Беседа 13

Hebrews 7:11–14. So, if perfection were achieved through the Levitical priesthood - for the law of the people is associated with it - then what further need would there be for another priest to rise up in the order of Melchizedek, and not be called after the order of Aaron? Because with the change of the priesthood there must be a change of the law. For He of whom this is spoken belonged to another tribe, from which no one approached the altar. For it is known that our Lord arose from the tribe of Judah, about which Moses said nothing regarding the priesthood. 1. “So, if,” he says, “perfection was achieved through the Levitical priesthood.” Having spoken of Melchizedek, shown how much he was superior to Abraham, and explained the great difference between them, he now begins to show the difference between the covenants themselves, how one of them is imperfect and the other perfect. However, even now he does not begin the actual matter, but first discusses the priesthood and the covenant, because for the infidels it was more convincing to offer evidence from objects already accepted and previously known. He proved that Melchizedek was much higher than Levi and Abraham, appearing in relation to them as a priest. He now proves this from the other side. Which one exactly? From the side of the present and Jewish priesthood. And look at his great wisdom: by what, apparently, Christ was separated from the priesthood, since he was not “in the order of Aaron,” this very thing is cited as proof of His priesthood, and excludes others. He does this by presenting himself as doubting why (Christ) is called a priest not according to the order of Aaron, and then resolves the bewilderment. And I, he says, am perplexed why He was not according to the order of Aaron. He expresses this with the words: “if perfection were achieved through the Levitical priesthood.” And the words: “what other need would there be” reinforce the thought. If Christ according to the flesh had been a priest according to the order of Melchizedek first, and then the law and (priesthood) according to the order of Aaron had already appeared, then another could rightly say that the latter is more perfect and, being introduced later, abolishes the former; but if Christ (appears) later and takes on a different form of priesthood, then it is obvious that this is due to the imperfection of everything that was before. Suppose, he says, that everything that was formerly accomplished was fulfilled and there was nothing imperfect in the (former) priesthood: why was it still necessary to “rise up another priest according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron”? Why (God), leaving Aaron, introduces another priesthood - Melchizedek? “If perfection were achieved through the Levitical priesthood,” that is, if through the Levitical priesthood perfection in deeds, in teaching, in life was achieved. Notice how gradually he moves forward. Having said that Christ is “according to the order of Melchizedek,” he proved that the priesthood according to the order of Melchizedek is higher, because he himself (Melchizedek) is higher; then he proves the same in relation to time, i.e., that (Christ) is after Aaron, therefore higher. And what do the following words mean: “for the law of the people is connected with it”? What does it mean: “with him”? They are guided by it, they do everything through it, and it cannot be said that it was given for others. “The law of the people is associated with it,” that is, it is used and was used, and it cannot be said that it, being perfect itself, did not guide the people. “The law of the people is associated with it,” that is, they were guided by it. What need is there for another priesthood, if this were perfect? “Because with the change of the priesthood there must be a change and law": if there needs to be another priest, or better, another priesthood, then there needs to be another law. This is (said) against those who say: what was the need for a new covenant? He could have brought evidence from the prophecy: “You are the sons of the prophets and the covenant that God commanded to your fathers” (Acts 3:25); the order of Melchizedek,” he rejected the order of Aaron, since he would not have said: “according to the order of Melchizedek,” if it were better. And when another priesthood is introduced, then there must be another covenant, because it is impossible for a priest to be without a covenant, laws and regulations, or for someone who has accepted another priesthood to be guided by the previous covenant. Here the objection was presented: how can one be a priest without being a Levite? But (the apostle), having prepared an answer to this in the above, now no longer offers permission, but speaks about it in passing: I said, he says, that the priesthood has been changed, therefore the covenant must also be changed; changed not only in the way of actions and decisions, but also in the tribe, since it should have been (changed) and in the tribe. How? “By a change,” he says, “the priesthood,” that is, it passed from tribe to tribe, from the priestly to the royal, so that both the royal and the priestly were one. And notice the mystery: first there was a royal tribe, and then a priestly one, just like in Christ, who was always a king, and became a priest when he took on flesh, when he made a sacrifice. Do you see the change? What was the subject of an objection, he presents as a necessary consequence of events: “For He,” he says, “about whom this is said, belonged to another tribe, from which no one came to the altar. For it is known that our Lord arose from the tribe of Judah, about which Moses said nothing regarding the priesthood." The meaning of his words is as follows: and I know and say that this tribe did not have a priesthood, and none of it was a priest - this is exactly what the words mean: “from which no one approached the altar” - but a change took place in everything. Thus, it was necessary to change the law and the Old Testament, because the tribe itself had been changed. Do you see how he shows yet another difference (of the covenants) from the difference of the tribes? And not only by this he proves their difference, but also from the point of view of the person (the high priest), and the covenant, and the manner of action, and the type itself. “Who is such not according to the law of carnal commandment, but according to the power of unceasing life” (Heb. 7:16). 2. “Who is like this,” he says, “not according to the law of the carnal commandment,” because that law had much of the flesh. And he well called it a carnal commandment: everything that he defined was carnal. So, the instructions: circumcise the flesh, anoint the flesh, wash the flesh, cleanse the flesh, shave the flesh, bind the flesh, nourish the flesh, rest with the flesh - all this, tell me, isn’t it carnal (commandments)? If you want to know what the benefits he promised are, listen: long life, he says, for the flesh, milk and honey for the flesh, peace for the flesh, pleasure for the flesh. By such and such a law Aaron received the priesthood; but Melchizedek is not so. “And this is even more clearly seen from the fact that in the likeness of Melchizedek another priest is raised” (Heb. 7:15). What is “clearer to see”? The dissimilarity of both priesthoods, the difference, the advantage of the one who was “not according to the law of the carnal commandment.” Who? Melchizedek? No, Christ. “Which is not according to the law of carnal commandment, but according to the power of unceasing life. For it is testified: You are a priest forever, according to the order of Melchizedek” (Heb. 7:16–17), i.e. not temporary, not limited by a limit, “but according to the power of unceasing life.” By this (the apostle) expresses that (Christ) became a priest by his own power and by the Father, by the power of endless life. Although this expression does not correspond to the expression: “not according to the law of the carnal commandment,” because it should be said: but according to the spiritual commandment; but by the name carnal he means temporary, just as he says in another place: “which with food and drink, and various washings and rites pertaining to the flesh, were established only until the time of correction” (Heb. 9:10). “According to the power of life,” i.e. because He lives by His own power. The Apostle said that “there must be a change of the law,” and showed how; and then gives the reason: the human mind is most satisfied when it knows the reason, and through this it rises in faith, because we then believe more when we know both the reason and the basis for which something happens. “The abolition of a former commandment,” he says, “occurs because of its weakness and uselessness” (Heb. 7:18). Here heretics rise up against us, saying: Paul also called the commandment evil. But listen carefully; he did not say: because she is not kind, or not good, but “because of her weakness and uselessness.” And in another place he proves her weakness when he says: “weak through the flesh, he was powerless” (Rom. 8:3). Therefore, it is not the commandment that is weak, but we. “For the law made nothing perfect” (Heb. 7:19). What does it mean: “didn’t bring anything to perfection”? He didn’t bring anyone to perfection, he says, because they didn’t listen to him. Even if they obeyed him, even then he would not make anyone perfect and virtuous. However, (the apostle) does not say this here, but (says) that he had no power - and rightly so, because his writings commanded: do this and do not do that, they only offered (commands), but did not convey power. This is not our hope. What does “cancellation” mean? Cancellation, rejection. And what exactly, he explains, continuing: “before the former commandment”: this is what he calls the law, because it has already been abolished for its weakness; it existed before, but passed away and became obsolete due to its weakness. “Abolition” is the cancellation of something that was in force. From this it is clear that he had power, but was abandoned because he was completely unsuccessful. So the law was completely useless? No, he was useful, and very useful, but he could not make people perfect. That is why (the apostle) says: “the law brought nothing to perfection”: everything in it was a type, everything was a shadow, and circumcision, and sacrifices, and the Sabbath, everything could not penetrate the soul, and therefore it passed away and was abolished. “But a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God. And how this was not without an oath” (Heb. 7:19, 20). Do you see how necessary an oath was here? That is why (the apostle) reasoned a lot about the fact that God swore, and he swore for greater confirmation. "A Better Hope is Introduced". What does it mean? And the law, he says, had hope, but not like this; Those who previously pleased (God) hoped to inherit the earth and not suffer any disaster, but we, if we please God, hope to inherit not the earth, but heaven; or even, what is much more important, we hope to become close to God, to draw closer to the very throne of the Father, to serve Him together with the angels. And see how little by little he reveals these (truths); before, he said: “And he enters into the innermost part of the veil” (Heb. 6:19); and here: “the best hope is introduced, through which we draw closer to God. And how this was not without an oath.” What does it mean: “And how this was not without an oath”? Those. not without an oath. Here's another difference. This is promised, he says, but it’s not easy. “For these were priests without an oath, but this one was with an oath, because it was said about Him: The Lord has sworn, and will not repent: You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek, then Jesus became the surety of a better covenant. Moreover, there were many of those priests, because death did not allow one to be alone; and this one, because He abides forever, has an imperishable priesthood” (Heb. 7:21–24). (The Apostle) points out two advantages (of the New Testament priesthood): that it has no end, like that under the law, and that it was established with an oath. He proves all this by the face of Christ, who accepted (this priesthood): “according to the power,” he says, “of unceasing life,” also by an oath, because God “swore,” and by deed itself, because that law, he says, was abolished, because it was weak, but this one stands, because it has power. He does the same on the part of the priest. How? Proving that He is one; and He would not be alone if He were not immortal; just as there were many former priests because they were mortal, so He is one because He is immortal. “Jesus became the surety of a better covenant”: God swore to Him that He would always be a priest; and God would not have done this if He had not lived. “Wherefore He is able to always save those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them” (Heb. 7:25). 3. Do you see that (the apostle) says this (about Christ) according to the flesh? Having shown that He is a priest, He then says in good time that He is interceding. And in another place, when Paul says: “The Spirit himself intercedes for us” (Rom. 8:26; 1 Tim. 2:5), he means that He intercedes as a high priest. Indeed, the One who “raises the dead whom He wills and lives as the Father does,” how can he intercede when there is a need to save? How can He intercede, in whose power the whole court is (John 3:19)? How can He intercede who sends angels to cast some into the cave and save others (Matthew 8:8)? “Therefore,” he says, “he can always save” (Heb. 7:25). He saves because He does not die, because He is “always alive” and has no successor; and if he does not have a successor, then he can intercede for everyone. The local high priests, no matter how glorious they were, were only for the time while there were, for example, Samuel and all the like, and after that they were no longer there, because they died; But He is not like that, but He saves “always.” What does “always” mean? (The Apostle) instills some great mystery: not only here, he says, but also there He saves “those who come to God through Him.” How does it save? "Always Lives to Intercede for Them". Do you see how many humiliating things he said (about Christ) according to His human nature? He not once, he says, interceded and received, but always when it was necessary to intercede for them; this is what the expression “always” means. “Always”, i.e. not only in the present time, but also there in the future life. Therefore, we need to pray to Him unceasingly? But is this fair? Even righteous people often received everything with one petition: how will He pray unceasingly? And why does He sit with the Father? Do you see that what is said here about Him is humiliating because of His condescension? The meaning of the words is as follows: do not be afraid of anything, do not say: yes, although He loves us and has boldness before the Father, He cannot always live; He is always alive. “This is what we should have as a High Priest: holy, free from evil, blameless, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens” (Heb. 7:26). Do you see that all this is said about humanity (Christ)? When I say about humanity, I mean humanity united with divinity, not separating them, but inspiring us to understand this in the proper way. So, do you see the difference between the high priest (from the Old Testament)? All of the above (the apostle) combined in the words: “Who has been tempted in all things like as we are, yet without sin” (Heb. 4:15). “This,” he says, “is what our High Priest should be: a venerable, gentle one.” What does it mean: “kindly”? Not involved in evil, not insidious. And that He really is like that, listen to the prophet, who says: “there was no deceit in His mouth” (Is. 53:9). Can anyone say this about God? Who is not ashamed to say that God is not deceitful, not flattering? But this can be said about Christ according to the flesh. “Reverend 9”, “undefiled 10” and this cannot be said about God, because He is essentially blameless. "Separated from Sinners". And is this alone proof of His superiority? Doesn't the sacrifice itself prove it? Yes, a victim. How? “Who has no need,” he says, “to offer daily sacrifices, like those high priests, first for his own sins, then for the sins of the people, for He did this once, by sacrificing Himself” (Heb. 7:27). What is this? Here (the apostle) begins to speak of the superiority of spiritual sacrifice. He spoke about the difference between the priests (Old Testament and New Testament), he spoke about the difference between the covenants (old and new) - although not completely, he nevertheless said; here he finally begins to talk about the victim himself. When you hear that Christ is a priest, do not think that He constantly acts as a priest; He performed the sacred act once, and then sat down (at the right hand of the Father). So that you do not think that He stands on the mountain and performs sacred acts, (the apostle) shows that this was a matter of economy. As He was a slave, so He was also a priest and a minister; just as, being a slave, He did not remain a slave, so, being a priest, He did not remain a priest - because it is characteristic of a priest not to sit, but to stand. Here (the apostle) expresses the greatness of the sacrifice, which alone, once offered, had as much power as all the others did not have together. However, he is not talking about this yet, but for now only about the following: “he did it once.” What is “this”? “It was necessary,” he says, “that He also had something to offer” (Heb. 8:3), not for Himself—how could He, being sinless, offer a sacrifice for Himself?—but for people. What are you saying? Does He really not need to offer for Himself and is so strong? Yes, He says. So that you don’t think that the words: “He did this once” are also talking about Him, listen to what he says (the apostle) further: “for the law appoints men as high priests” (Heb. 7:28). Therefore, they always offer sacrifices for themselves; but He, being strong and without sin, why will He sacrifice for Himself? Therefore, He offered a sacrifice not for Himself, but for people, and only once. - “perfect”? Look: Paul does not literally put opposite expressions; after the words: “those who have weaknesses,” he did not say: the Son of the strong, but: “perfect,” which can also be said to mean strong. Do you see that the word: “Son” is said in contrast to “slave”? By weakness he means either sin or death. What does it mean: “forever”? Not now only the sinless one, he says, but always. If He is perfect, if He never sins, if He lives faithfully, then why does He offer sacrifices for us many times over? However, (the apostle) has not yet proven this, but only proves that he did not make a sacrifice for Himself. So, if we have such a high priest, then we will imitate Him and walk in His footsteps. There is no other sacrifice; one has purified us; and then fire and Gehenna. For this reason (the apostle) often repeats: one priest is one sacrifice, so that someone, thinking that there are many of them, will not sin without fear. 4. Therefore, we, who have been honored with this seal, who have tasted this sacrifice, who participate in the immortal meal, will preserve our nobility and honor, since falling away is not safe. And those who have not yet been worthy of this, let them not be presumptuous, since whoever sins in order to receive holy baptism with his last breath often does not receive it. Believe me: I will not say what I intend to say to arouse fear in you. I know many to whom this happened, who sinned a lot while waiting for enlightenment (baptism); but on the day of his death they departed without accepting him. God gave baptism to destroy sins, not to increase sins. If someone uses it in order to more freely indulge in great sins, then such a person is guilty of carelessness. Such a person, if there had been no baptism, would have lived more abstinently, not expecting remission (of sins). Do you see how the words are fulfilled on us: “And shall we not do evil, that good may come out” (Rom. 3:8)? Therefore, I exhort you who have not yet received the sacraments: stay alert; Let none of you approach virtue as a mercenary, as an ungrateful person, as something difficult and unbearable; on the contrary, let us approach it with zeal and joy. If there were no reward promised, would one really not be virtuous? But let us be virtuous at least because of the reward. Isn’t it a shame, isn’t it extremely dishonest to say: if you don’t give me a reward, then I won’t be chaste? I can say this to this: even if you remain chaste, you will never be chaste if you do it for a reward; You don’t value virtue at all if you don’t love it for itself. However, God, due to our great weakness, deigns to encourage us to it at least with a reward; but even then we do not become virtuous. Suppose, if you want, that some person who has committed many sins departs, having been worthy of baptism, although this, I think, does not happen often: how, tell me, will he depart there? He will not be condemned for his deeds, but he will not have boldness - and rightly so. In fact, if he, having lived a hundred years, does not do a single good deed, but only that he did not sin, or even not this, but only that he was saved by grace alone, and sees others crowned, glorified and exalted, then, tell me, can he not lose heart, although he will not fall into Gehenna? Let me explain this with an example. Let's imagine two warriors; let one of them steal, offend, seize someone else's property; and let the other do nothing of the kind, but behave well, show much valor, win victories in war, staining his hand with blood; after, over time, let him, from the rank in which he was with the thief, be elevated to the royal throne and clothed in purple, and let the thief remain where he was, but only by the mercy of the king he will be free from punishment for his misdeeds, placed in last place and subordinate to the authority of the king: will not this latter, tell me, feel sorrow, seeing that the one who was equal to him has reached the very height of honors, became famous and rules the universe, but he remains in a low state, and received deliverance from punishment not with honor, but due to the mercy and philanthropy of the king? The king forgave him and freed him from condemnation, but he himself will lead his life in shame. And others will not be surprised at him, because, with such mercies, we are surprised not at those who receive gifts, but at those who give them, and the higher these gifts, the more ashamed those who receive them are, if they were guilty of great sins. With what eyes will he look at those who are in the royal palaces, showing many of their wounds and exploits, while he himself has nothing to show, but received deliverance only through the love of God? As if some murderer, thief, or adulterer, led to execution, was released from it at someone’s request and received an order to appear on the threshold of the royal palace, then he would not be able to look at anyone, although he was freed from punishment - so is he. 5. However, when the kingdom is spoken of, do not think that everyone will be worthy of the same thing. If here in the royal palaces there are dioceses, and those close to the king, and even lower dignitaries, and occupying the place of the so-called tenths (δεκανών), although there is a great difference between the eparch and the tenth, then all the more will it be so in the high royal monasteries. I’m not saying this on my own behalf; but Paul posits an even greater difference there. What is the difference, he says, between the sun and the moon and the stars and the least of the stars, the same will be in the kingdom of heaven; and it is obvious to everyone that the difference between the sun and the smallest star is much greater than between the so-called ten and the eparch. The sun suddenly illuminates the entire universe and makes it bright, covers the moon and stars; and the star is often invisible, even in darkness; there are many stars that we don't see. So, when we see others who have become suns, and we ourselves take the place of the smallest stars, which are even invisible, then what consolation will we have? No, I exhort you, let us not be so careless, let us not be so lazy, let us not carelessly accept the salvation given from God, but let us make money from it and multiply it. Even if another were only a catechumen, he knows Christ, knows the faith, listens to the word of God, is not far from knowing God, understands the will of his Master; Why does he hesitate, why does he wait and postpone? There is nothing better than a virtuous life, both here and there, both among the enlightened and among the catechumens. And what, tell me, is the difficult thing prescribed for us? Have a wife, says the commandment, and be abstinent. Tell me, is it really difficult? And how (this may be difficult) when many are abstinent even without a wife, not only Christians, but also pagans? What a pagan does out of vanity, will you not do it out of fear of God? “Out of your wealth,” says (Scripture), “give alms” (Tob. 4:7). Is it really difficult? But even here the pagans will condemn us, who squandered all their property out of vanity alone. Don't use bad language. Is it really difficult? But even if it had not been commanded, shouldn’t we have done it ourselves, so as not to seem dishonest? On the contrary, foul language is difficult, as can be seen from the fact that a person is ashamed in his soul and blushes when he happens to say something like that, and does not even dare to say it unless he is drunk. Why don’t you do this when sitting in the marketplace, even though you did it at home? Is it not for the sake of those present? Why don’t you suddenly do this in front of your wife? Is it not so as not to offend her? So, so as not to offend your wife, you do not do this; When you insult God, are you not ashamed? And He is omnipresent and hears everything. “And do not get drunk with wine,” it is said (Eph. 5:18), and it is good (it is said), because isn’t drunkenness in itself a punishment? He didn’t say: exhaust the body, but what? “Don’t get drunk”, i.e. do not give it the will so that it overthrows the power of the soul. Is it really not necessary to take care of the body? No, that’s not what I’m saying, but don’t please his lusts. So Paul commands when he says: “And do not turn the cares of the flesh into lusts” (Rom. 13:14). Do not steal someone else’s property, it is said, do not be covetous, do not swear. What kind of work does this require, what kind of feats? Do not slander, it is said, do not slander. Is it difficult? But the opposite is really difficult, because when you say something bad about someone, you are immediately exposed to danger and doubt: has the person you said about heard, even if he was an important person, even if he was an unimportant one; if he is an important person, then you will immediately experience real danger; and if unimportant, then he will repay you in kind, and even much more; he will say even worse things about you. No, nothing difficult, nothing heavy is commanded to us, if only we want; and if we don’t want to, then even the easiest things will seem difficult to us. What's easier than food? But many, due to extreme pampering, are burdened by this too. I hear many people say that food is also work. There is no difficulty in all of the above, if you just want to; everything after supreme grace lies in desire. Let us desire good things, so that we may be worthy of eternal blessings, grace and love for mankind (our Lord Jesus Christ, with whom to the Father with the Holy Spirit be glory, power, honor, now and ever, and unto ages of ages. Amen). The paragraphs in the text were arranged by us. – Editorial staff of “ABC of Faith” To the synod. translated as “not involved in evil.” To the synod. translated as "saint". To the synod. translated as “immaculate”. You might be interested in: