Considered among the greatest novels of the 20th century, Bulgakov's The Master and Margarita is a timeless favorite, appreciated and studied today as much as it was 50 years ago. The author's multiple interpretations of the novel and its profound nuances have captured the attention of scholars and students. Among the main characters of the novel are Doctor Woland and his gang, who are representations of Satan or satanic figures, and follow the misdeeds they devise around Moscow. Of course, the inclusion of Satan as a main character who kills and seems intent on driving people mad may seem rather heretical from the outside, I might agree. But as for the claim that “The Master and Margaret is the most heretical novel of the twentieth century,” I would stand by that claim and argue instead that the book celebrates spirituality and freethought, more specifically in the context of Christianity, because of the book's status as a satire of an atheist Russia and why Bulgakov does not present the book in an anti-Christian way. One explanation for Bulgakov's heresy in The Master and Margarita is that he chose the Hebrew name of Jesus, Yeshua Ha-Nostri, as the character of the Master novel instead of using Jesus Christ. This is presumably done to focus on the humanity of Jesus and ignore any kind of divine portrayal of Jesus, perhaps as part of a larger insult. I totally disagree with this statement. Understanding the context in which the book was written could help understand Bulgakov's intentions in doing so. The book was written as a satire of the Russian communist regime and, more generally, to satirize life in Russia under communist political and economic control during the first... half of the paper... of actual historical events. But Bulgakov spends a lot of time telling Jesus' trial in a historically realistic way, and I think that says a lot about Bulgakov and his intentions. Would someone who was a heretic spend time flipping through the Bible and piecing together plausible events to construct a historical narrative? And instead of using important religious figures as plot devices in The Master and Margarita, Bulgakov instead implements fantasized, fictional, and even absurd elements and characters in the novel. While this might be considered mockery or taken as an insult, I'd rather limit it to creative writing instead of seething religious criticism. In summary, The Master and Margarita would seem more like Bulgakov's attempt to support Christianity as a relevant part of our culture rather than a protest against it..