Беседа 3

John 1:1. In the beginning was the Word... 1. About the dedication to the Lord of one of the seven days of the week. – What kind of education should be given to youth. – 2. The opinion of the Anomean heretics about God the Word. – 3 and 4. Proofs of the eternity of the Word. – 5 and 6. Against vanity. - The evil he produces. “They sacrifice their wealth to him. “For his sake they do everything to please the people.” – The glory of the people is true glory. - How to deal with a crowd. – Let God alone be the spectator and praiser of good deeds. 1. It would be unnecessary now to convince you to listen carefully. You have already rushed to show this in reality. This gathering, this standing with intense attention, this haste - pushing each other aside, to take the nearest place from where our voice would be heard more clearly for you, the reluctance to leave here, despite the crowding, until this spiritual spectacle is over, applause and cries of approval - all testifies to your spiritual warmth and zeal for listening. That is why it is unnecessary to exhort you to listen, but it is only necessary to inspire you so that you always retain such zeal in yourself, and not only show it here, but so that, even at home, husband and wife, father and children, talk about it; let some pass on to others and ask each other, and let everyone give each other such kind help. Nobody tell me we shouldn't do this with kids. This is not the only thing you should do, but this is the only thing you should care about. However, for the sake of your weakness, I no longer say this; I don’t distract my children from extraneous activities, just as I don’t distract you from public affairs. I consider it only fair that out of seven days one should be dedicated to our common Lord. Indeed, how incongruous it is to order our servants to serve us all the time, but we ourselves cannot devote even the slightest time to the Lord, and, moreover, when our service does not bring Him anything (because God does not need anything) and only benefits us ourselves! When you take children to shows, you do not find any obstacles to this either in science or in anything else. And when you need to collect and receive some spiritual benefit, you call this business idleness. How can you not anger God when you exercise your children in everything else and find time for that, but consider it burdensome and untimely for children to occupy them with God’s work? No, not like that, brothers! This is the age that primarily needs such lessons. The age is tender - it soon internalizes what is told to it, and like a seal on wax, what they hear is imprinted on the souls of children. Meanwhile, their life then begins to incline either towards vice or towards virtue. Therefore, if at the very beginning, and, so to speak, on the threshold, we deviate them from vice and direct them to a better path, then in the future this will turn into a habit and, as it were, into their nature, and they will no longer so conveniently voluntarily deviate towards the worse, because the habit will attract them to good deeds. Then for us they will be more honorable than the old men themselves, and for civil affairs they will be more useful, revealing in their youth the properties of the old men. It is impossible, as I said before, that those who enjoy such a hearing (of the Gospel) and listen to such an apostle leave here without receiving some true, great good, whether a husband, or a wife, or a young man is a participant in this meal. If we, by accustoming animals to our words, thus tame them, then aren’t we much more able to correct people through this spiritual teaching, when there and here there is a great difference both between healing and between those being healed? After all, the rudeness in us is not the same as in animals: with them it depends on nature, and with us on the will; and the power of words is not the same: there it comes from human thought, but here it comes from the power and grace of the Spirit. So, whoever despairs of himself, let him think about tamed beasts - and he will never fall into despair. May he always come to this hospital; let him constantly listen to the laws of the Spirit and, returning home, write down what he hears in his mind. In this way he will be in good hope and safe, actually feeling success. And the devil, as soon as he sees that the law of God is written in the soul, and the heart has become the tablets of this law, will no longer approach. Where the royal letters will be, not inscribed on a copper table, but imprinted in a God-loving heart by the Holy Spirit, and shining with grace, he will not even be able to look there, but will run far away. For him and for the thoughts put in by him, nothing is so terrible as a thought occupied with divine objects, a soul constantly adjacent to this source. Such-and-such can neither be saddened by anything in the present, even if it is unpleasant, nor haughty by anything favorable; but, amidst storms and unrest, she will enjoy the silence. 2. And our confusion does not come from the nature of things, but from the weakness of our spirit. If we were subjected to this suffering due to circumstances, then all people would have to experience it, because we all sail on the same sea, on which it is impossible to avoid waves and storms. If there are people who remain outside the storm and rough seas, then it is obvious that the storm is not caused by circumstances, but by the state of our spirit. Consequently, if we tune our soul so that it can easily endure everything, then there will be no storm or drowning for us, but there will always be a favorable silence. But I don’t know how, having assumed to myself not to say anything like that, I became so carried away by this teaching. Forgive me for this verbosity. I am afraid, and very much afraid, that your present zeal will not weaken. If I were sure of this, I would not now tell you anything like that. Diligence can make everything easier for you. The time, however, is to get busy with what lies ahead today, so that you will not be weary when you enter the field. We are faced with exploits against the enemies of the truth, against those who are inventing everything to destroy the glory of the Son of God, or better yet, their own. The glory of the Son of God always remains as it is, not diminished in the least by blasphemous language; but those who try to destroy the One Whom they say they worship 2 cover their faces with dishonor and subject their souls to execution. So what do they say when we talk like this? They say that the saying: “in the beginning was the Word” does not directly prove the eternity (of the Son), because the same is said about heaven and earth (Gen. 1:1). Oh, shamelessness and wickedness! I talk with you about God, and you point me to the earth and the people who came from the earth. Thus, if Christ is called the Son of God and God, and man is also called the Son of God and God (as, for example: “I said: you are gods, and you are all sons of the Most High” (Ps. 82:6)), will you therefore compete with the Only Begotten about sonship, and say that in this respect He has no advantage over you? No way, you say. However, you do it, although you don’t express it in words. How? You affirm that you also share in the adoption by grace, and so does He. If you say that He is the Son not by nature, then you are expressing nothing else, namely, that He is the Son by grace. However, let us consider the evidence that is given to us. It is said: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and empty” (Gen. 1:1-2). Also: “There was a certain man from Ramathaim-Zophim” (1 Samuel 1:1). Here are the testimonies they find powerful! And indeed this is strong, but to prove the correctness of the dogmas that we affirm; and to support blasphemy (heretics) nothing can be weaker than these proofs. Tell me, what do the words “created” and “was” have in common? Or what does God have in common with man? Why do you mix what cannot be mixed, merge what is separate, and make what is above to be below? Here the word: “was” not alone, in itself, means eternity, but in combination with other expressions: “in the beginning it was” and: “The Word was.” Just as the expression: “existent”, when spoken about man, shows only the present time, and when about God, it means eternity, so the expression: “was”, when spoken about our nature, means past time for us, and precisely a certain limit of time, and when about God, it expresses eternity. So, when hearing “about earth” and “man,” one should not assume anything more about them than is characteristic of created nature. Everything created, whatever it may be, happened in time, or within a certain limit of it. And the Son of God is above not only all time, but also all centuries, He is their Creator and Creator. “Through whom,” it is said, “he made the worlds” (Heb. 1:2). The Creator, of course, exists before his creations. But since some are so insensitive that even after this they think something lofty about their dignity, the word of God with the expressions “he created” and “man was” precedes such a thought of the listeners and destroys all shamelessness. Everything created, both earth and heaven, was created in time, has a temporary beginning, and there is nothing beginningless in them, because everything (at a certain time) received being. So, when you hear the expressions “created... the earth” and “there was a man,” you will be unnecessarily fussing, weaving only useless chatter. But I will say something more. What is this? The fact is that if it were said about the earth - “in the beginning there was earth”, and about man - “in the beginning there was a man”, then in such a case we should not assume anything more about them than what we know about them now. The mere pre-existing name of “earth” and “man,” no matter what is said about them later, does not allow the mind to imagine anything more about them than what we now know; just like the opposite expression: “The Word,” even if something unimportant was said about Him, does not in itself allow one to think anything low and insignificant. And about the earth it is further said: “The earth was formless and empty.” Thus, having said that God created the earth and set its characteristic limit, the writer of everyday life safely narrates further about it, knowing that no one will be so senseless as to consider the earth to be without beginning and uncreated. The name “earth” and the expression “created” are sufficient to convince the most stupid person that the earth is not eternal and not without beginning, but belongs to the number of things that happened in time. 3. In addition, the expression: “was”, when used about the earth and man, means not just being, but in relation to a person - his origin from a certain country, and in relation to the earth - the quality of its existence. So Moses did not simply say: “the earth was,” and then fell silent, but showed what state it was in even after its origin, i.e., it was “formless and empty,” still covered with waters and mixed with them. And about Elkanah it is not said only that there was a man, but it is added to the explanation; where he was from: “from Ramathaim-Zophim.” But this is not the case with the Word. I am ashamed to compare such objects with each other! If we forbid making comparisons between people, since those being compared are very different from each other in merit, although their essence is the same, then where there is such an endless distance both in essence and in everything else, isn’t it extreme madness to make such comparisons? But may He who is blasphemed by them be merciful to us! We did not discover the need for such reasoning, but we are given a reason for it by those who arm themselves against their own salvation. So what am I saying? The fact that the expression “was”, in relation to the Word, means, firstly, the eternity of His existence: “in the beginning,” it is said, “there was the Word.” And secondly, the same “was” shows that someone had the Word. Since God is primarily characterized by eternal and beginningless existence, then, first of all, this is expressed. Then, lest anyone hearing “in the beginning was the Word” recognize Him as unborn, such a thought is warned by the fact that before noting that the Word was, it is said that it “was with God.” And so that anyone does not consider Him a word only spoken or only mental, for this purpose, by adding a member (ό), as I said before, and another expression (“from God to God”), such a thought is eliminated. It is not said: “it was in God,” but: “it was with God,” which signifies His eternity by hypostasis. Further, this is revealed even more clearly in the addition that “The Word was God.” But is this Word not a created one? - someone will say. If so, then what prevented us from saying that in the beginning God created the Word? So Moses, speaking about the earth, did not say: “in the beginning there was the earth,” but said that (God) created it, and then it “was.” What, I say, prevented John from saying in a similar way that in the beginning God created the Word? After all, if in discussing the earth Moses feared that someone might call it uncreated, then John should have feared this much more regarding the Son (of God) if He had been created. The world, being visible, in itself preaches the Creator: “the heavens,” it is said, “preach the glory of God” (Ps. 18:1). But the Son is invisible and, moreover, incomparably and infinitely higher than creation. So, if here, where neither a word nor a teaching was needed for us to recognize the world as created, the prophet nevertheless clearly and first of all gives us to see this, then John would have needed to say this much more about the Son, if He had been created. So, they will say: however, Peter expressed this clearly and definitely! Where and when? Then, when, talking with the Jews, he said: “That God has made this Jesus Lord and Christ...” (Acts 2:36). Why don’t you add further words, namely: “This Jesus, whom you crucified”! Or don’t you know that some sayings refer to the incorruptible nature, and others to the incarnation? Otherwise, if you generally understand everything about the Divine in this way, you will come to the conclusion that the Divinity is also subject to suffering. If it is not involved in suffering, then it was not created. If blood flowed from the most divine and ineffable nature, and instead of flesh it was pierced and cut with nails on the cross, then your cunning in this case would have a basis. But just as the devil himself would not blaspheme in this way, why do you pretend to assume such unforgivable ignorance with which even the demons did not cover themselves? Moreover, the words: “Lord” and “Christ” do not refer to essence, but to dignity. The first means power, and the second means anointing. So, what do you say about the Son of God? If He had been created, according to your wisdom, these sayings would not have taken place. It is impossible to imagine that He was first created, and then God made Him (Lord and Christ). He has an inalienable authority, and has it by His very nature and essence. When asked if He was a King, he answered: “For this purpose I was born” (John 18:37). But Peter speaks here of Him as having been placed (in the Lord and Christ), and this refers to him only to the incarnation. 4. Why are you surprised if Peter says this? And Paul, talking with the Athenians, calls Him only a man, saying this: “through the Man whom He predestined, having given proof to all by raising Him from the dead” (Acts 17:31). He says nothing here either about the “image of God,” or about His “equality” (with the Father), or about the fact that He is “the radiance of His glory.” That's how it should have been. Then there was not yet time for such a teaching, but it was desirable that they first accept that He is a man and that He has risen. Christ himself did this; and Paul, having learned from Him, arranged the work of his preaching in the same way. Christ did not suddenly reveal His deity to us, but at first he was revered only as a prophet and Christ, as if he were a simple man; Later, from His deeds and words, He appeared to be what He was. That is why Peter initially uses the same image of speech. This was his first nationwide sermon to the Jews. And since they were not yet able to clearly recognize His divinity, the apostle addresses them with the word about the incarnation, so that their ears, previously trained by this word, would be predisposed to other teachings. If anyone wants to read the entire sermon of the apostle from the beginning, what I am saying will be very clear to him. The Apostle Peter also calls Him a man, and talks at length about His suffering, resurrection and birth according to the flesh. And Paul, when he says: “born of the seed of David according to the flesh” (Rom. 1:3), does not inspire us with anything else, namely, that the word “created” is used in relation to the incarnation, as we also confess. On the contrary, the son of thunder speaks to us now about the ineffable and eternal existence; therefore, leaving the word “created”, He added: “was”; whereas, if the Son of God had been created, this would especially need to be shown with accuracy. If Paul was afraid that some foolish person might assume that the Son is greater than the Father, and that He who begat would one day submit to Him, why did he say in his letter to the Corinthians: “When it is said that all things are subject to [Him], it is clear that except Him who put all things in subjection to Him” (1 Cor. 15:27) - although who would have thought that the Father would ever submit to the Son, along with all creatures? - if Paul was afraid of such unreasonable opinions, that’s why he said: “except him who put all things under him,” then John should have been much more afraid, if the Son of God had been created, lest someone recognize Him as uncreated, and this, first of all, should have been explained to him. But now, since the Son was born, it is fair that neither John nor any other apostle or prophet said that He was created. And the Only Begotten himself would not have failed to say this if it were so. He who, out of condescension, spoke so humbly about Himself, would certainly not have kept silent about it. I consider it not incredible that He would rather remain silent about His greatness, which He had, rather than, not having it, leave it without remarking that He did not have this greatness. It was a plausible impulse to default - the desire to teach people humility, and therefore He kept silent about what great things belong to Him. And here you cannot provide any fair excuse for default. If He had been created, why would He be silent about His origin, when He did not mention many things that really belonged to Him? He who, in order to teach humility, often spoke of Himself in a humiliating manner, and attributed to Himself what was in fact not characteristic of Him, He, I say, if He had been created, would not have failed to say much more about it. Or don’t you see how He Himself does everything with the goal that no one would recognize Him as unborn, and says and does, even talking about Himself, is apparently inconsistent with His dignity and being, and descends to the humility of a prophet? The saying: “As I hear, so I judge” (John 5:30), also: “He gave Me a commandment, what to say and what to say” (John 12:49) and the like are characteristic only of prophets. So, if, wanting to remove such an assumption, He did not hesitate to speak such humble words about Himself, then all the more He would have spoken in a similar way if He had been created, so that someone would not recognize Him as uncreated - for example: “do not think” that I was born of the Father; I am created, not begotten, and not one being with Him. But He does the opposite. He uses expressions that involuntarily, even without meaning to, force one to accept a contrary opinion. Thus, He says: “that I am in the Father and the Father in Me” (John 14:10–11); also: “I have been with you so long, and you do not know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father" (John 14:9) or: "so that all may honor the Son as they honor the Father" (John 5:23); “just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so the Son gives life to whomever He will” (John 5:21); “My Father is working until now, and I am working” (John 5:17); “As the Father knows Me, so I know the Father... I and the Father are one” (John 10:15, 30). Everywhere using the expression: “as” and: “so and”, he shows that He is one with the Father and that He has an inseparable being with Him. And He reveals the power of His power both in these same sayings and in many others - so, for example, when He says: “Be silent, stop;... I want, cleanse yourself;... I command you, dumb and deaf spirit, come out of it” (Mark 4:39; Matt. 8:3; Mark 9:25), also: “You have heard that it was said to the ancients: do not kill, ... But I say to you that “Whoever is angry with his brother without cause will be subject to judgment” (Matthew 5:21-22). And everything else similar that He lays down laws and works miracles sufficiently proves His power; or better yet, even the slightest part of it can enlighten and convince people who are not completely insensitive. 5. But such is the spirit of vanity that it blinds the minds of the people it carries away, even in relation to the most obvious objects, and encourages them to contradict even recognized truths; and others, even those who understand the truth very well and are confident in it, are forced to hypocritically oppose it. So it was with the Jews. It was not out of ignorance that they rejected the Son of God, but in order to receive honor from the people. “They believed,” it is said, “in Him, but for the sake of the Pharisees they did not confess, so as not to be excommunicated from the synagogue” (John 12:42), and to please others they sacrificed their own salvation. And it is impossible, impossible for one who is so servile to temporal glory to receive glory from God. That is why Christ reproached the Jews, saying: “How can you believe when you receive glory from one another, but do not seek the glory that is from the One God?” (John 5:44). This is some kind of strong rapture; embraced by this passion, a person becomes incorrigible. She, tearing away the soul of her captives from heaven, nails it to the ground, does not allow it to look towards the true light, encourages it to constantly spin in the mud, assigning to them rulers so strong that they own them without even ordering anything. Anyone who suffers from this disease, even if no one orders him, voluntarily does everything he can to please his rulers. For them, he dresses in elegant clothes and adorns his face, caring in this case not about himself, but about pleasing others, and takes guides with him to the square in order to earn surprise from others, and everything he does is undertaken solely to please others. So, is there any mental illness more painful than this? A person often throws himself into the abyss so that only others will be surprised by him. The above words of Christ sufficiently demonstrate all the tormenting power of this passion; but you can also know it from the following. If you want to ask one of the citizens who spend a lot of money why they spend so much gold, and what such expenses mean, then you will not hear anything else from them, just about pleasing the crowd. If you ask them again: what is a crowd? - they will answer: it is something noisy, rebellious, mostly stupid, rushing hither and thither without purpose, like the waves of the sea, often composed of diverse and opposing opinions. Whoever has such a ruler, will he not be more pitiful than anyone else? However, when worldly people cling to it, it is not so dangerous, although it is really dangerous. But when those who say that they have renounced the world suffer from the same or even more serious illness, then this is extremely dangerous. The worldly only wastes money, but here the danger concerns the soul. When they change the right faith for glory and, in order to glorify themselves, they humiliate God, tell me, doesn’t this constitute the highest degree of senselessness and madness? Other passions, although they involve great harm, at least bring some pleasure, albeit temporary and short. So the covetous man, the wine lover, the woman lover, have some pleasure, albeit short-lived; but those possessed by the passion of vanity always live a bitter life, devoid of any pleasure. They do not achieve what they love so much, I mean, national glory; and although they apparently use it, they actually do not enjoy it, because it is not glory at all. That is why this passion itself is called not glory, but vanity. And rightly all the ancients called it vanity. It is vain and has nothing brilliant and glorious in it. Just as the faces [of statues] seem (outside) bright and pleasant, but inside are empty, therefore, although they appear more beautiful than bodily (natural) faces, they have never aroused love for themselves in anyone, just like that, or even more so, fame among the crowd covers up this incurable and painful passion. It only looks bright on the outside, but inside it is not only empty, but also full of dishonor and cruel torment. Where, you say, is this crazy passion that brings no pleasure born? Nowhere else but from a low and insignificant soul. A person carried away by glory is incapable of thinking of anything great and noble; he necessarily becomes shameful, low, dishonest, insignificant. Whoever does nothing for virtue, but only has one thing in mind - to please people who are not worth any attention, in any case, follows their erroneous, wandering opinion, can he be worth anything? Note: if someone asked him: what do you think about the crowd? - no doubt he would say that he considered the crowd ignorant and idle. So what? Would you like to become like this crowd? If someone asked him about this again, I don’t think he would want to become the same. So, isn’t it extremely ridiculous to seek glory from those to whom you yourself would never want to become like? 6. If you say that there are many people in the crowd, and that they are one, then for this reason it is especially necessary to despise it. If each member of the crowd in himself is worthy of contempt, then when there are many of them, they deserve even greater contempt. The stupidity of each of them, when they are collected together, becomes even greater, increasing in number. Therefore, each of them separately could, of course, be corrected if someone took on this matter, but it would not be easy to correct all of them together, because their madness in this case increases; they are led by the customs of animals, at least following one another in opinions. So, tell me: will you seek glory in such a crowd? No, I beg and pray. This passion has perverted everything; it gave rise to covetousness, envy, slander, slander. It arms and embitters people who have not suffered any offense against those who have not committed any offense. A person susceptible to this disease does not know friendship, does not remember affection, does not want to respect anyone at all; on the contrary, having expelled all good things from the soul, the fickle one, incapable of love, takes up arms against everyone. The power of anger, although it is painful and unbearable, does not constantly disturb the spirit, but only at a time when others irritate it. On the contrary, the passion of vanity is always there, and there is no time, so to speak, in which it could leave, because reason does not interfere with it and does not tame it; it always remains, and not only encourages us to sin, but even if we managed to do something good, it steals the good from our hands. And it happens that she does not allow her to start a good deed. And if Paul calls covetousness “idolatry” (Eph. 5:5), then what, in fairness, should we call its mother (covetousness), the root and source, that is, vanity? It is impossible to find a name worthy of this evil! So, let us rise up, beloved, put aside this vicious garment, tear it, cut it, let us someday become free with true freedom, and acquire for ourselves a sense of the dignity given to us by God. Let's neglect the glory of the crowd. There is nothing so funny and humiliating as this passion; nothing is so full of shame and ignominy. Anyone can see that the desire for glory in many respects is dishonor, and that true glory consists in despising glory, considering it as nothing, and doing and saying everything only to please God. In this way, we will be able to receive a reward from the One who sees all our deeds exactly, if only we are content with this one spectator of them. And what need do we have of other eyes, when it is He who sees our deeds who will judge them? How incongruous it is: the slave, whatever he does, does everything to please the master, does not seek anything more than his attention, does not want to attract anyone else’s eyes to his deeds, even if important people are spectators here, but only one thing he has in mind is that his master sees him; and we, having such a great Lord above us, are looking for other spectators who cannot bring us any benefit, but can only harm us with their views and make all our work in vain. Let this not happen, I beg you! But from whom we have to receive rewards, we will recognize Him as both the spectator and the glorifier of our deeds. Let us not rely on human eyes for anything. And if we wanted to achieve glory among people, we will receive it when we seek the one glory from God. It is said: “I will glorify those who glorify Me” (1 Samuel 2:30). And just as we then especially abound in wealth when we despise it and seek wealth only from God (because it is said: “Seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you” (Matthew 6:33)), so it is in relation to glory. When both wealth and fame are safe for us, then God gives them to us in abundance. But this gift is safe when it does not take possession of us, does not subjugate us to itself, does not possess us like slaves, but remains in our power, like masters and freemen. This is why God does not allow us to love wealth and fame, so that they do not take possession of us. And when we achieve such perfection, He gives them to us with great generosity. Who, tell me, is more glorious than Paul, who says: “We do not seek the glory of men, either from you or from others” (1 Thess. 2:6)? Who is happier than someone who has nothing and owns everything? When we, as I said above, do not submit to their dominion (wealth and glory), then we will possess them, then we will receive them. So, if we want to receive glory, let us run for glory. Thus, having fulfilled the laws of God, we will be able to receive both the here and the promised blessings, by the grace of Christ, with whom be glory to the Father and the Holy Spirit forever and ever. Amen. The paragraphs in the text were arranged by us – Editorial staff of “ABC of Faith” St. Chrysostom means the Arians, who recognized the Son of God as a venerable being, but not coeternal and not consubstantial with the Father. You might be interested in: