Беседа 17

John 1:28–29. This took place in Bethabara by the Jordan, where John was baptizing. The next day John sees Jesus coming to him and says: Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world. 1. Words of St. John the Baptist as evidence of his greatest reverence for Jesus Christ. – 2. Jesus Christ did not need baptism. – 3 and 4. The assumption that Jesus Christ performed miracles as a child is false. – Why did the Jews not believe in Jesus Christ, although they heard the sermon of St. John the Baptist and saw so many signs and wonders. – Reliability of the evangelists. - Against the pagans. – Defenders of spectacles are encountered, but truth and faith are not found. – The writings of philosophers of that time against Christians. 1. Great virtue is the bold, open confession of Christ and the preference of this confession to all others; so great and wondrous that the Only Begotten Son of God confesses such a person before His Father, although this reward is disproportionate. You confess on earth, and He confesses in heaven; you are before people, He is before the Father and all the angels. That was John. He did not look at the people, or at glory, or at anything human, but, despising all this, with due freedom he preached to everyone about Christ. Therefore, the evangelist also means the very place (of his sermon) to show the boldness of the loud-voiced preacher. Not in the house, not around the corner, not in the desert, but on the Jordan, among a multitude of people, in the presence of all those who were baptized by him (and the Jews stood before John the baptist), he proclaimed this wondrous confession about Christ, filled with great, sublime and ineffable dogmas, and said about himself that he was not worthy to untie the thong of His boots. How does the evangelist express this? Adding the words: “This happened in Bethany.” And the corrected lists say: “in Bethabara.” Bethany was not on the other side of the Jordan and not in the desert, but near Jerusalem. But these passages mean (the evangelist) for another reason. He wanted to tell events that were not ancient, but that happened not long before, and therefore he calls as witnesses to his words people who were in those places and were eyewitnesses, and thus presents evidence from the very places. Confident that in his narration he does not add anything of his own, but says everything simply as it was, he borrows evidence from the very places, which, as I said, may not be an unimportant proof of the truth. “The next day John sees Jesus coming to him and says: Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.” The evangelists seemed to divide the times among themselves. Matthew, having briefly reviewed the time before the imprisonment of John the Baptist, hastens to subsequent circumstances; and the Evangelist John not only briefly presents that time, but dwells on it in particular. Matthew, after the coming of Jesus from the desert, keeping silent about the intermediate circumstances, such as what John preached, what the Jews sent (to him) said, and having shortened everything else, immediately moves on to the prison. “When Jesus heard,” he says, “that John had been taken into custody, he withdrew” from there (Matthew 4:12). But John did not do that; and, having remained silent about the departure into the wilderness, which Matthew spoke about, he talks about the circumstances after the descent of Jesus from the mountain and, having told about many things, then adds: “for John was not yet imprisoned” (John 3:24). But why, you say, does Jesus now come to John, does this not just once, but also another time? Matthew says that He had to come for baptism. Pointing to this, Jesus himself adds: “for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness” (Matthew 3:15). And John shows that He came another time, after baptism, and notes this in the words of the Baptist: “I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and remaining on Him” (John 1:32). So why does He come to John? After all, He not only came there, but came specifically to him. “John sees,” it is said, “Jesus coming to him.” Since John baptized Him along with many others, and many could assume that he came to John for the same reason as the others, that is, to confess his sins and wash himself in the river with repentance, Jesus comes again to give John himself the opportunity to correct this situation. And indeed John, saying: “Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world,” completely destroyed such suspicion. If He is so pure that He can even forgive the sins of others, then it is clear that He comes not to confess His sins, but to give the wonderful preacher an opportunity to, by repeating what was said before, instill even more accurately in the listeners what was said about Him before and add something else to it. The particle: this is used because many have long wanted to see Him, as a result of John’s words. Therefore, John indicates Him when He appeared and says: behold, expressing by this that He is the One whom they have long expected. "Behold the Lamb". He calls Him the Lamb, recalling to the Jews the prophecy of Isaiah and the type from the time of Moses, in order to lead them closer to the truth through the type. But the Old Testament lamb never took on anyone’s sins, but this one took on the sins of the whole world and delivered it from the wrath of God when it was threatened with destruction. “This is the one of whom I said, A man is coming after me, who stood before me, because He was before me” (John 1:30). 2. Do you see how the evangelist explains the expression here: “ahead of me”? Calling Him a lamb and saying that He will take away the sin of the world, then says: “stood before me,” and thus shows that “ahead of me” means the taking away of the sins of the world, the baptism of the Holy Spirit. “My coming had no other purpose than the preaching of the universal Benefactor and the message of baptism by water; and His coming has the goal of cleansing all people and bestowing the grace-filled powers of the Comforter.” “He stood before me,” that is, he appeared more glorious than me, “because he was before me.” May the followers of the madness of Paul of Samosata, who oppose such an obvious truth, be ashamed. “I did not know Him” (John 1:31). See how he rejects all suspicion from his testimony, showing that it was given to him not by human partiality, but by the revelation of God. “I did not know Him,” says John. How can you be a reliable witness? How will you teach others if you don’t know yourself? How could he be partial to someone he didn't know? “For this purpose He came to baptize in water, so that He might be revealed to Israel” (John 1:31). So, He himself did not need baptism, and the washing did not have any other purpose, namely, paving the way for others to faith in Christ. John did not say: I came to baptize in order to cleanse those who were baptized, or to forgive sins, but - “so that He might be revealed to Israel.” Well, tell me, was it really impossible to preach and attract people without baptism? It wasn't that convenient. If there had been a sermon without baptism, then everyone would not have flocked like that; would not know the superiority of one baptism over another without comparing them. The people came out to John not only to listen to what he said, but for what? Be baptized with confession of your sins. Meanwhile, when they came to be baptized, they learned about Christ and the difference of baptism. And although John’s baptism was more important than the Jewish one and therefore everyone rushed to it, it was not perfect. But how did you recognize Him? Through the descent of the Spirit, says John. And lest anyone think that Christ, like us, needed the Spirit, listen to how John destroys this suspicion, showing that the descent of the Spirit occurred solely to proclaim Christ. Having said: “I did not know Him,” John adds: “But He who sent me to baptize in water said to me: On whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining on Him, He is the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit” (John 1:33). Do you see that the purpose of the coming of the Holy Spirit was only to point out Christ? Of course, John's testimony was certain; but wanting to make it even more reliable, he raises it to God and the Holy Spirit. As John testified to a subject so great and wondrous, which could amaze all his listeners, i.e., that (Jesus) alone takes upon himself the sins of the world and that the greatness of (His) gift serves as a sufficient atonement for that, he prepares for such a thought. And the preparation is the teaching that He is the Son of God, that He has no need for baptism, and that the Spirit came down only to indicate Him. John himself did not have the strength to communicate the Spirit. Those baptized by him themselves show this when they say: “Have you received the Holy Spirit when you believed” (Acts 19:2). Christ did not need baptism, neither this nor any other, or rather, baptism needed the power of Christ. After all, the most important of all blessings remained that the one baptized would be rewarded with the Spirit. Therefore, when Christ came, he applied this gift of the Spirit. “And John testified, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and remaining on him. I didn't know Him; but He who sent me to baptize in water said to me: On whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining on Him, He is the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit. And I have seen and testified that this is the Son of God” (John 1:32–34). John often uses the words: “I did not know Him,” not without reason and not without purpose, but because he was related to Him in the flesh. “Behold your relative Elizabeth... and she conceived a son” (Luke 1:36). So, in order not to give the idea that he has partiality for the sake of kinship, he often says: “I did not know Him.” And indeed it was so. All the time he lived in the desert, outside his father's house. But how did he keep Christ from baptism, saying: “I need to be baptized by You” (Matthew 3:14), if he did not know Him before the descent of the Spirit and recognized Him only for the first time? This was evidence that he knew Him well. However, it is true that he did not find out before or not long before that time. The miracles that happened in Jesus’ childhood, such as the incidents with the Magi and others, happened much earlier, when John himself was still in infancy. And for such a long time, of course, Jesus was not known to everyone. And if He had been known, John would not have said: “For this reason He came to baptize in water, so that He might be revealed to Israel.” 3. Hence it is clear to us that the signs that are said to have been performed by Christ in childhood are false and invented by some deceitful people. If He began to perform miracles from the first age, then John could not have known Him, and the people would not have needed a teacher who would show Him. Meanwhile, John says about himself that he came “so that He might be revealed to Israel,” and also on another occasion he said: “I need to be baptized by You”; subsequently, having gotten to know Him better, he preached about Him to the people, saying: “A man is coming after me, who stood before me,” and: “He who sent me to baptize in water,” sent in order “that He might be revealed to Israel,” - thus the one who sent revealed Christ to John even before the descent of the Spirit. Therefore, even before His coming, John said: “A man is coming after me, who stood in front of me.” So, John did not know (Jesus) before coming to the Jordan and baptizing everyone, but he recognized Him when He wanted to be baptized, and moreover, he recognized Him by revelation at baptism, at the direction of the Father and the Spirit to the Jews, for whom the descent of the Spirit took place. So that the testimony of John would not be neglected when he said that “He was before me,” that He baptizes with the Spirit and that He will judge the world, for this the Father gave a voice, announcing the Son, and the Spirit descended, bringing this voice down to the head of Christ. Since one baptized, the other received baptism, so that none of those present would think that the words of the Father were spoken about John, for this the Spirit descends, eliminating such an assumption. So, when John says: “I did not know Him,” he is talking about a time that has passed, not close to baptism. Otherwise, how could he restrain Jesus, saying: “I need to be baptized by You”? How did he speak such words about Him? Why didn’t the Jews believe, you say, when more than one John saw the Spirit in the form of a dove? If they did see, then such objects require not only bodily eyes, but mainly the eyes of the mind, so as not to recognize the real object as an empty ghost. They saw how Christ performed miracles and how, touching the sick and dead with his hands, he restored them to life and health, but they were so intoxicated with hatred that they imagined the opposite of what they saw. How could they abandon their unbelief just by the descent of the Spirit? Some say that not everyone saw Him, but only John and a few others who were more well-minded. Although one could see the Spirit descending in the form of a dove with sensual eyes, there was no need for this phenomenon to be obvious to everyone. And Zechariah saw many things in a sensible form, and Daniel and Ezekiel; but they had no one as a participant in the vision. Moses also saw many things that no one else saw. Not all of Christ’s disciples were also worthy to see His transfiguration on the mountain, and not all participated in the vision of the resurrection, which Luke clearly shows when he says that the Risen One revealed himself to “the witnesses chosen from God” (Acts 10:41). “And I saw and testified that this is the Son of God.” When did he testify that there is a Son of God? He called Him the Lamb, and said that He would baptize with the Spirit, but did not say that He was the Son of God. Other evangelists do not write that after baptism He said anything, but, keeping silent about the events of this time, they talk about the miracles of Christ that happened after John’s imprisonment. From this we can guess that they passed through this and much more in silence, as this same evangelist showed at the end of his writing. They were so far from the intention of inventing anything great about Him that they all unanimously, with all accuracy, set out the circumstances apparently unfavorable for Him - and you will not find any of them keeping silent about anything like that. As for miracles, some miracles one of them left to the other to describe, but everyone kept silent about some. I say this not without purpose, but bearing in mind the shamelessness of the pagans; this serves as sufficient proof of the truthfulness of the evangelists and that they did not say anything out of bias. With this proof, together with others, you can argue against the pagans. But listen, it will be absurd if a doctor fights with all zeal for his art, and a shoemaker and a weaver and all other artisans for their craft, and the one who professes himself to be a Christian will not be able to say a word in defense of his faith. Neglect of those arts causes damage to property, and negligence about faith destroys our very soul. And we are in such a pitiful state that we spend all our efforts on those things, and neglect the most necessary things, those on which our salvation depends, as worthless. 4. This does not dispose the pagans to condemn their own errors. If they, stubborn in lies, do everything in such a way as to cover up the shame of their false teachings, and we, the servants of the truth, cannot open our lips for the sake of it, then how can they not condemn us in the weakness of our confession, how can they not suspect deception and error in us, how can they not blaspheme Christ as a hypocrite and a deceiver, who took advantage of the foolishness of ordinary people to deceive? And we are guilty of such blasphemy, since we do not want to bother studying our faith, but, considering this matter unnecessary, we care only about earthly things. Some lover of a dancer, or a runner, or a fighter with animals tries in every possible way not to give in when competing for them, lavishes praise on them, defends them against their detractors, and defeats their opponents with a thousand curses. But when there is a speech in defense of Christianity, everyone casts their eyes to the ground, scratches themselves, yawns, and, ridiculed, retreats. What kind of indignation does this deserve when you present Christ as inferior to the dancer, when you collect thousands of arguments in defense of what they do for the dancer, do not look at the fact that they are the most despicable people, and in defense of Christ’s miracles, which attracted the whole universe, you do not even want to think anything or care in any way? We believe in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, in the resurrection of bodies, in eternal life. Now, if any of the pagans asks: who is this Father, who is the Son, who is the Holy Spirit? or: how do you yourself, recognizing three gods, accuse us of polytheism? – what will you say, what will you answer? How do you respond to such an objection? What if you remain silent, and they ask you another question: what kind of resurrection is this? Will we rise again in this body, or in another? If this is the case, then why should it collapse? What do you say to this? And if they also ask: why did Christ come now, and not before? Or did He now only want to provide for people, and at all other times had no concern for us? If they start asking about many other things besides this? But we do not need to propose further questions and leave them unresolved, so as not to harm the simpler people. And what we have said is enough to drive sleep away from you. In fact, what if you are tested in these subjects, and you are not even able to listen to such speeches? Tell me, will we be subjected to a little punishment if we become the cause of such errors for people sitting in darkness? I would like, if you have enough leisure, to show all of you a book written against us by one godless pagan philosopher, and by another, older than him, in order to excite you and distract you from such inactivity. If they are so relentless in their complaints against us, then can we deserve any forgiveness when we fail to repel their attacks? Why are we brought (to the Church)? Do you not hear what the apostle says: “Be always ready to give an answer to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you with meekness and reverence” (1 Peter 3:15)? And Paul inspires the same thing, saying: “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly” (Col. 3:16). What will people who are more senseless than drones say to this? “Blessed is every simple soul”; also: “He who walks in integrity walks safely” (Prov. 10:9). Not everything is evil because many do not even know how to cite the evidence of Scripture. The wise man in this place speaks not about a stupid person, not about one who knows nothing, but about a gentle, not wicked, prudent person. And if it were otherwise, then in vain it would be said: “Be wise as serpents and simple as doves” (Matthew 10:16). But why should we talk about this when this word leads nowhere? Apart from what has now been said, we do not do anything else that relates to life and activity, but in all respects we are pitiful people and worthy of ridicule. We are always ready to blame each other, but we are always slow to correct what we ourselves are guilty of and are subject to exposure. So, I beg you not to limit yourself to just mutual accusations. This is not enough to appease God. But let us try to show a change for the better in everything, so that we can live for the glory of God, and enjoy the future glory itself, which we can all achieve through the grace and love of our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen. The paragraphs in the text were arranged by us – Editorial staff of “ABC of Faith” You might be interested in: