chapter from the book "The Great Religions of the World"
H They often talk about contradictions in the Gospels. There are, indeed, contradictions there. Christ did not write anything. I remember what He said at different times, in different circumstances - each time what was needed here and now. The integrity of the Gospels is not in the system (there is none), but only in the person of Christ. Evangelists, apparently, did not want to give any recipes or direct instructions. Rather, they wanted to give a living moral example, to “infect” with Christ. Therefore, the Gospels are written not in the form of dogmas or discourses, but in the form of stories from the life of the Teacher, often contradictory, if taken out of context, out of relation to this case.
What about sinners? How to eradicate evil? Jesus nowhere gives recipes for all cases, but He knows how to act in each case, and wants to convey this ability know yourself... This is something exactly the opposite of what the Pharisees, the scribes introduced.
And again the same ancient struggle between internal and external flared up, as in the days of the prophets, only even more intense. The Pharisees endlessly check, “tempt” Christ, according to the Gospel terminology, they want to catch Him in ignorance or violation of the law. But He always avoids any answers, escapes the set traps, possessing, as it were, a different way of reasoning, not only logical, but also intuitive - the ability to rise above contradiction, to turn questions from outside to inside.
One day the Pharisees brought a woman to him and said that they had found her in adultery. “What to do with her? Moses ordered to stone such people, but what do you say? " Christ sat on the ground, looking down, and thoughtfully drew something on the sand with his finger. Then he raised his head, looked at the woman and her accusers and said: "Whoever is without sin, first throw a stone at her." And again he began to draw something in the sand. When he raised his head, there was no one next to the woman. “Well, woman, are your accusers gone? - he said. - And I will not throw a stone at you. Go and sin no more. "
Another time the Pharisees approached Him with a question - whether it is necessary to pay tribute to Caesar. The question was clearly provocative. If He answers “no,” he will thereby show his civic disloyalty; if yes, then what kind of teacher of justice is he? Jesus deceived their expectations. He asked for a denarius. They gave him. "Whose image is on it?" Jesus asked. The coin depicted Caesar. “So give back to Caesar what is Caesar's, but to God of God,” He said.
What does this answer mean? Apparently, Jesus meant to say that He is not called to solve social problems at all. He does not provide private tactical advice. He is busy with spiritual matters. He is a teacher of morality. He wants every human soul to fulfill its duty in relation to the whole, to the world, to acquire inner composure and the ability to independently orientate itself. He did not want people to mechanically follow His advice, otherwise, throughout history, mankind will play out the tale of Ivan the Fool, who says at the funeral “you don’t drag it around,” but cries at the wedding.
A person must give God to God (that is, do not forget about the deepest layers of his soul) and at the same time be able to perform specific life tasks so that they do not stand in the way of his main spiritual and moral task. If “Caesar's” strangles “God's” (spiritual and moral), if they cannot be combined, if “Caesar” demands that a person trample on holy things, renounce his human dignity, then obviously he demanded not his own, but “God's”, and then Caesar must be denied, with his whole life to stand across his demands.
Spiritual uncompromising is one of the most important virtues commanded by Jesus. This is the inner meaning of the words: “I brought you not peace, but a sword. I share father and son and mother and daughter. " How to combine these words with others: “Blessed are the peacemakers”? Or with the words spoken to Peter, who tried to protect his Master with the sword: “He who takes the sword from the sword and will perish”? The “sword” in the case of separation of father and son is purely metaphorical, spiritual, not material. This is a call for spiritual uncompromising. Spiritual controversy cannot be dissolved and smoothed out. The ideal must remain alive and pure. And at the same time, a dispute cannot be resolved with weapons. All who respond with blow for blow, in one way or another, produce evil.
In the center of the Gospels of Matthew, Luke and Mark is the famousSermon on the Mount (a sermon delivered on the mountain), which sets out all the foundations of Christian morality. Preaching is unusual not only in its essence, but also in form. The teacher opposes his understanding of morality, duty and happiness to everything that came before Him. However, He does not cancel, does not destroy the old, but, as it were, deepens and develops it. Feeling his connection with the entire centuries-old tradition, his loyalty to its spirit, He thinks of himself as its successor, creator, and not a blind slave, and speaks on behalf of all the best that the tradition protects, on behalf of its sacred object, its God. Fidelity to this shrine gives Him the inner right to identify with it. And He decisively opposes himself to the letter of the law. Throughout the sermon it runs like a refrain: "It is written in the law, and I tell you ...".
Folklore consciousness, folklore religion are based on the dominance of memory, on the dominance of the past. New things come more by accident than on purpose. The old is forgotten and remembered with mistakes. The new enters into mistakes. Then the person comprehends what the memory has held back, realizes himself as the protector and interpreter of the sacred ancient truth. Prophets appear. They write books that bear the imprint of personality. But only in Christ's Sermon on the Mount is the voice of a person who is fully aware of his copyright, the inner right to create something new.
"It is said:" You shall not kill, "but I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother in vain is subject to judgment." Which court? What kind of judgment in history has judged angry thoughts? No. But it is not the external, judicial and legal side that is important to the Gospel Teacher; He separates morality from law. The inner court, the court of conscience is important to him. He does not provide for a punishment system. In those cases in which it depends on Him, He infinitely weakens it (“go and sin no more” - that's all the punishment). But he infinitely increases the inner moral requirements of a person to himself.
“It is said," You shall not commit adultery. " And I say to you: everyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. " What does it mean? He did not want to punish the woman who was caught “at the scene of the crime,” but does the Teacher condemn the one who only mentally does this? But from the point of view of the inner thought or deed are indistinguishable (or almost indistinguishable). If there is love in the soul and in actions, this is wonderful. But if instead of love there is only naked sensuality, then this is bad, regardless of whether it has come down to some actions or not.
“You have heard that it is said: an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. And I say to you: do not resist the evil one, but whoever hits you on the right cheek, turn the other to him also. And whoever wants to sue you and take your shirt, give him your outerwear as well ”.
“You have heard that it was said: love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I say to you: love your enemies, bless those who offend you ... For if you only love those who love you, what reward will you? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing special? Isn't that what the Gentiles do too? " These last commandments caused the most bewilderment and objections. It is not so easy to comprehend them. To do this, you need to reach a very great height, to such a spiritual balance and spiritual invulnerability, in which no insult can offend you - it simply will not reach you. Let us remember how Prince Myshkin (in Dostoevsky's novel The Idiot) gets a slap in the face from Gani Ivolgin. The prince is shocked, ashamed, but ... for Ganya, not for himself. And how could it occur to him to answer Ghana in kind?
Only this new man, who has risen to an unprecedented moral height, could move mountains of prejudice, mountains of petrified interethnic and religious hatred and approach universal human tasks, begin the spiritual unification of all people.
The commandments of Christ become simply ridiculous as soon as they are understood as an external prescription, as a law. Follow you can command the commandments of Moses (do not steal, do not lie, etc.). Christ's commandments are impracticable. These are, in fact, not commandments in the usual sense of the word, but a description of the “new Adam,” a new ideal character, which does not need any commandments.
The Sermon on the Mount is essentially a verbal icon, not a norm, but an ideal. It begins with the “Beatitudes”. The one who has achieved bliss is not at all the one who has achieved “earthly blessings”, but rather quite the opposite: the one who understood their insignificance, insufficiency and fell in love with something more. “Blessed are those who weep and dissatisfied,” “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,” “Blessed are the peacemakers, blessed are the merciful, pure in heart, cast out for righteousness.” If you substitute such a blessed average person, then for him all this is not true, but it is true for the biblical prophets and for Socrates, who preferred execution to the fate of the executioner or indifferent. This “bliss” saturates the soul, not the body, and therefore the beggar is able to feel it much faster than the satiated one.
The first commandment of blessedness sounds very strange to our ears: "Blessed are the poor in spirit." However, this is a paradox that is full of inner meaning. A spiritually rich person feels at home in the world of ideas, symbols, rituals. He is an excellent expert in his field, quite satisfied with what he does, what he knows. He has his own complete system of views and is closed to the living flow of the Spirit, which blows where it wants, and often not at all where people were waiting for Him. Not spiritually poor at all, but spiritually rich scribes and Pharisees, who had their own clear ideas about the coming Messiah, rejected the living Messiah.
To be poor in spirit means to be ready to always receive the spirit that is everywhere and never solidifies into final form. To appear before Infinity, as a naked Adam before God. No protection. No shelter.
Wealth is what is accumulated, what is your property. But the Spirit cannot be accumulated and appropriated. It is impossible to “accumulate”, to stop Breathing. The spirit is not mine. He is nobody's and everyone's. He is the one who passes through everyone and unites everyone.
Man is a well that can only be filled by God, said Anthony Bloom. But God is something inscrutable, not imaginable by us. We must be ready for the Mystery. Ignorance. And to the living communion of the Mystery. This is how the child receives communion with each new morning, like the first morning; the poet - every new spring, like the first. There was nothing before this moment. The world does not belong to me. I belong to the World. A poor in spirit is one who has no outside support. Only inside. Nothing can be taken from him. Everything has already been taken from him. He has nothing. He IS.
Soon Jesus had to prove that it is possible to be blessed by being humiliated, beaten, banished for righteousness. He more and more interferes with the legalists of Judea, like the gadfly Socrates with Athens. Who is he? A new god has appeared, a new authority overlapping the previous ones? Should you obey him or, on the contrary, rebel against the violator of the laws? The curious crowd, overwhelmed by the strength and strangeness of His personality, did not know which way to lean. People greeted Him, marveled at Him. But they were frightened off by new unusual moral requirements and new forms of thought. When the rich young man asked Jesus how he could attain the kingdom of God, Jesus replied: "Give all your wealth to the poor and follow Me." The young man walked away with his head down, and the Teacher told him after him: “It is easier for a camel to“ go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. ”He called for a difficult life feat, and the more people realized this, the more they were dissatisfied with Him.
For both Israeli lawyers and the crowd of curious people, Jesus was either the promised Messiah - the absolute Master, about whom everything was known in advance, or an impostor who appropriated the rights of this superpersonality. He was neither one nor the other. He carried a new idea of the Messiah and a new idea of man as a helper, a co-worker of God. Without faith in the Messiah, without love for Him, He was powerless to move anything in the souls of people, and only this was what He needed. Not external power over people, but the transformation of their souls, internal union with them.
All this was a challenge, a heresy - and the heretic could not survive.
Gospel events are quickly approaching their denouement. Christ is seized at night (one of the disciples, the traitor Judas, points at him to the guard) and is judged for imposture, for the fact that he proclaimed himself the Messiah. Jesus' case falls into the hands of the Roman governor Pontius Pilate. The Roman, far from the internal religious disputes of the Jews and from spiritual problems, looks at Jesus impartially, rather with surprise. He was presented with the arrested as an impostor, a rebel, a threat to Rome, who called himself the king of the Jews. "Are you the king of the Jews?" - asks Pilate. “My kingdom is not of this world,” Jesus replies. "I came to testify to the world about the truth." This unexpected answer interests Pilate. He curiously asks Him: "What is truth?" The famous question, which is followed by an even more illustrious answer, is silence. Christ answers the question WHO is the truth, he says: I am the truth. And the question “what is the truth” for Him is false in its very essence. No single thought, no rule is true. Truth is only the integrity of a person's being, which in each case will find the right solution. Pilate proposes to release Christ (there was a custom to release someone condemned on Easter). Not when the high priest said: “Crucify him, or you are not a friend of Caesar,” the governor stepped back (the denunciation was terrible to him). He did not want to risk his career and uttered the famous, which later became a proverb phrase: "I wash my hands." Christ was crucified.
Many biblical expressions have entered our daily life, becoming aphorisms and proverbs. We use them already mechanically, without thinking that initially they were given a very deep meaning.
The aphorism that will be discussed is equated to the phrase "To each his own" and is a rule that interprets how a Christian should relate to worldly, secular power.
So, Judea of the first century AD. A country enslaved by the Romans and became one of the provinces of a powerful empire. The invaders are closely monitoring order in Judea, fearing unrest and uprising.
The appearance of a young preacher from Nazareth, embarrassing the people with hitherto unheard-of speeches, worries both the Romans and the local church authorities - the Pharisees. To provoke Christ into a rash statement, the scribes ask him a trick question. The question is very specific, and the answer to it, perhaps, will cost the preacher his life.
However, the Pharisees did not succeed in compromising Jesus before the occupation authorities. The Savior's answer was simple and laconic. It was he who became an aphorism that survived two millennia. In Latin, it looks like this:
Quae sunt Caesaris Caesari et quae sunt Dei Deo.
"Render Caesar's things to Caesar and God's things to God."
Jesus did not discredit himself in front of patriotic Jews, who considered themselves a chosen nation of God, and did not give the Roman occupiers a reason to accuse him of whipping up political instability through seditious speeches.
And this is not surprising. The Savior knew how to read the hearts of people, knew his purpose and the exact time of his own execution.
At that time, the time had come, and Christ simply demonstrated his abilities to both the Romans and the Pharisees.
Attempts to develop the concept of the famous phraseological unit have been made repeatedly. However, the apostle Paul most accurately substantiated it in his Epistle to the Romans.
According to Paul, everyone should be obedient to the higher authorities, since they are all from God and are servants of the Lord, and they should be obeyed not out of fear of punishment, but according to their conscience.
Simply put, Christians are obligated to obey all earthly authorities, since they are appointed by God, and disobedience to them is equivalent to disobeying the Creator.
Caesar - Caesar, and God - God: the meaning of phraseological units has several interpretations.
The incident with the "denarius of Caesar" is described in three books of the Gospel - from Luke, Matthew and Mark. Such a frequent description of Christ's encounter with the Pharisees means only one thing - the importance of the words of the Savior for mankind.
Today, the famous phraseological unit in the interpretation of "Give everyone what he deserves" is a fundamental principle of justice.
He has inspired and continues to inspire artists, writers, filmmakers and musicians to create masterpieces of art. Caravaggio dedicated his painting to him. Leonardo Shashi and Valentin Pikul named their novels with this phrase, and Mario Venuti - his song.
However, the use of phraseological units met with an ambiguous reaction from the public - after all, the Nazis also liked the expression "To each his own." They placed him above the entrance to the Buchenwald concentration camp.
At the time of Christ, Rome was ruled by the great Caesar, the emperor Tiberius. However, the word "Caesar" comes from the name of Julius Caesar, the famous Roman general and statesman who belonged to the ancient Patrician family.
Having won a series of victories in the wars waged by Rome, Caesar earned unquestionable authority in the army and took up politics. In a short time, Caesar dealt with internal opponents and achieved a life-long dictatorship with the title of emperor.
He received the highest military, judicial and administrative power in the country, which was originally a former republic.
That is why the name of Caesar became a household name, becoming the title that various rulers later called themselves.
The pronunciation of the Latin letter C in different languages sounded like C, then like K.
According to one version, the Russian word "tsar" is an abbreviated word for "caesar".
Before Ivan the Terrible, all the heads of the Russian state were called grand dukes, but Ivan the Fourth, like Caesar, became the sovereign ruler of Russia and called himself tsar.
From the word "Caesar" comes the German word Kaiser.
Now we all say the phrase "Caesar - Caesar" when we want to say: give someone what should by right belong to him.
From this video you will find out where the famous phraseological unit came from.
Then the Pharisees went and consulted on how to catch Jesus in words. And they send their disciples to Him with the Herodians, saying: Master! we know that you are just, and truly teach the ways of God, and do not care about pleasing anyone, for you do not look at any person; so tell us: how do you think? Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not? But Jesus, seeing their craftiness, said: Why do you tempt Me, you hypocrites? Show Me the coin that pays to tribute. They brought him a denarius. And he said to them: Whose is this image and inscription? They say to him: Caesar's. Then he saith to them: So give what is Caesar's to Caesar, but what is God's to God. Hearing this, they were surprised and, leaving Him, went away.
There are words that change the course of history. These include the word of Christ: "Give Caesar what is Caesar's, and God’s what is God." It decisively defines the relationship between religion and politics, between church and state. It gives Christianity a fundamentally different direction, different, for example, from Islam.
Where and when did Christ utter this word, which became the law? In Jerusalem, a few days before His Passion on the Cross, when everything was done from different sides to get rid of Him, and they were looking for how to compromise Him. The trap was very skillfully constructed. Paying taxes to the emperor, the Roman occupation power, meant to recognize it as legitimate power. However, "fundamentalist" Jews opposed this. They preferred terror, an armed struggle against the Romans. Many of them ended their lives on the cross, like two robbers executed at the same time as the Lord.
The Pharisees who asked the Lord a question were in favor of a compromise: for the sake of preserving the world, they believed, taxes must be paid. When the Messiah comes, He will free His people from the Roman yoke. If Christ declares Himself the Messiah, He must refuse to pay taxes. If He does so, they can betray Him to the Romans as a rebel. If He does not do so, He is not the promised Redeemer. The Lord, seeing their intention, denounces them of hypocrisy: “Show a Roman coin. Can't you see the image and signature of the Roman emperor on it? Why do you take this coin in your hands, while the image of a person is forbidden to the Jews? The coin belongs to the emperor, so give it to him! But it is more essential that you give God what belongs to Him. "
With this word, Christ divided once and for all politics and religion, government and service to God. The emperor forced to worship himself as God, obedience to him was a cult. All dictators tried to take possession of not only the money of their subjects, but also their soul. They wanted to possess one whole person. Fully. This is what Hitler did and this is what Lenin did. That is why the Church of Christ was hated by them. On the one hand, Christ requires His disciples to obey civil authority, even when it comes to foreign domination such as the Roman occupation. On the other hand, He clearly says that a person should worship only God: give God God. On the coins is the image and inscription of the emperor, so give them to him, because they belong to him. You carry in you the image of God, the image of God, for man was created in the image of God. Give your hearts, your life to the One to whom they belong. "Give back to Caesar what is Caesar's, but to God what is God." These words always remind us that a person is more than economics, money, politics. They are also important, but everything should be in its place. They are only means and can never be the meaning and purpose of human life. As the holy fathers say, put the first in the first place, and the rest will take its place by itself.
He said to them: So give what is Caesar's to Caesar, but what is God's to God.
Gospel according to Luke. Ch. 20.25.
The Pharisees asked the Savior once:
“Teacher, tell us your wise answer:
To the pagan Caesar, we Jews,
Should taxes be paid or not? "
A smile lurked in the mustache of the Pharisee,
The edge of the lush clothes was caressed by a hand.
"Kohl will say:" Pay! " - the Jews will decide,
That he was just a cruel servant of the Romans.
And he will tell us: "Do not pay taxes",
So we put him in the hands of the soldiers
Like an evil rebel.
Very strict
Viceroy of Tiberius Pontius Pilate ". -
Why, you hypocrites, should you tempt me? -
Christ answered with a clear smile. -
Look at this denarius, brothers.
Whose face is on the coin? - he asked a question. -
On this coin Caesar Tiberius himself. -
So give him a coin,
But what is supposed to
God by faith
Render to the Creator
Him alone.
Evgeny Poznansky
Titian Vecellio "The Dinarius of Caesar" about 1515.
"And they wondered at him"
Perhaps the most principled attitude towards "rulers and kings" was expressed by Jesus Christ Himself in the answer to the tempting question in the Jerusalem temple. Let's remember this place.
“And they sent to Him some of the Pharisees and Herodians, to catch Him in a word. But they, having come, say to Him: Teacher! we know that you are just and do not care about pleasing anyone, for you do not look at any person, but truly teach the ways of God. Is it permissible to give tribute to Caesar or not? whether to give to us or not to give? But He, knowing their hypocrisy, said to them: Why tempt Me? Bring me a denarius so that I may see it. They brought. Then he says to them: Whose is this image and inscription? They said to him: Caesar's. Jesus answered them: Give what is Caesar's to Caesar, but what is God's to God. And they marveled at Him "(Mk 12.13-17).
Indeed, there is something to marvel at. Not only the wisdom of what Jesus said, but also the witty resourcefulness of His actions. It is enough to look at the whole situation, taking into account the realities of that time.
The opponents of Jesus Christ ask Him a cunning trap question: Should a tribute be paid to a pagan ruler or not? Saying "Yes", He will prove to be a friend of the Romans, an antipatriot and even a lawless person.
By saying "No", He risks being accused as a rebel zealot, a "robber."
Jesus' first word -"Bring Me a denarius so that I can see it". One might think that Jesus never saw a Roman denarius, that His eyes were not defiled by the sight of the "icon" of Caesar depicted on the coin. Now, they say, He wants to see the money about which He is asked. A pious Jew had no right to bring Roman money with images of Caesar into the temple.
A different, temple currency was used in the temple. However, the "pious" Pharisees, not catching the catch, take out a denarius (in the temple!) And present it to Jesus. The famous word follows: "Give what is Caesar's to Caesar, but what is God's to God." This answer was unexpected, it made you think, because it sounded mysterious to those around you.
State religiosity, or sacralized statehood, is a feature that, to varying degrees, distinguished practically all societies of the ancient world. Power is either directly deified, as in Babylon, Egypt or (somewhat later) in Rome, or takes on sacred forms, as in the Old Testament.
The tempting question of Jesus' opponents, comparing God to Caesar, practically puts these two objects of comparison on the same ontological plane.
Jesus' answer decisively separates God and Caesar into different ontological "floors", making the comparison itself irrelevant and impossible.
The subject of the conversation is thus raised to theological heights. Jesus' "godly" tempters are put to shame both practically and theoretically.
Titian Vecellio Denarius of Caesar 1568
On all canvases dedicated to this event, the artists depict a Roman denarius (an obsolete spelling - denarius).
The denarius silver coin was the basis of the monetary system of the Roman Empire. Most numismatists believe that the denarius of the emperor Tiberius was shown to Jesus, since it was during the reign of Tiberius 14-37 that the event described in the Gospel falls.
At the time of Tiberius, a denarius weighed about 3.8 grams and was about 1.8 mm in diameter. That is, it was a small coin, for example, the current 50 kopecks have a diameter of 2 mm.
The legionnaire's monthly salary was at that time 30 denarii.
If you look closely at the paintings of the artists depicting the episode with the "denarius of Caesar", it is easy to see that almost all of them, most likely, have never seen a Roman denarius themselves. They portrayed him as a very large and weighty coin. Moreover, the tempting ones hold it in their hand so that it would be impossible to see the image on a real denarius. In order to see the portrait of the emperor, the coin had to either be held by the rim, or put on an open palm.
It is interesting that the Anglo-American artist John Singleton Copley most accurately depicted how the denarius should have looked and how it could have been shown to Christ.
John Singleton Copley 1738 - 1815
(... the Anglo-American artist John Singleton Copley most accurately depicted how the denarius should have looked and how it could have been shown to Christ.)
Joachim Anthonisz Wtewael 1566 - 1638
Pieter Paul Rubens 1577 - 1640
Illustration from the children's Bible
Mattia Preti 1613-99
Unknown artist, Matveyev school, 18th century
Valentin de Boulogne 1591 - 1632
Bernardo Strozzi 1581 - 1644
Shishlov Yuri Veniaminovich
Rembrandt Harmenszoon van Rijn 1606 - 1669
The Holy Scriptures of the New Testament about attitudes towards politics and the state
In his eschatological speech on the Mount of Olives, speaking of the signs of the last days of this world, he predicts to his disciples and followers: “You will be delivered to judges and beaten in synagogues, and before rulers and kings they will set you up for Me, for a testimony before them…. And you will be hated by all for my name; but he who endures to the end will be saved "(). Very soon after these words were uttered, the "rulers and kings" began to energetically fulfill the prophecy said about them. The host of Christ's witnesses from century to century was replenished with new and new martyrs. It seems that this stream of those killed for the name of the Lord reached its climax in the 20th century. But is this the climax? Or? "It ought to be, but it's not over yet." ().
Indeed, there is something to marvel at. Not only the wisdom of what Jesus said, but also the witty resourcefulness of His actions. It is enough to look at the whole situation, taking into account the realities of that time. The opponents of Jesus Christ ask Him a cunning trap question: Should a tribute be paid to a pagan ruler or not? Saying "Yes", He will prove to be a friend of the Romans, an antipatriot and even a lawless person. By saying "No", He risks being accused as a rebel zealot, a "robber." Jesus' first word - "Bring me a denarius so that I can see it." One might think that Jesus never saw a Roman denarius, that His eyes were not defiled by the sight of the "icon" of Caesar depicted on the coin. Now, they say, He wants to see the money about which He is asked. A pious Jew had no right to bring Roman money with images of Caesar into the temple. A different, temple currency was used in the temple. However, the "pious" Pharisees, not catching the catch, take out a denarius (in the temple!) And present it to Jesus. The famous word follows: "Give what is Caesar's to Caesar, but what is God's to God." This answer was unexpected, it made you think, because it sounded mysterious to those around you.
State religiosity, or sacralized statehood, is a feature that, to varying degrees, distinguished practically all societies of the ancient world. Power is either directly deified, as in Babylon, Egypt or (somewhat later) in Rome, or takes on sacred forms, as in the Old Testament. The tempting question of Jesus' opponents, comparing God to Caesar, practically puts these two objects of comparison on the same ontological plane. Jesus' answer decisively separates God and Caesar into different ontological "floors", making the comparison itself irrelevant and impossible. The subject of the conversation is thus raised to theological heights. Jesus' "godly" tempters are put to shame both practically and theoretically.
From a different point of view and in a completely different situation, the Apostle Paul discusses the authorities. The Christian lives in a state-run society. Yes, a pagan society is not a very pleasant environment for a Christian. But he cannot get out of it: “I wrote to you in a letter - not to associate with fornicators; however, not in general with the fornicators of this world, or covetous people, or predators, or idolaters, for otherwise you ought to have gone out of this world "(). Moreover, Christians not only cannot leave the surrounding society, but also do not have the right to do so, for their task is to carry the saving Gospel into this society. Therefore, the Apostle Paul offers the sociology of the integration of the Church into society as a kind of missiological value. The purpose of this integration is not to jeopardize or compromise the Church's testimony of the gospel. This, in turn, is in order to attract the “outsiders”, to save them, to “acquire” them for Christ.
The famous instruction of the Apostle in the Epistle to the Romans is very indicative in this respect.
“Let every soul be submissive to the highest authorities, for there is no power not from God; the existing authorities from God are established. Therefore, the one who resists the authority opposes God's ordinance. And those who oppose themselves will incur condemnation. For the rulers are not afraid of good deeds, but of evil ones. Do you want not to be afraid of power? Do good, and you will receive praise from her, for the leader is God's servant, for your good. If you do evil, be afraid, for he does not carry a sword in vain: he is God's servant, an avenger as punishment for those who do evil. And therefore one must obey, not only out of fear of punishment, but also out of conscience. For this, you also pay taxes, for they are God's servants, who are constantly busy with this. So give everyone their due: to whom to give, to give; to whom the rent, the rent; to whom fear, fear; to whom honor, honor "( ).
Unfortunately, in the history of the interpretation of these words of the Apostle, the idea that all worldly authority, good or evil, is "from God" has been too emphasized. We know from history that this too often led to abuse. And here we should take a closer look at the letter of the text of the Apostle Paul and at its intention. First of all, one should pay attention to the fact that the Apostle writes to the capital of the empire, to the Rome of the emperor Nero (54–68 RC), in which, although not yet fully manifested, tendencies towards the deification of imperial power have long been outlined. Therefore, the following motive cannot escape our attention: the Apostle Paul indirectly indicates to the state authority its place not in the pantheon, but before the throne of the One God. This is clearly indicated by the very first sentence of the passage. An important nuance is not noticeable in the translation. "There is no power not from God." The accepted critical text in this case does not use the preposition apo(from), but the preposition hypo(under). And this preposition expresses not just origin, but also subordination, establishes a kind of hierarchy, the relationship "up-down". Compare: "Everything is under sin"(), to be "Under the law"(), or, for example, the words of John the Baptist to Jesus: "I need to be baptized by You"(), where the preposition hypo is also used, that is, "under". Indeed, to say that “the power from God "is the same as saying nothing, for all from God, not just "power." It is not just about the establishment of authority from God, but also about the principled subordination of authority to God. Further, the Apostle writes that power is just a servant, a slave of God (). There is some inaccuracy in the Russian Synodal translation: "The chief is God's servant", while in the original: "she (power) is God's servant." And this is in a situation where the population of the Roman Empire deified the power and its bearers. The Apostle unobtrusively polemicizes with such a pagan delusion and indicates to the “power” her place is not a goddess, but a servant of the true God. If this servant is conscientiously carrying out her duty, fulfilling the will of her Master, that is, God, then our conscience should also move us to obedience to authority (). The duty of state power, in accordance with the will of God, is indicated by the Apostle in the most general terms. After all, it is understandable by itself, based on elementary common sense: "The rulers are not afraid of good deeds, but for evil"... Immediately after the admonition about the attitude towards the authorities, the Apostle summarizes these "good deeds" in one word - love. “Do not owe anyone anything other than mutual love; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law "(). At the end of his admonition, the Apostle Paul, as it were, recalls the saying of Jesus Christ about Caesar and God: “To whom fear, fear; to whom honor, honor "... The Old Testament instruction read: "Fear, my son, the Lord and the king"(). In the New Testament, the Lord and the king, as already mentioned, are divorced on different "floors": "Fear God, Honor the King"(). Caesar - earthly honor, God - reverential fear.
The trend of the rational and useful integration of the Church into the surrounding society, outlined by the Apostle Paul, continued and developed in the Pastoral Epistles, which were largely adapted to the surrounding culture. The Church itself is institutionalized, and gradually the difference between the Church and secular social institutions becomes less and less. Church leaders are endowed with the qualities of good citizens rather than charismatic believers. It is enough to compare the enumeration of the virtues of the bishop and deacon c with the enumeration of the blessed gifts in! Slaves should honor their masters not as brothers in the Lord (compare the Epistle to Philemon), but “Must honor their mastersworthy of all honor so that there is no blasphemy against the name of God and doctrine "(). Women, as was customary in ancient society, should know their place: “Let the wife study in silence, with all obedience; but I do not allow my wife to teach, nor to rule over her husband, but to be in silence "(). Compare: "No male or female"... with her prayer she must support the secular authorities.
But this stability in relations between Church and state was very fragile. By the end of the first Christian century, during the era of the emperor Domitian (81–96 RC), the official persecutions began, which lasted more than 200 years. The New Testament monument of this era is the book of Revelation of John the Theologian. The attitude of the Church to the pagan state is one of the defining themes of this book. The Apostle Paul pointed out that state power has the basis of its existence in God. But the power that persecutes the Son of God and His followers, thereby deprives itself of the very foundation of its existence and turns from a "servant of God" into a "harlot of Babylon."
The Book of Revelation in the figurative and symbolic form, characteristic of the apocalyptic literature of that time, depicts the dramatic opposition of the power of God and the usurpatory power of anti-divine forces on earth. As a result of this confrontation, the petition of the prayer "Our Father" is fulfilled: “Thy kingdom come; Thy will be done on earth as in heaven "(). John's revelation is full of political pathos, clothed in many images. This abundance of vivid images in Revelation creates a whole symbolic world. Readers enter this world, and thus their perception of the world around them changes. The importance of this is obvious due to the fact that the first readers of this book, residents of large cities of the Roman Empire, constantly came into contact with influential images of the pagan vision of the world. Architecture, iconography, statues, rituals, festivals, "miracles" in the temples - all created a powerful impression of the greatness and invincibility of the imperial power and the dazzle of the pagan religion. In this context, the Apocalypse provides counter-images that give readers a different vision of the world: how the world looks from heaven, to which John is taken in chap. 4. There is, as it were, a purification of the gaze: an understanding of what the world really is and how it should be. For example, in Ch. 17 John's readers see a woman. She looks like the goddess Roma in glory and greatness (the image of Roman civilization). She was worshiped in many temples of the empire. But in the image of John the Theologian, she is a Roman ("Babylonian") harlot. Her wealth and splendor are the results of her disgusting occupation. In it you can see the features of the prodigal queen Jezebel from the Bible. This is how readers understand the true nature of the Roman pagan empire: moral decay behind propaganda illusions.
The images of Revelation are symbols that have the power to transform the perception of the world. But they act not only with the help of verbal pictures. Their meaning is largely determined by the composition of the book. The book's surprisingly meticulous literary composition creates an intricate web of literary references, parallels and contrasts that give meaning to the parts and the whole. Of course, not everything is realized from the first reading. Awareness of this wealth of meanings progresses through intensive study.
The revelation is rich in allusions from the Old Testament. They are not accidental, but essential for realizing the meaning. Without realizing these allusions, not noticing them, the meaning of most images is almost inaccessible to understanding. John's precise and subtle use of Old Testament allusions creates a reservoir of meaning that can be progressively unfold.
Along with allusions to the images, Revelation reflects the mythology of the modern world of John. So, for example, when Revelation depicts the kings of the East invading the Empire in alliance with “The beast that was and is not; and he will rise from the abyss "(17: 8), then this is a reflection of the popular myth about the resurrected emperor Nero, that Nero, who for some was a disgusting tyrant, but for others - a liberator. One day he, "resurrected", will stand at the head of the Parthian troops in order to take possession of Rome and take revenge on his enemies. John uses the historical facts, fears, hopes, images and myths of his contemporaries to make these elements of the great Christian prophecy. The images of the book of Revelation require careful study if the modern reader wishes to comprehend the theological meaning of the book. A lack of understanding of imagery and how it conveys meaning is responsible for many misinterpretations of Revelation, even among enlightened modern scholars. Comprehension of the symbolic world of the Apocalypse reveals to us that these books are not only one of the most refined literary works of the New Testament, but also one of the great theological achievements of early Christianity. Here literary and theological merits are inseparable.
The state in Revelation is presented in a demonic form. Of course, the real state is never absolutely demonic, but this aspect of it is revealed here, which then, during the time of the emperor Domitian and his successors, for Christians seemed predominant. At the end of the 12th chapter, the dragon (that is, Satan), cast down from heaven, enters into war with Christians who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. In chapter 13, two agents of Satan appear: the beast from the sea and the beast from the earth. The first beast is the image of the political and religious power of the Roman Empire, personified by individual emperors (heads of the beast). The second beast symbolizes the visual religious and political propaganda of Rome in the person of its local authorities and pagan priesthood. The first beast is the Antichrist, the second beast is the False Prophet. They are the eschatological ultimate images of all antichrists and false prophets of human history (;;). John describes Roman power in metahistorical terms, using mythological imagery and representations to probe the deeper dimension of human history. The two beasts are called to depict the totality of all pagan world empires, the pinnacle of godless power on earth, claiming divine worship.
The beast from the earth () carries out all kinds of propaganda in favor of the Roman Empire, which is embodied by the beast from the sea. The iconic image of the totalitarian power of the beast from the sea is being erected. The worship of this image is a confirmation of loyalty to the pagan power through sacrifices. He who refuses to worship is killed. Behind these images is the biblical example of King Nebuchadnezzar, who set up a golden image and forced to worship him (). The text also reflects the experience of its time, from which we have heard reports of moving, "prophesying" and healing statues. John speaks not only of the mesmerizing influence of all these false miracles, but also of the power to compel worship on pain of death. This refers to the persecution of Christians who were killed while abandoning the imperial cult. As a proof of loyalty, all social strata should accept the "mark" on the right hand and on the forehead. The motive of the eschatological "tracing" (or brand, tattoo, seal) is traditional. As the servants of God have the seal of their Lord on their foreheads (), so the servants of the beast have the corresponding "mark". Of course, it would be naive to believe that the divine sealing of the elect would be physical, just as circumcision of the heart would be a surgical act. It is just as strange to take the "mark" of the beast literally. We are talking about spiritual consent (voluntary or forced) to slavery to the beast-antichrist.
The study of the text of the Apocalypse gave a lot for understanding the symbols of this unusual book. Exegetic research, in turn, opens the way for hermeneutics, that is, the interpretation, translation, transfer of the meaning of the book into the languages of other peoples, times and cultures. Glimpses, shadows of eschaton, foreshadows of the end, announced, as we remember, by Jesus Christ in His conversation on the Mount of Olives, these foreshadows also existed during the writing of the book of Revelation, that is, in the era of state persecution of the Church of Christ in the era of Domitian. They exist, albeit to an incomparably lesser extent, and now, for "The mystery of lawlessness is already in action"(). How this action manifests itself and how to resist it is a question for each individual Christian and for the Church as a whole.
However, in our reflections on the text of Scripture, we must always be sober and judicious. Unfortunately, a cursory knowledge of Scripture leads to false interpretations. For example, we have recently witnessed unrest over government measures to assign individual tax numbers to citizens. These account numbers have been interpreted in some incomprehensible way by some as the "number of the beast" 666. However, the exegesis of the text of Revelation shows that no individual identification (whether it be an individual insurance retirement number accepted without complaint; whether it is an individual taxpayer number that caused a rebellious ferment ), no external identification has the slightest relation to the "mark" from the Apocalypse. For the “mark” (no matter how it is interpreted in relation to a specific situation) necessarily implies a renunciation of Christ (apostasy) and the requirement to worship a totalitarian state (beast) with its religion and ideology of unlimited power, strength and wealth. This or that "mark" or seal does not precede apostasy, but testifies to the already completed apostasy from God and Christ, to the sacrifice of the worship of Baal and Moloch to satanocracy, under whatever mask it may appear. With this or that census, with or without numbers, the text of Revelation we are considering has nothing in common.
So, the book of Revelation offers us a completely different image of state power than the one that we saw in the epistles of the Apostle Paul. Before John's gaze stands the religiously embellished state power. It is totalitarian because, with its ideology, it demands from a person complete submission to himself, the identification of "Caesar" with God. The state is waging an open struggle with Christ and Him. John rejects loyalty to such a state as idolatry. However, this does not mean a denial of the state in general, but only a denial of perverted state power. Does this denial imply active resistance or struggle against the state? No. The whole meaning and spirit of the book of Revelation denies "warfare against flesh and blood." In the confidence that believers have heavenly citizenship, since their names are inscribed in the Lamb's book of life (), they can withstand the oppression of the state cult and accept inevitable suffering (passive resistance). Endurance in trials, faithful testimony in word and deed, "Patience and faith of the saints"() - this and only this is capable of giving Christians a true, and not an imaginary and not a temporary victory over those forces of evil, which most openly appear as an earthly power seeking total submission to itself.
What should be the victory for Christians? Of course, not in the destruction of the godless world with all its inhabitants, as one might think, if one takes literally the numerous military images of the Apocalypse. The victory of the Lamb and His faithful witnesses is the salvation of as many people as possible. In an extremely concentrated form, this victory of the witnesses of truth over the forces of lies is shown in a symbolic image of what should happen at the end of history, before the opening of the last, seventh seal: “And at the same hour there was a great earthquake, and a tenth of the city fell, and seven thousand names of men perished in the earthquake; and the rest were seized with fear and gave glory to the God of heaven "(). Here we see the amazing symbolism of numbers borrowed from the Old Testament. If the Old Testament prophets have “a tenth of a city” (;) or “seven thousand” people () - a faithful, saved remnant, delivered from judgment and destruction of most of all “others”, then John reverses this symbolic arithmetic. Only one tenth of them undergoes judgment and destruction, and the "remnant", nine-tenths of the "others" give glory to God and are saved. It is not a minority that is saved, but the majority. Most people come to repentance, faith, and salvation. It is only thanks to the faithful testimony of Christians that the judgment of the world becomes salvation for the majority! John here, as in other places in his Apocalypse, symbolically emphasizes the novelty of the Christian Gospel message in comparison with the Old Testament prophetic message. So it is with "seven thousand human names." In this case, John refers to the result of the ministry of the prophet Elijah. There he condemned and punished all the unbelievers and saved only the faithful remnant, seven thousand who did not worship Baal (). Here the Lord, in the person of his faithful witnesses, on the contrary, leads to repentance and conversion of all, except seven thousand, who are overtaken by judgment. No, not escape from the world, from society, from the state, but the ministry commanded by Jesus Christ in the world, in society, in the state - this is the task of Christians. The Book of Revelation, like other books of the New Testament, does not specify the details of this ministry, pointing only to its general characteristic - a true testimony. In different historical conditions, this testimony can and should be carried out in a variety of ways.
Considering the eschatological passages in the writings of the New Testament, which speak of the self-deification of state power, one cannot ignore the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians. This epistle, in keeping with the apocalyptic tradition, summarizes the signs of an impending end. These signs include the revelation of the sinister figure of the Antichrist. True, in the message this figure is portrayed rather as an Antigod: "A man of sin, a son of perdition, who resists and exalts himself above everything that is called God or holiness, so that he will sit in the temple of God, as if posing as God."(). At present, these claims of some godless forces for deification may be imperceptible, but we must remember that "the mystery of lawlessness is already in action." However, the revelation of this "secret" is hindered by another, holding force: "And now you know that does not allow him to open up in due time"(2.6). Further, this force of "holding" is presented as the personality of the "holding": “The mystery of iniquity is already in action, only it will not be accomplished until the one who is holding back is taken from the environment now. And then the wicked will be revealed "(2.7-8). Unfortunately, the Synodal translation of the text, leaving much to be desired, rather misleads the reader and generates all sorts of strange interpretations.
The phenomenon of "holding" or "holding force" has been a torturous riddle for exegesis for centuries. In particular, starting from the II century, “state” interpretations of “restraining” appeared. The first in this series of interpretations can be called St. Hippolytus of Rome. In his Commentary on the prophet Daniel (IV, 21.3) (approximately 203–204), St. Hippolytus, quoting 2 Thess, identified the "restraining" with the "fourth beast" of the prophet Daniel (), which, in his opinion, was the Roman Empire. This "political" understanding of the "holding" later appears in various modifications: the pagan Roman Empire, the Christian Roman Empire, the Roman Church, the Holy Roman Empire of the German nation, the Christian state, the democratic state, the state as such, the Russian Empire, etc. etc.
However, in the Ancient Church, along with the "state", there was another, namely, the "theocentric" interpretation. Even St. Hippolytus elsewhere in the same Commentary on Daniel (IV, 12.1–2; 16.16; 23.2), we find this theocentric interpretation of the theme of "retention" and "delay". Research in recent decades has shown that there is a long apocalyptic tradition behind the topic of "retention". It is based on a strictly theocentric thought: All "times and seasons" are in the power of God. If the end does not come, but is postponed in some uncertainty, then this happens according to the plan of God. The very concept of "retainer" in the apocalyptic was a technical term for the delay of the parousia, occurring according to the design of God. Therefore, we can rightfully say that it is Himself who is behind the figure of the “restraining”. This is God, and no one else is the Lord of times and seasons, beginning and end. God, and not this or that state, not this or that statesman, holds in his hands the history of the world - the Almighty.
Actually, the same theme of "retention", "procrastination" is one of the central themes of the book of Revelation. This topic is presented there very symbolically. The visions of the "seven seals" cause the death of a quarter of the earth, but the "executions" do not lead the world to repentance. The following visions of the "seven trumpets" cause the death of a third of the earth, but these "executions" do not lead to repentance (). The "executions" that should follow the visions of the "seven thunders" are called upon to punish the unfaithful and disobedient even more. But it becomes clear that "executions" alone, no matter how cruel they may be, cannot lead to repentance, and thus to salvation. Therefore, the "executions of seven thunders" are canceled (). Salvation for the world can come not through executions and punishments, but only through the faithful testimony of the Church, which is described further in the book of Revelation. But the very theme of keeping the end, connected with the expectation of people's repentance, manifests itself in Revelation very clearly. And this retention occurs, of course, not by the will of this or that kingdom, but only by the will of God.
The attitude towards the state with its laws can be compared with the attitude of the New Testament scriptures to the Old Testament Law. The law is not salvific in itself. Its function is limited both in substance and in time. He is only "Teacher to Christ"(). A schoolmaster (in Greek "teacher") is not a teacher. He only brought the child to school, to the teacher. The schoolmaster remained outside the school threshold. So the Law was called to lead the people of God to their true Teacher and Savior, to Christ. "After the coming of faith, we are no longer under the guidance of a schoolmaster."(). But mutatis mutandis, we can say the same with understandable limitations and reservations about any law, about any right, not only about the Law of Moses.
The Apostle Paul, in the Epistles to Galatians and Romans, examines the problem of the Law in detail, linking this problem with the question of human freedom. "You Brothers Called to Freedom"(). - the highest good of man, who was created in the image of God, and carries this image of Divine freedom. And we perfectly understand that in the world of sin, the full realization of this freedom, the realization of the image of God is fundamentally impossible. Attempts at its absolute realization (self-deification in arbitrariness, lawlessness and anarchy) lead to mutual destruction, to death. "You are called to freedom, brethren, if only your freedom is not an occasion to please the flesh ... If you bite and eat each other, beware that you are not destroyed by each other."(). Social laws approved by the state, in this the world is necessary and inevitable. It goes without saying. But at the same time, we must always remember that laws and statehood are not absolute values. They were given, according to Vladimir Solovyov, not in order to create heaven on earth, but so that life on earth does not become hell. They are not absolute values, if only because they contradict human essence. By limiting human freedom in principle, the laws contradict the image of God in man, which is contained in the striving for absolute, Divine freedom. Therefore, any attempts to absolutize earthly power, state, laws are anti-Christian in their essence. True freedom is found only in the God-man, in the Risen Christ. In Him, Christians become absolutely free citizens of another "state" (), the Kingdom of God, in which there are no laws except one - the law of Love.
Yes, any absolutization or sacralization of statehood contradicts the meaning and spirit of Christianity (alas, this has often been forgotten in the history of Christianity!). But this does not diminish the relative value of the state with its laws. is present in this world, and His presence can be felt and known. In Scripture, such a tangible presence of God is called glory Of God. The shining of glory over the Old Testament tabernacle; the glory of God in a cloudy pillar leading Israel from Egyptian slavery to freedom; the glory that shone upon Jesus Christ at His transfiguration on Mount Tabor - in all this and in many other cases we meet with the manifest presence of God in this world, the presence of the Helper and Patron. We glorify holy people, recognizing in them, in their personalities, in their deeds glory Of God, the presence of God. We testify to this symbolically, depicting the radiance of glory in the form of halos surrounding the heads of the saints. The Apostle Paul urges: "Glorify God in Your Body"(), that is, strive to show the world the presence of God, His glory in the Church, in yourself, in your words and deeds. This is the task of Christians in this world. But the same task of glorifying God, in principle, stands before human society in general, and before a society organized into a state, which, like any power, is a "servant of God", set by God for "good deeds," which has already been discussed speech above. Of course, it is difficult, and even impossible, to imagine a "Christian state". Only an individual with his free will can be a Christian. The body of Christ is the Church as a community of Christians who participate in God in Jesus Christ. But the state is not the Church. And, nevertheless, it has its eschatological limit, its task to transform into the Church, when the state itself and its necessity are abolished, when all leadership and all authority and power are abolished (). Therefore, a Christian has no right to ignore the state and his feasible participation in it. In the endless variety of peoples, eras and historical situations, in the endless variety of personal destinies, opportunities, gifts, social activities, all Christians face one common task - the glorification of God in a grateful response to His saving gifts.
