Беседа 33

Acts 15:13–15. After they were silent, Jacob began speaking and said: Men and brethren! listen to me. Simon explained how God initially looked upon the pagans in order to make them into a people for His name. And the words of the prophets agree with this, as it is written. The Church is alien to arrogance. – There is no good without an admixture of evil. 1. (James) was the bishop of the Jerusalem Church, which is why he speaks last. Here what was said is fulfilled: “by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word was confirmed” (Matthew 18:16). Look at his prudence: he confirms his word with new (teachers) and ancient prophets, since he could not point to any event, like Peter or Paul. And it is well arranged that this happened through those who did not intend to remain in Jerusalem, and this (James) who taught them was not subject to them, although he did not separate from their opinion. What is he saying? “Men and brethren! listen to me. Simon explained." Some say that this (James) is the same one mentioned by Luke (Luke 5:10); others (mean) another, of the same name. Whether he is the same or the other, there is no need to investigate; but one should only accept as necessary what he said. “Men and brethren,” he says. Great is the humility of this man and perfect is this speech; she puts an end to the matter. “How God first looked upon the pagans to make them into a people for His name. And the words of the prophets agree with this.” Although he has long been known, but since he was not indisputable, not being ancient, he adds an ancient prophecy and says: “As it is written: Then I will return and rebuild the fallen tabernacle of David, and what is destroyed in it I will rebuild, and I will repair it, so that other people and all the nations may seek the Lord among whom My name is proclaimed, says the Lord who does all these things” ( Acts 15:15–17). How? Wasn't Jerusalem rebuilt and then destroyed again? But that's not what he's talking about here. What kind of renewal do you say he is talking about? About the one that happened after the Babylonian captivity. “All His works have been known to God from eternity” (Acts 15:18). His words are indisputable; here (he says) there is nothing new, but everything is pre-depicted from the beginning. Then comes his opinion. “Therefore, I decide not to make it difficult for the pagans who turn to God, but to write to them so that they abstain from what is defiled by idols, from fornication, strangulation and blood, and so that they do not do to others what they do not want for themselves. For from ancient generations the law of Moses has had those preaching it in all the cities, and is read in the synagogues every Sabbath” (Acts 15:19–21). Since they have not yet heard from the law (about this subject), he decently quotes a saying from the law, so that it does not seem that it is being violated. But look, he does not allow them to hear this from the law, but from himself: “Therefore I believe,” i.e. having heard from myself, not from the law. Then a general decision is made. “Then the apostles and elders with the whole church decided, choosing men from among themselves, to send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, namely: Judas, called Barsaba, and Silas, men in charge among the brethren” (Acts 15:22). Look: they do not just decree this, but so that the decision is certain and so that those who arrived with Paul are not subject to suspicion, they send them from themselves. And look how much they reproach (the opponents) in their letter: “having written and handed over to them the following: “Apostles and elders and brethren - to the Gentile brethren who are in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia: rejoice. Because we have heard that some who went out from us troubled you with their speeches and shook your souls, saying that you must be circumcised and keep the law, which we did not charge them with” (Acts 15:23-24). A reproof sufficient for the foolishness of those and worthy of the meekness of the apostles, who said nothing more. “Then we, being assembled, unanimously decided, having chosen men, to send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who gave up their souls for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 15:25-26). To show that it is not autocratic, that it is “unanimous” by everyone, that they write this with reasoning, he said: “choosing” “men” from us. And so that it does not seem to be a reproach for Paul and Barnabas that they send them, look at the praise they receive: “men,” he says, “who gave up their souls for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. So we have sent Judas and Silas, who will explain the same things to you verbally” (Acts 15:26–27). Therefore, it is not human (teaching) if “the Holy Spirit wills it so.” “And we will not place any burden on you” (Acts 15:28). Again the law is called a burden. Then they make a reservation regarding the following: “more than this, besides these necessary things: to abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and blood, and things strangled, and fornication, and not to do to others what you do not want to do to yourself” (Acts 15:28–29). The new (law) did not prescribe this: Christ does not speak about this anywhere; but they borrow it from the law. “And strangled people,” he says. Murder is prohibited here. “So those sent came to Antioch and, having gathered people, handed over the letter. And when they read it, they rejoiced at this instruction” (Acts 15:30–31). Then, to show that they also consoled them, (the writer) added: “Judas and Silas, being also prophets, gave instruction to the brethren with abundant words and confirmed them. Having stayed there for some time, they were sent away in peace by the brethren to the Apostles” (Acts 15:32–33). 