Беседа 4

John 1:1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God... 1. Why St. John limits himself to a single word about the incarnation of the Son of God, while other evangelists present it in detail. – Pavel Samosatsky and his delusion. – 2. What is the Word. – 3. Refutation of the heretics’ objection to the Divinity of the Son, based on the fact that the Son is called God – “Theos” – without a member (article). – 4 and 5. Jesus Christ suffered and died to deliver us from idolatry. – To render a creature the reverence due to the Creator is extremely unfair. – Faith and doctrine are useless for salvation if life and morals are corrupted. – Anger must be quenched immediately. – People praise and blame according to whether they love or hate. – Image of a man in anger. - Against those who carefully observe hours and times. 1. For children just beginning to learn, teachers do not subject them to a lot of work at once, and at one time they are occupied with a little science, but little by little, and moreover, the same thing is often repeated to them, in order to more conveniently implant their lessons in their minds, and so that the children, bored at the very beginning with the multitude (of lessons) and the difficulty of their memory, do not therefore become incapable of mastering what is taught, because the difficulty may also cause them some relaxation. In the same way, wanting to organize my teachings and make the work easier for you, I gradually take from this divine meal and pass it on to your souls. Therefore, I will again touch on the same words of the Gospel, not so as to say the same thing again, but just to add the rest to what has been said. So, let's take the word back to the beginning. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God.” When all the other Evangelists began with the incarnation (Matthew says: “the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the Son of David” (Matthew 1:1); Luke first tells us about Mary; and Mark in the same way first sets out the story of the Baptist), for which John only briefly touched on this subject, moreover, after those first words, saying: “And the Word became flesh” (John 1:14), and everything else - His conception, birth, education, growth - passing by, suddenly announces to us about His eternal birth? What is the reason for this, I will tell you now. Since the other Evangelists mostly narrated about the human nature of the Son of God, one had to be afraid that, therefore, one of the people crawling on the earth would not stop only on these dogmas alone, which is what happened to Paul of Samosata 3 . So, raising people prone to falling from such groveling on earth and drawing them to heaven, John rightly begins his narrative from above, from pre-eternal existence. Whereas Matthew began the narrative, starting from King Herod, Luke - from Tiberius Caesar, Mark - from the baptism of John, the Evangelist John, leaving all this, rises above any time and century, and there directs the mind of his listeners to one thing: “In the beginning was”, and, not allowing the mind to stop anywhere, does not set a limit for it, like those (Evangelists) - Herod, Tiberius and John. But at the same time, it is also worthy of surprise that just as John, rushing to the sublime word, did not leave the incarnation without attention, so they, speaking with special care about the incarnation, did not remain silent about the eternal existence. And this must be so, because one Spirit moved the souls of them all; and therefore they showed complete unanimity in their narrative. But you, beloved, when you hear about the “Word,” never tolerate those who call Him creation, as well as those who honor Him with a simple word. There are many divine words with which angels act, but not one of these words is the Divinity itself, but all this is only a prophecy and God’s command. This is what Scripture usually calls the laws of God, commandments and prophecies. Therefore, when speaking about angels, it adds: “His servants who do His will” (Ps. 103:21). On the contrary, this “Word” (about which the Evangelist John speaks) is a hypostatic Being, dispassionately descended from the Father himself. This is precisely, as I said before, (the Evangelist) depicted by the very name of “Words a.” Because just as the saying: “In the beginning was the Word” means eternity, so the expression: “It was in the beginning with God” shows His co-eternity (with the Father). And so that you, having heard: “In the beginning was the Word,” and recognizing it as eternal, do not think, however, that the life of the Father precedes (the life of the Son) by some distance, that is, by a large number of centuries, and so that you do not lay the beginning for the Only Begotten, (the Evangelist) adds: It “was in the beginning with God,” i.e., He is as eternal as the Father himself. The Father was never without the Word; but “God” (the Word) was always “with God” (the Father), in his own, however, hypostasis. But how, you say, does the Evangelist say that the Word “was in the world” if It really was with God? Truly, it was with God and in the world: both the Father and the Son are not limited to any place. If “great is [His] strength, and His understanding is immeasurable” (Ps. 146:5), then it is clear that His being has no temporal beginning. Have you heard that “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1)? What do you think about this start? There is no doubt that heaven and earth came into being before all visible creations. Thus, when you hear about the Only Begotten that He “was in the beginning,” understand His existence before all that is conceivable and before the ages. If someone says: how is it possible for the Son not to be in time after the Father? what came from someone must necessarily be after the one from whom it came - we answer that such are only human reasonings, and the one who proposes such a question will, perhaps, give even more absurd questions. But this should not even be allowed to be heard. We now have a word about God, and not about human nature, subordinate to order and the need for such speculation. However, for the complete satisfaction of weaker people, we will answer this too. 2. Tell me: does the radiance of the sun flow from the solar nature itself, or from something else? Anyone with intact senses must recognize that the radiance comes from the very nature of the sun. But, although the radiance comes from the sun itself, we can never say that it exists after the solar nature, because the sun never appears without radiance. So, if in visible and sensible bodies that which comes from something else does not always exist after that from which it comes, then why do you not believe this in the reasoning of the invisible and ineffable nature? And here it is the same, only in a way that is consistent with the eternal being. That is why Paul called the Son “the radiance of the glory” of the Father (Heb. 1:3), depicting by this both the fact that He is born of the Father and the fact that the Son is co-eternal with the Father. Tell me: did all ages and every space of time come into being through the Son? And this must be admitted by anyone who has not yet lost his mind. So, there is no distance (time) between the Father and the Son; and if not, then the Son does not exist after the Father, but is coeternal with Him. The expressions “before” and “after” denote the concepts of time. Without century or time, no one could imagine such concepts. And God is above times and centuries. If, despite this, you maintain that the Son received the beginning, then be careful that through such conclusions you do not reach the point of the need to bring the Father himself under some kind of beginning, under a beginning, although the first, but still a beginning. Tell me: by attributing to the Son any limit or beginning, and from this beginning ascending even higher, are you not saying that the Father exists before the Son? Obviously so. Tell me further: how much earlier does the Father exist? Whether you indicate a small or great distance here, in any case, you bring the Father to the beginning. It is obvious that by calling this distance great or small, you will thus measure it, but you cannot measure it if there is no beginning on either side. So, for this, as much as depends on you, you give the beginning to the Father; and, therefore, according to your reasoning, the Father will no longer be without beginning. Do you see how truly what the Savior said is true, and how His word shows its power everywhere? What word is this? “Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father” (John 5:23). I know that for many, what has been said is incomprehensible; That is why in many cases we are wary of delving into such conclusions, since the common people cannot follow them, and even if they did, they would not retain anything from them with firmness and accuracy. “The thoughts of mortals are unstable, and our thoughts are erroneous” (Wis.9:14). Meanwhile, I would willingly ask our opponents about what the prophet said: “before Me there was no God and after Me there will be no” (Is. 43:10). If the Son exists after the Father, then how is it said: “neither will there be after Me”? Or will you already reject the very being of the Only Begotten? But it is necessary - either, finally, to dare to do this, or to allow a single Divinity in his own hypostasis of the Father and the Son. Also, how is it true that “all things were made through Him” (John 1:3)? If there was an age before Him, how could what existed before Him come into being through Him? Do you see to what insolence their reasoning leads them, after they have once shaken the truth? Why didn’t the Evangelist say that the Son came “from things that do not exist” 4 as Paul explains this about all creatures, saying: “calling things that do not exist as if they exist” (Rom. 4:17), but says: “In the beginning was”? The last expression is the opposite of the first. But it is very fair: God does not come from anything and has nothing prior to Himself. Tell me again: don’t you admit that the Creator is incomparably superior to his creatures? But if He were like them - in that He came from the non-existent, then where would His incomparable superiority be? And what does the saying mean: “I am the first Lord, and I am the same in the last” (Is. 41:4), “before Me there was no God and after Me there will be no” (Is. 43:10)? If the Son is not of the same being with the Father, then He is another God; if He is not coeternal (with the Father), then after Him; and if it did not come from His being, then it is obvious that it was created. If they object that this is said to distinguish (God) from idols, then should we not agree that here, to distinguish him from idols, the one true God is spoken of? And if this, in fact, was said to distinguish it from idols, then how can you explain this whole saying: “After Me there will be no other God”? Not rejecting the Son, the word of God speaks thus, but expressing only that besides the (true) God there is no god - an idolater; but not that there is no Son. Well, someone will say, but shouldn’t the words: “before Me there was no God” be understood to mean that there was no god of idols, and that, therefore, the Son was before the Father? But what demon could say that? I think that the devil himself will not say this. On the other hand, if the Son is not coeternal with the Father, then why do you call His existence infinite? If He has a beginning and, at first, then even if He was immortal, He cannot yet be infinite. The infinite must be without limits on both sides. Explaining this, Paul also says: “having neither the beginning of days nor the end of life” (Heb. 7:3), and thus expresses both carelessness and infinity, that is, in both respects He has no limit; just as there is no end, there is no beginning. 3. Further: how, if the Son is “life,” could there ever have been a time in which He was not 5? If He is “life,” as He really is, then everyone will agree that life must always exist, be beginningless and endless. If there was a time when He did not exist, then how could He be the life of other beings without ever being life itself? But how, someone will say, does the Evangelist John himself give Him a beginning when he says: “In the beginning was.” Why, I’ll tell you, did you pay attention to the expressions: “in the beginning”, and: “it was”, and did not think about the saying - “The Word was”? What then? When the prophet says about the Father: “from everlasting to everlasting you are God” (Ps. 89:3), then does He really set limits for Him with such an expression? No way: it expresses eternity. Think the same way here. The Evangelist, speaking this way about the Son, does not put a limit on Him. He did not say about the Son: he had a beginning, but “In the beginning it was,” through this “it was” instilling the idea of ​​the beginningless existence of the Son. But, someone else will say, the Father is spoken of with the addition of a member (the article - “o”), and the Son is spoken of without a member 6 . What then? When the apostle says: “our great God and Savior Jesus Christ” (Titus 2:13), and also: “God who is above all” (Eph. 4:6), then here he mentions the Son without a member. But he also does this in relation to the Father. In his letter to the Philippians, he says this: “He, being in the image of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God” 7 (Phil. 2:6). Also in the book of Romans: “Grace to you and peace from God our father and the Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom. 1:7). And, on the other hand, it was unnecessary to add a term here, because it was higher, we often attach it to the word: “God”. Just as speaking about the Father, the Evangelist expresses: “God is spirit” (John 4:24), and we do not reject incorporeality in God because there is no member attached to the word “spirit,” so here, although when speaking about the Son, no member is used, however, the Son is therefore not lesser. Why is this so? Because, repeating the words: “God” and: “God,” the Evangelist does not show us any division in the Divinity; and even on the contrary, having said before, “The Word was God,” he, lest anyone consider the deity of the Son less, immediately adds proof of His true deity, ascribes to Him eternity: “It was,” he says, “in the beginning with God,” and creative power: “Through Him all things began to be, and without Him nothing began to be” (John 1:2-3). The Father everywhere, through the prophets, supplies this very thing as the primary proof of his (divine) essence. And the prophets often use this type of evidence, and not just only, but also arming themselves against the honoring of idols. “The gods,” it is said, “who did not create heaven and earth, will disappear from the earth and from under the heavens” (Jer. 10:11). And in another place: “I - My hands have stretched out the heavens” (Is. 45:12); and in any case He presents it as a sign of divinity. But the Evangelist is not content with these sayings, but also calls Him “life” and “light.” So, if He was always with the Father, if He Himself produced, arranged and maintains everything (this is expressed by the word “life”), if He enlightens everything, then who is so crazy as to say that the Evangelist wanted in these sayings to show a lesser degree of His divinity, whereas they especially can prove His equality and inseparability (with the Father)? Let us not confuse the creature with the Creator, lest we also hear the words: “And we worshiped and served the creature instead of the Creator” (Rom. 1:25). Although some say that this is said about heaven, when speaking about them, the word of God completely prohibits the service of any creature in general, as a pagan thing. 4. Let us not subject ourselves to this oath! This is why the Son of God came (to earth) to free us from this service. For this purpose, He took on the form of a slave in order to deliver us from this slavery. That’s why He subjected Himself to spitting and strangling, and that’s why He suffered a blasphemous death. Let’s not make all this fruitless (for us), let’s not return to the previous state, or better yet, a much graver wickedness. It is not all the same - to serve the creature, and to reduce the Creator himself to the insignificance of the creature, how much, at least, this depends on us, since He himself always remains as he is, according to what was said: “but You are the same, and Your years will not end” (Ps. 101:28). Let us glorify Him, according to the tradition of the Fathers; Let us glorify Him both by faith and deeds. There is no benefit to our salvation from right-wing dogmas when our lives are corrupted. Therefore, let us direct it towards pleasing God, removing ourselves from all uncleanness, injustice, covetousness, as strangers and aliens, and strangers to (everything) here. And if anyone has a lot of money and acquisitions, let him use them like a wanderer who, after a little time, must leave them, willingly or unwillingly. If anyone suffers an insult from someone, let him not be angry forever, but rather, let him not be angry temporarily. The apostle does not allow us to continue our anger for more than one day. “Let not the sun,” he says, “go down on your anger” (Eph. 4:26). And rightly so: one must wish that nothing unpleasant would happen in such a short time. And if the night overtakes us (in anger), then the matter will be even worse for us, because from one memory of him an immense fire will be reborn in us, and we will think about him in freedom with great grief for ourselves. That is why, before the peace of the night comes to our destruction and we kindle the strongest fire within ourselves, the Apostle commands us to warn and avert danger. The passion of anger is strong, stronger than any flame; Therefore, it is necessary to prevent the strength of the fire with great haste and not allow it to ignite. And this disease can be the cause of many evils. It overthrows entire houses, tears apart long-standing commonwealths, and produces the most disappointing cases in a short time. “The very movement of anger,” it is said, “is a fall for man” (Sir.1:22). So let us not leave this beast unbridled, but let us throw a strong bridle on it from all sides - the fear of future judgment. If a friend offends you, or one of your neighbors upsets you, then think about your sins against God and that by your meekness towards them you will more than appease that (future) judgment for yourself - it is said: “forgive, and you will be forgiven” (Luke 6:37), - and anger will immediately flee (from you). At the same time, pay attention also to when, being enraged, you restrained yourself, and when you were carried away by passion; Compare both times, and you will get a significant correction from here. Tell me: when you praise yourself, is it when you have been defeated (by anger), or when you have won? Is it not then (when we are carried away by anger) that we most blame ourselves and are ashamed, even though no one has denounced us, and we come to repentance of our words and deeds? And when we overcome anger, don’t we then triumph and boast as victors? Victory over anger does not consist in repaying insults in kind (this is not victory, but complete defeat), but in enduring insults and reproaches with meekness. Not doing, but tolerating evil is the true advantage. Therefore, do not say in anger: “So I will rise up, so I will attack him.” Do not resist those who convince you to tame your anger, do not say: “I will not tolerate so-and-so laughing at me.” Yes, he never laughs at you, unless you attack him yourself. And if he laughs at you even then, he will only do it in madness. But when you win, do not seek glory from the insane, but recognize that it is sufficient for yourself to have glory from reasonable people. But why am I taking you out to a small and insignificant spectacle made up of people? Look immediately to God, and He will praise you. But the one who is glorified by Him should not seek honor from people. Human honor often depends on people’s hostility and enmity, and, in any case, does not bring any benefit. On the contrary, the judgment of God is alien to such a mood and brings great benefit to the one glorified by God. So, it is this glory that we will strive for. 5. Do you want to know what a great evil is anger? Stand in the square when others are quarreling. You can’t see this ugliness in yourself like that, because the mind becomes darkened in anger and consciousness is lost, like drunk people. But when you are cleansed of this passion, then observe yourself in others, since at this time your reason is not damaged. So, look at the surrounding crowd, and among it at the people rampaging in irritation, like people going berserk. When rage, kindled in the chest, rises up and hardens, then the mouth breathes fire, the eyes emit fire, the whole face swells, the arms stretch out randomly, the legs jump funny and jump on those holding them. The irritated are no different from the crazy, doing everything without consciousness, and are not even different from wild donkeys when they beat and bite each other. Truly, an irritated person is ugly. Then, when, after this such a funny spectacle, they return home and come to their senses, they will experience even greater sorrow and fear, imagining who was present at their quarrel. Like madmen, before not seeing those present, then, when they come to consciousness, they argue whether their friends were spectators, or enemies and adversaries. They are equally afraid of both: the first - because they will reproach them and increase their shame; and secondly, because they will rejoice over their shame. And if they happened to inflict wounds on each other, then the gravest fear is that something even worse might happen to the wounded person, that, for example, an illness from the wounds would bring him death, or that an incurable tumor that would arise would endanger his life. “And why did I need to quarrel? What kind of swearing and quarreling? They'll disappear completely." And so they curse all those random circumstances that gave rise to the quarrel. And the stupidest of them blame the incident on both crafty demons and the evil hour. But this does not happen from an evil hour, because there is never an evil hour, and it does not happen from an evil demon, but from the malice of those carried away by anger. They themselves attract demons and bring all sorts of evil upon themselves. But the heart, someone will say, is indignant and tormented by insults. I know this too. That is why I extol those who tame this terrible beast. If we wish, we can reflect this passion from ourselves. Why are we not subject to this passion when those in authority reproach us? Is it not because (in this case) a fear arises in us, equivalent to this passion, which strikes us and does not even allow anger to arise in us? Why do slaves, receiving thousands of reproaches from us, endure all this in silence? Is it because the same bonds are imposed on them? So you too think about the fear of God, that God himself will then humiliate you, commanding you to remain silent, and you will endure everything meekly. Tell the one who attacks you: what can I do to you? Someone else holds my hand and my tongue. And this thought will motivate both you and him to prudence. Sometimes because of people we even endure unbearable insults, and we say to our offenders: it was not you, but so-and-so who insulted me. Shall we not have even such reverence for God? What excuse will there be for us? So, let us say to our soul: God humiliates us now, God who holds our hands; Let us not be brave, and may God not be less honorable to us than people. Are you horrified by these words? But I want you to be afraid not only of words, but also of deeds. God commanded us not only to endure being strangled, but also to be ready to endure something even worse. But we, on the contrary, resist with such effort that not only are we not ready to suffer, but we also try to take revenge for ourselves, and often we are even the first to raise unrighteous hands; We consider ourselves humiliated if we do not repay in kind. It is strange that we consider ourselves winners, while we suffer extreme defeat and are thrown to the ground; receiving countless blows from the devil, we think that we are overcoming him. So, let us know, I ask you, this kind of victory, and we will win in this way. To suffer is to be crowned. If we want to be glorified by God, we will not observe the customs of worldly exploits, but the law given from God for spiritual exploits; Let us endure everything with patience. In this way we will overcome those who argue with us, and we will receive everything that is in this world, and the promised blessings, through the grace and love of our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom and with whom to the Father with the Holy Spirit be glory, power, honor, now and ever, and to the ages of ages. Amen. The paragraphs in the text were arranged by us – Editorial staff of “ABC of Faith” Paul of Samosata, Bishop of Antioch, heretic of the 3rd century. This is what the Arians said about the Son of God. Here St. Chrysostom is referring to the Arians’ expression about the Son of God “it was when He was not.” In the original text of the Gospel: “ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος.” The first: “τον θεον” refers to the Father; and the last: “θεος” - to the Son. The Arians and Anomeans objected from here that the Son does not have the same divine nature with the Father. Here the name of God is repeated twice without a member. You might be interested in: