Edition of the successors of A. P. Lopukhin. Explanatory Bible. Commentary on the Gospel of John. Preface to the interpretation of the gospel of john Interpretation of the plots of the gospel of john

The power of the Holy Spirit, as it is written () and as we believe, is accomplished in weakness, in weakness not only of the body, but also of the mind and eloquence. This is evident both from many other things, and especially from what grace showed on the great theologian and brother of Christ. His father was a fisherman; John himself was engaged in the same craft as his father; he not only did not receive a Greek and Jewish education, but was not at all learned, as the divine Luke remarks about him in Acts (). Yes, and his fatherland is the poorest and humblest, like a place in which they were engaged in fishing, and not in the sciences. Bethsaida gave birth to him. However, look what kind of Spirit this unlearned, ignorant, unremarkable in any respect received. He thundered about what none of the other evangelists taught us. Since they proclaim the incarnation of Christ, but did not say anything quite clear and evident about His pre-eternal existence, there was a danger that people, attached to the earthly and unable to think of anything lofty, would think that Christ only began His existence then, when born of Mary, and not born of the Father before the ages. As is well known, the Samosata Paul fell into such a delusion. Therefore, the great John proclaims the heavenly birth, without failing, however, to mention the incarnation of the Word. For says: "And the Word became flesh" ().

Others say that the Orthodox asked him to write about the mountain birth, because at that time heretics appeared who taught that Jesus was a simple man. It is also said that St. John, having read the writings of the other evangelists, marveled at the truth of their narration about everything and recognized them as sane and did not say anything to please the apostles. However, what they did not clearly say or completely kept silent, he spread, clarified and added in his Gospel, which he wrote while he was in captivity on the island of Patmos, thirty-two years after the Ascension of Christ.

John was loved by the Lord more than all the disciples for his simplicity, meekness, good nature and purity of heart or virginity. As a result of such a talent, he was also entrusted with theology, the enjoyment of the sacraments, invisible to many. For "blessed," it is said, pure in heart, for they shall see God."(). John was also a relative of the Lord. But as? Listen. Joseph, the betrothed of the Most Pure Theotokos, had by his first wife seven children, four males and three females, Martha, Esther and Salome; this Salome John was the son. Thus, it turns out that the Lord was his uncle. Since Joseph is the father of the Lord, and Salome is the daughter of this Joseph, then Salome is the sister of the Lord, and therefore her son John is the nephew of the Lord.

Perhaps it is not inappropriate to make out the names of John's mother and the evangelist himself. The mother, called Salome, means peaceful, and John - her grace. So, let every soul know that peace with people and peace from the passions in the soul becomes the mother of divine grace and gives birth to it in us. For a soul that is indignant and waging war with other people and with itself, it is unnatural to be rewarded with divine grace.

We also see another wonderful circumstance in this evangelist John. Namely: he is only one, and he has three mothers: his own Salome, thunder, for for the great voice in the Gospel he is the “son of thunders” (), and the Mother of God, for it is said: "Behold, your mother!" ().

Having said this before the explanation, we must now begin to analyze the speeches of John themselves.

1–18. Prologue to the Gospel. - 19-28. Testimony of John the Baptist about Christ before the Jews. - 29-36. Testimony of John the Baptist to his disciples. – 37–51. The first followers of Christ.

The Gospel of John begins with a majestic introduction, or prologue, which tells how the Only Begotten Son of God was revealed to the world. This introduction is conveniently divided into three stanzas, the content of which is as follows.

Stanza one (verses 1-5): The Word, which was in the beginning with God and was God Himself, and through whom the world was created, was life and light for people, and darkness could not extinguish this light.

Verse 2 (verses 6-13): John was sent from God to testify of the Word as true light, but when the Word appeared to his own, his own did not receive it. There were, however, few of those who received the Word, and these people were given by the Word the power to become children of God.

Stanza three (verses 14-18): The Word became flesh in Jesus Christ and dwelt among the people who saw His majesty as the Only Begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth, so that those who believe in Him received grace from Him in abundance. Through Him, who is higher than John the Baptist and Moses the legislator, the grace and truth of the invisible God are proclaimed.

The main idea of ​​the prologue is expressed in verse 14: "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us." Everything that precedes and follows serves to characterize the Divine Person, Who in Jesus Christ became a man and revealed to people the grace and truth of the invisible God. From the prologue, we first learn that the Word existed with God even before the creation of the world, and that the world itself owes its origin to Him. We also learn that, in particular, for mankind the Word was light and life even before His incarnation. Then the evangelist, in order to prepare the attention of his readers for the following short news about the incarnation of the Word, mentions the sending of John the Baptist by God as a witness of the coming of the Word to His people and the attitude of the Jewish people to the Word that appeared. Thus, the evangelist quite logically proceeds to depict the very incarnation of the Word and the greatness of the blessings He brought with Himself.

It is remarkable that the entire content of the prologue consists in historical facts, and not in reasoning. We feel that the evangelist is not giving us any philosophical construction, but a brief history of the incarnate Word. Therefore, the speech of the prologue resembles the speech of a historian.

According to Keil, the correct understanding of the entire prologue depends on the explanation of the term "Logos", translated in our Bible by the expression "Word". The Greek noun ὁ λόγος has various meanings in Classical Greek. It can mean:

a) the statement and the said;

b) reasoning, deliberation and the ability to reason, i.e. mind or reason.

There are many more meanings of this word, but they all have their basis in the two main meanings of the term ὁ λόγος. As regards the second meaning of the term under consideration (b), although there are interpreters who insist on the need to accept the term Logos in the sense of "reason", we cannot allow this. The main obstacle to this assumption is that in the New Testament Greek the term ὁ λόγος is nowhere used as meaning "intelligence" or "reason", but only means "action" or "the result of the activity of the mind": report, calculation, etc. . (See Preuschen E. Vollständiges Griechisch-Deutsches Handwörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der übrige nurchristlichen Literatur. Giessen 1910, col. 668, 669.) , in order to interpret the term Logos in the prologue in the sense of "activity" or "the result of the activity of the mind": this is clearly contradicted by everything that is said in verses 14 and following about the incarnation of the Logos.

Now, regarding the first (a), the main meaning of the term Logos, it must be said that both on the basis of the philological direct meaning of this term, and on the basis of the entire teaching of the Gospel of John about the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ, this meaning - "Word" - is the only acceptable one in the present case. . But understanding this name in this way as applied to Christ, one must remember that the evangelist, of course, called Christ the "Word" not in the simple (grammatical) sense of this term, understood the "Word" not as a simple combination of voice sounds, but in the higher (logical) sense. ), as an expression of the deepest being of God. Just as in the word of Christ Himself His inner essence was revealed, so in the Eternal Word - the Logos - the inner essence of the Godhead was always revealed. God is the Spirit, and where the Spirit is, there is the Word, therefore, the "Word" was always with God. The existence of the Logos in itself “is by no means due to the fact that He is the Revelation of God the Father to the world, i.e. is by no means conditioned by the existence of the world, on the contrary, the existence of the world depends on the fact that the Logos becomes for the world the revelation of God the Father – but it must necessarily be conceivable as given in the very existence of God the Father” (Znamensky, p. 9).

The Church Fathers mostly explained the meaning of calling Christ "the Word" by comparing Christ the Word with the "word" of man. They said that just as thought and word differ from each other, so the "Word" - Christ was always a Person separate from the Father. Then they pointed out that the word is born of thought and, moreover, is born not through cutting off or outflow, but in such a way that the thought or mind remains in its own composition, so Christ is the Son of God, from the birth of Whom in the essence of the Father no change occurred. Further, the Fathers of the Church, taking into account that the word, being different from thought in the form of being, always remains one with thought in the content or essence of being, they deduced from this that the Son is one in essence with God the Father, and by virtue of this unity in essence nothing is not separated from the Father for one minute. Thus, considering the term "Word" as a designation of the Son of God, the Fathers of the Church found in this term an indication of the eternity of the Son of God, of His person and consubstantial with the Father, and also of His passionless birth from the Father. But besides, bearing in mind that this term can also mean the spoken word, and not only the word that exists in thought (internal), the Church Fathers understood this term as applied to Christ and as a designation of the fact that the Son reveals the Father to the world, that He is revelation of the Father to the world. The first understanding can be called metaphysical, and the second - historical.

Among the newest theologians of a critical trend, the view has been established that the term Logos in John has only the meaning of the so-called "historical predicate", and does not at all define the Person of Christ the Savior in essence. The Evangelist seemed to want to use this term to say that Christ is the revelation of God to the world. Thus, according to Tzahn, the Logos is a name that belongs to no one else but the historical Christ, it is the same predicate or definition of Christ, as are the definitions “light”, “truth” and “life” that follow in the prologue. Christ was not a Logos before the incarnation, but became such only after the incarnation. This view of Zahn is approached by the opinion of Luthardt, according to which Christ is called by John the Logos in the only sense that the whole totality of divine revelations has found its completion in Him. Finally, according to Hoffmann, John's Logos should be understood as the apostolic word or sermon about Christ. Of the Russian scientists on the side of these researchers was Prince. S.N. Trubetskoy, in his dissertation on the Logos (Moscow, 1900).

But against such an understanding of the term in question in John speaks the most clear indication of the evangelist himself, located in the 14th verse of the prologue: "And the Word became flesh." That which at a certain time took on flesh must obviously have existed before that time, without flesh. It is clear that the evangelist believed in the pre-existence of Christ as the Son of God, as the Eternal Word of God. Then the whole content of the Gospel of John loudly cries out against such a narrow understanding of the German exegetes. In the words of the Lord, which John cites, everywhere there is confidence in the eternal existence of Christ, in His consubstantiality with the Father. But it is precisely these same ideas that enter into the content of the considered concept of the “Word”, or Logos. And why would the evangelist begin to attach such solemnity to his prologue if it dealt with Christ only as the Revelation of the invisible God? After all, such revelations took place in the history of the dispensation of our salvation and in the Old Testament (for example, the appearances of the Angel of Jehovah), and meanwhile, with his prologue, John wants to open, so to speak, an entirely new era in the history of salvation...

It should also be noted that when we insist that in John the term Logos means "Word" and not "reason", then we do not deny that the Word is at the same time the Higher Mind. And the human word does not exist outside of the relation to the thought, the expression of which it serves. In the same way, all the New Testament testimonies about the Son of God as the Truth and Source of all truth leave no doubt that the Word of God is also the absolute “Mind of God” (see Znamensky, p. 175).

About where John took this definition - Logos, see below, in the explanation of the 18th verse of the prologue.

John 1:1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

"In the beginning was the Word." With these words the evangelist denotes the eternity of the Word. Already the expression “at the beginning” (ἐν ἀρχῇ) clearly indicates that the being of the Logos is completely removed from the subordination of time, as a form of any created being, that the Logos existed “before everything conceivable and before the ages” (St. John Chrysostom). Even more strongly this idea of ​​the eternity of the Word is expressed by adding the verb "was" (-ἦν) to the expression "in the beginning". The verb "to be" (εἶναι), firstly, is the designation of being personal and independent, in contrast to the verb "become" (γίνεσθαι), which denotes the appearance of something at a certain time. Secondly, the verb "to be" is used here in the past imperfect tense, which indicates that the Logos was already at the time when the creation was only supposed to begin.

"And the Word was with God." Here the evangelist says that the Logos was an independent person. This is clearly indicated by the expression he used "was to God" - so it will be better and more accurate to translate the Greek expression πρὸς τὸν Θεόν. John means by this that the Logos stood in a certain relationship with God the Father as a separate independent person. He is not separated from God the Father (which would come out if the word τὸν Θεόν had the preposition παρά - “near”), but he does not merge with Him (which would be indicated by the preposition ἐν - “in”), but abides in the personal and internal relation to the Father - inseparable and unmixed. And in this relation the Logos always remained with the Father, as the verb "to be" taken here again in the past imperfect tense again shows. As for the question why John here calls God the Father simply God, then this question can be answered as follows: the word "God" is generally used to designate God the Father in the New Testament, and then John (as Loisy says) could not yet use here the word "Father", because he has not yet spoken of the Word as "Son".

"And the Word was God." With these words, John denotes the deity of the Word. The Word is not only divine (θεῖος), but is the true God. Since in the Greek text the word "God" (Θεός) is used about the Word without an article, while about God the Father it is used here with the article, some theologians (in ancient times, for example, Origen) saw in this an indication that The word is lower in dignity than God the Father. But against the correctness of such a conclusion is the circumstance that in the New Testament the expression Θεός without the article is sometimes used about God the Father (Rom. 1:7; Phil. 2:13). And then, in the present case, the expression Θεός together with the verb ἦν constitutes a predicate for the expression ὁ λόγος and, as a general rule, should be without an article.

John 1:2. It was in the beginning with God.

"It was in the beginning with God." Lest anyone regard the Deity of the Logos as less than the Deity of the Father, the evangelist says that He is "in the beginning," i.e. before all time, or, in other words, eternally stood in relation to the Father as a completely independent person, in no way different by nature from God the Father. This is how the evangelist sums up everything he said about the Word in verse 1. At the same time, this verse serves as a transition to the next depiction of the revelation of the Logos in the world.

John 1:3. Everything came into being through Him, and without Him nothing came into being that came into being.

"Everything" happened "through Him, and without Him nothing came into being that" happened. Here, first positively, and then negatively, the idea is expressed that the Logos was revealed in the world primarily as its Creator. He created everything (πάντα), i.e. every created being, without any limitation. But some theologians, both ancient and new, saw in the expression "through Him" ​​a belittling of the dignity of the Logos, finding that this expression indicates in the Logos only the instrument that God used to create the world, and not the First Cause. Such reasoning, however, cannot be recognized as solid, since in the New Testament the preposition "through" (διά) is sometimes used also about the activity of God the Father in relation to the world (Rom. 11:36; 1 Cor. 1:9). The Evangelist obviously wanted to use this expression to note the difference that exists between the Father and the Son, not wanting “anyone to consider the Son unborn” (St. John Chrysostom), i.e. and personally not different from the Father. It should be noted that the evangelist uses a verb about the origin of all created things, which means “to begin to exist” (γίνεσθαι) and, therefore, recognizes the Logos not only as the organizer of the world from ready-made matter, but also in the literal sense as the Creator of the world from nothing.

John 1:4. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.

"In Him was life, and the life was the light of men." The life that was in the Logos is life in the broadest sense of the word (why the Greek text contains the word ζωή - "life", without the article). All areas of being have drawn from the Logos the forces necessary for every created being to reveal its abilities. One might say that the Logos Himself was "life", i.e. Being Divine, for life is in God.

In particular, in relation to people, this enlivening action of the Logos was manifested in the enlightenment of people: this life (here the word ζωή is already put with the article as a concept known from the first half of the verse) gave humanity the light of true theology and directed people on the path of a God-pleasing life: life was light for people. Just as without material light no life would be possible in the world, so without the enlightening action of the Logos it would not be possible for people to take at least a few steps forward along the path to moral self-improvement. The Logos enlightened both the chosen people of God with direct revelations and theophany, as well as the best people from the pagan world, testifying to the truth in their minds and consciences.

John 1:5. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

"And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it." Since the last position of the previous verse might seem to the readers not in agreement with reality: the state of the pagan world, and even the Jewish one, seemed to them as a state of extreme moral decline and hardening in sin, and therefore the evangelist considers it necessary to assure them that the light is the Logos, indeed , always shone and continues to shine (φαίνει, the present tense to denote constancy of activity) even in the darkness of human ignorance and all corruption (“darkness” - σκοτία and means the state of falling and resisting the will of God, cf. John 12:35; Eph. 5 :8).

"Darkness did not embrace him." The meaning of the Russian translation is this: the darkness failed to drown out, to put out the action in the people of the Logos. In this sense, this expression was interpreted by many ancient fathers and teachers of the Church, as well as by many of the newest exegetes. And such an interpretation seems to be quite correct if we pay attention to the parallel passage in the Gospel of John: “walk while there is light, lest darkness embrace you” (John 12:35). Here the same verb (καταλαμβάνειν) is used to designate the concept of "embrace", and there is absolutely no reason to interpret this verb differently than our Russian translation interprets. Some (for example, Znamensky, pp. 46-47) fear that such a translation will have to admit that John allowed the idea “about some kind of struggle between the very beginnings of light and darkness and, therefore, thought of them as real entities. Meanwhile, only the personal bearers of a known principle, and not the principle itself, can possess reality in the metaphysical sense.

But such reasoning is not sound. The idea of ​​the struggle between light and darkness, one might say, is the basic idea of ​​John's world outlook and runs resolutely in all his writings. Moreover, John, of course, speaking of the efforts of darkness to put out the light, was thinking about personalities in whom light or darkness found its strongest expression. Thus, accepting the old translation, we paint for ourselves a majestic and terrible picture of the struggle of all the dark forces against the divine enlightening action of the Logos, a struggle that has been waged for several millennia and which ended extremely unsuccessfully for darkness: the divine beacon still shines on all those sailing through the dangerous sea ​​of ​​life and keeps their ship from dangerous rocks.

John 1:6. There was a man sent from God; his name is John.

So far John has been talking about the Logos in His pre-incarnation state. Now he needs to start depicting His activities in human flesh, or, which is the same, start his gospel narrative. He does this, starting from the same point with which Mark began his Gospel, namely, from the testimony of the prophet and forerunner John about Christ.

"Was", more precisely: "came out" or "appeared" (ἐγένετο - cf. Mark 1:4), "a man sent from God." The Evangelist here, of course, means that God's decision about the coming of John the Baptist was already expressed in the book of the prophet Malachi (Mal. 3 according to the Hebrew Bible). The Evangelist also names this messenger of God, as if wishing to show that in the name of John (from the Hebrew - “the grace of God”) his great mission is foreshadowed.

John 1:7. He came for a witness, to testify of the Light, that all might believe through him.

The purpose of John's speech was to be a witness, and precisely to "bear witness to the Light," i.e. about the Logos or Christ (cf. verse 5), to exhort everyone to go to this Light as to the real light of life. Through his testimony, all, both Jews and Gentiles, were to believe in Christ as the Savior of the world (cf. John 20:31).

John 1:8. He was not a light, but was sent to testify of the Light.

Since many looked at John as the Christ (cf. verse 20), the evangelist says again with particular emphasis that John was not a "light", i.e. Christ, or the Messiah, but came only to bear witness to the Light, or the Messiah.

John 1:9. There was a true Light, which enlightens every person who comes into the world.

"There was a true Light." Most of the ancient interpreters saw an indication of the state of the Logos before the incarnation and translate this expression as follows: "there has existed from time immemorial (ἦν) the true Light." Thus, here one finds the opposition of the eternal existence of the Logos to the temporal and transient existence of the Forerunner. Many new interpreters, on the contrary, see in the expression under consideration an indication that the Logos, the true Light, had already come to earth when the Forerunner began to bear witness to Him. They give the following translation to our place: “The true Light has already come,” or, according to another translation, “already emerged from the state of concealment” (in which His life passed until the age of 30). In such a translation, the Greek verb ἦν is given the meaning not of an independent predicate, but of a simple connective referring to the last expression of the verse ἐρχόμενον εἰς τὸν κόσμον.

Our interpreters (including Znamensky) adhere to the first opinion, finding the second combination of expressions "too artificial." But it seems to us that in the second interpretation we avoid the interruption in the flow of thought which necessarily results from the admission of the first translation. Indeed, if we find here an indication of the existence of Light before the incarnation, then this will mean that the evangelist unnecessarily returned again to his discourse on the Logos, which he had already finished when he began to speak about the appearance of the Forerunner (verse 6). Meanwhile, in the second translation, the sequence of thoughts is completely preserved: John came; he was sent to testify of the true Light; this true Light had already appeared in the world at that time, and therefore John wanted to testify about Him.

Further, if in the expression ἐρχόμενον εἰς τὸν κόσμον one sees an application to the expression τὸν ἄνθρωπον, then this expression will be completely superfluous, it will not add anything to the concept of "man" (ὁ ἄνθρωπος). Finally, if such a division of the verb copula ἦν from the predicate ἐρχόμενον εἰς τὸν κόσμον seems unnatural to some, then doubters can point to other similar combinations in the Gospel of John (John 1:28, 11:1, 18:18). And among the synoptics, a similar expression ἐρχόμενος denotes the Messiah, i.e. The Logos is in the state of incarnation (Matt. 11:3; Luke 7:19).

In what sense did the evangelist call Christ "the true Light"? The word ἀληθινός - “true”, can mean: real, reliable, sincere, true to oneself, fair, but here the most appropriate is the special meaning of this adjective: fully realizing the idea underlying the existence of one or another object, fully corresponding to its name. So we use this expression when we say: true freedom, true hero. If John says about God that He is Θεός ἀληθινός, then by this he wants to indicate that He is the only one, to Whom this name "God" befits. (cf. John 17:3; 1 John 5:20). When he uses the adjective ἀληθής about God, he indicates by this the truth of God's promises, the faithfulness of God to His words (John 3:33). Thus, by calling Christ here the true Light (ἀληθινόν), John means by this that any other light - whether it be sensual light, light for our eyes, or spiritual light, which some of the best representatives of mankind tried to spread in the world, even sent from God, like John the Baptist, could not come close in dignity to Christ, who alone corresponded to the concept that we have about light.

John 1:10. He was in the world, and the world came into being through Him, and the world did not know Him.

Identifying in his presentation the Logos, which is here also called Light and Life, and the Man - Jesus, John here and further speaks of light as a man ("He" - αὐτόν "did not know": αὐτόν - masculine gender). The Messiah was already in the world when John the Baptist began to testify about Him, and was also after, when this God-sent witness had already fallen silent forever, and it was natural to think that the world once created by Him would recognize Him as its Creator. But this, surprisingly, did not happen: the world did not recognize Him and did not accept Him. The evangelist does not speak about the reason for such a strange phenomenon.

John 1:11. He came to his own, and his own did not receive him.

Even more mysterious was the attitude towards the Messiah - the incarnate Logos - of that people, of whom the Messiah could say: "These are my people" (cf. Isa. 51:4). The Jews, these closest people to the Messiah, did not accept Him (παρέλαβον - indicates that they should have accepted Christ for a permanent stay with them, cf. John 14:3).

John 1:12. And to those who received Him, to those who believed in His name, He gave the power to become children of God,

However, there were people from both Jews and Gentiles (the expression ὅσοι, in Russian - “those who”, denotes believers without distinction of origin), who mistook Him for the One He declared Himself to be. The evangelist calls these those who accepted Christ believers in His "name", i.e. into His power as the Son of God (cf. John 20:31). To those who accepted Him, Christ gave "power" (ἐξουσίαν), i.e. not only the right, but also the ability, the power to become children of God (the Russian translation here incorrectly uses the verb “to be”; the verb γενέσθαι here means precisely “to become”, “become”). Thus, Christians become real children of God gradually, through an intensified struggle with the remnants of sinful inclinations. They can always be “called” children of God (1 John 3:1).

John 1:13. who were born neither of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Here the evangelist defines more precisely what it means to be a child of God. To be a child of God means to be in incomparably closer fellowship with God than children are in with their parents. Spiritual birth from God gives a person, of course, incomparably greater strength for life than ordinary parents pass on to their children, being themselves weak (this is indicated by the expressions “flesh” and “husband”, cf. Isa. 40:6; Job. 4 :17).

Here it is impossible not to note the attempt to establish a new reading of this verse, made by Tsang. Finding it incomprehensible that the evangelist here explains in such detail what it means to be born of God, Tsang suggests that in its original form this verse was read like this: » (ἐγεννήθη instead of ἐγεννήθησαν). Thus, according to Tsang, here we are talking about the seedless birth of Christ - a thought so clearly expressed in Saints Matthew and Luke. Tsang also finds confirmation of his reading in some writings of the holy fathers. He even claims that the reading he proposed was the dominant one in the West from the second to the fourth century. But as fortunate as this correction of the text may seem, nevertheless, the consistent evidence of all the ancient codices of the New Testament makes it impossible for us to accept Tzan's reading.

John 1:14. And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father.

Here begins the third part of the prologue, in which the evangelist more precisely defines the coming of the Logos as an incarnation and depicts the fullness of the salvation that the incarnated Logos brought with Him.

"And the word became flesh." Continuing the speech about the Logos and His appearance in the world, the evangelist says that the Logos became flesh, i.e. a person (the expression “flesh” usually in Holy Scripture means a person in the full sense of the word - with body and soul; cf. Gen. 6:13; Is. 40, etc.). At the same time, however, the evangelist does not make the slightest hint that, with His incarnation, the Word would suffer any diminution in His Divine nature. The derogation concerned only the "form" of existence, and not the "essence". The Logos, as it was, and remained God with all divine properties, and the divine and human natures in Him abode inseparably and inseparably.

"And dwelt among us." The Logos, who assumed human flesh, "dwelled", i.e. lived and converted among the apostles, to whom the evangelist also counts himself. Saying that the Logos "dwelt" (ἐσκήνωσε) with the apostles, the evangelist wants to say that in this way God's promise to dwell with people was fulfilled (Ezek. 37:27, 43, etc.).

"And we have seen His glory." More precisely: we contemplated, looked with surprise, reverence (ἐθεασάμεθα) at ​​His glory, i.e. incarnated Logos. His glory was revealed mainly in His miracles, for example, in the Transfiguration, which only three apostles were honored to see, including John, as well as in His teaching and even in His very humiliation.

“Glory as to the Only Begotten from the Father”, i.e. such glory as He should have had as the only Son of God, having an incomparably greater part than the other children of God, who have become so by grace. The expression "from the Father" (παρὰ πατρός) cannot refer to the word "Only Begotten" (then the preposition ἐκ would have been put instead of the preposition παρ.). This expression defines the "glory" that the Logos had: this glory received by Him from the Father.

"Full of grace and truth." These words should be at the very end of the verse, as in Greek and Slavonic texts. In the Greek text, the word "full" (πλήρης) does not agree with the nearest noun "glory", nor does it agree with the pronoun "His". Nevertheless, it is most natural to attribute this expression to the pronoun “His”, and from the grammatical side, such an agreement will not seem surprising, since among the Greeks (around the time of R. X.) the word πλήρης was often used as indeclinable (Goltsman, p. 45 ). Thus the Logos is here called "full of grace," i.e. divine love and mercy for people, “and the truth”, which was manifested in His teaching and life, in which there was nothing only apparent, but everything was real, so that the word was always in accordance with the deed.

John 1:15. John testifies of Him and, exclaiming, says: This was the One of whom I said that He who comes after me has become ahead of me, because he was before me.

“John testifies of Him...” The evangelist interrupts his reminiscences of the manifestations of the glory of the incarnated Logos by giving a testimony about Christ, which was given by the Forerunner. It is very likely that among those for whom he intended his gospel, there were many people who highly revered the Baptist and for whom his testimony about Christ was of great importance. The evangelist, as it were, even now hears the loud voice of the Baptist (the verb κέκραγεν here has the meaning of the present tense), because he, the evangelist wants to say, was fully convinced of the divine majesty of Christ.

"This was the One...". With the word “This,” the Baptist pointed out to his disciples Jesus Christ who had come up to them (cf. verse 29) and identified Him with the Person about whom he had previously spoken to them those words that he now repeats here: “He who comes after me,” etc. d.

“The one who follows me has become ahead of me.” With these words, the Baptist wants to say that Christ first walked behind him, and then, and right now, he is walking ahead of him, so to speak, overtook the Baptist. On what the Baptist based his idea of ​​Jesus at the present time, this is not visible: at that time there could be no talk of any successes of Jesus (cf. John 3:26-36). But the Baptist recognizes such anticipation of him by Jesus as quite natural in view of the fact that He was before him. The last words clearly have the meaning of defining the eternity of Christ. The Baptist, undoubtedly, in a state of prophetic rapture, announces to his disciples the great mystery of the pre-existence of Christ. Christ was, i.e. existed earlier than the Baptist, although he was born later than him. He existed, therefore, in the other world (cf. John 8:58). This idea of ​​the eternal existence of Christ is expressed in the Greek text by the use of the positive degree πρῶτός μου instead of the comparative πρότερός μου, which would be natural to expect here.

John 1:16. And from His fullness we all received, and grace upon grace,

“And from His fullness we all received.” Here the evangelist again continues his speech about Christ. Now, however, he refers not only to what the apostles alone contemplated (cf. verse 14), but says that all those who believe in Christ received "from the fullness", i.e. from the extraordinary abundance of spiritual blessings that Christ could bestow, as full of grace and truth. What, in fact, the apostles and other believers received - the evangelist does not say, hastening rather to point to the highest of the gifts - "grace" (χάριν ἀντὶ χάριτος). Some (for example, Prof. Muretov) replace the expression “grace for grace” with the expression “grace for grace”, believing that the evangelist here means that Christ is for our grace, i.e. love for people, responds on its part with grace or love (Spirit. Thu. 1903, p. 670). But we cannot agree with such a translation because the love of believers for Christ can hardly be put on the same level as the love of Christ for believers (cf. Rom. 4:4, 11:6). In addition, the word "grace" is not used in the New Testament to denote the believer's relationship to Christ. It would be more correct to see here an indication of the replacement of some gifts of grace by others, all higher and higher (ἀντί here means "instead of"). Christ at the very call of the disciples promised them that they would be worthy to see more from Him than what they had just seen (verse 50). Following this, this promise soon began to be fulfilled (John 2:11) and, finally, believers received from Christ the highest gift of grace - the Holy Spirit.

John 1:17. for the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

The evangelist here confirms the idea that believers receive grace from Christ by pointing out that grace and truth really came from Christ, appeared. And how important these gifts are is evident from the fact that the most prominent person of the Old Testament, Moses, gave people only the law from God. This law presented only demands to a person, but did not give strength to fulfill these requirements, since it could not destroy the hereditary tendency to sin in them. Moreover, Moses was only a servant, a passive instrument in the hands of Jehovah, as the expression used about him shows: “the law was given through Moses”, while it is said about the New Testament that he came (ἐγένετο) through Christ as from his master (Blessed Theophylact) .

John 1:18. No one has ever seen God; The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has revealed.

Against such an exaltation of Christ before Moses, the Jews could say: “But Moses was worthy to see God!” (cf. Numbers 12:8). In response to this supposed objection, the evangelist notes that in fact no one, even Moses, saw God: people were sometimes honored to see the glory of God under some kind of cover, but no one contemplated this glory in an inviolable form (cf. Ex. 33 :20), and the evangelist recognizes this as possible for believers only in the future life (1 John 3:2; cf. 1 Cor. 13:12). Only the Only Begotten Son, eternally - and before the incarnation and after the incarnation - abiding in the bosom of the Father - He saw and sees God in His greatness and therefore at a certain certain time revealed Him to the world, i.e., on the one hand, revealed God to people as loving their Father and revealed His attitude towards God, on the other hand, He carried out in His activity God's intentions regarding the salvation of people and through this, of course, further clarified them.

It should be noted that in many of the most ancient codices of the New Testament, instead of the expression "Only Begotten Son", there is the expression "Only Begotten God". But the difference in readings does not change the essence of the matter: both from the one and from the other reading it is clear that the evangelist wanted to express the idea of ​​the divinity of Christ. As for our reading, which is taken from the Codex Alexandrinus, it is more in line with the context of the speech and the word "Son" is best consistent with the expression "Only Begotten".

Where did John the Theologian get his doctrine of the Logos from? It is most common in the West to attribute the origin of John's teaching about the Logos to the influence of Judeo-Alexandrian philosophy, which also had the idea of ​​the Logos as a mediator between the world and God. The main exponent of this idea, the latest scholars consider the Alexandrian Jew Philo (died in 41 A.D.). But we cannot agree with such an assumption, because the Logos of Philo is not at all the same as the Logos of John. According to Philo, the Logos is nothing but the world soul, the world mind acting in matter, while John the Logos has a personality, the living historical face of Christ. Philo calls the Logos the second God, the totality of divine powers and the mind of God. It can even be said that in Philo God Himself in His ideal relation to the world is the Logos, while in John the Logos is nowhere identified with God the Father and stands in an eternally personal relation to God the Father. Then, according to Philo, the Logos is not the creator of the world out of nothing, but only the world-former, the servant of God, while in John it is the Creator of the world, the true God. According to Philo, the Logos is not eternal - he is a created being, but according to the teachings of John - eternal. The goal that, according to Philo, the Logos - the reconciliation of the world with God - cannot be achieved, since the world, due to its inevitable connection with matter, which is evil, cannot approach God. That is why Philo could not even think of the Logos taking on the flesh of a man, while the idea of ​​the Incarnation is the essence of John's teaching about the Logos. Thus, one can only speak of an outward similarity between the doctrine of the Logos of John and Philo, while the inner meaning, apparently, of the theses common to John and Philo, is completely different for both. Even the form of teaching in both is different: in Philo it is scientific-dialectical, while in John it is clear and simple.

Other exegetes believe that John in his doctrine of the Logos is based on the ancient Jewish doctrine of "Memra" - the highest being in which God is revealed and through which He enters into communion with the Jewish people and with other people. This being is personal, almost the same as the Angel of Jehovah, but, in any case, not God and not even the Messiah. From this it is clear that there is not even a superficial resemblance between the Logos of John and Memra, which is why some exegetes directly turned to the Old Testament in order to find the source of John's teaching about the Logos. Here they find a direct, in their opinion, precedent for the teachings of John in those places where the person and activity of the Angel of Jehovah is depicted. This Angel really acts and speaks like God Himself (Gen. 16:7, 13; Gen. 22:11-15) and is even called the Lord (Mal. 3:1). But nevertheless, the Angel of the Lord is nowhere called the creator of the world, and he is still only a mediator between God and the chosen people.

Finally, some of the exegetes see the dependence of John's teaching about the Logos on the teaching of some Old Testament books about the creative word of the Lord (Ps. 36:6) and the Wisdom of God (Prov. 3:19). But against such an assumption is the circumstance that in the places indicated by the defenders of such an opinion, the feature of the hypostatic peculiarity of the Divine word is too little visible. This has to be said even about the main pillar of such an opinion - about the place from the book of the Wisdom of Solomon (Wisdom 18:15-16).

In view of the unsatisfactoriness of any suggestion that John borrowed his doctrine of the Logos from any Jewish or, even more so, from a pagan source, it is quite fair to conclude that he learned this doctrine from direct revelation, which he received in his frequent conversations with Christ. He himself testifies that he received the truth from the fullness of the incarnated Logos. “Only the incarnated Logos himself, through his life, deeds and teachings, could give the apostles the key to understanding the mysteries of the Old Testament logology. Only Christ discovered the idea of ​​the Logos gave them the opportunity to correctly understand the Old Testament traces of the idea of ​​the Logos ”(Prof. M. Muretov in The Orthodox Review, 1882, vol. 2, p. 721). The very name "Logos" could also have been received by John in a direct revelation that was to him on Fr. Patmos (Rev. 19:11-13).

John 1:19. And here is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him: Who are you?

"And here is the testimony of John." In verses 6-8 and 15 the evangelist has already said that John testified of Christ. Now he talks about how he testified of Christ to the Jews (verses 19-28), the people and disciples (verses 29-34), and finally only to his two disciples (verses 35-36).

"Jews". This word here denotes the Jewish people or the actual representation of the entire Jewish people - the great Jewish Sanhedrin in Jerusalem. In fact, only the chairman of the Sanhedrin, the high priest, could send priests and Levites to John as an official deputation, which was supposed to interrogate John. The Levites were attached to the priests as guards accompanying them, they performed police duties under the Sanhedrin (cf. John 7:32, 45 et seq.; John 18:3, 12, etc.). Since the way from Jerusalem to Jericho and, consequently, to the Jordan, where John baptized, was not safe (Luke 10:30), it was not superfluous for the priests to take guards with them. But besides this, the guards were taken in order to give the embassy a strictly official character.

"Who are you?" This question suggests that rumors were circulating about John at that time, in which his importance was greatly exaggerated. As can be seen from the Gospel of Luke, the people began to look at John as the Messiah (Luke 3:15).

John 1:20. He declared, and did not deny, and declared that I am not the Christ.

John understood the question put to him precisely in the sense that the questioners would have nothing against it if he recognized himself as the Messiah. That is why he denies the dignity of the Messiah with particular force: “he declared, and did not deny,” says the evangelist. But one can hardly think that the priests would recognize in John the real Messiah. They, of course, knew that the Messiah should be born in the offspring of David, and not Aaron, from whom the Baptist was descended. More likely is the assumption of Chrysostom and other ancient interpreters that the priests, having forced a confession from John that he was the Messiah, would have arrested him for appropriating a dignity that did not belong to him.

John 1:21. And they asked him: what is it? are you Elijah? He said no. Prophet? He answered: no.

The second question of the Jews was put to John in view of the fact that the Jews were waiting for the coming of the Messiah, Elijah the prophet (Mal. 4:5). Since John, in his fiery zeal for God, resembled Elijah (cf. Matt. 11:14), the Jews ask him if he is Elijah who came from heaven? John was not such an Elijah, although he was sent “in the spirit and power of Elijah” (Luke 1:17), which is why he gave a negative answer to the question of the priests and Levites. John answered the third question of the Jewish deputation in exactly the same way, whether he was a prophet. The Jews asked him this question because they expected that before the coming of the Messiah the prophet Jeremiah or some other of the great Old Testament prophets would appear (cf. Matt. 16:14). It is clear that John could only answer this question in the negative.

John 1:22. They said to him: who are you? so that we may give an answer to those who sent us: what do you say about yourself?

John 1:23. He said: I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness: make straight the way of the Lord, as the prophet Isaiah said.

When the deputation demanded from the Baptist a final answer about his personality, John answered them that he was that voice of the wilderness, which, according to the prophecy of Isaiah (Isaiah 40:3), should call on people to prepare the way for the coming Lord. For an explanation of these words, see the comments on Matt. 3:3.

John 1:24. And the messengers were from the Pharisees;

According to the usual interpretation, here the conversation of those sent from the Sanhedrin with the Baptist continues. But this interpretation cannot be accepted for the following reasons:

1) it would be strange if the evangelist, having already given a description of the deputation, now only pointed out that it consisted entirely of Pharisees;

2) it is unbelievable that the Sanhedrin, in which the bishops, who belonged to the Sadducean party (for Jewish parties, see comments on Mt. 3 et seq.), occupied a dominant position (Acts 5:17), would entrust the investigation of the case of John to the Pharisees, who diverged with the Sadducees in their views on the Messiah;

3) it is unlikely that there were many Pharisees between the priests and the Levites, who almost always grouped only around the rabbis;

4) while the last question of the deputation from the Sanhedrin testifies to its complete indifference to the cause of John (see verse 22), these Pharisees are very interested in the baptism that John performed;

5) according to the best codes, the word ἀπεσταλμένοι stands without the article ὁ, which is why this place cannot be translated as in Russian: “and those who were sent were from the Pharisees”, but should be translated like this: “and the Pharisees were sent”, or: “and they were (still) sent some of the Pharisees.”

Thus, here the evangelist conveys a private request made to the Baptist by the Pharisees, who also came from Jerusalem on behalf of their party. This request followed when the official deputation had just retired, which, however, the evangelist did not consider it necessary to mention, just as he does not mention, for example, the departure from Christ Nicodemus (John 3:21).

John 1:25. And they asked him: what do you baptize if you are neither the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the prophet?

The Pharisees want to know the meaning of John's baptism. He obviously invites everyone to something new by this baptism - what does this new consist of? Does the activity of the Baptist have anything to do with the Kingdom of the Messiah, which everyone then expected? Such is the meaning of the question of the Pharisees.

John 1:26. John answered and said to them: I baptize with water; but there stands among you one whom you do not know.

John replies to the Pharisees that his baptism is not as important as the baptism that the Pharisees imagined the Messiah or any of the prophets would perform. He, John, baptizes only in water, obviously opposing his own baptism in thought to the baptism with the Holy Spirit that the Messiah will perform (Matt. 3:11). No, as John says, you should not focus all your attention on me, but on Him Who is already among you unknown to you, i.e., of course, on the Messiah, Whom you are waiting for.

John 1:27. He is the one who follows me, but who has become ahead of me. I am not worthy to untie His shoes.

(See verse 15).

"Untie the belt" - see Matt. 3:11.

John 1:28. This took place at Bethabara near the Jordan, where John was baptizing.

Instead of the name "Bethabara" (place of crossing), in most ancient codices the name "Bethany" is used. This Bethany should be understood as a place after that, i.e. on the east side of the Jordan (in the Russian text it is inaccurate - “at the Jordan”). Tzan identifies it with the Vetonim mentioned in the book of Joshua (Josh. 13:26). This place is located 10 kilometers from the Jordan. The Baptist probably had his stay here, when many disciples gathered around him, who could not stay in the desert all the time in the heat and cold, without shelter. From here the Baptist could go daily to the Jordan and preach there.

John 1:29. The next day, John sees Jesus coming towards him and says, Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.

The next morning, after a conversation with a deputation from the Sanhedrin and with the Pharisees, John, probably in the same place by the Jordan River, seeing Jesus approaching him, testified about Him aloud in front of all those around him as about the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world. Why Jesus went to John at this time is unknown. The Baptist called Christ the Lamb (ὁ ἀμνός) of God in the sense that God Himself chose and prepared Him to be sacrificed for the sins of people, just as the Jews, when they left Egypt, prepared lambs, whose blood was to save their homes from the terrible judgment of God (Ex. 12:7). God had already chosen this Lamb long ago (Rev. 13:8; 1 Pet. 1:20) and was now giving Him to people - to all people without exception. One can hardly see in the words of the Baptist any relation to the Sufferer depicted by the prophet Isaiah (Is. 53), as some ancient and new exegetes believe. In the same chapter of the book of Isaiah, the Messiah is not directly called the Lamb, but is only compared with him and is not our sins, but sickness and sorrow.

"Who takes away the sin of the world" - more precisely: takes away the sin of the world with Himself. The Baptist does not indicate the time when this Lamb will take away the sins of the world. The present tense of the verb αἴρω means, so to speak, an action not limited by a known time: Christ “every day takes upon Himself our sins, some through Baptism, others through repentance” (Blessed Theophylact).

John 1:30. This is the one about whom I said: a Man comes after me, who stood in front of me, because he was before me.

Repeating his testimony of Christ's superiority over him, the Baptist, John calls Christ a "husband", probably meaning that He is the true Husband or Bridegroom of the Church, while John himself is only the bridegroom's friend (cf. John 3:29).

John 1:31. I didn't know Him; but for this he came to baptize with water, that he might be revealed to Israel.

John 1:32. And John testified, saying, I saw the Spirit descend from heaven like a dove, and dwell on Him.

John 1:33. I didn't know Him; but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, On whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining on him, he is the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.

John 1:34. And I have seen and testified that this is the Son of God.

The audience surrounding the Baptist could ask themselves: why does he speak with such confidence about the appeared Christ? How does he know the task that lies with Christ? John, understanding the naturalness of such bewilderment, says that he also did not know Christ before, i.e. He was not aware of His high destiny, but God sent him to perform baptism in order for him to reveal, indicate to the people the Messiah, having previously recognized Him himself. And the Baptist recognized the Messiah by a special sign indicated to him in revelation by God. This sign is the descent and presence of the Spirit over the head of the Messiah, which was to descend from heaven in the form of a dove. John saw such a sign over the head of Christ and realized that He was the Messiah.

Thus, from these words of the Baptist it is clear that John did not know at first that Christ was the Messiah whom everyone then expected. It is very likely that he did not know Christ at all, since he spent his whole life in the Judean desert, remote from Nazareth, where Christ had hitherto been. Only after the revelation given to him, and especially after the baptism of Christ, did John begin to testify of Christ as the Son of God (according to some codes, as “the chosen one of God,” but Tischendorf and other critics reject the last reading). The fact that the Baptist, speaking of Christ as the Son of God, understood here the unity of Christ as the Son with God the Father in essence, and not only in the grace that rested on Him, is clearly seen from the fact that the Baptist repeatedly recognized the eternal existence of Christ (see verses 15, 27, 30).

For an explanation of the expressions: "The Spirit is like a dove", and: "He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit", see the comments on Matt. 3:11, 16.

John 1:35. The next day John stood again with two of his disciples.

John 1:36. And when he saw Jesus walking, he said, Behold the Lamb of God.

John 1:37. Hearing these words from him, both disciples followed Jesus.

Here is the third testimony of the Baptist about Christ, which was pronounced on the day after the Baptist testified about Christ before the people and his disciples. In front of his two disciples, who this time were with John, the Baptist briefly repeats what he said the day before about Christ, when Christ passed by the place where John was standing. John “fixed his eyes” on Jesus (ἐμβλέψας, inaccurate in Russian - “seeing”), who at that time was walking at some distance, as if examining the area (περιπατοῦντι, inaccurate in Russian - “walking”). The two disciples who heard John's testimony this time were Andrew (see verse 40) and, of course, John the Evangelist, who usually does not call himself by name out of a sense of humility (cf. John 13:23, 18, etc.) . The repetition of the testimony of Christ made such an impression on them that they followed Christ.

John 1:38. But Jesus, turning and seeing them coming, said to them, What do you want? They said to Him: Rabbi, which means teacher, where do you live?

John 1:39. He tells them to go and see. They went and saw where He lives; and they stayed with him that day. It was about ten o'clock.

John 1:40. One of the two who heard from John about Jesus and followed him was Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter.

Both disciples silently followed Jesus, not daring to start a conversation with Him themselves. Then He, turning to them, begins the conversation with the question: “What do you need?” The disciples, wishing to talk with Christ about everything that interested them, ask Him where He has a stay (μένειν means not “to live in one’s own house”, but “to stay as a guest in someone else’s house”, especially “stop for the night” ; compare Judges 19:9; Matt. 10:11). It can be assumed that such a residence for Christ at that time was some village on the western side of the Jordan, where there were generally more settlements than on the eastern bank.

It was about 10 o'clock when the two disciples came to the house where Jesus was staying. Since John undoubtedly counts according to the Jewish reckoning, which in his time was common to the whole East (cf. John 19:14), the tenth hour, obviously, was equal to our fourth hour in the afternoon. The disciples, therefore, stayed with Christ for the rest of that day and all night. At least, the evangelist does not say anything about them leaving by nightfall (John Chrysostom, Theodoret and Cyril, as well as Augustine). Since Andrew was named the first disciple of Christ exactly by the name of Andrew, the Church from ancient times adopted the name of the “First-Called” for him.

John 1:41. He first finds his brother Simon and says to him: we have found the Messiah, which means: Christ;

John 1:42. and brought him to Jesus. But Jesus, looking at him, said, You are Simon the son of Jonas; you will be called Kifa, which means stone (Peter).

Having retired from the house where Jesus was staying, Andrew was the first to accidentally meet his brother, Simon, who, apparently, was going to the Jordan to listen to the Baptist. Andrew happily informs his brother that this is the Messiah whom the Jews have been waiting for so long. The addition that Andrew found his brother “first” suggests that the other disciple also found his brother, Jacob, a little later. When Andrew brought his brother to Jesus, Christ fixed his gaze on Peter (here again is the same verb as in verse 36) and told him that he knew who he was (instead of "Jonine" almost all Western codices read "John ”, see, for example, Tischendorf). At the same time, Christ foretells Peter that he will be in time - the time is not exactly indicated - "to be called", i.e. according to the use of the Hebrew verb "to be called" will become a man of the highest degree of firmness and energy (cf. Gen. 32:28). Such, indeed, is the meaning of the Greek word πέτρος, which conveyed the Aramaic name “Kepha” given by Christ to Peter (more precisely, “Keifa”, corresponding to the Hebrew word “kef” - rock, stone), and Peter became such among believers over time. Christ, therefore, in the present case did not change Simon's name and did not command him to change it over time: He thus predicted Simon only a great future. Therefore, Simon, out of reverence for the Lord, taking the new name Peter, did not leave the former, calling himself Simon Peter until the end of his life (2 Pet. 1:1).

John 1:43. The next day, Jesus wanted to go to Galilee, and finds Philip and says to him: follow me.

From here to the end of the chapter we are talking about the calling of Philip and Nathanael. Philip Christ calls to follow Him with only two words: ἀκολούθει μοι (follow Me, i.e. be My disciple – cf. Matt. 9:9; Mark 2:14). However, it must be remembered that the calling of Philip, like the other disciples, this time was not yet a calling to constantly follow Christ, much less a calling to the apostolic ministry. The disciples still went home after that first call and went about their own business from time to time (cf. Matt. 4:18). It took some time for the disciples of Christ to be able to become His constant companions and take on the heavy burden of the apostolic ministry.

John 1:44. Philip was from Bethsaida, from the same city as Andrew and Peter.

Mentioning that Philip came from the same city, Bethsaida, where Andrew and Peter came from, the evangelist by this, of course, wants to say that Andrew and his brother told their countryman Philip about Christ, which is why he did not show any bewilderment when Christ called him follow yourself. Bethsaida, the birthplace of Andrew and Peter (they lived not in Bethsaida, but in Capernaum, see Mark 1 et seq.), was a city on the northeastern shore of the Sea of ​​Gennesaret, equipped by the tetrarch Philip and named by him in honor of the daughter of Augustus Julia. Near this city, closer to the sea, there was a village, also called Bethsaida (“house of fishing”; about Bethsaida, see also the commentary on Mark 6:45), and Philip came from the village itself, which the evangelist identifies with the city as its suburb.

John 1:45 Philip finds Nathanael and says to him: We have found Him about whom Moses in the law and the prophets wrote, Jesus the son of Joseph of Nazareth.

Nathanael (God-given) had another name - Bartholomew (see Matt. 10:3).

"Moses in the law and the prophets" (see Luke 24:27).

"Son of Joseph". So Philip calls Christ, because he did not yet know the secret of the origin of Christ.

John 1:46. But Nathanael said to him, Can anything good come from Nazareth? Philip tells him to go and see.

Nazareth (cf. Mt. 2:23) obviously enjoyed a bad reputation among the Galileans, if Nathanael speaks so badly of him. That is why it seems incredible to Nathanael that the Messiah should come from such a city of unenviable reputation.

John 1:47. Jesus, seeing Nathanael coming towards Him, speaks of him: behold, truly an Israelite, in whom there is no deceit.

When, at the invitation of Philip, Nathanael went to Christ, Christ told His disciples about him that Nathanael was a real Israelite, without any falsehood. There are Israelis who undeservedly bear the sacred name of Israel, who are full of all sorts of vices in their souls (cf. Matt. 23:25), but Nathanael is not like that.

John 1:48. Nathanael says to him: why do you know me? Jesus answered and said to him, Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you.

Nathanael, having heard the good opinion made about him by Christ, asks Christ in surprise, why does He know him, knows his character? In response, Christ points to His supernatural knowledge, reminding Nathanael of some incident in his life that only Nathanael knew about. But this incident seems to have been of such a nature that Nathanael's truly Israelite dignity was expressed in it.

John 1:49. Nathanael answered Him: Rabbi! You are the Son of God, You are the King of Israel.

All doubts of Nathanael then disappeared, and he expressed his firm faith in Christ as the Son of God and the King of Israel. However, some exegetes interpret the name "Son of God" used by Nathanael in the sense of denoting the Messianic dignity of Christ - no more, considering it a synonym for the following title "King of Israel". Perhaps this interpretation is supported by the fact that Nathanael did not yet know about the origin of Christ from God and subsequently (see, for example, the farewell conversation of Christ with the disciples) did not show sufficient confidence in the divinity of Christ. But there can be no doubt that here Nathanael used the title "Son of God" in the true sense of the word. If he meant the Messiah by the Son of God, he would have to put in advance the more usual name of the Messiah - "King of Israel." Moreover, he calls Christ the Son of God in a special, exclusive sense, as evidenced by the article ὁ placed before the word υἱός. It now became quite clear to him what John the Baptist had previously said about Christ (verse 34). Finally, Nathanael could be convinced that Christ is a Being of a higher, divine nature by recalling the words of the 2nd Psalm, where God is depicted “today”, i.e. forever begetting the Son, by which the Son differs from all men (Ps. 2:7).

John 1:50. Jesus answered and said to him: You believe because I told you: I saw you under the fig tree; you will see more of it.

For such a willingness to believe, Christ promises Nathanael and, of course, together with him to other disciples, to show even greater miracles. At the same time, Christ apparently accepts Nathanael as one of his followers.

John 1:51. And he said to him: Truly, truly, I say to you, from now on you will see the heavens opened and the angels of God ascending and descending to the Son of Man.

The picture of the future that Christ paints here is undoubtedly related to the picture of Jacob's dream (Gen. 28:12). As there, so here the Angels are first "ascending", and then already "descending". There is no doubt that Christ and the evangelist himself, citing these words of Christ about angels, recognized that angels are indeed the executors of God's commands concerning people (cf. Ps. 102 et seq.; Heb. 1:7, 14) . But what time did Christ have in mind when He predicted that His disciples would see the open sky and the descending and ascending angels? We do not see from the further narrative of John that the disciples of Christ ever saw Angels. And Christ says that "from now on" (ἀπ´ ἄρτι it is necessary, according to the context of the speech, to recognize the authentic expression, although it is not available in many codes) will see these Angels. Obviously, this ascent and descent of the Angels must be understood in a figurative sense, and the very vision of the Angels by the disciples had to be done in the spirit. The Lord deigned to express with these wonderful words that from now on He will be the center of free communication and uninterrupted unity between God and man, that in Him there will be a place of meeting and reconciliation between heaven and earth. From now on, uninterrupted communications will be established between heaven and earth through these blessed spirits called Angels (Trench).

According to Tzan, Christ here calls Himself “Son of Man” in the same sense in which this name is used by Him in the speeches contained in the Synoptic Gospels, and there, according to the same scholar, it denotes the true humanity of Christ, shows in Him the most ideal man (see Matt. 8:20, 12 and especially Matt. 16:13). But this interpretation cannot be accepted. The Lord here, in verse 51, obviously identifies Himself (the Son of Man) with Jehovah, who appeared in a dream to Jacob, sitting at the top of the ladder along which the angels ascended to Him. That He had reason to do so is evident from Genesis 31, where it is said that it was not God who appeared to Jacob at Bethel, but the Angel of God (Gen. 31:11-13). The Angel of God and Jehovah should be understood as the Only Begotten Son of God, Who appeared to the patriarchs of the Old Testament. So, Christ predicts here that the Angels, just as in the Old Testament served Him (the vision of Jacob), so now in the New Testament they will serve Him as the Messiah or, which is the same, the Son of Man (cf. Dan. 7:13-14) , of course, in the matter of arranging by Him among the people of His messianic Kingdom. “Do you see,” says St. John Chrysostom, “how Christ little by little raises Nathanael from the earth and inspires us not to imagine Him as a simple man?.. With these words, the Lord inspired to recognize Him as the Lord of the Angels. As to the true Son of the King, to Christ, these royal servants ascended and descended, such as: during the suffering, during the resurrection and ascension, and even before that they came and served Him - when they announced His birth, when they exclaimed: “glory in to God on high, and on earth peace," when they came to Mary, to Joseph."

Thus, here in John the term “Son of Man” does not mean an ordinary person, but the Messiah, the incarnate Only-begotten Son of God, reconciling heaven with earth. (The meaning of this term in John will be discussed in the explanation of the following chapters, see John 3:13, 5, etc.)

Introduction.

Author.

The author's name is not mentioned in the text. This, in general, is not surprising, because in their literary form the Gospels differ from epistles or letters. Thus, the apostle Paul began each of his epistles by indicating his own name, as was customary in the ancient world. But as for the compilers of the four Gospels, not one of them names himself. And yet, as authors, they did not remain unknown. For in the course of their work they "revealed themselves" in an indirect form, or their names became known, conveyed to posterity by legends.

The so-called internal testimonies of who exactly wrote the fourth Gospel form a whole chain. 1) The word "this" (used in the second case - "and wrote this") in Jn. 21:24 refers to the entire gospel, not just the last chapter. 2) "This disciple" in 21:24 refers to the disciple "whom Jesus loved" (21:7). 3) From 21:7 it becomes clear that this particular disciple of Jesus was one of the seven listed in 21:2 (Simon Peter, Thomas, Nathanael, two sons of Zebedee and two not named).

4) The "disciple whom Jesus loved" reclined at the Last Supper near the Lord, and Peter "made a sign" to him (13:23-24). 5) He had to be one of the twelve disciples, since only they were with the Lord at the Last Supper (Mark 14:17; Luke 22:14). 6) It follows from the gospel narratives that John was in close relationship with Peter and together with him was one of the three disciples especially close to the Lord (John 20:2-10; Mark 5:37-38; 9:2-3; 14:33). Since James, brother of John, was killed in A.D. 44 (Acts 12:2), he could not be the author of this gospel.

7) The expression "another disciple" in Jn. 18:15-16 probably refers to the same disciple "whom Jesus loved" since both terms are used of the same person in 20:2. 8) The beloved disciple of Jesus stood near the cross (19:26), and what is said in 19:35, following all this "logical chain", refers to him. 9) "Closing it", let us refer to the words of the author of the fourth Gospel: "and we saw His glory" (1:14), which could only be said by an eyewitness of what happened (compare 1 John 1:1-4).

So, all these facts, taken together, convincingly testify in favor of the fact that it was John, one of the sons of the Galilean fisherman Zebedee, who was the author of the fourth Gospel.

External evidence is the affirmation of church tradition, which initially declared John, the son of Zebedee, the author of the fourth Gospel. Let us refer to Polycrates, who lived in 69-155. according to R. Kh., who personally knew the apostle John. Irenaeus (130-200 A.D.), Bishop of Lyons, testified from the words of Polycrates that "John, the disciple of the Lord, reclining at His chest, compiled the Gospel in the days of his residence in Asia, in the city of Ephesus" ( book "Against Heresies"). Polycrates, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian and other later Church Fathers supported this view. And Eusebius clarified that two of the apostles - Matthew and John - wrote the Gospels that bear their names ("History of the Church").

Place and time of writing.

Tradition definitely says that the apostle John worked for many years in the Ephesian church, founded by the apostle Paul. We find confirmation of this in Rev. 1:9-11. While in exile on the island of Patmos off the coast of Asia Minor, he wrote epistles to seven churches in the province of Asia, the first of which was addressed to the church in Ephesus. So it is quite probable that it was in Ephesus that he wrote the “fourth” Gospel.

And this happened, apparently, between 85 and 95 years. The gospel of John was already known to the early Church as the "fourth", and its fathers believed that it was written by John, who had reached a very advanced age. Indirect confirmation of the last argument is found in John. 21:18 and 23, which refers to the "old" Peter, and hints that John will outlive him.

Purpose of writing.

Formulated in 20:31, it was to bring the "signs" shown by Christ to the readers of the Gospel so that they would believe in Him. Undoubtedly, the author had other goals. Thus, some believe that John spoke out here against synagogue Judaism, others - that he was against the Gnostics or against the followers of John the Baptist.

It is believed that this gospel was written to complement the other three. One way or another, there is no doubt that when writing this book, the apostle John set himself an openly evangelistic task (as well as other evangelists, by the way); and throughout its history the Church has made extensive use of the book of the apostle John for this very purpose.

The difference between this gospel and the other three gospels.

This difference is clearly evident when comparing all four Gospels. For example, John says nothing about the genealogy of Jesus, about His birth, baptism, temptation in the wilderness, nor about His casting out demons; it does not include a parable or a scene of His transfiguration, does not mention His institution of the Lord's Supper, and is silent about His agony in the Garden of Gethsemane and His ascension.

John's narrative focuses on Jesus' ministry in Jerusalem, on Jewish folk festivals, on the Lord's contacts and conversations with various people (for example, chapters 3-4; 18:28 - 19:16) and on His fellowship with and ministry to His disciples (chapters 13-17). A significant part of this gospel is what may be called the "Book of Signs" (1:19 - 12:50), which includes stories of seven miracles performed by Jesus as evidence that He is the Messiah, the Son of God. This same "book" includes His wonderful conversations, in which He explains the meaning and significance of the miracles He has created. Thus, after feeding 5,000 people (6:1-15), Jesus speaks of Himself as the "bread of life" that is given to the world by the Heavenly Father (6:25-35).

Another distinctive feature of the fourth gospel is the seven "I am" of Jesus (6:35; 8:12; 10:7,9,11,14; 11:25; 14:6; 15:1,5). All these features must be constantly kept in mind when studying the Gospel of John.

None of the Gospels was intended simply as a biographical account. Each evangelist, from the multitude of material available to him, chose what corresponded to his goal. It is estimated that reading aloud all the words spoken by Jesus and recorded by Matthew, Mark, and Luke would take only three hours. Not much, considering that Jesus' ministry lasted about three years! Each evangelist, describing certain miracles performed by Christ, and citing the parables spoken by Him, omits others.

The focus of each gospel is the gospel of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Any of them could be called "The Narrative of the Passion of the Lord, with Incidental Explanations", since in the center of each is the death of Christ (for example, Mark 11-16), and, in addition to it, as much "additional" information as required (for example, Mark 1-10) to explain the essence and character of the One who came to serve people and die for them.

Seven "signs" of Jesus in the Gospel of John:

1. Turning water into wine at Cana (2:1-11)
2. Healing of the son of a courtier in Capernaum (4:46-54)
3. Healing of the Paralytic at the Pool of Bethesda in Jerusalem (5:1-18)
4. Feeding 5,000 near the Sea of ​​Galilee (6:5-14)
5. Walking on water in the Sea of ​​Galilee (6:16-21)
6. Healing of the blind man in Jerusalem (9:1-7)
7. Raising of Lazarus in Bethany (11:1-45)

Seven "I am" in the Gospel of John:

1. "I am the bread of life" (6:35)
2. "I am the light of the world" (8:12)
3. "I am the door to the sheep" (10:7 compare with verse 9)
4. "I am the Good Shepherd" (10:11,14)
5. "I am the resurrection and the life" (11:25)
6. "I am the way and the truth and the life" (14:6)
7. "I am the true vine" (15:1 compare with verse 5)

John, son of Zebedee, was Peter's co-worker in Jerusalem in the early years after the founding of the church there (Acts 3:1-4:23; 8:14; 12:1-2). Paul later wrote of John as one of the "honored pillars" of the Jerusalem church (Gal. 2:9). This church was led by the apostles, but James, brother of Jesus Christ, Peter and John played a special role in its leadership (Acts 3:1; 4:3-21; 8:14-24; 15:7-11,13-21) . In the early years of the existence of the Jerusalem church, the foundation of apostolic teaching and preaching was laid.

After many people joined the church, its members "continued in the teaching of the Apostles" - we read in Acts. 2:42. Later, the number of believers in Christ increased to 5,000 (Acts 4:4). There was a need to create an integral theological system. The basis of this system was the fulfillment in Jesus Christ of the messianic Old Testament prophecies. Primary importance was attached to the study of His "oral Torah", i.e., the commands He spoke (Matt. 28:20),

According to church tradition, the Gospel of Mark was written on the basis of Peter's sermons. It seems that what is said in Acts also testifies in favor of this. 10:36-43;. Based on this, the conclusion suggests itself that John, who had been collaborating with Peter for many years, was well acquainted with this approach to Christ's truth and the principles of its presentation.

After a long stay in Jerusalem (perhaps he spent 20 years there), the apostle John moved to the Asia Minor city of Ephesus. There, guided by the Holy Spirit in the process of writing the gospel, John greatly supplemented the apostolic teaching developed earlier in Jerusalem. Thus, the image of Jesus Christ is recreated by John on the basis of observations and facts, 93% of which are not contained in the Synoptic Gospels. But according to John, even his "contribution" was only a small part of what could be said (John 20:3-31; 21:25). (For more on how the four gospels relate to each other, see the introductions to the commentaries on Matthew and Mark.)

Structure and theme.

The key word in the Gospel of John is "believe" (pisteuo), which occurs 98 times in the Greek text (but we do not find the corresponding noun "faith" (pistis) in the original text). The forms of the mentioned Greek verb seem to indicate that John wanted to emphasize the permanence and vitality of active faith in Jesus Christ. The book can be divided into the following main parts: Prologue (1:1-18); "Book of Signs" (1:19 - 12:50); Farewell instructions (chapters 13-17); The suffering, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (chapters 18-20); Epilogue (chapter 21).

The prologue here corresponds to a theological introduction, from which readers understand that the words and deeds of Jesus are the words and deeds of God come in the flesh. The Book of Signs describes seven miracles that testify that the glory of the Father is at work in the Son. By consistently describing the miracles and outlining the conversations that accompanied them, John shows how the believers progressed in their faith and the unbelievers became even more hardened. Toward the end of Jesus' ministry, as a response to it, unreasonable unbelief on the part of the Jews prevailed (12:37).

The purpose of the Lord's parting instructions was to prepare His followers for His impending death and for the ministry that lay ahead of them.

The unbelief of the Jews reaches its climax in the "Paschal section" of the Gospel, and the faith of the disciples is confirmed in that part of it, which describes the events that took place after the resurrection of Christ. The epilogue outlines the Lord's plan for His disciples.

Book plan:

I. Prologue (1:1-18)

A. The Word (Logos) in Eternity and Time (1:1-5)

B. Testimony of John the Baptist (1:6-8)

C. Coming of Light (1:9-13)

D. Incarnation and revelation (1:14-18)

II. Appearance of Jesus to the people (1:19 - 12:50)

A. Jesus' early ministry (1:19 - 4:54)

B. Dispute in Jerusalem (Chapter 5)

C. Revelation of Jesus in Galilee (6:1 - 7:9)

D. Return of Jesus to Jerusalem and renewed hostility towards Him (7:10 - 10:39)

E. The Great Sign in Bethany (11:1-44)

E. Conspiracy to kill Jesus (11:45-57)

G. The end of Jesus' public ministry (12:1-36)

3. Unbelief of the Jews (12:37-50)

III. Jesus Prepares His Disciples (chapters 13-17)

A. Last Supper (13:1-30)

B. The Departure of Jesus is Coming (13:31-38)

C. Jesus is the way to the Father (14:1-14)

D. Jesus' promise to send a Comforter (14:15-31)

E. Vine and branches (15:1-10)

E. Friends of Jesus (15:11-17)

G. The hatred of the world (15:18 - 16:4)

3. Work of the Holy Spirit (16:5-15)

I. Prediction of change (16:16-33)

J. Jesus' Intercessory Prayer (chapter 17)

IV The Passion of Jesus, His Death and Resurrection (chapters 18-20)

A. The Arrest of Jesus (18:1-11)

B. Jesus before the Sanhedrin and Peter's denial of Him (18:12-27)

C. Jesus' Civil Trial (18:28 - 19:16)

D. Crucifixion (19:17-30)

E. Burial (19:31-42)

E. Empty tomb (20:1-9)

G. Appearance of Jesus to Mary (20:10-18)

3. Appearance of Jesus to His disciples (20:19-23)

I. Appearance of Jesus to Thomas (20:24-29)

J. The Purpose of Writing the Book (20:30-31)

V. Epilogue (chapter 21)

A. Appearance of Jesus "by the sea" (21:1-14)

B. Jesus forgives Peter and draws him closer to Him again (21:15-23)

C. John's closing words (21:24-25)

The power of the Holy Spirit, as it is written () and as we believe, is accomplished in weakness, in weakness not only of the body, but also of the mind and eloquence. This is evident both from many other things, and especially from what grace showed on the great theologian and brother of Christ. His father was a fisherman; John himself was engaged in the same craft as his father; he not only did not receive a Greek and Jewish education, but was not at all learned, as the divine Luke remarks about him in Acts (). Yes, and his fatherland is the poorest and humblest, like a place in which they were engaged in fishing, and not in the sciences. Bethsaida gave birth to him. However, look what kind of Spirit this unlearned, ignorant, unremarkable in any respect received. He thundered about what none of the other evangelists taught us. Since they proclaim the incarnation of Christ, but did not say anything quite clear and evident about His pre-eternal existence, there was a danger that people, attached to the earthly and unable to think of anything lofty, would think that Christ only began His existence then, when born of Mary, and not born of the Father before the ages. As is well known, the Samosata Paul fell into such a delusion. Therefore, the great John proclaims the heavenly birth, without failing, however, to mention the incarnation of the Word. For says: "And the Word became flesh" ().

Others say that the Orthodox asked him to write about the mountain birth, because at that time heretics appeared who taught that Jesus was a simple man. It is also said that St. John, having read the writings of the other evangelists, marveled at the truth of their narration about everything and recognized them as sane and did not say anything to please the apostles. However, what they did not clearly say or completely kept silent, he spread, clarified and added in his Gospel, which he wrote while he was in captivity on the island of Patmos, thirty-two years after the Ascension of Christ.

John was loved by the Lord more than all the disciples for his simplicity, meekness, good nature and purity of heart or virginity. As a result of such a talent, he was also entrusted with theology, the enjoyment of the sacraments, invisible to many. For "blessed," it is said, pure in heart, for they shall see God."(). John was also a relative of the Lord. But as? Listen. Joseph, the betrothed of the Most Pure Theotokos, had by his first wife seven children, four males and three females, Martha, Esther and Salome; this Salome John was the son. Thus, it turns out that the Lord was his uncle. Since Joseph is the father of the Lord, and Salome is the daughter of this Joseph, then Salome is the sister of the Lord, and therefore her son John is the nephew of the Lord.

Perhaps it is not inappropriate to make out the names of John's mother and the evangelist himself. The mother, called Salome, means peaceful, and John - her grace. So, let every soul know that peace with people and peace from the passions in the soul becomes the mother of divine grace and gives birth to it in us. For a soul that is indignant and waging war with other people and with itself, it is unnatural to be rewarded with divine grace.

We also see another wonderful circumstance in this evangelist John. Namely: he is only one, and he has three mothers: his own Salome, thunder, for for the great voice in the Gospel he is the “son of thunders” (), and the Mother of God, for it is said: "Behold, your mother!" ().

Having said this before the explanation, we must now begin to analyze the speeches of John themselves.

The conviction of the Orthodox Church that the beloved disciple of Christ, the Apostle John, was the writer of the Fourth Gospel is based on the firm testimony of ancient Christian church tradition.

First of all, St. Irenaeus of Lyons, in his "Refutation of Gnosis" (circa 185), referring to the tradition of the Church of Asia Minor, to which he belonged in his upbringing, says that the Lord's disciple John wrote the Gospel in Ephesus. He also cites excerpts from the Gospel of John to refute the teachings of the Valentinian heretics.

In the epistles of St. Ignatius of Antioch there are hints that he knew the Gospel of John. Thus, he says that Christ did nothing apart from the Father (Magn. 7:1; cf. Jn. 5 :19), speaks of the bread of life, which is the body of Christ (1 Cor. 10 :16; cf. In. 6 :51), about the Spirit who knows where He goes and whence He comes (Philad. 7, 1; cf. Jn. 3 :8), about Jesus as a door (Philad. 9:1; cf. Jn. 10 :9).

Justin the Martyr, who lived in Ephesus before settling in Rome, not only adheres to the teaching of the Gospel of John in his teaching on the Logos, but says that his teaching is based on the “memoirs of the apostles”, i.e., obviously, on the Gospels (Dial 100:4 and Apol. 67:3). He mentions the word of Jesus to Nicodemus about regeneration (Apol. 61; cf. Jn. 3 :3 ff.).

About the same time (about the 60s of the second century) the Montanists formally based their doctrine that the Spirit of Comfort speaks through them on the Gospel of John. The attempt of their enemies - the Alogians - to attribute the 4th Gospel, as having served as a formal support for heretics, to the heretic Kerinfus did not have any success and only served as an occasion to testify to the Church's faith in the origin of the 4th Gospel precisely from John (Irenaeus of Lyon. " Against heresies, III, 11, 1). In the same way, the attempt of the Gnostics to use different terms from the Gospel of John did not shake the faith in the authenticity of this Gospel in the Church.

In the era of Marcus Aurelius (161-180), both in the Church of Asia Minor and outside it, the 4th Gospel is recognized by all as the work of the Apostle John. So the acts of Carp and Papila, Theophilus of Antioch, Meliton, Apollinaris of Hierapolis, Tatian, Athenagoras (Old Latin and Syriac translations already have the Gospel of John) are all obviously well acquainted with the Gospel of John. Saint Clement of Alexandria even speaks of the reason for which John wrote his Gospel (Eusebius, Church History, VI, 14, 7). The Muratorian Fragment also testifies to the origin of the Gospel of John (see "Analecta", published by Preishen, 1910, p. 27).

Thus, the Gospel of John existed in Asia Minor, undoubtedly, from the beginning of the 2nd century and was read, and about half of the 2nd century it found access to other areas where Christians lived, and gained respect for itself as the work of the Apostle John. Given this state of affairs, it is not at all surprising that in many writings of the apostolic men and apologists we still do not find quotations from the Gospel of John or allusions to its existence. But the very fact that the disciple of the heretic Valentinus (who came to Rome around 140), Heracleon, wrote a commentary on the Gospel of John, indicates that the Gospel of John appeared much earlier than the second half of the 2nd century, since, undoubtedly, writing interpretation of a work that has only recently appeared would be rather strange. Finally, the testimonies of such pillars of Christian science as Origen (3rd century), Eusebius of Caesarea and Blessed Jerome (4th century) on the authenticity of the Gospel of John clearly speak for the fact that nothing can be concluded in church tradition about the origin of the fourth Gospel. thorough.

Apostle John the Evangelist

Where the apostle John came from, nothing definite can be said about this. About his father, Zebedee, it is only known that he lived with his sons James and John in Capernaum and was engaged in fishing on a fairly large scale, as indicated by the fact that he had workers (Mk. 1 :twenty). A more prominent personality is the wife of Zebedee, Salome, who belonged to those women who accompanied Christ the Savior and from their own means acquired what was required for the maintenance of a rather large circle of Christ's disciples, who constituted almost a permanent retinue of Him (Lk. 8 :1–3; Mk. 15 :41). She shared the ambitious desires of her sons and asked Christ to fulfill their dreams (Matt. 20 :twenty). She was present from a distance when the Savior was taken down from the cross (Matt. 27 :55 et seq.) and participated in the purchase of fragrances for anointing the body of the buried Christ (Mk. 16 :one; cf. OK. 23 :56).

The Zebedee family was, according to legend, related to the family of the Blessed Virgin: Salome and the Blessed Virgin were sisters, and this tradition is in full accordance with the fact that the Savior, while He was to betray His Spirit from minute to minute The Father, hanging on the cross, entrusted the Blessed Virgin to the care of John (see comments on Jn. 19 :25). This kinship can also explain why, of all the disciples, James and John claimed the first places in the Kingdom of Christ (Matt. 20 :21). But if James and John were nephews of the Most Holy Virgin, then they, therefore, were also related to John the Baptist (cf. Lk. 1 :36), whose preaching must therefore have been of particular interest to them. All these families were imbued with one pious, truly Israeli mood. This is evidenced, among other things, by the fact that all the names that the members of these families bore are real Jewish without an admixture of Greek or Latin nicknames.

From the fact that James is everywhere called before John, we can confidently conclude that John was younger than James, and tradition calls him the youngest among the apostles. John was no more than 20 years old when Christ called him to follow Him, and the tradition that he lived to the reign of the emperor Trajan (king 98-117) does not include improbability: John was then about 90 years. Shortly after being called to follow Him, Christ called John to a special, apostolic ministry, and John became one of the 12 apostles of Christ. By virtue of his special love and devotion to Christ, John became one of the closest and most trusted disciples of Christ, and even the most beloved. He was honored to be present at the most important events in the life of the Savior, for example, at His Transfiguration, at the prayer of Christ in Gethsemane, etc. In contrast to the Apostle Peter, John lived a more internal, contemplative life than an external, practically active one. He observes rather than acts, he more often plunges into his inner world, discussing in his mind the greatest events that he was called to witness. His soul hovered more in the heavenly world, which is why the symbol of the eagle was assimilated in church icon painting from ancient times (Bazhenov, pp. 8–10). But sometimes John also showed an ardor of soul, even extreme irritability: this was when he stood up for the honor of his Teacher (Lk. 9 :54; Mk. 9 :38–40). An ardent desire to be closer to Christ was also reflected in John's request to grant him, together with his brother, the first positions in the glorious Kingdom of Christ, for which John was ready to go with Christ and suffer (Matt. 20 :20–28). For such a capacity for unexpected impulses, Christ called John and James "sons of thunder" (Mk. 3 :17), predicting at the same time that the preaching of both brothers will irresistibly, like thunder, act on the souls of the listeners.

After the ascension of Christ to heaven, the apostle John, together with the apostle Peter, acts as one of the representatives of the Christian Church in Jerusalem (Acts. 3 :1 etc.; Acts. 2 :4, 8 :14–25). At the Apostolic Council in Jerusalem in the winter of 51-52, John, together with Peter and the Primate of the Jerusalem Church, James, recognizes the Apostle Paul's right to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles, without at the same time obliging them to observe the law of Moses (Gal. 2 :nine). Already at that time, therefore, the importance of the apostle John was great. But how it must have increased when Peter, Paul, and James died!

Settling in Ephesus, John for another 30 years held the position of leader of all the churches of Asia, and of the other disciples of Christ around him, he enjoyed exceptional respect from the believers. Tradition tells us some details about the activities of the Apostle John during this period of his stay in Ephesus. Thus, it is known from tradition that he annually celebrated the Christian Easter at the same time as the Jewish Passover and fasted before Easter. Then one day he left the public bath, seeing the heretic Kerinth there. “Let’s run away,” he said to those who came with him, “so that the bath does not collapse, because in it is Kerinth, the enemy of truth.” How great was his love and compassion for people, this is evidenced by the story of a young man whom John converted to Christ and who, in his absence, joined a gang of robbers. John, according to the words of St. Clement of Alexandria, himself went to the robbers and, meeting the young man, begged him to return to the good path. In the very last hours of his life, John, no longer able to speak long speeches, only repeated: “Children, love one another!” And when the listeners asked him why he kept repeating the same thing, the "apostle of love" - ​​such a nickname was established for John - answered: "Because this is the commandment of the Lord, and if only to fulfill it, this would be enough." Thus, the will that does not allow any compromise between the holy God and the sinful world, devotion to Christ, love for the truth, combined with compassion for the unfortunate brothers - these are the main features of the character of John the Theologian, which are imprinted in Christian tradition.

John, according to tradition, testified to his devotion to Christ by his sufferings. So, under Nero (king 54-68), he was brought to Rome in chains, and here he was first forced to drink a cup of poison, and then, when the poison did not work, they threw him into a cauldron of boiling oil, from which, however, the apostle also did not suffer. During his stay in Ephesus, John had to go to live on about. Patmos, located 40 geographical miles southwest of Ephesus. Here, in mysterious visions, the future destinies of the Church of Christ were revealed to him, which he depicted in his Apocalypse. On about. Patmos the apostle remained until the death of the emperor Domitian (96), when, by order of the emperor Nerva (king 96-98), he was returned to Ephesus.

John died, probably in the 7th year of the reign of Emperor Trajan (AD 105), having reached the age of one hundred.

The Reason and Purpose of Writing the Gospel

According to the Muratorian Canon, John wrote his Gospel at the request of the bishops of Asia Minor, who wished to receive instructions from him in faith and piety. Clement of Alexandria adds to this that John himself noticed some incompleteness in the stories about Christ contained in the first three Gospels, which speak almost only of “bodily,” i.e., external events from the life of Christ, and therefore he himself wrote the “Spiritual Gospel ". Eusebius of Caesarea, for his part, adds that John, having reviewed and approved the first three Gospels, nevertheless found in them insufficient information about the beginning of Christ's activity. Blessed Jerome says that the reason for writing the Gospel was the emergence of heresies that denied the coming of Christ in the flesh.

Thus, on the basis of what has been said, it can be concluded that John, when writing his Gospel, on the one hand, wanted to fill in the gaps he noticed in the first three Gospels, and on the other hand, to give believers (primarily Christians from the Greeks) into the hands of weapons for fight against emerging heresies. As for the evangelist himself, he defines the purpose of his gospel as follows: “These things are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and believing you may have life in his name” (Jn. 20 :31). It is clear that John wrote his Gospel in order to give Christians a support for their faith in Christ precisely as the Son of God, because only with such faith can one achieve salvation or, as John puts it, have life in oneself. And the entire content of the Gospel of John fully corresponds to this intention expressed by its writer. Indeed, the Gospel of John begins with the conversion of John himself to Christ and ends with the confession of the faith of the Apostle Thomas (chapter 21 is an addition to the Gospel made later). Throughout his Gospel, John wants to depict the process by which he himself and his co-apostles came to faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, so that the reader of the Gospel, following the deeds of Christ, would gradually understand that Christ is the Son of God... Readers of the Gospel already had this faith, but it was weakened in them by various false teachings that distorted the concept of the incarnation of the Son of God. At the same time, John could have had in mind the clarification of the duration of Christ's public ministry to the human race: according to the first three Gospels, it turned out that this activity lasted one year with a little, and John explains that it lasted more than three years.

The Evangelist John, in accordance with the goal that he set for himself when writing the Gospel, undoubtedly had his own special plan of narration, not similar to the traditional presentation of the history of Christ common to the first three Gospels. John does not simply report the events of the gospel history and speech of Christ in order, but makes a choice from them, predominantly over the rest of the Gospels, putting forward in the first place everything that testified to the divine dignity of Christ, which in his time was questioned. Events from the life of Christ are reported by John in a well-known way, and all are aimed at clarifying the main position of the Christian faith - the Divinity of Jesus Christ.

In the prologue to the Gospel (Jn. 1 :1-18) John first of all speaks about the divine dignity of Christ and about the attitude of people towards Him, some of whom did not believe Him, while others accepted Him. This idea of ​​people's different attitudes towards the incarnate Word, the idea of ​​the struggle between faith and unbelief, runs through the entire Gospel of John.

The very narrative of Christ's activity begins with His speech to the disciples of John the Baptist, who before that testified three times that Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God. Christ reveals to His first disciples His omniscience (Jn. 1 :19-51), and then - omnipotence (Jn. 2 :1-11) and then after some time in Jerusalem appears as the ruler of the temple, i.e. the Messiah (Jn. 2 :12–22). The official representatives of Judaism immediately show their unfriendly attitude towards Christ, which over time should degenerate into an open persecution of Christ, while the common people, apparently, feel attracted to the Light that has appeared, fed, however, by the miracles that Christ performed this time in Jerusalem ( In. 2 :23–25). An example of a bearer of such faith is the Pharisee Nicodemus, before whom Christ revealed the greatness of His face and His mission (Jn. 3 :1–21). In view of such an attitude towards Christ on the part of the Jews, John the Baptist again and for the last time already testified to His high dignity before his disciples, threatening those who did not believe in Christ with the wrath of God (Jn. 3 :22–36). After that, after spending about eight months in Judea, Christ retires for a time to Galilee, and on the way, in the Samaritan region, he converts the population of an entire Samaritan town to the faith (Jn. 4 :1–44). In Galilee, He meets a rather cordial welcome, since the Galileans were witnesses of the miracles that Christ performed in Jerusalem at the Passover feast. Christ, however, declares such faith insufficient (Jn. 4 :45–54). However, according to John, Christ during His stay in Galilee, which apparently lasted about seven-eight months - until the Feast of Tabernacles (the Jewish holiday in Jn. 5 :1), lived in the circle of His family, not preaching the gospel. Obviously, he wants first of all to proclaim the Gospel in Judea, and for this he goes to Jerusalem for the Feast of Tabernacles. Here, regarding the healing He performed on Saturday, the representatives of Judaism begin to accuse Him of violating the law of Moses, and when Christ, in order to justify His act, pointed out to them His special rights as the Son of God, equal with God the Father, the hatred of the Jews towards Him was expressed in the measures they conceived eliminate Christ, which, however, this time were not carried out due to the strong impression, undoubtedly made by the speech spoken here by Christ in defense of His Messianic dignity (Jn. 5 :1–47). From this place, John begins the depiction of the struggle waged against Christ by the official representatives of Judaism, a struggle that ended with the decision of the Jewish authorities to “take Christ” (Jn. 11 :57).

Not received a second time in Judea, Christ again withdrew to Galilee and began to perform miracles, of course, while preaching the gospel of the Kingdom of God. But here, too, the teaching of Christ about Himself as such a Messiah, Who did not come to restore the earthly Kingdom of Judea, but to found a new Kingdom - spiritual, and to inform people of eternal life, arms the Galileans against Him, and only a few disciples remain around Him, namely the 12 apostles, the faith of which the apostle Peter expresses (Jn. 6 :1–71). Having spent this time in Galilee both Pascha and Pentecost, in view of the fact that in Judea the enemies were only waiting for an opportunity to seize and kill Him, Christ only went to Jerusalem again on the Feast of Tabernacles - this is already the third trip there - and here again he appeared before the Jews with affirmation of His divine mission and origin. The Jews again rise up against Christ. But Christ, nevertheless, on the last day of the Feast of Tabernacles boldly declares His high dignity - that He is the giver of the true water of life, and the servants sent by the Sanhedrin cannot fulfill the assignment given to them - to capture Christ (John 7).

Then, after the forgiveness of the sinful wife (Jn. 8 :1–11), Christ denounces the unbelief of the Jews in Him. He calls Himself the Light of the world, and they, His enemies, the children of the devil, the ancient murderer. When, at the end of his speech, He pointed to His eternal existence, the Jews wanted to stone Him as a blasphemer, and Christ hid from the temple, where His dispute with the Jews took place (John 8). After this, Christ healed the man born blind on Saturday, and this further increased the hatred of Jesus in the Jews (John 9). Nevertheless, Christ boldly calls the Pharisees hirelings, who do not value the well-being of the people, but Himself - the true Shepherd, Who lays down His life for His flock. This speech in some arouses a negative attitude towards her, in others - some sympathy (Jn. 10 :1–21).

Three months later, on the feast of the renewal of the temple, a clash occurs again between Christ and the Jews, and Christ retires to Perea, where many Jews who believed in Him also follow Him (Jn. 10 :22–42). The miracle of the resurrection of Lazarus, testifying to Christ as the giver of resurrection and life, arouses faith in Christ in some, and a new explosion of hatred for Christ in others of Christ's enemies. Then the Sanhedrin makes the final decision to kill Christ and announces that whoever knows about the whereabouts of Christ should immediately inform the Sanhedrin about it (Jn. 11 :57). After more than three months, which Christ spent outside of Judea, He again appeared in Judea and near Jerusalem, in Bethany, attended a friendly dinner, and the day after that, solemnly entered Jerusalem as the Messiah. The people greeted Him with delight, and the Greek proselytes who came to the feast expressed their desire to talk with Him. All this prompted Christ to announce aloud to all those around Him that He would soon give Himself up to death for the true good of all people. John concludes this section of his gospel by declaring that although the majority of the Jews did not believe in Christ, in spite of all His miracles, yet there were believers among them (Jn. 12 :37–43).

Having depicted the gap that occurred between Christ and the Jewish people, the evangelist now draws the attitude towards the apostles. At the last, Last Supper, Christ washed His disciples' feet like a simple servant, thus showing His love for them and together teaching them humility (John 13). Then, in order to strengthen their faith, He speaks of His forthcoming departure to God the Father, of their future position in the world, and of His forthcoming rendezvous with them. The apostles interrupt His speech with questions and objections, but He constantly leads them to the idea that everything that will happen soon will be beneficial both for Him and for them (John 14-16). In order to finally calm the anxiety of the apostles, Christ in their presence prays to His Father that He take them under His protection, saying at the same time that the work for which Christ was sent has now been completed and that, therefore, the apostles will only have to proclaim this to the whole world (John 17).

John devotes the last section of his Gospel to depicting the story of the suffering, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Here we are talking about the capture of Christ by the soldiers in Gethsemane and the denial of Peter, about the judgment of Christ at the spiritual and secular authorities, about the crucifixion and death of Christ, about piercing the side of Christ with a spear of a soldier, about the burial of the body of Christ by Joseph and Nicodemus (John 18–19 ) and, finally, about the appearance of Christ to Mary Magdalene, to ten disciples, and then to Thomas, together with other disciples, a week after the resurrection (Jn. 20 :1–29). A conclusion is attached to the Gospel, which indicates the purpose of writing the Gospel - to strengthen faith in Christ in the readers of the Gospel (Jn. 20 :30–31).

The Gospel of John also has an epilogue, which depicts the appearance of Christ to the seven disciples at the Sea of ​​Tiberias, when the restoration of the Apostle Peter in his apostolic dignity followed. At the same time, Christ predicts Peter's fate and the fate of John (John 21).

Thus, John developed in his Gospel the idea that the incarnated Son of God, the Only Begotten, the Lord Jesus Christ, was rejected by His people, among whom He was born, but nevertheless gave His disciples who believed in Him grace and truth, and the opportunity to become children of God. This content of the Gospel is conveniently divided into such sections.

Prologue(In. 1 :1–18).

First department: Testimony of Christ by John the Baptist - before the first manifestation of the greatness of Christ (Jn. 1 :19–2 :11).

Second department: The beginning of the public ministry of Christ (Jn. 2 :12–4 :54).

Third department: Jesus - the Giver of eternal life, in the fight against Judaism (Jn. 5 :1–11 :57).

Fourth department: From the last week before Easter (John 12).

Fifth department: Jesus in the circle of disciples on the eve of His suffering (John 13-17).

Sixth Division: The glorification of Jesus through death and resurrection (John 18–20).

Since the New Tübingen school still could not disregard those testimonies of the authenticity of the Gospel of John, which date back to the very first decades of the 2nd century A.D., it tried to explain the origin of such testimonies by something like the self-hypnosis of those ancient church writers, who have the aforementioned evidence. It's just that a writer, like St. Irenaeus, for example, read the inscription: "The Gospel of John" - and immediately it was confirmed in his memory that this is really the Gospel belonging to the beloved disciple of Christ ... But most of the critics began to defend the position that by "John", the author of the 4th Gospel, the whole ancient Church meant "prester John", the existence of which Eusebius of Caesarea mentions. So think, for example, Busse, Harnack. Others (Julicher) consider some disciple of John the Theologian to be the author of the 4th Gospel. But since it is rather difficult to admit that at the end of the 1st century there were two Johns in Asia Minor - an apostle and a presbyter - who enjoyed equally great authority, some critics began to deny the presence of the Apostle John in Asia Minor (Lutzenberger, Keim, Schwartz, Schmidel).

Finding it impossible to find a substitute for the apostle John, modern criticism, however, agrees that the 4th Gospel could not have come from the apostle John. Let us see, then, how well founded are the objections which contemporary criticism raises in order to refute the general ecclesiastical conviction of the authenticity of the 4th Gospel. When analyzing the critics' objections to the authenticity of the Gospel of John, we will necessarily have to speak about the reliability of the information reported in the 4th Gospel, because in support of its view of the origin of the 4th Gospel not from John, criticism points to the unreliability of various facts cited in the Gospel of John and on the general improbability of the idea that, on the basis of this Gospel, is created about the face and work of the Savior.

Keim, followed by many other critics, points out that according to the Gospel of John, Christ “was not born, was not baptized, did not experience any internal struggle or mental suffering. He knew everything from the beginning, shone with pure divine glory. Such a Christ does not conform to the conditions of human nature." But all this is false: Christ, according to John, became flesh (Jn. 1 :14) and had a Mother (Jn. 2 :1), and His acceptance of baptism is clearly indicated in the speech of John the Baptist (Jn. 1 :29–34). That Christ experienced an inner struggle is clearly stated in Jn. 12 :27, and the tears He shed at the tomb of Lazarus testify to His spiritual suffering (Jn. 11 :33–35). As for the foreknowledge that Christ reveals in the Gospel of John, it is in complete agreement with our faith in Christ as the God-man.

Further, critics point out that the 4th Gospel supposedly does not recognize any gradual development of the faith of the apostles: the initially called apostles from the very first day of their acquaintance with Christ become completely confident in His messianic worth (John 1). But critics forget that the disciples fully believed in Christ only after the first sign in Cana (Jn. 2 :eleven). And they themselves say that they believed in the Divine origin of Christ only when Christ told them a lot about Himself in a farewell conversation (Jn. 16 :30).

Then, if John says that Christ went to Jerusalem from Galilee several times, whereas, according to the synoptics, it seems that He visited Jerusalem only once on the Passover of Passion, then we must say about this that, Firstly, it can be concluded from the Synoptic Gospels that Christ was in Jerusalem more than once (cf. Lk. 10 :30), and secondly, the most correct, of course, is the evangelist John who designates the chronological sequence of events, who wrote his Gospel already after the synoptics and, naturally, had to come to the idea of ​​the need to replenish the insufficient chronology of the synoptics and depict in detail the activity of Christ in Jerusalem, which was known to him, of course, much better than to any of the weather forecasters, two of whom did not even belong to the 12. Even the apostle Matthew could not know all the circumstances of Christ's activity in Jerusalem, because, firstly, he was called relatively late (Jn. 3 :24; cf. Matt. 9 :9), and secondly, because Christ went to Jerusalem sometimes in secret (Jn. 7 :10), without being accompanied by the whole crowd of disciples. John, of course, was honored to accompany Christ everywhere.

But most of all doubts about the authenticity are excited by the speeches of Christ, which are cited by the Evangelist John. Christ in John, according to critics, speaks not like a practical teacher of the people, but like a subtle metaphysician. His speeches could only be "composed" by a later "writer" who was under the influence of the views of Alexandrian philosophy. On the contrary, the speeches of Christ in the weathermen are naive, simple and natural. Therefore, the 4th Gospel is not of apostolic origin. With regard to such a statement of criticism, it must first be said that it greatly exaggerates the difference between the speeches of Christ in the Synoptics and His speeches in John. It is possible to point out about three dozen sayings, which are cited in the same form by both synoptics and John (see Jn. 2 :29 and Matt. 26 :61; In. 3 :18 and Mk. 16 :16; In. 5 :8 and Luke. 5 :21). And then the speeches of Christ cited by John should have been different from those given by the synoptics, since John set himself the goal of acquainting his readers with the activities of Christ in Judea and Jerusalem - this center of rabbinical education, where Christ had a completely different circle before Himself. listeners than in Galilee. It is clear that the Galilean speeches of Christ, cited by the synoptics, could not be devoted to such sublime teachings as are the subject of the speeches of Christ spoken in Judea. Moreover, John cites several speeches of Christ spoken by Him in the circle of His closest disciples, who, of course, were much more than ordinary people capable of comprehending the mysteries of the Kingdom of God.

At the same time, it is necessary to take into account the fact that the apostle John, by his nature, was predominantly inclined to be interested in the mysteries of the Kingdom of God and the high dignity of the person of the Lord Jesus Christ. No one was able to assimilate in such fullness and clarity the teaching of Christ about Himself as precisely John, whom therefore Christ loved more than His other disciples.

Some critics argue that all the speeches of Christ in John are nothing more than a disclosure of the ideas contained in the prologue of the Gospel and, therefore, were composed by John himself. To this it must be said that, rather, the prologue itself can be called the conclusion that John made from all the speeches of Christ quoted in John. This is evidenced, for example, by the fact that the root concept of the prologue "Logos" does not occur in the speeches of Christ with the meaning that it has in the prologue.

As for the fact that John alone cites the speeches of Christ, which contain His teaching about His divine dignity, then this circumstance cannot be of particular importance, as proof of the contradiction that allegedly exists between the synoptics and John in the teaching about the person of the Lord Jesus Christ. . After all, the weather forecasters also have sayings of Christ, in which a clear indication of His divine dignity is made (see Matt. 20 :18, 28 :19, 16 :16 etc.). And besides, all the circumstances of the birth of Christ and the numerous miracles of Christ reported by the weather forecasters clearly testify to His divine dignity.

They also point to their monotony in relation to content as proof of the idea of ​​the "composition" of Christ's speeches in John. Thus, the conversation with Nicodemus depicts the spiritual nature of the Kingdom of God, while the conversation with the Samaritan woman depicts the universal character of this Kingdom, and so on. If there is some uniformity in the outward construction of speeches and in the method of proving thoughts, then this is due to the fact that the speeches of Christ in John are intended to explain the mysteries of the Kingdom of God to the Jews, and not to the inhabitants of Galilee, and therefore, naturally, take on a monotonous character.

It is said that the speeches cited by John do not stand in connection with the events described in the Gospel of John. But such a statement is completely untrue: it is in John that each speech of Christ has a firm support for itself in previous events, one might even say - it is caused by them. Such, for example, is the conversation about heavenly bread, spoken by Christ about the saturation of the people with earthly bread (John 6).

Then they object: “How could John remember such extensive, difficult in content and dark speeches of Christ until a ripe old age?” But when a person pays all his attention to one thing, it is clear that he already surveys this “one” in all details and imprints it firmly in his memory. It is known about John that in the circle of the disciples of Christ and in the Apostolic Church, he did not have a particularly active significance and was rather a silent companion of the Apostle Peter than an independent figure. All the ardor of his nature - and he really had such a nature (Mk. 9) - he turned all the abilities of his outstanding mind and heart to the reproduction in his consciousness and memory of the greatest personality of the God-man. From this it becomes clear how he could subsequently reproduce in his Gospel such extensive and deep in content speeches of Christ. In addition, the ancient Jews were generally able to memorize very long conversations and repeat them with literal accuracy. Finally, why not assume that John could write down individual conversations of Christ for himself and then use what was written down?

They ask: “Where did John, a simple fisherman from Galilee, get such a philosophical education as he finds in his Gospel? Wouldn't it be more natural to assume that the 4th Gospel was written by some Greek Gnostic or Christian brought up on the study of classical literature? This question must be answered as follows. First, John does not have that strict sequence and that logical construction of views, which distinguish the Greek philosophical systems. Instead of dialectics and logical analysis, John is dominated by a synthesis characteristic of systematic thinking, reminiscent of Eastern religious-theological contemplation rather than Greek philosophy (Prof. Muretov. Authenticity of the Lord's conversations in the 4th Gospel. Right. Review, 1881. Sept., p. 65 et seq.). Therefore, it can be said that John writes as an educated Jew, and the question of where he could get such a Jewish education is resolved quite satisfactorily by the consideration that John's father was a rather wealthy man (he had his own workers) and therefore both of his sons, James and John could receive a good education for that time in any of the rabbinic schools in Jerusalem.

What confuses some critics is the similarity that is noticed both in the content and in the style of Christ's speeches in the 4th Gospel and in the 1st Epistle of John. It seems as if John himself composed the words of the Lord... To this it must be said that John, having joined the ranks of the disciples of Christ in his earliest youth, naturally assimilated His ideas and the very manner of their expression. Then, the speeches of Christ in John do not represent a literal reproduction of everything said by Christ in one case or another, but only an abbreviated transmission of what Christ actually said. Moreover, John had to convey the speeches of Christ, uttered in Aramaic, in Greek, and this forced him to look for turns and expressions more appropriate to the meaning of Christ's speech, so that the coloring that was characteristic of the speech of John himself was naturally obtained in Christ's speeches. Finally, between the Gospel of John and his 1st Epistle there is an undoubted difference, namely, between the speech of John himself and the speeches of the Lord. Thus, the salvation of people by the Blood of Christ is often spoken of in the 1st Epistle of John and is silent in the Gospel. As for the form of presentation of thoughts, in the 1st Epistle we find brief fragmentary instructions and maxims everywhere, and in the Gospel - whole large speeches.

In view of all that has been said, in contrast to the assertions of criticism, it remains only to agree with the positions expressed by Pope Pius X in his "Syllabus" of July 3, 1907, where the Pope recognizes as heresy the assertion of the modernists that the Gospel of John is not history in the proper sense of the word , but mystical reasoning about the life of Christ, and that it is not a true testimony of the Apostle John about the life of Christ, but a reflection of those views on the person of Christ that existed in the Christian Church by the end of the 1st century AD.

Self-Evidence of the Fourth Gospel

The author of the gospel clearly identifies himself as a Jew. He knows all the Jewish customs and views, especially the views of the then Judaism on the Messiah. Moreover, about everything that was happening at that time in Palestine, he speaks as an eyewitness. If, however, he sort of separates himself from the Jews (for example, he says “Jewish holiday” and not “our holiday”), then this is due to the fact that the 4th Gospel was written, no doubt, already when Christians completely separated from the Jews. . In addition, the Gospel was written specifically for Gentile Christians, which is why the author could not speak of the Jews as "his" people. The geographical position of Palestine at that time is also outlined in the highest degree precisely and in detail. This cannot be expected from a writer who lived, for example, in the 2nd century.

As a witness to the events that took place in the life of Christ, the author of the 4th Gospel shows himself further in the special chronological accuracy with which he describes the time of these events. It denotes not only the holidays on which Christ went to Jerusalem - this is important for determining the duration of Christ's public ministry, but even the days and weeks before and after this or that event, and, finally, sometimes the hours of events. He also speaks with precision about the number of persons and objects in question.

The details that the author gives about the various circumstances of the life of Christ also give reason to conclude that the author was an eyewitness to everything that he describes. Moreover, the features with which the author characterizes the then figures are so marked that only an eyewitness could indicate them, moreover, he well understood the differences that existed between the then Jewish parties.

The fact that the author of the Gospel was an apostle from among the 12 is clearly seen from the reminiscences that he reports about many circumstances of the inner life of the circle of 12. He knows well all the doubts that disturbed the disciples of Christ, all their conversations among themselves and with their Teacher. At the same time, he calls the apostles not by the names by which they later became known in the Church, but by those that they bore in their circle of friends (for example, he calls Bartholomew Nathanael).

The attitude of the author to weather forecasters is also remarkable. He boldly corrects the testimony of the latter on many points, as an eyewitness, who, moreover, has a higher authority than they: only such a writer could speak so boldly, without fear of condemning anyone's side. Moreover, this was undoubtedly an apostle from among those closest to Christ, since he knows much that was not revealed to other apostles (see Jn. 6 :15, 7 :1).

Who was this student? He does not identify himself by name, and yet identifies himself as the beloved disciple of the Lord (Jn. 13 :23, 21 :7, 20–24). This is not the apostle Peter, because Peter is called by name everywhere in the 4th Gospel and is directly distinguished from the unnamed disciple. Of the closest disciples, then two remain - James and John, the sons of Zebedee. But it is known about Jacob that he did not leave the Jewish country and suffered a martyr's death relatively early (in 41). Meanwhile, the Gospel was undoubtedly written after the Synoptic Gospels and probably at the end of the 1st century. Only John alone can be recognized as the closest apostle to Christ, who wrote the 4th Gospel. Calling himself "another student", he always adds the definite article (ὁ μαθητής) to this expression, clearly saying by this that everyone knew him and could not confuse him with anyone else. In his humility, he also does not name his mother, Salome, and his brother Joakov (Jn. 19 :25, 21 :2). Only the apostle John could do this, for any other writer would certainly mention by name at least one of the sons of Zebedee. They object: “But the Evangelist Matthew found it possible to mention his name in his Gospel” (Matt. 9 :nine)? Yes, but in the Gospel of Matthew the personality of the writer completely disappears in the objective depiction of the events of the Gospel story, while the 4th Gospel has a pronounced subjective character, and the writer of this Gospel, realizing this, wanted to leave his own name in the shade, which already everyone was asking for a memory.

The Language and Presentation of the Fourth Gospel

Both the language and the presentation of the 4th Gospel clearly show that the writer of the Gospel was a Palestinian Jew, not a Greek, and that he lived at the end of the first century. In the Gospel, first of all, there are direct and indirect references to places in the sacred books of the Old Testament (this can also be seen in the Russian edition of the Gospel with parallel passages). Moreover, he knows not only the translation of the Seventy, but also the Hebrew text of the Old Testament books (cf. Jn. 19 :37 and Zech. 12 :10 according to the Hebrew text). Then, “the special plasticity and figurativeness of speech, which are an excellent feature of the Jewish genius, the arrangement of the members of the sentence and their simple construction, the conspicuous detail of the presentation, reaching the tautology and repetitions, the speech is short, jerky, the parallelism of members and whole sentences and antitheses, the lack of Greek particles in the combination of sentences and much more clearly indicate that the Gospel was written by a Jew, and not a Greek (Bazhenov, "Characteristics of the Fourth Gospel", p. 374).

Member of the Vienna Academy of Sciences D.G. Müller, in his essay "Das Johannes-Evangelium im Lichte der Strophentheorie" (Wien, 1909), even, and very successfully, attempts to divide the most important speeches of Christ contained in the Gospel of John into stanzas and concludes with the following: " At the end of my work on the Conversation on the Mount, I also studied the Gospel of John, which in content and style is so different from the synoptic Gospels, but to my considerable surprise I found that the laws of strophic rule here to the same extent as in the speeches of the prophets, in the Mount discourse and in the Koran. Does not this fact indicate that the writer of the Gospel was a real Jew, brought up on the study of the prophets of the Old Testament? The Jewish flavor in the 4th Gospel is so strong that anyone who knows the Hebrew language and has the opportunity to read the Gospel of John in the Hebrew translation will certainly think that he is reading the original, and not the translation. It can be seen that the writer of the Gospel thought in Hebrew, but expressed himself in Greek. But this is exactly how the apostle John should have written, who from childhood was accustomed to thinking and speaking in Hebrew, while he studied Greek already in adulthood.

The Greek language of the Gospel was undoubtedly original, and not translated: both the testimony of the Church Fathers and the lack of evidence from those critics who for some reason want to assert that the Gospel of John was originally written in Hebrew - all this is quite enough to be sure of the originality of the Greek of the 4th Gospel. Although the author of the Gospel has in his dictionary a few terms and expressions of the Greek language, but these terms and expressions are as valuable as a large gold coin, which is usually calculated by large owners. From the point of view of its composition, the language of the 4th Gospel has a character common to everything κοινή διάλεκτος. In places here there are Hebrew, Latin words and some terms peculiar only to this Gospel. Finally, some words in John are used in a special sense that is not characteristic of other New Testament writings (for example, Λόγος, ἀγαπάω, ἰουδαῖοι, ζωή etc., the meaning of which will be indicated when explaining the text of the Gospel). With regard to etymological and syntactical rules, the language of the 4th Gospel does not generally differ from the rules of κοινή διάλεκτος, although here there are some features (for example, the use of the article, the composition of the predicate in the plural with the subject of the singular, etc.).

Stylistically, the Gospel of John is distinguished by the simplicity of the construction of phrases, approaching the simplicity of ordinary speech. Here we find everywhere short fragmentary sentences connected by a few particles. But these brief expressions often produce an unusually strong impression (especially in the prologue). To give special power to a well-known expression, John puts it at the beginning of a phrase, and sometimes the sequence in the structure of speech is not even observed (for example, Jn. 7 :38). The reader of the Gospel of John is also struck by the extraordinary abundance of dialogues in which this or that thought is revealed. As for the fact that in the Gospel of John, in contrast to the synoptic gospels, there are no parables, this phenomenon can be explained by the fact that John did not consider it necessary to repeat those parables that were already reported in the synoptic gospels. But he has something reminiscent of these parables - these are allegories and various images (for example, figurative expressions in a conversation with Nicodemus and with a Samaritan woman, or, for example, a real allegory about the good shepherd and the door to the sheepfold). In addition, Christ probably did not use parables in His conversations with educated Jews, and it is precisely these conversations that John mainly cites in his Gospel. The form of the parable did not fit the content of the speeches of Christ spoken in Judea: in these speeches, Christ spoke of His divine dignity, and for this the form of images and parables was completely inappropriate - it is inconvenient to conclude dogmas in parables. The disciples of Christ could also understand the teachings of Christ without parables.

Commentaries on the Gospel of John and other writings that have this Gospel as their subject

Of the ancient works devoted to the study of the Gospel of John, the first in time is the work of the Valentinian Heracleon (150-180), fragments of which were preserved by Origen (there is also a special edition of Brook). This is followed by a very detailed commentary by Origen himself, which, however, has not been preserved in its entirety (ed. Preishen, 1903). Next come 88 conversations on the Gospel of John, belonging to St. John Chrysostom (in Russian, translated by the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, 1902). The interpretation of Theodore of Mopsuetsky in Greek has survived only in fragments, but now a Latin translation of the Syriac text of this work has already appeared, almost reproducing everything in full. The interpretation of St. Cyril of Alexandria was published in 1910 at the Moscow Theological Academy. Then there are 124 discourses on the Gospel of John by Blessed Augustine (in Latin). Finally, the interpretation of the Gospel of John, belonging to the blessed Theophylact (translation at the Kazan Theological Academy), deserves attention.

Of the new interpretations of Western theologians, the following works deserve attention: Tolyuk (1857), Meyer (1902), Luthardt (1876), Godet (1903), Keil (1881), Westcott (1882), Schanz (1885), Knabenbauer (1906) , Schlatter (1902), Loisy (1903), Heitmüller (by I. Weiss in The New Testament Scriptures, 1907), Tzan (1908), Holtzman (1908).

Of the most outstanding works of Western scientists, the so-called. The works of the critical direction of the Gospel of John are devoted to the works of: Bretschneider, Weisse, Schwegler, Bruno, Bauer, Baur, Gilgenfeld, Keim, Tom, Jacobsen, O. Holtzman, Wendt, Freienbühl, I. Reville, Grill, Wrede, Scott, Wellhausen and others. in terms of time, the major work of the critical direction is the work: "Spitta". Das Johannes evangelium als Quelle der Geschiche Jesu. Göttingen, 1910.

In the apological direction about the Gospel of John wrote: Black, Stir, Weiss, Edersheim (“The Life of Jesus the Messiah”, the first volume of which was translated into Russian), Shastan, Delph, P. Ewald, Nesgen, Kluge, Kamerlinck, Schlatter, Stanton, Drummond , Sunday, Smith, Bart, Goebel, Lepin. But these works must be used with caution ...

In Russian theological literature there are many explanations of the Gospel of John and individual articles and pamphlets relating to the study of this Gospel. In 1874, the first edition of the work of Archimandrite (later Bishop) Mikhail (Luzin) was published under the title: "The Gospel of John in the Slavonic and Russian dialect with prefaces and detailed explanatory notes." In 1887, Georgy Vlastov's "Experience in the Study of the Gospel of St. John the Theologian" appeared in two volumes. In 1903, a popular explanation of the Gospel of John, compiled by Archbishop Nikanor (Kamensky), was published, and in 1906, the “Interpretation of the Gospel”, compiled by B.I. Gladkov, in which the Gospel of John is explained in a popular way. There are also popular explanations for the Gospel of John: Eusebius, Archbishop of Mogilev (in the form of conversations on Sundays and holidays), Archpriests Mikhailovsky, Bukharev, and some others. The most useful guide for getting acquainted with what was written about the Gospel of John before 1893 is M. Barsov's "Collection of Articles on Interpretive and Edifying Reading, Four Gospels". The subsequent literature up to 1904 on the study of the Gospel of John is indicated by Prof. Bogdashevsky in the Orthodox Theological Encyclopedia, vol. VI, p. 836–837 and partly prof. Sagarda (ibid., p. 822). Of the latest Russian literature on the study of the Gospel of John, the dissertations deserve special attention: I. Bazhenova “Characterization of the fourth Gospel from the point of content and language in connection with the question of the origin of the Gospel”, 1907; D. Znamensky "The Teaching of the Holy Apostle John the Theologian in the Fourth Gospel of the Face of Jesus Christ", 1907; prof. Theological "Public Ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ", 1908, part 1.

This is proved by the fact that the Gospel often gives an explanation of Jewish words and customs (for example, Jn. 11 :38–42, 4 :9, 5 :28 etc.).

It is not possible to determine exactly the time and place of writing the Gospel of John. It is only probable that the Gospel was written in Ephesus, at the end of the 1st century.

An example of a critical attitude to the Gospel of John is a book translated into Russian in 1910 by O.P. Fleider, The Rise of Christianity, p. 154–166.

Evidence of the integrity of the Gospel will be given in its place, when explaining the text of the Gospel.

The chronology of the life of Jesus Christ according to the Gospel of John is as follows. After being baptized by John, Christ stays near the Jordan for some time and here he calls His first disciples (John 1). Then He goes to Galilee, where He lives until Easter (Jn. 2 :1–11). On Passover He comes to Jerusalem, this is the first Passover during His public service (Jn. 2 :12–3 :21). Then after this Passover, probably in April, Christ leaves Jerusalem and stays in the Jewish land until the end of December (Jn. 3 :22–4 :one). By January, Christ comes through Samaria to Galilee (Jn. 4 :43-54) and lives here for quite a long time: the whole end of winter and summer. On Easter (a hint of it is made in Jn. 4 :35) - the second Passover during His public activities - He apparently did not go to Jerusalem. Only on the Feast of Tabernacles (Jn. 5 :1) He appears again in Jerusalem, where he probably stayed for a very short time. Then He spends several months in Galilee (Jn. 6 :one). At Easter this year (Jn. 6 :4) Christ did not go to Jerusalem again, this is the third Easter of His public ministry. On the Feast of Tabernacles, He speaks in Jerusalem (Jn. 7–10:21), then spends two months in Perea, and in December, on the feast of the renewal of the temple, He comes again to Jerusalem (Jn. 10 :22). Then Christ soon again leaves for Perea, from where he appears for a short time to Bethany (John 11). From Bethany until the fourth Passover, He remains in Ephraim, from where He comes on the last Passover, the fourth, to Jerusalem, in order to die here at the hands of enemies. Thus, John mentions the four feasts of Pascha, within the circle of which lies the history of the public ministry of Jesus Christ, which apparently lasted more than three years.

The latest in time is the work of Lepin`a. La valeur historique du VI-e Evangile 2 vol. Paris, 1910, 8 fran.