[1] I.e. in fire.

CONVERSATION 15

"No one has ever seen God; The only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath manifested" (John 1:18).

1. God wants us not only to listen to the names and words found in Scripture, but with understanding. That is why Blessed David wrote thus: "Open my eyes, and I will see the wonders of Thy law" (Psalm 118:18). After him, his son, who took his place, teaches that wisdom should be sought as silver, to acquire it more than gold. And the Lord inspired the Jews to examine the Scriptures, and thus encourages us to investigate even more. He did not say this in the sense that only by reading it could one understand the Scriptures the first time. No one, of course, will experience what is near and under the hand, but will experience what remains in the shadows and can be revealed only after a long search. For this reason the Scriptures are also called a hidden treasure, in order to motivate us to test it. And this is instilled in us, so that we may approach the words of the Scriptures, not simply, as happened, but with great circumspection, because whoever listens to what is read in it without reasoning, and takes everything literally as it is said, can assume many absurd things about God. He will probably admit that God is also a man, and that He is composed of brass, that He is both angry and furious, and many other still worse thoughts. If anyone delves into the depth of the meaning, he will avoid any such absurdity. So in the reading now offered to us, it is said that God had a womb, and this is characteristic of bodies; but no one will be so foolish as to revere the incorporeal with the body. In order to understand all this in a spiritual sense, as it should be, let us examine this passage in more detail. "No one has ever seen God." How did the evangelist arrive at this? Having shown the great advantage of the gifts of Christ, such that there is an immeasurable distance between these gifts and those communicated through Moses, he then wants to express a sufficient reason for such a difference between them. Moses, as a slave, was a servant of the lower affairs; but Christ, as Lord and King and Son of the King, has brought us incomparably higher gifts, always coexisting with the Father and seeing Him unceasingly. That is why the Evangelist added: "No one has ever seen God." What shall we say to the words of the most majestic Isaiah: "I saw the Lord sitting on a throne high and exalted" (Isaiah 6:1)? What shall we say in response to John's own testimony that Isaiah said this when he saw His glory (John 12:41)? What shall we say in response to the words of Ezekiel? And he saw God sitting on the cherubim. What about Daniel's words? And he says: "And the Ancient of Days sat down" (Dan. 7:9). What also is the response to the words of Moses: "Show me Thy glory, that I may know Thee" (Exodus 33:18,13)? And Jacob also received his nickname from this, i.e. he was called Israel, and Israel means: he who sees God. Others also saw Him. So why did John say, "No man has ever seen God"? He shows that all this was a matter of condescension, and not a vision of the divine being itself. If they had seen the creature itself, they would not have seen it in different ways. It is simple, non-figurative, uncomplicated, undescribed; He does not sit, does not stand, does not walk. All this is peculiar only to bodies. But how God exists, He alone knows, and this was proclaimed by God the Father Himself through one prophet: "I," he says, "multiplied visions, and through the prophets used parables" (Hos. 12:10), that is, I descended, appeared, but not what I am. And since His Son was to appear to us in real flesh, He from the beginning prepared people for the contemplation of the essence of God, as far as they could see. But that God is in himself, not only the prophets, but also the angels and archangels did not see; and if you were to ask them about this, you would not hear anything about the essence in response, but only the singing: "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men" (Luke 2:14). If you wanted to know anything about this from the cherubim, or seraphim, you would hear the mysterious Trisagion and that "the whole earth is full of His glory" (Isaiah 6:2). And if you were to ask the higher powers, you would learn nothing except that they have one thing to do, to praise God. "Praise Him, all His angels, praise Him, all His hosts" (Psalm 148:2). Thus, God the Father Himself is seen only by the Son and the Holy Spirit. And how can a created being, whatever it may be, see the Uncreated! If we cannot clearly see any incorporeal force, even if it is created, and there are many examples of this in relation to the angels, how much more can we not see a being that is incorporeal and uncreated. That is why Paul also says: "Whom no man has seen, nor can see" (1 Tim. 6:16). But does not this privilege belong to the Father alone, and not to the Son? No, neither did the Son. And that this also belongs to the Son, listen to Paul, who shows it and says: "Who is the image of the invisible God" (Colossians 1:15). And as the image of the invisible, He Himself is invisible; otherwise it would not be an image. But if (Paul) in another place says: "God was manifested in the flesh" (1 Tim. 3:16), do not be surprised; This manifestation took place in the flesh, not in essence. But that He is also invisible, not only to people, but also to higher powers, Paul also shows. Having said, "appeared in the flesh," he adds, "showed himself to the angels."

2. Thus He appeared to the angels when He was clothed with flesh; and before that they had not seen Him either, because the essence was not visible to them either. How, you will say, Christ Himself said: "Take heed, despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father which is in heaven" (Matt. 18:10)? What then? Does God have a face and limit Himself to heaven? But no one will be so devoid of intelligence as to assert this. In what sense is this said? In the same way in which it is said: "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God" (Matt. 5:8). It speaks here of vision, which is possible for us, of seeing with the mind and thought of God. Thus it can be said of the angels that in their pure and vigilant nature they always contemplate nothing else, but only God. For this reason (the Lord) Himself also says: "No man knoweth the Father but the Son" (Matt. 11:27). What then? Are we all ignorant of Him? No; only no one knows (the Father) as the Son. And just as before many have seen Him in the measure of vision accessible to them, but no one has seen the divine being, so now we all know God, but what He is in His essence, no one knows, only He who is born of Him. By knowledge He here calls precise contemplation and comprehension, and moreover, such as the Father has in the Son. "As the Father knows Me," He says, "so also do I know the Father" (John 10:15).

See, then, with what fullness the Evangelist expresses this. Having said, "No one has ever seen God," he does not say afterwards that the Son who sees Him has revealed, but represents something else that is even fuller than a vision, namely, "Who is in the bosom of the Father," since abiding in the bosom signifies much more than a vision. Whoever simply sees does not yet have a completely accurate knowledge of the visible object; but he who abides in the bosom has full knowledge. If, therefore, no one knows the Father except the Son, then when you hear this, do not think that, although the Son knows the Father more perfectly than all others, he does not know what He is in himself; and it is for this reason that the Evangelist says that the Son dwells in the bosom of the Father; and Christ Himself declares that He knows the Father as much as the Father knows the Son. Whosoever would contradict him, ask him: Does the Father know the Son? And he, unless he is mad, will surely answer: yes. Then again we ask: Does the Father have a complete knowledge of the Son, and does He clearly see that the Son is? Of course, the enemy will agree to this. And from this you also deduce the Son's full knowledge of the Father. Himself (the Son) said: "As the Father knows Me, [so] I also know the Father" (John 10:15); and in another place, "It is not that any man has seen the Father, except him who is of God." For this reason, as I have said, the Evangelist also mentioned the womb, explaining everything to us with this one word: Affinity and unity of being, inseparable knowledge and equality of power. Otherwise, the Father could not have had any other being in His bosom, and the Son, if He had been a slave and one of many, would not have dared to dwell in the bosom of the Lord; this is peculiar only to the true Son, who has great boldness before the Parent and has in himself no less (Him). Do you want to know the eternity of the Son? Listen to what Moses says about the Father. Having asked what to say in answer to the Egyptians, if they asked who had sent him, he was commanded to say: "The Eternal has sent me" (Exodus 3:14). The word "Being" means permanent being, beginningless being, being in the true and proper sense. The expression "in the beginning was" means the same thing, depicting a permanent being. And this expression is used here by John precisely to show that the Son exists in the bosom of the Father without beginning and eternally. And lest you, by the commonality of the name, conclude that He is one of those who were made sons by grace, for this purpose is added a member (o'), which distinguishes Him from sons by grace. But if this is not enough for you, and you still bow down to the valley, then listen to the name that is more characteristic of the Son: "the only-begotten." And if you still look downwards, then I will not refuse to use the human expression about God - I mean the womb, so long as you do not imagine anything despised.

So for what? I won't stop asking you about it. Is it not explicit, so that by means of him we may understand precisely that He is truly the only-begotten Son and co-equal to the Father? "He did," it is said. What did He show? That "no one has ever seen God"? That God is one? But this is what the prophets also said, and Moses often cried out: "The Lord our God, the Lord is one" (Deuteronomy 6:4); and Isaiah: "Before Me there was no God, and after Me there shall be none" (Isaiah 43:10).

3. And what else do we learn from the Son, as being in the bosom of the fathers? What do we learn from the Only-begotten? First, that this very thing constitutes His active power. Then, we received a clearer teaching and knowledge that God is Spirit, and that those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth; also that it is impossible to see God, that no one knows Him except the Son, and that He is the Father of the true Only-begotten; and also all the rest that is narrated about Him. The very word "revealed" expresses the clearest and most obvious teaching, which He transmitted not only to the Jews, but to the entire world, and which He Himself fulfilled. Not all the Jews listened to the prophets, but the whole world submitted to the Only-begotten Son of God and believed. Thus, confession here means a special clarity of teaching. That is why he is called both the Word and the Angel of the great council. But if we are worthy of the highest and most perfect teaching, after God in the last days has spoken to us not only through the prophets, but also through the Only-begotten Son, then we also must show a life more exalted and worthy of such honor. Since He condescended to us to the point where He wanted to converse with us not through slaves, but directly with Himself, it would be incongruous for us not to show in ourselves anything better than former times. The Jews had Moses as their teacher, and we himself had the Lord Moses. Therefore let us show wisdom worthy of this honor, and let us have nothing to do with the earth. He brought us the teaching from above, from heaven, in order to raise our thought there, so that we might become, to the best of our ability, imitators of our Teacher. And how, you will say, can we become imitators of Christ? Doing everything for the common good and not seeking your own. "For Christ also," it is said, "did not please Himself, but, as it is written, The reproaches of those who curse Thee have fallen upon Me" (Romans 15:3). Let no one seek his own. And let everyone, in seeking his own, have his neighbors in mind; what is ours is theirs. We are one body and members and parts of each other. (Romans 12:5). Let us not be in relation to one another as divided. Let no one say so-and-so to me, not a friend, not a relative, not a neighbor; I have nothing to do with it: how do I approach it? How to start a conversation? Even if he is not a relative, not a friend to you, he is still a man, of the same nature as you, has one Lord, a co-servant, a cohabitant, because he lives in the same world with you. And if it still contains one faith, then it is your member. What kind of friendship can produce such unity as the affinity of faith? We must show not such closeness, not such communion with each other, as friends with friends, but as members with members. No one will ever find any other higher friendship and fellowship than this. You can't say, "Where do I get my intimacy and connection with so-and-so," just as you can't say that about your brother, because that would be ridiculous. "We were all baptized into one body," it is said (1 Cor. 12:13). Why "into one body"? In order not to be divided, but to preserve the bond of the whole body by mutual agreement and friendship. Therefore, let us not despise one another, lest we despise ourselves, for it is said: "No man ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and warms it" (Ephesians 5:29). For this purpose, God has given us one house – this world; He divided everything equally: He kindled the sun for all, He spread out one shelter – the sky; He arranged one meal – the earth; He also gave another meal, which is much more important than this one, but also one: the partakers of the sacrament know what I am saying; He gave everyone one spiritual form of birth; we all have one fatherland in heaven; we all drink from the same cup. Neither to the rich did He give anything greater and more precious, nor to the poor anything less and of little value; but He called all equally, and communicated both carnal and spiritual (goods) equally. Why is there such inequality in life? From the covetousness and arrogance of the rich. But, brethren, let it not be in the future. Since we have something in common and most necessary, which unites us into one, let us not be divided because of earthly and insignificant deeds - I mean wealth, poverty, carnal kinship, enmity, friendship. All this is a shadow, and even more insignificant is the shadow for those who are united by the bonds of supreme love. Let us keep these bonds indissoluble, and no blasphemous spirit will be able to penetrate into us to destroy such unity. Therefore, may it be in all of us, through the grace and love of mankind of our Lord Jesus Christ, through Whom and with Whom be glory to the Father with the Holy Spirit, now and ever, and unto the ages of ages. Amen.

CONVERSATION 16

"And this is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites out of Jerusalem, to ask him, Who art thou" (John 1:19).

1. A dangerous passion, beloved, is envy; dangerous and disastrous for the envious themselves, and not for those who are envied. First of all, it causes harm and destruction to themselves, like some deadly poison that has penetrated into their souls. And if it ever harms those who are envied, it is a small and insignificant injury, and it also benefits them, much more important than the loss. And so it is not only with envy, but with all other passions: it is not the one who tolerates evil, but the one who does evil who receives harm. Otherwise, if it were not so, Paul would not have impressed upon his disciples that it is better to tolerate injustice than to do it, saying, "Why would it be better for you not to be wronged? why would it be better for you not to endure deprivation" (1 Cor. 6:7)? He knew well that destruction everywhere follows not the one who suffers evil, but the one who does evil. All this I say about the envy of the Jews. People who flocked from the cities to John and, in repentance for their sins, received baptism, - the same ones, after baptism, as if changing their minds again, send to ask him: "Who are you?" Truly are the offspring of vipers, serpents, if not worse than them.

And why he did this, it is worth knowing that the wickedness of the Jews may be evident and obvious to all. John often testified before the Jews about Christ, and when he baptized, he often reminded those who came about Him and said: "I baptize you in water for repentance, but He who comes after me is stronger than I; He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire" (Matt. 3:11). But they showed human weakness in relation to John: having in mind worldly glory and looking at appearances, they thought that it was unworthy of John to submit himself to Christ. John was elevated by many things in their eyes: first, by his noble and noble birth, because he was the son of a high priest; secondly, the austerity of life and contempt for everything human, because he, neglecting clothing, and home, and food itself, had previously spent all his time in the wilderness. In Christ, everything was the opposite, the origin was despised, which the Jews often exposed, saying: "Is he not the son of carpenters? is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers James and Josiah" (Matt. 13:55)? And His imaginary homeland was in such disgrace that Nathanael also said: "Can any good thing come out of Nazareth" (John 1:46)? His way of life was ordinary, with clothes no different from others; He did not wear a leather belt, He did not have a hairshirt, He did not eat honey or locus; He lived like everyone else, was present in the meetings of wicked people and tax collectors, only to attract them. The Jews, not understanding this, reproached Him, as He Himself says: "The Son of Man is come, eating and drinking; and they say, Behold, a man who loveth to eat and drink wine, a friend of publicans and sinners" (Matt. 11:19). And just as John often sent them away from him to Him who, in their opinion, was inferior to him, they, being ashamed and vannoyed at this, and desiring better to have John as their teacher, did not dare to express it openly; but they send an embassy to him, hoping by flattery to dispose him to declare himself Christ. And they do not send any contemptible people to him, as to Christ, when, wishing to seize Him, they sent servants, then Herodians and similar people; but priests and Levites, and priests from Jerusalem, i.e. the most honorable (the Evangelist noted this not without reason). And they send to ask John, "Who art thou?" And yet his birth was known to all, so that all said: "What shall this child be" (Luke 1:66)? – and the rumor about him spread throughout the mountainous country. Again, when he came to the Jordan, the inhabitants of all the cities hurried to him, and from Jerusalem and from all Judea they went to be baptized by him. This, then, is what men now ask, not because they do not know him (how could they not know a man who has become so famous?); But they wanted to bring him to what I said.

2. Listen, then, to how this blessed man answers the very thought with which they asked him, and not to the question itself. When they asked, "Who art thou"? – he did not suddenly say what should have been said: "the voice of one crying in the wilderness" (Mark 1:3). And what? He destroys their assumption - to the question: "Who are you?" He "declared, and did not deny it, and declared that I was not the Christ" (v. 20). Notice the wisdom of the evangelist. Three times he says the same thing, in order to show both the virtue of the Baptist and all the cunning and senselessness of the Jews. Luke also says that when the people assumed that it was not he who was the Christ, they destroyed this assumption. Such is the characteristic of a well-meaning servant, not only not to steal the honor that belongs to the master, but also to reject it, even in such a case when others would offer it. However, the common people came to this assumption from simplicity and ignorance; and they asked him, as I have said, with malicious intent, hoping to lead him by flattery to what they wanted. And if this had not been what they had in mind, they would not have immediately passed on to another question, but would have been vexed that he says something completely different and does not answer the question; They would have said to him, "Do we suppose this? Have you come to ask about this? But as if caught and caught, they pass on to another subject and say: "What then? Are you Elijah? He said, "No." Prophet? He answered, No" (v. 21). They were expecting Elijah to come, just as Christ had said. To the disciples' question: "How then do the scribes say that Elijah must come first"? He said: "Elijah must come first and arrange all things" (Matt. 17:10,11). Then they asked: "prophet"? And he answered, "No." However, he was a prophet. Why did he renounce? Again, because he looked at the goal of those who asked. They were expecting a chosen prophet to come, for Moses had said, "The Lord thy God shall raise up for thee a prophet from among thee, from among thy brethren, like me, and hear him" (Deuteronomy 18:15). And that was Christ. Is that why they don't even say, "prophet"? meaning one of the many prophets, but with the addition: "Are you not the prophet of whom Moses foretold"? That is why he denied – not that he was a prophet, but that he was the (foretold) prophet. "And they said unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to those who sent us, What shalt thou say of thyself" (v. 22). Do you see how they approach and insist even harder, repeat questions and do not lag behind? But John, with meekness, first rejects their false assumptions, and then gives a real idea of himself: "I," he says, "the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Straighten the way of the Lord, as the prophet Isaiah said" (v. 23). Since he has already said something great and lofty about Christ, then, as if in response to their thoughts, he immediately hastens to turn to the prophet and thus confirms his words. "And the messengers were of the Pharisees; And they asked him, Why do you baptize, if you are neither the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the prophet" (vv. 24, 25)? Do you see how wrong I say that this is exactly what they wanted to bring him to? And at first they did not say this, so as not to be subjected to a common reproach from all. Then, when he said, "I am not the Christ," they, wishing to conceal what they were up to in their hearts, pass on to Elijah and to the (promised) prophet. When John said that he was neither one nor the other, they were at last, perplexed, throwing off their masks, and openly exposed their evil plan and said: "Why do you baptize if you are not Christ"? Then, again wishing to cover themselves, they add other persons, Elijah and the prophet. Since they could not shake his honor, they think that by the prosecution they will force him to confess something that did not happen. But they could not do this either. Oh, madness! Oh, arrogance and timeless fussiness! You have been sent to find out from him who he is and where he comes from: do you not want to prescribe laws for him also? And this is precisely what they wanted, forcing him to declare himself Christ. Yet even now he is not indignant, nor does he say anything of the sort, though it would be just, such as, "Do you want me to command and give laws?" But again he shows great meekness. "I baptize in water; but there stands among you [Someone] whom you do not know. He is He who follows me, but He who stands before me. I am not worthy to untie the strap of His shoes" (v. 26, 27).

3. What might the Jews say to this? Here the accusation against them is irrefutable, the condemnation is merciless; they pronounced judgment on themselves. How? They considered John worthy of all faith and so truthful that they believed him not only when he testified about others, but also when he spoke about himself. If they had not had such an opinion of him, they would not have sent to inquire from him about himself. It is known that we believe only those people when they talk about themselves, whom we recognize as the most truthful people. But it is not only this that blocks their mouths, but also the very disposition with which they approached it; they came to him with special zeal, although later they changed. pointing to both, Christ said: "He was a lamp, burning and shining; but you wanted to rejoice a little time in his light" (John 5:35). And John's very answer showed in him even more a man worthy of faith. Whoever does not seek his glory, it is said, is "true, and there is no iniquity in Him" (John 7:18). And he did not seek; but he sent them to another. Meanwhile, those sent were trusted and honorable, so that there was no refuge or justification for their unbelief in Christ. Why did you not accept what John said about Him? You sent your elders, through them you questioned him, you heard what the Baptist answered; they, for their part, showed all their zeal, all their curiosity, and pointed out all the persons whom you supposed in him, and yet he confessed with complete freedom that he was neither Christ, nor Elijah, nor a prophet. Not limiting himself to this, he also said who he himself was talking about the essence of his baptism, namely, that it is unimportant and imperfect, and has nothing in it but water, thus showing the superiority of the baptism granted by Christ. He also added the testimony of Isaiah the prophet a long time before, and called one the Lord, and the other His servant and servant. What was left to do after that? Shall we not believe in Him of whom (John) testified, and worship Him and confess Him to be God? And that this testimony was not a matter of flattery, but of truth, was shown by the temper and wisdom of the witness. This is also understandable because no one prefers his neighbor, and when he can get honor for himself, no one would want to give it to another, especially when the honor is so great. Thus John would not have given such a witness to Christ if He had not been God. If he had rejected this honor from himself, as one that was higher than his nature, he would certainly not have ascribed it to another, inferior being. "There stands among you [Someone] whom you do not know." He said this because (Christ) used to intervene in the crowd of people, as a simple man, and always taught against pride and vanity. And by knowledge here John calls precise knowledge, namely, who He is and whence He comes. And the expression: "He who comes after me" is often used by John, saying, as it were: "Do not think that everything consists in my baptism. If it had been perfect, then another would not have come after me with the establishment of another baptism. And my baptism is only a preparation and indication of the way to that baptism. Our business is a shadow and an image. There must come another person to show the truth." Thus, the words: "He who comes after me" most indicate His worthiness. If (the baptism of John) had been perfect, there would have been no need to seek a second. "He has gone before me," that is, He is more honorable, more glorious than I. And lest it be thought that this superiority is only comparative, then, wishing to show His incomparable dignity, John adds: "I am not worthy to untie the strap of His shoes," i.e., He is not simply "standing before me," but in such a way that I am not worthy to be among even His last servants: to untie shoes is the work of the lowest ministry. If John is not worthy to untie the belt, John, "of those born of women there is not one prophet more," then where are we to place ourselves? If he who is worthy of the whole world, or rather greater than it (for it is said, "of whom the whole world was not worthy"), if he acknowledges himself unworthy to be among His last servants, what shall we, who are burdened with a thousand vices, say, we who are as far removed from the virtue of John as the earth is from heaven?