Беседа 1

1 Timothy 1:1–2. Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Savior, and the Lord Jesus Christ our hope, to Timothy, a true son in the faith: grace, mercy, peace from God our Father, and Christ Jesus our Lord. The greatness of the apostolic title. – Where there is faith, there is no need for research. – Against belief in rock and destiny. 1. The title of an apostle was great, high, and venerable; and we see that Paul everywhere preliminarily points out the reasons for this title of his, (wishing to show) that he does not admire honor for himself, but received it and possesses it out of necessity. When he calls himself “called” (Rom. 1:1), and when he says: “by the will of God” (1 Cor. 1:1), and again in another place: “this is my necessary duty” (1 Cor. 9:16), and when he says: “for whom I was appointed” (1 Tim. 2:7), - with all this he eliminates (every thought) about covetousness and pride. God, is subject to the strictest condemnation, and the one who removes himself from himself and rejects it is subject to another kind of accusation - of disobedience and disobedience. Therefore, Paul even now, at the beginning of his letter to Timothy, speaks about the same thing in these words: “Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the command of God.” He did not say here: Paul called, but: by command, so that Timothy, due to human weakness, would not think that (the apostle) speaks to him in the same way as to other disciples, and this is how he began (his message). Where did God give him this command? In the Acts of the Apostles we find that the Spirit (of God) said: “Set apart for Me Barnabas and Saul” (Acts 13:2). And everywhere in his epistles Paul adds to (his name) the name of the apostle, teaching the listener not to think that what he says is the word of man, because the messenger does not say anything on his own behalf; therefore, calling himself a messenger, he immediately turns the listener’s thoughts to the One who sent him. That is why in all his epistles he puts this name in front, making his word reliable through this, and (here) says this: “Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Savior and the Lord Jesus Christ.” Meanwhile, nowhere is it visible that the Father gives him a command, but Christ speaks to him everywhere. What exactly does it say? “Go; I will send you far to the Gentiles” (Acts 22:21), and again: “you must appear before Caesar” (Acts 27:24). But what the Son commands him, he also calls the command of the Father, just as he calls the command of the Spirit the command of the Son. For example, he was sent by the Spirit and chosen by the Spirit, yet he says that this was the command of God. So what? Is not the authority of the Son diminished by the fact that His apostle was sent at the command of the Father? Not at all: see how he presents this power as equally belonging to Them. Having said: according to the command of God our Savior, he added: and the Lord Jesus Christ, our hope. Look how correctly he gives them these names. So the Psalmist uses the same expression when speaking about the Father: “the hope of all the ends of the earth” (Psalm 64:6), and again blessed Paul, writing in another place, says: “For this is why we labor and endure reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men” (1 Tim. 4:10). It is necessary that the teacher be exposed to dangers, and much more than the students. “I will strike the shepherd,” it is said, “and the sheep of the flock will be scattered” (Zech. 13:7; Matt. 26:31). Therefore, in this order of things, the devil attacks the teachers with greater fury, because if they perish, then the whole flock will be scattered. When he kills sheep, he only reduces the flock; and if it strikes the shepherd, it harms the entire flock. Thus achieving more with less difficulty and destroying everything in one soul, he attacks them (teachers) most of all. That is why (the apostle) immediately at the beginning of the letter encourages him in spirit, saying: we have a Savior - God, and hope - Christ. We suffer a lot, but we have great hopes; we are exposed to dangers, intrigues are plotted against us, but we have a deliverer - not man, but God. Therefore, our deliverer will not faint, because He is God, and no matter what dangers threaten us, they will not overcome us, nor will our hope put us to shame, because our hope is Christ. We endure misfortunes, (consoling ourselves) with two (thoughts), either by the fact that we will soon get rid of disasters, or by feeding ourselves with good hopes. Therefore, no matter what we endure, he says, everything present means nothing. But why does he nowhere call himself an apostle of the Father, but only of Christ? He presents everything as common (with Them), and calls the Gospel itself God’s. “To Timothy, a true son in the faith” And this (said) for consolation. In fact, if he showed such faith that he became a child of Paul, and not just a child, but a “true” child, then he will maintain faith regarding future (promises). Faith does not tend to fall and become confused even when something happens that is inconsistent with the promise. But he was a son (of Paul), and a “true” son, but he was not at all one and the same being. So what? Was he really of a different kind? 3 But he did not come from Paul, you say, and therefore this does not indicate from whom he came. So what? Was he really of a different nature? This is not indicated either. Having said “child,” (the apostle) deliberately added the word: in faith, to show that he was his true son and came from him. He was no different from (Paul). There was no difference in faith between them. And among people, according to the laws of nature, it happens that a son is similar to his father, but not to the same extent as (when this similarity has its basis) in God, because then the similarity is more perfect. Here, although they are essentially the same thing, they nevertheless differ from each other in many other respects - color, appearance, intelligence, age, character, mental and physical properties, external and many others, or they differ from each other or are similar to each other; and there (in God) none of these differences take place. (Expression): “by command” is stronger than “called,” as can be learned from other places. Similar to the expression: “To Timothy, a true child,” the apostle used it in his letter to the Corinthians when he said: “I have begotten you in Christ Jesus” (1 Cor. 4:15), i.e. (begotten) by faith. And he added the word “true”, wanting to express by this that he has a perfect and greater resemblance to him than others; in addition (I wanted to express) my love and great affection for him. Here again in (έν) it is used with the word - faith: he says: “to a true child in faith.” Notice also what a praise this is (for Timothy), if (the apostle) calls him not only his son, but also a true son. "Grace, mercy, peace from God our Father and Christ Jesus our Lord" 2. Why does he not put mercy anywhere at the beginning of other epistles, but only here? And this is because of his great love (for Timothy): he prays for more for his son, fearing and trembling for him. He was so worried about him that - which he never did - he wrote to him about subjects related to bodily needs, when, for example, he said: “drink a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent illnesses” (1 Tim. 5:23), - because mentors need more leniency. “From God,” he says, “our Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.” Here again is consolation. In fact, if God is the Father, then He cares (for people) as for children. Listen to what Christ says: “Is there such a person among you who, when his son asks him for bread, would give him a stone” (Matthew 7:9)? “When I went to Macedonia, I asked you to remain in Ephesus” ( 1 Timothy 1:3) Listen to how meekly he speaks to him, not in the voice of a teacher, but of a servant. He did not say: I ordered, or commanded, or even convinced, but what? “I asked you” However, we should not do this with all disciples, but only with the meek and well-behaved; and with others, corrupt and not completely devoted - otherwise, like he himself, writing in another place, he says: “rebuke them with all authority” (Titus 2:15), or look at what he says here too: “admonish some”, not (says): entreat them, but - “lest they teach otherwise.” What does it mean? Wasn't Paul's letter to them (the Ephesians) enough? It was enough, but people are more likely to disrespect the messages. Therefore, either this must be explained in this way, or perhaps (we must assume) that this happened before the letter (to the Ephesians) was written. Meanwhile, he himself labored for a long time in this city; here was the church of Artemis, here he experienced those disasters. And after this spectacle had ceased, he, having called and consoled his disciples, then sailed off and again came to them. It is decent, however, to ask: didn’t he now install Timothy there (bishop)? After all, he says: “to admonish some so that they do not teach otherwise.” He does not list them by name, so that the publicity of the denunciation does not make them even more shameless. Here were some false apostles from the Jews who wanted to draw the faithful back to the law (of Moses), which is what the apostle accuses them of throughout his epistles. Meanwhile, they did this not so much out of conscience, but out of vanity, and out of a desire to have disciples, because they competed with blessed Paul and were envious of him. This is the meaning of the words: “taught otherwise.” “And they were not occupied,” he says, “with fables and endless genealogies” (1 Tim 1:4). He calls fables not the law, no, but false tradition, perverted and incorrect beliefs. Probably, these (immigrants) from the Jews generally started talking about useless subjects, listing their grandfathers and great-grandfathers in order to enjoy the glory of great experience and knowledge. “To exhort,” he says, “some, so that they do not teach otherwise and do not engage in fables and endless genealogies.” What does (the expression) endless mean? Either that they are not intended for any purpose, or that they do not bring the slightest benefit and are incomprehensible to us. You see how he denounces research. Indeed, where there is faith, there is no need for research; where there is nothing to explore, why do research there? Research ruins faith: whoever researches something has not yet found it; he who investigates cannot believe. That’s why he says: let’s not engage in research, because if we research, then this is no longer faith; faith has a calming effect on the mind. As Christ said: “Seek and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you” (Matthew 7:7), and: “Search the Scriptures, for through them you think you have eternal life” (John 5:39)? In the first place - “seek” means a request, a strong desire; and in the other - “search the scriptures” not only does not impose any duty of research, but even eliminates it, because He said: “search the Scriptures,” that is, study and find out their true meaning, not in order to forever engage in research, but to stop all research. And he said well: “Admonish some, so that they do not teach otherwise and are not busy with fables and endless genealogies, which produce more controversy than God’s edification of faith” (1 Tim 1:3-4). He said well: “the edification of God,” because God wanted to give us many things, but our minds do not comprehend the greatness of His economy. So, what constitutes the greatest medicine for our souls must be accomplished through faith. Our research is therefore inconsistent with the economy of God. And what is achieved with the help of faith? The fact that we accept the blessings of God, become better, do not doubt anything, are not perplexed about anything and completely calm down. Meanwhile, what faith accomplishes and arranges destroys our inquisitiveness, raising many questions and overthrowing faith. “They didn’t bother with fables,” he says, “and endless genealogies.” And what harm, you say, do these genealogies bring? Christ said that through faith we must be saved; and they did research and said it was impossible. Since the preaching (teaching) was carried out in the present tense, and the fulfillment of what was preached belonged to the future, then faith was needed; but they, being busy strictly observing the ritual law, opposed faith. I also think that when He says: “by fables and genealogies”, He also hints here at the Hellenes, because they also listed their gods. 3. So, let's not do research. After all, this is why we are called faithful, so that we undoubtedly believe what is told to us, so that we do not doubt anything. If what was told to us came from people, then we should study it; but since it comes from God, you only need to revere it and believe. If we do not believe this, then we will not be convinced that God exists. Indeed, how can you know that God exists when you examine His (words)? The first sign that you know God is that you believe what he says, without requiring any explanation or proof. Even the Hellenes knew about this: they believed, they say, in the gods, although these latter spoke without giving any evidence. Why? Because they were the descendants of the gods. Do you see that the Greeks also knew about this? But why am I talking about gods? They did exactly the same thing with a man, a sorcerer and a sorcerer, namely with Pythagoras; (they had an expression): he said (αύτός έφη). And at the top of their churches there was a picture of silence, which, holding back the lips with a finger and pressing their lips, indicated to all those passing that they should be silent. Are their beliefs really so worthy of respect, and ours not so much, or even worthy of being laughed at? But wouldn't (such a thought) be a sign of extreme madness? It would even be fair to subject the teaching of the Hellenes to research, because it contains contradictions, perplexities, and controversial issues; and our teaching has nothing to do with this. Their teaching was invented by human wisdom, but ours was revealed to us by the grace of the Holy Spirit; the first is madness and extravagance, and the last is, in the proper sense, the teaching of wisdom. There is neither student nor teacher, but everyone is equally engaged in research; here, whether it is a teacher or a student, everyone must learn from the one from whom he needs to learn, be convinced, and not doubt, believe, and not speculate. The ancients were famous for their faith, and without it everything became corrupt. But why am I talking about celestial things? If we pay attention to what is on earth, we will find that here everything is based on faith, because neither trade, nor crafts, nor anything else of this kind can exist without it. If here, where everything is full of lies and deceit, it is necessary, then even more so in relation to heavenly objects. Therefore, let us hold on to it, let us try to acquire it; through this we will free our soul from all disastrous opinions, such as, for example, the doctrine of chance and fate. If you believe that there is resurrection and judgment, then you will be able to protect your soul from all these (delusions). Believe that God is just, and you will not believe in fate, which is not guided by justice; believe that there is a God who takes care of everything, and you will not believe in fate, which supposedly dominates everything; Believe that there is punishment and a kingdom, and you will not believe in fate, which takes from us everything that belongs to us and subjects us to necessity and violence. You don’t need to sow, or plant, or fight, or do anything at all: willy-nilly or unwillingly, what is determined for you by fate will be fulfilled. What, finally, is our need for prayer? Why do you want to be a Christian if there is a destiny? After all, you will not be subject to charges. Where does art come from? Is it really also from fate? Yes, they say; and such and such a person is destined by fate to become wise by working. However, show me a person who would achieve knowledge without difficulty. But you can't specify. Consequently, knowledge does not depend on fate, but on work. But why, they say, is such and such a person, being criminal and evil, rich, although he did not receive an inheritance from his father, while another, working endlessly, remains poor? However, such questions are dealt with by those who base everything only on wealth and poverty, and not on vice and virtue. But here you don’t say that, but say: has anyone become evil, despite the fact that he zealously tried (to be good), or good - living in complete carelessness? If fate has such power, then let it show this power over what is most important - over virtue and vice, and not over wealth and poverty. Again, why is it said that one suffers from illness and another enjoys health, one is in glory and the other in contempt? Why does one person have everything going according to his wishes, while the other has countless obstacles everywhere? Give up your belief in fate and you will find out why. Firmly believe that there is a Provider God, and you will understand this clearly. But I can’t, you say, because the disorder in the state of affairs (on earth) does not make it possible to assume the existence of Providence. If all this depends on God, then how can I believe that God, being good, gives wealth to the libertine, the criminal and the covetous, but not to a good man? How can I believe? You need to believe, taking into account what happens in reality. Fine; so it depends on fate. Is she guided by justice or not? You will say: she is unfair. Who created it? Is it really God? No, you will say, it did not come from anyone. But how does she, having not descended from anyone, do all this? After all, this contradicts one another. Therefore, in general this is not God’s work. Let us therefore study the question: who created the sky? You say - fate. Who is the land, who is the sea, who is the seasons? Consequently, if she established such a beautiful order, such harmony in soulless things, then how did she allow such disorder in us, for whom all this exists? It would be like if someone took care of a house, wanting to make it amazingly good, but did not have the slightest concern for his household. Who maintains the continuity of the seasons? Who determined such harmonious laws of nature? Who gave order to the flow of day and night? This is beyond that fate. No, they say it happened naturally. But how could such an order appear by itself? Where, you say, do these rich people, enjoying health and enjoying fame, (who received wealth) come from - some through greed, others through inheritance, others through violence. Why does God allow the evil to prosper? Because reward according to deserts is not here, but in the next century. Therefore, show me something similar to this there. First, give it to me while I’m still here, you say; and there I won’t look for anything. But you don’t get it because you are looking. If you, having not yet experienced pleasures, crave them so much that you prefer them to future benefits, then all the more (you would seek these latter) if you had tasted the purest pleasures. That is why (God) shows you that (earthly goods) are insignificant, that they constitute something indifferent; if they were not something indifferent, then He would not have given them to them either. Tell me: isn't it all the same to be black, or tall, or short? So is wealth. Tell me: isn’t everyone equally given what we need, namely the capacity for virtue, the sharing of spiritual gifts? If you knew what God’s blessings are, then, using them equally with others, you would not be upset by the unequal distribution of earthly goods and, knowing the equal division of the former, you would not yearn for the abundance of the latter. Just as a servant, who, receiving food, clothing and shelter from his master and using everything else on an equal basis with others, just because he had longer hair on his head and larger nails, would begin to think that he has more than others, in the same way, he (who is endowed with earthly goods) would in vain begin to think a lot about what he uses only for the time being. This is why (God) deprives us (of earthly blessings) in order to cool our passion for them and turn all our desires away from them and direct them to heavenly blessings. And we don’t understand this either. Just as a father, when his child has some kind of toy, which he places above the necessary items, takes the toy away from the child in order to force him, even involuntarily, to turn to the most important subject, so God uses all measures to bring us to heaven. But you will say: why does He allow the wicked to get rich? Because He doesn't care much about them. Why good? He does not do this, but only allows it. However, now I speak about this only lightly, having in mind such people who do not know the Scriptures. If you wanted to believe and heed the word of God, then I would not need to say what I said now, because from the word of God we would know everything. But so that you are completely convinced that neither wealth, nor health, nor fame mean anything, I will point out to you those numerous people who could get rich, but do not acquire anything, and could enjoy health, but exhaust their body, and could enjoy fame, but use all measures to be despised. Meanwhile, he who is good never strives to become evil. Therefore, let us stop looking for local blessings and let us strive for heavenly ones. In this way we can and will receive them and will be able to enjoy the eternal food, 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. The text reads άλογος – animal. But more likely - άλλογενής - or ά λλον γένους - of a different kind. You might be interested in: