Беседа 12

1 Timothy 4:1–5. The Spirit clearly says that in the last times some will depart from the faith, listening to seducing spirits and teachings of demons, through the hypocrisy of liars, seared in their consciences, forbidding marriage and eating what God created to be eaten with thanksgiving by the faithful and those who know the truth. For every creation of God is good, and nothing is reprehensible if it is received with thanksgiving, because it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer. Heretics, constantly erring, fall into destruction. - Manichaeans, Encratites, Marcionites. – When something sacrificed to idols is unclean. - Against self-interested people. 1. Just as those who hold on to the faith are established, as if on some safe anchor, so on the contrary, those who have fallen away from the faith cannot stop at anything, but, constantly wandering here and there, finally fall into the abyss of destruction. And this (the apostle) has already shown, saying that some have already suffered shipwreck in faith. And now he says the same thing: “The Spirit clearly says that in the last times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and teachings of demons.” He says this about the Manichaeans, the Encratites, the Marcionites and all the assemblies - that in the last times some will apostatize from the faith. Do you see that the cause of all subsequent evils is apostasy from the faith? But what does “clear” mean? Obviously, clearly, unquestioningly, so that there is no room for doubt at all. Do not be surprised, he says, if those who have apostatized from the faith now adhere to Jewish errors. There will be a time when even those who have become partakers of the faith will do (deeds) more worthy of condemnation, giving disastrous advice not only regarding food, but also regarding marriages and all similar (subjects). He is not talking about the Jews - what relation can the expressions: “in the last times” and: “some will depart from the faith” have to do with them? - but about the Manichaeans and their main leaders. He called them flattering spirits, and rightly so, because, prompted by these latter, they preached (such a teaching). What does it mean: “through the hypocrisy of false speakers”? What they falsely preach is not out of ignorance, and not because they do not know, on the contrary, they know the truth, but pretend to be liars, “burnt in their conscience,” that is, being of a vicious life. Why is it only these heretics that he speaks of? Christ also predicted about others when he said: “For temptations must come” (Matthew 18:7). Another time He foretold them in the parable of the sowing of wheat and the growing of tares. But marvel at Paul’s prophecy. Before the time at which this was to happen, He indicated the very time. Do not be surprised, therefore, if now, when the beginning of faith is laid, some attempt to introduce such disastrous beliefs, because some will apostatize from the faith long after it has been established. “Forbidden,” he says, “to marry and eat.” Why didn’t he talk about other heresies? He points to them too when he says: “to seducing spirits and teachings of demons.” He did not want to prematurely sow these (misconceptions) in the souls of people, but points to what has already begun, namely (misconceptions) regarding food. “What God has created,” he says, “so that the faithful and those who know the truth may eat with thanksgiving.” Why didn’t he say: and to the infidels? How then (he could say): and the infidels, when they, obeying their laws, abstain from this? So what? Is voluptuousness not forbidden? And very much. Why is this so, if something was created to serve as food? Because bread was created, but immoderation is prohibited; and wine is created, while immoderation is prohibited. In the present case, he commands to refuse pleasure not because it is unclean, but because if it is immoderate, it weakens the soul. “For every creation of God is good,” he says, “and nothing is reprehensible if it is received with thanksgiving.” If the creation is of God, then it is good: “all that He made, and behold, it was very good” (Gen. 1:31). By the expression: “God’s creation,” he generally means everything that can be eaten, and thus already overthrows the error of those who introduce uncreated matter and say that everything else came from it. So, if (everything) is good, then what do the words mean: “sanctified by word and prayer”? After all, it is obvious that, being unclean, he is sanctified. This is not how these words should be understood. Here he speaks against those who considered certain types of food to be something bad. Therefore, he expresses two main thoughts: firstly, that there is not a single creature that is bad; and, secondly, that even if something were bad, then you have a cure for it: fall with the sign (of the cross), give thanks, give glory to God, and all uncleanness will disappear. Can it really be that something sacrificed to idols, you say, can be cleansed in this way? Yes, when you do not know that it is sacrificed to idols; and if you know and, despite this, you taste, then you will become unclean, not because it was sacrificed to idols, but because, having received the commandment not to associate with demons, through this you entered into communion with them. Consequently, it is not unclean by nature, but becomes so as a result of your will and disobedience. So what? Is it really unclean to eat pork? Not at all when you eat it with thanksgiving, with the sign of the cross; in the same way, everything else is not unclean. The will that does not thank God is unclean. “By teaching these things to your brethren, you will be a good servant of Jesus Christ, nourished by the words of faith and the good teaching which you have followed” (1 Timothy 4:6). "This": what exactly? What I spoke about (before) is that it is a great mystery, that moving away from food is a demonic work, that food is purified by the word of God and prayer. “But turn away from worthless and old woman’s fables, and train yourself in godliness” (1 Tim. 4:7). “Inspiring this,” he says. Do you see that here he does not reveal any power, but only condescension? “Inspiring,” he says. He did not say: commanding, he did not say: commanding, but: “suggesting,” that is, as if advising, suggest it and start talking about faith. “Nourished,” he says, indicating constant attention to such objects. 2. Just as we eat this food every day, so, he says, let us always accept the word about faith and always feed on it. What does “nourished” mean? Chewing, constantly repeating the same thing, always learning the same thing: after all, it is not ordinary food that is offered. “Avoid worthless and woman’s fables.” What (fables) is he talking about here? About Jewish calculations and observations? And he calls them fables? Yes, either because they are fictitious, or because they are untimely. What is opportune is useful; What is untimely is not only not useful, but also harmful. In fact, imagine: if a man in his twentieth year of life clung to the breasts of his nurse, then to what extent would he be ridiculous because of the untimeliness (of the act)? Do you see how he calls them both worthless and womanish? (And he calls it that) partly because they are already outdated, partly because they constitute an obstacle to faith. Indeed, to subjugate a soul that has become above all this to fear is characteristic of unclean rules. “Exercise yourself in piety,” that is, in pure faith and righteous life, because this is what piety consists of. Therefore we need to practice it. “For bodily exercise,” he says, “is of little benefit” (1 Tim. 4:8). Some believe that this is said about fasting. But we cannot agree with this: (fasting) is not a physical, but a spiritual exercise. If it were a bodily exercise, it would nourish the body. If it exhausts, refines and dries up the body, then it does not constitute a bodily exercise. Consequently, he is not talking about bodily exercise. So we need spiritual exercise. The first kind of exercise does not bring benefits and only brings a few benefits to the body, but exercise in piety brings fruit in the future life: it provides consolation both here and there. The word is true. That is, it is true that as here, so there. Look that he introduces this (expression) everywhere: he does not need any special preparation, but expresses himself directly, because he addresses his speech to Timothy. Therefore, here too we are in good hope. Indeed, the one who does not know any crime behind him and does countless good deeds rejoices in real life. On the contrary, a vicious person, not only there, but also here, suffers punishment, constantly living in fear, not daring to look at anyone with boldness, trembling, turning pale, languishing. Isn’t this what greed seekers are like, thieves who are not sure of what they own? Do not adulterers and murderers lead the most painful lives, looking with distrust at the very sun? Is this really life? No, it's more of a hard death. “For this,” he says, “we both labor and endure reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of the faithful” (1 Tim. 4:10). As it were, he says: why do we exhaust ourselves if we do not expect future benefits? Why is everyone blaspheming us? Isn’t this the kind of calamity he says we have endured? Isn’t it insults, slander and other countless misfortunes? Have we really endured all this in vain? If we did not trust in the living God, then why would we be subjected to this? If He saves the unbelievers here, much more will He save the faithful there. What salvation is he talking about? About the heavenly. “Who,” he says, “is the Savior of all people, and especially of the faithful.” That is, he reveals great concern for the faithful. Until now he is talking about earthly things. But how, you ask, is He the Savior of the faithful? If He were not the Savior, then nothing would have prevented those against whom everyone is fighting from perishing long ago. Here (the apostle) excites Timothy to endure danger so that he does not fall in spirit, having such a strong helper in God, he did not need the assistance of others, but willingly endured everything with courage. So, those who are hungry for worldly blessings, hoping to gain profit, decide on many things. “In the last times,” he says, “some will depart from the faith, listening to seducing spirits and the teachings of demons, through the hypocrisy of liars, who are burned in their conscience, forbidding them to enter into.” marriage.” So, what, you ask? Don’t we forbid getting married? We do not forbid those who wish to do so, but we persuade those who do not want to marry to keep their virginity. It is another thing to forbid, and another thing to leave everyone master of his own will. He who forbids does so without any restriction; and the one who advises maintaining virginity as something more sublime does not forbid marriage, but persuades people to remain in virginity. “Those who forbid marriage and the eating of what God created to be eaten with thanksgiving by those who are faithful and know the truth.” Well said: “those who know the truth.” Consequently, the previous (prohibitions) had a different meaning, since nothing is unclean by nature, but becomes so due to the conviction of the recipient. And in fact, why were many dishes forbidden to them? To eradicate excessive satiety in them. But if he had said: do not eat to avoid being full, they would not have accepted it; Meanwhile, now he turns this into a law of necessity for them, so that, due to great fear, they would rather abstain. Everyone knows that fish is more unclean than pork, and despite this, they were not prohibited from eating it. And how disastrous satiety was for them, listen to what Moses says: “And Israel grew fat and became stubborn; became fat, plump and fat; and he forsook God” (Deut. 32:15). There is, however, another reason. Namely, so that they, being brought into a shy position, would finally turn to oxen and begin to slaughter sheep, he, not without reason, for the sake of Apis and the calf, forbade the use of everything else: this latter is unclean, unpleasant, disgusting and nasty. 3. Preach this, learn this: the expression “nourished by the words of faith” has precisely this meaning. Not only instruct others, he says, but also practice this yourself: “Nourished,” he says, “with the words of faith and the good teaching that you followed.” “But turn away from worthless and old women’s fables.” Why didn’t he say: abstain from such, but: “turn away”? Through this he shows that you must finally avoid them. It is his words that have this meaning: don’t even accept them. It is truly impossible for one who competes with the corrupt to ever have success, except in the case where we foresee some harm because we, as if out of (consciousness of) our weakness, refuse to converse with them, “Exercise yourself in piety,” that is, to a pure life, the best behavior, even not in physical exercise. the time of competition, like a warrior, he does everything, abstains from everything, enters into battle, endures hard work, train yourself to piety, he says. “For bodily exercise is of little benefit, but godliness is of benefit for everything, having the promise of the present and future life.” And why, you ask, does he mention bodily exercise here? In order to show through comparison the superiority of spiritual exploits, because the first (bodily exercise), being combined with great labor, does not bring any benefit or anything worth talking about, and the last (spiritual exploits) bring constant and abundant (benefit): in the same way he commands (women): “they adorn themselves not with braided hair, not with gold, not with pearls, not with costly clothing, but with good deeds, as befits wives who devote themselves to piety.” ( 1 Timothy 2:9, 10 ). “This word is true and worthy of all acceptance. For this is why we work and endure reproaches.” Paul endured insults, and you are indignant, accepting insults? Paul worked, but do you want to be satisfied? But even he, if he had been satiated, would not have received such great benefits. If people never acquire worldly acquisitions - both temporary and perishable - without labor and sweat, then even more so spiritual ones. Without a doubt, you will say; but often many received them by inheritance. But if they receive them in this way, then saving and preserving them is not without work; on the contrary, (and at the same time) you need to work and exhaust yourself no less than those who acquire them through labor. Meanwhile, I’m not even talking about the fact that many, after labors and various failures, were deceived in their expectations at the very entrance to the pier, because the wind flew in from somewhere and caused a wreck when the fulfillment of the hope (of receiving) benefits was close. But with us nothing like this happens - God himself makes promises and “hope does not disappoint” (Rom. 5:5). Don’t you yourself, who are engaged in everyday affairs, know how many, after countless labors, have not enjoyed their fruits, either because death often snatched them away prematurely, or due to a change in circumstances, or because of an illness that happened to them, or at the instigation of slanderers, or for some other reason (many things happen in human affairs) that left them empty-handed? How, one might ask? Don't you see those who were successful and acquired great benefits without much effort? What benefits? Money, houses, so many acres of land, a crowd of slaves and heaps of silver and gold? Do you call this benefits? And you are not ashamed, you are not ashamed - a person who has been given the commandment to philosophize about heaven, and yet you are hungry for earthly acquisitions and call things good about which you shouldn’t even say a single word? If these are blessings, then of course those who acquired them should be called good. And how is it that someone who has something good is not good? So tell me what? If those who have acquired them are greedy for their acquisitions and steal them, then can we really call them good? If wealth is a good and meanwhile it accumulates as a result of greed, then the more it increases, the more it will serve as the reason for the fact that the owner of it will be considered good. Is it really possible that after this the self-seeking man is good? If wealth is good and increases due to greed, then the one who acquires more in this way will be better. Do you notice the contradiction? But if he is not selfish, you say? How can this happen? This passion is destructive, and it is impossible for someone who does not do injustice to get rich. Christ points to this when he says: “Make friends for yourselves with unrighteous wealth” (Luke 16:9). But what, you say, if someone received an inheritance from their father? He received what he had collected through untruth. After all, without a doubt, his ancestor was rich not from Adam, but, of course, many others were born before him, and among many there could be one who illegally stole and took advantage of what belonged to others. So what? Did Abraham, you say, have unjustly acquired wealth? And what (to say) about Job, who was blameless, righteous, true, God-fearing, who shunned every evil thing? Their wealth consisted not in gold, not in silver, not in buildings, but in cattle; in other words, this wealth was from God. And that his wealth consisted of livestock is clear from the fact that the writer of the book, listing what happened to that blessed one, and saying that his camels, mares, and donkeys died, did not say that (the enemies) came and robbed him of his golden treasures. In addition, Abraham was also rich, but with slaves. So what? Didn't he buy them? No; that is why Scripture notes that he had three hundred and eighteen household members. Moreover, he owned both sheep and oxen. Where did he get the gold sent to Rebekah? Received gifts from Egypt - not as a result of violence or any injustice. 4. Therefore, tell me, where did you acquire wealth from? Who did you get it from? Where did you get the other one? From grandfather, you say, from father. But can you, going back through a long series of generations, prove in this way that this property was legally acquired? There's no way you can do this. On the contrary, its beginning and root must certainly be hidden in some kind of injustice. Why is this so? Because at first God did not make one rich and another poor, and, having brought (people), did not show one many golden treasures, and deprived another of this acquisition, but provided everyone with the same land for cultivation. How then, when it is common property, do you own so many and so many plots, while your neighbor does not have a single piece of land? You will say: my father gave it to me. Who did he get it from? Also from our ancestors. But, constantly rising higher, you certainly need to find the beginning. Jacob became rich, but receiving a reward for his labors. However, I will not engage in detailed research into this. Let us assume that wealth is legal, acquired without the slightest admixture of robbery. It is not your fault that your father stole; True, you own what was acquired through robbery, but you yourself did not rob. Let us even agree, however, that he did not rob, but owned gold mined from somewhere on the ground. What of this? Is wealth really a good thing? Not at all. But it’s not evil, you say. If it is not the fruit of covetousness, then it is not evil, even if it is distributed to those in need; if they do not distribute it, it becomes evil and deceit. But you will say: as long as a person has not done evil, he is not evil, even if he has not done good. Wonderful. But is it not evil that one person owns what belongs to the Lord, and that one person enjoys the common property? Isn't it God's earth and its fulfillment? Therefore, if our goods belong to the common Master, then they equally constitute the property of our fellow slaves: what belongs to the Master belongs to everyone in general. Don't we see such a device in large houses? Namely, everyone is given a certain amount of bread equally, because it comes from the householder’s granaries: the master’s house is open to everyone. And everything royal belongs to everyone: cities, squares, streets belong to everyone; we all use them equally. Look at the construction of God. He created some objects common to everyone, in order, although in this way, to shame the human race, such as: air, sun, water, earth, sky, sea, light, stars - he divided equally among everyone, as if between brothers. For everyone He created the same eyes, the same body, the same soul; He gave everyone the same structure, he (produced) everyone from the earth, everyone from one husband, he placed everyone in the same house. But all this did not contribute at all to our conversion. And He made other things common, such as baths, cities, squares, streets. And note that regarding what belongs to everyone, there is not the slightest strife, but everything is done peacefully. If someone attempts to take something away and turn it into his own property, then a quarrel occurs, as if due to the fact that nature itself is indignant at the fact that at a time when God gathers us from everywhere, we try with special zeal to separate ourselves from each other, to separate ourselves from each other, forming private ownership, and to say these cold words: “this is yours, and this is mine.” Then disputes arise, then grief arises. And where there is nothing of the kind, neither disputes nor strife arise. Consequently, we are destined for a common rather than a separate possession (of things), and it is more in accordance with nature itself. Why does no one ever start litigation over the ownership of space? Is it because it belongs to everyone? Meanwhile, we see that everyone is starting litigation about houses and estates. And despite the fact that the necessary things are in the common possession of everyone, we do not observe communication in the possession of even the most insignificant objects. Meanwhile, this is why God gave us the first for common use, so that we could learn from this that the latter should also be common to us with everyone. But even in this way we are not brought to our senses. However (I return to what I already spoke about before: how can one who owns wealth be good? Of course, he is not good, but he becomes good when he distributes (his wealth) to others. When he does not have it, then he is good; and when he gives it to others, then it is also good; and as long as he keeps it to himself, he is not good. So, is it good that with the acquisition of which people become evil, and with the deprivation of which people become good? Therefore, goodness does not consist in having money: on the contrary, not having money is a sign of a good person. Therefore, goodness does not consist in wealth. If, having the opportunity to receive it, you do not take it, then again you will become good. Therefore, if, having wealth, we distribute it to others, or do not take what is offered to us, we are good; on the contrary, if we take or acquire it, we become unkind, then how can wealth be recognized as good? So, don't call wealth a blessing. You do not have wealth because you consider it a blessing, because you are too surprised by it. Purify your thoughts, acquire a sound judgment about things, and then you will be good. Find out what constitutes true blessings. What kind of benefit is this? Virtue, philanthropy. This is a blessing, not wealth. If, following this rule, you are merciful, then the more merciful you are, the better you will be both in yourself and in the opinion of others. Meanwhile, being rich, you will not gain this. Therefore, let us become good to such an extent that we are actually good and are worthy to receive future benefits in Christ Jesus, 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: