To the words: “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me” (Matthew 26:39). Good Friday

Also that Christ is called Shepherd and Lamb; and about the veil, and about the propitiation sacrifice. 1. Again - the memory of the martyrs, again - the festivals of the pious, again - the speech about angels, again - the solemn meeting of the Church. The remembrance is of those who suffered martyrdom; The honor of the martyrs is the glory of Him for Whom they suffered. The martyrs who suffered for Christ are honoured, and veneration is given to Christ, who suffered for all. Those, through their suffering, raised themselves from a state of humiliation to heights, and the Savior from the heights of Divinity descended into the humiliated state of human nature, not depriving Him of His dignity, but completing the work of His economy. We heard Him say: “I am the good shepherd... who lays down his life for the sheep” (John 10:11). Having said this, He revealed His love for mankind and announced His power. To suffer for the sheep is a matter of philanthropy; and the fact that He Himself, of His own will, “laid down” His soul serves as proof of His power. He does not submit to violence, but carries out the work of His economy. Although the apostle says that the Father gave Him up for us (Rom. 8:32), but he presents the Son's suffering as not forced, showing that the will of the Son was in agreement with the will of the Father. The Son betrays Himself, not necessarily submitting, but cooperating with the Father's intention. It is one thing to serve slavishly and another to assist divinely. After all, His Only Begotten Son assists the Father, although the disciples of the heretics do not want to agree with this. They, due to their depravity, cutting apart the indivisible nature, preach that the Father is the Creator, that the Son is a servant, and that the same is the Holy Spirit. They are not even ashamed of the words of Paul, who called the ministers of the gospel not servants, but co-workers of God, saying: “For we are fellow workers with God” (1 Cor. 3:9). Is Paul a co-worker and the Son a servant? Do not seek what Christ said through the mouth of Isaiah, but what He said personally. In Himself, He is, of course, a Shepherd; and for your sake I became a Lamb. Both of these readings met today. Isaiah read about Him to the eunuch: “He was led like a sheep to the slaughter” (Is. 53:7; Acts 8:32). And the Savior: “I am the good shepherd” (John 10:11). Therefore show me the difference between the Lamb and the Shepherd: in what respect is He the Lamb, in what respect is He the Shepherd? If you do not recognize the difference in names, then how will you understand the dignity of His power? It is clear, of course, that He is the Lamb because of the suffering He endured in the work of housebuilding, and He is the Shepherd because of the excess of love for mankind. Being God, He is not ashamed to call Himself a Shepherd. After all, it was necessary for us to know God and the King Himself. But, due to the fact that we, as people gifted with reason, have not known God, He wants us, at least like foolish sheep, to know our Shepherd. If, having come into the world, the Savior had found you to be a reasonable person, then He would necessarily have appeared to you as God. But, since He did not find you a man, but found you as a sheep wandering, starting from the most ancient times, and calling through the mouth of the prophets to its Lord: “I have gone astray, like a lost sheep: seek Your servant” (Psalm. 118:176), which is why he hides His royal dignity and offers pastoral care. For this reason, from the very beginning he arranges for His body to be laid in a manger, and for this purpose he brings both His Mother and Joseph, the servant of the economy, into cramped conditions. I cannot call him either the father of the Savior or the husband of Mary, but an accomplice and mediator of the sacrament. After all, he was the Virgin’s groom, not her husband; However, by name, of course, he is a husband, but in reality he is a servant of the economy. So, he, together with Mary, is brought to Bethlehem in a cramped position, so that, due to the crowded housing, the Child was of necessity laid in a manger. This oppression was the work of God, so that the Lover of Mankind was necessarily placed in that place, so that he was placed, I say, by virtue of the economy that determined His incarnation. Why does He arrange this? Since the manger is the meal of the dumb, and humanity has adopted the nature of the latter, “man will not remain in honor; he will become like the animals that perish" ("a man who is ignorant of honor, is likened to foolish cattle and becomes like them") (Psalm. 48:13) - then He puts heavenly food on the table of foolish animals, so that those who are bestial in soul, coming to the manger as to their own meal, will find here not animal food, but one who says: “I am the bread that came down from heaven ... and gives life to the world” (John 6:33, 41). So, the Lord is the Lamb for the purposes of economy, and God - for the sake of His glory. He lays down His life for the sheep (John 10:11), not necessarily submitting, as I said before, but Himself taking on this work. Everything that happened during the time of Old Testament worship of God is ultimately traced back to the Savior, whether it be prophecy, or the priesthood, or the royal dignity, or the church, or the sacrificial altar, or the veil, or the ark, or the purification house, or the manna, or the rod, or the stamna, or anything else - everything has to do with Him. From ancient times, God allowed the sons of the Jews to perform sacrificial service to Him, not because He was satisfied with the sacrifices, but because He wanted to distract the Jews from pagan superstitions. From that time on, directing them to where He Himself wants, He imposes on Himself what He would least like. Since the Jewish mind was not yet able to undertake spiritual activity, but was enslaved to pagan habits and felt an attraction to altars and sacrifices, God, taking the idolatry festivals, changes them in accordance with the spirit of piety and, thus, endures what he would not have desired. And just as a good father, after he sees that his son is engaged in pranks, draws him away from the square, at home he allows him to do whatever he wants, and in this way protects his decency, taking away the trait of shamelessness from his amusements - in exactly the same way God, wanting to correct the Jews in the direction of piety through this kind of festive gatherings, allowed them to make sacrifices, gives them a sacrificial altar, commands them to sacrifice and sheep, and goats, and ox, and do everything that brought them joy. God was not pleased with this. 2. And that this happened for the purpose of economy, listen to how He who, through the medium of Moses, allowed the performance of sacrifices and commanded that there should be various types of sacrifices, through the mouth of the prophets, deprives of all meaning what happened only by virtue of His condescension, showing that, like infants, He allowed it to them in the form of “milk”, but did not give it in the form of “solid food”. He speaks through the mouth of David: “Hear, My people, I will speak; Israel! I will testify...: I am God, your God. It is not for your sacrifices that I will rebuke you; Your burnt offerings are always before Me; I will not accept a bull from your house, nor a goat from your folds” (Psalm 49:7-9). And lest anyone think that He does not accept it because He abhors these sacrifices, the Lord further explains the essence of the matter: it is that God has no need for such sacrifices, and not that they are performed at all, and adds: “Do I eat the meat of oxen and drink the blood of goats? Sacrifice praise to God and pay your vows to the Most High" ("Do I eat meat and drink the blood of goats? Devour the sacrifice of praise to God and offer your prayers to the Most High” (Psalm 49:13–14). He shows by this that, not disdaining sacrifices, he rejects them, but in view of the fact that he calls the Jews to a better and spiritual sacrifice. So, from the very beginning He allowed sacrifices to be made, not because He liked them, but for the purpose of correcting those who began in this way towards piety. Making a concession to the will of the Jews, He, as wise and great, by the very permission of sacrifices, prepared the image of future things, so that the sacrifice, in itself useless, would nevertheless prove useful, as such an image. Pay careful attention to the matter, because the thought is deep. The sacrifices were not pleasing to God, as they were performed not at His will, but only at His condescension. He gave the sacrifices that were performed an image that corresponded to the future economy of Christ, so that, if in themselves they were not worthy of acceptance, they would become favorable, at least by virtue of the image they expressed. With all sacrifices He expresses the image of Christ and shades future events. Whether it be a sheep being sacrificed, it is an image of the Savior; whether it be an ox, it is the image of the Lord; whether there will be a calf, or a heifer, or anything else that is usually sacrificed, whether it will be a dove and a turtle dove, everything had to do with the Savior. For this reason there was also a church, so that the image of the Lord's church would be prepared. For this reason - a sheep, therefore - a priest, therefore - a veil. And in order not to fall into some verbosity, I advise you to turn to the interpreter of what is said above, to Paul, who does not allow you to think anything without reference to Christ, but refers everything to Him. So what? Wanting to explain to the Jews the difference between the sacraments: what the meal meant, what the sacrificial altar meant, what the veil meant, what the church meant, what the priest meant, he relates everything in general to Christ and shows that the tabernacle is all this life. But the “first tabernacle” is an image of the Old Testament, and the “Holy of Holies” is an image of the New Testament (Heb. 9). Please pay careful attention to the matter. There was generally one church, but it was divided into one and another part: into the “Holy” and into the “Holy of Holies.” The church is the image of the Lord's body; and listen to what the Lord says: “Destroy this church, and in three days I will raise it up” (John 2:19). So, just as in that church one thing was visible to everyone, and the other to only one high priest, in the same way in the economy of the Savior the Divinity and the power of the Divine, being hidden, acted clearly. You have the image of a church. Find for me the veil in the middle, separating the “Holy” from the “Holy of Holies,” what kind of veil it is; in turn, the veil is an image of the body. Just as the veil divided that space in the middle and separated what was accessible to external observation from the internal mysteries, so the body of the Lord was the veil of the Divine, not allowing mortal eyes to gaze intently on the face of the Immortal. This is not my word, but listen to what Paul says: “Therefore, brethren, having boldness to enter into the sanctuary through the blood of Jesus Christ, in a new and living way, which He again revealed to us through the veil, that is, His flesh, let us approach” (Heb. 10:19-20, 22). Pay special attention. And the Lord called His flesh a church, and the veil an image of the flesh. Further, the bishop entered behind the curtain only once during the year. Paul did not ignore this either, but takes this too as an image of the Savior and says: “For Christ entered not into the sanctuary made with hands, which was built in the image of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us” (Heb. 9:24). You see a bishop - pay attention to the image. In turn, a sheep was sacrificed, and it was the image of the Savior: “He was led like a sheep to the slaughter” (Is. 53:7). A calf, an ox and everything else were sacrificed, and the bishop took with his finger some of the blood of the sacrificed animals, entered the Holy of Holies and sprinkled it seven times before the purification house ("I will straightly purify") (Lev. 16:15). And the purification itself was the image of the Savior, just as the blood with which the bishop sprinkled was the same, so that both the Worshiped One and the gift offered to Him were one and the same. The bodies of those animals whose blood was brought to the “Holy” were burned outside the camp, their ashes sanctified people, and the remains of slain animals sanctified desecrated persons. So, look: the living did not sanctify, but those turned into ashes and sacrificed brought sanctification to defiled people; and the same animals were burned outside the camp, but offered inside. Therefore, the apostle says: “Since the bodies of animals, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for the cleansing of sin, are burned outside the camp” (“for the blood of animals is brought into the holy ... of saints, these bodies are burned outside the camp”) (Heb. 13:11). He pointed out the image, interpreted the truth and said: “And Jesus, in order to sanctify the people by His blood, suffered without the gate” (Heb. 13:12). And what does it add to this? “Let us therefore go out to Him outside the camp, bearing His reproach” (Heb. 13:13). You have an image, look at the truth. Examine the blood and purification again. The blood was sprinkled, the purification center accepted it and purification took place. What is purification? Listen again to what Paul says in Romans: “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace” by His blood, “the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation in His blood” (Rom. 3:23-25). And His blood, and His atonement. I said all this because the Savior God and the Only Begotten Son of God became everything for our sake, and not for His own sake. Some were done for our sake, and others were an expression of worship of Him for His own sake according to His deity. “Other” and “other”, not now divided, but united by economy, but separated by thought. 3. So, when you hear about a bishop, or a shepherd, or a sheep, or a church, or a veil, or an atonement, or the blood of sprinkling, or anything like that, recognize in all things the dispensation that was made for your sake. When you see that the Only Begotten sits on the same throne with the Father (because the church preached and glorified Him), then do not be ashamed of Divine sayings. “Wisdom proclaims in the street, in the squares she lifts up her voice, in the main places of meetings she preaches, at the entrances to the city gates she speaks her speech” (“Wisdom is sung in the outcome, but boldness leads in the hundreds, but it is preached on the edges of the walls”) (Prov. 1:20-21). When you notice that God's wisdom and power are being proclaimed, then reflect on the abundance of glory, on the eternal dignity, inexhaustible, unchangeable, immutable. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1). “It was” everywhere, but “it wasn’t” nowhere. If you think about the abundance of glory, then do not be tempted by the incarnation of the Lord. For example, I will say: if you hear a heretic say: “For the Father... who sent Me is greater than I” (John 14:28), then tell him that it is not surprising if the Son is less than His Father in view of His incarnation, since He became lesser even in comparison with the angels. You, due to your depravity, are trying to prove that the Son is less than the Father; I prove that He, in view of Him incarnation, less even than the angels. You, of course, wanting to prove the difference in the essence of the Father and the Son, cite the saying: “for the Father... who sent Me is greater than I”; I prove that, according to the meaning of this saying, He is less than not only the Father, but also the angels. Blessed Paul, citing the testimony of David: “What is man, that You are mindful of him, and the son of man, that You visit him? You have made him a little lower than the angels” (Psalm 8:5-6), interpreted it in the Epistle to the Hebrews: “Because of the suffering of death, Jesus was crowned with glory and honor, who was made a little lower than the angels” (“We see Jesus as a little less than the angels.” acceptance of death" (Heb. 2:9). So, why do you work so hard and try to prove that the Son is less than the Father, when He is less than the angels, not from the point of view of His dignity, but because of the economy? Then you heard: “The Father who sent Me... is greater than Me.” But haven’t you heard this Gospel voice, which today loudly exclaimed to everyone: “I and the Father are one” (“I and the Father are one”) (John 10:30)? And notice the difference. Where he used “one”, he did not say: “he who sent Me,” but: “Father.” Where he wanted to prove unity and identity, he did not say: “I and He who sent Me are one,” but: “I and the Father.” There is nothing in between between the Father and the Son. And where there is: “more”, there he adds: “he who sent me.” To send is a matter of house-building; and to be sent is not an explanation of the Divinity, but an explanation of the economy. After all, God neither sends physically nor is sent. And how is this - listen. The one who sends sends to those places in which he himself is not personally present. Therefore, show a place where the Father would not be, show a place where the Son would not be present, show a place free from the Holy Spirit. Of course, you can indicate the place if you literally understood that one sent and the other was sent. Consequently, the word “sent” does not mean a transition from a place, but an incarnation. When Scripture says, “There was a man sent from God; his name is John” (John 1:6), then we do not think, of course, that John came from heaven. If he was there, how was he sent? But since he was entrusted with a certain task, Scripture called it a mission. Isaiah in Jerusalem, in the church itself, saw “the Lord sitting on a throne, high and exalted” (Is. 6:1). While in the city and in the church, contemplating the vision and being worthy to see God as far as is possible for man, he heard God say: “Whom shall I send?” ("Whom will I send... to this people" (Is. 6:8). He was among the people, and how is he sent to the people? Thus, being a messenger does not mean a local transition and not a slavish service, but a destination determined by a person. Otherwise, if you are a slave of the letter, then be ashamed of it. If the Lord is sent, then how does He say: “He who sent Me is with Me” (John 8:29)? No one, when sending, goes with the one sent, since otherwise it would mean not sending, but going together. “I am in the Father and the Father in Me” (John 14:10). Where is the messenger here? And lest anyone think that the saying “the Father who sent me is with me” was spoken in relation to activity and help, the Lord says: “The Father abides in me” (John 14:10) and: “I am in the Father and the Father in me” (John 14:11). This saying was foreshadowed by Isaiah, saying: “The labors of the Egyptians and the trade of the Ethiopians, and the Shebeans, tall people, will come to you and will be yours; they will follow you, they will come in chains and prostrate themselves before you, and they will beg you, saying: you have only God, and there is no other God" ("Egypt has labored, and the purchases of Ethiopia, ... The great men of Sheba will come to you, ... and they will follow you, bound with bonds by hand, ... and they will worship you, and they will pray in you, for God is in you there is... and there is no God except You" (Is. 45:14). How is this possible? If there is another in it, then there is no other besides him? “God is in you, and there is no other God” (“is there no God except You?”) Isn’t this an interpretation of that Gospel gospel that says: “I am in the Father and the Father is in Me, and I and the Father are one”? The expression “God is in you, and there is no other God” (“Is there no God unless You”) is an interpretation of the words “I and the Father are one.” And note the wisdom of this saying and the fullness of its power. The saying “I and the Father are one” (“I and the Father are one”) is a double-edged sword that cuts through heretics. The word “one” (“one”) exposes the madness of the Arians, and the word "esma" - Sabelli's merging. "In you is God, and there is no other God" ("For in you there is God,... and there is no God"). And to show that one and the same God is in God, the prophet adds: "You are God, and you do not know" (Is. 45:15). Didn’t he come after the twenty-first generation from Moses? From Moses to David there are seven generations, but from David to Isaiah there are twelve generations. So, how about Him, Whom the prophets preached fifteen generations earlier, that He is God, about Whom Moses said: “Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God is one Lord,” about Whom Samuel exclaimed the same thing, about Whom David preached the same thing, of course, and David, about Whom every prophet also predicted, I repeat: how does the prophet Isaiah speak about Him: “Thou art the hidden God” (“Thou art for God, and not a leader"), unless he truly alludes to the Savior, Who was, of course, then, but remained unknown? With the words “Thou art the hidden God” (“For thou art God, and ignorant”), the prophet does not condemn his own ignorance, but takes upon himself the face of the people. The teaching “You are the hidden God” (“For you are God, and I do not know”) stands in accordance with the words: “Lord! Your hand was raised high, but they did not see it” (“Lord, Your arm is high and does not know”) (Is. 26:11). And, however, what could he say: “Truly You are the hidden God, the God of Israel, the Savior” (“For You are God and know nothing, the God of Israel, the Savior of all”) (Is. 45:15); listen to the angels speaking and preaching the good news to the shepherds: “Do not be afraid; I bring you great joy, which will be to all people: for today is born to you... a Savior Who is Christ Lord" (Luke 2:10-11). "You... are the God of Israel, the Savior of all... Those who resist You will be put to shame;... and they will go away in shame" (Is. 45:15-16), because they will become like non-existents and become worn out, like clothing, "those who resist the word." If you tell a Hellene or anyone else alien to true religion that there is a God, he will not argue; and if you say that there is Christ, then he becomes furious, as blessed David says in one place: “The Lord reigns: let the nations tremble! He sits on Cherubim: let the earth shake!” (“The Lord reigns, let the people be angry; sit on the cherubim, let the earth move”) (Psalm 98:1). Who is "seated"? Is it not clear that He to whom the same prophet speaks (i.e. Isaiah): “He who sits on the cherubim (Is. 37:16), appear, stir up His power and come to save us? Do you see that the deceit shown by heretics does not take place due to words of this kind? But where equality is meant, it is said: “I and the Father”; and where - economy, we read: “He who sent Me is greater than I,” in view of His messengership the Lord is less in comparison with the Father, but not in view of Their Divine unity. 4. Thus, one should pay attention to the Scriptures and not ignore the Divine sayings. You now condemn the entire Gospel, but the Savior - not a single letter. He wanted us to be so careful with Scripture that he said: “Amen, amen, I say to you, it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one jot or one tittle of the law to pass away” (Matthew 5:18). So, the Savior does not treat even an iota with contempt, but you destroy the entire Scripture. The Word clearly shows us that knowledge of the Scriptures is more powerful than the resurrection of the dead. It is not so much the resurrection of the dead that matters as the reading of the Scriptures. Listen to the patriarch Abraham, who hears the rich man say to him: “Father Abraham! have mercy on me and send Lazarus, so that... he will tell my brothers so that they too will not come to this place of torment” (Luke 16:24, 28). And what does he say? “They have Moses and the prophets; let them listen to them. He said: No, Father Abraham... unless someone rises from the dead, they will not believe.” Abraham answers him: “Amen, I tell you, if they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, even if someone were raised from the dead, they will not believe” (Luke 16:29-31). Pay careful attention. Would they not believe if anyone rose from the dead? No way. And pay attention to the following conclusions. Let us assume that one of the ancient dead would appear: either from among those unknown to us, or from among those known. If he were one of the unknown, then this ignorance would obscure the miracles. If Moses appeared today, how would you know it was Moses? If Isaiah appeared today, how would you know it was Isaiah? And if someone else had resurrected, for example, from among those who have died in our days, then again the miracle would be obscured: some would say that it was the one who died; others would argue that this is not a dead person, but some kind of demon and ghost. Unbelief has no shortage of evil subterfuges. And what is surprising if the ungrateful human spirit could slander even the resurrected dead? When a blind man was healed, some said: “This is he, and others: No, but he looks like him” (John 9:9). When he said: “It is I,” then although he himself testified about himself and cried out about the miracle, however, those ungrateful ones denied the latter. Didn’t many people resurrect during the time of the Savior: “Many bodies of the departed saints... emerging from their tombs... entered the holy city and appeared to many after the Lord’s death on the cross.” (Matt. 27:52–53). But did the miracle quench unbelief and overcome stubbornness? Miracles are offered for unbelievers, not for believers. An infidel, when given the opportunity, treats miracles with contempt. But look, if they could be ashamed of the risen dead, they would undoubtedly be ashamed before Lazarus. Lazarus rose from the dead. And when, as a result of the resurrection of Lazarus, many came to look at the Savior, the Jews began to consult among themselves about killing Lazarus. See how stubbornness remains equal to itself everywhere. Therefore, naturally the patriarch said that if they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, then even if someone were to rise from the dead, they would not believe him. And now the heretics, if they do not listen to Moses, the prophets and the Gospels, will not show obedience, even if someone made countless speeches. But we will not deviate from our path. “I am the way,” says the Lord (John 14:6). Therefore, he who goes astray wanders. He who walks independently of the instructions of the Scriptures is subject to the influence of storms. Just as one who is carried by many winds at sea cannot navigate a straight path, but is tossed hither and thither by various winds, so one who is influenced by various teachings and does not follow the teachings of the Gospel is no different from a ship tossed by waves. Therefore, the Scripture says: “Do not blow with every wind” (“Do not blow yourself with every wind”) (Sir.5:11); and the interpreter adds: “and not every word is believed” (Sir.19:16). And so that you know that Scripture calls all kinds of teaching “every wind,” listen to what Paul says: “That we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about by every wind of teaching, through the craftiness of men, through cunning craftiness of deception” (Eph. 4:14). “By every wind of doctrine”: this “by every wind” is said instead of the words: “by every wind of doctrine.” Whoever gives himself up to the latter is overwhelmed by waves, exposed to storms, and undergoes shipwreck. One voyage, one way, one harbor: faith. She guides, she closes, she provides refuge. Whoever has fallen from the faith suffers shipwreck, as Paul tells Timothy, who writes: “I am teaching you, my son Timothy... this commandment, that you should fight according to them, as a good soldier, having faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and suffered shipwreck in the faith” (1 Tim. 1:18-19). Therefore, he who departs from the faith suffers shipwreck. The one who follows faith leads his ship into a calm harbor. Therefore, let us not be carried away by “every wind.” After the Lord there is no place for another teaching. After Moses, Christ was expected; and after Christ no one else is expected. Therefore, Moses, wanting to teach the people that they should not be satisfied with their own laws alone, but should expect some kind of perfection in this case, said: “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet; listen to Him” (Deut. 18:15). If Moses had been aware of the perfection of his teaching, he would not have sent to another teacher, saying: “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet from your brothers and yours, like me.” Because a prophet is from your midst. God is not from your midst, but a prophet is from yours. God is from God; and a prophet, according to his flesh, is from your midst. That is why Moses says: “like me, a lawgiver.” Since one ancient legislator is Moses, and the second legislator is the Savior, not of one people, but of the universe, then Moses said: “like me,” according to the characteristic features of both and their legislation. Who will testify to this word? David, who lived a few generations after Moses, exclaimed: “Arise, O Lord, let not man prevail, and let the nations be judged before Thy presence. Bring fear, O Lord, upon them” (“Rise up, O Lord, let no man be strong, let the nations be judged before Thee. Set, O Lord, a lawgiver over them”) (Psalm 9:20–21). So, if David had been before Moses, he would naturally have pleaded for Moses; and if Moses shone earlier, and David was born after Moses, then why did the prophet David want to call another legislator, when there was already another, and why did he say: “Set, Lord, a lawgiver over them”? Over whom, if not over the pagans? He says: “Arise, Lord, let not man prevail, let the nations be judged before Thy” (“Rise up, Lord, let not man prevail, let the nations be judged before Thee”). For a lawgiver was given to the Gentiles. Let the pagans know that they too are people. Before the legislator they lived like dumb animals. If God, the Word, comes, he will heal them, making their nature rational. So, Moses, as I said earlier, said: “The Lord God will raise up for you a prophet... like me,” and David: “Set, O Lord, a lawgiver over them.” But Paul, coming after the Savior, being His herald and seeing that those ancients had to wait for Christ, and after Christ - no one else, therefore says: “Whoever preaches to you a gospel contrary to what you received, let him be accursed” ( Galatians 1:9) He excludes any other title and receives the keys of the kingdom. And what should not be expected after Christ’s teaching is this: “If anyone preaches to you anything other than what you received, let him be accursed.” And in order to impose a prohibition not only on deception on the part of other people, he continues the contest and says: “even if we” (Gal. 1:8). the apostle to teach differently? It is clear that the divine Paul used hyperbole: “Even if you heard me preaching something else, think that I do not speak on behalf of God.” That’s why he says: “even if we” are something unreliable, but God’s language does not change. That is why the apostle says: “even if we or an angel from heaven.” It is not without reason that you came to the assumption that an angel from heaven had the intention of introducing an alien teaching. However, the apostle does not warn against angels, but stops the deceit, the devil: “and even if ... an angel from heaven.” He did not say this because he was aware of the inherent ability of angels to do such a thing - after all, he knew that among angels the truth is unshakable - but since Satan is often transformed and demons often take the form of angels in order to introduce a teaching that is in accordance with their intention, as it is said in Scripture: “Satan himself takes the form of an angel of light” (2 Cor. 11:14), therefore he separates the true angels from those who only hide behind them appearance, and expresses only a simple opinion against the angels, without insulting them, but blocking the path of the demons. The angels did not show indignation when Paul said: “Even if... an angel from heaven preached to you a gospel other than what we preached to you, let him be accursed,” but they rejoiced at the boldness of the herald, who affirmed and protected the divine preaching. Therefore, the angels themselves, having learned that one should not believe anything except the word of the apostles, protect it and no longer preach it. They, of course, are sent to people, and yet, without any doubt, they do not preach. Once an angel was sent to Cornelius; he appears to the latter and announces his ministry, saying: “Cornelius, ... your prayers and your alms have come as a memorial before God” (Acts 10:3–4). To declare is my work, but to preach is apostolic. The angel has the knowledge of whether the manner of service and prayer is favorable to God; The angel entrusts preaching not to himself, but to the apostles. Therefore, he adds to his speech: “So send people to Joppa and call Simon, who is called Peter. He is visiting a certain Simon the tanner, whose house is located by the sea; he will tell you words by which you and your whole house will be saved” (Acts 10:5-6). And what prevented the angel from immediately announcing this? Wouldn't an angel's sermon be more reliable? Wouldn't Cornelius have been more confident when he heard about the cross from the angel, also about the passion of Christ and about the economy? But the angel is at the same time wary, not wanting to open a place for demons, and shows us that apart from the apostolic teaching it is impossible to be saved. If an angel from heaven, preaching something else, is anathematized, then a person who sympathizes with the Aryan dogmas and teaches in the spirit of the opinions of Eunomius and Sabellius, will not, in all fairness, be anathematized if he does not correct himself through repentance? Think, brothers, that this was said not by us, but by the holy martyr and the ambassadors of the Father. This is said in honor of the martyrs. After all, honoring a martyr is preserving the faith. Therefore, if you want to honor a martyr, then almost the One for Whom he suffered martyrdom. If he shed blood for Christ, then will you not shed blood for Christ? So, having this undoubted sign of faith, let us take care to shine with our good deeds, so that, having sowed virtues, we will reap rewards. Each is a reaper of righteousness for his own deeds, as Paul also says: “While there is time, let us do good” (Galatians 6:10), because in due time we will reap, without suffering any loss. What time is it? On the day of resurrection. Time is not our own, but someone else's. Here are seeds, and there are ears. Here you sow with sorrow, and there you reap with joy, as David says: “Those who sow in tears will reap with joy” (Psalm 126:5). Oh that we might both sow and reap with joy in Christ Jesus our Lord, to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen. Doubtful works (Spuria) attributed to St. John Chrysostom. The paragraphs in the text were arranged by us. – editors of “The ABC of Faith”.