Беседа 39

Acts 17:32–33. When they heard about the resurrection of the dead, some mocked, while others said: We will listen to you about this at another time. So Paul went out from among them. Why was Paul taken to Rome in chains? - Meekness is praiseworthy. – The one who insults is subject to greater condemnation than the one being insulted. 1. Why did Paul, who managed to convince the Athenians so much that they said: “We will listen to you about this at another time,” and when there was no danger, was in a hurry to leave Athens? He probably did not expect much benefit here; and on the other hand, he was led by the Spirit to Corinth. “Some men, having come to him, believed; among them was Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damar, and others with them. After this Paul, leaving Athens, came to Corinth; and having found a certain Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, who had recently come from Italy, and Priscilla his wife - because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to leave Rome - he came to them; and, due to the same craft, he stayed with them and worked; for their trade was making tents” (Acts 17:34, 18:1–3). Just as I said, he was led by the Spirit to Corinth, where he was to remain. The Athenians, although they loved to listen to the news, were not attentive (to the sermon); they did not show any zeal, but tried only to constantly have some subject for conversation; this was the reason that they retreated (from Paul). But if they had such a disposition, then why do they accuse him of “preaching about strange gods” (Acts 17:18)? Because this (teaching) was very incomprehensible to them. However, he convinced Dionysius the Areopagite and some others. Those who cared about the improvement of their lives soon accepted the word; but others do not. It seemed sufficient to Paul that he had at least sown the seeds; and then most of his life had already passed, since he died under Nero. Meanwhile, Claudius initiated a persecution against the Jews, although from afar, but not in vain, in order, at least in this way, to enlighten them: they were expelled from Rome as harmful people. Therefore, according to the dispensation (of God), it happened that (Paul) was taken there as a prisoner, not to be expelled from there, like a Jew, but to remain there and act under guard. “Stayed,” says (the writer), “with them.” So, what excuse did he find to live with them? Here it was especially required that he not take (content from the Church), as he himself says: “so that in what they boast, they may be found to be the same as we are” (2 Cor. 11:12); That’s why it’s arranged that he lives here. “And on every Sabbath he spoke in the synagogue and convinced the Jews and the Greeks. And when Silas and Timothy came from Macedonia, Paul was compelled by the Spirit to testify to the Jews that Jesus is the Christ” (Acts 18:4–5). Those. they insulted him, attacked him. So they (did); what about Pavel? He leaves them, and with great threat. He no longer says: “You should have been the first to preach the word of God” (Acts 13:46), but he also addresses them with an external sign: “But when they resisted and slandered, he shook out his clothes and said to them: Your blood is on your heads; I am clean; From now on I am going to the pagans. And he went from there and came to a certain God-worshipper named Justus, whose house was near the synagogue. But Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord with all his house, and many of the Corinthians, listening, believed and were baptized” (Acts 18:6-8). Look how again, having said: “from now on,” he nevertheless does not cease to care about them; and therefore said this in order to excite them. And then he went to Justus, whose house was near the synagogue. He settled in a neighboring house, so that this very neighborhood would arouse jealousy in them, if they wanted. “Crispus,” says (the writer), “the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord with all his house.” And this could greatly contribute to their conversion. “The Lord said to Paul in a vision at night, “Do not be afraid, but speak and do not be silent, for I am with you, and no one will harm you, because I have many people in this city” (Acts 18:9–10). See how He convinces him and how he then tells him what especially encouraged him: “there are many people in this city.” How, someone will say, did they all attack him together? But they did nothing to him, but only brought him to the proconsul. “And he remained there a year and six months, teaching them the word of God. Meanwhile, during the proconsulship of Gallio in Achaia, the Jews unanimously attacked Paul and brought him before the judgment seat, saying that he was teaching people to honor God not according to the law” (Acts 18:11-13). Do you see why they always presented their accusations publicly? But look, when they said that “he teaches people to honor God not according to the law,” the proconsul did not pay any attention to this, but on the contrary still defended Paul. Listen to how he answers: “If there were any offense or evil intent, then I would have reason to listen to you” (Acts 18:14). He was, it seems to me, a meek man; this is evident from his prudent answer. “When Paul wanted to open his mouth, Gallio said to the Jews: Jews! if there was any offense or malicious intent, then I would have a reason to listen to you, but when there is a dispute about the teaching and about the names and about your law, then sort it out for yourself; I don't want to be the judge of this. And he drove them away from the judgment seat. And all the Greeks, seizing Sosthenes, the ruler of the synagogue, beat him before the judgment seat; and Gallio was not in the least worried about it” (Acts 18:14–17). And from here the meekness of this husband is again visible. When he was beaten, he did not consider it an insult: the Jews were so impudent! 2. But consider what we read above. “When they heard about the resurrection of the dead, some mocked, while others said: We will listen to you about this at another time.” Hearing so many great and lofty things, they did not pay attention, but laughed; but they laughed (at the teaching) about the resurrection: “a natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God” (1 Cor. 2:14). “So,” says (the writer), “Paul went out from among them.” "So" . How? Having convinced some, ridiculed by others. “After this Paul,” he says, “leaving Athens, came to Corinth; and having found a certain Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontiana, who had recently come from Italy, he stayed with them and worked.” Look how the law is already beginning to lose its force. Being a Jew, he subsequently cut his hair in Cenchrea and went with Paul to Syria. Being a Pontian, he hastened to go not to Jerusalem or closer to it, but further. He (Paul) abides with him and is not ashamed to abide; but this is why he stays because he finds a convenient refuge here, much more convenient for him than the royal palaces. Don't laugh when you hear this, beloved! After all, just as a palaestra (a school in which they practiced fighting) is more useful for a wrestler than a soft bed, so for a warrior an iron sword is more useful than a golden one. “And he worked” preaching. Let us be ashamed, who live idly even without preaching. “On every Sabbath he spoke in the synagogue,” he says, “and convinced the Jews and Greeks.” “But how they resisted and slandered,” he retreated: he retreated, thus hoping to convert them more quickly. Why, in fact, did he leave that house and settle closer to the synagogue? Isn't that what it's for? He saw no danger there either. “Testify”, he says, to them. He no longer teaches, but testifies. “But when they resisted,” he says, “and slandered him, he shook off his clothes and said to them: “Your blood is on your heads.” He does this in order to frighten them not only in word, but also in deed; and speaks to them with greater power, as having already convinced many. “I am,” he says, “clean.” “From now on I am going to the pagans.” Likewise, we are guilty of the blood of those entrusted to us if we neglect them. In the same way, when he says: “Nevertheless, let no one burden me” (Gal. 6:17), he speaks in order to frighten, since it was not so much the punishment that could frighten them, but this (threat). “And he went from there and came to a certain one who worshiped God, named Justus.” He goes over, wanting to convince them that he has gone to the pagans. “Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue,” says (the writer), “believed in the Lord with all his house.” Look how the faithful did it with whole families back then. Then soon many others believed and were baptized. The ruler of the synagogue here is the same Crispus, about whom (Paul) says in his letter: “I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius” (1 Cor. 1:14). And this one, it seems to me, is also called Sosthenes, since this man was so faithful that he was beaten and was always with Paul. “The Lord, in a vision at night, said to Paul:,” says (the writer), “do not be afraid, but speak and do not be silent.” That's why he stayed there for a long time; although the multitude (of believers) prompted him to this, the favor of Christ was greater. But a great danger lay ahead when many, and even the leader of the synagogue himself, believed. “Don’t be afraid,” he says. This was enough to encourage him; he is convicted of fear, or better yet, he is not convicted, but is encouraged so that this does not happen to him. (God) did not allow the apostles to constantly endure disasters, so that they would not become exhausted. But nothing grieved Paul so much as those who did not believe, or those who resisted; this was heavier for him than the dangers themselves. “And do not be silent,” he says, “for I have many people in this city.” Perhaps that is why Christ appears to him. “Meanwhile,” says (the writer), “during Gallio’s proconsulate in Achaia, the Jews unanimously attacked Paul.” Look how they attack after a year and six months, when they no longer had the right to use their laws. The Corinthians were especially encouraged by the conviction that the ruler would not humiliate himself, since it made no difference whether to win through a dispute of words, or to suggest that he did not care about this matter at all. And look how reasonable he was. In his answer he did not say directly: it is none of my business; but what? “Jews! if there was any offense or malicious intent, then I would have a reason to listen to you, but when there is a dispute about the teaching and about the names and about your law, then sort it out for yourself; I don’t want to be the judge in this.” Brilliant victory! “And all the Greeks seized Sosthenes, the ruler of the synagogue, and beat him before the judgment seat; and Gallio was not at all worried about that.” Oh, what shame they felt! “And Gallio,” he says, “didn’t worry at all about that,” although everything was done to insult him; and they, as if they had some kind of power, beat (the boss), shamefully committing an act of insane rage! Why didn’t he beat them from his side, although he had power over them? So that they learn wisdom. He does not beat them from his side, so that the judge would know which of them is more meek. This brought a lot of benefit to those present. The meekness of some and the insolence of others showed that all this required a judicial verdict; but they did everything randomly. And he didn’t say: I shouldn’t, so that they wouldn’t beat him next time, but: I don’t want to. "I don't want to be a judge". This man was so meek! In a similar way, Pilate spoke of Christ: “Take Him, and judge Him according to your law” (John 18:31). He wanted them to judge according to the law; and they acted as if they were drunk and mad. Therefore, Paul arrived from Athens (to Corinth) because there were “many people” here. He was beaten and didn't say anything. 3. Let us also imitate him. Let us repay those who strike us with meekness, silence, and long-suffering. These are more serious wounds, a stronger and more effective blow, since the damage is not to the body, but to the soul. We hit a lot of people; but if it is done out of friendship, then you even like it; If you beat someone with anger, you touch his heart and therefore cause him great grief - this is how we hit their heart more. Let us prove, if possible, that meekness is more striking than resistance. The clearest proof of this would be from deeds and experience; but, if you wish, we will explain this in words, although we have already done this many times. When insulted, we are not so upset by anything as by the opinions of those present; it doesn’t matter whether you receive an insult in front of everyone or in private; We easily endure those insults that are inflicted on us in private, when there are no witnesses and no one knows about it. Consequently, it is not the insult itself that upsets us, but the fact that it is inflicted in front of everyone, so that if someone praised us in front of everyone, but reviled us in private, we would still be grateful to him. This means that grief does not depend on the insult itself, but on the opinion of those present, before whom (we do not want) to appear worthy of contempt. Now: what if their opinion is in our favor? Will not the offender himself suffer more if they vote for us? Who, tell me, do outside witnesses condemn: the one who inflicts the insult, or the one who is subjected to it and remains silent? Anger carries us away while an insult is being inflicted; Let us see now, when we are free from this passion, so that we do not get carried away even then. Who are we all judging? Without a doubt the one who inflicts the insult; if he is lower than us, we say that he is mad; if equal, we say: he is mad; if it’s higher, then we don’t approve. Who, tell me, is worthy of approval? Is it the one who is indignant, goes berserk, rages like a wild beast, rebelling against those of the same nature as himself, or is it the one who remains calm, as in a harbor, and maintains great wisdom? Is the latter not like an angel, and is he also like a man? He cannot restrain his own evil, but this one also restrains someone else’s; he cannot control himself, but this one also curbs the other; he is shipwrecked, but this one sails safely on his ship with a fair wind; It is he who does not allow the wind of anger to rush into the sails and sinks his mental boat, but a light and pleasant wind - the breath of gentleness - blows on him and with great calm leads him to the haven of wisdom. As during the wreck of a ship, those sailing on it do not know what they are throwing into the sea, whether their property or the property of others entrusted to them, but indiscriminately throw everything in it, both precious and non-precious; when the storm stops, then, thinking about what they abandoned, they cry and do not rejoice in the calm weather, due to the loss of what was thrown away - the same is true here. When anger rages and this storm arises, they do not think about what needs to be thrown away and what is not; when the anger ceases, then, reflecting on what they threw away, they see only harm and do not rejoice in the peace itself, remembering with what words they disgraced themselves and what great damage they suffered, not in money, but in attitude to humility and meekness. Truly, anger is darkness. “He said,” says (Scripture), “the fool in his heart: “There is no God”” (Ps. 13:1). One can, it seems, say about the angry one: “the angry one said: “There is no God.” “Because of the multitude of his wrath he will not seek,” says (Scripture) (Ps. 9:25). If a pious thought appears, then it eliminates, drives away and overthrows. If you do not feel how you suffer harm more than the one insulted, then insult; if there is no one who would condemn you, then the judgment of conscience, having befallen you in private, will punish you a thousand times more. Indeed, when you hear that the one insulted by you did not say a single offensive word, do you not grieve more than him? reproaches? We often say this, but we do not see that it is also observed in practice. How do you, a man, insult a man who is a slave like yourself? But why be surprised at this when many insult God himself? 4. Let this be a consolation for you who suffer insults. Are you being insulted? Sometimes we insult God too. Are you being vilified? Sometimes we vilify God too. Are you being spat on? Our Lord also (suffered). In this He has something in common with us, but otherwise He does not. He never unfairly insulted - he never would - he did not vilify, he did not offend. Therefore, we (the offended) have something in common with Him, and not you (the offended). To bear insults is characteristic of God, but to insult in vain is characteristic of the devil. Here are two opposing sides. “You have a demon” (John 8:48), - Christ heard these words; The servant of the bishops hit him on the cheek (John 18:22). Those who insult unfairly take the side of these people. Indeed it is. If Peter was called Satan for just one word (Matthew 16:23), then how much more can such people be called Jews when they do the works of the Jews, and these (called) sons of the devil because they did the works of the devil (John 8:44). You insult (another): but tell me, who are you? Or better yet, the reason you insult is because you yourself are nothing. It is not human nature to offend. When confronted they say: who are you? On the contrary, one should say: insult, because you are nothing. Now, when we say to the offender: who are you? – we hear in response: better than you in every way. Meanwhile, the opposite should be said. But just as we pose a bad question, they also give a bad answer. This means we ourselves are to blame. We address offenders as if they were some great people when we say: who are you, what are you insulting? That's why they answer that way. But we should say the opposite: are you insulting? - insult; because you are nothing. Rather, one should say to those who do not insult: who are you that you do not insult? You are above human nature. This is nobility, this is freedom, not to say anything humiliating to anyone, even if someone else is worthy of it. Tell me: how many people are there worthy of death? And, however, the judge himself does not condemn them, but interrogates them, and, moreover, not personally. If it is not customary for a judge to speak to a bad person himself, but some kind of intermediary is needed for this, then even more so we should not offend people equal to us. We do not gain so much from insulting others as from the belief that in doing so we are humiliating ourselves. So, bad people should not be insulted for this reason, and good people for another reason: because they do not deserve it. There is also a third one - one that should not be offensive. And now, look what happens: the person is insulted and humiliated, and with him the insulter and everyone watching it. So what? Shouldn't they bring the animals to them to solve the matter? This remains (one remedy). If people are happy to insult each other, then all that remains is to leave the animals to reconcile. Just as in a house, when masters quarrel, one can only expect their reconciliation from the servants (the very essence of the matter requires this, although perhaps this does not happen), so here. Are you insulting? Not surprising; because you are not a person. An insult seems like some great thing and is considered great by decent people; but this is more appropriate for slaves, and kind speech is appropriate for free people. Just as it is characteristic of the first to do evil, so it is characteristic of the last to endure evil. For example, a maid, intending to steal, secretly steals her master's goods; This also happens with an insult: just as a thief, let’s say, enters cautiously and looks around, looking to steal something, so this one looks out for everything in order to give something away to others. Let us illustrate it with another example: just as the one who stole unclean vessels from the house and carried them out in front of everyone, is not so much ashamed of the act of stealing, but of himself, seeing that he stole and carried out such vessels, so this one, having uttered foul speeches in front of everyone, shames with these words not others, but himself, uttering them and desecrating his tongue and mind with them. When we quarrel with bad people, it happens the same as with a person who beats another lying in the mud; he gets himself dirty by touching the dirt with his hands. Remembering all this, I exhort you, let us avoid this evil, let us have a pious tongue, so that, keeping ourselves clean from all reproach, we can safely lead this present life and be worthy of the blessings promised to those who love God, by the grace and love of our Lord Jesus Christ, with whom to the Father with the Holy Spirit be glory, power, honor, now and ever, and to the ages of ages. 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: