Беседа 21

Why does Paul praise himself? - Wisdom of Paul. - Against money lovers. - You need to give alms generously. - Using church property for the needs of the poor. 1 Corinthians 9:1. Am I not an Apostle? Am I not free? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? Are you not my business in the Lord? 1. Expressed in the words: “If food makes my brother stumble, I will not eat meat forever,” (the apostle) has not yet done, but only expressed his readiness to do this if need demands. Therefore, lest anyone say: you only boast, show wisdom in words and promise - which is easy for me and for anyone else - but if you speak from the heart, then show in practice what you refused so as not to tempt your brother, he finds it necessary to explain this and show how he abstained even from what was allowed, so as not to tempt someone, while no law forced him to do so. It is not only surprising - although this in itself is surprising - that he abstained from what was allowed, so as not to seduce, but also that he abstained with great difficulty and amidst dangers. Why, he says, talk about idolatry sacrifices? Christ commanded the preachers of the Gospel to receive support from those being taught, but I did not do this either, but decided, if necessary, to suffer from hunger and undergo the most severe death, just so as not to take anything from those being taught, not because they would be tempted if I took something, but so that they would be edified, which is much more important. And he presents them as witnesses of this, for whom he worked, suffered hunger, received food from others and was in a shy position, so as not to tempt them, although they would have been tempted in vain, because this would have been a legal matter: he spared them so much! If he himself acted above the law, so as not to give rise to temptation, and abstained from what was permitted for the edification of others, then what are they worthy of, not abstaining from idolatry sacrifices, while so many perish from it, and, moreover, then, just as they should have abstained without temptation because it is a demonic meal? This is the main content of the next many verses. But it is necessary to return to what was previously proposed, because, as I said, he did not present it entirely clearly and did not express it suddenly, but began from afar. “Am I not an apostle? - he says, because, in addition to what has been said, it is also important that Paul did this. So that (the Corinthians) do not say that it is possible to eat something sacrificed to idols, protecting oneself with the sign of the cross, he first does not refute this and says that, even if it is possible, one should not do it in order to avoid the temptation of the brethren: and then he shows that it is not possible. The first is proven by his own example; and intending to say that he did not take anything from them, he does not suddenly express this, but first speaks about his dignity: “Am I not an Apostle? Am I not free? So that they don’t say: if you didn’t take it, then you didn’t take it because you couldn’t take it - for this, he first sets out the reasons why he could justifiably take it if he wanted to. Further, so that they would not think that he was saying this as a reproach to Peter’s companions who took it, he proves in advance that they could have taken it. Then, so that they don’t say: Peter could take it, but you can’t, - he warns this by praising himself. Seeing that he was faced with the need to praise himself - and in this way it was possible to correct the Corinthians - and not wanting to talk much about himself, see how wisely he does both, praising himself not as much as he realized in himself, but as much as the real matter required. He could say: I should take advantage of everyone else and more than others, because I have worked harder than them; but does not indicate such an advantage of his, but speaks only about how others were different and why they had the right to take: “Am I not an Apostle? - he says, “Am I free?” , i.e. Do I not have power over myself? Who has the power to stop me or forbid me to take? True, others had the advantage of being with Christ: but, he says, I am not deprived of this: “Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?” (1 Cor. 9:1). “And after all,” he says (in another place), “he appeared to me also, as to a certain monster” (1 Cor. 15:8). And this is also important. “For... many,” said (the Lord), “the prophets and the righteous wanted to see what you see, and did not see” (Matthew 13:17). And again: “the days will come when you will wish to see at least one of these days” (Luke 17:22). Let's assume that you are an apostle, free and have seen Christ: but what if you have not performed an apostolic work for which you would have the right to take? In response to this, he adds: “Are you not my work in the Lord?” This is quite important; without this, other benefits would not bring any benefit. And Judas was an apostle, and free, and saw Christ; but since he did not complete the work of the apostle, he did not receive any benefit from all this. That’s why he talks about this and presents them themselves as witnesses. And since he said something great here, look how he defines it with the word: in the Lord, i.e. you are God's work, not mine. “If I am not an Apostle to others, I am an Apostle to you” (1 Cor. 9:2). 2. Do you see how he doesn’t say too much? He could point to the universe, to barbarian peoples, to land and sea: but he does not express anything like that, but speaks in relation to them and wins all the more powerfully. What need do I have, he says, to spread too much when this is enough for the real subject? I am not talking about the exploits I performed from others, but about those that you yourself are witnesses of: therefore, if not from others, then especially from you I could take. But from whom especially should I have taken - after all, I was your teacher - and from those I did not take. “If for others I am not an Apostle, then for you I am an Apostle”: again speaking relatively. He was the apostle of the universe; but I don’t talk about this, he continues, I don’t argue, I don’t insist, but I mention what applies to you. “For you are the seal of my apostleship,” i.e. proof. Whoever wants to be convinced, he says, of my apostleship, I point to you. I did everything characteristic of an apostle with you and did not miss anything. He explains the same thing in his second message: “even though I am nothing. The signs of the Apostle appeared before you in all manner of patience, signs, wonders and powers. For what do you lack in comparison with the other churches” (2 Cor. 12:11–13)? That is why he says: “The seal of my apostleship is you.” With you I showed signs, and taught by word, and was exposed to dangers, and led an impeccable life. All this can be seen in his two messages to them, in which he explains each of these feats with complete accuracy. “This is my defense against those who condemn me” (1 Cor. 9:3). What does it mean: “this is my defense against those who condemn me?” For those who want to know why I am an apostle, or accuse me of taking money, or ask the reason why I do not take it, or try to prove that I am not an apostle, your teaching and what I intend to say serve as my proof and justification. What is this? “Or do we have no power to eat and drink? Or do we not have the power to have a sister’s wife as a companion?” (1 Cor. 9:4-5). How can this serve as an excuse? When it is known that I abstain even from what is permitted, it would be unfair to suspect me that I am deceiving or doing something for money. Thus, both what was said before, and the teaching taught to you, and what has been said now is sufficient to justify me before you, and against everyone who condemns me, I invariably affirm both the above and the following: “Or do we have no power to eat and drink? Or do we not have the power to have a sister’s wife as a companion?” But even though I have the power, I refrain. Did he really neither eat nor drink? Indeed, he often neither ate nor drank. “We were in hunger,” he says, “and in thirst,... in cold and nakedness” (2 Cor. 11:27). However, he doesn’t mean that here, but what? We do not eat or drink at the expense of the students, although we have the right to take from them. “Or do we not have the power to have a sister wife as a companion, like the other apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?” Do you see his wisdom? He appoints the Supreme (apostle) after; the strongest evidence is placed at the end, because pointing to others doing this would not be as striking as pointing to the first (apostle), to whom the keys of the kingdom of heaven were entrusted. However, he does not point to him alone, but to everyone, and as if he is saying: whether you look at the lower ones or the higher ones, they all serve as an example. The brothers of the Lord, who abandoned their former unbelief, were also worthy of glory, although they were not equal to the apostles; That is why he places them in the middle, placing the main ones before and after them. “Or do I and Barnabas alone have no power not to work?” (1 Cor. 9:6). Do you see how his soul is humble and pure from all envy, how he does not keep silent about who participated in his labors? If everything else we have in common with them, then why shouldn’t this be common too? Both those and we are apostles, and are free, and have seen Christ, and have done what follows the apostles; Therefore, we also have the right to live without labor and receive support from our students. “What warrior ever serves on his own pay?” (1 Cor. 9:7). Having provided the strongest evidence - the example of the apostles - that this can be done, he now, as is his custom, turns to comparisons and generally accepted customs and says: “What kind of warrior serves ... on his own pay?” Look how appropriate the comparisons he makes are to the real subject, and how he mentions in advance a matter associated with dangers - military service, weapons and war. This is what apostleship is, and even much more difficult. And the apostles had a war not only with people, but with demons and their leader. The meaning of his words is as follows: if the external (pagan) leaders, cruel and unjust, do not demand from soldiers that they go to war and be exposed to dangers, and meanwhile support themselves, then is it possible that Christ demanded this (from the apostles)? And he is not content with just a comparison, because usually a simple and rude person is more likely to be convinced when he sees that a generally accepted custom is consistent with the commandments of God. 3. Therefore he brings another and says: “Who, having planted grapes, does not eat its fruit?” To the first he expressed danger, and to the last labor, great jealousy and zeal. Then he adds a third comparison: “Who,” he says, “while tending a flock, does not eat milk from the herd?” This means the great care that a teacher tends to have for his students. The apostles were warriors, farmers, and shepherds, who dealt not with the earth, not with dumb animals, not with sensual enemies, but with rational souls and with demonic militias. Notice how he maintains proportionality everywhere, trying to say only what is useful and not what is unnecessary. He didn’t say: what warrior serves and doesn’t get rich? but: “who fights with his dues when?” He did not say: who plants grapes and does not bring out gold, or does not gather all the fruit? but: “Doesn’t he eat its fruit?” He did not say: who, while tending a flock, does not sell the lambs? but how? - “doesn’t eat milk from the herd?” Not from lambs, but from milk, thereby expressing that the teacher should be content with little consolation and only the necessary food. This applies to those who want to eat everything and collect all the fruits. This is what the Lord commanded when he said: “The worker is worthy of his food” 36 (Matthew 10:10). And this is not the only thing that inspires (the apostle) with such comparisons, but also shows what a priest should be like. He must have the courage of a warrior, the diligence of a farmer and the care of a shepherd, and with all this, he must not desire anything other than what is necessary. Having proved both by the example of the apostles and by comparisons from life that the teacher is not forbidden to take, (Paul) proceeds to the third proof and says: “Is it only by human reasoning that I say this? Isn’t that what the law says?” (1 Cor. 9:8). Hitherto he had not quoted anything from the Scriptures, but referred to the generally accepted custom; therefore, do not think, he says, that I am based on this alone, and affirm the commandment on human opinion; I can prove that it pleases God, and cite an ancient law that commands the same. Here he continues his speech with a question, as happens (in a conversation) about something completely known, and says: “Is it only by human reasoning that I say this?” , i.e. am I based only on human customs? “Isn’t that what the law says? For in the Law of Moses it is written: You shall not muzzle an ox that is threshing” (1 Cor. 9:8-9). Why does he mention this, having the example of the (Jewish) priests? To further prove your point. Then, so that no one objects: what do we care about what is said about oxen? - explains this in detail and says: “Does God care about oxen?” 37 So, tell me, does God not care about the oxen? They care, but not so much as to put a special law on them. If God did not have something more important in mind, if he did not want to teach the Jews love of humanity by the example of the dumb and at the same time remind them of teachers, then he would not have taken such care of the oxen as to prescribe a law about not blocking their mouths. From here we can see something else - how great the work of a teacher is and should be, and something else. What is it? What is said in the Old Testament regarding the care of animals primarily relates to the edification of people, as well as everything else, for example, what was said about different clothes, about vineyards, about seeds, about not sowing the ground with different seeds, about leprosy and, one might say, about everything else. Since (the listeners) were rude people, he spoke to them in such a way as to raise them (to understanding) little by little. However, (the apostle) does not prove what is clear and obvious in itself. Having said: “Does God care about oxen?” , continues: “Or, of course, it is said for us?” (1 Cor. 9:10). It was not in vain that he put the word “all sorts”, but so as not to give the listener a reason to object to anything. Meanwhile, he continues the metaphor and says: “So, this is written for us; for he who plows must plow with hope,” i.e. the teacher must receive retribution for his labors, “and whoever threshes must thresh with the hope of getting what he expects.” Look at his wisdom: from sowing he moves on to threshing, and thereby again inspires how great the work of teachers is, who themselves plow and thresh, and since the one who plows cannot yet collect anything, but must only work, he gives him hope; and to the one who threshes he already provides the use of the fruits: “and... the one who threshes,” he says, “with hope, receives what he expects.” 4. Further, lest anyone say: is this retribution for such labor? – he adds: with hope, i.e. for the future. Thus, the law about not stopping the mouth of the ox means nothing more than that working teachers should receive remuneration. “If we have sown spiritual things in you, is it great if we reap bodily things from you?” (1 Cor. 9:11). This is the fourth proof that it is necessary to provide (food for teachers). Having said: “What warrior ever serves on his own pay?” – who plants grapes? - who tends the flock? - pointing to the threshing ox - he gives a new and fundamental reason why they have the right to take, namely, that they not only work, but also provide the students with much more important things. What does it mean: “If we sow spiritual seed to you, is it great if we reap your bodily seed?” (1 Cor. 9:11). Do you see a reason more just and more thorough than the previous ones? There, he says, there are material seeds and material fruit: but here it is not so, but the seed is spiritual, and the reward is material. So that those who deliver something to teachers do not think too much about themselves, he shows that they receive more than they give. Farmers reap what they sow; But we sow spiritual things in your souls, and reap material things, because such is the food delivered to us. Then he shames them even more: if, he says, “others have power over you, don’t we even more?” (1 Cor. 9:12). Here is another proof, also borrowed from examples, only not the same as the previous ones: here he is not talking about Peter, not about the apostles, but about some false teachers, against whom he later rebels and about whom he says: “When someone devours, when someone robs, when someone is arrogant, when someone hits you in the face” (2 Cor. 11:20). He is now already beginning to fight them, and therefore does not say: if others take from you; but, depicting their insolence, violence, greed, he says: “if others have power over you,” i.e. they control you, possess you, treat you like slaves, not only take from you, but also with great insistence and insolence. Then he continues: “Aren’t we more?” He would not have said this if he were talking here about the apostles; but it is obvious that he is hinting at some evil people and seducers. Consequently, in addition to the Law of Moses, you yourself, he says, decided to deliver (content to teachers) as a rule. Having said: “Aren’t we more so,” he does not prove why this is so, but leaves it to the judgment of their conscience, and at the same time he wants to frighten and shame them even more. “However, we did not use this power,” i.e. we didn't take it. Look, after so much proof that taking is not illegal, he finally said: we don’t take, so that they wouldn’t think that he was abstaining from it as if it were forbidden. It’s not, he says, that I don’t take it because it’s not permissible; this is permissible, as we have proven with many examples - both the apostles and everyday ones, such as: a warrior, a farmer, a shepherd, the Law of Moses, the very essence of the matter, since “we have sown spiritual things in you,” and finally, by the fact that you yourself do this in relation to others. But (they did not use), he says on the one hand, so that they would not think that he condemns the apostles, who took it to shame (the Corinthians) and show that he abstained from this, not as forbidden; and on the other hand, so that after many arguments and many examples proving the right to receive, they do not think that he himself wants to take and is saying all this for this purpose - he prevents such suspicion. Subsequently, he expressed this more clearly in the words: “and I did not write this so that it would be so for me” (1 Cor. 9:15); and here he says: “we did not use this power.” And moreover, what is even more important, no one can say that we “were not created” because we lived in abundance; no, and being in need, we did not yield to need. He says the same thing in his second letter: “I caused expenses to other churches, receiving from them maintenance for serving you; and while he was with you, although he suffered from lack, he did not bother anyone” (2 Cor. 11:8); also in this epistle: “we suffer hunger and thirst, nakedness and beatings” (1 Cor. 4:11). And here again he hints at the same thing with the words: “but we endure everything.” The expression: we endure everything and means hunger, and great need, and all other disasters. However, all this, he says, did not force us to break the law that we decreed for ourselves. Why? “So as not to put any obstacle 38 to the gospel of Christ” (1 Cor. 9:12). The Corinthians were weak; therefore, he says, in order not to tempt you by accepting (bribes) from you, we decided to do more than what was commanded, rather than put some kind of obstacle to the gospel, i.e. your teaching. If we did not even do what was allowed to us, while we suffered great need and had the example of the apostles in our favor, “so as not to put up any barrier,” he did not say: destroy, but: not put up barriers, and not just barriers, but: what barrier, i.e. so as not to cause the slightest slowdown or stop in the spread of the word; if, he says, we have shown so much zeal, then all the more should you refrain, who are very far from the apostles and cannot point to the law that allows this, but on the contrary, you are touching what is forbidden and causing great harm, not only slowing down the preaching of the Gospel, and, moreover, you do not have an urgent need in mind. He said all this to those who seduced the weakest brethren by eating idol sacrifices. 5. Hearing this, beloved, let us not despise those who are tempted, lest we put any obstacle to the gospel of Christ and lose our salvation. If a brother is tempted, do not tell me: what he is tempted by is not forbidden, but allowed. I will tell you more: if this were allowed by Christ himself, and you see that someone is being tempted, then refrain and do not use the permission. So did Paul, who had the right to take by the permission of Christ, but did not take. The humane-loving Master taught His commandments with great condescension, so that we would do many things not only according to command, but also according to our own disposition. He could, if he wanted, increase the severity of the commandments and say: whoever does not always fast must be punished; whoever does not keep his virginity shall be subjected to torture; whoever does not distribute all his property will be subjected to cruel execution; however, he did not do this, leaving it to you, if you want, to do more than prescribed. Therefore, talking about virginity, He said: “Whoever can accommodate, let him accommodate” (Matthew 19:12); and the rich man commanded one thing, and left the other to his own disposition; did not say: sell your property, but: “if you want to be perfect, sell” (Matthew 19:21). And not only do we not do anything more than is prescribed and do not extend further than what is commanded, but we also fall far behind what is prescribed by the commandments. Paul suffered hunger so as not to hinder the gospel; but we do not want to touch our treasures, although we see many souls perishing. Let the moth eat, they say, and not satisfy the poor; let him destroy the worm, and not dress naked; let time destroy, and not feed the hungry Christ. But, you say, who says that? What’s unfortunate is that they say this not in words, but in deeds; It wouldn’t be so hard if they said it in words but didn’t do it in practice. Isn’t this what the cruel and inhuman tyrant daily instills in his captives - the love of money: let your treasures be used for the benefit of slanderers, robbers and thieves, and not for the food of the hungry and needy? Are you not the ones who produce robbers? Are you not the ones who feed the fire of passion among envious people? Is it not you who invite thieves and robbers by presenting them with your wealth as some kind of bait? What madness! It is truly madness and sheer absurdity to fill chests with clothes, and not pay attention to the one who was created in the image and likeness of God, and has no clothes, trembles from the cold and can barely stand on his feet. But, you say, he pretends to be trembling and weak. And aren’t you afraid of bringing down lightning from above on yourself with such words? Sorry, I'm shaking with anger. You become satiated, fatten yourself, continue to get drunk until late at night, bask on soft carpets and do not think to give an account of such a lawless use of the gifts of God - after all, wine is not for us to get drunk; food is not for us to be full; food not so that we would tear our wombs apart with them - but from the poor, unfortunate one, who is no better than a dead man, you demand a strict account, and are not afraid of the terrible and terrible judgment of Christ? If he pretends, he pretends out of poverty and necessity, because of your hard-heartedness and inhumanity, which requires such a pretense and otherwise does not bow to mercy. Who, in fact, is so unhappy and pitiful that, without any need, for a piece of bread, he takes on such an ugly appearance, torments himself and endures such torment? So, his pretense announces to everyone your inhumanity. If he asks, begs, speaks pitiful words, cries, sobs, wanders all day and does not find the necessary food, then perhaps he has come up with a trick that serves not so much for him as for you, but for dishonor and accusation. He deserves compassion for going to such an extreme; and we are worthy of a thousand executions for forcing the poor to resort to this. If we had easily bowed to mercy, he would never have dared to submit to this. What am I saying about nakedness and shivering (from the cold)? I will say something even more terrible: some were forced to blind young children in order to touch our insensitivity. Since, wandering sighted and naked, they could not attract the attention of the hard-hearted either by the tenderness of age or by misfortune, they added to their misfortunes another most deplorable calamity to satisfy their hunger, finding it easier to be deprived of the general light and the rays of the sun granted to all, than to constantly struggle with hunger and suffer the most miserable death. You are not accustomed to sympathize with poverty, but amuse yourself with misfortunes; That’s why they satisfy your insatiable desire, kindling both in themselves and in you a flame that is fiercer than Gehenna. And so that you can be convinced that all this and the like happens precisely for this reason, I will present you with undoubted evidence that no one can contradict. There are the poor, the frivolous and the cowardly, who cannot bear hunger and are ready to endure anything else except this. They, repeatedly approaching you with a pitiful look and pitiful words, but without receiving any help, finally abandon their requests and resort to tricks no worse than magicians: some chew the leather of worn-out shoes, others drive sharp nails into their heads, others lie down on the water frozen from the cold with their bare stomachs, and others subject themselves to even more ridiculous (tortures) in order to present a pitiful spectacle. 6. While this is being done, you stand and laugh, amazed and consoled by the misfortunes of others who disgrace our common nature. What worse can the man-hating devil do than this? And in order for him to do this more diligently, you give money with great generosity. Whoever asks, calls on God and approaches you meekly, you do not deign to give him an answer or a glance, and if he often bothers you, you say such unbearable words about him: should he live, should he breathe, should he look at the sun? But to those on the contrary you are favorable and generous, so that you yourself become the culprit of their ridiculous and satanic ugliness. Therefore, about them themselves, the perpetrators of such deeds, who do not give anything before they see others suffering, one could say with greater thoroughness: should they live, should they breathe, should they look at the sun, who sin so grievously against the common nature and offend God? When God says: give alms, and I will give you the kingdom of heaven, you do not listen; when the devil shows his head, wounded by nails, you suddenly become generous: the trick of the evil demon, which causes so much harm, affects you more than the promise of God, which provides many benefits. It would be necessary to give gold so that this would not happen, so that one would not even see this, one would have to do and endure everything to eradicate this great madness; and you, on the contrary, try in every possible way and take care that it is so that you can look at it. And you, tell me, still ask, what is Gehenna for? Better ask, why is there only Gehenna? After all, what kind of punishment are not worthy of those who organize this cruel and inhuman spectacle and laugh at those for whom both they and you should cry, especially you, who force them to such ugly actions? But, you say, I don't force them. Why don’t you force me, tell me, when you don’t even want to listen to the meek, crying and calling on God; and you generously give them silver and invite others to marvel at it? But, you say, we are leaving, feeling sorry for them. But isn't it you who demand it? No, man, it is not pity when you force them to endure such torment for several ovols, when you command them to torment themselves and tear the skin of their heads into many pieces in a pitiful and deplorable manner in order to obtain the necessary food. It's not true, you say; We are not the ones who pierce their heads with nails. Oh, if only you! Then evil would not be so terrible. The one who kills a person does not treat him as cruelly as the one who commands him to kill himself. The same thing happens here: they endure the most excruciating pain when they are forced to carry out such cruel orders with their own hands. And this is done in Antioch, where the believers were the first to be called Christians, where they were the kindest of all, where the abundant fruits of mercy once flourished! After all, they sent benefits not only to those living here, but also to those at a distant distance, and moreover, when famine threatened. What do you say should be done? Give up cruelty and inspire all those in need that if they do this, they will receive nothing, and if they come modestly, they will receive generous alms. When they know this, I guarantee, even if they were the most unfortunate of all, they will never dare to subject themselves to such torment, but on the contrary, they will thank you for saving them from ridicule and suffering. Meanwhile, now you would give your children for charioteers and lay down your very souls for dancers, but you do not want to give even the slightest part of your property to the hungry Christ; If, however, when you give a little silver, then you are in such a mood as if you had given everything, forgetting that not only giving, but giving generously is what alms especially consists of. Therefore, the prophet glorifies and pleases not those who only give, but those who give generously; he doesn't just say: he gave; but how? “He has lavished, he has given to the poor” (Ps. 111:9). What good is it if you, being rich, give as much as someone, for example, who would give a glass of water from the whole sea, and do not imitate the generosity of a widow’s wife? How will you say: Lord, “have mercy on me... according to your great mercy, and according to the multitude of your compassions blot out my iniquities” (Ps. 50:3), when you yourself do not have mercy not only with great mercy, but, perhaps, with small ones? I am extremely ashamed when I see how many rich people ride on horses decorated with golden bridles, are accompanied by servants dressed in golden clothes, rest on silver beds and allow themselves many other excesses; but as soon as it is necessary to give to the poor, they appear poorer than the poorest. And what do they often justify? The poor, they say, receive from the church treasury. What do you care about that? If I serve, you will not be saved for it; if the church gives, you will not atone for your sins. If you do not give because the church must give to the needy, then (equally) if the priests pray, shouldn’t you therefore pray? Others fast; is that why you can constantly indulge in drunkenness? Or don’t you know that God prescribed the commandment of alms not so much for the poor as for the givers themselves? But don't you suspect the priest? This is also a very serious sin, but I will not dwell on it; in this case, do everything yourself, and you will receive a special reward for it. Everything that we say about alms, we say not so that you bring donations to us, but so that you give them on your own. Bringing it to me, you may fall into vanity, and sometimes, having been tempted, you will leave with sly suspicion; and if you do everything yourself, you will get rid of temptation and misplaced suspicion, and receive a great reward. 7. I am not saying this to encourage you to bring donations here, or to express your displeasure with the priests about whom bad rumors are spread. If you need to be upset and grieve, then more about you, who spread bad rumors; those who are blamed in vain and without reason will deserve a great reward, and those who blame them will deserve great condemnation and punishment. So, I am not saying this for them, but for your benefit. Is it surprising that in our time some are subject to suspicion, if even in the time of the saints who imitated the angels and did not have any property, i.e. apostles, there was a murmur that when serving the poor, widows were neglected, while “no one called anything of his property his own, but they had everything in common” (Acts 4:32)? Let us not present such pretexts and consider as an excuse for ourselves that the Church has many treasures. When you see she has a lot of property, then imagine also the great number of registered poor, many sick people, thousands of cases of expenses; figure it out, calculate it; no one interferes; we are even ready to give you a report. But I will say something very important. When we present the report and show that the expenditure is no less than the income, and sometimes more, then I would like to ask you: when we appear there and hear the words of Christ: you saw me hungry and did not feed me, naked and did not clothe me (Matthew 25:43-44), then what will we say? How can we justify it? Shall we point out so-and-so who did not listen to this, or some suspicious priests? But what do you care about them? I condemn you, He will say, for your sins. To receive justification, you need to cleanse your own sins, and not point to other similar sinners. The Church is forced to have what it now has because of your stinginess; and if everything were done according to the apostolic rules, then its income would be your disposition, which would be both a safe depository and an inexhaustible treasure. And now, when you are collecting treasures on earth and locking everything in your storehouses, while the Church is forced to make expenses for societies of widows, for hosts of virgins, for receiving strangers, for helping strangers, for consoling prisoners, for relieving the sick and crippled, and for other similar needs, what should she do? Is it really possible to ignore them all and close their shelters? Who will provide assistance in shipwrecks? Who will ease the tears, sobs and screams heard from all sides? So, let's not say whatever we want. We are now, as I said, ready to give you an account; and even if it were not so, if you had vicious teachers, stealing everything and appropriating everything for themselves, and then their viciousness could not serve as an excuse for you. The humane, wise and all-seeing only begotten Son of God, knowing that over a long time and throughout the vast universe there would be many vicious priests, and wishing that their negligence would not increase the carelessness of those led by them, did not leave any excuse for the careless, saying: “The scribes and Pharisees sat in the seat of Moses; So whatever they tell you to observe,... do; But do not walk according to their works” (Matthew 23:2-3). By this He expressed that, even if you had a vicious teacher, this will not justify you in the least if you do not listen to his teachings. God will pronounce judgment on you not for what the teacher did, but for what you heard from him and did not fulfill. If you fulfill what is commanded, you will then appear with great boldness; and if you do not listen to the teaching, then even if you pointed to a thousand vicious priests, this will not justify you at all. And Judas was an apostle; however, this will not serve in the least to justify the blasphemers and money-lovers; none of them, being condemned, will be able to say that the apostle was a kidnapper, a blasphemer and a traitor: on the contrary, for this we will especially be condemned and punished because we did not understand the vices of others; They are described for this reason so that we beware of imitating them. Therefore, let’s leave others and be attentive to ourselves. Each of us will answer God for ourselves. And in order for us to give an answer that would serve to justify us, let us lead a pious life and extend a generous hand to the poor, remembering that fulfilling the commandments is our only justification, and there is no other. If we are able to present such a justification, then we will be delivered from the unbearable torment of Gehenna and will be rewarded with future blessings, which may we all be worthy of, by the grace and love of our Lord Jesus Christ, with whom to the Father, with the Holy Spirit, be glory, power, honor, now and ever, and to the ages of ages. Amen. These conversations were delivered by the saint in Antioch around 390. The paragraphs in the text were arranged by us – Editorial staff of “ABC of Faith” Here in the text, contrary to Scripture, “food is not for the will of God?”, i.e. “Doesn’t God ‘care’ for the oxen?” – I.I. You might be interested in: