Let's study "Theophylact of Bulgaria's Interpretation of the Holy Gospel"! This is a very interesting work. Its author is Archbishop of Ohrid Theophylact of Bulgaria. He was a major Byzantine writer and theologian, interpreter of the Holy Scriptures. He lived at the end of the 11th - beginning of the 12th century in the Bulgarian Byzantine province (now the Republic of Macedonia).
Theophylact of Bulgaria was often called blessed, although he was not one of the publicly recognized saints of the Orthodox Church. It should be noted that Slavic and Greek authors and publishers often call him a saint and equate him with church fathers.
Biography
The biography of Theophylact of Bulgaria is little known. Some sources report that he was born after 1050 (precisely before 1060) on the island of Euboea, in the city of Chalkis.
In the Cathedral of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople, Theophylact was granted the rank of deacon: thanks to him, he approached the court of Emperor Parapinaka Michael VII (1071-1078). Many believe that after Michael died, Theophylact was assigned to his son, Tsarevich Constantine Duki, as a tutor. After all, the four-year-old orphan, and now the heir had precisely this status, had only his mother left - Empress Maria, the patroness of Theophylact of Bulgaria. By the way, it was she who prompted him to write better things.
It should be noted that the rise of Theophylact’s writing activity, correspondence from Bulgaria with a large number of prominent people, and his sending to Bulgaria by Archbishop Ohrid date specifically to the period of the reign of Komnenos Alexei (1081-1118). The expulsion of Theophylact from the capital, where he unsuccessfully strived, is probably connected with the disgrace of the family of the autocrat Michael.
No one knows how long Blessed Theophylact remained in Bulgaria and when he died. Some of his letters date back to the early 12th century. During the period when he was at the court of Empress Mary, but not earlier than 1088-1089, the evangelist created the “Royal Instruction”. This incomparable work, very authoritative in the literary community, was specially intended for his student, Tsarevich Constantine. And in 1092 he wrote a very pompous panegyric to Emperor Alexei Komnenos.
Bishop's ministry. The beginning of the way
The date of Theophylact's elevation to the archbishop's Bulgarian see is covered in oblivion. According to some sources, this happened in the period 1089 - 1090; according to others, several years earlier.
It is known that the beginning of Theophylact’s activity in a new place of ministry was accompanied by numerous difficulties. When he was just entering Ohrid, the townspeople greeted him with shouts. However, these were not cries of general popular joy, jubilation and friendly delight. On the contrary, the city residents expressed distrust of him, mocked and protested.
Such an unusual reception was associated not with the personal qualities of the bishop, but with the memory of those who greeted him about the former independence and independence of the Bulgarian Church. In the new Archbishop Theophylact, residents saw a stranger, an appointee from the outside.
All this could not help but affect the internal mood of the new archpastor; it could not help but confront him with a question that was as necessary as it was difficult: how to manage a flock that was initially inclined to be hostile to their archbishop?
Creations
It is known that the most important historical monument to Theophylact’s literary work is his correspondence. 137 letters survived, which he sent to the highest secular and clergy of the empire. In these messages, Blessed Theophylact of Bulgaria complained about his fate. He was a sophisticated Byzantine and treated the barbarians, his Slavic flock, “smelling of sheepskin,” with great disgust.
It should be noted that reports of popular uprisings that constantly arose before the emergence of the second Bulgarian kingdom, as well as the appearance of crusader armies from time to time, elevate many of Theophylact's letters to the level of an outstanding historical source. Data on the administration of the kingdom and on the countless figures of the era of Komnenos Alexius are also important.
The peak of Theophylact's creative path is the interpretation of the New Testament and the Old. These are the books of Holy Scripture. The most original work in this area, of course, is called an explanation of the Gospel, mainly on St. Matthew. It is interesting that the author bases his arguments here on the heterogeneous interpretations of John Chrysostom on a colossal number of individual episodes of the Holy Scriptures.
In general, Theophylact often allows for allegorical interpretations of the text, and in some places even moderate debates with heresies slip through. Theophylact of Bulgaria mostly left his interpretation of the apostolic acts and epistles in the comments, but the current texts are literally copied from little-known sources of the 9th and 10th centuries. He is the author of the complete life of Blessed Clement of Ohrid.
Of great importance is his polemical book against the Latins, written in the spirit of reconciliation, and the word about the fifteen martyrs who suffered under Julian in Tiberiupol (Strumitsa).
Interesting fact: in Patrologia Graeca, the evangelist's writings are located from volume 123 to volume 126 inclusive.
Interpretation of the Gospel of Matthew
So, Theophylact wrote a wonderful interpretation of the Gospel of Matthew, and now we will try to consider this work in more detail. He argued that all the holy men who lived before the law did not receive knowledge from books and scriptures. This is very surprising, but in his work it is indicated that they were brought up by the illumination of the All-Holy Spirit and only in this way did they know God’s will: God himself held conversations with them. This is how he imagined Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Isaac, Job and Moses.
After a while, people became corrupted and became unworthy of the teaching and enlightenment of the Holy Spirit. But God loves mankind, He gave them Scripture, so that at least thanks to it they would remember His will. Theophylact writes that Christ first personally held conversations with the apostles, and then sent them the blessing of the Holy Spirit to guide them. Of course, the Lord expected that over time, heresies would appear and human morals would deteriorate, so he deigned that both Gospels were written. After all, in this way, drawing the truth from them, we will not be carried away by heretical lies and our morals will not deteriorate at all.
And of course, the interpretation of the Gospel of Matthew is a very soulful work. Studying the Book of Kinship (Matthew 1:1), Theophylact wondered why blessed Matthew did not, like the prophets, pronounce the word “vision” or “word”? After all, they are always about (Is. 1:1) or “the Word that came ... to Isaiah” (Is. 2:1). Do you want to find out this question? Yes, the seers simply turned to the rebellious and hard-hearted. This is the only reason why they said that this was a Divine vision and the voice of God, so that the people would be afraid and not neglect what they told them.
Theophylact notes that Matthew spoke to the well-meaning, faithful and obedient, and therefore did not say anything like this to the prophets in advance. He writes that what the prophets contemplated, they saw with their minds, looking at it through the Holy Spirit. That's why they said it was a vision.
Matthew did not contemplate Christ with his mind, but stayed with Him morally and listened to Him sensually, observing Him in the flesh. Theophylact writes that this is the only reason why he did not say: “the vision that I observed,” or “contemplation,” but said: “The Book of Kinship.”
Next we learn that the name “Jesus” is Hebrew, not Greek, and it is translated as “Savior.” After all, the word “yao” among the Jews communicates salvation.
And the high priests and rulers were called Christs (“Christ” means “anointed” in Greek), for they were anointed with holy oil: it flowed from the horn, which was applied to their heads. In general, the Lord is called Christ and as a Bishop, for he himself sacrificed himself as a king and stood against sin. Theophylact writes that He is anointed with real oil, the Holy Spirit. Moreover, He was anointed before others, for who else possessed the Spirit like the Lord? It should be noted that the blessing of the Holy Spirit was at work in the saints. The following power functioned in Christ: Christ Himself and the Spirit Consubstantial with Him together performed miracles.
Text of the book “Interpretation of the Holy Gospel”
Blessed Theophylact of Bulgaria Commentary on the Holy Gospel
Recommended for publication by the Publishing Council of the Russian Orthodox Church (IS R18-826-3515)
The text is printed according to the edition:
Blagovestnik. Interpretations of the Holy Gospels by Blessed. Theophylact, Archbishop. Bulgarian. SPb.: Type. P. Soikina, 1910
© Blagovest Publishing House – text, design, original layout, 2018
Blessed Theophylact, Archbishop of Bulgaria and his works
Blessed Theophylact was from the city of Chalkis in Greece. The year of his birth is not known with certainty; one can only say that he was born approximately in the first half of the eleventh century.
He spent the first half of his life, and most of it, in Constantinople. Here he received an excellent education and here he began his service for the benefit of the Church with the rank of deacon of the Great Church. Despite their small rank, this title was very important at that time, since these deacons were the patriarch’s close assistants in almost all matters of his ministry.
Theophylact's duties were to explain the Holy Scriptures and deliver teachings. In this matter, he showed remarkable oratorical talent and great knowledge not only in patristic literature, but also in secular literature, so that his contemporaries considered him an exemplary preacher and in this sense called him “the teacher of rhetoricians.”
He remained in the rank of deacon of the Great Church for quite a long time, since the Patriarch of Constantinople did not want to let him go for a long time, as an outstanding, gifted employee, and only at a rather advanced age, approximately in 1081, he was appointed to Bulgaria, in church terms dependent on Constantinople, - the first hierarch of this country, the Archbishop of Ohrid.
His activities in the rank of archbishop proceeded in very difficult conditions, since the flock was dark and rude and, in addition, there were a lot of heretics in Bulgaria. The Paulicians, Bogomils and other heretics, due to their large numbers, greatly dispelled their errors among the people and armed the people against Orthodoxy and the archbishop. Realizing that such evil can only be fought through enlightenment and the appointment of worthy shepherds, Blessed Theophylact, on the one hand, zealously taught the people, orally and in writing, expounding on the basis of the patristic works the true meaning of the New Testament Scriptures and sending out numerous messages - as a result, many remained after him messages to various persons, brief discussions about heretics and various interpretive works - on the other hand, when choosing pastors, he was guided either by the piety of the candidates, the severity of their life, or by their learning and eloquence. In this case, no outside motives, no kinship, no friendship, no requests, no pressure from secular power could force him to choose an unworthy or unknown person. Thus, one day the duke (prince) of Skopia asked him to make an unknown person a bishop, and blessed Theophylact answered him with dignity and strength:
“Neither you, my lord, should interfere in this great work, which must be done with fear, nor should I frivolously decide to communicate Divine grace.
The ruler promised to thank the saint for the fulfillment of his request, but blessed Theophylact answered this too:
- My lord! If the one for whom you are interceding is the same (i.e., like the other chosen ones), then it is not you who should thank me, but I who should thank you. If he is unknown neither in our Church nor in Constantinople has earned special approval for his piety and enlightenment, then do not insult God and do not order us; for we are commanded to “obey God rather than man” (Acts 5:29).
Carrying out strict and attentive supervision over all the shepherds, Blessed Theophylact avoided drastic measures, but always tried to influence with gentle suggestion and persuasion. An example of this is his behavior during clashes with a Triadic bishop who was unjustly persecuting an elderly monk. Blessed Theophylact all the time tried to influence the bishop with exhortations and messages, but he not only did not listen to him, but even, having become an enemy, went to Constantinople and tried to slander his archbishop there. And so, despite all these actions of the rebellious bishop, Blessed Theophylact subsequently treated him with love and forgiveness when he turned to him with a request to forgive him. “Just pray for me,” wrote Blessed Theophylact to the bishop, “and bless, and do not curse, the one who loves you.”
Finally, he had to fight against propaganda. A monument to this struggle remains his “Discourse on what the Latins are accused of.” In it, Blessed Theophylact avoids quarreling about minor differences and customs, for, as he says, not every difference in customs should lead to division, but only that which concerns dogmas.
Although he calls all Latin disagreements, in addition to dogmas, unjust, he considers it possible to cover them with Christian love.
He is mainly armed against the addition of “and from the Son” to the Creed.
“Here,” writes Blessed Theophylact, “is the most dangerous evil, and if they do not allow corrections to be made, then there is no need to give in, even if they spoke from the throne, which those who ascend so boast, even if they put forward the confession of Peter, even if they promised bliss, even if showed us the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven... However, in this regard, there is no need to argue about words, but look at the deed; we must pay attention to whether anything here depends on the poverty of the language; moreover, in conversations there may be expressions that are not precise; only complete certainty must be demanded from the confession of faith. Let us not argue too much with the rebellious minds of these people, neither about unleavened bread, nor about fasting, nor about anything else. We must endure evil in order to prevent greater things; we must allow what cannot be changed, so as not to destroy the communion of love. Following the example of the apostles, one must appear weak to the weak and follow the example of the Savior, who laid down His soul in order to gather the scattered children into a single herd.”
Although Blessed Theophylact was a Greek by birth and upbringing, he was a true father for the Bulgarian Church. Despite the sorrows that he had to experience during his archbishopric, he stood with unflagging zeal for her independence, for her property and all her interests, if they were threatened with damage from any quarter. And this had to be met from all sides. Firstly, with the internal and external decline of the Byzantine Empire, which controlled the Bulgarian kingdom, the Bulgarian Church had to bear the burden of double taxes - in favor of the state and to satisfy the greed of the collectors themselves. Being far from the capital, these officials, without any fear, plundered church property under the pretext of legal collection. Secondly, the Bulgarian Church in his time suffered a lot from hostile attacks from neighboring peoples. The barbarians, devastating the country, robbed and burned churches, plundered church property and forced the clergy to hide in forests and deserts.
During the attack on the Bulgarian kingdom of the Allurians, blessed Theophylact himself had to flee from Ohrid to Thessaloniki. The zealous archpastor, paternally sympathizing with the sorrows of the Bulgarian Church, used all the means in his hands to alleviate its disasters, and when he did not find them at home, then he turned to others for help. Very often these concerns prompted him to travel even to Constantinople to personally intercede on her behalf, and these trips always brought good results. His Constantinople friends either interceded on his affairs with the emperor, or helped the poor Bulgarian churches with their property.
Despite all the disasters that the Bulgarian Church had to experience, Blessed Theophylact never agreed to sacrifice its independence and place it under the protection of the Patriarch of Constantinople, just as even some patriarchs did. Although this would have guaranteed both himself and the Bulgarian Church great peace, he still did not want to give up its eternal rights for the sake of temporary benefits.
In order to better see the needs of the Bulgarian Church, Blessed Theophylact gathered bishops to councils and here considered everything that required correction and improvement. Here he also subjected to a general discussion what was needed for mutual consultation.
He considered convening these councils such an important duty that even illness could not keep him from fulfilling it. “I had not yet freed myself from a serious illness,” he wrote one day while preparing for a council, “when the sacred voice of church rules prompted me to convene a sacred council. The voice of Christ truly awakens from the bed, gives strength to free movement and travel, and commands the bed itself to be carried.”
Despite the fact that Blessed Theophylact was a worthy shepherd, he still had many personal enemies. Lawless collectors, heretics, disgraced shepherds - they all tried to slander him not only in Bulgaria among the people, but also in Constantinople before the emperor and patriarch.
However, as one might expect, these slanderers did not have much success anywhere. In Bulgaria, the people, although dark, but simple-hearted and sincerely religious, soon highly appreciated their worthy archpastor and therefore did not easily succumb to the slanderous suggestions of his enemies, and in Constantinople lived many of his friends, among whom was the pious Empress Maria herself, and who were good to him. they knew from his previous activities in Constantinople, they knew his truly Christian virtues and therefore always supported him in the difficult circumstances of his life.
In general, it must be said that Blessed Theophylact spent a lot of work and energy in governing the Bulgarian Church, he had to experience a lot of sorrows and troubles, but nothing defeated his apostolic zeal, which he maintained until the end of his arduous life. He died around 1107, having served as a Bulgarian bishop for about thirty years. In his letters dating back to this year, Blessed Theophylact often spoke about his ailments and illnesses, which hindered his archpastoral activities and confined him to his bed. Since among the known letters belonging to this saint, not a single one has reached us that could be attributed with full confidence to a later time than 1107, there is reason to believe that it was at this time that he died.
Blessed Theophylact is one of the most respected teachers of the Church. His works were always revered by church writers on a par with the works of other holy fathers and teachers of the Church, and some even called him a saint. This name is found in some ancient lists of his creations, as well as in early printed editions of the Blagovestnik in the Slavic language. Blessed Theophylact is also named in the “Church History” of the famous Greek writer Meletius of Athens, and our Saint Demetrius of Rostov speaks of him in his sermon “The Most Precious Pearl” as “Saint Theophylact, Archbishop of Bulgaria”, and in another place calls him “the interpreter Evangelical, Saint Theophylact." In general, Blessed Theophylact always enjoyed great respect as the father and teacher of the Church. He fully deserved this attitude towards himself, since his entire life and activities for the benefit of the Church, as we have seen, were distinguished by true apostolic zeal, and his works, written under the great influence of patristic literature, fully reflect its holy and deep character.
From the works of Blessed Theophylact, in addition to the mentioned “Discourse” against the Latins and several brief arguments against heretics, more than one hundred and thirty letters are known, several words (on the week of the veneration of the cross, on the day of the Entry into the Temple of the Blessed Virgin Mary, a word of praise to Emperor Alexei Komnenos, a word on the martyrdom of the Tiberiupol martyrs), an essay on the royal education and, finally, its interpretation:
1) for the five minor prophets - Hosea, Habakkuk, Jonah, Nahum and Micah,
2) four evangelists (“Blagovestnik”),
3) on the Acts of the Apostles,
4) on the Council Epistles,
5) on the epistles of the Apostle Paul.
The Interpretations are the most extensive and valuable work of Blessed Theophylact. He could acquire the skill to explain the Holy Scriptures even at the time when he settled in Constantinople and, with the rank of rhetorician of the Great Church, or Hagia Sophia, began to interpret the Bible for edifying purposes before the people.
Although Blessed Theophylact is not completely independent in his interpretations, being well acquainted with the patristic works and loving them, he skillfully collected from them and combined everything that was best and most essential for the understanding and interpretation of Holy Scripture.
This quality constitutes the main advantage of his interpretations, and therefore they greatly facilitate the work for anyone who would like to study the New Testament Scriptures according to the works of the holy fathers, who would like to be imbued with the truly patristic spirit of understanding the New Testament or to become acquainted with the patristic attitude towards it.
Of all the Church Fathers, the greatest influence on him was St. John Chrysostom. This was his favorite interpreter of the Holy Scriptures. He gives his interpretations in his works either literally, or by shortening them a little and inserting only partly his own expressions and some thoughts.
Of the entire interpretative works of Blessed Theophylact, the greatest is his “Good News”, or interpretation of the four Gospels. And everything that we have said about the nature of his works must be said in particular about the “Blagovestnik”. Therefore, this work can be especially recommended to anyone who is dear and interested in becoming acquainted with the true patristic interpretation of the Holy Scriptures.
Preface by the author
Those divine men who lived before the law did not learn on the basis of scriptures and books, but, having a pure mind, were enlightened by the illumination of the All-Holy Spirit, and thus recognized the commandments of God, for God Himself spoke with them mouth to mouth. Such were Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Job and Moses. When people became vicious and unworthy of being enlightened and taught by the Holy Spirit, the humane God gave the scriptures so that, at least thanks to them, they would remember the commandments of God. So Christ Himself personally spoke with the apostles and sent them the grace of the Holy Spirit as a teacher. But since heresies were to grow after that and our morals were to deteriorate, the Lord wanted the Gospels to be written so that we, having learned from their truths, would not be carried away by the lies of heresies, and so that our morals would not deteriorate completely.
The Lord gave us the four Gospels, perhaps because on the basis of them we learn the four main virtues - courage, wisdom, justice and chastity: courage, when the Lord says: “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but are not able to kill the soul” (Matthew 10, 18); wisdom, as he says: Be wise like a serpent (Matthew 10:16); justice when he teaches: “And whatever you want people to do to you, do so to them” (Luke 6:31); chastity, when he says: “Whoever looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:28). Moreover, the four Gospels exist because they are the pillars of the world. But just as the world has four sides - east, west, north and south - there had to be four pillars. Then the four Gospels also exist because they contain subjects of four kinds, namely: dogmas and commandments, threats and promises. Those who believe in the dogmas and keep the commandments are promised future benefits. Those who do not believe in the dogmas and do not keep the commandments are threatened with future punishment. The Gospel received its name because it tells us about good and joyful things for us, that is, good things, such as: remission of sins, justification, ascension to heaven, adoption by God. It also proclaims that we receive these benefits easily, because we did not work to acquire them and did not receive them for our good deeds, but by the grace and love of God we were rewarded with such great benefits.
There are four evangelists. Of these, two - Matthew and John - were from among the twelve, and the other two - I mean Mark and Luke - were from the seventy. Mark was Peter's companion and disciple, and Luke was Paul's. Matthew was the first of all to write eight years after the Ascension of Christ the Gospel in Hebrew for the Jewish believers. John is said to have translated it from Hebrew into Greek. Mark, taught by Peter, wrote the Gospel ten years after the Ascension, Luke - after fifteen, and John the Theologian - thirty-two years later. For they say that after the death of the three evangelists, three Gospels were brought to him at his request in order to examine them and discuss whether they were written correctly. John, having looked through them and received the abundant grace of truth, himself completed what they omitted, and expanded what they said briefly in his Gospel. Therefore, he began with the doctrine of God the Word. For while others did not mention the eternal existence of God the Word, he theologized about this, so that they would not think that the Word of God is simply a man, that is, alien to the Divine. Matthew speaks only of the life of Christ in the flesh, because he wrote for the Jews, for whom it was enough to know that Christ was born of Abraham and David. For the Jewish believer calms down as soon as he is convinced that Christ came from David.
But you say to me, “Wasn’t one evangelist enough?” So listen: one was enough, but in order for the truth to stand out more clearly, for this purpose four received permission to write them. And when you see that these four, although they did not meet and did not sit in one place, but were each apart, and yet wrote about the same thing as if with the same lips, then don’t you marvel at the truth of the Gospel and say, what the evangelists said by the Holy Spirit!
Don't tell me they don't agree on everything, look at what they disagree on. Did one of them say that Christ was born and the other that he was not, or did one say that Christ was resurrected and the other not? It won't happen! They agree on what is more necessary and more important. So, if they do not disagree on the most important things, then why are you surprised if they seem to disagree on the unimportant? Their truth is reflected most of all in the fact that they do not agree on everything. Otherwise they would have been thought to have written while seeing each other and consulting. Now what one omitted was written by another, which is why it seems that they sometimes contradict. And so it is. Let us begin the interpretation.
Interpretation of the Gospel of Matthew
Chapter first
1. Pedigree...
Why did not St. Matthew say “vision” or “word”, like the prophets, for they thus wrote: Vision of Isaiah
(Isaiah 1:1) or
the Word that was in the vision of Isaiah
(Isaiah 2:1)?
Do you want to know why? Because the prophets addressed the hard-hearted and rebellious, and therefore they said that this was a Divine vision and the word of God, so that the people would be afraid and not disdain what they said. Matthew spoke to the faithful, well-meaning, and obedient, and therefore did not first say anything like the prophets. I also have something else to say: what the prophets saw, they saw with their minds, contemplating it through the Holy Spirit; that's why they called it a vision. Matthew did not mentally see Christ and contemplate Him, but morally remained with Him and sensually listened to Him, contemplating Him in the flesh; therefore he did not say: “the vision that I saw,” or “contemplation,” but said: genealogy.
Jesus...
The name “Jesus” is not Greek, but Hebrew, and translated means “Savior,” for the Jews use the word “yao” to talk about salvation.
Christ...
Kings and high priests were called Christs (“Christ” in Greek means “anointed one”), for they were anointed with holy oil poured out from a horn, which was placed on their heads. The Lord is called Christ both as a King, for He reigned against sin, and as a High Priest, for He offered Himself as a sacrifice for us. He was anointed with the true oil, the Holy Spirit, and anointed above others, for who else had the Spirit like the Lord? The grace of the Holy Spirit acted in the saints, but in Christ it was not the grace of the Holy Spirit that acted, but Christ Himself, together with the Spirit of Consubstantiality with Him, performed miracles.
Son of David...
After Matthew said “Jesus,” he added “Son of David” so that you would not think that he was talking about another Jesus, for there was another famous Jesus, the leader of the Jews after Moses. But this one was called the son of Nun, and not the son of David. He lived many generations before David and was not from the tribe of Judah, from which David came, but from another.
Son of Abraham...
Why did Matthew put David before Abraham? Because David was more famous; he lived later than Abraham and was a glorious king. Of the kings, he was the first to please God and received a promise from God that Christ would arise from his seed, which is why everyone called Christ the Son of David. And David actually retained the image of Christ in himself: just as he reigned in the place of Saul, rejected by God and hated by God, so Christ came in the flesh and reigned over us after Adam lost the kingdom and power that he had over all living things and over demons .
2. Abraham gave birth to Isaac...
The evangelist begins the genealogy with Abraham because he was the father of the Jews, and because he was the first to receive the promise that through his seed all nations would be blessed (see Gen. 12:3). So, it is fitting to begin the genealogy of Christ from him, for Christ is the seed of Abraham, in whom all of us who were pagans and were formerly under the curse were blessed. “Abraham” in translation means “father of tongues”, and “Isaac” means “joy”, “laughter”. The Evangelist does not mention the illegitimate children of Abraham, for example, Ishmael and others, because the Jews did not descend from them, but from Isaac.
Isaac gave birth to Jacob; Jacob gave birth to Judah and his brothers.
You see that Matthew mentioned Judas and his brothers because the twelve tribes came from them.
3. Judah fathered Perez and Zerah by Tamar.
Judah gave Tamar in marriage to Er, one of his sons; when this one died childless, he married her to Ainan, who was also his son. When this one also lost his life for his shame, Judas no longer united her in marriage with anyone. But she, strongly desiring to have children from Abraham’s seed, put aside the clothes of widowhood, took on the form of a harlot, mixed with her father-in-law and conceived two twin children from him. When the time came for the birth, the first of the sons showed his hand from his spoon, as if he would be the first to be born. The midwife immediately marked the child's hand with a red thread so that he could recognize who would be born first. But the child carried his hand into the womb, and first another baby was born, and then the one who first showed his hand. Therefore, the one born first was called Pharez, which means “break,” because he disturbed the natural order, and the one who carried away the hand was called Zara. This story points to some mystery. Just as Zara first showed his hand, and then drew her away again, so did life in Christ: it was revealed in the saints who lived before the law and circumcision, for all of them were not justified by keeping the law and commandments, but by the life of the gospel. Look at Abraham, who for the sake of God left his father and home and renounced his nature. Look at Job, Melchizedek. But when the law came, such a life was hidden, and just as there, after the birth of Perez, later Zara came out of the womb again, so after the giving of the law, the life of the gospel later shone forth, sealed with a red thread, that is, the blood of Christ. The Evangelist mentioned these two babies because their birth meant something mysterious. In addition, although Tamar apparently does not deserve praise for intermingling with her father-in-law, the evangelist also mentioned her in order to show that Christ, who accepted everything for our sake, also accepted such ancestors. More precisely: in order to sanctify them by the fact that He Himself was born of them, for He came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance
(Matt. 9:13).
3–5. Perez begat Hezrom; Hezrom begat Aram; Aram gave birth to Abminadab; Amminadab begat Nahshon; Nahshon begat Salmon; Salmon fathered Boaz by Rahab.
Some think that Rahab is that Rahab the harlot who received Joshua’s spies (see Joshua 2:1-21): she saved them and was saved herself. Matthew mentioned her in order to show that just as she was a harlot, so was the whole assembly of the Gentiles, for they committed fornication in their deeds. But those of the pagans who accepted the spies of Jesus, that is, the apostles, and believed in their words, these were all saved.
5. Boaz fathered Obed by Ruth.
This Ruth was a foreigner; nevertheless she married Boaz. So the church of the pagans, being a foreigner and outside the covenants, forgot its people and the veneration of idols, and its father the devil, and the Son of God took her as a wife.
5–6. Obed begat Jesse; Jesse begat David king; King David begat Solomon from Urieh's daughter.
And Matthew mentions Uriah’s wife here for the purpose of showing that one should not be ashamed of one’s ancestors, but most of all try to glorify them with one’s virtue, and that everyone is pleasing to God, even if they were descended from a harlot, if only they have virtue.
7-11. Solomon begat Rehoboam; Rehoboam gave birth to Abijah; Abijah begat Asa; Asa begat Jehoshaphat; Jehoshaphat begat Joram; Jehoram begat Uzziah; Uzziah begat Jotham; Jotham begat Ahaz; Ahaz begat Hezekiah; Hezekiah begat Manasseh; Manasseh begat Amon; Amon gave birth to Josiah; Josiah begat Joachim; Joachim gave birth to Jeconiah and his brothers before moving to Babylon.
The Babylonian migration is the name given to the captivity that the Jews later suffered when they were taken all together to Babylon. The Babylonians fought with them at other times, but they embittered them more moderately, and then they completely resettled them from their fatherland.
12
-16.
After moving to Babylon, Jeconiah gave birth to Salathiel;
Shealtiel begat Zerubbabel; Zerubbabel begat Abihu; Abihu begat Eliakim; Eliakim begat Azor; Azor begat Zadok; Zadok gave birth to Achim; Achim begat Eliud; Elihu begat Eleazar; Eleazar begat Matthan; Matthan gave birth to Jacob; Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, from whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. Why is the genealogy of Joseph given here, and not of the Virgin Mary? What part did Joseph have in that seedless birth? After all, Joseph was not the true father of Christ, so that the genealogy of Christ could be traced from Joseph. So, listen: indeed, Joseph did not have any participation in the birth of Christ, and therefore had to give the genealogy of the Mother of God; but since there was a law - not to conduct genealogy through the female line (see Numbers 36: 2-9), Matthew did not give the genealogy of the Virgin. Moreover, having given the genealogy of Joseph, he also gave Her genealogy, for the law was not to take wives either from another tribe, or from another clan or surname, but from the same tribe and clan. Since there was such a law, it is clear that if the genealogy of Joseph is given, then the genealogy of the Mother of God is also given, for the Mother of God was from the same tribe and the same family; if not, then how could She be betrothed to him? Thus, the evangelist complied with the law, which forbade genealogy through the female line, but, nevertheless, gave the genealogy of the Virgin Mary, giving the genealogy of Joseph. He called him Mary’s husband according to the general custom, for we have the custom of calling the betrothed the husband of the betrothed, although the marriage has not yet been consummated.
17. So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David to the deportation to Babylon, fourteen generations; and from the migration to Babylon to Christ there are fourteen generations.
St. Matthew divided the clans into three parts to show the Jews that whether they were under the government of judges, as it was before David, or under the government of kings, as it was before the exile, or under the government of high priests, as it was before the coming of Christ, - they received no benefit from this in relation to virtue and needed a true judge, king and high priest, who is Christ. For when the kings ceased, according to the prophecy of Jacob, Christ came (see Gen. 49:10). But how is it possible that from the Babylonian migration to Christ there are fourteen generations, when there are only thirteen of them? If the genealogy could include a woman, then we would include Mary and complete the number. But woman is not included in the genealogy. How can this be resolved? Some say that Matthew counted the migration as a face.
18. The birth of Jesus Christ was like this: after the betrothal of His Mother Mary to Joseph.
Why did God allow Mary to be betrothed, and, in general, why did He give people reason to suspect that Joseph knew Her? So that She has a protector in misfortunes. For he cared for Her during the flight into Egypt and saved Her. At the same time, She was betrothed in order to hide Her from the devil. The devil, having heard that the Virgin would be pregnant, would watch Her. So, in order for the liar to be deceived, the Ever-Virgin becomes engaged to Joseph. The marriage was only in appearance, but in reality it did not exist.
Before they were united, it turned out that She was pregnant with the Holy Spirit.
The word “combine” here means intercourse. Before they were united, Mary conceived, which is why the amazed evangelist exclaims: it turned out -
as if talking about something extraordinary.
19. Joseph, Her husband, being righteous and not wanting to make Her public, wanted to secretly let Her go.
How was Joseph righteous? While the law commands the adulteress to be exposed, that is, to be reported and punished, he intended to conceal the sin and break the law. The question is resolved, first of all, in the sense that already through this very thing Joseph was righteous. He did not want to be harsh, but, loving mankind in his great kindness, he shows himself above the law and lives above the commandments of the law. Then, Joseph himself knew that Mary conceived from the Holy Spirit, and therefore did not want to expose and punish the One who conceived from the Holy Spirit, and not from an adulterer. For look what the Evangelist says: “It turned out that She was with child from the Holy Spirit.” For whom did it “turn out”? For Joseph, that is, he learned that Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit. That is why I wanted to secretly let Her go, as if not daring to have as a wife the One Who had been honored with such great grace.
20. But when he thought this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said...
When the righteous man hesitated, an angel appeared, teaching him what he should do. It appears to him in a dream because Joseph had strong faith. The Angel spoke to the shepherds as rude in reality, but to Joseph as righteous and faithful, in a dream. How could he not believe when the Angel taught him what he reasoned with himself and what he did not tell anyone? When he was thinking, but did not tell anyone, an Angel appeared to him. Of course, Joseph believed that this was from God, for only God knows the unspeakable.
David
Theophylact further reports that as soon as Matthew said “Jesus,” he added “Son of David” so that you would not think that he was talking about another Jesus. After all, in those days there lived another outstanding Jesus, the second leader of the Jews after Moses. But this one was not called the son of David, but the son of Joshua. He lived much earlier than David and was not born from the tribe of Judah, from which David appeared, but from another.
Why did Matthew place David before Abraham? Yes, because David was more famous: he lived later than Abraham and was known as a magnificent king. Of the rulers, he was the first to please the Lord and received a promise from him, saying that Christ would arise from his seed, which is why Christ was called the Son of David.
David truly preserved the image of Christ in himself: just as he reigned in the place of Seoul, abandoned by the Lord and hated, so Christ came in the flesh and reigned over us after Adam lost his kingdom and the power that he had over demons and all living things.
Abraham gave birth to Isaac (Matthew 1:2)
Further, Theophylact explains that Abraham was the father of the Jews. That is why the evangelist begins his genealogy with him. In addition, Abraham was the first to receive the promise: it was said that “all nations will be blessed from his seed.”
Of course, it would be more decent to begin the genealogical tree of Christ with him, for Christ is Abraham’s seed, in whom we all receive grace, who were pagans and were previously under the curse.
In general, Abraham is translated as “father of tongues”, and Isaac is translated as “laughter”, “joy”. It is interesting that the evangelist does not write about the illegitimate descendants of Abraham, for example, about Ishmael and others, since the Jews did not descend from them, but from Isaac. By the way, Matthew mentioned Judas and his brothers because the twelve tribes descended from them.
Explanations of the Gospel of John
Now let’s look at how Theophylact of Bulgaria interpreted the Gospel of John. He wrote that the power of the Holy Spirit, both as indicated (2 Cor. 12:9), and as we believe, is accomplished in weakness. But not only in the weakness of the body, but also of eloquence and mind. As proof, he cited the example that grace showed on the brother of Christ and the great theologian.
His father was a fisherman. John himself hunted in the same way as his father. Not only was he unable to obtain a Jewish and Greek education, but he was not a scholar at all. This information is reported about him by Saint Luke in Acts (Acts 4:13). His fatherland was considered the poorest and most ignorant - it was a village in which they were engaged in fishing, not science. He was born in Bethsaida.
The evangelist is surprised at what kind of Spirit this illiterate, ignoble, and in no way outstanding man was able to receive. After all, he announced something that none of the other evangelists taught us.
It should be noted that since they preach the good news about the incarnation of Christ, and do not say anything practical about His eternal existence, there is a danger that the people, attached to earthly things and unable to think about anything lofty, will think that Christ began His Existence only after that , as Mary gave birth to him, and his father did not give birth to him before the ages.
This is precisely the error that Paul of Samosata fell into. That is why the illustrious John proclaimed the birth above, mentioning, however, the birth of the Word. For he proclaims: “And the word became flesh” (John 1:14).
Another amazing situation is revealed to us in this John the Evangelist. Namely: he is the only one, and has three mothers: his native Salome, thunder, for for his immeasurable voice in the Gospel he is the “son of thunder” (Mark 3:17), and the Mother of God. Why Mother of God? Yes, because it is said: “Behold, your Mother!” (John 19:27).
How is this Gospel different from others?
The original version of the text was written in Aramaic, unlike the rest of the books, which were in Greek. However, the original was very quickly lost, and the Greek translated version entered the canon.
In this text, the activities of Christ during His earthly life are considered in the following contexts:
- Prophet;
- High Priest;
- Legislator.
As in other parts of the Bible, Matthew focuses specifically on the features of the new teachings of Jesus Christ for the Jews. Despite the great similarity with the remaining synoptic Gospels, it is in the text from Matthew that we can see unique stories:
- healing of blindness of two people;
- liberation from the possession of a mute demoniac;
- a story about a fish with a coin inside.
The parable of the sower is recorded in chapter 13 of the Gospel of Matthew.
Since in all the Gospels many meanings are conveyed through the language of parables, the holy Apostle Matthew also gives similar stories, namely:
- a parable about a feast at a wedding festival;
- a parable about the use of talents;
- the parable of the vineyard and many others.
The Word was in the beginning (John 1:1)
So, let us further study the interpretation of the Gospel of Theophylact of Bulgaria. What the evangelist said in the preface, he repeats now: while other theologians talk at length about the birth of the Lord on Earth, his upbringing and growth, John ignores these events, since his fellow disciples have said quite a lot about them. He only talks about the Divinity becoming human among us.
However, if you look closely, you can see how, although they did not hide the information about the Divinity of the Only Begotten, they still mentioned it a little, and John, fixing his gaze on the word of the Most High, emphasized the economy of the incarnation. For the souls of all are guided by one Spirit.
Isn’t it true that the interpretation of the Gospel of Theophylact of Bulgaria is very interesting to study? We continue to get acquainted with this wonderful work. What is John telling us? He tells us about the Son and about the Father. He points to the endless existence of the Only Begotten when he states: “The Word was in the beginning,” that is, from the beginning. For what came from the beginning will certainly not have a time whenever it is not found.
“How,” some will ask, “can we determine that the phrase “in the beginning was” means the same thing as from the beginning?” Really, where? Both from the very understanding of the general, and from this theologian himself. For in one of his manuscripts he says: “that which was from the beginning, which we... saw” (1 John 1:1).
The interpretation of Theophylact of Bulgaria is very unusual. He asks us if we see how the chosen one explains himself? And he writes that the questioner will say so. But he understands this “in the beginning” in the same way as in Moses: “God created in the beginning” (Gen. 1:1). Just as there the phrase “in the beginning” does not give the understanding that heaven is eternal, so here he does not want to define the word “in the beginning” as if the Only Begotten is infinite. Of course, only heretics say that. In response to this crazy insistence, we have no choice but to say: sage of malice! Why are you keeping silent about what follows? But we will say this even against your will!
In general, the interpretation of Theophylact of Bulgaria leads to various thoughts about existence. For example, Moses says that first God created the heavenly and earthly firmament, but here it is said that in the beginning “there was” the Word. What is similar between “created” and “was”? If it had been written here, “God in the beginning created the Son,” the evangelist would have remained silent. But now, after it is said “in the beginning it was,” he concludes that the word has existed from eternity, and did not come into existence over time, as many people talk idle talk.
Isn’t it true that the interpretation of Theophylact of Bulgaria is exactly the work that you read? So, why did John not say that “in the beginning was the Son,” but “the Word”? The Evangelist claims that he speaks this because of the weakness of the listeners, so that we, having heard about the Son from the very beginning, would not think about a carnal and passionate birth. This is why I called Him “the Word,” so that you would know that just as a word is born dispassionately from the mind, so He is born imperturbably from the father.
And one more explanation: he called him “the Word” because He told us about the qualities of the father, just as any word announces the disposition of the spirit. And together so that we can see that He is coeternal with the Father. For just as it is impossible to say that the mind very often exists without words, so the Father and God cannot be without the Son.
In general, the interpretation of Theophylact of Bulgaria shows that John used this expression because there are many different words of God, for example, commandments, prophecies, just as it is said about the angels: “with mighty strength, those who do His will” (Ps. 103:20), that is His commands. But it must be noted that the word is a personal being.
accomplished by the Savior, and a constant listener of His instructions. Information about his future life can be found in several ancient Christian writers. Thus, Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius testify that in the period after the ascension of Jesus Christ and before the destruction of Jerusalem, Matthew preached the Gospel to the Jews in Palestine. He then left Palestine and spread Christianity to other countries. Information about the extra-Palestinian activities of the Apostle Matthew is extremely scarce. According to this information, he preached the Gospel in Ethiopia, Macedonia, Persia and other Asian countries and died a martyr's death in Hierapolis, Phrygia or Persia.
It has been historically proven that the first Gospel was written by Matthew in the year 42 after the birth of Christ. According to the testimony of Papias, a disciple of the Apostle John, Matthew wrote down the teachings and life of Jesus Christ in Hebrew, or more precisely, Aramaic. Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius, Jerome and others testify to the Jewish original of the Gospel of Matthew. All of these ancient writers themselves used the Gospel of Matthew in Greek. Many theologians believe that the Apostle Matthew some time later translated his Aramaic Gospel into Greek with some additions for the pagans.
From the Gospel itself we can conclude that its author was a Palestinian Jew: he is well acquainted with the Old Testament, the geography of Palestine, the history and customs of his people. Matthew as the author of the first Gospel is also indicated by the fact that in the list of the apostles of this Gospel there is Matthew. 10:3 his name is marked with the word “publican”; this indicates the deep humility of the author, for publicans were despised by the Jews because of their far from honorable work - collecting taxes or taxes.
It is believed that Matthew wrote his Gospel for the Jews, Mark for the Romans, Luke for the Greeks, and John for the Church; at the same time, all four Gospels are intended to be a message of salvation in Christ. The Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke are usually called the Synoptic Gospels. “Synoptic” comes from two Greek words that mean “to see together.” Consequently, the above-mentioned Gospels received this name because they describe the same events in the life of Jesus Christ. Matthew begins the story with Abraham, Mark with Malachi, Luke with John the Baptist, and John with God Himself.
The Gospel of Matthew contains: nine beatitudes, eight “woe to you,” seven successive miracles, five long sermons, four prophecies about the death of Christ. The seventh chapter of Matthew is a continuation of the Sermon on the Mount of the Lord Jesus Christ. This is green pasture, these are four rivers of living water. Preacher D. Moody loved this chapter and left some notes for us. In this chapter we have: two gates - wide and narrow; two roads - narrow and spacious; two classes of people - the many and the few; two destinies - life and death; two trees - good and bad; two fruits - good and bad; two bases - stone and sand; two builders - wise and foolish; two houses; two storms.
The goal of the Evangelist Matthew was to present the history of salvation in such a way as to show that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, the promised Messiah, the King of the Jews, whom his own people rejected, but the pagans accepted. Matthew's Jesus Christ is the rejected and coming King and the Messiah predicted by the prophets.
The most important events about the life of Jesus Christ were foreshadowed, therefore it is often repeated in this Gospel: “This happened, that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled...” - Matt. 1.22; 2.15. The Gospel of Matthew contains references to 65 passages from the Old Testament, and 45 sayings are given verbatim, that is, as many as there are quotations in the other three Gospels combined. The author shows that in Jesus of Nazareth the whole meaning of the Pentateuch, the prophets and the psalms.
Matthew's method of presentation is special. His work as a tax collector in the past taught him to be neat and orderly. In presenting the story of redemption, the author does not always follow a chronological sequence, but groups together similar events and sermons to enhance their significance. So, for example, in one of the chapters he placed seven of the fourteen parables mentioned in the Gospel, and in another chapter he combined ten miracles out of the twenty given. The teachings of Christ are combined into five sermons: the Sermon on the Mount - chapters 5-7, the Lord's teaching to the apostles - chapter 10, parables about the Kingdom of Heaven - chapter 13, the denunciation of the Pharisees - chapter 23, prophetic predictions about His second coming — 24-25th chapters.
Evangelist Luke, who follows chronological order, can be compared to a botanist who, walking through a meadow, gradually collects all the flowers he comes across. Matthew prefers to select flowers according to their beauty and type, then arranging beautiful bouquets from them.
The main idea in the Gospel of Matthew: The Messiah is the Savior of the world. Matthew does not speak about the ascension of Jesus Christ to heaven, he seems to leave Him on earth. And he ends his story with the words of Jesus Christ: “Behold, I am with you always, even to the end of the age” - Matt. 28.20.
Let us study the Gospel of Matthew, and in it we will certainly find our personal Savior!
Explanations on the Epistle to the Romans of the Blessed Apostle Paul
The evangelist's interpretation of the New Testament encourages people to continually read the scriptures. This leads to knowledge of them, for He who says: seek and you will find, knock and it will be opened to you cannot lie (Matthew 7:7). Thanks to this, we come into contact with the secrets of the messages of the blessed Apostle Paul, but we need to read these messages carefully and constantly.
It is known that this apostle surpassed everyone in the word of teaching. This is correct, because he worked more than anyone else and acquired the generous blessing of the Spirit. By the way, this can be seen not only from his epistles, but also from the Apostolic Acts, where it is said that because of his ideal word, unbelievers nicknamed him Hermes (Acts 14:12).
The interpretation of Blessed Theophylact of Bulgaria reveals to us the following nuances: the Epistle to the Romans is offered to us first, not because they think that it was written before other messages. Thus, before the Letters to the Romans, both messages to the Corinthians were written, and before them the Epistle to the Thessalonians was written, in which Blessed Paul, with praise, points out to them the alms sent to Jerusalem (1 Thess. 4:9-10; cf. 2 Cor. 9:2).
In addition, before the letter to the Romans, the letter to the Galatians was also written. Despite this, the interpretation of the Holy Gospel tells us that the Epistle to the Romans was the very first created among other epistles. Why is it in first place? Yes, because Divine Scripture does not need chronological order. Likewise, the twelve soothsayers, if we list them in the order in which they are placed in the sacred books, do not follow each other in time, but are separated by a colossal distance.
And Paul writes to the Romans only because he bore the duty of performing Christ’s sacred service. In addition, the Romans were considered the leaders of the universe, for whoever benefits the head has a beneficial effect on the rest of the body.
Interpretation of Holy Scripture by Theophylact of Bulgaria
It is known that Theophylact was a great theologian. He interpreted the holy letter. It should be noted that throughout his life he spent quite a lot of time working on various church literature, among which the interpretation of the Old and New Testaments, as well as interpretations of the Epistles of St. Paul, are extremely popular:
- to the Galatians;
- to Timothy;
- to the Thessalonians;
- to Titus;
- to the Corinthians;
- Ephesians and much more.
The interpretation of Theophylact of Bulgaria on the acts of the holy apostles is described in the book “The Acts of the Holy Apostles.”
The title of the book reveals its entire essence. The blessed one led only the interpretation of the letter, and the evangelist Luke himself was the narrator. He was from Antioch, and was a companion to many of the apostles, and his main activity was healing. The book describes how Jesus Christ ascended to heaven and the appearance of angels. The evangelist also described how the Holy Spirit descended and how seven deacons were chosen.
The best article for you, go to: Protestants, how they differ from Orthodox Christians
The book gives a lot of information about the Apostle Peter and his difficulties in life. Luke did not ignore all the miraculous acts of the apostles, because each of them helped the common people during their lifetime. They healed illnesses and helped all people in need in difficult and hopeless moments.
Since the book belongs to church and spiritual literature, it will be difficult for a simple Orthodox believer to understand it. Because such literature has a special type of presentation. So that every believer could be enlightened and study the holy books of Letters, the theologian and preacher Theophylact of Bulgaria interpreted them.
Thus, spiritual culture has become much clearer and more accessible. You can buy the letter in any icon shop. It is aimed at a wide circle of Orthodox readers and is guaranteed to bring only positive changes in the life of everyone who reads it.
God bless you!
Paul (Rom. 1:1)
Many perceive the evangelist of Theophylact of Bulgaria as a life guide. It really is a very valuable work. By the way, he says that neither Moses, nor the evangelists, nor anyone after him wrote their names before their own writings, but the Apostle Paul indicates his name before each of his epistles. This nuance occurs because the majority wrote for those who lived with them, but he sent messages from afar and, according to custom, made a rule for the distinctive qualities of the messages.
It should be noted that in Hebrews he does not do this. After all, they hated him, and therefore, so that when they heard his name they would not stop listening to him, they hid their name from the very beginning.
Why did he rename himself from Saul to Paul? So that he would not be inferior to the highest of the apostles, called Cephas, which means “stone,” or the sons of Zebedee, called Boanerges, that is, the sons of thunder.
