Беседа 22

What Paul did to save others. – Vicious passion is short-lived, but the grief it causes is long-lasting. 1 Cor.9:13–14. Do you not know that those who officiate are fed from the sanctuary? that those who serve the altar take a share from the altar? So the Lord commanded those who preach the Gospel to live from the gospel. 1. Very carefully (the apostle) tries to prove that taking (content from those being taught) is not prohibited. Having said this before, he is not content with that, but again turns to the law and presents from it an example closer than the previous one, because it is not the same thing to present oxen as an example, or to give a clear law about priests. Look here at the wisdom of Paul, how decently he presents the subject. He didn’t say: the celebrants take from those who offer, but what? - “they feed from the sanctuary” so as not to humiliate those who receive, and not to give reasons for pride to those who bring. And then he expresses himself in the same way. He did not say: those who serve the altar take from those who offer sacrifices, but “they take a share from the altar,” because what was offered no longer belongs to those who offer, but to the sanctuary and the altar. He also did not say: they take the sacred, but “they feed from the sanctuary,” expressing moderation and instilling that they should not collect property and get rich. In the words: “they take a share from the altar” 39 does not mean a division in equal parts, but the content that was given (to the priests) by right. But the apostles had a much greater right, because there honor was combined with the priesthood, and here there was danger, torment, and death. Therefore, stronger than all other examples was expressed in the words: “if we have sown spiritual things in you.” The word sown refers to the storms, dangers, plagues and unspeakable calamities to which the preachers were subjected. However, even with such an advantage, he neither humiliated the Old Testament nor exalted his own, but on the contrary, he still speaks with humiliation about his own, pointing out the advantage not in dangers, but in the greatness of the gift. He did not say: if we were exposed to dangers or disasters, but: “if we have sown spiritual things in you,” but speaking about the priests, he exalts them as much as possible, and expresses himself like this: “priests,” “serving the altar,” wanting thereby to show their unceasing service and constancy. Discussing the Jewish priests, he pointed to both the Levites and the bishops, to both degrees, the lowest and the highest; to the first with the words: “serving priests,” and to the second with the words: “those serving the altar.” Not everyone was entrusted with one task, but some were entrusted with lower duties, and others with higher ones. Pointing out all of them, lest anyone say: Why do you remind us of the Old Testament? Do you not know that now is the time of the most perfect commandments? - he further delivers what is most important: “so the Lord,” he says, “commanded those who preach the Gospel to live from the gospel.” And here he does not say: eat from people, but just as he said about the priests: from the sanctuary and from the altar, so here: from the gospel; and as it is there: to eat, so here: to live, and not to trade or get rich. “For the worker,” he says, “is worthy of food” (Matthew 10:10). “But I did not use any such thing” (1 Cor. 9:15). If you haven’t done this before, they will say, then don’t you want to do it for the future, and that’s why you’re saying all this? No; and in explanation of this he immediately notes: “and I did not write this so that it would be like this for me.” And look with what force he refutes and denies this: “for it is better for me to die than for anyone to destroy my praise”; uses this expression not once or twice, but several times. Above he said: “we did not use this power” (1 Cor. 9:12): then again: “not using my power” (1 Cor. 9:18): and here: “but I did not use anything like that.” What does it mean: as such? From many examples. Much gave me the right: the examples of the warrior, the farmer, the shepherd and the apostles, the decrees of the law, our actions towards you and yours towards others, the example of the priests, the command of Christ, and yet nothing forced me to break my law and take. I'm not talking about the past; although I can say that I have suffered a lot in the past, I do not dwell on this one thing, but make a promise for the future that I will decide better to die of hunger than to lose such crowns: “for it is better for me to die than for anyone to destroy my praise.” He did not say: that anyone should break my law, but: praise. Lest anyone say that although he does this, it is not with joy, but with sighing and sorrow, he calls it praise, wanting to show with what great joy and with what great zeal he does this. He was so far from sorrow that he even boasted and decided to die rather than lose this praise. So she was more pleasant to him than life itself. 2. Further, he shows the superiority (of his act) from another side, not in order to glorify himself - he was far from such passion - but in order to express his joy and more strongly eliminate suspicion. That’s why he called, as I said before, this matter praise, and what does he say? “For if I preach the gospel, then I have nothing to boast about, because this is my necessary duty, and woe to me if I do not preach the gospel! For if I do this voluntarily, I will have a reward; and if it is involuntary, then I perform only the service entrusted to me. What is my reward for? Because, while preaching the Gospel, I preach the gospel of Christ freely, without using my authority in the gospel” (1 Cor. 9:16-18). What, tell me, are you saying? If you preach the gospel, then there is no praise for you; But if you teach the gospel for free, then there is? Therefore, the latter is more important than the former? Not at all; but in some other respect the latter has an advantage, namely in the fact that the former is a commandment, and the latter is a matter of my will. What is done beyond the commandment deserves a great reward; but what is according to the commandment is not so. In this respect, the latter is greater than the former, and not in the essence of the matter. What really compares to preaching? It likens them to angels. And yet, since for them it is an obligation and duty, and that (free preaching) is a matter of voluntary zeal, then in this respect the latter is greater than the former. Explaining what I just said, he says: “For if I do this voluntarily, I will have a reward; and if it is involuntary, then I perform only the service entrusted to me.” He uses the words: willingly and unwillingly in the sense: commanded and not commanded. Likewise, the words: “because this is my necessary duty” should not be understood as if he did it against his will - let it not be! - but in such a way that he has an obligation, and in contrast to freedom - to take or not to take. That is why Christ said to the disciples: “When you have done all that was commanded you, say: We are worthless servants, because we have done what we had to do” (Luke 17:10). “What am I rewarded for? Because, preaching the Gospel, I preach the good news of Christ freely.” How, tell me, does Peter really not have a reward? Who can receive such an award as he? Also the other apostles? Why did he say: “If I do this voluntarily, I will have a reward; and if it is involuntary, then I perform only the service entrusted to me”? Notice his wisdom here too. He did not say: if it is not voluntary, then I have no reward; but: “I perform only the service entrusted to me,” expressing that in this case there is a reward, but the kind that the one who fulfills the command receives, and not the kind that the one who shows his own zeal and does more than the command receives. What is this reward for? “Because, preaching the Gospel,” he says, “I preach the gospel of Christ freely, without using my authority in the gospel.” Do you see how he uses the word everywhere: power, to show, as I have repeatedly repeated, that those who take do not deserve blame? And the word: in the gospel is added both in order to designate the gospel itself, and in order not to allow the use of this right in everything, because it is the one who teaches, and not the idle, who can take it. “For although I was free from everyone, I made myself a slave to everyone, that I might gain more” (1 Cor. 9:19). Here he represents yet another superiority. And not taking is a great thing; but what he wants to say is much more important. What is it? Not only, he says, did I not take and not only did I not use my right, but I also subjected myself to slavery, and to varied and comprehensive slavery; not only in money, but, what is much more important than money, in many and various matters I did exactly the same; enslaved himself, while he was not subordinate to anyone and had no need - this is precisely what the expression means: “being free from everyone” - and enslaved not just anyone, but the entire universe; That’s why he adds: “I have enslaved myself to everyone.” I was obliged to preach and proclaim what was entrusted to me, and to invent and invent thousands of ways to do this - this depended on my zeal; I was only obliged to hand over the silver, but I also used all measures to reclaim it back, fulfilling what was more commanded. He did everything out of zeal, zeal and love for Christ, and had an insatiable desire for human salvation. Therefore, out of great excess (jealousy), he transgressed the limits and in everything extended above the sky itself. Having spoken about enslavement, he then speaks about its various types. Which ones? “To the Jews,” he says, “I became like a Jew, that I might win the Jews” (1 Cor. 9:20). How was it? He circumcised in order to destroy circumcision. Therefore, he did not say: Jew, but as a Jew, since this was with a deliberate purpose. What are you saying? The preacher of the universe, who ascended to the very heavens and shone with such grace, could he suddenly descend like that? Yes, because it is also an ascension. Not only look at the fact that he descends, but also at the fact that by descending he restores the one lying below and raises him up with himself. “to those under the law he was as one under the law,” without being himself under the law, “in order to gain those under the law.” 3. These words either serve as an explanation of what was said before, or mean something else. He calls Jews those who were such from ancient times and from the very beginning; and those under the law - proselytes, or those who accepted the faith, but still adhered to the law, since they were no longer Jews, but were under the law. When was (the apostle) under the law? When he cut his hair, when he made a sacrifice. He did this not because he changed his way of thinking - that would be a vicious thing - but out of love and condescension. In order to convert the actual (Jews), he himself was (as a Jew), not really, and only apparently, not actually being such, but only acting so without a true disposition. And could he sincerely do this when he tried to convert others, when he did everything to free others from such humiliation? “To those who are strangers to the law, as one who is stranger to the law” (1 Cor. 9:21). These were neither Jews, nor Christians, nor pagans, but were outside the law, such as Cornelius and others like him. When he came to them, he largely acted according to their (customs). However, some say that here he was hinting at his speech to the Athenians, regarding the inscription that was on the church; That’s why he says: “to those who are alien to the law, they are like one who is alien to the law.” Further, so that no one thinks that his actions occurred from a change in his way of thinking, he adds: “not being alien to the law before God, but under the law of Christ,” i.e. not only not being lawless, but obeying the law, not ordinary, but much higher than the old one, the law of the Spirit and grace; That’s why he adds: Christ. Then, having assured of the immutability of his way of thinking, he again presents the benefit of such condescension: “to win those alien to the law,” just as everywhere else he shows the reason for his condescension. Without stopping there, he continues: “he was as weak to the weak, that he might gain the weak” (1 Cor. 9:22). Here he speaks in relation to them (the Corinthians), as he spoke in everything else. What was said before was much more important, but this is closer to them; that's why he put it after everything. He does the same thing in the letter to the Romans, when he admonishes them regarding food, and in many other places. Then, so as not to spread the speech too much by counting everything separately, he says: “I became all things to everyone, so that I could save at least some.” Do you see his superiority? For everyone, he says, I was everything, not hoping to save everyone, but to save at least a few. My zeal and service were such as is characteristic of one who saves everyone, although he did not hope to convert everyone: a great deed and showing fiery zeal! And the sower sows everywhere and, although not all the seed remains safe, in any case he does his job. Pointing out the small number of words that can be saved by adding the words: “at least,” he consoles those who grieve about this, since, although it is impossible for all the seed to remain safe, it is also impossible for it all to perish. Therefore, with the words: “at least,” he makes it clear that a diligent worker will certainly achieve success. “Now I do this for the sake of the Gospel, that I may be a partaker of it” (1 Cor. 9:23), i.e. so that on our part we can contribute and be a participant in the crowns that are kept for the believers. As before he said: “live from the gospel,” i.e. from believers, and here he says: “to be a partaker of the Gospel,” i.e. I will be a partaker of those who believe in the gospel. Do you see his humility, how he puts himself in line with others in receiving awards, although he has surpassed everyone else in his work? There is no doubt that he is most worthy of honor; but he does not ascribe them to himself first of all, but wants only to be a sharer of others in the crowns prepared for them. He says this not in the sense that he did everything for some reward, but in order to win them (the Corinthians) in this way and convince them with such hopes to do everything for the brethren. Do you see his prudence? Do you see his extreme zeal, how he did more than what was commanded and did not take when he could have taken? Do you see the greatest condescension, how he, being under the law of Christ and observing the highest law, was for those without the law as without a law, for the Jews as a Jew, being in both respects more perfect and above all? Do the same: don’t think. that you fall if, being high, you do something humiliating for your brother. This does not mean falling, but condescending; whoever falls lies down and can hardly get up; and whoever condescends will rise up with great gain, just as Paul condescended alone, but rose up with the whole universe. He was not being a hypocrite; if he were a hypocrite, he would not seek the benefit of those being saved. A hypocrite seeks the destruction of others and is a hypocrite in order to take, not in order to give. But he is not like that; but as a doctor, as a teacher, as a father, the first to condescend to the sick, the second to the student and the third to the son for their benefit, and not for harm, so does he. 4. That what he said is not hypocrisy and that he was not forced to do or say anything like that, but he voluntarily expresses his disposition and conviction, listen to how he himself says: “that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor the present, nor the future, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature can separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord” ( Rom.8:38–39). Do you see love that is more flaming than fire? So we too will love Christ; it's not difficult if we want. And he was not like that by nature. This is why his previous actions, the opposite of these, are described, so that we know that change depends on will and that everything is convenient for those who want it. Let us not despair; but even if you were slanderous, even if you were selfish and whatever your personality, remember that Paul was also a blasphemer, a persecutor, an oppressor and the first of sinners, but he suddenly reached the highest degree of virtue, and everything that was before did not serve as an obstacle to him. No one gives himself over to vice with such fury as he did against the Church; he then gave up his soul and regretted that he did not have a thousand hands to hit Stephen with all of them; however, even without that he found a way to defeat him with numerous hands, the hands of false witnesses whose clothes he guarded. Then he entered houses, invaded them like a wild beast, dragged and tormented husbands and wives, filling everything with horror, confusion and a thousand insults. He was so terrible that, even after his miraculous conversion, the apostles did not dare to enter into intercourse with him. But, despite all this, he became what he became; there is no need to add anything more. Where are those who subordinate free will to inevitable fate? Let them hear this and stop their lips! Whoever wants to be good, nothing can hinder him, even if he was previously one of the most vicious. And we are all the more capable of this, the more natural virtue is to us, and the more unnatural vice is, just like illness and health. Thus, God gave us eyes not so that we could look with lust, but so that, marveling at the creatures, we would worship the Creator. That this is really the purpose of the eyes is clear from experience: we see the beauty of the sun and sky across an immeasurable space, but no one could see the beauty of a woman at such a distance. Isn't it obvious that our eyes are created more for the former? Also, God gave us hearing not so that we could perceive blasphemous speech, but so that we could hear saving dogmas. That is why, when he perceives something obscene, then the soul and the body itself shudder. “The idle talk of many who swear,” says (the Wise One), “will raise the hair on end” (Sir.27:14). Also, when we hear something rude and harsh, we are upset, but when we hear something gentle and humane, we admire and rejoice. And our lips, when they utter shameful words, make us ashamed and close ourselves; and when the words are decent, they flow calmly and freely; no one will be ashamed of what is natural, but they are ashamed of what is not natural. Hands, too, when they are kidnapped, hide and seek protection; and when they give alms, then they put themselves on display. So, if we want, then everything will greatly dispose us towards virtue. If you point out to me the pleasure that comes from vice, then notice that we get even greater pleasure from virtue. To have a good conscience, to be respected by everyone, to nurture sweet hopes - this is most pleasant for someone who understands the essence of pleasure; and the opposite of this for one who understands the essence of displeasure is the most painful of all, such as: to be in contempt by everyone, to condemn oneself, to tremble and fear the future and the present. 5. To further explain this, let us imagine that someone, having a wife, destroys his neighbor’s marriage and delights in this dishonest theft by committing adultery with his beloved (woman); Let us contrast him with another who loves his wife; and for a greater and clearer contrast, let us assume that he who lives with one wife also loves that adulteress, but restrains his love and does nothing bad. Although this is not pure chastity, we deliberately present such an example so that you know what the pleasure of virtue is. So let's put them both together and ask: whose life is more pleasant? From one we will hear how he delights and admires the victory over lust; and from the other... but it is impossible to learn anything from him; It will turn out that he is more unhappy than the prisoners themselves, even if he denied it a thousand times. He fears and suspects everyone - his wife, and the adulterous husband, and the adulteress herself, and his family, and friends, and relatives, and the wall, and the shadow, and himself, and, what is most painful of all, he carries within himself a conscience that cries out and gnaws at him every day; and if he remembers the judgment of God, he will not be able to stand on his feet. Moreover, the pleasure is short-lived, but the sorrow from it is constant: in the evening, and at night, and in the desert, and in the city, and everywhere, an accuser follows him, showing a sophisticated sword and unbearable torment, exhausting and crushing him with fear. On the contrary, a chaste person is free from all this and is serene, looking with calm eyes at his wife, children, friends and everything. If the one who loves, but only restrains his passion, enjoys such pleasure, then the soul of the one who does not love and observes pure chastity is not filled with a feeling sweeter than any peace, more pleasant than any harbour? That is why, of course, you see few adulterers, but more chaste ones. And if (the life of the first) were more pleasant, then many would choose it. Don’t tell me that this comes from fear of the laws: it is not fear that holds them back, but the extreme vileness of the vice, the excess of grief arising from passion compared to the pleasures it provides, and the voice of conscience. This is the state of an adulterer! If you want, we will introduce the self-seeking man, we will expose another, also vicious passion. We will see that he too is tormented by fear and cannot enjoy pure pleasure. Imagining those offended by him and regretting them and everyone’s opinion of himself, he is overwhelmed by countless waves. And not only is this painful for him, but also the fact that he cannot enjoy his favorite (object). This is precisely the property of money lovers: they have not in order to use, but in order not to use. If this seems a mystery to you, then listen to something even worse and stranger: they are not only deprived of pleasure because they do not dare to use their property as they would like, but also because they are never satisfied, but are tormented by an incessant thirst. What could be more painful than this? This is not a righteous man; he is free from fear, hatred, fear and unquenchable thirst; Just as everyone curses him, everyone wishes him well; just as he does not have a single friend, so he does not have a single enemy. If all this is certain, then what could be more unpleasant than vice and more pleasant than virtue? However, no matter how much we talk, it is impossible to express in words either all the troubles of the former, or all the pleasures of the latter, if we ourselves do not experience them. Then we will learn that vice is more bitter than gall, when we taste the sweetness of virtue. Vice is even now unpleasant, painful and unbearable, which those who subservient to it themselves will not contradict; but when we leave him behind, then we will feel even better how bitter his demands are. And that many indulge in it is not at all surprising; after all, children often choose what is less pleasant, neglecting what is more pleasant; and the sick, for short-term pleasure, reject constant and reliable fun. This depends on the weakness and foolishness of those given over to passion, and not on the essence of things. Only the virtuous live in pleasure; he is truly rich and truly free. If anyone, having agreed to attribute to virtue serenity, tranquility, freedom from fear, from all fear and all suspicion, does not only agree to attribute pleasure to it, he seems to me very ridiculous. What else does pleasure consist of, if not in being free from apprehension, fear and grief and not servile to anything? Who lives in pleasure, tell me, is it the one who is furious, restless, tormented by many passions and does not control himself, or the one who is free from all these worries and abides in wisdom, as in a harbour? Isn't it obvious that it's the latter? But this is characteristic of one virtue. Vice only bears the name of pleasure, but in reality it is deprived of it; before it is accomplished, it is a frenzy, not a pleasure; and when completed, then (and the fury) suddenly disappears. If, neither at the beginning nor subsequently, pleasure is visible in vice, then where and when is it? So that you can better understand my words, let me explain this with an example. Suppose someone fell in love with a beautiful and pretty woman; until his passion is satisfied, he is like one who is raging and insane; and when satisfied, lust also disappears. If, however, he does not feel pleasure either at the beginning, because he is in a state of madness, or subsequently, because the desire ceases with the satisfaction of passion, then where is this pleasure? On the contrary, our pleasures are not like that: at the beginning they are alien to any confusion, and remain in their strength to the end, or, better, we have no end to pleasure; our benefits have no limit, and our pleasure never disappears. So, imagining all this and desiring to receive pleasure, let us love virtue, so that we may achieve both present and future blessings, which may we all be worthy of by grace and love for mankind (our Lord Jesus Christ, with whom to the Father, with the Holy Spirit, be glory, power, honor, now and ever, and 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” Gr. " τω θυσιαστηριω συμμεριζονται " – lit. “shared with the altar” – I.I. You might be interested in: