Беседа 2

Hebrews 1:3. This One, being the radiance of glory and the image of His hypostasis and holding everything by the word of His power, having accomplished with Himself the cleansing of our sins, sat down at the right hand (throne) of the Majesty on high. 1. We must always have a reverent disposition of spirit, especially when we speak or listen to something about God, because neither the tongue can speak nor the ear can hear anything commensurate with the (greatness) of God. What am I saying - tongue and ear? The mind itself, which greatly surpasses them, cannot comprehend anything exactly when we want to say something about God, because if “the peace of God surpasses all understanding” (Phil. 4:7), and if what has been prepared for those who love him has not entered the heart of man (1 Cor. 2:9), then how much more does the God of the world himself, the Creator of all things, incomparably surpass our understanding. Therefore, we must accept everything with faith and reverence, and when the word becomes weak and cannot accurately express what is proposed, then in particular we glorify God, for the fact that we have such a God who surpasses our mind and word. Much of what we think about God cannot be expressed in words, and much that we express in words cannot be imagined with our minds; for example, we know that God (is present) everywhere, but in what way we do not understand this; we know that there is some incorporeal force, the culprit of all good things, but we do not know how it exists. This we say, but we do not understand; I say that God is everywhere, but I don’t understand; I say that He is beginningless, but I do not comprehend; I say that He gives birth from Himself, but again I don’t know how to understand this. And other things cannot be expressed in words, – i.e. the mind imagines, but the tongue cannot express. And so that you know, as Paul himself was unable to (express), how the similarities he gives are not accurate, and so that you will be horrified and not look for anything more appropriate, listen: having said about the “Son” and calling Him “Creator,” what does he add? “This being the radiance of glory and the image of His hypostasis.” This must be accepted with reverence, and absurd thoughts rejected. “The radiance,” he says, “of glory.” Look in what sense he accepts this, and accept it yourself in the same way, that is, what is from Him (the Son is from the Father), what is dispassionate, what is without diminution or humiliation; and there are people who deduce certain absurdities from this similarity. “Shine,” they say, not independently, has (the basis of) being in another. But you, man, do not accept this, do not fall into the disease of Marcellus and Photinus. (The Apostle) immediately offers you healing and does not allow you to accept such a thought and fall into such a destructive disease. What is he saying? “and the image of His hypostasis”; By this addition he expresses that just as the Father is independent and does not need anyone in order to be independent, so is the Son. Here he proves their indifference (essentially) and, pointing you to the corresponding image of the prototype, teaches that the Son is independent in himself. Having said above that God created everything by Him, here he attributes power to Himself. What is he saying? "Upholding all things by the word of his power." From here we learn that (the Son) is not only the image of the hypostasis (of the Father), but also rules everything with his own authority. You see how what belongs to the Father also belongs to the Son. Therefore, he did not just say: holding everything, he also did not say: with his strength, but: “by the word of his power.” As before (the apostle) little by little he ascended with us, then descended, so now he, as if by steps, then ascends to a height, then descends again, when he says: “and he created the eyelids.” Look how he lays out two paths here too: warning us against the innovations of Sabellius and Arius, of which the first rejected the rest (the difference of persons) in the being of God, and the second dissolved the one being by inequality (the Son to the Father), he strongly refutes both. How does he do this? He says both in turn so that they do not think that (the Son) is without beginning or alien to God. Do not be surprised at what has been said, beloved; After all, if even after such evidence there are people who consider (the Son) alien (to the Father), give Him another father and even say that he opposes (the Father), then what would they not say if he did not say this? When it is necessary to heal the erring, he finds it necessary to say something humiliating. Namely: “Whom,” he says, “he made heir of all things,” and also: “through whom also he created the worlds.” And then, so as not to cause harm in another respect, he passes from expressions meaning humiliation to expressions meaning power, and shows that (the Son) is equal in honor to the Father, and so equal in honor that many considered Him to be the Father. And look at the great wisdom (of the apostle): he sets out the first things in advance and firmly proves them; when he proved that He is the Son of God and is not alien to the Father, then without fear he offers everything that he wanted to offer. Since, by offering high things about Him, it was possible to lead many to the above thought, then (the apostle) sets forth in advance what is humiliated, and then, without fear, ascends to the height to which he wanted; Having said: “Whom he appointed heir of all things,” and: “through whom he also created the worlds,” he further adds: “upholding all things by the word of his power.” He who rules everything with one word cannot need anyone to produce everything. 2. And that this is really so, see how (the apostle) in further words ascribes power to Him and no longer says: “through whom.” Having said that (God) created through Him what He wanted, he then leaves this expression and says: “In the beginning You, Lord, founded the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands” (Heb. 1:10); no longer says: “through whom”, i.e., that through him he created the ages. But how, weren’t they created by Him? True, but not as you say, not as you imagine, not as through an instrument, and not in such a way that He would not have created them if the Father had not given Him a helping hand. Just as “the Father... judges no one,” but judges, it is said, through the Son (John 5:22), because He begot Him as a Judge, so He creates through Him, because He begot Him as the Creator. If the Father is His beginning, then much more (the beginning) of what He created. So, when (the apostle) wants to show that (the Son) is from Him, then of necessity he speaks something humiliating; and when he wants to speak high, then a blow is struck to Marcellus and Sabellius. But the Church has avoided the extremes of both and is following the middle path. He does not stop at the humiliated, so that Paul of Samosata does not find refuge, and does not limit himself to the high, but at the same time shows the great closeness (of the Son to the Father), so that Sabellius does not object. When he said: “Son,” Paul of Samosata immediately rises up and says that He is the same Son as many. But (the apostle) inflicted a mortal wound on him, adding: “heir of all.” But he is still shameless along with Arius; it is the words: “Whom he made heir of all” - they both accept, the first claiming that (these words) mean powerlessness, and the second trying to interpret further (words) Paul said: “through whom also he made the worlds,” and thereby decisively overthrew the shameless Paul of Samosata; but Arius apparently still holds strong. See how (the apostle) overthrew him too, saying further: “This being the radiance of glory.” But then Sabellius, Marcellus and Photinus rebelled. (The apostle) dealt one blow to all of them, saying: “and the image of His hypostasis and holding everything by the word of His power.” Here he also strikes Marcion - although not too strongly, he nevertheless strikes. In general, throughout the entire message he refutes them. He called the Son, as I said, the radiance of glory, and that’s good. Christ Himself, listen to what He says about Himself: “I am the light of the world” (John 8:12). For this reason (the apostle) called Him radiance, to show that the same thing is said there, i.e., that (the Son is from the Father) as light from light. However, not only this is shown here, but also that He enlightened our souls. In a word: “radiance” (the apostle) expresses equality in essence and closeness to the Father. Look at the subtlety in the words: by calling a single being, called hypostasis, he proves that (the Son and the Father) are two hypostases, just as he does in relation to the Spirit. As he said, that the Father and the Spirit have one knowledge (1 Cor. 12:4, 5), which is really one and not at all different in itself, so here he uses one word to prove two hypostases. At the same time, he adds: “and the image.” The image is something different from the prototype, however, not completely different, but in relation to independence; so here, “image” means indifference from the One whose image is, similarity with Him in everything. If He is called likeness and image, then what will the heretics say to this? And man, they will say, is called the image of God (Gen. 1:26). But is it like the Son? No, they will say, but (hence it is clear) that the image does not mean similarity. On the contrary, when a person is called an image (είχών), it signifies the similarity (of him with God) as much as possible for a person. As God is in heaven, so is man on earth, that is, by dominion; just as he possesses everything on earth, so God possesses everything in heaven and on earth. On the other hand, a person is not called the same way (χαρακτήρ), is not called the same likeness (μορφή), is not called radiance, which means being, or similarity in essence. As “the image of a servant” (Phil. 2:7) means nothing less than a perfect man, so the image of God means nothing less than God. “This being,” he says, “is the radiance of glory.” Look what Paul does. Having said: “This being the radiance of glory,” he further adds: “he sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty”; Of all the names used, he does not find a single one that would express the very essence (of God). Indeed, neither “greatness” nor “glory” expresses what he wants to say; He doesn't find the name at all. That’s why I said at the beginning that we imagine other things in our minds, but cannot express them in words; and the very name: “God” is not the name of His being, so it is completely impossible to find a name to express His being; However, what is surprising if this is so in relation to God, when in relation to an angel it is impossible to find a name that would express his essence, and perhaps even in relation to the soul: it seems to me that this name (soul) does not mean its very essence, but the ability to breathe. That is why they call it the soul, the heart, and the mind: “Create in me a pure heart,” says (the Psalmist), “O God” (Psalm 50:12). And not only that, but it is often called spirit. “And upholding all things by the word of his power.” Do you see what (the apostle) says? 3. How, tell me, do you, a heretic, pointing to the words of Scripture: “And God said, Let there be light” (Gen. 1:3), say that the Father commands and the Son obeys? Here too, He Himself creates with the verb: “holding,” says (the apostle), “everything,” that is, controlling, restraining that which can fall apart. To hold the world means no less than to create the world, or, if you can say something amazing, even more. To create means to bring something from non-existence into being; and to hold something that already exists, but is ready to turn into nothing, to unite what is opposed to each other is - a great and amazing thing, this is a sign of great power. In the word: “holding” he also expresses the ease of this matter (for the Lord). He did not say: “controlling,” but used a figurative expression, borrowed from those who move something and turn with one finger. At the same time, he expresses the enormous greatness of the creature, and the fact that this greatness means nothing to Him. Then he again expresses that (for the Lord) this matter is not difficult, with the words: “by the word of His power.” He said well: “by word”; with us the word is powerless, but with God, he says, it is not powerless. Having said: “holding everything by word,” he, however, did not add how to carry it in a word, because it is impossible to know this. Then he speaks of His “greatness.” John did the same: having said that He is God, he added that He is the Creator of creatures. What (John) expressed with the words: “In the beginning was The Word,” and: “All things came into being through Him” (John 1:1, 3), Paul expresses the same thing when he says: “by the Word,” and also: “through whom He created the worlds,” expressing precisely that He is the Creator and exists before all ages. So, if the prophet says about the Father: “from everlasting to everlasting You are God” (Psalm 89:3) and about the Son it is said that He exists before all ages and is the Creator of everything, then what can (the heretics) say? Or is it better if it is said about the Father that He is “who existed before the ages,” and the same is said about the Son? As (John) said: “In Him was life” (John. 1:4), expressing that He preserves creation, that He is the life of all, so (Paul) says: “And holding up all things by the word of His power”; and not as the pagans say, who deprive Him, as much as they can, of both creativity and industry, and limit His power to the moon. “By myself,” he says, “having accomplished the cleansing of our sins.” Having spoken about amazing and great, the highest deeds, (the apostle) then speaks about His care for people. Although the above words: “holding everything” applied to everyone, these mean much more. They also apply to everyone, because, no matter how much depended on Him, He saved everyone. So John, having said: “In Him was life,” and thereby pointing to His providence, also says: “and light” (John 1:5), expressing the same thing. “Having accomplished the cleansing of our sins,” he says, “he sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty on high.” Here he presents two of the greatest evidence of His care: one is that He cleansed our sins, and the other is that He did this Yourself. And you can often see how (the apostle) admires not only the fact that reconciliation with God has been accomplished, but also the fact that it has been accomplished by the Son. Indeed, this great gift became even greater because it was imparted by the Son. Having said: “He sat down at the right hand,” and: “Having accomplished the cleansing of our sins with Himself,” and recalling the cross, (the apostle) at the same time adds about the resurrection and ascension. And look at his ineffable wisdom; he did not say: He was commanded to sit down, but: “He sat down”; further, so that you would not think that He was standing, he added: “To whom of the angels did God say, sit at my right hand” (Heb. 1:13)? “He sat down,” he says, “at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty on high.” What does it mean: “on high”? Doesn’t he limit God to some place? No, he did not say this to instill in us such a thought; but as an expression: “at the right hand” he does not depict His appearance, but shows His equality with the Father, and the expression: “on high” does not imply Him there, but means that He is above everyone and has surpassed everything, and as if it says: He has reached the very throne of the Father. Just as the Father is “on high,” so is He; and neighborhood means nothing other than equality. If (the heretics) object: (however, God said to Him “sit”, then we will ask them: what, is it standing (God said this to Him)? It is impossible to prove. And on the other hand, (the apostle) does not say that God commanded or ordered, but: “God said: sit”, and moreover, so that you do not think that he has no beginning and reason (in God the Father). And that this is really so is clear from seats; if it were necessary to express a decrease, it would be said not on the right hand, but on the left. “Being,” he says, “he was as much superior to the angels as he inherited a name more glorious than them” (Heb. 1:4). The word “being” is used here instead of: having appeared; otherwise we can say: there is. Further (the apostle) confirms this. With what? By name. Do you see that the name - Son always means His true sonship? Truly, if He were not the true Son, it would not have been said so. Why? Because he can be a true (Son) only by receiving being from the (Father) himself. That is why (the apostle) gives such confirmation. And if He were the Son by grace, then not only would He not be more glorious than the angels, but He would even be lower than them. Why? Because even righteous people are called sons (of God); and the name “Son”, if it does not mean the true (Son), cannot prove superiority. Meanwhile (the apostle), wanting to prove that there is some difference between creatures and the Creator, listen to what he says: “For to whom did God ever say: You are My Son, I am now?” gave birth to you? and again: “I will be His Father, and He will be My Son” (Heb. 1:5)? Here one thing is said about the flesh (of Christ), namely the words: “I will be His Father, and He will be My Son” - mean His incarnation; and the other, namely: “You are My Son,” means nothing more than that He is from (the Father) Himself. Just as the expression: “being” is used about God in the present tense, because it is most fitting for Him, so the expression: “now,” it seems to me, is said here in relation to the flesh. When He accepted it, then everything like that is said about Him without fear. The flesh can receive exaltation, just as the Divinity can receive humiliation; and if God did not disdain to become a man, did not renounce the work, then will He begin to renounce names? 4. Knowing this, let us not be ashamed, and let us not be arrogant. If He, being God, the Master and the Son of God, did not refuse to take “the form of a servant” (Phil. 2:7), then much more should we do everything, even the most humiliating thing. And what, tell me, are you proud of, man? Are they the blessings of life? But they disappear as soon as they appear. Are they spiritual? But even this is one of the spiritual blessings, so as not to become arrogant. What are you proud of? Is it because you do good deeds? But listen to Christ, who says: “When you have done all that was commanded you, say: We are worthless servants, because we have done what we had to do” (Luke 17:10). Are you proud of wealth? But tell me why? Haven’t you heard that we came into life naked, and naked we will depart (Job 1:21)? Or better yet, don’t you see others going before you, naked and stripped of everything? Who prides himself on having what belongs to others? And whoever wants to use this for his own pleasure is deprived of it against his will, often even before death, and certainly at death. But they will say: while we are alive, we use it as we want. No, you won’t soon find a person who would use property as he wants; and even if someone used it as he wants, then this is not an important matter, because the present time is short in comparison with endless centuries. Do you exalt yourself, O man, because you are rich? Why? Robbers, and thieves, and murderers, and debauchees, and adulterers, and all wicked people have wealth. Why are you arrogant? If you use it as you should, then you should not be arrogant, so as not to break the commandment (of the Lord); if (you use) not as you should, then you should rather lament the fact that you have become a slave to the property and wealth that possesses you. Tell me: if someone, suffering from a fever, drank a lot of water, which quenches thirst for a short time, but then ignites fire, can he be proud of it? Or if someone bothered about many things in vain, could he be proud of it? What, tell me, (should you exalt yourself)? Is it because you have many masters over you? Is it because you have countless worries? Is it because many people flatter you? But this is nothing more than slavery. And so that you can be convinced that you (in this case) become a slave, listen carefully to the following. Our other passions are sometimes useful; This is how anger is often useful: “Unjust anger cannot be justified,” says (the Wise One), “(Sir. 1:22); therefore, one can be angry righteously. And again (the Lord says): “Everyone who is angry with his brother without cause will be subject to judgment” (Matthew 5:22). Also jealousy and lust are good; the latter when it serves procreation, and the first when it is directed toward competition in good deeds, as Paul says: “It is good to be zealous always for good things” (Gal. 4:18), and also: “Be zealous for great gifts” (1 Cor. 12:31); therefore, both are useful. And pride is never good, but always useless and harmful. And if there is anything to be proud of, it is poverty rather than wealth. Why? Because he who can live on little is much better and higher than he who cannot. 5. Tell me: if some people were invited to the royal city, and some of them did not demand horses, slaves, tents, inns, clothing, or vessels, but were content only with bread and water from the springs, and others began to say: if you do not give us chariots and soft beds, then we cannot arrive; If we do not have many guides, if we are not allowed to rest frequently and be on the road only for a small part of the day, if we are not provided with horses and many other things necessary for us, then we cannot (set off) - tell me: which of them are worthy of our respect, the first or the last? Obviously, those who do not need anything. It’s exactly the same here: some require a lot to travel the path of real life, while others require nothing; Therefore, those living in poverty should rather exalt themselves, if only they should. But, you say, the poor are often subject to contempt. No, it is not he (who deserves it), but those who despise him; How can I really not despise people who don’t want to respect what they should (respect)? The painter laughs at all those who, being themselves ignorant, laugh at him, and does not pay attention to their words, but is content with his own testimony: why do we make ourselves dependent on the opinions of others? Is this forgivable? We are worthy of contempt when we do not despise those who despise us for their poverty and do not consider them themselves unfortunate. I do not mention what sins come from wealth and what benefits from poverty; or better to say, neither wealth nor poverty is good in itself, but is such depending on those who use it. A good Christian is found more in poverty than in wealth. Why? Because in poverty he becomes no prouder, more chaste, more honest, more humble, more prudent; and in wealth there are many obstacles to this. Let us remember what a rich man, or better yet, abusing his wealth, does. He kidnaps, extorts, oppresses. And where do criminal attachments, illicit relationships, sorcery, sorcery and all other types of evil come from, if not from wealth? Do you see that it is much easier to be virtuous in poverty than in wealth? Do not think that if the rich here are not punished, then they are not sinners; no, if it were possible to freely punish the rich, the prisons would be filled with them. In addition, wealth also contains the evil that he who has acquired it unrighteously, committing sins with impunity, never ceases to commit them, receives unhealed wounds, and no one puts a rein on him. Poverty, if you like, can give us much more reasons for pleasure. Why? Because she is free from worries, hatred, enmity, envy, abuse and countless evils. So, let us not strive to become rich, and let us not constantly envy those who have much; but if we have wealth, let us use it as we should; If we don’t have it, let’s not grieve about it, but thank God for everything, and for the fact that He has given us the opportunity - with little work, to receive a reward equal to the rich, or, if we want, even more, and to extract great fruits from little. The one who brought two talents was honored and awarded the same reward as the one who brought five talents. Why? Because, although he was entrusted with two talents, he, for his part, fulfilled everything that was due and returned what was entrusted in double amount. Why should we try to get a lot, when we can gain the same thing, or even more, with little work, when with little work we can receive a much greater reward (than work). A poor person will give up his property much more easily than a rich person who has too much. Don't you know that the more someone has, the more he desires? Therefore, so that we do not experience this, we will not seek wealth, we will not complain about poverty, we will not strive to become rich, but even if we have (wealth), we will use it as Paul commanded: “those who have...,” he says, “should be as if they have not; and those who use this world as if they do not use it” (1 Cor. 7:29, 31), so that we may receive the promised benefits, of which may we all be worthy by 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 to the ages of ages. Amen). The paragraphs in the text were arranged by us. – Editorial staff of “ABC of Faith” You might be interested in: