Беседа 6

Conversation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Rom 2.17–18. Behold, you are called a Jew, and you rest on the law, and you boast in God, and you understand the will, and you reason better, we teach from the law. Having said that to save a pagan, if he is a doer of the law, nothing more is needed, and having finished his amazing comparison, the apostle finally points out the advantages of the Jews, which they were proud of over the pagans. First of all, the very name of a Jew, like now the name of a Christian, was very respectable, since even then the difference between people depended on the name, which is why the apostle begins his speech with this. And notice how he destroys this (advantage); he did not say: you are a Jew, but says: “you are called... and boast about God,” that is, you are loved by God and preferred to other people. And I think that here he is slightly ridiculing the arrogance and insane ambition of the Jews, because they took advantage of this gift of God not for their own salvation, but in order to start discord and despise other people. “And you understand the will, and you reason better.” Of course, this was also a disadvantage if it was not confirmed by deeds, but nevertheless it seemed to the Jews that this was an advantage, which is why the apostle clearly points out this. But he didn’t say – you do it, but: “You understand... and you reason”, but you yourself do not follow and do not fulfill it. Rom.2:19. The leader who trusts himself to be blind. Again, here he did not say: you are a guide to the blind, but he says: “having confidence,” you boast about this, because the arrogance of the Jews was truly great. Therefore, the apostle expresses himself in almost the same words that the Jews used in their glory. Look, for example, what they say about themselves in the Gospel: “You were born entirely in sins, and did you teach us” (John 9.34)? They were very proud in front of everyone. Paul persistently exposed this, praising some and humiliating others, in order to thus reproach them more strongly and increase the accusation. That’s why he continues, reinforcing the same idea and supporting it with various expressions: Rom.2:19–20. trusting himself to be the leader of being blind, a light in darkness, a punisher for the insane, a teacher for the child, having the image of reason and truth in the law. Again he did not say: in conscience, in deeds and in justifications, but: “in the law.” As the apostle did when denouncing the pagans, so he does here. As he said there: “For if you judge a friend, you condemn yourself” (Rom. 2:1), so here he says: Rom.2:21. When you teach others, don’t you teach yourself? However, there he uses a harsher expression, but here he uses a lighter one. He did not say: you are worthy of great punishment because, while so much was handed to you, you did not use anything as you should; but, presenting his thought in the form of a question, he turns and says: “When you teach others, do you not teach yourself?” Notice Paul's wisdom in another way as well. He lists the advantages of the Jews that did not depend on their zeal, but constitute a gift from above, and proves that these advantages, due to the negligence of the Jews, are not only unnecessary for them, but also bring an increase in punishment. To be called a Jew, to receive the law and everything else that the apostle has now listed does not constitute their merit, but is a gift of grace from above. And although at the beginning he said that hearing the law alone, if the fulfillment is not added, does not bring any benefit, for “those who do not hear... the law,” he says, “are righteous before God” (Rom. 2:13), but now he proves something much more, namely, that not only hearing, but what is more important, the teaching of the law itself will not help the student if he does not do what he teaches, and not only will not help, but will even incur greater punishment. And how skillfully the apostle uses expressions. After all, he did not say: you have received the law, but: “you rest on the law” (Rom. 2:17). The Jew did not labor, going everywhere and asking what he should do, but he was comfortable with the law, indicating the path that led to virtue. If the pagans had a natural mind, which was their advantage, since they did everything without listening to the law, then there (the Jews) there was more convenience. And if you say: “I not only listen, but also teach,” then this only serves to increase the punishment. And since the Jews were much proud of this, the apostle proves that they are mainly worthy of ridicule because of this. When he says: “the leader... to the blind... punisher of fools, teacher of children” (Rom. 2:19-20), then depicts the arrogance of the Jews, because they treated converts from paganism very poorly and called them by similar names. Therefore, the apostle points out at length what the Jews themselves praised, knowing that everything said serves to further accuse them. “Having the form of understanding and truth in the law” (Rom. 2:20). This is similar to how someone, having a royal image, cannot write anything on it, and those who do not have it, even without a model, faithfully imitate it. So, having spoken about the advantages that the Jews received from God, (the apostle) speaks of their shortcomings, of which the prophets accused them, and depicts them as follows: Rom.2:21–22. When you teach others, don’t you teach yourself? Preaching not to steal, steal: the verb is not to commit adultery, commit adultery: abhorring the idol, stealing the saint. Although you (the Jews) were strictly forbidden to touch the property belonging to the churches of idols, as defilement, the passion of the love of money forced you, says (the apostle), to break this law. After this (the apostle) sets out the most serious guilt of the Jews, saying: Rom.2:23. Those who boast in the law are dishonored by transgressing the law of God. He presented two wines, or more correctly, three. The Jews dishonor, they dishonor with what is assigned to their honor, they dishonor the One who gave them honor, and this is the height of extreme ingratitude. But so that they would not think that (the apostle) was accusing the Jews on his own, he put them up as an accuser of the prophet, now Isaiah, who in a few words and generally exposed them in their main vice, and then David, who revealed their guilt in detail and with greater evidence. It is not I who reproach you for this, says (Paul), but listen to what Isaiah said: Rom.2.24. For the name of God is blasphemed by you among the nations (Isaiah 52.5). Here are two more charges. They, he says, not only insult God themselves, but also lead others to do so. So, what good is learning if you don't teach yourself? But (the apostle) already spoke about this above, but here he turned to the opposite. You do not teach not only yourself, but also others what you should do; and, worst of all, you not only do not teach to live according to the law, but you teach the opposite, teach to blaspheme God, which is contrary to the law. But circumcision is important, says (the Jew). I agree, but it is important when it is accompanied by internal circumcision. And pay attention to the prudence (of the apostle), how well-timed he started talking about circumcision. He didn't talk about it at first because it was held in great esteem. But when he has proven that the Jews have offended God in the most important way and are guilty of blasphemy, when the listener himself was ready to accuse them and deprive them of primacy, then he begins to talk about circumcision, hoping that no one will condemn him, and says: Rom.2:25. Circumcision is of benefit if you keep the law. Of course, circumcision could be rejected in other ways, for example, by asking: what is circumcision? Is this not the merit of the circumcised? Doesn't this constitute evidence of his good will? But after all, it is performed at an immature age, then many who lived in the desert remained uncircumcised, and also from many other examples it can be seen that circumcision was not very necessary. But, however, (the apostle) does not reject circumcision with these arguments, but with the example of Abraham, which is primarily what should have happened. After all, this was the triumph of victory, in order to prove the insignificance of circumcision thereby, for which it was respected by the Jews. Although (Paul) could say that the prophets also call the Jews uncircumcised, this was not a shortcoming of circumcision itself, but of those who abused it. But it was necessary to prove that circumcision has no power even in a virtuous life. This is finally revealed (the apostle). And here he does not yet cite the patriarch as an example, but, having first refuted circumcision with other arguments, leaves him (the patriarch) for later, when he talks about faith, saying: “How then is faith imputed to Abraham? Am I circumcised or uncircumcised? (Rom 4.10). (The Apostle) for now contrasts circumcision with pagan uncircumcision and does not want to say anything else, so that it would not be too offensive (to the Jew); and when he considers circumcision in relation to faith, then he attacks it more strongly. Of course, while the contrast between circumcision and uncircumcision is proposed, (the apostle) expresses himself lightly and says: For circumcision is of benefit if you do the law; if you are a transgressor of the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision. Here (the apostle) speaks of two circumcisions and two uncircumcisions, just as he admits two laws. There is natural law and there is written law; but there is also a middle ground between both - the law of works. Look how (the apostle) shows and reveals all these three laws. He says: “When the Gentiles had no law” - what law, tell me? - written law - “they create the lawful by nature” - according to what law? - according to the law that is revealed in deeds - “he does not have this law” - which one? – written – “they are a law unto themselves” – how is that? - using the natural law - “those who demonstrate lawful deeds” - what law? – the law of works (Rom. 2:14–15). One law, namely the one that is in writing, is external, the other, which is given by nature, is internal, and the third is revealed in deeds. The first is communicated by writing, the second by nature, and the third by deeds. It is this third law that is needed, for it the first two are given - natural and written; if it does not exist, then there is no benefit in those, even the greatest harm comes from them. This is exactly what the apostle proves when he speaks of the natural law: “For if you judge a friend, you condemn yourself” (Rom. 2:1), and about the written law: “When you preach, do not steal, but you steal” (Rom. 2:22). Likewise, there are two uncircumcisions, one natural and the other moral. And one circumcision is performed on the flesh, and the other depends on the will. For example, I say that someone is circumcised on the eighth day, this is carnal circumcision; and when I say that someone has fulfilled everything that has been lawful, then this is circumcision of the heart, which is primarily what Paul requires, or rather, the law itself. So, you see how (the apostle), having allowed circumcision in words, destroys in deeds. He did not say that circumcision is unnecessary, useless, unsuitable, but what exactly does he say? “Circumcision is of benefit if you keep the law.” He accepted circumcision for now, saying: I agree, I don’t argue that circumcision is a good thing, but when? When you keep the law too. “If you are a transgressor of the law, your circumcision will not be circumcision.” And here he did not say: it no longer brings any benefit, so that they would not think that he was destroying circumcision; but, having first freed the Jew from circumcision, he then strikes him, so that now the reproach falls not on circumcision, but on the one who lost it through negligence. Just as judges first deprive those who are in the ranks and are then convicted of the most important crimes of their ranks, and then punish them, so Paul did (with the Jew). Having said: “Even if you are a transgressor of the law,” he added: “Your circumcision is uncircumcision,” and having proven that he is uncircumcised, he finally fearlessly pronounces judgment on him. Rom.2:26. If uncircumcision preserves the justification of the law, will not uncircumcision be counted as circumcision? Look what (the apostle) does: he does not say that uncircumcision is superior to circumcision - this would have been very regrettable for his listeners of that time - but he says that uncircumcision has become circumcision. Then he considers what circumcision is and what uncircumcision is, and says that circumcision is a good deed, but uncircumcision is a bad deed. Then the uncircumcised one who has good works is included in the concept of circumcision, and the circumcised one who is in a wicked life is excluded from circumcision, thus giving priority to the uncircumcised. And he no longer speaks about the uncircumcised man, but goes on to the action itself - uncircumcision, saying this: “Will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision?” Again, here he did not say: it is recognized, but: “it will be counted ... as circumcision,” which is much more expressive; Likewise, he did not say above: “your circumcision is counted as uncircumcision,” but: “it became... uncircumcision” (Rom. 2:25). Rom.2:27. And the hedgehog will condemn uncircumcision by nature, Do you see that the apostle meant two uncircumcisions, one natural and the other voluntary? Here, of course, he talks about the natural, but does not stop there, but continues: You who do the law, you who are the transgressor of the law by the Scripture and by circumcision. Notice the very subtle understanding of the apostle. He did not say that circumcision is condemned by natural uncircumcision, but where there was an advantage of circumcision, he also speaks of uncircumcision, and where there was insufficiency of it, he shows that it is not circumcision itself that is overcome, but the Jew who has circumcision, avoiding offending the listener with a word. He also did not say: he will condemn you, who have the law and circumcision, but he expresses himself even more leniently: “you who are a transgressor of the law by the Scripture and by circumcision,” that is, natural uncircumcision protects circumcision, because it is desecrated, and helps the law, because it is broken. This is what a wonderful trophy he sets up - since the victory then should be more brilliant when a Jew is condemned not by a Jew, but by an uncircumcised one, as Christ once said: “The men of Nineveh will arise... and condemn... this generation” (Matthew 12.41). So, (the apostle) does not humiliate the law (on the contrary, he respects it very much), but the violator of the law. Then, when (the apostle) had clearly revealed this, he boldly finally defines what a Jew is, and shows that he does not reject either the Jew or the circumcision, but rejects the one who is not a Jew or uncircumcised. And it seems that on the one hand he defends circumcision, and on the other hand he refutes the understanding of it, basing his verdict on experience. He proves that not only is there nothing in common between a Jew and an uncircumcised person, but even an uncircumcised person, if he is attentive to himself, is superior to a Jew, and he is precisely a true Jew. Therefore he says: Rom.2:28. neither is there the same thing as a Jew, nor is there a thing in the flesh that is circumcision. Here he strikes the Jews as doing everything for show. Rom.2:29. But the Jew is in secret, and the circumcision of the heart is by the Spirit, not by Scripture. Having said this, (the apostle) rejected everything carnal. And external circumcision, and the Sabbath, and sacrifices, and cleansing - he meant all this under one expression, saying: “There is no such thing as a Jew” (Rom. 2:28). But since they (the Jews) primarily talked about circumcision, to which the Sabbath was inferior, then (the apostle), naturally, he spreads more about it. Having said: “circumcision of the heart in the spirit,” (the apostle) thereby paves the way for church life and introduces faith, since believing with the heart and spirit has praise from God. And why did (the apostle) not say that a virtuous Greek is no less than a virtuous Jew, but says that a virtuous Greek is better than a Jew who breaks the law? To make victory certain. As is soon admitted (said by the apostle), circumcision of the flesh is necessarily rejected, and it becomes clear that life is needed everywhere. When a Greek is saved without this (without rituals), and a Jew is punished even with rituals, then Judaism becomes abolished. And by Greek (the apostle) he does not mean an idolater, but a pious and virtuous person, freed from legal rites. Rom 3.1. What does the Jew lack? Since (the apostle) rejected everything - hearing, teaching, the name of the Jew, circumcision and everything else, saying that he is not a Jew who is such outwardly, but he is a Jew who is such inwardly (Rom. 2.28), he foresees the naturally arising objection and refutes it. What kind of objection is this? If, they say, there is no benefit in this, then why were the people called and circumcision given? What does (the apostle) do and how does he resolve the objection? The same way he decided the previous ones. Just as he did not place anything higher in praise of the Jews, but in everything he saw God’s blessings, and not their merits, because to be called a Jew, to understand the will, to reason about the best - all this was given to them not by merit, but by God’s grace - for which the Prophet reproached the Jews, saying: “Do not do this to every tongue, and do not show your destiny to them” (Ps. 147.9), as well as Moses, saying: ask whether it was according to this word, that “the people heard the voice of God alive... from the midst of the fire,” and remained alive (Deut. 5.26), - the (apostle) does the same here. Just as when they were talking about circumcision, he did not say that circumcision does not bring any benefit without life, but, revealing the same thing and only expressing it less sharply, he says that circumcision brings benefit along with deeds, and again: “if you are a transgressor ... of the Law ...”, he did not add: circumcision does not bring you any benefit, but is expressed like this: “your circumcision was not circumcision” (Rom. 2:25), and then again he says that What is condemned by uncircumcision is not the circumcision itself, but the transgressor of the law - sparing, on the one hand, the law, and on the other, attacking people - and so he does here. Having objected to himself and said: “What has the Jew lost?” - He gave an answer to this not in the negative, but in the affirmative, and with what he said later he refuted this and proved that the Jews were punished for such an advantage. How? I will explain this by presenting the objection itself. Rom 3.1–2. What does the Jew lack, or what is the benefit of circumcision? Many, according to every image: first... as if entrusted with the... word of God. Do you notice that, as I said above, (the apostle) does not count the merits (of the Jews), but the blessings of God? What do the words mean: “entrusted to the former?” That they were given the law because God considered them so worthy that He entrusted to them the predictions proclaimed from above. And I know that some attribute the expression “it was entrusted” not to the Jews, but to the word (of God), that is, the law was made an object of faith; but what follows does not allow one to think so. Firstly, (the apostle) says this, accusing the Jews and showing that although they received many benefits from above, they showed great ingratitude. Then this can be seen from what follows. (The Apostle) added: Rom.3:3–4. What if you don’t have faith? And if they did not believe, then how can some say that the word (of God) became an object of faith? So, what does (the apostle) say? That which God entrusted to them (His word), and not that they believed the word. Otherwise, what is the meaning of what follows? After all, (the apostle) added: “What if you don’t believe?” The same thing is clear from what (the apostle said) after this, namely he says: food... unbelief will destroy their faith in God? It won't happen. So, what was entrusted to them, (the apostle) declares to be the gift of God. Pay attention to the prudence (of Paul) in this case too. He again presents their accusation not from himself, but as if in the form of an objection, and speaks as follows: but perhaps you will ask, what is the benefit of this circumcision? The Jews themselves did not make proper use of it; the law was entrusted to them, but they did not believe. And at first (the apostle) does not attack them strongly, but as soon as he begins to justify God from reproaches, he turns all his accusations against them. And why, he says, do you blame God for the fact that they did not believe? And what does this have to do with God? Does the ingratitude of those blessed by God destroy His blessing? Or does it turn honor into dishonesty? This is exactly what the words mean: “will food unbelief... destroy their faith in God? Let it not happen." This is the same as if someone said: I showed honor to such and such a person, but if he did not accept the honor, then this is not my fault and this does not offend my philanthropy, but only shows his insensitivity. But Paul says not only this, but something much more, namely, that the unbelief of the Jews not only cannot be blamed on God, but, on the contrary, proves His greatest glory and love for mankind when He clearly shows honor to those who are ready to dishonor Him. Do you see how (the apostle) accused the Jews of the very thing in which they boasted? Although God showed them so much honor that, even foreseeing the future, He did not deprive them of His favor, yet they offended Him who honored them precisely by what they were honored with. Then, since (the apostle) said: what if “some” were unfaithful? - and meanwhile everything turned out to be untrue, so that what was said is not in accordance with reality again does not seem like a strict accuser of the Jews, as if their enemy, he sets out what turned out to be in reality in the form of a general judgment and conclusion, saying this: Let God be true, but every man is a lie. This means the following: I do not claim, says (the apostle), that only some were unfaithful, but, if you wish, admit that all were unfaithful (allowing this almost accomplished fact conditionally, so as not to upset the Jews and not incur their suspicion). However, in this case, God is even more justified. What does it mean: “justified”? If we consider and examine what God did for the Jews, and what was from them in relation to God, then victory will be on the side of God, and all justifications belong to God. And, having clearly proven this by what was said above, (the apostle) then cites the words of the prophet, who confirms his words and says: “For thou shalt be justified in Thy words, and overcome, and never judge Thy” (Ps 50.6). God did everything on His part, but the Jews did not become better because of it. Then (the apostle) presents another objection arising from this and says: Rom.3:5–6. What if our untruth constitutes God's truth? Is it food that God is unrighteous and inflicts wrath? I speak according to the person. It won't happen. (The Apostle) eliminates one irregularity with another. But since this is not clear, it is necessary to say more clearly. So, what is (the apostle) talking about? God honored the Jews, but they insulted Him. But this constitutes His victory and proves His great love for mankind, since He also honored such ungrateful people. And since, says (the Jew), God won and His truth shone out in full splendor due to the fact that we insulted Him and acted unjustly, then why, he says, am I being punished, who became the culprit of His victory precisely because I insulted Him? How does (the apostle) solve this? Another wrong judgment, as I said. If you, he says, became the culprit of God’s victory and are subsequently punished, then this is unjust, and if God is not unjust, but nevertheless punishes you, then you have not yet become the culprit of victory for Him. And pay attention to the apostle’s reverence. Having said: “Does God inflict wrath upon food that is unrighteous?” - added: “I speak according to man.” This is what everyone would say, says (the apostle), reasoning according to human reason; but the righteous judgment of God incomparably exceeds what seems fair to us, and has some other grounds incomprehensible to us. Then, since this was not entirely clear, he says the same thing another time: Rom.3:7. If the truth of God in my lies is abundant to His glory, why am I also condemned as a sinner? After all, if God, he says, appeared to be humane, just and good because you disobeyed Him, then you should not only not be punished, but also receive a reward. And if this is so, then another absurdity will result, repeated by many, namely: that good comes from evil and evil serves as the cause of good. It is necessary to assume one of two things - either God, when he punishes, is unjust, or He receives victory from our evil deeds when He does not punish. But both are extremely absurd. The Apostle, proving this, recognized the Greeks as the founders of such teachings, considering the quality of those who say this sufficient to refute what was said. The pagans of that time, ridiculing us (Christians), precisely said: we will do evil so that good may happen. Therefore (the apostle) clearly stated this, saying this: Rom.3:8. And not as we blaspheme, and as some say, they say to us, that we will do evil, that good may come: and their judgment is righteous. Since Paul taught: “Where... sin abounds, grace abounds” (Rom. 5.20), the pagans, ridiculing him and giving a perverse meaning to his words, said that one must indulge in vices in order to enjoy blessings. But Paul, of course, did not teach this way, so, correcting this, he says: “What else? Shall we continue in sin so that grace may abound? Let it not be” (Rom 6.1). After all, he says (the apostle), I spoke about times past, and not so that we should make this our rule. Rejecting those who are mistaken from such an understanding of his words, (the apostle) said that this, finally, is impossible. How, he says, who died to sin, will we still live in sin (Rom. 6.2)? So, (the apostle) easily denounced the Greeks, because their life was very depraved, and although the life of the Jews was presented in complete disregard, they had great grounds for their justification - the law and circumcision, and also the fact that God talked with them and they were teachers of all people. Therefore (the apostle) deprived them of such protection and even proved that it was precisely because of this that they were being punished - which is what he concluded his speech here. If those who do this, he says, are not punished, then it is necessary to admit the blasphemous position: “let us do evil, that good may come.” And if this is also wicked and if those who say this will be punished (which Paul declared when he said: “theirs... is righteous judgment”), then it is quite clear that sinners are punished; Moreover, if those who say this are worthy of punishment, then much more so are those who do it, and if they are worthy of punishment, then they are worthy as those who have sinned. After all, it is not man who punishes, so that anyone might suspect his sentence, but God, who does everything justly. If they are punished fairly, then they unjustly said what those who ridiculed us said, since God has done and is doing everything so that our life will shine in everything and be perfected everywhere. So, let us not indulge in carelessness; Then we will be able to turn the pagans away from error. If we begin to philosophize in words, but in reality behave indecently, then with what eyes will we look at them? With what mouth shall we speak about dogmas? Then the pagan will say to each of us: “You, having not accomplished little, how can you be worthy of teaching others greater things? Having not yet learned that selfishness is evil, how can you philosophize about heavenly objects? You know what's bad? The greater your guilt is that even though you know it, you sin.” But why does he tell me about the pagan? Our laws, when our life is vicious, do not even allow us to enjoy such freedom. It is said: “But God said to the sinner, ‘Will you tell me all my justifications’” (Ps 49:16)? When the Jews were taken into captivity and the Persians strenuously asked them to sing their sacred songs to them, they answered: “How can we sing the song of the Lord in foreign lands” (Ps 136.4)? If it was impermissible to sing the word of God in a barbarian land, then it is much more impermissible for a barbarian soul, since a cruel soul is barbaric. If the law commands those who were in captivity and became slaves of people in a foreign land to remain silent, then it is much more fair for the slaves of sin and those living someone else’s life to close their mouths. And although the Jews then had organs, as it is said: “on the willows in the midst of both of them are our organs” (Ps 136.2), but even with all this it was impossible to sing. Likewise, we, although we have lips and tongue, these organs of speech, are not allowed to enjoy freedom of speech while we are servile to sin, the most cruel of all barbarians. And tell me, what will you tell a pagan, how soon you yourself become predatory and covetous? Retreat, you say, from idolatry, know God, do not strive for silver and gold. But won’t he laugh and say in response: first teach yourself this; After all, it is not the same thing to worship idols as a pagan and to commit the same sin as a Christian. And how will we be able to turn others away from idolatry, when we ourselves have not moved away from it? After all, we are closer to ourselves than to our neighbors. When we cannot convince ourselves, how will we convince others? He who does not rule his own home well will not take good care of the church. How can one correct others who does not know how to control his soul? Do not tell me that you do not bow to the golden idol, but prove to me that you do not do what the gold commands. After all, there are different types of idolatry: one considers mammon to be his master, another recognizes the womb as God, and the third considers the grossest passion. But you (say) do not sacrifice oxen to them, like the pagans? Is it true. For that you - which is much worse - will sacrifice your soul to them. Do you not kneel and bow before them? But you do with very great humility everything that your womb, and gold, and the dominant passion command you. And the Hellenes are vile precisely because they deified passions, calling lust Aphrodite, rage Ares, drunkenness Dionysus. If you do not make images of idols, like the pagans, then with great zeal you submit to the same passions, making the members of Christ the members of a harlot, desecrating yourself and other iniquities. Therefore, I ask you to avoid idolatry (as Paul calls covetousness), having understood the full importance of this vice - to avoid covetousness not only in money, but also in every evil inclination, in dress, in meals and in everything else. After all, for disobedience to the laws of the Lord, we will be subjected to much more severe punishment, as it is said: “a servant who knows the will of his master, and... having not done... will suffer many scourges” (Luke 12.47). So, in order for us to avoid this punishment and become useful to others and to ourselves, let us strive for virtue, removing all vice from our souls. In this way we will achieve future blessings, which may be given to us all by the grace and love of our Lord Jesus Christ, with whom to the Father and the Holy Spirit be glory, honor, power, now and ever, and unto ages of ages. Amen. You might be interested in: