Беседа 83

John 18:1. Having said this, Jesus went out with His disciples beyond the brook Kidron, where there was a garden, into which He and His disciples entered. 1. The beginning of the Savior’s suffering. – 2. Malchus, the wounded ap. Peter and healed by Jesus Christ is the same servant who struck the Lord on the cheek. - The first renunciation of the ap. Petra. – 3. How weak our nature is when God leaves us. - The second and third renunciation of the apostle. Petra. – 4. Jesus Christ on trial before Pilate. – 5. Must follow the example of Jesus Christ. – A list of insults and torments suffered by the Savior for our sake. - Discussion about the insults caused to us. - Human glory is nothing more than a shadow. – You need to correct your shortcomings little by little, one today, another tomorrow. – As if by steps one must ascend to virtue and perfection. 1. Death is terrible and filled with great horror, but not for those who know the highest wisdom. Whoever knows nothing clearly about the future, but considers death to be destruction and the end of life, it is natural for him to fear and be horrified by it, because he seems to fade into oblivion. And we, by the grace of God, who have come to know His unknown and secret wisdom, and consider death to be a migration, we would be wrong if we began to tremble at it; on the contrary, we should rejoice and be in good spirits, and because, leaving this temporary life, we move on to another, much better, more brilliant and without end. This is what Christ teaches us by his very deed, by going to suffer not out of violence or necessity, but voluntarily. “Having said this, Jesus,” it is said, “went out with His disciples beyond the brook Kidron, where there was a garden, into which He and His disciples entered. And Judas, His betrayer, also knew this place, because Jesus often gathered there with His disciples” (John 18:1-2). He walks in the middle of the night, crosses a stream, hurries to reach a place known to the traitor, and thereby saving the attackers from labor and freeing them from all anxiety, shows the disciples that he is going to suffer voluntarily - and this in particular could console them - and imprisons Himself in the garden, as if in a prison. “Having said this” to them. What are you saying? After all, He talked with the Father, because He prayed? Why don’t you say that He came there after finishing the prayer? Because it was not a prayer, but a speech - for the sake of the disciples. His disciples also entered the garden with Him. He delivered them from fear to such an extent that they not only no longer contradicted, but also entered the garden. But how did Judas get there? What motivation did he have to go there? From this it is clear that Christ often spent his nights away from home. Otherwise, if He always spent the night at home, Judas would not have come to an empty place, but would have gone into the house, in the hope of finding Him sleeping there. And lest you, having heard about the garden, think that Christ was hiding, the evangelist added: “Judas also knew this place,” and not only this, but also that “often he gathered there with His disciples.” Indeed, He was often alone with them and talked about necessary items that others should not hear about. He did this mainly in the mountains and in gardens, always seeking areas far from noise, so that his attention would not be diverted from listening. “So Judas, having taken a detachment of soldiers and ministers from the chief priests and Pharisees, comes there” (John 18:3). They had repeatedly sent to seize Him before, but they could not. From this it is clear that He now gave Himself up voluntarily. But how did they persuade Spira? These were soldiers who were ready to do anything for money. “And Jesus, knowing all that would happen to Him, went out and said to them, “Whom are you looking for?” (John 18:4). That is, not only now and not from the fact that they came, He learned about it, but already knew all this in advance and therefore spoke and acted without embarrassment. Why do they come with weapons, intending to capture Him? They were afraid of His followers. For the same reason, they attacked him late at night. “He came out and said to them: Who are you looking for? They answered him: Jesus of Nazareth" (John 18:4-5). Do you see the irresistible power - how He, being among them, blinded their eyes? And that darkness was not the reason - this was shown by the evangelist, who said that they also had lamps. Yes, even if there were no lamps, they would still have to recognize Him by his voice. If they did not know Him, then how could Judas, who was inseparable from Him, not recognize Him? After all, he stood with them, and yet, not only, like them, did not recognize Him, but also fell to the ground with them. Jesus did this in order to show that without His permission they not only could not have taken Him, but also seen Him, although He was among them. “He asked them again: Who are you looking for?” (John 18:7). Oh madness! His word cast them to the ground; and even after experiencing such great power, they did not turn back, but again rushed to the same thing. Therefore, having fulfilled everything on His part, He finally betrays Himself and says to them: “I told you that it is I” (John 18:8). “And Judas also stood, his betrayer” (John 18:5). Notice the gentleness of the evangelist: he does not vilify the traitor, but narrates the event, trying only to show that everything happened according to His permission. And lest anyone say that He himself disposed them to this - since He gave Himself to them and declared Himself before them - Christ first did everything that could turn them away from the enterprise, and even then, when they remained stubborn in malice and had no justification, He gave Himself to them, saying: “If you seek Me, leave them, let them go” (John 18:8). So until the last minute he shows his love for his disciples! If, he says, you need Me, then do not touch them. Here I am presenting Myself to you. “That the word which He spoke might be fulfilled: Of those whom You gave Me, I destroyed none” (John 18:9). By the name of destruction he does not mean this death, but that eternal one; and the evangelist accepted these words in the sense of real death. Maybe someone will be surprised how they didn’t take the apostles along with Him and put them to death, especially when Peter irritated them with his behavior towards the slave. Who held them back? Not anyone else, but the same force that threw them to the ground. That is why the evangelist, wanting to show that this happened not by their will, but by the power and will of the One who was taken by them, added: “that the word spoken by Him might be fulfilled: of those whom You gave Me, I have not destroyed any.” 2. Encouraged by these words, as well as by what has already happened, Peter at this time takes up arms against those who came. But how, you say, did the one who was commanded not to have either a travel bag or two clothes have a knife (Matthew 10:10)? It seems to me that Peter was afraid of exactly this, and therefore prepared it in advance. If you ask: how does one who is commanded not to hit the cheek become a murderer, (I will answer) that, indeed, he was commanded not to avenge himself; but here he took revenge not for himself, but for his Teacher. Moreover, the disciples were not yet completely perfect. If you want to see Peter wise, then look at him later, when he is exposed to wounds and endures them with meekness, endures countless disasters and is not irritated. And Christ performs a miracle here, and at the same time he teaches us to do good to those who do evil, and reveals His power. He returns the servant’s ear, and says to Peter: “all who take the sword will perish by the sword” (Matthew 26:52). As he did when washing (his feet), pacifying Peter’s fervor with a threat, he does the same here. And the evangelist mentions the name of the servant for the reason that this event was very important not only because Christ healed, but also because he healed the man who came to take Him and a little later had to hit Him on the cheek, that by this He put off the abuse that was about to arise against His disciples. That is why the evangelist said the name, so that readers of that time could find and investigate whether this really was so. Not without intention, he also speaks of the right ear; by this, it seems to me, he wanted to show the ardor of the apostle, since he rushed almost to his very head. But Jesus not only stops Peter with a threat, but also consoles others with the following words: “Shall I not drink the cup that the Father has given me?” (John 18:11). By this He shows that everything that is now happening depends not on the power of the enemies, but on His will, and at the same time reveals that He is not an adversary of God, but is obedient to the Father even to death. It was then that they “took Jesus and bound Him, and took Him first to Anna” (John 18:12–13). Why go to Anna? Out of complete pleasure, they boasted about this event, as if they had won a victory. Annas “was the father-in-law of Caiaphas... It was Caiaphas who gave advice to the Jews that it was better for one man to die for the people” (John 18:13-14). Why did the evangelist again remind us of this prophecy? In order to show that all this happened for our salvation, and that such is the greatness of this truth that the enemies themselves foretold it. So, so that the listener would not be embarrassed upon hearing about the bonds, he reminds of this prophecy, that is, that His death was salvation for the universe. “Simon Peter and the other disciple followed Jesus” (John 18:15). Who is this other student? The one who wrote about it. Why doesn't he call himself by name? When he reclined on the breasts of Jesus, then he had a reason to hide his name: but why does he do this now? For the same reason. In fact, here too he talks about a great feat, that is, that at a time when everyone fled, he followed. That is why he hides his name and mentions Peter before himself. He was forced to mention himself here to show that he talks more thoroughly than anyone else about the events in the courtyard, because he himself was inside the courtyard. And look how he rejects praise! Lest anyone say that while everyone else was leaving, he went even further than Simon, he says: “he was known to the high priest” (John 18:15), so that no one would be surprised that he followed, and no one would extol him for his courage. On the contrary, Peter’s behavior is definitely surprising: he was very timid, and yet he reached the courtyard itself, while all the others left. That he came there shows his love; and that he did not enter the courtyard depended on his fear and apprehension. It was precisely for this reason that the evangelist described this, in order to prepare in advance an apology for his renunciation. About himself, he notes, not as something important, that he “was known to the high priest”; but since he said that he alone entered with Jesus, so that you do not think that this was the work of his great soul, he exposes the reason for this act. And that Peter would have entered if he had been allowed, he showed this in the subsequent narrative. Indeed, when (John) went out and ordered the gatekeeper to bring him in, Peter immediately entered. Why didn't he introduce it himself? He did not lag behind Christ, but followed Him, and therefore ordered the woman to bring Peter in. What about this woman? “Aren’t you one of this Man’s disciples?” And he answers: “no” (John 18:17). What are you saying, Peter? Didn’t you recently say that if I need to lay down my soul for You, I will? So, what happened that you are not able to bear even the question of the gatekeeper? Did the warrior ask you? Is it one of those who took it? She was a simple and insignificant gatekeeper, and the question was not harsh. In fact, she did not say: and you are a student of this deceiver and destroyer, but of “This Man”; and these, rather, were the words of a compassionate woman. But Peter could not stand this either. And the words: “Aren’t you one of the disciples” were said because John was already in the courtyard. This woman spoke so meekly! But he did not notice anything about this and did not pay attention to it either the first time, or the second, or even the third, until the alector exclaimed; and even this did not bring him to his senses until Jesus looked at him with sorrow. He stood with the bishop’s servants “and warmed himself” (John 18:18), and Christ, bound, was kept in the house. However, we say this not to condemn Peter, but to show the truth of Christ’s words. “The high priest asked Jesus concerning His disciples and concerning His teaching” (John 18:19). 3. What deceit! Now he wants to find out how he constantly heard Christ when He preached in the church and taught openly! Not being able to accuse Him of anything, they began to ask about the disciples, probably about where they were, why He had gathered them, with what intention and for what purpose. Yet he spoke with the desire to expose Him as a troublemaker and an innovator, as if no one else listened to Him except them alone, as if it were some kind of evil crowd. What about Christ? Refuting this, He says: “I spoke openly to the world” (John 18:20), and not to the disciples in private; I taught openly in church. So what? Did He not say anything in secret? He spoke, but not because they thought - not out of fear and not with the intention of causing outrage, but only in those cases when the teaching He taught exceeded the understanding of the common people. “Why are you asking Me? ask those who have heard” (John 18:21). These are not the words of an arrogant and stubborn man, but firmly confident in the truth of his words. What He said at the beginning: “If I testify about Myself, then My testimony is not true” (John 5:31), He expresses the same thing now, wanting to present a completely reliable testimony. In fact, since the bishop asked Him about the disciples, as disciples, He answers: Are you asking me about mine? Ask the enemies, the slanderers, those who bound Me: let them speak. After all, the most undoubted proof of truth is when someone calls his enemies to witness his words. What about the bishop? He should have carried out such a study, but he did not do it, and yet because Christ said so, “one of the ministers who was standing close struck Jesus on the cheek” (John 18:22). What could be bolder than this? The sky is horrified, the earth trembles at such long-suffering of the Master and such injustice of the slaves! And what did He say? After all, He said: “Why are you asking Me” - not because He refused to answer, but because He wanted to eliminate every reason for injustice. And while He was hit on the cheek for such an answer, He, despite the fact that He could shake and destroy and overthrow everything, does nothing of the kind, but, on the contrary, utters words that can tame any atrocity. “If I said something bad,” he says, “show that it’s bad,” that is, if you can blame My words, prove it, but if you can’t, “why are you beating Me?” (John 18:23). Do you see the judgment seat, full of noise, confusion, rage and disorder? The bishop asked maliciously and insidiously; Christ answered directly and as he should. What then should be done? To refute or accept His word. But they don't do this; and the servant hits Him on the cheek. This means that this is no longer a trial, but conspiracy and violence. Then, since even with all this they did not find anything, they sent “His bound to... Caiaphas” (John 18:24). “And Simon Peter stood and warmed himself” (John 18:25). Oh, in what insensibility this hot and fiery man was immersed while Jesus was being taken away! And after all this, he does not even move from his place, but is still warming himself - so that you know how great the weakness of our nature is when God leaves it. And when they asked him, he again denied it. Then a relative of the slave “whose ear Peter cut off,” indignant at this act, says: “Didn’t I see you in the garden?” (John 18:26). But neither the garden nor the fiery love that (Christ) showed there in his conversation with his disciples brought to his memory what had happened: he forgot all this out of fear. But why did all the evangelists write about this in agreement? Not in order to condemn the student, but to teach us how bad it is not to place all our trust in God, but to rely on ourselves. You, for your part, marvel at the care of the Teacher: and while he himself was in the power (of enemies) and was bound, He shows great providence for the disciple - with His gaze he restores the fallen one and brings him to tears. “They took Jesus from Caiaphas to the praetorium” (John 18:28). This was so that many judges, even against their will, would testify that the truth was being investigated with accuracy. “It was morning” (John 18:28). They lead to Caiaphas before the alector speaks, and to Pilate in the morning. By this designation of time, the evangelist shows that Caiaphas interrogated Him for the whole half of the night, but did not accuse Him of anything, and therefore sent Him to Pilate. Having left others to narrate this, John himself speaks about what follows. And look how funny the Jews are! They seized an innocent man, took up arms, but did not enter the praetorium, “so as not to be defiled” (John 18:28). Meanwhile, tell me, what kind of desecration is it to enter a court of law, where criminals receive legal retribution? But those who ate mint and anise (Matthew 23:23) did not think that they were defiled when they killed unjustly; and they considered it a desecration for themselves to enter the judgment seat. But why didn’t they kill Him themselves, but brought Him to Pilate? Mainly because their leadership and power at that time were already very limited, since they were under the rule of the Romans; and on the other hand, they feared that later they would not be accused by Pilate and not be punished. And what do the words mean: “so that you can eat the Passover” (John 18:28)? After all, Christ himself celebrated the Passover “on the first day of unleavened bread” (Matthew 26:17): Either the Evangelist here calls the entire holiday the Passover, or the Jews actually celebrated the Passover then, and Christ celebrated it one day earlier, so that His slaughter would be on Heel, when the Old Testament Passover was also celebrated. In this way, the Jews, taking up arms, which was impermissible, and shedding blood, show particular discernment in their attitude to the place and call Pilate to them. Pilate came out and said: “What do you accuse this Man of?” (John 18:29). 4. Do you see how alien he was to their lust for power and envy? Although Christ was bound and brought by such a multitude of people, he did not consider this as undoubted evidence of guilt, but asks, recognizing it as unfair that they appropriated the judgment to themselves, while he was given punishment without trial. What are they? “If He had not been an evildoer, we would not have delivered Him to you” (John 18:30). Oh madness! Why don’t you express the crime itself, but cover it up? Why don't you denounce evil? Do you see how they refuse direct accusation everywhere and cannot say anything? Annas asked about the teaching and, after listening to the answer, sent him to Caiaphas. This one, for his part, asked Him again and, finding nothing, took Him to Pilate. Pilate says: “What do you accuse this Man of?” But even here they cannot say anything, but again resort to only assumptions. That is why Pilate, in bewilderment, says: “Take Him, and judge Him according to your law. The Jews said to him: “We are not allowed to put anyone to death.” It was they who said, “that the word of Jesus might be fulfilled, which He spoke, indicating by what kind of death He would die” (John 18:31–32). But how did the words indicate this: “it is not allowed to put anyone to death”? The Evangelist says this either because Christ had to die not only for them, but also for the pagans, or because they could not crucify anyone. If they say: “We are not allowed to put anyone to death,” then this indicates the circumstances of that time. And that they killed, and killed in a different way, is shown by the example of Stephen, who was stoned. But they wanted to crucify Christ in order to make the very image of His death shameful. Pilate, wanting to get rid of anxiety, does not enter into a lengthy study of the matter; but, entering, he asks Jesus and says: “Are you the King of the Jews?” Jesus answered: “Are you saying this on your own, or have others told you about Me?” ( John 18:33–34 ). Why does Christ ask about this? To reveal the evil intent of the Jews. Pilate had already heard about this from many; but since the Jews could not say anything, then, in order to avoid a lengthy investigation, he decides to expose to view the very thing that has always been erected against Him. Moreover, when he told them: “Judge Him according to your law,” they, wanting to show that His crime was not Jewish, answered: “We are not allowed,” i.e., He is not guilty against our law, but His guilt is state. Pilate realized this and therefore, as if he himself was in danger, says: “Are you the King of the Jews?” Consequently, Christ asks him not out of ignorance, but says: “others told you” - so that he, too, would accuse the Jews. Pilate also expresses this very thing when he says: “Am I a Jew? Your people and the chief priests delivered You up to me; what have you done? (John 18:35). With this he wanted to justify himself. But since he said, “Are you the King of the Jews?” - then Jesus, denouncing him, says: you, of course, heard about this from the Jews; Why don’t you do more accurate research? They said that I am an evildoer; ask: what evil have I done? But you don’t do this, you just express guilt. “Are you saying this on your own behalf,” or at the suggestion of others? Pilate could not immediately say that he had heard about this, but simply refers to the people and says: “They handed You over to me,” and therefore it is necessary to ask You what You did. What about Christ? “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36). He builds up Pilate, who was not very angry and not like the Jews, and wants to show that He is not an ordinary man, but God and the Son of God. And what does He say? “If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight for Me, so that I would not be handed over to the Jews” (John 18:36). By this He destroyed what Pilate had hitherto feared - he destroyed the suspicion that He had stolen royal power. Is His kingdom really not “of this world”? Of course, from the world. How does He say: “not of this world”? This does not mean that He does not rule here, but that He has authority in heaven, and that His power is not human, but much higher and more glorious than human. But if His power is higher, then how is He taken by this latter? He gave Himself up voluntarily. But He doesn’t reveal this yet, but what does He say? If I were of this world, “My servants would fight for Me, so that I would not be handed over to the Jews.” This shows the weakness of the kingdom of the earth, since it receives its strength from its servants; and the kingdom above is strong in itself and does not need anyone. Heretics find in these words an excuse to assert that Christ is different from the Creator. But how is it said about Him: “he came to his own” (John 1:11)? And what, on the other hand, do His words mean: “They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world” (John 17:16)? In the same sense, He speaks of the kingdom, that it is not of the world. By this He does not take away from Himself power over the world and provision for it, but shows that His kingdom, as I have already said, is not human and fleeting. What about Pilate? “...so You are the King? Jesus answered: You say that I am a King. For this purpose I was born” (John 18:37). If He was born a king, then from birth He has everything else, and He has nothing that He would acquire later. Therefore, when you hear: “Just as the Father has life in Himself, so He has given to the Son to have life in Himself” (John 5:26), then do not imagine anything else here except birth. Understand other similar places in the same way. “And for this purpose he came into the world, to testify to the truth” (John 18:37), i.e., to proclaim this to everyone, to teach everyone this, and to convince everyone of it. 5. But you, man, when you hear this and see your Master bound and led here and there, consider everything present as nothing. And why is it reasonable that while Christ endured so much for you, you often cannot even bear words! He is spat upon, and you are adorned with expensive clothes and rings, and if you do not hear praise from everyone, then you consider life to be worthless. He endures reproach, endures ridicule and shameful blows to the cheeks; but you want everyone to honor you, and you cannot bear the reproach of Christ. Do you not hear what Paul says: “Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ” (1 Cor. 11:1)? So, if anyone begins to ridicule you, remember your Lord: He was worshiped with mockery, He was dishonored in words and deeds, they laughed at Him a lot; and He not only did not take revenge in the same way, but repaid everything in the opposite way - with meekness and patience. We too will imitate him. Through this we will be able to get rid of any insult. In fact, it is not the one who insults, but the one who is faint-hearted and upset by the insult, who becomes the cause of the insult, since he gives it causticity. After all, if you had not been upset, the insult would not have been an insult to you. And to feel distressed by insults depends not on those who inflict them, but on those who are subjected to them. Why should you be upset? If you have been insulted unfairly, in this case the most decent thing to do is not to be indignant, but to feel sorry for that (offender); if it is fair, then all the more you need to be calm. Just as in the case when someone calls you rich, while you are poor, such praise does not apply to you at all, but rather serves as a mockery for you, so when someone insulting you says something that in fact does not exist, his censure also does not apply to you at all. But if your conscience reproaches you for what was said (by the offender), then do not be upset by his words, but correct yourself in your deeds. I'm talking about actual insults. If anyone begins to reproach you for your poverty and humble origins, laugh at him. This serves as dishonor not for the one who hears, but for the one who speaks, since he does not know how to be wise. But when this is said, would you say, in the presence of many who do not know the truth, then the wound becomes unbearable? On the contrary, then it is especially bearable when there are many witnesses before you, who praise and approve of you, and reproach and ridicule you. After all, among sensible people, it is not the one who takes revenge who is respected, but the one who says nothing in response to an insult. If among those present there is not a single reasonable person, then laugh even more at your offender and rejoice at the heavenly spectacle, because everyone there will praise you, applaud you and approve of you. Meanwhile, one angel is enough in comparison with the whole universe. And what am I saying about angels, when the Lord himself will glorify you? Let us train ourselves in such thoughts. There is no harm in remaining silent in the event of an insult, but on the contrary, it is harmful to take revenge for an insult. If, indeed, it were harmful to endure offensive words in silence, then Christ would not have said: “whoever strikes you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also” (Matthew 5:39). Therefore, if someone tells a lie about us, we will regret him, because he incurs the punishment and torment prescribed for slander, and becomes even unworthy to read the Holy Scripture. Scripture. “But God says to the sinner, Why do you preach My statutes and take My covenant in your mouth?” “You sit and... slander your brother” (Ps. 49:16, 20). And if he had told the truth, in this case he is worthy of regret. After all, the Pharisee spoke the truth; but he did not in the least harm the one who listened to him, but on the contrary, he also brought him benefit, and deprived himself of countless benefits, having suffered shipwreck from this condemnation. Thus, in both cases, it is the one who insults you who suffers the harm, not you. On the contrary, if you are attentive, you will gain great benefit: on the one hand, you will appease God with your silence, and on the other, you will become much more modest, you will find in the words spoken about you a reason to correct your actions and learn to neglect human glory. But this also caused us grief, that many are extremely biased towards human opinion. Now, if we want to be philosophical in this way, then we will clearly learn that everything human is insignificant. Let us learn this and, having realized our shortcomings, we will begin to correct them little by little; determine for yourself to correct one shortcoming this month, then another in the next, and a third in the next. Thus, ascending as if by some kind of steps, we will reach heaven along Jacob's ladder; It seems to me that this ladder, together with the spectacle that Jacob saw, by the way, also points to a gradual ascent along the ladder of virtue, along which one can ascend from earth to heaven - not along sensual steps, but through the correction and improvement of morals. Let us begin this journey and this ascent in order to reach heaven and enjoy all the blessings there, according to the grace and love of our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen. The paragraphs in the text were arranged by us – Editorial staff of “ABC of Faith” You might be interested in: