Parable of Jesus Christ about the good Samaritan. Parable of the Good Samaritan

Basic values:

The parable of the Good Samaritan puts love above all enmity. Told by Jesus, it teaches us that there are no people unworthy of mercy. How to understand this parable?

The Good Samaritan - A Parable of Mercy

Gospel of Luke, Chapter 10, verses 25-37

25 And behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempting him, said, Master! what shall I do to inherit eternal life?

26 And he said to him, What is written in the law? how are you reading?

27 He answered and said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind, and thy neighbor as thyself.

28 Jesus said to him, You answered correctly; do so, and you will live.

29 But he, wanting to justify himself, said to Jesus, Who is my neighbor?

30 Jesus said to this: A certain man was going from Jerusalem to Jericho and was caught by robbers, who took off his clothes, wounded him and went away, leaving him barely alive.

31 By chance, a priest was walking along that road, and when he saw him, he passed by.

32 And the Levite also, being in that place, came, looked, and passed by.

33 And a certain Samaritan, passing by, found him, and seeing him, had compassion

34 And going up, he bandaged his wounds, pouring out oil and wine; and putting him on his donkey, he brought him to an inn and took care of him;

35 And the next day, as he departed, he took out two denarii, gave it to the innkeeper, and said to him, Take care of him; and if you spend more, I will give it to you when I return.

36 Which of these three do you think was the neighbor of the one who fell into the thieves?

37 He said: He who showed him mercy. Then Jesus said to him: Go, and you do the same.

Good Samaritan. Source: vidania.ru

The Good Samaritan is the hero of the parable Jesus told the lawyer to show correct value the word "neighbor" for a Christian.

Pravmir collected sermons revealing deep meaning parables.

“Laying down life” does not mean dying; it is about giving our care day by day to all those who need it, those who are sad and need comfort, those who are at a loss and need strengthening and support, those who are hungry and need food, to those who are destitute and perhaps in need of clothes, and to those who are in turmoil and may need a word that will flow from the very faith that we draw here and which is our very life.

Very often, our love knows how to hate: “I love my environment so much, let’s say that I don’t love another, I love my people so much that I hate others, I’m so…” and so on. It's a fact! This is not the love that Christ preaches! And the one that He preaches is the disclosure of human essence, the disclosure of the essence of the human soul. It is always joy, it is always full of the deepest meaning. This is how a person fulfills his mission on earth, his human calling, his dignity - precisely in love, and only in love! Therefore, only in love is real joy, only love is happiness, always, one happiness, one joy! There is so much light in it, so much warmth in it, so much meaning in it! It should be like the Samaritan from today's Gospel reading loved - merciful.

One day a lawyer approached Jesus Christ and said, “Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” Jesus asked him, “What is written in the law? What do you read in it? He answered: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind, and thy neighbor as thyself.” Jesus said to him, “You answered correctly; do this, and you will have eternal life.” But the lawyer asked Jesus, “Who is my neighbor?” To this Jesus said:

A certain man was walking from Jerusalem to Jericho and was caught by robbers, who took off his clothes, wounded him and left, leaving him barely alive. By chance, a priest was walking that way and, seeing him, passed by. Likewise, a Levite, passing through that place, came, looked, and passed by. Finally, a Samaritan rode up to him and took pity on him. He dressed his wounds, pouring oil and wine on them, put him on his donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. The next day, as he was leaving, he gave money to the owner of the hotel and said to him: take care of him, and if you spend anything more than this, I will give it to you when I return. Who, Jesus asked, was the neighbor of the three who fell into the hands of robbers? - "Of course, who helped him," answered the lawyer. Then Jesus said, "Go and do the same."

It should be noted that some Jews considered it an obligation to love only their friends and only to help them, and they hated their enemies, as we often do. But Jesus Christ gave us another law. He said: "Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, pray for those who offend you, and as you want people to do to you, so do you to them."

The Samaritans were at enmity with the Jews, but in spite of that, one Samaritan helped the unfortunate Jew. Let us learn from this parable that we must love all people, and let us ask God to help us preserve love even for those who themselves do not love us and are ready to harm us. Let us remember the commandment: "Love your neighbor as yourself." If we have the opportunity to help someone, then there is no need to ask whether he is our friend or foe, good or evil, compatriot or stranger. Whoever he is, he is our neighbor, our brother, and we should be happy to help him in any way we can: with money, if we have it, with good advice, labor or participation.

By giving help to our neighbor, we give to God Himself. Jesus Christ said, "Whatever you do to one of the least of my brothers, do it to me." By the words "My little brothers" He meant all the unfortunate ones who need help.

New Testament

Parable of the Good Samaritan

One Jew, a lawyer, wishing to justify himself (since the Jews considered only the Jews "their neighbors", and despised all the rest), asked Jesus Christ: "Who is my neighbor?"

To teach people to consider any other person as their neighbor, no matter who he is, no matter what people he comes from and no matter what faith he is, and also that we should be compassionate and merciful to all people, giving them all possible help in their need and misfortune, Jesus Christ answered him with a parable.

“One Jew was walking from Jerusalem to Jericho and was caught by robbers, who took off his clothes, wounded him and left, leaving him barely alive.

By chance, a Jewish priest was walking along that road. He looked at the unfortunate man and passed by.

Also a Levite (a Jewish church official) was in that place; came, looked and passed by.

Then a Samaritan was driving along the same road. (The Jews despised the Samaritans so much that they did not sit down at the table with them, they even tried not to talk to them). The Samaritan, seeing the wounded Jew, took pity on him. He went up to him, bandaged his wounds, pouring oil and wine on them. Then he put him on his donkey, brought him to an inn, and there he took care of him. And the next day, when he was leaving, he gave the innkeeper two denarii (a denarius is a Roman silver coin) and said: "Take care of him, and if you spend more than this, then when I return, I will give it to you."

After that, Jesus Christ asked the lawyer: "What do you think, which of these three was a neighbor to the one who fell into the thieves?"

The lawyer answered: "the one who showed him mercy, (that is, the Samaritan)."

Then Jesus Christ said to him: "Go, and you do the same."

NOTE: See the Gospel of Luke, ch. 10 , 29-37.

Parable about Good Samaritan, except for the direct and clear meaning - oh love for every neighbor, - it also has, as the holy fathers teach, another allegorical, deep and mysterious meaning.

The person going from Jerusalem to Jericho is none other than our forefather Adam, and in his person all of humanity. Unable to stand in goodness, having lost heavenly bliss, Adam and Eve were forced to leave "Heavenly Jerusalem" (paradise) and retire to earth, where they were immediately met with disasters and all sorts of hardships. Robbers are demonic forces that envied the innocent state of man and pushed him onto the path of sin, depriving our forefathers of fidelity to the commandment of God (paradise life). Wounds- these are sinful ulcers that weaken us. Priest And Leviticus, it is the law given to us through Moses and the priesthood in the person of Aaron, which by themselves could not save man. under the same image Good Samaritan we must understand Jesus Christ Himself, Who, for the healing of our infirmities, under the guise of oils And guilt gave us the New Testament law and grace. Hotel is the Church of God, where there is everything necessary for our treatment, and hotelier- these are shepherds and church teachers, to whom the Lord entrusted the care of the flock. Samaritan Morning Exit- this is the appearance of Jesus Christ after the resurrection, and you will exalt Him, and the two denarii given to the host is Divine Revelation, preserved through Scripture and Holy Tradition. Finally, the promise of the Samaritan on the way back to go back to the hotel for the final payment, there is an indication of the second coming of Jesus Christ to earth, when He "will render to each according to his deeds" (Matt. 16 , 27).

Commentary on the book

Section comment

32 "Leviticus" - this was the name of the persons who made up the third step of the Old Testament hierarchy, who helped the priests in serving in the tabernacle, the Jewish sanctuary (see Number 8).

33-37 Christ compares the behavior of a Jewish priest and a Levite, who more than others were obliged to observe the law of love, and a non-Jewish Samaritan, who belonged to a tribe hostile to the Jews. His humanity was stronger than all religious and tribal strife. With the Parable of the Good Samaritan, Christ wants to once again emphasize the commandment given by Him about love for enemies (see Luke 6:35).

1. Luke, "beloved physician", was one of the closest associates of St. Paul (Col 4:14). According to Eusebius (Church East 3:4), he came from Syrian Antioch and was brought up in a Greek pagan family. He received a good education and became a doctor. The history of his conversion is unknown. Apparently, it happened after his meeting with ap Paul, whom he joined c. 50 AD He visited with him Macedonia, the cities of Asia Minor (Acts 16:10-17; Acts 20:5-21:18) and remained with him during his stay in custody in Caesarea and in Rome (Acts 24:23; Acts 27; Acts 28; Col 4:14). The narration of Acts was brought to the year 63. There is no reliable data on the life of Luke in subsequent years.

2. Very ancient information has come down to us, confirming that the third Gospel was written by Luke. St. Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3, 1) writes: "Luke, the companion of Paul, expounded the Gospel taught by the Apostle in a separate book." According to Origen, "the third gospel is from Luke" (see Eusebius, Church. East 6, 25). In the list of sacred books that have come down to us, recognized as canonical in the Roman Church since the 2nd century, it is noted that Luke wrote the Gospel on behalf of Paul.

Scholars of the 3rd Gospel unanimously recognize the writer's talent of its author. According to such a connoisseur of antiquity as Eduard Mayer, ev. Luke is one of the best writers of his time.

3. In the preface to the gospel, Luke says that he used previously written "narratives" and the testimonies of eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word from the very beginning (Luke 1:2). He wrote it, in all probability, before the year 70. He undertook his work "by carefully examining everything from the beginning" (Luke 1:3). The gospel is continued by Acts, where the evangelist also included his personal memories (starting with Acts 16:10, the story is often told in the first person).

Its main sources were, obviously, Mt, Mk, manuscripts that have not come down to us, called "logy", and oral traditions. Among these legends special place are occupied by stories about the birth and childhood of the Baptist, which developed among the admirers of the prophet. At the heart of the story of the infancy of Jesus (chapters 1 and 2) lies, apparently, a sacred tradition in which the voice of the Virgin Mary herself is still heard.

Not being a Palestinian and speaking to Gentile Christians, Luke reveals less knowledge than Matthew and Jn of the setting in which the gospel events took place. But as a historian, he seeks to clarify the chronology of these events, pointing to kings and rulers (eg Luke 2:1; Luke 3:1-2). Luke includes prayers that, according to commentators, were used by the first Christians (the prayer of Zechariah, the song of the Virgin, the song of the angels).

5. Luke views the life of Jesus Christ as a path to voluntary death and victory over it. Only in Lk the Savior is called κυριος (Lord), as was customary in the early Christian communities. The Evangelist repeatedly speaks of the action of the Spirit of God in the life of the Virgin Mary, Christ Himself, and later the apostles. Luke conveys the atmosphere of joy, hope and eschatological expectation in which the first Christians lived. He lovingly paints the merciful appearance of the Savior, clearly manifested in the parables of the merciful Samaritan, the prodigal son, the lost drachma, the publican and the Pharisee.

As a student of Paul Luk emphasizes the universal character of the Gospel (Lk 2:32; Luk 24:47); He leads the genealogy of the Savior not from Abraham, but from the forefather of all mankind (Luke 3:38).

INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

Holy Bible The New Testament was written in Greek, with the exception of the Gospel of Matthew, which is said to have been written in Hebrew or Aramaic. But since this Hebrew text has not survived, the Greek text is considered the original for the Gospel of Matthew. Thus, only the Greek text of the New Testament is the original, and numerous editions in various modern languages all over the world are translations from the Greek original.

The Greek language in which the New Testament was written was no longer the classical Greek language and was not, as previously thought, a special New Testament language. This is the colloquial everyday language of the first century A.D., spread in the Greco-Roman world and known in science under the name "κοινη", i.e. "common speech"; yet the style, and turns of speech, and way of thinking of the sacred writers of the New Testament reveal the Hebrew or Aramaic influence.

The original text of the NT has come down to us in a large number of ancient manuscripts, more or less complete, numbering about 5000 (from the 2nd to the 16th century). Before recent years the most ancient of them did not go back beyond the 4th century no P.X. But for Lately many fragments of ancient manuscripts of the NT on papyrus were discovered (3rd and even 2nd c.). So, for example, Bodmer's manuscripts: Ev from John, Luke, 1 and 2 Peter, Jude - were found and published in the 60s of our century. In addition to Greek manuscripts, we have ancient translations or versions into Latin, Syriac, Coptic and other languages ​​(Vetus Itala, Peshitto, Vulgata, etc.), of which the oldest existed already from the 2nd century AD.

Finally, numerous quotations from the Church Fathers in Greek and other languages ​​have been preserved in such quantity that if the text of the New Testament were lost and all ancient manuscripts were destroyed, then specialists could restore this text from quotations from the works of the Holy Fathers. All this abundant material makes it possible to check and refine the text of the NT and to classify its various forms (the so-called textual criticism). Compared with any ancient author (Homer, Euripides, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Cornelius Nepos, Julius Caesar, Horace, Virgil, etc.), our modern - printed - Greek text of the NT is in an exceptionally favorable position. And by the number of manuscripts, and by the brevity of time separating the oldest of them from the original, and by the number of translations, and by their antiquity, and by the seriousness and volume of critical work carried out on the text, it surpasses all other texts (for details, see "The Hidden Treasures and New Life, Archaeological Discoveries and the Gospel, Bruges, 1959, pp. 34 ff.). The text of the NT as a whole is fixed quite irrefutably.

The New Testament consists of 27 books. They are subdivided by the publishers into 260 chapters of unequal length for the purpose of providing references and citations. The original text does not contain this division. The modern division into chapters in the New Testament, as in the whole Bible, has often been ascribed to the Dominican Cardinal Hugh (1263), who elaborated it in his symphony to the Latin Vulgate, but it is now thought with great reason that this division goes back to Stephen the Archbishop of Canterbury. Langton, who died in 1228. As for the division into verses now accepted in all editions of the New Testament, it goes back to the publisher of the Greek New Testament text, Robert Stephen, and was introduced by him into his edition in 1551.

Holy books The New Testament is usually divided into law-positive (Four Gospels), historical (Acts of the Apostles), teaching (seven conciliar epistles and fourteen epistles of the Apostle Paul) and prophetic: the Apocalypse or Revelation of St. John the Evangelist (see the Long Catechism of St. Philaret of Moscow).

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

The books of the New Testament can be distributed as follows:

1) Three so-called Synoptic Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke and, separately, the fourth: the Gospel of John. New Testament scholarship devotes much attention to the study of the relationship of the first three Gospels and their relation to the Gospel of John (the synoptic problem).

2) The Book of the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles of the Apostle Paul ("Corpus Paulinum"), which are usually divided into:

a) Early Epistles: 1 and 2 Thessalonians.

b) Greater Epistles: Galatians, 1st and 2nd Corinthians, Romans.

c) Messages from bonds, i.e. written from Rome, where ap. Paul was in prison: Philippians, Colossians, Ephesians, Philemon.

d) Pastoral Epistles: 1st to Timothy, to Titus, 2nd to Timothy.

e) The Epistle to the Hebrews.

3) Cathedral Messages("Corpus Catholicum").

4) Revelation of John the Theologian. (Sometimes in the NT they single out "Corpus Joannicum", i.e. everything that ap Ying wrote for a comparative study of his Gospel in connection with his epistles and the book of Rev.).

FOUR GOSPEL

1. The word "gospel" (ευανγελιον) on Greek means "good news". This is how our Lord Jesus Christ Himself called His teaching (Mt 24:14; Mt 26:13; Mk 1:15; Mk 13:10; Mk 14:9; Mk 16:15). Therefore, for us, the "gospel" is inextricably linked with Him: it is the "good news" of salvation given to the world through the incarnate Son of God.

Christ and His apostles preached the gospel without writing it down. By the middle of the 1st century, this sermon had been fixed by the Church in a strong oral tradition. The Eastern custom of memorizing sayings, stories, and even large texts by heart helped the Christians of the apostolic age to accurately preserve the unwritten First Gospel. After the 1950s, when eyewitnesses to Christ's earthly ministry began to pass away one by one, the need arose to record the gospel (Luke 1:1). Thus, the “gospel” began to denote the narrative recorded by the apostles about the life and teachings of the Savior. It was read at prayer meetings and in preparing people for baptism.

2. The most important Christian centers of the 1st century (Jerusalem, Antioch, Rome, Ephesus, etc.) had their own gospels. Of these, only four (Mt, Mk, Lk, Jn) are recognized by the Church as inspired by God, i.e. written under the direct influence of the Holy Spirit. They are called "from Matthew", "from Mark", etc. (Greek “kata” corresponds to Russian “according to Matthew”, “according to Mark”, etc.), for the life and teachings of Christ are set forth in these books by these four priests. Their gospels were not brought together in one book, which made it possible to see the gospel story from different points of view. In the 2nd century, St. Irenaeus of Lyon calls the evangelists by name and points to their gospels as the only canonical ones (Against Heresies 2, 28, 2). A contemporary of St. Irenaeus, Tatian, made the first attempt to create a single gospel narrative, composed of various texts of the four gospels, the Diatessaron, i.e. gospel of four.

3. The apostles did not set themselves the goal of creating a historical work in the modern sense of the word. They sought to spread the teachings of Jesus Christ, helped people to believe in Him, correctly understand and fulfill His commandments. The testimonies of the evangelists do not coincide in all details, which proves their independence from each other: the testimonies of eyewitnesses are always individual in color. The Holy Spirit does not certify the accuracy of the details of the facts described in the gospel, but the spiritual meaning contained in them.

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

Hide

Commentary on the current passage

Commentary on the book

Section comment

25 At the conversation of Christ with the 70th, strangers were also present ( Art. 23). Among these persons was one lawyer (cf. Mt 5:20 And 22:35 ). He did not like that Christ ascribes so much importance to Himself ( Art. 24), and he stood up, showing that he wanted to speak: earlier he had obviously sat among the other listeners of Christ. He wanted to tempt Christ, to induce Him to say something directly in condemnation of the Law of Moses and then, of course, to come forward with an accusation against Him (Evfimy Zigaben). Wed Matt 22:35 Some interpreters (for example, Trench) strongly insist that the lawyer did not have such a hidden, malicious intent. "Tempt" means, according to Trench, simply to experience. Thus, God tempts a person in order to reveal to him the secrets of his own heart through testing, in order to discover the good qualities of a person and strengthen them. The lawyer simply wanted to experience the knowledge of Christ, to measure its depth (Trench. Parables of Jesus Christ. Ed. 2nd, p. 259-260). These considerations are very unfounded. Is it possible to ascribe to a person what is peculiar only to God? And for what reason ev. Would Luke needlessly use such a dubious expression about a lawyer?.

What should I do - see Mark 10:17 .

26-28 What is written in the law?- i.e., of course, you know the law itself well, and it is written there what you should do (cf. Rom 2:17-20).

How do you read. This is a common rabbinical formula to start a proof from Scripture. How (πω̃ς ), i.e. with what words (and not “what”).

He said in response- cm. Mark 12:29-32, And Matthew 22:37-39. The lawyer, therefore, repeats the same thing that the Lord Himself spoke under other circumstances in explaining the essence of the Law of Moses.

And you will live—that is, you will follow eternal life (cf. Art. 25).

29 I wanted to justify myself. The lawyer found himself in a rather embarrassed position: it turned out that he knew what to do, and yet he asked! Therefore, he wants to show that his question made sense, that in the solution he gives to this question, in accordance with Christ, there is still something unfinished. It is still unclear who is the neighbor whom you need to love ... In the law, of course, by "neighbor" in general is meant a fellow tribesman ( Lev 19:16ff.), but also in relation to the "alien" or to the stranger it was required - to love him as yourself ( Lev 19:34ff.). The lawyer expected that Christ would predominantly shade in his answer love for strangers than for his own, the Jews, and this could drop Him in the eyes of fellow tribesmen: most Jews understood the commandment to love their neighbor in a narrow sense, limited by their nationality ...

30 In answer to the lawyer's question, the Lord tells him about a man who, on his way from Jerusalem to Jericho, fell into the hands of robbers, who robbed and wounded him, leaving him on the road. From the context of the speech, we can conclude that the Lord meant the Jew by the robbed.

Jericho (see Matthew 20:29) was separated from Jerusalem by a desert, which was very dangerous for travelers, as robbers huddled there.

31 A priest who happened to be passing by passed by: probably he himself was afraid of being robbed. The Lord puts the priest in the first place in the story, because the priests were to serve as an example of the fulfillment of the law in general and the law of mercy in particular.

32 The Levites also belonged to the number of teachers of the people (that is why they were settled by Moses in different cities of Palestine), and yet the Levite, who looked at the wounded man, also went his own way, without doing anything for the unfortunate.

33-35 Samaritan only (cf. Matthew 10:5), a man who seemed not at all to take care of a Jew, even if he was wounded, took pity on the unfortunate when, while driving, he saw him. He bandaged his wounds, poured wine and oil on them, as the medicine of that time advised, and, putting him on his donkey, brought him to the hotel (caravanserai, where the owner was also, who received travelers). The next day, leaving, he entrusted the wounded man to the care of the owner, giving him some money - two denarii (about 40 kopecks), in the hope of soon returning again and then completely paying off the owner.

36-37 Now, it seems, Christ should have said to the lawyer, “Do you see from the example of the Samaritan who is your neighbor? This is every person, no matter what nation he belongs to. But the Lord does not put it that way. The question of who is the neighbor of each of us, the Lord leaves aside, as quite clearly resolved by the above story. He gives the lawyer another question - not a theoretical one, but a practical one: which of the three who passed by the wounded turned out to be his "neighbour", that is, who fulfilled the requirement of love towards him, which the law inspires everyone and everyone? The lawyer had to answer this question as follows: he had shown mercy to him (to put it bluntly - he didn’t want to be a “Samaritan” ...). The Lord then releases him, advising him to act like a Samaritan. Thus, the Lord leaves the soil of theoretical reasoning and disputes, which, of course, would have no end, and reduces the whole question to how the natural feeling of a person solves the question posed by the lawyer.

The Fathers and Doctors of the Church attached a special mysterious meaning to certain points of this story about the Good Samaritan. So, according to their interpretation, “a certain man” is Adam, Jerusalem is paradise, Jericho is the world, robbers are demons, priests are the law, a Levite is the prophets, a Samaritan is Christ, a donkey is the body of Christ, an inn is the Church, the owner is a bishop, two a denarius is the Old and New Testament, the return is the second coming (see, for example, Theophylact). Thus, according to the interpretation of the Fathers of the Church, the feat of the Incarnate Son of God, raised by him for the salvation of the human race, is depicted here. (See Trench for a detailed discussion of this thought. Parables of our Lord Jesus Christ. Ed. 2nd. pp. 268-272.)

In the story of the Good Samaritan, the Lord intended to show the lawyer “ to the great abyss separating knowledge and action, to how little his life itself answered moral concept about love for others"(Trench, p. 274). The one who asked: "Who is my neighbor?" whoever desired for himself a complete statement of obligations to his neighbor in advance, thereby revealed how little he understands love, the essence of which lies in the fact that it knows no limits, except for its impossibility to go further (ibid., p. 261).

It is customary to call this story about the Good Samaritan a parable. But, strictly speaking, this story does not fit into the category of parables. The parable still needs to be explained, to apply the case contained in it to the issue in question. Such, for example, is the parable of the sower, the mustard seed, etc. Here no explanation is required. The Lord simply takes a very possible case, the instructiveness of which is clear to everyone and everyone, and makes this case a lesson in true mercy. This is, so to speak, an approximate story of what the real love to the neighbor.

Another question. Isn't it one and the same is a conversation with a lawyer in Ev. Luke and Matthew Mt 22:35ff.; cf. Mark 12:28ff.)? No, these are completely different events. They are different in time, place, occasion, and the person who brings the places from Scripture, as well as in some other details of the description.

Personality of the gospel writer. The Evangelist Luke, according to legends preserved by some ancient church writers (Eusebius of Caesarea, Jerome, Theophylact, Euthymius Zigaben, and others), was born in Antioch. His name, in all likelihood, is an abbreviation of the Roman name Lucilius. Was he a Jew or a Gentile? This question is answered by that place from the epistle to the Colossians, where ap. Paul distinguishes Luke from the circumcised (Luke 4:11-14) and therefore testifies that Luke was a Gentile by birth. It is safe to assume that before entering the Church of Christ, Luke was a Jewish proselyte, since he is very familiar with Jewish customs. In his civil profession, Luke was a doctor (Col. 4:14), and church tradition, although rather later, says that he was also engaged in painting (Nikephorus Kallistos. Church. history. II, 43). When and how he converted to Christ is unknown. The tradition that he belonged to the number of the 70 apostles of Christ (Epiphanius. Panarius, haer. LI, 12, etc.) cannot be recognized as reliable in view of the clear statement of Luke himself, who does not include himself among the witnesses of the life of Christ (Luke 1:1ff.). He acts for the first time as a companion and assistant to the Apostle. Paul during Paul's second missionary journey. This took place in Troas, where Luke may have lived before (Acts 16:10ff.). Then he was with Paul in Macedonia (Acts 16:11ff.) and, on his third journey, Troas, Miletus, and other places (Acts 24:23; Col. 4:14; Phm. 1:24). He also accompanied Paul to Rome (Acts 27:1-28; cf. 2 Tim 4:11). Then information about him ceases in the writings of the New Testament, and only a relatively late tradition (Gregory the Theologian) reports his martyr's death; his relics, according to Jerome (de vir. ill. VII), at imp. Constantius was transferred from Achaia to Constantinople.

Origin of the Gospel of Luke. According to the evangelist himself (Luke 1:1-4), he composed his Gospel on the basis of the tradition of eyewitnesses and the study of written experiences of the presentation of this tradition, trying to give a relatively detailed and correct orderly presentation of the events of the Gospel history. And the works that Ev. Luke, were compiled on the basis of the apostolic tradition - but nevertheless, they seemed to be ev. Luke is insufficient for the purpose he had in compiling his gospel. One of these sources, perhaps even the main source, was for Ev. Luke Gospel of Mark. They even say that a huge part of the Gospel of Luke is in literary dependence on Ev. Mark (this is exactly what Weiss proved in his work on Ev. Mark by comparing the texts of these two Gospels).

Some critics still tried to make the Gospel of Luke dependent on the Gospel of Matthew, but these attempts were extremely unsuccessful and are now almost never repeated. If there is anything that can be said with certainty, it is that in some places Ev. Luke uses a source that agrees with the Gospel of Matthew. This must be said primarily about the history of the childhood of Jesus Christ. The nature of the presentation of this story, the very speech of the Gospel in this section, which is very reminiscent of the works of Jewish writing, make us assume that Luke here used a Jewish source, which was quite close to the story of the childhood of Jesus Christ, set forth in the Gospel of Matthew.

Finally, back in ancient time it has been suggested that the Luke, as a companion of ap. Paul, expounded the "Gospel" of this particular apostle (Irenaeus. Against heresies. III, 1; in Eusebius of Caesarea, V, 8). Although this assumption is very likely and agrees with the nature of the gospel of Luke, who, apparently, deliberately chose such narratives as could prove the general and main point of the gospel of Paul about the salvation of the Gentiles, nevertheless the evangelist's own statement (1:1 et seq.) does not refer to this source.

Reason and purpose, place and time of writing the Gospel. The Gospel of Luke (and the book of Acts) was written for a certain Theophilus to enable him to be convinced that the Christian doctrine taught to him rested on solid foundations. There are many assumptions about the origin, profession and place of residence of this Theophilus, but all these assumptions do not have sufficient grounds for themselves. One can only say that Theophilus was a noble man, since Luke calls him “venerable” (κράτ ιστε 1:3), and from the character of the Gospel, which is close to the character of the teachings of St. Paul naturally concludes that Theophilus was converted to Christianity by the apostle Paul and was probably previously a pagan. One can also accept the evidence of the Encounters (a work attributed to Clement of Rome, x, 71) that Theophilus was a resident of Antioch. Finally, from the fact that in the book of Acts, written for the same Theophilus, Luke does not make explanations of those mentioned in the history of the journey of St. Paul to Rome of the localities (Acts 28:12.13.15), it can be concluded that Theophilus was well acquainted with these localities and, probably, he himself traveled to Rome more than once. But there is no doubt that the gospel is its own. Luke wrote not for Theophilus alone, but for all Christians who were interested in getting acquainted with the history of the life of Christ in such a systematic and verified form as this history is found in the Gospel of Luke.

That the Gospel of Luke was in any case written for a Christian, or, more correctly, for Gentile Christians, is clearly seen from the fact that the evangelist nowhere presents Jesus Christ as the Messiah predominantly expected by the Jews and does not seek to indicate in his activity and teaching Christ the fulfillment of messianic prophecies. Instead, we find repeated indications in the third gospel that Christ is the Redeemer of the entire human race and that the gospel is for all nations. Such an idea was already expressed by the righteous elder Simeon (Luke 2:31 et seq.), and then passes through the genealogy of Christ, which is in Ev. Luke brought to Adam, the ancestor of all mankind, and which, therefore, shows that Christ does not belong to one Jewish people, but to all mankind. Then, beginning to depict the Galilean activity of Christ, Ev. Luke puts in the forefront the rejection of Christ by His fellow citizens - the inhabitants of Nazareth, in which the Lord indicated a feature that characterizes the attitude of the Jews towards the prophets in general - the attitude by virtue of which the prophets left the Jewish land for the Gentiles or showed their favor to the Gentiles (Elijah and Elisha Lk 4 :25-27). In the Conversation on the Mount, Ev. Luke does not cite Christ's sayings about His attitude to the law (Lk 1:20-49) and Pharisees' righteousness, and in his instruction to the apostles he omits the prohibition for the apostles to preach to the Gentiles and Samaritans (Lk 9:1-6). On the contrary, he only tells about the grateful Samaritan, about the merciful Samaritan, about Christ's disapproval of the immoderate irritation of the disciples against the Samaritans who did not accept Christ. It should also be included here different parables and the sayings of Christ, in which there is a great similarity with that doctrine of righteousness by faith, which St. Paul proclaimed in his epistles, written to the churches, which were composed predominantly of Gentiles.

The influence of ap. Paul and the desire to clarify the universality of salvation brought by Christ undoubtedly had a great influence on the choice of material for compiling the Gospel of Luke. However, there is not the slightest reason to assume that the writer pursued purely subjective views in his work and deviated from historical truth. On the contrary, we see that he gives a place in his Gospel to such narratives, which undoubtedly developed in the Judeo-Christian circle (the story of the childhood of Christ). In vain, therefore, they attribute to him the desire to adapt the Jewish ideas about the Messiah to the views of St. Paul (Zeller) or else the desire to exalt Paul before the twelve apostles and Paul's teaching before Judeo-Christianity (Baur, Gilgenfeld). This assumption is contradicted by the content of the Gospel, in which there are many sections that go against such an alleged desire of Luke (this is, firstly, the story of the birth of Christ and His childhood, and then such parts: Luke 4:16-30; Luke 5:39; Luke 10:22 ; Luke 12:6 ff.; Luke 13:1-5 ; Luke 16:17 ; Luke 19:18-46 etc. (In order to reconcile his assumption with the existence of such sections in the Gospel of Luke, Baur had to resort to a new assumption that in its present form the Gospel of Luke is the work of some later living person (editor).Golsten, who sees in the Gospel of Luke a combination of the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, believes that Luke had the goal of uniting the Judeo-Christian and The same view of the Gospel of Luke, as a work pursuing purely reconciliatory aims of two trends that fought in the primordial Church, continues to exist in the latest criticism of the apostolic writings. Jog. Weiss in his preface to sense ovation on Ev. Luke (2nd ed. 1907) to come to the conclusion that this gospel can by no means be regarded as pursuing the task of exalting peacockism. Luke shows his complete “non-partisanship”, and if he has frequent coincidences in thoughts and expressions with the epistles of the Apostle Paul, then this is due only to the fact that by the time Luke wrote his Gospel, these epistles were already widely distributed in all churches . But the love of Christ for sinners, on the manifestations of which so often ev. Luke, is not anything particularly characterizing the Pauline idea of ​​Christ: on the contrary, the whole Christian tradition presented Christ as loving sinners...

The time of writing the Gospel of Luke by some ancient writers belonged to a very early period in the history of Christianity - back to the time of the activity of St. Paul, and the newest interpreters in most cases assert that the Gospel of Luke was written shortly before the destruction of Jerusalem: at the time when the two-year stay of Apostle ended. Paul in Roman imprisonment. There is, however, an opinion, supported by rather authoritative scholars (for example, B. Weiss), that the Gospel of Luke was written after the year 70, that is, after the destruction of Jerusalem. This opinion wants to find a basis for itself, mainly in the 21st ch. The Gospel of Luke (v. 24 et seq.), where the destruction of Jerusalem is assumed as if it had already taken place. With this, as if, according to the idea that Luke has about the situation Christian Church, as being in a very depressed state (cf. Luke 6:20 et seq.). However, according to the same Weiss, the origin of the Gospel cannot be attributed further to the 70s (as do, for example, Baur and Zeller, who believe the origin of the Gospel of Luke in 110-130, or as Gilgenfeld, Keim, Volkmar - in 100- m g.). Regarding this opinion of Weiss, it can be said that it does not contain anything incredible and even, perhaps, can find its basis in the testimony of St. Irenaeus, who says that the Gospel of Luke was written after the death of the apostles Peter and Paul (Against Heresies III, 1).

Where the Gospel of Luke was written is nothing definite from tradition. According to some, the place of writing was Achaia, according to others, Alexandria or Caesarea. Some point to Corinth, others to Rome as the place where the Gospel was written; but all this is mere conjecture.

On the Authenticity and Integrity of the Gospel of Luke. The writer of the Gospel does not call himself by name, but the ancient tradition of the Church unanimously calls the writer of the third Gospel St. Luke (Irenaeus. Against heresies. III, 1, 1; Origen in Eusebius, Tserk. ist. VI, 25, etc. See also the canon of Muratorius). There is nothing in the Gospel itself that would prevent us from accepting this testimony of tradition. If opponents of authenticity point out that the apostolic men do not cite any passages from it, then this circumstance can be explained by the fact that under the apostolic men it was customary to be guided more by oral tradition about the life of Christ than by records about Him; in addition, the Gospel of Luke, as having, judging by its writing, a private purpose primarily, could just so be considered by the apostolic men as a private document. Only later did it acquire the significance of a universally binding guide for the study of gospel history.

The latest criticism still does not agree with the testimony of tradition and does not recognize Luke as the writer of the Gospel. The basis for doubting the authenticity of the Gospel of Luke is for critics (for example, for John Weiss) the fact that the author of the Gospel must be recognized as the one who compiled the book of the Acts of the Apostles: this is evidenced not only by the inscription of the book. Acts (Acts 1:1), but also the style of both books. Meanwhile, criticism claims that the book of Acts was not written by Luke himself or by any companion of St. Paul, and a person who lived much later, who only in the second part of the book uses the records that remained from the companion of ap. Paul (see, for example, Luke 16:10: we...). Obviously, this assumption, expressed by Weiss, stands and falls with the question of the authenticity of the book of the Acts of the Apostles and therefore cannot be discussed here.

With regard to the integrity of the Gospel of Luke, critics have long expressed the idea that not the entire Gospel of Luke came from this writer, but that there are sections inserted into it by a later hand. Therefore, they tried to single out the so-called "first Luke" (Scholten). But most of the new interpreters defend the position that the Gospel of Luke, in its entirety, is the work of Luke. The objections which, for example, he expresses in his commentary on Ev. Luke Yog. Weiss, they can hardly shake the confidence in a sane person that the Gospel of Luke in all its departments is a completely integral work of one author. (Some of these objections will be dealt with in the Commentary on Luke.)

content of the gospel. In relation to the choice and order of gospel events, ev. Luke, like Matthew and Mark, divides these events into two groups, one of which embraces the Galilean activity of Christ, and the other his activity in Jerusalem. At the same time, Luke greatly abridges some of the stories contained in the first two Gospels, citing many such stories that are not at all found in those Gospels. Finally, he groups and modifies those stories, which in his Gospel are a reproduction of what is in the first two Gospels, in his own way.

Like Ev. Matthew, Luke begins his Gospel from the very first moments of the New Testament revelation. In the first three chapters, he depicts: a) the foreshadowing of the birth of John the Baptist and the Lord Jesus Christ, as well as the birth and circumcision of John the Baptist and the circumstances that accompanied them (ch. 1), b) the story of the birth, circumcision and bringing of Christ to the temple , and then the speech of Christ in the temple, when He was a 12-year-old boy (ch. 11), c) the performance of John the Baptist as the Forerunner of the Messiah, the descent of the Spirit of God on Christ during His baptism, the age of Christ, in which He was at that time, and His genealogy (ch. 3rd).

The depiction of Christ's messianic activity in the Gospel of Luke is also quite clearly divided into three parts. The first part embraces the work of Christ in Galilee (Lk 4:1-9:50), the second contains the speeches and miracles of Christ during His long journey to Jerusalem (Lk 9:51-19:27) and the third contains the story of the completion of the messianic ministry Christ in Jerusalem (Luke 19:28-24:53).

In the first part, where the Evangelist Luke apparently follows Ev. Mark, both in choice and in the sequence of events, made several releases from Mark's narrative. Omitted precisely: Mk 3:20-30, - the malicious judgments of the Pharisees about the expulsion of demons by Christ, Mk 6:17-29 - the news of the taking into prison and the death of the Baptist, and then everything that is given in Mark (and also in Matthew) from history activities of Christ in northern Galilee and Perea (Mk 6:44-8:27ff.). The miracle of feeding the people (Luke 9:10-17) is directly connected with the story of Peter's confession and the first prediction of the Lord about His sufferings (Luke 9:18 et seq.). On the other hand, Ev. Luke, instead of the section on the recognition of Simon and Andrew and the sons of Zebedee to follow Christ (Mk 6:16-20; cf. Mt 4:18-22), tells the story of the miraculous fishing, as a result of which Peter and his companions left their occupation in order to constantly follow Christ (Lk 5:1-11), and instead of the story of the rejection of Christ in Nazareth (Mk 6:1-6; cf. Mt 13:54-58), he places a story of the same content when describing Christ's first visit as Messiah of his fatherly city (Luke 4:16-30). Further, after the calling of the 12 apostles, Luke places in his Gospel the following departments that are not found in the Gospel of Mark: the Sermon on the Mount (Luke 6:20-49, but in a shorter form than it is set out in Ev. Matthew), the question of the Baptist to the Lord about His Messiahship (Luke 7:18-35), and inserted between these two parts is the story of the resurrection of the youth of Nain (Luke 7:11-17), then the story of the anointing of Christ at a dinner in the house of the Pharisee Simon (Luke 7:36-50) and the names of the women of Galilee who served Christ with their property (Luke 8:1-3).

Such closeness of the Gospel of Luke to the Gospel of Mark is no doubt due to the fact that both evangelists wrote their Gospels for Gentile Christians. Both evangelists also show a desire to depict the gospel events not in their exact chronological sequence, but to give the fullest and clearest possible idea of ​​Christ as the founder of the Messianic kingdom. Luke's departure from Mark can be explained by his desire to give more space those stories that Luke borrows from tradition, as well as the desire to group the facts reported to Luke by eyewitnesses, so that his Gospel represents not only the image of Christ, His life and deeds, but also His teaching about the Kingdom of God, expressed in His speeches and conversations as with His disciples as well as His adversaries.

In order to carry out systematically such an intention, ev. Luke places between the two, predominantly historical, parts of his Gospel - the first and third - the middle part (Luke 9:51-19:27), in which conversations and speeches predominate, and in this part he cites such speeches and events that, according to others The gospels took place at a different time. Some interpreters (for example, Meyer, Godet) see in this section an accurate chronological presentation of events, based on the words of Ev. Luke, who promised to state “everything in order” (καθ ’ ε ̔ ξη ̃ ς - 1:3). But such an assumption is hardly sound. Although Ev. Luke also says that he wants to write "in order", but this does not mean at all that he wants to give in his Gospel only a chronicle of the life of Christ. On the contrary, he made it his goal to give Theophilus, through an accurate presentation of the gospel history, complete confidence in the truth of those teachings in which he was instructed. General sequential order of events ev. Luke kept it: his gospel story begins with the birth of Christ and even with the birth of His Forerunner, then there is an image of the public ministry of Christ, and the moments of the revelation of Christ's teaching about Himself as the Messiah are indicated, and finally, the whole story ends with a presentation of the events of the last days of Christ's stay on the ground. There was no need to enumerate in sequential order everything that was accomplished by Christ from baptism to ascension, and there was no need - it was enough for the purpose that Luke had, to convey the events of the gospel history in a certain grouping. About this intention ev. Luke also speaks of the fact that most of the sections of the second part are interconnected not by exact chronological indications, but by simple transitional formulas: and it was (Luke 11:1; Luke 14:1), but it was (Luke 10:38; Luke 11:27 ), and behold (Lk 10:25), he said (Lk 12:54), etc. or in simple connectives: a, but (δε ̀ - Lk 11:29; Lk 12:10). These transitions were obviously made not in order to determine the time of events, but only their setting. It is also impossible not to point out that the evangelist here describes events that took place now in Samaria (Lk 9:52), then in Bethany, not far from Jerusalem (Lk 10:38), then again somewhere far from Jerusalem (Lk 13 :31), in Galilee - in a word, these are events of different times, and not only those that happened during the last journey of Christ to Jerusalem on the Passover of suffering Some interpreters, in order to keep the chronological order in this section, tried to find in it indications of two journeys of Christ to Jerusalem - the feast of renewal and the feast of the last Easter (Schleiermacher, Ohlshausen, Neander) or even three that John mentions in his Gospel ( Wieseler). But, apart from the fact that there is no definite allusion to various journeys, this passage in the Gospel of Luke clearly speaks against such an assumption, where it is definitely said that the evangelist wants to describe in this section only the last journey of the Lord to Jerusalem - on the Pascha of suffering. In the 9th ch. 51st Art. It says, “When the days of His taking away from the world drew near, He desired to go up to Jerusalem.” Explanation see in a sense. 9th ch. .

Finally, in the third section (Lk 19:28-24:53) Heb. Luke sometimes deviates from the chronological order of events in the interests of his grouping of facts (for example, he places Peter's denial before the trial of Christ by the high priest). Here again ev. Luke keeps the Gospel of Mark as the source of his narratives, supplementing his story with information drawn from another source unknown to us. So, Luke alone has stories about the publican Zacchaeus (Lk 19:1-10), about the dispute of the disciples during the celebration of the Eucharist (Lk 22:24-30), about the trial of Christ by Herod (Lk 23:4-12), about women mourning Christ during His procession to Golgotha ​​(Lk 23:27-31), a conversation with a thief on the cross (Lk 23:39-43), an appearance to Emmaus travelers (Lk 24:13-35) and some other messages representing a replenishment to the stories of ev. Brand. .

Gospel plan. In accordance with his intended goal - to provide a basis for faith in the teaching that has already been taught to Theophilus, ev. Luke planned the entire content of his Gospel in such a way that it really leads the reader to the conviction that the Lord Jesus Christ accomplished the salvation of all mankind, that He fulfilled all the promises of the Old Testament about the Messiah as the Savior not of one Jewish people, but of all peoples. Naturally, in order to achieve his goal, the Evangelist Luke did not need to give his Gospel the appearance of a chronicle of gospel events, but rather, it was necessary to group all the events so that his narrative would make the desired impression on the reader.

The evangelist's plan is already evident in the introduction to the history of Christ's messianic ministry (chapters 1-3). In the story of the conception and birth of Christ, it is mentioned that an angel announced to the Blessed Virgin the birth of a Son, whom she would conceive by the power of the Holy Spirit and who therefore would be the Son of God, and in the flesh, the son of David, who would forever occupy the throne of his father, David. The birth of Christ, as the birth of the promised Redeemer, is announced through an angel to the shepherds. When Christ the Infant is brought to the temple, the inspired elder Simeon and the prophetess Anna testify to His high dignity. Jesus Himself, still a 12-year-old boy, already announces that He should be in the temple as in the house of His Father. When Christ is baptized in the Jordan, He receives a heavenly witness that He is the beloved Son of God, who received the fullness of the gifts of the Holy Spirit for His messianic ministry. Finally, His genealogy, given in Chapter 3, going back to Adam and God, testifies that He is the founder of a new humanity, born from God through the Holy Spirit.

Then, in the first part of the Gospel, an image is given of the messianic ministry of Christ, which is accomplished in the power of the Holy Spirit indwelling in Christ (4:1). By the power of the Holy Spirit, Christ triumphs over the devil in the wilderness (Luke 4:1-13), and this "power of the Spirit" in Galilee, and in Nazareth, His native city, declares Himself the Anointed One and Redeemer, about whom the prophets of the Old Testament foretold. Having not met faith in Himself here, He reminds His unbelieving fellow citizens that God is still in Old Testament prepared the reception of the prophets among the Gentiles (Luke 4:14-30).

After this, which had a predictive value for the future attitude towards Christ on the part of the Jews, the event follows a series of deeds performed by Christ in Capernaum and its environs: the healing of the demon-possessed by the power of the word of Christ in the synagogue, the healing of Simon's mother-in-law and other sick and demon-possessed who were brought and brought to Christ (Luke 4:31-44), miraculous fishing, healing of a leper. All this is depicted as events that led to the spread of the rumor about Christ and the arrival to Christ of whole masses of people who came to listen to the teaching of Christ and brought their sick with them in the hope that Christ would heal them (Luke 5:1-16).

This is followed by a group of incidents that caused opposition to Christ from the Pharisees and scribes: the forgiveness of the sins of the healed paralytic (Lk 5:17-26), the announcement at the publican's dinner that Christ did not come to save the righteous, but sinners (Lk 5:27-32 ), the justification of the disciples of Christ in non-observance of the fasts, based on the fact that the Bridegroom-Messiah is with them (Luke 5:33-39), and in violating the Sabbath, based on the fact that Christ is the lord of the Sabbath, and, moreover, confirmed by a miracle, which On the Sabbath Christ did it over the withered hand (Luke 6:1-11). But while these deeds and statements of Christ irritated his opponents to the point that they began to think about how to take Him, He chose from among His disciples 12 to be apostles (Luke 6:12-16), announced from the mountain in the ears of all the people who followed Him, the main provisions on which the Kingdom of God founded by Him should be built (Luke 6:17-49), and, after descending from the mountain, not only fulfilled the request of the Gentile centurion for the healing of his servant, because the centurion showed such faith in Christ, which Christ did not find in Israel (Lk 7:1-10), but also resurrected the son of the widow of Nain, after which he was glorified by all the people accompanying the funeral procession as a prophet sent by God to the chosen people (Lk 7:11-17 ).

The embassy from John the Baptist to Christ with the question of whether He is the Messiah prompted Christ to point to His deeds as evidence of His Messianic dignity and together reproach the people for not trusting John the Baptist and Him, Christ. At the same time, Christ makes a distinction between those listeners who yearn to hear from Him an indication of the way to salvation, and between those who are a huge mass and who do not believe in Him (Luke 7:18-35). The subsequent sections, in accordance with this intention of the evangelist to show the difference between the Jews who listened to Christ, report a number of such facts that illustrate such a division in the people and together Christ's attitude to the people, to its different parts, in accordance with their attitude to Christ, namely: the anointing of Christ a repentant sinner and the behavior of a Pharisee (Lk 7:36-50), a mention of the women of Galilee who served Christ with their property (Lk 8:1-3), a parable about the various qualities of the field on which sowing is carried out, indicating the bitterness of the people (Lk 8: 4-18), the attitude of Christ towards His relatives (Luke 8:19-21), the crossing into the country of Gadara, at which the disciples showed little faith, and the healing of the demoniac, and the contrast between the stupid indifference shown by the Gadarins to the miracle performed by Christ, and the gratitude of the healed (Lk 8:22-39), the healing of the bleeding woman and the resurrection of the daughter of Jairus, because both the woman and Jairus showed their faith in Christ (Lk 8:40-56). This is followed by the events told in chapter 9, which were intended to strengthen the disciples of Christ in the faith: supplying the disciples with the power to cast out and heal the sick, along with instructions on how they should act during their preaching journey (Luke 9: 1- 6), and it is indicated, as Tetrarch Herod understood the activity of Jesus (Lk 9: 7-9), the feeding of five thousand, by which Christ showed the apostles who returned from the journey His power to help in every need (Lk 9: 10-17), the question of Christ , for whom His people consider and for whom the disciples, and the confession of Peter on behalf of all the apostles is given: “You are the Christ of God”, and then the prediction by Christ of His rejection by the representatives of the people and His death and resurrection, as well as an exhortation addressed to the disciples, so that they imitated Him in self-sacrifice, for which He will reward them at His second glorious coming (Luke 9:18-27), the transfiguration of Christ, which allowed His disciples to penetrate with their eyes into His future glorification (L to 9:28-36), the healing of the demon-possessed lunatic lad, whom the disciples of Christ could not heal, due to the weakness of their faith, which had as its result an enthusiastic glorification by the people of God. At the same time, however, Christ once again pointed out to His disciples the fate awaiting Him, and they turned out to be incomprehensible in relation to such a clear statement made by Christ (Luke 9:37-45).

This inability of the disciples, despite their confession of the Messiahship of Christ, to understand His prophecy about His death and resurrection, had its basis in the fact that they were still in those ideas about the Kingdom of the Messiah, which were formed among the Jewish scribes, who understood the Messianic Kingdom as an earthly kingdom, political, and at the same time testified to how weak their knowledge of the nature of the Kingdom of God and its spiritual blessings was. Therefore, according to Ev. Luke, Christ devoted the rest of the time until His solemn entrance into Jerusalem to teaching His disciples precisely these most important truths about the nature of the Kingdom of God, about its form and distribution (second part), about what is needed to achieve eternal life, and warnings - not to get carried away the teachings of the Pharisees and the views of His enemies, whom He will eventually come to judge as the King of this Kingdom of God (Luke 9:51-19:27).

Finally, in the third part, the evangelist shows how Christ, by His sufferings, death and resurrection, proved that He is indeed the promised Savior and King of the Kingdom of God anointed by the Holy Spirit. Depicting the solemn entry of the Lord into Jerusalem, the evangelist Luke speaks not only of the rapture of the people - which other evangelists also report, but also that Christ announced His judgment on the city that was rebellious to Him (Luke 19:28-44) and then, according to with Mark and Matthew, about how He shamed His enemies in the temple (Luke 20:1-47), and then, pointing out the superiority of alms to the temple of a poor widow over the contributions of the rich, He foreshadowed before his disciples the fate of Jerusalem and His followers ( Luke 21:1-36).

In the description of the suffering and death of Christ (chap. 22 and 23), it is exposed that Satan induced Judas to betray Christ (Luke 22:3), and then Christ's confidence is put forward that He will eat the supper with His disciples in the Kingdom of God and that the Passover of the Old Testament must henceforth be replaced by the Eucharist established by Him (Luke 22:15-23). The evangelist also mentions that Christ, at the Last Supper, calling the disciples to service, and not to domination, nevertheless promised them dominion in His Kingdom (Luke 22:24-30). This is followed by a story about three moments of the last hours of Christ: the promise of Christ to pray for Peter, given in view of his imminent fall (Lk 22:31-34), the call of the disciples in the struggle against temptations (Lk 22:35-38), and the prayer of Christ in Gethsemane, in which He was strengthened by an angel from heaven (Luke 22:39-46). Then the evangelist speaks about the taking of Christ and the healing by Christ of the wounded servant of Peter (51) and about the denunciation by Him of the high priests who came with the soldiers (53). All these particulars clearly show that Christ went to suffering and death voluntarily, in the consciousness of their necessity in order for the salvation of mankind to be accomplished.

In depicting the very sufferings of Christ, the evangelist Luke puts forward Peter's denial as evidence that even during His own sufferings, Christ pitied His weak disciple (Luke 22:54-62). Then follows a description of the great sufferings of Christ in the following three lines: 1) the denial of the high dignity of Christ, partly by the soldiers who mocked Christ in the court of the high priest (Lk 22:63-65), but mainly by the members of the Sanhedrin (Lk 22:66-71), 2 ) the recognition of Christ as a dreamer at the trial of Pilate and Herod (Lk 23:1-12) and 3) the preference of the people for Christ Barabbas the robber and the condemnation of Christ to death by crucifixion (Lk 23:13-25).

After depicting the depth of Christ's suffering, the evangelist notes such features from the circumstances of this suffering, which clearly testified that Christ, even in His sufferings, nevertheless remained the King of the Kingdom of God. The Evangelist reports that the Condemned One 1) as a judge addressed the women weeping over Him (Lk 23:26-31) and asked the Father for his enemies who committed a crime against Him without consciousness (Lk 23:32-34), 2) gave a place in paradise to the repentant thief, as having the right to do so (Lk 23:35-43), 3) realized that, dying, He betrays His own spirit to the Father (Lk 23:44-46), 4) was recognized as a righteous man by the centurion and aroused repentance among the people by his death (Lk 23:47-48) and 5) was honored with a particularly solemn burial (Lk 23:49-56). Finally, in the history of the resurrection of Christ, the evangelist exposes such events that clearly proved the greatness of Christ and served to explain the work of salvation accomplished by Him. This is precisely: the testimony of the angels that Christ overcame death, according to His predictions about this (Luke 24:1-12), then the appearance of Christ himself to the Emmaus travelers, to whom Christ showed from Scripture the necessity of His suffering in order for Him to enter into glory. His (Lk 24:13-35), the appearance of Christ to all the apostles, to whom He also explained the prophecies that spoke about Him, and instructed in His name to preach the message of the forgiveness of sins to all the peoples of the earth, while promising the apostles to send down the power of the Holy Spirit (Lk 24:36-49). Finally, having depicted briefly the ascension of Christ into heaven (Luke 24:50-53), ev. Luke ended his Gospel with this, which really was the affirmation of everything taught to Theophilus and other Christians from the Gentiles, the Christian teaching: Christ is really depicted here as the promised Messiah, as the Son of God and the King of the Kingdom of God.

Sources and aids in the study of the Gospel of Luke. Of the patristic interpretations of the Gospel of Luke, the most detailed are the writings of Blessed. Theophylact and Euphemia Zigaben. Of our Russian commentators, Bishop Michael (The Explanatory Gospel) should be placed in the first place, then D.P. Kaz. spirit. Academy of M. Bogoslovsky, who compiled the books: 1) The childhood of our Lord Jesus Christ and His forerunner, according to the Gospels of St. Apostles Matthew and Luke. Kazan, 1893; and 2) The public ministry of our Lord Jesus Christ according to the sayings of the holy evangelists. Issue. first. Kazan, 1908.

Of the writings on the Gospel of Luke, we have only the thesis of Fr. Polotebnova: The Holy Gospel of Luke. Orthodox critical-exegetical study against F. H. Baur. Moscow, 1873.

Of the foreign commentaries, we mention interpretations: Keil K. Fr. 1879 (in German), Meyer, revised by B. Weiss 1885 (in German), Jog. Weiss "The Writings of N. Head." 2nd ed. 1907 (in German); Trench. Interpretation of the parables of our Lord Jesus Christ. 1888 (in Russian) and Miracles of our Lord Jesus Christ (1883 in Russian, lang.); and Mercks. The four canonical gospels according to their oldest known text. Part 2, 2nd half of 1905 (in German).

The following works are also cited: Geiki. The Life and Teachings of Christ. Per. St. M. Fiveysky, 1894; Edersheim. The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah. Per. St. M. Fiveysky. T. 1. 1900. Reville A. Jesus the Nazarene. Per. Zelinsky, vol. 1-2, 1909; and some spiritual journal articles.

Gospel

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

a) the good news that Christ accomplished the reconciliation of people with God and brought us the greatest blessings - mainly establishing the Kingdom of God on earth ( Matt. 4:23),

b) the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ, preached by Himself and His apostles about Him as the King of this Kingdom, the Messiah and the Son of God ( 2 Cor. 4:4),

c) all New Testament or Christian teaching in general, primarily the narrative of events from the life of Christ, the most important ( 1 Cor. 15:1-4), and then an explanation of the meaning of these events ( Rome. 1:16).

e) Finally, the word "Gospel" is sometimes used to refer to the very process of preaching the Christian doctrine ( Acts. 4:13), although they are literate. Among the Christians of the apostolic time there were also very few "wise according to the flesh, strong" and "noble" ( 1 Cor. 1:26), and for most believers much greater value had oral stories about Christ than written ones. Thus the apostles and preachers or evangelists "transmitted" (παραδιδόναι) tales of the deeds and speeches of Christ, while the faithful "received" (παραλαμβάνειν), but, of course, not mechanically, only by memory, as can be said of the students of rabbinical schools, but whole soul, as if something living and giving life. But soon this period of oral tradition was to end. On the one hand, Christians must have felt the need for a written presentation of the Gospel in their disputes with the Jews, who, as you know, denied the reality of the miracles of Christ and even claimed that Christ did not declare Himself the Messiah. It was necessary to show the Jews that Christians have authentic stories about Christ of those persons who were either among His apostles, or who were in close communion with eyewitnesses of Christ's deeds. On the other hand, the need for a written presentation of the history of Christ began to be felt because the generation of the first disciples was gradually dying out and the ranks of direct witnesses of the miracles of Christ were thinning out. Therefore, it was necessary to fix in writing individual sayings of the Lord and His whole speeches, as well as the stories about Him of the apostles. It was then that separate records of what was reported in the oral tradition about Christ began to appear here and there. Most carefully they wrote down the words of Christ, which contained the rules of the Christian life, and were much freer in the transfer of various events from the life of Christ, retaining only their general impression. Thus, one thing in these records, due to its originality, was transmitted everywhere in the same way, while the other was modified. These initial notes did not think about the completeness of the narrative. Even our Gospels, as can be seen from the conclusion of the Gospel of John ( In. 21:25), did not intend to report all the words and deeds of Christ. This is evident, among other things, from what is not included in them, for example, such a saying of Christ: “it is more blessed to give than to receive” ( Acts. 20:35). The Evangelist Luke reports such records, saying that many before him had already begun to compose narratives about the life of Christ, but that they did not have the proper fullness and that therefore they did not give sufficient “confirmation” in the faith ( OK. 1:1-4).

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

four gospel

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

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

Saint Irenaeus also finds a special symbolic meaning in the quaternary number of our Gospels. “Since there are four parts of the world in which we live, and since the Church is scattered throughout the earth and has its affirmation in the Gospel, it was necessary for her to have four pillars, from everywhere emanating incorruption and reviving the human race. The all-arranging Word, seated on the Cherubim, gave us the Gospel in four forms, but imbued with one spirit. For David also, praying for His appearance, says: "Seated on the Cherubim, reveal Yourself" ( Ps. 79:2). But the Cherubim (in the vision of the prophet Ezekiel and the Apocalypse) have four faces, and their faces are images of the activity of the Son of God. Saint Irenaeus finds it possible to attach the symbol of a lion to the Gospel of John, since this Gospel depicts Christ as the eternal King, and the lion is the king in the animal world; to the Gospel of Luke - the symbol of the calf, since Luke begins his Gospel with the image of the priestly service of Zechariah, who slaughtered the calves; to the Gospel of Matthew - a symbol of a person, since this Gospel mainly depicts the human birth of Christ, and, finally, to the Gospel of Mark - a symbol of an eagle, because Mark begins his Gospel with a mention of the prophets, to whom the Holy Spirit flew, like an eagle on wings "(Irenaeus Lugdunensis, Adversus haereses, liber 3, 11, 11-22). In other Church Fathers, the symbols of the lion and calf are moved and the first is given to Mark, and the second to John. Starting from the 5th c. in this form, the symbols of the evangelists began to join the images of the four evangelists in church painting.

Reciprocity of the Gospels

Each of the four Gospels has its own characteristics, and most of all - the Gospel of John. But the first three, as already mentioned above, have extremely much in common with each other, and this similarity involuntarily catches the eye even with a cursory reading of them. Let us first of all speak of the similarity of the Synoptic Gospels and the causes of this phenomenon.

Even Eusebius of Caesarea in his "canons" divided the Gospel of Matthew into 355 parts and noted that all three forecasters have 111 of them. IN modern times exegetes worked out an even more precise numerical formula for determining the similarity of the Gospels and calculated that the total number of verses common to all weather forecasters goes up to 350. Matthew then has 350 verses peculiar only to him, Mark has 68 such verses, and Luke has 541. Similarities are mainly seen in the transmission of the sayings of Christ, and differences - in the narrative part. When Matthew and Luke literally converge in their Gospels, Mark always agrees with them. The similarity between Luke and Mark is much closer than between Luke and Matthew (Lopukhin - in the Orthodox Theological Encyclopedia. T. V. C. 173). It is also remarkable that some passages of all three evangelists go in the same sequence, for example, the temptation and speech in Galilee, the calling of Matthew and the conversation about fasting, the plucking of ears and the healing of the withered hand, the calming of the storm and the healing of the demoniac of Gadarene, etc. The similarity sometimes extends even to the construction of sentences and expressions (for example, in the citation of the prophecy Mal. 3:1).

As for the differences observed among weather forecasters, there are quite a few of them. Others are reported only by two evangelists, others even by one. So, only Matthew and Luke cite the conversation on the mount of the Lord Jesus Christ, tell the story of the birth and the first years of Christ's life. One Luke speaks of the birth of John the Baptist. Other things one evangelist conveys in a more abbreviated form than another, or in a different connection than another. The details of the events in each Gospel are different, as well as the expressions.

This phenomenon of similarity and difference in the Synoptic Gospels has long attracted the attention of interpreters of Scripture, and various assumptions have long been put forward to explain this fact. More correct is the opinion that our three evangelists used a common oral source for their narrative of the life of Christ. At that time, evangelists or preachers about Christ went everywhere preaching and repeated in different places in more or less extensive form what it was considered necessary to offer to those who entered the Church. In this way a well-known definite type was formed oral gospel, and this is the type we have in writing in our synoptic gospels. Of course, at the same time, depending on the goal that this or that evangelist had, his gospel took on some special features, only characteristic of his work. At the same time, one cannot rule out the possibility that an older gospel might have been known to the evangelist who wrote later. At the same time, the difference between synoptics should be explained by the different goals that each of them had in mind when writing his Gospel.

As we have already said, the synoptic gospels are very different from the gospel of John the Theologian. Thus they depict almost exclusively the activity of Christ in Galilee, while the apostle John depicts mainly the sojourn of Christ in Judea. In regard to content, the synoptic gospels also differ considerably from the gospel of John. They give, so to speak, a more external image of the life, deeds and teachings of Christ, and from the speeches of Christ they cite only those that were accessible to the understanding of the whole people. John, on the contrary, omits a lot of the activities of Christ, for example, he cites only six miracles of Christ, but those speeches and miracles that he cites have a special deep meaning and extreme importance about the person of the Lord Jesus Christ. Finally, while the synoptics portray Christ primarily as the founder of the kingdom of God and therefore direct their readers' attention to the kingdom he founded, John draws our attention to the central point of this kingdom, from which life flows along the peripheries of the kingdom, i.e. on the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, whom John depicts as the Only Begotten Son of God and as the Light for all mankind. That is why even the ancient interpreters called the Gospel of John predominantly spiritual (πνευματικόν), in contrast to synoptic ones, as depicting a predominantly human side in the face of Christ (εὐαγγέλιον σωματικόν), i.e. bodily gospel.

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

Reliability of the Gospels

Although criticism has long been expressed against the authenticity of the Gospels, and recently these attacks of criticism have become especially intensified (the theory of myths, especially the theory of Drews, who does not at all recognize the existence of Christ), however, all objections of criticism are so insignificant that they are shattered at the slightest collision with Christian apologetics. . Here, however, we will not cite the objections of negative criticism and analyze these objections: this will be done when interpreting the text of the Gospels itself. We will only speak about the main general grounds on which we recognize the Gospels as completely reliable documents. This is, firstly, the existence of the tradition of eyewitnesses, of whom many survived until the era when our Gospels appeared. Why should we refuse to trust these sources of our gospels? Could they have made up everything that is in our gospels? No, all the Gospels are purely historical. Secondly, it is incomprehensible why the Christian consciousness would want - so the mythical theory asserts - to crown the head of a simple rabbi Jesus with the crown of the Messiah and the Son of God? Why, for example, is it not said about the Baptist that he performed miracles? Obviously because he did not create them. And from this it follows that if Christ is said to be the Great Wonderworker, then it means that He really was like that. And why could one deny the authenticity of the miracles of Christ, since the highest miracle - His Resurrection - is witnessed like no other event ancient history(cm. 1 Cor. 15)?

Bibliography of Foreign Works on the Four Gospels

Bengel J. Al. Gnomon Novi Testamentï in quo ex nativa verborum VI simplicitas, profunditas, concinnitas, salubritas sensuum coelestium indicatur. Berolini, 1860.

Blass, Gram. - Blass F. Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch. Göttingen, 1911.

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

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

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

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

Name De Wette W.M.L. Kurze Erklärung des Evangeliums Matthäi / Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Neuen Testament, Band 1, Teil 1. Leipzig, 1857.

Keil (1879) - Keil C.F. Commentar über die Evangelien des Markus und Lukas. Leipzig, 1879.

Keil (1881) - Keil C.F. Commentar über das Evangelium des Johannes. Leipzig, 1881.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Luthardt Ch.E. Das johanneische Evangelium nach seiner Eigenthümlichkeit geschildert und erklärt. Nürnberg, 1876.

Meyer (1864) - Meyer H.A.W. Kritisch exegetisches Commentar über das Neue Testament, Abteilung 1, Hälfte 1: Handbuch über das Evangelium des Matthäus. Göttingen, 1864.

Meyer (1885) - Kritisch-exegetischer Commentar über das Neue Testament hrsg. von Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer, Abteilung 1, Hälfte 2: Bernhard Weiss B. Kritisch exegetisches Handbuch über die Evangelien des Markus und Lukas. Göttingen, 1885. Meyer (1902) - Meyer H.A.W. Das Johannes-Evangelium 9. Auflage, bearbeitet von B. Weiss. Göttingen, 1902.

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

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

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

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

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

Heitmüller - see Jog. Weiss (1907).

Holtzmann (1901) - Holtzmann H.J. Die Synoptiker. Tubingen, 1901.

Holtzmann (1908) - Holtzmann H.J. Evangelium, Briefe und Offenbarung des Johannes / Hand-Commentar zum Neuen Testament bearbeitet von H. J. Holtzmann, R. A. Lipsius etc. bd. 4. Freiburg im Breisgau, 1908.

Zahn (1905) - Zahn Th. Das Evangelium des Matthäus / Commentar zum Neuen Testament, Teil 1. Leipzig, 1905.

Zahn (1908) - Zahn Th. Das Evangelium des Johannes ausgelegt / Commentar zum Neuen Testament, Teil 4. Leipzig, 1908.

Schanz (1881) - Schanz P. Commentar über das Evangelium des heiligen Marcus. Freiburg im Breisgau, 1881.

Schanz (1885) - Schanz P. Commentar über das Evangelium des heiligen Johannes. Tubingen, 1885.

Schlatter - Schlatter A. Das Evangelium des Johannes: ausgelegt fur Bibelleser. Stuttgart, 1903.

Schürer, Geschichte - Schürer E., Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi. bd. 1-4. Leipzig, 1901-1911.

Edersheim (1901) - Edersheim A. The life and times of Jesus the Messiah. 2 Vols. London, 1901.

Ellen - Allen W.C. A critical and exegetical commentary of the Gospel according to st. Matthew. Edinburgh, 1907.

Alford - Alford N. The Greek Testament in four volumes, vol. 1. London, 1863.

The most interesting:

Feng Shui apartments: rules for arranging the main areas and design features (70 photos)

Signs on the New Moon: what can and cannot be done at this time

The meaning of the name Damir. Name interpretation. Origin and character of the name Damir Damir name