Беседа на вочеловечение Господа нашего Иисуса Христа. Св. Иоанна Златоустого, архиепископа Константинопольского

With bold hope for the help of the Holy Spirit, I occupy the preaching pulpit, not ashamed of my poverty: being disposed towards the poor, you, out of a feeling of love, will take pity on me. Being poor, I turn to the rich, not overcome by the disease of begging, but trying to satisfy the desire of your God-fearing soul. I forget about my weakness, about the poverty of my words, at the sight of these beautiful and kind spectators: after all, I know that you are not coming here as connoisseurs of my speeches, or not as spectators of competitions, but as fathers working together with their son. I speak with my tongue, but you ask God with your heart that a word may be given to me for the opening (Eph. 6:19); out of love for children, you accept our works as your own glory. In the hope of this, I speak without hesitation: your attention frees me from indecision, your holy prayer transforms my ignorance into a teaching of virtue. However, all this is just for introduction. And today, having girded my loins with the truth, having shod my feet with the readiness to preach the gospel of peace, I enter the battle, not fighting with words against words, not with rhetorical eloquence destroying the connection of sentences, but with a careful study of the divine word, destroying the skillful constructions of heretics, like the fabric of a spider's web. The following passage is read by the Apostle: O the depth of the wealth and wisdom and mind of God! For His judgment is not tried, and His ways are not tried (Rom. 11:33). The wealth of God, according to the word of the Apostle, lies in the depths and is known in the heights - in the depths in humanity, and in the heights in Divinity. Thus, precisely, God spoke through the Prophet to Ahaz, revealing the economy: ask yourself a sign from the Lord your God in depth, or in height (Is. 7:11), in depth - in relation to the economy (incarnation), and in height - in relation to the teaching about God. Just as it is a profound sign to be born of a Virgin, so lofty is the prediction that God will be born of God. And so, brother, if you become busy with unnecessary things and become curious, you will neither understand the heights nor find the depths. Both births of Christ are sacred - both the one and the other: the one that is by nature, and the one that is contrary to nature. Precisely, contrary to nature, in recent times He was born of the Virgin, and in accordance with nature, before the ages He was born of the Father as the One who gave birth knew. Truly God was born from God, truly God was born from the Virgin by man among men: above one from one Only Begotten, and below one from one Only Begotten; and just as in relation to the upper birth it is impious to presuppose a mother, so in relation to the Virgin it would be blasphemy to presuppose a father. The Father gave birth undivided, and the Virgin gave birth unharmed; neither the Father, having given birth, suffered an expiration, because he gave birth as befits God, nor did the Virgin experience corruption after birth. Oh, sacred and inexplicable mystery! I dare to say and, affirming this, I am not mistaken: both above the virgin nature gave birth (because the essence of the Divine is pure and incorruptible), and below the incorruptible Virgin gave birth to the Imperishable One, about whom it is said: Do not let your venerable one see corruption (Acts 2:27). When nature follows its usual order, then you, man, seek what is in agreement with nature, and when God commands something, then nature deviates from its order and does what God’s law wants. For example, God commanded a rock in the desert to release water, and it released not what it had in its depths, but what the command contained. And so, how the rock became a source at the behest of God and produced a rapid mountain stream of water, and did not take it from the vein lying below or from the river, but, being dry, without a spring and without moisture, it became the mother of streams, abundantly shedding the water that it did not have; Having never known her husband, the Virgin, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, gave birth to our Lord in the flesh, not submitting to the order of nature, but by the power of the Most High, preparing for birth. She did not give birth according to the law of nature, but, having received power from the Holy Spirit, she gave birth as the grace of God wanted. For, he says, the Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you: in the same way, the holy thing to be born will be called the Son of God (Luke 1:33). If you want to know how nature departs from its order in order to serve the will of God despite itself, ask the rod of Aaron: “Tell me, dry rod, how did you produce leaves and fruit in a very short time contrary to nature?” Moses didn’t stick you into the ground first, didn’t water you with water, it wasn’t time that caused your roots; you have not experienced either summer or spring, have not experienced either winter or autumn: so, how did you give leaves, and flowers, and fruits"? “I did not submit to changes in the air, say the rod, or to the changes of the seasons, but, obeying the Divine word, I violated nature and, contrary to it, gave fruit," so that both by nature and contrary to nature we obey the will of the best Artist. So, man, like a rod contrary to nature gave birth to the fruit so that Judea would believe, and the living rod - the royal Virgin gave birth, in addition to the marriage laws, so that the whole universe would be saved. But perhaps you will say: what is the similarity between the rod and the Virgin giving birth? the fruit is contrary to nature, so here too, contrary to nature, the Virgin brought forth the flower of piety. The rod, they say, will come forth from the root of Jesse, and a flower will spring up from it (Is. 11:1). So, it is not in vain that Paul is amazed at the riches of God, that is, at the economy of the incarnation of Christ? Oh, the unbelief of heretics! Oh, their furious and ungodly tongue! The contemplator of paradise, the ardent admirer of Christ, the listener of inexplicable mysteries and the explorer of the universe trembled and was confused, but you, exploring the Divinity, do not tremble? Paul calls the judgments of God unsearchable, but you argue about the nature of the Father as easily comprehensible? A convenient opportunity to invite you to remember with contrition your incomprehensible judgments. Do you not understand how the Virgin gave birth, and want to know how God gave birth? How the birth of Christ according to the flesh took place in the days of Herod, you do not know; But do you dare to investigate and intend to verify the birth from the Father, which was without beginning, ineffable, sacred and ineffable, before all understanding, before time and centuries, without any mediation? If Thomas, being an apostle, having touched the crucified body of Christ, did not remain without blame, then what kind of punishment are worthy of not touching the body of Christ with his hand, but exploring His eternal, divine nature with his tongue? Thomas, seeing the body, touched it; and these began to examine the Divinity, which they had not seen, as if they had seen Him. Tell me, amazing and evasive rhetorician, who distinguishes the nature of the Divinity in three ways, and who is not far from inventing gods, why do you call Christ created and not begotten? In order, you say, not to attribute the concept of separation to the uncreated nature of God, since it is necessary to attribute separation to the born. If so, then labor must be attributed to the creator: the one who creates does not create without labor. Therefore, if you refuse to call the Father Father, wanting to avoid the thought of separation, then do not call Him Creator, so as not to inspire thoughts of work and fatigue. But in relation to God, you say, we should not have the same judgment as we have about people. When people create, they create with difficulty and sweat; God, the creator, creates without labor: His nature is not complex. If so, if God, when he creates, creates without labor, then cannot He give birth without separation? But perhaps, when he creates, he creates without difficulty, like God; when he gives birth, how does a person experience separation? Then it turns out that when He creates, He remains insensitive, but when He gives birth, He experiences human feeling? I shudder and tremble at the blasphemous and unbridled tongue of the heretics, imagining how they believe that the Virgin gave birth unharmed, but doubt that God gave birth. The virgin womb of the Virgin remained unharmed even after birth, but the nature of the Father at birth did not escape separation? A virgin remained a virgin after birth and did not violate her virginity by birth, but the Father cannot remain the same after birth, so that his being remains without separation and change? Where the body is, where the harmonious harmony of the parts, the composition of the bones, the order in the nerves, the multitude of veins, the connections of the members, the fetus in the mother’s womb appeared as He knew, formed in an inexplicable way in the virgin womb; and where there is no body, no members, no joints, no nerves, no bones, no veins, but an intangible, incorporeal and invisible nature, do you introduce the concept of separation and think about reduction? He came out of the womb, and the womb remained virgin, because He who, without a seed, built an animated church for Himself in the Virgin, Himself, like God, preserved the womb intact. Divine works are not subject to the nature of things, but are subject to the command of God the Word. Sometimes God creates in accordance with nature, so that you know the goodness of nature; and sometimes He creates contrary to nature, so that you learn to understand the power of the Creator. Just as not everything happens in accordance with nature, so that nature is not glorified instead of God, so not everything happens contrary to nature - so that then the disorder in nature is not identified with what is allowed against nature. God forms in accordance with nature, but also does it in spite of it, so that you learn to know that nature moves in harmony with itself, in the likeness of a servant, but it also runs in spite of itself, fulfilling the command of God. - Tell me, you who ask how Christ, coming out of the virgin womb, did not destroy the seal of virginity - tell me: how did Eve come from the virgin Adam? The Mother of God Mary, without knowing a husband, gave birth to a man; The primordial Adam, without knowing a wife, produced a woman. But the birth for a girl, although unexpected, still has some explanation, since the belly and womb seem to be a natural way for those being born, but in relation to Adam all this does not take place. Has anyone seen a man giving birth from a rib? Has a rib ever brought flesh? God brought a dream upon Adam so that he would not be saddened by the loss of his rib, but at the same time he put the connections in him to sleep. Connections are natural nerves, as Daniel testifies to this, saying: I saw the manifestation, and was crushed, and the joints of my loins were relaxed (Dan. 10:8, 9; 5:6). And here is a rib, established according to the law of nature, with attached nerves, covered with flesh with veins - how did He take it out? how did you tear it off? How was the rib taken and Adam remained unharmed? how? He who permitted it knows; He who untied also tied. After all, if one tied and the other untied, then the question would arise; but when the same One who created it untied it, the same One who formed the rib from the earth took out the rib: He alone knows how He untied it, He alone understands how He arranged the harmonious combination of parts. And so, just as after the removal of the rib Adam remained intact, so after the birth of the fetus the Virgin remained unharmed. Neither in Adam was the relationship of the members damaged after the rib was taken, nor was the seal of virginity broken after the Child came out. Just as if someone from us wanted to take out a vein from another, he would torture and kill him out of inexperience, and whoever tied him can untie him without difficulty, because he knows the mutual relationship of the bound one - so God, who formed, bound and girded the body, knows the connections of the nerves, and how a rib touches a rib, and a joint, and a member; Therefore, He removed the rib from what He had bound, skillfully and wisely, and did not harm Adam. The only begotten Son of God formed Himself in the Virgin, and in forming Himself He did not violate virginity, nor did He damage the womb when it came out through it. Also, tell me, what is easier: for a girl to give birth and remain a virgin after birth, or for a rod to turn into an animated being and from a living thing to become a rod again? How did Moses' rod become a serpent? How did an inanimate object get a soul? How did something that cannot move crawl on the ground? How did the serpent again become a rod that recognized its nature? Either from the rod - a snake, and then from the serpent - again a rod. And so, just as the rod of Moses was by nature a rod, and by nature a serpent, so Mary was by nature a Virgin, but by nature she became a Mother, so that the Chaldean Magi would believe, just as the rod became a serpent in order to frighten the Egyptians. Wouldn't you like Virgo to help save the universe? During earthquakes, it happens that the walls crack and are united again: but at the birth of Christ, did not the womb open and unite again? During earthquakes, the walls crack so much that they threaten death, and then they are so connected that there is no trace of a crack in the outside; and during that incorruptible birth, would you not want the womb to open in honor of the one being born, and then come together, unite and take on the appearance of a virgin according to the power of the one acting? And don’t tell me: where will flesh and blood come from if there is no seed? After all, from what happens to us, we can learn to understand what lies above us. Here, as an example of what has been said, students of painters, who often paint plants, trees, meadows, and rivers, and when they do not have nature before their eyes to sketch, with a skillful combination of colors they try to present an image of things: they paint a river, without borrowing anything from the flow of rivers, they depict a person, without adding anything to it from human nature. So, just as painters, with the help of paints, depict a person, both a stream and a river, without borrowing anything from a stream, or from a river, or from a person: in the same way, the Holy Spirit in the Virgin, not with paints, but by will, formed an animated Man, without borrowing a seed from human nature for His structure. God, taking dust from the earth, did not form Adam with human hands (because the nature of the Divine is not complex) as He pleased; but the Holy Spirit did not take dust, did not allow the seed to enter by natural law, but only illuminated and composed the bones, and stretched the veins, and formed the nose and ears, eyes, tongue, hands and feet, soul and mind, and reason and speech, even if the heretics did not want this. Just as those who look in a mirror see with their eyes a reflected image of themselves from formless matter, an image often laughing and crying, moving, taking on various forms and reproducing the state of a living object: so the Holy Spirit in a pure mirror, in the immaculate body of the Virgin, shone, formed a perfect Man, not according to the law of nature, not in time, not from human seed, but by one appearance, by spiritual and holy power, he moved Virgin to birth, inexplicably searching for the embryo in Her, as if some kind of tissue, for the salvation of people. Yes, exactly, this is what it is; For what we have said, we will give glory to God who became man for us, because to Him is glory, both to the Father and to the Holy Spirit, forever and ever. Amen 57. See the works of St. Chrysostom in Russian translation. St. Petersburg, 1902, vol. VIII, pp. 908–913. In the publication Migne, this conversation is classified as spuria. You might be interested in: