Беседа 15

Hebrews 9:1–5. And the first covenant had a decree concerning worship and an earthly sanctuary: for the first tabernacle was built, in which was a lamp, and a table, and an offering of bread, and which is called “the holy.” Behind the second veil was a tabernacle called the “Holy of Holies,” which had a golden censer and the ark of the covenant lined on all sides with gold, where there was a golden vessel with manna, Aaron’s rod that blossomed and the tablets of the covenant, and above it the cherubim of glory, overshadowing the atonement; what is not necessary is now discussed in detail. 1. Having proved from the side of the priest, priesthood and covenant that (the old covenant) had to end, (the apostle) now proves the same from the side of the very structure of the tabernacle. How? When talking about the holy and holy of holies. The Holy is an image of former times, because everything was accomplished there with sacrifices; and the Holy of Holies is the image of the present. In a word, the holy of holies (apostle) means heaven, and the veil of heaven, and the flesh (of Christ) entering inside the veil: “He revealed to us,” he says, “through the veil, that is, His flesh” (Heb. 10:20). However, this place needs to be explained from the very beginning. What is he saying? Who is “first”? Covenant. “Had a decree on Divine services.” What does “decree on Divine services” mean? Signs or decrees; as if he were saying: then he had them, but now he does not have them, and by this he already expresses that (the Old Testament) has been abolished: “had,” he says, so that now he, even if he remained, no longer has (power). “What is holy is human” (“Earthly Sanctuary”). He calls it “human” because everyone was allowed to enter it; in the same building there was a designated place where the priests stood, where the Jews, proselytes, and Nazarenes stood. Since it was also available to the pagans, he calls it human (κοσμικόν, worldly); the Jews were not worldly. “The first tabernacle,” he says, “in which there was a lamp, and a meal, and an offering of bread.” These are worldly signs. “Behind the second veil—therefore, there was not just one veil, but there was a veil outside (the holy one)—there was a tabernacle called the Holy of Holies.” Look how he calls both the tabernacle, because it covered, as it were, a tent over what was there. “She had a golden censer,” he says, “and the ark of the covenant, lined on all sides with gold, where there was a golden vessel with manna, Aaron’s rod that blossomed, and the tablets of the covenant.” All these things were sacred and served as clear monuments of Jewish ingratitude. “And the tablets of the covenant,” Moses broke them, “and the manna”: when (the Jews) grumbled, then (Moses) commanded, as a souvenir for posterity, to put it in a golden container. “Aaron’s rod blossomed,” - because they were indignant; the Jews were ungrateful, constantly receiving benefits, they forgot them, therefore, at the command of the legislator, all this was placed in the golden ark to be passed on to the memory of descendants. “And above it are the cherubim of glory, overshadowing the purification.” What does it mean: “cherubim of glory”? It means either glorious or subordinate to God. He also indicates that they were above, expressing that there are objects above those things. “Now there is no need to talk about them in detail.” but also signs of something else. “Which,” he says, “does not need to be discussed in detail now,” perhaps because it requires a lengthy explanation. “With such a structure, the priests always enter into the first tabernacle to perform divine services” (Heb. 9:6). That is, although this happened, the Jews did not participate in it because they did not see it; therefore, it was not so much for them as for those for whom it served as a prototype. “And in the second, once a year the high priest alone, not without blood, which he offers for himself and for the sins of ignorance of the people” (Heb. 9:7). Do you see the very prototypes already proposed here? Lest they say: how can there be one sacrifice, as the High Priest (Christ) once offered it? - (the apostle) shows that this has been the case since ancient times: the most holy and terrible (sacrifice) was one. This is how (the Jews) were prepared from ancient times: and then, he says, the bishop made a sacrifice once. It is also well said: “not without blood”; not without blood, although not such blood (as now), because the service was not like that. This meant that there would come a (sacrifice) that would not be destroyed by fire, but would be revealed more by blood. Since by sacrifice (the apostle) he means a cross with which there was no fire or wood, and which was not offered many times, but was once offered (stained) with blood, it shows that the Old Testament sacrifice was the same and was offered once with blood. “Which he brings,” he says, “for himself and for the sins of ignorance of the people.” Look, he didn’t say: about sins, but: “sins of ignorance of the people,” so that they would not become arrogant: even though, he says, you sinned involuntarily, but even with your reluctance you allowed ignorance, and therefore no one can be pure. Everywhere he adds: “for himself,” expressing that Christ is a high priest, much higher than the Jewish one. Indeed, if He was not involved in our sins, then how could He offer a sacrifice for Himself? Why, you ask, (the apostle) said this? To indicate the highest. Hitherto there was no reasoning; and then he reasons and says: “By this the Holy Spirit shows that the way to the sanctuary is not yet open, until the first tabernacle stands” (Heb. 9:8), he says, it was built this way, so that we would know that the Holy of Holies, that is, heaven, is not yet accessible. However, on the basis that we do not enter into it, we should not think that it does not exist; We could not enter the Holy of Holies either. “She is,” he says, “an image of the present time” (Heb. 9:9). 2. What time does he call coming? The time before the coming of Christ; and the time after the coming of Christ is no longer coming. How can it really be coming when it has already come and is ending? And he expresses something else here: “she is,” he says, “an image of the present time,” i.e. was a type. “In which gifts and sacrifices are offered, which cannot perfect in conscience the offerer” (Heb. 9:9). Do you see how clearly he showed here what it means: “the law did not bring anything to perfection”, and: “if the first covenant had been without defect, then there would have been no need to look for a place for another” How? "According to conscience" ("in conscience"). The sacrifices did not cleanse the soul, but concerned only the body: they were according to the “law of the carnal commandment.” Truly, they could not cleanse either adultery, or murder, or sacrilege. Here (it was commanded): eat this, and don’t eat this, although all this is indifferent. “And which with food and drink, and various ablutions and rituals.” This, he says, drink; although nothing was commanded about drinking, (the apostle) said this to express the unimportance of these items: “and various washings and rites pertaining to the flesh were established only until the time of correction” (Heb. 9:10). This is what carnal justification consists of. Here he rejects sacrifices, showing that they had no power and that they existed only “until the time of correction,” that is, they remained until the time that corrects everything. “But Christ, the High Priest of good things to come, came with a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands” (Heb. 9:11). Here he means the flesh (of Christ). And he well called it greater and more perfect, since God the Word and all the power of the Spirit dwell in it: “For God does not give the Spirit by measure” (John 3:34); calls her “most perfect”, as impeccable and having accomplished great things. “That is, without sowing the creature” (“Not such a dispensation”). That's why it's big; it would not be of the Spirit if man had made it. “Not sowing the creatures”, i.e. not such a dispensation as a creature, but a spiritual one: it is constituted by the Holy Spirit. Do you see how he calls the body (of Christ) and the tabernacle, and the veil, and heaven? “Greater and more perfect,” he says, “the tabernacle,” and further: “He revealed to us through the veil, that is, His flesh” (Heb. 10:20); and again: “He enters into the interior behind the veil” (Heb. 6:19); and again: “Christ entered not into a sanctuary made with hands, built in the image of the true, but into heaven itself, to appear now for us in the presence of God” (Heb. 9:24). Why does he do this? To teach us that the type has the same meaning in both. Namely: heaven is a veil, because the veil separates the holy just as the flesh hides the deity; likewise, the flesh that contains the deity is the tabernacle; and heaven is also a tabernacle, because the priest dwells there within. “Christ entered,” he says, “as a high priest”; He did not say: having become, but: “entered”, that is, having come to this very work and not being succeeded by any other, not so that he came first and then became (the high priest), but was one at the same time as he came. He also did not say: “the priest came” of sacrifices, but: “of the good things to come,” since it is impossible to describe everything in words. “And not with the blood of goats and calves.” (Heb. 9:12), - because everything has changed. “But with His blood, He once entered into the sanctuary and acquired eternal redemption”: here he means heaven. “Once upon a time,” he says, “He entered into the sanctuary and acquired eternal redemption.” The word: “acquired” expresses that this is one of the most wonderful and unexpected things, how by one entrance He acquired eternal salvation. The proof follows: “For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, through sprinkling, sanctify the defiled, so that the body may be pure, how much more will the Blood of Christ, who through the Holy Spirit offered Himself spotless to God, cleanse our conscience from dead works, to serve the living and true God!” (Heb. 9:13–14). If, he says, the blood of oxen can cleanse the flesh, then much more can the blood of Christ wash away the impurity of the soul. So that by the word “sanctifies” you do not mean something important here, he explains and shows the difference between both purifications, how the latter is high, and the first low - and rightly so - because there was the blood of oxen, and here (the blood) of Christ. However, he was not content with the name (of Christ), but also sets out the method of offering sacrifice to Him: “For if,” he says, “by the Holy Spirit he offered himself blameless to God,” that is, this immaculate sacrifice was clean from sins. And the expression: “by the Holy Spirit” shows that it was brought not through fire or anything else. “It will cleanse our conscience from dead works.” And he said well: “from dead works,” because just as there, if someone touched a dead thing, he became defiled, so here, if someone touches a dead thing, he becomes defiled in conscience. “To serve,” he says, “the living and true God.” Here he expresses that he who does dead works cannot serve the living God. He rightly says: “To the living and true God,” meaning that what is offered to Him should be the same; therefore, what we offer is alive and true, and what the Jews offer is dead and false - and this is fair. 3. Therefore, let no one who has dead works come here; If he who touched a dead body was forbidden to enter (the tabernacle), then much more so was he who had dead works - this is the most disgusting defilement. And dead works are all those that have no life, that emit a stench. Just as a dead body is incapable of any feeling and confuses those approaching it, so sin soon affects the thinking ability and does not leave the soul itself alone, but disturbs and torments it. They say that infection, as soon as it appears, immediately causes harm to bodies. This is also sin: it is like an infection, only it damages not the air first and then the body, but directly invades the soul. Don't you notice how the infected burn, how they rush about, what a stench they emit, how disgusting their faces are, how unclean they all are? Such are sinners, although they do not see it. Isn’t it worse, tell me, than anyone possessed by a fever who is devoted to the passion of greed or voluptuousness? Is he not more unclean than anyone else, committing and allowing everything shameful? What could be more disgusting than a selfish man? Whatever harlots, or performers at spectacles, decide to do, he (will decide) to do; and even more likely, perhaps, they will not decide than he. What am I saying: will it be decided? He is subservient to those whom he should not be, and is insolent where he should not, and never holds himself evenly: often he pleases and flatters vicious, ill-intentioned, depraved people, who are much worse and more insignificant than him, while he reviles and insults others, noble and completely virtuous people. Do you see his ignobility and shamelessness in both cases? He is both moderately modest and arrogant. Harlots remain at home, guilty of selling their bodies for money; but they present poverty and extreme hunger as their justification, although this cannot at all justify them, because one can feed oneself by labor. But the covetous man does not stay at home, but walks through the middle of the city, betraying not his body, but his soul to the devil; communicates and copulates with him, as if with a harlot, and, having fully satisfied her lust, leaves; and not two or three people see it, but the whole city. Harlots usually give themselves to anyone who gives gold; whoever offers them payment, slave or free, martial artist or anyone else, they accept; and those who do not offer anything, even if they were the noblest of all, are not allowed in without money. Self-interested people do the same; pure thoughts, when they do not bring money, are not allowed, but dirty and truly bestial thoughts are held on because of money and shamelessly assimilate them, thus destroying the beauty of one’s soul. Just as harlots are ugly, black, rude, fat, disorderly, unseemly and generally disgusting, so are selfish souls who, even with external rubbing, cannot hide their ugliness. When the ugliness reaches its extreme, then no tricks can cover it up. Shamelessness produces harlots, as the prophet says: “You had the forehead of a harlot, you threw away shame” (Jer. 3:3). The same can be said to a self-seeking person: you were not ashamed of anyone, not this or that, but no one. How exactly? He is not ashamed of his father, his son, his wife, his friend, his brother, his benefactor, or anyone else at all. What am I saying: friend, brother and father? He is not ashamed of God himself, but considers everything a fable, laughs (at everything), being intoxicated with a strong passion, does not want to hear anything that can benefit him, and even - oh, madness! - says: woe to you, Mammon, and to him who does not have you. Here I am bursting with anger: woe to those who say this, even if they say it in jest. Didn’t God threaten, tell me, with such a threat: “No one can serve two masters” (Matthew 6:24)? And you weaken His threat by daring to say this to your own detriment. Doesn't Paul say that (extortion) is idolatry, and doesn't he call the covetous an idolater (Col. 3:5; Eph. 5:5)? And you stand and laugh, like public women, indulging in laughter, like those performing on stage. 4. Therefore everything was corrupted and fell; Everything has become ridiculous among us - both mutual address and politeness; there is nothing thorough, nothing solid. I say this not only in relation to the laity, but I know who I mean - and the church is filled with laughter. One will say a sharp word, and laughter immediately spreads among those sitting; and surprisingly, even during the prayer itself, many do not stop laughing; the devil triumphs everywhere, has bound everyone, possesses everyone; Christ is dishonored and driven out; the church is considered nothing. Do you really not hear the words of Paul, who says: “Profanity and idle talk and ridicule do not become you, but let them be put away from you” (Eph. 5:4)? He puts blasphemy together with foul language: are you laughing? What is “vain talk”? Something that does not provide any benefit. Are you still laughing? And you, monk, grin your face? Crucified (for the World), given over to lamentation, tell me: why are you laughing? Have you ever heard Christ do this? Never, - on the contrary, He grieved often. When He looked at Jerusalem, He wept; when I imagined a traitor, I was indignant; when he intended to resurrect Lazarus, he cried; are you laughing? If the one who does not grieve over the sins of other people is worthy of condemnation, then can the one who does not grieve over his own sins and laughs be worthy of forgiveness? The present time is a time of sadness and sorrow, contrition and humility, struggle and exploits; are you laughing? Do you really not know how Sarah was convicted? Don’t you hear the words of Christ, who says: “Woe to you who laugh now! for you will weep and lament” (Luke 6:25)? You sing the same thing every day. Really, tell me, what are you saying? Did you (say): did you laugh? No. And what? “I am weary with my groanings” (Ps. 6:7). But, perhaps, some are so absent-minded and frivolous that they even laugh even at this reproach, precisely because we are now talking about laughter; Such is the property of frivolity, such is the property of unbridledness, that even reproach is insensitive. The priest of God stands, offering prayer for everyone, and you, not ashamed of anything, laugh? He offers prayers for you with trepidation, but you show disdain? Or do you not hear the words of Scripture, which says: Woe to the despisers (Tov. 8)? Do you not tremble and tremble? When you enter the royal palace, you observe decency in your clothes, in your gaze, in your gait, and in everything else; and here, where the true royal palaces are, the same as in heaven, are you laughing? Of course you don't see it; but know that angels are present everywhere here and especially in the house of God they stand before the King, and everything is filled with these incorporeal forces. I will say the same to wives, who do not soon dare to do this in front of their husbands, and if they do, it is not always, but only during fun; but here (they do) always. You, wife, cover your head, and why are you laughing, tell me, sitting in church? You came here to confess your sins, fall to God, ask and pray for the sins you have committed, and you do this with laughter? How can you please Him? But you say: what kind of evil is laughter? Laughter is not evil, but evil is when it occurs without measure, when it is inappropriate. The ability to laugh is given to us so that we can use it when we see friends after a long separation, so that when we see someone exhausted and discouraged, we can cheer him up with a smile, and not in order to laugh and laugh constantly; The ability to laugh is implanted in our soul so that the soul sometimes receives relief, and not so that it relaxes. And carnal lust lies in our nature, but it does not follow from this that we must necessarily satisfy it or use it without measure; but we need to manage it, and we do not say: it is embedded in us, therefore we must satisfy it. Serve God with tears so that you can wash away your sins. I know that many mock us and say: again tears. But that’s why it’s time for tears. I know that others say solemnly: “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we will die” (1 Cor. 15:32). But remember that “vanity of vanities, all is vanity” (Eccl. 1:2). It is not I who says this, but the one who has experienced everything: “I built myself houses,” he says, “planted myself vineyards, built myself gardens and groves, and planted in them all kinds of fruitful trees” (Eccl. 2:4-6). And after all this, what does he say? “vanity of vanities, all is vanity.” So let us weep, beloved, let us weep so that we may truly laugh, so that we may truly rejoice in time for real joy. Real joy is always mixed with sadness and is never pure, but that joy is real, unfeigned, not containing anything insincere, not having any admixture. Let us rejoice in that joy, let us try to receive it; and it is possible to receive it only by choosing here not what is pleasant, but what is useful, and even experiencing some sorrow voluntarily, and enduring with gratitude everything that happens. In this way we will be able to be worthy of the kingdom of heaven, by grace and love for mankind (our Lord Jesus Christ, with whom, to the Father with the Holy Spirit, be glory, power, honor, now and ever, and unto ages of ages. Amen). The paragraphs in the text were arranged by us. – Editorial staff of “ABC of Faith” You might be interested in: