Today's reading lets us see what religiosity can turn into when living spiritual experience is completely ignored. Of course, in itself it does not exclude the possibility of full communion with God, but on one condition: if religion occupies a subordinate, auxiliary position, remaining only a means for expressing and embodying revelation. Meanwhile any religious tradition becomes self-sufficient if special efforts are not undertaken for its spiritual renewal. And if politics is mixed into religion, as happened in Judea in the Gospel period, this happens even faster.

And, as we can see, the majority of the Jewish religious leaders of the Gospel era did not even try to look at the situation that had arisen in Jerusalem because of Jesus' preaching (vv. 40-43) from a spiritual point of view. For them He was merely a violator of the established order. From their point of view He could in no way be the Messiah, since His appearance did not correspond to the messianic ideas accepted in the Judaism of that time. And besides, a prophet "does not come from Galilee" (v. 52).

Before us is absolute confidence in the truth of one's own religious tradition, which no revelation can shake. If miracles happen contrary to what religion says about them, then they are "wrong" miracles. And even if they are so obvious that many of the people believed the One who performed them directly before their eyes, no one is interested in the opinion of the people: after all, they do not know the Torah and are therefore "accursed" (v. 49). Yet among those gathered for the feast there was almost certainly not one who had not read and studied both the Torah and the other sacred books! But, as we can see, their knowledge of the Torah was different; it did not prevent them from believing in Jesus, and therefore they are, of course, "ignorant" - otherwise how would they have differed in opinion from the religious authorities?

However, authorities who depart from the "general line" also get their share: when, for example, Nicodemus dares to say that before passing judgment, and all the more before condemning, it is necessary at least to hear the accused (vv. 50-51), he is silenced. The arguments are simple and have nothing to do with the Torah, truth, or justice: you yourself must be from Galilee, so you defend your fellow countrymen (v. 52). It is no surprise that in such an atmosphere Jesus could not count not only on a just trial, but even on a more or less objective assessment of everything He said and did.

"Whoever believes in Me, as Scripture has said, out of his belly will flow rivers of living water." Bishop Cassian, in his foundational work on the Gospel of John ("By Water and Blood and Spirit") says that this is not the only possible translation. If the punctuation were different (and there are grounds for this), the phrase would mean that the water will flow from Jesus' belly. Each version has its supporters and opponents, but the bishop himself leans toward the second.

But what should we do - people not trained in philology? We can look at this from the standpoint that the history of the Word of God carries within itself not only the original truth about what was spoken by the Lord, but also a particular kind of truth, even if scientifically inaccurate, because the Spirit descends on everyone.

If this is so, perhaps it is worth looking at both translations at the same time. Of course, the second translation draws to itself the story of the Samaritan woman, and in that it is unquestionably true: only the Lord gives living water. And yet a person can become a conduit of this living water, and in this sense becomes a "secondary source" himself, to use the terminology of the theory of diffraction of light. And precisely in the fact that a person can become a source of the Spirit lies the meaning of today's feast - the Day of the Holy Trinity. This is astonishing and inexplicable, but it is so. Therefore the former translation is still important to us, even if it is not entirely correct from a scientific point of view; or rather, it would be more accurate to say that both translations are precious to us.

What is most important to us in Christianity? This question arises by itself when you read lines like these from the Gospel, when you look at church divisions and scandals, when you see your own and others' misunderstanding of the Good News. The Lord speaks about things that are fundamental and common to all people - about thirst for the Spirit, without whom any religion, any society, any life becomes stuffy and stale. He speaks about the fact that faith in Him will not remain a barren, dry idea, but opens to a person access to the rivers of the living water of the Spirit. But this is not what troubles the people and the scribes. What matters more to them is an inconsistency in the origin of the potential Messiah: since He must come from the line of David, He must also live in Bethlehem.

What could the Lord object to this? Tell them about His miraculous birth in the city of David? But they do not listen to Him even when He speaks about the most important thing. How, then, can they (and sometimes we) understand His words and draw near to the life-giving element of the Spirit?