Беседа 50

Acts 23:31–33. So the soldiers, according to the orders given to them, took Paul and led him at night to Antipatris. And the next day, leaving the horsemen to go with him, they returned to the fortress. And they, having come to Caesarea and given the letter to the governor, introduced Paul to him. How to endure insults. - How to seek reconciliation. 1. Like any king, (Paul) was accompanied by such a multitude of armor bearers, and moreover at night, fearing an attack by the violent people. Having taken him out of the city, they left him. The commander would not have sent him under such strong guard if he himself had not recognized him as innocent and had not seen the determination (of the Jews) to kill. “The ruler, having read the letter, asked what region he was from, and, learning that he was from Cilicia, said: I will listen to you when your accusers appear. And he commanded him to be kept in custody in Herod’s praetorium” (Acts 23:34–35). Lysias had already written in his defense; but, despite this, the Jews attack again, trying to win the listener to their side, (Paul) is again thrown into chains; and how, listen: “After five days the high priest Ananias came with the elders and with a certain rhetorician Tertullus, who complained to the governor about Paul” (Acts 24:1). See how they do not lag behind, but, despite countless obstacles, they come to be put to shame here too. “When he was called, Tertullus began to accuse him, saying: always and everywhere with all gratitude we acknowledge that to you, venerable Felix, we owe much peace, and to your care the well-being of this people. But in order not to trouble you too much, I ask you to listen to us briefly, with the condescension characteristic of you” (Acts 24:2-4). If you yourself intend to act, then why do you need a rhetorician? See how at the very beginning he presents (Paul) as an innovator and a troublemaker, and with praise he wins the judge over to his side. Then, as if having a lot to say and as if keeping silent about other things, he says: “so as not to bother you too much.” See how he persuades the judge to punish (Paul), as if it was necessary to curb the corrupter of the entire universe, and as if they were conferring about a great matter. “Having found this man a plague on society, a stirrer of rebellion between the Jews living throughout the universe, and a representative of the Nazarene heresy, who even dared to desecrate the church, we took him and wanted to judge him according to our law. But the captain Lysias came, with great violence, took him from our hands and sent him to you, commanding us, his accusers, to go to you. You yourself can, having sorted it out, find out from him about everything that we accuse him of” (Acts 24:5-8). “The instigator of rebellion,” he says, “among the Jews living throughout the universe.” They accuse him as a pestilence and a common enemy of the people, and as the leader (of the heresy) of the Nazarenes (the name Nazarenes was considered defamatory); That’s why they added this, putting this as a reproach for him, since Nazareth was an unimportant (city). “They took it,” they say. Look how insidiously they present him as a fugitive, and as if they only just took him, while he spent seven days in the church. "We took him and wanted to judge him according to our law." Look how they insult the law, as if it prescribed to beat, kill and build forges. Then Lysias is also accused. “The Fox came and took it out of our hands with great violence.” He should not have done this, they say; but he did. “You can look it up yourself and find out from him about everything we accuse him of. And the Jews confirmed it, saying that it was so” (Acts 24:8-9). What about Pavel? Is he silent at the same time? No, he again boldly answers, and, moreover, at the request of the hegemon. “Paul,” continues (the writer), “when the governor gave him a sign to speak, he answered: knowing that you have been judging this people fairly for many years, I will defend my cause all the more freely. You may know that it was not more than twelve days since I came to Jerusalem to worship. And neither in the sanctuary, nor in the synagogues, nor throughout the city did they find me arguing with anyone or causing a disturbance among the people, and they cannot prove what they now accuse me of” (Acts 24:10-13). Testifying the truth before a judge is not words of flattery; These, on the contrary, are the words: “for many years you have judged fairly.” Why are you rebelling unjustly? Look: they sought the unjust, but he sought the truth; That’s why he said: “the more freely I will defend my cause.” He also borrows evidence from time: “for many years,” he says, “you judge fairly.” What force did this evidence have? Great: by this he shows that the judge himself knows that he did not do anything of which he is accused. If he had ever caused any disturbance, the judge would have known and it would not have escaped him. The accuser, not being able to point out anything (of Paul's actions) in Jerusalem, look what he says: “among the Jews who live throughout the world”; adds lie to lie. Therefore, Paul, in refutation of this, says: “I came to worship,” and, as it were, justifies himself: I am too far from causing indignation. He stops at this fair position, which was so strong, adding: “neither in the sanctuary, nor in the synagogues, nor in the city,” which was fair. He calls (Paul) “the instigator of the rebellion,” as if in a battle or in a rebellion; and he, look how meekly he answers: “But this I confess to you, that according to the teaching which they call heresy, I truly serve the God of my fathers, believing everything written in the law and the prophets, having hope in God that there will be a resurrection of the dead, the righteous and the unjust, which they themselves are waiting for” (Acts 24:14-15). 2. Look: they presented him as an opponent (of the law), but in his justification he shows himself devoted to the law, and confirming what was said he adds: “Therefore, I myself strive to always have an immaculate conscience before God and people. After many years I came to bring alms and offerings to my people. At this they found me, having purified myself in the church, not with the people and not with noise.” (Acts 24:16–18). Why did you come back? Why did you come? To pray, he says, “to deliver alms.” This is not the work of a troublemaker. Then he points to their identity, and, not paying attention to it, says: “These were some Asian Jews who should appear before you and accuse me, if they have anything against me. Or let these same ones say what untruth they found in me when I stood before the Sanhedrin, except this one word that I spoke aloud while standing among them, that for the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead I am now being judged by you” (Acts 24:19-21). This is a particularly strong justification not to run away from accusers, but to be ready to answer everyone. “On the resurrection of the dead,” he says, “I am now judged by you.” He didn’t say anything that he could have said in fairness, i.e. that they slandered, detained him, built fetters for him (all this is said about them [by the writer], but Paul himself, despite the danger, does not say); but he is silent and only makes excuses, although he could say a lot. And the fact that he came with such a large detachment made him famous in Caesarea. “They found me,” he says, “cleansed in the church.” How did he desecrate her? It was impossible for one and the same person to cleanse and pray, and at the same time come and defile. And this serves as proof of his justice that he is not verbose; The judge likes it too; It seems to me that for him he is cutting down his excuses. But let's turn to the above. Tertullus spoke at length in advance; noticing that he was shortening his speech, he did not say: listen to how it was, but: “in order not to bother you too much, I ask you to listen to us briefly, with your characteristic condescension.” He uses this expression probably out of flattery; however, it is indeed a sign of modesty when someone, having a lot to say, but not wanting to disturb (another), says little. “Having found this man a plague on society, a stirrer of rebellion,” he says, “who even dared to desecrate the church” 33. Therefore, he did not desecrate. But didn't he do it somewhere else? No; otherwise (the accuser) would have said; Meanwhile, he only says: “who even dared,” and does not add how. So he exaggerates everything that related to Paul; and as for them, look how it decreases. “We took him,” he says, “and wanted to judge him according to our law. But the captain Lysias came and took it from our hands with great violence.” This expresses that it was regrettable for them to go to someone else’s court and that they would not have bothered him if the captain had not forced them to do so and had not taken this husband away from them, which he should not have done; the offense was inflicted, he says, on us; therefore, his trial had to be carried out here. And that this is so can be seen from the following: “with great violence.” “You can take it apart yourself and find out everything from him.” He does not dare to accuse directly, because (Felix) was a forgiving person; but it is not without a purpose that he makes such a transition. Wanting to show again that he is not lying, he leaves it to Paul himself to blame. “From him,” he says, “you can find out for yourself by taking it apart.” Then the witnesses to what was said come forward. “And the Jews confirmed it, saying that it was so.” The prosecutors themselves both testify and accuse. But Paul answers: “knowing that you have judged justly for many years.” Consequently, he is not a foreigner, not a stranger, not an innovator, if he has known the judge for many years. It is not in vain that he adds: “fairly,” but so that he does not look at the high priest, or at the people, or at the accuser. Look how he refrains from reproach, even though it was needed. “Believing,” he says, “everything written in the law.” This expresses that not a single person who believes in the future resurrection, which they themselves accept, can ever do what they accuse him of. He did not say that they believed in the writings of the prophets (because they did not believe), but that he believed everything, not they. How so? It would take a long time to talk about this now. Paul said so much and did not mention Christ. But with the word: “believing,” he also points to Christ, and dwells more on the doctrine of the resurrection, which they also accepted and rejected from him suspicions of any indignation. Then comes the reason for his arrival. “I came,” he says, “to deliver alms and offerings to my people,” and, moreover, “after many years.” How could he outrage those to whom, wanting to deliver alms, he traveled such a long distance? “Not with the people,” he says, “and not with noise.” Everywhere refutes the idea of ​​indignation. He also makes good reference to accusers from Asia, saying: “these were some Asian Jews who should have come before you and accused me if they had anything against me.” He was so sure of his purity from the accusations brought against him that he himself called the accusers. He does not reject the accusers not only from Asia, but also from Jerusalem; calls these too, adding: “or let these themselves speak.” From the very beginning they rebelled against him because he preached the resurrection. Therefore it is good that he points this out; Having proven this, he could easily move on to the teaching about Christ, that He was resurrected. “What a lie,” he says, “they found in me when I stood before the Sanhedrin.” “Before the Sanhedrin,” he says, expressing that they found nothing in him, interrogating him not in private, but in a large meeting, and with careful examination. 3. And that this is fair, the accusers themselves serve as witnesses to this. That’s why he says: “Therefore, I myself strive to always have an immaculate conscience before God and people.” Perfect virtue occurs when we do not give people a reason (to sin) and try to be impeccable before God. “I said loudly,” he says, “standing between them.” In a word: “loudly” shows their violence, and, as it were, says: they cannot say: you did it under the pretext of alms, because I did it “not with the people and not with noise”; Moreover, during the investigation of the case, nothing more was found. Do you see his meekness in danger? Do you see the gracious tongue? He tries to use his justification only to protect himself, and not to accuse them, unless he is forced to do so by necessity, just as Christ said: “There is no demon in Me; but I honor My Father, and you dishonor Me” (John 8:49). Let us also imitate him, just as he imitated Christ. If he did not say anything offensive to those who wanted to destroy and kill him, then what kind of forgiveness will we be worthy of, who in enmity and quarrels are like wild animals, calling our enemies villains, cursed? Is it even excusable that we have enemies? Do you not know that he who gives honor (to another) gives honor to himself? And we dishonor ourselves. You blame another for insulting you; but why are you being accused yourself? Why do you wound yourself? Be dispassionate, be invulnerable - if you want to hurt another, do not harm yourself. We are not satisfied with other mental anxieties that arise without any reason, such as: inappropriate wishes, grief, complaints, and the like; we still need to multiply them with new ones. But how can you say, tolerate being insulted? How is it impossible, tell me? Do words hurt us? Or (make) scars on the body? What harm do they do to us? No, if we want, we can endure. Let us make it a law not to be offended, and we will endure it. Let us tell ourselves: this does not come from enmity, but from weakness; and this definitely comes from weakness: when there is no thought of enmity or malicious intent, then the insulted person, even if he has suffered thousands of insults, has the desire to resist. If we represent only this, i.e. that this comes from weakness, then we will endure everything, forgive the offender and try not to indulge in the same thing. After this, I will ask all of you present: can you, if you want, be so wise as to endure insults? I think you will say: yes. So, the insulter insults you involuntarily and not of his own free will, but under the compulsion of passion; hold on. Don't you see the people going crazy? Just as he (the one who is raging) is subjected to this not so much from enmity as from weakness, so in us grief comes not so much from the nature of insults, but from ourselves. Why, in fact, do we endure the same insults from those who are raging? We also endure when the insulter is either our friends or superiors. Isn't it reckless in these three cases, i.e. to endure insults from friends, from madmen, and from superiors, but not to endure insults from equals and inferiors? I have said many times that this is only a momentary impulse: let us abstain a little, and everything will pass. The more someone insults, the more weak he is. Do you know when to be offended? When the one we insult is silent; then he is strong and we are weak. If the opposite happens, then you should even rejoice; then you are worthy of the crown, worthy of proclamation. Without going to the place of struggle, without being exposed to the unpleasant effects of the sun, heat and dust, without meeting or grappling with the enemy, but only by wishing, sitting or standing, you can receive a great crown, and not just great, but much greater than those (fighters): it is not all the same - to overthrow the opposing enemy, or to dull the arrows of anger. You won without fighting the enemy, you overthrew the passion that was aroused in you, killing the ferocious beast, you curbed the frantic impulse, like a valiant shepherd, while an internal battle, a domestic war, lay ahead of you. Like enemies who besiege a city and besiege it from the outside, when they stir up internecine warfare within it, then they gain victory. Likewise, the one who insults, unless he arouses passion in us, will not be able to overcome us; if we ourselves do not ignite, then it will have no power. Let the spark of anger be kept in us and ignite only at the right time, not against ourselves, not in order to cause us many evils. Don’t you see how in houses the fire is contained in a certain place, and is not scattered everywhere, neither on hay, nor on clothes, and wherever it happens, so that it does not ignite from the blow of the wind. When either a maid lights a lamp or a cook lights a fire, they are strictly instructed not to do this in the wind, not near wooden things, and not in the dark; and when night comes, we put out the fire, fearing that during our sleep, when there is no one to look after it, it will somehow flare up and burn everyone. Let us do the same with anger: let it not accompany all our thoughts, but keep it in the depths of the soul, so that the wind does not excite it from the words of the enemy, but so that it receives this excitement from us, and we know how to arouse it moderately and safely. When it is excited from the outside, it knows no limits and can burn everything; it can often get excited during our sleep and burn everything. Let us kindle it in us only so that it shines - after all, anger produces light if it is aroused when it should be - let us use this lamp against those who offend others and against the devil. Let this spark not be placed everywhere and not scattered everywhere, but it is kept with us under the ashes; Let us keep it with humble thoughts. We don’t always need it - only when we need to correct or soften something, when we need to overcome stubbornness, or to bring some sense into someone’s soul. 4. How much evil comes from irritation and anger! And what is especially difficult is that when we are in enmity, we do not want to initiate reconciliation ourselves, but wait for others; each is ashamed to come to the other and reconcile. Look, he is not ashamed to disperse and separate; on the contrary, he himself initiates this evil; but he is ashamed to come and unite what has been divided, just as if someone did not hesitate to cut off a member, but was ashamed to join it together. What do you say to this, man? Didn't you yourself inflict a great insult and be the cause of enmity? Justice demands that you yourself be the first to come and reconcile, as if you were the cause of the enmity. But what if (the other) offended, and he was the cause of the enmity? And in this case, you should (begin reconciliation) so that they will be more surprised at you, so that you have primacy in both one and the other: just as you were not the cause of the enmity, so it is not for you to be the reason for its continuation; Maybe he, having realized his guilt, will be ashamed and come to his senses. But is he arrogant? Moreover, do not hesitate to come to him; he suffers from two diseases: pride and anger. You yourself expressed the reason why you should come to him first: you are healthy, you can see, but he is in the dark; These are, precisely, anger and pride. You are free from them and healthy; come to him like a doctor to a sick person. Does one of the doctors say: so-and-so is sick, so I won’t go to him? On the contrary, then doctors go to the patient when they see that he himself cannot come to them; They care less about those who can (come on their own), as about the sick who are not dangerous, but about those lying opposite. But aren’t pride and anger worse than any illness? Isn’t this one like a severe fever, and that one like a developed tumor? Imagine what it’s like to suffer from fever and swelling. Go, put out his fire; you can do it with God's help; stop his swelling, as if with a lotion. But what do you say if this makes him even more proud? You don't need this; you do your job, and let him answer for himself; If only our conscience did not reproach us that this was due to an omission on our part of something proper. “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink: for in doing this you will heap burning coals on his head” (Rom. 12:20). However, even at the same time it commands to go, make peace and do good to the enemy, not in order to heap burning coals on him, but so that he, knowing this, corrects himself, so that he trembles and fears these benefits more than enmity, and these signs of love more than insults. For the enemy, the enemy who causes him harm is not so much dangerous as the benefactor who does him good, because the one who is vindictive harms himself and him at least a little, but the one who does good heaps coals of fire on his head. Therefore, you say, one should not do good to him so as not to gather coals for him? But do you really want to collect them on your own head? This comes from memory malice. What if I intensify (the enmity) even more? No; for this it will not be you who will be guilty, but he, if he is like a beast; if even then, as you are benevolent, you show him honor and a desire to reconcile, he stubbornly continues the enmity, then he gathers fire on himself, burns his own head; and you are not at all guilty. Do not imagine yourself to be more humane than God; otherwise you will experience many evils; or better yet, even if you wanted to, you cannot (achieve this) at all. How? “As the heavens are higher than the earth,” says (the Lord), “so... my thoughts are higher than your thoughts” (Is. 55:9); and again: “If you, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good things to those who ask Him” (Matthew 7:11). No, this is an excuse and an excuse. Let us not reinterpret the commandments of God. How do you say we reinterpret them? He said: “By doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head”; and you say: I am afraid for the enemy, who cruelly insulted me. Isn't that what you say? But why did you acquire an enemy? Why are you afraid for the offender, but not afraid for yourself? Oh, that you would take care of yourself! Do not do (good to the enemy) for this purpose; or better yet, do it for this purpose. But you don't. I will tell you not only that you will heap burning coals on it, but also something else greater - just do it. Paul says all this only to encourage you to stop hostility, even with the hope of punishment (of the enemy). We are so cruel that we would not want to make peace with the enemy except in the hope of (bringing upon him) some kind of punishment; That’s why he gives us this bait, like some kind of beast. But (the Lord) did not say this to the apostles, so what? “That you may be sons of your Father in heaven” (Matthew 5:45). On the other hand, it is impossible for the one who does good and the recipient of good deeds to remain enemies: that is why (the apostle) gave such a commandment. Why do you, while being philosophical in words, do not observe what is proper in practice? Well, let’s assume that you do not feed (the enemy) so as not to heap burning coals on him; therefore you spare him? – do you love him? - Do you do good for this purpose? God knows whether it is precisely for this purpose, as you say; maybe you are being cunning in front of us and playing with words. Do you care about the enemy? Are you afraid that he will not be punished? Therefore, you have extinguished your anger; He who has such love that he despises his own benefit for the good of another has no enmity. That's what you could say. But how long will we joke about serious and unforgivable subjects? Therefore, I exhort our brotherhood, beloved by the Lord God and our Savior Jesus Christ, I ask and implore you, leaving these pretexts aside, let us not be inattentive to the laws of God (and disobedient to His commandments), so that we can lead our present life pleasingly to the Lord and receive the promised benefits, through 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 unto 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: