The essay “Christ is born, - glorify! Christ from heaven, - meet!” About the human nature of our Lord Jesus Christ Aspect of death as separation from God

Composition

CHECK WORK No. 1
Bring evidence from the Holy Scriptures that the Lord Jesus Christ is true God by nature (testimony of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself).
After healing the paralytic on the Sabbath, the Jews reproach Him for disturbing the peace, to which Jesus replies: “My Father works until now, and I work” (John 5:17). In response, the Jews “sought even more to kill Him,” because He makes “Himself equal with God” (John 5:18). Without denying this, Jesus Christ affirms His equality with the Father:

“What He does, the Son also does also” (John 5:19);

“Just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so the Son gives life to whomever He wants” (John 5:21);

“The Father does not judge anyone, but has given all judgment to the Son, so that everyone may honor the Son as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him” (John 5: 22-23);

“As the Father has life in Himself, so He gave to the Son to have life in Himself” (John 5:26).

In addition, the very miracles performed by Jesus testify to His divinity (John 5: 36; 15: 24) and unity with the Father (John 10: 30,38).

Jesus repeatedly quotes Scripture that announced the coming Messiah. The Jews trusted in the letter of the Law as the source of eternal life, but Scripture only points to this source, which is Christ (John 5:39), who, like the Father, is able to give “eternal life” (John 10:38) to His sheep.

Jesus Himself assigns to Himself properties inherent only in the Divine:

Eternity (“before Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58); “And now glorify Me, Father, with You, with the glory that I had with You before the world was” (John 17:5)) ;

Omniscience (“As the Father knows Me, so I know the Father” (John 10:15); turning to Nathanael, Jesus says: “Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you” (John 1 : 48; see John 4: 17.50));

Christ is the “bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world” (John 6:33), the “bread of life” (John 6:48), the fountain of life, from which flows the water “flowing into eternal life” (John 4 : 14; 5: 24.40) . It is His will to resurrect man “at the last day” (John 6:40) and give him “eternal life” (John 10:28; 11:25).

Christ speaks more than once about the closest, exclusive relationship with the Father, unique to anyone else: “All things have been handed over to Me by My Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father; and no one knows the Father except the Son, and to whom the Son wants to reveal it” (Matthew 11:27).

One of the most common names of Jesus Christ in the body of Holy Scripture is 0 Son of God. At the trial of Caiaphas, in the face of impending death, Christ confesses Himself as the Son of God (Mark 14:62). Throughout His earthly ministry, He invariably demonstrates His unity with the Heavenly Father in word and deed (Matthew 7:21; 10:33; 18:35), calling Himself “the only begotten Son” (John 3:16), i.e. . To those whose place in the universe is exclusive and unique by definition, “by the true God of the true God.”

How do you understand the terms nature (essence) and hypostasis (person)?

We owe the introduction of a clear distinction and contrast between “hypostasis” and nature to the Cappadocian fathers. “Essence” and “hypostasis” were already known to Origen and St. Dionysius of Alexandria, but at the same time the imperfection of dogmatic formulations led to a violation of “not only the unity of being, but also the unity of honor and glory.” During the formation of Trinitarian theology, the terms “upostasiz” and “ousia” were almost synonymous, for example in Aristotle, whose metaphysical scheme was taken by St. Basil the Great for the philological basis of the doctrine of Pr. In the Trinity, the term “primary ousia” meant individual existence, and “hypostasis” meant simply existence. In the 4th century. There was an urgent need to contrast the emerging false teachings with a coherent theological system with an original conceptual vocabulary. And the emergence of trinitarian terminology served as the starting point for the development of Christological teaching, and therefore the solution of the anthropological question.

Therefore, the terms “hypostasis” and “essence”, worn out by long philosophical and everyday use, needed to be filled with new meaning. St. The Fathers understand by “essence” “a general or generic being” inherent in all representatives of a given genus, without exception; “such, for example, is the name: man. For he who uttered this word meant by this name the general nature, but did not by this saying define any one person, actually signified by this man,” says St. Basil the Great. This is “what is” in contrast to the concrete image of the existence of nature - “as is”. The means, method and way of existence of nature is determined by hypostasis. This includes private character traits, applicable to one single person. Hypostasis is what is actually named and thereby breaks out from the general mass of the faceless natural material.

“The name of the “entity” outlines a certain circle of characteristic definitions.” The hypostases break this circle into sectors by increasing the number of characteristics that are unique to a given individual and do not apply to the entire race.

Due to the fragmentation of human nature, the human hypostasis comes closer to the concept of “individual”. To describe the divine existence, “hypostasis” must be limited both from the “modus” - the three-faced face of the one God, and from the “individual” - indivisible - who lays claim to the sole ownership of his nature, because Here we are talking about the trinity. None of the Hypostases, fully possessing Its divine nature, snatches it from the trinity or interrupts the flow of mutual communication. Therefore, with the absolute unity of the Three in the possession of an indivisible simple nature that fully belongs to Each, personal creative being, based on absolute unconditional hypostatic difference, is most truly and fully manifested.

Give evidence from Holy Scripture about the sinlessness of the Savior.

From Christian ponirology it is known that sin is disobedience to the will of God, and since It is in Him that all the contradictions of this world are resolved, then it is unnecessary to talk about the possibility of Him violating His all-good will.

But after the Incarnation, the question arises: to what extent did the Lord Jesus Christ control his human nature, to what extent in Christ is the human will subordinated to the will of God. All these doubts are contained in Christ’s rhetorical question to the Jews: “Which of you will convict Me of unrighteousness?” (John 8:46) . Throughout His earthly life, the Lord was subjected to external temptations and overcame them (Matt. 4: 1-11; Matt. 16:21-23; John 7: 5; Luke 20: 22-25; Matt. 11: 3; Matthew 27: 42, etc.), demonstrating complete submission of His human will to the will of God.

Christ Himself speaks more than once about non-involvement in sin. Before the suffering of the cross, Christ testifies: “The prince of this world comes, and has nothing in me” (John 14:30) - the devilish rust that eats away the world has not touched the Savior, who came into the world to sanctify it with His redemptive deed. Jesus' closest disciple Peter says about the Lord: “He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in His mouth” (1 Pet. 2:22). John the Baptist, bowing before Jesus, calls Him “the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). The Lamb is a symbol of pristine perfection and purity (1 John 3:3), Christ, according to the apostle. Peter, “a spotless and spotless lamb” (1 Pet. 1: 19) and only such can bear and atone for the sins of mankind: “You know that He appeared to take away our sins, and that in Him there is no sin “, says the apostle (1 John 3:5). The apostle also testifies to the same thing. Paul: “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Cor. 5:21).

The sinlessness of the Savior is also recognized by people who did not know Him closely: Pilate, following his wife, calls Him “Righteous” (Matthew 27:19,24), the Jews respect Him, calling Him Teacher (Matthew 22:16), Judas, who had received his sight, recognizes his sin and the innocence of the Savior (Matthew 27:4). Cornelius the centurion, having witnessed the suffering of Jesus, “glorified God and said: “Truly this man was a righteous man” (Luke 23:47).

An image of the union of natures in a single Hypostasis of the Lord Jesus Christ. The meaning of the terms: unmerged, inseparable.

God the Word, after the incarnation of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, became a true man in everything like us, except for sin, without at the same time separating from His Divine nature. Jesus is both fully God and man, therefore He has the right to say that “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30) and that “My Father is greater than Me” (John 14:28). Oros of the Council of Chalcedon 451. confesses “one and the same Christ, the Only Begotten Son of the Lord, in two natures.” Moreover, the properties of His human nature are absolutely identical to us, with the exception of sinful corruption, and at the same time everything that relates to God refers to Jesus Christ.

“Double consubstantiality” of the God-Man - to the Father according to Divinity; and to the human race after humanity” is united in one Divine Hypostasis (1 Cor. 8: 6; Eph. 4: 5-6). That. The “hypostatic nature” of man is hypostaticized by God the Word. And in Christ there is one Person, one Face - the Face of God. How in the Son of Man there are simultaneously limited, created humanity, identical to Adam’s nature before the Fall, and absolute Deity is “the mystery of godliness” (1 Tim. 3:16).

But Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition tell us that the Blood of Jesus is the Blood of God (Acts 20:28); The Lord from heaven is the second man after Adam (1 Cor 15:47); God the Son died (Rom. 5:10), and the Son of Man “ascended into heaven” (John 3:13); A baby in a manger is beginningless and pre-eternal.

“Nonmergence” in the oros of the IV Ecumenical Council refers to the relationship between the two natures of Christ, present in Him without any mixing, interpenetration and transformation into another, third “Theanthropic” nature; without the dissolution of humanity in the boundless Divinity according to the teachings of the Monophysites.

At the same time, we confess the inseparability of two natures, which are united in the single Divine Hypostasis of Jesus Christ. And there is not only man or only God Jesus. This is one Person who feels himself to be both God and man at the same time.

God the Word, having descended into the bosom of the Virgin Mary, formed for Himself animate human flesh. And from this moment our nature eternally and continuously abides in God and is always enriched by “Divine powers”. “The Flesh of the Lord,” without losing any of its own properties, became a participant in Divine dignity, and not nature. “The flesh, with deification, was not destroyed, “but remained in its own limit.”

The sixth ecumenical council, 680, determined to confess two wills in Christ and two actions: “two natural wills not contrary to one another, but His human will subsequent - not opposing, but completely subordinated - to His Divine and omnipotent will.”

Accordingly, the human will in Christ, like His humanity, “did not change into the Divine and was not destroyed, but remained whole and active. The Lord completely subordinated her to the Divine will, which He has one with the will of the Father” (John 6:38).

According to the teachings of Rev. I. Damascus, the transformed humanity of Christ, remaining “intact” and “unmixed,” was enriched by Divine actions. In Christ, it is precisely the enrichment of humanity that takes place without depriving it of its natural properties. “For even after the union, both the natures remained unmixed and their properties undamaged... For red-hot iron burns, possessing the power of burning not as a result of a natural property, but acquiring this from its connection with fire” - an image that gives an idea of ​​​​what happened on Tabor - then the body of Jesus shone with uncreated divine light, while remaining real human flesh.

Why did Nestorius refuse to call the Virgin Mary the Mother of God? What is his mistake?

The theology of Nestorius is a logical continuation of the teachings of the Antiochian theologians Diodorus and Theodore of Mopsuetia, the essence of which can be characterized as anthropological maximalism. Nestorius outlined his system of views in a work written in exile after excommunication - in the “Book of Heraclitus”. Here all attention is focused on the moral feat of the man Jesus Christ. By his asceticism and victory over temptations, He earned the favor of the Trinitarian God. “When He completed the feat of self-improvement among all kinds of temptations,” writes Nestorius, “He acts for our sake and works to save us from the dominance of the tyrant.” That is, Christ, in his opinion, is a kind of Buddhist Bodhisattva who has achieved enlightenment, but does not go to Nirvana because of love for perishing humanity.

Nestorius' error stemmed from an incorrect vision of the image of the union of Divinity and humanity in Jesus Christ. His Christology is based on the central concept introduced by Nestorius himself - “natural person”. For him, only the individual beginning is real; the general and the generic, nature or Aristotle’s “second essence” are abstract concepts, ousia and hypostasis are inseparable. Therefore, in Christ there must exist two individuals, two personal natures, united in moral, volitional unity. Nestorius has such a concept as “unity of the economic entity,” but this unity is a consequence of the union of “natural persons.” Here, the face does not mean the innermost essence and ultimate goal of the existence of the world, not the center and meaning of the universe, but only “ entity", "role" and even a guise, a mask." Therefore, Christ cannot be the God-man; the abstract, from the point of view of Nestorius, natures of man and God cannot be united in one Divine Hypostasis.

Being completely consistent in his conclusions, Nestorius had every right to repeat the words of his predecessor Theodore of Mopsuetia: “It is madness to say that God was born of the Virgin, he who is from the seed of David was born of the Virgin.” Mary can not be called the “Mother of the Lord” (Luke 1: 41-43), but only the Mother of Christ, the Mother of Man, who gave birth to Emmanuel - the “temple of the Divinity.” God the Son is born from the Father, and not from Mary, i.e. the baby Jesus is not God, but a temple prepared for the descent and incarnation of the Word. God the Son is not “born of a woman” (Gal. 4:4), the great “mystery of godliness: God appeared in the flesh” (1 Tim. 3:16) was debunked by Nestorius. Nestorius's soteriology is minimized and reduced to moral and volitional human efforts following Jesus Christ. Nestorius could not speak about the perception of human nature by God, about “deification” as the meaning of Christian life. According to the teachings of St. Cyril of Alexandria, the great fighter against Nestorianism, human nature was healed from the ulcer of sin, sanctified and deprived of corruption precisely through the headship of the one Divine Hypostasis of the Lord Jesus Christ. The path of salvation for humanity lies through communion with the life-giving flesh of Christ, with the deified human nature, perceived by God the Word and abiding “at the right hand of the Father.”

Two doctrines to which the patristic period can be said to have made a decisive contribution are related to the Person of Jesus Christ (a branch of theology which, as we have already noted, is usually called "Christology") and His Divine nature. They are organically connected with each other. By 325, that is, by the First Ecumenical (Nicene) Council, the early Church came to the conclusion that Jesus is “consubstantial” ( homoousios) to God. (Term " homoousios" can also be translated as "one in essence" or "consubstantial" - English, con-substantial). This Christological statement soon took on a double meaning. First, it firmly established on an intellectual level the spiritual importance of Jesus Christ to Christians. Secondly, however, it has come to pose a serious threat to simplistic concepts of God. If Jesus is accepted as being “of the same substance as God,” then the entire doctrine of God will require rethinking in the light of this creed. Exactly because of this reason, historical development The doctrine of the Trinity refers to the period immediately after the achievement of a Christological consensus in the Christian Church. Theological reflection and debate on the nature of God could only begin after the Divinity of Jesus Christ became the generally accepted starting point for all Christians.

It should be noted that Christological debates took place mainly in the Eastern Mediterranean world and were conducted in Greek, often in the light of the underlying premises of the main ancient Greek schools of thought. In practice, this meant that many of the central terms of the Christological debates in the early church were Greek; these were often terms that were used in the pagan Greek philosophical tradition.

The main features of patristic Christology will be discussed in some detail in the ninth chapter of this book, to which we refer the reader. At this early stage of the study, however, we can note the main milestones of the patristic Christological controversy in the form of two schools, two controversies and two councils.

1 Schools. The Alexandrian school emphasized the Divinity of Jesus Christ and interpreted this Divinity as "the Word made flesh." The biblical text that acquired central significance for representatives of this school was the words from the verse John 1.14: “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.” This emphasis on the idea of ​​the Incarnation led to the feast of the Nativity being considered especially important. In contrast, the Antiochian School emphasized the humanity of Christ and emphasized His moral example (See “Alexandrian School” and “Antiochene School” under “Patristic Debates on the Person of Christ” in chapter 9).

2. Disputes. The Arian controversy in the fourth century is generally considered one of the most significant in the history of the Christian Church. Arius (c. 250 - c. 336) argued that the titles used in the Bible to refer to Jesus Christ, which appear to indicate His equal status with God, are in fact nothing more than courtesy titles and veneration. Jesus Christ must be considered a created being, although he occupies first place among all the rest of creation. Such a statement by Arius was strongly opposed by Athanasius the Great, who, in turn, argued that the Divinity of Christ was central to the Christian understanding of salvation (referring to that area of ​​​​Christian theology traditionally called “soteriology”). He thus argued that Arius' Christology is soteriologically untenable. Jesus Christ Arius could not redeem fallen humanity. Eventually, Arianism (the name of the movement associated with the name Arius) was publicly declared a heresy. It was followed by the Apollinarian controversy, at the center of which stood Apollinaris the Younger (c. 310 - c. 390). Being a fierce opponent of Arius, Appolinarius argued that Jesus Christ cannot be considered fully human. In Christ the human spirit is replaced by the Logos. As a result, Christ does not possess full humanity. Authors such as Gregory of Nazion considered this position to be a grave error because it implied that Christ could not fully redeem human nature (See “Patristic Debates on the Person of Christ” in Chapter 9).

3. Cathedrals. The Council of Nicaea was convened by the first Christian emperor, Constantine, to resolve the destabilizing Christological divisions in his empire. It later became known as the First Ecumenical Council (that is, a meeting of Christians from all over the Christian world, the decisions of which were considered binding for all churches). The Arian dispute was settled in Nicaea (now the city of Iznik in modern Turkey). The Council declared that Jesus Christ was “consubstantial” with God the Father, thereby rejecting the Arian position in favor of an insistence on the divinity of Christ. The Council of Chalcedon (451), or the Fourth Ecumenical Council, confirmed the decisions of the Council of Nicaea and responded to the controversy that had erupted over the humanity of Christ.

Two doctrines to which the patristic period can be said to have made a decisive contribution are related to the Person of Jesus Christ (a branch of theology which, as we have already noted, is usually called "Christology") and His Divine nature. They are organically connected with each other. By 325, that is, by the First Ecumenical (Nicene) Council, the early Church came to the conclusion that Jesus is “consubstantial” ( homoousios) to God. (Term " homoousios" can also be translated as "one in essence" or "consubstantial" - English, con-substantial). This Christological statement soon took on a double meaning. First, it firmly established on an intellectual level the spiritual importance of Jesus Christ to Christians. Secondly, however, it began to pose a serious threat to simplistic concepts of God. If Jesus is accepted as being “of the same substance as God,” then the entire doctrine of God will require rethinking in the light of this creed. It is for this reason that the historical development of the doctrine of the Trinity dates back to the period immediately after the achievement of a Christological consensus in the Christian Church. Theological reflection and discussion about the nature of God could only begin after the Divinity of Jesus Christ became the generally accepted starting point for all Christians.

It should be noted that Christological debates took place mainly in the Eastern Mediterranean world and were conducted in Greek, often in the light of the underlying premises of the main ancient Greek schools of thought. In practice, this meant that many of the central terms of the Christological debates in the early church were Greek; these were often terms that were used in the pagan Greek philosophical tradition.

The main features of patristic Christology will be discussed in some detail in the ninth chapter of this book, to which we refer the reader. At this early stage of the study, however, we can note the main milestones of the patristic Christological controversy in the form of two schools, two controversies and two councils.

1 Schools. The Alexandrian school emphasized the Divinity of Jesus Christ and interpreted this Divinity as "the Word made flesh." The biblical text that acquired central significance for representatives of this school was the words from the verse John 1.14˸ “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.” This emphasis on the idea of ​​the Incarnation led to the feast of the Nativity being considered especially important. In contrast, the Antiochian School emphasized the humanity of Christ and emphasized His moral example (See “Alexandrian School” and “Antiochene School” under “Patristic Debates on the Person of Christ” in chapter 9).

2. Disputes. The Arian controversy in the fourth century is generally considered one of the most significant in the history of the Christian Church. Arius (c. 250 - c. 336) argued that the titles used in the Bible to refer to Jesus Christ, which seem to indicate His equal status with God, are in fact no more than titles of courtesy and veneration. Jesus Christ must be considered a created being, although he occupies first place among all the rest of creation. Such a statement by Arius was strongly opposed by Athanasius the Great, who, in turn, argued that the Divinity of Christ was central to the Christian understanding of salvation (referring to that area of ​​​​Christian theology traditionally called “soteriology”). He thus argued that Arius' Christology is soteriologically untenable. Jesus Christ Arius could not redeem fallen humanity. Eventually, Arianism (the name of the movement associated with the name Arius) was publicly declared a heresy. It was followed by the Apollinarian controversy, at the center of which stood Apollinaris the Younger (c. 310 - c. 390). Being a fierce opponent of Arius, Appolinarius argued that Jesus Christ cannot be considered fully human. In Christ the human spirit is replaced by the Logos. As a result, Christ does not possess full humanity. Authors such as Gregory of Nazion considered this position to be a grave error because it implied that Christ could not fully redeem human nature (See “Patristic Debates on the Person of Christ” in Chapter 9).

Christology provides an answer to the questions: What is the Personality (Person, Hypostasis) of Jesus Christ? How are two natures united in Him - Divine and human? In connection with these questions, Christology is logically divided into two parts. It includes the doctrine of the Hypostasis of God the Word, which is inextricably linked with the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, and the doctrine of the Incarnation.

To the question about the Personality of Jesus Christ, Christology gives the answer: The Personality (Person, Hypostasis) of Jesus Christ is the Second Hypostasis (Person) - the Eternal Divine Word (Logos), called the Only Begotten Son of God. God's Word deigned to become incarnate, that is, to take human nature into Himself, becoming the God-man Jesus Christ.

To the question about the union of natures in the God-man Jesus Christ, Christology answers: in the God-man Jesus Christ two natures are inseparably and inextricably united - the nature of the perfect God and the nature of the perfect man, Jesus Christ possesses the fullness of the Divine and human nature, united in His one Divine Hypostasis.

Christology- the most important section of Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, containing the teaching about the Incarnation of one of the Persons of the Holy Trinity (the Son of God) and about His Face after (the Face of the God-Man, the Lord Jesus Christ).

What heretical misconceptions regarding the doctrine of the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ were most widespread and had the greatest influence on believers? (cm.: ).

The most dangerous (in terms of external attractiveness and the power of temptation) Christological ones can be called Docetism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism and Monothelitism. At the same time, Nestorianism and Monophysitism represented two extreme positions, two diametrically opposed attempts to explain by the forces of human logic the image of the union of the Divine and human in Christ.

The Docetes, recognizing the Divinity of Jesus Christ, rejected the truth of the Incarnation, believing that in reality the Son of God did not become human, but only ghostly took on the guise of a man: ghostly he lived among the disciples, ghostly ate, slept, suffered, died, and was resurrected. By denying the truth of the Incarnation, they actually denied the truth of the Redemption of man through the suffering of the Cross and the death of the Messiah.

Nestorianism distinguished in the Savior two Persons instead of one - the Face of God and the Face of the Son of Mary, connected by a grace-filled connection. At the same time, the Nestorians saw in the Redeemer two natures: Divine and human. Strictly speaking, they distinguished Christ from the Old Testament prophets not in principle, but only in the degree of grace. This heresy was condemned at the Third Ecumenical Council.

Monophysitism tried to prove something to the contrary. Within the framework of this false teaching, the Son of God and together the Son of Man were recognized as one Person. But at the same time, the duality of the natures contained in Him: God’s and human’s was categorically denied. According to the Monophysites, as a result of the Incarnation of the Son, two natures, united in His Divine Person, formed one new essence. As a result, it turned out that the Son of God ceased to be consubstantial with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Monophysitism received a worthy rebuff at the Fourth Ecumenical Council.

An attempt to unite the Orthodox and Monophysites with the help of a dogmatic compromise led to the formation of a new teaching, a new heresy - Monothelitism. Taking as a basis the Orthodox teaching about the union of two natures in one Person of Jesus Christ and crossing this teaching with the Monophysite one, the ideologists of Monothelitism declared: in Christ there are two natures, but one mixed will, not Divine and not human, but completely different, new, but united. The logical conclusion from this heresy was the conclusion that the will of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit is not one, which means that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are not absolutely one God. The Monothelites were anathematized at the Sixth Ecumenical Council. (see also.

The nature and purpose of Jesus coming to earth raises many questions. Why did Jesus come to earth the way He did? Why did He appear to the human race, live among us and die on the cross? Why did the heavenly Son of God humiliate himself to the point of becoming completely human? All these questions can be answered in one single sentence: “He came that through His ministry, death and resurrection to call a people in His name, which He would call His church” (Mark 10:45; Luke 19:10). In other words, the result of His coming to earth is the church. The only organization that Jesus ever promised to create was a spiritual body, which He called “the church” (Matthew 16:18), and it was this, the church, that He established through His ministry. Therefore, we can say that the church is the only creation of Christ during His stay on earth. When studying the life of Christ according to the Gospels, three points in connection with His ministry inevitably attract attention: First, the Gospels indicate that Jesus did not set Himself the task of evangelizing the world during His personal ministry. Having chosen His apostles, He did not commission them to preach throughout the world; on the contrary, He even tamed their zeal, saying: “Do not go into the way of the pagans and do not enter the city of Samaritan; but go especially to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matthew 10:5, 6). To our surprise, Jesus limited Himself to Palestine during His ministry. He never went to other countries of the Roman Empire. He carried out his task by preaching and teaching in a very small area. If Jesus had intended to evangelize the world during His earthly ministry, He would have done things completely differently, using different strategies and tactics. Second, the Gospels indicate that Jesus' work and death were a preparation for something that was to come. Jesus exhorted, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matthew 4:17). He taught His apostles to pray, “Thy kingdom come” (Matthew 6:10). Jesus tried to prevent the crowds, stunned by His miracles, from rallying around the idea of ​​​​making Him their earthly king. He did not allow the masses to interfere with His 2 plans. When performing a miracle, Jesus sometimes asked the person on whom he performed the miracle “not to tell anyone” (Matthew 8:4).! He chose twelve apostles and personally trained them, but it appears that He was preparing them for the work they would do after His departure (John 14:19). Third, the Gospels portray Jesus' ministry in a way that feels incomplete; Jesus did what the Father sent Him to do, but at the end of His life He told the apostles to expect more events and revelations after His death and resurrection. Jesus said to them: “But the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things and remind you of everything that I have said to you.” (John 14:26). He also said: “When He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all truth; for he will not speak from himself, but he will speak whatever he hears, and he will tell you the future” (John 16:13). After his resurrection and just before his ascension, Jesus instructed the apostles to wait in Jerusalem until they received power from on high. And having received power, they were to preach repentance and forgiveness of sins to all nations, starting from Jerusalem (Luke 24:46–49). These distinctive features of our Lord's ministry before and after His death convincingly show that the purpose of His ministry on earth was to bring together everything necessary for the establishment of His kingdom, that is, the church. In (Matthew 16:18) Jesus announced to His disciples the purpose of His earthly work: “And I say to you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.” Thus, Jesus did not come to preach the gospel; He came so that there would be a gospel to be preached. Acts, one of the books of the New Testament, confirms the truth that the ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus had the planned purpose of establishing the church, or introducing the kingdom. The Gospels plainly proclaim this truth, and Acts confirms it with illustrations. Ten days after the ascension of our Lord, the Holy Spirit was poured out on the apostles on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4); the good news of Jesus' death, burial and resurrection was preached for the first time; people were invited to respond 3 to this good news with faith, repentance, and baptism for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38; Luke 24:46, 47); and three thousand accepted the invitation by heeding the Word preached and being baptized (Acts 2:41). Thus, as a result of the ministry of Jesus, as day follows night, the church of our Lord was born. And then in Acts follows the story of the spread of the church, like the flame of sacred love, from Jerusalem to Judea and Samaria and further everywhere, to all corners of the Roman Empire. Every time people heard an inspired message, they responded by obeying the gospel and adding to the church. And every time the missionaries set off on the road, they left behind churches in more and more new corners of the earth. As a result of Paul's three missionary journeys recorded in Acts, churches were established throughout the world, from Jerusalem to Illyricum (Rom. 15:19). Reading Acts again and again you come to the stunning conclusion that the church is the result of Christ's coming to earth. We do not see in Acts that the apostles and other inspired men used the same techniques as our Lord. They did not surround themselves with twelve disciples to train them just like the Lord, diligently imitating His methodology. The apostles and other inspired men brought people to the church through their preaching and teaching. These converts were then nurtured, mentored, strengthened in faith, and prepared by the church and as part of the church to serve and evangelize others. Acts shows us the life of the church as a result of Jesus' earthly ministry. The Epistles show us how to live in Christ as the church, that is, His spiritual body. The Epistles were written for people who came to Christ in faith and obedience. They lived at a time when the memory of the life, death and resurrection of Christ was still very fresh. Inspired men taught to honor Christ as Lord and to honor His earthly life by becoming His church. Each message calls on followers of Christ to live and serve in the spiritual body of Christ. The messages, collected together, represent a “reference guide” on 4 questions on how to be and live the church of Christ in any circumstances and in various places. They teach us how to actually use the ministry of Christ on earth. We submit to Jesus as Lord by entering His body in faith and obedience. Paul compares the final act of this sincere response to putting on Christ (Gal. 3:27). According to the Epistles, no one can be considered to have submitted to Jesus until he enters His body, the church, through baptism, which is preceded by faith, repentance, and recognition of Jesus as the Son of God. We honor the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus by living and worshiping together as the family of God in His spiritual body, the church. Paul wrote: “There is no longer Jew nor Gentile; There is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28). “For just as we have many members in one body, but all the members have the same function, so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually members of one another” (Rom. 12:4, 5). “...So that there is no division in the body, and all members take equal care of each other. Therefore, if one member suffers, all members suffer with it; if one member is glorified, all members rejoice with it” (1 Cor. 12:25-27). “On the first day of the week, when the disciples were gathered together to break bread, Paul...talked with them” (Acts 20:7). The entire teaching of the New Testament boils down to the fact that the purpose of the incarnation of Christ, His brainchild, is the church, His spiritual body. The Gospels confirm this by its promise, Acts by its description, and the Epistles by its application in life. Just as it is undeniable that the New Testament gives us God's holy word of salvation, just as it is undeniable that Christ came to earth in human form, so it is undeniable that anyone who has not entered into His body will discover at the end of his life's journey that did not understand the reason for Christ’s coming to earth. This conclusion is the main teaching of the entire New Testament!

When Christ came to the end of His short earthly life, He could say: “Father, I have done what You asked Me to do. I have fulfilled the mission that 5 You entrusted to Me.” It is better to live a few years following God's will, fulfilling His purposes, than a long life in a palace, ruling the kingdom of selfish aspirations. Towards the end of their lives, many people are only able to say: “Lord, I lived the years that You gave me on this earth, doing only what I wanted to do, and pursuing only the goals that I myself set for myself.” Let it be better that at the end of our lives we can say: “Lord, I discovered from the Scriptures what You wanted me to be and what You expected of me, and I devoted myself to this holy work. I sincerely tried to glorify You on earth and live according to the plan that You gave me. I lived the Church of Christ.” Amen.