Беседа 3

Reproof should be gradual and moderate. – Pavel does not consider himself preferable to Peter. – Dispute about Paul and Plato. - Wonderful victory of the apostles. – You need to win more with life than with philosophy. 1 Corinthians 1:10. I beseech you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same spirit and in the same thoughts. 1. Reproof, as I have always said, must be done gradually and little by little; that's what Paul does here. Approaching a subject full of great dangers and which could shake the church to its very foundations, he begins his speech with meekness. He begs the Corinthians and pleads by Christ, as if he himself could not offer this instruction and convince. What does it mean: I pray by Christ? I call on Christ and His name, insulted and desecrated, for help. Very strongly (instills in them) that they should not be shameless, since sin is what makes people shameless. It’s always like this, if you suddenly begin to sharply rebuke someone, he will become embittered and become shameless; if you make a suggestion, you will bow his neck, tame his insolence and force him to humble himself. This is what Paul does, pleading in the name of Christ. What is he begging for? “So that you all say the same thing, and there are no divisions between you” 7. An expressive word: divisions, including reproof, could greatly touch them. Their parts were not healthy, and the whole was dissolved. If the parts of the church were healthy, there would be many connections. And if they had divisions, then there was no whole. When a whole is divided into many parts, then not only do the parts not constitute many (wholes), but the whole ceases to be. This is the nature of divisions! Having greatly touched them by denouncing their divisions, he further shows his meekness and softens his speech: “so that you may be united in the same spirit and in the same thoughts,” he says. After the words: “so that you all say the same thing,” don’t think, he says that I mean agreement only in words; no, I want agreement in thoughts. And since you can have the same thoughts, but not about all objects, he adds: “so that you are united.” He who agrees on one thing, but disagrees on another, is not yet united, has not achieved perfect unanimity. It also happens that while there is agreement in thoughts, there is still no agreement in spirit - for example, when we, having the same faith, are not united by love. In this case, we agree in thoughts - we think alike - but we do not yet agree in spirit. The same thing happened in Corinth, where one side was on the side of one, and the other on the side of another. That is why Paul says that we must be united “in the same spirit and in the same thoughts.” Their divisions did not arise from differences in faith, but from disagreement in spirit, due to human vanity. But since the accused without witnesses can remain stubborn to the point of shamelessness, so that they cannot reject what was said, he brings witnesses. “For it became known to me from the household of Chloe about you, my brethren” (1 Cor. 1:11). He did not say this suddenly, but he laid out the reproof in advance, because he believed those who announced it; if he didn’t believe, he wouldn’t denounce; but Paul could not believe blindly. Thus, he did not suddenly say: “it has become known,” so that it would not seem that he was accusing them only according to the words of those who announced it, and he did not remain silent about it, so that it would not seem that he was speaking only on his own behalf. Here again he calls them brothers. Although their sin was obvious, nothing yet prevented them from being called brethren. Moreover, note his wisdom, he did not point to an individual person, but to the whole house, so that they would not rebel against the one who announced it: so he hid him too and directly revealed their guilt! He knew what was good for some and what was needed for others. That’s why he didn’t say: it became known to me from some: he pointed to a famous house so that it wouldn’t seem fictitious. What was announced? “That there are disputes between you.” When he himself reproaches them, he says: so that there is no division between you; and when he relays what he has heard from others, he expresses himself more meekly: “for it has become known to me that there are disputes among you,” so as not to endanger those who announced it. Then he says what exactly the disagreement consisted of: “the fact that every 8 of you says: “I am Pavlov”; “I am Apollosov”; “I am Kifin”; “But I am Christ's"" (1 Cor. 1:12). Of course, he says, the disagreements are not in private matters, but much more important. "What each one of you says." The evil concerned not a part, but the whole church. However, the Corinthians did not say that about him, nor about Peter, nor about Apollos; but he shows that if such persons should not be put in such an attitude towards oneself, then much less others. And that they did not say this, he himself explains below: “this... I applied to myself and Apollos... so that you might learn from us not to philosophize beyond what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6). If you should not be called by the names of Paul, Apollos and Cephas, then much less others. If one should not assimilate the name of the teacher, the first of the apostles and the enlightener of so many peoples, then even more so - people who mean nothing. Thus, he only lists these names in order to quickly heal their illness. Moreover, he makes his speech less unpleasant, not mentioning by name those who divided the church, but as if covering them with the names of the apostles: ““I am Pavlov”; “I am Apollosov”; “and I am Cephas”.” 2. He put Peter last, not preferring himself to him, but on the contrary, precisely preferring Peter to himself. He speaks from the least to the greatest; and so that they do not think that he acts out of envy and anticipates the honor of others out of vanity, he puts himself first. Whoever considers himself unworthy first does so not out of ambition, but out of great contempt for such an honor. So he first rejects such an honor from himself, and then from Apollos, and finally from Cephas; therefore, he does this not out of preference for himself, but, first of all, shows on his own face what should not happen. And that those who took the side of one or the other sinned is obvious. That is why he rightly reproaches them, suggesting that they are doing something bad when they say: “I am Pavlov”; “I am Apollosov”; “and I am Kifin.” But why did he add: “and I am Christ’s”? If those who clung to people sinned, then did those who clung to Christ also sin? No; he reproached them not because they were called Christ's, but because not all of them (did this). I think that he added this on his own to make the reproof stronger, to show that in this case Christ is assimilated only to one part, although they did not do this. That he really inspired such a thought is evident from his following words: “Is Christ divided?” (1 Cor. 1:13). This means: you divided Christ and dissolved His body. Do you see his anger, do you see his reproach, do you see his speech filled with indignation? He does not prove, but only proposes a question as a sign of the obvious absurdity of the thought contained in it. Some find another thought here in the words “Is Christ divided?” , namely: did He dissolve and divide the Church among people, and took one part for Himself and gave the other to them? Then he tries to destroy such absurdity and says: “Was Paul crucified for you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul?” See with what love for Christ he attributes all the evidence to his name, and thereby clearly conveys that this honor does not belong to anyone. So that they don’t think that he says all this out of envy, he constantly repeats his name, and notice with what wisdom. Didn’t he say: Did Paul create the world, did Paul bring you from non-existence into being? - but it represents what was especially close to the believers and showed the great providence of God: the cross and baptism and the benefits that come from them. God's love for mankind is revealed in the creation of the world, but especially in His humiliation on the cross. Nor did he say, Did Paul die for you? - but: “was Paul crucified for you?” - thus representing the very kind of death. “Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?” Didn’t he say: Did Paul baptize you? - since he baptized many, and the point is not who they were baptized by, but in whose name they were baptized. Since the reason for the strife was that they were called by the names of those who baptized them, he corrects this and says: “or were you baptized in the name of Paul?” That is: do not tell me who baptized you, but in whose name. What matters is not who baptized, but who is called in baptism, since He forgives sins. Having said this, he does not expand on what follows, does not say: did Paul promise you future benefits? -Did Paul promise you the kingdom of heaven? Why didn't he add this too? Because it is not the same thing to promise the kingdom and to be crucified; the former did not pose danger and did not bring dishonor, but the latter contained all this. On the other hand, in the latter, of course, the first, having said: “He who did not spare His Son,” added: “How can He not also give us all things with Him?” (Rom.8:32). And again: “For if, while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we will be saved” (Rom. 5:10). That's why he didn't add it; Moreover, (the believers) did not yet have the first, but they already knew the last from experience; the former was only a promise, and the latter a reality. “I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius” (1 Cor. 1:14). Why are you proud that you baptize, when I thank God for not baptizing? With these words he wisely demolishes their arrogance; it does not humiliate the power of baptism - let it not be - but the pride of those who exalted themselves in performing baptism, firstly, showing that it was not their gift, and secondly, thanking God for themselves. Baptism is important, but the importance is conveyed to it not by the baptizer, but by the One called in baptism. The performance of baptism means nothing in relation to human labor, and even much less than the gospel. Baptism, I repeat again, is an important matter, and without baptism it is impossible to receive the kingdom of heaven; but it can be accomplished by a person who is not very important, and the gospel requires great work. 3. Next (Paul) gives the reason why he thanks God that he did not baptize anyone. Which one? “Lest anyone should say that I baptized in my name” (1 Cor. 1:15). What is this? Is it not them (the Corinthians) that he is talking about here? No; But I’m afraid, he says, that the disease will not reach such a degree. After all, if when baptism was performed by unimportant and insignificant people, a division occurred, then if I, who preached baptism, baptized many, those who accepted it would probably not only begin to be called by my name, but would also attribute the baptism itself to me. If such evil happened to the lower ones, then even more would certainly happen to the higher ones. Having thus denounced those who erred and added: “I also baptized Stephen’s house” (1 Cor. 1:16), he again overthrows their pride with the words: “I don’t know whether I baptized anyone else.” Here he expresses that he did not try to gain honor from the people with such an undertaking and did not undertake it for glory. Not only with these words, but also with the following words, he greatly strikes their pride: “For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel” (1 Cor. 1:17). The latter is much more difficult, required great effort and special fortitude and contained everything; that is why it was entrusted to Paul. But why did he, not being sent to baptize, baptize? He did this not out of opposition to the Sender, but out of abundance (zeal). He didn’t say that he was forbidden to do this, but: I was not sent on this matter, but on a much more important one. Few were allowed to evangelize, but anyone who had the priesthood could baptize. Anyone can baptize a person who has been instructed in the faith and has believed, because the disposition of the one who approaches and the grace of God accomplishes everything; and in order to instruct unbelievers in the faith, this requires great work, great wisdom, and even poses dangers. Everything has already been done there; those who wish to receive the sacrament are convinced of the faith, and it is not at all difficult to baptize those who believe; and here great work is needed to change the disposition, correct the disposition, destroy error and instill the truth. However, Paul does not talk about it in this way, does not prove or claim that baptizing is not difficult, but evangelizing on the contrary - he always knows how to observe moderation - but he especially expands on external wisdom and offers the strongest speech about it. Thus, he baptized not out of opposition to the Sender, but just as he had care for widows from an excess of zeal, and not out of opposition to the apostles, who said: “It is not good for us, having abandoned the word of God, to worry about the tables” (Acts 6:2), so it is here. So now we entrust this work to the simplest of the elders, and the teaching of doctrine to the most prudent, because it requires work and effort. That is why he himself says: “We must show great honor to the elders who are in charge, especially to those who labor in word and doctrine” (1 Tim. 5:17). Just as to train warriors a courageous and skillful teacher is needed, and even an unskilled one can lay a crown on the winner in a fight, although the crown glorifies the winner, so in baptism: although it is impossible to be saved without it, the one who baptizes does no great thing, accepting those who are disposed and prepared for it. “It is not in wisdom of speech, lest the cross of Christ should be made void” (1 Cor. 1:17). Having brought down the pride of those who were exalted by baptism, he proceeds to denounce those who were proud of external wisdom, and speaks against them with special force. To those who exalted themselves in baptism, he said: “I thank God that I did not baptize anyone,” also: “Christ sent me not to baptize,” and to convict them he did not use strong and striking speech, but, having instilled in them in a few words what he wanted, he moved on to the next; and here from the very beginning he delivers a strong blow: “so as not to abolish,” he says, “the cross of Christ.” What are you proud of that you should be ashamed of? After all, if this wisdom is hostile to the cross and contrary to the gospel, then we should not boast, but be ashamed of it. That is why the apostles were not such wise men - not for lack of talents, but so that the preaching would not suffer harm. The sages did not contribute to the preaching, but harmed it; ordinary people approved it. This could bring down pride, defeat arrogance, and induce humility. But, you say, if not in the wisdom of speech, then why was Apollos, “an eloquent man” (Acts 18:24) sent? Not because they relied on the power of eloquence, but because he was versed in the Scriptures and skilled in denouncing the Jews. On the other hand, it was necessary that the very first sowers of the word were unlearned. They must have great power to begin the destruction of error; a great fortress was needed to begin this task. 4. So (God), who had no need for scientists at the beginning, if he accepted them later, did so not because he began to have a need for them, but because he did not look at the difference (between scientists and unlearned). Just as He did not need wise men to fulfill His intentions, so later, when they appeared, He did not reject them. Tell me, were Peter and Paul scientists? This you cannot say: they were simple and unlearned. As Christ, when he sent his disciples into the universe, first showing them His power in Palestine, said: “When I sent you without bag and without scrip and without sandals, did you lack anything?” (Luke 22:35) - and then he allowed me to take the bag and bag, and so it was here. It was necessary to demonstrate the power of Christ, and not to reject those approaching faith for their external wisdom. Therefore, if the pagans reproach the disciples of Christ for ignorance, then we can rather turn the reproach against them. Let no one say that Paul was a wise man; but, while extolling those who were famous among them for wisdom and eloquence, we will call all of our own ignorant. This will contribute no little to their defeat; this will give us a glorious victory. I say this because I once heard how ridiculously one Christian competed with a pagan, how both of them refuted themselves in the competition. What a Christian should have said, the pagan said; and what should have been said to a pagan was defended by a Christian. The dispute was about Paul and Plato; the pagan tried to prove that Paul was a simple and unlearned man, and the Christian, in his simplicity, tried to prove that Paul was more learned than Plato. Meanwhile, if we assume the latter, victory remained on the side of the pagan. After all, if Paul was more learned than Plato, then many would rightly conclude that he conquered not by grace, but by eloquence. Thus, what the Christian said was used in favor of the pagan, and what the pagan said was used in favor of the Christian. If, as I said, Paul was unlearned, and yet surpassed Plato, then here is a glorious victory, since the unlearned convinced and attracted all the disciples of the scientist. From this it is clear that preaching won the victory not by human wisdom, but by the grace of God. So, so that we will not be subjected to the same ridicule in conversation with the pagans, we will always, when we happen to compete with them, recognize the apostles as unlearned: such recognition is their praise. When they say that the apostles were simple people, we will add that they were unlearned, and unlearned, and poor, and ignorant, and unwise, and unknown. It does not serve to dishonor, but to the glory of the apostles, that they, being such, appeared more glorious than the whole universe. These simple, unlearned and unlearned defeated the wise, strong and powerful, who boasted of wealth, glory and everything external, as if they were not people. From this it is clear that the power of the cross is great and that all this was not accomplished by human power. Indeed, such things are not in the nature of things, but above nature. And when something is done not according to the laws of nature, and much higher than nature, but at the same time it is necessary and useful, then it is obvious that this is accomplished by some divine power and help. Look: a fisherman, a tabernacle worker, a publican, a simple, unlearned man, come from a distant country, Palestine, rebel against all philosophers, rhetoricians and those skilled in words in their fatherland, and in a short time, in the face of many dangers, when peoples, kings and nature itself opposed them, when they were confronted with strong obstacles, the lapse of time and ingrained habits, when demons and the devil took up arms against them armed himself and used every effort - he defeated kings, rulers, peoples, languages, cities, barbarians, Hellenes, philosophers, rhetoricians, sophists, writers, laws, judgments, various torments, countless and varied kinds of death. The fishermen announced, and all this was revealed and disappeared, like light dust, swept up by a blow of a strong wind. Let us learn to converse with the pagans in such a way that we do not remain senseless animals, but are ready to give an answer “for the hope that is in you” (1 Pet. 3:15). Let us especially remember this main, important matter, and tell them: how did the weak overcome the strong, twelve people - the whole universe, without using weapons, but fighting unarmed with armed ones? 5. Tell me, if twelve people, inexperienced in military affairs, not only unarmed, but also weak in body, having entered into a fight with a large detachment of armed warriors, did not suffer any harm from them, being showered with countless numbers of arrows, remained untouched, receiving arrows with their naked bodies, they themselves struck everyone, without using weapons, but repelling them with their hands, they beat some, and captured others without receiving any wounds themselves, then who would say that this is a human matter? But the victory of the apostles is much more surprising. It is not so much surprising if a naked man does not receive wounds, but rather surprising if a simple, unlearned fisherman defeats such strong ones, despite his ignorance and poverty, nor the dangers and inveterate habits, nor the severity of the proposed rules, nor the daily threat of death, nor the multitude of those who have been seduced, nor the importance of the seducers. So we must overthrow them and compete with them, and before words we must defeat them with our lives; this is a great competition, this is irrefutable proof from deeds; in words, no matter how much we reason with them, but if our life is not better than their life, then there will be no benefit. They pay attention not to words, but test our deeds and say: first convince yourself of the truth of your words, and then convince others; if you say that countless blessings await us in the future life, and you yourself act as if they did not exist, clinging to the present blessings, then your deeds are stronger than words for me; when I see that you steal the property of others, grieve beyond measure for the dead and sin in many other ways, then how can I believe you that there is a resurrection? Even if they didn’t say so, they think so and contain it in their thoughts. This is what prevents infidels from becoming Christians! Let us convert them with our lives. Many uneducated people amazed the minds of philosophers, demonstrating wisdom in deeds and speaking louder than a trumpet in behavior and wisdom: this is stronger than words. If, for example, I argue that one should not remember evil, and meanwhile I will cause a pagan many evils, then how can I attract him with words when I drive him away with deeds? So let us catch them with our lives, build the Church from their souls, and collect such wealth. Nothing can compare with the soul, not even the whole world. Even if you distribute countless riches to the poor, you will not do as much as the one who converted one soul. “If you extract something precious from something worthless, you will be like My mouth,” says the Lord (Jer. 15:19). It is a great blessing to have mercy on the poor; but not the same as freeing someone from error; whoever does this becomes like Peter and Paul. Truly, we can also participate in their preaching, not by being exposed to dangers, like them, by enduring hunger, torment and other disasters - now is a time of peace - but by showing zealous zeal for this. You can do this fishing while sitting at home. Whoever has a friend, relative, or family, let him do this to them, let him tell them this, and he will become like Peter and Paul. What am I saying to Peter and Paul? It will be the mouth of Christ: “If you extract precious things from worthless things, you will be like My mouth,” says the Lord. If you do not convince today, you will convince tomorrow: if you never convince, you will receive the full reward; if you don’t convince everyone, then perhaps out of many, some; After all, the apostles did not convince all people, but they extended their word to everyone and received a reward for everyone. God usually assigns crowns, looking not at the end of labors, but at the disposition of those who strive. If you bring only two mites, He will accept; just as He dealt with the widow (Luke 21:2-4), so He deals with those who teach the doctrine. So, because you cannot save the whole universe, do not neglect the few, and, striving for the great, do not deprive yourself of the little. If you cannot convert a hundred people, try to convert ten; if you cannot do ten, do not neglect five; if you can’t do five, don’t neglect one; if you can’t do even one thing, then don’t be discouraged and don’t stop doing what you can. Do you not see how those who engage in trade enter into transactions not only for gold, but also for silver? If we do not neglect the little, we will receive a lot; and if we neglect the little, it will not be easy to get a lot. One becomes rich by collecting both little and much; We will do the same, so that, having been enriched in everything, you may be worthy of the kingdom of heaven, 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” In Russian translation this word is missing – I.I. You might be interested in: