it is necessary that the good Teacher and true Savior, compassionate with the most weak, should show in His own person that His martyrs should not despair if sorrow creeps into their hearts during suffering under the influence of human weakness, since they will overcome it, preferring the will of God to their own will, for He knows what is good for those to whom He gives advice. Now is not the time to discuss all this in detail; after all, now we are talking only about the agreement of the evangelists, in the variety of expressions of which we learn to discern the truth only through recognizing the thoughts of the speaker. After all, “Abba” is the same as “Father”; but for teaching the sacrament (it is said) more clearly: “Abba Father”; and to denote unity, it is enough: “Father.” And although one must believe that the Lord exclaimed: “Abba Father! But the truth can be fully revealed only when others say (that He said) “Father!”, showing that these two Churches of Jews and Greeks are such that they are at the same time one. So, the words: “Abba Father!” spoken in the same sense in which the Lord once said: “I have other sheep that are not of this fold,” meaning, of course, the Gentiles, while at that moment He had sheep from the people of Israel. But since He further added: “And these I must bring: and they will hear My voice, and there will be one flock and one Shepherd” (John 10:16), then how much does it matter in relation to Jews and Gentiles (the exclamation) “Abba Father!” , just as only one (word) “Father” is suitable for one flock. 15. In the words of Matthew and Mark: “And while He was still speaking, behold, Judas, one of the twelve, came, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and the elders of the people. He who betrayed Him gave them a sign, saying: Whomever I kiss is He, take Him. And immediately approaching Jesus, he said: Rejoice, Rabbi! And he kissed Him” (Matthew 26:47–49; Mark 14:43–46). And (the Lord) first told him, as Luke remembers: “Judas! Do you betray the Son of Man with a kiss? (Luke 22:47–48); then, according to Matthew, He said: “Friend, why have you come?” (Matthew 26:50); and then follows what John brought: “Whom are you looking for? They answered him: Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus said to them: It is I. And Judas, His betrayer, stood with them. And when he said to them, “It is I,” they stepped back and fell to the ground. Again he asked them: Who are you looking for? They said: Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus answered: I told you that it is I; So, if you are looking for Me, leave them, let them go, so that the word spoken by Him may be fulfilled: of those whom You gave Me, I have not destroyed any” (John 18:4-9). 16. But, according to Luke: “And those who were with Him, seeing where things were going, said to Him: Lord! Shall we strike with a sword? (Luke 22:49) And one of them, as all the evangelists report, “struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his right ear.” And the one who struck, as John reported, was Peter; the one who was struck was called Malchus (John 18:10). Then, according to Luke: “Jesus said: Leave it, it’s enough” (Luke 22:51), and then, according to Matthew, he added: “Return your sword to its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword; or do you think that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He will present to Me more than twelve legions of Angels? How will the Scriptures be fulfilled, that this must be so?” (Matthew 26:52–54) To these words we can add what He said according to the testimony of John: “Shall I not drink the cup that the Father has given me?” (John 18:11) Then, according to Luke, He touched the ear of the one who was wounded and healed him (Luke 22:51). 17. And let not be confused as supposedly contradictory by what Luke says, namely, that the Lord, when asked by the disciples: “Should I strike with a sword,” answered: “Leave it, that’s enough,” as if He wanted this one blow and a cut off ear, but did not want more. In fact, it is obvious that the Lord was not pleased at all with everything that Peter did with the sword. What is more true is that in response to the question of those who said: “Lord! Shall we strike with a sword? , He immediately answered: “Leave it,” i.e. Don’t let what happens next confuse you. They must allow Him to be captured and what is written about Him to be fulfilled. But in the interval between the words of the questioners and His answer, Peter struck, driven by the desire to defend the Lord. However, what happened at the same time cannot be reported at the same time. But if another, better understanding is possible, then so be it, as long as the truth of the evangelists is known. 18. Matthew further recalls that the Lord said to the crowd at that hour: “It was as if you had come out against a thief with swords and staves to take Me; Every day I sat with you, teaching in the church, and you did not take Me” (Matthew 26:55). Then He added those words that Luke cited: “But now is your time and the power of darkness” (Luke 22:53). “All this happened,” continues Matthew, “so that the writings of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then all the disciples left Him and fled” (Matthew 26:56). So says Mark; but, as the same Mark adds: “One young man, wrapped in a veil over his naked body, followed Him; and the soldiers seized him. But he left the veil and ran away from them naked” (Mark 14:51–52). 19. “And those who took Jesus took Him to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and elders were gathered together” (Matthew 26:57). And according to John, Jesus was first taken to Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas (John 18:12–13). Mark and Luke do not name the high priest (Mark 14:53; Luke 22:54). And He was brought bound, and in that crowd there was a military tribune (commander of a thousand) and a detachment, as well as servants from the Jews, as John says. At this same point in the narrative, Mark says: “Peter followed Him from afar, even into the courtyard of the high priest; and sat with the servants and warmed himself by the fire” (Mark 14:54). And Luke testifies to the same thing: “Peter followed from afar. When they had lit a fire in the middle of the courtyard and sat down together, Peter also sat down among them” (Luke 22:54–55). And here are the words of John: “Simon Peter and another disciple followed Jesus; This disciple was known to the high priest and entered with Jesus into the courtyard of the high priest. And Peter stood outside the doors. Then another disciple... brought in Peter” (John 18:15–16). This is how Peter got inside, as others said. 20. “The chief priests and elders,” says Matthew, “and the whole Sanhedrin sought false testimony against Jesus, in order to put Him to death, and found none; and although many false witnesses came, they were not found” (Matthew 26:59–60). For, Mark adds: “These testimonies were not sufficient” (Mark 14:56). “But finally,” Matthew continues, “two false witnesses came and said: He said: I can destroy the church of God and build it in three days” (Matthew 26:60–61). And Mark remembers that others said: “We heard Him say: I will destroy this church made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands. But even such evidence was not enough. Then the high priest stood in the middle and asked Jesus: Why don’t you answer? What do they testify against You? But He was silent and did not answer anything. Again the high priest asked Him and said to Him: Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One? Jesus said: I am” (Mark 14:58–62). But Matthew says: “Jesus was silent. And the high priest said to Him: I adjure You by the living God, tell us, Are You the Christ, the Son of God? Jesus says to him, “You have spoken” (Matthew 26:63–64). So, it turns out that the answer: “You said” has the same meaning as the answer: “I”. Indeed, in Mark we read: “Jesus said: I am; and you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power and coming on the clouds of heaven.” Matthew says the same thing, although he does not give Jesus’ answer: “I.” “Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “What more need do we have for witnesses?” you have heard blasphemy” (Mark 14:62–64). Matthew also speaks of the same thing, adding: “Behold, now you have heard His blasphemy! what do you think? They answered and said: “I am guilty of death.” Mark also testifies to this. And Matthew continues: “Then they spit in His face and buffeted Him; others hit Him on the cheeks and said: Prophesy to us, Christ, who hit You? (Matthew 26:65–68) Mark writes the same thing, also remembering that they covered His face. Luke also talks about all this (Mark 14:64–65; Luke 22:63–64). 21. It can be understood that the Lord endured this until the morning in the house of the high priest, where Peter was also tempted. However, regarding this temptation, the evangelists narrate in a slightly different order, for Matthew and Mark first remember the reproaches, and then the temptation of Peter, while Luke does the opposite: first about the temptation, and then the reproaches of the Lord. John, in turn, first begins to talk about the temptation of Peter, then inserts a few words about reproaches, then adds that He was taken to Caiaphas, and then returns again to Peter. 22. Then Matthew continues: “Peter was sitting outside in the courtyard. And a certain maid came to him and said, “You too were with Jesus the Galilean.” But he denied it before everyone, saying: I don’t know what you are saying. When he went out of the gate, another saw him, and said to those who were there, “This one too was with Jesus of Nazareth.” And again he denied with an oath that he did not know This Man. A little later those standing there came up and said to Peter, “Surely you are one of them, for your speech also convicts you.” Then he began to swear and swear that he did not know This Man. And suddenly the rooster crowed” (Matthew 26:69–74). Thus says Matthew; but it is clear that when Peter first denied and went out, the first rooster crowed; Matthew is silent about this, but Mark remembers. 23. Here are the words of Mark: “And he went out into the forecourt; and the rooster crowed. The maid, seeing him again, began to say to those standing there: this is one of them. He denied again” (Mark 14:68–70). But it was not the first maidservant, but another, as Matthew speaks of. Luke does not at all specify who it was the second time. Here are his words: “When they lit a fire in the middle of the courtyard and sat down together, Peter also sat down between them. One maid, seeing him sitting by the fire and looking closely at him, said: “This one was with Him too.” But he denied Him, saying to the woman: I do not know Him. Soon after, another, seeing him, said: “You too are one of them.” But Peter said to the man, “No!” (Luke 22:55–58). During this period of time, designated by Luke as “soon later,” Peter went out of the gate and the first rooster crowed. According to John, Peter denied for the third time when he had already returned and stood again at the fire. 24. But someone can say: “He has not gone out yet, but only got up to go out.” Only someone who believes that Peter denied a second time while standing at the door can think this way. For the answer, let us turn to John: “The high priest asked Jesus about His disciples and about His teaching. Jesus answered Him: I have spoken openly to the world; I always taught in the synagogue and in the temple, where the Jews always meet, and I did not say anything secretly. Why are you asking Me? ask those who heard what I said to them; behold, they know that I have spoken. When He had said this, one of the servants standing close struck Jesus on the cheek, saying, “Is this the answer you give to the high priest?” Jesus answered him: If I said something bad, show me what is bad; What if it’s good that you beat Me? Annas sent Him bound to the high priest Caiaphas” (John 18:19–24). From this we see that Annas was also a high priest. Luke also speaks about these two high priests at the very beginning of his Gospel (Luke 3:2). Having reported this, John again returns to Peter to retroactively supplement (the story) about the threefold renunciation. “Simon Peter stood and warmed himself. Then they said to him, “Aren’t you also one of His disciples?” He denied and said, “No” (John 18:25). So, we see that the second time Peter denied not in front of the door, but while standing by the fire. But since he had left before, he therefore returned later. It could be like this: when he got up and walked away from the fire, the second maid noticed him and said to those sitting in the courtyard: “And this one was with Jesus of Nazareth.” He heard this as he went out, and when he returned, he denied it. Indeed, Mark says: “The maid, seeing him again, began to say to those standing here: this is one of them,” i.e. She said this not to Peter, but to those who remained sitting by the fire. And when Peter, wanting to justify himself, returned back, one of those sitting asked him: “Are you not one of His disciples?” So, it is clear that before the second denial, Peter was pointed out twice: once by another maidservant, whom Matthew and Mark speak about, and secondly, by the same person whom Luke mentioned. It is also possible that Peter, when leaving, did not hear the words spoken by the maid, and when he returned, he was questioned by one of the crowd. Be that as it may, it is obvious that Peter denied the second time while standing at the fire, and Matthew and Mark, having mentioned that he went out, for the sake of brevity, did not talk about his return. 25. Now let's see how much they agree regarding the third renunciation. Mark says this: “After a little, those standing there again began to say to Peter: “You are surely one of them; for you are a Galilean, and your speech is similar. He began to swear and swear: I do not know this Man of whom you speak. Then the rooster crowed a second time." Luke speaks about it this way: “An hour passed, and someone else urgently said: Surely this one was with Him, for he is a Galilean. But Peter said to the man, “I don’t know what you are saying.” And immediately, while he was still speaking, the rooster crowed.” And John sets out the events this way: “One of the servants of the high priest, a relative of the one whose ear Peter cut off, says: Didn’t I see you with Him in the garden? Peter denied again; and immediately the rooster crowed” (Mark 14:70–72; Luke 22:59–60; John 18:26–27). So, the words of Matthew and Mark “a little later” Luke clarifies: “About an hour passed.” John says nothing about this interval. Further, the first two speak of many questioners, Luke and John speak of one, and John points to him as a relative of the victim. All this should not be confusing, for there were many people present, which Mark and Matthew wanted to emphasize, but only one person asked, as Luke and John said. Or, perhaps, many asked, but Luke and John brought up the question of the one who was either the main one who asked, or it was his question that first came to mind when writing. As for the rooster crowing after the third renunciation, we, together with Mark, consider it the second. 26. Then Matthew continues: “And Peter remembered the word that Jesus had spoken to him: Before the rooster crows, you will deny Me three times. And going out, he wept bitterly.” And Mark says this: “And Peter remembered the word spoken by... Jesus: Before the rooster crows twice, you will deny Me three times; and started crying." In Luke we read: “Then the Lord turned and looked at Peter, and Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how He said to him: Before the rooster crows, you will deny Me three times. And going out, he wept bitterly” (Matthew 26:75; Mark 14:72; Luke 22:61–62). John kept silent about Peter's crying. In all this, only one thing is surprising: how, according to Luke, “the Lord turned and looked at Peter.” In fact, the interrogation took place in the inner courtyard, and, according to Mark, also in the upper parts of the house, while Peter was in the outer courtyard, among the slaves who were warming themselves by the fire. So how could the Lord take a bodily look at Peter? I believe that this glance was cast by an action from above, so that Peter was reminded of how many times he had already denied and what the Lord had predicted for him. Thus, the merciful look of the Lord led him to repentance, and he cried savingly. All this is similar to how we say every day: “Lord! look upon me” or: “The Lord looked upon so and so,” meaning one who, by divine mercy, escaped danger or care; in the same way, I believe, the Lord looked at Peter, and Peter remembered the words of the Lord. That is why Matthew and Mark, who were silent about this look, said that Peter remembered not “the words of the Lord,” as Luke wrote, but “the words of Jesus,” as if making it clear that Jesus would have looked with his bodily eyes, and the Lord with divine power. 27. Matthew goes on to say, “When the morning had come, all the chief priests and the elders of the people had a meeting concerning Jesus, to put Him to death; and having bound Him, they took Him away and handed Him over to Pontius Pilate, the governor” (Matthew 27:1–2). Mark reports in a similar way: “Immediately in the morning the chief priests with the elders and scribes and the entire Sanhedrin held a meeting and, having bound Jesus, they took him away and handed him over to Pilate” (Mark 15:1). Luke, after the words about Peter’s denial, reproduced what was done to the Lord in the morning: “The people who held Jesus mocked Him and beat Him; and, covering Him, they struck Him in the face and asked Him: Prophesy, who struck You? And many other blasphemies were uttered against Him. And when the day came, the elders of the people, the high priests and the scribes, gathered together, and brought Him into their Sanhedrin and said: Are you the Christ? tell us. He said to them: If I tell you, you will not believe it; even if I ask you, you will not answer Me and will not let Me go; from now on the Son of Man will sit at the right hand of the power of God. And they all said: So are you the Son of God? He answered them: you say that I am. They said: What more evidence do we need? for we ourselves have heard from His mouth! And the whole multitude of them rose up and led Him to Pilate” (Luke 22:63–23:1). So, Luke spoke in detail about what happened in the morning; At night, what Matthew and Mark briefly mentioned happened, i.e. testimony of false witnesses. John, in addition to Peter's denial, conveyed the events of that night in a few words, mentioning only about a quarter of the events that took place. However, only from him do we know that “Annas sent Him bound to the high priest Caiaphas... From Caiaphas they took Jesus to the praetorium. It was morning...” (John 18:24, 28); those. for some reason Caiaphas was absent from that meeting, then, when Jesus was brought to him, the accusation was already clear and it was clear to Caiaphas that He had to die; Therefore, He was sent to Pilate without any delay. 28. Matthew further speaks about what Pilate did with the Lord. But first he makes a digression to report the death of Judas, which only he reports: “Then Judas, who betrayed Him, saw that He was condemned, and, repenting, returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, saying: I have sinned in betraying innocent blood. They said to him: What is that to us? see for yourself. And, throwing away the pieces of silver in the church, he went out, went and hanged himself. The high priests, taking the pieces of silver, said: it is not permissible to put them in the church treasury, because this is the price of blood. Having held a meeting, they bought a potter's land with them for the burial of strangers; Therefore, that land is called “land of blood” to this day. Then what was spoken through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled, saying: And they took thirty pieces of silver, the price of Him who was valued, whom the children of Israel valued, and gave them to the potter’s land, as the Lord said to me” (Matthew 27:3-10). 29. Some are confused by the fact that this evidence is not in the book of the prophet Jeremiah. However, there are gospel lists that do not indicate the name of the prophet, and perhaps we should rather trust these lists. Indeed, these words were spoken not by Jeremiah, but by Zechariah. And why in most lists we find the name of Jeremiah is difficult to explain, especially since in the most ancient scrolls it was simply written: “What was spoken through the prophet was fulfilled,” and although the name of the prophet is not indicated at all, it is clear that we are talking about the prophet Zechariah. 30. Or, perhaps, the name of Jeremiah appeared through the mysterious action of God's providence, which controlled the minds of the evangelists? After all, it could be that the mind of Matthew, who was composing the Gospel, imagined Jeremiah instead of Zechariah, as often happens, and he inserted this name without any doubt. However, since the memories of the evangelists were guided by the Holy Spirit, the name of this prophet could only appear if the Lord commanded to write it that way. This can only be explained by the fact that all the holy prophets are known for their amazing agreement among themselves, for everything that was written by them was spoken by the Holy Spirit through them, and, therefore, they have everything in common, and what Zechariah said is as much Zechariah’s as Jeremiah’s, and vice versa. From here it is clear that the books of all of them are like one book of one, and the evidence that non-believers or simply inexperienced people are trying to put forward - to confirm the alleged disagreement of the holy evangelists - believers and scientists accept these same evidence as evidence of the unity of all saints and prophets. 31. There is one more reason that cannot be ignored. The fact is that Zechariah talks about thirty pieces of silver, but does not say anything about buying a field. Jeremiah has news that he bought a field from his brother’s son and owed him money. Thus, the reader, finding words in Jeremiah about buying a field, and in Zechariah about thirty pieces of silver, connects the two prophecies into one and comprehends their general meaning. As for the words added by Matthew to this prophecy, which are not found in either Zechariah or Jeremiah: “Whom the children of Israel valued, and gave them to the potter’s land, as the Lord told me,” then from this we must conclude that the evangelist, by including these words, by revelation from the Lord indicated that this prophecy refers to a circumstance connected with the valuation of Jesus. Next, the entry for the purchased field was thrown into an earthen vessel, from which the potter’s field emerged. As for the burial place of the pilgrims, the Lord told Jeremiah that his purchase of the field meant that it would be the residence of the liberated in that land. I have expressed all these thoughts not in order to definitively clarify such a complex issue, but to show that one should carefully understand these prophetic testimonies, brought together in one Gospel story. 32. Having reported the fate of the traitor Judas, Matthew continues: “Jesus stood before the governor. And the ruler asked Him: Are you the King of the Jews? Jesus said to him: You speak. And when the chief priests and elders accused Him, He answered nothing. Then Pilate said to Him: Do you not hear how many testify against You? And he did not answer a single word, so the ruler was very surprised. On Easter, the ruler had the custom of releasing to the people one prisoner they wanted. At that time they had a famous prisoner called Barabbas; So, when they had gathered, Pilate said to them: whom do you want me to release to you: Barabbas, or Jesus, who is called Christ? For he knew that they betrayed Him out of envy. While he was sitting in the judgment seat, his wife sent him to say: Do not do anything to the Righteous One, because now in a dream I have suffered a lot for Him. But the chief priests and elders stirred up the people to ask Barabbas and to destroy Jesus. Then the governor asked them: which of the two do you want me to release to you? They said: Barabbas. Pilate says to them: What will I do to Jesus, who is called Christ? Everyone tells him: let him be crucified! The ruler said: what evil has He done? But they shouted even more loudly: let him be crucified! Pilate, seeing that nothing helped, but the confusion was increasing, took water and washed his hands before the people, and said: I am innocent of the blood of this Righteous One; look you. And all the people answered and said, “His blood be on us and on our children.” Then he released Barabbas to them, and beat Jesus and handed him over to be crucified” (Matthew 27:11–26). 33. Mark tells almost the same story in the same words. But Pilate’s words, addressed to the people in order to release one prisoner, are given somewhat differently: “Do you want me to release you the King of the Jews?” Here it is worth remembering that the Jews called their kings anointed, so Pilate’s question could mean the following: “Do you want me to release the Anointed One to you?”, i.e. Christ. And further Mark says: “Pilate answered and said to them again: What do you want me to do with Him whom you call the King of the Jews?” It is clear that Mark wanted to say the same thing with the words “King of the Jews” as Matthew did with the word “Christ”. Mark and others are silent about the fact that Pilate washed his hands of the people, wanting to show that he was innocent of the blood of the Righteous One. But Matthew made it clear that Pilate knew Jesus enough to let Him go. Mark also speaks briefly about this, citing the following words of Pilate: “What evil has He done?” But the people began to shout even more loudly: “Crucify Him!” Mark goes on to say: “Then Pilate, wanting to do what was pleasing to the people, released Barabbas to them, and beat Jesus and handed him over to be crucified.” This is Mark's message (Mark 15.2–15). 34. Luke says the following about the events of Pilate: “And they began to accuse Him, saying: We have found that He corrupts our people and forbids giving taxes to Caesar, calling Himself Christ the King.” The other two evangelists do not talk about this, although they mention the accusations. So, thanks to Luke, we know exactly what crime He was falsely accused of. Further, Luke does not report the words of Pilate: “Do you not hear how many testify against you?” , and immediately leads to his question: “Are you the King of the Jews?” , to which Jesus replied, “You say.” Matthew and Mark also remember, although in a slightly different order, since here too the evangelists complement each other. Luke then continues this way: “Pilate said to the chief priests and the people, “I find no guilt in this man. But they insisted, saying that He was disturbing the people by teaching throughout all Judea, starting from Galilee to this place. Pilate, hearing about Galilee, asked: Is He a Galilean? And having learned that He was from Herod’s region, He sent Him to Herod, who was also in Jerusalem these days. Herod, seeing Jesus, was very happy, for he had long wanted to see Him, because he had heard a lot about Him, and hoped to see some miracle from Him, and asked Him many questions, but He did not answer him. The chief priests and scribes stood and strongly accused Him. But Herod and his soldiers, having humiliated Him and mocked Him, dressed Him in light clothes and sent Him back to Pilate. And that day Pilate and Herod became friends with each other, for before they were at enmity with each other.” Only Luke tells about this meeting of Jesus with Herod and what happened there, while the rest are silent. Further, Luke says: “Pilate, having called the high priests and rulers and the people, said to them: you have brought this man to me as one who corrupts the people; and behold, I examined before you and did not find this man guilty of anything of which you accuse Him; and Herod also, for I sent Him to him; and nothing was found in Him worthy of death; So, having punished Him, I will release Him. And he needed to release one prisoner to them for the holiday. But all the people began to shout: Death to Him! but release Barabbas to us. Barabbas was put in prison for causing outrage and murder in the city. Pilate again raised his voice, wanting to release Jesus. But they shouted: crucify him, crucify him! He said to them the third time, “What evil has He done?” I did not find anything worthy of death in Him; So, having punished Him, I will release Him. But they continued with great shouting to demand that He be crucified; and the cry prevailed over them and the chief priests." Although Matthew did not mention how many times Pilate tried to release Jesus, but when he said: “Pilate, seeing that nothing helps, but the confusion is increasing...”, he made it clear that there were multiple attempts. Luke concludes the story of what happened with the ruler with these words: “And Pilate decided to comply with their request, and released to them the man who had been imprisoned for outrage and murder, whom they had asked; but he gave Jesus over to their will” (Luke 23.2–25). 35. Now consider John's testimony about the same events. (John) says: “They took Jesus from Caiaphas to the praetorium. It was morning; and they did not enter the praetorium, so as not to be defiled, but so that they could eat the Passover. Pilate came out to them and said: What do you accuse this Man of? They answered him: If He had not been an evildoer, we would not have delivered Him to you." John is silent about the accusations themselves, but Luke, without contradicting him in any way, complements him: “And they began to accuse Him, saying: We have found that He corrupts our people and forbids us to give taxes to Caesar, calling Himself Christ the King.” What John said, in my opinion, should be understood in such a way that at first they did not want to bring forward accusations, believing that in view of their high position among the people, Pilate would condemn Christ even without them indicating the accusations. There is no doubt that much was said at the judgment seat of Pilate, but each of the evangelists brought, keeping brevity, only a part; but all together they present it in such a way that the words of one complement what the others say. John continues: “Pilate said to them: Take Him, and judge Him according to your law. The Jews said to him: It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death, so that the word of Jesus, which He spoke, might be fulfilled, indicating by what kind of death He would die. Then Pilate again entered the praetorium, and called Jesus, and said to Him: Are you the King of the Jews? Jesus answered him, “Are you saying this on your own, or have others told you about Me?” It may seem that here John contradicts others, for they quoted Jesus’ answer as follows: “You say.” But John, later giving such an answer, clearly showed that the first answer of Jesus was missed by others. Let us pay attention to what follows: “Pilate answered: Am I a Jew? Your people and the chief priests delivered You up to me; what have you done? Jesus answered: My kingdom is not of this world; If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would fight for Me, so that I would not be betrayed to the Jews; but now my kingdom is not from here. Pilate said to Him: So are You a King? Jesus answered: You say that I am a King." This is where John comes to what the other evangelists said. What follows is the continuation of the Lord’s speech: “For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I came into the world, to testify to the truth; everyone who is of the truth listens to My voice. Pilate said to Him: What is truth? And having said this, he again went out to the Jews and said to them: I find no guilt in Him. You have a custom that I give you one for Easter; Do you want me to release the King of the Jews to you? Then they all shouted again, saying, “Not Him, but Barabbas.” Barabbas was a robber. Then Pilate took Jesus and ordered him to be beaten. And the soldiers wove a crown of thorns, placed it on His head, and dressed Him in purple, and said: Hail, King of the Jews! and they struck Him on the cheeks. Pilate went out again and said to them: Behold, I am bringing Him out to you, so that you may know that I do not find any guilt in Him. Then Jesus came out wearing a crown of thorns and a scarlet robe. And Pilate said to them: Behold, Man! When the high priests and ministers saw Him, they shouted: Crucify Him, crucify Him! Pilate says to them: Take Him and crucify Him, for I find no guilt in Him. The Jews answered him: we have a law, and according to our law He must die, because He made Himself the Son of God." The last words complement what Luke said: “We have found that He is corrupting our people.” John then continues: “When Pilate heard this word, he was more afraid. And again he entered the praetorium and said to Jesus: Where are you from? But Jesus did not give him an answer. Pilate says to Him: Do you not answer me? Don’t you know that I have the power to crucify You and the power to release You? Jesus answered: You would not have any power over Me if it had not been given to you from above; therefore there is greater sin on him who delivered Me to you. From that time on, Pilate sought to release Him. The Jews shouted: if you let Him go, you are not a friend of Caesar; “Everyone who makes himself a king is an opponent of Caesar.” These words of the Jews coincide (in meaning) with what Luke cited: “We have found that He corrupts our people and forbids giving taxes to Caesar, calling Himself Christ the King.” By including these cries of the Jews in his narrative, John seems to make up for what he did not say about their accusations before, saying only: “They answered him: If He had not been an evildoer, we would not have delivered Him to you.” John concludes his story about what happened to Pilate this way: “Pilate, having heard this word, brought Jesus out and sat down at the judgment seat, in a place called Liphostroton, and in Hebrew Gavvatha. Then it was the Friday before Easter, and it was six o’clock. And Pilate said to the Jews: Behold, your King! But they shouted: take him, take him, crucify him! Pilate says to them: Shall I crucify your king? The high priests answered: We have no king except Caesar. Then at last he handed Him over to them to be crucified” (John 18:28–19:16). 36. Now we should consider what the evangelists told about the suffering of the Lord. Matthew begins like this: “Then the governor’s soldiers took Jesus into the praetorium, gathered the whole army against Him, and, having undressed Him, put a purple robe on Him; and having woven a crown of thorns, they placed it on His head and gave Him a reed in His right hand; and, kneeling before Him, they mocked Him, saying, “Hail, King of the Jews!” (Matthew 27:27–30). Mark reports in this way: “And the soldiers took Him inside the courtyard, that is, to the praetorium, and gathered the whole regiment, and dressed Him in scarlet, and, having woven a crown of thorns, they placed it on Him; and they began to greet Him: Rejoice, King of the Jews! And they beat Him on the head with a cane, and spat on Him, and, kneeling down, bowed to Him” (Mark 15:16–20). It is clear that the words of Matthew and Mark about clothing mean that the mocking soldiers clothed Jesus not in royal purple, but in clothes dyed red by the juice of a plant called coccum; there is also red purple (i.e. red cloth), similar in color to cossum. Therefore, perhaps Mark mentioned purple, although he was talking about the dye berry. Luke says nothing about this, and John, before talking about Jesus being handed over to be crucified, mentions it this way: “Then Pilate took Jesus and ordered him to be beaten. And the soldiers wove a crown of thorns, placed it on His head, and dressed Him in purple, and said: Hail, King of the Jews! And they struck Him on the cheeks” (John 19:1–3). From here it is clear that Matthew and Mark reported this retroactively, (i.e.) that all this happened not when Pilate handed Jesus over to crucifixion, (but earlier); (Matthew and Mark) inserted here what they had previously omitted. This also includes what Matthew further says: “And they spat on Him, and taking a reed, they beat Him on the head. And when they mocked Him, they took off His scarlet robe, and clothed Him in His garments, and led Him away to be crucified” (Matthew 27:30–31). Mark concludes this part of the story this way: “When they mocked Him, they took off the scarlet robe from Him, dressed Him in His own clothes, and led Him out to crucify Him” (Mark 15:20). 37. So Matthew continues: “As they went out, they met a certain Cyrene man named Simon; this one was forced to bear His cross” (Matthew 27:32). Mark also seems to report: “And they forced a certain Simon of Cyrene, the father of Alexander and Rufus, who was passing by, coming from the field, to carry His cross” (Mark 15:21). And Luke says this: “And when they had led Him away, they seized one Simon of Cyrene who was coming from the field, and they laid a cross on him to carry after Jesus” (Luke 23:26). In John we read: “And they took Jesus and led him away. And, bearing His cross, He went out to a place called Skull, in Hebrew Golgotha; There they crucified Him” (John 19.16–18). From this we can understand that before ascending to Calvary, Jesus Himself carried His cross; Simon, as the previous three (evangelists) recall, was forced to do this already on the way, when raising the (cross) to the (frontal) place. Thus, John described the first half of the journey, and the rest - the second. 38. Matthew continues like this: “And coming to a place called Golgotha, which means: the Place of the Skull (all the evangelists talk about this the same way), they gave Him vinegar mixed with gall to drink; and having tasted it, he was not thirsty” (Matt. 27:33–34). Mark reports: “And they gave Him wine and myrrh to drink; but He did not accept” (Mark 15:23). From this we can understand that we were talking about wine vinegar mixed with myrrh: Matthew speaks of gall because wine with myrrh is the bitterest of drinks. And Mark’s words: “He did not take it” mean that Jesus did not drink, but partook, as Matthew testifies. 39. Then Matthew says: “And they that crucified him divided his garments, casting lots; and sitting, they guarded Him there” (Matthew 27:35–36). Mark also speaks about this: “Those who crucified Him divided His garments, casting lots as to who should take what” (Mark 15:24). And in Luke we read: “And they divided His garments, casting lots. And the people stood and watched” (Luke 23:34–35). The messages of these three evangelists are brief, but John tells in detail: “When the soldiers crucified Jesus, they took His clothes and divided them into four parts, a piece for each soldier, and a tunic; The tunic was not sewn, but entirely woven on top. So they said to each other: Let us not tear it apart, but let us cast lots for it, whose it will be, so that what is said in the Scripture may be fulfilled: They divided My garments among themselves, and cast lots for My clothing. This is what the soldiers did” (John 19:23–24). 40. Matthew continues: “And they placed an inscription over His head, signifying His guilt: This is Jesus, the King of the Jews” (Matthew 27:37). And Mark, before talking about this, says: “It was the third hour, and they crucified Him” (Mark 15:25). He reports this after talking about the division of clothes. All this requires the most careful consideration, because there are great misunderstandings associated with this place (in Mark). Indeed, one might think that Jesus was nailed to the cross at the third hour, and from the sixth to the ninth hour there was darkness, so that three hours passed from the moment of the crucifixion until the onset of darkness. Perhaps such an interpretation would have been correct if John had not first said: “Pilate... brought Jesus out and sat down at the judgment seat, in a place called Liphostroton, and in Hebrew Gavvatha. Then it was the Friday before Easter, and it was six o’clock. And Pilate said to the Jews: Behold, your King! But they shouted: take him, take him, crucify him! Pilate says to them: Shall I crucify your king? The high priests answered: We have no king except Caesar. Then at last he handed Him over to them to be crucified” (John 19:13–16). So, if only at the sixth hour He was handed over by Pilate to be crucified, then how was He crucified at the third hour, as some believe that Mark is talking about? 41. First, let us examine at what hour He could have been crucified, and then we will try to understand why Mark said that He was crucified at the third hour. So, it was the sixth hour when Jesus was handed over to be crucified by Pilate; it was just walking, that is, the fifth hour ended and the sixth began. But it was not customary for them (the evangelists) to say: “a fifth and a quarter” or “a fifth and a half.” It is generally characteristic of Scripture to use the whole instead of the part, as we have already shown above, examining the question of six and eight days after which He ascended the mountain. Thus, at the beginning of the sixth hour, He was handed over by Pilate to be crucified, and at the end of this hour, that darkness came, which the three evangelists testify to (Matthew 27:45; Mark 15:33; Luke 23:44). 42. But why did Mark, having reported that His crucifiers divided His clothes by casting lots for them, added: “It was the third hour, and they crucified Him”? After all, they first crucified Him, and then divided His clothes, as others testify and which is obvious in itself. If Mark simply wanted to report the time of the action that took place, it would be enough for him to say: “It was three o’clock”; so this addition: “And they crucified Him” was made only in order to designate something retroactively, which would have become a controversial subject if Scripture had been read from the time when the Church already knew for certain at what hour the Lord was hanged on the tree, so that it would be possible either to correct the error or to reject the lie. But since he (Mark) knew that the Lord was hanged by soldiers, and not by Jews, with these words he secretly showed that the true crucifiers were not those who, while serving, carried out the order, but those who shouted: “Crucify Him!” Thus, it is clear that when the Jews, shouting, demanded execution, it was three o’clock; but since at the same time they could not fulfill what they wanted, they handed Him over to Pilate, which John clearly reported: “Pilate came out to them and said: what do you accuse this Man of? They answered him: If He had not been an evildoer, we would not have delivered Him to you. Pilate said to them: Take Him, and judge Him according to your law. The Jews said to him: “It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death” (John 18:29–31). But what they could not do with their hands, they did with their tongue, and this happened, as Mark indicated, in the third hour. 43. If anyone asserts that when the Jews first began to demand crucifixion, the third hour had not yet arrived, he will most unreasonably reveal himself to be an enemy of the Gospel; after all, we have no evidence that there was not yet a third hour, and therefore in this matter we should completely trust the evangelist who speaks the truth, and not the absurd human inventions. “Why do you accept as true (the report) that it was the third hour?” I answer: because I believe the evangelists, and if you believe them, then how else can you understand that the Lord was crucified both at the third hour and at the sixth? At the sixth hour we insist, based on the clear instructions of John. But Mark mentions the third hour. If you and I both believe the word of the Gospel, then show us differently (than I did) how both could be; If you prove otherwise, I will gladly accept it. After all, the truth of the Gospel is dearer to me than my own opinion. Or let someone else give a better explanation, but if he doesn’t, why is that bad? Let us accept the best, firmly understanding that none of the evangelists could lie or fall into error, standing at such a great and sacred height of their ministry. 44. Let us remember once again how Mark says: “Pilate answered and said to them again: What do you want me to do with Him whom you call the King of the Jews? They shouted again: crucify Him!” (Mark 15:12–13) Then Mark, without inserting anything more, immediately says that Pilate delivered the Lord to the cross, which John reports as having happened at the sixth hour. We see how much Mark kept silent about, namely: about Pilate’s repeated attempts to take Him away from the Jews. Indeed, Matthew says: “Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do to Jesus, who is called Christ? Everyone tells him: let him be crucified!” Then, as we say, it was three o'clock. Further, the same Matthew reports: “The ruler said: What evil has He done? But they shouted even more loudly: let him be crucified. Pilate, seeing that nothing helps, but the confusion increases ... "(Matthew 27:22-24), etc. Is it strange that while these attempts by Pilate to defend Jesus continued, while the Jews were making noise and demanding execution, two or three hours passed? Thus the sixth hour came, at the beginning of which Pilate handed Him over to be crucified, and at the end darkness fell. 45. And Luke narrates that when Pilate said: “Therefore, having punished Him, I will let him go,” then: “All the people began to shout: Death to Him! but release Barabbas to us... Pilate again raised his voice, wanting to release Jesus. But they shouted: crucify him, crucify him!” Then it was three o'clock. Luke continues: “He said to them the third time, “What evil has He done?” I did not find anything worthy of death in Him; So, having punished Him, I will release Him. But they continued with great shouting to demand that He be crucified; and the cry prevailed over them and over the chief priests” (Luke 23:18–23). Isn’t it clear that we are talking about a long and growing noise, that Pilate hesitated for a long time and did not immediately repeat his proposal, and did not give in in an instant? 46. Also check with John and see how Pilate hesitated, how he wanted to avoid such a disgusting deed! John talks about this more thoroughly than others, although he does not indicate everything that happened in those two hours. After all, after he (Pilate) allowed Jesus to be scourged, dressed in jester's clothes and reviled in every possible way (this, as I believe, he did in order to soften the rage of the soldiers and prevent murder), then: “Pilate went out again and said to them: behold, I am bringing Him out to you, so that you know that I do not find any guilt in Him. Then Jesus came out wearing a crown of thorns and a scarlet robe. And Pilate said to them, “Behold, a man!” , as if wanting to pacify them with His inglorious appearance. Then John adds: “When the high priests and ministers saw Him, they shouted: Crucify Him, crucify Him!” Then, we say, it was three o'clock. It continues: “Pilate says to them: Take Him and crucify Him, for I find no guilt in Him. The Jews answered him: We have a law, and according to our law He must die, because He made Himself the Son of God. Pilate, having heard this word, was more afraid, and again entered the praetorium and said to Jesus: Where are you from? But Jesus did not give him an answer. Pilate says to Him: Do you not answer me? Don’t you know that I have the power to crucify You and the power to release You? Jesus answered: You would not have any power over Me if it had not been given to you from above; therefore there is greater sin on him who delivered Me to you. From that time on, Pilate sought to release Him." So, Pilate began to look for (the opportunity) to release Him, which, of course, required some time for reflection, negotiations with the Jews and their objections, about which (the evangelist) kept silent. In the end, the Jews said something that forced Pilate to yield. John says: “The Jews cried out: If you let Him go, you are not a friend of Caesar; Anyone who makes himself a king is an opponent of Caesar. Pilate, having heard this word, brought Jesus out and sat down at the judgment seat, in a place called Liphostroton, and in Hebrew Gavvatha. Then it was the Friday before Easter, and it was six o’clock.” So, from the moment when the Jews first demanded crucifixion until the time when Pilate sat down at the judgment seat, two hours passed, (i.e.) the fifth hour ended and the sixth began. Here Pilate made his last attempt: “And Pilate said to the Jews: Behold, your King! But they shouted: take him, take him, crucify him! Pilate says to them: Shall I crucify your king? The high priests answered: We have no king except Caesar. Then at last he handed Him over to them to be crucified” (John 19:4–16). And then, while He was being led to the place of execution, while He was being crucified between two thieves, while they were casting lots and dividing clothes, while He was again being reviled, the sixth hour was completed and darkness fell. 47. So, let them stop their wicked stubbornness and believe that the Lord Jesus Christ was crucified at the third hour by the words of the Jews, and at the sixth hour by the hands of soldiers. Mark, the greatest of all (evangelists) supporter of brevity (exposition), wished only to indicate the will of Pilate and his attempt (to save) the life of Jesus. Indeed, Mark says (about this) much less than Matthew; Matthew is less than Luke; Luke is less than John; but John does not cite all the events that happened with Pilate. Therefore, it is reasonable and pious to believe that a little over two hours passed in this interval. 48. But someone might say that Mark, speaking of the third hour, simply meant that it had already expired (that is, we could be talking about any hour after the third). But then why shouldn't he say that the Jews themselves nailed Jesus to the cross? Such an interpreter allows himself to interpret too freely and (as if) prescribes the laws of the narration of truth. He could only speak this way if he himself narrated it, preferring his intention to the intention of the Evangelist Mark. But the memories of the evangelists were directed by the hand of the One who controls the water, as it is written, as He pleases. So, if these holy and truthful men wrote (something) supposedly accidental, then one should not look for error or error here. And the apostle says: “If our gospel is hid, it is hid to those who are perishing” (2 Cor. 4:3). And again: “For some there is a smell of death leading to death, but for others there is a smell of life leading to life. And who is capable of this? (2 Cor. 2:16), i.e. who can understand how it would be better. And the Lord says the same thing: “I came into this world for judgment, so that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind” (John 9:39). After all, this is the highest wealth of wisdom and knowledge of God, according to which one vessel is made from the same clay for honor, and another for reproach; and flesh and blood says: “And who are you, O man, that you argue with God?” (Rom. 9:20–21). So who knew the thought of the Lord, who was His adviser, when He (precisely) thus directed the hearts of the remembering evangelists and, at the pinnacle of the building of the Church, raised them to such a high degree of importance that even by what in their writings may seem contradictory, many, justly given over to the lusts of the hearts and a corrupt mind, are freed from blindness. In fact, the prophet says to the Lord: “How great are Your works, O Lord! Your thoughts are wonderfully deep! The foolish man does not know, and the ignorant does not understand it” (Ps. 92:6-7). 49. I ask and urge those who read these reasonings, compiled by us with the help of God, that they remember these words of mine in any such difficulty, so that in the future there will be no need to repeat what has been said again and again. And whoever wishes to heed this without stubborn impiety will easily see in what a convenient place Mark brought his instruction about the third hour, for now everyone can remember when the Jews crucified the Lord; Indeed, they would have liked to put the entire burden of the crime on the Roman rulers and soldiers, but (Mark) remembered this precisely when he described the actions of the ministers (according to John, these were soldiers) who divided His clothes by lot. Therefore, lest anyone transfer the intent of this crime from the Jews to the soldiers, (Mark) says: “It was the third hour, and they crucified Him.” From here the conscientious researcher will see that what the soldiers did at the sixth hour was done to an even greater extent by those who, at the third hour, shouted to crucify Him. 50. There is also no shortage of those who, by the words of John: “Then was the Friday before Easter, and the sixth hour,” want to mean the third hour of the day, at which Pilate sat down at the judgment seat; and then, it turns out, at the end of the same third hour He was crucified on the cross; when He was already hanging on the tree, another three hours passed, and He gave up the ghost. Thus, already from the hour when He died, i.e. from six o'clock until nine o'clock there was darkness. Indeed, they say that that day was the Friday before the Jewish Passover, and unleavened bread began on Saturday. But the true Passover, not the Jewish, but the Christian Passover, which was already celebrated in the suffering of Christ, began to be prepared from the ninth hour of the night, when Christ was prepared by the Jews for death. After all, (the word) parasceve means preparation. Thus, from this ninth hour of the night until His crucifixion, the sixth hour of preparation according to John expired and it was the third hour of the day according to Mark. So Mark simply called the third hour of the day the hour in which the Lord was nailed to the tree. What believer would not rejoice at such a solution to the question, if only it were possible to guess that moment after the ninth hour of the night from which the Friday of our Easter began, i.e. preparation of the death of Christ. After all, if we say that it began when the Lord was captured by the Jews, then it was only the first half of the night; if, when they brought Him to the house of Caiaphas, then the roosters had not yet crowed, but they brought Him to Pilate in the morning. Rather, it should be assumed that this preparation began when the high priests, having heard Him, decided: “I am guilty of death.” Well, nothing prevents us from accepting that it really was nine o'clock in the morning; from this hour until Pilate sat down at the judgment seat, about six hours passed, and it was not the (sixth) hour of the day, but the (sixth hour) of Friday, i.e. preparations for the sacrifice of the Lord, which is the true Passover; so that at the end of the sixth hour of Friday, coinciding with the third hour of the day, the Lord was crucified on the cross. So, should we prefer this understanding, or the one we presented earlier? Arguing about this is the same as asking who was closer to the Lord: the centurion or the friends sent by him, which we have already talked about above (Book 2, Chapter 20 of the suffering of the Lord, which usually arouses the shamelessness of disputants and confuses the inexperience of the weak, is permitted. 51. Matthew goes on to say, “Then two thieves were crucified with Him: one on the right side, and the other on the left” (Matthew 27:38). Mark and Luke speak in a similar way (Mark 15:27; Luke 23:33). And what John said should also not raise questions. He writes: “There they crucified Him and two others with Him, on this side and on the other, and in the midst of Jesus” (John 19:18). John did not say that these were robbers, but since he did not say that they were innocent people, there is no contradiction here. 52. Then Matthew continues: “And those who passed by reviled Him, shaking their heads and saying: He who destroys the church and builds it in three days! save yourself; if you are the Son of God, come down from the cross." Mark writes about the same thing almost verbatim. Next, Matthew writes: “Likewise the high priests, with the scribes and elders and Pharisees, mockingly said, “He saved others, but he cannot save himself!” if He is the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe in Him; He trusted in God: let him now deliver Him, if He pleases Him. For He said: I am the Son of God” (Matthew 27:39–43). Mark and Luke, although partly in different words, express the same thoughts; however, one misses what the other brings. They speak unanimously about the chief priests who ridiculed the crucified Lord, but Mark was silent about the elders; together they mentioned all the leading persons, so here we can mean both scribes and elders (Mark 15:29–32; Luke 23:35–37). 53. Matthew further writes: “The thieves also, who were crucified with Him, reviled Him” (Matthew 27:44). Mark does not contradict him, although he says the same thing in other words (Mark 15:32). But it may seem that Luke contradicts them, unless we remember the rather common way of conveying events among the evangelists. Indeed, Luke says: “One of the hanged villains reviled Him and said: If You are the Christ, save Yourself and us. The other, on the contrary, calmed him down and said: Or are you not afraid of God, when you yourself are condemned to the same thing? and we are condemned justly, because we have received what is worthy of our deeds; but He did nothing bad. And he said to Jesus: remember me, Lord, when you come into your kingdom! And Jesus said to him, “Truly I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise” (Luke 23:39–43). So, according to Matthew and Mark, the thieves crucified with Him reviled Him, and according to the testimony of Luke, one of them reviled Him, and the other calmed down his comrade and believed in the Lord. How can we understand this? To do this, you need to imagine that Matthew and Mark, briefly dwelling on this event, used the plural instead of the singular, just as in the Epistle to the Hebrews we read what was said in the plural: “they stopped the mouths of lions,” when this is known about one Daniel, or: “they died by the sword” (Heb. 11:33, 37), when the tradition exists only about one Isaiah. But since the pagans revile the Gospel for this reason, let them look at how their writers expressed themselves, how many Phaedrus, Medea and Clytemnestra they had, although in fact there was only one of them; and what is unusual in saying: “The peasants offended me,” although the offense was inflicted by one. Luke's testimony about one thief would contradict the testimony of others if they said that both thieves reproached the Lord. Then by the plural it would be impossible to mean one thing: but in this case there is no evidence that, speaking in the plural, they necessarily meant both villains; Such use of the plural is often acceptable even when we are talking about one thing. 54. Matthew continues: “From the sixth hour there was darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour” (Matthew 27:45). The other two also agree with this (Mark 15:33; Luke 23:44–45); but Luke explains why the darkness occurred: because the sun was darkened. Matthew says: “And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice: Either, Or! Lama Savahvani? that is: My God, My God! Why have you forsaken me? Some of those standing there, hearing this, said: He is calling Elijah.” Mark almost agrees with him in words, but in thoughts he agrees completely. Then Matthew says: “And immediately one of them ran, took a sponge, filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, gave Him to drink.” This is what Mark says: “And one ran and filled a sponge with vinegar and put it on a reed, and gave Him a drink, saying: Wait, let’s see if Elijah comes to take Him down.” Matthew narrates that it was not the one who brought the sponge who said about Elijah, for he writes: “But others said: wait, let’s see if Elijah will come to save Him” (Matthew 27:46–49; Mark 15:34–36). From this we can understand that both the man with the sponge and the other warriors said so. And Luke, before speaking about the blasphemy of the thief, mentioned this vinegar: “The soldiers also mocked Him, coming up and offering Him vinegar and saying: If You are the King of the Jews, save Yourself” (Luke 23:36–37). Luke conveyed in one phrase everything that was done and said by the soldiers. The reader should not be confused by the fact that, according to him, it was not one of them who brought the vinegar: using the plural instead of the singular, Luke used the method of presentation discussed above. John also mentioned this vinegar when he said: “After this Jesus, knowing that all things had already been accomplished, that the Scripture might be fulfilled, said, I thirst. There was a vessel full of vinegar. The soldiers filled a sponge with vinegar and put it on hyssop, and brought it to His mouth” (John 19:28–29). The other evangelists did not mention this “thirst” and the vessel filled with vinegar that was there. 55. Matthew continues: “And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice and gave up the ghost” (Matthew 27:50). Mark speaks in a similar way (Mark 15:37). And Luke explains that it was He who exclaimed with this loud voice; he says: “Jesus cried out with a loud voice and said: Father! I commit My spirit into Your hands. And having said this, he gave up the ghost” (Luke 23:46). But John was silent both about the first words cited by Matthew and Mark, and about the last ones, which Luke alone mentioned. But John brought up what others missed, namely, that the Lord exclaimed: “It is finished!” , after tasting the vinegar - which, according to our understanding, He said before that loud exclamation. In fact, here are the words of John: “When Jesus tasted the vinegar, he said, “It is finished!” And he bowed his head and gave up his spirit” (John 19:30). It was after this that “it was finished!” and that great cry was released by the Lord, about which this evangelist kept silent, and those three spoke. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine that the order would be different. He originally said, “It is finished!” , when everything said by the prophets was fulfilled over Him, and as if He was the only one who expected this, because, of course, He could die whenever He wanted; and then, surrendering Himself to God, He gave up the ghost. If, however, it seems to anyone that this could be stated in any other order, then one should especially beware lest it seem to anyone that one evangelist contradicts another, if he holds back what another said, or says what another kept silent about. 56. Then Matthew says, “And behold, the veil of the church was rent in two, from top to bottom” (Matthew 27:51). And Mark describes it this way: “And the veil of the church was torn in two, from top to bottom” (Mark 15:38). Luke speaks about this in the following way: “And the curtain of the church was torn in the middle” (Luke 23:45), but not in the same order. Wanting to connect one miracle to another, after the words: “And the sun was darkened,” he considered it necessary to add a story about the veil, warning what happened after the Lord gave up the ghost, in order to then return again to the transfer of events about drinking from vinegar, about the loud exclamation of the Lord and about death itself, which, of course, took place before the tearing of the veil and the spread of darkness. In fact, Matthew, having said that Jesus gave up the ghost, immediately after this talks about the veil. By this he directly indicated that she was torn when Jesus gave up the ghost. But if he had not added: “And behold,” but had simply said: “the veil was torn,” then it would have been unknown whether he and Mark had remembered this later than they should have, while Luke, on the contrary, preserved the order of events. 57. Matthew continues: “And the earth shook; and the stones dissipated; and the tombs were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were resurrected and, coming out of the tombs after His resurrection, they entered the holy city and appeared to many.” He speaks about this alone, but there is no need to fear that by doing so he contradicts the rest of the evangelists. He further continues: “The centurion and those who were with him guarding Jesus, seeing the earthquake and everything that happened, were greatly afraid and said: Truly this was the Son of God” (Matthew 27:51-54). Mark narrates this way: “The centurion standing opposite Him, seeing that He had thus cried out and gave up the ghost, said: Truly this man was the Son of God” (Mark 15:39). Luke says this: “The centurion, seeing what was happening, glorified God and said: Truly this man was a righteous man” (Luke 23:47). There is no contradiction in the fact that Matthew says that the centurion and those with him, seeing the earthquake, were surprised, while Luke says that he was surprised, hearing that the Lord gave up the ghost with such an exclamation, showing what power He had when he died. In fact, in the fact that Matthew said not only “seeing the earthquake,” but also added “and all that happened,” he showed that Luke’s place is impeccable, for according to him the centurion was amazed at the very death of the Lord; because she too was between what miraculously happened then. But even though Matthew did not even add this, it should still be understood in such a way that since much that was worthy of surprise happened then, the narrators were free to recall what they pleased. And they do not contradict each other in the case when one says that the centurion was surprised at one thing, and the other - at another, since he was surprised at everything. And the fact that, in the words of one, the centurion said: “Truly He was the Son of God,” and in the words of the other: “Truly This Man was the Son of God,” let it not confuse the one who has not forgotten what we said above, since both expressions completely coincide in thought; there is also no contradiction in the fact that one evangelist used the word “man” and the other did not. It may seem contradictory that, according to Luke, the centurion did not say “Son of God,” but said “righteous man.” But we must understand that either the centurion said both, or one evangelist said one thing, and another said another. Or maybe Luke wanted to express the centurion’s thought in how he said that Jesus is the Son of God. Perhaps the centurion did not understand Him as the Only Begotten, equal to the Father, but called Him the Son of God because he recognized Him as righteous, just as many righteous people are called sons of God. And the words spoken by Luke: “The centurion, seeing what was happening,” thus include everything miraculous that happened at that hour, and he mentions only one miraculous event, the constituent parts of which were all the miracles that took place. The addition in Matthew about those who were with the centurion, and the silence about them in the other evangelists, according to our last rule, is not a contradiction, since one speaks and the other is silent. 58. Matthew goes on to say, “There were also many women there, watching from afar, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to Him; among them were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Josiah, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee” (Matthew 27:55–56). Mark says this: “There were also women who looked from afar: among them was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Josiah, and Salome, who even while He was in Galilee followed Him and served Him, and many others who came with Him to Jerusalem” (Mark 15:40–41). I don't see anything that would seem contradictory between these two evangelists. Indeed, what is the significance of the fact that they named some women together, and some separately? Luke connects the events in this way: “And all the people who had gathered to see this spectacle, seeing what was happening, returned, beating their chests. But all those who knew Him, and the women who followed Him from Galilee, stood afar off and beheld this” (Luke 23:48–49). Luke fully agrees with the previous two regarding the presence of women, although he did not mention any of them by name. And regarding the crowd that was in that place, and seeing what had happened, beat their chests and returned back, he agrees with Matthew. But he alone mentioned His acquaintances standing in the distance. For John also mentioned the presence of women before the Lord gave up the ghost, saying this: “At the cross of Jesus stood His Mother and His Mother’s sister, Mary of Cleopas, and Mary Magdalene. Jesus, seeing His Mother and the disciple standing there, whom He loved, said to His Mother: Woman! Behold, Your son. Then he says to the disciple: Behold, your Mother! And from that time on, this disciple took Her to himself” (John 19:25–27). If Matthew and Mark had not clearly named Mary Magdalene, we could have said that she was either far from the cross or near it, because none of them, except John, mentioned the mother of the Lord; and now, how is it that the same Mary Magdalene is represented standing with other women at a distance, as Matthew and Mark say, and near the cross, as John says? It could only be this way: they were at such a distance that one could say “near”, because they were in His sight, and “far”, if compared with the crowd, together with the centurion and soldiers surrounding Him much closer. We can also understand that those who were with the mother of the Lord after He entrusted her to the disciple began to retreat in order to free themselves from the tightness of the crowd, and watched what was happening from a more distant place, so that the other evangelists who reported about them after the death of the Lord remembered that they were standing at a distance. 59. Matthew continues: “When evening came, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who also studied with Jesus; He came to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Then Pilate ordered the body to be given up” (Matthew 27:57–58). Mark says this: “And when evening had already come, because it was Friday, that is, the day before Saturday, Joseph came from Arimathea, a famous member of the council, who himself expected the Kingdom of God, dared to go to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Pilate was surprised that He had already died, and, calling the centurion, asked him how long ago He had died? And having learned from the centurion, he gave the body to Joseph” (Mark 15:42–45). Luke says this: “Then someone named Joseph, a member of the council, a good and truthful man, did not participate in the council and in their work; from Arimathea, a city of Judea, also expecting the Kingdom of God, came to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus” (Luke 23:50–52). And John, after he spoke about the broken legs of those who were crucified with the Lord, and about the side of Jesus, pierced by a spear - which only he spoke about - in agreement with others, he added the following message: “After this, Joseph of Arimathea - a disciple of Jesus, but secretly out of fear from the Jews - asked Pilate to take down the body of Jesus; and Pilate allowed it. He went and took down the body of Jesus” (John 19:38). There is nothing here in which any of the evangelists seemed to contradict the others. But perhaps someone will ask how John does not contradict himself when, along with others, he testifies that Joseph asked for the Body of Jesus, but he alone says that he was a secret disciple of the Lord out of fear of the Jews. Indeed, why did Joseph, who was a secret disciple out of fear, dare to ask for His Body, which none of those who followed the Lord dared to do? However, it should be clear to everyone that he did this, relying on his dignity, in view of which he could boldly enter before Pilate; for the sake of fulfilling his last duty during the burial, he cared less about the Jews, although he usually avoided their enmity by listening to the teachings of the Lord. 60. Matthew continues: “And Joseph took the body, wrapped it in a clean shroud, and laid it in his new tomb, which he had hewn out of the rock; and rolling a large stone against the door of the tomb, he departed” (Matt. 27:59–60). Mark says this: “He bought a shroud and took Him off, wrapped him in the shroud, and laid Him in a tomb that was hewn out of the rock, and rolled the stone to the door of the tomb” (Mark 15:46). Luke says: “And he took Him down, wrapped him in a shroud, and laid Him in a tomb hewn out of the rock, where no one had ever been laid” (Luke 23:53). From these three narratives no question of disagreement can arise. And John mentions that the burial of the Lord was performed not only by Joseph, but also by Nicodemus. Indeed, he says this: “Nicodemus also came, who had previously come to Jesus at night, and brought a composition of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred liters.” Then John continues, adding Joseph: “So they took the body of Jesus and wrapped it in swaddling clothes with spices, as the Jews are wont to bury. In the place where He was crucified there was a garden, and in the garden there was a new tomb, in which no one had yet been laid. They laid Jesus there because of the Friday of Judah, because the tomb was near” (John 19:39–42). And here nothing causes bewilderment among people who know how to think correctly. After all, those who kept silent about Nicodemus did not claim that the Lord was buried by Joseph alone, although they mentioned only him alone; and maybe that’s why they said that He was wrapped in one shroud by Joseph. What prevents readers from thinking that other shrouds could have been brought by Nicodemus and placed on top of the first, as John tells. However, we can remember the bandages that were placed on the head, and the bandages that were tied around the whole body: after all, they were all made of linen; so that, although there was only one shroud, it would be quite correct to say: “They bound Him with shrouds,” because a shroud is what is woven from linen. 61. Then Matthew says, “And Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were there, sitting opposite the tomb” (Matthew 27:61). Mark tells about this as follows: “And Mary Magdalene and Mary of Josiah looked where they laid Him” (Mark 15:47). From this it is clear that there is no disagreement between them. 62. Matthew continues: “The next day, which followed Friday, the chief priests and Pharisees gathered to Pilate and said: Master! We remembered that the deceiver, while still alive, said: after three days I will rise again; So give orders that the tomb be guarded until the third day, so that His disciples, coming at night, do not steal Him and say to the people: He has risen from the dead; and the last deception will be worse than the first. Pilate said to them: You have a guard; go and protect it as best you can. They went and set a guard at the tomb, and put a seal on the stone” (Matthew 27:62–66). Matthew alone tells about this, and none of the other evangelists tells anything that would seem to contradict this. 63. Then the same Matthew continues: “After the Sabbath had passed, at dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb. And behold, there was a great earthquake, for the Angel of the Lord, who descended from heaven, came and rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb and sat on it; his appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow; Frightened by him, those guarding them trembled and became as if they were dead; The angel, speaking to the women, said: Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus crucified; He is not here - He has risen, as He said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay, and go quickly, tell His disciples that He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you to Galilee; you will see Him there. Behold, I have told you” (Matthew 28:1–7). Mark agrees with him (Mark 16:1–7). But the following may be confusing: how, according to Matthew, the angel sat on the stone rolled away from the tomb. Indeed, Mark says that, entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side and dressed in white clothes, and they were amazed. Perhaps this should be understood in the sense that Matthew kept silent about the angel they saw at the entrance, and Mark kept silent about the one they saw outside, sitting on the stone; so that they saw two, and from each of the two separately they heard what the angels said about Jesus: first from the one they saw outside sitting on the stone, then from the one they saw entering the tomb, sitting on the right side. Or perhaps we should understand that it was at the entrance to the tomb in some enclosure of a stone wall, which probably then enclosed the place in front of the rock, and in this latter a place for burial was cut out, so that in the same space they saw sitting on the right side that angel who, according to Matthew, sat on a stone rolled away from the entrance to the tomb by an earthquake, that is, from the place of burial, which was carved into the rock. 64. One might also ask how Mark says, “And they went out and fled from the tomb; they were seized with trembling and horror, and they did not say anything to anyone, because they were afraid,” while Matthew says: “And they came out of the tomb hastily, and with fear and great joy they ran to tell His disciples” (Matthew 28:8; Mark 16:8). We can only understand this in this way, that they did not dare to say anything to any of these angels or to answer what they heard from them, as well as to the guards whom they saw lying; because the joy that Matthew mentions does not contradict the fear that Mark speaks of. Indeed, we must understand that both arose in their souls, even if Matthew himself did not say anything about fear; however, Matthew also mentions fear. 65. Also, about the very hour at which the women came to the tomb, a question arises that cannot be ignored. Indeed, Matthew says: “After the Sabbath, at dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb,” and in Mark we read: “Very early, on the first day of the week, they come to the tomb, at sunrise” (Mark 16:2); but here they do not contradict the other two, i.e. Luke and John. Indeed, the words of Luke: “On the very first day of the week, very early” (Luke 24:1), and the words of John: “On the very first day of the week, Mary Magdalene comes to the tomb early, while it was still dark” (John 20:1), correspond to the words of Mark: “At dawn of the first day of the week,” i.e. when the sky has already begun to partly brighten, as happens only just before sunrise, for this is the light that is usually called dawn; therefore Mark does not contradict the one who says: “It was still dark.” After all, when we say “in the morning,” this does not always mean that the sun is already visible above the earth. That is why it is often added: “Very early in the morning, at dawn,” so that those listening understand that we are talking about a precarious period of time between the darkness of night and the light of day. 66. And the three days themselves, on which the Lord died and rose again, can be correctly understood only from the point of view of the method of explanation in which the whole is spoken of as a part. For the Lord Himself says: “As Jonah was in the belly of the whale for three days and three nights, so the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights” (Matthew 12:40). But the time here is counted either from the moment when He gave up the ghost, or from the moment when he was buried, and is not taken in its entirety unless we take the average day; those. the whole day of the Sabbath with its night, and those days that include the Sabbath with each other, i.e. Friday and the first day of the week, which we call the Lord's Day, we will not understand in the sense of a part instead of a whole. Indeed, what good is it that some, faced with similar difficulties and not knowing how important it is when resolving questions to keep in mind that way of expression in the Holy Scriptures, when the whole is called a part, want to count at night those three hours from the sixth to the ninth when the sun was eclipsed, and during the day - those three other hours when it again appeared above the earth, i.e. from nine o'clock until sunset? Further, of course, they consider the night of the coming Saturday, which, together with its day, forms the second day and the second night; and then follows the night of the first day of the week, i.e. the dawning of the Lord's day, on which the Lord rose again. So, it turns out two nights and two days, and one more night, although it can be understood as a whole, and this does not reveal that that dawn was its last part, why, even without counting those six hours during which the sun was eclipsed and shone again, there will be a basis for recognizing three days and three nights. Therefore, using a very common way of speaking in Holy Scripture, according to which the part is understood as the whole, we find the first day at that time of Friday when the Lord was crucified and buried, and must take the very last part of Friday instead of the whole day with its night, which was already ended. The average day, i.e. Sabbath day - not in part, but in its entirety. Day three - again according to its first part, i.e. at night, must be considered integral with its daytime time. In this way it runs for three days. This explanation is similar to how we clarified the question of eight days, after which He ascended the mountain, when Matthew and Mark, paying attention to the whole middle days, said: “After six days,” and Luke said about the same thing: “After eight days” (Bk. 2, ch. 56, div. 113). 67. Now let's look at the rest: how it agrees with Matthew's account. After all, Luke clearly says that the women who came to the tomb saw two angels, each of whom is separately mentioned by the other two evangelists: one by Matthew, namely the one who sat on the stone outside the tomb, and the other by Mark, who was seen in the tomb on the right side. Luke tells it this way: “That day was Friday, and Saturday was coming. The women who had come with Jesus from Galilee also followed, and looked at the tomb, and how His body was laid out; Having returned, they prepared incense and ointments; and on the Sabbath they remained in peace according to the commandment. On the very first day of the week, very early, bringing the prepared spices, they came to the tomb, and with them some others; but they found the stone rolled away from the coffin. And when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. When they were perplexed about this, two men suddenly appeared before them in shining clothes. And when they were in fear and bowed their faces to the ground, they said to them: Why are you looking for the living among the dead? He is not here: He has risen; remember how He spoke to you while He was still in Galilee, saying that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and on the third day rise again. And they remembered His words; and returning from the tomb, they announced all this to the eleven and to all the rest” (Luke 23:54–24:9). So, how were the angels seen sitting individually: one, according to Matthew, outside the tomb on the stone, and the other, according to Mark, inside it, on the right side; whereas, according to Luke, two angels stood near the women who entered the tomb, although they told them almost the same thing? We have already said above about the first two, as for what Luke says, it is possible that then, inside, when the women looked at the place on which the body of the Lord lay, they saw two other angels standing, as Luke says, and saying almost the same thing as the first two, to encourage their spirit and strengthen their faith. 68. Now let's look at what John writes: how much and in what ways he agrees with the other evangelists. He narrates this way: “On the very first day of the week, Mary Magdalene comes to the tomb early, when it was still dark, and sees that the stone has been rolled away from the tomb. So he runs and comes to Simon Peter and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and says to them: They have taken the Lord away from the tomb, and we do not know where they laid Him. Immediately Peter and the other disciple came out and went to the tomb. They both ran together; but the other disciple ran faster than Peter, and came to the tomb first. And, bending down, he saw the linens lying; but did not enter the tomb. Simon Peter comes after him, and enters the tomb, and sees only the linen cloths lying, and the cloth that was on His head, not lying with the linen cloths, but especially rolled up in another place. Then the other disciple, who had come to the tomb first, also entered, and saw and believed. For they did not yet know from the Scriptures that He had to rise from the dead. So the disciples returned to themselves again. And Mary stood at the tomb and cried. And when she cried, she leaned into the tomb and saw two Angels sitting in white robes, one at the head and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus lay. And they say to her: wife! Why are you crying? He says to them: They have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid Him. Having said this, she turned back and saw Jesus standing; but did not recognize that it was Jesus. Jesus says to her: woman! Why are you crying? who are you looking for? She, thinking that it is the gardener, says to Him: Master! if you have brought Him out, tell me where you have laid Him, and I will take Him. Jesus says to her: Mary! She turned and said to Him: Rabbi! - which means: Teacher! Jesus says to her: Do not touch Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father; But go to My brothers and say to them: I ascend to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God. Mary Magdalene goes and tells her disciples that she saw the Lord and that He told her this” (John 20:1–18). We see that John agrees with the others in terms of time and place, and as for the two angels, in this he agrees with Luke. But the very fact that these angels did not stand, as in Luke, but sat, as well as much else in this narrative, may seem contradictory and requires careful consideration. 69. For this very reason, we will present everything that happened around the hour of the Resurrection of the Lord, based on the testimonies of all the evangelists, in the form of some kind of complete narrative. On the first day of the week at dawn, as everyone (the evangelists) agree, others came to the tomb. What only Matthew remembers has already happened, i.e. an earthquake, a stone falling away, the horror of the guards, in the grip of which they lay as if dead. The first to come, as John relates, was Mary Magdalene; There were undoubtedly other women with her who served the Lord. (But Mary Magdalene) burned with the greatest love, so that John, not without reason, mentioned her alone, keeping silent about those who were with her, as others (the evangelists) testify to. So, she came and, seeing that the stone was rolled away from the tomb, before she looked more carefully at anything, without doubting that the body of Jesus was taken away from there, she ran away - as the same John says - and told Peter and John. Indeed, he (John) is the disciple whom Jesus loved. They hurried to the tomb, and John, who was ahead of everyone, bent down and saw the linens lying, but did not enter the tomb; Peter came after him, entered the tomb and saw the linen cloths and the headband, not lying with the linen cloths, but folded separately. Then John also came in, saw the same thing, and believed what Mary said, (i.e.) that the Lord was carried away. “For they did not yet know from the Scripture that He had to rise from the dead. So the disciples returned to themselves again. And Mary stood at the tomb and cried,” i.e. in front of this place there was a stone tomb, but inside the place they entered, because there was a garden there, as the same John mentions. Then they saw an angel sitting on the right side of the stone that had been rolled away from the tomb; Matthew and Mark report this angel. “The angel, speaking to the women, said: Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus who was crucified; He is not here: He has risen, as He said; come and see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, tell His disciples that He has risen from the dead, and is going ahead of you to Galilee: there you will see Him; Behold, I told you." Mark also did not fail to say something similar. “And Mary,” John continues, “stood at the tomb and wept; and when she wept, she bent down into the tomb and saw two angels sitting in a white robe, one at the head and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus lay. And they said to her: woman, why are you crying? He says to them: they have taken away my Lord, and I don’t know where they laid him.” Here it should be understood that the angels stood up, for according to Luke they were seen already standing, and They said, in the words of the same Luke, to the fearful women, who bowed their eyes to the ground: “Why are you looking for the living among the dead? He is not here: remember how He spoke to you while He was still in Galilee, saying that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and then His words were remembered to them.” After this, Mary, as John says, “turned back and saw Jesus standing, but did not recognize that it was Jesus. Jesus says to her: woman! Why are you crying? who are you looking for? She, thinking that it is the gardener, says to Him: Master! if you have brought Him out, tell me where you have laid Him, and I will take Him. Jesus says to her: Mary! She turned and said to Him: Rabbi! - which means: Teacher! Jesus says to her: Do not touch Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father; But go to My brothers and say to them: I ascend to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God.” Then she came out of the coffin, i.e. from the place where the garden was, and with her others, who, according to Mark, were seized with trembling and horror, and they did not say anything to anyone. And after this, what Matthew reports happened: “Behold, Jesus met them and said: Rejoice! And they approached, grabbed His feet and worshiped Him." So, we see that the conversation took place twice with the angels and twice with the Lord himself: once when Mary mistook Him for a gardener, and another time when He met them on the road and by the very repetition (of the appearance) confirmed them (in faith) and freed them from fear. “Then Jesus says to them: Do not be afraid; go, tell my brothers to go to Galilee, and there they will see me” (Matthew 28:9-10). Therefore, Mary Magdalene came with the news to the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that He had told her so; and not only she, but also others, whom Luke mentions, “who proclaimed all this to the eleven and to all the rest... And their words seemed empty to them, and they did not believe them” (Luke 24:9, 11). Mark also testifies to this. Indeed, having reported that they fled in fear and trembling and did not say anything to anyone, he added that the risen Lord appeared on the morning of the first day of the week to Mary Magdalene, from whom he cast out seven demons, that she came with a message to those who were weeping and grieving with her, and that they, hearing that He was alive and appeared to her, did not believe (Mark 16:9-11). Matthew also did not forget to (mention) that after the women had left, who saw and heard all this, some of the guards, who lay as if dead, came into the city and reported to the high priests what had happened. They, having consulted with the elders, bribed the soldiers to spread the rumor that while they were sleeping, the disciples stole His body; The soldiers did just that, and this news, which quickly spread among the Jews, dominates their minds to this day (Matthew 28:11–15). 70. Now we must carefully consider how the Lord appeared to the disciples after His resurrection, for here we have to show not only the agreement of the four evangelists among themselves (Matthew 28:1-10; Mark 16:1-9; Luke 24:1-15; John 20:1-21), but also their agreement with the Apostle Paul, who says about this: “For I taught you from the beginning that He himself accepted, that is, that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again on the third day, according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve; then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, and some have died; then he appeared to Jacob, and also to all the Apostles; and after all he appeared to me also, as to (a certain) monster” (1 Cor. 15:3–8). But none of the evangelists followed such a sequence; therefore, it is necessary to examine whether they contradict each other or are simply complementary. So, of the evangelists, only Luke does not mention that the Lord appeared to women. Matthew says that (the Lord) met them when they were returning from the tomb. Mark, like John, reports that He first appeared to Mary Magdalene. But Mark doesn’t say how this happened. John explains this. Luke not only kept silent about this, but, narrating about the meeting of Cleopas and his companion with Him, he quotes their words in such a way that one can understand: the women only spoke about their conversation with the angels. Indeed, in Luke we read: “That same day two of them went to a village sixty furlongs from Jerusalem, called Emmaus; and talked among themselves about all these events. And while they were talking and reasoning among themselves, Jesus Himself drew near and went with them. But their eyes were kept, so that they did not recognize Him. He said to them: What are you talking about as you walk, and why are you sad? One of them, named Cleopas, answered Him: Are you really one of those who came to Jerusalem and do not know about what has happened in it these days? And he said to them: about what? They said to Him: What happened to Jesus of Nazareth, who was a prophet, mighty in deed and word before God and all the people; how the chief priests and our rulers delivered Him up to be condemned to death and crucified Him. But we hoped that He was the One who was to deliver Israel; but with all that, it is now the third day since this happened. But some of our women also amazed us: they were early at the tomb and did not find His Body, and when they came, they said that they had also seen the appearance of Angels, who said that He was alive. And some of our men went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said, but they did not see Him” (Luke 24:13–24). Although Luke reports that Peter hurried to the tomb, before he brings this conversation, it must be understood that he forestalled the events. The sequence of events was as follows: first, the women saw that the stone had been rolled away from the coffin, and hastened to inform others about this, from which Cleopas and her companion learned about what had happened. Then Peter and John went to the tomb, after which the Lord appeared. Indeed, Cleopas, having said: “And some of our men went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said,” does not mention Peter. The fact that Luke speaks about Peter alone, without mentioning John, does not mean that he contradicts John: after all, Mary Magdalene was the first to inform Peter about what had happened. Here it should be understood that one evangelist simply complements the other. 71. But did the Lord appear to any of the men before He appeared to Peter? It's hard to say for sure. Indeed, Paul does not say: “First he appeared to Cephas,” but says: “He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve; then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time.” Here a new difficulty arises: which twelve and which five hundred? Others believe that twelve should be understood as twelve apostles, and since at that time there were only eleven apostles, in some collections we find: “eleven.” This, however, is a later correction made by those who were convinced that it was the apostles that were being referred to, but there is no exact indication on this matter. Perhaps they were talking about some of His other disciples. As for the sequence of appearances, it can be considered quite probable that first He appeared to Peter, and then to Cleopas and his companion, as Luke narrates in detail and Mark briefly mentions. 72. What Mark says: “He appeared in another form to two of them,” Luke conveys with the words: “But their eyes were kept, so that they did not recognize Him” (Mark 16:12; Luke 24:16). Indeed, something happened to their eyes, and they remained in this state until the breaking of bread, so that instead of His face they saw another image; and only after the sacrament of breaking bread was completed, their eyes were opened, as Luke tells about it. So, due to the state of their thoughts, which did not yet know that Christ had to suffer and rise again, their eyes also experienced something similar: not because the truth wavered, but because they themselves were not yet able to perceive the truth and were thinking about something else. So, one who does not partake of His body cannot be considered to have known Christ, i.e. The Church, the unity of which the Apostle Paul indicates with the words: “There is one bread, and we, who are many, are one body; for we all partake of one bread” (1 Cor. 10:17); when He gave them the blessed bread, their eyes were opened and they recognized Him. Of course, they opened themselves to knowing Him precisely as a result of the removal of the obstacle that did not allow them to know Him. They did not, in fact, walk with their eyes closed; but there was something in them that did not allow them to recognize what they saw. But I say all this not because the Lord could not transform His flesh, so that in reality it would have resulted in a different appearance, unusual for their vision: after all, even before His suffering He was transformed on the mountain, when His face shone like the sun (Matthew 17:2). For He who could transform water into wine could create any other from any body. But in this case we are talking about misrecognition of the familiar, for it is clear (from the texts) that it was not He who became different, but their eyes were held back. It is possible that this obstacle came from Satan, but Christ allowed this until the time of the sacrament of bread, so that we would understand that by participating in the unity of His body, the obstacles erected by the enemy are removed, so that Christ can be known. 73. Thus, these (two) are exactly those that Mark spoke about. After all, he (like Matthew) says that they went and told others. But by that time the rumor had already spread that Jesus had risen; The women and Simon Peter spoke about this. But these two (travelers) kept silent about this, mentioning only the angels they saw; Perhaps, not knowing Christ, they were afraid to talk about the resurrection, so as not to be handed over to the Jews. As for the words of Mark: “And they returned and told the others; but they did not believe them either” (Mark 16:13), while Luke reports that then (the disciples) already said from the words of Simon that He had risen, then this should be understood to mean that some believed and others did not. Indeed, Mark missed a lot of what Luke said, but he added something. Thus, the conversation, as has often happened before, is not about contradiction, but about complementing each other. 74. Then Luke continues: “While they were talking about these things, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” They, confused and frightened, thought that they saw a spirit. But He said to them: Why are you troubled, and why do such thoughts enter your hearts? Look at My hands and at My feet; it is I Myself; touch Me and look at Me; for a spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have. And having said this, he showed them his hands and feet." John also remembers all this, saying this: “On the same first day of the week in the evening, when the doors of the house where His disciples were meeting were locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst and said to them: Peace be with you! Having said this, He showed them His hands (and feet) and His ribs.” Luke then follows what John missed: “While they still did not believe for joy and were amazed, He said to them, “Do you have any food here?” They gave Him some of the baked fish and honeycomb. And he took it and ate before them." Then we should add to this what John said, but Luke omitted: “Jesus said to them a second time: Peace be with you! just as the Father sent Me, so I send you. Having said this, he blew and said to them: Receive the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive, they will be forgiven; on whomever you leave it, it will remain on him.” Then again we read from Luke: “And he said to them, “This is what I spoke to you about while I was still with you, that everything that was written about me in the law of Moses and in the prophets and psalms must be fulfilled. Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures. And he said to them: Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for Christ to suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. You are witnesses to this. And I will send the promise of My Father upon you; But stay in the city of Jerusalem until you are endowed with power from on high” (Luke 24:36–49; John 20:19–23). This is how Luke remembered the promise of the Holy Spirit, the fulfillment of which by the Lord we find only in the Gospel of John (John 14:26; John 15:26). So, we should once again pay attention and firmly understand how the evangelists confirm each other even in what they themselves do not say. Luke is silent about what happened afterward and does not mention anything else except the ascension of Jesus into heaven; at the same time, he speaks as if this happened on the same first day, although he also indicates in the “Acts of the Apostles” that this happened on the fortieth day (Acts 1: 2–9). 75. John further mentions another appearance of the Lord to the disciples eight days later, and Thomas was there, who was absent the first time and did not believe them, but said: “Unless I see in His hands the wounds from the nails, and I do not put my finger into the wounds from the nails... I will not believe.” John says: “After eight days His disciples were again in the house, and Thomas with them. Jesus came when the doors were locked, stood in the midst of them and said: Peace be with you! Then he says to Thomas: put your finger here and see my hands; give me your hand and place it in my side; and do not be an unbeliever, but a believer. Thomas answered Him: My Lord and my God! Jesus says to him: You believed because you saw Me; Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed” (John 20:25–29). 76. We also find an account of this second appearance mentioned by John in Mark. Mark, as always, is brief and says this: “Finally, he appeared to the eleven themselves reclining at supper, and reproached them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they did not believe those who saw Him risen” (Mark 16:14). What is confusing here is not that Mark called them “lying at the supper,” for John could simply have omitted this, but the word “finally,” which suggests that the Lord did not appear again, while John also spoke about His third appearance on the Sea of ​​Tiberias. In addition, since the ascension of the Lord took place on the fortieth day, on that day he could not reproach the disciples for their disbelief in others, for they themselves had already seen Him risen several times. It remains to be assumed that Mark wanted to indicate with this word that this was the last event only of the day when this phenomenon occurred, which, of course, does not contradict John in any way. 77. Then, without any interruption, Mark moves on to the last phenomenon, as evidenced by his words: “These signs will follow those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons, they will speak in new tongues; they will take snakes; and if they drink anything deadly, it will not harm them; They will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover. And so the Lord, after talking with them, ascended into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God. And they went and preached everywhere, with the Lord’s assistance and strengthening the word with signs that followed” (Mark 16:17–20). 78. John, although he admits that he missed a lot of what Jesus did, wanted to tell about the third appearance of the Lord at the Sea of ​​​​Tiberias to seven disciples: Peter, Thomas, Nathanael, the sons of Zebedee and two others, whose names he did not give, when they were fishing; when they cast their nets at His direction from the starboard side of the boat and pulled up one hundred and fifty-three large fish; when He asked Peter three times whether he loved Him, and, having received his assurances of love, entrusted him with tending His sheep, predicting (Peter) his death; when he said about John himself: “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you?” (John 21:22) This, in fact, ends the Gospel of John. 79. Now we must ask when He first appeared to the disciples in Galilee; It is precisely this phenomenon, as the third, that John reports, saying that it occurred near the Sea of ​​Tiberias, i.e. in Galilee, which is not difficult to guess if you remember where John’s message about the miracle of the five loaves begins: “After this Jesus went to the other side of the Sea of ​​Galilee, in the vicinity of Tiberias” (John 6:1). But how can we understand from this that the first time Jesus appeared to the disciples was in Galilee? But according to Matthew: “The angel turned his speech to the women and said: Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus who was crucified; He is not here - He has risen, as He said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay, and go quickly, tell His disciples that He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you to Galilee: there you will see Him. Behold, I have told you” (Matthew 28:5–7). Mark echoes him: “Do not be horrified. You are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, crucified; He has risen, He is not here. This is the place where He was laid. But go, tell His disciples and Peter that He is going before you to Galilee; There you will see Him, just as He told you” (Mark 16:6–7). From all this we can understand that Jesus first appeared to the disciples only in Galilee. Mark does not mention this phenomenon, but says that on the morning of the first day of the week the Lord appeared to Mary Magdalene, who told the disciples about it, but they did not believe her. After this He appeared to two of them on the road. All this happened, according to the joint testimony of Luke and John, in Jerusalem on the day of resurrection. Then Mark moves on to what he himself calls the last appearance, followed by His ascension, which, as we know, took place on the Mount of Olives, near Jerusalem. Thus, Mark never mentions what, in his own words, the angel predicted. Matthew, on the other hand, does not speak of any other place of appearance (to the disciples) other than Galilee. After he has given the words of the angel, he speaks of the meeting of the women with Jesus, then he adds the story of bribing the guards and continues like this: “The eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus commanded them, and when they saw Him, they worshiped Him, but others doubted. And Jesus approached and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me.” Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age” (Matthew 28:16–20). This is how Matthew ends his Gospel. 80. If only Matthew had narrated the appearance of Jesus, no one would have doubted that He did not appear to the disciples anywhere except Galilee. Further, if Mark had not said anything about the angel's prediction, it would seem that Matthew reported the removal of the disciples to the mountainous part of Galilee only to confirm the prophecy he gave. John and Luke testify quite clearly that the Lord appeared to His disciples on the first day of His resurrection in Jerusalem, from where it is very far from Galilee, so that in one day they could not both go to Galilee and return to Jerusalem. And Mark, for his part, citing the angelic prophecy, does not mention a word anywhere about the appearance of Christ in Galilee. All this prompts us to ask: how is it said: “He goes before you into Galilee; You will see Him there"? If Matthew had not said that the eleven disciples went to Galilee, where they saw Him and worshiped Him, we would perhaps have decided that the angel’s words should be understood not literally, but allegorically. However, it is clear that the phenomenon in Galilee really happened. But let's see if it should have been the first. In fact, the angel did not say: “In Galilee you will see him for the first time,” or: “You will see Him only in Galilee,” but: “There you will see Him,” i.e. did not clearly indicate either the day or the sequence of events, which would force us to necessarily admit that the appearance in Galilee was the first. It turns out that Matthew does not contradict the others, but encourages every believer who strives to study (the Scriptures) to think about the mysterious meaning of the (angelic) words. 81. But we still have to find out exactly when He could be seen in a bodily form in Galilee, as Matthew says: “The eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus commanded them, and when they saw Him, they worshiped Him; and others doubted." Obviously, this did not happen on the first day of the resurrection, for Luke and John unequivocally testify that in the evening of this day He was visible in Jerusalem. Mark also says the same thing, although not so definitely. So, when did this phenomenon occur in Galilee? It is clear that not when John speaks of it as an apparition at the Sea of ​​Tiberias, since there were only seven disciples there and they were fishing, and Matthew mentions eleven on the mountain. It turns out that this did not happen either on the first day or on the next eight, after which, according to John, He appeared again to the disciples and Thomas saw Him for the first time, since if the appearance in Galilee had happened during this period of time, Thomas would have already seen Him. However, the latter is not so obvious, since there is no precise indication that these eleven that Matthew speaks of were precisely eleven apostles, and not just eleven disciples: after all, there were much more disciples than apostles. So, among these eleven disciples on the mountain in Galilee, not all the apostles may have been present, and Thomas may well have been absent. Indeed, when Mark speaks of the eleven, he says not just “eleven”, but “the eleven themselves”; Luke also says: “They returned to Jerusalem and found... the eleven Apostles and those who were with them” (Luke 24:33); Thus, both of them, when they want to emphasize that we are talking about the eleven apostles, highlight this in particular. Matthew does not do this, so we can assume that in Galilee the eleven were not only the apostles, and this vision could well have happened within the first eight days. 82. But there is another circumstance that forces us to be cautious in our judgments: John, speaking about the Lord’s appearance to the seven disciples at the Sea of ​​Tiberias, makes it clear that this was His third appearance. If we accept that He appeared to the eleven disciples on the mountain during the first eight days, then the appearance by the sea will not be the third, but at least the fourth. However, in any case, John’s testimony cannot be understood to mean that he was talking about the number of appearances, since already on the first day of His resurrection the Lord appeared several times: first to women, then to Peter, then to two travelers on the road and, finally, to many disciples who were talking in the house at the beginning of the night. Therefore, John rather makes it clear not about the number of the appearances themselves, but about the number of days on which the Lord appeared. 83. So, in all four evangelists we find ten references to the Lord’s appearances to people after the resurrection. First at the tomb for the women (John 20:14); then to them, returning from the tomb (Matthew 28:9); the third time - to Peter (Luke 24:34); in the fourth - two on the road (Luke 24:15); in the fifth - to many in Jerusalem, where Thomas was not (John 20:19–24); in the sixth - where Thomas saw Him (John 20:26); in the seventh - by the Sea of ​​Tiberias (John 21:1); in the eighth - on a mountain in Galilee (Matthew 28:16–17); on the ninth - to the disciples reclining at supper (Mark 16:14); on the tenth - on the same day, but not on earth, but during the ascension to heaven, as mentioned by Mark and Luke. Indeed, Mark says: “And so the Lord, after talking with them, ascended into heaven” (Mark 16:19). And Luke, omitting everything that happened within forty days after the resurrection, immediately adds the last day to the first day, saying this: “And he led them out of the city as far as Bethany and, lifting up his hands, blessed them. And when he blessed them, he began to move away from them and ascend into heaven” (Luke 24:50–51). Thus, (the disciples) could see Him not only on earth, but also ascending into heaven. So, in the Gospel Epistles He is represented as appearing to people nine times on earth and once when ascending into heaven. 84. But, as John testifies, not everything is written down; He appeared to people quite often for forty days until the ascension (Acts 1:3). But at the same time, He did not appear continuously, day after day. In fact, from the first day of the resurrection, according to the same John, eight days passed before He appeared a second time. Further, nothing definite can be said other than that He appeared when He wanted, where He wanted and to whom He wanted. Peter says about this, preaching to Cornelius: “Not to all the people, but to us as witnesses chosen from God, who ate and drank with Him after His resurrection from the dead” (Acts 10:41). This, of course, does not mean that they ate and drank with Him for the entire forty days, which would contradict John’s instructions, but it does suggest that this happened quite often. As for the number forty, this number, like ten repeated four times, can mysteriously indicate the time of existence or the entire world, or earthly life, or something else that we cannot even think about. 85. Now let’s compare all this with what the Apostle Paul says to see if there is anything controversial in his words. “...He was buried and... rose again on the third day, according to the Scriptures, and... appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve; then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time.” This is what the apostle says. He did not say: “First He appeared to Cephas,” for this would contradict the Gospels, which say that He first appeared to the women. Further, “then twelve” speaks of any twelve at any time. The same applies to the five hundred brethren, so here we do not yet encounter any contradictions. “Then,” continues Paul, “he appeared to Jacob.” We must assume that here we are talking about some special phenomenon, about which the evangelists were silent. “Also to all the Apostles.” But the evangelists also wrote about this. “And after all, he appeared to me also, as a (certain) monster” (1 Cor. 15:3-8). But this, as we know, happened after His ascension to sky. 86. And now let us return to what we began to talk about earlier, but then put aside, namely: what is the mysterious meaning of what the Risen One said, according to Matthew and Mark: “After My resurrection I will go before you into Galilee” (Matthew 26:32, 28:7; Mark 14:28, 16:7). Although this was fulfilled, it was fulfilled after many other events, while from the words themselves it can be understood that it should have been fulfilled first. But was it specifically about the place called Galilee? Indeed, the word "Galilee" means either "migration" or "revelation." If we understand it in the sense of “transmigration,” then doesn’t this mean the transfer of the grace of Christ from the people of Israel to the pagans? Preaching the Gospel to the pagans, the apostles would never have earned their trust if the Lord had not preceded their path in the hearts of (these) people. Then the words (of the angel) become clear: “He... precedes you into Galilee; there you will see Him,” i.e. there you will find His members, where you will recognize His living body in those who receive you. If we understand “Galilee” as “revelation,” then the meaning of this will be this: henceforth He will no longer be in the form of a servant, but in the form in which He is equal to the Father, i.e. no longer bodily and wounded, but as the true Light, like that light that “shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it” (John 1:5). He came before us to where, having come to us, He did not retreat, and where, being ahead of us, He did not leave us. This will be the true revelation, the true Galilee, when we are like Him; there we will see Him as He is. This will also be a true transmigration if we are righteous and deserve eternal life. From here the righteous will migrate and there they will see Him in a way that the wicked cannot see, for the wicked “will not look upon the greatness of the Lord” (Is. 26:10). Jesus says: “This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent” (John 17:3), i.e. they know in this eternity where He will lead slaves through the image of a slave, so that the free may freely contemplate the image of God. 1. Having examined the narrative of Matthew and compared the three other Gospels with it, we have proven that they do not contradict each other in any way, much less, themselves. Let us now consider the Gospel of Mark in a similar way (except for what we have already examined in comparison with Matthew). Here we should pay attention only to what happened before the Lord’s Supper, for, starting from this event, everything has already been examined and compared by us in the most careful manner. 2. Mark begins like this: “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, as it is written in the prophets...”, and so on. to the words: “And they come to Capernaum” (Mark 1:1–21). This entire passage agrees with what Matthew said, and Mark’s words that the Lord entered Capernaum into the synagogue and taught on the Sabbath agree with the words of Luke (Luke 4:31). 3. Mark continues: “And they marveled at His teaching, for He taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes...”, etc. to the words: “And He preached in their synagogues throughout all Galilee and cast out demons” (Mark 1:22–39). Although here we find something that other evangelists do not have, but, as mentioned above, the whole point is in the choice of the sequence of events. Others also mention all this, but in different places. But when Luke speaks of the unclean spirit as if it came out of the man without causing him any harm, and Mark writes: “Then the unclean spirit shook him and cried out with a loud voice and came out of him” (Mark 1:26), then doubt creeps in whether one contradicts the other. Indeed, it is one thing to “shake him” (and in some scrolls it is even written “tormenting him”), and quite another thing to “not harm him in the least.” But Luke also says: “And the demon, having cast him down in the middle of the synagogue, came out of him without harming him in the least” (Luke 4:35). It is clear that “shaking him” and “throwing him down in the middle of the synagogue” are one and the same event, described in different words. As for the absence of damage, this is exactly what it means: after a fall (or concussion), the healed person remained safe and sound, i.e. its members were not harmed by this. 4. The same Mark says: “A leper comes to Him and, begging him and falling on his knees before Him, says to Him: if you want, you can cleanse me,” and so on. to the words: “And the unclean spirits, when they saw Him, fell before Him and cried: You are the Son of God” (Mark 1:40–3:11). Luke says something similar, thereby not raising any doubts. Mark continues: “Then he ascended the mountain and called to Him whom He Himself wanted... He appointed Simon, calling his name Peter,” etc. to the words: “And he went and began to preach in the Decapolis what Jesus had done to him; and they all marveled” (Mark 3:13–5:20). I spoke in detail about the names of the disciples above, when considering (the Gospel of) Matthew. Now I repeat once again that no one should think that Simon only now received the name Peter, for this would contradict John. Here Mark, listing the names of all twelve, only wanted to remind how Peter was formerly called. Nevertheless, nothing else in this narrative of his can seem to contradict anyone (of the rest of the evangelists). 5. Mark goes on to say: “When Jesus again crossed over in the boat to the other side, a great crowd gathered to Him,” etc. to the words: “And the Apostles gathered together to Jesus and told Him everything, both what they had done and what they had taught” (Mark 5:21–6:30). Here his narrative completely coincides with what Luke said, but we have already discussed the rest above. Mark continues: “He said to them: go alone to a deserted place and rest a little,” and so on. to the words: “But no matter how much He forbade them, they divulged even more. And they marveled exceedingly...” (Mark 6:31–7:37). And here the words of Mark and Luke coincide; as for the rest, this has already been said above. But here it should be warned that no one should think that with his last words Mark contradicts the obvious evidence that He knew in advance how people would behave. Thus, according to John, “Jesus Himself did not entrust Himself to them, because He knew everyone and did not need anyone to testify about man, for He Himself knew what was in man” (John 2:24–25). And how can one doubt that the true aspirations of people are known to the One who foretold Peter’s denial, which was not in him when he sincerely expressed his readiness to die for Him and with Him? But then how should we understand Mark - after all, He could not help but know that the more He forbids, the more people will divulge. Why were these prohibitions needed? (This can only be understood this way) He wanted to show by this how ardently those whom He commanded should preach about Him, if even those whom He forbade could not remain silent about Him. 6. Mark continues: “In those days when very many people gathered and they had nothing to eat...”, and so on. to the words: “Teacher! We have seen a man who casts out demons in Your name, and does not follow us; and they forbade him because he did not follow us. Jesus said: do not forbid him; for no one who has performed a miracle in My name can quickly curse Me. For whoever is not against you is for you” (Mark 8:1–9:40). Luke also says the same (Luke 9:49–50), although he omits the words: “For no one who has done a miracle in My name can quickly curse Me.” There is no contradiction in this, but how can we combine what Mark said further with the words: “He who is not with Me is against Me; and whoever does not gather with Me scatters” (Matthew 12:30; Luke 11:23)? Someone can decide that He says about the disciples: “Whoever is not against you is for you,” but about Himself: “He who is not with Me is against Me.” But is it possible for someone who is with His disciples not to be with Him? After all, then you will have to doubt the words: “Whoever receives you receives Me” (Matthew 10:40); or: “Just as you did it to one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did it to me” (Matthew 25:40). Further, how can anyone who is against His disciples not be against Him? Then what will the words mean: “He who rejects you rejects Me” (Luke 10:16); or: “Because you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me” (Matthew 25:45); or: “Saul, Saul! Why are you persecuting Me? (Acts 9:4) when did Saul persecute His disciples? Here it should be understood this way: He wants to instill the idea that a person is not with Him as much as he is against Him; and to the extent that he is not against Him, he is with Him. For example, the one who cast out demons in the name of Christ, but did not follow His disciples, of course, was not against them and was with them as much as he used power in the name of Christ; in that he did not follow them, he was not with them and was against them. And since the disciples forbade him to do exactly what he was doing with them, the Lord said: “Do not forbid him.” What should have been prohibited was that he was outside their society, in order to promote the unity of the Church, and this is exactly what the Ecumenical Church does when it condemns the heretics’ sacred rites that are not common to them, for in this the heretics are not against the Church, but with the Church, but condemns and prohibits division and separation (i.e., heresies and schisms), as well as false teachings that are contrary to the world and the truth, for in this they are against us, since they are not with us. 7. Then Mark says: “And whoever gives you a cup of water to drink in My name, because you are Christ’s, truly I tell you, will not lose his reward. But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and thrown into the sea. And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off: it is better for you to enter into life crippled than to go into hell with two hands, into the unquenchable fire,” and so on. to the words: “Have salt in yourselves, and have peace among yourselves” (Mark 9:41–50). Mark mentions these words of the Lord immediately after He did not allow one who cast out demons in His name to be rebuked, but who did not follow His disciples. Here Mark said something that Matthew and Luke spoke about, and something that only Matthew mentioned, and something that none of the other evangelists mentioned. But even what he, at first glance, coincides with others, was said by those on other occasions and in the context of other events. Therefore, it seems to me that here the Lord repeated what he had already said before; The former words were given by Matthew and Luke, the same by Mark. Indeed, Mark ties his narrative together this way: “Whoever is not against you is for you. And whoever gives you a cup of water to drink in My name, because you are Christ’s, truly I tell you, will not lose his reward.” By this the Lord shows that the man (who cast out demons in the name of Christ) about whom John spoke did not follow His disciples not because he was, as it were, a heretic, but rather because he did not dare to follow, although he was inclined towards the truth of Christianity. He says about such people that they do not lose their reward. This means that, due to their goodwill towards Christians, they can believe themselves in complete safety, although they have not yet been washed by the baptism of Christ and have not entered into the unity of His body. This happens because they are already governed by the mercy of God and, thus, depart from this life without losing their reward. Such people, even before they join the Christian community, often bring much more benefit to the cause of Christ than others who call themselves Christians and are intoxicated with Christian sacred rites, who by their actions drag both themselves and those who obey them into eternal torment. And it is precisely these, as if comparing them to bodily members, that He teaches to cut off as a tempting hand, i.e. avoid communication with them, for it is better to achieve life without them than to go to hell with them. But here, too, we are talking primarily about those whose depravity and promotion of evil are known to everyone: one should not show sympathy for such, but “cut off”, refusing communication and not allowing the sacraments. But if the depravity of someone is known only to a few, but the majority considers him a worthy person, then he should be tolerated, as chaff is tolerated on the threshing floor until it is aired; (he must be tolerated), not agreeing with him in lawlessness, but also without disturbing the fellowship of good people with him for their own sake: this is what those who have salt and peace among themselves do. 8. Mark continues: “Departing from there, he comes to the borders of Judea on the Jordan side. Again the people gathered to Him, and, according to His custom, He taught them again,” etc. to the words: “For everyone put in out of their abundance, but out of her poverty she put in all that she had, all her food” (Mark 10:1–12:44). All these events were considered by us when comparing the rest with the Evangelist Matthew; As for the widow's two mites, only two reported this (Luke 21:1-4). There is no disagreement about all this; from this place until the Lord's Supper, which we discussed in detail earlier, we do not find anything in Mark that would require special discussion. 9 . Now let's look at the Gospel of Luke, focusing only on what was not discussed by us when studying the writings of Matthew and Mark. Luke opens his gospel with the words: “As many have already begun to compile narratives about events that are completely known among us, as those who from the very beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word conveyed to us, it was determined that I, after carefully examining everything from the beginning, would describe to you in order, venerable Theophilus, so that you would know the solid basis of the teaching in which you were instructed” (Luke 1.1-4). All this still has nothing to do with the Gospel narrative, but it reveals to us that the Acts of the Apostles was also written by Luke, for this book begins like this: “The first book I wrote to you, Theophilus, about everything that Jesus did and taught from the beginning until the day on which He ascended, having given commands by the Holy Spirit to the Apostles whom He had chosen” (Acts 1:1-2). Of course, the words “all that Jesus did and taught” should not be taken literally, for, as John wrote: “Jesus did many other things; but if we were to write about this in detail, then, I think, the world itself could not contain the books that would be written” (John 21:25). We have already, however, shown that the other evangelists told a lot of things that Luke did not touch upon in his narrative. And his words: “Many began to compose narratives” imply, apparently, those people who could not cope with this responsibility they had taken upon themselves; That's why Luke says that he had to carefully examine everything from the very beginning. With all this, Luke not only brought his story to the resurrection and ascension of the Lord, taking a worthy place among the compilers of the Gospel Scriptures, but also described the acts of the apostles, and did this in such a way that only his book is considered worthy in the Church. 10. So, Luke begins the Gospel as follows: “In the days of Herod, king of Judah, there was a priest from the order of Abia, named Zechariah, and his wife from the family of Aaron, her name was Elizabeth,” etc. to the words: “When he stopped teaching, he said to Simon, “Put out into the deep and let down your nets for a catch” (Luke 1:5–5:4). All this should not raise any doubts. True, John says something similar, but he is talking about completely different events that occurred after the resurrection of the Lord. Indeed, not only is a different time indicated there, but the event itself is somewhat different, since the nets were cast on the right side (of the boat) and one hundred and fifty-three fish were caught. And although there were plenty of fish and they were large, the evangelist will note that the nets survived, while Luke, describing the fishing, says that because of the multitude of fish, the nets began to tear. Luke did not say anything else similar to John, with the exception of the circumstances associated with the suffering and resurrection of Christ. But we have already examined this whole place in detail and proven that there are no disagreements there. 11. John remains the last, because there is not a single one left with which he could be compared. But no matter what individual narrators say, what others do not say, it is difficult to imagine that this could cause bewilderment. Thus it is clear that the first three, i.e. Matthew, Mark and Luke primarily cover issues related to the humanity of our Lord Jesus Christ, on which side of Him He is King and Priest. And therefore Mark, presented (in the Apocalypse), as it seems, in the form of a man, is primarily either a companion of Matthew, since together with him he speaks of a royal personage (Him), who usually does not exist without an accompaniment, as I spoke about in the first book, or, what is more likely, Mark appears together with both. Indeed, in some places in his story he is closer to Matthew, in others to Luke. And here we see an indication of a lion and a calf, i.e. to the kingship of the Lord, emphasized by Matthew, and to His priesthood, as spoken of by Luke; Mark testifies that Christ is a man in both respects. And the deity of Jesus Christ, according to which He is equal to the Father, according to which He is the Word and God with God, according to which the Word became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:1-14), according to which He and the Father are one - we find all this primarily in the Evangelist John. Therefore, he, like an eagle, constantly soars with the most sublime words of Christ and descends, so to speak, to the ground extremely rarely. Finally, although he testifies that he knew the Mother of the Lord well, he does not say anything about His birth or baptism, unless he presents the sublime testimony of John (the Baptist) about this, and, skipping everything else, he goes (with the Lord) straight to the marriage in Cana of Galilee. There, although according to the evangelist’s mention there was the Mother of the Lord, He says: “What is it for me and for you, woman?” (John 2:1–11), i.e. not pointing to the one from whom He took flesh, but mainly noting His Divinity - when he meant to transform water into wine - because this Divinity created this woman, and was not (Himself) created in her. 12. Then, after several days spent in Capernaum, (John) returns to the church, where, according to him, He said about the church of His body: “Destroy this church, and in three days I will raise it up” (John 2:12–22); here he inspires the idea that in (this) church not only God the Word became flesh, but also that He Himself resurrected this flesh, of course, only because He is one with the Father and does not act separately from Him; after all, in other places, perhaps in all, Scripture says that God raised Christ, and even that He raised Himself up, for He is one God with the Father. 13. Then John gives a long and divine speech that He had with Nicodemus. Then he again turns to the testimony of John (the Baptist) and says that the friend of the Bridegroom rejoices only at His call, which convinces us that the human soul does not shine for itself and does not (by itself) bliss, but only through participation in unchanging wisdom. Next he (passes) to the Samaritan woman, where it is mentioned about such water that the one who drinks it will not feel thirsty forever. Then he returns again to Cana of Galilee, where He created wine from water; This refers to His words to the official, whose son was weak: “You will not believe unless you see signs and wonders” (John 3:1–4:54). To this point, he wants to elevate the thought of the believer above everything that can be changed and wants believers not to even look for miracles, which, although based on action from above, still deal with transitory bodies. 14. Then He returns to Jerusalem; here a sick man who had suffered for thirty-eight years was healed. And what is said about this, and how much is said! It says: “The Jews sought to kill Him because He not only violated the Sabbath, but also called God His Father, making Himself equal to God.” Here it is quite clearly shown that He strangely, not as holy people usually say, called God His Father, instilling at the same time the idea that He is equal to God; in fact, a little higher He said to the Jews, when they were slandering the Sabbath: “My Father works until now, and I work.” Therefore, they were indignant that (the Lord) not only called God His Father, but also wanted to make it clear that He is equal to Him, saying this: “My Father works until now, and I work,” consistently showing that as the Father does, so must the Son do, because the Father does nothing without the Son. And there, a little later, when everyone began to get angry because of His words, He says: “For whatever He does, these things the Son does also” (John 5:1–19) 15. Only after this does John finally descend (from the heights) to the other three (evangelists) walking with the same Lord on earth to feed five thousand people with five loaves; however, here too John alone mentions that when they wanted to make Him king, He withdrew to the mountain without companions. It seems to me that by this circumstance the rational soul wanted to convince (us) that it dominates thought and reason only when it is on top, outside of any communication with people, in solitude, for He is the only one with the Father. But this sacrament does not affect transient carnal people, because it is too sublime. Therefore (the Lord) moves away from them to the mountain, since with their earthly souls they strove for His kingdom; That’s why He says in another place: “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36). But only John speaks about this, rising above the earth in his heavenly flight and rejoicing in spirit from the light of the Sun of Truth. There he, after the miracle of the five loaves, having spent a little time with the other three (the evangelists) while they crossed the sea, and the Lord walked on the waves, immediately after this he soars again to the greatest, most extensive and most sublime speech of Jesus, which began on the subject of bread, when He said to the crowds of people: “Truly, truly, I say to you, you are looking for Me, not because you saw miracles, but because you ate the bread and satiated. Do not strive for food that perishes, but for food that endures to eternal life,” and further, just as beautifully and sublimely. It was then that, frightened by such heights, many who followed Him fell away from Him, but those who could comprehend the meaning of the words were even more closely attached: “The Spirit gives life, but the flesh profiteth nothing” (John 6:26–27, 63). Of course, the spirit brings benefit through the flesh, but the spirit itself also brings benefit; and flesh without the spirit brings no benefit. 16. And then, how sublimely He answered His brothers, i.e. relatives according to the flesh - when they prompted Him to go to a holiday where He could announce Himself to the crowds of people: “My time has not yet come, but for you there is always time. The world cannot hate you, but it hates Me, because I testify about it that its deeds are evil” (John 7:7-6). His words: “There is always time for you” mean that (His loved ones) desire that day about which the prophet said: “I was in no hurry to be a shepherd with You and did not desire the day of trouble, You know this” (Jer. 17:16). But then, when He came to the church for the holiday, how wonderful, divine and sublime were His speeches, which John remembers! He said that they could not go where He was going; that they know who He is and where He comes from; that they know that He is true who sent Him and Whom they do not know. He seemed to say: “You know where I come from, but you don’t know where I come from.” By this He made it clear to those who heard Him that although He was known to them in the flesh, He was unknown in Divinity. There He also spoke about the gift of the Holy Spirit, from which one could understand who He is, who gives this gift (John 7:10–39). 17. Then John tells what happened on the return from the Mount of Olives, when they brought to Him a woman taken in adultery, condemned to be stoned. But when they asked Him how to punish her, He bent low and wrote on the ground with His finger, not paying attention to them. Did He mean by this to show that the names of these judges would be written on earth, while the names of His disciples would be written in heaven, or did He make it clear that the time had already come for His law to be written on the earth that bore fruit, and not on a barren rock, as before? Having said to the woman: “Go and sin no more,” He called Himself the light of the world and continued: “Whoever follows Me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.” By calling Himself “from the beginning of Being,” He thereby distinguished Himself from the light that He created, for He is the light through whom all things were created (John 8:1–26). Thus, the fact that He called Himself the light of the world should not be understood in the same way as what He said to His disciples is understood: “You are the light of the world” (John 5:14). Indeed, they are like lamps, just like John the Baptist, about whom He said: “He was a lamp, burning and giving light” (John 5:35). But He is, as it were, the original source of light, about which it is said: “And of His fullness we have all received” (John 1:16). There He said that He is the Son and the Truth, without which (the truth) no one will gain freedom. 18. Then, after Jesus gave sight to the man blind from birth, John dwells on His lengthy speech about the sheep, about the shepherd, about the door and about the possibility of laying down His soul and receiving it again, in which He demonstrated the most excellent power of His Divinity. Then, when they were at the feast of renewal in Jerusalem, John remembers the words of the Jews: “How long will You keep us in bewilderment? if you are the Christ, tell us plainly” (John 10:24); taking advantage of the opportunity, he conveys His sublime answer: “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30). Then He foretells the resurrection of Lazarus with the words: “I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of My hand” (John 10:28). In these words we recognize the height of His Divinity, through participation in which we will live forever. After this, John, together with Matthew and Mark, again converges in Bethany (Matthew 26.6–13; Mark 14.3–9), where the famous event occurred with the precious oil with which Mary anointed His feet and head (John 9:1–12:8). From here until the time of the suffering and resurrection of the Lord, John goes together with the other three evangelists, as was already discussed above. 19. However, as for the speeches of the Lord, John continues to ascend to what the Lord, starting from the indicated time, spoke sublimely and at great length. Indeed, when the pagans, through Philip and Andrew, expressed a desire to see Jesus, He made a lengthy speech, which none of the evangelists remembered; John alone gives wonderful words about the light enlightening and creating sons of light (John 12:20–50). And then, at the (last) supper itself - which every evangelist spoke about - how many and how beautiful words John remembers, which others forgot to say! They not only praise humility when He washed the feet of the disciples, but also when the traitor, exposed with a piece of bread, left, the same John cited His amazing and wonderful speech, where He said that those who saw Him saw the Father, and also spoke a lot about the Comforter Spirit, and about His glory with the Father before the world was, and that He united us in Himself just as He Himself and the Father are one (Jn. 13–17 ). He spoke many other wondrous and inspired things, but is it possible for us to properly reason about all this? And is it worth looking for anything here that could be attributed to another place? We sincerely wish all zealots of the word of God and sacred truth to believe that John, like the other three evangelists, is the herald and preacher of Jesus Christ, as well as the other apostles, who, however, did not leave the Gospels, but fulfilled their duty by disseminating them. Nevertheless, John, from the first lines of his book, rushing to the most exalted in Christ, very rarely was on earth with the rest (evangelists), namely: first near the Jordan, citing the testimony of John the Baptist; then at the Sea of ​​Tiberias, in connection with the miracle of the five loaves and the walking on the waters; the third time in Bethany, when it came to anointing with oil; finally, starting with supper, he tells everyone about the passion and resurrection of the Lord. But here, too, he speaks much more sublimely and extensively than others about the speeches of the Lord, citing the words of Jesus that struck Pilate, that His kingdom is not of this world; further, (according to John) the Lord, having risen, turned away from Mary, saying: “Do not touch Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father” (Jn. 20:17), and by breathing on the disciples He gave them the Holy Spirit, so that we would not think that this Spirit, consubstantial with the Trinity, is only the Spirit of the Father, and not the Spirit of the Son. 20. Finally, handing over his sheep to Peter, who loved and confessed his love three times, He says that this same John, by His will, can live until His coming (John 21:15-25), which, in my opinion, He taught us a high sacrament, namely: that the very gospel ministry of John, taking him to the purest light of the Word, where the unity and immutability of the Trinity appears to the mind's eye, and very distinguishing him from others as a person in whose understanding the Word became flesh - (this ministry) can only be accurately known when the Lord Himself appears; therefore John will remain thus until He appears; and he will abide in the faith of believers, and then he will appear for contemplation face to face, when our Life comes, and we appear with Him in glory. But one should not think that a person still leading this mortal life, having dispelled the fogs of bodily and sensory images, can master the clearest light of unchangeable truth and cling to it with a mind detached from the habits of real life. No, we must trust the highest and most truthful authority, which says that while we are in the body, we are removed from the Lord, and we walk by faith and not by contemplation (2 Cor. 5:6-7). And a person who stands firm in faith, hope and love, thus achieves contemplation through the guarantee he has received from the Holy Spirit, who will guide us into all truth, when God, who raised Jesus Christ from the dead, also gives life to our mortal bodies through His indwelling Spirit. But before that which is dead because of sin, is perishable and burdens the soul, is revived, before, with God’s help, we emerge from this fog that has enveloped the entire earth, from this carnal darkness, our vision, as if suppressed by a bright brilliance, returns to its weakness, retaining the desire to grow again, but not having that purity with which it could be strengthened. And the more someone is capable of this, the greater he is, and vice versa. If the mind has not yet experienced anything like this, although Christ dwells in it through faith, then it must earnestly seek (this) by reducing and stopping the lusts of this world, with the help of moral activity, walking (in the world) accompanied by the three evangelists with Christ the Mediator, must firmly hold on to Him who, being the Son of God, for our sake became the son of man, so that His eternal power and Divinity, condescending to our weakness and mortality, from of our being created us life in Himself and for Himself. In order not to sin, let such a person submit to Christ reigning over us; and if he accidentally sins, he will be cleansed by the Priest Christ, and thus brought up in the matter of good behavior and life, raised from the earth on the wings of double love, he will be enlightened by the same Word-Christ - the Word that was in the beginning, the Word of God, which is God. Therefore, while in the first three evangelists the gifts of active power shine forth for people who are able to recognize this, in John we find the gift of contemplative power. But while to one the word of wisdom is given through the Spirit, to another the word of knowledge is given by the same Spirit; another knows the day of the Lord and drinks from His bosom something sweet and indescribable; another rises to the third heaven and hears the mysterious verb: however, everyone, while they are in the body, is far from the Lord; but to all who believe with good hope and are written in the book of life, what is said will be observed: “I will love him and will manifest myself to him” (John 14:21). And to the extent that someone, during his distance from God, improves in knowledge and understanding of this, let him beware of the devil’s vices: pride and hatred. Let him remember the Gospel of John, which the more it stimulates one to contemplate the truth, the more fully it instructs in the sweetness of love. And since the truest and most saving commandment is: “The greater you are, the more humble yourself before everyone” 2 (Sir. 3:18), then this evangelist represents Christ more exalted than others: with him the Lord washed the feet of His disciples. “This happened in Bethabara by the Jordan” - Editorial Board of the ABC of Faith “As great as you are, humble yourself, and you will find grace from the Lord” - Editorial Board of the ABC of Faith You might be interested in: