Беседа 39

Proof of the Resurrection. - Lack of rain in Antioch. – Reckless cruelty of self-interested people. - The bad consequences of luxury. 1 Corinthians 15:11. So, whether I or they, this is how we preach, and this is how you believe. 1. Having exalted the apostles and humiliated himself, then again placing himself above them in order to prove his equality with them - and he proved his equality by saying that he was both lower and higher than them - and thus presenting himself as a reliable teacher, (Paul) continues to speak (about the apostles) and again puts himself along with them, expressing unanimity about Christ. However, he does not do this as if he were attached to them, but in such a way that he turns out to have the same dignity as them; this was what the benefit of preaching required. He is equally careful that they do not think that he is humiliating (the apostles), and that by the honor he bestows he does not humiliate himself before his subordinates. Therefore, now he again puts himself on an equal footing with them: “So whether I,” he says, “or they, this is how we preach”; From whom, he says, you want to learn, learn from him; we are no different. He didn’t say: if you don’t want to believe me, then believe them; but he also presents himself as worthy of faith and says that just as he deserves it in himself, so do they in themselves; the difference of persons, with equal merits, meant nothing. He does the same in the Epistle to the Galatians, turning (to the apostles) not because he has a need for them, and asserting that he himself has no lack: “those who are famous for anything, no matter what they have ever been, have nothing special for me,” and yet I want to be in agreement with them, “they gave me and Barnabas the hand of fellowship” (Gal. 2: 6, 9). If Paul's credibility had depended on others and rested on the testimony of others, then extreme harm would have resulted to the disciples. Consequently, he exalts himself not out of vanity, but out of fear for the preaching. That’s why here he puts himself on an equal footing (with the apostles): “Whether I or they, this is how we preach.” He said well: “we preach,” expressing great boldness; We, he says, do not preach secretly and secretly, but we speak louder than a trumpet. He didn’t say: they preached; but even now - “this is what we preach.” “And so you believed”; here he did not say: you believe, but: “you believed.” Since (the Corinthians) hesitated, he turns to former times and presents them as witnesses. “If it is preached about Christ that He rose from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?” (1 Cor. 15:12). Do you see how he excellently argues and proves the resurrection (of the dead) by the resurrection of Christ, having previously confirmed the latter with many arguments? About him, he says, the prophets foretold, and (Christ) himself testified with His appearances, and we preach, and you believed; in this way he connects four testimonies - the prophets, the events themselves, the apostles and disciples; even five, because the very fact that (Christ) died for the sins of others proves the truth of His resurrection. And when this is proven, then something else obviously follows, that is, that the other dead will also be resurrected. Therefore, he reproaches them for doubting this, as an undoubted subject, and asks with bewilderment: “if... He rose from the dead, then how do some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?” So he again overthrows the insolence of his opponents. He did not say: as you speak, but: “as some of you speak”; He does not reproach everyone, and does not reveal those who are reproached, so as not to harden them, and again, he does not completely hide them in order to correct them. For this purpose, he, having separated them from everyone else, rushes against them, and thus, on the one hand, weakens and defeats them, and on the other hand, he confirms others in the truth to fight them, not allowing (the believers) to deviate towards those who tried to corrupt them. He prepared to use strong speech. Then, lest they say that although the resurrection of Christ is known and obvious to everyone and no one doubts it, it does not follow from this that the resurrection of people is necessary - since the resurrection of Christ was foretold, fulfilled and witnessed by appearances, and ours is only still in hope - look what He does: again from the other side he proves the same thing (the resurrection of Christ), which makes his speech very strong. “How do some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?” This also refutes the resurrection of Christ. That is why he continues: “if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised” (1 Cor. 15:13). Do you see with what strength and irresistible skill Paul tries to prove not only through what is known what is doubtful, but also through what is doubtful to his opponents what is known? He does this not because the event itself requires proof, but to suggest that one thing is no less reliable than another. 2. But what would you say is the sequence here? If Christ has not been resurrected, then it follows that others will not be resurrected either; and if others do not rise, then can we reasonably conclude that Christ was not resurrected? Since this, apparently, is not entirely consistent, then see how He makes it very consistent, planting seeds from afar and based on the very subject of the sermon, i.e. that (Christ) rose again, having died our sins, and that He is the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. Whose firstfruits would be the firstfruits, if not those who are resurrected? And how could He be the firstfruits, if those of whom He is the firstfruits are not resurrected? Therefore, how can they not be resurrected? If they do not rise, then why did Christ rise? Why did He come, why did He take on flesh, if He had no intention of resurrecting the flesh? After all, He did not need it for Himself, but for us. However, (the apostle) discusses this later, but now for now he says: “if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen”: so one thing is connected to the other! If He had not been resurrected, He would not have done the above. Do you see how these words and unbelief in the resurrection are little by little overthrowing the entire economy of God? However, he does not yet say anything about the incarnation, but only about the resurrection, because it was not the incarnation, but the death (of Christ) that destroyed death; while He was in the flesh, the dominion of death still continued. “And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain” (1 Cor. 15:14). Although it should be said: if (assume that) Christ has not been resurrected, then you will contradict the obvious truth, so many prophets and the events themselves - but he expresses himself much more strikingly: “then our preaching is in vain, and your faith is in vain.” He wants to shake their souls. We, he says, have lost everything, everything has perished if (Christ) has not been resurrected. Do you see the mystery of economy? If Christ, having died, could not rise again, then sin was not destroyed, and death was not defeated, and the oath was not destroyed, and not only did we preach in vain, but you also believed in vain. And not only in this way does he show the absurdity of these ungodly thoughts, but he continues even more strongly: “Moreover, we would also turn out to be false witnesses about God, because we would testify about God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if, that is, the dead are not raised” (1 Cor. 15:15). If this is absurd, like blasphemy and slander against God, and yet you say that God did not raise Christ, then even other absurdities will arise from this. Here he again affirms and repeats: “for if the dead are not raised, then Christ is not raised” (1 Cor. 15:16). If Christ had not done this, he would not have come. However, (the apostle) does not say this, but points only to the end, to His resurrection, and thereby convinces everyone. “And if Christ has not been raised, then your faith is in vain” (1 Cor. 15:17). He repeatedly connects the resurrection of Christ with what is known and recognized as undoubted, in order, through what is firmly confessed, to make firm and obvious what seemed weak and doubtful. “You are still in your sins.” If Christ did not rise, then He did not die; if he did not die, then he did not destroy sin, because by His death sin was destroyed: “behold the Lamb of God,” it says (in Scripture), “who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). How does it “take”? Death. That is why He is called a lamb, because it was slain. If He was not resurrected, then He was not slain; if it was not slain, then sin was not destroyed; if sin is not destroyed, then you are still in sin; if you are still in sin, then we have preached in vain; if we preached in vain, you believed in vain. On the other hand, death still remains immortal if (Christ) is not resurrected; if He Himself was restrained by death and did not dissolve its womb, then how did He deliver all others (from death), being Himself restrained by it? That is why (the apostle) continues: “Therefore also those who died in Christ perished” (1 Cor. 15:18). Why am I, he says, pointing at you, when in that case all those who have graduated and are no longer subject to the unknown of the future would perish? The expression “those who died in Christ” means either those who died in faith, or those who endured many dangers and great sufferings for Him, walking the narrow path. Where now are the wicked lips of the Manichaeans, who say that “resurrection” (the apostle) here calls liberation from sin? These numerous, continuous and perverse conclusions prove absolutely not what they say, but what we say. Since “rebellion” is also said about one who has fallen, he often repeats not only “rose”, but also with the addition: “from the dead.” Moreover, the Corinthians doubted not the remission of sins, but the resurrection of bodies. And what is the necessary connection: if people are not sinless, then neither is Christ? If Christ did not have the power to resurrect us, would it be consistent to say why He came, took flesh and was resurrected? But in our (understanding) it’s the opposite. Whether people sin or do not sin, God always remains sinless; Our state cannot be inferred from His state, and vice versa from ours about His state, as is done regarding the resurrection of bodies. “And if in this life only we hope in Christ, then we are of all men most miserable” (1 Cor. 15:19). 3. What are you saying, Pavel? How “if we only hope in this life”, if the body does not resurrect, when the soul remains and remains immortal? So, even if the soul remained and was immortal a thousand times - which it is - but without a body it will not receive indescribable benefits, as well as torment. “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive according to what he has done while in the body, whether good or bad” (2 Cor. 5:10). That’s why he says: “and if in this life only we hope in Christ, then we are the most miserable of all people.” If the body does not resurrect, then the soul will remain uncrowned - outside of heavenly bliss; if so, then we will get absolutely nothing; If then we do not receive anything, then our rewards are in this life. Therefore, he says, can anything be more unfortunate than us? He says this both in order to confirm (the Corinthians) in the truth of the resurrection of bodies, and in order to assure them of immortal life, so that they do not think that all our hopes are limited to this life. Having sufficiently proved what he wanted with the above words: “if the dead are not raised, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ has not been raised” (1 Cor. 15:16–17), then we have perished and still remain “in sins,” - he also adds this, with the aim of overthrowing their pride. When he wants to propose any necessary dogma, he first shakes their rude hearts with fear. That's what he does here too. Having sowed the same thoughts above and brought them into contrition, as those who had lost everything, he now, so that they would feel grief more, does the same thing in a different way and says: “we are the most miserable of all people,” if, after such battles, mortal dangers and thousands of disasters, we are deprived of such blessings and all our (hopes) are limited only to the present, because everything depends on the resurrection. Thus, and from here it is obvious that he is not talking about sins, but about the resurrection of bodies, about present and future life. “But Christ has risen from the dead, the firstborn of those who have fallen asleep” (1 Cor. 15:20). Having shown how much evil can come from unbelief in the resurrection, he again repeats: “but Christ has risen from the dead,” constantly adding: “from the dead,” in order to stop the mouths of heretics. "The Firstborn of the Dead". If He is the “firstborn,” then they too must be resurrected. But if (the apostle) under the name of resurrection spoke about liberation from sins, and there is no one without sin - and even Paul himself says: “Although I know nothing about myself, yet I am not justified by this” (1 Cor. 4:4), then who will be resurrected, in your opinion? It is obvious that he is talking about the (resurrection of) bodies. And to make this certain, he constantly points to Christ risen in the flesh; then he gives the reason, because, as I said, when something is stated, but the reason is not given, the teaching is not so quickly accepted by many. What is the reason? “For as death came through man, so also came the resurrection of the dead through man” (1 Cor. 15:21). If a person, then without a doubt having a body. And look at the wisdom (of the apostle), how he proves from another side the necessity (of the proposed truth): the vanquished, he says, must himself restore his fallen nature and win himself, because only in this way can his dishonor be atoned for. Let's see what kind of death he is talking about? “As in Adam all die, so in Christ all shall live” (1 Cor. 15:22). Well, tell me, did everyone in Adam die a sinful death? How did Noah, the righteous of his generation, die? How is Abraham? How is Job? How are all the others (the righteous)? And will everyone, tell me, come to life in Christ? Where are those who will be cast into Gehenna? If this is said about the body, then it is said correctly; and if it is about righteousness and sin, then it is false. Further, so that you, hearing the words: “all will come to life,” do not think that sinners will be saved, he adds: “each in his own order” (1 Cor. 15:23). When you hear about the resurrection, do not think that everyone will receive an equal reward; if not everyone suffers equal punishment, but very different ones, then all the more there will be a great difference between sinners and righteous people. Christ is the firstfruits, then those who belong to Christ, i.e. believers and pious. “And then the end” (1 Cor. 15:24). When (the dead) are resurrected, then everything will end; and not as it is now, after the resurrection of Christ, when deeds still remain without final reward. That is why (the apostle) adds: at his coming, so that you know that he is talking about the future time. “When He will hand over the Kingdom to God and the Father, when He will abolish all rule and all authority and power.” 4. Here, listen carefully to me and be careful not to omit anything that has been said. We are fighting with enemies, and therefore, first of all, we need to try to reduce them to absurdity, as Paul often does: in this way their words will appear to us in the clearest light. So, first of all, let's ask them, what does it mean: “when He hands over the Kingdom to God and the Father”? If we accept this simply, and not in a godly manner, then it follows that (Christ) after that will no longer have a kingdom, since whoever gives something to another ceases to own it himself. And not only this is the absurdity that follows, but also the fact that the one who accepted also did not have before he received, i.e., in their opinion, neither the Father was before a king and is only still awaiting the kingdom over us, nor the Son will remain a king after that. How does He himself speak about the Father: “My Father works until now, and I work” (John 5:17)? And what does Daniel say about Him: “a kingdom that will never be destroyed” (Dan.2:44)? Do you see how many absurdities and contradictions of the Scriptures emerge if we accept the words (of the apostle) humanly? Also, what kind of leadership is he talking about here? Angels? No. Believers? Not either. Which one? The principalities of demons, about which he also says: “wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world” (Eph. 6:12). Now it has not yet been completely abolished, because often they are still in effect; and then they will stop (acting). “For He must reign until He has put all enemies under His feet” (1 Cor. 15:25). And here again another absurdity will arise if we accept this and this is not God-appropriate, because the word: “until” means the end and limit, but this is not in God. “The last enemy to be destroyed is death” (1 Cor. 15:26). How's the last one? After everyone, after the devil, after everything else, just as in the beginning, death entered after everything: first the advice of the devil, then disobedience, and then death. Its power has now been abolished, but its action will cease then. “For He put all things in subjection under His feet. When it is said that all things are subject to Him, then it is clear that except for Him Who subjected all things to Him. When he puts all things in subjection to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things in subjection to Him, so that God may be all in all” (1 Cor. 15:27-28). But before (the apostle) he did not say that the Father would subdue him, but that he himself would abolish: “when he abolishes all rulership and all power”; and again: “He must reign until he has put all enemies under his feet.” How does he attribute this to the Father here? And not only this, apparently, is incongruous, but also the fact that he expresses, as it were, inappropriate fear, making the reservation: “he will submit to Him who has subdued all things,” as if anyone could think whether the Father would someday submit to the Son. Could anything be more incongruous? And yet he makes a reservation. What does this mean? And then many questions appear: pay all your attention. First of all, we need to show the goal and main thought of Paul, which would be clearly revealed everywhere, and then turn to the resolution; this will help us imagine the resolution. What is Paul's main idea and what is his technique? He speaks differently when he talks about one Godhead (Christ), and differently when he talks about the economy (of God). When he talks about (Christ in) the flesh, he speaks without fear everything that is derogatory, being sure that everything said can relate to Him. Let’s see here too, is he talking about one Divinity, or together, meaning the economy, does he say what he says about Him? However, let’s first say where he does as I said. Where does he do this? In Philippians: “He, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God; but he made himself of no reputation, taking the form of a servant, becoming in the likeness of men, and becoming in appearance like a man; He humbled Himself, becoming obedient even to the point of death, even death on the cross. Therefore God has highly exalted Him” (Phil. 2:6-9). Do you see how, speaking about one Divinity, he ascribes great things to Him, i.e. that He is the image of God, that He is equal to the Father, and assimilates everything to Him; and depicting Him to you in the flesh, he again speaks humbly? So, if you do not make this distinction, then great difficulty will arise. If (Christ) is equal to God, then how did (God) exalt the one who is equal to Him? If He is the image of God, then “and gave Him a name”? He who gives gives to the needy, and he who exalts exalts the lowly; therefore it will turn out that (Christ) was imperfect and poor before he was exalted and received a name - and many other absurd conclusions will arise from this. If you also keep in mind the economy, then what has been said will be true. Reason in this way here, and with such thoughts accept what is said. 5. We will then explain other reasons. By the way, it should be noted that Paul speaks of the resurrection, which was considered an impossible matter and which was completely disbelieved, and that he writes to the Corinthians, who had many philosophers who always laughed at such truths. Regarding other subjects, they disagreed among themselves, but against this they all, as if with their lips alone, asserted that there would be no resurrection. Defending such a truth, which was believed so little and which was laughed at, as much by prejudice as by the difficulty of the subject itself, and wanting to prove the possibility of the resurrection, (the apostle) first proves this by the resurrection of Christ. Having proved (this truth) by the testimony of prophets, eyewitnesses and believers, and having brought the opposite opinion to the point of absurdity, he finally proves the (resurrection) of people: “if there is no,” he says, “the resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been resurrected.” Further, after repeated confirmations in the previous words, he again proves in a different way, calling (Christ) the firstborn and asserting that He will abolish all rule, power and strength, and after all death. How, he says, will she be abolished if she does not first lose the bodies that she owned? When in this way he said something great about the Only Begotten, i.e. that He will hand over the kingdom, that He himself will accomplish this, will himself win the victory and will put everything under His feet, then, in order to destroy the unbelief of many, he adds: For “he must reign until he has put all enemies under His feet.” “How long,” he said, not in the sense of meaning the end of the reign, but to make what was said certain and inspire hope. When he says, you hear that (Christ) will overthrow all rulers, powers and strength, the devil and such demonic hordes, the crowds of infidels, the dominion of death and everything evil - do not fear that He will not have enough strength to do this; He must reign until He has accomplished all this, not in the sense that after that He will no longer reign, but in the sense that, although this will not be now, it will certainly be; His kingdom does not cease; He reigns, rules and remains until He arranges everything. This type of expression can also be found in the Old Testament. For example, it is said: “Your word endures forever, O Lord” (Ps. 119:89); and again: “But You are the same, and Your years will not fail” (Ps. 101:28). The prophet says this and the like when he talks about events that will happen after a long time and will certainly happen, thereby wanting to eliminate the fear of rude listeners. And that the words: “until”, “until”, when they are applied to God, do not mean the end, listen to what (Scripture) says: “from everlasting to everlasting you exist” (Ps. 89:3); and again: “And until your old age I will be the same, and until your gray hair I will be” (Is. 46:4). Death (the apostle) puts it last so that the unbeliever, hearing about the victory over other enemies, would quickly accept this truth, because if (Christ) overthrew the devil who brought about death, then all the more will he destroy his work. When in this way he attributed (to Christ) everything: the abolition of rulership and power, the establishment of the kingdom, i.e. the salvation of believers, the peace of the universe, the destruction of evil - and to establish a kingdom means to destroy death - and yet did not say that the Father is through Him, but that He Himself will abolish, He will put under His feet, and nowhere did he mention the Father, then further, fearing that some unreasonable ones would draw the conclusion that either the Son is greater than the Father, or there is some other unborn principle, he gradually explains and softens the excessiveness of what was said, and says: “He put all things in subjection under His feet.” Here he attributes these deeds to the Father, not because the Son is powerless - could this be the one about whom (the apostle) above gave such testimony and attributed everything that was said? - but both for the very reason that I said, and in order to show that everything that is perfect for us is common to the Father and the Son. That He can subdue all things to Himself, listen to this also, as Paul says: “Who will transform our lowly body so that it will be like His glorious body, according to the power by which He works to put all things in subjection to Himself” (Phil. 3:21). Further, he uses the clause: “when it is said that everything is subjugated to Him, it is clear that except for Him who subjugated everything to Him,” and thus again gives considerable glory to the Only Begotten; if He had been lower and more powerless, (the apostle) would never have expressed such fear. Not content with this, (the apostle) adds something else. Lest anyone think and say: what if the Father does not submit? this in no way prevents the Son from being stronger (the Father) - he, fearing such an ungodly thought and bearing in mind that what was said before was not enough to refute it, very clearly adds the following: “when everything is subdued to Him, then the Son Himself will submit,” expressing both His perfect agreement with the Father, and the fact that He who gave birth to such a powerful one and performs such deeds is the beginning and the first cause of all good things. 6. If he said more than the essence of the matter required, do not be surprised; he did this in imitation of his Master. Himself (Christ), wanting to show His agreement with the Father and that He did not come against His will, humiliates Himself not as much as was required to prove agreement, but as required by the weakness of those present; He prays to the Father for no other reason than this, and he himself explains the reason when he says: “I have known You, and these have known that You sent Me” (John 17:25). So, imitating him, (the apostle) uses a strong expression here, not in order to instill in you the idea of ​​forced submission (of Christ), no, but in order to refute absurd opinions as strongly as possible. When he wants to uproot something, then he uses very strong speech. Thus, speaking about a believing wife and an unbelieving husband, united by the law of marriage, and wanting to impress upon the wife that she is not defiled by cohabitation and by intercourse with an unbeliever, he did not say that the wife does not become unclean through this, or does not suffer any harm from an unbeliever, but said much more, that is, that even an unbeliever is sanctified through her (1 Cor. 7:14); with this he does not want to express that the pagan is becoming a saint through her, but he is trying to quickly destroy her fear with such a strong expression. Likewise here, trying to destroy the wicked teaching with strong expression, he said what he said. To consider the Son weak is extreme wickedness; That’s why he refutes this with the words: “He put everything under His feet”; and it is even more wicked to honor the Father as lesser (the Son); therefore he refutes this with great force. Look how he expresses himself; did not simply say: “except That”, but: “it is clear that”; Although this is known to be said, I confirm it. And so that you know that this is precisely the reason for what has been said, I ask you: will the obedience of the Son then increase? Isn't this absurd and unworthy of God? After all, the greatest humility and obedience lies in the fact that He, being God, took on the form of a servant. How then will He submit? It is obvious that (the apostle) expressed himself in such a way as to refute an absurd thought, and, moreover, with due prudence. He will submit in a manner befitting the Son - God, and not humanly, but freely and with full authority. Otherwise, how can He sit on the throne together (with the Father)? “As the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so the Son also gives life to whomever He will” (John 5:21)? How does everything that belongs to the Father belong to Him, and everything that belongs to Him also belongs to the Father (John 17:10)? This shows us His perfect authority on a par with the Father. What does it mean: “when He delivers up the Kingdom” (1 Cor. 15:24)? Two kingdoms of God are known from Scripture, one by assimilation, the other by creation. According to creation, He reigns over everyone, over pagans, Jews, demons, enemies; and by assimilation he reigns over the believers, who voluntarily submit and are obedient. This last kingdom is said to have a beginning; This is what it says about him in the second psalm: “Ask of Me, and I will give Thee the nations for Thy inheritance” (Ps. 2:8); about him (Christ) himself said to the disciples: “all power has been given to me” from my Father (Matthew 28:18), where he attributes everything to the Father, not because He himself did not have anything, but to show that He is the Son, and not the unborn. It is this kingdom that He will betray, that is, establish. But why, you say, (the apostle) did not say anything about the Spirit? Because that’s not what he’s talking about now; he doesn't mix everything at once. So when he says: “there is one God the Father... and one Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 8:6), he is silent about the Spirit, not because he recognizes the Spirit as lesser, but because there is no need yet to talk about Him. Sometimes He mentions one Father, but we will not therefore deny the Son; sometimes only about the Son and the Spirit, but we will not therefore deny the Father. What does it mean: “let God be all in all” (1 Cor. 15:28)? So that everything depends on Him, so that no one imagines two beginningless principles or another separate kingdom. When the enemies are laid down under the feet of the Son, and He, having them under His feet, will not act against the Father, but will maintain perfect unity with Him, then (God) will be all in all. Some say that by these words (the apostle) means the destruction of evil, so that everyone will finally submit, no one will resist and do evil - that is, when there is no sin, then, obviously, God will be all in all. But if the bodies are not resurrected, will this be fair? The worst of all enemies, death will remain and do what it wants. No, you say, then they will no longer sin. But what of this? (The Apostle) speaks here about death not of the soul, but of the body. How will it be destroyed? Victory consists in returning what was taken and withheld. If the bodies remain in the earth, then it means that the power (of death) will continue, because they are retained (in the earth), and there are no other bodies in which it would be defeated. If what Paul said comes to pass, as indeed it will, then a glorious victory will be revealed in which God, by His omnipotence, will resurrect the bodies captured by death. So the enemy is defeated when the spoils are taken from him, and not when they are left with him; if no one dares to take it from him, then can we say that he is defeated? 7. In the same way, Christ in the Gospel expresses victory when he says: “How can anyone enter the house of a strong man and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? and then he will plunder his house” (Matthew 12:29), because otherwise victory will not be visible. Just as in spiritual death, although the one who died was justified by sin (Rom. 6:7), we cannot call this a victory, because it was not the one who conquered who does not apply evil to evil, but the one who destroyed the former captivity of the passions - so here, it can not be called a glorious victory that death has ceased to devour bodies, but that the bodies already captured by it have been taken away from it. If they still begin to argue and say that this is said about spiritual death, then (I will ask): how will it be eliminated? After all, it has already been abolished in every baptized person. If we understand this about the body, then what was said, that is, that the last (death) will be eliminated, will take place. Perhaps someone will be perplexed why (the apostle), speaking about the resurrection, did not point to the bodies resurrected under the Lord? To this we will say that such an indication would not serve in favor of the resurrection; to point to those resurrected who died again would not mean to prove that death will be completely destroyed. That’s why he said that she would be the last to be destroyed, so that you wouldn’t think that she would rise again. When evil is destroyed, then all the more will death cease, because it is impossible for a river to remain when its source dries up, or to be a fruit when the root dries up. So, if on the last day the enemies of God are destroyed along with death, the devil and demons, then we will not grieve, seeing the enemies of God prospering: “the enemies of the Lord, during the time of their glorification and exaltation, disappeared like smoke disappeared” (Ps. 36:20). When you see the enemy of God rich, surrounded by bodyguards and many flatterers, then do not be discouraged, but sigh, cry and pray to God to turn him into one of his friends; and the more the enemy (God) succeeds in his deeds, the more mourn him. Sinners should always be mourned, especially when they enjoy wealth and great prosperity, like the sick, when they are satiated and drunk. Meanwhile, some even of those listening to these words are in such a pitiful state of mind that they weep bitterly for themselves and say: I am worthy of tears, because I have nothing. You rightly say that you have nothing, not because you do not have what someone else has, but because you place bliss in this; That’s why you are worthy of endless tears. Whoever, being healthy, begins to call a sick person lying on a soft bed blessed, is much more unhappy and ill-fated than him, because he does not at all feel his own well-being. The same thing happens with these (people); That’s why our whole life was filled with turmoil and disorder. Such words destroyed thousands (of people), betrayed them to the devil and made them more miserable than those who were dying of hunger. Truly, those who desire more are poorer than the poor themselves, because they suffer greater and more severe spiritual sorrow, as can be seen from the following. Once upon a time, our city suffered from rainlessness; everyone trembled for their lives and prayed to God to deliver them from this horror. Then it was possible to see “your heavens, which are above your head, will become copper,” as Moses says (Deut. 28:23), and death, the most terrible death of all kinds, and expected every day. But then, thank the philanthropic God, beyond all hope, extremely abundant rain poured down from above, and everyone began to rejoice and triumph, as if emerging from the very gates of death. Meanwhile, among such blessings of God and with general joy, one of the richest people walked mournful and despondent, as if deadened by grief, and when many asked him why, in the midst of general joy, he alone was sad, then he, unable even to hide his painful passion, prompted by the strength of this illness, openly declared the reason: having, he said, many measures of wheat, I don’t know how I can now her. Really, tell me, will we please him after such words for which he should be stoned, as a man crueler than any beast, and a common enemy? What are you saying, man? Do you mourn that everyone did not die so that you could collect the gold? Have you not heard what Solomon says: “Whoever withholds bread, the people curse him” (Prov. 11:26)? And you still wander, the common enemy of the prosperity of the universe, the opponent of the love of mankind of the Lord of the Lord of the universe, a friend, or better yet, a slave of mammon? Shouldn't such language be cut off? Shouldn't the heart that uttered such words be torn out? 8. Do you see how gold does not allow people to be people, but makes them beasts and demons? What could be more despicable than a rich man who begs hunger every day so that he can have gold? Passion produces in him something completely opposite: he does not rejoice at the abundance of fruits acquired, but because he himself grieves because he has acquired too much. While he should rejoice that he has much, he himself therefore grieves. Do you see that the rich, as I said, do not so much feel pleasure from the benefits they have received, as they suffer sorrow from the benefits they have not yet received? He who had countless measures of wheat grieved and lamented more than he who was hungry; while the one who had only daily bread rejoiced, had fun and thanked God, the one who owned such wealth grieved and considered himself lost. So, it is not abundance that gives pleasure, but a wise mood; Without it, even someone who has captured everything will be in the same state of mind, will grieve just as much as someone deprived of everything. And the man we are talking about now, if he had sold his wheat for the price he wanted, would again begin to grieve that he did not sell it for more; if I could sell it for more, I would again begin to desire even more; if for each measure he took a gold coin, then even then he would again begin to lament that he did not sell each half-measure for this price. And don’t be surprised that he wouldn’t have set such a price from the very beginning; and those who indulge in drunkenness do not immediately ignite, but when they are already filled with wine in large quantities, then they kindle a powerful flame within themselves. So these people, the more they have, the more they feel the need, and the more they acquire, the more they fall into poverty. I say this not only in relation to him, but also to each of those possessed by a similar disease, raising the price of goods and plunging their neighbor into poverty. There is never any talk about philanthropy, but always during a sale the passion of greed guides many; One sells both wheat and wine more quickly, the other more slowly, not for the common good, but one in order to receive more, and the other in order not to receive less, when the goods themselves have already spoiled. Thus, God, seeing that many do not heed the commandments of God and keep everything under lock and key, and, wanting to otherwise encourage them to love humanity, so that they, even if necessary, do something good, instills in them the fear of a greater loss, and does not allow the very fruits of the earth to be preserved for a long time, so that people, at least out of fear of loss from spoilage, unwittingly offer to those in need what they have wickedly buried and kept at home. And yet some are so insatiable that they are not admonished by this either. Many poured out whole barrels (of wine), but did not give a single glass to the poor and not a single coin to the needy; they poured everything onto the ground when it became sour and the barrels themselves were damaged along with the fruit. Others did not give a single piece of bread to the hungry, but dumped entire granaries into the river. They did not listen to God, who commanded to give to those in need, therefore rottenness commanded them, against their will, to give over (all contents) to destruction and complete destruction; In this way they exposed themselves to great ridicule and brought upon their heads, along with loss, many curses. And it's here; and what will happen there, what word will express it? Just as here they throw the wheat, which has rotted and become unusable, into the rivers, so God will throw them, who do this and therefore themselves become unusable, into the river of fire. Just as the wheat is eaten by the worm and decay, so their soul is eaten by cruelty and inhumanity. The reason for this is attachment to present goods and addiction only to present life. That is why such people are tormented by immense melancholy; the fear of death destroys everything pleasant you can imagine, and such people died while still alive. It is not at all surprising if unbelievers are subjected to this; but if those who have tasted such sacraments and are so philosophic about future blessings become addicted to present (goods), then can they be worthy of forgiveness? Why does this addiction to (goods) present occur? By indulging in luxury, they fatten the flesh and corrupt the soul, placing on it a heavy burden, deep darkness and a coarse veil. Luxury makes the best part (the soul) a slave, and the worst part a mistress; the former is completely blinded, damaged and drawn, while the latter attracts and leads everywhere, whereas it itself should be subject to guidance. And between the soul and the body there is a close connection, which the Creator arranged so that no one would think of hating his own body as if it were something else. 9. God commanded to love even enemies; but the devil became so strong that he convinced some to hate even their own body. Whoever says that (the body) is from the devil expresses precisely such a conviction. This is extremely crazy. If it is from the devil, then where does he come from such agreement with the soul that it is in all respects capable of the works of its philosophy? If, you say, it is capable of this, then how does it blind the soul? No, man, it is not the body that blinds the soul, but luxury. Why do we indulge in luxury? Not because we have a body - no - but because of evil will. The body requires food, not luxury; the body needs to be nourished, not to be burdened and fattened. Luxury is detrimental not only to the soul, but also to the fattening body. From strong it becomes weak, from solid it becomes weak, from healthy it becomes sickly, from light it becomes heavy, from dense it becomes effeminate, from beautiful it becomes ugly, from fragrant it smells, from clean it becomes unclean, from slender it becomes disordered, from useful it becomes useless, from young it becomes old, from strong it becomes powerless, from flexible it becomes slow and lazy, from completely ugly. If it were from the devil, it could not be damaged by what belongs to the devil, i.e. from vice. No, neither the body nor the food is from the devil; there is only luxury from him. Through this, the evil demon manages to commit many evils. So he destroyed an entire nation (Israel): “And Israel became fat and stubborn; became fat, fat and stout” (Deut. 32:15). For this, thunder struck the inhabitants of Sodom, which Ezekiel expresses when he says: “This was the iniquity of Sodom, your sister and her daughters: in pride, satiety and idleness, and she did not support the hand of the poor and the needy” (Ezek. 16:49). That is why Paul said: “But the lover of pleasure died alive” (1 Tim. 5:6). Why is this so? Because she carries her body, like a coffin, burdened with many evils. If the body undergoes such damage, then what happens to the soul? What confusion, what waves, what storm is it filled with? She becomes incapable of anything, she can neither easily speak, nor listen, nor want, nor do anything proper; just as the helmsman, when the storm gets the better of his art, drowns with the ship itself and those sailing on it, so the soul and the body plunge into a terrible abyss of insensibility. God gave us a stomach, like a mill, gave it proportionate strength and assigned a certain measure of how much it should grind each day; therefore, if someone puts into it more than what is proper, then what remains unadjusted causes harm to the whole (body). This is where illness, disease and ugliness come from. Truly, luxury not only relaxes, but also makes even a beautiful (woman) ugly; when she constantly produces an unpleasant belch, exhales the smell of spoiled wine and becomes red beyond her due, she violates the decency of a woman and loses all decorum; when her body becomes saggy, her eyelashes become bloody and swollen, and she is all overly fat and corpulent, then imagine what a disgrace that results from this! I have heard from doctors that luxury greatly prevents many from even achieving proper height; when the life force is burdened with a multitude of dishes and is busy cooking them, then what should have been turned into growth is wasted on cooking what is superfluous. Should we still talk about the gout that comes from this, the rheumatism that spreads throughout the body, other diseases that result from this, and all kinds of uncleanness? There is nothing so unpleasant as a woman who is overly fattened. That is why among the poor one can see more beauty - no surplus remains with them and is not added to their composition unnecessarily and in vain, like some kind of extraneous dirt; daily exercise, labor, work, moderate food and a strict diet give them good health, and hence great beauty. Don't talk to me about the pleasures of luxury; it does not extend beyond the larynx; As soon as the food passes the tongue, it immediately disappears, leaving behind a lot of unpleasant things. Do not look at those living in luxury only when they are reclining, but look at them when they stand up, follow them, and you will see that they are more like beasts and dumb people than people. You will see how they suffer from dizziness, relaxation and clumsiness, need a bed and a bed and deep silence, rush about as if during great excitement, require the help of others and want to return to the state in which they were before they were full. They walk like pregnant women, with a heavy womb, they barely move, they barely see, they barely speak, and they barely do everything. If they happen to fall asleep a little, then they see absurd dreams and meaningless dreams. Should we even talk about their fury of a different kind, i.e. voluptuousness? And it comes from the same source. They, like frantic horses, being excited by intoxication, rush at everyone, rushing with even greater madness and rage than these dumb ones, and do other shamelessness, which is indecent to even talk about, because they no longer understand what is happening to them and what they are doing. Such is not the man who does not indulge in luxury: he is in the harbour, looking at the shipwrecks of others, and enjoys pure and constant pleasure, leading a life worthy of a free man. So, knowing this, let us avoid the vicious pleasures of luxury and observe moderation in meals, so that we may be healthy in soul and body, perform all virtues and be worthy of future blessings, 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 Antioch around 390. The paragraphs in the text were arranged by us – Editorial staff of “ABC of Faith” You might be interested in: