Беседа 14

Acts 5:34. Standing up in the Sanhedrin, a certain Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, respected by all the people, ordered the Apostles to be taken out for a short time. What is daily service? – When did the name of elders and deacons appear? – Love and mercy towards enemies. - No one can offend us except ourselves. 1. This Gamaliel was the teacher of Paul and it is worthy of wonder that he, being so prudent and, moreover, a teacher of the law, still did not believe. It cannot be that he remained a complete unbeliever, as can be seen from his words in which he offers his advice. “He ordered,” says (the writer), “to bring the Apostles out for a short time.” Look at the prudence of his speech, and at how he immediately brought them into fear. In order not to incur suspicion of being in agreement with those (apostles), he turns, as it were, to those who are like-minded with him, and does not express himself too harshly, but says to them, as if drunk with rage, like this: “Men of Israel! Think with yourselves about these people, what you will do with them” (Acts 5:35). Don’t act, he says, simply and haphazardly. “For shortly before this, Theudas appeared, posing as someone great, and about four hundred people stuck to him; but he was killed, and all who obeyed him were scattered and disappeared” (Acts 5:36). He instructs them with examples - precisely in order to calm them down, he points to (a person) who has attracted so many with him. Before pointing to examples, he says: “Think to yourself”; and after the indication, he expresses his opinion as follows: “after him, during the census, Judas the Galilean appeared and carried away quite a lot of people with him; but he died, and all who obeyed him scattered. And now, I say to you, get away from these people and leave them; for if this enterprise and this work are from men, then it will be destroyed, but if from God, then you cannot destroy it; Take heed lest you also prove to be enemies of God” (Acts 5:37–39). As if he were saying: wait; if these appeared on their own, then nothing will prevent them from scattering. “Take heed lest ye also prove to be enemies of God” (Acts 5:39). He rejects them as both impossible and useless. He didn’t say by whom they were exterminated, but simply: “scattered,” perhaps considering it unnecessary (to talk about that). And with the following words he teaches them: if this is a human matter, then you will not need to worry, but if it is God’s, then even with all your efforts you will not be able to overcome it. His speech seemed reasonable, so they obeyed and (decided) not to kill the apostles, but only to scourge them. “They listened to him; - says (the writer), - and calling the Apostles, they beat them and, forbidding them to speak about the name of Jesus, sent them away” (Acts 5:40). Look, after what miracles they are scourged. But, despite this, their preaching continued with even greater force, and they taught both at home and in church. “They left the Sanhedrin, rejoicing that they were worthy to suffer dishonor for the name of the Lord Jesus. And every day in the church and from house to house they did not cease teaching and preaching the gospel about Jesus Christ” (Acts 5:41, 42). “In these days, when the disciples multiplied, there arose among the Hellenists a murmur against the Jews, because their widows were neglected in the daily distribution of needs” (Acts 6:1). Not in those exact days that are spoken of (above), but, as is usually used in Scripture, the writer speaks about the time that happened to happen later, as if about what was happening at the same time; that's why he put it that way. Hellenes, I think, he calls those who spoke Hellenic, because at that time the Jews also spoke Hellenic. Here comes another temptation; or better to say, if you want to delve into it, then you will see that from the very beginning (they) had a struggle both from within and from without. “Then the twelve Apostles called together a multitude of disciples and said, “It is not good for us to leave the word of God and worry about the tables” (Acts 6:2). Fair; The more necessary must be preferred to the necessary. But look how they immediately take care of this and do not give up preaching. And since they were more honorable (than others), that is why they receive the highest appointment. “Therefore, brethren, select from among yourselves seven qualified men, filled with the Holy Spirit and wisdom; We will place them in this service, and we will constantly remain in prayer and the ministry of the word. And this proposal was acceptable to the whole meeting; and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and the Holy Spirit” (Acts 6:3–5). So these too were filled with faith, and were chosen, so that the same thing would not happen that happened to Judas, Ananias and Sapphira. “And Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenes, and Nicholas of Antioch, converted from the pagans; They were placed before the Apostles, and they, having prayed, laid their hands on them. And the word of God grew, and the number of disciples increased greatly in Jerusalem; and very many of the priests submitted to the faith” (Acts 6:5–7). But let's turn to the above. “Men of Israel! think with yourself." Look, I ask, with what meekness Gamaliel speaks here and how briefly he expresses himself before them; and does not present ancient examples, although he had them, but points to recent ones that could be especially convincing. That’s why it’s secretly expressed like this: “not long before this,” as if to say: a few days before. If he had directly said: release these people, he would have brought suspicion upon himself, and his speech would not have had such power; and by means of examples she received due force. For this reason, he recalls not just one example, but another, although he could have given a third, with an abundance of them showing both the justice of his words and diverting them from the murderous intention. “Get away from these people and leave them.” 2. Look how meek he is. He does not speak a long speech, but a short one; and he does not mention those (examples) with anger: “And all who obeyed him were scattered and disappeared.” By saying this, he does not blaspheme Christ at all, but achieves what he primarily desires. “If this,” he says, “is an enterprise and this business is from people, then it will collapse.” Here, it seems to me, he offers them the following conclusion: if they don’t go broke, then this means that this is not a human matter. “Beware lest you also turn out to be enemies of God.” He said this in order to keep them both impossible and useless. “If it is from God, then you cannot destroy it.” He did not say: if Christ is God, because the deed itself proved this, nor did he assert that this deed is not human or that it is Divine; but he left it to the future tense to convince them of this, and convinced them. If he convinced them, then they will say why they subjected the apostles to scourging? They could not resist the irrefutable justice of his words; but, despite this, they satisfied their rage; and, in addition, they again hoped to frighten (the apostles) in this way. The fact that he said this in the absence of the apostles also contributed to his greater conviction; both the sweetness of his words and the justice of what was said convinced them. He was almost a preacher of the gospel to them; or better to say, as if he were addressing them with the following reasoning: you were convinced that you were not able to ruin - why didn’t you believe? Their preaching is so great that it (receives) testimony from their enemies. There rebelled four hundred people and then many people, but here initially there were only twelve; therefore, you need not be afraid of the multitude attacking you. “If this work is from people, then it will be destroyed.” He could point to another Egyptian (disturber); but it would be unnecessary to talk about this. Did you see how at the conclusion of his speech he frightened them? This is why he does not express his opinion directly, so as not to appear to be a defender of the apostles; but draws a conclusion from the consequences of the case. He did not dare to say directly that this was a human work, or that it was from God; if he said that it was from God, they would begin to contradict; and if (he said that it was) human, then they would immediately rebel again. Therefore, he advises them to wait until the end, saying: “get away from these people and leave them.” And they again threaten the apostles, although knowing that they will not have any success, but still insisting on their own. Such is malice: it often strives for the impossible. “Afterwards Judas appeared.” You can learn more about this from the books of Josephus (Flavius), who sets out in detail the history of these events 18. Did you see what boldness Gamaliel had when he said that this was “from God,” since he convinced them of this from the very deeds themselves afterward? Indeed, great is boldness, great is impartiality! “They listened to him,” says (the writer), “and, calling the Apostles, beat them and, forbidding them to speak about the name of Jesus, sent them away.” They were ashamed of the adviser’s opinion and therefore abandoned their intention to kill the apostles, only after subjecting them to scourging did they release them. “And they went out from the Sanhedrin, rejoicing because they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 5:41). What signs are not more amazing! Nothing like this happened with the ancients, although Jeremiah was scourged for the word of God, and Elijah was threatened, and others; meanwhile, here and with this very thing, and not just signs, they demonstrated the power of God. The writer did not say that they did not grieve, but that even though they grieved, they rejoiced. Where can you see this? From their subsequent boldness, because even after the scourging they preached incessantly. Testifying to this, (the writer) says: “in the church and from house to house they did not cease teaching and preaching the gospel about Jesus Christ” (Acts 5:42). "These Days". Which ones? When this happened, that is, when they were scourged, they were threatened, and when the number of disciples increased, then “there was a murmur among the Hellenists” (Acts 6:1). Perhaps it arose due to the multitude (of disciples), because in this case there could not but be a difficulty. “And very many of the priests submitted to the faith” (Acts 6:7). This hints and indicates that of those who were responsible for the death of Christ, many believed. “There was a murmur among the Hellenists against the Jews because their widows were neglected in the daily distribution of needs” (Acts 6:1). Consequently, there was a daily service for widows. And look how he calls it service, and not just almsgiving, thereby elevating both those who give and those who receive. This (neglect of widows) did not come from ill will, but probably from inattention due to the crowd. That’s why this was brought to light—and the evil was no small matter—in order to immediately correct it. Do you see how in the beginning there were troubles not only externally, but also internally? But look not only at the fact that it has been corrected, but also at the fact that it was a great evil. “Therefore, brethren, select seven men from among you” (Acts 6:3). They do not act at their own discretion, but first justify themselves before the people. This is how it should be done now. “It is not good for us,” they say, “forsaking the word of God and caring for the tables” (Acts 6:2). First, the writer points out the incompatibility (of these duties) and explains that it is impossible to zealously fulfill both together. Indeed, even then, when they began to ordain Matthias, they first pointed out the necessity of this work, because one was missing, but there needed to be twelve. So here they found out the need. However, they did not do this before waiting until there was a murmur; after that they no longer hesitated, lest it intensify. 3. Look, they present the matter to their judgment, and they themselves predetermine that these should be (men) pleasing to everyone and approved by everyone. When it was necessary to choose Matthias, then they said: “who were with us all the time” (Acts 1:21); but that’s not the case here, because that wasn’t the case. Therefore, they do not leave the election to the lot, and they themselves do not perform it, although they, moved by the Spirit, could choose; but they insist on what appears according to the testimony of the people. It was their business to determine the number and ordain when there was such a need; but they leave it to everyone to choose (worthy) husbands, so as not to incur suspicion of partiality. So God commanded Moses to choose elders whom he knew. Such orders require a lot of wisdom. Do not think that someone who has not been entrusted with the word (of teaching) does not need wisdom; no, it was necessary, and a great one. “But we,” he says, “will continue continually in prayer and in the ministry of the word” (Acts 6:4). Both at the beginning and at the end of the speech they justify themselves. “We will abide,” they say. This was how it was necessary (to act in these matters), not simply and not as it happened, but to constantly remain. “And it was desired,” says (the writer), “this proposal was made to the whole assembly” (Acts 6:5). This is worthy of their wisdom; everyone approved of what was said: it was so reasonable! “And they chose,” he says, “and everyone here chooses,” Stephen, a man full of faith and the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenes, and Nicholas of Antioch, converted from the pagans; They were placed before the apostles, and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them” (Acts 6:5-6). From this it is clear that they separated the elect from the people, and they themselves brought them, and not the apostles. Notice how the writer does not say anything unnecessary; he does not explain how; but he simply says that they were ordained by prayer, because that is how ordination is performed. A hand is laid on a person; but God does everything, and His right hand touches the head of the one being ordained, if the ordination is performed as it should. “And the word,” he says, “of God grew, and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly” (Acts 6:7). He added this not without intention, but to show how great the power of charity and stewardship is. Then, intending to begin the story of what happened to Stephen, he presents the reasons for it in advance. “And many of the priests submitted to the faith.” They saw that what their boss and teacher offered them their opinion about, they were already experiencing in reality. And it is worthy of wonder how the people were not divided when choosing those men, and how the apostles were not humiliated before them. And what kind of rank they had and what ordination they received, this needs to be considered. Isn't it a deacon's? But these orders in churches are not given to deacons, but to elders; Moreover, at that time there was not a single bishop, but only apostles. Therefore, it seems to me, the names of deacons and elders were not clearly and accurately distinguished at that time. At least they were ordained to this (ministry) and not only were they appointed, but they were prayed for, that power (of grace) might be imparted to them. Notice, please, if seven husbands were needed for this, then how their property increased, how many widows there were! And the prayers were performed not simply, but with great care: that is why this work, like preaching, was such a success, since they succeeded in so many things through prayers. Thus, spiritual (gifts) were also imparted to them; they were sent to other places; they were entrusted with the word (of teaching). But (the writer) does not talk about this and does not extol them, (inspiring those) that they should not abandon the assigned task. Likewise, Moses (the chosen elders) were taught not to do everything on their own (Ex. 18:26). That is why Paul says: “Only that we remember the poor” (Gal. 2:10). Understand how they chose them (deacons). They fasted and continued in prayer (Acts 2:42). This is how it should be now. These (the writer) called not just spiritual, but filled with the Spirit and wisdom, showing that it was necessary to have great wisdom in order to endure the complaints of widows. What good is it if someone, although he does not steal, wastes everything? Or will he be bold and angry? In this respect, Philip was worthy of surprise. About him (the writer) says: “entering the house of Philip the evangelist, one of the seven deacons, they remained with him” (Acts 21:8). Do you see how they did nothing according to human custom? “And the number of the disciples increased greatly in Jerusalem” (Acts 6:7). In Jerusalem the number (of believers) increased. It is surprising that where Christ was put to death, there the sermon (about Him) spread. And not only was none of the disciples tempted, seeing that the apostles were being scourged, some were threatening them, others were tempting the Spirit, and others were grumbling, but the number of believers increased more and more. So they were enlightened by the incident with Ananias, and there was very great fear between them. Notice, please, how the number of believers increased. It increased after the temptations, and not before. Look how great is God’s love for mankind. Of those very bishops who incited the people to kill (I. Christ), who cried out and said: “He saved others, but cannot save himself” (Matthew 27:42), of those same “very many,” he says, “submitted themselves to the faith” (Acts 6:7). 4. Let us also imitate Him. He accepted them, not rejected them. This is how we will repay our enemies, even if they have caused us countless evils. We will repay them with all that good we have; Let us not fail to provide benefits to them. After all, if by enduring evil one can satisfy their rage, then much more by doing good to them. The first is less than the last, because it is not the same - to do good to the enemy, and to wish or be ready to endure (from him) greater evil. From the latter we will move on to the first, which (is) the advantage of the disciples of Christ. They (the Jews) crucified Him, who came to do good to them, scourged His disciples, and after all this He honors them with the same honor as His disciples, imparting to them His benefits on an equal basis with these. Let us, I exhort you, imitate Christ; in this we must imitate Him; this makes (man) equal to God; this is a transcendental matter. Let us love mercy: it is the guide and teacher of philosophy. He who has learned to be merciful to the unfortunate will learn not to bear grudges; and, having learned this, he will be able to do good to his enemies. Let us learn to sympathize with the misfortunes of our neighbors; then we will learn to endure evil from them. Let us ask the very one who is at enmity against us: does he not condemn himself, would he also not wish to be wise, would he not say that all this comes from anger, from cowardice or from vexation, would he not like to be better among the insulted and silently enduring (insults) than among those insulting and raging, does he not with surprise also move away from the one enduring (insults) patiently? Do not think that this makes (people) despicable. Nothing makes one more despicable than inflicting insults; and nothing makes one more respectable than enduring insults. The first (who causes insults) is a villain, and the last (who endures insults) is a wise man; this one is lower than man, and this one is equal to the angels. Even if (the insulted) were less than the offender, he, if he wanted, could take revenge; but because he does not do this, everyone sympathizes with him, but hates him. Well? Isn't that why it's much better than the first? Everyone will look at him as if he were crazy, and at him as if he were prudent. Therefore, if anyone encourages you to condemn someone, tell him: I cannot say anything bad about him; I'm afraid that he may not be like that. Never speak (badly about another) even in your mind, especially in front of others. Don’t complain about him and before God. If you find out that they are speaking ill of him, defend him; say: these are words of passion, not of a person, of anger, not of a friend, of frenzy, not of the soul. This is how we will reason in every sin. Do not wait for the fire to flare up, but put it out first; do not irritate the wild beast, but restrain it before it becomes irritated; you will no longer be able to put it out when the flame flares up. And what did they say about him? That he is mad and stupid? But to whom do these words apply more: to the one about whom they are speaking, or to who is speaking? The latter, even if he was a very wise man, deserves the name of a fool; and the first, even if he was not smart, (deserves the name) of a prudent and wise man. Who is stupid, tell me: is it the one who ascribes to another something that really does not exist, or the one who is not embarrassed even in this case? If remaining calm when disturbed is a sign of wisdom, then to become irritated without any prompting is not great madness? I'm not even talking about what kind of punishment is in store for those who insult and slander their neighbor (Matthew 5:22). But what else did they say about him? That he is the dishonest of the dishonest, the lowest of the low? Again (who says this) turns the reproach on himself. That one will turn out to be honest and respectable, and this one will be truly base. To reproach such things, i.e. ignorance of origin is truly characteristic of a low soul; and he will be great and worthy of surprise if he does not think about it at all, but remains in such a position as if they were saying about him that he has something superior to others. Will they say he's an adulterer and things like that? In this case, you can laugh: when conscience does not reproach, then there can be no place for anger. Having realized what bad and disgusting expressions are uttered, one should not grieve over this either, because (the one who uttered them) has already discovered something that anyone could find out later in time, and through this he has made himself no longer worthy of trust for everyone, like a person who does not know how to hide the shortcomings of his neighbor, and thus has shamed himself more than others, blocked every pier for himself and exposed himself to terrible responsibility at the future judgment. Everyone will turn away not so much from him as from him himself, as having discovered something that should not have been discovered. And don’t say everything you know, but keep silent about other things if you want to gain good fame for yourself. Through this, you will not only refute what is said (by others) and cover up (the shortcomings of your neighbor), but you will also do another good deed: you will not allow judgment to be pronounced against yourself. Does anyone speak poorly of you? And you tell me: if he knew everything, he would not only say this (about me). Are you amazed and surprised by what was said? But this is how it should be done. We borrow everything that has been said to you from outside, not because there are not countless proofs of this in the Scriptures, but because it is more likely to shame (you). And Scripture sometimes aims to shame, as, for example, when it says: “Do not the pagans also do the same?” (Matthew 5:47) The prophet Jeremiah cited the example of the sons of Rechab, who did not agree to break the commandments of their father (Jer.25). Miriam and others with her grumbled against Moses; but with his prayer he immediately delivered them from punishment and did not allow anyone to find out that they were punished for him (Num. 12). But it’s not like that with us; on the contrary, we especially want everyone to know that the offense remained unavenged. How long will we live (life) on earth? There can be no struggle when there is only one (opposing) side; if you arm both sides of the frenzied, you will irritate them even more; and if (only) right or left, then you will tame her rage. The one who strikes, when he has a person in front of him resisting him, becomes even more irritated; and when it is the one who submits, it quickly subsides and the blows are directed at him. It is not so much a person skilled in fighting who tames the enemy’s strength as a person who is insulted and does not respond in kind, because the enemy finally retreats from him, disgraced and condemned, firstly by his conscience, and secondly by everyone who has seen him. There is a proverb: he who honors (others) honors himself. Consequently, he who shames (others) shames himself. No one, I will say again, can offend us except ourselves; and no one will make me poor except myself. Let's explain it this way: let my soul be low and everyone donate money to me. What of this? Until the soul changes, everything is in vain. May I have a great soul and may everyone take money from me. What of this? As long as you don't make her low, there is no harm. Let my life be unclean, and everyone says the opposite about me. What of this? Although they say this, in their hearts they judge me differently. Or let my life be pure, and everyone says the opposite about me. So what of this? After all, they will condemn themselves in their conscience, because they do not speak out of conviction. There is no need to take both praise and blame to heart. What am I saying? No one will be able to harm us with slander or any kind of censure if we want it. Let us explain it this way: let someone drag (us) to the judgment seat, let him slander us, let him, if you want, try to take our life. What does it mean to endure this innocently for a while? But this very thing, they will say, is evil. On the contrary, to suffer innocently is good. What? Is it really necessary to suffer not innocently? So, I will say at the same time, one philosopher from the outside (pagans), when he heard that so-and-so was deprived of life, and when one of his disciples said: it’s a pity that it’s unfair, turning to him, he said: well, would you like it to be fair (Socrates in Xenophon)? And was not John (the Baptist) unjustly deprived of his life? Whom do you pity more, the one who was deprived of life unjustly, or who is the opposite? Don't you consider the latter unfortunate, and aren't you surprised at the former? What unjust thing did a man suffer, who received great benefit from death itself, and not just no harm? If (innocent death) made an immortal mortal, then there would truly be harm. If someone hastened to put a mortal to death with glory, who by nature must suffer death within a short time, then what harm is there? So, let our souls be well disposed, and then there will be no harm to us from outside. But are you not in glory? So what of this? What we said about wealth is also about fame. If I am great, then I will not need anything; and if I am vain, then the more I acquire, the more I will desire. Then, especially, I will be noble and will achieve greater glory when I despise glory. So, having known this, let us give thanks to Christ our God, who has given us such a life, and let us lead it to His glory, since glory befits Him with the beginningless Father and His Holy Spirit forever and ever. Amen. These conversations were delivered by the saint in Constantinople in 400 or 401. The paragraphs in the text were arranged by us – Editorial staff of “ABC of Faith” (Ancient Jude book 18, chapter 1, and book 20, chapter 2) You might be interested in: