Commentary on the Gospel of John. Interpretation of the books of the New Testament

. In the beginning was the Word

What I said in the preface, I will repeat now, namely: while the other evangelists narrate at length about the earthly birth of the Lord, upbringing and growth, John omits these events, since his fellow disciples have said enough about them, but speaks of the Divinity incarnated for us . However, upon careful examination, you will see that no matter how they kept silent about the Deity of the Only Begotten, but mentioned, although not extensively, so John, fixing his gaze on the higher word, did not completely omit from attention the dispensation of the incarnation. For one Spirit guided the souls of all.

John speaks to us about the Son, and also mentions the Father.

He points to the eternity of the Only Begotten when he says: "In the beginning was the Word" that is, from the beginning. For what exists from the beginning, that, no doubt, will not have a time when it would not exist. “Whence,” another will say, “is it clear that the expression “in the beginning was” means the same as from the beginning?” Where? As from the most general understanding, so especially from this evangelist himself. For in one of his epistles he says: “about what was from the beginning, what we ... saw”(). Do you see how the beloved explains himself? So the questioner will say; but I understand it "in the beginning" in the same way as Moses: "In the beginning God created"(). Just as there the expression “in the beginning” does not give the idea that the sky is eternal, so here I will not understand the word “in the beginning” as if the Only Begotten is eternal. So says the heretic. To this insane persistence, we will say nothing else but this: sage of malice! Why did you keep silent about the next? But we will say it against your will. There Moses says that in the beginning God "created" heaven and earth, but here it says that in the beginning "was" the Word. What is common between "created" and "was"? If it had been written here, “in the beginning he created the Son,” then I would have kept silent; but now, when it is said here "in the beginning it was," I conclude from this that the Word has existed from the beginning, and not subsequently came into being, as you empty talk. Why didn't John say "in the beginning was the Son" but "the Word"? Listen. This is for the sake of the infirmity of the hearers, so that we, having heard about the Son from the very beginning, do not think about the passionate and fleshly birth. That's why I called Him "the Word", so that you would know that just as the word is born from the mind without passion, so He is born from the Father without passion. Also: He called Him "the Word" because He announced to us the properties of the Father, just as every word declares the mood of the mind; and together also to show that He is co-eternal with the Father. For just as it cannot be said that the mind is sometimes without the word, so the Father was not without the Son. John used this phrase because there are many other words of God, for example, prophecies, commandments, as it is said about angels: "mighty in strength, doing his word"(), that is, His commands. But the Word itself is a personal being.

and the Word was with God,

Here the evangelist shows even more clearly that the Son is contemporaneous with the Father. Lest you think that the Father was once without the Son, he says that the Word was with God, that is, with God in the bowels of the father. For you must understand the preposition "at" instead of "with", as it is used elsewhere: are not His brothers and His sister "in us [are]", that is, "live with us"? (). So here, "with God" understand instead: was with God, together with God, in His bowels. For it is impossible that there should ever be without the Word, or wisdom, or power. Therefore, we believe that the Son, since He is the Word, wisdom and power of the Father (), was always with God, that is, was contemporaneous and joint with the Father. "And how," you say, "is the Son not after the Father?" How? Learn from a real example. Is the radiance of the sun not from the sun itself? Yes sir. Is it really later than the sun, so that it is possible to imagine a time when the sun was without radiance? It is forbidden. For how could it be the sun if it had no radiance? If, however, we think thus of the sun, how much more must we think thus of the Father and the Son. It must be believed that the Son, Who is the radiance of the Father, as Paul says (), always shines with the Father, and not later than Him.

Note also that Sabellius the Libyan is refuted by this expression. He taught that the Father, Son, and Spirit are one person, and that this one person appeared at one time as the Father, at another time as the Son, and at another time as the Spirit. Thus spoke the son of the father of lies, filled with the evil spirit. But in these words: "and the Word was with God" he is clearly faking it. The Evangelist here says in the clearest way that there is another Word and another God, that is, the Father. For if the Word was together with God, then obviously two persons are introduced, although they both have one nature. And what one nature, listen.

and the Word was God.

Do you see that the Word is God! This means that the Father and the Son have a single nature, as well as a single deity. So, let both Arius and Sabellius be ashamed. Arius, who calls the Son of God a creation and a creature, let him be put to shame by the fact that the Word in the beginning was and was God. And Sabellius, who does not accept the trinity of persons, but individuality, let him be put to shame by the fact that the Word was with God. For here the great John clearly declares that there is another Word, and another Father, though not another and another. For one speaks of persons, and another and another of natures. For example, in order to express the thought more clearly, Peter and Paul are one and the other, for they are two persons; but not another and another, for they have one nature - humanity. The same should be taught about the Father and the Son: On the one hand, they are one and the other, for they are two persons, and on the other hand, they are not one and the other, for one nature is a deity.

. It was in the beginning with God.

This God the Word has never been separated from God and the Father. Since John said that the Word was also God, so that no one would be confused by such a satanic thought: if the Word is God, then did It not ever rebel against the Father, like the gods of the pagans in their fables, and if it separated from Him, has it not become an adversary to God? - he says that although the Word is also God, nevertheless, It is again with God and the Father, abides with Him and has never separated from Him.

It is no less decent to say this to those who adhere to the Aryan teachings: listen, you deaf ones, who call the Son of God the work and creation of Him; you understand what name the evangelist applied to the Son of God: he called him the Word. And you call Him work and creation. He is not a work or a creature, but the Word. Word of two kinds. One is internal, which we have even when we do not speak, that is, the ability to speak, for even the one who sleeps and does not speak has, however, the word laid down in it and has not lost the ability. So, one word is internal, and the other is pronounced, which we pronounce with our lips, bringing into action the ability to speak, the ability of the mental and lying word. Although, therefore, the word is of two kinds, nonetheless, none of them is suitable for the Son of God, for the Word of God is neither spoken nor internal. Those words are natural and ours, and the Word of the Father, being higher than nature, is not subject to sly cunning. Therefore, the cunning conclusion of Porphyry, a pagan, falls apart by itself. He, trying to overthrow the Gospel, used the following division: if the Son of God is the word, then either the spoken or the internal word; but He is neither the one nor the other; therefore He is not the Word. So, the evangelist first resolved this conclusion by saying that what is internal and pronounced is said about us and natural things, but nothing like that is said about supernatural things. However, even then it must be said that the pagan's doubt would have been justified if this name "Word" were completely worthy of God and actually and essentially used about Him. But hitherto no one has yet found any name entirely worthy of God; neither this very “Word” is actually and essentially used about Him, but it only shows that the Son was born of the Father impassively, like a word from the mind, and that He became the messenger of the will of the Father. Why are you, unhappy, attached to a name and, hearing about the Father, the Son and the Spirit, fall into material relations and imagine in your mind carnal fathers and sons, and the wind of the air, perhaps south or north, or some other, producing storm? But if you want to know what kind of word is God's Word, then listen to what follows.

. Everything came into being through Him.

“Do not consider,” he says, “the Word as spilling into the air and disappearing, but consider the Creator of everything that is intelligible and sensual.” But the Arians again insistently say: “as we say that the door was made with a saw, although it is a tool here, and the other moved the tool, master, so everything came into being by the Son, not as if He Himself was the Creator, but a tool, just like there saw, and the Creator is God and the Father, and He uses the Son as an instrument. Therefore, the Son is a creature, created for that, so that everything would come into being by Him, just as a saw is arranged in order to perform carpentry work with it. So repeats the crafty host of Arius.

What should we tell them simply and directly? If the Father, as you say, created the Son for this purpose, in order to have Him as an instrument for the perfection of creation, then the Son will be honorably inferior to creation. For as in the case when a saw is used as a tool, it is more honest with it, since the saw is made for products, and they are not for the saw; so the creation will be more honest than the Only Begotten, for, as they say, the Father created it for it, as if God did not produce the Only Begotten from Himself, if He did not intend to create everything. What is crazier than these words?

“Why,” they say, “the evangelist did not say “this Word created everything”, but used such a pretext “through”?” Lest you think that the Son is unborn, without beginning and contrary to God, for this He said that the Father created everything by the Word. For imagine that some king, having a son and intending to build a city, entrusted its structure to his son. Just as the one who says that the city was built by the son of the king, does not reduce the son of the king into a slave, but shows that this son has a father, and not only one, so here the evangelist, saying that everything was created by the Son, showed that the Father , so to speak, used Him as an intermediary for creation, not as a lesser, but, on the contrary, as equivalent and as able to fulfill such a great commission. I will also tell you that if you are confused by the preposition "through", and you want to find some place in Scripture that says that the Word Itself created everything, then listen to David: “In the beginning, [Lord], You founded the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands.”(). You see, he did not say, “Through you the heavens were created and the earth founded,” but You founded, and the work of your hands is heaven. And that David says this about the Only Begotten, and not about the Father, you can learn from the apostle who uses these words in the epistle to the Hebrews (), you can learn from the psalm itself. For, having said that the Lord looked upon the earth, to hear a sigh, to loose the slain, and to proclaim the name of the Lord in Zion, to whom else does David point, if not to the Son of God? For He looked upon the earth; whether to understand by it the one on which we move, or our nature grounded, or our flesh, as it is said: You are the earth (), which He took upon Himself; He also released us, bound by the shackles of our own sins, the sons of the slain and Eve, and proclaimed the name of the Lord in Zion. For standing in the temple, He taught about His Father, as He Himself says: "I have revealed Your name to men"(). To whom are these actions appropriate, the Father or the Son? All to the Son, for He proclaimed the name of the Father in teaching. Having said this, blessed David adds this: “In the beginning You [Lord] founded the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands.” Is it not obvious that he presents the Son as the Creator, and not as an instrument?

If again the preposition "through" in your opinion introduces a certain diminution, what do you say when Paul uses it about the Father? For "faithful," he says, God, whom you call quickly into the fellowship of his Son.”(). Does he make the Father an instrument here? And again, Paul the apostle "by the will of God" (). But this is enough, and we need to return again to the same place from where we started.

"All things came into being through Him." Moses, speaking of the visible creature, did not explain anything to us about the intelligible creatures. And the evangelist, embracing everything in one word, says: “everything was by that,” visible and intelligible.

and without him nothing was made that was made.

Since the Evangelist said that the Word created everything, then, lest anyone should think that He also created the Holy Spirit, he adds: “All things were by Him.” What is everything? - created. No matter how he said, whatever is in the created nature, all this received being from the Word. But the Spirit does not belong to the created nature; therefore He did not receive being from Him. Thus, without the power of the Word, nothing came into existence that did not come into being, that is, whatever was in the created nature.

. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.

The Dukhobors read the present passage thus: “and without Him nothing came into being”; then, putting a punctuation mark here, they read, as it were, from a different beginning: “what began to be, in Him was life” and interpret this place according to their own thoughts, saying that here the evangelist is talking about the Spirit, that is, that the Holy Spirit was life. This is what the Macedonians say, trying to prove that the Holy Spirit was created and to classify Him among the creatures. And we are not like that, but, putting a punctuation mark after the words “what began to be”, we read from a different beginning: “In Him was life.” Having said about creation, that everything came into being through the Word, the evangelist goes on to say about providence, that the Word not only created, but It also preserves the life of what was created. For in Him was life.

I know from one of the saints such a reading of this place: "and without Him nothing was made that was made in Him." Then, putting a punctuation mark here, he began further: "there was life." I think that this reading does not contain errors, but contains the same correct idea. For even this saint correctly understood that without the Word, nothing came into existence that did not come into being in Him, since everything that came into being and was created was created by the Word Himself, and therefore, without It, there was no. Then he began again: "there was life, and life was the light of men." The Evangelist calls the Lord “life” both because He sustains the life of everything, and because He gives spiritual life to all rational beings, and “light”, not so much sensual as intelligent, enlightening the very soul. He did not say that He is the light of the Jews alone, but of all "men." For we are all human beings, inasmuch as we have received intellect and understanding from the Word that created us, and therefore we are called enlightened by Him. For the reason given to us, by which we are called reasonable, is the light that guides us in what we should and should not do.

. And the light shines in the darkness

The “light,” that is, the Word of God, shines “in darkness,” that is, in death and error. For He, having submitted to death, so overcame it that He forced it to vomit even those whom it had previously swallowed. And preaching shines in pagan error.

and the darkness did not cover him.

And their own did not accept him,

or Jews, or other people created by Him. Thus, he mourns the madness of people and marvels at the philanthropy of the Lord. “Being,” he says, “his own, not everyone accepted him, for the Lord does not draw anyone by force, but leaves them to their own discretion and arbitrariness.”

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

To those who received Him, whether they were slaves or freemen, youths or elders, barbarians or Greeks, He gave to all the power to become children of God. Who are they? Those who believe in His name, that is, those who received the Word and the true Light, and accepted by faith, and embraced. Why did the evangelist not say that He "made" them children of God, but "gave (them) power" to become children of God? Why? Listen. Because to preserve purity, it is not enough to be baptized, but much effort is needed to keep the image of sonship inscribed in baptism undefiled. Therefore, although many received the grace of sonship through baptism, through negligence they did not remain children of God to the end.

Another, perhaps, will also say that many receive Him through faith only, for example, the so-called catechumens, but have not yet become children of God, however, if they want to be baptized, they have the power to be worthy of this grace, that is, sonship.

Another will also say that although we receive the grace of adoption through baptism, we will receive perfection in the resurrection; then we hope to receive the most perfect adoption, just as Paul says: "adoption awaiting"(). Therefore, this evangelist did not say that He made those who received Him into children of God, but gave them the power to become children of God, that is, to receive this grace in the age to come.

. Who were born neither of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

In some way he makes a comparison of the Divine and carnal birth, not without purpose reminding us of carnal birth, but so that we, through comparison, knowing the ignobleness and meanness of carnal birth, would strive towards Divine grace. He says “those who were not born of blood”, that is, menstruation, for the child feeds on them and grows in the womb. It is also said that the seed first turns into blood, then it is formed into flesh and other devices. inasmuch as some could say that the birth of Isaac, then, was the same as those who believe in Christ are born, since Isaac was not born of blood, for Sarah's menstruation (blood separation) (); as some might think so, the evangelist adds: "neither from the desire of the flesh, nor from the desire of a man." The birth of Isaac was, although not from the blood, but from the desire of the husband, since the husband definitely desired that a child be born to him from Sarah (). And "from the desire of the flesh," for example, Samuel from Anna. So, you can say that Isaac from the desire of a husband, and Samuel from the desire of the flesh, that is, Anna, for this barren woman strongly desired to receive a son (), and perhaps both were on both.

If you want to learn something else, then listen. Confusion of the flesh happens either from natural inflammation, for often one gets a very hot complexion and is therefore very inclined to intercourse. This the evangelist called the desire of the flesh. Or an irresistible desire for intercourse comes from a bad habit and an immoderate lifestyle. He called this desire "the desire of the husband", and since it is not a matter of natural constitution, but of the excess of the husband. inasmuch as a strong inclination to coition is sometimes found in the wife, sometimes in the husband, then, perhaps, by the "desire of the husband" the Evangelist meant the voluptuousness of the husband, and by the "desire of the flesh" the voluptuousness of the wife. You can rightly also understand by “the desire of the flesh” lust, which inflames the flesh to confusion, and by “the desire of the husband” the consent of the lustful to copulation, which consent is the beginning of the work. The Evangelist put both because many are lustful, however, they are not immediately carried away by the flesh, but overcome it and do not fall into the matter itself. And those whom she overcomes reach the desire to copulate, because initially they were ignited by the flesh and the lust smoldering in it. So, the evangelist decently placed the desire of the flesh before the desire of the man, because naturally lust precedes confusion; both of these desires necessarily flow together during copulation. All this is said for the sake of those who often ask unreasonable questions, because, strictly speaking, all this expresses one thought, namely: the vileness of carnal birth is exposed.

What, then, do we who believe in Christ have more than the under-law Israelites? True, they were also called sons of God, but there is a big difference between us and them. The Law in everything had a “shadow of the future” () and did not inform the Israelites of sonship (completely), but as if in an image and mental representation, And we, through baptism by the very deed, having received the Spirit of God, cry out: “Abba, Father!” (). With them, just as baptism was a type and a shadow, so their sonship was a type of our adoption. Although they were called sons, but in the shadow, and the very truth, they did not have sonship, as we now have through baptism.

. And the Word became flesh

Having said that we who believe in Christ, if we wish, become children of God, the evangelist adds the reason for such a great good. “Do you want to know,” he says, “what this sonship has brought us? That the Word became flesh." When you hear that the Word became flesh, do not think that It left its own Nature and became flesh (for it would not be God if it were changed and changed), but that, remaining what it was, It became that than it wasn't. But Apollinaris the Laodicean constituted a heresy from this. He taught that our Lord and God did not take on the whole of human nature, that is, a body with a verbal soul, but only flesh without a verbal and rational soul. What was the need for a soul to God, when the Divinity controlled the body in His body, just as the soul controls our body with us? And I thought to see the basis for this in this saying: "and the Word became flesh."“He did not say,” says the evangelist, that the Word became man, but “flesh”; This means that It did not take on a rational and verbal soul, but an unintelligent and dumb flesh.” He did not truly know, unfortunate, that Scripture often calls the whole a part. For example, it wants to mention the whole person, but calls it a part, in a word - “soul”. Every “soul”, even if not circumcised, will perish (). So, instead of saying “every person”, a part is named, namely “soul”. The Scripture also calls the whole man flesh, when, for example, he says: "and all flesh shall see the salvation of God"(). It would be necessary to say "every man", but the name "flesh" is used. So the evangelist, instead of saying, "The Word became man," said, "The Word became flesh," calling man, consisting of soul and body, one part. And as the flesh is alien to the Divine nature, then, perhaps, the evangelist mentioned the flesh with the intention of showing the extraordinary condescension of God, so that we would be amazed at His inexpressible love for mankind, according to which, for our salvation, He took upon Himself a different and completely alien to his own nature, namely, flesh. For the soul has some affinity with God, but the flesh has absolutely nothing in common.

That is why I think that the evangelist used here the name only of the flesh, not because the soul does not partake of the perceived (incarnation), but in order to show more how wonderful and terrible the sacrament is. For if the incarnate Word did not receive a human soul, then our souls are not yet healed, for what He did not receive, that He did not sanctify. And how funny! Whereas the soul fell ill first (for in paradise it surrendered to the words of the serpent and was deceived, and then after the soul, as the mistress and mistress, the hand also touched), the flesh was perceived, sanctified and healed, the servant, and the mistress was left without perception and without healing. But let Apollinaris be mistaken. And we, when we hear that the Word became flesh, we believe that It became a perfect Man, since it is customary in Scripture to call a man one part, flesh and soul.

Nestorius is also overthrown by this saying. He said that it was not God the Word himself who became a Man, conceived from the pure blood of the Holy Virgin, but the Virgin gave birth to a man, and this man, blessed with every kind of virtue, began to have the Word of God, united with him and giving power over unclean spirits, and therefore he taught that two sons - one son of the Virgin Jesus the man, and the other the Son of God, united with this man and inseparable from him, but by grace, attitude and love, because this man was virtuous. So he is deaf to the truth. For if he had wanted to, he himself would have heard what this blessed evangelist says, namely: "The Word became flesh." Is this not an obvious reproof to him? For the Word Itself became Man. The evangelist did not say, "The Word, having found a man, united with him," but "It Itself became a Man."

With this saying, Eutyches, and Valentinus, and Manes are overthrown. They said that the Word of God appeared illusory. Let them hear that the Word "became" flesh; it does not say, "The Word presented itself or appeared to the flesh," but "became" it in truth and in essence, and not by a ghost. For it is absurd and unreasonable to believe that the Son of God, in essence and by the name Truth (), lied in incarnation. And a deceptive apparition would no doubt lead to this idea.

and dwelt with us

Inasmuch as the Evangelist said above that the Word became flesh, lest anyone think that Christ finally became one Essence, for this he adds: “dwelt among us,” to show two Essences: one is ours, and the other is the Word. For just as the dwelling place is of a different nature, and of a different nature that dwells in it, so also the Word, when it is said of Him that He dwelt in us, that is, in our nature, must be of a Nature other than ours. Let the Armenians, who worship one Nature, be put to shame. So, with the words “The Word became flesh,” we learn that the Word Itself became a Man and, being the Son of God, also became the son of a woman, who is truly called the Theotokos, as she gave birth to God in the flesh. By the words "dwelt among us" we learn to believe that there are two natures in one Christ. For although He is one in Hypostasis, or in Person, yet He is two in nature - God and Man, and the Divine nature and the human cannot be one, although they are contemplated in one Christ.

full of grace and truth; and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father.

Having said that the Word became flesh, the evangelist adds: "We have seen the glory of 'His', that is, who is in the flesh." For if the Israelites could not look at the face of Moses, enlightened from the conversation with God, then the apostles, all the more, could not bear the pure (without cover) Deity of the Only Begotten, if He had not appeared in the flesh. We saw the glory, not such as Moses had or with which the cherubim and seraphim appeared to the prophet, but such glory as was appropriate for the Only Begotten Son, which was inherent in Him by nature from God the Father. The particle "as" here does not mean an assimilation, but an affirmation and an undoubted definition. When we see a king coming with great glory, we say that he came as a king, instead of saying "truly royal." Likewise, here we must understand the words "as the Only Begotten" as follows: the glory that we saw was the real glory of the true Son, full of grace and truth. The word “full of grace” because His teaching was, so to speak, favored, as David says: "Grace is poured out of your mouth"(), and the evangelist remarks that "all ... marveled at the words of grace that proceeded from his mouth"(), and because He gave healing to all those in need of it. “Full of truth” because everything that the prophets and Moses himself said or did were images, and what Christ said and did, everything is full of truth, since He Himself is grace and truth, and distributes it to others.

Where did they see this glory? It is possible with some to think that the apostles saw this glory of Him on Mount Tabor, but it is also fair to understand that they saw it not only on this mountain, but in everything that He did and said.

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

The Evangelist often refers to the testimony of John, not because the Vladyka's trustworthiness is dependent on the servant, but since the people had a lofty conception of John, then as a testimony of Christ, he refers to John, whom he reveres as great and therefore most trustworthy. The word "shouting" indicates the great boldness of John, for he cried out for Christ not in a corner, but with great boldness.

What did he say? "This was the One I spoke of." John testified of Christ before he saw Him. God was so pleased, of course, so that he, testifying of Christ from a very good side, would not seem partial in relation to Him. Why does he say "Which I said" that is, before seeing Him.

"Following me" of course, of course, going according to the time of birth; for the Forerunner was six months older than Christ by birth in the flesh.

"Became ahead of me" that is, he became more respectable and more glorious than me. Why? Because He was before me, according to the Godhead. And the Arians madly explained this saying. Wishing to prove that the Son of God was not begotten of the Father, but came into being as one of the creatures, they say: “Behold, John testifies of Him – he stood ahead of me, that is, he came before me, and was created by God as one of the creatures.” But from what follows they are convicted of a bad understanding of this saying. For what thought is expressed in the words: "This (that is, Christ) got ahead of me(that is, created before me), because he was before me"? It is absolutely crazy to say that God created Him before because He was before me. On the contrary, it would be better to say, "This one was before me, because he was or was created before me." This is how the Arians think. And in Orthodoxy we understand this: "following me" by birth from the Virgin in the flesh, "was ahead of me" He became more glorious and honorable than I by the miracles that were performed on Him, by Christmas, by upbringing, by wisdom. And this is true, "because he was before me," according to the eternal birth of the Father, although he also came after me by appearing in the flesh.

. And from His fullness we all received, and grace upon grace,

And these are the words of the Forerunner, speaking about Christ, that all of us, the prophets, received from the fullness of "Him". For He has grace not of the kind that spiritual people have, but being the source of all goodness, of all wisdom and prophecy, He pours it out abundantly on all those who are worthy, and in such an outpouring remains full, and is never exhausted. And we accepted the "grace," of course, of the New Testament, instead of the grace of the statute. since that Testament was outdated and decrepit, we accepted the New instead. Why, they will say, called grace? Because the Jews are also adopted and accepted by grace. For it is said: "I chose you not for your multitude, but for your fathers." And the Old Testament are accepted by grace, and we are obviously saved by grace.

. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

Explains to us how we received the greatest grace instead of the least grace. He says that the law was given through Moses, that is, God used a man, namely Moses, as an intermediary, but it was given through Jesus Christ. It is also called "grace" because God gave us not only the forgiveness of sins, but also sonship; is also called “true,” because He clearly preached what the Old Testament saw or spoke figuratively. This New Testament called both grace and truth, had not an ordinary man as mediator, but the Son of God. Accept also that about the Old Law he said “dan” through Moses, for he was a subordinate and servant, but about the New Law he did not say “given”, but “came into being”, to show that he came from our Lord Jesus Christ, as from the Master, and not from a slave, and in the end he reached grace and truth. The law is "given" by God through Moses; grace is “come into being,” not given, through Jesus Christ. “Happened” is a sign of independence, “given” is slavery.

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

Having said that grace and truth came through Jesus Christ, and wishing to confirm this, the evangelist says: “I did not say anything incredible. For Moses, like no one else, did not see God, nor could he give us a clear and visual concept of Him, but, being a slave, he served only to write the law. And Christ, being the Only Begotten Son and being in the bosom of the Father, not only sees Him, but speaks clearly to all people about Him. Therefore, since He is the Son and sees the Father as being in His bosom, He justly gave us grace and truth.”

But perhaps someone will say, “we learn here that no one has seen God”; what does the prophet say "I saw the Lord"()? The prophet saw, but not the essence itself, but some likeness and some mental representation, as far as he could see. Moreover, another saw in that image, the other in another. And from here it is clear that they did not see the Truth itself, for it, being essentially simple and ugly, would not be contemplated in different forms. And the angels do not see the essence of God, although it is said about them that they see the face of God (). This only indicates that they always represent God in their minds. So, only the Son sees the Father and reveals Him to all people.

When you hear about the bosom of the Father, do not imagine anything corporeal in God. The Evangelist used this title to show the means, the inseparability and eternity of the Son with the Father.

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

. He declared, and did not deny, and declared that I am not the Christ.

The Evangelist said above that John testifies of Him; then he inserted what John testified about Christ, namely, that He stood before me, and that we all the prophets received from His fullness; now he adds, "and this is the testimony of John." Which? The one about which he said above, namely: "ahead of me" and so on. But the following words, "I am not the Christ," also constitute John's testimony.

The Jews sent to John people, in their opinion, the best, namely: priests and Levites, and, moreover, the Jerusalemites, so that they, as the smartest others, kindly persuaded John to declare himself for Christ. Look at evasiveness. They do not directly ask "Are you a Christ?" but "Who are you?" And he, seeing their cunning, does not say who he is, but declares that I am not Christ, having in mind their goal and in every possible way attracting them to the belief that Christ is different, the One Whom they consider the poor son of a poor carpenter father, coming from the poor fatherland of Nazareth, from whom they did not expect anything good. Meanwhile, they had a high opinion of the Forerunner himself, since he had a high priest as his father and led an angelic and almost incorporeal life. Why is it surprising how they get tangled up in what they thought would damage the glory of Christ. They ask John, as a reliable person, so that in his testimony they can have an excuse for unbelief in Christ in the event that he did not declare Him to be the Christ. And it turned against them. For they find that the one whom they considered reliable testifies in favor of Christ and does not appropriate His honor to himself.

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

Based on ancient tradition, the coming of Elijah was expected. Therefore, they ask John if he is Elijah, since his life was like the life of Elijah? But he denied that too.

Are you that prophet? He renounces this also, although there was a prophet. How does he renounce? Why? Because they did not ask him: are you a prophet? But they made a question: are you that prophet? That prophet who is expected, about whom Moses said that the Lord God will raise up a prophet for you ()? So John denied not because he was a prophet, but because he was the expected prophet. And since they knew the words of Moses that a prophet would arise, they hoped that someday a prophet would appear.

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

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

Then again they insistently ask: tell us, who are you? Then he answered them: I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness. “I,” he says, “is the one about whom it is written "voice in the wilderness"(). For if you do not add the words "about which it is written", then the combination of words will seem strange.

What is outrageous? "Make the way for the Lord."“I,” he says, “I am a servant and prepare your hearts for the Lord.” So, you are crafty and cunning, correct them and equalize so that through you there is a way for the Lord Christ. Then he brings Isaiah as a witness. Having said great things about Christ, that He is the Lord, and about himself, that he does the work of a servant and herald, he resorts to the prophet.

Perhaps the words "I am the voice of one crying" someone will explain this: I am the voice of Christ "crying", that is, clearly proclaiming the truth. For all the messengers of the law are not loud, because the time for the truth of the gospel has not yet come, and the weak voice of Moses truly pointed out the indistinctness and obscurity of the law. And Christ, as self-existing and proclaiming the Father to all of us, is “crying”. So John says: I am the voice of the Word crying, dwelling in the wilderness.

Then another start: "make the way for the Lord." John, as the Forerunner of Christ, is justly called the voice, because the voice also precedes the word. I will say more clearly: the voice is an inarticulate breath coming out of the chest; when it is divided into members by the tongue, then there is a word. So, first the voice, then the Word, first John, then Christ - appearing in the flesh. And the baptism of John is inarticulate, because it had no action by the Spirit, but the baptism of Christ is articulate, has nothing shady and figurative, for it is done by the Spirit ().

. And the messengers were from the Pharisees;

. And they asked him: what do you baptize if you are not the Christ, or Elijah, or the prophet?

After they could not captivate him (John) with flattery, so that he would say what they wanted, and declare himself Christ, they intimidate him with very strict and formidable speeches, saying: “What are you baptizing? Who gave you such power?" From this same speech it is clear that they considered Christ to be different, and the expected prophet to be different. For they say, "If you are not Christ, neither is that prophet (obviously)," meaning that one is Christ, and another is that prophet. Well they know. For that prophet is Christ himself and our God. All this they said, as I said, in order to force John to declare himself the Christ.

And closer to the truth, we can say that they ask him as if out of envy of his fame. They don't ask "Is he the Christ", but "Who are you?" As if to say: “Who are you that you are taking on such an important task - baptizing and purifying those who confess?” And it seems to me that the Jews, wishing that John would not be mistaken for Christ by the majority, out of envy and ill will ask him "Who are you?"

So, cursed are those who receive the Baptist, and after baptism do not recognize him: truly the Jews are the offspring of vipers.

. John answered and said to them: I baptize with water; but stands among you: someone Which you don't know.

Note the saint's meekness and truthfulness. Meekness is that he does not answer them with anything harsh, in spite of their arrogance; truthfulness in that he testifies to the glory of Christ with great boldness and does not hide the glory of the Lord in order to earn a good name for himself, but declares that I baptize with an imperfect baptism (for I baptize in water alone, which has no remission of sins), but preparing for the acceptance of spiritual baptism, which grants the forgiveness of sins.

"Stands among you: someone Which you don't know." The Lord united with the people, and therefore they did not know who He was and where He came from. Perhaps someone will say that in another sense the Lord stood among the Pharisees, but they did not know Him. Since they apparently diligently studied the Scriptures, and the Lord was proclaiming in them, He was “among” them, that is, in their hearts, but they did not know Him, because they did not understand the Scriptures, although they had them in hearts. Perhaps, in the sense that the Lord was a mediator between God and people, He stood "among" the Pharisees, wanting to reconcile them with God, but they did not know Him.

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

Constantly adds "Following me" to show that his baptism is not perfect, but preparation for spiritual baptism.

"Became ahead of me" that is, more honorable, more glorious than me, and so much so that I do not consider myself among His last slaves. For untying shoes is the work of the last service.

I know and read from one of the saints such an explanation: “shoes” are everywhere understood about the flesh of sinners, subject to decay, and “belt” or bandage - about the bonds of sin. So, John could untie the belt of sins for others who came to him and confessed, for they came to him bound by the bonds of their own sins; and, persuading them to repentance, showed them the way to the complete overthrow of this belt and sinful shoes; but on Christ, not finding the belt or bonds of sin, naturally he could not untie it. Why didn't he find it? Because He did not sin, and no lie was found in His mouth ().

“Shoes” also signifies the Lord’s appearance to us, “strap” of it is a way of incarnation and how the Word of God was united with the body. This method cannot be resolved. For who can explain how God was united with the body?

. It happened in Bethavara:(Bethany) near the Jordan, where John baptized.

Why did the evangelist say that this happened in Bethany? In order to show the courage of the great preacher, that he preached so about Christ not in a house, not in a corner, but near the Jordan, among a multitude of people. It is necessary, however, to know what is in the most accurate lists: in Bethavare. For Bethany is not on the other side of the Jordan, but near Jerusalem.

. The next day John sees Jesus coming towards him and says, Behold the Lamb of God who takes: to myself peace.

The Lord often comes to the Forerunner. What is this for? Since the Lord was baptized by John, as one of many, he often comes to him, no doubt, so that some do not think that He, along with others, was baptized as guilty of sins. The Baptist, wishing to correct this assumption, says: “Behold the Lamb of God who takes: to myself peace." He who is so pure that he takes upon himself and destroys the sins of others, obviously, could not accept the baptism of confession (repentance) on an equal basis with others.

Investigate, I beg you, this expression: "Behold the Lamb of God." This word refers to those who desire to see the Lamb, which Isaiah proclaims (). “Behold,” he says, “the Lamb whom they seek; That Lamb, right here." For it is natural that many who carefully studied the prophetic book of Isaiah were preoccupied with the question of who that Lamb would be. So John points Him out. He did not simply say Lamb, but "That Lamb," for there are many lambs, just as there are many Christs; but He is the Lamb, whose type is indicated by Moses () and Whom Isaiah () proclaims.

Christ is called the "Lamb of God" either because God gave Him to die for us, or because God accepted Christ for our salvation. As we usually say "this sacrifice was made by such and such", instead of saying "this sacrifice was made by such and such"; so the Lord is called the Lamb of God, because God and the Father, out of love for us, gave Him up to be slaughtered for us.

John did not say “taken away” sin, but “takes it,” because every day He takes our sins upon Himself, some through baptism, others through repentance. The lambs that were slaughtered in the Old Testament did not take away any sin at all; but this Lamb takes upon Himself the whole world, that is, He destroys, blots out. Why didn't John say "sins" but "sin"? Maybe because, having said "sin", he spoke in general about all sins; just as we usually say “man” fell away from God, instead of “all mankind”, so here, by saying “sin”, he designated all sins. Or maybe because the sin of the world consisted in disobedience, since a person fell into passion through disobedience to God, and the Lord made amends for this disobedience, being obedient to death and healing the opposite to the opposite.

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

Above, John says to those who came from the Pharisees: “Someone stands among you, whom you do not know, but who takes precedence over me” (), and now he points to Him with a finger, and declares him ignorant, saying: “This is the One of whom I testified before Pharisees, that He is superior to me, that is, he surpasses me in dignity and honor. Why? Because He was before me. Listen Arya. John did not say about Christ "created before me," but - "was." Hear you too, sect of the Samosatian. The Lord began to exist not from Mary, but was before the Forerunner in pre-eternal existence. For if the Lord, as you empty talk, had received the beginning of being from Mary, how would He have been before the Forerunner? And the Forerunner, everyone knows, was born six months before the birth of the Lord in the flesh.

The Lord is called “Man,” perhaps also because He was of perfect age, for He was baptized thirty years old, or perhaps in the sense that He is the Man of every soul and the Bridegroom of the Church. For the apostle Paul says: “I betrothed you to present you to one Man, namely Christ” (). So the Forerunner says: “I am only a friend of the Bridegrooms and a mediator, and the Husband follows me; I draw souls to faith in Christ, and He is the Man who will unite with them.”

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

Since the Forerunner was a relative of the Lord (for the angel says to the Virgin: “Behold, Elizabeth your “relative” conceived” (), so that someone would not think that the Forerunner favors the Lord and gives such a high testimony of Him by kinship with Him, he often says : "I did not know Him" ​​and thus removes suspicion.

“But for this reason he came to baptize with water, that he might be revealed to Israel,” that is, so that all may come to faith in Him and He be revealed to the people, for this I baptize; for when I baptize, the people flock, and when the people gather, then I also announce to them about Christ in my sermon, and He Himself, being in sight, is present. For if people did not come to be baptized, how would John have shown them the Lord? He would not go from house to house and, leading Christ by the hand, point to Him to everyone. Therefore, he says: “I came to baptize in water for this purpose, so that He would be revealed by me to people who come for baptism.”

From this we learn that the miracles attributed to Christ in adolescence are false and composed by those who wanted to ridicule the sacrament. For if they were true, how could they not know the Lord who did them? At least, it is not natural that such a Wonderworker should not be publicized everywhere. But it's not like that, no. For before baptism, the Lord did not work miracles, nor was he famous.

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

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

“But He who sent me to baptize with water said to me, On whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining on Him, He is the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.” John, rejecting, as I said, suspicion from his testimony of Christ, raises this testimony to God and the Father. “I,” he says, “and did not know Him, but the Father revealed Him to me in baptism.”

“But,” another will ask, “if John did not know Him, how does the Evangelist Matthew () say that he held Him back and said "I need to be baptized by You"? This can also be answered by saying that the words “did not know Him” should be understood in such a way that long before and before baptism, John did not know Him, but then, at the time of baptism, he recognized Him. Or you can answer in another way: although John knew about Jesus that he is the Christ, but that he would baptize with the Holy Spirit, he knew this then when he saw the Spirit descending on him.

So, by saying, "I did not know Him," John makes it clear that although he did not know that He would baptize with the Holy Spirit, he knew that He was more excellent than many. Why, knowing, probably, that He was greater than all, John, according to the words of the Evangelist Matthew, held Him back. But when the Spirit descended, he recognized Him even more clearly and preached about Him to others.

And the Spirit appeared to everyone present, and not only to John. “Why, then,” another will say, “did they not believe?” Because their foolish heart was so darkened that, seeing Him and working wonders, they did not believe. Some say that not everyone has seen the Spirit, but only the most reverent. For although the Spirit descended and sensually, it is fitting for Him to appear not to everyone, but to the worthy, since the prophets, for example, Daniel, Ezekiel, although they saw a lot in a sensual form, however, no one else saw it.

. And I have seen and testified that this is the Son of God.

Where did John testify of Jesus that He is the Son of God? This is not written anywhere. He calls the Lamb, but nowhere the Son of God. Hence, it is natural to assume that a lot of other things were left unwritten by the apostles, because not everything is written down.

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

Because of the frivolity of his listeners, John is compelled to repeat the same thing, in order at least to produce something by an uninterrupted testimony. And I was not deceived; but he brought two disciples to Christ.

Being a true bride-leader, he did everything to bring human nature to her bridegroom. Therefore, Christ, as a bridegroom, is silent, and the mediator proclaims everything. And the Lord, like a bridegroom, comes to the people. At marriages, it is usually not the bride who comes to the groom, but the bridegroom to the bride, even if he is the king's son. So the Lord, desiring to confuse our nature to Himself, Himself descended to her on earth and, when the marriage was completed, took her with Him when He ascended into the house of His Father.

. And when he saw Jesus walking, he said, Behold the Lamb of God.

"Seeing," it is said, "Jesus," that is, having before his eyes his joy in Jesus and the miracle, John said, "Behold that Lamb."

. Hearing these words from him, both disciples followed Jesus.

The disciples, prepared by constant witness, followed Jesus not out of contempt for John, but most of all out of obedience to him, who testifies of Christ from the best side.

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

Evangelist Matthew, having told about the baptism of the Lord, immediately takes Him to the mountain for temptation, and the real evangelist, omitting what Matthew said, tells about what happened after the Lord descended from the mountain. So, the disciples of John follow Christ and go to Him after He came down from the mountain and endured temptation. In my opinion, this combination of events shows that no one needs to enter the rank of teacher before he ascends to the height of virtue (for this is signified by the mountain), overcomes every temptation and has a sign of triumph over the tempter.

These disciples first follow Jesus and then ask Him where He lives. For they needed to converse with Him not openly, in the presence of many, but in private, as about a necessary subject. Even they are not the first to ask, but Christ Himself leads them to the question. "What do you need?" He tells them. He asks not because He (He who knows human hearts) does not know, but in order to provoke them with a question to speak out in their desire. They were probably ashamed and afraid of Jesus after John's testimony that He is higher than man. And you, I beg you, marvel at their prudence. They not only followed Jesus, but also called him "Rabbi", which means "Teacher", and, moreover, when they had not yet heard anything from Him. However, wanting to learn something from Him in private, they ask Him: Where do you live? For in silence it is more convenient to speak and hear.

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

The Lord does not tell them the signs of the house, but says: "Come and see." He does this in order to attract them even more to follow, and at the same time to reveal the strength of their desire in the event that they do not find it difficult on the road. For if they had gone after Jesus with a cold feeling, they would not have dared to go home.

How can we agree that Christ is here represented as having a house, while in another place it is said that the Son of Man has no where to lay his head ()? One does not contradict the other. For when he says that he has no where to lay his head, he does not say that he has absolutely no shelter, but that he does not have his own. So if He lived in a house, He did not live in His own house, but in someone else's.

The Evangelist remarks about time that "it was about ten o'clock" not without a goal, but in order to teach both teachers and students not to put off their work until another time; the teacher should not delay and say: today is late, you will learn tomorrow; and the student should recognize every time as fit for learning, and not postpone hearings until tomorrow. And then we learn that the disciples were so moderate and sober that they used up such time for listening that others spend in calming the body, being burdened with food and becoming incapable of studying important matter. True students!

Consider, perhaps, the fact that Jesus addresses those who follow Him and shows them His face. For if you do not follow Jesus with your good deeds, then you will not achieve the contemplation of the face of the Lord, that is, you will not achieve enlightenment by divine knowledge. For the light is the house of Christ, as it is said: "dwells in impregnable light"(). And how will he be enlightened with knowledge who has not purified himself and is not walking the path of purification?

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

The Evangelist informs us about the name of Andrew, but is silent about the name of the other. Some say that the other was John himself, who writes this, while others say that he was from the ignorant. Moreover, there would be no benefit from knowing the name. Andrey is mentioned so because he was from the noble, and because he brought his brother.

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

Look, perhaps, at his love for his brother, how he did not hide this blessing from his brother, but informs him of the treasure and says with great joy: we have found (probably, they greatly desired and were busy searching for the Messiah), and not just says “ Messiah", but with a member of the "onago" Messiah, the very one who is truly Christ. For although many were called anointed and sons of God, yet the one they expected was one.

. And brought him to Jesus. But Jesus, looking at him, said, You are Simon the son of Jonas; you will be called Cephas, which means stone (Peter).

Andrew brought Simon to Jesus, not because Simon was frivolous and carried away by all kinds of speech, but because he was very quick and ardent, and conveniently accepted the speeches that his brother conveyed to him about Christ. For, probably, Andrew spoke a lot to Simon and announced about Christ thoroughly, since he spent a lot of time with Christ and learned something most mysterious. If anyone continues to condemn Peter in frivolity, then let him know that it is not written that he immediately believed Andrew, but that Andrew led him to Jesus; and this is a matter of a mind more solid than carried away. For Simon not only accepted the words of Andrew, but wished to see Christ also, so that if he finds something worth talking about in Him, he will follow Him, and if he does not find it, he will step back, so that bringing Simon to Jesus is not a sign of his frivolity, but of solidity. .

What is the Lord? Begins to reveal Himself to him by prophecy about him. Since prophecies convince people no less than miracles, if not more, the Lord prophesies about Peter. "You," he says, Simon, Son of Jonas. Then he opens the future: "You will be called Keefa." Having expressed the present, through that it confirms the future. However, he did not say “I will rename you Peter”, but - “you will be called”; for at first he did not want to reveal all his power, since they did not yet have firm faith in him.

Why does the Lord call Simon Peter, and the sons of Zebedee - thunderous? In order to show what the same one gave, who even now changes names, as he then called Abram - Abraham and Sarah - Sarah ().

Know also that “Simon” means obedience, and “Jonah” means a dove. So obedience is born from meekness, which is signified by the dove. And whoever has obedience, he also becomes Peter, through obedience reaching firmness in goodness.

. Next day: Jesus wanted to go to Galilee, and finds Philip and says to him: follow me.

Andrew, having heard from the Forerunner, and Peter, having heard from Andrew, followed Jesus; but Philip did not seem to hear anything, and yet he followed the Lord as soon as he said to him, "follow me." What did Philip so soon become convinced of? It seems, firstly, that the voice of the Lord produced in his soul a certain wound of love. For the speech of the Lord was not just spoken, but the hearts of the worthy were immediately inflamed with love for Him, as Cleopas and his companion say: “Did not our heart burn within us as He spoke to us on the road?”(). Secondly, since Philip had a troubled heart, was constantly occupied with the writings of Moses and was always waiting for Christ, when he saw Him, he was immediately convinced and said: “we “found” Jesus,” and this shows that he was looking for Him.

. Philip was from Bethsaida, from: one cities with Andrei and Peter.

Then, did Philip learn anything about Christ from Andrew and Peter? Probably, talking with him, as a compatriot, they told him about the Lord. It seems that the evangelist hints at this when he says that Philip was from the city of Andreev and Petrov. This city was small and more decently could be called a village. Therefore, one should be surprised at the power of Christ that He chose the best disciples from among those who did not bear any fruit.

. Philip finds Nathanael and tells him: we have found the One about whom Moses in the law and the prophets wrote, Jesus, the Son of Joseph, of Nazareth.

Philip also does not keep good to himself, but conveys it to Nathanael, and as Nathanael was versed in the law, Philip refers him to the law and the prophets, because he diligently practiced the law. He calls the Lord the Son of "Joseph", because at that time they considered him to be the Son of Joseph.

Calls Him "Nazarene", although He was actually a Bethlehemite, because He was born in Bethlehem and brought up in Nazareth. But since His birth was unknown to many, but His upbringing is known, they call Him the Nazarene, as he was brought up in Nazareth.

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

Philip said that Christ was from Nazareth, and Nathanael, being more learned in the law, knew from the Scriptures that Christ was to come from Bethlehem, and therefore says: “Can anything good come from Nazareth?” Philip says: "Come and see"- knowing that Nathanael will not leave Christ if he listens to His speeches.

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

Christ praises Nathanael as a true Israelite, because he said nothing either for or against him; for his words did not come from unbelief, but from prudence and from a mind that knew from the law that Christ would not come from Nazareth, but from Bethlehem.

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

What about Nathanael? Have you been carried away by praise? No, he wants to know something more clearly and precisely, and therefore asks: “Why do You know me?” The Lord tells him what no one but himself and Philip knew, what was said and done in private, and thus reveals His Divinity. Philip talked with Nathanael in private, when no one was under the fig tree, but Christ, even though he was not there, knew everything, which is why he says: “I saw you as you were under the fig tree.”

The Lord spoke about Nathanael before Philip approached, so that no one would think that Philip told Him about the fig tree and other things that He talked about with Nathanael.

From this, Nathanael recognized the Lord and confessed Him to be the Son of God. For listen to what he says next.

. Nathanael answers Him: Rabbi! You are the Son of God, You are the King of Israel.

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

Prophecy has the greatest power to draw some to faith, and its power is greater than that of miracles. For miracles can be represented ghostly and by demons, but no one has accurate foreknowledge and prediction of the future, neither angels, nor even demons. Why did the Lord draw Nathanael, telling him both the place and the fact that Philip called him, and that he was truly an Israelite. Nathanael, having heard this, felt the greatness of the Lord, as far as it was possible, and confessed Him to be the Son of God.

However, although he confesses the Son of God, but not in the sense in which Peter. Peter confessed Him as the Son of God as the true God, and for that the Lord blesses him and entrusts the church to him (). Nathanael confessed Him as a simple man, by grace adopted by God for virtue. And this is evident from the addition: You are the King of Israel. You see, he has not yet reached the perfect knowledge of the true Deity of the Only Begotten. He believes only that Jesus is a God-loving man and the King of Israel. If he had confessed Him as the true God, he would not have called Him the King of Israel, but the King of the whole world. For this he is not pleased, like Peter.

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

Therefore, the Lord, correcting him and leading him to an understanding worthy of His Divinity, says: You will see the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man. “Accept,” he says, “I am not for a simple person, but for the Lord of the angels.” For whom angels serve, He cannot be common man but the true God. This happened at the crucifixion and at the ascension. For, as Luke narrates, even before the suffering an angel from heaven strengthened Him, and an angel appeared at the tomb, and at the ascension (; ; ).

Some under the "fig tree" understood the law, since it had a fruit that was sweet for a while, and was covered with leaves, as it were, by the severity of legal prescriptions and the impracticability of the commandments. The Lord “saw” Nathanael. To this they say that He graciously looked down and understood his understanding, although he was also under the law. I ask you, if you delight in such things, to pay attention to the fact that the Lord saw Nathanael under the fig tree, or under the law, that is, within the law, exploring the depths of it. If he had not searched the depths of the law, the Lord would not have seen him. Know also that “Galilee” means overthrown.

So, the Lord came into the overthrown country of the whole world or into human nature and, as a Lover of mankind, looked at us who are under the fig tree, that is, under sin, sweet for a while, but with which not a little sharpness is connected due to repentance and future executions there. , and - those who recognize Him as the Son of God and the King of Israel, who sees God, He chose for Himself.

If we continue the effort, then He will honor us with great contemplations, and we will see angels “ascending to the height of His divine knowledge and again“ descending ”, because they do not reach the full knowledge of the incomprehensible Being.

And in other words: someone "ascends" when he is engaged in meditation on the Deity of the Only Begotten; "descends" when he is willingly occupied with contemplating the incarnation and the descent into hell.

Testimony of the Person of Christ and His Excellence (vv. 1, 2). Knowing it gives us fellowship with God and Christ (v. 3) and joy (v. 4). The nature of God (v. 5). To what walk does it oblige us (v. 6). What gives such a walk (v. 7). The way to the forgiveness of sin (v. 9). What harm we do to ourselves by denying our sin (vv. 8-10).

Verses 1-4. The apostle does not mention his name and title (as does the author of Hebrews), either out of modesty or from a desire that the Christian reader be affected by the light and power of the written, and not by a name that can give authority to the written. So he starts with:

I. Descriptions, or characteristics, of the identity of the Mediator. He is the great subject of the gospel, the foundation and object of our faith and hope, the bond that binds us to God. We must know Him well, and here He is represented as:

1. Word of life, cm. 1. In the gospel, these two concepts are separated, Christ is first called the Word (John 1:1), and then - Life, this implies spiritual life. In him was life, and the life was (really and objectively) the light of men, John 1:4. Here these two concepts are united: the Word of life, the living Word. Identifying Him with the Word means that He is the word of a person, and that person is God, God the Father. He is the Word of God, therefore, He came from God, in the same way (though not in the same way) as the word (or speech) comes from the speaker. But He is not just a sounding word, Adyokokod, but a living Word, the Word of life, a living word, that is:

2. Eternal life. His longevity proves His superiority. He was from eternity, therefore, according to Scripture, He is life itself, inherent, inherent in Him, uncreated life. That the apostle means his eternity, a parte ante (as is usually said), his existence from eternity, is evident from what he said about him as being in the beginning and from the beginning, when he was with the Father, before his appearance to us, and even before the creation of all created things, John 1:2,3. So He is the eternal, living spiritual Word of the eternal living Father.

3. Manifested life (v. 2), manifested in the flesh, revealed to us. Eternal life assumes the form of mortal man, puts on flesh and blood (perfect human nature), and thus dwells among us and communes with us, John 1:14. What a great indulgence and favor it is that eternal life (eternal life personified) has come to visit mortals, acquire eternal life for them, and then bestow it on them!

II. From the testimony and convincing evidence of the apostle and his brothers about how the Mediator dwelt in this world and dealt with people. Of the reality of His dwelling on earth, as well as of the superiority and dignity of His person, revealed to the world, there was enough evidence. Life, the word of life, eternal life is in itself invisible and intangible, but life manifested in the flesh may have been visible and tangible. Life clothed itself in flesh, took on the state and properties of humiliated human nature, and as such gave tangible evidence of Its existence and activity on earth. Divine life, or the Word, became incarnate and revealed itself to the real feelings of the apostles.

1. To their ears: That...we heard, v.1. Life has adopted a mouth and a tongue to speak the words of life. The apostles didn't just hear about Him, they heard Him Himself. For more than three years they were witnesses of His ministry and listeners of His public sermons and private conversations (for He taught them in His house) and were delighted with His words, for He spoke in a way that no one had ever spoken before Him. The divine word requires an attentive ear, an ear consecrated to hearing the word of life. Those who were to become His representatives and imitators in this world needed to be personally acquainted with His ministry.

2. To their eyes: About what we saw with our own eyes, vv. 1-3. The Word became visible so that it could not only be heard, but also seen - seen in society and in private, at a distance and near, which can be meant by the words saw with one's own eyes, that is, they used all the abilities and capabilities of the human eye. They saw Him in His life and ministry, they saw Him transfigured on the mountain, they saw Him hanging, bleeding, dying and dying on the cross, they saw Him rise from the tomb and rise from the dead. The apostles of Christ were not only to hear Him with their ears, but also to see Him with their own eyes. Therefore, it is necessary that one of those who were with us all the time that the Lord Jesus dwelt and dealt with us, from the baptism of John until the day on which He was taken up from us, to be with us a witness of His resurrection, Acts 1 :21,22. They were eyewitnesses of his majesty, 2 Peter 1:16.

3. To their inner feelings, to the eyes of their mind, for thus (probably) the following expression can be explained: What was considered. It differs from the previous one - they saw it with their own eyes, and, perhaps, it has the same meaning as what the apostle said in his gospel (John 1:14): ... We saw Beaorev, His glory, glory as the only begotten from the Father. This word is applied not to the immediate object of sight, but to that which is perceived by the mind on the basis of what is seen. “What we have well seen, considered and appreciated, what we have well understood about this Word of life, we proclaim to you.” Feelings must be informants of the mind.

4. Their hands and sense of touch: About what ... our hands touched (what they touched and what they felt). This refers, of course, to that complete conviction which our Lord gave to the apostles after His resurrection from the dead concerning His body, its truth and reality, intact and intact. When He showed them His hands and His side, He probably allowed them to touch them. At least He knew of Thomas' unbelief and of his declared decision not to believe until he saw and felt the marks of the wounds from which Christ died. Therefore, at the next meeting, He, in the presence of the rest of the disciples, invited Thomas to satisfy the curiosity of his unbelieving heart. Probably others have done the same. Our hands have touched the Word of life. The invisible life and the invisible Word did not neglect the testimony of the senses. Feelings, in their place and in their sphere, are the means ordained by God and used by the Lord Christ for our awareness. Our Lord took care to satisfy (as far as possible) all the feelings of His apostles, so that they could be His faithful witnesses for this world. To refer all this to the hearing of the gospel is to exclude the variety of sensations listed here, to make the expressions used in this case inappropriate and meaningless to list them again: Of what we have seen and heard, we proclaim to you .., v. 3. The apostles could not be deceived by such long and varied sensations. Feelings should serve reason and discretion, and reason and judgment should contribute to the acceptance of the Lord Jesus Christ and His gospel. The rejection of Christian revelation ultimately amounts to a rejection of reason itself. He reproached them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, that they did not believe those who saw Him risen, Mark 26:14.

III. With a solemn confirmation and certification of these foundations and testimonies of Christian truth and Christian doctrine, v. 2, 3. The apostle announces them for our satisfaction: And we ... testify, and declare to you .., v. 2. Of what we have seen and heard, we proclaim to you..., v. 3. The apostles were to testify to the disciples about what they themselves were guided by, and explain the reasons that prompted them to proclaim and spread the Christian doctrine in the world. Wisdom and honesty obliged them to show the world that what they testified to was neither their own fantasy nor intricately woven fables. The obvious truth compelled them to open their mouths and impelled them to public confession. We cannot help saying what we have seen and heard, Acts 4:20. The disciples must take care to have a firm conviction of the truth of the doctrine they have received. They must know the foundations of their holy faith. She is not afraid of the light, nor the most careful examination. She can present reasonable arguments and strong convictions for the mind and conscience. I wish you to know what a feat I have for you and for those who are in Laodicea (and Hierapolis), and for the sake of all who have not seen my face in the flesh, so that their hearts may be comforted, united in love for every richness of perfect understanding, for the knowledge of the mystery of God and the Father and Christ, Col. 2:1,2.

IV. For the reason that prompted the apostle to give this summary of the essence of the holy faith and the list of proofs accompanying it. This reason is twofold:

1. That the believers might achieve the same blessedness together with them (with the apostles themselves): Of what we have seen and heard, we proclaim to you, that you also may have fellowship with us..., v. 3. The apostle has in mind not personal communion and not association in one and the same church ministry, but such communion as is possible even if there is a separating distance. It is fellowship with heaven and participation in the blessings that descend from heaven and lead to heaven. "We declare and affirm that you may share with us in our privileges and in our bliss." Gospel souls (those who have found happiness through gospel grace) are ready to make others just as happy. We also know that there is a fellowship or fellowship that embraces the entire Church of God. There may be some personal differences and peculiarities, but there is fellowship (that is, a common participation in privileges and virtues) belonging to all believers, from the highest apostles to the most ordinary Christians. Just as there is one precious faith, so there are the same precious promises that exalt and crown that faith, the same precious blessings that adorn those promises, and the same glory that is their fulfillment. To encourage believers to strive for this fellowship, to encourage them to hold fast to the faith as a means of such fellowship, and also to show their love for the disciples in facilitating their fellowship with them, the apostles indicate what it consists of and where it is located: .. .And our fellowship is with the Father and His Son Jesus Christ. Our fellowship with the Father and with the Father Son (as He is very expressively called in 2 John 3) is expressed in our happy relationship with Them, in receiving heavenly blessings from Them, and in our spiritual conversations with Them. This supernatural fellowship with God and the Lord Christ that we now have is the pledge and foretaste of our eternal dwelling with Them and enjoying Them in heavenly glory. See where the gospel revelation is directed—to lift us above sin and earth and bring us into blessed fellowship with the Father and the Son. See what Eternal Life was made flesh to raise us up to eternal life in fellowship with the Father and Himself. See how much lower the standard of living of those who do not have blessed spiritual communion with the Father and His Son Jesus Christ, in comparison with the dignity and purpose determined by the Christian faith.

2. That believers may grow and improve in holy joy: And these things we write to you, that your joy may be complete, v. 4. The evangelical economy is not the economy of fear, sorrow and horror, but of peace and joy. Mount Sinai terrified and amazed, but Mount Zion, where the eternal word, eternal life is in our flesh, causes rejoicing and joy. The sacrament of the Christian faith is intended for the joy of mortals. Should we not rejoice that the eternal Son came to seek and save us, that he made a full atonement for our sins, triumphed over sin, death, and hell, that he lives as our Advocate and Advocate with the Father, and that he will come again to to perfect and glorify those who have kept faith in Him? And so those who are not filled with spiritual joy live below the purpose and purpose of the gospel revelation. Believers should rejoice in their blessed relationship with God, being His children and heirs, beloved and adopted by Him; to their blessed relationship with the Son of the Father as members of His beloved body and His co-heirs; the forgiveness of their sins, the sanctification of their nature, the adoption of their soul, waiting for their grace and glory, which will be revealed at the return of their Lord and Head from heaven. If they were confirmed in the holy faith, how joyful they would be! And the disciples were filled with joy and the Holy Ghost, Acts 13:52.

Verses 5-7. Having proclaimed the truth and dignity of the Author of the Gospel, the apostle conveys the gospel from Him and draws from this gospel an appropriate conclusion for the admonition and conviction of those who profess themselves to be believers, or who have accepted this glorious Gospel.

I. The gospel received by the apostle, as he claims, from the Lord Jesus: And this is the gospel which we have heard from him... (v. 5), from his Son Jesus Christ. Since Christ Himself directly sent the apostles and is the main person referred to in the previous passage, the pronoun Him in the following text should also be attributed to Him. The apostles and their ministers are the messengers of the Lord Jesus. It is an honor for them to proclaim His intentions and carry His gospel to the world and the Church, this is the main thing that they claim. By sending His gospel through people like us, the Lord showed His wisdom and revealed the essence of His dispensation. He who assumed human nature wanted to honor the earthen vessels. The desire of the apostles was to be faithful and faithfully convey the commissions and messages they received from the Lord. What was handed down to them, they endeavored to communicate to others: And this is the gospel which we have heard from Him and proclaim to you. The gospel from the Word of life, the eternal Word, we must receive with joy; this gospel concerns the nature of God, whom we are to serve, and with whom we are to long for every possible fellowship, and is this: ... God is light, and in him there is no darkness at all, v. 5. These words affirm the superiority of God's nature. He is the totality of beauty and perfection, which can only be represented by the concept of "light". It has a self-acting, whole, unalloyed spirituality, purity, wisdom, holiness and glory. It means absoluteness and fullness of superiority and perfection. There is no lack or imperfection in him, no mixture of anything alien or contrary to absolute excellence, no variability or tendency to decay: There is no darkness in him, v. 5. These words may also be applied directly to what is usually called the moral perfection of the divine nature, which we are to imitate, or, still more directly, to the influence we experience in our gospel work. In this case, the word includes the holiness of God, the absolute purity of His nature and will, His all-pervading knowledge (especially of the human heart), His jealousy, burning with a bright and all-consuming flame. This representation of the great God in the form of pure and perfect light is very suitable for our dark world. The Lord Jesus best of all reveals to us the name and nature of the unsearchable God: He revealed the Only Begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father. It is the prerogative of Christian revelation to bring to us the most beautiful, majestic, and true conception of the blessed God, best suited to the light of reason, and therefore most demonstrable, most befitting the majesty of His works that surround us, and the nature and virtues of Him Who is the supreme Ruler and Judge. peace. Is there any other word that can contain more (encompassing all these perfections) than this - God is light, and there is no darkness in Him. Further,

II. A just conclusion that inevitably follows from this gospel and is intended to instruct and convince those who profess to be believers, or who have accepted the Gospel.

1. For the conviction of those who profess the faith but have no true fellowship with God: If we say we have fellowship with Him and walk in darkness, then we are lying and not walking in the truth. It is known that in the language of Holy Scripture the word "walk" means to order the general direction and individual actions of moral life, that is, a life that obeys the law of God. To walk in darkness means to live and act in accordance with ignorance, error and false customs, which are in direct opposition to the fundamental principles of our holy faith. There may be people who claim to be great in religion and claim to have fellowship with God, and yet lead a wicked, immoral, impure life. Such the apostle is not afraid to accuse of lying: They lie and do not act according to the truth. They lie about God, for He has no fellowship with wicked souls. What does light have in common with darkness? They lie about themselves because they have neither messages from God nor access to Him. There is no truth in their confession, nor in their life, by their behavior they discover that their confession and claims are false and prove their recklessness and falsity.

2. For the conviction and subsequent encouragement of those who are close to God: But if we walk in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the Blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin. Just as the blessed God is the eternal, limitless light, and the Mediator sent from Him is the light for this world, so Christianity is the great luminary that shines in our sphere, here below. Conformity with this light in spirit and practical behavior testifies to the presence of communion with God. Those who walk like this show that they know God, that they have received the Spirit from God, and that the divine image is imprinted on their souls. Then we have fellowship with one another, they with us, we with them, both of them with God, fellowship in His blessed or saving messages to us. One of these blessed messages is that the Blood of His Son, or His death, works in us: The Blood of Jesus Christ, His Son, cleanses us from all sin. Eternal life, the eternal Son put on flesh and blood and became Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ shed His Blood for us, or died to wash us from our sins with His own Blood. His Blood working in us frees us from the guilt of sin, both original and actual, both inborn and committed by us, and makes us righteous in His sight. Not only that, but his blood has a sanctifying effect upon us, whereby sin is more and more subdued until it is utterly blotted out, Gal. 3:13,14.

Verses 8-10. In this passage, I. The apostle, admitting that even those who have this heavenly fellowship still sin, now proceeds to confirm this assumption; he does this by showing the detrimental consequences of denying the assumption in two statements.

1. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us, vv. 8. We must beware of self-deception—the denial or justification of our sins. The more sins we see in ourselves, the more we will appreciate deliverance. If we deny our sins, then the truth is not in us, either the truth opposite to such a denial (we lie, denying sin), or the truth of godliness. The Christian religion is the religion of sinners, those who have sinned in the past and in whom sin still dwells to some extent. The Christian life is a life of continuous repentance, humiliation because of sin and the mortification of sin, a life of constant faith in the Redeemer, gratitude and love for Him, a life of joyful expectation of the glorious day of liberation, when believers will be completely and finally justified and sin will be destroyed forever.

2. If we say that we have not sinned, we present Him as a liar, and His word is not in us, v. 10. By denying our sin, we not only deceive ourselves, but also dishonor God. We question His veracity. He testified ample to and against the sin of our world. ... And the Lord said in His heart (made a decision): I will no longer curse the earth for a man (as He did shortly before), because (Bishop Patrick believes that it should be read here not “because”, but “although ”) The thought of a man’s heart is evil from his youth, Gen. 8:21. God has given His testimony of the continued sin and sinfulness of this world by providing a sufficient and effective sin offering that will remain necessary throughout the ages, and of the continuing sinfulness of the believers themselves, by requiring them to continually confess their sins and communion through faith in the blood of this victim. Therefore, if we say that we have not sinned or no longer sin, then the word of God is not in us, nor in our minds, that is, we are not familiar with it; nor in our hearts, that is, it has no practical effect on us.

1. What he must do for this: If we confess our sins, v. 9. Recognition and confession of sin, accompanied by contrition for it - such is the task of the believer and such is the means for freeing him from the guilt of sin.

2. What encourages him and this, guaranteeing a happy outcome? This is the faithfulness, righteousness, and mercy of God, to whom he confesses his sins: ... He, being faithful and just, will forgive us our sins (ours) and cleanse us from all unrighteousness, v. 9. God is faithful to His covenant and His word, in which He promised forgiveness to the repentant and confessing believer. He is faithful to himself and his glory, having prepared such a sacrifice through which his righteousness is proclaimed in the justification of sinners. He is faithful to His Son, not only sending Him to this ministry, but also promising Him that everyone who comes through Him will be forgiven on account of His merits. Through the knowledge of Him (through the acceptance of Him by faith) He, the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify many .., Isaiah 53:11. He is a merciful and compassionate God, and therefore forgives the repentant and contrite all his sins, cleanses him from the guilt of all unrighteousness, and in due time will deliver him from the power of sin and the habit of sinning.

Meliton, Apollinaris of Hierapolis, Tatian, Athenagoras (Old Latin and Syriac translations already have the Gospel of John) are all obviously well acquainted with the Gospel of John. Saint Clement of Alexandria even speaks of the reason for which John wrote his Gospel (Eusebius, Church History, VI, 14, 7). The Muratorian Fragment also testifies to the origin of the Gospel of John (see Analecta, ed. Preishen, 1910, p. 27).

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

Apostle John the Evangelist

Where the apostle John came from, nothing definite can be said about this. About his father, Zebedee, it is only known that he lived with his sons James and John in Capernaum and was engaged in fishing on a fairly large scale, as indicated by the fact that he had workers (). A more prominent personality is the wife of Zebedee, Salome, who belonged to those women who accompanied Christ the Savior and from their own means acquired what was required for the maintenance of a rather large circle of Christ's disciples, who constituted almost a permanent retinue (;). She shared the ambitious desires of her sons and asked Christ to fulfill their dreams (). She was present from afar at the removal from the cross of the Savior (Matt. 27ff.) and participated in the purchase of fragrances for anointing the body of the buried Christ (; cf.).

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Reason and Purpose of Writing the Gospel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prologue ().

First department: Testimony of Christ John the Baptist - until the first manifestation of the greatness of Christ ().

Second department: The beginning of the public ministry of Christ ().

Third department: Jesus is the Giver of eternal life, in the fight against Judaism ().

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

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

Sixth department: Glorification of Jesus through and resurrection ().

Epilogue ().

Objections to the Authenticity of the Gospel of John

From what has been said about the structure and content of the Gospel of John, one can see that this Gospel contains a lot of things that distinguish it from the first three Gospels, called synoptic by the similarity of the image given in them of the face and activity of Jesus Christ. So, the life of Christ in John begins in heaven...

The story of the birth and childhood of Christ, with which the Evangelists Matthew and Luke introduce us, is passed over by John in silence. In the majestic prologue of the Gospel of John, this eagle between the evangelists, to which this symbol was adopted in church icon painting, takes us with a bold flight straight into infinity. Then he quickly descends to earth, but here, in the incarnate Word, he makes us see the signs of the divinity of the Word. Then John the Baptist speaks in the Gospel of John. But this is not a preacher of repentance and judgment, as we know him from the Synoptic Gospels, but a witness of Christ, as the Lamb of God, Who takes upon Himself the sins of the world (). The Evangelist John says nothing about the baptism and temptation of Christ. The evangelist looks at the return of Christ from John the Baptist with His first disciples to Galilee as the beginning of a sermon about the coming of the Kingdom of Heaven. In the Gospel of John, the chronological and geographical framework of activity is not at all the same as that of the weather forecasters. John touches on the Galilean activity of Christ only in its highest point - the story of the miraculous feeding of the five thousand and the conversation about the bread of heaven. Then only in the depiction of the last days of the life of Christ, John converges with the weather forecasters. The main place of activity of Christ, according to the Gospel of John, is Jerusalem and Judea.

John differs even more from the synoptic evangelists in his depiction of Christ as the Teacher. For the latter, Christ appears as a popular preacher as a teacher of morality, expounding to the simple inhabitants of the Galilean cities and villages in the most accessible form for them the doctrine of the Kingdom of God. As a benefactor of the people, He walks around Galilee, healing every disease in the people surrounding Him in whole crowds. In John, the Lord appears either before individuals, such as Nicodemus, the Samaritan woman, or in the circle of His disciples, or, finally, before priests, scribes and other Jews knowledgeable in the matter of religious knowledge, speaks about the divine dignity of His person. At the same time, the language of His speeches becomes somewhat mysterious, and we often find allegories here. The miracles in the Gospel of John also have the character of signs, i.e. serve to explain the main points of Christ's teaching about His divinity.

More than a hundred years have passed since German rationalism turned its blows on the Gospel of John in order to prove its inauthenticity. However, it was not until the time of Strauss that the real persecution of this greatest testimony of the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ began. Under the influence of Hegel's philosophy, which did not allow the possibility of the realization of the absolute idea in an individual, Strauss declared the Johannine Christ a myth, and the entire Gospel a tendentious fiction. Following him, the head of the new Tübingen school, F.X. Baur places the origin of the 4th Gospel in the second half of the 2nd century, when, he believes, reconciliation began between the two opposing currents of the apostolic age, Petrinism and Peacockism. The Gospel of John, according to Baur, was a monument of reconciliation between these two directions. It aimed to reconcile the various disputes that were taking place at that time (about 170) in the Church: Montanism, Gnosticism, the doctrine of the Logos, the Paschal disputes, etc., and for this it used the material contained in the first three Gospels, placing all dependent on one idea of ​​the Logos. This view of Baur was wanted to be developed and substantiated by his students - Schwegler, Voestlin, Zeller and others, but, in any case, nothing came of their efforts, as even such a liberal critic as Harnack admits. The early Christian church was by no means an arena of struggle between petrinism and peacockism, as the latest church-historical science has shown. However, the newest representatives of the New Tübingen school G.I. Holtzmann, Gilgenfeld, Volkmar, Freienbühl (his work in French: "The 4th Gospel", vol. I, 1901 and vol. II, 1903) still deny the authenticity of the Gospel of John and the reliability of the information contained in it , with most of them attributed to the influence of Gnosticism. Thoma attributes the origin of the Gospel to the influence of Philonism, Max Müller to the influence of Greek philosophy.

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

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

Keim, followed by many other critics, points out that according to the Gospel of John, Christ “was not born, was not baptized, did not experience any internal struggle or mental suffering. He knew everything from the beginning, shone with pure divine glory. Such a Christ does not conform to the conditions of human nature." But all this is not true: Christ, according to John, became flesh () and had a Mother (), and there is a clear indication of His acceptance of baptism in the speech of John the Baptist (). The fact that Christ experienced an inner struggle is clearly stated in, and the tears shed by Him at the tomb of Lazarus testify to His spiritual suffering (). As for the foreknowledge that Christ reveals in the Gospel of John, it is in full agreement with our faith in Christ as the God-man.

Critics further point out that the 4th Gospel allegedly does not recognize any gradualness in the development of the faith of the apostles: the originally called apostles from the very first day of their acquaintance with Christ become completely confident in His messianic dignity (). But critics forget that the disciples fully believed in Christ only after the first sign in Cana (). And they themselves say that they believed in the Divine origin of Christ only when Christ told them a lot about Himself in a farewell conversation ().

Then, if John says that Christ went to Jerusalem from Galilee several times, whereas, according to the synoptics, it seems that He visited Jerusalem only once on the Passover of Passion, then we must say about this that, firstly, and from the synoptic gospels it can be concluded that Christ was in Jerusalem more than once (see), and secondly, the most correct, of course, is the evangelist John, who wrote his gospel after the synoptic and , naturally, had to come to the idea of ​​the need to replenish the insufficient chronology of weather forecasters and depict in detail the activities of Christ in Jerusalem, which was known to him, of course, much better than any of the weather forecasters, two of whom did not even belong to the 12 . Even the apostle Matthew could not know all the circumstances of Christ's activity in Jerusalem, because, firstly, he was called relatively late (; cf.), and secondly, because Christ sometimes went to Jerusalem secretly (), without accompanying the entire crowd of students. John, of course, was honored to accompany Christ everywhere.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They ask: “Where did John, a simple fisherman from Galilee, get such a philosophical education as he finds in his Gospel? Wouldn't it be more natural to assume that the 4th Gospel was written by some Greek Gnostic or Christian brought up on the study of classical literature?

This question must be answered as follows. First, John does not have that strict sequence and that logical construction of views, which distinguish the Greek philosophical systems. Instead of dialectics and logical analysis, John is dominated by a synthesis characteristic of systematic thinking, reminiscent of Eastern religious-theological contemplation rather than Greek philosophy (Prof. Muretov. Authenticity of the Lord's conversations in the 4th Gospel. Right. Review, 1881. Sept., p. 65 et seq.). Therefore, it can be said that John writes as an educated Jew, and the question of where he could get such a Jewish education is resolved quite satisfactorily by the consideration that John's father was a rather wealthy man (he had his own workers) and therefore both of his sons, James and John could receive a good education for that time in any of the rabbinical schools in Jerusalem.

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

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

Self-Evidence of the Fourth Gospel

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Language and Presentation of the Fourth Gospel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

) Christ did not go to Jerusalem again, this is the third Easter of His public ministry. On the Feast of Tabernacles, He speaks in Jerusalem (), then spends two months in Perea and in December, on the feast of the renewal of the temple, again comes to Jerusalem (). Then Christ soon leaves again for Perea, from where for a short time he appears in Bethany (). From Bethany until the fourth Passover, He remains in Ephraim, from where He comes on the last Passover, the fourth, to Jerusalem, in order to die here at the hands of enemies. Thus, John mentions the four feasts of Pascha, in the circle of which lies the history of the public ministry of Jesus Christ, which apparently lasted more than three years.

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

The essence and undeniable truth of the gospel of the Word of life (1-4). God is light (5). The nature and conditions of fellowship of Christians with God and Christ (6-10).

1 John 1:1. About what was from the beginning, what we heard, what we saw with our eyes, what we looked at and what our hands touched, about the Word of life -

1 John 1:2. for life has appeared, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you this eternal life which was with the Father and appeared to us,

1 John 1:3. We declare to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us: and our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son, Jesus Christ.

1 John 1:4. And we write this to you so that your joy may be complete.

Expressing his thought with a somewhat difficult period, the Apostle begins the epistle with a testimony: we proclaim (απαγγέλλομεν) or write to you about the Word of life (περί τού λόγου τής Ζωής), which was from the beginning (ό ήν άπ᾿ αρχής), which we have heard, which we have seen with our own eyes and which our hands have touched. As we have seen, already in antiquity a close similarity of this beginning of the epistle with the beginning of the Gospel was noted, and this similarity, in the opinion of the ancient church teachers, shows the severity of the subject matter of writings and teaching about God the Word or the Divine Logos. The “word of life” here, contrary to the opinion of some commentators (Westcott, Dusterdyck, and others), does not mean only the divine teaching that Christ the Savior proclaimed to people (cf. Phil 2:16), but is precisely the name of God the Word, as shown by construction (περί - in Apostle John it is usually used from the genus. falling. person, see 1 John 1:15, 22, 47, 2, etc.), and the context of the Apostle's speech: only about the personal Divine word or the God-man The apostle about himself and other apostles could say: "we have heard, we have seen with our eyes, we have looked, our hands have touched", and in v. 2 The Apostle testifies that this life – the eternal life of the God-man – was with the Father and appeared to us, which is quite reminiscent of the words of St. The Apostle John about the Divine Word-Christ in the Gospel: "In him was the life, and the life was, the light of man" (Jn 1:4). The use by the Apostle in the epistle of the same words and expressions as in the Gospel, which are: λόγος, ζωή, ήν, πρός, is even more the affinity or identity of concepts and their relation to the same main subject - God the Word. Without repeating here what was said in the notes to the Gospel of John John 1, we only note that the designation of the Son of God as the Logos both in the Gospel and in the epistle was not a matter of independent speculation of the Apostle, but was revealed to the Seer in a deliberate supernatural revelation (see Rev. XIX: 13). The eternal existence of God the Word is expressed in the passage under consideration by the words ήν απ᾿ αρχής, as in the Gospel: εν αρχή ήν, "from the beginning", as well as "at the beginning" means before the beginning of time, otherwise without beginning and infinite, therefore, eternal. Likewise, “the word: was means not a temporary existence, but the independent existence of a known object, the beginning and foundation of everything that received existence, such that without which the latter could not have come into existence” (Blessed Theophilus).

Showing the perfect authenticity of the gospel preaching of the apostles about God the Word, St. The apostle points to the completeness, excluding the possibility of any doubt, of the knowledge of the apostles about the God-man, based on the apostolic all-round spiritual and sensory experience: all the external senses and all the internal spiritual forces of the apostles participated in the experimental comprehension of God the Word, who appeared in the flesh: “they touched and mental touch and at the same time sensual, as, for example, Thomas did after the resurrection. For He was One and indivisible, One and the Same – visible and invisible, embracable and immense, inviolable and tangible, speaking like a man, and working wonders like God” (Theophilus).

The word of the Divine in the Apostle here, in Art. 1st, is called the Word of life, and v. 2nd - Life (ή ζωή), which was with the Father and appeared to people, eternal life (τήν ζωήν τήν αιώνιον), which is proclaimed by the apostles, including St. John. In Art. 3 and 4, the goal of both preaching in general and the present epistle is that Christians should have common (κοινωνίαν) preached and written apostolic word (κοινωνίαν) not only with the apostles, but through them – and with God the Father and Jesus Christ: “through the word we receive you into partakers of what we have seen and heard, so we have you as partakers of the Father and His Son Jesus Christ, and having received this, we, as those who cling to God, can be filled with joy” (Blessed Theophilus). Thus, in the epistle, the doctrine of the Divine Word is revealed mainly from the side of the eternal, eternal blessed life, which has its source in God the Word, and from the side of Christians' communion with this original source of all life. If the Gospel of John reveals the actual doctrine of the person of God the Word of Jesus Christ, then the epistle gives the application of this doctrine to life; on the basis of true theology and faith in Jesus Christ, as the incarnate Word of God, it creates the life of each individual member Church of Christ to bring everyone to eternal life, to eternal bliss in communion with God.

1 John 1:5. And this is the message that we have heard from Him and proclaim to you: God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all.

The essence of the gospel brought to earth by the Incarnate Word of God, heard from Him by the apostles and proclaimed by them to people, the Apostle John here expresses in the form of a brief aphorism with the opposition of positive and negative thoughts (antithetical parallelism): “God is light, and there is no darkness in him ". Judging by the aphoristic nature of this expression, and even more so by the direct testimony of the Apostle: “we heard from Him,” one can think that an exact saying is reproduced here, the Savior’s own words are one of those not few agraphs (άγραφα) - sayings not recorded in the Gospel Lords who were preserved only in the writings of the apostles (such is the saying of the Lord quoted by Apostle Paul in his speech to the Ephesian shepherds: “it is more blessed to give than to receive” Acts 20:35) or in later monuments of Christian church tradition. It is possible, however, as some interpreters suggest, that the saying under consideration is a generalization, reduction or reminder of several similar sayings of Christ the Savior about Himself as about light (John 8:12, 9:5), expressed by the Apostle himself in an aphorism.

In any case, the proposition: "God is light" is one of the expressions used by St. John, which describe God's own being, which are: "God is Spirit" (John 4:24) and "God is Love" (1 John 4:8): if other New Testament writers speak of the properties and actions of God, then St. John, says that there is God in his being. The basic concept given by the name of light as applied to God is the concept of absolute moral perfection, cf. Jas 1:17, the most perfect holiness. As in the visible world, light is the most excellent and most beneficent element, illuminating, warming, enlivening everything, so in God “light” is the totality and fullness of His Divine perfections - holiness, wisdom, omniscience, grace, etc., according to which God is everything in the world. illuminates, enlightens, revitalizes, leads to bliss. And there is no lack of any of these properties of God, there is no shadow in the everlasting light of the being of God. “So He is light, and there is no darkness in Him, but spiritual light, drawing the eyes of the soul to His sight, and turning away from everything material and arousing the desire for Him alone with the strongest love. By darkness he means either ignorance or sin, for in God there is neither ignorance nor sin, because ignorance and sin take place (only) in matter and in our disposition ... And that the Apostle calls darkness sin, this is evident from his gospel saying: “and the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it” (John 1:5), where he calls our sinful nature by darkness, which, in all its tendency to fall, yields to our envious devil, who leads us to sin. So, the Light, united with our nature, very perceptible, became completely elusive for the tempter, for He did not sin (Isaiah 53:9).

From the teaching about God as Light, the Apostle further draws two moral and practical conclusions: a) about the need for Christians to walk in the faith of truth and purity, to recognize and confess their sins and be cleansed by the blood of the redeemer (1 John 1:6, 2:2) and b) their duty to keep the commandments of God, especially the commandment of love (1 John 2:3-11).

1 John 1:6. If we say we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we are lying and not walking in truth;

1 John 1:7. but if we walk in the light, as He is in the light, then we have fellowship with one another, and the Blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin.

Every Christian, as a member of the Kingdom of God, must be in living communion with God. But the necessary condition for this is that the Christian walks in the light of truth and holiness. In the absence of these conditions, a Christian would be mistaken or would allow a conscious deception, considering himself standing in communion with God - the Light of truth and holiness. The sharpness of the tone, apparently, indicates that the Apostle has in mind some false teachers who distorted the true concept of the essence of Christian life and communion with God. “So when we take you into communion with God, who is light, and in this light, as shown, there is no darkness and cannot be; then we, as partakers of light, must not accept darkness into ourselves, so as not to be punished for lies, and together with lies not to be cut off from communion with the light ”(Blessed Theophilus). True communion with God, true walking in the light according to the law of becoming like God, is necessarily manifested in communion with one's neighbors, in brotherly love. But the source of grace-filled strength to walk in the light of fellowship with God and neighbors lies solely in the redemption of the whole world by the blood of the Son of God. “No one who loves the truth and tries to be true will dare to say that he is without sin. So, if anyone is seized by this fear, let him not lose heart: for whoever has entered into communion with His Son Jesus Christ, he has been cleansed by His Blood, shed for us” (Blessed Theophilus).

1 John 1:8. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

1 John 1:9. If we confess our sins, then He, being faithful and just, will forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

1 John 1:10. If we say that we have not sinned, then we represent Him as a lie, and His word is not in us.

Already in the last words of Art. On the 7th, the Apostle expressed the idea that sin also operates in Christians, and that all of them have a need for the cleansing power of the Blood of Christ. Now, having in mind, perhaps, the false teachers who rejected this truth, the Apostle with particular perseverance proves the need for all Christians to have an awareness of the depravity of their nature and inclination to sin. The lack of this consciousness, and even more so its complete absence, leads not only to pernicious self-delusion (v. 8), but further - in the end - to the denial of the redemptive work of Christ, to the recognition even of God Himself as a liar (v. 10), for if people themselves can be without sin, then redemption and the Redeemer are superfluous, and the words of Scripture about the need for all redemption would turn out to be false. But denying and condemning with all resoluteness self-delusion and the claim to perfect sinlessness, the Apostle at the same time resolves the naturally arising question: how can the sinful state of a Christian be reconciled with the necessary requirement of communion with God, who is light? The answer to this perplexity is given by the Apostle in v. 9 in the sense that necessary condition our communion with God in the presence of our undoubted sinfulness is confession, that is, an open, resolute and persistent recognition of our sins: εάν ομολογώμεν τάς αμαρτίας ημών – confession not only of general sinfulness, but of certain sins, known as acts of darkness. That the confession of sins cannot be limited to one inner consciousness, but must be accompanied by an external confession or open self-judgment before God and before a witness appointed by God to bind and solve the sins of men (John 20:22-23), this is already suggested by the meaning and New Testament use of the term ομολογεϊν , which includes the idea of ​​external utterance or expression of one or the other before people (cf. Mt X:32-33; Jn 1:20). “How great is nobled from confession, is evident from the following words: “Tell you your sins first, that you may be justified” (Is XLIIÏ26) (Blessed Theophilus). When we fulfill the required condition - the confession of sins - God, according to the assurance of the Apostle, will certainly forgive the sins of the penitent (glor. "forgive our sins") and internally cleanse the sinner from unrighteousness ("purify us from all unrighteousness"). This is both the faithfulness and the righteousness of God. “God is faithful, that is the same as true; for the word faithful is used not only of someone to whom something is entrusted, but also of someone who himself is very faithful, who, by his own fidelity, can make others so. In this sense, God is faithful, and He is righteous in the sense that those who come to Him, no matter how sinful they may be, He does not drive away (John 6:37) (Blessed Theophilus).

Found a mistake in the text? Select it and press: Ctrl + Enter

Table of contents: ; ; ; ; ; .

Foreword

This epistle of the apostle John has a special character. It speaks of eternal life, manifested in Jesus and given to us, the life that was with the Father and that is in the Son. It is in this life that believers enjoy communion with the Father, are in connection with the Father through the Spirit of adoption, in relationship with the Father and the Son. The divine character is what experiences this relationship, because this fellowship comes from God himself.

Two points are confirmed in the first chapter, namely, communion with the Father and the Son, and that this communion should correspond to the essence of the character of God. The defining moment of the second chapter is the name of the Father. Afterwards, it is precisely what God is that tests the truth of the life that is given to us.

If we talk about the epistles of the Apostle Paul, although they talk about eternal life, they basically set before Christians the truth regarding those means that help to stand before God accepted and justified by him. The first epistle of John tells us about the life that comes from God through Jesus Christ. John presents to us God the Father revealed in the Son, and eternal life in him. Paul presents us before God as sons through Christ. I'm talking about what characterizes them. Each author, respectively, deals with different points.

Thus, the eternal life manifested in the person of Jesus is so precious that the message presented to us in this respect has a special charm. And I, too, when I turn my eyes to Jesus, when I contemplate all his humility, his purity, his mercy, tenderness, patience, his devotion, holiness, his love, complete absence selfishness and self-interest, I can say that this is my life. This is an immeasurable blessing. It is possible that this life is hidden in me, but nevertheless it is true that this is my life. Oh, how I rejoice when I see her! how I bless God for that! Oh, what peace of mind! what a pure joy of the heart! And at the same time, Jesus himself becomes the object of my affections, and all my love is formed on the basis of this holy object. And this is extremely important in a moral sense, because the reason for my joy, my delight is precisely in him, and not in myself.

1 John 1

Let's get back to our message. There were many claims to a new world, to clearer views. It was said that Christianity was very good in its original form, but has grown and a new light has appeared, going far beyond that gloomy truth.

The person of our Lord, the true manifestation of the most divine life, has dispelled all these proud claims, this exaltation of the human mind, under the influence of the devil, who cannot help obscuring the truth and leading people back into the darkness from which they themselves came.

The Apostle John speaks about what was from the beginning (that is, about Christianity in the person of Christ): “What we heard, what we saw with our eyes, what we looked at and what our hands touched, about the Word of life - for life has appeared.” The life that was with the Father appeared to the disciples. Could there be anything more perfect, more beautiful, more miraculous in the eyes of God, than Christ himself, than that life that was with the Father and appeared in all its perfection in the person of the Son? As soon as the person of the Son becomes the object of our faith, we will feel the perfection that was from the beginning.

Indeed, the person of the Son, eternal life manifested in the flesh, is the subject of this epistle that we are considering.

Promise Conditioned by Law and Life Coming in Grace - The Savior Presented Before the Essence of God Is Revealed

Therefore, grace is shown here in what is relevant to life, while Paul presents it in connection with justification. The law promised life for obedience, but life appeared in the person of Jesus, in all its divine perfection, in its human manifestations. Oh, how precious is the truth that this life that was with the Father, that was in Jesus, is now given to us! What relationship it puts us with the Father and the Son himself by the power of the Holy Spirit! That is what the Spirit is showing us here. And notice that everything here is from grace. Further, we note that He experiences every pretense of friendship with God, showing the inherent character of God, which He will never change. But before proceeding to do so, He represents the Savior Himself and thereby offers fellowship with the Father and the Son without doubt and without any change. This is our position and our eternal joy.

The apostle saw that life, touching it with his own hands, and he wrote to others, declaring this, so that they too would have fellowship with him, knowing the life that appeared in this way. So, since this life was the Son, it could not be known without knowing the Son, that is, who He was, without delving into his thoughts, his feelings; otherwise it cannot be truly known. Only in this way could they have fellowship with him - with the Son. How wonderful to delve into the thoughts and feelings of the Son of God, descended from heaven of grace! And to do this through communication with him - in other words, not only to know them, but also to share these feelings and thoughts with him. As a result, this is life.

This life has been revealed. Therefore, we no longer have to look for it, groping for it in the dark, probing at random the obscurities or doubts of our hearts to find it, laboring under the burden of the law to get it. We contemplate it, it was revealed in Jesus Christ. Everyone who has Christ has it.

You cannot have fellowship with the Son without having fellowship with the Father. He who has seen the Son has also seen the Father, and therefore everyone who has communion with the Son has communion with the Father, for their thoughts and feelings coincide. The Son is in the Father, and the Father is in him. Therefore, we have fellowship with the Father. And this is true when we look at it in a different way. We know that the Father has full joy in the Son. Now, having revealed the Son, He allows us to rejoice in him, no matter how insignificant we may be. I know that when I rejoice and admire Jesus, his humility, his love for his Father and for us, his pure eye and pure devoted heart, I experience the same feelings as the Father himself, in my head the same thoughts that and he has. Rejoicing in Jesus now, like the Father, I have fellowship with the Father. Therefore, I am with the Son and I know the Father. All this, from one point of view or another, follows from the personality of the Son. In this we have complete joy. What can be more to us than the Father and the Son? What will give more complete happiness than the unity of thoughts, feelings and joys with the Father and the Son, than communion with them, than the opportunity to draw full joy from this? And if it seems difficult to believe this, then let us remember that it really cannot be otherwise, for in the life of Christ the Holy Spirit is the source of my thoughts, feelings, my fellowship, and the Holy Spirit cannot inspire other thoughts than those that belong to the Father. and Son. They are one in nature. To call them delightful thoughts is something that goes without saying and makes them all the more valuable. If the blessed Spirit be the source of thought, people will think like him.

He who was life and came from the Father brought us the knowledge of God. The apostle heard from the mouth of Jesus about the nature of God. This knowledge is a priceless gift, which, however, tests the soul. And this, too, the apostle declares to the believers, as if from the presence of the Lord. It was from him that they learned that God is light and there is no darkness in him. As for Christ, He spoke of what He knew and testified of what He saw. No one was in heaven except him who descended from heaven. “No one has ever seen God; The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has revealed.” No one saw the Father except he who was from God: He saw the Father. Therefore He could, through His perfect knowledge, reveal it. God is light, perfect purity, which at the same time points to everything that is pure and everything that is not so at all. In order to have communion with the light, one must be the light oneself, have the nature inherent in it, and be prepared to reveal itself in perfect light. Light can only be associated with what emanates from it. If something else is added to it, then light ceases to be light. He is perfect by nature, so that he excludes everything foreign to him.

We find that when the epistle of John speaks of grace to us, the author speaks of the Father and the Son, but when it speaks of the nature of God or our responsibility, the apostle speaks of God. John. 3 and 1 John. 4 could be an exception, but they are not. It is about God as such, not about personal activities and relationships in grace.

Everyone who saw him saw the Father, but here the apostle speaks about the communication of information about him, about the discovery of his nature. Therefore, “if we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, then we lie and do not act according to the truth,” and our life becomes a continuous lie.

But "if we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin." These are great principles, significant features of the position of Christians. We are in front of God, and there is no longer a veil between him and us. This is a real circumstance, a matter of life and walking. It is not the same as walking according to the light, but it is walking in the light. In other words, it is walking before the eyes of God, illuminated by the full revelation of the essence of God. This does not mean that we do not have sin, but, walking in the light, we have a will and consciousness illuminated by the light of God, and that which does not correspond to this light is subject to condemnation. We live and act in essence with the feeling that God is constantly present with us and that we know him. Thus we walk in the light. The moral principle of our will is God himself, God known. The thoughts that affect the soul come from him and are formed on the basis of his revelation. The apostle always expresses this in an abstract way, so he declares: "And he cannot sin, because he is born of God." And this affirms the moral principle of such a life. This is its essence, this is the truth, since man is born of God. We cannot have any other criterion, and any other would be false. Alas, we, as it follows, do not always answer him. We do not meet this criterion if we are not in that state, if we do not walk according to the nature that God has placed in us, if we are not in that true state that corresponds to the divine nature.

Moreover, as He walks in the light, believers have fellowship with one another. The external world is selfish: the flesh, passions seek rewards for themselves, but if I walk in the light, then selfishness has no place there. I can enjoy the light, and everything that I look for in it, I look for in fellowship with others, and therefore there is no place for envy and jealousy. If the other has carnal passions, then I am deprived of them. In the light, we share together what He gives us, and we rejoice in it even more when we share it with each other. And this is the touchstone for everything carnal. Since we are in the light, we rejoice in fellowship with all who are in it. The Apostle John, as we have already said, states this in a generalized and categorical form. This is the surest way to get to the heart of the matter. Everything else is just a matter of implementation.

By the blood of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, we are cleansed from all sin. To walk in the light as God is in it, to have fellowship with one another, and to be cleansed from sin by the blood of Jesus Christ - these are the three main points that characterize the position of a Christian. We feel the need for the latter. Walking in the light like God in the light, having (God be blessed!) a perfect revelation of himself given to us by nature who knows him, thus being able to see him spiritually, just as the eye was made to appreciate the light (for we also share the divine nature), we cannot say that we have no sin. The world itself would object to us. But we can say that the blood of Jesus Christ completely cleanses us from all sin.

It doesn't say "clear" or "purify". This indicates not the time, but the effectiveness of the blood. I could just as well say that some medicine cures a fever. It speaks of efficiency.

Through the Spirit we rejoice in the light together; this is the common joy of our hearts before God, and this is pleasing to him, this is evidence of our common participation in the divine nature, which is also love. And our conscience is not a hindrance to this, since we know the price of blood. We do not feel sin on ourselves before God, although we know that it is in us, but we feel that we have been cleansed from it by the blood. However, the same light that shows us this warns us (if we are in it) from declaring that we have no sin at all. We deceive ourselves if we say this, and the truth is not in us, for if the truth were in us, if that revelation of the divine nature, which is the light, the revelation of Christ our life, were in us, then the sin that is in us, would be judged by the light itself. And if he is not condemned, then this light - the truth that reveals everything as it is - is not in us.

If, on the one hand, we have already committed some kind of sin and, being condemned by the light, confessed in sin (in such a way that there is no more self-will and pride is broken in us), “then He, being faithful and just, will forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” And further: “If we say that we have not sinned, then [this testifies not only that there is no truth in us, but also that we] represent Him [God] as a lie, and His word is not in us”, for He claims that all have sinned. There are three things: we lie, the truth is not in us, we represent God as a lie. It is about that communion with God in the light, which in the practical everyday Christian life inseparably links forgiveness and a real feeling of it through faith and purity of heart.

Speaking of sin, the apostle says in the present tense: "We speak." When he talks about sinning, he uses the past tense. It is not based on the fact that we are going to continue to sin. It is doubtful whether he is talking about the first conversion to the Lord or about subsequent sins. To this I answer: he speaks in an abstract and absolute sense; confession brings forgiveness through grace. If we are talking about our first turning to God, then this is forgiveness, and this is said in a full and absolute sense. I am forgiven by God and He no longer remembers my sins. When it comes to subsequent sin, then the regenerated soul always acknowledges the sins, and then forgiveness is seen as the management of God and as the real position of my soul's connection with him. Note that the Apostle John, as elsewhere, speaks independently of anything, he speaks in principle.

Thus we see the position of the Christian (v. 7), and three points which are contrary to the truth in three different ways, viz. fellowship with God in life. The apostle wrote about what has to do with fellowship with the Father and the Son, so that the joy of Christians may be perfect.

1 John 2

Having a revelation of the nature of God, which the apostle received from one who was life sent from heaven, John writes the epistle so that Christians do not sin. However, to say so is to assume that they are capable of committing sin. It cannot be thought that they will certainly sin, for the presence of sin in the flesh in no way obliges us to live according to the flesh. But if sin does take place, grace will take precautions to be able to work and that we will not fall under condemnation and be under the law again.

We have an advocate with the Father who intercedes for us in heaven. Now it is no longer to achieve justice, not to wash away our sins. All this has already been done. Divine truth has placed us in the light, just as God himself is in the light. However, fellowship with God is interrupted as soon as frivolity appears in our heart, for it is of the flesh, and the flesh has no fellowship with God. If communion is broken, if we have sinned (not when we have repented, for it is his intercession that leads to repentance), Christ intercedes for us. The truth is always present - our truth is "Jesus Christ, the righteous." Therefore, neither the truth nor the value of the atoning sacrifice for sin is changed, grace acts (one might say that it necessarily acts) by the power of that truth and that blood that act before God through the intercession of Christ, who never forgets us, to bring us back to fellowship. through repentance. Therefore, while still on earth, before Peter committed the sin, Jesus prayed for him. At some point, He looks at Peter, and he repents of his deed and weeps bitterly. After that, the Lord does everything necessary to make Peter condemn the very root of sin, but all this happens through grace.

The same is true in our case. Divine truth abides - this is the unchanging foundation of our relationship with God, established on the blood of Christ. When communion, which can exist only in the light, is interrupted, then the intercession of Christ, achieved by the power of his blood (for the atoning sacrifice for sin was also offered), regenerates the soul so that it can again enjoy communion with God according to the light into which truth has led it. This atoning sacrifice for sin was offered for the sake of the whole world, and not only for the sake of the Jews alone, not only for the sake of any one person at all, but for the sake of the whole world, and God, with his inherent spiritual nature, was fully glorified by the death of Christ.

Here we are talking about fellowship, and therefore, we are talking about a possible fall into sin. In Hebrews we saw that it is access to God, and we are made "forever perfect," and the priesthood exists for mercy and help, not for sins, except for the great act of atonement.

Thus we have considered three main points (or, if you like, two main points and a third, namely a defense, which is a complement to the first two), forming an introduction to the teaching of the epistle. Everything else is a tentative application of what is contained in the part already considered: first, life was given in communion with the Father and the Son; secondly, the essence of God in the light, which reveals the falsity of any claim to communion with the light when life passes in darkness; thirdly, the vision that sin is in us, that we can sin, although we are cleansed before God and can enjoy the light, having the intercession that Jesus Christ, the righteous one, can always show before God on the basis of the truth that is always present with him , and the blood shed by him for our sins, to restore our fellowship, which we have lost through our criminal negligence.

The Spirit now proceeds to set forth the characteristics of the divine life in which we are sanctified to the obedience of Jesus Christ. In other words, we must be obedient and follow the same principles followed by Jesus, for whom the will of his Father was the urge to action and the rule of action. This is the submissiveness of life, in which doing the will of God was food and drink, but not under the rule of the law, in order to receive life. The life of Jesus Christ was a life of obedience, and in it He fully enjoyed the love of his Father, being tested in all situations and worthily enduring all trials. His words, his commandments were the expression of that life; they are the guide of the same life in us and should show its influence on us, the influence of the one who spoke them.

The law promised life to those who would obey it. Christ himself is life. This life has been given to us - believers. That is why these words, which are the expression of that life in its perfection in Jesus, guide us and guide us according to that perfection. In addition, this life has an influence on us, which is expressed through the commandments. Therefore, we must obey and do as He did. Here are two main directions for action. It is not enough just to behave well - we must obey, because there is power over us. This is the essential principle of a righteous life. On the other hand, the obedience of a Christian, as Christ himself proves, is not what we often think. We call obedient a child who, having his own will, nevertheless obeys his parents as soon as they begin, by showing their power over him, to prevent him from exercising his will. However, Christ was never obedient in this way. He came to do the will of God. Obedience was his form of being. His Father's will was the motive, and together with love, which was always inseparable from it, it was the only motive for his every act and every impulse. Such obedience is called, properly speaking, Christian. This is a new life, in which it is joyful to fulfill the will of Christ, recognizing his complete power over oneself. We consider ourselves dead to everything else, we live for God and do not belong to ourselves. We know only Christ because we live his life, for the flesh does not know him and cannot understand his life.

Now that life is obedience, anyone who says, "I have known Him," but does not keep his commandments, is a liar and there is no truth in him. It does not say here that “he deceives himself”, for it is quite possible that he is not deceived, as happens in another case, when someone imagines fellowship, because the will is at work here, and the person knows this if he confesses. But the confession here is counterfeit, and the man is a liar, and the truth that is in the knowledge of Jesus and which he confesses is not in him.

Now two remarks should be made. First, the fact that the apostle always sees things as they are in themselves in the abstract, without all those deviations which are caused by other things, among which the former are found or connected. Secondly, the conclusions that the apostle draws are not formal reasoning, the meaning of which, accordingly, lies on the surface of the fact itself. He relies on a great spiritual principle so that no one can see the significance of his arguments without knowing the fact itself, the extent of this principle and, in particular, what the life of God is in its essence, in its character and in its manifestation. But without it, we will not be able to understand anything in it. And, indeed, the authority of the apostle and the authority of the Word must convince us that this is so, and this is sufficient. However, the connecting links of his preaching will not be understood unless one has that life which interprets his words and is itself interpreted by what the apostle says.

I return to the text: "But whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God is truly made perfect." This is how we realize that we know him. "His Word" has a much broader meaning than "His commandments." In other words, while both of these concepts imply submission, the word is something less external. "His commandments" here are the details of the divine life. “His Word” contains its full expression: the spirit of that life. This is a universal and absolute truth: life is the divine life revealed in Jesus and communicated to us. Have we seen it in Christ? Do we doubt that this is love and that the love of God is manifested in it? For if I keep his word, if the end and the means of that life expressed by that word are thus understood and attained, then the love of God is perfect in me. The apostle John, as we have seen, always speaks in the abstract. If, at any given moment, I do not truly keep that word, then in that sense I am not aware of his love and the beautiful communion with God is broken, for his word expresses his essence, and I keep it. It is spiritual communion with his nature in all its fullness, communion with nature in which I participate. Therefore, I know that He is perfect love, and I am filled with it, and this is manifested in my actions, for that word is the perfect expression of himself.

In essence, these concepts are not much different, which confirms the 7th verse, which says: "The ancient commandment is the word that you heard from the beginning." It can be said that the commandment is the word of Christ, and this is the perfect truth. But I doubt whether it can be said that the word is a commandment. And it makes us feel some difference. The contrast between verses 4 and 5 is remarkable, and the whole point here is that a person either has, according to the Word, the divine life, knowing and fully aware of what he has, or does not have it. “Whoever says, “I have known Him,” but does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and there is no truth in him,” for the truth is only that which “His word” reveals. And if we live as a creature whose expression is the word of Christ, and therefore know him through the word, then we are subject to this word. On the other hand, possessing this life, being participants in this divine nature, we have in ourselves the love of God, we have the commandment of Christ, his word, the perfect love of God, we act like Christ, and the life of Christ is transmitted to us in such a way that his commandment really abides in him and in us, and we walk in the light, loving our neighbors. How abundant is the purpose of blessings! The privileges referred to here are: knowing Christ, being in him, being in the light. The proof of the justification of the first privilege is humility. For if we abide in Christ (and this we know by keeping his word), we are bound to act as He does. That the last claim is true is proved by love for our brethren. Secondly, it is our duty to keep our walk on the height of Christ's walk. But one walk is not proof that we are in it and that we keep his word. Note that it does not say, "We know we believe," for that is not the point here, but, "We know that we are in Him."

Let me add that the apostle never uses these proofs because they are too common to be doubted. Verses 12 and 13 clearly confirm that John speaks of those to whom he addresses as having been finally forgiven, having the Spirit of adoption, otherwise he would not have written to them. He considers everyone, even the smallest and weakest, as such. Others tried to cast them into doubt, but the apostle calls for their hearts to be confident before God, so that they would not give in to any doubts, for they have the whole of Christ and are perfect Christians, having eternal life. Only in this way, having this, will they be able to maintain a firm confidence, even if they are dissuaded from the fact that they have received eternal life. They received forgiveness, became sons. If others had begun to cast them into doubt, they would, as the apostle writes, have no reason to doubt.

I have no doubt that this is the true meaning of what is said in John. 8:25: "He who is from the beginning, just as I say to you." What he said fully expressed his nature. Who He was is conveyed by his words. So this is the life that is given to us, but it was the love of God among men and in man. And this life is our life with you, and the word of Christ is given to us in order to know it, and if we observe it, then love will appear in us in all its depth.

Therefore, we thus know that we are in him, for we know what he is in the unity of his nature. Now, if we say that we are in it, it is evident from what we now see in the instruction given to us by the apostle that we should do as He did. Our actions are in fact the expression of our life, and that life is Christ known through his Word. And since it is known through his Word, we who have this life take upon ourselves the spiritual responsibility to follow it, in other words, to act as He did. For that word is the expression of his life.

Obedience, precisely as obedience, is thus rather a moral characteristic of the life of Christ in us. However, this is a proof that in the Christian world is inseparable from the life of Christ in us: we are in it. We know that we not only know it, but also abide in it. Enjoying the perfect love of God on the path of obedience makes us aware through the Holy Spirit that we are in it. However, if I am in him, then I cannot be exactly what He was, for He was completely sinless. But I must do as He did. Therefore, I know that I am in it. But if I admit that I am in it, then my soul and heart are completely there, and I must do as He did. The principles that form our way of life are: obedience as the main one, keeping his word so that the perfect love of God abides in me, and also knowing that I am in him.

In verses 7 and 8 two forms of the rule of this life are presented - two forms which, moreover, correspond to the two principles we have just spoken of. The Apostle John writes not a new commandment, but an ancient commandment: the word of Christ from the beginning. If it were not so, if it were new in this sense, then it would be much worse for the one who puts it forward, for it would no longer be an expression of the perfect life of Christ himself, but would be something else, perhaps a falsification of that what Christ spoke about. This coincides with the first principle, that is, it means the obedient fulfillment of the commandments, the commandments of Christ. What he said was an expression of what He was. He could command them to love one another as He loved them (compare with the Beatitudes).

The new commandment is "the true light is already shining." In some other sense it was also a new commandment, for (by the power of the Spirit of Christ united with him and drawing our life from him) the Spirit of God demonstrated the result of this life, revealing in a new way the glorified Christ. And now it was not only a commandment, but, as something true in Christ, it was contained in his own as participants in his nature, abiding in him, and he in them.

Through this revelation and through the presence of the Holy Spirit, "the darkness is passing away and the true light is already shining." There will be no other light in heaven, and only then will this light appear to all in cloudless glory.

There is still a lot of darkness in the world, but as far as light is concerned, it really is already shining.

The life referred to in Jn. 1:4 is now presented as the light of men (v. 9), only brighter, with the belief that Christ is gone, but his light shines very brightly through the torn veil. We have already discussed the claim to know it, to be in it. Now we have the right to abide in the light, and to abide in it before the Spirit of God touches in detail this life as a proof of its existence for the soul, in response to seducers who seek to intimidate Christians with new assertions that Christians do not really possess the life of the Father and Son. The true light is already shining. And this light is God, his divine nature. And, as such, the light is a means of condemning the deceivers themselves, revealing another quality associated with our being in the light, that is, with God fully revealed. Christ was the light in this world. And we are ordained to be light, and in this we are born of God. And he who has this nature loves his brother, for is not God love? Did not Christ love us, not ashamed to call us brothers? Can I have his life and his nature if I do not love my brothers? No. Then I am in darkness and have no light in my path. The one who loves his brother is in the light, the nature of God is at work in him, and he is in the bright spiritual knowledge of this life, in the presence of God and fellowship with God. If anyone hates his brother, it is clear that he is not in the divine light. Having feelings according to nature contrary to God, can he claim to be in the light?

Moreover, there can be no doubt about who loves, for he walks in the divine light. There is nothing in it to make another doubt it, for revelation in the grace of God's nature will certainly not do what is contrary to God; this is what is shown in the one who loves his brother.

The reader here, for his own edification, can compare this with what is said in Eph. 4, 1-5.12, where these two names of God, used only to reveal his nature, are also used to show the path of Christians and their true essence. Only according to this does the Holy Spirit reveal through the mouth of Paul the will and work of God in Christ. John shows more of a divine nature.

Excerpt 1 John. 1:1-2:11 ends the introduction of the first part of this epistle. Here, first, the privileged position of Christians is told, our true position is spoken of, we are warned against a possible fall. Then, beginning with the second verse of chapter 2, the idea is confirmed that Christians are in a truly privileged position, having, according to the narrative, the following privileges: obedience, brotherly love, knowledge of Christ, abiding in Christ, enjoying the perfect love of God, abiding in that who in the light, the formation of conditions, which is confirmed in this way.

Having affirmed the two great principles, obedience and love, as evidence of the possession of the divine nature of Christ, known as life, and of our being in him, the apostle now addresses Christians personally and shows, on the basis of manifested grace, their position depending on three various degrees maturity. Let us now consider this introductory, but very important appeal of the apostle.

He begins by calling all Christians to whom he addresses, calling them "children." So the aged apostle calls them, showing them love. And since he urged them not to sin in verse 1, now he also turns to inform them that their sins are forgiven for the name of Jesus. All Christians were in such a strong position, and this was given by God to all of them together with faith, so that they could glorify him. The apostle does not allow them to doubt that they are forgiven. He writes to them because they are.

Further we find three categories of Christians: fathers, youths and youths (children). The apostle twice addresses each category of Christians: fathers, youths and youths. He addresses the fathers in the first part of verse 14; to the young men - from the second part of it to the end of the 17th verse; to children, beginning with verse 18 and including the 27th verse. In verse 28 the apostle again addresses all Christians, calling them "children."

The Fathers in Christ are distinguished by the fact that they "knew the Beginningless" - the Being from the beginning, that is, Christ. And this is all that the apostle had to say about them. Everything follows from this. John only repeats the same thing when, changing his form of expression, he again refers to these three categories of Christians. The Fathers knew Christ. This is the sum of all Christian experience. The flesh is condemned, recognized, no matter how far it penetrates and mingles with Christ in our feelings. She is recognized by experience as worthless, and as a result of the tests, Christ remains alone, free from all impurities. The fathers learned to distinguish what has only the appearance of goodness. They are not busy with experiments, it would mean for them to be busy with themselves, with their souls. All this is a past stage. Christ alone remains part of us, not mingling with anything else; It was He who gave Himself to us. Moreover, they know Him much better, they know by experience and in detail what He is like, they know Him in the joy of communicating with Him, while realizing their weakness, they know His devotion, the generosity of His mercy, His ability to understand their needs, they know Him love, the revelation of its fullness, so now they can say, "I know who I believe in." They are characterized by attachment to him. Such are the "fathers" in Christ.

The second category of Christians is represented by "young men". They are distinguished by spiritual strength in the fight against Satan, i.e. faith energy. They have overcome the evil one. And the apostle speaks of their character of being in Christ. They fight, and the power of Christ is manifested in them.

The third category of Christians is represented by "lads". They know the Father. We see here that the Spirit of adoption and freedom characterizes the youngest children as believers in Christ, that is, shows that faith is not the result of development. We have it because we are Christians and it is always distinguishing feature beginning believers. On the contrary, something else distinguishes those who lose it.

Addressing the young men, the apostle develops his thought and, in addition, warns them. He says, "You are strong and the word of God abides in you." This is an important feature. The Word is the revelation of God, and by applying Christ to the heart so that we thus have the stimuli that form and guide the soul, it testifies on the basis of the condition of the soul and the confessions that have divine power in us. This is the sword of the Spirit in our encounter with the world. We ourselves are shaped by what we testify to in our relationship with the world, and this in us corresponds to the power of the Word of God. The evil one is thus defeated, for he is only able to kindle worldly passions in us, while the word of God, dwelling in us, keeps us in a completely different sphere of thought, in which a different nature is formed and strengthened through divine communication. Young men have a craving for everything worldly, they have youthful ardor, the strength of their age, deviation from the true path. The young man must beware of all this, completely separating himself from this world and everything that belongs to the world, because everyone who loves this world is deprived of the love of the Father, for everything that belongs to this world is not from the Father. The Father has his own world, the center and glory of which is Christ. The lusts of the flesh, the lusts of the eyes, worldly pride - all this is from the world and characterizes it. Indeed, only this is inherent in the world, and nothing else, only this moves it. All this is not from the Father.

The Father is the source of everything that answers his soul - every grace, every spiritual gift, glory, heavenly holiness, everything that was revealed in Christ Jesus. And it's coming: the whole world of the glory to come, centered on Christ. And all this had only the cross as its inheritance on earth. However, the apostle here speaks of the source of the things of the world, pointing out that the Father is not the source of this.

But this world passes, and everyone who does the will of God, everyone who, passing through this world, chooses as his guide not worldly passions, but the will of God - the will that corresponds to his essence and expresses it - such a person will remain forever, according to that nature and the will that he follows.

We see that this world and the Father with all that is from it, the flesh and the Spirit, the devil and the Son are opposed to each other. All that has been said, the principles that operate in us and characterize our existence and our position, and the conflicting principles of good and evil that oppose each other, have no uncertainty (thank God for this!) As to the outcome of the struggle, for the weakness of the dying Christ is stronger than the forces of Satan. . Satan is powerless against everything that is perfect. Christ came to destroy the works of the devil.

Addressing the youths, the apostle speaks mainly of the dangers to which they are subjected by deceivers. He warns them with tender love, while reminding them that all sources of spirituality and power have been opened and are theirs. We are talking about the "last time", not about the last days, but about the time that has the character of completion, belonging to the sphere of God's relations with this world. The Antichrist has to come, and many antichrists have already appeared; this is what indicates the onset of the “end times”. It's not just a sin, not just a violation of the law. But Christ had already come, and now that He had left the earth and was hidden from the world, there was a clear opposition to that special revelation that had been given to people. It was not just doubt or unbelief out of ignorance, it took the form of sheer self-will directed against Jesus. The opponents of Jesus may have believed everything that the Jews believe, since all this has already been revealed to the world, but as for the testimony of God given through Jesus Christ, they met him with hostility. They did not recognize Jesus as Christ, they rejected the Father and the Son. All this, as a creed, bears the true character of Antichrist. He may believe or pretend to believe that Christ is to come, and yet impersonate him. The Antichrist does not accept Christianity in two aspects: on the one hand, in the person of Jesus, the fulfillment of the promises promised to the Jews is provided, and on the other hand, the eternal heavenly blessings revealed in the revelation of the Father through the Son. Antichrist is characterized primarily by the fact that he denies the Father and the Son. To deny that Jesus is the Christ is indeed Jewish unbelief, which forms the character of the Antichrist. What gives the character of Antichrist is the denial of the basis of Christianity. He is a liar because he denies that Jesus is the Christ. Therefore, this negation is the work of the father of lies. But the unfaithful Jews themselves did a lot in this regard even without the Antichrist. To reject the Father and the Son is characteristic of the Antichrist.

But there is something more. The Antichrists came from the Christians. The apostasy of Christians has already taken place. It cannot be assumed that these were true Christians, but apostates were among Christians and came out from them (how instructive this epistle is for our contemporaries too!). Thus it was revealed that they were not the true flock of Christ. All this tended to shake the children's faith in Christ. The apostle is trying to strengthen their faith. There were two means of strengthening their faith, which gave the apostle confidence. First, Christians had an anointing from the Holy One; secondly, that which was from the beginning was the touchstone for every new teaching, and they already possessed that which was from the beginning.

The indwelling of the Holy Spirit in them, their anointing and spiritual knowledge, and the truth that they received from the beginning, that is, the full revelation of Christ, - this was a reliable protection against deceivers and seductions. It is possible to overcome every heresy, every error and perversity, having the first and divine revelation of truth, if the anointing from the Holy One is in us to condemn all this. Even the youngest Christians have such an anointing, and they should be encouraged to carry it out, as the apostle warned them tenderly here.

The essence of Antichrist is that he rejects the Father and the Son. Unbelief appeared again in its Jewish form, for the Jews recognized the Messiah (Christ), but denied that Jesus is the Christ. Our surest protection against these deceptions is the anointing from the Holy One, but in a special way connected with the holiness of God, which allows us to clearly see the truth (another characteristic of the Spirit), and, secondly, what dwells in us and what we heard from start. This is obviously what we read in Scripture. Note that "evolution" is not what we have from the beginning. By its very name, it fundamentally contradicts the defense to which the apostle recalls. What the congregation preaches as a development of the truth, whenever it receives it, is not what was heard from the beginning.

There is another point to be noted here, which the apostle points out in this chapter. People tend to present God as the Father in some obscure way, claiming to have him without the Son, Jesus Christ. However, this cannot be, for everyone who does not receive the Son does not have the Father either. After all, it was through him that the Father was revealed to us, in him the Father was known to us.

If the truth that we have received from the beginning abides in us, then we abide in the Son and in the Father, for this truth is revealed by the Son and is his revelation, which is itself the truth. It is a living truth if it dwells in us. Thus, in possessing it, we possess the Son, and in the Son also the Father. We abide in it, and through it we have eternal life.

So the apostle John has the happy assurance that the anointing that Christians have received from him abides in them, and therefore they do not need anyone to teach them, since this very anointing teaches them everything. This anointing is true and not false, for the Holy Spirit himself works in the Word, which is the revelation of the truth about Jesus himself, and there is no lie in it. Therefore, the children must abide in it according to what the Word has taught them.

Note also that the result of learning to discern the truth by the anointing from on high is twofold. Christians knew that the truth is not false, because it is from God, but everything that does not apply to it is a lie. They knew that this anointing, which taught them everything, was true and that there was no lie in it. This anointing taught them everything, in other words, all truth as the truth of God. Therefore, what was not truth was a lie, and there was no lie in that anointing. In the same way, the sheep hear the voice of the good shepherd; if someone else calls them, it is not his voice, and this is enough for them to get scared and run away, because the other voice is unfamiliar to them.

Verse 28 concludes a series of appeals to three categories of Christians. The apostle again addresses all Christians (v. 29). I think this verse echoes 1 Corinthians 3.

Having finished his address to those who were together in communion with the Father, the apostle turns to the essential principles of the divine life, the divine nature as manifested in Christ, in order to test those who claim to share in it. He does this not to make believers doubt, but to cast aside everything that is false. In his repeated address in verse 28, the apostle spoke of the appearance of Jesus. This represents the Lord fully revealed in his essence and provides an opportunity to test the claims of those who call themselves by his name. There are two proofs that have to do with the divine life, and a third that is additional, like a privilege: righteousness or obedience, love, and the Holy Spirit.

Further, I note how amazingly God and Christ are spoken of here as a single entity or person: not as in the doctrine of two natures, but Christ occupies the thoughts of the apostle, and he speaks of him in one sentence as God and at the same time as a man. . Look at the 28th verse, "He will appear." Verse 29 says that "everyone who does righteousness is born of Him." So we are children of God. But the world did not know him. Now it's Christ on earth. In ch. 3:2 says "we are now the children of God," but the same verse says that when He appears, we "will be like Him." But what is even more beautiful is that the apostle identifies us with him, calling us "children" because we are connected with him. The world does not know us because it did not know him. We know that we will be like him when he appears. We've got the same place here and there!

Righteousness is not in the flesh. If it really is found in someone, then this person is born from him, he borrows his nature from God in Christ. We may note that such righteousness was revealed in Jesus; we know that He is righteous because we know that "everyone who does what is right is born of Him." It is the same nature manifested through the same fruits.

1 John 3

So, to say that we are born of him is to say that we are children of God. What love the Father has given us, that we can be called his children! Therefore the world does not know us, for it did not know it. The apostle here again speaks of his coming and how it will affect us. We are the children of God, this is our real, reliable and known position, because we are born of God. What we will be has not yet been revealed. But we know that being in a relationship with the Father through Jesus, having him as our life, we will become like the Lord when He appears. For it is we who are destined to see him as he is now, being with his Father, from whom comes life, manifested in him and given to us, and we will appear in the same glory.

John usually uses the word "children" rather than "sons" because this word more clearly expresses the idea that we are from the same family. We are like Christ in this world, and we will be when He appears.

Having the hope of seeing him as he is, knowing that I will be perfect like him when he appears, I strive to be like him now, as much as possible, since I already have this life and he is in me and is mine. life.

This is the measure of our practical purification. We are not as pure as He is pure, but we take Christ as He is in heaven as the model and standard of our purification; we are being cleansed to be as perfect as He is when He appears. Before opposing the principles of the divine life to the devil, the apostle brings to our attention the true standard of purity (a little later he will give us the standard of love) for children, since they are participants in his nature and have the same relationship with God.

“And whoever has this hope in Him...” There are two remarks to be made here. First, “hope in Him” is hope that has Christ as its goal. Secondly, it is surprising to see how the apostle at first glance confuses the words "God" and "Christ" in his epistle: he uses the word "His" both for Christ and when he speaks of God. We can clearly see the principle of this at the end of chapter five: “And let us be in His true Son, Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.” In these few words we have the key to understanding the message. Christ is life. This is clearly the Son, but it is also God himself revealed and the perfection of the divine nature, which is the source of life for us, since this life was revealed in Christ as a man. Thus, I can speak of God and say: "Born of him"; but it was in Jesus that God was manifested, and from him I borrow life, so "Jesus Christ" and "God" interchange. Therefore, it is said about Christ: “He will appear” (ch. 2, 28). Christ is a righteous man, and everyone who does what is right is born of him. However, in ch. 3:1 speaks of those born of God, “children of God,” but the world did not know him, and here it speaks of Christ dwelling on earth. “When it is revealed” is again about Christ, and we purify ourselves “as He is pure”. There are many other examples.

Of the believer it is said: "Cleanses himself." This indicates that he is not as pure as Christ. Accordingly, it is not said that he is pure, like Christ is pure (for then there would be no sin in us), but the believer purifies himself to be pure, like Christ in heaven, to have the same life that he has. Christ himself.

Having demonstrated the positive side of the purity of Christians, the apostle continues to speak of it from a different angle: as one of the characteristic proofs of the life of God in the human soul.

The one who commits sin (does not break the law, but) also commits lawlessness. To Rome. 2:12 this word is used in opposition to the term "breaking the law" or "sinning under the authority of the law." That is, this Greek word, usually used to mean what is translated as “violation of the law,” is here used in the sense of “sinning without having the law” as opposed to “sinning under the power of the law and being punished by the law.” I do not hesitate to state that this change in the definition of sin is a very serious thing.

A person behaves intemperately, not obeying the rules of the law. He does not curb his whims, for sin is an action without regard to the law or to any other authority, an action that is self-willed. Christ came to do the will of his Father, not his own. But Christ appeared to take away our sins from us, and there is no sin in him, therefore everyone who commits sin is opposed to the purpose of the appearance of Christ; it counteracts that nature in which we, since Christ is our life, have a part. Therefore, whoever abides in Christ commits no sin, and whoever commits sin "has not seen Him nor known Him." So we see that everything depends on participation in the life and nature of Christ. So let's not fool ourselves! Anyone who does what is right is righteous, just as Jesus is righteous, for by participating in the life of Christ, a person opens himself to God in all the perfection of the one who is the head and source of such a life. Thus, we are like Christ before God, because He himself is really our life. Not our active life is the measure of our acceptance, but Christ. For Christ is our life, and if we are accepted by God according to his superiority, it is only because we are participants in his life.

Note that the condemnation is greater than the denial. Anyone who commits sin is of the devil and has the same nature with him, for "from the beginning the devil sinned," and his true character is similar to that of the devil. Christ came to destroy the works of the devil. How can one who shares the character of this enemy of God, the enemy of human souls, be with Christ?

On the other hand, everyone who is born of God does not commit sin. And it's clear why. He becomes a participant in the divine nature, inherits his life from it, the beginning of the divine life is in him, the seed of God abides in him, and he cannot sin, because he was born of God. This new nature does not have a sinful beginning in itself to commit sin. Is it possible for the divine nature to sin?

Having thus defined these two families, the family of God and the family of the devil, the apostle adds another sign, the absence of which indicates that a person is not from God. He has already spoken of the truth, now he adds brotherly love to it. For Christ himself told the disciples about it, commanding them to love one another. In verse 12, the apostle shows that hatred of a brother is caused by the fact that the deeds of one are righteous, and the deeds of another are evil. Moreover, we should not be surprised that the world hates us, for we know that we have passed from death to life because we love our brothers. If this love is the essential proof that we are regenerated, then it is only natural that this love cannot be found in worldly people. However, the fact is that everyone who does not love his brother (sad thought!), is in death. In addition to what was said, “everyone who hates his brother is a murderer...no murderer has everlasting life.” The absence of the divine nature is death. Moreover, the old man acts contrary to the divine nature, he hates and acts in the spirit of death, and therefore he is a murderer.

Further, as in the case of truth and purity, we have Christ as the measure of this love. We know this love in that Christ laid down his life for us, and we must lay down our lives for our brothers. Further, if our brother is in need while we have plenty in this world, and we do not help him in need, does that divine love abide in us, which caused Christ to lay down his life for us? It is by this real and active love that we know that we are in the truth and that our soul is at peace and confident before God. For if we have nothing on our conscience, then we are sure of his presence, but if our heart condemns us, then God knows even more.

If we love our neighbors before him and do what is pleasing before him, then whatever we ask, we will receive from him. For, acting with such confidence before his face, we entrust the soul and its desires to this blessed influence, being instructed in the joy of fellowship with him in the light of his face. It is God who quickens the heart. This life and this divine nature, which is spoken of in the message, are in full activity and are illuminated and moved by that divine presence in which they find pleasure. Thus, our requests are fulfilled only if desires arise when this life and our thoughts are filled with the presence of God and communion with his nature. And He gives from His power for the fulfillment of these desires, the source of which is He Himself - desires that are formed in the soul by His own revelation.

So everyone who keeps his commandment abides in him, and He abides in the one who obeys him. The question arises: God or Christ is meant here? The Apostle John, as we have seen, interchanges them in his reasoning. In other words, the Holy Spirit unites them in our consciousness. We are in him who is righteous, that is, in the Son of God, Jesus Christ. It is Christ who represents God to the people in human life and for the believer He is the message of the divine life, so that God also dwells in him. Christ conveys this through revelation, divinely beautiful and perfect, revealing that nature which the believer shares by the power of the Holy Spirit indwelling him, so that this love is equally manifested and brings joy to all.

But what an amazing grace it is to have a life and a nature whereby we have the opportunity to possess the very God who dwells in us, and whereby, since this life and nature is in Christ, we actually enjoy communion with God, this closeness to God! He who has the Son has life, but God also dwells in him as a part and also as the source of this life, and he who has the Son also has the Father.

What wonderful links of vital and living joy received through the communication of the divine nature of the one who is its source, and all this according to its perfection in Christ! Such is the Christian by grace. And therefore the Christian is obedient, because this life in the man Christ (and thus it became ours) was the very humility and example of the true relationship of man with God.

Righteousness is, in fact, evidence that we are born of the one who by nature is the source of this righteousness. In the midst of worldly hatred, we know that we have passed from death into life because we love our brothers. So, having a good conscience, we have boldness towards God, and we will receive from him everything that we ask, if we are obedient to him and do what is pleasing in his sight. In doing so, we abide in him and he in us.

Here, abiding in it is spoken of first of all, because it is the practical fulfillment of the submissiveness of the soul. For his presence in us is spoken of separately; it is known by the Spirit given to us to keep us from the wrong path, which we can take under the influence of evil forces. In ch. 4:7 the apostle returns to this again, speaking of the love of God.

So here is the third proof of Christian privilege. The Spirit which He has given us is the proof that He Himself dwells in us; it is a manifestation of the presence of God in us. Here the apostle does not add that we also dwell in it, because it is a question of the manifestation of the presence of God. This is indicated by the presence of the Spirit. However, in being in it there is, as we will see later, the enjoyment of its essence and, accordingly, spiritual communion with its nature. As we have seen, everyone who is obedient has this. It speaks of the presence of the Holy Spirit in us. But the presence of God in us by grace and through the power of the Spirit also involves communion with the divine nature. And we abide in him, from whom we borrow this grace and all the spiritual forms of this nature, we borrow in communion with him and in practical life. The apostle speaks of this in the 12th 16th verse of the 4th chapter.

Actual righteousness or obedience, brotherly love, the manifestation of the Spirit of God - all these are evidence of our connection with God. He who obediently fulfills the commandments of the Lord, who manifests righteousness in deeds, abides in him, and He in him. The Holy Spirit given to us is proof that He dwells in us.

1 John 4

So, in order to use the latter evidence, foresight and caution were required, for even in the time of the apostles there were already many false prophets who pretended to have a connection with the Holy Spirit and crept into the Christian community. Therefore, it was necessary to teach Christians the precautions, showing them the exact sign of the true Spirit of God. The first sign was the confession of Jesus Christ, who came in the flesh. This is not just a confession that He came, but that He came precisely in the flesh. Second, he who truly knows God listened to the apostles. Thus, what was written by the apostles became a touchstone for those who claimed to be preachers in the congregation. The whole Word of God is so, and there is no doubt about it, but I will confine myself here to what is said in this passage. Indeed, the teaching of the apostles is a touchstone for every other teaching - I mean what they themselves directly teach. If someone tells me that others must interpret or develop doctrine in order to have truth and certainty in faith, then I will answer: “You are not from God, because he who is from God listens to the apostles, and you want me I did not listen to them, and whatever you give as an excuse, you will not be able to confuse me.” The spirit that denies Jesus coming in the flesh is the spirit of antichrist. Not listening to the apostles is initial form evil. True Christians have overcome the spirit of delusion by the Spirit of God that dwells in them.

The three trials of true Christianity are now clearly set forth, and the apostle continues his admonitions, speaking of our complete and intimate relationship with God, who is love, affirming such a participation in nature, in which love comes from God, according to which we are partakers of his nature, and everyone who loves others is born of God and knows him (for this happens through faith) as having received a part of his nature. Whoever does not love does not know God. We must have a nature that loves in order to know what love is. For he who does not love does not know God, for God is love. Such a person has no feelings related to the nature of God; how then can he know him? And without this, a person can know and understand God no more than an animal understands a person.

The reader should pay special attention to that special prerogative which follows from the whole doctrine set forth in this epistle. The eternal life that was with the Father has appeared and been given to us. Thus, we are participants in the divine nature. The love inherent in this nature works in us under the influence of the power of the Holy Spirit, whereby we have communion with God, who is the source of this love; we are in him, and he is in us. The first is the affirmation of the truth in us. Feelings of this nature prove that He dwells in us, and that if we so love, then God Himself dwells in us. But He is infinite, and the soul rests in Him. At the same time, we know that we are in him, and he is in us, because he gave us from his Spirit. However, this passage, so rich in blessings, demands that we strictly follow it.

The apostle begins with the truth that love from God is his essence. He is her source. Therefore, the one who loves is born of God, is a participant in his nature. He knows God who knows what love is, and God is its fullness. This teaching makes everything dependent on our participation in the divine nature.

On the one hand, this can lead to mysticism if we focus our attention only on our love for God and on the love in us, which is the essence of God, as if it were said that love is God and not God is love, if we let us try to look for the divine nature in ourselves, or doubt about others, because we will not find the fruits of the divine nature in us that we wish to find. As a result, the one who does not love (and this, as always, is expressed in the abstract by John), did not know God, for God is love. The possession of the divine nature is necessary to understand the essence of this nature and to know who is its perfection.

But if I seek to know it and to obtain or give proof of it, then this is not the presence in us of that nature when the Spirit of God directs the thoughts of believers for a specific purpose. The apostle says that God is love, and this love towards us was manifested in the fact that He sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we would receive life through him. The proof of this is not the life in us, but the fact that God gave his only begotten Son so that through this we might have life and, moreover, our sins would be forgiven us. Praise God! We have known this love, and the proof of this is not the fruits of its influence on us, but its perfection in God and even its manifestation to us, which has nothing to do with ourselves. The manifestation of this perfect love is a circumstance beyond our control. We use it because we have a share in the divine nature and know this love through the infinite gift of the Son of God. This is precisely the manifestation and proof of this love.

It is amazing to see how the Holy Spirit, in a message that is essentially related to the life of Christ and its fruits in us, gives a proof and a complete characterization of love in something that does not concern us at all. Nothing could be more perfect than the way in which the love of God is represented here from the time of our transgressions until we “have boldness in the day of judgment.” God provided everything: love for us when we were still sinners (vv. 9, 10), when we became saints (v. 12), when we are perfect in the position in which we find ourselves on the day of judgment (v. 17). In the first of these verses, the love of God is revealed in the gift of Christ. First, through him we have found life, and before we were dead; secondly, our sins are redeemed, and before we were sinners. Our position is considered in every respect. In the following verses indicated, the great principle of grace is presented, and what the love of God is and how to know it, and this is clearly expressed in words of infinite importance for revealing the very essence of Christianity. “In this is love, that we did not love God [for this is the principle of the law], but He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.” It is through this that we have come to know what love is. It was perfect in him when we had no love for him, perfect in him because he manifested it to us when we were in sins, and "sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins." The apostle no doubt asserts that only he who loves knows God. This is what proves the privilege of having love. However, in order to know love, we must not look for it in ourselves, but look for its manifestation in God. He gives a life of love and the propitiation for our sins.

Now let's talk about the possession of the love of God and its privileges. If God has so loved us (which is what He takes as a basis), then we must also love one another. “No one has ever seen God,” but if “we love each other, then God abides in us.” The presence of God and his presence in us elevates us in his majestic nature above all obstacles and circumstances, drawing us to those who are from him. It is God, by virtue of his nature, who is the source of thoughts and feelings that spread among those who have this nature. It's clear. How is it that I have the same thoughts, the same feelings and sympathies as those people whom I have never seen? Why do I have such a close bond with them and have so much more in common with them than with my childhood friends? Yes, because both in them and in me there is a common source of thoughts and feelings, not inherent in worldly ones. And this is God. God dwells in them and in me. What happiness! what a connection! Doesn't He fill our souls with Himself? Doesn't He make His presence felt in love? No doubt it is. And if He thus dwells in us as the blessed source of our thoughts, can there be fear, or alienation, or uncertainty towards Him? Not at all. His love is perfect in us. We know his manifestation of love in our soul. Enjoying the divine love that dwells in our souls is the second important point in this wonderful passage.

Up to this point the apostle John had not said that "we abide in Him and He in us." He claims it now. But if we have brotherly love, then God also abides in us. When this is manifested, we feel the presence of God in us as perfect love. It fills the soul and thus manifests itself in us. And this feeling is the result of the presence in us of his Spirit as the source, the force of life and the divine nature. It says here that He did not give us "His Spirit" (the evidence that He dwells in us), but "from His Spirit." And we, through his presence in us, enjoy divine love, thanks to this Spirit, and thus we know not only about his presence in us, but also about the presence of the Spirit, working in that nature that is in us from God, and giving us to understand that we dwell in him, for he is that infinity and that perfection that is now in us.

The soul is calmed by this, rejoices in it and avoids everything that is not connected with it, feeling in itself that perfect love in which (thus staying in it) a person finds himself. Through the Spirit we are in God; He gives us the feeling that He is in us. Therefore, by tasting and feeling this divine love, we can understand what is inaccessible to the Jews with all their limitations, namely that the Father sent the Son as the Savior of the world. We will see another feature of this later.

If we compare ch. 4:12 with John. 1:18, this will help us better understand the purpose of the teaching of the apostle John. The same difficulty, or if you like, the same truth is presented in both cases. "No one has ever seen God." How is this explained?

In John. 1:18 God was revealed by "the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father." The one who is in the most perfect closeness with him, in the most absolute kinship with God and tastes the love of the Father - this eternal and perfect one, knowing the love of the Father as his only begotten Son, He revealed God to people such as he himself knew him. Notice that it doesn't say "was in the pit" but "being in the pit". Scripture never says that the Son left the bosom of the Father, but it does say, "The only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father." Knowing God in this way, He reveals it to people on earth.

What answer is given in our message to this difficulty? “If we love one another, then God abides in us, and His love is perfect in us.” Through the transmission of the divine nature to us and thanks to the presence of God in us, we rejoice in our souls in him as He was revealed by His only begotten Son. His love is perfect in us, known to our soul as revealed by Jesus. God, revealed by the Son, dwells in us. What a wonderful idea! This is the answer to the fact that “no one has ever seen God,” and likewise to the fact that the only begotten Son has revealed him and that he dwells in us. What light this sheds on the words "what is true both in Him and in you"! For it is precisely because Christ has become our life that we can thus rejoice in God and his presence in us under the influence of the Holy Spirit. From this we see what follows from the 14th verse. And this shows us, in the highest sense, the difference between the gospel according to John and the first epistle of John.

Even in what Christ says about himself, we see the difference between the fact that God abides in us and that we abide in God. Christ always abides in the Father, and the Father in him. However, Jesus says, "The Father who abides in Me, He creates." Hearing the words of Christ, the disciples should believe in him and in the Father, but in what they heard they should rather see the evidence that the Father dwells in him and that those who saw him saw the Father. But the day the Comforter appears, they will know that Jesus dwelt in his Father, the divine dwelt with the Father.

The apostle does not say that we abide in God or the Father, but that "we abide in Him", and we know this because "He gave us of His Spirit". The only expression in Scripture that slightly resembles this is the phrase: "The Church of Thessalonica in God the Father," but that was an address to a large assembly, which has a slightly different meaning.

We have already noticed that in Chap. 3:24 He says, "But that He dwells in us, we know by the Spirit which He has given us." Here the apostle adds that we know that we are in God, because this is not a manifestation of him as evidence, but communion with God himself. We know that we are in him, and this is always, as a precious truth, an unchanging fact, tangible when his love works in the soul. Therefore, with this activity in mind, the apostle immediately adds: "And we have seen and testify that the Father sent the Son as the Savior of the world." This testified to everyone of the love that the apostle, like all believers, enjoyed in his soul. It is important to note that this passage first mentions that God dwells in us, and then the effect (since He is infinite) that we dwell in him, and finally the realization of the first truth in experiencing the reality of life.

We may note here that since the indwelling of God in us is a doctrine of doctrine, and is true of every true Christian, our indwelling in him, though caused by it, is nevertheless connected with our condition. This is confirmed by the following verses: “And he who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him” (ch. 3, 24) and “... he who abides in love abides in God, and God in him” (ch. 4 , 16).

Love for one another is indeed taken as proof that God is in us and his love is perfect in us; this distinguishes his presence in us from the presence of Christ in us (John 1:18). But it is through this love that we know that we are in him and he is in us. In any case, this knowledge is transmitted through the Spirit. Verse 15 states the universal fact, verse 16 reveals all the way to the source of this love. We have come to know and believe in the love that God has for us. His nature is revealed in this (for we rejoice in God). God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God and God in him. There is nothing like it anywhere. If we draw from his nature, we draw from his love, and whoever abides in his love abides in God, who is the fullness of it. Note, however, that the affirmation of what He is entails the insistent affirmation of His personal being—He dwells in us.

And here comes the principle of deep importance. Perhaps it should be said that this indwelling of God in us and our indwelling in it depends to a large extent on spirituality, for the apostle did indeed speak of the highest joy. And although the degree to which we comprehend all this points to spirituality, yet in itself this stay is a part of every Christian. This is our position because Christ is our life and because the Holy Spirit has been given to us. "Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he is in God." How great is the grace of the gospel! How delightful is our position, because we occupy it by abiding in Jesus! It is very important to confirm that the joy of the downtrodden is the lot of every Christian.

The apostle explains this high position by the possession of divine nature - a state inherent in Christianity. A Christian is one who is a participant in the divine nature and in whom the Spirit dwells. However, the knowledge of our position does not follow from the consideration of a given truth (although it depends on the truth of it), but, as we have seen, from the love of God. And the apostle continues: "And we have known the love that God has for us, and we have believed in it." This is the source of our knowledge and joy in these privileges, so pleasant and so wonderfully sublime, yet so simple and so real to the heart when they are known.

We have come to know love—the love with which God loves us—and we have believed in it. Precious knowledge! Having found it, we came to know God, for that is how He revealed Himself. So we can say, "God is love." And nothing but that. He is love itself. He is love in all its fullness. He is not holiness, but a saint, but He is love. He is not righteousness, but righteousness. Righteousness and holiness presuppose a reference to the other. Thus, evil is known, the denial of evil and condemnation. Love, though shown to others, is what He is. Another name that God bears is light. We are said to be "light in the Lord" because we are partakers of the divine nature, not of love, which, though divine in nature, is nevertheless independent in grace. Therefore, we cannot be called love.

For when I am in love, I am in him, but I am not able to do this until He is in me, and He does. Here the apostle speaks first of the fact that we abide in it, because God himself is before us as love in which we abide. Therefore, when I think about this love, I say that I am in it, because I recognize it with my soul through the Spirit. At the same time this love is active and powerful in us; this is God himself. Such is the joy of our position, the position of every Christian.

Verses 14 and 16 reveal the double effect of the manifestation of God's love.

First, the evidence that the Father sent the Son as the Savior of the world. This is outside of the promises given to the Jews (as throughout the gospel of John); this work is the result of what God himself is. Accordingly, everyone who confesses that Jesus is the Son of God enjoys the fullness of the blessed fruits of love.

Secondly, the Christian himself believes in this love, and he enjoys it in all its fullness. There is only this formulation of the expression of our glorious portion: the recognition of Jesus as the Son of God is here in the first place a proof that God abides in us, although the other part of this truth equally asserts that everyone who confesses him abides in God also.

Speaking of our participation in communion with God as believers in his love, we can say that everyone who abides in love abides in God, for as a result it comes to the heart. Here is revealed another part of the truth, which is equally true: God dwells in him equally.

I spoke about the realization of this abiding in God, for only in this way is it known. But it is important to remember that the apostle preaches this as a truth that applies to every believer. Believers may justify themselves by saying that they do not meet these requirements, which are too high for them, but this fact denies such an excuse. This communication is being overlooked. However, God dwells in everyone who confesses that Jesus is the Son of God and He is in God. What an encouragement to the timid believer! and what a reproach to a carefree Christian!

The apostle again speaks of our kinship position, considering God outside of ourselves as the one before whom we must appear and with whom we must always deal. This is the third great testimony and image of love in which it is perfect. It testifies, as I said, that God thinks of all of us, from our sinful state up to the day of judgment.

In this respect, love is perfect in us (so that we may have boldness in the day of judgment), namely, as He is, so are we in this world. And indeed, what else can give us more complete assurance in that day than that we will become like Jesus himself and be like the judge? The one who will judge according to the truth is our truth. We abide in him, in that righteousness by which He will judge. In terms of judgment, we are like him (that is, we are the same judges). And it can indeed give us a perfect world. But note that it will not only be so in the day of judgment (we have boldness for this), but we are such in this world. Not as He was, but in this world we are as He is now, and we already have a certain position, and that position is according to the nature and will of God in that day. It is identified with it in our way of life.

So, in love there is no fear, but there is certainty. If I am sure that a person loves me, then I am not afraid of him. If I want to be only the object of his love, then I may fear that I am not such and may even be afraid of him. However, this fear will always tend to destroy my love for him and desire to be loved by him. These two concepts are incompatible - there is no fear in love. For perfect love casts out fear, for fear torments us, and torments prevent us from rejoicing in love. Therefore, those who fear do not know perfect love. So what does the apostle mean by perfect love? This is what God is, and this is what He fully revealed in Christ, allowing us to know it and enjoy it through his presence in us, so that we could abide in him. The indisputable proof of its complete perfection is that we are like Christ. This love is shown towards us, it has reached perfection in us and makes us perfect. But what we rejoice in is God, who is love, and we rejoice that He dwells in us, so that love and confidence are present in our souls, and we have peace. What I know about God is that He is love, and love for me, and He is nothing else but love for me, therefore there is no fear.

It is amazing to see that the apostle does not say that we should love Him, because He first loved us, but that we love Him. We cannot know and enjoy self-love without loving ourselves. The feeling of love for us is always love. You will never know and appreciate it, if you do not love it yourself. My feeling of love in others is love for him. We must love the brethren, because it is not their love for us that is the source of love, though it may nourish it in this way. But we love God because He first loved us.

If we delve, so to speak, into the history of these affections, if we try to isolate that which unites in joy, because the divine nature in us, which is love, enjoys love in its perfection in God (his love pours abundantly into the soul through his presence), if we are willing to define exactly the relationship in which our souls are with God through love, we get the following answer: "We love him, because he first loved us." This is grace, and this should be grace, because it is God who should be glorified.

It is appropriate to note the sequence of verses in this remarkable passage.

Verses 7-10. We have nature from God, and therefore we love. We are born of it and we know it. But the manifestation of love for us in Christ Jesus is the evidence of this love, and it is through this that we come to know about it.

Verses 11-16. We enjoy it by being in it. This is real living in the love of God through the presence of his Spirit in us. It is the enjoyment of that love through fellowship by which God dwells in us and we in him.

Verse 17 This love is perfected in us; the perfection of this love is viewed from the point of view that it gives us boldness in the day of judgment, because in this world we walk like Christ.

Verses 18,19. Love reaches perfection in us. Love for sinners, fellowship, perfection before God give us the spiritual and specific elements of this love, representing this love in our relationship with God.

In the first passage where the apostle speaks of the manifestation of this love, he goes no further than saying that everyone who loves is born of God. The nature of God (who is love) is in us; everyone who loves has known him, for he is born of him, that is, he has his nature and realizes its essence.

This is how God is in relation to the sinner, in whom the nature of his love is manifested. Afterwards, what we learn as sinners we enjoy as saints. The perfect love of God fills the soul in abundance, and we abide in it. As it was with Jesus in this world and as it is happening with him now, fear has no place in those for whom this love of God is an abode and rest.

Verse 20. The test of our love for God, which is the result of his love for us. If we say that we love God and do not love our brothers, then we are lying, because if the divine nature, which is so close to us (being in our brothers), and the assessment of Christ given to it, did not awaken our spiritual affections in us, then can He, who is so far away, do it? He also commanded us that he who loves God should also love his brother. And this is obedience.

1 John 5

Love for our brethren proves the truth of our love for God. And this love should be universal: it should be manifested in relation to all Christians, for "everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the Begotten loves the one who is born of Him." And if being born from him is the motivating force, then we will love all those born from him.

However, the danger lies elsewhere. It may be that we love the brothers because they are pleasing to us, their company pleases us, it does not offend our conscience. Therefore, we are given a counterargument: "That we love the children of God, we learn from this, when we love God and keep His commandments." I will not love my brothers as children of God until I love the God of whom they are born. I may love them separately as comrades, or I may love some of them, but not as children of God, if I do not love God himself. If God himself does not take his proper place in my soul, then what is called love for the brothers excludes God, and this happens in a much more complete and subtle way, because our connection with them carries a secret name brotherly love.

Now there is a criterion even for this love of God, namely obedience to his commandments. If I, along with my brothers, are disobedient to the Father, then obviously I love the brothers not because they are his children. If this happened because I loved the Father and because they are his children, then I would obviously want them to obey him. After all, disobeying God along with the children of God and at the same time pretending to declare brotherly love does not at all mean loving them as children of God. If I really loved them like that, I would also love the Father and would not dare, disobeying him, to proclaim that I loved them because they are from him.

If I also loved them because they are his children, then I would love all of them, because the same reason obliges me to love them all. True brotherly love is distinguished, firstly, by the universal nature of this love in relation to all the children of God, and secondly, its manifestation in real submission to his will. Everything that is not characterized by these signs is just carnal ostentatious spirituality, putting on a mask with the name and appearance of brotherly love. Most likely, I do not love the Father if I call on his children to disobey him.

Thus, there is an obstacle to this obedience, and this obstacle is this world. The world has its own orders, which are very far from obedience to God. If we are busy only thinking about God and doing his will, the world will soon begin to show hostility towards us. He also entices the soul of man with his comforts and pleasures, causing him to act carnally. In short, this world and the commandments of God are in opposition to each other, but the commandments of God are not a burden to those who are born of him, for everyone who is born of God overcomes the world. He has that nature and is armed with those principles that overcome all the difficulties that this world creates for him. His nature is divine, for he is born of God; he is guided by the principles of faith. His nature is insensitive to all the temptations that this world offers to the carnal, and the reason for this is that he is completely separated from this world; his soul does not depend on him and is controlled by completely different thoughts. Faith directs his steps, and faith does not notice this world and what it promises. Faith confesses that Jesus, whom this world rejected, is the Son of God, and therefore this world has lost all power over the soul of the believer. Her affections and her hope are directed to the crucified Jesus, and she recognizes him as the Son of God. Therefore, the believer, separated from the world, has the boldness to be obedient to God; he does the will of God, which remains forever.

In a few words the apostle sums up God's testimony concerning the eternal life which He has given us.

This life is not in the first Adam, but in the second - in the Son of God. The man who was born of Adam does not possess it, he did not acquire it. He really had to get this life, obeying the law, which can be characterized by the following phrase: "This is what you do and stay alive." But people could not and did not want to do this.

God gives man eternal life, and that life is in his Son. “He who has the Son (of God) has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life.”

So what is the evidence of the gift of eternal life? There are three of them on earth: spirit, water and blood. "This is Jesus Christ, who came by water and blood and the Spirit, not by water only, but by water and blood, and the Spirit testifies of Him, for the Spirit is truth." They testify that God has given us eternal life and that this life is in his Son. But where does this water and this blood come from? They flow from the pierced side of Jesus. It is a death sentence pronounced on the flesh and carried out upon it, a sentence passed on all that is in the old man, a sentence passed on the first Adam. Not that the sin of the first Adam was in the flesh of Christ, but Jesus died in it as a sin offering. "For that he died, he died once to sin." Sin in the flesh was condemned in the death of Christ in the flesh. And there was no other way. The flesh could not be changed or brought under the law. The life of the first Adam was nothing but sin based on self-will; he could not be subject to the law. Our cleansing (as the old man) could only come about through death. The one who died is justified from sin. Therefore, we are baptized to take part in the death of Jesus. We are, as it were, crucified together with Christ, and yet we live, but it is not we, but Christ lives in us. Participating in the life of the risen Christ, we consider ourselves dead with him; for why live this new life, this life of the second Adam, if we can live before God the life of the first Adam? No. Living in Christ, we by faith approved of the death sentence pronounced by God on the first Adam, and this is Christian cleansing, the death of the old man, because we have become partakers of life in Christ Jesus. “We are dead” - crucified with him. We need complete cleansing before God. We have it, for what was impure no longer exists. And that which exists as born of God is perfectly pure.

He came by water, water flowing from the pierced rib of the dead Christ, what strong proof that it is useless to look for life in the first Adam. For Christ, who came in the name of man and took upon himself his burden, the Christ who appeared in the flesh, had to die, otherwise he would have to remain alone in his purity. Life is to be sought in the Son of God, risen from the dead. Purification is achieved by death.

But Christ came not only by water, but also by blood. Such atonement for our sins was necessary as a moral cleansing of our souls. We have it in the blood of the slain Christ. Only death could atone for sins and blot them out. And Jesus died for us. The believer is no longer guilty before God. Christ put himself in his place. This is life in heaven, and we were resurrected with him, God forgave us all our sins. Redemption is achieved by death.

The third witness is the Spirit. He is placed first among the witnesses on earth, because he alone testifies, having authority, enabling us to recognize the other two witnesses. Finally, if we talk about the historical order, for that was the order, then death came first, and only after it did the Holy Spirit. Even according to the order of events, the reception of the Holy Spirit was after the death of Christ (see Dap. 2, 38).

As a result, this evidence of the Spirit and its presence in us allows us to appreciate the meaning of water and blood. We would never have understood the practical significance of the death of Christ if the Holy Spirit had not become the opening power for the new man, allowing him to comprehend all its importance and effectiveness. Thus, the Holy Spirit descended from heaven from the resurrected and ascended Christ there. Therefore, we know that eternal life is given to us in the Son of God.

The evidence of the three witnesses converges in one truth, namely that grace (God himself) has given us eternal life and that this life is in the Son. Man has nothing to do with this, except perhaps his sins. This life is a gift from God. And the life He gives is in the Son. This testimony is the testimony of God. What a blessing it is to have such a testimony, and to have it from God himself and through perfect grace!

So, we see here three things: purification, redemption, and the presence of the Holy Spirit - as witnesses that eternal life is given to us in the Son, who was killed for people, being among them on earth. He could not help but die for a man in the state in which he was. Life was not in people, but in himself.

This concludes the teaching of this epistle. The apostle wrote all this so that those who believe in the Son may know that they have eternal life. He does not provide a means of verifying this, so as not to cause believers to doubt whether they really have eternal life. However, he allows them to see seducers who seek to turn them away from the true path, as if deprived of something more important, and claim that they have some kind of higher light. John points out the signs of life to believers to convince them; he reveals to them the superiority of this life and their position as having it; and all this in order that they may understand that God has given it to them, and that they must not waver in thought in any case.

The apostle then speaks of the real assurance in God that results from all this, the assurance arising from all our desires on earth, all that our souls would like to ask of God.

We know that God always listens to what we ask according to his will. Precious privilege! The Christian himself would not wish for anything that would be contrary to his will. His ears are always open, He is always attentive to it. God always hears. He is not like a man, often so engrossed in his worries that he cannot listen, or so careless that he does not want to. God always hears us, and, of course, He has power over everything. The attention He gives to us is proof of His good will. Therefore, we receive what we ask of him. He accepts our requests. What a sweet connection! What a high privilege! And this is also what we can afford, doing mercy towards others.

If a brother sins and God punishes him, then we can pray for this brother, and God will give him life. Punishment leads to mortification of the flesh. We pray for the sinner, and he is healed. Otherwise, the disease takes its toll. Every unrighteousness is a sin, but there is also a sin that leads to death. It does not seem to me that this is some kind of special sin, but every sin that is of a similar nature awakens in a Christian, instead of mercy, indignation. So Ananias and Sapphira committed the sin unto death. They lied, but lying under the circumstances was more disgusting than compassionate. We can easily distinguish this sin in other cases as well.

This is all about sin and its punishment. But we also have a positive side. As born of God, we do not sin at all, we keep ourselves and “the evil one does not touch” us. He is unable to seduce a new person. The enemy has no means to attract the attention of the divine nature in us, which, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, is occupied only with the divine and heavenly, or the doing of the will of God. Therefore, our lot is to live like this, because new person engaged in the affairs of God and the Spirit.

The apostle ends his epistle with a precise definition of two things: our nature and our way of being as Christians, and also what has been handed down to us to generate and nourish faith in us.

We know that we are from God, and we know this not by vague ideas, but by contrast with everything that is not ours. This is a principle of great importance, and it makes the position of the Christian exceptional by its very nature. It's not just good, or bad, or better, but it's from God. And everything that is not of God (in other words, that is not born of him) cannot have such a character and occupy such a position. The whole world lies in evil.

The Christian has confidence in these two things because of his nature, which is able to recognize and know that which is from God, and thereby condemn everything that is contrary to it. These two opposites are not just good and evil, but coming from God and coming from the devil. This is what concerns their essence.

As to the purpose of the new nature, we know that the Son of God is coming. This is an extremely important truth. The point is not simply that there is good and there is evil, but that the Son of God himself appeared in this world of suffering to give purpose to our souls. However, there is something more important than that. He let us know that in the midst of all the lies of the world, of which Satan is the prince, we can know him, who is true, for He is the truth. This wonderful privilege completely changes our situation. The power of this world, with the help of which Satan blinds us, is completely broken, and the true light has been revealed to us, and in this light we see and know him, who is the truth, who in himself is perfection. Thanks to him, everything can be well considered and everything can be judged from the position of truth. But that is not all. We abide in this truth as partakers of its nature, and by abide in it we can enjoy the source of truth. As I have already noted, this passage is a kind of key to our true knowledge of God, allowing us to abide in him. It speaks of God as we know him, in whom we abide, explaining that we abide precisely in his Son, Jesus Christ, our Lord. It is here, judging by the text, that it speaks of truth, and not of love. Now it is in Jesus that we abide. It is in this way, in it, that we are connected with the perfections of God.

Again we can see that it is the way in which God and Christ are united in the mind of the apostle that gives its character to the whole epistle. It is because of this that the apostle so often repeats the word "He" when we should understand "Christ," although a little earlier the apostle spoke of God. For example, in ch. 5:20 says, “Let us know the true God, and let us be in His true Son, Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.”

See what divine connections we have in our position! We are in him, who is the true God; it is the nature of the one in whom we abide. So, as far as this nature is concerned, it is God himself; as for the person and the way of being in him, then we are talking about his Son Jesus Christ. It is in the person of the Son, the Son of man, that we really abide, but He is the true God, the real God.

And that's not all, for we have life in it. He is also eternal life, so we have it in him. We have known the true God, we have eternal life.

Everything that is outside of God belongs to idols. May God preserve us from idols, and may He teach by His grace how to be kept from them! This gives the Spirit of God an opportunity to talk about the truth in the next two short epistles.