Беседа 14

Hebrews 8:1–2. The main thing about what we are talking about is this: we have such a High Priest, who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven and is a priest of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord erected, and not man. 1. Paul, always imitating his Master, speaks now of the lowly and now of the high, so that the lowly makes the way to the high, and the latter leads to the first, so that those who see the high may know that the lowly was the work of condescension (of Christ). This is what He does here too. Having said that “having sacrificed Himself” and showing that He is a high priest, (the Apostle) continues: “The main thing about what we are talking about is this: we have such a High Priest, who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven.” This is no longer characteristic of a priest, but of the One whose priest He is. “Priest of the sanctuary.” Not just a minister, but a “priest.” sanctuary." "And the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man." Do you see the condescension (of Christ)? Not long before (the Apostle) distinguished (Him from others) when he said: “Are they not all ministering spirits”? He says this because the one sitting, without a doubt, is not a minister; therefore (here calling Him a servant) he says this about Him according to the flesh. “The true tabernacle” He calls heaven here, and, wanting to show its difference from the Jewish one, he adds: “which the Lord erected, and not man.” See how he encouraged the souls of the Jewish believers with these words. Perhaps they imagined that we did not have such a tabernacle; but behold, He says, our priest is great and much greater (than the Old Testament), who made a more wonderful sacrifice. But aren’t these just words, boasting and self-delusion? To do this, he confirmed (his words) in advance with an oath, and then began to talk about the tabernacle. The difference between the tabernacles was already obvious from the previous one, but he proves it from another side: “which the Lord erected,” he says, “and not man.” Where are those who say that the sky moves? Where are those who claim that it is spherical? Both are refuted here. “The main thing,” he says, “is what we’re talking about.” The most important thing is always called the main thing. Here He again brings down His speech: having spoken about the high, He now speaks without fear about the lowly. Further, so that you know that the word “priest” is used in relation to humanity (Christ), look at how he also explains this: “every high priest,” he says, “is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; and therefore it was necessary that He also should have something to bring” (Heb. 8:3). When you hear that (Christ) is sitting, do not think that He is unjustly called a high priest; first, i.e. sitting is a sign of divine dignity, and the latter is a sign of great love for mankind and care for us. Therefore (the Apostle) expands on the latter and speaks in more detail, fearing not to diminish the former. Therefore, he inclines his speech to the same thing now, since some asked: why did (Christ) die while being a priest? There is no priest without sacrifice; therefore, He also had to offer a sacrifice. And on the other hand, since He said that (Christ) is “above (the heavens),” He now says and proves that He is a priest in all respects, both according to Melchizedek, and by oath, and by making a sacrifice. From here he draws another necessary conclusion: “if He had remained on earth,” he says, “he would not have been a priest, because here there are priests who, according to the law, bring gifts” (Heb. 8:4). If, he says, He is a priest, as indeed He is, then He should have been in another place; being on earth, He would not have been a priest. Why? He did not make sacrifices, did not perform sacred acts - and rightly so - because there were priests here. (The Apostle) proves that it is impossible for (Christ) to be a priest on earth. Why? Because otherwise, he says, there would be no resurrection. Here it is necessary to focus attention and delve into the thought of the apostle. He again shows the difference between the priesthood (Old Testament and Christ). “Which,” he says, “serve the image and shadow of the heavenly things” (Heb. 8:5); What does he call heavenly here? Spiritual; Although it takes place on earth, it is worthy of heaven. When our Lord Jesus Christ is presented as the slain (lamb), when the Spirit descends, when He who sits at the right hand of the Father is present here, when (believers) through the font are made sons and citizens of heaven, when we find our fatherland, city and citizenship there, when we become strangers to those here, then all this is not heavenly? 2. What then? Aren't the songs heavenly? Isn’t it true that the divine faces of ethereal forces sing to the mountain, and we also sing in agreement with them here? Is not the altar also heavenly? How? There is nothing carnal on him; everything that is present is spiritual: our sacrifice does not turn into ashes, smoke and stench, but makes everything that is present pure and bright. Aren’t these sacred ceremonies heavenly, whose ministers still hear the words spoken to them: “Whose sins you forgive, they will be forgiven; On whomever you leave it, it will remain on him” (John 20:23)? Are not all (their sacred rites) heavenly, when they also have the keys of heaven? “Which,” he says, “serve the image and shadow of the heavenly things, as it was said to Moses when he began to build the tabernacle: look, it is said, do everything according to the image shown to you on the mountain” (Heb. 8:5). Since our hearing is less capable of perception than sight - we do not convey to the soul as well what we hear as what we see with our own eyes - God showed everything (to Moses). Either (the Apostle) speaks about this in the words: “an image and a shadow,” or he means the church, because he adds: “look, it is said, do everything according to the image shown to you on the mountain” - and this is said only about the structure of the church, - or he means sacrifices and everything else; The one who says this (last) will not sin either, because the Church is heavenly and is nothing other than heaven. “But this High Priest received a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He was a better mediator for the covenant” (Heb. 8:6). Do you see how much better this service is than that service? This is the image and the shadow, and this is the truth. However, this did not bring any benefit or consolation to the listeners. That is why (the Apostle) adds what could especially bring them joy: “which is established,” he says, “on the best promises.” Having spoken of the place, the priest and the sacrifice, he now sets forth the difference between the covenants themselves. And before he argued that the Old Testament was weak and useless, and to show its shortcomings, look at the arguments he uses. In one place he said (about the new covenant): “according to the power of unceasing life”; in another (about the old) he said: “the abolition of a former commandment occurs because of its weakness and uselessness”; then he also expressed something great (about the new) when he said: “but a better hope is introduced, through which we draw closer to God.” Here he raises us to heaven and shows that instead of a church we have heaven, and that those sacred rites were prototypes of ours, and thus exalting the ministry, he finally rightly exalts the priesthood. But, as I said, he sets out what is especially joyful for his listeners in the words: “who is established on better promises.” Where can you see this? From the fact that that one (old) was abolished, and in its place this (new) one was introduced, which received power because it is better. As above (the Apostle) said: “if perfection were achieved through the Levitical priesthood - for the law of the people is associated with it - then what other need would there be for another priest to rise up according to the order of Melchizedek?” so here he uses the same conclusion: “for if the first covenant had been without deficiency, there would have been no need to look for a place for another” (Heb. 8:7), i.e. if he had no shortcomings, if he made people blameless. And what exactly is this that he says, listen to the following: “reproaching them, he says”; He did not say, “rebuking” him (i.e., the law), but: “The prophet, rebuking them, said: Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not such a covenant as I made with their fathers at the time when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, because they did not continue in that covenant of mine, and I despised them, says the Lord” (Heb. 8:8–9) So, you will say, but how can it be seen that (the old covenant) was ended? (The Apostle) proved this also from the side of the priest; “On the best,” he says, “promises.” Can, tell me, there be equality between heaven and earth? Notice how he does not reject the promises there either, so as not to disparage the Old Testament in this regard. Previously he said: “a better hope is introduced, through which we draw closer to God,” expressing that there was hope there too; and here he says: “a better hope is introduced,” expressing that there were promises there too. But since (the Jews) constantly grumbled, then - “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah”; not an ancient one, he says, some kind of covenant; and so that they cannot think of this, the time also determines: he does not simply say: “according to the covenant that I made with their fathers,” so that they would not think about what happened under Abraham or under Noah, but determines what kind of covenant: “not such a covenant,” he says, “which I made with their fathers at that time,” who lived at the time of the exodus; That’s why he adds: “When I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, because they did not abide in my covenant, and I despised them, says the Lord.” 3. Do you see that the beginning of evil is from us? “They,” he says, “did not abide” at the beginning; therefore, negligence is from us, and all good, i.e., all good deeds are from God. Here (God) seems to present a justification, giving the very reason why He left them. “This is the covenant that I will bequeath to the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their minds, and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they will be My people” ( Heb. 8:10) He says this about the new covenant, after he said: “not such a covenant as I made.” And what other difference is there between them, if not this? ever was among the Jews. It is impossible to prove this: and upon their return from Babylon, the covenant was again given to them in writing, but the apostles, as I can prove, did not accept anything in writing, but accepted everything into their hearts by the Holy Spirit. That is why Christ said to them: “When the Comforter comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me” (John 15:26). “And every man shall not teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord; for everyone, from the least of them to the greatest, will know Me, because I will be merciful to their iniquities, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more” (Heb. 8:11–12). Here is another sign: “from the small,” he says, “to the great, they will know Me,” and they will not say: “know the Lord.” When did this come true, if not now? Ours (teaching) is known, but theirs is not known, but is hidden in a corner. On the other hand, a thing is called new when it is second (after the first) and contains something more in comparison with the old one. Also called new is that thing from which one thing is separated, but another is not. For example: if someone in an old house, ready to collapse, leaving everything behind, dismantled the foundation, then we say that he made it new by taking out one thing and putting in another. So the sky is called new when it does not remain copper, but sends down rain; and the earth is called new when it does not remain barren, but changes (into fruitful); and a house is called new when one thing in it is destroyed and another remains. Thus, the covenant is well called new, as a sign that the former covenant became old, because it did not bear any fruit. And to know this more precisely, read what Haggai says, what 3achariah says, what the angel (Malachi) says, and what Ezra denounces (the Jews). How did they accept (the new covenant)? How come none of them questioned the Lord if they violated the covenant and did not even know it? Do you see how your (opinion) is unfounded? I insist on my point - that it is he (our covenant) that should be called new in the proper sense. Otherwise, I do not admit that the words were said about him: “For behold, I am creating new heavens and a new earth, and the former will no longer be remembered and will not come to the heart” (Is. 65:17). In fact, why, when Deuteronomy says: “And your heavens which are above your head will become brass,” is there no limitation: if you listen, there will be something new (Deut. 28:23)? I, says (God), will give another covenant because they did not remain as before. This is evident from the following words (of the apostle): “... the law, weakened by the flesh, was powerless” (Rom. 8:3); and again: “Why are you now tempting God, desiring to place on the necks of the disciples a yoke, which neither our fathers nor we could bear” (Acts 15:10)? “They did not continue,” he says, “in that covenant of mine.” Here it is shown that God has honored us with the highest and spiritual. “Their sound goes through all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world” (Ps. 18:5). This means: “And every man shall not teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord.” And again: “For the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea” (Habakk 2:14). “By saying “new,” he showed the dilapidation of the first; but that which grows old and grows old is about to be destroyed” (Heb. 8:13). Look how he revealed the secret, the very thought of the prophet. He honored the law without directly calling it old; however, he expressed this because if that (testament) had been new, he would not have called what was established after it new. Thus he expresses something more and special when he says that he is dilapidated; That’s why He is canceled, destroyed and no longer exists. Based on (the words of) the prophet, he speaks with great boldness (about the old covenant) and usefully shows that ours (covenant) is now flourishing, while that one has become obsolete. Having used the name: “decaying,” he adds another of his own: “aging” and then draws the following conclusion from everything: “close to destruction.” Consequently, the Old Testament is not simply replaced by a new one, but as outdated, as useless. That is why (the Apostle) said: “because of her weakness and uselessness”; and also: “the law did not bring anything to perfection”; and also: “if the first covenant had been without deficiency, then there would have been no need to look for a place for another.” What does it mean: “without lack”? Useful, strong. He says this not in order to present (the Old Testament) as worthy of condemnation, but in order to actually show its insufficiency; as if someone said: this house is not without blemish, i.e. has flaws, dilapidated; or: this clothing is not without blemish, i.e. It's about to break. So he does not call here (the Old Testament) bad, but only having shortcomings and imperfections. 4. So we too are new, or better yet, we were new, but now we have become dilapidated, and therefore are close to decay and destruction. However, if we want, we can destroy this dilapidation. It is impossible to do this with the baptismal font, but it is possible here with repentance. So, if there is anything old in us, let us destroy it; if there is any rust, any filth or impurity, let us blot it out and be clean, so that the King will desire our beauty. And those who have reached the extreme ugliness can return that beauty about which David speaks: “Hear, daughter, and see, and incline your ear, and forget your people and your father’s house. And the King will desire your beauty” (Ps. 45:11, 12). Oblivion does not bring beauty, spiritual beauty. What kind of oblivion is he talking about? (Oblivion) ​​of sins. He addresses the pagan church and exhorts it not to remember its parents, i.e. making sacrifices to idols - and it was formed precisely from such people. He didn’t say: don’t take part in this, but even, which is much more, don’t bring it to mind. He says the same thing in another place: “I will not remember their names with my mouth” (Ps. 15:4); and also: “So that my mouth does not speak about the deeds of men” (Ps. 16:4). This is not yet a great virtue; or better to say, although great, it is not like that one. What is he saying there? He did not say: “don’t talk” about the deeds of your fathers, but: “don’t even remember”, don’t bring them to your memory. Do you see how far he wants to drive evil away from us? He who does not remember does not think; he who does not think does not speak; and whoever does not speak will not do. Do you see how many paths (to evil) he blocks for us - how far does he remove us from the greatest (of evil)? Let us also heed him, and let us forget our atrocities, but not the sins we have committed: remember them, says (the Lord), you are the first, and I will not remember them. So, we must not only remember the theft, but also return the stolen property; this means - to bring evil into oblivion, to destroy the very thought of theft and never allow it to come to oneself, and to correct what has already been done. How can we achieve the oblivion of evil? Remembrance of God's blessings. If we constantly remember God, then we will no longer be able to remember evil: “if,” says (the Psalmist), “when I remember You on my bed, I meditate on You in the night watches” (Ps. 63:7). Although we always need to remember God, but especially when the mind is at peace, when through this remembrance it can judge itself, when it can hold it in memory. During the day, even if we remember, other worries and worries that come along will erase it (the memory); and at night, you can constantly remember: then the soul is in peace and tranquility, then it is in haven and safety: “what you speak about,” says (the Psalmist), “in your hearts, (about) meditate... on your beds” (Ps. 4:5). One should remember this even during the day; but since you are in constant worries and amused by everyday affairs, then remember God at least in bed - think about Him in the morning. If we do this in the morning, then we will go out to do our business without any danger; If we propitiate God with reverence and prayer in advance, then we will not meet any enemy afterwards, and if we do, we will laugh at him, having God in our defense. The marketplace is war; daily affairs are battle, excitement and storm. That's why we need weapons; and prayer is a great weapon; we need fair winds, we need to be knowledgeable in everything in order to pass the time of day without shipwrecks and injuries, since many pitfalls are encountered daily, and often our ship is broken and sunk. Therefore, we need to pray, especially in the morning and at night. Many of you often saw the Olympic Games, and not only saw them, but also encouraged and approved of the warriors, one of this, another of the other. You, therefore, know how during the days of the struggle, and even in the very nights, the herald does not worry about anything else all night and does not care about anything else, as soon as the warrior, when he comes out, does not disgrace himself; and those who sit next to the trumpeter inspire him not to even talk to anyone, so as not to excite laughter by exhausting his spirit. If the one who intends to fight before people makes so much effort, then we should constantly try and care much more, for whom all life is a struggle. So, let us have an all-night vigil every night; Let us try not to be ridiculed when we go out during the day. And, oh, if only there would be ridicule! But now the hero himself sits at the right hand of the Father, listening carefully to see if we say anything obscene or unnecessary, since He is the judge not only of deeds, but also of words. Let us, beloved, stay awake all night; if we want, then we will have healers - there is an angel with each of us. Meanwhile, we sleep soundly all night - and, oh, if only that! But even then many do a lot of obscene things; some go to houses of debauchery, while others turn their own into houses of debauchery, bringing harlots to them: so little do they care about good warfare! Some get drunk and use foul language; others make noise; others spend the whole night in wicked deeds, committing more evil than those who sleep; others calculate their income; others are tormented by other concerns, preferring to do everything rather than what is needed for warfare. Therefore, I exhort you, let us leave everything and worry about only one thing, how we can receive a reward and be crowned; Let us do everything by which we can receive the promised benefits, which may we all be worthy of through grace and love for mankind (our Lord Jesus Christ, with whom be glory, power, honor to the Father with the Holy Spirit, now and ever, and unto ages of ages. Amen). The paragraphs in the text were arranged by us. – Editorial staff of “ABC of Faith” You might be interested in: