Беседа 48

Acts 22:17–20. When I returned to Jerusalem and prayed in the church, I went into a frenzy and saw Him, and He said to me: hurry up and leave Jerusalem quickly, because here they will not accept your testimony about Me. I said: Lord! They know that I imprisoned those who believed in You and beat them in synagogues, and when the blood of Stephen, Your witness, was shed, I stood there, approved of his murder and guarded the clothes of those who beat him. Encouragement to meekness. - True generosity. - Call for alms. 1. Look how (Paul) exposes himself to danger: “when did I,” he says, “return to Jerusalem,” i.e. after that vision I again arrived in Jerusalem. “And I was praying in the church, I went into a frenzy, and I saw Him, and He said to me: hurry up and leave Jerusalem quickly, because here they will not accept your testimony about Me.” Look, this did not remain without evidence, which lies in the event itself. The Lord said: “They will not accept your testimony,” and indeed they did not. For all reasons, it was necessary to expect that they would accept: “they know,” he says, “that I imprisoned and beat those who believed in You”; therefore they themselves should have accepted; and yet they did not accept. That is why it was revealed to him “in a frenzy” that they would not accept (the evidence). Here he explains two things: that they are unrequited, since they persecuted him unfairly and unreasonably; and that Christ is God, since He predicts the unexpected, not looking at the past, but foreseeing the future. How did (the Lord) say that (Paul) would make “my name known before the nations and kings and children of Israel” (Acts 9:15)? “Proclaim,” He said, but will not necessarily convince; in other places the Jews were convinced, but not here. Where they should have been convinced, knowing his former jealousy, they were not convinced. “And when the blood of Stephen, Thy witness, was shed, I stood there, approved of his murder and guarded the clothes of those who beat him.” Look how he ends his speech: with the strongest argument; says that he himself was a persecutor (of Christians), and not only persecuted, but killed Stephen with a thousand hands. Here he reminded them of the most inhumane murder. Then they could no longer stand it, after such reproof of them and the fulfillment of the prophecy. Great is the zeal, strong the reproof, bold the speech of the witnesses of Christ's truth! The Jews could no longer listen to the whole speech, but, inflamed with anger, they shouted loudly. “And He said to me: Go; I will send you far to the pagans. Before this word they listened to him; and then they raised a cry, saying: Destroy such a one from the earth! for he should not live. While they were shouting, throwing clothes and throwing dust into the air, the captain ordered him to be brought into the fortress, ordering him to be scourged in order to find out why they shouted against him so much” (Acts 22:21-24). The commander of the thousand should have found out what was the matter, and from them themselves; and he, without doing anything like that, orders to beat him. “The commander of a thousand ordered him to be brought into the fortress, ordering him to be scourged in order to find out why they shouted so much against him.” He should have asked those who shouted themselves what they considered criminal from what was said (by Paul); but he simply uses his power and acts to please them: he was not concerned about acting justly, but about how to satisfy their anger, which was completely unjust. “But when they stretched him with straps, Paul said to the centurion standing: Are you allowed to scourge a Roman citizen, and even without trial?” ( Acts 22:25 ) Paul did not say a lie when he called himself a Roman - let it not be - he really was a Roman. That is why the captain was afraid when he heard this. Why, they will say, was he afraid? “Are you allowed”: because of another, he was afraid that he himself would be captured and subjected to even greater punishment. And, look, he doesn’t just say, but: “Are you allowed?” Two guilts: (punish) without trial and, moreover, a Roman. Those worthy of being called by this name then enjoyed great advantages; and not everyone was worthy of it. From the time of Hadrian, they say, all (Roman subjects) began to be called Romans; but before it was not like that. He called himself a Roman in order to avoid scourging, since if he were scourged, he would be subject to contempt; and having said this, he brought them into great fear. If they had scourged him, then the matter would have taken a different turn, and they would even have killed him; but now it turned out wrong. Look how God allows many things to happen through human means, both in this case and in others. The commander of the thousand with his answer: “I acquired this citizenship for a lot of money” shows that he suspected that this was not just one pretext on the part of Paul, who calls himself a Roman; Perhaps he concluded this from Paul’s outward simplicity. “Hearing this, the centurion came up and reported to the captain, saying: Look, what do you want to do? this man is a Roman citizen. Then the captain, approaching him, said: Tell me, are you a Roman citizen? He said yes. The commander of the thousand answered: I acquired this citizenship for a lot of money. Paul said: And I was born in it. Then those who wanted to torture him immediately retreated from him. And the captain, learning that he was a Roman citizen, was afraid that he bound him” (Acts 22:26-29). “And I was born in it,” says Paul; consequently, his father was a Roman. What happened from this? Having removed his shackles, the captain took him to the Jews. So, he did not tell a lie when he called himself a Roman; he benefited from this and was freed from his bonds; and how, listen. “The next day, wanting to know for sure what the Jews were accusing him of, he freed him from his bonds and ordered the chief priests and the entire Sanhedrin to assemble and, bringing Paul out, set him before them” (Acts 22:30). He speaks not only before the captain, but before the assembly and all the people. What is he saying? “Paul, fixing his gaze on the Sanhedrin, said: Men and brethren! I have lived with all my good conscience before God until this day” (Acts 23:1); those. I am not aware of anything in myself that would offend you, or that I would do anything worthy of these bonds. What about the high priest? He should have regretted that, to please them, (Paul) was unjustly imprisoned; and he becomes even more embittered and orders to beat him, as can be seen from the following: “And the high priest Ananias ordered those standing before him to strike him on the mouth” (Acts 23:2). Good deed, meek bishop! “Then Paul said to him: God will beat you, you whitewashed wall! you sit to judge according to the law, and, contrary to the law, you order me to be beaten. Those present said: Do you revile the high priest of God? Paul said: I did not know, brethren, that he was a high priest; for it is written: Thou shalt not curse the ruler of thy people” (Acts 23:3-5). 2. Some say that he, knowing, said such a reproach; but it seems to me that he did not know at all that this was the high priest; otherwise I would have honored him. That is why he justifies himself as guilty and says: “Do not slander the ruler of your people.” So what? - they will say. If it wasn’t even the boss, would it be possible to simply insult another? No, on the contrary, endure it when they insult you. It is worthy of attention why the one who in another place says: “They slander us, we bless; persecute us, we endure” (1 Cor. 4:12), here he does the opposite, and not only reproaches, but also threatens. No, he did neither one nor the other. Whoever carefully examines will see that these are more words of boldness than of anger. On the other hand, he did not want to be subjected to the contempt of the thousand commander. If this one did not dare to scourge him and wanted to betray him to the Jews, then when the servants began to beat him, then he showed even greater boldness; He turned not to the servant, but to the commander himself. Saying: “The wall is whitewashed!” you sit to be judged according to the law,” he seemed to say: you are guilty and worthy of a thousand wounds. See how the people were amazed by his boldness. They should stop everything; and they become even more furious. He cites the words of the law, wanting to show that it was not out of fear and not because he was not worthy of such a command that he expressed himself this way, but in obedience in this case to the law. I am absolutely convinced that he did not know that it was the high priest; he returned here after a long absence, did not often deal with the Jews and saw him among many others; between many other different people the high priest might not have been noticed. And by his very answer, it seems to me, he shows that he obeys the law and is therefore justified. But let's turn to the above. “I was praying in the church,” says (Paul), “I went into a frenzy.” To show that it was not a ghost of imagination, he adds: “prayed.” “Hurry up and leave Jerusalem quickly,” says (the Lord), “because here they will not accept your testimony about Me.” From this it is clear that he withdrew not out of fear because of the dangers, but because his testimony was not accepted. Why did he say: “They know that I have imprisoned those who believe in You”? By this he did not contradict Christ - let it not be - but he wanted to receive instruction in such a wonderful matter. “Go,” says (the Lord), “I will send you far to the pagans.” Look: Christ did not give him instructions what he should do, but only commanded him to go, and he obeyed: he was so obedient! “And for this they raised a cry, saying,” says (the writer), “destroy such a one from the earth!” for he should not live." Oh, impudence! Rather, you should not live, and not him, who obeys God in everything. O wicked men and murderers! “They threw away their clothes,” he says, “and threw dust into the air”: they do this in order to create greater confusion, or in order to intimidate the boss. And look: they do not indicate his guilt, because they could not say anything, but they think to act by shouting, whereas they should have asked the accusers. “And the captain was frightened,” he says, “on learning that he was a Roman citizen.” Therefore, Paul did not speak a lie when he called himself a Roman. “He freed him from his shackles,” he says, “and brought Paul out and placed him before them.” This should have been done at the very beginning, not to tie him up and not to order him to be scourged, but to leave him as if he had not done anything for which to tie him up. “And he brought Paul out and set him before them.” This led the Jews to great bewilderment. “Paul, fixing his gaze on the Sanhedrin, said,” he says, “men and brethren.” This expresses his boldness and fearlessness. But look at their malice. “The high priest Ananias,” continues (the writer), “ordered those standing in front of him to strike him on the mouth.” Why are you beating him? What did he say that was offensive? Oh, shamelessness, oh, insolence! “Then,” he says, “Paul said to him: God will beat you, you whitewashed wall.” This is boldness: it exposes him of hypocrisy and lawlessness; after that he resigns himself. In bewilderment, the high priest did not dare to say anything, but those who were with him could not bear the boldness (of Paul), they saw him ready to go to death, and they could not bear it. “I didn’t know,” he says, “that he was a high priest.” Consequently, the reproach arose from ignorance. If this were not so, then the commander, having taken him, would have left, would not have remained silent, or would have handed him over to them. 3. From this it is clear that he voluntarily endures everything that he endures; and justifies himself before them out of obedience to the law, and not out of a desire to show them his merits; therefore he strongly reproached them. Thus he is justified for the law, and not for the people; and justly, - after all, beating a person who has not committed any offense and, moreover, is innocent, is unlawful. What he said is not an insult; Otherwise, another would call the words of Christ an insult when He says: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you are like whitewashed tombs” (Matthew 23:27). Yes, you will say, if he had said this before he suffered the beating, then his words would not have been out of anger, but out of boldness. But I showed the reason: he did not want to be despised. Likewise, Christ often reproached the Jews when he was offended, for example, when he said: “Do not think that I will accuse you” (John 5:45). But this is not an insult - let it not be. Look with what meekness (Paul) addresses them: “I did not know,” he says, “that he was a high priest.” Having said this, he did not stop, but, wanting to show that he was speaking without mockery, he added: “Do not slander the ruler of your people” (cf. Ex. 22:28). Do you see how he still recognizes him as his boss? Let us also learn from his meekness, so that we may be perfect in both. Great effort is needed to know what the first is and what the last is; diligence is necessary because vices are mixed with these virtues, with boldness - insolence, with meekness - cowardice. Everyone should be careful that, while indulging in vice, he does not attribute virtue to himself, just as if someone, having communication with a maid, out of ignorance imagines that he is having communication with his mistress. So, what is meekness and what is cowardice? When we, seeing others insulted, do not defend them, but remain silent, this is cowardice; when, having ourselves received insults, we endure, this is meekness. What is boldness? Again the same thing, i.e. when we fight for others. What about insolence? When we try to avenge ourselves. Thus, generosity and boldness are on one side, and insolence and cowardice are on the other. He who does not spare himself will hardly spare others; and whoever does not avenge himself is unlikely to leave others unprotected. When our character is free from passion, it is capable of virtue. Just as the body, freed from fever, becomes stronger in strength, so the soul, if it is not given over to passions, becomes strong. Meekness is a sign of great strength; to be meek, you need to have a noble, courageous and very high soul. Do you really think that it doesn’t take much (mental strength) to receive insults and not be indignant? The one who calls such a disposition towards one’s neighbors even courage will not be wrong; whoever was so strong that he overcame this passion will, of course, be able to overcome the other; those. there are two passions here: fear and anger; if you overcome anger, then, without a doubt, (you will overcome) fear; You will overcome anger if you are meek, and if you overcome fear, you will show courage. On the contrary, if you do not conquer anger, you will turn out to be impudent; and without defeating it, you will not be able to overcome fear, and, therefore, you will turn out to be cowardly, and the same thing will happen to you as, for example, with a body that is so weak and weakened that it cannot endure any labor: it soon becomes exhausted from both cold and heat; This is the property of a weakened body, but a strong body can withstand everything. Also, with generosity, which is a virtue, extravagance is mixed; Thrift is also a virtue, but greed and stinginess are mixed with it. Let's compare them with each other. A wasteful person is not a generous person. Why? Because he who is devoted to a thousand passions, can he be great in soul? He is such not because he despises money, but because he submits to other passions, just as a person forced by robbers to obey them cannot be free. Wastefulness does not come from contempt for money, but from inability to manage it; if it were possible to hold on to them and indulge in pleasures, then he, of course, would wish for this. He who uses money for what it should be is generous; Truly that soul is great which does not subjugate passion and considers money to be nothing. Also, thrift is a virtue; A very thrifty person would be one who would use money for what it should be, and not just indiscriminately. Stinginess is not the same. The one (the thrifty one) spends everything on what is necessary, but the one (the stingy one) does not touch his property even in the most urgent need. The thrifty is the brother of the generous. Thus, let us put together the generous with the thrifty, and the wasteful with the stingy; the latter both suffer from cowardice, and the former both are distinguished by generosity. Truly, we should call generous not the one who spends money recklessly, but who uses it for what is necessary; as well as the stingy and money-loving - not thrifty, but one who does not use money for what is necessary. How much property did the rich man, dressed in purple and fine linen, squander? But he was not generous, because his soul was obsessed with cruelty and thousands of lusts; But can such a soul be great? Abraham was generous, who used his property to welcome strangers, slaughtered calves and, when necessary, did not spare not only his property, but also his very soul. So, if we see that someone is preparing a sumptuous meal, feeding harlots and parasites, then we will not call him generous, but very cowardly. Look, in fact, how many passions he himself serves and subservient to - gluttony, immeasurable voluptuousness, self-indulgence; and whoever is possessed by so many passions and cannot free himself from any of them, can he be called generous? Consequently, then it is especially necessary to call him cowardly when he spends a lot; the more he spends, the more he shows the dominion of passions over him; if they did not have so much power over him, then he would not spend so much. On the contrary, if we see that someone does not give anything to any of these people, but feeds the poor and helps the needy, and is content with a meal that is not luxurious, we should call him very generous; It is characteristic of a truly great soul not to think about his own pleasure, but to care about the (peace of) others. Tell me: if you saw someone who, despising all tyrants and imputing their commands to nothing, alleviated the suffering of those oppressed by them, would you not recognize this as a great deed? This is exactly how we should reason here. Passions are tyrants. If we despise them, we will become great; If we free others from them, then we will become even greater. This is fair. He who does good not only to himself, but also to others, is superior to those who do neither one nor the other. If someone, to please a tyrant, began to beat one of his subordinates, oppress another, insult a third, would we really call this magnanimity? Not at all, and even less so the more important it would be. The same is true here. We have a noble and free soul; the wasteful one betrays it to be beaten by passions; Shall we call him generous who torments himself? Not at all. So, let us remember what generosity and extravagance are, what thrift and stinginess are, what meekness and cowardice, what boldness and audacity are, so that, distinguishing them from each other, we can lead our present life pleasing to the Lord and be worthy of future blessings, by the grace and love of His Only Begotten, with whom to the Father with the Holy Spirit be glory, power, honor, now and ever, and in the future. 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” You might be interested in: