Книга вторая

“In the morning appearance of Jesus coming to herself” 166 In a very short time, the Baptist turns out to be both a prophet and an apostle, for Whom he recently foretold as one who was to come, now he declares Him to have already come. Therefore, he surpassed the measure of the prophets, as the Savior Himself speaks in one place to the Jews, reasoning about him like this: “Why did you go out into the desert to see?.. Was it a prophet? To her I speak to you, more than a prophet” (Matthew 11:7, 9). Those (prophets) once prophesied that Christ would appear, and he (the Forerunner) not only exclaimed that he would come, but also indicated the One who had come, for “in the morning,” they say, “he sees Jesus coming to him.” And the verb: Behold, the Lamb of God takes away the sins of the world 167 (John 1:29) Now it was no longer timely (to say) “prepare the way,” when the One for Whom the preparation (of the way) is being made had already appeared and was before the eyes. The state of affairs required different words. It was necessary to reveal who the One who came was and why the One who came to us from heaven was descending. So, “behold,” it is said, “The Lamb of God takes away the sins of the world,” to Whom the prophet Isaiah pointed out in the words: “Like a sheep that is led to the slaughter, and like a lamb that is silent before its keepers” (Is. 53:7), and Whom, it is said, was once prefigured by the law of Moses. But then He saved only in part, without extending mercy to everyone, for He was an image and a shadow - now He Who was once depicted through riddles, the True Lamb, the Immaculate Sacrifice, is being led to the slaughter for everyone, in order to drive away the “sin of the world”, in order to overthrow the destroyer of the universe, in order to abolish death for all by His death, in order to resolve the curse that was upon us, so that it would finally cease (punishment expressed in the words of God) “you are earth and returned to earth” (Gen. 3:19), so that the Second Adam would appear - not from earth, but from heaven (1 Cor. 15:47) - and become for human nature the beginning of all good, the destruction of corruption introduced by (sin), the author of eternal life, the basis of transformation (of man) according to God, the beginning of piety and righteousness, the path to the Kingdom Heavenly. “One for all I died” The Lamb, saving God and the Father the whole host of people, is “One for all,” in order to subordinate everyone to God, “One for all,” in order to win everyone, so that finally all “live not for themselves, but for Him who died for them and rose again” (2 Cor. 5:15). Since we were in many sins and therefore were guilty of death and corruption, the Father gave the Son as “deliverance” for us (1 Tim. 2:6), One for all, since all things are in Him, and He is above all. One died for all, that all might live in Him, for death swallowed up the Lamb for all, in Him and with Him, and cast out all: we were all in Christ, who died and rose again for us. And with the abolition of sin, is it not necessary to accept that death, which came from it and because of it, has also been abolished? With the death of the root, how could the industry from it survive? For what reason will we have to die when sin has already been destroyed? Therefore, we celebrate the slaughter of the Lamb of God and say: “Where is your spinning line, O death? where is your wall, hell" (Hos. 13:14; 1 Cor. 15:55); “For all iniquity,” as the Psalmist said in one place, “will stop its mouth” (Ps. 106:42), no longer being able to blame those who have sinned due to its weakness. After all, “God justifies whoever condemns” (Rom. 8:33–34)? “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, being the curse for us” (Gal. 3:13), so that we all might escape the curse of sin. This one is, O Nemzhe (az) reh (John 1:30) He brings his words to the memory of his listeners and yields primacy in glory to Christ, performing a work not of love, but rather of truth or even necessity; for the creation must obey the Creator, even if the creation did not want it, the slaves must obey the Master, the recipients must obey the Giver. And how Christ was “behind” John, but “became in front, because he was first,” as he confesses - we have already said enough about this in the previous discussion. And I did not know Him: but that He might appear to Israel, for this reason I came baptizing with water (John 1:31) In the womb of his mother, who leapt at the voice of the Holy Virgin, who was still pregnant with the Lord (Luke 1:41), - the prophet before his birth, - the disciple (still) in the state of the fetus - speaks of the Savior that he did not know Him, and speaks the truth, does not lie. God knows everything about Himself without teaching, but creation knows everything about Himself through teaching. The Spirit that dwells in holy people fills in what is lacking in them and gives human nature its own good, I mean vision of the future and knowledge of hidden secrets. Therefore, the blessed Baptist, speaking about his ignorance of the Lord, does not lie at all, since this relates to the property of humanity and the ability appropriate to creation, but he assimilates omniscience to God alone, through the Holy Spirit, guiding man to the perception of the hidden. And he very usefully points out that he did not know Christ himself, but that he came, however, in order to make Him manifest to Israel, so that he would not seem to have come arbitrarily for testimony, nor would he be considered by anyone to be a servant of his own desires, but an agent of Divine Providence, a servant of the Highest Will, revealing to him the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world. So, so that the Jews could more easily come to faith in the Savior Christ and have a proper understanding of Him, he says that he did not know Him. In view of this, they had to finally understand that God Himself had revealed this - being horrified by the highest judgment, accept the word about Him - and, seeing such a (great) servant, accordingly measure the dignity of the Master. After all, if he says that he came in order to make Him visible to Israel, then doesn’t he indicate the service befitting a servant? About the fact that the Holy Spirit is inherent in the Son not by communion and not as ascended, but essentially and by nature abides in Him John 1:32–33. And John testified, saying that he saw the Spirit descending like a dove from heaven, and remained on Him. And I did not know Him, but He sent me to baptize with water, He said to me: You will see the Spirit descending on Him and remaining on Him, He is the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit. Having said in previous words about his ignorance of Him, he now considers it necessary to expound and reveal the Divine secret in more detail, declaring that God the Father showed Him to him, and communicating the very method of this indication. He tries in every possible way to benefit the souls of his listeners and, telling people that he learned the secret of Christ from God, thereby reveals his adversaries as enemies of the Highest Will and daring opponents of the supreme determination of the Father. In this way he convinced them to renounce their vanity and accept Him who came by the good pleasure of the Father for the salvation of all. So, he testifies that he saw the “Spirit” “descending from heaven” in the form of a “dove”, and that He remained “on Him.” Then, in addition, he says that he personally heard from the One who sent him to be baptized with water, that He is “the baptizer with the Holy Spirit,” upon whom the descending Spirit will abide. Here is a reliable Witness, a supernatural sign, shown by the Most High Father. This is certainly true. But a heretic prone to accusations may object with mockery: what again, dear ones, will you tell us about this or what way will you come up with to interpret these words of Scripture? It is said that the Spirit descends on the Son. Here he is anointed by God and the Father, that is, he obviously receives what he does not have, as the Psalmist testifies to this, as if saying to Him: “For this reason for the anointing of You, God, Your God, is more than a partaker of Yours with the oil of joy” (Ps. 44:8). How could the Son, who is not like that (imperfect) and therefore be anointed, be in one essence with the perfect Father? To this, I believe, it is necessary to say to the perverters of the honest dogmas of the Church and the correct meaning of the Scriptures: “be sober from your drunkenness” (Joel 1:5), so that you, having seen the radiant beauty of the truth, may exclaim with us to the Son: “Truly you are the Son of God” (Matthew 14:33). After all, if you fully believe that He is God by nature, then how can He not have perfection? Therefore, you need to dishonor the Father Himself, for from where, as you say, will He necessarily have perfection and how will He not have to decline in accordance with the imperfection and diminishment of the Son that you affirm, if once the possibility of the imperfection of the Divine essence in the Son is accepted, in your ignorant and unreasonable opinion? In fact, we cannot divide that great and uncomplicated Nature so that in one respect, for example, it is imperfect, and in another perfect, when the definition of humanity remains the same in everything and equal in all of us. Is anyone less of a man because he is a man? But nothing more can be thought of. Likewise, one Angel, I think, is in no way different from another in relation to being in that they are Angels 168, which, belonging to the same type of being, all have the same nature. How, therefore, can Divine and all-exceeding Nature, in its qualities, be lower than created beings and allow what creation does not allow? How can it be both simple and uncomplicated if perfect and imperfect are inherent in it? It will be composed of both, since the imperfect is not like the perfect; for if they are similar and there is no difference between them, then everything perfect will be indifferent and imperfect, just as the imperfect will be perfect. Therefore, there will be no lack in the Son, even if in our mind He does not appear to have perfection, but also the Father Himself, although His perfection undoubtedly will not exceed the Son, and thus the question is again resolved. If there is a great difference between the perfect and the imperfect, and the Divine nature allows both in itself, then it will turn out to be complex and not simple. But perhaps someone will say that opposites really cannot exist together in one object, just as, for example, the same body cannot be both white and black. Excellent, my dear, - you fully confirmed our words. Indeed, if the Divine nature is one and there is no other besides it, then how, tell me, could it allow opposites in itself? How can one and the same object combine things that are dissimilar to one another? Therefore, if the Father is God by nature, then the Son is God by nature - in no way, therefore, He differs in perfection from the Father, as born from His Divine and most perfect essence. Is it not necessary for the One who is from the Perfect Parent to be perfect, if He is His exact “image and mark of hypostasis,” as it is written (Heb. 1:3)? In this, I think, everyone should agree with us, or let him again clearly express before us how the Son, who does not have the perfection of being in His nature, will be an exact mark, according to the unreasonable teaching of some? Since He is a mark and an image, then, therefore, He is perfect, as is He of Whom He is the image. But, it is said, “John saw the Spirit descending from heaven” on the Son; therefore, he receives sanctification and is accepted, obviously, as if he does not have it. Thus, obviously, He should be called a creation, hardly distinguished from others by a small advantage, dedicated, and sanctified, and receiving the gift of blessings, on an equal basis with other creatures. And in this case, will not the Evangelist turn out to be speaking a lie in the words that “of His fullness we have received all things” (John 1:16)? How can He be complete in His nature if He Himself receives from another? Or how can God be thought of as the Father, if the Only Begotten Son is a creation and nothing more? If this is so, the Father Himself will be false, and the Son will not turn out to be true, having in Himself a false dignity and name (Son) in words alone. Everything will then turn into nothing for us, if the Father is not the True Father, and the Son will not be by nature such, as is called. If God is the True Father, then, without a doubt, He has the One of whom He is the Father, that is, the Son, who is from Him (the Father). Then, how can the Divinity, holy by nature, give birth from Himself to that which is devoid of holiness, and produce His fruit without its inherent properties? After all, if He receives sanctification, as those heretics chatter, then they will have to admit at the same time, even against their will, that He was not always holy, but became so later when the Spirit descended on Him, as John says. But how, in this case, was the Son holy even before the incarnation, as the Seraphim glorified Him, pronouncing “holy” three times in a row (Is. 6:3)? And if he was holy even before becoming man, even more so - he always remained with the Father, then how could he need the Sanctifier, and this in subsequent times, when he became a man? I’m surprised how this too escaped their attention, although they are very fond of research. And is it not necessary to think that the Son could, perhaps, reject sanctification, if He does not have holiness by His very essence, but received it, like us and any other rational creature? Thus, the Son will not be unchanged and the Psalmist will tell a lie, crying out in the Spirit as if to Him: “But you are the same” (Ps. 101:28). In addition to what has been said, you should pay attention to the following reasoning, similar to the previous ones. It is necessary, without a doubt, to recognize that what is communicated is by nature something different from what is communicated. Otherwise, that is, if both do not differ from each other in any way and are one and the same, then the one who receives something will be the one who receives himself, which is absurd even to think, for how could anyone be thought of as participating in himself? If both are of a different nature and it is necessary to separate them, then let those who give the Spirit to the Son through communion see what wickedness they are silently falling into. After all, if the Son has the Spirit by communion, and the Spirit is holy by nature, then He Himself will not be holy by nature, but barely turned out to be so through communion with Another, transformed by grace to a better state than in which it was at first. But let the atheist again see what wickedness he falls into through this. And firstly, in the Son there will have to be, as I said earlier, some kind of change and transformation, and having changed, in your opinion, and having achieved a better state, He is not so much less than the Father, but must already appear to have become more. But let's say this in the words of Divine Scripture. The Divine Paul speaks of Him in one place: “Think about these things” 169 each one “in you” (yourself), “even in Christ Jesus: He who was in the form of God was not equal to God through admiration, but made Himself a little 170 and received the form of a servant, being in the likeness of mankind and found in the likeness 171 of man: He humbled himself" (Phil. 2:5-8). When, therefore, before the incarnation he was in the image and equality of the Father, and after the time of the incarnation, having received the Spirit from heaven, he was sanctified, according to their teaching, then for this reason He is better and at the same time greater than Himself, that is, finally surpasses the measure of the One who gave birth. And if He, having received the Spirit, ascended to a dignity superior to the Father, then, consequently, the Spirit is higher than the Father Himself as giving the Son superiority over Him. Who would not be horrified just by hearing this? It is truly difficult to even express this in words. But otherwise it is impossible to ward off the harm from their wickedness. Therefore, let us tell them again: if when God’s Word became man, then it was sanctified by receiving the Spirit, and before becoming man it was in the image and equality of the Father, not yet sanctified, according to their teaching, then they will need to boldly say that God and the Father is not holy, just as the Word, wholly conformable and in everything equal to Him, was not at first holy, but barely became so in subsequent times. And one more thing: if the very Word of God itself receives the Spirit and is sanctified in its nature, then let our opponents tell us whether it has become greater than itself, or smaller, or whether it has remained identical to itself? If It has nothing more from the Spirit, but remains the same as it was, then you have nothing to be tempted by when you hear that He (the Spirit) descended “on Him.” If, through the reception (of the Spirit), It suffered harm and became less, then you will have to recognize the Word as subject to shortcomings and blame the essence of the Father as more harmful than sanctifying. If, with the acceptance of the Spirit, It turned out to be better, and yet It was in the image and equality with the Father even before its improvement, as you claim, then the Father does not reach the final peak of glory, but will be within the same limits in which the Son, conformed to Him and equal to Him, reached (in the acceptance of the Spirit) the highest state. Therefore, I consider it timely to say to the ignorant heretics: “Behold, a people are foolish and heartless; they have eyes, but do not see; they have ears, but do not hear” (Jer. 5:21), for indeed “the god of this age has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, so that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ should not shine forth” (2 Cor. 4:4). One should rather mourn them than be angry with them, for they do not understand what they are reading. And that we are telling the truth will also be clear from what follows, although we have already given important proof in previous discussions. Let us take again the saying of Paul: “Be wise in these things,” he says, each one “in yourselves,” “who also was in Christ Jesus, who was in the form of God, not to be equal with God through admiration, but to be made less than Himself, having received the form of a servant, being in the likeness of mankind, and found in the form of a man; He humbled Himself” (Phil. 2:5–8). Here he is very surprised at the Son, as equal and conformable to God and the Father, who by no means stole this out of love for us, but went into humiliation through the image of a slave, humiliated for the sake of humanity. But if, dear ones, He received the Spirit and became more sanctified when He became a man, and because of this sanctification He found Himself higher than Himself, then to what humiliation shall we see Him descend? How could this elevation be a humiliation? How could this sanctification be a descent? Or how could it not be rather an ascension and elevation to the better? Can there be any humiliation to be filled with the Spirit? How could he even be conceivable of becoming human for our sake, if he received such great benefit from this for Himself? How does the Rich One (2 Cor. 8:9) become rich for our sakes “become poor for our sakes”? Could He who, according to their teaching, received in him (incarnation) what he did not have, that is, the Spirit, be rich even before coming (to earth)? And should not, on the contrary, He Himself justly give us thanks for the fact that He benefited Himself for our sake? “The heavens were terrified at this and trembled greatly, says the Lord: “There are two evils,” indeed, he created a people (Jer. 2:12, 13) who think differently, not understanding “neither what they say nor what they affirm” (1 Tim. 1:7), and they do not consider it grave to recklessly handle such important objects. Otherwise, they themselves, shedding bitter tears from their eyes and emitting a great voice to heaven, would have turned with the following words: “Set, O Lord, a guard against my mouth and a door of protection over my lips: do not turn my heart into words of wickedness” (Ps. 140:3-4). Truly, the words of wickedness are their speech, causing the greatest harm to the listeners. We, having expelled their idle talk from our hearts, will turn to the right teaching of the faith, remembering the words of Scripture: “bringing down thoughts and every exaltation that is brought to the mind of God, and bringing into captivity every mind into the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor. 10:5). Let us subordinate our mind, captivating it in the speculations we have proposed, to the glory of the Only Begotten, prudently attributing everything (the interpreted saying) to His obedience, that is, to the image of His incarnation, for “He is rich, but for our sakes He became poor, so that through His poverty we might become rich” (2 Cor. 8:9). You can also accept, if you wish, the further proof we offer, giving our words patient attention. Divine Scripture testifies that man was created in the image and likeness of God who exists above all. Thus, Moses, who compiled the first book of the Bible for us, known to God “more than all” (Exod. 33:17), says: “And God created man, in the image of God created him” (Gen. 1:27). And that he was imprinted in the image of God through the Spirit, he also taught us this in the words: “And I will blow into his nostrils the breath of life” (Gen. 2:7). The Spirit together put life into the creature and magnificently imprinted His features on it. Thus, having created a rational animal on earth, the Supreme Artist God gave him a saving commandment. And he remained in paradise, as it is written, still continuing to preserve this and being adorned with the Divine image of the Creator through the Holy Spirit indwelling him. But when, seduced by the flattery of the devil, he despised the Creator and, trampling upon the law determined for him, insulted the Benefactor and rejected the grace given to him, then the one created for life heard for the first time: “you are earth and you will go back to earth” (Gen. 3:19); then, through the rise of sin, the likeness with God was already distorted and the features (of the image of God) no longer became bright, but seemed to have dimmed and darkened in him due to the crime. Since the human race began to expand to a very great multitude, and meanwhile sin possessed everyone, captivating the soul of each in various ways; then nature (of man) was deprived (more and more) of its original grace; The spirit retreats completely and a reasonable person falls into extreme foolishness, does not even know his Creator Himself. But the Creator of all, having suffered for a long time, finally had mercy on the perishing universe and, being good, hastened to gather again the flock that had wandered across the earth. He was pleased to transform humanity again into its former image through the Spirit, for otherwise it was impossible for the Divine traits to shine in him the same as they were before. What God does for this, how he bestowed upon us abundant grace, or how the Spirit was again rooted in people, and how human nature was transformed into its former state - all this should be said. The first man, being ringed and from the earth (1 Cor. 15:47), having the free choice of good and evil in his power and being the master of attraction to one or the other, was carried away by bitter flattery and, inclined to disobedience, falls into the mother earth from which he came, is already subject to decay and death and transmits this corruption to the whole race. And with the growth in us and the multiplication of evil and with the constant descent of our mind, sin reigned for the worse, and thus human nature finally found itself deprived of the Holy Spirit indwelling it: “For the Holy Spirit of wisdom 172 will flee the flatterer,” as it is written, “and does not dwell in a body guilty of sin” (Wisdom 1:5, 4). When, therefore, the first Adam did not retain the grace given to him from God, then God and the Father determined for us from heaven the Second Adam (1 Cor. 15:45) and sends in likeness with us His unchangeable and immutable by nature Son, completely “knowing no sin” (2 Cor. 5:21), so that just as through the disobedience of the first we would be subjected to Divine wrath, so through obedience Secondly, we would have avoided the oath, and its disastrous consequences would have been abolished (Rom. 5:19). Since the Word of God became a man, He receives the Spirit from the Father, as one of us, not actually receiving anything for Himself, for It Himself was the Giver of the Spirit, but so that, having received it as a man, it would be preserved for our nature and so that He who knew no sin would again introduce into us the departed grace. For this reason, I believe, the Holy Baptist usefully added the words: “For I saw the Spirit descending from heaven and remaining on Him.” He flew away from us because of sin, and He who knew no sin became like one of us, so that the Spirit would continually abide in us, having no reason to be removed or diminished in Him. So, for us he receives the Spirit through Himself and renews the former goodness in our nature. So He is called poor for our sake (2 Cor. 8:9), for, like God, being rich and not needing any good, He became a man in need of everything, to whom it is very well said in one place: “whatever you have received, you have received” (1 Cor. 4:7). How, being life by nature, He died according to the flesh for our sake, in order to conquer death for us and to resurrect all nature with Himself, for we were all in Him, since He became man; so he also receives the Spirit for our sake, in order to sanctify all nature, since He did not come for His own benefit, but in order to become for all of us the door, the beginning and the path of heavenly blessings. After all, if He had not revealed Himself to those who receive (the Spirit), like a man, or to those who suffer, like one of us, then how could He have found Himself humiliated? Or how would the image of a slave be preserved in Him if something characteristic of a slave had not been written about Him? May therefore not the wise dispensation be subject to censure, at which the divine Paul himself is rightly surprised, exclaiming thus: “so that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in heaven through the church, according to the eternal predestination which he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Eph. 3:10–11). Truly, the great mystery of incarnation turns out to be wisdom and, moreover, Divine! In my opinion, we who have chosen piety and love the correctness of dogmas should have such an idea of ​​the Savior. We will not at all descend (together with them) to such unreason as to assert that the Spirit is present by communion in Him who is the Son by nature, and not vice versa - essentially abiding in Him, just as, without a doubt, in the Father Himself. Both the Father and the Son are the Holy Spirit, as we read about this in the Divine Scriptures: “having come to Mysia,” it is said, “I attempted to go to Bithynia: and (but) the Spirit 173 Jesus did not forsake them” (Acts 16:7). If anyone, out of love for argument, begins to object to these reasonings and again asserts that the Spirit is present in the Son through communion, or that He (the Spirit), who was not previously in Him, only then united with Him when he was baptized, during the incarnation, let him again see what absurdities he will fall into. And firstly, the Savior says that “for those born of women, the pain of John the Baptist did not arise” (Matthew 11:11). And this word is true. But here he is, having reached the pinnacle of glory and valor characteristic of us, honoring Christ with incomparable virtues, saying: “I am not worthy to stoop down and untie the thong of His sandals” (Mark 1:7). Therefore, is it not absurd, even more - is it not wicked for John to believe that “from his mother’s womb” he was filled with the Holy Spirit, as it is written about him (Luke 1:15), and about the Master and Lord of his (Forerunner), even more - (Lord) of all, to think that He only received the Spirit for the first time when he was baptized, although Saint Gabriel said to the Holy Virgin: “Spirit The Holy One will come upon you and the power of the Most High will overshadow you, and that which is holy to be born will be called the Son of God” (Luke 1:35). And let the curious one pay attention to the deepest meaning of these words. It is said about John that “he will be filled with the Holy Spirit,” because the Holy Spirit was given in him, and not in essence. And about the Savior he no longer says “will be fulfilled,” but “what is born is holy,” without adding “will be,” for he has always been such by nature, like God. But since we must grasp what is useful from everywhere, then, having cited the words of the Archangel, let us now think a little about them. “The Spirit,” says, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you, and the thing that is to be born holy will be called the Son of God” (Luke 1:35). Let him now tell us, who, out of his great ignorance, rebels against the right dogmas of the Church: Was the Word of God and the Father already the Son even before the incarnation, or did He have this dignity only by name, but in fact was untrue (Son) and falsely named? After all, if he says that He (the Word) is not the Son, then he will have to deny the Father, for who will He be the father of when there is no son? And in this case it will be in conflict with all the Divine Scriptures. If he recognizes (the Word) as the Son and that He was before His incarnation and is called the Son, then how does the Archangel tell us that what is to be born of the Holy Virgin will be called the Son of God, although He was already such by nature before? Just as the Son, who eternally exists with the Father, is appointed to be the Son of God, having the beginning of being at the time of the Incarnation due to His appearance into the world with a body, so it is said about the one who essentially has his Spirit in Himself that He receives It as a man, preserving the property due to humanity and, together with humanity, assimilating for our sake its properties. Otherwise, is it possible to represent the Word without its own Spirit? After all, isn’t it absurd to say about man that the spirit existing in him is separate from him, thereby contradicting the true and complete concept of human nature. But this, I think, is completely clear to everyone. How then shall we separate from the Son the Spirit, which is so essentially and naturally united with Him, proceeding through Him 174 and existing naturally in Him, so that it is not considered different from Him, both in the sameness of effectiveness and in the very unity of nature? Listen to what the Savior says to His disciples: “If you love Me, keep My commandments, and I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Comforter. The Spirit of truth which the world cannot receive” (John 14:15–17). Here he clearly calls the Holy Spirit the Spirit of truth. And that He (the Son) Himself, and not another who is different from Him, is the truth, about this listen again to Him, who says: “I am the truth” (John 14:6). When, therefore, He who is the Son by nature is and is called the truth, then see what unity the Spirit has with Him, if John, the disciple of our Savior, speaks of Him in one place: “This is Jesus Christ who came by water and blood and the Spirit, not by water, but by water and blood: and the Spirit bears witness, that the Spirit is truth” (1 John 5:6). That is why and when the Holy “Spirit in the inner man” lives in us (Eph. 3:16), it is said that Christ Himself dwells (v. 17) - and this should be so by the very nature of things. In addition, Blessed Paul clearly teaches this in the words: “But you are not in the flesh, but in spirit, because the Spirit of God dwells in you: but if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not have Him 175: If Christ is in you, the flesh is dead for sin's sake, but the Spirit is life 176 for righteousness” (Rom. 8:9-10). Pay careful attention to these words. Having called the Spirit of Christ living in us, he immediately added: “if Christ is in you,” thereby indicating the complete similarity of the Son with His Own and from Him by nature the Spirit poured out 177. That is why it is called the “Spirit of Sonship,” and we “for whom we cry: Abba, Father” (Rom. 8:15) and, as blessed John says: “We understand this, as it is in us, as He has given us of His Spirit” (1 John 4:13). I consider what has been said to be sufficient for the children of the Church to reject the harmful teaching of those who think differently. If anyone finds himself immersed in the unbridled fury of ignorance and thinks that the Son first received the Spirit when he became man, let him prove that the Word of God was not holy before the incarnation, and then we will remain silent. In all fairness, one must marvel at the holy Evangelist in the fact that everywhere he uses expressions corresponding to the Divine nature with the greatest care and precision. Since he said before that “no one has ever seen God” (John 1:18), and now he says that the blessed Baptist saw the Spirit descending on the Son from heaven, he considers it necessary to add that “I saw the Spirit,” however, in the form of a “dove,” that is, not in His pure nature, as He exists in Himself, but having taken the form of the meekest animal. And this is in order, through this, to again preserve His naturalness with the Son, who says: “Learn from Me, for I am meek and lowly in heart” (Matthew 11:29). Thus, the Spirit will not cease to be God by nature, since with Him it remains impossible to see Him ever, except only in the visible form of a dove, for the benefit of the disciple (the Forerunner). As a sign and indication, says the blessed Baptist, the descent of the Spirit (on Christ) was given to him, as can be seen from the further testimonies he added about our Savior, that “Having sent me to baptize in water, He said to me: on the unworthy you will see the Spirit descending and remaining on Him, He is the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.” Therefore, I consider the foolish heretics worthy of special ridicule, who take what is given as a sign as the essence of the object, although this was, as already said before, providentially - for the benefit of humanity. John 1:34. And I saw and testified that this is the Son of God 178 What the witness really saw is reliable, so is the speaker. Perhaps he did not know what was written: “What your eyes have seen, speak” (Prov. 25:8). I saw, he says, the sign and understood its meaning: I testify that “this is the Son of God,” proclaimed by the law of Moses and preached by the voice of the holy prophets. And it seems to me again that the blessed Evangelist said with some great firmness: “This is the Son of God,” that is, the One and Only by nature, the Heir of the properties of the Parent, by whom we (sons) are formed by adoption and through whom we are called by grace to the dignity of sonship. Just as from God and the Father “the whole family in heaven and on earth is named” (Eph. 3:15), because He is the Father in the proper, original and true sense, so is all sonship from the Son, because He alone is the Son in the proper and true sense, not counterfeit or falsely named, but from the essence of God and the Father, not by cutting off, or by expiration, or by separation, for He is entirely dispassionate Divine nature - but as One from One, always co-existing, and co-eternal, and co-natural with the Parent, and existing in Him, and coming from Him inseparably and spatially, since the Divinity has no corporeality, is not limited to place and does not make spatial movements. On the contrary, just as from fire comes its inherent warmth, which in our thoughts seems to be separated from it and exists as something else, different from it, although existing from it and in it by nature and originating from it, without at all undergoing cutting off, or separation, or flowing out, for all of it is preserved in all fire; This is how we must think about the Divine birth (the Son), accepting a mental representation of Him consistent with the Divine, believing that the Son has His own existence, without at all placing Him outside the one and ineffable Divinity and not considering Him to be other than the Father. Otherwise, He should no longer be revered as the true Son and will turn out to be for us a recent (created) god - another, different from the true and only God. In fact, can that which is not consubstantial with God by nature be the true God? Since the blessed Baptist deserves complete trust, and yet he testifies that “This is the Son of God,” then we must confess the Son to be the true God and from the essence of the Father. It is this, and not something else, that the name of sonship points us to. John 1:35–36. In the morning John stood again, and his disciples were two. And seeing Jesus coming, the verb: Behold the Lamb of God (take away the sin of the world) 179 The blessed Evangelist had already pointed to Him earlier. But here again, repeating the same words, he shows Jesus to his disciples, calls him “the Lamb of God” and says that He will take away the sin of the world, as if leading the listeners to remember His words from the prophets: “I am, I am the one who blots out your iniquities, and I will not remember them” (Is. 43:25). However, it is not in vain that the Evangelist repeats his speech about the Baptist. The work of a teacher's valor is to inculcate the not yet learned teaching into the souls of students through tireless and patient repetition for the benefit of the students. This is why Blessed Paul says: “Nowadays” to say 180 “to you, for I am not lazy, but to you it is steadfast” (Phil. 3:1). John 1:37. Both disciples heard him speaking, and according to Jesus Notice how quickly the teaching bore fruit. Look at the benefits of repetition. Let the one to whom the teaching is entrusted learn from here to overcome all inertia and consider silence more harmful to himself than to the listeners, and not to bury the Sovereign talent in lazy inaction, as if in the ground (Matthew 25:18), but to distribute “silver to the traders” (v. 27). After all, the Savior will receive His at a profit and, like a certain seed, will bring forth the abandoned word. Here you have the best proof of what has been said. The Baptist did not hesitate to point out the Lord to his disciples and say a second time: “Behold, the Lamb of God (take away the sin of the world),” and this is how he brought them such benefit that he finally convinced them to follow and willingly become His (the Savior’s) disciples. John 1:38. Jesus turned and saw me walking on my own, saying: What are you looking for? The Lord speaks favorably to those who follow Him, so that you may actually recognize what is sung by the Psalmist: “I have sought the Lord, and heard me” (Ps. 33:5). Until we seek God through a virtuous life and right faith, we remain, as it were, behind Him. When, thirsting for His Divine law, we follow the holy and noble path of righteousness, then He certainly looks at us, calling to us with the words of Scripture: “Turn to Me, and I will return to you, says the Lord Almighty” (Zechariah 1:3). And if he says to them: what are you looking for, then not out of ignorance, of course, for as God He knows everything, but in order to start a conversation with this question. John 1:38. She asked Him: Rabbi, where do you live? Those asked answer well, for they already call Him a teacher, clearly expressing their desire to learn something. Then they want to know His whereabouts, so that they can conveniently talk there about what they need. It seems that they did not consider it worthy to carry on casual conversation about important subjects. The above should also serve as a useful example for us. John 1:39. Verb ima: come and see 181 He does not indicate His dwelling, although those who followed Him asked Him about it, but commands them to immediately enter it. Through this He, as if by example, teaches, firstly, that it is not good to slow down and put off the search for good, for slowness in useful objects is very harmful. And then, in addition, he teaches that for those who do not yet know the holy house of our Savior Christ, that is, the Church, for their salvation it is not enough to know only where it is, but must come to it through faith and see the sacraments performed in it. John 1:39. He came and saw where he lived, and that day remained with Him. It's almost ten o'clock The disciples diligently learned to know the Divine mysteries, for lovers of science, I believe, should have a mind that is not quickly satiated, but industrious, overcoming cowardice with good labors and distinguished by complete diligence throughout life. This, I think, is indicated, as if through a riddle, by the expression: “With Him remained that day.” And regarding the words: “the hour is like the tenth,” applying to them an interpretation that is useful for everyone, let’s say that through this such a precise indication of time, the Theologian again teaches us that the great mystery of our Savior was revealed not at the beginning of the present age, but when time had already reached the end, for in the last days, as it is written (Is. 54:13), we all find ourselves taught by God. In addition, if the Holy Evangelist says that the disciples remained with the Savior until about the tenth hour, then this is so that those who enter through faith into the house of God and those who come here to Christ Himself know what should remain with Him, and not move away again from Him, returning to sin or unbelief. John 1:40–42. Andrei, brother of Simon Peter, was the only one who heard from John and followed him. You will first find your brother Simon and say to him: you have found the Messiah. And bring him to Jesus 182 Those who have just received a talent immediately receive a profit from it and bring it to the Lord. Truly such are inquisitive and diligent souls, for their benefit they do not require many words and do not produce fruit from teaching over many months and years, but together with the beginning of teaching they unite the end of understanding: “give,” it is said, “to the wise, wine, and he will be the wisest; tell the righteous, and he will receive it” (Proverbs 9:9). So Andrew leads his brother to salvation - and it was Peter - by briefly revealing to him the whole great secret: we found, he says, Jesus, a treasure hidden in a field or like a single pearl of great price, according to the Gospel parables (Matthew 13:44, 46). John 1:42. Jesus looked up and said: You are Simon, son of Jonah, 183 and you will be called Cephas, as Peter says. He who sees hearts and wombs looks divinely (Ps. 7:10; Jer. 11). He sees what piety the disciple will achieve and to what perfection in virtue he will reach, for He is “knowledgeable of all things before they came into being” (Dan. 13:42). By this especially He teaches the called disciple that, being the true God, He possesses knowledge without teaching, for, without saying a single word and without asking who or where this man came to Him, from what father he was born, He says who he is and what he is called. And having already acquired him under his authority and made him his own, he does not allow him to henceforth be called Simon, but renames him Peter, giving this name from the “rock” (πέτϱα), since he intended to found his Church on him (Matthew 16:18). John 1:43. In the morning you wanted to go to Galilee, and you found Philip, and Jesus said to him: Come after Me. Philip was of the same mindset as his previous disciples and was quite disposed to follow Christ. The Lord knew that he too would be a good disciple, and therefore he says: “follow Me,” with these words indicating the grace given to him, and by commanding him to follow Him, testifying to his virtuous life. After all, He would not have chosen someone who was not fully worthy of it. John 1:45. Philip will find Nathanael and say to him: Who wrote Moses in the law and the prophets, who found Jesus the son of Joseph, who was of Nazareth This disciple bears fruit very quickly, so that through this he is related in spirit to the former disciples. “He finds Nathanael,” not simply and by chance meeting him walking, but after carefully searching for him, for he knew him as very hardworking and wise. Then he tells him that he has found Christ, proclaimed throughout the Divine Scriptures, talking with him not as an ignoramus, but as an excellent expert in the signs of the wise Moses and the prophets. The Jews, however, had an incorrect opinion about our Savior Jesus Christ, that He came from the city or village of Nazareth, although Divine Scripture clearly calls Him a Bethlehemite; “And you,” it is said, “In Bethlehem, the house of Ephrath, you had little food, so that you could be among the thousands of Judah? From you will come forth for me (an Elder) to be a prince in Israel, and He has gone forth from the beginning from the days of the world” (Mic. 5:2). He was only raised in Nazareth, which the Evangelist testified to in one place, saying: “And he came to Nazareth, where he was raised” (Luke 4:16). But He was not from there, but from where - we have already said, or rather, He witnessed the voice of the prophet. So, following the opinion of the Jews, Philip says: “Jesus is from Nazareth. » John 1:46. And Nathanael said to him: Can anything good come from Nazareth? Nathanael easily agrees that the appearance of the expected one from Nazareth is a great and glorious thing. However, it is not only Nazareth that he takes as evidence, but, having knowledge of the law and the prophets, he, like a learned man, quickly understands this. John 1:46. Philip said to him: Come and see To be sure, he says, it will be enough just to look at Him, and as soon as you enter into a conversation with Him, you will immediately recognize and say without hesitation that He really is the Expected One (Christ). A certain Divine and ineffable grace, as we must believe, poured out in the words of the Savior and captivated the listeners, about which it is written: “I was all amazed at the words of grace that proceeded from His mouth” (Luke 4:22), since His word had effective power and was able to convince (Matthew 7:28–29). John 1:47. The sight of Jesus Nathanael coming to Himself and the verb about him: Behold, truly an Israelite, in him there is no flattery Having not yet used proof through signs, Christ tries in another way to convince His disciples, and precisely the most prudent of those who came to Him, that although He is Son and God by nature, He came in human form for the salvation of all. What method did He use for identification? Obviously - Divine knowledge, since omniscience is characteristic of God alone. Therefore, He accepts Nathanael, not by flattery attracting him to favor Him, but assuring him that He knows hearts like God. John 1:48. Nathanael said to Him: How do you know me? Nathanael begins to be surprised and is called to a strong faith. But he still wants to know where He has knowledge about him, for wise and God-loving souls are very accurate. Or maybe he suspects that the Lord learned something about him from Philip. John 1:48. Jesus answered and said to him: Philip did not even shout to you first, for he who was under the fig tree saw you The Savior dispelled his suspicion, saying that even before the meeting and conversation with Philip, He saw him under the fig tree, although He was absent in body. Both the fig tree and the place are very usefully named, serving as evidence that Christ saw him, for, having known this for sure, he could easily accept everything connected with it. John 1:49. Nathanael answered and said to Him: Rabbi, You are the Son of God 184, You are the King of Israel Nathanael knew that God alone tests hearts and none of the people is given the ability to know the thoughts of another, probably referring to the saying of the psalm: “God searches the hearts and bellies” (Ps. 7:10), where the Psalmist exclusively attributes this property (omniscience) to the Divine nature alone, and to no one else. So, when he learned that the Lord sees thoughts not yet expressed in sounds and only spinning in the mind, he immediately calls Him teacher and, willingly becoming His disciple, confesses Him as the Son of God and the King of Israel, recognizing Him as God by nature, to Whom the properties of Divinity belong. John 1:50. Jesus answered and said to him: I said to you, because I saw you under the fig tree, you believed: you will see more of these. You will become, he says, even stronger in faith when you see more of this. And in fact, whoever believed by a sign alone, how will he not become much more firm in his faith when the most remarkable miracles are revealed to him? John 1:51. Amen, amen I say to you: see 185 the heavens open and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man Capturing Nathanael's faith, he turns his speech to everyone. When they see, he says, “the Angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man,” that is, serving Him and fulfilling His commands regarding the salvation of those who believe (people), then He will especially be revealed as the Son of God by nature. After all, these spiritual Forces serve not each other, but, of course, God. We do not deny subordination between the Angels, but it would be unfair to call it service; regarding Christ the Savior, we heard from the holy Evangelists that “The angels came and served Him” (Matthew 4:11; Mark 1:13). John 2:1–4. And on the third day 186 there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee, and the Mother of Jesus was there. Jesus and His disciples were quickly called to marriage. And I lacked wine 187, the mother of Jesus’ verb to Him: they have no wine. And Jesus said to her... In good time, he finally begins to begin the signs, although, it seems, he is not called to this by His will 188. The Mother of the Savior was present at the wedding celebration, which took place, no doubt, in a quite decent manner. Also, He Himself, having been called, came to this celebration with His disciples, more to work miracles than to feast, and also in order to sanctify the very beginning of human existence, we mean in relation to the flesh. Whoever led the very nature of man and transformed it all for the better, He had to not only give blessing to those already called into existence, but also to prepare grace for those who were still born and make their transition into existence holy. You can add a third base here. After all, the wife was told by God: “In sickness, give birth to children” (Gen. 3:16). Shouldn’t this very curse also be removed from us? Or how could one otherwise avoid a condemned marriage? This is what the humane Savior allowed. He who is the joy and gladness of all honored marriage with His presence, in order to remove the original sorrow of childbearing: “if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation, and an old thing is passing by,” as Paul says, “there was a new one” (2 Cor. 5:17). And He comes to the wedding together with His disciples, for lovers of contemplating miracles should have been present with the Wonderworker in order to receive, as it were, some kind of food for their faith from the miracle being performed. When those who were feasting had a shortage of wine, the Mother began to call on the good Lord to His usual love for mankind, saying: “They have no wine.” Thus, he encourages Him to perform a miracle, since it was in His power to do whatever He wanted. John 2:4. What is it to me and to you, wife? My time has not come In these words, the Savior points out to us that it was not appropriate to rush into performing this miracle and seem like an unauthorized miracle worker, but to begin this only when called upon, thereby imparting grace to the need, and not at all to the spectators 189 . And getting what you want seems more pleasant when it is not given to those asking immediately and not without difficulty, but when after a slight delay it evokes even better hope. And besides, through this Christ shows the remarkable respect due (from children) to parents, out of respect for the Mother, by starting to do something that he did not yet want to do. John 2:5. The Mother's Verb to His Servants: Whatever He says to you, do it. With her maternal influence, the Wife persuaded the Lord, like a son, to perform a miracle. She herself begins the work, preparing the servants of the celebration to fulfill what the Lord commands them. John 2:7–10. Jesus said to them: Fill the waterpots. And fill 190 to the top. And he said to them: draw now and bring to the architriclinos. And 191 brought... It’s like tasting the architriclene of wine that came from water 192, and not knowing where it came from. The servants of the leader drew water. Invite the groom to the architricline and say to him: every man first puts on good wine, and when they get drunk, then the worst thing is, you have kept the good wine until now. The servants carry out the order, and the water with indescribable power (at this time) turned into wine. Can anything be difficult for the One who can do everything? Can he who calls the non-existent into being encounter difficulty in transforming what has already been created into whatever He wishes? They are surprised at this deed as extraordinary, for what was accomplished by Christ could not have been otherwise. The master of the feast blames the groom for wasting the best (wine) at the end of the feast - and not without reason, it seems to me, in relation to the historical meaning of the story. John 2:11. Behold, Jesus made the firstfruits a sign in Cana of Galilee and reveal Your glory. And your disciples believed in Him Many wonderful things happened in this one and first sign. An honest marriage was sanctified, the curse on the wife was removed, for it would no longer be in sorrow to give birth to children if Christ blessed the very beginning (marriage) of our birth. The glory of our Savior shone like a ray of sunshine, and the disciples, in amazement at such a sign, became even more strengthened in their faith. Let the explanation of the historical meaning of the story stop here. But I think we must apply another contemplation to this narrative and say what it means in a spiritual sense. The Word of God, as It Himself says in one place (John 6:38, etc.), came down from heaven in order to, like a bridegroom, having assimilated human nature, make it bear the spiritual seeds of wisdom. Therefore, humanity is rightly called the bride, and the Savior - the Bridegroom (John 3, etc.), and the Divine Scripture uses the likeness from us to understand what is above us. Marriage is celebrated on the third day, that is, in the last times of the present century, for the number three shows us the beginning and the middle and the end. This is how it is measured all the time. Something similar to this, it seems, was said by one of the holy prophets: “he will wound us and heal us, he will heal us twice a day on the third day: and we will rise again and live before Him, and we will be wedded to bring the Lord, for the morning is ready we will find Him” (Hos. 6:2-3). He struck down for the sake of crime in Adam, saying: “You are earth and you will go back to earth” (Gen. 3:19). But, having struck us with corruption and death, He healed us again on the third day, that is, not in the first and not in the middle, but in the last times, when, having become man for our sake, He revealed all nature healthy, raising it in Himself from the dead, which is why it is called “the firstfruits of those who sleep” (1 Cor. 15:20). So, the name of the third day on which the marriage took place indicates the last time. It also designates a place, saying that in Cana of Galilee (it was). And let the inquisitive turn their attention to this. The celebration did not take place in Jerusalem, but there was a feast outside Judea, in the land of the pagans, which the prophet calls “Galilee” (Is. 9:1; Matt. 4:15). It is, of course, obvious to everyone that the Jewish synagogue rejected the Heavenly Bridegroom, but the pagan Church, on the contrary, accepted Him, and very willingly. The Savior does not come to a marriage without a call, but was called by many voices of saints. But those who feasted turned out to have a lack of wine, “the law has done nothing” (Heb. 7:19) and the writings of Moses are not enough to convey complete joy; however, even the measure of innate sobriety 193 did not have the strength to save us, which is why it is fair to say about us that “they have no guilt.” And our Generous God does not despise nature, which suffers from a lack of goods - wine has shown us the best of the past, “for a letter kills, but the spirit gives life” (2 Cor. 3:6). The law did not have perfection in goods, but the Divine commandments of the gospel teaching bring complete blessing. The master of the feast is amazed at the new wine, and so, I think, each of those who are invested with Divine priesthood and to whom the house of our Savior Christ has been entrusted, is amazed at His teaching, which exceeds the law. Christ commands him (the steward) first to serve the wine, because, according to the words of Paul, “it is fitting for the laboring worker first to partake of the fruit” (2 Tim. 2:6), and let the listener again understand what I am saying. John 2:14. And you will find in the church selling oxen and sheep, 194 and doves, and sitting stumps And here again the Jews are exposed in that they despised the laws given to them and did not pay attention to the Mosaic writings, focusing only on covetousness. So, although those who intended to enter the Divine Church were ordered by the law to cleanse themselves in various ways in advance, those in power did not in the least prevent them from desecrating the holy courtyard and even themselves ordered money changers or penny traders and other similar people to enter it with unwashed feet, whose trade is covetousness and whose hearts are dominated by profit and self-interest, for all the aspirations of traders are concentrated on this. Thus, what God said about them is true: “the shepherds of the multitude have corrupted my grapes, desecrated my portion, and given my desired portion into the impassable wilderness, and have become 195 a waste of destruction” (Jer. 12:10–11). Indeed, the Lord's vineyard was corrupted, taught to trample even the very reverence of God and alienated into all ignorance by the greed of the leaders. John 2:15. And having created 196 like 197 a scourge from the ropes, everyone was expelled from the church The Savior is rightly indignant at the foolishness of the Jews, for it was not fitting for the Divine Church to be made a house of trade, but a house of prayer, as it is written (Matthew 21:13; Isaiah 56:7; Jeremiah 7:11). And not only in words does he reveal His wrath, but with blows and a scourge he expels them from the sacred enclosures, applying to them the punishment due to slaves, for they had the power not to accept the Son, who liberates through faith. Please also note what Paul wrote, as if in an image, in the words: “If anyone corrupts the church of God, God will corrupt him” (1 Cor. 3:17). John 2:16. Take this from here: do not 198 do to My Father’s house the house of what was bought 199 He commands as a Lord, guides to what is due as a Teacher and reveals crimes with punishment, respecting this, not allowing anyone to insult the Punisher. We must pay attention to the fact that he again calls God His Father in the exclusive sense, as unique by nature and truly begotten from Him. If this were not so and the Word is truly a son with us as one of us, that is, by adoption and only by the will of the Father; then why does He assign to Himself alone the common dignity that belongs to all, saying this: “Do not make My Father’s house (a house of trade),” and not the house of our Father? After all, it would seem that this should be said if He recognized Himself as one of those sons (of God), who are such not by nature (but by grace). Since the Word recognizes Himself not as one of the sons by grace, but as a Son from the essence of God and the Father, He places Himself apart from others, calling God His Father. It is fitting for those called to sonship and having this dignity by grace to cry out in prayer: “Our Father who art in heaven” (Matthew 6:9), and for Him Who is the One and Only One Only Begotten (Son), it is fitting to call God His Father. But, in addition to the above interpretation, another speculation can be applied to this narrative. John 2:17. And you will find" (it is said) "in the church selling 200 sheep and oxen" and so on. Notice again that the entire economy about us was expressed through two objects. With the inhabitants of Cana, the Galileans, Christ feasts and cohabits, and makes those who called Him and thus honored Him His companions, also through signs brings them benefit and makes up for their lack of joy, and what good does He not generously give them? By this, as by means of an image, He teaches that He will receive to Himself the inhabitants of Galilee, that is, the pagans, as having been called to them through their faith, and will introduce them into the heavenly temple, obviously into the church of the firstborn (Heb. 12:23), and will place them with the saints, for the holy disciples reclined with those who feasted, and they will participate in the divine and spiritual celebration, just as He Himself did in one place. says that “many people from the east and the west will come and sit with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob” (Matt. 8:11), and they will not lack joy, for “everlasting joy is upon their heads” (Is. 35:10). And he will expel the unbelieving Jews from the holy places and place them outside the sacred fence of the saints. But he will not accept those who offer sacrifices; on the contrary, he will punish and scourge them, bound by the chains of their sins (Proverbs 5:22). Listen to what he says: “Take this from here.” This is so that you also understand what was anciently said in the voice of the prophet Isaiah: “I do not want burnt offerings of rams and the fat of lambs and the blood of young men and goats; You shall not walk in my courtyard; if you bring the seventh, in vain: censer, it is an abomination to me: your new moon and your Sabbaths and your high days I will not tolerate: my soul hates fasting and idleness and your holidays: let me be satisfied, for whom I will not endure your sins” (Is. 1:11-14). This is what he figuratively points out to them, using a scourge of ropes, for scourges are a sign of punishment. “I will remember His disciples, as it is written: it is a pity for Thy house to destroy me The disciples gradually improve in knowledge and, comparing the Scriptures with the events that took place, they already discover a high degree of understanding. John 2:18. He answered Judaea and decided to Him: What sign will you show us that you have done this? The crowd of Jews is amazed at such extraordinary power (Christ), and those in the church (the leaders) declare their displeasure, since they were deprived of considerable profits. However, they cannot accuse Him of speaking badly, commanding that the Divine Church should not be turned into a house of trade. Thus, they arrange a delay to remove the merchants under the pretext that one should not obey Him so quickly and so imprudently accept Him as the Son of God, without being verified by some sign. John 2:19. Destroy this church To those who ask for benefits out of a good will, God gives them mercifully; to those who approach with a tempting purpose, not only does he not generously give what they ask for, but also exposes them to accusations of deceit. So, when the Pharisees, according to other gospel passages, demanded a sign, the Savior denounced them, saying: “An evil and adulterous generation seeks a sign, and no sign will be given to it, except the sign of the prophet Jonah: As Jonah was in the belly of the whale for three days and three nights, so will the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights” ( Matthew 12:39–40). What he said to those, so to these, only with a slight change, for they, like those, demand, tempting. But those who are in such a mood, of course, would not have been given this sign (of the prophet Jonah), if it (the resurrection of Christ) were not supposed to be for the salvation of us all. You should know that they made this (the saying of the Lord) as a pretext to accuse Him, falsely speaking before Pontius Pilate, which they had not heard: “with this speech,” they say, “I can destroy the church of God” (Matthew 26:61). That is why Christ said about them to the prophets: “I stood up as a witness of unrighteousness, even though I knew nothing, I questioned me” (Ps. 34:11), and again: “For I stood up as a witness of unrighteousness, and lied untruthfully to myself” (Ps. 26:12). Of course, he does not encourage them to kill when he says: “destroy this church,” but since he knew that they would certainly do this, he secretly pointed out this event that was about to happen. John 2:20. This church was created to be fourty and six years old, and did You raise it up in three days? They ridicule the sign, not understanding the depth of the mystery, and turn the illness of their ignorance into a plausible reason for disobedience to Him. Imagining the difficulty of such a matter, they treat His promise more as idle talk than as anything achievable, so that what is written about them may be true: “Let their eyes be darkened so that they cannot see, and let their backs be cut off” (Ps. 69:24). As if always bending down and bending only to earthly objects, they cannot have contemplation of the lofty dogmas of Christian piety - and this is not because the man-loving God envies them in this, but because He subjects those who have committed serious crimes to punishment commensurate with them. Notice how foolishly they become arrogant, not sparing their souls. Our Lord Jesus Christ called God His Father, saying: “Do not make My Father’s house a house of trading” (John 2:16). But although they should have already considered Him the Son and God, as having appeared from God and the Father, they, however, still think that this is a simple man similar to us. That is why they indicate the time taken to build the church, saying: “It took thirty and six years for this church to be built, and will You raise it up in three days?” But I consider it fair to say to you, who have plunged into all sorts of madness, the following: if a wise mind dwells in you and if you believe that the church that is located in you is the house of God, then how can you not consider Him to be the true God by nature, who boldly dared to say: “Do not make the house of “My Father” a house of trade”? Really, tell me, would it take Him a long time to build one house? Or could He really be powerless in anything at all, Who in the sevenfold number of days only, with ineffable power, created this whole world and can do everything by His will alone? This is what people who knew the Holy Scriptures should have understood. John 2:21–22. He spoke about the church of His body. When He rose from the dead, His disciples remembered these things which He said, and believed the Scriptures and the words which Jesus spoke The word of wisdom is acceptable to the wise and the knowledge of the sciences is much easier to take root in intelligent people: just as the signs of seals are well drawn on wax that is not very hard, so the Divine word is easily taken root in the tender hearts of people. That is why the hard-hearted is called the evil one. So the disciples, being good, gain wisdom and reflect on the words of Divine Scripture, educating themselves to the most accurate knowledge and firmly coming from here (from knowledge) to faith. So, if the body of Christ is called a church, then how can the Only Begotten Word who dwells in it (the body) not be God by nature, how soon should it not be allowed that He who is not God is called dwelling in the church? Otherwise, let them tell us, of which of the saints who ever was the church was called the body? No one, I believe, will point out such a saint. So, I affirm - and this will turn out to be completely true, upon a careful study of the Divine Scriptures - that such an honor cannot be assigned to any of the saints. Even the blessed Baptist, although he reached the pinnacle of all virtue and did not concede primacy in piety to anyone, having undergone the truncation of his head thanks to the madness of Herod, however, nothing like this is said about him. On the contrary, the Evangelist used an expression about his remains indicating their coarse fleshiness, doing this, it seems to me, with the prudent purpose of preserving this dignity for Christ alone. He writes like this: “and having sent” the murderer, that is, Herod, “he beheaded John in prison. And his disciples came and took his corpse (πτῶμα)” (Matthew 14:10, 12). If John's body is called a corpse, then whose church will it be? True, we are also called churches of God (1 Cor. 3:16, 6:19; 2 Cor. 6:16, 19), but in a different sense, because of the Holy Spirit living in us, and moreover, we are called churches of God, and not of ourselves. But perhaps someone will object: how, tell me, does the Savior Himself call His body a corpse? “Where,” he says, “if there is a corpse, there the eagles will be gathered” (Matthew 24:28). To which we answer: it is true that Christ said this about his own body, but in the form of a parable and figuratively He points to the future gathering of the saints to Him at the time when He will again appear from heaven to us with the holy Angels “in the glory of His Father” (Matthew 16:27). Like flocks, he says, of carnivorous eagles quickly flock to the corpses, in the same way you will be gathered to Me, which Paul clearly expressed to us in the words: “For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will rise incorruptible” (1 Cor. 15:52), and in another place: “And we will be caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord” (1 Thess. 4:17). Thus, the use of comparison and similarity cannot in any way damage the true meaning of the expression. John 2:23. When 201 you were in Jerusalem on the Passover feast 202, many believed in His name, seeing His 203 signs that He did. Christ never ceases to save and use. He attracts some with wise words, and, surprising others with Divine power, attracts them to faith, so that, seeing Him performing miracles, they were inclined to believe that the Performer of such wondrous deeds must really be God. John 2:24. Jesus Himself did not commit them to their faith 204 The mood of those who have just believed is unstable and their minds have not yet been strengthened by recent miracles: since the word of the catechumen is still, as it were, immature, how can they be firm in piety? Therefore, Christ does not yet entrust Himself to the new believers, thereby revealing that closeness to God is a great and most worthy matter, and that it is not easily given to anyone who wants to take it, but is achieved by striving for good, diligence and time. From this let the keepers of the Savior’s sacraments learn that it is not proper to prematurely admit a person inside the sacred veils and allow those converts who have hastily been baptized and who have been imparted faith in the Lord of all Christ to begin the Divine table. Thus, this also serves as a figurative indication for us of who is most fitting to be initiated, for although he accepts those who believe, he has not yet hoped for them, because he “has not entrusted himself” (to them), from which it clearly follows that newcomers must remain in the catechumen for a considerable time, and only after this they should be accepted among the faithful. John 2:24–25. Zane himself knows all 205, and as if he did not demand 206, but whoever testifies about a man 207, knows himself what is in a man Next to others, this dignity of Christ is Divine and not inherent in any of created beings; for the Psalmist assimilates it to the true God alone, saying this: “who created their hearts in one, was mindful of all their deeds” (Ps. 33:15). If this property of God alone belongs to Christ - to know what is in us, then how can God not be by nature “Knower of the hidden things” (Dan. 13:42) and “Knower of the deep and hidden,” as it is written (Dan. 2:22)? “Who is the message of man who is in man, but the spirit of man living in him” (1 Cor. 2:11)? While no one knows, God does not know, for He is by no means among all those about whom “no one” is rightly used, but is outside everything and everything is in His power. Paul will testify to this with the words: “For the Word of God is living and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit, members and marrow, and judging by the mind and the thought of the heart: and there is no creation that is not manifest before Him, but all naked and is declared before His eyes” (Heb. 4:12-13). After all, like “Plant an ear,” He hears everything, and like “He who makes an eye,” He “looks” (Ps. 93:9). Also in the book of Job, He is quoted as saying the following words: “Whoever hides this advice from Me, keep the words in your heart, Do you imagine hiding Me” (Job 38:2)? So, in order for us to recognize the Son as God by nature, the Evangelist considers it necessary to say that He did not need anyone to testify about man, for He Himself knew what was in man. John 3:1–2. Now there was a man 208 from the Pharisees, whose name was Nicodemus, Prince of Judea. 209 This one came to Him 210 night and spoke to Him Nicodemus was very ready for faith, but under the influence of false shame and out of concern for glory among people, he does not have courage and is divided in his mood in two, wavers in his decision, “and tempts,” as it is written, “on both sides” (1 Kings 18:21), prompted by convictions of conscience to believe because of the greatness of the miracles and at the same time not wanting to damage his position, for he was “the leader of the Jews.” Out of a desire both to preserve his glory with them and to be a secret believer, he comes to Jesus, using the cover of the darkness of the night for his purpose and by this secret coming he is exposed in the duality of his mood. John 3:2–3. Rabbi, we know 211 that you are a Teacher from God: no one can do these signs 212 that you do, unless 213 God is with him. Jesus answered and said to him... In these words he thought to have all piety and for his salvation he considers it sufficient only to be surprised at what deserves surprise - and he does not seek anything else besides this. And calling Him a Teacher from God (who came) and helped by Him, Nicodemus did not yet know that He was God by nature, that is, he did not understand the mystery of the incarnation, but still comes to Him as to a simple man, and has a small idea about Him and does not correspond to His nature. John 3:3. Amen, amen I say to you: unless one is born again 214 he cannot see the Kingdom of God Faith does not consist in what you think, Nicodemus says: words are not enough for you for righteousness, and you cannot achieve piety with empty words, “for not everyone says to Me: Lord! God! will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, but do the will of My Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 7:21). The will of the Father is that man should participate in the Holy Spirit and become a heavenly citizen from earthly things. And using the word “from above” about rebirth through the Spirit, this clearly indicates that the Spirit (comes) from the essence of God and the Father, in which sense, without a doubt, He Himself speaks of Himself in one place: “I am from on high” (John 8:23), just as the wise Evangelist speaks again about Him: “He who comes from above is above all” (John 3:31). However, in due time we will go into more detail. Let us tell you that the Spirit undoubtedly comes from the essence of God and the Father. John 3:4–5. How can a person be born, old? Can food take its second (second) into its mother’s womb and be born? Jesus answered... With these words, Nicodemus is exposed that he is still a “spiritual” man, which is why he “does not accept the Spirit of God” (1 Cor. 2:14), for he considers such a holy and glorious sacrament foolish. Hearing about a new and spiritual birth, he imagines the bodily womb returning to the genera of already born people - without rising above the law of our nature, he defines Divine objects by it - finding the height of this teaching inaccessible to his mind, he falls and rushes down. And this is because, just as objects that, when thrown strongly, hit hard stones, bounce back again, so, I think, the ignorant mind, when faced with a teaching that it cannot master, retreats exhausted and, following its usual measures, dishonors the highest and most perfect understanding. Being in such a state, the Jewish leader does not accept spiritual birth. John 3:5. Unless someone is born of water and the Spirit 215, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God A person who does not properly understand what being born again means, the Lord instructs with clearer instructions and more fully reveals to him the knowledge of the sacrament. Our Lord Jesus Christ called rebirth through the Spirit rebirth from above, indicating that the Spirit has the essence that exceeds everything, through Whom we become partakers of the Divine Nature (2 Pet. 1:4), when we receive the Spirit, which essentially comes from It, and through Him and in Him we are transformed according to the Primordial Beauty, thus we are reborn into the renewal of life and receive Divine sonship (Rom. 6:4; Eph.1:5). But having misunderstood the word “from above - again,” Nicodemus imagined that it meant a second birth that was to take place precisely according to the body, so that he turned out to be unreasonable and at the same time ignorant, thinking about the impossible. Therefore, the Savior treats him, as still weak, very tenderly and, having removed the veil from His speech, says clearly: “Unless one is born through water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God.” Since man by his nature is something complex and uneasy, composed of two - a sensory body and a spiritual soul, then for his rebirth he needed a double means, which should be akin to both sides of his nature. It is the spirit of man that is sanctified by the Spirit, and the body by water, which in turn is also sanctified. Just as water poured into cauldrons, when combined with strong fire, absorbs its power (warmth), so sensual water, through the action of the Spirit, is transformed into a certain Divine and ineffable power and sanctifies everyone in whom it is found. John 3:6. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit Also, through another reason, he convinces him to reach a higher understanding and, when hearing about a spiritual birth, not to imagine it in his mind as having the properties of a bodily birth. Just as those born of the flesh, he says, must, of course, be flesh, so, obviously, those born of the Spirit must be spirit. What has a different way of being is not the same; of course, there must also be a way of birth. At the same time, you should know that we call the human spirit the birth of the Spirit not in the sense that it (the human spirit) is born from Him (the Spirit of God) by nature - this is impossible, but, firstly and most importantly, because through Him what does not exist is called into being; secondly, because through Him Providence grants us transformation according to God, since He impresses upon us His features and transforms the mind, as it were, into His Own quality. Thus, I believe, we should correctly understand Paul’s word to the Galatians: “My children, I am still sick with them, until Christ is imagined in you” (Gal. 4:19), and again: “For I have brought forth the gospel of Christ Jesus” (1 Cor. 4:15). John 3:7–8. Do not marvel, for Rekhti: it is fitting for you to be born again. The Spirit breathes where it wills, and you hear its voice, but do not consider where it comes from and where it goes: this is whoever is born of the Spirit. This is the dignity of a teacher when he instructs the minds of his listeners in various ways and, through many arguments, presents proofs of a difficult subject. So Christ gives a clear idea of ​​​​a mysterious subject through comparison. “Spirit,” he says, that is, this airy and elemental “wind blows” around the entire universe - and where it runs freely, its presence is indicated only by noise, but it is hidden from all eyes and communicated to the more subtle sense of bodily hearing, producing a feeling of its inherent effectiveness. In the same way, he says, you must understand My teaching about rebirth through the Spirit, guided from small examples to large ones and in the above words, as in an image, understanding supersensible objects. 216 John 3:9–10. Nicodemus answered and said to Him: How can this 217 happen? Jesus answered and spoke to him A lengthy speech, however, did not bring any benefit to someone who did not understand anything. Thus, what is written in the Book of Proverbs turns out to be wise: “Speak in the ears of those who listen” (Sir.25:12; cf. Proverbs.23:9). The Savior demonstrated the truth of this in practice, and in this, presenting Himself as a model for us. One should not blame a teacher for his inability to persuade if he teaches what he considers good, and yet does not bring any benefit due to the foolishness of his listeners. We learn about this from other places: “For Israel was blinded in part” (Rom. 11:25), for having heard by hearing, they did not understand (Is. 6:9; Matt. 13:14). John 3:10. Thou art the teacher of Israel, and art thou not these? In the person of one, Christ denounces all those adorned with the title of teacher and possessing only the bare knowledge of legislation, but having a mind filled with ignorance and unable to understand anything of what they should not only know themselves, but also teach others. And if such is the teacher, then what kind of disciples are they, how soon does the student exceed the teacher, according to the word of the Savior: “there is no disciple greater than the teacher” (Matthew 10:24). Since they were so ignorant, Christ likens them to “whitened tombs” (Matthew 23:27), and Paul rightly said to the ruler of the Jews: “God will beat you, the wall has been broken down” (Acts 23:3). John 3:11. Amen, amen I say to you, as we have spoken, and we have seen, we testify. This man finds himself impervious to teaching and very ignorant, and due to the great weakness of his mind, he is in no way capable of accepting guidance to the understanding of Divine teachings, although after a long speech and with various comparisons. Therefore, Christ considers it necessary to stop the exact explanation of the subject and advises him to accept by simple faith what he cannot understand. He testifies of Himself that He clearly knows what He is talking about, thereby indicating the extreme danger of still contradicting Him; for it was not natural for Nicodemus to forget what he claimed to know about our Savior Jesus Christ, namely that He “came from God a teacher” (John 3:2). But isn’t resistance to Him who is from God and to God full of extreme danger? After all, this already turns out to be a fight against God. Moreover, we who have the power to teach should learn from this that for those who have just come to faith, faith (expressed) in simple statements is much better than any deep reasoning and more difficult explanation. So Paul gave milk to those who were not yet able to digest more solid food (1 Cor. 3:2), just as the wise Solomon says to us in one place: “Be wise to the soul of your flock” (Proverbs 27:23), not indifferently, he says, offering a teaching word to all who come, but accordingly applying it to the measure (acceptability) of each. John 3:11. And you do not accept our testimony As He naturally has within Himself the Father and the Spirit, the Savior speaks on behalf of many witnesses, so that, in some way, according to the Mosaic Law, “in the hearing of two and three witnesses” what was said would be established. He shows here that the Jews did not at all want to receive salvation, but uncontrollably and recklessly rushed into the deep abyss of destruction. In fact, if, due to their great ignorance, they are unable to understand the preaching (of Christ), nor do they want to accept it by faith, then what other way of salvation could be invented? Therefore, it is excellent and quite fair that the Savior said that Jerusalem will be irresponsible, as having brought destruction upon itself of its own free will: “Jerusalem, Jerusalem,” he says, “beating the prophets and stoning those sent to him 218, when your fellow children desired, just as the kokosh gathers his chicks under the krill, and did not desire! Behold, your house is left to you 219" (Matthew 23:37–38). John 3:12–13. If an earthly river came to you and you did not believe, how could you believe if a heavenly river came to you? And no one ascended into heaven except the Son of Man who came down from heaven (who is in heaven) 220 If, he says, you do not accept a teaching that does not exceed the human ability of understanding, due to your excessive unreason, then how can I explain the Divine mysteries to you? If you are ignorant in your own subjects, how can you be wise in that which exceeds you? Finding yourself powerless in small things, how can you bear more? And if, he says, you do not believe the words of Me alone, but demand many witnesses in everything, then what kind of spectator of heavenly mysteries will I present to you? After all, “no one has ascended into heaven except the Son of Man who came down from heaven.” And although the Word of God itself came down from heaven, it nevertheless says that the Son of Man came down, not wanting to divide Him after His incarnation into two persons and not allowing anyone to say that one Son is the One who became the church received from the Virgin for the salvation of people, and the other is the Word Who appeared from God the Father, and, however, it is necessary to distinguish the properties of His natures (as the Son of God and the Son of Man). Just as the Word is born from God, so man is born from a woman. One, however, of both is Christ, indivisible in sonship and in Divine glory. Otherwise, how does He attribute to the church from the Virgin such properties that actually belong only to the Word, and vice versa - to assimilate to Himself what belongs only to the flesh? So 221 and now he says that the Son of Man came down from heaven. He experiences fear, is horrified and exhausted during suffering, and suffering is attributed to Him, characteristic only of humanity, as if He Himself had suffered. John 3:14–15. And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so it is fitting for the Son of Man to be lifted up 222, so that everyone who believes in Him 223 (in Him) will not perish, but 224 have eternal life 225 Having sufficiently understood the reason why the word of teaching to him does not ascend to objects immeasurably beyond his understanding, Christ again descends to the types that once existed under Moses, since He knew that Nicodemus, although with difficulty, could reach the knowledge of the truth under the guidance of images rather than spiritual and accurate research. “It must,” He says, “be exalted,” like the serpent under Moses, indicating the need to study history and, as if saying to those who do not understand the same thing that he then said: “Test the Scriptures, for they are the ones who testify about Me” (John 5:39). Snakes began to attack the Israelites in the desert, who fell like ears of corn and, terribly struck by the unexpected danger that befell them, with mournful voices called for salvation from above from God. Then God, being good and loving of mankind, commands Moses to erect a copper serpent for them. In it, He foretells salvation through faith, since the medicine for the bitten person was to look directly at the serpent - thus, faith, combined with a look at the serpent, brought liberation from death to those who looked. This is the historical meaning of this story (Num. 21ff.). But in this event, as in a prototype, the whole mystery of the incarnation is also inscribed. The serpent points to the painful and murderous sin that oppressed all people on earth, biting the human soul in various ways and pouring out various poisons of evil. And it was impossible for us to escape the sin that so possessed us except through help from heaven alone. That is why God the Word appeared 226 “in the likeness of the flesh of sin,” in order to condemn “sin in the flesh,” as it is written (Rom. 8:3), and to reveal Himself as the Author of eternal salvation for those who fix their eyes on Him through either strong faith or the study of Divine dogmas. And if the serpent was nailed on a high pillar, then this, without a doubt, indicates the worldwide glory of Christ, so that He was not unknown to anyone, or His ascension from the earth, as He Himself says in one place (John 12:32), while suffering on the cross. 227 John 3:16. For God loved the world, for He gave 228 His only begotten Son 230 so that everyone who believes in Him 231 shall not perish, but have eternal life These words clearly indicate that He is God by nature, if the One who shone forth from God the Father must also be thought of as God, having this dignity not by acquisition, as we do, but really and truly existing as we believe. He speaks very prudently about this, adding an indication of the love of God and the Father for us and skillfully moving on to talk about this. Truly, He shames the unbelieving Nicodemus, even more, He reveals him guilty of wickedness. In fact, if one is reluctant to come to faith in what God teaches, what else will this be if not bringing the accusation of lying to the truth? Then, in addition, by saying that He Himself was given for the life of the world, He strongly urges us to think about what punishment those who, due to their thoughtlessness, do not at all value such a wonderful grace of God and the Father should be guilty of. After all, “God so loved the world,” he says, “that He gave His only begotten Son.” Let the heretical Christ-fighter listen again and say: what is the greatness of the love of God and the Father, or why is it right to be surprised at it? Without a doubt, he will say that the admirability of love is revealed in the giving of the Son for us, and, moreover, the Only Begotten. Thus, in order for the love of God and the Father to abid and remain great, for this He must be thought of as a Son, and not a creature, - I mean Son from the essence of the Father, that is, Consubstantial with Him who gave birth and God in essence and truly. If, as you teach, He does not have existence from the essence of God and the Father and sweeps away from Himself the existence of Son and God by nature, then the greatest admirability of the Father’s love should already be abolished, for He would give creation for creatures, and not the true Son. It will be in vain for Blessed Paul to frighten us, saying: “Whoever rejects the law of Moses dies without mercy in the presence of two or three witnesses: how much do you think that the worse one will be worthy of torment like the one who trampled on the Son of God” (Heb. 10:28-29)? He is, without a doubt, trampled upon by the one who humiliates Him and considers Him not to be the true Son, but to be a fellow servant of Moses, since one creature is, of course, a brother (related) to another creature, precisely by its creatureliness, even if it is superior to another greater or lesser glory. But the word of Paul is true. And he who tramples on the Son will undergo terrible punishment, as he who sins not against the creature and not against one of Moses’ fellow servants (but against the true Son of God). So, truly great and supernatural is the love of the Father, who gave His Own for the life of the world and from Him the living Son. John 3:17. God did not send His Son 232 into the world to judge the world 233, but may the world be saved by Him 234 Having clearly called himself the Son of God and the Father, he does not consider it necessary to leave this speech without certification, but from the very, so to speak, deeds he provides proof of this quality, thereby raising his listeners to a firmer faith. I was not sent, he says, like the priestly leader Moses, to judge the universe according to the law or introduce a commandment to expose sin - no, I free the slave as the Son and Heir of the Father - I transform the condemning law into justifying grace, freeing those bound by the chains of my own sins from sin - I came for the salvation of the universe, and not for condemnation. Yes, truly, he says, it was necessary for Moses, as a slave of the condemning law, to be a servant, and for Me, as the Son and God, to free the entire universe from the curse of the law and with immeasurable love for mankind to heal the weakness of the world. If justifying grace is superior to the condemning law, then should we not therefore think that He who possesses such divine power and frees man from the bonds of sin is superior to the state of slavery? This is one, I think, useful meaning of this saying. But out of curiosity, one can find here another meaning, revolving around the same ideas and containing speculation related to the previous ones. The Savior saw in Nicodemus a commitment to the Mosaic laws and firm devotion to the original commandments, and fear of rebirth through the Spirit and inertia towards the new gospel life, since he probably thought that it would be heavier than the already given decrees. As God, knowing this fear that had taken hold of him, the Savior, with a single and decisive reasoning, frees him from these fears and shows that the law of Moses, as given for the condemnation of the world, is much more difficult (the Gospel), and reveals Himself as the Giver of mercy, saying this: “For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.” John 3:18. He who believes in the Son 235 is not condemned 236, but he who does not believe is already condemned, for he does not believe in the name of the Only Begotten Son of God Having confirmed by his own deed that He is the Son of God and the Father and that He imparts to the world a grace superior to the ministry of Moses, for justification by grace is, of course, better than condemnation by the law, He, as God, thought out for us another way that leads to faith, gathering the lost from everywhere to salvation. He offers the believer freedom from judgment as a reward, and the unbeliever punishment, through both means leading some to the same path, some with a desire for grace, others with fear of suffering, zealously calling on them to go to faith. The guilt of unbelief is grave and great, since He is the Son and Only Begotten; for the more faith the One to whom the insult is inflicted deserves, the more grave the sin will be condemned to the one who dishonors. The unbeliever, he says, is already condemned, as having awarded himself due punishment because he knew that he was rejecting the Liberator from judgment. John 3:19. This is judgment, because light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light. He does not leave judgment on unbelievers without examination, but adds guilt and clearly shows that, according to the proverbial saying, “it is not without righteousness that the depths of the birds are stretched out” (Proverbs 1:17). If, he says, having the opportunity to be illuminated, they chose to be in darkness, then shouldn’t they, in fairness, find themselves defining evil for themselves? Do they not voluntarily expose themselves to something that could have been avoided if they had correctly assessed objects, preferred light to darkness and cared more about virtue than about vice? But again he granted man freedom from the bonds of necessity in the pursuit of both, so that he would justly accept praise for good and punishment for evil, as he expressed this in another place: “If you are willing and listen to Me, you will destroy the good land; if you are not willing, you will listen to Me; John 3:20. Everyone who does evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds be exposed 237 He explains in more detail what has been said and denounces inertia in goodness, which comes from the love of vice and has its root in the reluctance to learn that through which one can become wise and kind. The doer of evil, he says, avoids and refuses to be in the Divine light and is not covered with shame for the sake of vice - if he had undergone this, he would have been saved - but prefers to remain in ignorance of what is due, so as not to be subjected to heavy convictions of conscience for his sin, and thus, through this knowledge of good, brings the Judge the gravest accusation against himself, since he did not want to do what is pleasing to God. John 3:21. The doer of truth (that is, the lover and creator of deeds of truth) comes to the light, so that his deeds will appear, as in (in) God the essence was done He does not refuse enlightenment by the Spirit, being guided by Him, of course not in a violent way, to understand whether he has not transgressed the Divine commandment and whether he has done everything according to the law of God. Thus, the reluctance to learn that through which one can reach the best serves as clear evidence of an unbridled desire for evil, and the thirst to be enlightened and to make the law of God as a rule and guide to a godly life (serves as evidence) of an attraction to good. Knowing that this is so, the venerable Psalmist sings: “the law of the Lord is blameless, converting souls: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making children wise: the justifications of the Lord are right, gladdening the heart: the commandment of the Lord is bright, enlightening the eyes” (Ps. 18:8-9). John 3:22–24. And from now on 238 Jesus came to the land of Judea 239 with His disciples 240 . But John was baptizing in Aenon 241 near Salem, for there was a great splash of water; At the end of the conversation with Nicodemus, the venerable Evangelist gives another beneficial story. Guided by the Divine spirit to the presentation of important subjects, he realized that a clear knowledge of the advantage and how elevated baptism through Christ is over the baptism of John would be of great benefit to readers. Indeed, in the near future one could expect the appearance of such (false teachers) who, foolishly, would dare to assert that there is absolutely no difference between them and that they should be revered in equal measure - or even reach such wild ignorance that baptism through Christ is deprived of superiority, and baptism by water, with shameless impudence, is placed higher. Yes, to what insolence do they not reach and what blasphemy do they not invent those who rebel against the sacred dogmas of the Church and “corrupt all that is right,” as it is written (Mic. 3:9)? To prevent their daring foundations, the wise Evangelist introduces before us the holy Baptist himself, offering a solution to the question to his disciples. So, Christ baptizes through His disciples, just like John, but not through others and not in the same sources in which Christ did this, but near Salem, as it is written, and in one of the surrounding and neighboring sources. It is through this distinction of water sources, I think, that the Evangelist represents the difference in baptism and, as if through a riddle, indicates that baptism through John is not the same as the baptism from our Savior Christ, although, however, it is close to it, as a kind of anticipation and preparation for a more perfect baptism. Just as the law of Moses, it is said, “has a shadow of future good things, and not the very image of things” (Heb. 10:1), for the Scripture of Moses, containing within itself the hidden germ of truth, is a predestination and foreshadowing of service in the spirit, so baptism into repentance should be understood. John 3:25–26. There was a 242 dispute between the disciple John 243 and the Jew 244 about cleansing. And she came to John and told him... Unable to defend the legal washings and unable to defend cleansing through the ashes of a heifer, the Jews invent something against John’s disciples through which they thought to greatly annoy them, although they were inferior to them (in their teaching and life). Since the disciples who were with the blessed Baptist turned out to be superior to the Pharisees in virtue and in mind, reverently before the baptism of their teacher and rebelling against the legal purifications, the Pharisees were annoyed with them for this, capable only of censure and ready for any evil deed. And so they hypocritically praise baptism through Christ, not because they are sincerely disposed, and not in order to lavish true praise on this matter, but having the only goal - to annoy and doing this contrary to their real mood, just to bring their intention to fulfillment. At the same time, they are unable to present any proof from reason, nor to defend Christ through the Holy Scriptures (where could the ignorant have such prudence?), but to confirm their words they only put forward the fact that the number of those who come to John is very small, but everyone comes to Christ in a crowd. Perhaps they very foolishly hoped to gain victory and bring triumph to the legal purifications by placing the baptism imparted through Christ to those who came to Him above the baptism by the hand of John. And indeed, they annoy those to whom the speech was made (John’s disciples), but they themselves, in turn, retreat and leave John’s disciples, having suffered a great defeat as a result of their imprudent verbal dispute, for they glorify the Lord with forced praise and against their will. John 3:26–27. Rabbi, who was with you on the floor of the Jordan, to whom you testified, behold, this One baptizes, and everyone comes to Him. John answered and said... Stung by the words of the Pharisees and bearing in mind the very nature of the matter, the disciples were unable to expose the liars and therefore, naturally, became perplexed. Not knowing the great dignity of our Savior, they are very afraid for the disparagement of John and, out of love for him, in a respectful and reverent question, they want to find out from him why He who is attested by his word precedes him in glory, surpasses him, and by grace and baptism attracts to Himself not only part of the entire Jewish people, but already all. And they asked this question, one must think, not without Divine inspiration, for through this the Baptist is called to an accurate and lengthy explanation about the Savior and indicates the clearest difference between both baptisms. John 3:27. A person cannot accept 245 anything unless it is given to him from heaven No, he says, there is nothing good in people that has not been given by God, for “what have you that you have not received?” (1 Cor. 4:7) - it is fitting for creatures to hear. At the same time, I believe, one must be content with the measure (of good) allocated (to each) and be consoled by the honors assigned from heaven, but not at all extend beyond the (assigned) limits and with the ungrateful desire to increasingly dishonor the Highest Determination and arm ourselves against the judgments of the Lord out of shame, so as not to appear to receive a less perfect good. But whatever it pleases God to honor us, this should be valued above all else. Therefore, let him not grieve, says my disciple, if I do not go beyond the measure given to me, if I do not think about more and limit myself to the glory inherent in man. John 3:28. You yourself testify to me that I have said: I am not Christ, but I am sent before Him. He brings to mind to his disciples the words that they have already often heard, at the same time nobly denounces them for having succumbed to the oblivion of much-needed subjects and being careless towards such an important teaching, and also convinces them, as having been brought up in the study of the Holy Scripture, to remember how it proclaims Christ and how the forerunner-Baptist. Thus, having received due knowledge about each, they should not be sad at all, seeing in each what is appropriate for them. So, I have no need, he says, for this in other witnesses, I have my disciples who personally heard this, I confessed my slavery, “I was sent” to foretell, “I am not Christ.” May He triumph, may He increase, and may He be glorified as Lord and God. John 3:29. Having a bride, the groom is: and the friend of the grooms, standing and listening to him, rejoices with joy for the voice of the grooms 246: this is why my joy is fulfilled And here, taken from the similarity with us, speech leads to the clarification of subtle speculations, for sensually tangible objects can serve as images of spiritual objects, and examples taken from material-physical phenomena often provide evidence of spiritual phenomena. So, he says, Christ is the bridegroom and the hero of the occasion, and I am the convener of the feast and the bridegroom’s confidant, who places the greatest joy and highest dignity in being only among friends and hearing the voice of the Triumphant (groom). And now I already have what I want and my efforts have come true. After all, I not only announced that Christ would come, but I see Him already present and feel His very voice in my ears. But you, my wisest disciples, seeing humanity betrothed to Christ going to Him and contemplating the nature that has withdrawn and deviated from love for Him, ascending to spiritual communion with Him through holy baptism, do not be sad, he says, that everyone is no longer rushing to me, but to the spiritual Bridegroom. This is how it should be, for “he who has a bride is the bridegroom,” that is, look not for me for the crown of the bridegroom, and not for me, rejoicing, says the Psalmist: “Hear, daughters, and see, and incline your ear, and forget your people and your father’s house, for the King has desired 247 your kindness” (Ps. 44:11-12). Not looking for my palace, the bride says: “Build it up for me, my soul loves it, where do you pasture, where do you rest at noon?” ( Song 1:6 ). She has a Heavenly Bridegroom, but I rejoice in the fact that, having surpassed the honor due to a slave, both in name, and in fact I find myself a friend of the Bridegroom. I think that I have well interpreted the meaning of this saying. And I have already given enough explanation about spiritual marriage, so we consider it unnecessary to write anything more about it. John 3:30. It is fitting for him to grow, but for me to grow small He accuses the disciples of the fact that they are already worried about insignificant subjects and are already being tempted in ways they shouldn’t, and yet they still don’t know who Emmanuel is and where he comes from. It is not this, he says, that He should arouse astonishment to Himself and He surpasses my glory, not only by the fact that more people are baptized by Him, but He achieves such a degree of glory that befits God. It is fitting for him to achieve an increase in glory and, with the daily addition of signs, to ascend to greater and greater levels and to appear to the world more and more gloriously. But it is fitting for me to decrease, remaining with what I have received, and not exceeding the measure once given to me, while He always ascends to the increase of glory, decreasing as He ascends. The blessed Baptist explains this to us. But I think it is useful to use examples to reveal more clearly the meaning of what has been said. For example, let a tree two cubits high stand on the ground. And nearby is a plant that has just come out of the ground, spreading its green branches into the air and being strongly driven upward from the root more and more. If it were possible to give a tree the gift of speech and then it would say about itself and about the neighboring plant: this must increase, but I must decrease, then this, of course, would not indicate causing any harm to it or taking away from it the measure (height) that belongs to it, but would affirm its decrease in appearance alone, since it turns out to be smaller than the ever-increasing plant. In the same way, for example, one of the most significant stars can say about the sun: he must increase (grow), but I must decrease. While the air space is covered with the darkness of night, the Lucifer, emitting a golden luster and shining with a magnificent light, can rightly cause wonder at itself. But when the sun, before its rising, already begins to illuminate the world with moderate light, she (the Lucifer) is defeated by the strongest (light) and gradually gives way to the prevailing (sun) - then she could rightly say about herself the word of John, as having experienced the same thing, which, he says, he (the Baptist) also underwent. That the Son is not one of the creatures, but above all, as God from God John 3:31. He who comes from above is above all No, he says, there is nothing too surprising in the fact that Christ surpasses the dignity of man, for not only to this limit does He extend His glory, but, as God, He is above every creature, “above all” created beings, not as being among them, but as being removed from all, and having Divine power over everything. It also adds a reason, shaming the enemy and silencing the enemy. “Above,” he says, “The Coming One,” that is, having grown from the Highest Root, naturally preserving in Himself the paternal nobility, undoubtedly, must have being “above all.” And indeed, it would be strange for the Son to not be exactly the same as the One who gave birth to Him appears in His dignity: Possessing the same nature of the Son, the reflection and mark of the Father, how could he be less than Him in dignity? Will not the quality of the Father be dishonored through the dishonor of the Son, and will we not humiliate the characteristics of the Parent through the humiliation of the Son? But this, I believe, is obvious to everyone, which is why it is written: “Let all honor the Son as they honor the Father; whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father” (John 5:23). But He Who shines with equal dignity with God and the Father, because of His being from Him by nature, how can he be thought of as not surpassing the essence of created beings? This is what the expression means: “there is above all.” But I feel again that the minds of the Christ-fighters will not calm down at all, but will come out, one must think, with such an unbridled speech: “When the blessed Baptist says that the Lord came “from above,” then on what basis should we in this “from above” assume an indication of His coming from the essence of the Father, and not from heaven, or even from His inherent superiority over everything, thanks to which He is thought and called being above all?” When they speak against us with such words, they will hear this again in response. We will follow not your rotten speeches, dear ones, but the Divine Scripture and sacred writings alone. Therefore, we must examine how they define the meaning of the word “from above.” Let them listen to the cry of one of the spirit-bearers: “every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights” (James 1:17). Here he clearly says that the word “from above” means “from the Father,” since, not knowing anything else superior to creatures other than the ineffable nature of God, she, in fact, learned this “from above.” After all, everything else is subject to the yoke of slavery; God alone is above subordination to anything and reigns over everything, which is why He is “above all” in the true sense. But the Son, being God and from God by nature, cannot be deprived of this dignity. And if you think that “from above” should be taken to mean “from heaven,” then let this word be applied to every Angel and every rational force, since the inhabitants of the highest city come to us from heaven, and ascend and descend, as the Savior says, on the Son of Man (John 1:51). What, therefore, prompted the blessed Baptist to assimilate that which belongs to many exclusively to the Son alone, and as of that which came only from above to say: “He who comes from above?” In this case, one should make this dignity common to others and say: “those who come from above are above all.” But he knew that this expression could befit only the Son, as one who grew from the Highest Root. So, “from above” does not at all mean “from heaven,” but this word should be understood as we have already said, piously and truly. Indeed, how will the Son be “above all” if the word “above” does not mean “from the Father”, but “from heaven?” Indeed, in this case, each of the holy Angels will be “above all,” as if coming from there. If each of them is not counted among “everyone,” then who will “everyone” consist of? Or how will the concept of “everything” remain intact and retain its exact meaning, how soon will such a multitude of Angels be excluded and limit the limit of “everything”? After all, it will no longer be “everything”, as soon as those (Angels) who were in this “everything” will remain outside of this “everything”. But the Word, ineffably shining from God the Father, having a special birth “from above” and being from the essence of the Father, as from a source, by His coming “(coming from above)” will not harm the concept of “everything”, since It is not contained in “everything”, as a part of it, on the contrary, It is “above everything”, as another, different from it in Its Divine nature and power and in other properties of the One who gave birth. But, ashamed of such absurd conclusions, our opponents will perhaps say that the word “from above” does not mean “from heaven,” but “from His inherent superiority over everything.” However, examining the meaning of the interpreted saying, we will again see what absurdities such an interpretation leads to. And firstly, it is completely absurd and impossible to say that the Son Himself comes from his own dignity, as if from some place - or also, as from one, the same one from his own superiority comes into being “above all.” And besides, I would willingly ask them: do they assimilate the superiority over everything to the Son, as essential and inalienable, or as acquired from outside as accidental? If they say that He has an acquired superiority and is adorned with acquired virtues, then it will be necessary to admit that the Only Begotten could once have had no glory and be deprived of the acquired grace, as they say, not be “above all” and remain without that superiority at which they have just expressed their surprise, since an accidental quality is not a necessary and integral part of the essence of an object. Thus, there will be some kind of change and transformation in the Son, and the Psalmist will tell a lie, singing in vain words: “The heavens will perish, but You remain: and like a robe they will wear out, and like a garment, they will be changed: You are the same, and Your years will not fail” (Ps. 102:27-28). Where is He – “The same”, if He, together with us, is subject to change, and for the worse? In vain He will praise Himself in the words: “You see, you see, for I am and will not change, and there is no God except Me” (Mal.3:6). And shouldn’t the lack of the Son in this case also extend to the Father Himself, if the Son is the mark and exact image of the Father? Thus, God the Father will be subject to change among us and will have superiority over everything who has come to Him. I'm keeping silent about the rest. After all, the prototype must necessarily have in itself what is in the image. But, fearing such difficulties and at the same time the absurdities in these conclusions, they will not say, of course, that He has acquired superiority; on the contrary, they recognize this superiority as essential and inalienable. In this case, dear ones, how can you not agree with us again, even involuntarily, that the Son, being God by nature, “is above all,” why does he “come” from the one essence of God and the Father? After all, if there is nothing in created being that is not determined by the power of “everything,” and yet the Son “is above all,” obviously as another, outside of everything and having significant superiority over everything, and not as identical in nature with everything, then how can one not already be thinkable as the True God? Essentially being outside the multitude of creatures and by nature not being among created beings, how, finally, can He be other than God? After all, we do not see anything intermediary (between God and creation), since the matter concerns the essence of being, for the creation is in subordination, and God is thought of as the King over it. Therefore, if the Son is God by nature, and He was born inexpressibly from God and the Father, then the word “from above” means the nature of the One who gave birth, and therefore the Only Begotten is above “all”, as being (born) from it. John 3:31. He is from the earth, he is from the earth, and he speaks from the earth The earthly (man), he says, in the power of conviction will not act equally with God who exists above all. “He who is from the earth” will speak like a man and will appear as only an adviser, giving to those being instructed all the power of the desire to believe. “And he who comes from above,” as God, using Divine and ineffable grace, introduces the word into the ears of those who come. And to the extent that He is higher in nature, so, of course, will He act more powerfully (on those being taught). The blessed Baptist says this very beneficially to his disciples. Since they saw him inferior to the glory of the Savior and were already tempted by this, so much so that they even approached him with the words: “Rabbi, who was with you on the floor of the Jordan, to whom you testified, behold, he baptizes, and all come to him” (John 3:26), then the Spirit-Bearer, considering it necessary to stop the temptation and instill in his disciples a sound concept of such an important subject, reveals the superiority of the Savior over everyone and in at the same time, it indicates the reason why everyone was already coming to Him and, bypassing baptism with water alone, proceeded to the most divine and most perfect, obviously, the baptism of the Holy Spirit. John 3:31. Coming from heaven above all is This testifies that the greatest and incomparable difference is between those who are from the earth and the Word of God who descends from above and from heaven. If I, he says, am not able to teach you and if my word alone is not enough for you, then the Son Himself will confirm with His testimony that an infinite distance separates the earthly from the Beginning above all. The Savior said about this in a conversation with the wicked Jews: “You are from below, I am from above” (John 8:23). “Lower” refers to the nature of created beings, as subordinate and necessarily enslaved to the God who calls it into existence. And “highest” he again calls the Divine and ineffable and sovereign nature, as having under its dominion and subordinating the yoke of its power all created beings. And it was not in vain that the blessed Baptist added this to his previous words. So that his disciples do not think that he is coming up with vain reasoning and, out of shame, without sufficient reason to be considered lower than Christ, calls Him greater and existing from above, and himself from the earth and from below; then he considers it necessary to capture the power of his words with the words of the Savior Himself, and thus his explanation is not an empty slip, as his disciples might have thought, but a proof of the truth. Since the verse also contains another saying, namely: “having seen and heard, this testifies,” then let’s think a little about it. We usually receive confirmation of each subject through the two most important senses - sight and hearing. What we witnessed and what we heard personally, we affirm with certainty. So the Baptist convinces his disciples to quickly believe in Christ, for He says what He knows for sure. Again he uses similitude with us, so that we understand the divine, and says. John 3:32. Having seen and heard 248 this, this 249 testifies: and no one accepts His testimony The blessed Evangelist says this not because no one accepted the testimony that Christ is God by nature, that He came “from above” and from the Father and “is above all”: after all, many accepted (this testimony) and believed, and before all others Peter, who said: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God” (Matthew 16:16). But he himself, more accurately than anyone else, having understood the great dignity of the Speaker, here expresses his surprise at the madness of those who do not believe Him. That Christ is by nature God and from God h5 John 3:33 . Accept 250 His testimony is sealed 251 for there is a true God Otherwise, it was impossible to show the wickedness of the unbelievers if the glorious valor of the believers was not revealed, for vice is easily recognized through the opposition of virtue, and the knowledge of good exposes evil. So, if anyone, he says, believed the words of the One Coming from above, then he “sealed” and confirmed with his understanding that it is always characteristic and pleasing for the Divine nature to be not false. From this, for those who understand, the opposite is already obvious: he who rejects faith, of course, will testify that God is not true. It must be noted again that in these words he removes the Son from consubstantiality with creation and reveals Him to be true God by nature. If he who is convinced by His words and accepts the testimony that He Himself gives about Himself has sealed and confirmed that God is true; then how can Christ not be thought to be God by nature, whose truth is also attested through faith in the words He has just spoken? Or let the enemy answer us again: how can the Divine nature be honored as true, with the acceptance of the testimony of our Savior? After all, if He is not at all God by nature, then those who believe in Him as speaking the truth will show piety not to the Divine nature, but to one of the creatures, in their opinion, the most excellent. since the affirmation and recognition of truth refers to God, with faith in Christ, it is obvious to everyone that, being God, He does not delight Himself with false honor from believers. But the enemy of truth will probably not agree with these words of ours and, not recognizing the Son as God by nature, will strongly resist and say again: “You abuse the word, my dear, and come up with intricate turns of thought, abandoning the simple and always direct meaning. Since the Word of God came down from heaven, clearly exclaiming: “I do not speak from myself” (John 14:10), “but the Father who sent me gave me commandment, whatever I speak and whatever I speak” (John 12:49), and again: “all that I have heard from the Father,” I will declare to you (John 15:15), or, as the Holy Baptist himself testified after this: “For God has sent him, speaking the words of God” (John 3:34); That is why (the Baptist) says about Him: “Receive His sealed testimony, that God is true,” for God and the Father is truly true. And you are trying to transfer onto the Son what should be attributed to the Other (the Father).” What can we say against this? Should the Only Begotten really be among the prophets, as fulfilling the ministry proper to prophets and not doing anything else besides this? Who does not know that the prophets conveyed Divine speeches to us? What, therefore, will be special about the Son, who fulfills only this one thing? How then is He “above all” if He is ranked among the prophets and clothed with slavish service? How, as one who surpasses them in glory, says in the Gospels: “If you called them gods, to whom the word of God was and cannot be destroyed, the Scripture: Do you say to him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world that you are blaspheming, because I said: I am the Son of God” (John 10:35-36). Here He clearly separates Himself from the host of prophets and says that they are called gods because the word of God came to them, and He confesses Himself as the Son. After all, only partial grace was given to the holy prophets through the Spirit, but in the Savior Christ he was pleased to dwell “all the fullness of the Godhead bodily,” as Paul says (Col. 2:9), which is why “of His fullness we have all received, as John affirms” (John 1:16). How then can the Giver be of equal dignity with those who receive, or how can the fullness of the Godhead be the lot of the minister? Let them see from here into what dangerous blasphemy their speech can fall. How should we understand the saying: “I do not speak of Myself, but the Father who sent Me gave Me commandment, whatever I speak and whatever I speak” (John 14:10, 12, 49), a detailed interpretation of this will be given in due time and in its place. In the present case, I think to direct the objections of opponents to the benefits of piety and, on the basis of their statements, to defend the dogmas of the Church. So, they claim that the Son received the commandments from the Father and does not say anything from Himself, but what He heard, as He Himself testifies in one place, He speaks to us (John 8:26). Excellent, let it be so: we will agree with this, since this does not cause any harm to the Son in relation to the image of His being or essence, but on the contrary, in the present case an excellent clarification of the Divine economy is given. Therefore, when they hear His words: “I am one and the Father” (John 10:30), “I am in the form of the Father” (John 14:9), “I am in the Father and the Father in Me” (John 14:10), then let them accept “His testimony” - let them “seal that God” and the Father “is true”, forcing the Son to say what He knows for sure, let them believe the words The Savior, who explains to us the things of God. John 3:34. For God has sent Him, He speaks the words of God Consequently, the Father knows Him in Himself as His Own Son - this, I think, and not another thing, which means the saying: “I am one,” knows Him precisely as the Son, and not as a creation - the Son, I mean, from His essence (begotten), and not awarded only the name of sonship. He knows that He is the exact image of His own properties, so that He is completely reflected in Him and reflects in Himself the ineffable One who rose from Him by nature, and just as He has the Son in Himself, so He Himself abides in the Son, according to the identity of essence. Behold, heretic, having understood this, you will free yourself from a serious illness, and us from the trouble of verbal disputes. “For God has sent him, he speaks the words of God.” If we take this saying literally, then what again will be admirable in the Son? Was not each of the saints sent by God and proclaimed His words? So it is said to the high priest Moses: “And now come, I will send you into Egypt” (Acts 7:34) “and say to Pharaoh: This saith the Lord” (Exodus 4:22), or to the most sacred Jeremiah: “Say not, for I am a child, for unto all to them shall I send thee, thou shalt go, and all, I will command you to speak great things” (Jer. 1:7). What, then, will be greater in the Son by nature, speaking the words of God, because He was sent by Him? As we see, He must again appear before us as a prophet, and nothing else, if we relate these words only to the image of His ministry. So, the word “ambassador” here should be understood either in relation to the incarnation and coming with the flesh into this world, or again refer to the Divine and miraculous (the birth of the Son from God the Father). After all, God did not hide the Son in Himself, but shone Him out from His own nature, like a reflection from light, according to the ineffable and inexplicable image of the Divine birth. The Only Begotten Himself explained this to us in the words: “I went out from the Father and came back” (John 16:28). The Son came from the Father into His own existence, although He by nature abides in Him - and what “death” means to us in that, the word “ambassador” again indicates this here. So, he says, the Word who appeared and emitted from the Father, like God from God, will use words appropriate to God, and words appropriate to God must be true and free from all deception. Therefore, he who receives the testimony of the Savior has sealed that God is true, for He is truly God by nature. John 3:34. Not in moderation for 252 gives 253 Spirit Please pay special attention to these words, so that you and I can marvel at the wisdom of the saints. He said that the Son was sent from God and speaks the words of God. But he realizes that if we limit ourselves to the literal meaning of the saying, then the Son will only be given prophetic dignity, as we have just said. Therefore, in these words he places Him above equality with the prophets and through this one indication makes it clear how great, and even more so, how incomparable this difference is. It is impossible, he says, for those who have received the Spirit to a certain extent to be able to give it to another, for a saint to a saint has never been the giver of the Holy Spirit, but the Son gives it to everyone from his own fullness. So, “he gives not by measure,” not like those (prophets), he has a certain small part of the Spirit, and, moreover, by communion. But since he also turned out to be the Giver, then, obviously, he has Him all in Himself essentially. And he who has such superiority over them should not, as one of them, speak the words of God, but as God from God should speak words befitting God. What has been said is not at all contradicted by the fact that the Spirit, according to some, was given to some through the hands of the apostles (Acts 8:18), for we consider them (the apostles) to be callers, and not givers of the Holy Spirit. So blessed Moses did not himself take away the Spirit that was in him, according to the command of God, but God left this to His own power alone, saying that there should be seventy men with him, and promising to take away the Spirit that was in him and put it on them (Num. 11:17). He knew that it was fitting for God alone to do what is due to God. That the properties of God and the Father (are present) in the Son not by participation, but essentially and by nature John 3:35. The Father loves the Son and gives everything in His hands Since he said that the Son, as God, who appeared from God, can use no other words than those that He Himself would have used, that is, true ones, “For God has sent Him, He speaks the words of God,” says (v. 34), he considers it necessary to explain the thought in more detail in the proposed words and says: “The Father loves the Son.” We will not offend, he says, God and the Father if we give honor equal to Him to the One born of Him; we will not anger Him if we essentially crown the Heir of the Father’s blessings with divine glory, for He “loves”, he says, “the Son.” So, he will rejoice when we glorify the Son, but will be angry otherwise. And no one, he says, thinks that He has His Son as the heir of this only divine dignity, for “he gave everything into His hand,” that is, everything that is essentially good with the Father is, undoubtedly, also in the power (power) of the Son. Hand here refers to power, as in the words of one prophet: “My hand... establish the heavens” (Is. 48:13) - instead of “strength.” The Son has in Himself all the properties of the Father not by communion, although it is said that the Father gave, otherwise He would have the Divinity as received, and not as natural. And the Father gives everything of His own to the Son in the same way as a person is thought of as giving the child born of him the properties of humanity, or as it is said about fire that he gives the characteristics of his nature to the warmth that comes from it according to its effectiveness. In such phenomena, the message turns out to be harmless for those communicating, since the origin of what is imagined by the recipient is not through separation or cutting off, and equally, what appears to the recipient does not serve as a cause of lack for those receiving; because this indicates only “that from which” (something comes), and what is born is thought of as a certain natural, so to speak, quality of the one who gives birth, revealing what is essentially what gives birth, and reflecting the natural effectiveness of its source. But these are again only examples, God is obviously higher than them, for which we will not blame the weak human word, for “the glory of God covers the word” (Prov. 25:2), as it is written. And even if we see only through a mirror and in a riddle and understand in part (1 Cor. 13:12), then should we not be much more powerless in the utterances of the tongue? Therefore, such an understanding of your teaching that everything is given to the Son from the Father will be pious. But you can again attribute this to the incarnation, and the concepts “give” and “receive” will no longer point to the natural properties of the Son, but to the power given to Him over all creatures, so that again you can understand something similar to the following. The Father loves the Son and gives everything in His hands Let not the unbeliever, he says, persist, seeing the Lord of all as man, and let him not think of lying to the truth, refusing because of His flesh to believe in Him as God. Let him accept His testimony and willingly seal that God is true, so as not to offend the Heavenly Father, for He loves His Son and the proof of this love for Him is the granting of power to Him over everything, about which the Savior Himself said: “all things were handed over to Me by My Father” (Matthew 11:27), and again: “all power has been given to Me in heaven and on earth” (Matthew 28:18). And if the Son appears to have received, then this should by no means serve as a basis for anyone to consider Him lesser. Why? Because he receives it when he became a man, when he humbled himself for our sake, when the Master called himself a servant (Phil. 2:7), when the free Son became a servant. Otherwise, how did He humiliate Himself or descend from equality with God and the Father? Don’t you see here both the Giver in a Godly manner and the Receiver in a human and slavish way of what God had? It was not a gift from God that actually elevated the Son to the beginning of dominion over everything, but also in the state of incarnation the perception and receipt of the power that he had before the incarnation, for he does not only begin to rule over creation when he became a man. Otherwise, to what humiliation did He descend if, when He became a man, He begins to dominate? Or how will he appear in the form of a slave, if it was then (in incarnation) that he turned out to be the Lord of everything? Away with such absurd thoughts (may they be driven away). But when man became, then even in this state he begins to rule, not losing His Divine dignity for the sake of the flesh, but also with the flesh ascending again to what he was from the beginning. And that this was Christ’s perception of the most primordial, He Himself will confirm this with the words: “Father! Glorify Me with glory, since before you had peace there was no peace” (John 14:5). You see that he is not asking for the beginning of glory, but for the renewal of the former, and, moreover, saying this as a man. And that again, because of humanity, it is said that everything is given to the Son, then the inquisitive can collect clear evidence of this from everywhere, especially from that terrible vision of Daniel, in which he, as he says, saw “the Old One of the Days” sitting on the throne and, he claims, “thousands of thousands and ten times more” - one “serving” 254, others “standing” (Dan. 7: 9-10). To this he adds: “And behold, with the 255 clouds of heaven, the Son of Man came (came) 256, and came to the Old One day and was brought before Him 257 and to Him was given power and honor and a kingdom, and all people, nations 258, nations 259 shall work for Him” (Dan. 7:13-14 ) 260. You see that in these words he accurately describes to us the whole mystery of the incarnation. You see that the Son is called receiving the kingdom from the Father - it is not the Word in Himself 261 that appears to the prophet, but “as the Son of Man.” This is because He humbled Himself, as it is written, and “in the manner” for our sake “was found as a man” (Phil. 2:7), so that He, the first raised into the Kingdom, would again appear for us as the beginning and glorious path into the Kingdom. And how, being life by nature, He descended for us into death according to the flesh for all, in order to remove us from death and corruption, through similarity with us, as if bringing us to Himself and making us participants in eternal life; so, being like God the Lord of glory, He takes upon Himself the image of our unworthiness, in order to elevate human nature to royal dignity. After all, He became “first in all” (Col. 1:18), as Paul says, - the way, the door and the firstfruits of the blessings of mankind from death to life, from corruption to incorruption, from weakness to strength, from slavery to sonship, from dishonor and disgrace to royal honor and glory. Therefore, when the Son appears as receiving as a man what He had as God, then we should not be tempted at all, but we should understand the image of the economy for our sake and for us, for in this case we will preserve our minds without harm or damage. John 3:36. Believe in the Son to have eternal life Not simply and not without searching, the wise Baptist testifies, life is offered to those who believe in Christ as a reward, but from the very, so to speak, quality of the deed, he presents us with proof, since the Only Begotten is life by nature, “for in Him we live and move and we are” (Acts 17:28). He dwells in us, of course, through faith and dwells through the Holy Spirit. Blessed John the Evangelist will testify to this in his Epistles: “We understand this, as it is in us, as He has given us of His Spirit” (1 John 4:13). So, Christ gives life to those who believe in Him, both Himself being life by nature, and then already indwelling them. And that the Son dwells in us through faith, Paul will certify this, saying this: “For this cause I bow my knee to the Father, 262 from whom the whole family in heaven 263 and on earth is named, that he may give you, according to the riches of the glory” of His simplicity, “to be strengthened by His Spirit 264, that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith” ( Eph.3:14-17). When, therefore, life by nature penetrates into us through faith, then how is it not true that he who says: “He who believes in the Son has eternal life?” Obviously, the Son Himself, and not any other life, must be understood besides Him. John 3:36. He who does not believe in the Son will not see life 265 But is it really possible, someone will say, that the Baptist preaches to us about another glory and destroys the doctrine of the resurrection, claiming that the believer will be quickened, and the unbeliever “will not see life” at all? Apparently, not everyone will be resurrected, which is the difference this saying indicates. And in this case, what will happen to the words spoken unconditionally and to everyone: “the dead will rise” (1 Cor. 15:52)? Why would Paul say: “For it is fitting for us all to appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that everyone may receive what he has done with his body, either good or evil” (2 Cor. 5:10)? Although I consider it due to praise such an inquisitive person, he still needs to do a more accurate study of the Holy Scriptures. Notice the clear difference in expressions that I will point out to you. He says about the believer that he will have eternal life, but in the saying about the unbeliever he uses a different expression. He did not say that he will not have life, for he will be resurrected according to the general law of resurrection, but he says that “he will not see life,” that is, he will not even reach the simple contemplation of the life of the saints, will not touch their bliss, will not taste their joy. After all, this is the only real life. Breathing in the midst of punishment is more painful than any death, and the soul is kept in the body for the mere sensation of evil. Paul makes this difference between life. Listen to what he says to those who have died to sin for the sake of Christ: “For you have died, and your life is hidden in God with Christ: when Christ appears, your life, then you also will appear with Him in glory” (Col. 3:3-4). You see what he calls the life of the saints when they appear in glory with Christ. The Psalmist sings the same thing to us: “Who is man, even though he loves the days and sees good things? Keep your tongue from evil" (Ps. 33:13-14). Isn't this the life of the saints depicted here? But I think this is clear to everyone. Not for this purpose, of course, he commands someone to refrain from evil in order to receive the revival of the flesh again, for they will be resurrected even if they did not stop evil, but he encourages someone to that life in which one can see good days, spending eternal life in glory and bliss. John 3:36. But the wrath of God remains on him In this addition, the blessed Baptist showed us more clearly the purpose of what was said. Let the inquisitive person turn his attention again to the meaning of this saying. “The unbeliever,” says, “The Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.” But if it were really possible to understand this saying in the sense that the unbeliever will be deprived of life in the body, then, probably, the Baptist would have added immediately: “but “death” remains on him.” Since he calls “the wrath of God,” he obviously contrasts the punishment of the wicked with the bliss of the saints and calls life the true life in glory with Christ, and the punishment of the wicked the wrath of God. That in the Holy Scriptures punishment is often called wrath, I will present two witnesses to this - Paul and John (the Baptist). One said to those converting from the Gentiles: “And the children of wrath are by nature, like the rest” (Eph. 2:3). The other is to the scribes and Pharisees: “the birth of vipers, who told you to flee from the wrath to come” (Matthew 3:7). John 4:1–3. Whenever 267 the Lord 269 understood 269 that the Pharisees had heard 270 that 271 Jesus was making and baptizing many more disciples than John - although Jesus Himself 272 did not baptize, but His disciples - leave Judea 273 and go 274 again 275 to Galilee I consider it useful to find out how and under what circumstances, according to the Gospel narrative, the Lord learned about what the Pharisees heard; for the expression of the holy Evangelist: “whenever in my mind” - obviously indicates some previous circumstance. Although, as God, He knows everything by Himself, without any indication, not only when it happens, but also “before their existence” (Dan. 13:42), as the prophet testified, however, he waits for the time corresponding to each phenomenon and follows not His foreknowledge, but the sequence of events. After all, this too is worthy of Divine economy. So, when a dispute arose between the disciples of John and the Jews about cleansing (John 3:25), they had great discussions about this subject. Some, defending their teacher, tried to prove that his baptism was incomparably higher than their lawful sprinklings and educational purifications, and in proof of this they rightly pointed out that many were coming to him, while the ancient and primordial customs were almost completely abandoned. And others, since the reasoning of their opponents overthrew them and the power of truth, like water, quickly drowned the powerless mind of the objectors, although involuntarily and contrary to their disposition, they find themselves forced to refer to the fact that the baptism imparted by Christ is incomparably superior to John’s, and they repel their opponents through exactly the same reasoning and armed with the thoughts of their own rivals. Namely, they argued that there are many more people coming to Christ and that everyone flocks more to Him than to John. That is why, I believe, John’s disciples, inflamed and overwhelmed with grief, approached their teacher with the words: “Rabbi! Whoever was with you on the floor of the Jordan, to whom you have testified, behold he baptizes, and they all come to him” (John 3:26). Thus, they offer him the objections or evidence that they used in the dispute with the Jews in the form of a question. In view of this, the Evangelist says that “the Lord learned from what the Pharisees heard, that Jesus was gaining more disciples than John.” Then, avoiding their furious envy and preserving His suffering until the appointed time, he leaves the country of Judea and returns again to Galilee. John 4:4–5. It was fitting 276 for Him to pass 277 through Samaria. When he came 278 to the city of Samaria, which is said 279 Sychar 280, near the village, and Jacob gave it to Joseph his son What great insight and amazing forethought! The expected question is already warned by the answer. After all, right now someone could perhaps ask, whether in conversation with another or secretly reflecting within himself: why did our Lord Jesus Christ not enlighten the Samaritans at the appropriate time? Once a Syrophoenician woman approached, with tears asking for mercy for her unfortunate daughter, and what did the Merciful One say to her? “It is not good,” he says, “to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs” (Matthew 15:26). He did not, I think, consider it necessary to prematurely communicate the grace assigned to the Israelites to the Gentiles, which He Himself expressed more clearly in the words: “I was not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (v. 24). How, then, someone may ask, did He who was sent only to Israel instruct the Samaritan people, while Israel still completely rejected grace? It is to such a question that the words give a completely convincing answer: “It was fitting for Him to pass through Samaria.” He made this coming to the Samaritans not precisely in order to preach the teaching among them and transfer the entire blessing of Israel to them, but since “it was fitting to pass” (on the road), therefore he teaches the teaching, performing the work of Wisdom. Just as fire never ceases to manifest the burning power inherent in it by nature, so I consider it completely impossible for the Wisdom of all not to do what befits wisdom. And how then, when he said that one should not take bread from the children and throw it to the dogs, being inclined to mercy with many tears and prayers, he gave grace to the woman, not, of course, because the time of giving (grace) to Him was legitimized from inudu, but because He Himself is the lawgiver together with the Father, as the Son and God and Lord; So he communicates mercy to the Samaritans and, revealing the ineffable power of His divine power, along the way, along the way, enlightens the whole country. Otherwise, it would be strange to show complete love to Israel when they were already raging and plotting the murder of the Lord. But since he had not yet reached extreme frenzy and was just beginning to persecute the Lord, therefore our Lord Jesus Christ does not yet completely deprive him of grace, but, however, little by little transfers the blessing to others. The fact that Christ completely leaves the country of the Jews and hastens to go to the country of foreigners, due to the inhumanity of His pursuers, was a kind of threat, as if depicting the nature of the event, that they were already subject to complete deprivation of grace and would betray their own good to others, that is, Christ, if they did not refrain from fury against Him. John 4:6. Be that source 281 Jacob. Jesus 282 tired 283 from the path 284 sat taco 285 at the source Having left the borders of Judea and being already among foreigners, the Savior, it is said, stopped at the source of Jacob. By this, again, as in an image, He mysteriously indicates to us that although the Gospel preaching will be removed from Jerusalem and the word of God will eventually pass to the pagans, yet together with Israel, love for the fathers will not cease, but Christ will again receive them and again calm down and rest as among the saints, preserving for them the original grace unfading. He willingly stays where the memory of the saint was kept (at the source of Jacob), and thereby presents Himself to us as a model and being the beginning and door of reverence for the fathers. He stops, “being weary from the journey,” as it is written, in order to thereby accuse the wickedness of those who persecute Him. After all, they had to attract Him to themselves with appropriate honors, surround Him as their Benefactor with reverence and fear, and they force the Lord to work, so that the one who speaks about them in the book of psalms would be true: “And I reward the wicked one” (Ps. 34:12). So, here the insolence of the Jews is revealed. But what will the Arians, close to the madness of those (Jews), to whom one can rightly say: “Sodom is justified because of you”, again tell us about this? 286 (Ezek.16:52; cf. Matt.11:24). Those crucify Christ according to the flesh, while these rage against the very ineffable nature of the Word. So He was tired from traveling. Who tolerates this? Will you really argue that the Lord of hosts needed the restoration of the fortress, and will you assimilate to the Only Begotten of the Father the toil of the journey, so that even the One who does not know suffering will be considered passionate? Or will you rightly renounce such thoughts, but internalize this only to the physical nature and say that toil is characteristic only of humanity, and not at all separately and in Himself to the existing and conceivable Word? As about the One who by His nature has omnipotence and is the strength of all things, it is said that He labored (at the same time, be careful not to divide the one Christ into two sons), and the infirmities of humanity are assimilated to Him, although He remains impassive, since by His nature He who is not subject to labor became a man; in the same way, if He says something about Himself that should be considered befitting only man, and not at all God, then we should not pursue the literalism of sayings, nor turn out to be ignorant especially when art in relation to piety is especially required of us, distancing the thought of the economy of the incarnation as far as possible and being carried away to the Divinity of the Word Himself and, out of great ignorance, touching upon objects that exceed us. After all, if He had not become a man at all, if He had not appeared in the form of a slave, then one would have to be wary of everything that is said about Him that is characteristic of a slave, and, on the contrary, accept only what befits Him as God. But if we accepted with firm and undoubting faith that, according to the word of John, “The Word became flesh and dwelt in us” (John 1:14), then when you see Him speaking as flesh, that is, as a man, accept for the authenticity of the sermon the speech as is characteristic of man (the human nature of Christ). Otherwise, it would have been impossible to give clear knowledge that God and the Word became man, if it had not been written that the Impassive One suffered something (human) and the Exalted One said something characteristic of the lower (human) nature. John 4:6. It's almost six o'clock 287 Shows us Jesus stopping at the source in good time. Since the sun from the middle of the vault of heaven emitted its hottest rays on the inhabitants of the earth and burned their bodies very strongly, it was not harmless to go even further, but it was necessary to rest a little - especially since I could easily deflect the accusation of effeminacy from Himself, since the time itself demanded it. The hour, he says, was not exactly six, but “about six,” so that we would learn from here not to be indifferent and inattentive even in the smallest objects, but to diligently honor the truth in everything, wherever it is found. John 4:7–9. When 288 the woman came 289 from Samaria, she drew 290 water. Verb to her 291 Jesus: give Me 292 drink. His disciples went byahu 293 to the city and bought some food 294. Verb 295 His wife is a Samaritan... The Savior did not know about the woman’s coming. As the True God, He, of course, knew that she would now come to draw cool moisture from the source. And as soon as she came, He begins to catch her in the net (of the Kingdom of God) and, immediately offering her a word of teaching, begins a conversation from the objects at hand. The Law strictly demanded that the Jews not become defiled, which is why it ordered them to avoid every unclean object and not to associate with foreigners or the uncircumcised (Lev. 5:2). The Jews, extending further the power of the commandment and following their own empty fabrications rather than the exact prescriptions of the law, not only did not dare to enter into carnal communication with foreigners, but also thought that they would fall into all uncleanness if they agreed with the Samaritans in anything. In the end, the alienation between them reached the point that they were afraid to even eat water and food brought by the hands of foreigners. So, in order to motivate a woman by his unusual behavior to talk and to know who He is and where He comes from and why he neglects Jewish customs, and thus direct speech to the goal, He says 296 that He is thirsty, addressing her with these words: “Give Me a drink.” She also said: John 4:9–10. Why 297 are you a Jew 298 from 299 asking me to drink water 300, the Samaritan's wife? 301 for fear the Jews do not touch 302 Samaritans 303 . Jesus answered and spoke to her... 304 Questioning is the beginning of learning, and the root of understanding unknown objects is bewilderment regarding them. This is how the conversation usually begins, and for this reason the Savior wisely presents Himself as having no regard for the customs of the Jews. John 4:10–11. If you knew 305 the gift of God and 306 Who is, say to you: give me something to drink: you would ask Him 307 and give 308 you living water. Verb 309 His wife... The woman called Him a Jew because she did not know about the worldly and heavenly essence of the Only Begotten and was completely ignorant of the Word Incarnate. And He usefully remains silent at the same time in order to again preserve the subject of speech to her. However, he raises her to a more exalted idea of ​​\u200b\u200bHerself, saying that she does not know who the One asking for drink is and what grace the highest gift has, so that if she had knowledge, she would immediately admit to depriving him, for she herself would “ask” the Lord in advance. Through this, she encourages her to earnestly desire to receive teaching. Notice how directly and simply He now calls Himself God, although the woman turns out to be unable to comprehend this. Convincing her to revere the “gift of God,” He introduces Himself as its Giver: “if,” he says, “you knew the gift of God and who is speaking to you, you would ask Him.” To whom should God be given, if not God who exists by nature? John 4:11. “Living water” calls the life-giving gift of the Spirit, through which alone humanity is able, although dried up like the trunks of trees on the mountains and finding itself, thanks to the wiles of the devil, deprived of all virtue, to ascend again into the original beauty of its nature and, infused with life-giving grace, to flourish in many different types of blessings and, growing in a virtuous life, to send out well-educated branches of love for God. God tells us something similar through the mouth of the prophet Isaiah: “The beasts of the villages, the sirens, and the daughters of Struth will bless Me: for I have given water in the desert and rivers in the dry to water My chosen generation, My people, who have provided My virtues to tell” (Is. 43:20-21), - and the soul of the righteous will be “like a fruitful tree,” says another of saints (Jer. 31:12), and “they will grow like grass in the midst of the waters and” will appear “like a willow by the flowing water” (Is. 44:4). To what has been said we can add other evidence from Divine Scripture, through which it is easy to prove that the Divine Spirit is often called by the name of water. But now is not the time for us to dwell on this, for we must hasten to sail into the wide sea of ​​other Divine contemplations. "God! nor 310 drew 311 imashi, and 312 student 313 there is deep: from where 314 imashi I live water The woman does not imagine anything that comes out of ordinary objects, and does not understand the meaning of words at all, but she thinks that, like those who perform miracles through spells and demonic deception, without a rope or any other instrument, He will automatically get her water from the bottom of the well. And “living water,” from her point of view, is that which has just flowed from the depths of the spring (i.e., fresh, spring water). John 4:12–13. Are you rich food 315 of our father Jacob, who gave us the student 316 this 317, and the one 318 who drinks from him 319, and his sons, and his cattle 320? Jesus answered and said to her... The woman recovers, and very quickly, noticing that she had made an impious and completely untrue assumption about Him. Having tasted the Divine words, she could no longer remain without any help (from God) for understanding (the truth). Since it was obvious that the Speaker was not a spellcaster, but, on the contrary, a prophet and one of those distinguished by holiness, he promised to deliver living water to her, and, moreover, drew it without the usual ones, or would find much better water for use from another source; then he immediately changes his speech to a more prudent one and, like a saint, compares Him with a saint, saying: “Are You greater than our father Jacob, who gave us this well?” The meaning of the saying is that the woman is no longer surprised that, having no rope, (the Speaker) promises water, but she only talks about the quality of taste (of the water). The Samaritans were foreigners, for there were Babylonian exiles. But they also considered Jacob their father for two reasons. Inhabiting the country adjacent to and neighboring the Jews, they borrowed something from their religion and wanted to be famous as the fathers of the Jews. Another and completely true reason is that most of the inhabitants of Samaria came from the root of Jacob, for the son of Nebat Jeroboam, having gathered the ten tribes of Israel and half the tribe of Ephraim, separated from Jerusalem during the reign of Rehoboam, the son of Solomon, and, occupying Samaria, built houses and cities in it. John 4:13–15. Anyone who drinks from the water of sowing will thirst for 321 more. And whoever drinks 322 from the water that I will give him will not thirst 323 forever 324: but the water that I will give him 325 326 will be in him a source of flowing water 327 to eternal life 328. The wife spoke to Him... “Thou art the great food of our father Jacob:” when the Samaritan woman put forward these words as an irrefutable objection, the Savior again nobly refuses to openly and clearly say that He is really greater (than Jacob), but wants to prove His superiority by the quality of deeds. Therefore, He points to the incomparable difference and superiority of spiritual waters over sensual and earthly ones in the words: “Whoever drinks from this water will become thirsty again,” and he who is filled, He says, will no longer be subject to thirst with My waters, but will have within himself a “source” that can educate one to “eternal life.” So, He who gives more, he says, must be higher than he who has less, and that which is lower cannot have the same glory with that which is higher. You should know again that here the Savior refers to water as the grace of the Holy Spirit, of which if anyone becomes a partaker, he will already have within himself a constant source of Divine teachings, so that he will no longer need instruction from others, but he himself will be able to instruct those who have a thirst for Divine and heavenly teaching, such as the holy prophets, apostles and heirs of their ministry were in this life and are still living on earth, about whom it is written: “and draw water with joy from the fountain of salvation” (Is. 12:3). Again he speaks and presents only the ordinary, completely not understanding what the Savior is talking about. She thinks that the entire ministry of our Savior will consist in freeing us from insignificant labors, and she determines the measure of God’s grace by the fact that there will be no more thirst, not at all perceiving with a pure mind the teaching about premium subjects. “Go, invite 330 your husband 331 and come here (John 4:16). Give me this water, so that I neither thirst nor 332 come to draw this. Jesus said to her... In all fairness, we can say that the thoughts of the female sex are, as it were, feminine, and the mind that dwells in women is weak, completely incapable of a deep understanding of anything. But the nature of men is more inclined to learning and much more capable of reasoning, since it has a spirit directed towards research, so to speak, ardent and courageous. For this reason, I believe, he ordered the woman to “call her husband,” secretly denouncing her for having a coarse heart, incapable of assimilating wisdom, and at the same time building something else very beautiful. John 4:17–19. The wife says to Him 333: The husband is not an imam 334. Jesus said to her: You spoke well 335, as if you were not an imam for a husband 336; You have had five husbands 337, and now, like him, you have no husband: behold, truly 338 you have declared 339. The verb is His wife... And for whom, finally, is it not obvious that the Savior did not know that she did not have a legal partner, but that He asked the question about a non-existent husband in order to reveal the secret? And this was useful for her in that she marveled at Him no longer as one of our kind, but as one who exceeds man and miraculously knows her secret. He favorably approves of her answer that she does not have a husband, although she has sinned with so many, for it is not intercourse through voluptuousness, but a combination according to the law and a connection through pure love that constitutes an immaculate marriage. John 4:19. Lord, I see that you are a prophet! He is barely enlightened to understanding, although again far from perfect, for he still calls only the Lord of the Prophets a prophet. However, little by little she becomes better than before, since she is not at all offended by the reproofs, but benefits from the miraculous sign, thus emerging from the relaxation of thoughts and although somewhat ascending to a courageous mind and directing the eye of the heart to an unusual contemplation of (spiritual) objects. At the same time, special surprise should be caused by the long-suffering of our Savior and His omnipotence, which so easily transforms rough hearts into a miraculous state. John 4:20–21. Our fathers bowed down in this mountain 340: and 341 you say that in Jerusalem there is a place where it is proper to bow down 342. Jesus told her... Having accepted the Lord as a real prophet and Jew, she greatly boasts (before Him) about her native customs and claims that the Samaritans think more correctly than the Jews. The Jews, still holding crude ideas about the Divine and incorporeal Nature, argued that the God of all should be worshiped in Jerusalem alone or on the neighboring Zion (hill), as if the entire ineffable and immense Nature rested there and could be contained in man-made churches. Therefore, they were convicted for this by the voice of the prophets as very foolish, since God said: “Heaven is My throne, and earth is My footstool: what house will you build for Me, says the Lord, or what is My resting place?” (Acts 7 from Is.66:1). But the Samaritans, in turn, were not far from the foolishness of the Jews, being their neighbors both in country and in ignorance, for they thought that they should offer prayers and worship God on the so-called Mount Garizin, for which they also did not avoid fair ridicule. However, they also had a pretext for this unreasonable opinion, namely the fact that a blessing was given on Mount Garizin, as it is written about in Deuteronomy (Deut. 27:12). It is about this subject that the woman offers the Savior a question, as some important and difficult task, saying this: “our fathers worshiped on this mountain” and so on. John 4:21. Believe in Me, 343 woman 344, for the hour 345 is coming 346, when 347 neither in this mountain 348 nor in Jerusalem 349 worship 350 the Father He condemns the ignorance of both (Jews and Samaritans) together, saying that the image of worship for both of them will change to a more true one, since, he says, a place will no longer be found in which they will think that God actually and exclusively dwells in it alone, but as the One who fills and embraces everything with His power, “they will worship the Lord each from his place” (Zeph. 2:11), as one of them says holy prophets. He calls His appearance with the flesh in the world the hour and time of such a change in customs. Notice how He, by the very skillful use of the word “(Father),” leads the woman’s mind to understand the doctrine of the Son, calling God Father; for how could He be conceived as Father if there were no Son? That the Son, since He is the Word and God, is not among the creatures who worship (God), but, on the contrary, He is worshiped (from the creatures) together with the Father John 4:22. You bow to the hedgehog 351 unknown: we bow 352 to the hedgehog 353 because 354 there is salvation from the Jews 355 Again he speaks as a Jew and as a man, since circumstances demanded precisely such a manner of speech, and Christ did not deviate from what was appropriate for the time. He places the worship of the Jews somewhat higher in rationality than that of the Samaritans. The Samaritans worship God simply and unconsciously, and the Jews, as far as they can contain it, have knowledge of Being through the law and the prophets. Therefore, he says that the Samaritans “don’t know,” but the Jews partly “know,” from whom (the Jews), he claims, “salvation” should appear, obviously, He Himself 356, for Christ came in the flesh from David, and David was from the tribe of Judah. And among those who worship, He again places Himself as a man, Who, together with God and the Father, receives worship both from us and from the holy Angels. Since He put on the form of a servant, He performs the service befitting a servant, without ceasing to be God and Lord and Worshiped, for He remains the same, although He became a man, everywhere and completely preserving the image of building a house with the flesh 357. And if you see this greatest and supernatural humiliation (of the Son of God), then approach (this mystery) with reverent amazement, and not with accusation - be an imitator, and not a condemner. So Paul wants us to be like that when he says: “Be wise 358 of this in you also in Christ Jesus, who was not made equal with God in the form of God, but was made of no reputation, having received the form of a servant, being in the likeness of mankind, and found in the form of a man: He humbled Himself” (Phil. 2:5-8). You see how the Son became for us a model of humility, “who is” in equality with the Father and “in the image (of God),” as it is written, but who descended for our sake into voluntary obedience and humiliation. Could this obedience and humiliation be manifested in any other way than through such deeds and words that were below His Divine dignity and had much less than what He Himself possesses in Himself as the Word of the Father and outside of union with the image of a servant? How can we say that He condescended if we do not assert that He suffered something alien to His dignity? How would He be “in the likeness of humanity,” according to Paul, if He did not do the like of what is characteristic of people? And the most characteristic thing for people is worship of God, as if as a debt, repaid and offered from us to God. So, He worships as a man when He became a man, and receives worship always with the Father, since He was and is and will be God by nature and true. But the opponent will not stop there again, but will object like this: “Do not be embarrassed when we say that the Son will worship, for we do not think that He worships the Father in exactly the same way as we or even the Angels, but the worship of the Son is something special and much higher than ours.” What will we say to this again? By assimilating slavery to the Only Begotten as something worthy and blaspheming this official dignity with some flattering words, you think, my dear, to deceive us. Stop glorifying the Son with dishonor if you want to continue to honor the Father, for “whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father,” as it is written (John 5:23). What benefit, tell me, in relation to freedom can be brought to the Only Begotten by the fact that He performs the worship of the Father that is different from us? After all, as long as He is found among the worshipers, He will, without a doubt, be a slave, even if He was recognized as a special worshiper. And He will differ from creatures not at all in relation to the creatureliness of His being, but only by other advantages, just as Michael or some other holy and reasonable power surpasses people, since it turns out to be essentially characterized by an advantage over the inhabitants of the earth either in holiness, or in some higher degree of glory, according to the good will of the Creator and God, however, in its createdness, it has with other creatures that common property that is among created things. being. Therefore, in the Father and from the Father, the naturally existing Word will in no way escape being created, even if it were asserted that He performs some special worship of God. Then: how can a creature still be the Son and a slave and servant the Lord by nature? After all, the royal and sovereign dignity, I believe, consists precisely in receiving worship, and the service and servile quality consists in performing worship, for by worship we must express our confession of the Supreme and over all Existing Nature. So through the mouth of the wise Moses it was said to all creation: “Worship the Lord your God and serve Him alone” (Deut. 6:13, quoted from: Matt. 4:10). Thus, which is by nature servile and which is under the authority of the Divine, it is, of course, necessary for him to both perform worship and submit to the duty of worship. By the word “Lord” he distinguishes (from Him) what is servile, and by the word “God” - what is created, for they are thought together and are mutually opposed - the Lord by nature (is opposed) to what is servile, and to the uncreated Divinity what is brought into being. So, the Son, eternally existing in the Father and as God being Lord, why should he perform worship, this I am not able to show. But they, continuing their chatter, say that the Only Begotten must worship the Father, neither as a slave, nor as a creature, but as a Son to the Parent. Thus, we must accept worship as already contained in sonship itself, and we must consider the Son obligated to worship the Father simply because He is the Son, just as we must worship as living beings, verbal and mortal, endowed with reason and knowledge, or both with external and rational actions, and with mere inclinations of the will. After all, if the Only Begotten by nature has the need to worship, as they think and say, then shouldn’t they also turn out to be ungodly towards the Father Himself? It is absolutely necessary to think of Him as the same, just as the Son is His image and mark - and in what completely similar objects are similar to each other, in this there can no longer be any difference between them. If they say that the Son’s performance of worship of the Father consists in the sole desire (of the Son), then they are guided more by guesses than by true reasons. In this case, what can prevent others, who consider piety as foolishness, from asserting that the Father also has a desire to worship the Son, although by nature He (the Father) is not a worshiper? But duty itself, they say, requires that the face of the Father be removed from the performance of worship, and the Son is subject to this, performing worship of the Father not without His will. What are you saying, my dear? Are you again bringing us, as it were, from the abysses, that is, from the Hellenic tripods, prophecies, or, like that “Elamite Samaeus” (Jer. 29:24, 23:16), are you spewing them out from your heart, and not from the mouth of the Lord? Aren't you ashamed to present this to us as irrefutable evidence? Do you not know that He who is God by nature should have the Word begotten by God from Him, and He Whom all creation worships should be called and be by nature the Father of the worshiped, and not at all of the worshiped Son? I say what I believe true sages will agree with. How can we admit that it is fitting for the Father to be worshiped by his own Son, when this damages the concept of One and Another? Firstly, the worshiper and the worshiped cannot have equal dignity and be a completely accurate image of the nature of that (non-worshipper). He will be worshiped as lesser, and this is not in quantitative terms in relation to something accidental, for God and the Lord cannot be lesser, but this will determine the difference in relation to the image or essence of being. And how, in this case, can it turn out to be true when He says: “He who has seen Me in the form of the Father” (John 14:9)? How could He say that He should be honored no less than the Father, if He has no equality in glory as the worshiper? Secondly, in addition, the Father Himself will have to undergo considerable disgrace among us. After all, His glory is the birth of such a Son as He Himself is by nature. On the contrary, it is no small dishonor for the Father to have a Son who is foreign and alien to His nature and thus experience something from which even the very nature of creatures turns away. Everything that, by definition and the will of the Creator of all things, has received the ability to give birth, does not produce inferior ones: “let the earth sprout,” it is said, “let the grass grow, and the fruitful tree create seed according to its kind and likeness” (Gen. 1:11). Therefore, God will be lower than creatures, if they are such, and He is not, but He alone will be deprived of what He justly and wisely determined for the generation of created beings. In view of this, who, dear ones, can endure your speech that the Son should worship His Own Parent? But since you add to these words of yours that the Only Begotten does not do this unwillingly, and you put such an unproven basis, taking it from mere decency, against us, then it is also appropriate for us to consider this from the Holy Scriptures, from where, I believe, we should primarily try to extract evidence for each question. Thus, the law commanded that “half a didrachm” be collected from each Jew as a tribute to God, who is above all (Ex. 30:13), not because he was concerned about the invention of a monetary collection or a useless accumulation of estates, but in order to reveal to us some kind of instruction through the clearest images. And firstly, that no one is the master of his own head, but by this payment of taxes we all find ourselves written into slavery to the One Master. Then, in addition, in order to again, in rough writing and a sensual object, seem to depict spiritual and mental fruitfulness, as it is said: “Honor the Lord with your righteous labors and give Him the firstfruits of your fruits of righteousness” (Prov. 3:9). This was accomplished through the gospel teaching, when the subordinate ministry was abolished, for we think that the Lord of all should no longer be honored with external gifts, trying to pay the didrachm from perishable matter, but, being true worshipers, we worship “in spirit and truth” God and the Father (John 4:23). Such a thought, one must assume, is hidden in the writing of the law. When the Lord was in Jerusalem 359, the collectors of the didrachm asked Peter, saying: “Will your teacher give the didrachm?” When Peter entered the house, as it is written, “Jesus preceded him, saying: From whom do the kings of the earth accept tribute or kinson? from your own sons or from strangers? In response to his answer: “from strangers,” Jesus said: “for they are free, they are sons: but let us not offend them, when they go to sea, cast a line, and if you have a fish before, take it, and when you open its mouth, you find a statir; Do you not see that the Son does not tolerate being a subject or subjected to slavery as one of those under the yoke of slavery? Knowing the free dignity of His nature, He asserts that He does not owe anything slavish to God and the Father, for “sons,” he says, are “free.” How can He not perform weak-willed, servile worship? The One who rejected even just the image of this matter (in the above-mentioned historical event in the Gospel), how could he accept it in the truth itself? Or shall we not consider worship as tribute and spiritual fruit-bearing, and shall we not call it one of the manifestations of (servile) service? But in this case, for what reason did the law combine service with worship in the words: “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and serve Him alone” (Matthew 4:10; Deut. 6:13)? Precisely because worship is like a certain door and path to service in business, being the beginning of slavery in relation to God. Therefore, the Psalmist in one place says to some: “Come, let us worship and fall down” to Him, and let us mourn before the Lord who made us (Ps. 94:6). You see that “falling down” is added after “worship”. What could be more servile than this, if the qualities of objects are correctly determined, I cannot say. If our opponents continue to proudly persist in their incorrigible shamelessness and do not stop their ignorant reasoning about this, then let them, through the perversion of all Scripture, prove to us that the Son worshiped God and the Father already when He was only the Word, before the time of His incarnation and the image of slavery - for now, as a man, He, of course, worships, but then - not at all. But they will not be able to prove this from the Divine and Sacred Scriptures and, collecting for us their fabrications and various rotten reasonings, they should rightly hear: “You are deceived not knowing the Scriptures,” nor the glory of the Only Begotten (Matthew 22:29). On the contrary, that He, as the Word and God, does not worship, but having become like us, for the sake of building the economy with the flesh, He took on this state characteristic of humanity - confirmation of this cannot be found for us from anywhere else, but again we can learn this from His words. What does He say to the Samaritan woman? “You” worship (what) you do not know, “but we worship” (what) we know” (John 4:22). Isn’t it clear from here to everyone that, having used the plural and counting Himself among those who worship out of necessity and slavery, He says this as appearing in slave humanity? Otherwise, what, tell me, would prevent Him from using worship in relation to His own person in the singular, if He wanted to be thought of by us as a worshiper? Then, of course, it would be necessary to say: “I worship what I know,” in order to concentrate the meaning of these words on Himself alone, as not being in line with the others. Now He expressively and very decisively says “we”, as already being among the slaves according to His humanity, as numbered among the worshipers, like a Jew in the country. John 4:23–25. But the hour is coming, and now is, when true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeks such as those who worship Him. The Spirit is God: and whoever bows to Him is worthy to bow in spirit and in truth 360. The verb is His wife... He already points to the present time (as the time) of His coming and says that the images must change into truth and the shadow of the law - into spiritual service. Through the teaching of the Gospel, he says, a true worshiper will be guided to a life pleasing to the Father, obviously, into a spiritual person, striving with all zeal for a relationship with God, for God is conceived as a “spirit” in comparison with the bodily nature. And therefore, he rightly accepts a spiritual worshiper, not wearing the image of piety in the Jewish way, but in the Gospel, shining with deeds of virtue and the correctness of Divine dogmas, performing completely true worship. John 4:25. We know that the Messiah will come, the spoken Christ: when He comes, He will tell us everything 361 While Christ teaches that the hour and time will come, or rather, is already coming, when true worshipers will offer service to God and the Father in the spirit, the woman immediately flies with thoughts that exceed her mind to the hope known among the Jews. She confesses that she knows about the Messiah, that he will come in due time, but why he will come, she does not say exactly about this, accepting, as it seems, all sorts of legends about him, like a frivolous and carnal woman. However, she was not completely unaware that He would turn out to be the introducer of the most perfect teachings in Israel, and this, without a doubt, she found in her speeches about him. John 4:26. Jesus said to her: I am, speak with you 362 Christ does not reveal Himself to unprepared and completely ignorant souls, but He shines forth and appears to those who may already be ready to desire to know something and, carrying in themselves in simple words the beginning of faith, strive for the most perfect knowledge. This is exactly what the Samaritan woman appears to us, who, although she looked at truly Divine contemplations more rudely than she should have, was not completely devoid of willpower and the ability to understand. So, first of all, in response to Christ’s request for drink, she not only gives, but, seeing Him violating - as much as can be expressed humanly - the native customs of the Jews, she asked Him in advance about the reasons for this crime and through this reminder, as if she called on the Lord for an explanation, for she says: “How can You, this Jew, ask for drink from Me, a Samaritan woman?” (v. 9). When, in the further course of the conversation, she had already confessed that He was a prophet, having accepted the conviction as a saving medicine, she curiously asked Him another question, saying: “Our fathers bowed down in this mountain: and you say that in Jerusalem there is a place where it is fitting to bow down” (v. 20). But then she was also taught that the time would come, or rather, the time was already coming, when true worshipers, having abandoned worship on the mountains of the earth, would offer God and the Father the most sublime service in the spirit. She, having assimilated all the best to Christ alone and attributed His most perfect knowledge to the times, says: “We know that the Messiah will come, the spoken Christ: when He comes, He will tell us everything” (v. 25). Don't you see how the woman became more and more capable of faith and, as if ascending steps, rises from small questions to a more exalted state? Therefore, it was necessary to reveal to her in the clearest words what she desired, and Christ finally offers her what was preserved in her good hopes with his own eyes, saying: “I am the one who speaks with you” (v. 26). So let those who are entrusted with the duty of teaching in the churches force the new converts to gradually ponder the word of the catechumenate and let them point to Jesus as an example, raising them from the lowest teaching to the most perfect knowledge of the faith. And those who captivate a foreigner and thus a stranger, leading him into the Holy of Holies of the Tabernacle, allowing him to be slaughtered with hands that have not yet been washed, and crowning him who has not yet been announced with priestly dignity—let such be prepared for the great account on the Day of Judgment. For me it is enough to say only this one thing. John 4:27. And then 363 His disciples came The arrival of the disciples puts an end to the Lord’s conversation with the Samaritan woman, for Christ then falls silent - having invested a warm spark of faith in the Samaritans, He allows it to flare up into a big fire. This is how we must understand His saying: “Fire has come to burn on the earth, and whatever I want, even if it is already on fire” (Luke 12:49). John 4:27. And I wonder, as if with my wife, the verb 364 Again, the disciples of the Savior are amazed at His meekness and are amazed at His humble behavior, for He is not afraid, like some immoderate zealots of piety 365, to talk with a woman, but extends His love for mankind to everyone and by His very deed shows that He alone is the Creator of everything, who determines life through faith not only for men, but also attracts the female sex to it. Also, let the church teacher take this as an example and let him not shy away from benefiting women, for he should not pursue his own desires, but the benefit of the sermon. John 4:27. Otherwise, no one says: what are you looking for? or: what are you saying to her? 366 It was a matter of prudence of the disciples and the ability to maintain proper respect for the Teacher that they did not go into ridiculous assumptions about His conversation with the woman with unnecessary questions, but, on the contrary, held their tongues with respect and fear and waited for the Lord Himself, of His own free will, to begin speaking and offer them an explanation. Therefore, it is fitting here to marvel at the meekness of Christ and the wisdom of the disciples, their prudence and knowledge of decency. John 4:28. So leave your wife and go to the city 367 Already above bodily concerns this woman, who just yesterday and the day before was a polyandrous woman, and who often indulged in empty pleasures, now overcomes the natural need of the body, neglects thirst and drink and is transformed by faith to another life. Immediately giving herself entirely to love for others, this most beautiful of all virtues, she very quickly runs to the city in order to proclaim to others the good that has been revealed to her. The voice of the Savior probably sounded in her and secretly whispered in her mind: “Tune will you eat, will you give” (Matthew 10:8). Through this, we must learn not to compete with that inert servant (Matthew 25:18), who therefore (out of laziness) buries talent in the ground, but we must try to cultivate it. This is exactly what this most famous woman does and communicates to others the benefit that has been given to her, and she no longer took from the depths of the source the water that she came to draw (to the well), and does not take the earthly waterpot home again, but, on the contrary, she filled the treasuries of her spirit with Divine and heavenly grace and the all-wise teaching of the Savior. It must be seen from here, as again in image and writing, that, neglecting the insignificant and bodily, we will receive incomparably greater and more excellent things from God; for what is earthly water compared to the highest understanding? John 4:28–29. And the verb by man: Come, see the man who said all that I created: This food is Christ 368? What an amazing change! This is truly great and magnificent power revealed in an indescribable miracle! She is already skilled in teaching and a secret guide, who at the beginning of the conversation did not understand anything and therefore rightly heard: “Go, call your husband and come here” (John 4:16). Notice how skillfully she spoke to the Samaritans. She does not immediately say that she has found Christ, and does not give them a message about Jesus from the very beginning: in fairness, she would not be worthy of this, since she would exceed the measure of words appropriate to her, knowing, moreover, that her listeners are not ignorant of her behavior. Therefore, she prepares them with a miracle and, striking them with a miracle, makes the path to faith easier. “Come and see,” she says judiciously, almost shouting in an excited voice, “mere sight will be enough for faith, and those present will receive confirmation through amazing miracles; for He who knows the secret and has received this great and divine dignity will not be able to do everything he wants with complete ease? John 4:30. I came out 369 from the city, and went to Him The good obedience of the Samaritans serves as an exposure of the hard-heartedness of the Jews, and their inhumanity (the Jews) is revealed in the meekness of those (the Samaritans). And let the inquisitive one again see the difference in mood in both, in order to marvel in all justice at the fact that Jesus moves away from the Jewish synagogue and gives Himself to foreigners. After all, the Law of Moses proclaimed to the Jews that Christ would come and why He would appear, the all-honorable choir of prophets preached and then, as if standing at the door, showed Him in the words: “Behold our God, behold the Lord” (Is. 40:9, 10), - and the last and great of all “born of women” (Matt. 11:11) John already clearly pointed to Him as having appeared and living among them, in the words: “Behold, the Lamb of God, take away the sin of the world” (John 1:29) - and, most amazing of all, the Savior Himself revealed Himself in the power of many miraculous deeds and in divine omnipotence. What do the unbridled zealots of vile plans come up with? They kill unjustly, they plot wickedly, they envy intolerably, they expel from their land and city Life, Light, the Salvation of all, the Path to the Kingdom, the Forgiveness of sins, the Giver of Sonship. That is why the Savior rightly said: “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which slew the prophets and stoned those who were sent to it! How many times have I wanted to gather your children together, like a bird gathers its chicks under its wings, and you did not want to! Behold, your house is left to you 370 "(Matthew 23:37-38). The Samaritans find themselves above the madness of the Jews and, having overcome their inherent stubbornness with good obedience at the news of one and only one miracle, hastily go to Jesus, convinced not by the voice of the holy prophets, not by the preaching of Moses and not by the pointing of the finger of John, but by the story of one woman, and Moreover, they are sinners. Therefore, rightly amazed at the Savior’s definition about them, we will exclaim: “Thou art righteous, O Lord, and thy judgment is right” (Ps. 119:137). John 4:31–32. Between this I pray to His disciples, saying: Rabbi, eat. He spoke to them... 371 The divine Evangelist conducts the compilation of his book excellently and does not omit anything that he considers useful for readers. Listen, then, to how he again presents to us Jesus as an example of a wondrous deed, for nothing, I believe, is placed in the writings of holy people in vain, but even what, perhaps, someone would consider insignificant, sometimes turns out to bring significant benefit. So, while the conversion of the Samaritans began and He was already expecting them, for He knew, like God, that they would come, He is entirely focused on the salvation of those who are called and does not pay any attention to bodily food, although He was tired “from the journey,” as it is written (John 4:6). And this is in order to again provide a useful example for church teachers and convince them to despise all labor and put care for those being saved above concerns about the body, since, according to the word of the prophet, “woe to those who do the work of the Lord with negligence” (Jer. 48:10). Therefore, to teach us that it is precisely at such times that the Lord is especially accustomed to fasting, he introduces the disciples asking and, as it were, pleading with Him, so that at least a little of what they bought would be consumed as necessary food, for “they went away into the city so that they could buy meat” (John 4:8), which they now brought with them. John 4:32. It’s bad for the imam to eat, but you don’t know him The Savior composes a wise answer from the objects at hand. He says secretly, as it were: if you knew the immediate impending conversion of the Samaritans, you would urge them to turn to that (spiritual) food rather than to the nourishment of the body. And from here one can also see how great love Divine Nature has for people, for it considers the conversion of the lost to salvation as food and pleasure for Itself. John 4:33–34. The disciples said to themselves: food, who will bring Him food? Jesus said to them... 372 Not yet understanding this hidden speech, the disciples often judged what happened on their own and descended to ordinary ideas, imagining that someone had brought Him food, and, moreover, perhaps better and more pleasant than what they got. John 4:34. My purpose is that I may do the will of Him who sent Me and accomplish His work 373 Having removed all secrecy from his speech, he now clearly showed them the truth - to the future teachers of the universe he already presents himself as a model of intense and intense effort, obviously for the work of teaching, and the secondary importance of concerns about the necessary needs of the body that is rightly required for this. Saying that it is more desirable for Him to “do the will of Him who sent Him and do His work,” He here describes the office of the apostolic ministry and clearly shows what kind of mood the apostles must have. In all fairness, they need to be focused on teaching concerns alone and avoid carnal pleasures so much that even the very satisfaction of necessary needs is done only to avoid death. This is what we thought it necessary to say on this occasion, since it relates to the image and example of apostolic ministry. But if something more dogmatic must be added to what has been said, then He says that He was sent, obviously, by the Father and God, either in relation to the incarnation, since He shone forth to the world with the flesh, the favor and approval of the Father, - or as the Word, in some way arising from the Mind that gave birth, and sent, and fulfilling His will, 374 received not as a servant of other people's desires, but Himself being both the living Word, and by the most effective will of the Father, saving the lost. That is why, having said that the “work” is of Him who sent Him, He Himself, however, turns out to be the finisher, for all things come from the Father through the Son in the Spirit. And that the Son is the word, and the advice, and the will, and the power of the Father, I consider this obvious to everyone. However, it is not useless to bring evidence from Divine Scripture. That He is the “Word” can be seen in the words: “in the beginning was the “Word,” and the “Word” was to God, and God was the “Word” (John 1:1). That He is “Council” can be seen in the words of the Psalmist, as if addressed to God and the Father: “You have guided me with Your “Council” and received me with “Glory” (Ps. 72:24). He is also called “By Will” in the words: “Lord, by Thy Will give strength to my kindness” (Ps. 29:8); for the beauty of the saints, that is, the power for every virtue, is strengthened by the living and hypostatic Will of the Father, that is, the Son. And that He is also “Strength”, you can again understand from here: “the commandment,” says O God, “by Thy “Strength,” strengthen, O God, this which thou hast done to us” (Ps. 67:29). Here you can clearly see that by the good will of God and the Father, His “Power”, that is, the Son, was incarnated in order to “strengthen that” body “which He made for us,” for if it had not “dwelt in us” (John 1:14), then the nature of the flesh would not have been at all stripped of powerlessness from corruption. So, the Son Himself, being the good will of the Father, “completes His work,” being salvation for those who believe in Him. But perhaps someone will say to this: if the Son Himself is the will of the Father, then what will was He sent to fulfill, for what is done must be different from the one who does it? What shall we answer to this? Indeed, the use of (different) names requires a difference in the objects designated, but in relation to God it often does not differ, and the being of the Highest Nature sometimes allows us not to use such precision here, for it is not spoken of as it is in all truth, but as the tongue is able to express and hear the human ear. After all, “he who sees in fortune-telling” (1 Cor. 13:12) also speaks in fortune-telling (2 Cor. 12:4). Otherwise, what will you do when the Simple One appears before us dual in His nature, namely in His words about the Israelites: “And they caused their children to pass through the fire, “but I gave them no commandment, neither came upon My heart” (Jer. 32:35, 19:5). Is it really necessary to have a different heart with God? And how, in this case, can He already be thought of by us as simple? So, although it is said in a human way that something is about God, it must be understood in the way that befits God, and the limitations of our language should not harm the Nature that exists above all. Therefore, the Son, if he turns out to be speaking about the will of the Father, as if about any other, then you prudently do not make a distinction, attributing to the weakness of the word the impossibility of saying anything more, or otherwise expressing what is signified. I also consider it sufficient to say this to prove that the Son is also conceived as the will of the Father. But in the interpreted saying, no reason will force us to understand the Son as the will of the Father; rather, we must indifferently accept the Good Council about the lost. John 4:35. Do you not say that there are still 375 four months, and the harvest will come? Again, the occasion for speech is taken from time and circumstance and constitutes an explanation of spiritual objects from grossly sensory things. At that time it was still winter time, the young seedlings of the crops had just begun to emerge from the arable land, and it was necessary to wait four months before the time of harvest. So, “don’t you,” he says, people, say, “that there are still four months, and the harvest will come?” John 4:35. Behold, I say to you: lift up your eyes and see the fields, as if they are crops for the harvest 376 That is, having slightly raised the eye of the mind from earthly objects, look at the spiritual sowing, because it is as if “already” 377 has turned white, ready to go to the threshing floor and is already calling to itself the reaping sickle. By analogy with sensory-historical objects, you can explain the meaning of these words. Understand the mental sowing and the multitude of spiritual ears of grain, prepared in advance by the voice of the prophets for the faith of Christ that was about to appear. Those who are ripe and ready 378 for faith and established in piety become white. The reaper's sickle is the brilliant and sharpest word of the Apostles, cutting off the listeners from their subordinate service and transporting them to the threshing floor, that is, to the Church of God. Staying here and laboring with good labor, they will turn out to be pure bread, worthy of the granary of the Gatherer. John 4:36–37. Already the one who reaps accepts the bribe and gathers the fruit into the eternal belly, and the one who sows rejoices and reaps together. About this there is a true word, for there is neither sow nor reap 379 The time, he says, (now there is) a word calling to faith and showing the hearers that the legal and prophetic preaching has reached its end. After all, the law, as if in the shadows, foreshadowed in its representative service the One who was to come, that is, Christ. The prophets, after him, conveying words from the Spirit, foretold Him “a little and a great deal” (Hab. 2:3; Heb. 10:37) and as if already having to appear and come. When He entered inside the doors, then the word of the Apostles should no longer refer the expected to a distant time, but will already indicate its onset. Thus, it will reap those who are still enslaved to the law and adhere to the letter alone, from the subordinate service and, like sheaves, transfer it into the gospel mood and life; it will also cut off idolaters from polytheistic error and transfer them to the knowledge of the true God - and in general, as many can be said briefly, those who are still thinking about translating earthly things through the faith of Christ to angelic life. This is what, he says, the word of the reapers will do. However, it will not remain without a reward, but, of course, it will gather “fruit” that feeds “to eternal life.” And not only those who received (this fruit) will rejoice, but also those who joined the labors of the prophets and reaped the seed that they had previously cultivated will also celebrate the same festival with them. In view of precisely this, I think, the wisest Paul, who perfectly studied the (Old Testament) images relating to future times, said about the Holy Fathers and Prophets that “and all these, having obeyed 380 by faith, not having received the promises, I foresaw what was best for us for us, so that not without us they would receive perfection” (Heb. 11:39-40), for The Savior deigned the reaper to rejoice along with the one who sowed first. John 4:38. I sent you to reap where you did not labor: others labored, and you entered into their labor 381 He already reveals to them the whole secret and, having removed the veiled garment from the speech, presents its clear meaning. Loving the Prophets and Apostles, the Savior does not deprive the work of the prophets of communion with the work of the Apostles, nor does he assimilate to the holy Apostles alone all the glory of future salvation through faith in Him, but, as if combining and mixing with each other the works and deeds of both, he says that, according to justice, there will be one praise for both. However, He asserts that the Apostles entered into the works of the holy prophets, not allowing them to neglect the glory of their predecessors, but, on the contrary, urging them to honor them as those who preceded them with labor and time. Who will refuse to agree that for us this, of course, should be the most beautiful teaching? John 4:39. From that city many believed in Him from the Samaritans, because of the word of the woman who testified, that with His words I created all the trees 382 Again, with these words, Israel is condemned and, through the good obedience of the Samaritans, is exposed in its ignorance and at the same time stubbornness; for the Evangelist says with great surprise that “many believed” in Christ “for the sake of the woman’s word,” while those brought up by the law to such knowledge did not accept the words of Moses, nor recognized the need to obey the preaching of the prophets. In this way, he wisely prepares, or, better yet, defends in advance that Israel should rightly be deprived of the grace and hope of Christ, and in its place should enter the most obedient multitude of pagans or foreigners. John 4:40–41. Whenever the Samaritans came to Him, I prayed for Him to remain with them. And remain there for two days. And much more faith for His word 383 He lays out in simple words what happened. Again, it presents, as it were, another proof that Israel should rightly be rejected from hope, and foreigners should pass on to it. This is because the Jews offend Jesus, who works many miracles and shines with divine glory, with cruel and unbearable suspicions and turns out to be shamelessly raging to such an extent that they make the Author of all their well-being an exile and try to remove him from their city. And the Samaritans, convinced by the words of one woman, decide that they must quickly go to Him. When they arrived, they diligently begged Him to enter their city and impart to them the saving teaching. And Christ willingly agrees to both, knowing that grace will not be fruitless, for “many believed through His word.” Let also from here the God-loving and reverent one learn that Christ retreats from those who insult Him and dwells in those who please Him with their obedience and good faith. John 4:42. I say to the wife, “It is no longer because of your conversation that we believe: for we ourselves have heard and know that this is truly the Savior of the world (Christ) 384 As a result of great deeds, faith appears among the Samaritans, who are now surprised not because of what they learn from others, but because of what they themselves have heard. It is clear, they say, that we have learned that this is the Savior of the world, making this confession a guarantee of hope in Him. John 4:43–44. In two days I left from there 385 to Galilee. For Jesus himself bears witness that a prophet in his own country has no honor 386 He leaves Samaria, having already sowed the saving word and, like a farmer, introducing faith into its inhabitants - not so that it binds those who receive it with silence, remaining as if inactive and buried, but so that it grows more and more in the souls of everyone, constantly spreading more and more everywhere and achieving greater and greater strength. Since He passes in the middle (of the path) lying Nazareth, in which, as was known, He was raised, which is why He was already considered its citizen, - and, on the contrary, descends into Galilee 387, He considers (the Evangelist) necessary to indicate the reason for this passing and says that Jesus Himself testified that “a prophet has no honor in his own fatherland.” After all, we tend to consider the ordinary as nothing, even if it were great and glorious. The Savior, of course, did not want to seek honor from them as a man of glory and ambition, but He clearly knew that for those who do not at all consider it necessary to honor the teacher, the word of faith can no longer be sweet and will not be well received by them. Therefore, He justly passes by, not deigning to waste vain labor on those who will not receive any benefit from them, and not thereby betraying grace to those who despise it. Of course, it was unfair that, having reached such crimes, they did it with impunity, when it is generally accepted and indisputable that those who are accustomed to despise Him and disdainfully reject such a wonderful gift should be subjected to the highest punishments. John 4:45. When he came to Galilee, the Galileans received Him and saw everything, and created great things in Jerusalem for a feast: and they came for a feast 388 The Galileans did not accept Jesus recklessly, but were rightly amazed at the miracles that they themselves had already seen, through reverence for Him they condemned the madness of the Jews and, in their prudence, found themselves far superior to the lawyers. John 4:46. Then he came again to Cana of Galilee, where he turned the water into wine 389 Christ generously benefits those who are thoughtful and willing to show appreciation and gratitude for the good they receive, and bestows abundant gifts of great benefits. Therefore, he comes to Cana with the goal of performing miracles, reasoning that it is appropriate to benefit its inhabitants, and having, as if already sown in advance, through signs already perfected in it, the idea (of the inhabitants of Cana about Christ) that He can do everything. John 4:46–48. There was a certain king’s husband, and his son was sick in Capernaum. Hearing that Jesus had come from Judea into Galilee, he went to Him and prayed that he would come down and heal his son: he was about to die. Jesus spoke to him... 390 The courtier comes to Him as one who can heal. But he still does not recognize Him as God by nature. And although he calls “Lord” (v. 49), he by no means assimilates to Him the true dignity of dominion. Otherwise, he would immediately, having fallen, begin to beg Him not to go into his house and not go with him to the sick child, but to omnipotently and by Divine power drive out the disease that had infected him. Why was it necessary to be present with the sick One, Who was able to easily save even in his absence? And is it not the height of stupidity to consider Him the Lord of death and full of Divine power, but not recognize Him as God? John 4:48–49. Unless you see signs and wonders, you cannot believe. Verb to him the king's husband 391 Those who are mistaken still have a coarse mind, and a miracle for them will be stronger than the word calling them to faith. Therefore, the Savior said that they are in greater need of miracles in order to be able to easily re-educate for the better and recognize Him as the true God by nature. John 4:49. Lord, please bring me down before my child even dies! The courtier is completely weak in mind and in asking for grace he turns out to be like a child, not noticing that he is talking nonsense. After all, only with the belief that He not only in His absence can have the power (of healing), but, of course, will perform a miracle in His absence, would he have a completely correct idea of ​​Him. But now, thinking and acting contradictory and unreasonably, he demands from Him the strength appropriate to God, and does not think about the fact that as God He fills everything - even that He can overcome death, although He strenuously prayed to take away its prey from it, “having to die” the youth 392. John 4:50. Jesus said to him: Go, your son is alive 393 Thus, it was fitting for him to approach in faith. But Christ does not reject our ignorance, but also benefits those who sin, like God. So, a person, although he has not done something that deserves praise, is taught by the Teacher of virtue and at the same time the Giver of the requested blessings: for in the word “go” there is a call to faith, and in the saying “your son lives” - the fulfillment of what was asked, performed with some great and divine power. John 4:50–51. A man of faith speaks what Jesus speaks to him and walks. Abi, I went down to him, his servant gathered him and announced, saying that your son is alive 394 The Savior’s single command immediately heals two souls: it introduces unusual faith to the courtier, and it rescues the child from bodily death. It is difficult to say which of them recovers before the other, but I think both achieved this at the same time, as soon as the illness was stopped by the command of our Savior. And the servants who meet inform him of the healing of the boy, testifying to the power of Divine commands - and this, of course, according to the dispensation of Christ - and at the same time, with the fulfillment of hope, quickly strengthening their exhausted ruler in faith. John 4:52–54. You inquired from them about the hour at which it would be easier, and decided to him that yesterday at the seventh hour leave his fire. The father knew that the hour had come, in which Jesus said to him, that your son is alive: both he and his whole house have faith. Jesus performed this second sign when he came from Judea to Galilee 395 He asks them the hour at which the patient’s improvement began, wanting to know if it coincides with the time of grace (when Christ said: “Go, your son lives”). When he learns that this is so and not otherwise, he is saved by his whole household, assimilating the power of a miracle to the Savior Christ and bringing firm faith as a kind of fruit of gratitude for this. John 5:1–4. The feast of the Jews continues, and Jesus goes up to Jerusalem. There is in Jerusalem, called Bethesda in Hebrew, which has five porches. In those watching there are many many who are sick, blind, lame, dry, waiting for the movement of the water: The Angel of the Lord for (every) summer (from time to time) descended into the font and disturbed the water - and those who were the first to rise after the disturbance of the water were in health, but were once possessed by an illness 396 It is not in vain that the blessed Evangelist immediately adds to what has been said the story of the Savior’s return from here to Jerusalem, but, one must think, he had the goal of showing how far the foreigners are superior to the Jews in terms of good obedience and what a difference in mood and morals there is between the two. After all, this is the only way and no other way to teach us that, by the just decision of God, who possesses everything and knows no respect for man, Israel falls away from hope, and many pagans are brought in in its place. This can easily be proven by a careful comparison of the chapters. The Evangelist in one sign showed Him to have saved the Samaritans and in one also to have brought great benefit to the courtier in Galilee, and through him, of course, to its inhabitants. Having witnessed through this the great readiness of foreigners to obey, he again brings the Wonderworker to Jerusalem and shows Him performing a magnificent work, namely, He miraculously frees the paralytic from an original illness, just like the dying son of a courtier. But this (the courtier) believed with the whole house and confessed Jesus as God, and those (the Jews), instead of being surprised, immediately plot death and persecute the Benefactor as a wicked lawless man, placing the sentence on themselves for the vileness, thanks to which they find themselves, in their understanding and reverence for Christ, behind the foreigners. This is exactly what is said about them in the psalms, as if to the Lord Jesus: “as if he had laid a backbone” (Ps. 20:13). Placed in first place for the sake of the election of the fathers, they will go after and behind the calling of the Gentiles, for when “the fulfillment of tongues comes,” then “all Israel will be saved” (Rom. 11:25–26). This sense of contemplation contains for us a harmonious order of combination of chapters. Now let’s do a specific and verse-by-verse study of thoughts. John 5:5–6. But there was a certain poor man who had been sick for thirty and eight years. When Jesus saw this lying down, he realized that the summer was already long 397 While the Jews were celebrating the Feast of Unleavened Bread, on which it was their custom to slaughter a lamb, that is, during Passover, Christ departs from Jerusalem and turns among the Samaritans and foreigners and teaches from them, offended by the stubbornness of the Pharisees. And then, returning during Holy Pentecost - for this was the holiday that soon followed Easter in Jerusalem - He, by the waters of the font, healed a paralytic who had been in weakness for a long time - he was thirty-eight years old, however, he had not yet reached the perfect legal number, I mean consisting of a quartet of tens or forties. This is where our explanation of the historical meaning will stop and we will move on again to the spiritual contemplation of the prototype of writing. The removal of the offended Jesus from Jerusalem after the slaughter of the lamb, His coming to the Samaritans and Galileans and preaching the saving teaching among them - what else does this want to point out, if not His removal from the Jews after the slaughter and death of Him on the honorable cross in Jerusalem, when He betrayed Himself to the pagans and foreigners, giving His disciples the command (to expect) that will appear after the resurrection from the dead, because he leads (precedes) everyone to Galilee (in Galilee)? His return at the end of the week of Holy Pentecost to Jerusalem, as if in prototypes and riddles, again points to the return of our Savior to the Jews, which is due to love for mankind, in the last times of the present century, when we, saved through faith in Him, celebrate all-honorable celebrations in honor of His saving suffering. And the healing of the paralytic, who was previously perfect according to the law of time, means again, as if through the image of the event, that Israel, who was wickedly mad against Christ, will become exhausted, weakened, spend a long time in inaction, but will not reach the point of complete punishment, but he will receive some kind of charity from the Savior and he will be healed at the font through obedience and faith. And that the number forty is perfect according to the Divine law, anyone who consults the Divine Scriptures can find out without any difficulty. John 5:6–7. Jesus said to him: Do you want to be healthy? The sick one answered Him... 398 An obvious proof of the immeasurable goodness of Christ is that He does not at all expect prayers from the sick, but by His love for mankind prevents their petition. As you can see, he approaches the person lying down and, without calling, shows compassion to the sick person. And if he asks him if he wants to be freed from an illness, it is not because the Questioner did not know what is indisputably obvious to everyone, but because he aroused him to a strong desire for healing and encouraged him to zealously ask for it. The question of whether he wants to receive what he wants contains an expressive indication that He can deliver it and was already ready for it, but is only awaiting another request from the one who receives grace. John 5:7–8. Lord, I am not the imam of man, yes, when the water is troubled, he will throw me into the font: whenever I come, another comes down before me. Jesus said to him: Arise 399 During Holy Pentecost, Angels, descending from heaven, disturbed the water of the pool and made a sound from it as a messenger of their presence. Then the water was blessed as if by holy spirits. And whoever among the many sick people, having come earlier, warned others, came out freed from the illness that was depressing him, but the healing power was given only to the one who anticipated. And this was a sign of subordinate help through the Angels, directed only to the Jewish people and, apart from them, not communicated to anyone else. From Dan to Beersheba, decrees were spoken through Moses, and angels served on Mount Sinai, on the day subsequently established as holy Pentecost. That is why the water of the bath was disturbed at other times, revealing through this the descent of the holy Angels into it. So, the paralytic, having no one to throw him into the water, along with his depressing illness, mourned the absence of helpers in the words: “I have no man,” obviously, who would carry him into the water. He expected that Jesus would, of course, give him advice regarding this. John 5:8–9. Take up your bed and walk. And the man was soon in good health: and he walked on his bed. It was Saturday that day 400 A command befitting God and containing proof of superhuman power and authority, for He does not pray for the end of the illness of the one who is lying down, so that He would not appear like any of the holy prophets, but as the Lord of hosts, he authoritatively commands (healing), telling (the healed) that he should go home rejoicing and carry the bed on his shoulders, as a sign of the Healer’s power for the audience. The sick person immediately fulfills the order and, through obedience and faith, wins for himself the most desired grace. Since in the previous discussion we cited it as a model and type of the Jewish people, as having to receive healing in subsequent times, now we must also give some kind of explanation that would correspond in thought to the previous interpretations. Christ heals a man on the Sabbath and immediately commands that the by-laws be violated, forcing him to walk on the Sabbath, and, moreover, burdened with a bed, although God clearly calls through one of the holy prophets: “And ye shall not carry the burden out of your houses on the Sabbath day” (Jer. 17:22). No one who is prudent, no doubt, will think that this forces a person to despise and transgress the Divine commandments, but through this Christ made it clear, as in an image, for the Jews that they would receive healing through obedience and faith in the last times of the age. This, I think, is indicated by Saturday as the last day of the week. And for those who have already received healing through faith and moved on to a new life, it is necessary to consider the old letter of the law as nothing and renounce the ministry hidden, as it were, in the shadows and the useless observance of Jewish rituals. From here, I believe, taking the occasion for speech, blessed Paul wrote to those who, after faith, again returned to the law: “I say to you, that if you are circumcised, Christ benefits you for nothing” (Gal. 5:2), and again: “Being made void of Christ, you who are justified by the law, have fallen away from grace” (Gal. 5:4). John 5:10. To the Jews who healed the Lord: It is the Sabbath, and it is not worthy for you to take your bed 401 I consider it timely to cry out to them: here are the people who are foolish and heartless - their eyes are on them and they do not see (Jer. 5:21). What could be more unreasonable than this, or is it possible to have greater obscurity? They do not understand that they should have been surprised at the power of the Healer. But, like captious critics and knowing only this one thing, they accuse someone who has just recovered from a long illness of breaking the law, and foolishly order him to lie down again, as if the honor of the Sabbath lies in the necessity of being sick. John 5:11–12. He answered them: Who made me whole, He said to me: take up your bed and walk. Ask him... 402 These words contain a wise meaning and reflect the tenacity of the Jews. Since it is impermissible to take up a bed and go home, they say, composing an accusation against the healed person of breaking the law, then he, of necessity, opposes them with the strongest defense, pointing out that He commands him to walk, Who also turned out to be the Giver of health. It’s as if he were saying this: I call it a worthy task, dear ones, to honor Him in Whom there is such great power and grace that He banished my illness, even if He commanded me to violate the veneration of the Sabbath. After all, if such a glorious property does not belong to everyone, but should befit only the effectiveness and power of God, then how could the Perpetrator of this sin, he says? And can He who has divine power advise what is not pleasing to God? Thus, this speech contains a bitter and expressive reproach. John 5:12–14. Who is the man who says: take up your bed and walk? He who is healed does not know who he is: for Jesus has turned aside, the people are in the place. Then you will find him 403 Jesus in the church and speaking to him... 404 The soul of the Jews is insatiable in murder. They are interrogating the Commander, wanting to bring Him to justice along with the miraculously healed one, for they seemed to be saddened by the fact that one person who had just been freed from hopeless snares and torn from the very gates of death was accused of the Sabbath. But he cannot name his Doctor, although this is strongly demanded of him, since Christ prudently hid Himself in order to avoid their quick and ardent anger. And not because He could endure, but as if out of necessity, if He did not want to endure, He uses His withdrawal, but by this again presenting Himself as a model for us. John 5:14. Behold, you are healthy: do not sin on anyone, and let no worse happen to you 405 Having providentially hidden himself before, He also providentially appears, doing both at the appropriate time for each, for it was impossible for the One who did not know sin to do anything that did not have a completely sufficient basis. So, the pretext of conversation with him now was a command - not to sin again, so that he would not be subjected to worse disasters than the past. Through this he teaches that God not only saves people their sins for the judgment that is about to take place, but also punishes in various ways those still living in their bodies even before the great and glorious day of the Judge of all. And that we are often struck down for our crimes and insults to God, the wise Paul will testify, exclaiming: “That is why among you there are many weak and sick, and quite a lot of people dying: for if we had judged ourselves, we would not have been condemned; But if we are judged, we are punished by the Lord, lest we be condemned with the world” (1 Cor. 11:30–32). John 5:15. A man went and said to the Jews, for Jesus is the one who created him whole 406 He points the Jews to Jesus, not so that they, out of their wickedness, would dare to do any harm to Him, but so that they, if they wish to receive healing, would know the venerable Physician. That this was precisely his goal, you can see from the fact that he, like any of the accusers, comes with the announcement not that Jesus commanded to walk on the Sabbath, but that He is “the one who made him healthy.” This did nothing more than point to the Doctor. John 5:16–17. And for this reason the Jews persecuted Jesus and sought to kill Him, having done this on the Sabbath. Jesus answered them... 407 The speech here is not just a simple indication of the fury of the Jews, for in the words “for this reason he did this on the Sabbath,” the Evangelist again with particular expressiveness points out that they not only persecute 408, but also that they are not ashamed of doing this. After all, they are persecuted recklessly and wickedly, as if the law forbids doing good on the Sabbath, as if it is impossible to show mercy and compassion to the sick, as if one must abandon the law of love, the feat of brotherly love, and grace-filled meekness. That the Jews neglect virtue (on the Sabbath), not understanding the purpose of the Sabbath legislation and observing it in vain, this can be proven in various ways. So Christ Himself once said that each of them leads his ox or sheep to water (Luke 13:15), and “a man receives circumcision on the Sabbath, so that the law of Moses may not be broken,” - and yet they are indignant at the fact that “I made every man healthy on the Sabbath” (John 7:23), thanks to the great stubbornness of morals and at the same time recklessness, even over the dumb, not giving advantage to those created in the image of God, but arguing that it is possible to show mercy to a sheep on the Sabbath and there is no guilt in freeing it from hunger and thirst, on the contrary, those who are gracious and kind to their neighbor on the Sabbath are subject to the strictest charges for breaking the law. But in order to again see for us that they are excessively crazy and for this they rightly should listen to: “You are deceived, not knowing the scriptures” (Matthew 22:29), for this, as a clear proof, let us take the once vividly foreshadowed, as in an image, Jesus, Who was indifferent to the Sabbath. After the all-wise Moses, as it is written (Joshua 6), retired from human affairs in old age and moved to the highest abodes, by the judgment and determination of the Almighty God, the leadership of Israel was received and inherited by the son of Nun, Joshua. And since he, having surrounded Jericho with a large army, wanted to take it and destroy it, he gave a sign to the Levites so that they would surround the ark around (the walls) on all six days, and on the seventh, that is, on Saturday, he ordered an immense multitude of troops to blow the trumpets. And so the wall shook, and they, running inside, took the city, not observing the untimely inaction of the Sabbath and during it, not giving up victory for the sake of prohibiting the law, also not then opposing the orders of Jesus and leaving the authorities of this man completely free from censure. This is a prototype. When the Truth, that is, Christ, came, having destroyed and subdued the corruption that was hidden by the devil against human nature, and when the one who does this on the Sabbath appears in the person of the paralytic, as if in the introduction and beginning of the matter, then they are unreasonably indignant and condemn the good obedience of their fathers, not allowing nature to be overcome, oppressed by diseases, since they turn to the persecution of Jesus, who does good on the Sabbath. John 5:17. My Father works hitherto, and I do Christ says this on Saturday, which must be indicated by the expression “hitherto” so that the meaning of the argument has a sufficient basis for itself. The ignorant Jews, who did not know who by His nature is the Only Begotten, who assimilated the decrees of the Law of Moses to one God and the Father, who claimed that one must obey Him alone, tries to clearly convince that He does everything together with the Father and, as having in Himself the nature of the Parent, not differing from Him in relation to the sameness of essence, He can never think of anything else that is contrary to the will of the Parent. Being of the same essence (with the Father), He must desire the same thing, even more - Himself being the living council and power of the Father, He accomplishes everything in everything together with the Father. So, in order to reflect the vain murmur of the Jews and to shame those who persecuted Him for allegedly neglecting the honor of the Sabbath, He says that “My Father works hitherto, and I work.” With this he wants to express something similar to the following. If you, a human being, believe that by the wave and will of the God who created and arranged everything, creation is governed and on the Sabbath, after sunrise, sources of rain and rivers open, fruits rise from the earth without ceasing to grow for the sake of the Sabbath, fire carries out its actions, unhinderedly serving the needs of people, then, without any doubt, you must admit that the Father does what is due to the Divine on the Sabbath. Why, he says, do you recklessly accuse Him through Whom He “does” everything? After all, God and the Father can act no other way than through the power and wisdom of the Son, which is why he says that “I also do.” Thus, by leading thoughts to absurdity, He puts to shame the unbridled anger of His persecutors, showing that they rebel not so much against Him as against the Father, to Whom alone they tried to attribute the honor of (giving) the law, not yet knowing what is from Him and through Him by the nature of the Son. That is why He calls God Father only Himself, very skillfully guiding Him towards this lofty and wonderful teaching. John 5:18. And for this reason the Jews seek Him all the more to kill Him, for not only have they destroyed the Sabbath, but also His father, saying God, He created equal to God 409 The mind of the Jews is directed towards inhumanity, and through what they should have been healed, through this they get sick even more, so that they can rightly hear: “Why do you say that we are wise?” (Jer.8:8). While they should have tamed their mood, turning with due prudence to reverence, they, on the contrary, are already burning with murder 410 against the One who in fact certified that there was no sin against the Divine law if a person received healing on the Sabbath. To anger for the sake of the Sabbath they also drag in the truth as an accusation of blasphemy, entangling themselves in endless anger with the chains of their sins, for it seemed pious to them to be indignant at the fact that He “calls God His Father” while being a man. They did not yet know that for our sake, in the form of a servant, God the Word, the Life growing from the Father, appeared, that is, the Only Begotten, Who alone is called the Father in the proper and true sense and is God; But we are not at all, for we are sons by adoption, ascending to this dignity that exceeds nature by the will of Him who honored (us) and receiving the name gods and sons for the sake of Christ dwelling in us through the Holy Spirit. So, having in mind only the flesh, and not knowing God who dwells in the flesh, they do not tolerate Him who immeasurably rises above the borders of human nature in calling God His Father, for in the saying “My Father”, in all justice, it expresses just such a thought. And they believe that He, whose Father is actually God, must be equal to Him in nature, this is only one thing, and they mean it correctly, for this is really so and not otherwise. But when He expresses this thought in His speech, they only become even more indignant, perverting the right word of truth. That the Son is not less than the Father, neither in power nor in effectiveness in anything, but is also equivalent and consubstantial, as being from Him and by nature (Son) John 5:19. Jesus answered and said to them: Amen, amen, I say to you, the Son cannot do anything for Himself, unless He sees the Father doing it: what He does, the Son also does likewise 411 What we talked about in the previous one, this again explains in a different way, in every possible way attracting listeners to the acquisition of truth. The previously unaccepted teaching, due to the weakness of those who cannot understand it, is now portrayed differently and represents Him in different ways going towards the revelation of the same truths. And this should be a matter of valor befitting a teacher - to communicate the teaching not fluently and fleetingly, but to give a harmonious and varied presentation of the subject and, by changing the phrase, often eliminate difficult questions. So, having mixed the human with the Divine and made up one middle saying from both, he (the Evangelist) gradually clarifies the dignity due to the Only Begotten and rises above human nature. As the Master and at the same time as numbered among the slaves, he says, “the Son cannot do anything of Himself, if He does not see the Father doing something, for what He does, the Son does likewise”; for the ability to create exactly the same thing as God the Father (creates), and to act like the Parent, this testifies to the identity of His essence (with the Father). After all, only beings that have the same nature as each other can act in the same way, and those whose mode of being differs will not have the same mode of action in everything. So, as the true God from the true God the Father, he says, can create equally with Him. But so that He would appear not only equal to the Father in strength, but also like-minded in everything and having the same will with Him in everything, He says that He cannot do anything of Himself if He does not see the Father doing it. In more detail, as it were, he speaks to those who decided to pursue Him on the occasion of the healing of a man on Saturday. You think that respect for the Sabbath has been violated, but I would not have done this at all if I had not seen the Father doing the same. And He acts for the existence of the world on the Sabbath, although through Me. So, he says, it is impossible for Me, His Son by nature, not to do and always want in everything the same as the Father, since I did not receive through teaching a model for doing and was not called by a preliminary movement of the will to want the same thing with the Father, but according to the laws of the truly Divine nature I achieve the same desire and doing with God and the Father, for this is precisely the impossibility of “creating from Myself” anything. Thus, I believe, it is fitting for those who think piously to take “every mind captive to the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor. 10:5), as it is written. But the opponent of the truth may not agree with this and will make what was said as some kind of food for his madness, saying so. If the Son was on an equality with the Father, of necessity not giving Him any advantage, for the sake of the insufficiency of His nature, then what made Him say so openly that “he cannot do anything of Himself, if He does not see the Father doing something?” Indeed, in these words, they say, he clearly confesses that he can do absolutely nothing of himself, obviously as the Seer of the Highest and Predominant, and you again reinterpret this saying for us. What will we say in response to this? Again the blasphemer intensifies in his blasphemy against Christ and, out of ignorance, does not realize his folly. After all, it was necessary, my dear, to accurately determine the meaning of what was said, and not to get carried away by all sorts of thoughts that appear as a result of ignorance. In what way, in your opinion, should the Son be deprived of equality with the Father due to the saying that He “cannot do of Himself” anything if “what He does not see the Father doing?” Does He say this as having no equal in power? But from these same words one can see rather that the Son is equivalent to the Parent, rather than that He lacks Divine power. After all, He does not say: “The Son cannot do anything from Himself, unless He receives power from the Father,” as it would be typical to say to someone who really does not have (Divine) power, but: “If he does not “see” the Father doing something.” No one, I think, will argue with the fact that by means of sight we usually indicate not force, but contemplation. Therefore, the Son, saying that He looks at the deeds of the Parent, points to Himself not as having no (Divine) power, but rather as an imitator or contemplator, which will be discussed in more detail hereafter. And that through a completely similar activity (with the Father), I mean - in everything, is equal with Him in power, He Himself clearly teaches this, speaking after this about His Father: “For what He” (the Father) “does, this,” He says, “and the Son does likewise.” How, therefore, is He less than He Who possesses an efficacy equal to that of God and the Father? Can fire really produce anything other than fire, when no change in its effectiveness is seen? Could this ever happen? So, how will the Son perform the works of the Father “in the same way”, if for this reason it turns out that he does not have equal power with Him? We took this in the present case from the interpreted saying. But also through other reflections we can reach the knowledge of whether the nature of the Son allows him to be lower than the Father. Let us also talk about strength. Will they admit that the Son is God from God by nature and true, or will they say that He is God, and at the same time impiously assume that He is outside the essence of the Father? But if they say that He is not from the essence of the Father, then He will be neither God by nature, nor the true Son, for what is not from God by nature, without a doubt, cannot be conceived as God by nature, nor also by the Son, if not born from the essence of the Father, but they introduce to us some kind of counterfeit and new god. And if, ashamed of the absurdity in their dogmas, they do not say this, but admit that the Only Begotten exists truly from the Father and is God by nature and truly, then how will he be less than the Father, or will he not be powerless in anything and not lay the blame for this on the essence of the Father? After all, if He who is God by nature allows powerlessness in Himself, then what prevents the Father from having the same thing, since the possibility of this has already been allowed for the Divine and ineffable Nature and already appears, according to their teaching, as such in the Son? So, therefore, the Divinity is not impassive and will not always remain in identity and unchangeable bliss. But who, tell me, will tolerate those who think like this? Who, in view of the words of Scripture that “the Lord of hosts” (Ps. 23:10) is the Son, will not become stupefied if he asserts that He needs reinforcement and is therefore imperfect, even though this actually belongs to Him alone along with the Father and the Holy Spirit? But the opponent will again object like this: “That is why we affirm that the Father is superior to the Son, for One is the beginning of works, as having perfection in power and omniscience, and the Other is first a contemplator, and then the performer of this (contemplation), imprinting in Himself the imitation of the effectiveness of the Father, so that through the likeness of works He is thought of as God. This is what He taught us, saying that He “can do nothing of Himself unless He sees the Father doing it.” What are you saying, you contemptuous one? The Son imprints in Himself the images of the Father’s activity, why is it thought of by God? Consequently, He will be God by teaching, and no longer by nature. Just as we have knowledge and art, so, therefore, there is dignity in Him, and He is rather an artist of Divine affairs than the true God. But the artist himself, without a doubt, must be different, different from his inherent art, even if it were divine. How is it that the One who goes beyond the boundaries of the Divine and has this glory based on art alone is worshiped by Angels in heaven, and we also worship sinlessly, while the Divine Scripture legitimizes us not to serve anyone other than the true God? “You shall worship the Lord your God,” it is said, “and serve Him alone” (Matt. 4:10; Deut. 6:13). The Holy One, at least the multitude of Angels, cannot deviate from what is due, and if they worship the Son and serve Him with us, it is because they recognize Him as God by nature, and not by teaching, as they chatter. They do not seem to realize what absurdities they must fall into as a result. And firstly, the Son will have to allow change and transformation from worse to better, although through the prophet He says: “See, see, “for I am, and I do not change” (Mal. 3:6). Of course, the one who sings in the Spirit: “Thou art the same” (Ps. 101:28), exclaiming this to the Son, will also turn out to be a liar. This is because He, as they say, waits for the actions of the Father regarding something that exists, as a kind of mentor and teacher, so that, having seen it, it becomes an imitator. But how, finally, should not everyone find himself ascending to knowledge from ignorance of something and transforming from worse to better, as soon as we recognize that knowledge of some good is better than ignorance? Then, to complete their absurdities, let those who recognize God as a mentor rather than as a Father answer us: Does the Son wait for a vision (of the Father’s actions), as one who is ignorant of the Father’s affairs, or as one who has the most accurate knowledge of them? If they say that He waits, knowing, then they will obviously present the Father as doing something completely unnecessary and as a teacher of a completely futile task; for One (the Son), as one who does not know, perceives what He definitely (already) knows, and the Other (the Father) tries to teach the One who already knows. Who is not aware that such thoughts should deserve complete ridicule? But perhaps they will not say this, but will move on to the opposite answer, that is, they will argue that He, of necessity, awaits the actions of the Father in order to learn through contemplation of them. But how does He know “all things before their being” (Dan. 13:41)? Or how will He turn out to be true when He says about Himself: “I am a God who draws near, says the Lord, and not a God from afar: will food be hidden from Me?” (Jer. 23:23, 32:27). How is it not absurd and unreasonable to believe that the Spirit tests and knows the depths of God (1 Cor. 2:10), and consider the Giver of the Spirit to be ignorant of the affairs of the Father and in relation to knowledge to be inferior to His own Spirit? 412 Will not the Son finally cease to be Wisdom as soon as he turns out to be completely ignorant and receives (knowledge) through teaching? After all, He will rather be the recipient of wisdom than wisdom itself by nature, for the property of wisdom is to make wise, and not to be made wise, just as, without a doubt, it is the property of light to shine, and not to be illuminated. Therefore, He will again turn out to be different, different from the wisdom in Him (that exists) and, firstly, not simple, but already composed of two, and then, in addition, He will cease to be God, I mean God by nature and essentially. After all, the Divine nature does not at all allow learning from anyone and duality of composition - it possesses simplicity as its own good and perfection. And if the Son is not God by nature, then how does he produce and accomplish works that are appropriate only to God? Will they really say that for the divine power it will be enough for Him only to see the Father acting - and through simple contemplation He acquires being God by nature and the power to do the same thing as the One who shows Him? But in this case, there is no obstacle for us to have many other gods, since the Father wished to show them the path of His works. Also, teaching as an exclusive property of the essence of the Father will be something superfluous, for the Taught One, as they claim, turns out to have ascended to the dignity of the Divine by nature if he says: “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30), - “he who has seen Me in the form of the Father” (John 14:9). Let them, therefore, measure how much blasphemy accumulates in them because of the desire to think like this, and let them think the truth about the Son, as it is written. Not from contemplation of the Father’s deeds and not because He is the first principle in deeds, the Son is a creator or a miracle worker, and therefore God, but some kind of natural law elevates Him to the most perfect likeness with the Parent, which also shines and appears in the complete similarity of Their deeds. But, if you wish, let us turn again to the interpreted saying and, subjecting it to the most detailed study, we will consider exactly what the meaning is in these words, and we will judge how it is appropriate to understand them piously. So, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son cannot,” it is said, “do anything of Himself, unless He sees the Father doing it: for whatever He does, the Son also does in like manner.” You see how, through the most perfect identity of deeds, He shows Himself in everything like the Father, so that through this He may also be the heir of His essence; for the Savior speaks this as one who must necessarily and indisputably be thought to be God by nature, having equal efficacy with God the Father. And let no one be offended if He, for the purpose of building the economy, appears to say that “he can do nothing of Himself unless He sees the Father doing it.” As already clothed in the image of a slave and becoming human due to union with the flesh, He used expressions that were not always and not unconditionally consistent with His Divine dignity alone, but for the sake of His economy, He sometimes used those that would befit both God and man together, for He really was at the same time both. This is one true meaning of this saying. But, I think, we must also pay attention to the other side of the interpreted saying and more precisely explain its meaning: “the Son cannot do anything of Himself, if he does not see the Father doing it.” This “cannot” or “impossible”, used about someone or attributed to some objects, does not always serve as a designation of necessity or powerlessness. Often it expresses both the solidity of beings and the steady persistence of beings in what each of the designated beings either is, or was, and what it can naturally and immutably produce. But, if you like, let's argue through examples. If, for example, a person says that he cannot carry a large and heavy tree, then this will indicate his inherent weakness. If someone else says: “Being a man, rational by nature and born from a father rational by nature, I cannot do, as something of my own and from myself, which I do not see innate to the nature of my parent,” then this “I cannot” will indicate the constancy of the essence and the inability of it to be transformed into something else, different from what it is. I cannot, he says, not to be a rational animal by myself, having transgressed the properties inherent in my nature, for I do not see the possibility of this being in the nature of my parent. In the same way, understand the words of Christ: “The Son cannot do anything of Himself if He does not see the Father doing something.” Do not blame, he says, the works of the Son: after all, He, contemplating, as if in His own thoughts or natural movements, the essence of the One who gave birth to Him, does exactly that, and nothing else, which, when done in a manner appropriate to it, He will see it (the essence of the Father), since He cannot endure anything contrary to His nature for the reason that He exists from it. The Father's nature, for example, has a desire to have mercy. Contemplating this (desire) inherent in her, the Son, already by Himself and by His very nature 413, is merciful, unable to be anything other than what she is. After all, He has from the Father both the essence and the qualities of the essence, of course, simply and not complexly, like God. That is why he wisely adds to the previous words: “For whatever He does, the Son does likewise,” the entire, so to speak, volume of thought about the impossibility of “creating anything from Himself if He does not see the Father doing something,” uniting in these words. And when considering the reason why the Son speaks such words, you must pay special attention to what we have said. So, since on the Sabbath day he showed mercy to the paralytic, the Jews decided to persecute Him. But Christ puts them to shame, pointing out that on the Sabbath God and the Father have mercy. He did not think that anything that pertains to our salvation should ever be hindered. This is precisely why he said at the beginning: “My Father is working hitherto, and I am working.” Since the Jews, due to their great foolishness, turned out to be indignant at this, He also adds: “The Son cannot do anything of Himself if He does not see the Father doing something, for what He does, the Son does likewise.” Since the Father, he says, does not refuse to be merciful on the Sabbath, so I, seeing Him always merciful, therefore am also always merciful, not being able, so to speak, to bring into myself any new essence of the Father, but appearing and being such as He is by nature, for as being from Him, I do, of course, His works. And to say that the Father is the leader of affairs is a sign of extreme foolishness. How can He predetermine anything especially and alone, if He has the Son as His effective power in everything, eternally coexistent with Him and being the exponent of His will to something and the movement of His effectiveness in anything? And if they ignorantly assert that in every case He waits for the special action of the Father in order to imitate a similar action, then let them show us something that the Father has ever done specially and on his own, or: which paralytic, having healed in advance, He gave this healing as a model for His Son? John 5:20. The Father loves the Son Those who were recklessly furious with vain anger and uncontrollably blasphemed against Him for the sake of the Sabbath, Christ exposes, presenting the most obvious proof of the matter in the words that He enjoys the love of His Own Parent. After all, if the Father loves the Son, then he obviously loves Him not as one who offends (the Father), but, on the contrary, as one who pleases Him with what He creates and does. In vain, therefore, do the Jews persecute Him who does not refuse to show mercy on the Sabbath, and through this they again find themselves opposed to the will of God and the Father. They think that they should hate the One Whom He loves, but, obviously, He would not love Him at all, as one who transgresses the will of the Parent and is accustomed to do separately and alone whatever He Himself wishes. And since He (the Father) justly loves Him, He obviously agrees and deigns to destroy the Sabbath (rest) and shows that there is nothing in this for which God and the Lord of the law could rightly be indignant. John 5:20. And he shows Him everything that He Himself creates. He considers it necessary to add this to the previous words, and for what reason, I will also say about this. Our fathers, sometimes obeying natural love, tolerate sons who insult them and often tolerate the actions of their children that are contrary to their will. This is because a strong love for children lives in them, forcing them to increase any indulgence towards them. But this is not how God and the Father loves the Son, he says, for He (the Son) cannot do anything that is not characteristic of the Father to do. As having the same essence with Him, He is drawn by certain, so to speak, natural laws to the will and power that are completely identical (with the Father). Therefore, he says, the Son does not do anything contrary to what is pleasing to the Father and is proper, and does not frivolously neglect the love of the Father, being stubborn and innovative in deeds, but what He sees as the creator, obviously again in the mind, this is exactly what he does, being held by the identity of his essence in not transgressing in anything what is proper to God. After all, He is not involved in any transformation or change, but remains “Again” unceasingly, as the Psalmist says in one place (Ps. 101:28). The Father, again, “shows the Son “what He Himself does,” not offering it as written on a board or teaching it to someone who does not know, for the Son knows everything as God, but by depicting all of Himself in the nature of His Generation and showing His own inherent properties in Himself, so that in what the Son Himself is and is, He recognizes what and who His Parent is by His nature. This is why Christ says that “no one knows who the Son is except the Father, and no one knows the Father who He is except the Son” (Matthew 11:27). In Both lies the exact knowledge of Each of Them, not through teaching, but by nature. Just as God and the Father sees the Son in Himself, so for His part the Son sees the Father in Himself, which is why he says: “I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me” (John 14:11). And the words “see” and “be seen” must again be understood here as befits God. John 5:20. And he will show more of these things to Him, so that you may wonder 414 The blessed Evangelist says above that “the Jews sought to kill Jesus, because he not only violated the Sabbath, but also called God His Father, making Himself equal with God” (v. 18). Therefore, He rejected the charge for the Sabbath, pointing out that the Father Himself acts on the Sabbath - in a rather large argument. But he also tries to teach that He is in equality with the Father, although He became a man for our sake. This still remained to be revealed, which is why he says that “and the greater of these will show Him the works, so that you may be amazed.” What else does he want to express to us through this? Healed, he says, the paralytic, “who was in his illness for thirty-eight years.” And truly wonderful is the power of the Healer and His completely divine power. No one, I believe, of any sane mind would blame such a Wonderworker for calling Himself God and, since He is the Son, equal to the Parent in everything. And since, he says, you who think badly and foolishly, are tempted because of this mortal body, then it is necessary to teach you that My power and strength will not extend only to this limit: you will be spectators of even more amazing deeds, that is, the rising of the dead, and then you will be even more amazed, seeing the power and glory befitting God contained in Me, whom you now accuse of blasphemy and are not ashamed to persecute for one thing only. that I said: “I am the Son of God” (cf. John 10:36). And we have already said a lot about how God and the Father shows things to the Son in our previous discussion. John 5:21. Just as the Father raises the dead and lives, so the Son also lives what he wants 415 See here again a clear proof of equality. Who acts equally (with God the Father) in raising the dead, can He be in any way less? Or how could He who shines with the same properties be foreign and different in nature? And the power of life-giving is a property of the Divine nature, which is equally inherent in the Father and the Son. Moreover, the Father does not especially and by Himself give life to some, and the Son especially and separately to others, for He does everything, naturally having the Father in Himself, and the Father does everything through the Son. But since the Father has in His nature the power to give life, just like He (the Son), he also assimilates, as is especially inherent in each of them, the power to give life to the dead. That none of the Divine dignities or advantages is present in the Son by communion or as ascended John 5:22. The Father judges no one, but all judgment is given to the Sons 416 He cites another godly and miraculous matter, convincing through many arguments that He is God by nature and truly. And indeed, to whom else could judgment befitting the universe, if not God alone, who exists above all, Whom the Divine Scriptures call for this, saying, “Rise up, God, judge of the earth” (Ps. 81:8), then again: “For God is a judge, he humbles this one and exalts this one” (Ps. 75:8). However, “judgment was given to Him from the Father” - He says this not as being outside the possession of it, but as a man and economically, teaching that everything should be attributed to the Divine nature, in which He Himself, being as the Word and God, has in Himself power over everything. And how did you become the man to whom it is said in one place: “For what have you that you have not received?” (1 Cor. 4:7), then he rightly admits that He received (judgment). To this again, perhaps one of the opponents will say: “Now the Son clearly says that he received judgment from the Father. And He receives, obviously, as if he did not have. How then, with power, will the Giver not be higher and greater than the One who needs to receive?” What can we say to this? In the previous discussion, we gave, as I believe, a heavenly speculation regarding what is especially fitting for the time of the incarnation and most of all consistent with the economy with the flesh, when He was called a servant, when He humbled Himself, becoming in our likeness (Phil. 2:7). If you want to treat the simplest dogmas with contempt and make more detailed studies, then, again speaking against your objections, we will say this first of all. It is not always and not necessary, my dear, the one who is called the giver gives to the one who receives as to the one who does not have, but it is not always the one who gives more than the one who receives. Otherwise, what will you do when you see the sacred Psalmist speaking in the Spirit: “Give glory to God” (Ps. 67:35)? Will we really decide to present God as in need of glory, or will we, who are commanded to bring it (glory) to Him, find ourselves superior to the Creator for this? But even the enemy himself, so stubborn in his blasphemies, will not dare to say this. The Deity, of course, is full of glory, even if he did not receive it from us. Taking as honor what it has in Itself, It, of course, cannot be conceived less than those who bring Him glory as a gift. Thus, one can often see that the one who received something is not inferior to the one who gave, and therefore the Father is not superior in nature to His own Son, if “all” “gave judgment” to Him. Then, in addition, you should pay attention to the following. To judge or to be a judge is rather the essence of the action or manifestation of what is thought of as entities, rather than the entities themselves in their truth. So, we perform a certain action when we carry out judgment, but in fact we remain what we are. If we attach the meaning of essences to a trial or the execution of a trial, then wouldn’t it turn out to be necessary and involuntary to admit that some of the existing ones could not exist at all if they were not judges, and with the end of the trial their essence would, of course, cease? But to think this way is the height of absurdity. Judgment is an action and nothing else. What, then, did the Father give to the Son? He did not give any advantage, as it were from his own nature, in granting Him the entire judgment, but rather an action extending to those judged. In what way, then, will the Father be greater or superior in nature, and what will He add to the Son, which was not in the Son, who says: “All that the Father has is Mine” (John 16:15)? Listen, finally, to how the expression “gave” should be understood. As God and the Father, having the power to create, He creates everything through the Son, as through His Strength and Strength; so, having the power to judge, he does this through the Son, as through His Truth. This is similar to saying that fire also allows the action that comes from it to burn something by nature. Thus, by piously interpreting the expression “gave,” we will escape the snares of the devil. If, however, they continue to assert with shameless persistence that glory has been added to Him from the Father by declaring Him a judge of the earth, then let them teach us how, in this case, can we still represent Him as the Lord of glory, Who is crowned with this honor even in the last times? That the Son, being God and from God by nature and in the exact image of Him who gave birth, has equal honor and glory with Him John 5:23. Let all honor the Son as they honor the Father: whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him 417 The reason and basis for the previously listed (dignities of the Son) is the equality of the Son with the Father. Going back a little and remembering what was said before, you will definitely understand the meaning of this saying. So, “He called God His Father, making Himself equal with God” (v. 18), then again pointed to Himself as equal to Him and a co-creator, saying: “For whatever He does, the Son does likewise” (v. 19); and that He is also life and a life-giver by nature, like the One who begat Him, he indicated this by adding: “For as the Father raises the dead and gives life, so the Son gives life to whom He will” (v. 21), but also revealed that He will also be a judge of all, with the consent and cooperation of the Father in everything, in the words: “For the Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son” (v. 22). What is the reason for this? What prompted the Only Begotten to say such words? “Yes, everyone,” he says, “honor the Son as they honor the Father.” If He is everything that the Father is, as far as Divine dignity is concerned, then is it not appropriate to crown Him with equal honors with Him (the Father), Who has no lack of identity of essence? But what do they say again against this “who corrupt all that is right,” according to the word of the prophet Isaiah (Mic. 3:9; cf. Is. 5:20)? “If, they say, on the basis of the words “let everyone honor the Son as they honor the Father,” you think that the Son should be honored equally with the Father, then you do not know how far you are deviating from the truth. After all, the word “how” (ϰαϑώς) does not necessarily indicate the equality of the objects about which it is used, but often expresses only a certain similarity. So, for example, they say that the Savior in one place gives the following advice: “Be merciful, just as your Father in heaven is merciful” (Luke 6:36). Really, in view of this “how - ϰαϑώς” can we be merciful like the Father? And again: Christ speaks to His Father about the disciples: “You have loved them, just as you have loved Me” (John 17:23). But for the sake of this “how” – ϰαϑώς” we cannot admit that the disciples are loved in the same way as the Son. Why do you contrive and forcibly insert blasphemy into a saying that does not contain any necessity for the listeners to the fact that they should honor the Son equally with the Parent? What can we say against this? The atheists bark at us with harsh words. But - there are the “dogs,” as Paul says (Phil. 3:2), there are the “evil workers,” there is the “circumcision” of the right faith! We are sons of truth and children of light (Eph.5:8). Therefore, we glorify the Only Begotten with God and the Father, not with any difference, but in equality of honor and glory, as God from God, and Light from Light, and Life from Life. And although it is for the most part unsafe to expose what is accepted by faith to too detailed a disclosure, it is nevertheless necessary to examine the meaning of this “how” - ϰαϑώς”, so that opponents do not become philosophic about themselves. So, when the word “as” is applied to objects that are not similar in nature, then it, of course, does not point us to the most perfect equality, but only to similarity and reflection, as you yourself admitted in the previous objection. But if it turns out to be used about objects that are similar in all respects to each other, then it expresses equality in everything and similarity and everything else that is equivalent to this. I can, for example, say: the sun shines in the sky, silver shines in the same way on the earth, but the nature of the named objects is different. Or let us imagine that some rich man on earth says to his household servants: let silver shine “like” the sun. By this, of course, we do not at all assert that earthly matter achieves a brilliance equal to the sun, but only a certain similarity and resemblance, although this “like” is used about it. But let us take as an example Peter and John, the holy disciples, who, both in relation to nature and in piety towards God, did not lack exact likeness to each other - let anyone use this “as” about them in the following sentence: let John be honored from all, “as” Peter. Will this “how” again indicate that both should not be given equal honor? But I think no one will say this, because they will not see any obstacle (to complete equality of honor for both). According to this reasoning, and about the Son and the Father, when this “how” is used, for what reason will we be averse to crowning both with equal honor? As God, having foreseen the future and having provided for the slanderous contradiction of your ignorance, He used this “as” not simply and without the explanation due to it, but having supported it in advance with appropriate certificates and shown in advance that He is God by nature. Thus, He declared God to be His Father. And also, having previously revealed that He is truly God and Creator and Life, and in general, so to speak, having presented Himself in advance with the shining properties of God and the Father, he then opportunely adds: “let everyone honor the Son, as they honor the Father.” Therefore, what obstacle, finally, can appear and what prevents Him, in Whom the properties and advantages of the Parent are essentially present, from ascending to an equal measure of honor with Him? After all, we will find ourselves already honoring the nature of God and the Father, wholly reflected in the Son. That is why he says after this: “he who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.” Thus, the guilt of disrespect for the Son and blasphemy against Him should be applied to no one else but to the truest Father Himself, who, as if from the source of His nature, sent forth the Son, although in all Holy Scripture He is eternally co-present with Him. “So,” says the opponent, let the guilt of disrespecting the Son concern whatever you want, even let it relate to God and the Father Himself. He, of course, will be indignant, and quite rightly, but not at all because His nature is insulted in the Son, according to the reasoning we have just given, but since He is His image and mark, as most perfectly reflected in His Divine and ineffable nature, He is justly indignant and attributes the insult entirely to Himself. Indeed, it would truly be the height of absurdity if he who offended the Divine marks were not punished for sin against the prototype itself, just as he who offended the images of earthly kings is, without a doubt, punished as a criminal against the ruler himself. We will find a similar definition of God about ourselves in the words: “Shedding the blood of a man instead of his blood will be shed, for he created man in the image of God” (Gen. 9:6). From here, says the opponent, you can clearly see that when an image is insulted, although, of course, it is not at all of Divine nature, according to Scripture, God and the Father should be indignant. Therefore, the words of Christ should be understood and interpreted in the same way: “he who does not honor the Son and the Father does not honor.” But should the Only Begotten, together with us, be outside the essence of the Father? And how else can he be God, how quickly is He completely removed from the boundaries of the Divinity, being in some kind of His own nature, completely different from what the Father is in? We, therefore, who elevate the Holy Trinity to the unity of the Divine, are mistaken. After all, we should then worship the Father as God, and also give some special glory to the Son and the Spirit, if we divide them into different natures and assign to each a special way of being. But the Holy Scriptures preach to us the One God, co-creating the Son and the Spirit with the Father, since the Holy Trinity, through the most perfect identity of essence, ascends to the unity of the Divinity. Consequently, the Only Begotten is not alien to the nature of the One who gave birth, and also could not be thought of as a completely true Son if he did not shine from the essence of the One who gave birth. This, and not another, turns out to be the definition and essence of true sonship for everyone. And if there is no Son, then God, of course, must cease to be the Father. And in this case, will Paul be right when he says about Him (God): “And from Him every family in heaven and on earth is named” (Eph. 3:15)? After all, if a Son was not begotten divinely from Him, then how does the beginning of the patronymic in Him pass, by imitation, to the inhabitants of both heaven and earth? But God is the true Father. Therefore, the Only Begotten is a Son by nature, and precisely within the boundaries of the Godhead; for God must be born from God, just as, for example, man is born from man - and the Nature of God and the Father, which exceeds all, cannot turn out to be untrue, giving birth to a fruit unsuitable for It. And since they impiously and unreasonably assert that it is not the “nature” (itself) of God and the Father that is insulted in the Son, who does not enjoy the glory that belongs to Him, but rather, He is indignant with all justice at the dishonor of His own image in Him (the Son), then we must ask them: in what sense do they want the Son to be and be called the image of the Father? However, having warned them of their answer, we ourselves will present (different) types of image, as far as possible for us, for in this way the answer to the question can be clearer and better thought out. So, there is one and the first image of the identity of nature in completely identical properties, like Abel from Adam or Isaac from Abraham. The other consists in the mere similarity of the outline and in the exact representation of the (external) appearance, such as, for example, the image of a king on a tree or otherwise made skillfully and artistically. A different image is taken in relation to morals, behavior and inclination towards something good or bad, if, for example, we say that the virtuous is like Paul, and the evil one is like Cain, since the same vices or virtues rightly impart and give each one a likeness. There is also another kind of image, consisting of dignity, honor, glory and advantage, such as, for example, if someone takes over the leadership of someone and begins to do everything with authority, as would be characteristic and befitting of that (predecessor). But, it must be said in general, there are other kinds of images - in relation to some other quality of an object, or quantity, or appearance and proportionality. Let now the most accurate researchers of the Divine image teach us: do they think that the Only Begotten must assimilate an essential and natural likeness, and according to this, do they assert that the image of the Father is the Only Begotten, from Him the Word came, just as Abel did from Adam, retaining in himself the entire nature of the parent and bearing the entire being of humanity? Or will they not agree with this at all, since they will be forced to recognize the Son as the True God from God by nature - but, according to custom, inclined to oppose the truth, they will move on to the second type of image, which is conceived only in reflection, outline and appearance? But I think they will be afraid to say this themselves. After all, no one, not even a very big talker, will assume that the Deity is quantitative, or describable in appearance, or measurable by outline, or that the incorporeal is generally subject to the properties of bodies. Will they say that He is formed according to the morals, life and inclination (of God), and they will not be ashamed to adopt such an image for Him? But then is it already possible to think of Him as God by nature, Who in will alone has similarity with Him, being another something special in Himself? After all, they must acknowledge His existence. Then, what, finally, will turn out to be more in Him than in the creature? Shouldn't we believe that the Angels also strive to accomplish the Divine will, being something else, different from God by nature? What shall we say when what has been said applies to us? Does the Only Begotten Himself really teach us to strive against reason for that which is above our nature, and to desire the impossible, if He says: “Be merciful, just as your Father in heaven is merciful” (Luke 6:36). Without a doubt, this means nothing else than that we must perceive the image of the Father in the identity of desires. Also, Paul was an imitator of Christ, the image of the Father, out of desires alone, as they chatter. But they will probably give up these pitiful arguments and, coming up with something apparently better and stronger, they will probably say this... The Only Begotten is the image of God and the Father in relation to the identity of desires, in relation to dignity and glory and divine power, in relation to activity in the creation of the world and the working of miracles, in relation to the kingdom and dominion over everything, in relation to judgment and worship from Angels and people and all creation in general. In all this, showing us the Father in Himself, He, however, does not say: “from the hypostasis,” but: “the image is His hypostasis” (Heb. 1:3) 418. Thus, as we recently said, none of what has been said turns out to be the Son by nature, but must be outside of all this, according to their most unreasonable teaching - He is neither true God, nor Son, nor King, nor Lord, nor Creator, nor strong, nor even good by nature in His desires. He ends up with only (in words) empty praises befitting God. And what is the application of paint to images on boards, when it gives a beautiful appearance only by its visible variety, but has nothing true; The beauty of the Divine virtues turns out to be the same in the Son when it is decorated only with empty names and is superimposed from the outside, as if like paints, but this only further obscures the Divine nature in Him and appears, as it were, in an empty outline. Then, will you not find yourself in contradiction with all the Holy Scriptures, so as to rightly hear: “Stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears! you always resist the Holy Spirit, like your fathers,” (so) “you also” (Acts 7:51). When do they (the Scriptures) not call the Son true God, or when do they place Him outside the essence of the Parent? Who (of the holy writers) dared to say that He is not by nature the Creator, nor the King, nor the Almighty, nor the Worshiper? Here the divine Psalmist speaks in one place, as to the Only Begotten Himself: “Your throne, O God, is for ever and ever” (Ps. 44:7). Likewise, Thomas, the most prudent disciple, calls Him both “God” and “Lord” (John 20:28). All the saints call Him Almighty and Creator, having this dignity not as communicated, according to your teaching, but existing by nature as what it is called, which is why He receives worship both from the holy Angels and from us, although the Divine Scripture says that it is not fitting to worship anyone else except the Lord God alone (Matt. 4:10; Deut. 6:13). Therefore, if they believe that the Divine dignity is inherent in Him as acquired and given, but they think that He should be worshiped, then let them know that they serve the creature instead of the Creator (Rom. 1:25) and inscribe for themselves a false and new god, and do not recognize the true God by nature. And if they say that the Son must be outside the essence of God and the Father, and at the same time they admit that He is the Son and the true God, and the King, and the Lord, and the Creator, and essentially has in Himself the properties and advantages of the Father, then let them see to what dangerous end those who think so must again come. Indeed, in this case, there will be nothing at all reliable in the Divine Nature, just as soon as the nature of creatures can truly be what She is thought to be. The Only Begotten, according to the powerless teaching of opponents, appears to not possess the Divine nature and, however, truly has Her characteristics in Himself. Who would not shudder, even just hearing such wicked dogmas? Everything, in the end, is perverted from top to bottom, if Nature, which exceeds everything, descends into the same rank with creatures, and the creature itself, contrary to reason, ascends to a measure that is higher and not assigned to it. So, emerging from the absurdity of such dogmas, as from a ship plunging into the sea, let us hasten to the truth, as to a safe and quiet harbour, and confess the Son in the image of God and the Father, not covered with mortal virtues and not only adorned with divine names, but essentially and precisely imprinted in resemblance to the Parent and by nature being exactly the same as the One who gave birth to Him is thought to be, that is, the true God from the true God, Almighty, Creator, Glorified, Good, Worshiped and everything else that can be added to what has been said as befitting of God. Then, showing Him in everything like God and the Father, we will present Him as speaking the truth in the words that if anyone does not want to honor the Son, he does not honor the Father who sent Him - which is what we just completed our discussion and study. John 5:24. Amen, amen, I say unto you, that thou shalt hear my word and believe him that sent me to have everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but shall pass from death to life 419 Having already sufficiently shown in the previous words that the unfortunate Jews sin not only against the Son alone, daring to blame Him both for the words with which He taught them and for the deeds that He did among them, but also, through their ignorance, they turn out to be criminals against the Father Himself and, wanting through His words to clothe their insolence with fear and convince them to live in accordance with the hope of the future, finally catches them to good obedience. And again he reasoned about this not without art. Since he knew that the Jews were still sick and were still offended in relation to Him, he again attributed faith to the face of God and the Father, not as placing Himself outside, but as because of the identity of essence He was Honored in the Father. And about believers he affirms that they will not only be partakers of eternal life, but will also escape the danger of judgment, obviously as being justified, instilling fear in conjunction with hope. This structure of speech was more effective and convincing for listeners. John 5:25. Amen, amen, I say to you, for the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and having heard it, they will live 420 Having said that believers will pass from death to life, He now presents Himself as the fulfiller of this promise and the performer of this whole work, and at the same time secretly points out to the Jews that although the power shown on the paralytic is worthy of astonishment, the Son will turn out to be the performer of even more wonderful deeds, not driving out painful weakness from human bodies, but already turning away both death itself and depressing decay. This was expressed a little earlier in the words: “The Father loves the Son and shows Him everything that He Himself does, and greater works than these He will show Him, so that you may marvel” (John 5:20). This “greater” surprise appears in the resurrection of the dead. However, at the same time, he also points out something that could greatly frighten the listeners, for he clearly states that the dead will rise and the creature will come to judgment, so that, thanks to the expectation of one time to appear before Him and give an account of everything, they would turn out to be somewhat slower in their audacity to persecute Him and would more willingly accept His word of teaching and explanation. This is the focus of the saying. But we still need to give a word-by-word explanation. The general interpretation seems to be that a time will come when “the dead will hear the voice” of the Resurrectionist. But, nevertheless, they think that it has already “even now” come, referring either to Lazarus, who had to hear the voice of the Savior, or by the dead, meaning those who had not yet been called through faith to eternal life, who were able to enter into it by accepting the teachings of the Savior. This method of interpretation, of course, has the appearance of probability, but is not entirely accurate. Therefore, again considering the meaning of these words, let us apply a somewhat more appropriate understanding to them and thus interpret the passage more separately. “Truly, truly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God” - the hour, obviously, is again the one when “they who hear will live.” The initial words denote the time of our resurrection, when the departed, as He teaches, through the voice of the Judge will be resurrected for an account in earthly life, so that, through this, arousing fear in them, like a kind of bridle, convince them to live virtuously and prudently. And in subsequent words he indicates that the time has come to believe in Him, and the reward, he says, for good obedience will be eternal life, expressing something like this: you will all come to judgment, obviously at the time of resurrection, but if it seems bitter to you to be punished and subjected to endless punishments from the Offended Judge, then do not allow the time of good obedience to pass, but, seizing the present time, try to ascend to eternal life. John 5:26–27. Just as the Father has life in Himself, so also the Sons have given life in Himself. And the region gave Him to execute judgment, for He is the Son of Man 421 Please notice the economy in these words, so that you may be amazed at the manner of speech and, through ignorance, falling into temptations, do not bring destruction upon yourself. Being a man - so far as this relates to the nature of the body - visible with flesh on earth as one of us, and instructing the Jews in various ways to salvation, the Only Begotten clothed Himself with the splendor of two Divine works, namely: He clearly declared that He would raise the dead and bring them to judgment before His throne. But this was probably very unpleasant for the listeners, who were already accusing Him and imagining it was just to persecute Him for the fact that “he called God His Father, making Himself equal with God” (v. 18). Therefore, adding a word corresponding to humanity to the Divine power and divine splendor, He covers up the severity of anger, somewhat softer and weaker than it should be, saying: “For just as the Father has life in Himself, so He gave to the Son to have life in Himself.” Do not be surprised, he says, if, now being like you and turning out to be a man, I promise to one day raise the dead and threaten to bring them to judgment. The Father gave me the power to give life, and gave me the power to judge. And since through these words He healed the unsteady hearing of the Jews, He hastily and beneficially turns His concern to the future and immediately, explaining the reason why He says about Himself that He “received,” exposes humanity as having nothing in itself in the words: “Because the Son of Man is” (He). But about the fact that the Only Begotten by nature is also life and does not receive life from another, but gives life in the same way as the Father, I consider it unnecessary to talk about this at this time, since we had a lot of discussion about this at the beginning of the book, when interpreting the saying: “What happened was in Him was life” (John 1:3-4). John 5:28–29. Do not be surprised at this: for the hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice, and they who have done good will come out to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment 422 These words point to the time of the resurrection of all, when, as the divine Paul wrote to us, “The Lord himself will come down from heaven with a command, in the voice of the archangel, with the trumpet of God” (1 Thess. 4:16) to judge “the world in righteousness” (Ps. 98:9) and to reward everyone according to his deeds. However, the repetition of the same thing guides the inexperienced mind of the Jews to a clear understanding that He will perform much greater miracles than what happened to the paralytic, and will reveal himself as the Judge of the universe. The healing of one of the sick, usefully contrasted with the resurrection of the dead, He shows the great and most wonderful power that destroys death and destroys the corruption of all, and therefore quite rightly says, as about a lesser miracle: “Marvel not at this.” And we should not at all think that with these words He belittles the brilliance of His own deeds or commands the listeners not to be surprised by what they would rightly begin to marvel at, but wants those amazed by that miracle (healing of the paralytic) to know and believe that hitherto there is still little surprise for Him, for He raises up with the word and Divine power not only those who are sick from minor ailments, but also those who have already been drowned by death and struck by the uncontrollable smoldering. This is why he says, introducing this “more,” that “the hour is coming, in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice.” Whoever with a word brought into being what was once non-existent, will he not be able to force what has already been created to return to existence? After all, both are the action of the same power and the miraculous in both cases is accomplished by the same power. It is also beneficial that they will “come out” from the graves - those who have stained themselves with shameful deeds and led a bad life will be subject to endless punishment, and those who are distinguished by the virtues of good behavior should receive eternal life as a reward. At the same time, as we have already said, here too He presents Himself as the dispenser of retribution due to everyone, and at the same time convinces some, out of fear of suffering terrible punishments, to renounce evil and strive for the desire for a more prudent life, and others, as if pierced by an attraction to eternal life, to intensify their efforts for good. That the Son is in no way less than God and the Father, but is equivalent in effectiveness in everything, as God from God John 5:30. I cannot create anything about myself. Because I hear, I judge, and My judgment is righteous, because I do not seek My will, but the will of the Father who sent Me 423 Pay careful attention again to these words and perceive the meaning of contemplation with reflection. The Jews, who did not know the deep mystery of the economy with the flesh and who did not know the Word of God who dwelt in the church from the Virgin, were often inflamed with false jealousy, and “not according to understanding” (Rom. 10:2), as Paul says, to the point of brutal treatment and indomitable rage. Thus, they even attempted to stone Him for the fact that “being a man, He made Himself God” (John 10:33), or again: “He called God His Father, making Himself equal with God” (John 5:18). But since they were so unreasonable and absolutely could not stand His Divine words, thinking and speaking about Him basely, the Savior, although economically and co-parenting with them, nevertheless made a mixed presentation, neither completely abandoning the words appropriate (to Him as) God, nor completely avoiding human sayings. Expressing something worthy of Divine omnipotence, he immediately punishes the ignorant mind of the listeners, adding something human, and conversely, expressing something human for the sake of economy, he does not allow himself to be seen only as humiliation, often revealing himself to be the true God by nature through superhuman power and words. You can find just such a skillful way of speech even now, in the words we have just given. What did He say before this? “For as the Father raises the dead and gives life, so the Son gives life to whomever He wills” (v. 21), - then again: “for the hour is coming, in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice” (v. 28), and in addition: “and they will come out” to judgment and to receive retribution according to what they have done. But the One who says that He can give life to whomever He wants, and like the Father, shouldn’t he be thought of as appropriating to Himself the power due to God? Who clearly says that He will be the judge of all, shouldn’t He rightly frighten those who think that He is just a simple man? After all, it was natural that they, as Jews and brought up on the Holy Scriptures, would not be completely unaware that God would be the judge of the universe, since they too often sang: “Rise up, O God, judge the earth” (Ps. 82:8), and also: “For God is the judge” (Ps. 75:8). So, since he knew that the reckless people of Judah were indignant at this, he turned them away from ordinary anger, saying more humanely: “I cannot do anything of Myself - as I hear, I judge.” How much can be said, judging by the first impression, He ridicules the mind of the Jews, for the outward appearance of the speech creates the idea of ​​some kind of powerlessness and not completely free power, but in reality this is not the case, if the Son, being equal to the Father in everything, naturally has the same power and strength over everything. In the words that he cannot do anything of himself, but judges as he hears, he presents himself as like-minded and equivalent to God and the Father, for the Father in himself and alone, without the Son, cannot be conceived of acting in anything that exists, having His power and strength, - which is why “all things are through Him, and without Him were nothing” (John 1:3). Likewise, the Son, for His part, does nothing on His own, without the co-presence of the Father, which is why He says: “I do nothing on My own (John 8:28), but the Father who abides in me does the works Himself” (John 14:10). And we, without a doubt, should not assume that the Son, as if because of His powerlessness, receives power from the Father, and power over everything is again given to Him (from without), for then He would no longer be God by nature, as having the beauty of the Divine by communication (from without). And the Father Himself will no longer possess the limitless superiority of His goods if He has in the Word such a reflection of His nature that requires strength and power from another, for the Giver of what is said (power and authority) must be represented according to the image and prototype - and so on our speech must go on to the endless question and turn into the deep sea of ​​blasphemy. But if the Son, being from the essence of the Father, by nature possesses all the properties of the Parent and, due to the identity of nature, essentially ascends to the same Divinity with Him, then just as He Himself is in the Father, so He has the Father in Himself. That is why, often with indisputable truth, He assimilates to the Father the power of His works, placing Himself not outside this power, but relating everything to the effectiveness of the one Divinity. And the Divinity is one in the Father and in the Son and in the Holy Spirit. And that the Son is no less than the Father in strength or effectiveness in anything, but is similar in everything and is equivalent, we have also proven this through other reasoning in the interpretation of the words: “The Son cannot do anything of Himself unless He sees the Father doing something, for whatever He does, the Son also does likewise” (John 5:19). But since I consider it proper and fair that the most worthy pursuit of Divine dogmas should be above any laziness, let us try again, imitating the sailors, like ship’s tackle, to collect the entire content of the argument. Then it will be possible to see that the Son does not belittle His nature in words, that He cannot do anything of Himself, but exposes the madness of the Jews and clearly shows their trampling of even the very law of Moses; for to the saying: “I can do nothing of Myself,” the words immediately added: “As I hear, I judge” - free the Son from any accusation that He cannot do anything by His own power. On the contrary, He clearly reveals Himself to be in agreement with the Father in everything and following the same will with the Parent. After all, if He, having somehow become weak, received His strength from the Father, since He did not have enough of it from Himself, then shouldn’t He have said more like this: “I cannot do anything from Myself, but I receive strength from the Father”? Now, without saying so, but, on the contrary, adding “I judge as I hear” to “I cannot do anything of Myself,” obviously, finally, not because of the powerlessness of His effectiveness in anything, I used this “I cannot,” but because of the inadmissibility of His breaking the will of the Father in anything. If one Divinity is understood in the Father and the Son, then, without a doubt, there will be one and the same will, and also the Divine nature, neither in the Father, nor in the Son, nor in the Holy Spirit, should ever be thought of as rebelling against itself, but whatever is pleasing to the Father, this is the will of the entire Divinity. So, the Son indisputably presents Himself as a kind of connector and co-willer with the Father in every decision pleasing to Him, when He explains the impossibility (for Himself) of doing anything that, of course, does not correspond to the good will of the Father. This is what the expression “from Himself” indicates to us. Just as if he said that he cannot commit sin, then in fairness he should appear to everyone not to be accused of impotence, but, on the contrary, to explain the most wonderful and divine peculiarity of His nature, for he makes it clear that he is immutable and unchangeable; so when he recognizes the impossibility of Himself to do anything, then we should rather be amazed at the contemplation of the Immutable Fruit of the Immutable Nature, rather than untimely see in this “I can’t” a sign of impotence. Let this again be said by us according to our strength and purpose. Let the inquisitive seek better explanations. However, let us not hesitate to interpret this saying in another way, slightly deviating the speech from the limits of the Divinity and the advantages of the Only Begotten and, since the Son really was and was called man, applying the meaning of (previous) speculations to the economy with the flesh and at the same time placing the subsequent in a related and close connection with the previous. So, he clearly testified that “all who are in the graves will hear His voice” and that they will “come out” to judgment (v. 28). But as soon as he reached the point of speaking about His judgment over the universe, He proclaims that He will be a righteous judge not only at the time when the revival of the dead follows, but affirms that He already judges the affairs of this life rightly and truly. What kind of court is this or who are we talking about anyway, listen now. He was born for our sake from a Woman (Gal.4:4), for, as Paul says, “he did not receive angels” (to Himself), “but Abraham’s seed; therefore he had to become like his brothers in everything” (Heb.2:16-17). And when he became a man and appeared in the form of a servant (Phil. 2:7), he was also under the law (Gal. 4:4) the Lawgiver as God and Lord. Therefore, he speaks either as one who is under the law, or again as one who is above the law, and has unquestioning authority over both. And now He speaks with the Jews as a law-giver and a man who does not allow Himself to transgress certain commandments from above and does not decide of His own free will to do anything that does not agree with the Divine law. Therefore, he says: “I cannot create anything of Myself - as I hear, I judge.” Thus, testifying about Himself that He cannot do anything of Himself that is obviously not permitted by law, and judges matters as He hears, that is, according to the definition of the law, He thereby exposes the self-will of the Jews and exposes the unbridledness of their morals. This is what the beautifully composed saying means: “I cannot do anything of Myself,” - instead of: you, unbridledly breaking the commandments given to you, have finally reached the point of reckless audacity to do everything on your own and are trying to pass judgment on every matter that does not follow Divine decrees; for you teach “the doctrines of the commandments of men” (Matthew 15:9) and have defined your own will as a law. How this is proven or how the right judges Himself, and they judge unrighteously, this also needs to be said. He healed a paralytic on Saturday, showed mercy to a man who had been ill for a long time, obviously carrying out a just and good “judgment” on him. After all, even on the Sabbath it was appropriate to show mercy to the one who was lying down and not to stop showing mercy out of respect for the Sabbath, indulging in empty holiness. Just as the Father is active, of course through the Son, regarding the economy of creatures on the Sabbath, so He did not judge that on the Sabbath, for the sake of the Sabbath, one should deprive the one in need of it from mercy, since he knew “the Son of Man for the lord of the Sabbath” (Mk. 2:28) and “not man is for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath is for man” (Mk. 2:27). Such is the right and good judgment of the Savior, who for the sake of the Sabbath did not hinder the manifestation of His love for mankind towards the sick, but what God must do - for the Divine nature is the source of goodness - he did this on the Sabbath. And the judgment of the Jews, who were offended by this for the sake of the Sabbath and therefore were burning with murder against him who had not committed any unrighteousness, does not it turn out to be at odds with the Divine laws, in which it is written: “If you are innocent and righteous, you shall not kill” (Ex. 23:7) - and appeared rather as a result of their cruelty, and not from the Divine Scriptures? Therefore, listen to Jesus, who speaks with some expressiveness to those who were angry for His good deeds and resisted His righteous judgment, following only their own thoughts and directly defining their opinion into the law, even if it contradicts the law: “I cannot do anything of Myself,” - instead of: I do everything according to the law determined through Moses, I do not allow anything to be done of Myself, “as I hear, I judge.” . What does the law want? “They did not accept persons in court, for the judgment of God is” (Deut. 1:17). Why are you angry with Me, he says, because I made every man healthy on the Sabbath (John 7:23), but do not judge Moses if he instituted the circumcision of infants on the Sabbath? “Do not judge by appearance, but judge with righteous judgment: if a person receives circumcision on the Sabbath, so that the law of Moses would not be broken,” then you are so foolishly indignant when you see Him who healed “the whole man on the Sabbath” (John 7:23). Therefore, I carried out a fair judgment, but you did not, for you do everything from yourself. “But I cannot do anything of Myself,” as I hear, I judge, “and My judgment is fair, because I do not seek My own will,” as you do, “but” (the will) “of the Father who sent Me.” And what this message consists of and how it was delivered, we have already talked a lot about this before and now we will leave the discussion about this. However, it is useful to note what the law calls the “will” of the Father and God. John 5:31–32. Even if I testify about Me, My testimony is not true: neither is the one who testifies about Me, and we know that the testimony that testifies about Me is true 424 The wise Solomon, gathering together and offering to those who are most capable of teaching that for which it is fair for everyone to be respected and to show their life worthy of competition, says: “The righteous man is a leader in his own words” (Proverbs 18:17), and again: “Let the sincere praise you, and not your own mouth; a stranger, and not your lips” (Proverbs 27:2). Indeed, it can be difficult and unbearable for listeners to desire for some to be praised not by the lips of others, but to freely testify about themselves something beautiful and special. Such speech, with all justice, can arouse distrust, for, as if by some natural and necessary bonds of self-love, we diligently strive not to attribute anything bad to ourselves, but always to clothe ourselves, even if completely untruely, with such qualities, thanks to which everyone thinks to appear good and kind. So, since our Lord Jesus Christ assimilated to Himself a fair judgment, clearly expressing that He could not do anything on His own, but in all His actions He made the will of the Father the rule, and, saying this, He Himself acted as a witness about Himself, although He was true, then of necessity - in view of what the ignorant Pharisees, who did not know that He was God by nature, had to say... You, no doubt, will say, following the custom of many and not avoiding the foolishness characteristic of the Jews: “You bear witness to Yourself, but Your testimony is not true” (John 8:13). But against this, he says, hear in turn: I still tolerate your blasphemous speeches, I am not at all angry at the words you spew out of your kindest ignorance - I agree presumably that this too is said well by you; so be it, you reject My voice, - (so) “There is another who testifies about Me.” This points to the God and Father who exists in heaven, who has already testified in various ways about the truly Divine essence of His Son, Whose (Father’s) “testimony” says, “and I know that it is true,” thereby showing His decision to be completely reliable and true. And so that by allowing, as it were, a lie to tell Himself about Himself, He would not again give those who constantly think differently any reason for slander and attack on Himself, He, having left to the duty and custom of not trusting the truth of praises and approvals of Himself, necessarily returns again, like God, to the dignity due to Him and knows, he says, the “testimony” of the Father, “what is true,” teaching by this and saying as it were: being the true God, I know Myself, and The Father will not say anything freely (out of pleasure) about Me, for I am such by nature as He, the True One, would testify. So, in that saying (v. 31) there was, as if by condescension, an agreement (of Christ with the ordinary views of people) and rather a conjectural than an actual meaning, and in the words that He knows the testimony of the Father to be true, an indication of the reliability due to God is contained. It must be noted again that in His hypostasis the Father is different from the Son, and is not, as some of the ignorant heretics thought, a son-father (υἱοπάτωϱ). John 5:33. You sent sweet words to John and testified to the truth 425 Just as we have just recognized that it is shameful and not without extreme stupidity for someone to praise his own merits, even if out of great virtue he did not allow a lie, so it is related and close to that inappropriateness if someone comes without a call to testify about something and arbitrarily appears before judges or those who wish to question. After all, such a person would seem, and not without reason, not at all striving to speak the truth, but zealously wanting to testify not about the nature of the matter, but rather, to reveal his opinion (about it). Therefore, our Lord Jesus Christ, or rather as God, very skillfully preventing the accusation of the Pharisees in this, says: “you sent to John.” John, he says, was not an impostor in his verdict about Me - he should be beyond accusation in this - he presented a free testimony. You sent “to John” a question, “and” he “testified of the truth.” Asked by those who were sent to him whether he was the Christ, he “confessed and did not deny, he confessed that I am not (am) the Christ, but that I was sent before Him” (John 1:20, 3:28). Thus he testified to the truth, for Christ is the truth (John 14:6). John 5:34. I do not accept testimony from man, but I say this, that you may be saved 426 He does not reject the voice of John as useless and does not present the witness of truth as inactive. Otherwise, He would rightly find himself doing something absurd against Himself, strangely denying credibility to the one whom He Himself sent to cry: “Prepare the way of the Lord, make straight the paths of our God” (Is. 40:3). But, as one who fights with the immeasurable tenacity of the Jews, he moves on to the highest and most remarkable, saying that there is no need for Him to accept testimony about Himself from the human voice - on the contrary, He presented a more brilliant proof from the power appropriate to the true God by nature and from the omnipotence of Divine signs. After all, a person’s voice can sometimes be rejected, even if it were, perhaps, one of those numbered among the saints. Some did not hesitate to do this and opposed the words of the prophets, exclaiming like this: “Speak unto us another thing, and proclaim unto us another deception” (Is. 30:10). In addition, some others who fled from Jerusalem or from the land of Judea to Egypt - they were Azariah the son of Hosea and John the son of Kareah, “and all the men of disdain,” as it is written - openly disobeying the prophecies of Jeremiah, said: “You are a liar, for the Lord did not send you to us to say, ‘Do not enter Egypt’” (Jer. 43:2). And how can proof through miracles admit of contradiction? And what other evidence of the omnipotence of God and the Father can give lovers of accusations a reason for persistence? So Nicodemus - and this was one of their mentors and was among those who received leadership - presented an indisputable testimony from miracles, saying: “Rabbi! We know that You have come from God as a teacher, for no one can do these signs that You do, unless God is with him” (John 3:2). So, since the malice of the Jews even reached the point of distrusting the holy Baptist himself, who gave evidence in his verbal form, 427 he speaks again in relation to their moral state... Asked from you, although the blessed Baptist testified to the truth, if for you there is nothing inviolable and you usually recklessly indulge in any slander, then you naturally rejected the voice of that (Baptist). But if this seems right to you, then so be it, perhaps I will give in, agree with you, reject for you the voice of John and, together with you, reject his testimony - I have a Father from above who testifies. Teaching again that this speech concluded only a presumptive agreement (with the Jews), he usefully added: I say this, that you may be saved, instead: I spoke these words to you not because in reality it was so, but presumably so that you might be saved in every way. And this is where the second book ends. After "mornings" approx. "same" Gal. Zogr., which is not in ancient Greek. Mar. Legal St. Al. - In ancient words. approx. "Day", but St. Al.: "on the morning." In aprakos vm. this: “during it. Vida" - in Mar. Gal. Reim. etc., and in Ostr. Mst. al.: “having seen”, but Zograf. (?) and St. Al. “sees”, exactly acc. Greek – Arr. "John" pl. Greek lat. Vulg. Spicy Gal. Mst. Reim. etc., but Mar. Zogr. St. Al. omission acc. Syn. Wat. Alex. Vm. "to yourself" St. Al. and Const.: “to him.” St. Al. "verb" and "sin" respectively. Greek In Ost. approx.: "about him." In Ost. Mar. Zogr. Gal. Mst. Reim. approx.: “total” before “peace” (Mar. after “peace”), but Savv. and St. Al. omission acc. Greek Those. to the essence of angelic nature. Θϱονεῖτε, like Sin. Alex. Wat. other ancient Vulg. Sire. other vm. ϑϱονείσϑω - late. codd. Copt. Goth. Arm. etc. At St. Cyril there is also another reading: ϑϱονείτω. St. Alexy: “exhaust” – ἐϰένωσεν. St. Al.: “will be found” – participle according to. Greek Σοϑίας like Alex. vm. παιδείας Syn. Wat. and slav.: “punishment.” "Jesus" read. Syn. Wat. Al. other Vulg. Sire. Cop. Ethiopian. Did. Orig. and others. Nek.: τὸ ἅγιον Epf., nek.: χϱιστοῦ, ϰυϱίου. But kudos. omission acc. no. ancient and more min. Zlat. Theophilus. (Maybe this is a sign of Lucian. reviews). Πϱοϰύπτον coll.: “issuing.” To Vatik. code. 15th century works of St. Cyril gives the following note to this term: “The term πϱοϰύπτον St. the father always uses the origin of what is caused from the causer: thus, about the Son he always says that He emerges (πϱοϰύπτειν) from the essence of the Father.” So many ancient vm, nek.: "Egov." Ζωή, like almost all ancient. and some glory vm.: ζῇ nek. some and slav.: “lives”, nek.: ζών – Russian: “alive.” Τὸ ἀίδιον αὐτοῦ ϰαὶ παϱ᾽ αὐτοῦ ϰατὰ φύσιν πϱοχεόμενον Πνεῦμα Instead of: ὁ ὑιός τοῦ ϑεοῦ nek. ancient ὁ ἐϰλέϰτος τοῦ ϑεοῦ or with accessory. ὑιός – filius electus Dei. The last words: “take away the sin of the world” are not read. glory and author. Greek At St. Cyrus. the words are omitted: ὁ ἔστιν μεϑεϱμηνεύομενον χϱιστός, as in Sir. cur. sch. hr. 2. Vm. ᾽Ιῶνα Alex. and others in Sin. and others ᾽Ιωάννου. At Ephr. Sire. (Tacian): hic est Christus (Moes. 50). Without ἀπ᾽ ἀϱτί (cf. also in interpretation 8, 23 y Pusey 2, 11) read. Syn. Wat. pl. lat. Vulg. Copt. Arm. Ethiopian. Orig. Epiph. and Tatian in Aphraates, Parisot, 912. Read: Alex. and more oz. and min. no. lat. Syr. Zlat. Aug. and glory (can serve as a sign of review). For an explanation of the reading cf. Matthew 26:64. Syn. Alex. and many more Zlat. Lat. Vulg. and St. Al. vm.: “third day” Vat. and some min. and lat. and ancient Slav. Καὶ ὐστεϱήσαντος οἴνου as Sin. (a) Wat. Al. and more and glory vm.: ϰαὶ οἴνον οὐϰ εἴχον ὅτι συντελεσϑῇ ὁ οἴνος τοῦ γάμου εἶτα Syn. no. lat. Ethiopian. ᾽Αβουλητῶς cf. below: ὅπεϱ οὔπω πϱάττειν ἤϑελεν. Those. through a miracle, satisfying need, not curiosity, - performing a miracle not for the outward amazement of spectators, but to help those in need of supernatural assistance. Arr. "I" Mar. Gal. Al. resp. Greek So Mar. Zogr., resp. one Greek vm. "they are" Ost. Gal. Const. St. Al. resp. other Greek St. Al.: “water that was wine (? - former)”, Const.: “water that was made wine.” Those. natural moral law (conscience). So is the majority, and so is Ostrom. Mst. Assem. St. Al. (aprakos?). But א* Ephr. no. lat. and Mar. Zogr. Gal. (four Gospels?) and now: “sheep and oxen” as in St. Cyrus. below. Ἐγενήϑη like Alex., but slav.: “put” like Sin. Vat.: ἐτέϑη. Gal. Zogr. Al. resp. Thurs. א S. et al.: ϰαὶ ποιήσας – but Acute. and Mar.: “create” resp. א* and some. Latin: ἐποίησεν. Ὡς – Sharp. Gal. Mst. Zogr. resp. no. Greek and lat. Vulg. but Mar. Al. Const. etc. no cheat. acc. most Greek So ancient Slav. acc. Syn. Wat. and many others, but now. glory cheat "and" before "do not create" resp. Alex. and others no. and Vulg. (Slav.: St. Al. Ostrozh. Kut. and some.). St. Al.: “merchant”, - Dobril. and Nick. Serb.: "Kupnago", Kyiv, 1788 and now. on the field: “purchase”, – ancient Slav. as it is now. St. Al.: “as it is” resp. Greek ως δε. Ἐν τῷ πάσχα ἐν τῇ ἐοϱτῇ – so Mar. Zogr. Gal.: “on Easter as a feast”, St. Al.: “on Easter for the holiday.” In some lat.: in diem festum paschae, in die festo paschae, resp. now. slav.: “on Easter.” So St. Al., but ancient and tep.: “His signs” (some op.: “His”). So is the ancient word, but Kost. and St. Al.: “not assuring (= entrusting) them”, which is more precisely resp. Greek Πάντας, as the author. but no. oz. and many more min.: πάντα, from where the ancient word. and now: “all” (“all” Zogr.). St. Al.: “You don’t need a name” - more precisely. So ancient words. and St. Al. acc. Greek vm.: “about people.” Spicy Mst. Ass. approx.: “ether”, other: “certain” resp. rare th. Greek τίς (Arm. Ethiopian. Some Lat.). So ancient words. and St. Al. vm.: “Zhidovsky.” acc. author. Greek vm. now: “to Jesus” plural. Greek and others. Ostrom. and aprakos. St. Al. vm. Old English: "vem", but Acute. Mar. Zogr.: “seven” (?). So St. Al. acc. pl. Greek, but ancient and now. acc. author. Ἄνωϑεν can also be translated: “again, again”, as St. Just. St. Irin. Wed interpretation of St. Kirill, - many Lat. and Vulg. (renuo) Sire. ("Sin." מררשׂ as opposed to מןלעל), Ethiopian. Arab. The context seems to require this translation. St. Al.: “from water and the Spirit.” A similar interpretation cf. Migne, 70. 964–995 and 71, 488. D. So big, but somehow: “to you.” So no. by author. app.: "empty." This quotation is given below in exactly the same form, for reference. 4– in the 5th chapter. The last words: ὁ ὤν ἐν τῷ οὐϱανῷ were not in the interpreted St. Cyril Codex, as can be seen from their omission here in the interpretation and interpretation. at 17:20–21 (at the beginning of Chapter XI of Book XI). They can't be read. also: Sin. Wat. and some Copt. (nek.) Eph. Or. (nek.) Evs. Efr. Sire. (Moes. 187, 189 – twice), also some. Slav. (Dobril. 12th century and Sim. 13th century). Read. and many more Lat. Vulg. Cop. (nek.) Arm. Ippol. Dion. (Alex.) Did. Epiph. Zlat. Theodore. Or. (n.) Novat. Gil. and many others In Sirskikh read. in all and Africa Ra. 404.23–24, but Sin. (ed. Bensly et cet. Cambr. 1894) vm. "in heaven" : כשמיא read: "from heaven" מן שמיא. Here it would be natural to quote the words: “who are in heaven,” if St. Kirill read them. St. Al.: “it behooves an exalted person to be,” like some, and others like now. Slav.: “It is fitting to ascend.” Εἰς αὐτὸν, as some, and others: ἐν αὐτῷ. So alone, but others don’t cheat. words: “it will not perish, but.” Here and in many places. other m. St. Al.: “eternal life.” Literally: “became” – γέγονε. Another translation is possible, with a different reading, namely: “indicates that Christ was in sight and in glory for everyone, so that His ascension from the earth was hidden from no one, as He Himself says in one place, while suffering on the cross.” Greek ὥστε is “and” is not a cheat. Spicy Mar. Al. Nek. approx.: εἰς ϰόσμον, like Gal. Εἰς αὐτὀν – author. and Ostr. Ass. Savv. Al., - no. ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν and ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ – Mar. Gal.: "nan." So Mar. Legal Const. etc., but “For His sake” – Ostr. Mst. Al., “for this sake” Ass., “for this purpose” Gal. Literally: “through Him”, as in Russian. So in three more places (to 6:8–10 book 3 chapter 4, to 9 book 6 chapter 1 and to 11 book 7 phragms) according to no. code., but author.: εἰς αὐτόν, like slav. Slav. deviates from the letter of the original, translating or interpreting the future: “he will not be condemned,” St. Al.: “not to be condemned” - but Kyiv. on the field: "to carry." Wed. in IX. I. to 14:11. This is the best reading, since it is found in all main books. codd. Vulg. Sire. etc. Ostrom. Mst. Const. St. Al. But in some some oz. and min. and Copt. approx.: ὅτι πονηϱά ἐστιν, as now. Slav. Mar. Gal. Carp. So Ostr. Mst. Mar. Zogr. Gal. St. Al. other vm. tep.: “Jewish.” So it is in Type. 12th century, but other and Greek: “and His disciples.” In addition, at St. Cyrus. omitted: ϰαὶ ἐϰεῖ διέτϱιβεν μετ᾽ αὐτῶν ϰαὶ ἐβάπτισεν, but in the interpretation these words are assumed. Nek. lat.: in eremo, in deserto, Sir. sch.: כעין יכן – “at the source of Jonah?” – Sin.: נכן כעין – “in the source of nun”, – in Dobril. 12th century: in the Jordan near Jerusalem. At St. Kir.: οὖν, as some, and others: δε. ’Ιωάννου, like many others, but glory. Ioannov, reading by sight. τῶν ’Ιωάννου, like Vat. But Sire. (sch. and Sin.): “one of the disciples of John and one Jew.” So alone and St. Cyrus. a little further down, to the point. 4:1–3, – book. II. Ch. 4, – and others in multiply. like Slav. St. Al.: “for the sake of the voice of the groom.” Ὅτι ἐπεϑύμησεν – Vat., but Al. Syn. "sa": ϰαὶ ἐπιϑύμησει – “and will desire” Slav. In other Greek and some glory approx.: "and." Λαμβὰνων, as some. some (and slav. late. nek.) vm. author: λαβῶν – “accepted” – ancient sl. (and now) and Cyrus. in fragm. ed. Mayem on 2 Cor. 1st. pag. 87 y Pusey, III. 326. So Ostr. Mst. Gal. Mar. St. Al. and others. Legal: “banners”, – vm. now. (Const. and later): “faith” (on the field: “affirm”). St. Al. closer, “God gives not more in measure.” That's all right. 1:1, book. Chapter 1 3. Pusey 1, 34, – resp. Syn. Wat. and many others But kudos. approx.: "God" resp. Alex. and many more other Vulg. Sire. Copt. Ef. Zlat. Cyrus. Jer. Aug. (Afraat, 285, 26–27 and 287, 14–15 – free paraphrase). Λειτουϱγεῖν – according to Theodotion, vm. LXX: ἐϑεϱάπευον. Μετά according to Feod. Code. March. ἐπί, like LXX and slav.: “on the clouds of heaven.” So kudos. acc. Al. code., but Wat. and others: without ἦν, – in LXX: ἤϱχετο. Καὶ ἐως τοῦ Παλαιοῦ τῶν ἡμεϱῶν ἔφϑασεν ϰαὶ ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ πϱοσηνέχϑη, as some. according to Vat. ϰαὶ πϱοσήχϑη (March. πϱοσηνέχϑη) αὐτῷ, Alex. ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ πϱοσἡγαγον αὐτόν, – LXX: ϰαὶ ὥς Παλαιὸς ἡμεϱῶν παϱῆν ϰαὶ οἱ παϱεστηϰὸτες παϱῆσαν (other: ἤγγιζον) αὐτῷ. Wat. and glory approx.: ϰαι, but Alex. etc. not to them. Αὐτῷ δουλεύσουσι Alex. (but δουλεύουσιν), March. δουλεύσουσιν αὐτῷ – Crypt. αὐτῷ δουλεύσουσιν ϰαι ὐπαϰούσονται. LXX: ϰαὶ ἐδόϑη αὐτῷ ϰαὶ τιμή βασιλιϰή ϰαὶ πάντα τά ἔϑνη τῆς γῆς ϰατὰ γένη ϰαὶ πᾶσα δόξα αὐτῷ λατϱεύουσαι. Translation by Theodotus. and glory closer to the original. Οὐ γυμνὸς τῶ πϱοφήτῃ Λόγος, ἀλλ’ ὥς ὑιὸς ἀνϑϱώπου ϑαινὸμενος, that is, not as λόγος ἄσαϱϰος, conceived outside of the incarnation. But Latin. otherwise: non est nuda prophetae oratio (relating to prophetic speech?), sed “quasi filius hominis apparens”, inquit (?!.). So alone, and others and glory. approx.: “Our Lord Jesus Christ.” So and many more. Greek and glory: Slepch. Christ. Shish. St. Al., but the author. Greek and other ancient texts. and tep.: “in heaven.” Omitted: “in the inner man.” So St. Al. resp. Greek vm.: “and those who don’t believe... belly” - ancient words. and now. Unit in Greek and ancient words and St. Al. literally: “according to what he accomplished through the body,” or: “for what he accomplished through the body.” So Const. and late vm.: “whenever” Mar. Zogr. Gal. Mst. other St. Al.: “like slaughter” = ὥς οὗν. So Nick. a, Const. and late Mar.: “lead away”, Gal. and Zogr.: “hearing”, St. Al.: "reason." So below in the interpretation itself, acc. א D. other plural min. Lat. Vulg. Sire. ("cur sch." and "p" in the text), Const. Arm. Zlat. St. Al. and now. glory vm. ϰύϱιος ancient Slav. resp. A. B. S. other pl. Sire. ("p" on the field) Ethiopian. Nonn. So A, D etc. some. Zlat. vm.: “Jesus himself” Slav. etc. But Sir. "cur." and Vulg. op.: "himself." Gal. and Mst.: “Jesus himself,” Zogr.: “Jesus himself,” Mar.: “and Jesus himself,” Const.: “the same...” St. Al.: “and Jesus himself.” So is Mar. Zogr. Gal. Mst. but St. Al.: “Otyde” (exactly). So א. B 2. C. D. pl. other Lat. Vulg. Copt. Sire. ("cur. syn." and "sch.") Arm. Ef. Non. and ancient words, but A. B. * G plural. oz. and min. Sire. "p." Zlat. and glory Const. and St. Al. lowered. So. Const. St. Al. and late vm. ancient "worthy." So Mar. Zogr. St. Al. other acc. author. Greek, but Gal. and Mst.: “come”, resp. rare Greek Thu: ἔϱχεσϑαι vm. author. διέϱχεσϑαι. Assem.: “below”, St. Al. exactly: "comes." So St. Al., but ancient: “named.” So everything is ancient. and St. Al. resp. author. Greek vm. now: "Sichar", resp. no. late Greek lat. Nonn. Jerome, considering it an error instead of "Shechem" in Quaest. hebr. in Genes. 48, 22 and in Liber intepr. hebr. nom. ed. Lagarde, Onomastica Sacra 66. 20–22, p. 99. But in de situ et nom. hebr. 154. 31–34, p. 185: "Sychar" ante Neapolim juxta agrum... ubi nunc ecclesia fabricata. Eusebius Onomast: Lag. 297. 26–29, p. 286: συχὰρ – πρὸ τῆς Νέας Πόλεως... ϰὰ εἰς ἔτι νῦν δείϰνυται. Through υ and in Onom. Vatic. ib. 177.61, p. 206 and 199. 75–76, p. 223. It is noteworthy that in the newly discovered Syrian (Sinai) palimpsest it reads exactly as Jerome intended: שנס, – ed. Bensly, Harris, Burkitt and Lewis, Cambr. 1894. Pag. 243.Col. 2. lin. 12. So Const. Al. and late vm.: "student" Acute. Mst., Gal. Mar. and: "treasury" Zogr. Arch. Legal So kudos. resp. one, but the author. and St. Kir.: οὖν. So late, but ancient: “work”, Yur.: “working.” St. Al. exactly: “from traveling.” Gal. Mst.: "tu" vm. "taco." But Dobril. 12th century op. resp. some Greek and Lat., sire. "Sch" and "p." Arm. Ef. Those. before you, - sooner than you, - more, more than you. So according to author. Greek Mar. Zogr. Gal. Al., but Acute. approx. "same" as no. "Hour" – Zogr. Al. vm. "time" etc. The location of words now. glory not compliant neither Greek nor ancient In Nick. Serb. op. “like”, not express. in Sag. and Copt. Assem. Nick. approx. "and" as in nek. Lat. Sire. (all and Sin.), or “same” – one Lat. and Sag. א: τις gunh, one Lat.: quaedam mulier, Sag. Copt. and Sir. (syn. and chicken). St. Al. exactly: “the wife is coming.” Ancient Slavic: “to honor” (to draw) “water” (Ostr., etc.). Mar. op. "her", Arch. approx. "and" Al.: "speaks to her." Arch. "water" vm. "petey." Finished. and late "drink water" as in. Greek ef. and Sir. syn. (244. a. 8) and sch. Efr. Sire. (Moes. 140), but chickens. No. Read: ἀπεληλύϑεισαν, not ἀπέλϑον. So everything is ancient. and St. Al. acc. Greek vm. now. "brashno" as in Ostrom. So Ostr. Gal. Mst. acc. one Greek, but Mar. Zogr. Arch. Good and others no. approx. "same", acc. to another Thurs. with οὖν, St. Al. exactly: “the verb is shabby.” Καὶ τὸ διψῆν ὑποϰϱίνεται, Latin: sitire se “simulat, represents oneself, pretends, pretends.” But translation is also possible in the sense of “speech” or “address” in a conversation with another person. D. no. Lat. Sire. (church and syn. 244. a. 11, – Ephr. 140?). Arm. cheat after συ ἰουδ. ὤν. So ancient Slav. and St. Al. vm. late and now: "Jew." Assem. and St. Al.: “at my place.” Rare reading vm. “piti prosishi”, found in Sir. syn. (244. a. 12) and Slav. Dobr.: “ask for a drink of water”, Arch.: “ask for water.” So some are ancient, but others read. οὔσης before γυν. σαμ. like St. Al. Sire. chickens and sch. But D op. and Sir. syn. op. all speech. So ancient words. and Al. vm.: "Jew." St. Al.: “they don’t touch anything.” Many omit the words: “For fear the Jews do not touch the Samaritans.” Ostrom. op.: "her." In Sir. syn. op. words: “Jesus answered and.” In Good op.: "and speech to her." Omission. ancient and St. Al. So everything is ancient. and St. Al., but in Greek: αὐτὸν, and only Naas. παϱ’ αὐτοῦ. Wed. in Sir. sch. Syn. and Ephr. Ancient English: “and I would give it to you.” St. Al.: “verb” – the same in other places. So everything is ancient. resp. author. οὔτε, but St. Al. below, resp. code. D.: οὐδέ. Ancient and St. Al.: scooper. Zogr. and St. Al.: "treasury." So some are glorious, while others are without οὔν. At St. Cyrus. no, and further, but in the interpretation of Art. 14–16 yes. Cheat. Mar. Gal. Mst. acc. one, but others do not read. and Ostr. Zogr. Al. So everything else, but acute: “pi” (?). Good and St. Al.: "presses in." Spicy Zogr. Gal. Arch. Mst. others: “don’t have to worry”, but like now. Mar., St. Al.: “It won’t bite.” So Ostr. Mar. and Zogr., but Gal. Mst. Al.: "eyelids." "Az" is not a cheat. St. Al. acc. one Greek, but other ancient words. cheat acc. etc. Typogr. and Karp. no cheat words: “doesn’t press in... I’ll give it to him” as well as some. Greek So Gal. Legal Nick. b. Const. and late Spicy and Mst. "expiring", Mar. "incoming", Ass. Zogr. Nick. A. “blinding”, Good: “scooping” Arch. “heaping up eternal waters,” but St. Al.: “changeable”, derived from ἀλλοιόω, and not from ἅλλομαι. So St. Al., etc.: “into the eternal belly.” So Zogr. Gal. vm. "call" Ostr. Mar. Legal Mst. Type. Dr. St. Al.: "voice." In Vat. and some al.: “your husband.” Ass. Load Gal. Al.: "yours." Sire. syn. chickens Sch.: “told Him”, Zlat.: ἡ δὗε ϑησίν. In א* there is no: “and speech”, as in slav. XV century at Amphilochius. So alone, others and glory: “not the imam of the husband.” Ancient: "speech", Greek: εἶπες and εἶπας. Dr. Thurs. "imashi", like Nick. b. St. Al.: vm. ancient: "speech." So א A B and many others. no. lat. Vulg. Sire. "r." Arm. Slav., but Minusk. Sire. cur. sch. hr. syn. and Ephr. (Moes. 141 and 143). Tert. "for this year" St. Al.: “and you”, Sim.: “you.” Syn. code. and Tert. (Adv. Mach. 4, 35) ὁ τόπος. Instead of: "clan. under." as &#1488 A B et al. Vulg. rearrange words: other plural Mayusk. no. lat. saga Copt. Arm. Epiph. Theodorite. Zlat. Tert. Ib. and Sir. chickens and Sch., and from slav. Nick. and St. Al.: “to worship the idea.” It is noteworthy that there is a coincidence in the reading of the Syriac Sinai code: - that in Jerusalem there is precisely (there is) a “house of worship” כית סנדתא with Ephr. Sire. (Tatsian Diatessaron) in Moes. p. 143; in Jerusalem tantum (est) “locus (domus?) adorationis”, whereas Kuret. and Sch. אתר רולא הוא למסנר – acc. 2nd Greek Thurs. (Wed. Thu &#1488). This can serve as proof of the greatest antiquity of Sir. syn. text. Both different readings of verse 20 can serve to determine the redactions. St. Al.: “believe Me” vm. ancient: “I believe in Mi them” or “imi Mi.” So disp. words a In other Saga. Ef. Sire. hr. vm.: “wife, believe Mi” - A. Sir. chickens syn. sch. So Zogr., and others: “year.” So the author., but cad. D. no. Lat. Sire. syn. chickens sch. and Ephr. 142 and 143. "for this year." At St. Cyrus: “neither in Jerusalem nor in this mountain.” Nek.: “will bow”, cf. Efr. 142. 143 (?). Resp. Greek in Ostr. and Mst. vm. "his" now. Mar. Ass. etc. Spicy Mst. Gal. vm. "his" now. Assem. St. Al. etc. We follow Pusey's amendment: ἑαυτὸν vm. ἑαυτῶν. Those. true humanity. Φϱονεῖτε as an authority. and at St. Cyrus. ed Pusey, 1, 179, 181, 277, - but in other St. Cyrus. 1, 423, – 2, 345, 677. Φϱονείτω, as some. Wed at St. Cyrus. in Sir. 3, r. 574.lin. 6; other Greek read: φϱονείσϑω – glorified: “let him be wise”, or others: “let him think.” In the Gospel: “in Capernaum.” Const. literally: “in spirit and truth.” St. Al. resp. Greek: “Spirit God”, but other approx.: “is” and “for there is.” St. Al. letters: “those who worship Him... those who worship Him... it is fitting to worship.” Οἴδαμεν - alone and glory. Gal. Mst. "vem" - other reading: οἶδα Ostr. Mar. Zogr.: “vem”, – maybe Syr. syn. and Efr.: “behold” = ἴδε from οἶδα. – St. Al. “is coming” – ἔϱχεται in contrast to the further ἔλϑη – will come. – “The Verbal Christ” – op. Syr. cur. sch. and syn. It is noteworthy that the Syrian Codex Sinaiticus (245. b. 19–20) coincides with the reading of St. Ephraim the Syrian (141): “behold” = ιδε erroneously from οιδα The Messiah will come, and when he comes, he will “give” everything to us (in Sin. no.). St. Al.: “to you” – resp. Greek σοι. Dr. “at the same time, and then”, St. Al. and “therefore” – Greek. ϰαὶ ἐπί τοῦτο, ἐν τούτῳ and ἐπί τοῦτο. In Sir. sch. (Valt.): “And while he was speaking,” His disciples came,” and to Sir. syn.: “And while they were talking,” His disciples came.” Εϑαύμαζον א ABC other lat. Vulg. Copt. Sire. all and syn., except R and Slav., but St. Al.: “chudisha” – ἐϑαύσαμαν other plural. Mayusk. Sire. r. and Sag. Wed Efr. 140: admirati sunt. St. Al.: "verb." Literally: enraged by indomitable piety - that is, religious fanatics. “Obache” in Kyiv, 1788, but ancient: “and no one else...” St. Al.: “not a single one speaks” - literally, Const.: “no one speaks more.” To “speech”, as some read (and Slav. Gal. Mar. Zogr. St. Al. etc.), others add αὐτῶ, “to him” in Ostrom. and one Latin: “mulieri”, – and Sir. syn. and cur.: “to her” (vm. αὐτῳ Baethgen’a, for this is required further: ζητεῖ) Sir. syn. and chickens like this: and when they were talking, His disciples came and were surprised that “exactly...” he spoke to the woman, “but they did not tell her: either...” (what) “are you asking” (feminine), “or...” (what) “are you talking about” (again, female). In view of this, the verb is wonderful to read. Assem. Gospels: “with him” vm. “with her” in other Slavic texts can be considered not as a simple typo, like Yagich, but as a variant. St. Al.: "ugly" vm. “zhe” = οὖν, and “from” = ἀπῆλϑεν. code. D, no. lat. sir. ("cur, p." and "syn.") Sag. Arm. put ἡ γυνή before τήν ὑδϱίαν αὐτῆς. St. Al. and Arch. 1092: “verb” resp. Greek "Man" op. Sire. "Sch." (Valt.) and Syn. "Yazhe" = ἂ, like some and Sir. (kur. sch. and syn.) vm. ὅσα other plural slav.: "great." St. Cyrus cheat οὕτος according to author. and St. Al.: “What food is Christ?” – vm. "t" slav. resp. ἐϰεῖνος code. D and one lat. ille. So alone and St. Al., and others approx. δε or οὖν, slav.: “the same” and “and.” acc. B and no. St. Cyril op. ἔϱημον, cf. Migne, LXXI. 51 and so on. on John 3:11, – Pusey 1. 223, – also accord. no. cheat πϱὸ αὐτὴν in Art. 37th vm. "se" or "seauton." “Between this” – alone and sire. hr., but slav. with “same” – other δε, Dobril. "and" as in Sire. sch., but Sir. cur. only δε, and Syn. only ϰαὶ. There is no “him” after “prayer”. Greek and Sir. Syn. “His” after the student op. Arch. Sim. Al. resp. author. It is noteworthy that Sire. syn. cheat acc. Kur.: “And they asked” (Kur. “His disciples asked Him”) “His disciples that He might eat bread with them.” St. Al.: “verbal”, but Greek: ἔλεγον, other: λέγουσιν. "Ubo" – Greek. ουν, and St. Al., but ancient Slav. δε – “same”, resp. Dgr. no. lat. sir. "hr." “Students” – א* nek. lat. Sire. chickens syn. and sch. op. like Simon. Omission. "his" author. and Mar. Zogr. Legal Good Const. St. Al., but Ostrom. Gal. Mst., read. as no. lat. saga Copt. “To oneself” - Old Slavic, perhaps instead of πϱὸς ἀλλήλους reading ἐν ἑαυτοῖς as Dgr., and maybe there is an influence of Lat. and Vulg.: ad invicem, others ad alterutrum or intra semetipsum, inter se, inter semetipsos. St. Al.: “to each other” - exactly. The coincidence of Sir is remarkable. syn. and Kur.: spoke (Sch. Walt.: “students speak”) “to each other” (Sch. Walt.: “among each other”). Ποιήσω as one and Ostrom. Legal Mst. Type. Pandas. Const. and St. Al. vm. ποιῶ – “I create” resp. etc. in Mar. Zogr. Gal. "His business" St. Al. resp. authentic vm. "His work" others, and Mar. and Karp.: “deeds.” Καὶ τὸ δόξαν ἀποπληϱῶν, lat.: “your will.” So. author. and glory., but no. omission Sire. chickens op., but syn. has (“that the essence of the month is four and the harvest will come”, Valt.: “that after four months it will come”). Nek. op. "to you", St. Al. and Typ.: “erect.” St. Al.: “white and ready for harvest.” ’Ήδη - can be considered the text of the Gospel, although in the text itself in St. Kirill this word is related to the following. Wed. previous and next notes. “Already” is related to “reap” א with AC*D other Sir. chickens and syn. (ϰαὶἤδη). lat. Irin. and Zograf. (?). But other conn. from previous like St. Cyrus. in the interpretation of the previous one. verse (? see previous note) From 2 and other plurals. Sire. "p." and "sch." Vulg. Orig. and slav., and some. op. like Nick. A. Besides, kudos. approx. "and" resp. one Greek Nek. sl.: "will accept" . Zogr.: “animal fruit”, Al.: “to eternal life.” Slav. resp. one Greek approx. "and" after "yes." In code. D. Arm. Ef. Irin. and Sir. all and syn., and afr. 1049. 16–17: “(yes) both he who sows and he who reaps rejoice together (will rejoice).” Various interpretations: “there is a true word” – D. some. lat. Vulg. Sire. others and: “the word is true” - author. (Mar.: “zealous”) – also: ὁ ἀλ: and ἀλ: That is, “true” and “truly.” Slav. approx.: "is" after the second "in." At St. Kirill: “improved” – τελειωϑέντες vm. μαϱτυϱηϑέντες. Resp. Greek no cheat "zhe" after "az" Mar. and St. Al. “Not you” – St. Al. resp. Greek vm. "you're not." Finished. op. “where you are not tr.” resp. D* and some. “Labor” – alone and St. Al. acc. author. Greek vm. "works" other glory. and some Greek In some slav.: "come in." St. Al.: “words for the sake of the wife testify. Elika" resp. Greek Const. and later, but others and St. Al.: “eliko”, – Greek: ὅσα al. α. “Egda Ubo” – to Kyiv, 1788 vm. ancient: "always." Const. “as it is”, St. Al.: "It's so bad." St. Al. exactly: “abide.” St. Al.: “words dividing Him,” and others as now. Zogr. op. "same." Slav. same resp. Thu: τη δε. Code. D and some. vm. τη δε – St. Cyrus. and author. “No longer” – Ostr. Mar. Zogr. Gal. St. Al. vm. "to no one" - late. and now. The first οτι is not. op. Slav. track. Thurs. σὴν λαλίαν, others: λ. σοῦ. After ἀϰηϰόαμεν some. approx. παϱ’ αὐτοῦ. St. Al.: "truly." Mar. Zogr. "peace." The word ἀληϑῶς read. prev ὅυτος א Sir. chickens and some In Ost. op. "this." Slav. approx. ὁ χϱιστός according to A and more oz. Sire. sch (before "saved"). p. and hr. At St. Efr. Moes. 142 is stated as follows: non postmodum propter verba tua credimus in eum, sed quia audivimus nos doctrinam ejus et vidimus opera ejus, quia Deus est, et cognovimus, eum profecto esse Christum verum. But in the Syrian fragments of Ephrem’s commentary on the Four Gospels (ed. Harris, Fragments of the Commentary of Ephrem Syrus upon the Diatessaron, London, Clay and Sons, 1895, p. 60–61) this passage is read somewhat differently: “because we do not believe in Him because of your words, we (ourselves) hear His teaching and know and see His miracles, that He is the Christ true." So א Sun etc., but glory. approx. "and go" = ϰαὶ ἤλϑεν, St. Al. "from here" – ἀπήλϑεν acc. And other Vulg. St. Al.: “to have no honor in one’s fatherland”, ancient words: “to have no honor.” That is, to the lower, seaside Galilee, while Nazareth lay higher on the hill. Ὃτε – alone and glorious. etc. ὡς. Gal. and St. Al.: “all”, as the author., but Mar. Zogr.: “everything”, like a code. G and Sir. r. in the text. "Eliko" – ὅσα – alone and ancient words. vm. "yezh" – "α" others and St. Al. The end of the verse: “and tii...” does not read. Gal. Zogr. resp. code. G and some. min. Zogr. and St. Al. does not read: “Jesus” as some, but Mar. Gal. cheat like other Ancient Greek: “Galilee” vm. "Galilee" St. Al. and Const. In Mar. Zogr. Gal.: “Make wine from the water.” St. Al.: “water wine.” Now. acc. Kyiv: “turn water into wine.” “Be same” – ancient word. acc. one, and St. Al.: “and be” etc. “Some” – Ostr. Gal. vm. "ether" Mar. Zogr., and St. Al.: "someone." Vm.: "Tsarev" late. "Caesar" is ancient, and St. Al.: “vasilikos”, but acute. next: Art. "Tsesarev" Vm. "come" Al. "came." Vm. "ide" Mar. Zogr. Al. (Ostr. “and go”, Gal. “go”) = ἤλϑεν (οὖν) – alone, in St. Kir.: ἀπήλϑεν. After "praying" at St. Cyrus. there is no “him”, like some, but glory. cheat acc. other acute Gal.: “Let him come down to heal.” St. Al.: “his son” resp. Greek vm. other glory: "his son." Vm. late (Kyiv): “having...” Acute. Mst. Al.: "if you want." Legal "want", Mar. Zogr. Gal. Karp: “before dying.” Spicy Mst.: “Jesus spoke to him”, as in some., others: “I spoke to him.” St. Al.: “Unless you see signs and wonders, you do not believe,” perhaps read: πιστέυετε. Spicy etc.: "faith yati." Wed. various Art. 51: παῖς vm. υἱὸς. St. Al. without “is”, – Russian: “healthy” – far away. Sl. approx. “and” before “belief”, like some Greek. "Verova" St. Al. and late vm. ancient "I believe them." At St. Cyrus. ω – “imzhe” (speech) as one vm. ον – “hedgehog” etc. and slav. "And" before "going" read. Spicy and Al. Vm. "abiye" (Ostr.: and "abiye") St. Al. exactly: “already.” Ancient and Al.: “going down” according to Greek vm. late: “coming in” (Russian: “on the road” – far away). Slav. approx. "se" before "rabbi." Some glory. op. “and announced” resp. no. gr., but others and Al. Them. Vm. υἱός, ​​as some, in others παῖς (cf. interpretation of Cyrus v. 47) and vm. σοῦ etc. αὐτὸν. At St. Cyrus. acc. author. ἐπύϑετο, but glory. acc. some: ἐπυνϑάνετο (Mar. and St. Al.: “asking”, cf. Ostr.). After ωϱαν at St. K. εϰεινην, like Vat. code. (but without παϱ ? αὐτῶν). Vm. "easier" and "better" late. Mst. "lyache", Yur. "easy", other "soule", Al. "oune" Const. “more. “He” after “easier” is not in Greek. Vm. "seventh" od. lat. "third" and Sir. Kur.: "ninth". Vm. “Like the hour has come” St. Al. exactly: “like in that time, in the worst days,” omitting the “be.” At St. Cyrus. omitted: ἐπὶ others ἐν τῇ πϱοβατιϰῇ, others simply πϱοβατιϰῇ ϰολυμβήϑϱᾳ – ancient. “on the sheep font”, Kyiv. and heat: “sheep font” - cf. one lat. and sire. chickens and sch op. πϱοβατιϰὴ. St. Al. exactly: “verbal” vm. "yezhe" or "hedgehog is called" ancient sl. resp. Greek: ἡ επιλεγομένη and τὸ λέγομεν. Βηϑεσδά and slav., and other readings: Βηζαϑά and Βηϑσαίδα. Al. literally: “in them you are watching” vm. ancient: “in those (same) lying”, Greek: ϰατεϰείτο and ϰατεϰείντο. “Many many things” and St. Al. acc. one gr., etc. and ancient words. without "a lot". St. Al.: “water movement”. acc. author. Greek Al. not read: “of the Lord” (other ϑεοῦ). Greek ϰατα ϰαιϱὸν Al. and Const. exactly: “for a time,” literally: “according to time,” Russian: “according to times,” ancient: “for all time, for all summer, for all times.” Vm. "similar" Mar. Legal Zogr. “Nizlazyashe”, Al. in Ostr. Gal. Zogr. Ass. Nick. a: “washing in the font”, reading ελουετο, as some. vm. ϰατέβαινεν. St. Al. literally: “like the squalor” ä “got in” (“and the first one to enter”), etc. as now. St. Al. literally: “when you are overcome by an illness,” others like now, but Zogr. and Ass. op. the words: “anticipating the movement of water” are not read. אA*BC* Sir. chickens Efr. other plural, – read. A2C3D other pl. The entire 4th Art. no cheat אBC*D al. Sir. chickens Efr. (?) Nonn, others are marked with obels or asterisks - read: AC2 other pl. Sire. "sch. hr." Tert. Ambr. Did. Words of St. Efr. 146: “for if they (the Jews) believe that by means of the water “Powerful” the Angel heals the sick, then should they not even more believe that the Lord of the Angels through baptism cleanses from all uncleanness” does not refer to Bethesda and the healing of the paralytic, as well as to the healing of the man born blind, which is in Ephr. compared with the first (p. 148). On the contrary, the silence of St. Ephraim about the miracle, as well as the general property of Ephraim’s text, lead us to assume the absence of a verse, as in Sir. chickens As for St. Cyril, he also gives an exegete. comments on the miracle to the point. 7 tbsp. (see below). "Own" cheat. ancient acc. אIn other plurals, but St. Al. op. acc. etc. St. Al. exactly: "imat". Efr. 145: cui 38 anni erant infirmitatis suae; African 96. 1–2: “who was sick for 30 and 8 years”; Wed hen., but sch.: “was ill”, p. approx.: "yours". "Jesus" read. only code. G, cf. Efr.: Dominus (145). "Hello" St. Al. vm. "intact" Dr. St. Al.: “sick” – more precisely. The last word is not read. chickens and syn., but sch. p. and Ephr. ib. them. Also coincident. chickens and syn. in the words: “so that you are healthy” vm. sch.: “so that you are healed” - cf. Efr. ib.: ut sanus fias? Heat. "her" cheat. Mar. Zogr. Gal. other acc. C2 etc. and Sir. sch. p. hr., but not cheat. א AV etc. and Sir. Chicken and syn. (Ephr. not named and “Lord”) and glory. Spicy Type. St. Al. In Mar. “same” after “person”, like C2 and nek. St. Al.: “will put in when I come” without “az”, like V and nek., – “gets in” and Mar. Zogr. Gal. vm. "Climbing down." Spicy "comes" Sim. Type. Good cheat "and" before "take" resp. pl. Greek Vm. "go" Type. weeks Sim. Al. in Ostr. Mar. Zogr. Gal. Vengeance: “go to your house” as a code. 33. Sir. Chicken (after “and go” approx.: “go...”). Efr. 146. Const. and St. Al.: “be healthy” vm. ancient: "to be whole". Vm. Const. and late "get up" Mar. Zogr. Gal. Al.: “taken”, Ost. Mst. Legal Kind: "taking". St. Al.: “verbal” - not exactly. Vm. "same" ancient Al.: “ugly” – οὖν – exactly. "Jews" - ancient. and Al. “healed” and ancient, coll.: “healed” . Vm. "ti" ancient and Al.: “to you”. At St. Al. there is no “yours”, as some Greek, and other Greek. and glory them. St. Al. op. “he”, like some Greek. St. Al. exactly: “He who created me is healthy.” St. Al. exactly “it still acquires sanctuaries.” In Greek vm. ἰαϑεῖς, like Sir. chickens and others (Syn. ἄνϑϱωπος) read: ἀσϑενῶν. 2nd half 13th Art. various translations in lat. (Tishend.), which corresponds to. and variety Sir.: in "sch": Jesus hid in the great crowd that was in that place - chickens: Jesus withdrew from that place to another for the sake of a gathering of people, - "sin": because the Teacher withdrew from that place to another from the crowd, - Ephr. Quia lesus, sish. maltitudinem populi viderit, declinavit ab illo loco (the last three are more similar to each other). א Eph. Sire. Chicken and hr. cheat τὸν ϑεϑεϱαπεύμενον, but syn. etc. and Efr. no cheat Mar. and Al.: "to be" vm. "you" Al.: not yet. Sire. syn.: let nothing worse “happen” to you than this - chickens. etc. may it not “happen” (sch: it will)... “than before”. “Ide” without union, like some Gal. and St. Al., and others and sir. with ϰαὶ or οὖν Acute. Mst.: “and go”, Mar. Zogr. "come on" . – “Reche” ειπεν – some and sire., but others: “an” – or ἀπήγγειλεν, slav.: “poveda”, Al.: “to erect. His” – alone and sire. syn. etc. and Mar. and Yur. Const. Al. vm. etc. and chickens and Efr.: με – Acute. Zogr. Ass. Gal. Mst. at St. Al. exactly: “creator” (and Const.) “his health.” The “Jews of Jesus” are alone and Sir. Chicken Syn. ("Lords") dr. Vulg. Mar. St. Al. vm. "Jesus the Jews" etc. and Zogr. Gal. The words: “and I seek to kill Him” are not in א V.S. Dr. vg. Sire. chickens and syn. Zlat. Non. St. Al. "creates" Apparently, St. Kirill does not read the words: ϰαὶ εζήτουν αὐτὸν ἀποϰτεῖναι. With "and" cheat. Sire. sch. Ef. and Kyiv., but St. Cyrus. with οὖν at St. Al.: “this sharing slaughter”, like A B and other Vulg. Zlat. But the ancient or without a union - Acute. Zogr. Gal. Mst. resp. א D al. or with “same” = οὖν or “de” Mar.: “for this same reason” . μᾶλλον op. code. א A. Sir. ("Kur. Sin. and Ephr."). Note the coincidence of these three sires. Sin.: “But the Jews, for the sake of this word...” further omission, – Ephr. 147: Iudaei itaqne propterea persequebantur, – Kur. according to Baetg: διὰ τοῦτο οὖν τὸν λόγον οἱ ’Ιουδάιοι ἐζήτουν (y Holz. no option specified). The expressions: μειζόνως and ϰαὶ φονῶσιν make it clear that in the 16th Art. and St. Cyrus. no cheat words: ϰαὶ εζήτουν αὐτὸν ἀποϰτεῖναι. Spicy Mst. Sim. Carp. op. "likewise", St. Al.: “similar” – exactly. Al.: “nothing, if nothing else... even more” – lit. ἀπεϰϱίνατο ϰαὶ – not a cheat. א* Tert. Sire. chickens and syn. This refers to John 15:26; 1 John 4, etc., regardless of the doctrine of the procession of the Spirit “and from the Son.” Maybe it’s better to read: how one exists from it (nature). “Things are okay. Him" corresponding. b. Sire. chickens Tert. Gal. vm. big: "pok. E. d" . like Cyrus himself. in the interpretation here and below to Art. 25th, r. 345, and glory. vm. "will show" Mar. Zogr. Gal. Al. resp. more in Ostr. Ass. Legal Sim. Carp. al.: “shows” resp. code. D. 28. e. Sir. chickens Arm. In addition, Kur.: “And do not be surprised at what I told you.” St. Al. Const. and later: “like” vm. ancient: "like" . St. Al.: “gives life” - exactly, and: “sitse”. Sire. Syn. and chickens “He gives life to the dead and raises them up,” and: “He gives life to those who believe in Him.” St. Al.: “For the Father judges no one lower.” St. Al.: “not the honoured one... who sent you. ancient: whoever does not honor... whoever sent. Χαϱαϰτὴϱ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ – coll.: “the outline of the essence” (substance) of “His”. St. Al.: “like the word... believe” vm. ancient: “have faith”, – and: “is coming” respectively. Greek vm. "will come" ancient resp. no. lat. and Tert. in some m.: veniet. Also all glory: “will pass” resp. no. lat.: transiet, - Russian. exactly: “comes - passed”. Vm. "belly" of St. Al. here and elsewhere: “life”. Nek. lat. Wed African 365 and 392: veniet. Words: “and now there is” op. א* no. Lat. Tert. Ambr. and Afr. 365, but 392 im. Before the "death" Sire. chickens and Afr. in both places read: ϰαὶ – “even”. Vm. "God's" no. Greek Tert. Ipp. and Sir. hr. and Afr. both times: “human” (Sir. r. on the field). “Having heard” – op. "e". Sire. chickens and Afr., – א* and in some. Tert. op. οἱ before ἁϰούσαντες, as now. glory Spicy (hearing) Mst. Carp. according to other acc. author: “having heard” and in Mar. or: “those who heard” in Zogr. or: “having heard” and Al. and “heard” Const. etc. Vm. ζησονται Cyrus. at Tishend's. and in ed. we need ζήσουσιν, - cf. 346.5. “Have a belly” - alone and chickens. vm. "g. and" – א. Efr. 149. Evs. Did. Epiph. New and ancient words “And the Sons gave” (ancient: “to give”) alone and Ephr. vm. "Dade and Sons" others and Kurs. and glory There is no cheating before the "trial". "and" alone and Ephr. 150 and Sir. Chicken hr., but Dgr. etc. Syr. p. and sch. and glory cheat "and" (Kir. in Tish. and in the ed.). The words: “like the Son...” are connected with the previous one - one and Ephr. Sire. Chicken and hr. Tert. etc. and Slav. (but Ostrom.?), but others and Sir. "sch." and "p" . from last also Zlat. (against Pavel Samos.) and Dame. “His Voice” – St. Cyrus. and to the point. and s. 351 acc. author. and in Ostrom. and St. Al. vm. “Son of God” and others. Slav. Or. Tert. or: τοῦ ϑεοῦ – Sir. chickens and filii hominis Ir. Ambr. (and Dei). In addition, Or. Sire. Chicken Wed African 365. 7 approx. “and they will come to life” before: “they will come forth.” At St. Al.: “the good ones who created” (ποιήσαντες)... “the evil ones who did” (πϱάξαντες) - the Greek terms are very accurately translated and skillfully distinguished. In addition, it seems that for exegetical purposes he distinguishes between “resurrection” (of life) and “resurrection” (of judgment). Slav. cheat οἱ δε φαῦλα, other op. δε. Noteworthy is the persistently repeated reading of St. Kirill ἐξελεύσονται and on page 351, and interpretation: πϱοελεύσονται according to. code. D vm. ἐϰποϱεύσονται. Slav. “create about yourself” acc. code. D and some. min. lat. Vg. “Father” is not read. אABD etc. Vg. Sire. Zlat. Ambr., but slav. cheat resp. etc. At St. Al. op. words: “I can’t... I am righteous.” Vm. οἶδα other οἴδατε, and some. οἴδαμεν, Ost. "vem" other "vem" . After μαϱτυϱία some. approx. αὐτοῦ (μοῦ nek.) and Ost. and Mst. Vm. "in" at St. Al.: “but” (ἀλλὰ?), Sim.: “and”, Carp.: “se”. St. Al.: “truth is holy.” Vm. auto "person" – Mar. Zogr. Gal. in D and some. and Ephr. 151: “man” – Ostr. Mst. Type. Carp. Const. Al. "testimony" in Ostr. vm. heat etc.: “evidence”. Carp. and Al.: “may you be saved.” And in origin it belongs to the ineffable inspiration of the Divine or supernatural revelation. You might be interested in: