Holy Epiphany. Baptism of the Lord Jesus Christ. 31st Sunday after Pentecost

The wise Solomon wrote about his parables like this: “A wise man will listen and increase his knowledge, and a wise man will find wise advice; to understand the parable and the intricate speech, the words of the wise and their riddles'' (Prov. 1:5,6). By examining the parables of Solomon and understanding their essence [and they should not be taken literally, like the parables of Christ], we will understand that they were only a prophetic shadow of the wise Teacher of Christianity. And so, when the apostles came to the Lord and asked: “Why do you speak to them in parables” (Matthew 13:10)? The answer was this: “It has been given to you to know the secrets of the Kingdom of God, but to those outside everything happens in parables; so they look with their own eyes and do not see; They hear with their own ears and do not understand, lest they convert, and their sins be forgiven" (Mark 4:11,12).

Many who read the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus take it literally. But, in this case, the question arises, how then to understand the Scriptures from John 3:13. 1 Corinthians 15:22,23. Hebrews 11:8,13,39,40; which clearly indicate that before the Lord Christ [the Firstborn from the dead], no one ascended to heaven?.. So, friends, so that we do not become like people who spiritually do not see and do not hear, let us try to understand the essence of this parable.

The Rich Man and Lazarus

A certain man was rich, dressed in purple and fine linen, and feasted brilliantly every day. There was also a certain beggar named Lazarus, who lay at his gate covered with scabs and wanted to feed on the crumbs falling from the rich man’s table, and the dogs came and licked his scabs. (Luke 16:19-21).

A prophecy from the book will help us understand what “rich and poor” means. Ezekiel about fat and lean sheep. If you read the passage: ''son of man! prophesy against the shepherds of Israel, prophesy and say to them, the shepherds: Thus says the Lord God: Woe to the shepherds of Israel, who fed themselves! Shouldn't shepherds feed the flock? You ate fat and clothed yourself with wool, you slaughtered the fatted sheep, [but] you did not feed the flock" (Ezek. 34:2,3). Then it becomes clear that this indicates a figurative “rich man”, i.e. the ruling elite of Israel - Ezek.16:3,13.

Their rest of the people were so oppressed, disadvantaged, and financially constrained that even if they wanted to, they could not afford to sufficiently search for their God. When the Great Shepherd Christ came: “Seeing the crowds of people, He had compassion on them, because they were weary and scattered, like sheep without a shepherd” (Matt. 9:36).

Luke 16:21 indicates that the “beggar” wanted to feed himself on the crumbs from the “rich man’s” table. It would be logical to take this passage literally, but Scripture often teaches us to think allegorically. For example, notice the words: “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel... it is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs... but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table” (Matt. 15:24-27) . This suggests the idea of ​​spiritual bread (Luke 4:4), which was so lacking among the spiritually poor Jews at the time of the coming of the Messiah.

What can be said about the illness of “the poor Lazarus”, the most striking image - a sign indicating a spiritually sick people, is Lazarus from Bethany, a friend of Jesus Christ (John 11: 1, 3, 4.). When our Lord came to resurrect Lazarus, He was told that this was not real, because... he has been buried for four days and is decomposing...

Now let’s turn to the prophecy: “The hand of the Lord was upon me, and the Lord brought me out by the Spirit and set me in the middle of a field, and it was full of bones, and he led me around around them, and behold, there were very many of them on the surface of the field, and there they were. very dry. And He said to me: Son of man! these bones are the whole house of Israel. Behold, they say: “Our bones are dried up, and our hope is lost, we are cut off from the root.” Therefore prophesy and say to them, Thus says the Lord God: Behold, I will open your graves and bring you, My people, out of your graves and bring you into the land of Israel. And you will know that I am the Lord when I open your graves and bring you, My people, out of your graves, and put My spirit within you, and you will live, and place you in your land, and you will know that I, the Lord, have said this - and he did, says the Lord. And My servant David will be King over them and Shepherd of them all, and they will walk in My commandments, and they will keep My statutes and do them” (Ezek. 37:1,2,11-14,24). This prophecy, which is closely connected with the healing and resurrection of Lazarus from Bethany, indicates the unviability of Israel without the mercy of the Most High. Next, we smoothly move on to the next verses of the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus.

The Gospel of Lazarus and the Rich Man

People on earth argue about property, and there is no end to this tiresome and fruitless dispute.
O people, whose property are you yourselves? The herd is fighting for a place in the pasture, and the owner of the pasture and herd stands and looks, wondering: why is his herd fighting so much for his pasture, since he cares about both the herd and the pasture?

A person remembers many things, but he cannot remember one thing, no matter how much you repeat to him: that he comes into this world without property and leaves it without property.

People are dividing this raw land, and they won’t divide everything! With their lives they pay for the boundaries of their property, but the boundaries still remain mobile. People pay incomparably more expensive things for incomparably cheaper things; and this does not outrage them too much, but they call such a terrible price right, patriotism or some other comforting word. They just don’t say that madness is when a sheep gives its life for a bunch of grass, since the grass is needed for life, and not for itself. The question of property is, after all, a question of grass, for everything that people eat and wear is grass - or something even deader than grass. At the very beginning of the Holy Scriptures it is said that God gave greens and grass for food to people and animals (Gen. 1:29-30; 9:3).

If you ask people the question: “What is more important, grass or man?”, you will receive a unanimous answer that man is more important. But in reality, people recognize that grass is more important, since they sacrifice both their own and others’ lives for the sake of grass.

Although the issue of property is a matter of grass, it is still the main stumbling block in the lives of people on earth. Only the one who most resembles God in his spirit bypasses him, leaving him with disdain. For others, this stone of temptation becomes a subject of debate, a subject of conversation, a subject of incredible labor and sweat, the subject and content of their entire life, and, finally, their tombstone.

Where is Croesus' wealth? Where are the feasts of Lucullus? Where is Caesar's power? Where is Napoleon's power? Traces of all this, in one form or another, can still be found, but such questions are not as important as: where is the rich Croesus now? Where is the insatiable Lucullus? Where is the power-hungry Caesar? And where is the mighty Napoleon? The most important thing is to know where people are, not where their property is. But we cannot know this until we know: whose property are the people themselves?

So, whose property are the people themselves? The one who solves this issue will easily resolve the issue of human property - just as travelers, when they remove the largest stone from the road, can then easily clear away the rubble and leaves.

When people solve this question themselves, without the Lord Jesus Christ, as they have solved it for thousands of years, they come to two answers. First, man is the property of evil spiritual forces that hide behind nature and under the guise of nature; the second - a person is the property of nature itself, which created him, keeps him for some time as furniture among his other furniture, and ultimately breaks and kills him. Since the creation of the world, all human wisdom, which has not borrowed a drop of the mind of Christ, has only two solutions to the question of whose property is man.

And Christ’s answer to this question says: man is the property of the all-good God. And he is property not in the same way as things are someone else's property, but as a free and rational being, as a son of God. This is not the decision of any philosopher, for in that case we would not believe him; but this is the answer of an Eyewitness who came to people from the very triune core of being and life, which spreads life throughout all worlds. That is why we believe this answer, and only consider it true and saving. More precisely, it should be called not an answer, but an eyewitness testimony.

This certificate has resolved all questions about human property, all economic, economic and political issues on earth. People are God's property, which means nature is even more God's property. And this, in turn, means: everything that a person calls his property is actually the property of God, God’s loan to people. The Lord distributed this loan unevenly among people. Why is it uneven? Because people are free and rational beings. God distributed everything equally to dead objects. And to the half-living, that is, unfree and unreasonable creatures, God distributed everything equally. And God distributed everything unequally to His free and rational creatures, so that their reason and their freedom would manifest themselves; so that people see their brotherly dependence on each other; and that they, by wisely disposing of God's loan, would secure the salvation of both themselves and their brethren. Thus, God's loan - or what people mistakenly call their property - is only a means of man's salvation.

Today's Gospel speaks of a rich man who realized property differently - in the absolute sense of the word, and thereby doomed himself to such torment that the heart grows cold and the hair stands on end at the mere description of it.

The Lord said: a certain man was rich, dressed in purple and fine linen, and feasted brilliantly every day. There was also a certain beggar named Lazarus, who lay at his gate covered with scabs and wanted to feed on the crumbs falling from the rich man’s table, and the dogs came and licked his scabs. Before us is a terrible picture of earthly inequality. But wait, later we will see an even more terrible picture of the inequality of heaven. What a contrast: on the one hand there is a rich man, dressed in purple and fine linen, on the other, a beggar, dressed in scabs and pus! On the one hand, there is a man surrounded by people like him: rich, well-fed, dressed up, cheerful; on the other hand, a man surrounded only by dogs! On the one hand - wealth, health and satiety to the point of satiety; on the other - bitter poverty, illness and hunger! On the one hand - deafening songs, dancing and laughter; on the other hand, a silent expectation of bread crumbs, and a silent look at the pus flowing from one’s own body, and a silent expectation of death! Silent and patient - because it is not said that Lazarus asked for help or shouted like other beggars. Feeling hungry, he only wanted to feed himself with crumbs from the rich man’s table and remained silent. With his heart he talked with Someone, but with his tongue - with no one. But why talk to him about his misfortune with his tongue, when his body, surrounded by dogs, spoke about it more clearly than all the languages ​​of the world?

However, pay attention to a very important thing: the Lord does not mention the name of the rich man, but mentions the name of the poor man. And throughout the entire parable, the name of the rich man remains unnamed, while the name of Lazarus is mentioned both on earth and in heaven. What does it mean? Isn’t it completely contrary to human custom to remember and mention the names of the rich, but either not remember the names of the poor, or, if they are known, not mention them? Like nameless shadows, beggars walk or crawl along the ground between people, all under one common name - beggar, while the names of the rich are heard in palaces, sung in poetry, written in history books and newspapers, carved on monuments.

That is why the Lord does not mention the name of the rich man, so as not to show unnecessary honor to someone whom people already honored excessively, and to show that God’s judgments are different from human judgments, and are often completely opposite to them. He came to earth not to treat people as they treat each other, but to show how Heaven will treat people. And by this very omission of the rich man’s name He reveals one of the heavenly secrets. The names of such rich people in heaven will not be known at all; they will not be remembered either among the angels or among the saints. They will be erased from the Book of Life. Of course, the Lord knew the name of the rich man, just as He knew the name of the poor man. But He deliberately did not want to pronounce it with His life-giving lips, so as not to renew and revive it - for it had already been erased from the Book of Life. Please note that the Lord, as if on purpose, avoids pronouncing with His lips the names of Herod, Pilate, Caiaphas. Go tell that fox (Luke 13:32)! - He says about Herod, without calling him by name. Even earlier, God said: I will not remember their names in My mouth (Ps. 15:4). Our Lord Jesus Christ said to the righteous: rejoice that your names are written in heaven (Luke 10:20); and He commands this joy to them before any other, even before the joy that the demons obey them. But what evil has this rich man done that the Lord does not even want to pronounce his name? Look: the Lord does not accuse him of stealing, lying, fornication, murder, disbelief in God, or even ill-gotten wealth. After all, it seems that he himself did not obtain this wealth, either honestly or dishonestly, but inherited it, since they say: he was rich, and not “became rich” or “got rich.” But why should the Lord accuse him when at his gate lay a living accusation, written against him not in ink on paper, but in scabs and pus on the skin of a living person? Undoubtedly, the rich man had all those vices that wealth inevitably brings with it to any frivolous person. For the one who dressed luxuriously every day, ate and drank luxuriously and had a good time, could not have the fear of God in himself, could not keep his tongue from talking too much, his belly from overeating, his heart from pride and vanity, from contempt for others. people, from ridicule of the shrine of God. Yet this inevitably and uncontrollably pushes a person into fornication, deception, revenge, murder, and apostasy. But the Lord does not list all these sins and vices of the rich man. From His parable, only one fault of the rich man becomes obvious, namely: extreme contempt for the man Lazarus, and because of nothing else than because of his poverty and illness. If Lazarus had appeared at the gate healthy and dressed in fine linen, the rich man would undoubtedly have addressed him with an invitation to his meal - he would have addressed him as a man and recognized him as a man. However, in poor and scabbed Lazar, he did not see or recognize a person. He despised God's creation as if it did not exist. He turned away from him so as not to sully his gaze. He believed that he belonged to himself, and considered his wealth not a loan from God, but exclusively his property. He buried the talent given by God in the soil of his body and did not allow those who needed it to use it. His heart was burdened with gluttony and drunkenness (Luke 21:34) and became completely blind to the spiritual world and spiritual values. He looked only with carnal eyes, listened with carnal ears, lived a carnal life. His soul was covered in the same scabs as Lazarus's body. His soul was a real reflection of Lazarus' body, and Lazarus' body was a real reflection of his soul. Thus, God placed two people on earth to be mirrors of each other: one behind the gate, the other at the gate. The outer shine of the rich man was a mirror of the soul of Lazarus, and the outer scabs of Lazarus were a mirror of the inner world of the rich man. Why did the Lord list all the rich man’s sins? All of them are revealed in one stroke, every single one. Cruelty towards Lazarus tore the veil from the rot of the rich man’s soul, and all the abomination of this rot instantly became clear - both for the eyes, and for the ears, and for the nose, and for the tongue.

Here is an image of two unequal people on earth: one, whose name was very well known to people and was willingly pronounced by them, and the other, whose name people did not want to know. Now let's see how the stay of these two unequal people in the other world is depicted.

The beggar died and was carried by the Angels to Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died and was buried. And in hell, being in torment, he raised his eyes and saw Abraham in the distance and Lazarus in his bosom. The rich die, just as the poor die. No one is born into this world to live in it forever, for this light itself is mortal and awaits its end. The rich die sighing for this light, and the poor die sighing for that. Having left this world, the rich man left behind splendor, luxury and pleasure; and Lazarus, having left this world, left behind hunger, scabs and dogs. But look now at God's harvest! When the poor man died, the angels took his soul and carried him to heaven; and when the rich man died, the angels returned from his deathbed empty-handed. On one tree, rotten on the outside, the angels found and gathered wonderful and ripe fruits; and on the other, leafy and green on the outside, no fruit was found. And every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire (Luke 3:9). These prophetic words literally came true on the merciless rich man. Both his body and soul were cut down; the body is thrown into the grave - to burn in the ground, and the soul is thrown into hell - to burn in the inferno. The angels did not even approach his deathbed, for they knew that there was nothing there for them; Demons and people approached him. Both of them wanted to bury him: the demons buried his soul in hell, and the people buried his body in the ground. Of course, people treated the dead bodies of the rich man and Lazarus differently, just as they treated them differently when they were alive. The news of the rich man's death spread far and wide, and the whole city became excited and came to his funeral. The cold body (which must have looked serious for the first time since death since birth) was again dressed in new purple and new linen, placed in a coffin made of rare wood and rare metal, and driven through the city in a gilded chariot horses covered with black blankets - so tired, as if they too were clothed in mourning for the one who lost the mercy of Heaven with his life. Behind the chariot were crowds of friends, relatives and servants in mourning robes. For whom was this mourning? According to the one who did not even want to give scraps from his table to a hungry beggar. The whole city gathered at his grave to listen to speeches about his merits and services to the city, the people and humanity - beautiful as porphyry and smooth as fine linen on the body of a dead man who no longer needed even the crumbs from the meal of this life; the speeches are false, like this person’s whole life; his speeches were empty, just as his soul was empty of good deeds. Finally, the body with purple and fine linen was placed in the ground so that it would not be licked by dogs, but worms would eat it. Wreaths of greenery and flowers were placed on the grave for those who had lost the crown of heavenly glory. And they erected an expensive monument to him, taller than human height, with a name written in gold, which was not in the Book of Life. But it never occurred to any of the thousands who had gathered for this useless parade that at that very time the soul of the rich man was in hell.

How was poor Lazarus buried? Like a dead dog found on the street. Someone probably told the city authorities that there was a dead beggar lying in the street. So the authorities had to take the trouble to bury him, for many reasons, but primarily for two: first, so that the dogs would not tear him apart and drag him around the city; and the second - so that, as it decomposes, it does not spread infection in the city. In addition, it is necessary to drag him out of the city as soon as possible and bury him also because the dead body, crouched, covered with scabs and dressed in rags, offends the eyes of passers-by. So, none of the reasons was for the sake of Lazarus, but all for the sake of the townspeople themselves. He, a poor man, annoyed people with his life, and annoyed them with his death. The authorities must have winced when they heard this unpleasant news, and were looking for people to do this unpleasant work, and were worried about how to pay these people for their work! And from mouth to mouth they said: some beggar has died! Who will bury the beggar? Where, and at whose expense? “Who is this beggar?” - perhaps the inquisitive children asked. Funny question. Who will recognize and remember the names of beggars!

What a huge difference there was between these two people in the assessing eyes of men! But in heaven they do not rely too much on human evaluations: neither their praises, nor their spitting, nor their orders, nor their condemnations. Human assessments extend only to the grave, and then Heaven receives the souls of the dead and gives assessments Itself. And according to the heavenly estimate, the rich man, clothed in fine linen, descended to hell, and Lazarus, covered with scabs, ascended to heaven.

And in hell, in great torment, the rich man raised his eyes and saw Abraham in the distance and Lazarus in his bosom. Probably for the first time in his entire existence, the rich man now looks up at grief. On earth, he looked only at himself and at the world around him, and his gaze, not clouded by any suffering, never directed upward. This is what happens to many of us today, which is why the proverb arose: “Like anxiety, so does God!” May the sufferings that we encounter in this life and force us to lift our eyes and hearts to the Lord be a thousand times blessed! If this unfortunate rich man had not cursed earthly torments, had not fled from them, seeking only laughter and fun, he would have raised his eyes to heaven while still on earth and probably would have avoided the torments of hell, from where it is useless to raise his eyes upward. Another wise king said: Lamentation is better than laughter; because with a sad face the heart becomes better (Eccl. 7:3). This rich man laughed and had fun all his life, and laughter and fun completely banished the fear of God from his heart. So, when he looked up from hell, he saw Abraham in the distance and Lazarus in his bosom. It is said far away to show how far hell is from the heavenly abodes of the righteous. Abraham is the forefather of the Jewish people in the flesh, but in his piety he is the forefather of all the righteous, who by faith, obedience and humility pleased God by fulfilling His will. And Lazarus was in Abraham's bosom. What is Abraham's bosom? It is a quiet refuge for all the righteous, laid to rest by God after the storms of life on earth. Before the coming of the Savior, the Jews considered Abraham to be the first among the righteous, and the Lord spoke this parable to the Jews. Of course, with the coming of Christ into the world, many became greater than Abraham in the Kingdom of God. The Lord promised not to Abraham, but to His apostles that they would sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. But from the tribe of Shem, Abraham was the first to be granted the Kingdom of God (Luke 13:28), in which, besides him, are all the other righteous people, tortured and beaten prophets, pious kings and other saints of God. Into these abodes of the greatest righteous people, into the abodes of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, the prophets Elijah and Elisha, righteous Job and glorious David, Lazarus entered, this pitiful poor man, who in earthly life patiently endured hunger, nakedness, and contempt, and illness and scabs. None of them was honored to come to this place of light, peace and indescribable joy for their earthly wealth and joy, for their learning and power, for their Royal crown and power; but for their firm faith and trust in the Lord, for their submission to the will of God or for their patience and timely repentance. For God does not look at a person’s place on earth, but looks at his heart. Those who will enter His Kingdom will not have a royal crown, but a royal soul; and those rich in charity and faith, and not in money and lands, will enter; and scholars will come in, taught not by the world and the flesh, but by the wisdom of God; and those who rejoice and rejoice will enter, but not those whose hearts were cheered only by musicians and dancers, but those who filled it with joy and gladness in the Lord, as the psalmist says: my heart and my flesh rejoiced in the living God (Ps. 84:3) !

