The history of this place began more than two thousand years ago. At that time, there was the outskirts of the ancient one, and one of the corner watchtowers with the city gates was located. These walls were built by King Herod. And today you can see here the ancient masonry with a characteristic Herodian trimming along the edges of the stones.

For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

The Alexander Compound was built on a site acquired by the Russian Empire, which was located in close proximity to. Initially, it was planned to build a consulate on this site, but during the clearing of the area, the remains of ancient structures were discovered.

Direct systemic excavations were started by the Imperial Orthodox Palestine Society in 1882. The patron was its chairman, Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich. Archimandrite Antonin (Kapustin), who headed the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission in Jerusalem from 1865 to 1894, was entrusted with supervision and leadership in this matter. The excavations were carried out directly by the German architect and archaeologist, a brilliant connoisseur of Jerusalem antiquities Konrad Schick.

During the excavations, the remains of the city's outer and inner walls, an arch with two columns, the remains of a church built by the Holy Empress Helena in the 4th century BC were found. Konrad Schick determined the shape of the gate in the wall. This immediately entered the system of Christian shrines, as the "threshold of the Judgment Gate", through which Jesus Christ left the city, following to Golgotha.

It became clear that in such a place, valuable for the entire Christian world, as well as the only place on the Way of the Cross belonging to the Russian Orthodox Church, the construction of a Russian consulate is inappropriate. It was decided to build a temple here. But a number of problems arose, since the construction of a church in the courtyard required the consent of the Jerusalem Patriarchate, the Catholic clergy and the Turkish government. The head of the Ottoman Empire forbade any construction in the territories subject to him, the Catholics stood guard over their interests, and the Church of Jerusalem officially protested, fearing that the Russian church would be located next to the main shrine of Christianity - the Church of the Resurrection of Christ. One of the conditions of the Jerusalem Patriarch on the ownership of the church was a categorical statement that the church should belong to the royal family, and not to the Palestinian Society, in whose house it will be located.

Thanks to the diplomatic abilities of Archimandrite Antonin Kapustin and the entire diplomatic Russian mission in the East, an agreement was signed, and the church in the courtyard with a shelter for pilgrims with a total area of ​​​​1433 square meters was consecrated on May 22, 1896 in honor of the Holy Prince Alexander Nevsky.

The temple in the name of Prince Alexander Nevsky is the largest room in the courtyard. It is decorated with a wooden carved two-tiered iconostasis, leading its history back to Byzantine times. The height of the liturgical hall is 10 meters, the length is 22 meters. In the center of the church hall, in front of the iconostasis, there is a stone throne, which scientists and archaeologists attribute to the chapel of the basilica of Tsar Constantine, erected by him in the 4th century. At the end of the western wall hang 14 picturesque icons in black frames on stretchers, revealing to the faithful the holy faces of the ascetics of the faith of Christ.

On the eastern side of the temple there is a triple stained-glass window depicting the Crucifixion with the Mother of God and St. John the Evangelist.

The premises of the large two-story Alexander Compound were intended for a temple, rooms for pilgrims, reception halls, a library and a museum with a rich and interesting exposition.

On the first floor of the Metochion, immediately at the entrance, there is the Reception Room, or as it is called "Royal". It should be clarified that neither Emperor Alexander III nor Nicholas II have ever been here. Perhaps the name comes from the interior of this hall and the royal portraits.

An old wooden staircase leads to the second floor of the Alexander Compound, leading to a corridor and connecting rooms for clergy, a library and an archive.

In the basement of the Metochion, two corridors unite three small rooms that were previously intended for the residence of employees and a cistern that held 15,760 buckets of water.

11. On the longitudinal side walls of the Alexander Nevsky Church there are 18 pictorial images (3 meters high and 2 meters wide) by N. A. Koshelev, professor of the St. Petersburg Academy of Arts, member of the Imperial Orthodox Palestinian Society.
– Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane (1890s)
– Prayer for a cup (1891)
- The Kiss of Judas (1890)
– Leading Jesus Christ to Judgment (1892)
– Denial of the Apostle Peter (1892)
– Accusation of Christ (1894)
– Jesus Christ is led to Pilate (1893)
– Pilate washes his hands (1895)
- Jesus Christ being interrogated by Pontius Pilate (1895)
– Simon Carrying the Cross of the Savior (1900)
– Weep not, daughters of Jerusalem (1899)
– Before the Crucifixion (The Procession of Jesus to Golgotha) (1900)
– Crucifixion (Jesus' rib being pierced by a soldier) (1900s)
– Descent from the Cross (1897)
– Preparations for the burial of Jesus Christ (1894)
– The Virgin at the Holy Sepulcher (The Entombment) (1894)
– Myrrh-bearing women at the Holy Sepulcher (Resurrection of Christ) (1896)
– Descent into Hell (1900)

12. Along the northern and southern walls of the temple are 16 images of ascetics, the righteous and confessors. The images of the saints are executed in a strict pictorial manner full-length, in strict black monastic cassocks, with halos on a golden background. These are the holy Forerunner and Baptist of the Lord John, Andrew the First-Called, George the Victorious and the Monk Chariton the Confessor, John of Damascus and Porfiry, Archbishop of Gaza, the great Barsanuphius and Archbishop Cyril of Alevsky, the Monks John Chozevites and Theoctist the Faster, Gerasimus of Jordan and Hilarion the Great, Theodosius the Great and Savva Sanctified, Euthymius the Great and Great Equal-to-the-Apostles Emperor Constantine and his mother, Saint Equal-to-the-Apostles Helena.

Rodion Chasovnikov, member of the Union of Journalists of Russia

We have all heard the expression: “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.” Many of us know that this is not just an ancient proverb, but gospel words (Gospel of Matthew, ch. 19, article 24; Gospel of Luke, ch. 18, article 25).

Some interpreters believe that the size difference can be reduced somewhat. Thus, some argue that the “eye of a needle” should be understood as the narrow gates of Jerusalem, through which a laden camel could not pass. Others believe that instead of the word "camel", the correct translation will be the words: "thick rope" or "rope". We certainly want to keep at least some hope or illusion that it is possible to slip through, bypass inconvenient laws and patterns. “Well, maybe “pull up” and “squeeze in”, maybe everything is not so strict and fatal ...”

The author of the article in no way objects to the interpretation of biblical texts, taking into account historical realities and scientific data. But even with the above reservations and interpretations, the essence remains unchanged: the achievement of wealth, as a rule, is associated with acts of predatory, dishonest, merciless. Attachment to wealth and luxury, most often, kills a person’s spiritual life, moral core, compassion, striving for an ideal ... There may be exceptions, but we are now talking about what is more common and is confirmed by countless examples of history and our life.

Among the Jews, the apostle was considered one of those who unjustly made their fortune, and - before his apostleship, at a time when he was not yet a disciple of Christ. He, as you know, was then a publican, that is, a tax collector. Like all the lands conquered by the Romans, Judea was taxed in favor of Rome. The publicans collected this tribute, and often, for the sake of their enrichment, they charged the people much more than they should, using the protection of the authorities. Publicans were perceived as robbers, heartless and greedy people, contemptible agents (from among the Jews) of a hostile pagan power.

It was not customary to sit at the same table with the publican, just as it was not customary to share a meal with the most ungodly and sinful people, outcasts of society. In the modern world, everything is different: many will consider it an honor to share a meal with those who have unjustly enriched themselves, especially if these riches are untold. And how often will someone at such a meal remind the owner of a large fortune of conscience, of mercy? Just do not confuse the vulgar games of "charity" with mercy, when some person flies on a private plane in the company of journalists and cameramen to "solve" the "problems" of African refugees, or when one hundred millionaires together for many years restore one temple, which was originally built on modest donations from ordinary people.

But rarely, one of our contemporaries will sit down at the table of the oligarch to call him to change paths, to remind him of eternity ...

And in those distant times, when people were surprised to see Christ in the company of Matthew: “How does He eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?”, the Lord answered:

It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. Since then, Matthew, leaving all his possessions, followed Christ (Gospel of Luke, ch.5, st.28).

So, the Apostle and Evangelist Matthew is a saint who, before following Christ, was connected with his life with money, with the vain and imaginary blessings of this world. Having sacrificed his wealth and the trade of the publican, which was very profitable in those days, he preferred the path of a disciple, a follower of Christ, the path of humility, poverty, martyrdom. He chose the path that leads to the Upper Abode.

We will not now try to answer the question: “can a person, without giving up wealth, maintain the straightness of his path?” We will only remember that the wealth of our contemporaries, acquired in the dashing nineties, will rarely turn out to be purer than those collected by publican Matthew.

Through the choice of the Apostle Matthew, an image is revealed to us for understanding - where is the true goal, and where is the imaginary one, where is our vocation, and where is only a means to achieve the result.

Nowadays, those who have been able to acquire a lot in material terms are often proud of some kind of superiority over others. He is sure that his skills, or reason, or intuition are much larger than those of those who have less income. And such a person measures people at the monetary "rate". In other words, he is above all who are poorer than him, and below all who are richer than him.

Every day we face this approach. The powerful of this world often consider it normal. But, undoubtedly, this is a deeply flawed approach. And not only because the Lord will not credit us with our well-being. Something else is more important. Exalted above the needy, feeling themselves the arbiters of their destinies, free to make decisions or neglect people, money managers stop seeing behind their game both a person and their chance for Salvation.

Someone in this life got dachas and expensive cars, someone has a good heart, someone has wisdom, someone has poverty (a test that also needs to be passed with dignity).

But, any possession is, first of all, a responsibility to the Creator. For all that we have good is God's Gift given to fulfill our calling. And everything that we have is bad is definitely not a reason for pride.

Each attempt to refuse mercy must be correlated with the Gospel Truth and conscience, and not with one's pseudo-truth. Not with its cynical "measure" tuned to the relation to solvency, commercial or political expediency.

It is the awareness of greater responsibility, rather than greater rights, that is the normal response to wealth. It is given not at all in order to take it with you to the grave, or to give yourself maximum pleasure, or to dispose of someone else's will at your own discretion ...

Another important aspect of the problem raised is the attitude of a wealthy person who considers himself Orthodox to church charity.

So he decided to donate funds to the temple. Will he see, looking into his heart, that his sacrifice is like the mite of the gospel widow. What did he give away, having millions - the prescribed tithe or a copper penny. Her penny was great - and this money, perhaps, is not worth anything. But the most important thing is with what intention, for what inner purpose the sacrifice was made. One way or another, we hear all these common truths at sermons in churches, we see them in patristic instructions, we retell each other, but again and again we forget to take them personally.

Why do I donate - in order to help the revival of the holy place and my soul, or in order to tell my friends: "I hung the bells here and gilded the crosses." Which temple do I donate to - the one that needs more than others, where the spiritual life glimmers, or the one where there is a "prestigious party"? Have I forgotten about my good deed, or should it now be glorified by all those living today and their descendants?

And does not the heart overflow with exorbitant pride when a person, having a lot, cold-bloodedly risks refusing a small request to a priest or an old headman or a poor invalid? And will a billion, listed anywhere, according to the arbitrariness of his desire, release from responsibility for this before the Lord?

As we know from the holy fathers and from our own meager experience, the Lord looks at our intention, reflected in the very depths of the heart. And no marketing solution will restore the integrity of a person living by double standards.

You cannot be a wolf from Monday to Friday, and become a Christian on Saturday and Sunday. One cannot acquire the experience of humility and obedience, without which there is no Christian, while remaining a self-willed arbiter of destinies according to the wind of one's own head.

And a terrible moment for an "Orthodox" businessman who does not know humility, spiritual responsibility and simplicity can be the day when he comes to the temple with his tithe, and the Lord does not accept it.

The vast majority of errors in interpretation are not due to the fact that a person does not know the Greek language, or poorly understands the principles of hermeneutics, but simply because of ordinary inattention. Sometimes, a small word consisting of only two letters can make a huge difference. Here, for example, such a word as "same". All in all, an intensifying particle. But such a small and inconspicuous word as "same" can play a large and noticeable role. And only "same" is able to diametrically change our understanding of the text. Of course, the point is not in the particle itself, but in the context that it encourages us to explore, the point is in the questions that it can lead us to. It is like a hook that can hook a weighty fish.

Painting by Vladimir Kush "The eye of the needle" (taken from here)

I have already written about the word "but" in the verse "Faith is the substance of things hoped for" (Heb 11:1). In this verse, "y" shows the relationship with the previous text and helps to correctly understand the text. By examining this text, we will see that Hebrews 11:1 is not a definition of faith, but its properties. Well, I will not repeat myself, you can read more here.

In my previous post, I wrote that there is a very common misinterpretation regarding the “eye of a needle” and to understand this, it is enough to look at the context. I wanted to give some clarification on this issue. Therefore, today I offer one interesting exegetical observation on the text of the 19th chapter of Matthew. We will consider questions about a rich young man who wants to enter into eternal life, needles and camels, and about those who can still be saved.

Let's go through the whole story again. A rich young man approaches the Messiah and says to Him: “What good thing can I do to inherit eternal life?” (Matthew 19:16) I think this phrase is very important. All synoptic evangelists formulate the question in a similar way - "what should I do" in Mark, "what should I do" in Luke. As Donald Carson notes, the young man did not see the relationship between Jesus and eternal life. Apparently, he believed that eternal life is gained through the fulfillment of the commandments of the Law. In other words, he believed in salvation by works.

Mironov Andrey, fragment of the painting "If you want to be perfect",

Christ answers him that the commandments must be kept. To which the young man replies that he kept all the commandments from his youth. In this case, it does not matter whether this is true, or whether he exaggerated his abilities. Personally, I doubt that he fully fulfilled all of the above commandments. Another thing is important - Christ offers him the way of salvation - go sell all your possessions and follow Me. Obviously, in this case, the command to sell the property was given directly to this person in this situation, and God pursued a specific purpose. We clearly understand from the text of the gospel that salvation does not require the complete sale of all our property, then what was the purpose of the Lord in this case?

Quite often I heard sermons condemning a rich young man, they say, he so-and-so left with a seal, was it difficult or something to fulfill what Jesus commanded him? But let's think about it: if for salvation we were required to sell everything that we have - houses, cars, property ... and stay in the same clothes on the street, ... would there be many people who are being saved then? If the prerequisite for baptism was the condition that Christ set for a rich young man, how many were baptized? We can safely say that the condition is extremely difficult, and only God can demand this. But before we talk about the goals that the Lord pursued, let's turn to the next steps. The young man departed with sadness and Christ said to His disciples: “Truly I say to you that it is difficult for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven; I also tell you: it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of the Most High.” And here comes the most interesting.

Heinrich Hoffman. Christ and the rich youth, 1889 Fragment (Taken from here)

In our time, in Christian (and not only) circles, there is a widespread opinion that the richer a person is, the more difficult it is for him to come to salvation. This opinion is based on the fact that the rich have many temptations, they have to give up many, and so on. It's easier for the poor. Let us recall the words of Agur: “Give me no poverty and riches, feed me with my daily bread, lest, having had my fill, I deny You and say: ‘Who is the Lord?’ Proverbs 30:8-9). In general, since the Old Testament times, people understood that it is hard for a rich man to go to God. So, in our understanding, it is hard for the rich, and easier for the poor, to enter the kingdom of God. But did the students think so?

And here the particle “yet” will help us: “Hearing this, His disciples were very amazed and said: then who can be saved?” (Matthew 19:25). This "same" is in all the Gospels, where this story is described. Pay attention - the students were amazed. Matthew uses the word derived from εκπλασσω, which means to be beside yourself with surprise, to be amazed, to be amazed. That is, they were very, very surprised at what was said and answered “so who can be saved?”. As "same" the word άρα is used, which is more correct to translate as "then". We often combine “same” and “then”, we say: “if not he, then who then?”. For example, the world champion in jumping could not take some height, and we say: “If Javier Sotomayor has not taken this height, then who can take it?”. That is, it is assumed that the one about whom it is said so can do it better than others. That is, the meaning of the phrase that the disciples told Christ is this: “If it is difficult for the rich to be saved, then how can anyone be saved at all?”

So, the disciples assumed that it was easier for a rich young man to enter the kingdom of heaven than other people. Two important conclusions can be drawn here:

First: if we assume that such gates as the "eye of the needle" were in Jerusalem, then the extreme degree of surprise of the disciples is absolutely inconsistent. After all, according to history, a camel could pass through this gate, kneeling down. So it's not an impossible thing to do. By the degree of amazement of the students, one can only conclude that such a gate never existed. Moreover, this fact is confirmed by historical evidence. Egor Rozenkov, in particular, writes about this. Gordon de Fee and Douglas Stewart talk about the same thing in their book How to Read the Bible and See Its Value. Craig Kinnear also notes that the gate theory does not stand up to scrutiny.

There is another interesting fact that hammers a nail into the coffin of this theory: Gordon de Fee points out that this interpretation was first encountered in the 11th century and belongs to the monk Toefelact. Apparently, the monk could not correlate rich donations, temples and lands belonging to churchmen with this simple and unambiguous comparison, so he came up with an interpretation.

Also, all the main comments that I use point to the inconsistency of this theory about the gate. In particular, MacArthur and MacDonald talk about it, and Matthew Henry and Dallas Theological Seminary Biblical Interpretations don't even feel the need to prove anything about this gate theory. Carson generally omits this point. Only Barkley mentions the gate in a positive context, and then, his argument is limited to the word "they say that there was such a gate." It is not worth talking about the level of this argumentation. The reference books I use also list the gate theory as alternative, or possible, without providing any historical evidence.

Those same modern "needle ears" that are shown to tourists.

There is only one thing that confuses: those who have been to Jerusalem have seen these gates with their own eyes. At least the guide told them. It is useless to argue with such people, because they have a powerful basis for their belief in the miraculous gate: it is their own impression (seen with their own eyes), and the words of the guide, which they trust more than serious students and the context of Scripture. However, I will say that since the time of Christ, Jerusalem has repeatedly passed from hand to hand of different rulers and empires, it was either destroyed, starting from the famous siege of Titus in 70, or rebuilt again. Yes, and the modern wall surrounding Jerusalem was built under Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent in the Middle Ages. So if there is a gate in the Jerusalem wall today, then they were already built on the basis of a misinterpretation of Theophelactus. Yes, and there is nothing surprising that for tourists in Jerusalem some kind of loophole was called the eyes of a needle. After all, it would be a shame to come to Jerusalem and not find the famous gate there, but it’s a pleasure for tourists - photos, impressions. In short, the first conclusion from this text is that such a gate never existed in Jerusalem. And I mean the usual eye from the needle.

As to whether a rope is meant instead of a camel, I will say that I do not think so. Because, firstly, this is mentioned in three gospels, and the variant of such a distortion in three gospels at once tends to zero. And secondly, a similar phrase is found in ancient literature, at least in the Talmud and in the Koran. Although in this case a camel or a rope are all one, you can’t push a needle into the eye. So, Christ said to the disciples: it is impossible for a rich man to be saved! As MacDonald writes, “The Lord spoke not of difficulty, but of impossibility. Simply put, a rich man simply cannot be saved.”

Second The important conclusion from this story is that, unlike us, the disciples of Christ had no idea that it is difficult for a rich man to be saved. Vice versa! They believed that it is easier for the rich to inherit eternal life. I think there are two reasons for this: firstly, wealth for the contemporaries of Christ meant the favor and disposition of God (as for some today). Although, it is obvious that the Old Testament does not confirm this in any way. And secondly, a rich person can put more in the treasury, can do more good deeds. Accordingly, it has more chances for eternal life, if you understand that a ticket to the Kingdom of God is bought by deeds.

We recall what a rich young man's idea was: "What good can I do?" The young man understood that eternal life can be earned by virtue. Christ showed the true highest level of virtue - sell everything and distribute to the poor. The bar is almost impossible for this young man, who was supposed to break his pride and turn his gaze to Christ. I think the Lord's purpose was to destroy this false notion of salvation by works. Having commanded to sell everything, on an emotional level, He conveyed a simple thought to the consciousness of the young man - you will never be saved by your deeds, you will never be able to save yourself without Me. Never. Later, He again points out to the disciples this truth - it is impossible to be saved by works, only through faith and following Jesus (God can save you).

By the way, pay attention to your feelings when you read this story - do you have surprise and horror? How do you perceive yourself - is it easier for you than a young man to enter the Kingdom of God or more difficult? The fact is that emotionally we do not rank ourselves among the rich and automatically understand that it is they, the rich, who need to leave their luggage and kneel crawling into the sky, and then we will fly there. And if the apostles, hearing this comparison, perceived themselves as an elephant, then we feel ourselves as a maximum of a thread that can easily pass through the eye of a needle.

So, in a nutshell, the conclusions are:

• This story refers to the camel and the eye of the needle.
• Works do not enter into eternal life
• But eternal life is hidden in our Jesus Christ
• It is impossible for a rich man to enter into eternal life until he gives up hope in his riches and admits his spiritual bankruptcy.

So, a small particle “same” can encourage us to take a closer look, as well as change our understanding of the text, destroying a false theory along the way.

The parable of Christ about the camel and the eye of the needle is often remembered when it comes to wealth. This is how the Evangelist Matthew retells this parable: “And behold, someone came up and said to Him: Good teacher! What good can I do to have eternal life? Jesus said to him: If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor; and you will have treasure in heaven; and come and follow me. Hearing this word, the young man departed with sorrow, because he had a large estate. Jesus said to his disciples: Truly, I say to you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven; And again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.”
Indeed, a camel and the eye of a needle are incommensurable things. Did Christ mean to say that a rich man cannot be saved under any circumstances? In 1883, during archaeological excavations in Jerusalem, a discovery was made that shed light on these enigmatic words of the Savior.
The excavations were carried out on a land plot belonging to the Russian Spiritual Mission. Today it is the territory of the Alexander Compound, which houses the temple of Alexander Nevsky, the premises of the Orthodox Palestinian Society and the archaeological complex. And a century and a half ago here, on the land of "Russian Palestine" there was nothing but ancient ruins. It was these ruins that attracted the attention of archaeologists. The teacher of the Department of Biblical Studies of the Moscow Theological Academy, Priest Dmitry Baritsky, tells.

Commentary (Fr. Dmitry Baritsky):

The land of the future Aleksadrovsky metochion was bought from the Ethiopian clergy. Initially, they were going to mark the residence of the consulate here. After a thorough inspection of the acquired territory, it turned out that there was a lot of work to be done. The official for special assignments wrote in a report: "Cleaning the dungeon will require long work and high expenses, because here there was a mound of centuries-old garbage more than five sazhens high." One fathom is 2 meters 16 centimeters. It turns out that it was necessary to dig more than 10 meters! Therefore, it is not surprising that they turned to archaeologists for help. The work was headed by the head of the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission, Archimandrite Antonin (Kapustin). He himself was fond of history and archeology and was an honorary member of several archaeological societies. Perhaps, thanks to Archimandrite Antonin, the excavations were carried out with special care.

"Russian excavations" began in May 1882 and riveted the attention of the scientific community. A part of an ancient fortress wall more than 2.5 meters high, the Threshold of the Judgment Gate, through which the path of Christ to Golgotha ​​passed, was found. A narrow hole was found near the Judgment Gate. When the city gates were closed for the night, this hole served as a passage to Jerusalem for late travelers. The shape of the hole resembled a needle, expanding upwards. These were the very "needle ears" that Christ spoke about! A person can easily pass through such a hole, but a camel is unlikely to squeeze through. However, this is also possible if the camel is without luggage and without a rider. So, thanks to excavations in "Russian Palestine", the words of the Savior about the eye of a needle became more understandable. But this is only one of the mysteries of the gospel parable. There is also the second - actually a camel. With this image, it turns out, too, everything is not so simple. Trying to reconcile the camel and the eye of the needle, some scholars suggest that we are talking not about an animal, but about a rope. This time the study goes into the field of linguistics.

Roman Makhankov, Vladimir Gurbolikov

In the Gospel there are words of Christ that confuse modern man - "It is more convenient for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God." At first glance, this means only one thing - just as it is impossible for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, so a rich person cannot be a Christian, cannot have anything in common with God. However, is everything so simple?

Christ uttered this phrase not simply as an abstract moral teaching. Let's remember what immediately preceded it. A wealthy Jewish youth approached Jesus and asked, “Master! What good can I do to have eternal life? Christ answered: “You know the commandments: do not commit adultery, do not kill, do not steal, do not bear false witness, do not offend, honor your father and mother.” He lists here the ten commandments of the Law of Moses, on which the entire religious and civil life of the Jewish people was built. The young man could not know them. Indeed, he answers Jesus: "All this I have kept from my youth." Then Christ says: “You lack one thing: go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come and follow me." The Gospel says about the reaction of the young man to these words: “Having heard this word, the young man departed with sorrow, because he had a large estate.”

The frustrated young man leaves, and Christ tells the disciples those very words: “It is difficult for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven; And again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.”

This episode is easiest to interpret in this way. First, a rich person cannot be a true Christian. And secondly, in order to be a truly true Christian - a follower of Christ - one must be poor, give up all property, "sell everything and distribute to the poor." (By the way, this is how these words of Jesus are read in many organizations that call themselves Christian, calling for a return to the purity of evangelical ideals. Moreover, the leaders of these religious organizations).

Before finding out why Christ makes such a categorical demand, let's talk about the "camel and the eye of a needle." The interpreters of the New Testament have repeatedly suggested that the “eye of a needle” was a narrow gate in a stone wall through which a camel can pass with great difficulty. However, the existence of these gates is apparently conjecture.

There is also such an assumption that initially the text contained not the word “kamelos”, a camel, but very similar to it “camelos”, a rope (especially since they coincided in medieval pronunciation). If you take a very thin rope and a very large needle, maybe it will still work out? But even such an explanation is unlikely: when manuscripts are distorted, a more “difficult” reading is sometimes replaced by an “easier”, more understandable one, but not vice versa. So in the original, apparently, there was a "camel".

But still, one should not forget that the language of the Gospel is very metaphorical. And Christ, apparently, had in mind a real camel and a real eye of a needle. The fact is that the camel is the largest animal in the east. By the way, in the Babylonian Talmud there are similar words, but not about a camel, but about an elephant.

In modern biblical studies there is no generally accepted interpretation of this passage. But whatever interpretation one accepts, it is clear that Christ is here showing how difficult it is for a rich man to be saved. Of course, Orthodoxy is far from the extremes of the aforementioned sectarian reading of the Bible. However, we in the Church also have a strong opinion that poor people are closer to God, more precious in His eyes than rich people. In the Gospel, the idea of ​​wealth as a serious obstacle to faith in Christ, to the spiritual life of a person runs like a red thread. However, nowhere in the Bible does it say that by itself wealth is a reason to condemn a person, and poverty by her own able to justify it. The Bible in many places, in different interpretations, says: God does not look at the face, not at the social position of a person, but at his heart. In other words, it doesn't matter how much money a person has. It is possible to wither - spiritually and physically - both over gold and over a few coins-lepta.

No wonder Christ valued the widow's two mites (and the "lepta" was the smallest coin in Israel) more expensive than all the other, large and rich contributions placed in the church mug of the Jerusalem Temple. And, on the other hand, Christ accepted a huge monetary sacrifice of the repentant tax collector - Zacchaeus (Gospel of Luke, chapter 19, verses 1-10). It was not for nothing that King David, praying to God, said: “You do not want a sacrifice, I would give it; but you are not pleased with the burnt offering. A sacrifice to God is a contrite and humble heart” (Psalm 50:18-19).

As for poverty, Paul's letter to the Corinthians has a clear answer to the question of the value of poverty in the eyes of God. The apostle writes: “If I give away all my possessions, but do not have love, it does not profit me at all” (). That is, poverty only has real value for God when it stands on the basis of love for God and neighbor. It turns out that it doesn't matter to God how much a person puts in a donation mug. Another thing is important - what was this sacrifice for him? An empty formality - or something important that it hurts to take away from the heart? Words: "My son! Give me your heart” (Proverbs 23:26) – this is the criterion of a true sacrifice to God.

But why then is the Gospel negative about wealth? Here, first of all, we must remember that the Bible does not know the formal definition of the word "wealth" at all. The Bible does not specify the amount from which a person can be considered rich. The wealth that the Gospel condemns is not the amount of money, not the social or political position of a person, but his attitude to all these blessings. That is, who does he serve: God or the Golden Calf? Christ's words, "Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also" illustrates this condemnation.

When interpreting the gospel episode with a rich young man, there is a risk of a literal, dogmatic understanding of what Christ said - said to this particular person. We must not forget that Christ is God, and therefore the Knower of the Heart. The eternal, enduring meaning of the words of the Savior in the case of the young man is not at all that a true Christian should distribute all his possessions to the poor. A Christian can be poor or rich (by the standards of his time), he can work both in a church organization and in a secular one. The bottom line is that a person who wants to be a real Christian must give to God first of all my heart. Trust Him. And be calm about your financial situation.

Trusting God does not mean immediately going to the nearest train station and handing out all the money to the homeless, leaving your children hungry. But having trusted Christ, it is necessary to strive in one's place, with all one's wealth and talent, to serve Him. This applies to everyone, because everyone is rich in something: the love of others, talents, a good family or the same money. This is very difficult, because you so want to set aside at least a part of these riches and hide it for yourself personally. But it is still possible for the “rich” to be saved. The main thing is to remember that Christ Himself, when necessary, gave everything for us: His Divine Glory and omnipotence and Life itself. Nothing is impossible for us in the face of this Sacrifice.