Беседа 10

1 Timothy 3:1–4. If anyone desires the episcopate, he desires a good deed. But the bishop must be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober, chaste, decent, honest, hospitable, teacher, not a drunkard, not a murderer, not quarrelsome, not covetous, but quiet, peace-loving, not money-loving, ruling his house well, keeping his children in obedience with all honesty. About bishopric. -What a bishop should be like. - About good examples. – Why do pagans not accept faith? 1. Intending to move on to a speech about episcopacy, (the apostle) shows in general what a bishop should be, not referring his exhortation specifically to Timothy, but talking with him, as if with everyone, and through him instructing everyone. What is he saying? “If anyone desires the episcopacy,” I do not blame him, he says, since this is a matter of governance. If someone has such a desire, and at the same time seeks not only superiors and power, but (also the fulfillment of the duties inherent in) management, then I do not blame him: “he wants a good deed,” he says. So Moses desired this, but not only power, and he desired it to such an extent that he heard (the following words): “Who made you a leader and a judge over us?” ( Ex. 2:14 ). Whoever therefore wishes, let him wish. Bishopric is called so because it represents supervision over everyone (παρά τό έπι σκ οπείν άπαντας). “But a bishop must,” he says, “be blameless, the husband of one wife.” He says this not as a law, as if without this he could not have become a bishop, but only as a limit to immoderation, because the Jews were allowed to enter into a second marriage, and to have two wives at the same time. “Let marriage be honorable among all” (Heb. 13:4). And some believe that what is said here means that he should be the husband of one wife. “Immaculate.” Having said: “Immaculate,” he named every virtue. Thus, if anyone recognizes himself as guilty of any crime, then he is doing wrong by desiring such a title from which he has removed himself by his actions, because such a thing should not be to command, and to obey. The leader must be brighter than any lamp and lead an impeccable life, so that everyone looks at him and builds their own life according to his life. And it is not without reason that (the apostle) does this, teaching such instruction. But since he himself intended to appoint bishops, regarding which he makes exhortations in his letter to Titus, and since, in all likelihood, many could desire this rank, he commands it on this occasion. “Sober,” he says, that is, he must be perspicacious, have a thousand eyes on all sides, must be insightful and not darken his mental gaze. Indeed, there are many such accidents that do not make it possible to clearly see how things are done, because sorrows, worries, endless occupations, and much more accumulate on all sides. So, (the bishop) must be vigilantly vigilant, having concern not only for his own affairs, but also for what concerns others - he must be awake, flaming in spirit and, so to speak, breathing fire, bear more labor and responsibilities than a commander who goes around the army day and night - have care and concern for everything. “Chaste, decent, hospitable.” Since many of the subordinates have such qualities (in this respect they should be equal to their superiors), then (the apostle), showing the advantages of bishops, added: “teachable.” This is no longer required of the subordinate; but what is required most of all is from the one to whom this position is entrusted. "Not a drunkard". He is not talking about someone who gets drunk on wine, but about a person who is impudent and arrogant. "Not a killer." We are not talking about those who hit with their hands. What does it mean: “not a killer”?” Since there are people who untimely outrage the conscience of the brethren, it seems to me that he is alluding to them here. “Not covetous, but gentle, peace-loving, not a lover of money, ruling his house well, keeping his children in obedience with all honesty.” If, therefore, a person bound by marriage cares about worldly affairs, and a bishop should not care about worldly affairs, then how does he say: “one wife to a husband”? Some believe that here he points to a bishop who would be free from marriage. And if not this (it should be understood here), then - that he, having a wife, can live as if without having her. In this case, he rightly makes a concession, as if submitting to the prevailing custom of that time. Anyone who wants has the opportunity to make proper use of it. Just as wealth hardly opens the entrance to the kingdom of heaven, and yet rich people often entered it, so is marriage. However, what are you saying, tell me? Talking about the bishop, he said that he should not be a drunkard, but hospitable, while something more important should have been said. Why, for example, did he not say that a bishop must be an angel, not be subject to any human passion, did not indicate those great requirements that Christ spoke about and which those subordinates are further obliged to fulfill - that one must crucify oneself and constantly hold one’s soul in one’s hands, about which Christ also said: “the good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep” (John 10:11), and again: “and whoever does not take up his cross and follow Me is not worthy of Me” ( Matthew 10:38), but said: not a drunkard! You can have good hopes if you need to instruct the bishop in this. Why didn't you say that he should renounce the earth? But you did not even command the bishop that you commanded the laity. What does he say to the latter? “Therefore put to death your members which are on earth” (Col. 3:5), and again: “for he who died is freed from sin” (Rom. 6:7), and again: “But those who are Christ’s have crucified the flesh” (Gal. 5:24). And Christ also says: “So anyone of you who does not renounce everything that he has cannot be My disciple” (Luke 14:33). So why didn't he say this? Because few such people could be found, while many bishops were needed to preside in distant cities. 2. Therefore, since slander against the Church could subsequently arise, then (the apostle) for this reason speaks of moderate virtue, and not of this sublime and pompous one, because it is common for many to be sober, honest, chaste. “Children,” he says, “keep in obedience with all honesty” - because one should set an example on oneself. In fact, who will believe that he who did not know how to keep his own son subdued will subdue his own son? “A good steward of his own house.” So outsiders also say that a good steward (ό οίκ ονομικ ός) can soon become good the ruler of public affairs (πολιτικ ός). And the Church is the same as a small house, and just as in the house there are children, a wife, servants, and the husband rises above everyone with his power, so in the Church there is nothing else, but the same thing: if the head of the Church has partners in his power, then the husband also has a wife as a partner. widows and virgins? And there, too, the husband has slaves and daughters in his care. However, in general it is easier to manage a house. Therefore, how can one manage church affairs who has not organized his own house well? After this, having said: “for whoever does not know how to manage his own house, how will he care for the Church of God” (1 Tim. 3:5), adds: “not from the newly converted” (“νεοφυτον”), in the literal meaning - the newly planted (1 Tim. 3:6), meaning here not one who would be young in age, but a newly catechumen: “I planted,” he says, “Apollos watered, but God gave the increase” (1 Cor. 3:6). Consequently, he said this, wanting to point out this last one (the newly catechumen). Otherwise, what prevented him from saying: not a young man? But why, you say, did he himself appoint Timothy (bishop), despite the fact that he was young, as he testifies, saying to him: “Let no one despise your youth” (1 Tim. 4:12)? Because he knew that he (Timothy) possessed many virtues, that he had achieved great perfection in life; and, knowing this, he says to him in the letter: “You have known the sacred scriptures from childhood” (2 Tim. 3:15). And that he observed the strictest fast is evident from the following words: “drink a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent illnesses” (1 Tim. 5:23), - among many other things, he wrote to him about this. Therefore, if he did not know about his great virtues, he would not have written and would not have entrusted (such a high service) to a student. So, in view of the fact that at that time many of the pagans were converted and baptized, (the apostle) says: do not suddenly elevate a newly baptized person, that is, a newly catechumen, to the height of power. If he, before becoming a student, is suddenly appointed as a teacher, he will fall into arrogance; if, without learning to obey, he takes the place of a boss, he will become arrogant. That’s why he added: “so that he would not become proud and fall into the condemnation with the devil” to which he was subjected for his pride. “He must also have a good testimony from outsiders, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil” (1 Timothy 3:7). Fair enough: he could be subjected to reproach on their part, and that is probably why he himself said: “the husband of one wife,” although in another place he says: “For I desire that all people should be as I am” (1 Cor. 7:7), that is, in abstinence. So, in order not to increase the difficulties of this matter if he demanded a more perfect life, he found a less exalted virtue. After all, it was necessary to appoint a primate in each city. Listen to what he writes to Titus: “So that you complete what is unfinished and appoint elders in all the cities, as I commanded you” (Titus 1:5). But what if he who has a good testimony and a good opinion is not really like that? Of course, (here one can foresee) great difficulties, because righteous people can hardly earn a good opinion from their enemies. However, in this case, this is not the only thing he puts on display. He did not say: he must have a testimony, but: “He must also have a good testimony,” that is, by the way, this, and not just this. But what if, without any reason, they begin to speak badly about him, out of hatred, especially because they are pagans? No, that doesn’t happen, because they will respect a person with an impeccable life. How, you say? Listen to what he says about himself: “in the word of truth, in the power of God, with the weapon of righteousness in the right hand and in the left hand, in honor and dishonor, in reproach and praise” (2 Cor. 6:7-8). It was not his life that was criticized, but his preaching; That’s why he said: when they were reprimanded, they (the apostles) were slandered that they were flatterers and deceivers - for the sake of their preaching - and they did this because they could not reproach their lives for anything. In fact, why did no one say about the apostles that they were fornicators, wicked and covetous, but flatterers, which applied only to the sermon? Is it because they led impeccable lives? Obviously, because. Therefore, we must live this way; and then no one will speak ill of us, even if it were our enemy or an infidel. He who leads a righteous life becomes worthy of respect among them: the truth stops the lips of enemies. How can he fall into the network? When you often fall into the same sins as they do. If he is like this, then the devil will soon put another snare for him, and they will soon kill him. If he must have a testimony from his enemies, then much more from his friends. And that indeed one who leads an immaculate life cannot hear bad reviews about himself, listen to what Christ says: “Let your light so shine before men, so that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven” (Matthew 5:16). What if, you say, he is slandered and accidentally exposed to an unfair accusation? This may happen too. But in this case, he should not be chosen from among others, because this inspires great fear. “It is fitting for him,” he says, “to also have a good testimony.” Let, therefore, your actions be bright. Just as no one will call the sun dark, even a blind man himself, because he is ashamed to go against the general opinion, so no one will blame the completely righteous. True, the pagans often slandered them for the sake of their beliefs, but they did not blame their righteous life; on the contrary, together with others they were surprised and amazed. 3. Let us therefore live in such a way that the name of God is not blasphemed. Let us neither chase after human glory, (nor behave in such a way) that a bad opinion will be formed about us, but we will observe the proper measure in both. “In whom,” it is said, “you shine as lights in the world” (Phil. 2:15). For this, after all, He appointed us, so that we would be like luminaries, so that we would become teachers of others, so that we would become leaven, so that we would behave like angels with people, like men with little children, like spiritual people with spiritual people, so that they too would benefit, so that we would become seeds, so that they would bear abundant fruit. There would be no need for words if our life shone to such an extent; There would be no need for teachers if we did good deeds. No one would remain a pagan if we were Christians as we should be. If we kept the commandments of Christ, if we graciously endured insults and violence, if we, being reproached, gave blessings, if, when enduring insults, we repaid with good, then no one would be so wild as not to turn to the true faith (τή εύσεβεία), if everyone behaved this way. And so that you know this (I will give an example): Paul was alone, and he attracted so many people to himself. If we were all like this, how many universes would we convert? Now Christians are more numerous than pagans. Meanwhile, when one person can teach a hundred youths about other arts, here, despite the fact that there are many teachers and that there are many more of them than students, no one joins. Students look at the virtues of their mentors and, if they see that we also desire the same, seek the same (what they do), that is, honors and power, then how can they feel respect for Christianity? They see a vicious life, earthly souls, (they see) that we are just as addicted to money as they are, and even more so, before death, just like them, we tremble, we are afraid of poverty just like them, in illnesses, like them, we grumble, we equally love power and strength and, tormented by the love of money, we try to seize a favorable opportunity. So, why will they believe? For signs? But they are no longer there. For the sake of a righteous life? But she was already dead. For love? But there is no trace of her anywhere. That is why we will give an account not only of our sins, but also of the destruction of other people. So, at least now let us rise up, let us begin to be vigilant, let us show the heavenly life on earth, we will say: “Our citizenship is in heaven” (Phil. 3:20), and on earth we will begin to perform exploits. But we, too, another will say, had great men. How can I believe this, the pagan may object? I don't see you doing the same thing they did. If you need to talk about this, then we, they will say, have great philosophers whose lives are worthy of surprise. But show me another Paul or John; and you are not able to do this. After this, how will the (pagan) not laugh at such speeches of ours? How can he not remain in his ignorance when he sees that we are wise only in words and not in deeds? After all, now everyone is ready to kill and be killed for one obol. You start endless litigation for a piece of land, and for the death of your son you throw everything into confusion. I am already ignoring everything else that should be shed tears over, namely fortune telling, divination, observation of omens, fate, images, bandages, divination, chanting, sorcery. Truly these (crimes) are great and sufficient to arouse the wrath of God, because even after He sent His Son, we dare to commit this. What can we do? Nothing more than to cry. After all, barely a minority of the world is saved. But those who are perishing rejoice, hearing that they will not suffer it alone, but together with many others. And what is there to rejoice in when they will be punished for their very joy? Do not think that it happens there as it does here - that if you have partners in misfortune, you receive consolation. Where can you see this? I'll explain it to you. In fact, tell me: if someone, being sentenced to burning, saw that his son was being burned along with him, and smelled the stench flowing from his body, would he really not die? Of course, and I’ll tell you why. If those who are not subjected to torment, looking at what is happening, become numb and lose their presence of mind, then all the more do those who endure the same suffering experience this. And don’t be surprised - listen to what one sage says: “And you became powerless, like us! and you have become like us” (Is. 14:10). It is human nature to be compassionate, and we lament the misfortune of others. Tell me: does the father, seeing that his son is suffering punishment equally with him, find consolation in this, or, on the contrary, an increase in his suffering? Or a husband seeing his wife? Or a person - a person? Are we not then more distressed? Yes, you say; but there is no such suffering there. I know this too. But there will be others, more cruel. Then there will be inconsolable crying, when everyone will look at each other, when everyone will be tormented. Tell me, do those who are exhausted by hunger receive consolation from the fact that their grief is shared with them by others? Or (what consolation is there) if the son, or the father, or the wife, or the grandchildren undergo the same punishment? Or, if we see friends in misfortune, do we really find consolation in this? No no; on the contrary, our grief intensifies even more. In addition, there are disasters that, by their very cruelty, do not bring comfort, although they are common to everyone. For example, suppose someone is lying on fire, and so is someone else. How will they comfort each other? Tell me, I ask you: if when we suffered from a severe fever, then did not every shadow of consolation disappear for us? Without a doubt, yes. When misfortune overcomes us, then the soul no longer finds a way to console itself. Or don’t you see how many those who have lost their husbands can count other wives who have suffered the same thing? And yet their grief does not diminish at all. Let us not feed ourselves with such hope, but let us seek the only consolation in bringing repentance for sins and holding on to the good path leading to heaven, so that we can receive the kingdom of heaven, 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 to the ages of ages. Amen. These conversations were delivered by the saint, probably in Antioch around 397. You might be interested in: