And let's study the "Interpretation of Theophylact of Bulgaria on the Holy Gospel"! This is a very interesting work. Its author is Archbishop Ohrid Theophylact of Bulgaria. He was a major Byzantine writer and theologian, interpreter of the Holy Scriptures. He lived in the late XI - early XII century in the Bulgarian Byzantine province (now the Republic of Macedonia).
Theophylact of Bulgaria was often called blessed, although he did not belong to the publicly recognized saints of the Orthodox Church. It should be noted that Slavic and Greek authors and publishers often call him a saint and equate him with church fathers.
Biography
The biography of Theophylact Bulgarian is little known. Some sources report that he was born after 1050 (until 1060 for sure) on the island of Euboea, in the city of Chalkis.
In the Cathedral of St. Sophia in Constantinople, Feofilakt was granted the rank of deacon: thanks to him, he approached the court of Emperor Parapinak Michael VII (1071-1078). Many believe that after Mikhail died, Feofilakt was assigned to his son Tsarevich Konstantin Duki as a teacher. After all, the four-year-old orphan, and now this heir had this status, only his mother remained - Empress Maria, patroness of Theophylact of Bulgaria. By the way, it was she who prompted him to write the best things.
It should be noted that the rise in the written work of Feofilakt, the correspondence from Bulgaria with a large number of prominent people, its sending to Bulgaria by the Archbishop of Ohrid belong precisely to the period of the reign of Komnin Alexei (1081-1118). The expulsion of Theophylact from the capital, where he unsuccessfully rushed, is probably due to the disgrace of the autocratic family of Michael.
No one knows how long the blessed Theophylact remained in Bulgaria and when he died. His some letters are dated the beginning of the XII century. During the period when he was at the court of Empress Mary, but not earlier than 1088-1089, the evangelist created the “Royal Instructions”. This incomparable work, very authoritative in the literary environment, was specially intended for his student, Tsarevich Konstantin. And in 1092, he wrote a very pompous eulogy to Emperor Alexei Komnin.
Creations
It is known that the most important historical monument of literary creativity of Theophylact is considered his correspondence. 137 letters that he sent to the highest secular and clergymen of the empire survived. In these letters, Blessed Theophylact of Bulgaria complained about his fate. He was a refined Byzantine and with great disgust relate to the barbarians, to his Slavic flock, "smelling of sheepskin."
It should be noted that reports of popular uprisings, which constantly appeared before the advent of the second Bulgarian kingdom, as well as the crusader armies that appeared from time to time, elevate many letters of Theophylact to the level of an outstanding historical source. Data on the administration of the kingdom and on the countless figures of the era of Komnin Alexei are also important.
The peak of the creative path of Theophylact is the interpretation of the New Testament and the Old. These are books of scripture. The most original work in this area, of course, is clarification on the Gospel, mainly on St. Matthew. It is interesting that the author bases his arguments here on heterogeneous interpretations of John Chrysostom on the colossal number of individual episodes of Holy Scripture.
In general, Theophylact often admits allegorical interpretations of the text; in places, even moderate debate with heresies slips through. Theophylact Bulgarian interpretation of the apostolic acts and epistles for the most part left in the comments, but the current texts are literally written off from little-known sources of the 9th century and 10th century. He is the author of the full life of Blessed Clement of Ohrid.
Of paramount importance is his polemic book against the Latins, written in the spirit of reconciliation, and the word about the fifteen martyrs who suffered under Julian in Tiberiupol (Strumica).
An interesting fact: in Patrologia Graeca the writings of the evangelist are placed from the 123rd to the 126th volume inclusive.
Interpretation of the Gospel of Matthew
So, Theophylact wrote a wonderful interpretation of the Gospel of Matthew, and now we will try to examine this work in more detail. He argued that all the holy men who lived before the law received knowledge not from books and scriptures. This is very surprising, but in his composition it is indicated that they were brought up by lighting the All-Holy Spirit and only thus knew God's will: God himself had conversations with them. Such he represented Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Isaac, Job and Moses.
A little later, people soured and became unworthy of the teaching and enlightenment of the Holy Spirit. But God is philanthropic, he gave them the scripture, so that even thanks to him they remember His will. Theophylactus writes that Christ personally first had conversations with the apostles, and then sent the blessings of the Holy Spirit to them as mentors. Of course, the Lord expected that heresies would appear over time and human customs would deteriorate, so he favored both Gospels to be written. Indeed, in this way we, drawing from them the truth, will not get carried away with heretical lies and our morals will not spoil at all.
And of course, the interpretation of the Gospel of Matthew is a very soulful work. Studying the Book of Kinship (Matthew 1: 1), Theophylact wondered why St. Matthew did not say, like the prophets, the word “vision” or “word”? After all, they always noted: “The vision that Isaiah admired” (Isa. 1: 1) or “The Word that was ... to Isaiah” (Isa. 2: 1). Would you like to find out this question? Yes, just seers turned to the rebellious and hard-hearted. Only for this reason they told that it was the Divine vision and the voice of God, so that the people would be frightened and not neglect what they told him.
Theophylact notes that Matthew spoke with the well-meaning, faithful and obedient, and therefore did not say anything like this to the prophets before. He writes that what the prophets contemplated, they saw with their minds, looking at it through the Holy Spirit. That is why they said it was a vision.
Matthew did not contemplate Christ with his mind, but morally stayed with Him and sensually listened to Him, observing Him in the flesh. Theophylact writes that only because of this he did not say: “the vision that I observed” or “contemplation”, but said: “The book of kinship”.
Further, we learn that the name “Jesus” is Jewish, not Greek, and it translates as “Savior”. After all, the word "yao" among the Jews refers to salvation.
And Christians (“Christ” means “anointed” in Greek) were called the high priests and sovereigns, for they were anointed with holy oil: it poured from the horn that was applied to their head. In general, the Lord is also called Christ as the Bishop, for he himself sacrificed himself as the King, and was set up against sin. Theophylact writes that He is anointed with real oil, the Holy Spirit. Moreover, He is anointed before others, for who else possessed the Spirit like the Lord? It should be noted that the blessing of the Holy Spirit acted in the saints. In Christ, the following power functioned: Christ Himself and His Spirit, consubstantial with Him, performed miracles together.
David
Theophylact further reports that as soon as Matthew spoke “Jesus,” he added “David the Son” so that you would not think that he was referring to another Jesus. Indeed, in those days there was another outstanding Jesus, after Moses the second leader of the Jews. But this was not called the son of David, but the son of Nun. He lived much earlier than David and was born not from the tribe of Judah, from which David appeared, but from another.
Why did Matthew first set David to Abraham? Yes, because David was better known: he lived later than Abraham and was known as a magnificent king. Of the rulers, he was the first to pity God and received a promise from him, informing that Christ would arise from his seed, why Christ was called the Son of David.
David really retained the image of Christ in himself: just as he reigned in the place of the Lord left and hated Seoul, so Christ came and reigned over us after Adam lost the kingdom and the power that he had over demons and all living things.
Abraham begat Isaac (Matt. 1: 2)
Further, Theophylact interprets that Abraham was the father of the Jews. That is why the evangelist begins the genealogy with him. In addition, Abraham received the first promise: it was said that "all nations shall be blessed from his seed."
Of course, it would be decent to start the family tree of Christ with him, for Christ is the seed of Abraham, in which we receive the grace of all of us who were Gentiles before that were under an oath.
In general, Abraham is translated as “the father of tongues,” and Isaac means “laughter,” “joy.” It is interesting that the evangelist does not write about the illegitimate descendants of Abraham, for example, about Ishmael and others, since the Jews did not come from them, but from Isaac. By the way, Matthew mentioned Judah and his brothers because the twelve tribes descended from them.
Clarifications to the Gospel of John
Now let’s look at how Theophylact of Bulgaria interpreted the Gospel of John. He wrote that the power of the Holy Spirit , and as indicated (2 Cor. 12: 9), and as we believe, is accomplished in weakness. But not only in the weakness of the body, but also in eloquence and reason. In evidence, he cited the example that grace had shown on the brother of Christ and the great theologian.
His father was a fisherman. John himself traded in the same way as his father. He could not get not only Jewish and Greek education, but he was not at all learned. This information is reported by St. Luke in Acts (Acts 4:13). His fatherland was considered the poorest and most obscene - it was a village where they engaged in fishing, and not sciences. He was born in Bethsaida.
The Evangelist wonders how, however, the Spirit could receive this illiterate, ignoble, in no way outstanding person. After all, he announced that none of the other evangelists taught us.
It should be noted that since they preach the incarnation of Christ, and do not say anything sensible about His eternal being, there is a danger that a people attached to the earthly and not able to think of anything lofty will think that Christ began His Being only after that as Mary gave birth to him, and his father did not give birth before centuries.
It was such a fallacy that Paul of Samosat fell. That is why the glorious John proclaimed the birth of the highlands, mentioning, however, the birth of the Word. For he proclaims: “And the word became flesh” (John 1:14).
Another amazing situation is revealed to us in this John the Evangelist. Namely: he is the only one, and he has three mothers: native Salomia, thunder, for for his immense voice in the Gospel he is “the son of thunders” (Mark 3:17), and the Virgin. Why the Virgin? Yes, because it says: “Behold, your mother!” (John 19:27).
It was at the beginning of the Word (John 1: 1)
So, we study further the interpretation of the Gospel of Theophylact of Bulgaria. What the evangelist said in the preface, he repeats now: while other theologians extensively narrate about the birth of the Lord on the Earth, his upbringing and growth, John ignores these events, as his fellow practitioners have said a lot about them. He only speaks of the Divine being humanized among us.
However, if you take a closer look, you can see how, although they did not hide information about the only begotten Deity, they still mentioned it a little, so John, fixing his eyes on the word of the Almighty, laid emphasis on the economics of incarnation. For the souls of all are led by one Spirit.
Is not it true that the interpretation of the gospel of Theophylact of Bulgaria is very interesting to study? We continue to get acquainted with this wonderful work. What does John tell us? He tells us about the Son and the Father. He points to the infinite existence of the Only Begotten when he states: “There was the Word in the beginning,” that is, from the beginning it was. For what happened from the beginning, of course, the time will not appear when it is not found.
“From where,” some will ask, “can one determine that the phrase“ in the beginning was ”means the same as from the beginning?” Indeed, from where? Both from the very understanding of the general, and from this theologian himself. For in one of his manuscripts he says: “that which was from the beginning, that we ... saw” (1 John 1: 1).
The interpretation of Theophylact of Bulgaria is very unusual. He asks us if we see how the chosen one explains himself? And he writes that the questioner will say so. But he understands this “in the beginning” as he did in Moses: “God created in the beginning” (Genesis 1: 1). Just as the phrase “at the beginning” does not give an understanding, as if the sky is eternal, so here he does not want to define the word “at the beginning” as if the Only Begotten is infinite. Of course, only heretics say so. There is nothing left for this crazy perseverance, how to say: the sage is angry! Why are you silent about what follows? But we will say this against your will!
In general, the interpretation of Theophylact of Bulgaria suggests various thoughts about being. Here, for example, Moses says that first God created the firmament of heaven and earth, and here it is said that in the beginning "was" the Word. What is similar between “created” and “was”? If even here it had been written “God created the Son in the beginning,” the evangelist would not say anything. But now, after it was said "in the beginning it was," he concludes that the word has existed for centuries, and not over time has received being, as many people say.
Is not it true that the interpretation of Theophylact of Bulgaria is precisely the work that you read? So, why didn’t John say that “in the beginning was the Son”, but the “Word”? The Evangelist claims that he speaks of this because of the weakness of the audience, so that when we hear about the Son from the very beginning, we do not think of carnal and passionate birth. To do this, He called His “Word” so that you would know that just as a word is born impassively from the mind, so He is born from a father calmly.
And one more explanation: he called him the “Word” because He informed us of the qualities of his father, just as any word declares mood. And together so that we can see that He is perfect for the Father. For as it is impossible to assert that the mind very often happens without a word, so the Father and God cannot be without the Son.
In general, the interpretation of Theophylact of Bulgaria shows that John used this expression because there are many different words of God, for example, commandments, divination, like the angels say: “powerful by strength, fulfilling His will” (Ps. 102: 20), that is His command. But it should be noted that the word is a personal being.
Clarifications to the Epistle to the Blessed Apostle Paul
Interpretation of the New Testament by the evangelist encourages people to continually read the scriptures. This leads to their knowledge, because He who says cannot seek lies, seek and find, knock, and will open to you (Matthew 7: 7). Because of this, we are in contact with the secrets of the Epistles of the Blessed Apostle Paul, only you need to read these messages carefully and constantly.
It is known that this apostle exceeded all the word of teaching. This is right, because he has worked more than anyone else and has received the generous blessing of the Spirit. By the way, this can be seen not only from his epistles, but also from the Apostolic Acts, which says that for the perfect word the unbelievers called him Hermes (Acts 14:12).
The interpretation of Blessed Theophylact of Bulgaria reveals the following nuances: the first letter to the Romans is offered to us not because they think that it was written before other messages. So, before the Letters to the Romans, both messages to the Corinthians were created, and before them the Epistle to the Thessalonians was recorded, in which blessed Paul points to them with alms, to the alms sent to Jerusalem (1 Thess. 4: 9-10; cf. 2 Cor. 9: 2).
In addition, before the letter to the Romans, the letter to the Galatians was also written. Despite this, the interpretation of the Holy Gospel tells us that the Epistle to the Romans from the rest of the epistles was created by the very first. Why is it in the first place? Yes, because the divine scripture does not need a chronological order. So do twelve soothsayers, if they are listed in the order in which they are placed in the holy books, they do not follow each other in time, but are separated by an enormous distance.
But Paul writes to the Romans only because he bore the duty of going through the holy service of Christ. In addition, the Romans were considered the primates of the universe, for whoever brings benefits to the head, has a beneficial effect on the rest of the body.
Paul (Rom. 1: 1)
Many Evangelist Theophylact of Bulgaria perceived as a life guide. He really is a very valuable work. By the way, he says that neither Moses, nor the evangelists, nor after him did anyone write their names before their own writings, and the apostle Paul indicates his name before each of his epistles. This nuance occurs because the majority wrote for those who lived with them, and he sent messages from afar and, as usual, made the rule of the distinguishing qualities of messages.
It should be noted that in Hebrews he does not. After all, they hated him, and therefore, so that when they heard his name they did not stop listening to him, they withheld their name from the very beginning.
Why did he rename himself from Paul to Paul? In order not to be lower than the supreme of the apostles, named Kifa, which means "stone", or the sons of Zavedey, called Voanerges, that is, the sons of thunder.
Slave
What is slavery? It has several types. There is creation slavery that is written about (Psalm 119: 91). There is slavery through faith, about which they say: “they began to perceive that way of teaching to which they dedicated themselves” (Rom. 6:17). There is still slavery in the way of being: from this position Moses is called the servant of God. Paul is a “slave” in all these forms.
We hope this article introduced you to the famous work of Theophylact and will help in the further, deeper study of his writings.