Беседа 2

Acts 1:6. Therefore, they came together and asked Him, saying: Are you at this time, O Lord, restoring the kingdom to Israel? 1. The disciples, intending to ask (the Lord) something, approach Him all together - and they do this in order to persuade Him to answer by their sheer numbers. They knew that His previous words - “but about that day and hour no one knows” (Matthew 24:36) - were spoken by Him to deflect the question from Himself - not out of ignorance, but out of unwillingness to answer. That’s why they come to Him again and ask; but they would not have asked if they were truly convinced (of His ignorance). Since they heard that they would receive the Holy Spirit, they wanted to find out (at that time) how those who were already worthy and ready to be delivered (from troubles). They did not want to plunge themselves into danger, but to enjoy peace, since what had already happened to them was not unimportant, but on the contrary, they were in extreme danger. That is why, without telling Him anything about the Spirit, they ask: “Is it not at this time, Lord, that You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?” They didn’t say when? but: “is it not at this time”? - they so wanted to know this day. That is why they begin with great respect. But it seems to me that they did not quite clearly understand what this kingdom was, since they had not yet been taught by the Spirit. And they didn’t say: when will it be? – but what? “Will You at this time, O Lord, restore the kingdom to Israel?” - as if it had already collapsed. They asked this because they were still attached to sensory objects, although not to the same extent as before. They have not yet become the best; however, Christ was already thought about above. And since they have elevated themselves, He also speaks with them in a more elevated manner; no longer tells them that “even the Son does not know about that day” (Mark 13:32) - but what? “It is not your business to know the times or seasons which the Father has appointed in His authority” (Acts 1:7). You are asking for too much, he says, although, however, they already knew what was much more important. And so that you clearly understand this, look at how many things I will list. Tell me, what is more important than what was revealed to them? They learned that Christ is the Son of God, and that God has a Son of equal honor; we learned that there would be a resurrection; They learned that Christ had ascended and sat down at the right hand of the Father. They also learned something even more amazing than this - that flesh sits on the mountain and that angels worship it. They learned that the Lord would come again to judge the whole world and that then they too would sit as judges of the twelve tribes of Israel; They learned that the Jews were rejected, and that instead of them the pagans would enter the kingdom of God. Knowing what it will be is a great thing; and to comprehend that someone or someday will reign is nothing great. Paul learned what “it is impossible for man to tell” (2 Cor. 12:4), learned everything that preceded this world. What is more difficult to recognize: the beginning or the end? Obviously, the first one. And Moses learned this and, counting the years, shows when (it happened) and for how long. Solomon also knew this, which is why he said: “I will not forget to count that which has been for ever” (Proverbs 8:21). So, that (that time) was near, the apostles later learned about this, just as Paul says: “The Lord is near. Do not be anxious about anything” ( Phil. 4:5–6 ); but they didn’t know then, although the signs were pointed out to them. And Christ, as (before) said: “in a few days” (Acts 1:5), but did not specify the exact time, wanting them to stay awake, he does so now. On the other hand, they here ask not about the end (of the world), but about the kingdom, which is why they said: “Is it not at this time, Lord, that you are restoring the kingdom to Israel?” But He did not reveal this to them either. And about the end (of the world) they also asked Him even before this; but then He answered them with greater severity, so that they would not think that their liberation was near, and exposed them to danger, but now not so, but with greater meekness. And so that (His words) do not seem offensive to them and only an excuse, listen to how He immediately promises to give them something that they would rejoice at, and precisely, He added: “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8). Then, so that they would not ask Him again, He immediately ascended. Therefore, just as there He darkened them with fear and by saying: “I don’t know,” so here too by the fact that after these words He ascended. They had a strong desire to know about this and would not have departed (from Christ), and yet it was very necessary that they should not find out. Tell me: what do the pagans no longer believe - the fact that there will be death, or the fact that God became Man, came from the womb of the Virgin and appeared to people with flesh? Isn't it the last one? Without a doubt, you will say so too. But I am ashamed to constantly talk about this as if it were some indifferent subject. And so that they, in turn, do not say: why do you value this matter so highly, He says: “The Father has ordained it in His power.” But the power of the Father and His power are one and the same, as can be seen from what He says: “As the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so the Son gives life to whomever He will” (John 5:21). If where he must act, He acts with the same authority as the Father, then is it possible that where it is necessary to know, He does not know with the same authority? Raising the dead is obviously much more than recognizing that day. If He does with authority a most important thing, then isn’t it much more likely to do another, less significant thing? 2. But to make this clear to you, I will explain with an example. Just as we, when we see that a child is crying and constantly asks us for some thing that he does not need, having hidden this thing away, we show our empty hands and say: you see, we don’t have it - so Christ did with the apostles. But that child, although we do not show (the requested thing), continues to cry, knowing that he has been deceived. Then we leave him and go away, saying: so-and-so is calling me, and we give him something else in return for what he asked in order to distract him from the thing he has chosen, and we praise this thing of ours more than that one, and, having given it, we leave. This is what Christ did. The disciples asked; He said that He did not, and for the first time he even frightened them. When they again began to ask, He again said that He did not have it, but now He does not frighten them, but, having shown what He had done, He also expresses a plausible reason, namely: “The Father has ordained it in His power.” So what? Do you not know the things that belong to the Father? You know Him, but you don’t know what belongs to Him? You Yourself said: “No one knows the Father except the Son” (Matthew 11:27). Moreover (it is said): “The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God” (1 Cor. 2:10); and you don’t know that either? Not at all. He didn’t say this so that we would think so; He shows Himself to be ignorant in order to distract the disciples from an inappropriate question. They were afraid to ask again, lest they hear: “Are you really that stupid?” (Mark 7:18)? - because now they feared Him much more than before. “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you.” Just as He did not answer what was asked, because the teacher’s job is to teach not what the student wants to know, but what is useful for him, so now He predicts what they needed to know so as not to be afraid. They were still weak, and in order to inspire them with boldness, He encouraged their souls and covered up their difficulties. Since He was soon to leave them, when talking with them, He does not directly say anything sorrowful; but how? He adds praise to the mournful words, as if to say: do not be afraid, because you “but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the ends of the earth.” Previously He said: “Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter the city of the Samaritans” (Matthew 10:5), but now He wants them to preach “in all Judea and Samaria”; therefore, what he did not say then, he now added, saying: “and even to the ends of the earth.” And after he told them about what was most terrible, so that they would not ask Him again, “he was lifted up before their eyes, and a cloud took Him out of their sight” (Acts 1:9). Do you see that they preached and fulfilled the gospel? Truly, He gave them a great deed! Where, he says, you were afraid, in Jerusalem, preach there first, and then “even to the ends of the earth.” Then again confirmation of what was said: “in their eyes,” says (the writer), “and a cloud took Him.” They did not see when He rose again, but they saw when “the cloud took Him away,” since even here vision could not comprehend everything. They saw the end of the resurrection, but did not see the beginning; and the ascension saw the beginning, but did not see the end. It was unnecessary to see the beginning of the resurrection when He who announced it was present, and when the tomb showed that He was not there; and what followed the ascension had to be learned from the word. Since the eyes could not penetrate into the heights and show whether He ascended exactly to heaven, or only, as it were, to heaven, then look what is happening. That it was Jesus, they knew from the fact that He talked with them, since with their eyesight, due to the distance, they could no longer recognize Him; and that He is being taken up to heaven, this has already been explained to them by the angels themselves. See how it is arranged so that not everything is known from the Spirit, but (something) also from sight. Why did “the cloud take Him”? And this serves as a sign that He ascended to heaven. Not fire, not a chariot of fire, as was the case with Elijah, but “a cloud took Him up”; and this was a symbol of heaven. So the prophet says: “You make the clouds Your chariot” (Ps. 103:3), although this is said about the Father. Therefore, the expression: “the cloud took” means: on the symbol of Divine power, since no other force is represented anywhere on the cloud. Listen again to what another prophet says: “The Lord will sit on a light cloud” (Is. 19:1). 3. This happened when the question concerned an important subject, when the students were very attentive to what was said, when they were excited and did not doze off. And on the mountain (Sinai), when Moses entered the darkness (Ex. 24:15), the cloud was also for the sake of Christ, and not for the sake of Moses. (Christ) did not just say: I am leaving, so that the disciples would not complain again; but at the same time he said: I send the Spirit. And they saw with their own eyes that He was leaving for heaven. Oh, what a vision they were awarded! “And when,” it is said, “they looked at heaven during His ascension, suddenly two men in white clothes appeared to them and said: Men of Galilee! Why are you standing and looking at the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw Him going into heaven” (Acts 1:10–11). They use a demonstrative word: “This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw Him going into heaven” (Acts 1:11). Bright look again! Some angels, having clothed themselves in human form, suddenly appeared and said: “Men of Galilee.” Because they themselves said: “men of Galilee,” they already seemed worthy of faith to the disciples. And if this were not their goal, then why would they need to point out to their students their fatherland, which they know? And by their very appearance they attracted disciples to themselves and showed that they were from heaven. Why doesn’t Christ Himself say this to the disciples, but the angels? He Himself talked to them about everything before, so that through the angels He only reminds them of what they have already heard. And the angels did not say: whom you saw ascended, but: whom you saw “ascending into heaven,” to show that His ascension is an ascension; and it is natural for the flesh to be exalted. Therefore they say: “he who ascended from you into heaven will come in the same way” - he will not be sent, but “will come.” Where is the minority (of the Son)? "The cloud took Him away". It is wonderful - since He Himself ascended onto the cloud, why the one who ascended is the same one who descended (Eph. 4:10). But look how one thing is said in relation to their thoughts, and the other in accordance with the dignity of God. However, the minds of those watching were now elevated; The Lord gave them no small knowledge of the second coming. The words: “He will come in the same way” mean that He will come with a body, as they wanted to hear, and that He will come again to judgment in the same way, on a cloud. “Suddenly two men in white clothes appeared to them,” it is said. Why is it said: “husband”? Because (the angels) took on the perfect form of men, so that (the disciples) would not be afraid. “And they said: Men of Galilee! Why are you standing and looking at the sky? With such words they show friendliness and do not allow them to immediately expect His return. They talk about what is more important, but they keep silent about what is less important. That He will “come in the same way,” and that He should be expected from heaven, this is said; and when, they are silent about it. In this way they distracted the disciples from that spectacle and turned them to their speech, so that the disciples, no longer able to see Christ, would not think that He had not ascended, but would dwell on their words. If before the disciples said: “Where are you going?” (John 13:36), then even more would they say now. “Will You at this time, O Lord, restore the kingdom to Israel?” They knew His meekness so much that even after suffering they asked Him: “Is it not at this time, Lord, that you restore”? True, He had already told them before: “See, do not be dismayed, for all this must happen, but it is not the end yet” (Matthew 24:6), and Jerusalem will not yet be captured; but now they ask about the kingdom, and not about death. However, after the resurrection He no longer extended His word to them for a long time. They ask, believing that they themselves will find themselves in glory if this comes true; but He did not declare whether He would establish (this kingdom) or not. Why did they need to know about this? That is why, being afraid, they no longer said: “What is the sign of Your coming and the end of the age?” (Matthew 24:3) but: “Are You restoring the kingdom to Israel”? They thought it had already opened; Meanwhile, He showed in parables that it is not close; and when they asked Him, He did not answer the question, but the following: “You will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you.” Look: he did not say that (the Spirit) would be sent, but “will come down,” to show His equal honesty. How can you, Doukhobor, dare to call Him a creature? “And you will be my witnesses.” He made a hint about the ascension - or better, and now reminded them again of what they had already heard about before. It has already been shown that He ascended into heaven. “A cloud,” it is said, “darkness is under His feet” (Ps.96:2; Ps.17:10); and this is what the words mean: “and the cloud took Him,” that is, the Lord of heaven. Just as the royal chariot indicates the king, so the royal chariot was sent to Him, so that the disciples would not say anything sorrowful and would not suffer the same thing as Elisha, who tore his robe when his teacher ascended. What do (the angels) say? “This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way.” Moreover (it is said): “two men stood before them.” This was as it should be, because “in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word will be established” (2 Cor. 13:1). That's exactly what they say. “In white,” it is said, “clothes.” Just as before at the tomb (the wives) they had already seen an angel “in shining garments” (Luke 24:4), who announced to them what they were thinking about, so an angel is a witness to the Ascension of Christ. However, the prophets repeatedly predicted this, as well as the resurrection. 4. Angels are messengers everywhere, for example, at the Nativity of Christ, again at the Annunciation of Mary, as well as at the Resurrection; so exactly - and during the ascension; and at the second coming, angels will appear as forerunners. Since they said: “This is Jesus, who ascended from you into heaven,” then, so as not to lead the disciples into bewilderment, they added: “He will come in the same way.” The disciples calmed down somewhat when they heard that He would come again, and would come in the same way, and would not be inaccessible. It is not without reason that the word “from you” is placed, but it shows the love of Christ for the disciples, their election, and the fact that He will not abandon those whom He has chosen. Thus, Christ Himself testified to the resurrection, since after Christmas, or better, and before Christmas, the most amazing thing was that He resurrected Himself: “Destroy,” He said, “this church, and in three days I will raise it up” (John 2:19); and the angels testify to the future coming, saying: “It will come in the same way.” So, if anyone wants to see Christ, if someone grieves that he has not seen Him, then, having heard about His future coming, let him lead a perfect life, and then he will certainly see Him and will not be deceived in his hope. He will come with greater glory, but also on a cloud, also with a body; and it is much more wonderful to see Him descending from heaven than ascending from the earth. The angels said that He would come; but - why, this was not added. This serves as confirmation of the resurrection, because if He ascended with a body, then much more was He resurrected with a body. Where are the non-believers in the resurrection? Who are they, tell me? Pagans or Christians? I don't know, or better yet, I quite know. These are pagans who do not believe in the very creation of creation. It is precisely their business to not admit that God creates something out of nothing, and not to admit that He will resurrect what is buried. But they are ashamed that they do not recognize the power of God, and hence, in order to avoid reproach for this, they say: not because we say this, but because there is no need for the body. It is truly timely to say: “The ignorant speaks foolish things” (Is. 32:6). Aren't you ashamed when you don't admit that God creates out of nothing? But, if He creates from something existing, then how does He differ from people? But where does evil come from, they say? Is it really because you don’t know where evil comes from, that you must introduce other evil - in the knowledge of evil? There are two inconsistencies here: the first is that you dare to say so; after all, if you do not recognize that God created what exists out of nothing, then you will still not know where evil comes from; and the second is that, by saying this, you introduce unborn evil. Think how bad it is to want to find the source of evil, but, not recognizing it, bring in another! Look for where evil comes from, and do not blaspheme God. But how do you say I blaspheme? What are you saying? Do you not blaspheme when you introduce unborn evil, when you admit that it is equal in power to God, that it has the same power, that it is unborn? Look what Paul says: “His invisible things, His eternal power and Godhead, have been visible from the foundation of the world through the consideration of creatures” (Rom. 1:20); but the devil, on the contrary, said that both were made of matter, so that we would no longer know God from anywhere. What is more difficult, tell me: is it possible to make what is evil by nature beautiful (if only it exists: I speak in accordance with your opinion, because it is impossible to make anything that is by nature evil contribute to good), or to create it out of nothing? What is easier - I’m talking about quality - to introduce a non-existent quality, or to transform an existing one into its opposite? What is easier - to build a house that doesn’t exist, or to rebuild a ruined house? Obviously, the first one. But this (in your opinion) is impossible. Therefore, just as this is impossible, it is also impossible to turn something into its opposite. 5. Tell me: what is more difficult - to prepare the myrrh, or to make the mud produce the effects of the world? Which of the two is more convenient to accomplish, tell me (we subject God to our conclusions, but it is not us - no, but you): to create eyes, or to make the blind, while remaining blind, see, be sharper than the sighted, use blindness in order to see, and deafness in order to hear? I think it's the first one. So, what is more difficult, tell me, do you leave to God, but what is easier, do you not? But what am I saying about this? And the souls themselves, in their opinion, come from the essence of God. But look how much (in their teaching) is wicked and senseless. First, wanting to show that evil is from God, they introduce another evil, more wicked than this: they say that evil is contemporary with God, and that God is not at all older than it, thus daring to attribute such a great advantage to evil. Secondly, they say that evil is immortal, because the unborn does not perish. Do you see what blasphemy? From here it is necessary (follows) either that nothing came from God, or that there is no God. Thirdly, by doing this, as I have already said, they contradict themselves and arouse even greater wrath of God upon themselves. Fourthly, they attribute such great power to a substance that cannot exist by itself 4 . Fifthly, they say that the cause of God's goodness was evil, and that without it the Good One would not be Good. Sixthly, they block our path to knowledge of God. Seventh, God is brought down into people, plants and trees. After all, if our soul comes from the being of God, and during transmigration it passes into pumpkins, melons, and onions, then, consequently, the being of God will also be in pumpkins. If we say that the Holy Spirit formed a church in the Virgin, they laugh; if we say that He lived in a spiritual church, they laugh again; and they themselves are not ashamed to reduce the being of God to pumpkins, melons, flies, caterpillars and donkeys, inventing some new image of idolatry. “But it is not the onion (you say) in God, but God in the onion; let not the onion be God.” Why do you not allow God to transmigrate into bodies? “Low,” you say. In this case, what you say is even lower. “No, not low.” Is it so? At least here, if it were, it is truly low. Do you see the crowd of wickedness? But why don’t they want the body to be resurrected? What will they say? That the body is evil? How, tell me, do you know God? Where do you have knowledge of existence? How can a philosopher be a philosopher if the body does not cooperate with him at all? Hurt your senses and learn something you need to know. What would be more meaningless than a soul if it had damaged feelings from the very beginning? If damage to only one member, that is, the brain, is completely detrimental to her, then what good will she be if the others are also damaged? Show me a soul without a body. Don’t you hear what the doctors say: the illness that befalls completely darkens the soul? How long will it take you to hang yourself? Tell me: is the body made of matter? Fine. Therefore one should hate him. Why do you feed it, why do you warm it? Therefore, you would have to kill yourself; should have freed himself from prison. Moreover (they say): God cannot defeat a substance 5 unless he mixes with it; He cannot command him until he is with him and spread throughout his entire composition. What powerlessness! And the king does everything, giving commands; and God cannot command evil? In general, if a substance were not involved in some good, it could not exist. After all, evil, by its nature, cannot exist unless it is combined with some good; therefore, if it had not previously been mixed with good, it would have perished long ago - such is the property of evil. Let someone be voluptuous and let him not restrain himself at all: will he live ten days? Let someone be a robber, unscrupulous in relation to everyone, even in relation to other robbers: will he remain alive? Let someone be a shameless thief who, without blushing, steals in public: will such a person save his life? Evil cannot exist on its own unless there is something good in it, although not much; therefore, according to their teaching, it received its origin from God. Let there be a city inhabited by evil people: can it exist? And let these people be evil not only for the good, but also for themselves: obviously, (such a city) is impossible to exist. Truly, “professing to be wise, they became fools” (Rom. 1:22). If the body is evil, then everything visible without distinction - water, earth, sun, and air - is also evil, because air is a body, although not dense and not solid. Therefore, it is timely to say: “the transgressors told me (their) reasoning” 6 (Ps. 119:85). But let us not listen to them; on the contrary, let us block our hearing from them. There is, truly there is a resurrection of bodies. It shows a tomb in Jerusalem; this (shows) the tree to which Christ was tied when he was scourged. “With Him,” the apostles said (about Christ), “they ate and drank” (Acts 10:41). Let us believe in the resurrection and act worthy of it, so that we may be worthy of future blessings in Christ Jesus our Lord, with whom to the Father, with the Holy Spirit, be glory, power, honor, now and ever, and to the ages of ages. Amen. These conversations were delivered by the saint in Constantinople in 400 or 401. The paragraphs in the text were arranged by us – Editorial staff of “ABC of Faith” Translation by P. Yungerov – Editorial office of “The ABC of Faith” You might be interested in: