DISCOURSE I

after reading the passage: "Saul was still breathing threats and murder" (Acts 9:1), when everyone was expecting that a discourse would be said at the beginning of Acts 9 – that Paul's calling was a proof of the resurrection

This and the following three discourses have as their common content the question of changing names

1. Can it be demolished? Is it possible to endure? Our meeting is getting smaller every day. The city is full of people, and the church is empty; the square, the theaters and the portico are full, and the house of God is empty. Or better, if the truth is told, the city is empty, and the church is full of people. People should not be called those who are in the square, but you who are in the church; not those who are careless, but you who are zealous; not those who are addicted to worldly things, but you who prefer spiritual things to worldly things. Not the person who has a human body and voice, but the one who has a human soul and a spiritual mood. And nothing testifies to the human soul so much as love for the word of God; nor does anything so show and denounce a beastlike and foolish soul as disdain for the word of God. Do you want to know that those who neglect to hear the word of God, by this negligence, have lost humanity (τό είναι άνθρωποι), and have lost their very natural dignity? I will not tell you my word, but a prophetic utterance, confirming my thought, so that you may see that those who do not love spiritual words cannot be people, so that you may see that our city is depopulated. The loudest Isaiah, that beholder of wondrous visions, who had been vouchsafed to see the seraphim in the flesh and to hear that mysterious song – he, having entered the populous capital of Judah, that is, Jerusalem, standing in the middle of the square, while all the people surrounded him, wishing to show that he who did not listen to the prophetic words was not a man, cried out thus: "When I came, there was no one, and when I called, Did anyone answer?" (Isaiah 50:2). And to prove that he said this, not because of a complete lack of those present, but because of the carelessness of the hearers, after the words; "When I came, there was no one," added, "no one answered," So there were those present, only they were not counted as present, because they did not listen to the prophet. Therefore, when He came, "when I came, there was no one," He called, and "no one answered," He turned His speech to the elements, and said, "Hear, O heavens, and hearken, O earth" (Isaiah 1:2). I, he says, have been sent to men, to men who have understanding; but since they have neither reason nor feeling, I address my words to the elements that have no feeling, in rebuke of those who are endowed with feeling, but do not use this advantage. This is what another prophet, Jeremiah, says. And he, standing in the midst of the multitude of the Jews, in the same city, as if there were no one, cried out thus: "To whom shall I speak, and whom shall I exhort" (Jeremiah 6:10)? What do you say? When you see so many people, you ask, who should you talk to? Yes, he says, there are many bodies, but not people; many bodies that have no hearing. Wherefore he added, "Their ear is uncircumcised, and they cannot hear." Do you see that all these are non-humans, because they don't hear? This one says, "When I came, there was no one, and when I called, did no one answer?" and this one says, "To whom shall I speak, and whom shall I exhort, for their ears are uncircumcised, and they cannot listen." But if the prophets say that they are not human because they have not listened diligently to the words (of the prophets), what shall we say of those who not only do not hear, but do not want to enter this sanctuary, of those who wander outside this sacred flock, who are far from this mother's house, in the crossroads and alleys, like disorderly and lazy children? And these, having left their father's house, wander somewhere outside, and spend whole days in children's games. From this such children often lose both their freedom and their lives, fall into the hands of kidnappers and thieves, and often, as a punishment for their liberty, they are put to death, because they, having taken them and stripped them of their gold ornaments, either drown them in the waves of the river, or, if they wish to deal with them a little more humanely, take them to a foreign land and deprive them of their freedom. The same happens with those who do not come to church. And they, as soon as they turn away from their father's home and stay here, fall into the mouths of heretics and into the tongues of the enemies of the truth, and these, seizing them as thieves, and taking away from them the golden adornment of the faith, immediately kill them, not throwing them into the river, but immersing them in the murky dogmas of wickedness.

2. It would be your job to take care of the salvation of these brethren and bring them to us, no matter how much they resist, no matter how stubborn, no matter how much they dissuade themselves, no matter how much they are grieved. This stubbornness and negligence are characteristic of the child's soul. But you correct their soul, which is still so imperfect. Your job is to make them be human. Just as we cannot call him a man who abhors human food and eats thorns and grass with cattle, so we cannot call him a man who does not love the true and proper soul of human food, i.e. the word of God, but sits in worldly gatherings and gatherings, where there is always an abyss of depravity, and feeds on impious speech. Man, in our opinion, is not one who only eats bread, but who, preferentially before this food, partakes of divine and spiritual words. And (to make sure) that this is a man, listen to Christ, who says: "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God" (Matt. 4:4). Therefore the food (necessary for) our life is twofold: one is worse, the other is better; and it is necessary most of all to accept the latter, in order both to nourish the soul and not to allow it to be tormented by hunger. You should make our city full of people. Since this great and populous city has been depopulated, you should have done this good to your fatherland, by drawing your brethren (here), telling them what you have heard here. In fact, we also certify that we have eaten the table, not when we only praise the table, but when we can also give some of the viands that were at it to those who have not eaten it. Do this now, and then one of two things will certainly happen: either you will persuade them to return to us, or, if they remain obstinate, they will be nourished by your tongue, or rather, they will return (here) without fail. They will not want to feed on alms, while they can rightfully partake of this fatherly meal. I firmly hope and believe that you are doing this, or have already done it, or will do it, because I myself have constantly suggested it, and you are enriched with knowledge and can admonish others also. Now is the time to offer you our meal, of course, insignificant, meagre and very poor, with a beautiful seasoning, with your zeal for listening. It is not only the high cost of food that makes the meal most pleasant, but also the hunger of those who are invited: in this way, a splendid meal is scanty when guests come without hunger, and a poor woman seems rich when hungry people sit down to it. For this reason, another someone, knowing that the dearness of a meal is judged not by the quality of the food, but by the disposition of the guests, says this: "A well-fed soul tramples on even a honeycomb, but to a hungry soul all bitter things are sweet" (Proverbs 27:7), not because the very quality of the food offered changes, but because the disposition of the guests takes away their taste. But if the bitter things of those who are called from hunger seem sweet, how much more does the meagre seem rich. Wherefore we, too, though exceedingly poor, imitate the rich founders of feasts, inviting you to our table in every assembly. And we do this, not relying on our own wealth, but being sure of the abundance of your attention.

3. We have paid you all the debt regarding the inscription, i.e., the inscription of the Acts of the Apostles. It would be better now to take up the beginning of this book and say what it means: "The first book I wrote to you, Theophilus, concerning all that Jesus did and taught from the beginning" (Acts 1:1). But Paul does not allow me to observe this order, who calls our tongue to himself and to his exploits. I want to see him led to Damascus, bound not with an iron chain, but with the voice of the Lord; one would like to see how this great fish was caught, which brought the whole sea to boil, raised thousands of waves on the Church; I want to see it caught, not by milking, but by the word of the Lord. Like a fisherman, sitting on a high rock, and lifting up his rod, he lowers the rod from above into the sea; so our Lord, Who opened the spiritual trap, as if sitting on a high stone of heaven, lowered this voice from above, like a rod, and said: "Saul, Saul! why persecute me?" (Acts 4:4), and thus caught this great fish. And what happened to that fish, which, by the command of the Lord, Peter caught, also happened to this one. And this fish had a stater in its mouth – only an unclean stater, because (Paul) had jealousy, "but not according to reasoning" (Romans 10:2). Therefore, God, having given him (true) knowledge, made this coin real; and what happens to caught fish, so it was with Paul. As soon as they are taken out of the sea, they become blind; so this one, as soon as he took the rod and was extracted, immediately went blind. But this blindness made the whole universe see clearly. I want to see all this. For if war with foreigners befell us, and the enemies, taking up arms, greatly disturbed us; then the leader of the foreigners, who plotted a thousand plots, who threw all our affairs into disorder, who stirred up confusion and agitation everywhere, who threatened to destroy and burn the city itself, and to lead us into captivity, if he were suddenly bound by our king and brought captive into the city, we would all, with our wives and children, run out to such a spectacle. And now, as war began, when the Jews were stirring up and disordering everything, and plotting many plots against the safety of the Church, and the head of the enemy was Paul, who did and spoke more than anyone else, agitated and stirred up everything; and now, as our Lord Jesus Christ our King has bound him,

Thus they rejoiced, not because they saw him blind, but because they thought how many he would lead out of darkness. Go, said the Lord, to the Gentiles, and having freed them from darkness, bring them into the kingdom of Christ's love (Acts 26:17,18). That is why I, having left the beginning (of the book of Acts), hasten to pass to the middle of it. Paul and my love for Paul made me take that leap. Yes, Paul and love for Paul! Forgive me, or better, don't forgive me, but compete with me in this love. Whoever loves with impure love has reason to ask forgiveness; but whoever loves with such love (as I am) must show it off, must make many accomplices of this disposition, and arouse in thousands (people) a similar love of his. Moreover, if it were possible (for us), walking (straight) path and stretching forward in order, to say also what (in the book of Acts is placed) first, and to reach what is in the middle of it, we would not immediately pass to the middle, leaving the beginning; but since the law of the Fathers commands that after Pentecost this book should be laid aside, and with the end of this feast the reading of the book should cease, I feared lest, while we dwell on the explanation of the beginning (of the book), further history might escape our consideration. Therefore, I departed from the beginning of the story, and, holding on to the introduction of the story, as if behind your head, I told you to stop and stand at the beginning of the path. Touching the head of the story, I will boldly consider everything else, although the holiday will pass. No one will then accuse us of being untimely, because the very necessity of consistency will save us from the accusation of inopportuneness. That is why I have passed from the introduction to the middle. And that it was impossible to reach Paul by walking the (straight) path, but that this book (Acts Apostolic) would rather flee from our tongue and shut the doors before us, I will show you from the very introduction, although this is already clear by itself.

4. In fact, if we spent half of the feast [1] reading and expounding only one inscription (the Book of the Acts of the Apostles), then when we were to begin with the introduction and let the word go into the very sea of the book, how much time would we use to reach the stories about Paul? Better yet, I'll try to find out for you from the introduction itself. "I wrote the first book to you, Theophilus" (Acts 1:1). How many questions do you think there are? First: why (Ev. Luke) reminds him (Theophilus) of his first book (the Gospel). Secondly, why does he call (this book) the word (λόγος) and not the Gospel, whereas Paul calls it the Gospel, when he speaks of Luke thus: "A brother who is praised in all churches for preaching the gospel" (2 Corinthians 8:18). Third, why does he say, "all that Jesus did and taught." If John, that beloved of Christ, who had such boldness, who was vouchsafed to bow down to that holy breast, drew the fountains of the Spirit from there, if he did not dare to say it, but was so careful that he said, "Many other things did Jesus do; but if I were to write about these things in detail, I think the world itself would not contain the books that were written" (John 21:25), then how did this (Luke) dare to say: "The first book I wrote to you, Theophilus, about all that Jesus did and taught from the beginning"? Does this question seem unimportant to you? Moreover, there (in the Gospel it is said): "Venerable Theophilus" (Luke 1:3), a name with an adjective honorific. And the saints did not just say so, and it seems that we have already partially proved that in the Scriptures not a single iota, not a single feature is used in vain. So, if there are so many questions in the introduction, how much time would it take us to look at everything in order? That is why I had to go to Paul, having passed the interval (i.e. from the beginning of Acts 1 to Acts 9). Why, then, have we, having proposed questions, not added solutions to them? In order to accustom you not only to eat food that has been chewed, but also to invent a solution to thoughts, as doves do. And they feed their young, as long as they remain in the nest, from their mouths; and when they have time to bring them out of their nest, and see that their wings have grown, they do it no more, but bring the grain in their mouths and show it (to the children), and as the chicks that have waited (for food) come close, the mothers, leaving the food on the ground, order them to pick it up themselves. Thus did we: taking spiritual food on our lips, we invited you, as if we wanted to present to you, according to custom, a solution; And when you came and hoped to receive, We left (you) to choose your own thoughts. Thus, leaving the introduction, we hasten to Paul. And let us speak not only about how much benefit he brought to the church, but also about how much harm, because it is necessary to tell us about this as well. Let us say how he opposed the word of preaching, how he fought with Christ, how he persecuted the apostles, how he nourished hostile designs, how he disturbed the Church most of all. But let no one be ashamed to hear this of Paul: it is not for accusation, but for his praise. It would be shameful for him not that he was evil before became good, but if he, having been good before, then went over to the side of evil: deeds are always judged by their end. And of the helmsmen, though they suffer a thousand wrecks before they have time to come to the harbor, we do not speak ill of them, when they bring a ship filled with cargo, because the end has covered the past. And the wrestlers, even if they have been defeated a thousand times before, if only they win the struggle for the crown, we, because of previous defeats, do not deprive them of the praise that follows such a victory. Let us do the same with regard to Paul. And he, although he suffered innumerable shipwrecks, yet when he came to the harbor, he brought a ship full of cargo. As it did not profit Judas in the least that he was formerly a disciple and then became a traitor, so it did not harm this (Paul) in the least that he was formerly a persecutor, and afterwards became an evangelist. This is to the praise of Paul, not because he destroyed the church, but because he built it up again; not because he opposed the word (sermon), but because after he had opposed the word, he himself spread it again; not because he persecuted the apostles, not because he scattered the flock (of Christ), but because, having scattered the flock, afterwards he himself gathered it.

5. What could be more surprising than that? The wolf became a shepherd; He who drank in the blood of the sheep began to shed his own blood for the salvation of the sheep! Do you want to know how he drank in the blood of sheep, how bloody his tongue was? "And Saul was still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord" (Acts 9:1). But this one who breathes threat and murder, and sheds the blood of the saints, listen to how he shed his blood for the saints. "According to the reasoning of men," he says, "when I wrestled with the beasts at Ephesus" (1 Corinthians 15:32), and again, "I die every day" (v. 31), and again, "they reckoned us as sheep doomed to the slaughter" (Romans 8:36). And this was said by him who was present when Stephen's blood was shed, and who approved of his murder (Acts 7:58,8:1). Do you see how the wolf became a shepherd? So are you ashamed to hear that he (Apostle Paul) was formerly a persecutor, a blasphemer, and an offender (1 Timothy 1:13)? Do you see how the former guilt served to glorify him more? Did I not tell you in the preceding congregation that the miracles after the cross were greater than the miracles before the cross? Did He not prove to you, both by miracles and by goodness (εύνοιας) the disciples, how Christ formerly raised the dead by command, and afterwards the shadow of His servants did this? How then did He Himself work miracles with a word, and then His servants performed great miracles in His name? Have I not told you about the enemies (of Jesus Christ), how He frightened their consciences, how He subdued the whole world to Himself? How were the miracles after the cross greater than the miracles before the cross? – Today's word is akin to the word of that time. In fact, what miracle can be greater than the one that was performed on Paul? Peter denied the living Jesus, and Paul confessed the dead. And to attract and conquer Paul's soul was more than to raise the dead with a shadow. There nature obeyed, and did not contradict the commander, here it was necessary to subdue the free will, which has power and does not obey: therefore great is the power of Him who subdued. To change the will was much more important than to correct nature, therefore, the fact that Paul turned to Christ after the cross and the tomb was a miracle, more than all other miracles. For this reason Christ allowed him to show all enmity, and then called him in order to make undoubted the proof of the resurrection and the word of (Christian) teaching. Peter, for example, might have been suspected when he spoke of Christ, because some of the shameless people might have said something (against him). I said, "Of the shameless," because even there the proof was clear. And he (Peter) first denied Christ, and denied with an oath; but afterwards he confessed the same (Christ) and gave up his life for Him. And if Christ had not risen, then the one who denied the living would not have endured a thousand deaths in order not to renounce the dead. That is why Peter also presented a clear proof of the resurrection. However, the shameless could say that since he was a disciple (of Jesus Christ), had fellowship with Him at the table, and spent three years with Him, because he used His teaching, and, deceived by Him, fell into deception, he preached about His resurrection. But when you see that Paul, who did not see Christ, did not listen to Him, did not use His teaching, fought against Him even after the cross, put to death those who believe in Him, stirred up all things and threw things into disorder, (when you see that) he was suddenly changed, and by the labors of preaching surpassed all the friends of Christ, what excuse will you have for shamelessness, not believing the doctrine of the resurrection? If Christ had not risen, who would have attracted and brought to Himself such a cruel and inhuman, inflamed with enmity and enraged like a beast? Tell me, Jew, who made Paul turn to Christ? Peter? Jacob? John? But they all feared and trembled at him, and not only before his conversion, but also when he became one of the friends (of Christ), when Barnabas took him by the hand and brought him to Jerusalem, and then they were afraid to come to him; The war had already ceased, but fear was still on the apostles. And so, those who were still afraid of him, even when he had changed, dared to persuade him when he was an enemy and an adversary? Could they even draw near, or stand, or open their mouths, and even appear? No, no; This was not a matter of human effort, but of divine grace. If, then, Christ, as you say, was dead, and His disciples came and stole Him, how greater were the miracles after the cross? Which is the stronger proof of power? Christ not only changed his enemy and the supreme leader of your war, though if he had done this alone, it would have been the work of the greatest power to take the enemy and the enemy captive, but he has done not only this, but much more than this: he has not only changed (Paul), but has made him so close to himself, so disposed to love himself, that He entrusted to him even all the works of the Church: "a vessel," says the Lord, "to declare My name before nations and kings" (Acts 9:15), and forced him to labor more than the Apostles for the Church against which he had previously fought.

6. Do you want to know how (Christ) changed him, how He made him close, how He drew him to Himself, how He placed him among the first of His friends? He did not deign to reveal such secrets to any of the people as He did to Paul. Where does this come from? "I have heard," says Paul (of himself), "words that cannot be uttered to man" (2 Corinthians 9:4). Do you see what love the enemy has shown? Therefore, it is necessary to tell his former life: this will show us both love for mankind and the power of God, love for mankind, because God wanted to save and draw him to Himself who had done so much evil, and power, because, having willed, He was able. This will also show us the soul of Paul, i.e. that he did nothing out of stubbornness, or out of passion for human glory, as the Jews did, but (he did everything) out of zeal, of course, not right, but still out of zeal, about which he himself cried thus: "For this he was pardoned, because he did so in ignorance, in unbelief" (1 Timothy 1:13). And, marveling at God's love for mankind, he said: "For this reason have I also received mercy, that Jesus Christ may first show in me all patience, as an example to those who believe in Him unto eternal life" (v. 16). And in another place he again said that God "showed the greatness of His might" especially "in us who believe" (Ephesians 1:19). Do you see how Paul's former life showed both love for mankind, and the power of God, and the sincerity of Paul's own disposition? In his Epistle to the Galatians, he also cited this as proof that he was not changed for the sake of men, but that the power of God had converted him. "If I were to please men even now," he says, "I would not be a servant of Christ" (Galatians 1:10). Whence then is it evident that thou hast received the preaching (of Christ) not out of pleasing men? "Ye have heard of my former way of life in Judaism, that I persecuted the church of God with cruelty, and devastated it" (v. 13). But he would not have turned to faith if he had wanted to please people. Why? He was revered by the Jews, enjoyed great peace, and enjoyed special respect; consequently, he would not have passed (from pleasing people) to the life of the apostles, covered with disgrace, full of misfortunes. Thus, this sudden abandonment of honor from the Jews and a quiet life, and the transition to the life of the apostles, associated with a thousand deaths, is the strongest proof that Paul was not converted by any human calculation. For this reason we also wanted to present his former life, and to show with what zeal he burned against the Church, so that when you see his great care for the Church, you would revere God, Who creates and transforms everything. That is why the disciple of Paul (the Evangelist Luke) accurately and very eloquently told us about his former (deeds) in the following words: "Saul, while still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord." I would like to begin today the introduction (to the life of Paul), I would like to begin the beginning of the story (about Paul), but I see in one name a sea of thoughts. Consider, indeed, what question this name Saul immediately gives rise to us. In the Epistles, I see, another name is used: "Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, a called Apostle" (Romans 1:1); "Paul, called by the will of God an Apostle of Jesus Christ" (1 Corinthians 1:1); "Behold, I, Paul, say unto you" (Galatians 5:2). Both here and everywhere he is called Paul, and not Saul. Why was he formerly called Saul, and afterwards called Paul? This is not an empty question: now Peter also appears, and he was formerly called Simon, and afterwards he was called Cephas; and the sons of Zebedee, James and John, were renamed sons of thunder (Mark 3:16,17). And not only in the new, but also in the Old Testament we find that Abraham was formerly called Abram, and then Abraham; Jacob was first called Jacob, and then Israel, and Sarah was formerly called Sarah, and then Sarah. In short, the change of names prompts us to greater research, and I am afraid lest, having sent forth many streams of rivers, I may drown the word of teaching. Just as in the damp earth, wherever you dig, springs run everywhere, so in the land of the Divine Scriptures, wherever you begin to dig, many rivers will flow out, and therefore it is very frightening to let all these rivers flow out of the blue. Therefore, having blocked our flow, I will send your love to the sacred source of these primates and teachers [2] – to this pure, intoxicating and sweet spring, which comes from the very spiritual stone [3]. Let us prepare our minds to receive the teaching, to drink ourselves with spiritual streams, so that the fountain of water flowing into eternal life may be opened in us, which we may all receive through the grace and love of our Lord Jesus Christ, through Whom and with Whom be glory, honor and dominion to the Father, with the holy and life-giving Spirit, now and ever, and unto the ages of ages. Amen.

[1] By feast is meant all the time from the day of Pascha to the day of the Descent of the Holy Spirit. Spirit.

[2] This refers to the bishops of Syria, who came to Antioch, the capital of Syria, either on diocesan business, or to listen to the famous preacher, St. Chrysostom.

[3] I.e., Christ, 1 Corinthians 10:4.

DISCOURSE II