2. Disagreements and strife ceased; therefore, having confirmed them, they departed in peace. They had competitions with Paul, but Paul still teaches after that. Thus, in the Church there was no arrogance, but great decorum. And look: after Peter Paul speaks, and no one stops him; Jacob waits and does not come forward, although he was given primacy. John says nothing here, neither do the other apostles, and although they are silent, they are not upset: their soul was so free from vanity! But let's turn to the above. “After they were silent,” says (the writer), “Jacob began speaking and said: ... Simon explained how God initially looked upon.” At first Peter spoke more powerfully, and then this one more meekly. This is what someone who has great power should always do: leave reproaches to others, and speak with greater meekness yourself. He said well: “Simon explained,” as if he were expressing the opinion of others. Look how ancient he makes this matter seem. “He has looked upon the Gentiles,” he says, “to form them into a people for His name.” Not just “looked upon,” but “in His name,” i.e. for His glory. He is not ashamed to call the acceptance of the Gentiles the glory of His name, for this is great glory. Here he points to something great. For what? Because they, he says, were (accepted) “initially.” “Then,” he says, “I will turn and rebuild the fallen tabernacle of David.” Whoever examines carefully will find that the kingdom of David still stands. If his Descendant reigns, then, of course, his kingdom also exists. What is the use of buildings and a city when there are no subjects? And what is the harm from the destruction of the city, when everyone is ready to give their souls for it? Thus, not only does it stand, but it has also become the most famous of all, because it is now glorified throughout the entire universe. One thing has come true; something else must also be fulfilled. Having said: “and we will recreate,” he also adds the reason why this is, namely: “so that other people and all nations may seek the Lord.” If the city was restored for the one who (descended) from them, then it is obvious that the reason for the creation of the city was the calling of the pagans. Who are these “others”? Those that remained then (not accepted). But look, he keeps order and puts them in second place. “Says the Lord,” he says, “he who does all these things.” Not only speaks, but also creates. Therefore, the calling of the pagans is the work of God. However, the matter was about something else, as Peter also clearly expressed, about the fact that pagans should not be circumcised. Why are you saying this? They did not say that they should not accept them when they believe, but what (should be accepted) in compliance with the law. Peter explained this well too; but since this most confused the listeners, Jacob again draws attention to it. And look: what needs to be made a rule is not to keep the law, Peter proved it; and (James) speaks about what is characteristic of us and has long been accepted, and especially dwells on what nothing has been written about, so that, having healed their minds by reminding them of what was admitted, it is convenient to prove this too. “Therefore, I decide not to make it difficult for those who turn to God,” i.e. don't turn them away. If God has called, and keeping the law turns them away, then (in this case) we are fighting against God. He said well: “from the pagans,” showing to them both God’s view of them from above, and their submission and readiness for the calling. What does “I believe” mean? In other words: I say with authority that this is so. “And write to them,” he says, “so that they abstain from what is defiled by idols, from fornication, strangulation and blood.” Although this concerns bodily objects, it is necessary to abstain from them, because they produced great evil. And lest anyone object: why don’t we prescribe the same to the Jews? he added: “for the law of Moses from ancient generations has had those preaching it in all cities,” i.e. Moses continually tells them about this, which is what the words mean: “and is read in the synagogues every Saturday.” Look, what condescension! In what (the law) did not cause harm, in that (the apostle) left (him) as their guide, and at the same time bestowed grace that did not constrain anything, commanding the Jews to obey him in everything and not subjecting (him) the believers from the pagans. Thus, by apparently honoring him and maintaining his power over his own, he thereby removed the pagans from him. Why don’t they (the Jews) learn from him? By his rebellion. From here he shows that they should no longer observe anything (from the law). If they are not prescribed this, it is not because they have to observe anything more, but because they have a teacher. He did not say: do not tempt them, or: “convert them,” as Paul said to the Galatians (Gal. 1:7), but: “do not hinder them,” which means no other action than burdening them. Thus he resolved everything. Apparently, he commands to keep the law, because he borrows these (prescriptions) from it, but (in reality) he renounced it, borrowing only this. They were often told about this, but (he also says) to show that he respects the law, and, moreover, speaks not on behalf of Moses, but on behalf of the apostles, and, to fulfill many commandments, he chose one. This especially calmed them down. So the disagreement itself occurred according to the will (of God), so that after the disagreement the teaching would become more solid. “Then,” says (the writer), “the apostles and elders decided with the whole church, choosing men from among themselves.” Not just any, but “choosing from among themselves” they are sent after the election. “Send them to Antioch” says where the disease originated. 3. See how they do not say anything offensive against them, but care only about one thing, to correct what happened: this is what prompted the troublemakers there to make a decision. They didn’t say: you are deceivers, destroyers, and the like. When it was necessary, Paul did this, for example, when he says: “O, full of all deceit and all wickedness” (Acts 13:10); but here, when the matter had already been corrected, there was no need for this. And look: they do not say: “that some who went out from us” commanded you to keep the law, but: “they confused you with their speeches.” It is impossible to be more precise; no one would say that (okay). “Souls,” he says, “already confirmed, they shook,” as if in a building, shifting what had already been laid by others. “We didn’t entrust them with what,” they say. “Then we, having gathered, unanimously decided, having chosen husbands, to send them to you with their beloved.” If they are lovers, they will not despise them; if they “gave up their souls,” then they are worthy of trust. “So,” he says, “we have sent Judas and Silas, who will explain the same thing to you verbally.” And it was necessary to appear not only to the message, so that they would not say that they shortened (the definition), they said one thing instead of another. The praise attributed to Paul stopped their mouths. That is why not only Paul, or Barnabas, but also others are sent from the Church, so that they would not look at him with suspicion, since he held the same teaching, and not only those sent from Jerusalem. Shows how trustworthy they are; they are not arrogant, he says, they are not so unreasonable; That’s why he added: “by men who gave up their souls for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Why is it said: “for it pleased the Holy Spirit and us,” when it would be enough to say: “The Holy Spirit”? “To the Holy Spirit” - it is said so that they do not think that this is a human (teaching), and “to us” - in order to inspire that they themselves accept this, although they belong to the circumcision. “Don’t place any burden on you,” he says. They say this because they are speaking to people who are weak and in fear; That's why they add it. But at the same time, it shows that the definition was not made out of condescension, not because they were spared as they were weak - on the contrary, there was great respect for teachers at that time - but because it would be an unnecessary burden. Look how brief the message is and does not contain anything superfluous, no intricacies, no conclusions, but only a definition: it was the law of the Spirit. Burden is called (law) in different places. And again: “having gathered the people, they handed over the letter.” After (reading) the message, they themselves turned (to them) with a word; and this was necessary in order to free himself from all suspicion. “Judas and Silas,” says (the writer), “being also prophets, gave instruction to the brethren with abundant words and strengthened them” (Acts 15:32). Shows how trustworthy they were. Paul could (do this); but they should too. “After they had remained there some time, they were released in peace” (Acts 15:33). There is no more strife, no more disagreement! Then, it seems to me, they accepted the right hands (of the apostles), as Paul himself says: “they gave me and Barnabas the hand of fellowship” (Gal. 2:9). He also says: “they did not lay anything more on me” (Gal. 2:6), because they accepted his opinion and respectfully approved. Shows that from human reasoning, and not only from the Spirit, one can see that (the pagans) committed incorrigible sins; it does not require (admonition) the Spirit. It also shows that the rest is not necessary and even unnecessary, if only it is necessary. “By observing this,” they say, “you will do well.” Expresses that this is enough for them and nothing more is unnecessary. It was possible (to command) without a message; but in order for the law to be contained in writing, they write an epistle. And again, so that there was this obedience to the law, and they spoke to them, and they fulfilled them, and “in peace.” Let not the heretics tempt us either. Look how many temptations there were at the beginning of the (gospel) preaching; I’m not talking about external ones - these meant nothing - but about internal ones. And, first, Ananias, then grumbling, then Simon the Magus, then indignation at Peter for Cornelius, then famine, and finally, this is the most important of the evils. Indeed, as soon as any good appears, it is impossible for evil not to be mixed in. Let us not be embarrassed if some are tempted, but let us also thank God for them, that He makes us more experienced. Not only do we suffer, but the temptations themselves make us more glorious. He who adheres to the truth, if no one seduces him, would not be a strong lover of the truth; and when many seduce him, then he becomes glorious. So what? Isn't that what temptations are for? I’m not saying that it’s as if God produces them - yes, he won’t! - but He also benefits us through this evil, although He himself does not at all desire it. Give them, He says, “that they may all be one” (John 17:21). If there are temptations, then they do not harm them at all, but bring benefit. Just as martyrs are unwittingly benefited by those who drag them to torture, but God does not in any way encourage them to do so, so it is here. Let us not look at the fact that (many) are offended. This very thing serves as a sign of the superiority of our teaching, that many pretend to imitate it; for if it were not good, they would not appear to be imitators. I will explain this to you more clearly. 4. Incense oils have counterfeiters, such as amom leaf. Since they are rare and needed, there are many fake ones. No one will counterfeit anything else that is cheap. Likewise, pure life has many counterfeiters; no one will dare to appear to be in uncleanness, but to be in monasticism. What will we answer to the Hellenes? So a Hellene comes and says: I want to be a Christian, but I don’t know who to join - you have a lot of disagreements and strife, and great confusion. Which doctrine should I choose? Which one should you prefer? Everyone says: I contain the truth. Who to believe when I know absolutely nothing about the Scriptures? And those (heretics) represent the same thing. That's right, it happens between us. But if we said that one must believe the speculations, then you might rightly be embarrassed; if we say that (one must) believe the Scriptures, which are simple and true, then it is easy for you (to find) what you need. He who agrees with (the Scriptures) is a Christian; and whoever does not agree with them is far from this rule. What if he comes and says: The Scripture says this, but you say something else, and you interpret the Scriptures differently, distorting their meaning? But, tell me, don’t you have intelligence and reason? How can I, he says, judge without knowing anything of yours? I want to be a student, and you are already making me a teacher. If he says so, then you say that we will answer? How can we convince him? Let us ask: is this not a pretense and a pretext? Let us ask: does he condemn the Hellenes? In any case, he will say something, because without condemning them, he would not have come to us. Let's ask about the reason why he condemns, because it is not in vain that he condemns. He will say, as is well known: because (their gods) are creatures, and not an uncreated God. Fine. After this, if he also finds in other heresies, but with us it is the opposite, then is it necessary to say more? We all confess that Christ is God. Let's see who agrees with this and who disagrees. We, calling Him God, say about Him what is worthy of God, that He has power, that He is not a slave, but is free, that He creates everything by Himself; and the heretic is the opposite. I’ll ask again: when you want to learn the art of medicine, tell me, is it easy and how do you accept what is taught? Doctors have many opinions. If you simply accept everything you hear, then it is not worthy of a husband; if with intelligence and reasoning, then without a doubt you will learn good things. We call Him Son, and we recognize it exactly as we say it, but the heretics call Him that, but do not confess it. To put it more clearly: they have some (people) by whose name they are called, i.e. by the name of its heresy leader - such is every heresy - but with us it was not some person who gave us the name, but faith itself. So on your part this is a pretense and a pretext. Tell me why, when you want to buy clothes, even though you don’t know the art of weaving, you don’t say the following words: I don’t know how to buy, I’m being deceived; but do you use everything to become knowledgeable? When you want to buy something else, you try in every possible way to get the correct information; and here you say it. Judging by these words, you don’t want to accept anything at all. Let the one who does not have any teaching say what you say about Christians: “there are so many of them and so many different teachings: one is Greek, another is a Jew, another is a Christian; there is no need to accept any teaching because they contradict each other; I am a student, I do not want to be a judge and I cannot condemn any teaching.” But you have no such excuse. If you were able to reject the false, then when you come here you will be able to appreciate the true. He who does not condemn any teaching will easily say this; but he who has condemned something, although he has not yet chosen anything else, can learn what is necessary over time. Let’s not pretend and invent excuses: everything is easy. If you want, I'll show you that this is just an excuse. Do you know what you should do and what you shouldn't? Why are you doing what you shouldn’t and what you shouldn’t? Do what you must, and with right thoughts ask from God, and He, of course, will reveal it to you. “God is no respecter of persons,” says (Scripture), “but in every nation whoever fears Him and does what is right is acceptable to Him” (Acts 10:34–35). Whoever listens without prejudice cannot help but be convinced. Just as in the case when there is some standard by which everything can be determined, no great reasoning is required, and it is easy to expose the measurer incorrectly, so it is now. Why don't they see? Prejudices and human impulses contribute a lot to this. But, you say, they say the same thing about us? How? Have we separated from the Church? Do we have heresy leaders? Are we called by people's names? Do we have any leader, like them, one Marcion, another Manichaeus, another Arius, and another some other leader of heresy? Although we have a well-known name, we do not (have) the leaders of heresy, but our primates and rulers of the Church. We have no teachers on earth - let there not be! – and we have “Which is in heaven” (Matthew 23:9). And they, you say, claim the same thing? But they have a name that condemns them and stops their mouths. There were many Hellenes, and no one proposed such questions; and the philosophers had it too, but this did not hinder any of those who had sound doctrine. That is why they did not talk about the Jews - when they were doing this - that among them there were such and such: which of them should we believe? But they believed as they should. Let us also submit to the laws of God and in everything to do what is pleasing to Him and to act according to His will, as long as we continue our present life, so that, having lived virtuously the rest of our lives, we may receive the blessings promised to those who love Him, and be honored with those who please Him, by the grace and love of His only begotten Son and the All-Holy and life-giving Spirit, the one and true Divinity, now and ever, and unto ages of ages. centuries. 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” You might be interested in: