NOTES for Mat 16:1-28

Today's reading tells us about Peter's confession (vv. 13-20), which is preceded by Jesus' conversations with the Pharisees about signs (vv. 1-4) and with the disciples about the "leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees" (vv. 5-12). It concludes with a description of Peter's conversation with Jesus, during which Jesus speaks rather sharply about His disciple (vv. 21-28).

The central event here is Peter's confession: he recognizes in Jesus the Messiah, the Christ promised by God, while the people considered Him a prophet (vv. 14-16). And then Jesus, confirming Peter's conclusion, says that he could understand this only through revelation from God (v. 17).

It would seem that the Messiah was expected not only by Jesus' disciples: in Gospel times, messianic expectation among the Jewish people was very intense. But the point is that Jesus least of all resembled the Messiah whom both the people and the learned rabbis expected. The people expected a Messiah-king who would free Judea from Roman rule; the learned rabbis and theologian-scribes wanted to see a Messiah who matched their theological theories. It is no accident that the Pharisees and Sadducees ask Jesus to show them one of those messianic signs by which, according to their own concepts, the Messiah alone could be recognized. And Jesus refuses - not, of course, because it was difficult for Him, but because He did not want to fit into any theological concept and had no intention of conforming to anyone's ideas. Accepting such a Messiah, one who matched no generally accepted norms or views, and in whom the majority were ready to see an ungodly man and a violator of the Torah rather than the Messiah, was truly possible only by revelation.

Soon after this, it was time for Peter and the other disciples to learn about the cross and the Resurrection (v. 21), and then it turned out that this knowledge was unbearable for a person. It was still possible to accept a persecuted and suffering Messiah, especially since the image of the suffering Messiah was well known to every believing Jew from the book of Isaiah. But to accept His complete defeat was utterly unthinkable, and death on the cross was perceived by Peter and the other apostles only as defeat. The reality of resurrection in general, and of Christ's Resurrection in particular, was still only a distant prospect for them, so that even when He had risen, they still could not fully believe it for a long time.

It is no surprise that Peter cannot come to terms with the thought that the Teacher's death is inevitable (v. 22). But Jesus is uncompromising here as well: one cannot stop halfway; one cannot accept the Messiah and refuse His path. A person who acts this way turns from a disciple into an adversary (v. 23). There is only one road into the Kingdom (vv. 24-27), and one can arrive there only by walking it to the end.

The bitter irony is that the Pharisees and Sadducees knew how to distinguish the subtlest shades of the sky, but they did not notice Christ's coming when cardinal changes in the relationship between God and people had matured. Today we can see any signs in heaven and on earth, yet we still cannot understand that the time has come to live differently. The time has come to live in unity and love with God and our neighbors; the time of humanity in relationships between people has come. How sad that we do not see this, and how frightening a reminder can be that the world lacks love.

Jesus' answer to the Pharisees' request that He show them some “sign from heaven” seems rather strange. Judging by the meaning of His words, we must conclude that they had enough information and needed no other signs. The only sign Jesus clearly alludes to when He speaks of the “sign of the prophet Jonah” is His death and resurrection. What, then, does He mean when He says that even without signs the Pharisees have everything they need to understand the situation? And what kind of “sign from heaven” are they asking Him for?

In speaking of a “sign from heaven,” Jesus' interlocutors apparently meant some proof of His messiahship. There were generally accepted ideas about such proofs, according to which the Messiah had to give certain well-known signs of support from above, signs visible and intelligible to everyone. Evidently there were Pharisees prepared to see Jesus as the Messiah, but only as the “right” kind of Messiah. He had no intention of becoming that “right” Messiah.

He told those demanding signs plainly: you have seen enough to make a decision. If you were honest with yourselves, doing so would be no more difficult than looking at the sky and deciding whether to expect fair or rainy weather soon. Indeed, throughout His earthly ministry Jesus gave everyone willing to see more than enough evidence of the nearness and active power of the Kingdom He brought into the world. Anyone who wanted to see could see everything necessary. Only those who did not want to see—those for whom their own religious ideas and theological concepts were more important than the Kingdom and testimony to it—failed to see or notice the obvious.

Jesus had no intention of playing along with such people. This was not because their ideas were worse or better than any others, but because the position they had adopted separated them from the Kingdom from the outset. They were prepared to accept it only on their own terms. Yet the conditions for entering the Kingdom were by no means determined by them and were nothing like what they imagined. Those who wanted the Kingdom had to choose between the Kingdom and their religiosity. Jesus had no intention of hiding that fact from them.

Jesus' words are not always easy to understand, and at first their true meaning remains hidden even from His disciples. Only after the Teacher's explanations do they grasp that He is speaking not about bread, but about the teachings characteristic of these two religious parties. Let us try to understand what Jesus means.

Christ speaks of leaven on other occasions too. It is an image of something small that, when it enters a certain environment, affects it and changes its properties. Such, Jesus warns, are the teachings of the Pharisees and Sadducees - they can poison the whole people of God.

What, then, is poisonous in these teachings? In the parallel passage in the Gospel of Luke (Lk 12:1) the leaven of the Pharisees is called hypocrisy. The legalism of the Pharisees, the reduction of relations with God to keeping a formal list of commandments instead of being truly changed from within - this is the poison of hypocrisy. If God's people (or the new people of God - the Church) are permeated by this poison, then there is no room left in them for love.

The leaven of the Sadducees is called in the Gospel of Mark the leaven of Herod (Mk 8:15). The Sadducees were not so much a religious party as a political one, seeking above all earthly, state power. And again we see that such an approach can also become a deadly temptation for the Church. She is called not to seek strength in the "worldly" sense, but to manifest the power of God, the power of righteousness, the power of love.

Religiousness: is it good or bad? Compared with complete unbelief, it is probably good. Still, let us sort out what it is. Religion is our human system of attempts to restore connection with God, according to one or another human idea of Him. At the same time it is implied that the connection is broken and God is somewhere far away. In this sense Christianity offers something completely opposite: it is not we who restore connection with God, but He Himself; God is not distant, but "with us always, to the end of the age." But there is always, always a temptation to reduce living faith, living relationships with God, to religion, and Jesus warns His disciples of this danger, even of two types of such "religiousness": Pharisaic, when the fulfillment of commandments, duty, and rituals is substituted for relationships of love; and Sadducean, when our human interests, personal and public, are placed first, and the Church turns into a service center for these interests. Christ says that these admixtures are dangerous even in small quantities, because a little leaven leavens the whole dough.

Jesus’ words aren’t comprehensible immediately; even His disciples don’t understand them the first time. Is only after the Master’s explanations they got that, is not a matter of bread but about the teaching typical for these two religious parties. Let’s try to sort out what did Jesus mean.

Christ talks about leaven in other cases, too. It’s the image of something small which, being placed in a definite environment, influences that environment and changes its properties. According to Jesus such are the Pharisees’ and Sadducees’ teachings, they are able to poison all God’s people. What is the poisonousness of these doctrines? In the same place in the Gospel of Luke (Luc 12 :1) Pharisaical leaven is called hypocrisy. The Pharisees’ rules, minimization of relations with God to the observance of some list of commandments instead of truly changing inside – this is a poison of hypocrisy. If God’s people (or God’s new people – the Church) get themselves soaked with this poison, then there will be no place for love.

Sadducees’ leaven in the Gospel of Mark is called Herod’s leaven d’Hérode (Mc 8:15). The Sadducees were not so much religious, but political party, looking in the first place earth things, state power. And we can see again that such an approach can also become a deadly dangerous temptation for the Church. The Church is called not to seek power in worldly meaning, but to manifest the God’s power, power of righteousness, power of love.

The apostles do not understand Jesus at once. Peter, calling Him Christ, that is, the Anointed One, King of Israel, cannot take in His predictions of His own death in Jerusalem.

Do we understand what it means to be Christians? For us, Christianity is most often associated with a certain form of spiritual life, a particular worldview, particular behavior, particular rules of life. Does our "salvation of the soul" not contrast with the words about those who "want to save their soul (life)"? He does not speak about rules, about a worldview, about "Christian values." He speaks about the cross, about bearing the cross, as the mark of a Christian.

If this is hard for us to understand and take in, we should not despair; the apostles could not either. The only important thing is to move along the path of this awareness. And in order to move, we need to know the goal.

The passage from the book of Numbers tells of human distrust, of how this crowd that came out of Egypt, because of its problems, does not see the presence of the One who can solve all its problems.

How contagious the opinion of the crowd is! Even Moses appears to fall under its influence and, losing trust, strikes the rock twice with his staff instead of bringing water out of it by the WORD. This small irresolution on the part of the one "to whom much has been given" leads to his inability to enter the desired promised land.

A distinctive answer to this story is found in the Gospel passage. Jesus, after listening to various opinions about Himself that come from the crowd, asks the disciples: "But who do you say that I am?" - helping them overcome this pressure from the crowd. And He receives Peter's God-inspired answer: "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God."

Who do people consider Jesus to be? This question still stands before each of us, and we still hear different answers to it.

First He asks the disciples about the opinions circulating among the people. The opinions the disciples repeat differ, in essence, only in whose name is mentioned, but all of them come down to an evaluation of Jesus as a great prophet. And this opinion, in fact, has not disappeared; the most people can decide, looking from a distance, is that He is a prophet. In our time other definitions would be added, for example, "great teacher," and so on. But for the time being all these definitions remain in the realm of abstract information.

Then He asks the disciples for their personal opinion, and this question is addressed to all of us. Here bare theorizing ends and the hour of choice begins. How I will live depends on whom I acknowledge Christ to be.

Therefore Peter's confession became not only his personal acknowledgment of Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God. Through his lips all the apostles confessed Christ, and disciples of every time and nation join this confession. Flesh and blood did not reveal this to Peter; that means it was not human reasoning and traditions, but the Heavenly Father. Human reasoning can bring us to the threshold of truth, but the Lord Himself helps us cross that threshold, mysteriously and unnoticed by ordinary perception.

Peter stands out among the other disciples of Christ not only by age and by leadership traits. But all of that is not enough for the astonishing promise that Jesus gives him (Matt. 16:18). Perhaps Peter's most important quality, the one that makes him the second most significant figure in the Gospel, is that he responds immediately and actively to every new situation in his relationship with Christ. He hardly pauses to think and often makes mistakes, but he is not passive; he makes the effort. It is Peter who tries to walk on water, and it is Peter who becomes the first of the disciples to perform miracles of healing and resurrection.

Of course, there are other paths of holiness, but Christ lays Peter's holiness at the foundation of the holiness of the Church.

Peter's confession is one of the key Gospel episodes. Not only because here Peter recognizes Jesus as the Messiah for the first time, but also because at the very moment of this recognition he becomes the head of the apostolic community. Everything is logical: the one who first recognized the Messiah as the Messiah becomes the head. And yet there is something more here, something that cannot be reduced to a confession as a verbal formula.

There is precisely recognition, encounter, realization. It is no accident that the conversation begins with the Savior's question about who people consider Him to be. The answer gives the whole set of traditional cliches of that time: John the Baptist risen from the dead, Elijah come down from heaven, one of the ancient prophets whom God had raised to bear witness to the truth. Only not the Messiah: in this respect, the Savior's whole earthly path refuted the common ideas of traditional popular religiosity.

Remaining within those ideas, it was impossible to take Him for the Messiah. To recognize Him precisely as the Messiah, one had simply to look at Him, face to face, without any preassigned "points of view," without looking back at all the traditional views, models, and concepts. What was needed was the purity of direct perception, when the one who, or the thing that, stands before you is perceived directly, in a single whole act of will, without reflection, without looking back at all the "baggage" accumulated over a long life.

This was revelation, a moment of truth familiar to everyone who has seriously sought the truth. To see the person standing before you in this way, one had to find oneself in another reality. Or rather, in the fullness of reality, for the Kingdom is nothing other than the fullness of the reality of God's great world, opened to a person as much as he can contain it.

In such fullness, and only in it, can one see the Messiah as the Messiah. This is not a confession of Christ's divine-human nature, as is sometimes thought; there is no assertion here of any theological concepts at all. There is simply the Encounter. It was an encounter with Christ in the fullness of His person, and therefore in divine-human fullness, but there was none of the theological reflection that gives rise to doctrinal formulas.

Such an experience makes a person a follower of the Messiah, bringing him into the life of the Kingdom, and therefore Peter becomes the head of the apostolic community. Of course, not by inheritance: such an experience cannot be passed on to anyone; one can only bear witness to it, while each person must live through it for himself if he wants to become the successor of the apostle Peter not by status, but by spirit. In the same way, every Christian must live through it, if he wants to become a Christian not only in words but in deed, to become a follower of the Messiah and a citizen of the Kingdom.

The days when people doubted the existence of the “historical” Jesus are almost over. Now nearly everyone believes that such a man apparently lived in first-century Palestine. But it is not the acceptance or rejection of the fact of Jesus’ existence, but the question of Who He is for us that proves decisive on our path. Peter’s absolutely correct answer was a leap beyond himself, demonstrating his openness to God’s action. We now know this correct answer, but our inner assent to it requires no smaller leap of faith. Then the Gospel becomes for us not merely a beautiful moral teaching, but an opening door into the life of Christ.

It is hard to take responsibility for one’s choice. It is hard to state a definite opinion, hard to make a decision, because you bear responsibility for all its consequences and fruits. And if this choice, this decision, belongs to the religious or moral sphere, then one has to answer for it with one’s whole life. And in general it is hard to make decisions: can a person really know anything for certain?

That is why the moment is so important when the apostle Peter, whether on his own behalf or on behalf of all the Twelve, resolves to say the words: “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.” Through this confession Peter receives the Lord Jesus as Savior. Everything that follows, witness, preaching, the weight of the night in Gethsemane, and the gift of Pentecost, is founded on this decision of Peter, on his personal act and confession. Becoming the foundation of the Church, he is joined, if not to the divine nature, for the Last Supper is still far off, then to Christ’s divine authority.

Peter himself appears to have experienced this moment deeply. In his letter, written around the year 63, when speaking about the essence of faith and life, he mentions precisely the readiness “to give an account of the hope” (1 Pet. 3:15). Strictly speaking, the apostleship of the Twelve consists first of all in their confession and only afterward in preaching over the whole face of the earth. And this applies in full measure to all their disciples.

It’s difficult to take responsibility for our own choice; difficult to express a certain opinion, difficult to make a decision since we bear responsibility for all its consequences and results. And if this choice and this decision are in the domains of religion and morality, we will answer for them {choice and decision} all our life. It is not on a broader scale easy to make a decision, because is it possible to a man to know something for sure?

Therefore the moment when Apostle Peter decides to pronounce from himself and on behalf of all the twelve: «You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God» is so important. Due to this confession of faith Peter accepts Jesus as the Saviour. Everything further - testimony, sermon, Gethsemane’s night affliction and Pentecostal gift are based on this Peter’s decision and action, on his confession of faith. Becoming the Church’s foundation, he joins if not the Divine nature (the Lord's Supper is still far enough), then the divine power of Jesus Christ.

Peter himself probably experienced this moment deeply. He alludes specifically the willingness to «give an answer of the hope» (1 Peter 3:15), while talking about the essence of life and faith written in the epistle about year 63. The Twelve’s apostleship consists first of all in their confession of faith and only after – in preaching all over the world. And this also concerns all their disciples.

Who do you say Jesus of Nazareth is? It’s impossible to ignore this question. Who’re You, who do You think You are? Son of Man, Who is He? Who do you say I am? – it’s one of the main questions in the Gospel. They brought to Him a demon-possessed man? And He healed him. Then people said: Is He not Christ, the son of David? Isn’t the one who has to save the world? And He Himself says: I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. Your answer to the question who is Jesus – is that sword, penetrating till the depths, “till the disjunction of organs and brain”. Know you can’t give an evasive answer to this question.

So, the Pharaoh becomes hardened when God tells him through Moses: let My people go. It is written in the book of Exodus: “I will harden Pharaoh's heart” (Ex 4 :21). It will be naive to believe that God compels the Pharaoh to refuse by a special creative action. Only demons taking possession of people’s will can act in this way. But the Pharaoh, faced to a dilemma can’t remain evasively polite: either the One Who sent Moses is God and he should then obey, either there is only one living god in Egypt– the Pharaoh.

Pharisees also as the Pharaoh are faced to a choice to make: either this Man is the Redeemer of the world, or He isn’t. There is no place for soft-hearted political correctness here. Actually this main life question transforms our hesitating weak-willed heart, and gives opposite properties to it {heart}. But depending on the answer we give to this question, it {heart} will be either the firmness of a living faith, either a hardening, cruel heart as the Pharaoh and Pharisees had.

This is exactly what Jesus notice, when saying: “who is not with me is against me, and who does not gather with me scatters”. Nowadays such formulation seems to us too rigoristic. We’d prefer to elude a direct answer. But nothing except this answer to Christ’s appeal will make your heart strong and your life real. Therefore this question is a gift to us from God.

That is the announcement of the fact which is the foundation of the whole Christian faith. Neither the Theantropic idea, nor the beauty of Jesus’ moral law, but a fact! Christianity is not about theological systems, but about accepting that fact into your life. And the verse we read today is a strong support for embracing the fact of the Resurrection. First of all the news is delivered by an Angel – God’s messenger. That means that the message is of supernatural importance and truthfulness. He begins with “Be not afraid!” These are the words that God uses to begin almost any contact with a human being, showing that his power won’t be turned against the person. “You seek Jesus of Nazareth” – continues the Angel meaning not some abstract concept but a real Man who lived a real life. “Who was crucified,” - without the execution and death, without the free-willsacrifice for my sins Jesus’ story has nothing to do with me and my life.“He is risen” – this is the core of the message. These words strongly proclaim Christ’s victory over death. Over every death, including mine. “He is not here”, he cannot be ‘caught’ anywhere, tomb is not a trap for him. He is free and able to free us. But this is not just a mere phantom. “Behold the place where they laid him”, says the Angel. Everything is real, it happens in space and time – in the normal conditions for our life. Life which from now on is capable to embrace Christ’s Resurrection.

On what is the Church founded? What qualities make Simon, son of Jonah, Peter, the rock laid in the foundation of the Church? Ardent faith? Reckless decisiveness? Leadership charisma? Perhaps... Peter has all these qualities. But it seems that something else is more important. Jesus says these words not immediately after Peter has called Him the Christ, the Son of the living God. First Jesus said that Peter had not come to this confession by his own human powers, but by revelation from the Father.

Thus Jesus puts Peter's openness to God in the first place. This is really so: Peter is strikingly open. He does not always understand everything correctly or at once, he sometimes hurries, sometimes misses the mark, sometimes shows weakness, but he is open, active, and bold. And this is what the Church of apostolic times becomes: it is constantly instructed by the Holy Spirit, it does not shut itself within four walls, fearlessly bearing witness to Christ before the whole world. The Church's invulnerability to the forces of evil, the fact that "the gates of hell will not overcome it," is explained precisely by its openness to God, by its reception of the power of God, the power of the Holy Spirit, which drives away every evil.

What is the foundation of the Church? What qualities make Simon, son of Jonah, Peter – the rock, put in the foundation of the Church? Ardent Faith? Reckless determination? Leadership charisma? Maybe... Peter has all these qualities. But it seems to me that another thing is more important. Jesus says these words not just after Peter named Him Christ, the son of the living God. Firstly Jesus said that Peter didn’t come to this creed by himself, but by revelation from the Father. So, Jesus puts Peter’s openness to God at the first place. This is true, Peter is amazingly open, he doesn’t always understand everything correctly and immediately, he hastens sometimes, sometimes he can miss the mark or show weakness, but still he is open, active and daring. And the Church of apostolic times becomes just like this: it’s constantly counseled by the Holy Spirit, it doesn’t shut itself within four walls, bearing witness of Christ throughout the world without any fear. The Church’s invulnerability to the forces of evil and the fact that «gates of hell shall not prevail against it» is explained exactly by its openness to God, by its acceptance of God’s virtues, of the power of the Holy Spirit, driving away all evil.

We all went to school, and some of us even work there. We all know the logical sequence: give the right answer, get a top mark from the teacher and have your mother replace a visit to the dentist with a trip to the zoo. So after Peter confesses that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, the words “Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona” sound entirely natural to us. But then: “Jesus began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.” Even the thought of this frightens the disciples, and so Peter says, “This shall not be unto Thee!”

Confessing Jesus as the Son of God opens the way to our reward, but this reward is of a special kind: the opportunity to behold and experience the depth of God's mercy—a frightening depth. It is the opportunity to touch the hidden and ineffable nature of God's love: He gave His only-begotten Son so that the world might be saved through Him. In this depth there is an answer to every murmuring question we may ask, but we must accept Jesus as the Son of God and dare to hear His words.

For human beings this depth of mercy is always incomprehensible. The divine nature is impassible; the Almighty cannot suffer—such is the cry of Peter and the Jews, of Greek philosophers and Hellenized Christian theologians. The incarnate Son of God suffered for us in the flesh, and in horror we either say, like the Jews, that He is only flesh, or, like the Greeks, argue ourselves hoarse that He suffered in the flesh, only in the flesh, while the divine in Him remained impassible. But He Himself says: “Mine heart is turned within Me, My repentings are kindled together” (Hos. 11:8)—and therefore “He must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things.”

Not only many Pharisees, but even the apostles themselves did not understand their Teacher in everything. This, in fact, evidently explains Peter's reaction to Jesus' words about His coming death and resurrection. As for death and resurrection, the disciples never did understand Jesus, and only after His resurrection did the situation become somewhat clearer for them.

Evidently both Peter and the other apostles still held more or less traditional views of the Messiah and messiahship. And they did not understand at all how the Messiah could die. The issue here was not even that He would then rise from the dead - the apostles, like all their Jewish contemporaries, of course knew about the general resurrection on the day of Judgment. The issue was that the Messiah could not, must not die, because He was supposed to stand at the head of the messianic uprising in order afterward to lead the holy war for establishing the Kingdom of God on earth.

And when Peter says to Jesus, "May this never happen to You!" he is horrified not so much by death itself (after all, during the Last Supper he would speak with complete sincerity about his readiness to die beside the Teacher), as by the thought that Jesus' mission would turn out to have failed, that none of what he and the other apostles were waiting for would come about. Such a thing simply could not happen, because the Messiah is the one who carries out God's plans on earth; there can be no failure here. Failure is possible in only one case: if this Man is not the Messiah. But both Peter and the other apostles were afraid even to think of that.

That is why Jesus' words about His coming death and resurrection throw them into shock. But, as is clear, apart from Peter no one dared voice his fears and bewilderment aloud, perhaps fearing that he would hear the worst. All that remained was to follow the Teacher and see what would happen next.

Interpreters of the Gospel and specialists in the New Testament have argued a great deal about what is usually called Jesus' "messianic secret." Why does He forbid the disciples to speak of Him as the Messiah? Why, even when Peter saw in Him precisely the Messiah, the first of the apostles and, in all evidence, the first of human beings to do so, does Jesus order him to keep silent, even while acknowledging that the mystery of His messiahship was revealed to Peter by the Spirit of God? The most common answer is simple enough: Jesus was not going to become the Messiah of popular messianic expectations.

The people expected from the Messiah deeds that were quite clear and obvious: the Messiah had to restore an independent Jewish state, establish in that state laws corresponding to the Torah, and become its king. In popular consciousness, the image of the Messiah-King was inseparable from the image of an earthly kingdom and a righteous ruler like David, whose descendant the Messiah was supposed to be. Jesus naturally had no intention of doing anything of the kind, and therefore "messianic" popularity among the people was of no use to Him. Meanwhile, He could easily have gained such popularity, because the miracles He performed were seen and heard by everyone. That is why Jesus cuts off every rumor about His messiahship, and even forbids some people to tell about the miracles He has performed.

But the matter was evidently not only the "messianic" glory that Jesus did not need. The matter also concerned the disciples themselves. After all, they looked at Him, at the Messiah, in much the same way as their contemporaries did, despite all Jesus' efforts to help them see the situation differently. The same Peter, almost immediately after his messianic confession, begins to argue with Jesus when He starts telling him and the other disciples about His coming death. Even Peter, who recognized Him as the Messiah, understood neither the meaning of His path and ministry nor the real significance of the Messiah and His role in the salvation of humanity. In such a state, it is impossible to bear witness.

More precisely, it is possible, but it will be testimony not about the Messiah as He truly is, but about one's own views and assumptions concerning who the Messiah is and what He must do. Therefore it was better for Peter and the other apostles to keep silent about Jesus' messiahship. The Kingdom was another matter: preaching about the Kingdom was accessible to the disciples, and at a certain point Jesus Himself sent them out to preach it, with enough success.

It was successful also because here there were no personal ideas, fantasies, or concepts: during the preaching, each of the disciples simply became an instrument of God's direct action. But in relation to Him, to their Teacher, none of the apostles, including Peter, was ready for anything like this: too much that was human stood between Jesus and His disciples during His earthly ministry. And He orders them to be silent about His messiahship. Until the Resurrection, until Pentecost. Until the time when everything would become clear to them.

These words of the Savior always caused the apostles only fear and bewilderment. Why was that? The simplest answer is that they feared for their beloved Teacher and were afraid of losing Him. And yet the matter was probably not only this. It also had to do with those messianic ideas that Jesus' disciples shared with their contemporaries. In those days people expected from the Messiah, above all, the restoration of an independent Jewish state and the establishment in that state of laws corresponding to the Torah.

The Messiah was seen as the King, the conqueror of the Gentiles, and as a righteous Ruler whom God would help to win victory and establish His authority by sending a heavenly angelic host to His aid. Such a Messiah simply could not die. True, the image of a suffering Messiah was known to Jewish tradition in that era. But a suffering Messiah is not the same as a dying Messiah.

It was supposed that the Messiah might not, of course, come to power immediately. The war would be long, and perhaps in that war there would be moments when the Messiah would be in danger, when He would quite possibly find Himself even on the brink of death. But God would not let Him perish: such a death would mean the end, the failure of God's plan, and the collapse of all the hopes of God's people. Meanwhile Jesus speaks, quite clearly and unambiguously, precisely about His death, and about death not in battle but on the cross, the death of a criminal rather than of a warrior-hero.

This simply did not fit into Peter's head. Nor, for that matter, into the heads of the other apostles. But Peter was more decisive in his frankness and dared to say what the others did not dare to utter aloud. And he found himself, of course unintentionally, on the side of Satan, who had tempted the Savior in the wilderness. For the traditional messianic ideal presupposed exactly what Satan had offered Jesus during that trial: to establish His Kingdom on earth according to the laws of the fallen world lying in evil.

To establish it not as the Kingdom of love, but as a kingdom of force. It is no accident that Satan was not even opposed to giving Jesus the opportunity to act freely in exchange for a single, purely symbolic sign of acknowledgment of his, Satan's, authority. In exchange for one single bow, about which no one would ever know, since there were no witnesses. He knows that any kingdom built according to the laws of the fallen world will belong to him. Peter, unlike his Teacher, does not understand this. And he receives an extremely severe answer. For his own good.

“If any man will come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me.” Where the Russian text has “go,” the Greek text uses “ἐλθεῖν,” the aorist infinitive of “ἔρχομαι”—to go, to come. The literal meaning, then, is: whoever wishes to come after Me. This is not about simply walking somewhere behind Him, but about following Him to a definite goal. One can walk without any special effort or commitment, but if you want to follow Him all the way to the goal, then the conditions He sets come into force. These are Christ's own words about what we are to do.

Deny yourself. We can renounce only wealth that we possess or could potentially possess. It is impossible to renounce the process by which icebergs form in Antarctica. But the icebergs themselves—yes: what do I need them for? To renounce something means to give up claiming authority over it. It is impossible to renounce being a living human being. But it is possible to give up control over that person's life—your own life. To deny yourself means accepting as right and good not the aims and circumstances in life that please you, but those that God chooses to give you. For most of us this means first of all consenting to remain unnoticed and refusing to be guided by our own vanity or that of others.

Take up your cross. In the Gospel, the cross always names what happens when the divine comes into contact with this sinful world. When we sense hostility, we usually either run away or respond in kind—and often do both at once. Christ does neither. He accepts pain and suffering as the inevitable companions of love and innocence in a world stricken by sin. It follows, incidentally, that if you want to take up your cross, merely agreeing to do so is not enough. You too must acquire love for others and innocence; that is, you must stop doing evil and begin doing good.

And follow Me. Contrary to common opinion, eternal life cannot begin after death. It either begins here already or does not begin at all. Following Jesus can begin only in this life; otherwise it will be too late. For us human beings, the chief thing in this following is to seek God's guidance, to seek the rule of the Holy Spirit.

Christ's words about the soul, which is easy to lose but can also be saved, are sometimes understood in a somewhat spiritualistic way. People speak about the soul, meaning some immortal principle in a person which, if one cares too much about one's earthly life, is easy to lose, but which, if one gives it to Christ and follows Him by taking up one's cross, can be saved. Meanwhile, in the New Testament texts the word "soul" most often denotes not some immortal principle that survives the body and absolutely must be preserved whole because otherwise one will die completely, but the whole of life in all its fullness and in all its manifestations.

The problem here is not to preserve within oneself something special that cannot be lost under any circumstances, even at the cost of losing everything else, but to allow that stream of life which the Bible calls the soul to flow freely, so that it does not lose its fullness and depth. Here, of course, the person himself, his spiritual "I," plays an enormous role; in the Bible this is called the heart, and from it come those desires and aspirations that determine the course of a person's life.

In the Bible these aspirations and desires are usually called thoughts or intentions; what is meant here is not thoughts in the proper sense, as a modern reader sometimes thinks, but precisely intentions, strivings, and inclinations that determine a person's spiritual state, the flow of his life, and therefore his path. At all times, among all peoples, in all spiritual traditions, people seeking the path have tried to solve precisely this task, the task connected with the spiritual quality of their own life. In Yahwism, and later in Judaism, this path became the path of the inner Torah, rooted in the pre-exilic period, in the era of the preaching of the prophet Jeremiah.

This path, however, proved extremely difficult for a person, for the consequences of the fall had not disappeared; they hindered a person from attaining perfection. Jesus offers an extremely clear and simple option: give your life to Me, unite it with My life, and it will not perish; it will not only be preserved in all its fullness, but will also acquire an even greater fullness, one of which a person of the fallen world could not even dream. This is the Christian path: the same path of the inner Torah, walked in unity of life with the One who came to reveal to the world the living Torah in all its fullness.

Judging by the Savior's words, the question of the Kingdom is not religious, but fully a question of life. It is a question of life and death. Indeed, what is the use of gaining everything and losing one's life ("soul")? And in the fallen world the situation, as is clear, is exactly like this. In theory, everyone living on earth can gain the whole world into his own power. But he will not be able to keep his life in the fallen world; the day will come when, despite all the power available to a person, his own life will leave him, as water disappears into sand.

Such is the feature of the fallen world: it is impossible truly, essentially, to possess it; there is nothing in it that would allow a person to be in the full, spiritual sense of the word. It contains many things a person can get hold of, things that can be had. But there is nothing that would allow a person to be, to correspond to God's design for himself, and only correspondence to that design can allow a person to become himself in the true sense of those words. And like everything inauthentic, a person's imagined being in the fallen world finally turns into nonbeing - into the very thing that all being in a world torn away from its Creator is.

It is no wonder that all attempts to hold on to and preserve for oneself that pitiful likeness of life which is called by this word in the fallen world lead nowhere. The only way to survive is to share in another, real life, in the life of that Kingdom which the Savior brought into the world. Here there is no likeness, but real life in all its fullness. But one can receive it only by refusing to cling to the order of things to which the likeness of life belongs, the order by which we live in the fallen world. Otherwise it will not work. We are offered a voyage on a luxurious ocean liner, but to board it we have to let go of the plank we are holding now and which for a time lets us stay afloat.

And Jesus reminds His disciples of the life of the Kingdom, reminds them precisely when they are frightened and confused. For this new life is the Kingdom that He brought into the world. Therefore His resurrection becomes the triumph of the Kingdom. But the apostles will understand this only after His resurrection. For now, all that remains for them is bewilderment.

Why does God need a person to renounce himself, his own personality? Why would He need facelessness? But He calls us to renounce not personality, but selfhood. Personality as something unique is revealed when we enter into relationship with others, while selfhood, being closed in on one’s own interests, makes us indistinguishable from one another. In pride we are all the same!

Jesus’ words about the cross are astonishing. Today we read into them our idea of certain inconveniences of life. But in Jesus’ time this word could not have had such a meaning: the cross was a terrible and shameful execution, and nothing else. Therefore Christ’s words could only mean a call to consent to suffering, death, and shame. And for what is all this self-denial? Simply this: “If anyone wants to come after Me”...

Why does God need that a man should reject himself, his personality, for what does he need faceless? But He doesn’t ask us to reject our personality, but to renounce from our “self”. Personality as something unique manifests itself when we are in relation with others and the “self”, withdrawing into our personal interests makes us indistinguishable. We are all the same in arrogance! Jesus’ words about the cross are surprising. Now we put here our conceptions of some inconveniences in life. But this word couldn’t have such a meaning in Jesus time. The cross was a horrible and humiliating death, and nothing else. Therefore Christ’s words could only signify an invitation to agree suffering, death and shame. And what all this self-abnegation is for? Jesus says simply: “If anyone wishes to come after me”...