What does the sinful rich man say, looking at this shining palace above him and seeing Lazarus next to Abraham, that same Lazarus, with whose name he did not want to stain his lips on earth? And he cried out and said: Father Abraham! have mercy on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am tormented in this flame. Truly, there are no words that could better express the horror of the torment of sinners in hell! If someone is a little hungry, he asks for meat and fish to satisfy his belly; if someone is very hungry, he asks for a crust of stale bread in order to be satisfied; but if a man dies of hunger, he rejoices when he receives a handful of acorns to save his life. How indescribably terrible the hellish fire in which this rich man was burning is clearly evident from the fact that he does not ask for a piece of ice, or a bucket of water, or even a cup of water, but only for the wet end of one finger! About letting just one drop of water at the end of a finger fall onto his flaming tongue! Oh, my brothers, if only people believed that our Lord Jesus Christ did not come to earth to increase the kingdom of unrighteousness with yet another untruth; and that He could not at all utter a lie or exaggerate anything; then, truly, this Gospel parable alone would be enough to save all the people living on earth. Look how this man, who did not know about mercy in earthly life, cries out for mercy from the flames of hell! And then look at yourselves, you who not only show no mercy, but also bring disfavor to those more unfortunate and poorer than yourself! Soon you, like this former rich man, will be able to cry out for mercy from that place into which the rays of mercy do not penetrate in eternity.

But Abraham said: child! remember that you have already received your good in your life, and Lazarus received your evil; now he is comforted here, and you suffer; and on top of all this, a great gulf has been established between us and you, so that those who want to cross from here to you cannot, nor can they cross from there to us. Abraham addresses the sinner burning in hell with an affectionate word: child, which shows the complete absence of any malice among the righteous in the Kingdom of Bliss. In addition, with such an appeal, the forefather Abraham wants to remind his descendant that he is from his tribe, that he had before him such high examples as Abraham and other righteous people, and in time could save himself from hellish torment. But he cannot fulfill the sinner's prayer for two reasons. Firstly, because heavenly justice is satisfied with this state of affairs; and, secondly, because between the abodes of the righteous and the place of torment of sinners in the next world there is neither a bridge nor a road for people. Whether any of the sinners, through the prayers of the earthly Church, will be able to be transferred by God from hell to heaven before the Last Judgment - this is the mystery of God, into which Abraham is not included. He only reminds the former rich man, who is now poorer than all the beggars in the world, that in his temporary life he received everything he wanted. And since on earth he never desired heavenly blessings, did not sacrifice a single crumb of bread for them and did not shed a single tear, he had already accepted all his payment in full in earthly life. Lazarus in this temporary life accepted only torment, pain, contempt and tears, desiring heavenly blessings, and so, he achieved these blessings. As the Lord said: Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted (Matthew 5:4); and again: you will be sad, but your sorrow will turn into joy (John 16:20); and again: Woe to you who laugh now! For you will weep and lament (Luke 6:25)!

Seeing that Abraham had justly answered his first request, the sinner now cries out, begging for something else:

Then he said: So I ask you, father, send him to my father’s house, for I have five brothers; let him testify to them, so that they too do not come to this place of torment. Where did he suddenly get such mercy for other people and such concern for the salvation of others? No, this is not mercy, but one more wet finger, which he asks for to ease his torment with its touch. With this he reveals his special sin: seducing others. So, he fell into hell not only because he was hard-hearted towards Lazarus, but also because with his frivolous life he set an example for his brothers, and he destroyed them too, paving the way for them to hell. And temptation is a terrible sin: to slip oneself and drag others along with oneself means to deserve an incomparably more severe condemnation than a person who only slipped himself. Listen to what terrible words the Lord Himself said about the one through whom temptations come. It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and thrown into the sea, than for him to cause one of these little ones to stumble (Luke 17:1-2). And, apparently, the brothers of this rich man were younger than him. Therefore, first of all, he would like Lazarus to come to him and forgive him; and then - to atone for his sin before his brothers. Then his flame would subside and his torment would lessen. Thus, he makes this request to Abraham not so much for the sake of his brothers as for his own sake.

Abraham said to him: They have Moses and the prophets; let them listen to them. He said: no, Father Abraham, but if someone from the dead comes to them, they will repent. Then Abraham said to him: if they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, then even if someone were raised from the dead, they would not believe it. So, Abraham also cannot fulfill the other request of the rich man. He makes a strong and convincing case as to why. Why send Lazarus to earth to remind people what awaits them after death, when through Moses and the prophets they were clearly told what to do to be saved? Many thousands of other people were saved not by the testimony of the dead, but by the testimony of the living. And since so many thousands were able to be saved by listening to Moses and the prophets, so can your brothers. In vain the sinful rich man insists, reinforcing his request with the fact that if someone from the dead comes to them, they will repent. Abraham again, giving a compelling argument, finally refuses to fulfill his request. How will Lazarus' testimony help them if they do not listen to Moses and the prophets? Didn't Moses, Isaiah and Elijah see God, and didn't they say what they said in the name of God? And if they don’t believe them, how will they believe Lazarus if he appears to them, having risen from the dead? First of all, who is Lazarus? Did they ever look into his scabbed face to recognize him if he now appeared to them in glory, bright as an angel? Have they ever listened to his voice to recognize him by his voice? Did they ever ask about his bitter life to know him by his story? Won't they say: it's a ghost? Or some kind of ghost? Or self-deception? How did Saul benefit from Samuel's appearance from the dead (1 Samuel 28)?

Abraham’s answer did nothing to help the sinner burning in hell, but it can help many who today call the spirits of the dead to learn heavenly secrets and supposedly strengthen their faith. Truly, there is no easier way to go crazy and fall into the abyss! Spiritualism is an escape from light into darkness and a search for light in darkness. Those who call upon spirits to know the truth prove by this that they do not believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. But how can reasonable people believe in the spirits of their aunts and neighbors, when there is still a question whether they are really the spirits of those under whose names they appear, and yet not believe the Almighty of truth? How can aunts and neighbors, and mediums, and fortune tellers testify to their words? And Christ testified to His words with His blood and the blood of thousands and thousands of believers in Him, who laid down their lives for these words. However, the Jews saw not only the spirit, but also the spirit and body of the resurrected Lazarus, and yet they not only did not believe, but also wanted to kill Lazarus (John 12:10-11) so that he would not testify to the truth. And the Jews also saw the daughter of Jairus returned from the dead, and the son of the widow of Nain - why didn’t they believe?

And they saw many dead people rising from their graves when Jesus gave up the ghost - why didn’t they believe? And finally, they reliably learned about the Risen Lord Jesus - but, instead of believing, they bribed the guards to deny the truth and proclaim lies. If all this is not enough for us to believe, but we also need the testimony of the dead, here they are for us: here is Abraham, here is Lazarus, here is the sinful rich man! These are the witnesses of both heaven and hell, and these are witnesses verified by none other than the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. Even if any of us clearly saw Heaven and Hell with our own eyes and heard this conversation between Abraham and the sinner, he could not even in the smallest degree trust himself, his sight, his hearing as much as he can believe the testimony of the Seer of Jesus Christ. The Lord saw and heard everything that he told us about in this parable, and now we know the truth. If we saw it ourselves, we would doubt it, saying: maybe this is some kind of ghost, or a dream, or a hallucination. But He saw and heard, He who could not be deceived and, especially, deceive anyone. Oh, brothers, if only we believed in Him more than in ourselves! This is what He demands of us; and this is the main requirement of His Gospel - that we believe in Him more than ourselves, and more than all the living and all the dead. Isn’t this, however, the case with every true guide and the travelers he leads? Does he not demand that travelers follow him, and not look for the way with their untrained eyes, and not follow false guides who, from some of their calculations, say that they know a shorter and easier way?

Our Lord Jesus Christ is our Guide to His Kingdom, which no one can know better than Himself. We are obliged to believe in Christ more than our ears and eyes, which are easily deceived by lies, and our insignificant speculations. So that we would not be deceived by various dubious spirits and ghosts, He, in His presence, opened heaven and hell to us and allowed the dead to tell us what is necessary for our salvation. In His presence - so that we learn the true truth about the afterlife - and exactly as much of this truth as we need to know in order not to have the hard-heartedness of a rich man and to have the patience of Lazarus, his faith and his hope. And so that we do not consider anything in this world to be our property, but that everything we have is God’s loan, given to us for the salvation of ourselves and our neighbors. For this, honor and glory are due to the Lord Jesus Christ, together with the Father and the Holy Spirit - the Trinity, Consubstantial and Indivisible, now and ever, at all times and unto the ages of ages. Amen.

***

From the collection of works of St. Nicholas of Serbia (Velimirovich), published by the Sretensky Monastery publishing house. You can purchase the publication in the Sretenie store.

Abraham. Mercy and judgment

''The beggar died and was carried by the Angels to Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died and was buried. And in hell, being in torment, he raised his eyes, saw Abraham in the distance and Lazarus in his bosom and, crying out, said: Father Abraham! have mercy on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am tormented in this flame. But Abraham said: child! remember that you have already received your good in your life, and Lazarus received your evil; but now he is comforted here, but you are in pain" (Luke 16:22-25)

Here, first of all, we will try to understand who Abraham is [this is also an allegory]. In the Old Testament times, the Most High Yahweh was presented as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Ex. 3:15.). Today we are baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19.); so that the three patriarchs of Israel are a type - a sign. Likewise the Apostle Paul in Galatians 4:22-26; 3:28,29 indicated that Abraham is a type of Heavenly Father.

So, Lazarus arrived in Abraham's bosom , and the rich man was sent to hell - how can this be explained?.. We have already mentioned that before our Lord Christ [the Firstborn from the dead], no one ascended to heaven (John 3 :13.); and this means that “Lazarus in Abraham’s bosom” is also a parable - an image. Also, the prophecy from Malachi 3:1,2,5 will help us understand exactly what time this parable refers to. where it is said about the time of John the Baptist and the Son of Man Christ. In the Sermon on the Mount the Lord says: ''...Blessed are the poor in spirit, for yours is the kingdom of God. Blessed are you who hunger now, for you will be satisfied. Blessed are those who weep now, for you will laugh. On the contrary, woe to you, rich people! for you have already received your consolation. Woe to you who are now satiated! for you will hunger. Woe to you who laugh now! for you will weep and wail" (Luke 6:20,21,24,25). Again, it is important to remember that the Bible is [in most cases] a kind of big parable - an allegory; and the concept of ''death'' [of the rich and the poor] is also not a literal concept - see: Gen. 2:16,17; 5:3-5. Luke 9:59,60. Col. 3:1,3. Rom.6:2,4.

Reading these passages of Scripture, we can guess that “death” may mean a change in our position in the figurative, spiritual sense of the word. This situation is written about in Luke 13:28,30: ''...there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth when you see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the Kingdom of God, and yourselves cast out. And behold, there are last which will be first, and there are first which will be last'' (Luke 13:28,30).

What does the words “there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” ? The prophecies of Isaiah clearly indicate that this should happen during the lifetime of the “rich”, i.e. ruling class of apostates from the Most High, oppressors of the people: ''Therefore thus says the Lord God: Behold, My servants will eat, but you will starve; My servants will drink, and you will be thirsty; My servants will rejoice, but you will be ashamed; My servants will sing with heartfelt joy, and you will shout with heartfelt sorrow and weep with contrition of spirit. And leave your name for My chosen ones to be cursed; and the Lord God will kill you, and call His servants by another name" (Is. 65:13-15). Something similar was described by the apostle John in Rev. 18:15-20 and the prophet Jeremiah in Jer. 25:32,34-36. Also, the prophet Jeremiah wrote that the fire of the Lord’s wrath against them will burn forever – Jer.17:1,4.

Gospel of Luke, Chapter 16, verses 19-31

The personality of the Gospel writer. Evangelist Luke, according to legends preserved by some ancient church writers (Eusebius of Caesarea, Jerome, Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabene, etc.), was born in Antioch. His name, in all likelihood, is a contraction of the Roman name Lucilius. Was he a Jew or a pagan by birth? This question is answered by the passage from the Epistle to the Colossians, where St. Paul distinguishes Luke from the circumcision (Luke 4:11-14) and therefore testifies that Luke was a Gentile by birth. It is safe to assume that before joining the Church of Christ, Luke was a Jewish proselyte, since he is very familiar with Jewish customs. By his civilian profession, Luke was a doctor (Col. 4:14), and church tradition, although rather later, says that he was also engaged in painting (Nicephorus Callistus. Church history. II, 43). When and how he turned to Christ is unknown. The tradition that he belonged to the 70 apostles of Christ (Epiphanius. Panarius, haer. LI, 12, etc.) cannot be considered credible in view of the clear statement of Luke himself, who does not include himself among the witnesses of the life of Christ (Luke 1:1ff.). He acts for the first time as a companion and assistant to the ap. Paul during Paul's second missionary journey. This took place in Troas, where Luke may have lived before (Acts 16:10 et seq.). Then he was with Paul in Macedonia (Acts 16:11ff.) and, during the third journey, in Troas, Miletus and other places (Acts 24:23; Col. 4:14; Phil. 1:24). He accompanied Paul to Rome (Acts 27:1-28; cf. 2 Tim 4:11). Then information about him ceases in the writings of the New Testament, and only a relatively later tradition (Gregory the Theologian) reports his martyrdom; his relics, according to Jerome (de vir. ill. VII), under the emperor. Constantia was transferred from Achaia to Constantinople.

Origin of the Gospel of Luke. According to the evangelist himself (Luke 1:1-4), he compiled his Gospel on the basis of the tradition of eyewitnesses and the study of written experiences in presenting this tradition, trying to give a relatively detailed and correct, ordered account of the events of the gospel history. And those works that Ev. used. Luke, were compiled on the basis of the apostolic tradition, but nevertheless, they seemed to be true. Luke insufficient for the purpose that he had when composing his Gospel. One of these sources, maybe even the main source, was for Ev. Luke Gospel Mark. They even say that a huge part of Luke's Gospel is literary dependent on Ev. Mark (this is precisely what Weiss proved in his work on St. Mark by comparing the texts of these two Gospels).

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

Finally, even in ancient times it was suggested that Ev. Luke as a companion. Paul, expounded the “Gospel” of this particular apostle (Irenaeus. Against heresy. III, 1; in Eusebius of Caesarea, V, 8). Although this assumption is very likely and agrees with the nature of Luke's Gospel, which, apparently, deliberately chose such narratives as could prove the general and main idea of ​​​​Paul's Gospel about the salvation of the Gentiles, nevertheless, the evangelist's own statement (1:1 et seq.) does not indicate this source.

The reason and purpose, place and time of writing the Gospel. The Gospel of Luke (and the book of Acts) was written for a certain Theophilus to enable him to ensure that the Christian teaching he was taught rested on solid foundations. There are many assumptions about the origin, profession and place of residence of this Theophilus, but all these assumptions do not have sufficient grounds. One can only say that Theophilus was a noble man, since Luke calls him “venerable” (κράτ ιστε 1:3), and from the nature of the Gospel, which is close to the nature of the teaching of the apostle. Paul naturally draws the conclusion that Theophilus was converted to Christianity by the Apostle Paul and was probably previously a pagan. One can also accept the testimony of the Meetings (a work attributed to Clement of Rome, X, 71) that Theophilus was a resident of Antioch. Finally, from the fact that in the book of Acts, written for the same Theophilus, Luke does not explain the apostles mentioned in the history of the journey. Paul to Rome of the localities (Acts 28:12.13.15), we can conclude that Theophilus was well acquainted with the named localities and probably traveled to Rome himself several times. But there is no doubt that the Gospel is its own. Luke wrote not for Theophilus alone, but for all Christians, for whom it was important to become acquainted with the history of the life of Christ in such a systematic and verified form as this story is in the Gospel of Luke.

That the Gospel of Luke was in any case written for a Christian or, more correctly, for pagan Christians, this is clearly evident from the fact that the evangelist nowhere presents Jesus Christ as primarily the Messiah expected by the Jews and does not strive to indicate in his activity and teaching Christ fulfillment of messianic prophecies. Instead, we find in the third Gospel repeated indications that Christ is the Redeemer of the entire human race and that the Gospel is intended for all nations. This idea was already expressed by the righteous elder Simeon (Luke 2:31 et seq.), and then passes through the genealogy of Christ, which is given by Heb. Luke is brought down to Adam, the ancestor of all mankind and which, therefore, shows that Christ does not belong to the Jewish people alone, but to all mankind. Then, beginning to depict the Galilean activity of Christ, Ev. Luke puts in the foreground the rejection of Christ by His fellow citizens - the inhabitants of Nazareth, in which the Lord indicated a feature that characterizes the attitude of the Jews towards the prophets in general - an attitude due to which the prophets left the Jewish land for the pagans or showed their favor to the pagans (Elijah and Elisha Luke 4 :25-27). In the Nagornoy conversation, Ev. Luke does not cite Christ’s sayings about His attitude to the law (Luke 1:20-49) and Pharisaic righteousness, and in his instructions to the apostles he omits the prohibition for the apostles to preach to the pagans and Samaritans (Luke 9:1-6). On the contrary, he alone talks about the grateful Samaritan, about the merciful Samaritan, about Christ’s disapproval of the immoderate irritation of the disciples against the Samaritans who did not accept Christ. This should also include various parables and sayings of Christ, in which there is great similarity with the teaching about righteousness from faith, which the apostle. Paul proclaimed in his letters written to churches made up primarily of Gentiles.

The influence of ap. Paul and the desire to explain the universality of salvation brought by Christ undoubtedly had a great influence on the choice of material for composing the Gospel of Luke. However, there is not the slightest reason to assume that the writer pursued purely subjective views in his work and deviated from historical truth. On the contrary, we see that he gives place in his Gospel to such narratives that undoubtedly developed in the Judeo-Christian circle (the story of Christ’s childhood). It is in vain, therefore, that they attribute to him the desire to adapt Jewish ideas about the Messiah to the views of the apostle. Paul (Zeller) or another desire to elevate Paul above the twelve apostles and Paul's teaching before Judeo-Christianity (Baur, Hilgenfeld). This assumption is contradicted by the content of the Gospel, in which there are many sections that run counter to this supposed desire of Luke (this is, firstly, the story of the birth of Christ and His childhood, and then the following parts: Luke 4:16-30; Luke 5:39; Luke 10:22; Luke 12:6 et seq.; Luke 13:1-5; Luke 16:17; Luke 19:18-46, etc. (To reconcile his assumption with the existence of such sections in the Gospel of Luke, Baur had to resort to a new assumption that in its present form the Gospel of Luke is the work of some later person (editor).Golsten, who sees in the Gospel of Luke a combination of the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, believes that Luke intended to unite the Judeo-Christian and Paul's views, distinguishing from them the Judaistic and extreme Pauline. The same view of the Gospel of Luke, as a work pursuing purely conciliatory goals of two directions that fought in the primal Church, continues to exist in the newest criticism of the apostolic writings. Johann Weiss in his preface to the interpretation of Ev. Luke (2nd ed. 1907) come to the conclusion that this Gospel cannot in any way be recognized as pursuing the task of exalting Paulinism. Luke shows his complete “non-partisanship”, and if he has frequent coincidences in thoughts and expressions with the messages of the Apostle Paul, this can only be explained by the fact that by the time Luke wrote his Gospel, these messages were already widespread in all churches . The love of Christ for sinners, the manifestations of which he so often dwells on. Luke, there is nothing particularly characterizing Paul’s idea of ​​Christ: on the contrary, the entire Christian tradition presented Christ precisely as loving sinners...

The time when the Gospel of Luke was written by some ancient writers belonged to a very early period in the history of Christianity - even to the time of the activity of the apostle. Paul, and the newest interpreters in most cases claim that the Gospel of Luke was written shortly before the destruction of Jerusalem: at the time when the two-year stay of the ap. Paul in Roman imprisonment. There is, however, an opinion, supported by fairly authoritative scholars (for example, B. Weiss), that the Gospel of Luke was written after the 70th year, i.e., after the destruction of Jerusalem. This opinion seeks to find its basis mainly in Chapter 21. The Gospel of Luke (v. 24 et seq.), where the destruction of Jerusalem is supposed to be an already accomplished fact. With this, it seems, the idea that Luke has about the position of the Christian Church, as being in a very oppressed state, also agrees (cf. Luke 6:20 et seq.). However, according to the conviction of the same Weiss, it is impossible to date the origin of the Gospel further than the 70s (as, for example, Baur and Zeller do, putting the origin of the Gospel of Luke in 110-130, or as Hilgenfeld, Keim, Volkmar - in 100-100). m g.). Regarding this opinion of Weiss, we can say that it does not contain anything incredible and even, perhaps, can find a basis for itself in the testimony of St. Irenaeus, who says that the Gospel of Luke was written after the death of the apostles Peter and Paul (Against Heresies III, 1).

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

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

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

As for the integrity of the Gospel of Luke, critics have long expressed the idea that not all of the Gospel of Luke originated from this writer, but that there are sections inserted into it by a later hand. Therefore, they tried to highlight the so-called “first-Luke” (Scholten). But most new interpreters defend the position that the Gospel of Luke, in its entirety, is the work of Luke. Those objections that, for example, he expresses in his commentary on Ev. Luke Yog. Weiss, a sane person can hardly shake the confidence that the Gospel of Luke in all its sections is a completely integral work of one author. (Some of these objections will be dealt with in the interpretation of Luke's Gospel.)

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

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

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

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

This closeness of Luke's Gospel to Mark's Gospel is undoubtedly explained by the fact that both evangelists wrote their Gospels for pagan Christians. Both evangelists also show a desire to depict the gospel events not in their exact chronological sequence, but to give as complete and clear an idea as possible of Christ as the founder of the Messianic kingdom. Luke’s deviations from Mark can be explained by his desire to give more space to those stories that Luke borrows from tradition, as well as the desire to group the facts reported to Luke by eyewitnesses, so that his Gospel would represent not only the image of Christ, His life and works, but also His teaching about the Kingdom of God, expressed in His speeches and conversations with both His disciples and His opponents.

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

Finally, in the third section (Luke 19:28-24:53) Hev. Luke sometimes deviates from the chronological order of events in the interests of his grouping of facts (for example, he places the denial of Peter before the trial of Christ before the high priest). Here again ev. Luke adheres to the Gospel of Mark as the source of his stories, supplementing his story with information drawn from another, unknown to us, source. 2 Thus, Luke alone has stories about the publican Zacchaeus (Luke 19: 1-10), about the dispute between the disciples during the celebration of the Eucharist ( Luke 22:24-30), about the trial of Christ by Herod (Luke 23:4-12), about the women who mourned Christ during His procession to Calvary (Luke 23:27-31), conversation with the thief on the cross (Luke 23 :39-43), the appearance to Emmaus travelers (Luke 24:13-35) and some other messages that represent a supplement to the stories of Hev. Brand. .

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

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

Then, in the first part of the Gospel, an image is given of the messianic ministry of Christ, which is accomplished in the power of the Holy Spirit indwelling Christ (4:1). By the power of the Holy Spirit, Christ defeats the devil in the wilderness (Luke 4:1-13), and then appears in to this “power of the Spirit” in Galilee, and in Nazareth, His own city, He declares Himself the Anointed One and the Redeemer, about whom the prophets of the Old Testament predicted. Not finding faith in Himself here, He reminds His unbelieving fellow citizens that God, even in the Old Testament, prepared acceptance for the prophets among the pagans (Luke 4:14-30).

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

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

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

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

Finally, in the third part, the evangelist shows how Christ, by His suffering, death and resurrection, proved that He is truly the promised Savior and the King of the Kingdom of God anointed by the Holy Spirit. Depicting the solemn entry of the Lord into Jerusalem, the evangelist Luke speaks not only about the rapture of the people - which is also reported by other evangelists, but also about the fact that Christ announced His judgment over the city that disobeyed Him (Luke 19:28-44) and then, according to with Mark and Matthew, about how He put His enemies to shame in the temple (Luke 20:1-47), and then, pointing out the superiority of the poor widow's alms for the temple compared to the contributions of the rich, He foretold to His disciples the fate of Jerusalem and His followers ( Luke 21:1-36).

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

In the depiction of the very suffering of Christ, Peter’s denial is presented by the Evangelist Luke as evidence that even during His own suffering, Christ had compassion on His weak disciple (Luke 22:54-62). Then follows a description of the great sufferings of Christ in the following three features: 1) the denial of the high dignity of Christ, partly by the soldiers who mocked Christ in the court of the high priest (Luke 22:63-65), and mainly by the members of the Sanhedrin (Luke 22:66-71), 2 ) recognition of Christ as a dreamer at the trial of Pilate and Herod (Luke 23:1-12) and 3) the people’s preference for Barabbas the thief over Christ and the sentencing of Christ to death by crucifixion (Luke 23:13-25).

After depicting the depth of Christ’s suffering, the evangelist notes such features from the circumstances of this suffering that clearly testified that Christ, even in His suffering, remained the King of the Kingdom of God. The Evangelist reports that the Convict 1) as a judge addressed the women who wept for Him (Luke 23:26-31) and asked the Father for his enemies who were committing a crime against Him unconsciously (Luke 23:32-34), 2) gave a place in paradise to the repentant thief, as having the right to do so (Luke 23:35-43), 3) realized that, dying, He betrayed His very spirit to the Father (Luke 23:44-46), 4) was recognized as righteous by the centurion and By His death he aroused repentance among the people (Luke 23:47-48) and 5) was honored with a particularly solemn burial (Luke 23:49-56). Finally, in the history of the resurrection of Christ, the evangelist highlights such events that clearly proved the greatness of Christ and served to clarify the work of salvation accomplished by Him. This is precisely: the testimony of the angels that Christ conquered death, according to His prophecies about this (Luke 24: 1-12), then the appearance of Christ himself to the Emmaus travelers, to whom Christ showed from Scripture the necessity of His suffering in order for Him to enter into glory His (Luke 24:13-35), the appearance of Christ to all the apostles, to whom He also explained the prophecies that spoke about Him, and commissioned in His name to preach the message of forgiveness of sins to all the nations of the earth, promising at the same time to the apostles to send down the power of the Holy Spirit (Luke 24:36-49). Finally, having briefly depicted the ascension of Christ into heaven (Luke 24:50-53), Hev. Luke ended his Gospel with this, which really was a confirmation of everything taught to Theophilus and other pagan Christians, Christian teaching: Christ is truly depicted here as the promised Messiah, as the Son of God and the King of the Kingdom of God.

Sources and aids for studying the Gospel of Luke. Of the patristic interpretations of the Gospel of Luke, the most thorough are the works of Blessed. Theophylact and Euthymius Zigabena. Of our Russian commentators, in the first place we must put Bishop Michael (Explanatory Gospel), then who compiled a textbook for reading the Four Gospels by D.P. Bogolepov, B.I. Gladkov, who wrote the “Explanatory Gospel,” and Prof. Kaz. spirit. Academy of M. Theologian, who compiled the books: 1) The Childhood of Our Lord Jesus Christ and His Forerunner, according to the Gospels of St. apostles Matthew and Luke. Kazan, 1893; and 2) The public ministry of our Lord Jesus Christ according to the stories of the holy evangelists. Vol. first. Kazan, 1908.

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

From foreign comments we mention interpretations: Keil K. Fr. 1879 (in German), Meyer as revised by B. Weiss 1885 (in German), Jog. Weiss "Writings of N. Zav." 2nd ed. 1907 (in German); Trench coat. Interpretation of the parables of our Lord Jesus Christ. 1888 (in Russian) and Miracles of Our Lord Jesus Christ (1883 in Russian, language); and Merckx. The four canonical Gospels according to their oldest known text. Part 2, 2nd half of 1905 (in German).

The following works are also quoted: Geiki. Life and teachings of Christ. Per. St. M. Fiveysky, 1894; Edersheim. The life and times of Jesus the Messiah. Per. St. M. Fiveysky. T. 1. 1900. Reville A. Jesus of Nazareth. Per. Zelinsky, vol. 1-2, 1909; and some articles from spiritual magazines.

Children of the Devil and Children of the Most High

''And besides all this, a great gulf has been established between us and you, so that those who want to cross from here to you cannot, neither can they cross from there to us'' (Luke 16:26).

So what is this ''abyss'' ? The Lord said to the Pharisees: ''...Where I go, [there] you cannot come. Then the Jews said: Will He really kill Himself, because He says: “Where I go, you cannot come”? He said to them: You are from below, I am from above; You are of this world, I am not of this world'' (John 8:21-23). It is further said that these “rich men” - the Pharisees were not the children of the Heavenly Father - but their father was the devil (John 8:38-44.). When the scribes and Pharisees began to claim that they understood the Law of Moses well, the Master said to them: “If you were blind, you would not have sin; but as you say what you see, the sin remains on you'' (John 9:41); and this also suggests that they stood in opposition to the Almighty [figurative Abraham]. In Old Testament times, whoever killed a person could not escape punishment in cities of refuge (Joshua 20:2-6.). Also, the Almighty Yahweh did not accept sacrifices for sins committed intentionally. Therefore, the Apostle Paul wrote: “For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remains no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment and fury of fire ready to devour the adversaries” (Heb. 10:26,27 ). ***Additional Scriptures to Consider:

1. 1 John 3:8,9. Matthew 12:34.
2. Rom.3:10-12,21. Jer.31:33,34. Ezek.36:27. Proverbs 4:23.

The meaning of the parable of the rich man and the beggar Lazarus

Jesus Christ tells the parable of the unfaithful steward. And after this, the Pharisees and scribes who heard this parable begin to mock Jesus.

(Luke 16:14)

The Pharisees, who were lovers of money, heard all this, and they laughed at Him.

A comment!

There was an opinion among the Pharisees: if a person was rich, it meant that the person was blessed by God. And, accordingly, after his death he should be blessed. And if a person is poor, then this is a sign of a curse.

(Luke 16:31)

Then
Abraham
said to him: if they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, then even if someone were raised from the dead, they would not believe it.

This parable is to some extent prophetic. Because the same thing comes true in the life of Jesus Christ. Then Jesus raises Lazarus, but the Pharisees do not believe in Jesus after this. Moreover, this parable points to Calvary, to the death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. And after this the Pharisees did not believe in Him.

The story of the rich man and Lazarus is a parable and should not be taken literally.

Why does Jesus Christ use these images that do not really reflect the state of the dead?

In the first century AD, a large number of tales and legends circulated in Palestine, which were very similar to the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. All of them were borrowed from the surrounding pagan peoples.

Egyptian legend about Sa-Osiris, similar to the parable of “the rich man and Lazarus”

Sa-Osiris was a magician, and in order to defeat another magician, he incarnated himself as a twelve-year-old boy, the son of a poor man. And the legend tells that once Sa-Osiris and his father witnessed a funeral. They buried one rich man and one poor man. And when they buried the rich man, the father of Sa-Osiris exclaimed that he would like to have a similar fate. But Sa-Osiris, knowing about the other side, decided to demonstrate it to his father. And he takes him to the other world, where he shows the fate of the rich man and the fate of the poor man. The rich man is suffering, and this is described very colorfully. And the poor man stands near Sa-Osiris. And Sa-Osiris, according to the beliefs of the Egyptians, was the judge of all mankind. We see that such a story has a number of parallels with the parable of the rich man and Lazarus.

The blindness of spiritual leaders

''Then he said: So I ask you, father, send him to my father's house, for I have five brothers; let him testify to them, so that they too do not come to this place of torment. Abraham said to him: They have Moses and the prophets; let them listen to them. He said: no, Father Abraham, but if someone from the dead comes to them, they will repent. Then [Abraham] said to him, “If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, even if someone were raised from the dead, they will not believe it” (Luke 16:27-31).

The expression: “Send him to my father’s house, for I have five brothers ,” means that there are six of them in total, and their father is the devil. Let us remember the prophecy: “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; it will bruise your head, and you will bruise its heel'' (Gen. 3:15). This indicates opposition:

1. the seed of the ''woman'' , as a prototype of the Heavenly Jerusalem, i.e. Kingdom of God (Isaiah 54).
2. the seed of the ''snake'' , i.e. followers of the devil (Rev. 12:9). To draw your attention to the number ''six'', we will present a sign described in the book of Kings that happened to the forefather of the Lord Christ, the shepherd of sheep, David. In 1 Samuel 17:4,49,50 it is narrated that David [as the image of the seed of the “woman”, the Kingdom of God - Rev. 12:1,5.], struck the Philistine Goliath on the head; he was six cubits tall. Further, 2 Samuel 21:20 also describes the confrontation with the Philistine, who had six fingers and toes; and this was also a kind of sign - a parable for us (Matt. 12:38-42.).

That the last verse of the parable points to the ruling religious elite of Israel is confirmed by the passage from the Gospel of John: “Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father: you have an accuser, Moses, in whom you trust. For if you had believed Moses, you would have believed Me, because he wrote about Me. If you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?'' (John 5:45-47). These were truly the sons of their father, the devil, to whom it was said: ''Either recognize the tree as good and its fruit as good; or recognize the tree as bad and its fruit as bad, for a tree is known by its fruit. Spawn of vipers! How can you speak good when you are evil?'' (Matt. 12:33,34). So, having killed the Lord, they did not stop, but tried to deceive the people (Matt. 28:11-15.), then continuing to kill Christ’s brothers (Matt. 23: 33,34.). So that in the end, Jacob wrote about them: “Listen, you rich: weep and wail for your troubles that are coming upon you. Behold, the wages which you withheld from the workers who reaped your fields cry out, and the cries of the reapers have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts. You condemned and killed the Righteous One; He did not resist you'' (James 5:1,4,6).

Archpriest Andrey Tkachev. PARABLE OF THE RICH MAN AND LAZARUS.

The unique combination of depth and brevity that is characteristic of the word of God speaks in favor of the divine origin of the Gospel. The words of Jesus Christ as conveyed by the evangelists are brief. Socrates, in Plato's rendering, left us with more words. More texts written in his own hand were left to the reading world by Cicero. The number of people who have said and written more than Jesus of Nazareth is enormous. Many of these people are considered great. And it is against their background that the divinity of Jesus becomes obvious.

He did more than he said, “but if they were to write about it in detail, I think the world itself could not contain the books that would be written” (John 21:25). He said relatively little. Moreover, He spoke without preparing in advance, without thinking, without drawing up theses and notes. He spoke spontaneously, on occasion. The secrets of another world, the laws of eternal life, were taught by Him in the midst of everyday hustle and bustle, while looking at the working fishermen, at the blooming lilies, at the people putting donations into the temple treasury. And every time “grace poured out from His mouth” (see: Ps. 44: 3). Like the sun, shedding light naturally and unceasingly, the lips of Jesus exuded a sweetness superior in taste to honey and more precious than gold and choice stones. No nobleman wrote down His words for Jesus Christ with a scribbler's cane. Christ shared Divine wisdom so simply as none of the earthly wise men behaves with his best thoughts. Indeed, He is the Sun, shedding light without envy, He is “the Sun of righteousness, and healing is in His rays” (Mal. 4: 2).

***

The words of Jesus are bottomlessly deep and at the same time divinely brief. None of the writers who sought to convey great wisdom in small words can compare with the Lord. Aesop spoke briefly, and after him all the Lafontaines and Krylovs. But their allegories are not bottomless. They just have a double bottom, and their meaning is similar to the kernel of a nut hidden by the shell. Brief proverbs, human parables and winged expressions of the sages. But they always contain only one thought, whereas the short words of Jesus always contain a whole scattering of precious thoughts and a whole rainbow of semantic shades. Saint Nicholas of Serbia is a thousand times right when he said that everyone says: “Read the Bible,” but I say: “Read the Bible, and then don’t read the Bible for several years. Read any literature: historical, fiction, scientific. Then pick up and re-read the Bible again, and you will understand what the Bible is.” If our “complex” eyes do not recognize God in the simplicity of Jesus, we need to consider His simplicity against the backdrop of “wise” human complexity. Then it becomes obvious that His simplicity is divine simplicity.

I would like to take as an example one of my favorite parables - the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, in order to use its example to try to show the bottomlessness of the Gospel and enjoy the thoughts hidden in it.

"Some man was rich." This is how the parable begins. The signs of wealth are briefly outlined: he dresses in purple and fine linen and holds brilliant feasts every day. The first garment is purple. This is a royal robe. In ancient times, royal heirs were called porphyritic, that is, born of royal blood. The rich man in the parable is not a king at all. But he is dressed in clothes of someone else's dignity and perhaps wants to be like the king. People so often want to be like the greats, but not at all in the scale of their deeds, but at least in the splendor of the table, or the richness of the interiors, or the number of servants. “A tradesman among the nobility” is a very common type. “Why am I worse than the king?” - the man says to himself, trying on the external attributes of luxury in front of the mirror. Perhaps this rich man is like that too. The Gospel describes it, going from the surface to the depth. His outer garment is purple, and underneath is fine linen. This was the name for finely woven, lightweight and at the same time durable clothing. A pair of fine linen gloves was placed in a nutshell (!), and it was not for nothing that the Romans paid for fine linen fabrics with equal weight in gold. So, the man is dressed in the best attire and feasts constantly. But is he happy? Maybe yes. But most likely not. Most likely, incessant feasts are an attempt to drive away or drown out deep inner melancholy. Wasn’t Solomon the richest of all, wasn’t there silver in his kingdom for the price of a simple stone? However, it was Solomon’s lips that pronounced a bitter verdict on the world. “All a man’s labor is for his mouth, but his soul remains hungry.” Great people do not create a new world. They only accurately express what would be less clear without them.

One might even think that the rich man’s merriment was conscious and intentional. That is, he forced himself to have fun, as if through force, even when he wanted simple peace and quiet. It is impossible to have fun “incessantly” unless you have once deliberately and intentionally chosen a similar lifestyle. The same books of Solomon could help the rich man in composing his own special symbol of faith and way of life. Here is one of the quotes: “Here’s something else that I found good and pleasant: to eat and drink and enjoy good things in all my labors... And if God gave wealth and property to any person, and gave him the power to use them and take his share and enjoy from their labors, then this is the gift of God” (Eccl. 5: 17–18). A rich man could hang these words on the facade of his house, and he could point them out to everyone who wanted to reproach him for excessive luxury. They say, “This is said in Scripture. What I use is a gift from God.”

A person generally cannot live without a worldview. The worldview may be half-thought out, primitive, raw, but it must exist. Every person is at least somehow obliged to explain the world and himself in the world. Most likely, a person will refuse to live in a world that is completely inexplicable, hostile and unpredictable.

St. Augustine has the idea that it is not surprising that a good person does good for a good purpose; It is surprising that the evil one also does evil for what seems to him to be a good goal. The harlot, the thief, and the dictator have their own set of excuses. They will say that everyone does this, that you can’t live otherwise, that there are many who do even worse, etc. Surely the rich man in the parable also had his own worldview and his own set of justifications. If we asked him why he lives this way and not otherwise, we would certainly hear a clear answer from a very intelligent person. We will see later how much his rightness in his eyes coincided with his assessment in the eyes of God. Now let's look at the second character from this Gospel passage.

***

His name was Lazarus. Unlike the rich man, he has a name in the parable. This naming of Lazarus means that God knows him personally. God, as an omniscient Being, knows everything. But He has a special relationship with man. He doesn't just know us exhaustively, down to the number of breaths and the number of hairs. He wants to communicate with us as a Person to a Person. And personal communication certainly involves calling people by name. God Himself reveals His names, and people then call on these names, hoping to be heard by God. And the Lord, in His turn, as a good Shepherd, “calls His sheep by name and leads them out” (John 10: 3). The fact that Christ calls the name of the poor sufferer - Lazarus - and is silent about the name of the rich man, means that the first man is from the sheep of God's flock, and the second is not.

***

Lazarus was not saved because of his poverty. This would be a dangerous oversimplification of life's problems and a lie to the truth. There are poor people who would horrify the world if they were in the place of a rich man. There are people for whom poverty is a natural consequence of laziness, or wastefulness, or binge drinking. We cannot say anything like that about Lazarus, but we also have no right to say that heavenly consolation in the future life is an indispensable reward for earthly suffering alone. Lazarus is not just unhappy. He is gentle and patient.

We can draw this surprising conclusion from the fact that after his death, angels carried Lazarus to Abraham's bosom. Like reaches out to like, and the mention of angels shows the kinship of Lazarus’ soul with pure disembodied spirits. About the rich man it is said more briefly and harshly: “The rich man also died, and they buried him.” The rich man, of course, had a name, but it is not named in the parable, since the owner of the name is not rooted in eternity. The rich man, of course, had a magnificent funeral, but the parable ignores the pomp and utters only two words, heavy as a tombstone: “They buried him.” So suddenly the picture changes, and the one who ate sumptuously became the food of fire, and the one whose festering wounds served as food for stray dogs found himself in a place of peace and reward.

***

But let’s return to the words that Lazarus was pardoned and consoled for more than just his poverty. To do this, let’s use our imagination, although not without timidity. While the parable speaks of one nature of the existing relationship between the rich man and Lazarus, we dare to imagine three more remaining situations out of four possible ones.

Situation one. Lazarus, as he is, is unhappy, but the rich man is attentive and merciful. He does not pass by the unfortunate man, but regularly orders him to bring him those crumbs from the luxurious table that Lazarus does not even dream of. From time to time the rich man instructs the servants to wash Lazarus and give him new clothes. In this case, Lazarus does not simply suffer need and remain silent. He prays for a benefactor. The ancient proverb: “A beggar feeds on alms, a rich man is saved by the prayer of a beggar,” is literally justified. In this case, the rich man would not have ended up in hell, and he and Lazarus would have found common peace in the same place of bliss.

Situation two. Lazarus is angry. He is poisoned by hatred of all rich people. He sends blasphemies into the sky and calls thousands of curses on the head of the rich man. “The world is unfair,” he says, “and justice must be brought about, even if only by force of arms.” Such a Lazarus would never have been carried away by angels to Abraham's bosom! If Lazarus were like that, and the rich man were like we know him, then both of them would be in hell. There, in hell, they would curse each other and blame each other for both temporary troubles and a common eternal tragedy.

The third situation is that the rich man, if he were kind and merciful, would be in heaven, and the evil poor man would be in hell. There are few such rich people, but they always have been and, I hope, they always will be.

In this case, perhaps the name of the rich man would have been mentioned and the name of Lazarus would have been kept silent. I dare to write all this only to develop one thought: Lazarus was not saved for poverty alone. Poverty alone is never enough. You need to have a certain treasure inside your soul, a certain virtue: meekness, kindness, non-judgment, lack of envy - so that after death the angels take your soul and escort it to bright and green places, from where illness, sadness and sighing escape.

***

It is interesting that social injustice is, as it were, recorded in Scripture, and no calls for change are given here. The solution to everyday conflicts has been moved there

. This is a challenge to the entire modern history of Europe. After all, the slogan of the French Revolution was: “Peace to the huts. War on palaces,” the evil Lazarus would probably have liked (if, of course, he had been angry). “Lazari of all countries, unite!” - a wonderful cry for setting fire to the houses of the rich with the hands of the poor, soaking the earth with blood and then enslaving the poor again in the interests of the new revolutionary bureaucracy. Our history speaks volumes; in particular, she talks about the inattentive reading of the Gospel by our ancestors at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries. Poverty and wealth are only convenient ways to be saved: some through patience, some through good deeds. The ulcers of the world are healed from within, through moral deeds. Other methods of treatment kill the patient.

***

The earthly life of the two main characters of the parable is depicted in bright, but at the same time restrained colors. The same Solomon spoke at length about his useless wealth for the soul: “I undertook great things: I built myself houses, planted myself vineyards, made myself gardens... made myself ponds... acquired servants and maidservants for myself... collected silver and gold for myself... got myself singers. and singers... Whatever my eyes desired, I did not refuse them, I did not forbid my heart any joy..." (Eccl. 2: 4-10).

Much less is said about the rich man in the parable. He and Lazarus are only “purple and fine linen” and “pus and dogs licking scabs.” But then the Lord continues speaking. He pulls back the veil that separates the future life from the present, and initiates us into the secrets of retribution.

The future life appears precisely as a sacrament of retribution. But before talking about this, we need to talk about the fact that there is a future life.

***

With the death of the body, a person does not disintegrate into the elements of the world, into the elements. Atheists have used tons of paper to convey their murderous worldview to people. This worldview boils down to the fact that man descended from animals and, having ended his life, will continue his presence in the world only in the form of a burdock growing on a grave. This is a terrible worldview, and even those who believe in it should not think too deeply about it, so as not to open their veins. Is it a joke? - son of a monkey and future mug. The fact that not all atheists are entirely suicidal only shows that people are capable of believing one thing and doing another.

At the other pole of thoughts about eternity are those who compose tales of rebirth. Where they do not believe in One God, they do not believe in eternal life. But where they believe in many gods, they believe in a plurality of earthly lives, in reincarnation, that is, in reincarnation, in a change of bodily shells. Gospel truth lies exactly in the middle of these two ideas. So, some say: “You will disappear,” others say: “You will be reincarnated.” The Gospel says: “You will continue to live and you will receive a reward or retribution.”

The fate of the rich man is retribution. Much more is said about the one who dressed magnificently during his lifetime than about the one whose sores were licked by dogs. And in general, in the Gospel, hell is described in more words than heaven. Who hasn’t heard about “eternal fire”, about “the never-ending worm”, about “gnashing of teeth”, about “darkness”?! All these are attributes of punishment. About paradise it is only said: “Eye has not seen, ear has not heard, and the heart of man has not conceived what God has prepared for those who love Him.”

After the Fall, fallen spirits became close to man. And we know more about hell than about heaven, because according to the state of our hearts we are closer to places of suffering than to places of peace. Melancholy and sadness, despondency and despair, envy and hot temper, lust and rancor, coupled with a hundred other sinful states, are familiar to everyone. Or almost everyone. At the same time, kindness, meekness, long-suffering, compassion, and chastity are known to the majority only by name. For many people, these names mean nothing, no inner experience. And, given the rapid changes in language, soon these virtues will be unknown by name to very, very many. So it turns out that a person, even without much effort on his part, has experience of demonic life. (I repeat that despondency, anger, and unrepentance are precisely demonic states.) But he may not have any experience of angelic life at all. That's why you can't dream of heaven. Start dreaming, and you will immediately come up with something sinful, something that is closer to you, but not at all what true bliss is associated with. That is why heaven is not described in detail in the word of God. The heavenly paradise, the one about which the Lord said to the thief on the Cross: “Today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43), is indescribable and inconceivable for our fallen imagination. That is why it was said above that in order to be carried by angels to places of peace, you need to be at least somehow akin to the angels. Lazarus had this affinity.

The poor rarely catch our eye. We are more interested in the rich. What they eat, what they wear, where they go on vacation, how they made their first million... All this is a subject of interest for those many who “are not yet kings, but on occasion are not averse to dressing in purple.” So, the Lord, having fixed our curious gaze on a person living in luxury, after the death of the latter, quickly places him in the flames. And our gaze, attached to the person of the rich man, also involuntarily turns out to be looking at the fire that will not go out.

***

From there, from the fire, the rich man cries out for mercy to Abraham and... to Lazarus. He now noticed and recognized this beggar who was always lying at the threshold. The latter became the first and vice versa. If the rich man saw Lazarus almost every day, then he had never seen Abraham before. Is it necessary to repeat that not only did the Jews not have photography at that time, but the Jews also did not have portrait painting? Where does the rich man get this unmistakable recognition?

In the future world, we will become forcibly insightful. Or, more accurately, naturally insightful. Not through long logical reasoning, not through other mental operations, the soul will cognize everything around, but through a simple glance. And the gaze will no longer be just a glance, but contemplation and penetration into the essence of what is contemplated. This is how, before the Fall, Adam looked at animals and gave them names. So Peter on the Mount of Transfiguration unmistakably recognized Moses and Elijah, although the apostle was then in a blessed frenzy and uttered inarticulate speeches. Everyone recognizes everyone. If this concerns recognizing distant and close relatives, meeting the authors of books and music that one has read and listened to, then this will be a joy. If this is the acquisition of nightmarishly truthful knowledge about oneself and about the imaginary “great”, if this knowledge becomes an exposure and overthrow, then this is the Last Judgment.

One of the monks of Athos said that he would be surprised at three things if he went to heaven. The first is that he is in heaven. The second is that those whom he was sure were not there were not there. And the third is that there are those there whom he never expected to see there.

The rich man was surprised at least twice. First of all, he is in hell. Well, secondly, in heaven there is Lazarus. And what difference does it make now what you ate, what you drank, on what bed you tossed and turned, having eaten too much. If you did not believe in eternal life and did not prepare for it in any way, then you are not worthy of it. This is exactly what Abraham says: “Child! Remember that you have already received good things in your life.” But is it possible to compare the food eaten, which comes out like aphedron, with the eternal flame of torment? Is there any mockery in this Abrahamic “ remember

"? Even if I am sitting in the dentist's chair, no memory of past pleasures will console me at these moments. Moreover, no memory of past blessings will console a person in hell. It will most likely irritate and anger you, making you grind your teeth in impotent anger at yourself. This “gnashing of teeth” may be the gnashing of despair and belated regret about what has happened. In the case of the rich man, neither Abraham nor Lazarus are to blame for his sad situation. He himself made a choice in favor of the land and only the land. He buried “talent” in the ground - wealth with which he could serve God and his neighbors. Now the former rich man has left the earth, and in heaven they do not know him and do not wait for him. Even his name is unknown there. But the worst thing is that hell is a personal choice, and it’s not for nothing that in the East they say: “The rich don’t need heaven.”

***

The rich man won the battle, but lost the battle. He enjoyed temporary pleasures, but lost eternal life. The loss is deplorable. You can’t laugh at a rich man, it’s a sin to gloat, especially since he’s not completely bad, and you can learn a few things from him.

He, for example, worries about his brothers left on earth. There is no doubt that the saints, moved by love and compassion, worry about the sinful inhabitants of the earth. But for a sinner who finds himself in hell to worry about his relatives and want them to avoid his fate is already amazing. In modern times, brothers and sisters often behave towards each other in such a way that, compared to them, a rich man may seem righteous.

But this is love for your own. This is the love that can give birth to the logic of Caiaphas. Caiaphas was a bishop, and was visionary without holiness. He predicted that it was “better” for Jesus alone to die, “than for the whole people to perish” (see: John 11: 49–51). Many are capable of love caused by the feeling of blood. This love has a price, it is important, but it does not lead to heaven. The Gospel of Christ in general makes a radical revolution in the field of human thought. And it’s not even surprising that the Gospel castigates human vices. The amazing thing is that it changes our understanding of virtue. We must love everyone, not just our own. Loving your own means loving yourself in them. And to love strangers is to crucify yourself. Compassionate love, which does not distinguish between strangers and one’s own, is, for example, one of the main themes of the parable of the Good Samaritan. It was worth it for the rich man to expand his heart so that it could accommodate not only his own brothers, but also at least one of the step-beggars. Once again it is worth repeating with fear: the rich man is not a villain. He is simply inattentive to the life of the spirit and the life to come.

***

The same idea is contained in the words of Jesus Christ about the second coming - from the Gospel of Matthew. There are terrible words: “Depart from Me, you cursed into eternal fire,” the Lord says not to those who undressed their neighbors, maimed them or took away bread. He says this to those who “merely” did not feed, clothe, or visit the sick and prisoners. It is not the presence of actively committed evil, but the absence of good deeds that will be the reason to go in the direction opposite to the path of the righteous.

These evangelical ideas tear from our mouths countless self-justifications, like “I didn’t do this”, “I didn’t do that”. In order to find yourself in the most terrible place, sometimes you only need one thing - to do nothing.

***

The rich man asks the forefather to help save the brothers - to send someone with a testimony so that they too will not end up in this cruel place.

Abraham refuses to send anyone to the rich man's brothers with a testimony, citing the fact that they have “Moses and the prophets” (Luke 16:29). In other words, they have Holy Scripture. If they don't believe him, they won't even believe the resurrected dead!

It is rare to find such high praise in Scripture for the Book of the Covenant. It turns out that a person who has the Scripture and studies it does not need messengers from another world. Everything they could say, he already knows! And if they come, then the strangers themselves and their words can be judged on the basis of Scripture! This should give birth to courage in the soul of a believer, courage similar to Paul’s, when he commands to anathematize “Angels from heaven” if they bring an alien gospel (see: Gal. 1: 8).

But these same words command us to check our attitude towards Scripture. It must be carefully studied throughout life. Twice we Orthodox Christians speak about the Old Testament in the Creed. Christ rose on the third day “according to the Scriptures,” and the Holy Spirit “spoke to the prophets.” We need to study everything that the Spirit said through the prophets, and everything that has to do with the prophecies about the Savior. Love for Scripture is indirect love for the Lord Himself; it is our sweetest duty and the work of our whole lives.

Christians are people of the Cup and the Book. Take the Cup from the person and leave the Book. It turns out that you have taken Christ away, and then the presence of the Book will not save the situation. But take away the Book and leave the Cup. Then a person will have access to the “throne of grace”, but over time will become an ignorant bearer of grace

. It sounds strange, but it is possible. Due to ignorance, over time, the enemy will take such a person away from the Chalice. Therefore, it is better not to take anything away, but to give the Christian both the Light of the Scriptures and the Food of Immortality.

Ideally, our faith should be such that not only a visiting preacher, or the garbage of television horror stories, or everyday rumors and gossip should not shake our faith. Even an angel appearing or a dead man rising should not attract our attention as much as the living words of the Living God.

***

A parable is not a story. Even in church it is preceded by the words: “The Lord spoke this parable.” Whereas the real story begins with the words “at the time.” A parable is a specially written picture through which Christ reveals to us something pricelessly important. But the parable of the rich man and Lazarus also had its embodiment in history. In history there was a man who rose from the dead, also named Lazarus. He was resurrected according to the word of Christ, but his resurrection did not convince any of the unbelievers of the Divinity of Jesus. Moreover, the leaders of the Jewish people agreed to kill Lazarus along with Jesus, since Lazarus was nothing more than a living sermon about the Messiah. The words: “Even if a dead man rises again, they will not believe it,” were literally fulfilled.

Such is the stubborn power of unbelief. We can also see it in the parable, along with praise for the great power of Scripture, along with the secret inner wealth of Lazarus and the inner poverty of the rich man.

Chrysostom spoke several lengthy words on the topic of this short parable. And these were truly golden words. The words of the Lord are tens, or even hundreds of times larger than his words. Exceed, but do not exhaust. Moreover, these simultaneously long and short lines do not exhaust their depths. They don’t exhaust it, and they don’t even try. Because the words of the Lord Jesus Christ are amazingly brief and divinely profound.

www.pravoslavie.ru

Morality:

Could the parable of the “rich man” be relevant to our time? Of course yes, because... ''merchants are rich'' is also described in the book of Revelation (Rev. 18:15,16.), and it points to the last days of the wicked world. And if our Master Christ appointed his “merchants” - shepherds, and gave them talents (Matthew 25:15-27.) so that they would increase His wealth - Isaiah 66:19-21. Matthew 28:19,20. So there are also “sons of the evil one” who, for their own gain, increase the “wealth” of Babylon the great – Acts 20:29,30. 2 Peter 2:1-3.

But soon our Lord will come again and completely fix everything. Amen.

S. Iakovlev. (Bohan)

*** Also, information on this topic can be obtained in the article “What is Babylon the Great” (Secrets of the Bible. A New Understanding of Scripture).

Interpretation of the parable

At the center of the parable are two people - a rich man and a poor man. The rich man in the parable does not have a name; he was not worthy of it. The beggar’s name is Lazarus, translated as “God’s help,” which is symbolic, because this person has no one to rely on except God. The beggar ate handouts and scraps and asked the rich man for help.

But he was a heartless man. Every day he came across a man lying at the gate and did not notice him. Even stray dogs took pity on Lazarus and tried to ease his suffering by licking his wounds.

And then death comes and equalizes these two people. Of course, the rich man was buried with maximum pomp, but the poor Lazarus was buried somewhere, like a dog, so that he would not stink. But what's the difference? Their bodies were buried in the ground, and the rich man could not take anything with him from the accumulated valuables.

But with their souls everything happened completely differently. Depending on their condition, souls ended up in different places. Lazarus was sick and suffered a lot on earth. But, paradoxically, he turned out to be pure in soul. He carried his earthly cross humbly and trusted only in God. And after death, Lazarus received his reward - he found himself in a wonderful place, next to Abraham.

The rich man did not know hardships in his earthly life; he was accustomed to consider himself superior to others. After all, he was such a respected man. Now the rich man was naked and completely helpless. He would give all his wealth, being in the heat, for a drop of water. Why did everything happen like this?

Over many years of comfortable existence, the soul of the rich man has hardened. He calmly walked past a man suffering hardships and did not try to help him in any way. But he could, it didn’t cost him anything. Even in the afterlife, the rich man wonders why Lazarus “settled in” so well, and envy increases his suffering.

The rich man's soul turned out to be poor - he did not accumulate anything in it that could ease his lot. And it is impossible to help him - you cannot move from hell to heaven. Only during life through good deeds can a person improve his lot in the afterlife.

When the rich man wants to at least warn his sinful brothers, Abraham refuses him this too. And he is right, if people do not believe God, then the resurrection of “some” Lazarus will not convince them. After all, even the Resurrection of the Savior was perceived with distrust. A person can always find some rational explanation for any miracle.

Interpretation of the parable from Jeremiah part 1

Interpretation of the parable from Jeremiah part 2

What does the parable teach us?

The conclusion follows from the parable “About the Rich Man and Lazarus” that the incorrect use of wealth during life deprives a person of the opportunity to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Everything we have has been given to us by God, and we must live for people, according to God’s laws.

There are people respected in society, gifted with love and wealth. But not all of them are able to give a helping hand to someone like Lazarus. But their wealth is the “talent” that the Lord gave them. This “talent” needs to be put to good use.

The parable also makes you think about the fact that hell exists, and there is a possibility of ending up there if you spend your life sinfully. However, the majority of people think that they deserve a better fate.

We don’t know when our last hour will strike, so we need to hurry to do good. This is especially true for those who have such an opportunity.